The Project Gutenberg eBook of The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol.III.
    
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol.III.

Author: Edward Farr
        E. H. Nolan

Release date: September 8, 2006 [eBook #19218]
                Most recently updated: February 25, 2024

Language: English

Credits: Produced by David Widger


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND IN THREE VOLUMES, VOL.III. ***




[Illustration: frontispiece.jpg QUEEN VICTORIA]

[Illustration: titlepage12.jpg VIGNETTE]




THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND

Volume III.


BY DAVID HUME, ESQ.

1688




London: James S. Virtue, City Road and Ivy Lane
New York: 26 John Street
1860




In Three Volumes:

VOLUME ONE: The History Of England From The Invasion Of Julius Cæsar To
The End Of The Reign Of James The Second............ By David Hume, Esq.

VOLUME TWO: Continued from the Reign of William and Mary to the Death of
George II........................................... by Tobias Smollett.

VOLUME THREE: From the Accession of George III. to the Twenty-Third Year
of the Reign of Queen Victoria............... by E. Farr and E.H. Nolan.




VOLUME THREE




CONTINUATION

OF

THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND,


By E. Farr and E. H. Nolan


[Illustration: 3–001–george3.jpg GEORGE III.]


{GEORGE III. 1760–1765}

GEORGE III.




CHAPTER I.

     Accession of George III...... Meeting of Parliament, &c.
     Judges made independent of the Crown..... Changes in the
     Cabinet..... The Operations of the War..... The Resignation of
     Mr. Pitt..... The Marriage of the King..... Coronation of
     their Majesties..... Meeting of Parliament..... Disturbances
     in Ireland..... War with Spain..... France and Spain declare
     War against Portugal..... Dissensions in the Cabinet.....
     Events in Germany, &c. Negociations for Peace..... The
     Meeting of Parliament, and the Conclusion of Peace..... The
     Resignation of Bute..... The Character and Impeachment of
     Wilkes..... Changes in the Cabinet..... Meeting of Parliament,
     and further proceedings against Wilkes..... Proposition to
     tax the American Colonies..... Opposition of the Americans.....
     War with the North American Indians..... Domestic
     Occurrences

{1760}




ACCESSION OF GEORGE III.

Few monarchs ever ascended a throne under more auspicious circumstances
than George III. The sources of national wealth and prosperity
were daily becoming developed, and the British arms were everywhere
victorious. So extensive were their conquests, indeed, that it may
be said, the sun rose and set, at this date, within the limits of the
British dominions.

Prince George, who was the eldest son of the late Frederick, Prince of
Wales, was riding on horseback in the neighbourhood of Kew palace, with
his groom of the stole, Lord Bute, when news was brought him that his
grandfather was dead. This intelligence was confirmed soon after by
the arrival of Mr. Pitt, the head of the government, and they repaired
together to Kew. On the next morning George went up to St. James’s,
where Pitt waited upon him, and presented the sketch of an address to
be pronounced at the meeting of the privy council. Pitt, however, was
doomed to find a rival where he thought to have found a friend. He was
told by his majesty, that an address had already been prepared, which
convinced him that Bute, on whose favour he had reckoned, would not
be contented with a subordinate place in the new government, but would
aspire to the highest offices in the state. In the course of the day,
October 26th, George was proclaimed king with the usual solemnities.

The accession of George, notwithstanding, did not involve any immediate
change in the existing administration. The Earl of Bute, together with
Prince Edward, Duke of York, were admitted into the privy council, but
it was given out that his majesty was satisfied, and even charmed,
with the existing cabinet, and that he would make no changes, with the
exception of a few in the household and in the minor offices. One of the
first acts of George III., was a proclamation “for the encouragement of
piety and virtue, and for preventing and punishing of vice, profaneness,
and immorality.” This was naturally looked upon as a token of his
majesty’s virtue and devotion, which view was borne out by his after
character; for although the proclamation may be considered in the
light of a dead letter as regards actual operation, it was enforced,
or recommended, by his example; and example hath a louder tongue either
than precept, proclamations, or laws. From the beginning to the close
of his long reign, George III. manifested a decent, moral, and religious
life, which doubtless had very beneficial effects upon society at large.

On the accession of the new king, parliament was prorogued, first to
the thirteenth, and afterwards to the eighteenth, of November. In the
meantime, public attention was engaged by the equipment of a large
squadron of men-of-war and transports at Portsmouth, and speculations
were rife as to the policy of the monarch—whether it would be
favourable to war or to peace. All classes of society, however, agreed
in anticipating the happiest results from his rule, since he had been
born and bred among them, and was well acquainted with the language,
manners, laws, and institutions of the people over whom he presided.
Loyal and dutiful addresses, expressing such sentiments, were presented
to the young monarch by the city of London, the two universities, and
from various bodies of people, to all which he returned sententious but
suitable replies, declaring his fixed resolve to respect their rights
and conciliate their esteem. A letter was addressed to him by the
venerable Bishop of London, Dr. Sherlock, as a parting benediction, in
which he gave him the following wise council:—“You, sir,” he writes,
“are the person whom the people ardently desire; which affection of
theirs is happily returned by your majesty’s declared concern for their
prosperity: and let nothing disturb this mutual consent; let there be
but one contest, whether the king loves the people best, or the people
him; and may it be a long, a very long, contest; may it never be
decided, but let it remain doubtful; and may the paternal affection on
the one side, and the filial obedience on the other, he had in perpetual
remembrance.”




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT ETC.

The new king met parliament for the first time on the eighteenth of
November. He opened the session with a speech, announcing not only the
state of public and domestic affairs, but also the general principles by
which he intended to rule. One clause in his speech was very gratifying
to the people: “Born and educated in this country,” he observed, “I
glory in the name of Briton.” Having uttered this memorable sentence, he
said it would be the happiness of his life to promote the happiness and
interests of his loyal and affectionate people; and that their civil
and religious rights were equally as dear to him as the valuable
prerogatives of his crown. He then declared, that on his accession to
the throne of his ancestors he found the kingdom in a flourishing and
glorious state; victorious and happy; although engaged in a necessary
war, which, in the language of the late reign, he designated, “a war for
the Protestant interest.” In this speech he neither spoke of peace nor
negociation, but asked the assistance of parliament to prosecute this
war with vigour. Finally, addressing the Commons on the subject of
supplies, he concluded his speech thus:—“The eyes of all Europe are on
you; from your resolutions the Protestant interest hopes for protection,
as well as all our friends for the preservation of their independency;
and our enemies fear the final disappointment of their ambitious and
destructive views: let these hopes and fears be confirmed and augmented,
by the vigour, unanimity, and despatch of our proceedings. In this
expectation I am the more encouraged, by a pleasing circumstance, which
I consider one of the most auspicious omens of my reign—that happy
extinction of divisions, and that union and good harmony, which continue
to prevail amongst my subjects, afford me the most agreeable prospects;
the natural disposition and wish of my heart are to cement and promote
them; and I promise myself, that nothing will arise on your part to
interrupt or disturb a situation so essential to the true and lasting
felicity of this great people.” This speech was warmly responded to
by addresses from both houses of parliament; and the supplies for the
ensuing year, amounting to £19,616,119, were cheerfully voted, while the
civil list was fixed at £809,000; the king, on his part, consenting to
such a disposition of the hereditary revenues of the crown, as might
best promote the interests of the nation.

War, therefore, was to be continued, and Mr. Pitt and his colleagues
seemed to be confirmed in office: yet at this very moment the train was
laying for their expulsion. Earl Bute was anxious to become secretary
of state, and he was busily engaged in a correspondence with the noted
intriguer, Bubb Doddington. A few days after the meeting of parliament
his lordship declared to Doddington, that Lord Holderness “was ready at
his desire to quarrel with his fellow ministers, and go to the king and
throw up with seeming-anger, and then he (Bute) might come in without
seeming to displace anybody.” This expedient, however, did not please
Doddington, and Bute paid deference to his opinion. Still the two
friends took counsel together on this important affair. In a letter
from Doddington to Bute, which was written in December, he advises “that
nothing be done that can be justly imputed to precipitation; nothing
delayed that can be imputed to fear.” He adds: “Remember, my noble and
generous friend, that to recover monarchy from the inveterate usurpation
of oligarchy, is a point too arduous and important to be achieved
without much difficulty, and some degree of danger; though none but what
attentive moderation and unalterable firmness will certainly surmount.”

In his career of ambition, Bute, who was “better fitted to perform
Lothario on the stage,” than to act as secretary of state, paid small
regard to danger, but kept his eye fixed steadily on the point he had
in view. In January, he told Doddington that “Mr. Pitt meditated a
retreat;” and in the same month Doddington writes to him—“If the
intelligence they bring me be true, Mr. Pitt goes down fast in the city,
and faster at this end of the town: they add, you rise daily. This may
not be true; but if he sinks, you will observe that his system sinks
with him, and that there is nothing to replace it but recalling the
troops and leaving Hanover in deposit.” Again, on the 6th of February,
Lord Bute declared, that it was easy to make the Duke of Newcastle
resign, but at the same time he expressed a doubt as to the expediency
of beginning in that quarter. Doddington replied, that he saw no
objection to this step; and that if Bute thought there was, he might put
it into hands that would resign it to him when he thought proper to take
it. But Bute was not disposed to try the duke too much, nor to risk
too bold a leap at once: so all ill humours were concealed under a fair
surface.

Had Earl Bute taken any decisive step thus early in the reign of the new
king, it would probably have exposed him to public derision and scorn.
At this time the old system seemed to please everybody; and among the
supplies voted by the House of Commons, none were more freely granted
than the continental subsidies, and especially that of £670,000 to
the King of Prussia. His victory at Torgau, which subjected all
Saxony—Dresden excepted—to his power, was made known in England just
before the meeting of parliament, and it had the effect of raising him
high in the public favour of the people of England. Nor was it less
advantageous to him on the Continent. His victory, with its results,
indeed, were a full compensation to him for the previous losses he had
sustained during the campaign. Laudohn raised the siege of Cosel, and
evacuated Silesia; the Russians raised that of Colburg, and retreated
into Poland; and the Swedes were driven out of Western Pomerania. In
the same spirit of gratitude, the parliament granted £200,000 to our
colonies in America, for the expenses they had incurred, and the
efforts they had made in the present war—a war which laid some of the
groundworks of the independence which a few years later was claimed by
those colonies.




JUDGES MADE INDEPENDENT OF THE CROWN.

By an act passed in the year 1701, under the reign of William III., the
commissions of the judges were continued _quamdiu bené se gesserint_;
or the power of displacing them was taken from the crown, and their
continuance in office was made solely dependent on the faithful
discharge of their duties, so that it might be lawful to remove them
on the address of both houses to the king. Still, at the demise of the
crown, their offices were vacated, and George II. had even refused to
renew the commission of a judge who had given him personal offence.
Towards the close of this session, his present majesty, in a speech from
the throne, recommended an important improvement in this matter, which
greatly increased his popularity. He declared his wish to render the
bench still more independent of the crown, and the administration of
justice still more impartial; and he recommended that provisions should
be made for the continuance of their commissions and salaries, without
any reference to the death of one king, or the accession of his
successor. In compliance with this expressed wish, a bill was framed for
rendering the judges thus independent, which was carried through both
houses. It received the royal assent on the 19th of March, on which day
his majesty put an end to the session.




CHANGES IN THE CABINET.

Before this event took place, a certain party in the state began to
think that circumstances would authorise them to commence a gradual
change of ministers, and of the policy of the nation. In this his
majesty seems to have coincided, for on the same day that he closed the
session, Mr. Legge, who was co-partner with Mr. Pitt in popularity,
was unceremoniously dismissed from the office of chancellor of the
exchequer, and Sir Francis Dashwood nominated his successor. On the same
day, also, Lord Holderness having secured a pecuniary indemnification,
with the reversion of the wardenship of the cinque ports, resigned the
office of secretary of state in favour of Lord Bute. It was said that
the king “was tired of having two secretaries, of which one (Pitt)
_would_ do nothing, and the other (Holderness) _could_ do nothing; and
that he would have a secretary who both could and would act.” At the
same time, Lord Halifax was advanced from the board of trade to be
Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, and was replaced by Lord Barrington; and the
Duke of Richmond, displeased by a military promotion injurious to his
brother, resigned his post as lord of the bedchamber. Other changes, of
minor importance, took place—such as the introduction of several Tories
into the offices of the court, and there was a considerable addition
made to the peerage. These changes were, doubtless, unpalatable to Mr.
Pitt; but Horace Walpole says that he was somewhat softened by the offer
of the place of cofferer for his brother-in-law, James Grenville. At all
events Mr. Pitt continued in office, and Earl Bute consented to leave
the management of foreign affairs in his hands; but at the same time,
both Bute and his majesty gave him to understand that an end _must_ be
put to the war.




THE OPERATIONS OF THE WAR.

Since the accession of George III., the events of the war had been
various. Although Frederick the Great had driven the Russians and
Austrians from his capital, they were still within his own territory;
while the French were on the side of the Rhine, and the Swedes continued
to threaten invasions. Such was his situation when he heard that George
II, was dead; that his successor was desirous of peace; that some of his
advisers were projecting a separate treaty with France; and that it was
probable that the English subsidies would soon be discontinued. This
intelligence in some degree was confirmed by the tardiness with which
the subsidy, so readily granted by the parliament in December, was paid
into his treasury. Nothing daunted, however, Frederick planned fresh
campaigns, and remonstrated with England; and, as an effect of the bold
front he put upon his affairs, he had the satisfaction of learning,
before he went into winter-quarters, that the Russians had retired
beyond the Vistula, and that the Austrians and Swedes had departed
out of Brandenburg, Silesia, and Pomerania. Still his situation was a
critical one. His losses in men had been great, his coffers were empty,
and his recruiting was therefore difficult: he looked forward to the
campaign of 1761 with doubt and anxiety.

Contrary to the general rules of war, this campaign opened in the very
depth of the winter. Contrasting the strong constitutions of his
troops with the less hardy character of his opponents, Prince Ferdinand
resolved to take them thus by surprise. Accordingly, early in February,
by a sudden attack, he drove the French out of their quarters near
Cassel, and they were only saved from utter destruction, by the defiles,
and other difficulties of the country, which favoured their retreat.
Almost simultaneously with this achievement, the Prussian general,
Sybourg, effected a junction with the Hanoverian general, Sporken,
and took three thousand French prisoners. Subsequently, these generals
defeated the troops of the empire under General Clefeld; and Prince
Ferdinand followed up these advantages by laying siege to Cassel,
Marbourg, and Ziegenhayn. He was ably seconded in his operations by
the Marquis of Granby, but he failed in capturing these places, and
was compelled to retire into the electorate of Hanover. The retreat
of Ferdinand took place in April, and in the same month the hereditary
Prince of Brunswick was defeated by the French under Broglie, near
Frankfort.

At this time, Frederick had certain information that the English were
negociating with the French. This information appears to have paralysed
his efforts, for preparations were not recommenced before June. On their
part the French, also, were inactive till that time, when Broglie, being
joined by the Prince of Soubise with large reinforcements, endeavoured
to drive Prince Ferdinand and the combined army of English and
Hanoverians from their entrenchments at Hohenower. On two several days
Broglie made a fierce attack upon his posts, chiefly directing his
murderous fire against that commanded by Lord Granby; but on the second
day the French gave way, and made a precipitate retreat, leaving behind
them several pieces of cannon, with five thousand of their comrades
sleeping the sleep of death. Their non-success produced mutual
recriminations between Broglie and Soubise, who had never perfectly
agreed, and they resolved to separate: Broglie crossed the Weser, and
threatened to fall upon Hanover, while Soubise crossed the Lippe, as if
with the intention of laying siege to Munster.

The division of the French army caused a corresponding division in that
of Prince Ferdinand; for whilst he marched with one half to watch the
operations of Broglie, the hereditary Prince of Brunswick marched with
the other half to check the career of Soubise. The skill and vigour of
Ferdinand prevented Broglie from making any important conquests, though
he could not protect the country from his ravages. Perceiving, indeed,
that he could not check the onward march of his enemy, Ferdinand turned
aside into Hesse, and cut off all the communications of the French
in that country, destroying their magazines and menacing their forts,
which, as he foresaw, had the effect of alarming Broglie, and causing
him to retreat out of Hanover. In the meantime, the hereditary Prince of
Brunswick had checked the career of Soubise, and destroyed many of his
magazines; and soon after the French went into winter quarters—Soubise
on the Lower Rhine, and Broglie at Cassel.

Frederick had taken the field in the month of April, and had marched
into Silesia, where the fortress of Schweidnitz was threatened by
the Austrian general, Laudon. On his approach, Laudon retreated into
Bohemia, where he was joined by fresh columns of Russians under Marshal
Butterlin. At the same time another Russian horde, under Romanzow,
re-occupied Pomerania. The Austrian and Russian generals conceived that
they could hem in Frederick, and prevent his escape; but aware of his
danger, the skilful monarch threw himself into his fortified camp of
Buntzelwitz, from behind the strong ramparts of which he laughed his
enemies to scorn. A blockade was attempted, but the country, wasted by
long wars, had become like a wilderness, and afforded no food either
for man or horse; while their provision-waggons, 5000 in number, had all
been taken by a flying column of Prussians, under General Platen, who
had also destroyed three of the largest magazines which the Russians had
established on the confines of Poland. Famine stared them in the face,
and breaking up their blockade, Butterlin marched into Pomerania, and
Laudon to an entrenched camp, near Fribourg. Thus relieved, Frederick
marched towards Upper Silesia, which proved to be an unfortunate
movement; for Laudon, taking advantage of it, rushed from his entrenched
camp, made an assault by night upon Schweidnitz, which lie took by
storm, and then took up his winter-quarters in Silesia. About the same
time the Russians, assisted by the Swedes, took Colberg, which enabled
them to winter in Pomerania and Brandenburg.

In the meantime the arms of the English had, for the most part, been
successfully employed. Pondicherry, the capital settlement of the
French in, the East Indies, and their last stronghold in that country,
surrendered at discretion to Colonel Coote, after the garrison and
inhabitants had been reduced to the necessity of feeding on the flesh of
camels and elephants, and even upon dogs and vermin. In the West Indies,
also, Lord Rollo and Sir James Douglas reduced the island of Dominica,
which, contrary to treaty, had been fortified by the French. A
less important conquest was made on the coast of Brittany. A secret
expedition, which had been for some time in preparation, suddenly sailed
from Spithead, and under the command of Commodore Kepple, with troops on
board under General Hodgson, took its course across the Channel. Great
things were expected as the result of this expedition, but it only
enacted the old story of “The mountain in labour.” The point against
which this force was directed was the sterile rock of Bellisle, which,
at the expense of two thousand lives, was captured. Thus disappointed,
the people complained of the obstinacy of Pitt, and asked,
sarcastically, what could be done with it? Nevertheless, if it was no
use to England, it was a place of importance to France, as commanding
a large extent of coast, and affording a convenient receptacle to
privateers, whence it was insisted on as a valuable article of exchange,
when peace was concluded between the two nations.




THE RESIGNATION OF MR. PITT.

At this time France was rapidly sinking under the efforts made to
sustain war. Many of her colonies were conquered, her navy was ruined,
and her finances exhausted, while the people were impoverished and
discontented. Under these circumstances the king wished for repose and
peace, and in this wish, Sweden, Poland, and even Russia were ready to
join. Austria alone, whose empress-queen was bent on the recovery of
Silesia, and the overthrow of its conqueror Frederick, was desirous of
prolonging hostilities.

This wish of the king of France—which was also the wish of his
people—seemed to be favoured by circumstances in England. The influence
of Pitt was daily growing weaker, and Bute was fast gaining paramount
ascendancy. The French ministers, therefore, flattered themselves that
there would be no great difficulty in negociating; especially as they
were ready and willing to make some sacrifices, in order to obtain
peace. Accordingly an interchange of memorials was commenced, and in the
month of July Mr. Stanley was dispatched to Paris, while the Count de
Bussy came over to London, for the purpose of negociating. Preliminaries
were mutually proposed and examined. On their part the French offered
to cede Canada; to restore Minorca in exchange for Guadaloupe and
Marigalante; to give up Senegal and Goree for Anamaboo and Acra; to
renounce all claim to Cape Breton, on which no fortification was to
be erected; and to consent that Dunkirk should be demolished. But one
demand made by the French was fatal to the success of the negociations.
They demanded the restitution of all the captures made at sea by the
English before the declaration of war, on the ground that such captures
were contrary to all international law, which restitution was sternly
and absolutely refused, the English ministers arguing, that the right of
all hostile operations results not from a formal declaration of war, but
from the original hostilities of the aggressor. Another obstacle in the
way of peace, was the refusal of the French to restore Cassel, Gueldres,
and other places which they had taken from his Prussian majesty,
although they were ready to evacuate what they occupied in Hanover. And
as if these obstacles were not sufficient, the French preliminaries
were accompanied by a private memorial, demanding from England the
satisfaction of certain claims advanced by Spain, a country with which,
though differences existed, England was at peace. The French ambassador
was given to understand on this point, that the king of England would
never suffer his disputes with Spain to be thus mixed up with the
negociations carrying on with his country, and the cabinet called upon
the Spanish ambassador to disavow all participation in such a procedure,
and to state that his court was neither cognizant of it, nor wished to
blend its trifling differences with the weighty quarrels of France. But
this demand produced an unlooked-for budget, The Spanish ambassador at
first returned an evasive reply, but he was soon authorized by the court
of Spain to declare, that the proceedings of the French envoy had the
entire sanction of his Catholic majesty; and that, while his master was
anxious for peace, he was united as much by mutual interest as by the
ties of blood with the king of France. The fact is, Charles III., who
now occupied the throne of Spain, had privately agreed, before this
date, with the King of France, to consider every power as their common
enemy who might become the enemy of either, and to afford mutual
succours by sea and land. It had been also stipulated between them, that
no proposal of peace to their common enemies was to be made except by
common consent; that the two monarchs were to act as if they formed one
and the same power; that they should maintain for each other all the
possessions which they might possess at the conclusion of peace; and
finally, that the King of Naples might be allowed to participate in
their treaty, though no other family, except a prince of the house of
Bourbon, was to be admitted into this family compact.

Negociations for peace, therefore, proved abortive. Even Bute considered
many of the proposals of the French if not insulting to the majesty
of the British nation, at least inadmissible. Yet these négociations
resulted in the downfall of Pitt. At the council-table, that great
minister represented that Spain was only waiting for the arrival of
her annual plate-fleet from America, and then she would declare war.
He proposed, therefore, that her declaration should be anticipated by
England: that war should be forthwith proclaimed against Spain, and a
fleet sent out to intercept her ships and treasures from the western
world. He likewise proposed an immediate attack upon her colonies;
recommending the capture of the Havannah and the occupation of the
Isthmus of Panama, from whence an expedition might be sent against
Manilla and the Philippine Isles, to intercept the communication between
the continent of South America and the rich regions of the East. It
suited the purpose of Bute, however, to raise the laugh of incredulity
as to the declaration of war by Spain, questioning, at the same time,
the real meaning of the treaty entered into between the two Bourbons.
The other members of the cabinet also—Lord Temple excepted—pronounced
the measures proposed by Pitt too precipitate, and he had no alternative
but to resign; especially as he found, also, that the king was adverse
to his schemes. Accordingly, on the 6th of October, Pitt delivered
up his seals to the king, which his majesty received with ease and
firmness, but without requesting him to resume them. The monarch,
notwithstanding, lamented to him the loss of so valuable a servant,
while he declared that even if his cabinet had been unanimous for war
with Spain, he should have found great difficulty in consenting to such
a measure. Pitt was affected by the kind, yet dignified, behaviour of
the young king. “I confess, sire,” said he, with emotion, “I had but
too much reason to expect your majesty’s displeasure: I did not come
prepared for this exceeding goodness: pardon me, sir; it overpowers,—it
oppresses me.”

Pitt retired with a pension of £3,000 per annum, which was to be
continued for three lives. The peerage was offered him, but he declined
it personally, accepting it only for his wife and her issue. He was
succeeded in office by Lord Egremont, son of the great Tory, Sir William
Wyndam. At the same time Lord Temple retired from office, and the privy
seal was given to the Duke of Bedford. The resignation of Mr. Pitt, with
his honours and rewards, were published in the Gazette on the following
day, and in the same paper a letter was published from the English
ambassador at Madrid, which was replete with assurances of the pacific
intentions of Spain. On this circumstance, combined with the resignation
of Mr. Pitt, Burke remarks:—“It must be owned that this manouvre was
very skilfully executed: for it at once gave the people to understand
the true motive to the resignation, the insufficiency of that motive,
and the gracious-ness of the king, notwithstanding the abrupt departure
of his minister. If after this the late minister should choose to
enter into opposition, he must go into it loaded and oppressed with the
imputation of the blackest ingratitude; if, on the other hand, he should
retire from business, or should concur in support of that administration
which he had left, because he disapproved its measures, his acquiescence
would be attributed by the multitude to a bargain for his forsaking
the public, and that the title and his pension were the considerations.
These were the barriers that opposed against that torrent of popular
rage which it was apprehended would proceed from this resignation. And
the truth is, they answered their end perfectly.”

This reasoning of Mr. Burke was strictly correct. The friends and
partisans of Mr. Pitt raised violent clamours against Bute, for
displacing a man who had raised the nation from its once abject state to
the pinnacle of glory; and addresses, resolutions, and condolences
were set on foot in London and the greater corporations, with a view
of exciting the smaller cities and boroughs in England to follow the
example. The press, also, was active in vilifying Bute for the part
he had taken in this affair. But Bute had his friends as well as his
enemies, and Pitt had his enemies as well as his friends. The press
worked on both sides of the question; while it vilified Bute, it
animadverted on Pitt’s pensions and honours. At the same time the people
were only partially in the favour of the ex-minister. The progress
of addresses, resolutions, and condolences was languid, and in some
instances the people were disposed to cast odium _upon_, and to blacken
the character _of_, the retired secretary. The popularity of Pitt was,
in truth, obscured with mists and clouds for a time, and it was not
till after he had raised a few thunder-storms of opposition, that his
political atmosphere once again became radiant with the sunshine of
prosperity. For the mind of Pitt was not to be long borne down by its
heavy weight of gratitude to royalty, or by public accusations: he soon
shook off the one, and resolutely braved the other.




THE MARRIAGE OF THE KING.

On the 8th of July the young king having called an extraordinary
council, made the following declaration to its members:—“Having nothing
so much at heart as to procure the welfare and happiness of my people,
and to render the same stable and permanent to posterity, I have, ever
since my accession to the throne, turned my thoughts towards the choice
of a princess for my consort; and I now with great satisfaction acquaint
you, that after the fullest information, and mature deliberation, I am
come to a resolution to demand in marriage the Princess Charlotte of
Mecklenberg Strelitz; a princess distinguished by every eminent virtue
and amiable endowment; whose illustrious line has constantly shown the
firmest zeal for the Protestant religion, and a particular attachment
to my family. I have judged it proper to communicate to you these my
intentions, in order that you may be fully apprised of a matter so
highly important to me and to my kingdoms, and which I persuade myself
will be most acceptable to my loving subjects.”

The preliminary negociations concerning this union had been conducted
with great secresy, whence this announcement occasioned some surprise to
most of the members of the extraordinary council. It met, however, with
the warmest approbation of them all, and the treaty was concluded on the
15th of August. The Earl of Harcourt, with the Duchesses of Ancaster and
Hamilton, were selected to escort the young bride to England, and Lord
Anson was the commander of the fleet destined to convoy the royal yacht.
Princess Charlotte arrived in England on the 7th of September, and on
the following day she was escorted to St. James’s, where she was met by
his majesty.

Before the arrival of the future Queen of England, in a letter to one
of his correspondents, Lord Harcourt had given this description of
her:—“Our queen, that is to be, has seen very little of the world;
but her very good sense, vivacity, and cheerfulness, I dare say will
recommend her to the king, and make her the darling of the British
nation. She is no regular beauty; but she is of a pretty size, has a
charming complexion, with very pretty eyes, and is finely made.” Lord
Harcourt was right in his conjectures concerning the views which the
king would take of his young bride. It is said, that in the first
interview, although he saluted her tenderly, the king was disappointed
in not finding in the princess those personal charms which he had
expected. But this was only a momentary feeling. The king soon
became interested in her artlessness, cheerful manners, and obliging
disposition, while the whole court was loud in their praises of her
affability, and even of her beauty. “In half an hour,” says Horace
Walpole, “one heard of nothing but proclamations of her beauty:
everybody was content; everybody was pleased.” So the marriage
took place in the midst of good-humour and rejoicings: the nuptial
benediction was given by Dr. Seeker, Archbishop of Canterbury, and the
Duke of Cumberland gave away the bride.




CORONATION OF THEIR MAJESTIES.

Extraordinary preparations were made for the coronation of their
majesties. It took place on the 22nd of September, and though described
as solemn and magnificent, it did not materially differ from preceding
coronations. The crown was placed on the head of the monarch by
Archbishop Seeker, and before his majesty partook of the holy sacrament,
he exhibited a very pleasing instance of piety before the assembled
court. As he approached the altar, he asked if he might lay aside his
crown; and when the archbishop, after consulting with Bishop Pearce,
replied, that no order existed on the subject in the service, he
rejoined, “Then it ought to be done;” at the same time taking the diadem
from his head, he placed it, reverentially, on the altar. His majesty
wished the queen to manifest the same reverence to the Almighty, but
being informed that her crown was fastened to her hair, he did not press
the subject. On the return of the procession, an incident occurred,
which, had it happened among the nations of antiquity, would have been
considered an omen of evil portent, which could only have been averted
by a whole hecatomb of sacrifices. The most valuable diamond in his
majesty’s diadem fell from it, and was for some time lost, but it was
afterwards found, and restored to his crown. The coronation of George
III. could boast of one very extraordinary spectator among the many
thousands present. This was Charles Edward Stuart, the young Pretender,
who had come over in disguise, and who obtained admission into the
abbey, and witnessed all the ceremonies consecrating a king on that
throne which he considered legitimately belonged to his father or
himself! It is said that George knew that he was in London, and that
he would not allow him to be molested; feeling, no doubt, secure in the
affections of a loyal people. And that he was secure, the éclat with
which the great festival of his coronation passed off, fully manifested.
All combined to testify that their majesties were very popular, and that
they had good reasons for anticipating a happy and prosperous reign.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

The new parliament met on the 3rd of November, when Sir John Cust was
elected speaker of the commons. He was presented to his majesty on the
6th, on which day the king, having first approved of the choice, thus
addressed both houses:—“At the opening of the first parliament summoned
and elected under my authority, I with pleasure notice an event which
has made me completely happy, and given universal joy to my loving
subjects. My marriage with a princess, eminently distinguished by every
virtue and amiable endowment, while it affords me all possible domestic
comfort, cannot but highly contribute to the happiness of my kingdoms,
which has been, and always shall be, the first object in every action of
my life.

“It has been my earnest wish that this first period of my reign might be
marked with another felicity; the restoring of the blessings of peace to
my people, and putting an end to the calamities of war, under which so
great a part of Europe suffers: but though overtures were made to
me, and my good brother and ally, the King of Prussia, by the several
belligerent powers, in order to a general pacification, for which
purpose a congress was appointed, and propositions were made to me by
France for a particular peace with that crown, which were followed by an
actual négociation; yet that congress has not hitherto taken place, and
the negociation with France is entirely broken off.

“The sincerity of my disposition to effectuate this good work has been
manifested in the progress of it: and I have the consolation to reflect,
that the continuance of the war, and the further effusion of Christian
blood, to which it was the desire of my heart to put a stop, cannot,
with justice, be imputed to me.

“Our military operations have been in no degree suspended or delayed;
and it has pleased God to grant us further important success, by the
conquest of the islands of Belleisle and Dominica: and by the reduction
of Pondicherry, which has in a manner annihilated the French power in
the East Indies. In other parts, where the enemy’s numbers were greatly
superior, their principal designs and projects have been generally
disappointed, by a conduct which does the highest honour to the
distinguished capacity of my general, Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick, and
by the valour of my troops. The magnanimity and ability of the King of
Prussia have eminently appeared in resisting such numerous armies, and
surmounting so great difficulties.

“In this situation I am glad to have an opportunity of receiving the
truest information of the sense of my people by a new choice of their
representatives: I am fully persuaded you will agree with me in opinion,
that the steady exertion of our most vigorous efforts, in every part
where the enemy may still be attacked with advantage, is the only means
that can be productive of such a peace as may with reason be expected
from our successes. It is therefore my fixed resolution, with your
concurrence and support, to carry on the war in the most effectual
manner, for the interest and advantage of my kingdoms; and to maintain
to the utmost of my power the good faith and honour of my crown, by
adhering firmly to the engagements entered into with my allies. In
this I will persevere until my enemies, moved by their own losses and
distresses, and touched with the miseries of so many nations, shall
yield to the equitable conditions of an honourable peace: in which
case, as well as in the prosecution of the war, I do assure you, no
consideration whatever shall make me depart from the true interests of
these my kingdoms, and the honour and dignity of my crown.”

His majesty concluded his speech by calling upon the commons for
adequate supplies to enable him to prosecute the war with vigour, and by
asking for a provision for the queen in case she should survive him. The
commons, besides the usual address, sent a message of congratulation to
the queen, and they proved the sincerity of their professions by making
her a grant of £100,000 per annum, with Somerset House and the Lodge in
Richmond Park annexed: a patent also passed the privy seal, granting her
majesty the yearly sum of £40,000 for the support of her dignity. On the
subject of the supplies for the ensuing year, however, a long and
stormy debate took place; and a month elapsed before they were finally
adjusted. Opposition to them chiefly arose from the circumstance that
the sentiments of the people, and likewise of the court, were beginning
to change respecting the German war. But Lord Egremont found himself
compelled to walk in the very steps which Pitt had marked out, at
least for some time, and the large demands made were pressed upon the
parliament, and finally received its sanction. Seventy thousand seamen
were voted, and it was agreed to maintain 67,676 effective men, beside
the militia of England, two regiments of fencibles in Scotland, the
provincial troops in America, and 67,167 German auxiliaries. Some new
taxes, also, were imposed, including an additional one on windows, and
an increased duty on spirituous liquors, in order to pay the interest
of £12,000,000, which it was found necessary to borrow, to make good
the deficiences of last session. In the whole the supplies for the year
1762, voted by the parliament, amounted to more than £18,000,000: two
millions of which were required for the defence of Portugal.

{GEORGE III. 1760–1765}




DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

In the month of October, Lord Halifax, the new Lord-lieutenant of
Ireland met his Majesty’s first parliament in that country. The Irish
parliament responded to the sentiments of the English parliament
respecting the accession of the young monarch. Addresses replete with
loyalty were voted by both houses; and the greatest confidence was
expressed in the rule of Lord Halifax, auguring the happiest results
from his administration, and promising cordial co-operation. That
ill-fated country, however, was restless as the waves of the ocean.
During the vice-royalty of the Duke of Bedford, it had been totally
under the dominion of the lord’s justices, and they had recently made
an attempt to gain popularity, by expressing doubts in the privy
council concerning the propriety of sending over a money bill, lest the
rejection of it should occasion the dissolution of the new parliament,
and thereby endanger the peace of the country. They were opposed in
their views by Lord Chancellor Bowes and his party, and party violence
was inflamed to the highest pitch. The popular coalition prevailed so
far as to alter the established custom, by sending a bill not for the
actual supplies, but relating to a vote of credit for Ireland, whence
all ferment on this subject subsided. In such a contest it is not likely
that the people would have joined, but they had grievances of their
own, which endangered the public tranquillity. In his speech to the new
parliament, Lord Halifax had recommended that the linen trade, which had
been confined to the southern parts of the kingdom, should be extended
throughout the country, inasmuch as there was a large demand for it, and
it might thereby be made a source of wealth to the whole country. True
patriots would have observed the wisdom of, and have acquiesced in, this
measure; but self-interest in Ireland, as in all countries under the
face of the sun, prevailed over the feelings of patriotism. The people
in the southern parts of the kingdom murmured at such a project, as
it would affect their personal interests, and their discontents were
increased by the conversion of considerable quantities of land from a
state of tillage to that of pasturage, for the purpose of feeding more
cattle. By this measure, great numbers of the peasantry were deprived
at once, not only of employment, but of their cottages. Many small farms
were indeed still let to some cottagers at rack-rent, which cottages
had the right of commonage, guaranteed to them in their leases; but
afterwards the commons were enclosed, and no recompense was made to the
tenants by the landlords. Thus provoked, and being joined by the idle
and dissolute, these unhappy people sought to redress their own wrongs
by acts of violence. Fences were destroyed, horses and arms were
seized, cattle were maltreated, and obnoxious persons, especially
tithe-proctors, were exposed to their vengeance. Many were stripped
naked, and made to ride on horses with saddles formed of the skins of
hedgehogs, or buried up to their chins in holes lined with thorns
that were trodden down closely to their bodies. From their outrageous
violence these people obtained the name of “Levellers,” but afterwards,
from the circumstance of their wearing white shirts over their clothes
for the purpose of disguise, they were termed “White Boys.” Their
outrages demanded the strong arm of the law, and the royal troops were
employed in their suppression. Many suffered the extreme penalty of the
law, though many more were permitted to escape through the lenity of
the judges, whence the disorders long prevailed. As the rioters were
all Romanists, a popish plot was suspected, and the Romish clergy were
charged with promoting their outrages. A motion was made in parliament
to investigate this matter, but there not being sufficient evidence
to inculpate any parties, it was dropped, and no efficient remedy was
therefore applied to heal the disorder.




WAR WITH SPAIN.

The year had not closed before the ministers found that a rupture with
Spain was inevitable. The first intimation of it was detected in the
menacing conduct of the court of Versailles; and Lord Bristol, the
English ambassador at Madrid, was instructed to demand the real
intentions of Charles III., and the real purport of the family compact.
General Wall, the Spanish minister replied more insolently than before;
but an open rupture was avoided till the plate-ships had arrived at
Cadiz with all the wealth expected from Spanish America. Then it was
seen that the political vision of Pitt could penetrate much deeper than
that of Bute and his colleagues. Complaining of the haughty spirit and
the discord which prevailed in the British cabinet, and of the insults
offered to his sovereign, Wall informed Bristol that he might leave
Spain as soon as he pleased, and at the same time issued orders to
detain all English ships then in the ports of Spain. Lord Bristol
returned; the Count of Fuentes, the Spanish ambassador, quitted London,
and war was mutually declared by both countries.

The declaration of war was made on the 4th of January, and on the 19th
parliament met after its adjournment, when the king informed both houses
of the measures he had been compelled to adopt. The members of both
houses were unanimous in their approbation of his majesty’s conduct,
and in assurances of vigorous support. The consideration of the
intelligence, notwithstanding, caused a stormy debate, but as no regular
opposition was organized, and government was supported by Pitt, clamour
died away, and the war met with general approbation. In the house
of lords, a motion was made reprobating the expense of the German
campaigns, and recommending a recall of the British troops for the
security of our own dominions; but it was strongly opposed, and the
previous question was carried by a large majority. Preparations were
therefore made for war with Spain, without diminishing the expenses
of the war in Germany; and while fresh troops were enlisted, some wise
alterations were made by parliament in the militia laws, by which a
line was drawn between those persons liable to serve, and such as were
exempt.

Operations were commenced in the Havannah. On the 5th of March, an
expedition sailed under the command of General Lord Albemarle and
Admiral Pococke, in order to strike a severe blow against the commerce
of Spain in that quarter. This expedition was joined in the West Indies
by a strong squadron commanded by Sir James Douglas, and sailing through
the Straits of Bahama, it arrived before the Havannah on the 5th of
June. A landing was easily effected and siege was laid to the Moro,
a strong fort which defended the harbour, and which was considered
impregnable. The difficulties in making the approaches on a hard rocky
soil were great, and the troops suffered from sickness, fatigue, and
the fire of the enemy; but being joined by fresh reinforcements from New
York and our West Indian Islands, the fort was isolated from the town,
and it was then stormed through a narrow and perilous breach, and
carried at the point of the bayonet. The city of Havannah maintained the
siege a fortnight longer; but it was compelled to capitulate, and it was
yielded up with 180 miles of country westward, or all the best part of
the island of Cuba. Nine Spanish ships of the line and three frigates
were taken in the harbour, and three ships of the line and a galleon
were destroyed, while the booty that fell into the hands of the victors
amounted to £3,000,000 sterling. But the ultimate advantages of this
victory promised to be greater than its immediate results. By the
possession of the Havannah, indeed, England obtained the absolute
command of the passage pursued by the plate-fleets of Spain, and seemed
to lay the wealth of that country at her feet.

It was not in the western hemisphere alone, that the dominions of the
King of Spain were attacked. When the news of the war reached the
East Indies an armament was fitted out at Madras, under the command
of Admiral Cornish and Sir William Draper, which suddenly appeared
off Manilla, the capital of Luconia, and the surrounding isles. Draper
landed his forces and took possession of the suburbs of Manilla, before
the inhabitants were well aware of the war between Spain and England.
Manilla was governed by the archbishop, who proved by his conduct, that
like the ecclesiastics of the middle ages, he could both fight and say
mass. The archbishop excited the natives to assault the assailants in
the rear, while at the head of about eight hundred Spainards he opposed
them in front. The Indians fought with almost incredible ferocity; but
they were cut to pieces by the sword, or died gnawing with their teeth
the bayonets by which they were transfixed. The works of Manilla were
carried by storm, and Draper’s forces, which were chiefly composed of
Sepoys and Lascars, began to plunder and destroy the city. The inner
citadel, however, remained uncaptured, and the archbishop with the
magistrates, and some of the garrison threw themselves into it for
safety. A capitulation ensued, by which the city and port of Manilla,
with several ships and the military stores, were surrendered to
England, while a ransom was given for all private property, amounting
to 4,000,000 dollars. The fruits of this important conquest did not
terminate here. Two ships were despatched from the British squadron
to intercept the rich galleon Phillippina, and though they missed this
prize, they captured the Santa Trinidad, a great Manilla and Acapulco
galleon, with a cargo valued at 3,000,000 dollars. The whole group of
islands then submitted to the English flag.

The English arms were equally successful in a series of attacks on
the remaining French West India Islands. Martinique, Grenada, the
Grenadines, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, and Tobago, were all captured by an
army under general Moncton and a squadron under Admiral Rodney, so that
England obtained possession of the entire chain of the Caribbees. It
was in vain that the French in that part of the world sought to stem the
onward progress of the British arms: they were overpowering, and being
hopeless of succour from their mother-country, the French everywhere
submitted to the conquerors.




FRANCE AND SPAIN DECLARE WAR AGAINST PORTUGAL.

Before the news of the loss of Havannah and Manilla reached the court
of Spain, that court had commenced a land campaign on the continent. A
close alliance had long subsisted between England and Portugal, whence
France and Spain at this period chose to consider the king of Portugal
as the creature of the King of England. These two powers therefore
determined on a rupture with Portugal, unless the Portuguese should
renounce their English alliance. Preparations were accordingly made
for an invasion of Portugal by France as well as by Spain, while in the
meantime a joint memorial was presented by the two powers, inviting the
king of that country to join the alliance of the Bourbons against Great
Britain, which they were pleased to designate “the common enemy of all
maritime nations.” At the same time they insisted that he should expel
all English merchants and English sojourners from his kingdom, and close
his ports to English shipping. It was added that if he acceeded to these
proposals, his fortresses and sea-ports should be garrisoned by French
and Spanish troops to protect him from England’s vengeance, but that
if he refused—and the answer was to be given within four days—he must
take the consequences of such a line of policy.

There were circumstances existing which ought to have disarmed all
hostility on the part of France and Spain towards Portugal, even if
that hostility had been founded in justice. The Portuguese had not yet
recovered from the effects of the earthquake which, in 1756, had reduced
a third part of Lisbon to a ruinous heap. Then again, the Portuguese
power was acknowledged to be weak; but, above all, the King of Portugal
was the near relation of the King of Spain. The weakness of the
Portuguese government, however, was rather a temptation than a barrier
to the view of the Spanish monarch, and as for the claims of kindred,
they were absorbed in his views of ambition. Portugal was incorporated
geographically, and he longed to incorporate it politically with Spain,
whence the claims of misfortune and kindred were overlooked by him.
Conscience, moreover, was not allowed to assert its sway over his
actions, for he had armed himself against its lawful power by leaving
the decision of peace or war to his Portuguese majesty. If he joined
the Bourbon alliance, well and good, for the forces of France and Spain
would obtain possession of Portugal at an easy rate; but if not, if
he still adhered to his old alliance with England, then it would be
manifest to all the world, if he lost the kingdom, it would be his own
fault: in such cheap estimation does ambition hold morality.

At this period, Portugal had not an army exceeding 20,000 men, and her
fleet was reduced to six ships of the line and a few frigates, while her
fortresses were in ruins. In such a desperate condition, therefore, it
might have been expected that, however repugnant to his inclinations,
the heir of the house of Braganza would have broken his alliance with
England, and have joined the Family Compact. Prudence would seem to have
dictated such a step, but he acted otherwise. He had spirit enough to
declare that he would never submit to such conditions; and the French
and Spanish ambassadors quitted Lisbon, while their armies on the
frontiers put themselves in motion towards his capital. Ruin seemed to
await the monarch of Portugal. Braganza, Miranda, and Torre de Moncorvo
were captured by the Marquis of Saria, who commanded the Spanish army
north of the Douro, while another body of Spanish troops penetrated
south of the Douro into Beira, and occupied a post near Almeida. But
the Spaniards were doomed to receive a check. The militia and the brave
peasantry of Portugal, assisted and directed by some British officers,
maintained a destructive war of posts on the forces of Saria, and thus
stemmed his onward progress till relief came from England.

On the 11th of May, George III. ordered the following message to be laid
before the house of commons:—“His majesty, relying on the known zeal
and affection of his faithful commons, and considering that in
this conjuncture emergencies may arise, which may be of the utmost
importance, and be attended with the most pernicious consequences, if
proper means should not be immediately applied to prevent or defeat
them; and his majesty also taking into his most serious consideration
the imminent danger with which the kingdom of Portugal, an ancient and
natural ally of his crown, is threatened by the powers now in open
war with his majesty, and of what importance the preservation of that
kingdom is to the commercial interests of this country, is desirous that
the house would enable him to defray any extraordinary expenses of the
war incurred, or to be incurred for the service of the year 1762; and to
take all such measures as may be necessary to disappoint or defeat
any enterprises or designs of his enemies against his majesty or his
allies.”

This message was favourably received; Pitt advocated the cause of our
ancient ally with fervour and eloquence, and the house of commons voted
£1,000,000 sterling for the purposes therein specified. And this vote
was followed by prompt and effective measures to arrest the arms of
France and Spain. Eight thousand British troops under the command
of Lord Tyrawley, the Earl of Loudon, General Townshend, Lord George
Lennox, and Brigadiers Crawford and Burgoyne, landed in Portugal, and
immediately commenced operations. At the same time the native Portuguese
army consented to submit to the command of the Count de la Lippe, an
active and experienced German officer, who had commanded the British
artillery in Germany. The events of this campaign were complicated and
various. Lippe concentrated the principal part of the Portuguese forces
at Puente de Marcello, to prevent the progress of the Spanish arms
northward, while Brigadier Burgoyne was detached to fall upon Valencia
d’Alcantara, on the frontiers of Spain, southward. Burgoyne carried
Valencia d’Alcantara by a _coup-de-main_, capturing a Spanish general
with all his staff, and all the magazines which Spain had there
collected for the purpose of an invasion along the Tagus, and then
retraced his steps to Pnente de Marcello. At the same time Almeida was
taken by the Spanish general, Count d’Aranda, and having garrisoned this
place, and Ciudad Rodrigo, he marched towards the Tagus, designing to
pass into the Alemtejo. When, however, he arrived at Villa Velha, on the
Tagus, he found that the passage of the river would be disputed. Lippe,
aware of his designs, had marched to Abrantes, the key of Portugal on
the Tagus, and had posted detachments under Burgoyne and the Count
de St. Jago at the adjacent passes of Alvite and at Niza. The Spanish
general obtained possession of the castle of Villa Velha, and drove
the Count de St. Jago from the pass of Alvite; but while some of the
Spaniards were pursuing the routed Portuguese forces, Burgoyne threw
a detachment across the Tagus upon Villa Velha, and while the Count
d’Abrantes was amused in front by a feigned attack from Niza, this
detachment, commanded by Colonel Lee, entered their quarters in the
rear, and began a terrible fire of musquetry. It was under cover of the
night that Lee entered the quarters of the Spanish commander, and thus
surprised, the Spaniards were routed with terrible slaughter, while
their magazines were destroyed and their guns spiked. This was a blow
from which the Spaniards could not recover; and the French invading
forces having failed in their co-operation, his provisions beginning to
fail, the autumnal rains to descend in torrents, and the peasantry to
block up the roads, the Count d’Aranda dismantled the few fortresses he
had taken, and returned to Spain. To all these losses and defeats was
added the capture of the Spanish ship, Hermione, off Cape St. Vincent,
by the English, having treasure on board that amounted to nearly
£1,000,000 sterling. The only expedition of the English which failed
during this year was that against Buenos Ayres, which was as ill
conceived as it was paltry. But this gave Spain no hope for the future.
Taught experience by reverses, the war with England became, indeed,
unpopular with the Spanish people, and their universal cry was, at
the close of this campaign, “Peace with England, and war with all the
world!”




DISSENSIONS IN THE CABINET.

Early in January of this year died the Czarina Elizabeth, one of the
most bitter and inveterate enemies of our ally, the King of Prussia. She
was succeeded in her empire by Peter III., who, by the month of March,
had concluded a close alliance with Frederick, placing an army of 20,000
men, which had hitherto fought against him, entirely at his disposal to
fight against Austria. This had no sooner become known to the English
cabinet, than Bute and his party proposed that no further subsidies
should be paid to Frederick; at the same time, they reminded his
Prussian majesty, that he had himself declared that if he were once
secured by the neutrality of Russia, he should have little need of
further assistance from England. But the old Duke of Newcastle would
not admit the validity of this reasoning of his colleagues. He waited
on Bute, and declared his intention to resign, unless a subsidy of
£2,000,000 was paid, and the continental war continued. Bute answered
drily, “that if the money were granted, peace might be retarded;” but he
never requested him to continue in office, nor said a civil word to the
aged politician. Accordingly, the Duke repaired from the minister to his
master, and resigned his office, refusing a pension which was offered
as a reward for his services, and for the large sacrifices which he had
made since he had been minister, out of his private fortunes. “If he
could no longer be permitted to serve his country,” he said, “he was at
least determined not to be a burden on it: that if his private fortune
had suffered by his loyalty, it was his pleasure, his glory, and his
pride; and that he desired no reward but his majesty’s approbation.”
 Horace Walpole says, that he retired from the royal presence
comparatively a poor man, to find how solitary and deserted could be the
mansion of an ex-minister. Newcastle had been more than forty-five years
in the cabinet, and this utter disregard to money-making exhibits his
patriotism in a strong light: few would have served their country so
long without well replenishing their coffers, especially at that age,
when the virtues of disinterestedness and self-abnegation were exotic
rather than indigenous to the human heart.

Bute had his reasons for answering the Duke of Newcastle coldly, and the
result answered his expectations. He succeeded the ex-minister at the
head of the treasury, “taking the reins of government with almost as
little experience as Phaeton, and meeting with a fall almost as soon.”
 Mr. George Grenville was appointed secretary of state; but he afterwards
exchanged posts with Lord Halifax, who had recently been appointed head
of the admiralty. Lord Barrington was removed from the Exchequer in
which office he was succeeded by Sir Francis Dashwood, and he was
appointed treasurer of the navy. Soon after the Duke of Devonshire
resigned his post of lord high chamberlain, and the Earl of Hardwicke
retired from public life altogether. Many of the friends of the duke
retained their places or accepted others; but several noblemen and
commoners of distinction before the end of the year ranged themselves in
the ranks of opposition. Amongst these was the Duke of Newcastle,
who, although during the summer he had abstained from opposing the
government, at length formed a political connexion with the Duke of
Cumberland, whom he had before invariably opposed.




EVENTS IN GERMANY, ETC.

Frederick of Prussia had not only entered into an alliance with Russia,
but towards the end of May he had concluded a peace with Sweden.
Backed by these two powers he boasted that he was in possession of
more advantages than he could have derived from gaining three pitched
battles, and without waiting for the English subsidy he took the field.
He began operations in Silesia, and directed his attention to the
recovery of Schweidnitz. He was aided in his designs by his brother,
Prince Henry, who had gained an important battle near Freyburg, and thus
changed the aspect of affairs in Saxony; but while he was intent on his
plans, he was threatened with a sudden reverse of fortune. This was the
death of his new ally, the Czar Peter.

After making peace with Frederick, and sending 20,000 of his troops
to serve under him, Peter, from a spirit of admiration of the Prussian
monarch, and of enthusiasm in his cause, insisted upon introducing the
Prussian discipline, and even the Prussian uniform into his army. He
set the example by appearing in the dress of a Prussian general, and he
often observed that, if he had remained Duke of Holstein, he would have
commanded a regiment in the Prussian service, and have become personally
acquainted with Frederick. This naturally offended the national
prejudices; but he took a more fatal step for his own welfare, by
building or dedicating Protestant chapels, by ordering the removal
of painted images of saints from the churches, and by checking the
entrances of novices into convents. By these measures he therefore
gained himself many enemies both among the military and the priesthood.
Every third man he admitted into his councils or his presence, it has
been said, was a traitor. His fall, however, might have been far distant
but for the wife of his bosom. Catherine, Princess of Anhalt Zerbst,
charmed the Russians as much as Peter disgusted them, and she was,
moreover, induced to believe that he had discovered her guilty connexion
with Count Gregory Orloff, and entertained a design of divorcing her and
casting her into prison, that he might raise his own favourite mistress,
Elizabeth Countess of Woronzow, to the throne. Hence—and being also
inflamed with ambition—Catherine lent a willing ear to the complaints
of the army, clergy, and nobility, and, aided by them, she effected
another revolution in Russia. Habited in the garb of a man, and
surrounded by some of the military and nobility, she proceeded to
the church of the Virgin Mary of Casan, where a vast concourse of the
clergy, the nobles, and the soldiery hailed her on her arrival as their
deliverer. She was crowned sole empress by the Archbishop of Novogorod,
and all present took the oath of allegiance to her. From the church,
Catherine proceeded to the senate, which at once acknowledged her right,
and swore fidelity to her cause. All the adherents of her husband were
then arrested, and Peter himself was thrown into prison, where, after a
few days, he died, as some say by disease, but more probably as others
assert, by assassination.

No one was more interested in these proceedings than Frederick of
Prussia. He conceived that he might find an enemy as implacable in
Catherine as he had found in her predecessor, Elizabeth. His forebodings
were not fully realized, for while the empress recalled the Russian
troops serving under him, she restored the Prussian territories which
had been occupied by Elizabeth, and promised to observe a strict
neutrality. Thus set free from his fears, Frederick proceeded in his
campaign with his accustomed vigour. Schweidnitz and Silesia were
recovered, and the Austrians were driven into Bohemia, one part of the
Prussian army advancing to the very gates of Prague. At the same time,
the allied armies, under Prince Ferdinand and the Marquis of Granby,
reduced Cassel, expelled the French from Hesse, and effected the
salvation of Hanover—events which created alarm and despondency in the
French cabinet.




NEGOCIATIONS FOR PEACE.

Notwithstanding the uninterrupted success of the British arms, Lord Bute
was still anxious for peace. And his views at this time were seconded by
the voice of the people, who loudly complained of the increased taxation
and the expenses and burdens consequent upon this protracted war.
Accordingly, having indirectly sounded some of the French cabinet, Bute
engaged the neutral King of Sardinia to propose that it should resume
négociations for peace. Both France and Spain, taught experience by
their reverses, were eager for such a consummation; and Louis XV. had no
sooner received the hint, than he acted upon it with all his heart and
soul. Notes were interchanged, and it was agreed that a minister
should be appointed on either side forthwith. In compliance with this
agreement, the Duke of Bedford went as plenipotentiary and ambassador
extraordinary to Paris, and the Duke de Nivernois came over to London in
the same capacity. Preliminaries for peace were signed at Fontainbleau,
on the third of November, by the ministers of Great Britain, France,
Spain, and Portugal; and the sanction of the British parliament only was
wanting to carry them into effect.

The terms of the preliminaries signed at Fontainbleau were as
follow:—France consented to restore Minorca; to evacuate Hanover,
Cleves, Wesel, Gueldres, the territories of the Landgrave of Hesse, the
Duke of Brunswick, and the Count de la Lippe Bucke-burg, and every place
taken from his Prussian majesty. France, also, renounced all pretensions
to Nova Scotia, and ceded the islands of Cape Breton and St. John, with
the entire province of Canada, including the islands in the Gulf and
River of St. Lawrence; that part of Louisiana which is situate east of
the Mississippi, and the tract between the Ohio and St. Lawrence, on
which French forts had been erected, and which had been the proximate
cause of the war. On her part Spain resigned East and West Florida, with
all pretensions to fish on the coast of Newfoundland; and conceded the
full right of cutting logwood in the Bay of Honduras. France and Spain
promised full restitution to Portugal, and the fortifications of Dunkirk
were to be demolished, according to the tenor of previous treaties. For
these advantages, England agreed to restore Pondicherry, in the East
Indies, Goree, in Africa, and Martinique, Guadaloupe, Marigalante,
Desirade, and St. Lucie, in the West Indies, to France, together with
Belleisle, in Europe. To Spain she was to give up the Havannah, with all
other conquests in Cuba, The conquests England retained, beside those
specified in the preliminaries, were Senegal, in Africa, and St.
Vincent, Dominique, Tobago, Grenada, and the Grenadines, in the West
Indies. On the whole, England would evidently become a great gainer; but
the terms gave rise to great contention, and a struggle of party on the
meeting of Parliament.




THE MEETING OF PARLIAMENT AND THE CONCLUSION OF PEACE.

Although the great body of the people of England desired peace,
yet there was a section of the community equally desirous for the
continuance of the war. The citizens of London had largely profited by
it; and during the negociations of last year they had instructed their
representatives to oppose any peace which did not reserve to England
all, or the greater part, of their conquests. This feeling was
heightened by the successes of the last campaign, and while the whole
glory of the war was assigned by them to Pitt, the very name of peace
was considered as a sacrifice of the national honour. Encouraged by
these feelings, Pitt organised a party in opposition to the cabinet, and
he was aided in this by many of the Whigs, who, irritated by the removal
of so many of their adherents from office, looked with jealousy upon the
actions of the favourite minister, Bute. The premier, likewise, was very
unpopular with the people, for although his views of peace coincided
with their own, yet he lacked the genius which could alone command
their admiration; and his cold, formal manners, and known lust of power,
subjected him to their scorn and contempt.

Parliament met on the 25th of November, and the preliminaries of peace
were then laid before both houses for their decision. In his opening
speech, his majesty remarked upon this subject:—“It was impossible to
execute what this nation has so gloriously performed in all parts of the
world, without the loss of great numbers of men. When you consider this
loss, whether on the principles of policy or humanity, you will see one
of the many reasons which induced me to enter early into negociation,
so as to make considerable progress in it before the fate of many
operations was determined; and now, to hasten the conclusion of it, to
prevent the necessity of making preparations for another campaign. As by
this peace my territories are greatly augmented, and new sources opened
for trades and manufactures, it is my earnest desire that you would
consider of such methods, in the settlements of our new acquisitions, as
shall most effectually tend to the security of those countries, and
to the improvement of the commerce and navigation of Great Britain. I
cannot mention our acquisitions without earnestly recommending to your
care and attention my gallant subjects, by whose valour they were made.
We could never have carried on this extensive war without the greatest
union at home. You will find the same union peculiarly necessary in
order to make the best use of the great advantages acquired by the
peace, and to lay the foundation of that economy which we owe to
ourselves and to our posterity, and which can alone relieve this nation
from the heavy burdens brought on it by the necessities of this long and
expensive war.”

There were points in this pacific speech of his majesty which were
perfectly unanswerable. Humanity, and the burdens of the country
demanded that the sword should be sheathed, and the demand was
eloquently seconded by the great advantages which England would secure
by the peace. Notwithstanding, opposition was not disarmed, and a fierce
war of words ensued. The motion for an address in the house of commons,
approving of the terms of the treaty, was moved by Mr. Fox, Pitt’s
ancient rival, who still retained the lucrative place of paymaster of
the forces. Pitt followed on the opposite side. He came to the house,
suffering from gout and wrapped up in flannel; but, nevertheless,
supported by two members, in an elaborate argument of more than three
hours, he advanced every objection that could be urged against the
negociations. The whole tenor of the treaty was denounced by him as
unsound and impolitic, and as derogatory to the honour of England. He
came, he said, at the hazard of his life to the house that day, to lift
up his voice, his hand, and his arm against the preliminary articles of
a treaty which obscured all the glories of the war, surrendered up
the interests of the nation, and sacrificed the public faith by the
abandonment of long-tried and faithful allies. Fox, supported by George
Grenville, replied in a less eloquent; tone, but with more cogent
arguments, and the ministers obtained a large majority. In the house of
lords, Bute undertook the defence of the measure, and in his speech,
the clauses of which fell from his lips like so many minute-guns, he
detailed the rise and progress of the negociations at large, and set
forth the advantages which England would derive from the treaty in
the best manner his talents for oratory—which were very mean—would
permit. He concluded his speech with declaring, that he desired no other
epitaph to be inscribed on his tomb, than that he was the adviser of
such a peace. He was opposed by Lord Temple, and supported by the Earl
of Halifax; and notwithstanding all the arguments of the opposing peers,
the address was carried by a large majority. The treaty was therefore
signed, and commercial communications, which had been stopped during the
war, were reopened with France.

Pitt had declared in his speech, that the desertion of the King of
Prussia, England’s most magnanimous ally, was insidious, base, and
treacherous. A glance at the preliminaries will suffice to prove that
Frederick’s interests were not forgotten. Frederick, moreover, was now
in a condition to defend himself. At this very time, in fact, he had
induced all the princes and states in Germany to sign a declaration of
neutrality, which led first to a truce between Austria and Prussia,
then to a congress, and finally, in that congress, to a treaty of peace
between Austria, Prussia, Saxony, and Poland. This treaty was not signed
till the 15th of February, 1763, but its terms were agreed upon before
the close of the present year. Frederick retained Silesia, and all the
territories that belonged to him before the war, and the other powers
were compelled to rest satisfied with their legitimate possessions,
without the slightest reparation for the damages they had endured, and
the sums they had spent, during this dream of their ambition. Thus ended
this Seven Years’ War—a war which had cost millions of lives, and in
which a large portion of Europe was devastated, and carnage was earned
into every quarter of the globe. England was a gainer by it, but her
acquisitions cost so much blood, and treasures, that it may fairly be
questioned whether her advantages were commensurate with the price she
paid for them.




THE RESIGNATION OF BUTE.

Notwithstanding the large majority ministers had obtained in both houses
of parliament on the subject of the newly-signed treaty, causes were at
work which soon effected their overthrow. Pitt was resolutely bent on
driving Bute from office; his stern opposition being ostensibly founded
on an assertion that he had thrown away the best advantages in the
treaty of peace. He was joined in his opposition by the old Duke of
Newcastle, whose halls again became the resort of politicians. Meetings
were held at his residence, in which nobles and commons alike concerted
together the means of making the peace unpopular, and bringing Bute into
still greater contempt with the public. Pens, dipped in gall, were set
to work to demonstrate to the people that Martinique, Guadaloupe, St.
Lucie, Pondicherry, and the Havannah ought to have been retained in the
treaty of Fontainebleau; that compensation in money ought to have been
obtained from both France and Spain; that, by demolishing the forts
in Honduras, English subjects were deprived of the logwood trade, and
subjected to the jealous rage of the Spaniards; and that an opportunity
of humbling the house of Bourbon had been completely thrown away. In
maintaining these propositions, dark insinuations were thrown out,
reflecting upon the characters of Bute, the king’s mother, and the Duke
of Bedford. They had all, it was said, touched French gold. Epigrams,
scandals, and stories, also, concerning Bute and the princess dowager,
rang from one end of the country to the other. And the conduct of the
princess and Bute seemed to justify the scandal, although it does not
appear to have rested on sure grounds. Thus they precluded, as much as
possible, all access to the king, except to Bute’s relatives connexions,
and dependents; and when Bute visited the princess it was generally
in the evening, and then in a sedan-chair belonging to a lady of the
household of the princess, and with close-drawn curtains. His enemies
did not fail to take advantage of his imprudent conduct, and they soon
succeeded in making him the most unpopular man in the three kingdoms.
This soon became manifest to the royal favourite; for addresses on
occasion of this peace were refused by the counties of York and Surrey,
and they came in slowly and ill-supported from other quarters. Bute,
however, was too proud and unconciliating to make any attempt to set
himself right in public opinion, and he suffered his enemies to work on,
till his character became unredeemable, and his downfall was effected.

Still Bute might possibly have enjoyed his high station for some time
longer had there not existed at this time a necessity for an increase
of taxation, and for a loan of three millions and a half, to enable
government to pay debts contracted during the war. This necessity could
not be fairly imputed to Bute, but he was unfortunate in his plan of
raising the loan, and in his choice of new taxes. Instead of throwing
the loan open to competition, he disposed of the shares privately, and
they immediately rose to eleven per cent, premium; whence he was charged
with gratifying himself or his dependents with £350,000 at the public
expense. His new tax was produced in the shape of ten shillings duty
per hogshead on cider and perry, which was to be paid by the first
purchaser, while an additional duty of eight pounds per ton was proposed
to be laid on French wines, and half that sum on other wines. The tax
on cider raised such a storm of opposition from the country members
generally, without reference to party, that Bute was induced to alter
both the sum and the mode of levying it—four shillings per hogshead was
to be paid, and it was to be levied upon the grower, through the medium
of the exciseman. This was not an unreasonable tax, for ale and porter
were already taxed both directly and indirectly, and no argument could
show that while a liquor produced from malt contributed to the public
exigencies, a liquor produced from apples should be exempt. Englishmen,
however, were always averse to the visits of the excisemen; and the
city of London, the cities of Exeter and Worcester, and the counties of
Devonshire and Herefordshire, the interests of which were concerned
in the matter more nearly than the citizens of London, petitioned the
commons, the lords, and the throne, against the bill. A general threat
was made, that the apples should rot upon the ground rather than be made
into a beverage subject to such a duty and such annoyances. In the
house of commons, also, Pitt spoke long and eloquently against the bill;
inveighing bitterly against the intrusion of officers into the private
dwellings of Englishmen; quoting the well-known maxim that in England
“every man’s house is his castle.” Stern opposition was, moreover, made
in the house of lords; and, had Bute been wise, he would have bowed
deferentially to the public feeling, and have adopted some other mode
of raising the money less repugnant to the temper and disposition of the
people. Bute, however, to use a figurative expression, proudly bared his
head to the tempest which was playing around him. He was determined
that the bill should pass, and he carried his point despite the fierce
opposition of the whole country. The bill passed into a law, and
although there were four different kinds of cider, varying in price from
five to fifty shillings per hogshead, they were all taxed alike.

Yet Bute was not made of such stern material that he could defy the
people with impunity. He had gained this victory over them, but he
evidently felt that their voice was omnipotent, and that if he longer
resisted it, he might possibly one day, and that soon, be doomed to
suffer disgrace by defeat. Under these circumstances, almost as soon
as the bill passed into a law, he surprised his friends and his enemies
alike, by suddenly tendering his resignation. Opinions varied as to his
motives for taking such a step. Some of his enemies said that he had
retired from the rising storm of national indignation, and that Pitt
had politically killed him; others that the king and queen, whose strict
morality of conduct was well known, had at length taken umbrage at his
intimacy with the queen dowager; while others asserted that he abandoned
his post from a consciousness of guilt, and a dread of impeachment for
certain acts not yet made known to the public. On the other hand,
his friends asserted that his retirement arose from his hatred of the
intrigues of a public life, and represented him as panting in the midst
of the toils of his office for literary and rural retirement. His own
reason, as expressed to a friend, was, that he found himself powerless
in his own cabinet. “Single in a cabinet of my own forming,” he
observed, “no aid in the house of lords to support me, except two peers,
[Denbigh and Pomfret]; both the secretaries of state silent, and the
lord chief justice, whom I myself brought into office, voting for me,
yet speaking against me; the ground I tread upon is so hollow, that I am
afraid, not only of falling myself, but of involving my royal master in
my ruin. It is time for me to retire.” Bute retired as proudly as he had
exercised his office, for he neither asked for pension nor sinecure, and
his retirement was followed by that of Sir Francis Dashwood, chancellor
of the exchequer, and of Fox, who were elevated to the peerage: the
former as Baron le Despencer, and the latter as Baron Holland. Mr.
George Grenville succeeded to the premiership, and also to the place
which had been occupied by Dashwood, uniting in himself the offices of
chancellor of the exchequer and first lord of the treasury. But Bute
still acted behind the scenes. He pulled the strings, and Grenville and
the rest of the cabinet answered his motions, as mechanically as though
they had been so many puppets. Grenville, indeed, seems to have been
chosen by the king and Bute, as a willing instrument for carrying their
plans into ready execution.




THE CHARACTER AND IMPEACHMENT OF WILKES.

One of the most sturdy opponents of Bute and his administration had been
the celebrated John Wilkes, member of parliament for Aylesbury, and a
lieutenant-colonel in the Buckinghamshire militia. On first entering
into office, Bute, by the advice of Bubb Doddington, had established a
newspaper, styled “The Briton,” the ostensible object of which was,
to advocate the measures of Bute’s administration. Many writers were
employed to write for this paper; and while they exalted the premier,
they did not fail to vilify his opponents. To oppose this organ of the
ministers, another paper was set on foot, and conducted by Wilkes, under
the title of “The North Briton.” Wilkes was a man of ruined fortune
and of dissolute habits; but he was active, enterprising, and daring,
and possessed a considerable fund of wit and repartee. In the beginning
of this reign, he had solicited a lucrative post under government,
but had been disappointed. His failure was attributed by him to the
influence which Bute held over the monarch, and he began to vent his
spleen against the minister and his coadjutors in scandalizing and
calumniating their actions and private characters. Both in conversation
and in the “North Briton,” they were ever made the butts of his ready
wit. He even reviled, stigmatized, and heaped curses upon Bute’s country
and countrymen. According to his showing, the river Tweed was the line
of demarcation between all that was honourable and noble, and all that
was dishonourable and servile—south of that river, honour, virtue,
and patriotism flourished; north of it, malice, meanness, and slavery
prevailed. Every Scotchman was painted by him as a hungry beggar,
time-server, and traitor. Wilkes was, perhaps, not singular in his
antipathies at this time against the Scotch, for wiser men than him
exhibited them in their writings and in their conversation, arising in a
great measure from the circumstance of the introduction of large numbers
of them into the offices of government. But in this, Bute acted as any
other man would have done under similar circumstances, as every one
possesses by nature a predilection for their own country and countrymen.
This conduct, therefore, of Wilkes was as unwise as it was unjust and
impolitic. Still no danger would have occurred to himself from the
display of such bitter feelings, had he confined his malevolence to the
subjects of Great Britain. Grown bold by impunity, however, Wilkes at
length pointed his pen at the royal family, and even at the monarch
himself; and, by so doing, he raised a persecution against himself,
which has rendered him a prominent object in the annals of his country.
On the 19th of April his majesty prorogued parliament, and in the next
number of the “North Briton,” the celebrated 45th, Wilkes accused the
monarch of uttering a direct falsehood in his speech on that occasion.
Whether Grenville was more sensitive than his predecessor had shown
himself, or whether Bute instigated him to take notice of this attack,
in order to revenge himself upon Wilkes, is not clear, but it is certain
that on the 26th a general warrant was issued from the secretary of
state’s office, signed and sealed by Lord Halifax, for the arrest of the
authors, printers, and publishers of the seditious paper, and for the
seizure of their papers. No names were specified in this warrant, and
within three days, no less than forty-nine persons were taken upon mere
suspicion. These were innocent, but on the 29th, Kearsley, the
avowed publisher, and Balfe, the printer, were taken into custody, who
confessed that Wilkes was the author of the paper. Accordingly, the
crown lawyers having been consulted, the messengers were directed to
seize Wilkes, and bring him forthwith before the secretary of state.
It was in vain that the offender asserted that they were acting upon an
illegal warrant: his papers were seized, and he was carried before Lord
Halifax. At the request of Wilkes, his friend, Lord Temple, applied to
the court of common pleas for a writ of habeas corpus, and the motion
was granted; but before it could be prepared, he was committed to the
Tower in close custody, and his friends, his counsel, and his solicitor
were denied access to him. The confinement of Wilkes, however, was
of short duration, for on the 3rd of May, a writ of habeas corpus was
directed to the constable of the Tower, by which he was brought before
the court in Westminster Hall. In that court he made a virulent speech
against the existing administration, broadly asserting that there was a
plot among its members for destroying the liberties of the nation, and
that he was selected as their victim, because they could not corrupt him
with their gold. The court took time to consider the matter, and on the
6th, Lord Chief Justice Pratt proceeded to deliver the joint opinion of
the judges. This opinion was, that though the commitment of Wilkes
and the general warrant were not in themselves illegal, as they were
justified by numerous precedents, yet he was entitled to his discharge
by virtue of his privilege as a member of parliament; that privilege
being only forfeited by members who were guilty either of treason,
felony, or a breach of the peace. Wilkes was therefore discharged, but
the attorney-general immediately instituted a prosecution against him
for the libel in question, and the king deprived him of his commission
as colonel in the Buckinghamshire militia, and dismissed his friend Lord
Temple from the lord-lieutenancy of Buckinghamshire, and struck his
name out of the roll of privy councillors. The liberation of Wilkes was
followed by a long inky war. Upon regaining the use of his pen, he wrote
a letter to the secretaries of state, in which he complained of the
treatment he had received, and accused them of holding in their hands,
goods of which his house had been robbed by their messengers. This
letter, to which government replied, was printed and distributed by
thousands, and considerable numbers of the opposition in parliament
rallied round the author of the “North Briton,” while the populace began
to hail him throughout the country, as the noblest patriot England had
known since the days of Algernon Sidney and Hampden. Taking advantage
of his popularity, when he found publishers averse to the hazard of
publishing his works, he established a printing-press in his own house,
where he struck off copies of the proceedings against him, which were
sold at one guinea each; a blasphemous and obscene poem entitled, “An
Essay on Woman,” with annotations; and the forty-five first numbers of
the “North Briton,” with notes and emendations. His pen was seconded by
hundreds of newspaper writers and pamphleteers who wrote on his behalf,
and John Wilkes thereby became one of the most popular men in all
England. Men, even of talents and probity, though they detested his
immoralities, associated his name with the idea of liberty, and the
proceedings against him were designated as the tyrannical efforts of
arbitrary power.

{GEORGE III. 1760–1765}




CHANGES IN THE CABINET.

Mr. George Grenville had been first brought into notice by his connexion
with Mr. Pitt. He was a man of integrity and of understanding, but he
lacked the personal influence, and the abilities which could alone
give stability to a political party. His proceedings against Wilkes,
moreover, had brought his cabinet into public contempt, and in the month
of August he was deprived of the best supporter of his administration,
by the death of Lord Egremont. The loss of this nobleman brought his
cabinet, indeed, to the verge of dissolution, and a coalition of parties
was hence deemed desirable. To this end Bute waited, at his majesty’s
commands, on his stern rival, Pitt, to whom he stated the king’s wish of
employing political talent and integrity without respect of persons
or parties. This was done without the knowledge of the members of
the existing cabinet, and Pitt consented to wait upon his majesty at
Buckingham House. He was received graciously, and in a conference which
lasted three hours, he expatiated on the infirmities of the peace, and
the disorders of the state; and the remedy he proposed to adopt, was the
restoration of the Whigs to office; they only, he asserted, having the
public confidence. This was on Saturday, the 27th of August, and at this
time his majesty made no objection to his proposals, and he appointed a
second interview on the following Monday. On Sunday, Pitt was closeted
with the Duke of Newcastle, in arranging the new administration, in full
confidence that the king was acquiescent. Pitt, however, did not find
his majesty so pliant on the Monday, as he expected, and he was doomed
to experience a complete disappointment of his views and hopes. The king
wished to provide for Grenville, by allotting him the profitable place
of paymaster of the forces, and to restore Lord Temple to favour, by
placing him at the head of the treasury; but although both Grenville and
Temple were Pitt’s relatives, he would not consent. “The alliance of the
great Whig interests which had supported the revolution government,”
 he said, “was indispensable.” The whole project, therefore, fell to the
ground. His majesty broke up the conference by observing, “This will not
do; my honour is concerned, and I must support it.”

Negociation with Pitt having failed, overtures were made to the Duke of
Bedford, who, it was thought, possessed sufficient influence—though he
was little less unpopular than Bute himself—to support the tottering
cabinet. His grace accepted the post of lord president of the council,
Lord Sandwich was made secretary of state, and Lord Egmont was placed at
the head of the admiralty. Grenville still retained his post, though the
Duke of Bedford gave his name to the ministry.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT, AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WILKES.

Parliament met on the 15th of November, when his majesty exhorted both
houses to cultivate the blessings of peace; to improve the commercial
acquisitions of the country; to attend to the reduction of the debts
contracted in the late war; to improve the navy; and to promote domestic
union, and discourage the licentious spirit which prevailed, to the
utter subversion of the true principles of liberty.

The allusion in his Majesty’s speech to the licentious spirit prevalent
at that time in England, had reference to Wilkes and his associates.
Many men of fashion and dissipation had lived with him and upon him
recently as boon companions and partners in debauchery. Together with
him, they formed the Dilettanti Club in Palace Yard, and they also
revived the Hell-Fire Club of the days of the Duke of Wharton, at
Medmenham Abbey, Bucks, where they revelled in obscenity, and made
everything that was moral or religious, a subject of their scorn and
derision. Over the grand entrance of this abbey was inscribed, _Fays ce
que voudras_, “Do what you like;” and the jokes of the members of the
club consisted principally in wearing monkish dresses, and drinking wine
out of a communion cup to a pagan divinity. For the entertainment of
these men, some of whom were even more conspicuous in their profligacy
than Wilkes himself, he took a house at the court end of the town, by
which he incurred expenses his fortune could not support, and which they
were not willing to discharge. They could feast at his table, and drink
his claret; but his entertainments and his wit, which they equally
enjoyed, must be set down to his own account. Nay, one of his
companions, the new secretary of state, Lord Sandwich, one of the most
notorious of the whole club, now suddenly turned round upon him, and
accused him of leading a profligate and debauched life!

On the return of the commons to their own house, Grenville, aware of the
intention of Wilkes to make a formal complaint respecting the breach of
privilege, anticipated him by relating what had passed in the arrest
and liberation of that member, and by laying the libel on the table.
The house by a large majority-resolved, that the 45th No. of the “North
Briton” was a false, scandalous, and seditious libel, and ordered that
the said paper should be burned by the hands of the common hangman.
In reply, Wilkes declared that the rights of all the members had been
violated in his person, and he requested that the question of privilege
should be at once taken into consideration. The house adjourned this
question for one week, but on the same night, Lord Sandwich produced in
the house of lords, a copy of the “Essay on Woman,” and loudly exclaimed
against the profaneness and indecency of this poetical production of
Wilkes. His attack on Wilkes surprised most men who heard him, but he
was followed by one who had a right to complain. Dr. Warburton, now
Bishop of Gloucester, inveighed bitterly on the use which had been made
of his name in the annotations, and commented in severe language on the
outrageous infidelity of the production, declaring that when the author
of it arrived in hell, he would not find one companion there among its
“blackest fiends.” A day was appointed for bringing John Wilkes to their
lordship’s bar, to answer to a charge of a breach of privilege; but in
the meantime, an event occurred which rendered it impossible for him
to appear. In the course of the debate in the lower house, Mr. Martin,
member for Camelford, who had been secretary to the treasury during
Bute’s administration, and had been attacked in the “North Briton,”
 stigmatized Wilkes as a “cowardly, malignant, and scandalous scoundrel.”
 His words were twice repeated, as he looked across the house at the
object of his attack, with rage flashing from his eyes. Wilkes seemed
to hear with cool indifference, but on leaving the house, he addressed a
note to Martin, and a meeting in Hyde Park was the consequence, in which
the former was dangerously wounded. It was reported the next day that
he was delirious, and crowds of people surrounded his house, hooting
and shouting at his murderers: had he died, the populace would have
considered him a martyr in the cause of liberty; but he recovered.

The question of privilege came on in the house of commons on the 23rd of
November, and it lasted two whole days. Wilkes was defended by Pitt, who
came to the house again enveloped in flannel, and this time supported by
crutches. While Pitt defended him, however, he was careful to maintain
his own character. He condemned the whole series of “North Britons,”
 as illiberal, unmanly, and detestable; declaimed against all national
reflections, as having a tendency to promote disloyal feelings and
disunity: asserted that his majesty’s complaint was well founded, just,
and necessary; and declared that the author did not deserve to rank
among the human species, as he was the blasphemer of his God, and the
libeller of his sovereign. He was not connected with Wilkes, he said,
nor had he any connexion with writers of his stamp. At the same time, he
reprobated the facility with which parliament was surrendering its own
privileges, carefully impressing on the house, that in so doing, he
was simply delivering a constitutional opinion, and not vindicating the
character of John Wilkes. The speech of Pitt was characterised by great
eloquence and acuteness, but the measure was warmly defended by other
members, and at the conclusion, a resolution was carried by a large
majority, to the effect, “That the privilege of parliament does not
extend to the case of writing and publishing seditious libels, nor ought
to be allowed to obstruct the ordinary course of the laws in the speedy
and effectual prosecution of so heinous and dangerous an offence.”
 The concurrence of the lords was not obtained without considerable
difficulty, and when it was obtained, a spirited protest was signed
by seventeen peers, affirming it to be “incompatible with the dignity,
gravity, and justice of the house, thus to explain away a parliamentary
privilege of such magnitude and importance, founded in the wisdom of
ages, declared with precision in their standing orders, repeatedly
confirmed, and hitherto preserved inviolable by the spirit of their
ancestors; called to it only by the other house on a particular
occasion, and to serve a particular purpose, _ex post facto, ex
parte, et pendente lite_, the courts below.” On the 1st of December, a
conference of both houses took place, when both lords and commons agreed
in a loyal address to the king, expressive of their detestation of the
libels against him; and Wilkes was ordered to attend at the bar of the
commons in a week, should his health permit.

In the meantime—on the 3rd of the month—there was a terrible riot in
London occasioned, by the burning of the “North Briton” in Cheapside.
The execution of this sentence was entrusted to Alderman Harley,
sheriff of London, and he assembled the city officers and the common
hangman at the Royal Exchange, to put it into effect. The people,
however, manifested a very different spirit from that of their
representatives. So violent were they, that Harley was compelled
to retreat to the Mansion House, where the lord mayor was sitting,
surrounded by members of the common council, who were almost to a man
the friends and admirers of Wilkes, and therefore not disposed to take
part in the matter. The hangman was compelled to follow the sheriff. He
had succeeded in partially burning the paper with a link, when cheered
on by some gentlemen standing at the windows of houses near the spot,
the mob rushed upon him, and rescued the fragments, carrying them in
triumph to Temple Bar, where a fire was kindled and a large jack-boot
was committed to the flames, in derision of the Earl of Bute. The city
was restored to its usual tranquillity in about an hour and a half,
the mob dispersing of their own accord; but the affair occupied the
attention of parliament four days, during which time nothing else was
done, except voting a pension of £80,000 as a dowry to the Princess
Augusta, the king’s sister, who was about to be married to the Duke
of Brunswick. In the debate on the subject of the riot, it was fully
manifested that the populace of London was generally in favour of
Wilkes; but both houses concurred in voting that the rioters were
disturbers of the public peace, dangerous to the liberties of the
country, and obstructors of national justice. Thanks were also voted to
the sheriffs, and an address was presented to his majesty, praying that
measures might be taken to discover and punish the offenders.

By their proceedings against Wilkes ministers had surrounded themselves
with a maze of perplexity. Actions were brought by the printers, and
others arrested under the general warrant, to recover damages for false
imprisonment, and a verdict was universally given in their favour. These
actions were brought against the messengers: Wilkes had nobler game
in view. He brought actions against the two secretaries of state,
Lord Egremont and Lord Halifax, and against Robert Wood, Esq., late
under-secretary. Egremont was now dead, Halifax stood upon his privilege
and defied the court, till relieved by the sentence of outlawry that was
passed upon Wilkes, but Wood was condemned to pay £1000 damages to the
plaintiff. At this trial, the lord chief justice Pratt was bold enough
to declare that general warrants were unconstitutional, illegal, and
absolutely void, and to challenge a reference of this opinion to the
twelve judges. This was not deemed expedient, and Pratt’s judgment
respecting the illegality of warrants was shortly afterwards confirmed
by the court of king’s bench. The boldness of Pratt secured for him
great popularity. He was presented with the freedom of the cities of
London and Dublin, and others; and in addition to this mark of respect,
the corporation of London requested that he would sit for his picture,
which was to be placed in Guildhall, as a memorial of their gratitude.

The popularity of Wilkes was at this time increased by an attempt made
upon his life by one Alexander Dun, a Scotchman, who sought admission
into the patriot’s house, and who publicly declared that he and ten
others were determined to cut him off. A new penknife was found in his
pocket, and for this alleged attempt against the life of a member of
parliament, Dun was carried before the commons, who voted him insane,
and ordered his dismissal. The court of king’s bench, however, committed
Dun to prison for want of bail and securities, and looking upon facts
only in a cursory light, the people believed that the government was
determined to make away with the defender of their liberties. All this
tended to render the cabinet so obnoxious, that Horace Walpole was
apprehensive that there would have been some violent commotion.

When the day arrived for the attendance of Wilkes at the bar of the
house of commons, two medical gentlemen, Dr. Brocklesby and Mr. Graves
appeared, and made a declaration that he was unable, from the state of
his health, to obey the summons. The house granted a week’s delay, and
the excuse being repeated, the grant was extended beyond the Christmas
recess. At the same time it was ordered that a physician and surgeon of
their own appointing should see Wilkes, and report their opinion on his
case. These were refused admittance into his house; but to vindicate the
character of his own medical attendants, and to have the laugh at the
ministry, he called in two Scotch doctors, observing that as the house
wished him to be watched, two Scotchmen would prove the most proper
spies.

The Christmas recess arrived, and the Christmas festivities afforded a
short truce to this war of politicians. Wilkes, who could not have been
so ill as represented, went to Paris, where he obtained great admiration
by his wit in the salons and soirées of that gay city. He was thus
employed when the parliament met on the 19th of January, 1764. This was
the day fixed for his appearance, but the speaker produced a letter from
him, enclosing a certificate signed by a French physician and a French
surgeon, testifying that he could not quit Paris without danger to his
life. This certificate wanted the signature of a notary public to give
it authenticity, and the house, therefore, resolved to proceed against
Wilkes as though he were present. Witnesses and papers were examined,
and it was resolved, that No. 45 of the “North Briton,” which had been
voted a seditious libel, contained expressions of unexampled insolence
and contumely toward his majesty, the grossest aspersions upon both
houses of parliament, and the most audacious defiance of the whole
legislative authority. It was also denounced as having a manifest
tendency to alienate the affections of the people from their king,
to withdraw them from obedience to the laws, and to excite them to
insurrection. On the next day it was further resolved, that Wilkes
should be expelled the house, and a new writ was issued for the borough
of Aylesbury; a measure which ultimately had the effect of rendering him
a popular champion in the struggle between the house of commons and the
electors of Middlesex, which defined the power of the representative
body in relation to its constituency. Even now it greatly increased
the popularity of Wilkes among the great body of the people. On every
opportune occasion they loudly expressed their sentiments in his favour.
The king and his ministers were compelled to hear whenever they
appeared in public the grating and unwelcome exclamation of, “Wilkes and
liberty!”

Although ministers had triumphed over Wilkes personally, by obtaining
his expulsion from the house, yet they were doomed to suffer a check
from a motion naturally arising out of his prosecution. On the 13th
of February, it was moved by the opposition, that Wilkes’ complaint of
breach of privilege should be heard. On this subject they obtained a
large majority; his complaint being thrown out, after a stormy debate
which lasted three days and one whole night. This, however, was followed
by a resolution moved by Sir William Meredith, in which they were not
so successful, namely, “That a general warrant for apprehending and
securing the authors, printers, and publishers of a seditious libel,
together with their papers, is not warranted by law.” An adjournment was
proposed, but Pitt and others made speeches upon the subject, and when
the house divided, ministers had only the small majority of fourteen
upon the question of adjournment. This was virtually a defeat, and the
illegality of general warrants was so effectually established by the
numbers who voted on the side of the opposition, and by the sentiments
of the orators, that henceforth the use of them was wholly discontinued.
If, therefore, this prosecution of Wilkes was impolitic, it had at least
the effect of settling a great constitutional principle; nor was it long
before the measures taken against him effected other alterations in the
constitution equally important.

Wilkes having entered an appearance in Westminster Hall, was at length
tried and convicted on two indictments, for publishing the 45th Number
of the North Briton, and the “Essay on Woman.” He was afterwards
outlawed for not appearing in court to receive his sentence, whence
the suit he had instituted against Lord Halifax fell to the ground.
The cause of Wilkes, however, being identified with that of the
constitution, his popularity remained undiminished, and the spirit
excited by the proceedings against him was still as rife with bitterness
as ever.




PROPOSITION TO TAX THE AMERICAN COLONIES.

It was at this troubled season that George Grenville brought forward a
motion for extracting a direct revenue from the colonies. The idea was
not altogether new, for such a scheme had been hinted at during Sir
Robert Walpole’s administration. At this time it seems to have been
revived, by the general complaint heard among the people of England, of
the burden of taxation which they were called upon to bear. His majesty
proposed such a step, as a just, as well as advantageous measure for
relieving the country from the financial difficulties which had been
occasioned by a war undertaken for the protection and security of the
colonies themselves. Accordingly, a series of resolutions, respecting
new duties to be laid on goods imported by the Americans, was brought
into the House by Grenville on the 10th of March. These resolutions
passed with little notice; General Conway, it is said, being the only
member who protested against them; and they received the royal assent on
the 5th of April. The minister, also, proposed raising a direct revenue
from the colonies in the shape of a stamp-tax, but this was objected
to by the opposition, and it was postponed to another session. Certain
restrictions, however, were at the same time laid upon the profitable
contraband trade carried on by the Americans with the Spanish colonies;
a trade alike advantageous to England and the North American colonists,
but of which the Spanish government was constantly and bitterly
complaining to the court of Great Britain.




OPPOSITION OF THE AMERICANS.

It seems probable that ministers undertook this scheme of taxation, in
order to gain popularity. It had that effect in some slight degree. The
country gentlemen, in particular, were well pleased with the prospect of
the non-increase on the diminution of the land-tax, and other sections
of the community hoped eventually to have their burdens lightened by
such a measure. In proroguing parliament the king expressed his hearty
approbation of it, auguring the augmentation of the public revenues, a
unity of the interests of his most distant possessions, and an increase
of commerce, as its natural results. Like the Greek fisherman in
Theocritus, all dreamed of gold; but in the course of a few months this
pleasant dream was swept away by a strong wind across the Atlantic.

The inhabitants of New England received these “wise regulations” of the
British parliament “like knives put to their throats.” Perceiving that
the claim made by their mother-country to tax the colonies for her own
benefit, and at her own discretion, might possibly introduce a system of
oppression, they boldly denied the authority of parliament to levy any
direct tax on the colonies, and declared that it was a violation of
their rights as colonists, possessing by charter the privilege of taxing
themselves for their own support; and as British subjects, who ought not
to be taxed without their legitimate representatives. The disaffection
of the northern provinces extended to those of the south, and, as a
strong measure of resistance, all engaged to abstain from the use of
those luxuries which had hitherto been imported from Great Britain. They
also made colonial taxation a subject of their petitions to king, lords,
and commons, and thus firmly established the principle of resistance to
such a measure. Their resistance was confirmed by an unwise measure of
Grenville, who determined to intrust the execution of his prohibitory
orders to military and naval officers, who were disposed to act with
rigour. Government, also, had increased the salaries of judges, which
gave rise to an opinion that it was desirous of diminishing their
independence; and the governors had recently acted very arbitrarily, and
when complaints were made no attention was paid to them, or if a reply
was given, it was accompanied with rebuke. The colonists, moreover, were
encouraged in their spirit of resistance by the emigration of numbers
who had lately left England, and who being disaffected persons, diffused
republican sentiments in all the provinces. The seeds of discontent
were, in fact, sown far and wide before this new system of taxation
was projected, and it had the effect of causing them to germinate and
flourish.




WAR WITH THE NORTH AMERICAN INDIANS.

It unfortunately happened, that the news of colonial taxation arrived in
America when the colonists were in no very pleasant humour. On quitting
Canada, the French government still retained some slight connexion with
the native Indians, and partly by their agents, and in part through
encroachments made by the British on their hunting-grounds, they
were incited to war. The tribes flew to arms, designing to make a
simultaneous attack on all the English back-settlements in harvest-time,
and though their secret was made known, and their intentions prevented
in some places, yet the frontiers of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and
Virginia were mercilessly ravaged by them, and the inhabitants in those
parts utterly destroyed. The Indians also captured several forts in
Canada, and massacred the garrisons; and their flying parties frequently
intercepted and butchered the troops that were marching from place to
place, and plundered and murdered the traders in the upper part of the
country. Success made them more bold, and it seems probable, from the
display of courage and of military talent which they manifested, that
French officers were among them. They even resolved to advance on the
principal force stationed at Fort Pitt, and they marched forward in full
confidence of victory. In their route they defeated a detachment under
Captain Dalzel, and killed that unfortunate officer, and the soldiers
escaped with difficulty into Fort Detroit. Fort Pitt was now surrounded
by them, but they soon abandoned it, in order to attack Colonel Bouquet,
who was advancing with a strong corps under his command for its relief.
Fearful struggles took place between Colonel Bouquet and the Indians,
in which a great number was killed on both sides, but they were finally
routed, and as their bravest chiefs had perished, it was supposed that
their loss was irreparable. The Indians, however, in the other parts
of the country were not discouraged, and they surrounded an escort,
and slew about eighty officers and men near the falls of Niagara. Thus
disheartened, General Amherst used the powerful influence of Sir William
Johnstone, who was enabled to detach the Indians of the Six Nations
from the confederacy, and to engage them on the side of the British,
and after various skirmishes and surprises, the rest submitted on
conditions, or retired into the depths of their native wilds and
forests. In the treaty concluded with them all occasions of future
quarrels were guarded against; the limits of their territories were
accurately defined; their past offences forgiven; and they were
re-admitted to the friendship of Great Britain: the Indians on their
part solemnly engaging to commit no more acts of violence.

These occurrences had for the most part happened in the summer and
autumn of the year 1763. But the recollection of them was, from their
very nature, strongly impressed upon the minds of the colonists, when
they heard of the system proposed for their taxation. Moreover, every
one was armed for the defence of his home and property against the
Indians, and being now freed from their terrors in that quarter, they
were bold to think that they might be used against their mother-country,
should the scheme of colonial taxation not be abandoned. Hence the
colonists made a show of resistance by passing strong resolutions
against the measure, which were transmitted to their agents in London,
to be laid before government. The province of Pennsylvania appointed a
new agent to London, in the person of the celebrated Benjamin Franklin,
who was instructed to oppose the stamp-act to the very utmost, and
indeed every other act that might be proposed to the British parliament
to tax the Americans without their consent. A more efficient agent
than Franklin could not have been chosen by the Pennsylvanians. Born in
humble life, he had, nevertheless, raised himself by genius and steady
perseverance, to be a man of property and science, a leading magistrate,
a high functionary in their state, a powerful writer, a statesman, and a
philosopher.




DOMESTIC OCCURRENCES.

The measures of the new administration were generally approved of in the
house of commons, and on dismissing the parliament the king thanked
the members of both houses for their wise and spirited exertions,
and exhorted them all to employ the present season of tranquillity in
perfecting the peace so happily commenced. There was occasion for this
exhortation. The cider-tax occasioned many turbulent meetings, which
frequently ended in riot, and a great scarcity of provisions caused
an increase of robberies and crime to a large amount. These evils were
augmented by the discharge of large bodies of soldiers and sailors,
who either could not find employment, or from their previous occupation
could not settle down into habits of industry. Moreover, country
gentlemen and landed proprietors from all parts of the United Kingdom
came to the metropolis, in order to gain posts under government, leaving
their estates to be managed by stewards and bailiffs, the results of
which were that they involved themselves in debt, and that they
raised their rents for the purpose of relieving themselves. Discontent
everywhere prevailed, and especially in Scotland and Ireland, and many
thousands emigrated to the North American provinces, that they might be
able to obtain a subsistence for their families, and at the same time
preserve their religion and the customs of their fathers.

This year was marked by many maritime discoveries. A spirit of
enterprize, fostered by the munificence of the king, was displayed,
indeed, equal to that which distinguished the 15th and 16th centuries,
and which produced advantages to the country of equal importance to
those produced by the recent war. Byron, Wallis, Carteret, Cook, and
Mulgrave, all set sail during this year, and in a few years discoveries
were made which outrivalled all which had occurred since the expeditions
of Columbus.

During this autumn Pitt broke his recently-formed league with the old
Duke of Newcastle, telling him in a letter that he resolved henceforward
to act for himself, to keep himself free from all stipulations, and to
oppose or support measures in parliament upon his own responsibility. It
is not clear why Pitt came to this resolution; but perhaps it may
have arisen from his growing infirmity of body and temper, and of his
overbearing pride. From his letter, in fact, it is made very manifest
that his pride was offended, because the system of war which he had so
long and eloquently defended was given up “by silence” in a full house.
Hence it was, probably, that he was induced to stand single, and dare to
appeal to his country solely upon the merits—real or supposed—of his
principles. At all events, it seems certain that his resolution did
not arise, as some have imagined, from dark and inexplicable intrigue,
though it may wear that imposing aspect. But after all, as it has been
well observed, it is next to impossible to understand the extraordinary
alternations of alliance, neutrality, and opposition, between Pitt and
the old Duke of Newcastle.

In the course of this year, the treaty of Fontainbleau was somewhat
shaken by a French ship of the line having seized Turk’s Island, in the
West Indies, and making the English inhabitants prisoners. The Spaniards
also annoyed and interrupted the English logwood-cutters at Honduras,
and were supposed to have seized a ship in the Mediterranean. These
occurrences happened during the recess of parliament, but before the
houses met, both the court of France and Spain disavowed all hostile
proceedings, and gave explanations to the English cabinet, which were
deemed satisfactory. It was evident, however, that the Bourbon courts
were not satisfied with the terms of the recent peace, and that their
weakness alone prevented them from renewing the struggle: their chagrin
and enmity were but ill-concealed under the mask of friendship, which
defeat in the field of battle had compelled them to wear.




CHAPTER II.

{GEORGE III. 1765–1769}

     The Meeting of Parliament..... Debates on Colonial
     Taxation..... Instability of the Cabinet..... Attempts to
     form a new Administration..... Opposition to the Stamp
     Duties in America..... Embarrassment of Ministers and
     Meeting of Parliament..... Sentiments of the Americans on
     the Declaratory  Act..... The Dissolution of the
     Rockingham  Cabinet..... Decline of Lord Chatham’s
     Popularity..... Meeting of Parliament..... East India
     Question..... American Taxation..... Changes in the
     Ministry..... Proceedings in America..... Domestic Troubles
     and  Commotions..... The Return of Wilkes, &c.
     Resignation of Lord Chatham..... The Affairs of Wilkes.....
     Meeting of Parliament..... Debate on Wilkes, &c.
     Debates on America..... East India Affairs..... Prorogation
     of Parliament, &c. Discontents in England and Ireland.

{1765}




THE MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament assembled on the 10th of January, 1765. The leading topics of
the king’s speech referred to continental events, from which he augured
the continuation of peace. In allusion to American taxation and American
discontents, he recommended the carrying out of Grenville’s measures,
and the enforcing obedience in the colonies. He remarked:—“The
experience I have had of your former conduct makes me rely on your
wisdom and firmness, in promoting that obedience to the laws, and
respect to the legislative authority of this kingdom, which is
essentially necessary for the safety of the whole, and in establishing
such regulations as may best connect and strengthen every part of my
dominions for their mutual benefit and support.” In this speech, also,
his majesty announced the approaching marriage of his youngest sister,
the Princess Caroline, with the Prince Royal of Denmark: a union which
was ultimately attended with tragical consequences.

Early in this session complaints were made by the opposition that the
court of Spain had not paid the Manilla ransom, which gave rise to
an angry debate; the ministers warmly defending the conduct of the
Spaniards in this particular. An attempt was also again made by the
opposition to procure a resolution against the illegality of general
warrants, but decision on this point was eluded, and the previous
question carried. Another motion, to restrain the attorney-general in
his power of filing informations _ex officio_, which was made by the
opposition, was likewise negatived by a ministerial majority. But these
were only so many preludes to a storm which took place on the subject of
colonial taxation.




DEBATES ON COLONIAL TAXATION.

It has been seen that the measure of laying a duty on stamps had been
postponed, in order to give the colonists time to propose any other
mode of taxation in lieu of it more agreeable to their own feelings. The
agents of America, however, all replied that they were instructed not
only to oppose the stamp-tax, but every other bill which assumed as a
principle the right of taxing the colonies. They urged in reply to
the statement, that it was reasonable for America to contribute her
proportion toward the general expenses of the empire; that, “America had
never been backward in obeying the constitutional requisitions of the
crown, and contributing liberally, in her own assemblies, towards
the expenses of wars, in which, conjointly with England, she had
been engaged; that in the course of the last memorable contest, her
patriotism had been so conspicuous, that large sums had been repeatedly
voted, as an indemnification to the colonists for exertions allowed
to be far beyond their means and resources; and that the proper
compensation to Britain for the expense of rearing and protecting her
colonies was the monopoly of their trade, the absolute direction and
regulation of which was universally acknowledged to be inherent in the
British legislature.”

In all ages of the world sovereign states have assumed to themselves the
right of taxing their dependant colonies for the general good. A glance
at ancient history, however, is sufficient to prove that there is danger
in the expedient. By colonial taxation Athens involved herself in many
dangerous wars, which proved highly prejudicial to her interests, and
which reads a powerful lesson to modern states and kingdoms on this
subject. The British king and British cabinet, however, had, like the
Athenians, to learn a lesson from experience, and not from the pages
of history. Conceiving that they had gone too far to recede, they were
resolutely determined not to yield their claim of right. The memorials
were not even allowed to be read in the house, for the British
legislature, with few exceptions, considered the right which they
questioned to be indisputable. Fifty-five resolutions of the committee
of ways and means, relating to this branch of the revenue, were agreed
to by the commons, and they were afterwards incorporated into an act
for laying nearly the same stamp-duties on the American colonies as were
payable at the time in England. The debate on this subject was generally
languid, but on Townshend venturing to assert, that the Americans were
“children planted by our care and nourished by our indulgence,” Colonel
Barre, who had served beyond the Atlantic, and knew both the country and
people well, exclaimed vehemently, “They planted by your care! No! your
oppression planted them in America—they fled from your tyranny to
a then uncultivated and inhospitable wilderness, exposed to all the
hardships to which human nature is liable. They nourished by your
indulgence! No! they grew by your neglect of them; your care of them
was displayed, as soon as you began to take care about them, in sending
persons to rule them who were the deputies of deputies of ministers—men
whose behaviour on many occasions has caused the blood of those sons
of liberty to recoil within them—men who have been promoted to the
highest seats of justice in that country, in order to escape being
brought to the bar of justice in their own. I have been conversant with
the Americans, and I know them to be loyal indeed, but a people jealous
of their liberties, and who will vindicate them if ever they should be
violated; and let my prediction of this day be remembered, that the same
spirit of freedom which actuated that people at first will accompany
them still.” The prediction of Colonel Barre was treated as emanating
from his loss of the regiment which he had commanded in America; and
the bill passed both houses without any difficulty, and it received the
royal assent by commission on the 22nd of March. It passed from a lack
of knowledge of American affairs; from an indifference to the interests
of the colonists; and from sheer cupidity. The profits which we had
derived from commerce with the Americans, and which were the ostensible
object proposed in planting the colonies, were not sufficient: if we
could obtain it, we must share in their profits likewise. But this was
a question which time only could solve; a riddle, which events must
explain.




INSTABILITY OF THE CABINET.

Ministers seemed to have carried matters with a high hand in parliament
during the previous debates, but there were nevertheless causes at work
which tended to weaken and dissolve their administration. The Americans
had already put their threats into execution concerning their abstinence
from the use of British goods, and this created great alarm among
shipowners, merchants, manufacturers, artizans, and labourers. The
complaints of the two latter classes of the community were increased
by a scarcity of bread, and the high price of provisions, which were
ascribed to the mal-administration of the ministers. These popular
discontents, however, might have been disregarded, had not Grenville
given offence to a royal personage, whose resentment would have ensured
the downfall of even a much greater and more popular man than the prime
minister.

About a week after he had given his assent to the American Stamp Act,
it was reported that his majesty was seriously ill, and it would appear
that his illness was a slight attack of that fearful malady which thrice
afflicted him during his long reign, and incapacitated him for his
kingly duties. This time his malady was transient; but, taking warning
by it, he acquainted his ministers that he was anxious for a Regency
Bill, and told them the particulars of his intention. The sketch of such
a bill was drawn up by Fox, now Lord Holland, which left the regent
to be named by the king, and which, among other members of the royal
family, omitted the name of the queen. The queen’s name was subsequently
added, but no mention was made of the Princess-dowager of Wales. The
king himself proposed that he should be invested with power, from time
to time, by instruments under his sign manual, to appoint either the
queen or any other person of the royal family, usually residing in Great
Britain, to be guardian of his succession and regent of the kingdom,
until his successor should have attained his eighteenth year. A bill to
this effect was carried in the upper house, but in the commons a motion
was made requiring the king to name those persons whom he would intrust
with so important a charge. This motion was negatived, and a question
was then raised as to the construction of the words “any other member
of the royal family,” and the answer given was, that they meant
“the descendants of George the Second.” This interpretation would have
excluded the princess-dowager from all share in the public councils, and
therefore an amendment was moved at the next reading to insert her
name next to that of the queen. This amendment was carried by a large
majority; but it was foreseen that the king would resent the insult put
upon his mother in both houses, and would attempt to rid himself of Mr.
Grenville and Lord Halifax, who had omitted to insert her name in the
bill at the very outset of the proceedings.

On the 15th of May, the king went in person to give his assent to
this bill. On that occasion a mob of silk-weavers and others, from
Spitalfields, went to St. James’s Palace with black flags and other
symptoms of mourning and distress, to present a petition, complaining
that they were reduced to a state of starvation by the importation of
French silks. Both houses of parliament were surrounded by them, where
they insulted various members, and even terrified the lords into an
adjournment. In the evening they attacked Bedford-house, and began to
pull down the walls, declaring that the duke had been bribed to make the
treaty of Fontainbleau, and that it had brought poverty and all other
curses into England. The riot act was read, and the mob dispersed, but
the streets were crowded with soldiers for some days for fear of an
outbreak. Reports were also spread of mutinies among the sailors at
Portsmouth, insurrections among the Norwich weavers, and riots in Essex
and Lancashire. The cabinet and country alike seemed to be fast going
to pieces; whence his majesty, combined with the insult offered to his
mother, resolved to make some attempt to form a new administration,
hoping thereby to effect a change in the aspect of public affairs.




ATTEMPTS TO FORM A NEW ADMINISTRATION.

In a letter written to the Earl of Hertford, when the yells of the
populace of London were ringing in his ears, Mr. Burke writes:—“The
Regency Bill has shown such want of capacity in the ministers, such an
inattention to the honour of the crown, if not such a design against it;
such imposition and surprise upon the king, and such a misrepresentation
of the disposition of parliament to the sovereign, that there is no
doubt a fixed resolution to get rid of them all—unless perhaps of
Grenville—but principally of the Duke of Bedford; so that you will have
much more reason to be surprised to find the ministry standing by the
end of next week, than to hear of their entire removal. Nothing but an
intractable temper in your friend Pitt can prevent a most admirable
and lasting system from being put together, and this crisis will show
whether pride or patriotism be predominant in his character: for you may
be assured he has it now in his power to come into the service of his
country upon any plan of politics he may choose to dictate, with great
and honourable terms to himself and to every friend he has in the world,
and with such a strength of power as will be equal to everything but
absolute despotism over the king and kingdom. A few days will show
whether he will take this part, or that of continuing on his back at
Hayes, talking fustian, excluded from all ministerial, and incapable
of all parliamentary service: for his gout is worse than ever, but his
pride may disable him more than his gout.”

At the very time Burke wrote thus, negociations were in progress with
Pitt. For when ministers went to the king on the 16th of May, to receive
his commands for his speech at the end of the session, he had given them
to understand that he would only have it prorogued, since he intended
to make a change in the administration. In consequence of this
determination, his majesty sent his uncle, the Duke of Cumberland,
to Hayes, in Kent, to treat with Pitt. The final reply of Pitt to the
offers is said to have been, “that he was ready to go to St. James’s
provided he might carry with him the constitution.” A total change of
men, measures, and counsels was involved in this reply; but the king had
some “friends” whom he wished to retain in their official situations,
and such a sweeping change could not be conceded. The Duke of Cumberland
continued his endeavours to form a ministry for a day or two, but no
one, possessing any merit, would undertake office when it was known
that Pitt had refused, and the king was compelled to retain his old
ministers. This was a mortifying circumstance in itself, but it was
rendered doubly so by the insolent behaviour of some of the members of
the cabinet. When he desired to know the conditions of their continuance
in office, they peremptorily demanded a royal promise of never
consulting the Earl of Bute; the instant dismissal of Mr. Mackenzie, his
lordship’s brother, from his high offices in Scotland; the deprivation
of the paymastership of the forces, held by Lord Holland, which should
be given to a member of the House of Commons; the nomination of Lord
Granby to be head of the army; and the discretionary power of nominating
to the government of Ireland whoever they pleased. The king expressed
his anger and astonishment at these hard terms, and bade them return at
ten o’clock at night for his answer. A partial compliance, however, was
necessary, and before the appointed hour he sent them word by the lord
chancellor that he would not bind himself by a promise never to consult
Bute, though he acquiesced in the propriety of not letting him interfere
in the councils of the state; that he consented to displace Mr.
Mackenzie from his office, as well as Lord Holland; but that he
absolutely refused the article about Lord Granby. Ministers now took
time to consider, but they were too fond of office to retire without
being actually compelled. On the following morning they gave up the
point of Lord Granby, and contented themselves with the promise of
not permitting Bute to interfere. They were, therefore, to continue in
office; and Charles Townshend was made paymaster of the forces, while
Lord Weymouth was appointed to the government in Ireland. But the king
considered that he was dishonoured, and that he was held in thraldom
by his ministers, whence he soon made fresh efforts to deliver himself.
Again he negociated with Pitt, and again negociations with him fell to
the ground. Pitt could not engage without Lord Temple, and Temple, when
sent for, raised objections which rendered the whole scheme abortive.
But the king was resolute in his determination to free himself from the
chains by which his ministers had enthralled him. Early in July, he
once more applied to his uncle, who undertook to treat with the Duke
of Newcastle, whose parliamentary weight was nearly a counterpoise to
Pitt’s oratory and popularity. Newcastle joined Cumberland in addressing
himself to the more moderate section of the opposition, and at length
a new ministry was formed. The Marquis of Rockingham became head of the
treasury; General Conway became one of the secretaries of state, and was
intrusted with the House of Commons; the Duke of Grafton was the other
secretary of state; Mr. Dowdeswell was the chancellor of the exchequer;
the Earl of Hertford was made lord-lieutenant of Ireland, instead of
Lord Weymouth; the president’s chair, vacated by the Duke of Bedford,
was given to Lord Winchelsea; and the Duke of Newcastle contented
himself with the privy seal. The celebrated Edmund Burke was engaged as
private secretary by Lord Rockingham, and now, for the first time, had
a seat in parliament. There seemed a reasonable hope that this ministry
would obtain strength and durability, but it wanted Pitt for its
supporter; and it was weakened in October by the death of the Duke of
Cumberland. This blow was more severely felt, because there was a want
of union in the members of this cabinet from the first, and where
there is no union there can be no real strength. Moreover, the Earl
of Rockingham, though one of the most honest, honourable, and
well-intentioned men in existence at that period, lacked the ability
for collecting the scattered energies of party, and forming them into a
system, whence it was soon found that his cabinet was unpopular; and, at
no distant period of time, it was compelled to give place to another. In
the whole course of its existence, indeed, it exhibited the lack of that
vitality which could alone make it memorable and enduring.

{GEORGE III 1765–1769.}




OPPOSITION TO THE STAMP DUTIES IN AMERICA.

The fatal effects of Grenville’s Stamp Act were soon made manifest—the
storm which the anticipation of it had raised, grew into a perfect
hurricane as soon as it was known in America that it was consummated.
Throughout the whole country a disposition existed to resist to the
death, rather than submit. The episcopalian and aristocratic colonists
of Virginia, alike with the presbyterian and democratic colonists of New
England, denounced the measure in the strongest language, and displayed
strong feelings of dislike to it. Nay, the Assembly of Virginia, which
hitherto had been pre-eminent in loyalty, was now the first to set an
example of disobedience. The House of Assembly there was shaken by
the eloquence of Patrick Henry, who took the lead in the debate. In
a resolution which he brought forward against the Stamp Act, Henry
exclaimed—“Cæsar had his Brutus; Charles I. his Oliver Cromwell; and
George III.”—the orator at this point was interrupted by a voice crying
“treason!” and, pausing for a moment, he added, “and George III. may
profit by that example. If that be treason, make the most of it.” When
tranquillity was restored, the assembly voted a series of resolutions,
declaring that the first settlers in Virginia had brought with them all
the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the people of England; that
they possessed the exclusive right of taxing themselves in their own
representative assemblies, which right had been constantly recognised by
the king and parliament of Great Britain; and that every attempt to
vest such a power in any other person or persons was illegal,
unconstitutional, and unjust, and had a tendency to destroy both
British and American independence. This had a great effect on the other
colonies, and the house of representatives of Boston suggested that a
congress should be held at New York, whither each province should send
deputies to concert measures for averting the grievance of the Stamp
Act. Nine out of thirteen of the colonies sent their delegates to this
congress, and fourteen strong resolutions were passed condemnatory of
the bill; and three petitions were concocted—one to the king, another
to the lords, and a third to the commons. From the decorous manner
adopted in its proceedings little alarm was excited, but by it an
important point was gained to the Americans—a closer connexion
was established by the meeting among the leading men of the various
colonies; and thus a way was prepared for a more general and extensive
combination should it be required by circumstances.

It was not in the assemblies alone that resistance to the Stamp Act was
manifested. Ominous proceedings were adopted by the public. As soon as
the news of it arrived in America, at Boston the colours of the shipping
were hoisted half-mast high, and the bells were rung muffled; at New
York the act was printed with a skull and cross bones, and hawked about
the streets by the title of “England’s Folly, and America’s Ruin;” while
at Philadelphia the people spiked the very guns on the ramparts.
The public irritation daily increased, and when at length the stamps
arrived, it was found impossible either to put them into circulation,
or to preserve them from destruction. The distributors were even forced
publicly to renounce, on oath, all concern with them; and riots broke
out in Boston, and several other cities, at which the public authorities
were compelled to connive. Law-agents generally resolved to forego the
practice of their profession rather than use stamps, and all stamped
mercantile or custom-house papers were seized as the ships came into
port, and publicly committed to the flames. By the 1st of November, the
time when the act came into operation, not a sheet of stamped paper was
to be found; and, therefore, all business which could not be legally
carried on without it, was brought to a stand—the courts of justice
were closed, and the ports shut up.

These measures were followed by others far more injurious to the
interests of Great Britain. Merchants entered into solemn engagements
not to order any more goods from England; to recall the orders already
given, if not fulfilled by the 1st of January, 1766; and not to dispose
of any goods sent to them on commission after that date, unless the
Stamp Act, and even the Sugar and Paper-money Acts were repealed.
Measures were also taken to render the importation of British
manufactures unnecessary. A society for the promotion of arts and
commerce was instituted at New York, and markets opened for the sale of
home-made goods, which soon poured into them from every quarter. Linens,
woollens, paper-hangings, coarse kind of iron-ware, and various other
articles of domestic life were approved by the society, and eagerly
purchased by the public. People of the highest fashion even preferred
wearing home-spun, or old clothes, rather than purchase articles which
could conduce to the welfare of Britain; and lest the new manufactories
should fail from want of materials, many entered into an engagement to
abstain from the flesh of the lamb. All classes were animated by the
spirit of resistance to their mother-country, and resolutions began to
be circulated of stopping exports as well as imports, and of preventing
the tobacco of Virginia and South Carolina from finding its way into the
British markets. The flame even spread to the West Indian plantations;
for in the islands of St. Christopher and Nevis, all stamps were
committed to the flames, and the distributors compelled to resign
office. Here was evidently work for the British Cabinet during the next
session of parliament, and we proceed to show how they acted.




EMBARRASSMENT OF MINISTERS AND MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

During the recess, ministers, who were divided in opinion and thwarted
by the king, could do nothing. It would not appear, indeed, that the
subject was considered of such vital importance as to demand instant
attention and extraordinary exertions. Parliament met on the 17th of
December, but it was only to be prorogued for the Christmas holidays,
and the king merely mentioned in his speech, that something had occurred
in America which would demand the attention of the legislature. In the
meantime a meeting was held at Rockingham-house, for the purpose of
arranging measures against the opening of the session, and particularly
with respect to America. Yet no vigorous measures were resolved on, and
all which they did decide upon was merely the terms in which the king’s
speech should be comprised when parliament reassembled.

{A.D. 1766}

Parliament reassembled on the 14th of January, when his majesty spoke
more at length on the subject of the American colonies, and said that
the papers were ordered to be laid before them. The subject was pointed
out to the members as the principal object of their deliberation, and it
was left to their wisdom, in full confidence the judgment and moderation
of the two houses would conciliate the colonists without compromising
the rights of the British legislature. Everything had been done, his
majesty said, by the governors, and the commanders of the forces in
America, for the suppression of riot and tumult, and the effectual
support of lawful authority—they had failed, and the rest was left to
them.

His majesty’s speech was followed by the presentation of the petitions
from America, and of numerous petitions from the great manufacturing
towns of the kingdom, which set forth the present ruin of all classes,
with the prospective derangement of the national finances; all which
seemed to declare that the time was arrived when effectual measures
should be taken for their redemption. Then succeeded the debate. It was
opened in the commons by Mr. Nugent, who condemned the opposition made
by the colonists, to what he deemed a reasonable and easy tax, yet
expressed his willingness to abandon it, provided they would solicit its
repeal as a boon, and acknowledge the right of the British legislature
to impose it: with him “a peppercorn as an acknowledgment of a right was
of more value than millions without such a concession.” Burke followed;
but nothing more is known of his first speech in parliament than that he
astonished the house by the force and fancy of his eloquence, and that
he gained by it the golden opinion of Pitt. That more experienced
orator next spoke, and his sentiments were more to the purpose. After
condemning the daring measures adopted by the late administration, and
blaming the indecision and tardy efforts of their successors, against
whom, as men, he had nothing to allege, as they were men of fair
characters, and such as he rejoiced to see in his majesty’s service,
bowing with grace and dignity to them, he observed—“Pardon me,
gentlemen, but confidence is a plant of slow growth in an aged bosom;
youth is the season of credulity. By comparing events with each other,
and reasoning from effects to causes, methinks I plainly discover an
overruling influence. I have had the honour to serve the crown, and if I
could have submitted to influence, I might have continued to serve, but
I would not be responsible for others. I have no local attachments:
it is indifferent to me whether a man was rocked in his cradle on this
side, or the other side of the Tweed. I sought for merit wherever it was
to be found. It is my boast that I was the first minister who looked for
it, and found it in the mountains of the north. I called it forth, and
drew into your service a hardy and intrepid race of men!—men who, when
left to your jealousy, became a prey to the artifices of your enemies,
and had gone nigh to overturn the state in the war before the last.
These men, in the last war, were brought to combat on your side; they
served with fidelity as they fought with valour, and conquered for you
in every part of the world. Detested be the national reflections against
them!—they are unjust, groundless, illiberal, unmanly. When I ceased
to serve his majesty as a minister, it was not the country of the man by
which I was moved; but the man of that country wanted wisdom, and held
principles incompatible with freedom.”

The great orator proceeded to observe, that when the resolution of
taxing America was first taken he was ill in bed, and if he could have
been brought to the floor of that house, he would have given his firm
testimony against the measure. He then expressed a hope that the members
of the British legislature would not consider it a point of honour, or
themselves bound to persevere in carrying out what they had begun.
His opinion was, that Great Britain had no right to lay a tax on the
American colonies; but at the same time he uttered this seemingly
contradictory opinion—that her authority over them was sovereign in
all cases of legislation. He said—“The colonists are subjects of this
kingdom, equally entitled with yourselves to all the natural advantages
of mankind, and the peculiar privileges of Englishmen: equally bound by
its laws, and equally participating in its free constitution. Taxation
is no part of the legislative power. Taxes are the voluntary gift and
grant of the commons alone. In legislation, the three estates of the
realm are alike concerned; but the concurrence of the peers and the
crown to a tax is only necessary to clothe it with the form of a law.
The gift and grant is of the commons alone.” Having shown in what way
the great bulk of the land had passed into the hands of the commons, he
remarked—“When, therefore, in this house, we give and grant, we give
and grant what is our own. But in an American tax what do we do?
We, your majesty’s commons of Great Britain, give and grant to your
majesty—what? our own property?—No; we give and grant the property
of your majesty’s commons of America! It is an absurdity in terms. The
distinction between legislation and taxation is essentially necessary to
liberty. The crown, the peers, are equally legislative powers with the
commons. If taxation be a part of simple legislation, the crown and the
peers have rights to taxation as well as yourselves—rights which they
will claim, which they will exercise, whenever the principle can be
supported by power.” Pitt then proceeded to combat the arguments
of those who asserted that America was represented in the British
parliament. “I would fain know,” said he, “by whom an American is
represented here. Is he represented by any knight of the shire, in any
county in this kingdom? Or will you tell him that he is represented
by any representative of a borough—a borough which perhaps its own
representatives never saw? This is what is called the rotten part of the
constitution. It cannot last a century: if it does not drop, it must be
amputated.” Pitt concluded by reasserting, that the commons of America,
represented in their assemblies, had ever been in possession of the
constitutional right of granting their own money; and this kingdom had
ever been in the possession of the rights of binding the colonies by her
laws, and by her regulations and restrictions in trade, navigation,
and manufactures, and in fact in everything, except taking money out of
their pockets without their free and full consent.

The house was awed by Pitt’s oratory, and, for some time, no one rose to
reply. General Conway at length broke the silence by frankly declaring
that his sentiments were generally conformable to those of Pitt; and by
excusing ministers for their tardy notice of the subject, on the grounds
that the first news of the troubles were vague and imperfect. In denying
the continued ascendency of Bute, however, the general spoke with great
warmth, utterly disclaiming it for himself, and, as far as he could
discern, for all the members of the cabinet. Grenville, who followed,
did not treat Pitt with such urbanity. He defended himself and his
measures with great warmth and ability, and boldly declared that the
seditious spirit of the colonies owed its birth to the factions in the
house of commons, and that gentlemen were careless of the consequences
of what they uttered, provided it answered the purposes of opposition.
As he ceased speaking, several members rose together; but Pitt was among
them, and a loud cry was made for him, so that the rest gave way, and
left him to answer the attack. Taking no notice of the denial which
Conway gave to his charge concerning Bute’s holding paramount influence
in the cabinet, which denial he could not with justice gainsay, he
confined his remarks to Grenville’s arguments and grave charge. Since,
he said, that member had gone into the justice, policy, and expediency
of the Stamp Act, he would follow him through the whole field, and
combat all his arguments. He bitterly complained that Grenville should
have designated the liberty of speech in that house as a crime; but
declared that the imputation should not prevent him from uttering his
sentiments upon the subject. He then proceeded thus:—“The gentleman
tells us America is obstinate—America is almost in open rebellion. I
rejoice that America has resisted. Three millions of people, so dead to
all the feelings of liberty as voluntary to submit to be slaves, would
have been fit instruments to make slaves of the rest.” Pitt then said,
that in all our wants of money, no minister, since the revolution,
had ever thought of taxing the American colonies; that he had, when in
office, refused to burn his fingers with an American Stamp Act; and he
recapitulated his arguments to prove that legislation and taxation were
two different things, and that while we had a right to regulate the
trade of the colonists, we could not legally or justly impose taxes upon
them. He then asserted, that the profits to Great Britain from the trade
of the colonies were two millions a year, and that this was the sum
which carried England triumphantly through the last war, and the price
America paid us for protection. “And shall,” he asked, “a miserable
financier come with a boast, that he can fetch a peppercorn into the
exchequer by the loss of millions to the nation?” He added—“I am
convinced the whole commercial system of America may be altered to
advantage: you have prohibited where you ought to have encouraged,
and you have encouraged where you ought to have prohibited: improper
restraints have been laid on the Continent in favour of the islands. Let
the acts of parliament, in consequence of treaties, remain; but let not
an English minister become a custom-house officer for Spain or for any
foreign power. Much is wrong; much may be amended for the general
good of the whole. The gentleman must not wonder that he was not
contradicted, when, as a minister, he asserted the right of parliament
to tax America. I know not how it is, but there is a modesty in this
house which does not choose to contradict a minister—even your chair,
sir, looks towards St. James’s. I wish gentlemen would think better of
this modesty; if they do not, perhaps the collective body may begin to
abate of its respect for the representative. A great deal has been said
without doors of the power, the strength of America—it is a topic that
ought to be cautiously meddled with. In a good cause, on a sound bottom,
the force of this country can crush America to atoms; but on this
ground, on the Stamp Act, when so many here will think it a crying
injustice, I am one who will lift up my hands against it;—in such a
cause your success would be hazardous. America, if she fell, would fall
like a strong man; she would embrace the pillars of the state, and
pull down the constitution along with her.” Pitt, then deprecating
the conduct of those who judged the Americans with an eye of severity,
said—“I acknowledge they have not acted in all things with prudence
and temper; they have been wronged; they have been driven to madness
by injustice. Will you punish them for the madness you have occasioned?
Rather let prudence and temper come first from this side. I will
undertake for America that she will follow the example. There are
two lines in a ballad of Prior, on a man’s behaviour to his wife,
so applicable to you and your colonies, that I cannot help repeating
them:—

     ‘Be to her faults a little blind;
      Be to her virtues very kind.’”

Pitt concluded by proposing that the Stamp Act should be repealed,
absolutely, totally, and immediately; but at the same time he advised,
that the repeal should be accompanied by the strongest declaration of
the sovereign authority of this country over the colonies, in everything
that relates to trade and manufactures—in fact, in everything except
taking their money out of their pockets without their consent.

This speech of Mr. Pitt had a potent effect upon the administration and
the country at large. Nearly all the ministers coincided in his views,
and petitions, which poured into the house from all parts against the
stamp act, and which had been imperiously rejected by the late cabinet,
were received with all due deference. Burke made two speeches against
it, which were commended by Pitt, and filled the town with wonder. So
great was the change in public opinion upon the subject, that a bill was
brought in by the ministers for the repeal of the act, which bill was
passed by a great majority. It was accompanied by a declaratory bill,
setting forth the supreme right, sovereignty, &c. of Great Britain over
her colonies in all other matters of legislation, and reprobating the
tumultuous proceedings of the colonists. The repeal act was sent up
to the lords, where it encountered a violent opposition, but it passed
toward the end of March, when it received the reluctant consent of the
crown. Sixty-one peers entered a strong protest against its non-taxing
principle, and it was observed that in both houses the members belonging
to the royal household voted with the opposition: a strong proof of his
majesty’s feeling upon this subject.

It was asserted by some that ministers were “bullied” into the repeal
of the stamp act by Pitt. This was manifestly unjust, both to the
great orator and the ministers themselves. In this session they showed
themselves equally ready to redress grievances at home as in America.
Thus they proposed and carried a repeal of the obnoxious cider-tax,
laying on a different duty, and the mode of collecting it; they passed
an act for restraining the importation of foreign silks; and they
abolished the old duties on houses and windows, and settled the rates
with greater equity toward the middle and lower classes of society. They
also appeased the general apprehension of a scarcity of bread, by
orders to prevent the exportation of corn, and by enforcing the old laws
against monopoly, forestalling, and regrating. Moreover, they passed a
bill for opening free ports in the islands of Dominica and Jamaica; made
several new and important regulations in the commercial system of the
colonies; and took off some burdensome restrictions. Finally, they
promoted the extension of trade in general by a commercial treaty with
Russia, and they obtained from France a liquidation of those bills which
had been left unsettled since the cession of Canada.

Still, though the legislative acts of this administration were of great
importance to the country, and were calculated to insure popularity,
its doom was sealed. By a large portion of the community, the members of
which it was composed were considered as intruders, who kept Pitt out
of office, and they had lost the confidence of the king by the repeal
of the Stamp Act. The resentment of the king was also excited by their
omitting to procure a supply of money for his younger brothers. Sensible
of their weakness, the Duke of Grafton resigned office, and the seals
which he resigned were given to the Duke of Richmond. When he resigned
he declared that he had no fault to find with his colleague’s, except
that they wanted strength, and that his opinion was, Mr. Pitt alone
could give vigour and solidity to any administration in the present
state of affairs. Under him, his grace said, he was “willing to serve
in any capacity, not merely as a general officer, but as a pioneer:
under him he would take up a spade or a mattock.” Such was the situation
in which the ministers found themselves at the close of this session,
which was prorogued early in June.




SENTIMENTS OF THE AMERICANS ON THE DECLARATORY ACT.

The manner in which the repeal of the Stamp Act was received in America
seemed to justify the measure. Although accompanied with the Declaratory
Act, it was welcomed by many persons among the higher classes, of honest
and upright mind, with great satisfaction. Washington declared that
those who were instrumental in procuring the repeal were entitled to the
thanks of all well-wishers to Great Britain and her colonies. There
were fierce republican spirits, however, in New England, who viewed the
Declaratory Act in the same light which they had viewed the Stamp Act;
and as soon as the first burst of joy had subsided, this was made the
subject of their declamation, and a stimulus to popular excitement.
Public writers were employed to prevent a return of harmony between
Great Britain and her colonies, and though addresses of thanks were
voted by the assemblies to the king, this was but an evanescent show
of gratitude. The same temper was found especially to prevail in the
assembly of Massachusets against the Declaratory Act, as had been
displayed against the Stamp Act, and the spirit of resistance soon
spread to the other colonies. The right of legislative authority assumed
by Great Britain over her colonies was loudly questioned, and bills were
passed in the assemblies independently of the British parliament, and
in defiance of our declared sovereign legislative right. One breach was
therefore healed by the repeal of the Stamp Act, but another was opened
by the scarcely less obnoxious act with which it was accompanied. A tree
of liberty had been planted, and there was a universal disposition
to preserve its leaves and its fruits from the touch of kingly and
sovereign power.




THE DISSOLUTION OF THE ROCKINGHAM CABINET.

The seeds of the dissolution of the ministry, as before shown, were
thickly scattered, and it was easy to foresee that the event was at
no great distance. Its fall, however, might have been retarded for a
little space, had it not been for the intrigues of the chancellor, Henry
Earl of Northington. In order to discredit the cabinet, that nobleman
started numerous difficulties on some legal points that were submitted
to his judgment, and set on foot several intrigues, which accelerated
its downfall. The first token of his defection appeared in the strong
dissatisfaction which he exhibited on account of the commercial treaty
with Russia, and it was soon after made more fully manifest in a meeting
of ministers on the subject of the government of Canada. There appears
to have been no good ground for his opposition, but Northington panted
for retirement, and longed to serve his ancient friend Pitt; whence it
pleased him to denounce a report drawn up and submitted to the council
on this subject as theoretical, visionary, and unworthy of practical
statesmen. The meeting broke up without coming to any conclusion, and
before another could be convened, Northington demanded an audience of
the king; resigned under the pretence that the present ministry was
unable to carry on the government; and recommended that his majesty
should call Pitt into his councils. In consequence of this,
Pitt received the personal commands of his majesty to form a new
administration, offering him a _carte blanche_ for its formation.

Hitherto Pitt had manifested great patriotism, having served his
country, apparently, for the love of it alone. That he was ambitious,
however, he now proved. In reply to his majesty’s commands he spoke of
his infirmities, and—although he was only fifty-eight years old—of his
great age. Under these circumstances he proposed taking to himself not
the premiership, with the direction of the house of commons, but the
office of privy-seal, which implied his exaltation to the peerage. The
king and the country alike stared with astonishment at this proposition,
but his views were not thwarted, and he proceeded to form his own
cabinet. Negociations failed with Lord Temple, the Marquess of
Rockingham, Lord Gower, Mr. Dowdeswell, and Lord Scarborough. In
the midst of them, however, Pitt received an autograph note from
his majesty, announcing his creation as Earl of Chatham, and thus
stimulated, he proceeded in his task. On the 2nd of August the members
of the new cabinet were formally announced in the Gazette. Pitt, as
Earl of Chatham, took the office of privy-seal; Lord Camden was made
chancellor; the Earl of Shelburne was appointed one of the secretaries
of state; General Conway continued in office as the other; the Duke of
Grafton was made first lord of the treasury; Charles Townshend became
chancellor of the exchequer; Sir Charles Saunders succeeded to the
admiralty; and the Earl of Hillsborough was nominated first lord of
trade. Several changes were also made in the subordinate places of the
treasury and the admiralty boards, and the strange medley, which soon
became more mixed and various, has been thus described by Burke:—“He
[Lord Chatham] made an administration so chequered and speckled; he
put together a piece of joinery so crossly indented and whimsically
dovetailed; a cabinet so variously inlaid; such a piece of diversified
mosaic; such a tesselated pavement without cement; here a bit of black
stone, and there a bit of white; patriots and courtiers; king’s friends
and republicans; Whigs and Tories; treacherous friends and open enemies;
that it was indeed a very curious show, but utterly unsafe to touch,
and unsure to stand on. The colleagues whom he had assorted at the same
boards stared at each other, and were obliged to ask, Sir, your name?
Sir, you have the advantage of me. Mr. Such-a-one, I beg a thousand
pardons. I venture to say it did so happen, that persons had a single
office divided between them, who had never spoken to each other in their
lives, until they found themselves, they knew not how, pigging together,
heads and points, in the same truckle bed.”




DECLINE OF LORD CHATHAM’S POPULARITY.

Lord Chesterfield characterised the exaltation of Pitt to an earldom as
“a fall up stairs”—a fall which hurt him so much, that he would never
be able to stand upright again. By his acceptance of a coronet, in
truth, he greatly diminished his popularity. Burke undermined his
influence in the city by two clever publications: in the first of these
he gave an account of the late short administration, and in the second
he gave a humorous and ironical reply to it, in which the disingenuous
conduct of their successors was ably exposed. The wit of Chesterfield
ably seconded the pen of Burke; and the Earl of Chatham soon found that
though he was dignified by the king, he had shorn himself of all his
honours in the sight of the people. The influence which the Earl of Bute
was supposed to have had over him tended still more to blight his fair
fame. He was taunted with being a willing agent of men whom he did not
esteem, and his acceptance of a peerage was a never-failing source of
invective. Moreover, in his negociations with his brother-in-law, Lord
Temple, he had quarrelled with that nobleman, and all its disparaging
circumstances were freely discussed to his lasting disadvantage.. A
shower of pamphlets appealed against him, and the city of London,
where his influence had recently reigned paramount, mortified him, by
declining repeated proposals of presenting him with an address on his
appointment. Men saw in him no longer the unblemished patriot, but
looked upon him as a cringing slave to royalty for place and power. In
their displeasure they may have judged too harshly, but it is certain,
as Lord Chesterfield observed, that he was no longer Mr. Pitt in any
respect, but _only_ the Earl of Chatham. The charms of his eloquence
were lost for ever, for when the people can place no confidence in their
rulers, the finest oratory is but an empty sound.

It happened unfortunately for the Earl of Chatham’s popularity, that
owing to a deficiency in the harvest of last year great scarcity
prevailed, and as distress existed on the continent. The people, always
disposed to look upon the dark side of the picture, apprehended that
the country would be involved in all the horrors of famine. The price
of provisions greatly increased, and in consequence tumultuous riots
occurred in various parts of the kingdom, in which many lives were lost.
Some of the rioters were captured, and special commissions were sent
into the country to try them, and, in many instances, they were brought
to condign punishment. A proclamation was issued for enforcing the law
against forestallers and regraters, but as the price of all articles
rose, and the city of London made a representation to the throne
respecting large orders for wheat which had been received from the
continent, another was issued prohibiting its exportation. At the same
time an embargo was laid by royal authority on all outward-bound vessels
laden with corn.

It was not in England alone that the waning influence of the Earl of
Chatham became manifest. One of his first diplomatic attempts was to
establish a powerful northern confederacy, principally between England,
Prussia, and Russia, in order to counterbalance the formidable alliance
framed by the Bourbons in their family compact. The king of Prussia,
however, was averse to the formation of any new and stricter connexions
with England, as well on account of the usage he had met with during the
late war, as of the unsettled state of the government of Great Britain
since the peace. “Till he saw,” he said, “more stability in our
administration, he did not choose to draw his connexions with us
closer,” and the negociations was therefore dropped.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

The session was opened on the 11th of November, and the principal
topic of the king’s speech was the scarcity of corn; and measures were
recommended, if necessary, for allaying or remedying the evil. The
address was opposed in both houses, and in the commons four amendments
were moved, but the government in every instance had a majority. On the
subject of the embargo, however, and the delay of assembling parliament
when the country was in such critical circumstances, ministers had a
harder battle to fight. It was thought right to pass a bill of indemnity
in favour of those who had acted in obedience to the council with
respect to the embargo, and when this bill was brought in by a member
of the cabinet, a remark was made, that although it provided for the
security of the inferior officers, who had acted under the proclamation,
it passed over those who advised the measure. This gave rise to much
altercation and debate, especially among the lords, where the Earl of
Chatham, Lord Camden, and others, who had long been the advocates of
popular rights, vindicated the present exercise of royal prerogative,
not on the plea of necessity but of right: arguing that a dispensing
power was inherent in the crown, which might be exerted during the
recess of parliament, but which expired whenever parliament reassembled.
Camden asserted that Junius Brutus would not have hesitated to entrust
such a power even to a Nero, and that it was at most but “a forty
day’s tyranny.” The Earl of Chatham was a more powerful advocate of the
measure. He vindicated the issuing of the embargo by legal authority
during the recess of parliament as an act of power justifiable on the
ground of necessity, and he read a paragraph from Locke on Government,
to show that his views were borne out by that great friend of liberty,
that constitutional philosopher, and that liberal statesman. The
sentiments of the ministers, however, were strongly opposed by Lords
Temple, Lyttleton, and Mansfield, the latter of whom, though he had once
been spell-bound by court influence, “rode the great horse Liberty with
much applause.” The Earl of Chatham replied, but the constitutional
principles which his opposers laid down could not be answered with
success, for although parliament passed the act of indemnity, yet the
opposition lords so enlightened the public mind upon the subject, that
the cry was instantly raised that the present ministers had sold their
consciences to the court, and were in a league to extend the prerogative
beyond the precedent of the worst periods in English history. The
ferment was greatly increased by Mr. Beckford’s declaring in the house
of commons, that the crown had in all cases of necessity a power to
dispense with laws: an assertion which retraction, explanation, and
contradiction from the same lips, could not efface from the public mind.
When the bill passed it was in an amended state: the amendment including
the advisers, as well as the officers, who had acted under the orders
of council in enforcing the embargo. But even this, which implied an
acknowledgment of error, was not sufficient to satisfy the public mind,
for the clamour still continued against the ministers. The Earl of
Chatham was also embarrassed by other circumstances, and in order to
strengthen his hands, he was compelled to forego his determination,
and to overlook his declaration, that he would never again have any
connexion with the old Duke of Newcastle. The duke had a party which
would be important to so weak a cabinet, and in order to gratify him,
Lord Edgecumbe was ungraciously dismissed from his office of treasurer
of the household, to make room for Sir John Shelley, a near relation
of his grace. But the remedy was as bad as the disease. Indignant at the
treatment which their colleague had received, Lord Resborough, the Duke
of Portland, the Earl of Scarborough, Lord Monson, Sir Charles Saunders,
first lord of the admiralty, Admiral Keppel, and Sir William Meredith,
all sent in their resignation, and they, with their adherents, ranged
themselves on the side of the opposition. These numerous secessions
compelled Chatham to negociate more explicitly, not only with
Newcastle’s party, but with that also which was headed by the Duke of
Bedford. The place of first lord of the admiralty was offered to
Lord Gower, who took a journey to Woburn, for the express purpose of
consulting his grace upon the subject. But negociations with the Bedford
party concluded with its total alienation from the administration, nor
were those who accepted office thoroughly conciliated. These were Sir
Edward Hawke, who was made first lord of the admiralty, and Sir Percy
Brett and Mr. Jenkinson, who filled the other seats of the board; while
Lords Hillsborough and Le Despenser were appointed joint postmasters.
The ministry, as thus patched up, was more anomalous than ever, and
Chatham aware of this, and seeing that his popularity was daily more and
more declining, became a prey to grief, disappointment, and vexation.
At times he sank into the lowest state of despondency, and left his
incapable colleagues, to make their own arrangements and adopt their
own measures. But they could not act efficiently without him. Burke
says:—“Having put so much the larger part of his enemies and opposers
into power, the confusion was such that his own principles could not
possibly have any effect, or influence, in the conduct of others. If
ever he fell into a fit of the gout, or if any other cause withdrew
him from public cares, principles directly the contrary were sure to
predominate. When he had executed his plan, he had not an inch of ground
to stand upon. When he had accomplished his scheme of administration,
he was no longer a minister. When his face was hid but for a moment, his
whole system was on a wide sea without chart or compass.” Yet Chatham,
just before the recess, put a bold front upon his affairs in the house.
He proclaimed a war against party cabals, and asserted that his great
point was to destroy faction, and that he could face and dare the
greatest and proudest connexions. But this was an Herculean task which
neither Chatham nor any other minister has yet been able to accomplish.
Faction is an hydraheaded monster, which no man can destroy, either by
the charms of his eloquence or the terror of his countenance.

{A.D. 1767}

Chatham found that the warfare was an unequal one, and that he had not
sufficient strength to withstand the power of his enemies. Hence, at the
end of December, when all the appointments were made, he retired to his
estate of Burton Pynset, which had been recently left him, where he took
up his abode, doing nothing for the state, and yet taking the salary
attached to his office. Parliament reassembled after the recess without
him, his friends in the cabinet wondering at, and the king himself
lamenting, his absence. Yet the ministers attempted to work without him.
The chancellor of the exchequer proposed that the land-tax should be
continued at four shillings in the pound, stating that the proceeds of
such a tax would enable him to bring about the most brilliant operation
of finance recorded in the annals of Great Britain. This was a new
measure, for hitherto it had been the practice at the return of peace to
take off any addition that had been made to the land-tax in time of war.
Hence when Townshend proposed it in committee he was laughed at by the
country members, who contended for its reduction to three, or even
two, shillings in the pound. Townshend had nobody by him to second his
assertions, or give him powerful support; and when Mr. Grenville moved
that the land-tax should be reduced to three shillings, his motion
was carried by a majority of eighteen. It was said that the country
gentlemen in effecting this reduction, “had bribed themselves with a
shilling in the pound of their own land-tax,” but as this was the first
money-bill in which any cabinet had been successfully opposed since
the Revolution, it was rightly viewed as a symptom of weakness in the
administration: yet Townshend retained his office.

{GEORGE III. 1765–1769}




EAST INDIA QUESTION.

The great question discussed in parliament during this session related
to the East Indies. At this period the East India Company held “the
gorgeous East in fee.” The merchant princes of Leadenhall-street, who
commenced their career with a strip of sea-coast on the outermost limits
of Hindostan, had now acquired principalities and kingdoms, and had even
made themselves masters of the vast inheritance of Aurungzebe. Fortunate
as the Argonauts, they found and possessed themselves of the “golden
fleece,” which had been the object of their search. Enormous fortunes
were made with a rapidity hitherto unknown, and they were gathered into
the laps of even the most obscure adventurers. The fables of the ring
and the lamp were more than realised, and the fountain from whence these
riches ran appeared to flow from an inexhaustible source. Men had only
to go and stand by its brink, and if avarice could be satisfied, they
might soon return home with not only sufficient wealth to maintain
them in opulence and splendour, but with some to spare for the poor and
needy.

Such were the views which government seems to have taken of these
merchant princes. Early in November a committee was appointed for
investigating the nature of their charters, treaties, and grants, and
for calculating the expenses which had been incurred on their account
by government. In the course of this scrutiny two questions suggested
themselves to the committee; namely, whether the company had any right
to territorial acquisitions, and whether it was proper for them to enjoy
a monopoly of trade. Some of the members argued that the company had
a right, while on the other side some maintained that, from the costly
protection afforded it, government had an equitable claim to the
revenues of all territory acquired by conquest. It was the opinion of
the cabinet, that the state did not possess its proper share of the
company’s profits, and the chancellor of the exchequer conceived that by
either taking their territorial conquests into the hands of government,
or making them pay largely for keeping that management in their ow a
hands, the state would obtain that wealth of which it stood so much
in need. Chatham’s attention was drawn to this subject, but he merely
advised that Beckford should make a motion for examining into the state
of the East India Company, and remained still in the west of England.
This motion was made, and the house resolved itself into a committee of
inquiry, and called for papers. In the meantime the company suggested
an amicable arrangement, and presented a series of demands, among which
were—that the administration should prolong the charter to the year
1800, or to a further term, and to confirm to the company the sole and
exclusive trade of the East Indies for three years at least after the
expiration of the charter granted in the last reign; that it should
agree to an alteration in the inland duty upon tea, with the view of
preventing smuggling; that it should allow a drawback on the exportation
of tea; that it should alter the duties on calicoes and muslins; that
it should consent to some proper methods of recruiting the company’s
military forces, and for strengthening their cause in India; that it
should prevent the commanders of the company’s ships and others from
conveying any kind of warlike stores clandestinely to the East Indies;
that it should use its strong interposition with the court of France
to obtain large sums of money which the company had expended for the
maintenance and transport of French prisoners to Europe; and that it
should use its strong interposition likewise with the court of Spain
with respect to the Manilla ransom, that the company might obtain
indemnification for the great expenses incurred by that expedition. The
company laid before the house their charters, treaties with the native
sovereigns, letters and correspondence, and the state of their revenues
in Bengal, Bahar, and Orissa; but the whole affair was so complicated,
that the ministers could not make themselves thoroughly masters of
the subject. Not one would, in fact, undertake the management of the
business. They shifted the proposals from one to another, and could not
come to any determination what to accept or what to reject. At every
stage of the business it was attended with violent debates. Townshend
was strongly in favour of an amicable arrangement with the company,
laying great stress on the _quantum_ to be given for the prolongation of
the term of their charter, while Company declared that the salvation
of the country depended upon the proper adjustment of this nice affair.
Still Chatham kept aloof from the business, and he either would not from
illness, or could not from despondency, give his thoughts and directions
in writing as to what steps to take and what further motion to make. In
the end, therefore, after many divisions, a bill was framed, granting
nearly all that was asked for by the company, and binding it to pay
£400,000 per annum, in half-yearly payments, and to indemnify the
exchequer, should any loss be sustained in consequence of lowering
the inland duties on tea, and the allowance of the drawback on its
exportation. But the term of this contract was limited to two years;
commencing from the 1st of February of the current year; so that the
company had a further interference with their territories and wealth in
prospect: but till the expiration of that term, their territorial rights
were fully admitted.

While this subject was under parliamentary discussion, the proprietors
of East India stock demanded of the court, that, as the company had
gained so much territory and so many new advantages, a larger dividend
should be declared. In compliance with this demand the dividends were
increased from ten to twelve and a half per cent., which step called for
the interference of government. In order to check a proceeding which was
considered calculated to renew the gambling stock and share jobbing of
the memorable South Sea year, two bills were brought into the house by
ministers; one for regulating the qualifications of voters in trading
companies, and the other for restraining and limiting the making of
dividends by the company; fixing them at ten per cent. This latter bill
encountered a most violent opposition both by the company and in the
house, particularly by the lords, but it was carried, and received the
royal sanction.




AMERICAN TAXATION.

Soon after the reassembling of parliament Mr. Grenville, intent upon
taxing America, had proposed saddling that country for the support
of troops, &c., and the chancellor of the exchequer, in reply, pledged
himself to the house to find a revenue in the colonies sufficient to
meet the expenses. Accordingly, during the session, he introduced a
bill to lay certain duties on glass, tea, paper, and painters’ colours,
imported from Great Britain into America. This bill was carried through
both houses with the greatest facility, and another act passed with
equal facility, which placed these duties, and all other customs and
duties in the American colonies, under the management of the
king’s resident commissioners. These acts were followed by one more
justifiable. The assembly of New York had refused to comply with the
statute requiring a grant of additional rations to the troops stationed
in that province; and the refractory disposition of the colonists made
it manifest that their intention was to deny the jurisdiction of Great
Britain altogether. It was evident that a spirit of infatuation had
taken deep root in America, and it was easy to foresee that confusion
and bloodshed would one day ensue. Under these circumstances, and with a
view of checking the onward progress of the march of insubordination, an
act was passed, prohibiting the governor, council, and assembly of New
York from passing any legislative act, till satisfaction should be given
as to the treatment of the commissioners and troops, and submission paid
to the Mutiny Act. But no measure which the parliament of England could
devise, whether coercive or conciliatory, could tame the fierce spirit
which the Stamp Act had created, and the new scheme of duties on imports
was calculated to confirm in hostility to Great Britain. The breach grew
wider and wider, until at length it was past all remedy.




CHANGES IN THE MINISTRY.

Parliament was prorogued on the 2nd of July, with a speech from his
majesty, in which he acknowledged annuities of £8000, which had been
settled during this session on each of the king’s brothers; namely, the
Dukes of York, Gloucester, and Cumberland. During the recess, an event
occurred which threatened to overthrow the tottering cabinet. This
was the death of Charles Townshend, who suddenly expired on the 4th of
September. But before his death, there were signs of a dissolution of
the ministry, and Townshend was actually engaged in the projection of
a new administration. Lord Northington and General Conway had both
expressed a wish to resign, and the Duke of Grafton showed a greater
disposition for pleasure than for business, whence negociations were
opened by Townshend with the Rockingham party.

His death set these aside, but several changes soon afterwards took
place among the great officers of state. The Earl of Chatham, afflicted
with the gout, and indisposed to business, still remained idle; and the
king therefore, authorized the Duke of Grafton to make the necessary
changes in the cabinet. All that could be done, however, before the
meeting of parliament, was to entrust the seals of the office of
chancellor of the exchequer to Lord Mansfield, chief justice of the
king’s bench, and to empower him to renew negociations with the Duke of
Bedford, in which the Duke of Grafton had been unsuccessful.

The ministry was in this unsettled state when the parliament met in
November. The principal point recommended to its attention by his
majesty was the high price of corn, with the consequent suffering of the
poor. This subject was also impressed on parliament by strong petitions
from all parts of the country; and an act was passed, extending the
prohibition against exportation, and encouraging the importation of
grain.

In the midst of these proceedings, Lord North was prevailed upon to
accept the chancellorship of the exchequer; Mr. Thomas Townshend, cousin
of the late Charles Townshend, succeeded him as joint paymaster of the
forces; and his place, as one of the lords of the treasury, was given
to Mr. Jenkinson. Soon after this, General Conway and Lord Northington
insisted on resigning, and fresh overtures were made to the Duke of
Bedford. That nobleman having been gained over, Earl Gower became
president of the council in the place of Lord Northington, and Lord
Weymouth secretary of state in lieu of Conway. At the same time the Earl
of Hillsborough was appointed third secretary of state, which was a new
office; and he was succeeded as joint paymaster with Lord North, by
the Duke of Bedford’s ally, Lord Sandwich. General Conway was
appointed lieutenant-general of the ordnance; and the ministry, thus
reconstructed, took the name of the Duke of Grafton’s administration. As
for the Earl of Chatham he was still a cipher, keeping aloof at Bath, or
at Burton Pynsent, or at Hayes in Kent, where he would neither see
nor speak to anybody. But he still retained the privy seal, and still
retained the emoluments of office, and the king was afraid to deprive
him of them.

{A.D. 1768}

Parliament, in this session, extended the act which restricted the
East India Company’s dividends to ten per cent.; but scarcely any
other business was transacted beside the voting of supplies. The king
prorogued parliament on the 10th of March, and on the 12th of that month
it was dissolved by proclamation, it having nearly completed its legal
term of seven years.




PROCEEDINGS IN AMERICA.

The new Revenue Act, which imposed duties on various articles of
merchandise, excited great resentment in America. It was looked upon by
the colonists, indeed, as a deceptive measure, having a similar object
to that of the Stamp Act, and it had the effect of reviving a question,
which the British parliament should have endeavoured to have consigned
to utter oblivion. The Americans, animated by a spirit of resistance,
would now no longer acknowledge that distinction between external and
internal taxation, on which they had at first grounded their claim
for relief. Their presses teemed with invectives against the British
legislature, and it was confidently asserted that England was resolved
to reduce the colonies to a state of abject slavery. The assembly of
Massachusets Bay took the lead in opposing the government, and it soon
engaged the other colonies to join in resisting the mother-country.
A petition was likewise sent by that house to the king, and letters,
signed by their speaker, to several of the British cabinet, containing
statements of their rights and grievances, and soliciting relief.

A letter was also sent to Mr. De Berdt, their agent in London,
instructing him to oppose the obnoxious measure on every ground of right
and policy. This letter adverted to the appropriation of the revenue
intended to be thus unconstitutionally raised—stating that it was to
supply a support for governors and judges, and a standing army. On both
these grounds, as well as its unconstitutional nature, the house opposed
it, remarking, on the subject of the standing army, in the following
terms, by way of remonstrance:—“As Englishmen and British subjects, we
have an aversion to a standing army, which we reckon dangerous to our
civil liberties; and considering the examples of ancient times, it seems
a little surprising that a mother-state should trust large bodies of
mercenary troops in her colonies, at so great a distance from her; lest,
in process of time, when the spirits of the people shall be depressed by
the military power, another Caesar should arise and usurp the authority
of his master.”

A circular letter was sent, in the name of the assembly of Massachusets
Bay, to the other provincial assemblies, informing them of the measures
already taken; and it was couched in such terms that it had the effect
of lulling the suspicions of some whose opinions were not so violent,
and of making many of them firm adherents to the cause of liberty. The
conduct of this republican assembly excited strong indignation in the
ministry. A letter was sent, by Lord Hillsborough, to the governor,
expressing great displeasure against those who had endeavoured to revive
the dissensions which had been so injurious to both countries, and
directing him to dissolve the assembly if it should decline to rescind
the vote which gave rise to the circular. This letter was laid before
the house; but instead of rescinding the vote, it justified the spirit
and language of the circular, and declared that, as it had been answered
by several of the assemblies, the vote had been already executed, and
could not therefore be rescinded. The conclusion of this uncompromising
reply was as follows:—“We take this opportunity faithfully to represent
to your excellency, that the new revenue acts and measures are not only
disagreeable, but in every view are deemed an insupportable burden and
grievance, with very few exceptions, by all the freeholders and other
inhabitants of this jurisdiction: and we beg leave, once for all, to
assure your excellency, that those of this opinion are no ‘party or
expiring faction;’—they have at all times been ready to devote their
time and fortune to his majesty’s service. Of loyalty, this majority
could as reasonably boast as any who may happen to enjoy your
excellency’s smiles: their reputation, rank, and fortune, are at least
equal to those who may have sometimes been considered as the only
friends in good government; while some of the best blood in the colony,
even in the two houses of assembly, lawfully convened and duly acting,
have been openly charged with the unpardonable crime of oppugnation
against the royal authority. We have now only to inform your excellency,
that this house has voted not to rescind, as required, its resolution;
and that, in a division on the question, there were ninety-two nays, and
seventeen yeas. In all this we have been actuated by a conscientious,
and finally, by a clear and determined sense of duty to God, to our
king, our country, and our latest posterity; and we most ardently wish
and humbly pray, that in your future conduct, your excellency may be
influenced by the same privileges.”

A letter to the same import was addressed, by the assembly, to Lord
Hillsborough. But this was its last act. When the governor had received
the above communication, he immediately dissolved it, and the
province was left for the remainder of the year without a legislature.
Opposition, however, was not checked by such a measure—rather it was
carried on with more spirit than ever. Riots took place at Boston and
Halifax, and arms and ammunition were provided, under the pretext of
anticipated war with France A meeting of delegates, from all the towns
of the province, was convened at Boston, which was attended by deputies
from every one except Hatfield. This convention sent a communication
to the governor, disclaiming all intention of performing any act of
government; professing to have met, in dark and distressing times,
to consult and advise measures for the peace and good order of his
majesty’s subjects in the province; and praying that he would call
together the legislative assembly. The governor refused to receive any
communication from the meeting, warned it of the irregularity of its
proceedings, and assured it that his majesty was determined to maintain
his entire sovereignty over the province. A deputation was then sent to
the governor by the convention, but it was refused admission into his
presence, and a committee of nine persons were appointed to consult on
the best mode of promoting peace and good order in the province. This
committee sent in its report, and the meeting drew up a petition to the
king, which was transmitted to the agent in London, and it then
broke up. This was on the 29th of September, and on the same day, two
regiments and a detachment of artillery from Halifax inarched into
Boston. These were soon after joined by two more regiments from
Ireland, under General Gage; and thus awed, the province was restored to
comparative tranquillity. But underneath this show of quiet there
were heart-burnings, which nothing but the recognition of American
independence could allay. Associations formed throughout the whole
length and breadth of America, by the exertions of the assembly of
Massachusets Bay, stirred up and kept alive the flame of discord, and
occasion need but fan it, and it would kindle into a blaze; the lurid
glare of which would be seen burning brightly, and raging furiously
across the wide Atlantic. The proceedings in America were but as yet, in
truth, the warnings of a terrible commotion—the first intimations of
an irruption, more frightful in its nature, and more disastrous in its
consequences, than the bursting forth of the fire-streaming bowels of
Mounts Ætna and Vesuvius, or the devastations of an earthquake. For the
storms of human passion, when they burst forth in war and bloodshed, are
more desolating to the human family, than any outbreak of visible nature
recorded in the many-paged annals of history.




DOMESTIC TROUBLES AND COMMOTIONS.

While America threatened some fearful catastrophe, Great Britain was
scarcely less disturbed by internal troubles and commotions. Much as
he desired the happiness of the people, the jewels set in his majesty’s
crown were intermixed with sharp, piercing thorns. This is plainly
observable in the previous pages, wherein the difficulties which had
beset his various administrations, and which chiefly arose from the
discordant passions of their members, are historically narrated. Burke
rightly observes:—“Our constitution stands on a nice equipoise, with
steep precipices and deep waters on all sides of it: in removing it from
a dangerous leaning toward one side, there may be a risk of oversetting
it on the other. Every project or a material change in a government so
complicated, combined, at the same time, with external circumstances
still more complicated, is a matter full of difficulties.” This is not
the language of a casual observer of men and manners, but of a profound
politician. It is borne out by his majesty’s early experience. The
scheme which he adopted soon after his accession of breaking the power
of the Whig aristocracy, and of calling men of different parties to the
service of the state, was not only surrounded with difficulties, but
fraught with clanger. Men looked with favour on the long-established
supremacy of these great families, and their influence and power were
therefore not easily broken. Bute sought to dissolve the spell; but the
hand of Bute was not that of a magician, and he signally failed in the
attempt. Broken, but not subdued, the aristocracy formed new parties,
and acted upon new principles, all calculated, when dictated by the
spirit of opposition, to annoy the sovereign, and disarrange the
machinery of the state. Cabinets, formed with nice art and care,
were unable to withstand their opponents; whence their frequent
disarrangements and dissolutions. The age became signalised by
ministerial revolutions and cabinet abortions; and why? because the
cabinets formed were not supported by public opinion. Parliament itself
had lost much of its credit with the people by reason of its indecisive
measures. It had forfeited their confidence, nor could the recall of
Pitt to the helm of state restore it to their favour, or rescue the
sovereign from the dilemma in which he had placed himself. Intractable
at all times, from the opposition he had met with, and from ill health,
he had become so imperious, that, like an old Roman consul, he would
fain have yoked the people, the cabinet, and the monarch to his
chariot-wheels. Moreover, since he had become an earl, he was a changed
man. He no longer sided with, but against, the people; sheltering
himself from their clamours in the stronghold of privilege. Hence it
was, that when he coalesced with others, he found no support on which
he could lean with safety, and by which he could assist the monarch. His
staff was but a reed on which, if he leant, it pierced his hand. This
Chatham felt; and though he clung tenaciously to office, from the fear
of displaying his weakness and incapacity, he only acted, when he did
act, behind the scenes. Ministerial exertions were also paralysed by
another cause. A prevalent notion existed that there was a mysterious
power about the court which worked to the detriment of the public good.
This was a constant theme of invective among the opposition, and, it
would seem, not without good reason. But there was another cause of
obstruction to the measures formed by government. This was found in
the democratical spirit, which now universally prevailed. Courted by the
aristocracy, who had till very recently

     “Held them dangling at arm’s length in scorn,”

and grown comparatively wealthy since relieved from the pressure of
war, the population became restless, jealous, and insubordinate. The man
whose fortune was only made, as it were, yesterday, deemed himself as
great a man as the highest and noblest born aristocrat; while the man
who had squandered away his patrimony, sought to restore himself from
his fallen position in society, by assuming principles of patriotism
which in his heart he despised. Moreover, the conduct of their rulers,
which had been too frequently vacillating and manifestly corrupt,
taught the great body of the people to look upon them with suspicion and
distrust. Talk they as loud as they might of honesty of intention, of
unimpeachable integrity, and of pure patriotism, the people nevertheless
would not now believe them. Hence, political associations began to be
formed; taverns were made so many parliament houses; and the people
seemed as if they were resolved to take the government into their own
hands.

     But oh! ye Muses, keep your votary’s feet
     From tavern-haunts where politicians meet
     Where rector, doctor, and attorney pause,
     First on each parish, then each public cause:
     Indited roads and rates that still increase;
     The murmuring poor, who will not fast in peace:
     Election zeal and friendship since declined,
     A tax commuted, or a tithe in kind;
     The Dutch and German? kindling into strife;
     Hull port and poachers vile!—the serious ills of life.




THE RETURN OF WILKES, ETC.

Such was the state of society when writs were issued for a new election.
Encouraged by it, John Wilkes once more stepped upon the stage, and
offered himself as a candidate for the suffrages of the people. And, as
it has been well said, Mephistopheles himself could not have chosen a
better time for mischief. For, at this time, the populace had no idol in
whom they could place their confidence, and they hailed his reappearance
with delight. By their aid, indeed, he soon became enabled to insult his
sovereign, and to trample on the legislature with impunity. Unprincipled
as he was, he became the man of their choice, and their “champion bold”
 in the cause of what was called liberty.

Wilkes had made an attempt to return to England during the Rockingham
ministry, but that party would not receive his overtures. Recently he
had also sounded the Duke of Grafton, with whom he had formerly been on
terms of intimacy; but his application for his mediation with the
king was treated by that nobleman with neglect and disdain. Thus
disappointed, and finding his situation at Paris, from his accumulated
load of debt, disagreeable, he at length resolved to brave every danger.
During the elections, he boldly presented himself at Guildhall, as
a candidate to represent the metropolitan city in parliament. He was
received with rapturous applause by the populace; but his present views
were frustrated by some of the good citizens of London, who exerted all
their influence to insure his defeat. Nothing daunted, however, Wilkes
immediately offered himself for the county, and he was returned by the
freeholders of Middlesex, by a very large majority. The mob, on this
occasion, was in a transport of joy. The air rang with shouts of
“Wilkes and Liberty!” and by way of exhibiting their exultation at their
triumph, they demolished Bute’s windows in the west, and the windows of
the mansion-house, in the east of the city.

Having secured his election for Middlesex, and confident of the support
of the people, Wilkes appeared, in the month of April, in the court of
king’s bench, and declared himself ready to submit to the laws of his
country. Lord Mansfield, then on the bench, suggested that as he was not
before the court by any legal process, no notice could be taken of his
professed submission, and he was permitted to depart. On retiring,
he was received with loud acclamations by the mob, and the general
impression was, that Wilkes had conquered the government, and that
the arm of the people was stronger than the arm of the law. Wilkes,
likewise, may have flattered himself that he was secure from all further
process; but, if so, he soon found himself deceived. Within a week, a
writ of _capias ut legatum_ was issued against him, and he was taken
into custody. Sergeant Glynn, his counsel, pointed out several errors
in the outlawry, and offered bail; but the judges decided that no bail
could be taken, and he was at once committed to the king’s bench
prison. But the populace was resolved to reverse this decree. As he was
proceeding over Westminster-bridge, they stopped the coach in which he
was conveyed, took out the horses, and dragged him in triumph through
the city, to a public-house in Spitalfields, where they retained him
till nearly midnight. Wilkes, however, thought proper, when the people
dispersed, to repair to the marshal of the king’s bench, out of whose
hands the mob had rescued him, and surrender himself. But as soon as
it was known that the “patriot” was in prison, the mob showed signs of
rescuing him again. Crowds collected around his prison-house, pulled
down the outward fence, and made a bonfire with it on the spot. An order
was sent to the horse-guards, and a body of soldiers were stationed near
the prison, but this only tended to increase the popular excitement.
Every day, for nearly a fortnight, the mob abused the soldiers, and the
soldiers threatened the mob, so that the metropolis was one continued
scene of riot and confusion; Wilkes adding fuel to the flames from
within the doors of his prison.

Such was the public temper when parliament reassembled on the 10th of
May. The people supposed that neither strong walls, nor stronger laws,
could prevent Wilkes from taking his seat in the house of commons, as
member for Middlesex; and they assembled in great numbers round the
gates of his prison, in order to escort him to Westminster. But the
gates remained bolted and barred, and Wilkes continued secure within.
They waited patiently for awhile, but when doubts arose whether they
should be permitted to see then-idol, their patience at first grew
into uneasiness, until at length it gendered into a storm of furious
disappointment and passion. Demands were made for his appearance,
but they were unheeded and unanswered. Their violence grew with their
clamour, and it was in vain that they were urged to depart in peace.
Stones and brickbats were aimed at the heads of the magistrates who
attempted to read the riot act, and the military by whom they were
guarded. Self-defence compelled the order to fire, which was readily
obeyed by the soldiers; the more so, because the companies selected for
the service were nearly all Highlanders and Lowland Scots, whose strong
national feelings had been wounded by Wilkes, in his North Briton. Four
or five persons were killed, and many more wounded; and among those who
perished was a youth of the name of Allen, who had taken no part in the
riot. One of the soldiers gave chase to a young man who had been
pelting them, and by mistake shot Allen in a cow-house, near St.
George’s-fields, while he was in the act of protesting his innocence.
This occurrence tended to increase the popular rage. At the coroner’s
inquest, a verdict of wilful murder was brought in against the soldier
who shot Allen, and two others were charged with aiding and abetting.
Maclean—for that was the name of the soldier who shot Allen—was
committed to prison, and warrants were issued against the others
as accessories. At the same time, Mr. Gillam, one of the Surrey
magistrates, who had given the order to fire, was indicted for murder. On
the other hand, the parliament then sitting voted loyal addresses to his
majesty on the occasion, with assurances that every measure, which was
adopted for the maintenance of the authority of the laws, had their
hearty concurrence; and Lord Barrington returned thanks to the officers
and men employed in this service, and directed that the crown lawyers
should defend the soldiers under prosecution. This had the effect of
exasperating the populace still more. They saw that the soldiers would
be acquitted—which was actually the case, and rewarded likewise—and
the exploit was named by the unenviable denomination of “The Massacre of
St. George’s-fields.” Exciting papers were stuck up in every part of
the metropolis, and even on the very walls of St. James’s-palace.
The mansion-house was assailed so frequently that a constant guard of
soldiers was necessary to defend it from demolition. The firm of civil
authority appeared too weak to control the unbridled passions of the
populace; and it was rendered still more impotent by other riots and
disturbances which broke out unconnected with politics. Coalheavers,
sailors, and watermen at this time complained of low wages, and of
frauds practised upon them by their employers; and Stepney-fields
likewise became a scene of combat which could only be quelled by the
military.

On the 8th of June, Wilkes’s case was again heard in the king’s bench.
His outlawry was reversed, because he had voluntarily surrendered: but
he was sentenced, for the seditious sentiments contained in the ‘North
Briton’, to be confined in prison ten calendar months, and to pay a fine
of £500; and for publishing the ‘Essay on Woman’, to pay a similar
fine, and to be imprisoned twelve calendar months, to commence at the
expiration of the term of the former imprisonment. He was, also, to find
security for his good behaviour for seven years—himself in the sum of
£1000, and two sureties in £500 each. On the trial, facts were divulged
very disgraceful to the temper of the people. In order to ensure
impunity for their idol, anonymous letters had been sent to
chief-justice Mansfield, threatening him, and insulting him by every
species of insult and intimidation. His lordship spoke feelingly and
wisely in delivering the judgment of the court on these unworthy and
unmanly proceedings:—“The last event,” said he, “which can happen to a
man never comes too soon, if he falls in support of the law and liberty
of his country; for liberty is synonymous with law and government: as
for himself, the temper of his mind, and the colour and conduct of his
life, had given him a suit of armour against these arrows.”

The sentence passed against Wilkes tended only to increase his
popularity. Though immured within the walls of a prison, he became now
in the very zenith of his fame. Subscriptions were raised to pay off his
debts; valuable presents were conferred on him; and his portrait met the
eyes of the passers-by, over the doors of the public-houses, in
every part of the kingdom. The popularity of Wilkes was, if possible,
augmented by the issue of the trials of the magistrate and soldiers
for the murder of Allen, and those who fell in “the massacre of St.
George’s-fields.” They were all acquitted; and instead of being censured
for a breach of discipline by the authorities, Maclean received from
government the sum of thirty guineas for his sufferings on a false
accusation. This was exceedingly impolitic; for it had the effect of
further exasperating that huge-chafed monster, the populace, whose power
is not to be provoked or despised with impunity.




RESIGNATION OF LORD CHATHAM.

A ministry so hetrogeneous in its composition as that which now
administered the affairs of Great Britain could hardly be expected to
act in union and with firmness at this critical season. The Earl of
Chatham gave proof that he was not disposed to act with the opponents
of Wilkes, by declaring to Sir William Beauchamp, who was contesting the
election of Middlesex with Sergeant Glynn, and who applied to him for
his assistance and countenance, that he constantly declined meddling in
elections. His disinclination to act at all was, also, elicited by the
Duke of Grafton, who sighed “after a life much more pleasing to his mind”
 than that of presiding over the government. Grafton urged the Countess
of Chatham—for he dared not trouble his lordship—to state whether she
thought her lord would resign. The countess, in reply, assured the noble
duke that there was but little prospect of his ever being able to enter
much into business; and intimated, that he was privy to, and highly
disapproved of, an intention entertained of dismissing Lord Shelburne;
adding, that he would never consent nor concur in such a removal, his
services being of great importance to the administration. All the while
the Earl of Chatham knew that it was Lord Shelburne’s intention of
resigning voluntarily, which he did immediately after, having for his
successor, as secretary for the southern department, Lord Weymouth from
the northern, in whose post the Earl of Rochford was placed. From this
cause, and being also displeased with the conduct of his colleagues
regarding America, Chatham at length resolved to tender his resignation.
He wrote to the Duke of Grafton, informing him that his health would
no longer permit him to be useful to his majesty, and begging that his
grace would lay him at his majesty’s feet, with his utmost duty and
earnest request, that he would grant him his royal permission to resign
the privy seal. It was in vain that the Duke of Grafton endeavoured to
dissuade him from his purpose, on the grounds that his services were
at this moment indispensable. His request was repeated in more positive
terms, and a letter was sent also to the king to the same intent. His
majesty now tried whether the refractory lord could not be brought to a
proper sense of his duty. He wrote in reply:—“As you entered upon this
employment in August, 1766, at my own requisition, I think I have a
right to insist on your remaining in my service; for I with pleasure
look forward to the time of your recovery, when I may I have your
assistance in resisting the torrent of factions this country so much
labours under. This thought is the more frequent in my mind, as the lord
chancellor and the Duke of Grafton take every opportunity to declare
warmly their desire of seeing that: therefore I again repeat it, you
must not think of retiring, but of pursuing what may be most conducive
to your health, and to my seeing you take a public share in my affairs.”
 It is probable that the Earl of Chatham was not so sanguine as his
majesty concerning his ability to resist “the torrent of factions,”
 for he shrunk from his task in coward fear. In his reply, affliction,
submission, gratitude, veneration, and despair was seen in almost every
line, and he insisted upon adhering to his purpose. Accordingly, he sent
the privy seal by Lord Camden, who delivered it into the king’s hands,
and who, to increase the monarch’s embarrassments, wished to resign
likewise. Overcome by his majesty’s entreaties, however, Camden
consented to remain in office.

The resignation of Chatham did not excite greater interest than the
resignation of the meanest officer in the state. Even Thackeray, his
admiring biographer, was obliged to make this confession:—“A greater
contrast in the feelings of the cabinet and the nation upon the present
resignation of Lord Chatham to those which were evinced upon his
dismission from office in 1757, and upon his retirement in 1761, can
scarcely be imagined. His dismission in 1757 excited one common cry of
enthusiastic admiration towards himself, and of indignation towards his
political opponents. The attention, not only of Great Britain, but
of the whole of Europe, was attracted by his resignation in 1761; and
although the voices of his countrymen were not so universally united
in his favour as upon the former occasion, the event was considered as
affecting the interests of nations in the four quarters of the globe.
The resignation of Lord Chatham, in 1768, was, in fact, nothing more
than the relinquishment of an appointment in which he had long ceased
to exercise his authority, or to exert his abilities. It was expected by
the ministry—it was little regarded by the people of Great Britain—it
was almost unknown to the continent of Europe.” So low had the Earl of
Chatham descended from his giddy height of popularity—so little to be
depended upon is the breath of the people.

On the contrary, the causes which led to the retirement of Lord
Shelburne, had the effect of increasing the reputation of that
ex-minister, and of endearing him to the public. The ancient republic
of Genoa had long been endeavouring to reduce the Corsicans to her
obedience, but was compelled to give up the contest in despair. She
resigned her right of sovereignty—real or pretended—to Louis XV.; and
the French fitted out an armament to take possession of Corsica by force
of arms. The Corsicans maintained that they were not to be bought and
sold like revolted subjects and rebels; and their chosen chief, General
Paoli, represented the cruelty of the case to all Europe, addressing
himself in a special manner to England. As islanders and freemen, the
English warmly sympathised with them. The Earl of Chatham and Lord
Shelburne, likewise, felt deeply interested in the cause of the
Corsicans; and the latter authorised Lord Rochford, the ambassador at
Paris, to address a spirited remonstrance to the French cabinet on the
subject. These orders, however, were not supported by the rest of the
administration; the French court took no notice of the remonstrance; and
Lord Shelburne was compelled to resign. Corsica was therefore abandoned
to France, who established her supremacy by shedding much blood. This
naturally created feelings of respect for Lord Shelburne in the breasts
of the English people; and, as naturally, the feelings of contempt for
his cold, calculating, official colleagues.




THE AFFAIRS OF WILKES.

By this time Sergeant Glynn had been elected for the county of
Middlesex. Glynn was the friend and companion of Wilkes, and it happened
that some of the chairmen of his opponent killed a man of the name
of Clarke in an affray. At this period, such events were by no means
uncommon, but as Sir William Beauchamp was a ministerial candidate, the
populace spread surmises abroad, and circulated accusations detrimental
to his character. He was charged with being an employer of assassins,
and two of his chairmen were tried at the Old Bailey for murder. They
were acquitted, but this only tended to increase the popular excitement
against the ministers. Wilkes still more inflamed it by his intemperate
conduct. Lord Weymouth sent a letter to the bench of magistrates for the
county of Surrey, expressing the warmest approbation of their conduct,
and recommending them to quell all tumults on their first rising by
the aid of the civil and military power. This letter, or a copy of it,
having fallen into the hands of Wilkes, it was published by him, with
an inflammatory preface, in which he called the affair in St. George’s
Fields “a horrid massacre, and the consequence of a hellish project
deliberately planned.” Irritated by his imprisonment, Wilkes, indeed,
seems now to have set his fortune on the cast of a die, and the only way
of playing the game successfully, seems to have been, considered by him,
that of inflaming the passions of the people, already enraged beyond
endurance, to the utmost. But the ministers resolved that he should
not act with impunity, and this last act determined them upon taking
effectual measures to overthrow his cause, finally and for ever. But the
determination taken by them only aided the “patriot” in his ambitious
projects, and tended to increase their own unpopularity.

{GEORGE III. 1765–1769}




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament, with the Duke of Grafton at its head, assembled on the 8th
of November. In his speech his majesty alluded to the signs of commotion
among the continental powers which now existed; to the state of our
American colonies, especially to the proceedings at Boston, which he
denounced in strong terms; and to the late abundant harvest, which he
viewed with satisfaction, as having come opportunely to the relief of
his poorer subjects. In the house of lords the address was agreed to
unanimously, but the commons offered many objections, criticising
the conduct of government with reference to America, Corsica, and
its continental policy, whence it was not carried without much angry
feeling.

The first question debated was that of corn. To prevent the recurrence
of scarcity, a bill was prepared for enlarging the prohibition against
exportation, and for preventing distillation from wheat. A more
effectual mode of securing plenty would have been to have passed a bill
for the better cultivation of the lands already in use, and for the
enclosure of large tracts of land then uncultivated. But government
had no extended views at this period, and, moreover, its attention was
absorbed in the consideration of the one all-engrossing subject—civil
discord.




DEBATE ON WILKES.

Before the session was a week old, Wilkes and the parliament were at
open war. Determined upon keeping up the spirit of animosity among
his admirers, the great agitator presented a petition to the house
of commons, by means of Sir Joseph Mawbey, one of the members for
Southwark, which recited all the proceedings of government against him,
and claimed redress and liberty as a member of that house. A violent
debate took place, and it was agreed that Wilkes should have liberty
to attend the house to support his allegations, and that he should
be allowed the assistance of counsel. He was to appear on the 2nd of
December, but in the meantime a member moved for an Inquiry into the
occurrences in St. George’s Fields, and of the conduct of the military
employed on that occasion. This motion was negatived, and when Burke,
who acted as leader of the Rockingham party, renewed it, it shared
the same fate: some observed because many members were afraid of
investigating the subject too closely.

{A.D. 1769}

The house postponed the hearing of Wilkes and his counsel, and this
postponement was several times repeated. They were unheard on the
23rd of January, when Mr. Martin, member for Gatton, moved, “That John
Wilkes, Esq., although he is convicted of publishing a seditious libel,
is entitled to privilege of parliament.” An amendment was moved by Lord
North to the effect, “That John Wilkes, Esq., although he is convicted
of printing and publishing a malignant, seditious, and scandalous libel,
and of printing and publishing three obscene and impious libels, and now
stands committed to the king’s-bench prison, by virtue of two several
judgments in the court of king’s-bench, for the said offences, is
entitled, by privilege of parliament, to be discharged from his
imprisonment for the said offences.” After a fiery debate, the amendment
was carried by a large majority; and Mr. Martin, feeling himself
disgraced by its making him the patron of sedition, obscenity, and
impiety, moved, “That, in entering in the votes of this day the
proceedings of the house upon the said question, the original motion
be stated, with the proceedings of the house in making the several
amendments thereto.” This was reasonable, but when put to the vote it
was rejected.

By these proceedings the temper of the house towards Wilkes was fully
manifested, and it seemed morally certain that when his petition was
taken into consideration it would prove a failure. It was on the 27th of
January that this debate fairly commenced. On that day Lord North moved
that the petitioner’s counsel should be confined to two specified points
only; namely, to prove the allegations in his petition, which asserted
that Lord Mansfield had altered the record of his indictment the day
before his trial in Westminster-hall; and that Mr. Carteret Webb,
solicitor to the treasury, had bribed one Curry, a man in Wilkes’s
employment, to purloin the copy of the “Essay on Woman,” for which
he was undergoing imprisonment. This motion was agreed to, though not
without fierce opposition, and Wilkes appeared at the bar of the house
on the 31st, to make good these allegations. He objected, that as a
member he could not legally appear there without taking the oaths, but
this was overruled, he then proceeded to support his allegations,
but all he could substantiate was, that Lord Mansfield had made an
alteration on the record, and as this was in accordance with ancient
custom, and had been sanctioned by all the judges, the house agreed,
without a division, that the petitioner had not made good the two
allegations upon which he had been heard, and that his petition was
frivolous.

The tables were now turned. Lord Weymouth made a complaint in the upper
house, regarding a breach of privilege, in publishing his letter sent
to the magistrates of Surrey, with an inflammatory preface. A conference
between the two houses had been held, and Wilkes was charged with this
misdemeanour before the bar of the commons. But at that bar Wilkes
not only avowed himself the author of the publication, but claimed the
thanks of his country for having exposed Weymouth’s “bloody scroll.”
 It was immediately resolved by the commons that he was guilty of a
seditious libel, calculated “to inflame and stir up the minds of his
majesty’s subjects to sedition, and to a total subversion of all good
order and legal government.” This was on the 2nd of February, and on the
following day Lord Barrington moved, “That John Wilkes, Esq., a member
of this house, who hath at the bar of this house certified himself to
be the author and publisher of what this house has resolved to be an
insolent, scandalous, and seditious libel, and who has been convicted
in the court of king’s-bench of having printed and published a seditious
libel, and three obscene and impious libels, and by the judgment of the
said court has been sentenced to undergo twenty-two months imprisonment,
and is now in execution under the said judgment, be expelled this
house.” A long and vehement debate followed this motion, Burke,
Grenville, Beckford, and others taking the part of Wilkes, but the
motion was carried by a large majority at midnight, and a new writ was
issued for the election of another member for Middlesex.

Burke denominated the expulsion of Wilkes from the house as the fifth
act of the tragi-comedy acted by his majesty’s servants, for the benefit
of the agitator, at the expense of the constitution. As for Wilkes
himself, he was nothing daunted by it, for after indulging in many
witticisms at the expense of his adversaries, he declared that he would
stand again for Middlesex, and expressed his conviction that he should
be returned. And the event answered his expectation. Liberty and Wilkes
were now synonymous terms, and no ministerial candidate had a chance
of obtaining the popular favour in preference to him. He was rechosen
representative for Middlesex free of all expense to himself, but
the house declared him incapable of being elected during the present
parliament. The popularity of Wilkes, however, increased in proportion
as the opposition to him in the house assumed a vindictive character.
The agitator, in fact, only laughed at his adversaries, and said he
would try again. Great efforts were made this time by the ministerial
party to ensure his defeat, but it was to no purpose. Assisted by the
public press, the mob, and many opulent merchants, who deemed him the
champion of liberty, Wilkes was again triumphantly returned member for
Middlesex: his opponent, Mr. Dingley, not being able to get himself
named for fear of the mob’s violence. But again the house of commons
declared Wilkes’s return null and void, and ordered a new writ.

The popular feeling was displayed on the occasion of this second
election in a very unequivocal manner. The partisans of Dingley met
at the King’s-arms tavern, in Cornhill, for the purpose of proposing a
loyal address to his majesty, in contradiction of certain instructions
which had been prepared by the city. This was prevented by the Wilkites,
who mingled among them, and who created such an uproar, that nothing
could be agreed upon. At a second meeting, however, in another place,
the Dingleyans were more successful; but on the 22nd of March, when
they went to present the address, they were beset by a countless mob,
shouting, “Wilkes and liberty—liberty and Wilkes for ever!” They were
even pelted with dirt from the kennels, and assailed with every species
of violence and insult. A hearse was dragged before them, covered with
paintings, representing the death of Allen, in St. George’s-fields, and
the murder at Brentford by Sir William Proctor’s chairmen. So violent
was the conduct of the mob, that many of those who were going with the
address made off through by-streets, or ran into houses for protection.
Few remained when they arrived at the court of St. James’s, and the mob
attempted to pass through the gates with their ominous vehicle. This was
resisted by the guard, and when the mob persevered, Lord Talbot rushed
out and seized two of them, while the soldiers on duty captured fifteen
more, and they were carried to prison.

In opposing the election of Wilkes, therefore, there was considerable
danger. Hence, when the third writ was issued, Colonel Henry Lawes
Luttrell, who was then sitting in the house as member for Bossiney,
conceived that he, as a military man, might assist ministers in their
dilemma by offering himself as a member for Middlesex. To this end he
vacated his seat for Bossiney, and the house ordered the sheriffs to be
in attendance with a large number of extra constables round the hustings
at Brentford, for the preservation of peace. Encouraged by this care,
and by the colonel’s boldness, two other candidates appeared at the
hustings, to solicit the suffrages of the people. But all the care
of the government, and all the exertions of the candidates were vain.
Wilkes was a third time re-elected, and illuminations throughout the
whole city of London testified the triumph of the people. The house of
commons, however, was firm in its opposition to the popular idol and the
popular feeling. A motion was made, and carried by a large majority,
to alter this return, and to insert the name of Luttrell in place of
Wilkes. The freeholders of Middlesex, looking only at the poll-book,
exclaimed against the iniquity of this measure, as Luttrell had not
above a fourth part of the votes which were entered on behalf of Wilkes;
and they presented a petition to the commons, begging them to rescind
their motion. An animated discussion followed this petition, but
Luttrell was confirmed in his seat by a still greater majority. The
exertions of the people were, therefore, rendered null and void, but
Wilkes was as great a favourite with them as ever. Ten days after,
he was chosen alderman of the city of London; and he was represented
everywhere as a meritorious patriot, who was suffering for the cause
of the people. And it cannot be denied that the conduct of ministers
towards Wilkes assumed rather the aspect of vindictive persecution than
that of strict justice. It was this that gave to Wilkes the importance
he had obtained in the sight of the populace—an importance which his
merits and his talents could never have given him.




DEBATES ON AMERICA.

During this session, committees had been appointed by both houses to
examine and report upon papers relative to American affairs, which
were submitted to them by the crown. Measures of rigour were urged by
majorities in both houses. The lords voted strong-resolutions relative
to the unwarrantable and rebellious conduct of the legislature and
people of Massachusets-bay, and recommended, in an address to the king,
that the criminals should be brought over to England and tried by a
special commission, according to a statute of the thirty-fifth of Henry
the Eighth. It was moved in the commons that they should concur in this
measure; and, after a long and spirited debate, in which many warning
voices were lifted up against it, the motion was carried. This was on
the 26th of January, and a few days after the subject was again brought
before the house of commons, and the ministers were again warned of the
danger of driving matters to extremities. Mr. Rose Fuller moved that the
address should be recommitted, but no arguments which he, or any speaker
that took part with him adduced, could alter the disposition of
the house upon the subject, and his motion was negatived by a large
majority. On the 14th of March, the subject of American affairs was
resumed. This was occasioned by a petition, or remonstrance, from New
York, which denied the right of parliament to tax the Americans in any
way. Lord North proposed that such a paper should not be received. He
was opposed by Mr. Grenville, Mr. Burke, and Colonel Barre; but the
house had made up its mind to show no favour to the Americans, and Lord
North’s motion was carried. Colonel Barre reminded the house that he
had predicted all that would happen on passing the Stamp Act, and he now
boldly asserted, that if ministers persisted in their present course,
the whole continent of North America would rise in arms, and these
colonies perhaps be lost to England for ever. But the ministers were
deaf to argument, remonstrance, and warning, and they still determined
upon rigorous measures. Later in the season, Governor Pownall moved,
in a long speech, that the revenue acts affecting America should be
forthwith repealed. This was the only mode of preserving the allegiance
of that country; but it was pleaded that the session was too far
advanced to enter upon the subject—all important as it was—and its
discussion was therefore deferred till the next meeting of parliament,
and then it was too late.




EAST INDIA AFFAIRS.

During this session the charter of the East India Company was prolonged
for the further term of five years, on conditions similar to those in
the last agreement. The company was to continue to pay £400,000 per
annum, and to continue to export British goods, at an average of equal
value with those sent to India during the last five years. The company,
however, was now allowed to increase its dividend to twelve and a half
per cent., provided it did not in any one year put on more than one per
cent. If any decrease of dividend was found to be necessary, then the
sum payable to government was to be reduced proportionately, and if the
dividend fell to six per cent., it was to cease altogether. This bargain
had scarcely been renewed when intelligence arrived from Hindostan, that
Hyder Ally had reduced the company, after an expensive war, to sue for a
dishonourable peace, and India stock fell rapidly.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Early in this session it was announced in a message from the king,
that, in consequence of a deficiency in some branches of the revenue
appropriated to the civil list, debts had been contracted to the amount
of £513,511, which his majesty trusted that house would enable him to
discharge. The opposition demanded the production of papers to account
for these arrears, which were promised by Lord North, if they would vote
the money first. This proposition was warmly opposed, but, in the end,
the house showed its loyalty by voting the money. On the 9th of May, the
king went down to prorogue parliament. This was the day after the last
vehement debate and division on the election of Wilkes; and as he was
passing from the palace to the house of lords, he was grossly insulted
by the populace. In his speech, his majesty exhorted the members, with
more than ordinary earnestness, to exert themselves in their several
counties to repress the efforts of the disaffected, and in maintaining
public peace and good order.




DISCONTENTS IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND.

There was great occasion for his majesty’s advice to the members of
parliament, but they were powerless to effect that which he desired, and
which was a “consummation devoutly to be wished” by every lover of good
order. During this summer, discontent was more prevalent than at any
preceding period of this reign. The disputes with the Americans, and
the expulsion of Wilkes from his seat in parliament, had the effect of
keeping the public mind in a state of constant excitement. This latter
cause gave the greater umbrage to the people, because a man was sitting
in his place who was supported only by a minority. This involved a
constitutional right of great importance, and a question was mooted,
whether expulsion constituted disqualification during the current
parliament. The pen of Dr. Johnson was employed in proving
the affirmative; his chief argument being, that the power of
disqualification was necessary to the house of commons, for otherwise
expulsion would not be a real, but a nominal punishment. Other pens were
employed in proving the contrary; and among them was that of Junius,
whose argument rested on the axiom that political expediency does not
prove existing law, and who defied his opponents to produce any statute
applicable to the subject. Junius also argued that, although the
house of commons could expel, the concurrence of every branch of the
legislature was necessary to incapacitate. Junius, whose extraordinary
powers as a writer on politics have rarely, if ever, been surpassed,
was the most bitter antagonist of the present government. The Middlesex
election was eagerly embraced by him as an opportunity of advancing the
great object he had in view—namely, that of the restoration of the
Whig aristocracy to power. He dipped his pen in gall for this purpose,
attacking the Duke of Grafton’s administration with virulent invective
and energetic eloquence, if haply he might effect its overthrow. He
marred his fame, however, by an exhibition of personal resentment
against individual members of the cabinet, and by putting forth foul
calumnies from his secret hiding-place against the highest characters
in the realm. Political writers may be bold in uttering truth, but when
they use slander as one of their most powerful weapons, then they sink
their characters as men, and forfeit their claim to be heard by society.
But this was not the opinion in those days of turbulent excitement.
Junius was heard and heeded by the mass, and though he did not break
up the administration, which was the main object he had in view, his
writings had the effect of confirming the people in their opposition to
government. Faction was so prevalent that ministers sought to counteract
it by procuring loyal addresses from various parts of the country. Only
four counties, a few corporations, and the two universities responded to
their call; while, on the other hand, numerous petitions of a contrary
tendency, were got up without any difficulty. Discontent ruled dominant
before the legislature reassembled, both in the city of London, and
throughout the whole country. With a view of embarrassing government,
Alderman Beckford was again elected to the mayoralty, although some
ancient by-laws forbade the same person to be chosen twice within
the space of seven years. This objection was urged, but overruled by
precedents. Ministerial troubles grew on every side. Ireland, as well
as England and America, was in a state of trouble and commotion. At
this time it was overrun by Levellers, White-boys, Oak-boys, and
Hearts-of-Steel—factions which were bound together by secret oaths
and a mutual detestation of tithes. Nor was the Irish parliament less
disorderly. In the month of October a bill was brought into the Irish
house of commons for increasing the military establishment in that
country, which was recommended by the lord-lieutenant, and although
it was carried, it was not till after it had encountered a violent
opposition. In the month of November, also, the Irish commons claimed
the right of framing all money-bills, which hitherto had been sent over
to them by the English cabinet. They rejected the one sent over this
year, and although they voted a more liberal supply of their own
freewill, the lord-lieutenant would not recognise the newly-claimed
right. He called it a violation of the law, and an encroachment upon
the king’s prerogative. He entered his protest against it, and he then
suddenly prorogued parliament before it had done any business. Thus
his majesty was surrounded by troubles in almost every part of his
dominions. England, Ireland, and America were all arrayed against him,
and insubordination was the order of the day. What made his situation
more critical was, that he had not a minister of sufficient ability to
guide the helm of the state, so as to keep it clear from the rocks and
the shoals by which it was surrounded.




CHAPTER III.

{GEORGE III. 1769—1771}

     The Affairs of  America..... Meeting of  Parliament.....
     Dissolution of the Grafton Cabinet..... Debates on   the
     Middlesex   Election,  &c. The Question of Controverted
     Elections..... Debates on America..... Release of
     Wilkes..... American Affairs..... Riots at Boston..... The
     Prorogation of Parliament..... Remonstrance of Beckford to
     the King..... Prosecution of Woodfall and Almon.....
     Disputes respecting  Falkland  Islands..... Affairs of
     America..... Meeting of Parliament..... Debate concerning
     the Falkland Islands..... Parliamentary Proceedings on the
     Law of Libel..... Quarrels between the Lords and
     Commons..... Convention with Spain...... Changes in the
     Ministry.




THE AFFAIRS OF AMERICA.

It has been seen how the Americans were affected by the Declaratory
Bill, which accompanied the repeal of the Stamp Act. Had government been
wise, their disaffection would have taught its members to have devised
some conciliatory measures in order to prevent the threatened outbreak.
The conduct of the government, however, was the very reverse from
this. Instead of allaying the discontents of our colonists, ministers
increased them by resolving to enforce what they called the Mutiny
Act. This was carried hurriedly through the house at the close of the
session; and though the consequences of such a course must have been as
clear as daylight, yet ministers resolved to put it into execution. For
the Mutiny Act was, more properly speaking, an act for quartering and
better providing for the troops at the expense of the colonies. It gave
power to the military to billet themselves on private houses, as was
done in the war, and therefore was naturally offensive to the whole
of the American population, whether friendly or adverse to the English
government. It was calculated to make foes of friends, and to confirm
those who were already foes, in their opposition to the mother country.
The design of this measure, doubtless, was to overawe the colonists;
but the spirit of freedom had taken too deep root in America thus to be
overawed. Matters, in truth, grew worse and worse daily in that country.
The minds of the Americans had been chafed to such a degree by their
original grievances, and the measures which had been adopted to enforce
their quiescence, that they became every day more and more disaffected
toward the English government. How full fraught the country was with
rebellion became manifest on the arrival of the newly-formed American
board of commissioners, at Boston, to enforce the payment of the duties
recently imposed upon them, and to put an end to smuggling. In the
preamble to Charles Townshend’s Act, the colonists read, that these
duties were laid “for the better support of the government, and the
administration of the colonies;” and in the bill itself they found a
clause which seemed to empower the king, by sign manual, to establish
a general civil list in every province in North America, with salaries,
pensions, and everything that could be obnoxious to a free-thinking
people. This was instantly declared to be unnecessary, unjust, and
dangerous to the rights of Americans; while the establishment of a civil
list in America, independent of the assemblies, was pronounced illegal.
Measures were taken by the people of Boston for putting into effect the
non-importation agreements, which had been before suggested; the press
was employed to demonstrate the iniquity of the taxing acts; and the
assembly of Massachusets addressed a circular letter to all the other
colonies to invite them to combine in taking measures to defeat the
obnoxious act. Every assembly, except that of New Hampshire, adopted
the sentiments and the plan contained in the circular of the assembly
of Massachusets, and passed votes of thanks to the authors of it. How
effective it was in exciting opposition is manifest from the following
circumstance. Bernard, the governor of Massachusets, was instructed to
require the house of representatives to rescind the resolution which
gave birth to the letter, and to declare the king’s disapprobation of
it. But instead of rescinding the resolution, it received the emphatic
confirmation of the assembly. This reply was sent to the governor:—“If
the votes of this house are to be controlled by the direction of a
minister, we have left us but a vain semblance of liberty. We have now
only to inform you that this house have voted not to rescind, and that,
on a division on the question, there were ninety-two nays, and seventeen
yeas.”

The next day, Governor Bernard received positive instructions to
dissolve the assembly of Massachusets. But it was in vain that the arm
of power sought to quell the general disaffection: when employed it
had only the effect of making the colonists more resolute in their
opposition. Associations and committees were formed in most of the
provinces, and smuggling was carried on in the broad face of day. Some
months before, one Malcolm had fought with the custom-house officers,
and had landed sixty pipes of Madeira at Boston without paying duty.
In the month of June another cargo arrived at Boston, and when the
excise-officer stepped on board he was seized and confined below, while
the wine was sent on shore. The officer was afterwards liberated, and
on the following morning the skipper of the sloop entered four or five
pipes at the custom-house, declaring that this was the whole of his
cargo. Aware of the falsehood of this statement, the commissioners
ordered a comptroller to seize the sloop, and to fix the king’s broad
arrow upon her. This was the signal for a riot. A mob, headed by
Malcolm, beat and nearly killed several of the revenue officers, and the
commissioners themselves were compelled to seek safety in flight. The
sloop was, however, seized; the excise being assisted by the captain of
the Romney man-of-war, then lying at anchor off Boston. This was on
a Friday, and the two following days were comparatively quiet, but on
Monday an immense mob gathered in the streets at Boston, and placards
were stuck up, calling upon the “sons of liberty” to meet on the
following morning. At this meeting a committee was appointed to wait
upon the governor, to inquire why the sloop had been seized? This
committee pretended that it was an affront offered to the town of Boston
to act thus arbitrarily, since the sloop might have been left in safety
at the wharf. The committee affected likewise to disapprove of the riot,
and some few of the ringleaders were sought for and found, under the
pretence of bringing them to condign punishment. But the whole was a
farce. Malcolm, the smuggler, and others of a similar stamp, sate upon
the grand jury, and quashed all prosecution.

It was these proceedings which seem to have persuaded the ministers at
home to revive the obsolete statute of Henry VIII. Before the news
of these Boston riots, however, had arrived in England, ministers had
resolved to employ force. In a secret and confidential letter, Lord
Hillsborough had told General Gage that it was his majesty’s pleasure he
should send one regiment or more from Halifax to Boston, to be quartered
in that town, in order to assist the civil magistrates and the revenue
officers. This was on the 8th of June, and three days later Governor
Bernard was informed by his lordship that his majesty had directed
one regiment to be stationed at Boston, and had ordered a frigate, two
sloops, and two armed cutters to repair to and remain in the harbour of
that town for the above-mentioned purpose. It was not, however, till the
month of September that the people of Boston became fully aware of the
intention of government to send troops thither, and in the meantime they
had been busy in organizing resistance to the Mutiny Act. In the
month of August, the merchants and traders of Boston agreed upon a new
subscription paper, to this effect:—“We will not send for or import
from Great Britain, either upon our own account, or upon commission,
this fall, any other goods than what are already ordered for the fall
supply. We will not send for or import any kind of goods or merchandise
from Great Britain, &c., from the lat of January, 1769, to the 1st of
January, 1770; except salt, coals, fish-hooks and lines, hemp and duck,
bar-lead and shot, wool-cards and card wire. We will not purchase of
any factor or others any kind of goods imported from Great Britain, from
January, 1769, to January, 1770. We will not import on our own account,
or on commission, or purchase of any who shall import from any other
colony in America, from January, 1769, to January, 1770, any tea, paper,
glass, or any other goods commonly imported from Great Britain. We will
not, from and after the 1st of January, 1769, import into this province
any tea, paper, glass, or painters’ colours, until the act imposing
duties on those articles shall be absolutely repealed.” This paper was
generally subscribed by the merchants of Boston, and, soon after, the
merchants of Connecticut, New York, and Salem entered into similar
agreements.

In the month of September a committee waited upon Governor Bernard,
praying him to convene a general assembly. Then it was that they were
informed that a military force was coming; and that, consequently,
another assembly could not be convened till the governor had received
the commands of his majesty. The inhabitants of Boston now resolved,
at the peril of their lives and fortunes, to take all legal and
constitutional measures to defend the rights, liberties, privileges,
and immunities granted in their royal charter. They also agreed, that
a certain number of persons should be chosen to act for them as a
committee in convention, and to consult and advise with such as might be
sent from other towns in the province. Finally, they fixed a convention,
to be held in Faneuil-hall, on the 22nd of September, and voted that
all the inhabitants not provided with arms should be requested to obtain
some forthwith, as there was an apprehension in the minds of many of an
approaching war with France.

The convention met on the day appointed. It consisted of deputies from
eight districts and ninety-six towns, and its chief business was to
petition the governor, make sundry loyal professions, and express an
aversion to tumults and standing armies. Its deliberations were cut
short by the arrival of the troops, under Colonel Dalrymple, who
anchored in Nantasket Roads, near Boston. The governor requested the
town-council to provide quarters for these troops in Boston, but they
refused; stating, that by act of parliament all troops were to be
quartered in the barracks, and that it was illegal to bring them into
the town. Colonel Dalrymple led his soldiers to the common on the
outside of Boston, and the town-council was again requested to quarter
them in the town, which they again refused. He had two regiments under
his command, and one of these took possession of Faneuil-hall—the other
lay out on the cold common all night. On the evening of the next day,
however, the governor ordered the town or state-house to be opened to
the other regiment; and the soldiers took possession of every part of
it, except the great council-chamber. These proceedings excited deep
resentment, and when the governor and Colonel Dalrymple required the
council to provide barrack provisions, as regulated by the Mutiny
Act, the request was flatly refused. Still the inhabitants of Boston
repressed their vindictive feelings. Care was taken by them, however, to
make known their injuries, and the insults to which they were subjected
in every part of British America. The picture they drew was, doubtless,
exaggerated; but that they had grievances there can be no question. At
all events they found the sympathy they desired in the various states of
America. The Philadelphians, the Georgians, the Rhode-Islanders, and,
in short, all the other colonies and towns, with the single exception
of Portsmouth, the sole sea-port of New Hampshire, now followed their
example, as regards the non-importation of goods from Great Britain. The
very females of America partook of the general spirit of resistance; for
they entered into associations among themselves, proscribing the use
of tea. Some there were among the merchants who showed a reluctance to
comply with the terms of the agreement; but their houses were surrounded
by organised mobs, and they were compelled to give up trade rather
than risk the forfeiture of their property and lives by selling British
goods.

Thus encouraged, the Bostonians became more bold in their opposition to
government. The assembly being called together in May, 1769, a committee
from the house of representatives remonstrated with the governor,
complaining of an armament investing their city—of the military
guard—of cannon pointed at the door of their state-house—and
requesting him, as his majesty’s representative, to order the removal of
the ships and the troops. The answer they received was, that he had no
authority over his majesty’s ships, or over his troops, within the
town of Boston. A few days after the house declared that the use of a
military force in the execution of the laws was inconsistent with
the spirit of the constitution, and that they would not transact any
business while thus menaced by soldiers. In order to obviate this
objection to business, the governor adjourned the assembly to Cambridge,
a town separated from Boston by a narrow arm of the sea, but they were
not more disposed for business at Cambridge than at Boston. The only
vote passed by them was to this effect:—“That the establishment of a
standing army in this colony in time of peace is an invasion of natural
rights; that a standing army is not known as a part of the British
constitution; that sending an armed force into the colony, under a
pretence of assisting the civil authority, is highly dangerous to the
people, unprecedented, and unconstitutional.” When requested by
the governor to make provision for the troops, after an indignant
denunciation of the Mutiny Act, and observing, that of all the
new regulations, not excepting the Stamp Act, this was the most
unreasonable, they thus declared their resolution:—“Your excellency
must excuse us in this express declaration—that as we cannot
consistently with our honour and our interest, and much less with the
duty we owe to our constituents, so we never will make provision for the
purposes in your several messages mentioned.” Finding the assembly
thus refractory, the governor prorogued them, taking his leave in the
following terms:—“To his majesty, therefore, and if he pleases, to his
parliament, must be referred your invasion of the rights of the imperial
sovereignty: you need not be apprehensive of any misrepresentations, as
it is not in the power of your enemies, if you have any, to add to your
publications—they are plain and explicit and need no comment. It is my
duty, and I shall do it with regret, to transmit to the king true copies
of your proceedings: and that his majesty may have an opportunity to
signify his pleasure thereon before you meet again, I think it necessary
to prorogue this general court immediately, to the usual time of the
winter session.”

Before governor Bernard prorogued the assembly, his majesty had
requested his presence in England for the purpose of ascertaining the
real state of the province; at the same time testifying his approbation
of his conduct, and as a mark of his favour, creating him baronet. Sir
Francis left the colony on the 1st of August, and at his departure,
the powers of government devolved on lieutenant-governor Hutchinson, a
native of the province; a man of great abilities, but influenced in his
conduct by a grasping ambition, and an inordinate love of office and
aggrandisement. On his return, Sir Francis had no very favourable report
to make of his province. Notwithstanding every precaution had been
adopted, smuggling was still carried on to a very great extent. The
Bostonians had even adopted the practice of tarring and feathering
all informers, or all who attempted to assist the government: a brutal
operation, which was often attended with a violence that destroyed
life. Nor was smuggling carried on in the province of Boston alone.
Associations against British commerce were organized to such an extent,
that the exports to America were found to fall short of those in the
preceding year by £740,000, and the revenue derived from that country
was reduced from £701,000 to £30,000. In this the Americans were aided
by other countries, who sent them their manufactures in great abundance,
so that the narrow views of ministers not only destroyed the resources
of Great Britain, but tended to enrich its commercial and political
rivals. This greatly alarmed the English merchants, and Lord
Hillsborough thought proper to issue a circular letter to the colonies,
stating that his majesty’s ministers intended, during the next session,
to take off the duties upon glass, paper, and painters’ colours, they
having been enacted contrary to the true principles of commerce. No
mention, however, was made of the duty upon tea, and the Americans
looked upon this omission as having been purposely and invidiously
made, as a mark of the legislative supremacy of Great Britain. Nothing,
moreover, was said about repealing the odious clauses in the Mutiny
Act, and the colonists likewise complained that the circular spoke
of commercial expediency, and not of the right which they claimed of
imposing taxes upon the colonies by their own act alone In truth, if
this circular was intended to conciliate the inhabitants of British
America, it was a total failure. The universal mind was too much
irritated to be soothed by such an impotent palliative.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1770}

Although America was almost in a state of open rebellion, and England
itself, with Ireland, were rent with faction, yet the parliament did not
assemble till the 9th of January. This delay naturally excited surprise,
and this was still further heightened by the tenor of the king’s speech.
Taking no notice of the public discontents, though it feelingly lamented
the general distress, it chiefly adverted to a general distemper which
had broken out among the horned cattle, which the king gravely assured
the lords and commons, he had, by the advice of his privy-council,
endeavoured to check. And this was solemnly uttered when wits and
scoffers abounded on every hand—when Junius had his pen in his hand
full fraught with gall, and Wilkes was bandying about his bon-mots and
sarcasms. “While the whole kingdom,” says Junius, in a letter to the
Duke of Grafton, “was agitated with anxious expectation upon one great
point, you meanly evaded the question, and instead of the explicit
firmness of a king, gave us nothing but the misery of a ruined grazier.”
 Never was a speech from the throne more unfortunate, indeed, than this,
for though it slightly adverted to the disturbances in America, yet the
subject of the disease existing among horned cattle was its prominent
feature. It was no wonder, therefore, that it became the jest of the
whole nation. Newspapers, pamphlets, and periodicals teemed with biting
sarcasm on this most extraordinary circumstance. The king’s love of
farming was bitterly descanted upon, and he was represented as attending
to cows, stalls, dairies, and farms, while his people were misgoverned
and discontented, and his empire, like a ship in a furious storm, in
danger every minute of being dashed to pieces. In fine, to show the most
profound contempt of such a speech from the mouth of the monarch, at
such a season, the session was nicknamed “the horned cattle session.”

Before the opening of parliament, one day the Earl of Chatham stalked
into the drawing-room of St. James’s, and after the levee had some
private conversation with the king. What passed between them is unknown,
but Horace Walpole says, that his reception was most flattering, and the
king all condescension and goodness. It does not appear, however, that
the interview satisfied Chatham, for it by no means tended to soften his
opposition. When parliament met, indeed, he took his place in the house
of lords, vigorous and more eloquent than ever, and the administration
was doomed to feel his power, like that of a giant refreshed with wine.

The address, which was moved in the upper house by the Duke of Ancaster,
and seconded by Lord Dunmore, was as general and unmeaning as the
king’s speech. Chatham rose to reply, and after glancing at his age and
infirmities, he took a general review of measures since the year 1763.
There never was a period, he asserted, when the serious attention of the
house to public affairs was more imperatively demanded, and he boldly
maintained that it was the duty of their lordships to lay the true state
and condition of the country before his majesty. After indulging in a
quiet sneer at the care the council had bestowed upon horned cattle, he
remarked, that he was glad to hear that the king had reason to believe
the peace of the country would be preserved, since peace could never
be more desirable to a kingdom, than when it was torn to pieces by
divisions and distractions, as England was at the passing hour. He then
criticised the last treaty with France and Spain, asserting that England
had not obtained what she had a right to expect from the success of our
arms, and the feeble condition of our enemies. He also maintained, that
having deserted our ally the King of Prussia, we had left ourselves
without alliances on the continent, and, consequently, had been every
moment on the verge of a new war, during a seven years’ peace. This war,
he said, might be unavoidable, and must be unfavourable to England,
as the princes of the house of Bourbon, while we stood in an isolated
position, had become closely united among themselves, and had formed the
closest connexion with the powers of Europe. He, however, lamented still
more the unhappy acts which had severed the affections of the American
colonists from Great Britain; and the internal discontents of the
country. To these he earnestly called the attention of their lordships,
since their privileges, however transcendent and appropriate in
themselves, stood in fact on the people as a basis. The rights of the
highest and the meanest subject, he said, had the same foundation, the
security of the law, which was common to all. He maintained that the
liberty of the subject was invaded both at home and in the colonies, and
that the people who were loud in their complaints, would not be pacified
without a redress of their grievances. Liberty, he observed, was a
plant that deserved to be cherished; that he loved the tree himself, and
wished well to all its branches; that, like the vine in scripture,
it had spread from east to west, had embraced whole nations with
its branches, and sheltered them under its leaves. Concerning the
discontents of the colonists, he conceived that they arose from the
measures of government. These had driven them into excesses which could
not be justified, but for which, he, for one, was inclined to make some
allowance. As to their combinations, and their success in supplying
themselves with goods, this, he said, had alarmed him for the commercial
interests of the mother country, but he could not conceive in what sense
they could be deemed illegal, or how the house by any declaration could
remove the evil. Other remedies must be looked for, as the discontents
of two millions of people could only be removed by a removal of their
causes. Finally, on the subject of discontent in England, he attributed
it to the proceedings of the house of commons in the matter of Mr.
Wilkes, and he concluded by submitting the following amendment:—“That
after the words, ‘and which alone can render our deliberations
respectable and effectual,’ be inserted these words, ‘and for these
great and essential purposes, we will, with all convenient speed, take
into our most serious consideration the causes of the discontents which
prevail in so many parts of your majesty’s dominions, and particularly
the late proceedings of the house of commons, touching the incapacity
of John Wilkes, Esq., expelled by that house, to be elected a member to
serve in this present parliament, thereby refusing, by a resolution of
one branch of the legislature only, to the subject his common right,
and depriving the electors of Middlesex of their free choice of a
representative.’”

This amendment was opposed by Lord Mansfield, he considering that it
was a gross attack on the privileges of the commons, and calculated to
create a quarrel between the two houses, or between the king and the
commons. A question, he said, relating to the seat of a member, could
only be determined by the house itself, whose judgment was final, and
must be received as the law of the land. The arguments which he used in
his speech to support his opinions were ably answered by Chatham. The
noble lord began his reply by extolling common sense above subtilty and
ingenious refinement. The constitution had been invaded, and he heard
with astonishment that invasion defended on principle. He denied that
the commons had a supreme jurisdiction, or that its decision must be
received as the law of the land; for why, he pertinently asked, were the
generous exertions of our ancestors made to secure and transmit to their
posterity a known law and a certain rule of living, if, instead of the
arbitrary power of a king, we must submit to that of a house of commons?
Tyranny was detestable in any shape, but especially when exercised by a
number of tyrants. But that, he triumphantly asserted, was not the fact
or the constitution of England, and he pointed out where the law of
parliament might be found by every honest man; namely, in Magna Charta,
in the statute-book, and in the Bill of Rights. The first principle of
the constitution is, he observed, that the subject shall not be governed
by the will of any man or body of men, but by the whole legislature, and
by certain laws to which he has given his assent: laws which were open
to him to examine, and not beyond his ability to understand. He then
denounced the late decision as destitute of every condition essential
to its legality, and as being unsupported by reason, precedent,
Magna Charta, or the Bill of Rights. Whether it be questioned by the
legislature, he continued, will depend on the resolution of the house;
but that it violates the constitution, no man who had listened to the
debate could deny. He then expressed his confidence in the wisdom and
constitutional authority of the house, and after praising the ancient
nobility as founders of the constitution, and invoking the house
to follow their brilliant example, he thus concluded:—“Those iron
barons—for so I may call them when compared with the silken barons of
modern days—were the guardians of the people; yet their virtues were
never engaged in a question of such importance as the present. A breach
has been made in the constitution—the battlements are dismantled—the
citadel is open to the first invader—the walls totter—the constitution
is not tenable. What remains, then, but for us to stand foremost in the
breach, to repair, or to perish in it?”

The lord chancellor Camden had declared, upon his patron’s resignation
of the privy-seal, that Chatham should still be his polar star, and that
he reluctantly consented “to hold on a little while longer with this
crippled administration.” The part which he took in this debate proved
him to be sincere in his declarations. The house was astonished to
hear, indeed, sentiments from his lips as strong as those delivered by
Chatham. “I accepted,” said he, “the great seal without conditions: I
meant not therefore to be trammelled by his majesty—I beg pardon—by
his ministers. But I have suffered myself to be so too long. For some
time I have beheld with silent indignation the arbitrary measures of
the minister. I have often drooped and hung down my head in council, and
disapproved by my looks those steps which I knew my avowed opposition
could not prevent. I will do so no longer, but will openly and boldly
speak my sentiments.” Lord Camden then agreed with his friend respecting
the incapacitating vote of the commons, and accused the ministry, by
implication, of having formed a conspiracy against the liberties of
the country. By their violent and tyrannical conduct, he said, they had
alienated the minds of the people from his majesty’s government—he had
almost said from his majesty’s person—and that in consequence a spirit
of discontent had spread itself into every nook of the kingdom, and was
daily increasing, so that it was to be feared, that, if some methods
were not devised to appease the clamours heard on every hand, the people
might in despair become their own avengers, and take the redress of
their grievances into their own hands. The address was negatived, and
Lord Pomfret then moved an adjournment for some days; chiefly, as
Lords Temple and Shelburne told the house in reply, for the purpose
of removing the untractable chancellor, Camden, from his seat in the
ministry. Lord Shelburne, however, expressed a conviction “that after
the dismissal of the present worthy chancellor the seals would go a
begging,” and that “there would not be found in the kingdom a wretch so
base and mean-spirited as to accept of them on the conditions on which
they must be offered.”

The address in the house of commons was moved by Sir George Osborne In
opposition, Mr. Dowdeswell moved for the insertion into the address
of words, intimating the necessity of inquiring into the causes of the
prevailing discontents in every part of his majesty’s dominions. The
debate on this motion was most violent, and lasted many hours. Colonel
Barré observed, “that a great part of the king’s subjects were alienated
from him; England was in opposition to its own representatives; in
Ireland the parliament was prorogued because it had supported the true
constitutional right of taxation; the colonies were in actual rebellion
on account of taxes confessedly imposed, not for gain, but as a mere
test of obedience; and, perhaps to crown the whole, France was on the
eve of a war with us.” The Marquis of Granby expressed his regret for
having, in the preceding session, voted with ministers on the question
of the disqualification of Mr. Wilkes, and wished the house would
re-examine their resolution. General Conway opposed the amendment; and
Lord North, Sir Fletcher Norton, and Charles James Fox took the same
side of the question, and the amendment was rejected by a majority of
254 to 138. Another warm debate arose on the morrow, on the question
of receiving the report of the address. Sir William Meredith said, that
thanking the king for his approbation of their conduct would imply
an approval of the vote respecting the Middlesex election. Sir George
Sackville accused the house of betraying the rights of the people; and
being threatened with the tower by General Conway, he was defended by
Sergeant Glynn and Mr. Burke, the latter of whom dared ministers to
punish Sir George, and told them that they were abhorred by the people.
Thus supported, Sackville repeated the charge, and he was followed by
Fox, who deprecated the licentious language introduced in the house.
Burke replied, but there was no division.

{GEORGE III. 1769—1771}




DISSOLUTION OF THE GRAFTON CABINET.

Before the declarations made by Lord-chancellor Camden in the house of
lords, his conduct had been so displeasing to his colleagues that he was
not consulted in any of their measures, and he had not even a voice in
the preparation of the king’s speech. When, therefore, he stood openly
forward as an opponent of the cabinet, it was not to be expected that
the seals would be long left in his possession. The opposition knew
this, and their only fear was that he would anticipate ministers by a
spontaneous resignation, and thereby free the ministers from the odium
which they would obtain from the public by his dismissal. Camden,
however, seems to have had no thoughts of taking such a step, and
the ministers had no alternative left but to remove him from office.
Accordingly he was dismissed, and Lord Shelburne’s prediction was
literally verified—the great seals went a begging. The Honourable
Charles Yorke, indeed, reluctantly accepted them, but before his patent
of peerage could be completed, he committed suicide, and the government
had to seek another chancellor. The seals were successively offered to
Sir Eardley Wilmot and Lord Mansfield, who would not accept them, and
nothing remained but to put them in commission, and to appoint a speaker
in the house of lords in the interim. This latter office was accepted by
Lord Mansfield, and some time after, Sir Sidney Stafford Smythe, one of
the barons of the exchequer; the Honourable Henry Bathurst, one of the
justices of the common pleas; and Sir Richard Aston, one of the justices
of the king’s bench, were appointed commissioners. But the embarrassment
of government did not end here. While business was suspended in the
house of lords by the want of a chancellor, it was also suspended in
the commons by the illness of the speaker, Sir John Cust. Moreover, the
removal of Lord Camden was followed by the resignation of his friend
Mr. Dunning, the solicitor-general; of the Marquess of Granby, as
master-general of the ordnance, and commander-in-chief of the forces; of
Mr. James Grenville, who held the office of one of the vice-treasurers
for Ireland; and of several noblemen who held offices in the household.
The greatest blow to the existence of the ministry seems to have been
the resignation of Granby—a blow which the king and the ministers
in vain sought to avert. Urged by some of the leading members of the
opposition, who as earnestly desired him to adopt this line of conduct,
as the king and his ministers entreated him not to resign, he gave up
everything except his regiment—the Blues. The ordnance was then offered
to General Conway, who refused to accept any of “Lord Granby’s spoils,”
 and the fragment of the ministry still left in office had to brave the
storm of opposition as they best could.

After the adjournment which had taken place during these changes, on the
22nd of January, the Marquess of Rockingham moved in the house of
lords, that the house should, on the 24th, take into consideration the
lamentable state of the nation. In reply, the Duke of Grafton remarked,
that he did not intend to oppose this inquiry, and that he was ready at
any time to enter into the question. The Earl of Chatham then rose,
and in a long and eloquent speech, complained of a breach made in
the constitution. There was a capital mischief fixed at home, which
corrupted the very foundation of our political existence, and preyed
upon the very vitals of the state. “The constitution,” he exclaimed
vehemently, “has been grossly violated—the constitution at this moment
stands violated! Until that wound be healed, until the grievances be
redressed, it is in vain to recommend union to parliament—in vain to
promote concord among the people. If we mean seriously to unite the
nation within itself, we must convince them that their complaints are
regarded, that their injuries shall be redressed. On that foundation I
would take the lead in recommending peace and harmony to the people. On
any other I would never wish to see them united again. If the breach in
the constitution be effectually repaired, the people will of themselves
return to a state of tranquillity; if not, may discord prevail for
ever! I know to what point this doctrine and this language will appear
directed; but I feel the principles of an Englishman, and I utter them
without apprehension or reserve. The crisis is indeed alarming—so much
the more does it require a prudent relaxation on the part of government.
If the king’s servants will not permit a constitutional question to
be decided on according to the forms, and on the principles of the
constitution, it must then be decided in some other manner; and rather
than it should be given up—rather than the nation should surrender
their birthright to a despotic minister, I hope, my lords, old as I am,
I shall see the question brought to issue, and fairly tried between the
people and the government.” The Earl of Chatham next offered some severe
remarks on the surrender of Corsica, the augmentation of troops
in Ireland, the arrears of the civil list, the waste of the public
revenues, and the evils arising from the riches of Asia. “The importers
of foreign gold,” said he, “have forced their way into parliament by
such a torrent of private corruption, as no private hereditary fortune
could resist.” He then offered several suggestions on the propriety of
a reform in parliament—suggestions, he observed, not crude and
undigested, but ripe and well-considered, as the subject had long
occupied his attention. His scheme was, not that the rotten boroughs
should be disfranchised, though he considered them as the rotten part
of the constitution; nor that the unrepresented towns should be allowed
members, though he admitted that in them great part of the strength and
vigour of the constitution resided—but that each county should elect
three members instead of two, he considering that the knights of the
shires approached the nearest to the constitutional representation
of the country, because they represent the soil. At the same time, he
recommended that the city representatives should be augmented, and that
in increasing the number of representatives for the English counties,
the shires of Scotland should be allowed an equal privilege, in order to
prevent any jealousy which might arise from an apparent violation of the
union. In concluding his speech, he proclaimed his coalition with the
Marquess of Rockingham, whom, on a previous occasion he had overthrown
as an incapable statesman; justifying the union formed between them, on
the grounds that it was formed for the good of the country; or, in his
own words, “to save the state.”

It must be admitted that the scheme of parliamentary reform divulged by
the Earl of Chatham was by no means enlightened or impartial. In it no
allowance was to be made for the growing importance of the commercial
and manufacturing interests, the landed interests alone were consulted,
and the country gentlemen, who had never been celebrated for liberal
measures in their legislation, were to crowd the house of commons, and
to decide upon the affairs of the nation. The Earl of Chatham himself,
at a later period, seems to have doubted the efficacy of his plan of
reform, for he admitted that the knights of the shires or the country
members of the house of commons, “were not the most enlightened or
spirited part of the house.” All history, indeed, tends to prove that
such a plan of reform would have proved abortive, so far as regards
the liberty and well-being of the great body of the people, and the
perfecting of the theory of the English constitution, so far as to
make its political practice agree with its principles. There can be no
question, indeed, but that all other interests would have been secondary
to that of the agricultural in the consideration of a parliament thus
constituted; whereas the aim of an enlightened legislature should be
to secure the interests of every section of the community, whether
agricultural, commercial, or manufacturing.

The Earl of Chatham signified his intention of supporting the Marquess
of Rockingham on the 24th, when the great question mooted by him was to
be discussed. On that day, however, it was announced that he was too ill
to attend, and Rockingham also was distressed in mind by the melancholy
suicide of the Honourable Charles Yorke. Under these circumstances, he
moved the adjournment of the question to the 2nd of February, which was
granted by the house; but before that time the Duke of Grafton, harassed
by these commotions and scourged by the press, especially by the
writings of Junius, had resigned his office, and the king had committed
the charge of government to Lord North. At the same time, the state of
the health of Sir John Cust, having induced him to resign the speaker’s
chair, Sir Fletcher Norton was elected his successor. The Earl of
Halifax, moreover, was appointed privy seal in the room of Lord Bristol;
Mr. Wellbore Ellis was selected to be a vice-treasurer in Ireland;
Charles Fox was made a lord of the admiralty; and Mr. Thurlow was
created solicitor-general instead of Mr. Dunning. There were a few minor
substitutions and interchanges of offices, but these were the
principal; and Lord North’s ministry was, therefore, for the most part
a continuation of that of the Duke of Grafton. The Marquess of Gran by’s
places of the ordnance and commander-in-chief were left vacant for
the present, and the great seal was left in commission, with the
commissioners already named.




DEBATES ON THE MIDDLESEX ELECTION, ETC.

Lord North, with whose administration commences a momentous era in the
annals of Great Britain, was eldest son to the Earl of Guildford. In
private life he was one of the most amiable and worthy of men, and he
was a man of elegant acquirements. In public life, also, he was scarcely
less honoured. Brought up amidst official duties, and aiming constantly
at legislatorial distinction, he had acquired eminent skill in managing
a debate, while his good humour and equanimity of temper secured to him
a greater share of esteem and affection than was perhaps ever possessed
by any other minister. Yet his estimable qualities and his political
skill had not sufficient potency to disarm opposition. In the very
outset of his administration, indeed, the opposition made him feel
that he had not taken possession of a bed of roses; or, at least, roses
without thorns. The principal object of the late debates in the house
of lords was to procure a vote in favour of the Middlesex electors: with
the same end in view, Mr. Dowdeswell now moved another resolution in the
commons; namely, “That by the law of the land, and the law and usage of
parliament, no person eligible of common right can be incapacitated by a
resolution of the house, but by an express act of parliament only.” This
undeniable proposition placed ministers in a dilemma, for it was only
a prelude to others, and if they agreed to it and rejected those that
followed, they would seem to resist conclusions from premises they had
themselves conceded; while if they rejected it, it would appear as if
the house of commons was a capricious court; a court neither bound by
law nor by the usages of parliament. The debate on the question was one
of great violence; and in the course of it, Colonel Barre compared
the state to a vessel in a storm which had parted with her mainmast
(Grafton,) and was trying to sail under a jury-mast (North). The new
premier acknowledged that the storm was great, but asserted that the
ship was not compelled to hang out lights for pilots, as her own crew
were capable of conducting her safely into port. And so it proved. North
avoided the snare laid for him by moving as an amendment, “That the
judgment of the house on the Middlesex election is conformable to law
and the usage of parliament,” which was eventually carried by a large
majority.

On the 2nd of February, pursuant to notice, the Marquess of Rockingham
made a similar motion to that of Mr. Dowdeswell in the house of lords.
He moved, “That the house of commons, in the exercise of its judicature
in matters of elections, is bound to judge according to the law of the
land, and the known and established law and custom of parliament, which
is part thereof” This was opposed by Lord Sandwich on the ground of
improper interference with the lower house, which, if aggrieved, had the
means of redress in its own power. Lord Sandwich was answered by Lord
Chatham. In the course of his speech, Sandwich had alluded to the
expulsion of Lionel, Earl of Middlesex, and the great Lord Bacon, “for
certain crimes and misdemeanours,” from which he argued that the peers
now ought to take no more notice of the expulsion of Wilkes, than the
commons then had taken notice of the expulsion pronounced by their
lordships on the above-named noble offenders. To this point Chatham
replied: “Neither of these cases bear any analogy to the present case.
They affected only themselves: the rights of no constituent body were
affected by them. It is not the person of Mr. Wilkes we complain of;
as an individual he is personally out of the dispute. The cause of
complaint, the great cause is, that the inherent rights and franchises
of the people are in this case invaded, trampled upon, annihilated. Lord
Bacon and Lord Middlesex represented no county or city: the rights of
no freeholder, the franchises of no elector, were destroyed by their
expulsion!” In his speech, Chatham declaimed with great severity against
the gross dereliction of principle shown by the commons. They were,
indeed, he said, the proper protectors of their own rights and
privileges; but he lamented that they had, by their recent conduct,
forgotten those privileges, and had added to the long list of venality
from Esau to the present day. The vote of the commons which made Colonel
Luttrell representative for Middlesex, he maintained, was a gross
invasion of law and of the rights of election; a dangerous violation of
the constitution; a treacherous surrender of privileges; and a corrupt
sacrifice of honour. He added, that to gratify the resentment of certain
individuals, the laws had been despised and destroyed, and that
since the commons had slavishly obeyed the commands of his majesty’s
ministers, and proved themselves corrupt, it was necessary for their
lordships to step forward and oppose themselves, on the one hand, to the
justly incensed and intemperate rage of the people, and, on the other
to the criminal and malignant conduct of his majesty’s ministers:
their lordships were the constitutional barrier between the extremes
of liberty and prerogative. The house was excited, but the motion was
negatived by a large majority. On the ministerial side, the Earl of
Marchmont then moved, “That any resolution of the lords directly or
indirectly impeaching a judgment of the house of commons, in a matter
where their jurisdiction is competent final, and conclusive, would be a
violation of the constitutional right of the commons, tending to make
a breach between the two houses of parliament, and leading to general
confusion.” In his speech, the Earl lost his temper and his discretion,
imprudently hinting that if the opposition went one step further it
would be necessary to call in the aid of Foreign assistance. He was
called to order by the Duke of Richmond, and when he attempted to
explain, he found himself unable, and Lord Mansfield was compelled
to relieve him, by declaring as a lawyer and a statesman, that their
lordships had no right to interfere in any determination of the commons.
The Earl of Egmont pursued the same course, and declared that the people
were guilty of treason in offering such petitions as they had recently
offered to his majesty. The Earl of Chatham again rose, and after
thanking Lord Egmont in an ironical strain for his lenity in allowing
the petitioners to wear their heads, he defended the petitions as
praiseworthy and constitutional, and re-asserted that the house of
lords had a right to interfere, when either an invasion of the people’s
liberty was attempted, or an unconstitutional determination made. This
was in reply to the statement of Lord Mansfield, and he then praised the
abilities of that nobleman at the expense of his honour, honesty, and
patriotism. Chatham next complained of the ministerial motion, and
of the late hour—for it was midnight—at which it had been made.
He proposed an adjournment for two days. “If,” he exclaimed, “the
constitution must be wounded, let it not receive its mortal stab at
this dark hour, when honest men are asleep in their beds, and when only
felons and assassins are seeking for prey.” Ministers, however, seem to
have acted upon the well-known adage, that “delays are dangerous.” The
adjournment was rejected, and at two o’clock in the morning Marchmont’s
motion was carried. Protests were entered against both decisions, the
former being signed by forty-two, and the latter by forty peers.

Similar discussions led to similar results in the house of commons.
On the 5th of February a debate was there entered upon, in which the
opposition urged that the expulsion of Wilkes had been determined by
ministers in council, and a motion was also made to bring in a bill to
regulate and define the consequences of expulsion from the house; but
the ministers in each instance were victorious. The exertions of the
opposition, however, were warmly supported by a large majority of the
liverymen of London, who busied themselves in getting up memorials and
remonstrances, and hence they were nothing daunted by their repeated
defeats. Ministers were, indeed, attacked upon other points of their
policy besides the matter of Wilkes Thus, on the 2nd of March, Lord
Craven, acting with the opposition, moved an address to the throne,
beseeching his majesty forthwith to take proper steps for such an
increase of seamen in the royal navy as should effectually preserve the
honour and security of his; majesty’s kingdom and colonies. This was
made the medium of severe censures on the dismissal of able officers
for their votes in parliament, and also on the entire management of the
navy. Earl Chatham supported the motion, and condemned the conduct of
ministers in this particular branch of the national service, as base and
unworthy. In his speech he again adverted to his favourite topic;
that of the secret influence which was at work near the throne. This
influence he denounced as dangerous, base, unconstitutional, and wicked;
and maintained that it had occasioned all the unhappiness of the
nation, and created confusion in the government of the colonies. He then
asserted that this invisible influence was still working for evil, for
although the favourite (Bute) was gone to Turin, Mazarine absent was
Mazarine still; and his influence by means of agents was potent as ever.
Then, raising his voice, he exclaimed, “This country was sold at the
late peace! We were sold by the court of Turin to the court of France!”
 Chatham then indirectly accused the king of insincerity and treachery
to himself, personally, during the time that he was minister; asserting
that after he had given his approbation to plans and measures one week,
he would let them vanish into air the next, and that all his promises
and assurances were broken through an in-invisible influence. The king
was defended by the Duke of Grafton, who hinted that the intellect
of Chatham was affected; but this only drew forth a repetition of the
accusation in stronger language. “I rise,” said he, “neither to deny
nor retract, nor to explain away the words I have spoken. As for his
majesty, I have always found him everything gracious and amiable in
the closet; so amiably condescending as to promise, in every repeated
audience, not only to forgive, but to supply the defects of health by
his cheerful support, and by the ready assistance of all his immediate
dependents. Instead of this, all the obstacles and difficulties which
attended every great and public measure did not arise from those out of
government: they were suggested, nourished, and supported by that
secret influence I have mentioned, and by the industry of those very
dependents; first by secret treachery, then by official influence, and
afterwards in public councils. A long train of these practices has
at length unwillingly convinced me that there is something behind the
throne greater than the king himself.”

It seems clear that when the Earl of Chatham made these assertions, the
councils of the king were no longer biassed by the influence of the Earl
of Bute; but, notwithstanding, the charges made all the impressions on
the public mind which he could have desired. Some even declared that
they knew the secret agents that went between the absent lord, the
princess dowager and the king, and Mr. Dyson, Mr. Bradshaw, both
placemen and members of parliament, and subsequently, Mr. Jenkinson
(afterwards Baron Hawkesbury and Earl of Liverpool,) were expressly
named as the principal of the parasites. The popular credulity on this
subject appeared to receive confirmation from the conduct of the king
towards the “good citizens” of London. Four days after this debate in
the house of lords the common hall of the city took into consideration
a memorial complaining that a petition which had been presented to his
majesty by the citizens remained unanswered. This memorial, after the
lord mayor Beckford had delivered an exciting harangue, was adopted
by acclamation, and with three rounds of applause. At first the king
refused to hear this memorial; but he at length consented, and it was
carried up to St. James’s on the 14th of March by the lord mayor, and
more than two hundred common-councilmen, liverymen, and city officers.
It was read to the king as he sat upon his throne, and perhaps the ears
of royalty were never destined to hear stronger remonstrances than
this memorial contained. It told him that secret and evil counsellors,
combined with a corrupt parliament, robbed the people of their dearest
rights, and that they had done a deed more ruinous in its consequences
than the levying of ship-money by Charles I., or the dispensing power
assumed by James IL, and which deed must vitiate all the further
proceedings of the present parliament; it called God and man to witness
that the citizens would not be thus cheated of their liberties; and that
as they were gained by the stern virtues of their ancestors, so they
should be preserved by themselves; and it concluded by praying that the
king would dissolve the present parliament, and remove from him all
evil counsellors. With a clouded brow the king in reply pronounced the
contents of this memorial to be disrespectful to himself, injurious
to his parliament, and irreconcilable to the principles of the
constitution; and he asserted that he had ever made the law of the land
the rule of his conduct, that he esteemed it his chief glory to rule
over a free people, and that he had a right to expect from them a steady
and affectionate support. The city deputation withdrew, amidst the
manifest resentment of the courtiers, and the court instantly resolved
to bring the memorial before the notice of parliament. This was done on
the 19th of March, when it was moved by Sir Thomas Clavering, “That
to deny the legality of the present parliament, and to assert that the
proceedings thereof are not valid, is highly unwarrantable, and has a
manifest tendency to disturb the peace of the kingdom, by withdrawing
his majesty’s subjects from then-obedience to the laws of the realm.”
 This motion was warmly opposed, but it was carried by a large majority,
and an address to the king was also agreed to in condemnation of the
city memorial, both by the lords and the commons. It is said that the
king graciously received this address, but that he thought the city
magistrates ought to have been proceeded against by parliament for their
conduct. On the other hand, the city and the people of Middlesex were
offended by the conduct of the opposition, and the smallness of
the minority that voted against the address, and they passed strong
resolutions, expressing their discontent. The blame was chiefly imputed
to the Rockingham party; and the Rev. Mr. Home—better known at a later
date by the name of Home Tooke—who had begun to rule the democracy at
the Mile-end and Brentford meetings, announced his intention of exposing
that party; but this was prevented chiefly through the influence of the
Earl of Chatham. Instead of this, indeed, the reverend orator employed
his talents in getting up a strong petition and remonstrance to the king
from the freeholders of Middlesex, and which was presented on the 31st
of March; the Earl of Chatham having previously thanked him for his able
exertions in the cause of freedom, and for abstaining from his proposed
attack on the Rockingham party.




THE QUESTION OF CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS, ETC.

Ever since the famous Aylesbury case, in 1704, the house of commons
had been sole judge of the qualification of electors, and of all other
matters regarding the election of their own members. All controverted
elections were tried before a committee of the whole house, the members
not being bound to impartiality, either by oath, promise, or pledge. On
the 2nd of April, Mr. George Grenville brought in a bill for regulating
the trial of controverted elections, which provided that, in every case,
the judicature should be transferred from the house to a sworn committee
of fifteen members, whereof thirteen were to be chosen by the contesting
claimants for the seat, out of a list of forty-five chosen by ballot
by the whole house, and the other two named by the contesting parties
themselves; one for each. The committee were to have full power to
examine witnesses, papers, and records, and their oath bound them to
a strict impartiality. This bill met with stern opposition from the
ministers, and at one stage it was moved by Mr. Welbore Ellis, that it
should be rejected, which was seconded by Mr. Charles Fox; but the
bill was eloquently defended by Burke, and it passed into a law. It was
carried up to the lords by Mr. Grenville on the 5th of April, where,
as Lord Mansfield had expressed his approbation of it, and promised its
support, no opposition was feared. It passed unanimously, and it seems
to have had a very beneficial effect on the legislature.

Previously to the passing of this act, a bill was proposed by Mr.
Dowdeswell to disqualify officers of the excise and customs from
voting at elections The mover stated, that both classes were under the
influence of the crown, and that the departments of the revenue were
becoming so numerous as to render that influence incompatible with a
free constitution. There was no attempt, however, to prove corruption,
and the motion was rejected, as unfair in its attempt to deprive
individuals of the rights of British subjects, on the mere presumption
of venality. An act at the same time was passed for altering the law
of privilege, so far as it extended to the effects and domestics of
the members of either house. In the house of lords this bill was warmly
supported by Lord Mansfield, and as warmly opposed by Lord Sandwich, who
argued, that it was an encroachment upon the privileges of the peers. An
inquiry into the accounts of the civil list, during the year 1769, was a
popular subject in both houses about the same time. The expenses having
greatly increased, it was inferred that the money was employed in the
corruption of electors. Ministers opposed this inquiry, arguing, that
as the civil list was solely the revenue of the crown, the crown had a
right to expend it as it pleased; and that if an additional grant had
been asked, then, and not till then, the expenditure might have been
investigated, for the purpose of ascertaining the necessity of the
grant, and how the money was spent. The motion was negatived, and other
attempts to interfere with the management of the king’s revenue met with
a similar fate.

The debate in the house of lords on this question is rendered remarkable
by the eloquent speech uttered by the Earl of Chatham. In the course of
this speech he asserted that the minister who was bold enough to spend
the money of the people before it was granted, though it might not
be used for the purpose of corrupting their representatives, deserved
death. He was reminded that he, too, when in office, had granted
pensions, to which he replied, “It is true, and here is a list of them:
you will find there the names of General Amherst, Sir Edward Hawke, and
several others of the same nature—they were given as rewards for real
services, and as encouragements to other gallant heroes. They were
honourably earned in a different sort of campaign than those at
Westminster; they were gained by actions full of danger to themselves,
of glory and of benefit to this nation—not by corrupt votes of baseness
and of destruction to their country. You will find no secret service
there; and you will find that, when the warrior was recompensed, the
member of parliament was left free. You will likewise find a pension
of £1,500 a year to Lord Camden. I recommended his lordship to be
chancellor; his public and private virtues were acknowledged by all;
they made his station more precarious. I could not reasonably expect
from him that he would quit the chief-justiceship of the common pleas,
which he held for life, and put himself in the power of those who were
not to be trusted, to be dismissed from the chancery perhaps the day
after his appointment. The public has not been deceived by his conduct.
My suspicions have been justified. His integrity has made him once more
a poor and private man; he was dismissed for the opinion he gave in
favour of the right of election in the people.” Here the noble orator
was interrupted by loud cries of “To the bar, to the bar,” and Lord
Marchmont moved that his words should be taken down. Chatham himself
seconded this motion: “My words,” he thundered forth in an indignant
tone, “My words remain unretracted, unexplained, and reaffirmed. I
desire to know whether I am condemned or acquitted, and whether I may
still presume to hold up my head as high as the noble lord who moved to
have my words taken down.” Chatham paused for a reply, and none being
given, he continued, “I will trust no sovereign in the world with the
means of purchasing the liberties of the people. When I had the honour
of being the confidential keeper of the king’s intention, he assured
me that he never intended to exceed the allowance which was made by
parliament, and therefore, my lords, at a time when there are no marks
of personal dissipation in the king—at a time when there are no marks
of any considerable sums having been expended to procure the secrets of
our enemies—that a request of an inquiry into the expenditure of the
civil list should be refused, is to me most extraordinary. Does the King
of England want to build a palace equal to his rank and dignity? Does he
want to encourage the polite and useful arts? Does he mean to reward
the hardy veteran who has defended his quarrel in many a rough campaign,
whose salary does not equal that of some of your servants? Or does he
mean, by drawing the purse-strings of his subjects, to spread corruption
through the people, to procure a parliament, like a packed jury, ready
to acquit his ministers at all adventures? I do not say, my lords,
that corruption lies here, or that corruption lies there; but if any
gentleman in England were to ask me whether I thought both houses of
parliament were bribed, I should laugh in his face and say, ‘Sir it is
not so.’” Chatham concluded by saying that an inquiry into the state and
expenditure of the civil list was proper, just, and expedient; and that
a refusal of it would elicit ridicule and exhibit folly. Nevertheless
the motion was negatived.




DEBATES ON AMERICA.

A petition was presented to parliament by the English merchants trading
with America, representing that, in consequence of the duties and taxes,
the discontents of the Americans, and their combinations to prevent the
importation of goods from England, their trade had gone to ruin; and
praying for the intervention of the legislature. In consequence of this,
a bill was proposed by Lord North, to repeal all the American taxes and
duties except tea. In proposing this repeal he censured the Revenue Act
only as an inexpedient or unproductive impost, and not as an illegal or
impolitic claim. The duty on tea, he said, was continued to maintain
the right of taxing the Americans, and it could not be supposed that an
impost of three pence per pound on an article from which one shilling
was deducted when exported to America, would offend the colonists,
unless they were determined upon a rebellion. Mr. Grenville, the parent
of the Stamp Act, argued that he had at least acted systematically, and
that in imposing the stamp duties he had reason to think that they would
be paid. The succeeding ministry, he said, had repealed that act, but
had reaffirmed the right of parliament to tax the colonies, by laying
duties upon unwise and anti-commercial principles: duties which were
far more odious to the colonies than his Stamp Act. His opinion was,
therefore, that the ministers must now give up, or stand by the whole.
A partial repeal, he added, will not do: the Americans would not rest
satisfied with any thing short of the renunciation by parliament of the
right to tax them in any way, either externally or internally. In this
General Pownall coincided, and he proposed as an amendment, that the
repeal should be extended to all articles, as the only way of quieting
the colonies. This amendment was supported by General Conway, Colonel
Barre, and Sir William Meredith, but it was rejected, and leave was
given to bring in North’s bill. A subsequent motion to repeal the duty
on tea was also lost, and the act passed according to North’s first
proposal.




RELEASE OF WILKES.

On the 12th of April, the term of Wilkes’s imprisonment having expired,
he was set at liberty. He was no sooner freed from confinement than
he recommenced his system of agitation. Everywhere he harangued on
his sufferings, and declared that he was ready to die in the cause of
liberty. He was considered a martyr by the populace, and in both houses
he had his friends. On the 1st of May, the Earl of Chatham, after
arranging his plan of attack with Temple, Rockingham, Shelburn,
and others, stood up in the house of lords and presented a bill for
reversing the adjudications of the house of commons, whereby John
Wilkes, Esq. had been adjudged incapable of being elected a member to
serve in this present parliament, and the freeholders of the county of
Middlesex, had been deprived of one of their legal representatives. In
descanting on this, Chatham declared that a violent outrage had been
committed against everything dear and sacred to Englishmen. He then made
some observations on the new state arithmetic by which Colonel Luttrel’s
296 votes had been held to be a greater number than Wilkes’s 1143! This,
he said, was flying in the face of all law and freedom: a robbery of the
liberty of freeholders; and making the birthrights of Englishmen a mere
farce. He then represented Colonel Luttrell as sitting in the lap of
John Wilkes, and the majority of the house as being turned into a state
engine. He added, in conclusion, “I am afraid this measure originated
too near the throne. I am sorry for it; but I hope his majesty will soon
open his eyes, and see it in all its deformity.” Lord Mansfield opposed
the Earl of Chatham. He contended that the house had no right to
interfere with the decisions of the commons; that those decisions were
legal; that in consequence of previous votes and sentences, Wilkes was
nobody in the eye of the law; and that, though the freeholders gave
their votes, it was for the house of commons to judge as to the point of
qualification. Lord Camden replied, that Lord Mansfield was delivering
unconstitutional doctrines, and that Wilkes had been expelled in
consequence of a secret influence which had said, “Mr. Wilkes shall not
sit.” He also asserted that the judgment of the commons on the Middlesex
election was a worse wound in the constitution than any of those
inflicted in the reign of Charles I., when the nation had no parliament;
and he expressed a hope that if this bill should be rejected, the good
sense and spirit of the people would persevere session after session,
till the judgment of parliament should be revoked. The bill was
rejected, and thirty-eight peers signed a protest.

When this bill was lost, the Earl of Chatham demanded that the house
should be summoned on the 4th, as he had a motion to make of great
importance relative to the king. On the day appointed, his lordship
moved, “That the advice inducing his majesty to give the answer to the
late address, remonstrance, and petition of the lord mayor, aldermen,
and livery of London, was of a most dangerous tendency, inasmuch as
thereby the exercise of the rights of the subject to petition the king
for redress of grievances, to complain of violations of the freedom
of election, to pray dissolution of parliament, and to point out
malpractices in administration, to urge the removal of evil ministers,
etc., had been indiscriminately checked with reprimand; and the
afflicted citizens of London had heard from the throne itself, that the
contents of their humble addresses could not but be considered by his
majesty as disrespectful, injurious, etc.” The noble lord said that an
answer so harsh as this exceeded all precedent in the history of this
country; that the very essence of the constitution not only permitted,
but required petitioning; and that the Stuarts themselves never dared to
prevent the practice. He then eulogized the lord mayor and the liverymen
of London, and in conclusion, pronounced Colonel Luttrell as a mere
nominee thrust in by the enemies of the law and constitution. The motion
was negatived by a large majority.

{GEORGE II. 1769–1771}




AMERICAN AFFAIRS.

On the 1st of May, the opposition in the house of commons called for
the correspondence of the American colonies, and subsequently Mr. Burke
moved eight resolutions relating to the troubles in those colonies, and
censuring the plan ministers were pursuing. The previous question was
carried against the first of these resolutions, the second, third, and
fourth were negatived, and the previous question was carried against the
remainder. Similar resolutions were moved in the house of lords by the
Duke of Richmond; but they were all negatived by a large majority. On
the 14th, however, nothing daunted, the Earl of Chatham coupled the
discontents of America with those in England and Ireland, and founded
a motion on them for an address to dissolve the parliament. He moved,
“That an humble address be presented to his majesty, most dutifully
and earnestly beseeching him, that in the dangerous state wherein
his kingdoms are involved, from the high dissatisfactions generally
prevailing at home, and from the most alarming disorders which have
unhappily manifested themselves in his American dominions, his majesty
will, in his great wisdom and necessary care, to prevent more fatal
mischiefs, be graciously pleased to take the recent and genuine sense of
his people, by dissolving this present parliament, and calling, with all
convenient dispatch, a new parliament.” In his speech he declared
that the house of commons had not the confidence of the people; and in
speaking of the mode of reforming that assembly, he said, “Instead of
depriving a county of its representatives, one or more members ought to
be added to its representation, in order to counterbalance the weight
of corrupt and venal boroughs.” The house, however, would not listen to
his arguments: a loud cry of “Question, question,” was raised, and
the motion was rudely negatived. But if Chatham was not listened to in
parliament, he was venerated for his recent opposition to the measures
of government by the people. On the same day, the common council of
London carried a vote of thanks to him, for the zeal he had exhibited in
support of their sacred privileges and the right of election; and also
for his declaration that he would use his best endeavours to restore the
house of commons to its purity, by shortening the duration of its term,
and introducing a more equal representation.




RIOTS AT BOSTON.

While both houses of parliament were carrying on a wordy war, matters
had assumed a more serious aspect in America. Committees had been
appointed in nearly all the principal sea-ports of the colonies, to
examine cargoes arriving from Great Britain, and to report to their
constituents how far the act of association was carried into effect,
or how far infringed Meetings of the association were regularly held
at Faneuil Hall, Boston, and votes of censure were passed upon all
who introduced or sold any of the prohibited goods. The names of such
offenders were, indeed, regularly published in the newspapers, with
comments appended to them, holding them up to the public as selfish
slaves and traitors. A few, however, it would appear, were permitted to
make a market, by selling the prohibited articles, which could only be
purchased from their shops; and this becoming notorious, one Theophius
Lillie, a tradesman at Boston, resolved to sell what was thus sold by
others. In order to point him out as one whose shop was to be shunned,
the mob placed a rude figure at his door, and a person named Richardson,
either a friend or a servant of Lillies, attempted to remove the
nuisance, and being defeated in his design by the mob, who pelted him
with stones, he took up a loaded gun and fired upon his assailants from
within doors. The shot killed a boy, who was forthwith recorded in
the newspapers as the first martyr in the cause of liberty. He was, in
truth, the first that was sacrificed, but the blow proceeded from the
hand of a persecuted American, and not from the hand of an Englishman.
It was not long, however, before the English were involved in quarrels
with the Americans, which resulted in the loss of life. The boldness of
the Bostonians seems daily to have increased after the above-mentioned
incident. It was in vain that merchants implored even to keep the goods
they had imported in store, as if bonded, until the duties in England
should be repealed: they were compelled to send them back to those
who had shipped them. At the same time, it was shrewdly suspected that
several of the Bostonian leaders still imported and sold goods largely;
or, at least, permitted goods to be imported in their vessels. The
people of New York, indeed, taxed the Bostonians with unfair and selfish
dealings, and renounced the non-importation agreement. This gave rise
to mutual recrimination between these two states: the New Yorkers called
the Bostonians pedlars, and the Bostonians said that the New Yorkers
were no patriots. At the same time, the Bostonians were fierce in their
hatred of the English government and its measures. If they acted with
duplicity in the matter of trade, they were at least consistent in
their denunciations against all connection with England. The soldiers
quartered in Boston were subject to constant insults from them, and were
continually interrupted in their duty. All classes conceived that as
they had not been called in by the civil magistrates of the place, that
their presence was illegal, and that every means employed to hasten
their departure, or make their stay uncomfortable was laudable. Hence,
no sentinel could stand in his place without being insulted; and it was
too much to expect from human nature, that the soldiers should suffer
continual insult without retorting upon theis adversaries. Some alleged
that Colonel Dalrymple and his officers should have kept their men
separate from the inhabitants; but this could not have been done, except
by keeping them prisoners in their quarters, and by discontinuing the
practice of mounting guard at the government offices. It was easy to
foresee, therefore, that sooner or later disastrous consequences would
ensue. And this was rendered more certain, because government had not
sent a sufficient number of troops to keep the populace of Boston in
awe. As soon as the arrival of troops at Boston was known at home,
General Pownal had pointed out the error, stating that if they intended
to govern the country by military force, they had not sent sufficient
troops; and that if they did not intend this, they had sent too many.
The people of Boston, he said, were set in array against the military;
that though the sword was not drawn, it was ready to leap from the
scabbard; and that though the word for action was not yet given,
mischief was on tip-toe, and the slightest circumstance would set it on
foot. These remarks were founded in truth. The Boston newspapers gave
insertion to a fictitious narrative of a defeat of a body of soldiers
by the people of New York, and to a series of fictions which represented
the English troops as a set of poltroons who would quail before the
sons of liberty. While these reflections were fresh in the minds of
the soldiers, one of them was involved in a quarrel, and was beaten by
several Bostonians, who were rope-makers belonging to the establishment
of Mr. John Gray. Incensed at the ill-treatment he had received,
twelve of his comrades returned with him to the spot and fell upon the
rope-makers, and compelled them to take refuge in flight. This served as
a prelude to a more serious conflict. Meetings were held by the mob, who
decided upon attacking the soldiers, and driving them out of Boston. The
day appointed for this was the 5th of March, and on the evening of that
day parties from all quarters assembled, armed with sticks and clubs,
and made an attack upon some of the troops in Dock-square. An officer
appeared, who ordered the men to their barracks, and they with
difficulty escaped thither. They were followed by the mob, who dared
them to come out; and their rage increasing, the mob began to tear up
the stalls of the market-place in Dock-square, and swore that they would
attack the main-guard. Some peaceable citizens exerted themselves to
allay their fury, and they had well nigh succeeded in persuading many
of them to retire, when a tall man in a red cloak and white wig appeared
among them, and incited them by a brief harangue to carry out their
design. His discourse was followed by shouts of “To the main guard! To
the main guard! We will destroy the soldiers!” The mob then separated
into three divisions, each of which took separate roads. One of these
divisions in their route passed by the Custom-house, and a boy pointing
to the sentinel on duty there, asserted that he was the man who had
knocked him down. A loud cry was instantly raised to kill him, and the
sentinel loaded his gun by way of intimidating them. Nothing daunted,
however, they first pelted him with every thing that came to hand, and
then, seeing his reluctance to fire, closed upon him, and compelled him
to retreat to the door of the Custom-house. He sought admittance, but
those within were afraid of opening the door, and the sentinel then
shouted for assistance to the main guard which was within hearing. A
corporal and six privates were sent by Captain Preston to his rescue,
while he followed at a short distance. Their guns were unloaded; but
as they advanced, they found the mob increasing, and were pelted so
pitilessly by them on every hand, and so grossly insulted by opprobrious
language, that they loaded them and fixed on their bayonets. Still they
were reluctant to fire; and when the mob pressed in upon them, they
merely used their weapons to keep them off. At length a certain mulatto
named Crispus Attucks, with others dressed like sailors, gave three
cheers, hemmed in the soldiers, and struck at their muskets with clubs,
exclaiming to those behind, “Come forward, they dare not fire; let
us kill them, etc.” Attucks aimed a blow at Captain Preston, who was
begging the rioters to desist, and keeping his men quiet, and in doing
so he not only hit the Captain on his arm, but struck down one of the
men’s muskets, and then seized his bayonet. Some persons behind Captain
Preston now urged the soldiers to fire, and the private whose musket had
been knocked out of his hand having recovered it, fired at the mulatto,
who fell mortally wounded. The other soldiers now successively fired off
their pieces, and three persons were killed, while others were wounded
more or less dangerously. The mob retreated, but they recollected in
an adjoining street, with dreadful yells, and the drums beat to arms. It
seemed as if a combat of the fiercest kind was about to take place; but
certain persons who had been gliding about the mob, urging them on to
acts of violence, now thought proper to persuade them to retire. The
storm was hushed for that night; but early in the morning the mob again
collected in large numbers. At the same time, the lieutenant-governor
held a council, and the magistrates and chief citizens met in full
assembly, and chose a committee. The committee soon waited upon the
governor and council, and declared that nothing could restore peace
to the town but the immediate removal of the troops. Colonel Dalrymple
proposed that the 29th regiment, whose men had been engaged in the
riot, should remove to Castle William, and that the 14th regiment
should remain. This was reported to the assembly; but another deputation
demanded the total and immediate removal of all the troops, as the only
means of tranquillizing the town. The governor was told that he must not
think the demand proceeded from a set of vagabonds, for that people
of the best character were determined, that if the troops were not
voluntarily removed, they should be expelled by force. A force of
ten thousand men, it was stated, were at their beck, and these were
determined to destroy the troops if not removed, albeit it might be
called rebellion. The governor first flatly refused to accede to this
demand; he then wavered in his determination, and finally he agreeded
to divide the responsibility of removing them with Colonel Dalrymple
and the members of the council, and the troops were ordered to march to
Castle William. Thus successful the Bostonians grew more bold in their
opposition to the English government. The newspapers represented the
affair of the 5th of March as a deliberate murder on the part of the
troops, and nothing was neglected to exasperate the public mind and
perpetuate the memory of “the bloody and inhuman massacre.” Yet when
Captain Preston and his men were put upon their trials, American judges
and a jury from among the citizens of Boston, were compelled to admit
that they had acted only in self-defence. Their verdict was, that
Captain Preston and six of the solders were not guilty, and that two,
Montgomery, who shot Crispus Attucks, and Killroy, who was proved to
have shot another man, were not guilty of murder but of manslaughter
only. These two prayed the benefit of clergy, which was allowed, and
each being burnt in the hand in open court, they were discharged like
their comrades. In the course of the trial, Judge Lynde declared that
the affair turned out to the disgrace of every person concerned against
Captain Preston, and to the shame of the people of Boston in general.




THE PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

News of the disturbances in Boston arrived before the close of this
session; but hopes being entertained that the late bill would have the
effect of conciliating the Americans, it was deemed proper to abstain
from any investigation, lest it should relight the torch of discord. The
session terminated on the 19th of May.




REMONSTRANCE OF BECKFORD TO THE KING.

The answer which the king had given to the good citizens of London at
the presentation of their recent memorial had given them great umbrage,
and on the 23rd of May, the lord mayor and some aldermen, with a
numerous train, went again to St. James’s with another petition,
complaining of this answer. The address stated that it was, as well as
the general acts of government, “against the clearest principles of
the constitution, and the result of insidious attempts made by evil
counsellors, to perplex, confound and shake the rights of the people.”
 It concluded with a renewed demand for the dissolution of parliament,
and the removal of the present ministers. The king replied that it was
his duty to express dissatisfaction at their last address, and that his
sentiments on the subject were still the same. It was anticipated that
the deputation would not be very graciously received, and that the king
would not retract his former sentiments. Hence a remonstrance had been
prepared in the shape of a reply, and to the astonishment of the court,
Beckford, instead of retiring with the usual etiquette from the royal
presence, approached the throne, and thus addressed the king: “Most
gracious sovereign, will your majesty be pleased so far to condescend,
as to permit the mayor of your loyal city of London to declare in your
royal presence, in behalf of his fellow-citizens, how much the bare
apprehension of your majesty’s displeasure would at all times affect
their minds. The declaration of that displeasure has already filled them
with inexpressible anxiety and with the deepest affliction. Permit me to
assure your majesty, that your majesty has not in all your dominions any
subjects more faithful, more dutiful, or more ready to sacrifice their
lives and fortunes in the maintenance of the true honour and dignity of
your crown. We do therefore, with the greatest humility and submission,
most earnestly supplicate your majesty that you will not dismiss us
from your presence, without expressing a more favourable opinion of your
faithful citizens, and without some comfort, or at least some prospect
of redress.” Had the remonstrance stopped here, Beckford might have
obtained the smiles of the king; but he continued: “Permit me, sire, to
observe, that whoever has already dared, or shall hereafter endeavour by
false insinuations and suggestions to alienate your majesty’s affections
from your loyal subjects in general, and from the city of London in
particular, is an enemy to your majesty’s person and family; a violator
of the public peace, and a betrayer of our happy constitution, as it was
established at the glorious Revolution.” Beckford prayed for a reply,
but none being given, the deputation withdrew. The king appears, indeed,
to have been too angry to reply with courtesy, for he immediately issued
orders, through the medium of the lord chamberlain, that lord mayors
should in future confine themselves to delivering their papers, and not
presume to make speeches. But if Beckford did not please the king, he
gained great credit with the people for his conduct. The Earl of Chatham
warmly applauded him for asserting the rights of the city with weight
and spirit. On the other hand, the king increased his unpopularity by
his conduct towards the deputation. The common council were so incensed,
that they demurred about voting an address of congratulation on the
birth of the Princess Elizabeth, which happened about this time. Wilkes
in particular, who was made an alderman even while in the King’s Bench,
and who now wore the civic gown, opposed such an address, and when the
good feelings of the citizens prevailed over their anger, and they voted
an address, he did what he could to render it unpopular. The address,
however, was presented in the usual form, and his majesty observed in
reply, “that the city of London, entertaining such loyal sentiments,
might always feel assured of his protection.” A few days after this
Beckford died, and the city voted that he should be honoured with a
statue in Guildhall, and that the speech he had delivered to the king
should be engraved on the pedestal. His death was considered a serious
blow to the opposition, as no one could be found possessing the weight
which he derived from his wealth and munificence, or who could supply
his ardour and fearlessness.




PROSECUTION OF WOODFALL AND ALMON.

Almost every act which the government now committed tended only to
excite the public clamour and indignation. During this summer it
involved itself in new troubles, and exposed itself to fiercer attacks,
by prosecuting the printers and publishers of Junius’s Letters. In the
month of June Woodfall was tried for printing in his newspaper, the
“Public Advertiser,” one of these letters, which was addressed to his
majesty, and was considered a scandalous libel; and Almon was tried for
selling a re-publication of it in the “London Museum.” Almon was found
guilty of publishing, and was sentenced to pay a fine of ten marks, and
find security for his good behaviour for two years. Woodfall was found
“guilty of printing and publishing only” and in his case, the defendant
moved to stay the entering of judgment on the verdict, while the
attorney-general moved for a rule on the defendant, to show cause why
the verdict should not be entered according to the legal import of the
words. The attorney-general’s motion was attended to first; and when the
matter came to be argued in the court of King’s Bench, Lord Mansfield,
before whom both cases had been tried, went regularly through the whole
evidence, as well as his own charge to the jury. After recapitulating
the defence on the trial, his lordship remarked: “I directed the jury,
that if they believed the innuendoes, as to persons and things, to have
been properly filled up in the information, and to be the true meaning
of the paper, and if they gave credit to the witnesses, they must find
the defendant guilty. If the jury were obliged to determine whether the
paper was in law a libel or not, or to judge whether it was criminal,
or to what degree; or if they were to require proofs of a criminal
intention—then this direction was wrong. I told them, as I have always
told them before, that whether a libel or not, was a mere question of
law arising out of the record, and that all the epithets inserted in the
information were formal inferences of law. A general verdict of the
jury finds only what the law implies from the fact, for that is scarcely
possible to be produced: the law implies from the act of publication,
a criminal intent.” After some further remarks of minor importance his
lordship continued: “The motion of the attorney-general divides itself
into two parts; first, to fill up the finding of the jury with the usual
words of reference, so as to connect the verdict with the information:
the omission of these words, we are of opinion, is a technical mistake
of the clerk, and may be now supplied. The second head of the argument
is to omit the word ‘only’ in the entry of the verdict: this we are all
of opinion cannot be done. The word ‘only’ must stand in the verdict; if
this word was omitted, the verdict would then be, ‘guilty of printing
and publishing,’ which is a general verdict of guilty; for there is no
other charge in the information but printing and publishing, and that
alone the jury had to inquire. We are all of opinion, that my direction
to the jury is right and according to law; the positions contained in
it never were doubted; it never has been, nor is it now complained of in
this court. There clearly can be no judgment of acquittal, because the
fact found by the jury is the only question they had to try; the single
doubt that remains, is concerning the meaning of the word ‘only.’” The
court considering that the word “only” had been used in an ambiguous
sense, ordered Woodfall a new trial on that ground; but when it came on,
the attorney-general remarked that he had not the original newspaper by
which he could prove the publication Thus terminated the second trial:
the want of this was fatal to the cause.




DISPUTES RESPECTING FALKLAND ISLANDS.

During the summer and autumn of the present year the attention of
government was absorbed by a subject, which at one time threatened a new
war with France and Spain—this was the affair of the Falkland Islands.

The Falkland Islands are situate in the Southern Atlantic Ocean, off the
extremity of the South American continent, and the eastern entrance to
the Straits of Magellan. They consist of two larger islands called East
and West Falkland, and a great number of isles and islets. By right,
they certainly belonged to England. The discovery of them was made by
Captain Hawkins in the reign of Elizabeth, who called them “Hawkins’
Maiden Islands,” and they were afterwards visited by Strong in 1689,
who gave them their present name. Subsequently they were visited by the
French, who in 1764 formed a settlement at Berkeley Sound, an excellent
harbour on West Falkland. In the next year, Commodore Byron formed a
counter settlement at Port Egmont on East Falkland. The Spaniards, who
had neglected these islands and their resources, now took the alarm, and
demanded their evacuation both from France and England, as territories
belonging to them both by right of papal bulls, and degrees of latitude
and longitude. The French abandoned their settlement, but the English
refused to accede to the demand. Spain, dreading the power of England,
was for the time compelled to give up the claim; but at length, in 1769,
the domestic distractions of Great Britain, her ready acquiescence in
the transfer of Corsica to France, and the encouragement of the
French minister Choiseul, emboldened the Spanish court to revive its
pretensions to these islands. An armament, consisting of several ships
of war, provided with apparatus for a siege, sailed from Buenos Ayres,
and in the month of June suddenly appeared off Port Egmont. The British
commandant, Captain Farmer, knowing that the place could not sustain a
siege, after a few shots, submitted to terms of capitulation. Contrary
to all the rules of war, however, the Spanish commodore, in order to
prevent the intelligence from arriving in England on an early day, or
from being first related by English lips, enjoined Captain Farmer not to
sail without his permission, and to ensure compliance, he even unshipped
the rudder of his vessel, and kept it on shore for three weeks. This
was an insult to the British flag not to be endured. As soon as
the proceedings were known in England, all ranks were inflamed with
resentment, and eagerly desired that the national honour, thus grossly
violated should be avenged. Lord North prepared for the worst, by
putting ships in commission ready for war. It was thought expedient,
however, to avert war, if possible, by negociations, and Spain was
ultimately induced to disavow the enterprise of the governor of Buenos
Ayres, and to restore the island. At the same time it was either
stipulated or understood, that the settlement should at a future period
be abandoned by the English: an arrangement which, as will be seen,
formed a subject of complaint in parliament against the ministry.




AFFAIRS OF AMERICA.

When the news arrived of the repeal of the taxes by the British
parliament, the people of Boston were by no means thankful for that act.
The retention of the duty on tea, it was said, did away with all
its merits, as it proved the unalterable resolution of asserting the
disputed right. As, however, they could not hope to keep up the whole
of the non-importation agreement, it was resolved, in a meeting of
merchants, to import every thing but tea. This resolve was also entered
into by the Philadelphian merchants, and great efforts were made by the
leaders of the movement, to induce the people to adhere strictly to
this agreement, until the tea duty should be repealed. But most of
the provinces were not desirous of persevering in the quarrel, and
consequently renewed their commercial intercourse with the mother
country: orders came over to England, indeed, to such an extent, that
our exports to the colonies in this and the following year exceeded
in amount what they had ever been before. Still the progress of a
revolution was not impeded. There were many zealots in America, who
could not rest satisfied while a connexion subsisted between England
and her colonies, and who were still busied in sowing the seeds of
discontent. Some such zealots existed in every colony, but it was in New
England and in Virginia that that they were chiefly to be found. In the
great southern province they were headed by Patrick Henry and Thomas
Jefferson, and by their means the popular party in Virginia were led to
deplore the massacre at Boston, and to uphold that city as a new Sparta
and the seat of liberty. The assembly of Virginia, in a petition
or remonstrance to his majesty, ventured to express their strong
dissatisfaction at Lord North’s imperfect Repeal Act, and their deep
affliction at seeing that the pretension of the mother country to the
right of taxing the colonies was persevered in by the retention of duty
upon tea. They also criticised the conduct of Lord Bottetourt, their
governor, and represented that no alliance was to be placed upon the
goodwill or moderation of those who managed the affairs of the mother
country. All the houses of assembly, now reopened, were, in truth,
scarcely less difficult to manage than they had been the year before,
and in almost every instance they were prorogued by the governors. In
the assembly of Massachusets, especially, there were great commotions,
arising partly from communications received from England, which
represented that the state and conduct of the colony was likely to be
submitted to the consideration of parliament in the present session, and
partly from the dismissal of the provincial forces from Castle William,
and the establishment of the royal troops in that fortress. It was
suspected that measures were in train to reduce the province to a state
of utter dependence on Great Britain, and they proceeded to prepare
instructions for their agent in London, in order to prevent the blow.
But before they proceeded to business the house made another attempt to
obtain a removal of the seat of government to Boston; and having failed
in this, they made a strong protest against their conduct being drawn
into a precedent. Soon after this Mr. Hutchinson was appointed governor
of the province; but the subject of the assembly’s removal afforded
matter of dispute in the remonstrances of the house at the opening of
every session.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

The king opened parliament on the 13th of November. The prominent part
of his speech related to the Falkland Islands, a question that was still
in abeyance. His majesty informed the lords and commons, that by an act
of the governor of Buenos Ayres, in seizing one of his possessions by
force, the honour of the crown and the rights of the people were deeply
affected; and he called on them for advice and assistance. The addresses
of both houses approved of the steps taken by his majesty, and
assured him of their effectual support: to this end, supplies for the
augmentation of the army and navy were cheerfully voted,—and in order
to defray any extraordinary expenses, the land-tax was increased from
three to four shillings in the pound.




DEBATE CONCERNING THE FALKLAND ISLANDS.

In the debate on the address, Lord North had said, that as the Spanish
ambassador had thrown the responsibility upon the Governor of Buenos
Ayres, it was proper that his Spanish majesty should be allowed time
to disavow these proceedings. He had also endeavoured to show that the
Falkland Islands were of little value to anybody, and not of sufficient
importance to justify a war if it could be avoided. These sentiments ill
accorded with the views of some in the lower house, in which they were
uttered, and several, as Dowdeswell, Barré, Burke, Sir William Meredith,
and Sir Charles Saunders, blamed the minister for putting forward the
Governor of Buenos Ayres, instead of complaining of his master, the
King of Spain; who must, they contended, have previously authorised his
expedition against Port Egmont. Similar opinions appear to have been
entertained in the house of lords, although the address passed there
without any show of dissatisfaction. On the 20th of November, however,
the Duke of Richmond gave notice that he would make a motion on the
22nd, on which day, therefore, the house was summoned. That day arrived,
Richmond moved for an address, praying that the king would order that
all papers received by the ministry between the 12th of September, 1769,
and the 12th of September, 1770, touching hostilities commenced, or
designed to be commenced, by the crown of Spain, or any of his officers,
should be laid before parliament. In urging this demand, the duke said,
that the affairs of the Falkland Islands was only one among many acts of
aggression, and he asserted that while we were in want of seamen, three
thousand, captured in trading ships by the Guarda-Costas, under pretence
of smuggling, were rotting in Spanish prisons, or pining away in
hopeless slavery in South America. The motion was opposed by Lords
Weymouth and Hillsborough, who contended that the production of the
papers called for, would embarrass a negociations now in good train that
the Spanish government was entitled to respect and delicate management;
and that the ministers were not wanting either in vigilance or vigour.
The Duke of Richmond was supported by the Earl of Chatham, who, in a
long and eloquent speech, showed the necessity of firmness on the part
of the British cabinet;—accused the Spaniards of want of faith, and of
being as mean and crafty as they are proud and insolent; and predicted
that if ministers patched up an accommodation for the present, they
would still have a Spanish war in six months. He concluded by charging
the ministers with having destroyed all content and unanimity at home
by a series of oppressive and unconstitutional measures; and with having
delivered up the nation, defenceless, to a foreign enemy. He added this
warning:—“Let me warn them of their danger. If they are forced into a
war, they stand it at the hazard of their heads; if, by an ignominious
compromise, they should stain the honour of the crown, or sacrifice the
rights of the people, let them look to the consequences, and consider
whether they will be able to walk the streets in safety.”—The Duke of
Manchester, the Marquess of Rockingham, the Earl of Shelburne, and
Lord Lyttleton also supported the Duke of Richmond’s motion, but it was
nevertheless negatived by a large majority. On the same day, also, a
similar motion was made and negatived in the house of commons; moreover,
a few days later the Earl of Chatham moved that Captain Hunt, who had
driven off a Spanish schooner from Port Egmont, before the armament
arrived, should be ordered to attend the house; and when this was
negatived, he moved an address to his majesty, praying that the house
might be acquainted at what time reparation was first demanded from
Spain, which likewise received a negation.




PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS OF THE LAW OF LIBEL.

The sentiments promulgated by Lord Mansfield on the law of libel, in
the case of Woodfall, had created much discussion among the legal
profession, and had met with much obloquy among the people. They were
represented as an attempt to infringe the rights and powers of juries,
and to reduce their verdicts to a mere echo of the opinions of judges,
inasmuch as they were merely to inquire into the fact of printing and
publishing, and not allowed to judge whether the matter in question was
a libel or not On the 28th of November, Lord Chatham denounced this mode
of directing juries from the bench, but Lord Mansfield justified it, and
laid it down as an axiom, “that a libel, or not a libel, was a matter
of law to be decided by the bench, and the question to be left to the
jury was only the fact of printing and publishing.” Mansfield demanded
a call of the house for the 10th of December, and when that day arrived,
he laid on the table a paper, drawn up with great care and precision,
containing the unanimous opinion of the court of king’s bench in
Woodfall’s case, in order that their lordships might, read or copy it as
they pleased. Lord Camden inquired whether this paper was intended to be
entered on the journals, and submitted to debate. Mansfield replied it
was merely intended for the information of members, and he then suddenly
moved an adjournment and quitted the house. On the next day, Camden
considering the paper as a challenge to himself, endeavoured to provoke
a discussion, by addressing six queries to the chief-justice, but Lord
Mansfield declared that he would not answer interrogations, and the
matter dropped.

In the house of commons, the power of filing _ex-officio_ informations
by the attorney-general in cases like Almon’s, elicited the praises of
Burke, on Junius as a writer, in these terms:—“How comes this Junius
to have broken through the cobwebs of the law, and to have ranged
uncontrolled, unpunished through the land? The myrmidons of the court
have been long, and are still, pursuing him in vain. They will not spend
their time upon me, or upon you, when the mighty boar of the forest,
that has broke through all their toils, is before them. But what will
all their efforts avail? No sooner has he wounded one than he strikes
down another dead at his feet. For my own part, when I saw his attack
upon the king, I own my blood ran cold. Not that he has not asserted
many bold truths: yes, sir, there are in that composition many bold
truths, by which a wise prince might profit. It was the rancour and
venom with which I was struck. But while I expected from this daring
flight his final ruin and fall, behold him rising still higher, and
coming down souse upon both houses of parliament;—not content with
carrying away our royal eagle in his pounces, and dashing him against
a rock, he has laid you prostrate, and kings, lords, and commons, thus
become but the sport of his fury.” Soon after this Sergeant Glynn moved
for a committee to inquire “into the constitutional power and duty
of juries.” His motion was opposed by Fox, and supported by Dunning,
Wedderbume, Burke, and others. Fox opposed it because it was said that
“the people complained of the perversion of law,” and he laid himself
open to the following severe remarks from the lips of Burke:—“That
there should be found, he said, gentlemen who would annihilate the
people, and acknowledge no other voice than that of this house, is
to me, not at all surprising, because the conduct of the most violent
sticklers for this doctrine has not deserved much applause or favour
from them; but that they should have renounced reason and common sense
so far as to maintain that the majority of this assembly is the only
organ by which their sentiments can be expressed, is, to me, truly
surprising. For where, in the name of wonder, should the house acquire
the necessary knowledge or intelligence? Is it by turning these musty
old volumes, or by rummaging these gaudy boxes which lie on your table?
No! they contain none of these mysteries. How then are they to be
explored? Is there any virtue or inspiration in these benches or
cushions, by which they are to be communicated, or does the echo of
these walls whisper the secret in your ears? No! but the echo of every
other wall, the murmur of every stream, aye! the hoots and hisses of
every street in the nation, ring it in your ears, and deafen you with
their din. The people have a voice of their own, and it must, it will
be, sooner or later heard: and I, as in duty bound, will always
exert every nerve and every power of which I am master, to hasten the
completion of so desirable an event.” The motion was negatived.




QUARRELS BETWEEN THE LORDS AND COMMONS.

Ministers were still pressed by the opposition concerning the lingering
negociations with Spain, and the incompleteness of their preparations
for war. In the house of lords, the Duke of Manchester descanted in
strong terms on the defenceless condition of Gibraltar, Minorca, and
Jamaica. In the midst of his harangue Lord Gower desired that the house
might be cleared of all persons except those who had a right to sit
there. When motions like this, he said, were brought on by surprise, no
one should be allowed to hear the debate except peers, inasmuch as in a
crowded house, emissaries from the court of Spain and other powers might
be present. He added that there was another reason why the house should
be cleared. Persons, he said, had been admitted who took note of what
was said, for he had in his pocket a paper which contained a speech
recently made by a noble lord! This, he asserted, was contrary to a
standing order, which standing order, No. 112, was produced and read.
The Duke of Richmond and the Earl of Chatham warmly opposed such a step,
but their voices were drowned by shouts of “Clear the house! Clear the
house!” The Earl of Chatham, with eighteen peers, indignantly left the
house, and the party who remained then insisted that all the members
of the house of commons present should be turned out _sans cérémonie_!
These members represented that they were there in the discharge of
their duty, for that they were there attending with a bill. The bill was
demanded, and they had no sooner delivered it, than they were hooted
out of the house. A strong protest was made against these proceedings by
members of both houses;—and on the same day, Mr. George Onslow moved in
the lower house that it should be cleared—“peers and all.” This motion
was made merely from pique at the treatment of the commons by the lords,
and not with a view of encouraging the notion that debates ought to be
open, reported, and published. A better motion was made by Mr. Dunning,
who moved for a committee “to inspect the journals of the house of lords
of that day, as to what proceedings and resolutions were therein, with
relation to the not permitting any persons to be present in any part of
the said house during the sitting thereof.” This motion was negatived;
but no vote passed either in the house of lords or that of the commons
could remove the stain which the ministers had brought upon their
characters by these tumultuous proceedings, or allay the desire which
the people entertained for the publication of parliamentary debates; and
the opposition did what they could to render their conduct more odious
than it really was The Earl of Chatham recommended that search should
be made by the commons in the journals, and that a conference should be
demanded with the lords. Acting upon this advice, Lord George Germaine
moved in the house of commons for such a conference, but though he was
ably supported by Lord George Cavendish, Burke, Dunning, and Barré, all
of whom dealt in humour as well as argument, the motion was negatived.
Lord Germaine then moved that the speaker should write to such eldest
sons and heirs apparent of peers, king’s sergeants, and masters in
chancery, as were members, and to the attorney and solicitor-general,
and request them to be in their places every day at two o’clock, to
assist in carrying bills to the house of lords; but the only result
of this motion was a duel between the mover and Governor Johnstone, in
Hyde-park, in consequence of some remarks which the latter had made in
the course of the debate.




CONVENTION WITH SPAIN.

As the sincerity of the Spanish government was doubted by the ministry
before Christmas, it was deemed advisable to adjourn parliament to the
latter end of January, in order to afford time for the development of
circumstances, and to enable the cabinet to decide upon peace or war.
Ministers seem, indeed, to have learned of late that the plan of paying
deference to the Spanish court was not founded in wisdom, and they
changed their policy. On the 21st of December a messenger was despatched
to Spain to recall our ambassador, and to intimate to the English
merchants and commanders of ships, that it would probably be expedient
for them to leave that country. This conduct alarmed the Spanish court,
but it is probable that the King of Spain would have decided upon war,
had not his views been disappointed in another quarter. He had invited
the King of France to co-operate with him, and the Duc de Choiseul, his
minister, was favourable to the cause of Spain, but during the month
of December Choiseul was disgraced and exiled, through the influence of
Madame du Barry, the king’s mistress, and he was succeeded by the Duke
d’Aiguillon, who advocated peace. This had the effect of bringing the
negociations to a close: Louis XV. wrote to the Spanish monarch with his
own hand, that he would not have war, and instructions were immediately
sent to London to Prince Masserano, the Spanish envoy, to accept the
propositions offered by the British Cabinet.




CHANGES IN THE MINISTRY.

During the Christmas recess, ministers were employed in gaining converts
from the ranks of the opposition, and in making arrangements to complete
and strengthen the administration. Lord Weymouth having resigned the
seals of secretary of state, they were given to Lord Sandwich, who was
succeeded in his office of postmaster-general by the Honourable H. F.
Thynne. Mr. Wedderburne, the pet of Chatham and the city, abandoned his
friends, and became solicitor-general to the queen; while Thurlow was
made attorney-general in the place of Mr. de Grey, who was created
chief-justice of the common pleas. A chancellor was now also found in
the person of the Hon. Henry Bathurst, who took the title of Baron
Apsley. Lord Sandwich held the seals of secretary of state but for a few
days. Having expressed a wish to be transferred to the admiralty, he was
placed at the head of that board, instead of Sir Edward Hawke, and Lord
Halifax succeeded him as secretary of state, giving up the privy seal
to the Earl of Suffolk; Lord Rochford was removed to the southern
department. Mr. Grenville had recently paid the great debt of
nature, or he would have probably again come into office, but several
of his friends were introduced into the ministry, by which it gained a
considerable accession of talent.




CHAPTER IV.

{GEORGE III. 1771–1773}

     Re-opening of Parliament..... Proceedings against
     Shoreham..... Resolutions respecting the Publication of
     Debates..... Committal of the Lord Mayor and Alderman Oliver
     to the Tower..... Contest between the City  and
     Legislature..... The question of the Middlesex Election.....
     The question of the Dissolution of Parliament..... The
     Session closed..... Release of the Lord Mayor and Alderman
     Oliver..... Education of the Prince of Wales..... City
     Petition to the King..... Disputes in the City..... Meeting
     of Parliament..... Debates on Subscription to the Thirty-
     nine Articles..... ecclesiastical _Nullum Tempus_ Bill.....
     The case of Dr.  Nowell..... Test and Corporation Acts.....
     The Royal Marriage Act..... East India Affairs..... The
     Session closed..... Fate of the Queen of Denmark..... Death
     of the Princess Dowager of Wales..... Revolution in
     Sweden..... Partition of Poland..... Investigation of the
     Middlesex Election..... Changes in the Ministry..... The
     Meeting of Parliament..... East India Affairs.

{A.D. 1771}




RE-OPENING OF PARLIAMENT.

When the commons assembled on the 22nd of January, Lord North announced
the happy termination of the dispute with Spain, and the intention
of government to lay the convention which had just been signed before
parliament. Lord Rochford imparted similar information to the lords:
in both houses the question gave rise to warm discussion. In the
lords the Duke of Manchester moved for all the information received by
government touching the designs of Spain upon Falkland Island, and
for all the papers passed during the negociations. Rochford moved an
amendment, limiting the inquiry to the subject of Falkland Island, and
Lord Sandwich moved another amendment, which the Duke of Richmond said
would so narrow the motion as to deprive the house of all necessary
information. These amendments were withdrawn, and the original motion
of the Duke of Manchester agreed to; but even this did not satisfy the
opposition. The Duke of Richmond next moved, in order to recommend this
ignominious affair to further censure, that all the memorials or
other papers which had passed between his majesty’s ministers and the
ministers of the King of France, relating to the seizure of Falkland
Island by the Spaniards, should be laid before the house. Rochford said
that he knew of no such papers, which assertion was questioned by the
Earl of Chatham, inasmuch as the interference of France in the matter
was a fact that could not be denied. The house, he said, ought never to
take the word of a minister, and that the refusal of this motion showed
that some transaction with France had passed, though perhaps not papers
or memorials. The motion was negatived; but the question gave rise to
still further discussion in both houses, of which little is known; as on
the great field-day in the lords, all strangers were rigidly excluded.
The Earl of Chatham moved on that day, that the following two questions
should be referred to the judges:—1. Whether, in law, the imperial
crown of the realm can hold any territories or possessions otherwise
than in sovereignty? 2. Whether the declaration or instrument for
restitution of Port Egmont, to be made by the Catholic king to his
majesty, under a reservation of a disputed right of sovereignty,
expressed in the very declaration or instrument stipulating such
restitution, can be accepted or carried into execution, without
derogating from the maxim of law touching the inherent and essential
dignity of the crown of Great Britain? This motion was negatived; and
subsequently the Duke of Newcastle moved for an address to the king,
in approbation of the convention, and of the wise and moderate measures
which had been employed to procure it; which was carried by a large
majority. So far as parliament was concerned, the question of Falkland
Island was, by this motion, set at rest; but out of doors it long
continued to be a matter of dispute. One party maintained that the
possession of Port Egmont was of the utmost importance to England, and
that by the secret article, which it was said existed in the convention,
implying that after all we were to give it up, the national honour had
been meanly sacrificed. The caustic Junius and other writers took this
side of the question. Another party, however, at the head of whom Dr.
Johnson may be reckoned, endeavoured to demonstrate that the whole group
was worth little or nothing, and that it would have been absurd to go to
war about them. Both parties adopted exaggerated language to prove their
propositions; but whether they were of any real value or not, it behoved
England, according to state maxims, to resent the conduct of Spain, in
treacherously falling upon her colony at Port Egmont in times of peace.
No argument, indeed, could justify such an invasion of the dignity of
England’s crown and the rights of her subjects. But one thing seems
certain arose from this affair; namely, that if the interests of the
country were sacrificed by this convention, private individuals, at
least, reaped great advantage therefrom. The sudden signing of it,
when war was well nigh pronounced by the prime minister, gave rise to
stockjobbing, and in the course of a few days large fortunes were made
in Change-alley. This formed one of the most weighty charges brought by
the opposition against ministers in the course of the debate. Colonel
Barré, indeed, directly accused them of being implicated in these
unworthy transactions. “A Frenchman,” said he, “being in your secrets,
has made nearly half a million of money by jobbing in your funds; and
some of the highest among yourselves have been deeply concerned in the
same scandalous traffic.” In the course of the session this led to a
bill for the more effectual prevention of stockjobbing; but though it
passed the commons, it does not appear to have obtained the notice of
the lords.




PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SHOREHAM.

In consequence of a petition lodged against one Hugh Roberts, the
returning officer of Shoreham, the public were at this time startled by
strange disclosures of corruption in the elections for that borough.
A select committee was appointed, according to Grenville’s act, to
determine a contested election, in which a candidate who had only
thirty-seven votes had been declared duly elected, to the prejudice of a
rival who had more than double that number. It appeared from the inquiry
that the majority of the freeholders of this insignificant borough had
formed themselves into an association, called “The Christian Club,”
 for the ostensible purpose of promoting the cause of piety and charity.
This, however, only served as a cloak for venality and corruption. These
associated “Christians,” sometimes performed a charitable act, in order
to accredit their professions, but the bulk of the money which they
received from their representatives found its way into their own
pockets;—and this was no trifling sum. The borough was offered at
elections to the highest bidder, and he who offered most was successful.
In order to escape detection, the members of this club were bound to
secrecy by solemn oaths, and by bonds with large penalties attached to
them; and negociations with candidates were carried on by means of a
select committee, who, under pretence of scruples of conscience, never
voted themselves, but having sold the borough and received the money,
directed the suffrages of the rest, and afterwards shared in the booty.
Their hypocrisy, however, was brought to light by one in their own camp.
At this election five candidates had offered themselves, and the secret
committee were sent to treat with the bidders. The best offers were made
by General Smith and Mr. Rumbold: the former offering £3000 in cash,
and to build six hundred tons of shipping at Shoreham; and the latter
offering £35 a man to all the freemen. The secret committee preferred
Rumbold, but Roberts, the returning officer, preferred the General, and
knowing that a large sum of money had been distributed among eighty-one
of the majority, he considered them disqualified, and omitted them in
his return. This formed the subject of the petition, and the facts being
proved, a bill was brought in and carried, by which eighty-one freemen
of Shoreham were disfranchised; and the Shoreham franchise was extended
to all the freeholders of the neighbouring district, called the Rape of
Bramber, who occupied tenements of the annual value of forty shillings.
At the same time Roberts was reprimanded at the bar of the house by the
speaker, for his assumption of illegal authority.




RESOLUTIONS RESPECTING THE PUBLICATION OF DEBATES.

Up to this period it had been held that to publish the debates of
either house of parliament was a breach of privilege. The editors
of periodicals had, indeed, endeavoured to evade the prohibition by
publishing mutilated and occasionally invented speeches of honourable
and noble lords, under fictitious names; but the people did not even
obtain this doubtful information till after the discussion was over,
and the matter in debate settled. The public, however, were now becoming
more enlightened, and withal more curious, and these garbled and stale
speeches did not satisfy them;—they longed for a full reporting
newspaper, and the printers were encouraged by the general feeling to
venture upon giving the proceedings in parliament from week to week, or
from day to day, as they occurred. They were the more induced to take
this step because the extent of the power of parliament to enforce this
question of privilege had never been accurately defined. The letters of
Junius, also, had a great effect in confirming them in their resolution:
accordingly, during the Middlesex elections and the debates on the
affairs of the Falkland Islands, the public were gratified with certain
and immediate intelligence of what their representatives were doing. But
this was not likely to be allowed by parliament without a struggle. The
members of both houses had been strenuous in their endeavours to
shut their doors in the face of the nation—to choke all attempts
at publicity, and to seclude themselves as rigorously as a jury, and
therefore the proprietors of these newly established papers, must have
expected, sooner or later, to be disturbed in their occupations. On
the 5th of February their anticipations were realized. Colonel George
Onslow, now one of the lords of the treasury, denounced the insolence
and wickedness of these proceedings, as tending to the destruction of
all things to be venerated in our constitution; and, on the 26th of
the same month, he moved:—“That it is an indignity to, and a breach of
privilege of this house, for any person to presume to give in written
or printed newspapers any account or minutes of debate, or other
proceedings of this house, or any part thereof; and that upon discovery
of the authors, printers, or publishers of any such written or printed
newspaper, this house will proceed against the offenders with the utmost
severity.” The motion was opposed by Alderman Trecothick, who wished
every man to hear what passed in the house; and by Burke, who in the
course of his speech declared, that so long as an interest existed out
of doors to examine the proceedings of parliament, so long would men
be found to do what these printers had already done. It was also argued
that the privilege enjoyed by constituents of knowing what is said and
done by their representatives, is founded on the true principles of
the constitution, and that falsehood and misrepresentation ought to be
punished in a different manner from that proposed, inasmuch as it
went to make the house of commons a secret tribunal. Onslow’s motion,
however, was carried, and two of the printers, Thompson and Wheble, were
ordered to attend at the bar of the house. This order was not noticed,
and the sergeant-at-arms was directed to take them into custody: they
were not to be found; and another printer, Evans, who was ordered on
the 1st of March to attend the house, treated the order with the same
contempt. Colonel Onslow then moved for an address to the king, to
issue a proclamation, offering a reward of fifty pounds for their
apprehension, which was agreed to; and subsequently he denounced six
more printers as guilty of the same enormities. Wheble was at length
taken by another printer, and carried before Alderman Wilkes,
who discharged him from custody, and made him enter into his own
recognisance to prosecute the man who captured him at the Old Bailey
sessions for false imprisonment or an illegal arrest. On the same day
Thompson was also carried before Alderman Oliver, who followed the
example of Wilkes, and discharged him. Four printers, out of the six
last denounced by Onslow, attended at the bar of the house; a fifth
[Woodfall] was already in custody in Newgate, by order of the house
of lords, and the sixth, named Millar, refused to obey the summons.
A messenger was sent to apprehend him, but Millar had a constable in
readiness, and he gave the messenger into custody, and he was carried to
Guildhall to answer for the assault. Wilkes, the sitting alderman, said
he had finished the business of the day, and would not enter upon the
case, and the messenger was then conveyed to the mansion-house. The lord
mayor being indisposed, he was kept there for three hours, but in the
evening, being attended by Wilkes and Oliver, he admitted the parties:
the deputy sergeant-at-arms being also present. The printer having
stated his complaint, the messenger was asked by what authority he
had presumed to commit the assault? He produced his warrant, and the
sergeant-at-arms then intimated that he was there by the speaker’s
order, not only to release the messenger, but to take Millar into
custody. The magistrates, however, represented that by the city charters
no caption could be made, east of Temple-bar, without the authority
of the lord mayor; and while they released Millar, they would have
committed the messenger to prison, had not bail been given for his
appearance to answer for the alleged assault.




COMMITTAL OF THE LORD MAYOR AND ALDERMAN OLIVER TO THE TOWER.

The above transactions were reported to the commons by the
sergeant-at-arms, and orders were issued for the lord mayor to attend in
his place, and his clerk to bring up the mansion-house minute-book, in
which the proceedings had been entered. Alderman Oliver was likewise
ordered to attend in his place, while Wilkes was directed to appear at
the bar of the house. The two members obeyed the summons, and boldly
justified their conduct; but though they were ably supported by many
members in the house, and though the public emphatically displayed their
approbation of their conduct, they were committed to the Tower. As for
Wilkes he defied the government, refusing to attend unless in his seat
as member for Middlesex. Three several times he was summoned to attend,
but he would not listen to it under any other conditions, and nothing
remained but compulsion, which the ministers were afraid of using. His
majesty, indeed, is expressly said to have asserted, that he would
have nothing to do with him, and he was left to act with impunity. This
confessed weakness brought the cabinet into utter contempt, for though
ministers resorted to the trick of adjournment with regard to his
non-appearance, all men saw that it was fear alone which prevented them
from taking him into custody. And that they had reason to fear there can
be no question, for had any attempt been made to compel his appearance,
it would have revived all the uproar of the election questions, and
brought him forward with tenfold powers of mischief, as the champion of
the mob: and, even as it was, ministers had brought themselves, by the
proceedings against the printers, into no very enviable position. Riots
and tumults in the avenues of the house were the order of the day, and
the life of Lord North was on one occasion brought into imminent danger.
On the day that the lord mayor was committed, indeed, the tumult was so
violent that the house was obliged to stop business for some hours, and
it was in vain that magistrates and constables endeavoured to restore
peace: it was only through the speeches of some of the more popular
members, who left the house on purpose to address them, that the minds
of the chafed multitude became tranquil. It was thought that Lord North
would now resign, and a report had been made to that effect, but he
declared that though he wished for retirement, he entertained no such
design; that nothing but the king or the mob, who were near destroying
him, could remove him; and that he was determined to weather out the
storm. He ungraciously charged the minority with hiring the mob to
destroy him; upon which Burke’s brother, William, indignantly exclaimed,
—“It is a falsehood, a most egregious falsehood; the minority are to
a man persons of honour, who scorn such a resource. Such a charge could
only emanate from a man hackneyed in indirect measures.”




CONTEST BETWEEN THE CITY AND LEGISLATURE.

Another occasion of contest between the city and legislature arose from
the introduction of a bill for enclosing and embanking a part of the
river Thames, adjoining to Durham-yard. The city considering that their
rights were about to be invaded were heard by counsel. They produced a
grant by Henry VII. of all the soil and bed of the river, from Staines
bridge to a spot near the Medway, and likewise a lease granted by them
of a nook of the river near Vauxhall, for which they had received rent
upwards of sixty years. On the part of the legislature, a charter of
Charles II. was produced, in which he had reserved the bed of the river,
by the acceptation of which, it was argued, that the city had forfeited
that granted by Henry VII. It was also contended that the charter of
Henry only extended to that part of the river which was within the
city, and the lease at Vauxhall was, therefore, an encroachment. These
arguments prevailed, the bill was passed, and a pile of buildings,
called the Adelphi, was erected on the site, and disposed of by lottery.
The disposal of them in this manner was to eke out the ways and
means, and this mode of procuring money called forth the indignant
denunciations of Mr. Burke and Colonel Barré, who stigmatized it as an
iniquitous project to bribe the servants of the public; a use to which
lotteries had been previously applied.




THE QUESTION OF THE MIDDLESEX ELECTION.

The question of the Middlesex election was again brought forward in
the lords on the 30th of April, when; the Duke of Richmond moved for
expunging the resolution adopted on the subject. The Earl of Chatham
delivered a long speech on that occasion, which was forthwith published
in the Public Advertiser. The orator appears to have been unanswered,
but the motion was negatived.




THE QUESTION OF THE DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.

On the 1st of May, the Earl of Chatham moved for an address to the king
to dissolve the present parliament at the end of the session, and
to call a new one with all convenient dispatch. The speech, which he
delivered in making this motion first drew a sad contrast between the
state of the country at the time it was uttered, and the condition
it was in only a few years before. He then descanted on the treaty of
Fontainbleau; the late convention with Spain; the occurrences in St.
George’s Fields, which he called “murders;” on the affairs of America;
and on the immense private debt contracted by the crown. “All these
circumstances,” he observed, “have justly alarmed the nation, and made
them attentive to the operations of parliament. Hence the publication of
the parliamentary debates. And where is the injury, if the members act
upon honest principles? For a public assembly to be afraid of having
their deliberations published is monstrous, and speaks for itself.
No mortal can construe such a procedure to their advantage; and the
practice of locking the doors is sufficient to open the eyes of the
blind;—they must see that all is not well within. Not satisfied,
however, with shutting the doors, the commons would overturn the liberty
of the press. The printers had spirit and resisted. The irritated
commons exalted their privilege above the laws of the land, and their
servants acted illegally in the execution of their illegal orders.
The magistrates of London undertook the cause of the printers, and the
protection of the laws and of the city’s franchises. The commons still
proceeded with the same outrageous violence;—they called upon the
magistrates to justify their conduct, and would not suffer them to
be heard by counsel. These men, who had allowed the prostituted electors
of Shoreham counsel to defend a bargain to sell their borough by
auction, would not grant the same indulgence to the lord mayor of
London, pleading for the laws of England, and the conscientious
discharge of his duty. Accordingly they committed him to the tower
for not violating his oath. The most sacred obligation of morality and
religion they voted criminal, when it happened to stand in competition
with their assumed privileges. Their next step was the act of a mob, and
not of a parliament; I mean the expunging of the recognisance entered at
Guildhall. We have heard of such violence committed by the French King;
and it seems much better calculated for the latitude of Paris than of
London. The people of this kingdom will never submit to such barefaced
tyranny. They must see that it is time to rouse, when their own
creatures dare to assume a power of stopping prosecutions by their vote,
and consequently of resolving the law of the land into their will and
pleasure. The imprudence, and indeed the absolute madness of these
measures, demonstrates not the result of that assembly’s calm, unbiassed
deliberations, but the dictates of weak uninformed ministers, influenced
by those who mislead their sovereign.” Chatham then told the ministers
that it was through their misconduct that Wilkes had become a person of
consequence in the state, and twitted them with acknowledging him to
be their lord and master, since while they had punished the chief
magistrate of the city, they were compelled to allow him to act with
impunity. On all these grounds, he said, it was that he moved for an
address to the throne for the dissolution of parliament; a step which
he considered might have the effect of restoring good humour and
tranquillity on the one hand, and good government on the other. At the
same time he expressed his doubts whether this would prove any thing
more than a temporary and partial remedy, as the influence of the crown
had become so enormous, that some stronger bulwark ought to be erected
for the defence of the constitution. He concluded by stating that the
act for septennial parliaments must be repealed, and by proclaiming
himself a convert to triennial parliaments. The motion was negatived
by seventy-two against twenty-three. In the house of commons,
Alderman Sawbridge made a direct motion for shortening the duration of
parliaments; a motion which, in spite of the large majorities against
him, he renewed every session till his death. Out or doors, at this
time, the question was very popular; the Rev. John Home, and Junius
advocating it as the surest road to political perfection, and as the
only means of preserving the substantial freedom of the constitution. It
is probable, however, that Chatham only advocated this measure for the
purpose of alarming ministers and increasing his popularity, for his
views of parliamentary reform were never definite: he never had a fixed
and settled purpose in the matter.




THE SESSION CLOSED.

This session ended on the eighth of May. In his speech from the throne,
the king congratulated the houses on those exertions which had averted
a war, and which enabled him to hope for the blessings of peace. He
alluded to disturbances and groundless suspicions at home, and exhorted
the members of both houses to use their best endeavours to repress
them. It is manifest that ministers had lost much reputation during the
session, but it seems clear that they were never firmer in their seats
than they were at its close. The defection of Mr. Grenville’s party
added greatly to their strength, while it as greatly weakened the
efforts of the opposition. In June the death of Lord Halifax made a
vacancy in the cabinet, which was occupied by the Earl of Suffolk, while
his place of lord privy seal was taken by the Duke of Grafton, whose
restoration caused a great stir in the political world, and called forth
the atrabilious rancour of Junius, who had prided himself on having
driven the noble duke from office.




RELEASE OF THE LORD MAYOR AND ALDERMAN OLIVER.

All honour was paid to these captives during their confinement in the
Tower. They were visited by nobles and members of the house of commons;
the sheriffs waited upon them to express their disapprobation of all the
proceedings against them; and at a meeting of the common-council the day
after their commitment, a vote of thanks was passed to such members of
the house of commons as had given them their support. The common-council
also agreed to pay any law expenses that might occur, and to defray all
the expenses of their tables while in confinement. On the 5th of
March, they were brought by _habeas corpus_ from the Tower, to Lord
Chief-Justice de Gray’s chambers, attended by a host of friends; but
after hearing Sergeant Glynn and Mr. Lee, he said that he could neither
bail nor discharge them. They were then taken to Lord Mansfield’s
chambers, who expressed the same sentiments; stating that he could
neither take bail nor discharge them while parliament was sitting. They
were, therefore, carried back to the Tower, where they remained till the
day the session closed, when they regained their liberty. In the
mean time the printers remained unscathed. They had, indeed, obtained
advantages almost equal to a victory, and there was little more to fear
from the publication of the speeches of members of parliament. In the
course of the debate Mr. Welbore Ellis moved that a secret committee
of twenty-one members should be chosen by ballot, “to examine into the
several facts and circumstances relative to the late obstructions to
the executions of the order of the house, and to consider what further
proceedings may be requisite to enforce a due obedience thereto.” This
was agreed to, and on the 30th of April the secret committee produced
their report. The document consisted of a tedious deduction of facts and
cases, which concluded with a recommendation to the house to consider
whether it might not yet be expedient that Millar should be taken
into custody by the sergeant-at-arms. Roars of laughter followed this
impotent conclusion, and Burke increased the merriment of the house, by
observing that the secret committee might be compared to an assembly of
mice, who came to a resolution that their old enemy the cat should be
tied up, to prevent her doing any further mischief, but forgot to say
how this was to be effected. Nothing, therefore, was done, and from
that period the parliamentary debates have been published without any
disguise or obstruction: a practice which is considered to be essential
to the effective working of the representative system, and one of the
best safeguards of the constitution, inasmuch as it brings the opinions
and acts of representatives under the notice of the lynx-eyed public,
who regard their rights and liberties with too severe a jealousy to
admit of their being invaded with impunity.




EDUCATION OF THE PRINCE OF WALES.

Before the rising of parliament there was much speculation afloat
concerning the appointment of a governor and preceptors for the king’s
eldest son, Prince George. It was said that the king was at length
“convinced of the error of his ways;” that is, he had become suspicious
of the Tories, and was inclined to favour the Whigs. When the
appointments were made, however, there was no display of any decided
Whig tendency at court. The Earl of Holderness was made the young
prince’s governor, and Lord Mansfield’s friend, Dr. Markham, Bishop
of Chester, and the Rev. Cyril Jackson, were appointed preceptor and
sub-preceptor. The plan of private education was severely censured at
the time, as too narrow for the future sovereign of a free country: and
it was argued that an education at one of the public schools would have
proved more beneficial to the mind of the royal pupil, and to his
future subjects. Lord Holderness, after a few years, resigned his trust,
complaining that a secret and dangerous influence existed which was
injurious to his authority. He was succeeded by Lord Bruce, who retained
his office only a few days, and the next governor was the Duke of
Montague, with Hurd, afterwards Bishop of Worcester, and the Rev. Mr.
Arnold, as preceptor and sub-preceptor. During his education, common
report spoke highly of the prince’s quickness of apprehension, retentive
memory, and general aptitude for acquiring the elegances of literature.




CITY PETITION TO THE KING.

During the recess, inflamed by the imprisonment of the lord mayor, the
harangues of Wilkes, and other circumstances, the city drew up another
strong petition and remonstrance. This petition, which was presented
by order of the lord chamberlain, without the procession of liverymen,
complained of the abitrary, illegal, and wicked proceedings of the
house of commons in imprisoning the city magistrates and members, and
in passing the Durham-yard Act: it concluded by praying the king to
dissolve parliament, and to dismiss his present despotic ministers from
his councils for ever His majesty replied, that he was always willing
to lend an ear to well-founded complaints, and expressed his concern
at seeing the citizens of London so misled and deluded as to renew a
request with which he had already declared he would not comply.




DISPUTES IN THE CITY.

At this time, Wilkes, not satisfied with the alderman’s gown, aspired
to be sheriff. In this he was supported by Farringdon ward, and by other
parts of the city, and the court taking alarm at the circumstance made
use of all its influence to prevent his election. Their efforts were
encouraged by dissensions among the city patriots, and by reports that
Wilkes had offended, the lord mayor and several of the aldermen, and
had involved himself in a quarrel with the Rev. John Home, one of the
principal leaders of the people. Aldermen Plumbe and Kirkman, were
opposed by the government party to Wilkes and Alderman Bull, and every
thing was done to secure their election. An awkward mistake, however,
frustrated all their endeavours. A letter was written by the celebrated
ministerial manager, Mr. John Robinson, to Mr. Benjamin Smith of
Cannon-street, informing him that Mr. Harley was to meet his ward in
the course of the day, to urge them to support Plumbe and Kirkman, and
entreating him to second the efforts of government by active exertions.
This letter was sent by a messenger, but by a mistake he carried it to
Mr. B. Smith, of Budge-row, who was friendly to the cause of Wilkes,
and he instantly published it, together with an affidavit as to its
authenticity: this had such an effect on the poll, that Wilkes and Bull
were elected. Alderman Oliver had been induced to offer himself, and
he was supported by the Rev. John Home. This led to a correspondence
between the Rev. orator and Junius, in the course of which the frailties
of Wilkes were laid before the public eye in all their deformity. Home
accused him of having commissioned Sir Thomas Walpole to procure a
pension of £1000 upon the Irish establishment; of having accepted a
clandestine pension from the Rockingham administration; of not having
commenced patriot until his wife’s fortune was consumed; and of various
other delinquencies committed both in England and France, which were
very derogatory to his moral character. These accusations, however,
came too late, and were, moreover, made in too bad a spirit to have any
immediate effect on his popularity:—this he had now the means in his
hands of increasing, and he turned his power to good account in this
particular. Together with his colleague, he declared that as long as
they were sheriffs, the military, which had been the custom, should not
be allowed to attend the execution of criminals; and they gratified the
people at the beginning of the session, by throwing open the doors and
galleries of the Old Bailey, and forbidding the doorkeepers to receive
money.

{A.D. 1772}




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament, contrary to usual custom did not meet till after the
Christmas holidays. It met on the 21st of January, when the king opened
it with a speech which afforded no subject for debate. Addresses were
passed in both houses without a division. On the same day Sir John
Mawbey obtained leave to bring in a bill for preventing “clandestine
outlawries,” of which nothing more is known. On the next day Alderman
Sawbridge gave notice of moving for leave during the session to bring
in a bill for shortening the duration of parliaments; and on the day
following there was a debate about the prevailing scarcity, and the
necessity of continuing the prohibition against the exportation of corn.
Sir William Meredith moved on the same day, that no bill or clause
of any bill should be permitted to pass the house, whereby capital
punishments were decreed, unless the same should previously be referred
to a committee of the whole house: a motion which passed unanimously,
and was made a standing order. The first debate of consequence in the
house took place on the 29th of January, when Mr. Buller informed the
house, in a committee of supply, that his majesty expected they would
vote a considerable augmentation to our naval force, as additional ships
were required in the Levant, where Russia was carrying on a maritime
war against Turkey; in the East Indies, where France began to manifest
hostility; and in Jamaica and the West Indies. He moved that 25,000 men
including 6664 marines should be maintained, and the motion was seconded
by Captain Harvey. The augmentation was opposed by several members as
too small if war was expected, and too large to be kept up in peace, and
hints were thrown out by the opposition that ministers or the lords of
the admiralty, either wanted more patronage at their disposal, or that
something was concealed that made this great armament necessary. Mr.
Buller’s motion, however, was carried without a division.




DEBATES ON SUBSCRIPTION TO THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES.

The important subject of subscription to the thirty-nine articles of
religion had long been discussed at public meetings, in the newspapers,
and in pamphlets and other works, and during this session, on the 6th of
February, a petition from about 240 of the clergy and many professors of
civil law and physic, was presented to parliament, praying relief from
subscription to these articles The document was thus worded:—“Your
petitioners apprehend themselves to have certain rights and privileges
which they hold of God alone, and of this kind is the exercise of their
own reason and judgment. They conceive they are also warranted by those
original principles of reformation from popery on which the church of
England is constituted, to judge, in searching the scriptures, each
man for himself, what may or may not be proved thereby. They find
themselves, however, in a great measure precluded the enjoyment of this
invaluable privilege, by the laws relative to subscription, whereby your
petitioners are required to acknowledge certain articles and confessions
of faith and doctrine, drawn up by fallible men, to be all and every
one of them agreeable to the said scriptures. Your petitioners therefore
pray that they may be relieved from such an imposition upon their
judgment, and be restored to their undoubted right as Protestants, of
interpreting scripture for themselves, without being bound by any human
explanations thereof—holy scripture alone being acknowledged certain
and sufficient for salvation.” This petition was presented by Sir
William Meredith, who said that he considered it as meriting the most
serious attention of the house, as the grievance which affects the minds
and consciences of men was more burtdensome than that which affects
their property. It was inconsistent, he observed; with the liberality
of the present age to oblige men to subscribe to the truth of articles
which they could not believe; and he urged that such injunctions tended
to establish, under religious authority, habits of prevarication and
irreligion; were productive of great licentiousness in the church; and
operated to the destruction of Christian charity. He affirmed that
the removal of these shackles would give a strength to the established
church which nothing could shake, and that no danger could arise from
such a reformation while the hierarchy existed. He concluded with
remarking that the oaths of allegiance and supremacy were quite enough
for the security of the church and state.

The champion of the church on this occasion was Sir Robert Newdigate,
member for the University of Oxford. Sir Robert considered the petition
as praying to overturn the church of England, which he argued was only
to be found in the thirty-nine articles and the Book of Common
Prayer. He accused those clergymen who had signed it with possessing
accomodating consciences; such consciences as had subverted the church
in the last century. As for the house of commons, he maintained that
it had no power to dispense with oaths, or to relieve those who had
subscribed. Nay, it could not, he said, even receive the petition, since
to comply with it would be a breach of the articles of union between
England and Scotland, and since the king is bound by oath never to admit
any alteration either in the liturgy or the articles. Mr. Hans Stanley,
Mr. Fitzmorris, and Mr. Jenkinson were all of opinion that the house
ought to show no countenance to such a petition, and other members
were either facetious at the expense of the tender consciences of the
dissenters, or furious against every section of that body. Mr. Charles
Fox spoke for the church as by law established, and said that he
considered that all the laws and statutes by which it had been guarded
were very necessary for its preservation: at the same time he deprecated
the practice of exacting subscription to the articles from mere boys.
Soame Jenyns said that at Cambridge no subscription was required except
upon taking a degree, when the parties might be supposed to have arrived
at an age when they might think for themselves. Other members opposed
the petition, on the ground that it would give a mortal wound to the
church, and through the church to the state, since they were so closely
united that if one perished the other must share its fate. It was also
argued that the church had long been and was still in danger; that the
parliament could not grant relief to the petitioners, it having no
power to release from oaths once taken; and that even the king could not
afford relief, he being bound by oath to preserve the church as by
law established. Burke, who opposed the opposition, took a more
comprehensive and enlightened view of the subject than most of the
preceding speakers. He remarked, “If the dissenters, as an honourable
gentleman has described them, have formerly risen from a ‘whining,
canting, snarling generation,’ to be a body dreadful and ruinous to our
establishments, let him call to mind the follies, the violences, the
outrages, and persecutions that conjured up, very blamably, but very
naturally, that same spirit ol retaliation. Let him recollect, along
with the injuries, the services which dissenters have done to our church
and to our state. If they have once destroyed, more than once they have
saved them.” Burke next observed that the church of England might alter
her laws without changing her identity. He said that she professed
no infallibility, and had always exercised the right of reforming her
doctrine, discipline, and ceremonies, instancing as examples the change
which she had made in the liturgy in the reign of Edward VI. and the
reduction of her articles from forty-two to thirty-nine. The act of
union, he maintained, had not rendered any further change possible.
At the same time he contended that there was no great occasion for the
change sought by the petitioners. “I will not enter,” he said, “into
the abstract merits of our articles and liturgy; perhaps there are some
things in them which one would wish had not been there; and they are not
without the marks and character of human frailty. But,” he added, “it
is not human frailty and imperfection, or even a considerable degree of
them, that becomes a ground for alteration; for by no alteration
will you get rid of those errors, however you may vary them.” He then
adverted to the inexpediency of these alterations, and the temper of the
times. “If,” said he, “you make this a season of religious alterations,
depend upon it you will soon find it a season of religious tumults and
wars.... These gentlemen complain of hardships. No considerable number
shows discontent; but in order to give satisfaction to any considerable
number of men, who come in so decent and constitutional a mode before
us, let us examine a little what that hardship is. They want to be
preferred clergymen of the church of England as by law established, but
their consciences will not suffer them to conform to the doctrines and
practices of that church; that is, they want to be teachers in a church
to which they do not belong; it is an odd sort of hardship. They want to
receive the emoluments appropriated for teaching one set of doctrines,
whilst they are teaching another. A church in any legal sense is only
a certain system of religious doctrines and practices, fixed and
ascertained by some law; by the difference of which laws different
churches, as different commonwealths, are made in various parts of
the world; and the establishment is a tax laid by the same sovereign
authority for payment of those who so teach and practise, For no
legislature was ever so absurd as to tax its people to support men, but
by some prescribed rule.” Burke then warned the house against making a
new door into the church for such gentlemen, as ten times their number
might be driven out of it, and as it would be inexpedient to displease
the clergy of England as a body, for the chance of obliging a few who
were, or wanted to be, beneficed clergymen, and who probably were not
agreed among themselves as to what required alteration. He concluded
by showing, from the different opinions of churches on the canon of
scripture itself, that men are as little likely to be unanimous on that
point as on any other. He remarked, “The Bible is a vast collection of
different treatises: a man who holds the divine authority of one may
consider the other as merely human. What is his canon? The Jewish? St.
Jerome’s? that of the thirty-nine articles? Luther’s? There are some
who reject the Canticles; others six of the Epistles; the Apocalypse has
even been suspected as heretical, and was doubted of for many ages, and
by many great men. As these narrow the canon, others have enlarged it,
by admitting St. Barnabas’s Epistles, the Apostolic Constitutions, to
say nothing of many other Gospels. Therefore to ascertain scripture you
must have one article more; and you must define what that scripture
is which you mean to teach. There are, I believe, very few who, when
scripture is to be ascertained, do not see the absolute necessity of
knowing what general doctrine a man draws from it, before he is sent
down authorised by the state to teach it as pure doctrine, and receive
a tenth of the produce of our lands. The scripture is not one summary of
doctrine regularly digested, in which a man cannot mistake his way; it
is a most venerable but multivarious collection of the records of divine
economy; a collection of an infinite variety of cosmogony, theology,
history, prophecy, psalmody, morality, apologue, allegory, legislation,
ethics, carried through different books by different authors at
different ages, for different ends and purposes. It is necessary to sort
out what is intended for example, what only as narrative, what to be
understood literally, what figuratively—where one precept is to be
controlled and modified by another—what is used directly and what only
as an argument _ad hominem_—what is temporary and what of perpetual
obligation—what appropriated to our state, and to one set of men, and
what the general duty of all Christians. If we do not get some security
for this, we not only permit, but we actually pay for, all the dangerous
fanaticism which can be produced to corrupt our people and to derange
the public worship of the country.” Lord North said that he hoped to
have seen nothing in the petition to prevent him from recommending that
it should be laid on the table. He, however, saw that it was repugnant
to the act of union, and that if such indulgences were allowed, there
would then be nothing to exclude a man from the church of England
but popery. Any innovations in the forms prescribed, he added, would
occasion such contentions in the nation, that neither poppy nor
mandragora could restore it to its former repose. Mr. Dunning replied,
and he argued that every good subject ought to be entitled to a chance
of obtaining posts of profit and honour. It was by no means a principle
of sound policy, he said, to narrow the means of access to emoluments.
As to the quiet of the nation being disturbed by innovation, he could
not see such could be the result from granting the prayer of the
petition. He added, if the repose of the nation partook at all of the
torpid state of insensibility which Lord North’s mandragora had diffused
through the house, the sooner it was broken the better; it was
an alarming symptom, which, instead of betokening health, was the
forerunner of destruction. The house divided at midnight, when the
petition was rejected by a large majority.

{GEORGE III. 1771–1773}




ECCLESIASTICAL NULLUM TEMPUS BILL.

Another debate in which the clergy were concerned arose from a motion
made by Mr. Henry Seymour, for leave to bring in a bill for securing
estates against dormant claims of the church. It was argued that as the
_nullum tempus_ of the crown had been conceded in favour of the people,
no reason existed why some limitation in this respect should not be set
to ecclesiastical power. On the other hand it was contended that the
power of reviving claims was necessary to protect the church from
encroachments; and that while in the case of the crown it was an
instrument in the hands of the strong to oppress the weak, in that of
the church, it was a defence of the weak against the strong. The motion
was rejected by 141 to 117.




THE CASE OF DR. NOWELL.

On the anniversary of the execution of King Charles, the 30th of
January, Dr. Nowell preached a sermon before the house of commons. The
speaker and four members only were present, and a motion of thanks and
for printing the sermon was carried as a matter of course. When the
sermon was printed, however, it was found to savour of the doctrines
of passive obedience and the divine right of kings, and to contain
principles in direct opposition to those which had placed the reigning
family on the throne. This brought down a storm on the head of the
preacher. Mr. Thomas Townshend moved that the sermon should be burned
by the common hangman; and another member moved that all future sermons
should be printed before the preachers received the thanks of the house.
These motions were not carried, but on the motion of the Honourable
Boyle Walsingham, it was voted that the thanks of the house to Dr.
Nowell should be erased. In the course of the debate severe strictures
were made upon the character of Charles I., and of that part of the
liturgy which describes him as a blessed martyr; and this seems to have
encouraged Mr. Montague soon afterwards to make a motion to repeal the
act for observing the 30th of January as a holiday, or a day of prayer
and fasting. Mr. Montague attacked the appointed form of prayer as
blasphemous, inasmuch as it contains a parallel between Charles I. and
our Saviour. But the motion was negatived by a majority of an 125 to 97.




TEST AND CORPORATION ACTS.

During the debates on the anti-subscription petition, many members on
both sides of the house had acknowledged, that though it was just and
reasonable to require subscription from persons entering the established
church, it was nevertheless hard to demand it from dissenters and
schoolmasters. Later in the season Sir Henry Houghton made a motion to
relieve these from subscription, and from the operation of penal laws:
in other words, for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. This
was strongly opposed by the high church party, who argued that such an
exemption would open a road to heresy and infidelity, encourage schism,
and tend to the overthrow of the church of England. The bill, however,
was carried in the house of commons by a large majority; but it
was thrown out in the lords, where it encountered the most violent
opposition of the bench of bishops and the ministry.




THE ROYAL MARRIAGE ACT.

In the year 1771, the Duke of Cumberland had contracted a private
marriage with Mrs. Horton, widow of Christopher Horton, Esq., a daughter
of Lord Irnham, and sister of Colonel Luttrell. It was also generally
believed, that his majesty’s other brother, the Duke of Gloucester, had
married the widow of the Earl of Waldegrave. This gave offence to
their majesties, who prided themselves on the antiquity of the House
of Brunswick, on the family of Guelph, and the “antique blood” of Este,
from which they were equally descended. The blood of princes, they
thought, would be contaminated by any admixture with less precious
blood, and especially with that which could not substantiate its claim
to pure nobility. Such blood, they imagined, could not be found in all
England, but the families out of which the royal dukes had chosen
their wives were especially deficient in aristocratic pretensions; the
Luttrells being an undistinguished stock of Irish Protestants, and the
Countess Dowager Waldegrave, the natural daughter of Sir Edward Walpole.
Under these circumstances, the royal dukes were forbidden the court, and
his majesty sent a message to both houses of parliament, importing that
he thought it would be wise and expedient to render effectual, by some
new provision, the right of the sovereign to approve all marriages in
the royal family. In consequence of this message, a bill was brought
into the house of lords, by which it was declared that no member of the
royal family, being under twenty-five years of age, should marry without
the king’s consent; and that after attaining that age, they were at
liberty, if the king refused his consent, to apply to the privy council,
by announcing the name of the person they wished to espouse, and if,
within a year, neither house of parliament should address the king
against it, then the marriage might be legally solemnised. The bill
further declared that all persons assisting in, or knowing of any
intention in any member of the royal family to marry without fulfilling
these ceremonies, and not disclosing it, incurred the penalties of a
premunire. The bill encountered a violent opposition in the house of
lords, but it was carried by a large majority, and then sent down to the
commons. In the commons it was opposed with still greater violence: it
being denounced by Burke and various speakers as cruel and oppressive,
and as being calculated to extend the dangerous power of ministers and
the limits of prerogative. The bill was, however, carried by a majority
of forty members. In the house of lords, nineteen peers entered a
long protest, declaring that if the bill passed into a law, it would,
nevertheless, be void. The excitement out of doors on the subject was
scarcely less violent than that within the house. It was said there,
that the bill should be entitled “an act for encouraging fornication
and adultery in the descendants of George, II.” As for the Duke of
Gloucester, in the course of the spring, he openly avowed his marriage
with the widow of the late Earl of Waldegrave, and both brothers
abstained from going to court for ten years, and lived as strangers to
his majesty.




EAST INDIA AFFAIRS.

During the month of February, Lord North had called the attention of
the house to the affairs of the East India Company, which were every day
increasing in importance, and involving greater interests. In March, Mr.
Sullivan, deputy chairman of the company, moved for leave to bring in a
bill for the better regulation of its officers and concerns in India.
The bill was brought in and read a second time, but it was then laid
aside. In the course of the debates upon it—many charges and defences
passed between certain members of the house and others that had acquired
vast fortunes in India, and these accusations led to a secret committee
of inquiry, which forthwith commenced its task: a task that was not
completed during this session.




THE SESSION CLOSED.

This session closed on the 10th of June, when the king expressed his
satisfaction at the temper and moderation displayed by the members
during their sitting, and thanked them for the additional security which
they had provided for the honour and welfare of his family: thanks which
chiefly referred to the royal marriage act. The supplies voted for this
year were £7,860,250; and the national debt amounted to £127,500,000.
In the course of the session, it may be remarked, that the ancient and
barbarous custom of _peine forte et dure_, by which felons refusing
to plead, were stretched on their backs and pressed to death by heavy
weights, was abolished by an act, which declared that all who acted thus
contumaciously were to be adjudged guilty of the crimes laid to their
charge. At the close of the session Lord North seemed firmly seated in
office, and this conviction brought over many waverers, and time-servers
to his side. Nevertheless, he was soon after doomed to lose the support
of one of the best of his debaters, in the person of Charles Fox, who
was suddenly converted to Whig principles, and who consequently resigned
the admiralty.




FATE OF THE QUEEN OF DENMARK.

Carolina Matilda, the king’s youngest sister, was married in her
sixteenth year to Christian VII., king of Denmark. This monarch was
addicted to licentious and degrading pleasures, and was a prince of
weak intellect, irritable and capricious, open to flattery, and easily
deceived by the crafty. Soon after his marriage he visited England,
France, and Germany, where he might, if he had possessed intellect,
have obtained such knowledge as would have made him a better man. He
returned, however, to his dominions the same character as when he left
it—vicious in his private life, and despotic in his rule. During his
travels he had been accompanied by a physician named Struensee, and
this man had acquired such an absolute ascendency over his mind, that
he obtained the supreme direction of affairs, with a title of nobility.
Struensee was endowed with considerable abilities, and was possessed of
a handsome person and engaging manners. He appears to have ingratiated
himself as much in the favour of the queen, as of the king, being
allowed to converse with her in very familiar terms. Apart from this,
however, there appears to have been no connection between the queen
and the favourite. But Matilda was watched by unfriendly eyes. Juliana
Maria, the queen-dowager, had from her first arrival taken a dislike
to her, and this aversion was increased when she saw that Matilda,
Struensee, and Brandt, a young nobleman, exercised complete authority
over the imbecile monarch, and directed the affairs of government at
their pleasure. The queen-dowager had numerous and powerful friends,
and these were likewise incensed at seeing Struensee at the head of the
government, and a strong party was formed against him; Juliana Maria
being at the head of the faction. The queen, also, was an object
of their malice from her supposed influence over the king, and her
encouragement of a man who thus lorded it over the old nobility. By
their intrigues they soon obtained an order from the king for her
removal from Copenhagen, and for the apprehension of Struensee and
Brandt: it being represented that they had plotted together and were
about to depose him. It was on the night of the 16th of January that the
faction put their conspiracy into execution. Struensee and Brandt were
suddenly seized, cast into prison, and after undergoing the greatest
indignities, were beheaded. At an early hour, also, the queen, who had
just retired to rest from a masked ball, received a written order to
remove instantly from Copenhagen. It was in vain that Matilda sought to
see her husband: she was dragged half naked into a carriage, and driven
to Cronborg castle, where she was immured with an English lady of her
suite, and her infant daughter, the princess Louisa, whom she was then
suckling. A project was set on foot to try her on a capital charge of
adultery, for the purpose of rendering her offspring illegitimate,
in order that Prince Frederic, son of the queen-dowager, might become
presumptive heir to the throne. A secret commission had, indeed, found
her guilty, and had pronounced a divorce, as a preparatory step to her
trial on a capital charge. Matilda, however, was the sister of one of
the greatest sovereigns of Europe, whose arm was to be dreaded, and the
Danish court was compelled to agree that she should quit the kingdom,
and live under the protection of his majesty of England. An English
squadron repaired to Cronborg to receive her, but she was not allowed
the consolation of bringing her infant daughter away with her. She was
conveyed to the vessel in an agony of despair, and she sat on the deck
with her eyes fixed on the walls of the castle where she had left her
only earthly solace, till the darkness of night concealed them from her
view. She was conveyed to the castle of Zell, in Hanover, where a cheap
little court was provided for her; the expenses being paid out of the
Hanoverian revenue, or out of the English privy purse. But her days of
light-heartedness were over: her heart was stricken with grief which
weighed her down. Portraits of her infant-son and daughter were
procured, and these she hung in her chamber, where she would frequently
talk to them, as though the images had been the originals—the shadows,
the substance. She did not, however, long survive her misfortunes. She
died at the age of twenty-four in the month of May 1775; less than three
years after her release from Cronborg. Yet after all the machinations of
the queen-dowager of Denmark, the son of the ill-fated queen afterwards
ascended the throne: being first associated with his father Christian
VII. as a sort of joint monarch. This, at least, proves that the king
himself was convinced of the innocence of his unhappy consort.




DEATH OF THE PRINCESS DOWAGER OF WALES.

Before her daughter was hurled from the throne of Denmark, her mother,
the Princess-dowager of Wales, was no more. She died suddenly on the
8th of February, in the fifty-fourth year of her age. Although she had
endured much popular clamour, the accusations of her enemies were
never satisfactorily substantiated. At all events she appears to have
possessed many good qualities. It tends greatly to her honour that she
gradually liquidated her husband’s debts out of her own private income.




REVOLUTION IN SWEDEN.

In the beginning of this year a sudden revolution took place at
Stockholm. About half a century before, the nobility of Sweden had
limited the prerogative of the crown, and had erected themselves into an
absolute and oppressive oligarchy. Since then the country had been split
into two factions, which were called the Hats and Caps. Encouraged by
this division, as well as by the venality of the aristocratical senate,
Gustavus III. resolved to erect the old monarchical despotism. His plans
were matured with extreme secrecy and precaution. The mass of the army
was gained over to his cause; the affections of the brave people of
Dalecarlia, who had established the dynasty of Gustavus Vasa, were
secured; and the services of the citizens and burgher-guard of the
capital were enlisted. All were ready, and the king, having assembled
the troops within the walls of Stockholm, under the pretext of providing
against an insurrection, then threw off the mask. He harangued
the troops; telling them that he was about to save the nation from
degradation and misery, to put an end to the insolence and venality
of the nobles, and to restore the crown to its ancient splendour. The
soldiers applauded; the senators were made prisoners; the obnoxious
members of the secret committee of the states fled for their lives; the
army, colleges, and citizens took the oath of allegiance in the absolute
form; and the revolution was achieved. It was achieved gloriously; for
not one drop of blood was shed. The states of the kingdom underwent
no change—the council only was overturned, and the factions of the
aristocracy, led on by family interests and supported by foreign
influence, repressed.




PARTITION OF POLAND.

Sweden was more fortunate than Poland. At this time that country
presented a melancholy aspect. It was torn by civil wars, harassed by
religious discord, and wasted by the famine and the plague. But these
were only the accessories to still greater misfortunes. Crippled by
them, Poland had no power of resisting the spoilers who were now casting
their eyes upon her as their prey. These spoilers were the rulers of
Russia, Prussia, and Austria, whose armies entered the country under
false pretences, in order to appropriate the fairest portion to
themselves. And what made the condition of that unhappy country the
more deplorable was, that she had not a single friend who could lend
a willing ear to her call for aid. Turkey was at this period almost
prostrate at the feet of Russia; Sweden and Denmark were engaged in
revolutions of their own; Choiseul no longer directed the affairs of
France, or was able to advocate war; and England was embarrassed by
domestic commotions and the violent remonstrances of her rebellious
colonies. It was in vain that the King of Poland published refutations
to the claims of the co-partitioners, and in vain that they made an
appeal to all the states that had ever guaranteed the integrity of the
country. Before the spirit of Europe could be roused, violent hands were
laid upon the kingdom, and the work was done. The three powers, indeed,
proceeded to the dismemberment of Poland, with no other check or
impediment than such as arose from their own clashing interests, where
each one strove to obtain as much as they could. But the agreement was
made marvellously quick. The treaty of partition was signed between the
spoliators on the 2nd of August, in 1772, and it was followed in the
month of September by declarations, manifestoes, and specifications
of the territories which each of he powers was to possess Austria and
Prussia claimed their portions as their rights; Russia represented that
she was entitled to hers for expenses incurred in keeping Poland in
order. All the powers agreed that it was to put an end to anarchy, and
the frequent troubles of Poland, that induced them to take this step;
and they asserted that it was their intention of placing the ancient
constitution of Poland and the national liberties upon a sure
foundation. But their assertions ill agreed with their actions: all the
world knew their motives, and that it was self alone which made them
take such deep interest in the affairs of Poland. Nay, their very
manifestoes declared their real designs. Cities, towns, provinces,
rivers, and Mountains were to be taken from her, and placed under their
own fostering care. But then it was stated by them, this was only done
out of mercy to the nation. Having limited their kingdom thus, they
promised that they would discharge the Poles from all other debts, dues,
and demands, and for ever respect the integrity of the remnant of their
dominions. Thus preaching peace, though war was in their hearts, the
three powers invited the Poles of all ranks and orders to put up their
swords, and to banish the spirit of discord and delusion, in order that
a diet legally assembled might co-operate with their imperial majesties
and the King of Prussia in re-establishing tranquillity, and at the same
time ratify, by public acts, the titles, pretensions, and claims of the
three powers; and the partition agreed upon and effected. The diet
met, and although for a long time they opposed the dismemberment of the
country, yet they were overcome by large presents and larger promises.
The king was more firm, but he was menaced with deposition, his family
with ruin, and his capital with pillage, and he signed the fatal
instrument. The territory taken and divided among them was almost the
third part of Poland, and it comprised some of the richest provinces in
the kingdom. Thus to Russia was assigned the greater part of Lithuania,
with all the vast country between the livers Dwina and Dneister; to
Prussia the whole of Pomeralia, part of Great Poland, the bishopric of
Warmia, and the palatinates of Marienberg and Culm, with the complete
command of the lower part of the Vistula; and to Austria the country
along the left bank of the Vistula, from Vielicza down to the confluence
of the river Viroz, the whole of the country called Red Russia, the
palatinate of Belz, and a portion of the province of Volhynia. But even
this did not satisfy the spoliators. The treaty was scarcely signed when
Frederick extended the limits of his acquisitions in the neighbourhood
of Thorn, and to the east of the Devenza, while Austria seized on
Casimir, part of the palatinate of Lublin, and some lands lying on the
right bank of the Bog. Were not these three powers actuated by a
spirit of revenge and envy, as well as by a spirit of cupidity, in this
spoliation of Poland? Prussia was formerly in a state of vassalage to
that country; Russia once saw its capital and throne possessed by
Poles; and Austria was indebted to a sovereign of this country for
the preservation of its metropolis, if not for its very existence.
Stanislaus could scarcely be persuaded that this dismemberment was
intended to be perpetual; and when he was convinced of it, he addressed
prayers and protests to France, Spain, and England, and to all the
powers of Europe. These prayers and protests were useless; and yet it
was the wisdom of the powers to vindicate his cause. Professor Heeren
remarks:—“What were the consequences to Poland, in comparison with
those which threatened the political system of Europe? The potentates
themselves had begun its subversion. Politicians flatter ed themselves,
indeed, and so did Frederick, that the balance of power would be upheld
in the north by the nearly equal division; so fearfully had the error
taken root, that this balance is to be sought in the material power of
the state, and not in preserving the maxims of international law. What
dismemberment could be illegal if this should be regarded as lawful? and
what state could be more interested in maintaining the law of nations
than Prussia—a state which was established by conquests piecemeal, and
brought together by compacts and treaties of peace?” The dismemberment
of Poland was in truth an outrage committed upon the law of nations.
And this outrage was rendered tenfold more iniquitous by the new
constitution imposed upon Poland. This constitution excluded all
reform; perpetuated the elective monarchy with the _liberum veto_, the
exorbitant privileges of the nobles, and every other inherent defect;
and contracted the regal power, by appointing a co-operative council,
and depriving the sovereign of more than half his patronage.
The delegates who had been appointed to adjust the claims of the
partitioning powers, and to settle this new constitution, long resisted
these regulations, but their consent was finally extorted by threats,
and a general diet was assembled which formally confirmed their
acts. All things, therefore, were put into a proper train for future
spoliation; nor did a long time elapse before another opportunity
occurred of making inroads into the law of nations, and dissolving those
ties which connect governing powers among themselves. The ambassadors of
the three powers, indeed, continued to dictate to the council in which
the executive power was vested, as they had done to the diet, and the
king was only king in name. Some there were in the nation who dared to
resist the spoliators, but they were soon compelled to leave the country
with no fortune but their swords. Some of these afterwards fought under
George Washington, in America, when the English colonies raised the
standard of independence.




INVESTIGATION OF THE MIDDLESEX ELECTION.

During this year the dispute concerning the Middlesex election was
revived in a new mode of investigation. An action was brought by Mr.
Alderman Townshend against the collector of the land-tax for distraint
in default of payment, which was refused, on the plea that Middlesex
was not represented in parliament. Sergeant Glynn was retained for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Wallace was employed for the defendant—the former of
whom argued, that the county was not represented, and the latter of whom
contented himself with producing the act of parliament under which the
collector had acted. Lord Mansfield, in his charge to the jury, said,
that the sole question for them to consider was, whether at the present
time there was any legislative power in the county or not—if they
thought there was, they must find for the defendant. The jury thought
there was, and gave a verdict accordingly.




CHANGES IN THE MINISTRY.

During the month of August several changes occurred in the ministry
which had a tendency to strengthen the administration. Lord Hillsborough
resigned his post of secretary for the colonies and first lord of trade;
the Earl of Harcourt succeeded Lord Townshend in Ireland, the latter
being appointed master-general of the ordnance; General Conway obtained
the government of Jersey, and was succeeded as lieutenant-general of
the ordnance by Sir Jeffery Amherst; and Lord Stormont was sent as
ambassador to Paris. Moreover, later in the year, Charles Fox, whose
services were of value to the ministers, and who was in want of
ministerial pay, again changed sides, and was made a lord of the
treasury; while Mr. Jenkinson was created vice-treasurer of Ireland.




THE MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament reassembled on the 26th of November. The speech of his
majesty contained no topic of importance, and the addresses of both
houses did little more than echo the speech. It was expected that some
allusion would have been made in it to the partition of Poland, but not
a word was said about that flagrant act, and the members who spoke on
the addresses were equally silent upon the subject. Mr. Burke appears
to have felt deeply concerning it, but he reserved his eloquence for a
future period.




EAST INDIA AFFAIRS.

On the first clay of the session hostile language was uttered by the
retainers of government in the commons against the East India Company,
and Lord North moved for a secret committee of thirteen to examine
certain points, independently of the committee appointed last session,
which was carried. In the course of seven days a report was made by
this secret committee, recommending a bill to prevent the company from
sending out certain supervisors whom it had selected to settle matters
in India. It was at once seen that such a bill was only a preparatory
measure for the interference of government in the administration of
India, and therefore it excited the warmest opposition of many members.
Several of the directors, sitting in parliament, declared that the
report was hurried, irregular, and unconstitutional; and Burke, who was
a holder of East India stock, maintained that the proposed bill would
be a violation of the company’s charter, and the law of the land. “If,”
 said he, “we suffer this bill to pass we shall become the East India
Company; the treasury bench will be the buyers, and on this side we
shall be the sellers. The senate will become an auction-room, and the
speaker an auctioneer.” The recommendation of the secret committee was,
notwithstanding, adopted, and the bill was introduced.

During the progress of this bill, the East India directors petitioned
against it, representing it as subversive of those rights and privileges
which they held under their charter, which were purchased by their
predecessors for a valuable consideration, and were confirmed to them
by acts of parliament. The petition also complained of an erroneous
calculation of expenses made by the committee, and stated that those
of the commission would be defrayed by savings meditated, to the great
benefit of the creditors. The petitioners, moreover, suggested that
injurious consequences would arise from their being prohibited to
transact their own affairs, in the want of means to fulfil their
engagements with the public; claimed the benefit of the law; appealed
to the faith of the nation for their chartered rights; and prayed to be
heard by counsel. This latter prayer was granted, and it appeared from
evidence that government had received nearly £2,000,000 annually from
the company, while the company had received little more than six per
cent, on their capital. The evidence given at the bar also served to
establish the great delinquency of the company’s servants, and the need
that existed of their being subject to supervision. At the same time it
did not show that the company of itself was competent to redress these
abuses, and the question was, whether the incompetency of the company
warranted the interposition of parliament. Ministers acknowledged it to
be a stretch of authority, but they justified it on the plea of cogent
necessity—a necessity which took precedence of all other law. The
company’s battle was fought in the commons by Burke, whose speech on
this occasion attracted great attention. After observing that parliament
took the state of the company’s trade into consideration, in 1767 for
the maintenance of the public faith and public credit; for the
increase of its commerce and revenues, and for the security of
its stockholders—a bargain with which the eyes of the house were
dazzled—he thus descanted on the distress of the company and the
iniquity of the bill:—“The distress of the company,” said he, “arises
from the improvidence of administration and the short-sightedness of
parliament, in not forming for it a system of government suitable to its
form and constitution. Or am I mistaken? Were the directors left without
any effectual control over delinquent servants? Was the collection
of the revenue left without any check? Was the tyranny of a double
government, like our double cabinet, tolerated with a view of seeing
the concerns of the company become an absolute chaos of disorder, and
of giving to government a handle for seizing the territorial revenue?
I know that this was the original scheme of administration, and I
violently suspect that it never has been relinquished. If the ministry
have no sinister view, if they do not mean by this unconstitutional
step to extend the influence of the crown, they will now speak out,
and explicitly declare their intentions: their silence may be justly
construed into a confession of such a design, and they will thenceforth
be considered as the determined enemies of the liberty of their country.
God knows, that the places and pensions, and expectancies, furnished
by the British establishment, are too powerful for the small remains of
patriotism and public spirit that remain in our island. What then
will become of us, if Bengal, if the Ganges, pour in a new tide of
corruption? Should the evil genius of British liberty so ordain it, I
fear this house will be so far from removing the corruption of the East,
that it will be corrupted by it: I dread more from the infection of that
place than I hope from the virtue of this house. Was it not the sudden
plunder of the East that gave the final blow to the freedom of
Borne? What reason have we to expect a better fate? I conjure you, by
everything which man ought to hold sacred—I conjure you by the spirits
of your forefathers, who so nobly fought and bled for the cause for
which I now plead—I conjure you by what includes everything, by your
country, not to yield to the temptations which the East, in the hands
of the crown, holds out: not to sink into the gulf of corruption, and
to drag after you your posterity and your country. I obtest heaven and
earth, that in all places, and at all times, I have hitherto shoved by
the gilded hand of corruption, and endeavoured to stem the torrent which
threatens to overwhelm this land. On the whole, the bill is dangerous
in itself, as being the first step towards the total invasion of the
company’s territories in Bengal; and should we admit the motives which
lead to it to be good, yet such a step is dangerous as a precedent. I do
not, however, deny that the house has power to pass it, but you have
not the right. There is a perpetual confusion in gentlemen’s ideas
from inattention to this material distinction, from which, properly
considered, it will appear that this bill is contrary to the eternal
laws of right and wrong—laws that ought to bind all men, and, above all
men, legislative assemblies.” Notwithstanding Burke’s eloquence, the
bill was carried in the commons by an overwhelming majority, and it was
also carried through the lords with little or no opposition. The two
houses then adjourned for the Christmas recess.




CHAPTER V.

{GEORGE III. 1773–1775}

     The Caribbs of St. Vincents..... Petition of Naval
     Officers..... Subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles.....
     Debates on  East  India   Measures..... The Session
     closed..... Proceedings in the City..... Continental
     Politics-Irish Affairs..... Disputes with the American
     Colonies..... Meeting of Parliament..... Early Measures in
     this Session..... The Bostonian Petition..... Parliamentary
     Proceedings against America..... Bill for the Administration
     of Canada..... Prorogation of Parliament..... Proceedings at
     Boston..... General Election..... Meeting of the New
     Parliament.

{A.D. 1773}




THE CARIBBS OF ST. VINCENTS.

Before the Christmas holidays, Alderman Trecothick mentioned in the
house that the island of St. Vincent had been made a scene of iniquity
and cruelty: our troops having committed against the Caribbs, a
defenceless and innocent people, the most shocking barbarities. Other
members spoke on the same subject, and said that the troops had been
barbarously made to suffer even more evils than those they inflicted on
the Indians. Papers were produced which seemed to prove that proper care
had been taken of the troops, but on the reassembling of parliament,
a further inquiry was set on foot upon the subject. It appears that the
Caribbs, who were in possession of the most fertile parts of the island,
had not been mentioned when it was ceded to Great Britain; and that
the British settlers wished them to exchange their districts for tracts
which were said to be more appropriate to their occupations of hunting
and fishing. This proposal was received by the Caribbs with indignation.
They replied that they had held their lands independent of the King of
France, and would still hold them independent of the King of England.
The planters then submitted a plan to government for transporting this
brave people to Africa, which plan met with approbation. The Caribbs,
however, were passionately attached to their native plains, and hence
determined on resistance. Two regiments were then dispatched from North
America, to join others in the island, for the purpose of reducing them
to subjection. Several skirmishes took place, but the rainy season and
sickness, added to the difficulties of the country, prevented our troops
from completing their subjugation. Such was the state of the island
when Parliament met, and the account of these hostilities, in which
detestable cruelties had been committed on both sides, was made the
subject of animadversion. Motions concerning the cause of the war and
the state of our troops were made by the opposition, but ministers
negatived them with their usual majorities; and before the discussions
were over, intelligence arrived, that the Caribbs had acknowledged
themselves subject to the British crown, retaining their ancient customs
in their intercourse with each other, and ceding certain districts to
the British settlers. This put an end to all further debates on the
question.




PETITION OF NAVAL OFFICERS.

On the 9th of February, a petition was presented by Lord Howe, from the
captains of the navy, praying for a trifling increase of their half-pay.
This was opposed by Lord North, who stated that the present state of
the public finances put it out of his power to be liberal, and that by
granting this petition a door would be open to similar claims. It was,
however, so warmly defended by Lord Howe, and other members—some of
whom ridiculed the idea that the finances of this great and opulent
country were in so wretched a state as not to be able to afford the
pittance of £6000 a year, for the relief of men to whom her power
and glory were so much indebted—that the prayer of the petition was
granted. A motion was carried by which the half-pay of naval officers
was increased by the addition of two shillings a day.




SUBSCRIPTION TO THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES.

This subject again occupied the attention of parliament in this session.
A bill, more generally conceived than the last, was brought into the
commons for the relief of Protestant Dissenters. Upon this occasion the
Wesleyan methodists, now a numerous and powerful body, made common cause
with the church, and denounced any change or innovation in the Act of
Toleration, as dangerous. Petitions were sent up to parliament by them
against the relief prayed for by the dissenting body, although they
were, in point of fact, themselves dissenters. Burke supported the bill,
and his eloquence and powerful reasoning had a great effect upon the
house. But his exertions this time were scarcely needed, for Lord North
himself, and other ministers gave the bill their warmest support, and
it passed the commons by large majorities. In the house of lords, it was
strongly opposed, and rejected by a majority of 102 against 29. In the
debate upon it, the bill was defended by the Earl of Chatham, who in his
speech did not even spare the right reverend bench. In the debate, Dr.
Drummond, Archbishop of York, had called the dissenting ministers
“men of close ambition.” In reply to this, Chatham observed:—“Whoever
brought such a charge against them defamed them. The dissenting
ministers are represented as men of close ambition. They are so in some
respects. Their ambition is to keep close to the college of fishermen,
not of cardinals; and to the doctrine of the inspired apostles, not
to the decrees of interested and aspiring bishops. They contend for a
spiritual creed and a spiritual worship: we have a Calvinistic creed,
a Popish liturgy, and an Arminian clergy.” At a later period of the
session a motion was made in the commons by Sir William Meredith, for
abolishing the subscription to the thirty-nine articles at the time of
matriculation, but this was rejected.




DEBATES ON EAST INDIA MEASURES.

During the recess, the East India directors reduced their dividend to
six per cent. This palliative, however, was of no avail, and they were
obliged to pass a vote for applying to government for the loan of one
million and a half to relieve them from their pecuniary difficulties.
A petition to this effect was presented to parliament, and Lord North,
after exculpating government from various insinuations regarding the
annual payment of the company, moved a series of resolutions, tending to
establish the grant of a loan as a matter of necessary policy, but not
as a claim of right or justice. He proposed that £1,400,000 should be
advanced, and that their dividends should be restricted to six per cent,
till the whole was repaid, and afterwards to seven per cent, until their
bond debt was reduced to £1,500,000. This passed without a division.
At the same time, Lord North suggested some regulations as proper to
prevent the recurrence of similar embarrassments, and to reform all
abuses in the government of India. On a future day he moved that the
company should be permitted to export tea to America free of all duty,
which was accepted by the company as a great boon: they having at that
time seventeen millions of pounds of tea in their warehouses in England.
Finally, he proposed his grand plan for the regulation of their affairs,
as well in India as in Europe. This plan provided that six directors
should be elected annually, none holding their seats more than four
years; that the stock for the qualification of an elector should be
raised from five hundred to one thousand pounds, and possessed twelve
months previous to an election; and that in lieu of the mayor’s court
at Calcutta, a new tribunal should be established, consisting of a chief
justice and three puisne judges appointed by the crown, a superiority
being also given to Bengal over all the other presidencies. These latter
resolutions occasioned warm debates, and met with vehement opposition,
but they were all eventually carried, and a bill framed on them passed
through both houses with overwhelming majorities. From this time the
affairs of India are generally regarded as being lodged securely in the
hands of government.




THE SESSION CLOSED.

During this session, ministers seem to have carried their motions and
plans with great facility. The opposition for the most part was tame
and spiritless, whence Burke calls it,—“a tedious session.” On one
occasion, however, the harmony which prevailed in the cabinet, and
between the two houses, was momentarily interrupted. The lords having
taken upon themselves to make some amendments in a money bill, sent it
again down to the commons, and they resenting this as an infringement of
their rights, tossed it over the table, and kicked it out of the house
as though it had been a foot-ball. This matter, however, was soon
forgotten; and when his majesty put an end to the session, he expressed
his satisfaction at the harmony which had subsisted during their
deliberations, as well as at the zeal, assiduity, and perseverance which
had been displayed. In his speech he regretted the continuance of the
war between the Porte and Russia; declared he had a close friendship
both with the czarina and sultan, but no engagements with either;
applauded the relief and support given to the East India Company; and
stated that the national debt had been somewhat reduced. But not one
word was said about the fate of Poland.




PROCEEDINGS IN THE CITY.

During the month of May the Duke of Gloucester’s wife was delivered of
a daughter, and on this occasion, Wilkes moved at a court of
common-council, that an humble address of congratulation should be
presented to his majesty on the safe delivery, and the birth of a
princess. This motion was supported by Sir Watkin Lewes, but other
aldermen opposed it, not only on the ground that the king had never
acknowledged the lady for his sister, but because it was unusual for the
city to address the king, except for the issue of his immediate heir.
Earlier in the year, indeed, the queen had been delivered of another
son, Augustus Frederic, the late duke of Sussex, and no mention had then
been made of an address, and therefore to have presented one on this
occasion, would have been invidious, if not indelicate. This motion,
therefore, proved abortive. Wilkes, however, with his friend Oliver,
succeeded in obtaining from the court of alderman a resolution “that a
frequent appeal to the people by short parliaments was their undoubted
right, as well as the only means of obtaining a real representation;”
 and the livery not only passed a similar resolution, but proposed it
as a test for the city candidates at a future election. Another strong
petition and remonstrance on the old grievances, the Middlesex election,
the imprisonment of the lord mayor, etc., and praying for a dissolution
of parliament, and a change of ministers, was got up in the city and
presented to the king, by the lord mayor, Sergeant Glynn, Alderman
Bull, and others of the city officers, on the 26th of March. Before the
citizens were introduced to his majesty, they were given to understand
that they would not be allowed the honour of kissing his hand, and when
it was presented, the king sternly told them, that their petition was so
void of foundation, and conceived in such disrespectful terms, that he
felt convinced the petitioners did not seriously imagine that its prayer
could be complied with.




CONTINENTAL POLITICS.

While the cabinets of Petersburg, Vienna, and Berlin were occupied in
dismembering Poland, and aggrandizing their dominions at the expense
of that ill-fated country, France was making preparations to send a
powerful fleet into the Baltic. This was evidently the forerunner of
some ulterior design, although D’Aigullon, the prime minister of France,
endeavoured to keep those designs from the public view. He was, however,
unable to elude the vigilance, or to baffle the penetration of the
British cabinet. After expatiating on the ambition of Russia, as well
as the ties of honour and interest by which France was bound to
assist Sweden, D’Aigullon was informed by Lord Stormont, the British
ambassador, that, if France sent her ships into the Baltic, they would
be followed by a British fleet. The presence of two fleets, he said,
would have no more effect than a neutrality, and that, however the
British cabinet might desire peace between England and France, it was
impossible to foresee the consequences that might arise from accidental
collision. This had some effect, for the squadron at Brest was
countermanded; but soon after the French minister, in hopes of eluding
observation, gave orders for the equipment of an armament at Toulon,
under pretence of exercising the sailors of France in naval tactics.
Discovering this, the British cabinet made vigorous demonstrations of
resistance. The English ambassador was directed to declare that the
objections made against a fleet of France occupying the Baltic, applied
equally to the Mediterranean, and a memorial was presented to the French
minister, accompanied by a demand that it should be laid before the
king, and council. This was sufficient: the armament was countermanded
and the sailors discharged.




IRISH AFFAIRS.

The spirit of disaffection was still rife in Ireland. The Earl of
Harcourt having been appointed to the government, was at first received
with great joy, but he soon found that his popularity was not sufficient
to ensure obedience to the dictates of the British cabinet, or to
repress the overflowings of human passion. The White Boys, and the
Hearts of Steel, still exhibited a turbulent spirit, which nothing could
allay or soothe. Nor was it among the populace alone that ill-feeling
was displayed. When the Irish parliament met, the spirit of liberty
was discerned in that assembly likewise. The speaker of the house of
commons, in a speech to his excellency before the lords, expressed the
inability of the country to endure any additional taxation, by reason
of those commercial restrictions, which, he said, had fettered all its
energies. The claim of commercial freedom was, indeed, warmly repeated
in the official addresses of the speaker during the continuance of the
government of this viceroy, and a spirit of jealousy also appeared in
a refusal to admit foreign mercenaries, when the British troops were
withdrawn to America, although the English government offered to defray
all the expenses. A relaxation of the penal code, however, by which
the condition of the Roman Catholics was improved, had the effect
of lowering the angry feelings of the nation, and on the whole the
government of the Earl of Harcourt is looked upon as having produced
beneficial results to the country. Dr. Miller says, “The government of
Lord Townshend had termininated the oligarchical administration: that of
Lord Harcourt unfolded those germs of political energy, which were soon
to expand themselves into national prosperity and importance.”




DISPUTES WITH THE AMERICAN COLONIES.

The storm which had long been gathering in the horizon, was now
gathering thick over our American colonies, and threatened ere long
to pour out its fury throughout the whole length and breadth of the
conn-try. It was now increased by the attempt of Lord North at taking
the payment of the colonial judges and governors out of the hands of the
houses of assembly. This the Americans declared was an attempt of the
British government to impose its own arbitrary instruments upon them; to
destroy the very essence of their charters and liberties, by making the
judges and governors wholly independent of the people, and dependent on
the crown. Resistance was therefore resolved upon. A series of protests
were issued from the assembly of Boston, and the example was followed
by all the assemblies throughout the colonies. For the purpose of
making the opposition more effectual, a corresponding committee was
established, with branches and ramifications, which reached nearly to
every town and village throughout the colonies, and the effect of this
great lever of the revolution was soon seen in a general combination
of measures, a unanimity of language, and a general persecution of all
those who were in favour of the British government. The movement, which
had hitherto been slow in its progress, now took rapid strides, the
celerity of which nothing could impede. The assembly of Boston, always
in the van, next got up a manifesto, which treated the authority of
the British parliament with contempt. This manifesto declared that the
British parliament had no right to legislate for the colonies in any
matter whatever; denounced the declaratory act recommended by Chatham,
and passed in 1768, as an unjust assumption of a legislative power,
without the consent of the colonists; and charged the British ministry
with a design to complete a system of slavery begun in the house of
commons. Copies of this manifesto were dispersed throughout the province
of Massachusets, urging the people not to dose any longer, or to sit
supinely, whilst the hand of oppression was plucking the choicest fruits
from the tree of liberty. The people, however, seem to have considered
it as too violent, for it was not responded to as the Bostonians
expected it would have been, and they were compelled somewhat to retrace
their steps, They apologized to the British government for having
gone thus far, throwing the whole blame on their new governor, Mr.
Hutchinson, who, they said, had provoked them to act thus by his
intemperate conduct. At the same time they stated that they were
faithful subjects of his majesty, and that they conceived themselves
happy in their connexion with Great Britain! At this critical moment,
however, when the minds of the people of New England wavered, and
when the southern and middle countries were comparatively peaceable,
communications were received from England, which set the whole country
in commotion.

During the course of the disputes, certain letters had been written by
Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Oliver, lieutenant-governor., and others, to the
home government, reflecting strongly on the character of the colonial
opposition, and recommending the adoption of coercive measures, and a
material change in the system of the government of the colonies. These
letters were strictly confidential, but they were purloined from
the office in which they were deposited by some person favourable to
American interests, and placed in the hands of Dr. Franklin, agent for
the province of Massachusets. Franklin thought proper to transmit these
letters to a friend in that province, with a strict injunction against
their being printed, as he had given a promise to the friend who had
furnished him with them to that effect. Their contents, however,
soon became known, and the legislative assembly obliged Franklin’s
correspondent to produce them, and having resolved that the tendency of
them was to overthrow the constitution and to introduce arbitrary power
into the province, the house of assembly drew up a petition to the
king, charging the governor with betraying his trust, and slandering the
people under his government; declaring him an enemy to the colony; and
praying for the instant dismissal of both Hutchinson and Oliver, the
governor and deputy-governor of the province. Copies of this petition,
and also of the letters which gave rise to it, were soon scattered over
all the continent, from the Lawrence to the Mississippi, and from the
shores of the Atlantic to the regions of the far west; and their effects
soon became manifest. Long before this, in 1772, the people of Rhode
Island had insulted the British flag by boarding, capturing, and burning
a British ship of war, and though government had offered a large
reward with pardon, if claimed by an accomplice, for the discovery and
apprehension of any persons engaged in the outrage, all the offenders
had escaped with impunity. Opposition to the British government, now
that the letters transmitted by Franklin had inflamed the public mind,
grew more bold. In the midst of the discontent two ships arrived at
Boston with the cargoes of tea which Lord North had allowed the East
India Company to export duty free. Anterior to their arrival, meetings
had been held and mobs raised, to terrify the consignees into an
engagement not to receive the tea, and when they arrived, another
meeting of the inhabitants of Boston and all the neighbouring towns was
called to prevent its being landed. At this meeting a resolution was
passed, asserting among other things that the tea ships were sent for
the purpose of enslaving and poisoning all freeborn Americans, and that
the tea which came charged with a duty to be paid in America should not
be landed, but be sent back in the same bottoms. The consignees offered
to store the teas till they could receive further instructions; but
this moderate offer was rejected with disdain, and a strong body of
Bostonians armed with muskets, rifles, swords, and cutlasses, were sent
down to Griffin’s wharf to watch the ships, in order to prevent a single
leaf from being put on shore. This was on the 30th of November, and
on the 14th of December, two other ships freighted by the East India
Company having arrived, another crowded meeting was held at the Old
South Meeting-house, whence orders were sent to the captains of the
tea vessels to return without delay. The answer received was, that the
collector could not give any clearance until the vessels had discharged
their cargoes, and, indeed, if the captains had been disposed to return,
they could not have complied with the demand, as the governor had
ordered that they should not be allowed to pass the forts without a
permit signed by himself, and Admiral Montague had sent two ships of war
to guard all the passages out of the harbour. The meeting waited for the
reply, and when it arrived, a question was put whether those assembled
would abide by their former resolutions respecting the tea, which was
carried unanimously. A message was then sent to desire the governor
to give the ships a permit to depart, and he replied that he could not
consistently with his duty to the king give any pass unless the vessels
were properly qualified from the custom-house. The meeting was about
to consider this reply, when a person disguised like an Indian, began
uttering the war-whoop in tones so natural that he might have been taken
for a real savage. His yell was succeeded by the cry of “A mob, a mob!”
 and some, more cautious than the rest, moved that the meeting should be
dissolved. This was done, and many of the people ran at once from the
old meeting-house to Griffin’s wharf, where they were met by a number
of men disguised as Mohawk Indians, and by a still greater number of
skippers, sailors, boatmen, and men of colour. In overwhelming force
these boarded the ships, split open the tea-chests, and having emptied
their contents into the sea, returned, without being discovered, to
their homes. The moment of excitement was followed by trembling anxiety.
The Bostonians now began to tremble for their charter, their property,
and their trade; and, as before, some attempted to throw all the blame
upon the conduct of their governor. As for the governor himself, he
represented to the ministry at home, that it was out of his power to
prevent the destruction of the tea, without yielding to unreasonable
demands, and thereby rendering the authority of government null and
void. It is to be regretted that the assembly took part with the mob,
and thereby accelerated the fearful consummation of their violent
proceedings. As if animated by the popular proceedings they renewed
their personal contests with the governor, and even proceeded so far as
to vote articles of impeachment against the chief justice, Peter
Oliver, for a design of introducing a partial, arbitrary, and corrupt
administration of the laws, he having declined to receive the annual
grant of the assembly, and accepted a stipend from his majesty. The
message conveying this resolution was indignantly rejected by the
governor, who disclaimed all power of determining on such cases, and as
the house persevered in attempting to force it on him under a different
form, he dissolved the assembly.

{A.D. 1774}




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament met on the 13th of January. At that time little was known of
the disturbances in America, and the king’s speech represented the state
of foreign affairs to be in such a quiescent state, that the legislature
would have ample time to attend to the improvement of our domestic
concerns, and to the prosecution of measures immediately connected with
the revenue and commerce of the kingdom. The deteriorated state of the
gold coin was especially mentioned as an object requiring attention. The
addresses were voted in both houses with little or no debate.




EARLY MEASURES IN THIS SESSION.

In the early part of this session public attention was excited by
the proceedings of the house of commons, respecting a libel on their
speaker, which had been published in the Public Advertiser. The house
issued an order for Woodfall the printer to attend at the bar, which was
obeyed without hesitation, and being interrogated as to the author, he
gave the name of the Rev. John Home. Woodfall was then ordered into the
custody of the sergeant-at-arms, and Home was then brought before the
house. Home inquired whether Woodfall’s declaration was to be taken
as evidence, or as the charge against him, and being told that it
constituted the charge, he pleaded “Not guilty,” as in an ordinary
court. The house was embarrassed; Woodfall was again called in and
confronted with Home, but as he was implicated in the guilt of the
publication, his evidence was not sufficient to warrant conviction.
Three of Woodfall’s printers were next brought before the house; but
they failed in proving the accusation, and Home was set at liberty.

The first parliamentary struggle in this session, took place on the
ministerial motion for 20,000 seamen, as in the preceding year. The
opposition argued that it was absurd to talk of peace and yet keep up
such an establishment, and they called upon ministers to state how they
had disposed of the supplies voted in the last meeting of parliament for
the navy. This motion, however, was carried without a division. On the
part of the opposition two motions were made and negatived: the
first being that of Alderman Sawbridge for shortening the duration of
parliament, and the second, that of Sir George Saville, concerning the
Middlesex election, and the infringement of the rights of electors.
Ministers, however, were not so successful in their opposition to a
motion made by Sir Edward Stanley, to bring in a bill for rendering
Grenville’s Controverted Election Act perpetual. Experience seems to
have proved its utility, and though Lord North appeared at the head of
the opposition, many of his friends forsook him on this occasion, and
the bill was passed by a large majority, and received the royal assent
before the end of the session. From this period disputed elections
have been tried with the same scrupulousness and solemnity as any other
titles: while previous to it, as Dr. Johnson observed, “the nation
was insulted with a mock election, and the parliament was filled with
spurious representatives.”




THE BOSTONIAN PETITION.

It has been seen that the assembly of Boston had voted a petition to
the king for the removal of their governor and deputy governor. This
petition, together with attested copies of the letters, were transmitted
to Dr. Franklin, the agent for the colony, or house of representatives
of Massachusets. These were delivered by Franklin to Lord Dartmouth, who
presented them to the king, and his majesty signified his pleasure that
they should be laid before the privy council.

In the mean time the affair had been the cause of bloodshed. Mr.
Whately, secretary to the treasury, to whom the letters had been
originally addressed, had recently died, and a sharp correspondence
took place between his brother, a banker in Lombard-street, and Mr.
John Temple, lieutenant-governor of New Hampshire: the former wishing
to avoid the charge of giving up the documents, and the latter that
of purloining them. The dispute ran so high that a duel was the
consequence, in which Mr. Whately was dangerously wounded. The event
caused great excitement, and Dr. Franklin wrote and published a letter
in the Public Advertiser, in which he declared that neither Mr. Whately
nor Mr. Temple had any thing to do with the letters, and that both of
them were totally ignorant of the transaction. His words are:—“I think
it incumbent on me to declare, for the prevention of further mischief,
that I alone am the person who obtained and transmitted to Boston the
letters in question. Mr. Whately could not communicate them, because
they were never in his possession; and for the same reason, they could
not have been taken from him by Mr. Temple. They were not of the nature
of private letters between friends; they were written by public officers
to persons in public stations, on public affairs, and intended to
procure public measures; they were, therefore, handed to other public
persons, who might be influenced by them to produce those measures;
their tendency was to incense the mother country against her colonies,
and by the steps recommended to widen the breach, which they effected.
The chief caution expressed with regard to privacy was, to keep their
contents from the colony agents, who, the writers apprehended, might
return them, or copies of them, to America. That apprehension was, it
seems, well founded; for the first agent who laid his hands on them
thought it his duty to transmit them to his constituents.”

It was on the 29th of January that the subject of the Bostonian petition
was brought before the privy council. On that day, Franklin, with
Mr. Dunning as council, attended to support the petition, and Mr.
Wedderburne, the solicitor-general, attended as counsel for the
governor. The counsel for the Assembly of Boston was first heard, and he
endeavoured to substantiate their complaints, by exhibiting the letters
which had been published, and drawing an inference from them, that the
writers were unworthy of confidence, either from the government or the
province of Massachusets. He called for the instant dismissal of an
officer so hostile to the rights and liberties of his countrymen. He
argued that the man who declared that “there must be an abridgment of
English liberty in the colonies,” was justly charged with making wicked
and injurious representations, designed to influence the ministry and
the nation, and to excite jealousies in the breast of the king against
his faithful subjects.

Mr. Dunning was replied to by Mr. Wedderburne, whose naturally sharp
tongue was on this occasion rendered still sharper by his friendship for
Mr. Whately who was lying between life and death. After reviewing the
arguments of the opposite counsel, Wedderburne directed himself to an
inculpation of the assembly and people of Massachusets; in the course of
which he attacked Dr. Franklin in a strain of bitter invective, on the
ground of having violated private confidence in the disclosure of the
letters. He observed, “These could not have come to Dr. Franklin by fair
means; the writers did not give them to him, nor yet did the deceased
correspondent, who from our intimacy, would otherwise have told me of
it. Nothing then will acquit Dr. Franklin of the charge of obtaining
them by fraudulent or corrupt means, for the most malignant of purposes,
unless he stole them from the person who stole them.... I hope, my
lords, you will mark and brand the man for the honour of this country,
of Europe, and of mankind. Private correspondence has hitherto been held
sacred in times of the greatest party rage, not only in politics, but
religion;—he has forfeited all the respect of societies and of men.
Into what companies will he hereafter go with an unembarrassed face, or
the honest intrepidity of virtue? Men will watch him with a jealous eye;
they will hide their papers from him, and lock up their escrutoires; he
will henceforth esteem it a libel to be called a man of letters; _homo
trium literarum_! He not only took away the letters from one brother,
but kept himself concealed till he nearly occasioned the murder of the
other. It is impossible to read his account, expressive of the coolest
and most deliberate malice, without horror.” Wedderburne concluded with
this indignant burst of feeling:—“Amidst tranquil events, here is a
man who, with the utmost insensibility of remorse, stands up and avows
himself the author of all. I can compare him only to Zanga, in Dr.
Young’s Revenge:—

‘Know, then, ’twas I. I forged the letter—I disposed the picture—I
hated—I despised—and I destroy’

I ask, my lords, whether the revengeful temper attributed to the
bloody African, is not surpassed by the coolness and apathy of the wily
American?”

It is said that during this celebrated invective the members of the
council laughed with exultation; none preserving a decent gravity,
except Lord North. On the other hand, Franklin is said to have heard it
all with composure, standing erect in one corner of the room, and not
suffering the slightest alteration of his countenance to be visible. The
words of Wedderburne, however, coupled with the derisive and exulting
laugh of the council, sank deep into the soul of Franklin. He appeared
in a full dress of spotted Manchester velvet, and it is said that, when
he returned to his lodgings he took off this dress, and vowed he would
never wear it again until he should sign the degradation of England and
the independence of America. After proceedings against him tended to
perpetuate that feeling. Hitherto he had been allowed to retain the
profitable place of postmaster general for America, but three days
after the meeting of the council, he was dismissed by letter from that
office. The report of the council also, on the subject of the petition,
tended to confirm him in feelings of hostility toward the British
government. It stated “that the petition was founded on resolutions
which were formed on false and erroneous allegations: that it was
groundless, vexatious, scandalous, and calculated only for the seditious
purpose of keeping up a spirit of clamour and discontent in the
province: that nothing had appeared to impeach in any degree the honour,
integrity, and conduct of the governor or deputy-governor; and that
their lordships were humbly of opinion that the said petition ought to
be dismissed.” Moreover, the sympathy which Franklin met with from
some of the leading members of the opposition, tended still further
to embitter the passions which had been roused in the mind of
the philosopher. That boastful patriot himself—the great Earl of
Chatham—hastened to express his sympathy with Franklin, and his
detestation of the treatment he had received from Wedderburne and the
government. It is due to the character of Chatham, however, to say that
had he been aware of Franklin’s extreme intentions, he would, instead of
affording him his sympathy, have joined with Wedderburne in holding him
up to public contempt. That great orator, indeed, at all times, whether
in office or out of office, whether in favour of the measures of
government or banding against them, invariably held that the dependence
of the colonies was absolutely and vitally essential, not merely to the
honour and greatness and wealth of the mother country, but also to her
safety and existence. He had, in truth, asserted that the moment America
should be free, wholly independent of, and separated from Great Britain,
the sun of England would set for ever. It cannot be, therefore, supposed
for one moment, that he would willingly and knowingly have aided in
lopping this fair and fruitful branch from the parent tree. In point of
fact, Franklin endeavoured, to conceal his extreme views from the public
eye; for while in private life, and to bosom friends, he stated his
unalterable resolution of procuring the independence of America, he was
openly professing to his best advocates, the leaders of the opposition
in both houses of parliament, that the wish dearest to his heart—in
common with the hearts of all honest Americans—was a continuance of the
connexion with his dear old mother country!

{GEORGE III. 1773–1775}




PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST AMERICA.

At length intelligence arrived in England concerning the alarming
transactions in America. The news excited strong national resentment, so
that when the subject was brought before parliament, ministers had not
to encounter any formidable opposition to the measures they proposed
in order to meet the case. It was on the 7th of March that Lord North
introduced this subject to the house. On that day he delivered a
message to the members from the king, in which a design was intimated of
correcting and preventing such disorders, and submitted a vast mass of
documents from the governor of Boston, and other persons in authority
for their inspection. In reply to this message, a motion was made for
an address to the throne, to return thanks for it, and the gracious
communication of the papers, with an assurance that they would not fail
to exert every means in their power of effectually providing for objects
so important to the general welfare as maintaining the due execution
of the laws, and securing the just dependence of the colonies upon the
crown and parliament of Great Britain. Some few opposed this address,
although they admitted that the conduct of the Bostonians and Rhode
Islanders was exasperating in the highest degree; but the motion was
nevertheless carried without a division. Following up this address, on
the 14th of March, Lord North moved for leave to bring in a bill “for
the immediate removal of all officers concerned in the collection and
management of his majesty’s duties and customs from the town of Boston;
and to discontinue the landing and discharging, lading and shipping, of
goods, wares, and merchandize at the said town of Boston, or within the
harbour thereof.” This bill encountered scarcely more opposition than
the address had met with. On its first introduction it was received with
general applause, and it was pushed on with such vigour that it passed
through both houses within fourteen days, and on the 31st of March it
received the royal assent: the trade of Boston was annihilated.

While the Boston Port Bill was before the lords, North, in a committee
of the whole house, brought in a bill “for better regulating the
government of Massachusets Bay.” The object of this bill was to alter
the constitution of that province as it stood upon the charter of
William III.; to do away with the popular elections, which decided
everything in that colony; to take the executive power out of the hands
of the democratic party; and to vest the nomination of the members of
the council, of the judges, and of magistrates, including sheriffs, in
the crown, and in the king’s governor. In support of this bill, Lord
North said, that the province of Massachusets Bay had been turbulent
beyond all bearing, and had set an ill example to all the colonies; that
an executive power was required in that province, inasmuch as the force
of the civil power consisted solely in the _posse comitatus_: that is,
in the very people by whom the tumults were excited. He asked if the
democratic party exhibits a contempt for the laws, how any governor
was to enforce them, if he had not the power either of appointing or
removing magistrates? He could now, he said, give no order without the
assent of seven members of the popularly elected council; and he urged
that it was in vain laws and regulations were made in England, when
there were none found to execute them in America. In conclusion, he
expressed a hope that the present bill would create an executive power,
and give strength and spirit to the civil magistracy; and professed
himself open to discussion and a change of opinion, if his views were
proved to be erroneous.

This bill encountered more opposition than that of the Boston Port Bill,
and it was considerably altered in committee. As it stood when presented
anew, after the Easter recess, the council of Massachusets Bay was
placed on the same footing as the councils of other colonies: the
nomination was vested in the crown., and they were to have no negative
voice, or power to appoint, as hitherto, the judicial officers of the
province. Moreover, the mode of choosing juries was altered, and the
continual assemblies and town-meetings held in Boston were not to be
convened without the consent of the governor, unless for the annual
election of certain officers. The bill, as altered, however, encountered
much opposition. In support of it Mr. Welbore Ellis asserted that it was
the duty of the legislature to alter or take away charters, if they were
abused, or found deficient; and he was supported in these views by Mr.
Charles Jenkinson and Mr. Dyson, who argued that in this case the
house proceeded, not in its judicial, but in its legislative capacity,
regulating and supplying deficiencies in charters granted by the crown.
The opposition took a different view of the measure, denouncing it as
arbitrary and likely to lead to permanent evils. Thus General Conway
could see nothing but increased exasperation, misfortune, and ruin from
the adoption of such measures; and he, with other members, asked for
more time, and demanded that the province should be heard before an act
was passed which would deprive its people of their chartered rights. The
opposition, also, argued, that the Bostonians and their neighbours had
flourished for nearly fourscore years under their democratic charter,
and that, therefore, they ought not now to be deprived of it. Some even
asked what crime and errors the New Englanders had really been guilty
of, as though they had never heard of the outrages which had been
committed. In reply to this latter question, Lord North said, with more
than his usual warmth, “I will tell you what the Americans have done:
they have tarred and feathered the officers and subjects of Great
Britain; they have plundered our merchants, burnt our ships, denied all
obedience to our laws and authority! Our conduct has been clement and
forbearing, but now it is incumbent to take a different course. Whatever
may be the consequence, we must risk something, or all is over.” To
adopt such a measure as this, however, was clearly risking too much.
Governor Pownall, who said that he spoke for the last time on the
subject, warned ministers of the more than probable consequences of it,
in these terms:—“The measure which you are pursuing will be resisted,
not by force or the effect of arms, but by a regular united system. I
told this house, four years ago, that the people of America would resist
the tax then permitted to remain on them—that they would not oppose
power to power, But would become implacable. Have they not been so from
that time to this very hour? I tell you again, that they will resist
the measures now pursued in a more vigorous way. Committees of
correspondence in the different provinces are in constant communication:
they do not trust in the conveyance of the post-office; they have set up
a constitutional courier, which will quickly grow up to the superseding
of your post-office. As soon as intelligence of these affairs reaches
them, they will judge it necessary to communicate with each other: it
will be found inconvenient and ineffectual to do so by letters. They
must confer; they will hold a conference; and to what these committees,
thus met in congress, will grow up, I will not say. Should recourse be
had to arms, you will hear of other officers than those appointed by
your governor Then, as in the late civil wars of this country, it
will be of little consequence to dispute who were the aggressors.” Sir
Richard Sutton spoke in a similar strain; asserting, that though it
was not confessed, the Americans were aiming at total independence,
and would never again submit quietly to English laws and regulations of
trade.

This debate took place on the second reading of the bill. The third
reading occurred on the 2nd of May, when Sir William Meredith insisted
that the parliament of Great Britain had an indisputable right to
lay duties upon the Americans, and to tax them externally. Mr. Thomas
Townshend, also, though equally warm as Sir William Meredith in
opposition to ministers on general points, gave this measure his decided
support. Though averse to meddling with charters, he said, the evils of
town-meetings justified interference, and that the institution of juries
was properly altered according to the forms of the mother country.
Thurlow, the attorney-general, and Lord North spoke in favour of the
bill, likewise, on this occasion, the latter expressing a hope that good
consequences might arise from its adoption. It was opposed by Mr. Burke,
Mr. Charles Fox, and Colonel Barré, the latter of whom reprobated the
violence of both houses. “In the lords,” said he, “the phrase is, ‘We
have passed the Rubicon!’—in the commons, ‘Delenda est Carthago!’”
 But opposition was of no avail. The bill was carried by an overwhelming
majority in the lower house; and when it was taken into the upper house,
though it was severely criticised, opposed, and denounced by a few
lords, most of the peers were in its favour, and it passed into a law.

In order to qualify the severity of the bill for regulating the
government of Massachusets, Mr. Rose Fuller, on the 19th of April,
moved that the house should, that day se’nnight, resolve itself into a
committee for taking into consideration the question of a total repeal
of the tea duty. This was opposed by Lord North, who contended that no
acts of lenity ought to attend their restrictive measures. He argued,
that to repeal at this time would show such wavering and inconsistent
policy as would defeat the good effects of that vigorous system which
had been too long delayed, and which was now adopted. The expediency of
the repeal, however, was ably advocated by Mr. Burke. He contended, that
from the period of the repeal of the Stamp Act, the practical right of
taxing America ought to have been for ever banished from the minds of
all statesmen; and he severely exposed the absurdity of continuing a
tax merely for the sake of a preamble to an act of parliament, when
five-sixths of the revenue intended to be raised by it had been
abandoned. Burke then gave a concise detail of our ministerial and
political transactions with America; after which he recommended the
repeal of this impost as a measure of policy, and advised the house, if
they found any ill effects arising from this concession, then at once to
stop short, and to oppose the ancient policy and practice of the empire
to innovations on both sides. This, he said, would enable them to stand
on great, manly, and sure grounds. As for the distinctions of rights
he deprecated all reasonings about them. “Leave the Americans,” he
observed, “as they anciently stood; and these distinctions, born of our
unhappy contest, will die with it. Be content to bind America by laws
of trade. You have always done so; and let this be your reason for
continuing to do it. Do not burden them with taxes; for you were not
used to do so from the beginning. These are arguments for states
and kingdoms: leave the rest to the schools where alone they can be
discussed with safety.” The rejection of this advice, he said, would
be followed by resistance on the part of the colonies; for if the
sovereignty of England and the freedom of America could not be
reconciled, the Americans would be sure to cast off sovereignty: no man
would be argued into slavery. The opinions which Burke uttered on this
occasion were at variance with those expressed on the passing of the
Declaratory Act, and with the act itself. He attempted to reconcile
them, however, by the nice distinction of a double power in parliament.
He remarked:—“The parliament of Great Britain sits at the head of her
extensive empire in two capacities—one as the local legislature of this
island, with the executive power as her instrument of action; the other
and nobler capacity is what I call her imperial character, by which she
guides and controls all the inferior and provincial legislatures.” In
this, he maintained, her power was boundless; and having entered at
large on its utility, and the manner in which it had been exercised,
he thus concluded:—“It is agreed that a revenue is not to be had from
America: if, then, we lose the profit, let us at least get rid of the
odium.” No arguments, however powerful, were of avail—the motion was
negatived.

A third measure of restriction introduced into the commons by ministers
was “A Bill for the impartial Administration of Justice in the Cases
of Persons questioned for any Acts done by them in the Execution of the
Laws, as for the Suppression of Riots and Tumults in the Province of
Massachusets Bay, in New England.” By this bill the governor, if he
found that a person indicted for murder, or any other capital offence,
incurred in suppressing such tumults, was not likely to obtain an
impartial trial, might send the person so indicted to another colony or
to Great Britain, to be fairly tried there. This bill was to be limited
to four years, and in support of it Lord North argued, that it was
absolutely necessary to give effect to the other coercive measures; that
it was in vain to appoint a magistracy that would act if none could be
found bold enough to act with them and execute their orders; that
these orders would probably be resisted by force; and this force would
necessitate force on the side of government, and probably occasion the
shedding of blood. He asked, what officers would risk this event if the
rioters themselves, or their abettors, were afterwards to sit as
their judges? And he alleged, that a precedent was to be found in our
own laws, in the case of smuggling, it being customary to remove the
trial of smugglers to another county: the Scotch rebels were also,
he said, in 1745, tried in England. North next urged, that particular
privileges ought to give way on some occasions, and that when the public
safety of our own country was endangered even the _Habeas Corpus_ had
been suspended. The bill, he remarked, was not meant to screen guilt,
but to protect innocence. The Americans, he said, must be taught that we
will no longer sit quietly under their insults; and that, being
roused, our measures, though free from cruelty and revenge, would be as
efficacious as they were necessary. This was the last act, he stated,
that he had to propose in order to perfect his plan, and that the rest
would depend on the vigilance of his majesty’s servants employed in
America. In conclusion, he mentioned that four regiments, usually
stationed in different parts of North America, had all been ordered
to Boston; and that General Gage was appointed governor and
commander-in-chief.

This measure was opposed with greater vehemence and better arguments
than those which had preceded it. Colonel Barré, who had given a
partial support to the Boston Port Bill, denounced it as unprecedented,
unwarranted, and as fraught with misery and oppression to America, and
with danger to this country. It stigmatised a whole people, he remarked,
as persecutors of innocence, and as men incapable of doing justice,
whereas the very reverse was the fact. As a proof of the impartiality
of Bostonian courts and juries, he instanced the acquittal of Captain
Preston and the soldiers who had killed some persons in a riot; and
he denied that the instances of trials for smuggling and for treason,
adduced by Lord North, were at all applicable to the present case. He
asked, what reliance the Americans could have on the impartiality of
juries in other provinces, or in England, and dwelt with great force
on the danger of screening the soldiery, whose passions were already
inflamed against the people of Massachusets Bay. “A soldier,” he
observed, “feels himself so much above the rest of mankind, that the
strict hand of the civil power is necessary to check and restrain
the haughtiness of disposition which such superiority inspires. What
constant care is taken in this country to remind the military that they
are under the restraint of civil power! In America their superiority is
felt still more. Remove the check of the law, as this bill proposes, and
what insolence, what outrage, may you not expect! Every passion that
is pernicious to society will be let loose on a people unaccustomed
to licentiousness and intemperance. The colonists, who have been long
complaining of oppression, will see in the soldiery those who are to
enforce it on them; while the military, strongly prepossessed against
the people as rebellious, unawed by the civil power, and actuated by
that arbitrary spirit which prevails in the best troops, will commit
violences that might rouse the tamest people to resistance, and which
the vigilance of their officers cannot effectually restrain. The
inevitable consequences will be open rebellion, which you profess by
this act to obviate. I have been bred a soldier; I have served long; I
respect the profession, and live in the strictest habits of friendship
with many officers; but no country gentleman in this house looks on
the army with a more jealous eye, or would more strenuously resist the
setting them above the control of civil power. No man is to be trusted
in such a situation. It is not the fault of the soldier, but the vice of
human nature, which, unbridled by law, becomes insolent and licentious,
wantonly violating the peace of society, and trampling upon the rights
of human kind.” In conclusion, Barré warned ministers of the results of
their restrictive measures; entreating them, likewise, not to urge them
on to rebellion. In the course of his speech Lord North had said that
he had had the advantage of being aided by the ablest lawyers; and
when Colonel Barré had concluded his harangue Mr. Wedderburne, the
solicitor-general, arose, and explained and defended the principles
of the bill, which, he observed, was limited as to time, and intended
solely to procure a fair trial for the imputed offences of all who might
be concerned or engaged to act under government.

The motion for leave to bring in this bill was passed without a
division, and it was introduced on the 21st of April, on which occasion
another stormy debate occurred. Alderman Sawbridge contended, that it
was a ridiculous and cruel measure—a measure designed to enslave the
Americans, by a minister who would, if opportunity was afforded him,
enslave England. He added:—“But I sincerely hope the Americans will
not admit of the execution of any of those destructive bills, but nobly
refuse them all. If they do not, they are the most abject slaves upon
the face of the earth, and nothing which the minister can do is base
enough for them.” Lord North, in reply, calmly disclaimed any intention
of enslaving America, and declared that the assertion was about as true
as another report, circulated in some quarters, which stated that the
colonists had seen their error, and were willing to make reparation to
the East India Company for the tea they had destroyed. Instead of making
reparation, he added, letters had been recently received which conveyed
intelligence of renewed acts of violence. In the course of the debate
one member uttered these remarkable words:—“I will now take my leave of
the whole plan: you will commence your ruin from this day. I am sorry to
say, that not only the house has fallen into this error, but the people
approve of the measure. The people, I am sorry to say it, are misled.
But a short time will prove the evil tendency of this bill. If ever
there was a nation running headlong to its ruin it is this.” The people
were, in fact, as violently excited against the Americans, and the
Bostonians in particular, as the ministers themselves, which doubtless
had the effect of encouraging them in their measures. As a dissolution
of parliament was near at hand, this may have caused the absence of many
members; for it is a remarkable circumstance, that during the debates
on these momentous questions there never was a full house. On the
third reading, indeed, only one hundred and fifty-one members were
present—one hundred and twenty-seven out of which number voted for the
measure.

In the house of lords the bill was opposed in the same manner, and to
a similar degree as in the commons. One of the most striking arguments
against the measure was uttered by the Marquess of Rockingham. After
reviewing ministerial transactions relative to America, since the repeal
of the Stamp Act, and denouncing the tea duty as an uncommercial
and unproductive claim, retained only as a bone of contention, he
remarked:—“If officers were men of honour and sensibility, their
situation would be worse under the protection of such a law than without
it, as no acquittal could be honourable where the prosecutor had not the
usual means of securing a fair trial.” The bill, however, passed by
a large majority—eight peers signing a strong protest against it, in
which it was designated as “a virtual indemnity for murder.”

During these debates the Earl of Chatham had been absent from
indisposition. An opportunity, however, was afforded him of uttering his
sentiments concerning the measure adopted towards America, on the
27th of May, in a discussion on a bill “for the quartering and better
regulating the troops in the colonies.” He had long been complaining of
the gout and other infirmities; but on this night, which was the
third reading of the bill, he made a very long speech. He commenced by
asserting, that the whole history of the Americans, their descent, and
the character and disposition which they inherited from their English
ancestors, all forbade the thought that they would ever submit to
slavish and tyrannical principles; for as was the mother, so were her
offspring. He admitted that the conduct of the Americans, and especially
the Bostonians, was unwarrantable; but he denied that the means adopted
to bring them back to a sense of their duty were either wise or
just. Against the blocking up the harbour of Boston he inveighed most
bitterly, assuming in the face of all fact, that it was “some guilty
profligates” who had been concerned in destroying our goods, and not
the main body of the people. He assumed, also, what was notoriously
untrue, that the colonies had no thought of prosecuting the quarrel;
asserting, that their gratitude was full to overflowing for the repeal
of the Stamp Act, and that it was the tea tax alone which had goaded
them on to insubordination and rebellion. Forgetting, moreover, that his
own Declaratory Act had inflamed the passions of the colonists after
the repeal of the Stamp Act, he charged ministers with having purposely
irritated them into their late outrages. Finally, although it is clear
that Chatham, as a minister, would never have granted the objects which
the American leaders required of the government, he recommended the
substitution of kindness for severity. He remarked:—“Proceed like a
kind and affectionate parent towards a child whom he tenderly loves;
and, instead of these harsh and severe proceedings, pass an amnesty
on all their youthful errors; clasp them once more in your fond and
affectionate arms, and I will venture to affirm that you will find them
children worthy of their sire. But should their turbulence exist after
your proffered terms of forgiveness, I, my lords, will be among the
foremost to move for such measures as will effectually prevent a
relapse, and make them feel what it is to provoke a fond and forgiving
parent.” It is manifest, however, that the children had already resolved
to run all risks in discarding allegiance to their parent, and that
they could never be bound to their duty by the law of kindness. So the
majority of the peers whom Chatham addressed seemed to think, for the
bill he was opposing passed.




BILL FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF CANADA.

Towards the close of this session a bill was brought into the house of
lords, “for making more effectual provision for the government of the
province of Quebec, in North America.” The main objects of this bill was
to ascertain the limits of that province; to form a legislative council
for all its affairs, except taxation, which council should be appointed
and be removable by the crown, and in which his majesty’s Canadian Roman
Catholic subjects should have a place; to establish the old French laws,
to which the Canadians had been accustomed, including trial without
jury, in all civil cases, and the English laws with trial by jury in all
criminal cases; and to secure to the Roman Catholics those rights which
the articles of capitulation had allowed—that is, the legal enjoyments
of their lands and of their tithes, in their own community, or from
all who professed their doctrines. This bill passed through the
lords without difficulty; but in the commons it met with a storm of
opposition. On the second reading, which took place on the 20th of May,
Mr. Thomas Townshend, junior, asked why the affairs of Canada had been
so long postponed, and why the country, from the time of its conquest,
had been left a prey to anarchy and confusion? The bill proposed to
enlarge the boundaries of the province, so as to comprehend the whole
country lying between New England, New York, and Pennsylvania, to the
Ohio and eastern bank of the Mississippi; and northward, to the southern
boundary of the territory granted to the merchant adventurers of England
trading to Hudson’s Bay. Of this Townshend complained, and he said that
it was the general opinion, that ministers intended to make all this
vast tract of country an essentially French colony, as the population
was almost entirely French, and the religion, laws, &c., that of
France—the only exception being that they had at their head a subject
of Great Britain as their governor. This, he opined, would one day cause
a revolution, and would tend to re-establish the dominion of France in
that country. As for the legislative council he deemed it as proposed
the very worst kind of government ministers could have invented. He
remarked:—“If it is not the proper time to give to Canada an assembly
like those which exist in our other American colonies, it is better to
let the governor be absolute—better to let him be without a council. He
will then be responsible. But what have we here? Seventeen or eighteen
gentlemen, who may be removed or suspended by the governor; so that, if
an act of oppression should come from the crown, these may be a screen
for the governor to excuse and justify him.” Townshend next condemned
the countenance given by the bill to the church of Rome, and then put
a series of stringent questions to the ministers concerning the
administration of the French laws in Canada. Were they, he asked, to be
administered by Canadians or French lawyers? and were English gentlemen
who had bought estates in that country to be subject to them? It would
be better, he conceived, to show the French Canadians, by degrees, the
advantages of English law, and to gradually mix it with their own. In
reply, Lord North excused the delay which had occurred in bringing this
measure forward, on the ground that he had been seeking the fullest
information before he legislated. He did not pretend that the bill was
perfect, but he considered that it was the best that could have been
devised, both for Great Britain and the colony, under all circumstances.
North then justified the enlargement of the limits of the colony,
and the concessions which the bill made to the Roman Catholics. He
observed:—“The honourable gentleman dislikes the omitting the assembly;
but the assembly cannot be granted, seeing that it must be composed of
Canadian Roman Catholic subjects, for otherwise it would be oppressive.
On the other hand, as the bulk of the inhabitants are Roman Catholics,
to subject them to an assembly, composed of a few British Protestant
subjects would be a great hardship. Being, therefore, under the
necessity of not appointing an assembly, this is the only legislature
you can give the Canadians, and it is the one under which they live at
present. The governor and council really have been the legislature
ever since our conquest, only now it is put under some regulation.”
 As regarded the question of law, he reminded the house, that the most
material part, that of the criminal law, was to be English, and that if
the French civil law should be found incompatible with the wishes of the
colony, the governor and council would have power to alter it. Returning
to the question of religion, North remarked, that the free exercise of
it was confirmed to the Canadians by treaty, and that the laws of Great
Britain permitted the full and free exercise of any religion different
from that of the Church of England, in any and all of the colonies. It
was another question, he added, whether it is convenient to continue
or abolish the bishop’s jurisdiction; though, at the same time, he
asserted, no bishop could be there under papal authority, as such
is expressly forbidden in the act of supremacy. North concluded by
asserting, that there was no intention of substituting French lawyers
and judges for the English who now administered the laws in that
country. Townshend rejoined; complaining bitterly of carrying the
system of French law into those parts of the country where it had not
previously existed, and where there were some thousands of British
subjects. Having, at the end of the war, promised the Canadians English
law, he conceived that injustice would be done them by giving them that
of France. Mr. Townshend was followed by Mr. Dunning, who called the
measure one of the most extensive, as well as the most pernicious, ever
offered to parliament. He particularly inveighed against the concessions
made to the Roman Catholics, though he admitted that the free exercise
of their religion was promised to the Canadians by the treaty of
peace. This bill, however, he contended, gave them more than this: it
established the Roman Catholic faith, whereas Protestantism was merely
tolerated, and its clergy left for a maintenance to the discretion
of the crown. He observed:—“Different gentlemen may entertain
different opinions: my opinion of toleration is, that nothing can be
more impolitic than to give establishment to that religion which is
not the religion of our own country. Among the circumstances that unite
countries, or divide countries, a difference in religion has ever been
thought to be the principal and leading one. The Catholic religion
unites France, but divides England. Without going further into the
subject, it suffices me to say, that the religion of England seems to be
preferable to the religion of France, if your object is to make this
an English colony. When one sees that the Roman Catholic religion
is established by law, and that the same law does not establish the
Protestant religion, the people are, of course, at liberty to choose
which they like. Are we, then, to establish the Roman Catholic religion,
and tolerate the Protestant religion?” Mr. Dunning next insisted,
that the civil law, as well as the criminal law of England, should be
preserved, and that the institution of juries, however unpalatable
it might prove to the Canadians, ought not to be dispensed with. He
concluded by showing the unfitness of this political state to the habits
and character of English settlers, and that there was an insurmountable
difficulty in reconciling the feelings and habits of the small minority
with the great French majority. The bill was next defended warmly in all
its points by Attorney-general Thurlow. The definitive treaty of peace,
he said, was made in favour of property in Canada; in favour of the
Catholic religion, and in favour of the several religious orders, under
which obligations it was that the crown of this country was called
upon to frame a constitution for the colony. As for the importing and
enforcing English laws in a country already settled, and habitually
governed by other laws, he considered that it would be an act of the
most absurd and cruel tyranny ever practised by a conquering nation over
a conquered country—an act which would be unprecedented in the world’s
history. He thought it would be equally monstrous to strip the Roman
Catholic clergy of their rights and dues, and to set up an Anglican
establishment where the followers of our church were but few in number.
To assimilate the constitution of the province to that of England
he deemed neither practicable nor desirable, and asserted, that the
constitution now proposed was on the side of liberality, and the
best that could be given under existing circumstances. He concluded
thus:—“If any English resort to that country, they do not carry with
them the laws that are to prevail the moment they get there. It would be
just as wise to say, if an Englishman goes to Guernsey, the laws of the
city of London are carried over with him. To take the laws as they stand
in Canada has been allowed—to act according to those laws, and to be
bound by their coercion, is a natural consequence. In this view I think
the bill has done nothing obnoxious. I have no speculative opinions. I
would have consulted the French customs to a much greater extent, if
it had been for me to have framed the law.” Colonel Barré, Lord John
Cavendish, and Sergeant Glynn next warmly opposed the bill, and they
were followed by the Solicitor-general, Wedderburne, who defended
it with greater ability and more knowledge of history than had been
displayed by any of the preceding speakers. Sergeant Glynn had asserted,
that in conquering the Irish and Welsh our laws had been imposed upon
them; but Wedderburne clearly showed that this was only effected in the
lapse of ages; English laws not being introduced into Ireland till the
time of James I., and in Wales till the time of Henry VIII. He argued,
that it was the custom of all conquering states to leave the conquered
countries in the possession of their own laws. He remarked:—“Not
only are there instances of great states not considering themselves
warranted, by right of conquest, in forcing their laws upon the
conquered, but even countries that have scarcely any trace of public
laws and general systems, have had that good policy with regard to the
countries they have made themselves masters of. The very Mussulman, the
Ottoman, the Turks—the worst of all conquerors—in the countries they
subdued left the people in possession of their municipal laws. This is
the case in Wallachia; this is the case in Moldavia; this is the case
with all the great settlements in which the Turks have pushed their
arms.” Wedderburne next showed the difference existing in the law of
succession in England and Canada, and argued, that it would be hard
upon all younger sons in that province to establish the right of
primogeniture on a sudden. He concluded by representing the people of
Canada as having, for several years past, been annually calling upon
government to let them know what really was to be the law of the
province. Charles Fox argued, that as the bill allowed the clergy of the
Church of Rome their dues and rights, which dues he understood to mean
the receiving of tithes, which were a tax upon the Canadians, it was to
all intents and purposes a money bill. This objection he conceived
fatal to the bill, inasmuch as the commons never permitted bills of that
nature to originate in the lords. Dunning now took up the same line of
argument, and as Lord North denied the conclusion to which these members
had suddenly come, the speaker was appealed to for his opinion. The
speaker replied, that he had seen bills that had originated in the lords
that, he thought, ought not to have been brought into the lower house,
but that he never presumed to judge upon them himself, and in this in
stance it would be very unbecoming in him to do so, therefore’ he would
leave it for the house to determine as was thought right. The second
reading was carried by a majority of one hundred and five, against
twenty-nine; and on the 31st of May, when the house went into committee
on the bill, several amendments were negatived, with equally large
majorities. On this occasion petitions were presented against the
measure from Thomas Penn, on behalf of himself and of John Penn, Esq.,
true and absolute proprietors of Pennsylvania, and the counties of
Newcastle, Kent, and Sussex, in Delaware, praying that the territory
granted by King Charles II. to their father and grandfather might not be
encroached upon by any extension of the frontiers of Canada. Ministers
denied that it was ever intended to entrench upon other colonies, and
the petition was ordered to lie upon the table; leave, also, being given
to the petitioners to be heard by counsel if they thought proper. At the
same time a petition was presented from merchants of the city of London,
trading to the province of Quebec, praying for the preservation or
establishment of the English civil law, in all matters of controversy
relative to property and civil rights, with trial by jury, &c. This
petition was ordered to be referred to the committee on the bill, and
the petitioners were also ordered to be heard by themselves or counsel.
Counsel were heard, and witnesses examined, which occupied the attention
of the house for more than a week; but on the 13th of June the bill
passed the commons as it originally stood—a few boundary amendments,
made in committee, alone excepted. The bill thus passed was sent back
to the lords for their concurrence in the amendments, on which occasion
Chatham rose to reprobate the whole spirit of the bill. It tended, he
said, to establish the worst of despotisms, and denounced it as a most
cruel, oppressive, and odious measure—a measure which destroyed the
very roots of justice and good principle. He called the bill “a child of
inordinate power,” and asked, if any on the bench of bishops would hold
it out for baptism? He invoked the bishops to resist a law which would
spread the Roman Catholic tenets over so vast a continent, and asserted,
that parliament had no more right to alter the oath of supremacy than
to repeal the great charter, or the bill of rights. The dangerous
innovations of the bill, he declared, were at utter variance with all
the safeguards and barriers against the return of popery and of popish
influence, so wisely provided against by all oaths and offices of trust,
from the constable up to the members of both houses, and even to the
sovereign in his coronation oath. Chatham concluded by expressing his
fears that such a measure might shake the confidence of his majesty’s
Protestant subjects in England and Ireland, and totally alienate the
hearts of all his American subjects. The bill, however, passed by
twenty-six to seven, and received the royal assent on the 22nd of June;
the corporation of London having ineffectually petitioned the king to
refuse it.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

On the same day that his majesty gave his assent to the above-mentioned
bill, he prorogued parliament. In his speech he expressed his approval
of that bill, conceiving it likely to produce the best effect in
quieting the minds, and promoting the happiness of the Canadians. His
majesty also applauded the temper and firmness, and general concurrence
of parliament in the measures they had adopted with reference to
Massachusets Bay; at the same time assuring them that nothing depending
on him should be wanting to render those measures effectual. At
the close of this session, Lord North, notwithstanding his many
embarrassments, appeared to be more firmly seated in office than ever.
Even Chatham himself was obliged to confess his success, efficiency, and
the solidity of his position; asserting that no minister in any age
ever held a better tenure. It was necessary that North should be well
supported, for he had difficulties before him which would soon have
compelled him to resign, and to seek solace in the shades of retirement,
had not the voice of parliament been with him.




PROCEEDINGS AT BOSTON.

During the deliberations of the British parliament, the Bostonians and
people of Massachusets Bay had continued their outrages. The assembly
and populace alike showed their utter aversion to the British government
in language and actions which could not be misunderstood. The mob
destroyed every cargo of tea that arrived in the port, and the
assembly showed its hostility by petitioning for the removal of the
chief-justice, Peter Oliver, Esq., because he had taken his majesty’s
grant. The house further resolved to impeach the chief-justice in their
own name, and in the name of all the inhabitants of the province; and
when the governor denounced their proceedings as unconstitutional, they
drew up articles according to this resolution, charging him with high
crimes and misdemeanors. The governor, however, refused to take any step
in the matter, and this only tended to exasperate them still more. At
this moment, indeed, some of the leaders, at the head of whom was Mr.
Samuel Adams, were publicly proclaiming that America must and should
become independent of Great Britain. Their sentiments were also made
known by their unbounded admiration of Benjamin Franklin. His name was
mentioned everywhere with enthusiasm, and before their dissolution the
assembly resolved to continue him their agent in England, although the
governor refused to ratify the appointment, or to sanction their act for
paying him his salary.

Among the ministerial arrangements was the substitution of General Gage
in the room of Hutchinson as governor. General Gage landed on the wharf
on the 13th of May, with part of his family and suite, and was warmly
welcomed by the council, magistrates, and others, and afterwards
entertained at a public dinner. On the other hand, the mob spent their
impotent rage on Hutchinson by burning him in effigy. The reception
which Gage met with on landing seemed to augur well for his
administration, and his prospect seemed the more cheering because he was
united to an American lady, and from long residence in the colony, had
made many friends. But there was a strong under-current at work which
threatened to sweep away all the authority which any governor might
possess however popular he might be as a man. And this was made more
impetuous at this time by the intelligence which arrived concerning
the Boston Port Bill. This intelligence was received a few days before
General Gage arrived, and although the Bostonians gave him a hearty
welcome, they soon displayed what feelings they possessed upon the
subject. On the very next day after they had given him this welcome, a
numerous town meeting took the bill into consideration, and resolved,
“That it is the opinion of this town, that, if the other colonies come
into a joint resolution to stop all importation from, and exportation
to Great Britain, and every part of the West Indies, till the act be
repealed, the same will prove the salvation of North America and her
liberties; and that the impolicy, injustice, inhumanity, and cruelty of
the act exceed all our powers of expression: we, therefore, leave it to
the just censure of others, and appeal to God and the world.” In order
to spread disaffection, the act was printed and widely circulated
throughout the colonies. Nor were the presses of Boston alone engaged
in this work. Other colonies had thousands of copies struck off, and in
some the copy of the act was accompanied with comments, and with a
black border, while the vendors cried it about under the title of “A
barbarous, cruel, bloody, and inhuman murder.” In some places it
was burned with great solemnity; in others, as at Philadelphia,
subscriptions were set on foot for the relief of those Bostonians who
should be deprived of the means of subsistence by the operations of the
act; while in Virginia the assembly which was then sitting, adopted
a proposal that the first day of June, on which the Post Bill was
to commence, should be a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer, to
implore heaven to avert the evils of civil war, to inspire the Americans
with firmness in support of their rights, and to turn the hearts of king
and parliament to moderation and justice. For this vote, Lord Dunmore,
the governor of the province of Virginia, dissolved the assembly, and
the members then repaired to a tavern, where they agreed to articles
of association, in which they pronounced the Boston Port Bill to be
the result of a system having for its object the reduction of the
inhabitants of British America to slavery. At this meeting it
was declared that tea ought not to be used by any well-wisher to
constitutional liberty; and that from the course pursued by the East
India Company in favour of arbitrary taxation, the people ought not to
purchase any of their commodities, except saltpetre and spices, until
their grievances should be redressed. It was also declared that an
attack on one colony was an attack upon all, and that it should be
resisted by their united councils. Acting upon this opinion, which was
by no means logical, they recommended to the committee of correspondence
to communicate with all the other committees, “on the expediency of
appointing deputies from the several colonies of British America, to
meet in general congress, at such place, annually, as should be thought
most convenient, to deliberate on the measures required by their common
interests.” Finally, this meeting of the dissolved assembly of Virginia,
agreed that the members who should be elected under the new writs then
issuing, should meet in convention at Williamsburgh, on the first of
August, for the purpose of appointing delegates to sit in congress.
This was a monster stride in the march of revolution, and it was easy to
foresee its ultimate and awful consequences.

The first of June was not only observed as a day of fasting and
humiliation in Virginia, but also at Philadelphia, Boston, and other
places. Shops were closed, and the church-bells tolled dolefully; but
whether prayer was offered in sincerity and truth, and in calm devotion,
demands a doubt; for when men’s passions are inflamed, there can be no
fitness for acts of piety. In the mean time the assembly of Massachusets
Bay met at Boston, on the 25th of May, for the last time. On that day,
General Gage laid before them some common business of the province, and
then announced the painful necessity he was under of removing them and
all public offices to Salem, by the first of June, in conformity with
the recent acts of parliament. He adjourned them to the 7th of June,
then to meet at Salem, and on that day they reassembled at the place
appointed, and named a committee to consider and report the state of
the province. Some of the committee named were for pursuing mild and
conciliatory measures, and seeing this, Mr. Samuel Adams conferred with
Mr. Warren on the necessity of obtaining a better display of spirit.
Warren engaged to keep the committee in play, while Adams should be
secretly engaged in winning over members to their party. In a few days
Adams succeeded in gaining over and concerting measures with more than
thirty members, and it was then resolved to proceed at once to business.
On the 17th of May they ordered the doors to be locked, and that no one
should be permitted to go in or out. They hoped by this plan to keep
all friends of government from giving any information concerning
their councils, and to finish their business before the governor could
interfere with a prorogation or dissolution. One member favourable to
government, however, contrived to get out, and to give information of
what was doing within. The governor sent his secretary to dissolve
them, but he was refused admittance, and he read the proclamation of
dissolution upon the stairs leading to the chamber in the hearing of
several members, who, like himself, could not obtain admittance. By this
time, however, the committee had done all they wanted to do: they had
appointed a committee to meet other provincial committees on the 1st
of September, at Philadelphia; had voted £500 for its use; had chosen
a treasurer; and having no money in hand, had recommended the towns and
districts of the province to raise the sum by equitable proportions,
according to the last provincial tax. This was a gross insult to the
governor, and the committee exulted in having had the opportunity of
offering it. Their feelings of triumph, however, do no honour to human
nature, since that triumph, such as it was, was obtained by the paltry
artifice of obtaining possession of the house to the exclusion of all
such members as would have voted against the measure they had proposed
and carried.

On the 1st of June, exactly as the clock struck twelve, the custom-house
of Boston was shut up, and all lawful business ceased in its port. Its
trade was nominally transferred to Salem; but the spirit of rivalry
which formerly distinguished American merchants seemed now to be wholly
lost in sympathy. No one discovered the slightest inclination to profit
by the distress of the refractory town of Boston. The merchants and
freeholders of Salem, indeed, presented an address to General Gage,
censuring the measures that had been adopted, commiserating the people
of Boston, and declining to derive any advantage offered them by the
Boston Port Bill. Nature, they said, by the formation of their harbour,
forbade their becoming rivals with that convenient mart, and were it
otherwise they must be dead to every idea of justice, and lost to all
feelings of humanity, if they could indulge one thought of acquiring
wealth, and building up their fortunes upon the ruin of their suffering
neighbours. These certainly were sentiments honourable to humanity, but
unfortunately they were coupled with others of a different character.
The petitioners repeated the old saying, which was now become
notoriously false, that they still ardently wished to preserve their
connexion with the British empire: and yet the people of Salem falsified
their assertion on the very next day after it was made, by joining a
general association, which by this time had been got up by many of the
committees of correspondence, and which was called “a solemn league
and covenant,” after the famous bond of their Puritan forefathers.
The nature of this league may be seen from the document which all its
members signed. It declared that the compact had been entered into as
the only means of avoiding the horrors of slavery, or the carnage and
desolation of civil war; that those who subscribed to it covenanted in
the presence of God to suspend all commercial intercourse with Great
Britain till the Boston Port Bill should be restored; and that they
would have no dealings with persons who would not sign it, or should
afterwards violate it, but would publish their names as enemies to
their country, and as men excommunicated or cut off from all social
intercourse. This league spread rapidly through all the states;
thousands joined it of their own free will, and others were impelled to
subscribe to it through fear. In most places, indeed, it was conceived
more dangerous to oppose the popular will, than to risk a war with Great
Britain. And it was in vain that the governor sought to stem the onward
progress of the tide of revolution. He issued a proclamation, forbidding
such unlawful and traitorous combinations, and warned the people against
countenancing them; but his orders were disregarded, and his very power
questioned. In Boston all became sullen and threatening, and General
Gage at length deemed it advisable to take means more efficacious than
proclamations in repressing tumult. A detachment of artillery, with some
regiments of infantry were ordered to encamp near Boston, and these were
soon reinforced by fresh troops from Great Britain and Ireland. But it
was soon found that the troops could not be depended upon:—bought by
gills of ardent spirits and promises of reward, many, and especially the
raw recruits, deserted their ranks; and General Gage next placed a guard
on the Isthmus, called Boston-neck, which joins the peninsula whereon
the town is built to the main land. This movement, like all the other
movements made by the officers of government, was misrepresented, and
hastened on the crisis. A cry was raised and a report spread that the
governor intended to cut off all communications, and compel the town to
submit to terms. The exciting cry produced the effect that was wished
far and near. Even those provinces which had hitherto been slow to join
the Bostonians in their hostility towards government, now earnestly
exhorted them to brave their supposed doom, as the eye of all America
was upon them; and the hands of all the Americans ready to be stretched
forth for their deliverance.

In conformity to the bill for regulating the government of Massachusets
Bay, General Gage reorganised the Massachusets council. Commissions
arrived in August for the new council, and thirty-six were appointed,
but twelve out of that number refused to accept office; and even those
who did accept office, were soon glad, for the most part, to throw
up their commissions, from the odium which they had incurred and the
threats by which they were intimidated. General Gage, however, issued
writs for convening an assembly in October. But order and law were now
out of the question in Boston. The juries would not serve under the new
judges, and the very officers refused, from disaffection or fear, to
summon them. The colonists had now, in fact, begun to arm, to collect
warlike stores, and to train the youth to military exercises. Nothing
was to be seen or heard of except the purchasing of arms and ammunition,
the casting of balls, and the making of all those preparations
which testified immediate and determined resistance. Under these
circumstances, General Gage fortified Boston-neck, and seized and
removed to head-quarters all the gunpowder and military stores that
were deposited at Charlestown, Cambridge, and other places within his
province. The people now rose in arms, and threatened to attack the
troops. Several thousands marched from all quarters for this purpose,
and though they did not come to blows, they threw every possible
obstruction in the way of those employed in constructing the works on
Boston-neck, burning the materials by night, sinking the boats laden
with bricks, and overturning the trucks laden with timber. The governor
saw clearly that scenes of bloodshed were at hand, and though thus
braved, he mercifully forbore to commence them.

In the mean time the committees of correspondence in order to fan the
flames of sedition into one universal conflagration, had been spreading
abroad rumours of massacres, and of attacks on Boston both by land and
sea. It was in this state of affairs that a meeting of delegates from
all the neighbouring towns was called, and which was held, in spite
of the governor’s proclamation. This meeting passed resolutions
more decidedly hostile to the British government than any previously
promulgated. They called the late acts of parliament gross infractions
of civil and religious liberty, and wicked attempts to establish
despotism, which ought to be resisted; they resolved to indemnify all
officers who should refuse to execute any process issued by the judges
appointed by the crown; they declared every member of the new council an
enemy to his country; they condemned the plan of fortifying Boston-neck;
they denounced the late act establishing the Roman Catholic religion in
Canada, as dangerous alike to the Protestant religion, and to the rights
and liberties of all America; they recommended a total suspension of
commercial intercourse with Great Britain, the encouragement of domestic
manufactures, the appointment of a provincial congress, and the exercise
of the people in arms; they advised collectors of taxes to retain the
money in their own hands until the civil government of the province
should be placed on a constitutional basis, or a provincial congress
should direct its application; and while they exhorted the people to
abstain from riots, they expressed their determination to resist the
measures of government to the utmost. Their resolutions concluded
thus:—“Should our enemies by any sudden manoeuvre, render it necessary
for us to ask aid of our brethren in the country, some one of the
committee of correspondence, or a select man from the town where
hostilities shall commence or be expected, or from the town adjoining,
shall despatch couriers with written messages to the select men, or
committees of correspondence in the vicinity, who shall send others to
committees more remote, until sufficient assistance be obtained: the
expense of couriers to be defrayed by the county, until otherwise
ordered by the provincial assembly.” The meeting also drew up a petition
of remonstrance to the governor, respecting the fortification of
Boston-neck, in which they plainly stated that although they had
no inclination to commence hostilities, they were resolved,
notwithstanding, to resist the late acts of the British parliament at
all hazards. Gage replied, that it was his duty to preserve the peace,
and to erect such works as should protect his soldiers from surprise: at
the same time he assured them that his artillery should not be employed
unless hostile proceedings on their part rendered it necessary.

By this time the people of Virginia had taken one of the front ranks
in the march of revolution and independence. On the 1st of August,
Jefferson and other members of the convention met as appointed, to
agree as to instructions for the delegates to be sent to the approaching
congress. Jefferson had drawn up a violent paper, but falling sick, it
was presented by Peyton Randolph. The sum and substance of this paper
was, in fact, that the Virginians should claim an absolute independence
and sovereignty. The leap, however, which Jefferson proposed to take was
far too long for the mass of his fellow-citizens as yet to take; but the
document was deemed worthy of being printed, and it was published under
the title of “A summary View of the Rights of British America.” The
members of this convention, however, took a leap which did not fall far
short of that which Jefferson proposed. The instructions they prepared,
at least, made it manifest unto all men, that, although they professed
loyalty to the sovereign, their aim was to undermine his throne; or, in
other words, to obtain independence. They averred their allegiance to
King George, declared that they sincerely approved of a constitutional
connexion with their mother country, and even professed a willingness to
submit to reasonable regulations and restrictions on their commerce—but
this was only a preamble to sentiments teeming with rebellion and
hostility to the king whom they professed to obey, and the country with
which they asserted they still wished to be connected. In this section
of their instructions the Virginians instructed their deputies at
congress to co-operate cordially with Massachusets Bay and the other
colonies; declared that the proclamation issued by General Gage
was alarming, and illegal, and such as would justify resistance and
reprisals if attempted to be carried into effect; agreed to send speedy
and liberal relief to the Bostonians, and to abide by such alterations
in their present articles as congress might recommend and the delegates
of Virginia assent to; and bound themselves not to export any tobacco
after the 10th of August, and in lieu of its cultivation to encourage
manufactures; to deal with no merchants who raised the price of articles
during the present crisis, and to require the county committees to
publish the name of those who would not conform to their regulations.
The convention finished by choosing the delegates who were to represent
them in congress.

This congress met, as appointed, at Philadelphia, on the 4th of
September. On their meeting, all the provinces from Massachusets to
South Carolina, with the single exception of North Carolina, were found
to be represented, and even delegates from that province arrived on a
later day. The delegates met on the following day at Carpenters’-hall,
chose Payton Randolph president, and organised themselves into a
deliberate assembly. At the commencement, although there were several
delegates from some of the provinces, it was agreed that each state
should have only one distinct vote. They then proceeded to business.
At first they agreed upon a declaration of rights to which they were
entitled, they said, by the laws of nature, the principles of the
British constitution, and their several charters. Their next step was
to concoct a non-importation, non-consumption, and non-exportation
association, which was not to be infringed by any American citizen.
This was followed by a series of solemn addresses; one to the king,
expressing loyalty and affection; one to the people of Great Britain,
showing how barbarously and tyrannically they had been treated by a
corrupt administration, etc.; and one to the French people of Quebec,
inviting them to make common cause with them, and urging them to take up
arms against the English, who had only recently conquered Canada. Their
province was only wanting, they said, to complete the bright and strong
chain of union! The congress also sent letters to the colonists of
Georgia, East and West Florida, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland, exhorting
them to shake off their dependence on their mother country, and to join
them in their contest. They also sent a remonstrance to General Gage,
against his military proceedings, which bore, they said, a hostile
appearance unwarranted by the tyrannical acts of parliament: forgetting
that it was the conduct of the Bostonians alone which induced him to
take these steps. Finally, the congress resolved that if any attempts
were made to seize any American, in order to transport him beyond sea
for trial of offences committed in America, resistance and reprisals
should be made: then, having agreed that another general congress should
be held on the 10th of May next, they dissolved themselves; i. e. on the
28th of October.

It has been seen that General Gage had issued writs calling the assembly
to meet at Salem on the 5th of October. Before that day arrived, he
thought it expedient to countermand the writs by proclamation, and to
discharge such members as were already returned. This proclamation,
however, was not heeded. Ninety members met on the day appointed,
and though the governor was not there to open the session, or any one
deputed by him to administer the oaths, they appointed a committee to
consider the proclamation, and resolved themselves, with others who
might afterwards join them, into a provincial congress. Having chosen
Mr. John Hancock, the owner of the Liberty sloop, and a great merchant
in the contraband line, to be their president, they adjourned to the
town of Concord, about twenty-live miles distant from Boston Here their
first business was to appoint a committee to wait upon Governor Gage
with a remonstrance, in which they vindicated their meeting by a
reference to the distracted state of the province, and called upon him,
for the honour of the king and the public peace, to desist from the
construction of fortifications against the town of Boston. The governor
indignantly replied, “That the lives, liberty, and property of none but
avowed enemies could be endangered by the troops of Great Britain, who
had shown no disposition for hostilities, though they might be expected
to feel resentment at the exertions employed to deprive them even of the
necessaries of life.” He also reminded this self-constituted provincial
congress that while they affected to complain of alterations made in
their charter by acts of parliament, their very meeting was in direct
violation of their own constitution; and, finally, he exhorted them to
desist from all illegal proceedings. The governor’s exhortation was,
however, unheeded. On receiving his reply, they adjourned to Cambridge,
where they appointed a committee to draw up a plan for the military
defence of the province. They likewise settled all matters relating to
the militia; arranged means for the collection of arms; provided for
the receipt of taxes; appointed committees for these different purposes;
named Jedediah Pribble and Artemas Ward, who had seen some service in
the war with the French and Canadians, to be their generals; and even
deliberated upon the precise period for opposing or attacking the
king’s troops. Emissaries were also sent by them to Rhode Island, New
Hampshire, and Connecticut, to request them to prepare their respective
quotas, so as to make up an army of 20,000 men, and a committee was
appointed to correspond with the Protestants of Canada, and especially
those of the Presbyterian persuasion. Finally, they addressed a circular
letter to all the dissenting ministers in New England, exhorting them
to assist in averting the slavery with which the country was threatened,
and appointed a day of public thanksgiving for the happy union which
existed throughout the colonies. Having done all this, early in December
the provincial congress of Massachusets prorogued themselves, appointing
a new meeting in the ensuing month of February.

This conduct naturally excited the indignation of the governor, and
he issued a proclamation forbidding the people to pay any obedience to
these seditious resolutions. But proclamations now sounded in the ears
of the people of Massachuset’s Bay as idle words, and the resolutions
were strictly obeyed. The same disregard to the mandates of government
was also shown in other colonies. The king had issued a proclamation
strictly prohibiting the exportation of warlike stores to America; and
as soon as this became known in the colonies, the people of Rhode Island
seized upon forty pieces of cannon belonging to the crown, which had
been mounted on batteries for the defence of the harbour, and carried
them off, while those of New Hampshire surprised a small fort, called
“William and Mary,” and carried off the ordnance, gunpowder, and other
military stores. Mills, moreover, were erected for making gunpowder, and
manufactories for making arms. Every thing, in fact, indicated that a
fierce and bitter struggle was about to commence between America and
the mother country. The train was laid, and the application of the match
only was wanting to effect a fearful conflagration.

{GEORGE III. 1773–1775}




GENERAL ELECTION.

In the month of September, although parliament had more than a year
to complete its septennial term, it was dissolved by proclamation,
and writs issued for a new one. This step was taken, it would appear,
chiefly that the sense of the nation might be known more fully
concerning the affairs of America. This was found to be decidedly hostile
to the late proceedings of the Americans. Loyalty, indeed, had increased
at home in proportion as it had decreased in the colonies. All classes
united in the opinion that the king, parliament, and country had been
grossly insulted by the Americans, and that they deserved chastisement.
Hence the general election, which took place in October, resulted
greatly in favour of ministers. Some few places, it is true, proposed
tests to the candidates, including pledges to stop hostilities with
America, but the great majority were in favour of coercive measures if
the Americans did not lay down their arms of rebellion. In this election
Wilkes and Glynn were elected for Middlesex, so that this popular idol
once more found a seat in parliament. He took his seat more proudly than
ever, for he was this year also elected lord mayor of London: a high
dignity for a man whose chief merits were those of agitation.




MEETING OF THE NEW PARLIAMENT.

The new parliament met on the 29th of November when the king signified
his pleasure that the commons should elect a speaker to be presented on
the next day for his approbation. Sir Fletcher Norton was unanimously
re-elected, and on the following day his majesty opened the session with
a speech in the usual form. The leading topic in this speech was the
rebellious spirit displayed in America. His Majesty remarked: “It gives
me much concern that I am obliged at the opening of this parliament, to
inform you that a most daring spirit of resistance and disobedience to
the law still unhappily prevails in the province of Massachusets Bay,
and has, in divers parts of it, broke forth in fresh violences of a very
criminal nature. These proceedings have been countenanced and encouraged
in others of my colonies, and unwarrantable attempts have been made to
obstruct the commerce of this country by unlawful combinations. I have
taken such measures and given such orders as I judged most proper and
effectual for carrying into execution the laws which were passed in the
last session of the late parliament, for the protection and security of
the commerce of my subjects, and for the restoring and preserving peace,
order, and good government in the province of Massachusets Bay; and
you may depend upon my firm and steadfast resolution to withstand every
attempt to weaken or impair the supreme authority of this legislature
over all the dominions of my crown: the maintenance of which I consider
as essential to the dignity, the safety, and the welfare of the British
empire; assuring myself that, while I act upon these principles, I shall
never fail to receive your assistance and support.” In conclusion, his
majesty recommended both houses to proceed with temper and unanimity
in their resolutions, in order that his subjects in every part of his
dominions might be taught by their example to preserve a due reverence
for the laws, and a just sense of the blessings of the British
constitution.

In the debate on the address in the commons, an amendment was proposed
on the part of the opposition, to the effect that his majesty would be
pleased to communicate the whole intelligence received from America,
and to lay all letters, orders, and instructions relating to the late
transactions before parliament. This was opposed by Lord North, who
argued that it was not a proper time for entering into a discussion on
the subject, since matters were in a state of suspense, He said that a
reconcilliation was highly desirable, but as no terms of concession had
been made by the Americans, it could not be expected that England would
offer terms of submission. On the opposition benches the conduct of the
late parliament in passing the American acts was severely censured, and
the prime-minister was taunted with the failure of those acts from
which he had augured such great and beneficial effects. The amendment,
however, was negatived by a majority of 264 against 73, and the original
address carried. Opposition shared the same fate in the lords. The Duke
of Richmond moved an amendment similar to that in the commons, and a hot
debate took place in consequence, but it was lost by a majority of 63
against 13. Nine of the minority entered a strong protest against the
address—the first ever made upon an address—which concluded with these
words: “Whatever may be the mischievous designs or the inconsiderate
temerity, which leads others to this desperate course, we wish to be
known as persons who have ever disapproved of measures so pernicious in
their past effects and their future tendency; and who are not in haste,
without inquiry or information, to commit ourselves in declarations
which may precipitate our country into all the calamities of a civil
war.”

It might have been expected that ministers, having apparently made up
their minds to pursue coercive measures, would have prepared to meet the
alternative of war with an efficient force. Ministers, however, seem to
have been as impotent in execution as they were magnanimous in resolve.
Instead of increasing the forces, they left the estimates to be entirely
formed upon a peace establishment: continuing the army as it was and
actually reducing the navy by 4000 men; leaving only 16,000 for
the service of the ensuing year. The country felt a difficulty in
reconciling this conduct of the ministers with the speech from the
throne, and vehement debates took place in both houses on the subject.
Lord Sandwich, however, asserted that our navy establishment, small as
it was, would be sufficient to reduce the colonies to obedience, as
the power, courage, and discipline of the Americans were by no means so
formidable as had been represented, and as was generally supposed. Their
very numbers, he said, would only add to the facility of their defeat
when brought into action. Beyond this, the commons did little more
before the Christmas recess than receive petitions which had been got
up by Franklin and his agents in the North, and counter petitions which
were concocted through the agency of Adam Smith, Dr. Roebuck, and others
who seem to have been set to work by ministers, although they pretended
some surprise when they were presented. In the house of lords, in the
meantime, one important resolution had passed on the motion of the Duke
of Manchester. This was to admit not only the members of the house of
commons, but also other strangers, to hear the debates of the upper
house. This put an end to a bitter contention which had existed between
the lords and commons for four years.




CHAPTER VI.

{GEORGE III. 1775–1776}

     Debates on America..... Pacific Measure of Lord North.....
     Burke’s Plan of Conciliation..... Close of the Session.....
     Petition of the City of London..... Departure of
     Franklin..... Proceedings of the  Americans..... Expedition
     to seize Stores at Salem..... Affair at Lexington, etc......
     Meeting of the Assemblies and General Congress..... Battle
     of Bunker’s Hill..... General Washington..... Expedition
     against Ticonderoga and Crown Point, etc,..... Expedition
     against Canada..... Disposition and Revolt of the
     Virginians..... Conduct of Congress towards New York,
     etc...... Proceedings in England..... Prosecution and Trial
     of Home Tooke, etc...... Meeting-of Parliament..... Changes
     in the  Ministry..... The Militia Bill..... The Navy and
     Land  Estimates..... Petition of Nova Scotia..... Petition
     of Congress..... Motions of the Duke of Grafton..... The
     Land-tax increased..... Burke’s  Second Conciliatory
     Motion..... Lord   North’s Prohibitory bill.

{A.D. 1775}




DEBATES ON AMERICA.

During the Christmas recess, ministers had received more alarming
intelligence from America, coming down to the seizure of Fort William
and Mary by the people of New Hampshire, as previously recorded. When
parliament again met, therefore, which was on the 20th of January, the
affairs of America became the prominent subject of discussion. Before
that day it had been concerted between the Earl of Chatham and his
friends that he should make one of his grand displays on the subject in
the house of lords. After the minister had laid some important
documents respecting the state of the colonies before the house, Chatham
accordingly rose. He commenced by condemning all that the ministers had
done, and by reproving them for their tardiness in communicating the
American papers. He then congratulated their lordships upon the fact
that the business was at last entered upon, by the noble lords laying
these papers before them, and expressing a supposition that their
contents were well known, he next made this motion: “That an humble
address be presented to his majesty, to desire and beseech that, in
order to open the way towards a happy settlement of the dangerous
troubles in America, by beginning to allay ferments and soften
animosities there; and, above all, for preventing, in the mean time, any
sudden and fatal catastrophe at Boston, now suffering under the daily
irritation of an army before their eyes, posted in their town; it may
graciously please his majesty that immediate orders be dispatched to
General Gage, for removing his majesty’s forces from the town of
Boston, as soon as the rigour of the season and other circumstances
indispensable to the safety and accommodation of the said troops may
render the same practicable.” In continuation, Chatham proceeded to
discuss the whole question: a question which, he said, demanded instant
attention, as an hour lost might produce years of calamity. He remarked:
“I will not desert for a single moment the conduct of this weighty
business; unless nailed to my bed by extremity of sickness, I will give
it my unremitted attention. I will knock at the door of this sleeping
and confounded ministry, and will rouse them to a sense of their
impending danger. When I state the importance of the colonies, and the
magnitude of the danger hanging over this country from the present
plan of mis-administration practised against them, I desire not to be
understood to argue for a reciprocity of indulgence between England
and America. I contend not for indulgence but justice to America; and I
shall ever contend, that the Americans justly owe obedience to us in
a limited degree; they owe obedience to our ordinances of trade and
navigation. But let the line be skilfully drawn between the objects of
those ordinances and their private internal property; let the sacredness
of their property remain inviolate; let it be taxed only by their own
consent, given in their provincial assemblies, else it will cease to be
property. As to the metaphysical refinements, attempting to show that
the Americans are equally free from obedience and commercial restraints
as from taxation of revenue, being unrepresented here, I pronounce them
futile, frivolous, and groundless. Resistance to your acts was necessary
as it was just; and your vain declaration of the omnipotence of
parliament, and your imperious doctrines of the necessity of
submission, will be found equally impotent to convince or enslave your
fellow-subjects in America, who feel that tyranny, whether ambitioned by
an individual part, of the legislature or by the bodies who compose
it, is equally intolerable to British subjects.” Chatham next drew a
startling yet not unfaithful picture of the army of General Gage, which
he represented as placed in a dangerous position, as being penned up and
pining in inglorious inactivity, and as being alike an army of impotence
and contempt, as well as of irritation and vexation. He then proceeded
to declare that activity would be even worse than this inglorious
inactivity, and that the first drop of blood shed in this civil and
unnatural war would produce an incurable wound. Chatham next, by a
strange infatuation, extolled the congress of Philadelphia for its
decency, firmness, and wisdom, and even maintained that it was more wise
than the assemblies of ancient Greece! He remarked:—“I must declare and
avow, that in all my reading—and it has been my favourite study, and I
have read Thucydides, and have studied and admired the master-states of
the world—for solidity of reasoning, force of sagacity, and wisdom of
conclusion, under such a complication of difficult circumstances, no
nation or body of men can stand in preference to the general congress at
Philadelphia!” If Chatham did not take this view of the proceedings of
the congress of Philadelphia out of sheer opposition to the existing
administration, which it was his pleasure always to gall and oppose,
then he must have been miserably blinded by the half-speaking papers,
which no man in his senses could misinterpret, and which that congress
had issued. Having passed this strange eulogium on that body, Chatham
next called upon ministers to retract now that they might do it with a
good grace, and asserted that they had derived their information from
wrong sources, from selfish merchants, packers, and factors, and such
servile classes of Americans, whose strength and stamina were not worthy
to be compared with the cultivators of the land, in whose simplicity
of life was to be found the simpleness of virtue, and the integrity of
courage and freedom. He continued: “These true genuine sons of the earth
are invincible. They surround and hem in the mercantile bodies, and if
it were proposed to desert the cause of liberty, they would virtuously
exclaim, ‘If trade and slavery are companions, we quit trade; let trade
and slavery seek other shores; they are not for us!’ This resistance to
your arbitrary taxation might have been foreseen: it was obvious from
the nature of things and of mankind; but above all, from the Whiggish
spirit flourishing in that country. The spirit which now resists
your taxation in America, is the same which formerly opposed loans,
benevolences, and ship-money in England: the same spirit which called
all England on its legs, and by the Bill of Rights vindicated the
constitution; the same principle which established the great fundamental
and essential maxim of our liberties, that no subject of England shall
be taxed but by his own consent. This glorious spirit of whiggism
animates three millions in America, who prefer poverty with liberty, to
gilded chains and sordid affluence, and who will die in defence of their
rights as men—as freemen.” Chatham enlarged greatly upon this glorious
spirit of Whiggism displayed on both sides of the Atlantic, asserting
that it would finally compel the ministers not only to abandon their
present measures and principles, however many noses they might count on
a division, but to hide their heads in shame. He continued: “They cannot
my lords, they cannot stir a step; they have not a move left; they are
check-mated. It is not repealing this or that act of parliament—it
is not repealing a piece of parchment—that can restore America to our
bosom; you must repeal her fears and her resentments, and you may then
hope for her love and gratitude. But now, insulted by an armed force at
Boston, irritated by a hostile array before her eyes, her concessions,
if they could be forced, would be suspicious and insecure; they will be
_irato animo_, not sound honourable factions of freemen, but dictates
of fear and extortions of force. It is, however, more than evident, you
cannot force them, principled and united as they are, to your unworthy
terms of submission. It is impossible.” Having been pathetic on
General Gage in one part of his speech, Chatham now was witty upon him,
comparing him with the great General Condé, who upon being asked why
he did not capture his adversary Turenne, replied, that he was afraid
Turenne would take him. Chatham then contended that nothing was left
but to withdraw the troops from Boston, and to repeal all the acts of
parliament. This, he imagined, might satisfy the Americans, and have the
effect of binding them to an acknowledgment of our sovereignty, and our
rights to regulate their navigation and commerce. Concessions, he said,
must be made at some time or other, and they had better be made now,
when they might do it as became their dignity. He concluded his speech
thus:—“Every danger impends to deter you from perseverance in the
present ruinous measures. Foreign war is hanging over your heads by a
slight and brittle thread. France and Spain are watching your conduct,
and waiting for the maturity of your errors. If ministers thus persevere
in misadvising and misleading the king, I will not say they can alienate
the affections of his subjects from the crown; but I will affirm, that
they make the crown not worth his wearing; I will not say the king is
betrayed, but I will pronounce the kingdom undone.” Chatham’s motion was
supported by the Duke of Richmond, the Marquess of Rockingham, the Earl
of Shelburne, and Lord Camden, who were, however, not fully agreed as to
the propriety of recalling the troops, and who seem to have considered
that proper concessions had not been made by the people of Boston, and
that concessions made on the part of the British government on previous
occasions had been misinterpreted in America, and had told to our
disadvantage. On the other hand, the motion was opposed by the Earls of
Suffolk, Rochford, and Gower, Viscounts Weymouth and Townshend, and
Lord Lyttleton, who defended the recent acts of parliament, vindicated
the legislative supremacy of parliament, and controverted the eulogy
passed on the American congress, maintaining rightly that its acts and
resolutions savoured strongly of a rebellious spirit. In the course
of their arguments it was said that all conciliating means had proved
ineffectual, or had only tended to increase the disorders; that if we
gave way now from notions of present advantages in trade and commerce,
such a yielding would defeat its own object, as the Navigation Act, and
all other acts regulating trade, would inevitably fall victims to the
interested and ambitious views of the colonists. This was a cogent
argument, and Chatham rose to reply to it. He remarked, “If the noble
lord should prove correct in suggesting that the views of the Americans
are ultimately directed to abrogate the Act of Navigation and the
other regulating acts, so wisely calculated to promote a reciprocity
of interests, and to advance the grandeur and prosperity of the whole
empire, no person present, however zealous, would be readier than myself
to resist and crush their endeavours; but to arrive at any certain
knowledge of the real sentiments of the Americans, it would first be
proper to do them justice—to treat them like subjects before we
condemn them as aliens and traitors.” Chatham then went over some of his
previous arguments, especially contending that the right of taxing-was
not included in legislation, and that sovereignty and supremacy did not
imply that we could touch the money of the Americans, except by measures
of trade and commerce. The motion was negatived by a majority of 68
against 18.

In submitting this motion to the house, the Earl of Chatham said that
he had prepared a plan for healing all differences between England and
America! This plan he afterwards submitted to Franklin, with whom he had
recently much communication, and on Wednesday, the 1st of February, he
submitted it to the house. He called it “A Provisional Bill for settling
the Troubles in America, and for asserting the supreme legislative
Authority and superintending Power of Great Britain over the Colonies.”
 In the speech made on this occasion, lie said, he offered this bill as a
basis of measures for averting the dangers which threatened the British
empire, and expressed a hope that it would obtain the approbation of
both sides of the house. In stating the urgent necessity of such a
measure, he represented England and America as drawn up in martial
array, waiting for the signal to engage in a contest, in which it was
little matter for whom victory declared, as the ruin of both parties
was certain. He stood forth, he said, from a principle of duty and
affection, to act as a mediator. In doing so, he represented that he
would hold the scales of justice even-handed. He remarked, “No regard
for popularity, no predilection for his country, not the high esteem
he entertained for America on the one hand, nor the unalterable steady
regard he entertained for the dignity of Great Britain on the other,
should at all influence his conduct; for though he loved the Americans
as men prizing and setting the just value on that inestimable blessing,
liberty, yet if he could once bring himself to believe that they
entertained the most distant intentions of throwing off the legislative
supremacy and great constitutional superintending power and control of
the British legislature, he should be the very person himself who would
be the first and most zealous mover for securing and enforcing that
power by every possible exertion this country was capable of making.”
 Chatham concluded by entreating the house to revise and correct the
bill, and to reduce it to that form which was suited to the dignity and
importance of the subject; and by declaring that he was actuated by no
narrow principle or personal consideration, for though his bill might be
looked upon as one of concession, it was likewise one of assertion. The
bill which Chatham proposed was briefly to the following effect: That
the parliament of Great Britain had full power to bind America in all
matters touching the weal of the whole dominion of the crown of Great
Britain, and especially in making laws for the regulation of navigation
and trade throughout the complicated system of British commerce, etc.;
that it should be declared that no military force could ever be lawfully
employed to destroy the best rights of the people, while at the same
time the authority of sending troops to the colonies of the British
dominions should be maintained, independent of the voice of the
provincial assemblies in the colonies; that no taxes for his majesty’s
revenue should be levied in America without consent of the provincial
assemblies; that the congress of Philadelphia should be legalized and
empowered to meet again on the 9th of May ensuing, for the purpose
of making due recognition of the supreme legislative authority and
superintending power over the colonies, and of voting a free grant to
the crown of a certain perpetual revenue, etc.; that the prayer of the
petition of congress should then be granted, and that the powers of
admiralty and vice-admiralty courts in America should be confined to
their ancient limits, and the trial by jury in civil cases should be
restored wherever they had been abolished, etc.; that all the recent
acts of parliament which had been the cause of the agitation in America
should be forthwith suspended; and that, in order to secure due and
impartial administration in the colonies, his majesty’s judges in the
courts of law, who were appointed in America by the crown with salaries,
should hold their offices and salaries in the same manner as his
majesty’s judges in England; _quamdiu se benè gesserint_. The bill which
Chatham introduced concluded thus: “And it is here by further declared
that the colonies in America are justly entitled to the privileges,
franchises, and immunities granted by their several charters or
constitutions; and that the said charters or constitutions ought not
to be invaded or resumed, unless for misuser, or some legal ground of
forfeiture. So shall a true reconcilement avert impending calamities,
and this most solemn national accord between Great Britain and her
colonies stand an everlasting monument clemency and magnanimity in the
benignant father of his people; of wisdom and moderation in this great
nation, famed for humanity as for valour; and of fidelity and grateful
affection from brave and loyal colonies to their parent kingdom, which
will ever protect and cherish them.”

There is full evidence that Chatham, in bringing such a bill as
this before the house—a bill which was rather theoretical than
practical—did not expect that it would be adopted. In a consultation
over the bill between himself and Franklin, after certain suggestions
made by the philosopher, none of which were adopted, he said that there
was not time to make alterations and another fair copy; that neither
of them expected it would be adopted; and that it might be afterwards
amended. On the part of Franklin, no desire seems to have existed in
his mind for its adoption. What he chiefly wanted, was another brilliant
speech from the veteran statesman, that government might be further
embarrassed, and the resistance of the colonies further stimulated. This
appears to have escaped the penetration of Chatham. Sincere himself in
the matter, he thought Franklin also sincere: otherwise there can be no
doubt that he would have spurned him from his door. Franklin, in truth,
took care to throw dust in the eye of Chatham. At a previous interview,
he assured him that he had never heard any person, drunk or sober,
express a wish for the disseveration of the two countries, or hint that
such a thing would be advantageous to America. This he expressly
states in a letter to his son, so that he stands condemned by his own
handwriting of the most gross duplicity for ulterior purposes. It is
pitiable to see a mind so highly gifted as was that of Franklin stoop so
low in a matter of such momentous consequences The eyes of all America
were turned towards him as their champion in England, and had he been
so inclined there is little doubt but he could have procured great
and lasting benefits to his country without the shedding one drop of
precious blood. But his single aim was the dismemberment of the empire.

At the conclusion of Chatham’s speech, the Earl of Dartmouth, secretary
of state for America, moved that the bill should lie on the table, till
the papers referred to the house by his majesty should have been taken
into consideration. On the other hand, the Earl of Sandwich moved that
the bill should be at once rejected with the contempt it deserved. He
could not, he said, believe it was the production of a British peer. It
appeared to him the work of an American, and seeing Franklin leaning on
the bar of the house, he pointed him out as its author, and as one of
the bitterest and most mischievous enemies this country had ever known.
To make any concession at this moment, he said, would be an abandonment
of the whole cause of government, since the one grand aim of the
Americans was absolute independence. At this very time, he asserted
they were courting the trade of other nations, and he stated that he
had letters in his pocket to prove that ships were being-laden at some
European ports with East India produce and European commodities for
America. Lord Sandwich was supported by Earls Gower and Hillsborough,
and the Duke of Grafton, the latter of whom denounced the way in
which the bill had been hurried into the house, as irregular and
unparliamentary. The bill was supported by the Duke of Richmond, the
Earl of Shelburne, and Lord Camden, who analysed the laws proposed to
be repealed with great severity, and pointed out the evils of foreign
interference, and the danger of famine at home, from the discontinuance
of supplies from America. Another party in the house, consisting of the
Duke of Manchester, Earl Temple, and Lord Lyttleton, were for taking a
more moderate course, that is, not to reject the bill thus summarily, on
consideration of the exalted character of its proposer. An angry debate
followed, in the course of which one noble lord mentioned with applause
the candid proposal of a member of the administration for the bill to
lie on the table. But this had the contrary effect to that which the
noble lord intended. Lord Dartmouth instantly rose and said that he had
altered his opinion, and that he could not accept praise offered to him
for candour of which he was now ashamed. The Earl of Chatham rose to
defend both himself and his bill from the numerous attacks which had
been made in the course of the debate. He commenced by avowing that the
bill was the offspring of his own creation, though he had sought the
advice of Franklin. He then attacked his quondam colleague in office,
the Duke of Grafton, with severity, and inveighed against the whole
administration in the most bitter terms. He remarked:—“The noble duke
is extremely angry with me that I did not previously consult him on the
bringing in of the present bill. I would ask the noble lord, does he
consult me? or do I desire to be previously told of any motion he thinks
fit to propose to this house? His grace seems to be much offended at the
manner this bill has been hurried. I am certain he could not be serious,
if he gave himself a minute to consider how the case really stands. Here
we are told that America is in a state of rebellion, and we are now
got to the 1st of February, and no one step is taken to crush this
rebellion: yet such being the case I am charged with hurrying matters;
but whether my conduct may be more justly charged with hurrying this
business into, or his grace with hurrying it out of the house, I believe
requires no great depth of penetration to discover. As to the other
general objections, I presume it will be recollected that the last day
I submitted the proposition about withdrawing the troops, I then
gave notice that I would present in a few days a plan of general
reconciliation. Eleven days have since elapsed and nothing has been
offered by the king’s servants. Under such circumstances of emergency
on one side, when, perhaps, a single day may determine the fate of this
great empire, and such a shameful negligence, total inaction, and want
of ability on the other, what was to be done? No other alternative, in
my opinion, remained, but either to abandon the interests of my country,
and relinquish my duty, or to propose some plan, when ministers by their
inaction and silence owned themselves incapable of proposing any. But
even now let them speak out and tell me that they have a plan to lay
before us, and I will give them an example of candour they are by no
means deserving, by instantly withdrawing the present bill. The indecent
attempt to stifle this measure in embryo may promise consequences the
very reverse of what I am certain will be the case. The friends of the
present motion may flatter themselves that the contents of the bill will
sink into silence and be forgotten; but I believe they will find the
contrary. This bill, though rejected here, will make its way to the
public, to the nation, to the remotest wilds of America: it will in
such a course undergo a deal of cool observation and investigation, and
whatever its merits or demerits may be, it will rise or fall by them
alone; it will, I trust, remain a monument of my poor endeavours
to serve my country, and however faulty or defective, will at least
manifest how zealous I have been to avert the impending storms which
seem ready to burst on it, and for ever overwhelm it in ruin. Yet,
when I consider the whole case as it lies before me, I am not much
astonished, I am not much surprised, that men who hate liberty should
detest those who prize it, or that those who want virtue themselves
should endeavour to persecute those who possess it. Were I disposed to
pursue this theme to the extent that truth would fully bear me out in, I
could demonstrate that the whole of your political conduct has been one
continued series of weakness, temerity, despotism, ignorance,
futility, negligence, and the most notorious servility, incapacity,
and corruption. On reconsideration I must allow you one merit, a strict
attention to your own interests—in that view you appear sound statesmen
and able politicians. You well know that if the present measure should
prevail, that you must instantly relinquish your places. I doubt much
whether you will be able to keep them on any terms; but sure I am
such are your well-known characters and abilities, that any plan of
reconciliation, however moderate, wise, and feasible, must fail in your
hands. Such, then, being your precarious situation, who could wonder
that you should put a negative on any measure which must annihilate your
power, deprive you of your emoluments, and at once reduce you to that
state of insignificance for which God and nature designed you.” Earls
Gower and Hillsborough reprobated this severe language of Chatham, as
calculated to inflame the public mind both here and in the colonies, and
questioned if the noble lord would not, on some future day, if his age
permitted, give another of the many proofs of his versatility, by acting
with the ministers he condemned, and patronising the measures he now
censured. Upon a division, the bill was rejected by a majority of
sixty-one against thirty-two. Its rejection proved a fine theme out of
doors for those adverse to the ministry. A vote of thanks was passed by
the corporation of the city of London to Chatham, for his humane design;
and Franklin enlarged upon the folly and madness of the ministers in
rejecting it, although he had not expressed his approbation of it even
to Chatham himself. He obtained, however, by its introduction what he
most wanted—namely, a subject by means of which he could widen the
breach between America and the “dear old mother country.”

In the meantime debates had taken place in the commons upon various
petitions presented to the house, and especially upon one presented
from Franklin, Bolland, and Lee, who prayed to be examined at the bar in
support of the demands made by the general congress at Philadelphia. A
motion, that this petition should be brought up, was negatived, on the
ground that it would have the appearance of sanctioning the proceedings
of the congress.

On the 2nd of February, Lord North, in the commons, in a committee of
the whole house, moved for an address of thanks to the king for the
communication of the papers. In introducing this motion Lord North
intimated that a large military force was to be sent to America, and
that the foreign commerce of New England and their fishing on the banks
of Newfoundland were to be effectually stopped, until they should return
to their duty. Fox moved an amendment, censuring ministers for having
rather inflamed than healed differences, and praying for their removal.
In doing so he descanted largely on the injustice of the motion for an
address; predicting defeat in America and ruin at home. The amendment
was negatived by a large majority, and, on a second division, the motion
for an address was carried. It was reported on the 6th of February, when
there was another warm debate, in which Wilkes, whose conduct on this
subject was steady and consistent, took part. He remarked:—“Who can
tell whether, in consequence of this day’s violent and mad address, the
scabbard may not be thrown away by the Americans, as well as by us;
and should success attend them, whether, in a few years, they may not
celebrate the glorious era of the revolution of 1775, as we do that
of 1608? Success crowned the generous efforts of our forefathers for
freedom, else they had died on the scaffold as traitors and rebels;
and the period of our history which does us most honour would have been
deemed a rebellion against lawful authority—not a resistance sanctioned
by all the laws of God and man, and the expulsion of a tyrant.” There is
much truth in these observations; but in reply it was observed, that the
present crisis had been produced as much by a zeal for their cause and
a seditious spirit at home, as by the restless spirit of the colonists
themselves; and that, while the proceedings of the Americans evidently
tended to independence, and a future age might perhaps see them
successful, it was the duty of all to unite in preventing the evil day
from arriving at that period, and affixing an indelible stain on that
age. At the commencement of this debate Lord John Cavendish had moved,
that the address should be recommitted, but it was in the end negatived
by two hundred and eighty-eight to one hundred and five.

A conference between the two houses on the address was held on the 7th
of February, after which Lord Dartmouth moved, that the lords should
concur in it; and on this motion the previous question was demanded.
Another warm debate ensued. Lord Mansfield first rose, and, in a
long and argumentative speech, he combated the arguments of those who
maintained that the Americans were merely contending for exemption from
taxation. He next minutely analysed the declarations of congress, and
the acts of parliament of which they complained; in the course of which
he insisted, that to annul any laws, except the acts of taxation, would
be a renunciation of sovereignty. As a lawyer, he declared, from the
documents before the house, that the Americans were already in a state
of rebellion; and he condemned the taxes imposed in the year 1767, as
the origin of the ferment in the colonies, and as tending to injure
British commerce, inasmuch as they had furnished the colonists with
a temptation to smuggle. On the other hand, Lord Camden, as a lawyer,
denied that the Americans were in a state of rebellion, and drew sundry
nice distinctions between actual treason and constructive treason. He
also disclaimed all participation in the law for taxing America, as he
had not been consulted on the subject. The Duke of Grafton complained
of both these lords, and accused Camden of meanness and shuffling, in
endeavouring to screen himself by accusing others; reminding him,
that at the time the act was passed, he was lord-chancellor, and had
signified the royal approbation of the act in his official capacity.
Lord Lyttleton seconded the blow given to the ex-chancellor by his
quondam colleague; but Lord Shelburne acquitted both Camden and the
Duke of Grafton of approving the cabinet scheme for taxing America, and
expressed a hope that public retribution would soon fall upon the author
of the present despotic measures. The Duke of Richmond endeavoured to
show that Lord Mansfield was its foster-parent; and a scene of mutual
recrimination took place between them, in which other noble lords took
an active part. Each one strove to lay the blame upon the shoulders of
their opponents—all feeling that a blunder had been committed, which
was likely to lead to the most disastrous consequences. This stormy
altercation, however, terminated by the house agreeing to the address of
the commons by a majority of nearly four to one. The king’s reply to
the address was accompanied by a message to the commons, recommending an
augmentation to the forces by sea and land; and, in consequence of
this message, 2000 additional seamen and 4,400 soldiers were voted—an
increase altogether inadequate to meet the contingency; especially
as France was at this moment increasing her fleets, and getting many
line-of-battle ships ready for sea, which many members justly looked
upon with suspicion.

In pursuance of his plan, on the 10th of February, Lord North moved for
leave to bring in his bill for cutting off the commerce of New England
and their profitable fishery—excepting such persons as should procure
from their governors certificates of good and loyal conduct, and who
should subscribe a test, acknowledging the supremacy of the British
Parliament. This bill was warmly opposed in both houses, on the grounds
of confounding the innocent with the guilty—of destroying a trade
which perhaps could never be recovered—and of cruelly starving whole
provinces, and thus irritating the Americans to withhold debts due to
the British merchants. In support of the bill it was argued, that as
the Americans had resolved not to trade with England, it was but fair
to prevent their trading with other countries; that as they had
entered into associations to ruin British merchants, impoverish British
manufacturers, and starve our West India islands, it was a justifiable
act of retaliation to return their mischiefs upon their own heads; and
that, if any foreign power had only offered a tithe part of the insults
and injuries we had received from our colonists, the whole nation would
have been aroused to advocate revenge, and the minister who would not
have responded to the demand would have been inevitably ruined. The
charge of cruelty was denied, and the bill asserted to be one of
humanity and mercy as well as of coercion. The colonists had incurred
the penalties of rebellion, and had, therefore, rendered themselves
liable to military execution; but instead of proceeding to such
extremities, government only proposed to bring them back to a sense of
duty, by a restriction on their trade—that is, they were to be kept
without food instead of undergoing corporeal punishment. It was stated,
moreover, that they had too long imposed upon us with their threats of
depriving us of their trade, hoping thereby to bend the legislature to a
compliance with all their demands, until they had completed their plans
for asserting their independence. As for American courage and resources,
they were considered by the ministers and their supporters in both
houses to be unequal to the task of contending with those of England. It
was even wished by Lord Sandwich that the Americans could produce four
times the number of forces it was stated they could bring into the
field; he contending, that the greater the numbers the easier would be
the conquest. He even gravely predicted, that if they did not run
away, they would starve themselves into compliance with the measures
of government, Taking these views of the matter, which were manifestly
erroneous, the bill was sanctioned by large majorities. Another bill
also passed very soon after it, laying similar restraints on the
colonies of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and South
Carolina, for the hostilities they had exhibited in their sympathy with
the people of New England.




PACIFIC MEASURE OF LORD NORTH.

Having adopted such measures as the above, it could hardly be expected
that Lord North would lower his tone. Yet, to the surprise of all
parties, and even of many of his own adherents, Lord North, in a
committee of the whole house, moved the following resolution:—“That
when the governor, council, and assembly, or general court of any of
his majesty’s provinces or colonies, shall propose to make provision for
contributing their proportion to the common defence, such proportion to
be raised under the authority of the general court, or general assembly
of such province or colony, and disposable by parliament; and shall
engage to make provision also for the support of the civil government
and administration of justice in such province or colony, it will be
proper, if such proposal shall be approved by his majesty in parliament,
and for so long as such provision shall be made accordingly, to forbear,
in respect of such province or colony, to levy any duties, tax, or
assessment, or to impose any further duty, tax, or assessment, except
only such duties as it may be expedient to impose for the regulation
of commerce—the net produce of which duties last mentioned shall
be carried to the account of such province, colony, or plantation
exclusively.” Lord North endeavoured to show that this resolution arose
out of the following passage in the address:—“And whenever any of the
colonies shall make a proper application to us, we shall be ready to
afford them every just and reasonable indulgence.” The terms of the
resolution, he said, being such as in the hour of victory would be good
and just, would afford a test as to the pretensions of the Americans. If
their ostensible causes of opposition were real, he conceived that they
must agree with such proposals, and that, if they did not agree with
them, then it would be proved that they had other views and were
actuated by other motives than those which they professed. He
added:—“To offer terms of peace is wise and humane; if the colonists
reject them, their blood must be on their own heads.” Burke, in his
Annual Register, says, that the court party, who always loved a strong
government in whatever hands it might be lodged, and accordingly had
upon principle ever opposed any relaxation in favour of the colonies,
heard these proposals with horror, and considered themselves abandoned
and betrayed. Be that as it may, it is certain that opposition to the
minister’s motion commenced on the treasury benches. The party, called
“the King’s Friends,” at the head of whom were Mr. Welbore Ellis and
Mr. Rigby, contended that Lord North’s propositions were in direct
opposition to every principle and idea of the address; that the
scheme was at variance with all the preceding acts and declarations of
parliament, and designed to pay court to the opposition; and that they
went to acknowledge that there was, in reality, something unjust and
grievous in the idea of taxing the Americans by parliament. In fact,
they denounced the whole matter as a shameful prevarication and a mean
departure from principle, and boldly asserted that they would make no
concessions to rebels with arms in their hands, or give their consent to
any measure for a settlement with the Americans, in which an express and
definitive acknowledgment of the supremacy of the British parliament was
not a preliminary article. Mr. Ackland went so far, indeed, as to move
that the chairman should leave the chair, or, in other words, that
the committee should be dissolved and the house resumed without the
resolutions being put to the vote. Lord North had never been in such a
dilemma before, and it seems probable that he would have yielded to the
storm he had unconsciously raised, had not Sir Gilbert Elliot and Mr.
Wedderburne rose to his rescue. Sir Gilbert Elliot remarked, that the
address contained two correspondent lines of conduct—the one tending
to repress rebellion, for which measures of restriction had been
resorted to, the other offering indulgence to those who would return to
their duty. In the address this was necessarily intimated in general and
vague terms; but was so far from being contradictory to it, that without
it, the plan adopted at the beginning of the session would be defective
and unjust. When Wedderburne rose, he declared that nothing was further
from the intention of Lord North than a dereliction of the rights of
parliament, or a yielding to the insolence of the Americans. What he
really proposed was, to enforce the one and repress the other. For
himself, he contended, that indulgence should be offered to such of the
colonists as would return to their duty, but the contumacious should
be proceeded against with an increased army and navy, with gallant
officers, who were going to America to enforce the spirited proposition.
He added:—“We have at length put the dispute upon its proper
footing—revenue or no revenue.” The resolution being thus reconciled
with the address, and Lord North having stated that the measure was
designed to separate the grain from the chaff, and to disunite the
colonies, the “king’s friends” were satisfied. This healing of the
breach on the treasury benches, however, had the effect of widening it
on the side of the opposition, who had been exulting in the strife. Fox
rejoiced in the retrograde movement of the minister; but doubted the
sincerity of the motion made, and predicted, that the Americans would
reject them with disdain. He was followed by Colonel Barré, who indulged
in bitter sarcasm upon Lord North’s recent embarrassment and danger from
his friends, and said, that his motion was founded upon the pitiful and
abominable maxim, _divide et impera_. It was to divide the Americans,
and dissolve their generous union in defence of their rights and
liberties; but, he added, “The Americans are not such gudgeons as to be
caught with so foolish a bait.” Lord North had by this time recovered
his fortitude and he defended himself with great spirit from the attacks
which had been made upon him, and justified his motion, on the ground
that it would have the effect of sifting the reasonable from the
unreasonable—of distinguishing those who acted upon principle, from
those who wished to profit by the general confusion and ruin—of
dividing the good from the bad, and of giving aid and support to the
friends of peace and good government. Burke next attacked the minister.
He declared, that the measure was mean without being conciliatory, and
that it was a more oppressive mode of taxation than any that had yet
been adopted. It was proposed, he said, that the colonies were to be
held in durance by troops and fleets, until, singly and separately, they
should offer to contribute to a service they could not know, and in a
proportion they could not guess, since ministers had not even ventured
to hint at the extent of their expectations. This conduct he compared
to that of Nebuchadnezzar, who, when he had forgotten his dream, ordered
his wise men to relate what he had dreamt, and likewise to give him its
interpretation. He added, that every benefit, natural and political,
must be acquired in the order of things and in its proper season,
and that revenue from a free people must be the consequence, not the
condition, of peace. Dunning next followed, showering more sarcasms
and more odious comparisons on the head of Lord North than any of the
preceding speakers; but in the end the resolution was adopted by a
majority of two hundred and seventy-four against eighteen.

{GEORGE III. 1775–1776}




BURKE’S PLAN OF CONCILIATION.

The present occasion was deemed by the opposition a favourable one
for putting forth a plan of conciliation, the terms of which might,
by comparison, reflect censure on that of Lord North. This task was
committed to Burke, and on the 22nd of March he brought forward a plan
comprised in thirteen resolutions. These resolutions went to repeal many
acts of parliament, and to reform many regulations, but the foundation
on which the whole rested, was the mode of raising a revenue from
the colonists through grants and aids by resolutions in their general
assemblies. In the opening of an eloquent speech uttered upon this
occasion, Burke took a comprehensive view of the state of Britain as
connected with America, and then stated the nature of his proposition.
He remarked:—“The proposition is peace. Not peace through the medium
of war; not peace to be hunted through the labyrinth of intricate and
endless negociations; not peace to arise out of universal discord,
fermented from principle in all parts of the empire; not peace to depend
on the periodical determination of perplexing questions, or the precise
marking the shadowy boundaries of a complex government. It is simple
peace; sought in its natural course and in its ordinary haunts. It
is peace sought in the spirit of peace; and laid in principles purely
pacific. I propose, by removing the ground of the difference, and by
restoring the former unsuspecting confidence of the colonies in the
mother country, to give permanent satisfaction to your people; and, far
from a scheme of ruling by discord, to reconcile them to each other
in the same act, and by the bond of the very same interest, which
reconciles them to British government.” His plan of conciliation, he
declared, was founded on the sure and solid basis of experience, and he
asserted that neither the chimeras of imagination, nor abstract ideas
of right, nor mere general theories of government, ought to receive any
attention. He then entered into a copious display and elucidation of
his subject. He dwelt on the spirit of freedom existing in America,
asserting that their extreme notions of liberty arose from the peculiar
religious spirit which existed in the colonies, which he termed a
refinement on the principles of resistance, and which was carried with
them on their first emigration from England. Law, also, he said, had
fostered this high spirit of liberty, since the study of it was more
universal in America than in any other country in the world, and since
that study made them acute, inquisitive, dexterous, prompt in attack,
ready in defence, and full of resources. Burke next dwelt on the
enlarged population of America, and the increased importance of her
commerce, both in exports and imports, and animated by this view of
their great and growing prosperity, he exclaimed in a lofty tone of
eloquence:—“While we follow them into the north amongst mountains of
ice, while we behold them penetrating the deepest recesses of Hudson’s
Bay, while we are looking for them beneath the Arctic circle, thay have
pervaded the antipodes, and engaged under the frozen serpent of the
south: nor is the equinoctial heat more discouraging to them, than the
accumulated winter of the poles; while some of them strike the harpoon
on the coast of Africa, others pursue their gigantic toils on the shores
of the Brazils. There is no climate that is not a witness of their
labours. When I contemplate these things; when I know they owe little
or nothing to any care of ours, but that they have arrived at this
perfection through a wise and salutary neglect; I feel the pride of
power and the presumption of wisdom die away within me; and I pardon
everything to their spirit of liberty.” The love of freedom, Burke
contended, was the predominant feature in the cause of the Americans,
and he pointed out two other causes which tended to increase its growth
beyond those above-mentioned. One of these causes may seem parodoxical:
it was that black slavery prevailed in the colonies! The possession of
slaves, he said, was more than a counterpoise to the prevalence of the
established church in some of the provinces, and he established his
argument thus:—“I can perceive, by their manner, that some gentlemen
object to the latitude of my description, because in the southern
colonies the church of England forms a large body, and has a regular
establishment. It is certainly true. There is, however, a circumstance
attending these southern colonies, which, in my opinion, fully
counterbalances this difference, and makes the spirit of liberty still
more high and haughty than in those to the northward. It is that in
Virginia, and the Carolinas they have a vast multitude of slaves! Where
this is the case, in any part of the world, those who are free, are by
far the most proud and jealous of their freedom. Not seeing there that
freedom, as in countries where it is a common blessing, and as broad
and general as the air, may be united with much abject toil, with great
misery, with all the exterior of servitude, liberty looks amongst them
like something that is more noble and liberal. I do not mean to commend
the superior morality of this sentiment, which has at least as much
pride as virtue in it; but I cannot alter the nature of man. The fact is
so; and these people of the southern colonies are much, more strongly,
and with a higher and more stubborn, spirit, attached to liberty than
those to the northward.” Burke’s reasoning was unhappily sound. All the
great nations of antiquity who fought with blood-stained swords, and
with indomitable ardour for their own liberties, were great slave
owners; eating the bread which was grown by the sweat of other men’s
brows. This fact, however, redounds to the everlasting shame of the
Americans, and the black stain on their annals is not yet wiped out:
nay, it grows blacker and blacker as the period of their history rolls
onward. Slavery is the plague-spot of that boasted land of liberty! The
last cause of their thirst for freedom mentioned by Burke, was their
distance from the seat of government. He remarked:—“Three thousand
miles of ocean lie between you and your subjects! This is a powerful
principle in the natural constitution of things for weakening
government, which no contrivance can prevent. Seas roll, and months
pass, between the order and the execution; and the want of a speedy
explanation of a single point is enough to defeat a whole system. You
have, indeed, winged ministers of vengeance, who carry your bolts to
the remotest verges of the sea. But there a power stops, that limits the
arrogance of raging passions, and says, ‘Hitherto shalt thou go, and no
further.’ Who are you, that should fret, and rage, and bite the chains
of nature? Nothing worse happens to you than to all nations possessing
extensive empire; and it happens in all the forms into which empire
can be thrown. In large bodies the circulation of power must be less
vigorous at the extremities. Nature has said it. The Turk cannot govern
Egypt, as he governs Thrace; nor has he the same dominion in Crimea and
Algiers, which he has at Brusa and Smyrna. Despotism itself is obliged
to truck and huckster. The sultan gets such obedience as he can. He
governs with a loose reign, that he may govern at all; and the whole of
the force and vigour of his authority in his centre is derived from a
prudent relaxation in all his borders. Spain in her provinces submits
to this immutable condition, the eternal law of extensive and detached
empire.” Still Burke did not conceive the idea of proclaiming the
independence of America. On the contrary, like Chatham, he contended
for the general supremacy of parliament, and the rights of the crown,
expressing at the same time his conviction that we had arrived at the
decisive moment of preserving or of losing both our trade and empire.
How to preserve it was the question, and he proposed that it should
be done by concession and conciliation,—and not by force. The plan he
proposed, therefore, to obtain this consummation was, to allow all the
claims the Americans had set forth in their petitions and declarations,
and by undoing all that the parliament had done respecting America,
since the year 1765. His resolutions were briefly these:—That the
colonies not being represented in parliament, could in no way be taxed
by parliament; that the said colonies had been made liable to several
subsidies, payments, rates and taxes, given and granted by parliament,
etc.; that from the distance of the colonies, with other circumstances,
no means had ever been devised for procuring for them a representation
in parliament; that the colonies had each a general assembly that ought
to tax and assess them; that these assemblies had often spontaneously
granted the crown subsidies, etc.; that experience had shown that such
grants made by the assemblies were more beneficial and conducive to the
public service, than the mode of giving and granting aids and subsidies
in parliament to be paid in the colonies: that the act for granting
certain duties in the colonies, for allowing a drawback upon the
exportation from this kingdom of coffee and cocoa-nuts of the produce of
the said colonies, etc. should be repealed; that the bill for altering
the course of trials in Massachusets Bay should be repealed; that the
Boston Port Bill should be repealed; that the bill for altering the
constitution of Massachusets Bay should be repealed; that the act of
King Henry VIII., in regard to the trial of treasons committed out of
the king’s dominions, should be amended; that the new regulations for
appointing and paying the judges should be altered so as to meet the
views of the colonists; and that the American courts of admiralty or
vice-admiralty should be regulated in such, a manner as to make them
more commodious to those who sued or were sued in them, and to provide
for the more decent maintenance of the judges presiding in those courts.
These propositions were vigorously combated by the ministers, and
rejected by the house; and five days afterwards a scheme closely
resembling Lord Chatham’s, proposed by Mr. Hartley, shared the same
fate. Burke appealed to the public by printing his speech, but though it
was read and admired, it was soon forgotten. On the other hand a defence
of American taxation, published by his friend Dr. Johnson, in which he
defended colonial subordination on the principles of the law of nations,
and maintained that the colonists, by their situation, became possessed
of such advantages as were more than equivalent to their right of voting
for representatives in parliament, etc., had a great effect on the
public mind, which was pre-disposed to admit his arguments. The voice of
the nation was, in fact, in favour of the measures pursued by Lord North
and his coadjutors in the ministry.




CLOSE OF THE SESSION.

Towards the close of the session Lord North moved an additional clause
in the second restraining bill, to include in it the counties of
Newcastle, Kent, and Sussex, on Delaware, which was carried without
a division. Burke, as agent for the colony of New York, presented a
remonstrance from the general assembly of that province, but though
Lord North admitted that the people of that colony had hitherto been
peaceably inclined, he opposed the bringing up of the paper, upon the
ground that parliament could not hear anything which called in question
its right to legislate for the colonies, and it was refused. In both
houses attempts were made to procure a repeal of the act for settling
the government of Canada, but without effect. The remainder of the
session was occupied in considering the annual motion of Alderman
Sawbridge for shortening the duration of parliaments; in appointing a
committee on the motion of Mr. Gilbert, to consider the poor laws;
in voting the purchase of Buckingham-house for the queen, in lieu of
Somerset-house, which was converted into public offices; and in settling
financial measures. His majesty prorogued parliament on the 26th of May,
after expressing his satisfaction at the course which had been pursued,
and auguring the happiest results from the measures which had been
adopted.




PETITION OF THE CITY OF LONDON.

At this period, the livery of London attempted to turn the royal
counsels respecting America, by an address containing a remonstrance, in
which the citizens of London declared their abhorrence of the measures
which had been pursued for the oppression of their fellow-subjects in
the colonies, and which they affirmed were carried into execution by the
same fatal corruption which had enabled his majesty’s ministers to wound
the peace and violate the constitution of this country. The petitioners
prayed his majesty, therefore, to dismiss his advisers on the instant,
as the first step towards a redress of grievances which alarmed and
afflicted his people. This petition was presented by Mr. Wilkes, as lord
mayor; a circumstance which doubtless embittered his majesty’s
feelings in reply. This reply was explicit and emphatic. His majesty
remarked:—“It is with the utmost astonishment that I find any of
my subjects capable of encouraging the rebellious disposition which
unhappily exists in some of my colonies in North America. Having entire
confidence in my parliament, the great council of the nation, I will
steadily pursue those measures which they have recommended, for
the support of the constitutional rights of Great Britain, and the
protection of the commercial interests of my kingdom.” Wilkes was
prevented from making a reply by a hint from the lord in waiting, and
the king directed a notice to be issued a few days after, that the king
would not receive any address from the city except in its corporate
capacity. This address had, indeed, been got up by a minority of the
livery: the majority were in favour of the measures adopted.




DEPARTURE OF FRANKLIN.

During the month of April, while parliament was deliberating on the
course to be pursued in the colonies, Dr. Franklin suddenly left
England. Before he left he put in his protest against the measures
adopted by the ministry and the British parliament, into the hands of
Lord Dartmouth. On the evening before his departure, he had, also,
a long interview with Burke, in which he expressed regret for the
calamities which he anticipated as the consequence of ministerial
resolutions, and again professed his attachment to the mother country,
under whose rule America had enjoyed so many happy days. Yet there can
be no question but that Franklin’s principal motive for leaving England
was to widen the breach which existed between her and the colonies, and
to aid them in the struggle for independence.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICANS.

In the mean time military preparations had been continued in America.
Inflamed by publications and harangues on every side, the Americans
had been active in preparing for the approaching contest. No thought
of concession or conciliation was entertained: provincial and private
meetings all breathed the language of defiance to the mother country,
and threatened resistance to taxation, external or internal, as well as
to every other act of coercion. A great impetus was given to the popular
movement by the resolutions of congress. A few assemblies there were,
indeed, as that of New York, who at first refused to admit these
resolutions, but they were soon induced to join the confederation. Every
province prepared its levies and its cannon and its military stores for
the deadly strife. And at length that strife commenced. While the
houses of parliament in England were yet echoing with the oratory of its
empassioned members, the hillsides of America were reverberating with
peals of musketry. The banner of revolt was first unfolded in the
province where the spirit of resistance first showed itself—that of
Massachusets Bay. The aversion which General Gage had shown to the
adoption of violent measures and the forbearance of the troops had
rather tended to increase than to allay hostile feelings in that
province, and at length the proceedings of the people became so
alarming, that the general was compelled to adopt measures to put it out
of their power to effect mischief.




EXPEDITION TO SEIZE STORES AT SALEM.

Having received intelligence that a _depôt_ of arms had been collected
at Salem, on the 26th of February, General Gage ordered a small
detachment of troops thither for the purpose of securing it. It was on
the Sabbath when this order was given, and the detachment proceeded by
water to Marble Head, whence they marched to Salem. Before they could
arrive at the town, however, the artillery was removed into the country.
On discovering this, the field-officer in command of the detachment,
hoping to overtake it, marched on, up the country, till he was stopped
by a river. There was a drawbridge over this river, but upon his
approach it was hauled up by a number of people on the opposite bank.
The officer desired them to let this bridge down, which was refused,
and perceiving a boat in the river he was about to make use of it for
transporting his troops across the river. Seeing this, some country
people who were nearer to it, jumped into the boat, and began to cut
holes in her bottom with axes. A scuffle ensued between them and some
soldiers, which would have ended in loss of life, had not a clergyman
judiciously interposed to prevent such a catastrophe. By his
interference the Americans were induced to let down the drawbridge, and
the officer and his men then passed over. The day, however, was now far
spent, and the artillery had been carried too great a distance for him
to overtake it, and the officer deemed it expedient to march his men
back to Marble Head, whence they re-embarked for Boston-neck. They were
not molested on their retreat, but the country people considered this as
a triumph and victory over them, and it materially assisted in raising
the courage of the colonists.




AFFAIR AT LEXINGTON, ETC.

The next attempt to seize the military stores of the Americans, was
attended with more serious consequences. Having heard that a quantity
was deposited at the town of Concord, about eighteen miles from Boston,
in the night between the 18th and 19th of April, General Gage detached
the grenadiers and light infantry under Lieutenant-Colonel Smith and
Major Pitcairn, to seize them. The detachment was embarked in boats
and conveyed up Charles River to Phipp’s Farm, where they landed, and
proceeded in silence and haste towards Concord. But although this was
done in the dead of the night, the New Englanders were not asleep. The
detachment had not marched many miles when their ears were saluted with
the firing of guns and the ringing of bells, the signals for alarm. When
they arrived at Lexington they perceived the militia drawn up on a green
on the high road, and Major Pitcairn riding up commanded them as rebels
to lay down their arms and disperse. The latter part of this order was
obeyed, but as the Americans were retiring several guns were fired upon
the king’s troops from behind a wall, and from some adjoining houses.
One man was wounded, and Major Pitcairn’s horse was shot in two places.
Orders were now given to fire, and eight men were killed and many others
wounded. By this time the grenadiers had joined the light infantry, and
both proceeded together towards Concord. As they drew near a large body
of American militia was seen drawn up under arms on a gentle eminence,
and the light infantry was sent to disperse them. In this they
succeeded, and they kept them in check until the grenadiers had
accomplished the object of their expedition. After this they commenced
their march back to Boston; but their backs were scarcely turned when
a loud shout was heard that the “lobsters” were afraid of them. The
militia had, by this time, been reinforced from the country behind,
and militiamen, minute-men, and volunteers of every description, were
pouring in from all quarters, to post themselves behind trees and walls,
and in houses, near which the troops were to pass. Presently the work of
slaughter commenced: an incessant though irregular fire began in front
and on both flanks, and the main body of the militia fired upon them
from the rear. And what made the attack more discouraging was, that the
most destructive fire proceeded from men whom they could not reach, and
whose presence was only known by the smoke and effects of their rifles.
This continued through all their route back to Lexington, and had not
General Gage had the forethought of sending a second detachment to
sustain the first, there can be but little doubt that the whole body
would have been annihilated. This second detachment met the first at
Lexington, and Lord Percy, who was at the head of it, having formed
his troops into a hollow square, enclosed the pursued—who were driven
before the Americans like a flock of sheep, and gave them time for rest.
When they were somewhat refreshed, Lord Percy slowly moved the whole
body towards Boston. But even now they were not wholly freed from
danger. The militia, who had been treading on their rear, were no longer
seen, but every house, every wall, and every tree the troops had to
pass, sent forth upon them bullets and rifle shots; the Americans taking
care not to expose their own persons to danger. When they reached Boston
they had left behind them sixty killed, and forty-nine missing, in
addition to which they had one hundred and thirty-six wounded. The
provincials had about fifty killed, and thirty-eight wounded; but their
loss was more than compensated by the encouragement which this affair
tended to give the Americans in general. Elated with the result, they
termed it “the glorious victory of Lexington;” and they talked of
nothing less than driving the king’s troops from Boston, and restoring
the liberty and trade of that town. Instead of an immediate assault,
however, they formed themselves into a blockade. Twenty thousand men,
under the command of Colonels Ward, Pribble, Heath, Prescot, and Thomas,
officers who had served in the provincial regiments during the last war,
put themselves in cantonment, and formed a line nearly twenty miles in
extent, with their left leaning on the river Mystic, and their right
on the town of Roxburghe, thus enclosing Boston in the centre. Their
head-quarters were fixed at Cambridge, and they were soon joined by
a strong detachment of troops from Connecticut, under the command of
General Putnam, who, as soon as he heard of the battle of Lexington,
like another Cincinnatus, left his plough in the middle of the field,
in order to fight the battles of his country. Putnam took up such a
position with his detachment as to be able to support any part of
the line that might be attacked; but General Gage remained perfectly
inactive, neither attacking this line, which he might probably have done
with effect, as it was without any military consistency, nor erecting
any outworks to prevent any sudden advance upon Boston-neck.




MEETING OF THE ASSEMBLIES AND OF GENERAL CONGRESS.

While the Americans were thus in hostile array, the provincial congress
of Massachusets adjourned from Concord to Water Town, about ten miles
from Boston. It was resolved by this congress that an army of 30,000
men should be raised and established, whereof 13,600 should be of the
province of Massachusets Bay. It was further resolved that a letter
and delegates should be sent to the several colonies of Hampshire,
Connecticut, and Rhode Island, for further assistance and co-operation.
Despatches were also sent to Franklin, in England, containing an account
of the Lexington battle, and enclosing an address to the people of Great
Britain, complaining of the conduct of the troops, professing great
loyalty, but appealing to Heaven for the justice of their cause,
and declaring their determination to die rather than sacrifice their
liberty. At the same time the provincial congress made great exertions
to clothe and pay the besieging army, voting a large sum in paper
currency, for the redemption of which the faith of the whole province
was pledged. They also formally declared that General Gage, by the late
transactions, had utterly disqualified himself from acting as governor,
or in any other capacity, and that no obedience was due to him, but
that he ought to be considered an inveterate enemy. A similar spirit
was exhibited in other provinces. At New York military associations were
formed, and a provincial congress called; in Jersey the populace took
possession of the treasury; and in Philadelphia, the very Quakers
renounced their principles of peace, and took up arms as volunteers,
under the pretence of self-defence. It was in this state of affairs that
Lord North’s conciliatory propositions arrived. These were read first in
the assembly of Pennsylvania by governor Penn, who expressed an anxious
wish that all due consideration should be given them, and that, if
possible, they might become instruments of restoring tranquillity to
the country. It was determined by the assembly of Pennsylvania, however,
that the union of the colonies to which they were pledged should not
be deserted. Similar results followed the reading of them in other
provincial assemblies, and all concurred in referring them to the
general congress, which was in itself a rejection, since its legality
would never be acknowledged by the British parliament.

The general congress met on the 10th of May. Its first acts were to
frame resolutions for organising an army, and the emission of a paper
currency, guaranteed by the united colonies; to stop all exportation
of provisions to the British fisheries, and to every colony or island
subject to the British government; to resolve, that by violation
of their charter, the people of Massachusets Bay were absolved from
allegiance to the crown, and might lawfully establish a new government;
and to prohibit the negociations of bills of exchange or any orders
issued by the officers of army and navy-agents, or contractors. They
also established a general post-office under the superintendence of
Dr. Franklin, who arrived soon after the meeting of congress, and who
greatly helped forward the march of revolution. The congress, though
still delaying their proclamation of absolute independence, pursued
a course after the arrival of Franklin which no longer left their
intentions doubtful to any man, by forming the plan of a confederation
and perpetual union, the chief articles of which fully showed that such
was their aim. After drawing up this plan the congress attended to
the army, and they fixed upon Colonel George Washington to be their
commander-in-chief. A committee was next appointed to prepare a
declaration of the causes that induced them to take up arms against
their mother country. After the adoption of this declaration, in which
it was said “that they had counted the cost of the contest, and found
nothing so dreadful as slavery,” Jefferson was placed on a committee
with Dr. Franklin and others, to consider and report on Lord North’s
pacificatory resolutions, which was denounced in the same spirit as it
had been scouted previously by the provincial assemblies. Two days after
this, and in the month of July, congress prepared a second address to
the people of Great Britain, in which they vindicated themselves from
the charge of aiming at independence—professed their willingness
to submit to the acts of trade and navigation passed before
1763—recapitulated their reasons for rejecting Lord North’s proposals,
and intimated the hazard the people of England would run of losing
their own liberty if America should be overcome. Yet though this address
breathed defiance to government, on the very same day another petition
was drawn up to the king, which was more moderate than that of the
preceding year, and even approached him in a supplicating tone.
Addresses were also got up to the inhabitants of Canada, Jamaica, and
Ireland, and finally to the lord mayor and livery of the city of
London. It is difficult to reconcile the sentiments contained in these
declarations, petitions, and addresses. While some passages breathed the
spirit of bold and uncompromising defiance, others expressed loyalty of
the most ardent nature to his majesty, and unalterable attachment to the
mother country. The spirit by which congress was actuated is, however,
clearly defined by their proceedings, and by the character of the men
who composed it. There was one gentle Dickinson among the number, who
still hoped for a reconciliation with Great Britain, but the majority of
its members were akin in spirit to the fiery Jefferson, whose turbulency
often showed itself during their deliberations. There was, however, no
room to doubt as to the determination of the Americans to assert their
independence, for, while this congress was sitting, events had occurred
which proclaimed that determination to all the world in language which
could not be misunderstood. Blood had again stained the soil of America.

[Illustration: 3–079–bunker-hill.jpg BATTLE OF BUNKER’S HILL]




BATTLE OF BUNKER’S HILL.

Towards the end of May 10,000 fresh troops arrived from Britain, under
the command of Generals Howe, Burgoyne, and Clinton. As the gauntlet
had been thrown down by America, and war had been resolved upon by the
English, it might have been expected that active operations would have
been commenced forthwith. Such was not the case. An English soldier
remarked:—“We were kept on the Neck twisting our tails and powdering
our heads, while the Yankees were gathering in our front and in our
flanks like clouds.” It seems to be generally acknowledged that this
inactivity was fatal to the cause of the British arms in America, and
that if General Gage had employed the troops, so soon as he received
such valuable reinforcements, he might have scattered the militiamen and
raw troops which hemmed him in, like chaff before the wind. Instead
of that, time was given them to increase their force,—to perfect
themselves in military evolutions,—to give consistency to their loose
lines, and to render the blockade more effective. At length, however,
this dreamy inactivity was broken. On the 8th of June, grown bold by
impunity, the provincial congress of Massachusets Bay resolved that the
compact between the crown of Great Britain and that colony was dissolved
by the violation of their charter; and they recommended the people to
establish a new and independent government. Four days after this
General Gage, still hoping to restore tranquillity without proceeding to
extremities, issued a proclamation, offering a full pardon in the king’s
name to all who would forthwith lay down their arms, excepting only
Samuel Adams and John Hancock, whose offences were described as “being
too flagitious to admit of any other consideration than that of condign
punishment.” The proclamation declared that all those who should not
accept the proffered mercy, or who should protect, assist, supply,
conceal, or correspond with such, were to be treated as rebels and
traitors. It also imported that as a stop was put to the due course
of justice, martial law should be established till tranquillity was
restored. This proclamation was considered by the Americans a prelude to
hostilities, and preparations were made by them for a final contest with
their mother country. And strange to relate they were still allowed
to act on the offensive. On the night of the 16th of June a strong
detachment of the blockading army passed unchallenged and unobserved
over Charlestown-neck, and occupied Bunker’s Hill, which was situate at
the entrance of the peninsula on which that town stood, and overlooked
every part of Boston. In the morning General Gage saw this important and
formidable height, which he had entertained some thoughts of occupying
himself, covered with works which seemed to have risen as it were by
magic, and with troops that were beginning to fire on Boston-neck and
the shipping. The general now awoke from his slumbers. A battery of six
guns was opened upon the Americans from Copp’s-hill in Boston, and about
the hour of noon a detachment from the English army was carried across
Charles River, which is about the breadth of the Thames in London, and
landed upon the peninsula of Charlestown. This detachment was under the
command of General Howe and Brigadier Pigott, who had orders, at all
risks, to drive the provincials from their works, and to occupy
the hill. The troops marched slowly, formed in two lines, but, on
approaching Bunker’s Hill, Howe perceived that the works were of more
importance than had been imagined, and that fresh columns of Americans
were arriving every minute, and he therefore halted, and sent to Gage
for a reinforcement. New troops were sent, and the whole, amounting to
more than two thousand men, proceeded to the attack. In doing so Howe
seems to have adopted the very worst mode which could have ben devised
for attacking the provincials. Instead of leading the troops in the rear
of the intrenchment, where there was no cannon to bear upon them, he led
them up the hill right in front, where the American artillery was placed
full in their faces. This was a most disastrous step. The troops were
formed in two lines, with the light infantry on the right wing, led by
Howe, and the grenadiers on the left, led by Pigott. In their front
were a few small field-pieces and howitzers, which began to fire at
intervals, during which the troops halted. In advancing the left wing
was fired on from some houses in Charlestown, and in the conflict which
ensued that town was set on fire and was soon burnt to the ground. The
whole detachment now moved up the hill, and the Americans, secure behind
their entrenchments reserved their fire till the British troops were
almost close to the muzzle of their guns. They then opened a terrible
discharge of cannon and musketry, and their volleys were so rapid and
skilfully directed that the British troops recoiled, and many fled
to the boats which had conveyed them, over the river. At this moment
General Clinton crossed Charles River with a number of resolute
officers, and having succeeded in rallying the fugitives he made them
re-ascend the hill, and join in a general charge made on the Americans,
with fixed bayonets. This time they succeeded. The provincials were
driven from their works, and they ran for their lives down the hill
in their rear. The troops took possession of Bunker’s Hill, but it was
purchased at a great cost: 1050, including eighty-nine commissioned
officers, being either killed or wounded, while the Americans scarcely
suffered a third part of that loss.

{GEORGE III. 1775–1776}




GENERAL WASHINGTON.

General Washington was great-grandson to John Washington, a gentleman of
respectable family, who had emigrated from England about the middle
of the preceding century, and had settled at Potomac, in Westmoreland
county, in the colony of Virginia. At this place the general was born,
and after receiving a plain education, he learned something of the
business of land-surveying, and was in the eighteenth year of his age
appointed surveyor of the western part of the territory of Virginia, by
Lord Fairfax, the proprietor of that country. After this, however,
he embraced the profession of arms, and distinguished himself in the
Canadian war, and especially on the day of Braddock’s defeat, when,
at the head of the provincial militia, he covered the retreat of the
British troops, and saved them from destruction. Subsequently, when the
French were driven from Canada and the war was over, Washington quitted
the army, and began his political life as a member of the general
assembly, to which honour his valour had been the chief instrument of
raising him. Shortly after his retirement he married a young lady, who
brought him a large fortune, and for sixteen years his attention was
principally divided between the management of his estates and his
duties as a member of the provincial legislature. When the quarrel first
commenced between America and the mother country he took no decided
part, and when it became serious, he was one of those who still hoped
to preserve the ties of allegiance which bound the colonies to the parent
state unbroken. When the rupture became inevitable, however—when the
sword had been drawn and blood had been shed, Washington stood forward
as the champion of independence. Perhaps he was the more induced to take
this step from an innate love of rank and power. He had joined the first
congress at Philadelphia, and his high character and the conspicuous
part he had borne in the Canadian war, caused him then to be appointed
on all committees where military knowledge was requisite. Doubtless he
foresaw that should matters be brought to extremities he would be called
upon to take a prominent part in the strife. And in this view he was not
mistaken. As before related, at the second general congress, when it
was necessary to select a commander, he was unanimously chosen by his
colleagues to the high office. It is said that he accepted the command
with great diffidence, and it is certain that he did so in the spirit
of a true patriot, for he declined all compensation beyond his actual
expenses.

The choice which congress made of a commander was favourable to the
cause of American independence. At this time Washington was in the prime
and vigour of life, and his fame and deportment were such that he could
command reverence even from the most fanatical part of the American
troops, who were disposed to own no other leader except “the Lord of
Hosts.” His bravery was proverbial, and his after operations sustained
his fame. It was immediately after the battle of Bunker’s Hill that he
was appointed commander-in-chief, and when he arrived at head-quarters
in Cambridge, he found the blockading army considerably discouraged by
the defeat sustained, and otherwise in no very satisfactory condition.
Much had been done, but still more remained to be done. Complaining of
his numerous deficiences, he thus wrote to congress:—“We have no store
of ammunition, no tools for intrenching, no engineers to direct the
construction of military works; we have no money, and want clothing:
there is a total laxity of discipline; and the majority is not to be
depended on in another action.” If the English had, at this time, made a
general assault, the Americans must inevitably have been driven from all
their positions, and the war would soon have been over. After the battle
of Bunker’s Hill, however, the same listless inactivity prevailed as
before, as though the capture of that hill was a full and final triumph.
Thus favoured, Washington set about remedying his defects in good
earnest. During the summer and autumn, he was occupied in organising his
troops, collecting his military stores, and concentrating his forces.
Perceiving that it would be madness to attempt an assault on the
positions of the British troops, as some advised, he directed the
formation of entrenchments and works to defend his own from attack. In
order to give consistency to his lines he contracted them: the centre,
including the reserve, and under his own command, being at Cambridge;
the right wing, commanded by General Ward, resting on Roxburghe; and the
left, under General Lee, near the Mystic river. The British troops were
thus completely blockaded by land, and cruisers being fitted out by
congress for the purpose of intercepting military stores and supplies
destined for the British forces, considerable distress soon began to
prevail among them; yet nothing was done to rescue them from their
perilous situation. During the rest of the year the bands played “God
save the King,” and the Americans, as if in the spirit of mockery,
responded to the national anthem, by playing “Yankee Doodle.” In the
midst of this inactivity, on the 10th of October, General Gage was
recalled, and the command of the British troops devolved on General
Howe.

{GEORGE III. 1775—1776.}

[Illustration: 3–081–ticonderoga.jpg TICONDEROGA]




EXPEDITIONS AGAINST TICONDEROGA AND CROWN POINT, ETC.

Early in this year a party of Connecticut gentlemen, having procured a
loan of money, concocted a scheme for surprising the important post
of Ticonderoga, which was situate on a promontory near the junction of
lakes George and Champlain, and the key of communication between New
York and Canada. A few men were raised, which chiefly consisted of a
hardy race called Green Mountain Boys, and Ethan Allen, a Presbyterian
volunteer, was placed at their head. This force was unexpectedly joined
by Colonel Arnold, who after the battle of Lexington had received
a commission for the same purpose from the provincial congress of
Massachusets Bay. Arnold agreed to act under Allen, and they proceeded
together towards Ticonderoga. Captain Le Place, who commanded at
this fort, was a friend of Ethan Allens, and taking advantage of this
circumstance, Allen left his men in a wood hard by, and went to
the captain, and induced him to lend twenty of his soldiers for the
pretended purpose of assisting him in transporting some goods across the
lake. Allen having obtained his request, next made the soldiers drunk,
and then on the approach of night he drew his people from the woods,
and hastened to the fort. There were yet about forty soldiers with the
captain, but expecting no mischief there was not a single sentry on
duty, and the followers of Allen rushed into the place undetected,
and bade the soldiers lay down their arms. The captain asked by what
authority they required him to surrender the king’s fort, to which Ethan
Allen replied, like a Puritan of old times, “I demand it in the name of
the Great Jehovah, and of the congress.” There was no alternative, and
the captain responded to the demand: the place was captured with all
its store of ammunition and provisions. Ethan Allen next turned his
attention to the fort of Crown Point, which was reduced without any
difficulty, as there were neither found guard nor garrison therein.
Allen also surprised Skenesborough, a place occupied by Major
Skene, with his son and a few negroes, who were all made prisoners.
Intelligence of these events soon reached, congress; but though they
rejoiced at the spirit of enterprise displayed by Allen and his men,
they still feared that they might be charged with aggression at a time
when they were expressing a desire of accommodation; and under these
circumstances they recommended the committees of New York and Albany to
remove the stores to the south of Lake George, in order that they might
be restored when the breach was healed between Great Britain and her
colonies.




EXPEDITION AGAINST CANADA.

On the return of Allen from this enterprise, Colonel Arnold consented to
remain in garrison. Arnold, however, was not of a temperament to remain
inactive. Seeing a small sloop of war lying at anchor, at St. John’s,
at the north end of Lake Champlain, and feeling the importance of the
possession of this vessel, which was the only armed vessel the English
government then had in that water, he armed a little schooner, put some
of the guns he had captured upon large flat-bottomed boats, embarked his
men, and surprised and captured the sloop. Having begun his career with
such success, Arnold projected more extensive operations. In the month
of June he urged on congress the advantages of an expedition to
Canada, and offered with 2000 men to reduce the whole province. His
recommendations were adopted: 3000 men were sent, under the command of
General Schuyler and Montgomery, to Crown Point and Lake Champlain.

This force embarked in flat-bottomed boats to cross the lake and descend
the river Sorel, but when they landed they were attacked by a strong
body of Indians, who obliged them to steer their way back and return
to the Isle Aux Noix. Here Schuyler fell sick, and the command then
devolved on Montgomery, a man full of courage and enterprise, and whom
the Americans compare to Wolfe.

On the arrival of this invading force, General Carleton, governor of
Canada, had only two regiments of about four hundred men each, at his
disposal. These he ordered to Fort St. John, about twelve miles in
advance of Montreal, where they were augmented by a few officers sent
by General Gage. These officers arrived in July, and about the same time
Colonel Johnstone arrived at the same place with seven hundred Indians
of the Five Nations, all skilful in the use of the musket as well as the
tomahawk. These Indians were ancient enemies to the frontier Americans,
and they proposed an immediate attack on Ticonderoga and Crown Point.
Carleton, however, thought proper not only to reject their offer, but to
refuse their services in any shape. This was a sad oversight. Foregoing
their enmity to the Americans, these seven hundred Indian warriors
joined Montgomery, and he immediately resolved to lay siege to Fort
St. John, the only place that covered Montreal. At the same time, Ethan
Allen, who had now returned to the scene of action, conceived that
he could take Montreal by a _coup de main_ in an easier direction. He
attempted this with a hundred and fifty men in the dead of the night,
but the adventurous Presbyterian was not only defeated, but captured,
and put in irons as a felon and a traitor. In the mean time Montgomery
had detached three hundred men with two six-pounders to reduce Fort
Chamblée, situate on the tributary river Sorel, about five miles above
Fort St. John. His principal object in advancing against this fort was
to obtain sufficient ammunition wherewith to reduce that of St. John,
and he succeeded to his utmost wishes. The fort was reduced, and
Montgomery found plenty of ball, powder, cartridges, and arms in it, and
he then pressed the siege of St. John’s with great vigour. The garrison
offered a brave resistance, but it was all in vain: the fort was
surrendered, and Montgomery dashed across the river and entered Montreal
without opposition. As this town carried on an extensive trade, the
American troops obtained a good supply of proper clothing, after which
their commander, having secured the goodwill of the inhabitants by his
liberal treatment of them, resolved to advance upon Quebec, the capital
of the province. He carried out his resolution, although his volunteers,
anxious to get back to their firesides, quitted his ranks by hundreds,
and he had to leave a garrison in Montreal, so that when he put his
men in marching order his force did not exceed four hundred men. But
Montgomery hoped to meet Arnold under the walls of Quebec, and nothing
daunted by the desertion of his soldiers, and the smallness of his
force, he began to descend the St. Lawrence.

In the meantime Arnold had been entrusted with the execution of a daring
plan of his own forming. At the head of 1200 men, consisting chiefly of
New Englanders, he traversed the inhospitable deserts of the northern
states into Canada; deserts which had never previously been trodden by
the foot of a white man. Owing to the obstacles he encountered in his
dreary journey, he did not reach the first Canadian settlements on the
river Chaudière, which flows into the St. Lawrence, until the 3rd of
November. On arriving there his troops were famished, having been long
subjected to hunger, and reduced even to the necessity of eating the
leather of their shoes. The first step of Arnold was, therefore, to
divide them into separate companies, each of which ran off as fast as it
could to obtain food, shelter, and rest in the vicinity of the mouth of
the Chaudière. Arnold himself rested for two or three days at a small
village, in order to circulate the manifestoes he had brought with him,
and to allow his rear and stragglers to arrive. Having rested a few
days, on the 9th of November Arnold reached Point Levi, on the right
bank of the St. Lawrence, and immediately opposite to the town of
Quebec. It has been conjectured that if he could have crossed the river
at once, Quebec would have been captured. The wind, however, was so
strong at the time of his approach, that he could not venture, and this
gave time to Colonel Maclean and his Highlanders, who had been falling
back from Fort Chamblée, taken by Montgomery, to get into the menaced
city. On the 14th, the wind having, abated, Arnold crossed the St.
Lawrence and landed in safety. On reaching Quebec he formed his men on
the Heights of Abraham. But they were ill provided for maintaining a
siege, having no artillery, and therefore Arnold proposed nothing
more than to cut off supplies from the garrison till the arrival of
Montgomery. For this purpose he descended from the Heights of Abraham
and retired to Point Aux Trembles, twenty miles above Quebec. At this
place he was very near taking General Carleton and his staff prisoners,
for they had only quitted that place a few hours before his arrival.
Carleton, however, escaped, and arrived in safety at Quebec, where he
instantly set about making every preparation for its defence. Soon
after the two American corps joined, and they marched together to lay
immediate seige to Quebec. Montgomery had brought a little artillery
with him, and about the 20th of December they opened a six-gun battery
within seven hundred yards of the walls. Their artillery, however,
was too light to effect a breach, and they were all, moreover, soon
dismounted by the town-guns, fired by some seamen under the direction
of Colonel Maclean. The American commanders now removed their guns to a
safer distance, still continuing their ineffectual fire, with the hope
of amusing the garrison, and concealing their design of making an
assault in another direction. They now, in fact, were contemplating a
desperate enterprise, and one to which it was a long time before they
could obtain the consent of the officers and men. It was not, indeed,
till the New Englanders were promised the privilege of plundering the
town, that they would accede to the wishes of their commanders. But
this golden bait was swallowed, and the men promised to do all that was
wished. Accordingly, on the last day of this year, between four and five
o’clock in the morning, and in the midst of a violent storm of wind and
snow, it was determined to storm the place. The force was divided
into four small columns for this purpose: two of which, under Majors
Livingston and Brown, were to make feigned attacks upon the upper town,
while the other two, led by Montgomery and Arnold, were to make real
attacks on opposite sides of the lower town, where all the wealth of
Quebec was deposited. Montgomery had succeeded in passing the first
barrier, that of the block-house, and had reached the Pot-ash battery,
which he was on the point of attacking, when he was shot dead, with
Captain Macpherson, his aide-de-camp, and several other officers, with a
well-charged gun from that battery. The rest of the column which he
led instantly fell back, and in the mean time Arnold himself had been
severely wounded. He was passing through the narrow street of the
Faubourg St. Roque towards the Saut de Matelot, where there was a strong
barrier with a battery of two twelve-pounders, one of which on his
approach was fired, and shattered his leg in so fearful a manner that he
was carried off the field to the rear in anguish. One Morgan now led
the column, and he rushed forward and took this battery, and then pushed
rapidly to another about forty paces distant. But here he was foiled.
Guns loaded with-grape shot met him and his men in the teeth, while
a fire of musketry was opened on both their flanks, so that they were
compelled to retreat into some stone houses in the suburb of St. Roque.
The attempt signally failed. In the end Morgan and his followers, to the
number of 340 men, surrendered themselves prisoners of war, and nearly
one hundred were slain. The rest still continued to blockade the city,
encamping in the best manner they could behind the Heights of Abraham,
and being still commanded by Arnold. They maintained their position for
four long wintry months, and reduced the city to great distress, but
they were finally compelled to give up the enterprise.




DISPOSITION AND REVOLT OF THE VIRGINIANS.

In the great southern state of Virginia Lord Dunmore, the governor, made
a bold stand in support of the authority of the mother country. Knowing
that it was about to be used against him, he seized all the gunpowder in
the magazine at Williamsburgh, and put it on board a schooner then lying
in James’s River. This, however, involved him in a quarrel with the
corporation of that town, who demanded the powder back again. This was
refused, and Patrick Henry, the orator, encouraged by the news of the
victory at Lexington, excited some young Virginians to fly to arms, and
placing himself at the head of them, set out on his march to recover the
powder by force. He was prevented from making the attempt by some of the
delegates to the general congress, who advised him to be satisfied with
a sum of money offered in lieu of it by the king’s receiver-general. A
few days after, however, Lord Dunmore was compelled to deliver up all
the arms and powder that had been left on shore, and to take refuge with
his family in the Fowey man-of-war then lying at York. At the same time,
government-house was fortified and surrounded with artillery. A series
of irritating messages and letters then passed between his lordship and
the burgesses; the former declaring that his life was not safe among
them, and the latter asserting that he had nothing to fear. Lord
Dunmore, however, felt that he had cause for fear, and he resolved
to defy the provincials. Having divested himself of all authority,
he collected a small naval force, and carried on a sort of predatory
warfare against the province. Previous to his taking refuge in the Fowey
man-of-war he had stung the Virginians to the quick, by declaring that
since they were so eager to abolish a fancied slavery, in a dependence
on Great Britain, he would one day try how they liked an abolition of
real slavery, by giving freedom to all their negroes and indentured
servants, who were little better than white slaves. This plan he
endeavoured also to put into operation. Having established his
head-quarters at Norfolk, he proclaimed freedom to all slaves who would
repair to his standard, and fight for the king. Most of the negroes
who had the opportunity of escaping from their masters repaired to
his standard; and if he could have opened a road to the slaves in the
interior of the province, his measures would doubtless have been fatal
to the planters. The Virginians, however, were on the alert, and they
sent a force against him which compelled him to retire on-board again for
safety. The Virginians then took possession of the town of Norfolk, but
Lord Dunmore, incensed at their conduct, set fire to the wharfs, and the
flames spreading, the whole town was soon reduced to ashes, and
property was consumed to the value of £300,000. This was an unfortunate
occurrence, for it totally alienated the Virginians from the British
government. Lord Dunmore lingered in the river, or on the coast, till
the following summer, when, unable any longer to obtain provisions, he
joined the English army under Lord Howe. The cause for his lingering
thus long in the river appears to have been the hope he entertained of
being able to restore the affairs of government in the province. He
had some reasons for entertaining such a hope, for there were many
Virginians averse to the revolution or to its leaders, and who anxiously
desired that the cause of government might prevail. This was clearly
manifested at his departure for the main army at Boston-neck, for many
prepared to follow him by land, convinced that there was no safety for
men who entertained notions of loyalty. The houses, indeed, of all
those who wished to preserve their connection with England, on whatever
principles their wish might be grounded, were burnt to the ground, while
their estates were destroyed and their lives kept in constant danger.




CONDUCT OF CONGRESS TOWARDS NEW YORK, ETC.

Although the province of New York had sent delegates to congress, and
had been among the very first to attack the British settlements in
Canada, yet great uneasiness was felt with respect to that colony. It
was well known that many zealous loyalists lived in the province, and it
was also defenceless and open to the king’s troops by sea. Under these
circumstances congress appointed a Committee of Safety, consisting of
some of the most determined of the revolutionists, who were appointed to
take especial charge of this province. General Wooster was also directed
to march into New York, with some regiments of Connecticut men, With
the double object of keeping down the royalists, and preventing,
if possible, the landing of any British troops. The presence of the
Connecticut men, who quartered themselves near Haerlem, five miles from
New York, did more harm, however, to the cause of the revolution than
it did good, for it led to some severe quarrels between them and the New
Yorkers, as well as provoked the naval force in the neighbouring waters.
Congress, in fact, had much difficulty in preserving their cause in New
York. On one occasion they even issued an order that all such arms as
were fit for the use of the troops raised in the colony of New York, and
which should be found in the hands or custody of any person who had not
signed the general association, should be seized for the use of the said
troops. At a later period, congress even went a step further than this;
for they intimated to the members of the revolutionary government,
that they were to arrest and secure every person in their respective
colonies, whose going at large might, in their opinion, endanger the
safety of the colony or the liberties of America. Warned in time, Tryon,
the governor of New York, whom congress before had talked of seizing,
retired on board the Halifax packet, still communicating, however,
with the royalists on shore. In other colonies there was still less
difficulty in sweeping away the king’s governors. In North Carolina,
Governor Martin, after seeing his proclamation burnt by the common
hangman, sought shelter on board a ship-of-war that was lying off Cape
Fear: in South Carolina, Lord William Campbell, after vainly seeking to
rally the royalists, was obliged to follow his example; and though in
many of the other colonies the governors were not compelled to flee for
their lives, yet their authority was eventually superseded, and they
were compelled to bow to the storm by retiring from their seats of
government. One common spirit pervaded the United Provinces of America,
though it was more rampant in some colonies than others. The grand focus
of rebellion was still at Massachusets Bay, where, towards the close of
the year, in the course of predatory hostility, the town of Falmouth was
cannonaded and totally destroyed, in revenge for some offence relative
to supplies, and on the refusal of its inhabitants to deliver up its
arms. In return for this injury congress passed an act, in November,
granting letters of marque and reprisal, and establishing courts of
admiralty for the trial and condemnation of British ships. Congress also
determined to meet the force of Britain on her own element, and issued
orders for building a fleet of thirteen ships. The garrison of Boston
was supplied with provisions from England, a proportion of which was
intercepted by the American cruizers and the troops suffered greatly,
likewise, from the inclemency of the season. The inhabitants, also,
shared in their calamities, and their sufferings were greatly increased
by several edicts, issued by General Howe. Such was the state of America
at the close of this eventful year.




PROCEEDINGS IN ENGLAND.

While America was in arms, England was in a state of agitation. It has
been seen that soon after Wilkes had presented the violent address and
remonstrance of the livery to the king, that his majesty informed him
that he would receive no more petitions of the lord mayor and aldermen
but in their corporate capacity. Wilkes converted this into a fresh
wrong; and at the very next meeting of the common-hall another address,
still more violent in its tone, was approved. The king resolved that he
would not receive this petition sitting on the throne, and when this
was reported to the livery they resolved that it was a direct denial of
their rights; that the remonstrance should be printed in the newspapers;
and that the city members should be instructed to move for an
impeachment of the evil counsellors who had planted Popery in America,
and were the advisers of a measure so dangerous to both the king and his
people, as that of refusing to hear petitions. This latter resolution,
however, was not founded in truth—the king had simply said that he
would not receive it sitting on the throne, and the livery had resolved
not to present it under any other circumstances. After all, the
common-council thought proper to agree to a more moderate remonstrance,
which his majesty received, and to which he replied, that, while the
constitutional authority of this kingdom was openly resisted by a
portion of his American subjects, he owed it to the rest of his people
to continue to enforce those measures by which alone their rights and
interests could be asserted and maintained. Irritated by these and other
proceedings, government, on the 23rd of August, issued a proclamation
for suppressing rebellion, preventing seditious correspondence, etc.
Wilkes, as lord mayor, received orders to have this proclamation read in
the usual manner at the Royal Exchange. This order was obeyed;
but the patriot at the same time contrived to hold it up to the public
contempt by causing it to be read by one of the city officers, attended
only by the common-crier, contrary to the common rules of decency and to
all precedent. Soon after this the petition of congress was laid before
the king by Richard Penn and Arthur Lee, to whom the task of presenting
it had been deputed. It was well known to all the world that the
Americans had lifted up the standard of revolt, and were assembled in
hostile array against his majesty’s forces. This petition, therefore,
though it contained some loyal expressions, did not express the real
sense of the body it proceeded from—the words of their mouths might be
smoother than butter, but war was manifestly in their hearts. Hence
his majesty very justly considered the whole thing to be an insulting
mockery, and as congress likewise had neither been recognised by himself
nor his parliament, he resolved to give it no answer. But it was the
fate of the king, at this time, to have all his actions and words
misinterpreted. Although no man in his senses, whether Whig or Tory,
could have been so blind as not to see he was perfectly justified
in adopting this resolution, since his troops in America had been
slaughtered both at Lexington and Bunker’s Hill, yet it was interpreted
into harshness and obstinacy. A loud outcry was raised against it by a
portion of the nation, including more especially the Whig portion of the
city of London. An address, containing 1171 signatures, and purporting to
emanate from “the gentlemen, merchants, and traders of London,” was
got up, which reiterated the sentiments contained in the city of London
petitions, and predicting the most lasting and deadly consequences
from the quarrel between England and America. Three days after this,
however, a counter-address was presented to his majesty from another
section of the merchants and traders of London, which was followed by
others of a similar class from all parts of the United Kingdom. In fact,
the great body of the nation was still on the side of the king and the
government. Intelligence of the determined hostility of the colonists
had the effect even of converting foes into friends. In the course of
the autumn, the very liverymen of London, to the number of 1029, signed
an ultra-loyal address, which contained stronger language than the
counter petition of the merchants and traders of that great city, or
of any other address presented on the same side of the question. It
said:—“A malignant spirit of resistance to law and government has gone
forth amongst the Americans, which we firmly believe has been excited
and encouraged by selfish men, who hope to derive private emoluments
from public calamities—from the councils, the persuasions, the
influence of such men, may God protect your majesty! The interest, the
honour, the sovereignty of your kingdom of Great Britain, are now at
stake—as the guardian of those, we trust you will ever assist and
preserve them.” The petitioners pledged themselves to use all their
exertions in support of the laws and government, and finally implored
his majesty’s clemency towards all those of the colonists who might
return to their duty. There can be no doubt that ministers were active
in procuring such addresses as these; but at the same time it is equally
certain that the sentiments they contained proceeded from the hearts of
the people. The outrages committed at Lexington and Bunker’s Hill had,
in truth, exasperated the people at large, and this exasperation was
increased tenfold when, at a later period, news arrived of the invasion
of Canada. They saw that it was a rude attempt to pluck a jewel from the
British crown, and it excited feelings of resentment in their breasts
deep and lasting. Not a few Englishmen who maintained that the Americans
were justified in taking up arms to assert their own rights were
converted by this step adopted by congress. In a word, the cause of
the mother country was generally considered just, and was, therefore,
popular.




PROSECUTION AND TRIAL OF HORNE TOOKE, ETC.

Government was so well supported by public opinion, that wonder is
excited at the serious notice which it took of some attempts made by a
few factious demagogues of creating popular commotion, and of raising
themselves into an unenviable celebrity. Among this class John Horne
Tooke stood pre-eminently forward. Horne Tooke was first the supporter,
and then the rival of John Wilkes, but he had now completely succeeded
him in the favour of a certain dubious class of patriots. This was the
natural consequence of tilings. John Wilkes having been raised to the
dignity of lord mayor, and having regained his seat in parliament,
although he was still in some degree a thorn in the sides of ministers,
had become more circumspect than heretofore. He no longer harangued
at the public meetings of the populace, and was hence looked upon as a
renegade, and Horne Tooke stepped into his place. The supplanter proved
as bold as the man he had supplanted—stern “patriot” as Wilkes had
been. This was seen in the midst of the agitation into which England was
thrown by the events which had happened in America. At a meeting of the
“Society for Constitutional Information,” which had been formed in the
metropolis from the wreck of the “Bill of Rights Club,” Tooke moved,
“that a subscription be raised for the relief of the widows, orphans,
and aged parents of their American fellow-subjects, who, preferring
death to slavery, were, for this reason only, murdered by the king’s
troops at Lexington and Concord, on the 19th of April, 1775.” No mention
was made of the widows and orphans of the British troops, which had been
mown down by the rifles of the Americans from their hiding-places. That
was altogether another question: they might or might not be supported
by government, since it was clearly evident, from Horne Tooke’s motion,
that they had no business to obey the orders of their superiors. Horne
Tooke’s humane motion as it stood, therefore, was adopted—a vote of
£100 was carried, and ordered to be transmitted to Dr. Franklin. The
members, however, generally comprehended the peril of the case, and
hesitated to sign the order. But Horne Tooke was as bold as he was
humane, and he took all the responsibility on his own shoulders by
affixing his name to it. The whole affair was clearly too ridiculous for
the notice of government; but he was nevertheless prosecuted, sentenced
to pay £200, to be imprisoned one year, and to find securities for good
behaviour during three more. This was just the thing the patriot wanted.
He had an opportunity of making a sarcastic speech, and his hopes were
elated by the prospect of enjoying a still larger share of the popular
favour. Probably he felt certain that he should one day carry the city
mace, like his ancient friend John Wilkes. The best way to crush a
demagogue is to let him pass unnoticed. Notwithstanding, the offence
of Tooke was a direct challenge to government, and if it had refused
to notice such an insult, its authority might have been despised by
the section he headed, and therefore greatly diminished. Government,
however, laid itself open to animadversion, by committing Mr. Sayre,
an American merchant, to the Tower, on a charge of high-treason. It was
declared on oath, by Mr. Richardson, an adjutant in the Guards, that Mr.
Sayre had told him he intended to seize the king at noon-day, in his way
to the house when it again met, to carry him out of the kingdom, occupy
the Tower, and overturn the government. This would have been clearly
the labour of “another Hercules,” and the information should have
been treated with a sneer of contempt; but Lord Rochford seems to have
considered that the enterprise of this most magnanimous American was not
impracticable, and he therefore committed him to the Tower. But whether
Mr. Sayer proved the adjutant’s statement to be false, or whether the
king conceived that he was in no danger, does not appear, but certain it
is that the American was set at liberty, after five days’ incarceration,
and Lord Rochford had to pay him £1000 damages, on a suit for illegal
imprisonment.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament met this year on the 26th of October. The speech from the
throne, on this occasion, was unusually long and energetic, and, as
might be expected, its chief topic was the revolt of the colonies. His
majesty remarked:—“Those who have too long successfully laboured to
inflame my people in America by gross misrepresentation, and to infuse
into their minds a system of opinions repugnant to the true constitution
of the colonies, and to their subordinate relation to Great Britain,
now openly avow their revolt, hostility, and rebellion. They have raised
troops, and are collecting a naval force; they have seized the public
revenue, and assumed to themselves legislative, executive, and judicial
powers, which they already exercise in a most arbitrary manner, over the
persons and properties of their fellow-subjects; and although many of
these unhappy people may still retain their loyalty, and may be too wise
not to see the fatal consequences of this usurpation, and may wish to
resist it; yet the torrent of violence has been strong enough to compel
their acquiescence, till a sufficient force shall appear to support
them. The authors and promoters of this desperate conspiracy have, in
the conduct of it, derived great advantage from the difference of our
intention and theirs. They only meant to amuse, by vague expressions
of attachment to the parent state, and the strongest protestations of
loyalty to me, whilst they were preparing for a general revolt. On
our part, though it was declared in your last session that a rebellion
existed within the province of Massachusets Bay, yet even that province
we wished to reclaim, rather than subdue. The resolutions of parliament
breathed a spirit of moderation and forbearance; conciliatory
propositions accompanied the measures to enforce authority; and the
coercive acts were adapted to cases of criminal combination among
subjects not then in arms. I have acted with the same temper—anxious
to prevent, if it had been possible, the effusion of the blood of my
subjects, and the calamities which are inseparable from a state of
war; still hoping that my people in America would have discerned the
traitorous views of their leaders, and have been convinced, that to be a
subject of Great Britain, with all its consequences, is to be the freest
member of any civil society in the known world. The rebellious war now
levied is become more general, and is manifestly carried on for the
purpose of establishing an independent empire. I need not dwell upon
the fatal effects of the success of such a plan. The object is too
important—the spirit of the British nation too high—the resources with
which God hath blessed her too numerous—to give up so many colonies,
which she has planted with great industry, nursed with great tenderness,
encouraged with many commercial advantages, and protected and defended
at such expense of blood and treasure.” His majesty continued, that it
was now necessary to put a stop to these disorders, and that, for this
purpose, he had greatly increased his naval establishment, and augmented
his land-forces. He had sent, he said, Hanoverian troops to Gibraltar
and Port Mahon, to replace such British regiments as should be drawn
from those garrisons for service in America; and he had received
friendly offers of foreign assistance. His majesty also professed his
readiness to forgive the colonists when they became sensible of their
error; for which purpose, to prevent inconvenience, he would give, he
said, a discretionary power to commissioners to grant general pardons,
who might, he thought, be likewise entrusted with authority to restore
the free exercise of its trade and commerce to any colony on making
its submission. He concluded by informing both houses, that he saw no
probability of any impediment to his measures from the hostility of
foreign powers, since they had expressed their friendly assurances.

The address proposed by ministers was, as usual, a mere echo of the
speech, and an amendment was proposed in the commons, by Lord John
Cavendish, recommending that the whole should be expunged except the
_pro forma_ introductory paragraph, and that the following should be
substituted,—“That they beheld with the utmost concern the disorders
and discontents in the colonies rather increased than diminished by
the means that had been used to suppress and allay them; a circumstance
alone sufficient to give them just reason to fear that those means were
not originally well considered, or properly adapted to their ends. That
they were satisfied by experience that the misfortune had, in a great
measure, arisen from the want of full and perfect information of the
true state and condition of the colonies being laid before parliament;
by reason of which, measures injurious and inefficacious had been
carried into execution, from whence no salutary end could have been
reasonably expected; tending to tarnish the lustre of the British arms,
to bring discredit on the wisdom of his majesty’s councils, and to
nourish, without hope of end, a most unhappy civil war. That, deeply
impressed with the melancholy state of public concerns, they would,
in the fullest information they could obtain, and with the most
mature deliberation they could employ, review the whole of the late
proceedings, that they might be enabled to discover, as they would be
most willing to apply, the most effectual means of restoring order
to the distracted affairs of the British empire, confidence to his
majesty’s government, obedience, by a prudent and temperate use of its
powers, to the authority of parliament, and satisfaction and happiness
to all his people. That by these means they trusted to avoid any
occasion of having recourse to the alarming and dangerous expedient
of calling in foreign forces to the support of his majesty’s authority
within his own dominions, and the still more dreadful calamity of
shedding British blood by British arms.” An acrimonious debate followed
this proposal, in which the opposition vehemently arraigned the
principle and conduct of the contest; assumed the facts contained in the
speech to be untrue; condemned the confiding such important fortresses
as Port Mahon and Gibraltar to foreigners; and exposed the idea of
conquest to ridicule. In reply, Lord North urged the necessity of
regaining the colonies, and exposed the extravagant pretensions of
the colonial assemblies, as well as of the general congress, and the
encroachments on all the rights of the parent state. He also defended
the conduct of ministers, maintaining that they had tried conciliation,
but that the attempt had signally failed: lenity on the part of
government and parliament being construed by the Americans into weakness
and fear. Parliament had, he said, during the last session obviated the
objections made to the right of taxing their colonies by permitting the
Americans to tax themselves in their own assemblies; and yet not one
assembly would offer a single shilling towards the common exigencies of
the state. He observed, that to repeal every act passed relating to the
colonies, since the year 1703, would indeed terminate the dispute, as
from that moment America would be raised to independence: at the same
time he vindicated those acts from the charge of being either ungenerous
or unjust. The amendment was rejected by a majority of two hundred and
seventy-eight against one hundred and eight, and the original question
was then carried without a division.

A similar amendment was moved in the house of lords by the Marquess of
Rockingham, and a debate equally warm ensued. Lord Gower frankly avowed
that he with his brethren in office had been misled in their conduct
with respect to American affairs. New York, he observed, had been forced
into hostile measures by the insurgents of Connecticut, and he predicted
that if the friends of government were well supported by a force from
England, the colonies would be brought to a sense of their duty without
the shedding of more blood. The Earl of Shelburne termed this prediction
rash, and advanced it as an incontrovertible fact, “that the commerce of
America was the vital stream of this empire.” At the same time, while he
considered that the independence of the colonies would be the result of
the contest, he confessed that this result would be the ruin of Great
Britain. The house was next startled with the declarations made by the
Duke of Grafton, now lord privy seal. His grace boldly condemned all
the proceedings with regard to America during the last twelve months,
asserting that he had been deceived and misled upon the whole subject,
and that ministers had induced him to lend his countenance to those
measures, by withholding information and misrepresenting facts. Grafton
also declared that nothing less than a total repeal of all the American
acts which had passed since the year 1763, could now restore peace
and happiness, or prevent the most fatal consequences to this country:
consequences, he said, which he could not think of without the utmost
degree of grief and horror. He concluded by declaring that in his
present ill state of health, nothing could have induced him to have left
his house, but a conviction of his being right,—a knowledge of the
dangerous state of the country, and a sense of what he owed to it, as
well as to his conscience. The Bishop of Peterborough, who had spoken
and voted for coercive measures in previous sessions, acknowledged a
similar change in his sentiments to those of the Duke of Grafton, and
imputed his previous views to misinformation, and deception on the part
of the ministers. This defection, however, did not produce much effect
in the house. Ministers descanted powerfully on the great question at
issue,—using similar arguments to those which had been employed in
the commons, and in the end the Marquess of Rockingham’s amendment was
rejected by a majority of sixty-nine to twenty-nine, while the original
address was carried by seventy-six to thirty-three, including proxies. A
protest was signed by nineteen peers.

On the report of the address in the commons, the opposition took
occasion to go over nearly the whole of the ground again. The main stand
which they took, however, in this debate, was the measure of entrusting
Gibraltar and Minorca, the keys of the Mediterranean, to Hanoverian
troops. This they maintained was repugnant to the Bill of Rights, and
an alarming precedent of foreigners introduced, and armies raised by
a British monarch without the consent of parliament. It was, in fact,
loudly denounced as illegal, and in the highest degree unconstitutional.
In answering this objection, Lord Thurlow reminded the house that the
clause in the Bill of Rights embraced no part of the king’s dominions
beyond the limits of Great Britain; that it did not extend to the
colonies; and that not a man had been brought, or was to be brought
into the kingdom without the consent of parliament. Wedderburne urged
similar arguments, and he, with others, represented the urgent necessity
of the case, and the danger of delay. A precedent was also quoted for
bringing troops into England at a critical period, inasmuch as Dutch
troops had been brought over from Holland by George II. in 1745, during
the rebellion in Scotland. In the midst of the storm by which he was
assailed, Lord North acknowledged himself the adviser of this measure,
and treated the opposition with much levity,—but he was obliged to
yield to the representations of some of his friends, and to state in
conclusion, that though he still considered he was right, yet as other
gentlemen, for whom he had ever had the greatest deference, seemed to be
of another opinion, he had no objection, notwithstanding any votes
now given, that the question should be brought again, in a regular and
parliamentary manner, before the house, when he would abide by their
determination; and if the measure was found unconstitutional, he would
rest a defence on the ground of necessity alone, and receive, as was
usual in such cases, the protection of an act of indemnity. This was
good parliamentary generalship. Many who would have voted against him,
now veered round to his side, and upon a division, the address was
passed as reported by a majority of one hundred and seventy-six against
seventy-two.

On the 1st of November a similar conflict occurred in the house of
lords. The Duke of Manchester moved in that house, “That bringing into
any part of the dominion of Great Britain the electoral troops of his
majesty, or any other foreign troops, without the previous consent of
parliament is dangerous and unconstitutional.” This motion was supported
by arguments that the clause in the Bill of Rights ought to extend to
the colonies; that the Hanoverian troops would not be under the control
of our military law, etc.; that it was not by any means advisable to put
them in possession of Gibraltar and Minorca; and that the king had no
right to maintain even in a colony, or conquest, or in any part of
the British dominions, any other troops than were consented to by
parliament. To these arguments it was replied, that the clause in the
Bill of Rights specified “within the kingdom,” and also “in time of
peace;” that the foreign troops were not “within the kingdom,” and that
it was a time of war, and not of peace: that the expression, “within the
kingdom,” did not include our colonies; and that should that latitude be
given the expression, the rebellious state of America would justify the
employment of British troops even upon the principles of the Bill of
Rights. It was also argued that the king had at all times during actual
war or rebellion, been competent to raise and keep up an army; that in
such a case the Bill of Rights had made no distinction between an
army of natives and an army of foreigners; that foreigners, since the
revolution of 1688, had not only been hired, but even brought into the
kingdom; and that there was an existing and paramount necessity at
this time for the employment of such troops. Ministers prevailed: the
previous question was moved and carried by a majority of 75 against
32. Two days after, a similar resolution was made in the commons by Sir
James Lowther, and was there disposed of in a similar manner. About the
same time the Bill of Indemnity passed the lower house, but in the upper
house it was rejected, on the grounds that it was alike unnecessary and
dishonourable to the administration.




CHANGES IN THE MINISTRY.

During the debate which followed the motion of the Duke of Manchester in
the house of lords, the Duke of Grafton had denounced the introduction
of foreign troops into Gibraltar and Minorca, as inconsistent with the
tenor of Magna Charta. This, coupled with his former declarations as
to the conduct and the measures of his colleagues, had the effect of
obtaining his dismissal from office. The privy seal, which his grace had
held, was given to the Earl of Dartmouth, and, to the surprise of all
men, Lord George Sackville, who had been subjected by the sentence of a
court-martial to much obloquy, and had recently taken a decided part
in all the coercive measures, was made secretary for the American
department. At the same time the Earl of Rochford retired, and was
succeeded as secretary for the southern department by Lord Weymouth. But
what created most astonishment was, that the young and profligate Lord
Lyttleton, who had distinguished himself by the severity of his attacks
upon the administration at the opening of this session, and who had been
connected with Chatham and Temple, was called to the privy-council, and
appointed to the sinecure office of chief-justice in eyre beyond
Trent. Thus “bought,” he agreed to defend the very measures he had so
energetically attacked.




THE MILITIA BILL.

In conformity with a passage in the speech from the throne, Lord North,
on the 30th of October, brought in a bill for enabling the king to
assemble the militia in cases of actual rebellion. On the second
reading, this bill was warmly opposed, on the supposition that it gave
the monarch such prodigious additional power, as to render him totally
independent of the people. It was said to be, in fact, “empowering the
crown to draw the militia out whenever it thought fit, as a pretence
could never be wanted for the purpose, while there was a black Caribb
remaining in St. Vincent’s, a runaway negro in the mountains of Jamaica,
or a Hindoo rajah left on the coast of Coromandel.” In the end, however,
the second reading of the Militia Bill was carried by the large majority
of two hundred and fifty-nine against fifty. On the third reading
several amendments were moved, but were all rejected, and it was finally
carried with a rider, proposed by Sir George Saville, limiting the
duration of the bill to seven years. In the month of December a bill was
brought into the house of commons by Lord Mountstuart for establishing a
militia in Scotland; but the house was so thin at the time, that it
was scarcely discussed. The bill was reproduced in the course of the
session, and was eagerly patronized by the Scotch members; but it met
with a strong opposition from the English country gentlemen, and
was finally rejected by a majority of one hundred and twelve
against ninety-five. By its opposers the bill was considered both as
unnecessary, and as a dangerous innovation; but the opposition, it would
appear, chiefly arose from national prejudices: Scotsmen might, it was
said, as they were subservient to ministers, if they obtained a militia,
employ it against the liberties and constitution of England. Lord North
supported the bill; but he found himself in the unusual predicament of
voting in the minority.

{GEORGE III. 1775–1776}




THE NAVY AND LAND ESTIMATES.

The number of forces to be employed by sea and land in the ensuing
year indicated great designs: 28,000 seamen, and 50,000 men for the
land-service being voted. Yet great as this force was, it was not
considered sufficient for the emergency even by the opposition, who said
that the establishment was far too great for peace, and far too small
for such a war as ministers were embarking in. This, indeed, was the
opinion of Lord Barrington, secretary at war, who used his utmost
endeavours, both with the ministers and the king, to obtain a force
commensurate with the undertaking. He in particular urged the necessity
of reducing America by means of a powerful fleet, stating it as his
opinion that its reduction could never be accomplished by the army,
which was the staff on which ministers rested. But it was in vain
that Lord Barrington warned and advised his colleagues in office, and
counselled the king. It was held, that at present the naval force must
be accompanied with an army, and the estimates of ministers were made
and carried accordingly. The sentiments of Lord Barrington on this
subject are fully shown in a letter which he wrote at an earlier date
to the Earl of Dartmouth, then secretary for America. In this letter
he remarked:—“First, I doubt whether all the troops in North America,
though probably sufficient for a pitched battle with the strength of the
province, are enow to subdue it, being of great extent and full of men
accustomed to fire-arms. If the Massachusets—with whom the inhabitants
of Connecticut and Rhode Island are said to have made common cause—were
conquered they must be kept under by large armies and fortresses, the
expense of which would be ruinous and endless. Second, because the most
successful conquest that can be imagined must produce the horrors
and bloodshed of civil war. Third, because a conquest by land is
unnecessary, when the country can be reduced, first, by distress, and
then to obedience, by our marines totally interrupting all commerce and
fishery, and even seizing all the ships in the ports, with very little
expense and bloodshed. To this might be added the punishment of the
factious chiefs by impeachment or bill, if their persons can be secured;
but till then any judicial proceedings would provoke, not hurt, and
confer the palm of martyrdom without the pain of it, which is the
perfection of fanatical beatitude. In respect to the other colonies
south of New England, a strict execution of the Act of Navigation, and
other restrictive laws, would probably be sufficient at present; and a
small addition of frigates and sloops would so execute those laws as to
prevent all commerce with foreign states. Those colonies should also
be left to deal with the Indians, the mother country withdrawing
the establishments made since the beginning of the late war for the
management of the Indian affairs, and kept up till this day at a great
expense. Though we must depend on our smaller ships for the active
part of this plan, I think a squadron of ships of the line should be
stationed in North America, both to prevent the intervention of foreign
powers, and any attempt of the colonies to attack our smaller vessels by
sea.” Lord Barrington next advised the removal of the troops from
Boston to Canada, Nova Scotia, and East Florida, till they could
be successfully employed, and then continued: “If these ideas are
well-founded, the colonies will in a few months feel their distress;
their spirits, not animated by any little successes on their part, or
violence of persecution on ours, will sink; they will be consequently
inclined to treat, probably to submit to a certain degree; and in my
humble opinion, the whole is then over, for then, with dignity, we may
make them concessions.” Had this system of blockade been adopted, there
can be little doubt but America would have been preserved to England,
for the Americans had then no fleet or any formidable fortifications on
their coast. The advice, however, was rejected, and Lord Barrington was
only prevented resigning office by the express desire of the king. But
though Lord Barrington not only did not concur in the plans pursued by
ministers, but sought to set them aside, yet as secretary of war, he
obtained the chief odium of their failure. The principal blame, however,
seems to be attached to the king: the plans were in reality his own, and
he imposed them upon Lord North and the administration.




PETITION OF NOVA SCOTIA.

At the opening of this session, a petition was presented to both houses
from Nova Scotia, which proposed to grant to his majesty in perpetuity
a duty of poundage, _ad valorem_, on all commodities imported into the
colony, not being the produce of the British dominions in Europe or
America, bay-salt only excepted, by which means the amount of the
revenue would keep pace with the wealth of the province. Ministers
conceived that this loyal petition would serve as an example to the
other colonies, and therefore gave it their support. They suggested
a duty of eight per cent.; but objections were drawn from the
unproductiveness compared with the old duties, and the small chance
of other colonies following the example of a district which had always
occasioned an expense to government, and ministers themselves finally
abandoned it: nothing was heard of the petition after it went into
committee.




PETITION OF CONGRESS.

On the 7th of November, a copy of the petition of congress alluded to
in the king’s speech was laid before the lords. On its presentation,
the Duke of Richmond seeing Mr. Penn below the bar, moved for his being
examined before they entered upon the discussion of the petition. This
was rejected by a majority of fifty-six against twenty-two, and the
noble mover then made another motion, that Mr. Penn should be
examined on the next day, which, after a long debate was conceded. The
examination was conducted by the Duke himself, and the opinions elicited
from it were, that the members of congress were men of character and
intelligence; that the people considered themselves able to resist the
arms of Great Britain employed to enforce the obnoxious acts; that the
war was begun in defence of their liberties, and not with any desire
of obtaining independence; that unless conciliatory measures were
immediately pursued, it was probable connexions with foreign powers
would be formed, which they would not be easily induced to renounce;
and that they were dissatisfied with the reception of their petitions,
though inclined to acknowledge the authority of Great Britain in all
matters, except taxation. Penn was an honest man, and doubtless sincere
in his sentiments, but he had certainly been deceived, like many others,
and even some members of the congress itself. On this evidence, however,
the Duke of Richmond moved that this petition, hollow as it must
have appeared to men of deep reflection, was sufficient ground for a
conciliation of the differences existing between America and the mother
country. He was supported by Lords Shelburne and Sandwich, but the
refusal to answer the petition was defended by Lords Dartmouth and
Lyttleton, and the motion was negatived by a majority of eighty-six
against thirty-three. On the side of government the Americans were
denounced by Lord Lyttleton as audacious rebels; their sentiments as
insiduous and traitorous; and their expressions of loyalty, false and
hollow. On the other hand, opposition justified their conduct, and
patted them on the back by assurances, that their native courage and the
nature of their country rendered them an invincible people. Indeed, it
cannot be doubted, that the views taken by the opposition in the British
parliament, and the sentiments which they uttered on every favourable
occasion, had the effect of confirming the colonists in their opposition
to government, and stimulating them to increased exertions in order to
gain a free, full, and final triumph.




MOTIONS OF THE DUKE OF GRAFTON.

On the 15th of November the Duke of Grafton moved the following
resolutions: “That ministers should lay before the house an account of
the number of forces serving in America, with their several stations,
etc., previous to the commencement of hostilities; that they should lay
before the house the exact state of the army now in America; that
they should produce all the plans that had been adopted for providing
winter-quarters for those troops; that they should also produce an
estimate of the forces now in Great Britain and Ireland; and that they
should, finally, lay before the house an estimate of the military force
necessary to be sent against America, with a precise account of the
number of artillery, etc.” In opposing these motions, ministers argued
that nothing would better please the Americans than a full disclosure of
our measures and resources, and that such a disclosure would be contrary
to every rule of office, as well as to every maxim of war and common
sense. The debate wandered to the original causes of the dispute, and
the real object and intention of congress; and after these grounds were
again gone over—the opposition warmly contending that the Americans
were not aiming at independence, and ministers as warmly contending,
and indeed fully demonstrating that they were—the Duke of Grafton’s
resolutions were negatived without a division. The chief speakers on the
side of ministers were the new convert, Lord Lyttleton, who contended
that everything proved the assertion; and Lord Mansfield, whose speech
carried conviction to many minds which had before been perplexed with
doubt upon the subject. Mansfield adduced historical facts to prove that
the people of New England had been aiming at independence, almost from
her earliest infancy; and he maintained that Great Britain could not
concede any one claim which was demanded without relinquishing all, and
admitting disseveration and independence. He concluded by warning the
house that measures of conciliation would only furnish grounds for new
claims, or produce terms of pretended obedience and submission.




THE LAND TAX INCREASED.

On the 13th of November Lord North moved in the commons that the
land-tax should be raised to four shillings in the pound. An amendment
was moved by the opposition that it should be three shillings instead
of four; but this was negatived by a large majority, and the original
motion was carried. War with America had been warmly advocated by
the country gentlemen, and some of the opposition sarcastically
congratulated them upon this enviable first-fruits of their coercive
measures; while others attempted to gall them by declaring that it would
prove a perpetual mortgage on their estates. To say the least of it, it
was an ungracious return made by Lord North for their support, and it
seems to have had the effect of considerably cooling their fiery ardour
for war.




BURKE’S SECOND CONCILIATORY MOTION.

On the 16th of November, Burke again proposed measures of conciliation.
After presenting a petition against the prosecution of the war, he moved
“for leave to bring in a bill for composing the present; troubles, and
quieting the minds of his majesty’s subjects in America.” This bill
was formed on the model of the statute of Edward I., _de tallagio non
concedendo_. He proposed in it the total renunciation of taxation; the
repeal of all obnoxious laws and acts of parliament passed since
the year 1706; a full amnesty for all offences; and a recognition of
congress, in order to a final adjustment of the existing quarrel. In his
speech, which occupied more than three hours, Burke did not conceal that
his motion would involve a dissolution of the cabinet, and he justified
this on the ground that ministers had brought the country to the very
verge of ruin. He urged that delay was dangerous; that if the quarrel
was continued the Bourbons would take it up; that this country was
incapable of coping with America if thus seconded; and that America
could be retained by her good inclinations alone. He observed, also,
that three plans seemed to be afloat with regard, to America: the
first, simple war with a view to complete conquest; the second, that of
ministers, force mixed with negociations; and the third, peace grounded
on concession. It was in the spirit of the last, he said, with which he
made his motion. Burke’s principal opponent was Governor Pownall,
who exposed many fallacies in his reasoning. Pownall denied that any
renunciation, repeal, or amnesty would have any other effect than
that of increasing the pride and resistance of the Americans. He also
maintained that if repeal had any effect at all it must be extended as
far back as to 1672, and asserted that the Americans themselves demanded
a repeal up to 1763, of which Burke’s bill fell three years short. He
remarked:—“They complain of the admiralty jurisdiction: now that is as
old as the act of navigation. To my argument it is nothing how far this
is right or wrong, grievous or otherwise; but the Americans complain
of it; and, if the bill which is to afford redress and concede to their
complaints must be effectual in order to gain their confidence, this
bill does not go far enough.” The house, however, was of opinion that it
went too far, for after all the best orators of opposition had contended
for its principles, with vehement eloquence, it was rejected by a
majority of two hundred and ten, against one hundred and five. But this
was a nearer division than had taken place for a long time on these
questions, and which was doubtless the effect of the recent increase
of the land tax: there is much sympathy between men’s pockets and their
opinions.




LORD NORTH’S PROHIBITORY BILL.

On the 20th of November, Lord North proposed a measure for the
prohibition of all commercial intercourse with America. This bill
authorized the commanders of his majesty’s navy to make prize of all
American ships and goods, whether on the high-seas or in harbour; and a
clause was inserted, which rendered every American taken in them liable
to serve as a common sailor in our ships of war, and to be considered
as a volunteer. As this prohibitory bill comprehended every species of
commerce along the coast of the confederated states, all former acts,
including the Boston Port Bill, were to be considered as repealed by it.
A clause, however, provided for pardon to all revolters on their return
to obedience, and commissioners were to be appointed to give effect to
its terms, as well as to inquire into any real grievances of which the
colonists might have to complain.

Lord North, in introducing this measure vindicated his own ministerial
conduct. The dispute about taxation, he said, was not commenced by him,
but by his predecessors in office; and, he asserted, that as he found
the country and parliament determined not to surrender the right, he had
embraced their cause. He added, that if the colonies, by appealing to
arms, chose to make war the medium, he must pursue that medium, although
he would constantly keep peace in view as the true point to be obtained.
The minds of the opposition were inflamed by the bill and these
declarations of the warlike minister. Fox especially declaimed against
the bill, asserting that it tended to destroy all trade with America,
and that it would cut off all hopes of future accommodation. In the
course of his speech he accused the ministers of wishing to ruin our
manufacturers in order that they might enlist in the army; and he
concluded by moving as an amendment, that the whole body and title of
the bill should be omitted, excepting only the portion which repealed
the Boston Port Bill, and the restraining acts. The debate now grew
hotter than before. It was argued that such a proposition would be a
formal abdication of our government of the colonies, and might, with
such omissions, be termed a bill for effectually carrying into execution
the decrees of congress, by completing the union of Americans between
themselves, and exciting them to make foreign alliances. The question
being put, therefore, the amendment was rejected by one hundred and
ninety-two to sixty-four. In the course of this debate, Lord Howe, who
was soon to sail with the fleet for America, remarked feelingly that no
struggle was so painful as that between his duty as an officer and as a
man: if left to his own choice, he said, he would decline serving, but
if commanded, he would perform his duty. To this General Conway replied,
that a war with our fellow-subjects in America differed widely from,
a war with a foreign nation; and that before an officer drew his sword
against his fellow-subjects, he should first be convinced that the cause
was just. Thurlow combated this notion with indignation, asserting that
if such a doctrine was established, it must tend to a dissolution of
government. In the course of the progress of this bill petitions from
the West India merchants were presented, and council heard against it.
It was also opposed in all its stages, and several amendments were moved
in committee, but it finally passed as it was originally framed, by a
majority of one hundred and twelve against sixteen only.

The debate on this bill in the house of lords was equally warm as
that in the commons. In the face of all matter of fact, the opposition
contended that the Americans were not in a state of rebellion: they had,
it was conceded, taken up arms, but they were driven to it by violence,
injustice, and oppression. Lord Lyttleton and Denbigh denounced these
sentiments as an immoderate licence of language, and the latter peer
asserted broadly, that those who defended rebellion were little better
than rebels themselves, there being no wide difference between traitors
and those who openly or covertly aided them! During the progress of the
bill several amendments were proposed, but always ineffectually; and
a petition was presented by the merchants of Bristol, praying that its
operation might be suspended: the bill, however, was read a third time
on the 21st of December, and was passed without a division. On the third
reading it was defended, together with the whole conduct of government
towards the Americans, by Lord Mansfield. Previous to this, intelligence
had been received of the march of the two American armies to our
Canadian frontiers, so that his lordship could now make a bolder stand
against the arguments of the opposition. He remarked:—“We are now
in such a situation, that we must either fight or be pursued;” and he
illustrated his position by an anecdote related of a Swedish general,
under Gustavus Adolphus, who, pointing to an advancing enemy, observed
to his troops:—“My lads, you see those men; if you don’t kill them
they will kill you.” His lordship then continued:—“If we do not get the
better of America, America will get the better of us. They have begun
to raise a navy; trade, if left free to them, will beget opulence, and
enable them to hire ships from foreign powers. It is said, the present
war is only defensive on the part of America. Is the attack on Canada
a defensive war? Is their prohibiting all trade and commerce with every
part of the British dominions, and starving our sugar-islands, acting
on the defensive? No; though these people never offended us, we will
distress them, say they, because that will be distressing Great Britain.
Are we, in the midst of all outrages of hostility, of seizing our ships,
entering our provinces at the head of numerous armies, and seizing our
forts, to stand idle, because we are told this is an unjust war, and
wait till the Americans have brought their arms to our very doors? The
justice of the cause must give way to our present situation; and the
consequences which must ensue, should we now recede, would, nay must,
be infinitely worse than any we have to dread, by pursuing the present
plan, or agreeing at once to a final separation.” This speech of Lord
Mansfield obtained a ready response in the house by the almost universal
approval of the peers assembled.




CHAPTER VII.

{GEORGE III. 1776–1777}

     Affairs of Ireland..... Debates on America, &c.
     Prorogation of Parliament..... Sentiments of Foreign Powers,
     &c. Evacuation of Boston by the British..... Mission of
     Indian Chiefs..... Affairs of Canada..... Unsuccessful
     Attack on Sullivan’s Island..... Affairs in Virginia.....
     Declaration of Independence by Congress..... Expedition
     against New York..... Defeat of the Americans on Long
     Island..... Conference on Staten Island..... Capture of New
     York..... Capture of Fort Washington..... Capture of Fort
     Lee, and Retreat of Washington..... Expedition against Rhode
     Island..... Successes of General Carleton..... Measures of
     Congress..... Defection of the Colonists, &c. Meeting
     of Parliament..... Debates on America..... Attempt to fire
     His Majesty’s Dock-yard at Portsmouth.




AFFAIRS OF IRELAND.

After the Christinas recess, the first important measure of parliament
related to Ireland. Addresses from America had been sent to the people
of that country, and they soon produced their intended effects among
them; especially among the people of Dublin, and the Protestant
dissenters. This was first seen in the acts of the sheriffs and
common-council of that city. After voting thanks to Lord Howard, on his
resignation, and to those peers who had supported the constitution, and,
in opposition to a weak and wicked administration, protested against the
American restraining acts in imitation of the city of London, they sent
over a strong petition and remonstrance to the king. This was opposed by
the lord mayor and aldermen, and the common-council then resolved that
whoever refused to consent to a dutiful petition, tending to undeceive
the king, and by which the effusion of one drop of blood of the subjects
of Great Britain might be prevented, was an enemy to the constitution.
The Irish parliament was not behindhand with the common-council in
exhibiting sympathy for the cause of the Americans. Soon after it
assembled, which was on the 10th of October, the members rejected a
money-bill transmitted from England, upon the plea that it had been
altered in council. On the 23rd of November, still more unequivocal
symptoms of a refractory spirit appeared in the Irish parliament. Lord
Harcourt, the lord-lieutenant, having proposed to the commons to send
out of the kingdom 4000 men, for the American service, and accept
in their stead an equal number of foreign Protestant troops, to be
maintained at the expense of the British crown, they reluctantly
conceded to the first proposition, and absolutely refused to admit the
foreign substitutes.

These embarrassing matters were brought before the English parliament.
On the 15th of February, Mr. Thomas Townshend moved for a committee of
inquiry, on the allegation that the lord-lieutenant had made an offer
of the public money without consulting the British house of commons, and
had thereby been guilty of a breach of privilege. Ministers were in
a dilemma. Taken by surprise no two of them agreed in their modes of
defence, or took the same ground in warding off the attack. Thus while
one asserted that the Irish speaker had misunderstood the viceroy’s
message, which only meant that his majesty would pay the 4000
foreigners, another contended that when the Irish establishment was
increased, the king had engaged to pay 12,000 troops in that country,
except in case of invasion or rebellion in England, and that the present
demand not being within these exceptions, his majesty should, therefore,
be absolved from his promise. But whatever ground ministers took it was
clear that they or the viceroy of Ireland had been at fault, and had
not Lord Harcourt been popular both with “the king’s friends” and the
opposition, it is probable that he would have been censured by the
house. The motion was, however, quashed by a large majority, and another
motion on the same subject was equally unavailing.




DEBATES ON AMERICA, ETC.

On the 20th of February, Mr. Fox made a motion for a committee to
inquire into the causes of the ill-success of our arms in North America,
and the defection of the Canadians. In a speech of considerable power,
Fox maintained that the ultimate design of government was to overthrow
the constitution. He chiefly confined himself to an inquiry whether the
proceedings of ministers had produced the desired effects. To this end
he pursued a detail of ministerial operations beginning with the Boston
Port Bill, in the course of which he endeavoured to show that folly
existed in the cabinet, and that their plans were conceived in ignorance
and executed in imbecility. At the same time he inveighed against the
disgraceful servility of parliament, and concluded by remarking that
none would object to inquiry but those who were culpable themselves.
Unable to resist his reasoning, ministers attempted to elude it, but
their arguments rather weakened than strengthened their cause. Lord
North, indeed, candidly admitted that some of his plans had miscarried;
arguing, in extenuation of their failure, that it was impossible to
foresee every event. He concluded by saying that he was ready to resign,
whenever the house should withdraw its confidence. There was no danger,
however, of this extremity; for, though excited by the speech of the
mover, several friends of government joined in calling for an inquiry,
the motion was negatived by a majority of two hundred and forty against
one hundred and four.

On the 29th of February, copies of treaties lately-entered into with
the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel, the Duke of Brunswick, and the Hereditary
Prince of Hesse Darmstadt, for the hire of troops, to the amount of
about 17,000 men, for the American service, were laid before the house
of commons. Lord North moved to refer these compacts to a committee; on
doing which he dilated on the fairness of the terms, and dwelt on the
advantages of employing foreign troops. By the opposition, however,
Great Britain was represented as disgraced in the sight of all Europe,
by applying to the petty states of Germany for succours against her own
subjects. They complained also, that the troops had been obtained at an
immoderately high price; £7 10s. levy-money being paid for every man.
The princes, likewise, it was said, who let them out like slaves, or
beasts of draught, were to be subsidised besides; the Landgrave of
Hesse-Cassel, who furnished 13,000 men, being guaranteed £10,281 per
annum, and the Hereditary Prince of Hesse, who furnished 688 men, £6000
annually. Moreover, it was objected that the King of England had ensured
the dominions of these princes against foreign attacks, while their
troops were employed in America. Finally, the opposition argued that it
was injudicious and dangerous to hire men who had nothing to do with the
quarrel in question. Lord Irnham, in opposing ministers, made a good use
of the weapons of ridicule. He remarked:—“I shall say little as to the
feelings of those princes who can sell their subjects for such purposes.
We have read of the humourist Sancho’s wish,—‘that, if he were a
prince, all his subjects should be blackamoors, as he could, by the sale
of them, easily turn them into ready money;’ but that wish, however it
may appear ridiculous and unbecoming a sovereign, is much more innocent
than a prince’s availing himself of his vassals for the purpose of
sacrificing them in such destructive war, where he has the additional
crime of making them destroy much better and nobler beings than
themselves.” Other members maintained that these German soldiers,
on arriving in America, would be induced to accept lands from the
colonists, join the banner of independence, and fight against the
monarch who purchased their services. But argument was of no avail: the
question for referring the treaties to a committee was carried by two
hundred and forty-two to eighty-eight, and subsequently for agreeing to
the report by one hundred and twenty to forty-eight. One amendment was
carried on the motion of Colonel Barrè, namely, for an address to his
majesty to equip the German troops with British manufactures.

In the house of lords the whole strength of the opposition was arrayed
against the treaties. The Duke of Richmond moved an address not only
to countermand all foreign troops, but to forego hostilities. His grace
observed, in his speech, that ever since the year 1702, the German
princes had been rising in their demands; that the present bargain was
harder than any former one; and that the cost of the mercenaries
engaged would not be less than one million and a half annually. He then
animadverted on the large proportion of officers employed, and pointed
out the danger of keeping so many foreigners under their own generals.
He took occasion, also, to speak again of the unseen, overruling
influence which had for so many years pervaded all our councils, though
it was manifest to all that this influence proceeded from the king
himself. After a long and animated speech, the Duke of Richmond was
followed by other noble lords who enforced his sentiments. It was stated
that neither Marlborough’s campaign of 1704, which saved the German
empire, nor the campaign by which the Earl of Chatham had obtained
Canada, had cost so much money as that of Boston during the last year.
It was also urged that the nation was incapable of bearing new taxes or
of supporting the war in America; and that, if to the American war were
added a rupture with France and Spain, and the whole house of Bourbon,
the ruin of England was inevitable. The population of America was
likewise pompously displayed, and the termination of all connexion
between England and her colonies predicted. On their part ministers
supported their measures by tracing the history of the colonies, and
exhibiting their uniform disposition to factious resistance. Lord
Temple, who had again differed with his brother-in-law the Earl of
Chatham, strongly reprobated the intemperance of the opposition.
He remarked:—“The next easterly wind will convey to America every
expression used in this debate; and I would not that the nakedness
and weakness of my country should stand confirmed by the sanction and
authority of such testimony. It is time to act, and not to talk; for
the die is cast, the sword is drawn, and the scabbard thrown away. Past
experience certainly will not justify confidence in ministers; but I
would not, by declaring our utter inability to reduce the colonists,
furnish a golden bridge for an ignominious, ruinous, and disgraceful
peace. I have heard the war called unjust: but who in this house have a
right to call it so? Not those who voted for the Declaratory Act: those
only who denied our right of taxation; and how very few were they! I
cannot approve of recalling troops, and publishing the terms to which
you will yield, until there is reasonable assurance of their not being
rejected. When the happy moment for conciliation shall arrive, I hope
ministers will seize it: I wish them success: at least at such a crisis
I will not hang on the wheels of government, rendering that which
already is but too difficult more impracticable.” Upon a division, the
Duke of Richmond’s motion was negatived by one hundred to thirty-two;
but the proposed address was entered on the journals, with the names of
ten peers protesting against its rejection.

Despite this “vast and invincible majority,” as it was called by Burke,
on the 14th of March the Duke of Grafton moved for an address beseeching
his majesty that a proclamation might be issued, declaring that if the
revolted colonies, within a reasonable time, before or after the
arrival of the troops in America, should present a petition to the
commander-in-chief, or to the commissioners appointed under the late
act, setting forth what they considered to be their just rights and real
grievances, hostilities should be suspended, and the said petition be
referred to parliament for consideration. In making this motion, the
Duke of Grafton asserted that both France and Spain were arming, and
that two French gentlemen had already been to America, and had had
conferences with Washington and with congress. These assertions,
however, were treated by ministers as chimerical, and Lord Weymouth,
secretary for foreign affairs, assured the house that there never was a
time when Great Britain had less to fear from foreign powers, and that
every courier brought assurances of the pacific intentions and friendly
feelings from all the courts of Europe. After a long debate, in which
old arguments were reiterated on both sides of the house, the duke’s
motion was negatived, by a majority of ninety-one against thirty-one.
About a fortnight after this Mr. Hartley presented the form of another
address in the commons, which was conceived in a better spirit, but it
shared the same fate as that of the Duke of Grafton. On the 10th of May
Mr. Sawbridge, who had succeeded Wilkes as lord mayor, made a similar
motion, for placing the Americans in the same situation as the Irish.

During the debates on this motion, Mr. Temple Luttrel, a younger brother
of the colonel, uttered very violent language; declaring that the
king’s speech was a sanguinary parole, and the ministry an infernal
administration: quoting the well-known observation of the philosopher
Thales; “that of all wild beasts, the worst was a tyrant, and of all
tame ones, a flatterer.” The motion was negatived, as was also a motion
subsequently made by General Conway, for inspecting the powers vested in
his majesty’s commissioners proceeding to America.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

On the 23rd of May, at the moment when his majesty was expected in the
house of lords to prorogue parliament, Mr. Hartley moved in the commons,
an address, praying that parliament might not be prorogued, but continue
sitting by adjournments during the summer, in order that they might be
ready to receive information concerning the proceedings in America,
and to provide for contingencies. This motion was, however, negatived
without a division, and soon after the commons were summoned to the
upper house for the purpose of prorogation. In his speech the king said
that no alteration had taken place, or was likely to take place, in his
relations with foreign courts. He represented the country as engaged
in a great national cause, attended with great difficulty and with much
expense. As, however, the essential rights and interests of the empire
were deeply concerned in the issue of it, and could have no safety or
security but in that constitutional subordination for which they
were contending, he felt convinced, he said, that no price would be
considered too high in order to obtain the wished-for objects. He still
hoped his rebellious subjects might be awakened to a sense of their
errors, and make a voluntary submission; but if not, he trusted to
effect this object by a full exertion of the forces with which he had
been entrusted by parliament.




SENTIMENTS OF FOREIGN POWERS, ETC.

Notwithstanding the declarations of the secretary of state for foreign
affairs, and likewise of his majesty, that there was nothing to fear
from foreign powers, it is evident that at this very period there was
much to fear from those quarters. France and Spain both smarted under
the disgrace of the late wars, and burned for revenge, whence there was
every reason to apprehend that the armaments they were preparing, under
various pretences, would ultimately be employed against England. Then
again, Frederic of Prussia entertained strong feelings of resentment
against us, for the manner in which he had been treated during the late
war, and the Czarina of Russia had absolutely refused her promised aid.
Moreover the naval superiority of Great Britain had excited the envy of
almost every other state; and they longed to see it diminished. It does
not appear, indeed, that any foreign potentate looked with an approving
or an unjaundiced eye upon the part taken by Britain, except the
Emperor of Austria, and as this part was in strict accordance with the
monarchical principles of the Austrian court, his aid might fairly be
expected. These well-known sentiments of foreign powers had doubtless
the effect of stimulating the Americans in their factious opposition to
their mother country, and England ought to have been warned by them. But
England itself was like a divided house upon this subject. The Americans
in fact were more encouraged by the people of England in their rebellion
than by the hostile sentiments of foreign powers. Recent pages fully
prove that they had their advocates in parliament,—men who not only
justified their proceedings, but likewise exhibited to them in their
speeches “the nakedness of the land,” in strange, unjustifiable, and
hyperbolical language. Like the false spies among the Hebrews, they
spread an evil report of their country’s resources, and hence held it
forth to the contempt of the colonists. In this they were also aided by
the political writers of the day. The press teemed with publications in
favour of the colonists, and every breeze wafted them across the mighty
waters to add fuel to the flames. One of the most conspicuous of these
writers was Dr. Price, whose work entitled, “Observations on the Nature
of Civil Liberty, &c.;” sought to depreciate the British government, and
extolled the spirit which gave rise to the American revolution. Powerful
pens, as that of Dr. Johnson, were, it is true, employed on the other
side of the question,—but sentiments in accordance with the feelings
of an individual or a whole people will ever maintain a preponderating
influence. Moreover, it must be confessed that those writers who took
the part of government often wrote in an illiberal and unenlightened
spirit, so that their emanations had an equally powerful effect in
confirming the Americans in their views and designs, as those which
proceeded from the pens of their advocates. From every party, in
truth, and on every hand, the colonists received encouragement in their
hostility to the British crown.




EVACUATION OF BOSTON BY THE BRITISH.

While the British parliament was indulging in oratorical debate, and
political writers were dipping their pens in gall, the Americans had
been actively engaged with the sword. During the winter, both the
British army in Boston, and the blockading army of the Americans, by
which that town was surrounded, had undergone many miseries. Washington,
however, was active in keeping up the flagging spirits of his
troops, and they were further revived by the constant arrival of
provision-waggons, ammunition, artillery, and reinforcements. At length
Washington was induced to commence offensive operations. Ploughed Hill,
Cobble Hill, and Lechemeres Point were successively occupied during
the month of December, and the approaches of the American troops were
carried within half-a-mile of the British works on Bunker’s Hill.
Congress recommended an immediate assault upon Boston; but Washington
asked for more time, to complete his approaches and make his
preparations. This was allowed him, and in the month of January a
council of war was held in the camp—some of the members of congress
being present—when it was resolved, that the British troops should be
attacked before any reinforcements should arrive. At the same time it
was resolved that thirteen regiments of militia should be required from
Massachusets and the neighbouring colonies, that the attempt might be
made with good prospect of success. These regiments were supplied early
in February, but Washington was compelled to forego an immediate attack
from the state of the weather. It was then exceedingly mild, and he
wanted ice to enable him to pass the river. But this was not long
wanting. About the middle of February the cold became intense, and the
ice was sufficiently strong to bear the troops. Still the attack was
delayed. Another council of war was held, and it was unanimously’
resolved, that the attempt was too hazardous. Soon after, however,
Washington received intelligence that a part of the British troops in
the town was expected at New York, and from various appearances among
them he conceived that there was an intention of evacuating Boston.
He now resolved to commence the attack. On the 2nd of March he began a
heavy bombardment and cannonade on the town and on the British lines,
which was continued for two days. On the night of the 4th of March
Washington took a more decisive step. The heights of Dorchester
commanded the shipping in the harbour and nearly the whole town, and yet
Lord Howe had taken no more care to occupy this hill than General
Gage had taken to occupy Bunker’s Hill. In the midst of the roar of
artillery, therefore, Washington dispatched General Thomas, with
2000 troops and 300 labourers, to take possession of the heights of
Dorchester; and at the break of day the British beheld the hill occupied
and strongly fortified. They had scarcely recovered from their surprise
when Thomas began to cannonade the town and the ships of war, his
labourers still working with ardour, in order to render his position
still more formidable. General Howe saw that he must either dislodge
Thomas, or evacuate Boston, and he sent Lord Percy with 3000 men to
effect his dislodgement. Percy embarked in transports, and fell down to
the castle in order to proceed up the river to a low strip of land at
the foot of Dorchester Hill; but a storm arose, and he was compelled to
return to the harbour. It was providential for the British troops
that this storm arose; for the heights of Dorchester are almost
perpendicular, and the force was hence insufficient to accomplish
the enterprise. And the task was soon rendered more difficult. While
Washington still kept up a terrible fire, more men were sent to the
heights; and Thomas, on the advice of Colonel Mifflin, chained together
a number of hogsheads filled with sand and stones, which were to be
rolled down the hill, should General Howe renew the attempt, upon his
advancing columns. The British commander, however, became sensible of
the madness of such an attempt, and resolved to evacuate the town. An
intimation was sent to Washington that Boston would be spared from the
flames if the troops were suffered to embark without molestation. This
notice determined Washington to refrain from hostilities, and in ten
days, on the 17th of March, the British troops quitted the cradle of
the revolution, and set sail for Halifax, in Nova Scotia. Before they
departed the British troops destroyed Castle William, but they
left their barracks uninjured, with a large quantity of cannon and
ammunition, of which Washington was in want. This was a great blunder;
for if they could not have been carried away they should have been
destroyed. And this was not the only blunder committed. In sailing
away, Howe left no cruizer in Boston Bay to warn the ships expected from
England that the place was not in our possession; and a few days after,
when Washington had taken up his quarters in the town, several of our
store-ships sailed into the harbour, and fell into the hands of the
Americans, before they discovered that Boston was lost to King George.
Howe’s negligence was even still more disastrous in its consequences
than this; for Lieutenant-colonel Archibald Campbell sailed into the
harbour with seven hundred fresh troops from England, and he was taken,
and became the subject for severe and brutal retaliation. The loyalists
who remained in Boston became also the objects of vengeance; they
were tried as the betrayers of their country, and their effects were
confiscated, while the very estates of the emigrants were seized, and
passed into the hands of the victors. It was a proud triumph for the
Americans. Congress, elated by it, passed a vote of thanks to Washington
and his army for their acquisition of Boston, and directed a gold medal
to be struck in commemoration of the event.

{GEORGE III. 1776–1777}




MISSION OF INDIAN CHIEFS.

Untutored as the savage is, many a lesson may be gathered from his lips
and his conduct. Before Boston was evacuated by the British troops, the
Oneidas and some other Indian tribes had sent to the provincial
assembly a deputation of their chiefs, on a mission which displayed
much practical humanity and good feeling. The purport of this mission
is disclosed in the address of these chiefs to the assembly. It reads
thus:—“Brothers, we have heard of the unhappy differences and great
contention between you and Old England. We wonder greatly and are
troubled in our minds. Brothers, possess your minds in peace respecting
us Indians. We cannot intermeddle in this dispute between brethren:
the quarrel seems to us so unnatural; and we bear an equal affection to
both. Should the great king apply to us for aid we shall deny him: if
the colonies apply we shall refuse. We Indians cannot find or recollect,
in the traditions of our ancestors, a case similar to this. Brothers, if
it were an alien that had struck you we should look into the matter. We
hope, through the wise government and good pleasure of the Great Spirit,
your distresses may be soon removed, and the dark clouds dispersed.
Brothers, as we have declared for peace, we desire you will not apply to
our Indian brethren for assistance. Let us Indians be all of one mind,
and you white people settle the disputes between yourselves.” But
notwithstanding this wise policy of these Indian chiefs, many of the
savage tribes bordering on the great lakes and rivers were induced by
British agents to wield the tomahawk in behalf of “the great king,”
 and committed ravages which brought a stain upon the fair fame of Great
Britain.




AFFAIRS OF CANADA.

At the close of the session of the British parliament good news had
arrived from Canada. Congress had voted nine regiments for service in
that colony, and General Schuyler was ordered to prepare a number of
batteaux to transport these troops down the lakes and the Sorel to
the scene of action. At this juncture news arrived of the death of
Montgomery, and the critical situation of Arnold. This news urged
congress to renewed exertions. They did all they could to hasten their
reinforcements, and called upon the provincial conventions to collect
all the money they could for the use of the army in Canada. Men and
specie were, however, not easily procured; and, moreover, had the
troops been ready on the instant, they could not have marched during the
winter, as the ground was covered with snow, and the lakes all frozen
over. On the opening of spring, however, by the 1st of April, the force
in Canada was raised to 1,800 men. But coined money was not forthcoming
for their use, and Arnold issued a proclamation, making the paper-money
of congress current, under promise of redeeming it with specie in four
months, and threatening all who refused this paper in exchange for their
commodities or labour with destruction. The French Canadians had no
faith in the paper-money, or in the promises of Arnold, and the troops,
therefore, were under the necessity of helping themselves to what they
wanted. This was fatal to the American cause in Canada. The Canadians
were told that the troops were come to liberate them from tyranny and
oppression, but they concluded that they had only come to plunder
them. Added to this, the New Englanders laughed at the Catholic church
ceremonies, and insulted some of the priests, whence they insured
universal hatred and vengeance. The situation of Arnold was a critical
one, and it was rendered more so by the appearance of the small-pox
among his troops, which greatly thinned his ranks. Still Arnold resolved
to persevere. He again set up his battery before the walls of Quebec,
hoping to take it before it should be relieved by reinforcements from
England. Before, however, he could make any impression, General Wooster
arrived as his superior in command; and, taking offence, he retired to
Montreal, there to assume a separate command. Many of the Americans also
left the army and returned home, under the pretence that the period of
their engagement was expired. General Thomas arrived on the 1st of
May, and the force then amounted to 2000 men. Had these troops been
effective, and had the magazines been well stored, Thomas might have had
some chance of success, but such was not the case; and to complete his
dilemma, the river St. Lawrence began to open below, and intelligence
arrived that English ships of war were daily expected. Thomas therefore
resolved to make a precipitate retreat, and he began to remove the sick
to the Three Rivers, and to embark his artillery and stores in boats and
canoes. Before these operations were completed, however, three English
ships which had forced their way through the ice arrived before Quebec,
and these vessels instantly threw on shore two companies of the 29th
regiment, with some marines and sailors. Struck with consternation,
the Americans began to fly in all directions, and General Carleton then
sallied out in pursuit of them. Notwithstanding, the enemy retreated
so precipitately that Carleton could do nothing more than capture their
artillery and stores, about a hundred fugitives, and nearly all their
sick, who had been left behind. Many, however, were afterwards found
concealed and starving in the woods; and Carleton, as humane as he was
brave, treated the whole of the prisoners with great humanity. The
rest of the troops crossed the St. Lawrence, and formed at the forts of
Chamblée and St. John, on the Sorel, where General Thomas died of the
small-pox.

Thus successful, General Carleton dispatched Captain Forster to a strong
fort, called the Cedars, situate thirty miles west of Montreal, and
which was garrisoned by four hundred Americans. This fort surrendered,
on condition that the garrison should be preserved from the ferocity of
the Indians. In the attack on this fort one Indian, on the side of the
English, was slain, and this excited the passions of the red men to
revenge. On the day after the surrender of the Cedars Forster heard
that a party of the enemy were marching from another point to secure the
fort, and he ordered one hundred Indians to place themselves in ambush
on both sides of the road in a wood through which the enemy must
pass. This stratagem was completely successful. All the Americans were
captured, and when the Indians had brought them to the front of the fort
they prepared to put them to death, in atonement for the blood of their
tribe which had been shed. This was an ancient custom, and it was with
difficulty that Captain Forster induced them to dispense with it: it
was only effected by conciliating them with presents. From the Cedars,
Forster proceeded to Vaudreuil, about six miles northward. Arnold made
an attempt to dislodge him, but was obliged to retreat, and return to
St. Anne’s, on the island of Montreal. Being encumbered with prisoners,
Forster judged it expedient to release them; Arnold promising to
return an equal number of royal troops within two months. This compact,
however, was shamefully violated by congress, under pretence that
Forster had treated the prisoners taken at the Cedars in a barbarous
manner—a pretence which was utterly unfounded. In the meantime General
Carleton being reinforced by more troops from England, repaired to
Three Rivers, about midway between Quebec and Montreal. Imagining that
Carleton had only sent a detachment, General Sullivan, who had succeeded
to the command of the troops on the death of Thomas, ordered General
Thomson and Colonel St. Clair to cross the St. Lawrence, and to make a
night attack on the forces of the English. These two officers did not
arrive at Three Rivers till the day dawned, and as soon as they were
seen the alarm was given all along the bank, and a fire was opened
upon them from some ships. They landed from their boats, and in their
confusion ran into a broad morass, where they were attacked in front by
General Fraser, and in their rear by General Nesbit; while Major Grant
took possession of a bridge, which rendered their escape over the river
Des Loups impracticable. Many were killed and wounded, and General
Thompson, with Colonel Irvine, and about two hundred men, were taken
prisoners. The rest fell back in disorder across a bog into a wood on
their left, and on the next day crossed the bridge which Major Grant had
occupied, and which was by some mistake now left unguarded, whence they
reached their boats, and escaped to their main body at Sorel. General
Carleton embarked the mass of his forces and pursued them by water;
but when he arrived at Sorel he found that place evacuated, and the
batteries dismantled. General Burgoyne, who had arrived with the last
reinforcements from England, was charged with the pursuit of Sullivan,
while Carleton himself recrossed the St. Lawrence to look after Arnold.
That officer, however, glad to make his escape from Canada, embarked his
men, crossed over the river at Long Isle, and joined Sullivan at
Fort St. John, on the Sorel. The two American generals did not deem
themselves safe at this fort, and they therefore set fire to it, as well
as that of Chamblée, and continued their retreat up the river. They
were followed by Burgoyne; but when that general reached the head of the
Sorel, and saw the lake beyond it well supplied with armed vessels,
he desisted from the pursuit, and rejoined General Carleton. By these
events, Canada was entirely freed from the American arms; and General
Carleton commenced preparations for the recovery of Ticonderoga, and the
dominion of the lakes Champlain and St. George, now held by the enemy.
The American generals, Sullivan and Arnold, threw themselves upon the
isle Aux Noix, where they were secure from the enemy, but where many of
their men perished of fever.




UNSUCCESSFUL ATTACK ON SULLIVAN’S ISLAND.

While success attended the British arms in Canada, an expedition sent
against the southern states totally failed. Governor Martin had been
strenuously exerting himself to recover his lost province of North
Carolina, by means of a body of Highlanders, who had recently emigrated
to America, and another body of resolute men, called “Regulators,”
 who lived principally by the chase. These two bodies were commanded by
Colonels Mac Donald and Mac Leod. They were embodied at Cross Creek, but
having attempted to open their way to Wilmington, where they expected
some regular troops were to be landed, they were circumvented by
a superior insurgent force, and beaten. Mac Leod, with most of his
Highland followers, were slain, and Mac Donald, with some of the
“Regulators,” were taken prisoners; while the rest fled, and returned to
their old hunter life in the back country. The attempt which was made by
Governor Martin, indeed, seems altogether to have been premature; but he
appears to have been induced to make it from the delay of the arrival of
General Clinton and his troops, who were destined for this service.
No second attempt could be made to erect the royal standard in the
Carolinas, till Clinton arrived from England, and then it was found to
be too late. He reached Cape Fear in the month of May, and immediately
took the command of some troops which had previously been conveyed to
those coasts by Sir Robert Parker. The general’s instructions were to
endeavour, by proclamations and other means, to induce the Carolinas
to return to their allegiance; to gain information as to the temper
and disposition of those provinces; and if he found the royalists
sufficiently numerous to take up arms, to leave a part of his
forces with them, and then to repair to New York to meet the
commander-in-chief, General Howe. Clinton found no encouragement, and
met with no signs of co-operation; and he, together with Parker, tired
of doing nothing, resolved to go beyond their commission, by capturing
or destroying Charleston, the capital of South Carolina, the trade of
which town supplied the two colonies with the nerve of war. To this
end they sailed from Cape Fear on the 4th of June, and arriving off
Charleston they took possession of Long Island, where there were many
royalists, but who had previously been disarmed. Near Charleston,
however, and covering-its harbour, was another island, called Sullivan’s
Island, in which there were armed insurgents and formidable batteries.
There was a projecting point of land, also, called Hadrell’s Point,
which almost touched this island, and on which General Lee, an
Englishman, and rival of Washington, in the American service, was posted
with a large force of regular troops and militiamen, and some artillery.
Notwithstanding these formidable appearances, however, Clinton
persevered in his design of taking this island. He constructed two
batteries on Long Island, answering to those of the enemy, and to
co-operate with the floating-batteries destined to cover the landing
of the troops. The event was most disastrous. On the 28th of June the
fleet, under Parker, anchored in front of the American fort, and opened
a tremendous fire upon it; while Clinton seconded the efforts of the
admiral by firing from the batteries on Long Island. In the midst of
the roar of cannon the troops embarked in the rear of some floating
batteries in boats and some small craft; but they had scarcely left
the beach when they were ordered to return to their encampment on Long
Island. Meanwhile the ships continued their firing upon the fort, which
was responded to with equal vigour by the Americans. The roar of cannon
ceased not till long after night-fall, and then the British fleet
exhibited a sad and desolating spectacle; for while the fire of the
ships made but comparatively little impression upon the fort, the
fire from the fort did fearful execution upon the fleet. The following
description of this day of carnage is from the pen of Burke. He
says:—“Whilst the continued thunder from the ships seemed sufficient
to shake the firmness of the bravest enemy, and daunt the courage of
the most veteran soldier, the return made by the fort could not fail
of calling for the respect as well as of highly incommoding the British
seamen. In the midst of that dreadful roar of artillery, they stuck with
the greatest constancy and firmness to their guns; fired deliberately
and slowly, and took a cool and effective aim. The ships suffered
accordingly: they were torn to pieces, and the slaughter was dreadful.
Never did British valour shine more conspicuous, nor never did our
marine, in an engagement of the same nature with any foreign enemy,
experience as rude an encounter. The springs of the Bristol’s cable
being cut by the shot, she lay for some time exposed in such a manner as
to be most dreadfully raked. The brave Captain Morris, after receiving a
number of wounds, which would have sufficiently justified a gallant man
in retiring from his station, still, with a noble obstinacy, disdained
to quit his duty, until his arm, being at length shot off, he was
carried away in a condition which did not afford a possibility of
recovery. It is said, that the quarter-deck of the Bristol was at one
time cleared of every person but the commodore, who stood alone, a
spectacle of intrepidity and firmness, which has seldom been equalled,
never exceeded.” When the firing ceased the Bristol and Experiment,
ships of fifty guns each, were left almost wrecks upon the water,
but the frigates had not suffered so severely. It was expected by the
Americans that most of them would be unable to pass the bar; but,
with the exception of the Actæon frigate, which got aground at the
commencement of the action, all dropped down with the tide beyond the
reach of the guns in the fort. It is clear that Admiral Parker did all
that could have been done to effect his object, but skill and valour
were of no avail. The fortress was built of palmetto-wood, and therefore
it was little damaged; the shot which struck it being buried in its soft
materials. Then again, the bombs that were thrown into the fort were
instantly swallowed up in a morass that was constructed in the middle,
and therefore failed in their design. While the English ships, indeed,
were swept of their men, the loss of the garrison did not exceed ten men
killed and about twenty wounded. The Americans themselves accounted for
their victory by the strength of the fort; the care they had taken
to secure its approaches; the courage and skill displayed by Colonel
Moultrie, who commanded in the fort; and the presence of Lee on the
projecting point opposite the island. On the other hand, the English
attributed their defeat to the non-co-operation of the army, which
appears to have been declined by Parker, he having full confidence in
the powers of the fleet. But whatever may have been the cause of the
result, it is certain that by the repluse of this armament the southern
states obtained a long respite from the horrors of war, and that it had
the effect of raising the depressed spirits of the colonists: by it the
spell which had long attached itself to the British navy was broken.
After the disaster General Clinton set sail in the Solby frigate with
his troops to join General Howe, but the rest of the ships remained at
Long Island to refit.




AFFAIRS IN VIRGINIA.

During these events Lord Dunmore had been making a last effort to
retrieve the king’s affairs in Virginia. With the consent of General
Howe he sent Mr. Connelly, a native of Pennsylvania, to induce the
people in the back and inland parts of the colony, together with several
of the Indian tribes, to take up arms for government. Connelly had
already reached the back-settlements, but soon after his arrival he was
recognized by a tradesman to whom he was known, who denounced him to one
of the nearest revolutionary committees. Connelly was seized with all
his papers, and sent to Philadelphia, where he was put in irons and
treated with the utmost severity. The scheme of Lord Dunmore was
developed by his papers, and the whole was in consequence frustrated.




DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE BY CONGRESS.

It required no prophetic eye to foresee that at no very distant period,
notwithstanding the sentiments of loyalty expressed in their papers by
congress, they would, nevertheless, take one vast stride in the march of
revolution and proclaim their independence. As early as the 15th of
May the congress, in their sitting at Philadelphia, resolved:—“That it
should be recommended to all the various assemblies and conventions in
the United States of America, where no form of government adequate to
the exigencies of affairs had yet been adopted, to establish such a
constitution as should be most conducive to the public welfare and
security.” This resolution was published in the newspapers, with a
preamble, stating that as the king and parliament of Great Britain had
excluded the inhabitants of the colonies from the protection of their
mother country, it behoved them to abolish the power and constitution
which had been derived from thence. By this measure of congress the
mask was at length thrown off, and many Americans now stepped forward
to claim the honour of having been the originator of the grand idea.
The glory is, however, generally attributed by Americans to Benjamin
Franklin;—the man who, while in England, strove with all his might, and
in the depth of guile, to make the Earl of Chatham, and all the great
orators of opposition, believe that the wish was furthest from his
thought;—that he earnestly desired to preserve the connexion of the
colonies with his “dear old mother country.” While at the same time,
however, that American writers attribute the origin of the grand idea to
Benjamin Franklin, they admit that it was the pen of an English writer
that rendered the most effective service in this particular—a pen
that was wielded by the infidel, Thomas Paine! Originally a Quaker and
stay-maker in Norfolk, Paine first made himself known as a political
writer by the publication of a pamphlet. This pamphlet recommended
him to the notice of Franklin, who advised the poor author to try
his fortune in America, now affording a wide field for the talents of
adventurers. Paine accordingly settled at Philadelphia in 1774, where
he became first a contributor to newspapers and periodicals, and then
editor of the “Philadelphia Magazine.” By this time the public mind had
been prepared by various productions issued from the press, to entertain
thoughts of independence. Paine turned his wit to this subject, and in
1776 he brought out his famous pamphlet, called “Common Sense,” which
contained bolder sentiments than any written by all the other various
pamphleteers. His production met with unparalleled success. Copies were
distributed throughout the colonies, and “Common Sense” became literally
the study of the whole American world. It was even read, admired, and
eulogised in England by men of sense and talent: Burke calls it
“that celebrated pamphlet which prepared the minds of the people for
independence.” Its chief merit, however, seems to have consisted
in rough, sarcastic wit, which was well calculated to flatter the
prejudices as well as to inflame the resentment of the American people.
The effects it produced were wonderful. Multitudes were brought over by
it to the cause of independence, who but a few months before would have
regarded the proposition with abhorrence. As for the writer he at once
gained by it the topmost pinnacle of the temple of popularity. The
legislature of Pennsylvania voted him £500; the university of the same
province conferred on him the degree of Master of Arts; he was elected
member of the American Philosophical Society, founded by Franklin; and
he was subsequently made clerk to the committee of foreign affairs,
while he was consulted by all members of government and congress as an
oracle.

The recommendation of congress to the various assemblies and conventions
in the United States of America met with all due attention, and many
prepared for the organization of a new government. Thus the convention
of New York appointed a committee to take the resolution into
consideration, and on the 27th of May this committee presented a report,
replete with democratic principle, and going the whole length which
the recommendation involved. The men of the hot south, however, the
Virginians, went to work in a less roundabout manner than those of the
other states. The convention of that colony, which met at Williamsburg
on the 6th of May, instructed their delegates at congress to propose to
that body an immediate declaration of independence. Accordingly, on the
7th of June, Richard Henry Lee, one of their delegates, moved that the
congress should forthwith declare:—“That these united colonies are,
and of right ought to be, free and independent states; that they
are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all
political connexion between them and the state of Great Britain is and
ought to be totally dissolved; and that measures should immediately
be taken for procuring the assistance of foreign powers, and a
confederation be formed for binding the colonies more closely together.”
 Vehement debates followed this proposition, its principal supporter
being John Adams, and its chief opposer John Dickenson. On the question
being put, six delegates voted in the affirmative, and an equal number
in the negative; the delegates from Pennsylvania being equally divided.
The debate, therefore, was resumed on the following day, when Dickenson
relinquished his opposition, and by his vote decided the contest.
Congress now assumed the title of “Representatives of the United
States of America,” and on the 4th of July they published a definite
declaration, or act of independence. This declaration was drawn up
by Jefferson, and slightly altered first by Franklin and Adams, and
afterwards by the whole committee to whom it was submitted. As passed by
congress it commenced with asserting that all men were originally
equal, and that all people have an unalienable right to choose their own
government. It then set forth that the history of the present King of
Great Britain had been a history of injuries and usurpations, having
for their direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over
America. The sins of the monarch—for it was against the king himself
that congress chiefly aimed their blows—were set forth in eighteen
separate clauses, and it must be confessed that if the monarch was so
great a sinner as he was represented to be in these clauses, then the
summing up of the act of independence was justifiable. This summing up
declared,—“That a prince marked by every act which may define a tyrant,
is unfit to be the ruler of a free people: consequently, congress,
in the name and by the authority of the good people of America,
had solemnly published and declared that the colonies were free and
independent states, absolved from allegiance to the British crown; that
all political connexion between them and Great Britain was broken;
and they, as free and independent states, had full power to levy war,
conclude peace, contract alliances, and establish commerce.” But though
the people of England were not calumniated by congress in such bold
and unwarrantable language as their monarch, they nevertheless were
condemned by the act of independence. A clause in it with reference
to the British people, reads thus:—“Nor have we been wanting in
attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to
time of attempts made by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable
jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of an
emigration and settlement here; we have appealed to their native justice
and magnanimity; and we have conjured them by the ties of our common
kindred to disavow those usurpations which interrupted our connexion
and correspondence. But they have been deaf to the voice of justice
and consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which
pronounces our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind,
enemies in war, in peace, friends. We, therefore, the representatives of
the United States of America, in general congress assembled, appealing
to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentional
do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these
colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are,
and of right ought to be, free and independent states; that they
are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all
political connexion between them and the state of Great Britain is and
ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states,
they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances,
establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which
independent states may of right do. And for the support of this
declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine
Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes,
and our sacred honour.”

This declaration went forth to the world as the unanimous act of
congress and of the whole American people. Nevertheless, several
delegates, among whom was Mr. Dickenson, refused to sign the paper, and
it is well known that there were many among the American people, and men
of great influence and talent, who dissented from the act. Washington
himself conceived that congress was going too far, although he still
continued at the head of their army to fight their battles. But there
was now no alternative but to fight or be considered a renegade. The
great body of the nation was in favour of the measure of congress,
and were prepared to stand by its consequences. And in this they were
encouraged by the inherent power which they possessed; by the physical
advantages which their country presented; and by the difficulties which
Great Britain, split into factions, and with a divided parliament,
must encounter in carrying on a war in such a far distant country. The
Americans also appear to have been encouraged, even at this early stage
of their rebellion, by foreign powers. It is an indisputable fact,
indeed, that their sole reliance was not upon “native swords and native
ranks.” Secret agents had been sent to America from powers clandestinely
inimical to the British nation; and American agents had been sent
secretly to the courts of Paris, Madrid, Naples, the Hague, and St.
Petersburgh. The Americans, moreover, drew encouragement from the hope
that there might be a rebellion in Ireland, if not in England itself. To
ensure such a consummation in Ireland, they even sent addresses to the
Irish people which were well calculated to lead to it. How artfully
these addresses were worded may be seen from the following extract of
one, in which the Americans expressed their regret that they had been
compelled to include Ireland with Great Britain in their non-importation
agreements. It states:—“Your parliament had done us no wrong. You had
ever been friendly to the rights of mankind, and we acknowledge with
pleasure and gratitude that your nation has produced patriots who have
nobly distinguished themselves in the cause of humanity and America. On
the other hand we were not ignorant that the labour and manufactures of
Ireland, like those of the silkworm, were of little moment to herself,
but served only to give luxury to those who neither toil nor spin. We
perceived that if we continued our commerce with you, our agreement not
to import from Britain must be fruitless. Compelled to behold
thousands of our countrymen imprisoned; and men, women, and children in
promiscuous and unmerited misery—when we found all faith at an end,
and sacred treaties turned into tricks of state—when we perceived our
friends and kinsmen massacred, our habitations plundered, our houses
in flames, and their once happy inhabitants fed only by the hand of
charity—who can blame us for endeavouring to restrain the progress of
the desolation? Who can censure us for repelling the barbarous band?
Who in such circumstances would not obey the great, the universal, the
divine law of self-preservation? Though vilified as wanting spirit, we
are determined to behave like men; though insulted and abused, we wish
for reconciliation; though defamed as seditious, we are ready to obey
the laws: and though charged with rebellion, we will cheerfully bleed
in defence of our sovereign in a righteous cause. What more can we
say? What more can we offer? We know that you are not without your
grievances. We sympathize with you in your distress, and are pleased to
find that the design of subjugating us has persuaded the administration
to dispense to Ireland some vagrant rays of ministerial sunshine. Even
the tender mercies of government have long been cruel towards you. In
the fat pastures of Ireland many hungry parricides have fed and grown
strong to labour in her destruction. We hope the patient abiding of the
meek may not always be forgotten.” The Americans could scarcely have
spoken plainer than this, and the Irish people could not fail rightly to
interpret their language as an incitement to join in that sin which the
sacred penman has likened to the sin of witchcraft—rebellion.

{GEORGE III. 1776–1777}




EXPEDITION AGAINST NEW YORK.

It has been seen that when General Howe evacuated Boston he set sail for
Halifax. He remained at Halifax till the 11th of June, when he sailed
for New York, and arrived near the end of the month offf Sandy Hook. He
expected to meet his brother, Lord Howe, with the main body of the fleet
and the new army, together with Sir Peter Parker with his squadron, and
General Clinton with his troops. These parties, however, were still far
away, and he therefore landed at Staten Island, where he was joined by
Mr. Tryon, the expelled governor of New York, and a body of loyalists
who had taken refuge with him in an armed vessel. Shortly after he was
joined by his brother, Admiral Lord Howe, and subsequently by Sir Peter
Parker and his squadron, when their united forces amounted to nearly
30,000 men, British and foreign.

Anterior to this, and as early as the month of April, General Washington
had left Boston for New York, and at this moment his army were throwing
up strong entrenchments at that city and on Long Island, to close the
river Hudson against the English fleet. The main body of his forces were
with Washington at New York; General Sullivan, with a strong force, was
at the western extremity of Long Island, just opposite the city; while
the rest of the forces mainly occupied different posts on York Island.
The total number of Washington’s army appears to have exceeded 30,000;
but sickness prevailed in his camp to such an extent that at one time
nearly a fourth part of his forces were unfit for action. Added to this
embarrassment, many of the inhabitants were disaffected to the American
cause, and even a part of his own guards entered into a conspiracy
to seize his person, and deliver him to the enemy. This conspiracy,
however, was discovered, and several engaged in it were executed, and
Washington, thus relieved from danger, earnestly pressed forward the
defences of the city. He had with him a large train of artillery and an
abundant supply of military stores.

Before proceeding to extremities, Lord Howe sent ashore by a flag,
circular letters, acquainting the Americans with his powers, both civil
and military, and enclosing a declaration granting pardons to all such
as were willing to return to their duty; promising that any colony,
town, post, or place that submitted instantly should be exempted from
the provisions of the acts of parliament prohibiting their trade, etc.;
and giving assurances that the meritorious services of all persons who
should aid and assist in restoring tranquillity would be duly rewarded.
Washington forwarded these papers to congress, by whom they were
published in the newspapers, with a comment calculated to destroy their
effects. At the same time Lord Howe opened a direct communication with
Washington; but that general taking offence at the letter being simply
directed to “George Washington, Esq.,” raised a cavil on that ground,
to prevent a conference which would have been embarrassing to him at so
critical a period. It was in vain that Adjutant-general Paterson, the
bearer of the letter, protested that no disrespect was intended, and
that Lord Howe and his brother, the general, could not depart from the
rules laid down for them: Washington rejected the letter, and refused
to let it lie on his table, which refusal was highly approved of by
congress. As a last resource, the British admiral entered into a
correspondence on the subject with Dr. Franklin, with whom he had been
on intimate terms in England; but the first letter which his lordship
received from that philosopher convinced him of the inutility of any
further efforts at negociation, and he prepared for the decision of the
sword.

{GEORGE III. 1776–1777}




DEFEAT OF THE AMERICANS ON LONG ISLAND.

Having at length been joined by Clinton and by nearly all the forces he
expected, General Howe, on the morning of the 22nd of August, commenced
operations. He first threw forward a division of 4000 men under
Clinton, who landed in Gravesend Bay, Long Island, without opposition;
their disembarkation being covered by three frigates and two bombs.
This division was soon followed by the rest of the British army and the
artillery; and upon their landing, Sullivan’s advanced guard set fire
to all the houses and granaries and fled to the woody heights, through
which the English must pass. Washington had previously reinforced the
army of Sullivan, and calculating that Long Island must be held, he
threw over more reinforcements from New York, until the mass of his army
was concentrated on that spot. By his direction, the Americans to the
number of 15,000 were posted on a peninsula towards that end of the
island which faces the city of New York, and is not more than a mile
from it. They were commanded by Generals Sullivan, Putnam, and Lord
Stirling, and their object was to occupy these heights, and to defend
the defiles which led through the hills against the English. A severe
contest ensued; but the British right, under Sir Henry Clinton, having
outflanked the left of the enemy, while the Hessians, under General De
Heister, vigorously attacked the centre, the Americans were routed. Lord
Stirling, who commanded the right wing, finding that the English had
penetrated to the rear, gave orders for a retreat, and to secure it,
boldly attacked the division under Lord Cornwallis; but being assailed
in his course by General Grant, he was repulsed and taken prisoner. The
dispersed troops fled to the fortified lines and camp at Brooklyn; but
they left 2000 slain on the field, or drowned in a morass into which
they were driven at Gowan’s Cove; and about half that number, with
Generals Sullivan and Udell, with ten other field-officers were taken
prisoners. The loss of the British was comparatively trifling: seventy
were slain and about 200 wounded. The ardour of the British troops was
such that they followed the fugitives almost to the foot of their works,
and they were with difficulty prevented from making an assault on their
lines. Had they been permitted it seems clear that they might have
easily carried them; but General Howe, conceiving that the lines must
become his by regular approaches without much sacrifice of life, he
ordered them back to a hollow out of the reach of the fire of the enemy.
By this order the troops which had fled were saved. Washington, who had
passed over from New York during the battle, in the midst of his extreme
anguish at the fate of so many of his troops and the critical situation
of the remainder, suddenly saw a gleam of hope bursting through the
surrounding gloom. On that night the British army encamped in front of
the American lines, and on the following morning the British general
commenced his regular approaches; breaking ground about six hundred
yards from one of the redoubts. But while the troops were digging their
trenches on one side, Washington was smuggling his forces out on the
other, and ferrying them over East River to the city of New York. His
masterly retreat was effected by night in such order, secrecy, and
silence that the English were not aware of it till the rising sun showed
them that the enemy was out of the reach of danger: But for this the
half of Washington’s army which he had exposed on Long Island would have
been lost, and the war might have been virtually ended. But even after
his escape Washington found himself in no very enviable position. A
superior and victorious force was in front of him, while all around him
the country was hostile to his cause. The success of the British arms
indeed, caused the anti-revolutionists to lift up their heads on every
hand, and in great numbers.




CONFERENCE ON STATEN ISLAND.

Almost immediately after the victory on Long Island, Lord Howe made
another attempt to open a negociation. General Sullivan was despatched
by him on parole with a verbal message to congress, importing that
though he could not at present treat with them as an authorized body, he
was desirous of conferring with them as private gentlemen at any place
they would appoint. He had, he said, in conjunction with General Howe,
full powers to compromise the dispute between Great Britain and America
on terms mutually honourable and advantageous—that he wished a compact
to be made when as yet no decisive blow was struck and neither party
could allege being compelled to enter into an agreement—that in case
congress were disposed to treat, many things yet unasked might be
granted them—and that, if upon the conference there should arise good
ground for an accommodation, this might lead to an acknowledgment of its
authority, as otherwise the compact could not be settled. Congress was
embarrassed by this message. They felt that the admiral could have no
offers to make which they could accept; and yet if they declined the
conference the people might entertain a different opinion, and they
might incur their vengeance if they refused to hear the message. Under
these circumstances, while in their reply to Lord Howe they remarked
that they could not, as the representatives of the free and independent
States of America, send any of their members to confer with his lordship
in their private characters, they would nevertheless send a committee
of their body to know whether he had any authority to treat with persons
authorised by congress, and to hear such propositions as he might have
to make. The members appointed for this conference were Franklin, Adams,
and Routledge; three of the bitterest enemies of Great Britain.
This trio waited upon his lordship in Staten Island, on the 11th of
September, and they were received with true English politeness and
urbanity. His lordship commenced the conference by stating that though
he could not treat with them as a committee of congress, yet as his
powers enabled him to confer and consult with any private gentlemen of
influence in the colonies, he would be glad, if they thought proper, to
confer with them in such a character. As their business was only to hear
what his lordship had to say, the trio replied, that he might consider
them in what character he pleased, while they would only consider
themselves in the character given them by congress. The admiral then
said that he and his brother, as commissioners, had delegated power to
grant pardons for the past, and that every favour might be expected from
the British crown if the colonists would return to their allegiance. He
also remarked that the king, ministry, and parliament were disposed
to make government easy to them, and that the obnoxious acts would be
revised in order to put an end to their grievances. These offers and
assurances, however, were despised. The committee replied that if he had
nothing else to propose he had come too late: the petitions of congress
had been despised, independence was now proclaimed, and the new
government formed. Lord Howe then simply expressed his regret at the
evils which must be let loose upon the land, and the trio returned to
Philadelphia.




CAPTURE OF NEW YORK, ETC.

After the victory on Long Island, and while the conference was going
forward on Staten Island, General Howe was engaged in slowly enclosing
Washington on all sides. Apprehensive of the consequences, therefore,
the American general resolved to evacuate the city of New York, and
retire on Kingsbridge, where some strong works had been erected. The
British army had already effected a landing on New York Island without
any loss or difficulty, and Washington retired so precipitately that he
had not sufficient time to carry off all his artillery and stores. By
his retreat General Howe not only took possession of New York, but also
the best part of the island. He had scarcely, however, taken possession
of New York when a dreadful fire broke out in several quarters of the
town. Washington had previously proposed to congress that the city should
be burned, rather than left in the hands of the English, which proposal
had been negatived, but notwithstanding incendiaries were employed to
execute the design. On the night of the 20th, therefore, when most of
the citizens and troops were buried in sleep, these desperadoes began
their work, and, despite the exertions of the soldiers and the
citizens, nearly a third part of the city was consumed to ashes. A few
incendiaries fell a sacrifice to the rage of the soldiers, and many
individuals were arrested on suspicion, but no clue was found to
unravel the mystery, though no doubt can exist that the fearful deed was
committed by order of the American general. The act has been applauded
as one emanating from stern patriotism and self-devotion, but it appears
rather to have proceeded from sheer recklessness and bitter hatred to
the English. The New Englanders were not destroying their own houses
and property, but the houses and property of another people, and a rival
colony, regardless of all the fearful consequences resulting from the
act.

On the retirement of Washington to Kingsbridge, the British troops were
put on board the vessels again, with a view of landing at West Chester,
gaining the rear of the enemy’s encampment, and enclosing him on all
sides within his fortresses. Washington perceived the necessity of
counteracting this project, and, immediately decamping with his whole
force, he took up a strong position, and occupied lines and works which
ran right across York Island; the strongest being at Kingsbridge and
Fort Washington. General Howe, with the main body of his army, marched
up York Island, and encamped in face of Washington’s lines, his lines
also extending quite across the island, and being covered on either
flank by the British ships. While thus situate, on the 16th of
September, there was some skirmishing in the plain that lay between
the two camps, in which the Americans lost Colonel Knowlton and Major
Leitch, two of their best officers. The ill-success of the American
general, by this time, seems to have had a great effect upon the
disposition of his troops. Desertions were frequent, and as the time was
approaching when the period of service for which most of the Americans
had engaged would expire, Washington conceived that he should soon be
left without an army. He saw plainly that the boasts of the sons of
liberty, about flying to arms and fighting for their country without
pay or reward, were not to be depended upon; and he wrote to congress,
urging them to offer the troops good pay, in order that they might be
induced to remain in the camp to fight their battles. Congress voted, in
accordance with his recommendation, a bounty of twenty dollars per man,
and small portions of land to every officer and soldier who should serve
during the whole war. This, however, was not deemed sufficient, and
Washington again wrote to congress, asserting, not only that if the
offer were not raised, both officers and soldiers would leave the
service, but that they would universally, as many were already doing,
join the royal army. Congress again acceded to his wishes: they voted
an increase of pay and bounty-money, and offered other advantages,
immediate or prospective, which made it more profitable for them to
remain in the American service, than to join Lord Howe. By this means
Washington’s troops were kept together, and General Howe was therefore,
compelled to exert himself for victory. Having thrown up intrenchments
to defend his own lines, and the approaches to New York, on the 12th of
October he embarked a considerable part of the royal army, and landed
them at Frog’s-neck, about nine miles in the rear of Washington’s
positions. Some of the ships of war went still higher up the North
River, so as to cut off any retreat to the Jerseys. The only road open
to escape, indeed, was one leading to the New England provinces,
and this, it is thought, might have been secured. Washington now
contemplated deciding the fate of America by a pitched battle, and had
it not been for the remonstrances of General Lee, the deserter, who
had come up from Sullivan Island and the Carolinas, he would thus have
acted. A council of war was called, and it was decided that they must
decamp immediately, and get towards the open country, called the White
Plains. In their retreat there was some skirmishing, in which the
British troops were victorious; but on the 22nd of October, Washington
succeeded in gaining the edge of the White Plains, where he put the
main body of his army in a long line of entrenched camps, extending from
twelve to thirteen miles on different heights, and having the deep river
Brunx in his front. In this position he was attacked by the royal army
on the 28th of October: the troops being divided into two columns; the
left, led by Howe, and the right by Clinton. As they advanced towards
the White Plains Clinton’s column fell in with several bodies of the
enemy, and drove them back in great confusion to their lines. It was
observed, as the troops approached the American lines, that they were
strongest on the flanks, and weakest in the centre. Had an assault been
made on the centre, the absolute destruction of the American army would
have been inevitable; but General Howe, neglecting that point, ordered a
strong detachment of the left wing, under General Mac Dougal, to attack
an eminence on which 4000 men were advantageously posted, probably
for the purpose of covering a retreat, if necessary. This detachment
succeeded in their enterprise; but it then became necessary to preserve
the hill which the troops had gallantly taken possession of, and, in
so doing, the left and right wing of our army were, in a great measure,
severed from one another, so that they could not attack the main
position of the Americans. That night the British troops slept on their
arms, and the next day they encamped, with the left wing on one side of
the Brunx, and the right on the other. On the 30th, having received some
reinforcements, Howe made a disposition to attack the enemy’s lines on
the following morning; but during the night it rained in torrents, and
the faces of the hills became, in consequence, so slippery, that the
attack was postponed till the morrow. In the meantime, however, his
intention was betrayed by a deserter, and before the break of day
Washington evacuated the lines, set fire, in his retreat, to all the
houses on White Plains, crossed the Croton River to North Castle, and
took up a strong position, with the Croton stretching along his front,
and having his rear well defended by woods and heights.




CAPTURE OF FORT WASHINGTON.

Perceiving from the nature of the country that he could not force the
American commander to join battle, General Howe now made a retrograde
movement. Washington had left considerable forces at Fort Washington and
King’s Bridge, in the hope that those positions might be secured, even
though he retreated or were beaten. The force in Fort Washington, and in
the extensive entrenchments round it, consisted of 3000 men, under the
command of the gallant Colonel Macgaw. This post was important to the
royal army, as it secured an intercourse with the Jersey shore, and as
in the hands of the enemy it seriously obstructed the navigation of the
North River. General Howe, therefore, resolved to take it, and on the
15th of November, the garrison was summoned to surrender, on pain of
being put to death by the sword. This summons was unheeded, and on
the following morning it was carried by a furious assault; and all the
garrison who were not slain, were taken prisoners. On the side of the
British, also, there was a great loss; eight hundred being either killed
or wounded.




CAPTURE OF FORT LEE, AND RETREAT OF WASHINGTON.

Immediately after this success, Lord Cornwallis crossed the North River,
and drove the Americans from Fort Lee, which was nearly opposite Fort
Washington, and took all their artillery, provision, and stores. This
advance induced the American general to quit his post on the Croton, and
fall back upon the river Delaware. Cornwallis penetrated to the remotest
parts of East and West Jersey, and on the 24th of November, having
received some reinforcements, he marched for Brunswick. He was now
within two or three marches of the Americans, who fled before him in
dismay; but when he arrived at Brunswick he was ordered to halt. He did
not receive orders to advance till the 16th of December, and then it was
too late for him to overtake the enemy. When he arrived at Princetown
in the afternoon of that day, the last of the Americans had cleared out,
and on pursuing them the next morning he reached Trenton only in time to
see Washington’s last boats crossing the river. At that time the forces
of the American general scarcely amounted to 3000 men, for numbers
of them had deserted, and those that remained were chiefly unsteady
militia. Beyond the Delaware, indeed, Washington’s force lost all
appearance of an army; and the men still continued to desert, though
often brought back forcibly to the camp. Lord Cornwallis now desisted
from the pursuit, and put his division into winter-quarters, between the
Delaware and the Hakensack.




EXPEDITION AGAINST RHODE ISLAND.

While Cornwallis had been advancing through the Jerseys, General Clinton
had been sent, together with the squadron of Sir Peter Parker, to Rhode
Island, where an American squadron had been collected under Commodore
Hopkins. This island was taken without any difficulty, and Hopkins
retired up Providence River, where he remained inactive and useless. The
people of Rhode Island, however, were enthusiastic revolutionists, and
it required a considerable force to keep them in awe; whence, during
three years, a great body of men were left in perfect idleness.




SUCCESSES OF GENERAL CARLETON.

It has been seen that the American army which had been driven from
Canada, took refuge on the Isle Aux Noix, and that General Carleton was
preparing to follow up his successes. It required vessels to cope
with the American flotilla, and to command the lakes St. George and
Champlain, near which the Isle Aux Noix was situate, and of these the
general was in want. The frame-work of vessels was, indeed, sent for
from England, but it required time before they could arrive, and still
further time to put them together. Still Carleton did not remain idle.
In the emergency he sent detachments from the king’s ships stationed at
Quebec, with volunteers from the transports, and a corps of artillery,
to fell timber, and to occupy a favourable post on the Lake Champlain.
The keel and floor-timbers, also, of the “Inflexible,” a ship of three
hundred tons, which had been laid down at Quebec, were taken to pieces,
carried over to St. John’s, and laid down again at a corner of the lake,
where a little dock-yard was improvised. Moreover, thirty long-boats,
many large batteaux, and a gondola of thirty tons were carried up to
the spot, partly by land, and partly by being dragged up the shoals and
rapids of the river Sorel. In a few weeks, indeed, General Carleton
had a naval force—such as it was—to sweep the Lakes Champlain and St.
George from end to end. But before these preparations were completed,
the Americans had quitted the Isle Aux Noix, and had traversed the lake
for Crown Point. Congress had voted that General Gates should take
the command of these troops, and that Arnold, the hero of the Canada
expedition, should command the squadron of fifteen vessels which were on
the lake. When his preparations were completed, Carleton lost no time in
seeking this squadron, and on the 11th of October he discovered it in
a strong line across the passage between Isle Vallicour and the western
shore of the lake. A warm but indecisive action ensued, which lasted
till night-fall; but Arnold in the course of the night, though
well watched, escaped from the passage, and attempted to make Fort
Ticonderago. On the following morning his squadron was out of sight, but
before noon the British flotilla got up with it again, and brought it
to action a few leagues below Crown-Point. After a running fight of two
hours, Arnold’s headmost vessels succeeded in reaching Crown-Point, and
the narrow part of the lake beyond that fort; but the “Washington” and
“Jersey” were taken, and all the rest were run on shore, and there
burnt by their crews. Crown-Point was immediately abandoned by the
provincials, who ran for their lives to Ticonderoga. This fort was
deemed too strong to be successfully attacked, at so advanced a season
of the year, and Carleton, having strengthened the British fleet so as
to ensure the command of Lake Champlain, evacuated Crown-Point of
which he had taken possession, and returned to Quebec, where he exerted
himself during the winter in making preparation for the next campaign.
At the same time General Burgoyne returned to England.




MEASURES OF CONGRESS.

Although the confidence of many members of congress, that the contest
would soon be over, was shaken, yet as a body they remained firm and
hopeful. At the same time, on the advance of Lord Cornwallis through
the Jerseys, they fled for safety from Philadelphia to Baltimore, in
Maryland. On reassembling here, however, they betrayed no despondency
or any lack of spirit. The hope of obtaining their grand
object,—independence and separation from Great Britain,—seemed to
sustain them in the midst of all their reverses. They now materially
enlarged the powers of Washington. They authorised him to raise sixteen
additional regiments; furnished him with all the money they could, and
promised him a great deal more; and finally conferred upon him, for six
months, a sort of dictatorship. They further voted a loan of 8,000,000
of dollars; they made more paper-money; they threatened all who would
not receive it in payment for goods or labour; and they adopted all
possible means, by force, intimidation, and enticement, to get money
into the treasury, and to inspire courage into the hearts of the people.
As for their committee of correspondence, they laboured ardently to
induce France and Spain openly to espouse their quarrel, and to threaten
England with an invasion, while the flower of its troops were engaged
in America. It was proposed in congress that their commissioners at
Versailles should be authorised to transfer to France the same monopoly
of their trade which had been possessed by Great Britain. This, however,
was relinquished as a measure which would strike a mortal blow at
some of their leading arguments in favour of independence. It was next
proposed that France should be offered a limited monopoly, and, this
failing, it was suggested that France might be gained over by the offer
of an alliance offensive and defensive. The more prudent among them
represented that if France would venture into the war at all, it would
not be by any treaty, or compact, or promises of congress, but out of
her old rivalry and hatred of England. All the assurances she would
want, they said, was an expression of their determination never again
to submit to the mother country, but to persist in their present course,
though all the world should be merely lookers-on. Resolutions were
printed to this effect, and sent all over the union, and then to the
principal courts of Europe, with agents appointed to impress upon
those courts the sincerity of this declaration, and to solicit their
friendship for the United States. The agents chosen for this mission
were Dr. Franklin, Silas Deane, and Mr. Arthur Lee, and what success
attended their negotiations will soon be seen. Though appealing to the
worst passions, and the most selfish feelings of foreign courts
and cabinets, they were, nevertheless, not only listened to with
complacency, but obtained present aid covertly, and had hopes held out
to them of aid openly hereafter.




DEFECTION OF THE COLONISTS, ETC.

Towards the close of this year, clear proofs were given that the
Americans were not wholly unanimous in the cause of independence. The
inhabitants of the city and island of New York, and of Long Island, and
various other places, presented petitions to Lord Howe, declaring that
they acknowledged the supremacy of Great Britain, and praying to
be received into the king’s peace and protection. On the removal
of congress from Philadelphia to Baltimore, the majority of the
Philadelphians also began openly to declare for the royal cause.
Washington detached troops to that city to quell the anti-revolutionary
spirit, but this did not prevent many of its leading men from going
over to, and corresponding with the commissioners. Moreover, most of the
towns of the Jerseys sent deputations to the king’s commissioners, and
expressed their anxiety for a renewed allegiance to the British Crown.
Possibly this may in part be attributed to the success of the royal
arms, but it is evident that the feelings generally arose from genuine
patriotism. Self-preservation may, also, in part, have dictated this
line of policy, for in one particular the advice of Lord Barrington
had been followed with respect to the Indians, and it had produced its
natural consequences. Our establishments for the management of affairs
with these tribes were withdrawn, and then the red men were left to
act as they pleased; and they had a long account to settle with the
Americans. From the earliest period of their emigration the colonists
had laid it down as a principle that the red men were to be treated
like beasts of prey, and they still hunted them down on every opportune
occasion. Hence, as the Indians were accurate accountants in matters of
blood, and held it as a sacred part of their religion, that they were
bound to avenge the death of their kindred; no sooner were our agents
withdrawn, than the Creek and Cherokee Indians resolved to ravage
the back territories of Virginia and the Carolinas, and to carry, if
possible, both fire and the spear into the heart of these colonies. They
were repulsed by the militia of the colonies, but not before they had
taken a terrible revenge for long-endured wrongs; and the day might not
be far distant when they would return with other tribes to extend their
devastations throughout America.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

The British parliament assembled on the 31st of October. In his opening
speech the king declared that nothing would have given him so much
pleasure as to be able to state that the troubles in America were
terminated, and that the colonists had returned to their duty. He
continued:—“But so daring and desperate is the spirit of their leaders,
whose object has always been dominion and power, that they have now
openly renounced allegiance to the crown, and all political connexion
with this country; they have rejected, with circumstances of indignity
and insult, the means of conciliation held out under the authority
of our commission; and have presumed to set up their rebellious
confederacies for independent states. If their treason be suffered to
take root much mischief must grow from it to the safety of my loyal
colonies, to the commerce of my kingdom, and, indeed, to the present
system of all Europe. One great advantage, however, will be derived from
the object of the rebels being openly avowed and clearly understood;—we
shall have unanimity at home, founded in the general conviction of the
justice and necessity of our measures.” His majesty said that he was
happy to inform them that Canada was recovered, and that the success in
the province of New York had been such as to give the strongest hopes
of the most decisive consequences. He then recapitulated, as usual, the
pacific assurances of European powers, although he must himself have had
some doubts at this time of the sincerity of their professions. It is
manifest, indeed, that signs of a rupture had become evident to
the British cabinet, for his majesty added to this part of his
speech,—“That he indulged the hope that all misunderstanding might
be removed, and Europe continue to enjoy the inestimable blessing of
peace.” He also recommended that England should be put in a respectable
state of defence, and urged upon his “faithful commons,” the necessity
of granting ample supplies for the maintenance of the honour of
his crown, and the vindication of the just rights of parliament. He
concluded thus:—“In this arduous contest I can have no other object but
to promote the true interests of all my subjects. No people ever enjoyed
more happiness, or lived under a milder government than those now
revolted in the provinces: the improvements in every art of which they
boast declare it: their numbers, their wealth, their strength by sea and
land, which they think sufficient to enable them to make head against
the whole power of the mother country, are irrefragable proofs of it. My
desire is to restore them to the blessings of law and liberty,
equally enjoyed by every British subject, which they have fatally and
desperately exchanged for all the calamities of war, and the arbitrary
tyranny of their chiefs.”

{GEORGE III. 1776–1777}




DEBATES ON AMERICA.

Addresses which were, as usual, echoes of the speech, were brought
forward in both houses, and they elicited violent debates. In the
commons Lord John Cavendish moved an amendment of greater length than
even the proposed address. This amendment was seconded by the Marquess
of Granby, and in it, and the debates that ensued, it was affirmed that
the disaffection and revolt of the colonists could not have taken place,
if there had not been great faults committed against them. The faults
pointed out were, chiefly, the rejection of petitions and complaints;
the improper instructions given to commissioners for the purpose
of reconciliation; the endeavours made to break down the spirit and
independence of the colonists, by the many acts of parliament passed
during the recent sessions; and the project of extirpating the Americans
by the sword. All these errors were imputed by the opposition to the
want of information, and the too great confidence in ministers, who
though in duty bound to ascertain the temper and disposition of the
Americans, had totally failed for want of that knowledge. An appeal to
the sword was denounced as a most dangerous precedent, and by a strange
perversity of mind the leaders of the American revolution were described
and especially by Wilkes, as men averse to a change of government,
and as being only driven to extremities by an accumulation of neglect,
insult and injury, and by two years of a savage, piratical, and unjust
war, carried on against them by the English people. Wilkes also,
with others on the same side, took umbrage at the word “treason,”
 as applicable to the Americans, asserting that what ministers called
“treason,” the Americans denominated “a just resistance and glorious
revolution.” As for the pacific declarations of foreign powers, and
especially the Bourbons, all reliance on them was exposed with sarcasm
and ridicule. Colonel Barré, indeed, declared that a war of the most
serious nature with France and Spain was impending over the country.
The whole of his majesty’s speech was, in truth, denounced as false,
insidious, hypocritical, and deceptive;—as holding out law and liberty,
indeed, but holding it out at the point of the sword.

The speech and address were defended by Lord North and Lord George
Germaine. Lord North denied the charge which had been alleged against
him of withholding information; declared that he had always communicated
to the house as much as he could divulge with safety; and indignantly
repelled the charge of hypocrisy advanced against that part of the
king’s speech which stated his desire to restore law and liberty to
the colonists. In his own peculiar quiet way, Lord North hinted to the
opposition, that if they were members of the new American legislature,
they could not have ventured to make so free with the president and
majority of congress, as they were now doing with their sovereign, his
ministers, and the majority of the English parliament. In the
defence, Lord George Germaine remarked that we had been anxious for
reconciliation upon mild and fair terms, and that these terms had been
rejected with scorn by the American leaders. According to their own
statements, he said, of the propositions made by Lord Howe, and the
conference that had taken place on Staten Island, his lordship was as
eager for the restoration of peace, as Franklin, Washington, and the
other leaders were for the continuance of hostilities. He then turned to
the statements made by foreign powers, concerning their friendship for
England. These statements of the princes of the House of Bourbon must be
taken as proofs of their pacific intentions, but if they proved false,
and should incur the folly and the guilt of assisting a rebellion,
Great Britain was prepared to meet them in the field. He pertinently
asked:—“Will the Bourbons, blind to their own interests, wish the
spirit of independence to cross the Atlantic? Can they be exempt from
fear, lest their own colonists should catch fire at the doctrine of the
unlimited rights of mankind, and prefer them to slavery and digging
of gold? And will not great danger arise from the vicinity of powerful
states freed from European control?” Finally, it was urged in defence of
the speech and address, that the only question which called for debate,
was simple in its nature it was, only, whether we chose to resign all
the benefits we derived from our colonies, and which had been purchased
by our best blood and treasures, and by truckling to the defiance and
insult hurled at us by the Americans, cut off those sources of power
and opulence, and submit to a degradation from the rank we held in the
political system of Europe; or, whether we should, by the full exertion
of our power, preserve those advantages, assert our ancient supremacy,
restore the authority of the British Parliament, and bring back
our ungrateful subjects to a sense of their duty. A division on the
amendment answered these questions; it was negatived by a majority of
two hundred and forty-two against eighty-seven, and the original address
was therefore carried.

In the upper house, an amendment was moved by the Marquess of
Rockingham, similar to that of Lord John Cavendish, and was followed
by debates of equal violence. By the Earl of Shelburne the speech was
denounced as a tissue of sophisms, and as a composition of unqualified
absurdity, treachery, cruelty, hypocrisy, and deceit. He attempted to
show, indeed, that all its paragraphs were false, differing only in
this—that some of the falsehoods were fallacious, some specious, and
some notorious. The Duke of Richmond maintained that America was lost
for ever, and he thought that we had better sit down quiet and contented
at the loss, consoling ourselves with the reflection that it had been
no fault of our own, but, solely that of an unjust and imbecile
administration. But even Lord Shelburne did not concur in this opinion:
he never meant, he said, this country to give up its right of commercial
control over America, which was the essential bond of connexion between
the two countries; and he declared that as the national debt was truly
and equitably the debt of every individual in the empire, whether
at home, or in Asia, or America, the Americans ought in some way,
to contribute to its discharge. Lord Sandwich, the first lord of the
Admiralty, more warmly opposed the doctrine of quiescence propounded
by the Duke of Richmond. It was, he said, derogatory to the honour and
destructive to the interests of England; and he declared that he would
hazard every drop of blood, and his last shilling, rather than see his
country set at defiance, bullied, and dictated to, by her undutiful
and ungrateful children; her disobedient and rebellious subjects. The
amendment was negatived by a majority of ninety-one against twenty-six.
Fourteen peers had it entered on the journals, at full length, as a
protest signed by themselves.

On the 16th of November, Lord John Cavendish produced a copy of the
proclamation issued by Lord Howe and his brother, as commissioners,
and proposed that, in conformity to its tenor, the house should resolve
itself into a committee for revising the acts by which the colonists
felt themselves aggrieved. This proposition was seconded by Burke, and
many of the opposition harangued in its favour. Ministers, however,
opposed such a step, on the ground that this inquiry into grievances had
been proffered only to those who should return to their duty, and hence
a disavowal of independence, and an acknowledgment of British supremacy
were requisite, before any measures of reconciliation could be adopted
by Great Britain. On a division the motion was lost by a majority of one
hundred and nine against forty-seven.

After the rejection of the proposition of Lord John Cavendish, many
members of opposition, especially those of the Rockingham party, seceded
from the business of parliament, alleging that it was useless to discuss
or oppose ministerial measures. This conduct, however, was blamed by the
majority of the opposition, who contended that no member of parliament
could, consistently with his duty, desert the interests of his country,
merely because he felt that his party would be outvoted. It was agreed
that no one could infer from thence that his attendance would be
useless, and that a respectable minority, though not able to carry
measures of its own, might, nevertheless, modify injurious laws and
counsels, by exposing their pernicious tendency. Some who held these
opinions made efforts to bring the great orator, Chatham, to the charge
again; but his gout prevented him from coming to the house, and little
could be elicited from him beyond a declaration that his sentiments with
regard to America were the same which he had always professed, and
which stood fully explained in his Provisional Act. At the same time he
expressed his fears that, in a few years, France would set her foot on
English ground. Thus, cleared of its members, the house of commons voted
the army and navy estimates without any display of violent opposition.
The number of seamen voted was 45,000, and £3,205,505 were voted for the
expenses of the navy; exclusive of £4000 for the support of Greenwich
Hospital, and £500,000 to go towards the discharge of the debts of
the navy. The army estimates voted, were about £3,000,000 exclusive
of extras, and some new contracts with German princes, for more German
troops to serve in America. These supplies being granted, on the 13th of
December, both houses adjourned for the Christmas recess.




ATTEMPT TO FIRE HIS MAJESTY’S DOCKYARD AT PORTSMOUTH.

During the recess of parliament, the public mind was agitated by acts of
incendiarism, which seemed at one time to denote that a conspiracy
had been entered into for the destruction of both our shipping and our
arsenals. In 1764, Choiseul, the French minister, had concocted a plan
for such a fearful catastrophe, but having divulged it to Grimaldi, then
prime minister of Spain, through him it was discovered to Lord Rochford,
our ambassador at Madrid, and the scheme therefore failed. Ministers
might have taken warning from this circumstance, and have had the
dock-yards and arsenals watched with sufficient vigilance, as to prevent
so disastrous an event from ever taking place. By this time, however,
they had returned to their old confidence, and on the 7th of December,
a fire broke out in the dock-yard at Portsmouth, which threatened its
total destruction. It was got under by great exertions, and it passed
at first for an accident, but on the 15th of January, one of the
under-clerks of the dock-yard having occasion to move some hemp in the
hemp-room, discovered a machine and combustible materials, which had
evidently been placed there by the hands of an incendiary. Some weeks
before, a sullen, silent man, a painter by trade, and who was known by
the name of John the Painter, had been seen loitering about the yard,
and he was now suspected to be the delinquent. Suspicion fastened
still stronger upon him because he was known to have recently come from
America, and a cry of alarm instantly spread through the country that
American incendiaries had arrived in England, and would spread fire and
destruction on every hand. It was necessary that John the Painter should
be taken, and soon after he was identified at Odiam in Hampshire, where
he had been apprehended for a burglary. John was brought up to London
for examination, but he was so taciturn, and so wise in keeping his
own counsels, that neither the privy-council, nor the lords of the
admiralty, nor other officers who interrogated him, could elicit
anything from him that would tend to his crimination. What authority,
however, failed to perform, that craft brought about. On the suggestion
of Earl Temple, another painter, who had been also in America, was put
into the same ward with John, in order to circumvent and entrap him.
Fellow-feeling caused the taciturn prisoner to open his mouth. His
brother painter pretended to sympathise in his misfortunes, descanted
largely on his travels in America, and professed principles similar to
his own. The travelled painter did all this with such address, that he
finally gathered from John that his real name was Aitken; that he had
entered into many regiments from which he had deserted so soon as he had
received the bounty-money; that he had traversed England through nearly
all its parts, sometimes robbing on the highway, and sometimes filching
and stealing in towns while he worked at his trade: that he went to
America, where he commenced politician and reformer of abuses, and where
he conceived the notion of serving the cause of liberty by burning our
shipping and our principal trading cities and towns; that he then left
America for France, where he had several interviews with Silas Deane,
the agent of congress; that Silas Deane encouraged his project, by
giving him money and promising him rewards commensurate with the service
he should render the American cause; that he then procured a French
passport and came over to Canterbury; and that on leaving Canterbury
he proceeded to Portsmouth, where he began to compound and prepare
his combustibles, after which he went into the dock-yard and made the
attempt of which he was suspected. The manner in which this evidence
was derived was certainly contrary to the spirit of the English law, and
repugnant to the feeling and practice of the present day, but on
this evidence vouched by the travelled painter, John the Painter was
condemned and executed. There was no doubt left on any mind either as
to the culprit’s guilt, or to his connexion with Silas Deane; but before
his death he is said to have confessed to some naval officers, that most
of what his accuser had testified against him, was true—that he had,
indeed, applied to Deane, who had promised him a reward of great price
when his work should be done. Nothing transpired which would inculpate
Choiseul the French minister, but as he was still in office, and as his
animus was well-known, he was thought to have been concerned in this
plot likewise. But it failed; and the circumstance had the effect of
still further exciting the enmity of the English people towards the
Americans.




CHAPTER VIII.

{GEORGE III. 1777–1778}

     Letters of Marque granted..... Bill for Detaining Persons in
     Prison charged with High-treason..... Miscellaneous
     Debates..... Spirited Address of the Speaker to the
     King..... Lord Chatham’s   Motion  for   Concessions  to
     America..... Parliament Prorogued..... Successes of
     Washington..... British Expedition up the Hudson River.....
     American Expedition to Long Island..... Capture of General
     Prescot, &c. Battle of the Brandywine, &c. Capture
     of Philadelphia..... Opening of the Delaware..... Close of
     Howe’s Campaign..... Expedition and Capture of Burgoyne.....
     Clinton’s Expedition   up   the Hudson..... Meeting of
     Parliament..... Debates on America..... Duke of Richmond’s
     Motion for Inquiring into the State of the Nation..... Fox’s
     Motion for Inquiring into the State of the Nation..... Army
     and Navy Estimates..... Intelligence of Burgoyne’s
     Defeat..... Royal Assent to Several Bills..... Parliament
     Adjourned.

{A.D. 1777}




LETTERS OF MARQUE GRANTED.

On the meeting of parliament, after the recess, a bill was brought into
the commons for enabling the admiralty to grant letters of marque
and reprisal to privateers against vessels belonging to the revolted
colonies, which were now doing much mischief, not only among our West
India Islands, but also in the narrow seas of Europe. This bill passed
the commons without a debate, and it went through the lords without
any amendment, except that the words “letters of permission” were
substituted for “letters of marque.”




BILL FOR DETAINING PERSONS IN PRISON CHARGED WITH HIGH-TREASON.

On the 6th of February Lord North introduced a bill “For enabling His
Majesty to detain and secure Persons charged with, or suspected of, the
Crime of High-treason, committed in North America or on the High-seas,
or the Crime of Piracy.” The bill provided, that all persons charged
with or suspected of treason, committed in any of the colonies, or on
the high-seas, or of piracy, should be liable to be committed to any
place of confinement named by the king, under his sign-manual,
within any part of his dominions, without bail or mainprize, and there
detained, without trial, during the continuance of the act, unless
his majesty’s privy-council granted an order for admitting any
such prisoners to bail or to trial. This bill encountered a strong
opposition. On the second reading Mr. Dunning declared that it struck
directly at that great pillar of British liberty, the Habeas Corpus Act,
and that it was disgraceful that it should be brought in without notice,
and when the house was so thinly attended. He moved, that the bill
should be printed, which was granted, and the second reading was
therefore postponed. The alarm it excited brought back several of the
seceders, and the debate became more animated. It was urged by the
opposition that the bill would tend to create spies, informers, and
false accusers; that it would furnish means of gratification, emolument,
and safety to the most profligate of mankind; and that it would enable
any revengeful minister or mercenary villain to satiate his revenge or
replenish his purse at the expense of the virtuous. Charles Fox used
some cogent arguments against the measure. He remarked:—“Who knows but
ministers, in the fulness of their malice, may take into their heads
that I have served on Long Island under General Washington? What would
it avail me, in such an event, to plead an _alibi_—to assure my old
friends that I was, during the whole of the campaign, in England—that I
was never in America, or any other sea but between Dover and Calais, and
that all my acts of piracy were committed on the mute creation? All this
may be true, says a minister or a minister’s understrapper, but you are
for the present suspected, and that is sufficient. I know that you are
fond of Scotland:—this is not the time for proofs; you may be, and very
probably are innocent, but this bill cares not whether you are guilty
or innocent: I will send you, under the sign-manual, to study the Erse
language in the isle of Bute; and as soon as the operation of the bill
is over, you will be at liberty to return, or go whither you please. You
may then call upon your accusers, to prove their charges of treason
in America, or of piracy on the high-seas; but they will laugh in your
face, and tell you they never charged, they only suspected; and the act
of parliament will serve as a complete plea in bar. It will answer a
double end—it will be at once your redress and our justification.” In
reply, Lord Thurlow ridiculed the idea that the bill was framed to reach
disaffected persons within this realm; though, he added sarcastically,
for his own part, if it did operate in this direction, he should
scarcely consider it a fault. The commitment of the bill was carried by
a majority of one hundred and ninety-five against forty-three; but as
it was discovered that some of the clauses were opened to serious
objections, several amendments were made in committee, one of which,
moved by Sir Grey Cooper, secretary to the treasury, defined the places
and the extent of the offence, subjecting persons to the operation of
the act. This, however, by no means satisfied either the opposition or
the country at large. A petition was presented from the city of London,
praying that the bill might not pass, or if it did, that it might not
extend to persons resident in Great Britain. A clause to this effect was
adopted, principally by the efforts of Mr. Dunning, and another was also
carried, which exempted certain minor acts of piracy from the operation
of the bill. Thus amended, the bill passed both houses; and the
opposition felicitated themselves, that, notwithstanding their numerical
weakness, they had compelled ministers to accept their corrections of so
reprehensible and dangerous a measure.




MISCELLANEOUS DEBATES.

A series of debates arose on abuses in the commissariat, in the
chartering of transports, and in the contracts for supplying the troops
in America with provisions, rum, &c. These abuses existed to an enormous
extent, and they were laid at the doors of many members of the house of
commons, who invariably voted with the treasury-bench. These members had
been allowed to get profitable contracts, and they contrived to render
them still more profitable, by supplying unwholesome provisions to the
troops, and which was, therefore, deservedly condemned. Another violent
debate took place on account of a new demand made by the Landgrave of
Hesse for more money; and Lord North’s situation was rendered still
more embarrassing by the necessity he was under of asking the faithful
commons for an increase to the civil list, amounting to upwards of
£600,000, in order to discharge a second debt incurred by his majesty.
Violent debates followed these demands, but both the Landgrave of Hesse
and his majesty were gratified eventually with having their desires
granted. The sum of £618,340 was granted, to enable his majesty to pay
his debts, and the further sum of £100,000 was voted in addition to the
sum already fixed of £800,000 per annum, for the better support of his
majesty’s household. The latter grant was warmly opposed in the house
of lords by the Marquess of Rockingham and the Duke of Grafton, who
endeavoured to enforce the necessity of economy, and to show that the
sum which his majesty already received was sufficiently ample to sustain
his dignity. They also argued, that this increase would furnish him with
the means of obtaining corrupt influence, and an unbounded power and
control over parliament. The opposition, however, were defeated by the
usual large majority, and the amendment which the Marquess of Rockingham
moved was entered as a protest on the journals, which was signed by
fourteen peers.




SPIRITED ADDRESS OF THE SPEAKER TO THE KING.

In presenting this extraordinary grant to his majesty for the royal
assent, Sir Fletcher Norton remarked:—“In a time of public distress,
full of difficulty and danger, their constituents labouring under
difficulties almost too heavy to be borne, your faithful commons,
postponing all other business, have not only granted to your majesty a
large present supply, but also a very great additional revenue—great
beyond example—great beyond your majesty’s highest expense; but all
this, sire, they have done in a well-grounded confidence that you apply
wisely what they have granted liberally; and feeling that, under the
direction of your majesty’s wisdom, the affluence and grandeur of the
sovereign will reflect dignity and honour on his people.” It is said by
some that this freedom of speech was unwelcome to the royal ears, and it
is certain that his courtiers were highly indignant; and yet Lord North
allowed the usual vote to pass, returning the thanks of the house to
the speaker, and requesting him to allow his speech to be printed.
Notwithstanding, his spirited conduct did not pass by unnoticed. In
the course of a debate on an address to his majesty moved by Sir James
Lowther, praying for an increase of income to the king’s two brothers,
which was negatived, the recent conduct of the speaker was violently
arraigned by Mr. Rigby, In reply, Sir Fletcher Norton appealed to the
vote of thanks which he had received, as a proof that the sentiments
he had expressed were the sentiments of the house. The court party,
however, retorted, and Lord North, uneasy at the altercation, wished
that the subject might be dropped. But the opposition now stepped in to
keep up the ball. Charles Fox declared, that a serious and direct charge
having been made, the question was now at issue—either the speaker
had misrepresented the house, or he had not, and the question must be
decided by the house. Fox accordingly moved:—“That the speaker of this
house, in his speech to his majesty at the bar of the house of peers, on
Wednesday last, and which was desired by this house, _nem. con._, to be
printed, _did_ express, with just and proper energy, the zeal of
this house for the support of the honour and dignity of the crown, in
circumstances of great public charge.” The speaker now declared, “that
he would sit no longer in that chair than while he was supported in the
free exercise of his duty: he had discharged what he conceived that duty
required of him, intending only to express the sense of the house; and
from the vote of approbation with which he had been honoured, he
had reason to believe that he was not chargeable with any
misrepresentation.” Lord North, perplexed at the dilemma to which the
heat of the courtiers had brought him, besought the speaker to rest
quiet, and the mover and supporters of the question to let it drop;
asserting, that no censure had been intended, and that though the
speaker might have made some mistake, it could only be attributed to the
hurry of an extempore address, and not to his judgment. The withdrawal
of the motion was refused, and then, still hoping to evade a division,
ministers moved an adjournment.

Opposition, however, maintained, that if the motion were not carried,
the speaker could not safely remain in the chair for another moment;
that he would, on all future occasions, be liable to disgrace whenever
he fulfilled his duty; that the dignity of the house would be at an
end if the chair should be degraded; and that the step which the
court-faction had taken was an attempt to render the representatives of
the people despicable in the eyes of their constituents. Ministers and
the court faction were compelled to bow before the storm. The motion
for an adjournment was withdrawn. Mr. Rigby made some concession, by
declaring that he meant no reflection on the character of the speaker,
and that he merely meant to express his own private opinion, according
to the privilege possessed by every member; and then Fox’s motion was
put and carried unanimously.




LORD CHATHAM’S MOTION FOR CONCESSIONS TO AMERICA.

Towards the close of the session there was a grand debate in the house
of lords on the affairs of America. After a long absence, the Earl
of Chatham moved for an address, advising his majesty to take speedy
measures for terminating the war with America, by the removal of their
grievances. The lords were summoned for the purpose of deliberating on
this motion, and it was introduced on the 30th of May. Chatham commenced
his speech by declaring the mother country unequal to the contest. He
remarked:—“My lords, this is a flying moment; perhaps but six weeks
are left to arrest the dangers that surround us. The gathering storm may
break; it has already opened, and in part burst. It is difficult,
after all that has passed, to shake hands with the defiers of the
king—defiers of the parliament—defiers of the people. I am a defier
of nobody; but if an end is not put to this war, there is an end to this
country! I do not trust my judgment in my present state of health; this
is the judgment of my better days—the result of forty years’ attention
to America. The Americans are rebels; but for what? Surely not for
defending their unquestionable rights. But their excesses have been
great! I do not mean to pronounce their panegyric, but must observe, in
extenuation, the erroneous and infatuated counsels which have prevailed
here. The door to mercy and justice has been shut against them; but they
may still be taken up upon the grounds of their former submissions and
petitions. I state to you the importance of America: it is a double
market—a market of consumption, and a market of supply. This double
market for millions, with all its naval stores, you are giving to your
hereditary rival. America has carried you through four wars; and will
now carry you to your death, if you do not take things in time. In the
sportsman’s phrase, when you have found yourselves at fault, you must
try back. You have ransacked every corner of Lower Saxony; but 40,000
German boors never can conquer ten times the number of British freemen.
You may ravage—you cannot conquer; it is impossible: you cannot conquer
the Americans. You talk of your numerous friends to annihilate the
congress, and of your powerful forces to disperse their army: I might as
well talk of driving them before me with my crutch! But what would you
conquer—the map of America? I am ready to meet any general officer on
the subject, What will you do out of the protection of your fleet? In
the winter, if together, they are starved—if dispersed, they are taken
off in detail. I am experienced in spring hopes and vernal promises: I
know what ministers throw out; but at last will come your equinoctial
disappointment. You have got nothing in America but stations. You have
been three years teaching them the art of war—they are apt scholars;
and I will venture to tell your lordships that the American gentry
will make officers enough fit to command the troops of all the European
powers.

“What you have sent there are too many to make peace—too few to make
war. If you conquer them, what then? You cannot make them respect you;
you cannot make them wear your cloth; you will plant an invincible
hatred in their breasts against you. Coming from the stock they do, they
can never respect you. If ministers are founded in saying there is no
sort of treaty with France, there is still a moment left; the point of
honour is still safe. France must be as self-destroying as England to
make a treaty, while you are giving her America at the expense of twelve
millions a year: the intercourse has produced everything to France; and
England, Old England, must pay for all. I have, at different times, made
different propositions, adapted to the circumstances in which they were
offered. The plan contained in the former bill is now impracticable:
the present will tell you where you are, and what you have now to depend
upon. It may produce a respectable division in America, and unanimity
at home: it will give America an option; she has yet had no option.
You have said, ‘Lay down your arms,’ and she has given you the Spartan
answer, ‘Come, take.’” Lord Chatham here read his motion, which he
afterwards said, if earned, would prove the herald of peace, and would
open the way for treaty. In conclusion, he again urged the necessity of
making peace with America before France should espouse the quarrel on
behalf of the Americans. He observed, that the French court was too wise
to lose the opportunity of separating America from Great Britain; that
whenever that court, with that of Spain likewise, should enter into
a treaty with America, we must declare war against them; and that he
should be among the first to advise such a declaration, even though we
had only five ships of the line in our ports. The Earl of Chatham was
answered by Lords Gower, Mansfield, Lyttleton, and Weymouth, and by the
Archbishop of York, who all maintained that the original aim of America
was independence, and that concessions on our part now would be useless,
ridiculous, degrading, and an acknowledgment of weakness, that would
draw down upon England the contempt of her friends and the attacks
of her foes. The motion was supported by the Dukes of Grafton and
Manchester, Lords Camden and Shelburne, and the Bishop of Peterborough,
who reiterated the arguments of the noble mover in its favour. In the
course of the debates Lord Weymouth had expressed some doubt as to
Chatham’s real meaning, and later in the evening he thus explained
it:—“I will tell your lordships very fairly what I wish for: I wish for
a repeal of every oppressive act which your lordships have passed since
1673. I would put our American brethren on the same footing they stood
at that period; and I should expect that, being left at liberty to
tax themselves, they would in return contribute to our common burdens,
according to their means and abilities. I will move your lordships for
a bill of repeal, as the only means left to arrest that approaching
destruction which threatens to overwhelm us. I shall no doubt hear it
objected, Why should we submit or concede? Has America done anything on
her part to induce us to agree to so large a ground of concession? But
I will tell you, my lords, why I think you should concede—you have
been the aggressors from the beginning; you have burned their towns,
plundered their country, confiscated their property, and imprisoned
their persons!” A murmur was heard through the house, that the Earl of
Chatham was doing his best to encourage the Americans, and to discourage
the people of England; and it must be confessed that the whole tenor of
his speech was likely to produce such an untoward effect. Moreover,
the sentiments which his speech contained were otherwise not founded in
wisdom. Thus the belief which he expressed, that the Americans would,
if left to tax themselves in their assemblies, contribute to our common
burdens, according to their means and abilities was a fallacy which had
been disproved by matters of fact; for, when in a previous year, and
in the course of the quarrel, this had been proposed to them, not
one assembly would contribute a single shilling. All advances toward
concession, indeed, were met by a louder appeal to arms; and there was
at this time no alteration in their sentiments which could justify a
hope that, even if a repeal of all the taxes were guaranteed to them,
they would now lay down their arms, or cease the long and loud cry for
independence. It was certainly now too late to offer any concession,
and so the majority of the peers seems to have considered; for, on
a division, the bill was lost by a majority of ninety-nine against
twenty-eight.

{GEORGE III. 1777–1778}




PARLIAMENT PROROGUED.

During this session the other debates which took place related almost
exclusively to East Indian affairs. These will be noticed hereafter in
a continuous narrative. At the close of the session, the speaker, in
presenting the bills relating to the supplies, again stated to his
majesty the hope of the house that speedy means would be discovered
to terminate the war, which otherwise might be attended with ruinous
consequences to the prosperity, and perhaps dangerous to the safety, of
the country. His majesty himself seems to have entertained a hope that
the war would soon be ended; for on the 6th of June, when he prorogued
parliament, after thanking the commons for the zeal and public spirit
they had displayed in granting large and extraordinary supplies,—the
whole amounted to £12,895,543,—he said, that he trusted Divine
Providence would so bless the efforts of his forces that the war might
be ended in the present campaign; that the constitutional obedience to
the laws, which is due from all the subjects of a free state, would be
speedily re-established.




SUCCESSES OF WASHINGTON.

Long before parliament was prorogued events had transpired which, if
known, would have almost precluded the hope that the war in America
would soon be successfully terminated. Notwithstanding his reverses,
encouraged by congress, Washington exerted himself to raise a standing
army. He met with great difficulties; and as the militia could not be
stimulated to exertion, he had reason to fear that in a short time he
should be left without any forces. In this emergency, Washington
decided that something must be done to raise the drooping spirits of
his followers. Circumstances favoured his decision. After the detachment
which Lord Cornwallis had led through the Jerseys was put into
winter-quarters, many of the officers had obtained leave of absence, and
had repaired to New York, to enjoy themselves at head-quarters. The men
who were left behind, also seem to have indulged themselves in Christmas
festivities; being the more induced to lead a jovial life from their
recent victories, and from the supposition that Washington’s army was
completely disorganized. In all their cantonments, which were straggling
and far apart, a careless confidence prevailed, and it happened
unfortunately, likewise, that one of the most critical points was
entrusted to a body of Hessians, and unprovided with any defence. But
while they were slumbering in fancied security, Washington was marking
them for his prey. He had spies everywhere, and having ascertained
the situation of our forces, he resolved to try the effect of a sudden
attack, which might induce his enemy to fall back from the Delaware.
Accordingly, on the 24th of December, he collected his forces on
the opposite banks of the river, and on the next day he made his
preparations for crossing it at night-fall. Difficulties which he had to
surmount prevented him from gaining the left bank before three o’clock
in the morning; but by that time his troops were collected a little
above Trenton, where the Hessians were posted under the command of
Colonel Rhalle. At the same time Generals Irving and Cadwallader were
ordered to cross the river lower down, in order to cut off the retreat
of the Hessians. These generals, however, could not get their artillery
across the river, and they returned, leaving Washington with his
division, which consisted of 2,500 of his best men, to perform his
enterprise alone. It was four o’clock before he could get his troops
into motion, and then he had to march eight or nine miles before he
could reach Trenton, where the Hessians lay. But these mercenaries were
buried in sleep and Christmas drink; and though it was daylight before
the Americans arrived, they permitted themselves to be almost surrounded
before they prepared for resistance. The event was disastrous. Colonel
Rhalle assembled all that he could of his three regiments, and bravely
charged Washington’s main body; but at the very commencement of the
attack he was mortally wounded by an American rifle, and the Hessians
being encompassed on all sides with muskets and artillery, to the number
of nearly a thousand, laid down their arms and surrendered. A troop of
British light-horse, and about five hundred infantry, who were stationed
at the lower end of Trenton, towards the bridge, escaped to Borden town;
but Washington recrossed the Delaware in triumph, with his prisoners,
six field-pieces, and a quantity of military stores.

This expedition had a surprising effect on the Americans. Hitherto the
Hessians had been looked upon as invincible; but to show that this was
a mere fiction Washington dispatched the prisoners to Philadelphia, and
caused them to be paraded through the town. His troops were now soon
augmented, and those whose time was expired agreed to remain a little
longer, upon receiving a bounty of ten dollars per man. This success of
Washington, however, made him rash. In a few days, the Delaware
being frozen over, and the ice strong enough to bear his army and the
artillery, he resolved to recover the Jerseys. On the last day of the
year, 1776 therefore, he again crossed the Delaware, and took post at
Trenton, where he had captured the Hessians. His reappearance alarmed
the British general, and Lord Cornwallis, who had reached New York
on his road to England, was ordered back to take the command in the
Jerseys. Having effected a junction with Generals Grant and Leslie,
at Princetown, on the 2nd of January, Lord Cornwallis descended from
thence, drove the enemy’s posts before him, and by four o’clock in the
afternoon reached Trenton. A severe cannonade commenced, and Washington
retired across the Assumpinck, a creek which runs through the town. He
was followed by Cornwallis; but the British, finding the fords of the
creek guarded by artillery, desisted from the attempt to pass over the
fords, and night coming on, both armies kindled their fires, and spread
their blankets whereon to rest. Cornwallis hoped to bring on a general
engagement in the morning: but Washington, aware of this, and being
prevented from recrossing the Delaware by a rapid and temporary thaw,
he resolved to strike across the country, and get into the rear of
Princetown, where no considerable British force had been left, At two
o’clock in the morning the Americans stole silently away; having first
renewed their bivouac-fires, and left their advanced pickets and several
small parties to guard for a time the fords of Assumpinck Creek. On his
march, about sunrise, Washington fell in with two British regiments
under Colonel Mawhood, in full march from Princetown, to join the
forces at Trenton. At first, the morning being foggy, Mawhood mistook
the Americans for Hessians; but soon discovering his error, he opened
a heavy charge of artillery upon them, which threw their van into
disorder. One of the regiments now rushed forward with fixed bayonets,
and drove the Americans back to a ravine, which separated them from the
rear; and in this attack General Mercer who was attempting to rally the
rabble rout, was mortally wounded. Washington came up with the rear, and
succeeded in getting his main body into order and passing the ravine,
but in so doing he lost five more of his best officers, and was himself
beset with danger. After several efforts, he succeeded in severing
the two regiments under Mawhood, which success opened his way to
Princetown. At the same time, part of the British force which he had
encountered marched forward for Trenton, and part retreated towards New
Brunswick. Washington entered Princetown, but as Lord Cornwallis had
discovered his retreat, and was now in his rear, he left that town, and
reached and crossed Millstone River; breaking down the bridge to prevent
his being pursued. Cornwallis marched to New Brunswick, where he lay for
many days, during which time Washington overran the greater part of East
and West Jersey; made himself master of the coast opposite to Staten
Island, by occupying Newark, Elizabeth Town, and Woodbridge; and fixed
his head-quarters at Morris Town, a place situated among hills and
difficult of access, with a fine country in its rear, abounding in
supplies. By these events the whole of the Jerseys were for a time lost
to England: and it was not only the success of Washington’s arms which
led to this consummation. The inhabitants of the Jerseys had been
harassed and plundered by the British, and more especially by the
Hessian troops, whence, no sooner had Washington, who restrained
the troops under him from committing acts of violence, issued a
proclamation, absolving all those who had taken the oath of allegiance
tendered by the king’s commissioners, and promising them friendship and
protection on condition of taking another oath prescribed by congress,
than the majority of them declared in his favour; and while not a few
joined his army, others rendered him service by pretending still to be
royalists, and acting as his spies in the English cantonments, and even
in New York itself. Yet all the while Washington was thus acting—while
he was issuing proclamations, recruiting his forces, strengthening his
positions, erecting forts, mills, and magazines, reconciling the people
of the country to the dominion of congress, and even cutting off the
supplies of the British advanced posts at Brunswick and Amboy, the
British commander was only a few miles distant, with a far superior
force, and with a good fleet at command. True, it was winter; but it
must be recollected that all the successes which had attended the arms
of Washington were the results of a winter campaign. Still something
was done by General Howe during this season of repose. Several thousand
provincial troops, native Americans, and ardent royalists were enrolled
and trained, and placed under the command of Governor Tryon, who was
honoured with the rank of major-general of the provincials. And the good
faith of these troops might be calculated upon, for the greater part
had been losers by the revolution, not only of property, but of the
consideration which they had held in the colonies; and they hoped,
therefore, to regain all that they had lost. Moreover, during the
winter, an intercourse was kept up with the royalists in other parts of
the continent; and both Washington and congress were frequently alarmed
by rumours of movements and insurrections in various colonies. Congress,
however, by means of the committees of safety, did what they could to
remove all persons of influence and “desperate character” into some
remote place, where they could effect no harm to the republican cause.




BRITISH EXPEDITION UP THE HUDSON RIVER.

In the course of the spring General Howe was assured that Washington’s
main position, now among the Jersey hills, and called the Manor of
Courland, was converted into a kind of citadel, and that the port to
which his supplies were chiefly carried was Peekshill, about fifty mites
up the Hudson River. Acting upon this information he sent a detachment
of five hundred men, under the command of Colonel Bird, in a couple of
transports, to drive the Americans away from Peekshill, and to capture
their stores. As Bird approached the Americans fled from their position,
but before they retreated they set fire to their store-houses, so that
no booty was obtained. Shortly after this exploit Howe sent 2000 men,
under the command of Governor Tryon, General Agnew, and Sir William
Erskine, to seize a large quantity of stores which had been collected
for Washington’s army at Danbury, on the borders of Connecticut. This
detachment sailed up the east river in transports, and having landed
at Camp’s Point, the troops marched to Danbury. On their approach, the
Americans fled precipitately, and they entered the town, where they
found a large quantity of stores; but having no carriages to carry
them away, they were burned, together with the town of Danbury. Having
completed their work of destruction, the detachment began to inarch back
to their shipping; but while they had been thus employed the Connecticut
men had been running in from all quarters, and had collected under the
American generals, Wooster, Silliman, and Arnold. The latter general was
posted at the little town of Bridgefield, and as there was no road but
through the town, it was necessary to force his entrenchments. This was
effected after a short but terrible conflict; and as it was now near
night, and the British troops were fatigued, they formed themselves into
an oblong square, and lay upon their arms till morning. In the morning,
when they recommenced their march, they encountered fresh dangers.
General Wooster had brought some field-artillery, and had placed it at
the end of a bridge, over which he thought the British must of necessity
pass; and when they arrived at the bridge they found him with his
artillery and two strong columns drawn up on the bank of the river.
Their guide, however, led them to a ford, three miles above the bridge,
and there they crossed without opposition. But from this ford, nearly
all the way to Camp’s Point, they were harassed in flank and rear by the
American troops, who seemed resolved to cut them off. They paid dearly
for their temerity. Just before the royal troops reached Camp’s Point
Sir William Erskine, placing himself at the head of four hundred men,
charged the two American columns, broke them, drove them back across the
country, and General Wooster, with several field officers and a great
many men, were left dead upon the field. The loss of the British,
also, in killed and wounded, amounted to about two hundred—the rest
re-embarked and returned to New York.




AMERICAN EXPEDITION TO LONG ISLAND.

On both sides the contest at this time assumed the features of a
predatory warfare. Having learned that the British had collected a large
quantity of stores on Long Island, at a place called Sagg’s Harbour, the
Americans resolved to destroy them by a night attack. This expedition
was undertaken by Colonel Meigs, a Connecticut man, and he crossed
the sound in whale-boats, reached the harbour before break of day, and
though he met with some resistance, he succeeded in setting fire to
the store-houses and to some of the shipping, and also in taking about
ninety prisoners, with whom he returned triumphant to Connecticut.




CAPTURE OF GENERAL PRESCOT, ETC.

During the winter of the preceding year, while Washington was retreating
before Lord Cornwallis Colonel Harcourt, who commanded our light-horse,
took prisoner Charles Lee, who had deserted from the British service, in
which he held the rank of colonel, and had gone over to the Americans,
who conferred on him the rank of major-general. Lee was attempting to
join Washington’s force with 3000 men, when he was captured, and his
loss seems to have been considered a severe blow to the cause of
the Americans. Washington, indeed, proposed giving six Hessian
field-officers in exchange for him; which was refused, on the ground
that Lee was a deserter from the king’s service, and therefore could not
be considered as a prisoner of war, or be exchanged by cartel. Congress
then took up the business, and directed that Washington should inform
General Howe that five Hessian field-officers and Lieutenant-colonel
Archibald Campbell, who had been captured at Boston after Howe had
evacuated that city, should be thrown into confinement, and subjected
to the same treatment which Lee should receive. This would have been no
great hardship; for Lee was merely confined to a commodious house, and
had every accommodation; but shutting their eyes to this well-known
fact, congress threw Campbell into the common gaol of Concord, and
decorated his loathsome dungeon with the ornaments of the gallows
or gibbet. Washington himself represented the iniquity of such a
proceeding, but to no purpose: the chagrin felt at the capture and
retention of Lee forbade the exercise of a manly and liberal feeling.
Congress had soon an opportunity of exhibiting their chagrin in a still
stronger light. General Prescot, commanding-officer on Rhode Island,
had imprudently fixed his head-quarters near the western shore, at a
considerable distance from his troops. This was known to Colonel Barton,
an American officer, and he, with several other militia officers
and volunteers, chiefly Rhode Islanders, crossed over by night from
Warwick-neck to Rhode Island, and took General Prescot in his bed,
hurried him to their boats, and sailed away to the main land. It was
announced that Prescot should be hanged if Lee were shot; and they
treated him in the interval with great severity, in order to make
General Howe consent to an exchange, to which he finally agreed.

{GEORGE III. 1777–1778}




BATTLE OF THE BRANDYWINE, ETC.

At length, in the month of June, General Howe took the field. At this
time Washington, who had been greatly reinforced, had taken up a strong
position at Middle Brook, having entrenchments and formidable batteries
in his front. It was the object of Howe to tempt the American general to
quit this position; and having failed in various expedients, on the 19th
of June he ordered his main body to retire to Amboy. This succeeded.
Washington abandoned what had cost him so much trouble to create, and
advanced to Quibble Town. The mass of the British troops now moved back
by different routes, in order to get on the American general’s flank and
rear, and by intervening between him and the hills, to force him to
a conflict on open ground. Lord Cornwallis led the van, and he had not
marched far before he fell in with Washington’s advanced body, who were
advantageously posted, and well provided with artillery. The British
troops, however, attacked them with such impetuosity that the Americans
fled, and were pursued as far as Westfield, leaving behind them some
of their cannon, and two hundred men in killed and wounded. But by
this time Washington had seen his error, and he quickly remedied it by
regaining his station on the hills, and securing those passes which were
the main object of Cornwallis’s expedition. General Howe now altered his
whole plan of operation. He called in all his detachments, concentrated
his army at Amboy, and then passed over to Staten Island, leaving
Washington in possession of the Jerseys. His men wondered what he meant
to do; but they soon learned that his object was to take Philadelphia.
To this end he set sail with his army on the 23rd of July, and on the
30th he rounded the coast to the capes of Delaware. His intention was
to have sailed up the Delaware to Philadelphia; but discovering that the
Americans had raised prodigious impediments on that river, he sailed to
Chesapeake Bay, where he landed about the middle of August. By this time
his men had become worn out by the long confinement on ship-board, and
the horses had become almost useless; so that it was necessary for them
to have rest before they proceeded on their enterprise. The van was
put in motion on the 2nd of September, and on the day following, his
advanced body fell in with some detachments of the enemy, scattered
them, and took up their position, which was on Iron Hill, and which
commanded a view of the Delaware river. It was now discovered that
Washington had left the Jerseys and was in the field to oppose the
advance of the British troops. He had taken possession of some heights
on the eastern side of the river Brandywine, which falls into the
Delaware below Philadelphia, with an intention of disputing the passage.
Howe must necessarily cross this river in order to obtain the great
object of the campaign, and he resolved to force his way over. The
position of the enemy was formidable; but, notwithstanding, on the
11th of September, the attempt was made, and that successfully. General
Knyphausen advanced with the second division of the army to Chad’s Ford,
as a feint; and while the Americans were defending that point, Lord
Cornwallis had marched a few miles round, crossed the forks of the
Brandywine, and came upon Washington’s flank. On discovering this the
Americans fell into great confusion, and Knyphausen then rushed with
his division across Chad’s Ford, and drove them from their batteries and
entrenchments at the point of the bayonet. Later in the day the British
forces attacked the Americans, under General Sullivan, who were strongly
posted on the heights above Birmingham church, and drove them from
thence in great confusion. In the whole they lost three hundred killed,
about six hundred wounded, and four hundred who were taken prisoners,
besides several pieces of artillery; but Washington kept his corps
together, and retired with his cannon and baggage to Chester, where
he passed the night without molestation. On the following morning he
marched by Derby to Philadelphia, where he collected his scattered
troops, in order to defend the city.




CAPTURE OF PHILADELPHIA.

General Howe advanced towards, Philadelphia with caution. This was
necessary, for the enemy hovered about him and threatened an attack.
Washington, indeed, had not yet relinquished all hope of impeding the
enemy’s progress, and he made an attempt to repeat the stratagem which
had been so successfully executed by Lord Cornwallis. When Howe put
his army in motion he marched towards Chester, and took possession of
Wilmington, where he lodged his sick and wounded. He was now about
a day’s march from Philadelphia; but there was the river Schuylkill
intervening between him and that city, and on the bank of that river
General Armstrong was posted to dispute the passage. At the same time
Washington had struck away to the left of the British, by the Lancaster
road, in the hope of getting on Howe’s flank. Both Philadelphia and the
inhabitants around, however, were friendly to the cause of Howe; and
having gained timely information from some country-people, he extended
his line, and presented such a front on the Lancaster-road that
Washington was defeated in his design. A heavy fall of rain, also, had
the effect of keeping the combatants asunder, for the ammunition on
both sides was thereby rendered useless. Washington fell back to Warwick
Furnace, on the south branch of the French Creek; and from thence he
detached General Wayne, with 1,500 men, to cross a rough country and
get, if possible, into the rear of the enemy. But here again he was
foiled. Wayne’s movement was discovered, and Major-general Gray, who was
sent against him, attacked him suddenly by night in his bivouac, slew
three hundred men, took one hundred prisoners, and captured all the
baggage of those who fled. Washington now gave up his intention of
defending the line of the Schuylkill and covering Philadelphia, and he
retreated so as to leave the road open. Three days after, the British
army passed that river, and took possession of German Town. By this time
congress had fled from Philadelphia; and on the 26th of October,
Lord Cornwallis, at the head of a strong detachment, took undisputed
possession of the city. Congress had threatened to set fire to the
place rather than let it fall into the hands of the British: but they
abandoned this design, and no incendiaries were left, as at New York.
Some loyal Quakers, and other royalists, had been put under arrest on
Howe’s approach, and about twenty of them had been sent close prisoners
to Staunton, in Virginia; but the majority of the people remained at
Philadelphia, and were well affected to the cause of the mother country.




OPENING OF THE DELAWARE.

By the capture of Philadelphia a communication was facilitated between
the northern and south provinces, and nothing was required for an active
co-operation between the army and the navy, but the opening of the
Delaware. There was a great difficulty, however, in effecting this
object. Franklin was now gone to Paris in his diplomatic capacity, but
before he went he had caused some tremendous works to be erected on that
river. Three rows of _chevaux-de-frise_, composed of immense beams of
timber, were sunk across its bed, a little below the confluence of the
Schuylkill, and the lower line of the _chevaux-de-frise_ was protected
by some works erected on the Jersey shore, at Billing’s Port, while
the upper line was defended by a battery, mounting heavy cannon, and
situated on a flat, marshy land, near the Pennsylvanian bank of the
liver. On the opposite bank, also, there was a formidable redoubt and
intrenchments, with floating batteries, armed galleys under cover,
rafts, with guns upon them, and a great many fire-ships. Moreover,
higher up the river, the Americans had two frigates, and several
gondolas or gun-boats; while, lower down, there were various works to
obstruct the navigation. At this time Lord Howe arrived with his fleet,
and soon after commenced operations. Three batteries were erected on the
Philadelphia side of the river, and Colonel Stirling was thrown across
the river to the Jersey shore to sweep the works at Billing’s Port,
which commanded the first line of _chevaux-de-frise_. The Americans fled
at his approach, and Captain Hammond then sailed up the Delaware, broke
the _chevaux-de-frise_, and made a gap wide enough to admit the largest
of our ships of war. Two other rows of _chevaux-de-frise_, however,
remained, with the forts on the bank of the river and the marshy island.
Against these the British now directed their operations; but while they
were making preparations, Washington, who had withdrawn to Skippack
Creek, about sixteen miles from Philadelphia, and who had been
reinforced by 2,500 men, resolved to attempt a surprise. Favoured by a
thick fog, on the 3rd of October, he quitted his encampment, and by dawn
of day arrived at German Town, where a body of the British troops were
posted. Taken by surprise, these troops retreated; but Colonel Musgrave,
by whom they were commanded, threw himself into a large stone house with
five companies, and kept up such an incessant fire upon the assailants
that their progress was impeded, till the troops rallied and got under
arms and into line. Musgrave was summoned to surrender, but he defied
the enemy; and General Grey with Brigadier Agnew coming up to his
relief, the Americans were beaten out of the village, and Washington was
compelled to retreat to Skippack Creek, leaving behind him eight hundred
killed and wounded, and about four hundred prisoners. The opening of the
navigation of the Delaware was now eagerly pursued. An attempt was made
by the Hessians to storm the American redoubt and intrenchment at
Red Bank, on the opposite side of the river; but after carrying the
outer-works they were repulsed, and their commander, Count Dunnop, with
four hundred of his men, were slain. At the same time two sloops-of-war,
the Augusta and Merlin, which were sent to aid in the assault, ran
aground while they endeavoured to avoid the _chevaux-de-frise_ and were
burnt. Preparations, however, being made for attacking the fort on the
marshy island, which was the chief defense of the river, an attack was
made, and a breach was soon effected in the works, which ensured its
capture. Two days after this Lord Cornwallis proceeded against the
redoubt on Red Bank, and this was also captured. Franklin’s ingenious
mechanism was then destroyed, and a full and free communication was
established along the whole course of the Delaware.




CLOSE OF HOWE’S CAMPAIGN.

It was towards the end of November that the river Delaware was opened.
By this time General Howe seems to have considered that his work was
done for the year. His supineness, and the slow movements of his army,
seem at all times to have been favourable to the cause of the enemy;
for though he was generally partially successful when he did act, yet he
always gave Washington sufficient time to rectify his many blunders and
to repair his losses. But though Howe thought of repose, Washington
had no intention of letting him enjoy himself. Having received a
reinforcement of 4000 men from the army of the North—which, as will be
seen, had rendered important service to the American cause—he quitted
Skippack Creek, and took post at White Marsh, only fourteen miles from
Philadelphia. Howe felt called upon to make fresh exertions, for the
proximity of the American forces shut him out from a fertile source of
supplies. Accordingly he quitted Philadelphia, and took post on Chesnut
Hill, in front of Washington’s right wing. Here he remained for two
days, with his troops drawn out in line of battle, hoping to tempt
Washington to come to a general engagement. Nothing occurred, however,
but a slight skirmish, in which the American militia ran like a rabble
before some light-infantry; and Howe then removed to Edge Hill, about a
mile from Washington’s left wing. Here a decided advantage was gained by
Lord Cornwallis, who drove a strong body of the American troops from the
crest of that hill, and a favourable opportunity was afforded, from the
dismay which their retreat occasioned, for attacking the main body with
success. But Howe was still cautious, and seeing that Washington was not
disposed to quit his camp, he returned to Philadelphia, there to spend
the winter. But Washington was determined to keep the field, despite the
winter’s cold, which had now set in, and he selected a strong piece of
ground, thickly covered with wood, at Valley Forge, on the west side
of the Schuykill, and about twenty-five miles from Philadelphia. This
position was chosen in order to keep Howe in check, and Philadelphia in
great discomfort, and he was allowed to take possession of it without
any molestation. The way in which Washington executed his plan does
honour to his perseverance. He had but few tents, and, even if there had
been an abundance, mere canvass would not have protected his men from
the rigour of an American winter. Under these circumstances he imitated
the backwoodsman’s practice of hutting. Trees were felled, and log-huts
wore erected, the interstices of which were filled up with earth, moss,
and a rude kind of mortar, in order to render them warm and comfortable.
Around them, for defence, two redoubts were erected and an intrenchment,
drawn with a ditch six feet wide and three or four feet deep. His left
was covered by the Schuylkill, and his rear, for the most part, by an
abrupt precipice; but his right was somewhat accessible, and the centre
of his front was weak, notwithstanding his intrenchments. There was,
however, no cause for fear: Howe was in snug winter-quarters, and had
no disposition to move till the flowers of the earth reappeared, and his
men might be animated by the cheerfulness of the spring. He seemed to
forget that there was such a place as Valley Forge, and such a resolute
commander on that spot. For resolute indeed must have been the man who
could thus defy the winter’s cold, and resolute also must have been his
troops to submit to the hardships which they had to encounter on Valley
Forge. Hundreds of them, it is said, had not a blanket to cover them
in the night season, while the winds blew, and the storm beat, and the
snows drifted over and around their huts. There they lay, naked and
shivering on the bare ground, none murmuring at their lot. Those that
lived endured their miseries patiently; those that died expired with
silent resignation. And hunger was added to their lingering tortures;
for congress failed to procure them needful supplies. Of this Washington
bitterly complained; but as the evil could not be obviated without
creating distress in other quarters, no effectual assistance could be
rendered. The chief thing which congress did to afford the troops relief
was to authorise Washington to seize all provisions which he could
within seventy miles of Valley Forge; and such was his extremity, that
he was compelled, at least on one occasion, to avail himself of this
authority, though repugnant to his feelings. But this only afforded a
temporary relief, and the army was, towards the close of the winter,
on the very verge of total starvation. Washington stated to congress
at this period, that there was not a single head of cattle in the camp;
that he had only twenty-five barrels of flour; and that there were 3000
men unfit for duty, being bare-footed and naked, besides numbers who
were confined by sickness in the hospitals and farm-houses. But even then
congress was slow in affording relief, and enabling the army to
make preparations for the ensuing campaign. Yet, sustained by hope,
Washington and his army preserved their fortitude, and resolved to try
once more their fortune on the field of battle.

[Illustration: 109.jpg GENERAL BURGOYNE ADDRESSING THE INDIANS]




EXPEDITION AND CAPTURE OF BURGOYNE.

Perhaps one cause which sustained the spirits of Washington and his
troops in Valley Forge may be found in the success which had attended
the American arms in the North. A plan had been formed by the British
government to send an army by the Canadian Lakes to Hudson’s River, for
the purpose of cutting off all communication between the northern and
the southern colonies. For parliamentary reasons ministers thought
proper to take the command from General Carleton, who had re-established
our supremacy on these lakes, and to confer it on General Burgoyne. The
plans which Burgoyne had to follow in his expedition were minutely and
absolutely laid down by the ministry, they having concocted them from
inaccurate maps and uncertain and contradictory reports. Nothing,
however, was wanting to promote the success of the undertaking.
Burgoyne’s force amounted to 7,200 men, rank and file, exclusive of the
corps of artillery, and vast quantities of warlike stores were furnished
for the use of those Canadians who might enter the British service.
French Canadians, to the number of two or three thousand, joined
Burgoyne; and as that general had been authorised to accept the services
of the fierce Indians, several of those tribes willingly took up the
hatchet against the Americans. The first thing Burgoyne was to do, was
to take Ticonderago; and his preparations being made, he set out from
Fort St, John, on the Sorel, on the 16th of June, for that purpose.
Having detached Colonel St. Leger, with about eight hundred men, to make
a diversion on the side of the Mohawk River. Burgoyne, preceded by the
shipping, began his course, having columns of Indians on his right
and left flank. At Crown Point there were a considerable number of
Americans, but they retired at the approach of the flotilla, and the
troops were safely landed. Here Burgoyne treated the Indians with a
war-feast, in order to whet their appetites for slaughter; though, at
the same time, he exhorted them to relinquish their old habits, and to
fight like civilized men. But he might as well have attempted to change
their natural colour by washing them with soap and water; and, moreover,
the effects of his precepts must have been set aside by the tenor of a
proclamation, which he issued immediately after, and which threatened
such of the insurgents as should continue in their obstinacy with
destruction. This proclamation was unheeded, and in a few days, after
erecting some magazines and slight defences at Crown Point, Burgoyne
proceeded to Ticonderago. The Americans had greatly strengthened their
works at this fort; but as they had not troops sufficient to man them,
General St. Clair, who held the command there, evacuated it, and putting
their baggage and provisions on board of batteaux, the Americans fled
to Skenesborough. The batteaux sailed along the South River, and being
pursued by a brigade of gun-boats, it was overtaken and captured, or
destroyed near the falls of Skenesborough. General Burgoyne followed
with one part of his army, in other gun-boats and two small frigates,
while Generals Frazer and Reidesel marched after St. Clair by land.
Skenesborough was captured with as much ease as Ticonderago; the
Americans who had occupied the place retiring hastily to Fort Anne, and
St. Clair marching with headlong haste to Castletown. The rear of the
retreating army was overtaken by General Frazer, and Colonel Francis,
with many officers, and two hundred men were slain, while a similar
number were taken prisoners, and about five hundred wounded crawled
away to perish in the woods, vainly hoping to escape to the inhabited
country. St. Clair continued his route from Castletown, and after a
fatiguing march arrived at Fort Edward, on the Hudson, where General
Schuyler, the American commander-in-chief, was stationed with about
4,400 men under his command. And here the reverses of the British arms
commenced. Being joined by St. Clair, and by Colonel Long, who was
compelled to evacuate Fort Anne, General Schuyler commenced a series of
active operations to baffle the advancing enemy. He broke up the roads
and the bridges; blocked up creeks and rivers; swept the country bare
of live-stock and all kinds of provisions; called up the militia and
backwoodsmen of New England and New York; and having succeeded in
collecting a numerous though motley force, he issued a proclamation in
the name of the congress of the United States, threatening death and
destruction to all who should send any deputation or afford any aid
to the enemy. It would have been prudent in Burgoyne had he taken a
different course to that which was laid down in his instructions, but he
resolved to persevere in that course. Having sent General Philips with
a strong detachment to proceed by Lake George with the artillery,
provisions, and baggage, he struck across the country, with the mass
of his force, towards Fort Edward. His progress was but slow, for his
troops had to remove the impediments which Schuyler had caused to
be thrown in his way; and, added to this, their inarch was rendered
fatiguing by the sultry heat of the weather. Nevertheless, by the 30th
of July, they reached the river Hudson, near Fort Edward, and Schuyler
retired across the river at their approach. Burgoyne waited in the
neighbourhood of Fort Edward for the arrival of General Philips with the
artillery, provisions, and stores, and for the junction of Colonel St.
Léger, who had from the first proceeded on a different line of march,
and who was now descending from Oswego, the Onedia Lake, and Wood Creek,
by the Mohawk River, which falls into the Hudson. St. Leger stopped at
the upper end of Mohawk to lay siege to Stanwix Fort, and upon receiving
this information General Burgoyne thought it his duty to support him. As
a preparatory measure he detached Colonel Baum to surprise Bennington,
a place between the forks of the Ilosick River, about twenty-four miles
eastward of the Hudson, and where the American stores were deposited.
The troops employed by Burgoyne for this enterprise were Germans, always
slow in their motions, and before they reached Bennington their design
had become known, and the Americans were ready to receive them. Baum
had only six hundred men with him, and he applied to Burgoyne for
reinforcements; and another detachment of German soldiers, consisting
of five hundred men, under Lieutenant-colonel Breyman, were sent to his
assistance. Breyman, however, was as slow in his movements as Baum had
been, and, before he could arrive, the first detachment of Germans were
completely surrounded by a body of more than 1,500 Americans. Colonel
Baum sustained the attack with great bravery; but he was at length slain
by a rifle-shot, and then the Germans retreated into some woods in the
direction of Fort Edward. It was at this critical moment that Breyman
came up, and having succeeded in putting the fugitives of Baum’s
detachment into some order, he fought his way back to Burgoyne’s
encampment. Instead of taking Bennington and the military stores,
Burgoyne lost five hundred men in killed and wounded in this expedition.
in the meantime St. Leger was prosecuting the siege of Stanwix Fort.
As he lay before this fort, he discovered that General Harkimer was
advancing to its relief with 1000 men under his command. He had with him
several tribes of savages, and St. Leger detached these, with a party
of regulars under Sir John Johnson, into the woods to lie in ambush.
Harkimer fell into the snare, and nearly four hundred of his men were
either killed or wounded, while the rest fled back to the Hudson. Still
Fort Stanwix held out, and the savages, growing weary of the siege, and
being falsely informed by some Americans that Burgoyne’s army had been
cut to pieces, insisted upon retiring. Many deserted, and St. Leger,
hearing that Arnold was approaching with 2000 men, and ten pieces of
artillery, he was compelled to raise the siege and to retreat. These
defeats, and the failure of St. Leger, contributed greatly to the ruin
of Burgoyne’s expedition. It has been seen, that on the arrival of that
general near Fort Edward, the Americans under Schuyler had retreated
across the Hudson. They had taken up their position at Saratoga, lower
down the river, and soon after, General Gates, an Englishman by birth
and education, took the chief command, and he was subsequently joined
by General Arnold. On his arrival, Gates removed the troops to an island
near the confluence of the Mohawk with the Hudson, about eight
miles below Albany, and called “Still Water.” Here he had a strong
star-redoubt and other defences; and against him, as he lay in this
position, Burgoyne having passed the Hudson by a bridge of boats, led
his forces. About the middle of September Burgoyne encamped on the
heights of Saratoga, in the face of the enemy. The mass of the British
army formed, on the 19th, close in front of the American left; the
right wing being commanded by Burgoyne, the left by Generals Philip
and Reidesel, and the front and flanks being covered by Indians and
Canadians. Without waiting to be attacked, General Gates threw out 5000
men to attempt turning the right of the British forces, and to attack
General Burgoyne in his rear. In making this attempt, however, he lost
between five hundred and six hundred men in killed and wounded, besides
several officers; and at night he deemed it prudent to collect all his
forces into and round the star-redoubt. The attack on the British
right had been made by General Arnold, and Burgoyne’s loss was scarcely
inferior to that of his enemy. That night the British army lay on their
arms in the field of battle; but as the day dawned, they began to erect
works within cannon-shot of the enemy, with strong redoubts on their
right. The two armies lay in sight of each other, from the 20th of
September till the 7th of October, during which time Burgoyne’s troops
had nearly consumed all their provisions. Burgoyne’s situation was a
critical one, and no time was lost in giving General Howe information of
it, in the hope that he would either co-operate or cause a diversion
to be made in his favour. Howe had just taken Philadelphia, and being
wholly occupied with Washington, and in destroying the forts and strong
works on the Delaware, could not spare a thought on the matter. Sir
Henry Clinton, however, who had the command of the troops left at
New York, informed Burgoyne that he would, on his own responsibility,
attempt a diversion, by attacking Forts Montgomery and Clinton, on the
lower part of the Hudson. Burgoyne agreed to remain in his position,
therefore, till the 12th of October: but his Indian followers, in
the meantime, disappointed in their hopes of plunder, annoyed at his
endeavours to check their ferocity, and wishing to return, as their
hunting-season had commenced, began to desert from him in great numbers.
Still Burgoyne, hoping that Clinton’s diversion would effect his
deliverance from clanger, would not think of retreating. On the other
hand, the Americans were greatly favoured by this delay. Every day
reinforcements arrived from the southern and northern provinces, while
stores and provisions poured into their camp in great abundance. General
Gates, indeed, having been joined by General Lincoln with 2000 men, at
the suggestion of Arnold, now adopted a scheme likely to reduce Burgoyne
to the stern necessity of an unconditional surrender. A considerable
body of New England militia, who had assembled in the rear of Burgoyne’s
forces, were sent to surprise Ticonderago, Mount Independence, and
Fort George, and to cut Burgoyne off from all supplies, and even from a
retreat to Canada. Colonel Brown, to whom this enterprise was entrusted,
failed in his main designs; but he destroyed some vessels which were
bringing provisions to Burgoyne, and then returned to his former station
in the rear of the enemy. Other American forces also collected between
the British army and the Lakes. Burgoyne’s difficulties increased daily.
The red-men, who had hitherto remained with him, now deserted, while the
Canadians and loyal Americans in his army lost all courage. But what
was worse than all, his provisions began to fail, while his horses were
perishing for want of forage. No tidings were yet heard of Clinton’s
diversion; and rendered desperate by his situation, Burgoyne resolved
to attempt dislodging Gates from his position. Accordingly, he advanced
forward with 1,500 men and a considerable body of artillery; but this
detachment had scarcely formed within half a mile of the American
intrenchments when they were attacked by a superior force, under Arnold,
and driven back to their camp, with the loss of six pieces of cannon.
From being assailed, the Americans now became the assailants. A furious
assault was made on the British lines; and though it was repulsed on the
English side of the camp, and Arnold was wounded, yet the intrenchments
on the German side of the camp were carried, and two hundred prisoners,
with a large supply of ammunition, were captured. Night closed on the
scene of carnage, and Lieutenant-colonel Brooks, who had defeated the
Germans, kept the ground he had won within the line of the British
intrenchments. In the engagement, General Frazer and Colonel Breyman
were mortally wounded; and on the following morning Burgoyne,
disheartened by this loss, removed his whole army, with their artillery
and baggage, to some heights above the bank of the Hudson, extending his
right up that river. In doing so, he left his wounded to the humanity of
General Gates and his army—a confidence which was not misplaced.

In his new position Burgoyne repeatedly offered battle to the enemy, but
without effect. The design of Gates was to obtain an easier victory by
turning the right of the British army and enclosing them on all
sides; and seeing this, Burgoyne quitted his position and fell back to
Saratoga, where he found the passes towards the Canadian frontiers all
pre-occupied by the Americans, while the further banks of the river were
lined with troops, which, together with numerous batteaux, commanded the
navigation. No means of escape seemed left but by a rapid night-march
to Fort Edward; but before preparations were made for this it was
discovered that the fords at that place were occupied, and that the
high grounds between that fort and Fort George were everywhere secured.
Burgoyne’s situation was now desperate. The 13th of October had
arrived, and no tidings were heard of Clinton’s diversion. Thus
unsupported, deserted by his Indian allies, worn down by a series of
incessant exertions, greatly reduced through repeated battles, and
invested by an army three times their number, and which was hourly
increasing, the British officers at length thought of capitulation.
There was no alternative, for their provisions were nearly spent;
and though the enemy declined battle, yet rifle and grape-shot were
continually pouring into the British camp. All hope of relief or of
extrication from danger fled; and a council-of-war being called, which
comprehended field-officers and captains, it was unanimously resolved to
capitulate, if it could be done on honourable terms. This was a
bitter step to take, but no other could be taken, and this message was
therefore sent by Major Kingston to General Gates:—“After having fought
you twice, Lieutenant-general Burgoyne has waited some days in his
present position, determined to try a third conflict against any force
you could bring against him. He is apprised of the superiority of your
numbers, and the disposition of your troops to impede his supplies, and
render his retreat a scene of carnage on both sides. In this situation,
he is impelled by humanity, and thinks himself justified, by established
principles and precedents of state and war, to spare the lives of brave
men upon honourable terms. Should Major-general Gates be inclined to
treat upon that idea, General Burgoyne would propose a cessation of
arms during the time necessary to communicate the preliminary terms, by
which, in any extremity, he and his army mean to abide.” In reply, Gates
demanded that the British troops should ground their arms, and surrender
themselves prisoners-of-war. To this Burgoyne answered:—“This article
is inadmissible in every extremity: sooner than the army will consent to
ground their aims in their encampment, they will rush on the enemy, with
a determination to take no quarter.” In the end, after much negotiation,
a convention was settled, which imported, that Burgoyne’s troops were to
march out of the camp, with all the honours of war, to the verge of the
Hudson River, where their arms and artillery were to be left; that a
free passage should be granted the troops to Great Britain, on condition
of their not serving again in America; that if any cartel should take
place by which Burgoyne’s army, or any part of it, should be exchanged,
the foregoing article should be void, so far as that exchange extended;
that care should be taken for the subsistence of the British troops
till they should be embarked; that all officers should deliver up their
carriages, bat-horses, &c., but that their baggage should be free from
molestation; that the officers should not be separated from the men,
and should be quartered according to their rank; that all the troops,
of whatever country they might be, should be included in the above
articles; that all Canadians, and persons belonging to the Canadian
establishment, should be permitted to return to Canada, should be
conducted to the first British post on Lake George, should be treated in
all respects like the rest of the army, and should be bound by the same
condition of not serving during the present contest; that passports
should be granted for three officers to carry despatches to Sir Guy
Carleton, in Canada, and to the government of Great Britain by way of
New York; that all officers, during their stay at Boston, should be
admitted to parole, and to wear their side-arms; that the army might
send to Canada for their clothing and other baggage; and that these
articles should be signed and exchanged on the following morning, and
the troops should march out of their intrenchments in the afternoon.
These were more favourable terms than Burgoyne and his troops had a
right to expect; and they appear to have been granted for a twofold
reason—first, because Gates was fearful of provoking the despair of
well-disciplined troops; and secondly, because he almost heard the roar
of Clinton’s artillery lower down the Hudson. The convention was signed
at the appointed time, and on the afternoon of the 17th of October the
troops marched out of their encampment down to the edge of the river,
where they deposited their arms. The delicacy with which this business
was conducted reflected great credit on Gates. It is said, that he not
only kept away from the spot himself, but that he would not suffer his
own people to be present, that they might not exhibit the feelings of
exultation over a fallen enemy. Nor did his urbanity end here. Burgoyne
was received by him with great kindness, and every circumstance which
could appear like a triumph in the lines of the Americans was withheld.
As for the half-famished British troops, they now partook liberally of
the plenty that reigned within the American camp, while the principal
officers were often entertained at General Gates’s own quarters, Among
the fruits of his victory were about forty pieces of artillery, 4,600
muskets, and a quantity of powder and ball. After the convention was
signed, General Gates moved forward to stop the devastations committed
by the British on the North River, but they had already retreated.
About the same time, also, the troops which had been left at Ticonderago
destroyed their cannon, and retreated to Canada. After being several
months agitated by the tumults of war, the whole country was restored to
complete tranquillity. The British army, shorn of their honours, went to
Boston, while several thousands of the victorious Americans, as before
recorded, joined the ranks of Washington.




CLINTON’S EXPEDITION UP THE HUDSON.

General Clinton was prevented from making his promised diversion in
favour of Burgoyne by the non-arrival of some troops which he expected
from Europe, and by the vicinity of General Putnam, who hovered in the
neighbourhood of New York, until the 6th of October, ten days before
the capitulation was signed. At that time, having received the expected
reinforcements, he began a series of attacks, which, if they had been
made only a few days earlier, would have rescued Burgoyne’s army from
its perilous situation. He embarked about 3000 men on board of craft of
all kinds, convoyed by Commander Hotham, and proceeded up the Hudson to
Verplank’s Point, about forty miles above New York. Clinton effected a
landing without opposition, and General Putnam, conceiving that it was
his intention to push through the islands on that side of the river, in
order to join Burgoyne, collected about 2000 men, and hastened with them
towards Verplank’s Point to obstruct his march. Leaving a third portion
of his troops, however, on that spot, Clinton passed over with the
rest to Stony Point, on the western shore, where, in two simultaneous
attacks, he carried Forts Montgomery and Clinton. This success obliged
the Americans to burn their navy, consisting of five ships, which
were lying in that part of the river, and which were defended by
a _chevaux-de-frise_, and by an immense boom, stretching from Fort
Montgomery, to an opposite point, called St. Anthony’s Nose. A few miles
higher up the river was another strong place, called Fort Constitution,
and this was destroyed by the garrison, who fled as soon as they
learned the fate of Forts Montgomery and Clinton. About the same time, a
detachment of American loyalists, under Governor Tryon, destroyed a new
settlement, called Continental Village, and in which were barracks and
military stores. Having removed the boom, Sir James Wallace also, with
a squadron of small frigates, ascended up the river, and burned many
American vessels. Clinton was everywhere victorious; and on the 13th
of October, the very day on which Burgoyne made his first overture for
capitulation, General Vaughan landed a detachment at Esopus Creek, which
was not more than thirty miles from Burgoyne’s encampment at Saratoga.
Vaughan carried fire and destruction before him: he reduced two
batteries, and a row-galley, stationed at the mouth of Esopus Creek;
and then ascending the creek about five miles, he destroyed the town
of Esopus, together with a vast quantity of stores and provisions,
collected for the use of General Gates’s forces. Clinton, however, was
still upwards of one hundred miles from Esopus Creek, and he was beset
by General Putnam’s forces, which had increased from 2000 to 6000 men.
He was in this situation when Burgoyne capitulated, and then Gates was
enabled to detach more troops to the aid of Putnam. The English general
therefore recalled Vaughan; destroyed all the forts he had taken;
re-embarked his men, and returned to New York. The main design of his
diversion had failed, and it chiefly served to prove, that had Howe
co-operated with Burgoyne, and have sailed up the Hudson during
the summer months, the campaign in this quarter, instead of being
disastrous, would have enhanced the glory of the British arms.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

The British parliament assembled on the 18th of November. The
all-engrossing topic of the king’s speech was the war with America. In
it he declared the necessity of continuing the war; and hinted, that
there was a probability that the land-forces must not only be kept up
to their full establishment, but even augmented by new contracts. Of
the disposition of foreign powers, his majesty now spoke in a doubtful
manner. They had given friendly assurances, he said, but as the
armaments of France and Spain continued, he thought it necessary that
his own naval force should be augmented. He had neither lost any of his
firmness, nor abated any of his hope, as to the issue of this contest.
He would always guard, he said, the honour of the British crown
faithfully; and he hoped that the Americans would yet return to their
allegiance; that the remembrance of their former happiness, and the
sense of their present misery, under the tyranny of their leaders, would
rekindle their loyalty and attachment to their mother country; and that
they would enable him, with the concurrence of parliament, to accomplish
peace, order, and confidence in the colonies.

{GEORGE III. 1777–1778}




DEBATES ON AMERICA.

The usual addresses were moved on the king’s speech—addresses which
were replete with panegyric on its wisdom, and likewise the wisdom of
ministers. They were doomed, however, to meet with stern opposition. In
the lower house, the Marquess of Granby, after lamenting the disastrous
effects of the war, and expressing a desire of having the happiness
to lay the groundwork of a reconciliation, moved an amendment, to the
effect, that his majesty should be requested to adopt some measures
for accommodating all differences with America; that he should be
recommended to cease hostilities, as a preparatory step to that end; and
that he should be assured that the commons were determined to co-operate
with him in every measure tending to the re-establishment of peace. This
motion was seconded by Lord John Cavendish, and it was supported by the
opposition generally, on the grounds, that after three years’ war, with
a heavy expenditure and a great loss of men, there was no prospect
of success; that, notwithstanding the hopes held out in the king’s
speeches, our progress exhibited a series of disappointments and losses;
that trade was greatly affected by the contest; and that while the
defenceless state of our coasts and commercial fleets demonstrated we
were unable at this stage of the war to protect our national trade, we
should be still less able when, involved in a war, as it was evident we
should be, with the Bourbons. The opposition now attended the house in
full force, but the amendment was nevertheless negatived by two hundred
and forty-three to eighty-six.

In the lords the debate on the address was still more animated than in
the commons. It was opposed by the Earl of Coventry, who, in the outset,
gravely recommended that our armies and fleets should be recalled, and
that the independence of America should be forthwith acknowledged.
His lordship took extreme views of our position; even predicting, that
should his advice be adopted, it, nevertheless, would not prevent the
downfall of England; that it was a matter of certainty, as fixed and as
immutable as any law of nature, that sooner or later the seat of empire
would be removed beyond the Atlantic. One grand argument used by his
lordship to establish his views, was the insignificant figure which
Britain made in the map of the world compared with the more imposing
figure of the American continent. The people, also, he argued, were more
frugal, industrious, and wise on the other side of the Atlantic than
they were in England; and that, while population increased and would
increase in America, it would inevitably decline in the mother country!
But such crotchets as these were only calculated to confirm ministers
and the country at large in their determination of pursuing the contest.
Lord Chatham, who next rose, still supported by his crutch, to move an
amendment, spoke more wisely; though he also predicted ruin to England
if the contest was not given up; or, in other words, if peace between
the two countries was not concluded. The noble lord commenced his speech
by joining in the congratulation of the address on the birth of another
princess, and the happy recovery of her majesty. Here, however, he
said, his courtly complaisance must end; for he could not join in
congratulation on misfortune and disgrace. He could not concur in a
blind and servile address, which approved, and endeavoured to sanctify,
the monstrous measures that had heaped disgrace upon us, and had brought
ruin to our very doors. The present moment, he said, was a perilous and
tremendous period, and therefore not a time for adulation. His lordship
then pointed out the degrading situation to which this country was
reduced, in being obliged to acknowledge as enemies those whom we
had denominated rebels; and in seeing them encouraged and assisted by
France, while ministers dared not interpose. He remarked:—“It is a
shameful truth, that not only the power and strength of this country are
wasting away and expiring, but her well-earned glories, her true honour
and substantial dignity, are sacrificed. France, my lords, has insulted
you; she has encouraged and sustained America; and whether America
be wrong or right, the dignity of this country ought to spurn at the
officious insult of French interference. The ministers and ambassadors
of those who are called rebels and enemies are in Paris—in Paris they
transact the reciprocal interests of America and France. Can there be
a more mortifying insult? Can even our ministers sustain a more
humiliating disgrace? Do they dare to resent it? Do they presume even
to hint a vindication of their honour, and the dignity of the state, by
requiring the dismissal of the plenipotentiaries of America? Such is
the degradation to which they have reduced the glories of England! The
people, whom they affect to call contemptible rebels, but whose growing
power has at least obtained the name of enemies—the people with whom
they have engaged this country in war, and against whom they now command
our implicit support in every measure of desperate hostility—this
people, despised as rebels or acknowledged as enemies, are abetted
against you, supplied with military stores, their interests consulted,
and their ambassadors entertained, by your inveterate enemy!—and our
ministers dare not interpose with dignity or effect. Is this the honour
of a great kingdom? Is this the indignant spirit of England, who, but
yesterday gave law to the House of Bourbon?” Chatham next dwelt on the
position of our armies in America, supposing that Burgoyne’s—for it
was not yet known—was totally lost; and asserting that General Howe
had been compelled to retire from the American lines. Judging, from the
past, he then predicted a final and total failure, notwithstanding the
exertions made to sustain the contest and gain the victory might prove
gigantic. In this part of his speech he denounced the employment of
German troops, and the tribes of wild Indians, in strong and unmeasured
language; although, nineteen years before, he had himself employed
Indians in the same manner against the French and Canadians. Chatham
next touched on the great question of disseverance and independence.
But this, unlike the Earl of Coventry who had preceded him, he utterly
repudiated; avowing, as he had ever done, that our supremacy must be
maintained, in order to avert our ruin. But this part of Chatham’s
speech was replete with inconsistencies. While he maintained that our
supremacy must be maintained at all hazards, he applauded both the
spirit and intention of the Americans; and while he acknowledged that
they had arms in their hands, he boldly asserted that they were still
full of affection for their mother country—that they only declared
independence in moments of anguish and despair; and that they were still
in heart inclined to return to their old political constitution. Again,
while Chatham attributed every blame to the British government, he
nevertheless would not admit that our power of regulating their trade
ought either to be abolished or abridged; which were the very sentiments
of the government on whom he cast odium. Chatham, also, denounced the
war as unjust in its principle; and yet it had for its indisputable
object, from beginning to end, that very independence and separate
sovereignty which he had sworn he would never recognise. The great
orator then attacked the ministers more personally than before, and
recommended them to make haste and quit office, lest the punishment
due to their crimes should speedily overtake them! He concluded
thus:—“Since they have neither sagacity to foresee, nor justice and
humanity to shun, these calamities—since not even severe experience can
make them feel, nor the imminent ruin of their country awaken them from
their stupefaction—the guardian care of parliament must interpose. I
shall, therefore, propose an amendment to the address, to recommend an
immediate cessation of hostilities, and the commencement of a treaty to
restore peace and liberty to America, strength and happiness to England,
security and permanent prosperity to both countries.” He added, that
“this was still in our power;” but few or none who heard him believed
that peace could be obtained but by a recognition of that independence
which Chatham had so warmly denounced. The amendment which he proposed,
however, was ably supported by the other peers in opposition. Lord
Camden declared, that if the war were prosecuted to the issue of the
alternative, whether America was subdued or rendered independent, he
would still wish for independence; because the subjugation of that
country by force of arms, would lead to the enslavement of England!
Some of the opposition members, notwithstanding, were not for an instant
cessation of arms, though they wished for a reconciliation. Thus
Earl Temple said, that the war ought not to be abandoned until we had
obtained decisive victories in America. The opposition, also, differed
as to the propriety of offering terms of concession; and they were not
all agreed as to what these terms should be. But on the odiousness of
employing the wild Indians against a Christian people, the views of the
whole of the opposition orators coincided. The Duke of Richmond said,
that our employment of them would call down the vengeance of Heaven;
and he argued, that our soldiers, acting with them, would become as
ferocious as the Indians, and ready to commit any atrocity, or to make
any attack on the liberties of the country that ministers might command!
The unpleasant task of defending the employment of wild Indians fell
upon Lord Suffolk, one of the secretaries of state, and he contended
that the measure was allowable on principle; inasmuch as it was
justifiable to use all the means that God and nature had put into our
hands. This was an unfortunate argument; and the Earl of Chatham did not
fail to take advantage of it. Forgetting that he had once employed the
Indian tomahawk, he rose, and exclaimed, with an indignant burst
of eloquence:—“I am astonished—shocked to hear such principles
confessed—to hear them avowed in this house, or in this
country—principles equally unconstitutional, inhuman, and unchristian.
My lords, I did not intend to have trespassed again on your attention,
but I cannot repress my indignation. I feel myself impelled by every
duty. My lords, we are called upon, as members of this house, as men,
as Christian men, to protest against such notions, standing near the
throne, polluting the ear of majesty! ‘That God and nature put into our
hands!’ I know not what idea that lord may entertain of God and nature;
but I know that such abominable principles are equally abhorrent to
religion and humanity. What! attribute the sacred sanction of God and
nature to the massacres of the Indian scalping-knife—to the cannibal
savage, torturing, murdering, roasting, and eating—literally, my lords,
_eating_—the mangled victims of his barbarous battles—To send forth
the merciless cannibal, thirsting for blood! Against whom?—Against
your Protestant brethren; to lay waste their country, to desolate
their dwellings, and extirpate their race and name with these horrible
hell-hounds of savage war—hell-hounds, I say, of savage war! Spain
armed herself with bloodhounds to extirpate the wretched natives
of America, and we improve on the inhuman example of even Spanish
cruelty—we turn loose these savage hell-hounds against our brethren
and countrymen in America—of the same language, laws, liberties, and
religion..... endeared to us by every tie that should sanctify
humanity. My lords, this awful subject, so important to our honour, our
constitution, and our religion, demands the most solemn and effectual
inquiry; and I again call upon your lordships, and the united powers of
the state, to examine it thoroughly and decisively, and to stamp upon
it an indelible stigma of the public abhorrence. More particularly I
implore those holy prelates of religion to do away these iniquities from
among us:—let them perform a lustration; let them purify this house and
this country from this sin!” These were noble sentiments, but the effect
of them was in a great measure lost by the remembrance that Chatham had
done the very same thing in the war with Canada; and that under his own
immediate superintendence. But even if there had not been this drawback
upon this fervent burst of indignation, uttered by the great orator,
it was not in the power of eloquence to alter the determination of
ministers. _They_ daily expected to hear of victories which would stop
the mouths of their antagonists, and therefore resolved to brave the
loud storms of opposition. Public sentiment was also still on their
side; for Chatham’s amendment was rejected by a majority of eighty-four
to twenty-eight, and only two peers signed a protest. Thus, in both
houses, the original address was carried by an overwhelming majority.




DUKE OF RICHMOND’S MOTION FOR INQUIRING INTO THE STATE OF THE NATION.

On the 28th of November the Duke of Richmond moved for a committee of
the house to inquire into the state of the nation. The debate on this
question was postponed till the 2nd of December, and the Earl of Chatham
was there to support it. In his speech, the Duke of Richmond once more
asserted, that the nation was in a rapid process of decay, and that it
could not support the burden of war. The inquiry, he said, should be
as extensive as possible, and he proposed the 2nd of February for the
discussion; and expressed a hope that all papers called for might be
laid before parliament. Ministers assented to the committee; and the
Duke of Richmond then moved for returns of the army and navy, both
in America and Ireland. Chatham now made another speech, in which he
expressed great alarm as to the actual state of those two important
fortresses, Gibraltar and Minorca; contending that they were not secure
from the grasp of France and Spain. He also took occasion again to
extol the Americans, and to plead their cause, still justifying their
opposition to the mother country. The motion was granted without
opposition.




FOX’S MOTION FOR INQUIRING INTO THE STATE OF THE NATION.

On the same day Mr. Fox made a motion, similar to that of the Duke of
Richmond, in the house of commons. The committee was at once agreed to
by ministers; but when Fox made a call for papers, Lord North opposed
it, as liable to make discoveries prejudicial to the interests of the
country. This drew down upon him a series of odious comparisons. Burke
compared him to the “pigmy physician,” who watched over the health of
Sancho Panza, in the government of Barataria, and who snatched away
every dish from his patient’s well-supplied table, on various pretences,
before he could get one mouthful. The house was convulsed with laughter,
but Lord North remained immoveable; nor could the intelligence that the
lords had granted the papers, alter his determination to oppose their
production. Fox again spoke when he discovered that the premier was
resolute; and this time he fell upon the chief manager of American
affairs,—Lord George Germaine. He remarked:—“For two years that
a noble lord has presided over American affairs, the most violent,
scalping, tomahawk measures have been pursued: bleeding has been his
only prescription. If a people, deprived of their ancient rights, are
grown tumultuous, bleed them!—if they are attacked with a spirit of
insurrection, bleed them!—if their fever should rise into rebellion,
bleed them!—cries this state-physician. More blood! more blood! still
more blood! When Dr. Sangrado had persevered in a similar practice of
bleeding his patients, killing by the very means he used for a cure, his
man took the liberty to remonstrate on the necessity of relaxing in a
practice to which thousands of their patients had fallen sacrifices,
and which was beginning to bring their names into disrepute. The doctor
answered, I believe, indeed, that we have carried the matter a little
too far; but you must know I have written a book on the efficacy of
this practice: therefore, though every patient should die by it, we must
continue bleeding, for the credit of my book.” The debate assumed a new
feature from a speech made by Governor Pownall, who argued, that
the production of the papers called for could answer no end. Pownall
declared that he was as uninfluenced by party spirit as he had been
nine years ago, when he predicted the precise progress of American
resistance. He added:—“I now tell the house and government, that
the Americans will never return to their subjection. Sovereignty is
abolished, and gone for ever: the Navigation Act is annihilated. Of what
use, then, are these papers?—of what import our debates? Disputation
and abuse may afford amusement; but neither America nor England can be
benefited by such discussions in the present crisis. Until the house
shall be disposed to treat with the United States as an independent,
sovereign people, schemes or plans of conciliation, whoever may suggest
them, will be found unimportant.” This was speaking like a man of
business, and the arguments adduced were unanswerable. The papers were
refused, by a majority of one hundred and seventy-eight to eighty-nine.




ARMY AND NAVY ESTIMATES.

On the 26th of November the army and navy estimates were considered. The
number of seamen was fixed at 60,000, and the troops to be employed
in America at 55,000. But these votes were not passed without severe
strictures on the manner in which every branch of the service was
conducted.




INTELLIGENCE OF BURGOYNES DEFEAT

The hope that ministers had entertained of soon hearing of some glorious
victory in America, whereby the mouth of opposition might be stopped,
was at length swept away. On the 3rd of December Colonel Barre rose in
the house of commons, with a grave countenance, and asked Lord George
Germaine what had become of Burgoyne’s army? and whether he had not
received intelligence from Quebec of their having surrendered to the
enemy? Lord George, in reply, confessed that he had received the unhappy
intelligence, by express, from Quebec; but as it was unauthenticated,
he could not declare it officially. He expressed a hope, therefore, that
the house would suspend their judgment; at the same time declaring, that
if he had committed a fault in drawing out the plan of the expedition,
he was ready to answer for it. He made this declaration in such a cold,
self-satisfied tone, that it drew down upon his head the most bitter
inventive from members of the opposition. Barre, Luttrell, Burke,
Townshend, and Fox, all, in their turns, assailed the haughty secretary,
and revelled in descriptions of the loss and disgrace which we had
sustained—necessarily, from chagrin, heightening the effect of the
picture by exaggeration. The solicitor-general, Wedderburne, endeavoured
to reconcile the house to this loss, by appealing to British magnanimity
under distress, which, he conceived, was the harbinger of victory.
During the war of the succession, he said, General Stanhope was
compelled to surrender himself, and his whole army, prisoners of war in
Spain; but the disgrace only served to call forth an ardour which soon
effaced the stigma, and achieved glorious successes. Lord North, having
declared that he had from the beginning been desirous of peace; that if
the surrender of his place and honours could obtain it he would resign
them; and that while he remained in office he would support it to the
best of his power, the conversation dropped.

In the house of lords, however, the subject was taken up more seriously.
On the 5th of December, having previously arranged matters with the
opposition peers, the Earl of Chatham moved, “that an address be
presented to his majesty for copies of all orders and instructions
issued to General Burgoyne, relative to the late expedition from
Canada.” Chatham commenced an able, though rambling speech, which he
delivered on this occasion, by criticising the king’s speech at the
opening of the session; representing it as containing an unfaithful
and delusive picture of the state of public affairs. He then lamented
Burgoyne’s fate, in pathetic terms. His character, he said, with the
glory of the British arms, and the dearest interests of the country,
had all been sacrificed to the ignorance, temerity, and impotence of
ministers. Yet almost in the same breath, Chatham said that he would
not condemn ministers without evidence! Burgoyne, he remarked, might or
might not be an able officer; he might have received orders it was not
in his power to execute; and those instructions might have been wisely
given, and faithfully and judiciously executed, although the general
had miscarried. Many events, he said, happened which no human foresight
could prevent; but, as it was evident, a fault had been committed either
by Burgoyne or the ministers, he was desirous of having the papers laid
before the house, in order to ascertain to whom the blame was in reality
attached. At the same time, he asserted that he already knew sufficient
to justify him in affirming that the measures for that campaign were
founded in weakness, barbarity, and inhumanity. Here again he launched
forth in bitter invective against the practice of employing the tomahawk
and scalping-knife of the Indians in the war. Then, turning from the
field of battle, he attacked the court. He remarked:—“Within the last
fifteen years the system has been introduced at St. James’s of breaking
all connexion,—of extinguishing all principle. A few men have got
an ascendency, where no man should have a personal ascendency; by
the executive powers of state being at their command, they have been
furnished with the means of creating divisions. This has brought pliable
men, not capable men, into the highest situations; and to such men is
the government of this once-glorious empire now entrusted. The spirit
of delusion has gone forth; the ministers have imposed on the people;
parliament has been induced to sanctify the imposition; false lights
have been held out to the country gentlemen, and they have been seduced
into the support of a most destructive war, under the impression that
the land-tax would be diminished by means of an American revenue. The
visionary phantom, thus conjured up for the basest of purposes—that
of deception—is now about to vanish.” Chatham had said that Burgoyne
might or might not be an able officer; but he now eulogised his zeal,
his bravery, and his abilities, and then, in defiance of his assertion
that he would not condemn ministers without evidence, he laid the whole
blame upon them, and said that they ought to submit to all the obloquy
till the general had an opportunity of justifying himself. Chatham now
again denounced the practice of employing the Indians; coupling the
German bayonet with the scalping-knife and tomahawk. The only thing
which could be done, he said, to preserve America in our dependence was
to disband the Indians, recall the Germans, and withdraw our troops _in
toto_. As for American independence, he could not endure the thought
of such a consummation. While he abhorred the system of government
attempted to be established in America, he as earnestly and zealously
contended for a Whig government and a Whig connexion between the two
countries, founded on a constitutional dependence and subordination of
America upon England. Against Tory principles he entertained the
most bitter hatred; and in the course of his speech he exhibited that
feeling, by animadverting, in severe terms, on the high Tory doctrines
maintained by Dr. Markham, Archbishop of York. The pernicious doctrines
advanced by that prelate, he said, were the doctrines of Atterbury and
Sacheverel; and as a Whig, he abjured and detested them, and hoped to
see the day, not only when they should be deemed libels, but when
the authors of such doctrines should be liable to punishment. Chatham
concluded, by moving for the papers relative to the instructions given
to Burgoyne, which was lost by a majority of forty to nineteen. But
though the motion was negatived, the noble lord returned to the charge,
by moving for copies of all instructions relative to the employment of
Indians in conjunction with the British troops. In this, however,
he made a whip for his own back. In opposing the motion, Lord Gower
asserted, that the noble lord had himself employed, and acknowledged
that he had employed, savages in the operation of the last war. This
charge Chatham denied. Indians, he said, had crept into the service
during that war; but he challenged ministers to produce any document of
his sanctioning their employment. He appealed to Lord Amherst, who had
commanded the troops in Canada, for a declaration of the truth, and that
noble lord had the honesty to declare the truth. The Indians, he said,
had been employed on both sides: the French engaged their services
first, and we had followed their example: but most certainly he should
not have ventured to have done so if he had not received orders to that
effect. Lord Shelburne suggested, that the orders might have proceeded
from the Board of Trade: but Lord Denbigh, who called Chatham “the great
oracle with a short memory,” said, that this was impossible, as Chatham,
when in office under George II., had monopolised functions which did not
belong to him, and had guided and directed everything relative to the
war. In reply, Chatham said, that he was sure the order had not passed
through his office, and that the humanity of his late majesty would not
have permitted him to sanction so satanic a measure. But Chatham was
now floundering in the mire, and the more he endeavoured to extricate
himself, the deeper he got into it. The fallacy of this pretence was
exposed by Lord Suffolk, who said, that all instructions to governors
and commanders-in-chief necessarily passed through the office of
the secretary-of-state, which office Chatham then held, and were
countersigned by the king. Finding that Chatham’s veracity could not
be established, the lords, in opposition, now turned the subject,
and endeavoured to justify his employment of the Indians. There was a
difference, they maintained, between the two wars—the one having
been against our old enemies, the French, the other being against
our fellow-subjects. They also argued, that the French having set the
example, we were justified in following it. But this argument applied
equally to the present war. Arnold took with him into Canada the very
savages whose services we had refused; and one of the first cares
of congress was to secure the alliance of the Six Nations. It was,
moreover, understood by all, that the treaty was not to stop at
neutrality, but to engage those Indians as auxiliaries in the war. Want
of means, coupled with the animosities which existed between the Indian
tribes and their American neighbours of the back settlements, and with a
species of reverence which the red men entertained for the name of King
George, had prevented the success of congress; but the Americans had,
to all intents and purposes, set the deplorable example of using the
tomahawk against their Protestant brethren of England. The Earl of
Dunmore, indeed, declared that he had himself, while governor of
Virginia, been attacked by a party of Indians who had been instigated
by the Virginians. Evil examples should not be followed; but the present
ministry had, at least, the same plea to offer for employing the Indians
as Chatham and the opposition lords had for employing them in the war
in Canada. The man who endeavours to blacken the characters of others
should himself possess an untarnished reputation. Chatham’s motion was
lost by a majority of forty to eighteen.




ROYAL ASSENT TO SEVERAL BILLS.

On the 10th of December the royal assent was given to a bill for
continuing the suspension of the _Habeas Corpus_ Acts in certain cases
of piracy, and also to the Land and Malt-tax Bills—those standing
resources of government revenue. About the same time, likewise, the
royal assent was given to a duty laid on goods sold by auction, as well
as on inhabited houses.




PARLIAMENT ADJOURNED.

On the same clay, after the discussion of some unimportant motions,
made with a design of embarrassing ministers, Lord Beauchamp proposed
an adjournment to the 20th of January. Burke proposed an adjournment
for one week only; but ministers represented that they had already
transacted all business of importance, and that nothing was likely to
occur during the recess which would demand instant attention, and their
motion was carried by one hundred and fifty-five to sixty-eight. The
next day a similar motion was made in the house of lords, on which
occasion the Earl of Chatham, in opposing it, again endeavoured to
fix blame and censure on ministers for their conduct relative to the
American war. But the motion was carried by forty-seven to seventeen.




CHAPTER IX.

{GEORGE III. 1778–1779}

     Demonstration of Public Spirit in England..... Meeting of
     Parliament..... Committee for taking the State of the Nation
     into Consideration..... Burke’s Motion relative to the
     Employment of Indians..... Committee of Evidence in the
     House of Lords..... Lord North’s Conciliatory Bills.....
     Intimation of the French Treaty with America.....
     Investigation of the State of the Navy..... Motion for
     excluding Contractors from Parliament..... Revision of the
     Trade of Ireland..... Bill for the Relief of the Roman
     Catholics..... Lord Chatham’s last Appearance in the House
     of Lords..... Death of Lord Chatham,  and posthumous
     Honours   to his Memory..... The Duke of Richmond’s Motion
     resumed..... The Session closed..... Proceedings in
     France..... Naval Operations in the British Channel.....
     Disgraceful Infraction of the Convention of Saratoga.....
     Lafayette’s Expedition to Canada..... Unfortunate Action
     under Lafayette..... Sir Henry Clinton takes the Command of
     the British Troops..... Arrival of the Commissioners in
     America with the Conciliatory Bills..... Evacuation of
     Philadelphia by the British, &c. Disgrace of General
     Lee..... Unsuccessful Attack, by the Americans and French,
     on Rhode Island..... Operations of the British Army.....
     Attack of the Savages on the Settlement of Wyoming, &c.
     Arrival of the French Envoy   at  Philadelphia.....
     Movements of the British and French  Fleets..... Capture of
     Dominica by the French..... Capture of St. Lucie by the
     British..... Re-capture of the  Islands of  St.  Pierre and
     Miquelon..... French Plans regarding Canada counteracted by
     Washington..... Capture of Savannah  by  the British.....
     Meeting of Parliament..... Affair respecting Admiral Keppel
     and Sir Hugh Falliser.




DEMONSTRATION OF PUBLIC SPIRIT IN ENGLAND.

During the recess, the government party and the opposition were equally
zealous in securing the public opinion, and, consequently, the success
of its future schemes. The intelligence of Burgoyne’s defeat seems to
have had a momentary effect on the minds of the people, which favoured
the views of opposition, but while a few politicians declaimed on the
necessity of ending a ruinous war by recognising the independence of the
United States, and others advised a cessation of arms and conciliation,
the vast majority of the nation soon burned with ardour to blot out the
recollection of Burgoyne’s disgrace, by deeds of arms, and by reducing
the colonies to their original subjection to the mother country. Not
only did public meetings of corporate bodies, towns, and counties,
display their attachment to the cause of the crown by addresses, but
some cities and towns as Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, and Edinburgh,
raised each a regiment of 1000 men at their own expense. Private
subscriptions were opened, large sums were given, and 15,000 soldiers
were raised in England, Scotland, and Wales, without any cost or charge
to government. Many of the maritime towns, also, armed ships to cruise
in the Channel, where American privateers and Frenchmen with American
colours were now becoming numerous. On the other hand, the opposition
party represented that the American prisoners of war were treated with
great cruelty in British prisons, and subscriptions were set on foot for
their relief. Complaints had been made in the house of lords concerning
the sufferings of the American prisoners, and the subject was
investigated; but though it was found that their allowance in some
instances had been slender, and that in others their keepers had treated
them with severity, it could not be shown that this arose from any want
of care on the part of government. Everything, however, was tried which
could be tried by the opposition, in order to fix an indelible stigma of
infamy on the members of Lord North’s administration.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

The animus of opposition was exhibited in an unequivocal manner on the
reassembling of parliament. On the 22nd of January, Sir Phillip Jennings
Clarke moved for an account of the number of troops raised by private
subscription, with the names of the commanding-officers. In the
debate which followed this motion, ministers were accused of having
incorporated 15,000 troops without consent of parliament,
and represented their conduct in accepting their aid as most
unconstitutional and inimical to the liberties of the country. Lord
North, who agreed to the motion, in reply, argued that these spontaneous
exertions proved that the people felt the insults and injuries offered
to their king and country; and, also, that the country was not in that
impoverished state which a jealous and impatient faction had asserted
it was. Still the opposition hoped to obtain a vote of censure. In the
house of lords the Earl of Abingdon moved that the twelve judges should
be consulted as to the legality of raising troops without the authority
of parliament. This motion was not pressed to a division; but, on the
4th of February, the same noble lord made another motion more specific,
in order to cast blame upon government. He moved for a resolution that
the grant of money in private aids or benevolences, without the sanction
of parliament, for the purpose of raising armies, was against the spirit
of the constitution and the letter of the law; and that, to obtain money
by subscription was not only unconstitutional and illegal, but a
direct infringement of the rights, and a breach of the privileges of
parliament. This motion, after a warm debate, was negatived by ninety
to thirty. On the same day in the commons, some money being demanded for
the uniforms of these new troops, a still warmer discussion arose upon
the subject. The new levies were treated with much discourtesy by the
opposition; the two Scotch regiments, especially, being designated
vile mercenaries, and willing tools of despotism. The opposition also
maintained that such a practice of raising troops was contrary to
the oath of coronation, and that all who subscribed were abettors of
perjury. Lord North justified himself by precedents: he showed that
independent regiments had been raised in 1745, and again in 1759, when
Chatham was minister. On the latter occasion, he said, that Chatham
had publicly and solemnly thanked those who raised such troops for the
honour and service of their country. Yet, “that great oracle with a
short memory,” on the very night on which Lord North reminded the lower
house of this notable fact, declaimed in the upper house in support of
the Earl of Abingdon’s motion against the practice Later in the session
Wilkes renewed this subject, but the motion which he made relative to it
was negatived by seventy-two against forty.




COMMITTEE FOR TAKING THE STATE OF THE NATION INTO CONSIDERATION.

On the 2nd of February, on the order of the day being read, for the
house to resolve itself into a committee to take the state of the nation
into consideration, Fox moved that no more troops should be sent out of
the kingdom. On the same day, the Duke of Richmond, also, made a similar
motion in the house of lords. In both houses the opposition represented
that war with France and Spain was inevitable; and that our means of
defence were not sufficient in the whole to meet the contingency; and,
therefore, it was not prudent to protract an impracticable contest.
No answer was made in the commons, but in the lords the motion and the
arguments adduced in support of it were denounced as amounting to a
public acknowledgment of our inability to prosecute war; as inviting
the house of Bourbon to attempt an invasion; and as attacking the
prerogative of the crown to raise, direct, and employ the military force
of the kingdom. The motions were rejected in the lords by ninety-one
against thirty-four; and in the commons by two hundred and ninety-five
against one hundred and sixty-five.




BURKE’S MOTION RELATIVE TO THE EMPLOYMENT OF INDIANS.

On the 6th of February, Burke introdued a motion for papers relative
to the employment of Indians in America, from 1774 to 1778. On this
occasion he made a speech three hours in length, during the whole of
which time the attention of the house was fixed on the orator. This
speech, however, which is represented as being one of the most splendid
efforts of his oratory, is very inadequately reported. From it,
notwithstanding, it may be gathered that he drew a striking and ghastly
picture of Indian warfare, and of the horrors committed by these savage
auxiliaries. It had a greater effect upon the house than Chatham’s
denunciations of the practice of employing the Indian tribes in our
army, arising from the fact that the orator handled the subject with
clean hands. Colonel Barré, excited by it, declared that if it were
printed and published he would nail it on every church-door by the side
of the king’s proclamation for a general fast; and Governor Johnson said
it was fortunate for Lord North and Germaine that the galleries had been
cleared before the speech was uttered, as the indignation and enthusiasm
of strangers might have excited the people to lay violent hands upon
them on their return home. The secret of the excitement occasioned by
the speech seems chiefly to have consisted in the fact that it abounded
in touching stories and pathetic episodes. Burke especially elaborated
the affecting fate of Miss Mac Crea, who was strongly attached to the
royal cause, and who, being on her way to marry an officer in Burgoyne’s
army, was barbarously murdered by two Indian chiefs sent for her
protection. The two chiefs having disputed which of them should be her
principal guard and obtain a larger reward, he, from whose hands she
was snatched, raised his tomahawk, and in a fit of rage cleft her head
asunder. Such stories as these, founded in fact, were well calculated to
produce excitement, especially as the murderer was left unscathed. Burke
argued that these savage allies were too powerful, or their services
too highly valued to run the risk of offending them; but it would rather
appear that pardon was extended to the offender through an agreement
with his tribe and the British general to abstain in future from
indulging in such wanton cruelties, which Burgoyne considered of more
importance than to take revenge on a wretch who scarcely knew that what
he did was a sin either in the sight of God or man. Such stories as
these, however, told upon the feelings of the house, and insured
Burke strong-support. Governor Pownall, in taking the same side of the
question, declared that there was not so unfair, so hellish an engine
of war as savages mingled with civilized troops; and he recommended that
terms should be proposed to congress whereby the two countries should
mutually agree to break off all alliance with the Indians, and treat
them as enemies whenever they should commit any act of hostility against
a white person, American or European. He would answer for it, he said,
that congress would embrace and execute such terms with good faith; and
he suggested that the overture might occasion the happiest effects
in producing mutual kind offices, and leading ultimately to a perfect
reconciliation. He finally offered to go in person, without any pay
or reward, and make the proposal to congress; asserting that he would
answer with his life for the success of the negociation. But this noble
proposal of Governor Pownall and Mr. Burke’s motion were alike rejected
by a ministerial majority.




COMMITTEE OF EVIDENCE IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, ETC.

On the same day that Burke made this motion in the commons, the lords
in committee on the state of the nation were employed in examining
witnesses to prove the ruinous consequences of the maritime war.
Merchants were called as witnesses by the opposition peers, who proved
that they had sustained heavy losses from the war; while, on the other
hand, government were provided with other merchants, who showed that
new sources of commerce had been opened since the commencement of
hostilities; and, that considerable captures had been made. The Duke of
Richmond opposed the arguments derived from the testimony of government
witnesses. The prizes taken and distributed to British seamen, he said,
so far from being a balance in our favour, added to our loss; for if we
had not been at war with America, the value of all these cargoes in
the circuitous course of trade, must have centred in Great Britain.
The propositions were disposed of by the previous question, and other
motions made by the Duke of Richmond for ascertaining the number of
troops sent to America, as well as the expenses incurred by the war,
though they occasioned long and warm debates, were equally unsuccessful.
A similar motion was made in the commons by Fox, on the 11th of
February, but it was evaded by a motion for leave to report progress. It
was, perhaps, judicious in ministers to resist the production of papers
called for by the opposition, for in almost every instance it would
have let the enemy into dangerous secrets: secrets which they would have
turned to their own advantage.




LORD NORTHS CONCILIATORY BILLS.

It is a singular fact that while Lord North sternly advocated war, he
was at this time so adverse to a continuation of the contest that he
had expressed a wish to the king to resign office. This appears from a
letter addressed to him by his majesty on the 31st of January, in which,
after appealing to Lord North’s personal affection for him, he writes:
—“You must remember that before the recess I strongly advised you not
to bind yourself to bring forward any plan for restoring tranquillity to
America; not from any absurd ideas of unconditional submission, which my
mind never harboured; but from foreseeing that whatever can be proposed
will be liable, not to bring America back to her attachment, but to
dissatisfy this country, which so cheerfully and handsomely carries
on the contest, and has a right to have the struggle continued, till
convinced that it is vain. Perhaps this is the minute when you ought
to be least in a hurry to produce a plan, from the probability of a
declaration of war from France.” It is evident from this letter that
Lord North had proposed some plan of conciliation which did not meet
with the monarch’s views; and it seems clear, also, that his lordship,
in expressing a wish to retire, had urged the impossibility of obtaining
unconditional submission, which he erroneously thought was the only
ground on which his majesty would listen to terms of peace. But
though it was the king’s opinion on the last day of January that no
conciliatory measures should be adopted or proposed out of deference
to the views of the people, yet his opinion soon changed. On the 9th of
February, when a war with France had become inevitable, he wrote to his
minister again, urging him not to “delay to bring in his proposition,”
 before “the veil was drawn off by the court of France.” Lord North lost
no time in complying with this his majesty’s command. On the 17th of
February, he brought in two bills tending to reconciliation with the
colonists: one was expressly designed to remove all apprehension from
their minds concerning taxation by the British parliament, whilst it
repealed the act imposing a duty on tea; and the other enabled his
majesty to appoint commissioners to consult and agree on means of
quieting the disorders subsisting in certain colonies, plantations,
and provinces of North America. In introducing these bills, Lord North
asserted that he had been uniformly disposed to pacific arrangements;
that he had tried conciliatory measures before the sword was unsheathed,
and would gladly try them again; that he had conceived his former
propositions were equitable, and still thought so, though they had been
misrepresented both at home and in America; that he never expected
to derive any considerable revenue from the colonies; that he had
originated none of the American taxes; that he found such as existed
when, unfortunately for his own peace of mind, he came into office; and
that, as for the act enabling the East India Company to send out teas
with the drawback of the entire duty, which led to the Boston riots,
it was a relief rather than oppression, since it actually gave the
colonists their teas at a cheaper rate than before. Lord North then
explained the principles of his two bills. The first, he said,
was intended to quiet the minds of the Americans on the subject of
taxation—to dispel all fears that parliament would ever tax them again,
by a distinct renunciation of the right itself. The second bill, he
remarked, would give the royal commissioners far more ample powers than
those formerly entrusted to Lord Howe and his brother. They would
be authorized to treat with congress as if it were a legal body, and
competent by its acts and negociations to bind all the colonies;
they would be empowered to treat with the conventions or provincial
assemblies, or colonial congresses, and with individuals in their actual
civil capacities or military commands, without any cavil as to allowing
them and addressing them by the rank they held under congress: and
they would have the power of suspending hostilities, intermitting the
operation of laws, granting pardons, rewards, and immunities,
restoring charters and constitutions, and nominating governors,
judges, magistrates, &c., till the king’s pleasure should be known.
The stumblingblock of independence was removed very skilfully by Lord
North. This act declared that should the Americans make this claim at
the outset of the treaty, they would not be required to renounce it
until it was ratified by the British legislature. The commissioners were
to be instructed to negociate for a reasonable and moderate contribution
toward the common defence of the empire when reunited, but they were
not to insist even on this slight contribution as indispensable. In
conclusion, Lord North contended that these concessions ought not to be
deemed the results of defeat or weakness, since they were substantially
the same as he should offer in the hour of victory. The events of the
war, he frankly acknowledged, had not corresponded to his expectation,
but he denied that there was any truth in the representations of
a factious opposition. But for faction, England was as fertile in
resources as ever: she was in circumstances to prosecute war, raise
new armies, and to increase her navy, so as to be enabled to meet her
accumulated foes.

Burke says that on hearing these proposals the whole house was
overclouded with astonishment, dejection, and fear. This may be
exaggeration, but it is certain that the ample concessions proposed by
the minister—concessions far outstripping those which had been brought
forward by Mr. Burke and Lord Chatham, and which were opposed by
government—were highly distasteful to the country gentlemen, and to the
whole Tory party. Expressions of loud disapprobation were heard on their
side of the house, and some bitterly complained that deception had been
practised against them relative to American taxation. On the other hand,
while the opposition contended that the season was gone by when such a
plan would have succeeded, it was generally approved by them. They yet
hoped, they said, that there might be a chance of conciliation, and
therefore they would give the minister their support. At the same time,
Lord North was severely reprehended by some of the opposition members.
Fox said his arguments “might be collected into one point, and his
excuses comprised in one apology, or rather in one word, _ignorance_; a
palpable and total ignorance of America: he had expected much, and had
been disappointed in every thing; necessity alone had compelled him now
to speak out.” In the course of his speech, Fox informed the house
that there was a report abroad that within the last ten days France
had signed a treaty with America, acknowledging their independence, and
entering into a close alliance with the colonists. He called on Lord
North to afford the house satisfaction on so important a point, and that
minister reluctantly acknowledged that such a treaty was in agitation,
though as it was not authenticated by our ambassador he could not say
that it was concluded. The motion for bringing in the bill was carried
by a majority of about two to one, and on the first reading some of the
Tory members expressed their disapprobation of our wholly renouncing the
right of taxing the colonists. In reply, Lord North declared that the
not exacting the renunciation of independence by the Americans did not
imply that we intended to yield that point; that the commissioners would
not be empowered to concede thus much; and that the Americans would be
expected to treat as subjects, and not as a sovereign state. The bills
were passed, and when brought up to the lords, the opposition was
renewed. The Duke of Richmond read the American declaration of
independence, and asked ministers whether they meant to subscribe to
assertions such as these:—“That the king is a tyrant,”..... “that his
majesty has lost the affection of his American subjects by the insolent,
daring, perfidious and unconstitutional language of ministers, etc.”
 His grace said these bills, instead of regaining the affections of the
Americans, would sound the trumpet of war to all nations; that they were
at once ignominious and ineffectual; that they meant nothing or
worse than nothing; that they were better calculated to divide than
conciliate; and that they empowered commissioners to treat with America,
and then called them back again to consult parliament. His grace also
stated as a notorious fact that ministers had sent persons over to Paris
to tamper with Dr. Franklin and Silas Deane, and that these American
agents had rejected their offers, together with the terms of the new
bills, in scorn. Lord Temple opposed the bills on different grounds. He
denounced them as mean and truckling, and as tending to prostrate the
king, the parliament, and the people of Great Britain at the feet of
Franklin and Silas Deane, to whom ministers had paid homage in sackcloth
and ashes. The people, he said, had recovered from the shock occasioned
by Burgoyne’s reverses, and ministers were now going to depress their
newly-awakened animation by succumbing to an arrogant enemy. Lord
Shelborne also opposed the bills as tending to separate the two
countries. He never would consent, he said, that America should
be independent of England, and he represented that his idea of the
connexion between the two countries was, that they should have one
friend, one enemy, one purse, and one sword; that Britain, as the great
controlling power, should superintend the whole; and that both the
countries should have but one will, though the means of expressing it
might be different. This, he said, might have been obtained long ago
without bloodshed or animosity. The bills passed without a division: a
protest was entered against them, but it was only signed by one solitary
peer, Lord Abingdon.




INTIMATION OF THE FRENCH TREATY WITH AMERICA.

The conciliatory bills were scarcely passed when Lord North delivered
a message from the throne to the commons, stating the receipt of
information from the French king, that he had concluded a treaty of
amity and commerce with his majesty’s revolted subjects in America,
and that in consequence of this offensive communication, the British
ambassador at Paris had been ordered home. His majesty, the minister
said, fully relied on the zeal and affection of his people to repel the
insult and maintain the honour of the country. The note of the French
ambassador was laid before parliament, and it was to this effect:—“The
United States of North America, who are in full possession of
independence, as pronounced by them on the 4th of July, 1766, having
proposed to the King of France to consolidate, by a formal convention,
the connexion begun to be established between the two nations, the
respective plenipotentiaries have signed a treaty of friendship and
commerce, designed to serve as a foundation for their mutual good
correspondence. His majesty, the French king, being resolved to
cultivate the present good understanding subsisting between France and
Great Britain by every means compatible with his dignity and the good
of his subjects, thinks it necessary to make his proceeding known to the
court of London, and to declare at the same time that the contracting
parties have paid great attention not to stipulate any exclusive
advantages in favour of the French nation, and that the United States
have reserved the liberty of treating with every nation whatever
upon the same footing of equality and reciprocity. In making this
communication to the court of London, the king is firmly persuaded it
will find new proofs of his majesty’s constant and sincere disposition
for peace; and that his Britannic majesty, animated by the same friendly
sentiments, will equally avoid every thing that may alter their good
harmony, and that he will particularly take effectual pleasures to
prevent his French majesty’s subjects and the United States from being
interrupted, and to cause all the usages received between commercial
nations to be, in this respect, observed, and all those rules which can
be said to subsist between the two courts of France and Great
Britain. In this just confidence, the undersigned ambassador thinks it
superfluous to acquaint the British minister that the king, his master,
being determined to protect effectually the lawful commerce of his
subjects, and to maintain the dignity of his flag, has, in consequence,
taken effectual measures in concert with the Thirteen United and
Independent States of America.” In making this communication to the
house, Lord North moved an appropriate address to the king, which again
called forth the spirit of opposition. In discussing the motion, an
amendment was proposed requesting his majesty to dismiss the ministers.
Lord North was reproached with having suffered himself to be surprised
by the notification of a treaty which appeared to have been two years
under discussion, and with leaving the country on the eve of war
destitute of adequate means for its internal security. Without designing
to vindicate ministers, Governor Pownall detailed the circumstances and
progress of the treaty. The account, however, which he gave was widely
different from matter of fact. He said that the idea had not existed six
months, and had not been in actual negociation more than half that time.
But it is well known that the idea had been uppermost in the minds of
the American leaders for full two years, and that Silas Deane had been
attempting to negociate for nearly that period, and Benjamin Franklin
had been at Paris with the same object in view for near twelve months.
It appears indeed that the only reason the treaty was not signed long
before, was that the French at first attempted to drive a hard bargain,
conceiving that the Americans were in such a weak condition that they
would agree to any terms rather than not obtain the co-operation of
France. The news of ther surender of Burgoyne’s army, as Governor
Pownall observed, lowered the demands of the French, and this it was
that made them hurry on such a treaty as congress desired. But even.
now Pownall remarked, peace was yet practicable, if Great Britain would
pursue the proper course. He said:—“The Americans are and must be
independent. We acknowledge it in our acts, and have already, though we
may try to cover our shame with words, resigned all dominion over them.
They will never rescind their declaration; but if parliament will
extend the powers of the commissioners so far as to acknowledge their
independence, on conditions, they will, in return, form with us a
federal treaty, offensive, defensive, and commercial. The compact,
signed at Paris, is not yet ratified by congress: by a speedy and candid
exertion this country may still be enabled to take advantage of the
natural predilection of the Americans for the parent state. If a federal
treaty Were not adopted, and the Americans should ever be induced to
treat on other terms, one of their first demands must be a reimbursement
of expenses, and an indemnification for losses. A pecuniary remuneration
was out of the question; but in lieu of it government must sacrifice
Canada, Nova Scotia, and the Newfoundland fishery. This would be
insisted on; but if independence were conceded America could only
treat with England on the same ground as any other independent nation.”
General Conway and Mr. Dundas argued that it would be better policy to
form a federal union with America, than to let her fall into the hands
of France; but the vast majority of the house seemed to think that the
entrance of France into the quarrel rendered all present thought of
negociation an absurdity and a meanness; and that no future friendship
could be hoped from a people who, though descended from us and bound to
us by the strong ties of community of descent, language, and religion,
had united themselves with the most ancient, inveterate, and most
powerful of all our enemies. At the same time war was advocated, it was
suggested that Chatham, the scourge of the house of Bourbon, was the
proper man to occupy the post held by Lord North at such a crisis.
But Lord North did not coincide in this opinion. He expressed a total
disregard to office, but contended that the interest of the empire, as
well as his own reputation, demanded that he should still sit at the
helm of the state. The original address was carried by a large majority,
and in the house of lords an amendment to the address was negatived by
a majority of sixty-eight against twenty-five. Addresses were also
returned from both houses to a royal message intimating his majesty’s
intention of calling out the militia.




INVESTIGATION OF THE STATE OF THE NAVY.

Previous pages show that there had already been debates on the state
of the navy. Now that a war with France was inevitable the subject was
brought prominently forward; especially in the house of lords. On the
13th of March, Lord Howard of Effingham moved a series of resolutions
explaining the condition of the navy during the last eight years; the
number of ships broken up, built, or repaired; and the precise condition
and expense of the ordnance. In moving these resolutions, Lord Howard
spoke of the necessity of economy, and accused the first lord of the
admiralty with gross mismanagement. Lord Sandwich, who had been assailed
on previous occasions when the same subject was introduced, now made a
long and able defence. The British naval force, he said, at that moment
consisted of three hundred and seventy-three ships of all rates, which
was a force double to that which England had in her possession half a
century before. In drawing the comparison or the present state of the
navy with its condition in 1727, he adduced arguments highly favourable
to his own administration; but notwithstanding this, the opposition were
very violent in their language towards him. He was even threatened with
the vengeance of the people, who, it was said, would rise and tear him
to pieces, as the Dutch had treated De Witt. The debate was tumultous,
but the motions were all negatived.




MOTION FOR EXCLUDING CONTRACTORS FROM PARLIAMENT.

After various debates on the iniquities practised by contractors, and
the badness of the provisions which they supplied, Sir Philip Jennings
Clarke introduced a bill for excluding contractors from parliament,
unless their contracts were publicly obtained by competition. In this
debate ministers were coupled with the offenders, and Lord George
Gordon, who afterwards rendered himself so notorious, declared that Lord
North was the worst of all contractors—he was, he said, a contractor
for men, a contractor for parliament, and a contractor for the
representatives of the people! Lord George advised the minister to save
his country and rescue his own life from popular vengeance by calling
away his butchers from America, by retiring with all the rest of his
majesty’s evil advisers, and by turning away from his own wickedness.
The first and second reading of the bill was carried, but the motion for
committing the bill was negatived on the 5th of May, by a majority of
two, and it was consequently lost.




REVISION OF THE TRADE OF IRELAND.

During the month of April a committee of the house of commons was
formed for the revision of the trade laws which affected Ireland. In
consequence of the American war, a stop had been put to exportations
of manufactures, and a large body of the people deprived of employment.
Lord Nugent therefore proposed that Ireland should be permitted to
export all articles of Irish manufacture—woollen cloths and wool
excepted—on board British vessels to the coast of Africa and other
foreign settlements, and to import from the same all goods, except
indigo and tobacco. He also proposed that they should be allowed to
export Irish sailcloth, cotton-yarn, and cordage to England, free of
duty. Two bills founded upon these propositions were introduced, and
both sides of the house admitting the justice of the measures seemed to
agree in the propriety of adopting them. The great commercial body
of England, however, took the alarm, and during the Easter recess, a
formidable opposition was entered into by the merchants in all quarters.
Petitions flowed into parliament from every part of the country, and the
different members of parliament were instructed by their constituents to
oppose the measures. Many who had previously been disposed to give them
their support, in compliance with these instructions now opposed them;
but Mr. Burke, who was member for the great trading city of Bristol,
manfully refused, and continued to co-operate with Lord Nugent in his
task. In presenting a petition from Bristol against the measures, he
ably advocated them, and declared that if from his conduct he should
forfeit the suffrages of his constituents at the next election, it
should stand on record, as an example to future representatives of
the commons of England, that one man at least had dared to resist the
desires of his constituents when his judgment assured him that they were
wrong. Notwithstanding the petitions and the altered opinion of many
members, the second reading of the two bills was carried by a large
majority. The petitioners, however, were resolute in their opposition
to the measures. They prayed to be heard by counsel, and this being
granted, such was the weight of the pleadings of the close-trade
interest, that the supporters of the bills were compelled to effect
a sort of compromise by which the amount of the benefit conferred on
Ireland was greatly diminished.




BILL FOR THE RELIEF OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS.

While the measures for benefiting the trade of Ireland were under
discussion, Sir George Saville brought in a bill for the relief of the
Roman Catholics, by repealing certain penalties and disabilities created
by the 10th and 11th of William III., entitled an Act for preventing
the Growth of Popery. The Roman Catholics had recently presented a very
flattering address to his majesty, and the occurrences in America and
the attempts made by the Americans to excite insurrection seem to have
suggested to the minds of ministers the expediency of tranquillizing and
securing the affections of the Irish people. This bill, therefore,
was supported by ministers, and it was carried through the commons
unanimously. The Bishop of Peterborough warmly opposed it in the house
of lords, but the majority of the peers gave it their support, and the
bill passed into a law. By it the subjects of Great Britain professing
the Romish creed were permitted to perform their religious rites, and
were rendered capable of inheriting or purchasing real estates, on
subscribing an oath of allegiance to the king, and disclaiming the
pope’s authority over this realm, or his power of absolving its people
from their obligations to the government as by law established. This
dawn of religious freedom has been extolled as one of the greatest
glories of the reign of George III.; but it must be recollected that
this measure was one of expediency, which detracts materially from its
glory.

{GEORGE III. 1778–1779}




MOTION OF CENSURE ON LORD GEORGE GERMAINE, ETC.

On the 19th of March, during the sitting of the committee of the whole
house on the state of the nation, Mr. Fox moved a resolution of censure
on Lord George Germaine, as the chief author of Burgoyne’s disaster.
This motion was rejected, and the solicitor-general then proposed that
the house should exonerate the noble secretary from all blame. A vote to
the effect that the failure of the expedition from Canada was not caused
by any neglect of the secretary of state was carried, but the resolution
was not reported. By this time Burgoyne, who was a member of parliament,
and who had been permitted to return home upon parole, was in his place
to speak for himself. He had an opportunity of explaining the whole
matter on the 26th of May, when a motion was made for a select committee
to consider the transactions of the northern army, the convention of
Saratoga, and the means by which the general of that army had obtained
his release. In supporting the motion, Burgoyne vindicated his conduct
at great length, and complained bitterly of fabrications which injured
his own honour and the honour of the army, as well as of his treatment
in parliament during his absence, and his treatment generally since his
return to England. He solicited a full inquiry, asserting that he put
his fortune, his honour, and his head on the issue. The reply of Lord
George Germaine was brief, and he concluded by saying that the house was
not the proper tribunal to decide upon the campaign, and therefore he
could not see the propriety of parliamentary interference. The motion
was rejected.

In the course of the debate, Mr. Temple Luttrell adduced the story of
the court-martial which had sat upon Lord George Germaine himself,
after the battle of Minden, and made an insulting comparison between his
conduct in that battle, and the conduct of the brave and enterprising
Burgoyne. In a paroxysm of rage, Lord George asserted that he did not
merit such an attack; that he would for once descend to a level with the
wretched character and malice of his assailant; and that, old as he was,
he would meet the fighting gentleman and be revenged. The house called
to order, and the speaker reprimanded both members, and insisted that
the affair should proceed no further. Lord George immediately apologized
for his warmth, but Luttrel escaped out of the house, and would neither
apologize nor give the required assurances till the sergeant-at-arms was
called in. He then said that he meant his reflections as public matter,
and that they were not to be referred to private abuse or enmity, and
there the matter ended.

[Illustration: 121.jpg DEATH OF CHATHAM]




LORD CHATHAM’S LAST APPEARANCE IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

About this time, some of the leaders of the opposition became convinced
that the only possibility of detaching America from France and avoiding
both wars was by acknowledging the independence of the American
colonies. These sentiments were communicated to Chatham, and he was
solicited by those who entertained them to honour a motion about to be
made by the Duke of Richmond on this subject with his support. In reply,
Chatham confessed his concern that he was under so wide a difference
with his noble friends respecting the sovereignty and allegiance of
America; but notwithstanding his increased infirmities, he expressed his
determination to be in the house on the 7th of April, which was the day
mentioned as that on which the subject was to be brought forward.
On that day Chatham appeared in the house for the last time. He came
wrapped up in flannel, supported by two friends, and looking like a
dying man; and as he entered, the peers rose up and continued standing
while he passed to his seat. The Duke of Richmond made his motion,
which was for an address to the king, beseeching him to acknowledge
the independence of America, by withdrawing all his forces from that
country; and to dismiss his ministers. Lord Weymouth, one of the
secretaries of state, opposed the motion, and Chatham followed on the
same side against his own party. He was supported by his crutches and
his two friends, and when he had gained his feet, he took one of his
crutches from under his arm, and raising it cast his eyes toward heaven,
and said:—“I thank God that I have been enabled to come here this
day, to perform my duty and to speak on a subject which has so deeply
impressed my mind. I am old and infirm; I have one foot—more than one
foot in the grave; I am risen from my bed to stand up in the cause of my
country, perhaps never again to speak in this house.” This was delivered
in a feeble tone, but as he grew warm, his voice rose and became as
harmonious as ever. In the course of his speech, he entered into a full
detail of the American war, dilating on all the measures which he had
opposed, and evils which he had predicted; adding, at the close of each
review, “and so it proved.” Chatham then spoke more particularly on the
subject of the motion. He remarked: “My lords, I rejoice that the
grave has not closed upon me; that I am still alive to lift up my voice
against the dismemberment of this ancient and most noble monarchy!
Pressed down as I am by the hand of infirmity, I am little able to
assist my country in this most perilous conjuncture; but, my lords,
while I have sense and memory I will never consent to deprive the royal
offspring of the House of Brunswick, the heirs of the Princess Sophia,
of their fairest inheritance. Where is the man that will dare to advise
such a measure? My lords, his majesty succeeded to an empire as great in
extent as its reputation was unsullied. Shall we tarnish the lustre
of this nation by an ignominious surrender of its rights and fairest
possessions? Shall this great kingdom, that has survived whole and
entire the Danish depredations, the Scottish inroads, and the Norman
conquest—that has stood the threatened invasion of the Spanish
armada,—now fall prostrate before the house of Bourbon? Surely, my
lords, this nation is no longer what it was! Shall a people, that
fifteen years ago were the terror of the world, now stoop so low as to
tell their ancient, inveterate enemy, ‘Take all we have, only give us
peace?’ It is impossible! I wage war with no man, or set of men. I wish
for none of their employments; nor would I co-operate with men who still
persist in unretracted error; who, instead of acting on a firm, decisive
line of conduct, halt between two opinions where there is no middle
path. In God’s name, if it is absolutely necessary to declare either for
peace or war; and the former cannot be preserved with honour, why is
not the latter commenced without hesitation? I am not, I confess, well
informed of the resources of this kingdom, but I trust it has still
sufficient to maintain its just rights, though I know them not. But,
my lords, any state is better than despair. Let us at least make one
effort; and if we must fall, let us fall like men!” When Chatham
sat down, the Duke of Richmond rose again, and after replying to the
arguments of Lord Weymouth, he attempted to answer the great orator.
Although evidently disconcerted and irritated at the course he had
taken, the Duke professed the greatest veneration for Chatham’s name and
person, and the greatest gratitude for the services he had rendered
the country. The name of Chatham, however, he said, could not perform
impossibilities, or restore the country to the state it was in when
directed by his counsels. Our finances were then, through the abilities
of that able financier, Mr. Pelham, in a flourishing condition; our
fleet was then in an admirable condition, under the direction and care
of that able naval officer, Lord Anson; and the influence of the crown
then had not reached its present and alarming height. During the greater
part of the war, he continued, we had only France to contend with, and
when Spain commenced hostilities, France was reduced to the lowest ebb,
having already lost her navy and the best of her colonies. Then also
America fought for us, but now she would be allied with France and Spain
against us. He added, “If the noble earl had pointed out the means
of supporting this unequal contest, I should readily acquiesce in his
sentiments; but since he has not only omitted to point out the means,
but acknowledged that he knows them not, he will excuse me if I adhere
to my former opinion. No person is more anxious for the dependence of
America; but being convinced of its total impracticability, I would
retain the colonists as allies, and thus prevent them from throwing
themselves into the arms of France. The noble earl, as a reason for war,
has mentioned the inherent rights of the heir apparent. To recover
these possessions by force is now impossible; but I will readily join
in calling to a severe account those who have caused the loss of his
inheritance.” During this harangue, the Earl of Chatham had frequently
denoted by the motion of his hand that he had remarked and would reply
to some observations which he deemed offensive, and when the Duke of
Richmond sat down, he attempted to rise for that purpose. But his work
was done: his strength failed him, and he would have fallen to the floor
but for the prompt assistance of some noble peers. He was carried
into an adjoining chamber, and the whole house, agitated by the event,
adjourned in silence.




DEATH OF LORD CHATHAM, AND POSTHUMOUS HONOURS TO HIS MEMORY.

Lord Chatham so far recovered as to be able to be carried down to
his favourite villa of Hayes, in Kent. These appearances of recovery,
however, were soon found to be delusive. He expired on the 11th of May,
in the seventieth year of his age. His death was announced in the house
of commons late in the evening of that day by his friend Colonel Barré,
who moved for an address to the king that his remains should be interred
at the public expense in Westminster Abbey. The motion was seconded by
Mr. T. Townshend, and seemed to meet with general approbation; but Mr.
Rigby, who apprehended that a public funeral would not be agreeable
to his majesty, as Chatham had not recently been looked upon with much
favour at court, suggested that a public monument to his memory would be
a better testimony of the public admiration and gratitude. The result of
this suggestion, however, was very different from that which Townshend
intended. Mr. Dunning said it would be better to have both the public
funeral and the monument, and he combined both in a resolution, which
was carried without one dissentient voice; Lord North giving it his
warmest support. A funeral and a monument were therefore secured to the
great orator, and as, notwithstanding his places, pensions, and legacies
left him, Chatham had died in debt, on the recommendation of Lord John
Cavendish, £20,000 was voted for the payment of his debts, and £4000
a-year was settled upon-his heirs. No opposition was made to these
grants in the commons; but a motion made by the Earl of Shelburne in the
lords, that the peers should attend his funeral was lost by a majority
of one vote. The annuity bill was also opposed in the lords; but it was
carried by a majority of forty-two to eleven. In all these votes his
majesty concurred, although during the noble earl’s life he had opposed
an application made to him to settle the pension he enjoyed in reversion
to his second son, William Pitt, until, at least, decrepitude or death
had put an end to him “as a trumpet of sedition.” His majesty, however,
could not carry his resentment beyond the grave, and perhaps pleased
with the last noble sounds of his trumpet, he gave his warm assent to
the honours and rewards which parliament had voted to the great orator
and his heirs. And the posthumous honours paid to Chatham were not
confined to the king and the parliament. The Common-council petitioned
to have his remains interred in the noblest edifice of Great Britain,
St. Paul’s Cathedral, and when this was refused, they erected a monument
in Guildhall to his memory. He was one of the greatest orators England
ever produced; greater even than the garbled and defective reports of
his speeches would denote him to have been. In his private life his
character was both exemplary and amiable—his public character is
defined in the preceding pages.




THE DUKE OF RICHMOND’S MOTION RESUMED.

The Duke of Richmond’s motion was resumed on the day after it had been
interrupted by Chatham’s illness. The resumed debate, however, only
served to place the difference of opinion which existed between the
Rockingham and Chatham parties respecting America in a clearer light.
The former contended for the independence of that country, without
reserve or delay; while the latter as warmly contended that such a
measure would prove one of the greatest political evils that could
befall the nation. The Earl of Shelburne also maintained that the
resources of Great Britain, if properly managed, were sufficient to
cope with our triple foes—America, France, and Spain—and that our
navy would not fail of supporting the glory they had gained in so many
conflicts. The motion was negatived by a majority of fifty-five against
thirty-three.




THE SESSION CLOSED.

Although the season was now far advanced, motions were made in both
houses to put off the prorogation. These motions were, however lost, and
on the 3rd of June, the king terminated the session. In his speech, his
majesty thanked his faithful commons for their zeal and attention to the
interests of their country, and the honourable support they had made for
the royal family; several annuities having been granted to his numerous
family. Alluding to the one great question, he said, that his desire was
to preserve the tranquillity of Europe; that the faith of treaties and
the law of nations had been respected by him, and that he had anxiously
avoided giving offence to any foreign power. He added:—“Let that power
by whom this tranquillity shall be broken, answer to their subjects and
to the world for all the fatal consequences of war!”




PROCEEDINGS IN FRANCE.

Having entered into a treaty with America, in which treaty it was
stipulated that the Americans should never return to their allegiance
to the British crown, and having thereby hurled a bold defiance to the
power of England, the French made preparations for war. At this time
France was by no means in a flourishing condition, but by oppressing
the poverty-stricken people with imposts, duties, and _corvées_, and by
taking the bread from half-famished mouths, means were found to raise
armies and equip fleets. The coasts of Normandy and Britainy swarmed
with soldiers, who threatened to invade England; arms, money, and men
were sent to America; and the navy of France set out to contend with
the navy of Great Britain, for the mastery of the seas between the two
countries. On the 18th of March, the French king issued an edict to
seize all British ships in the ports of France, and shortly after our
government laid an embargo on all French ships in British ports. This,
with the mutual withdrawal of ambassadors, and the interruption of
all diplomatic intercourse, left the two countries in a state of open
hostility, although no heralds or manifestoes were employed on either
side to make a formal declaration of war. On their part, the French had
in reality no materials for manifestoes, whence their silence; while on
our part, ministers were too much employed to think of such a ridiculous
solemnity. It was, moreover, too well understood on both sides that
the only arguments likely to avail must proceed from the mouth of the
cannon.




NAVAL OPERATIONS IN THE BRITISH CHANNEL.

The maritime defence of England was entrusted to Admiral Keppel, and he
put to sea with twenty sail ot the line for that purpose. On the 17th
of June, Keppel discovered two French frigates, the “La Licorne” and “La
Belle Poule,” reconnoitring his fleet. The con duct of France seemed
to call for and to justify extreme measures, and Keppel’s instructions
being ample, he resolved to effect the capture of these two frigates.
Accordingly they were chased, and the first, fired both with cannon
and musketry, struck her colours and was captured; but the other having
fiercely encountered and dismasted a pursuing vessel, escaped among the
rocks on the French shore. Shortly after a French schooner and another
frigate were captured, and from papers found in these several vessels
Keppel discovered that the enemy had thirty-two sail of the line and
twelve frigates ready for sea in Brest harbour. This determined him to
return to Portsmouth for reinforcements. These reinforcements, however,
were either not ready or were not there, and while he was waiting for
them the Brest fleet had put out to sea under the command of the Count
d’Orvilliers, and had captured a frigate which Keppel had left to watch
the movements of the enemy. This was on the 9th of July, and on the very
same day, Keppel, whose fleet had been augmented to thirty sail of the
line, departed in quest of d’Orvilliers. He fell in with the French
admiral on the 23rd, but as the French, who had the advantage of the
wind, showed no inclination for battle, the English continued chasing
and manoeuvring to windward for four days. On the 27th, however, a dark
squall brought the two fleets close together off Ushant. The signal
was instantly made to engage. The fleets were then sailing in different
directions, and on contrary tacks, and a furious cannonade was
maintained for nearly three hours, at the end of which time they had
passed each other, and the firing ceased. The loss in killed and wounded
was greatest on the side of the French, but some of the British ships
under Sir Hugh Palliser were so crippled that when Keppel wore round to
renew the engagement they could not obey the signal, and he formed his
line of battle ahead. On their part the French formed their line to
leeward of their antagonists, and Keppel expected that they would try
their force “handsomely with him in the morning;” but in the course of
the night d’Orvilliers edged away for Brest, and claimed the victory,
because he had not been thoroughly beaten. Keppel returned to England to
get new masts and rigging, and on the 18th of August, d’Orvilliers again
set sail to cruise off Cape Finisterre. A few days after, Keppel also
again put to sea, but he stretched further to the westward, to protect
the merchant-ships returning from the two Indies, and to prevent any
portion of the French fleet from reaching America. Every ship sailing
from the Indies arrived safely in England, and our privateers and
cruisers captured many French trading-vessels; but the two fleets did
not again come into collision, and popular indignation, excited by
disappointment, attributed the blame to Keppel and Sir Hugh Palliser,
who served under him. The journals of the day teemed with invectives
against them for not pursuing the French admiral after the battle off’
Ushant; and the opinion was very general that they had not acted with
the required decision when the fleet of the enemy was in their power.
By the court and the admiralty, however, their conduct was viewed
with approbation; and Keppel, at least, would not deign to answer his
anonymous accusers. Sir Hugh Palliser replied to an attack made upon
him in a morning paper, and because Keppel refused to authenticate
his answer or to contradict statements made by an anonymous accuser,
Palliser published his own case, in which he charged his superior
officer with inconsistency, for having approved his conduct in a public
despatch, and now refusing to vindicate his character. Keppel, however,
acted the more nobly: anonymous accusations are beneath the notice of a
high-minded and honourable man, and he who replies to such, dignifies a
character which is little superior to a midnight assassin, and should
be treated with mortifying contempt. That accuser who will not face
the accused, places himself out of the pale of the laws and usages of
society.




DISGRACEFUL INFRACTION OF THE CONVENTION OF SARATOGA.

Although the Americans had given Burgoyne leave to return home upon
parole, yet, in bold defiance of the convention signed by Gates, they
still kept his troops as prisoners of war. As there was a difficulty in
reaching the port of Boston early in the winter, Burgoyne had applied to
Washington to change the place of embarkation, and to substitute for it
some place on the Sound. Washington referred the matter to congress, and
he was directed to inform Burgoyne, that no proposition for indulgence
or for altering the terms of the convention would be listened to, unless
directed to their own body. The truth is, congress had scarcely ceased
rejoicings for the success of Gates, when they determined to break the
compact. Measuring the faith and honour of the English officers by
their own, they pretended a concern that the army which had surrendered,
instead of sailing for England, would join the forces of General Howe;
or, that if they did not do this, and if they sailed for England, their
arrival there would enable the government to send out an equal number
of troops employed in the home service to take their places in America.
Hence, they set their wits to work in order to delay the return of the
troops to England. The first thing they did was to pass a resolution
directing General Heath to transmit to the board of war, a descriptive
list of every person comprehended in the convention. Burgoyne and his
officers bitterly resented the insinuations of congress, and
raised objections to such a humiliating measure; but his army was,
nevertheless, described man by man, with all the minuteness of a
French commissary of police. After this was done, a number of British
transports came round to take Burgoyne and his troops on board, but
congress now attempted to find several flaws in the clauses of
the convention of Saratoga. They pretended that the ships were not
sufficient, or sufficiently furnished with provisions for a voyage
to Europe, and that, therefore, General Howe contemplated the shorter
voyage to Sandy Hook or Delaware; and they further pretended that some
of the British soldiers had secreted their cartouch-boxes, which were,
they said, comprehended in the technical term “arms,” and upon such
futile and unfounded pretensions they gravely concluded that the
convention was broken. The British officers denied these allegations,
and the whole subject was referred to a committee of congress, who,
in their report, substantiated them by fallacy, and thereupon it was
resolved that “the embarkation of Lieutenant-General Burgoyne and the
troops under his command, should be suspended until a distinct and
explicit ratification of the convention of Saratoga should be properly
notified by the court of Great Britain to congress.” The men were then
thrown into prison, and the British transports were ordered to quit the
neighbourhood of Boston without delay. Burgoyne addressed a letter of
remonstrance to congress, and insisted on the embarkation of his army
as stipulated in the convention; but a committee to whom this letter was
referred, reported that it contained no arguments sufficient to induce
congress to alter their resolutions, and the men were still kept in
prison. Burgoyne then demanded that he, at least, should be permitted
to return to England upon his parole, which request was readily granted,
and it was in this manner that he had been allowed to come home, leaving
his army behind him. The whole affair reflects the greatest disgrace
upon the members of congress, and Washington and Gates share in that
disgrace; the former for having joined hand-in-hand with congress in
the affair, and the latter for not preventing the act of perfidy, or
throwing up his commission if he had not sufficient influence to prevent
it. All the American leaders, however, seem to have parted company
with faith and honour, and they rejoiced in the prospect of keeping
Burgoyne’s troops prisoners of war till the war should be ended, being
well convinced that the court of Great Britain would not make the
required notification.




LAFAYETTE’S EXPEDITION TO CANADA.

During the preceding year, while the treaty between France and America
was pending, the Marquess de Lafayette, a warm-hearted and warm-headed
young Frenchman, who had imbibed the political notions of the new
school of philosophy, which had for some time been sowing the seeds
of revolution in France, resolved to embark in the cause of America.
Accordingly he set sail for that country, accompanied by Baron Kalb, and
a few other adventurers, and when he arrived he was received with open
arms by Washington and by congress. On the 31st of July, indeed, the
members of congress expressed their sense of his accession to their
cause in warm terms, and conferred on him the rank and commission of
major-general. He fought in the battle of the Brandywine, where he was
shot in the leg, and where he narrowly escaped being taken prisoner.
Nothing more is heard of him till the depth of the winter, when
Washington still lay hutted in Valley Forge, contending against the
horrors of sickness and famine, as previously narrated. At this time
congress, who were sitting in York Town, at the instigation of a board
of war, composed of Gates, Starke, and others, all personal enemies of
Washington, resolved to make another irruption into Canada, and that
the command should be given to Lafayette. It was supposed that the young
French nobleman would have great influence with the French descendants
in Canada, which was the chief reason of his being raised to the
command. The plan was completed without a word of intimation to
Washington; and when it was fully resolved upon he received a letter
from Gates, now his rival, enclosing another for the young marquess,
requiring his immediate attendance on congress to receive his
instructions. At the same time, Washington was directed to send one of
his best regiments to join the Canadian expedition. Lafayette repaired
to congress, and Washington put the required regiment in motion for
Albany, on the Hudson, where the invading force was to be assembled.
According to his own account, Lafayette made large demands on congress
in order to ensure the success of his expedition, which demands were all
complied with. He soon, however, found that the word of congress could
not be depended upon. He was told that 2500 men would be assembled at
Albany; that he would be joined by a great body of militia further up
the Hudson; that he should have a certain sum of money in specie, and
2,000,000 dollars in paper-money; and that he must proceed from the head
of the Hudson to Lake Champlain, cross that water on the ice, burn the
English fleet at the Isle Aux Noix, and then, descending the Sorel and
crossing the St. Lawrence, repair to Montreal, to act as circumstances
should permit him. Lafayette set out full of ardour and hope, but he
had scarcely left congress when it crossed their minds that the young
Frenchman might, instead of inducing the Canadians to join the thirteen
United States, induce them to renew their connexion with their mother
country—France. These misgivings were natural, and the result was that
congress resolved to neglect this long-cherished scheme of conquest.
Accordingly, when Lafayette arrived at Albany, he did not find half of
the promised regular troops, and as for the militia, it had either not
received or attended to the summons. Even the troops he found there
wanted clothing and provisions, and while he had little or no specie,
the paper-dollars proved scarcely worth the carriage. Moreover, he had
no sledges to carry his troops across the ice, and when the month of
March arrived, the lakes began to thaw, and he received intelligence
that the English were well prepared to receive him. Lafayette now gave
up the enterprise, and after having made an attempt to engage some
Mohawk Indians in the service of congress, in which he met with but
little success, and having administered a new form of oath, devised by
congress, to the population of Albany, he was permitted to return to the
camp of Washington.




UNFORTUNATE ACTION UNDER LAFAYETTE.

During the winter and the commencement of the spring, while the great
body of the British troops were quartered in Philadelphia, several
excursions were made by detachments in different directions, chiefly for
the purpose of obtaining provisions and clothing. These excursions
were generally attended with success, and many American prisoners were
brought into Philadelphia. Washington, however, was still permitted
to rest securely in Valley Forge, where he omitted no opportunity of
bettering the condition of his forces. His exertions were great, and
he was now ably seconded by Baron Steuben, a Prussian officer, who had
served for many years on the staff of Frederick the Great, and who,
like Lafayette, had become an adventurer on this theatre of war. Steuben
taught the raw troops of the republic the system of field-exercise which
his Prussian majesty had introduced or improved; and when they next took
the field, therefore, they presented a far more soldier-like appearance
than they had presented in the previous campaigns. It was in the month
of May that they again took the field. In that month the British had
made an expedition by sea and land to destroy all the American shipping
in the upper part of the Delaware between Philadelphia and Trenton. This
may be considered the opening of the campaign, and the expedition was in
a great measure successful.

More than forty American vessels were burnt; a considerable quantity of
stores and provisions were destroyed; and some Americans were slain and
wounded in the vain endeavour to defend them. Washington now began to
act. On the 19th of May he detached Lafayette with nearly 3000 men to
take post at Barren Hill, about seven miles in advance of Valley Forge,
but on the opposite side of the Schuylkill. The object of this movement
appears to have been the restraining of the British excursions, but
the position was ill-chosen, as the communication between it and Valley
Forge was difficult, and easy to be interrupted by an active enemy.
Probably Washington calculated that General Howe would still continue
his inactivity, and especially as it was now known that the British
contemplated the abandonment of Philadelphia. But in this he was
mistaken. On the night of the 20th, General Grant was detached with
5000 men to surprise Lafayette in this position, and he reached a point
between his rear and Valley Forge without discovery. At the same time
another detachment, under General Grey, marched along the western bank
of the Schuylkill, and posted themselves at a ford about three miles
in front of Lafayette’s right flank, while the rest of the British army
advanced to Chesnut-hill. His retreat was utterly cut off, except by the
way of Matson’s-ford. As soon as Lafayette became aware of his danger he
saw this, and he instantly fled, pell-mell, with his detachment to this
ford, leaving on his way six field-pieces. There was a race between him
and Grey which should get first to Matson’s Ford, but fear quickened
his steps and those of his followers, and Grey’s men being fatigued with
their long night-march, the Frenchmen won the race, and the ford was
passed before Grey could reach it. General Grant also was slow in his
pursuit from behind, and Lafayette was even allowed time to send
back some of his men across the water to recover the artillery he
had abandoned. He escaped with the loss of about fifty men killed and
wounded, and a few more taken prisoners; but had this expedition, which
had been well conceived, been executed with greater rapidity, the career
of Lafayette would have terminated, and his followers must either have
been captured or slain. Washington himself seems to have considered that
his case was hopeless. By means of glasses he had discovered Lafayette’s
peril, and he caused his bridge across the Schuylkill to be broken
down, lest the British, after annihilating this detachment, should fall
upon himself at Valley Forge.

{GEORGE III. 1778–1779}




SIR HENRY CLINTON TAKES THE COMMAND OF THE BRITISH TROOPS.

The above wore the last military operations in America over which Sir
William Howe presided. He had been for some time soliciting his recall,
through feelings of resentment for want of confidence reposed in him,
and inattention to his recommendations; and on the 24th of May, Sir
Henry Clinton arrived at Philadelphia to supersede him in the command.
How General Howe could imagine that any recommendations which he could
make would be attended to, is matter of surprise, when his inglorious
campaigns are considered. He had done nothing of consequence during the
long time he had been in America, and at the very time he was superseded
in the command, he was conscious that the army must soon evacuate
Philadelphia. For the last seven months he had, indeed, been living a
life of pleasure, which wholly unfitted both him and his army for active
service. Hence, it is no wonder that before his departure both officers
and men, expressed their warmest affection for him. On the 18th of May
a grand fête was given to him as a proper leave-taking, which was
celebrated in such bad taste that it reflected disgrace on those who got
it up, and those who consented to be honoured by it. Even if the Howes
had been uniformly victorious and had finished the war by brilliant
exploits, the pageantry was of such a nature as would have been better
fitted for some inglorious Eastern despot; how much more then was it
misplaced when all the work they had been commissioned to execute was
left undone. The enemy had still the sword in their hands, and were
daily increasing in courage, in skill, in strength, and in numbers. Such
was the state of America when Sir William Howe returned to England. His
brother, Admiral Lord Howe, who was a man of ability, still retained
the command of the fleet, although he also wished to return home, and
to take no further part in the contest. The rumours of the French war
first, and then the arrival of the French fleet on the coast of America,
alone induced him to retain his command.




ARRIVAL OF THE COMMISSIONERS IN AMERICA WITH THE CONCILIATORY BILLS.

Commissioners appointed under Lord North’s conciliatory bills, arrived
in the Delaware on the 6th of June. These commissioners were Lord
Carlisle, Governor Johnstone, and Mr. Eden, who lost no time in making
known their commission. They applied to Washington for a passport for
their secretary, Dr. Adam Ferguson, to enable him to lay some overtures
of the commission before congress. Washington, however, refused to
grant this passport, and he forwarded the letter of the commissioners
to congress by the common military post. After deliberating on
the communications for some days, congress replied to the king’s
commissioners through their president, that the act of parliament, the
commission, and the commissioners’ letter all supposed the people of the
American states to be still subjects of the King of Great Britain, and
were all founded upon an idea of dependence. This was represented as a
mistake. The Americans, they said, were a free people, and congress were
ready to enter upon the consideration of a treaty of peace and commerce,
not inconsistent with treaties they had previously contracted, whenever
the King of Great Britain should show a sincere disposition for that
purpose; the only proof of which would be an explicit acknowledgment of
their independence, and the withdrawal of all the troops and the fleets
from the United States. The truth is, the commissioners arrived too
late to effect any conciliation. Silas Deane had previously arrived from
Paris with the French treaties ratified, and with abundant assurances of
assistance and co-operation, and the Americans were thereby confirmed in
their resolution to obtain their absolute independence. In addition to
his public exertions as a commissioner, Governor Johnstone endeavoured
to gain over some of the members of congress and other persons of
influence, by opening a private correspondence with them. But this
was discovered, and the result was, that his letters were laid before
congress, and a resolution was passed to the effect that it was
incompatible with the honour of congress to hold any further
communication with that commissioner. The commissioners next attempted
to separate the people from their leaders by a manifesto declaring
pardons to all who should within forty days withdraw from the service of
congress, and proffering peace with peculiar privileges to the colonies
collectively or separately, which should return to their allegiance to
the British monarch. But this was answered by counter manifestoes from
congress, and the efforts of the commissioners were rendered signally
abortive; and they were compelled to return home as they went. The whole
body of colonists were resolute in their desire and purpose of obtaining
their independence.




EVACUATION OF PHILADELPHIA BY THE BRITISH, ETC.

At this time it was known that Count d’Estaing was at sea with a
considerable land force on board, to aid the Americans. This had
doubtless the effect of making congress and the colonists more
determined in their opposition to the British government. On the other
hand, it had the effect of rendering the British general more cautious.
As soon as the prospect of a French war opened on the British cabinet,
as a more central situation was desirable for the army, the evacuation
of Philadelphia was contemplated, and as the French troops might arrive
soon to the aid of Washington, Sir Henry Clinton, contrary to the wishes
of the British officers, who burned with impatience to be led on to
the Valley Forge, resolved to withdraw his troops from the capital of
Pennsylvania. This was executed about the middle of June, and they were
transported across the Delaware without molestation. The march, however,
of the troops was encumbered by a long train of the inhabitants of
Philadelphia, all royalists, who feared the vengeance cf congress, and
their progress was consequently slow. Moreover, the country abounded
with rough roads and difficult passes, while the British troops had to
mend the bridges in their route which Washington had caused to be
broken down. The passes were all occupied by the militia, but these were
everywhere driven from their posts without difficulty. These measures
were preliminary to a step which Washington contemplated, of crossing
the Delaware and falling upon the rear of the retreating enemy. He
crossed that river with this intent; but though he hung upon Clinton’s
flank and rear, he did not venture to attack him, and carefully selected
for himself such ground and such a line of march as prevented his being
attacked by the British. Several days passed in this manner, councils
of war being in the meantime held to deliberate upon the expediency
of bringing on a general engagement. Washington himself was anxious to
hazard an action, but of seventeen generals only two besides himself
were in favour of hazarding either a general or partial engagement. In
a council held on the 24th of June, however, a proposal was carried
to strengthen the detachment which had got on the left flank of the
British, and 1500 picked men were thrown in the direction specified. At
the same time, Washington secretly determined to bring on a more general
engagement, in spite of the majority of the council-of-war, if possible.
He did this to his own cost on the 28th of June. On that day the British
having arrived at a place called Freehold Court-house, near Monmouth, a
vigorous attack was made on their baggage by a detachment under General
Lee, the deserter, who had been previously exchanged, and was again
actively employed in the American service. This attack, however, was
expected, and the detachment was bravely repulsed. The British light
troops impetuously pursued the fugitives, until they were met and
rallied by Washington himself. The pursuers were now in danger, and to
prevent their being cut off, Sir Henry Clinton was compelled to maintain
his position under a severe cross-fire, after which he withdrew to his
former position. His loss in killed and wounded was about three hundred
and sixty men, many of whom had expired through excessive heat and
fatigue without receiving a wound. The enemy’s loss was still greater,
and as little more than half of Clinton’s army was with him, it seems to
have convinced Washington that it would be folly to attack the British
forces in a general engagement. It is said, indeed, that he lay that
night in the midst of his soldiers, ready to renew the contest next
morning, had not his opponents thought proper to retire. But it is
evident that Washington was aware of the continued retreat of the
British, and yet he did not venture to follow a step further. He had
expected a triumph and had met with a check, and though he boasted to
congress that he would have followed if Clinton had not moved off in
silence and secresy, and before he had any idea of his departure, yet
he had already determined to hasten to the Hudson by another route, in
order to join an army collected by General Gates, and to give up the
pursuit! Congress also acted as inconsistently as Washington. They
celebrated the affair of Freehold Court-house as a great and glorious
victory, although it must have appeared clear to them that Washington
had been checked, if not actually defeated. Clinton reached New York
in safety on the 5th of July, where he found Lord Howe with his fleet.
Washington took up his position on the borders of the Hudson, where he
remained till late in the autumn.




DISGRACE OF GENERAL LEE.

When Washington met General Lee in full retreat, he assailed him with
some bitter and reproachful words for his conduct. Suspicions were
afterwards thrown out that Lee intended to cause the defeat of the army,
for the purpose of disgracing the commander-in-chief. The whole conduct
of Lee proves that these suspicions were groundless, and he wrote
several letters to Washington in vindication of his character. These
letters, however, contained language which placed him at the mercy of
Washington, and being found guilty by a court-martial, he was sentenced
to suspension from his rank for one year. Although a man of great
abilities, and although he had rendered the American cause good service,
both in the councils-of-war and in the field, he never, indeed, after
this disgrace, attracted honourable notice. Yet he appears rather to
have fallen from the effects of envy than from his misconduct, for it
is a well-established fact, that Washington himself looked upon
his abilities with a jealous eye. It was, in truth, the conduct of
Washington towards him in the late affair which had betrayed him into
the error which laid him beneath his rival’s feet. Gratitude should have
taught Washington to have behaved more generously, for more than once
Lee had corrected his rashness, and saved him from ruin. Yet before his
failure in his attack on the British troops, Washington had attempted
to place the raw and inexperienced Lafayette over his head, and he might
have been warned by this, that no opportunity would be lost in securing
his downfall.




UNSUCCESSFUL ATTACK BY THE AMERICANS AND FRENCH ON RHODE ISLAND.

Six days after General Clinton arrived at New York, the French fleet,
under Count d’Estaign, who had lost many days by putting into the
Delaware, appeared before that city. His force consisted of twelve
sail of the line, and three or four heavy frigates. He had, indeed,
collectively, eight hundred and fifty-four guns to oppose to Howe’s 614,
and the weight of his metal and the size of his ships were still greater
in proportion even than the number of his guns. It was expected that the
count would immediately attack Lord Howe’s squadron, but he lay inactive
outside the Hook for eleven days. All this time, the British admiral
was preparing for a contest, and the sailors universally burned with
impatience to engage the enemy. As a defeat would have been fatal to
the troops on shore, Howe wisely forbore to respond to their wishes
of attacking the enemy, and at length, on the 22nd of July d’Estaign
weighed anchor, and instead of entering Sandy Hook, stood out to sea,
and then shaped his course northward to attempt the reduction of Rhode
Island. In his passage to America, the French admiral had been pursued
by Vice-Admiral Byron whose fleet unfortunately had been dispersed and
shattered by storms. The wreck of two or three of these ships joined
Lord Howe a few days after d’Estaing had left his anchorage, and when
these had been put in sailing and fighting trim, Lord Howe sailed in
quest of the French admiral. General Sullivan had been ordered to pass
over from the continent with 10,000 men to attack the British lines at
Newport, in which 6000 troops were intrenched, while d’Estaing with the
French fleet assailed them on the other side. When near the coast, also,
the French admiral was joined by Lafayette with 2000 American troops,
and he entered the Sound and prepared to land near Newport. Four
English frigates were lying at anchor there, and as the defence of these
frigates was impracticable, the crews set fire to them and joined the
troops on the island. The French admiral was on the point of landing
when Howe hove in sight, he having been hitherto deterged from so doing
by a quarrel with General Sullivan as to which of them should hold
the supreme command. The appearance of Howe altered the operations
of d’Estaing. Being superior in force he resolved to sail out of the
harbour and meet the English. Both commanders prepared for battle; but
while they were each exerting all their skill to gain the advantages
of a position a furious storm arose, which dispersed the hostile fleets
over the face of the ocean. Both fleets were greatly damaged, but Howe’s
fleet suffered least. Subsequently one of his ships fell in with the
Languedoc, d’Estaign’s flag-ship, and another with the Tonnant, both of
superior size, and would have captured them had they not been rescued
by other portions of the scattered fleet, Another isolated battle
afterwards occurred between two ships, in which the French lost seventy
killed and wounded, while the English lost only one man killed and had
fifteen wounded. No captures, however, were made on either side, and
while Howe returned to New York for the purpose of refitting his ships,
d’Estaing came to anchor near Rhode Island. By this time, Sullivan,
contrary to the wishes of Lafayette, had landed on the island with his
10,000 men, and had commenced the siege of Newport. He also had
suffered by the storm, for it had blown down all his tents, damaged
his ammunition, and caused the death of several of his soldiers. When it
abated, Sullivan renewed the siege; but though the garrison of Newport
amounted only to about 1200 men, he only ventured to proceed by regular
approaches. Sullivan was not much encouraged by the reappearance of the
French Admiral, and when d’Estaing announced his intention of retiring
to Boston to refit, the besiegers lost all hope, and numbers of them
deserted and crossed over to Connecticut. It was in vain that Sullivan
remonstrated with the French admiral: he had received orders from
his government to be very careful of his fleet, and having reasons
to believe that Howe had received reinforcements, he adhered to his
resolution of getting to a place of safety. Sullivan then implored him
to leave the French forces he had on board, and the bearer of his letter
was also charged with a protest, written in angry terms, and complaining
of the desertion of the French. This protest was signed by all the
general officers in Rhode Island, except Lafayette; but the French
admiral considered it as insulting, and sailed away for Boston in an
angry mood. Sullivan then abandoned the siege of Newport, and retired to
the north of the island. He was pursued by Sir Robert Pigott, commander
of the garrison of Newport, who brought him to battle on the 29th of
August. The loss was about equal, but Sullivan found himself compelled
to evacuate the island in haste. He retired just in time, for on the
following day a reinforcement, commanded by Sir Henry Clinton, arrived
at Rhode Island. The attempt on the island, therefore, signally failed,
and Sullivan laid the blame of the failure on the French admiral. He
even published some letters reflecting very severely on the conduct of
d’Estaing, and asserted that the Americans had been basely abandoned
by their new allies. The public feeling was so strong against him, that
when he arrived at Boston he met with a rude reception. The French were
everywhere hooted by the Bostonians, and in a scuffle between them a
French officer was killed. The French were also denounced by some of the
hottest members in congress, and even the alliance with the French court
was reprobated and reviled in bitter terms. About the same time, also,
riots happened at Charlestown, in South Carolina, between American and
French seamen, in which several lives were lost on both sides. But,
at the same time that the Americans exhibited this feeling toward the
French, they could not deny that the French alliance was still useful
to them; and hence they had no thought of coming to an open rupture with
their government.




OPERATIONS OF THE BRITISH ARMY.

After relieving Rhode Island, General Clinton returned to New York. On
his voyage thither he detached Major-General Grey to Buzzard Bay, in
Massachusets, a famous rendezvous of American privateers; and that
officer destroyed seventy sail of ships there, with many store-houses
and wharfs, and a fort mounting eleven pieces of heavy cannon. Grey
then proceeded to an island called Martha’s Vineyard, where he took or
destroyed several more vessels, destroyed a salt-work, and obliged the
inhabitants to deliver up their arms, and furnish him with 10,000 sheep
and 3000 oxen. With these supplies he returned to New York, and shortly
after he made an incursion into New Jersey, where he surrounded an
American detachment in the dead of the night, killed most of them, and
took the rest, with Colonel Bajdor, their commander, prisoners. About
the same time a small squadron, under the direction, of Captain Collins,
with some troops, under the command of Captain Ferguson, destroyed
a nest of privateers at Egg Harbour, and cut to pieces a part of the
legion of the Polish Count Pulawski. On the return of this squadron to
New York, the British army was placed in winter-quarters, and Washington
moved his troops to Middlebrook, in New Jersey, where they hutted, as in
Valley Forge.




ATTACK OF THE SAVAGES ON THE SETTLEMENT OF WYOMING, ETC.

The beautiful district of Wyoming was at this time dotted with eight new
townships, each containing a territory of about five miles on both sides
of the river Susquehanna. Poets and travellers have fondly fancied that
it was inhabited by a peaceful population, in unison with the lovely
scenery of the district. Such conceptions, however, are the very reverse
of the fact. Greece was as the garden of Eden, and yet fierce warriors
inhabited its soil. And so it was with Wyoming. By its geographical
position the district seemed properly to belong to Pennsylvania, but the
colony of Connecticut claimed it in virtue of an old grant; and it was
first settled by the population of that colony. The Pennsylvanians,
however, set up a counter claim, and, after many long and angry
debates the two colonies went to war about the disputed district. These
hostilities lasted till after the breaking out of the war with England;
but a near approach of danger caused the belligerents to forego their
quarrel. Several Pennsylvanian families by this time had obtained a
settlement in Wyoming, and these were all royalists. So also were some
of the Connecticut settlers, but there, as elsewhere, the revolutionary
party gained the ascendency. They used their power tyrannically, and
faction and feuds raged through all the townships. “Fair Wyoming,” by
the bad passions of its inhabitants, was converted into a very hell. In
every house there was division of sentiment, and the sources of domestic
happiness were all poisoned by the bitter waters of strife. At length
the revolutionary party completely got the upper hand. Oppressed and
persecuted indeed, the royalists for the most part left their homes and
became fugitives in the back-settlements. After this the revolutionists
sent a large reinforcement to serve in the army of congress. By so
doing, however, they laid themselves open to attack from the savages and
their fugitive brethren. Warnings of their danger were repeatedly given
them; but although they built some little forts in order to protect the
district, they had but indifferent garrisons to put into them, and it
was easy to foresee that sooner or later they would reap the fruit of
their conduct towards their brethren. They appear to have conceived
that they were in no danger, and especially as some Indian tribes had
promised them protection; but their dream of security was suddenly
disturbed by the appearance of eight hundred men on the bank of the
Susquehanna. These were in part savages and in part Anglo-Americans,
disguised as Indian warriors. Some of them were in fact the outcasts of
Wyoming, who burned to revenge their wrongs. They were led by Colonel
Butler, the same who had offered General Carleton the service of the
Indians in Canada four years before, On the appearance of this force
there were only sixty American regulars in the district, and these were
commanded by Colonel Zebulon Butler, said to be of the same family as
the officer that was leading on the savages and exiles. There were,
however, about three hundred militiamen under Colonel Dennison, and
these with the regulars prepared to oppose the invaders. The Indians
and their allies entered the valley near its northern boundary; and they
quickly took one of the forts called Wintermoots, which they burned. The
militiamen and regulars assembled at Forty-fort, a stronger place on
the west side of the Susquehanna, and four miles below the camp of the
invaders. Had Colonel Zebulon Butler remained in this fort he might have
stemmed the onward progress of the invaders till assistance could have
been obtained from Washington. Zebulon Butler, however, resolved to
leave the fort and encounter the enemy. He found them posted in a plain,
partially covered with pine trees, dwarf oaks, and underwood. He moved
towards them in single column, but as he was passing along he was
saluted by the fire of Indians, who lay concealed behind bushes and
trees. Notwithstanding, Zebulon Butler formed into line and prepared for
battle. His left flank, which was composed of militiamen, was quickly
turned by a body of Indians, who poured a destructive fire on his rear,
and he was compelled to command a retreat. All fled precipitately,
but the enemy was in their front, while on one side was a marsh and a
mountain, and the other a deep river. A dreadful scene ensued. Throwing
away their rifles and muskets, the Indians and their enraged allies fell
upon the fugitives with their tomahawks, and heeded not the loud cry
which was raised for quarter and mercy. About sixty men, with Colonels
Zebulon Butler and Dennison, escaped by swimming across the river,
hiding in the marsh, or climbing the mountain; but the rest, amounting
to nearly four hundred men, were butchered on the spot. Zebulon Butler
fled from Wyoming with his few surviving men, and Dennison proposed
terms of capitulation, which the enemy granted to the inhabitants.
These unfortunate people, however, dreading the vengeance of their white
brethren, generally, abandoned their homes, and in their turn became
outcasts and wanderers. The invaders then collected all the property
of the district worth carriage; burned all the houses and levelled the
forts; and then returned to the wilderness from whence they came. The
troops of congress shortly after made some retaliation. Washington was
at the very time of the invasion sending some troops to the defence of
Wyoming, and these being reinforced by a great many riflemen of Morgan’s
corps, they rushed upon the Indian settlements, burned their villages,
exterminated all they could discover, and compelled the rest to retire
further from the frontiers of the colonies. Those who escaped, however,
awaited another opportunity for revenge.




ARRIVAL OF THE FRENCH ENVOY AT PHILADELPHIA.

After Sir Henry Clinton had evacuated Philadelphia, congress returned to
that city. In the course of the autumn M. Gérard arrived there as envoy
to the United States from the court of France. About the same time
instructions were prepared and sent to Dr. Franklin, as minister
plenipotentiary at the court of Versailles. The French minister and
suite received very flattering attention from the majority of the
members of congress, but beyond this they had reason for complaint. By
the people they were looked upon with suspicion, and some considered
them in the light of enemies. There was, indeed, a significant
distinction drawn at this time between parties in America, which exists
to this day: the moderates were called the English party, and the
ultra-revolutionists, the French party. But it was soon found that even
the French party could not always agree in the plans and schemes of the
French ambassador and his government, and that, therefore, the alliance,
though solemnly ratified by treaty, was not cemented by reciprocal
affection.




MOVEMENTS OF THE BRITISH AND FRENCH FLEETS.

After refitting his ships Lord Howe went to Boston, with design to
attack the French admiral in that water. He found the anchorage,
however, so effectually protected by batteries, that he was compelled to
forego this design, and return to New York. Soon after he received leave
of absence, and he resigned the command of his squadron to Rear-admiral
Gambier. Howe then proceeded to Rhode Island, where he met with
Vice-admiral Byron, to whom he gave up the command of the American
station as commander-in-chief, and then set sail for England. After his
departure, Byron, with a part of his force, went back to Boston to look
after the French; but his ships were driven off the coast by a violent
hurricane, and he was obliged to seek a port in order to refit. While
thus situated the French admiral put out to sea, in order to undertake
operations for conquests in the West India Islands. On the same day,
however, that he stole out of the harbour of Boston, Commodore Hotham
sailed from Sandy Hook to escort Major-general Grant, with 5000 men, to
protect these islands, and he joined Admiral Barrington at Barbadoes, on
the 10th of December.




CAPTURE OF DOMINICA BY THE FRENCH.

It was not solely with a view of supporting the Americans, and
vindicating the wrongs of humanity, that the French entered upon the
arena of strife. On the contrary, the principal aim of the French
cabinet was aggrandisement. A scheme had been devised for seizing all
the sugar-plantations of Great Britain. And some time before d’Estaing
set sail for the West Indies the French had commenced putting this
scheme into effect. On the 7th of September the Marquis de Bouille,
governor-general of Martinique landed with about 2000 men on our island
of Dominica, and proceeded to attack the different batteries and forts
by land, while French and American frigates and privateers attacked them
by sea. There were abundance of artillery and stores in Dominica, but
unfortunately there were not sufficient men to defend the island; and,
after a gallant defence of some outworks, Lieutenant-governor Stewart
found himself compelled to capitulate:—the island fell into the hands
of the French.




CAPTURE OF ST. LUCIE BY THE BRITISH.

The British commanders, on arriving at Barbadoes, being informed of
the loss of Dominica, resolved to take another island from the French.
Without suffering the troops to land, therefore, Major-general Grant
proceeded to St. Lucie, attended by the joint squadrons of Hotham
and Barrington. Five British regiments, with all the grenadiers and
light-infantry, under the command of Brigadier-general Medows, first
landed, and being ably seconded by Major Harris, he drove the French
commandant, the Chevalier de Miccud, from a strong position which he had
taken on the heights at the end of an inlet, called Grand Cul de Sac.
While this was doing, Brigadier-general Prescott landed, with five other
regiments, to secure the whole of the bay, and to establish posts in
order to preserve a communication with Medows. General Medows pushed
forward, and took possession of the important post of the Vigie, which
commands the north side of the Carénage harbour; while Brigadier-general
Sir Henry Calder occupied other posts upon the mountains which commanded
the south side of the Grand Cul de Sac, and Major-general Grant lay on
the heights, called Morne Fortune. The British troops were thus situate
when d’Estaing arrived off the island, in order to relieve it. On
discovering his approach, the British admirals immediately collected all
their ships into the Grand Cul de Sac, and then formed a line close and
compact right across the entrance of the bay. The fleet under the French
admiral was by far the most powerful; but he was thrice defeated in his
attacks upon the British squadron, and he then landed 5000 picked troops
in a bay, between Gros Islet and the Carénage Bay. D’Estaing resolved,
in the first instance, to direct his entire force against Medows, who
was cut off, by his movement, from all support from the other
divisions of the British. General Medows had only 1,300 men, with two
twelve-pounders and four six-pounders, to defend his position; but his
force chiefly consisted of veterans, and it was in vain that d’Estaing
led his forces against, them. Three several charges were made upon them;
but the French were repulsed, with the loss of four hundred men killed,
and more than 1000 wounded. He was compelled to leave the island; and
as his fleet disappeared, the Chevalier de Micoud descended from some
heights to which he had retired, came into the British camp with the
principal inhabitants, and signed a capitulation with General Grant, who
granted such favourable terms as won for him the gratitude of the enemy.
Thus, while the British lost Dominica, they won St. Lucie.

{GEORGE III. 1778–1779}




RE-CAPTURE OF THE ISLANDS OF ST. PIERRE AND MIQUELON.

Earlier in the year, in consequence of their aggression on the coast of
America, the French were deprived of their privilege of fishing on the
banks of Newfoundland. The little islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon had
been ceded to them at the peace of 1763, but they were now recaptured
by the British, and the garrisons conveyed to France.




FRENCH PLANS REGARDING CANADA COUNTERACTED BY WASHINGTON.

The ambitious views of the French cabinet were not confined to the West
Indies. This was made manifest to the Americans before d’Estaing
set sail from Boston. He published a proclamation to the Canadians,
exhorting them to return to their former allegiance: and at the same
time Washington, through the ascendency of a French party in congress,
was urged to undertake the reduction of that province in conjunction
with a French force. He was directed by the committee for foreign
affairs to communicate with Lafayette on the subject; but instead of
this, he wrote a long letter to congress, urging, in a forcible manner,
the impolicy of the measure; and, in consequence of his representations,
the plan proposed by congress for the emancipation of Canada, in
co-operation with an army from France, was deferred “until circumstances
rendered the co-operation of the United States more certain,
practicable, and effectual.” The truth is, the Americans, enlightened by
Washington, saw through the designs of France, and they had no idea of
thus aggrandising their allies. Moreover, they found no encouragement in
Canada; for, notwithstanding the proclamation of the French admiral, the
Canadians were determined to remain quiet under the British government,
being fully satisfied with its mild rule, and confident that it was
able to protect them in their obedience. Soon after this plan failed,
Lafayette returned to France, as he himself reports, to offer his sword
to his own sovereign, who was now engaged as a principal in the war, and
to induce the French court to send more effectual succours to the aid
of congress, without any reference to the conquest of Canada. It is well
known, however, that both the Marquis and his court cast a longing eye
upon Canada; and it cannot be doubted but that its conquest was the
chief end which he had in view when he recommended an increase of
French troops in America. On his arrival in France, Lafayette was
enthusiastically welcomed by the war party; and although the French
monarch pretended, at first, to be offended with him for joining the
cause of America, before he himself had espoused it, he was almost
immediately honoured with the command of the dragoons of the king’s
guard.




CAPTURE OF SAVANNAH BY THE BRITISH.

During this year, soon after the return of the commissioners to England,
an important operation took place on the side of Georgia, and the
complete success of which gave a hope that the war, if transferred to
the south, might prove more successful than it had hitherto been. Some
of the southern colonies were in a state of utter confusion—royalists
being arrayed against revolutionists, and province against province.
Thus, between the people of East Florida, who remained under the British
government, and the people of Georgia, who had joined the cause of
congress, there existed an irreconcilable hatred. These provinces had
but recently been at war with each other, when Georgia was successfully
invaded by the British. Sir Henry Clinton despatched Colonel Campbell
thither with 3500 men, by sea, under convoy of Admiral Parker, and on
his arrival his first object was the reduction of the city of Savannah,
the capital of Georgia, which was defended by the American General
Robert How. The whole country between Savannah and the sea was
impassable to troops, being low, marshy, and intersected by creeks and
artificial watercourses. The city stood on the southern bank of the
Savannah River, about fifteen miles from the sea; and Parker therefore
conveyed the troops up that river, and after surmounting some
difficulties he succeeded in landing them at a plantation about three
miles below the city. Some Highlanders, commanded by a Cameron, first
moved from the river bank along a narrow causeway, with some high ground
at the end of it where the Americans were posted. As they approached the
Americans opened a fire upon them, and Cameron and two of his company
were slain. The loss of their leader, however, urged the clansmen on to
desperate enterprise. They rushed upon the enemy with a fierce cry
for revenge, and drove them back into some woods nearer the town. When
Campbell arrived on the scene of action he found the American general
posted outside the town, having swamps, woods, trenches, and deep
rice-fields all around him. He discovered a private path leading through
the swamp, which covered the enemy’s right flank, and having sent some
of his Highlanders’ light infantry and New York volunteers round by
that path, he surprised the enemy in the rear. They fled for their
lives through the town of Savannah, four hundred and fifty of them being
captured in their flight; and the town and fort, with an abundance of
stores, became the prize of the conquerors. In a few days the remnant of
How’s army was driven across the Savannah River into South Carolina,
and then the inhabitants flocked to Colonel Campbell to take the oath
of allegiance to the British monarch. The provincials were greatly
conciliated by his lenity and moderation; and even some of the
hot preachers, who had excited the Georgians into insurrection and
republicanism, now turned royalists. The whole of Georgia was in the
hands of the royalists except the town of Sunbury, and this place was
soon after reduced by General Prevost, who was sent to Savannah to take
the chief command. He was joined here by many suffering royalists from
South Carolina and Virginia, while others repaired to head-quarters at
New York.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament met on the 25th of November. Little notice was taken of
the operations in America; but his majesty bitterly complained of the
unprovoked hostility of the court of France. His majesty also alluded to
preparations going on in Spain, and remarked that however friendly and
seemingly sincere the professions made to us might be, it was a subject
that must gain the attention of the house. The king noticed the complete
failure of the commissioners and of the conciliatory measures passed
during the last sitting of parliament, and urged the necessity of the
most active exertions, in order to vindicate and maintain the honour
of the crown and the interests of the people. He concluded with saying,
that, according to the powers vested in him, he had called out the
militia to assist in the defence of the country, and that he had with
high satisfaction witnessed the public spirit, ardour, and love of their
country which animated all classes of his subjects; and which could not
fail of ensuring safety at home and procuring respect abroad.

In both houses the address of his majesty was opposed. In the lords
it was condemned in toto, with the king’s speech, and the opposition
proposed putting an absolute negative upon the whole. It was argued in
support of this proposition, that ministers were proceeding upon false
principles, upheld by obstinacy, folly, and error, and tending to
inevitable ruin; that new men and new measures must be adopted before we
could hope for success in war, or honour and security in peace; that as
ministers had shown themselves incompetent to the management of the
war when they only had the Americans to contend with, it was not to
be expected that they would be able to contend with the united arms
of France and America; and that they would be still less able if Spain
joined the contest. Ministers and their supporters argued that it would
be monstrous to refuse addressing, especially as the speech dwelt solely
on the dangers of the kingdom from the perfidy of France; and as the
address was a simple declaration of supporting his majesty against the
machinations of the French government. The address was carried by
a majority of sixty-seven against thirty-five. In the commons the
opposition moved an amendment “to assure his majesty that from zeal and
affection that house was ready to give the most ample support to
such measures as might be thought necessary for the defence of those
kingdoms, or for frustrating the designs of that restless power which
had so often disturbed the peace of Europe; but that they thought it
their duty to inquire by what fatal councils and unhappy systems of
policy this country had been reduced from that splendid situation which,
in the early part or his majesty’s reign, made her the envy of all
Europe, to her present dangerous state, which had of late called forth
our utmost exertions without any adequate benefit.” The speakers in
opposition, who supported this amendment, chiefly dwelt on the numerous
blunders of administration in the management of the war; attributing
every failure to their measures, and every successful operation to
circumstances over which they had no control. It was argued, indeed,
that ministers had only made such preparations as would ensure defeats;
and that it was marvellous we were not involved in indiscriminate ruin
and disgrace. The blunders of ministers were both numerous and palpable,
but it cannot be denied that they were mightily magnified by the
opposition, who looked at their every movement with a jealous and
jaundiced eye. The amendment was rejected by a majority of two hundred
and twenty-six against one hundred and seven.




AFFAIR RESPECTING ADMIRAL KEPPEL AND SIR HUGH PALLISER.

During the debate on the amendment in the commons, Charles Fox
introduced the subject of the operations of the fleet commanded by
Keppel and Palliser, and attributed all the blame of its failure to the
conduct of ministers and the admiralty, who, he said, had not sent a
sufficient fleet out, and that it was sent to sea too late to effect
the objects for which it was fitted out. This subject was brought
prominently before the house of commons on the 2nd of December. Mr.
Temple Luttrel said, that the whole of that transaction demanded a
particular and close inquiry, and that the two admirals, who were both
in the house, were bound to give information for the sake of their own
honour, and also for the sake of public tranquillity. Thus challenged,
Keppel, who was a whig, stood up to defend his own conduct. He could not
consider, he remarked, that the British flag had been tarnished in his
hands, or that the affair off Ushant was in any way disgraceful. He
impeached no man; and was persuaded that Sir Hugh Palliser manifested no
want of courage. He expressed a hope that he should not be compelled to
answer any questions relative to the action or to individuals, at the
same time asserting that he was ready to explain his own conduct in
that house or elsewhere, Nothing, he said, was left untried to bring the
French to a decisive action. He then adverted to Palliser’s publication
in the newspapers. He was surprised, he said, that he should have
appealed to the public when no accusation was made against him, and have
endeavoured to render his superior in command unpopular and odious; and
he declared that he would never again embark in a fleet with an officer
who could conduct himself in a manner so fatal to all obedience and
discipline. Sir Hugh Palliser, who was a Tory, then rose and said, that
it was his interest to obtain inquiry, and that he was as eager for it
as his superior officer. He censured Keppel’s reserve, and challenged
him to deliver his opinions without disguise, that he might be able
to give a full answer. He complained of the aspersions thrown upon his
character by the newspapers, and said that while justice was rendered to
his courage, insinuations were thrown out that he might have neglected
or disobeyed the signals of his superior. He concluded by asserting that
he had vainly sought an explanation from Keppel, before appealing to
the public with a detail of facts, by which he would stand or fall; by
denying that he had refused to obey signals; and by declaring that he
feared neither a parliamentary inquiry nor a public trial. In reply,
Admiral Keppel asserted that one of his signals was not obeyed though
it was flying for five hours, but that he would not charge Vice-admiral
Palliser with disobedience, as the condition of his ships might, as
represented by him, have prevented his coming up. Palliser rejoined by
charging Keppel with having neglected to arrange his ships in such a
manner as to ensure a general engagement; with having neglected to tack
and double on the French with his van and centre, after these had passed
the enemy’s rear, whereby he, the vice-admiral, was exposed to be cut
off; with having permitted the enemy to rally, and to claim a victory
by standing after the English ships; and with having, finally, led the
British fleet in an opposite direction, instead of pursuing the enemy.
The conversation here dropped, but the charges made by Sir Hugh Palliser
were afterwards repeated to the Admiralty; and this led to the trial of
both the accuser and the accused before a court-martial.




CHAPTER X.

{GEORGE III. 1779–1780}

     Trial of Admiral  Keppel and Vice-admiral Palliser.....
     Attacks on  Lord Sandwich..... Investigation respecting the
     Conduct of General and Lord Howe..... Relief to  Protestant
     Dissenters..... Debates on  the Trade of Ireland..... War
     with Spain..... Debates on the Militia Bill..... Bill for
     the Impressment of Seamen..... Parliament prorogued..... The
     Causes of the Rupture with Spain..... Spanish Attempt upon
     Gibraltar..... French and English Fleets in the Channel.....
     Affairs in the West Indies..... Operations in Georgia.....
     Ineffectual Attempt of the Americans to reduce Savannah.....
     British   Incursions  into Virginia...... Capture   of
     Stony Point and  Verplanks..... British   Expedition
     against   Connecticut..... Stony   Point  recaptured, but
     deserted at the Approach  of the British..... British
     Garrison surprised at  Paulus Hook..... American Disaster at
     Penobscot..... American Retaliation on the Indians, &c.
     Spanish Incursions..... Action between Paul Jones and
     Captain Pearson..... Changes in  the Ministry..... Meeting
     of Parliament..... Lord Shelburne attacks Ministers in the
     case of Ireland..... Lord Ossory’s Attack on Ministers
     respecting Ireland..... Lord Worth’s Proposition for the
     Relief of Ireland..... Debates on Economical Reform.

{A.D. 1779}




TRIAL OF ADMIRAL KEPPEL AND VICE-ADMIRAL PALLISER.

The trial of Admiral Keppel commenced on the 7th of January, at the
governor’s house, Portsmouth. It lasted thirty-two days, and the
unanimous sentence of the court-martial was:—“That it was their opinion
the charge against Admiral Keppel was malicious and ill-founded; it
having appeared that so far from having by misconduct or neglect of duty
lost an opportunity of rendering essential service to the state, and
therefore tarnished the honour of the British navy, he had behaved as
became a judicious, brave, and experienced officer.” The acquittal of
Keppel was followed by illuminations and other demonstrations of joy on
the part of the public, with whom he was in favour; and he also received
the thanks of the city and the two houses of parliament. On the other
hand, the house of Sir Hugh Palliser was broken open by a mob at
midnight, and the whole of the furniture either destroyed or thrown out
of the window, while effigies of the vice-admiral were carried about
suspended by the neck and afterwards burnt. Work for the glaziers was
also made by the destruction of the windows of the Admiralty, and of the
houses of Lords George Germaine and North. The mob even took the great
gate of the Admiralty from its hinges, and having collected all
the sedan chairs in the neighbourhood made a great bonfire in the
court-yard. Sixteen of the mob were afterwards captured by the soldiers,
and the rest were dispersed. A day or two after this, as the acquittal
of Keppel seemed to cast a stigma on the character of Sir Hugh Palliser
he demanded a court-martial on himself; first giving up his seat in
parliament and all his offices except that of vice-admiral. His trial
was held on board the “Sandwich,” in Portsmouth harbour and after the
lapse of twenty-one days the sentence of the court was:—“That, though
his conduct and behaviour in battle had been in many respects highly
exemplary and meritorious; they, at the same time, could not
help thinking it was incumbent upon him to have made known to his
commander-in-chief the disabled state of his ship, to which he
attributed his not joining; but that, notwithstanding his omission
in this particular, they were of opinion that he was not in any other
respect chargeable with misconduct or misbehaviour, and that, therefore,
they fully acquitted him.” Such was the termination of this ill-judged
contest, which was rather a contest between the two parties of Whig and
Tory than for personal honour and integrity of conduct. Though both were
acquitted, their reputations were injured by their trials, for neither
of them was ever afterwards employed in active service.




ATTACKS ON LORD SANDWICH.

That the trials of Keppel and Palliser were essentially party struggles
is proved by after proceedings in both houses of parliament. After the
Christmas recess, Mr. Fox moved a vote of censure upon Lord Sandwich
for sending Admiral Keppel to sea in the first instance with only twenty
ships of the line, and four frigates, at a time when a French fleet,
consisting, as there was reason to believe, of thirty-two ships of the
line, and certainly of twenty-seven with a great number of frigates, was
at Brest, and ready to put to sea; thereby hazarding the safety of the
kingdom. Fox also announced his intention of moving an address for the
removal of the first lord of the admiralty; asserting that there were
facts existing which would warrant his impeachment by the house. Keppel,
who had determined to resign his command of the fleet, joined in this
attack upon Sandwich, by declaring that on his first taking the
command, the fleet was in no very good condition; that afterwards the
admiralty-board had made some exertions, but even then had sent him to
sea too weak; that he believed the French fleet was as strong as was
represented in the papers which he found on board the frigates he had
captured; and that, upon that conviction, he was for the first time
obliged to turn his back upon the enemy. Lords North and Mulgrave
defended Sandwich and the admiralty-board; imputing some blame to
Keppel, and the motion was negatived by two hundred and four against one
hundred and seventy. Subsequently, Mr. Fox moved that the state of the
navy at the breaking out of the war was inadequate to the exigencies of
the service. In his speech, Fox observed, that nothing but good fortune
had saved the country from invasion and destruction; but Lord Mulgrave,
in reply, said, that all the “good fortune” had been on the side of
France—that nothing but “good fortune” had saved d’Orvilliers from
Keppel, and d’Estaing from Lord Howe. The latter admiral, who was now
in the house, showed that he was scarcely in a better temper with the
administration than was Keppel. He declared that he had been deceived
in accepting the command in America; that he had been ill-used while he
held that command; and that he would never again accept active service
under the existing ministry. On this occasion, Fox’s motion was lost,
but a few days after he moved that the omission to reinforce Lord Howe
in America before the month of June, and the not sending a fleet to the
Mediterranean, were instances of gross misconduct and neglect. Fox was
again outvoted, yet on the 19th of April he made his promised motion for
dismissing Lord Sandwich from his majesty’s presence and councils for
ever. This motion was likewise negatived, and a similar motion, made
a few days after in the upper house by the Earl of Bristol, shared the
same fate. Other motions hostile to Sandwich were made in both houses,
but they were all lost by majorities of nearly two to one. But even
these large majorities exhibited the waning influence and popularity of
the administration; for in the earlier days of Lord North’s government
the majorities were usually four to one.




INVESTIGATION RESPECTING THE CONDUCT OF GENERAL AND LORD HOWE.

The managers of the war-office were doomed to similar attacks as those
of the admiralty. Early in the session General Burgoyne imputing his own
misfortune and the failures of all other commanders, whether by land or
sea, to the administration, had moved that all the letters written
by himself and other commanders to government since the convention of
Saratoga, should be laid before the house. Lord North readily granted
these papers, and shortly after Sir William Howe, who was now in the
house of commons, as well as his brother the admiral, made a similar
motion for copies of all letters that had passed during his command
between him and the secretary of state for America. It was only against
Lord George Germaine that Howe wished to impute blame, and him he
charged with interfering on all occasions with the management of the
army in America; and of imposing restraints and schemes of his own,
which were conceived in utter ignorance of the country which was the
scene of the war. These papers were, also, willingly granted, and Lord
North further consented that the house should go into committee for
inquiring into the whole conduct of the American war. At the same time,
an application was made to the house of lords, to permit the attendance
of Earl Cornwallis, as a material witness. After this, however, Lord
North endeavoured to put a stop to this inquiry, by asserting that Sir
William Howe’s character was fully cleared by the letters produced, and
that government approved in the warmest manner of his services. But this
attempt was attended with great odium, and the examination of witnesses
was proceeded with. This examination lasted for two months, and the
officers examined were, Lord Cornwallis, Major-general Grey, Sir Andrew
Snape Ham-mon, Major Montresor, and Sir George Osborne, whose evidence
went to establish the facts that the force sent to America was not
equal to the task of subjugating America; that the colonists were almost
unanimous in their enmity and resistance to Great Britain; that the
nature of the country was beyond all others difficult and impracticable
for military operations; and that there was no fairer prospect of
success in any future attempt at conquest, than in those which had
already been made. On the other hand, Major-general Robertson, and
Mr. Galloway, a member of congress who had turned royalist, gave
contradictory evidence on all these points, and the latter was severe in
his censures on the military conduct of Sir William Howe. At the
request of Howe, this witness was directed to attend again for
cross-examination; but, on the day appointed, which was the 29th of
June, the general not being in the house, advantage was taken of this
circumstance to dissolve the committee, and thus no resolution was
passed upon this subject. Burgoyne was somewhat more fortunate than
Howe, as witnesses were heard in his favour and none against him. His
witnesses were Sir Guy Carleton, the Earls of Balcarras and Harrington,
Major Forbes, and Captain Bloomfield, who deposed that no general could
be braver or more beloved by his army. At the same time they could not
make out a case of good generalship in Burgoyne’s crossing the Hudson,
after the expedition to Bennington, or even give a good colour to that
expedition, so that their only evidence went to show that which all men
knew; namely, that Burgoyne was brave, persevering, and humane, and that
in advancing to and staying so long at Saratoga, he had acted according
to the best of his judgment. In the course of the examination, some of
the witnesses extolled the bravery of the Americans in action; but it
was also shown that Gates’s army were nearly six times as numerous as
that of Burgoyne’s, and that the latter were half-famished, so that it
did not require any extraordinary bravery to accomplish a victory other
them.




RELIEF TO PROTESTANT DISSENTERS.

The spirit of toleration which displayed itself during the last session
in favour of Roman Catholics, was again exerted in the present session
on behalf of Protestant Dissenting ministers and schoolmasters. A bill
to relieve them from some painful and absurd restrictions, was carried
with great facility.




DEBATES ON THE TRADE OF IRELAND.

During the month of January, Lord Nugent, after drawing a forcible
picture of the distress which existed in Ireland, gave notice
of his intention to move for the establishment of a cotton-manufactory
in Ireland, with a power of exportation to Great Britain, and a free
trade to America, Africa, and the West Indies. Subsequently a
committee was formed to consider the acts of parliament relating to the
importation of sugars into Ireland. The intended relief, however, was as
usual counteracted by commercial jealousy in England, and all that was
done by the commons was to pass two acts, for the growth of tobacco and
hemp, and the manufacture of linen in Ireland, and to make a pecuniary
grant, in consequence of a message from the throne. But this boon was
not sufficient to satisfy the desires of the Irish people, and possibly
had it been a hundredfold greater, it would not have been deemed
sufficient. It has always been the fate of that unhappy country to be
disturbed by restless spirits—by men who, while they profess to seek
the good of the country, seek only their own self-interests. On this
occasion, many self-styled “patriots” resolved to follow the example
of the colonists, and a non-importation agreement was set on foot in
Dublin, Cork, Kilkenny, and other places; the subscribers pledging
themselves neither to import nor to use any British goods which could
be manufactured in Ireland, till the Irish trade was freed from its
shackles. In the midst of this ferment, as rumours were afloat of a
meditated invasion by France, and Ireland was drained of its troops for
the American war, the maritime towns demanded protection. Government
was told by the lord-lieutenant, that the exhausted state of the public
revenues rendered it impracticable to embody a militia, whence the
people were given to understand that they might take measures to protect
themselves. This was an ill-omened step for ministers to take, when the
people of Ireland were everywhere displaying the feelings of rebellion.
By it the serpent’s teeth were sown, and they sprang up armed men. The
Irish obeyed the call with alacrity. Volunteers were embodied, equipped,
and disciplined at private expense, on every hand, and Ireland soon
exhibited the animating spectacle of a nation in arms. Ministers appear
to have been very early convinced of their error; for when they saw
these armed associations in their full strength, they, with the people
of England at large, prognosticated insurrection and civil war. Still
there was little or no disposition displayed on the part of ministers to
disarm the hostility of the Irish people by redress of grievances. After
the discussion of Irish affairs had ceased in the commons, the subject
was introduced in the Lords by the Marquess of Rockingham, who moved an
address for documents which might enable parliament to pursue measures
for promoting the common strength, wealth, and commerce of both nations.
The marquess, who was well acquainted with the state of Ireland, took
a severe review of the revenue, trade, and government, since the year
1755; and bitterly inveighed against ministers on the subject of the
military associations. The necessity for these associations, he said,
should have been prevented, or the people should have been legally
commissioned to take up arms under officers named by the sovereign—the
men who had taken up arms to repel invasion, might soon think of
employing them in resisting injustice and oppression. To prevent such
a consummation, in conclusion, he urged the necessity of redressing the
grievances, and of adopting some remedy to the deplorable distresses
under which the Irish people were groaning. The Marquess of Rockingham
was warmly supported by the Earl of Shelburne; and the only arguments
urged against the address by ministers were, the late period of the
session, and the necessity of proceeding with caution, and upon minute
inquiry and investigation. The result was that there was a kind of
compromise between the Marquess of Rockingham and the Earl of Gower,
president of the council—the latter pledging himself that a proper plan
for the relief of Ireland should be concocted by ministers during the
recess, and be ready to be laid before parliament at the opening of the
next session. Ireland, therefore, for the present, was obliged to put up
with a promise.




WAR WITH SPAIN.

On the 15th of June Mr. Thomas Townshend moved for an address, praying
his majesty not to prorogue parliament, until the inquiry into the
conduct of affairs in America should be completed. This motion was
negatived, but, on the next day, Lord North gave some information which
necessarily prolonged the session. He acquainted the house that
the Spanish ambassador, after delivering a hostile manifesto to the
secretary of state, had suddenly quitted London. This manifesto, North
said, together with a message from the king, would be laid before
parliament on the morrow. On the 17th, therefore, the message and the
manifesto were introduced. In the message, his majesty declared, in the
most solemn manner, that he had done nothing to provoke the court of
Spain; that his desire to preserve peace with that court was uniform and
sincere; and that his conduct towards that power had been guided by
the principles of good faith, honour, and justice. He was the more
surprised, he said, at the declaration of Spain, as some of the
grievances enumerated in that paper had never come to his knowledge,
and as those which had been made known to him had been treated with
the utmost attention, and put into a course of inquiry and redress. His
majesty’s message concluded by expressing the firmest confidence in the
zeal and public spirit of parliament, and the power and resources of the
nation. His majesty’s declarations concerning his conduct towards Spain
were fully borne out by the manifesto, which was a loose rigmarole, in
which scarcely anything else was clear than that war with Great Britain
was fully resolved upon. The opposition in both houses took credit to
themselves for having prognosticated, in the spirit of true prophets,
a war with Spain, and taunted ministers with folly and blindness in
imagining that such an event would not take place. Both houses,
however, were unanimous in their indignation against Spain, and in their
determination of supporting the war against the Bourbons. Addresses to
this effect were agreed to; but Lord John Cavendish moved for another
address, to be presented at the same time, praying that his majesty
would give immediate orders for the collecting of his fleets and armies,
and to exert the whole national force against the House of Bourbon.
As this motion involved the withdrawal of the troops from America,
ministers opposed it, and the secretary at war having moved an
adjournment, it was immediately carried by two to one. In the lords, an
amendment to the address, moved by the protesting Earl of Abingdon, was
also rejected by a large majority; as was also a motion made by the Duke
of Richmond, similar in its nature to that made in the Commons by Lord
John Cavendish.




DEBATES ON THE MILITIA BILL.

On the 21st of June Lord North proposed that the number of the militia
should be doubled, and that individuals should be authorised to raise
loyal corps to assist in the defence of the kingdom. This was agreed to
in the commons; but in the lords the clause enabling the king to double
the militia was rejected, thereby leaving the bill a mere skeleton.
When it was brought back to the commons thus mutilated, Lord North was
taunted by the opposition with having at length, after spreading the
spirit of disunion and discord on every hand, seen it enter into the
very cabinet itself. In reply, North, with wonderful equanimity of
temper, observed, that he could not agree in their lordships’ judgment
in considering his proposition impracticable: that his own experience
as lord-lieutenant of a county induced him to believe that the militia
could easily be doubled; but that his experience could not control the
opinions of the other house, where there were so many lord-lieutenants
of counties. However, he said, he accepted the power of augmenting
the home force as crumbs falling from their lordships’ table. A debate
subsequently occurred on the question which was mooted by a member of
opposition, as to whether or no the Militia Bill was a money-bill. It
was insisted by some that it was such to all intents and purposes; that
no amendment of the lords could be admitted in such a bill, without
a surrender of the most valuable privileges of the commons; and that,
therefore, the bill must be totally rejected. It was decided by a
majority, however, that it was not a money-bill, and consequently it
passed.




BILL FOR THE IMPRESSMENT OF SEAMEN.

On the 23rd of June, at a late hour of the night, the attorney-general
moved for leave to bring in a bill for manning the navy, by resuming
protections granted to certain descriptions of seamen, watermen, and
their apprentices, and by taking away the right of _habeas corpus_ from
all persons of those classes impressed before the passing of this bill.
The late hour at which this motion was made was purposely chosen, in
order that the effect of the press-warrants might not be impeded by the
disclosure which the newspapers would have made throughout the country,
and in order that the fleet, on which the safety of the country
depended, might be manned without impediment. The attorney-general
admitted this, and the opposition could not deny the necessity of
dispatch, or that there were no other means of manning the fleet;
but they denounced the bill as a violation of sacred rights, and a
treacherous irruption into the dwelling-houses of citizens. The bill,
however—which was called the “Indemnity Bill,” from its retrospective
operation—was read twice on the same night, and when the house met
again it was passed and sent up to the lords, who agreed to it, after
inserting a clause in favour of colliers: it immediately received the
royal assent.

{GEORGE III. 1779–1780}




PARLIAMENT PROROGUED.

Several attempts were made to bring about an address against a
prorogation, but many members were now gone on their summer rambles, and
those who remained were chiefly impatient for repose, whence all these
attempts failed. On the 3rd of July, therefore, the king prorogued
parliament. In his speech the king returned his warmest thanks to both
houses for their great services and their long attendance; and at
the same time expressed his entire approbation of all they had done,
particularly of their measures respecting Ireland. The events of the
war, he said, had not given France cause for triumph, and he trusted
that that ambitious power would be compelled to wish that she had not,
without provocation or cause of complaint, insulted the honour and
invaded the rights of his crown. As regarded the hostility of Spain, he
repeated, that no blame could be attached to him. He then complimented
the high national feeling of the people by observing, that he considered
it as a happy omen of the success of his arms that the increase of
difficulties served only to augment the courage and constancy of the
nation. He concluded by remarking, that it was impossible to speak of
the continuance of the rebellion in North America without concern, and
that he had given such unquestionable proofs of his disposition to put
an end to those troubles, which led him to hope that the designs of the
enemies of Great Britain could not long prevail against the interests of
the colonists.




THE CAUSES OF THE RUPTURE WITH SPAIN.

Although the opposition were correct in their conjectures as to a final
war with Spain, ministers were by no means so blind as represented by
them. It had, indeed, required all the family influence of the greater
branch of the House of Bourbon, and all the activity and skill of French
negotiators to lead Charles III. into this new and unprovoked contest.
The Spanish monarch remembered how much he had suffered from his last
short war with England; he was alarmed also for the tranquillity of his
own colonies, if encouraged by the example of successful rebellion; and
he moreover shrunk from the unkingly action of fomenting insurrection
and allying himself with rebels. These were barriers which the King of
France and his negotiators had to break down before they could procure
the Spanish monarch’s aid in their designs. And in this they encountered
a great difficulty. Charles III. assured Lord Grantham, that he knew
nothing of the treaty between France and America until it was concluded;
and his prime-minister, Count Florida Blanca, declared that he
considered the independence of America as no less injurious to Spain
than to Great Britain. Many overtures, he afterwards confessed, had been
made, but his monarch had uniformly rejected the instances of France
to acknowledge the independence of the United States. Subsequently,
however, Charles III. was led to believe that revolution might
flourish in North America without reaching the south; that the final
hour of the British supremacy at sea, and consequently of the British
empire was at hand; and that the united House of Bourborn would then
have little else to do than to reach forth their hands and divide the
spoils. The Spanish monarch then, with these visionary hopes in view,
altered his line of conduct. On the first breaking out of a war with
France he pretended great anxiety for maintaining his treaties with
Great Britain, and expressed a compassionate interest for his brother
the King of England, and his utter abhorrence of the proceedings of
congress against so just and good a prince. He tendered his services as
a mediator, and when it was hinted that the King of England could not
submit a quarrel between him and his own subjects to another prince,
he expressed his readiness to mediate in the French part of the quarrel
alone, and to reconcile the differences existing between the courts of
St. James’s and Versailles. To this latter proposal it was replied, that
it was inconsistent with national honour to admit the interference of
a third power, till the views of France were known; and then Charles
expressed his readiness to open the negociation himself, so as to spare
both parties the humiliation of making the first step towards a peace.
He suggested, that each government should transmit its conditions to
Madrid, and that he should be allowed to draw from both a plan for the
conclusion of a treaty. To this the British ministers assented, and the
conditions they sent were comprised in this one article—that, assuming
the right of England to treat with her own colonies independently of
foreign intervention, as an unquestionable principle, if France would
cease her interference, and withdraw her troops from America, they
would readily concur in establishing the harmony which had subsisted
for fifteen years between the two crowns. On the other hand, the French
ministers required that England should withdraw her forces from America;
that she should acknowledge the independence of the United States; and
that the French court should be granted the power of bringing forward
additional demands for amending and explaining treaties. Such demands
as these could not be conceded, and then the King of Spain offered
these three different proposals of his own, as proper to produce a
pacification—namely, that there should either be a truce between
England and the colonies for twenty-five years, during which a peace
might be negociated, and the separate articles in dispute with France
amicably adjusted; or that there should be a truce with France,
including the colonies; or that there should be an indefinite truce
both with the colonies and with France, to determine only after a year’s
notice, during which plenipotentiaries of England, France, and America
might form a congress at Madrid, with Spain as a fourth party. This
latter convention was to be signed by the American agents at Paris,
subject to the approval of congress, which France was to pledge herself
should be obtained, and in the meantime the colonies were to enjoy
freedom of trade and independence, and the British forces were to be
either withdrawn from America, or greatly reduced. The British ministers
replied, that any such plan seemed to proceed on every principle which
had been disclaimed, and to contain every term which had been rejected;
and they declared, that if compelled to grant such extreme conditions,
it would be more consistent with the dignity of the British nation to
grant them directly to America, without the intervention of any foreign
power. Before this final reply reached Madrid, however, the Spanish
monarch threw off the mask, and ordered his ambassador to quit London,
leaving the manifesto behind him as a justification of war. This
manifesto contained nearly one hundred grievances; and not the least
of these was, that Great Britain had insulted Spain by rejecting her
mediation—a mediation which was evidently commenced with the one design
of inducing a rupture between the two nations.




SPANISH ATTEMPT UPON GIBRALTAR.

Before the rupture took place between England and Spain, the Spanish
ambassador had delicately hinted to our ministers, that, if they would
restore the rock of Gibraltar to his monarch, he would consent to remain
neutral. This price, however, was deemed too high by our ministers for
what must have been, after all, a doubtful neutrality; and hence, after
war was declared, the first thoughts of the Spaniards were directed to
the siege of that wonderful rock. Before hostilities commenced, indeed,
Florida Banca, in order to facilitate this grand object, had entered
into a regular treaty with the Emperor of Morocco; he calculating that,
by that act, the Moors would be prevented from supplying the garrison
of Gibraltar with provisions, as they had hitherto done, and that Ceuta,
the other pillar of Hercules on the African coast, belonging to Spain,
would be left unmolested by them during the siege. Having done this,
a large army was collected at St. Roque, Algeziras, and the Campo near
Gibraltar, and immediately after the declaration of war, this force
began its laborious operations for the reduction of Gibraltar. But
many events demand notice before the results of these operations are
recorded, for not a gleam of success attended their operations during
this year.




FRENCH AND ENGLISH FLEETS IN THE CHANNEL, ETC.

One of the earliest measures after war was declared by Spain, was the
junction of the fleets of the house of Bourbon. On a sudden d’Orvilliers
sailed out of Brest, with thirty French sail of the line, and being
joined by thirty-eight Spanish ships of the line, he made his way
for the English coasts. At this time our fleet, which did not exceed
thirty-eight sail of the line, was under the command of Admiral Hardy;
and while he was cruizing in the soundings, the French and Spaniards
appeared off Plymouth. One ship of sixty-four guns and a number of
coasting-vessels were captured by them; but after parading two or three
days before Plymouth, they were driven out of the Channel by a strong
east wind. The same wind which drove the French and Spaniards out of
the Channel had prevented Hardy from entering it; but at length the wind
shifted to the westward, and he, in sight of the enemy, then gained its
entrance, and England was safe. For, although d’Orvilliers, conscious
of his superior strength, wished to engage Hardy out of the Channel,
he would not hazard a battle in the narrow sea, where the advantage
of numbers would have been lost for want of sea-room, and where
the navigation would have been dangerous. Hardy, therefore, having
outmanoeuvred the French admiral, proudly anchored at Spithead; and soon
after the coast was covered with troops, volunteers, and militia, while
fresh ships were fitted out, and cruizers at sea were recalled to
the channel. Such a formidable front was shown, that the French and
Spaniards were compelled to retire. They sailed for Brest where they
lay for several months inactive and useless, and where thousands of
them died from a terrible sickness which had broken out among them while
laying off the English coast. Added to this misfortune, the Spaniards,
who had sent their ships to sea in the hope of achieving high and mighty
enterprises, soon found that this naval war with England was to follow
the general rule, and to cost them ships and wealth, which they could
not well spare. In the course of this year the British captured a
large Spanish frigate off the Western Islands, and another off Cape
Finisterre; a Spanish register-ship, carrying a considerable treasure
from Lima to Cadiz; a rich Manilla ship, said to be the richest taken
since the galleon captured by Lord Anson; another plate-ship with
200,000 dollars in specie and a quantity of bullion, &c.; and finally,
a great variety of small Spanish craft. At the close of the year,
therefore, the Spanish monarch had reason to deplore his rashness in
entering into this war.




AFFAIRS IN THE WEST INDIES.

During the year the transatlantic war was carried on with various
success. In the month of January, Vice-admiral Byron arrived at
St. Lucie with nine sail of the line, and there joined Rear-admiral
Barrington. This compelled the Count d’Estaing to act on the defensive.
He took refuge in Martinique, where he remained five months, and nothing
could induce him to issue from his safe retreat. While here he was
joined by some ships under Count de Grasse, and fresh land-troops
also arrived from France. On the other hand, Byron’s fleet was also
reinforced by some ships under Admiral Rowley. Both fleets, however,
remained inactive till Byron sailed away to escort our homeward-bound
West India fleet to a certain latitude. The French admiral now detached
a small force to St. Vincent, where the Caribs joined the French,
and where the English garrison thus assailed capitulated. After this
d’Estaing proceeded with his whole fleet and 9000 land-troops to
Grenada. Lord Macartney, the governor, had only one hundred and fifty
regulars, and about three hundred militia to oppose to him; but he made
a brave resistance with this little force, and even repulsed the first
assault of nearly 3000 French troops. His lines, however, were stormed,
and after Macartney had retired into the fort he was compelled to
surrender at discretion. Before he surrendered, however, Admiral Byron,
who had returned from escorting the trade, appeared off the island, and
attempted its relief. An engagement took place between the British and
French fleets, in which some of the English ships were disabled, and the
French lost 1200 men killed, and 2000 wounded. Night put an end to the
action, and although in the course of the day the white flag was
seen waving over the capital of Grenada, which was a proof that Lord
Macartney had been compelled to surrender, Byron remained on the scene
of action, hoping that the enemy would engage him again on the morrow.
In the morning, however, he discovered that d’Estaing had gone back to
Grenada and Byron bore away to St. Christopher. Great alarm prevailed
among our remaining West India Islands, for d’Estaing had boasted that
he would capture the whole during the summer; but he soon sailed away to
Hispaniola, and then to the coasts of Georgia and Carolina to aid the
Americans.




OPERATIONS IN GEORGIA.

After Lower Georgia had submitted to Colonel Campbell, he resolved
to prosecute his success by an advance into Upper Georgia. In this
expedition he met with few interruptions. On his approach to Augusta,
the second city of the province, the American troops fled from the town,
and the inhabitants took the oath of allegiance to the British monarch,
and formed themselves into companies for their own defence. Campbell
was now not far from a part of North Carolina where the majority of
the population were known to be royalists, and he detached
Lieutenant-colonel Hammond, with two hundred infantry mounted on
horseback, to encourage them to take up arms. The progress of the royal
arms in the Southern States was alarming, and the provincials resolved
to arrest it. In the month of January, congress despatched General
Lincoln to take the command of some regiments raised in North-Carolina,
and to unite them with the remnant of the army of Georgia. Lincoln took
post on the north bank of the river, about fifteen miles above the town
of Savannah. He was thus posted and preparing for action when Colonel
Campbell made his expedition into Upper Georgia. Soon after this
Campbell returned to England, and Augusta was evacuated, as being too
distant a post to be supported. Lincoln now marched along the northern
bank of the river, with a view of crossing it and reconquering
Georgia. In the meantime General Prevost left Savannah, and marched for
Charlestown, the capital of South Carolina, in the hope of taking it by
surprise. He appeared before that city on the 11th of May, and on the
following day it was summoned to surrender. The summons was unheeded,
and Prevost having viewed the lines, which could not be forced without a
great loss of men, and knowing that the garrison was more numerous
than his troops, and that Lincoln was hastening to its relief, retired
towards Georgia. He took possession of John’s Island, which was
separated from the continent by a small inlet of the sea, commonly
called Stone River. His intention was to have remained in that island
until ammunition should arrive from New York, but discovering that
Lincoln was advancing to Lower Georgia, he departed for Savannah, to
defend the fortress, leaving Colonel Maitland, with a garrison of eight
hundred men, to protect St. John’s. An attempt was made by General
Lincoln to cut off this force, but his attack was bravely repulsed,
and the American general, dispirited by his non-success, attempted
no further operations until the arrival of the French fleet under
d’Estaing.




INEFFECTUAL ATTEMPT OF THE AMERICANS TO REDUCE SAVANNAH.

It was at the beginning of September that the French fleet arrived off
the mouth of the Savannah River. Its appearance was so sudden that
an English fifty-gun ship, a small frigate, and two store-ships were
surprised, and, after some severe fighting, captured. As soon as
d’Estaing arrived, Lincoln directed his march from South Carolina
to Savannah. Before his arrival d’Estaing landed about 3000 men at
Beaulieu, and marching straight to Savannah, summoned General Prevost to
surrender the town to the arms of France. Prevost, who had called in all
his detachments and garrisons in Georgia, and had put the town in the
best possible state of defence, declined answering a general summons,
and requested a suspension of arms for twenty-four hours. Imagining that
this period was required to draw up terms of capitulation, d’Estaing
granted these terms, fully calculating that, at the expiration of
the time, Savannah would be taken without the waste of a single shot.
Prevost’s motive, however, for requiring so many hours before he gave
his answer to the summons was, to give Colonel Maitland time to reach
the city to aid in its defence. Maitland arrived, after a laborious
march, and threw himself into Savannah with his eight hundred veterans,
and then Prevost informed d’Estaing that the place would be defended to
the last extremity. General Lincoln joined the French on the 16th, and
after spending a few days in quarrelling with d’Estaing for not waiting
for him, and for not summoning the place in the name of congress,
instead of the French king, having made up the quarrel they commenced
the siege. Their batteries were ready to open on the 14th of October,
and, in the meantime, the beseiged had not been idle. The defences had
been daily improved, and two successful sorties were made, in which
many of the allies were killed and wounded. The batteries were at
length opened: fifty-three large cannon and fourteen mortars kept up
an incessant fire upon the town. By this time the besieging army,
reinforced by the militia of South Carolina, under Governor Rutledge,
amounted to nearly 10,000 men, while General Prevost’s whole force did
not exceed a fourth part of that number. The batteries played upon the
town for five days, during which time no visible impression was made
upon the works, and but little injury was done to the houses. In the
midst of this firing, indeed, Prevost had contrived to mount nearly
one hundred guns, and all the open or weak parts of the town were
strengthened with impalements, traverses, abattis, and redoubts, the
last being constructed of green spongy wood and trunks of trees, with
the interstices filled up with mud and sand. Perceiving that he made
no progress, d’Estaing became impatient and alarmed, for he feared that
while he was taking Savannah, the British fleet in the West Indies might
capture all the French islands. His officers also suggested that if
the British fleet were to follow them to the Savannah River, the effect
might be fatal while so many were employed in the siege; and that if
they remained at the stormy season of the year upon that insecure coast,
the fleet might be scattered by storms, and destroyed piecemeal by the
British ships. Under these circumstances, contrary to the advice of
General Lincoln, the count resolved to try the effects of an assault
by storm, and on the morning of the 9th of October he made the rash
attempt. Before daybreak, after a heavy cannonade and bombardment,
and an unsuccessful attempt to set fire to the abattis, the French and
Americans, to the number of 5000, advanced to the right of the British
lines. They advanced in two columns; one being led by d’Estaing and
Lincoln, and the other by Count Dillon, an Irishman in the service of
France. The column under Dillon, mistaking its way, became entangled
in a morass near the fortress, and exposed to its fire; and while great
numbers were slain, the rest were unable to form. The other column
advanced against a redoubt, but as soon as it was discovered, the allies
became exposed to a continual blaze of musketry from its guns, and to
a murderous cross-fire from the adjoining batteries, which mowed down
whole ranks, and threw the head of the column into confusion. Other men
were urged on to fill up the gaps; and the column at length got to the
foot of the redoubt. Here the conflict became more dreadful than ever.
For a few minutes the French and American standards were planted on the
parapet, but they were soon hurled from thence. The fire of the redoubt
and the batteries being aided by a well-posted armed brig flanking the
right of the British lines, made the whole column stagger and reel like
drunken men; and Colonel Maitland, seizing the critical moment, issued
forth with a mixed corps of grenadiers and marines, and charged them at
the point of the bayonet. This charge decided the contest. The French
and Americans were driven far beyond the ditch, leaving behind them
about nine hundred killed and wounded; while, on the part of the
English, there were only fifty-five killed, wounded, and missing.
D’Estaing himself was wounded, as were also several French officers of
rank, and the Polish Count Pulawski here finished his career. The issue
of this battle determined the siege: the allies immediately separated,
the provincials retiring to their homes, and the French setting sail
for the West Indies. D’Estaing had scarcely embarked when his fleet
was dispersed by a storm; and while some reached their destination, the
rest, with the count himself, sailed for France.




BRITISH INCURSIONS INTO VIRGINIA.

During the operations in Georgia, the British fleet under Sir George
Collier, who had succeeded Admiral Gambier, had been attacking Virginia,
in which attack he was aided by a detachment of soldiers under General
Matthews. Their first attempt was an expedition to the Chesapeak, where
they demolished Fort Nelson, the grand defence of the American dock-yard
at Gos-port; and a similar scene of destruction was exhibited at the
town of Suffolk, Kempe’s Landing, Tanner’s Creek, and other places in
the lower part of the district. At the same time, the “Otter” sloop, and
the privateers sailing far up the bay, took a great number of prizes,
and burned, or caused the Americans themselves to burn, a great number
of vessels. In the end, indeed, scarcely any American craft were left
floating on these waters. The last exploit of this expedition was to
demolish the fort and destroy the navy-yard of Portsmouth; when Collier
and Matthews returned to New York, after an absence of only twenty-four
days.




CAPTURE OF STONEY-POINT AND VERPLANKS.

A few days after the arrival of Collier and Matthews at New York,
another detachment, under General Vaughan, and accompanied by Sir Henry
Clinton himself, proceeded up the Hudson against Verplanks-neck, and
Stoney-point, where Washington’s people were erecting fortifications.
A division of the army landed on the eastern side of the river on
Verplank’s-neck, while the commander-in-chief proceeded to the western
side against Stoney-point. Both these posts, which commanded the Hudson,
and by means of which Washington had kept up his communication between
the middle and northern colonies, were captured, with the loss of
only one man wounded. At Fort Lafayette, which was the main defence of
Verplanks-point, all the garrison surrendered as prisoners of war;
but, at Stoney-point, the garrison fled at the approach of the British
troops. Sir Henry Clinton left considerable garrisons at these places,
and then returned to New York.

{GEORGE III. 1779–1780}




BRITISH EXPEDITION AGAINST CONNECTICUT.

General Clinton, soon after his return to New York, proposed inflicting
a severe chastisement on the Connecticut people, and tempting Washington
down from the highlands to defend the sea-coast. For this purpose
a detachment of land-troops under Major-general Tryon, supported by
Admiral Collier, advanced on Connecticut. They first attacked Newhaven,
where they destroyed the artillery, ammunition, and stores, with all
the vessels in the harbour. Fairfield was next attacked, and having
encountered a severe opposition by the inhabitants, when the place was
captured it was reduced to ashes. The same fate awaited Norwalk and
Greenfield; and Tryon then intended to make a descent at New London, the
great rendezvous for the Connecticut privateers. As the militia of this
state, however, were by this time joined by some regular troops detached
from Washington’s army, he deemed it expedient to return towards New
York to obtain reinforcements. The fleet fell back, therefore, on Long
Island, to wait for an additional supply of troops and ammunition. In
this expedition much spoils were captured.




STONEY-POINT RE-CAPTURED, BUT DESERTED AT THE APPROACH OF THE BRITISH.

Washington, roused by these disasters, undertook operations which not
only prevented Clinton from reinforcing Tryon, but compelled him to
recall the whole of that devastating expedition. Before the garrison
could put Stoney-point in any defensive order, he dispatched General
Wayne to fall upon it by night, and the troops left there by Clinton
were all either killed or taken prisoners. Wayne opened a fire
across the river upon Fort Lafayette, expecting to see another strong
detachment appear from the ranks of Washington on the land side of
that fort. This detachment did not appear in time; for when Clinton
discovered this reverse he sent a detachment up the river, in
transports, to assist the garrison, and their arrival occurred almost
simultaneously. On the arrival of the transports, the Americans gave
up their brief siege of Fort Lafayette, and retreated, as did those
likewise who had retaken Stoney-point. Clinton himself had followed the
transports in full force, hoping that Washington would quit his position
to defend Stoney-point; but when he found that his hope was fallacious
he returned to New York.




BRITISH GARRISON SURPRISED AT PAULUS-HOOK.

The successful enterprise of General Wayne was followed by a similar
enterprise against a British garrison at Paulus-hook on the Jersey
coast. This was conducted by General Lee, who, on the 17th of July, fell
suddenly upon that garrison, and killed about thirty and captured one
hundred and sixty prisoners. The Americans, however, were speedily
expelled from Paulus-hook, without having destroyed either the barracks
or artillery. Their retreat was as disgraceful as their attack had been
spirited and well conducted.




AMERICAN DISASTER AT PENOBSCOT.

During the month of June, General Francis Maclean, who commanded the
British troops in Nova Scotia, proceeded with a detachment of six
hundred and fifty men in transports, conveyed by three sloops of war, to
the Bay of Penobscot, in order to form a settlement, and to establish a
post which might serve the double purpose of checking the incursions
of the people of Massachusets Bay into Nova Scotia; and to obtain
ship-timber for the use of the king’s yards at Halifax and other ports
in America, He had already commenced the construction of a fort on the
Penobscot River, when a hostile armament, consisting of 3000 troops,
which had been fitted out by the executive government of Massachusets,
appeared in the bay to thwart his designs. Being prevented from entering
the harbour by the presence of the three English sloops of war, which
were anchored right across the mouth; on the night of the 28th of June,
the American troops climbed up some steep precipices on the opposite
side of that tongue of land; dragged up some artillery, and erected a
battery within a few hundred yards of the unfinished fort. But Maclean
was prepared for this manouvre. He had filled up his bastions with logs
of timber; had carried a sort of _chevaux-de-frise_ round the fort;
and had constructed platoons and mounted his artillery. He, therefore,
returned fire for fire, and the American troops being chiefly militia,
or undisciplined recruits, soon grew weary of the business, and longed
to return. They were commanded by General Lovel, who perceiving that he
could not effect his object with such lovers of home, applied to General
Gates for a reinforcement of regular troops. A regiment was sent by
Gates; but before this force arrived Sir George Collier came to the
assistance of Maclean with a squadron and some land-troops; and the
Americans, leaving their works, ran to their ships, embarked, and
endeavoured to make for Boston harbour. But this was now impracticable.
Two of the largest vessels, in endeavouring to gain the open sea, were
intercepted, and one was captured; while the other ran on shore and was
blown up by her own crew. The other American ships entered the mouth of
the Penobscot River, where they were abandoned by the Americans, both
soldiers and sailors, who landed and fled for their lives. Nearly all
the ships were captured or destroyed by the British sailors, who were
close in their wake; while the fugitives who had landed in a wild
country, had to traverse a pathless desert for upwards of a hundred
miles, before they could reach any human habitation. On their route a
quarrel took place between the seamen and landsmen, and a battle was
fought in which fifty or sixty lives were lost, and a great many more
perished from fatigue and famine. This exploit terminated Sir George
Collier’s career. When he returned to New York he found himself
superseded by Admiral Arbuthnot, and he returned to England. The season
for action was not yet over, but a rumour that d’Estaing intended to
attack New York, compelled Sir Henry Clinton to forego all thoughts of
further operations, and he even withdrew the garrison from Rhode Island,
for the purpose of concentrating his force.




AMERICAN RETALIATION ON THE INDIANS, ETC.

During this year the Americans took a terrible revenge on their old
enemies, the Indians. At the head of 5000 men General Sullivan undertook
an expedition against the Indian tribes beyond the Mohawk River and
upon the upper course of the Susquehanna. In the month of August he
encountered a body of eight hundred savages and two hundred whites,
under Brandt, Butler, and others acquainted with the art of war; whom,
after a bloody conflict, he defeated. Sullivan then penetrated into
the very heart of their country, where his followers destroyed houses,
corn-fields, gardens, fruit-trees, and everything that would afford
sustenance to man or beast. Such were the positive orders of congress,
and Sullivan proved himself to be their willing agent in the evil work.
Congress passed a vote approving his conduct, but Washington, whose
exertions were crippled by the expedition, in consequence of the great
force employed in it, inveighed bitterly against it, and in the end
Sullivan retired from public service in disgust. While this terrible
chastisement was inflicted on the tribes northward of Pennsylvania and
New York, similar expeditions were Kent out from the southern provinces
for the same purpose. On the other hand, whilst the Americans were
spreading devastation and laying waste the towns of their savage
enemies, the Indians, whose appetite for revenge was whetted by their
disasters, made incursions into the provincial settlements, and made
severe retaliation.




SPANISH INCURSIONS.

As Spain had concealed her hostile intentions towards England until
preparations for war were completed, it was not a matter of surprise to
see her commencing hostilities on the other side of the Atlantic, with
all the advantages of early information and previous design. No sooner
was war announced than Don Bernardo Galvez, Governor of Louisiana, made
an incursion into West Florida, and invested and captured a British fort
garrisoned with five hundred men, at the mouth of the Ibbeville. The
fate of almost the whole of the Mississippi was involved in the fall of
this fort, for the Spaniards overran a district of 1200 miles in extent;
and only left the eastern part of the province, with the strong fort of
Mobile untouched. With equal alacrity the Spanish Governor of Honduras
commenced hostilities against the British cutters of logwood in the Bay
of Honduras, and plundered the principal establishment at St. George’s
Key. The logwood-cutters, who were chiefly sailors and men of a
daring spirit, retreated before the Spaniards, and kept together in an
inaccessible place, until the Governor of Jamaica dispatched Captain
Dalrymple, with a small body of Irish volunteers, to convey to them
a supply of arms. Sir Peter Parker dispatched a sloop of war to
co-operate, and this sloop, having taken Dalrymple and his party on
board, quickly drove the Spaniards from St. George’s Key and all
that part of the coast. The sloop was shortly after joined by a small
squadron under Captain Luttrell, who had been cruizing to intercept two
Spanish register-ships, which had taken refuge under the strong fortress
of St. Fernando de Omoa. Dalrymple, Luttrell, and the chiefs of the
British bay-men resolved to attack this fort, which was the key of the
whole settlement of Honduras; and a motley force of log-wood-cutters,
sailors, soldiers, and volunteers proceeded against it. They had no
artillery available for the purpose, and therefore they resolved to
take the fort by surprise and assault. As they approached they were
discovered by the garrison, but the works were nevertheless carried by
escalade; and the garrison were so panic-stricken at the bold movement,
that the Spanish governor could not keep them to their guns. One
hundred escaped by flight, and the rest, amounting to five hundred men,
surrendered as prisoners of war. The assailants now made for the harbour
in search of the register-ships; and although the greater part of
the treasure had been removed to a place of safety, there was still a
galleon in the harbour, and an immense quantity of quicksilver, which,
with other objects that fell into the hands of the conquerors, were of
the estimated value of 3,000,000 dollars. The loss of the quicksilver
was severely felt by the Spaniards, and they offered to redeem it at
any price. They also made liberal offers for ransoming the fort; but the
captors, preferring the public good to private emolument, refused all
terms. At the same time they restored the plate found in the churches,
to procure the liberation of some logwood-cutters who had been taken
at George’s Key. A garrison was left to defend Fort Omoa, but the
unhealthiness of the station led to its evacuation, and it was recovered
by the Spaniards. They found the guns spiked, however, and the works for
the most part demolished.




ACTION BETWEEN PAUL JONES AND CAPTAIN PEARSON.

One of the most active partisans in the American cause was the
celebrated Paul Jones. This man was a native of Scotland, and the son of
a gardener of Galloway. He had taken to the sea at a very early age,
and had finally settled in Virginia. At the breaking out of the war he
offered his services to congress, and a commission was given him,
under which he cruised among our West India Islands, where he made
many prizes. His nautical skill and his success were so great that he
acquired the name of the best of all corsair captains. In 1777 he was
appointed to the command of a French-built ship under American colours,
and he then proceeded upon a cruise to the coast of Britain. Many were
the exploits which he transacted. He took many prizes in places where
the American flag had never before been seen; he made a descent at the
mouth of the Dee, near to Kirkcudbright, and plundered the house of the
Earl of Selkirk; and he made another descent on the Cumberland coast,
spiked the guns of the fort at Whitehaven, and burned one or two
vessels. He also cruised up and down between the Solway and the Clyde;
scaring the whole coast, after which he returned to Brest, boasting that
he had kept the north-western coast of England and the southern coast of
Scotland in a constant state or alarm. In the summer of the present year
he returned to cruise along our eastern coasts, having at this time a
squadron manned by desperadoes of various countries under his command.
Alarm spread from Flamboroughhead to the Frith of Tay, for the name of
Paul Jones had become synonymous with all that is terrible. His great
object this year was to intercept the Baltic trade, which was under the
convoy of Captain Pearson, in the ship “Serapis,” of forty guns, and
Captain Piercy, in the “Countess of Scarborough,” of twenty guns. This
fleet arrived safely off the Yorkshire coast, when Paul Jones appeared
to encounter it. Captain Pearson made a signal for his convoy to bear
down under his lee; and he himself made way to get between the enemy’s
ships and the convoy. The “Countess of Scarborough” took a similar
position, and while the enemy was advancing, the merchant-vessels made
their way in haste to the shore. At length the squadron of Paul Jones,
consisting of three large ships, a cutter, and a brig, reached the
“Serapis” and the “Countess,” and a terrible conflict took place between
the former and the “Bon Homme Richard,” a two-decker, carrying forty
guns, and which was Paul Jones’s own ship. The two ships were brought
into such a situation that the muzzles of their guns came in contact,
and in this manner the action continued with the greatest fury for two
hours, during which time Jones, who had far more men than his opponent,
vainly attempted to board, and the “Serapis” was set on fire ten or
twelve times. The fire each time was extinguished, and Captain Pearson
had the best of the battle; but, in the meantime the “Countess of
Scarborough” had been disabled by the other ships of the enemy, and then
one of the frigates came to the assistance of the “Bon Homme Richard.”
 Almost every man on the quarter or main-decks of the “Serapis” was
killed or wounded by the united fire of the enemy; and the calamity was
increased by the accidental ignition of a cartridge of powder near one
of the lower deck-ports, and the flames spreading from cartridge to
cartridge all the way aft, blew up the whole of the officers and people
that were quartered abaft the mainmast. In this state Captain Pearson
was compelled to strike his colours, and Captain Piercy was under the
necessity of following his example. The “Bon Homme Richard,” however,
was in a still more pitiful condition than the “Serapis.” Her quarters
and counter on the lower deck were driven in; all her guns on the deck
were dismounted; her decks were strewed with killed and wounded; and she
was on fire in two different places, and had seven feet of water in her
hold. On the day after the battle Paul Jones was obliged to quit her,
and she sank with a great number of her wounded on board. The prizes
were carried by their captor into the Texel, and the French government
gave Paul Jones thanks, in the name of Louis XVI., and conferred upon
him the Order of Merit! Congress, also, at a later date, sent him a vote
of thanks, and promoted him to the command of a new ship, called the
“America!”




CHANGES IN THE MINISTRY.

During the recess, some partial changes occurred in the administration.
Lord Stormont was made secretary of state, in the room of Lord Suffolk,
deceased. Earl Bathurst was made lord president of the council, Earl
Gower having resigned office in disgust; the Earl of Hillsborough
succeeded the Earl of Weymouth as secretary of the southern department;
and the Earl of Carlisle was nominated first lord of trade and
plantations, which was an ancient office resuscitated. Mr. Thurlow
had received the great seal, with a peerage, last session, and he
was succeeded as attorney-general by Wedderburn, while Wallace took
Wedderburn’s place of solicitor-general.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament met on the 25th of November. In his speech the king called
upon the two houses to exert their efforts along with him in defence
of their country against the unprovoked attacks of their enemies;
congratulated his hearers that the designs and attempts of France and
Spain to invade this kingdom had been frustrated; exalted the exemplary
conduct of the national militia; returned his cordial thanks to all
loyal subjects who had stood forward in the present momentous trial; and
recommended the state of Ireland to consideration. Nothing was said by
his majesty concerning America or the Americans, but the commons were
told that it was with extreme concern that his majesty saw the great and
inevitable expenses which his naval and military forces would require.
His majesty concluded by saying, that, trusting in Divine Providence,
and in the justice of his cause, he was firmly resolved to prosecute the
war with vigour.

The address was opposed in the house of lords by the Marquess of
Rockingham, who moved an amendment, omitting every word which it
contained except the title, and inserting a prayer instead, beseeching
his majesty to reflect on the extent of territory, the power, the
opulence, the reputation abroad, and the concord at home which
distinguished the commencement of his reign; and now on the endangered,
impoverished, enfeebled, distracted, and even dismembered state of his
kingdom, after all the enormous grants of successive parliaments. The
amendment concluded by requesting his majesty to resort to new counsels
and new counsellors, without further loss of time, as the only remedy
for the existing evils. In his speech, the Marquess of Rockingham
censured the facility with which the two ambassadors, Lords Grantham and
Stormont, had suffered themselves to be deceived by the craft of France
and Spain; asserted that the clause in the speech which spoke of the
blessings of living under his majesty’s happy government, was insulting
to the common sense of the house, as all those blessings were turned
into curses; attacked the first lord of the admiralty on various points
connected with his administration; attributed all the discontents in
Ireland to the folly and bad faith of ministers, who had made promises
which they had not performed; and, finally, denounced the war in America
as bloody, malignant, and diabolical. In reply, Lord Stormont imputed a
great part of the misfortunes which surrounded us to the incautious
and violent language used in parliament. Lord Mansfield expressed his
conviction that nothing but a comprehensive union of all parties could
effect the salvation of the country. How far the temper of the nation
and the state of parties might admit of such a coalition he could not
decide; but the event, he said, was devoutly to be wished. The amendment
was negatived by eighty-two against forty-one.

A similar amendment to that of the Marquess of Rockingham, was moved in
the commons by Lord John Cavendish. In both houses, also, the arguments
and invectives employed were allied in character. The ministers were
accused of ruining both army and navy by their compliances with court
predilections; by their fear and jealousy of every officer of merit;
by their criminal tardiness; and by their want of a consistent plan of
military operations. Charles Fox went a step further than most of the
speakers in opposition. He declared that treachery and not ignorance
must have prevailed in the national councils, to reduce the nation to so
miserable a condition; and he warned ministers that when the nation was
reduced to such a state of wretchedness and distraction that the laws of
the land could afford no relief, the law of nature would put arms into
the hands of the people, and then they, who had caused the evil, would
suffer for their mal-administration. In reply, Lord North indignantly
denied that any treachery was resorted to by ministers, and called
upon the opposition to stand forth like men, and make good such vague
accusations. Laws, he said, existed for the protection of the innocent;
and if his accusers adhered to the laws, he had nothing to fear. Lord
North, also, defended with considerable ingenuity the management of the
war; asserting that, from its extensive nature, it was impossible to
keep a force superior to the enemy at every point; and affirming that
the fleets of France and Spain, which had been raised to the ruin
of their finances, had gained neither honour nor advantage, and were
already falling into weakness and decrepitude. The amendment was
negatived by two hundred and thirty-three against one hundred and
thirty-four.




LORD SHELBURNE ATTACKS MINISTERS IN THE CASE OF IRELAND.

Although Ireland had been misgoverned for centuries, yet opposition, in
the course of these debates attributed every mischief in that country
to the present ministers. In both houses assurances were given that
satisfactory plans of relief were in contemplation, but even then
opposition were not disarmed. Having procured a summons of the house, on
the 1st of December the Earl of Shelburne moved a resolution, declaring
ministers highly censurable for having neglected to take measures for
the relief of Ireland, in conformity with the address of the lords to
his majesty during the last session. In introducing this motion, the
Earl of Shelburne declared that the government of Ireland had been
abdicated, and that the people would be justified, by the principles of
the constitution and the laws of self-preservation, in taking back its
power into their own hands. In the course of his speech he read the
address of both houses of the Irish parliament, which declared that
nothing less than free trade would rescue that country from ruin; and
he asserted that all classes of society concurred in this opinion.
Ministers were defended by Lord Hillsborough, who maintained that no
delay could be fairly imputed to them; that measures for the relief of
Ireland must emanate from parliament, and were not to be entered upon
without due information and consideration; and that ministers had been
active in collecting such information and making arrangements, the
result of which would shortly be laid before the house. The debate was
chiefly rendered remarkable by some words uttered by Earl Gower, who had
lately retired from the administration. After stating that he must, in
fairness, oppose the motion, as ministers required a few days for
their exculpation, he remarked:—“I have presided for some years at the
council-table, but have seen such things pass of late that no man
of honour or conscience could any longer sit there.” The motion was
rejected by eighty-two against thirty-seven.




LORD OSSORY’S ATTACK ON MINISTERS RESPECTING IRELAND.

On the same day that Shelburne made his motion, Lord North communicated
some additional papers respecting Ireland, and gave notice, that he
would, in about a week, move for a committee of the whole house to enter
upon this subject. Opposition, however, seem to have considered Ireland
a vulnerable point in the phalanx of the ministry; and before the time
intimated by Lord North had expired, the Earl of Upper Ossory moved a
vote of censure in the commons upon ministers for their neglect of the
affairs of that country. This motion was seconded by Lord Middleton, and
supported by Dunning, Burke, and Charles Fox, who, in general pursued
the dangerous course of drawing parallels between the situation of
Ireland and that of America. It was asserted, for instance, that
ministers having failed in reducing the colonies by force, were ready
to make large concessions to Ireland; but that the Irish people had
suffered more from the loss of her share in the trade of America than
from any other cause. It was also said, that if the thunders of the
cabinet had not been hurled against Ireland; if Dublin had not been
treated like Boston, and if Cork and Waterford had not been reduced
to ashes like the towns of America, it was not through the enlightened
policy of ministers, but from fear of the consequences of adopting
stringent measures toward those refractory cities. These sentiments were
exceedingly unwise, for at this very time armed associations and
the non-importation agreements were in full force in Ireland, and a
rebellious spirit displayed itself in the Irish parliament-house and
throughout the whole length and breadth of the kingdom. In order
to compel the British government to concede a free trade the Irish
parliament had, indeed, according to the instructions received from
their constituents, voted a money-bill for six months only, instead of
two years, as usual; and the charges which opposition brought against
ministers were as fallacious as they were unwise and unjust. This was
fully proved by Lord North in his reply, who showed that the grievances
complained of originated ages anterior to the existence of his ministry,
and that the restrictions upon the trade and industry of the Irish
people arose from our general system of trade; which, though conceived
in ignorance and founded on prejudice, was so confirmed by habit that
it seemed to become part and parcel of our very constitution. Lord North
referred to the hostility which had been shown towards the attempts
which had been made in the two preceding sessions to obtain a moderate
relaxation of these restrictions, in proof of the truth of his
assertions. Those who had undertaken the task, he observed, had been
thwarted by their constituents, and by the people of England generally,
as well as by the majority of the house. Something had been done, but
more would have been done had it not been for the temper, prejudices,
and habits of the people and the parliament. In conclusion, he contended
that ministers had done more for Ireland than any other cabinet for the
last century. They had enlarged the trade of that country; had given
bounties to encourage the Irish Newfoundland fishery, and the growth of
hemp and tobacco; had permitted the exportation of woollen cloth, &c.;
and had conferred many other benefits on the people. The motion was
negatived by one hundred and seventy-three against one hundred.




LORD NORTH’S PROPOSITION FOR THE RELIEF OF IRELAND.

Lord North brought forward his promised scheme of relief for Ireland on
the 13th of December. This scheme consisted of three propositions: to
allow a free export of wool, woollens, and wool-flocks; to allow a free
export of glass and all kinds of manufactured glass; and to allow a free
trade with all the British plantations on certain conditions; the basis
of which was an equality of taxes and customs. In supporting these
propositions Lord North entered minutely into the natural and inherent
rights of Ireland; combated many inveterate prejudices; declared that
the benefits of the two countries must be reciprocal and their interests
mutual; and in short collected into one point of view all the liberal
notions of commerce and policy which Burke and others of his party had
long laboured to impress upon parliament. If Lord North was actuated by
fear in making these large concessions, so also were the majority of
the members in the house, for the very men who had clamoured against
commercial concessions to Ireland, and had frustrated all measures in
favour of this line of policy by their votes, now consented to the three
resolutions, without the least opposition. Bills founded on the two
first propositions were brought in, and passed both houses, and received
the royal assent before the Christmas recess. The third proposition
was delayed till the sentiments of the Irish concerning it could be
ascertained. These sentiments were found to be favourable, and it was
therefore soon carried. A few other benefits were also conferred on the
Irish; suck as enabling them to become members of the Turkey Company,
and to engage in the Levant trade. The whole appeared to give great
satisfaction to the Irish nation. The acts were received as a boon,
and great loyalty and affection were expressed. Unfortunately, however,
ministers cut short their popularity by altering some bills, which
gave great umbrage to the Irish people, and taught them even to desire
independence. On this subject Dr. Miller writes:—“The bills altered on
this occasion were not, as in the former case, money-bills: that folly
the ministers did not venture to repeat: but one of them was a bill
involving the dearest interests of the people; and the alteration was
such as gave to the public mind the only impulse which it then required
for aspiring to constitutional independence. The Irish parliament, not
choosing that its military establishment should be longer regulated by a
British mutiny-law, transmitted a bill of similar import. The
minister, as if eager to indemnify himself for commercial concession by
constitutional spoliation, introduced an alteration by which the law
was to be rendered perpetual; and the Irish parliament, though it passed
the bill thus altered, was taught to look to freedom of constitution
as the necessary safeguard to freedom of trade; to assert its own
independence, while it unfettered the commerce of the country. When
the minister had first, by the altered money-bills, alarmed the
constitutional jealousy of the guardians of the public purse, he then,
by another alteration, rendering the mutiny-law perpetual, manifested
a desire of securing to government the uncontrolled direction of the
military power. Language could not more forcibly exhort the people to
be satisfied with no concessions merely commercial; but to insist that
their country should be acknowledged as an independent, though not a
separate state.”

{GEORGE III. 1779–1780}




DEBATES ON ECONOMICAL REFORM.

While Lord North was endeavouring to allay the bad passions of the Irish
people, a spirit of disaffection arose in England. The cause of this
was the expenses of government: expenses which were for the most
part unavoidable, but which in some cases may have arisen from lavish
expenditure. But whatever was the cause, there was a long, loud, and
universal cry in the country for economical reform, and it soon became
the subject of debate in both houses of parliament. On the 7th of
December the Duke of Richmond moved in the lords for an address
to beseech his majesty to reflect on the manifold distresses and
difficulties of the country; to represent that the waste of the public
treasure required instant remedy, and that it was necessary to adopt
that economy, which, by reforming all useless expenses, creates
confidence in government, gives energy to its exertions, and provides
the means for their continuance; to submit to his majesty that a
reduction in the civil list would be an example worthy of his paternal
affection for his people and his own dignity, and calculated to diffuse
its influence through every department of the state; and to assure his
majesty that the lords would readily concur in promoting so desirable
a purpose, and that every one of its members would cheerfully submit
to such reductions of emoluments as he might think proper to make. In
support of this motion, the Duke of Richmond entered into a detailed
statement of the existing vast military establishment; showed by a
number of calculations the great increase of the national debt since the
commencement of the American war; and urged the necessity of economical
reform, suggesting that the king himself should set the example, that
all classes of society might follow it. In the course of his speech,
his grace contrasted the state of this country with the wise system of
economy adopted by France under Neckar; asserting that our formidable
neighbour was rising to wealth as fast as we were sinking in poverty.
Yet with all his zeal for reform, the Duke of Richmond advocated the
continuation of the pensions bestowed on the Pelhams, Walpoles,
and Pitts, families of his own party, as being too sacred for the
sacrilegious hand of parliament to touch. In reply, the lords in
administration confessed that the expenditure was enormous, and that
there had even been some want of economy; but while they made this
confession, they opposed the motion, chiefly on the ground that it could
not be of any great service, or at all adequate to the object proposed.
It was insisted by them that the civil list could not bear any
diminution; that it would be degrading to parliament, after having voted
an augmentation, now to declare their inability to pay it; that the
complaint of the waste of the public money was not substantiated by any
kinds of proof; and that the nation was not so poor or reduced as the
noble duke had represented. The motion was rejected by seventy-seven
against thirty-six.

The subject of economical reform was introduced into the lower house by
Mr. Burke on the 15th of December. Burke gave notice of his intention to
propose some very important regulations after the Christmas recess,
and in doing so, he also took occasion to extol the financial system of
Neckar, to which he attributed the re-production of the French marine
out of the wrecks and fragments of the last war. He anticipated, he
said, a cool reception of the propositions he should make, since they
would have a tendency to weaken court influence. He could only, however,
make an offer, and if it was rejected the people must effect their own
salvation. All the grievances of the nation, he observed, arose from the
overgrown influence of the crown, and this influence was the creature
of the prodigality of the commons. The operation of this influence,
he said, was not confined to the superior orders of the state; it had
insinuated itself into every section of the community. Scarcely a
family in all England was so hidden or lost in the obscure recesses of
society, which did not feel that it had something’ to hope or to fear
from the favour or displeasure of the crown. Government, he argued,
should have force adequate to its functions, but no more; for if it had
enough to support itself in abusing or neglecting them, they must ever
be abused or neglected. Men would rely on power for a justification of
their want of order, vigilance, foresight, and every other virtue or
qualification of statesmen. The minister then might exist, he said, but
the government was gone. He continued:—“It is thus that you see the
same men, in the same power, sitting undisturbed before you, although
thirteen colonies are lost—thus the marine of France and Spain
has grown and prospered under their eye, and been fostered by their
neglect—thus all hope of alliance in Europe is abandoned—thus three
of our West India islands have been torn from us in one summer, while
Jamaica, the most important of all, has been neglected, and every
inquiry into that neglect stifled—thus Ireland has been brought into
a state of distraction which no one dares to discuss.” The disease of
government, Burke remarked, was a repletion; the over-feeding of the
stomach had destroyed the vigour of the limbs. He continued, that he had
long ascertained the nature of the disorder, and its proper remedy; but
as he was not naturally an economist, and was averse to experiment, he
had not made hitherto any attempt to apply that remedy. Now, however, he
was assisted by the temper of the times, and though he would not at that
time disclose all the particulars of his plan, he would, nevertheless,
state its end, objects, and limits. He proposed a regulation which would
give £200,000 per annum to the public service, and annihilate a portion
of influence equal to the places of fifty members of parliament, which
would effectually remove the sources of corruption. This was the end
and objects of his resolution. As regarded its limits, nothing, he said,
which was held by any individual under a legal tenure would be invaded.
Equity and mercy would be remembered in those cases where innocent
persons had been decoyed into particular situations through the
prodigality of parliament: the alterations would chiefly affect those
who held offices from which they might be removed by ministerial
arrangements. No employment really useful to the public would either be
abolished or abridged of its emoluments, A fund, also, fully adequate
to the reward of merit, would be left, and an ample provision would
be secured to the crown for personal satisfaction, and for as much
magnificence as was compatible with the distressed state of the nation.
These propositions, Burke added in conclusion, were made with humility
and integrity: he hoped that they would give confidence to the people,
and strength to the government; that they would render the war vigorous,
and peace refreshing. Burke’s plan received high commendation from
several members on his own side of the house, and especially by his
friend and disciple, Charles Fox; but on the ministerial side of the
house a profound and ominous silence prevailed. As Fox observed, it
was evident there was not sufficient virtue in the house, or rather
self-denial, to carry such a plan of economical reform.




CHAPTER XI.

{GEORGE III. 1780–1781}

     Burke’s Plan of Economical Reform..... Rejection of Lord
     Shelburne’s Motion for a Commission of Accounts......
     Ministerial Bill for Commission of Accounts..... Bill for
     excluding Contractors from Parliament rejected..... Motions
     regarding Places and Pensions..... Political
     Altercations..... Debates on the   Increase  of Crown
     Influence..... Lord North’s Proposal respecting the East
     India Company..... General Conway’s Plan of Reconciliation
     with America..... Popular Rage against the Catholics; Riots
     in London, etc...... Measures adopted by Parliament arising
     out of the London Riots..... Parliament  Prorogued.....
     Trial of Lord George Gordon and the Rioters..... Admiral
     Rodney’s success against the   Spaniards..... Armed
     Neutrality..... Rodney   engages   the   French Fleet.....
     Expedition against South Carolina..... Battle of  Camden,
     etc...... Affairs at New York..... Treason of Arnold and
     Fate of Major André..... Maritime Losses sustained by the
     British..... War with Holland..... General Election.....
     Meeting of Parliament.

{A.D. 1780}




BURKE’S PLAN OF ECONOMICAL REFORM.

Although from the silence of ministers Burke might have presaged he fate
of his proposed plan of economical reform, yet he was greatly encouraged
to proceed in his task by the voice of the nation. During the Christmas
recess, petitions were got up in its favour in almost all the countries
and great cities of England, and associations were formed in order to
support a reform. Counter petitions were indeed framed, and in some
instances protests were signed, but still it remained evident that the
public feeling was with Burke. It was while the petitions in favour of
his plan were pouring into the house that he brought it forward. After
delivering an eloquent speech, which Gibbon says was heard with
delight by all sides of the house, and even by those whose existence
he proscribed, he detailed his scheme. This consisted of five bills,
comprising the sale of forest-lands; the abolition of the royal
jurisdictions of Wales, Cornwall, Cheshire, and Lancaster; the
abolition, also, of treasurer, comptroller, and many other officers in
the household, with the treasurer of the chamber, the wardrobe, etc.,
the boards of trade, green cloth, and works, the office of third
secretary of state, the office of keepers of the royal hounds, and
of many civil branches of the ordnance and the mint, with the patent
offices of the exchequer; the regulation of the army, navy, and pension
pay-offices, with some other departments not under due control; and
finally a better arrangement of the civil list so as to prevent for the
future any accumulation of debt, without any improper encroachment on
the royal prerogative. Lord North passed very high encomiums on the
author of this plan, and assured the house that no member was more
zealous for the establishment of a permanent system of economy than he
was; but he intimated that subjects so numerous and various required
time for reflection and as some of them affected the king’s patrimonial
income, he thought the crown should be consulted. All the bills, except
that which related to the crown-lands and to Wales, and the counties
palatine of Chester and Lancaster, were brought in, however, and the
portions of the plan submitted to deliberation occupied a considerable
part of the months of March, April, and May, and gave rise to many
animated debates, and several close divisions. But, in the end, all the
clauses were negatived, except that for abolishing the board of trade,
and the only saving to the country by this triumph of the opposition,
was about £6000 per annum!




REJECTION OF LORD SHELBURNE’S MOTION FOR A COMMISSION OF ACCOUNTS.

On the same day that Burke gave notice of his plan of economical reform,
the Earl of Shelburne gave notice that he would, after the Christmas
recess, move for a commission of accounts. In accordance with this
professed intention, on the 8th of February the noble earl, therefore,
moved for the appointment of a committee, to consist of members of both
houses, possessing neither employments nor pensions, to examine
the public expenditure and the mode of accounting for the same, and
especially to inquire into the manner of making all contracts; and at
the same time to take into consideration, what saving could be made,
consistent with public dignity, justice, and gratitude, by an abolition
of old and newly created offices, etc. In support of his motion the Earl
of Shelburne exposed the profusion pervading all branches of government,
and declared that his main object was to destroy that undue influence
which pervaded both houses of parliament. The motion was seconded by
the Earl of Coventry, who described the country as being in very
reduced circumstances: rents were fallen, he said, the value of land was
sinking, and farmers were on the high road to ruin. The Duke of Grafton
and the Marquess of Rockingham followed on the same side; the latter
declaring that a system had been established at the accession of his
present majesty, for governing the kingdom under the forms of law, but
really to the immediate influence of the crown, which was the origin of
all our national misfortunes. The motion was opposed by Lord Chancellor
Thurlow, and Lords Mansfield and Chesterfield, with other peers,
who urged that the motion was a violation of the inherent, exclusive
privilege of the other house to control the public expenditure. When
put to the vote it was lost by a majority of a hundred and one against
fifty-five.




MINISTERIAL BILL FOR COMMISSION OF ACCOUNTS.

Immediately after Burke had introduced his plan of economical reform,
Colonel Barré, after declaring that he did not consider that reform
sufficiently extensive, gave notice that he should, on some early day,
move for a committee of accounts, to consist of a few men only, who
would act with the consciousness that the eyes of the public were fixed
on them. To the surprise of all parties, Lord North applauded this
proposal, expressed his surprise that a measure of such obvious utility
had not been thought of sooner, and declared that he was anxious to
adopt any plan that appeared likely to promote economy, and reduce the
public expenses to order and limit. The opposition congratulated the
minister, and Colonel Barré said he would prepare a bill for that
purpose; but while he was preparing it, Lord North himself brought in
a bill on the 2nd of March, which proposed gentlemen who had no seat
in parliament as commissioners of accounts. Barré complained of the
underhand dealing of the minister, but said that he would concur in the
measure, though he had been thus robbed of the honour of introducing it
himself. Other members of the opposition were not so liberal. Although
they were prepared to support the proposition, if left in the hands of
the gallant colonel, they spoke against the whole measure; denounced
it as a trick to create new places and salaries, and insisted that
the commission would do no good. The bill, however, passed, and six
independent gentlemen, among whom was Sir Guy Carleton, were appointed
commissioners of accounts.




BILL FOR EXCLUDING CONTRACTORS FROM PARLIAMENT REJECTED.

Sir Philip Jennings Gierke again introduced his bill for excluding
contractors from the house of commons. This time it was carried, and
passed through all its stages with little opposition from the ministers;
but it, was rejected in the upper house, as an illiberal stigma cast
on a respectable body of men, and as a mean compliance with popular
prejudices.




MOTIONS REGARDING PLACES AND PENSIONS.

On the 15th of February, Sir George Saville moved that an account of all
places with salaries, and all pensions payable at the exchequer or out
of the privy purse, with a list of the persons holding them, should be
laid before the house. In making this motion, Sir George encountered
a most violent opposition, and the debate was broken off by a sudden
illness of the speaker. Subsequently it was revived, and Lord North then
moved an amendment, restricting the account to such pensions only as
were paid out of the exchequer, and excepting those paid out of the
privy purse. This, however, gave such manifest dissatisfaction that
the minister was obliged to qualify it by moving in addition, that
the general amount of all pensions should be given, but without any
specification of names, and without stating the sums paid, except in
the case of those who were paid from the exchequer. But even with this
qualification, though ably supported by the minister himself in a long
and argumentative speech, and by Wedderburn, the attorney-general, and
Mr. Dundas, lord-advocate for Scotland, the amendment was only carried
by a majority of _two_, the numbers being one hundred and eighty-eight
against one hundred and eighty-six. A similar motion was made in the
upper house by Lord Howard of Effingham, but it was there negatived by
fifty-one against twenty-four.




POLITICAL ALTERCATIONS.

In the early part of this session Mr. Adam left the ranks of opposition,
and took his place under the ministerial standard. In doing so, he
declared that he could not concur in the pretended necessity of new
counsels, or new counsellors, since among those who stood candidates for
office he was unable to single out one by whom the state was likely to
be better served than by the present ministers. Charles Fox replied to
Mr. Adam, and his reply, as reported in the newspapers, being thought to
convey a personal reflection on Mr. Adam, a duel was the consequence,
in which Fox was slightly wounded. Duels appeared likely to become the
order of the day among members of parliament. In consequence of the
sudden removal of two lord-lieutenants, apparently on account of their
conduct in regard to county petitions, associations, and votes given
in parliament, Lord Shelburne moved for an address, to desire that his
majesty would be graciously pleased to acquaint the house whether he had
been advised, and by whom, to dismiss the said two noble lords for their
conduct in parliament. In the course of the debates on this motion,
which was negatived, Shelburne indulged in some personalities at the
expense of Mr. Fullarton, member for Plympton, and late secretary to
Lord Stormont in his embassy to the French court. Fullarton complained
to the house of commons of the behaviour of the Earl of Shelburne, and
shortly after a duel was fought between them in Hyde Park, in which the
noble lord was wounded. These transactions induced Sir James Lowther
to observe, in the house of commons, that this method of fighting, in
consequence of parliamentary debate and hasty words, seemed growing into
such a custom, that it behoved the house to interpose its authority,
as otherwise all freedom of debate would be at an end, and the British
parliament would be reduced to the condition of a Polish diet. The
friends of Mr. Fullarton said, it would be indelicate to enter into
a discussion on the subject in his absence; and the friends of Lord
Shelburne contended, that the words spoken by him were strictly
parliamentary, and contained nothing which could be interpreted in a
private or personal manner. But the house was not disposed to put its
ban on this false code of honour. The conversation ended in nothing,
except the hope that duels and wounds would make honourable members
speak with better manners. This hope, however, proved to be fallacious.
An altercation occurred on the 13th of March, between the speaker and
Lord North himself, in which much bitter language was used. Négociations
were in progress for the promotion of the attorney-general to the office
of chief-justice in the Court of Common Pleas, which office had been
promised to the speaker by the Duke of Grafton. Sir Fletcher Norton
expressed much dissatisfaction at his being set aside for another,
and Lord North denied that he was responsible for the promise of his
predecessors. The consequence was that the speaker, from this time,
joined the ranks of opposition, and loudly repeated their cries of
crown influence, abuse of prerogative, and rights of the people.
Being dissatisfied at not having his unjustifiable demands allowed,
he suddenly turned patriot, so that if he lost, the people might
congratulate themselves at having an advocate for once sitting in the
speaker’s chair of the house of commons.




DEBATES ON THE INCREASE OF CROWN INFLUENCE.

During the above debates county petitions were daily laid before the
house, and by the month of April the speaker’s table was almost buried
beneath them. They were ordered to be taken into consideration by a
committee of the whole house, and on the 6th of April a great public
meeting was held at Westminster, with the advice and concurrence of the
corresponding committee in the other parts of the kingdom, and with
the avowed intention of giving weight to these petitions. On the same
evening the house resolved itself into a committee, and Mr. Dunning
moved his celebrated resolution, “That the influence of the crown
had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished.” Dunning
remarked, that all the petitions agreed in one great fundamental point;
namely, that limits ought to be set to the alarming influence of the
crown, and to the expenditure of the public money by means of which that
influence had been obtained. He then exhibited, in a continued series,
the history and philosophy of constitutional law, and animadverted on
measures which endangered British rights and liberties in former years.
Afterwards he drew a highly-coloured and exaggerated picture of the
conduct of present ministers, and endeavoured to show that it tended
to produce similar mischiefs to those which had been produced by the
counsels of the House of Stuart. In particular, he criticised the
conduct of ministers with regard to Burke’s economical plan of reform,
which, he said, they were reducing to a nullity—to a thing naked and
shorn, and useless to the country; and he expressed a hope that the
people of England would resent the insults they had received from men
who added mockery and contempt to oppression and neglect. Those who
supported Dunning maintained that it was solely through the corrupt
influence of the crown that Lord North had retained his office so long;
that his sole occupation for years past had been to frame excuses and
expedients, in order to procure supplies from year to year; and that he
had neither method in his financial department, nor any comprehensive
scheme of any kind. The speaker, less convinced by the eloquent
pleadings of the petitions before him, than by his recent
disappointment, took part with the opposition. He insisted strongly
on the exorbitant power of the crown, and the increase of corrupt
influence; and contended, that it was the duty of the house to attend
to the demands of the petitioners. The effect which the arguments of the
opposition had upon the country gentlemen was so great that ministers
became alarmed. The lord-advocate of Scotland, Mr. Dundas, attempted
therefore to stifle inquiry, by moving, that the speaker do leave the
chair; and this failing, Lord North rose to defend his own conduct. He
spoke at considerable length, and in the course of his speech declared
that he was ready to retire from office whenever his sovereign and the
people desired it; adding, that if he had continued so long in office,
it was because the country had no faith in the wisdom and patriotism of
his opponents. His speech seemed to be lost to the members of the house,
and Mr. Dundas rose again to his rescue, proposing this time, as an
amendment to the original proposition, the prefix of the words, “That
it is now necessary to declare.” This was carried by a majority of
eighteen; and Mr. Dunning, pursuing his success, proposed and carried
a second proposition—namely, “That it was competent to the house to
examine into and to correct abuses in the expenditure of the civil list
revenues, as well as every other branch of the public revenue, whenever
it should seem expedient to that house.” A third motion, strongly
opposed to ministers, was also carried by Mr. Thomas Pitt, which set
forth “that it was the duty of the house to provide immediate and
effectual redress of the abuses complained of in the petitions.” Nor was
the minister permitted yet to retire to his peaceful slumber. Fox moved,
that the three resolutions should be immediately reported; and though
Lord North contended that this was unusual, violent, and arbitrary, the
resolutions and reports were severally reported and received, and were
agreed to and passed by the house without a division.

Elated by success, on the 10th of April, the committee being
reassembled, Mr. Dunning continued his attack. He moved, “That in order
to secure the independence of parliament and obviate all suspicion of
its purity, the proper officer should lay before the house, within seven
days after the meeting of parliament, every session, an account of all
monies paid out of the civil list, or any part of the public revenue,
to, or for the use of, or in trust for any member of parliament.” This,
though opposed by ministers, was carried; and Dunning then moved, “that
the persons holding the offices of treasurer of the chamber, treasurer
of the household, cofferer of the household, comptroller of the
household, master of the household, clerks of the green cloth and
their deputies, should be rendered incapable of sitting in the house
of commons.” This motion produced a long and earnest debate, but it was
carried by a majority of two, the numbers being two hundred and fifteen
against two hundred and thirteen. Thus far the opposition had been
triumphant: three days after, however, they were doomed to receive
a check. A bill, brought in by Mr. Crewe, for excluding all
revenue-officers from voting at elections of members of parliament, was
rejected by a considerable majority. Business was now interrupted for
ten days, by the sudden illness of the speaker; and when the house
reassembled the sentiments of members were found to have undergone a
change. On the 24th of April, Dunning moved for an address to the king,
deprecating “the dissolution or prorogation of parliament before proper
measures were adopted to fulfil the objects of the petitions.” This
motion, which was warmly and eloquently supported by the mover, and
Burke, and Fox, was rejected by a majority of fifty-one; the numbers
being two hundred and fifty-four against two hundred and three. Enraged
at this sudden and unexpected check, Mr. Fox rose to reprobate the
conduct of those members who had receded from the solemn engagements
into which they had so recently entered. A rude roar of voices was
raised to put him down, but Fox would not be silenced; and his friends
appealed to the chair to stop by its authority the disgraceful disorder.
Silence being imposed on every tongue in the house by the speaker, Fox
then delivered one of the severest philippics that was ever delivered
within the walls of the house of commons. The vote of that night, said
the impassioned orator, was scandalous, disgraceful, and treacherous:
it was impossible to contemplate without surprise and indignation, the
conduct of men, who, after resolving that the influence of the crown
was increased, and ought to be diminished—that the grievances of the
people ought to be redressed—and who had pledged themselves to that
house, the nation, and their constituents, to redress the grievances
complained of, now shamefully fled from their solemn engagement. It was
not against ministers and their friends that he lodged this complaint,
he remarked: it was against the men who sat on his side of the house,
and who had voted with him on the 6th of April. As for the ministerial
phalanx, he observed, he held them in the greatest contempt. They were
slaves of the worst kind, because they had sold themselves to work
mischief. Yet, base as they were, they had some virtues to pride
themselves on. They were faithful to their leader, consistent in their
conduct, and had not added to their other demerits the absurdity and
treachery of one day resolving an opinion to be true, and the next day
declaring it to be a falsehood. They had neither deceived their patrons,
their friends, nor their country with false hopes and delusive promises.
Dunning spoke after Fox, and declared that the division of that night
was decisive as to the petitions of the people: it amounted to a total
rejection of their general and ardent prayer, and that all hope of
obtaining redress for the people from that house was at an end. Lord
North replied in a long speech, in which he endeavoured to throw a
protecting shield over those who had subjected themselves to Fox’s
reproaches, and to show that Dunning’s fears were unfounded. The
resolutions of the 6th of April, he said, were still in existence, and
that other measures might be proposed on them in which those who did not
approve of the means of redress proposed this day might readily concur.
Opposition, however, were evidently of opinion that their cause was
lost. Yet, on the 19th of May, Sergeant Adair moved the withholding the
grant of any further supplies till the grievances of the people were
redressed; and this motion being negatived, a week later Dunning moved,
“that the two resolutions passed on the 10th of April, be reported.” A
motion, however, from the opposite side of the house, “that the chairman
leave the chair,” which amounted to a dissolution of the committee, was
carried by one hundred and seventy-seven to one hundred and thirty-four.

Such was the termination of one of the most critical struggles which had
occurred in the house of commons during the reign of George III. Out of
doors astonishment was expressed on the one hand at the encouragement
which Mr. Dunning’s motion received from a large party who had so warmly
taken up the American war; and on the other, at the sudden change
of sentiment which had taken place among many who had supported that
motion. By some historians this change is attributed to influence,
corruption, and treachery. The charge, however, is not well founded, for
none of these causes could have been at work when they quitted the ranks
of ministers to vote with opposition. It seems, therefore, rather to
have arisen from the peculiar temper of the times, and to the condition
in which the nation was placed at this period. The violence of
opposition, also, and their exultation on their triumphs may have had
their effects on the minds of the more sober-thinking members of the
house: they may have become convinced that the movements of the leaders
of opposition, so far from being adopted from a love of their country,
had their origin in that bad feeling of human nature—self-interest.




LORD NORTH’S PROPOSAL RESPECTING THE EAST INDIA COMPANY.

On the 23rd of March, Lord North informed the house that the East India
Company had made no satisfactory proposals for the renewal of their
charter, and he moved that the speaker should give them three years’
notice, as ordered by act of parliament, previous to the dissolution of
their monopoly; and that the sum of £4,200,000 due from the public to
the company should be paid on the 25th of April, 1783, agreeably to the
tenor of the said act. Fox inveighed against this measure, as tending to
deprive us of our East Indian as well as our American possessions; but
Lord North having represented that a new corporation might be formed, if
the company did not offer a fair bargain to the public, his motion was
carried without a division.




GENERAL CONWAY’S PLAN OF RECONCILIATION WITH AMERICA.

On the 5th of May, General Conway offered a plan of reconciliation with
the American provinces, by removing all just cause of complaint, without
acknowledging their independence. This plan, however, neither pleased
ministers nor the opposition, and it was rejected by passing to the
order of the day.

{GEORGE III. 1780–1781}




POPULAR RAGE AGAINST THE CATHOLICS; RIOTS IN LONDON, ETC.

It has been seen that during the session of the year 1778, that an act
was passed for relieving the Roman Catholics from some of the heavier
penalties inflicted upon them in the preceding century. This measure
did not extend to Scotland, but as the Papists in that country were more
oppressed than those in England, and as they had claims upon government
and the legislature of the United Kingdom, by their loyalty, &c., it was
contemplated by ministers that they should be admitted into the benefits
of the Repealing Act. The people of Scotland, however, were not so
liberal in sentiment on this subject as the people of England. A cry
that Popery was about to be re-established was heard throughout the
country; and the Presbyterian preachers made their pulpits ring with
warnings and comminations. Associations were formed in various parts of
the kingdom to oppose the contemplated concessions, and the votes and
resolutions of these associations being published in the newspapers,
they gave rise to the spirit of persecution. In the month of January,
1779, copies of the following letter were dropped in every part of the
city of Edinburgh:—“Men and brethren, whoever shall find this letter
will take it as a warning to meet at Leith Wynd, on Wednesday next, in
the evening, to pull down that pillar of Popery lately erected there.
Signed, A Protestant. P. S. Please to read this carefully, keep it clean
and drop it somewhere else. For king and country. Unity.” In a great
city, whatever mischief may be set on foot, there will always be found
too many volunteers to put it into effect. Thus it was at Edinburgh.
This summons was obeyed, and the pillar of Popery, which was the
habitation of a Catholic priest with a chapel attached to it, was
demolished. Similar scenes occurred in Blackfriars Wynd in Edinburgh,
and even the magistrates of that city partook in a great measure of the
mob-feeling. They failed to throw the shield of protection around those
who were persecuted; and although they finally allayed the popular
commotion, by telling the people that the bill for repealing the penal
statutes against Papists in Scotland was thrown aside, yet the spirit of
persecution was so rampant among them, that the objects of their hatred
were obliged to conceal themselves from their view. A similar spirit
was displayed at Glasgow, where the mob destroyed the property of a Mr.
Bagnal, who was suspected of Popery, and drove him and his family from
their houses. The popular violence in all parts of Scotland, indeed,
was of such a nature as to compel ministers to forego their intention
of bringing forth a bill for the relief of the Roman Catholics of that
country, until at least it should have somewhat subsided. But this
success of the Scotch associations and mobs, unfortunately led to a
similar display of the spirit of persecution in England.

It was thought by some who were adverse to the measure passed in 1778,
that by efforts equally vigorous on this side of the Tweed as on the
other, its total repeal might be procured. Accordingly, a Protestant
Association was formed, which, like the associations for economical
reforms, had its ramifications, its committees, and its correspondents
in all parts of England. The president of this association was Lord
George Gordon, brother of the Duke of Gordon, who had effectually aided
and abetted the riots in Scotland. Of all men in the world Lord George
Gordon was the most unfit to preside over a Protestant Association. He
was a member of parliament it is true, but he was chiefly remarkable
there for his eccentric habits, slovenly dress, and by a progressive
insanity, which on some occasions partook of the nature of oratorical
inspiration. He was, however, known to be firm in his hatred towards the
Papists, and adverse to any relief being afforded to them. Thus, in
May, 1779, when Burke presented his petition in favour of toleration,
he moved that it should be thrown over the table! At the same time, he
declared, that every man in Scotland, except a few Papists, was ripe for
insurrection, and would die rather than submit. After he was made head
of the Protestant Association his violence seems to have increased.
Thus, in the beginning of the present session, he declared that the
king was a Papist; and on one occasion he said that he would present
a petition long enough to reach from the speaker’s chair to the
centre window at Whitehall, out of which Charles I. had walked to his
execution! The grand aim of the Protestant Association was, indeed, to
get up a monster petition, in order to procure the repeal of the late
concessions to the Roman Catholics, This was the creature of Lord George
Gordon’s own brain. Having presented several anti-Catholic petitions
from the county of Kent, he made it his business to get up a similar
petition from the good citizens of London, which he considered might
have the effect of overawing ministers; and procuring the repeal of
the obnoxious act. Aided by the heads of the Protestant Association,
he canvassed the capital and the neighbourhood; and by his exertions he
quickly obtained 120,000 signatures to his petition. These signatures
were chiefly the handwriting or _marks_ of men of the lower orders of
society, and who were as far from being Protestants as they were from
being Papists. And this may also be asserted of many members of the
Protestant Association. Some well-meaning people may have enrolled their
names as members, but it is certain that for the most part they were men
regardless of the profession of religion. Moreover, it is clear that the
principles of the Protestant Association were rather of a political than
of a religious nature; or, at all events, it is certain that politics
mingled themselves in the question. There is no doubt, however, that
Lord George Gordon himself was a dangerous fanatic; the more so, because
his station in life gave him influence among the rude and ignorant
multitude. This was his character before he became president of
the Protestant Association, and it became still more evident as
his popularity increased. His inflammatory harangues were printed,
published, and scattered far and wide; and the people were told by him,
that if they were not content to run all hazards with him, they must
look out for another leader. After he had succeeded in getting up his
monster-petition he put them, indeed, to the test. In presenting it to
the house of commons, he said he expected to be backed by a host of
good Christians; and that he would not present it at all unless he was
attended by at least 20,000 men. Having made this declaration, Lord
George appointed St. George’s Fields as the place of meeting, and
pointed out the lines of march they were to pursue, in order to
concentrate in front of the houses of parliament. Their distinctive
badge was to be a blue cockade, and their cry, “No Popery!” The day
appointed for them to meet was on the 2nd of June, on which day Lord
George had previously informed the house that he meant to present a
petition, and to come down to the house with all those who had signed
it. Such a stouthearted champion could not be left in the field
alone; so accordingly on the day appointed some 60,000 petitioners and
associaters met according to his directions. They were divided into four
companies, one of them being entirely composed of Scotchmen; and after
a stirring harangue from Lord George, the several columns struck off
by different roads for Westminster. As they proceeded along they
were joined by all the knaves and cut-purses of London; and when they
assembled before the houses of parliament, and raised the long and loud
cry of “No Popery!” the members of the fraternity of thieves picked
every pocket into which they could insinuate their hands, and did all
they could to create a riot, which would turn to their own advantage.
Every avenue to the houses of parliament was blocked up, and as the
peers and members of the house of commons arrived, they were compelled
to join the cry of “No Popery!” or to submit to insult and ill
treatment. Some of the bishops had their gowns torn off their backs, or
were otherwise ill-treated; various temporal peers were treated with the
greatest indignity; while those members of the commons who were known to
have voted for the relief of the Papists, had to take their seats this
day minus their outer garments. All this time there was a deafening and
incessant roar of “Repeal the Bill!” “No Popery!” “Lord George Gordon!”
 When Lord George had been in the house some time the mob became more
bold. On a sudden they began to thunder at the doors to break them open.
Some members threatened Lord George with instant death if the sanctity
of the house should be violated by the mob he had collected; and it
is said that Mr. Henry Herbert followed him closely with that
determination, and that General Murray, a relation to the mad lord, held
his sword ready to pass it through him on the first irruption of the
mob. None, however, made their appearance; and when something like
order was restored, Lord George moved for bringing up and immediately
considering the petition. This was seconded by Alderman Bull, and the
first proposition was granted as a matter of course, but the second was
met by an amendment to put off the consideration for four days. This
gave rise to a discussion, during which Lord George went out several
times into the lobby and harangued the multitude, encouraging them to
persevere, inasmuch as terror would be sure to induce the king and his
ministers to grant the prayer of their petition. On his return into the
house, after one of these harangues, Colonel Holroyd took hold of his
lordship, saying, that hitherto he had imputed his conduct to madness,
but that he found there was more malice than madness in it; and that
if he proceeded to the lobby again, he would immediately move for his
commitment to Newgate. At the same time Holroyd called upon him to
remove the blue cockade from his hat. Lord George timidly obeyed the
order, and did not venture to go down into the lobby again; contenting
himself with addressing the mob from the gallery stairs; denouncing in
his harangues from thence the more Popishly inclined members of the
house. Their yells and menaces continued, but undeterred by them the
house adopted the amendment, six members only voting with Lord George.
By this time Mr. Addington, an active Middlesex magistrate, arrived
in Palace-yard, with a party of horse and foot guards, and induced the
multitude to disperse. But mischief was afloat. In the course of his
harangues in the lobby, Lord George had suggested that there was no
remedy for them till they had pulled down all the Popish chapels. This
was remembered; and as the multitude returned to their homes, the chapel
of the Bavarian minister, in Warwick-street, Golden-square; and
the chapel of the Sardinian ambassador, in Duke-street,
Lincoln’s-inn-fields, were burnt to the ground. The military were
ordered out and some rioters were apprehended, while the rest went home
to rest. The next day, Saturday, passed off quietly; but a discussion.
took place in the lords, in which some sentiments were uttered by
the Duke of Richmond and the Earl of Shelburne, on the subject of the
concessions made to the Roman Catholics by a Protestant government,
which were well calculated to rekindle the fanatic fire out of doors.
These observations arose out of a motion made by Lord Bathurst, who had
been roughly handled by the mob on Friday, for an address praying that
his majesty would give immediate orders for prosecuting, in the most
effectual manner, the authors, abettors, and instruments of the outrages
committed both in the vicinity of the houses of parliament and upon the
houses and chapels of the foreign ministers. This motion was agreed
to, and the peers returned home in safety to their mansions. Late
that night, however, or early on Sunday morning, a mob assembled in
Moorfields, where they did much mischief to the Catholics living in
that neighbourhood: a Popish chapel and several houses were pulled down.
The military were called out, but as the mob knew that they did not
dare fire without the command of the civil power, they were by no
means disturbed by their presence. They still continued their work of
destruction, while thieves and pick-pockets looked about for plunder.
Nothing was done on the Monday for preventing mischief, except the
issuing of a proclamation by a privy-council, offering a reward of £500
for those persons who had been concerned in destroying the Sardinian and
Bavarian chapels; and the mob, grown bold by impunity, continued their
devastations. One party stripped the house of Sir George Saville, in
Leicester-fields, of its furniture, and made a bonfire of it before the
door; another party regaled Lord George Gordon with a bonfire made of
materials brought from Catholic chapels and houses in Moorfields, which
they burnt before his house in Welbec-street; a third party went
to Virginia-lane, Wapping; and a fourth to Nightingale-lane, East
Smithfield, where they severally destroyed the Catholic chapels, and
committed other outrages. That night London was in the hands of the
mob, and fires were seen on every hand; while property to a large
amount changed owners. On Tuesday, which was the day appointed for the
consideration of the petition, the mob again concentrated before the
houses of parliament. Westminster-hall and the avenues to the house
were lined with military, horse and foot; but even this precaution was
insufficient to protect the members who were bold enough to attend to
their parliamentary duty from insult and outrage. Lord Sandwich was
dragged from his carriage, which was broken to pieces, and would have
been killed if he had not been rescued by a magistrate, at the head of
a small party of light-horse. At this time most of the rabble had oaken
sticks in their hands, as well as blue cockades in their hats; and some
had even banners, on which were inscribed their watchword, “No Popery!”
 This was also chalked on the carriages of all the lords and members
as they went down to the house. An attempt was made to disperse the
rioters, and as the crowd gave way, one of the ringleaders called upon
them to repair to the magistrate’s house who took the lead in dispersing
them, and this was soon pulled down. By this time the members of
the commons had taken into consideration the petition which was the
forerunner of all these riots. Lord George Gordon, who, dreading
the effects of his madness, had issued handbills in the name of the
Protestant Association, to disavow the riots, was in the house, and some
talk occurred about expelling him, and committing him to the Tower. All
that was done, however, was to agree to a resolution, “That when the
present tumults were subsided, they would take into consideration the
petitions from many of his majesty’s Protestant subjects.” This had been
no sooner done than dreadful news arrived from the city, and the
house adjourned in haste and confusion. The mob had proceeded from
St. Martin’s-street, where the house of the magistrate which they had
demolished was situate, to Newgate, declaring that they would release
their brother rioters. The prison was accordingly fired, and more
than three hundred ruffians were liberated, and joined in the work of
desolation. The houses of Sir John Fielding and Lord Mansfield were
the next objects of their attack; and the furniture, the books, the
paintings, the papers, and everything that was valuable therein were
destroyed. And here the true character of the mob displayed itself. It
is manifest, indeed, that none of the real members of the Association
took part in these outrages, but that they were committed by men
who cared more for a pot of good ale and a glass of gin than for the
Protestant interest. Hence, their first object, when they had
entered the houses of Sir John Fielding and Lord Mansfield, was the
wine-cellars. They drank till they were raving mad! It was in this state
that they were found by a detachment of foot-guards in and opposite the
house of Lord Mansfield. The officer who commanded them was requested to
enter the house with his men; but he replied, that the justices of the
peace had all run away; and that consequently it was impossible for the
military to act. The spirit of mischief, therefore, was permitted to
work at its pleasure. The new prison at Clerkenwell next shared the
fate of Newgate, and all the felons and other prisoners there let loose
upon society; their first impulse being to join the mob, to increase the
havock, and to plunder, burn, drink, and destroy. During the night many
houses were plundered or destroyed; the madness of the mob increasing at
every new success, by the liquors which they procured from the cellars.
A magistrate was at length found who would act, but it was then too
late, as drink had rendered the mob insensible to danger. A recent
writer remarks:—“During the time that was lost in seeking for a
magistrate who would act, the fury of the mob was increased to such
a pitch by the liquor they had drank, that, when the soldiers at last
fired, even the sight of their companions falling dead beside them
produced little or no effect.... It was when they were in this
state—careless of what befel them, and almost unconscious of what they
were doing, that the authorities, hitherto so patient, for the first
time determined to use force against them.... The scene here altogether
appears to have been terrific in the extreme. The violence and ferocity
of the ruffians, armed with sledge-hammers and other instruments
of destruction, who burst into the houses—the savage shouts of the
surrounding multitude—the wholesale desolation—the row of bonfires
blazing in the street, heaped with the contents of the sacked mansion,
with splendid furniture, books, pictures, and manuscripts which were
irreparable—the drunken wretches staggering or reeling against each
other, or rolling on the ground—the peeling of the musketry, followed
the next instant by the screams of the wounded and the dying, and the
roar of vengeance from ten thousand throats—soon after this, the fires
lighted in every room, and finally, the flames rushing upwards from
windows and roof in one magnificent conflagration:—all these may
well be conceived to have formed a picture, or rather a succession of
pictures, which thus exhibited under the dark sky of midnight, would
seem hardly of this world.” This has reference to a scene which occurred
at the house of Lord Mansfield, where some of the mob were still
collected, when a magistrate was found willing to act. But no force was
yet sufficient to quell the riot. On the following day the scenes which
took place were still more dreadful. The mob were completely triumphant,
and all householders who did not hang bits of blue silk out by way
of flags, and omitted to chalk the words “No Popery” on the doors and
shutters of their houses, were exposed to their vengeance. Some even
who were not Papists were this day plundered and ill-treated; all
distinctions being set aside by some of the rioters, which is another
evidence of the character of the mob. Some fellows marched through
the town extorting money from every one they met, whether Papist or
Protestant; and one ruffian, mounted on a horse, would take nothing
but gold. Other parties were employed in pulling down the prisons, and
before night not a prison was left standing, except the Poultry Compter.
An attack was made on the Bank of England by others, but here they
were repulsed by a strong body of soldiers, who killed many and wounded
others. But the great centre of mischief was Holborn. Here a Mr.
Langdale was doubly exposed as a Papist and as a great distiller. His
premises were fired, and everything was destroyed, except the liquors
which were drunk by the rioters; many of whom literally killed
themselves with drinking, while others too drunk to move out of the
reach of danger perished in the flames which their own hands had
kindled. A writer of the period says:—“Powder and ball do not seem to
have been so fatal to them as their own inordinate appetites. Numbers,
it is said, and at various places, died of inebriation; especially at
the distilleries of the unfortunate Mr. Langdale. In the streets men
were seen lying upon bulks and stalls and at the doors of empty houses,
drunk to a state of insensibility and to a contempt of danger; boys and
women were in the same condition, and many of the latter with infants
in their arms.” Men, women, and children were at one time seen on their
knees drinking ardent spirits, as they flowed down the kennel of the
street in Holborn. Thus maddened, who can wonder at the excesses which
followed? Thirty-six fires were seen on this night blazing in different
quarters of the great metropolis, and nothing but the serenity of the
night saved it from destruction. The panic was universal. Persons were
seen on every hand removing their goods, as none could tell but that
they might be destroyed by the merciless mob; or if a wind should
suddenly spring up, by the devouring element. At the same time the
dreadful reports of soldiers’ muskets were heard, mingled with the
terrific cries of the infuriated and countless rabble. None could
sleep in their beds on that night: the streets swarmed with people,
and uproar, confusion, and terror reigned on every hand. Some of the
citizens, however, possessing more nerve than others, formed themselves
into associations and acted with the soldiers. And wherever the troops
appeared there was nothing like a determined resistance made by the
rabble. Thus, at Blackfriars-bridge, where the mob had set fire to the
toll-gates, they were driven away like a scared flock of sheep by
the soldiers, and some even threw themselves over the bridge into the
Thames, in order to escape from the fire of their muskets. The only
place in the morning where the mob was not dispersed was in the
neighbourhood of the Fleet-prison, which was still in flames; and when
the soldiers charged their muskets right into the crowd they fled in all
directions. In the course of Thursday various encounters took place, and
some lives were lost; but before night the rabble had melted away, and
tranquillity was restored. Men had wondered whence the rabble came, and
now they wondered whither they could be gone. The return of killed made
to Lord Amherst, commander-in-chief, amounted to two hundred and ten,
and of wounded to two hundred and forty-eight, but many had been removed
by their friends, so that the exact number could not be ascertained:
moreover, it could never be known how many perished from drinking ardent
and unrectified spirits, and in the flames, from which inebriety made
it impossible for them to escape.




MEASURES ADOPTED BY PARLIAMENT, ARISING OUT OF THE LONDON RIOTS.

The house of commons met on Friday, the 9th of June, but as Westminster
was thronged with troops, and the capital had the appearance of being
under martial-law, the members adjourned till the 19th. On that day his
majesty met both houses, and exhibited a general view of the measures
which had been employed during the suspension of regular government. In
his speech he stated that he had directed copies of the proclamations
which had been issued to be laid before parliament; and he concluded
by declaring that it was his first duty and chief glory to maintain and
preserve the established religion. The common danger seems to have had
the effect of procuring a greater unanimity in both houses than had
been exhibited for many years before. Addresses were carried without
opposition; though some members blamed ministers for negligence and
delay, and for not employing the troops sooner. A question was moved in
the lords respecting the legality of military interference; which point
was accurately examined and constitutionally settled by Lord Mansfield.
His lordship said that the late riots amounted to overt acts of
high-treason, and were besides accompanied with felonies, as the burning
of houses, property, &c., all of which was sufficient legal ground
for the king’s proclamation calling out the military. Under such
circumstances he said, the military must act with and under the civil
power, and that if the soldiers exceeded the powers with which they were
invested, they must be tried and punished, not by martial law, but
by the laws of the realm. This being the law, he added, it was an
ill-founded apprehension that the metropolis was under martial-law, or
that the military had more power since the riots than before. The noble
lord made one allusion to his own serious losses, which greatly affected
all the peers present. He had been obliged, he said, to form his
opinions without the aid of books; adding, “indeed I have now no books
to consult.” On the following day the house of commons having resolved
itself into a committee upon the petitions for repealing Sir George
Saville’s tolerating act, which had been made an occasion of so
much mischief, adopted five resolutions, on the motion of Mr. Burke,
expressing satisfaction in the law as it now-existed, together with an
abhorrence of the late tumults, and of the misrepresentations which led
to them. Many members, however, thought it necessary to do something to
quiet the minds of the petitioners and remove the dread of Popery; and
a bill was brought in to deprive Roman Catholics of the right of keeping
schools in which there were any Protestant scholars. This bill passed in
the commons, but it was rejected by the lords, as carried by the fear
of popular outrage, and therefore derogatory to the dignity and
independence of parliament. All signs of popular rage had now, however,
disappeared; and government had evidently derived an accession of
strength out of doors as well as within the walls of parliament. The
minds of the public had become impressed with the danger arising from
popular assemblies for political purposes; and the associations of
reform were therefore deserted by members who had hitherto supported
them. Men found that it was easy to raise the storm of human passion by
exciting language; but that it was the most difficult thing in the world
to allay it when once lashed into fury.

[Illustration: 147.jpg PORTRAIT OF LORD RODNEY]




PARLIAMENT PROROGUED.

Parliament was prorogued on the 8th of July. In his speech the king
dwelt at some length on the recent riots, and thanked parliament
for their magnanimity and perseverance for prosecuting the “just and
necessary war,” in which the country was engaged. Their exertions, he
said, had been attended with success by sea and land, and he trusted
that the late important and prosperous turn of affairs in North America
would lead to the return of loyalty in the colonists to his person, and
to their re-union with their mother-country. The events of the war
by this time had given some ground of hope, but in the end it proved
illusory.




TRIAL OF LORD GEORGE GORDON AND THE RIOTERS.

Immediately after the riots had subsided, Lord George Gordon was
apprehended upon a warrant from the secretary of state, and after
a brief examination before several lords of the privy council, was
committed to the Tower on a charge of high-treason. While he was immured
within the walls of his prison, during the month of July, the vengeance
of the law fell upon those of the rioters which had been captured
in then lawless depredations. No less than fifty-nine were capitally
convicted, and twenty were executed: the rest were transported for life.
Lord George was not tried till the month of January, 1781, when he
was acquitted; his counsel showing that he was insane, and the jury
conceiving that his case did not amount to high-treason. He afterwards
gave undoubted proof of his insanity by turning Jew! Finally, he died
in Newgate, where he was imprisoned for various libels on foreign
potentates.




ADMIRAL RODNEY’S SUCCESS AGAINST THE SPANIARDS.

The opening of this year added to the naval renown of England. As the
Spanish persevered in their siege of Gibraltar, and as their treaty
with the Barbary States stopped the supplies of provisions, the garrison
began to feel the effects of famine, and it was necessary to send them
supplies from England. Admiral Rodney, who had recently been appointed
to the chief command in the West Indies, was therefore ordered to
relieve Gibraltar on his way thither. He had only been a few days at sea
when he fell in with a rich Spanish convoy, going from St. Sebastian to
Cadiz, and consisting of fifteen merchantmen, four frigates, and three
armed vessels; one being a fine new ship of sixty-four guns. These were
all captured, and while he took those with him which were laden with
wheat, flour, and other provisions, the rest were sent to England.
It was expected by the Bourbon cabinets that Rodney would leave his
transports in a certain latitude, to make their own way to Gibraltar,
and accordingly they ordered Admiral Don Juan de Langara to proceed,
with eleven men of war and two frigates, to intercept the supply.
Rodney, however, accompanied the transports, and on the 16th of January
he encountered the Spanish admiral near Cape St. Vincent. The Don, when
he discovered the superior force of the English, endeavoured to make his
escape, but Rodney got between him and the shore, and compelled him to
engage. The action commenced in the midst of a rough gale, at four in
the afternoon, and in the first hour of the engagement a Spanish ship
of the line blew up, and all on board perished. At six in the evening
another struck her colours, and by two the next morning the Phoenix of
eighty guns, the Spanish admiral’s own ship, and three of seventy guns
each were taken and secured. Two more, of seventy guns each, struck
their colours, but were driven on shore by the violence of the tempest
and lost. The rest of the squadron escaped in a shattered condition to
Cadiz. Rodney now proceeded triumphantly to the relief of Gibraltar, and
after lying there for some weeks, he proceeded with a part of his fleet
to the West Indies, while the remainder, under the command of Admiral
Digby, returned to the Channel. On his way home, Digby captured a French
ship of the line, and two or three vessels laden with military stores.
These successes raised the spirit of the nation, and the name of Rodney
especially filled every breast with hope and confidence. The very
ministers began to look upon him as the main stay of their power; well
knowing that his success would silence the clamours which had so long
been raised against them on the ground of incompetency.

{GEORGE III. 1780–1781}




ARMED NEUTRALITY.

The high hopes entertained by the people of England were soon doomed
to be modified by the prospect of new enemies, some of whom were more
powerful than those already arrayed against their country. At this
time a strong combination was formed against England by several powers
constituting what is called in history “The Armed Neutrality.” The
Spanish cabinet claimed the merit of this system; but it would rather
appear to have originated with the court of Petersburg, which had been
regarded by the ministers as their best ally in this momentous crisis.
In consequence of the large shipments of ammunition, and other materials
of war, made to the colonies of America by neutral states, England had,
from the commencement of the war, exercised the right of stopping and
searching all neutral vessels wherever they could be found. England also
had acted upon another established principle; namely, that a neutral
flag could not cover or protect the cargoes and property of a state
with which she was at war, and her cruizers had therefore stopped many
vessels having French and American property on board. This, however,
involved her in many quarrels with neutral powers, and Russia,
Prussia, Denmark, Holland, Sweden, etc. entered into a league, pledging
themselves to maintain the principle, “that free ships make free goods,
with the exception of arms and munitions of war.” About this time, also,
the native powers of India entered into a formidable coalition, under
French influence, for driving the British from their territories.
England had, therefore, almost the whole world arrayed in arms against
her, or entertaining hostile intentions towards her, while within her
own bosom she was destined to suffer from faction. Never, indeed, was
there a period in her history when she so much needed the unanimity and
undivided strength of her brave family.




RODNEY ENGAGES THE FRENCH FLEET.

Admiral Rodney arrived at St. Lucie, in the West Indies, on the 27th of
March. Here he joined Admiral Hyde Parker, and his fleet then consisted
of twenty-two sail of the line and six frigates. Parker had been menaced
for several days by the French Admiral de Guichen, who had only quitted
that water a few hours before Rodney’s arrival. Admiral de Guichen
retired to Fort Royal Bay, Martinique, and on the 2nd of April Rodney
appeared off that fort, and offered him battle. Finding that the
challenge would not be accepted, Rodney, after two days, returned to
St, Lucie, leaving some fast-sailing vessels to watch the motions of
the French. On the night of the 15th de Guichen put to sea, and Rodney,
warned of the fact, went in search of him with twenty sail of the line.
The two fleets came in contact on the 17th, and Rodney threw out his
signal for every ship to bear down and attack the rear of the French
as closely as they could, in order to break their line, and fight their
detached ships. The spirit of political party, however, reigned in the
fleet, and his signal was not obeyed as it ought to have been, several
ships continuing at a cautious distance from the enemy. In the meantime,
Rodney in the Sandwich came to close quarters with the French, and
having beaten de Guichen’s own ship fairly out of the line, and
compelled two others to bear away, he succeeded in separating his
enemy’s fleet into two unequal parts. He was, however, only aided by
five or six captains, and the French were allowed time to haul off after
their admiral and reform their line; after which de Guichen stood away
with the whole fleet under a press of sail, in order to make his escape.
The great distance between the British van and rear, and the crippled
state of his own ship, prevented Rodney from following; and he was
thus stopped short in the career of victory. One of the delinquent
captains—Bateman, of the Yarmouth—whose disobedience was more
notorious than the rest, was put under arrest, tried by a court-martial,
and dismissed the service. This example had the effect of restoring
discipline, and Rodney again sought the enemy. On the 20th he again got
sight of the French admiral, whose object was to make Fort Royal Bay in
Martinique, in order to repair his ships. Rodney cut him off from this
port, and de Guichen took shelter under Guadaloupe; when the British
fleet returned to St. Lucie to refit and to land the wounded. The
hostile fleets again came in sight of each other on the 10th of May,
between St. Lucie and Martinique. But it was in vain that Rodney sought
to bring the French admiral to an engagement; and the latter having
at length got into the long-desired harbour of Fort Royal, the British
fleet ran into Barbadoes. At this time the Spanish fleet was expected
to join the French; and though Rodney soon sailed from Barbadoes in
order to prevent the junction, the cautious Spanish admiral, Don Joseph
Solano, contrived to elude his vigilance, and to unite his fleet,
consisting of twelve sail of the line, several frigates, and a swarm of
transports, with that of de Guichen. Before their united force Rodney
was obliged to retire; and he retreated with the sad conviction that the
enemy was strong-enough to capture every British island in those seas.
The storm, however, which seemed to threaten these islands blew
over without pouring its fury upon one of them. The Spaniards had so
over-crowded their transports with men, that a terrible sickness broke
out among them, destroying first its scores, and then its hundreds
daily. The pestilence extended its ravages to the French fleet; and
in order to check it, it was agreed to land the troops and part of
the seamen at Martinique. Its ravages were arrested; but while at
Martinique, hostilities broke out between the French and the Spaniards,
and the two commanders could not agree as to the line of operations to
be pursued. Their combined fleets set sail again on the 5th of July, and
directed their course to St. Domingo, where they separated; de Guichen
returning to Europe with the homeward-bound convoy from the French sugar
islands, and Solano proceeding to the Havanah, to assist in the military
operations which the Spaniards were carrying on in Florida. All these
circumstances saved Jamaica and the other islands in the West Indies;
and conscious that they were safe, after detaching a part of his force
to Jamaica, Rodney set sail for New York.




EXPEDITION AGAINST SOUTH CAROLINA.

While Rodney was bravely supporting the honour of the British flag on
the ocean, the British arms were equally successful on the continent.
During the last days of December, Sir Henry Clinton, leaving New York
under the care of General Knyphausen, sailed away from Sandy Hook for
Charlestown in South Carolina. The ships in which he sailed, however,
were driven from their course by a long and terrible storm, so that it
was not till the 11th of February that he was enabled to disembark on
John’s Island, about thirty miles from Charlestown. Other delays took
place; and it was the 29th of March when Clinton’s army crossed Ashby
River and landed on Charlestown-neck. Ground was broken in front of the
American lines on the 11th of April; but as these lines were formidable,
it was evident that some time must elapse before the town could be
taken. Thus the Americans had built a chain of redoubts, lines, and
batteries right across the peninusular, from Ashby River to Cooper
River, on which were mounted eighty cannons and mortars; they had dug a
deep canal in front of this line, which was filled with water, and had
thrown two rows of abattis, and made a double picketed ditch; in the
centre of their works they had erected a kind of citadel, which was
bomb-proof; they had erected numerous batteries on the waterside, to
prevent the approach of ships; and they had raised a bar or sand-bank,
that rendered the approach of our largest ships of war impracticable,
and of the smaller craft difficult and dangerous. Within the bar,
however, there was a place called Five Fathom Hole, with a sufficient
depth of water to float second-rate ships; and here nine American ships
were moored, under the American commodore Whipple. Behind the bar and
Whipple’s squadron there was Fort Moultrie, upon Sullivan’s Island,
which was now much stronger than when, in a previous year, it repulsed
Clinton, and cut up Sir Peter Parker’s squadron. Such were the
formidable obstacles which Clinton had to surmount before he could hope
to capture Charlestown; and, moreover, within the town was the American
General Lincoln, at the head of about 7000 men. It was necessary
first to take possession of Five Fathom Hole; and accordingly Admiral
Arbuthnot, who had escorted Clinton to Charlestown, made the attempt.
The American commodore retired before Arbuthnot to Sullivan Island, and
then the English were permitted to pass the bar at their leisure. This
was effected with great labour, and on the 9th of April Arbuthnot was
in full possession of the harbour. Soon after Clinton finished his first
parallel, and began to erect his batteries; and then Arbuthnot sailed,
passed Fort Moultrie under a heavy fire, and anchoring just without
range of the shot from the town batteries, summoned Lincoln to
surrender. The American general having replied that he would defend the
place to the last extremity, the English batteries were opened, and they
soon made a visible impression. In the meantime Clinton detached Colonel
Tarleton against Lincoln’s cavalry, which were placed outside the lines
in order to keep the country open beyond Cooper Hiver. Tarleton was
successful: the cavalry were surprised at a place called Biggin’s
Bridge, and completely routed, leaving behind them all their stores,
camp-equipage, and baggage, with some two or three hundred horses. By
this victory a passage was opened across the head of Cooper River, and
a detachment was sent under the command of Earl Cornwallis to scour
the country beyond that river. All supplies were thus cut off from
Charlestown, as well as all hope of retreat for Lincoln and his
garrison. A council of war was called, and Lincoln offered to surrender
upon certain conditions; but as Clinton considered them too favourable,
they were rejected. The British now continued their approaches; a second
parallel was completed by the 20th of April, and a third by the 6th
of May. On this latter day the garrison of Fort Moultrie, on Sullivan
Island, surrendered to Captain Hudson of the navy; and on the same day
the broken remains of Lincoln’s cavalry, which had been recollected,
were again routed by Tarleton. Clinton’s third parallel was erected
close to the canal; and this canal was drained by means of another
excavation. Consternation and despair seized upon the inhabitants of
the town, but still Lincoln and the garrison resolved to hold out.
Hostilities were recommenced with additional fury, and an incessant fire
was kept up for two days, in the midst of which the besiegers advanced
to the very ditch, and drove the Americans from several of their guns.
At length, at the prayer of the terrified inhabitants, Lincoln resolved
to accept the terms which Clinton had offered before the last assault.
A flag of truce was sent out by him, and Clinton instantly signed the
capitulation. Between 6000 and 7000 men, consisting of regular troops,
militia, and sailors became prisoners of war; and four hundred pieces
of ordnance, and a large quantity of naval stores fell into the hands of
the victors. The garrison were allowed some of the honours of war:
they were to march out and deposit their arms between the canal and
the lines; but the drums were not to beat a British march, nor were the
colours to be reversed. The militia were to return home upon parole,
and the citizens were to be considered prisoners on parole; but their
property was to be respected so long as they kept their word. As for
the officers of both army and navy they were to retain their swords,
pistols, servants, and baggage, the latter of which was not to be
searched. The town was taken possession of by the British on the 12th of
May; and General Clinton set on foot several expeditions, calculated to
extinguish every idea of resistance in the interior of the province. At
the same time he issued proclamations for the purpose of conciliating
the inhabitants. These measures seemed to produce the desired effect.
The only body of troops that still held out was defeated by Colonel
Tarleton, and the people in every part of South Carolina seemed to
submit to King George. In this happy state of affairs, Clinton, on the
5th of June, embarked for New York, leaving Lord Cornwallis behind him
with 4000 men, to maintain the acquisition, and to penetrate into
North Carolina, so soon as the intense heat of the season and other
circumstances should admit of such an enterprise.




BATTLE OF CAMDEN, ETC.

The loyalty of the people of South Carolina was like a morning cloud; it
soon passed away. It was not long before they began to manifest a change
of disposition. Those who had accepted protection, because they
could not help themselves, manifested their antipathy to the British
government; while those who were in heart favourable to the cause of
King George, were indignant at seeing the disloyal part of the community
enjoying immunities and advantages, which they would employ against the
English on the first opportunity. The disaffected were encouraged by the
hope of speedy aid from Virginia and by congress, who were resolved to
make the most strenuous efforts to recover South Carolina. At length,
therefore, treachery began openly to show itself. One Lisle, who had
taken the oath of allegiance, and obtained rank and command, went over
to the republicans with a battalion of militia, well equipped with arms
and ammunition. A similar instance of treachery also occurred in another
part of the province, where a colonel of militia, who was entrusted with
the escort of some sick and wounded soldiers, carried them into North
Carolina, and gave them up to Baron de Kalb, a German, who was at the
head of some regular troops, and of 3000 militia. Kalb was appointed
to drive the royalists out of the country in North Carolina, and to
encourage the disaffected in South Carolina. He was soon joined by
General Gates, whom congress sent to take the supreme command of
the American forces. On his arrival, Gates having 6000 men under his
command, prepared at once to drive the British from their line of posts
across the state of South Carolina, and carry the war up to the very
walls of Charlestown. Intelligence of these preparations induced Lord
Cornwallis to repair to Camden, though his effective force did not
exceed 2000 men. After some skirmishing, and two attacks on detached
positions, conducted by Colonel Sumter, and both unsuccessful, Gates
moved forward to Camden, in the full assurance of victory. Having
received intelligence of this, Lord Cornwallis, instead of retreating or
waiting to receive Gates, set out in the dead of the night to meet him.
The advanced parties met in the woods at two o’clock in the morning, and
a Maryland regiment was defeated; but after this temporary conflict
both armies betook themselves to rest, and waited for the morning light.
When the morning dawned, Cornwallis discovered that the ground which
he occupied was exceedingly favourable for an action; his flanks being
secured by two swamps, which narrowed the ground in his front by which
Gates must advance. He formed in two lines: the first consisting of
two divisions under Lord Rawdon and Colonel Webster, and the second
consisting of the seventy-first regiment, and some squadrons of horse
under his Own command. The arrangement of the enemy was similar; but
Gates made some disposition on the left, as if intending to change
his position, and Lord Cornwallis seizing the critical moment, ordered
Webster to advance and charge the enemy on their left. This division was
chiefly composed of Virginia militia, and as Webster advanced they threw
down their loaded muskets and fled from the field. Their example was
soon followed by the North Carolina division, which formed the centre
of Gates’s army. Gates now brought up his second line, or reserve, and
endeavoured to rally his militia. It was all in vain; the reserve corps
were utterly routed, and the militiamen ran for their lives into the
woods. Gates, aware that all was lost, fled with a few friends to
Charlotte, about eighty miles off; and in this battle he lost nearly
nine hundred slain, among whom was Baron de Kalb, and about 1000 were
taken prisoners, he also lost all his baggage and camp-equipage, many
stands of colours, seven pieces of cannon, and one hundred and fifty
waggons, containing a large quantity of military stores and provisions.
The English lost about three hundred and fifty men in killed and
wounded, nearly all belonging to the regiment under Webster, and the
Irish volunteers under Lord Rawdon, who had borne the chief weight of
the action. This victory was followed by another. At this time Colonel
Sumter was on the other side of the Wateree, with the intention of
striking into the heart of South Carolina, and Tarleton, with some
cavalry and mounted infantry, was dispatched against him. Sumter, warned
of Gates’s disaster, had already began a retreat towards North Carolina,
when he was overtaken by Tarleton near the Catawba Fords, where his
corps were almost annihilated. He lost one hundred and fifty men killed,
three hundred prisoners, and an immense quantity of arms and military
stores: two hundred and fifty British prisoners were also recaptured.
Thus victorious, Lord Cornwallis again sent emissaries into North
Carolina, to assure the royalists there, that he would march into their
country as soon as he received necessary supplies from Charlestown. In
the meantime, as lenity had not disarmed the hostility of the disloyal,
he gave some examples of severity. He sequestered the estates of all
those who had broken their parole or their oath, and who had left the
province; denounced death against those who, after receiving British
protection, should desert; and executed some of the South Carolina
militia, whom he had taken in arms near Camden, with British protection
in their pockets. Cornwallis then marched into North Carolina, and he
took possession of Charlottetown; but hearing of the defeat of a body
of loyal militia, under Major Ferguson, who were attacked at King’s
Mountain by 1000 backwoodsmen, he retreated to South Carolina, and
deferred the prosecution of his enterprise till reinforcements should
arrive from New York. He took up a position between Camden and the
district of Ninety-Six, where he waited for the arrival of General
Leslie, who had been detached by Sir Henry Clinton to penetrate into
Virginia, in order to co-operate with Cornwallis. Leslie was afterwards
ordered round by sea to Charlestown; and while Cornwallis was waiting
for him, Tarleton with his flying column drove back an enterprising
partizan, named Marion, and again defeated his old adversary, Sumter.
Meanwhile congress, though greatly dejected by these reverses,
had appointed General Greene to supersede Gates, Greene arrived at
Charlottetown on the 2nd of December; but he found himself in no
condition to advance into South Carolina; and as Cornwallis had not yet
been reinforced, no further events transpired in the south during this
campaign.




AFFAIRS AT NEW YORK.

On the side of New York, during this year, a variety of petty
enterprises were undertaken. While Sir Henry Clinton was absent,
Knyphausen was at first occupied in making preparations for the defence
of that city? for, by the extreme severity of the winter, New York
was deprived of that natural defence which arises from its insular
situation. The Hudson, called the North River, was so completely covered
with thick ice that a large army, with heavy artillery and baggage,
might have crossed it with ease, and by that means have approached the
very walls of the city. Knyphausen expected that Washington would
avail himself of this circumstance to attack with his whole force,
and therefore he adopted judicious measures for the city’s protection.
Washington, however, was not in a condition to attempt anything so bold
and important. His army had been weakened by draughts made upon it for
the service of the south; he had scarcely any provisions or clothing for
his men in the camp; and not only discontent but open mutiny had begun
to manifest itself. Hence Knyphausen was secure from danger, though,
in the month of January, Washington detached Lord Stirling to Staten
Island, to act on the offensive. Stirling crossed over the ice from the
Jersey shore, surprised a small post, and took some prisoners; but he
was obliged to quit the island, and in his retreat lost some of his
own men, who served to exchange for the prisoners he had taken. This
expedition was followed by another on the part of the British, to drive
the Americans from a post at Young’s House, in the neighbourhood of
the White Plains, which was attended with greater success. The post
was stormed and carried; forty of the enemy were killed, and about one
hundred taken prisoners. Nothing further was attempted by Knyphausen
during the continuance of the frost; but in the month of June,
encouraged by the weakness and distress which still prevailed in
Washington’s camp, he detached a considerable force, under Brigadiers
Mathew and Stirling, to make an attempt to re-establish the ancient
government in New Jersey. Mathew and Stirling marched up the country
towards Springfield, but they were disappointed in their expectation of
the people joining them, and were obliged to retreat to Elizabethtown.
A few days after this Sir Henry Clinton arrived from Charlestown, and
though he did not approve of the movement which Knyphausen had ordered,
as the soldiers were at Elizabethtown, and as Washington had come down
to the hills near Springfield to protect the Jerseys, he resolved to
attempt to bring him to action. Mistaking some of the movements made by
the British, Washington marched towards Pompton to defend West Point,
and in his absence Sir Henry Clinton defeated General Greene, who was
left at Springfield for its protection, and reduced the town to ashes.
Washington, however, could not be brought to action, and Clinton,
expecting the arrival of the French armament, returned in haste to New
York. In the meantime, Lafayette, who had returned to France to quicken
the exertions of his countrymen, presented himself in the American camp,
with a promise from his sovereign of speedy assistance. Encouraged by
this promise, congress, who had recently neglected Washington’s army,
probably from the feelings of despair, made an extraordinary effort to
give his troops some appearance of respectability before the arrival of
their French allies. These allies arrived in July at Rhode Island, and
they amounted to 6000 veteran troops. They were commanded by the Count
de Rochambeau, an experienced officer, who had fought in the battle of
Minden; but in order to obviate all quarrels about rank and precedence,
Washington received a commission from the French monarch, appointing
him lieutenant-general in the French armies, and investing him with
the chief command in America. No precaution, however, could prevent the
French and Americans from quarrelling with each other. The Americans
complained that the French had come too late in the season to do any
good, and the French complained, that on their arrival the American army
were not ready to co-operate. Washington suggested an immediate attack
upon New York; but this could not be attempted without a decided
superiority at sea, and before any thing could be done, the arrival of
Admiral Graves at Sanely Hook gave the superiority to the British. This
determined Sir Henry Clinton to act upon the offensive. The French fleet
which had brought the troops from France lay at Newport, and Sir Henry
proposed to Admiral Arbuthnot a plan for attacking this fleet, while the
troops proceeded up to the Sound to co-operate by land. Hoping to meet
the enemy at sea, Arbuthnot deferred his co-operation till the enemy
had strongly fortified their position, and then it was too late.
Clinton proceeded with 8000 men to Huntingdon Bay, on Long Island; but
Washington, having received reinforcements, crossed the North River, and
rapidly advancing towards Kingsbridge, put a stop to their enterprise.




TREASON OF ARNOLD, AND FATE OF MAJOR ANDRE.

It had been expected by the French and American commanders that they
would soon be joined by de Guichen, with a land-force and twenty ships
of the line from the West Indies. Had their expectations been realized,
it was resolved to attack New York in every direction, with irresistible
fury. About this time however, intelligence arrived of de Guichen’s
departure for Europe, and of the consequent naval superiority of the
British. Thus frustrated in their designs, Washington and Rochambeau
held a meeting midway between their respective camps, to concert new
measures. While Washington was absent upon this service, General Arnold,
who commanded a considerable body of troops at West Point, on the New
River, and who had recently entered into a secret correspondence with
Sir Henry Clinton for delivering up that important post to the British,
requested that a confidential person might be sent to him, in order
to adjust the business, and to carry it into effect without delay. The
officer charged with this commission was Major André, a young man
of spirit and undaunted courage, and in whom General Clinton reposed
unlimited confidence. Major Andre had a secret interview with Arnold,
and matters were arranged by them for the defection, but as he was
returning in disguise he was taken by three men of the New York
militia, and on examination the papers found upon him discovered all the
particulars of the conspiracy. By some means or other—but how is not
sufficiently clear—Arnold received intelligence of Andre’s capture in
time to make his escape to New York, where, on his arrival, he received
the commission of a brigadier-general in the British service. Major
André had hitherto passed himself off as one John Anderson, but when
he found that Arnold was safe, he announced his name and rank; and
with more anxiety for his military honour than for his life, he wrote
a letter to Washington, to secure himself from the imputation of
having assumed the character of a spy for treacherous purposes or
self-interest. His letter concluded with expressions of confidence
in the generosity of Washington’s mind; but he soon found that his
confidence was misplaced; that Washington was an implacable judge. A
board of general officers was appointed to inquire into his case, and
notwithstanding the solicitations and menaces of Sir Henry Clinton, who
anxiously sought to save him, he was condemned to die an ignominious
death. He died on a gibbet on the 2nd of October! His death is one of
the blackest stains on the character of Washington; for his obduracy
alone prevented the mitigation of the punishment. In vain was it
represented to him that Sir Henry Clinton, and his predecessor Sir
William Howe, had never put to death any person for a breach of the
rules of war: in vain was it shown that Captain Robinson of the American
army, who had been taken as a spy by the British, had recently been
exchanged as a prisoner of war; and in vain did Arnold, through whose
plots he had been captured, plead by letter for his life—Washington was
obdurate still, and left his victim to perish by the hands of the common
hangman! And yet this obdurate commander-in-chief of the Americans
professed to commiserate his victim’s fate; and applauded the fortitude
with which he met his death: but so did others of the American generals,
and yet all the while kept twisting the rope that was to hang him! The
same may be said of Lafayette. He also praised his courage, frankness,
and delicacy, and “lamented his fate,” and yet did nothing to avert
his doom. How much more nobly did Sir Henry Clinton act on this trying
occasion. Although he had yet many Americans in his power, and although
he had held out a threat that if André should perish, they should perish
likewise, yet no reprisals were made; not one in his power was condemned
by a military tribunal for their flagrant, and in some instances
repeated breaches of the rules of war. Yet Washington seems to have
considered that he had only acted in the character of a just judge.
He could imagine that Arnold was undergoing “the torments of a mental
hell,” for the part he had acted in this transaction, but he felt no
compunction for his own unjust and uncalled-for severity—he could see
the mote in Arnold’s eye, but could not discover the beam which was in
his own. As regards Arnold he was probably correct. After the death
of André that renegade issued addresses to the Americans, but he was
scorned and unheeded; and he was employed during the remainder of
the war, but he was shunned by the British officers, and although the
British soldiers on guard were bound to salute his uniform and respect
his rank, yet they whispered as he passed along, “There goes the traitor
Arnold!” The death of André is the last recorded act in this campaign.
All the belligerents went early into winter-quarters; and with the
exception of a few foraging expeditions, Clinton’s army remained at New
York and its dependencies during winter doing nothing; while Washington
continued to occupy his old station on the high lands above the Hudson,
and the French troops under Rochambeau, staid at Rhode Island, all
being equally inactive. About the same time that the troops went into
winter-quarters. Admiral Rodney left the American shores, and returned
to his old station in the West Indies.

{GEORGE III. 1780–1781}




MARITIME LOSSES SUSTAINED BY THE BRITISH.

In the European seas British commerce suffered some blows during this
year, which spread a gloom over the whole nation. Admiral Geary, who on
the death of Sir Charles Hardy in May, had been appointed to the command
of the fleet in the Channel, captured, in the beginning of July,
twelve French merchantmen from Port-au-Prince; but while he proceeded
southward, in hopes of falling in with a detached squadron of French and
Spanish ships, of which he had received intelligence, and was cruizing
off Cape Finisterre, a rich convoy for the East and West Indies,
attended by the Ramillies and two frigates, were intercepted by the
combined fleets of the enemy, and nearly fifty merchant ships were
captured and carried into Cadiz. Many of these ships were laden with
naval and military stores for the different settlements to which they
were destined; and the loss of these, together with that of 3000 men
taken prisoners on board, so increased public dissatisfaction at the
mode of employing the Channel-fleet, that Geary soon afterwards resigned
the command. But this was not the only disaster which the English met
with on the seas during this year. About the same time, fourteen
ships of the outward-bound Quebec fleet were captured by some American
privateers off the banks of Newfoundland. These concurrent losses,
in their nearer or more remote consequences, affected all classes of
society.




WAR WITH HOLLAND.

It has been seen that Holland was one of those states which entered into
the league called “The Armed Neutrality.” From the very commencement
of the American war, the Dutch had secretely favoured the cause of the
colonists; or at least had sought a commercial advantage in supplying
some of their wants at the expense of the commerce and interests of
England. Then again, after the interference of France and Spain in the
quarrel, the ports of Holland were open equally to all the enemies of
Great Britain; the advantages of a contraband trade making the Dutch
regardless of the faith of treaties, and of every other consideration.
Remonstrances were made on this subject by the British ambassador at the
Hague, but without effect. The States General were determined to follow
their own line of policy, and the breach thus made between the two
countries gradually widened as the war with America progressed. It was
easy to foresee, indeed, that sooner or later Holland would be joined
to the long list of our open enemies. An event which occurred early
in September of this year, led to such a consummation. At that time
a congress packet was taken by the Vestal frigate off the banks of
Newfoundland, as it was steering its course towards Holland. On board
this packet was Henry Laurens, the late president of congress; who, as
soon as he perceived that he should be captured, threw a box containing
papers overboard. The lead which was attached to this box was not
sufficiently heavy to sink it immediately, and a British sailor leaped
into the sea and caught it as it was sinking. The papers which it
contained were found to contain a treaty of amity and commerce between
the republic of Holland and the States of America, some articles of
which had been provisionally agreed to and signed two years before
at Aix-la-Chapelle, by William Lee, agent for congress, and John de
Neufville, a merchant of Amsterdam, acting under powers delegated to him
by Van Berkel, the grand pensionary of that city. Laurens, the bearer
of these papers, was brought to England, and committed to the Tower on
a charge of high-treason; and our government transmitted the papers to
their ambassador at the Hague, and instructed him to present a memorial
to the States General, requiring them to disavow the proceedings of Van
Berkel and his accomplices, and to punish them for their offence. No
answer was returned to this memorial on the 12th of December, and Sir
Joseph Yorke sent in another, expressing, in diplomatic language, his
astonishment at the silence of the States General. The truth was, that
although the Statholder neither approved of the treaty with the United
States nor of war with England, the great trading interest of Amsterdam
and the whole French party in Holland were eager for the completion of
the treaty, and fondly imagined that Great Britain, through the number
and power of her enemies and the Armed Neutrality, must succumb. Hence
the memorial of the British ambassador was still treated with silent
contempt, and there was no alternative left for our government but to
declare war against Holland. Sir Joseph Yorke was recalled, and a royal
manifesto was issued, declaring that Great Britain had issued letters of
reprisals against the Dutch, and justifying her conduct in taking this
hostile step. This manifesto was issued, on the 20th of December, and
it would appear that the States General were alarmed at this firmness of
the British government, for they did not put forth their answer to the
manifesto of his Britannic majesty till the March following. The States
General were, in truth, ill prepared for war with England, and they had
soon reason to repent that they had even provoked it: it brought them
only loss and degradation.




GENERAL ELECTION.

Parliament was unexpectedly dissolved, on the 1st of September, by royal
proclamation. The elections proved to be much in favour of the court,
for in several places the most popular members of the opposition side of
the house lost their seats. In the whole, one hundred and thirteen new
members were elected. Burke was returned, but in consequence of his
support to the Irish Trade Acts, to the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, and
to other measures of a liberal nature, he lost his seat for Bristol, and
was compelled to be contented with the more humble one of the borough of
Malton. Mr. Fox, after a hard struggle, was returned for Westminster.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

The new parliament met on the 31st of October. The first debate was
occasioned by the election of a speaker. Sir Fletcher Norton had given
offence to ministers during the last session, and Lord George Germaine,
urging the precarious state of Sir Fletcher’s health, moved that Mr.
Cornwall should fill the chair. Sir Fletcher and his friends replied,
that his health was now re-established, and that Lord George Germaine’s
condolence was a mockery of the house; and Dunning moved that he should
be continued speaker. The house was divided on his re-election, but
opposition were left in a minority of one hundred and thirty-four to
two hundred and three: Mr. Cornwall was therefore elected speaker. His
majesty delivered his opening speech on the following day. In it he
declared his satisfaction in having an opportunity, by the recent
election, of receiving the most certain information of the disposition
and wishes of his people; and again complained of the unprovoked
aggression of France and Spain, who were exerting all their power to
support the rebellion of his colonies, to destroy the commerce of Great
Britain, and to give a final blow to her power. He added, that the
bravery of his fleets and armies had enabled him to withstand their
hostility; and that he hoped the late successes in Georgia and Carolina
would have important consequences in bringing the war to a happy
conclusion. The opposition denied that the successes obtained in America
were likely to be decisive, and an amendment was moved in the house of
commons by Mr. Thomas Grenvilie, consisting in the omission of several
complimentary paragraphs, but it was negatived by two hundred and twelve
against one hundred and thirty. In the upper house there was but
little debate, and the original address was carried by an equally large
majority. The same success attended ministers with reference to the
army and navy estimates, which were carried by such large majorities as
served to remind Lord North of the earlier years of his administration,
and to efface the recollection of the narrow divisions and minorities
of the last session. In the course of the debates on the estimates, Fox
pledged himself to move, after the Christmas holidays, for the dismissal
of the Earl of Sandwich, and afterwards to bring him to condign
punishment. He should found these motions, he said, on two different
causes: first, for Sandwich’s having advised his majesty to promote Sir
Hugh Palliser to the government of Greenwich Hospital; and, secondly,
for his having shamefully neglected the navy. This led to a display of
fierce party spirit, which was subsequently renewed from a remark made
by Mr. Thomas Townshend; namely, that he thought it was highly necessary
that the house should inquire why, in this season of public danger, the
nation was deprived of the services and abilities of such men as Admiral
Keppel, Lord Howe, Sir Robert Harland, Pigot, Campbell, and Barrington.
This remark was made on the 4th of December, and in the course of the
debate which ensued, Mr. Fox having again censured the promotion of Sir
Hugh Palliser, Lord North defended the unpopular admiral in one of his
most ready and effective speeches. Two days after this the two houses of
parliament adjourned to the 23rd of January.




CHAPTER XII.

{GEORGE III. 1781–1782}

     Notice of the Rupture with  Holland..... Burke
     re-introduces  the  Subject of Economical Reform, &c.
     Debates on the Supplies..... Motion on the Employment of the
     Military in the late Riots..... Petition of the Delegates of
     the  County Associations..... The Marriage Act
     corrected..... Motion of Fox respecting the American
     War..... Parliament prorogued..... Attack on Jersey..... The
     Garrison of Gibraltar relieved..... Revolt in Washington’s
     Camp..... Arnold’s Expedition to Virginia, &c. Lord
     Cornwallis’s   Expedition   to  Virginia..... Siege  of
     Lord Cornwallis   in York Town..... Loss of the British
     Dominion in Florida..... Attack on Minorca..... French and
     Spanish Fleets   in the   English   Channel..... Naval
     Action with   the Dutch..... Capture of St.   Eustatius.....
     Commodore Johnstone   attacked by de Suffrein,  &c.
     Further Operations in the West Indies..... Sentiments of
     Foreign Powers toward England..... Meeting of Parliament.....
     Censures on Rodney and Hauffman..... debate on the Navy.....
     Motions of  Sir James Lowther for   Peace, &c.

{A.D. 1781}




NOTICE OF THE RUPTURE WITH HOLLAND.

On the 25th of January Lord North delivered a message from the king, in
which his majesty acquainted the house, that during the recess he had
been compelled to direct letters of marque and general reprisal to be
issued against the States General of the United Provinces. A copy of the
manifesto and sundry other papers were laid before the house, in order
that the members might be fully acquainted with the causes and motives
of his majesty in directing these letters. Having delivered his message,
Lord North moved, “That an address be presented to his majesty, assuring
him that the house would, with a firm and determined resolution, support
the just and necessary war against Holland, for the maintenance of the
honour of his crown, and the lights and interests of his people.” This
motion was opposed by the opposition, Burke taking the lead in the
debate. In his speech, Burke declared that ministers had been in fault
rather than the Dutch, and that the paper found in the box of the
captured American packet, was nothing more than a project or draft of a
treaty, which possibly the Dutch would never have completed. So far
as they knew, he said, it might be merely a “speculative essay,” or
a “contemplative prospect;” and therefore it was no justifiable or
assignable ground for going to war with them. These were arguments,
however, for party purposes; opposition conceived that the declaration
of war between England and Holland was setting the seal to Lord North’s
political embarrassments, and therefore they adopted this line of
argument in order to suit their own views. It was, indeed, notorious
that government had strenuously endeavoured to avoid an open rupture
with Holland, and that it was not till the British honour was at
stake that war was declared. But ministers were in no danger from the
arguments of opposition on this question. A majority of nearly two to
one agreed with Lord North and the manifesto, and exclaimed against the
insolence, the selfishness, and the ingratitude of the States General.
In the house of lords, also, the address was carried by a large
majority; but two protests were recorded by the dissentient peers
against this new war “with the ancient and natural allies of the
kingdom.”




BURKE RE-INTRODUCES THE SUBJECT OF ECONOMICAL REFORM, ETC.

On the 15th of February, after some debates on the affairs of India,
Mr. Burke reproduced his scheme of economical reform which had been
rejected in the last session. He opened his proposition by stating the
powerful motives that called upon him to resume that subject. These
motives were the celebrated resolutions of the late parliament,
respecting the alarming increase of the influence of the crown; the
general wish and expectation of the people; and the direct application
made to himself and others from several counties and associations. It
seems probable that he was chiefly induced to renew the subject through
the influence of the associations, which, notwithstanding the scenes
which had occurred through them in the metropolis during the last year,
still endeavoured to stimulate opposition by inflammatory resolutions,
not only against fancied invasions of public rights, but against the
license supposed to be now granted to military authority. At this
period, indeed, political associations had acquired considerable
strength and consistency, and their danger was increased by the new
and unconstitutional measure of appointing delegates to transact their
business in the capital, and to promote the objects of their petitions.
Their chief object was a reduction of expenditure, but with this they
coupled what was afterwards called a “Radical Reform” of the house of
commons. It was notorious that Burke received from these associations
many complimentary addresses, for his efforts in the cause of reform,
and he seems from hence to have been stimulated to renew the subject
in the house. This, indeed, is indicated by his allusion to the
associations. After making this allusion, Burke, in continuing his
speech, said that the nation was involved in expenses which reached the
utmost limits of the public ability, and that as it was originally
the duty of ministers to have framed and carried into execution such a
scheme of economy as he now brought forward, so it was their interest to
secure themselves from punishment by making some amends for their former
neglect. Burke displayed considerable address in his appeal to this new
house. The three resolutions of the late parliament, he said, were a
valuable legacy bequeathed to the public, and an atonement for previous
servility; adding, that they formed a body of maxims, authorizing the
people to expect from their present representatives, that which
was declared to be necessary by their predecessors: if the present
parliament neglected to accomplish what the previous parliament had
designed, all the evil consequences would be charged upon them; and
while the resolutions of the 6th of April would stand upon their
journals as public monuments of exculpation to their predecessors,
they would likewise stand as public monuments of disgrace to them. The
fallacy of M. Neckar’s financial measures in France was not yet made
manifest, and Burke again applauded the economical achievements of that
statesman, and held up the example of France, both as a warning and an
encouragement. In conclusion he moved, “That leave be given to bring in
a bill for the better regulation of his majesty’s civil establishments
and of certain public offices; for the limitation of pensions and the
suppression of sundry useless expenses and inconvenient places, and for
applying the monies saved thereby to the public service.” This motion
was seconded by Mr. Duncombe, and leave was given to bring in the bill
without opposition; Lord North declaring that he would reserve his
objections to the second reading. The second reading took place on
the 26th of February, when there was a long and animated debate on
the measure. One of the most remarkable speeches on this occasion was
delivered by the Hon. William Pitt, second son of the late Earl of
Chatham, who now spoke for the first time in the house of commons.
William Pitt, on whom the mantle of his father seems to have fallen,
announced himself as an ardent reformer and lover of strict economy. One
great object, he said, of all the petitions which had been presented,
was a recommendation of economy in the public expenditure, and the
design of the present bill was to carry these wishes into effect. The
bill had still another object more important in view, and that was the
reduction of the influence of the crown; an influence which was the more
to be dreaded, because more secret in its attacks, and more concealed in
its operations than the power of prerogative. Pitt then adverted to
the objections which had been made to the bill, and which he termed
extraordinary, inasmuch as it only proposed to bring about £200,000 into
the public coffers; an insignificant sum when compared with the millions
annually expended. He continued:—“What then is the conclusion we are
left to deduce? The calamities of the present crisis are too great to be
benefited by economy. Our expenses are so enormous, that it is useless
to give ourselves any concern about them: we have spent and are spending
so much, that it is foolish to think of saving anything. Such is the
language which the opponents of this bill have virtually employed.
It has also been said that the king’s civil list was an irresumable
parliamentary grant, and it had even been compared to a private
freehold. The weakness of such arguments was their best refutation. The
civil list revenue was granted to his majesty, not for his private use,
but for the support of the executive government of the state. It was
granted to support the dignity and interests of the empire, to maintain
its grandeur, to pay the judges, and foreign ministers, to maintain
justice and support respect, to pay the great officers necessary to the
lustre of the crown; and it was proportioned to the dignity and opulence
of the people. The parliament made the grant, and undoubtedly had
a right to resume it when the pressure of the times rendered such
resumption necessary.” The youthful orator, who was listened to with
deep attention by both sides of the house, declared, in conclusion,
that he considered the present bill as essential to the well-being and
independence of the country, and he would therefore give it his most
determined support. Opposition, however, were outvoted by a majority of
forty-three; the motion for the second reading being negatived by two
hundred and thirty-three against one hundred and ninety. By a subsequent
resolution the further consideration of Burke’s bill was put off for six
months. About the same time several other popular measures proposed
in the last session were revived, as the bills against contractors and
revenue-officers, and for imposing a tax on places and pensions, but
they were all defeated by considerable majorities.




DEBATES ON THE SUPPLIES.

Lord North had soon another contest to sustain. On the 7th of March he
brought forward his annual statement of the supplies and resources for
the current service. The sum demanded for the year was £22,458,337,
twelve of which, he stated it would be necessary to raise by a loan.
The terms were unusually high. A contract had been entered into with the
subscribers to grant £150 stock at three per cent., and twenty-five at
four per cent, for every £100 in money, being £9,000,000 more than the
sum paid into the exchequer. To defray the interest of this loan new
taxes would be required to the amount of £660,000 annually; that is
£60,000 more than the legal interest of five per cent., exclusive of
which, as the subscription to the loan bore a premium of ten per cent.,
the further sum of £1,200,000 appeared to be lost to the nation. Mr.
Fox reprobated this bargain, as the most corrupt in its origin, the most
shameful in its progress, and the most injurious in its consequences
that ever came under the notice of the house. The profits of the loan
were estimated by him at about £1,000,000, and this sum, he said,
was entirely at the disposal, and in the hands of the minister, to
be granted in douceurs to the members of that house, either as
compensations for the expenses of their late elections, or as bribes for
future services. Fox also strongly objected to a proposed lottery,
which was a part of the loan scheme, as a means of raising money for the
public service. Taught by experience—for Fox was at this time reduced
to a miserable state of embarrassment and dependence, from his love of
the gambling table—he delivered an impressive harangue on the vice of
gambling, and declared that lotteries were the most pernicious of all
species of gaming inasmuch as they immediately affected the morals,
habits, and circumstances of the lower orders of society. Lord
North defended both the loan and the lottery, and asserted that the
£12,000,000 could not have been obtained upon easier conditions. Fox had
moved that the clause respecting the lottery should be omitted; but
this was rejected by one hundred and sixty-nine against one hundred
and eleven, and the minister’s measures were all passed. The matter,
however, did not end here. Opposition to the loan bill was renewed
under a variety of forms while passing through the lower house; and when
carried to the Lords, it encountered the severe censure of the Marquess
of Buckingham, and others of his party. Eight peers entered a protest
against the bill on the journals. Subsequently the subject was revived
in the commons, by a motion of Sir George Saville for the appointment
of a committee to inquire into the circumstances of the loan. Sir George
argued, that though the bargain had been ratified, it was yet not too
late to pass a vote of censure, or even of impeachment, on the minister
who had thus grossly and daringly sacrificed the interests of the
public. A vehement debate followed this motion; but it was lost by a
majority of two hundred and nine against one hundred and sixty-three.




MOTION ON THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE MILITARY IN THE LATE RIOTS.

It must have been very clear to any unprejudiced mind, that the
employment of the military in the suppression of the London riots of the
preceding summer, so far from being premature, had not been resorted
to in time to save the city from the ravages of a lawless mob. At this
time, however, as in many preceding years, no stone was left unturned by
opposition whereby there was the remotest chance of bringing ministers
into public contempt. They were assailed at every point wherein they
were considered vulnerable; and one attack was but the precursor of
another. Mr. Brinsley Sheridan, who had made his first speech during
last November, and had won golden opinions by his oratory on that
occasion, moved three propositions: the first declaring that the
military force could not justifiably be applied in dispersing tumultuous
assemblies, without waiting for directions from civil magistrates,
unless outrages had broken out with such violence as to overcome civil
authority, and threaten the subversion of legal government; the second
affirming that the unprecedented order to the military on the 7th of
June last, afforded strong presumption of the defective state of the
police; and the third for the appointment cf a committee to inquire into
the conduct of the magistracy and civil power during the riots. Sheridan
delivered a severe philippic against the administration, which was
adorned with glowing periods, and abounded in bitter invectives; but
after a long debate, in which the government were fully vindicated from
all blame, all the motions were negatived. On this occasion, however,
Sheridan obtained the reputation of a first-rate orator, which probably
pleased him more than he would have been had his propositions received
the sanction of the house.




PETITION OF THE DELEGATES OF THE COUNTY ASSOCIATIONS.

During the stay of the delegates of the county associations in London,
they were busied in getting up meetings of their own, and in preparing a
petition to the house of commons, in which they attempted to combine all
the complaints of the nation, and all the prayers for economical and
parliamentary reform. These delegates, however, were compelled to
sign their petition merely as individual freeholders, and not in their
delegated character, inasmuch as the general sense of the house was
known to be against them. Their exertions, indeed, had been matter of
frequent allusion during this session; and while the few applauded them
as enlightened and devoted patriots, the many denounced them as factious
demagogues. Their petition was presented on the 2nd of April by Mr.
Buncombe; but it was suffered to lie on the table until the recovery
of Sir George Saville, who had undertaken to move for referring the
petition to a committee. Sir George made this motion on the 8th of May;
but the contents of the petition, and the unconstitutional character of
the delegates, were severely reprobated; and the motion was lost by a
majority of two hundred and twelve against one hundred and thirty-five.




THE MARRIAGE ACT CORRECTED.

It had been found, by a late decision in the court of king’s bench, that
a clause in the Marriage Act of 1751 rendered all marriages unlawful
whereof the banns had been published in churches or chapels erected
since the passing of the act. This decision would have dissolved
thousands of marriages hitherto supposed to be valid, and would also
have rendered their offspring illegitimate, had not the legislature
interfered. A bill was brought in by Lord Beauchamp, which had a
retrospective operation, in order to render such marriages valid
and their issue legitimate. This bill was adopted by both houses
unanimously; and it received the royal assent early in June. After it
had passed, Fox, who inherited his father’s dislike to the whole of the
marriage Act, brought in a bill for amending or rather repealing it _in
toto_. Fox’s motion, which was rejected without a division, excited much
notice from the circumstance that it brought him into collision for the
first time with Burke, his bosom friend. Burke as strenuously supported
the original act, as Fox opposed it; considering that “it hit the just
mean between a mischievous restraint and that laxity which formerly
occasioned so much disorder.” Each supported their own views with their
known abilities.




MOTION OF FOX RESPECTING THE AMERICAN WAR.

On the 30th of May, Colonel Hartley moved for leave to bring in a bill
vesting the crown with sufficient powers to treat, consult, and finally
agree upon the means of restoring peace with the provinces of North
America. This motion was rejected by a large majority, but a few days
afterwards intelligence arrived of reverses in North Carolina, which
emboldened the opposition to recur to the subject. On the 12th of June,
Fox moved that the house should resolve itself into a committee to
consider of the American war; and at the same time he gave notice that
he intended to move in committee “That his majesty’s ministers ought
immediately to take every possible measure for concluding peace with our
American colonies.” In his speech, Fox contended that success by force
of arms was impossible, and expressed his belief that the Americans
would have treated upon far more moderate and honourable conditions than
they ever entertained a notion of admitting. The orators on both sides
went over the whole history of the war; but their oratory was chiefly
remarkable for its mutual recrimination: each party endeavouring to
throw the blame upon the other. In the course of the debate the memory
of Chatham was treated with disrespect. It was urged by some, that
he had been one cause of the dispute, or of the ill-success which had
attended its management; that his notions were contradictory; and that
if one of his leading principles was to be followed the war would never
end. William Pitt rose to defend the character of his father; but his
eloquence failed to reconcile the manifest contradictions which had
appeared in the proceedings of that great statesman. When he had
performed this duty, Pitt proceeded to state his own opinion on the
subject of the American war. He remarked:—“The war was conceived
in injustice, nurtured in folly, and its footsteps are marked with
slaughter and devastation. It exhibits the height of moral depravity and
human turpitude. The nation is drained of its best blood and its vital
resources, for which nothing is received in return but a series of
inefficient victories or disgraceful retreats; victories obtained over
men struggling in the holy cause of liberty, or defeats which filled the
land with mourning for the loss of dear and valuable relatives, slain in
a detested and impious quarrel.” Some members, however, argued that the
Americans might yet be subdued; while others doubted whether at this
moment, when they were backed by France, Spain, and Holland, they would
not treat all overtures with contumely. It was also questioned whether
the house could, or ought to interfere with the prerogative of the
crown; in which was vested the power of peace and war, and whether they
could bind the sovereign by their resolution, which was not likely to
be adopted by the lords. Moreover, on both sides of the house there were
men who still shrunk from the idea of recognizing the independence of
America, and hence, when the house divided the motion was rejected by
one hundred and seventy-two against ninety-nine.




PARLIAMENT PROROGUED.

This session terminated on the 18th of July. In his speech the king
thanked the members for their long attendance, their loyalty, and their
affection. At this time a prospect of brilliant successes had opened in
India, and that the British would build up an empire more vast in its
extent than that for which they were contending in the West. His majesty
dwelt at some length upon this subject, and warmly applauded measures
adopted, or in progress, for checking abuses in these possessions,
and for making our conquests mutually advantageous to the natives and
ourselves. On the subject of America he remarked:—“While I lament the
continuance of the present troubles, and the extension of the war, I
have the conscious satisfaction to reflect, that the constant aim of my
councils has been to bring back my deluded subjects in America to the
happiness and liberty they formerly enjoyed, and see the tranquillity
of Europe restored. To defend the dominion and to maintain the rights of
this country was on my part the sole cause, and was the only object of
the war. Peace is the earnest wish of my heart; but I have too firm a
reliance on the spirit and resources of the nation, and the powerful
assistance of my parliament, and the protection of a just and all-ruling
Providence, to accept it upon any other terms than such as may consist
with the honour and dignity of my crown, and the permanent interests
and security of my people.” At the time when his majesty delivered this
speech there was indeed no prospect of peace: war raged on every hand.

{GEORGE III. 1781–1782}




ATTACK ON JERSEY.

Early in this year the French, under the Baron de Rullecourt, made
another attempt upon the island of Jersey. Its little capital was
captured by night, and Major Corbet, the lieutenant-governor, signed
a capitulation for the surrender of the whole island. Major Pierson,
however, was not so pusillanimous. Collecting all the force he could, he
fell upon the French invaders in the market-place of St. Heliers, and,
being-assisted by the townspeople, killed a great many of them, and
captured the rest. But unfortunately Pierson was himself killed by
almost the last shot fired by the French. At the commencement of the
action the Baron de Rullecourt received several wounds, of which he
died immediately after the surrender. In the whole, nearly eight hundred
French were either killed or taken, and they had previously lost two
hundred men in a terrible storm which overtook them at the commencement
of their expedition, and which drove back many of their vessels to their
own ports. This affair cost Major Corbet his honour: he was tried by a
court-martial, and deprived of his commission of lieutenant-governor.
The states erected a splendid monument in the town-church to the memory
of the gallant Major Pierson.




THE GARRISON OF GIBRALTAR RELIEVED.

The garrison of Gibraltar, at the commencement of this year, were again
reduced to great straits by the persevering Spaniards. The supplies
which Rodney had thrown in the year before were nearly exhausted; and
some vessels which had been accustomed to run down from Minorca and some
of the Italian ports were captured by the French and Spanish cruisers.
Under these circumstances, one of the first efforts of the campaign was
the relief of this important place. Admiral Darby was appointed to this
important service. After escorting the East and West India trade to
a certain latitude, Darby arrived off Cadiz, where he saw the Spanish
fleet at anchor. While, therefore, he forwarded the convoy with
provision!, stores, etc., to Gibraltar, with some ships of the line
and frigates to cover them, Darby remained with the rest of his fleet,
cruizing between Cadiz Bay and the mouth of the Straits of Gibraltar,
watching the enemy. The Spanish admiral, Cordova, had boasted that he
would meet the English at sea; but upon second thought, he considered
himself safer where he was, and still remained at anchor. The convoy got
safe into the harbour, where it was hailed with transports of joy by
the half-famished soldiers on the rocky heights of Gibraltar; and their
cheers were responded to by those below. The succours were landed with
very little difficulty, and Darby then returned to the Channel station.
The Spaniards were disheartened by this success of the British, and were
mortified by the circumstance that their grand fleet had cowered
before an inferior force; but they were again encouraged by promises of
co-operation from France, and therefore still continued the siege.




REVOLT IN WASHINGTON’S CAMP.

The earliest events of this year were unfavourable to the American
cause. For some months all discipline had been relaxed in Washington’s
camp; the officers and men alike being dissatisfied with the treatment
which they received from congress. They were on the point of starvation;
and though they had long endured their hardships, on the night of the
1st of January, the Pennsylvania line, which was hutted at Morris Town
in the Jerseys, turned out to the number of 1300 men, and declared that
they would march to the seat of congress, and either obtain redress or
return to their homes. After committing some excesses on those officers
who opposed their movement, the men marched to Princeton. They were
followed on the next day by General Wayne and his staff, with many
officers who were supposed to possess their confidence, in the hope that
they would be able either to bring them back to their duty, or to sow
dissensions among them. Wayne came up with them near Middle Brook; but
the demands of the revolted troops were such as he could not grant; and
he therefore referred them to congress. The men continued their march to
Princeton for that purpose; and while there, emissaries arrived from
Sir Henry Clinton, with tempting offers to them, and with the suggestion
that they should take up a position behind the South River, when he
would soon cover them with detachments from the royal army in New York.
The mutineers, however, showed themselves true to the cause of liberty,
for they not only rejected Clinton’s tempting offers, but communicated
them to General Wayne, with assurances that, though they had left the
American camp, they would never go over to the British. At the same time
they seized Clinton’s emissaries, and kept them in their own hands; they
refused to leave Princeton; resolved that none of their former officers
should enter their camp; and ordered Lafayette and others, who had
presented themselves as mediators, to return immediately. Soon after, a
committee of congress, the governor of Pennsylvania, and a part of his
council came into the neighbourhood of Princeton to negociate with
the revolters. A conference took place between the sergeants of
the revolted troops and the committee; when the latter offered these
propositions:—That congress would discharge all those who had enlisted
for three years; and that they would give immediate certificates for
the depreciation on their pay, settle their arrears as soon as they were
able, and furnish the men with such clothing as they required forthwith,
The sergeants agreed to distribute these propositions among the troops
for consideration; and after due deliberation the mutineers agreed to
march to Trenton, to meet their officers and commanders. At Trenton, the
terms offered by congress were accepted; and then the mutineers gave up
Sir Henry Clinton’s emissaries, who were all hanged as spies. But mutiny
did not end here. Encouraged by the success of the Pennsylvania line,
a part of the Jersey brigade, stationed at Pompton, flew to arms, and
marched to Chatham to join another part of the same brigade; and these
all demanded the same terms which had been granted to the Pennsylvanian
mutineers. In the former instance, Washington, probably wishing that
congress should be made to feel that the grievances of the troops must
be redressed, and that the army must be treated with greater respect,
had not taken any measures for bringing back the mutineers to their
duty. On this occasion, however, foreseeing that continued revolts would
tend to the disorganization of his army, he sent General How to Chatham
with a considerable force, and with orders to make no terms with the
revolted brigade while in a state of resistance. He even instructed How,
after the brigade should surrender, to seize a few of the ringleaders
and put them to death on the spot. How’s task was not a very arduous
one, for the mutineers at Chatham scarcely amounted to more than two
hundred men; and he surrounded them in their quarters, seized a few of
the ringleaders, and executed them according to Washington’s orders, and
reduced the rest to submission. These revolts alarmed congress; and they
contrived to raise three months’ pay in specie, and to obtain a quantity
of clothes, which they forwarded to the camp, in order to prevent
further defection. But this was only a temporary remedy for the evil;
and as the inhabitants were distressed in order to satisfy the soldiers,
congress resolved to seek a loan from France. Lieutenant-colonel
Laurens, son of the prisoner in the Tower, was sent on this commission
to the court of Versailles; and at the same time, Mr. Jay, the young
lawyer, who was now installed as minister plenipotentiary to the court
of Madrid, was instructed to press the court of Spain for co-operation
and direct assistance. It is evident, indeed, that congress and the
general officers of the army, all thought that the affairs of the
Americans were in a desperate condition; and that if they did not
speedily obtain assistance in money and troops from the Bourbons, the
sun of liberty would be set for ever. Lafayette exerted his influence
with M. de Vergennes, the French minister on this occasion. He furnished
Laurens with a letter to him, in which he stated, that with a naval
inferiority it was impossible to continue the war; that the resources of
the country, great as they were, would be ineffectual unless money were
sent; that the last campaign had been conducted without a single dollar;
and that all that credit, persuasion, and force could do in the way of
obtaining supplies had been done. In conclusion, he demanded clothes,
arms, and ammunition, and represented that a great fleet, and a new
division of 10,000 troops ought to be sent from France to New York, in
order to destroy the power of the British on the continent.




ARNOLD’S EXPEDITION TO VIRGINIA, ETC.

On the very day that the Pennsylvanian line revolted, General Arnold
appeared in Hampton Road on the Chesapeak, to carry devastation into
Virginia. Arnold had with him about 1200 men, part of whom were American
royalists; and with this force he proceeded up James’s River, and landed
at Westover, about twenty-five miles distance from Richmond, the capital
of Virginia. There were 50,000 enrolled militiamen in that province; but
Jefferson, its governor, could only collect a few hundred, and therefore
he was obliged to relinquish all hopes of defending the city Knowing the
rapidity of Arnold’s movements, he caused some of the public property
to be removed to the country above, and then fled with his council,
secretaries, and officers, with the greatest precipitation. Arnold
entered Richmond the morning after his flight, the troops evacuating
the town at his approach. On his arrival he sent some of the citizens
of Richmond to Jefferson, offering to spare the town if British vessels
were permitted to come to it, and take off the tobacco there deposited,
unmolested. This offer was rejected; and Arnold then detached Colonel
Simcoe, with nearly half of his force, to Westham, to burn and destroy
all the buildings there which contained arms, ammunition, and military
stores; and when Simcoe had completed this work of destruction, and had
returned, Arnold set fire to all the public buildings and tobacco-stores
at Richmond. He then quitted the capital of Virginia, and encamped at
Four-mile Creek, whence he returned to his shipping at Westover. From
Westover he detached a party of horse to Charles City Court-house, where
one hundred and fifty militiamen were surprised and routed; after which
Arnold re-embarked his army, and began to descend James’s River. He
returned to Portsmouth, where he was joined by more men, who raised his
force to nearly 2000 men, and where he established a permanent station,
in order to co-operate with Lord Cornwallis. While at Portsmouth, it was
suggested by the American leaders, that a few individuals should make a
sudden incursion into his camp, and carry him off, in order to bring him
to the gallows. The capture of Arnold was, indeed, a cherished object
with the Americans, ever since his defection from their cause; but he
was aware that he was in danger, and was therefore vigilant, so that
if any attempt had been made, it would doubtless have failed. It would
appear, in fact, that though 5000 guineas were offered in the event of
success, none could be found hardy enough to make such a daring attempt.
Washington, however, was resolved to capture the arch-traitor if
possible; and with this view he sent Lafayette to blockade him on the
land side, while a French squadron blockaded him by sea. Washington
wished Destouches to employ nearly the whole of his fleet in this
service; but the French admiral was apprehensive that Admiral Arbuthnot
might have collected and repaired his scattered ships; and he therefore
refused to risk more than one sixty-four-gun ship and two frigates.
These were put under the command of Commodore de Tilley; and they sailed
for the Chesapeak on the 9th of February. De Tilley, however, found
Arnold so well posted as to defy attack, and he returned to Rhode
Island. As he was returning, near the Capes of Virginia he fell in
with and captured the Romulus, a fifty-gun ship, which was sailing
from Charlestown to the Chesapeak. Washington now held a conference at
Newport, Rhode Island, with Rochambeau, Destouches, and other officers,
in which it was resolved to embark part of the French army, under the
command of Count de Viominil, and to risk the whole of the French
fleet to escort it, in order to capture Arnold. Destouches, the French
admiral, set sail on the 8th of March; but he was followed by Admiral
Arbuthnot, and brought to action off Cape Henry. After fighting for
about an hour, the French bore up and ran to leeward; and Destouches
then resolved to return to Rhode Island. In a few days General Phillips
arrived at Portsmouth to take the command over Arnold; and the defence
of Virginia was entrusted to Lafayette, who collected his forces on the
Elk River, and then marched into that province. In the meantime
Generals Phillips and Arnold were engaged in the work of destruction.
Williamsburg, York Town, Petersburg, and Chesterfield Court-house were
all captured, and public property, with a quantity of vessels found in
the different harbours, etc., were destroyed by them. After the capture
of Chesterfield Court-house, Arnold marched through Osbornes—where he
destroyed the tobacco—to Warwick; just above which place, and between
it and Richmond, an American flotilla had been collected. On his
approach the crews set fire to these vessels or scuttled them; and
escaping to the opposite shore, there joined a body of militia and fled
with them. Generals Phillips and Arnold now again united their forces
and marched to Manchester, a town on the southern bank of James’s River,
where they burned all the tobacco and stores. They contemplated crossing
the river to Richmond; but Lafayette had reached that place in the
course of the preceding evening, and they therefore retraced their steps
by the way of Warwick, and retired to Bermuda Hundred. Soon afterwards
they re-embarked their troops, and fell down the river to Hog Island,
where they remained till they received notice from Lord Cornwallis that
he was about marching into Virginia from the Carolinas, and expected
their co-operation.




LORD CORNWALLIS’S EXPEDITION TO VIRGINIA.

This was the last year in which any grand efforts were made for
the recovery of the colonies, and the plan of the campaign was thus
arranged. Lord Cornwallis was directed to penetrate through the
intervening provinces into Virginia, there to attack Lafayette, while
Sir Henry Clinton himself engaged to keep Washington and Rochambeau in
check. Cornwallis took the field early in this year, and having left a
considerable force under Lord Rawdon for the defence of South Carolina,
advanced towards the frontiers, and took a position at Winnsborough;
General Leslie proceeding towards Camden. About the same time the
American general, Greene, marched with the main body of his forces to
the Cheraw-hills, on the Pedee, having detached General Morgan to act on
the left of Lord Cornwallis. This movement alarmed the British commander
from some of his posts, and he despatched Colonel Tarleton, with a
force of about 1100 men, to counteract the designs of Morgan. This time
Tarleton was unsuccessful. Meeting with the enemy at a place called
the Cow-pens, although their force was greatly superior, he immediately
engaged them, and was defeated with considerable less. Soon after this
affair General Greene took the field in person, and Lord Cornwallis,
being joined by General Leslie, resolved to cross the Catawba and give
him battle. Cornwallis forced a passage over that river on the 1st of
February, and his troops scattered the North Carolina militia that were
stationed on the opposite bank to defend the ford, and killed many of
them, with General Davidson, their commander. Greene retreated to the
Yadkin, closely followed by Cornwallis, and both armies crossed that
river. Cornwallis took up a position between Greene and the frontiers
of Virginia, and a variety of manouvres and rapid marches ensued. In the
end, however, Greene succeeded in placing the river Dan between him
and the enemy, and getting on a line of march which would lead him into
Virginia, without being compelled to risk a battle. Desisting from the
pursuit, Cornwallis proceeded to Hillsborough, the capital of North
Carolina, where he raised the royal standard, and issued proclamations
to the people. All North Carolina appeared to be at his feet, for
there was no army to resist him, and the royalists soon began to form
themselves into independent companies, to serve with Tarleton’s legion.
Greene, however, who had been recruited on the Virginian frontier,
soon returned, resolving to keep the field, though he wished to avoid
a general engagement. Soon after his return he sent Lieutenant-colonel
Lee, with a detachment, against a body of nearly three hundred
loyalists, who had been collected by Colonel Pyle, and were marching to
join the British army. These unfortunate men mistook Lee’s troops
for their British allies, and being suddenly surrounded by them, were
butchered on the spot, in the act of imploring mercy. The disaster was
rendered still more dreadful by a mistake made by Colonel Tarleton.
Happening to be within a mile of this scene of slaughter, and hearing
the alarm, he recrossed the Haw, and meeting in his retreat with another
body of loyalists, he conceived that they were militiamen, and put them
to the sword. All these circumstances combined wholly disconcerted the
schemes of Lord Cornwallis in North Carolina, and he crossed the river
Haw, and encamped on Allamance Creek, in order to afford protection to
the great body of the royalists who resided between the Haw and the Deep
Rivers. Greene now advanced a little, and having crossed the Haw
near its source, took post between Troublesome Creek and Reedy Fork.
Discovering this movement, Cornwallis carried his army across Allamance
Creek and marched towards Reedy Fork, hoping to beat up the quarters of
Greene’s light troops, and to tempt Greene into a general engagement.
Cornwallis attacked Reedy Fork, and some light troops made a slight
stand upon the creek, but they were defeated with considerable
slaughter; and then Cornwallis found that Greene was retreating as
fast as he could across the Haw. Soon after, however, Greene received
considerable reinforcements, and considering himself strong enough to
face Cornwallis, he recrossed the Haw, and moved forward to Guildford
Court-house. Cornwallis instantly prepared to meet him, and a battle
was fought at that place on the 15th of March. The engagement, which was
maintained with determined valour on both sides, terminated honourably
to the British arms. Greene was compelled to retreat, and to leave the
field of battle, with his artillery, consisting of four pieces, in the
hands of Lord Cornwallis. The victory, however, was dearly purchased,
as about one hundred were killed and above four hundred wounded, which
amounted to nearly one-third of all the British troops engaged. The
loss was rendered more severe on the following night, when many of the
wounded expired from want of covering to shelter them from the rain,
which poured down in torrents on the field of battle. On discovering the
extent of his loss, Cornwallis felt that he was not in a condition to
follow up his victory, and as he could obtain no provisions where he
was, he was under the necessity of retreating. He left about seventy
of his wounded, who could not be removed, under a flag of truce, at a
Friends’ meeting-house, and on the third day after the battle, directed
his march towards Wilmington, near the mouth of Cape Fear River, a
post already occupied by the British troops, under the command of Major
Craig, and where he arrived on the 7th of April. In the meantime General
Greene, who had slowly moved in the rear of Cornwallis till he descended
towards the sea-coast, carried the war into South Carolina. Aware of his
movements, Cornwallis sent an express to Lord Rawdon, whom he had left
in that state, warning him of his danger. Rawdon occupied cantonments,
with the town of Camden for his centre, and against this position the
efforts of Greene were directed. The American general reached Camden
before the express, but Rawdon was apprised of his approach in
sufficient time to call in all his detachments, and to prepare for the
struggle. Rawdon had about 900 men under his command, and Greene about
1500 regular troops, and some corps of militia. Yet, although his force
was greatly superior, the American general did not venture to storm or
to invest Camden, but took up a position on Hobkirk’s-hill, about two
miles off, designing to remain there till he should be joined by Lee and
the independent partisan, Marion, each with a considerable force. Lord
Rawdon seems to have been aware of his expectations, and he resolved to
attack him on Hobkirk’s-hill before they could be realised. Rawdon was
successful. He charged the enemy with such impetuosity that they were
utterly routed, leaving behind them between two hundred to three hundred
killed or wounded, and about one hundred prisoners. Greene retreated
to a creek about twelve miles off, where he encamped to wait for
reinforcements, to attend to his sick and wounded, and to levy supplies
for his half-famished men. Lord Rawdou’s loss amounted, in killed,
wounded, and missing, to two hundred and fifty-eight, and as this number
could be ill spared out of so weak, a force, and some reinforcements
which he expected had not yet joined, he was obliged to retire from
the scene of his victory, and to act on the defensive. A portion of the
troops he expected arrived soon after at Charlestown, and Rawdon
marched thither to effect a junction. In his absence, Greene captured
Orangeburg, Fort Motte, Granby, and several other places, after which
he invested the strong post of Ninety-six, which was considered as
commanding the whole of the back country. Before this post could be
reduced, however, Lord Rawdon was enabled to bring up his forces, and he
retired into North Carolina, with his enemy in full pursuit. The British
general soon perceived that it was in vain to pursue the American force,
and he returned to Ninety-six, and from thence to Charlestown, taking
with him all the loyalists in that district. Greene now returned to
South Carolina, and being joined by detachments, under Lee, Sumpter,
and Marion, he encamped on the hills of Santee. Lord Rawdon retired
soon after to Orangeburg, from whence, on account of ill-health, he was
compelled to return to England. His troops were left under the command
of Colonel Stewart, who was attacked by the enemy at Eutaw Springs,
having previously suffered a loss of above three hundred men, who were
surprised in foraging. A desperate battle took place, during which
the artillery on both sides was several times taken and retakers Vast
numbers fell on both sides, and each claimed the victory; but it would
appear that it rather belonged to the British; for Greene retreated,
and they remained upon the ground the night after the action and all
the following day without molestation. Notwithstanding the result was
favourable to the Americans; for the British were compelled to
retire, and thenceforward confined their operations to the vicinity
of Charlestown. Hence it was that congress proclaimed the affair as a
great and glorious victory; and they likewise passed a resolution, for
presenting to Greene a golden medal and a British standard.

In the meantime Lord Cornwallis had been engaged in operations in the
heart of Virginia. He advanced from Wilmington right through North
Carolina, the whole of which he traversed without encountering
opposition, and on the 20th of May he reached Petersburg, where the
British forces were waiting for him. Before his arrival, General
Phillips had died of sickness, so that the chief command of the troops
had again devolved upon Arnold. Cornwallis found that Arnold had driven
Jefferson and the assembly of Virginia from Richmond to the village of
Charlottesville, and had compelled Lafayette to take up a post a few
miles below Richmond. Allowing himself but three days’ rest, Lord
Cornwallis marched from Petersburg in search of Lafayette. He crossed
James’s River at Westover, about thirty miles below the enemy’s
encampment; but on his approach, Lafayette retired towards the back
country, in order to effect a junction with eight hundred of the
Pennsylvanian line, under General Wayne. No pursuit was attempted by
Lord Cornwallis, who now directed his attention to various expeditions.
As the Virginian planters possessed excellent horses, he was enabled, by
seizures, not only to remount his cavalry in a superior manner, but also
to have horses for mounting his infantry destined for rapid movements.
With such a force Tarleton was detached to beat up Jefferson and the
assembly at Charlottesville, where they were busy in voting taxes,
making paper-money, draughting the militia, and recruiting for the
Virginian line. Tarleton came upon the assembly so suddenly that seven
members were taken prisoners, and he captured and destroyed large
Quantities of military stores and tobacco. Jefferson and the rest of the
assembly made their escape by getting upon fresher horses. Lieutenant
Simcoe had been detached, with five hundred infantry, to destroy the
military stores deposited at the Point of Fork, fifty miles below
Richmond; and Tarleton now proceeded to join him in this enterprise.
Simcoe found that these stores had been removed by Baron Steuben to the
other side of the river Fluvanna, and that Steuben’s whole force had
followed in the same direction. Simcoe followed the baron, and by some
ingenious stratagems, made him believe that the whole army of Lord
Cornwallis was advancing against him. Acting upon this impression,
Steuben fled in disorder, and abandoned his stores, which were
destroyed by the British. Steuben joined Lafayette; and soon after, the
Pennsylvanian line, under General Wayne, joined his forces likewise.
At this time Lord Cornwallis was advancing with his main body upon
Albemarle Old Court-house, where there was a great deposit of military
stores. Lafayette resolved to protect these, and by a rapid movement
he was enabled to take up a strong position in front, of Albemarle Old
Court-house some hours before Cornwallis arrived. Cornwallis had just
received orders from Sir Henry Clinton to send part of his troops back
to New York, in order to defend that city from a contemplated attack
by the joint forces of the French and Americans. Avoiding a battle,
therefore, Cornwallis slowly retired to Richmond, followed in his rear
by Lafayette, who had, however, no intention of risking an action.
From Richmond, the British general proceeded to Williamsburg, which he
captured without opposition. From Williamsburg, he marched to a ford
across James’s River, and sent part of his army, with his baggage and
stores, to the opposite bank, in the direction of Portsmouth. Lafayette,
who was still timidly following, conceived that nothing was left on
his side of the river but the rear-guard of the British, and he then
quickened his pace to strike a blow. A battle ensued, in which Lafayette
was routed, and his cannon taken, while he lost about three hundred
in killed and wounded. Lafayette retired up the river to repose his
harassed forces, and Lord Cornwallis then crossed the river, and marched
to Portsmouth. While here, he embarked the troops that were required at
New York; but before they sailed, he received fresh orders from
Clinton to retain them, as he had no longer any fear of Washington and
Rochambeau. Under these circumstances, as Portsmouth was not proper for
the reception and defence of ships of the line, and as it was not such a
post as was desired by Sir Henry Clinton, he resolved to proceed to, and
to fortify York Town, on York River. Part of his army was therefore sent
up the Chesapeak to take possession of this town, and by the 22nd of
August his whole force was concentrated there and at Gloucester Point.

{GEORGE III. 1781–1782}




SIEGE OF LORD CORNWALLIS IN YORK-TOWN.

By intercepted letters, written by Washington to congress, Sir Henry
Clinton discovered that an attack on New York was intended as soon as
Count de Grasse, the French admiral, should arrive with a new fleet.
Discovering this, great preparations were made to sustain a siege, and
it was when they were completed that Sir Henry Clinton countermanded the
troops which he had ordered Cornwallis to send him. Cornwallis was in
greater need of them than Sir Henry himself; for, although New York was
still threatened, it was against him that Washington now resolved to
direct his operations. Count de Grasse had avoided Admiral Rodney in his
passage, and he arrived in the Chesapeak on the 30th of August, with a
French fleet, consisting of twenty-eight sail of the line, and several
frigates, and having on board with him 3200 land troops. De Grasse
was here, also, joined by Count de Barras, with a French squadron,
consisting of eight ships of the line, which had been stationed at Rhode
Island. Having failed to intercept or to meet de Grasse in his passage
to America, Admiral Rodney despatched Sir Samuel Hood to New York, with
fourteen ships of the line, which, with the fleet at New York, it
was conceived would be a match for the French fleet. Admiral Graves
commanded the fleet at New York, but when Hood arrived he had only
seven ships of the line, and five of these only were ready for sea.
Nevertheless, as it was ascertained that de Grasse was either in
the Chesapeak or making for it, Graves, taking the command as senior
officer, on Hood’s arrival set sail in hopes of first cutting off the
French Rhode Island squadron, and then beating the larger fleet. Graves
found de Grasse, who had landed his troops to join Lafayette, just
within the Capes. The French admiral had not been yet joined by de
Barras, and, as soon as he found that the ships advancing were British,
he issued orders for them to put out to sea in line of battle, in order
to protect the squadron which he expected from Rhode Island. Graves gave
the signal for battle, and a warm engagement ensued, which was in favour
of the British. At night-fall, however, the two fleets separated without
any decisive issue on either side; and they remained within sight of
each other five days without renewing the engagement. At the end of
that period, on the 10th of September, de Grasse returned to his
old anchorage within the Capes, where he now found the Rhode Island
squadron. In the meantime Washington had put his forces in motion.
Leaving General Heath to defend the Hudson, he led his army down the
western side of that river, as though New York was still the point of
attack. This was fully expected by Sir Henry Clinton, and it was
not till Washington had passed the Delaware that his intention was
suspected. When he became aware of his real intentions—when he saw
that the efforts of the combined forces of the French and Americans
were directed against Lord Cornwallis, at York Town, he sought to recall
Washington to the north, by an expedition which he sent, under Arnold,
into Connecticut. Arnold took and reduced New London to ashes; but
Washington’s attention was nevertheless not diverted by this terrible
blow, from his main design. He proceeded southward to the Elk River,
which falls into the Chesapeak, where transports from the French fleet
were waiting to receive his forces; and, having seen them embarked, he
and Rochambeau proceeded by land to join Lafayette at Williamsburg. A
council of war was immediately held on board Count de Grasse’s ship,
wherein it was resolved that so soon as Washington’s and Rochambeau’s
forces arrived, their united efforts should be directed against York
Town. Lord Cornwallis, aware of his danger, as the hostile fleets and
armies were gathering thick around him, fortified his positions as well
as he could, hoping that he might be able to hold out till Sir Henry
Clinton could send him assistance. His hopes were the more bright
because the fleet at New York was about to be reinforced by six ships
of the line, under Admiral Digby. It was on the 28th of September that
the combined army of French and Americans appeared in sight of York
Town; and at the same time the French fleet advanced to the mouth of
York River, so as to prevent Cornwallis from retreating or receiving
succours by sea. On the same evening Lord Cornwallis received
intelligence from New York, that Admiral Digby had arrived with three
instead of six ships of the line, and that Sir Henry Clinton would
embark on the 5th of October, with 5000 men for his relief. After
receiving this intelligence, Cornwallis, under cover of the night,
withdrew his army from the outer works which he had erected on the open
grounds round about York Town, and concentrated them within the works
close to it. Those which he abandoned were occupied by detachments
from the combined army; and 2000 men took up a position in front of the
British at Gloucester Point. A part of the latter were commanded by the
Duke de Lauzun; against whom Colonel Dundas sallied out as he approached
the lines, and killed a great number of his men. Dundas was reinforced
by Colonel Tarleton and his legion, but the British then retired within
the lines, and the French and Americans gave up all thought of assault
and storm, and converted their operations into a blockade. The first
parallel was begun within six hundred yards of the British lines, on
the 6th of October, and by the 9th their well-garnished batteries were
completed; and an incessant cannonade was commenced against the town,
while showers of shells, thrown from many mortars, fell among the
besieged. More batteries were opened on the following clay, and the
shells and the red-hot balls set fire to a British ship of forty-four
guns and three transports, which were all destroyed. On the night of the
11th, the combined army, which amounted to 14,000 men, commenced their
second parallel within three hundred yards of the British lines. This
occupied their attention three days, during which time they suffered
severe loss from an incessant fire kept up upon them from York Town.
They particularly suffered from two advanced redoubts; and it became
necessary either to storm these or to abandon the approach. Accordingly
a body of Americans were employed against one of these redoubts, under
Lafayette, and a body of French against the other, under the Baron de
Viominil. There were only forty-five men in the redoubt, against which
Lafayette led his strong American column; yet before he could carry it,
more than forty of the assailants were either killed or wounded. The
other redoubt had more defenders, and caused greater mischief to the
enemy; but it was carried, and then both of them were included in the
second parallel of the besiegers, and the artillery that was taken in
them was directed against the town. The situation of Lord Cornwallis
was now becoming critical, for his works were sinking and crumbling,
and nearly all his guns were silenced. To retard the completion of the
second parallel, therefore, Cornwallis directed a sortie, under the
command of Lieutenant-colonel Abercrombie, against two of the enemy’s
batteries that were guarded by veteran French troops. The assault
was made on the 16th of October, and the French were driven from both
batteries, with the loss of more than one hundred in killed and wounded;
and having spiked the gnus, Abercrombie returned within the lines.
The spiked cannons, however, were soon made again fit for use, and the
batteries opened upon the town. Lord Cornwallis had reason to expect
that before this time Sir Henry Clinton would have arrived with his
promised relief. Still, though he was disappointed, he did not despair.
He saw, indeed, that he could not defend the town, but he I still hoped
to save at least a part of his army by a bold manouvre and a rapid
movement. The French blockading force, on the Gloucester side, was now
commanded by de Choisi; and Cornwallis conceived the idea of attacking
them, by night, and after dispersing this force, to mount his infantry
on the horses of the enemy’s cavalry, and then, by a rapid march, to
gain the fords of the great rivers, and force his way through Maryland,
Pennsylvania, and Jersey to New York. To this end the greater part of
the guards and part of the twenty-third regiment were embarked in boats,
and transported to Gloucester-point without being discovered; but they
were scarcely landed when a violent storm arose, which prevented the
return of the boats, and the whole scheme was frustrated. The troops
transported to Gloucester-point returned in the morning without great
loss, although the passage of the river was now exposed to the fire of
the enemy. All hope was now lost, for by this time the British works
were so demolished by the incessant fire of the enemy, that not a gun
could be fired from them; and when the bombs were counted, they were
found not to exceed one hundred. Under these circumstances, Lord
Cornwallis proposed a cessation of hostilities for twenty-four hours, to
settle terms for capitulation. Washington replied, that it was his
wish to save the effusion of blood, and to accept such terms as were
admissible; and a negociation commenced, which ended in a treaty, by
which, on the 19th of October, York Town and Gloucester-point were given
up; the troops and stores being surrendered to Washington, and the ships
and seamen to Count de Grasse. As Lincoln had been refused the honour
of marching out of Charlestown with flying colours, this honour was
refused, by way of retaliation, to Lord Cornwallis; and Lincoln was also
appointed to receive the submission of the royal army in the same
manner as his own had been conducted. When the British surrendered, they
amounted to 5950 men, but of these only 4017 were fit for duty. On the
other hand, at the termination of the siege, the French and Americans,
owing to the constant arrival of recruits, volunteers, and militiamen,
had 18,000 men under arms. On both sides about five hundred were killed
and wounded during the siege. During the negociations Lord Cornwallis
endeavoured to obtain an indemnity for those of the inhabitants who
had joined his ranks; but he was obliged to consent that they should
be given up to the unconditional mercy of their countrymen: Washington
affirming that the matter of their forgiveness or punishment belonged to
the civil power. As, however, his lordship obtained permission for the
Bonetta sloop of war to pass unexamined to New York, he embarked as
many as he could on board that vessel, in order to screen them from the
vengeance of their countrymen. On the whole the terms of capitulation
were easier than might have been expected, considering what a scourge
Lord Cornwallis had been to the Americans. The whole of the south had
smarted from his operations, and it was calculated that in Virginia
alone 30,000 slaves were taken from their masters; and property to
the value of £3,000,000 sterling was destroyed during this summer. But
Washington felt that there was no time for driving a hard bargain, for
he expected that the British fleet and the land force from New York
would arrive on the scene of action, and he could not tell how soon
they might appear. Had Sir Henry Clinton sailed on the day he mentioned,
indeed, Lord Cornwallis would have been spared the anguish of a
surrender; but, unfortunately, he did not leave Sandy Hook till the very
day when the terms were signed, and it was the 24th before he reached
the Capes of Virginia. On arriving here, Clinton received some vague
accounts of the sad truth, and Admiral Graves did not venture up the
Chesapeak to attack the French fleet, but lay off’ the mouth five days,
and then he and Clinton agreed to return to New York. Such were the
events of the war in America during this campaign. It commenced with
bright hopes of success on the side of the British; it closed by those
hopes being dashed to the ground. The fall of York Town was but a
prelude to the emancipation of North America.

[Illustration: 160.jpg THE BRITISH SURRENDERING TO GENERAL WASHINGTON]




LOSS OF THE BRITISH DOMINION IN FLORIDA.

Further south the British dominion was already diminished. Early in
this year Don Bernardo Galvez arrived in the Gulf of Mexico with a
considerable squadron, and a land force of 8000 Spanish troops. Before
he could reach Pensacola he was overtaken by a hurricane, in which four
of his ships were lost, with 2000 men on board; and he was obliged
to run back to the Havanna. Solano, the chief admiral, had previously
arrived at the Havanna, and being supplied with more ships and troops
Galvez again put to sea. This time he succeeded in his designs.
Pensacola, the last of the British fortresses, was reduced by him,
and its fall completed the conquest of all Florida. The fortress was
defended by General Campbell, who had a motley group of negroes, red
Indians, foreign adventurers, and a few British regulars under his
command; but, on the 9th of May, after his principal powder-magazine
had been blown up, Campbell found himself under the necessity of
capitulating. He had gallantly defended the place for two months,
although he had not more than nine hundred and fifty men under his
command, and had to sustain the siege against a fleet of fifteen sail
of the line, and a land force almost ten times the number of his own
troops. Thus Florida, which was one of the principal acquisitions made
by the British during the last war, remained to the Spaniards.




ATTACK ON MINORCA.

In Europe the Spaniards not only continued the siege of Gibraltar, but
also undertook the reduction of Minorca. This island had recently been
offered to the Empress of Russia, as a bait to secure her friendship to
Great Britain, and to induce her to become mediatrix for a peace, on the
basis of the last treaty of Fontainbleau. At first the lure seemed to
be acceptable, and Potemkin, the minister of Catherine, was anxious to
obtain the acquisition; but subsequently the empress seemed to think
that the British empire must soon become dismembered, when probably she
might obtain more; and she therefore declined accepting it under the
conditions offered. This secret negociation became known to Florida
Blanca, the Spanish minister, and it became a pressing motive for an
attack on Minorca. Accordingly, having obtained the consent of the court
of Versailles to co-operate, this became one of the principal objects
of Spanish ambition. An expedition was fitted out with great skill
and caution, and the Duke of Crillon was appointed to the command. The
united fleets of France and Spain sailed out of Cadiz Bay on the 22nd of
July, and while the mass of the force stretched out into the ocean as
if with the intention of making a descent upon England, 8000 land troops
were transported through the straits to Minorca. A landing was effected
on the 19th of August, and General Murray, with his weak garrison of
two British and Hanoverian regiments, retired into Fort St. Philip, the
principal defence of the island. Crillon commenced operations by an act
which would have made the blood of his brave ancestor boil within his
veins: he offered General Murray a bribe of £100,000 sterling, and rank
and employment in the French or Spanish service, if he would surrender
and save him the trouble of a siege or blockade! This offer was
indignantly refused, and Crillon then laid siege to Fort St. Philip.
Yet, though he was reinforced in the course of the autumn by 4000 French
troops, with good artillery and engineer officers, with more ordnance
and other requisites for the siege, and though disease thinned the
originally weak ranks of the besieged, at the close of the year the fort
still remained in the hands of the British.




FRENCH AND SPANISH FLEETS IN THE ENGLISH CHANNEL.

In the meantime the French and Spanish fleets advanced towards the
British coasts, and for some time rode triumphant in the Channel. At
this time Admiral Darby had sailed from Spithead on a cruise to the
Westward; but on the 26th of August he returned and got safely into
Torbay. He had with him only twenty-three sail of the line, twelve
frigates, and six fire-ships; while the united fleets amounted to
seventy sail, the greater number of which were ships of the line. The
French and Spanish commanders held a council of war, to consider whether
they should attack Darby in the harbour; but fear prevented them; and
after some unavailing attempts to intercept our homeward-bound traders,
this mighty armament, by the wretched state of its ships and crews,
caused by sickness and dissension, was compelled to return to port, in
the month of September, without performing any deed worthy of notice.
All that the French and Spanish admirals did was to pick up some English
vessels, which were bringing home part of the money and property which
the British had seized, as hereafter noticed, at St. Eustatius.




NAVAL ACTION WITH THE DUTCH.

While the French and Spanish fleets were menacing the English coasts,
a dreadful sea-fight took place between the British and the Dutch.
On returning from the Baltic with a convoy of merchant vessels, Rear
Admiral Sir Hyde Parker, in the beginning of August, fell in with
Admiral Zouttman, with a convoy of Dutch traders, off Dogger Bank.
Parker’s fleet consisted of six line-of-battle ships and several
frigates; and Zouttman’s, of ten ships of the line, eight large
frigates, and five sloops. On discovering each other both commanders
prepared for battle, and advanced in gloomy silence until the hostile
fleets were within pistol-shot. Never, perhaps, was more determined
valour exhibited than on this occasion. Ranged abreast of each other,
the hostile squadrons fought without intermission for nearly four hours.
The slaughter on each side was terrible: the English losing about five
hundred, and the Dutch about 1200 in killed and wounded. The action did
not cease till the fleets on both sides were disabled; and then
they lay-to for some time repairing damages, and apparently with the
intention of renewing the struggle. As soon as Zouttman’s ships were
made manageable, however, he wore round, and with all the sail he could
carry, bore away for the Texel. Parker could not pursue him with any
hope of overtaking him; but on the next day his frigates discovered the
Hollandia, a sixty-eight gun-ship, which had been ruined in the battle,
sunk in twenty-two fathoms of water; and it is said that most of the
crew were in her when she went down. By this victory the voyage of the
Dutch to the Baltic was abandoned; their means of procuring naval stores
were cut off; and their valuable carrying-trade was, for this year at
least, annihilated. On his arrival at the Nore, Parker was visited
by the King and the Prince of Wales; and every captain that had been
engaged in the action, and had escaped death, was presented to his
majesty on board the Fortitude. Notwithstanding, Sir Hyde Parker was
so indignant at the insufficiency of his fleet to effect any great
enterprise, that he resigned; and his son, Sir Peter Parker, was
appointed to the command of a squadron of frigates to block up the Dutch
ports.




CAPTURE OF ST. EUSTATIUS.

The Dutch met with a severe punishment for their perfidious conduct at
the hands of Admiral Rodney. Early intelligence of hostilities between
the two countries had been communicated to Rodney; and in conjunction
with General Vaughan he blockaded the island of St. Eustatius with his
whole fleet. Eustatius was a free port, and general depot of West
Indian and American produce, the property of nations both neutral and
belligerent. It was, however, a Dutch island, and that was sufficient to
warrant the seizure. And this was done without any difficulty. De
Graaf, the governor, incapable of making any defence, surrendered at
discretion; and merchandise of all descriptions, at the estimated value
of more than £3,000,000 sterling, which was stored up in the island,
fell into the hands of the British. About two hundred and fifty vessels
also, with much valuable property on board, were captured in the port;
and a fleet of thirty Dutch West Indiamen, that had just sailed for
Europe, was pursued by two ships of the line and a frigate, and every
vessel was taken. Moreover, as General Vaughan kept the Dutch colours
flying at St. Eustatius, a considerable number of Dutch, French, and
American vessels were subsequently decoyed into the harbour, where they
fell into the hands of the conquerors. Finally, the neighbouring small
islands of St. Martin and Saba, Dutch settlements, were reduced;
and about the same time others of their settlements on the rivers of
Demarara and Essequibo, in Guiana, after losing all their shipping and
most of their property, submitted to the governor of Barbadpes.
Among the sufferers by the capture of St. Eustatius were many British
merchants, who, confiding in its neutrality, had there accumulated large
quantities of West Indian produce and European goods. These merchants
stated the hardship of their case to Rodney and Vaughan; but the reply
given them was, that “the island of Eustatius was Dutch, everything in
it was Dutch, everything was under the protection of the Dutch flag, and
as Dutch it should be treated.” But this was only the law of the sword.
Suits at law ware subsequently instituted in the British courts,
which decided otherwise; for large sums were recovered by the British
merchants from the admiral. Notwithstanding, though Rodney erred against
strict legal right, he had a powerful argument on his side—namely, that
he considered himself justified in confiscating the property of British
subjects, who, for their own private gain, had sacrificed the interests
of their country. This argument was founded in strict truth. Eustatius
had long been the chief magazine whence the Americans had procured
supplies; and in that commerce British merchants, more selfish than
patriotic, had anticipated. But the largest portion of the property
seized belonged to the Dutch West India Company, the Amsterdam
merchants, and Americans, and these had no courts to which they could
appeal for its restoration. Notwithstanding, as before seen, England did
not reap the full advantages of these seizures, as some of the ships in
which the treasures were stored, were captured by the French and Spanish
fleets in the English Channel. The island itself also was surrendered
to the French, towards the end of the year, by Colonel Cockburn, in a
manner that reflects no great honour on his valour.




COMMODORE JOHNSTONE ATTACKED BY DE SUFFREIN, ETC.

During this year the British Cabinet aimed at dispossessing the Dutch
of the Cape of Good Hope. Commodore Johnstone was appointed to this
enterprise; and he sailed with five ships of the line, some frigates,
and smaller vessels, having on board three regiments, under the command
of General Meadows. At the solicitation of their ally, the court
of Versailles despatched a superior force, under M. de Suffrein, to
counteract this design. De Suffrein found Johnstone in the neutral part
of Praya, in the island of St. Jago, and proceeded to attack him. He
advanced as to certain victory; but though the British force was at
first thrown into some confusion, de Suffrein was in the end defeated.
Failing in his attempt, the French admiral sailed to the Cape, which he
succeeded in reaching before his enemy, and where he landed some troops
for the defence of Cape Town. In following de Suffrein, the British
commodore met with five Dutch East Indiamen, richly laden, and
he succeeded in capturing four of them, and in burning the other.
Perceiving, however, that he could not compass the original object of
his expedition, he returned to England. When he first set sail, Johnson
was accompanied by some outward-bound East Indiamen, which, on his
return, he intrusted to Captain Christie, with whom he left a squadron
for their defence. Christie captured a French frigate, and convoyed the
East Indiamen safely to their place of destination. In the meantime de
Suffrein sailed to Pondicherry; but he could not prevent the triumph
of British arms on the coast of Coromandel and the island of Sumatra.
During the autumn, Negapatnam, Pedang, and other places belonging to the
French and Dutch, were captured.




FURTHER OPERATIONS IN THE WEST INDIES.

It was while Admiral Rodney was employed at St. Eustatius, that de
Grasse spread his sails for the Chesapeake. Rodney detached Hood and
Drake, with seventeen sail of the line, to intercept his course off
Fort Royal Bay, and a partial engagement took place, but de Grasse was
nevertheless able to hold on his way.

While he proceeded onwards for America, the Marquis de Bouille suddenly
appeared off the island of St. Lucie, and landed some troops; but he was
foiled in his designs, and he then turned his attention to the reduction
of Tobago. This island, though bravely and ably defended by Governor
Ferguson, was captured; and this conquest terminated all naval
operations for the year in the West Indies. Soon after, Rodney returned
to England on account of his health, and Sir Samuel Hood was left in
command of the fleet.




SENTIMENTS OF FOREIGN POWERS TOWARD ENGLAND.

The British cabinet were everywhere frustrated in their endeavours to
gain friends and allies. After the failure of their negociations with
Spain, they sought to purchase the friendship of the emperor Joseph II.,
by offering to him the navigation of the Scheldt, and other advantages,
both commercial and political. Joseph, however, still retained all his
ancient resentment against George III. and his ministers, and their
overtures were unheeded. The offers of the British cabinet, indeed,
appear to have been construed by him into a confession of weakness; for
he even ordered his subjects to withdraw their money from the English
funds, under the plea that a national bankruptcy was inevitable.
Probably, the long and loud cry of the opposition, concerning the
weakness and poverty of England, had reached his ears, which may have
led him into the belief that such a consummation was at hand. It would
have been well for Joseph’s honour had he stopped here. Although England
was surrounded by enemies, and not a friend held forth a helping hand,
he sought to arm the Empress of Russia against her; asserting, that as
Great Britain had commenced hostilities against the Dutch, on account of
the Armed Neutrality, she was called on to assist them by treaty. Joseph
failed in his attempt to put the sword into the hands of the empress,
but he diminished her attachment to the English, and increased her
desire to extend that confederacy. As for Joseph himself, he now openly
declared his accession to the Armed Neutrality, and thereby testified a
desire for the triumph of the Americans, so that ministers plainly saw
that they had nothing to hope from his mediation. This he continued
to offer, while binding himself to the most active enemies of Great
Britain; but “all was false and hollow.”




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament reassembled on the 27th of November. Two days before
this, intelligence had arrived of the surrender of Lord
Cornwallis—intelligence which had caused great consternation in the
British cabinet. His majesty, however, had heard the news with calmness,
dignity, and self-command; and his speech from the throne was in the
same determined language as at the close of the last session, when the
prospects of the nation were radiant with hope. After expressing his
concern at the sad reverse, he declared that he could not consent to
sacrifice, either to his own desire of peace, or to the temporary
ease and relief of his subjects, those essential rights and permanent
interests on which the strength and security of this country must ever
principally depend. He retained, he said, a firm confidence in the
protection of Divine Providence, and a perfect conviction of the
justice of his cause; and he called for the concurrence and support of
parliament, together with a vigorous, animated, and united exertion of
the faculties and resources of the people. In the course of his speech
he remarked, that the favourable appearance of our affairs in the East
Indies, and of the safe arrival of our numerous commercial fleets,
were matters for congratulation: evidently designing these as a kind of
set-off for our reverses in the West, and as encouragements to persevere
in the struggle.

In the commons, an amendment to the address was moved by Mr. Fox, who
declared, “that any one unacquainted with the British constitution, and
not knowing that the speech was contrived by a cabinet-council, would
pronounce it that of an arbitrary and unfeeling monarch, who, having
involved the slaves, his subjects, in a ruinous and unnatural war, to
glut his enmity or satiate his revenge, was determined to persevere, in
spite of calamity or fate itself.” In the burden of the speech, and the
address, opposition had a fine theme for declamation. The mover of the
address complained, in strong terms, that certain members were so lost
to honour and duty, as to glory in the success of the enemy. Fox replied
to this invective in the words which Lord Chatham had used at the
commencement of the dispute: he “thanked God that America had resisted
the claims of the mother country!” He then continued:—“All the
calamities of the nation are ascribed to the wishes, the joy, and the
speeches of the opposition. O, miserable and unfortunate ministers!
Blind and incapable men!—whose measures are framed with so little
foresight, and executed with so little firmness, that they crumble to
pieces, and bring ruin on the country merely because a rash, weak,
or wicked man in the house of commons makes a speech against them!
Retrospective measures are deprecated; but ministers must bear to hear
them from the representatives of an abused people. He even trusted that
they would hear them at the tribunal of justice, and expiate them on
the public scaffold! He would not say they were actually in the pay of
France, for he could not prove the fact; but he would venture to say,
that they had worked for the aggrandisement of the Grand Monarque more
faithfully and successfully than any ministers of his own had ever
done.” Fox then reviewed the origin and conduct of the war, ascribing
our loss to the undue influence of the crown, and connecting the
calamities of the nation with the system of government, and to every
one in power, and particularly to Lord Sandwich, as first lord of the
admiralty He concluded by saying, that there was no hope of better
things until the whole cabinet was changed; and by moving, as an
amendment, a clause, binding the house to apply themselves with united
hearts, to propose and adjust such counsels as might, in this crisis,
excite the efforts, point the arms, and, by a total change of system,
command the confidence of all his majesty’s subjects. Mr. Thomas Pitt
followed on the same side, reiterating the oft-repeated cry of secret
influence, and expressing a hope that ministers would not be displaced
till they had brought the nation to such a crisis as must draw down on
their heads their just reward! Other members spoke in reproachful terms
of the condition of the navy, and were answered by Lord Mulgrave, who
proved that their accusations were unjust and unfounded. Lord North
replied to Fox, and expressed great indignation at the insinuation, that
ministers were in the pay of France. There was no man in the kingdom, he
said, that would believe such a monstrous absurdity; and he vindicated
their zeal in the service of their country, and ascribed any errors that
had been committed to the head rather than to the heart. The American
war, he continued, was prosecuted, not with the design of aggrandising
the crown at the expense of the constitution, but of preserving,
unbroken, that venerable fabric for which our forefathers had bled, and
which all Europe envied. He then reminded the house, that the quarrel
had been begun by parliament, and not by the king—not under the present
ministry, but by that formed out of the ranks of the members of the
existing opposition. A disaster had occurred in Virginia, but were we,
he asked, on that account to lie down and die? For his own part, he
thought, that it should rather animate us to increased exertions: by
dejection and despair everything might be lost. As for himself, he
declared, that he would not be deterred by menaces of impeachment from
striving to preserve the rights and legislative authority of parliament.
The war had been unfortunate, but not unjust: it was founded in right,
and dictated by necessity. He had always thought so, he added, and
if the share he had taken in it should bring him to the scaffold, his
opinions would remain unaltered. Burke replied to the premier in a
speech of great power. North’s speech, he said, was not only imprudent
but audacious. “The war,” he “continued, was not unfortunate, but
disgraceful; for the former epithet could only apply to occurrences in
which fortune alone was concerned, whereas the present war exhibited
neither plan nor foresight. Victory and defeat, in this case, were each
equally calamitous, for each instigated us to go on; but the
king’s speech was the greatest of all calamities, for it showed the
determination of ministers to consummate our ruin.” Burke spoke largely
on the “rights” for which it was said that the war was begun, and for
which it was continued. He asked, whether we ought to risk everything,
and think of no consequences for the sake of a right? Whether ministers
did not know that right without might was of little worth? and whether
a claim, without the power of enforcing it, was not nugatory in the
copyhold of rival states? He compared the reasonings of ministers to a
man, who, full of his prerogative of dominion over a few beasts of the
field, should assert his right to shear a wolf, because it had wool
upon its back, without considering whether he had the power of using the
shears, or whether the animal would submit to the operation of shearing.
He remarked:—“Are we yet to be told of the rights for which we went to
war? Oh, excellent rights! Oh, valuable rights! Valuable you should be,
for we have paid dear at parting with you. Oh, valuable rights! that
have cost Britain thirteen provinces, four islands, 100,000 men, and
more than £70,000,000 of money! Oh, wonderful rights! that have lost
to Great Britain her empire on the ocean,—her boasted, grand, and
substantial superiority,—which made the world bend before her! Oh,
inestimable rights! that have taken from us our rank among nations—our
importance abroad, and our happiness at home; that have taken from us
our trade, our manufactures, and our commerce; that have reduced us from
the most flourishing empire in the world, to be one of the most compact
and unenviable powers on the globe! Oh, wonderful rights! that are
likely to take from us all that yet remains!” This picture of the
nation’s misery, however, was greatly overwrought. England was not yet
reduced to the abject state in which Burke would have had the house
believe she was in. Her empire on the seas was not yet lost, nor was she
shorn of her rank among the nations. Provinces, islands, men, money, and
trade had been lost in the struggle, but she was still able to lift
up her head among the nations of the earth. Opposition, in truth, in
uttering this language, must have felt that it partook of the nature of
Oriental hyperbole; and all men could see that it was adopted for party
purposes. Fox’s amendment was negatived by two hundred and eighteen
against one hundred and twenty-nine.

A similar amendment to that of Fox was moved in the house of lords
by the Earl of Shelburne, who decried the whole conduct of the
war, imputing its disasters to a want of system, combination, and
intelligence; expressed his fears that we might find another Chesapeak
at Plymouth, or in the Thames; declaimed against the war with Holland,
as a perfidious measure; and asserted, in the language of Chatham, that
if the present system were pursued, “his majesty’s crown would soon
be not worth his wearing.” The Duke of Richmond, the Marquess of
Rockingham, and Lord Camden likewise censured the conduct of ministers:
the former ascribing all the faults of government to an interior
cabinet. In support of this, Richmond quoted Chatham’s declaration,
“that when he entered the king’s closet, he found the ground rotten, and
himself duped and deceived.” The measures of government were defended
by the lord-chancellor, Lord Stormont, and the Earl of Hillsborough, and
the amendment was rejected by seventy-five against thirty-one.

On bringing up the report of the address, the debate was renewed, in the
course of which William Pitt delivered a speech which was applauded by
both sides of the house. In his speech Pitt protested against the house
pledging itself by the address to continue the American war; asserted,
that no two members on the treasury-bench agreed in sentiment, or
were in heart sincere friends; denied that the war was either just or
necessary; spoke with horror of the fate which awaited the American
royalists by the capitulation of Lord Cornwallis; and expressed a hope,
that if ministers persevered in their present course, they might meet
with a fate equally severe. Burke also animadverted in glowing terms
on the capitulation of Lord Cornwallis, and the omission of any article
which would secure the American loyalists from the vengeance of their
countrymen. He remarked:—“It is a horrid spectacle which must meet the
eyes of a prince of the blood, (Prince William Duke of Clarence,) who
cannot sail along the American coast without beholding the faithful
adherents of his father hanging in quarters on every headland.” This
was literally true; but the fact is, the headlands of America had been
decorated with gibbets from the very commencement of the war, and the
surrender of Lord Cornwallis had nothing to do with the matter. As for
the fall of Cornwallis, it was not an ignoble one; for his handfull of
men could scarcely have been expected to hold out against the united
arms of France and America. One member, Mr. Courtenay, in reply, justly
observed that his chains were wreathed with laurels; that he was an
ornament to his profession; and that he was entitled to the highest
dignities that could be conferred upon him by his sovereign. The report
was adopted by one hundred and thirty-one against fifty-four.

{GEORGE III. 1781–1782}




CENSURES ON RODNEY AND VAUGHAN.

On the 4th of December Burke moved for a committee of the whole house,
“to inquire into the confiscation of the effects, wares, and merchandise
belonging to his majesty’s new subjects of St. Eustatius, and further
to inquire into the sale and distribution of a great part of the said
effects to the islands belonging to France, and to other parts of
the dominions of his majesty’s enemies.” In making this motion, Burke
represented the attack on Eustatius as wanton; maintained, that by means
of the effects and stores which had been sold there, the enemy had been
supplied with what they otherwise could not have obtained; and accused
Rodney of promoting the success of the French by lingering at the island
while their fleet was reinforced, so as to enable them to take Tobago.
Rodney and Vaughan were both in the house, and the former replied to
this attack. The residents, who called themselves Englishmen, he said,
were chiefly Jews of the worst character, who had been in the habit of
supplying the enemies of England with warlike stores, and therefore were
unworthy of favour. As to the charge of neglect, he remarked, that he
had taken every care to see the stores found at St. Eustatius safely
conveyed to his majesty’s store-houses at Antigua, and that he had,
under every circumstance, made the best use of the inferior fleet at his
disposal: this he proved by narrating how he was situated at the time.
Vaughan, in his defence, declared that he had not been benefited to the
amount of a single shilling by the capture of St. Eustatius; that he had
treated the enemy with great lenity; and that he had acted to the best
of his judgment for his country’s welfare. The motion was negatived by
one hundred and sixty-three again st eighty-nine.




DEBATE ON THE NAVY.

On the 5th of December Lord Lisburne moved, that

100,000 seamen should be granted for the ensuing year. Mr. Hussey, a
member of opposition, moved an amendment, substituting 110,000, which
brought on a stormy debate on the state of the navy, in the course
of which ministers were taunted with delay and neglect in fitting out
ships. It was asserted, that if ministers refused the additional supply
offered, they must be suspected of some dark and sinister design; but
they nevertheless did refuse the offer, and the amendment was rejected
by one hundred and forty-three against seventy-seven.




MOTION OF SIR JAMES LOWTHER FOR PEACE, ETC.

Previous to the debate on the navy, when the army estimates were laid
before the house, a motion was made, that no supplies should be granted
until the ministers had given proof of repentance and amendment—in
other words, that war with America should be discontinued. This was
negatived by an overwhelming majority; but nothing daunted by this
defeat, on the 12th of December Sir James Lowther moved these two
resolutions:—“To declare that the war carried on in the colonies and
plantations of North America had been ineffectual to the purposes for
which it had been undertaken; and that it was also the opinion of the
house, that all further attempts to reduce the Americans to obedience
by force must be injurious to this country, by weakening her powers to
resist her ancient and confederated enemies.” The motion was seconded by
Mr. Powys, in a long and able speech, in which he declared that, as no
idea of revenue remained, and that as there was no idea of alleviating
the burdens of Great Britain by carrying on the war, the country
gentlemen, long deceived, could be deceived no longer. Some of the
supporters of government seem either to have been convinced of their
error, or to have perceived that a change was coming, for more than
twenty spoke or voted in favour of the motion. It was, however, opposed
by Lords North and Germaine, and, on a division, was negatived by two
hundred and twenty to one hundred and seventy-nine. War, therefore,
was to be continued. At the same time it was evident, from Lord North’s
speech, that the plan of operations would, in the next campaign, be
materially altered. It would not, he said, be wise or right to prosecute
the war in America on a continental plan; that is, by sending fresh
armies through the colonies. North, however, argued that the posts
held in America must be defended, and that the British trade must be
protected against American privateers. The subject of war was renewed
on the 14th, when Mr. Pitt reviewed the whole of the operations, and
asserted, that the ministry were intent only upon one thing, and that
was the destruction of the empire. He added:—“God grant that their
punishment be not so long delayed as to involve a great and innocent
family, who, though they share not the guilt, will most likely
participate in the atonement.” Sir George Saville followed, and in his
speech likened the crown and parliament to dancers in a minuet, to a
tune composed by the cabinet—the crown led off one way, the parliament
to the opposite corner; and they then joined hands, when the dance
ended as it began. He also compared ministers to the Spartan, (it was an
Athenian,) who, in an engagement by sea, seized the stern with his right
hand, which was instantly chopped off; and who then renewed the effort
with his left, which shared the same fate, whereupon he seized the
galley with his teeth. The ministry had lost two armies in attempts on
America, yet they were determined to proceed; but he warned them, that
when the Spartan seized the vessel with his teeth, he forfeited his
head. This debate was intended to delay the supplies; but on a division,
the majority was one hundred and sixty-six to eighty-four. Subsequently
a debate occurred on the subject of the ex-president Lauren’s
imprisonment in the Tower, and Mr. Burke gave notice of a motion on his
behalf; but this was rendered unnecessary, as Laurens was soon after
discharged in exchange for General Burgoyne. In the upper house an
attempt was made by the Marquess of Rockingham to prevent the third
reading of the Malt and Land-tax Bills before the recess, but it
was unavailing. Such were the proceedings of parliament before the
adjournment.




CHAPTER XIII.

{GEORGE III. 1782–1784}

     Recent events on  the Theatre of War..... Fox’s  Motion for
     Inquiring into the Navy..... Motions of Inquiry in the House
     of Lords..... Debates on Lord George Germaine’s Elevation to
     the Peerage..... Renewed Attacks on Lord Sandwich:
     Resignation of Lord  North..... The New Ministry.....
     Affairs of Ireland..... Bill   for excluding Contractors,
     &c. Resolutions respecting Wilkes expunged from the
     Journals..... Disfranchisement of Cricklade,  &c.
     Debates on  Parliamentary Reform..... East India
     Affairs..... Change in the Ministry..... Prorogation of
     Parliament..... Victory of Rodney..... Affairs of the War in
     America..... State of the War in the West Indies, &c.
     Maritime Events..... Siege and Relief of Gibraltar.....
     Prospect of general Pacification..... Meeting of
     Parliament..... Preliminaries of   Peace..... Re-assembling
     of  Parliament..... The Coalition Ministry.....
     Re-establishment of Commercial Intercourse with America,
     &c. Pitt’s Plan for Reforming the Treasury, &c.
     East India Affairs..... Petition of the Quakers against the
     Slave Trade..... Settlement on the Prince of Wales.....
     Parliament Prorogued..... Execution of Treaties, &c.
     Meeting of Parliament..... Fox’s  India Bill.....
     Dissolution of  the Coalition Ministry: Pitt made Prime
     Minister..... Efforts of the Opposition against the New
     Ministry.

{A.D. 1782}




RECENT EVENTS ON THE THEATRE OF WAR.

It having been ascertained that the French government had sent out a
naval armament with large supplies for the East and West Indies, Admiral
Kempenfelt was despatched for the purpose of intercepting them. The
squadron with which Kempenfelt was intrusted was not sufficiently
powerful for the object of his expedition; but having met the enemy’s
ships dispersed by a gale of wind off Ushant, he succeeded in capturing
twenty transports laden with ordnance, stores, and troops, with which he
returned to port. This success, however, was quickly followed by news of
sad reverses, and increased dangers and difficulties. St. Eustatius was
taken by the French; Gibraltar was hard pressed by the Spaniards; the
British possessions in the West Indies were in imminent peril from the
French arms; and finally Minorca was lost. This latter event took place
on the 5th of February, when General Murray, from want of sufficient
force to withstand the besiegers, and from the sickness which
prevailed among the few troops he had under his command, was obliged
to capitulate. His real position may be gathered from a letter which
he wrote a few days after. “Perhaps,” said he, “a more noble, or a
more tragical scene was never exhibited, than that of the march of
the garrison of St. Philip’s through the Spanish and French armies. It
consisted of no more than six hundred old decrepit soldiers, two hundred
seamen, one hundred and twenty-five of the royal artillery, twenty
Corsicans, and twenty-five Greeks, Turks, Moors, Jews, &c. The two
armies were drawn up in two lines, the battalions fronting each other,
forming a way for us to march through: they consisted of 14,000 men, and
reached from the glacis to George Town, where our battalions laid down
their arms, declaring they had surrendered them to God alone, having the
consolation to know the victors could not plume themselves in taking an
hospital. Such were the distressing features of our men, that many of
the Spanish and French troops shed tears as they passed them.” Crillon
himself was touched with pity and admiration; and he atoned for his
previous fault in endeavouring to bribe General Murray, by treating
the vanquished with great humanity; causing them to be attended by his
surgeons, and providing for their comfort. These reverses had a great
effect upon the nation. Petitions were voted in the city of London, and
in several counties, to his majesty, reprobating the whole conduct of
the war, and praying the dismissal of all his advisers, both public and
private. Still, though the warlike tone of the people was lowered,
the principle of the war was not generally unpopular, nor the public
indignation against our many enemies abated. It was the improbability of
success alone that called forth the petitions.




FOX’S MOTIONS FOR INQUIRY INTO THE NAVY.

Encouraged by the recent reverses, during the recess the opponents of
administration had been employed in forming and maturing a general plan
of attack. The chief conduct of this was intrusted to Mr. Fox, who, on
the reassembling of parliament, moved for an inquiry into the causes of
the constant ill-success of the naval forces, and more especially during
the preceding year. This inquiry, it was stated, would resolve itself
into two distinct parts: whether Lord Sandwich, the first lord of the
admiralty, had the means of procuring a navy equal to the exigencies
of the state; and whether he employed the force which he possessed with
wisdom and ability? Lord Sandwich was defended by Captain Luttrel and
Lord Mulgrave; but Lord North declared that both himself and the object
of the attack were anxious that the subject should undergo a complete
investigation; and the motion passed without a division. An animated
debate took place respecting the papers to be produced; and finally
a suggestion of Mr. Pitt was adopted: namely, that the substance of
letters and documents relating to the subject, and not the letters and
documents themselves, should be laid before the house. The debate was
then postponed till the 7th of February, when, after the reading of the
papers which ministers consented to produce, Fox brought forward several
distinct charges against the board of admiralty. These were:—That de
Grasse was suffered to depart for the West Indies without any effort
to intercept his fleet; that the loss of the convoy sent home with
the booty captured at St. Eustatius might have been prevented, had a
squadron been sent out for its protection; that a letter sent by the
admiralty to the merchants of Bristol, had misled them with reference
to the presence of the French fleet in the Channel, whereby the trade
of their port was endangered; and that the fleets sent out with Admiral
Kempenfelt and against the Dutch, were insufficient for the object of
their expedition. Fox concluded by moving, that there had been gross
mismanagement of naval affairs during the year 1781. This motion
was supported by Lord Howe and Mr. Pitt; but Lord Sandwich was again
defended by Lord Mulgrave; and on a division, it was lost by a majority
of twenty-two: a majority, however, which showed that there was a change
of opinion in the house.




MOTIONS OF INQUIRY IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

In the house of Lords, after parliament had reassembled, the Duke of
Richmond moved for an inquiry into the execution of Colonel Hayne,
at Charlestown; but his grace was outvoted by seventy-three against
twenty-five. Subsequently, the Duke of Chandos moved for an inquiry into
the cause which led to the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, and also
for all copies of the correspondence between ministers and Sir Henry
Clinton, during the preceding year. These propositions were agreed to,
but no results arose therefrom.




DEBATES ON LORD GEORGE GERMAINE’S ELEVATION TO THE PEERAGE.

About this time, Lord George Germaine resigned office, and undeterred
by his unpopularity, his majesty created him Viscount Sackville. On
the report of this proceeding, the Marquess of Carmarthen brought
the subject before the Lords, and moved a resolution, “that it was
derogatory to the honour of that house; that any person labouring under
the censure of a court-martial, should be recommended to the crown to
be raised to the dignity of a peerage.” In moving this resolution, the
marquess read the sentence of the court-martial, which had been passed
upon Lord George Germaine, together with the public orders issued upon
it by George II. Several speeches were made, reflecting on the character
of the embryo peer, and threatening him with impeachment; but the motion
was objected to on the part of the ministers, as interfering with the
prerogative of the crown; and the question of adjournment was carried
by a large majority. On the 18th of February, Lord George, as Viscount
Sackville, took his seat among the peers, when the Marquess of
Carmarthen repeated his motion. The new-made peer defended himself
with great spirit and dignity; and he was also defended by the lord
chancellor and several other peers, so that, when the motion was put
to the vote, it was lost by a majority of ninety-three against
twenty-eight. Nine peers entered a protest on the journals, repeating
the motion, sentence, and public orders, and declaring “that the
elevation of Lord Sackville was a measure fatal to the interests and
glory of the crown, as well as the dignity of parliament; an insult on
the memory of the late sovereign, and every survivor of the illustrious
house of Brunswick.” The seals which Sackville had resigned were given
to Mr. Welbore Ellis, whose appointment gave great umbrage to the
members of opposition.




RENEWED ATTACKS ON LORD SANDWICH: RESIGNATION OF LORD NORTH.

Viscount Sackville had retired from the thickest of the battle, but
Lord Sandwich was still exposed to the fire of the enemy. On the 20th
of February, Fox renewed his attack upon him, by moving a resolution
similar to that which he had already lost in committee. His censure
was extended this time to the whole board of admiralty, and he was
ably seconded by Mr. Pitt, who went through an accurate detail of naval
events in the preceding year, and commented on each with remarkable
acuteness and great force of reasoning. His speech appears to have had a
great effect upon the house, for on a division the motion was lost by a
majority on the part of ministers, of nineteen only. Encouraged by the
decreasing majorities of administration, opposition continued their
attacks. On the 27th of February, General Conway moved:—“That the
further prosecution of offensive hostilities for the purpose of reducing
the revolted colonies to obedience by force, would weaken the efforts of
Great Britain against her European enemies; increase the mutual enmity
so fatal both to Great Britain and America; and, by preventing a happy
reconciliation with that country, frustrate the desire expressed by
his majesty, of restoring the blessings of peace and tranquillity.” The
storm in the house was so loud on this occasion, that Lord North could
scarcely obtain a healing. When he did, he objected to the motion as
dangerous, on account of the information it would convey to our enemies,
and as tending to retard the attainment of peace, which he said was now
the wish on both sides of the house. He added, that if the house should
show that they had wholly withdrawn their confidence from him, it would
then be his duty to resign office. Mr. Wallace, the attorney-general,
endeavoured to ward off the blow, by stating his intention to bring in a
bill which would enable ministers to treat on the basis of a truce, for
which reason he moved an adjournment of the debate. But opposition were
now satisfied that they should obtain a victory, and were resolved to
push the matter forward vigorously. The motion for adjournment was lost
by a majority of nineteen; and the original question and an address
to the king were then carried without a division. The answer of his
majesty, which was very vague, was reported to the house on Monday,
and thanks were voted unanimously. But opposition had no idea of being
satisfied with a half-triumph. As soon as they had paid this compliment
to his majesty, General Conway moved:—“That the house would consider as
enemies to his majesty and the country all those who should advise, or
by any means attempt, the further prosecution of offensive war on the
continent of North America;” a motion which was agreed to without a
division. It was hoped that ministers would now resign, but Lord North
still kept his seat on the treasury-bench, and the attorney-general, on
the next day introduced his plan of a truce with America. His scheme was
denounced as a farce by Fox, but it was nevertheless agreed to without
a division. On this occasion Lord North told Fox in plain terms, that he
would not quit office to gratify his impatience; and that he would not
retire till the king ordered him, or until the house clearly proved
that he must retire. He retained office, he said, in order to prevent
confusion, and the introduction of mischievous and unconstitutional
principles. Opposition, however, were intent upon driving him from
office, and would not be satisfied till they had achieved a full and
final triumph. On the 8th of March, Lord John Cavendish, at the close
of a series of resolutions, moved this direct vote of censure upon
ministers:—“That the chief cause of all the national misfortunes is
want of foresight and ability in the members of administration.” A
debate ensued which lasted till two o’clock in the morning, when the
house divided on the order of the day, moved by ministers, and which
was carried by a majority of eight, so that the motion of Lord John
Cavendish was lost. Nothing daunted, however, opposition returned to
the charge. On the 15th Sir John Rous moved:—“That the house could no
longer repose confidence in ministers.” This motion was also lost by
a majority of nine; but Lord Surrey gave notice that he would make a
motion to the same effect on the 20th, so that there was a prospect of
the struggle being continued. But the work of the opposition was now
done—their long-wished-for and ardently-sought triumph achieved. On
the 19th of March, Lord North sent a message to the king, intimating
the necessity of his immediately resigning. His majesty replied, that he
should be at St. James’s Palace on the following day, when he would see
him, and in that interview Lord North tendered his resignation. He rode
direct from his majesty to the house of commons, where Lord Surrey was
waiting to make his motion. On his arrival it was moved:—“That the Earl
of Surrey be now heard;” on which Lord North rose and calmly told the
house, that as the object of the intended motion was the removal of
his majesty’s ministers, such a motion was become unnecessary, as the
present administration was no more! He moved an adjournment of five days
to allow time for new arrangements, to which the house agreed, and Lord
North then left the treasury-bench, where he had presided for twelve
years as the supreme personage in the house of commons. He retired from
office a poorer man than he came into it: a noble proof of his integrity
of conduct. His income would have been insufficient for the education
and maintenance of his numerous children, had not his majesty been
pleased to secure him in the office of lord warden of the cinque ports.
On his retirement he received flattering compliments from his adherents,
while opposition were not ashamed of exhibiting a glowing exultation
at their triumph. So marked was this exultation in several of his
opponents, that Burke, more generous, and more noble, exhorted them to
guard against those passions which distort the human mind, and severely
censured them for their ill-timed and misplaced joy. He also pointed
out to them the great expectations which the nation had aright to expect
from them after their manifold declarations, and set before them the
difficulty of the task which they had to accomplish. Wise men there
were among them: but it is a question whether under the circumstances
in which Lord North was placed, they could have guided the helm of the
state with greater steadiness or greater skill.




THE NEW MINISTRY.

In the ranks of the opposition there were two parties: one which
contended for the complete emancipation of the colonies; and the other,
though opposed to the principle of taxation and the continuance of
hostilities, which still wished to maintain the principle of supremacy
over the colonies. At the head of the first of these parties was the
Marquess of Rockingham, and of the second, the Earl of Shelburne. His
majesty was still reluctant to acknowledge the independence of the
colonists, and he, therefore, naturally looked to Lord Shelburne as the
successor of Lord North. Accordingly Shelburne was sent for, and had the
first post offered him; but his lordship informed his majesty that, in
his opinion, no one could at present fill that situation except Lord
Rockingham. A negociation was therefore set on foot with the Marquess,
whose appointment was soon afterwards announced, with Lord Shelburne
and Mr. Fox as secretaries of state. The other new ministers were Lord
Camden, as president of the council; the Duke of Grafton, as keeper
of the seal; Admiral Keppel, created viscount, as first lord of the
admiralty; Lord John Cavendish, as chancellor of the exchequer; General
Conway, as commander-in-chief; Mr. Dunning, created Lord Ashburton,
as chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; and the Duke of Richmond, as
master-general of the ordnance. Lord Thurlow retained the great seal.
The other departments of the state were filled by persons eminent for
rank or talent. The Duke of Portland was sent out as lord-lieutenant of
Ireland; Mr. Burke was made paymaster of the forces; Mr. T. Townshend
became secretary at war, and Colonel Barré treasurer of the navy; Mr.
Sheridan was under-secretary of state; Lord Howe, created viscount, was
appointed to the command of the grand fleet; Mr. Kenyon and Mr. John Lee
were made attorney and solicitor-general; and Sir William Howe was made
lieutenant-general of the ordnance. The usual changes, also, took place
in the royal household; at which the king was far more affected than he
was by the total change in the ministry. It is said that William
Pitt was offered the place of a lord of the treasury, which office
he rejected with disdain. Be this as it may, Pitt, who had largely
contributed to the overthrow of Lord North’s cabinet, remained without
post or situation. Pitt, however, probably consoled himself with the
idea that the new ministry would not retain the reins of government
for any length of period, and that on their ruin he might rise to the
highest office in the state. From the very conditions, indeed, upon
which the Marquess of Rockingham consented to form the new ministry, and
to place himself at the head, it was clear that his administration
would not be of long duration. These conditions were:—“Peace with the
Americans, and the acknowledgment of their independence not to be a bar
to the attainment of that object. A substantial reform in the several
branches of the civil list expenditure, on the plan proposed by Mr.
Burke. The diminution of the influence of the crown, under which article
the bills for excluding contractors from seats in parliament, and
disqualifying the revenue-officers from voting in the election of
members, were included.” These were arbitrary measures to impose upon a
monarch holding-such sentiments as George III., and it was manifest to
all men of discernment that the men who imposed them upon him could not
hope to possess his confidence. Moreover, there were wide disagreements
in the cabinet, as to the means of pursuing the first of these objects,
and as to the lengths to which the others should be carried. Finally,
mutual jealousies and dislikes existed between the members of the
confederated parties; and it required no prophetic eye to foresee that
they would never act with that unanimity requisite for the establishment
of their power. The issue was, that “every day brought forth a new proof
of that hatred which the parties composing this administration bore
towards each other; the Rockinghams abused Lord Shelburne for want of
good faith; and the reply of the Shelburnes was, that they were in no
ways pledged to Lord Rockingham.”




AFFAIRS OF IRELAND.

In consequence of writs having to be issued for new elections, to
replace such members as had vacated their seats by accepting office,
parliament did not re-assemble until the 8th of April, on which day
the new administration commenced the trial of their strength. The first
measure of national importance which they brought forward, was the
repeal of an act passed in the reign of George I., for securing the
dependency of Ireland; and against which a loud clamour had been long
raised in that country. This repeal, which was carried through both
houses of parliament without a division, was virtually a renunciation
of legislating for Ireland; and therefore gave great satisfaction to the
whole body of the Irish people. This satisfaction was increased by
the abolition of the power of suppressing or altering bills in the
privy-council, and the limitation of the duration of the Mutiny Act
to the term of two years. So gratified were the Irish with these
concessions, that a vote of the house of commons in that kingdom passed
unanimously for raising 20,000 seamen for the service of the British
navy. The subject of Irish discontent was introduced into the British
parliament by Mr. Luttrell, but it was the eloquence of Mr. Grattan
which moved ministers to make these large concessions to Ireland. While
they were hesitating as to the extent of the gifts which they should
offer to allay the angry feelings that existed in that country, he set
forth in a lofty tone of eloquence the rights of Ireland, and ministers
wavered no more. The spirit of the Irish nation may be seen in the
following portion of his speech. He remarked:—“I remember Ireland
when she was a child, and have beheld her progress from injuries to
arms—from arms to liberty. The Irish are no longer afraid of the
French, nor of any nation; nor of any minister. If men turned their
eyes to the rest of Europe, they would find the ancient spirit expired,
liberty ceded, and empire lost: nations subsisting on the memory of
past glory, and guarded by mercenary armies. But Ireland, quitting
such examples, had become a model to them: she had excelled modern, and
equalled ancient Europe. The meeting of delegates at Dungannon was a
great event; and like all original measures, matter of surprise till
it became matter of admiration. It may be compared to the English
convention parliament, or the assembly of barons at Runnymede; all were
original transactions, not flowing from precedent, but containing in
themselves precedent and principle. Every great constitutional question
would have been lost, the public would have been lost, had they depended
only on parliament; but they had fallen into the hands of the people,
and by the people they would be preserved. The Irish volunteers are
associated for the preservation of the laws, but the claims of the
British parliament are subversive of all law. The volunteers had
supported the rights of the Irish parliament against those temporary
trustees who would have relinquished them? but England had no reason to
fear the Irish volunteers: they would die for England and her majestic
race of men. Allied by liberty as well as allegiance, the two nations
formed a constitutional confederacy: the perpetual annexation of the
crown was one great bond, but liberty was a still greater. It would be
easy to find a king, but impossible for Ireland to find a nation which
could communicate to them a great charter, save only England. This made
England a natural connexion; and every true Irishman would exclaim,
‘Liberty with England; but at all events, Liberty.’”

{GEORGE III. 1782–1784}




BILL FOR EXCLUDING CONTRACTORS, ETC.

It has been seen that bills for disabling revenue-officers from voting
at elections, and excluding contractors from the house of commons, had
been repeatedly brought into parliament, and as repeatedly negatived. In
order to acquire popularity ministers revived these bills, and they now
passed with approbation and applause. And it seems to have been high
time that such measures should have been adopted. In support of the
former bill, the Marquess of Rockingham declared that the election
chiefly depended on officers of the revenue in seventy boroughs, and
that nearly 12,000 officers, created by the recent administration,
possessed votes in other places. He argued that his situation, as
first lord of the treasury, would be extremely uneasy if the bill were
rejected, for he could not without remorse subject them through his
influence to the necessity of voting against the dictates of gratitude
and conscience. This was a curious argument, but it terminated the
debate, and the bill passed. About the same time, also, Mr. Burke’s
Reform Bill was again brought forward, and after some warm opposition
in the house of lords was adopted. By this bill the board of trade, the
board of works, the great wardrobe, the office of American secretary of
state, and many sinecure appointments were abolished.




RESOLUTIONS RESPECTING WILKES EXPUNGED FROM THE JOURNALS.

During this session, Wilkes was successful in obtaining the erasure of
the resolutions concerning the celebrated Middlesex election from the
journals. The motion was made by himself and was seconded by Mr. Byng.
It was opposed by Fox, the “man of the people,” on the principle that
the house of commons ought, for the advantage of electors, to have
the privilege of expelling those whom they as representatives deemed
unworthy of a seat. Elated with his triumph, Wilkes published a letter
expressive of delight, but the people generally did not participate in
his triumph. The sun of Wilkes’s popularity had long gone down, and the
people read his letter with indifference.




DISFRANCHISEMENT OF CRICKLADE, ETC.

A few days after the success of Wilkes an act was passed, by large
majorities in both houses, for disfranchising many corrupt voters of
the borough of Cricklade, and extending the right of suffrage to the
freeholders of the hundred. This bill was strenuously opposed in the
upper house by Lords Thurlow, Mansfield, and Loughborough. In the course
of the debate the Duke of Richmond accused the lord-chancellor Thurlow,
not without justice, of opposing every reform; and Lord Fortescue
attacked the law lords in general, declaring that the dignity of the
house was lowered and tarnished by their presence. All the above
bills originated with the Rockingham party. Soon after, Lord Shelburne
introduced a bill of his own, for compelling persons holding patent
places in the colonies and foreign possessions to reside, and do
something for their money, which was adopted.




DEBATES ON PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

Encouraged by the fate of Criclade, and by petitions for parliamentary
reform from the Livery of London, and the still existing county
associations, on the 7th of May, Mr. William Pitt moved for a committee
to inquire into the state of the representation in parliament, and to
report their observations thereon to the house. The petitions which had
been presented prayed for the abolition of the Septennial Act. Pitt
did not adopt this prayer, but demanded the sweeping away of all rotten
boroughs, and the establishment of an equal representation. His motion
was seconded by Alderman Sawbridge, and was warmly supported by Sir
George Saville, Mr. Fox, and other Whig orators. It was opposed by
Thomas Pitt, who declared rotten boroughs to be an essential working
part of the constitution—a sentiment suggested by his being proprietor
of the borough of Old Sarum. Mr. Powys also could not see any utility in
the revisal of a system which had stood the test of ages; and Mr. Dundas
thought that the inquiry promised no benefit, that it would lead to
evil, and that it would be wiser to submit to certain irregularities in
an established form of government, than by attempting the correction to
hazard the safety of the whole fabric. The debate manifested that the
Whig aristocracy, now in power, were as anxious to quash this inquiry as
the Tories themselves could have been; and it is remarkable, that Burke,
Townshend, and others were also adverse to the motion. On a division,
however, the motion was rejected by a majority of twenty only; the
numbers being one hundred and sixty-one against one hundred and
forty-one.




EAST INDIA AFFAIRS.

A secret committee had been appointed to investigate the abuses of the
Indian government. During this session several reports were presented
to the house, when Mr. Dundas reviewed the state of the company and its
servants, in the course of which he reprobated the spirit of ambition
which provoked the native powers, in the hope of profiting by their
conquest; the perfidy which produced violations of treaty; the
prodigality which had induced embarrassment and distress; and the
misgovernment which generally prevailed in our Asiatic establishments.
The reports led to a bill of pains and penalties against Sir Thomas
Rumbold, for high crimes and misdemeanours committed in the Carnatic;
to a vote of censure on Warren Hastings and Mr. Hornsby, president of
Bombay; and to an address to his majesty, praying the removal of Sir
Elijah Impey from the office of chief-justice at Bengal.




CHANGE IN THE MINISTRY.

During these proceedings in parliament Mr. Fox, who, before he became
foreign secretary, had insinuated in the commons that he possessed
the means of detaching the Dutch from the French, offered to Holland a
renewal of amity on the terms of the treaty of 1674. Mr. Fox had also
been endeavouring to conclude a peace with the Americans, the chief
terms of which were the recognition of the independence of the thirteen
American colonies, and for the rest _a status quo ante bellum_. No
progress had been made in these negociations—for they were obstructed
by the great powers of Europe—when the Marquess of Rockingham died,
which put an end to the cabinet. Immediately after his decease the king
sent for Lord Shelburne, and placed him at the head of the cabinet,
which so deeply offended the Rockingham party that they resigned: Fox,
Burke, Lord John Cavendish, John Townshend, the Duke of Portland, as
governor of Ireland, and others at the boards of treasury and
admiralty instantly threw up office in disgust. In consequence of their
resignations, Mr. Thomas Townshend was made foreign secretary; Lord
Grantham obtained the secretaryship, which had been held by Lord
Shelburne; William Pitt was raised to the post of chancellor of the
exchequer; Colonel Barré was made paymaster of the forces, while Mr.
Dundas was appointed treasurer of the navy in his room; Sir George Yonge
succeeded Mr. Townshend as secretary of war; Lord Temple undertook the
lieutenancy of Ireland; and Mr. Pepper Arden was made solicitor-general.
The promotion which attracted most attention was that of William Pitt,
who was only twenty-three years of age, and wild, by his promotion to
the post of the chancellor of the exchequer, became leader of the
house of commons; and that at a time when the pecuniary concerns of the
country were, from the long and expensive war which still raged, in a
state of great embarrassment. Fox and his associates were accused of
heat and precipitancy, and of having committed the whole Whig cause by
their sudden resignation, whence, on the 9th of July, Fox thought proper
to defend his conduct in the house of commons; maintaining, that he and
his colleagues could not act with honour and benefit to the country,
either under or in conjunction with Lord Shelburne. In his speech, he
arraigned the conduct of the new first-minister, and General Conway rose
in his defence. While he lamented the retirement of Fox, Conway said,
that in a cabinet of eleven ministers, there must be some shades of
difference; but he denied that these were sufficient to justify the
resignation of Fox and the other friends of the deceased marquess. Mr.
Pitt was more severe in his remarks upon Fox than General Conway. He
accused him of being more at variance with men than their measures, and
of having resigned in pique and from disappointed ambition, rather than
on any public ground. This language might have been just to a certain
extent, but there were doubtless other reasons more cogent than pique
and animosity for the retirement of Fox, as he was at this time in a
desperate state of poverty. Be this as it may, the severity of Pitt was
the commencement of a long conflict between him and Fox.

{GEORGE III. 1782—1784}




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued on the 11th of July. News had been recently
received of a victory gained by Rodney, which restored the naval
supremacy of England in the western world; of the relief of Gibraltar,
and of the poverty and embarrassment of France and Spain, as well as
the absolute pauperism of the American congress. Although, therefore,
overtures had been made for peace with the Americans, on the basis of
independence, yet, in his speech, the king did not show himself disposed
to go thus far if it could be avoided. He remarked:—“Nothing can
be more repugnant to my feelings than the long continuance of so
complicated a war; but should the want of a corresponding disposition on
the part of the enemy disappoint the hopes of terminating that calamity,
I shall still rely on the spirit, affection, and unanimity of my
parliament and people to support the honour of my crown and the
interests of the nation. The most triumphant career of victory would not
excite me to aim at more than reasonable terms of pacification; and I
have the satisfaction to add, that I see no reason which should induce
me to think of accepting less.” Recent pages indeed show, that his
majesty was always averse to a recognition of the independence of
America, and if ever he had given his consent to the proposals Fox had
made, it must have been wrung from him under a consciousness that his
cause was hopeless. As for Lord Shelburne he still adhered to the dogma
of Chatham, and was as averse to the independence of America as the
king himself, whence there is a stronger reason than private pique and
animosity that Fox should have resigned. Had he not done so he must have
acted against his own conscience, which should ever be consulted by man,
whether acting in a private or public capacity. He who acts against
the dictates of his own conscience is unworthy of the public esteem or
confidence.




VICTORY OF RODNEY.

All our leeward islands, except Barbadoes and Antigua, had been
conquered by the enemy, after which the fleets of France and Spain
projected an expedition against Jamaica, A reinforcement was despatched
under de Guichen, and Admiral Kempenfelt was too weak to intercept his
progress. In the meantime Rodney arrived at Barbadoes, and soon after
put to sea with the intention of joining Sir Samuel Hood, who had been
vainly endeavouring to relieve the island of St. Christopher, which was
assailed by the Count de Grasse, and a land force under the Marquis de
Bouille. Rodney met Hood returning from St. Christopher’s, which
had been captured in spite of his exertions to save it; and upon his
information that de Grasse had proceeded to Martinique in order to
prepare for a grand attack on Jamaica, Rodney sailed with the whole
British fleet to St. Lucie, in order to watch his movements. On the
8th of April a signal announced that de Grasse was coming out from Fort
Royal Hay, upon which Rodney weighed anchor, and set sail in pursuit of
him. At daybreak on the following morning the enemy was discovered at
Dominique, but continued calms prevented a close action. The van of the
English, indeed, engaged the rear of the French; but a breeze springing
up, de Grasse took advantage of it, and sailed away. Rodney, however,
still pursued, and towards the evening of the 11th the headmost ships
of the van gained so much on one or two of the enemy’s ships, which
had been damaged in the recent engagement, that de Grasse thought it
necessary to bear down for the purpose of protecting them. Rodney now
hoped to force him to battle; but as it was evening, he called in the
foremost ships, and forming a close line of battle, he plied to windward
all night. By this movement, however, he prevented the retreat of the
enemy, and on the morning of the 12th the two fleets, ranged in opposite
lines, engaged with the greatest fury. The fleets were about of an
equal number, but the ships of de Grasse were of higher rates than the
British, and had superior weight of metal. Victory was long held in
suspense, but about noon Rodney executed a manouvre, which had never
before been practised in naval tactics, and which was attended with
complete success. Taking advantage of a freshening breeze which sprung
up, his own ship, the Formidable, supported by the Namur, the Duke,
and the Canada, bore down with all sail set on the enemy’s line,
within three ships of the centre, and succeeded in breaking it. By this
manouvre the French line was broken and thrown into confusion, and the
rest of the division following, Rodney wore round and doubled on the
enemy, by which those ships which had been separated from the others
were placed between two fires, without hope of assistance. The battle,
notwithstanding, lasted till sunset, at which time Rodney’s exertions
were crowned with complete success. Six of the enemy’s ships, among
which was the Ville de Paris, de Grasse’s own ship, were captured; one
was sunk, and another blew up; and the shattered remains crowded all the
sail they could make for Cape François, and in the morning were out of
sight. Sir Samuel Hood was despatched in pursuit of the fugitive ships,
and coming up with five sail off Porto Rico, he captured two ships of
the line and two frigates. Thus, in the whole, the French lost ten ships
of the line and two frigates, and the victory was considered as one of
the most decisive ever obtained by the naval prowess of Britain. The
loss of the French, in killed and wounded, was terrible. Their ships
were crowded with land-troops, who only served to swell the carnage:
their killed alone is estimated at 3000 men, and their wounded at double
that number; so that, taking the prisoners on board the captured ships
into computation, they must have sustained a loss of nearly 12,000
men. On the side of the British the loss, in killed, was less, than two
hundred and fifty, and in wounded about 700. By the victory Jamaica was
saved, and the dominion of the ocean recovered, and the intelligence of
it excited great exultation among all ranks of people. Sir George Rodney
received the unanimous thanks of parliament, with a peerage, and a
perpetual annuity of £2000 was annexed to his title. Sir Samuel Hood
was also made a baron in the peerage of Ireland, and Admiral Drake and
Commodore Affleck, who had distinguished themselves in the engagement,
were made baronets. The news of Rodney’s victory reached London about
the middle of May, and it is probable that if it had happened two months
earlier, Lord North’s administration would still have been in existence.
So great was the impression which the success made on the people, that
Rodney’s praise resounded from one end of the kingdom to the other; and
many a “Rodney’s head” met the gaze of travellers both in the towns and
villages of all England. But although ministers were compelled to give
their meed of praise to North’s favourite admiral, yet it was evident
that they did not look upon his newly-gained honours with an unjaundiced
eye. The Rockingham administration had previously superseded him by
naming the Whig Admiral Pigott to the command in the West Indies, and
the order for recalling him was never cancelled. This conduct, which was
as unwise as it was unjust, produced the deep indignation of the people,
and created a bad impression of his ministers’ integrity on the mind of
the monarch. It was probably from this cause that the king is said to
have received the resignation of Fox with marked satisfaction. True
patriotism knows nothing of party, but rejoices in the welfare of the
country, be it promoted by either Whig or Tory.




AFFAIRS OF THE WAR IN AMERICA.

The surrender of Lord Cornwallis virtually terminated the war in
America; but peace was not yet restored to that country. On hearing of
the defeat of de Grasse, indeed, the whole republican party were filled
with dismay; and some confessed that unless France sent them more men
and money they were as far off from peace and independence as ever.
On the other hand, the royalists took heart on hearing the news, and
retaliated on the republicans for the wrongs they had endured at their
hands since their recent successes. Thus they hanged one Joshua Huddy,
a captain in Washington’s army, leaving a label on the tree, which
set forth that it was in retaliation for the murder of one White, a
royalist, whom the republicans had put to death. The perpetrators of
this deed were arrested by Sir Henry Clinton; and the leader in the
affair, Captain Lippincot, was tried by a court-martial, who returned a
verdict of not guilty. This affair, however, had the effect of retarding
that peace which was now so much desired on both sides of the Atlantic.
Washington demanded that Lippincot should be given up to him to be tried
and executed by republican law; and when this was refused by Sir Henry
Clinton, he declared that he would hang a young English officer, a
prisoner taken at York Town, in retaliation, if his demand was not
satisfied. The day for this execution was fixed by Washington; and in
the meantime Sir Henry Clinton was superseded by Sir Guy Carleton,
who arrived at New York with instructions from the Rockingham
administration, to open negociations with congress for peace on the
basis of independence. Overtures were made to Washington by Carleton
for a truce; and a passport was solicited of him for a person to carry
a letter to congress with offers of peace. These overtures and the
passport, however, were sternly refused by Washington; and he again
recurred to the subject of Huddy, declaring that he would hang the
British officer if Lippincot was not delivered up to him. His violence
met the approval of congress; and a vote was passed on the 21st of
May, binding themselves to make no separate treaty, and to entertain no
overtures of negociation, except in common with their allies. All that
could be effected was a partial exchange of prisoners, and a suspension
of hostilities, which were rather conceded from the weakness of the
American army, and the formidable position of the British, than from the
friendly advances of the British cabinet. The suspension of hostilities,
however, that was obtained by Carleton was only partial, for a war of
posts was still continued in Carolina and Georgia. In the meantime,
negociations still continued concerning the young officer whom
Washington had selected for the gibbet. There can be no doubt that he
would have shared the fate of Major André, had not his parents possessed
influence, for Washington still sternly demanded the person of Captain
Lippincot as the price of his redemption. The devoted victim, however,
was the son of Sir Charles Asgill; and his mother, Lady Asgill, wrote to
the King and Queen of Fiance, soliciting their intercession on her son’s
behalf. This letter was sent to Washington, accompanied by one from the
Count de Vergennes, in which the French minister stated, that the King
and Queen of France had been extremely affected by Lady Asgil’s letter,
and that they desired that the inquietudes of an unfortunate mother
might be calmed, and her tenderness reassured. It would have been bad
policy had Washington not relented on the receipt of these letters;
and he, therefore, forwarded them to congress with one of his own, and
Captain Asgill was forthwith set at liberty. But although Washington put
on so bold a front towards the English, treating them with a contempt
which would seem to indicate that he was their perfect master, his
situation was one which would have justified the language of humiliation
and supplication, rather than of contempt and dictation. During these
negociations, and only a few days after he had refused to grant a
passport to congress, he stated to that assembly, that his army on the
Hudson was destitute of provisions, and in a state of disorder bordering
on mutiny; and that if the British were aware of his situation, and were
to make a sudden attempt, he could not withstand them. Subsequently, as
the condition of his army did not improve, the haughty Washington wrote
in plain language to congress, “that it was high time for peace.” Nor
was the army under General Greene, in the south, in a better condition.
A large part of it were occasionally as naked as they were born. The
very loins of the brave men who fought at Eutaw Springs were galled by
their cartouch-boxes, while their shoulders were protected only by a
piece of rug or a tuft of moss. In writing to congress, Greene remarked:
“The troops have received no pay for two years; they are nearly naked,
and often without meat or bread; and the sick and wounded are perishing
for want of medicines and proper nourishment.” Disaffection prevailed
even among the officers; and upon one occasion, on the appointment of
Colonel Laurens to the command of the legion, they one and all tendered
their resignation, and were only induced to return to their posts by
their general’s prudent and conciliatory conduct. And this was not the
only danger which Greene had to encounter. A portion of his army entered
into a secret correspondence with the British, for the purpose of
delivering him into their power; but the conspiracy was detected, and
while the ringleader was shot, the chief of the conspirators deserted.
Yet while the American forces in the south were in this desperate
condition, the British troops undertook no new expedition, except for
the purpose of procuring provisions. Under the impression, indeed, that
with their diminished forces it would have been folly to have renewed
the strife, or even to have maintained their position, they determined
to leave Charlestown. Accordingly, having agreed to leave it uninjured,
on condition of their retreat being unmolested, they evacuated that town
on the 14th of December; the American army entering it as the British
rear-guard departed from it On their departure solemn thanks were
offered to the Almighty in the different places of worship, by the
citizens and soldiers, and the whole city presented a scene of joy
and festivity; but even after this period; Greene experienced much
difficulty in obtaining provision for his troops; and it was only by his
becoming responsible as an endorser of the contractor’s bills, that the
evil was removed. By this measure the troops were fed; but it was the
cause of much subsequent embarrassment, not only to Greene himself while
living, but to his family after his death.




STATE OF THE WAR IN THE WEST INDIES, ETC.

After Rodney’s victory the war still languished in West Indies. The
Spanish governor of Cuba effected the conquest of the Bahama islands;
and la Perouse destroyed some defenceless settlements on Hudson’s,
Haye’s and Nelson’s Rivers. On the other hand, the British captured some
forts on the Mosquito shore from the Spaniards, and took Aera, on the
coast of Africa, from the Dutch. In the East Indies the affairs of
the Dutch and the French were in a desperate condition. They had made
extraordinary exertions to expel the English by means of Hyder Ally; but
these were all defeated by Sir Eyre Coote and Commodore Hughes, as will
be seen in a future page. These events contributed materially to make
the court of Versailles desirous of peace.

{GEORGE III. 1782–1784}




MARITIME EVENTS.

During this year, France, Spain, and Holland equipped seventy ships of
the line for active service, in order to reduce the maritime superiority
of Britain. As the forces of the British were inferior on her own coasts
to those of the enemy if united, the plan adopted, was to prevent
their junction, and to weaken them by separate attacks; to protect our
convoys; and to relieve the important post of Gibraltar. To effect the
first of these objects Admiral Barrington sailed from Portsmouth
with twelve sail of the line, and on the 20th of April he discovered
seventeen or eighteen sail of large merchantmen and transports, under
convoy of two French ships of the line and a frigate. Barrington gave
chase, and in the course of two days the two ships of the line, ten
large transports, and a schooner were captured. The victors found on
board the prizes a. great quantity of ordnance and ammunition, anchors
and masts for ships, and other materials needed by the French in the
East Indies, besides eleven chests of Dutch silver, and about 1400
troops. After this successful cruise, Barrington returned to port in
consequence of boisterous weather, and Admiral Kempenfelt, with nine
sail of the line, took the station which he had quitted. In the mean
time the British suffered a reverse, for de Guichen having formed a
junction with the Spanish fleet at Cadiz, captured eighteen sail of
British merchantmen and transports, bound to Canada and Newfoundland.
Great apprehensions were entertained for the Jamaica fleet, but Lord
Howe, with a squadron of twelve sail, effectually covered them, and the
combined squadrons, being unable to effect a junction with the Dutch,
and finding that no advantage could be derived from remaining in the
Channel, retired from the British coasts. Lord Howe, indeed, terrified
the Dutch into a relinquishment of their designs on the trade of
Great Britain to the Baltic, and the whole scheme of the enemy proved
abortive. Storms, however, in part accomplished what the enemy failed
to perform. In various latitudes the summer and autumn of this year were
remarkable for storms and hurricanes, and a terrible catastrophe befell
a fleet under Admiral Graves, which sailed, with the great prizes taken
by Rodney and Hood, to convoy the great fleet of West-Indiamen. All
these ships, except the “Ardent,” foundered at sea, as well as two
line-of-battle ships, and a great number of merchantmen; three thousand
lives were lost. This calamity was aggravated by the loss of the Royal
George at Portsmouth, which was the finest ship in our navy. The
Royal George was inclined on her side to undergo a slight species of
careening, without the delay of going into dock, and on the 29th of
August a sudden squall of wind threw her on her side, and the gun-ports
being open she instantly filled and went to the bottom. Admiral
Kempenfelt was writing in his cabin at the moment, and he, together with
nearly one thousand men, women, and children, were thus suddenly buried
in the ocean. These calamities excited a deep concern throughout the
whole nation, and the fate of the brave Kemperjfelt was deeply deplored.

[Illustration: 171.jpg SIEGE OF GIBRALTER]




SIEGE AND RELIEF OF GIBRALTAR.

At this time the siege of Gibraltar, and the resolute defence of
its garrison attracted the attention of all Europe. After the relief
afforded to the garrison in the preceding year by Admiral Darby, the
Spaniards opened a dreadful cannonade and bombardment, from batteries on
land and from large gun-boats in the bay. Under cover of this fire they
continued their approaches and nearly completed their fourth line; but
on the night of the 26th of November, a detachment under the orders of
Brigadier General Ross, and accompanied by General Elliot, the governor,
made a sortie, succeeded in spiking all the artillery, and then having
dug mines and laid trains, they blew the fourth line of the Spaniards
into the air. Previous to this, General Elliot had so improved his
own formidable works that they were stronger than they were at the
commencement of the siege, and the Spaniards for a time were lost in
amazement, and relaxed their exertions against the wonderful rock.
In the month of April, however, the Duke of Grillon, the conqueror of
Minorca, arrived to take the chief command of the besieging army and
their efforts were renewed. The Duke brought with him a numerous body of
skilful artillery and engineer officers, and he was likewise joined by
about 20,000 French and Spanish troops to aid him in the enterprise. The
whole besieging force on land now amounted to full 40,000 men, and de
Crillon had more artillery with him than had ever been collected on
so narrow a point. Success seemed certain, and princes of the House of
Bourbon, with along retinue of French and Spanish nobles, were present
to witness the final triumph. Some time was spent in deliberating upon
the plan of attack. A thousand projects were proposed and some were
adopted and failed. At length the Chevalier d’Arcon, a French engineer,
proposed a plan which seemed to ensure a complete triumph. This was the
employment of floating batteries so constructed as to be impervious to
shot and indestructible by fire. The bottoms of these batteries were
made of massive timber, and their sides were secured with a rampart or
wall composed of timber and cork, with an interstice between, filled up
with wet sand. Raw hides were fastened on the outside, and to prevent
the effect of red-hot balls a number of pipes were laid to convey water
through every part, and pumps were provided to keep these constantly
supplied. As the garrison had an opportunity for maintaining a fire
right on the heads of their assailants, the besiegers contrived hanging
roofs of strong rope-work netting, laid over with a thick covering of
raw hides. These roofs were to be worked up and down by mechanism, and
it was calculated that by their sloping position they would throw off
the shot and shell of the garrison into the sea. Above eighty gun-boats
and bomb-ketches were to second the operations of the floating
batteries, together with a multitude of frigates and smaller vessels,
while the combined fleets of France and Spain amounting to fifty sail
of the line, were to cover and support the attack. On the isthmus
also there were stupendous works, mounting two hundred pieces of heavy
ordnance, and protected by 40,000 troops. In the whole the numbers
employed by land and sea against the fortress were estimated at nearly
100,000 men. Time was required to complete the preparations, but at
length they were completed, and the 13th of September was named for the
grand attack. In the meantime General Elliot, aware that inventions of a
peculiar nature were in preparation provided against every circumstance
of danger that could be foreseen, and his vigilance had the effect of
increasing the confidence of the garrison. General Elliot, however, was
ignorant of the construction of the batteries until he saw them ranged
before the fortress. It was intended to make one simultaneous attack
on every part of the British fortifications, and on the appointed day,
showers of shot and shells from the land-batteries and ships of the
besiegers were directed against them. But the besieged were as much in
earnest as the besiegers: shot was given for shot, and shell for shell.
At one moment four hundred pieces of the heaviest artillery were playing
on the garrison, and the fire was returned by incessant showers of
red-hot balls and shells from the rock. The whole peninsula was involved
in one terrible blaze, and the surrounding hills were covered with
people, who assembled to behold the awful spectacle. The besiegers were
sanguine of success, but their hopes were disappointed. For a time the
floating batteries seemed to answer their expectations, for the heaviest
shells rebounded from their tops, while the red-hot balls, just taken
from old Elliot’s furnaces, made no visible impression on their hulls.
By two o’clock, however, the effects of these fiery globes became
visible. The floating battery commanded by the Prince of Nassau, and
on board of which was the Chevalier d’Arcon, began to smoke on the
side exposed to the garrison, and it was apprehended it had taken
fire. Notwithstanding, the firing continued with unabated fury, and
the fortification sustained some damage from the besiegers. At seven
o’clock, however, all hope of taking the fortress vanished. By that time
the red-hot balls from the garrison had taken such good effect, that the
firing from the batteries ceased, rockets were thrown up as signals of
distress, and nothing was thought of but saving the crews. The boats of
the combined fleet were sent on that service, but it was found to be
no easy matter to move the batteries from their moorings, and to have
approached them within the range of the British batteries, and when they
were expected every moment to blow up, was like rushing into the jaws of
death. For five hours they continued in their original position, and in
the mean time, the smoke of the batteries had burst into flames, and the
fire from the rock was increased with terrific vengeance. At midnight
the only flashes from the batteries were the flames that were consuming
them, and the only sounds on board were the shrieks of the crew. Their
danger was increased by a brigade of gun-boats, under the command of
Captain Curtis, which sailed out, and by their low fire swept the
batteries in the whole extent of their line, and effectually prevented
the approach of the French and Spanish boats from coming to their
aid. From the evening till the morning the sky was illuminated by the
ascending flames of the batteries, and by the fire of the garrison and
gun-boats. At five o’clock in the morning, one of the batteries blew up,
and soon after, the whole of them were one vast conflagration. Many of
their crows now threw themselves into the sea; and touched by the sight,
the British showed themselves to be as humane as they were brave.
The guns in the fortification ceased, and Curtis and his gallant crew
exerted themselves in saving the shrieking and despairing Spaniards.
Fearless of danger they dashed among the burning wrecks, snatched many
from the fury of the flames, and others from a watery grave: about three
hundred and fifty were saved by them from inevitable death. Captain
Curtis himself was often in the most imminent danger, while thus showing
mercy to the enemy, and, at one time, a pinnace in which he had thrown
himself, was close to one of the batteries when it blew up. The pinnace
was involved in one vast cloud of fire and smoke, and masses of flaming
wood, and it was expected that the brave crew had perished. It was not
so: as the smoke cleared away, the pinnace was seen still proudly riding
on the waves. Her coxswain was killed, several of her crew were wounded,
and one of the burning masses of timber had fallen into her, and had
gone through her bottom, but the sailors saved her from sinking by
stuffing their jackets into the cavity! In the end all the floating
batteries were consumed, and the loss of the enemy, exclusive of that
sustained by the troops on the isthmus, was computed at 1500 men, while
the garrison lost only sixteen killed, and had sixty-eight wounded. It
was a blow severely felt by the enemy; but a gleam of hope burst through
the gloom which surrounded them, so that the siege was not immediately
abandoned. It was known that Elliot’s stock of ammunition and provisions
was greatly reduced, and it was hoped that the combined fleet collected
in the narrow bay might be able to prevent any relief. That hope also
proved vain. Lord Howe had set sail with thirty-four ships of the line,
three fire-ships, and six frigates, having under his protection an
immense convoy of transports and trading vessels, with all which, on the
11th of October, he passed between the shores of Europe and Africa,
and through the Straits of Gibraltar. On the same day he succeeded in
landing the cargoes of four of the transports without meeting with
any interruption from the combined fleet; and, subsequently, a violent
hurricane having driven the French and Spaniards on the Barbary coast,
he landed all the stores and fresh troops which he had brought for the
relief of the garrison. His task was completed by the 19th, on which
day he repassed the Straits, and spread his sails for England. He was
followed by the enemy, and on the 20th as they gained upon him off Cape
St. Vincent, he lay in order to receive them. A partial engagement took
place, but the French and Spaniards testified no anxiety to come to
close quarters; and towards the evening they hauled their wind, and gave
up all idea of battle or pursuit. Thus perished the hopes of Spain to
recover a barren rock; but a rock, the price of which is above all value
to a commercial country like England. For his heroic defence, General
Elliot was raised to the peerage by the title of Baron Heath field, with
a pension annexed to the title similar to that bestowed on Rodney.




PROSPECT OF GENERAL PACIFICATION.

This final attempt upon Gibraltar was the last action of importance
during the war. Every nation which had been engaged in the fatal
struggle now sighed for peace, and admitted the policy of putting up the
sword into its scabbard. Each found, by a review of past events, that,
although their gains were great, then-losses greatly preponderated.
Négociations were entered into, and the Empress of Russia, finding that
England was not so near the verge of destruction as she imagined, now
began to act as a fair and anxious mediatrix. Spain had not yet raised
the siege of Gibraltar, and demanded the wonderful rock as the price of
a treaty; but the empress told its monarch that he must give up all
idea of obtaining it either by arms or treaty. France, Holland, and the
United States were also told by her that they ought to moderate their
pretensions. But the grand obstacle that stood in the way of peace,
was removed by Great Britain herself; namely, the recognition of the
independence of America. During the negociations with France and Spain,
provisional articles between England and America were signed on the 30th
of November, at Paris, by Mr. Fitzherbert and Mr. Oswald, on the one
hand, and Dr. Franklin, Adams, Jay, and Laurens, on the other. This was
contrary to the letter and spirit of their treaty with France, and was
brought about by the treachery of the French minister, Vergennes.
While he was urging the Americans to claim a share in the Newfoundland
fishery, he was instigating the British government to refuse the
concession! This double-dealing was detected; and in an interview with
the American negotiators, Mr. Fitzherbert assured them that a share in
that fishery would be allowed them, which had the effect of bringing the
treaty between England and America to a conclusion. Vergennes complained
of American chicanery, and still sought to set aside the treaty, by
advising the English government not to make too ample concessions as
regarded the boundaries to be assigned to the United States; but his
character had become manifest, and his advice was not heeded. The
British cabinet was, indeed, too desirous of peace to raise any
undue obstacle against its attainment. Eight days before the separate
preliminaries were signed, Lord Shelburne wrote to the lord mayor,
acquainting him that the negociations promised a speedy conclusion; on
which account parliament would be prorogued from the 26th of November
to the 5th of December. At this time it was, indeed, considered that
America was wholly detached from the league, and there was no anxiety
about the prolongation of a naval war with the rest of our enemies.
There was in truth, no fear of this, for France, Spain, and Holland had
all suffered too much on the ocean to make them desirous of continuing
hostilities. Pride might dictate haughty demands, but it was clear that
they would rather abate them than renew the struggle.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament met on the 5th of December, when the king announced from the
throne, that in pursuit of a general pacification, he had offered to
declare the American colonies free and independent states, by an article
to be inserted in the definite treaty. This was against his majesty’s
wishes as is evident from the following remarks which he made in
continuation. He said:—“In thus admitting their separation from the
crown of Great Britain, I have sacrificed every consideration of my own
to the wishes and opinion of my people. I make it my humble and earnest
prayer to Almighty God, that Great Britain may not feel the evils which
might result from so great a dismemberment of the empire; and that
America may be free from those calamities which have formerly proved
in the mother country how essential monarchy is to the enjoyment of
constitutional liberty. Religion, language, interest, affections, may,
and I hope will, yet prove a bond of permanent union between the two
countries: to this end neither attention nor disposition shall be
wanting on my part.” Among other topics in his speech, his majesty
alluded to the valiant exertions of the army and navy; the economical
reforms which would be necessary after so expensive a war; and the
attention which the concerns of Ireland and India demanded. There was
no regular opposition to the address in either house, but in the commons
Fox suggested that it would be better to recognize the independence
of America at once, and not to reserve it as one of the conditions of
peace. Some severe remarks were also made in the house of lords, on the
inconsistency of the minister, who, at a former period, had so strongly
opposed the recognition of American independence; but who had now
expressed his readiness to acknowledge it. In reply, Lord Shelburne
said that he yielded to necessity, and that the full recognition of
independence was still dependent on the conduct of France; if France
did not consent to peace, it would be withheld. Several warm debates
followed on the subject; and on the 18th of December, a division took
place on a motion made by Fox, for copies of all the parts of the
provisional treaty that related to American independence; which was lost
by an overwhelming majority. After voting 100,000 seamen and marines
for the service of the ensuing year, on the 23rd of December, the house
adjourned for the Christmass recess.

{A.D. 1783}




PRELIMINARIES OF PEACE.

It was a prevailing opinion that negociations with France, Spain, and
Holland would yet fail, and that a general peace was yet a distant
event.

Nevertheless, during the recess, negociations came to a pacific
conclusion. Preliminary articles of peace were signed at Versailles
on the 20th of January; and the arrangements of the whole were as
follow:—Great Britain acknowledged the thirteen United States as
free, sovereign, and independent States, with advantageous boundaries,
comprehending the countries on both sides of the Ohio, and on the east
of the Mississippi. The right of fishing on the banks of Newfoundland
and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence was also granted to the Americans. The
right of navigation on the Mississippi, from its source to the ocean,
was declared common to both powers. In the treaty, the loyalists
were merely recommended to congress; but it was agreed that no new
confiscations or persecutions were to take place. The right of fishing
on the coast of Newfoundland, from Cape St. John on the east, round
the north of the island to Cape Bay on the west, was likewise ceded to
France. That power also obtained the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon
and St. Lucie and Tobago in the West Indies; Senegal and Goree in
Africa; Pondicherry, with other districts in the East Indies, were in
part restored, and in part ceded, to France. The article of the peace
of Utrecht, relative to the fortifications of Dunkirk, were moreover
abrogated. On her part, France restored to Great Britain the islands of
Grenada and the Grenadines, St. Vincent, Dominica, St. Christopher’s,
Nevis, and Montserrat. In Africa, she likewise ceded the possession of
Fort James and the River Gambia. Spain obtained the island of Minorca
and the two Floridas, as the price of her exertions; but she gave
up Providence and the Bahama islands to Great Britain: his catholic
majesty, also, guaranteed to English subjects the right of cutting
logwood in the bay of Honduras. Holland agreed to a truce, with the
understanding that there should be a mutual restoration of conquests
between her and Great Britain; but the exact terms of pacification were
not yet arranged.




REASSEMBLING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament reassembled on the day appointed, and for a day or two was
occupied in debates on the affairs of Ireland. The preliminaries of
peace were laid before the house on the 24th of January and the debates
which followed led to the overthrow of the ministry. This had been
indeed determined upon beforehand; for Fox and Lord North, whose
sentiments were as opposite as the poles, had previously entered into
a coalition for that express purpose, to the astonishment of the whole
nation. The struggle commenced on a motion made by Mr. Thomas Pitt,
for an address of thanks to his majesty for ordering the preliminary
articles of peace to be laid before the house. This motion, which was
made on the 17th of February, the day fixed for the debate, was seconded
by Mr. Wilberforce, and called forth all the rancour of contending
parties. An amendment, withholding such approbation, yet assuring his
majesty of their firm determination to adhere to the several articles
for which the public faith had been pledged, was moved and supported by
the combined adherents of Lord North and Mr. Fox; and, after a stormy
debate, was carried by a majority of sixteen; the numbers being two
hundred and twenty-four to two hundred and eight. An amendment, similar
in principle, was moved in the house of lords, which was rejected by
a majority of thirteen; the numbers being seventy-two to fifty-nine.
Debates on the advantages and disadvantages of peace still continued;
and on the 21st of February, Lord John Cavendish, among other
resolutions, moved, “That the concessions made to the adversaries of
Great Britain by the provisional treaty, and the preliminary articles,
are greater than they were entitled to, either from the actual situation
of their respective possessions, or from their comparative strength.”
 It was well known that Fox, with all his abilities, could not have
succeeded in obtaining better terms of peace; and that he had expressed
a readiness to make concessions equally ample as those made by Lord
Shelburne. His whole party, also, had repeatedly declared that a high
price must be paid for the inestimable blessing of peace. Yet now,
he with others, men who had threatened Lord North with the block for
persevering in the war, endeavoured, by all the means in their power,
to depreciate the treaty which would bring harmony to the world. In the
debate on the amendment he had condemned nearly every concession made;
and he now set forth the desperate condition to which France, Spain,
Holland, and even America, had been reduced by the war, as an argument
why such ample concessions should not have been granted. He was answered
by Pitt, who defended the treaty article by article; and vehemently
condemned the “ill-omened and baneful alliance” which had been formed
between the parties of Fox and Lord North. The chief subject of the
debate was, in truth, the coalition of these parties; some condemning
it, and others defending it from the hot attacks made upon it. There
was full evidence that there existed no patriotism or principle in the
matter: and that the sole object of those in power was to retain their
places, and of those out of office to obtain power. The latter were
successful: on a division, Lord John Cavendish’s resolutions were
carried by a majority of seventeen, and Lord Shelburne instantly
resigned.




THE COALITION MINISTRY.

Although Lord Shelburne resigned, yet the rest of the administration
still clung to office. Mis majesty, it is said, sent for Pitt, and
requested him to form a cabinet of his own. Pitt, however, probably
conscious that he could not withstand the power of the coalition,
declined; and day after day elapsed without any new ministry being
formed. The house of commons adjourned from time to time, with the view
of forwarding a new arrangement; but none could be made. Twice the king
sent for Lord North, hoping to induce him to undertake the formation
of a new administration; but as his majesty required that Fox should
be given up, he was twice refused. In the meantime the business of
the nation was suspended, and great confusion was created by
this ministerial interregnum. At no time, in truth, was an able
administration more necessary than at this time. Tumults were spreading
throughout the kingdom, from the disembodying of the militia, and the
discharge of seamen and sailors without pay; the treaty with France
and Spain was not ratified; no commercial alliance was adjusted with
America; and the affairs of the East India Company demanded instant
attention. Seeing that there was no prospect of a new ministry being
formed, on the 24th of March, Mr. Coke, one of the members for Norfolk,
moved an address to the king, “that he would be graciously pleased
to take into consideration the unsettled state of the empire, and
condescend to comply with the wishes of this house, in forming an
administration entitled to the confidence of the people.” Coke’s motion
was carried with only four dissentient voices; and his majesty replied
to the address, that it was his “earnest desire to comply with the
wishes of his faithful commons.” Still nothing was done; and on the 31st
of March, Lord Surrey moved another address, “assuring his majesty that
all delays in a matter of such moment have an inevitable tendency to
weaken the authority of government; and most humbly entreating his
majesty, that he will take such measures towards this object as might
quiet the apprehensions of his faithful subjects.” This motion was,
however, withdrawn, on the assurance of Mr. Pitt, that he had that day
resigned as the chancellor of the exchequer. The king was now obliged to
yield: two days after this a new ministry was formed from the ranks of
the coalition. In its arrangement the Duke of Portland became first
lord of the treasury; Lord North secretary for home affairs; Mr. Fox
secretary for foreign affairs; the Earl of Carlisle obtained the privy
seal; Lord John Cavendish was re-appointed chancellor of the exchequer;
Admiral Keppel was again placed at the head of the admiralty; Lord
Stormont became president of the council; the great seal was given in
commission to Lord Loughborough, Mr. Justice Ashurst, and Mr. Baron
Hotham: while Lord Mansfield accepted the temporary office of speaker
of the house of Lords; Lord Townshend became master-general of the
ordnance; Burke was reinstated as paymaster of the forces; Charles
Townshend became treasurer of the navy; Colonel Fitzpatric was made
secretary at war; and Lord Northington was appointed to the government
of Ireland. The usual changes took place likewise in his majesty’s
household. The seven ministers who formed the new cabinet were,
Portland, North, Fox, Cavendish, Keppel, Carlisle, and Stormont, the
majority of whom were of the old Whig or Rockingham party. But, although
the king had consented to this heterogeneous ministry, no pains were
taken at court to conceal the dislike which was borne towards it; nor
was this ministry looked upon with greater favour by the nation at
large. They had obtained power by unworthy means; and this operated to
diminish public confidence in their measures, whence it was not long
before it was seen that this administration would share the fate of Lord
Shelburne’s. It was an unnatural union of parties; and therefore its
integral parts could never be so cemented together as to prevent their
final separation.




RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE WITH AMERICA, ETC.

After a long debate on the subject of parliamentary reform, which
subject was brought into the house by Mr. Pitt, and was attended with
no beneficial results, some important debates took place on the modes or
arranging our commercial intercourse with the United States. A bill was
passed in order to its promotion, repealing the restraining act; and
other obstacles were removed by a temporary bill, vesting the power of
making future regulations in the crown. Another subject which claimed
the attention of the house, was the case of the American loyalists.
Few believed that congress or the provincial assemblies would pay any
attention to the recommendations of England, or that these loyalists
would be allowed to recover their confiscated property. The care of
providing for them, therefore, devolved on parliament. An act was passed
appointing commissioners to inquire into their losses and services; and
it was agreed in a committee of supply, that all American officers who
had borne arms for the king should be allowed half-pay. As foreseen,
congress, although they fulfilled the terms of the provisional articles
on behalf of the loyalists to the very letter, paid no attention to
the cold and formal recommendation of restoring their property; and
subsequently a host of them soon found themselves compelled to quit
their native country for ever. So numerous were the claims made upon the
parliament, that in the whole they received more than twelve millions
of money. This was noble generosity on the part of Great Britain, for at
this time she had no money to spare. One of the first measures, indeed,
or the new ministry, was to obtain a loan of twelve millions, and to
put a stamp-duty on receipts, in order to meet, the expenses of the
state—expenses which had chiefly been incurred by the recent war.
During this war, in truth, England had increased her national debt by
more then £130,000,000 sterling.




PITT’S PLAN FOR REFORMING THE TREASURY ETC.

In the course of this session, Mr. Pitt brought in a bill for making
some economical reforms in the treasury. In his speech on this subject,
he demonstrated that extravagant abuses existed; and his bill was
carried in the commons, but lost in the lords. But though ministers
could not countenance Pitt’s plan, they were under the necessity of
producing one of their own. At the end of June, Lord John Cavendish
carried a bill through the house, for abolishing certain offices in the
exchequer, and limiting the salaries of others after the death of the
present possessors. In consequence of a motion made by Pitt five
months before, Lord John Cavendish also presented to the house a book,
containing a list of accountants, who having received public money by
way of imprest, had not yet accounted for it; and of those persons
from whom balances of declared accounts were still due. By this book it
appeared that a sum of about £44,000,000 sterling was still unaccounted
for; and this induced Mr. Pitt to move an address to the king,
requesting him to take measures for the recovery of this sum, and to
prevent similar delinquencies for the future. This was objected to by
ministers; but it was allowed to pass with a few trifling amendments.
About the same time, Lord Mali on introduced a bill for preventing
bribery at elections; and Alderman Sawbridge made his annual motion for
a reform in parliament, both of which were negatived.

{GEORGE III. 1782–1784}




EAST INDIA AFFAIRS.

It has been seen that a select committee had been appointed to consider
the state of the British dominions. This committee, in the prosecution
of this inquiry, not only discovered corruption, fraud, and injustice
in every department of the Indian government, but that the company’s
finances were in a ruinous condition. In order, therefore, to rescue the
British name from disgrace, and to secure our territorial possessions in
India, Sir Henry Fletcher introduced a bill for “suspending the payments
of the company due to the exchequer, and enabling them to borrow the sum
of £300,000 for their relief.” This bill, which was declared to be
only a branch of a larger plan, passed both houses with very little
opposition; an impression generally prevailing among peers and
commoners, that unless relief was afforded, bankruptcy was inevitable.
Thus works profusion.




PETITION OF THE QUAKERS AGAINST THE SLAVE TRADE.

Towards the end of the session, a bill was introduced for regulating the
trade of the African Company, in which there was a clause prohibiting
its officers from exporting negroes. This encouraged the Quakers
to present a petition for the total abolition of the slave trade: a
petition that may be said to have laid the foundation of those generous
and persevering exertions of gifted individuals, as Clarkson and
Wilberforce, which finally succeeded in effecting the abolition of
that loathsome traffic in the bones and sinews of man; which had for
centuries been carried on without compunction.




SETTLEMENT ON THE PRINCE OF WALES.

On the 23rd of June, a message was delivered from the king to the house
of commons, requesting means for a separate establishment for the Prince
of Wales. The young prince had now attained his twenty-first year, and
was of such extravagant habits, that his profusion was the talk of the
nation. He was particularly intimate with Fox, and was linked in with
the coalition ministry; and the Duke of Portland suggested to his
majesty that a demand should be made of a hundred thousand a-year for
his maintenance. The king, however, disliked the prince’s connexion with
his present ministers, and therefore, he put his decided negative upon
this proposal; asserting that he could not think of burthening his
people with so large a grant, and encouraging his son in his extravagant
habits. Ministers had bound themselves to procure this sum for their
royal friend, but were obliged to submit to the king’s will; namely,
that fifty thousand a-year should be allotted by himself out of the
civil list, and that parliament should merely grant sixty thousand as an
outfit. A vote to this effect was carried without opposition: the
young prince giving a proof of his filial duty and public spirit, by
signifying his desire that the king’s wish should be consulted, and his
readiness to accept whatever he might think proper in his wisdom and
goodness to grant. At the same time he continued his close intimacy
with Fox, and gave all the countenance he could to a ministry which his
majesty abhorred.




PARLIAMENT PROROGUED.

Parliament was prorogued on the 16th of July, his majesty intimating his
intention to call the members together at an early period, in order
to resume the consideration of the affairs of India. In his speech
he expressed regret that he could not announce the completion of the
definitive treaties.




EXECUTION OF TREATIES, ETC.

The greatest difficulty in the way of the settlement of the definitive
treaties arose from Holland. On the 2nd of September, however, through
the influence of France, Holland acceded to preliminaries of peace, by
which all conquests on both sides were to be restored, except the town
of Negapatam, in the East Indies, which was to remain in the possession
of Great Britain. On the next day the definitive treaties with France,
Spain, and America were signed, and that under the auspices of the men
who had condemned the articles _in toto_. Soon after Mr. Adams arrived
in London as ambassador from the United States. On his first audience
at St. James’s, the king received Mr. Adams with much courtesy and
kindness. He remarked to him:—“I was the last man in the kingdom, sir,
to consent to the independence of America; but, now it is granted, I
shall be the last man in the world to sanction its violation.” It
is said that Adams retired from the monarch’s presence with altered
sentiments as to his real character; and when at a later period Jay
came into contact with the king, he was obliged to confess that in
his representations of George III. in the American manifestoes and
revolutionary documents, which had been chiefly written by him, he
had overcharged the picture. Instead of being an unfeeling and savage
tyrant, thirsting for the blood of his subjects, as he had set forth, he
found that his majesty possessed many virtues, and that he was beloved
by his subjects.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament reassembled on the 11th of November. The king’s speech on
this occasion was brief but comprehensive. After noticing the conclusion
of peace with France, Spain, and America, he urged attention to every
possible means of recruiting the strength and resources of the nation;
of rendering the necessary revenue as little burthensome as possible
to his subjects; and of adopting new measures to prevent the numerous
frauds which had been committed in the collection of the revenue. He
particularly directed their attention to the affairs of India, remarking
that their utmost exertions would be required to maintain and improve
the valuable advantages derived from our Indian possessions, and to
promote and secure the happiness of the native inhabitants. The address
passed without opposition; Pitt himself expressing approbation of the
ends of government, and promising his support.




FOX’S INDIA BILL.

Although in office, Fox was still unreconciled to the monarch. He
felt, moreover, that by his ill-fated coalition he had forfeited the
confidence of the people. Under these circumstances, he resolved to
seek the restoration of his popularity, and to consolidate his power, by
producing some great measure, which should at once charm and profit the
nation. India afforded him a fine field for legislating, and with the
assistance of Burke he concocted a bill for its government. He gave
notice on the day when parliament reassembled, that he would produce
this bill on the 18th of November, and when that day arrived he was in
his place for that purpose. He moved for leave to bring in a bill for
vesting the affairs of the East India Company in the hands of certain
commissioners, for the benefit of the proprietary and the public. This
memorable bill proposed to take the entire administration both of their
territorial and commercial affairs from the directors and proprietors,
and to vest it in the hands of seven commissioners, named in the bill,
who were to be irremovable by the crown, except in consequence of an
address of either house of parliament. These commissioners were to be
assisted by a subordinate board of nine directors, to be chosen in the
first instance by parliament, and afterwards by the proprietors. The
bill empowered these commissioners and directors to enter immediately
into possession of all lands, tenements, books, records, vessels, goods,
merchandize, and securities in trust for the company. They were
required to decide on every question within a certain time, or to assign
sufficient reason for delay. They were never to vote by ballot, and were
generally required to enter on their journals the reasons of their vote.
Every six months they were to submit an exact schedule of accounts to
the court of proprietors; and at the commencement of every session were
to present a statement of their affairs to both houses of parliament.
This act was to continue in force four years: that is, till the year
after the next general election. It was accompanied by another
bill, enacting regulations for the future government of the British
territories in India. This second bill took from the governor-general
all power of acting independently of his council; declared every
existing British power in India incompetent to the acquisition or
exchange of any territory in behalf of the company; to the acceding
to any treaty of partition; to let out the company’s troops; to the
appointment of any person removed for misdemeanour to office; and to
the hiring out any property to any civil servant of the company. It also
prohibited all monopolies; declared every illegal present recoverable by
any person for his own benefit; and employed effectual means to secure
the zemindars, or native landholders, in the possession of their
inheritances, aiming particularly at the abolition of all vexatious or
usurious claims that might be made upon them, by prohibiting mortgages,
and subjecting every doubtful claim to the examination of the
commissioners.

The disclosure of this scheme excited the greatest sensation in the
house. By the friends of Fox it was espoused with zeal and enthusiasm,
while it was attacked by his opponents with vehement indignation and
energetic invective. On the one hand it was extolled as a master-piece
of genius, virtue, and ability; on the other, it was denounced as a
dangerous design, fraught with mischief and ruin. Pitt had promised his
support in settling the affairs of India; but though he acknowledged
that reform was wanted, it was, he said, not such a reform as this. He
remarked:—“The bill under consideration included a confiscation of
the property, and a disfranchisement of the members of the East India
Company; all the several articles of whose effects were transferred by
violence to strangers. Imagination was at a loss to guess at the most
insignificant trifle that had escaped the harpy jaws of a ravenous
coalition. The power was pretended, indeed, to be given in trust for
the benefit of the proprietors; but, in case of the grossest abuses of
trust, to whom was the appeal? To the proprietors? No; to the majority
of either house of parliament, which the most contemptible minister
could not fail to secure, with the patronage of above two millions
sterling given by this bill. The influence which would accrue from this
bill—a new, enormous, and unexampled influence—was indeed in the
highest degree alarming. Seven commissioners, chosen ostensibly by
parliament, but really by administration, were to involve in the vortex
of their authority the patronage and treasures of India. The right
honourable mover had acknowledged himself to be a man of ambition,
and it now appeared that he was prepared to sacrifice the king, the
parliament, and the people at the shrine of his ambition. He desired
to elevate his present connexions to a situation in which no political
convulsions, and no variations of power, might be able to destroy their
importance and terminate their ascendency.” Other members resisted
the bill with similar arguments, and Fox was compelled to call all his
powers into action for its defence. After defending himself from the
charge of violating the company’s charters, and observing that the
arguments of his opponents might have been adopted with great propriety
by King James the Second, he remarked:—“I am also charged with
increasing the influence, and giving an immense accession of power to
the crown. Certainly this bill as little augments the influence of the
crown, as any measure that can be devised for the government of India,
with the slightest promise of success. The very genius of influence
consists in hope or fear—fear of losing what we have, or hope of
gaining more. Make the commissioners removable at will, and you set all
the little passions of human nature afloat. Invest them with power upon
the same tenure as the British judges hold their station, removable
upon delinquency, punishable upon guilt, but fearless of danger if they
discharge their trust, and they will be liable to no seducement, and
will execute their functions with glory to themselves, and for
the common good of the country and mankind. This bill presumes the
possibility of mal-administration; for every word in it breathes
suspicion. It supposes that men are but men; it confides in no
integrity; it trusts to no character. It annexes responsibility, not
only to every action, but even to the inaction of the powers it has
created. I will risk my all upon the excellence of this bill. I will
risk upon it whatever is most dear to me—whatever men most value—the
character of integrity, of present reputation, and future fame; these
will I stake upon the constitutional safety, the enlarged policy, the
equity and wisdom of the measure. Whatever, therefore, may be the fate
of its authors, I have no fear that it will produce to this country
every blessing of commerce and revenue; and by extending a generous and
humane government over those millions whom the inscrutable dispensations
of Providence have placed under us, in the remotest regions of the
earth, it will consecrate the name of England among the noblest of the
nations.” While this bill was pending in the commons, the East India
Company and the city of London presented strong petitions against it;
but it was carried rapidly through all its stages with large majorities,
and Fox presented it at the bar of the lords on the 9th of December.

Fox had recommended his majesty to create several new Whig peers, in
order to ensure the success of his measure in the house of lords. The
king, however, declared, that he would not create any British peers on
the recommendation of the present cabinet, and therefore he was obliged
to commit his bill to that house as it now existed. It appears that he
had still hopes of the concurrence of the lords; and although it was, on
the first reading, reprobated by the Duke of Richmond, Lord Thurlow,
and Lord Temple, yet still a division was favourable to its progress. It
also passed on the second reading, which took place on the 15th; but on
the following day counsel was heard on behalf of the company, and on
the 17th it was moved that the bill be rejected. On this occasion Lord
Camden spoke with great vehemence against the bill; declaring, that if
it passed into a law, we should soon see the King of England and the
King of Bengal contending for superiority in the British parliament.
Ministers had been defeated by a majority of eight on the evening of the
second reading, when the opposition moved for an adjournment till the
next day, in order to give an opportunity of hearing counsel; but they
were now doomed to suffer a more signal defeat. The bill was rejected by
ninety-five against seventy-six.

There was a cause for this change of sentiment in the lords. On the 11th
of December Earl Temple had a conference with the king, in which, having
explained his ideas on the nature and tendency of the bill, his majesty
became a convert to the views of opposition. By his explanation the
royal indignation was greatly excited; the monarch considering himself
as having been deceived by his ministers. Accordingly, a card was
written, stating that “his majesty allowed Earl Temple to say, that
whoever voted for the bill was not only not his friend, but would be
considered by him as his enemy; and that, if these words were not strong
enough, Earl Temple might use still stronger language.” The rumour
of this soon spread, and on the evening of the 15th a conversation
concerning it took place in the house of lords, in which Earl Temple
declared, that he was not ashamed to avow the advice which he had given
to his majesty, and would publish what he was empowered to communicate,
when he should be properly called upon to do so. It was evident,
therefore, to ministers and to all men, that the rumour was
substantially correct, and on the 17th the subject was brought
prominently before the members of the house of commons. Mr. Baker moved
these two resolutions:—“1. That it is now necessary to declare that, to
report any opinion, or pretended opinion of his majesty, upon any bill,
or other proceeding, depending in either house of parliament, with
a view to influence the votes of the members, is a high crime and
misdemeanor, derogatory to the honour of the crown, a breach of the
fundamental privileges of parliament, and subversive of the constitution
of this country. 2. That this house will, on Monday next, resolve
itself into a committee of the whole house, to consider the state of the
nation.” After an animated debate, these resolutions were carried by
a majority of nearly two to one, the numbers being one hundred and
fifty-three against eighty. A dissolution of parliament being now
apprehended, Mr. Erskine moved, that whoever should prevent that house
from discharging their duty in remedying the abuses which prevailed in
the government of the British dominions in the East Indies, should
be considered by them as an enemy to his country. This resolution
was attacked as an invasion of the king’s prerogative, but it
was nevertheless carried, by one hundred and forty-seven against
seventy-three.




DISSOLUTION OF THE COALITION MINISTRY—PITT MADE PRIME MINISTER.

The above resolutions were designed as props to support the government,
but they were swept away by his majesty. On the 18th he was employed in
making dispositions for the formation of a new cabinet, and at twelve
o’clock that night a messenger delivered orders to Fox and Lord North,
that they should deliver up the seals of their offices without delay.
The seals were sent, and, on the following day, Earl Temple was directed
to send letters of dismission to all the other members of the cabinet.
At the same time Pitt was appointed first lord of the treasury and
chancellor of the exchequer; the Marquess of Carmarthen and Mr. Thomas
Townshend (created Lord Sydney) were nominated secretaries of state;
Lord Thurlow was reinstated as lord-chancellor; Earl Gower became
president of the council; the Duke of Rutland was constituted lord
privy-seal; Lord Howe was placed at the head of the admiralty; the Duke
of Richmond was made master-general of the ordnance; and Lord Temple was
again appointed to the government of Ireland. Mr. W. Grenville and Lord
Mulgrave became joint paymasters of the forces; Mr. Dundas, treasurer of
the navy; Mr. George Rose and Mr. Steele, secretaries of the treasury;
Mr. Lloyd, attorney-general; and Mr. R. P. Arden, solicitor-general. In
the first instance Lord Temple had been made one of the secretaries of
state, but he resigned this post under pretence of meeting the charge of
tampering with the royal confidence, which was laid against him by the
recent cabinet, more freely. It was predicted, that the new ministry
would not exist one month; and looking at the formidable array of
opponents which sat on the opposition benches on the evening of their
acceptance of office, this prediction seemed certain of fulfilment. Pitt
himself was conscious of his weakness, and doubtful of the result; but
his administration, though commenced under such unfavourable
circumstances, proved in the end one of the most memorable in the
British annals.




EFFORTS OF THE OPPOSITION AGAINST THE NEW MINISTRY.

The first measure after the change in the cabinet was to issue a new
writ for the borough of Appleby. This done, Mr. Dundas, treasurer of the
navy, moved, that in order to carry the Land-tax Bill through the house
in time to meet large payments that were to be made by the treasury on
the 5th of January, the house should meet on the next day, Saturday,
instead of being adjourned till Monday. As it was imagined that
government meant to hurry over the voting of supplies, that it might
proceed to a dissolution, this was opposed by Fox, and rejected without
a division. On the Monday no opposition was made to the land-tax, but
on the same evening Mr. Erskine moved an address to his majesty, not to
dissolve the present parliament, but to be graciously pleased to hearken
to the advice of his faithful commons, and not to the secret advices
of particular persons, who might have private interests of their own,
separate from the true interests of the king and his people. The
house was assured that Pitt would resign if either a dissolution or a
prorogation took place; but the motion was pressed and agreed to without
a division. The answer of his majesty to this address was reported on
the 24th, and it contained an assurance that he would not interrupt
their meeting by any exercise of his prerogative, either by prorogation
or dissolution. Opposition now seemed certain of the fall of Pitt and
his coadjutors; and, as if impatient for their overthrow, Fox suggested
that the recess should be a very short one, and it was resolved to
adjourn only till the 12th of January.




CHAPTER XIV.

{GEORGE III. 1784–1786}

     The Trial of Parties and Triumph of Pitt..... A General
     Election..... Meeting of the New Parliament .....  Acts to
     prevent Smuggling,  etc...... The Budget of 1784..... Pitt’s
     India Bill..... Bill for the Restoration of Forfeited
     Estates in Scotland..... Prorogation of Parliament..... The
     State of Ireland..... Meeting of Parliament..... The
     Westminster Scrutiny..... Pitt’s Reform Bill..... Pitt’s
     Financial Measures..... The Affairs of Ireland.....
     Continental Affairs.

{A.D. 1784}




THE TRIAL OF PARTIES, AND TRIUMPH OF PITT.

On the reassembling of parliament, opposition hoped to show that no
power in the constitution could withstand the will of the commons. Fox
commenced the trial by moving the order of the day for the committee on
the state of the nation. This motion was carried, but it was only by a
majority of thirty-nine against ministers, and imputations were thrown
out that the support given them was obtained by unfair means. Still
Fox and his party consoled themselves with the idea that Pitt would
be hurled from his eminence in a few hours. The contest was therefore
continued. The house having resolved itself into a committee, Fox moved
a resolution, declaring “the payment of any public money for services
voted in the present session, after parliament should be prorogued or
dissolved, if such events should take place before an act should have
passed appropriating supplies to such services, to be a high crime and
misdemeanor.” This was carried without a division, and, following up his
attack, Fox moved and carried, in the same manner, another resolution,
deferring the second reading of the Mutiny Bill till the 23rd of
February. Fox now paused, and Lord Surrey stood forward, in order to
strike a more decisive blow. He moved, “That, in the opinion of the
committee it was peculiarly necessary that, in the present situation of
his majesty’s dominions, there should be an administration which has
the confidence of this house and the public.” This resolution was also
carried without a division; and Lord Surrey then moved, “That it was the
opinion of the committee that the late changes in his majesty’s councils
were immediately preceded by dangerous and universal reports that his
majesty’s sacred name had been unconstitutionally abused to affect
the deliberations of parliament, and that the appointments made were
accompanied by circumstances new and extraordinary, and such as did
not conciliate or engage the confidence of the house.” A warm debate
followed this motion, which continued till past six in the morning,
when Dundas moved an adjournment, which, on a division, was lost by a
majority of fifty-four—the numbers being one hundred and ninety-six to
one hundred and forty-two. Nothing further, however, was done on this
occasion, and the house at length adjourned at half-past seven in the
morning. It met again on the 14th, when Pitt moved for leave to bring in
a new bill, for the better government and management of the affairs of
the East India Company. In the previous debates Pitt had declared that
he had accepted office upon one single, plain, intelligible principle,
by which he desired to stand or fall with the people; namely, to save
the country from Fox’s India Bill, which threatened destruction to its
liberties. His own bill, which he explained at great length, was in its
turn severely criticised by Fox. No opposition, however, was made to
Pitt’s motion, and it was read a first time on the 16th, with very
little debate on its merits. After this, on the same night, the
committee on the state of the nation resumed its functions; and Lord
Charles Spencer moved a resolution, expressive of “the necessity of an
administration that should have the confidence both of the house and of
the country, which, as the present ministers have not, their continuance
in office is contrary to constitutional principles, and injurious to
the interests of the king and people.” Mr. Powys, though himself in
opposition, denounced this motion as premature, unprecedented, and
unjust; but it was carried by a majority of twenty-one, the numbers
being two hundred and six against one hundred and eighty-five. During
this debate Mr. Powys expressed a wish that there should be a coalition
between Fox and Pitt, and when the house met on the 20th, other members
joined in this wish. Fox, himself seemed to think that their union was
feasible, but Pitt repeated a declaration which had been made by his
opponent on a previous evening; namely, that a union not founded on
principle would be fallacious and dangerous. Pitt, indeed, was still
resolved to brave the storm; for, in answer to an assertion of Fox that
his majesty’s ministers held their places in defiance of the opinion of
parliament, he declared, “that nothing but a sense of his duty to the
public kept him in office, and that he could not quit it with so much
honour as attended his coming into it.” Fox now altered his mode of
attack. Conceiving that he should lose ground by making any more motions
of a personal nature, especially before the fate of Pitt’s India Bill
should be decided, he set himself to work to defeat that bill. A long
debate took place upon its second reading, which was on Friday, the
23rd, and on the motion for its commitment, it was rejected by two
hundred and twenty-two against two hundred and fourteen. Exulting in his
victory, Fox then moved for leave to bring in another bill, similar in
its principles to his former one, and this being given, he called on
Pitt to state explicitly whether he intended to prevent its progress
by a dissolution of parliament. For a long time Pitt sat silent as a
statue, nor would he have spoken at all had not General Conway rose,
and, with great warmth, called upon him to explain his conduct for his
own honour. But even then Pitt gave no answer to Fox’s question; only
rising to call General Conway to order, for asserting that the ministry,
“originated in darkness and secrecy, maintained themselves by artifice
and reserve, and existed by corruption;” and that they were “about to
dissolve parliament, and to send their agents round the country to bribe
the electors.” The same question was put to Pitt on a future day, and he
preserved the same haughty silence; whence, on the 26th, Mr. Eden moved
a resolution, declaring the firm reliance of the house on his majesty’s
promise, that they should not be interrupted either by a prorogation or
dissolution, from taking into consideration the regulation of the East
India Company, and for supporting the public credit. In reply, Pitt
observed, that he did not see how the royal word could be considered
pledged to the extent of the motion; but, he added, that as a
dissolution would be attended with great disadvantage, he would not
advise any such exercise of the royal prerogative. Opposition might
have been satisfied with this explicit declaration, but nevertheless Mr.
Eden’s motion was pressed and agreed to without a division. The house
then adjourned to the 29th, and in the meantime a meeting of some of the
leading men of both parties met at the St. Albans-tavern, in order, if
possible, to bring about a coalition. At this meeting am address was
agreed upon, and sent, by a deputation, to the Duke of Portland and Mr.
Pitt, entreating them to communicate with each other, and expressing a
hope that this would lead to a cordial co-operation. All the exertions
of the St. Albans-tavern meeting, however, were unavailing. The Duke of
Portland and Mr. Pitt communicated with each other, but as the former
made the resignation of the latter a _sine qua non_, no union could be
formed.

The house reassembled on the 29th, but on the motion of Fox, it was
again adjourned till the 2nd of February. This adjournment was moved in
order to give more time for the consideration of a union of parties;
but when the house met again they were still as far from a coalition as
ever. Under these circumstances Mr. Grosvenor, member for Chester, who
had presided at the St. Albans-tavern meeting, moved a resolution, to
the effect that the situation of public affairs required the exertions
of an united administration—an administration entitled to the
confidence of the people, and such as might tend to put an end to the
divisions and distractions of the country. In the debate which
this motion occasioned, Fox charged Pitt with preferring his own
understanding to the collected wisdom of the house, and of causing a
breach between the legislative and executive government. In reply,
after alluding to the fact that the people were in favour of the late
ministerial changes, Pitt expressed his determination not to quit
office, inasmuch as he saw that nothing but evil would come from his
resignation. At the same time he added, that he was but little attached
to office, and that, if he could see a strong and well-connected
government ready to succeed him, he would cheerfully retire. Mr.
Grosvenor’s motion was carried, and Mr. Coke then moved, “that it was
the opinion of the house that the continuance of the present ministers
in office is an obstacle to the formation of such an administration as
may enjoy the confidence of the house, and tend to pacify the country.”
 This motion was also carried, and on the next day Mr. Coke, after
expressing his regret at seeing Pitt still in office, moved that these
two resolutions should be laid before his majesty by those members who
were of the privy-council, which motion was likewise affirmed. In order
to give time for knowing what effect this communication to his majesty
would produce, the committee on the state of the nation was postponed
till Monday, the 9th of February; and in the meantime the house was
informed by Lord Hinchingbrook, that he had laid the resolutions before
the king, and that his majesty had signified his intention of taking
them into consideration. But no communication was made from his majesty
on this subject before the 18th, and in the interval its members were
occupied in canvassing the proceedings of the upper house, and in
measures of revenue and finance.

Up to this time the lords had taken no share in the struggle between the
king and his “faithful commons.” Pitt, however, had already commenced
his career of making peers, and these, with others, now began to exhibit
their zeal for his cause. Lord Howard of Effingham moved two resolutions
in direct opposition to, and levelled at, those which had recently been
passed by the commons. The first of these declared, that an attempt in
any one branch of the legislature to suspend the course of the law
was unconstitutional; and the second asserted, that the authority of
appointing the great officers of the executive government was solely
vested in the crown. Both these resolutions were carried by a majority
of nearly two to one; and the commons thought it necessary to pass a
counter-resolution, which asserted that the house had not assumed any
right to suspend the execution of law, or done any thing which could be
deemed unconstitutional.

On the 11th of February the subject of a union of parties was once more
discussed in the commons. Fox made a conciliatory and even complimentary
speech, but Pitt was still firm in his intentions. He observed, that
whatever might be his disposition to coalesce with Fox, there were
other persons of the same party with whom he would never act. As this
observation referred chiefly to Lord North, that nobleman rose, and
declared with great frankness, “that although averse from yielding to
the prejudices or caprice of any individual, he would not be an obstacle
to the formation of such a firm, extended, and united administration
as the present state of the country required.” After this the house
resolved itself into a committee of supply, and the ordnance estimates
were voted without a division. On the next day Lord John Cavendish
moved, that the house should resolve itself into a committee on
the Receipt Tax Act, and Pitt himself voted in the majority, thereby
declaring his approbation of the principles of the bill.

Before his majesty made any reply to the resolutions presented to him,
the St. Albans-tavern association prevailed upon Pitt to agree that
a message should be sent in the king’s name to the Duke of Portland,
expressing a desire that his grace should hold a conference with Mr.
Pitt for the purpose of forming an administration, “on a wide basis,
and on fair and equal terms.” This message was sent, but the Duke of
Portland still required Pitt to resign before he negociated; and this
attempt to form a coalition of parties proved, like the former, to be
of no avail. Open war, therefore, continued between the two parties, and
its violence increased when, on the 18th of February, after the order of
the day had been read for taking the supplies into consideration,
Pitt intimated, that his majesty had not thought proper to dismiss his
ministers, in compliance with the resolution of that house, and that
they had not resigned. Fox, in reply, expressed his astonishment at this
declaration, and declared that such language had not been heard in
the house since the revolution; and that the commons had never before
received such a reply from a prince of the House of Hanover. Enraged
thereby, Fox moved, that the report of the committee of supply should
not be received till the 20th, which motion was carried by a majority
of twelve only. The friends of Pitt saw in this small majority a ray
of hope that he would ultimately triumph, and the opposition seemed to
think so likewise, for some eagerly desired a compromise. Pitt, however,
declared, that he would enter into no compromise or stipulation for
passing the vote of supplies, and therefore he still stood upon his own
grounds. On the 20th Mr. Powys moved a resolution, humbly requesting
his majesty “to take such measures as might tend to give effect to the
wishes of his faithful commons.” This mild resolution did not please
Fox and his party, and an amendment was moved to insert the following
words—“by removing any obstacle to the formation of such an
administration as this house has declared to be requisite in the present
critical situation of affairs.” As this amendment aimed at the dismissal
of ministers, a long and stormy debate ensued, in the course of which
Pitt delivered one of the most eloquent speeches ever uttered within
the walls of the house of commons. But no eloquence could break down the
obstinacy of the house; for the motion, with the amendment, was carried
by a majority of twenty; and Fox, pursuing his triumph, moved and
carried an address., to be presented to his majesty on his throne by
the whole house, praying him to dismiss his ministers. The report of the
ordnance estimates was then brought up and agreed to without a division,
after which, between five and six in the morning, the house adjourned.

The address voted by the commons was presented on the 25th, when his
majesty in reply, stated that he had heard no valid charge against the
ministers of his appointment; that all proposals for a coalition, though
seconded by himself, had proved abortive; and that he could not see in
what way the public interest was likely to be promoted by the dismissal
of his cabinet. He added:—“Under these circumstances, I trust my
faithful commons will not wish that the essential offices of executive
government should be vacated until I see a prospect that such a plan of
union as I have called for, and they have pointed out, may be carried
into effect.” The efforts of the opposition now grew more violent. The
house met on the 27th to hear the report of the king’s answer; and on
that occasion Lord Beaumont moved, first, that the report should be
taken into consideration on the 1st of March, and then that the house
should adjourn to that day. To the first of these propositions Pitt made
no objection, but as the object of the second was to delay the supplies,
and this delay would cause serious evils, inasmuch as they related to
the navy, he strongly resisted such a hazardous measure. His arguments
told even upon the opposition, for though the motion was carried, it was
only by the small majority of seven; the numbers being one hundred and
seventy-five to one hundred and sixty-eight. But the struggle was not
yet over. On the 1st of March, Fox moved and carried another address to
the king, which directly asserted the right of the commons to advise his
majesty on the exercise of his prerogative, and by virtue of that
right, specifically requesting him to dismiss his ministers. The commons
carried this address to the king on the 4th of March, and were told
in reply that his majesty still entertained the same sentiments he had
formerly expressed. On the same evening it was agreed, upon the motion
of Fox, that this reply should be taken into consideration on Monday,
the 8th of March. In the meantime Pitt was once more defeated. On the
5th, Fox moved that the committee on the Mutiny Bill, which stood
for that day, should be adjourned till Monday, which was carried by a
majority of nine; the numbers being one hundred and seventy-one against
one hundred and sixty-two. But this was Fox’s last triumph in this
memorable struggle. On Monday the house was crowded to excess. Strangers
had even taken their seats in the gallery as early as ten o’clock in the
morning, in expectation of witnessing this last struggle in the trial
of the two great parties in the house of commons. Before the debates
commenced, however, Sir James Lowther, after complaining that he had not
been able to find room for a friend, and stating that he had reason to
believe there were strangers there not introduced by members, insisted
upon the standing order of the house for excluding all strangers being
carried into execution; and the gallery was forthwith cleared. When
this was done, Fox, after accusing his sturdy opponent with insolent
and unconstitutional conduct, declaring that a union of parties was now
impracticable, and lamenting the disgrace and ruin which this struggle
had brought upon the country, moved, as a last measure, another address
to the throne, which repeated at greater length the prayer for the
removal of ministers; expressing the surprise and affliction of the
house at receiving the answer to its former address, and vindicating
the loyalty of the commons, who were said to be incapable of desiring
to lessen the prerogative of the crown. Pitt sat silent, and the task
of defending the conduct of ministers fell upon Dundas, who did so with
great ability. The debate lasted till midnight, when the house became
impatient to divide. It was an anxious moment for both parties, and loud
and vociferous were the cheers on the ministerial benches, when it was
found that Fox had this time only a majority of _one_ in his favour;
the numbers being one hundred and ninety-one against one hundred
and ninety. The struggle was, indeed, now over; for the opposition
acknowledged the majority of one only as a defeat. Henceforth they tried
no more divisions: the Mutiny Bill and supplies were voted readily, and
the Appropriation Act was no more brought forward. Pitt’s triumph was
complete: and yet he deemed it prudent to strengthen his cause by a
new election; lest the opposition should again rally and retard his
measures. Reports to this effect were soon spread abroad, and the
subject was brought before parliament on the 22nd of March, by Sir
Grey Cooper, who declared that such a step would be both daring and
unwarrantable under present circumstances. The subject was renewed
on the next day, when the report of the committee of supply was to be
brought up, but though Pitt was eagerly questioned on the subject by
Lord North and other members of the house, he still preserved silence.
The house, however, did not have to wait long for the confirmation of
the report. On the 24th, the king went down to the house of lords, and
put an end to the session by prorogation; at the same time declaring
that he felt it to be a duty which he owed to the constitution and
the country, to recur to the sense of his people, by convoking a new
parliament. The sentence of dissolution was soon pronounced, for it
appeared in the next day’s _Gazette_.




A GENERAL ELECTION.

Pitt had good reasons to believe that a general election would result
greatly in his favour. There can be no doubt, indeed, that if he had
adopted such a measure at the first, that he would have been spared
the trouble of contending with the opposition. At the same time if
parliament had been dissolved on an earlier day, it is probable that he
might not have had such bright prospects for the future. Every day his
conduct seemed to gain him friends among the people; while on the other
hand the popularity of his rival rapidly decreased. There were two grand
causes which led to the decay of the popularity of Fox; namely, his
coalition with Lord North and his party; and his India Bill, which
arrayed against him not only the influence of the East India Company,
but also of almost all the good citizens of London. The city of London
had, indeed, showed much sympathy with the youthful premier, Pitt, in
this memorable struggle. At the latter end of February, they voted him
the freedom of the city, which they presented to him in great state at
the house of Lord Chatham, in Berkeley-square, whence he was conducted
by the committee to a grand dinner at the Grocers’-hall. What sentiments
were entertained towards him may be gathered from the speech which
Wilkes, the chamberlain of the city, made on this occasion. After
lavishing much praise on Pitt, he thus alluded to the parliamentary
contest, which was then at its height:—“I know, sir, how high you stand
in the confidence of the public: much is to be done, but you have youth,
capacity, and firmness; it is the characteristic of a true patriot never
to despair. Your noble father, sir, annihilated party; and, I hope you
will, in the end, bear down and conquer the hydra of faction, which now
rears its hundred heads against you. I remember his saying, that for
the good of the people he dared to look the proudest connexions of this
country in the face: I trust that the same spirit animates his son: and
as he has the same support of the crown, and of the people, I am firmly
persuaded that the same success will follow.” But the sentiments which
the people of England entertained towards Pitt and his rival were more
fully manifested, during, and by, the results of the election. The Pitt
candidates were returned on every hand by triumphant majorities, and not
less than one hundred and sixty of the old members of opposition lost
their seats, and were sent back to private life with the ludicrous
appellation of “Fox’s Martyrs.” But it must not be supposed that this
result was entirely owing to the popularity of the young premier. The
press, that mighty engine for good or evil, had been set to work to
undermine the power of the coalition, and lampoons and satires on Fox
and North had been printed daily and scattered throughout the country.
Moreover, as Pitt had from the first contemplated a dissolution of
parliament, every influence which a government could command had been
employed in his favour. Finally, the youth of Pitt, and the bold stand
he had made against his opponents, had a powerful tendency to gain him
the support of the nation. Though inexperienced, men saw in him the
future champion of parliamentary reform; and the powerful antagonist of
that aristocratic confederacy, against which his father had exerted his
talents. The star of Pitt was, in truth, in the ascendant; while that of
his rival set in gloom. Fox was returned to parliament, but it was
with some difficulty that he obtained a seat. He was a candidate for
Westminster, and had a majority on the poll over Sir Cecil Wray, but the
high-bailiff, by a scandalous partiality, refused to make a return in
his favour. Fox brought an action against the bailiff in the court of
king’s bench, and obtained considerable damages; and in the meantime,
he secured a seat for the borough of Kirkwall, in Orkney, by which he
exposed himself to the ridicule of his enemies as a person banished to
the “Ultima Thule.”

{GEORGE III. 1784–1786}




MEETING OF THE NEW PARLIAMENT.

The meeting of the new parliament took place on the 18th of May. In his
speech, the king expressed great satisfaction at meeting the house at
this time, after having recurred, in so important a moment, to the sense
of his people; and recommended to their most serious consideration
the framing of suitable provisions for the good government of our
possessions in the East Indies. The addresses in both houses contained
strong expressions of gratitude to the king for having dissolved the
late parliament; and amendments to omit these expressions, on the ground
of unanimity, were negatived by large majorities. The attention of
the house was first directed to the conduct of the high-bailiff of
Westminister, in refusing to make the return in favour of Fox; and he
was directed to attend at the bar of the house to defend his conduct. In
his defence, he said, that having ground to suspect the validity of
many votes, taken in the course of a poll of six weeks’ duration, he
had granted a scrutiny, and that he could not make the return till this
scrutiny terminated. Counsel was heard on both sides as to the legality
of his conduct; and after long pleadings, it was moved and carried,
that “the high-bailiff do proceed in the scrutiny with all possible
dispatch,” thereby justifying the unwarrantable step he had taken. The
principle of party spirit prevailed over a sense of justice, for the
scrutiny of an election is nothing more than a revision of the poll
itself, and if such revision cannot be completed before the period at
which the writ is returnable, he is bound by his office and oath to make
the return agreeably to the poll as actually taken. So the counsel on
the side of Fox argued; but the justice of the house was set aside by
the spirit of party, if not revenge.




ACTS TO PREVENT SMUGGLING, ETC.

At this time there was a deficiency of three millions a year in the
revenue of the country. This was principally owing to a failure in the
estimated produce of taxes imposed by Lord North during the war with
America. There were, however, other causes at work to produce this
deficiency, and not the least among them was the universal practice of
smuggling. This practice was, indeed, at the close of the American war,
carried on to an almost incredible extent; government being too much
employed to keep a strict watch over the trade of the country. It is
calculated that forty thousand persons were thus engaged; and Pitt
deemed it expedient to bring in a bill for the prevention of smuggling
in general, and then to propose regulations applicable to those articles
which formed its principle support. By the bill for the prevention of
smuggling, the right of seizing certain vessels with their cargoes,
under particular circumstances, was greatly extended; the building of
such vessels was prohibited; the owners of armed vessels were obliged to
procure licences; the rules respecting clearance were enlarged; and the
act of resisting his majesty’s ships and officers was made a capital
felony. In order to aid this bill, Pitt brought forward two others: one
directed against contraband trade in tea, and the other against that in
spirits. That with reference to tea was of great importance, for it was
at this time considered a staple commodity of the smuggler. In fact,
more than seven million pounds of that article were smuggled into the
country annually; while only about five millions were sold by the East
India Company. To prevent this evil, Pitt proposed to reduce the duty
upon tea from fifty to twelve and a half per cent., which was not
more than equal to the expense of smuggling. The same principle was
maintained in the bill directed against the contraband trade in spirits.
Great frauds had been committed on the distilleries at home; and Pitt
proposed a bill by which the duties payable on British spirits were
regulated and enforced; while those on foreign duties were considerably
reduced. As these reductions, and especially on the article of tea,
would occasion a great loss to the revenue, Pitt proposed to increase
the tax on windows in proportion. All these resolutions were passed,
after much debate in the commons, by large majorities; and they met with
little or no opposition in the house of lords.




THE BUDGET OF 1784.

On the 30th of June, Pitt produced what is called the budget, which
included the subject of taxation. In his speech he discussed the ways
and means for defraying the expenses of the services of the present
year; the loan; the funding a portion of the unfunded debt; and new
taxes. A loan of six millions was found requisite for the current
services of the year, besides the ordinary sources of income; and this
he proposed to throw open to public competition; the biddings being sent
in, sealed up, and afterwards opened in the presence of the governor
and deputy governor of the Bank of England. At this time the navy
and victualling bills, with the ordnance debentures, which formed a
considerable part of the unfunded debt, amounted to about fourteen
millions; nearly the half of which he proposed to fund at five per cent,
stock, and to make irredeemable for thirty years, or until twenty-five
millions of the existing funds should be extinguished. Beyond this,
there was in the market about seven millions in bills and debentures,
which bore an interest of four per cent. These bills, with the new fund
and the new loan, required an interest of nearly one million pounds
sterling; and Pitt undertook to find taxes which should produce that
sum. He proposed duties on hats, ribands, coals, gauzes, horses, linens
and calicoes, candles, bricks and tiles, paper, and hackney-coaches;
and he also proposed licences to dealers in exciseable articles, and
certificates to kill game. In commenting upon these taxes, the young
premier observed:—“It would be idle to suppose that all the taxes in
this long catalogue were unexceptionable; but the necessities of the
public leave us no option to deal otherwise than openly and fairly. The
wants of government are many; the finances of the country have been much
reduced; and it is proper to look our real situation manfully in the
face.” Pitt could speak and act the more boldly because the necessities
of the government were not of his own creation; and his manliness,
together with the ability he displayed in his financial detail, gained
for him the applause even of his most determined opponents. Fox said,
with reference to his management of the unfunded debt, that “too much
praise could not be given him.” The only tax, indeed, which met with
decided opposition, was that on coals, which was justly represented
as oppressive to the poor, and injurious to our manufactures. This
he relinquished, as he did also that on hops, which was to have been
included in the exciseable articles, introducing in their stead, taxes
on gold and silver plate, lead exported, race-horses, licences to sell
ale, and postage of letters. Pitt also introduced regulations regarding
the privilege of franking, which were calculated to increase the revenue
of the post-office. On the whole, the introduction of this budget,
though the nation was already exhausted by taxes, had the effect of
greatly increasing the youthful premier’s popularity.




PITT’S INDIA BILL.

In the midst of this popularity, Pitt brought forward his celebrated
India Bill. This may be considered under three separate heads. 1. A new
establishment at home, with powers extending over the affairs of the
East India Company. 2. Regulations to be applied to India. 3. The
erection of a court in England for the trial of offences committed in
India.

The first of these heads consisted of a board of control, which was to
be composed of six commissioners, holding the rank of privy-counsellors,
and comprising the chancellor of the exchequer and one secretary of
state; and four others holding offices of such emolument as precluded
the necessity of a salary. The members of this board were to be
appointed by the king, and removable at his pleasure; and they were
authorised to check, superintend, and control the civil and military
government, as well as the revenues of the company. It was their duty
also to inspect and countersign all the despatches transmitted by the
court of directors to the different presidencies. The directors were
enjoined to pay all due obedience to the orders of this board, touching
the civil and military government and revenues; but in case such orders
should at any time in the opinion of the directors, relate to matters
not connected with these points, they were left at liberty to appeal to
his majesty in council, whose decision was to be final. In all cases
of secrecy, and particularly such as related to peace or war with the
native powers of India, the commissioners were to have the power of
sending their orders to the local government of India, through a secret
committee of the court of directors, which committee could in this
case only be considered as the vehicle of instruction to the local
authorities of India.

The regulations applicable to India related to the government. Pitt
proposed that the government in each of the three stations should
consist of a president and counsellors; that the president of Bengal
should be governor-general; that the commander-in-chief should be one
of the council, and next to the governor-general; and that the
commander-in-chief at Madras and Bombay should take similar rank at each
of those stations. The government of Bengal was to have control over
the other presidencies, and the appointment of governors,
commanders-in-chief, and other members of the council, was to be vested
in the directors; they, together with the king, having the power of
recalling the governor-general, as well as every other person employed
by the company. All promotions, whether civil or military, were to be
made according to seniority, and in progressive succession, unless for
some urgent case to be transmitted to the directors; and each government
was empowered to apprehend all persons guilty of carrying on an illicit
correspondence, and either bring them to trial in India or send them to
England. In order to prevent ambitious projects, the supreme government
was not permitted to enter into an offensive treaty, or to make war,
without the command of the directors, against any power which had not
commenced, or given full proof of its intention to commence hostilities.
Provisions were also inserted in this bill relative to the settlement
of disputes with the Nabob of Arcot, and the redress of complaints of
injustice and oppression, exercised against the Zemindars, or great
hereditary landholders of India, who had either been dispossessed of
their lands, or subjected to exorbitant demands, by the officers of the
East India Company. This part of Pitt’s bill also regulated the ages
at which writers and cadets should be appointed, as well as the number
proper to be sent out; prohibited the acceptance of presents; and
required that all servants of the company should, after the 1st of
January, 1787, deliver an oath within two months after their arrival in
England, respecting what part of their property was, and what was not,
acquired in India.

In the third part of Pitt’s bill, he proposed that a high tribunal
should be created for the trial of Indian delinquents, which tribunal
was to consist of three judges, one from each court; of four peers, and
six members of the House of Commons, who were authorised to act without
appeal; to award, in case of conviction, fine or imprisonment; and to
declare the party convicted incapable of again serving the company. No
person, holding any office under the crown during pleasure, or who had
ever been in the Indian service could become a member of this court.

Such were the three grand features of Pitt’s India Bill. As might have
been expected, his opponents were sedulous in pointing out its defects.
Burke, who had no mean share in the composition of Fox’s India Bill, the
great outcry against which had been that it went to increase, in a most
dangerous degree, the influence of the minister, said, that Pitt’s bill,
in reality, vested in the crown an influence paramount to any that had
been proposed by the bill of his opponent. On this subject, also, Fox
remarked:—“By whom is this board of superintendants to be appointed? Is
it not by his majesty? And is not this giving power to the sovereign
for the ends of influence, and for the extension of that system of
corruption which has been so justly reprobated? The last parliament, to
their immortal honour, voted the increasing influence of the crown to
be inconsistent with public liberty. The right honourable gentleman, in
consequence of that vote, finds the influence probably unequal to the
great objects of his administration. He is therefore willing to take the
present opportunity of making his court where he knows our late doctrine
will never be acceptable; and the plain language of the whole matter now
is, that the patronage of India must be appended to the executive power
of this country, which otherwise will not be able to cany on schemes
hostile to the constitution, in opposition to the house of commons.”
 Fox objected to the bill on other grounds. He remarked, that the
bill established a weak and inefficient government, by dividing
its powers—to the one board belonged the privilege of ordering and
contriving measures; to the other, that of carrying them into execution.
Theories, he said, which did not connect men with measures, were not
theories for this world: they were chimeras with which a recluse might
divert his fancy, but they were not principles en which a statesman
would found his system. He maintained, that by the negative vested in
the commissioners, the chartered rights of the company, on which stress
had been laid, were insidiously undermined and virtually annihilated.
Founded on such heterogeneous principles, how, he asked, could such a
government be other than the constant victim of internal distraction?
As for the appeal allowed from the decisions of the board of control
to the privy-council, that was only the appeal from the aggressor
transformed into the character of a judge, and was therefore in the
highest degree nugatory and ridiculous. Against the clauses of the
bill respecting the Zemindars, Fox entered his strong protest. In his
opinion they ought to be rated by a fixed rule of past periods, and
not of a vague and indefinite future inquiry. He stigmatized the
new tribunal as a screen for delinquents, and as a palpable and
unconstitutional violation of the sacred right of a trial by jury. As
no man was to be tried but on the accusation of the company or the
attorney-general, he contended, that the delinquent had only to
conciliate government in order to his remaining in perfect security. He
would venture, he said, to pronounce this part of the general system of
deception and delusion, a “bed of justice,” where justice would for ever
sleep. With regard to the East India charter, Fox insisted that it
was as much violated by this bill as by his own; but on this important
point, at least, the difference was palpable and striking; for while
Fox’s bill took away commerce from the company, the other left it
solely in their hands. By Pitt’s bill, indeed, the management of their
commercial concerns was guaranteed to them, and they were only divested
of that political power which they had abused, and of that civil
authority which for a series of years they had shown themselves to be
incompetent to exercise, Many other objections were started, and during
the progress of the bill through the house, several amendments were
moved and adopted, but its main features were preserved, and the bill
finally passed both houses with triumphant majorities. In the whole,
twenty-one new clauses were added to the bill, which were distinguished
by the letters of the alphabet; and Sheridan humourously suggested that
three other clauses should be affixed, in order, as he observed, “to
complete the horn-book of the present ministry;” The minority in the
lords, in a protest, branded the bill as a measure ineffectual in its
provisions, unconstitutional in its partial abolition of the trial by
jury, and unjust in its inquisitorial spirit. But though Pitt’s scheme
was not perfect, yet in many points of view it was preferable to that
of Fox; and even its errors were magnified by the prejudice of party
spirit.




BILL FOR THE RESTORATION OF FORFEITED ESTATES IN SCOTLAND.

The last measure which came before parliament during the present session
was a bill introduced by Mr. Dundas, for the restoration of estates in
Scotland to the heirs of those who had forfeited them in the rebellions
of 1715 and 1745. In making this proposition, Mr. Dundas declared that
it was, in his opinion, worthy of the justice and generosity of the
house. There was not one of the families comprehended in the scope of
it, he said, in which some person had not atoned for the crimes and
errors of his ancestors, by sacrificing his blood in the cause of his
country; and he declared that the sovereign had not, for a long series
of years past, a more loyal set of subjects than the Highlanders and
their chieftains. He did not, however, propose that the estates should
be freed from the claims existing against them at the time of their
forfeiture, as this, he argued, would be establishing a premium for
rebellion. Such sums, amounting to about £80,000, he suggested, should
be appropriated to public purposes; £50,000 of which he recommended
should be employed in the completion of the grand canal reaching from
the Frith of Forth to that of Clyde. This liberal measure was received
in a manner that did honour to the feelings of the house; the leaders
of both parties joining in eulogising it. The bill passed the commons
without any opposition; but when sent to the lords it met with a
most determined resistance from the restored chancellor Thurlow, who
expatiated on the ancient maxim that treason was of so deep a dye that
nothing but the total eradication of the person, name, and family out
of the community was adequate to its punishment. On a division, however,
Thurlow was left in a great minority, and the bill passed, much to the
satisfaction of the public.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued on the 20th of August, the king expressing his
warmest thanks to both houses for their zealous and diligent attention
to the public service. His majesty dismissed his parliament with the
satisfactory conviction that he had established a ministry to his own
mind, and that he had nothing more to fear from the coalition which had
so long disturbed his peace. At the close of the session, indeed, the
popularity of Pitt was at its height, and his power was established—a
power which remained unbroken for seventeen long and eventful years.

{GEORGE III. 1784–1786}




THE STATE OF IRELAND.

At this period Ireland was in a very disturbed state. During the year
1783, an assembly of delegates, from the volunteer corps, assembled in
the provinces of Antrim, Ulster, Leinster, and Munster, for the purpose
of consulting on measures proper to be adopted to effect a reform in
parliament, and a national convention was appointed to be held at Dublin
on the 10th of November. Such was the posture of affairs when the Irish
parliament, which had been recently elected, met on the 14th of October.
The first measure of this parliament was to vote thanks to the different
volunteer corps for their public services; after which, a resolution,
proposed by Lord Mountmorres, “that, in the present state of the
kingdom, it was expedient that there should be a session of parliament
held every year,” received the sanction of both houses.

The national convention assembled on the day appointed; and the Earl of
Charlemont, generalissimo of the volunteer corps throughout the kingdom,
was elected president. At this meeting the Bishop of Deny moved that a
committee should be appointed to digest a plan of reform. This motion
was adopted; and in a short time the committee thus reported their
opinion:—‘“That every protestant freeholder or leaseholder, possessing
a freehold or leasehold for a certain term of years, of forty shillings
value, resident in any city or borough, should be entitled to vote in
the election of member for the same that decayed boroughs should be
enabled to return representatives by an extension of franchise to the
neighbouring parishes; that the suffrages of the electors should be
taken by the sheriff or his deputies on the same day, at the respective
places of election; that pensioners of the crown, receiving their
pensions during pleasure, should be incapacitated from sitting in
parliament; that every member of parliament accepting a pension for
life, or any place under the crown, should vacate his seat; that each
member should subscribe an oath that he had, neither directly nor
indirectly, given any pecuniary or other consideration, with a view
of obtaining the suffrage of any elector; and that the duration of
parliament should not exceed the term of three years.” This report
was received with applause, and resolutions to the effect were passed
unanimously.

On the next day Mr. Flood moved, in the Irish house of commons, for
leave to bring in a bill for the more equal representation of the people
in parliament; a motion which was rejected by a large majority, as the
proposal was made at the point of the bayonet. After this an address
to the king was voted in both houses, expressive of the sense of the
blessings they enjoyed under his auspices, and assuring him that they
were determined to support inviolate the present constitution with their
lives and their fortunes.

The conduct of the Irish parliament was reported to the national
convention by Mr. Flood on the 1st of December, when a resolution was
simply passed to the effect, that they would individually carry on
such investigations as might be necessary to complete the plan of
parliamentary reform. The convention seems to have thought that they
were going too far, and that it would be better somewhat to retrace
their steps, for on the next day an address was voted to the king,
on the motion of Mr. Flood, in the name of the delegates of all the
volunteers of Ireland, expressive of their loyalty and duty; claiming
the merits of their past exertions, and imploring his majesty,
that their humble wish to have certain manifest perversions of
the parliamentary representation of that kingdom remedied by the
legislature, in some reasonable degree, might not be attributed to any
spirit of innovation, but to a sober and laudable desire to uphold the
constitution, to confirm the satisfaction of their fellow-subjects, and
to perpetuate the union of both kingdoms. On the 13th of March, in the
following year, Mr. Flood renewed his motion for parliamentary reform,
which was again rejected; and then the object was relinquished in
despair.

The people of Ireland, however, were not yet quiet. They had many
grievances which required redress; and it can form no matter of wonder
that they lifted up the voice of complaint. Their next call was for
protecting duties, to foster the infant manufactures of that country,
and to compel the inhabitants to consume the produce of native ingenuity
and industry. This subject was brought before the Irish house of commons
on the 31st of March, by Mr. Gardiner, who implored the house to copy
the conduct of England, France, and other countries in this respect; and
moved for a high duty on woollens imported into the kingdom. This motion
was rejected by a large majority; and the disappointment of the people
was now kindled into rage. So critical was the state of Dublin at this
period, that it was deemed necessary to countermand the embarkation
of several regiments destined for the East Indies, and to furnish the
garrison in that city with an extraordinary supply of powder and ball.
Before the session was closed, the people were somewhat appeased by
an address which was voted to the king, and which represented the
distressed state of the kingdom, and prayed for the establishment of a
more advantageous system of commerce between Ireland and Great Britain;
but there were still restless spirits in that unhappy country, and these
sought again to disturb the public mind. On the 7th of June, a meeting
of the aggregate body of the citizens of Dublin was convened by the
sheriffs, and in which resolutions were passed declaratory of the
right of the people of Ireland to a frequent election and an equal
representation. In an address to the people of Ireland, this meeting
proposed the election of five delegates from each county, city, and
considerable town, to meet in Dublin on the 25th of October, in national
congress. Resolutions similar to those passed by this meeting were
agreed to at a general meeting of the freeholders of the county of
Dublin, which was held on the 9th of August; and a petition was also
voted by these freeholders, praying a dissolution of parliament. These
measures met with decided opposition from the government of Ireland. The
20th of September having been fixed upon as the day for electing five
delegates to represent the city of Dublin in national congress; before
that day arrived, Mr. Fitzgibbon, the attorney-general, wrote a letter
to the sheriffs, threatening them with a prosecution if they should
take any part in the election. This menace alarmed the sheriffs, and
prevented their interference; but the delegates were chosen, and a
resolution was passed, declaring the conduct of the attorney-general to
be a violation of Magna Charta. The attorney-general filed informations
against the high-sheriffs of various counties for convening and
presiding at similar meetings; but the national congress met, and passed
several resolutions, importing that the appointment of that assembly,
and the steps that had been taken, were in conformity with the
constitution of Ireland; after which this congress adjourned to the
25th of January. On the same day that the Irish congress met, the second
session of the parliament of Ireland commenced, when Mr. Orde, secretary
to the lord-lieutenant, laid before the house a series of commercial
regulations, which had been digested during the recess into a regular
system. Two plans were formed; one of which was a system of mutual
prohibition, and the other a system of mutual admission. Mr. Orde moved
eleven propositions in conformity to the latter, which were all ratified
by a decisive majority, after much violent discussion.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1785}

Parliament reassembled on the 25th of January. In his speech, the king
alluded to the success which had attended the financial measures of
the last session, as an encouragement for parliament to renew the
consideration of such salutary objects; and he recommended the two
houses to apply their utmost attention to the adjustment of such points
in the commercial intercourse between this country and Ireland, as were
not yet finally arranged. In both houses the addresses were carried
without a division.




THE WESTMINSTER SCRUTINY.

The first business which engaged the attention of the house, was the
state of the Westminster scrutiny, which had now continued for eight
months, at a great expense, and only two parishes out of seven had been
gone through. It was calculated that as one of the parishes scrutinized
was a small one, it would take three years to scrutinise the whole.
Under these circumstances, the electors petitioned the house on the
subject, and the high-bailiff and his counsel were in consequence
examined at the bar of the house, touching the practicability of
proceeding with greater dispatch. The high-bailiff frankly confessed
that it would not take less than two years to finish the scrutiny; and
Mr. Welbore Ellis, now in opposition, moved that he should obey the
writ, and make a return of the precept; that is, that he should declare
those elected who stood highest on the poll. This was negatived by
one hundred and seventy-four against one hundred and thirty-five; and
another motion, of a similar tendency, moved by Colonel Fitzpatrick, at
a subsequent date, was likewise rejected, though only by a majority of
nine, the numbers being one hundred and forty-five against one hundred
and thirty-six. This small majority was ominous, inasmuch as it
indicated that there was a change in public opinion upon the subject;
and encouraged by it, on the 3rd of March, Alderman Sawbridge brought
forward the motion for the third time. Pitt, whose proceedings on
this subject reflect no credit on his feelings, moved the question of
adjournment upon this repeated motion, and had the mortification of
being left in a minority of thirty-eight; the numbers being for the
adjournment one hundred and twenty-four, and against it, one hundred and
sixty-two. After this the main question was put and carried without a
division; and on the next day Lord Hood and Mr. Fox were declared duly
returned. Yet the house, while it condemned the scrutiny as inexpedient,
still maintained its legality; for when, on the 9th of March, Mr.
Francis moved a resolution for expunging that of the 8th of June
preceding, by which it was authorised, he was left in a minority of one
hundred and thirty-seven against one hundred and forty-two. It is said
that Mr. Pitt engaged in this discreditable affair from the conviction,
that, within a reasonable time, a decided majority of legal votes would
be substantiated in favour of Sir Cecil Wray; but it would rather appear
that it was from the enmity which he bore to his rival, Fox. This,
indeed, is borne out by the debates on the subject, for the speeches of
Pitt teem with bitter invective against his opponent; which, perhaps,
may have been a leading cause in the change of sentiments that took
place among the young premier’s friends. There is in the nature of
man, enlightened by education, an utter abhorrence to the spirit of
persecution; and it must be confessed that Pitt exhibited much of that
spirit in this affair of the Westminster scrutiny. And that Fox was
looked upon in the light of a martyr is evident from the words of Pitt
himself. In one of his speeches, having accused his rival of filling his
speech with everything that was personal, inflammatory, and invidious,
he remarked:—“I am not surprised if he should pretend to be the butt
of ministerial persecution; and if, by striving to excite the public
compassion, he should seek to reinstate himself in that popularity which
he once enjoyed, but which he so unhappily has forfeited. For it is the
best and most ordinary resource of these political apostates to
court, to offer themselves to persecution for the sake of the popular
predilection and pity which usually fall upon persecuted men; it becomes
worth their while to suffer, for a time, political martyrdom, for the
sake of the canonization that awaits the suffering martyr; and I make no
doubt the right honourable gentleman has so much penetration, and at the
same time so much passive virtue about him, that he would be glad not
only to seem a poor, injured, persecuted man, but he would gladly seek
an opportunity of even really suffering a little persecution, if it be
possible to find such an opportunity.” In this extract is at once seen
the animus by which Pitt was actuated in this contest; and the light in
which the house and the public were disposed to look upon the object of
his unseeming vindictiveness. A generous conqueror never persecutes, or
exults over a fallen enemy.




PITT’S REFORM BILL.

These petty and unworthy proceedings were followed by a subject more
worthy the attention of the statesman. Pitt had twice failed in his
attempts to reform the house of commons, but, notwithstanding, he
still determined to persevere, having pledged himself “as a man and a
minister,” to promote this great cause. He renewed the subject on the
18th of April, when he brought forward a plan of reform: the specific
proposition of which was to transfer the right of election from
thirty-six rotten boroughs to the counties and great unrepresented
towns; giving a compensation in money to the owners and holders of the
rotten boroughs so disfranchised; the bill also proposed to extend the
right of voting in county elections to copyholders. It has been doubted
whether Pitt, at this time, had any sincere desire for parliamentary
reform, although he had pledged himself to exert his influence to the
utmost for securing the measure. There does not seem, however, to be any
good reason for this doubt; for it is a well-known fact that he brought
it forward, if not in direct opposition to the wishes of the king, yet
at least without his expressed approbation. Knowing the aversion which
his majesty felt to disturb this part of the constitution, he laid the
heads of his plan before his royal master, from whom he received this
honest and candid reply;—“Mr. Pitt must recollect that though I have
ever thought it unfortunate that he had early engaged in this measure,
yet I have always said, that as he was clear of its propriety, he ought
to lay his thoughts before the house; that out of personal regard to
him, I would avoid giving an opinion to any one, on the opening of the
door of parliamentary reform, except to him: therefore I am certain Mr.
Pitt cannot suspect me of influencing any person on this occasion. If
others choose, for base ends, to impute such a conduct to me, I must
bear it, as former false suggestions.” Yet, notwithstanding the king was
so cold upon the subject, Pitt brought it forward with great energy in
the house. At the same time, his speech seemed to indicate that he was
not sanguine of success, although he felt assured that the minds of men
were more enlightened upon the subject than at any former period. He
remarked:—“The number of gentlemen who are hostile to reform, are
a phalanx which ought to give alarm to any individual upon rising to
suggest such a measure. Those who, with a sort of superstitious awe,
reverence the constitution so much as to be fearful of touching even
its defects; have always reprobated every attempt to purify the
representation. They acknowledge its inequality and corruption, but in
their enthusaism for the grand fabric, they would not suffer a reformer,
with unhallowed hands, to repair the injuries which it has suffered from
time. Others, who, perceiving the deficiencies that have arisen from
circumstances, are solicitous for their amendment, yet resist the
attempt; under the argument that, when once we have presumed to touch
the constitution in one point, the awe which had heretofore kept us back
from the daring enterprise of innovation might abate, and there was no
foreseeing to what alarming lengths we might progressively go under the
mask of reformation.” In support of his bill, Pitt argued that the plan
which he proposed was coincident with the spirit of those changes which
had taken place in the exercise of the elective franchise from the
earliest ages, and not in the least allied to the spirit of innovation;
that so far back as the reign of Edward the First the franchise of
election had been constantly fluctuating; that as one borough decayed
and another flourished, the first was abolished and the second was
invested with the right; that even the representation of counties had
not been uniform; and that James the First in his proclamation for
calling his first parliament, directed that the sheriffs should not
call upon such boroughs as were ruined and decayed, to send members to
parliament. But no arguments could prevail; and Pitt, having made no use
of his ministerial influence to bring over converts to his scheme, was
doomed to suffer a signal defeat; the bill was thrown out by two hundred
and forty-eight against one hundred and seventy-four; and the premier
never ventured to bring the subject before the house again. Nay, in
a few years he even became a determined opponent of all change or
amendment in the representation. It is from this cause, chiefly, that
he is suspected of insincerity at this period: but his bosom friend,
Wilberforce, at least deemed him sincere upon the subject, for he writes
with reference to it in his diary, that Pitt had a “noble patriotic
heart;” a sentiment to which a previous private conversation gave rise.
It is in the closet, when man unbosoms himself to a friend, that his
real intentions are best discovered. No conclusion can, indeed, be drawn
upon the matter of Pitt’s sincerity from his subsequent opposition to
parliamentary reform, for many causes may have operated upon his mind
to lead him to change his line of conduct. He may have opposed it out of
deference to his majesty, or he may, after some years’ experience, have
seen that the machine, as then constituted, worked better under his
auspices than he had anticipated. Man is a creature of change: to-morrow
he may hold opinions from conviction, the very reverse of those which he
holds to-day.




PITT’S FINANCIAL MEASURES.

Early in this session, Pitt brought in three several bills for
the better auditing and examining the public accounts, and for the
regulation and reform of the public offices, all which bills passed with
great applause; though not without some stern opposition. In connexion
with this subject he mentioned, that, from an inquiry which had been
instituted into the accounts of different persons from whom the sum of
£40,000,000 was due to the exchequer, £257,000 was ready to be paid:
he also mentioned that further sums would be recovered still, as the
examination of accounts proceeded. On the 11th of April, Pitt likewise
made a communication which was at once satisfactory to the house, and
creditable to his financial abilities. In moving for an account of the
net produce of the taxes in the quarters ending January 5th and April
5th, for the two last years, he said, that the bills passed last session
for the prevention of smuggling, and the regulations adopted for the
collection and management of the different branches of revenue, had
worked so well that, together with the extension of trade and commerce,
they had already produced such an increase in the produce of the taxes
as to justify a hope that the income of the country, would, in the next
year, not only equal the expenditure, but afford a surplus, which might
be applied to the gradual liquidation of the debt. Yet with such a
prospect Pitt found himself compelled to call for more taxes from the
house. He opened the budget on the 9th of May, and in doing so he said
that the supplies which had been voted amounted to £9,737,868; and that
the ways and means fell short of that sum by about £1,000,000, which
deficiency must be made good by new taxes. Accordingly, several new
taxes were proposed; among which was a tax upon female servants,
calculated to produce £140,000, and an additional tax upon servants,
calculated to produce, in addition to the former one, about £35,000.
Pitt also proposed a tax on retail shops, calculated at £120,000 per
annum; a tax which proved particularly obnoxious, as was also that on
servants. Most of the taxes which Pitt proposed, indeed, encountered
much opposition; but the bills enacting them were carried after several
divisions, with, however, some modifications, in order to obviate some
of the principal objections. The modifications introduced were likely to
render them less productive than Pitt originally expected; and to supply
this deficiency, taxes on attorneys and on warrants were imposed; the
game duty was increased, and coach-makers were obliged to take out a
license. One great cause which led to these new imposts proceeded from
the remaining part of the floating arrear of debt, consisting of navy
bills and ordnance debentures, at five per cent, stock, the interest of
which amounted to about £400,000 per annum. Pitt was led to the adoption
of this measure because it was found that these bills and debentures had
a great effect in depressing the public securities.




THE AFFAIRS OF IRELAND.

From the time that Pitt first became prime minister, the state of
Ireland had occupied his anxious attention. In 1784 the Duke of Rutland
had been appointed lord-lieutenant of that country, and no important
step was taken by him in his government without Pitt’s advice and
direction. Under the guidance of the youthful premier, the duke had
been enabled to check the formidable spirit of turbulence and innovation
which had recently exhibited itself, and the Irish people were
apparently satisfied with his government. It was manifest, however, that
there was still an under-current of disaffection, and that nothing but a
complete change in the commercial relations of the country could afford
effectual relief to the people, and render them permanently tranquil.
Under these circumstances, therefore, Pitt spent a considerable time in
deliberation with influential and intelligent persons respecting a new
plan of commercial intercourse between the two kingdoms; and notice of
his intention was given to the large trading or manufacturing towns,
and a committee of privy-counsellors was appointed to receive their
information or suggestions relative to such an object. The resolutions
which Mr. Orde moved in the Irish parliament, as noticed in a previous
page, were the result of these conferences, and these resolutions being
transmitted to the king, accompanied with an address, Pitt brought them
before the British parliament. In doing so, he observed, that from the
revolution up to a recent period, the system of commerce established
between the two countries, had been to make Ireland subservient to
the interests and opulence of England. Ireland, he said, had not been
suffered to profit either by the bounties of nature or the skill of her
own inhabitants. Some relaxation of this system, he admitted, had taken
place at an early period of the present century; more had been done in
the reign of George the Second; and within a few years, Ireland had been
permitted to export her produce and manufactures, and to have a share
of the colonial trade. At this moment, however, he remarked, the
intercourse between England and Ireland remained on the old footing,
except on trivial points; no material alteration having been made in the
exportation of British manufactures to Ireland, or the importation
of Irish manufactures into Great Britain. To this he attributed the
dissatisfaction which existed in Ireland; suggestions having been
made for subjecting our produce and manufactures to what were termed
“protecting duties,” for the purpose of preventing their introduction
into the country. He continued, that having abandoned the old system of
commercial domination, and having wisely and justly put the Irish people
into a position of profiting by the gifts of nature and the productions
of skill, no one could wish or expect that the commerce between the two
kingdoms should remain in its original condition. There were, indeed, he
argued, but two possible systems for countries situated in relation to
each other, like England and Ireland: one of these was to render the
smaller completely subordinate and subservient to the greater; and the
other was to allow to each a just participation of advantages. This
system of equality, however, in which there was to be a community of
benefits, he said, demanded likewise a community of burdens. Hitherto
there had been gratuitous surrenders of advantages, without looking to
the slightest compensation; in which respect his system differed from
those of his predecessors, his being founded on a plan of reciprocal
benefits. Pitt then proceeded to explain his system, as contained in the
resolutions transmitted from Ireland, and which consisted of these three
general heads; first, he proposed that all foreign articles imported
directly into Great Britain, should hereafter be importable under
suitable provisions through the medium of Ireland; secondly, that the
produce or manufacture of either country should be importable into the
other, under a proper regulation of countervailing duties, drawbacks,
and bounties; and thirdly, that Ireland, in return for these bounties,
should contribute to the expense of maintaining the colonies, and
protecting the commerce of the empire; her contribution being of such a
nature as to keep pace with the gain derived from the new system. Having
thus stated the nature of his plan, Pitt moved a preliminary resolution
“for finally adjusting the commercial intercourse between the two
kingdoms; admitting Ireland to a participation in the commercial
advantages of England, and securing in return a permanent aid from that
country, in the protection of the commercial interests of the empire.”
 The consideration of this subject was deferred for a week, in order
to give time for the reception of accounts and estimates; and it was
intimated that a further delay would be acceded to if there should be a
sufficient reason for its proposal.

At first, the vastness of this plan seemed to keep the public mind in a
state of suspense. For nearly a month, indeed, after its introduction,
no indications of serious or determined opposition were discernible,
although Fox, when the subject was first started, pointed out many
objections to its provisions. Endeavours, however, were soon made by
the opponents of Pitt’s administration to convince the public that the
mercantile and manufacturing interests of England were intended to be
sacrificed to those of Ireland; and at length great apprehensions and
jealousies were created in the commercial world. Petition after petition
was presented against it; every one being led into the belief that
Pitt’s bill would ruin his own particular branch of trade. So great was
the outcry raised against it, that the house resolved to examine the
merchants and manufacturers at their own bar; and two months
were occupied in hearing evidence on the subject. In the end, the
anti-liberal feeling which prevailed compelled Pitt to subjoin a variety
of restrictive clauses, binding Ireland to adopt whatever navigation
laws might be hereafter enacted by the British parliament; prohibiting
the importation of any West Indian commodities, not the produce of our
own colonies, into Ireland, or thence into Great Britain; and forbidding
Ireland to trade to any country beyond the Cape of Good Hope and the
Straits of Magellen, so long as the charter of the East India Company
should be in existence. The bill, with even these restrictions, did
not pass without great opposition and warm discussions; some members
maintaining that Pitt was giving too little, and others too much to the
sister kingdom. It was carried up to the lords on the 30th of May, and
various amendments were there made, which were subsequently adopted by
the commons; and on the 29th of July an address was presented to the
king by both houses, acquainting his majesty with the steps which had
been taken in this affair: adding, that “it remained for the parliament
of Ireland to judge of the conditions, according to their wisdom and
discretion, as well as of all other parts of the settlement proposed to
be established by mutual consent.” Parliament now adjourned to a
distant period; and on the 30th of September it was prorogued by royal
proclamation.

In Ireland, Pitt’s bill was doomed to meet with a more powerful
opposition than it had met with in England. This opposition arose from
the restrictive clauses which the minister had been compelled, by the
clamour of the merchants and manufacturers, to introduce. Thus the
provision respecting the navigation laws was considered an infringement
on the legislative independence of Ireland; while the appropriation of
the surplus hereditary revenue, and the prohibition of trade to the East
Indies, were represented as reducing the country to a state of slavery.
All the alterations and additions were, indeed, denounced by the Irish
people; and numerous petitions were presented against the bill. The
strong feeling which existed against it was exhibited in the Irish
parliament, when, on the 12th of August, Mr. Orde, the secretary of the
lord-lieutenant, moved for leave to bring in a corresponding bill. This
motion was carried; but it was only by am majority of nineteen,
which was equivalent to a defeat; and a few days afterwards, when the
secretary moved the first reading and printing of the bill, he declared
that he should proceed no further with it during the present session.
The failure of this plan was a severe mortification to Pitt, who
had laboured for nearly twelve months in perfecting it as far as
its complicated nature would allow; but he looked forward with great
confidence to a change of sentiment, which he anticipated would take
place at no very distant period. Had Ireland accepted it, she might have
avoided many of those evils which she was subsequently called upon to
endure; for it would have prepared the way for the great measure of the
union, which, when it took place, was attended with much corruption and
violence. But it was the tendency which the bill had to effect or bring
about this consummation, that chiefly gave rise to the long and loud
outcry against it. Grattan denominated it “an incipient and creeping
union,” in which light it was looked upon, and hence abhorred, by the
Irish people. On its abandonment great joy was exhibited in Ireland;
public illuminations were held in all the populous towns, as though
the people had obtained some great victory. Thus this bill, which was
originally intended to communicate solid and lasting advantages to both
countries, had the effect of rousing commercial jealousies, awakening
national prejudices, and of greatly disturbing the public tranquillity;
a singular fate, and one which shows the folly and the madness of the
bad passions of human nature.

{GEORGE III. 1784–1786}




CONTINENTAL AFFAIRS.

At this time Holland was suffering greatly from the effects of the
American war. Its finances were embarrassed; its colonies were, for
the most part, in the hands of the French; and the country was torn to
pieces by intestine divisions. Encouraged by these circumstances, their
neighbours and rivals, the Belgians, sought to make Ostend the centre
of a great trade, and a place of export and import to and from the East
Indies. Seeing their helpless condition, indeed, the Emperor Joseph
threatened the very existence of the United Provinces as an independent
nation. Ever since the conclusion of the war of succession, the
fortresses of the Austrian Netherlands had been deposited in the
hands of the Dutch, and garrisoned by them, for the double purpose of
defending the Netherlands and Holland, and of forming a bulwark against
the inroads of the French. These were secured to them by the barrier
treaty; but as early as the year 1781, the Emperor Joseph had determined
to do away with this treaty, and to take possession of these fortresses;
alleging that the Dutch misapplied the money which he was bound to pay
for their support; that they had shamefully surrendered some in the war
of 1741, and were allowing the rest to fall into decay; and that they
left thin and defective garrisons in them. Accordingly, when the Dutch
had committed a sort of political suicide, by sacrificing their old
alliance with England, and uniting their forces with those of the House
of Bourbon in defence of the Americans, the Emperor Joseph, who was the
only real guardian of the barrier treaty, demanded precise accounts
of the revenues of the barrier, and of the sums expended on the
fortifications. This demand was accompanied with threats; and the
States-general, yielding to necessity, withdrew the Dutch garrisons from
the barrier; and Joseph began to dismantle the fortresses and sell the
materials. He had scarcely begun this work, when the States-general
felt great apprehensions for the frontiers of their own provinces; and
measures were adopted for putting their own fortresses along the Scheldt
into a state of defence. At the same time, the people of Holland were
furiously excited by these events; and the Orange party pointed to the
open barrier and the rising port of Ostend, as proofs of the mischiefs
brought by the French party upon the country in renouncing the alliance
with Great Britain. Neither the return of peace with England nor the
mediation of Frederic the Great of Prussia could allay the animosities
existing between the two parties; and encouraged by them, the Emperor
Joseph advanced sundry new claims, and assumed a tone of haughty
dictation towards the States-general. Thus he claimed possession
and sovereignty to the city and country of Maestricht, and the free
navigation of the Scheldt; the latter of which claims was made in
order to re-elevate Antwerp to her ancient commercial importance. The
States-general, alarmed at his menacing attitude, during the year 1784,
sent two plenipotentiaries to Brussels, in order to treat with the
emperor’s agents for an amicable arrangement; but the very night after
their arrival some Austrian troops entered the territories of the Dutch
republic, and took possession of Fort Lillo; while others crossed the
frontiers at another point, and pulled down the Dutch flag from the
custom-house. The Dutch were alarmed and enraged at these aggressions;
and troops were ordered to Maestricht and to the different garrisons of
the Scheldt, in order to protect them from the enemy. Fresh disputes,
however, arose between the states and the stadtholder concerning the
rights, or the limits of their respective powers, so that the movement
of these troops was greatly retarded. The only refuge which the Dutch
had seemed to be in the French; and they implored the mediation of Louis
XVI. between them and the emperor, who was his wife’s brother. Louis
made a favourable reply to this request, but in the mean time the breach
had become wider. Finding that the navigation of the Scheldt was not
readily conceded, the emperor Joseph was resolved to bring the question
to issue. A vessel, manned by Flemings, was dispatched by him down that
river, with orders to pass the Dutch fort at New Lillo, and not to lower
its flag or submit to the search of the guard-ship stationed there,
except by compulsion. This vessel was allowed to pass, but a similar
experiment was afterwards made, and the Dutch this time fired a gun
over her, and sent officers on board to make the search. The emperor now
insisted upon his right to the sovereignty of the whole of the Scheldt,
from Antwerp to the sea, and he further claimed a free navigation and
uninterrupted commerce to and in both the East and West Indies. At the
same time, Joseph prepared two armed vessels to assert the right claimed
in the Scheldt, and to provoke an open act of hostility. These vessels
were to proceed, one from Antwerp to the sea, and the other from the sea
to Antwerp, and the vessel that descended was attacked by a Dutch armed
cutter, and fell into the hands of the Dutch. War now seemed inevitable.
On hearing of this event, the emperor recalled his ambassador from the
Hague, broke up the negociations at Brussels, and marched an army of
60,000 men from the Austrian dominions to the Netherlands This army did
not arrive at its place of destination however, till it was winter, and
as the Dutch had broken down a dyke, in order to prevent its advance,
instead of beginning hostilities on their arrival, the Austrians went
into winter-quarters. During the winter, little or nothing was done,
either in war or negociation, and when the spring arrived, it became
known that the emperor was negociating for the exchange of the
sovereignty of the Low Countries for the electorate of Bavaria. In this
scheme he was favoured by his great ally, the Czarina Catherine, but
Frederic the Great of Prussia immediately formed a confederation among
the princes of Germany, including the King of England, as elector of
Hanover, to oppose, and defeat it. For some time the emperor seemed
resolved to persevere in his designs, and to brave this hostile league;
but he soon formed other projects, and finding that he could not rely
on the assistance of the Czarina of Russia, and that the Bavarians were
hostile to his rule, he forewent his intention. In the meantime, the
Dutch had concluded a commercial league and close alliance with France,
and, soon after, the French ministers went actively to work as mediators
between them and the emperor. Négociations were carried on during the
summer, and in September, after the deputies of the States-General
had apologised for the insult offered to the emperor’s flag, when he
attempted to force the navigation of the Scheldt, preliminary articles
were signed at Paris. A definitive treaty was signed in November, by
which the emperor’s sovereignty over that river, from Antwerp to the
limits of Saftingen in Flanders was recognized; but from that point to
the sea, it was guaranteed to the States. The free navigation of
Antwerp was thus frustrated. The emperor also renounced his claims
to Maestricht, but the States agreed to surrender the forts Lillo and
Liefkenshoek, and to make compensation in money to his imperial majesty
for giving up Maestricht, and to his Netherland subjects for the
damages they had sustained by the defensive inundations. Several mutual
concessions were also made of villages and districts, so as to give each
party a better frontier, and it was agreed that neither of them should
possess forts or batteries within cannon shot of the limits of each
other’s territories. Two days after this treaty was signed, the compact
between the French and Dutch was concluded, and it was ratified on
Christmas day. Thus this quarrel, which threatened at one time to lead
to another European war, was happily settled; but Holland was still rent
to pieces by faction.




CHAPTER XV.

{GEORGE III. 1786–1787}

     Meeting of Parliament..... Bill for the  Fortification of
     the  Dock-yards it Portsmouth and Plymouth..... Pitt’s
     Financial Measures..... Debates on India, etc...... A
     retrospective View of Indian Affairs..... Attempt on the
     King’s Life..... Treaties with France and  Spain.....
     Affairs of the Prince of Wales.

{A.D. 1786}




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament reassembled on the 24th of January. In his speech, the king
expressed great satisfaction at the prosperous condition of the country,
in the extension of trade, the improvement of revenue, and the increase
of public credit, and said that he relied on their continued zeal and
industry for the further advancement of these important interests. His
majesty also informed the houses that the disputes which had threatened
the peace of Europe, had been brought to an amicable conclusion, and
that he continued to receive friendly assurances from foreign powers;
but at the same time, he recommended particular attention to our naval
strength. He added,—“But above all let me recommend to your attention
the reduction of the national debt.”

In the debate which followed upon the address, Fox condemned the whole
of our recent foreign policy. Ministers were reproached by him for not
cultivating continental alliances, and for their negligence in all
their foreign negociations. It was owing, he said, to their criminal
misconduct, that the House of Bourbon had been enabled to conclude their
advantageous compact with Holland, and he maintained that great danger
was to be apprehended from the union of three such maritime powers as
France, Spain, and Holland, in a confederacy against England. Fox also
attempted to prove that the accession of his majesty to the Germanic
confederation, as Elector of Hanover, would give mortal offence to
the Emperor Joseph, and would indispose him to an alliance with Great
Britain in the event of a future war. He argued, that it was our
interest to conciliate and captivate Austria, as the only power in
Europe able to keep France in awe. Fox next adverted to a favourable
opportunity for an alliance with Russia, which had been lost, and then
condemned a commercial treaty, which government had begun to negociate
with France. The experience of past ages, he said, proved that England
always prospered in proportion as she had relinquished her commercial
connexions with that country. He concluded his speech with making some
strictures on the Irish propositions and the India Bill. Pitt replied in
a cold sarcastic tone, and the address was carried without a division.




BILL FOR THE FORTIFICATION OF THE DOCK-YARDS AT PORTSMOUTH AND PLYMOUTH.

On the 27th of February, Pitt called the attention of the house to a
plan, which originated with the Duke of Richmond, for the fortification
of the dock-yards at Portsmouth and Plymouth. In the preceding session,
the commons had expressed their unwillingness to vote any money for
these objects, until they were made acquainted with the merits of the
plan by some competent persons; and in consequence of this intimation,
his majesty had appointed a committee of military and naval officers,
with the Duke of Richmond at then head, to investigate the plan, and to
send in a report upon it, with an estimate of the cost. Pitt had laid
this estimate, which amounted to £760,000 before the house on the 10th
of February, with the ordinary ordnance estimates, thinking that the
house would be disposed to consider it as a mere collateral question.
The report was kept out of sight, but General Burgoyne, who had been
one of the board of officers to investigate the plan, called for it;
alleging that it did not wholly sanction the measure. On a subsequent
day, Sheridan, in addition to the demand made by Burgoyne, moved “for
a copy of the appointment of the board of naval officers, and of such
parts of their instructions, and of their report, as his majesty’s
discretion might deem proper to be made public with perfect consistency
to the safety of the state.” In consequence of these demands, Pitt found
himself compelled to produce the papers, and in laying them upon the
table, he introduced the Duke of Richmond’s measure in the form of a
general resolution. He moved, that “it appeared to the house, that to
provide for securing the dock-yards at Portsmouth and Plymouth, by a
system of fortification, founded on the most economical principles, was
an essential object for the safety of the state; intimately connected
with the general defence of the kingdom; and necessary for enabling the
fleet to act with full vigour and effect for the protection of commerce,
the support of our distant possessions, and the prosecution of offensive
operations in any future war.” In his speech Pitt attempted to prove
that the fortification of Portsmouth and Plymouth was a measure of
absolute necessity; that the duke’s plan was the best that could be
devised; and that these fortifications would give a greater scope to
the operations of our fleets, and have a direct tendency to diminish the
standing army. The arguments were powerfully controverted by members
in opposition, among the most distinguished of which was Sheridan,
who argued, that the plan was, in itself and its consequences, both
dangerous and unconstitutional, and that the report itself did not
authorise or favour the plan. Sheridan remarked:—“These strongholds
maintained by numerous and disciplined garrisons, will afford tenfold
means of curbing and subduing the country more than would arise from
doubling the present army establishment. Can any one imagine that the
system now recommended will end with Portsmouth and Plymouth? May we not
figure to ourselves the same board of officers, acting under the same
instructions, and deliberating with the same data, while they take a
circuit round the coasts. The reasons which justify this measure in
the present instance, will apply to every port in the kingdom, which is
sufficiently important to require defence. But the whole plan proceeds
on two suppositions extremely improbable; first, that we shall be so
inferior on our own seas, as to permit an enemy to land; secondly, that
if they do land, they will choose to attack the only places which
we have fortified. If such be our defence, there must be a circle of
fortresses round our shores; but the safety of England rests on
the courage and enterprise of its people, not on ramparts and
fortifications. And after all the plan is unauthorised by the report
of the board; the opinion of naval officers has been withheld; and the
opinion of military officers is founded on hypothetical or conditional
suggestions, and on such data as were proposed to them, for the truth or
probability of which they refuse to make themselves responsible.” In the
debates, both Sheridan and all the orators on his side, treated the
Duke of Richmond as a renegade, and made the whole matter a mere party
question, and from this cause Pitt was doomed to suffer a defeat. Upon
a division there was an equal number of ayes and noes, and when the
speaker was called upon to give his vote, he gave it on the side of
opposition; the project therefore fell to the ground.




PITT’S FINANCIAL MEASURES.

On the 7th of March, Pitt moved for the appointment of a select
committee of nine persons, for the purpose of reporting on the state
of the public revenue and expenditure. The report of this committee was
highly satisfactory. The amount of the revenue for the current year
was estimated at £15,397,000, while the permanent expenditure and the
expences of the peace establishment would only require £14,478,000,
thereby leaving a surplus of more than £900,000. In consequence of this,
Pitt, on the 29th of March, brought under consideration the national
debt and his new sinking-fund. He thought that the surplus might be
increased to one million, without burthening the people, and he moved
that such a sum should be annually granted to commissioners, to be by
them applied to the purchase of stock towards discharging the public
debt of the country. The new taxes which he proposed, in order to raise
the surplus to one million, were an additional duty on ardent spirits,
and new duties on certain kinds of timber and perfumery. In making this
proposition Pitt showed that he was full of hope for the future. He
calculated that the accumulated compound interest of the one million
so appropriated, added to the annuities which would fall into the fund,
would, in the course of twenty-eight years, leave a surplus of four
millions per annum, to be applied, if necessary, to the exigencies of
the state. His entire conviction was, indeed, that this new sinking-fund
would rapidly reduce and eventually discharge the whole of our enormous
national debt! The commissioners he proposed under this act, were the
speaker of the house of commons, the chancellor of the exchequer, the
master of the rolls, the governor and deputy-governor of the bank of
England, and the accountant-general in chancery. The speech which Pitt
uttered upon this occasion was so convincing to the house, that all but
a few members ventured to enter the fairy car with him, and those who
dissented from his views were looked upon as little better than madmen.
Among those who dissented were Burke, Fox, Sheridan, and Sir Grey
Cooper, who endeavoured to show that the premier’s hopes were visionary.
Sheridan, indeed, asserted that there neither was nor could be any
surplus, and he said, that the only means which suggested themselves
to him were a loan of a million every year. “The right honourable
gentleman,” he wittily remarked, “might say with the person in the
comedy, ‘If you wont lend me the money, how can I pay you?’” In
conclusion, Sheridan moved a long string of objections, which were
all negatived without a division; but on the day for reconsidering the
report of the committee on the bill, an amendment, as moved by Fox, was
adopted, to the effect, “that whenever a new loan should hereafter be
made, the commissioners should be empowered to accept the loan, or such
proportion of it as should be equal to the cash in their hands; the
interest and douceur annexed to which should be applied to the purposes
of the sinking-fund.” Pitt declared this amendment to be an auspicious
omen of the ultimate success of the plan; and that its propriety and
necessity were so obvious as to overcome the spirit, and prejudice of
party, and to create an unanimity in persons, who, more from accident
than inclination, were so frequently of different-opinions. With Fox’s
amendment the bill passed both houses without a dissentient voice, and
on the 26th of May his majesty gave his assent to it in person.

In pursuit of his great plan of financial reform, Pitt next turned his
attention to the frauds committed on the revenue, in the article of
wine. At this time large quantities of wine were smuggled into the
country, and a spurious liquor was made and sold at home under that
name. To prevent these evils, on the 22nd of May, Pitt presented a bill
for transferring certain duties on wines from the customs to the excise.
This transfer was made, after several divisions, despite the exertions
of Fox to render the measure unpopular, and the obstruction given to it
by those in the trade, as well as by others, who urged the difficulty
of applying the excise laws to wine, and the impolicy of extending those
laws beyond their existing limits. It is probable that there were some
who conceived that this measure would tend to render the minister very
unpopular; and it must be confessed that the step was a very hazardous
one for him to take. Englishmen had never looked with complacency upon
the intrusions and interference of excisemen, and there was still a
strong national feeling against any extension of the excise laws. When
Sir Robert Walpole, indeed, brought in a bill which had a tendency to
extend these laws, although he was at the time he introduced it at
the very height of his power, it nearly cost him his place. But the
principles of commerce and taxation were now better understood, than
they were in the days of Walpole, and the well-disposed among the people
felt convinced that the state of the revenue required the adoption of
every measure tending to its improvement, whence Pitt triumphed. The
bill was followed by another, which had reference to frauds committed
on the customs, by false accounts of imported goods, and the re-landing
clandestinely such as had received drawbacks at their exportation. To
prevent such practices, Pitt brought in, and carried through parliament,
M’hat was called “The Manifest Act,” which enacted that no article
should be imported into Great Britain before the master of the vessel
had delivered to the custom-house officer a manifest, or declaration,
stating the place where they were laden, with a full description of
them, verified on oath; that no vessel should sail from any British
port, till the owner of the vessel had given a bond for two hundred
pounds, that he would not re-land any part of its cargo illegally;
and that no goods, entitled to drawback, should be put on board for
exportation, except by duly licensed persons.

At a subsequent date Pitt endeavoured to ascertain whether the
crown-lands could not be rendered more productive. To this end, and
in consequence of a message from the king, he moved, in the house of
commons, for the appointment of commissioners to inquire into the state
of woods, forests, and land revenues belonging to the crown, as well
as to sell or alienate fee-farm and other unimprovable rents. This
bill passed the commons, _netn. con._, after the adoption of certain
amendments, moved by Mr. Jollife, to protect title-deeds, and to bind
the commissioners to report their proceedings in parliament. In the
house of lords, however, it met with the stern opposition of Lord
Loughborough, who objected to the bill because it did not agree with
the king’s message; because it repealed two old acts, and created a new
power for the sale of those lands, without any exception of the rents
reserved in the former acts, for divers persons, and for other
purposes mentioned in those acts; and because the powers granted to the
commissioners were dangerous to the people and derogatory to the honour
of the crown. Notwithstanding this opposition, the bill was ultimately
carried and received the royal assent.

In the midst of his exertions for financial reform, and before the
Sinking-fund Bill passed into a law, a message was delivered to the
house from the king, by the minister, stating, that it gave him great
concern to inform the commons that it had not been possible to confine
the expenses of the civil list within the annual sum of £850,000, now
applicable to that purpose. This message was the more remarkable as, in
1782, when Pitt was chancellor of the exchequer, the king, in his speech
from the throne, had stated that he had so regulated his establishments,
that his expenses should not in future exceed his income. The sum now
required to free his majesty from debt, contracted partly before and
partly since that period, was £210,000; which sum, after considerable
opposition, in the course of which the necessity of economy was strongly
enforced, was ultimately voted.




DEBATES ON INDIA, ETC.

In consequence of the commutation tax, and the preventive measures taken
against smuggling, the sale of tea at the East India-house had by this
time increased nearly threefold. This enlarged trade, connected with
other circumstances, induced the company to apply to parliament for an
act, empowering them to make an addition to their funds. A petition
to this effect was presented on the 25th of May, and Pitt proposed
and carried a bill, which enabled the company to add £800,000 to their
stock, and also to sell a surplus of £36,000 a year, received from
the exchequer, over and above the annuities which they paid to their
creditors, which would produce a sum equal to that which they were
empowered to add to their stock. Previous to this, in consequence of
intelligence from India, Pitt felt called upon to adopt some plan for
amending the act of 1784. A bill was brought in for this purpose by
Mr. Dundas, which bill conferred on the governor-general a privilege of
acting in cases of importance, without the consent of the other
members of the council; enabled the directors to unite the offices of
commander-in-chief and governor-general in the same person; rendered
not only the present, but the farmer servants of the company, whether
resident in India or not, capable of being appointed to seats in the
respective councils; empowered the governors of presidencies to nominate
temporary successors to members of council who might die or vacate
their office; altered a clause in the former bill, which compelled
the company’s servants to rise by gradation; repealed another, which
required from them a disclosure of their property, on oath; and made
several changes in the court of judicature and mode of trial for crimes
and misdemeanors in India. This bill was strongly opposed by Fox and
Burke, with other members of opposition; but, after several debates and
divisions, it passed both houses, and received the royal assent.

The only other business of importance brought under notice during this
session, was the impeachment of Warren Hastings. This will be noticed in
the following section, where we propose to take a retrospective view
of the progress of the English arms, and our policy in that part of the
world. After much discussion on this subject which was left undecided,
on the 11th of July parliament was prorogued.

{GEORGE III. 1786–1787}




A RETROSPECTIVE VIEW OF INDIAN AFFAIRS.

Hitherto, to avoid embarrassing the narrative of the American war, no
notice has been taken in this “Continuation” of the progress of the
British arms in India. The last event recorded in the history, was the
capture of Pondicherry by Colonel Coote, by which event the French power
in India was destroyed. An attempt, however, was made to revive this
power in the province of Bengal, About the middle of the year 1760, the
year in which Pondicherry was captured, an adventurer, named Law, nephew
of the celebrated projector, at the head of some French fugitives,
persuaded the Mogul, Shah Zada, who had lately sealed himself on his
father’s throne, to invade this province. Law had previously rendered
some important services to the mogul against some native princes who had
opposed his elevation; and it was thought that nothing could resist the
progress of his arms. With his French fugitives and 80,000 natives, Law
made incursions into the province of Bahar, which province suffered so
severely that Major Carnac was sent by the council of the East India
Company to assist the rajah Ramnarrain in restraining his ravages. It
was in January, 1761, when Carnac advanced with 20,000 Asiatic allies on
this service, and in three days he arrived at Gyah Maunpore, where the
enemy was encamped. An engagement took place soon after his arrival, and
both the mogul and his rash adviser, Law, were taken prisoners. Law was
treated by his captors in a manner which his bravery on the field of
battle demanded, and which greatly exalted them in the estimation of the
Asiatics.

The fate of Count Lally, who had bravely defended Pondicherry against
Colonel Coote, was very different from that of Law. Though he had been
the most active partisan that ever attached himself to the French cause
in India, yet he was doomed, on his arrival in France, to suffer both
indignities and death. His sufferings are thus described by Mr. Mill:—
“By the feeble measures of a weak and defective government, a series
of disasters, during some preceding years, had fallen on France; and a
strong sentiment of disapprobation prevailed in the nation against the
hands by which the machine of government was conducted. When the loss of
the boasted acquisitions of the nation in India was reported, the public
discontent was fanned into a flame, and the ministry were far from easy
with regard to the shock which it might give to the structure of their
power. Anything, therefore, was to be done which might have the effect
of averting their danger; and, fortunately for them, many persons
arrived from India, boiling with resentment against Lally, and pouring
out the most bitter accusations. Fortunately for them, likewise, the
public, swayed as usual by first appearances, and attaching the blame to
the man who had the more immediate guidance of the affairs on which ruin
had come, appeared abundantly disposed to overlook the ministry in their
condemnation of Lally. The popular indignation was carefully cultivated;
and by one of those acts of imposture and villany, of which the history
of ministers in all the countries of Europe affords no lack of examples,
it was resolved to raise a screen between the ministry and popular
hatred by the cruel and disgraceful destruction of Lally. On his arrival
in France he was thrown into the Bastille, and this place being deemed
too honourable for him, he was subsequently thrown into a common
prison. An accusation, consisting of vague or frivolous imputations, was
preferred against him; and nothing whatever was proved, except that his
conduct did not come up to the very perfection of prudence and wisdom,
and that he had displayed the greatest ardour in the service, the
greatest disinterestedness, fidelity, and perseverance, with no common
share of military talent and of mental resources. The grand tribunal of
the nation, the parliament of Paris, found no difficulty in seconding
the wishes of the ministry, and the artificial cry of the day, by
condemning him to an ignominious death. Lally, confident in his
innocence, had never once anticipated the possibility of any other
sentence than that of an honourable acquittal; and when it was read
to him in his dungeon, he was thrown into an agony of surprise and
indignation, and taking up a pair of compasses with which he had been
sketching a chart of the Coromandel coast, he struck at his proud,
indignant heart; but his arm was held by one of the functionaries in
attendance. With indecent precipitation he was executed on that very
day. He was dragged through the streets of Paris in a dung-cart, and,
lest he should address the people, a gag was stuffed into his mouth,
so large as to project beyond his lips. Voltaire, who had already
signalized his pen by some memorable interpositions in favour of justice
and the oppressed, exerted himself to expose, in a clear light, the real
circumstances of this fearful transaction, which Mr. Orme scruples not
to call ‘a murder committed by the sword of justice.’”

In the meantime Colonel Clive, who had deposed the Surajah Dowla, Nabob
of Bengal, Bahar, and Orissa, and had raised Meer Jaffier Ali Khan to
that dignity, as recorded in a previous page in Smollet’s division
of this history, and who had rendered other important services to the
British cause in India, had arrived in England, where he was received
with all honour. He was raised to the Irish peerage by the title of
Baron Clive of Plaissey—the name of the place where he had defeated the
nabob—and was flattered by the prospect of a speedy elevation to the
English peerage, which would give him a seat in the British house of
peers. While in England he was involved in a dispute with the company on
the Jaghire rents, which had been conferred on him by Meer Jaffier,
whom he had raised to the throne of Bengal, Bahar, and Orissa. His most
active opponent was Mr. Sulivan, but Clive eventually gained his point;
and not only were the Jaghire rents confirmed to him for ten years,
if he should live that period, but he was nominated governor and
commander-in-chief of the British possessions in Bengal, with the
express understanding that no other officer, of whatever rank, should
have the power of interfering with his command.

Clive returned to India, where he arrived in May, 1705. On his return he
found everything in a complete state of confusion and disorganization.
Before his departure for Calcutta, the seat of his government, it was
rumoured that the Shah Zada had collected an army, and was advancing
against Patna, which was under the jurisdiction of the Hindu governor,
Itamnarrain. The Shah Zada pretended to take up arms against
Ghazee-u-Deen, the vizier and master at Delhi, and Ghazee-u-Deen,
enraged thereat, in a fit of desperation murdered the Great Mogul. After
this tragical event the Shah Zada took the state and title of emperor,
and conferred the office of vizier upon Soujah-Dowla, the powerful ruler
of Oude. The new emperor assumed the name of Shah-Alum, or “King of
the World,” and he had no sooner ascended the throne than he advanced
against Patna. Ramnarrain was defeated, but Colonel Calliaud soon after
arrived on the scene of action, with about three hundred English and one
thousand sepoys, and Shah-Alum was routed, and compelled to take refuge
in flight. The young emperor, however, being joined by Mr. Law, with his
small body of French, and by the sub-governor of Purneah, soon returned
to Patna; and the town being almost wholly destitute of troops, he
would have captured it, had not Captain Knox appeared to its relief. The
besiegers were driven, by the gallantry of Knox, from their works, and
a few days after he completely defeated the sub-governor of Purneah, who
fled northwards for his life. He was followed by Colonel Calliaud, with
his English soldiers and sepoys; the latter of whom were commanded by
Meeran Calliaud, under the belief that he was carrying all the treasures
of Purneah with him, pursued the sub-governor hotly; but on the fourth
day of the pursuit a tremendous storm occurred, in which Meeran was
struck dead with lightning, and the sepoys, from this cause, becoming
unmanageable, he was obliged to return to Patna. Meeran’s people
hastened to Moorshedabad, where, in order to obtain payment of their
arrears, they surrounded the palace, and threatened the life of the
nabob Meer Jaffier. Other bodies of men, also, about the same time, took
up arms against Meer Jaffier: and to complete his misfortunes, as Mr.
Vansittart, the new governor at Calcutta, found the treasury empty,
and the English troops and sepoys almost mutinous for want of pay, he
concluded a treaty with Meer Cassim Ali, son-in-law to Meer Jaffier and
general of his army, engaging that he should be invested with full power
as Nabob of Bengal, Bahar, and Orissa, on condition that he made over
the fruitful provinces of Burdwan, Midnapore, and Chittagong to the
company. Meer Jaffier was compelled to resign, with permission to retire
to Calcutta, and Meer Cossim Ali was forthwith proclaimed nabob. Meer
Cossim procured six or seven lacs of rupees, which he sent to Calcutta,
and made professions of dependence on the council; but he soon exhibited
signs of a refractory spirit; and Mr. Vansittart, with the other members
of the council, found that they had made a mistake, when they imagined
that he would suit their purpose better than Meer Jaffier.

It has been seen, that in the month of January, 1761, Major Carnac, who
had succeeded Colonel Calliaud in the command of the company’s troops in
Bahar, defeated the emperor Shah Alum, and took Law, on whom he placed
his chief hopes, prisoner. The young emperor retreated towards Delhi,
whence he sent Meer Cossim Ali his investiture as Nabob of Bengal,
Bahar, and Orissa; and likewise offers to the English of the dewannee,
or receivership of these provinces, if they would send an army into
central India to secure him in possession of Delhi, and of a throne that
had been tottering for generations. Want of money prevented the council
from accepting these offers, and Meer Cossim had no more to give them.
Meer Cossim had, indeed, become as poor as Meer Jaffier had been when
he was deposed, and he cast his eyes on the wealth of Ramnarrain, the
celebrated Governor of Patna, At first, Mr. Vansittart instructed
Major Carnac to protect Ramnarrain, but he soon after listened to
the suggestions and promises of Meer Cossim; and in order to aid his
rapacious designs, Colonel Coote, the conqueror of Pondicherry, was sent
to supersede Major Carnac, at Patna; he being averse to the desertion of
a governor who had received so many pledges from, and had rendered many
services to, the English. Colonel Coote, however, had as high a sense of
honour as Major Carnac, and Mr. Vansittart, discovering this, recalled
him, and thus left Ramnarrain to the mercy of Meer Cossim. Ramnarrain
was in consequence thrown into prison, and his house was broken open and
plundered, while his servants were put to the torture, in order to
make them confess where his treasures, which chiefly existed in the
imagination of his enemies, were deposited. This base act on the part
of the council of the company met with its reward. All friendly
correspondence between the English and native nobility now ceased, and
Meer Cossim had offers of services and money made him on every hand,
if he would consent to resist the foreigners. Encouraged by this
circumstance, and conceiving that he would soon be able to defy the
English authority, Meer Cossim complained of the abuses of the dustucks,
or permits, by which he had been recently impoverished; and when no
notice was taken of his complaints, he ventured to stop and search
the company’s boats, as they sailed up the Ganges. Nothing was done to
prevent his conduct; and growing more bold by impunity, Meer Cossim at
length seized two boats that were proceeding to Patna with arms, and
made preparation for getting that place into his own hands. Apprised of
this, the council gave directions to Mr. Ellis, the chief at Patna, to
anticipate Meer Cossim’s designs by seizing upon the citadel. This was
done, and Meer Cossim, enraged thereat, murdered Mr. Amyatt, who had
formerly been chief at Patna, with two Hindu bankers attached to the
English interests, and then marched upon the town with a great army, of
which he took possession. The English troops at Patna fled by boats up
the Ganges to Chuprah, where they were surrounded, and taken prisoners.
About the same time, also, the troops of Meer Cossim attacked and
plundered the factory of Cossimbuzar, where likewise he captured many
English.

While these events were transpiring, the council at Calcutta entered
into new arrangements with Meer Jaffier, in order to restore him to the
musuud or throne of Bengal. Meer Jaffier not only confirmed the grants
of territory made by Meer Cossim, but also granted an exemption to the
company’s servants from all search, and from all duties, except upon
salt, and engaged to pay to the company thirty lacs of rupees for the
expenses of the war, and to maintain an army of 24,000 men at his own
charge. Having done this Meer Jaffier issued his mandates to the chiefs,
and to the cities of the three provinces, and then joined the English,
who were advancing upon Moorshedabad. In their route they were met by
three of Meer Cossim’s generals, whom they defeated, and arriving at
Moorshedabad they took possession of it without opposition. Another
battle was soon after fought with the troops of Meer Cossim, on the
plain of Geriah, when Meer Jaffier and his English allies were again
victorious. Those of Meer Cossim’s troops, who escaped the slaughter,
fled to an intrenched camp at Odowa, which, after three weeks, was
carried, and then the whole army of the nabob was scattered. Meer Cossim
fled with a few troops towards Patna, and the English laid siege to
and captured Monghir, recently made his capital in preference to
Moorshedabad, the old residence of the nabobs of Bengal. On hearing of
the capture of Monghir, Meer Cossim ordered the execution of all the
English who had been taken at Patna, and one hundred and fifty, with Mr.
Ellis their chief, were massacred in cold blood. Patna was soon after
taken by the English, and in the meantime Meer Cossim had taken refuge
at Allahabad, with Soujah Dowla, the powerful ruler of Oude. On his
arrival at Allahabad, Shah Alum was with his vizier, and the three
Indian rulers marched with a large army to Benares, and encamped not
many miles from the English. Major Carnac, who had by this time arrived
to take the command, thought it prudent to retreat to Patna; the more
so, because a mutiny had broken out in his own camp. The major was
attacked under the walls of Patna by the confederated Indians; but after
a severe contest, he defeated his assailants with great loss. Soujah
Dowla now opened a correspondence with Meer Jaffier, and offered to
support him in Bengal and Orissa, if he would cede the country of Bahar
to Oude; and about the same time Shah Alum offered to abandon both
Soujah Dowla and Meer Cossim, for English protection and alliance. These
negociations, however, were broken off; and in the month of October,
1764, Major Munro, who had recently assumed the command of the army at
Patna, led his forces against the enemy, which entirely broke the power
of Soujah Dowla, the only Indian ruler that the English had to fear.
Major Munro was now empowered to treat with Shah Alum; and a treaty was
concluded with him, by which it was agreed that the English should be
put into the possession of the country of Gazzipore, with all the rest
of the territory of Bui want Sing, and that Shah Alum should be put into
possession of the city of Allahabad, and the whole of the dominions
of Soujah Dowla. Thus deserted by the emperor, Soujah Dowla applied to
Ghazee-u-Deen, vizier and murderer of Shah Alum’s father, and this chief
descended into Oude with a great army of Mahratta horse. A battle was
fought in the month of May, 1765, near Corah, when Major, now General
Carnac, who again commanded the English forces, gained a great victory
over the confederate army, and chased them across the river Jumna.

On the very day that General Carnac gained this victory, Clive arrived
at Calcutta, with full powers to settle all disputes. Meer Jaffier had
recently died, and one difficulty in the way was thereby removed.
Clive set about his work in right good earnest. A few days after Soujah
Dowla’s defeat at Corah, that nabob having announced his intention of
throwing himself upon the mercy of the English, repaired to the camp
of General Carnac, by whom he was received with much distinction. On
hearing of these events, Clive set off for Allahabad, to settle all
disputes; and when he arrived, he decided that Shah Alum should rest
satisfied with the possession of Allahabad and Corah, and that all the
rest of Oude should be restored to Soujah Dowla, on conditions that he
should oppose the Mahrattas and defend the frontiers of Bengal. On his
part, Shah Alum, for the possession of Allahabad and Corah, granted the
collection of the revenues in Bengal, Bahar, and Orissa to the English,
in return for which he was to receive twenty-six lacs of rupees per
annum, in addition to the revenues of Allahabad and Corah. The young
emperor, moreover, confirmed the right of the company to all the
territory which they possessed in any other part of India.

On the death of Meer Jaffier, the supreme council at Calcutta conferred
the sovereignty on his youthful son, Nujeem-ul-Dowlah; at the same time
appointing Mohammed Reza Khan, a naib subah, or sub-nabob, to manage the
revenues and all other matters of government. On his arrival, however,
Clive decided that Nujeem was not fit to rule, and he was soon compelled
to retire on a pension of thirty-two lacs of rupees per annum. Having
restored peace, Clive turned his attention to the correction of abuses;
and for which he had full powers given him by the court of directors
before he left England. But this was no easy task. Most of the members
of the council at Calcutta had been partakers in the spoils and profits
of the nefarious system which had been adopted in India; many of those
servants who had been most oppressive and rapacious, were strong in
their patronage in Leadenhall-street; and nearly every European in the
country looked to India as prey, which they were to make the most of
for themselves, without regarding the interests of those who should come
after them, or of the company by whom they were employed. On commencing
his reforms, many of the company’s agents threatened and protested; and
several, confident in their patronage at home, refused to act with or
under him. But none of these things daunted Clive. He declared that if
he could not find support at Calcutta, he would procure it elsewhere;
and he actually sent for some civil servants from Madras, and turned
the refractory out of their offices. Seeing his resolution, recourse was
next had to flattery, entreaty, persuasion, and arguments, but all this
failed to turn him aside from his purpose. By one fell stroke he
put down the private trade and dangerous privileges of the company’s
servants, and he prohibited the extorting or receiving presents from the
natives. At the same time Clive adopted measures, which might give the
servants of the company a proper maintenance, and also an opportunity
of acquiring fortunes by application and perseverance. The pay of the
company’s servants being miserably low, and altogether insufficient for
their proper maintenance—a circumstance which doubtless had the effect
of increasing their rapacity—as the monopoly of salt was now, by
the pensioning off the young nabob, in the hands of the company, he
appropriated it to the proper pay and support of the servants of all
kinds, carefully dividing the proceeds according to a scale; and thus
gave every British functionary employed in the East the means of slowly
but surely acquiring a competence. Having disposed of the affairs of the
civil servants, Clive turned his attention to those of the military, his
old companions in arms. And here he had greater difficulties than ever
to contend with, for they were men who held the power of the sword in
their hands.

Notwithstanding, the reduction of military expenses, which were rapidly
absorbing the whole revenue of the country, required his attention, and
he gave it without fear of the consequences. As long as the troops were
employed by Meer Jaffier and Meer Cossim, these potentates, in order to
cherish the goodwill of the officers, allowed them “double batta,” or
double pay. The court of directors had long ago issued that “double
batta” should be abolished, but Vansittart and his council had listened
to the remonstrances of the army, and the order was left unregarded.
But Clive was a bolder man than Vansittart, and he resolved that “double
batta” should cease forthwith, except at Allahabad, where the troops
were considered as being actually in the field. An order was issued to
this effect, and the troops in Bengal were put upon the same footing as
the troops on the Coromandel Coast, by whom no batta was drawn, except
when actually marching or serving on the field of battle. The officers
remonstrated, but it was to no purpose: the order was given, and it must
be obeyed. On the appointed day the reduction took place, and, enraged
thereby, two hundred English officers engaged in a conspiracy, binding
themselves by an oath to secrecy, and to preserve, at the hazard of
their lives, the life of any comrade that might be condemned by a
court-martial. These officers, indeed, each bound themselves in a bond
of £500 to throw up their commissions, unless “double batta” were
restored; and finding that Clive was inexorable, they resigned. To
increase the danger this conspiracy was formed at a time when the
country was threatened with a new invasion by a Mahratta army. The
officers, doubtless, supposed that Clive would be frightened out of his
resolution, but they soon found that they had mistaken the force of his
character. On hearing of the conspiracy, he exclaimed, “Such a spirit
must, at all hazards, be suppressed at the birth,” and he wrote to the
council, desiring them to write to Madras, in order that every officer
and cadet that could be spared from that presidency should be held
in readiness to embark for Bengal; and directing them to acquaint the
presidency of Fort St. George with the mutiny, and with the approach of
the Mahrattas. In his letter to the council he stated that the committee
at Calcutta must adopt a resolution, that no officer now resigning
should ever again hold a commission in the company’s service. At the
same time, Clive sent directions to the commanding officers of all
the divisions to find, if possible, the leaders; to arrest those who
appeared most dangerous; and above all to secure the obedience of the
sepoys and native commanders. He also gave commissions to several young
men in the mercantile service; and when informed that a large sum of
money was subscribed for the mutinous officers by gentlemen at Calcutta,
in the civil service, he requested the council to take immediate steps
for discovering and punishing those gentlemen. Having taken these
preliminary steps, Clive quitted Moorshedabad, where he had been
arranging matters of trade and finance, and fearlessly advanced with a
small escort to Monghir, the scene of the mutiny. Before his arrival,
the council had resolved that all resignations tendered should be
accepted, and the officers tendering them immediately sent down to
Calcutta. Clive was the more incensed against them because he had
recently given up £70,000 to form a fund for their invalids and widows;
a gift which showed him to be their friend. He arrived at Monghir full
of wrath against them, and having secured the attachment of the
sepoys, by ordering them double pay for two months, in a short time the
ringleaders were all arrested, tried, and cashiered. In the first heat
of his passion he had threatened to have them all shot, but as legal
doubts were entertained as to the powers granted by the Mutiny Act for
the company’s service, not one was sentenced to death. After they had
been cashiered, nearly all who had joined in the conspiracy, begged with
tears in their eyes, to be permitted to re-enter the service, and some
were restored on condition of signing a contract to serve the company
on its own terms for three years, and to give a year’s notice of any
intention to quit the service. The young officers were treated with
great lenity, and when his indignation was cooled and the danger over,
he scorned to take any revenge for personal wrongs and insults. The main
cause of the mutiny was the gambling and dissipation which prevailed
among the English officers, and Clive adopted several wise regulations
to check these evils, and to restore the strictest discipline and
subordination.

Lord Clive having completed his work of reformation, and restored peace
to India, in January, 1767, left Calcutta for England. On accepting his
commission he had declared that he wanted no more money, and that all he
wished for was a thorough reform; which in the end would prove equally
beneficial to the oppressed and the oppressor. And, notwithstanding the
temptations to enrich himself, by which he was surrounded, Clive adhered
to this resolution of self-abnegation. The servants of the company would
have enabled him to treble his wealth, if he would have consented to
connive at their misdoings; and the princes of India offered him money,
and jewels, and diamonds in abundance, as the price of his assistance
on their behalf; but, steady to his purpose, he refused the tempting
offers. He returned a poorer man than when he went to India. And yet,
notwithstanding his integrity of purpose, and although on his arrival he
was hailed with acclamations by the court of directors, and was received
with unusual regard by George III. and his consort Queen Charlotte, at
a subsequent date, he was charged in the house of commons with
mal-administration; and when this failed, his enemies brought him to
trial before that tribunal for the events and deeds of his early life.
So persecuted was he, and so maligned, that, though finally acquitted by
the commons, his spirits sunk under it, and he died by his own hand in
the forty-ninth year of his age.

The court of directors had left the abolition or confirmation of the
select committee to Lord Clive’s discretion, and before he returned to
England he declared for its continuance; naming as members, Mr. Verelst,
Mr. Cartier, Colonel Smyth, Mr. Sykes, and Mr. Beecher. Shortly after
his return the court of directors resolved to send out to Calcutta
three supervisors, to complete the work of reformation, and to put
the revenues of Bengal under better management. These supervisors were
Messrs. Vansittart, and Scrafton, and Colonel Forde, who took their
departure in the Aurora, which is supposed to have foundered at sea with
every soul on board, for it was never heard of after leaving the Cape of
Good Hope. Subsequently the government of Bengal was left in the hands
of Mr. Cartier; but in less than two years it was notified, by the court
of directors, to Mr. Warren Hastings, who had long been rising in their
estimation, that he was nominated to the second council at Calcutta, and
that as soon as Mr. Cartier retired, it was their wish that he should
take upon himself the charge of the government of that presidency.

In the meantime the flames of war had been rekindled in the Carnatic
by Hyder Ali, who became one of the most formidable opponents of the
English in all India. Since his expedition to the neighbourhood of
Pondicherry, as the ally of Mr. Lally, Hyder Ali had greatly increased
his army. He had, in fact, deposed his benefactor and nominal master,
the Rajah of Mysore, and had established himself on his throne.
Moreover, Hyder Ali had conquered the rajahs and polygars of Sera,
Balapoor, Gooty, Harponelly, Chitteldroog, Bednore, and Soonda, with
other districts, and had extended his dominion almost to the banks of
Kistna. At this point of his conquests Hyder Ali was checked by Madhoo
Row, the Peishwa of the Mahrattas, who crossed the Kistna with an
immense body of cavalry, and not only deprived him of some of his recent
acquisitions, but compelled him to pay thirty two lacs of rupees. But
Ilyder Ali, though checked, was not destroyed. At a subsequent date he
undertook and achieved the conquest of Malabar; and he kept that country
quiet by cutting off all the Hindoo chiefs. His conquests induced the
English, the Mahrattas, and Nizam Ali, the ruler of Deccan, to form a
league against him. The Peishwa of the Mahrattas was the first to take
the field against him; and he was subsequently followed by Colonel Smith
at the head of a small English corps, and a large army of the Nabob of
the Carnatic, and by another large army under the Nizam of the Deccan.
Before Colonel Smith and the nizam, however, could join their forces to
those of the peishwa, he had consented, on the payment of thirty-five
lacs of rupees, to retire from the confederacy, and to quit Mysore. The
nizam himself was soon after discovered to be negociating a treaty with
Hyder Ali, the chief end of which was to expel the company from the
Carnatic; and Colonel Smith separated from him, and hastened to take
possession of the passes which led into that country. He was joined by
some reinforcements from Mohammed Ali, the Nabob of the Carnatic; but
he was soon compelled to retreat for Changama, a town about sixty miles
from Madras. In his route he was attacked by the three armies of Hyder
Ali, the peishwa, and the nizam, whom he bravely repulsed; but want
of provisions compelled him to continue his retreat till he reached
Trinomalee. He was still followed by the enemy, who plundered, burned,
and destroyed all the open country through which they passed. While
at Trinomalee, Colonel Smith made an unsuccessful attempt to stop the
ravages of the enemy; an attempt which chiefly failed from want of
cavalry. In the meantime, Hyder Ali sent his son Tippoo, with five
thousand horse, to Madras; and the fortress only escaped his ravages.
Grown bold by success, the allies resolved upon a pitched battle with
Colonel Smith; and a conflict took place near Trinomalee, in which they
were routed. The nizam now again changed sides, and came over to the
English; and in the month of December, Colonel Smith once more defeated
Hyder Ali and the Peishwa, who fled to Caverypatum, on the river Panaur.
On hearing of his successes, the presidency at Madras resolved to carry
the war into the very heart of Hyder Ali’s dominions; and Colonel Smith
received orders to march upon Bangalore, while Colonel Wood, who was
detached from Smith’s force, was directed to operate on the frontiers.
As the territory around Bangalore was barren, Colonel Smith represented
to the presidency that his army could not subsist in that country; but
his representation was unheeded, and he was compelled to set forward
on his march. This proved a fatal step. Colonel Smith arrived in the
neighbourhood of Bangalore, and Colonel Wood overran the fruitful
country on the frontiers; but Hyder Ali, flushed with a recent victory
which he had gained over some English troops, which the presidency of
Bombay had sent into Malabar and Canara, returned to Mysore, and by
the end of the year 1768 recovered every inch of territory he had
lost. Early in the year following Hyder Ali again poured down into the
Carnatic; and so irresistible were his movements that the presidency of
Madras proposed terms of peace. Hyder Ali could not hope to conquer
the English, and he readily listened to the proposal; and a treaty was
concluded, by which it was agreed that a mutual restitution of territory
should take place, and that there should be a mutual co-operation
against all enemies. But this treaty was not kept in good faith by the
English; for soon after, when Hyder Ali applied to the presidency of
Madras for assistance against the Peishwa of the Mahrattas, who again
invaded Mysore, and swept everything before him, it was refused, on the
plea that Hyder had brought the war upon himself, by leaguing with some
Mahratta chiefs.

In the year 1770 the English ministry sent out Sir John Lindsay, with
some frigates, to protect the company’s settlements and affairs. Soon
after his arrival., the Peishwa of the Mahrattas, who had long boldly
defied the English, courted a new alliance with them, and intimated
to the Nabob of the Carnatic, that his country should be swept by his
cavalry from end to end if a treaty was not agreed upon. The nabob and
Sir John Lindsay were of opinion that the peishwa’s wishes should be
gratified; but the presidency of Madras refused the alliance, and left
the Mahrattas and the Mysoreans to fight their own battles. Hyder Ali
was defeated in several encounters, and Seringapatam, his capital,
was besieged. Such was his situation when Sir Robert Hariand arrived
to supersede Sir John Lindsay in the command; he being removed on
the complaints of the presidency of Madras and the directors in
Leadenhall-street. Sir Robert followed the plans and notions of his
predecessor, strongly insisting that the presidency ought to conclude
the alliance which the peishwa demanded. The presidency of Madras,
however, supported by the other presidencies, refused to take part in
the war, either for or against Hyder Ali; and at the same time sent some
forces to protect the Carnatic from the Mahrattas. The peishwa at length
became fearful that if he entered the Carnatic he should bring the
English upon him; and being distressed for want of provisions in the
country of the Mysore, which he had overrun, he listened to the voice
of Mohammed Ali, accepted some money from him, and agreed to make peace
with Ilyder Ali. A treaty was concluded in 1772, by which the Mahratta
chief obtained a large portion of the more northern and inland provinces
of Mysore, together with thirty lacs of rupees.

During this war between Hyder Ali and the Mahrattas, the Rajah of
Tanjore attempted to seize upon some territory belonging to the Nabob
of the Carnatic. Mohammed Ali called upon his English allies for
assistance, but after inducing them to make some hostile demonstrations
near the Tanjore frontier, he became apprehensive that they might
conquer it for themselves, and not for him. To avoid this he had
recourse to intrigue, and finally signed a peace with the Rajah of
Tanjore, who engaged to surrender all the disputed districts to the
nabob, pay him a large sum of money, defray all the expenses of the
expedition, and to aid the nabob with his troops in all future wars.
Enraged thereat, the presidency of Madras sent orders to the troops not
to evacuate the fortress of Vellum, which they had captured, or withdraw
their batteries from Tanjore, which they had invested, until the rajah
should have made good one of his promised payments. This money was not
forthcoming, and to prevent further hostilities, the rajah consented
to give up the fort of Vellum to the English, and to cede to them two
districts in the neighbourhood of Mandura. But this did not prevent the
ravages of the English. In the year 1772 another army was sent to reduce
the polygars of the Mara wars, who paid the Rajah of Tanjore a doubtful
alliance, and the whole of the Marawars were put into the possession of
the Nabob of the Carnatic. Nor did this satisfy the rapacity of Mohammed
Ali and the English. Before this war was finished, the Nabob of the
Carnatic complained to the presidency of Madras that the Rajah of
Tanjore had violated the recent treaty, by delaying payment of money,
and by seeking the aid of the Mahrattas and Hyder Ali, and although
the company, by a treaty in 1762, had given the rajah security for his
throne, he was hunted down by the English, taken prisoner with all his
family, and his territories were annexed to the dominions of the Nabob
of the Carnatic.

In this foul act the presidency of Madras had acted upon their own
responsibility, without any reference to the court of directors in
Leadenhall-street. Their act seemed, however, to meet with the approval
of these directors; but in the year 1775 Lord Pigot was nominated
Governor of Madras, and had full powers given him to reform the
presidency of Madras, and to restore the rajah to his throne. Lord Pigot
arrived at Madras, at the close of the year, and he immediately repaired
to Tanjore, when the rajah was re-proclaimed in his capital. Fierce
quarrels now arose among the civil authorities at Madras, and
the council went so far as to arrest Lord Pigot, and place him in
confinement. These proceedings excited great indignation in England, and
though some of the directors in Leadenhall-street approved of them,
or at least disapproved of Lord Pigot’s policy, he was restored to his
office, and the members of the council were recalled. At the same time
Lord Pigot was ordered to return home, and his old opponent, a Mr.
Rumbold, was nominated his successor. Mr. Rumbold arrived at Madras
early in the year 1773, when he found that Lord Pigot had been brought
to his grave by the violence offered to his person. At that time Hyder
Ali, who had formed an alliance with the French, again threatened the
Carnatic, but before narrating his operations it is necessary to notice
some important proceedings in other parts of India.

{GEORGE III. 1786–1787}

It has been seen that the government of Bengal was left in the hands of
Mr. Cartier, and that it was notified by the court of directors to Mr.
Warren Hastings, that it was their wish he should take upon himself the
charge of the government on Mr. Cartier’s retirement. During Cartier’s
administration, in the year 1770, a dreadful famine occurred in the
province of Bengal; a famine which swept away the Hindu population by
thousands. About the same time Syef-al-Dowla, the son and successor of
Meer Jaffier, died of the small-pox, and his brother, Muharek-al-Dowla,
was appointed musnud. Muharek-al-Dowla was a mere boy, and as soon as
the court of directors heard of his appointment, they issued orders that
the annual stipend of the young nabob should be reduced to sixteen lacs
of rupees. When these orders arrived in India, Warren Hastings, who had
now succeeded Mr. Cartier, immediately put them into execution: an act
for which he was afterwards condemned, as though it had originated
with himself. The reduction was made in order to effect a saving in the
government, but it had no visible effect on the treasury at Calcutta.
The exchequer was empty, debt was daily increasing, and every ship
brought orders from the court of directors for money. In the midst of
this dilemma, the Hindu Nuncomar, the rival of Mohammed Reza Khan, who
had been appointed by English influence to administer both the civil
list of the nabob and the revenues of Bengal, industriously propagated
stories of the minister’s corruptibility. Mohammed Reza Khan was accused
of acquiring enormous wealth; of having increased the calamities of
the famine, by monoply of rice and other necessaries of life; and of
entertaining an idea of turning his power against the English. These
rumours, first spread in India, were at length carried to the ears of
the magnates in Leadenhall-street, by the agency of one of Nuncomar’s
creatures, and inflamed with cupidity, they resolved upon the minister’s
ruin. A letter was sent to Hastings, directing him to take measures, and
to issue his “private orders” for securing the person of Mohammed Reza
Khan, together with his whole family, partizans, and adherents. Hastings
had no choice left him, but implicit obedience to these commands, or
dismissal from office; and unfortunately for his honour—for he was
aware of the innocence of Mohammed Reza Khan—he chose to obey them.
Mohammed Reza Khan was brought without delay to Calcutta, where he was
placed in confinement, and the Rajah Shitab Roy, who had exercised in
Bahar the same authority as Mohammed Reza Khan had exercised in Bengal,
shared the same fate. Before giving directions for these arrests, the
company had come to the determination, that, whether innocent or guilty,
there should be no more in their offices, and that the departments of
revenue and finance, together with the department of law and
justice, should be placed in the hands of their own English servants.
Accordingly, Hastings swept the treasury, and the courts of law clean of
their old occupants, and the secondary direction of affairs was
placed in the hands of men who were enemies to Mohammed Reza Khan, and
creatures attached to his rival, Nuncomar. The clearance extended to
the young nabob’s household, which was completely revolutionised and
changed. Ahteram-ul-Dowlah, his uncle, and the eldest existing male of
the family, petitioned to become his naib, or guardian, but this office
was conferred on the nabob’s mother, Minnee Begum, who was originally
a dancing-girl, and who had been Meer Jaffier’s concubine. At the same
time, Rajah Goordass, son of Nuncomar, was appointed dewan to the nabob,
whose duties were strictly to be confined to the household, and who was
to have nothing to do with the public business or public revenues of
Bengal. All these changes were effected without tumult, and the board
of directors expressed their entire approbation of all the appointments
which Hastings had made. After he had completed his reformation,
Mohammed Reza Khan and the Rajah Shitab Roy were brought to trial in
Calcutta, and although the court was of Hastings’ own forming, and
extraordinary means had been adopted to prove their guilt, they were
both honourably acquitted: a proof that the motives of the board of
directors in ordering the arrest of Mohammed Reza Khan, and sanctioning
that of the Rajah Shitab Roy, were to get the whole power and the
government of the province into their own hands. From this time, indeed,
the public treasury and the superior courts of justice were placed under
English management, and the Nabob of Bengal was no longer nabob, except
in name. He resided at Moorshedabad, where he lived upon his annual
stipend, but the government of Bengal was conducted at Calcutta, which
Hastings considered now to be the capital of the province.

In his treaty with the Emperor Shah Alum, Clive had guaranteed that
potentate the quiet possession of Allahabad and Corah, with the annual
stipend of twenty-six lacs of rupees. This sum from the first was not
punctually paid, and for the last two years it had been withheld
altogether. The ostensible reason for this was as follows: In the year
17713 Shah Alum, at the instigation it is said of Sujah Dowla, Vizier
and Nabob of Oude, who wished to recover possession of Allahabad and
Corah, threw himself into the arms of the Mahrattas. Towards the close
of the year 1771 the Mahratta chief carried the poor Mogul in triumph
to Delhi, and soon after he was hurried by them into the field of
battle. Supported by them he invaded Rohilcund, a country which was
equally coveted by the Nabob of Oude, to whom the Rohillas applied for
assistance. Sujah Dowla not only promised to assist them himself, but
likewise to gain for them the more potent co-operation of the company.
Accordingly he intimated to Sir Robert Barker, the general who
commanded the company’s forces, and to the governor and council at
Calcutta, that to allow Shah Alum any stipend would be only furnishing
the means of war to the rapacious and turbulent Mahrattas. Previous to
this the payment of the stipend had been suspended upon various pleas,
but this afforded ground for stopping it altogether. Shah Alum and the
English were therefore brought into direct collision. At this moment
Major John Morrison, who had previously resigned his commission in the
company’s service, repaired to Allahabad to try his fortune with Shah
Alum. Morrison was at once raised to the rank of general, and he soon
persuaded the Great Mogul to appoint him his ambassador and
plenipotentiary to his Britannic Majesty, George III., under the
promise of obtaining him a larger sum from the King of England than
that which the company had withheld from him. Morrison was furnished
with proposals, the chief of which were these:—“The Great Mogul, Shah
Alum, as undoubted lord and sovereign of Hindustan, &c., and as having
full right so to do, would transfer to his Britannic majesty, Bengal,
Bahar, and Orissa, with all that the company possessed in those parts,
and which was all forfeited by them, upon condition that his Britannic
majesty would pay the pecuniary homage of thirty-two lacs, and aid the
Great Mogul with troops and arms.” At this time the British parliament
were calling the territorial rights of the company in question, and was
even meditating the taking those rights to itself, and the reduction of
the company to a mere trading body. Had Morrison, indeed, arrived in
England with these offers, it is probable that parliament would have
taken such a step. Hastings seems to have been under this impression,
for when the adventurous officer arrived at the Dutch settlement of
Chinchura, on the Hooghly, and demanded a passage to England in one of
the company’s ships, he wrote in reply, that he would not allow him a
passage in any ship sailing from the port of Calcutta. Nor did his
opposition end here. Having heard that the major had engaged a passage
in a Danish ship, he successfully exerted his influence to prevent it;
and as no other ship sailed for Europe that season, Morrison’s
diplomatic career was brought to a premature close. Shortly after,
indeed, Shah Alum ceded both Corah and Allahabad to the Mahrattas,
which was considered as equivalent to a complete discharge from all the
obligations of Clive’s treaty. The Mahrattas signified their intention
of taking immediate possession of Allahabad and Corah, and the Nabob of
Oude claimed the assistance of the English against them, and a garrison
was placed in Allahabad for its protection. This, for a brief season,
checked the rapacious Mahrattas; and the attention of Hastings was next
directed to the inroads which the Bootans had made in Cooch-Bahar, and
the devastations of the Senassie fakeers in the country round Bengal.
Both the Bootans and Senassies were checked, and soon after Hastings
set out on a visit to the Nabob of Oude, who had solicited a personal
conference at Benares, in order to arrange new bargains and treaties
with the English. This conference had reference chiefly to the
annexation of the Rohilla country, which was threatened by the
Mahrattas, to the province of Oude, which was at first agreed upon, but
subsequently postponed; the nabob fearing that the price he had agreed
to pay for it was beyond his present ability, and Hastings conceiving
that such an enterprise would be open to severe animadversion in
England. During this conference, however, Hastings committed as glaring
an act of injustice as the conquest of Rohilcund would have been. This
was the sale of Allahabad and Corah, to Sujah Dowla, for fifty lacs of
rupees—twenty of which were paid down on the spot, and the other of
which were to be paid in two years. By this act Shah Alum was deprived
of his rightful patrimony.

The negociations between Hastings and the Nabob of Oude occupied three
weeks, and on his return to Calcutta, Hastings applied himself to the
administration of the province of Bengal. His chief attention was
directed to the establishment of a police; to the posting detachments
so as to prevent the incursions of the Senassie fakeers, and other
marauders; to the formation of local courts throughout the province; to
the regulation of taxes and collection of the revenue; to the removal
of impolitic taxes, duties, and fees upon native marriages; to the
suppression of the peculation and rapacity of the company’s servants;
and to other important objects, too numerous for detail. Although some
of the means employed by Hastings were not of the purest kind, and
others were inconsistent with more modern notions of political economy
and justice, yet it is certain that his measures were productive of
much benefit to the country, and that all classes of the community of
Bengal, Bahar, and Orissa were satisfied with their results, and were
led to look upon him in the light of a benefactor. It seems to have
been to this period that he alluded, when, in after years, nearly all
England was accusing him of cruelty and oppression, he remarked:—“I
could have gone from Calcutta to Moorshedabad, and from Moorshedabad to
Patna and Benares, without a guard, without a sepoy, without any
protection but what was to be found in the goodwill and affection of
the natives.”

The Nabob of Oude was earnest in his desire to annex the Rohilcund
country to his own, and early in the year 1774 he applied to Hastings
for the troops with which he had engaged to furnish him for the
enterprise. Hastings was somewhat disconcerted at his request, but as
the nabob had on his part engaged to pay 210,000 rupees per month for
their services, and he wanted money, a brigade, under the command of
Colonel Champion, received orders to march into the country of Oude,
with the declared purpose of invading Rohilcund. Operations commenced
in April, and Colonel Champion gained a great victory over the Rohilla
chiefs, on the side of Babul Nulla, which placed the whole country at
the mercy of the conquerors. The Nabob of Oude made a cruel use of the
victory, by plundering and burning towns and villages which belonged to
the quiet Hindu inhabitants; and who, so far from making common cause
with the Rohillas, were ready to render all the services they were
capable of rendering against them. In this destruction, neither Colonel
Champion nor Hastings participated, but as it was by their means that
the conquest of the country was effected they shared in the odium of
the enterprise. That Hastings did not concur in the nabob’s cruelties
is clear from the directions which he wrote to Colonel Champion with
reference to the captive family of Hafez Ramet, one of the Rohilla
chiefs. He remarked:—“Tell the vizier that the English manners are
abhorrent of every species of inhumanity and oppression, and enjoin
the gentlest treatment of a vanquished enemy. Require and entreat his
observance of this principle towards the family of Hafez. Tell him my
instructions to you generally; but urgently enforce the same maxims; and
that no part of his conduct will operate so powerfully in winning the
affections of the English as instances of benevolence and feeling for
others. If these arguments do not prevail, you may inform him directly
that you have my orders to insist upon a proper treatment of the family
of Hafez Ramet; since in our alliance with him, our national character
is involved in every act which subjects his own to reproach; that
I shall publicly exculpate this government from the imputation of
assenting to such a procedure, and shall reserve it as an objection to
any future engagements with him when the present service shall have been
accomplished.” There can be no doubt that Colonel Champion complied with
these directions, for during the war a strife was kindled between him
and the nabob, partly on account of the nabob’s non-assistance in the
battle at Babul Nulla, and partly because he resolutely kept all
the plunder to himself. Still nothing can justify this war with the
Rohillas, and the annexation of the Rohilcund to the country of Oude. It
is the more unjustifiable, because money was evidently the chief motive
which induced Hastings to assist the rapacious nabob in his enterprise.
By it the Afghan race was almost rooted out of the country, for while
a few chiefs lingered on the frontiers, the majority, with their
followers, sought new settlements in other countries. The Hindu
population remained under the rule of the Nabob of Oude.

Soon after this Rohilla war was concluded, the new constitution, as
framed by parliament, came into operation. The new council appointed
at Calcutta were General Clavering, and Messrs. Monson, Francis,
and Barwell; and Hastings was at their head with the rank of
Governor-general of Bengal. At the first meeting of this new council a
letter was read from the court of directors, which inculcated unanimity
and concord among its members; required them to do all in their power to
preserve peace in India; committed to Hastings the charge of carrying on
all correspondence with the native powers, the council at the same time
being privileged to peruse all letters; recommended a careful revision
of all the company’s affairs, alliances, connexions, &c., with the Indian
states in the neighbourhood of the three presidencies; and exhorted them
to be careful and cautious in the extreme in committing themselves
by any alliances or compacts with either the Indians or the European
settlers. This council was composed of such discordant materials that
the injunction to preserve unanimity and concord had no weight on its
members. From the first, indeed, Francis, Clavering, and Monson seem
to have been resolved to gain all power in India for themselves. Their
design was soon made manifest. In his political negociations, Hastings
had assumed a high and almost single authority; and in conformity with
this plan, at the close of the Rohilla war, he had appointed his friend
Middleton to be resident and agent at the court of the Nabob of Oude,
giving him instructions to confer with him alone on all matters of
importance. This gave offence to Francis, Clavering, and Monson, who
demanded that the correspondence of Middleton, from first to last,
should be laid before the council. Hastings objected to this, on the
ground that much of it related to merely private matters and opinions;
upon which they hinted that his war with the Rohillas arose from sordid
motives, and that his whole connexion with the Nabob of Oude had been
a series of bad actions, fraud, and selfishness. This language was as
unjustifiable as the Rohilla war, for Hastings had not profited in the
least by his connexion with the nabob, and was at the time, in fact, a
poorer man than when he quitted his inferior employment at Madras: he
had sought money, it is true, but it was for the company, and not for
himself. This charge was followed by action, equally unjust. As Francis,
Clavering, and Monson constituted the majority in the council, they
voted the immediate recall of Middleton; regardless of the remonstrance
of Hastings, who declared that such a measure would be attended with
pernicious consequences, inasmuch as the natives would be taught by such
an act that the English authorities were disunited in sentiment, and
that the government of Calcutta was falling into a state of revolution.
The power of Hastings was, by the confederation of these three members
against him, almost annihilated; and towards the close of the year he
wrote to the board of directors, complaining of their precipitancy
and violence, and to the English premier, vindicating his own conduct.
Hastings, however, was subject to the control of this trio, until the
25th of September, 1776, when the majority was reduced to an equality
by the death of Colonel Monson, By this event, indeed, Hastings by his
casting-vote as governor-general, obtained the superiority, and he at
once re-assumed his ancient authority, despite the protestations of
Clavering and Francis. On the recall of Middleton the trio had sent Mr.
Bristow to reside at Oude, but no sooner had Hastings regained power
than he reinstated his friend Middleton in his office. The use which he
made of his power seems to have given offence to the board of directors,
for while they reprimanded him by letter, they supplied Colonel Monson’s
place by Mr. Wheler, who took the part of Francis and Clavering. Before
this party, however, could act offensively, it was again reduced to a
minority by the death of General Clavering, so that Hastings once more
ruled dominant.

It was time that all the divisions in the council of Calcutta were
brought to a close; for at this period, 1777, danger was gathering round
the Anglo Indian government on various sides. During the period of the
control of Francis, Monson, and Clavering in the council of Calcutta,
the presidency of Bombay dispatched some troops, under Colonel
Keating, to aid Ragoba—who set himself up for the Peishwa of the
Mahrattas—against the confederated Mahratta chiefs, with whom he was at
war. The presidency of Bombay were induced to take part in this war by
the grant which Ragoba made them of Salsette, Bassein, and other
places in the territory of the Mahrattas. At first, Colonel Keating was
successful in his war with the Mahratta confederacy; but subsequently
his movements were impeded by the discontents of the peishwa’s troops,
who refused to cross the Nerbuddah until they should be paid their
arrears. Ragoba, however, found means not only to pay his troops, but to
buy off some of the chiefs of the hostile confederacy; and then he and
his English allies marched upon Poona, which was a kind of Mahratta
capital. But the assistance which the presidency of Bombay had given
displeased the supreme council of Calcutta; and at this point they
issued orders for the recall of the troops from Poona. After this
the council of Calcutta sent an agent of their own, Colonel Upton, to
undertake treaties, and to pursue a different line of policy to that
which the presidency of Bombay had adopted—he being instructed to
treat, not with Ragoba, but with the chiefs of the Mahratta confederacy.
A treaty was concluded, by which the Mahratta chiefs agreed to yield
Salsette and the small islands near it to the supreme council at
Calcutta, upon condition that aid should be afforded them against
Ragoba. This treaty, for a time, put an end to war; for Ragoba, being
deprived of English assistance, had no power to withstand his enemies;
and therefore he was compelled to lay down his arms and flee for his
life. By the year 1778, however, the Mahratta chiefs who had been
parties to the treaty with Colonel Upton became weary of their bargain.
Fresh intrigues were formed at Poona; intrigues which were supported by
French influence, agents from that nation being at this period at work
in India, as well as in America, to sap the foundation of the English
power. As the presidency of Bombay were nearest to this scene of
Mahratta intrigue, and were likely to be the most affected by it, they
wrote letters to the supreme council at Calcutta, recommending a new
alliance with Ragoba, in order to anticipate the designs of the French
and the Mahratta chiefs. Soon after Hastings received this letter,
he heard that a fresh quarrel had arisen among the Mahratta chiefs at
Poona, and that Baboo, at the head of a powerful faction, had declared
for Ragoba, and had applied to the presidency of Bombay for assistance.
Hastings, conceiving that if the faction opposed to Baboo and Ragoba
should prevail, the territories of Bombay would be in danger, proposed
in council that every assistance should be given, and that an army
should be forthwith sent from Calcutta and Bombay. He was the more
induced to make this proposition because he always had disapproved of
the treaty, and because he was of opinion that great danger would
arise to the Anglo-Indian government from a union of the French with
Mahrattas, if not checked on the instant. Hastings carried his proposition
by means of his casting vote; and orders were issued for assembling
an army at Culpee, on the east of the Hooghly river, and about
thirty-three miles below Calcutta. The command of this army was given
to Colonel Leslie, and it began its march in the month of June, almost
simultaneously with the receipt of a letter, containing the information
that war had been declared between England and France. This news
quickened the operations of Hastings. It was represented by his
opponents, Francis and Wheler, that the army should be recalled, as
Bengal was as likely to be attacked as Bombay; but Hastings insisted
that the army should proceed, as Bengal could be well defended without
it. Hastings then commenced a series of measures of defence against
French aggression. He seized Chandernagore and all the French
factories in Bengal; sent orders to the presidency of Madras to occupy
Pondicherry; threw up strong works near Calcutta; collected a vast
number of vessels of all kinds, and improvised a regular marine
establishment; and raised nine new battalions of sepoys, and a numerous
corps of native artillery. In the meantime the army under Colonel
Leslie was marching towards the acme of action. In his progress he
was directed to conciliate and captivate the goodwill of the rulers and
people in every district through which his line of inarch lay; but
at the same time he was to fight his way where he could not win it
by conciliation. Leslie had to engage with a Mahratta chief, called
Ballajee, and with the young Rajah of Bondilcund; but these were
overcome without great difficulty; and having reached Rajaghur, a
principal city of Bondilcund, on the 17th of August, he halted
there, for the purpose of entering into private negociations with the
pretenders and chiefs of that country. Colonel Leslie remained so long
at Rajaghur, that Hastings thought it necessary to recall him to Bengal,
and to confide the command of the army to Lieutenant-Colonel Goddard;
at the same time declaring by letters to the Rajah of Bondilcund and
his competitors, that all Leslie’s treaties and agreements were invalid.
Goddard proved to be a much more active officer than his predecessor. On
receiving his command he quitted Bondilcund, and crossing the Nerbudda
came to the city of Nagpoor, where he established a friendly relation
with the Mahrattas of Berar, and where he received dispatches from
Bombay, acquainting him that the presidency had put an army in motion
for Poona, under the command of Colonel Egerton, and that the two armies
were to meet in the neighbourhood of that city. Egerton arrived at the
destined point first; and disastrous consequences ensued to his army.
In his camp were two civil commissioners, whom the Bombay government had
sent to share the authority and direct the movements of Egerton. These
civilians, seeing a large body of Mahratta horse before them, overcome
by fear, ordered a retreat; and the Mahrattas following them, cut to
pieces nearly four hundred men, and carried away the greater part of
their baggage and provisions. Alarmed at their position, the civilians
now sent a deputation to the Mahrattas, to know upon what terras they
would permit them to march back to Bombay without molestation. The
Mahrattas demanded that Ragoba should be delivered to them; and Ragoba
was forthwith sent to their camp. But this weak compliance had the
effect of emboldening the Mahratta chiefs. They demanded a second price
for permitting the retreat; and this price was a treaty by which the
English should agree to give up all the acquisitions they had made in
that part of India since 1756, and send orders to Colonel Goddard
to return to Bengal. A treaty was signed to this effect; and having
delivered up two hostages as sureties for its fulfilment, the
dishonoured army was permitted to march back to Bombay. When Colonel
Goddard heard of these reverses he was at Boorhampoor, the ancient
capital of Candeish, and nearly a thousand miles, by the route he had
taken, from Calcutta. He had been detained in this city by perplexing
letters and advices from the field-commissioners; and on receiving the
intelligence, he resolved to march to Surat on the western coast, where
he would be in an English settlement, with the sea open to Bombay, and
ready to act as occasion might require or orders from Calcutta might
direct. Favoured by the natives, whose goodwill he had gained by the
strict discipline which he maintained among his troops during his
march from Rajaghur to Boorhampoor, he reached Surat, a distance of two
hundred and fifty miles, in nineteen days. On his arrival Goddard was
promoted to the rank of general; and shortly after he received the
commands of the supreme council at Calcutta, to take upon himself all
future wars or negociations with the Mahrattas. He proposed an amicable
treaty with the Mahratta confederated chiefs, on condition that they
would annul the recent treaty with Colonel Egerton, and give up all
connexion with the French. At the time he proposed this treaty, Ragoba,
who had escaped from Poona, was at Surat; and the chiefs replied that
they would listen to no negociation until he was given up, and until
Salsette was restored to them. Goddard now took the field; and in a few
days the fortress of Dubhoy was reduced, and the city of Ahmedabad, the
capital of Guzerat, carried by storm. His progress was arrested by the
intelligence that a large Mahratta army, under the chiefs Scindia and
Holkar, was marching upon Surat. Goddard resolved to attack that army,
and he marched back for that purpose. At first he was prevented by
a desire which the chiefs expressed for peace, and negociations were
entered into; but it was soon found that they were not sincere, and that
their chief motive was to delay the time until the setting in of the
rains should interrupt the campaign. Négociations were broken off, and
the chiefs hastily retreated; but Goddard followed them, surprised
and defeated them in their very camp; and by that victory obtained
possession of all the country between the mountains and the sea. The
Mahrattas fled in all directions; and Goddard having taken possession of
all the towns, put his army into cantonments.

During these events Hastings had formed an alliance with the Ranna of
Gohud, who ruled over a hilly country between the territories of Scindia
the Mahratta chief, and those of the Nabob of Oude. At the time this
alliance was made the territories of the Ranna of Gohud were invaded by
the Mahrattas, and Captain Popham was sent to assist him in repelling
the invaders. Popham not only drove out the Mahrattas from the dominions
of the Ranna, but followed them into their own territories, where he
stormed the fortress of Labor, and took that of Gualior, winch the
natives deemed impregnable, by escalade. Gualior was not more than
fifty miles from Agra, which was Scindia’s capital; and alarmed at his
progress, the Mahrattas abandoned all the neighbouring country, and
took refuge in that city. The Mahratta war, as conducted by Goddard and
Popham, promised a complete triumph; but the victors were stopped at
this point by another Mysorean war, which threatened to ruin the English
power and possessions on the Coromandel coast.

Although nominally at peace with the English, Hyder Ali held them in
utter abhorrence. During the last seven years, indeed, he had been
concerting schemes with the French at Pondicherry, and improving and
increasing his army, with a design of overturning the Anglo-Indian
government at Madras, if not in all India. To enable him to raise
forces, he had recourse to a system of extortion from his subjects, and
plunder from his neighbours, by which means the treasury of Mysore was
full even to overflowing. The Madras government was warned of its
danger by Mohammed Ali, the Nabob of the Carnatic; but his voice was
disregarded, and no preparations were made to ward off the blow. But
the presidency of Madras were soon aroused from their slumbers. In the
summer of 1780 Hyder Ali suddenly quitted Seringapatam, with one of the
finest armies ever seen in Southern India. This army consisted of
30,000 cavalry, 15.,000 drilled infantry, 40,000 irregular troops,
2000 artillery and rocket men, and 400 Europeans, many of whom were
Frenchmen. With this force Hyder poured through the ghauts or passes,
and burst like a mountain-torrent into the Carnatic. His arms were
irresistible. Porto Novo, on the coast, and Conjeveram, close to
Trichinopoly, were captured and plundered; almost every fortress opened
their gates at his approach; and the whole country north of the Coleroon
submitted to his sway. At his approach the people fled in all directions
from the fire and the sword towards the English presidency; and the
flames kindled by him were seen at night from the top of Mount St.
Thomas, which was only nine miles distant from Madras. Alarmed at
his progress, the presidency was at first unnerved; but fear having
subsided, orders were given to secure some of the strong places held
by Mohammed Ali’s troops, on whom no reliance could be placed. Two were
thus preserved; but the rest fell into the hands of the victor. The
next object of the presidency was to call in a strong force of 3000 men,
under Colonel Baillie, from the Northern Circars; and Sir Hector Munro,
the commander-in-chief, undertook to meet them at Conjeveram, about
fifty miles from the capital. In his route Colonel Baillie was attacked
by Hyder Ali’s eldest son, Tippoo, with a large detachment; while Hyder
himself interposed his main force between the two divisions of the
English forces. Colonel Baillie defeated Tippoo; and soon after he was
joined by a reinforcement under Colonel Fletcher and Captain Baird,
which raised his corps to 3700 men. Against these Hyder now turned his
chief attention; and he succeeded in surrounding them near Conjeveram
with his whole host, and upwards of sixty cannon. A dreadful battle took
place; and the English, and the sepoys who fought with them, struggled
so manfully, that, after a contest of three hours, victory began to
declare on their side. Hyder Ali was about to give orders for a retreat,
and the French officers, who commanded the artillery, began to draw
off their guns; but at that instant, by some accident, the tumbrils
containing the ammunition blew up in the centre of the British, lines,
and their artillery was rendered useless. This accident changed the
fortune of the day; and the conquerors were left at the mercy of the
vanquished. Still they long kept their ground; and it was not till all
the sepoys were broken and cut to pieces that the British gave way. Even
then they rallied for one more desperate effort; and under fire of the
enemy’s cannon they gained the ridge of a hill, in which position they
formed a square, and defended themselves against thirteen successive
attacks; the soldiers fighting with their bayonets, and the officers
with their swords. The troops would still have resisted the enemy, had
not Colonel Baillie directed them to lay down their arms, and stepping
forward, asked for quarter. It is said that even then many would not lay
down their arms, and continued to fight under the legs of the elephants
and horses. But the struggle was now of no avail; one half of the
survivors were cowardly butchered, and the rest were made prisoners, and
reserved for a horrible captivity. In this conflict four thousand sepoys
and six hundred Europeans were slain, among whom was Colonel Fletcher.

At the time when this battle took place, Sir Hector Munro, who commanded
the other main division of the Madras army, was within a short distance
of Hyder’s rear, and on discovering the catastrophe, he abandoned his
tents and baggage, threw his heavier guns into a tank, and fled to
Madras. The country was now at the mercy of Hyder; and Wandewash,
Chingleput, Vellore, and Arcot were in a short time either captured or
closely besieged. Had it not been for Hastings, the power of the British
would have been broken, not only in the Carnatic, but also in the
northern Circars. On first discovering the irruption of Hyder Ali, the
presidency of Madras despatched a fast-sailing ship to Calcutta, with
letters and agents, urging him to send them aid in men and money. The
treasury of Calcutta was empty, but Hastings procured fifteen lacs of
rupees, which were sent off to Madras as a present supply for the
army, and the governor-general immediately set to work to obtain more.
Missives and agents were soon seen flying through the country to procure
supplies; and Moorshedabad, Patna, Lucknow, and Benares, with all other
places where Hastings could put in a claim, whether real or fictitious,
were called upon for their contributions. But money would have been
of little service in this war without active measures on the part
of Hastings. This he saw, and he immediately concluded a peace
with Scindia, recalled Popham from the Jumna, and adjusted amicable
arrangements with the other Mahratta powers, under the guarantee of
the Rajah of Berar He also recalled the inept Governor of Madras, and
invited Sir Eyre Coote to take the command of Fort St. George, and the
entire management cf the war with Hyder Ali. Sir Eyre Coote had recently
returned to India, as commander-in-chief of the Bengal forces, and a
member of the supreme council; and although he did not always agree with
Hastings at the council-table, he readily fell in with his plans, and
undertook the command. Coote set sail with five hundred choice British
troops, and six hundred Lascars, with between forty and fifty gentlemen
volunteers; and soon after his arrival at Madras, he commenced
operations, with 1700 Europeans, and about 5000 native troops, by
marching to recover Wandewash, the scene of his great exploit in a
previous year. Wandewash was recaptured, and Hyder Ali, terrified at
his name, abandoned other sieges, and seemed inclined to fly from, or
to treat with the conqueror. At this juncture, however, a French fleet
appeared off the coast; and encouraged by it, and also by a repulse
which Coote shortly after sustained at the fortified pagoda of
Chillambram, he intrenched his army in a strong position, near
Cuddalore, where he determined to risk a battle rather than permit the
British commander to advance upon Trinchinopoly and Tanjore. His post
was exceedingly strong; but Sir Eyre Coote, who had recently been
reinforced by some sepoys, sent by Hastings, under the command of
Colonel Pearse, advanced from Porto Novo, attacked him in his lines,
and completely defeated him. It is said that Hyder Ali now bitterly
regretted having allowed himself to be drawn into war by French
counsels, and that he as bitterly complained of having been amused by
the promises of the assistance of a great French force from Europe.
Notwithstanding he risked another battle for the defence of Arcot, on
the very spot where Colonel Baillie had suffered his defeat, but where
he was this time defeated. Hyder retreated to, and took up his position
at, Sholingur; and though Sir Eyre Coote had suffered severe loss in
his recent battle, he resolved to seek the enemy, and he pushed forward
with such vigour that he nearly surprised the Indians before they could
form their ranks. Hyder was again routed, with terrible loss, and Coote
was enabled by this victory to march on the fortress of Vellore, one
of the keys of the Carnatic, which was besieged by Hyder’s troops,
and which he relieved and saved. After this, Coote recovered Chittore,
Palipett, and other places, and then, as the rains, the monsoons, and
the rising of the rivers put an end to further extensive operations, he
went into cantonments.

{GEORGE III. 1786–1787}

In the meantime Lord Macartney arrived from England as Governor of
Madras, His lordship brought intelligence of the declaration of war
between England and Holland, and his first care was to make himself
master of all the Dutch factories on that coast. Sadras surrendered
upon summons; Poulicat submitted on his approach, at the head of some
gentlemen volunteers and Madras militiamen; Negapatam was captured; all
the other Dutch settlements on the same coast fell into the hands of the
British; and Trin-comalee, their principal station in Ceylon, was taken
by storm.

Colonel Braithwaite had assisted in the reduction of Negapatam, and when
this was effected he marched into Tanjore, with the view of recovering
some of the fortresses of that country, which had been captured by
Hyder and his son Tippoo. Braithwaite was deceived and misled by the
Tanjoreans, and while encamped on the left bank of the river Cavery,
on the 18th of February, 1782, he was surprised by Tippoo and a French
corps; and after maintaining an unequal contest from sunrise to sunset,
his whole force were either killed or taken prisoners. This blow was
almost immediately followed by the arrival off the coast of Admiral de
Suffrein, with 2000 French and 1000 Caffres on board, to aid Hyder Ali
in his struggle. De Suffrein had been encountered in his voyage by the
squadron of Commodore Johnstone, and had been pursued by Admiral Hughes;
but he had escaped all dangers, and he now succeeded in landing the
forces which he brought with him at Porto Novo. These forces were under
the command of M. Bussy, and they united with the army of Tippoo,
and besieged and took Cuddalore, after which they advanced against
Wandewash. Coote marched rapidly to the relief of that place, and on the
24th of April he encamped on the very spot where he had defeated Lally
and Bussy twenty-two years before. Bussy and Tippoo retreated before
Coote, and-he then threatened the strong fort of Arnee, where Hyder
had deposited plunder and provisions. Hyder advanced in person for
the defence of this place, and while he engaged in a loose, irregular
battle, Tippoo succeeded in carrying off his stores from Arnee. Bussy
now retreated towards Cuddalore and Pondicherry; Hyder put himself
in quarters near the coast; and Tippoo, with some strong French
detachments, hastened to Calicut, to quell a rebellion which had
manifested itself among his father’s oppressed subjects—the Nairs, or
Hindu chiefs of the Malabar coast. At the same time Sir Eyre Coote threw
supplies into Vellore, and undertook an expedition against Cuddalore,
which failed for want of co-operation.

About this time Hyder Ali was thrown into dismay by learning that
Hastings had concluded a treaty with the Mahrattas. He expected that
the Mahratta confederacy would invade the country of Mysore, and he
intimated his intention of returning for its defence. Bussy, however,
persuaded him that the war in the Carnatic was not altogether hopeless,
and that means might be found to counteract the negociations of the
Governor-general of Bengal, and to win back the Mahrattas, not merely to
a neutrality, but to a close alliance. Accordingly he resolved to remain
in the Carnatic, and he prepared to co-operate with Bussy in an attack
upon Negapatam; at the same time amusing-Sir Eyre Coote, with an
intimation that he might become a party to the treaty with the
Mahrattas, by which Coote was rendered inactive.

During this summer Madras suffered under accumulated evils. The ravages
of Hyder Ali had driven crowds from all quarters to seek refuge in the
capital, and multitudes daily perished for want. Ships of rice were sent
in October for their sustenance while in this condition; but the monsoon
arose, and the whole were lost. An absolute famine now ensued, and it is
said that ten thousand perished before any relief could be afforded from
Bengal and other parts. The roads that led to the town, and the streets
of the town itself, were strewed with the dead and the dying; and
nothing-was heard but cries, and moans, and unavailing prayers for
assistance.

In the meantime success attended the British arms on the Malabar coast.
Colonel Mackenzie, who was aided by the Nairs, or Hindu chiefs,
was preparing for the siege of Palagatcherry, not many marches from
Seringapatam, when Tippoo arrived in that country. As Tippoo had an army
of more than 20,000 men, Mackenzie was constrained to retreat towards
the coast; but he halted at Paniany, a sea-port town about thirty-five
miles from Calicut, where he resolved to make a stand against the enemy,
who were pressing on his rear. Tippoo attacked him, but after a severe
struggle he was compelled to withdraw, leaving behind him a great number
dead and wounded. Whether Tippoo would have ventured another battle
is very doubtful; but at this juncture he received intelligence of his
father’s death, and as he had brothers and cousins, it was his interest
to look after the throne and the treasures of Mysore. Accordingly Tippoo
left the Malabar coast, and hastened to the camp of Plyder Ali, when,
after the usual distribution of pay and donatives, he was recognised as
commander of the army and sovereign of Mysore. It seems probable that
had Hyder lived a few months longer, he would have made peace with the
English; for he had long had his suspicions of the fidelity and the just
designs of the French. Tippoo, however, scorned all overtures of peace
with the English, and on the 4th of January, 1783, General Stuart, who
succeeded Sir Eyre Coote in command, took the field against him. Tippoo
was surrounded by dangers; for after his retirement from the Malabar
coast, Colonel Mackenzie marched his sepoys by land, and sent his
Highlanders and other British by sea, northward to the coast of Canara,
to co-operate with a part of the army from Bombay in reducing some
of the richest provinces of Mysore. The junction of these forces was
effected in January, when General Mathews, who had arrived at Bombay
with some royal troops, took the command of the whole. Mathews took the
fort of Onore by storm, and having scaled the range of rocks which runs
between the coast and Bednore, and cleared the passes at the point of
the bayonet, he came upon the rich capital of Bednore, which surrendered
to him without firing a gun. Other forts also surrendered at or before a
summons, and Ananpore and Mangalore were carried by storm. Thus assailed
before and behind, Tippoo recalled his garrison from Arcot and other
places, and evacuated the Carnatic in order to defend Mysore. On his
arrival in his own dominions he found that Mathews had scattered his
army all over the country, in contemptible mud forts and open towns,
and had fixed his head-quarters in the city of Bednore. Mathews had been
further weakened by desertion. He had quarrelled with Colonel Mackenzie,
Colonel Mac Leod, and Major Shaw, and these officers had repaired to
Bombay to lay their complaints before that presidency. Tippoo saw that
he was his prey, and he hastened to Bednore to seize him. Mathews threw
himself into the fort of Bednore, but resistance was hopeless, and
Tippoo, having offered very honourable terms, he capitulated. According
to the terms of this capitulation, the general and his troops were to be
allowed to withdraw to the coast; but instead of this, they were bound
with chains and ropes, and thrown into horrible dungeons. After this
success Tippoo passed the Ghauts, and went down to the sea-port town of
Mangalore, into which the 42nd regiment, which Mathews had previously
sent down to the coast, with some fragments of the army who had escaped,
had thrown themselves. Tippoo and his French allies invested Mangalore,
and counted on a short and easy conquest; but they were detained before
its walls for months, and were thereby prevented from engaging in more
important operations.

On the departure of Tippoo from the Carnatic, General Stuart had only
the French and some sepoys to contend with, and these were posted behind
their fortified lines at Cuddalore. Against these he directed his
operations, while Admiral Hughes was to co-operate with him, and
to prevent Admiral de Suffrein from aiding in the contest. Several
encounters took place both by sea and land, but nothing decisive had
occurred, when news reached Madras that a treaty of peace had been
concluded between France and England. On receiving this intelligence a
flag of truce was dispatched to M. Bussey, who agreed to a cessation of
hostilities by sea and land, and also to invite Tippoo to be a party in
these pacific arrangements. Tippoo was alarmed at the prospect of being
left alone in the war, but at the same time he did not show himself to
be anxious for peace. In his reply, he intimated, by his vakeels, that
everything the English had taken from him must be restored, while he
made scarcely any mention of restitutions to the English. At the same
time he continued the siege of Mangalore, and made desperate efforts
to get possession of it. Nor were military operations suspended by
the English, for while Lord Macartney sent three commissioners with
Tippoo’s vakeels to Seringapatam to treat there, a series of operations
were carried on by the British troops in the very heart of the obdurate
nabob’s dominions.

While General Stuart was carrying on operations against the French at
Cuddalore, Colonel Fullarton, who had arrived from England with some of
the reinforcements at the end of the preceding year, was making a rapid
progress in the country beyond Tanjore. Fullarton had taken the fortress
of Dindigul by storm, and had captured the fortress of Daraporam, in the
province of Coimbntoor, which opened one of the roads to Soringapatam,
and was only about one hundred and forty miles from that city. At this
point he was recalled to the aid of General Stuart at Cuddalore; but
when the news of peace between France and England arrived, and when it
was found Tippoo showed no signs of a desire for a cessation of arms,
Lord Macartney reinforced him with 1000 sepoys, and directed him
to resume his campaign. Fullarton first turned his arms against the
numerous polygars of Tinevelly, who had thrown off all allegiance to the
company at the commencement of Hyder’s invasion; and having reduced
them to complete submission, he continued his march to Dindigul and
Daraporam. He had neither money nor supplies with him; but his wants
were well supplied by the Rajah of Travancore, and by other rajahs on
the Malabar coast, who were all interested in the overthrow of Tippoo.
On arriving in the neighbourhood of Daraporam, Fullarton halted for
a short period, in order to receive intelligence from the three
commissioners sent to Seringapatam. On the receipt of a letter,
however, from the residency of Tellichery, informing him that Tippoo had
recommenced hostilities at Mangalore, Fullarton took immediate measures
to resent the insult. His first operations were against the fortress of
Palagatcherry, which was considered one of the strongest in all India.
This fortress was captured, and the English found therein 50,000
pagodas in money, together with a large supply of grain, ammunition, and
military stores. Fullarton next directed his operations against the fort
of Coimbatoor, which likewise fell into his hands. All the strongest
fortresses in the country were now captured, and another ten days of
march would have brought him before the walls of Seringapatam. This
would have been accomplished without any difficulty, for there was no
Mysorean army in the neighbourhood capable of withstanding his forces;
and every rajah bordering on the territories of Mysore was favourable
to his cause. It is evident, indeed, that the power of the British might
have been established in the whole of Southern India, and Fullarton
rejoiced in the bright prospect. Just as he was setting forwards on his
inarch to Seringapatam, however, to secure the golden prize, he received
orders from the government of Madras to restore his recent conquests. At
Tippoo’s request, two English commissioners had been sent to his camp
to treat for peace, and this unqualified restitution was enjoined by the
commissioners as the preliminary of negociation with the artful nabob.
Yet all the while Tippoo continued the siege of Mangalore, and while
Fullarton was retracing his steps towards Tanjore and Trichinopoly,
that fortress, after sustaining a siege of nine months, was captured;
Colonel Campbell, who had bravely defended it, being allowed to march
with his troops unmolested to Tellicherry. The continued siege of
Mangalore and its capture exhibited the bad faith of Tippoo; and it
was scarcely evacuated when Fullarton, who had not reached the old
boundaries, received orders from Madras to renew operations, and to
regain, if possible, the possession of Palagatcherry. Fullarton again
advanced with the main body of his army, and was again flattering
himself with the hope of being the conqueror of Seringapatam, when
he received fresh orders to return. Preliminaries of a peace had been
exchanged between the commissioners, and he was directed to restore the
forts and countries of Carroor and Daraporam, but to keep possession of
Dindigul, and station a garrison there till all the English prisoners
in Mysore should be liberated from their horrible captivity. The treaty
between the English and Tippoo was finally concluded on the 11th of
March, upon the condition of a restitution by both parties of all that
they had gained during the war. All the prisoners in Mysore, who had
survived their horrible captivity, were released; and the tales told by
them excited such horror and indignation, that it became evident peace
would not be of long continuance. Peace, indeed, was not wholly restored
in India by this treaty; for, unfortunately, no stipulation had been
made in favour of the native chiefs, who had favoured the English cause,
although the bloodshed and devastation which awaited them must have been
foreseen On the return of Tippoo’s army, therefore, its services were
employed in scourging the wretched Hindu population of Coorg, Canara,
and Mysore, thousands of whom he compelled to embrace the faith of
Islamism. Nor was it against the natives alone that he turned his arms;
for one of the first acts by which the tyrant signalised his reign,
was the deportation, and forcible conversion to Islamism of 30,000
Christians, from Portuguese settlements on the coast of Canara. Soon
after his return to Seringapatam his name was changed, from Tippoo
Sultaun, to that of Shah Allum, and he also assumed the regal title of
Padisha, and ordered his court to observe all the forms and ceremonies
which were in use at Delhi.

Although Tippoo was a gainer by this untoward treaty, yet the grand
result of the war was, that our Indian empire was saved. The expenses of
this war, however, had been great; and as the greater part of the money
could only come from Bengal, Hastings had, during its progress, been
carrying on a system of exaction, which reflects no honour on the
English name. The only excuse that can be offered on his behalf, is,
that he felt that the Carnatic must be rescued and India saved, be
the cost what it might. It was known to Hastings that many of the
neighbouring princes, who owed their political existence to the power
of the English arms, and were dependent upon the government of Calcutta,
possessed hidden treasures of vast amount; and as he had no other means
of obtaining the requisite supplies for the maintenance of the war, he
determined that they should disgorge. Cheyte Sing, the Rajah of Benares,
was the first to whom he applied the pressure. Demand after demand was
made and supplied; and when no more could be obtained, the rajah, who
was one of the most faithful allies of the English in all India, was
driven from his throne. A nephew of Cheyte Sing was selected to fill
his post; but every vestige of sovereignty was taken from him and
placed under the control of the company’s resident at Benares. By this
revolution an addition of £200,000 was made to the revenues of the
company; but as there was no more ready money in Benares, and as this
was a _sine qua non_, Hastings determined to apply the screw on other
chiefs. His next victim was Asoff-ul-Dowla, Nabob of Oude, and master of
Rohilcund, one of the most extravagant and debauched of all the Indian
princes. Asoff-ul-Dowla proved to demonstration that he had no money,
and that he could not even defend himself against the Mahrattas and the
Rohillas, or even against the discontents and insurrections of his own
subjects, if he was not supported by the company’s servants. But if the
Nabob of Oude had no money, his mother and grandmother had; for Sujah
Dowla had left a considerable part of the treasures which he had in
hand to these two ladies, and had bequeathed them, in addition, certain
jaghires. In an interview, therefore, with Asoff-ul-Dowla, in the
fortress of Chunar, Hastings consented that some of the company’s troops
should remain in Oude for his defence against his enemies; but only
on this condition, that he should rob his mother and grandmother. The
undutiful nabob had before endeavoured to gain their treasures for
himself, and had, in fact, obtained large contributions from their
purses; but though he showed himself a true robber, yet when he found
that the money was to go into the hands of the company, he was reluctant
to rob any more. He consented, indeed, to seize the treasures for the
use of the company, on condition that he should possess the ladies’
jaghires himself; but when he returned to Lucknow his heart misgave
him. Hastings, however, was not to be disappointed. On discovering the
nabob’s reluctance, he wrote to him and to Middleton, the British
agent at that place, urging him to fulfil his agreement, and ordering
Middleton to do the work himself if Asoff-ul-Dowla still delayed. To
save his authority the nabob now seized the jaghires, but he still
spared the treasures; and Middleton took this work into his own hands,
or, at least, acted in conjunction with the nabob. The victims lived at
Fyzabad; or, the “Beautiful Residence,” about eighty miles to the
east of Lucknow; and the robbers, accompanied by some sepoys, repaired
thither; and by throwing two old eunuchs in the palace, who had been the
confidential servants of Sujah Dowla, into a dungeon, they succeeded in
extorting from the ladies treasures to the amount of more than £500,000
sterling. But this was not sufficient for the support of the ruinous war
in the Carnatic; and Hastings laid claim to the revenues of the jaghires
which the nabob had seized as his portion of the robbery. But Hastings,
in his transactions with the Nabob of Oude, did not seek money for the
company alone; for, during the conferences at Chunar, he accepted a
present of £100,000, which, on the part of the governor-general,
was altogether illegal, and therefore subjected him to the charge of
venality In the conferences of Chunar, it was agreed that the Nabob
of Oude should, “when time should suit,” take possession of the
territories of Fyzoola Khan, the last of the great Rohilla chiefs that
remained in Rohilcund, under pretence that by his independence he caused
alarm to Asoff-ul-Dowla. The chief design of Hastings, however, was
to extort money from Fyzoola Khan; and when he found that there was no
money in the country, he put his interdict on any hostile proceedings by
the Nabob of Oude; poverty therefore was his protection.

It must not be supposed, however, that Hastings ventured to rob the
palace of Fyzabad as a robber of the Robin Hood order. Up to the time of
his wanting money for the Carnatic war, he had protected the mother and
wife of Sujah Dowla, and had even written to Middleton, commanding him
to take active measures for preventing Asoff-ul-Dowla from plundering
them; asserting that they were entitled to English protection. But
now, when it was determined to despoil them of their jaghires and their
money, it was thought expedient to devise some means of colouring over
the transaction, so as to save his honour and reputation. Doubts
were now thrown out as to the validity of Sujah Dowla’s testamentary
bequests; and the ladies were represented as dangerous rebels and
traitors to the company. His violence to Cheyte Sing had created an
insurrection at Benares, which could only be quelled by bloodshed; and
this was followed by some slight disturbances in the province of Oude.
Nothing, however, could be further from the truth than that these old
ladies had taken any part in the tumult. They were, indeed, too fond of
their money to spend it in exciting insurrection. Nevertheless, this was
made the plea for robbing them; and to carry out the farce, after they
had been plundered of their wealth, they were tried for the imputed
offence at Lucknow, by the chief-justice, Sir Elijah Impey, an old
schoolfellow and bosom-friend of the govern or-general. Impey had not
the slightest authority at Oude; but it was thought that the presence of
the head of the supreme court at Calcutta would impart a dignity to the
proceedings, and give a fair colouring to the act. It was not difficult
in India to obtain a conviction; for men who would perjure themselves by
giving false witness were to be met with on every hand. A host of such
were brought forward, therefore, with affidavits ready drawn in their
hands, to testify against the victims. The result was certain: a partial
judge and false swearing convicted the accused, and by their deaths
justified the deed which stripped them of their jaghires and money.
The services which Sir Elijah Impey rendered Hastings, in this and many
other transactions in India, were rewarded by his appointment to the
office of judge of the Sudder Dewannee Adaulut, or Court of Appeal,
which Hastings separated from the supreme council at Calcutta for
that purpose. This new office added £7800 a year to the £8000 which he
already enjoyed, as king’s chief justice. This, in effect, made him a
servant of the company; and subsequently some of his juniors received
company’s places or gratifications: as Sir Robert Chambers, who was made
company’s judge at Chinchura. But this was contrary to the spirit, if
not to the letter of the regulating act of 1773; and in a committee of
the house of commons on Indian affairs, it was declared that the power
conferred upon Sir Elijah Impey in his new capacity was exorbitant,
dangerous, irregular, and illegal, and a bargain between Hastings
and him not to be permitted: that by selling his independence to the
governor-general, he sold the administration of justice and vitiated his
tribunal. This was during Lord North’s administration; and soon after,
on the 20th of March, 1782, the Shelbourne and Rockingham administration
was formed. Reform under this short-lived government became the order of
the day; and on the 3rd of May, an address was carried in the house of
Commons, by a large majority, for the recall of Sir Elijah Impey, to
answer to the charge of having “accepted an office not agreeable to the
true intent and meaning of the act 13 George III.” About the same time
Hastings himself had a narrow chance of being recalled as a criminal, to
answer for his conduct at Benares; but as the danger of India was at its
height when the last news arrived, and as it was supposed that he alone
was capable of protecting the British interests in that country, he was
permitted at present to go unscathed.

Hastings retained his station till February, 1785, when, without any
previous notice, he resolved to quit his government and return to
England. The last years of his administration had been marked by
judicious measures; measures by which India was restored to a state of
tranquillity, which had not been known for ages. He had also made some
atonement for the crime committed against the wife and mother of
Sujah Dowla by ordering the jaghires—not the money, for that was all
spent—which had been unjustly seized, to be restored to Asoff-ul-Dowla.
His last actions seemed to have wiped out the remembrance of the deeds
for which he had been loudly condemned, for on his arrival in England,
the board of directors voted him thanks for his long and meritorious
services, and Mr. Dundas, who had moved for his recall in 1782, and who
had declared, that “he could scarcely leave the walls of Calcutta,
that his steps were not followed by the deposition of some prince, the
desertion of some ally, or the depopulation of some country,” now
asserted in the house of commons, that had he been one of the directors,
he would have concurred in their vote, and that he was glad that the
resolution, which he himself had moved for his recall, had not been
carried into effect. At court also Hastings was received with favour and
treated with distinction, and though on his arrival, Burke had menaced
him with impeachment, yet, months rolled on, in which he was left
undisturbed; and he was still unmolested when the parliament reassembled
in January, 1786. But this calm was only the prelude to a storm, which
suddenly broke over the head of Hastings, and disturbed his peace.

{GEORGE III. 1786–1787}

This storm arose at the bidding of one of the ex-governor’s private
friends. On the first day of the meeting of parliament, Major John
Scott, whom Hastings had indiscreetly chosen to be his champion in
parliament, and his advocate by the press, stood up in the house of
commons, and demanded of Burke, whether he intended to produce his
charges against the late Governor-general of India. It is probable that
neither Burke nor his friends would have troubled their heads any more
about the matter, but being thus braved, he could do no other than
accept the challenge, and his whole party were bound to give him
their support. Accordingly, on the 17th of February, Burke commenced
operations, by making a call for papers and correspondence deposited in
the India house. As a notion had got abroad that the king, his court,
and his ministers were all devoted to Hastings, Burke opened his speech
by desiring that two of the resolutions which had been moved and
carried in the month of May, 1782, by Mr. Dundas, and which contained
an unmitigated censure on the conduct of Hastings, should be read.
This being done, Burke expressed his deep regret that the solemn and
important business of the day had not been brought forward, in the
plenitude and weight of efficiency, by the original mover of these
resolutions. The task, he said, would better have become ministers, as
the authors of those extreme resolutions against the governor-general,
and that it would particularly become Dundas, who had now all the powers
and resources necessary for a complete examination, as an influential
member of the board of control. Burke then uttered a terrible philippic
against men whose notions of right and wrong varied according to
circumstances, and depended on their being out of, or in office—men who
could find every thing wrong in India in 1782, when they wanted places,
but who would make no attempt to punish or correct those whom they then
condemned, in 1784, when they had obtained what they wanted. Acting
under their sanction, however, he asserted a claim to their protection,
and after giving a detailed historical account of parliamentary
proceedings with regard to British India, he remarked that there were
three species of inquisition which might be adopted against a state
culprit; the house might order a prosecution by the attorney-general; or
it might proceed by a bill of pains and penalties; or it might act
upon the ancient and constitutional mode of impeachment. As the
attorney-general was evidently unfriendly to the prosecution, and as
he considered that to proceed by a bill of pains and penalties would
be unjust towards the accused, inasmuch as it would compel him to
anticipate his defence, and impose on the house the twofold character of
accuser and judge, he would advise the house to proceed by impeachment,
being careful at the same time to do so with all possible caution and
prudence. The first-step in such a proceeding was, he said, a general
review of the evidence, in order that they might determine whether the
person charged, ought to be impeached or not. To this end he proposed
that the house should resolve itself into a committee, and that such
papers as were necessary for substantiating the guilt of Mr. Hastings,
if he was guilty, should be laid before that committee. Then, he said,
if the charges should appear to be what he believed them to be, charges
of the blackest nature, and supported by competent evidence, the house
might proceed with confidence and dignity to the bar of the lords. Burke
concluded by justifying his motives, in taking on himself the duties
of a public accuser, and by expressing his conviction that Hastings had
been guilty of gross corruption, and that his administration had been
marked by violence, oppression, and cruelty.

In reply, Dundas acknowledged that he had suggested and moved the
resolutions which had been read; and that he entertained the same
sentiments respecting Hastings now, as he did when he moved them in the
house; but these resolutions, he said, only went to recall, and not to
impeach him. Yet, though he thus virtually condemned Hastings in
the opening of his speech, before he concluded he applauded his
administration. The more, he said, he examined the conduct of the late
governor-general, the more difficult he found it to fix any criminal
intention, or to separate it from the conduct of the directors at home,
who had expressly commanded or urged him on in so many particulars.
Mutual recrimination between Fox and Pitt followed this speech of
Dundas, in which the deadly sin of the coalition was used with great
effect. The papers which Burke called for, however, were not opposed
until the following day, when he asked for those relating to Oude, in
the latter part of the administration, of the accused governor-general,
the part which ministers maintained was without spot, and blameless.
Pitt said that this would be producing new and endless matter, and that
the inquiry for the present ought to be confined to the period embraced
in the reports of 1781. Major Scott, however, said that the Oude papers
would establish the reputation of Hastings, and that they ought to be
produced; whence the motion was carried. Subsequently motions were made
for papers relating to the Mahratta peace, to the negociations which
Hastings had carried on at Lucknow with the son of the Great Mogul, and
to the mission of Major Brown to Delhi. These papers were all refused,
and Burke having got all he could, on the 3rd of April, proposed calling
to the bar some of the gentlemen who had been ordered to attend
as witnesses. In this he was opposed by all the crown lawyers, who
represented that he ought to produce his charges first, and that no
proofs ought to be admitted, except such as were applicable to the
charges; a mode of proceeding adopted in the courts of law, and which,
they contended, ought to regulate the proceedings of the house of
commons. Burke and his friends argued, in reply, that the house had
already-sanctioned a different mode of proceeding, by gran ting the
power of taking evidence, by forming itself into a committee, to receive
evidence, and by summoning the witnesses who were in attendance. The
lawyers, however, carried their point, and Burke was compelled to bring
forward specific charges against the accused. On the 4th of
April, therefore, Burke rose to charge Warren Hastings, Esq., late
Governor-general of Bengal, with high crimes and misdemeanors in the
execution of his office. On this occasion he laid on the table nine
distinct articles of accusation, and in the course of the following
week, he added thirteen others to the list. The principal charges
related to the affairs of Benares; the Rohilla war; the various
transactions in Oude; the Mahratta war, and the Mahratta peace; the
depriving the Mogul of Corah and Allahabad; the hard treatment of
Mohammed Reza Khan; the death of Nuncomar, who had been tried and
executed for forgery; the treatment of Fyzoola Khan, the Rohilla chief;
disobedience of orders; extravagant expenditure; the enriching of
dependents and favourites; and the acceptance of presents, or bribes,
by the governor-general himself. Before the whole of these articles were
laid on the table, Hastings had petitioned the house to be heard at its
bar, and to be allowed a copy of the several charges. These requests
were opposed by opposition, but were granted; and on the 1st of May
Hastings came to the house to make his defence. He was no orator, and
having been supplied with copies of the articles, he brought with him a
written defence, which he was allowed to read like a dry sermon. In it,
he first referred to the vote of thanks which he had received from the
court of directors, his employers, expressing astonishment that any one
else should venture to prefer accusations against him. After this,
he took a general view of the accusations, and began to read answers,
separately to each of the charges. His defence occupied two or three
days in the reading, and when it was closed, Hastings requested that
it should be laid on the table, and printed for the use of the members,
which was ordered. The examination of witnesses now took place, which
lasted three weeks; and when all had been examined, on the 1st of June,
Burke brought forward the first charge, that of the Rohilla war. Burke
commenced his speech by a solemn invocation to British justice, and
disclaiming any personal motive or private malevolence. After this he
drew a vivid, but overwrought picture of the character and condition of
the Rohillas, both before and after the invasion of their territories,
by the troops of the Nabob of Oude and the company. This question was
debated two nights, and when a division took place, Burke’s motion,
declaring that there was ground for charging Warren Hastings with high
crimes and misdemeanors, on the matter of the Rohilla war was negatived
by a majority of one hundred and nineteen, to sixty-seven. The friends
of Hastings hailed this result on the first charge as a triumph;
expecting that the next would undergo a like defeat, and that then,
Burke would give up the prosecution in despair. But the prospects of
the late governor-general were soon overclouded. The second charge was
brought forward by Fox on the 13th of June, which charge related to the
treatment of Cheyte Sing, Zemindar of Benares. On the previous
occasion, Pitt had given a silent vote in favour of Hastings, and it was
anticipated that he would act in the same maimer on the present. Popular
opinion, however, was with Burke, and the minister seems to have had an
idea that he should incur popular odium, if he persevered in crushing
all his charges. After Fox, and Francis, the old enemy of Hastings, had
spoken, therefore, he rose to state his views on the subject. In
his speech, Burke, Fox, and Francis, all came in for a share of his
reprobation; he accusing the two former of oratorical exaggeration and
party misrepresentation, and the latter, with whom Hastings had fought
a duel before their return to England, in which, Francis was dangerously
wounded, of dishonesty and malignancy. This would seem to have indicated
that Pitt would still take the side of Hastings, and the more so,
because in the opening of his speech Pitt had declared that the late
governor-general was justified in calling on Cheyte Sing for aid, both
in money and men; that he was equally justified in fining him for his
contumacy; and that his whole conduct during the insurrection at Benares
called for the highest admiration and praise. So far, all was well; but
he went on to say, that he thought the fines imposed were too great in
amount, and that the conduct of Hastings had been too severe; and he
concluded by asserting broadly, that the fine imposed on Cheyte Sing was
exorbitant, unjust, and tyrannical, and that, therefore, he should agree
to the motion before the house; although he did not thence consider
himself pledged to a final vote of impeachment. Not one on the
treasury-benches knew when Pitt commenced, how he would vote, or what
sentiments he would deliver, but they had fully expected that he would
put his negative upon the motion, and were prepared to follow the same
course. Mur-murings and whisperings were heard in some parts of the
ministerial benches, and Mr. William Grenville, his bosom friend, Arden,
the attorney-general, and Lord Mulgrave, ventured openly to differ
from him; stating, that they could not, as honest men, think Hastings
deserving of impeachment on this charge, or concur in the vote. Other
members, however, were more pliant than these, and were prepared “to
follow the great bell-wether,” lead he where he might, through flowery
meads, or thickets and brakes. Even the amiable Wilberforce, who had
hitherto thought that the conduct of Hastings was in part justifiable,
and in part excusable; and Dundas, who had recently asserted that it was
highly meritorious, and deserving the thanks of the court of Directors,
now voted against him; and the motion was carried by one hundred
and nineteen against seventy-nine. At this point, the prosecution of
Hastings was stopped by the prorogation of parliament; it being found
impracticable to go through the rest of the charges during the session.

As might be expected, the motives of the accuser of Hastings were
canvassed by a discerning public; some condemning them as unjust, and
others applauding them as immaculate. There is every reason to believe,
however, that though Burke over-coloured his picture of the guilt of the
arraigned governor-general, yet his motives were honest and pure. From
the stories related of him, Burke had been led to believe that Hastings
was little better than an incarnate fiend; and he seemed to fancy that
he had a mission from heaven to redress the wrongs, and prevent
the miseries of a large, but weak and oppressed portion of his
fellow-creatures. The motives of Pitt, also, in voting against Hastings,
on the second charge, were brought before the bar of the public. By the
friends of the late governor-general, both in and out of the house, he
was accused of a jealousy and fear of him, although it does not appear
what he had to fear, or of what he had to be jealous, except it was
of his official prerogative: Thurlow, the advocate of Hastings, having
indiscreetly stated that he might have a peerage without the minister’s
interference. But it would rather seem that Pitt was influenced in
his conduct by apprehensions, that, if he supported Hastings
indiscriminately, he should forfeit the popular favour, the general
voice being against the accused. Nor did his majesty escape public
censure on this occasion. While the Rohilla charge was pending, a packet
arrived from India, which brought Hastings a diamond of great size
and value, as a present from the Nizam of the Decean, who had acted
a neutral part during the last war in the Carnatic, but who, as the
company were victorious, was now anxious for British friendship. This
diamond was presented to the king at a levee on the 14th of June, which
was the very day after the decision of the house on the charge relative
to the imposition of the fine on Cheyte Sing. This presentation was made
at an unlucky moment, for it was interpreted by the public as a bribe
to check the “impending vote.” Two nights after, when Major Scott called
the attention of the house to some alarming intelligence which had been
reported concerning Benares, and to some suspicious preparations which
the French were making in the Mauritius, the witty Sheridan said that
the only extraordinary news that had come to his ears, was the arrival
of an extraordinary large diamond, which diamond was said to have been
presented to his majesty at an extraordinary period; and, which was also
extraordinary, presented by an individual charged, by that house with
high crimes and misdemeanors! The story of the diamond soon got abroad,
and it formed the subject not only of public conversation, but of songs,
pamphlets, epigrams, and caricatures. In one caricature, the king
was represented with crown and sceptre huddled in a wheelbarrow, and
Hastings wheeling him about, with a label from his mouth, saying, “What
a man buys he may sell;” while in another the king was depicted on his
knees, with his mouth wide open, and Hastings pitching diamonds into it.
It seems to have been very generally believed at the time that there
was no end to the diamonds possessed by Hastings, and that his majesty
showed him favour for what he could obtain. And this belief was further
strengthened by the fact that the queen, notwithstanding her known
severity towards ladies whose virtue would not bear the test of
examination, had yet received Mrs. Hastings—who had lived with the late
governor-general before her marriage with him, and had been divorced
from her former husband in consequence—at court most graciously. To
account for this phenomenon, people fancied that the wife or the accused
was a “congeries of diamonds and jewels:” and in truth Queen Charlotte
did receive from her hands some few diamonds, and a splendid ivory
bedstead, which seemed to justify their explanation of her conduct. Yet,
after all, Hastings was no Sindbad: he did not roll in diamonds. On
his return to England he did not bring home with him more than £130,000
sterling; a sum much less than the fortunes which had been made by
other members of the council, and even by the patriotic Francis himself!
Moreover, it is said, that he would not have had what he did in reality
possess, had his wife not accepted presents which he refused, and saved
money unknown to him, which he would have spent in the public service,
or in support of his almost regal establishment.




ATTEMPT ON THE KING’S LIFE.

On the 2nd of August, an incident occurred which for a short time
engrossed the attention of the public. As the king was alighting from
his chariot at the garden-entrance of St. James’s palace, a decently
dressed woman presented a paper to his majesty, and while he was in the
act of receiving it, she struck at his breast with a knife. The king
avoided the blow by drawing back, and as she was preparing to make a
second thrust one of the yeomen arrested her, and wrenched the weapon
from her hand. His majesty on recovering from his alarm, humanely
remarked:—“I am not injured; take care of the poor woman, and do not
hurt her.” On examination before the privy-council, it immediately
appeared that she was insane. Being asked where she had lately resided,
she answered in a frantic manner that “she had been all abroad since the
matter of the crown broke out;” and when interrogated, What matter? she
replied, “that the crown was hers, and that if she had not her right,
England would be deluged in blood for a thousand generations.” The
poor woman’s name was Margaret Nicholson, and ten days before she had
presented a petition which was full of incoherent nonsense; and from
which, if it had been read, the person of the petitioner would probably
have been secured. The idea of prosecution was of course abandoned,
and she was consigned to Bethlehem Hospital for life. But though it was
evident that the woman was a maniac, her attempt led to a display of
the affection which the nation entertained towards his majesty. A public
thanksgiving was ordered, and addresses of congratulation flowed in
from all parts of the kingdom. His majesty felt this so deeply that
he distributed the honour of knighthood, on the presentation of these
addresses, with such a liberal hand, as to give rise to the bye-word of
a “A knight of Peg Nicholson’s order!”

{GEORGE III. 1786–1787}




TREATIES WITH FRANCE AND SPAIN.

In the month of September his majesty appointed a new committee of
council, for the consideration of all matters relating to trade and
plantations, of which board Mr. Charles Jenkinson, now created Lord
Hawkesbury, was appointed president. Under the auspices of this
commission, a treaty of commerce was signed between the courts of
England and France, on the 29 th of September, on the principle of
admitting the commodities of each country to be freely exported and
imported at a low _ad valorem_ duty. The chief negociator of this
treaty was Mr. Eden, afterwards Baron Auckland, who, under the coalition
administration, had filled the office of vice-treasurer of Ireland. This
was the first memorable defection from that inauspicious alliance,
and it was considered the more so because Mr. Eden was considered its
original projector.

About the same time a convention was signed with Spain, which terminated
the long-subsisting disputes respecting the British settlements on the
Mosquito shore and the Bay of Honduras. By this treaty the Mosquito
settlements were formally relinquished; and, in return, the boundaries
of those on the coast and Bay of Honduras were somewhat extended. In a
political point of view this convention answered a valuable purpose, by
removing a source of national disputes; but it is to be regretted
that the claims of humanity and justice were overlooked. The Mosquito
settlers, who amounted to many hundred families, and who had from time
immemorial occupied their lands, under British protection, were ordered
to evacuate the country in eighteen months; nothing further being
stipulated in their favour, than that the king of Spain should “order
his governors to grant to the said settlers all possible facilities for
their removal to the settlements agreed on by the present convention.”
 In all measures for the public good, the rights of private individuals
should be regarded, but, by this treaty, they were manifestly
sacrificed.




AFFAIRS OF THE PRINCE OF WALES.

During this year the affairs of the Prince of Wales attracted much
notice. At its commencement he had formed an acquaintance with a
widow lady of the name of Fitzherbert: a lady several years older than
himself, but still possessing many personal attractions. They resided
together at Brighton, and it was first supposed, and then asserted, that
they were married according to the Romish ritual, and the story gained
sufficient credence as to be subsequently noticed in the house of
commons. The money spent in her support, and in orgies, and gambling,
rendered the income which he possessed from the civil list, and the
Duchy of Cornwall revenues, &c., amounting to £64,000 per annum, wholly
inadequate to meet his expenditure, and the consequence was, that he
had contracted debts to the amount of more than £100,000, beside £50,000
expended on Carleton-house. The young prince had long incurred his
majesty’s displeasure for the countenance which he gave to the leaders
of opposition, and to the Whigs in general; and this displeasure was
deepened by his connexion with Mrs. Fitzherbert, and his extravagances.
His majesty, indeed, was deeply afflicted by the conduct of the heir
apparent, and his orgies were more particularly distressing to him,
from the circumstance that they were carried on at a period when, at
the prayer of Mr. Wilberforce and other pious gentlemen, he had issued
a royal proclamation against vice and immorality, and all kinds of
Swearing, drunkenness, and licentiousness. It is said that both the king
and queen had many conversations with him on his dissipated conduct,
and that the latter exerted a mother’s influence to detach him from the
Whigs, and especially from Fox, who stood the highest in his favour. All
their exertions, however, were unavailing: he still drank and gambled,
and still retained his connexion with Mrs. Fitzherbert and the Whigs.
It is probable that had he listened to the advice and remonstrances of
their majesties, that provision would have been made for the payment
of his debts; but when it was found that he resolved to follow his own
course, the king resolved that no assistance should be afforded him,
either out of his own private purse, or by a vote in parliament. In the
preceding session, when Pitt called the attention of the house to the
civil list, Sheridan, who was the most constant companion of the prince,
and was wont by his wit to set his table in a roar, took an opportunity
of mentioning his patron’s embarrassments, and Pitt replied that he
had received no commands from his majesty on the subject, and therefore
could not interfere. This was of bad omen to any application that might
be made to his majesty on the subject, for Pitt doubtless knew that his
majesty had resolved not to recommend its attention to the members
of parliament. Nevertheless, though the prince knew of his father’s
estrangement from him, he afterwards sent Lord Southampton, his groom
of the stole, to lay the state of his affairs before his majesty. Lord
Southampton was graciously received; but the schedule of his royal
highness’s debts was too long to admit of a prompt reply, and he did not
obtain any definite answer to his application. A month elapsed, and then
the king informed his son by letter, that he could sanction neither a
motion in the commons for the increase of his income, nor a motion for a
grant to discharge his debts. For some time a plan had been recommended
by his friends, the Whigs, for the dismissal of the officers of his
court, and the reduction of the establishment of his household to that
of a private gentleman; and this the prince now resolved to carry into
effect. Coach-horses, race-horses, and saddle-horses were all sold; a
stop was put to the works at Carleton-house; the state-apartments were
shut up; the prince dismissed his officers; and he descended so low as
to live like a private gentleman. By this step his estimated savings
were £40,000 per annum; and this was to be set apart, and vested in
trustees, for the payment of his debts. The act was a noble one if the
motive was pure; but that demands a doubt. His majesty had before been
declaimed against as parsimonious and harsh; and he was now represented
as an unnatural parent and a merciless miser, who was hording up
millions, which he had neither the taste nor the spirit to employ;
while, on the other hand, the prince was held up as a living miracle of
honour, and a martyr to his high principles and delicate feelings. The
advisers of the young prince, doubtless, foresaw that this would be the
consequence if he was compelled to make the sacrifice; and the prince
himself could scarcely be a stranger to their expectations. But though,
for the honour of natural affection, he may be acquitted of the charge
of wishing to bring his father into contempt, yet it seems clear he had
an idea that by sinking into obscurity, and, by consequence, lowering
the dignity of the high rank to which he belonged, he should obtain both
an increase of income and a grant for the payment of his debts. But
the event did not justify such an anticipation. All the members of his
father’s court attributed his act to childish spite and spleen, or to
a malicious design of injuring the popularity of his majesty and his
ministers; and when he wrote to the king, explaining his motives, it was
replied, that if he chose to take a rash step, he must likewise take the
consequences. His conduct, indeed, seems to have increased the distance
which had too long subsisted between the prince and his father; for when
he hastened to Windsor, on occasion of his majesty’s escape from the
attempt made upon his life by Margaret Nicholson, although he was
received by the queen, the king refused to see him. But this may have
arisen chiefly from his profligate connexions, which must have been
exceedingly offensive to a mind of such moral and religious mould as
his majesty possessed: a sacrifice made for the payment of debts could
scarcely thus have acted upon honourable feelings, unless, indeed,
the king looked upon it in connexion with his dissipated and gambling
habits. This subject, however, in the dearth of more important, together
with that of the impeachment of Hastings, formed the staple of public
and private discussion; some taking part with the king, and some with
the prince, as best suited their respective views or passions. It would
appear that both Fox and Sheridan assured the prince that his popularity
was so great, as to hold out a certain hope that a money-vote might be
carried, despite his father and the chancellor of the exchequer; and
that having gained his assent to the plan, great exertions were made to
gain the support of the independent members of parliament, although
they lacked the means of purchasing the votes of these said “independent
members.” In the meantime the Duke of Orleans, Philippe Egalité, who was
one of the most intimate friends of the Prince of Wales, and had betted
large sums of money with him this year at Newmarket and Epsom, offered
to relieve his necessities by a loan of French money. The prince
appears to have been inclined to accept the offer; but his Whig friends
discovered it, and convinced him of its impropriety, as it had a
perilous tendency of placing the future sovereign of England in a state
of dependence on the House of Bourbon. But the Whigs in thus advising
the prince, had a care for their own honour as well as his future
interests: had they allowed him to take the money, no matter upon what
conditions, an ill savour would have been brought upon their names as
a party; a savour more odious than that which attaches itself to the
memory of those patriots, in the days of Charles II., who touched the
gold of Louis XIV.




CHAPTER XVI.

{GEORGE III. 1787–1789}

     Meeting of Parliament..... Debate on the Treaty of Commerce
     between England and France..... Pitt’s Plan of Financial
     Reform..... Motion for the Repeal of the Corporation and
     Test Acts..... Affairs of the Prince of Wales..... Motion
     for Inquiry into the Abuses of the Post-Office.....
     Impeachment of Warren Hastings..... Parliament
     Prorogued..... Continental Affairs..... Meeting of
     Parliament..... Dispute between Government and the  East
     India Company..... Pitt’s  Financial  Measures—Additions
     made  to   the Bill for trying Controverted Elections.....
     Claims of the American Royalists, &c. The Slave-Trade
     Question..... Charge against Sir Elijah Impey.....
     Impeachment of Warren Hastings..... Parliament
     Prorogued..... Continental Alliances..... Derangement of His
     Majesty..... Meeting of Parliament..... Debates on the
     regency

{A.D. 1787}




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament met on the 23rd of January. During the preceding year
Fredrick the Great passed off the stage of life, having previously
involved the French and English governments in disagreements, concerning
the troubles which still existed in the Netherlands. No mention was
made of these disagreements and troubles in the king’s speech; but his
majesty dwelt much upon the treaty of navigation and commerce which, as
before related, had been concluded with the French monarch. Against this
treaty and its negociator, Mr. Eden, who had quitted their ranks, and
now supported Pitt, the Whig opposition had a rooted aversion; and
in the debate upon the address, Fox, whose professions of friendship
towards the French were proverbial, not only censured the arrangements,
but sounded the old trumpet of war and national hatred. He denounced
Louis XVI. as a dangerous monarch; dwelt on the ambitious designs and
encroaching spirit of France; blamed ministers for laying aside all
jealousy of that power; and asserted that the court of Versailles was at
that very moment labouring to counteract Pitt’s diplomatists. But though
Fox censured the French treaty, which formed the leading topic of the
king’s speech, he voted for the address, a circumstance for which
he received a little banter from the lips of the minister. Pitt
remarked:—“I am happy that, notwithstanding the vehemence with which
the right honourable gentleman has argued against the address, he is
ready to vote for it. I hope he will continue the same line of conduct
throughout the session; for, if he makes a practice of voting in direct
opposition to his own speeches and arguments, we may look for a greater
degree of unanimity than could otherwise be expected.”




DEBATE ON THE TREATY OF COMMERCE BETWEEN ENGLAND AND FRANCE.

In his speech his majesty promised that a copy of the treaty of commerce
between England and France should be laid before the two houses; and
recommended the members to take measures for carrying it into effect. In
accordance with this promise and recommendation, on the 5th of February,
Pitt moved that the house should resolve itself into a committee, to
take into consideration that part of his majesty’s speech which related
to this treaty. This motion was carried; and on the 12th Pitt brought
the subject before the house, and moved these three resolutions:—That
all articles not enumerated and specified in the tariff should be
importable into this country, on terms as favourable to France as to the
most favoured of all other nations; that if any future treaty should be
made with any other foreign power, in any articles either mentioned or
not mentioned in the present treaty, France should be permitted to enjoy
the same terms as that power; and that all the articles specified in the
tariff should be admitted into this country on payment of the duties,
and with the stipulations stated in the treaty. In moving these
resolutions Pitt entered into an eloquent vindication of the measure,
enforcing its object, spirit, and provisions. He expressed his
abhorrence of the maxim, that any nation was destined to be the natural
and unalterable enemy of the other; it was a libel on the constitution
of political societies, and supposed the existence of infernal malignity
in human nature. In most of our wars, he said, France had been the
aggressor; but her assurances and frankness in the present negociations
were such as to entitle her to a return of confidence. Even from the
recent American war Pitt deduced arguments in favour of the treaty with
France; reflecting that though she had gained her object in dismembering
our empire, she had done it at an expense which had sunk herself in
extreme embarrassment, he thought that she was sincere in her wish for
the benefits of a mutual connexion. These benefits were represented by
opposition to preponderate on the side of France; but Pitt endeavoured
to show that if the scales were held with an even hand, the weightiest
would be on our side. He remarked, “It would be ridiculous to imagine
that the French would consent to yield advantages without any idea of
compensation. The treaty would undoubtedly benefit them, but it would be
still more profitable to us. France might gain, for her wines and other
articles, a large and opulent market; but we should procure the same to
a much greater extent for our manufactures. Both nations are prepared
and disposed for such a connexion. France, by the peculiar dispensation
of Providence, was gifted, perhaps, more than any country on earth,
with what made life desirable, in point of soil, climate, and natural
productions: Britain, on the contrary, possessing these advantages in
a less degree, had, from the happy freedom of its constitution and
the equal security of its laws, risen to a state of great commercial
grandeur, and acquired the ability of supplying France with the
artificial conveniences of life in return for her natural luxuries.”
 Many objections were brought against this treaty by the opposition; Fox
distinguishing himself on this occasion by his hostility to its several
provisions. In his speech Fox re-asserted that France was the natural
and unalterable enemy of England; and that she ought to be considered,
not only as a rival, but as a nation with whom there ought never to be
any political or commercial connexion whatever. Fox, also, again spoke
of the restless ambition of France, and denounced the character of
the French monarch with great bitterness. Like Pitt, he alluded to the
American war; but it was only to heap coals of fire on the heads of
Louis XVI. and his subjects. He accused them of treachery and duplicity;
pointed out the mean way in which they had taken advantage of our
difficulties, and to revive the national animosity existing between the
two nations; and he reaffirmed that no doubt could be left on the
mind of any thinking man, but that the French nation was actuated by a
regular, fixed, and systematic enmity to this country: she might have
changed her policy, but there was no proof that she had changed her
sentiments. But though some plausible objections were suggested by
members of opposition against this measure, the only topic on which they
insisted with any advantage, and, in truth, the only real difficulty
respecting the execution of the treaty, arose from its inconsistency
with the celebrated Methuen treaty, concluded between Great Britain and
Portugal, by which the duties of Portuguese wines imported into England
were in future to be only two-thirds of those imported from France or
any other country. This point, however, was conceded by France during
the progress of the measure, the duty on French wines being lowered to
that existing on the wines of Portugal, which latter it became necessary
to reduce. After several discussions, in which some young members
distinguished themselves, the measure received the concurrence and
sanction of parliament. On the 8th of March both houses presented a
joint address to his majesty, for concluding a treaty calculated to
promote a beneficial intercourse between the two countries, as well as
the permanent blessings of peace. On the whole, the measure tended
to increase Pitt’s popularity; many great commercial towns, which had
hitherto been hostile to him, declared their entire approval of the
treaty, and expressed a conviction that he was seeking the good of his
country.




PITT’S PLAN OF FINANCIAL REFORM.

Encouraged by his success and increased popularity, on the 26th of
February, Pitt introduced a plan for consolidating the various duties
upon articles in the customs and excise, so as to convert them into
single duties upon each article, and thereby get rid of multiplied
grievances to the people, and of a perplexing confusion of accounts, and
wasting expenses of collection to the government, an operation by which
the revenue would gain about £20,000 per annum. At the same time
Pitt proposed to lower the duties on foreign spirits, with a view of
annihilating the smuggling trade, which he stated amounted to 4,000,000
of gallons annually; whilst that which was legally imported and paid
duty did not exceed the sixth part of that quantity. The whole of Pitt’s
plan obtained a large majority in both houses; the leading members of
opposition expressing their approbation of it, as well as the clearness
and perspicuity with which it had been unfolded. On a subsequent day,
the 29th of April, when Pitt opened his budget, he informed the house
that the state of the revenue would enable him to provide for all
services of the current year, and apply the stated surplus to a
sinking-fund, without the necessity of any loan or new tax. Fox and
Sheridan contended that the finances were not in so prosperous a
condition as he had represented; and after specifying certain supposed
errors and fallacies, they called on the minister to supply the alleged
deficiency by the imposition of new taxes. Pitt, however, defended
his own estimates; contending that it was his duty to render, by every
possible means, the taxes already established more productive, rather
than increase the burdens of the people. In following out this judicious
line of policy, he afterwards proposed a measure for enabling the board
of treasury to divide the country into districts, and to farm the duty
on post-horses, the greater part of which was now lost to the exchequer
by collusion between innkeepers and collectors. To make it certain that
the revenue would not suffer by this experiment, he suggested that the
tax for each district should be put up at the highest point it had
ever reached. This was opposed as contrary to the principles of the
constitution, and as tending to oppression, like that exercised in
France, where the taxes were generally farmed. Pitt, however, defended
the measure by the analogy of turnpike-tolls and cross-posts, and by
showing that the oppression alluded to arose, not from the system of
farming, but from an arbitrary form of government, which naturally led
to oppressive modes of collection. The bill passed the commons by a
large majority, and was carried in the upper house without a division.




MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE CORPORATION AND TEST ACTS.

Great exertions had recently been made by the Protestant dissenters,
to show the public the injustice of that policy which restricted
eligibility to office by a religious test. Pamphlets had been written by
able pens, and when it was found that they had produced their intended
effect, delegates were appointed to arrange a plan, and it was
determined to bring the subject before parliament. The dissenters,
moreover, thought the present a favourable opportunity for seeking
relief from their disabilities, because in the late general election
they had, as a body, warmly espoused the ministerial cause. On the 28th
of March, therefore, Mr. Beaufoy, member for Great Yarmouth, himself a
dissenter, and a friend of the minister, made a motion for taking into
consideration the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts, as things
grievous to a large and respectable portion of Society. His general
arguments, with those of Fox, who ably supported the motion, were, that
the Test Act was not originally intended to operate against Protestant
Dissenters, but to prevent the intrigues and influence of the popish
party; that the dissenters deserved well of the nation, and especially
of his majesty’s family, of whom from the Revolution, they had been
the most zealous supporters; that every man having a right to judge for
himself in matters of religion, he ought not, on account of the exercise
of that right, to incur any punishment, or be branded with any marks of
infamy; and that the exclusion from military service and civil trusts
was both a punishment and an opprobrious distinction. The house,
however, was not disposed to take a liberal view of this great question.
Lord North and Pitt, who took the lead in opposing the motion, argued,
that the acts in question were meant to include both Papist and
Protestant dissenters, and that the Corporation Act in particular was
professedly made against dissenters, and not against Papists, though it
eventually included both. The preservation of the Corporation and Test
Acts, they further argued, was essential to the preservation of the
constitution. Yet, by a strange anomaly of sentiment, Pitt declared, in
flattering and explicit terms, the esteem and regard which he felt for
the Protestant dissenters, who had ever approved themselves genuine and
zealous friends of constitutional liberty, of which their conduct during
the late political conflicts had given a memorable proof. Pitt, however,
was resolved to preserve the union, of church and state inviolate, and
it was on this ground chiefly that he opposed the motion, which was lost
on a division, by one hundred and seventy-eight against one hundred. The
dissenters were much disappointed and chagrined at the conduct of Pitt
on this occasion, for it was generally supposed by them, that if he
did not support them, he at least would not have discountenanced their
efforts. It is probable, however, that Pitt himself was in reality in
their favour, but at court a conscientious, and therefore insuperable
hostility existed against such a measure, and a determination on his
part to force it through parliament, would doubtless have led to his
dismissal. Moreover, as there were many important interests involved in
his administration, he may have been led to conclude that the time was
not yet arrived for so bold an enactment.




AFFAIRS OF THE PRINCE OF WALES.

On the 20th of April, Alderman Newnham rose to ask the chancellor of
the exchequer whether he intended to bring forward any proposition, for
extricating the Prince of Wales from his embarrassing situation; and
having received a reply in the negative, he gave notice of his intention
to bring the subject before the house on the 4th of May. On a
subsequent evening, Pitt requested the alderman to inform the house more
particularly of the nature of the motion he intended to make; at the
same time holding out a threat, apparently with the object of preventing
it being brought forward. Nothing daunted, however, on the 27th of
April, Alderman Newnham stated, that the motion he intended to make
would be to this effect:—“That an humble address be presented to his
majesty, praying him to take into consideration the present embarrassed
state of the affairs of the Prince of Wales, and to grant him such
relief as his royal wisdom should think fit, and that the house
would make good the same.” An interesting conversation followed this
announcement, in which Alderman Newnham was entreated to withdraw
his motion, as being pregnant with inconvenience and mischief. Pitt
observed, that by his perseverance he should be driven to the disclosure
of circumstances which he should have otherwise thought it his duty
to conceal; and Mr. Rolle, member for Devonshire, asserted that the
investigation of the question involved matter by which the constitution
both in church and state might be essentially affected. Fox, Sheridan,
and other members in the confidence of the prince, declared that he
wished for a full and impartial investigation of his conduct, and Mr.
Rolle was called upon to explain the extraordinary language he had used.
Rolle was silent on this occasion; and on the 30th of the month, when
Alderman Newnham again brought the subject before the house, by stating
that his royal highness wished him to persevere in his design, Fox
called the attention of the members to his mysterious declaration.
Looking Rolle full in the face, he said that he wished he had spoken
more explicitly; but he supposed he alluded to a certain low and
malicious rumour, a supposed marriage; a thing which not only had not
happened, but which was even impossible. Rolle acknowledged that his
allusions had reference to this rumour, and Fox then contradicted the
report in the most unqualified language: the fact, he said, not only
never could have happened legally, but never did happen in any way
whatsoever, and had, from the beginning, been a base and malicious
falsehood. Fox said, that he had direct authority from his royal
highness for his declaration; and then another of the prince’s friends
called upon Rolle to declare to the house that he was satisfied with
these explanations. This he refused to do, and Sheridan rose and
observed, that such a line of conduct was neither candid nor manly, and
that the house ought to come to a resolution, that it was seditious and
disloyal to propagate reports injurious to the character of the Prince
of Wales. At this point Pitt interposed, by declaring that Sheridan’s,
and not Rolle’s conduct was unparliamentary: adding, that those who
exhibited such warmth ought rather to acknowledge their obligation to
a gentleman who suggested a question which produced such an explicit
declaration on such an interesting subject; a declaration which must
give entire satisfaction not only to him, but to the whole house.
Alderman Newnham still persisted in his intention to bring forward his
motion, but Pitt seems to have considered that after such a declaration
he had no further pretext for refusing the relief which the prince
required. The result was, that an interview took place at Carlton-house
between the premier and the prince, and the motion was withdrawn.
Subsequently a message was delivered from the king to the house on
the subject, which was followed by an addition to his annual income
of £10,000 out of the civil list; an issue of £161,000 from the same
source, for the payment of his debts; and £20,000 more on account of the
works at Carlton-house. In making the declaration, however, which led
to this result, Fox appears to have gone beyond the strict limits of his
commission. Mrs. Fitzherbert continued to live with the prince, and she
alleged, and her friends also alleged for her, that he knew that
there had been a private marriage that was good and binding, _in foro
conscientiæ_, whatever it might be by act of parliament. The lady would
never speak to Fox again, and it is said, that she was only reconciled
to the prince by his assurance that something should be done or said
in parliament to save her reputation, by those very friends who had
emphatically denied the marriage. Something was said by Sheridan, but he
did not venture to unsay what had been said, or to affirm more than that
another person who had been alluded to was without reproach, and
was entitled to the truest and most general respect. With this Mrs.
Fitzherbert seems to have been satisfied; and the society in which she
moved, which was composed of persons that had great influence and almost
absolute dominion over the world of fashion, seems to have considered
her character and reputation as spotless as they were before. But thus
much is certain, that, if the prince and Mrs. Fitzherbert were married,
it was not legally. It is said that a ceremony was performed _more
Catholico_ in the town-house of her uncle, Lord Sefton; but if this
report is true, such a marriage was expressly declared to be null and
void by the law of the country. The terms of the Royal Marriage Act,
moreover, “is explicit against such a marriage, and it is a matter
of wonder how Mrs. Fitzherbert, who was not an inexperienced
boarding-school girl, but a woman of experience, having been twice
married before ever she met the prince, could have been led into the
belief that her union with the prince was legal. Neither a Catholic
priest, nor a Protestant clergyman, nor the functionary at Gretna Green,
could make such a union binding, for the laws of the country could not
be thus set aside. Conscience may have been satisfied, but after all,
the marriage—if marriage there was—was both irregular and illegal.




MOTION FOR INQUIRY INTO THE ABUSES OF THE POST-OFFICE.

On the 15th of May, Mr. Grey called the attention of the house to
certain abuses and corrupt practices in the post-office, which, he said,
had come to his knowledge, in consequence of the dismissal of his
noble relative, the Earl of Tankerville, from the office of
joint-postmaster-general. After stating some very extraordinary
circumstances which had been brought to light by this dismissal, and
charging Lord Carteret, the present postmaster-general, the Earl of
Tankerville’s late colleague in office, with sanctioning the abuses
which existed, and refusing to reform them, Grey moved, “that
a committee be appointed to inquire into certain abuses in the
post-office.” Pitt gave his assent to this motion, which was carried
without a division: a committee was appointed, and a report was brought
up from that committee on the 23rd of May. The report contained some
startling matter, and it was ordered to be taken into consideration on
the 28th of the above month. On that day Mr. Grey accordingly introduced
the consideration of the report, in doing which he strongly reprobated
the conduct of Lord Carteret, and blamed Pitt himself. He concluded his
speech with moving, ‘“That it appears to this house that great abuses
have prevailed in the post-office, and that, the same being made known
to his majesty’s ministers, it is their duty, without loss of time, to
make use of such measures as are in their power to reform them.” The
post-office was defended by Pitt and Lord Maitland, the latter of whom
moved, first, the previous question, and then that the report should be
put off for three months, both of which motions were carried without a
division. The debate on this question was not only remarkable for the
awkward disclosures concerning the practices in the post-office which
were thereby elicited, but for the personalities in which honourable
members indulged; especially Pitt, Fox, Grey, and Sheridan. The effect
produced out of doors by it were very prejudicial to Pitt and his party,
for the report of the committee went to show that great abuses existed,
and yet all inquiry was nipped in the bud by a ministerial majority.
To have sustained his character as a reformer of abuses, Pitt ought,
certainly, to have acted firmly in the matter; but instead of this he
chose to attribute the part which Mr. Grey had taken to his youth and
inexperience. Pitt himself was only twenty-eight years of age, and after
he sat down, Sheridan rose, and in a merry mood ridiculed the gravity
with which an unmerited reproof had been bestowed upon his friend,
by “the veteran statesman of four years’ experience; the Nestor of
twenty-eight!”




IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.

During the previous debates, Burke had not been idle with his
impeachment of Hastings. On the first day of the session he gave notice
that he should resume proceedings on the 1st of February. It was not,
however, till the 7th of that month that any other direct charge was
entered into; and then Sheridan brought forward that which related to
the resumption of the jaghires, and the confiscation of the treasures
of the Begums, or Princesses of Oude, the mother and grandmother of the
reigning nabob. Imperfect records of the brilliant speech which Sheridan
uttered on this occasion, and which occupied five hours in the delivery,
now remain, but of its force some faint idea may be formed, by the
following brief extract. The orator remarked:—“The conduct of Mr.
Hastings, respecting the Nabob and Begums of Oude, comprehends in it
every species of human offence. He has been guilty of rapacity, at
once violent and insatiable; of treachery, cool and premeditated; of
oppression, unprovoked; off barbarity, wanton and unmanly. So long since
as the year 1775, the Begum princess, wife of Sujah-ul-Dowla, wrote to
him in the following terms:—‘If it be your pleasure that the mother of
the late nabob, that myself, his other women, and his infant children,
should be reduced to a state of dishonour and distress, we must submit:
but if, on the contrary, you call to mind the friendship of the late
blessed nabob, you will exert yourself effectually in favour of us, who
are helpless.’ But inflamed by disappointment at Benares, he hastened
to the fortress of Chanar, to put in execution the atrocious design of
instigating the nabob, son of this princess, to matricide and plunder.
No sooner had Mr. Hastings determined to invade the substance of justice
than he resolved to avail himself of her judicial forms, and despatched
a messenger for the chief-justice of India to assist him in perpetrating
the violence which he meditated. Without a moment’s pause, or the shadow
of process instituted, sentence was pronounced; and thus at the same
time, when the sword of government was converted into an assassin’s
dagger, the pure ermine of justice was stained and soiled with the
basest contamination. It was clear to demonstration that the Begums were
not concerned in the insurrection of Benares. No: their treasures
were their treason. If the mind of Mr. Hastings were susceptible of
superstition, he might image the proud spirit of Sujah-ul-Dowla looking
down on the ruin and devastation of his family; beholding the palace
which he had adorned with the spoils of the devoted Rohillas, plundered
by his base and perfidious ally; and viewing the man whom on his
death-bed he had constituted the guardian of his wife, his mother, and
his family, forcibly exposing those dear relations, the objects of his
solemn trust, to the rigour of the merciless seasons, or the violence
of the more merciless soldiery. Such were the awful dispensations of
retributive justice. It was not given to that house to witness the
tremulous joys of the millions whom the vote of that night would save
from the cruelty of corrupted power. But the blessing of the people thus
delivered would not be dissipated in empty air. No: they would lift up
their prayers to heaven, in gratitude to the power, which, by
stretching its mighty arm across the deep, bad saved them from ruin and
destruction.” This subject was peculiarly favourable to a display of
that impassioned eloquence in which the orators of antiquity so much
excelled, when acting as public accusers; and it is universally agreed
that Sheridan’s speech was incomparably the best of its class that had
ever been delivered in the British senate. Its power was seen in its
effects. When the orator sat down, all, or nearly all in the house,
both members, peers, and strangers, joined in a tumult of applause,
and clapped their hands as though they were in a theatre. This was
exceedingly irregular and indecorous, but it shows that Sheridan had
enlisted the feelings of his audience on his side. So manifest were
the effects which it produced, that Sir William Dolben, a friend of
Hastings, foreseeing a conviction if the house divided in the midst of
such excitement, moved that there should be an adjournment. Pitt was in
favour of this motion; but Fox, who wished for a division as much as Sir
William Dolben feared it, objected, and reminded gentlemen that it was
still “only midnight.” He remarked:—“It is obvious that the speech just
delivered has made no ordinary impression; and I see no reason why we
may not come to the question. If any friend of Mr. Hastings should wish
to attempt effacing the impression, this appears to be the proper time
for doing it.” Major Scott, in reply, stated that he could convict
Sheridan of gross misrepresentation of facts, and professed his
willingness to proceed if it was the pleasure of the house; but Pitt
interposed, and an adjournment took place at one o’clock in the morning.
The debate was resumed on the morrow by Francis, the most bitter enemy
Hastings had in the house, and who heightened the picture which Sheridan
had so forcibly drawn. Major Scott replied, and used some powerful
arguments on behalf of the accused. The most powerful was that with
which he concluded his speech. He observed:—“One fact no man can doubt;
namely, that the sum procured from the princesses of Oude could not have
been raised from any other source. And, without that supply, we might
now have been debating here how Mr. Hastings should be impeached—not
for saving, but for losing India.” Scott’s speech made some impression
on the house, but it was of no avail, inasmuch as Sheridan had succeeded
in convincing Pitt that Hastings was guilty. Pitt said that he had
compared the charge minutely with the evidence; that he was ready to
concur with the motion; and that he thought himself bound to vote with
Sheridan. The conduct of Hastings in authorising the resumption of the
jaghires, and seizure of the treasures of the princesses was, in his
opinion, unjustifiable; and the crime was aggravated by making the son
the instrument of robbing his mother, and by refusing to revise his
proceedings, in obedience to the orders of the directors. Pitt’s
explicit declarations made conviction certain, and though some members
of administration looked blank and disappointed, upon a division
Sheridan’s proposition was carried by one hundred and seventy-five
against sixty-eight.

Some days were again employed in the examination of witnesses touching
affairs with the Nabob of Ferruckabad; after which, on the 2nd of
March, this fourth charge was opened by Mr. Pelham. In it Hastings was
accused of withdrawing his protection from that prince, in consequence
of having received a present of £100,000 from the Vizier of Oude; and
of being the primary cause of that cruel oppression, which the nabob
for many years had suffered from the vizier, under whom he held his
dominion. The debate on this subject was very dry, but it was rendered
remarkable by a new advocate of the accused, in the person of the
veteran sailor, Admiral Hood, who had maintained the honour of the
British flag in the late war. Hood argued that great allowance ought to
be made for persons in high and responsible situations; they frequently
finding themselves compelled to act in a manner not strictly consonant
with the rules of equity and justice. With honest simplicity Hood
illustrated his argument by his own delinquency. When in the West
Indies, he said, his fleet was in extreme distress for want of bread,
and he obtained a supply by resorting to means which the law did not
authorize. “Those acts,” he continued, “were indispensable to the
preservation of my ships and my men; yet, if the government had not
stood between me and legal prosecutions, I should in all probability
have been condemned to linger out the remainder of my days in prison.”
 Hood said that he considered the eminent services and merits of Hastings
outweighed his errors and delinquencies, and expressed his fears lest
any censure or punishment of him, might operate as a check on the
exertions of future governors and commanders. He added:—“I am an old
man: at my time of life I can entertain no expectation of being again
employed on active foreign service; but I speak for those who come after
me. My regard for my country makes me anxious to prevent a precedent by
which all her services for the future would be greatly impeded; this I
am confident will be the effect of punishing any harsh and severe, but
perhaps necessary, stretches of power, which the saviour of India may
have been found to have committed.” It was thought that if Hood had
advocated the cause of Hastings at on earlier stage of the proceedings,
he might have stopped them with such arguments altogether; but, as it
was, it only served to draw declarations from Pitt which left Hastings
no other hope than that of an acquittal in Westminster-hall. Pitt said
that he should have given a silent vote on the question before the
house, but he felt himself called upon to answer the argument used, lest
the weight of his lordship’s authority on such subjects might mislead
the judgment of the committee. For himself he must ever prefer what was
right to what was expedient. At the same time Pitt admitted, that if a
servant of the public should carry his exertions beyond the strict line
of right, or even of necessity, all due merit should be allowed him,
and the abundance of his zeal should be allowed as an atonement for
the irregularity of his actions and the error of his judgment. But, he
asked, was the conduct of Hastings correspondent to such a principle?
Was the crime that day alleged against him justified by necessity? Was
it of such a size and complexion as could be justified by any necessity?
Wherever a departure was made from justice and right, it was not
sufficient to say that such a step was necessary; the party must prove
the necessity, and this, in his opinion, had not been done. With regard
to the merits of Hastings, he confessed, there had been a period
in which such an argument might have been urged with effect. At the
commencement of the proceedings, the house might have weighed his
crimes against his virtues, and considered whether the latter were
of sufficient excellence to counterbalance the former. Such a
consideration, however, could not with any propriety be entertained
after the inquiry had once been instituted: the committee were not then
required to determine on a general view of facts, the general merits
or demerits of the accused, but on the investigation of a particular
transaction, on the criminality or innocence of that single transaction.
Still Pitt admitted that there remained a stage, in which the merits of
the accused might and ought to be weighed against his failings; which
time, he said, was, when in case of conviction on the charges alleged
against him, he came to receive sentence. Pitt concluded by saying,
that, with respect to the particular charge under discussion, Hastings
had clearly convicted himself of criminality, and by contending that the
deed admitted of no plea of necessity. Upon a division the motion was
carried by a majority of one hundred and twelve against fifty.

The charge relating to abuses, for selfish purposes, in contracts and
salaries, was opened on the 15th of March, by Sir James Erskine, who
endeavoured to show that Hastings had made both corrupt and improvident
bargains for providing bullocks, elephants, &c.; that he had grossly
favoured individuals that were devoted to his will, and useful in his
designs, at the expense of the company; and that he had been guilty
of abuses in the opium contracts. As usual, Major Scott defended the
accused, and entered with great minuteness into the particulars of
the charge; but on a division the motion was carried by sixty against
twenty-six.

The affair relative to Fyzoola Khan, the Rohilla chief, who retained
possession of Rampore in Rohilicund, was brought forward on the 22nd of
March, by Mr. Wyndham. The eloquence and nice metaphysics of Wyndham’s
speech were much admired, but he evidently misstated some of the facts
and bearings of the case. Major Scott proved this to demonstration;
but on a division, the motion was carried by ninety-six against
thirty-seven.

The seventh charge, relating to the corrupt receiving of bribes and
presents, was opened by Mr. Sheridan on the 2nd of April. It was clear
that Hastings had been singularly indifferent as to riches for his
own use yet the orator imputed to him the grossest corruption and most
ravenous greed for money. He remarked:—“He is changeable in
every thing but corruption; there, and only there he is systematic,
methodical, immutable. His revenge is furious as a tempest, or a
tornado; but his corruption is a monsoon; a trade-wind, blowing
uniformly from one point of the compass, and wafting the wealth of India
to the same port, in one certain direction.” In his speech, however, in
indulging his wit and irony, Sheridan gave vent to some sallies, which
showed that he was convinced that Hastings had not received the presents
for himself, but for his employers. Describing the accommodating
morality of the court of directors, and their correspondence with
the governor-general, he remarked that it might be thus
condensed:—“Forasmuch as you have accepted presents, we highly
disapprove of your conduct; but inasmuch as you have applied them to the
credit side of our account, we exceedingly approve your conduct.” Major
Scott again defended Hastings; but on this occasion Lord Mulgrave and
Mr. William Grenvilie, who had before differed from Pitt, spoke very
strongly against the accused, and condemned his conduct as highly
criminal, and Scott himself conld not deny the facts alleged against
him. Many members, indeed, who had supported Hastings on the other
charges, voted against him in this, and on a division the motion was
carried by one hundred and sixty-five against fifty-four.

Though two charges remained to be discussed, the house now resumed, and
the report of the committee was brought up by the chairman. It was moved
that the report “be now read the first time;” but it was suggested by
Pitt that the charges considered should be referred to a committee, in
order that they might select the criminal matter out of them, and frame
it into articles of impeachment. Pitt suggested this plan, that he, with
other members, might be left to deliver their votes freely on the grand
question. He wished it to be understood, he said, that he only went to
a certain length, and that he could not join in a vote of impeachment,
which might seem to countenance the whole of each several accusation.
After some objections on the part of Fox, this suggestion was agreed
to, and the report was then turned over to a committee, for the purpose
which Pitt proposed. In the meantime, on the 19th of April, Francis
opened the eighth charge, which related to the management of the
revenues of Bengal. Much had been recently said of the personal
hostility which Francis entertained towards Hastings, and he commenced
his speech by disclaiming such a feeling, and by asserting that his
animosities were all of a public, and not of a private nature; after
which he entered into an elaborate discussion of the charge, enumerating
the different modes which Hastings had adopted of managing the revenues
in question. Major Scott replied to Francis, and on this occasion Pitt
defended the accused; but upon a division the motion was carried
by seventy-one against fifty-five. The committee appointed to frame
articles of impeachment from the first seven resolutions of the house
were...... Burke, Fox, Sheridan, Sir James Erskine, T. Pelliam, Wyndham,
St. John, J. Ansturther, Welbore Ellis, Michael Angelo Taylor, W. Adam,
Sir Grey Cooper, Philip Francis, F. Montague, Mr. Grey, Sir Gilbert
Elliot, Dudley Long, Lord Maitland, Colonel North, and General Burgoyne.
On the 25th of April, Burke, as chairman of this committe, presented six
articles of impeachment, which were forthwith read for the first time,
and ordered to be printed, and to be taken into consideration on the
9th of May. On that day, accordingly, it was moved that the articles of
impeachment should be read a second time, which motion gave rise to a
long debate. Hastings was again warmly defended by Lord Hood, who went
over his previous arguments, and implored the house to recollect that
whatever errors the accused had committed, he had, notwithstanding,
saved the most valuable possessions of the British empire. On this
occasion, also, Hastings was defended by Wilkes, who had almost veered
round to the opposite point of the political compass from that at which
he had started in early life, and who made one of the most effective
speeches that had been delivered on the subject. Wilkes moved an
amendment that the report should be read a second time that day three
months; and he was followed and supported by Nathaniel Smith, chief
secretary to the court of directors, Alderman Thompson, and Islay
Campbell, lord advocate, the latter of whom reviewed the whole subject,
both as a lawyer and a statesman. Other members, also, expressed their
dissent to an impeachment; and Mr. Burgess produced an address, just
received from the British officers now commanding in India, in which
they all bore testimony to the excellent character, high abilities, and
important services of the late governor-general. All the exertions of
the friends of Hastings, however, proved unavailing. At a late hour Pitt
delivered his authoritative opinion; and he having declared that it was
impossible for him to vote against the motion, and that the house could
no otherwise consult its own honour, its duty to the country, and the
ends of public justice than by sending the impeachment to the lords;
the motion was carried by a majority of one hundred and seventy-five to
eighty-nine. The first article was then read, and agreed to without a
division, and the rest were all passed with some trifling amendments
on the following day. Burke then rose and moved, “that Warren Hastings,
Esq., be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors upon the said
articles.” This, after some observations made by Mr. Sumner—who had
been in the company’s service in India—complaining of the virulence
with which the house prosecuted Hastings, was carried without a
division; and Mr. F. Montague, one of the committee of managers, next
moved, “that Mr. Burke, in the name of the house of commons, and of all
the commons of Great Britain, do go to the bar of the house of lords,
and impeach Warren Hastings, Esq., late Governor-general of Bengal, of
high crimes and misdemeanors, and do acquaint the lords that the commons
will, with all convenient speed, exhibit articles against him, and make
good the same.” This motion was also agreed to without a division, and
Burke forthwith performed his commission; and on the next day, the 11th
of May, he reported to the house what he had done, and proposed that
Messrs. Wallis and Troward should be retained, to act as solicitors for
the impeachment on the part of the commons. Nothing further was done
till the 14th of May, when Burke brought forward the last charge, in
which he accused Hastings of being the cause of all the distresses which
had afflicted the province of Oude, a charge that was voted unanimously.
It was expected that Burke would rest here for the present session; but
on the 21st he moved, “that Warren Hastings, Esq., be taken into the
custody of the sergeant-at-arms of this house.” This was agreed to and
done; and the sergeant-at-arms delivered him into the custody of the
gentleman-usher of the black rod, by whom he was conducted to the bar
of the lords. On the motion of the lord chancellor, however, he was
admitted to bail—himself in £20,000, and two sureties, Mr. Sullivan and
Mr. Sumner, in £10,000 each—and he was ordered to deliver in an answer
to the articles of impeachment in one month from that time, or upon
the second day of the next session of parliament. On the same day, the
seventh article of impeachment being presented to the house by Burke,
was ordered to be carried up to the lords; and on the 23rd, thirteen
more articles were presented to the commons, which were subsequently
carried to the upper house.

{GEORGE III. 1787–1789}




PARLIAMENT PROROGUED.

The session was closed on the 30th of May, when the king, in his speech,
commended the measures taken by parliament respecting the reduction of
the national debt, and the treaty of navigation and commerce with the
most christian king. His majesty spoke of the general tranquillity of
Europe; but lamented the unhappy dissensions which prevailed in the
United Provinces.




CONTINENTAL AFFAIRS.

At this time the attention of government was particularly called to
the troubled state of Holland. The dissensions which had long subsisted
between the stadtholder and the states had arisen to an alarming height,
and demanded the interposition of foreign powers. The French were
favourable to the States of Holland; but, on the other hand, the
cause of the stadtholder was warmly espoused by the King of Prussia in
conjunction with Great Britain. Frequent skirmishes took place between
the Orangists and the democrats ef Utrecht; and in the midst of these
contests, the Princess of Orange, who had more courage than her husband,
the stadtholder, set eff from Nimeguen for the Hague, accompanied
by only a few domestics, with a view of negociating with the
States-general. It is thought that the King of Prussia recommended
this journey, with a view of drawing from it some plausible ground of
interfering in behalf of the House of Orange, and if he did, it fully
answered his purpose. The princess, who was of the royal house of
Prussia, advanced as far as Schoonhoven where she was surrounded by a
party of armed burghers, who conducted her to a small town, there
to await the further will of those who governed the democrats.
Commissioners soon arrived from head-quarters; and they not only refused
her permission to proceed to the Hague, but conducted her back to
Schoonhoven as a prisoner. She remained there two nights and a day,
when, after experiencing insolent treatment from the soldiers who had
her in custody, she was directed to return to Nimeguen. While a prisoner
the princess had written letters to her brother, the King of Prussia;
and on hearing of the insult offered to her, his rage knew no bounds.
He insisted that immediate satisfaction should be made, and exemplary
punishment inflicted on those who had committed the outrage; declaring
at the same time, in some public manifestoes, that this cause was
in itself sufficient to justify an armed intervention. The States of
Holland, however, cherishing a hope that the French, who had led them
on, would not abandon their cause, passed a resolution, justifying
and approving the conduct of their commissioners in the arrest of the
Princess of Orange; and plainly told Frederic William, in their reply to
his demand, that the object of the princess in going to the Hague was
to create a civil war, and that there had not been any real insult or
injury. At the same time the States-general acknowledged the justice of
the King of Prussia’s complaint, and stated that they had made repeated
applications to the States of Holland upon the subject, but which had
been disregarded. Still determined upon obtaining satisfaction, Fredric
William, by his ambassador at the Hague, now demanded that the States of
Holland should write a letter of apology to the princess; should punish,
at her requisition, those who had been guilty of the offences offered to
her august person; should declare that their suspicions about her object
in going to the Hague were unfounded; should revoke the resolutions
which they had voted; and should accompany this revocation of the
resolutions with an invitation of her royal highness to come to the
Hague, for the purpose of entering into negociations in the name of the
stadtholder, her husband, for the adjustment of all differences. The
States of Holland were not in a condition to withstand a Prussian army,
but still hoping for aid from the court of Versailles, they refused to
accede to these humiliating terms, and issued their orders for laying
the country under water, so soon as any Prussian troops should make
their appearance on the frontiers. Thus braved, the king of Prussia
issued his mandate for war with the refractory states. And in this he
was countenanced by the English government. Although nothing at this
time could have been less agreeable to Pitt than the prospect of a war,
his heart being set on economical reforms and financial arrangements,
yet the reduction of the United Provinces to a state of dependence on
France, as was menaced by the French court, was not to be endured, and
he therefore entered cordially into the policy of the Prussian monarch.
As the friends of the house of Orange were in want of money, Pitt
supplied them with a loan, without the authority of parliament; and he
offered to the States-general, through our ambassador at the Hague,
the mediation of the British government, for the restoration of their
legitimate government under the authority of the stadtholder. But Pitt’s
offers of mediation were rejected, and the oligarchical party applied
for assistance to France. The court of Versailles made a regular
notification to that of St. James’s of its intention to aid the
States-general, and the British minister replied that in such a case
England would take an active part in favour of the stadtholder. Pitt,
indeed, engaged the Landgrave of Hesse Cassel to furnish 12,000 troops,
if they should be required, and at the same time sent dispatches, both
by sea and land, to Bengal and Madras, directing the governors of those
provinces, in case of war, to attack the French possessions in India
and to seize the Dutch settlements in the name of the stadtholder. His
prompt measures had the effect of overawing the court of Versailles, and
being likewise distracted by its own financial embarrassments, it was
under the mortifying necessity of abandoning those designs on the United
Provinces, which had long been among its most cherished projects. In the
meantime, on the 13th of September, the Duke of Brunswick, who commanded
the Prussian forces in the contiguous duchy of Cleves, entered Holland
at the head of 20,000 troops. The Dutch had boldly defied the King of
Prussia, but their consternation at this event was extreme, and the
country seemed everywhere unprepared for resistance. Utrecht surrendered
to the Duke almost as soon as summoned; Gorcum, Dordt, Schoonhoven, and
other towns in his route, tamely submitted to him; and Amsterdam,
which alone made any show of resistance, after a fortnight’s siege,
was captured. So rapid were his successes, that the proud republic of
Holland, which had maintained a contest of eighty years against the
power of Spain, and which repulsed the attacks of Louis XIV., when in
the zenith of his glory, was in the course of one month overrun by the
troops of the conqueror. The result was, that the stadtholder was not
only reinstated in his former privileges, but gratified with new, and
that the ancient forms of government were re-established. Tranquillity
being restored, the Duke of Brunswick withdrew the main body of his
forces from Holland, leaving 4,000 only for the security of peace,
and the protection of the stadtholder. About the same time an amicable
arrangement was effected between the courts of England and France, by
which it was agreed to discontinue warlike preparations on both sides,
and to place the navy of each kingdom on the peace establishment. War,
therefore, was averted; Pitt was left to pursue his measures of reform
undisturbed, and the court of Versailles to consider its financial
embarrassments. But in Holland this triumph of the Orangists did not put
an end to the disaffection that prevailed throughout the country; on
the contrary, it facilitated the conquest of the United Provinces by the
revolutionary army of France.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Notwithstanding the affairs on the continent were brought to a happy
termination, it was deemed expedient to re-assemble parliament much
earlier than had been usual for some months past. It met on the 27th of
November, and the speech from the throne expressed great satisfaction
that the disputes in the United Provinces, which not only threatened
their constitution but affected the security and interests of the
British dominions, had been so happily arranged. His majesty entered
into a detail of the negociations which had taken place; after which
he made some remarks on the flourishing state of the revenue, and the
advantages that might be expected from the continuance of peace. The
addresses were agreed to _nem. con._, in both houses. Fox acknowledged
that if it were possible for him on the present occasion to refuse his
concurrence with the sentiments conveyed by his majesty’s speech, or
to oppose the motion, he should commit an outrage against all those
principles and opinions by which his political career had been uniformly
marked. Fox also expressed his warmest approbation of the energetic
conduct of ministers in preventing France from interfering in the
affairs of Holland, and said, that it was his unalterable opinion, that
this country ought, whenever occasion required, to take a vigorous part
in preserving the balance of power in Europe. Yet, though Fox might be
sincere when he uttered these sentiments, he soon showed that he was
still as hostile as ever to ministers. Two nights after he moved for an
address to his majesty, that he would direct copies, or extracts from
any notification made by the court of France of the intention of the
most Christian king to interfere in the affairs of Holland, to be laid
before the house; and he now contended that ministers had incurred
unnecessary expenses, as the King of France never had any intention of
an armed interference. This motion was negatived without a division, but
on the 5th of December, when Pitt moved that a sum not exceeding £36,093
should be granted to the Prince of Hesse Cassel for the year 1788, Fox
again cavilled, by insisting that further information was necessary,
and that it was essential to show how these Hessian troops were to be
employed. Burke showed himself more noble than his friend Fox on this
occasion, for though he expressed a hope that no notion was entertained
of introducing foreign troops into this island, he made no strong
objection to the subsidy proposed, and he warmly commended the measures
which had been pursued with respect to Holland, and congratulated
ministers on their having renewed our connexions with that country.
Pitt’s motion was agreed to unanimously. On the 10th of December a long
debate took place on the subject of an augmentation of forces, which
was proposed by the secretary-at-war, but the views of ministers were
adopted by a large majority, and 3064 additional land-troops were voted.
Money was also voted for erecting fortifications in some of the West
Indian islands, which had seriously felt the want of them during the
late war. These measures were followed by a debate on the numerous
promotions which had recently been made in the navy. Sixteen captains
had been created admirals during the summer, while a much greater
number had been passed over in silence and neglect. This excited great
discontent, and opposition endeavoured to show that great partiality had
been displayed, and a motion was made in the house of commons, “That the
house should resolve itself into a committee to inquire into the conduct
of the admiralty in the business of the promotion.” This motion was
negatived; but subsequently, after the Christmas recess, the subject
was renewed in both houses, in the course of the debates on which
the conduct of Lord Howe, the first lord of the admiralty, became
the subject of severe censure, and he resigned in disgust both with
ministers and parliament. He was succeeded by Pitt’s elder brother, the
Earl of Chatham.




DISPUTES BETWEEN GOVERNMENT, AND THE EAST INDIA COMPANY.

{A.D. 1788}

During the late disputes, when a rupture with. France was anticipated,
government had dispatched four regiments of soldiers for the protection
of our East India territories; and when the disputes were settled, it
was determined to render this addition to the military establishment a
permanent measure. The court of directors had acceded to the proposal
when originally made by the board of control, and had consented that
the troops should be conveyed in their ships and maintained at their
expense. When, however, an amicable arrangement had taken place with
France, and all danger was over, the directors changed their sentiments,
and contended that unless they themselves made the requisition, they
were by Lord North’s bill of 1781, relieved from the obligation-of
maintaining any troops that might be sent to India. In this opinion
several eminent lawyers, whom they had consulted, appeared to coincide.
On the other hand, Pitt, supported by the crown lawyers, asserted that
the act of 1784 transferred to the board of control all powers formerly
vested in the court of directors, relative to military and political
concerns, as well as the collection and application of the revenues. It
was contended on the part of government, indeed, that those parts of the
act of 1781 which were inconsistent with those of the act of 1784, were,
by the latter, virtually, if not actually repealed. Inconsequence of
these disputes, on the 25th of February Pitt moved for leave to bring in
a bill for removing the doubts in question, and for declaring that the
intention of the legislature, in the act of 1784, was agreeable to the
construction put upon it by the board of control. In support of his
motion Pitt said, that “in his mind nothing could be more clear than
that there was no one step that could have been taken previous to
passing the act of 1784, by the court of directors, touching the
military and political concerns of India, and also the collection,
management, and application of thes revenues of the territorial
possessions, that the commissioners of the board of control had not now
a right to take, by virtue of the powers and authority vested in them by
the act of 1784.” Dundas went even further than Pitt in support of the
motion, for he declared, that the board of control might, if it chose,
devote the whole revenue of India to the purpose of its defence, without
leaving the company a single rupee. Leave was given to bring in the
bill, without a division, but in all its stages, when introduced, it met
with a formidable opposition. Among the objections raised against it,
it was stated, that if passed, an army might be established in India
without the knowledge or consent of parliament. In order to obviate
this, Pitt proposed to add a clause, limiting the number of troops
for the payment of which the board of control were empowered to issue
orders. It was further urged as an objection, that the board might
apply the revenues of India for the creation of undue influence, to the
prejudice of the company’s interests, by the increase of salaries
or perquisites, to prevent which Pitt proposed two other clauses,
prohibiting gratuities, unless recommended by the directors; and
stopping all increase of salary, unless proposed by the directors, and
submitted to parliament. Pitt added a fourth clause, directing that
the directors should lay annually before Parliament an account of the
produce of all their revenues, and of all their disbursements. By these
clauses every real objection to the bill was obviated; but resistance
was still made to it, and the third reading was only carried by a
majority of fifty-four, which, at this period, was considered a very
small majority. The bill encountered a violent opposition in the house
of lords, also; but it was finally carried by a majority of
seventy-one against twenty-eight. Sixteen peers signed a long and
powerfully-expressed protest, representing the bill as friendly
to corrupt intrigue and cabal, hostile to all good government, and
abhorrent to the principles of our constitution.




PITT’S FINANCIAL MEASURES.

Pitt proposed his budget for the year, on the 6th of May. In doing so he
expressed great satisfaction at the flourishing state of our finances;
stating, that although some extraordinary expenses had been incurred
by the events of last year, yet, such was the improved condition of the
revenue, that it afforded means of providing for all the services which
had been voted, without any loan or new taxes, and without the slightest
interruption to the action of the sinking-fund. This he proved by a
statement of figures, and although Sheridan attempted to controvert
his statements, they could not be proved fallacious. Of all men in
the house, indeed, Sheridan was the most unfit to enter into financial
computations, for his genius rather lay in rhetoric than in figures. In
the supplies, 18,000 seamen were voted, and about 29,000 land-forces,
beside those that were on foreign service.




ADDITIONS MADE TO THE BILL FOR TRYING CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.

During this session Mr. Grenville proposed and carried certain
amendments and additions to his father’s hill, for better regulating the
trial of controverted elections. The principal of these related to the
interruption of public business, by frivolous petitions, to obviate
which the election committee were empowered to adjudge that a party
prosecuting or supporting any such petition should pay reasonable costs.
By these amendments, also, a rule was laid down for re-establishing the
rights of election, and rendering them immutable.




CLAIMS OF THE AMERICAN ROYALISTS, ETC.

At the conclusion of peace, commissioners had been appointed to inquire
into the losses of the American loyalists, and during this session Pitt
submitted to the house a plan of liquidation. The loyalists were divided
by him into three classes: those who resided in America at the beginning
of the war, and from motives of duty to their sovereign had abandoned
their estates and property; those who at the commencement of the war
had been resident in England, and consequently had not been driven from
America; and those who having enjoyed places or exercised professions
in America, were compelled to leave that country by the war. Pitt rested
their claims on the ground of national generosity and compassion, rather
than of strict justice; and he proposed to pay to the two first classes
the whole of their claims, if they did not exceed £10,000 and beyond
that sum, to deduct from them a _per centage_, greater in the case of
the second class than in the first; and to the third class he proposed
to allow pensions, proportionate to the incomes which they had
relinquished; those whose incomes had not exceeded four hundred
pounds, receiving one half, by way of annuity. A sum amounting to
about £1,340,000 was voted for this purpose. Pitt also, with the
entire concurrence of the house, settled the case of the East Florida
claimants, who had been obliged to quit their habitations and property,
when their country was ceded to Spain. As their losses had arisen
from the voluntary act of government, Pitt thought that they should be
indemnified for their losses, and the sum of £113,952 was voted to
them. Another measure of mercy was a bill for granting to the Earl of
Newburgh, grandson of Charles Radcliffe, beheaded in 1746, for his
share in the rebellion of 1715, a clear rent-charge of £2,500 out of the
estates forfeited by the said Charles Radcliffe, and his brother James,
third Earl of Derwentwater, who forfeited his life on the same account
in 1710, which estates had been settled upon Greenwich Hospital. This
bill afforded great relief to an amiable and deserving nobleman.




THE SLAVE-TRADE QUESTION.

During the present reign several petitions had been presented to
parliament on the subject of the slave-trade; some praying for its total
abolition, and others for a more humane treatment of the African slaves
in the West Indian islands. The honour of first taking up this cause of
humanity in England, as well as in America, belongs to the Society of
Friends, a society which is ever ready to exert its influence for the
good of mankind. By degrees, however, the subject was taken up by men
of all creeds and classes; orators, poets, and prose writers exposed the
iniquity of trafficking in the bones and sinews of men, and by this time
a general feeling existed in favour of the oppressed sons of Africa. A
society was now formed, indeed, and a considerable sum of money raised,
with a view to collect information on the subject, and to support the
expense of an application to parliament for the total abolition of the
slave-trade; great exertions being necessary to insure success, because
it was foreseen that self-interest would oppose a powerful barrier to
the proposed emancipation. Among those who exerted themselves in this
holy cause were Mr. Thomas Clarkson, Mr. Ramsy, Mr. Thornton, Mr.
Granville Sharpe, Lady Middleton, and Mrs. Bouverie, the two former
as writers on the subject, and the remainder as labourers in procuring
converts and subscriptions in the principal towns of England. The great
champion of the cause, however, was the philanthropic and warm-hearted
Wilberforce, the bosom-friend of the premier. Mr. Wilberforce seems to
have been impressed with the idea that this work, with the reformation
of manners, were the two great objects of his life; and to the
suppression of the slave-trade he resolved to devote his whole
parliamentary career. As might be expected, Wilberforce endeavoured to
bring Pitt over to his cause; and he so far succeeded—his persuasions
also being aided by thirty petitions which had, during this session,
been laid on the table—as to induce the minister to issue a summons to
certain members of the privy-council, to examine, as a board of trade,
the state of our commercial intercourse with Africa. This privy-council
was soon engaged in hearing witnesses; some on the part of the African
merchants, who endeavoured to prove the necessity and humanity of the
slave-trade; and others on the part of the London committee, who as
earnestly laboured to show its abomination and iniquity. In the meantime
Mr. Wilberforce undertook to bring forward a motion in the house of
commons on the subject; and as he was a member for one of the greatest
counties in the kingdom (Yorkshire) and an admirable speaker, his party
were sanguine as to his success. Before Wilberforce could carry out his
intentions, however, he fell ill, and was obliged to retire to Bath. The
question stood thus; when, on the 9th of May, Pitt, being solicited by
his friends, and by Granville Sharpe, and the London committe, moved the
following resolution:—“That this house will, early in the next session
of parliament, proceed to take into consideration the circumstances of
the slave-trade complained of in the petitions presented to the house,
and what may be fit to be done thereupon.” Pitt added, that before
the next session the inquiry instituted by the privy-council would be
brought to a conclusion, the result of which might facilitate their
investigation; and he pledged himself to submit the question to the
house, if his friend should still be unable to undertake the task. Burke
and Fox, in reply, expressed great concern at the delay, and severely
reprobated the inquiry carried on before the privy-council, contending
that it ought to have taken place before the house, whose duty it was
rather to advise the king than to ask or wait for his advice. Both
declared that they were willing and prepared to have taken up the
question themselves; and stated that they had given way to Wilberforce
from deference to his abilities and known humanity, and on account
of the influence he possessed with Pitt and the rest of the ministry.
Pitt’s motion was carried unanimously; but Sir William Dolben, in the
course of the debate, urged that the sufferings of slaves on their
voyage from Africa to the West Indies required immediate attention; and
on the 21st of May he moved for leave to bring in a bill for the better
regulation of their transportation. The picture which Sir William Dolben
drew of the sufferings of the slaves on ship-board forcibly exhibited
the horrid nature of the traffic. He represented them as chained
together hand and foot, with only a space of five feet and a half in
length, and sixteen inches in breadth, allotted for each slave; and
being thus crammed together, putrid disorders and other dangerous
diseases were generated, so that when the overseers came in the morning
to examine the freight of human misery, he had to unchain the carcases
of the dead from the living. To prevent this, Sir William proposed that
no ship should be allowed to carry more than one slave to each ton of
her burthen or register, or that a ship of three hundred tons
should carry as many slaves and no more. This was, in point of fact,
legislating for the slave-owners, inasmuch as the regulations would have
the effect of decreasing the rate of mortality; yet as blind to their
own interest as they were hardened in cruelty, petitions were presented
against the proposed measure by the merchants of Liverpool, Bristol, and
London, who stated that it would inflict upon themselves great injuries.
They prayed to be heard at the bar of the house, which prayer was
granted; but the facts reluctantly drawn from those who were brought
forward in support of the present system, were so decisive against it,
that the friends of the bill declined calling any counter-evidence.
Indignant at the disclosures which were made, indeed. Pitt proposed
a clause, rendering every slave-ship which had already sailed from
England, subject to the regulations of the bill; and stated that he
should think it proper to despatch a quick-sailing vessel, with copies
of the act, to the coast of Africa, that they might not have a plea of
ignorance to offer for the infringement of its rules. At the same time
Pitt said, he trusted the house would make compensation to the merchants
who might receive any pecuniary loss by the bill; an object which he
thought was of no consideration when the interests of humanity were
so intimately concerned. Pitt also proposed another clause, granting
certain bounties to owners and surgeons of ships in which the mortality
should not exceed two or three during the voyage; a clause which was
intended to excite greater attention to the preservation of the slaves.
With these additions the bill was carried through the commons in all its
stages by considerable majorities. It also passed the lords; but it
was there strenuously opposed by Admiral Lord Rodney, Lord Chancellor
Thurlow, Lord Sidney, and the Duke of Chandos. The bill, which was
to continue in force till August, 1783, by which time it was hoped
something more would be done in favour of the slaves, received the royal
assent on the 11th of July. The triumph served as an encouragement to
the philanthropists to persevere in the cause of humanity; and from this
time the number of their converts and their means daily increased.

{GEORGE III. 1787–1789}




CHARGE AGAINST SIR ELIJAH IMPEY.

Early in this session it was determined to impeach Sir Elijah Impey,
chief-justice of the supreme court established at Calcutta, by the
Regulating Act of 1773, Six articles of impeachment were accordingly
exhibited to the house by Sir Gilbert Elliot, who supported them by a
long and impressive speech, in which he professed to describe the career
of the accused from his first arrival at Calcutta, down to his recall
by a resolution of the house of commons. The articles which he produced
related to the trial and execution of Nuncomar; to the conduct of Impey
in a cause called the Patna cause; to an extension of jurisdiction,
illegally and oppressively, beyond the intention of the act and charter;
to the Cossijurah cause, in which this extension of jurisdiction had
been carried out with great violence; to the acceptance of the office of
judge of the Sudder Dewannee Adaulut, which was affirmed to be contrary
to law, repugnant to the spirit and act of the charter, and subversive
of all its material purposes; and to the affairs in Oude and Benares,
where it was declared the chief-justice became the agent and tool of
Hastings. At the suggestion of Pitt, these charges were ordered to be
printed, and then referred to a committee of the whole house; which
committee was to take them into consideration on the 4th of February.
When that day arrived, a petition was presented from Sir Elijah Impey,
praying to be heard in answer to the charges, before the house proceeded
any further; and the prayer being granted, he was called to the bar
for that purpose. His defence was very long and conducted with great
ability, embracing every point on which he was charged. It produced a
deep and lasting impression on the house, and Pitt was heard to declare
that had he been placed in the same situation, he could not say but that
he should have acted precisely as the accused had done. It was evident
that the prosecution would soon be dropped, and it was rendered still
more clear by the evidence taken at the bar of the house. This evidence
was all taken by the 28th of April, on which clay Sir Gilbert Elliot
began his reply to the defence, which was not finished before the 9th of
May. Sir Gilbert moved, in conclusion, a resolution importing that the
first charge had been made good, which was supported by Fox, Burke,
and Colonel Fuliarton, and controverted by Sir Richard Sutton, Mr. D.
Pulteney, the attorney and solicitor-general, and the chancellor of
the exchequer. Upon a division, the motion was lost by a majority
of seventy-three against fifty-five; and on the 27th of May, the day
appointed for the committee to sit again, upon the usual motion that the
speaker do now leave the chair, it was opposed by the attorney-general,
and negatived without a division; and the further consideration of the
charges was adjourned to that day three months. The prosecution of Sir
Elijah Impey was now closed, for the other charges were never taken into
consideration.




IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.

In the meantime the impeachment of Hastings had been carried on with
great activity. In the early part of this session the commons had
appointed a committee of management for his impeachment, and on the 13th
of February his trial commenced with every solemnity that the forms of
official dignity could impart. The trial took place in Westminster-hall,
which was fitted up with great magnificence for the occasion; benches,
stages, and boxes were erected, and the old grey walls were hung with
scarlet. All the magnates of the land were assembled at this trial;
either to take part in the proceedings, or to act as mere spectators.

The first two days of the trial were occupied in the arrangement of
ceremonials. When all were seated the sergeant-at-arms made
proclamation, and called upon Warren Hastings, Esquire, to appear in
court. Hastings advanced, accompanied by his two bail, Sullivan and
Sumner, and the sergeant-at-arms again made proclamation, that whereas
charges of high crimes and misdemeanors had been exhibited by the house
of commons, in the name of themselves, and of all the commons of Great
Britain, against Warren Hastings, Esq., all persons were to take notice
that he now stood upon his trial, that they might come forth and make
good the said charges. Hastings was then addressed by the Lord
Chancellor Thurlow in the following terms:—“Warren Hastings, you stand
at the bar of this court charged with high crimes and misdemeanors, a
copy of which has been delivered to you: you have been allowed counsel,
and a long time has been given you for your defence; but this is not to
be considered as a particular indulgence to you, as it arose from the
necessity of the case; the crimes with which you are charged being
stated to have been committed in a distant place. These charges contain
the most weighty allegations, and they come from the highest authority.
This circumstance, however, though it carries with it the most serious
importance, is not to prevent you from making your defence in a firm
and collected manner, in the confidence that, as a British subject, you
are entitled to, and will receive full justice from a British court.”
To this address Hastings replied:—“My lords, I am come to this high
tribunal equally impressed with a confidence in my own integrity and in
the justice of the court before which I stand.” After this the clerks
of the court proceeded to read the charges and answers, which occupied
the remainder of this day and the whole of the next; and when this was
completed, Burke, on the 15th of February, as the head of the committee
of managers, opened the impeachment by a speech which lasted four days.
He commenced by the following observations:—“My lords, the gentlemen
who have it in command to support this impeachment of Mr. Hastings,
have directed me to open the cause with a general view of the grounds
on which the commons have proceeded in their charge against him. They
have directed me to accompany this with another general view of the
extent, the magnitude, the nature, and the effect of the crimes which
they allege to have been committed. They have also directed me to give
an explanation of such circumstances preceding those crimes, or
concomitant with them, as may tend to elucidate whatever is obscure in
the articles. To those they have wished me to add a few illustrative
remarks on the laws, customs, opinions, and manners of the people who
are the objects of the crimes which we charge on Mr. Hastings.” In
following out the course prescribed him, Burke in turns charmed,
excited, and terrified his audience, and produced all the effects
attributed to the most successful orators in the days of antiquity. His
appeals to the feelings and passions of his auditory were much too
frequent, especially as those parts of his speech were derived from the
tales of the enemies of Hastings; tales that were amplified and
exaggerated, either by private malevolence or by oriental hyperbole.
Apart from this grand error, however, Burke’s speech was one of the
finest that was ever delivered in the English language. Parts of it
were “soberly sublime,” exhibiting a wonderful range of knowledge, a
high statesman-like philosophy, and a fine spirit of Christian
philanthropy. His arguments were enforced with great acuteness, and
were so powerful as almost to convince Hastings himself that he was a
guilty man. “For half an hour,” said the accused, “I looked up at the
orator in a reverie of wonder; and, during that space, I actually felt
myself the most culpable man on earth; but I recurred to my own bosom,
and there found a consciousness that consoled me under all I heard and
all I suffered.” The excitement which was produced by Burke’s speech
operated upon all that heard him; ladies fainted in the galleries, and
the inflexible face of the Lord Chancellor Thurlow was several times
seen to quiver with emotion. In pronouncing his preoration on the
fourth day, the orator raised his voice to such a pitch as seemed to
shake the walls and roof of Westminster Hall. He exclaimed,—“Therefore
it is with confidence that, ordered by the commons, I impeach Warren
Hastings Esq., of high crimes and misdemeanors. I impeach him in the
name of the commons of Great Britain, in parliament assembled, whose
trust he has betrayed. I impeach him in the name of all the commons of
Great Britain, whose national character he has dishonoured. I impeach
him in the name of the people of India, whose laws, rights, and
liberties he has subverted, whose properties he has destroyed, whose
country he has laid waste and desolate. I impeach him in the name of
human nature itself, which he has cruelly outraged, injured, and
oppressed in both sexes, in every age, rank, situation, and condition
of life. And I conjure this high and sacred court to let not these
pleadings be heard in vain.” As soon as the agitation, which Burke’s
speech and accusation gave rise to, had subsided, a debate ensued
respecting the manner in which the defence should be conducted. It was
finally decided, in opposition to the wish of the managing committee
and the opinions of their counsel, that, according to the usual
practice in trials, the prosecutor should complete his case before the
accused commenced his defence. Accordingly, Fox, after making some
complaints against this decision, opened the Benares charge down to the
expulsion of Cheyte Sing, which was followed up and completed by Mr.
Gray. After this the evidence was brought forward, and the whole was
summed up by Mr. Anstruther on the 11th of April. The court did not
meet again till the 15th of April; when Mr. Adam opened the next
charge, relating to the Begums of Oude, which was continued and
completed by Mr. Pelham. The evidence on this charge was summed up by
Sheridan; on which occasion he made another grand display, though, it
is said, not equal to that which he made on the same subject in the
house of commons. As on the former occasion, his speech abounded with
tropes and figures; and his performance attracted a fuller audience
than had yet assembled in the hall. It lasted three whole days; but
only a few fragments of his speech are extant, and scarcely any one of
those in existence convey any notion of the fascination which, it is
said, that his oratory exercised over those who heard him. One of the
most beautiful portions of his speech related to the correspondence of
the governor and his agent. It reads thus:—“When I see in many of these
letters the infirmities of age made a subject of mockery and ridicule;
when I see the feelings of a son treated by Mr. Middleton as puerile
and contemptible; when I see an order given from Mr. Hastings to harden
that son’s heart, and to choke the struggles of nature in his bosom;
when I see them pointing to the son’s name and to his standard, while
marching to oppress the mother, as to a banner that gives dignity—that
gives a holy sanction and reverence to their enterprise; when I see and
hear these things done; when I hear them brought into three deliberate
defences set up against the charges of the commons, my lords, I own I
grow puzzled and confounded, and almost begin to doubt whether, where
such a defence can be offered, it may not be tolerated. And yet, my
lords, how can I support the claim of filial love by argument? much
less the affections of a son to a mother, where love loses its awe, and
veneration is mixed with tenderness. What can I say on such a subject?
What can I do but repeat the ready truths which, with the quick impulse
of the mind, must spring to the lips of every man on such a theme?
Filial love! the moral of instinct, the sacrament of nature and duty,
or rather let me say, it is miscalled a duty, for it flows from the
heart without effort, and is its delight, its indulgence, its
enjoyment. It is guided, not by the slow dictates of reason; it awaits
not encouragement from reflection or from thought; it asks no aid of
memory; it is an innate, but active consciousness of having been the
object of a thousand tender solicitudes, a thousand waking, watchful
cares of meek anxiety and patient sacrifices, unremarked and unrequited
by the object; it is a gratitude founded on a conviction of
obligations, not remembered, but more binding because not
remembered—because conferred before the tender reason could
acknowledge, or the infant memory record them; a gratitude and
affection which no circumstances should subdue, and which few can
strengthen; a gratitude in which injury from the object, though it may
blend regret, should never breed resentment; an affection which can be
in creased only by the decay of those to whom we owe it, and which is
then most fervent, when the tremulous voice of age, resistless in its
feebleness, inquires for the natural protector of its cold decline. If
these are the general sentiments of man, what must be their
depravity—what must be their degeneracy—who can blot out and erase from
the bosom the virtue that is most deeply rooted in the human heart, and
twined, within the cords of life itself? Aliens from nature! Apostates
from humanity! And yet, if there be a crime more fell, more foul; if
there be anything worse than a wilful persecutor of his mother, it is
that of a deliberate instigator and abettor to the deed; this it is
that shocks, disgusts, and appals the mind more than the other; to
view, not a wilful parricide, but a parricide by compulsion; a
miserable wretch, not actuated by the stubborn evils of his own
worthless heart, not driven by the fury of his own distracted brain,
but lending his sacrilegious hand, without any malice of his own, to
answer the abandoned purposes of the human fiends that have subdued his
will. To condemn crimes like these we need not talk of laws or of human
rules; their foulness, their deformity does not depend on local
constitutions, on human institutes, or religious creeds; they are
crimes, and the persons who perpetrate them are monsters, who violate
the primitive condition on which the earth was given to man; they are
guilty by the general verdict of human-kind.” Sheridan concluded his
speech by an appeal to British justice, which, as it is preserved to
us, is a mere sonorous roll of words, with a common-place meaning;
after which he acted a stage-trick; as if fainting, he fell back into
the arms of his friend Burke.

This was the last charge against Hastings that came before the court in
Westminster Hall during the present session. In the house of commons,
however, there was much discussion concerning the money issued from the
exchequer, for the discharge of the expenses incurred in the
impeachment. Mr. Burgess moved that an account of all the money
expended should be laid before the house; and, though opposed by the
managing committee, who said they considered the motion as made merely
as an attempt by the friends of Hastings to vex and impede the
committee in the prosecution, it was carried, and an account of the
expenses was laid upon the table. But this account was incomplete; and
Mr. Burgess had to make three other motions before the particulars of
the expenditure were clearly brought before the house. In all these
motions he was supported by Pitt, who declared he thought it necessary
that the house should know how the money was spent, and have the power
of checking the expenditure if they thought it in any case unnecessary.
It seems to have been suspected that many men were making a profitable
affair of the impeachment; and it must be confessed that the conduct of
the managers, in resisting the inquiries, seemed to justify that
suspicion. Their grand argument against the motion was, that such a
measure as giving an account of the expenditure, was unprecedented, and
had never been attempted nor dreamed of in any great prosecution. They
stated that the charges already incurred in employing counsel were
remarkably moderate, and that the fees were, in fact, inadequate to the
services performed. They even argued, that if more money had been
spent, more good would have been done, as they could then have procured
“secret services,” which they thought very necessary in such a case.
These were unfortunate arguments, as they left an impression on the
minds of many, that some, at least, engaged in the prosecution for what
they could get by it. On the other hand, it is possible that some
members wished to impede the operations of the committee, and to favour
Hastings by cutting off, or, at least, greatly reducing their
resources. Even after all his motions were carried, Mr. Burgess
expressed a doubt whether the house had really authorised the managers
to employ counsel; whether there was any precedent for it; and whether
the assistance of counsel was necessary. Pitt did not go thus far; but
he questioned whether two civilians, besides ordinary counsel, were
required. The whole debate, indeed, seems to show that there was an
anxiety among certain members in the house to benefit Hastings, by
encouraging doubts and insinuations against his prosecutors; which
doubts and insinuations were the more regarded, because two of them, at
least—Fox and Sheridan—did not enjoy any high reputation as regards
money matters. It would have been very ungracious of the house,
however, if, after giving the managing committee a commission to
conduct the prosecution, it had left them to pay the expenses of that
prosecution out of their own pockets. This was not done; but the
discussions which took place on the subject of the expenditure had the
effect of keeping down the growth of the law expenses, by drawing
public attention to them, and by establishing the rule, that the
solicitors should continue to present, from time to time, an account of
all money spent in the prosecution. Had this rule not been laid down,
the cost of this prosecution would probably have been enormous; and, as
it was, they must have been great, for the expenses already amounted to
£4300, exclusive of the erections in and decorations of Westminster
Hall. The expenses which Hastings had incurred was much greater; and
yet of twenty charges only two had been heard; and he then had to make
his defence.




PARLIAMENT PROROGUED.

Parliament was prorogued on the 11th of July, by a speech from the
throne, in which his majesty complimented the two houses on their
attention and liberality. The king mentioned that the Emperor of Germany
had joined the Empress of Russia in a war against the sultan; and he
referred to treaties into which he had entered with the King of Prussia
and with the States-general of the United Provinces, which he trusted
would be productive of the happiest results both to England and to all
Europe.




CONTINENTAL ALLIANCES.

The treaties to which his majesty alluded had been concluded early in
this year. That between England and Holland embraced a mutual guarantee
of dominions; a security for the existing form of government in the
United Provinces; and regulations by which the commerce of each country
was placed on the footing of the most favoured nations. The treaty
between the kings of Great Britain and Prussia was one of defensive
alliance; in which, besides the usual articles of mutual agreement, the
contracting parties bound themselves to act at all times in concert,
for the maintenance of the security, independence, and government of
the United Provinces. The object of these treaties was not so much
to preserve the balance of power in Holland against the influence of
France, as to secure that country from any attempts which might be made
against it by the Emperor of Germany and the Empress of Russia, whose
forces were now banded together. It was supposed that the object of
the alliance of the Austrian and Russian courts was conquest and
aggrandizement; a supposition which seemed confirmed by their known
characters, and by the war which they were carrying on against the
Ottoman empire. From France, at this period, there was now nothing to
fear, for it was a house divided against itself, and was, therefore,
incapable of either disturbing the peace of her neighbours, or of
rendering them any assistance in case of attack from any other quarter.
But out of the weakness of France arose the necessity of opposing a
barrier against the dangerous alliance which had been formed between the
two imperial courts; for it was imagined, that if successful in their
war with the sultan, they would afterwards direct their hostile and
ambitious views to other parts of Europe.




DERANGEMENT OF HIS MAJESTY: DEBATES ON THE REGENCY.

When the king prorogued parliament he appeared to be in his usual good
state of health, but shortly after he became indisposed, and was advised
by his physicians to try the mineral waters of Cheltenham. During his
residence at Cheltenham his health greatly improved, but in the month
of August, when he returned to Windsor, his disorder took an unfortunate
turn, for symptoms of mental derangement appeared, which gradually
increased, till he was no longer capable of attending to public
business. His madness was also accompanied by a bilious fever, from
which, for several days, his life was despaired of, as well as his
reason. This event affected all classes, and caused great consternation
at court and in the cabinet; it also gave rise to intrigue and strife
among contending parties.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament stood prorogued to the 20th of November, and six days before,
circular letters were issued, requesting the attendance of members on
that day. The peers and members being assembled, the state of the king’s
health was formally notified to them, in the upper house by the lord
chancellor, and in the commons by Pitt. In both houses a motion of
adjournment to the 4th of December was made, in order to see whether his
majesty’s disorder was likely to be of long continuance, which motion
was carried _nem. con._

In the mean time the leaders of both parties busied themselves in
intrigue and deliberation. Neither party, however, were yet clear as to
the steps they should pursue, for the varying opinions of the physicians
were calculated to perplex their minds, rather than to serve as a guide
to their conduct. It was necessary that some decisive information should
be obtained before the meeting of parliament, and therefore, on the 3rd
of December, a privy-council was held at Whitehall, for the purpose of
examining the physicians. The result of the opinion of the physicians
was, that his majesty was incapable of attending to business; that,
judging from experience in similar cases, there was a fair prospect of
his recovery; but that the time when that event would take place was
uncertain. Parliament reassembled on the following day, when this
report was presented to the lords by Earl Camden, and to the commons by
Pitt. In both houses it was represented by ministers that the functions
of government were suspended; that in this dismembered state of the
legislature the right devolved on the two houses of parliament, to make
such provision as should be adequate to meet the case; but that it was
necessary, before any step could be taken in such a delicate business,
that the extent of the deficiency should be fully ascertained. It was
moved by Lord Camden in the lords, and by Pitt in the commons, that
the report should be taken into consideration on Monday, the 8th of
December, which was agreed to; but doubts were expressed in the commons,
whether the house could proceed upon a mere report, and whether they
ought not rather to examine the physicians themselves at their own bar,
or by means of a committee. Pitt replied, that the case required great
delicacy, and that the report of the physicians was made upon oath,
which the house of commons had not the power to administer. Fox agreed
with Pitt, in the propriety of proceeding with delicacy; but, he added,
“if delicacy and duty should happen to clash, the latter ought not to
be sacrificed to the former.” Nothing further, however, was said at this
time on the subject, and after deciding that the speaker was competent
to issue writs for new elections, to supply the places of some members
who had died during the recess, the house adjourned to the time above
mentioned.

About this time the royal family removed to Kew, for the greater
convenience of the king’s medical attendants, and as the malady
continued without abatement, the Rev. Dr. Willis, who had quitted his
clerical functions, and devoted himself with great success to the cure
of insanity, was called in to undertake the principal and constant
charge of his majesty. When parliament reassembled on the 8th of
December, Pitt related these circumstances, and conceiving that it would
materially serve his cause, he himself now moved for a committee to
examine the physicians who had attended the king during his illness.
This motion was carried without a division, and a committee of
twenty-one was appointed, Pitt, himself, being their chairman. A similar
motion was made and carried in the upper house, and a committee of peers
was appointed for the same purpose. The report of the committee was
presented by Pitt in the commons on the 10th of December, which was
favourable to the king’s ultimate recovery; and after it was ordered to
be printed, the premier, whose object it was to delay decision on
the subject of the regency, moved that another committee should be
appointed, to inspect the journals for precedents of such proceedings as
had been adopted in former instances, when the sovereign authority was
suspended by sickness, infirmity, or any other cause. This called
forth the opposition of Fox, who objected to the motion as nugatory and
productive of unnecessary delay. Pitt knew well, he said, that there
were no precedents which applied to the present case. He contended that
all that was requisite for their decision had been done by the report
just laid on the table; a report by which the incapacity of the
sovereign had been fully ascertained. Fox then advanced, as a
proposition deducible from the principles of the constitution and the
laws of hereditary succession, that whenever the sovereign was incapable
of exercising the functions of his high office, the heir-apparent, if
arrived at maturity, had as indisputable a claim to the exercise of the
executive authority, in the name and on the behalf of the sovereign,
during his incapacity, as in the case of his natural demise. In
advancing such a proposition as this Fox committed a great blunder, for
by it he became the advocate of prerogative, in opposition to the rights
of the people. Pitt instantly perceived his error, and he took the
utmost advantage of it, by taking up the cause which Fox had suddenly
deserted. With an appearance of patriotic indignation, Pitt declared
that the assertion which Fox had made was little short of treason
against the constitution; insisted that the heir-apparent had no more
right, in the case alleged, to the exercise of the executive power than
any other person in the realm; and asserted that it belonged to the
two remaining branches of the legislature to make such provision for
supplying the temporary deficiency as they should think proper. He
asked, when the regular exercise of the powers of government was from
any cause suspended, to whom could the right of providing a remedy for
the existing defect devolve, but to the people, from whom the powers of
government originated? Kings and princes, he said, derived their
power from the people; and to the people alone, by means of their
representatives, did it belong to decide in cases for which the
constitution had made no specific provisions. On these grounds Pitt
insisted that the Prince of Wales had no more right to supply the
existing deficiency than any other subject, though he admitted that it
was expedient for parliament to offer him the regency. Fox and Burke
replied to Pitt, but they were unable to refute his arguments, and his
motion was carried without a division, and a committee of twenty-one
was appointed to look for precedents, which all men knew were not to
be found. On the following day Lord Camden made a similar motion in the
lords, in doing which he strongly condemned the doctrine which Fox had
advanced, and contended, with Pitt, that the light and duty of naming
the regent, and limiting his power, belonged exclusively to the houses
of parliament. The motion of Fox was supported by Lords Loughborough,
Stormont, and Porchester, and controverted by Lord Stanhope and the lord
chancellor, the latter of whom declared that the doctrine was a new one
to him. Thurlow seems to have been induced to speak on this occasion,
in order to throw discredit on his rival, Lord Loughborough, who was a
friend of the Prince of Wales, and was looking for the chancellorship.
Recently the lord chancellor had been silent as a statue on the subject
in question, and from his conduct it appeared evident that he was
waiting to see how the malady of the monarch terminated, before he
decided upon what part he should take. It was more than suspected,
indeed, that Thurlow had, from the commencement of his majesty’s
illness, been in correspondence with the prince and his friends, while
at the council-table, and on the woolsack, he seemed to agree with his
colleagues in office.

The report of the committee appointed to search for precedents was
brought up and ordered to be printed, on the 12th of December. On this
occasion Fox, aware that his doctrine was repudiated by the house, and
by the nation at large, relinquished the idea of pressing the claims of
the prince as a right, and only expressed his anxiety to procure for him
a full enjoyment of royalty, under the appointment of the two houses.
He was still ready, he said, to maintain, that while parliament had the
right to determine on the incapacity, the heir-apparent, after such a
determination, had the right of government, so long as that incapacity
existed; but at the same time he remarked, as Pitt agreed with him that
under present circumstances the prince was the person who ought to be
invested with the regency, he thought it would be better to abstain from
any discussion of such nice and subtle distinctions. Fox concluded, by
expressing a hope that the chancellor of the exchequer would inform
the house what course he meant to pursue, and by suggesting that a
declaration or address should be sent to the prince from parliament,
stating the fact of his majesty’s present incapacity, and investing his
royal highness, during that incapacity, with the full exercise of regal
powers. In reply, Pitt declared that he still differed as much as ever
from Fox on the question of right: the Prince of Wales, he said, had no
right whatever to the regency. Upon this point they were at issue, nor
would he move a step further till the question was decided. Fox pressed
him to state what proposition he meant to make respecting the regency,
but he declared that he would not offer any point for discussion, until
the house knew whether they were sitting as judges, merely to pronounce
on the king’s incapacity, or as an assembly possessing a power of
deliberation, and capable of exercising their own discretion—whether
that which should be vested in the prince was a matter of adjudication
on their part, or a trust on behalf, and in the name of his majesty.
An attempt was made in the house of lords to turn Pitt aside from his
purpose, by recommending that all discussions on the rights of the
Prince of Wales should be avoided, but Pitt, aware that a great
constitutional question was involved in the subject, still persevered
in his determination. On the 16th of December, therefore, he moved
three resolutions, the object of which was to declare that his majesty
being-prevented by indisposition from public business, it was the right
and duty of the lords, spiritual and temporal, and commons of Great
Britain, to provide the means of supplying the defect of the personal
exercise of the royal authority. In the debates which followed these
resolutions both parties put forth their whole strength. There was
a motive for this on either side. The Whigs knew, that if their
adversaries triumphed, such restrictions would be laid on the power and
patronage of the regent, as would render it impossible for them to carry
on the administration, and would render all the business of government
unprofitable and uncertain; while, on the other hand, the Tories knew
that by their success they should secure the favour of the king more
firmly than ever, if he should be able to resume his functions. The
contest was a curious one, because parties had completely changed
opinions: the Whigs, those staunch advocates for the rights of the
parliament and the people, now clamoured for prerogative and the
hereditary rights of princes; and the Tories, those old sticklers
for prerogative and hereditary rights, now as loudly clamoured for the
rights of the parliament and the people. Pitt was endeavouring to show
that the assertion of the inherent rights of the Prince of Wales, was
one of those exploded ideas of indefeasible right which had fallen into
contempt, and Fox had to persuade the house that the primary axioms of
government and the abstract rights of the people were things unworthy
their notice. The propositions moved by Pitt were warmly supported by
the master of the rolls, the lord advocate of Scotland, the attorney
and solicitor general, and the solicitor general to the queen. They were
opposed by Lord North and Fox, the latter of whom combated the arguments
of his opponents with an earnestness worthy of a better cause: fighting
like a man whose very existence depended on the issue of the debate. Fox
himself seems to have felt that his cause was not a good one, for after
replying to the arguments adduced in favour of the propositions, by Pitt
and his supporters, and vindicating himself from the notion of being
influenced in his opinion by the favour of the prince, he made a
personal attack on the minister, accusing him with sacrificing the
principles of the constitution to his lust of power. Pitt replied to
this attack, and enforced his former arguments; after which a motion
made by Lord North for the speaker to leave the chair, was negatived by
a majority of two hundred and sixty-eight against two hundred and four,
and then the resolutions passed without a division. They were reported
on the 19th, when another stormy debate took place, and in the end
two amendments—one moved by Mr. Powys and one by Mr. Dempster—were
negatived without a division, and the two first resolutions were
received. Dempster moved an amendment on the third resolution, but as
the house was exhausted, the consideration of it was deferred till the
22nd of December, when it was negatived by two hundred and fifty-one
against one hundred and seventy-eight. The three resolutions were now
received, and ordered to be communicated to the lords at a conference,
wherein the commons were to desire their lordships’ concurrence in them.
This conference took place on the 23rd of December, and the lords agreed
to the resolutions, after two long debates and one division, in which
there was a majority of ninety-nine against sixty-six. Among the lords
no one more heartily concurred in these resolutions than Thurlow, who
seems to have been convinced at this time that it was his interest to
take a decided part with his colleagues. He had, in fact, been recently
assured by Willis and others of the king’s physicians, that his
majesty’s malady could not be of long duration, and that the king’s
temperate mode of living gave promise of health and long life. Thurlow
also seems to have been convinced that if the king did not recover, he
could place no permanent reliance on the Whigs, who were bound to prefer
his rival, Loughborough. Hence, my lord chancellor had broken off all
correspondence with the enemy, and when the questions involved in the
three resolutions were taken into consideration, he defended them with
all his might. As before stated, the resolutions were agreed to: a
committee was also appointed to acquaint the commons at a conference
that they concurred with them. A strong protest was entered and signed
by forty-eight peers, among whom were the Dukes of York and Cumberland.




CHAPTER XVII.

{GEORGE III. 1789–1791}

     The Election of Speaker..... The  Question of the Regency
     resumed..... Recovery of his  Majesty..... Adoption of a
     Plan for fortifying the West India Islands..... Bill for the
     Commemoration of the People’s Rights, etc...... Shop Tax
     repealed,  etc...... Motion respecting the Corporation and
     Test Acts, etc..... Slave-trade Question..... Election of
     Speaker..... Pitt’s financial Measures..... Impeachment of
     Warren Hastings..... Parliament prorogued..... Continental
     Affairs..... State of   Parties   in  England..... Meeting
     of Parliament..... Debates on the Test and Corporation
     Acts..... Mr.  Flood’s Motion for Reform in Parliament.....
     East India Affairs..... Pitt’s financial Statement,
     etc...... The Slave-Trade Question..... Disputes with
     Spain..... Impeachment of Warren Hastings..... Parliament
     prorogued and dissolved..... Settlement of Disputes with
     Spain..... Continental Affairs..... Progress of
     revolutionary Principles in England..... War in India.....
     Meeting of Parliament.

{A.D. 1789}




ELECTION OF SPEAKER.

Mr. Cornwall, the speaker of the house, having expired on the 2nd of
January, business received a temporary interruption. On the 5th of that
month William Wyndham Grenville was proposed as his successor by the
friends of administration, and Sir Gilbert Elliot, by the Whigs. The
former was chosen by a majority of two hundred and fifteen against one
hundred and forty-four.




THE QUESTION OF THE REGENCY RESUMED.

On the day that the election of speaker took place, Pitt gave notice
that he should, on the morrow, lay before the house the restrictions
which he considered necessary to be annexed to the regency. Hitherto Fox
had complained of Pitt’s tardiness in proposing a regency, but he now
seemed resolved to impede the progress of the minister. He was well
aware that Pitt was averse to bring the royal physicians to the bar of
the house to give evidence, yet notwithstanding he resolved that
they should be again there examined. On the very day that Pitt was to
introduce the subject of the restrictions, therefore, urged by Fox,
the member for Abingdon, Mr. Loveden, made a motion to that effect. In
support of his motion, Mr. Loveden said, that before the house proceeded
any further, they ought to know how the case now stood; what was the
present state of his majesty’s health, what the degrees of alteration it
had undergone since the physicians were last examined, and whether the
probability of recovery was increasing or diminishing. This was the more
necessary he said, because contradictory reports were in circulation,
which were said to be supported by the different royal physicians. The
reports unfavourable to the king’s recovery had been put forth by, or
at least was imputed to Dr. Warren, whom Pitt, in reply, treated as a
violent Whig and party man, whose wishes suggested his predictions. Pitt
also plainly intimated that he conceived gentlemen on the opposite side,
who were to form the new administration under the regency, wished
the doctor’s opinion to be true. This insinuation was repelled by the
opposition as unjust and illiberal, but in the same breath they acted as
unjustly and illiberally, by falling upon Willis, the Tory doctor, and
accusing him with uttering false oracles and predictions of amendment,
which were merely meant to serve the purposes of Pitt and his party. But
though Pitt at first opposed this measure, he ultimately acquiesced in
its course, and a new committee of the house was appointed to re-examine
all the physicians. This examination, which ought to have been brief,
was prolonged by the frivolous questions of opposition members, and by
frequent altercations, so that the report was not brought up before the
13th of January. As the committee had not examined into the grounds
of the different opinions held by the physicians, Burke moved that
the report should be recommitted; but this was negatived without a
division, and it was ordered that it should be printed, and be taken
into consideration, in a committee of the whole house, on the 16th of
the month. On that day Pitt introduced his plan of a restricted regency.
On the 30th of December Pitt had, in a letter, submitted to the Prince
of Wales the heads of a plan arranged by the cabinet, and though the
prince, acting under the influence of his advisers, had expressed
his entire disapprobation of the plan, he nevertheless consented
to undertake the regency with the proposed restrictions. What these
restrictions were, Pitt now explained to the house. After expressing
his great satisfaction at having consented to the re-examination of the
physicians, the event of which had justified his sanguine expectations
of the king’s recovery, he observed, that under these circumstances,
what parliament had to provide for was, a deficiency in the executive
government for an interval which he trusted would be brief, and against
any embarrassment in the resumption of the royal authority, when his
majesty should be able to resume that authority. This was all that was
required, he said, for the present; but if contrary to expectations his
majesty’s illness should be protracted, then a more permanent plan of
government might be arranged. He moved, therefore, that the Prince of
Wales should be invested with the whole regal authority, subject
to certain necessary limitations. These limitations were, that his
authority should not extend to the creation of new peers; that he should
not grant any pension or place for life, other than such place as, from
its nature, must by law be held for life, or during good behaviour: that
he should not have any power over the personal property of the king;
and that he should have nothing to do with his majesty’s person or
household, which were to be left entirely to the guardianship of the
queen. Pitt proposed that the queen should be assisted in the discharge
of her duties by a council, which council were to have no power of
control, but only that of giving advice, and satisfying themselves daily
of the state of the king’s health. Pitt also proposed that they, the
said council, or some others, should be appointed to manage the real
and personal estate of the king, being bound at the same time not
to alienate or dispose or any part of it, except by lease. These
propositions were warmly advocated by Pitt and others on the same side
of the house, and as warmly opposed by members on the opposite benches.
Mr. Powys, after condemning the whole of Pitt’s plan, as tending to
mutilate the constitutional authority, and after asserting that the
heir-apparent ought to be invested with the full powers and prerogatives
of the crown, moved an amendment to the first resolution, by which his
royal highness would be appointed regent, “subject to such limitations
and exceptions as might be provided.” This motion was seconded by Lord
North, who endeavoured to show that the bestowing of the whole power and
patronage of the household upon the queen, would be setting up a party
at court in opposition to the administration of the regent. Sheridan
followed on the same side, and was both witty and severe upon the
abstraction of the household patronage from the regency, and endeavoured
to show that Pitt wanted it for himself, when he could no longer hold
his present high office! Colonel Fullarton also argued against the
mutilation of the executive government, and not only attacked Pitt, but
the queen herself. Pitt’s resolutions, however, were ably defended by
the new speaker, Grenville, and on a division the amendment moved by
Powys was lost by a majority of two hundred and twenty-seven against one
hundred and fifty-four. All the resolutions were now carried except
the last, and this, which referred to the care of the king’s person
and household, was debated on the 19th of January, with, if possible,
increased animosity. Two amendments were moved—one by Lord North and
the other by Mr. Bouverie—but both were negatived by considerable
majorities, and on the 22nd the resolutions were taken into
consideration by the lords. The contest in the lords was even more
obstinate than it had been in the commons, but an amendment, moved by
Lord Sandwich, for limiting the time during which the regent should be
restrained from creating peers, and another moved by Viscount Stormont,
on the restriction placed upon the regent in regard to the granting of
places, were negatived, and then all opposition ceased. A protest was
signed by fifty-seven peers, among whom the Dukes of York and Cumberland
were again numbered. But the storm was not yet over. Both the prince
and his friends were irritated in the highest degree by the restrictions
which Pitt imposed upon the regency; and though the former had privately
expressed his acceptation of, or submission to the limitations, yet the
latter were still resolutely bent upon opposing the premier. On the 27th
of January, after recapitulating all the steps which had been taken,
Pitt suggested that it would be respectful to the Prince of Wales, and
expedient in the order of their proceedings, to know parliamentarily,
whether he was willing to accept the regency upon the terms imposed by
that house. Pitt moved that a committee should be appointed to wait upon
his royal highness for that purpose, with the resolutions to which both
lords and commons had agreed. On this occasion, the minister was accused
by Mr. Gray and Burke, with treating the prince with marked disrespect;
and the latter likewise taxed him with the design of converting the
monarchy into a republic, with a regent, annually elected, nominally at
its head. Against the regency bill he burst into a paroxysm of rage.
He exclaimed, “It is a mere mummery, a piece of masquerade buffoonery,
formed to burlesque every species of government. A hideous spectre, to
which, with Macbeth, we may exclaim,—

     ‘Avaunt and quit my sight!
     Let the earth hide thee.
     Thy bones are marrowless, thy blood is cold:
     Thou hast no speculation in those eyes
     That thou dost glare withal.’

“So it is with this ministerial, political spectre. ‘Its bones are
marrowless, its blood is cold, and it has no speculation in its eyes.’
I reprobate it as a chimera, a monster summoned up from the depth
of hell!” But all the arguments, and accusations, and rage of the
opposition proved fruitless: Pitt’s motion was carried without a
division, and ordered to be sent up to the lords for their concurrence.
Pitt also moved for a similar committee to wait upon the queen, in
order to ascertain whether her majesty would undertake the care of his
majesty’s person, and the management and control of the household; and
this likewise was carried _nem. con._, and ordered to be carried to
the lords. The motion for the concurrence of their lordships to these
resolutions was made by Lord Camden; and this being voted, committees
were forthwith appointed for the purposes therein specified. One of the
joint committees of lords and commons waited upon the Prince of Wales,
at Carlton-house, on the 30th of January, the anniversary of the
execution of Charles I., a day on which parliament never met for the
despatch of business, but which was not considered too sacred for the
execution of such an important commission. The reply of the prince was
brief, and to the point. He thanked the lords and gentlemen for the
communication of the resolutions agreed upon, and requested them to
assure their respective houses, that his duty to the king, his father,
and his concern for the safety and interests of the people, together
with his respect for the united desires of the two houses, outweighed in
his mind every other consideration, and determined him upon undertaking
the weighty and important trust proposed to him. At the same time, while
he accepted this trust, his royal highness took care to record what his
opinions were respecting the restrictions imposed upon his regency.
He remarked:—“I am sensible of the difficulties that must attend the
execution of this trust, in the peculiar circumstances in which it is
committed to my charge, of which, as I am acquainted with no former
example, my hopes of a successful administration cannot be founded on
any past experience. But confiding that the limitations on the exercise
of the royal authority, deemed necessary for the present, have been
approved by the two houses only as a temporary measure, founded on the
loyal hope, in which I ardently anticipate, that his majesty’s disorder
may not be of long duration; and trusting, in the meanwhile, that I
shall receive a zealous and united support in the two houses and in the
nation, proportioned to the difficulty attending the discharge of my
trust; in the interval, I will entertain the pleasing hope that my
faithful endeavours to preserve the interests of the king, his crown,
and people, may be successful.” On the same day, a joint committee of
lords and commons waited upon the queen at Kew Palace, and were assured
by her majesty, that out of her duty and gratitude to the king, and from
a sense of the great obligations she owed to this country, she would
accept of the trust proposed to her by parliament, together with
the council to aid her in the discharge of an office with which was
connected, not only her own happiness, but also the happiness of a
great, loyal, and affectionate people. The answers received from the
Prince of Wales and the queen were read in the house of lords on the
31st; and after they were ordered to be printed, Lord Camden moved, in
a committee of the house on the state of the nation, that letters patent
should be issued, under the great seal, empowering certain commissioners
to open and hold the king’s parliament at Westminister. Among the
commissioners proposed by ministers were the names of the Prince of
Wales, his brother, the Duke of York, and his uncles, the Dukes of
Cumberland and Gloucester. The duke of York, however, whose views
entirely coincided with those of opposition, rose and said, that from
want of knowledge, he had been unable to take any steps to prevent his
nomination; and that, as he could not sanction such unconstitutional and
illegal proceedings with his name, he desired that it might be omitted:
he added, “and I am requested to make the same request on the part of my
brother, the Prince of Wales.” The Duke of Cumberland, also, on the same
grounds, desired that his own name, and the name of his brother, the
Duke of Gloucester, should be struck out of the commission. A debate
took place on the proper mode of withdrawing the names of these four
personages, so as to convey no disrespect either to the house or to
their royal highnesses; but it was finally settled that the names should
still stand on the transcript, and that when the resolution was reported
to the house, an amendment should be moved, to make it appear on the
journals, that it was at the express desire of the several princes
that their names were omitted. Camden’s motion was now passed without
a division; and the resolution being communicated to the commons, at
a conference on the 2nd of February, Pitt moved the concurrence of the
house therein. Another stormy debate took place, in which Lord North
and Burke strongly insisted on the right of the Prince of Wales to
the regency, and in which Pitt as strongly denied that right; but no
division took place, and the resolution of the lords was therefore
carried. The session was now opened on the 3rd of February, and the bill
founded on the propositions already agreed upon was brought in, and by
the 13th of February passed the house. Every article of it was warmly
contested on the same grounds as when the resolutions were discussed,
and some amendments and variations were introduced; the peerage clause,
in particular, being limited to three years. Thus altered, the bill was
sent up to the lords; and on the 17th, their lordships, in committee,
made two important additions to it: one placing all the palaces, parks,
houses, gardens, &c., under the control and management of the queen; and
the other committing to her the care of all the royal offspring under
the age of twenty-one.




RECOVERY OF HIS MAJESTY.

The hopes of power and place which opposition had formed, and for the
realization of which they had so stoutly contended, were suddenly dashed
to the ground. While thus contending, it had been rumoured abroad that
his majesty was fast recovering. This was essentially true; and Pitt
had for some days been halting between two opinions, namely: whether
he should proceed with, the regency-bill, or whether he should stop the
proceedings. His opponents also had been perplexed as to the proper mode
of procedure; whether to let the bill pass at once without opposition,
and accept office, or to wait a little longer, and see whether there was
any chance of retaining it. At length, however, all the perplexities by
which both parties were surrounded were clean swept away. On the
very day that the lords committed the bill, as sent up to them by the
commons, it was publicly declared that the king was convalescent. This,
no doubt, was a grievous disappointment to the Whig leaders, for it
brought all their hopes and designs to a sudden termination. They had,
however, only themselves to blame for this disappointment, inasmuch as
they might, but for their opposition, have taken the reins of government
into their hands two months ago. But hope now fled, and desire failed.
On the 19th of February, Lord Chancellor Thurlow announced from the
woolsack, in his peculiar sonorous tone of voice, that from the reports
of the physicians, his majesty had been for some time in a state of
convalescence; that the accounts just received conveyed the happy news
that the improvement in his health was still progressive; and that,
therefore, it would be indecorous to proceed in the present measures,
he had no doubt, he said, that the house, participating in the general
happiness of every man in the kingdom, would consider it necessary to
wait a few days before they went further with the bill; and he therefore
moved that their lordships should immediately adjourn to Tuesday next.
In reply to Thurlow, the Duke of York remarked,—“I trust your lordships
will do me the justice to believe that no person in the house could feel
equal pleasure with myself from the favourable account which the noble
lord on the woolsack has given, and the motion he has made to the house,
in which I heartily concur. I should have had great satisfaction in
making the same communication to the house, if I had been able to do
it from certain information. I thought it my duty yesterday, upon the
favourable reports given to the public, to request to be admitted to his
majesty’s presence. From reasons very justifiable, no doubt, it was not
thought proper that I should have that satisfaction. From the knowledge
I have of my brother’s sentiments, though I have had no immediate
communication with him upon the subject of this motion, I am convinced
he will feel equal, if not greater, pleasure than myself at the hopes of
his majesty’s recovery, as it must relieve him from the embarrassment
of the situation in which this bill would have placed him, which nothing
but a strong sense of his duty to the public would have induced him
to undertake.” Thurlow’s proposed adjournment was agreed to, and the
regency bill there stopped.

The conduct of the Irish parliament in this matter formed a striking
contrast to that of the English. On receiving the intelligence of his
majesty’s illness, a motion was made in the commons for presenting to
the Prince of Wales an address, requesting him to assume the government
of Ireland during the king’s incapacity, with the full powers of the
executive branch. This motion, which was moved by Mr. Conolly and
supported by Grattan, passed without a division, and was confirmed by
the lords. The lord-lieutenant, the Marquess of Buckingham, late Earl
Temple, refused to transmit this address to England; and commissioners
were therefore appointed by both houses to present it in person to
the Prince of Wales. These delegates arrived in England on the 25th of
February, and on the following day they presented their address to the
prince at Carlton-house. The recovery of his majesty, however, rendered
the object of their commission nugatory: the prince returned his warmest
thanks to the delegates, but acquainted them with the change which had
taken place in the king’s health, and which, he said, he hoped, within
a few days, would enable his majesty to resume the government. All that
the commissioners, therefore, obtained for their pains and their loyalty
were thanks and a splendid entertainment, at which the leaders of
the prince’s party were present. Entertainments had, indeed, from the
commencement of his majesty’s illness, been the order of the day at
Carlton-house; the Saturday and Sunday of every week being set aside for
that purpose; a mode of proceeding which brought great scandal on the
prince and his party. The Whigs, by their recent conduct, in fact,
rendered themselves unpopular in the eyes of the soberer part of the
nation; and it may be questioned whether, if they had gained office
under the regency-bill, they could have retained it for any lengthened
period, even if his majesty had still been confined to Kew Palace as
a maniac. The very city of London, which had once been the centre of
opposition, was now on the side of Pitt and the king, and the feeling
was universal throughout all England.

As the regency-bill had not passed, it was not deemed necessary to
adhere to the method prescribed by it for announcing the king’s recovery
and restoration to his royal capacity; the declaration in parliament,
the bulletins of the physicians, and the suspension of those bulletins
by royal order, were considered sufficient ground to enable his majesty
to resume the functions of his office. Several adjournments of both
houses took place subsequent to Lord Chancellor Thurlow’s announcement
of his majesty’s recovery; but at length, on the 10th of March, a
commission, under the great seal, was read to lords and commons,
authorising the commissioners, previously appointed by letters patent
for opening the parliament, to declare certain additional causes
for holding the same. After the commission had been read, the lord
chancellor observed, that his majesty being, by the blessing of
Providence, recovered from his malady, had commanded the commissioners
to convey to them his warmest acknowledgments for the proofs they had
given of affection to his person, of zeal for the honour of his crown,
and concern for the security and good government of his dominions. The
commissioners were also ordered, he said, to acquaint the two houses
that, since the close of the last session, his majesty had concluded a
treaty of defensive alliance with the King of Prussia, and that he
had endeavoured, during the last summer, to prevent the extension of
hostilities in Europe. The house of commons was further informed, that
the estimates of the current year would be forthwith laid before them.
Addresses of congratulation were then passed both to the king and queen
without a dissentient voice. On that night all London seemed one blaze
of light; an illumination took place, such as that great capital had
never witnessed before. This scene was renewed on the 23rd of April,
which was appointed to be held as a day of public thanksgiving
throughout the kingdom; and when his majesty went in grand procession
to St. Paul’s Church, to return thanks to almighty God for his recovery.
His majesty was attended on this occasion by the queen and royal family,
the two houses of parliament, and all the great officers of state,
judges, and foreign ambassadors. The procession entered the cathedral
amidst the peal of organs and the voices of five thousand children of
the city charity schools, who were placed between the pillars on both
sides, and singing that old melody, the hundredth psalm. The king was
much affected; and turning to the dean, near whom he was walking, he
said with great emotion, “I now feel that I have been ill.” His emotion
almost overpowered him; but recovering himself be proceeded to the
chair, where the humility with which he at first knelt down, and the
fervour with which he appeared to pour forth the feelings of a grateful
heart, made a deep impression on all within the cathedral. By this
affliction the personal popularity of the king greatly increased. It
became the fashion to call him “the good old king,” and men loved to
dwell upon his morals and his virtues. It would be difficult, indeed, to
point out any period in the annals of English history when any monarch
was so universally revered by his subjects. Nor did the steady,
consistent, and constitutional conduct of the prime-minister remain
unacknowledged. While his opponents, by the sentiments which they
had uttered in the heat of debate on the regency-bill, had given
great offence to the people at large, Pitt had risen greatly in their
estimation. He had, also, the warmest approbation of his majesty for
the part he had taken; for on more than one occasion he expressed
the highest satisfaction of his conduct, and that of the majority
in parliament, in regard to the regency question. His majesty also
remarked, that his illness had eventually become a source of happiness
to him, inasmuch as it proved how nobly the people would support him
when he was in trouble.




ADOPTION OF A PLAN OF FORTIFYING THE WEST INDIAN ISLANDS.

The first subject that engaged the attention of parliament after his
majesty’s recovery, was a plan, formed by the master-general of the
ordnance, for the fortification of the West Indian Islands. This scheme
was condemned by General Burgoyne, Sheridan, and other members of
opposition; but on the 18th of March £218,000 was granted for that
purpose.




BILL FOR THE COMMEMORATION OF THE PEOPLE’S RIGHTS, ETC.

On the 24th of March Mr. Beaufoy moved for leave to bring in a bill
“to establish a perpetual anniversary thanksgiving to Almighty God, for
having, by the glorious revolution, delivered this nation from arbitrary
power, and to commemorate annually the confirmation of the people’s
rights.” It was argued in opposition to this bill, that the event was
sufficiently commemorated in the form of prayer appointed for the 5th of
November; but the house seemed to think otherwise, for the bill was not
only brought in, but carried through all its stages, and sent up to the
lords. In the lords, however, it met with a more successful opposition;
for, on the motion of Bishop Bangor, who pointed out the several
parts of the service of the 5th of November, which had been added and
altered, for the purpose of commemorating the revolution, the bill was
thrown out without being once read; a ceremony to which a bill proposed
by a peer is considered as a matter of right, and which is usually
accorded to any measure sent up to the lords by the commons, as a matter
of courtesy.




SHOP-TAX REPEALED, ETC.

On the 3rd of April Fox renewed the attempts he had made, in several
successive years, for the repeal of the shop-tax; and as Pitt did not
now oppose him he was this time successful. Mr. Dempster also proposed
and carried the abolition of the additional tax and restrictions which
had been laid upon the hawkers and pedlars.

{GEORGE III. 1789–1791}




MOTION RESPECTING THE CORPORATION AND TEST ACTS, ETC.

On the 8th of May Mr. Beaufoy again moved the repeal of the corporation
and test acts; being prompted thereto, he said, by the confidence which
the dissenters reposed in the disposition of the house to do justice
to the injured, and to afford relief to the oppressed. This motion was
warmly supported by Fox, who laid it down as an axiom of policy, that
no human government had any jurisdiction over opinions as such, and more
especially over religious opinions. Fox supported this view by weighty
arguments; but the motion was opposed by Pitt on the same ground as
before; and on a division it was lost by one hundred and twenty-two
against one hundred and two. On a subsequent clay, Lord Stanhope
introduced a bill into the house of peers for relieving all
nonconformists from the operation of the penal laws, and allowing them
free exercise of their faith in preaching and writing; papists only
being excepted on account of their persecuting spirit. Lord Stanhope
denounced these penal laws as a disgrace to our statute-books; but the
motion was opposed by Dr. Moore, Archbishop of Canterbury, and the
whole bench of bishops, as tending to unloose the bonds of society,
by substituting fanaticism for religious order and subordination, by
opening a door to licentiousness and contempt of Christianity, under
pretence of religious liberty; and as destructive to the Church of
England and the constitution, of which that church was a firm support.
The bill was rejected on the second reading; and another, which was
shortly after brought in by the same noble lord, to prevent suits in the
ecclesiastical courts for the recovery of tithes, shared the same fate.




SLAVE-TRADE QUESTION.

Since the last session the privy-council had been employed in
investigating facts concerning the slave-trade; and on the 12th of May
an elaborate report was laid upon the table of the house of commons,
together with petitions for and against that traffic. Mr. Wilberforce
had recovered from his illness; and on his motion it was voted that
the report, with the petitions, should immediately be taken into
consideration by a committee of the whole house. In committee,
Wilberforce moved twelve resolutions, condemnatory of the traffic and
the barbarous treatment of the African slaves, which he enforced by a
long and excellent speech; in which he considered the subject, first, on
the question of humanity, and next, on that of policy. From the evidence
before the council, it appeared that the number of slaves carried away
annually from Africa, on an average of four years, amounted 38,000.
These were chiefly brought from the interior of the country; and they
consisted of four classes: prisoners taken in war; persons seized for
debt or imputed crimes; domestic slaves, sold for the emolument of their
masters; and persons seized by violence or fraud. Mr. Wilberforce showed
that the trade thus carried on had a natural tendency to cause frequent
and cruel wars; to produce unjust convictions and aggravated punishments
for pretended crimes; to encourage fraud and oppression; and to obstruct
the natural course of civilization and improvement. He also showed that
an extensive commerce in articles peculiar to Africa and important
to our manufactures, might be substituted for this inhuman traffic; a
commerce which would at once equal the profits of the slave-trade, and
would probably increase with the civilization that would follow its
abolition. The orator dwelt very forcibly on the grievous sufferings
which the slaves endured on the passage from Africa to the West Indies,
and the horrid treatment they received on their arrival. He also dwelt
emphatically on the dissoluteness and other causes which prevailed among
them in the West Indies, and which prevented the natural increase of
population among them; arguing, that if the causes which had hitherto
obstructed the natural increase of negroes in our plantations, and if
good regulations were established among them, there would be no need
of an annual importation from Africa. At all events, he said, a trade
founded in iniquity, and carried on with so many circumstances
of horror, must be abolished, let its policy be what it will. The
wickedness of the trade was so enormous, so dreadful, and irremediable;
that he could stop at no alternative short of its abolition. His mind had
been harassed with the objections of the West India planters, who had
asserted that the ruin of their property would be involved in such a
step; but he could not help distrusting their arguments; he could not
believe that the Almighty, who forbade the practice of rapine and blood,
had made rapine and blood necessary to any part of his creation. He felt
a confidence in that persuasion; he took the resolution to act on it,
and light soon broke in upon his mind; his suspicion was daily confirmed
by increasing information; and the evidence he had now to offer on
this point was decisive and complete. He was prepared to prove that
the number of negroes in our colonies might be kept up without the
introduction of slaves from Africa. He added, in a fine spirit of
Christian philanthropy:—“Let us then make such amends as we can for
the mischief we have clone to that unhappy continent; let us put an end
at once to this inhuman traffic, and stop this effusion of human blood.
The true way to virtue is to avoid temptation; let us, therefore,
withdraw from these wretched Africans those temptations to fraud,
violence, cruelty, and injustice which the slave-trade furnishes.
Wherever the sun shines let us go round the world with him, diffusing
our beneficence; but let us not traffic only that we may set kings
against their subjects, and subjects against their kings, sowing discord
in every village, fear and terror in every family, urging millions of
our fellow-creatures to hunt each other for slaves, creating fairs and
markets for human flesh through one whole continent of the world,
and, under the name of policy, concealing from ourselves all the base
iniquity of such a traffic.” Mr. Pitt expressed his warm approbation of
the manner in which the subject had been brought before the house, and
confessed that the slave-trade must be abolished: and he consented that
the resolutions should be entered on the journals; conceiving that such
a step might produce the effect of causing foreign nations to concur
with England in the proposed abolition. Fox and Burke also applauded the
orator; the latter declaring that not only England, but all Europe was
indebted to him for exposing the iniquity of a trade “which began with
savage war, was prosecuted with unheard-of cruelty, continued, during
the middle passage, with the most loathsome imprisonment, and ended in
perpetual exile and unremitting slavery.” The feeling of the house and
the nation at large was so manifestly, at this period, in favour of the
abolition of the slave-trade, that Lord Penryn, one of its advocates,
asserted that, to his knowledge, the planters were now willing to assent
to any regulation of the trade short of its abolition; to which remark
Fox replied, with much animation, that he knew nothing of such a thing
as a regulation of robbery and restriction of murder; there was no
medium; the legislature must either abolish the trade, or plead guilty
to all the iniquity with which it was attended. Finally, Pitt conceded,
with the consent of Mr. Wilberforce, to the examination of witnesses on
the part of the slave-merchants and planters, trusting that unnecessary
delays would not be introduced, as he could not submit to the ultimate
procrastination of so important a measure. Evidence was heard at the bar
for several successive weeks; and the session being far advanced, the
friends of abolition consented, on the 23rd of June, to an adjournment
of the question to the succeeding session of parliament. Before this
session was closed, however, the temporary regulation act of Sir William
Dolben was renewed till August, 1790.




ELECTION OF SPEAKER.

Early in June Lord Sidney resigned the office of secretary of state
for the home department; and Mr. Grenville, who had so recently been
nominated speaker of the house of commons, obtained the appointment. Sir
Gilbert Elliot again became a candidate for the vacant chair; but the
ministerial nominee, Mr. Henry Addington, was elected by a majority of
two hundred and fifteen against one hundred and forty-two.




PITTS FINANCIAL MEASURES.

On the 10th of June, Pitt opened his financial scheme for the year. In
doing so, he congratulated the house and the country on the fact,
that his hopes of the efficacy of the sinking-fund, etc. had been well
founded. The permanent income declared necessary by the committee of
1786 to defray the annual demands, was £15,500,000; and for the last two
years it had exceeded that sum by £78,000. As, however, there had been
several extraordinary expenses, such as paying the debts of the Prince
of Wales, fitting out the armament of the summer of 1787, &c., he stated
that it was necessary to raise one million by loan, and to increase some
taxes or duties to pay the interest of this loan. The new duties which
he proposed were laid upon newspapers, advertisements, cards, dice,
probates of wills, and horses and carriages, none of which, he
conceived, would press at all on the poor, or heavily upon the rich. To
increase the revenue by further prevention of fraud, Pitt introduced and
carried a bill for transferring the duties on tobacco from the customs
to the excise; it having appeared, on inquiry, that one half of this
article, which would have produced a revenue of nearly £300,000, was
obtained by smuggling. Sheridan again controverted the statements of
Pitt; and on the 10th of July he moved, “that a committee be appointed
to inquire into the state of the public income and expenditure; into the
progress actually made in the reduction of the national debt since the
year 1786; and into the grounds on which a reduction of the same may
be expected in future, and to report the same, with their observations
thereon, to the house.” Sheridan pledged himself to prove that the
report of the committee of 1786 was not founded in fact; and that for
the last three years the expenditure had increased to the amount of
£200,000. A long debate took place on this motion; but it was negatived
without a division, as was also a motion to the same effect, moved in
the upper house by Lord Rawdon.




IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.

The trial of Warren Hastings was revived early in this session; but from
the occupation produced by the regency-bill and by the recovery of the
king, it proceeded but slowly. It was, in fact, the 20th of April before
their lordships resumed their sitting in the hall; and from the nature
of the business which subsequently occupied their attention, they could
then only sit seventeen days. The third article was opened on the 21st
by Burke, which article related to the corrupt receipt of money. In his
speech Burke alluded to Nuncomar, and indiscreetly said, that Hastings
had murdered him by the hands of Sir Elijah Impey. As Impey had been
acquitted by the house of commons, and as the transaction respecting
Nuncomar made no part of the charges contained in the articles, Hastings
thought proper to present a petition to the commons, in which he
entreated them either to cause this, and similar allegations made by
his accuser, to be prosecuted in distinct articles, or to afford him
such redress as they should think proper. This petition was strongly
supported by Major Scott, who presented it, and who accused Burke
of being guilty of cool, deliberate, systematic, and intentional
misrepresentation, and of imputing to Hastings crimes of which he knew
him to be innocent. In reply, Burke called Major Scott the systematic
libeller of the house of commons; and he, with his friends, endeavoured
to prevent the petition from being received; contending that it was
irregular and unprecedented, and that if every expression, not agreeable
to the feelings of the party accused, were not fit to be used in a
criminal prosecution, there must be an end to such prosecution. Pitt,
on the other hand, gave his cordial support to the petition, as far as
regarded the business of Nuncomar; and after a long debate, the house
resolved “that no authority had been given by the house for the purpose
of making any criminal charge respecting Nuncomar; and that the words
complained of ought not to have been spoken.” Subsequently, a resolution
of censure on the conduct of Burke was moved by the Marquess Of Graham;
and, though strenuously opposed by Fox and the other managers, it was
carried by a majority of one hundred and thirty-live against sixty-six.
In the meantime the trial went on languidly. Legal doubts and
difficulties were constantly suggested by the counsel for the prisoner,
and time was frittered away in their consideration by the peers; and
before this single charge could be settled, their lordships decided
to postpone the trial to the first Tuesday in the next session of
parliament. These delays caused great vexation both to the accused and
the accusers. Hastings, indeed, declared that if he had foreseen such
an interminable process, he would rather have pleaded guilty at the
commencement of the process; and that, if he had done so, he should have
been a gainer as regards money. Early in the session, in fact, Hastings
had presented a petition to the lords, complaining of the great hardship
to which the duration of the trial subjected him; mentioning the death
of several of his judges, the long detention of witnesses necessary for
his defence, the probability of his being deprived of many of them by
various accidents; and reminding their lordships of the shattered state
of his own health, and that his cost had been so great, that, even
if his life should be spared to the end of the trial, he might become
destitute of the means of defence, and thereby run the fearful chance of
having his character blasted by unrefuted criminations; there being no
hope of defending himself effectually without money. On the other hand,
Burke and the managers complained of the delays as tending to favour the
accused. On one occasion, when their lordships, after long consideration
in their own chamber—whither they almost invariably retired to solve
all doubt and difficulties—decided that certain evidence taken out
of the minutes at Calcutta should not be admitted, he exclaimed, with
impassioned vehemence:—“Plunder on; the laws intended to restrain you
are mere scarecrows. Accumulate wealth by any means, however illegal,
profligate, infamous. You are sure of impunity; for the natives of India
are, by their religion, debarred from appearing against you out of their
own country; and circumstantial evidence will not be received.” But
neither the complaints of the accused nor the accusers quickened the
proceedings of the peers. They still walked leisurely from the hall
to their chamber, and from their chamber to the hall, whence it was
jocosely said by Lord Stanhope, that “the judges walked, but the trial
stood still.”




PARLIAMENT PROROGUED.

Parliament was prorogued by commission—the king-having gone to Weymouth
for his health—on the 11th of August. The speech was delivered by the
lord chancellor, in his majesty’s name; and in it his lordship observed,
that, although the good offices of the king and his allies had not been
effectual for the restoration of general tranquillity, yet the situation
of affairs abroad continued to promise to this country the uninterrupted
enjoyment of the blessing of peace. But this view of the state of
Europe was superficial: in reality it promised nothing but strife and
bloodshed. This will be manifested in the next section.




CONTINENTAL AFFAIRS.

At this period war and anarchy were disturbing a large portion of the
continent. In the preceding year, Gustavus, King of Sweden, offended at
the intrigues of Russian emissaries; jealous of the extended power of
the Czarina Catherine; and anxious to recover the territories which had
been wrested from his predecessors, had commenced a war with Russia.
Gustavus was aided by a subsidy from the Turkish Sultan, who was at war
with Russia, and he entertained hopes of assistance from Great Britain
and Prussia. The Danes were engaged by treaty to assist the Russians,
and fearing the result of this alliance, the courts of Great Britain and
Prussia, without engaging directly in the contest, encouraged diversions
both in Poland and Sweden. But Gustavus had enemies in his own
dominions. His nobles had never forgiven him for overthrowing their
unbounded power, in 1772, and the war against Russia, which he began
without the assent of the states, was the signal for revolt. Many
of these nobles were superior officers in the Swedish army, and they
conspired against the king; and, declaring that the war undertaken was
contrary to the constitution, they sent deputies to St. Petersburgh, in
order to negociate an armistice, which was effected. At the same time
a Danish army invaded Sweden and menaced Gothenburg. The situation of
Gustavus was a critical one, but he was delivered from all danger by his
high courage, and the good offices of the courts of England and Prussia.
These courts, having in vain offered their mediation between those
of Petersburg and Stockholm, so effectually intimidated the Prince
of Denmark, who governed the state for his incapable father, that he
promised to abstain from all hostilities. Gustavus now convoked a diet
at Stockholm, in which an act of union and security was proposed and
adopted by the three lower orders of the assembly; which act gave him
unlimited power, and invested him with the right of waging war without
the consent of the states; made all classes of society equal in rights
of property and security, and all places and offices accessible to the
citizens; and established colleges of government, responsible to the
king, instead of the senate of the kingdom, whose authority had been
independent. The aristocratic senate of Stockholm, which had been
abridged of its powers in the revolution of 1772, was now entirely
suppressed, and while many of the members were arrested and thrown
into prison, others fled to St. Petersburgh, where they lived under the
protection of the czarina. Gustavus now hastened back to his banners
on the Russian boundary, and in the course of this year, 1789,
several severe and bloody actions took place, in most of which he was
victorious. Towards the close of the campaign, however, while in Russian
Finland, his galley-fleet, which moved along shore and co-operated with
his army, was defeated by a more numerous galley-fleet belonging to the
czarina, and having lost many of his best troops, he was compelled to
evacuate the Russian territories and retreat across his own frontier.
After this both armies went into winter-quarters.

In the meantime, notwithstanding the exertions made both by England and
Prussia to restore peace, war continued between the imperial courts
of Austria, Russia, and the Porte. Early in this year’s campaign, the
Austrians overran the greater part of Wallachia, and Moldavia, and
the Prince of Saxe Cobourg, who commanded them, being joined by the
Russians under Suvaroff, gained a great victory over the grand army
of the Turks at Martinitzi. Subsequently, Belgrade was captured by the
Austrians, and on the northern frontier the Russian General Potemkin
defeated another Turkish army, at a place called Tabac, not far from the
town of Bender. Flushed with victory Potemkin sat down before Bender,
but though the garrison was a small one, and the fortifications
contemptible, it was not captured till its walls were utterly demolished.
Before winter set in the Russians captured several places on the shores
of the Black Sea, and others on the Dniester and the Danube. They had,
indeed, reduced almost every important place between the Danube and
the Bog and Dnieper. On the other hand, the Turkish fleet defeated the
czarina’s flotilla or flotillas, on the Black Sea, and successfully
checked the Austrians, who after the reduction of Belgrade, undertook
the siege of Orsova.

Commotions every where prevailed. While the Austrian emperor was
prosecuting victories and conquests from which he could not hope to
derive any permanent advantages, he contrived to alienate from himself
the affections of the people of the Netherlands. This people consisted
of independent states, resembling each other in manner, character, and
constitution of government; their polity being composed of three orders,
clergy, nobles, and people, under the limited principality of one
personage, denominated Count. The Netherlander had shown an heroic
devotion to his mother, Maria Theresa, and were warmly attached to his
own person. Animated, however, by a restless spirit of innovation,
he dared to interfere with their ancient privileges and religion—two
objects of which they were particularly tenacious—and thus created a
spirit of disaffection throughout all the Low Countries. Under the plea
of reform he made innovations in their ecclesiastical establishments;
suppressed the most venerated judicial institutions; appointed new and
despotic tribunals; subverted the legislature, by abrogating the power
of the assembly of states, and instituted a general government, with a
court minister at its head; and finally attacked the clerical order,
by overthrowing those institutions which were the very nursery of its
priesthood. These sacrilegious acts roused the choler of the people;
open rebellion was the natural result; and the people were victorious.
The imperial troops committed many excesses throughout the Low
Countries, and dyed their swords in blood; but the Netherlander, strong
in the justice of their cause, finally triumphed. By the close of this
year the Flemings, the States of Brabant, and all the other provinces,
with the exception of Luxembourg, completely established their
independence.

It seems clear that the revolt of the Netherlander did not arise from
that democratic spirit which everywhere prevailed at this period,
but from the rapacity and usurpations of the Austrian emperor. It is
dangerous to touch ancient constitutions, and still more dangerous to
lay violent hands upon venerated religious establishments. But while the
Netherlander may be acquitted of being inflamed with the fierce passions
of democracy in their struggle with the Emperor of Austria, as much
cannot be said of other people and nations. At this time, indeed, a
party existed in most countries, whose aim was to overturn the existing
order of things, of which the efforts at revolution in several small
states, such as Aix-la-Chapelle and Geneva may be cited as examples.
These were so many instances of the democratic spirit which now
prevailed; but they sink into insignificance when compared with the
commotion which had commenced in France.

Incidental mention has been made of the financial embarrassments of the
court of France; embarrassments which were in a great measure induced by
the impolitic interference of that court in the dispute between England
and her American colonies. Such was the deplorable condition of the
French treasury in 1780, that a national bankruptcy was only avoided
by the issue of paper money, which by a royal edict was enforced on the
people, who were enjoined to receive it as gold or silver. Added to
this a scarcity was threatened, and many of the people were actually
perishing for want of bread. The prime minister, Necker, who was at the
head of the French government during the American war, had incurred the
hatred of the court party, and had been compelled, in 1781, to leave the
kingdom. His successors were first Calonne, and then Brienne, both
of whom failed to deliver the nation from its distresses. In 1788,
therefore, Necker was recalled, and placed anew at the head of the
finances, and also admitted to the council of state. Necker was at this
time the hope of the nation, but there was no man in existence who could
effect its salvation. Urged by the people, one of the first measures
of Necker was to procure an order of council for the assembling of the
States-general, which it was thought, could alone rescue the nation from
impending ruin. The meeting of the States-general would probably have
been attended with no ill effects, had it been constituted as in ancient
times. Instead, however, of there being an equal number of nobles,
clergy, and commons convoked, Necker unfortunately prevailed upon the
king to summon six hundred of the commons, making that body numerically
equal to the other two estates, and therefore capable of successfully
opposing their measures. This was fatal to the peace of the nation,
for the mass of the people of France, from among whom the commons
were convoked, were rampant for a change in the existing order of
things—were revolutionists at heart. The factious spirit which
prevailed among them was discovered at the very opening of the
States-general, which took place on the 5th of May, 1789, at Versailles.
After the king had delivered a speech, in which he expressed a hope
that it would communicate new vigour to the nation, re-establish public
credit, and open additional sources of happiness, a question arose,
“Should votes be taken by order, as heretofore, or by head?” This
provoked the parties to combat, and the commons prevailed: the votes
were to be taken by head. This clearly gave the preponderance to the
commons, or third estate, since their number was equal to that of the
nobles and clergy and they might expect some adherents from both those
parties. Within six weeks, indeed, the third estate being strengthened
by a part of the lower clergy, upon the motion of the Abbé Sieyes,
declared themselves the national assembly. This was a great step, and
the first imposing phenomenon of the new order of things. It caused
great joy among the people, great movements among the nobility and the
clergy, and great consternation at court.

To stem the onward tide of revolution which threatened to overwhelm the
nation, the king, by a herald at arms, declared that the debates of the
assembly were suspended, and that it was his majesty’s intention to
hold a royal session. The hall of the states was now closed, but the
deputies, under their first president, Bailly, assembled at one time in
the Tennis Court, and at another in the Church of St. Louis, and took
an oath to remain united until the regeneration of the state was
accomplished. The royal session took place on the 23rd of June, and the
king having pronounced the previous resolutions of the assembly to be
illegal, ordered the estates to leave the hall, and withdraw each to
their chamber, to deliberate there upon certain subjects which he laid
before them. He would consider himself, and himself alone, he said, as
the representative of the nation, and threatened to take all necessary
measures into his own hands, if the national assembly acted contrary to
his wishes. But the words of the monarch fell upon the ears of men who
hated royalty, and who were resolved upon stripping the diadem from his
brow. Being by this time joined by the greater part of the clergy, who
seem to have considered that their interests were blended with those of
the people, the commons resolved not to stir from the hall. The command
of the king was repeated by a royal messenger, and then was seen the
determined hostility which prevailed in the assembly towards the courts.
“Only the force of bayonets,” said Mirabeau, “can drive the deputies of
the people from their seats.” The assembly, therefore, still remained,
and on the following day was reinforced by some members of the nobility,
with the Duke of Orleans at their head. The king was perplexed; but
hoping still to counteract their measures, he ordered the majority
of the nobles, and the minority of the clergy to unite with the third
estate, whereby the national assembly was finally completed. But there
was still no reconciliation. Thirty thousand armed men, foreigners, were
assembled in the vicinity of the capital, under the command of Marshal
de Broglio, and these hostile preparations excited the people to revolt,
engaged the representatives of the nation in a struggle between opposite
duties, and alarmed the friends of liberty. All Paris—all France,
became agitated and excited to action. Patriotic societies were formed
as guides of the wild-fermenting masses of the people, and means of
resistance were debated upon and adopted. In the midst of the commotion,
a report was spread that Necker and Montmarin, the two popular
ministers, had been dismissed and banished the kingdom, and that they
and their colleagues were succeeded in office by men who were decided
advocates of the ancient _régime_. Now commenced insurrection. On the
14th of July the people rose _en masse_, and being joined by the
French guards, they stormed and captured the Bastille. Alarmed at these
proceedings the king discharged his new ministers; recalled Necker; sent
away the foreign troops, and threw himself into the arms of the nation.
Joy and acclamation succeeded, and a festival of reconciliation was
celebrated at Paris, between king and people, which seemed to presage
the return of harmony. But there were two parties in the state who were
far from being satisfied with the reconciliation thus brought about—the
aristocrats and the democrats. The former saw their downfall therein,
and rather than submit to such a state of things, great numbers went
into voluntary exile. By their departure, the king was left without
defence and counsel in the midst of the roaring storm—was left to the
mercy of men who were in heart his most deadly enemies. He assumed the
tri-coloured cockade, and sanctioned the decrees of the assembly,
which aimed at the overthrow of the old, and the establishment of a new
government; but still, though he complied with their every wish, it was
evident, to all men of discernment, that he had not the affections of
his subjects, and that his life was not safe in their hands. After
his apparent reconciliation with the Parisians, Louis hastened to
Versailles, where he hoped to remain in peace. But it was scarcely to be
expected that a people, and especially the people of a corrupt capital,
after they had broken the bonds of obedience, would immediately return
to social order. Despite the exertions of Bailly, the recently elected
mayor of Paris, and of Lafayette, the head of the newly created citizen
militia, tumults were the order of the day. Famine raged in the city,
and urged by it, as well as by a desire of revenge, many fell victims
to the fury of the multitude. Thus Foulon, counsellor of state, and
thus Berthier, his son-in-law, hitherto intendant of Paris, perished.
Accumulated murders were committed in the capital, and similar scenes
occurred in the provinces. Several cities followed the example of Paris,
and in the country the peasants armed themselves against the nobles: the
times of King John seemed to return. These crimes are in a great measure
to be imputed to some members of the national assembly; but in the
month of August the better part got a resolution passed, whereby the
disturbers of the tranquillity were reminded of their duty, and the
national guards, which were promptly raised in the whole kingdom,
charged with the maintenance of order and security. But resolutions and
decrees, and even the sword, were still impotent to allay the rash fury
of the populace. It was suspected by them that the higher orders were
not sincere in the sacrifices to which they had assented, and a rumour
was industriously spread abroad that preparations were making for the
retreat of the king to Metz, in Lorraine, where the royal standard was
to be raised in opposition to the national assembly. Nor does it appear
that the king was sincere in the concessions which had been wrung from
him, or that he intended their perpetuation. At all events, if the king
himself was sincere, it is certain that the queen and her counsellors
turned their thoughts towards the restoration of the monarchy. Full
of warlike sentiments, the court brought the regiment of Flanders to
Versailles, and surrounded itself with soldiers, whence not only the
populace suspected its movements, but the municipality of Paris became
alarmed, and Lafayette himself spoke openly of a plot against liberty.
A fresh insurrection now took place. Urged in part by famine, in part by
wild cannibal passions, and in part by objects of treason and ambition,
on the 5th of October, several thousand furious women, intermixed with a
number of men of the most abandoned characters, assembled together, and
after having committed some outrages, set up a long and hideous cry “To
Versailles!” And the cry was not long confined to them. It resounded
also among the citizen-militia, and among the great mass of the
population of Paris, and Lafayette placed himself at the head of
the insurrection. On the night of the 6th of October the palace of
Versailles was attacked; many of its defenders were slain; and the king
and the royal family, being rescued from the hands of the infuriated mob
by Lafayette at the head of the national guard, were carried in triumph
to Paris. The heads of the unfortunate defenders of the monarch, fixed
on pikes, adorned the procession as it passed through the streets of the
city. This new triumph of the populace occasioned another change in
the constitution by the national assembly: the king being compelled to
accede to every thing which they chose to establish. But France was not
yet tranquil. The king and the people—except the factionists—became
again, in appearance, if not in reality, reconciled; but there was still
an under-current of mischief at work, which finally involved the monarch
in ruin, Paris in bloodshed, and all Europe in war!

{GEORGE III. 1789–1791}




STATE OF PARTIES IN ENGLAND.

The events which had taken place in France during this year, naturally
attracted the anxious notice of other European states. In England many
persons read of them with pleasure, others with suspicion and jealousy,
and others with anxiety and alarm. The general opinion was favourable
to the revolution, arising from the natural abhorrence with which
Englishmen look upon despotism under every possible form and shape. Even
Fox and Pitt at first united in a tribute of admiration of the great
movement; they, with others, overlooking its most criminal excesses,
on the presumption that it would tend to establish the liberty and
the happiness of the French people. All parties, indeed, agreed in
believing, or at least hoping, that the states being properly modelled
would by degrees effect the most important reforms, and produce the
most valuable results, not only to the French themselves, but to all the
world. Poets sang the destruction of the Bastille; orators applauded
the asserters of liberty; statesmen contemplated the revolution with
pleasure; and even divines from their pulpits did not blush to extol the
character of the French regenerators. Among the most ardent admirers of
the French revolution was an assemblage of persons, with Lord Stanhope
at their head, who had associated for many years for the purpose of
commemorating the British revolution of 1888. These revolutions were
totally different in character, but losing sight of this, the society
even went so far as to offer a formal address of “congratulation to
the national assembly on the event of the late glorious revolution in
France.” It must be in charity supposed, that a great deal of ignorance
existed as to the real character of the movement in France, otherwise it
could only be concluded that a similar spirit existed in England as in
that country. It must not be disguised, however, that England contained
a certain class of discontented speculative men, who considered their
own country deficient in the liberty which, they imagined as agreeable
to man’s natural rights; and who therefore looked upon the French
revolution as the precursor to a similar movement among ourselves: men
who, from a revolutionary ardour and a fondness for innovation, looked
on all resistance to power as commendable, confounded revolt with
liberty, and identified conspiracy with patriotism. But this section of
the community happily was not extensive: the many who admired the French
revolution did so from a generous sympathy, and while they lamented the
excesses committed, they attributed it to the old tyranny, which had
brutalized the people, and which they considered as not likely to
continue. They concluded, erroneously indeed, that a change from the old
system of despotism must be an improvement, and fondly hoped that the
alterations would produce a government in France, similar to that which
they themselves enjoyed. Others there were, however, who viewed the new
politics of France with horror. Looking from the present to the future,
they foresaw that the events which had taken place in that country,
instead of producing such a change in the condition of the French people
as every friend to rational and well-regulated freedom must desire,
would only produce the most lamentable consequences—would either
terminate in anarchy, or in the establishment of despotism. Of the great
public men of the day, Burke was perhaps the first to discern the true
character of this movement in France. The letters which he wrote during
its progress all show that he looked upon it with the utmost suspicion:
arguing from the bloody deeds with which it was consummated, deeds still
more bloody and fearful. But the keen insight into the French character
which Burke possessed was not common to the public at large, or even to
his own party and the friends of his bosom: the general impression was,
that the French people, after the first ebullitions of vengeance, would
return to their senses; and that then they would build up a fabric of
freedom on the ruins of tyranny, which might serve for a model to all
Europe: a bulwark of liberty which the iron foot of despotism should
never be able to throw down.

     “But history, time’s slavish scribe, will tell
     How rapidly the zealots of the cause
     Disbanded—or in hostile ranks appeared:
     Some, tired of honest service; these outdone,
     Disgusted, therefore, or appalled, by aims
     Of fiercer zealots—so confusion reigned,
     And the more faithful were compelled to exclaim,
     As Brutus did to virtue: ‘Liberty,
     I worshipped thee, and find thee but a shade.’”
                                 —Wordsworth.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1790}


The British parliament met on the 21st of January. The king, who had
now recovered from his malady, attended in person, and in his speech he
slightly glanced at the affairs of the continent, by observing that they
had engaged his most serious attention; paid an appropriate tribute
to the excellence of the British constitution; and congratulated the
country on the increase of the public revenue, the extension of commerce
and manufactures, and the general prosperity. The addresses in both
houses were voted without opposition or division. In moving that in
the commons, Lord Valletort took occasion to contrast the tranquil and
prosperous situation of England with the anarchy and licentiousness
prevailing in France, and to stigmatize the revolution as an event the
most disastrous and the most fatal that had ever taken place since
the foundation of the French monarchy. Nearly all who followed Lord
Valletort coincided in his sentiments, attributing the prosperity and
tranquillity of England to the superior excellence of its constitution,
and to the prudent administration of the executive government. The
subject was resumed in the debates which took place on the 5th and 9th
of February, in both of which Fox spoke in a laudatory manner of the
French military, and in the latter of which he extended his eulogiums
to the French revolution itself. It has been seen before that Burke’s
sentiments on this subject were foreign to those of his party, and
notwithstanding his political connection _with_, and friendship
_for_ Fox, he rose from his seat greatly agitated, and denounced the
revolution as “an irrational, unprincipled, proscribing, confiscating,
plundering, ferocious, bloody, tyrannical democracy.” In his speech,
Burke, after paying some high compliments to the genius and character
of Fox, and adverting to the danger of his opinions as sanctioned by
the authority of so great a name, entered at large into the subject. He
remarked:—“The French have shown themselves the ablest architects of
ruin that have hitherto appeared in the world. In one short summer
they have completely pulled down their monarchy, their church, their
nobility, their law, their army, and their revenue. Were we absolute
conquerors, with France prostrate at our feet, we should blush to impose
on them terms so destructive to their national consequence, as the
durance they have imposed on themselves. Our present clanger is that of
being led, from admiration, to imitate the excesses of a people whose
government is anarchy, and whose religion is atheism.” Burke expressed
his concern at hearing this strange thing called a revolution in France,
compared with the glorious event called the revolution in England.
He instituted a parallel between the two, and showed how widely they
differed from each other, and how Great Britain had risen beyond the
standard of her former self, because she had commenced with reparation,
and not with ruin. The French, he said, had made their way through
the destruction of their country to a bad constitution, when they were
absolutely in possession of a good one. Instead of redressing grievances
and improving the fabric of their state, to which they were called by
their monarch and sent by their country, they had first destroyed all
the balances and counterpoises which served to fix the state and to
give it a steady direction, melting down the whole into one incongruous,
ill-connected mass; and then, with the most atrocious perfidy and
breach of all faith, they laid the axe to the root of all property,
and consequently of all national prosperity, by the principles they
established and the example they set in confiscating all the possessions
of the church. They had made and recorded a sort of institute and
digest of anarchy, called “A Declaration of the Rights of Man;” thus
systematically destroying every hold of authority by opinion, religious
or civil, on the minds of the people. By this mad declaration they
had subverted the state, and brought on such calamities as no country,
without a long war, had been known to suffer. Burke expressed himself
astonished and troubled at the movements in France beyond measure, and
denounced it as so far from being worthy of imitation, that it ought
to have our utter abhorrence He would spend the last drop of his
blood—would quit his best friends, and join his bitterest enemies, to
oppose the least influence of such a spirit in England. Burke concluded
his noble harangue by saying that he was now near the end of his
natural, and probably still nearer the end of his political, career;
that he was weak and weary, and wished for rest; that at his time of
life, if he could not do something by weight of opinion, it would be
useless to attempt anything by mere struggle; and that, with respect to
the British constitution, he wished but few alterations in it, adding,
that he should be happy if he left it not the worse for any share he
had taken in its service. This speech, so full of patriotism and
unanswerable argument, gave rise to a grand schism among the Whigs. As
soon as Burke had concluded, Fox rose and declared his total dissent
from opinions “so hostile to the general principles of liberty,” and
which, he said, he was grieved to hear from the lips of a man whom he
loved and revered; a man by whose precepts he had been taught, and from
whom he had learned more than from all the men with whom he had ever
conversed. His speech on that day, he remarked, some arguments and
observations excepted, was among the wisest and most brilliant that had
ever been delivered in the house; but still, with all these admissions,
his opinion on the general subject remained unaltered. Fox entered into
a vindication of the conduct of the French army, in refusing to act
against their fellow-citizens, and excused the scenes of bloodshed and
cruelty which had been committed by the citizens, on the ground of their
long-suffering from tyranny. At the same time Fox declared, that he
never would lend himself to support any cabal or scheme to introduce
any dangerous innovation into our excellent constitution; and that Burke
might rest assured they could never differ in principles, although they
might disagree in the application of principles. Burke rejoined, and
expressed himself satisfied with the explanation of his right-honourable
friend; and the discussion might have ended for the present, had it not
been for Sheridan, who wished to make a speech on this grand subject.
Sheridan, in rising, said, that he felt it his duty to declare that
he differed from Burke in almost every word respecting the French
revolution. In his opinion it was as just as our own, proceeding upon
as sound a principle, and a greater provocation. Sheridan then eulogised
Lafayette, Bailly, and other patriots of that stamp, and vehemently
defended the general views and conduct of the national assembly. He
concluded his harangue by charging Burke with being an advocate for
despotism, and with having spoken of the national assembly with an
unwarrantable freedom of speech. Burke instantly rose to reply; and in
doing so he expressed his indignation at the language which Sheridan
had used, and declared that henceforth his honourable friend and he were
separated in politics. Sheridan’s language, he said, was not new, since
it was only a repetition of what was to be heard at the reforming clubs
and societies with which the honourable gentleman had recently become
entangled, and for whose plaudits he had chosen to sacrifice his
friends. He added, that his argument was chiefly an argument _ad
invidiam_, and that all the applause he could hope for from clubs was
scarcely worth the sacrifice which he had chosen to make. The Whig party
were alarmed at this breach in their camp; and attempts were instantly
made to bring about a reconciliation by means of mutual explanations.
But these attempts were fruitless; the bond of union was for ever
broken. The Whig party were rendered still more uneasy by the conduct of
Pitt, who declared that Burke had that day conferred a great obligation
upon the country, and warmly applauded the zealous and seasonable
attachment which he had displayed to the principles of the British
constitution. No man, in truth, rendered more service to the cause of
constitutional liberty than did Burke at this period. This was but
the first of a series of splendid harangues which he uttered upon the
subject of the French revolution, and which were as the sound of a
trumpet to the hearts of the English people. The contagion of its
principles were also arrested by the weighty productions of his pen; in
which productions “his fancy laid all nature under tribute, collecting
treasures from scenes of creation, and from every walk of art to adorn
his pages.” His sentiments had the more weight because they proceeded
from a mind which had ever been active in the great business of reform;
some traces of which activity were manifest in the statute-book. But the
reforms which Burke had ever advocated were founded in justice; those
which the French regenerators had adopted were subversive of all order,
and tended only to anarchy and desolation.




DEBATES ON THE TEST AND CORPORATION ACTS.

Since the decision of the last session relative to the test and
corporation acts, the Protestant dissenters had not relaxed in their
efforts to increase the number of their friends in the house of commons.
Moreover, they had held provincial meetings in all parts of the kingdom,
and by their public resolutions, in contemplation of a general election,
earnestly recommended the friends of equal and universal liberty to the
choice of electors. Unfortunately at these meetings, in their speeches
and resolutions, they warmly applauded the principles of the French
revolution; and they appear to have thought that this season of change
was favourable for pressing their old claims upon parliament. Under this
impression they resolved to bring the subject before the commons; and
instead of Mr. Beaufoy, the friend of Pitt, Fox, the tried friend of
liberty, was requested by them to become their advocate. Fox moved for
the repeal of the two acts in question, and supported his motion by a
long and able speech, in which he showed himself anxious to prove that
the application of his clients had nothing whatever to do with the
principles of the French revolution. It certainly did not emanate from
that movement, for the first application had been made three years
ago, when the keenest sagacity could not have formed anything like a
conjecture of the events which had taken place in France. It is most
certain, however, that the Protestant Dissenters, in seeking their
claims, had uttered language which savoured of a spirit of innovation.
It may have been only out of generous sympathy, but they had been among
the warmest approvers of the French revolution; and this gave offence
in high places. Hitherto, Pitt, although he opposed the repeal of the
corporation and test acts, had done so with temper and moderation; but
now, in opposing the motion, he spoke of their conduct with the utmost
indignation. At the very moment, he said, when they were reprobating the
test laws, they discovered their intention of forming associations to
impose a test on members of the house of commons. Pitt also vindicated
the necessity of a church establishment for the good of the state;
and endeavoured to show that such an institution could not exist if
toleration were extended to equality of privileges. Burke was more
emphatic in his opposition to the motion than Pitt. A wild spirit of
innovation was abroad, he said, which required not indulgence, but
restraint; and he asserted that the avowed leaders of the dissenters
had, in their speeches, resolutions, writings, and sermons, given
countenance to the revolutionary spirit which everywhere prevailed.
Burke read some extracts from dissenting divines in proof of his
assertions; and he adjured the house to let the events which had taken
place in France, and the sudden downfall of the church in that kingdom,
awaken their zeal for the preservation of our own establishment. Fox
rejoined, and urged the injustice of deciding a general question of
right upon the conduct of a few individuals; but the motion was rejected
by a majority of two hundred and ninety-four against one hundred and
five. This decided hostility to the measure chiefly arose from the time
at which it was brought forward, and the means which had been employed
to ensure success. Many members, and among them the amiable Wilberforce,
who had before voted for the repeal of these laws, now voted against it,
from a conviction that it would give an impetus to the innovating spirit
which so universally prevailed.




FLOOD’S MOTION FOR REFORM OF PARLIAMENT.

On the 4th of March, Mr. Flood, a celebrated Irish orator, moved for
leave to bring in a bill to amend the representation of the people in
parliament. This bill proposed to add one hundred members to the present
house of commons, in a proportionate ratio to the population of each
county, to be elected by resident householders. In his speech Mr. Flood
boldly asserted that the members who sat in the house were not the
adequate representatives of the people. He would not deny that they were
the legal representatives, and he acknowledged that they were a useful
and honourable council; but, to the honour of the British constitution,
we were entitled to something better. Although Mr. Flood avowed that he
was no friend to revolutions, and that he considered them an evil, yet
it was evident that his motion arose from an innovating spirit; and as
such it was opposed. Mr. Wyndham, member for Norwich, and the professed
admirer of Burke, said, that if he had approved of the measure, he
should still have objected to its being brought forward or adopted at
the present time. Where was the man, he asked, who would advise them to
repair their house in the hurricane season? Speculatists and visionaries
were at work in a neighbouring country, and that, he thought, was
sufficient. There was project against project, theory against theory,
_frontibus adversis pug-nantia_. He entreated the house to wait for the
event, and to guard with all possible care against catching the French
infection. Pitt followed Wyndham, and he declared, “that if the motion
before them were the precise resolution which he himself had formerly
proposed, he should now vote against it, from a thorough conviction
of its impropriety.” He recommended its withdrawal, promising, on some
future day, to make the subject of parliamentary reform a ministerial
measure. Fox rose to support the motion; and he affirmed, in the course
of his speech, “that no season could be more proper for the commencement
of repairs than when a hurricane was near and ready to burst forth.” At
the same time he acknowledged that he felt convinced the opinion which
he supported was neither that of the majority of the house nor of the
people. Burke combated the whole scheme and all the arguments that
had been adduced in support of it; and asserted that these attempts at
parliamentary reform were not countenanced by the people. Other members,
as Wilberforce, Granville, and Powys, spoke on the same side, and the
motion was at length withdrawn. These were the only great political
questions which engaged the attention of the commons during this
session. All change met with such an unyielding and decided opposition,
that its advocates deemed it their wisdom to remain silent. In this line
of conduct they were confirmed by the good temper of the people, who
wisely exhibited a disposition to submit to any little wrongs they might
be called upon to endure, rather than by a refractory spirit to run the
risk of incurring greater.




EAST INDIA AFFAIRS.

On the 31st of March Mr. Dundas presented to the house an account of the
financial state of India. He announced a great increase of revenue in
Bengal; which he looked upon as the strongest proof of the prosperity
and good government of the country. Dundas said, that in a few years
he trusted the company would be enabled to pay off the whole of their
arrears, and that the British possessions in India would be more
flourishing in wealth, commerce, and manufactures, than any other
part of Hindustan. In the present state of things, he remarked, we had
nothing to fear from any European nation: Holland was our ally, and
France was in no condition to disturb our foreign possessions. Tippoo
Saib, he acknowledged, was an enemy; but without European auxiliaries,
and the support of other native powers, he could never become formidable
to the British empire. Dundas, indeed, indulged himself in the pleasing
vision that this country was likely long to enjoy an undisturbed peace
at home and abroad.




PITT’S FINANCIAL STATEMENT, ETC.

Pitt opened the budget for the year on the 15th of April; and in doing
so he congratulated the house upon the prosperous state of the finances.
He regarded the increase of revenue as progressive, and spoke with
triumph of the growing greatness of England. Like Dundas, he spoke of
the continuance of peace as certain; and he concluded his speech with an
encomium upon the British constitution, to which, under Providence, the
prosperity of the nation was to be ascribed. About the same time that
the budget was opened, the house voted several sums as a recompense for
services or indemnification for losses in the cause of the country. Thus
an annuity of £1000 per annum was granted to the Rev. Dr. Willis,
who had been instrumental in restoring his majesty’s intellects; the
speakers salary was increased from £3000 to £6000; and the family of
Penn had a perpetual grant of £4000 per annum bestowed upon them out
of the consolidated fund, for the losses they had sustained during the
revolt of the American colonies.




THE SLAVE-TRADE QUESTION.

Early in this session, Mr. Wilberforce, who had continued to devote
time, life, fortune, and talent to the great subject of the slave-trade,
moved that the house would resolve itself into a committee of the whole
house, to take that trade into consideration. This motion was agreed
to; and on a subsequent day he moved and carried the appointment of
a special committee for the examination of witnesses. Wilberforce was
himself one of the most active members of this special committee; but
nothing further was done during this session beyond hearing of evidence;
every mode of procrastination being resorted to on the part of the
slave-merchants and planters. The bill of Sir William Dolben, for
limiting the number of slaves to be transported in each slave-ship, was
renewed for another year; and the further consideration of the subject
was adjourned till next session.




DISPUTES WITH SPAIN.

Although both Pitt and Dundas had so recently spoken confidently of the
long continuance of peace, yet, on the 5th of May, a royal message was
delivered, announcing circumstances which indicated the approach of
war. The circumstances from whence this message originated were briefly
these:—In his last voyage of discovery, the celebrated navigator,
Captain Cook, had touched at Nootka, or Prince William, on the Western
coast of North America, where his crew purchased some valuable furs,
which they disposed of to great advantage in China. In consequence of
the recommendation of Captain King, who published the last volume of
“Cook’s Voyages,” some mercantile adventurers from the East Indies,
with the consent of the governor-general, undertook to supply the
Chinese with fur from these regions. For this purpose they fitted out
two small vessels; and the trade proved so advantageous, that, in 1788,
the adventurers resolved to form a permanent settlement. A spot of
ground was accordingly procured from the natives at Nootka Sound, and
a regular establishment was formed, which was defended by a slight
fortification. This was, however, regarded by the Spaniards as an
encroachment of their exclusive right of sovereignty; and two Spanish
ships of war arrived in the sound, seized two English vessels with the
crews, and then took possession of the settlement. The British flag was
removed; the Spanish commandant declaring, that the whole line of coast
from Cape Horn to the 60th degree of north latitude, belonged to the
King of Spain. These incidents were notified to the court of Great
Britain by the Spanish ambassador; who, at the same time, requested that
measures might be taken for preventing his Britannic majesty’s subjects
from frequenting those coasts, and from carrying on their fisheries in
the seas contiguous to the Spanish continent, they being, it was stated,
the rights of the Spanish crown. The claims of Spain, in reference
to her right of dominion and sovereignty in America, were wholly
chimerical; and the notification and request of the Spanish ambassador,
therefore, were met by a demand of satisfaction for the insults offered
to the British nation, and reparation to the individuals who had
suffered in property and person. This satisfaction had not been given;
and intelligence having also been received that armaments were fitting
out in the Spanish ports, his Britannic majesty judged it right to
prepare on his side for supporting the rights and interests of his
kingdom. Such were the circumstances related in his majesty’s message
to the house of commons; and he requested that they would enable him to
make such an augmentation of force as necessity seemed to require. At
the same time the king expressed an earnest wish that the satisfaction
due might yet be given, and that the affair might terminate without
recourse to arms, or any interruption of the friendship and harmony
which subsisted between the two nations. The message being taken into
consideration, the commons unanimously voted an address to the king,
assuring his majesty of their determination to afford the most zealous
and effectual support in maintaining the dignity of his crown, and the
essential interests of his dominions. This was followed by a vote of
credit for £1,000,000, for the purpose of making the necessary warlike
preparations. Fox gave his warm support to the address and vote of
credit, but he blamed ministers for their exultation on the prospect of
peace, when a war with Spain had so long been threatened: though from
Pitt’s explanation it did not appear that they knew anything of
the preparations in the Spanish ports till a very few days since.
Subsequently, motions were made in both houses, by opposition, for the
production of papers to illustrate the grounds of this dispute; but
these were successfully resisted, on an established rule of policy,
prohibiting all documents relating to a negociation with a foreign power
from being produced while such negociation was still pending.

{GEORGE III. 1789–1791}




IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.

The trial of Warren Hastings recommenced on the 10th of February, on
which day Mr. Anstruther went through the charge relating to the corrupt
receipt of presents. Disputes instantly arose about the evidence proper
to be admitted, and their lordships took another walk to their chamber
in order to debate and consult. Fresh objections were then made by
the counsel acting for Hastings, who said that the matter which, the
managers brought forward was neither set down nor made a charge of in
the articles of impeachment. On this their lordships adjourned again,
and after long consultation, the objections made on the part of the
defendant were held to be valid. The managers and the public by this
time seemed to consider that the trial would never be finished, and
Burke, on the 11th of May, called the attention of the house of
commons to its protracted continuance; and moved the two following
resolutions:—1. “That this house, taking into consideration the
interruptions occasioned by the occupations of the judges and the house
of lords, as also the impediments which have occurred, or may occur,
in the course of the trial of the impeachment of Warren Hastings, Esq.,
doth, without meaning to abandon the truth or importance of the charges,
authorize the managers of their said impeachment, to insist only upon
such and so many of the said charges as shall appear to them the most
conducive to the obtaining speedy and effectual justice against the
said Warren Hastings. 2. That the commons of Great Britain in parliament
assembled, from a regard to their own honour, and from the duty which
they owe to all the commons of Great Britain, in whose name, as well
as in their own, they act in the public prosecutions by them carried on
before the house of lords, are bound to persevere in their impeachment
against Warren Hastings, Esq., late governor-general of Bengal, until
judgment may be obtained upon the most important articles in the same.”
 The first of these resolutions was adopted, but the latter was dropped
as unnecessary. In supporting them the managers attributed the delay to
Hastings himself, to his counsel, and to the house of lords. A day or
two after, however, Major Scott, published a letter containing a review
of the trial, and strictures upon the managers, whom he accused of being
guilty of a great crime in instituting the prosecution, and of a still
greater crime in not having brought it to a close long ago. Long and
angry debates took place on the publication of this document, the result
of which was that Major Scott was reprimanded, sitting in his place, for
the violation of his duty as a member of the house of commons. In the
meantime the impeachment still went but slowly forward. The court of
peers only sat thirteen days during the session, and did not get beyond
the charge which Anstruther had opened. After Fox had summed up and
commented upon the evidence, on the 9th of June their lordships agreed
to postpone the trial till the first sitting in the next session of
parliament.




PARLIAMENT PROROGUED, AND DISSOLVED.

On the 10th of June his majesty closed the session by a speech from
the throne, in which he informed the two houses of his intention of
dissolving the present and calling a new parliament. In his speech the
king said that he had as yet received no satisfactory answer from
the court of Madrid, and that he was therefore under the necessity of
continuing his preparations for war. He acknowledged their affectionate
and unshaken loyalty to his person; their uniform and zealous regard for
the true principles of the constitution; and their unremitting attention
to the happiness and prosperity of his people. His majesty then dwelt
upon the rapid increase of manufactures, commerce, and navigation; the
security given to our most distant possessions; and the improvement
of the public revenue. He added, after thus enumerating the salutary
effects of their counsels:—“The loyalty and public spirit, the industry
and enterprise of my subjects have well seconded your exertions. On
their sense of the advantages which they at present experience, and
their uniform attachment to my person and government, I rely for a
continuance of that harmony and confidence, which must at all times
afford the surest means of meeting the exigencies of war, or of
cultivating with increasing benefit the blessing of peace.” On the
next day parliament was dissolved by proclamation: it had existed seven
sessions.




SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES WITH SPAIN.

The British government, desirous of avoiding hostilities, dispatched Mr.
Fitzherbert to Madrid, with full powers to settle all disputes between
the two nations. At first the Spanish court showed itself adverse to
negociation, and applied to that of France for aid. The court of France,
however, though willing to support the Bourbon compact, had lost the
power, for the people, by whom it was now kept in awe, were averse at
this time to a war with England. Unable to contend with the British
arms alone, Spain was therefore compelled to comply with the demand of
restitution and indemnification: on the 2nd of October a convention was
signed at the Escurial, by which every point in dispute was conceded.
The settlement at Nootka-Sound was restored; the free navigation and
right of fishery in the Southern Pacific were confirmed to Britain; and
a full liberty of trade and even of settlement was granted to all the
north-west coasts of America, beyond the most northerly of the Spanish
territories, though unaccompanied by any formal renunciation of
their right of sovereignty. Both nations were equally restricted from
attempting to form any settlement nearer to Cape Horn than the most
southerly plantations already established by Spain. It was also agreed,
that, in case of any future complaint, no violence should be committed,
but recourse had to an amicable adjustment between the respective
courts. This convention was generally applauded in England, though
£3,000,000 had been expended in warlike preparations.




CONTINENTAL AFFAIRS.

Early in this year the Emperor Joseph of Austria died, and was succeeded
by his brother Leopold, Grand Duke of Tuscany. On his death-bed, Joseph,
who had during his life shown himself an ambition & warrior, recommended
peace, and the first care of his successor was to free himself from
the Turkish war. Under the mediation of England, Prussia, and Holland,
negociations for peace were opened at Reichenbach, in Silesia, on the
4th of June, and a treaty of peace was settled on the _status quo_
principle, that each party should retain what it possessed previous to
the war, restoring all that it had conquered, and recovering all that
it had lost. The Czarina of Russia was invited to be a party to this
treaty, but she refused, and still carried on war with the Turks on the
one side, and the Swedes on the other.

The congress at Reichenbach interfered likewise in the affairs of the
Netherlands: England, Prussia, and Holland guaranteed to the Emperor
Leopold all the possessions of the House of Austria in Flanders,
Brabant, &c., on the condition that he acknowledged and re-established
the ancient privileges and constitution of those provinces. On the
accession of Leopold, and before the meeting at Reichenbach, or before
any kind of measure was attempted, either diplomatically or otherwise,
he had sent a memorial to the Netherlanders, in which he expressed
sincere regret for the despotic proceedings of the Austrian government,
and declared his anxiety to redress all grievances; at the same time
vindicating his claim to the sovereignty, and announcing his resolution
to maintain it with all his might. Although the Netherlanders had
established their independence, there was still among them a strong
loyal imperial party, and this address and the situation of Belgian
affairs revived the spirits of these loyalists, and they soon began to
declare themselves in favour of Leopold, and to wear the old cockade,
instead of the new patriotic ribands. By degrees, great numbers of the
populace, also, embraced their opinions, and the party soon acquired
a very imposing force. Such was the situation of affairs when Leopold
issued a second manifesto, after the meeting at Reichenbach, engaging
himself, under an inaugural oath, and the guarantee of Great Britain,
Prussia, and Holland, to govern the Belgic Netherlands according to
the constitution that was in force under Maria Theresa, and offering
an amnesty to all who should return to their duty before the 1st of
November. The mediating powers notified to the Belgian states the
approval of these terms, but that body, who had exercised sovereign
authority ever since the revolt, were loth to relinquish it; and under
these circumstances, Austrian troops entered their territory. Various
engagements took place, but resistance was vain: the arms of the emperor
were uniformly successful, and the people generally acknowledged the
heir of their ancient rulers. The leading members of opposition now
took refuge in flight, and in a convention, guaranteed by the defensive
alliance and executed on the 10th of December, the constitution of
Maria Theresa was restored to the Belgic provinces, with some additional
rights and privileges.

In the meantime the war between Russia and the Porte went on but slowly.
Early in the year the czarina made some attempts to detach the Greek
subjects of the sultan from their obedience, and a rebellion was
fomented by her means in Albania, and an extensive plan was arranged
by the Greeks for emancipating themselves from the Ottoman yoke. A
memorial, offering the sovereignty of Greece to Constantine her son, was
laid before the czarina, but before the plan could be matured she was
induced to postpone her attempts upon Turkey. It was late in the autumn
before Suvaroff received reinforcements, supplies, and positive orders
to commence operations, and he then invested Ismael, which he
captured; slaying 24,000 Turkish soldiers, and destroying 7,000 of the
inhabitants. The loss of the Russians themselves was estimated at 10,000
men, including a great number of officers, some of whom were of the
highest rank.

The King of Sweden opened the campaign early in this year, and
penetrated within one hundred miles of St. Petersburg. Alarmed at the
approach of her enemies, the czarina sent 10,000 Russians, under the
command of General Ingelstrom, to obstruct their progress. Ingelstrom
attacked the Swedes in their lines at Karnomkoksi, on the Saima Lake,
but he was defeated with the loss of 2000 men. Gustavus still advanced,
while his fleet, under the Duke of Suclermania, sailed up the Gulf
of Finland, penetrated into the harbour of Revel, in the hope of
demolishing that great naval arsenal, and a division of the Russian
fleet which lay at anchor in that harbour. He was frustrated by a storm,
and, subsequently, he was twice attacked by Russian squadrons, which on
both occasions enclosed his fleet; but each time he extricated himself
from danger, though with great loss cf ships and men. Having recruited
his shattered forces, Gustavus took the command of the fleet himself,
and having encountered a large Russian fleet, after a bloody battle,
which lasted two days, he gained a decisive victory. This defeat alarmed
the czarina, and being abandoned by Austria and threatened by England
and Prussia, she entered into negociation with Gustavus, and by the
month of August a treaty of peace was concluded between them. By this
treaty those of Abo and Nystad were confirmed; each power was to retain
what it possessed before the war; and Sweden renounced all claim to
the possessions which had once belonged to it, and which it had overrun
during the present war. Russia also granted permission to export grain
from Livonia; and it was mutually agreed to appoint commissioners
to settle in an amicable manner the line of frontier between the two
countries: the two courts further promised themselves that they should
strengthen their connexion by a close alliance, and agreed to forget
what was past.

In Paris, during this year, the national assembly pursued its
legislative labours. All ecclesiastical possessions had, at the close of
the preceding year, been declared national property, and the reformers
soon after laid their hands on the domains of the crown: with the
exception of some castles, which were to be left to the king, the rest
were transferred to the state. To facilitate the sale of the possessions
of the crown and the church, paper money was created, which was at first
ordered to last only six years, but which was subsequently declared
current money—as good as gold. These measures were followed by the
suppression of all orders and cloisters; by the suppression of the
parliaments; by an entire change of the judicial system; by the
admission of Jews to the rights of citizens; by the abolition of all the
titles of the noblesse, coats of arms, and decorations of the order
of chivalry; by an order that the estates of Protestants who fled
from France on the iniquitous repeal of the edict of Nantz, should
be restored; by a division of France into eighty-three departments,
subdivided into two hundred and forty-nine districts, each of which was
composed of from three to five cantons; and by a change in the national
representation, which was made to harmonize with this new division. To
all these decrees the king, who had no alternative, gave his unqualified
sanction, and in return the national assembly fixed the civil list of
the king at 25,000,000 of livres, besides the possession of castles of
pleasure. Harmony seemed to be restored, and to establish it a festival
of confederation was ordained, which, on the first anniversary of the
capture of the Bastille, was held in the field of Mars, when the king
and 500,000 Frenchmen swore on the altar of the country to observe the
new constitution. But notwithstanding all this show of harmony, a secret
fermentation remained. The abolition of titles and the insignia of rank
inflamed the anger of the aristocrats, and the manifestations of their
wrath increased the hatred of the commons. A new emigration took place,
and officers, as well as nobles, fled for their lives. The emigrants
assembled in arms at Coblentz, Worms, and Ettenheim, from whence,
maintaining a close connexion with their friends or dependants at home,
they cast firebrands into the interior of the kingdom. Nor did the
priesthood quietly submit to the civil constitution which the national
assembly imposed upon them: they refused to take the oath, and stirred
up many against public authority and the new constitution. The
friends of liberty were alarmed and exasperated at the open and secret
preparations of this twofold and implacable opposition. In this state of
irritation all that was known was friend and enemy; and these relations
effected the triumph of the fanatic and the fall of the moderate. One of
the first who fell was Necker, to whose counsels the nation was indebted
for most of the concessions of the king, and consequently for its
success: Necker lost all his popularity, and fled from a country which
he had contributed to ruin. The king, also, soon again declined in
popular favour; the sentiments of his heart did not accord with his
public declarations, and this becoming manifest, the popular party was
disquieted and enraged. Mirabeau, whose ardour for revolution had begun
to cool, and who now saw that the constitution was far too democratic
for a monarchy, leagued secretly with the fallen court, and laboured
with all the force of his popularity to raise it from its degraded
state, and to recover for the crown a portion of strength necessary for
its existence. But it was too late. Before this, clubs had been formed
among the members of the national assembly, in order that better
directed and more energetic efforts might be made in securing the
objects of the revolution. Pre-eminent among these clubs was that of
the deputies from Bretagne, which held its sessions in the suppressed
cloister of the Jacobins, from which cloister the members of the club
received the name of Jacobins; a name which finally obtained a bad
celebrity in the world’s history. Similar clubs were also formed in most
of the important cities of the kingdom, which maintained, with that at
Paris, the closest union of sentiments and efforts. The bonds of society
in France were, in truth, loosened, and no human skill could restore
them: the bridle had been taken from the mouth of the fiery steed,
and no human arm could arrest his headlong course. Marat, Danton, and
Robespierre-men of blood—with others of the same stamp, had already
made their execrable names known in the clubs of the Cordeliers and
Jacobins, which finally united, and these were the men who were, for a
brief period, to rule the destinies of France.




PROGRESS OF REVOLUTIONARY PRINCIPLES IN ENGLAND.

It has been well said that the season of hope and delusion ought now to
have been over—that whatever right-hearted and right-headed Englishmen
might have thought of the French revolution at the opening of the
States-general in May, 1789, they ought not at the close of this year
to have regarded it with any other sentiments than those of horror,
disgust, and pity. But “rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.” Although
it was as clear as the sun at noon-day, that the events which had
taken place in France were but the precursors of some horrible
catastrophe—that the French regenerators sought not wholesome and
legitimate reformations, but the ruin of their country, yet it is a
lamentable fact that their admirers in England were now greatly on the
increase. On the very day that the festival of confederation took place
in Paris, six hundred gentlemen in England assembled to celebrate the
event which it commemorated. The chairman of this assembly was Earl
Stanhope, who acted as president of the Revolution Society in London: a
society which, after extending its ramifications throughout the country,
entered into an active correspondence not only with the National
Assembly, but with the societies in all parts of France, instituted for
the promotion of revolutionary principles. Among the associates of this
society were men of all ranks and professions—men who could lay no
claim to a practical acquaintance with politics, or the working of
governments, and who knew little or nothing of human nature. Happily
for the country, however. Burke and other writers put forth all their
strength to show the danger which lurked in the Revolution Societies
of England, and government opposed a mighty barrier to the progress of
their dangerous principles. These wrought the salvation of the country.
The most powerful antagonist to these societies, who worked by means of
the press, was Burke, who, toward the end of this year, published his
great work on the subject, entitled “Reflections on the Revolution, &c.”
 a work which sounded the knell of the old Whig confederacy. Some of
this party yielded at once to the force of his arguments, while others
retreated as they saw the development of the principles against which
they were directed. In fact, the result of this work was to make the
old appellations of Whig and Tory assume a widely different meaning from
that which had hitherto been attached to them: by the term Whig was now
understood the favourers of such democratic principles as existed in
France; by that of Tory, those who were alarmed at the progress of the
French revolution. The bold and uncompromising stand which Burke made
against these principles led to a final rupture between him and his old
friend Fox, and consequently to the permanent separation of the great
Whig party: from this time there was a division in the camp; a breach
which could not be healed.




WAR IN INDIA.

During this state of affairs in Europe, a war which directly concerned
England broke out in India. Tippoo Sultaun, whose hatred towards the
English was mortal, in the year 1789 sent a secret messenger to France,
to invite the French government to send six thousand of their best
troops to the Carnatic, with which he engaged to drive the British
forces out of every part of Hindustan. This messenger was favourably
received by the people, and even some of the king’s ministers were in
favour of the project. Louis, however, had not forgotten the lesson he
had been taught by interfering in the American war—an act for which he
was still indeed suffering—and he turned a deaf ear to the plausible
representations which were made to him in order to obtain his consent.
But before Tippoo received an answer from the French monarch, he had
commenced operations, by attacking the Rajah of Travancore, who had
long been the close ally of the English. Before the end of the year
1789 Tippoo had overrun and took possession of the greater part of the
rajah’s dominions, and subsequently he defeated a detachment of the
company’s army, under Lieutenant-Colonel Floyd. His progress, however,
was soon stopped. The Bengal government, having formed a close alliance
with the Mahrattas, the Nizam of the Deccan, and other native powers,
raised two armies; one in the Carnatic of 15,000 men, under General
Medows, and another of 7,500 men, in the presidency of Bombay, under
General Abercrombie. Thus threatened, Tippoo evacuated the Travancore
country, and retreated to his strong capital, Seringapatam. But he had
provoked the war, and it was not to close with his retreat. In June,
1790, Medows, with the Carnatic army, marched towards Seringapatam, and
took several important fortresses in his route. Medows, however, was
obliged to retrace his steps by intelligence that Tippoo had again
burst into the Carnatic, and was carrying fire and sword to the walls of
Madras. Tippoo was soon obliged to retire beyond the mountains; and
in the meantime General Abercrombie, with the Bombay army, landed at
Tellicherry, and reduced all the places which the enemy possessed on
the Malabar coast, in which he was aided by the Nairs, and the other
petty Hindu rajahs, who were glad of an opportunity of rescuing
themselves from Tippoo Sultaun’s rule. In the end the Rajah of
Travancore was re-established in his dominions, and then the campaign
closed: but the war was not yet over.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

The new parliament assembled on the 25th of November. In his speech his
majesty expressed great satisfaction at the amicable adjustment of the
late disputes with Spain about Nootka Sound; observed that since the
last session of Parliament a foundation had been laid for a pacification
between Austria and the Porte, and that a separate peace had been
concluded between Russia and Sweden; noticed the hostilities which had
broken out in India; acquainted the house of commons that the expenses
of the armament, together with the estimates for the ensuing year would
be laid before them; and called particular attention to the state of the
province of Quebec. The address was carried in both houses with large
majorities; though ministers were censured by opposition, in the lords
and in the commons, for the convention which they had made with Spain.
On the 3rd of December, when copies of this convention were laid before
the two houses of parliament, it was urged in the commons that more
papers ought to be produced, and on the 13th of the same month Mr. Grey
made a motion for all that related to the affair of Nootka Sound. This
motion was negatived by a majority of nearly two to one; and on the
following day Mr. Duncombe, one of the members for Yorkshire, after
mentioning that trade and manufactures had suffered but little during
the late dispute with Spain, moved an address to his majesty on the late
successful negociations with the court of Madrid, which was carried by
a still larger majority. A similar address was moved in the lords by
the Duke of Montrose, when the Marquess of Lansclowne took occasion to
reprobate the convention in very strong language. The marquess contended
that the Spanish nation had an indisputable right to the whole of the
American coast on which Nootka Sound is situated; a right which
was acknowledged in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Overlooking the
provocation which Spain had given, and her previously concerted plan to
enter upon a war in conjunction with France, he said that ministers
had, in the arrogance of power, insulted the present weakness of that
country, and inflicted a wound which would rankle in the heart of the
Spanish people. The marquess also argued that they had alienated and
made enemies of Prance, Russia, Denmark, and Sweden, as well as of
Spain. He also argued, that by the late treaty of France, which was an
infringement of the old Methuen treaty with Portugal, ministers,
had alienated the court of Lisbon, and that had war taken place, the
Portuguese, Venetians, and Neapolitans, would have joined the Spaniards
against England. Lord Rawdon spoke on the same side; hinting a suspicion
that our fleet had been destined for the Baltic, while we were bullying
Spain, which had not offered any insult to this country; and that this
farce had been carried on until the King of Sweden had made peace with
Russia. The convention was defended by Lord Grenville, and the address
was carried by a majority of forty-three. Another debate took place on
this subject on the 15th of December, when Pitt gave in, in a separate
account, the expenses of the late armament; intimating at the same
time that some of those expenses, which arose out of the engaging an
additional number of seamen, must be continued, as these seamen
could not be all disbanded at once. The expenses incurred by the late
armament, and the funds necessary to keep up the additional number of
seamen, he said, was £3,133,000, which he thought might be defrayed
without entailing any permanent charge upon the revenue. He proposed
to defray it by temporary taxes, assisted by £500,000, which he
contemplated taking from the unclaimed dividends lying in the Bank of
England, the total amount of which he estimated at £680,000. This
latter proposition, however, excited such alarm in the great chartered
companies and to the mercantile world in general, that Pitt was obliged
to abandon it, and to accept of a loan of £500,000 from the Bank without
interest, so long as a floating balance to that amount should remain in
the hands of the cashier. The bulk of the money required was raised by
an increase of the duties upon sugar, British and foreign spirits, malt,
game licences, and by an increase of the assessed taxes, except the
commutation and land-taxes, part of which were to continue for two
years, and the rest for four only. Pitt also introduced, in aid of the
expenses of the armament, a variety of new regulations, to prevent the
evasions and frauds practised in the taxes upon receipts and bills of
exchange: these were to be permanent.




CHAPTER XVIII.

{GEORGE III. 1791–1792}

     Debate on the War in India..... Dispute with Russia.....
     Bill for the Regulation of Canada..... Slave-trade Abolition
     bill..... Catholic Relief Bill, etc...... Bill to amend the
     Law on  Libels..... Financial  Measures..... Impeachment of
     Warren Hastings..... Parliament prorogued..... Progress of
     the Revolution in France..... State of Public Opinion in
     England, etc.

{A.D. 1791}




DEBATE ON THE WAR IN INDIA.

Soon after the Christmas recess, Mr. Francis, having first eulogised
Tippoo Sultaun, and contended that it was both impolitic and unjust
to think of extending our territories in Hindustan, moved thirteen
resolutions for the purpose of censuring the origin and preventing
the continuance of the war, which he represented as having been begun
without provocation, as being ruinously expensive, and as not likely
to be productive of any great advantage. Pitt and Dundas vindicated the
war, and showed to demonstration that the war originated in Tippoo’s
restless ambition, hostility to the British, and long-premeditated
design of subduing Travancore, which would open to him an easy entrance
into the Carnatic, and thus enable him to attack Madras and all our
possessions in that part of the East Indies. A war on our part, it was
argued, was therefore necessary, unless we wished to sacrifice both our
honour and interest, and to forfeit all respect among the native powers.
The feelings of the house were with Pitt and Dundas, especially as great
confidence was placed in the moderation and justice of Lord Cornwallis,
the present Governor-general of India, and hence Francis let his
thirteen resolutions drop without a division. Seconded by the feelings
of the house, a few days after, Dundas moved three counter resolutions;
namely, that it appeared to the house that the attacks made by Tippoo
Sultaun on the lines of Travancore were unwarranted and unprovoked
infractions of the treaty of Maugalore, concluded in 1784; that the
conduct of the governor-general, in determining to prosecute the war
against Tippoo for these attacks on Travancore, was highly meritorious;
and that the treaties entered into with the Nizam and with the Mahrattas
were calculated to add vigour to the operations of the war, and to
promote the future tranquillity of India, and that the faith of the
British nation stood pledged for the performance of the engagements
contained in the said treaties. These resolutions were adopted by the
house without a division.




DISPUTE WITH RUSSIA.

In proposing to continue the additional number of seamen which had been
engaged for the expected war with Spain, Pitt had said that there
were circumstances in the present situation of Europe, which made it
necessary to keep up a naval armament, for a time, of more than ordinary
extent. This had reference to the warlike attitude of Russia. At the
congress of Reichenbach, the defensive alliance had proposed to the
Czarina that she should accede to the peace which they were negociating
with Austria, and that all conquests should be restored. This she
flatly refused; but subsequently, being deprived of lier ally, and
seeing that it was at present impossible for her to subjugate Turkey to
her sway, she offered to restore all her acquisitions, except the city
and dependencies of Oczakow, an important place, commanding the mouth
of the Dnieper, at a distance of less than two hundred miles off the
Turkish capital. As this offer exhibited an inclination on the part of
the Czarina to recommence the war at some future period, the allies
projected a more effectual interference, and on the 28th of March Pitt
delivered a message from the king on the subject. His majesty acquainted
his faithful commons, that his endeavours, in conjunction with his
allies, to accomplish a pacification with Russia and the Porte had
proved abortive; and that the consequences which might arise from the
continuance of the war being important to his own interests, as well as
those of his allies and to Europe in general, he judged it requisite, in
order to add weight to his representations, to augment his naval forces,
relying on the zeal and affection of the house of commons to make good
such expenses as might be incurred. After delivering this message, Pitt
moved an address to the king, thanking him for it, and promising him
the support of the house. In doing so the minister represented, that, if
Russia should be allowed to gather any material strength at the expense
of Turkey, the effect would be injurious to the interests of all
Europe; and that the interference of England was indispensable for the
preservation of that balance of power, which all statesmen and men
of all parties held to be essential for the security of Europe. This
doctrine was very ancient, and had long been the doctrine of both Whig
and Tory, but it was now despised by the opposition, who, to a man,
became the champions of the Czarina. It was argued that it would be
folly to sacrifice all the advantages of our immense trade with Russia
for the sake of a Turkish fortress; that neither wisdom nor policy could
justify Great Britain in going to war to preserve a barbarian power,
which for the sake of religion, justice, and humanity ought to be
utterly extirpated; and that, as we had received no injury from Russia,
all hostile interference on our part was wholly unnecessary. On the
other hand, it was argued by ministers that the aggrandisement of Russia
at the expense of Turkey would injure both our commercial and political
interests; and that the possession of Oczakow would facilitate the
acquisition, not only of Constantinople, but of Alexandria and Lower
Egypt. The address was carried, and several resolutions afterwards moved
against the armament were rejected by large majorities. The armament
therefore continued, and the Czarina was soon compelled to give up
Oczakow with all her other acquisitions in Turkey, acquisitions which
had cost her many thousand men to obtain.




BILL FOR THE REGULATION OF CANADA.

When Canada became a British colony the king had promised its
inhabitants the benefits of the British constitution. Since that time
the French settlers in that country, and the Canadians, had been joined
by many British subjects, and by loyal emigrants from America, who were
anxious to secure the advantages which the royal promise held out
to them. Ministers had for some time directed their attention to the
subject, and on the 4th of March Pitt moved for leave to bring in a
bill for regulating the government of Canada, and entered into a minute
detail of every provision which he meant to propose. He proposed to
divide Canada into two provinces, Upper and Lower, and to establish
distinct legislatures; the division being meant to separate the parts
which were chiefly inhabited by French Canadians, from those inhabited
by more recent settlers. The legislature of each province was to consist
of a council and house of assembly. The members of the council were to
hold their seats for life, with a reservation of power to the crown
for annexing to certain honours an hereditary right of sitting in
the council; and the members of the assembly were to be chosen by
freeholders possessing landed property to the amount of forty shillings,
or occupiers of houses worth twenty pounds per annum. The _habeas
corpus_ act was to be rendered a permanent law of the colony; and a
provision was to be made for the Protestant clergy by an allotment
of lands. Appeals were to be made to the privy-council in the first
instance, and from thence to the house of lords. The British government
gave up the right of taxation, asserting only that of regulating
external commerce: no taxes were to be imposed except such as were
necessary for this regulation. This bill was read twice; it passed
the committee, and the report was received by the house, before any
disapprobation of it was expressed. On the second consideration of the
report, however, Fox condemned its every principle. He observed, that
the object of all popular assemblies was that the people should be
fully and fairly represented, but as the assembly of one province was to
consist of sixteen, and the other of thirty, the people were deluded by
a mockery of representation. Fox also objected to the representatives
being elected for the term of seven years, and contended that there
should be annual, or at most triennial elections. Even in England, he
said, where the frequent return of elections was attended with great
inconvenience, the propriety of the septennial bill might justly be
doubted. Fox further objected, that the legislative councils were
unlimited as to numbers by any other restriction than the pleasure of
the king, to whom a power was reserved of annexing to certain honorary
and titular distinctions an hereditary right of sitting in council. As
to hereditary honours, he remarked, as a general proposition, it was
difficult to say whether they were good or not, but he saw no good
in their being introduced into a country where they had hitherto been
unknown. It might not be wise to destroy them where they existed, but it
was unwise to create them where they did not exist. He could not account
for this step, unless it was that Canada having formerly been a French
colony, there might be an opportunity of reviving those distinctions,
the loss of which some gentlemen so deplored, and to revive in the west
that spirit of chivalry which had fallen into so much disgrace in a
neighbouring country. In the course of his speech Fox made one unhappy
allusion to the extinction of nobility in France, and its forced revival
by us in Canada: “nobility,” he said, “stunk in the nostrils of the
people of America.” At this time, indeed, Fox and his party embraced
every opportunity of extolling the “glorious revolution” in France,
whence, on the re-commitment of the bill, Burke again sounded the
trumpet of alarm at that event. In enlarging upon the importance of
the act which they were now about to perform, he said, “The first
consideration was the competency of the house to such an act.” “A body
of rights,” he continued, “commonly called the Rights of Man, had been
lately imported from a neighbouring kingdom; the principle of which code
was, that all men were, by nature, free and equal in respect of those
rights. Now, if this code were admitted, he argued, the power of the
house could extend no further than to call the Canadians together to
choose a constitution for themselves. But the practical effects of such
a system might be seen in St. Domingo and the other French islands.
Until they heard of the Rights of Man they were flourishing and happy,
but as soon as this system arrived among them, Pandora’s box, replete
with every mortal evil, seemed to fly open; hell itself to yawn; and
every demon of mischief to overspread the country. Blacks rose against
blacks, whites against blacks—and each against the other in murderous
hostility: subordination was destroyed, the cords of society snapped
asunder, and every man appeared to thirst for the blood of his
neighbour. The mother country, France, not receiving any pleasure in
contemplating this image of herself reflected in her child, sent out a
body of troops to restore order and tranquillity. But these troops, well
instructed in the new principles, immediately upon their arrival felt
themselves bound to become parties in the universal rebellion; and, like
most of their brethren at home, began the assertion of their freeborn
rights by murdering their own general! Should such an example induce
us to ship off for Canada a cargo of the Rights of Man?” Burke next
proceeded to describe the deplorable condition of France itself, and to
comment on the conduct of the national assembly towards their monarch.
In the midst of his speech he was called to order by Mr. Baker, and a
scene of indescribable confusion ensued, and much time was wasted in
violent altercation: one side of the house contending that Burke was
in order, and the other that he was out of order. In the midst of this
discord Fox sarcastically said, that he conceived his honourable friend
could hardly be said to be out of order, since it seemed to him that
this was a day of privilege, upon which any gentleman might abuse any
government he chose, whether it had any reference or not to the question
before the house. Nobody had said a word about the French revolution,
but nevertheless his right honourable friend had risen up and abused
that event. Burke had certainly as much right to abase the revolution,
as Fox and his party had to extol it; and he attempted to explain why
he thought that he was in order, but the roar of voices which was raised
from the opposition benches drowned his voice, so that he was compelled
to sit down. Lord Sheffield now rose and moved, “That dissertations
on the French constitution, and to read a narrative of transactions in
France, are not regular or orderly on the question before the house.”
 Fox seconded this motion, and this gave rise to the utter disruption
of the friendship which had subsisted between him and Burke:—there had
been heart-burnings before, arising from a difference of opinion on
the subject of the French revolution, but now their political union was
brought to a close. After Pitt had defended Burke, and declared that he
should give his negative to the motion, Fox rose to defend his former
sentiments respecting the French revolution, and repeated that he
thought it, upon the whole, one of the most glorious events in the
history of mankind. As for the Rights of Man, which his right honourable
friend had ridiculed as visionary, he contended that they were the basis
and foundation of every rational constitution. The rights of the people,
he said, were recognized in our statute-book, and no prescription could
supersede, no accident could remove or obliterate them. This at one time
had been the doctrine of his friend, who had said, with great energy and
emphasis, that he could not draw a bill of indictment against a whole
people. He was sorry to find, however, that his right honourable friend
had learned to draw such a bill of indictment, and moreover to crowd it
with all the technical epithets which disgraced our statute-book: such
as false, malicious, wicked, by the instigation of the devil, and the
like. He added, that having been taught by his right honourable friend
that no revolt of a nation was caused without provocation, he could
not help rejoicing at the success of a revolution resting upon the same
basis with our own—the Rights of Man: no book his friend could write,
no words he could utter, could ever induce him to change or abandon his
opinion; he must differ with his friend upon that subject _toto
colo_. Throughout the whole of his speech Fox alternately rebuked
and complimented Burke, and while he vindicated his own opinion he
questioned the consistency of his friend. Fox even ventured to speak
contemptuously of Burke’s book on the subject of the French revolution,
and to assert that he had written it in haste, and without due
information. His whole speech, in fact was ungenerous in the highest
degree, whence it is no wonder that when Burke rose to reply it was
under the influence of strongly excited feelings. Having touched upon
the main question, and vindicated his conduct in putting the country on
its guard against the dangerous doctrines which prevailed in France,
and which had found many advocates in England, he complained of being
treated with harshness and malignity—of being personally attacked from
a quarter where he least expected it, and that after a close intimacy of
twenty-two years. His whole conduct, words, and writings, he said, had
not only been misrepresented and arraigned in the severest terms, but
confidential conversations had been brought forward in order to prove
his political inconsistency. He had been accused of writing and speaking
on the subject of the French revolution without due information, but
nevertheless he was ready to meet Fox, hand to hand, and foot to foot,
in a fair and temperate discussion relative to that event. It was his
imperative duty, he exclaimed, to speak upon French affairs, and to
point out the danger of extolling, upon all occasions, that preposterous
edifice, the French constitution; an edifice which the right honourable
gentleman had termed the most stupendous and glorious which had been
erected on the foundation of human integrity in any time or country. Our
own government, he continued, was in danger, for there were political
clubs in every quarter, meeting and voting resolutions of an alarming
tendency. Dangerous doctrines were also promulgated from the pulpit, and
infamous libels on the British constitution were everywhere circulated.
There might not, indeed, be any immediate clanger, since we had a
king in full power, ministers responsible for their conduct, a country
blessed with an opposition of great strength, and a common people that
seemed to be united with the gentlemen; but, nevertheless, there was
cause for circumspection, as in France there were 300,000 men up in
arms, who would be glad to intermeddle, and as a season of scarcity
might arrive, when the low intriguers and contemptible clubbists, which
abounded on every hand, might rise in revolt against the government.
Burke again adverted to the unkindness with which he had been treated by
his old associate, and remarked, that though he had frequently differed
with him there had still been no interruption of personal friendship.
But, he added, although at his time of life it might not be discreet to
provoke enemies or to lose friends, yet if his steady adherence to the
British constitution placed him in such a dilemma, he would risk all,
and, as public duty required, would exclaim with his last breath, “Fly
from the French constitution!” Fox here whispered that there was no loss
of friendship, but Burke rejoined—“Yes there is: I know the price of my
conduct; I have done my duty at the price of my friend; our friendship
is at an end!” Burke then addressing himself to the two great rivals,
Pitt and Fox, expressed a hope that whether they hereafter moved in the
political hemisphere, as two flaming antagonist meteors, or walked
like brethren hand-in-hand, they would preserve and cherish the British
constitution against innovation and new-fangled theories. Fox rose to
reply, but the tears trickled down his cheeks, and emotion for some
time impeded his utterance. He felt the loss of his friend: yet, on
recovering himself, while he made an eloquent appeal to the remembrance
of the past, and to the reciprocal affection which had subsisted between
them, as dear as that between father and son, he still gave utterance
to some bitter sarcasms, and repeated some of his objectionable remarks.
Rejoinders on both sides followed, and the dispute was renewed on the
11th of May, the house being again in committee on the Quebec Bill, but
no concessions were made on either side, and the connexion between these
illustrious men were dissolved for ever.

     They stood aloof; the scars remaining—
     Like cliffs which had been rent asunder.

The Quebec Bill, which had given rise to this dispute, was finally
carried through the house of commons, with some amendments, on the 18th
of May; and it subsequently passed the lords, though not without much
opposition, and obtained the royal assent at the close of the session.




SLAVE-TRADE ABOLITION BILL.

On the 18th of April, the evidence on the slave-trade being closed,
Mr. Wilberforce moved “for a bill to prevent the further importation of
African negroes into the British colonies.” He introduced this motion
with a copious and convincing display of arguments in its favour,
grounded on the principles of justice, humanity, and Christianity, but
though it was supported by Pitt and Fox, self-interest prevailed:
the motion was negatived by one hundred and sixty-three against
eighty-eight. The advocates of humanity, however, completed at this time
the establishment of the Sierra Leone Company, by which they proposed to
introduce free labour and Christianity into Africa. A bill was brought
in for this purpose by the excellent Henry Thornton, and it passed
through both houses without opposition.




CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL, ETC.

During this session Mr. Mitford moved for a committee of the whole
house, to enable him to bring in “a bill to relieve, upon conditions,
and under restrictions, persons called Protestant Catholic Dissenters,
from certain penalties, to which Papists are by law subject.” A reform
in the penal statutes was at this time peculiarly called for, since
a large body of Catholic Dissenters had recently formally protested
against the temporal power of the pope, and his right to excommunicate
princes, or to absolve subjects from their oath of allegiance; and had
likewise disavowed the lawfulness of breaking faith with heretics,
and the power claimed by their priests, of exempting men from moral
obligations. The principles of the bill were generally approved, and it
passed both houses without opposition: the bishops themselves expressing
sentiments in its favour. Encouraged by this liberality of parliament,
the church of Scotland transmitted from the general assembly a petition
praying for the relief of the Test Act, as far as it applied to that
country; and subsequently Sir Gilbert Elliot made a motion on the
subject, but it was rejected by a large majority.




BILL TO AMEND THE LAW ON LIBELS.

On the 20th of May, Fox brought in a bill for empowering juries to try
the question of law as well as fact, in prosecutions for libel. This
subject was debated as a constitutional right, and not as a party
question, and having obtained the support of Pitt, it passed the commons
with very little opposition. In the lords, however, it was objected to
as an innovation on the laws of the kingdom, and though warmly supported
by Lords Camden, Grenville, and Loughborough, the motion for the second
reading was negatived.




FINANCIAL MEASURES.

Previous to the introduction of his financial measures, Pitt proposed
the appointment of a committee to inquire what had been the amount of
the income and expenditure during the last five years, and what they
might be expected to be in future; and also what alterations had
occurred in the amount of the national debt since the 5th of January,
1786. This committee made its report on the 10th of May, when
it appeared that the annual income had been £16,030,285, and the
expenditure, including £1,000,000 for liquidating the national
debt, £15,909,178, thereby leaving an excess of the income over the
expenditure to the amount of £61,107. In his account of the state of
finances on the 18th of May, Pitt referred to this report as a proof
of their flourishing condition. Sheridan, however, still questioned
the correctness of the figures; and on the 3rd of June he moved forty
resolutions, calculated to discredit the management of the finances, and
to show that he could have taken—spendthrift as he was—better care
of the public money. These resolutions were all rejected; and ministers
brought forward sixteen counter resolutions, which went to prove that
the finances had never been so well managed before, and that there was
every prospect, not only of keeping the expenditure within the limits of
the income, but of reducing the national debt. This was visionary; but,
at all events, Pitt was enabled to provide for the services of the year
without a loan or any additional taxes. On a subsequent day, Dundas laid
a flattering account of the finances in India before the commons; the
revenues there, he stated, amounted to £7,000,000, and after defraying
all expenses, there was left a clear surplus of nearly £1,500,000. His
statement was questioned by Paul Benfield who had recently returned
from India, and who asserted that he could prove it to be erroneous, but
for the late period of the session.




IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.

Early in this session a question arose, whether an impeachment by the
house of commons did not remain _in statu quo_, notwithstanding the
intervention of a dissolution of parliament. Upon the solution of this
question it depended whether the present parliament could take up the
proceedings against Hastings where they had been left by the last, or
whether they must be commenced anew. Much discussion arose upon the
question; lawyers and members of parliament alike being at issue upon
it; but Burke finally succeeded in carrying this motion:—“That it
appears that an impeachment by this house, &c., against Warren Hastings,
Esq., late Governor-general of Bengal, for sundry high crimes and
misdemeanors, is now depending.” The trial, therefore, was to be resumed
at the point where it was left by the recent parliament; and in order to
shorten it, on the 14th of February, Burke moved “that, in consideration
of the length of time which has already elapsed since carrying up the
impeachment against Warren Hastings, Esq., it appears to this house
to be proper, for the purpose of obtaining substantial justice with
as little delay as possible, to proceed to no other parts of the said
impeachment than those on which the managers of the prosecution
have already closed their evidence; excepting only such parts of the
impeachment as relate to the contracts, pensions, and allowances.”
 This motion was carried without a division; but the resolution of the
commons, that an impeachment did not cease with the dissolution of
parliament, was strongly contested in the house of lords; and it was
not till the 16th of May that their lordships agreed to proceed with the
trial. On that day Lord Porchester moved, “that their lordships do
now proceed with the trial;” and this motion being carried by a large
majority, a message was sent to the house of commons that they were
ready to resume proceedings. The charge respecting contracts, pensions,
allowances, frauds, and extortions, was opened by Mr. St. John on the
23rd of May, and was gone through in three days. The prosecution closed
its evidence on the 30th of May; and when the court broke up, the
managers proposed an address to the king, praying him not to prorogue
parliament until the trial was finished. This was negatived; and
Hastings seeing that he could not expect to bring his defence before
the court during the present session, begged to be allowed one day for
stating what he deemed of importance respecting the further progress of
the trial. This request was readily granted; and on the 2nd of June he
delivered a long and able discourse, vindicating his administration in
India, and entering at large into the principles which had actuated his
conduct. He finally appealed to his accusers in the following energetic
peroration:—“To the commons of England, in whose name I am arraigned
for desolating the provinces of their dominion in India, I dare to
reply, that they are, and their representatives annually tell them so,
the most flourishing of all the states in India. It was I who made
them so! The valour of others acquired—I enlarged, giving shape and
consistency to the dominion which you hold there. I preserved it. I sent
forth its armies with an effectual but economical hand, through unknown
and hostile regions, to the support of your other possessions; to the
retrieval of one from dishonour and degradation, and of another from
utter loss and subjection. I maintained the wars which were of your
formation or that of others, not of mine. I won one member of the great
Indian confederacy from it by an act of seasonable restitution; with
another I maintained a secret intercourse, and converted him into a
friend; a third I drew off by diversion and negociation, and employed
him as an instrument of peace. When you cried out for peace, and your
cries were heard by those who were the object of it, I resisted this
and every other species of counteraction by rising in my demands, and
accomplished a peace, a lasting and I hope an everlasting one, with one
great state; and I, at least, afforded the efficient means by which a
peace, if not so durable, more seasonable at least, was accomplished
with another. I gave you all, and you have rewarded me with
confiscation, disgrace, and a life of impeachment. I am, above all
things, desirous that your lordships should come to an immediate
decision upon the evidence before you. But if the shortness of time
should prevent you from complying with this, my earnest desire, and the
trial must, of necessity, and to my unspeakable sorrow, be prolonged to
another session, then, my lords, I trust you will not consider me, by
anything I have said, as precluded from adopting such means of defence
as my counsel may judge most advisable for my interest. I am so
confident of my own innocence, and have such a perfect reliance upon
the honour of your lordships, that I am not afraid to submit to
judgment upon the evidence which has been adduced on the part of the
prosecution.” After this plea of general merit, in extenuation of
specific charges, their lordships passed a resolution to proceed with
the trial on the first Tuesday in the next session of parliament.




PARLIAMENT PROROGUED.

Parliament was prorogued by the king in person on the 10th of June.
His majesty expressed great satisfaction at the zeal with which the
two houses had applied themselves to the consideration of the different
objects which he had recommended to their attention; and said, that he
regretted he was not yet able to inform them of the result of the
steps which had been taken with a view to the re-establishment of peace
between Russia and the Porte.




PROGRESS OF THE REVOLUTION IN FRANCE.

The notes of alarm sounded by Burke in the British house of commons
at the progress of the French revolution, did not proceed from an
overheated imagination; for, during this year, events transpired which
showed in a clearer light than ever that there was cause for alarm.
The audacity of the Jacobins daily increased; and in order to oppose
a barrier to it, the wiser of the national assembly had recourse to
royalty. Lafayette, Mirabeau, the two Lameths, and others, foreseeing
the danger in which the new constitution was placed from their
proceedings, acted thus, though it proved all to no purpose. In the
midst of his exertions to stem the coming ruin of the country, Mirabeau,
who was of all men in France the most able to effect such a work, died.
It was proposed in the assembly, on the 28th of February, that the tide
of emigration should be stopped, by entrusting the power of granting
passports to a committee of three persons. Against this iniquitous
measure Mirabeau loudly exclaimed; and his opposition to the measure
raised such a clamour against him, that, in his exertions to silence
their voices, he was so overcome, that he returned thence to a bed of
sickness, from which he never arose. His last words were—“After my
death the factions will soon tear the last shreds of the monarchy.”

Before Mirabeau had closed his mortal career, he had counselled the king
to retire to Metz, beyond the power of the Parisians; and there, at the
head of an independent force, to treat with the nation, if he could not
with the assembly, and obtain a more equitable adjustment between the
rights of the crown and those of the people. Exposed to daily renewed
mortifications, Louis finally resolved upon flight; and a plan was
concerted with the Marquis de Bouille, who formed a camp of some
faithful regiments near Montmedy, for his escape thither. The king and
his family left the Tuilleries and the capital on the night of the 20th
of June, and arrived undisturbed as far as St. Menehauld; but here he
was recognized by the postmaster Drouet, who, by taking prompt measures,
had him arrested at Varennes. On the fifth day of his flight he was
conducted back to Paris as a prisoner, surrounded by an angry populace
and the national guards. He had left behind him, on his departure from
the Tuilleries, a declaration, in which he protested against the decrees
of the national assembly which he had sanctioned, and manifested his
intention of overthrowing the new order of things. Had he succeeded,
therefore, France was threatened with civil war and executors; and now
that he had failed, vengeance was to fall upon his own head. On his
return the national assembly suspended him provisionally from his
functions, and appointed commissioners to interrogate him. Louis,
however, supported by the moderate party, was silently reinstated in his
authority, and the national assembly went on as before. But this only
tended to increase the rage of the Jacobins. They wanted at once to
proclaim the republic; and, being defeated in their designs, they turned
to the people. They caused a petition to be prepared for dethroning the
monarch, and made an attempt to lay it on “the altar of the country,”
 in the field of Mars, for universal signature. A violent tumult ensued,
which Lafayette quelled at the edge of the sword: much blood was shed.
But this triumph of the assembly only served to render them unpopular.
The people became as weary of them as of the monarch; so having
collected their constitutional decrees into one code, and having
presented this constitution to the king, and received his solemn
acceptance of it, on the 30th of December the national assembly declared
itself dissolved. This was a fatal step to both king and country.
Before the dissolution of this assembly, on the motion of Robespierre, a
measure was passed, declaring that none of the members should be capable
of re-election. Now, although few among them were capable of legislating
for a great country, as most of their acts had proved, yet it was
manifest that the members, generally, were wiser, and even more moderate
than the people at large. The consequence of this fatal step was, in
fact, to sink the representation of the people into a still lower grade
of society; to exalt the dregs of the people into the responsible
office of legislators. This was soon made manifest; of seven hundred and
fifty-eight members who were elected for the legislative assembly, which
arose on the ruins of the national assembly, not more than fifty were
possessed of one hundred pounds per annum. Those who were elected,
indeed, were chiefly men whose zeal had distinguished them in the clubs;
men whose sole aim was the subversion of all religion, and of that order
which is so necessary to the well-being of a state. There were three
classes of persons in this new assembly; the Feuillans, so called from
the name of their club, who advocated a mitigated aristocracy; the
Girondins, or professed republicans, who had a fixed aversion to even
the shadow of royalty which had been preserved; and the Jacobins, whose
aim was to sweep away rank, wealth, and talent from the land. The two
former of these divisions represented the middle classes, and the latter
the rabble; but the Girondins were the most powerful and popular. Such
was the nature of this assembly. Compared with it the “rump parliament”
 of Oliver Cromwell was the perfection of wisdom and moderation.
Ignorance, passion, and inexperience became united; and those who looked
for great things at the hands of its members—and there were those even
in England who looked for such things—must have been grossly infatuated
with the principles of the revolution. What the monarch might expect
from them was seen on the first meeting of the assembly, when they took
an oath upon the constitutional act to live freemen or die. Their next
measures were in accordance with this oath. At this time, the emigrants,
who had greatly increased since the king had failed in his attempt at
flight, had begun to arm foreign courts in their own favour and for the
support of the tottering throne of France. Austria, Russia, and Prussia
had definitely promised their aid; the King of Sweden, Gustavus III.,
had offered to be the commander of the allies; and other European
courts, though they had not yet resolved to resort to arms, shared in
their sentiments. At this time, also, the discontented priesthood,
who were scattered through the realm, were stirring and preparing the
peasantry universally to revolt. There was, in fact, a tempest gathering
round the heads of the patriots; and alarmed at it, and in order to
counteract the danger, during the months of October and November, the
legislative assembly declared all emigrants who continued hostile on
the frontiers beyond the month of January, 1792, civilly dead, and their
properties confiscated; and similar rigorous measures were ordained
against those priests who should refuse the oath binding them to the
constitution, and continue to excite agitation. The king refused to
sanction these decrees; and then was seen the absurd balance of power
provided against the constitution. The rage of the revolutionists knew
no bounds; and unable to attack the monarch directly, they turned their
rage against the ministers and the constitutionalists from whose ranks
they had been chosen. To effect their overthrow the Girondins and
Jacobins united, and were successful. Such of the constitutionalists as
were in the ministry were compelled to resign, and the whole party lost
its influence in the senate. Nor had this party any power now in the
municipality, for Bailly had been superseded in his mayoralty, and
Lafayette had resigned his command of the national guard; and these
important offices had fallen into the hands of the Jacobins, and by
their influence democracy gained the ascendency in the capital, and,
by a natural consequence, throughout the whole kingdom. The monarch was
even compelled to choose his ministers out of the fiery Jacobin party;
for neither royalist nor constitutionalist dared to sit in the council.
At the close of this year it was manifest that the king was on
the high-road to the scaffold. Red-caps were worn in public by the
victorious Jacobins as a party badge, and as a declaration of war
against all the moderate and all the friends of right; and the
guillotine, beneath which thousands of victims were to bleed, was
introduced. France had already assumed the aspect of an arena of wild
beasts: Danton, Robespierre, and Marat were already licking their jaws
in anticipation of the prey.

{GEORGE III. 1791–1792}




STATE OF PUBLIC OPINION IN ENGLAND, ETC.

As every day manifested more and more that the principles of the
revolution in France were fraught with mischief, and as great exertions
were made by Burke and others to enlighten the public mind on their evil
tendency, it might have been expected that Englishmen, who enjoyed a
free constitution, although they had generously sympathised with the
French people at the outset of their work of regeneration, from a
conviction that it would tend to their benefit and happiness, would, by
this year, have seen that they were in error, and would, therefore, have
somewhat abated in their admiration of that work. This might have been
the case to a certain extent; but, nevertheless, those who professed
republican principles in England were still very numerous, and had
become bolder in their advocacy of such principles. A fierce war was
carried on by the newspapers of the day against Burke’s “Reflections,”
 and pamphlets and volumes of all sizes were published, in order to show
that it was a mere flimsy piece of rhetoric and fine writing. The most
conspicuous of these volumes were the “_Vindictæ Gallicæ_;” or “Defence
of the French Revolution,” written by Sir James Mackintosh; the “Rights
of Man,” written by that fierce democrat, Tom Paine; and “Letters to
the Right Honourable Mr. Burke, on his Reflections on the Revolution of
France,” written by the celebrated Unitarian preacher, Dr. Priestley.
Perhaps, the most popular of these books was the “Rights of Man,” which,
crude and undigested as the arguments it contained were, was extolled by
the republican party in England as a master-piece of human intelligence
and genius, and as a complete refutation of all the arguments of Burke’s
“Reflections.” This may have arisen from the fact that Paine’s doctrine
was much more plain and intelligible to the common people: it was
operatical and proposed immediate excision; that is, it advocated the
total overthrow of monarchy, and the establishment of republicanism.
To the honour of Sir James Mackintosh it must be mentioned, that he,
subsequently, when he read of the massacres and atrocities committed
in Paris, retracted the bold assertions he had made in the _Vindicio
Gallico_, and, finally, declared that democracy was “the most monstrous
of all governments, because it is impossible at once to act and to
control; and, consequently, the sovereign power in such a constitution
must be left without any check whatsoever.” Sir James Mackintosh,
indeed, lived to regret that he had written his essay; nor does it
appear that when he wrote he had any idea of the fatal consequences
that would result from the principles he defended: like many others he
indulged the hope that the revolution would correct its own vices.
His essay, like those of Paine’s and Priestley’s, however, had an evil
tendency at this period of public excitement. At the same time the
_Vindicio Gallicio_ was not calculated to work such mischief as the
“Rights of Man,” and the “Letters to the Right Honourable Mr. Burke,”
 since the one was addressed to the educated, and the others to the
uneducated classes of the public. Cheap editions of the two latter works
were, in truth, industriously circulated throughout the country, by
the various clubs which abounded on every hand. But notwithstanding the
exertions of the press to promulgate revolutionary principles, there was
still a sound conservative principle abroad: the main body of the people
were loyal to their king, and few comparatively among the upper ranks
were found to countenance the efforts of sedition. This was manifested
in an unequivocal manner at Birmingham, where Dr. Priestley acted as
a Socinian or Unitarian minister: a manner, indeed, which must be
condemned, inasmuch as it was unworthy of the friends of order, and as
it set an example of ungovernable fury to those who were represented as
the foes of all established institutions. In most of the large towns
of England associations were formed for the celebration of the French
revolution on the 14th of July, the anniversary of the taking of the
Bastille. Such an association was formed at Birmingham, and a few days
before the appointed feast a printed handbill was circulated throughout
the town, which seemed to be intended as a direct challenge and
defiance to the anti-revolutionists; to those who were advocates for
church and state. This handbill was without signature, and it read
thus:—“My countrymen, the second year of Gallic liberty is nearly
expired. At the commencement of the third, on the 14th of this month,
it is devoutly to be wished that every enemy to civil and religious
despotism, would give his sanction to the majestic common cause by a
public celebration of the anniversary. Remember that on the 14th of July
the Bastille, that ‘High Altar and Castle of Despotism,’ fell! Remember
the enthusaism peculiar to the cause of liberty with which it was
attacked! Remember that generous humanity that taught the oppressed,
groaning under the weight of insulted rights, to save the lives of
oppressors! Extinguish the mean prejudices of nations, and let your
numbers be collected and sent as a freewill offering to the national
assembly! But is it possible to forget that your own parliament is
venal? Your ministers hypocritical? Your clergy legal oppressors? The
reigning family extravagant? The crown of a certain great personage
becoming every day too weighty for the head that wears it? Too weighty
for the people who gave it? Your taxes partial and excessive? Your
representation a cruel insult upon the sacred rights of property,
religion, and freedom? But on the 14th of this month prove to the
political sycophants of the day that you reverence the Olive Branch;
that you will sacrifice to public tranquillity till the majority shall
exclaim ‘The peace of slavery is worse than the War of Freedom’! Of this
moment let tyrants beware!” This paper occasioned a great ferment in the
good town of Birmingham. It was considered generally by the people to
have proceeded from the republicans that had appointed to feast at the
tavern on the 14th of July; while, on the other hand, it was affirmed
by the republicans that it had been written, printed, and distributed
by the opposite party for the purpose of disturbing their convivial
meeting. It was thought advisable to give up the feast, and notice was
given to that effect; but mine host of the tavern represented that he
had prepared the viands, and that they might feast without danger if
they did not sit too long at the table, and so the company, to the
number of eighty or ninety, met at the appointed time. One Keir, a man
well known for his attainments in several branches of science, and a
member of the Established Church, was in the chair; but the party had
scarcely assembled, before the tavern was surrounded by a tumultous
crowd, who shouted long and loudly, “Church and King!” “Church and
King!” Strange rumours soon got abroad of the doings within the tavern.
It was said that mine host had set three figures upon the table: one
a medallion of the king encircled with glory; another an emblematical
figure of British liberty; and a third an emblematical figure of Gallic
slavery breaking its chains. It was likewise said, that the patriots
within doors had cut off the king’s head and placed it on the table!
Finally it was reported that the very first toast of the assembly was,
“Destruction to the present government, and the king’s head upon a
charger.” This was too much for the feelings of the loyal people of
Birmingham to endure. No sooner had this toast been made known, than
loyalty “swift as lightning shot through their minds, and a kind of
electrical patriotism animated them to instant vengeance.” Before the
second course was well on the table, they rushed into the tavern, broke
windows and glasses, and compelled the carousers to take refuge in
flight. So writes one authority; but another more authentic states,
that it was some hours after, when most of the company had departed,
that the mob broke in, and that the peculiar object of their search was
Dr. Priestley, from whose wig they wanted to knock out the powder. Dr.
Priestley had long been offensive to the townspeople of Birmingham for
his bold advocacy of the principles of the French revolution; and now
that their passions were excited, when they could not discover him at
the tavern, and after they had smashed all the windows, they resolved
to seek him elsewhere—at his dwelling-house on Fair Hill. Had they
proceeded direct to his residence, they might have tried their skill in
knocking the powder out of his wig, and, had they done nothing further,
they would not have committed much mischief, inasmuch as the doctor
could soon have had it re-powdered. A hint had been given them, however,
that they had done sufficient mischief at the tavern, and that they
had better go to the meetings. In a brief hour, therefore, the new
meeting-house where Dr. Priestley preached was broken into, and set on
fire; and in another brief hour the old meeting-house sent up its flame
towards heaven likewise. The mob now sought the doctor at his house on
Fair Hill, but, timely warned, he and his family had taken refuge in
flight. His house now shared the fate of the meeting-houses: together
with the whole of his valuable library, his still more valuable
apparatus for philosophical experiments, and the furniture; it was
destroyed by fire. All this was done on the 14th of July, and it was
hoped that the mob would go no further. But, unfortunately, they had in
part been stimulated to these violences by strong drink, which had been
given them by some of the more respectable loyalists of the town. On
the morrow, therefore, the rabble of the town again sounded the cry
of “Church and King,” and being joined by the rabble of the mining and
foundery districts in the neighbourhood, they resumed their dreadful
avocation. On that day the houses of Messrs. John Ryland, Taylor, and
Hutton, were destroyed; the magistrates making no effectual preparations
to stop the ravages. It does not appear that the mob had been furnished
with any drink on this day by the loyalist magnates of the town; but
they had extorted whole hogsheads of ale from Mr. Hutton to save his
house—though they afterwards destroyed it—and had moreover found
plenty of good wine in the cellars, and this incited them again to
action. On the following day no less than eight houses within the town,
and in its vicinity, wore destroyed, exclusive of the residence of Mr.
Coates, a Unitarian minister, which was plundered and damaged, but not
demolished. The following clay was Sunday, but it was no day of rest for
the rioters, except those who were too drunk to move; they went into the
country, it is true, but it was only to destroy chapels, and to plunder,
and burn clown houses. On this day, however, their work of destruction
was stopped. By the evening of the day, probably not finding sufficient
drink in the cellars of the Dissenters, they had begun to break open and
to destroy the houses of churchmen. They were busy in breaking open the
house of Dr. Withering, at some distance from the town, when the words
“light horse” sounded in their ears, and the whole mob melted away as if
by magic; when the light-horse appeared, not a shadow of them could be
found. In fact, the mob of Birmingham was the very counterpart of that
which had been engaged in Lord George Gordon’s riots. Throughout their
whole career they had not shown any disposition for fighting, except
with fists and sticks, and on one occasion they fled when resisted by a
single pistol. The riots had, doubtless, been raised by men of a better
stamp than those engaged in it; but who, like the prime movers of the
riots in London, kept in the background. At the same time it manifested
that the great body of the people of Birmingham had no fellow-feeling
with those who advocated the principle of the French revolution. It was
from this cause, perhaps, that government was backward in exhibiting
sympathy for the sufferers, and a disposition for punishing the
offenders. Troops were, indeed, sent to restore peace, but no
proclamations were issued from the secretary of state’s office until
some days elapsed, and then the reward offered for discovering and
apprehending a chief rioter was a mere bagatelle. In the whole,
seventeen were arrested and tried, five of whom only were found guilty;
three were executed. The losses sustained by the sufferers were made
good by the hundred, in the way which the law directs; and Dr. Priestley
at least was a gainer in point of money, for in addition to the
compensation awarded by law, his friends and admirers opened their
purses freely on his behalf. He gained by the event, also, in point of
popularity, and more especially in France and America. Testimonials,
condolences, and flattering compliments were sent to him from all
quarters, and he was even compared to Galileo and Socrates! The event,
in truth, had the effect of making him more bold in his advocacy of
revolutionary principles. Both from the pulpit and the press he
loudly denounced the bigotry of England, and as loudly applauded the
enlightened toleration of France. In this he was encouraged by those
who entertained similar views to his own, and who in their addresses
extolled him as a martyr. On the other hand, those who supported “church
and state,” and various bodies of Dissenters, who could not tolerate
either his extreme views of republicanism or his attacks on the mystery
of the Trinity, assailed him in the most bitter manner. England, in
fact, became too hot to hold him, for, in 1794, he expatriated to
America. The national convention had nominated him a citizen of the
French Republic, but by that time he had, doubtless, become convinced
that there was no safety for him in France, whence he wisely forbore
entering that wide arena of strife and bloodshed. So ended the
Birmingham riot: it reflects no honour on our annals, but it shows that
the mass of the population were satisfied with the English constitution,
and it may serve as a warning to deter men from the exhibition of that
malignant party-spirit which reflects disgrace on the best cause. “Let
your moderation be known unto all men.”




CHAPTER XIX.

{GEORGE III. 1792–1793}

     Meeting of Parliament..... Debates on the Russian
     Armament..... Debate on the Affairs of India..... Pitt’s
     Financial Statement..... The Slave-Trade Question.....
     London Police Act..... Act to relieve the Scotch
     Episcopalians, &c. Sheridan’s motion respecting the
     Royal Burghs of Scotland..... Debates on Parliamentary
     Reform,  &c. Trial of  Hastings, &e...... Bill
     respecting  the New  Forest and Timber for the Navy.....
     Prorogation   of Parliament..... Changes in the
     Ministry..... East India Affairs..... Progress of the French
     Revolution..... Affairs of Poland..... State of the Public
     Mind  in England..... Meeting of Parliament..... The Alien
     Bill, &c. Execution of the French King.

{A.D. 1792}




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

The British parliament did not assemble until the 31st of January.
The first topic mentioned in the king’s speech was the marriage of his
second son, the Duke of York, with the Princess Frederica, daughter of
the King of Prussia. His majesty then informed the two houses that a
treaty had been concluded, under his mediation and that of his allies,
between the Emperor of Austria and the Porte, and that preliminaries had
been agreed upon between the latter of those powers and Russia. The
king next expressed his regret that he was not yet enabled to inform
parliament of the termination of the war in India with Tippoo Sultaun,
but the success which had already attended the British arms afforded,
reasonable ground to hope that the war would speedily be concluded.
Although events in Europe at this time cast their dark shadows before
them, yet his majesty affirmed that the general state of affairs
appeared to promise to Great Britain the continuance of her present
tranquillity; and he even suggested that some immediate reduction might
safely be made in our naval and military establishments. He concluded
by recommending the house of commons to consider of such measures as
the flourishing state of the funds and of public credit might render
practicable and expedient, for a reduction in the rate of interest
of such of the annuities as were now redeemable; by stating that he
entertained the pleasing hope of their being enabled to enter upon a
gradual reduction of taxes, giving at the same time additional efficacy
to the plan for the reduction of the national debt; and by recommending
a steady, zealous, and confirmed attachment to the British constitution.

The debates on the address principally turned upon the line of policy
pursued by the ministry in their interference in the quarrel between
Turkey and Prussia, and in the hostility they had displayed towards the
latter power. Ministers were loudly condemned for this interference by
the opposition; Mr. Grey and Fox taking the most prominent part in
the attack. Fox, as usual, introdued France and her revolution and
constitution into his speech. The frequent eulogiums on the British
constitution which had been introduced into parliament, he said, had
been introduced in order to reproach him and his friends for their
admiration of what had been done in France, and to suggest the suspicion
that he and his friends were hostile to our own form of government.
The French, he contended, had done perfectly right in overturning a
constitution so radically bad as that of France; but that of Great
Britain was so good, though not absolutely perfect, that it merited the
efforts of all honest subjects to preserve it. It was hence most unjust
to insinuate that those who approved of the destruction of despotism in
France, would rejoice in the downfall of the British constitution.
Fox concluded by condemning the Birmingham riots; asserting that the
outrages had been committed through the laxity or tacit approbation of
the magistrates. He remarked:—“It would have been well if his majesty
in his speech had spoken of those riots in the terms they merited. They
were not riots for bread; they were not riots in the cause of liberty,
which, however highly to be reprobated, had yet some excuse in their
principle; they were riots of men neither aggrieved nor complaining—of
men who had set on foot an indiscriminate persecution of an entire
description of their fellow-citizens, including persons as eminent for
their ability, as blameless in their conduct, and as faithful in their
allegiance as this or any other country could boast.” In reply, Pitt
said that the Birmingham riots had better be consigned to oblivion,
especially as sufficient had been done for their atonement; and he
broadly hinted that Fox revived the subject for party purposes. He
warmly defended the conduct of the cabinet in the interference between
Turkey and Russia; asserting that the object of it was to prevent the
ruin of the Turkish empire, and to preserve that balance of power in
Europe which was essential to the interests of Great Britain. Pitt
concluded by adverting to the more pleasing topic of financial
improvement; stating that the last year’s revenue amounted to
£16,790,000, which, after all the expenditure and the annual million
devoted to the reduction of the national debt, left a surplus of
£900,000; and that, encouraged by this prosperous condition of the
finances, he contemplated taking off some of those taxes which pressed
most heavily upon the poor.




DEBATES ON THE RUSSIAN ARMAMENT.

Papers relative to the apprehended rupture between Great Britain and
Russia were laid before the house on the 6th of February. This gave rise
to several debates, in which the spirit of party was strongly displayed.
On the 13th of February Mr. Grey loudly complained that ministers had
not produced the preliminaries said to have been adjusted between
the Russian and Turkish negociators; and that large sums had been
unnecessarily spent in fitting out the armament. A week later Mr. Grey
moved for a more ample production of papers regarding various portions
of the recent diplomacy of ministers; arguing that the whole of the
correspondence was necessary, if they wished to justify the steps they
had taken. Pitt resisted the demand, conceiving that sufficient had been
disclosed to make the house master of all the essential parts of the
business, and asserting that confidence was due to the administration,
until their capacity or integrity was impeached. The motion was
negatived, but on the 29th of February the subject was revived by Mr.
Whitbread, who moved the following resolutions:—“That no arrangement
respecting Oczakow and its district appears to have been capable of
affecting the political or commercial interests of this country, so
as to justify any hostile interference on the part of Great Britain
between. Russia and the Porte: that the interference for the purpose
of preventing the cession of the said fortress and its district to the
Empress of Russia has been wholly unsuccessful; and that his majesty’s
ministers, in endeavouring, by means of an armed force, to compel the
Empress of Russia to abandon her claim to Oczakow, and in continuing
an armament after the object for which it was proposed had been
relinquished, have been guilty of gross misconduct, tending to incur
unnecessary expenses, and to diminish the influence of the British
nation.” Many members took part in the debate which followed this
motion, but the most remarkable speeches were delivered by those two
great rivals, Pitt and Fox. After reviewing our foreign policy from the
time of our joining Prussia, in order to prevent Holland becoming the
prey of France, Fox said that we were standing forward the principals
of every quarrel, the Quixotes of every enterprise, and the agitators in
all the plots and disturbances that were every day arising in Europe.
He said, if Oczakow was a place of no importance, ministers ought to be
censured for having armed and protracted war on its account; and if it
was an important place, they ought to be censured for disarming without
having obtained repossession of it from the Turks. Fox argued that
the Empress of Russia weald have granted better terms to the Turks if
England had not interfered; and bitterly complained of Pitt’s reserve
and secrecy with parliament. On the latter subject he remarked:—“This
is what puts our constitution in danger. That the pride, the folly, the
presumption of a single person shall be able to involve a whole people
in disgrace is more than philosophy can teach mortal patience to endure.
Here are the true weapons of the enemies of our constitution! Here
may we search for the source of the present outpourings of seditious
writings, meant either to weaken our attachment to the constitution by
depreciating its value, or that loudly tell us we have no constitution
at all. We may blame, we may reprobate such doctrines; but while we
furnish those who circulate them with argumenta such as these, while the
example of this day shows us to what degree the fact is true, we must
not wonder that the purposes the seditious writings are meant to answer
be but too successful. They argue that a constitution cannot be right
where such things are possible; much less so when they are practised
without punishment. Against the vain theories of men who project
fundamental alterations upon grounds of mere speculative objection I can
easily defend the constitution; but when they recur to these facts, and
show me how we may be doomed to all the horrors of war by the caprice
of an individual, who will not even condescend to explain his reasons,
I can only fly to this house, and exhort you to rouse from your lethargy
of confidence, into the active mistrust and vigilant control which your
duty and your office point out to you.” But Fox had by his intrigues
brought the country into danger from a war with Russia, more than Pitt
had by his armament. Although the laws and constitution of this country
entrust the exclusive right of treating with foreign potentates to the
king, yet without the knowledge or participation of a single member in
the house, Fox had sent an agent to St. Petersburgh to frustrate the
objects for which a plenipotentiary from the crown was authorised to
treat. And Fox succeeded in his design: it was through his influence
that the czarina still obstinately refused to give up Oczakow, And yet
Fox condemned ministers for not having succeeded in their negociations!
On this subject Pitt’s biographer, Tomline, writes:—“It is to be
presumed that Mr. Fox never would have had recourse to such a measure,
if he had not entertained a confident hope, that, having already
succeeded in rendering the Russian armament unpopular, he should overset
Mr. Pitt’s administration, provided the empress could be prevailed on to
persevere in her demands. That point he accomplished without difficulty,
yet the result did not turn out as he expected—he defeated Mr. Pitt’s
plan, and brought a certain degree of discredit and danger on his
country, by effecting the aggrandisment of an unfriendly and powerful
court, but his own personal ambition remained ungratified.” In his reply
to Fox the minister exhibited a noble mind, in not making any use of his
rival’s unjustifiable conduct: conduct which was more unconstitutional
than Pitt’s rigid reserve, and which was to a certain extent,
treasonable. In his reply Pitt defended his policy with great spirit.
He asked whether any one conversant in politics could admit that
the Turkish empire, being unable to defend itself against Russia and
Austria, should be abandoned by the other European powers, every one of
which was so visibly interested in the preservation of its independence:
whether, if other European powers were indolent, or hindered by untoward
circumstances from interfering. Great Britain could coolly leave
Turkey to its fate? and whether a British ministry could look on with
indifference, while her commerce in the Levant was threatened, and
the maritime power of England, not only in the Mediterranean and
Archipelago, but in every other sea, must receive a blow from the
increase of shipping that would accrue to Russia and Austria, were they
to become masters of European Turkey? The interest and honour of this
country, he said, required us to pay vigilant attention to the political
situation of the continental powers, lest the predominance of any one
should destroy that equipoise which was essential to the safety of the
whole. And it was evident, he remarked, that the ruin or depression
of the Turkish empire would materially affect the balance of power in
Europe. All the world knew that the object of Russia had long been to
acquire exclusive authority in the Black Sea; and were the Russians to
gain possession of its ports, a new naval power would arise, dangerous
to all Europe, but especially so to Great Britain, whose safety and
prosperity chiefly depended on the superiority of her fleets. It was
certain, also, he said, that if Great Britain had not assumed a hostile
disposition, the original demands of the court of Petersburgh would
have been insisted on to the last, and Turkey would have been forced to
submit to a dismemberment. As for Oczakow, he acknowledged that it
was not a place of great importance, but as a fortress commanding the
navigation of the Dniester, and a point to be gained by the empress in
her system of ambition, it was worth some risks, and he conceived
that he had done his duty by first attempting to secure this object to
Turkey, and afterwards relinquishing it when it could only be obtained
at the price of war. At the same time Pitt remarked, Oczakow might have
been secured had it not been for the division and opposition in this
kingdom; it was chiefly through Fox and his party that what had been
done well, had not been done better. Party divisions in this country had
encouraged the ambitious designs of Russia; and yet opposition now took
merit to themselves for rendering negociations useless; which, but for
their efforts, would have been attended with complete success. But he
did not envy them their triumph: it was not a triumph over an enemy, but
over the council of their king. Pitt concluded by a sarcastic reflection
on Fox, which must have been keenly felt by him. In the summer of
1791, the czarina finding that the Whig party was averse to the Russian
armament, directed her ambassador to request Fox to sit to Nollekens
for a bust in white marble, in order that she might place it between the
statues of Demosthenes and Cicero. In allusion to this Pitt said, that
if he and his honourable friend Dundas were to go to St. Petersburg, he
felt certain that neither of them should be found in any place of glory
between two orators of antiquity! Fox replied, vindicating his conduct,
and condemning the policy of ministers in the same unmeasured terms as
before. But the sentiments of the house were against him and his party:
Whitbread’s resolutions were all rejected, either without a division
or by very large majorities. During these debates the same question
was agitated in the house of lords; but Lord Fitzwilliam, who moved a
similar resolution to that of Mr. Grey in the commons, was outvoted by a
majority of eighty-nine against nineteen.




DEBATES ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA.

It was not on the subject of the Russian armament alone that opposition
sought to bring ministers into contempt, and to overthrow their
administration. In their plan of campaign they had determined to attack
them on the subject of the Indian war, and accordingly, on the 9th of
February, Major Maitland moved for all papers necessary to throw light
upon the subject. It was the chief object of the opposition to prove
that the war with Tippoo Sultaun was unnecessary, and that it had been
conducted by Lord Cornwallis without spirit or talent. Such was the
substance of the arguments employed by Colonel Maitland in support of
his motion, and in which he was supported by Francis, the antagonist
of Hastings and Tupey. The motion was on the whole agreed to; Dundas
consenting to produce all the papers called for, except copys of any
proposals of peace which had been made by Tippoo Sultaun. But this
did not satisfy opposition. On the 15th of March Major Maitland moved
various resolutions on the Indian war, all tending to reprobate it as
unjustifiable, and as the result of a plan laid down by ministers
for Tippoo’s destruction. These resolutions were negatived; but on a
subsequent day the major renewed the subject, declaring that the papers
proved the correctness of his views—that a plan of conquest had been
formed, and that the war had been sought for that purpose. In order to
settle the matter, after showing the warlike character of Tippoo, and
defending the honour of Lord Cornwallis, ministers moved a resolution
declaring that the conduct of the governor-general accorded with the
true spirit and intent of the rules of government established by the
British parliament for the affairs of India, which resolution was
adopted.




PITT’S FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

The house went into committee to consider the financial affairs of the
country, on the 17th of February, when Pitt made a speech representing
the country as in a nourishing condition, almost unprecedented. The
revenue had increased so much, he said, that government would be enabled
to take off taxes, bearing chiefly upon the poor, to the amount of
£200,000, and to apply an equal sum more to increase the sinking-fund
for paying off the national debt. He proposed to take off the additional
duty on malt; the new duties on male and female servants; the duties
upon waggons, wains, carts, and other such carriages; the taxes on
houses containing less than seven windows; and a halfpenny in the
pound of the duty upon all candles, except wax and spermaceti.
These propositions were agreed to without a division. Sheridan only
questioning the truth of Pitt’s financial statement, which he did more
from the force of habit, and by way of opposition, than from any just
cause. On the same day, in a committee of supply, the house granted
£400,000 to his majesty, to be issued and paid to the governor and
company of the Bank of England, to be by them placed to the account
of the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt. So far as
Pitt’s statements on this occasion related to the actual condition
of the finances of the country they were doubtless correct; but his
sentiments on the future were too soon proved to be fallacious. He
remarked:—“From the result of the whole, I trust I am entitled to
conclude that the scene which we are now contemplating, is not the
transient effect of accident, not the short-lived prosperity of a day,
but the general and natural result of regular and permanent causes.
Though we may yet be subject to those fluctuations which often occur in
the affairs of a mighty nation, and which it is impossible to calculate
or foresee, yet, as far as reliance can be placed on human speculations,
we have the best ground, from experience of the past, for looking with
satisfaction on the present, and with confidence toward the future.”
 Pitt, indeed, expressed his deep conviction that there never was a
time when a durable peace might more reasonably be expected than at the
present moment. And yet there never was a time when war was manifestly
more imminent. England was, in truth, on the verge of a war which was
to increase the national debt more than any in which she had been yet
engaged. The nation was taught to entertain brilliant hopes at the
opening of this year, but at its close those hopes were dashed to the
ground. They were called upon to indulge in visions of a total release
from national debt; but it was soon found that this debt was to increase
by a sure and rapid process. Pitt himself soon discovered that he might
be wrong; and hence, being apprehensive that in the case of a new
and protracted war, requiring large additions to the public debt, the
sinking fund might not operate with sufficient effect to prevent a
national bankruptcy, he subsequently proposed, that, whenever a loan
should be hereafter made, one per cent on the new stock thus created,
besides the dividends, should be raised and applied in the same manner,
and under the same regulations as the original £1,000,000. This bill
passed the commons without any particular opposition; but in the upper
house it was violently reprobated by Lord Chancellor Thurlow as a
provision likely to answer no good purpose, and as exhibiting an
extraordinary degree of arrogance, by dictating to future parliaments,
and prescribing to future ministers a mode of action to be adopted some
thirty years hence. He remarked:—“None but a novice, a sycophant, a
mere reptile of a minister, would allow this act to prevent him doing
what, in his own judgment, circumstances might require at the time;
and a change in the situation of the country might render that which
is proper at one time inapplicable at another. In short, the scheme
is nugatory and impracticable; the inaptness of the project is only
equalled by the vanity of the attempt.” This bill, however, passed into
a law, and was adhered to in the numerous loans advanced during the
whole of the revolutionary contest. About the same time Pitt brought
another measure into the house, which indicated that his views were
undergoing a change as to the long continuance of peace; this was a
proposition to raise £812,500 by means of a lottery. But in this he met
with decided opposition. Great surprise was expressed that, in a time of
profound peace, he should have recourse to a method of levying money so
extremely injurious to the morals and habits of the people. Instances
were adduced in which state-lotteries had led to robbery and suicide;
and a petition was presented from the grand jury of Middlesex, earnestly
praying the house to take the subject into consideration. These
representations produced such an impression, that a motion was
forthwith carried for a committee to inquire into the evils arising from
lotteries.

{GEORGE III. 1792–1793}




THE SLAVE-TRADE QUESTION.

Although defeated in his humane endeavours to effect the abolition of
the slave-trade during the last session, yet Mr. Wilberforce resolved to
persevere in the great cause which he had undertaken. And in this he was
now supported by popular opinion; not less than five hundred and eight
petitions having been presented, in the early part of the sessions,
praying for the abolition of that abominable traffic. Thus encouraged,
on the 2nd of April, Wilberforce moved, in a committee of the whole
house, “that it is the opinion of this committee, that the trade carried
on by British subjects, for the purpose of procuring slaves from Africa,
ought to be entirely abolished.” In his speech, which was very able and
eloquent, the mover declared that he would never abandon this business
till he had obtained his object; and he intimated that if he carried his
present motion, he would follow it up by another to this effect:—“That
the chairman be directed to move the house for leave to bring in a
bill for the abolition of the slave-trade.” Wilberforce was opposed
by Jenkinson, Colonel Tarleton, and other members interested in the
slave-trade, who endeavoured to show that our West India islands would
be useless without such a traffic, and who treated the petitions on the
table with contempt, as signed by raw youths, inexperienced persons, or
needy individuals, who wrote their names for money. On the other hand,
the motion was eloquently supported by Thornton, Montague, Whitbread,
Pitt, and Fox. One of the most powerful speeches was that delivered by
the prime-minister. The subject was not made a cabinet question; but
every member of administration was left to follow that line of conduct
which their own notions of policy, expediency, or right might dictate.
Dundas, who had recently become secretary of state, by the resignation
of the Duke of Leeds, was averse to instant abolition; and he
recommended a middle course, which he thought might reconcile the
interests of the West India islands with the eventual abolition of the
trade; and he concluded by moving, that the word “gradual” should be
inserted before the word “abolition.” In reply, Pitt asked why injustice
was to be suffered to remain for a single hour? “Reflect,” said he, “on
the eighty thousand persons annually torn from their native land; on
the connexions which are broken; on the friendships, attachments, and
relationships that are rent asunder! There is something in the horror of
it that surpasses all the bounds of imagination. How shall we repair the
mischiefs we have brought upon that continent? If, knowing the miseries
we have caused, we refuse, even now, to put a stop to them, how greatly
aggravated will be the guilt of Britain! Shall we not rather count
the days and hours that are suffered to intervene, than to delay the
accomplishment of such a work? If we listen to the voice of reason and
duty, and pursue this night the line of conduct which they prescribe,
some of us may live to see the reverse of that picture from which we now
turn our eyes with shame and regret. We may live to behold the natives
of Africa engaged in the calm occupations of industry; in the pursuits
of a just and legitimate commerce. We may behold the beams of science
and philosophy breaking in upon their land, which, at some happy period,
in still later times, may blaze with full lustre; and, joining their
influence to that of pure religion, may illuminate and invigorate the
most distant extremities of that immense continent.” It was argued
by some of its supporters, that slavery was a necessary evil. On this
argument Pitt remarked:—“The origin of the evil is indeed beyond the
reach of human understanding; and the permission of it by the Supreme
Being is a subject into which we are not concerned to inquire. But where
the evil in question is a moral evil, which a man can scrutinise,
and where that moral evil has its origin within ourselves, let us not
imagine that we can clear our consciences by this general, not to say
irreligious, way of putting aside the question.” Pitt concluded by
urging on the house the influence which their decision would produce
in other countries, and that the divine blessing was to be expected
on their own, by exertions in such a righteous cause. His speech was
rapturously applauded, but he failed in obtaining total and immediate
abolition; the amendment which Dundas proposed being adopted by
one hundred and ninety-three against one hundred and twenty-five.
Wilberforce was now asked whether he meant to bring in a gradual
abolition bill; but he declared that he could not do any such thing;
he could not sanction for a time that which ought not to endure for
one moment longer. It was for Dundas, or some one of his supporters,
he said, to bring in such a bill; and though Dundas exhibited much
unwillingness to take up the matter, he felt called upon to do so; and
on the 23rd of April, therefore, he produced twelve resolutions, to
the effect that all that branch of the trade which did not refer to the
supply of the British West India islands, should cease forthwith; that
no male slaves above the age of twenty-five, or female slaves above
the age of twenty, should henceforth be exported from Africa in British
ships; that the tonnage employed in the slave-trade should be limited
and strictly ascertained; that the duties on slaves imported into the
colonies should be increased; that laws should be enacted against those
who maltreated their slaves; that the colonial legislatures should
be invited to concur in these measures; and that the trade should be
finally abolished in the year 1800. Wilberforce, Pitt, and Fox warmly
opposed these resolutions; and amendments were made, first, that the
trade should cease in 1793, and then 1795, both of which were lost; but
it was finally agreed, on the motion of Sir Edward Knatchbull, that
the final abolition should take place on the 1st of January, 1796. The
resolutions, as thus amended, were carried up to the lords on the 2nd
of May; on which occasion Prince William, Duke of Clarence, who, in the
course of his naval training, had visited the West India islands, and
who, conceiving that the state of society there did not justify the
pictures drawn of it by the abolitionists, opposed the abolition with
great facility of elocution. The friends of immediate abolition were
very few in the house of lords; and in order to retard the business,
a committee for the hearing of evidence at the bar of the house was
proposed. This was objected to by Lords Grenville, Porchester, Stanhope,
and Rawdon, and by Bishop Beilby Porteus; but it was carried by a large
majority. The examination of witnesses at the bar commenced forthwith;
but little progress was made in it before the prorogation, so that the
business was virtually postponed till the next session. Wilberforce
complained that it was owing to the appeal made by Dundas to the gradual
abolition of this horrid traffic, that he was defeated; but it may
fairly be questioned whether he could have carried an immediate
abolition at the present time, if this appeal had not been made; for, at
this period, there were many circumstances which operated to the injury
of his cause. Thus the abolitionists had recently determined to use
no sugar which came from the West Indies; a determination that would
materially interfere with the revenue. Then again, the massacres and
burnings in the French division of the island of St. Domingo, where the
negro slaves had been set free from their chains, gave rise to a fear
that, if a total abolition took place, these troubles might extend to
Jamaica and our other West India islands, and hence indisposed the
king and many members of parliament to support the measure. Moreover,
Clarkson, one of the most active abolitionists, and the bosom friend of
Wilberforce, openly advocated the principles of the French revolution,
whence occasion was offered of representing the friends of abolition as
levellers. Finally, the knowledge that Brissot and the other friends
of the blacks in France were fierce revolutionists, and that the
redoubtable Tom Paine ranged on the side of Wilberforce in the cause
of humanity, had the effect of depriving him of many votes. All these
circumstances, combined with the powerful motive of self-interest,
would, doubtless have ensured his defeat, had not Dundas interposed
his scheme of gradual abolition. So the murderous traffic was to be
continued unmitigated; and, as it proved, for another long twenty years.




LONDON POLICE ACT.

Complaints had long been made of the disgraceful state of the police
of the metropolis, and especially of the largest portion of it, not
included in the jurisdiction of the city of London. Every one felt that
the unpaid magistracy were altogether inadequate to the discharge of
their onerous duties; and many rules and ordinances had been enacted
at various periods, for the preservation of the public peace, which had
been nullified by their want of power and incompetency. To rectify this
defect, early in March a bill was introduced into the commons, with the
countenance and approbation of government, the plan of which was to
open five different police-offices in the metropolis, for the prompt
administration of those parts of justice which were in the hands of
magistrates. Hitherto magistrates, though nominally unpaid, had driven
a handsome trade in fees; but by this bill three were to sit in each
office, with a salary of three hundred pounds per annum, and all
fees were to be applied to the disbursement of salaries and official
expenses. The bill provided that constables should possess authority
to apprehend persons who could not give a satisfactory account of
themselves, and that magistrates should have the power of committing
such persons as rogues and vagabonds. Strong objections were made
against the bill; opposition arguing that the vesting the appointment
of these new magistrates in the crown, would give an unconstitutional
increase of strength to government; and that the summary arrest and
commitment of any individual, was an infringement on the liberty of the
subject, and contrary to the spirit of the constitution. The arguments
of its opponents, however, were overruled, and it was passed by a
considerable majority. The bill met with a warm opposition in the upper
house, by lords Rawdon and Loughborough; but it passed there likewise,
and became law.




ACT TO RELIEVE THE SCOTCH EPISCOPALIANS, ETC.

During this session, a bill was introduced in the lords for the relief
of the Scottish Episcopalians, who had long been subject to
heavy penalties, on the ground of disaffection to the revolution
establishment. The bill was opposed by Lord Chancellor Thurlow, who
ventured to intimate doubts whether bishops could exist in any Christian
country not authorised by the state; but being assured by the bishop of
St. David’s, that Christian bishops existed three hundred years before
the alliance between church and state took place under the Emperor
Constantine, his lordship expressed himself satisfied, and the bill
passed. Encouraged by this concession to the Scotch church, the
Unitarians applied for a repeal of the statutes affecting them; but
their recent advocacy of revolutionary principles made their cause more
hopeless than ever: their application was rejected.




SHERIDAN’S MOTION RESPECTING THE ROYAL BURGHS OF SCOTLAND.

Petitions had recently been presented to parliament, setting forth
the general mismanagement, misapplication of money, dilapidation of
property, and various grievances sustained in consequence of the usurped
authority of certain self-elected magistrates in the royal burgs of
Scotland. On the 18th of April Mr. Sheridan made a motion for an inquiry
into the grievances thus complained of and petitioned against. The main
grievance was considered to lie in the self-election of the magistrates;
and Sheridan required that this practice should be abolished. He
remarked, it was urged that abuses of a similar nature existed in
England; but he did not consider that this was an argument to justify
abuses in either country. Was justice, he asked, to be defeated by a
community of oppression? As there was a dread of innovation at this
period, Sheridan endeavoured to disarm this principle. Some persons, he
observed, think that the French revolution should deter us from thinking
of reform. Whatever might be the conduct of the parties engaged in it,
with regard to the event itself, there could but be one feeling upon
the subject; exultation and joy at the downfall of despotism in France,
which had been the greatest enemy England ever had. Its ambitious,
restless, and turbulent spirit, he said, had cost England thousands of
subjects and millions of money; but now that which had long disturbed
the happiness of the human race was completely destroyed. Could Sheridan
have seen into futurity, he would not thus exultingly have triumphed
over the downfall of the despotic government of France; for the
revolution was to cost England much more blood and treasures than the
monarchs of France had cost her at any period of history. Sheridan’s
speech had the very reverse effect of that which he intended; it rather
exasperated than allayed the general fear. His motion was opposed by
the Lord-advocate for Scotland, who defended the corporations and
magistrates of the royal burghs from the charges brought against them;
and asserted that the power of self-election had worked well, and
was held in sufficient restraint by public opinion. Sheridan was
ably supported by Fox; but his motion was lost by sixty-nine against
twenty-seven.




DEBATES ON PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, ETC.

The subject of parliamentary reform had many times been debated in the
house of commons, though uniformly to very little purpose. The debates
in parliament, however, on this subject, if void of any immediate
result, had their effects. From them, and from the knowledge conveyed
through the medium of the press, the nature of our representative system
became well understood by the mass of the people, and about this period
a society was instituted for the alleged purpose of effecting a
reform in parliament, on the principles formerly advocated by the
prime-minister. This society assumed the name of the “Friends of the
People,” and about thirty members of parliament, besides other persons
of note, enrolled their names as members. Frequent meetings were held
by the society, and the resolutions adopted on these occasions were
uniformly published, together with the sentiments which were entertained
by the members upon this subject. These resolutions and sentiments were
often violent and unconstitutional, whence a strong feeling was created
at court and in parliament against all parliamentary reform. This was
seen on the 30th of April, when, conformably to the plan of the society,
Mr. Gray rose to make a speech on the subject, and to give notice of his
intention to move, in the course of the ensuing session, for an inquiry
into the state of the representation. Mr. Grey said, that both Fox and
Pitt had declared themselves to be parliamentary reformers, and that the
majority of the nation were of an opinion that parliamentary reform
was required. But Pitt at least had now altered his opinion upon this
subject. In reply to Mr. Grey he remarked, that this was no time for.
moving questions that involved the peace and safety, and endangered the
constitution of the kingdom. He was, indeed, no enemy to reform if
it could be obtained peaceably and by a general concurrence, but
the present time was not proper for, and the national sentiment was
decidedly hostile to any such attempt. The present was not a season for
experiments, and he would resist every attempt of the nature to his last
hour; if he was called on either to hazard our safety, or abandon all
hopes of reform for ever, he would say that he had no hesitation in
preferring the latter alternative. It was true, that at the conclusion
of the American war he had thought a parliamentary reform necessary, in
order to quiet the clamour and confusion which had arisen from the dread
of an approaching bankruptcy; but however much he might in early life
have promoted schemes of reform, experience had taught him the danger
of tampering with the established forms of government. Pitt noticed the
society of the “Friends of the People,” and its advertisements, which
invited the public to join the standard of reform: stating that he saw
with concern the gentlemen to whom he alluded, united with others who
professed not reform only, but direct hostility to the nature of our
government, and who threatened the extinction of monarchy, hereditary
succession, and everything which promoted order and subordination in a
state. Against the whole class of revolutionary writers Pitt inveighed
in the most bitter terms; asserting that they were labouring might
and main to bring about an imitation of the revolution in France. Fox
replied to Pitt, and in allusion to the applause which the minister’s
speech had gained, he observed that he felt additional difficulty
in delivering his sentiments. He knew, he said, that the words
“parliamentary reform” were very unpopular in the house of commons, but
he believed that the public regarded them in a very different light, and
that unless something were done to quiet the minds of the people there
would be a difficulty in preserving the public tranquillity for any
length of time. He had never, he continued, been so sanguine on the
subject as the right honourable gentleman who had just spoken, but he
was more consistent, for early in life he had formed an opinion of the
necessity of some parliamentary reform, and he was still convinced of
that necessity. The danger which then existed to the liberty of the
people existed still, and the necessity for reform in Parliament, so far
from diminishing had increased more than ever since the last session
of parliament. Fox said that the opinions of that house were often at
variance with those of the people; instancing, by way of illustration,
the Russian armament, which had been carried by a ministerial majority,
notwithstanding the public voice was hostile to such a measure. The
people of England, he remarked, were at this moment paying the expenses
of an armament for which they never gave their consent, and as far as
that went, they were paying their money for not being represented in
parliament. Fox, in conclusion, made some indefinite remarks on the
books recently published upon principles of government; ridiculed the
idea of danger from innovation in the constitution of England, and
warmly applauded the principles of the French revolution, expressing his
belief that the accounts received of the calamities of the French and of
the defectiveness of their present form of government were maliciously
exaggerated. Burke rose to reply to Fox, and in doing so he loudly
declaimed against the political societies of the day. The object at
which some of them aimed, he said, might not be altogether bad, and the
motives of many individuals might be innocent, but the way they went to
work was decidedly wrong. The sense of the people had not been taken
on the subject, nor had any specific grievance been pointed out, or any
specific remedy assigned, without which innovation might be made, but it
would not be reform. The house of commons, he said, was not perfect, but
he believed it was as perfect as human nature would permit it to be. He
added:—“At any rate, while I can raise a voice or arm to prevent it, it
shall never assimilate to the national assembly. In that body there
are seven hundred members, four hundred of whom are lawyers, and three
hundred out of no description that I could name: and, out of the whole,
there are not a dozen who possess, in any way, one hundred pounds per
annum.

“Such might be the perfection of representation in the eyes of some, and
I understand it to be the opinion of many of the new sect of politics;
but I trust to the good sense of the people of England never to permit
such a mob, nor any thing resembling it, to usurp the sacred office of
their legislature.” Windham, one of the most eloquent and accomplished
men of the Whig party, warmly seconded Burke, and after a few words
from Sheridan and Fox, the conversation dropped. The subject, however,
was one of intense interest and not easily to be forgotten. Government
by this time, indeed, had become alarmed at the proceedings of its
opponents, which alarm was made manifest by a royal proclamation issued
against seditious meetings and seditious writings; and exhorting the
magistrates to vigilance, and the people to submission and obedience.
This proclamation was laid before the house on the 2nth of May, when the
master of the rolls moved an address of approbation and support to
his majesty. Both in and out of the house opinions varied as to the
propriety of this proclamation: some contending that public opinion was
not to be directed by such a measure, and others arguing that it was
a timely exertion of authority in a turbulent season, and which was
indispensably requisite to restrain that lawless spirit which threatened
to subvert the established government. The address was warmly opposed
by Mr. Grey, who denounced the proclamation in severe terms, as an
insidious and pernicious measure, and who moved a counter address, which
declared that government was already vested with sufficient power to
punish any open violation of the laws; that if seditious writings had
been published, ministers had been guilty of neglect in not instituting
prosecutions against the authors; that the proclamation was not
necessary, and was calculated to create groundless alarms and
suspicions; that the house of commons was ever ready to concur with his
majesty in the suppression of all riots, tumults, or other disorders, on
whatever pretexts they might be formed; that they deeply regretted the
tumults and disorders which took place at Birmingham in the course of
last summer, to the disgrace of all good government, etc.; and that the
surest means of averting the like calamities would be to proceed with
all the severity of the law against such persons as might have been
instrumental in aiding and abetting those tumults and disorders, and
particularly to prosecute and punish such magistrates as appeared to
have been guilty of neglect in their duty. It was argued by Grey, and
others of the opposition, as Fox, Francis, Whitbread, Lambton, and Lord
John Russell, all of whom vehemently supported the counter address, that
the diligent inquiry enjoined by the proclamation after the authors and
distributors of wicked and seditious writings, tended to establish an
odious system of espionage; a system which had made the old government
of France an object of general detestation, and which was unworthy
of the sovereign of a free people. Grey, and those who supported
his amendment, uttered many bitter invectives against Pitt in their
speeches, but he declared in reply that such language should not deter
him from pursuing that line of conduct which he deemed most conducive
to public tranquillity, and the preservation of constitutional freedom.
Pitt expressed his high respect for many of the members of the society
of “the Friends of the People,” and said that they need not come—as
the opposition had presumed they would—within the scope of the
proclamation. It was, he remarked, directed against those daring and
seditious principles that had been so insidiously propagated amongst the
people, under the plausible and delusive appellation of “The Rights of
Man.” Pitt expressed his astonishment that the existence of a republican
spirit in England had been denied, when it was openly avowed and
industriously propagated, both by individuals and by societies. He
charged Fox with being the only person who saw no danger in the writings
and doctrines so widely promulgated; proclaimed him a friend, if not
an advocate, of Paine and his doctrines; and asserted that such conduct
could not be reconciled with any spark of patriotism. Fox indignantly
rejoined, and disclaimed all sympathy with Paine. At the same time, he
avowed that he saw no danger in his writings and doctrines, or of any
other writer of his class, because the good sense and constitutional
spirit of the people at large were a sure protection against them. Fox
intimated that these were once the opinions of Pitt, and that he had
only altered them when he saw, or thought he saw, the means of stirring
up division among the friends of freedom. Whether a division in the
camp of the Whigs was stirred up by Pitt or no, it is certain that such
existed at the present time, for several opposition members, as the
Marquess of Titchfield, Lord North, Windham, Grenville, with others,
spoke in favour of the address; acknowledging their conviction that the
doctrines promulgated by the press, and the conduct lately pursued by
clubs and societies demanded the vigorous interposition of government,
lest they should lead to the evils experienced in France. The address
was carried without a division, and it was then communicated to the
house of lords, and their lordships’ concurrence requested, in order
that it might be presented to the king as the address of both houses. At
this time the Prince of Wales was as closely connected as ever with Fox
and Sheridan, and it was supposed that he might share their opinions
with reference to the French revolution. On this occasion, however, he
put the public in possession of his sentiments upon this subject. As
soon as the motion for an address was made and seconded, the prince rose
for the first time, and said that he should be deficient in his duty as
a member of their lordships’ house, unmindful of the respect he owed
to the constitution, and inattentive to the peace and welfare of the
country, if he did not state openly what was his opinion upon a
subject of such magnitude, as that on which their lordships were then
deliberating. He continued:—“Having been educated in principles which
taught me to revere that constitutional liberty of the people on which
their happiness depends, to those principles I will give my firm
and constant support. The matter at issue appears to be, whether the
constitution was or was not to be maintained—whether the wild notions
of untried theory are to conquer the wholesome maxims of established
practice; and whether those laws, under which we have flourished for so
long a series of years, are to be subverted by a pretended reform, which
the people will not sanction. As a person nearly and dearly interested
in the happiness of the people, I should feel it treason against my own
principles if I did not declare my disapprobation of those seditious
publications which have occasioned the present motion. On this great and
solid basis I will vote for a concurrence with the commons in their
wise and salutary address.” In the course of the debate Lord Grenville
observed that such sentiments as those delivered by the Prince of Wales
must warm the breast of every Englishman who heard them, and would
convey the greatest satisfaction to the people at large, inasmuch as
they might expect a continuance of those essential blessings which they
had enjoyed since the accession of the present illustrious family to the
throne of these realms. The address was supported by several opposition
peers, and an amendment moved by Lord Lauderdale and seconded by
Lord Lansdowne was rejected without a division. Having received the
concurrence of the lords, the address was presented in form to the
throne, and it was followed by addresses from all parts of the kingdom.
Encouraged by the public sentiment, the ministry commenced prosecutions
against many offenders, amongst whom Paine, the author of the “The
Rights of Man,” was the most conspicuous. Paine was found guilty,
but foreseeing the event, he eluded punishment by absconding to France,
where he was elected member of the national convention. It is a question
whether it was judicious to prosecute the demagogue, for his prosecution
only served as an advertisement to his production, the sale of which
became more rapid and more extensive than ever it had been before.

{GEORGE III. 1792–1793}




TRIAL OF HASTINGS, ETC.

During this session the trial of Hastings occupied twenty-two days but
no decision took place. Towards the close of the session the attention
of parliament was also drawn to the situation of India. In presenting
his annual statement of the income and expenditure of British India,
Dundas drew a flattering picture of its happiness and prosperity;
stating that the surplus of the Bengal revenue for the preceding year
was more than one million pounds sterling. Francis denied every thing
that Dundas said; asserted that one-third of the company’s territory was
inhabited only by wild beasts; and prognosticated nothing but disgrace,
defeat, and ruin from the war which was still carried on against Tippoo.
Francis said that the seizures for non-payment of the land-revenue were
notorious, and that he held in his hand two advertisements, one of which
announced the sale of seventeen, and the other of forty-two villages.




BILL RESPECTING THE NEW FOREST AND TIMBER FOR THE NAVY.

In the course of this session Pitt introduced a bill for encouraging the
growth of timber for the navy, and improving the royal revenue
raising out of the New Forest, by the sale of certain parts, and the
enfranchisement of copyholds. This bill passed the commons without
much opposition, but on the second reading in the upper house it was
strenuously opposed by Lord Chancellor Thurlow. His lordship objected
to the principle of the bill as favouring the alienation of the crown
lands, and he asserted that it was essential to the safety of the
constitution that his majesty should have his interests blended with
those of the landed property in the country. Thurlow’s arguments seem to
have had great weight, for though the bill was committed by a majority
of forty one against twenty-nine, it was postponed and never afterwards
resumed.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued on the 15th of June, when his majesty expressed
great concern at the commencement of hostilities in Europe, and stated
that his principal care would be to preserve to his people the blessings
of peace. His majesty applauded the measures which had been adopted for
the diminution of taxation, and the additional provision made for the
reduction of the existing national debt; and for the prevention of the
accumulation of debt in future. But no prudential measures could lessen
the existing debt, or prevent its accumulation, for in a few months
England was involved in the most expensive war that had ever called
forth her energies.




CHANGES IN THE MINISTRY.

From the period of the king’s malady, and the lord chancellor’s
double-dealing in the matter of the Regency Bill, a misunderstanding had
existed between him and Pitt. Lord Thurlow, in fact, was the aggressor,
and the more inclined to continue the quarrel, for on no occasion did
Pitt exhibit his hostility, while my lord chancellor was continually
manifesting it both in the council and in parliament. In private society
also Thurlow was often heard to speak contemptuously of the chancellor
of the exchequer, and no remonstrance on the part of their mutual
friends could check his display of ill-feeling. In parliament, on
some occasions when the assistance of Thurlow was necessary, he
would-preserve a dogged silence; while at other times he would oppose
measures to which Pitt attached the highest importance. At length his
rough temper brought matters to a crisis. Early in this session Thurlow
severely condemned Pitt’s bill for liquidating future loans, and
irritated thereby the chancellor of the exchequer wrote to the king
stating the impossibility of his remaining in office with his lordship,
and that it was necessary for his majesty to choose between them. In
consequence of this communication, the king informed Thurlow that he
must resign; but as a change was not desirable during the session, and
as it was wished that the lord chancellor should terminate some
chancery business, it was agreed that he should hold the seals until the
prorogation of parliament, on which day the great seal was placed in
the hands of three commissioners; an event which was not followed by a
single resignation or change in any political or legal department.
There is no doubt that Pitt knew, when he wrote to his majesty, that the
choice of dismissal would fall on his rough-minded colleague, for the
chancellor of the exchequer was well aware that he stood high in his
royal master’s favour. His majesty, indeed, had often expressed his
high sense of his minister’s services in words, and soon after this he
testified it in a more tangible manner. By the death of Lord Guildford
on the 5th of August, the wardenship of the cinque ports, worth about
£3000 a-year, became vacant, and his majesty offered it to Pitt in such
pressing terms, that even if he had been inclined to refuse the boon
it would scarcely have been possible. The royal letter by which it was
offered to him was in fact imperative, and Pitt had only to obey—no
very difficult task, as the chancellor of the exchequer, though he could
guide the helm of the state with a skilful hand, nevertheless could
not manage his own affairs with sufficient skill to keep himself out of
debt.




EAST INDIA AFFAIRS.

During this year the war in India was brought to a close. The events of
that war had been various. After the re-establishment of the Rajah
of Travancore in his dominions, as recorded in a previous page, Lord
Cornwallis, the governor-general, took the command of the army upon
himself, and laid siege to Bangalore. This important place was taken by
storm, and his lordship then determined to penetrate into the heart
of Mysore, to dictate his own terms of peace to Tippoo Sultaun at his
capital. His army burned with impatience to revenge the cruelties which
Tippoo had inflicted on their unfortunate countrymen who had fallen into
his hands by the chances of war. Lord Cornwallis began his march
early in May, 1731, and General Abercrornbie moved towards the same
destination, though by a different line. The forces under his lordship
reached Arikera, on the Cavery, and about nine miles from Seringapatam,
on the 13th of May, and Tippoo having ventured to oppose him, the
Mysorean army was defeated and obliged to seek shelter under the guns of
the capital. The road to Seringapatam was now open to the English, and
the prize seemed to be within their reach, but at this time General
Abercrornbie had not arrived, and Lord Cornwallis convinced that his
force was not sufficient to invest the city, his camp being half-filled
with the sick and dying, was compelled to retreat. He sent orders to
General Abercrornbie, who had reached Periapatam, about three marches
from Seringapatam, to retire towards the coast, while he himself
retreated towards Bangalore. He had scarcely left the scene of his
victory, having first demolished his heavy artillery, when he was joined
by the Mahratta army, under the command of Purseram Bhow, a celebrated
Mahratta warrior, and Harry Punt, a Brahmin of the highest rank, who
was likewise charged to act as minister plenipotentiary to the whole
Mahratta league. Had these chiefs arrived before the recent battle,
Tippoo Sultaun would have been besieged in his capital, but the swelling
of the rivers, the sickly state of his soldiers, and the loss of his
artillery forbade all thoughts of returning, and Lord Cornwallis
therefore continued his march towards Bangalore. Tippoo boasted that
he had gained a great victory, though at the same time he made some
fruitless attempts at negociation. During the following autumn great
preparations were made for renewing the war in Mysore. The ensuing
campaign opened early in February, 1792, the forces under Lord
Cornwallis and General Abercrornbie resuming their former plan of
operations. This time both armies met under the walls of Seringapatam;
while the forces of the Peishwa and of the Nizam encamped at a little
distance from the city, and furnished to the British army a plentiful
supply of stores and provisions. Tippoo’s forces awaited the approach of
Lord Cornwallis under the walls of his capital, but they were defeated,
and Seringapatam was in consequence closely and completely invested. The
first parallel, with a large redoubt in the rear, was finished by
the 21st of February, and two days afterwards the second parallel was
completed, and breaching-batteries were commenced and furnaces prepared
for heating shot. In a few days Seringapatam would have been taken by
storm, but Tippoo seeing his situation hopeless sent a _vakeel_ to sue
for peace. The treaty which Tippoo was forced to accept contained the
following articles:—That he should cede one-half of his territories to
the allies: that he should pay three crores and thirty lacs of rupees to
indemnify them for the expenses of the war; that he should release all
his prisoners; and that he should deliver two of his sons as hostages
for the due execution of the treaty. The young princes were conducted
to the camp of Lord Cornwallis with great ceremony on the 26th of
February, and were received by him with all possible demonstrations of
kindness and affection. But though Tippoo had delivered his sons into
the hands of Lord Cornwallis as pledges of his good faith, he still
reluctantly fulfilled the articles of the treaty. His chief objection
was the cession of the principality of Coorg, nor would he consent to it
until Lord Cornwallis had sent off his hostages in the direction of the
Carnatic, ordered his guns to be replaced in the batteries, and made
preparations for renewing the siege. Then, when he saw that there was
no alternative, on the 19th of March Tippoo signed the definitive
treaty which was delivered to Lord Cornwallis by the young princes, his
hostages, with great solemnity. By this treaty the English obtained all
the dominions of Tippoo on the coast of Malabar, a district surrounding
Dindigul and some territory on the western frontier of the Carnatic;
the Mahrattas recovered possession of the country as far as the river of
Toombuddra, which had once been their frontier line; and the Nizam
had for his share all the country from the river Kistna to the Pennar,
including the forts of Gunjecottah and Cudapa. When the princes were
delivered into the hands of Lord Cornwallis some of the money exacted
from Tippoo was paid, but the whole not being forthcoming they remained
under the safeguard of his lordship for sometime longer. Out of the
money paid by Tippoo the commander-in-chief made a spontaneous gift to
his troops, equal to six months batta, in order to soothe them for
the disappointment of their expectations of booty in the storming of
Seringapatam, and for their good conduct during the war. His lordship
and General Meadows even resigned their own share, in order that the
soldiers might have the more. Their conduct deserved reward, for though
they burned with impatience to revenge the wrongs which their countrymen
had received at the hands of Tippoo, yet when they found that Lord
Cornwallis had agreed to a treaty of peace, they rendered all due
obedience to his injunctions not to commit any violence, and to abstain
from making use of any kind of insulting expression towards a fallen
enemy. Even though fired upon by the Mysoreans after their own fire had
been suspended, the troops obeyed his commands to the very letter: a
proof of their admirable discipline, and their devotedness to their
general. As for Tippoo Sultaun, although humbled, he still remained the
same inveterate foe to the English as before. No act of kindness shown
to himself, or his captive sons, by Lord Cornwallis, could soften
his bitter resentment: every generous action shown towards him by
the conqueror was considered rather as an insult than as a proof of
friendship, and nothing in his conduct could justify the hope that peace
would be permanent.




PROGRESS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

During this year the principles of the French revolution were more
clearly manifested to the world. Early in the year the state of foreign
affairs assumed a more menacing aspect. Austria was collecting troops,
and the only ultimatum on which the emperor would agree to discontinue
preparations, was the re-establishment of the French constitution on
the basis of the declaration of June, 1789; the restitution of their
property to the clergy; and the cession of Alsace to the German princes,
and of Avignon to the pope. But these terms were “like a summons
directed to the torrent, or a command to the whirlwind:” the assembly
replied to them by a declaration of war, to which Louis was compelled
to assent. Nor was this the only effect produced by the demands of the
Emperor of Austria. The assembly required of Louis that he should
freely resign himself to the current of the revolution, or be dethroned.
Influenced, however, by the queen and by Dumouriez, who finding himself
in office broke with the Girondists as he had previously with the
Constitutionalists, he fearlessly resisted their counsels. The
friendship of Dumouriez raised the drooping spirits of the old royalist
party, and Louis was once more induced to listen to their plans for the
restoration of the former government. But this party was now a broken
reed, on which no hope of support could be placed. Events on the
frontiers conduced likewise to render the cause of Louis and the
Royalists more hopeless. In their first action the revolutionary
soldiers were defeated, and on the news of this reverse the populace
turned their rage against the monarch. Orders were issued by the
assembly for the disbanding of his guard, by which he was at all times
exposed to the irruptions of the rabble; and two decrees were likewise
issued in opposition to the royal will: one for the exile of the
refractory priests, and another for the establishment of a camp of
20,000 men under the walls of Paris. This was another crisis in the
reign of Louis, and had he made proper use of it he might have prevented
the supremacy of the populace. Aroused by a sense of danger from this
federal camp, thousands of the national guards and of the respectable
citizens petitioned against it; at the same time exhibiting an
inclination to rally round the throne. Dumouriez advised the monarch to
throw his whole influence into the scale of this party, and he was about
to act upon this advice, when he was prevented by a deep laid stratagem
of the Girondists. Being assured that he would resist the decree
relative to the nonjuring and seditious priesthood, they sent it to him
for the purpose of provoking his resistance, that the citizens might see
his lack of cordiality towards the revolution. This scheme succeeded.
Exasperated by the insults daily heaped upon him and his family, he
defied the Girondists, and yet at the same time neglected to rally round
him either the national guards or the citizens. The Girondist ministers
were now dismissed, and both their decrees were rejected, all which
tended to accelerate the fearful catastrophe which had been long
hovering over the throne of France, and the nation at large. The new
administration was chosen from among the Feuillants, but it possessed no
weight either with their own party or the people. The Feuillants joined
with the royalists to repress the growing spirit of insubordination, but
all their exertions were vain. Lafayette also wrote an energetic letter
to the assembly, denouncing the Jacobin faction, and demanding the
dissolution of the clubs, but he only stirred up the rage of the
populace against himself, without curbing their evil passions. The
Girondists, moreover, became as dangerous a set of men as were the
hot-headed and coldblooded Jacobins. Chagrined at the loss of place
and power, they allied themselves with the mob, and inflamed them by
petitions and harangues. Nay more: by direction of the Girondists, a
general insurrection was prepared in the fauxbourgs, and a body of ten
thousand men organised in the quarter of St. Antoine. A pretext
for arming was found in the non-success already mentioned, of the
revolutionary forces on the frontier. Under the pretence of fear of the
Austrians and Prussians, pikes were forged, and distributed among men
who thirsted to commit outrage and wrong on their monarch and their
fellow-citizens. Revolt broke out on the 20th of June: pikemen from the
suburbs of St. Antoine and St. Marceau marched from the place of
the Bastille towards the Tuilleries. At their head was the ferocious
Santerre, a brewer, who proved himself to be the worthy hero of this
horrible day. Their approach was made known by shouts of “Down with
the Veto,” and by the revolutionary chorus of _Caira_. The “Tree of
Liberty,” and the “Rights of Man” were borne before them as banners, and
in this manner they forced an entrance into the palace. On discovering
the monarch, some of them exclaimed that they had a petition, and Louis
led the way to the largest saloon of the suite. The petition was not
forthcoming, but placing the “Rights of Man” before the king they
demanded his assent to the decrees for the federal camp and the
transportation of the priests. Never did the unhappy Louis exhibit so
much fortitude as on this trying occasion. He bore all their insults
with calmness, and to their reiterated demands, merely replied; “This is
neither the time nor the way to obtain them from me.” This storm passed
by: the Girondists, on hearing that the insurrection was likely to prove
serious, persuaded the rabble to retire. All good citizens manifested
abhorrence at the outrage committed, and indignation was exhibited in
the provinces and among the armies. His admirable coolness extorted
admiration even from his enemies. The Duke de la Rochefaucault, who
commanded at Rouen, offered him an asylum there; Lafayette implored him
to throw himself into the arms of the constitutional forces; and the
national guard offered to protect his person. Louis, however, declined
all these proposals, for he still hoped that the allied powers would
deliver him from his rebellious subjects. Lafayette made a last effort
to save the throne, by appearing in person before the legislative
assembly, and demanding, in his own name and in that of the army, the
rights of constitutional royalty; but the Jacobins threatened him
with destruction, and Louis refused to be saved by a person whom he
considered as the author of his misfortunes, and Lafayette returned to
his troops with the loss of both influence and popularity. The
situation of Louis became daily and hourly more critical. Emboldened by
Lafayette’s failure, the Girondists and Jacobins aimed at the monarch’s
dethronement. The minds of men were inflamed by the harangues of
demagogues, and it was proclaimed that the country was in danger.
The contest of parties was fierce in the extreme; their madness being
heightened by the collection of formidable masses of hostile armies on
the frontiers. The approach of a crisis became evident on the 14th of
July, when a _fête_ was held in commemoration of the destruction of the
Bastille. On that day the king with the queen and dauphin went to the
Champ de Mars, and it was with difficulty that the soldiers saved
them from the rage of the rabble. The fermentation of the public
mind received a fearful acceleration, when it was discovered that the
Prussians and Austrians were advancing upon the capital, under the
command of the Duke of Brunswick. All France was put in motion thereby,
and thousands of hot-brained youth resorted to the capital to join
the already overwhelming rabble there. Thus supported the legislative
assembly determined on the deposition of the king, having first
appointed a commission to examine what grounds could justify such a
step, and whether such grounds existed. The blow was struck on the 10th
of August. On the preceding day the popular excitement was extreme, and
at midnight the tocsin for a scene of wild fury was sounded throughout
Paris. Obeying its horrid summons, the self-called patriots poured into
the fauxbourg Saint Antoine, the centre of the insurrection, from the
different rallying points; and by the dawn of day their columns, which
had been organized under the direction of the assembly, were ready
for the work of destruction. The palace of the Tuilleries was in vain
defended by some Swiss and royalist troops; after a great slaughter on
both sides it fell into the hands of the rabble. Before the combat took
place the king had fled to the legislative assembly, to place himself
under their protection. He imagined that he would there be safe, but the
first act of the assembly told him that his hopes were fallacious: under
the plea that his presence marred the freedom of debate, he was removed
from the side of Vergniaud, the president of the chamber, where he
instinctively took his seat, to the box reserved for the reporters. This
was the last day of the monarchy. The assembly concluded the crimes
of that day by a decree suspending Louis from his kingly functions, by
ordering the formation of a national convention, and by the appointment
of a new ministry, the members of which were taken conjointly from the
ranks of the Girondists and Jacobins. The national convention was to
have unlimited authority to decide in the name of the people upon all
the interests of the country, and its session was to commence on the
20th of September. In the meantime several important events took place.
Lafayette, having in vain endeavoured to re-establish the constitutional
throne, fled with his staff over the frontier, and was arrested in Liege
by an Austrian general, and thrown into prison. The allied armies
had taken Longwy and Verdun, and a report was spread that they were
advancing upon the capital. These successes alarmed the patriots, and
made them turn their rage upon each other. The Girondists conceived the
plan of abandoning the capital and defending the country behind the
Loire; but the Jacobins opposed this, and it was resolved that, rather
than surrender the capital, the population should be buried beneath its
ruins. Division was in the camp, and bloodthirsty men were now to
rule. Thousands suspected of being unfavourable to the principles of
the revolution were thrown into prison, and thousands were barbarously
massacred. The Jacobin faction of Paris ruled France; and such
sanginuary fanatics as Robespierre and Marat carried the sway. The
guillotine was declared permanent, and many members of the legislative
assembly were themselves menaced by the fatal axe. At length this
assembly, after having passed a great many decrees—decrees which were
partly fanatical and partly inefficacious—closed its session, and
the national convention rose upon its ruins. This new assembly was
principally composed of the Jacobin or republican party; the elections
preponderating in their favour. This spirit was manifested almost in the
first hour of its session; the legislative assembly had transferred the
king and his family to the prison of the Temple; the national convention
came to a speedy and unanimous resolution that royalty should be for
ever abolished, and that France should henceforth be a republic. But,
although united in this principle tendency, this assembly, like the one
which preceded it, was divided into two hostile parties; the moderates,
or Girondists, and the Republicans, or Jacobins. In the national
convention these two parties took the names of the Mountain and the
Plain; and from the very commencement of its sitting the assembly was
threatened with new convulsions, through the struggles of these
parties. But the populace now, in reality, possessed the power, and they
naturally permitted themselves to be led only by men whose character and
principles were in accordance with their own; hence the triumph of the
Mountain, or the Jacobins. On one point, however, both parties came to
a perfect agreement. Encouraged by recent successes over the allied
armies—for the French generals had everywhere defeated them—the
Parisian populace loudly demanded the blood of their monarch; and, after
violent contests, it was resolved that the inviolability of Louis was
forfeited, and that the convention had power to decide on his life or
death. These resolutions were passed on the 3rd of December, and on the
11th of that month, an act of accusation was drawn up, and the King of
France was brought before the bar of his revolutionary subjects. His
trial and death will be noticed in a future page.

{GEORGE III. 1792–1793}




AFFAIRS OF POLAND.

France was not the only European state now in commotion. It has been
seen that the two imperial courts of Austria and Russia had seized a
great portion of Poland as their prey, and that they had imposed their
yoke upon the nation. This ignominious situation of Poland remained
unchanged until the year 1788, when, encouraged by the war which had
broken out between their oppressors and the Porte, and by the secret
promises of Prussia, the Poles meditated the means of effecting their
salvation. The Russians had requested them to conclude a defensive
alliance against the Porte; and, under these circumstances, a diet
assembled in Warsaw, which immediately declared itself a confederated
diet, in order that it might not be dissolved by the right of
veto, which, under the old constitution, belonged to every deputy
individually. Those who were in the interests of Russia were completely
overpowered by the patriotic party, and the proposed alliance was
rejected. The confederative diet further decreed the increase of the
army, granted imposts on the property of the nobility and clergy, and
established a commission of war dependent on the diet only, in order
to check the influence of the permanent council of state, which their
spoliators had created, for the purpose of destroying the national
power. All these regulations were expressly sanctioned by Prussia, and
that power solemnly promised to respect and protect the independence
of Poland. Thus supported, the Polish diet demanded the removal of
the Russian troops from their territory; and Catherine, alarmed at the
terrible energy with which the demand was made, felt herself compelled
to recall her soldiers. The diet now commenced the work of remodelling
the constitution of Poland. The new constitution was finished in the
space of a year; and though it was opposed by some aristocrats it was
adopted by the majority, and solemnly sworn to and proclaimed. By this
constitution the Catholic religion was fixed as the dominant religion of
the kingdom, though liberty was granted to other confessions; the
Polish throne was declared hereditary; Frederic Augustus of Saxony was
appointed the successor of Stanislaus, the reigning king, with right of
succession for his descendants; the king, with his council of state, was
to exercise the executive power, and was to have some influence on the
legislative; the diet, which was composed of two chambers, one of the
deputies, and the other of the senators, was to assemble every two
years, and was to possess the right of making war or peace; independent
judges were to administer justice in the name of the king; the ministers
of the crown were to be responsible, and the person of the king
inviolable; the prerogatives of the nobility were to remain untouched;
the royal cities were to be endowed with the right of personal liberty
for their citizens; the citizens of these cities were to possess the
right of electing their magistrates, as well as the right of acquiring
titles of nobility, and the estates of nobles; at every diet a number of
citizens were to be elevated to the rank of nobles; the cities in which
were courts of appeal were to have the privilege of sending a deputy to
the diet; the peasantry were to be protected from an aggravation of
their hard lot by the laws; and personal liberty was to be possessed
by foreign settlers. By the mass of the nation this constitution was
received with gratitude and joy; but some of the aristocracy protested
against it, and their resistance was encouraged by Russian gold. At
first, however, their opposition was fruitless, and everything promised
well for the establishment of this new order of things. Russia, it is
true, threatened to subvert them; but the Porte, Sweden, and Prussia,
with other European powers, looked upon them in a friendly manner.
Prussia, indeed, solemnly promised assistance; and in the month of
March, 1790, Frederic William even concluded a defensive alliance with
Poland. But the friendship of courts is variable, and the favour of
monarchs fickle. The King of Prussia had attached himself to the cause
of Poland, not from any respect for her rights, but from a spirit of
jealousy towards Russia, and in the hopes of obtaining something for
himself. He was to have Dantzic and Thorn for his support; and when the
republic refused to cede these cities, his ardour on the behalf of
the Poles underwent a great change. He grew cool, and when peace was
concluded between Russia and the Porte, Frederic William withdrew
from the cause of Poland altogether, and even joined with her old and
inveterate enemy. When the Russian hordes entered the Polish territory,
under the pretext of assisting those aristocrats who protested against
the new constitution, he not only refused his promised assistance, but
took a menacing attitude. But the Poles were not discouraged by his
perfidy. The diet summoned the nation to its defence; and the army
fought valiantly, under the command of the celebrated Kosciusko. The
enemy, however, proved too strong for Poland. The king was not in heart
on the side of the patriots; and Kosciusko himself deserted them and
went over to the aristocratic party. The patriots now fled; and the
Russians having advanced to within three days march of the capital,
compelled the king to save his throne by consenting to the abolition
of the new constitution. On the 23rd of July, 1732, an armistice was
concluded, and the command of the Polish troops consigned to a Russian
general. Vengeance soon followed. On the 29th of October a diet
assembled in Grodno, to which diet it was declared, on the part of
Russia and Prussia, that a second division of Poland was necessary, and
that its members would be called upon to comply with this measure.
There was no alternative; for, at this time, Prussian as well as Russian
troops had entered Poland, and there was no means of defence against
their combined operations. So that whatever Russia and Prussia chose to
demand, that they were sure of obtaining; for what, it has been asked,
can feeble justice do against exorbitant power? But it was not till the
spring of the succeeding year that the diet were called upon to give
their consent to this second spoliation of their fatherland.




STATE OF THE PUBLIC MIND IN ENGLAND.

At the commencement of this year, and even as late as the month of
August, when it was known that the French monarch was deposed, there
appears to have been no disposition on the part of government to take
part in the war against France. On the contrary, in pursuance of a
recommendation from the throne, the army and navy were reduced; and when
our ambassador was ordered to leave Paris, on the virtual extinction of
monarchy, he was directed to renew his assurances of British neutrality.
But there were many causes at work which, before the year closed,
induced the government to exhibit signs of a change of policy. Although
the generality of the people were struck with terror at the deposition
of the monarch, and the horrid massacres which preceded and followed
that event, yet the revolutionary societies in England, grew daily
bolder and bolder in their proceedings. Some there were, it is true, who
were convinced of their evil tendency, and who, in consequence, gave up
all connexion with them; but still they existed in all their original
vigour. So enthusiastic were these societies in their admiration of the
French revolution, all stained with blood as it was, that they even
transmitted addresses of applause to the national convention. The
London Corresponding Society, the Manchester Constitutional Society, the
Norwich Revolution Society, the Society for Constitutional Information
in London, and the London Constitutional Whigs, these all joined in
addresses of congratulation on the victory which the French people had
gained over their hapless and ill-fated monarch. All these addresses
received a warm response from those to whom they were addressed. For
once in the annals of history the French hailed Englishmen as brethren;
and a hope was expressed that the day would soon arrive when they
might join the hands of fraternity. But these addresses and responses
contained something more than mere compliments; they breathed
destruction to the English constitution. It was evident, indeed, that,
unless checked by the popular voice or by government, the revolutionary
societies in England would one day produce corresponding fruits to those
of France. Happily the nation at large and the government joined in
stemming the onward tide of revolutionary principles. Among the first
to take the alarm at the political societies and publications, were the
established clergy, who sent up addresses from all parts to his majesty,
thanking him for his late wise and provident proclamation. Towards the
close of the year the alarm became general; and clubs and associations
began to be formed with the avowed object of counteracting the baneful
influence of those which were founded upon revolutionary principles.
These societies came to certain resolutions, and made certain
declarations, which they caused to be published both in the newspapers
and in the form of pamphlets. One grand end at which they aimed was to
expose the fallacy that all men are born equal and must remain so; an
argument which the revolutionists had ever on their lips, and which
was the very root and life of their factious disposition. Nor did these
societies labour in vain. Their spirit spread rapidly throughout
the kingdom, and in every county, and almost every town and village
resolutions were subscribed, expressive of loyalty and attachment to
the king and constitution. It became manifest that though the French
had some few thousands of admirers in England, yet the great mass of
the people abhorred their proceedings; that, though there were many who
wished to bring about a revolution in their own country, yet there were
more who were ready to maintain the constitution as it existed, against
all its enemies, native or foreign. The public feeling encouraged
government, at the close of the year, to assume a hostile appearance
towards the French. Alarmed at the circumstances that the national
convention held out the hand of fraternity to other countries, and
especially to England; that Savoy was now incorporated with France, in
contradiction to the formal renunciation of all plans of conquest, that
Belgium was declared independent, under the protection of France; that
the navigation of the Scheldt was opened, in disregard of all existing
relations between European states; and that a decree of the 16th of
November ordered the French troops to pursue the Austrians, whom
they had recently defeated, into the Dutch territories, the British
government placed the country in a state of defence. The militia were
called out; the Tower was strengthened; a second royal proclamation was
issued; and parliament summoned to meet on the 13th of December.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

When parliament met, the speech from the throne was full of alarm. All
the expressions of the first proclamation were repeated in it; and,
towards the conclusion, the king remarked:—“I have carefully observed
a strict neutrality in the present war on the continent, and have
uniformly abstained from interference in the internal affairs of France;
but it is impossible to see, without serious uneasiness, the strong and
increasing indications which have there appeared, of an intention to
excite disturbances in other countries, to disregard, the rights of
neutral nations, and pursue views of conquest and aggrandisement; as
well as to adopt towards my allies, the States-general, measures which
were neither conformable to the laws of nations, nor to the positive
stipulations of existing treaties.” Under all these circumstances, his
majesty added, he had thought it right to adopt precautionary measures,
and to make some augmentation of his naval and military force.

The address was moved by Sir James Sanderson, lord-mayor of London, who
affirmed that seditious practices were prevalent; that various
political societies were established in London, which corresponded
and confederated with other societies in different parts of the
United Kingdom; and that these societies, whose aim was to subvert the
constitution and to destroy monarchy, root and branch, were circulating
a vast number of pernicious pamphlets and publications among the lower
orders of people. A memorable debate arose on the address. Fox, who was
yet enchanted with French liberty, condemned every part of the speech
and of the address. It was his firm conviction, he said, that every fact
asserted in the king’s speech was false; that no insurrection existed;
and that the alarm was occasioned by the artful designs and practices of
ministers. Fox reprehended the system of intellectual oppression, which
induced ministers to represent the tumults and disorders that had taken
place, as designed to overthrow the constitution; and that the
various societies instituted for discussing questions relative to the
constitution, were so many schemes for propagating seditious doctrines.
He was aware that he was advancing opinions not likely to become
popular; but he was as ready to meet the current of popular opinion,
which was running high in favour of the high lay doctrines now existing,
as he was, in times past, to meet the opposite torrent, when it was said
that he wished to sacrifice the people to the crown. He remarked:—“One
extreme naturally leads to another. Those who dread republicanism fly
for shelter to the crown; those who desire reform, and are calumniated,
are driven by despair to republicanism. And this is the evil I dread.
These are the extremes into which these violent agitations hurry the
people, to the gradual decrease of that middle order of men, who dread
republicanism as much on the one hand, as they do despotism on the
other. That middle order of men, who have hitherto preserved to this
country all that is dear in life, I am sorry to say, is daily lessening;
but while my feeble voice continues, it shall not be totally extinct;
there shall be at least one who will, in this ferment of extremes,
preserve the centre point.” In adverting to the affairs of France, Fox
said that he rejoiced in the triumph of men, fighting for liberty, over
the armies of despots. He bitterly condemned the calling out of the
militia, and as bitterly condemned ministers for not sending a new
ambassador to treat with the present executive government of France. As
for England, he did not think that it was in a state to go to war;
nor did he think that we should be justified in taking such a step for
anything which had occurred in France, or in Belgium, or in Savoy, or
anywhere else. In conclusion, Fox praised the English constitution as
the best adapted to England, because the people loved it best; and moved
an amendment, pledging the house that inquiry should be made into the
facts stated in his majesty’s speech. Pitt was not in the house on this
occasion; but Fox was effectively answered by one of his own party one
who had figured for many years as one of the leaders and most eloquent
chiefs of the Whig opposition, and who had been linked in close
friendship with the man whom he now opposed. Mr. Windham said that
he felt himself constrained to vote on this occasion with those whose
measures he had uniformly and conscientiously reprobated. The alarm, he
said, which existed in the country, was not, he believed, greater than
the existing danger. It was well known that constant communication was
maintained between persons in Paris and persons in London; and that the
object of this communication was the destruction of our present form of
government. These worthy gentlemen, he said, had their agents throughout
the country, in order to disseminate their pamphlets; which, as these
agents were poor men, was at once a proof that there must be a society
somewhere who defrayed the expense. In adverting to France, Windham
said, he believed that the motives of the combined armies, that
had attempted to march to Paris were good; and he justified their
interference by demonstrating that France herself had intermeddled with
the affairs of neighbouring countries. The amendment was supported by
Mr. Grey, who said that he was no friend to Paine’s doctrines; but he
would not be deterred by a name from acknowledging that he considered
the rights of man as the foundation of every government, and those who
opposed these said rights as traitors against the people. Dundas replied
to Grey, and justified the measures which government had adopted. A
universal and serious alarm, he said, pervaded the country gentlemen,
farmers, and others, and this had rendered some active steps absolutely
necessary on the part of government, in order to restore confidence.
Dundas remarked, that the national convention had been eager to
countenance every complaint of grievance from the factious and
discontented in this country; and in proof of it he read some of the
addresses which the convention had received with applause from the
political societies of England. He asked, “Was not this, on the part
of the French, an unjustifiable interference in the internal affairs
of another country? And had not the leading members of the convention
declared that they would not look to the sovereign, but to the people
of Great Britain; that they would appeal from the government to
the republicans of England.” He maintained that, under all the
circumstances, government were fully justified in all they had done, and
would have merited impeachment if they had remained inactive at such a
critical juncture. Sheridan, in a flippant manner, endeavoured to show
that the alarm was ridiculous, and had been created by ministers for
their own selfish and wicked purposes. The republicans said to exist
in England, were, he said, men of buckram; and should any French army
attempt to invade England, with the idea of effecting any change in
our government, every hand and heart in the country would be united to
resist them. He condemned a war with France, and asserted that he would
vote for the impeachment of that minister who should enter into such
a war, for the purpose of re-establishing the old despotism of the
Bourbons. The deep earnestness of Burke, who next spoke, contrasted
strangely with the flippancy of Sheridan. Burke said that this day
was indeed a trial of the constitution. He agreed with an honourable
gentleman, in regarding the present as a momentous crisis; but for
reasons different from those which he had assigned. Liberty and
monarchy, he continued, are connected in this country; they were never
found asunder; they have flourished together for a thousand years; and
from this union has sprung the prosperity and glory of the nation. With
impassioned eloquence Burke affirmed, that there was a faction in this
country who wished to submit it to France, that our government might be
reformed upon the French system; and that the French rulers, cherishing
views on this country encouraged that faction, and were disposed to aid
it in overturning our constitution. As a proof of this, Burke read an
address, which men, calling themselves Englishmen, presented at the bar
of the convention on the very day in which there had been a discussion
respecting the union of Savoy with France; and to which address the
president, in his reply, remarked:—“That royalty in Europe was in the
agonies of death; that the declaration of right, now placed by the side
of thrones, was a fire which, in the end, would consume them; and he
even hoped that the time was not far distant when France, England,
Scotland, Ireland, all Europe! all mankind! would form but one peaceful
family.” Burke asked, whether, if Englishmen had applied to Louis XVI.
to reform our government, such language would not have been considered
as an aggression? Burke declared that the question now was, not whether
we should present an address to the throne, but whether there should
be a throne at all; and he concluded with recommending unanimity, and
representing the danger which might arise from the progress of French
armies, if not speedily resisted. Mr. Erskine, who was a member of the
Society for Parliamentary Reform, justified that society and himself,
and blamed ministers for delaying to prosecute the author of the “Rights
of Man” till nearly two years after its publication. Erskine charged
Burke with inconsistency; and concluded with recommending the house to
meet the complaints of the people, not with abuse, but by removing the
grounds of their dissatisfaction; by reforming parliament, and granting
them a fair representation. The people, he said, were already taxed
to an enormous extent; and should a war be the consequence, when it
appeared every precaution had not been taken to prevent it, ministers
would incur a heavy responsibility, both to the public and to that
house, for having precipitated the nation into so great a calamity.
The debate lasted till midnight; and when the house divided there was
a majority in favour of the address of two hundred and ninety against
fifty.

This large majority snowed that a great portion of the Whigs had parted
company with Fox. Nothing daunted, however, at this desertion, he gave
notice that to-morrow he would move an amendment upon the report. The
object of this amendment was to induce his majesty to open a negociation
with France, for the purpose of preventing the calamities of war. In the
speech which Fox made in support of it, he threw the whole blame of the
horrid scenes which had occurred in France upon the coalition; and he
eulogised the spirit and valour of the French republicans in the warmest
strains of panegyric, he thanked God, he said, that nature had been true
to herself; that tyranny had been defeated; and that those who fought
for freedom were triumphant. All the inhabitants of Europe, he said,
sympathised with the French and wished them success, regarding them
as men struggling with tyranny and despotism. Sheridan seconded this
amendment, and Burke opposed it, affirming “that to send an ambassador
to France would be a prelude to the murder of our own sovereign.” Fox
had said, in the course of his speech, that the republic of this country
was readily acknowledged by European courts in the time of Cromwell,
after the execution of Charles I.; but Burke shattered this argument,
in favour of acknowledging the French republic, at a blow. He remarked:
“The French republic is _sui generis_ and bears no analogy to any other
republic or system of government that has ever existed in the known
world. The English commonwealth did not attempt to turn all the states
of Christendom into republics. It did not wage war with kings,
merely because they were not democrats; it professed no principles
of proselytism. The same might be said, of the republic of the United
States of America. But France wanted to make all the world proselytes to
her opinions and dogmas: France was for turning every government in the
world into a democratic republic. If every government was against her,
it was, because she had declared herself hostile to every government.
This strange republic may be compared to the system of Mahomet, who,
with the Koran in one hand and a sword in the other, compelled men to
adopt his creed. The Koran which France held out was the declaration of
the Rights of Man and universal fraternity; and with the sword she was
determined to propagate her doctrine, and conquer those whom she could
not convince.” Burke said that he did not wish to hurry the nation into
a war, but only to make the people of England see that France had in
reality declared war against them. The national convention had passed
a variety of decrees, every one of which might be considered as a
declaration of war against every government in Europe; and the people of
France had resolved to wage an eternal war against kings, and all kinds
of kingly government. Moreover, in contempt of the king and
parliament, the convention had received Englishmen at its bar, as the
representatives of the people of England. In the absence of Pitt, his
colleague, Dundas, entered into a long and elaborate vindication of the
measures of administration; concluding with a confident prediction that,
“if we were forced into a war, it would prove successful and glorious.”
 The amendment was rejected without a division.

Still undismayed, Fox, on the 15th of December—which was a Saturday—a
day when parliament did not usually meet—moved, “that a minister be
sent to Paris, to treat with those persons who exercise provisionally
the executive government of France.” Fox contended that this measure
would neither imply approbation nor disapprobation of the conduct of the
existing government; and that it was the policy and practice of every
nation to treat with the existing government of every other nation with
which it had relative interests, without inquiring how that government
was constituted, or by what means it acquired possession of power. He
illustrated his argument by asserting that we had more then once sent
embassies to the government of Morocco, when men sat upon that throne
who had waded to it through blood. We had, likewise, he said, ministers
at the German courts at the time of the infamous partition of Poland;
and we had a minister at Versailles when Corsica was bought and
enslaved. Yet, he argued, in none of these instances was any sanction
given, directly or indirectly, by Great Britain to these nefarious
transactions. But this line of argument was more specious than sound;
for, although there was nominally a government in France, it was
self-constituted, and founded in anarchy. This motion was seconded by
Mr. Grey, who declared that an immediate embassy to Paris was the only
means of averting war; a war which he deemed the most dangerous that had
overtaken this country. Lord Sheffield, who had been an ardent admirer
of Fox, reprobated the object of this motion, and, with many others,
censured him for his conduct during the last three days. Fox, however,
was resolute, and the debate continued. In combating his arguments, Mr.
Jenkinson asked, what government we could acknowledge where there was
virtually no government? and how England could recognize a constitution
which the French themselves were every day violating? and how we
could negociate with men who had declared a universal war against all
governments? He added,—“On this very day, while we are here debating
about sending an ambassador to the French republic; on this very day is
the king to receive sentence, and, in all probability, it is the day
of his murder. What is it, then, that gentlemen would propose to their
sovereign? To bow his neck to a band of sanguinary ruffians, and address
an ambassador to a set of regicides, whose hands are still reeking with
the blood of a slaughtered monarch? No, sir, the British character
is too noble to run a race of infamy; nor shall we be the first to
compliment a set of monsters who, while we are agitating the subject,
are probably bearing through the streets of Paris—horrid spectacle—the
bloody victim of their fury.” The master of the rolls, Sheridan,
Windham, Burke, Sir William Young, and others took part in this debate;
but the motion was negatived without a division.

In the meantime the address had been carried in the lords almost
unanimously; the Duke of Norfolk, and lords Lansdowne, Hawdon, and
Stanhope only speaking against it. In both houses the opposition had, at
this time, suffered a severe defection. At the head of the seceders
in the lords were the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Portland, Lords
Fitzwilliam, Spencer, Mansfield, and Loughborough, the last of whom, on
the resignation of Lord Thurlow, had been created chancellor; the chief
seceders in the commons, besides Burke, were Mr. Windham, Sir Gilbert
Elliot, Mr. Anstruther, Lord Sheffield, &c., who by their secession
acquired the appellation of alarmists.

Yet, though Fox was thus deserted, on the 17th of December he returned
to the charge. On that day Mr. Grey complained that the loyalists and
high churchmen had been committing riots in Manchester and other towns
in the kingdom. The Manchester riots, he said, had risen out of a loyal
meeting held in that town, at which meeting he represented that Mr.
Peel—the father of Sir Robert—declared that it was time for the people
to rouse from their lethargy, as there were incendiaries in the country.
He called upon Mr. Peel to name these incendiaries; and then called
the attention of the house to a paper issued by the association against
republicans and levellers, which was entitled “One Penny-worth of Truth
from Thomas Bull to his Brother John.” Mr. Grey said, that this
pamphlet contained some unfounded and libellous invectives against the
dissenters; and that it was calculated to produce alarming effects,
by exciting the people against them. He moved, that the said libellous
paper should be delivered in at the table and read. In reply to his
demand of Mr. Peel, that gentleman said that there was no truth in any
part of the report to which Mr. Grey had alluded, except that “God Save
the King” had been sung at the meeting: and he proved that, so far from
exciting the people against their fellow-subjects, the resolutions of
the committee of the Manchester Society were calculated to dissuade the
populace from outrage and wrong. Many members opposed the motion;
but Fox strenuously supported it. In the course of his speech, Fox
criticised the loyal associations and subscriptions which had been
set on foot, for the purpose of aiding in the prosecution of affected
persons. He treated the associations as tending to hinder the
improvement of the mind, and as a mobbish tyranny; and he compared them
with Lord George Gordon’s mob; declaring, at the same time, that he
had advised his friends in Westminister to sign the said associations,
whether they agreed with them or not, in order that they might avoid
destruction to their persons or their houses, or a desertion of their
shops. Burke was very severe in his remarks upon this last assertion. He
observed:—“This insidiuous advice will tend to confound those, who wish
well to the object of the association, with the seditious against whom
the association is directed. By this stratagem the confederacy intended
for preserving the British constitution and the public peace, will be
wholly defeated. The magistrates, utterly incapable of distinguishing
the friends from the enemies of order, will in vain look for support
when they stand in the greatest need of it.” Mr. Grey’s motion was
negatived without a division.

Pitt was not in the house when these debates occurred; but on the 18th,
having been re-elected for the university of Cambridge, he resumed
his seat; and in doing so he referred to the recent discussions, by
declaring his conviction of the facts stated, and his approbation of
the arguments used in support of the address. To send an ambassador to
France, he said, under present circumstances, would be incompatible with
the dignity of the crown, and contrary to the interests of the public;
counteracting and disclaiming those very principles on which the
whole of our conduct was founded. The decided opinion expressed by all
parties, that if war was necessary, it should be prosecuted with vigour,
gave him pleasure; but, at the same time, he assured the house, that
nothing consistent with the dignity of the crown, the safety of the
country, and the security of Europe should be omitted by government to
preserve the blessings of peace.




THE ALIEN BILL, ETC.

At this period many of our provincial towns were filled with Frenchmen.
Most of these were royalists; but there were some who mixed with the
royalists in order to serve the cause of the republic; and there were
others who were professed republicans, and who were using their utmost
efforts to seduce the people. As the English laws were not made for
foreigners, on the 19th of December, Lord Grenville brought forward
a bill in the house of lords, for subjecting aliens to certain
regulations. Thus the bill proposed that all foreigners arriving in the
kingdom, should give an account of themselves, and surrender such arms
as they might have in their possession; that they should be obliged,
in their removals from one part of the country to another, to use
passports; that all emigrants, who received allowances from the British
government, should be distributed in certain districts, where they would
be more under the cognizance of the civil power; and that particular
attention should be paid to such foreigners as had arrived within the
present year, or as might afterwards arrive without obvious reasons.
This bill, though opposed by several lords, passed the three readings
in the upper house without a division, and was then sent down to the
commons. It was there treated by Fox and his party as a measure
contrary to the existing treaties between Great Britain and France; as
a violation of the law of nations; and as an outrage on Magna Charta.
Burke supported the measure as strenuously as Fox opposed it. Having
commented in severe terms on the exultation which Fox had manifested on
the success of the French, he then expatiated on the nature of French
fraternization, and of that liberty which the revolutionists were so
anxious to propagate throughout Europe, and which he denounced as a
liberty without property, morals, order, government, and security. The
apostles of liberty in France, he said, had destroyed the Bastille,
while they had converted every man’s house in Paris into such a prison.
He quoted the speech of M. Dupont in the convention, to show that
Atheism was the first-fruits of French liberty: that fierce demagogue
had declared that the religion of Jesus Christ was unfit to be tolerated
in a republic, because it was a monarchical religion, and preached
subjection and obedience to God; a declaration which was received by the
convention with shouts of impious applause. Burke feelingly deplored the
natural effects of a profligacy, which went to deprive man of happiness
in life, and consolation in the hour of death. On the subject of the
Alien Bill, Burke remarked, that he thought it calculated to save the
country, for although the number of suspicious aliens might be small, it
should be remembered that the horrid massacres in Paris in the preceding
autumn had been perpetrated by a body of men not exceeding two hundred.
Burke alluded to the fact that three thousand daggers had been ordered
and manufactured in Birmingham, and it was on this occasion that he had
recourse to a stroke of oratorical acting which has been often commented
upon. Drawing a concealed dagger from his bosom, and throwing it down
upon the floor of the house, he exclaimed:—“This is what you are to
gain by an alliance with the French! Wherever their principles are
introduced, their practice must follow. You must equally proscribe their
tenets and their persons! You must keep their principles from our minds,
and their daggers from our hearts.” The debates on the bill were renewed
in its different stages: on the third reading Fox endeavoured to prove
that the anxiety about a few French aliens in England was ridiculous;
that no Alien Act could guard against the introduction of opinions; and
that if dangerous principles were propagated in this country it must be
by the English themselves, and not by foreigners. But all opposition was
vain. The bill was carried by a great majority, as was also another bill
to prevent the circulation in England of French assignats, bonds, and
promissory notes. A third bill was passed to enable his majesty
to restrain the exportation of naval stores, saltpetre, arms, and
ammunition, after which Mr. Pitt moved an adjournment to the 23rd of
January, which was unanimously accorded.

{GEORGE III. 1792–1793}




EXECUTION OF THE FRENCH KING.

At length Louis fell a prey to the fury of his subjects. In order to
fortify the new-born republic it seemed necessary to the republicans
that all institutions and usages that reminded them of royalty and the
ancient order should be abolished. The convention applied itself to this
work with fanatical zeal, but first of all the Jacobins demanded the
blood of the fallen monarch. Fierce contests arose between them and
the Girondists on this demand, but the Jacobins were sustained by
the Parisian populace, and their opponents were compelled to yield: a
resolution was carried that Louis had forfeited his inviolability, and
that the convention was authorised to judge him. The unfortunate monarch
was brought before the bar of his subjects on the 11th of December, and
he was nobly defended by Tronchet, Malesherbes, and Deseze; but after
having heard their defence, and after a stormy deliberation that lasted
some days, the convention resolved that the yeas and nays should be
taken upon the following questions: First, Is Louis Capet guilty of
conspiracy against the liberty or safety of the state? Second; Shall the
judgment to be pronounced upon him be submitted to the sanction of the
people in the primary assemblies? Third: What punishment ought to be
inflicted upon Louis? The first of these questions was decided in the
affirmative; the second was negatived; and as to the third question,
five votes over half demanded death unconditionally. And such a small
majority was deemed sufficient for pronouncing the sentence of
death. The monarch was executed on the 21st of January, 1793, under
circumstances that augmented the horror of the deed, and no nation in
Europe endeavoured to save him from his fate. The King of Spain pleaded
for his life, but the plea of a crowned head was not likely to be heard
by men who had sworn eternal war against royalty.




CHAPTER XX.

{GEORGE III. 1793–1794}

     Hostile Message of the King to Parliament..... Declaration
     of War by the French, &c. Pitt’s   Financial
     Statement..... The Traitorous   Correspondence Bill.....
     Preparations for War..... Relief granted to Mercantile
     Men..... Renewal of the East India Company’s Charier.....
     Relief of the Roman Catholics of  Scotland, &c. Trial
     of Warren   Hastings..... Discussion   on   a   Memorial
     presented to the  States-General..... Fox’s Motion for Peace
     ..... Mr. Grey’s Measure of Parliamentary  Reform.....
     Prorogation of  Parliament..... Affairs   of  Ireland.....
     Prospects  of  the French Republic, &c.

{A.D. 1793}




HOSTILE MESSAGE OF THE KING TO PARLIAMENT.

The news of the death of the King of France incited our government to
active measures. On the 27th of December a memorial had been presented
by the French ambassador, M. Chauvelin, to Lord Grenville, demanding to
know whether France ought to consider England as a neutral or hostile
power. In reply Lord Grenville acquainted M. Chauvelin that, as all
official communication had been suspended since the unhappy events of
the 10th of August, he could only be treated with under a form neither
regular nor official. On the 4th of January a letter was received by his
lordship from M. le Brun, minister of foreign affairs, together with a
memorial in the name of the executive council, stating that they desired
peace and harmony, and that they had sent credential letters to M.
Chauvelin, to enable him to treat in the usual diplomatic forms. But
peace and harmony were now out of the question. Three days after
the death of the French monarch M. Chauvelin was ordered to quit the
kingdom, and a war with the republic became no longer a matter of
choice. On the 30th of January, Dundas presented a royal message to the
commons, alluding to the execution of Louis XVI.; importing that his
majesty had given directions for copies of a correspondence, &c.,
between the late minister of his most Christian majesty and our foreign
secretary, to be laid before them; and stating the necessity that
existed of a further augmentation of forces by sea and land. The house
took this message into consideration on the 2nd of February, on which
occasion there was an animated debate. Pitt commenced it by describing
the execution of the King of France as an event which outraged every
sentiment of religion, justice, and humanity; and as the effect of
principles which started by dissolving all the bonds of society, and
which, relying on fanciful theories, rejected not only the experience
of past ages, but likewise the sacred instructions of revelation. Pitt
stated that the British government had from the commencement adopted
a system of neutrality; that they had declined taking any part in the
internal affairs of France; and that in return for a declaration made to
that effect the French had entered into a positive contract to abstain
from those very deeds by which they had since provoked the indignation
of the country. In a paper, he said, which was then on the table, they
had disclaimed all views of conquest; had given assurances of friendship
to all neutral nations, and had protested that they entertained no idea
of interfering with the government of other countries. But what, he
asked, had been the conduct of the French? They had annexed Savoy
to their dominions, had rendered the Netherlands a province; and had
exhibited a resolution to pursue the same course wherever they could
carry their arms. As an illustration of the sentiments and designs
of the French rulers, he read a letter from one of them, which was
addressed to the friends of liberty in the different sea-ports of
France, and which was written only four days after M. Chauvelin had
complained to Lord Grenville that a harsh construction had been put by
the British ministry on the conduct of France, and professed the warmest
friendship for Great Britain. In this letter there was the following
passage;—“The king and his parliament mean to make war against us. Will
the English republicans suffer it? Already these free men show their
discontent and the repugnance they have to bear arms against their
brothers, the French. Well! we will fly to their succour—we will make
a descent on the island—we will lodge there fifty thousand caps of
liberty—we will plant there the sacred tree—we will stretch our arms
to our republican brethren, and the tyranny of their government shall
soon be destroyed.” Under all these circumstances Pitt declared that war
was preferable to a peace which could not be consistent either with the
internal tranquillity or external safety of England, and he moved an
address to his majesty to that effect. The motion was seconded by Lord
Beauchamp and supported by Windham, the latter of whom said that we must
go to war for the security of the country, and that it would truly be a
war _pro aris et focis_. Fox, and some of his friends deprecated such a
measure, and endeavoured to show that war was not necessary, and might
be avoided; but Pitt’s motion was carried without a division, An address
to the same effect was also voted by the lords.




DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE FRENCH, ETC.

A few days after the above proceedings of parliament, intelligence was
received that France had declared war against Great Britain and Ireland.
On the 11th of February, indeed, his majesty sent a royal message to
the two houses, announcing that the national convention, had, without
previous notice, directed acts of hostility to be committed against the
persons and property of his majesty’s subjects, in breach of the law of
nations, and of the positive stipulations of treaty; and that since they
had given these directions, they had actually declared war against his
majesty and the United Provinces. The message continued—“Under the
circumstances of this wanton and unprovoked aggression, his majesty has
taken the necessary steps to maintain the honour of his crown, and
to vindicate the rights of his people; and his majesty relies with
confidence on the firm and effectual support of the house of commons,
and on the zealous exertions of a brave and loyal people, in prosecuting
a just and necessary war; and in endeavouring, under the blessing of
Providence, to oppose an effectual barrier to the progress of a system
which strikes at the security and peace of all independent nations,
and is pursued in open defiance of every principle of moderation, good
faith, humanity, and justice. In a cause of such general concern, his
majesty has every reason to hope for the cordial co-operation of those
powers who are united with his majesty by the ties of alliance, or who
feel an interest in preventing the extension of anarchy and confusion,
and in contributing to the security and tranquillity of Europe.” This
message was taken into consideration on the next day, when Pitt gave
a detailed statement of our transactions with France, and of our
endeavours to preserve a strict neutrality as long as it was possible.
In adverting to those insults which the French supposed they had
received from England, and which they stated as grounds for their
declaration of war, he said that he found in them nothing but pretexts
and allegations too weak to require refutation. These insults were, that
the King of England had not ceased, especially since the revolution of
the 10th of August, to give proofs of his dislike to the French nation,
and of his attachment to the coalition of crowned heads; that the
English government had ceased since that period to correspond with
the French ambassador at London, on pretext of the suspension of the
heretofore King of France: that since the opening of the national
convention, the said government had refused to resume the usual
correspondence between the two states, and to acknowledge the power of
the convention; that it had refused to acknowledge the ambassador of the
French republic, although provided with letters of credit in its name,
and that the said court had caused to be stopped several boats and
ships laden with grain for France, contrary to the treaty of 1786, while
exportations to other countries were free. Pitt concluded by moving an
address in answer to his majesty’s message, which was seconded by Mr.
Powys, who said that under present circumstances war was preferable to
peace with France. On the contrary Fox still contended that war with
France was both impolitic and unnecessary. If any necessity existed,
he said, that necessity arose from the unwise, arrogant, and provoking
conduct of ministers. He moved an amendment, promising effectual support
to his majesty in repelling every hostile attempt upon this country,
and in such other exertions as might be necessary to induce France to
consent to such terms of peace as should be consistent with the honour
of his majesty’s crown, the security of his allies, and the interests
of his people. The conduct of government was defended by Dundas, while
Burke, also, showed to demonstration that ministers had not precipitated
the nation into this war, but were brought into it by overruling
necessity. The amendment was negatived, and the address, as moved by
Pitt, carried without a division; as was also an address moved by Lord
Grenville in the house of lords.

In all these proceedings ministers were encouraged by the voice of the
people, for the prevailing opinion was for war. Yet, on the 18th of
February, Fox moved a string of resolutions the effect of which was that
the two houses should load themselves with reproaches for having voted
the addresses which they had just carried up to the throne. These
resolutions were, that war with France on the grounds alleged, was
neither for the honour nor the interests of this country; that ministers
in their late negociations with the French government had not taken the
means for procuring an amicable redress of the grievances complained of;
and that it was their duty to advise his majesty against entering into
engagements which might prevent a separate peace. Fox alleged that his
object in making these motions was to pronounce a declaration of the
precise grounds upon which gentlemen had voted for the war, for from
many circumstances, he was persuaded that the object of ministers in
going to war were those which they disclaimed, and that those they
avowed were only pretexts. Fox pressed these resolutions to a division,
and they were rejected by two hundred and seventy against forty-four:
a majority which sensibly marked the feeling of the house. Yet,
notwithstanding this decided victory of ministers, Mr. Grey, encouraged
by Fox, produced the same string of resolutions three days after in a
new form, which, however, were negatived without a division. A motion
moved by Mr. M. A. Taylor, on the 22nd of February, against the erection
of barracks or inland fortresses in our free country, shared the same
fate; as did likewise another, moved by Sheridan, on the 4th of March,
to the effect that the house should resolve itself into a committee to
consider of the seditious practices, &c., referred to in his majesty’s
speech. All the efforts of the opposition to thwart the measures of
government were, indeed, futile: the propriety and necessity of war
were acknowledged by the great majority of the nation, as well as of the
members of parliament. All the old Whigs ranged themselves on the side
of government, by which Fox and his party lost much both of moral and
numerical strength.




PITT’S FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

On the 11th of March Pitt brought forward his budget for the current
year: estimating the expenses at £11,182,213, and that of the ways and
means at £8,299,696. He proposed to raise the deficiency by loan, and to
defray the interest by rendering permanent some of the temporary taxes
imposed on account of the Spanish armament. In his speech Pitt made some
remarks which show that he had then no idea of the subsequent enormous
increase of the national debt and national taxation. He observed:—“I do
not think it useless to suggest some observations with respect to this
war in which we are engaged. The excess of the permanent revenue, if
kept up, is not less than £900,000 above the peace establishment; which,
even if destroyed by war, will leave the country in possession of all
its ordinary revenue. This £900,000 I am desirous to leave as a security
against those contingencies to which war is liable.” The sum borrowed
was £4,500,000, and the terms were that for every seventy-two pounds
advanced, the lender should be entitled to one hundred pound stock,
bearing interest at three per cent. Pitt said that he expected to have
made better terms for the loan, but he had not received two offers
for it. Among other resources, the sum of £675,000 was to be raised by
lottery, which was warmly opposed, but which, after a debate wherein
several regulations were laid down to diminish the practice of
insurance, received the consent of the house.




THE TRAITOROUS CORRESPONDENCE BILL.

As it was expedient, after a declaration of war, to prevent all
correspondence between British subjects and the French, Sir John
Scott, the attorney-general, brought in a bill called the “Traitorous
Correspondence Bill,” by which it was declared high-treason to supply
the existing government of France with, military stores; to purchase
lands of inheritance in France; to invest money in the French funds; to
underwrite insurances upon ships and goods bound from France to any part
of the world; and to go from this country to France without a license
under the privy-seal; it likewise prohibited the return of British
subjects from that country to England without giving security. This bill
was opposed as inconsistent with the treason laws of Edward III., and
several of its obnoxious clauses were modified in the course of its
progress. It received several alterations, also, in the lords, which
were finally agreed to by the commons, and the bill passed into a law.




PREPARATIONS FOR WAR.

A royal message was presented to parliament on the 6th of March, stating
that his majesty had engaged a body of his electoral troops in the
service of Great Britain to assist his allies, the States-general; and
that he had directed an estimate of the charge to be laid before the
house of commons. A few days after M. le Brun, minister of foreign
affairs in France, addressed a letter to Lord Grenville, stating that
the French republic was desirous to terminate all differences with Great
Britain, and requesting a passport for a person vested with full powers
for that purpose. He named M. Maret as the proposed plenipotentiary
of France; but the present state of affairs did not permit the British
government to accede to such an overture, and no notice was taken of the
application. On the contrary, a treaty, about this time, was concluded
with the King of Sardinia, by which England bound herself to furnish a
subsidy of £200,000 annually, to be paid three months in advance;
and not to conclude peace with France without comprehending in it the
restitution of all territories belonging to that monarch when he engaged
in war.




RELIEF GRANTED TO MERCANTILE MEN.

At this period, through the spirit of commercial speculation, there
occurred an unusual number of bankruptcies. A select committee was
appointed by the commons to investigate this subject, and it was
discovered that large issues of paper money and a scarcity of coin had
induced bankers to suspend their usual discounts, in expectation of
which merchants had formed engagements they could not meet. As a remedy
for this evil an issue of exchequer-bills to the amount of £5,000,000
was recommended, under commissioners to be nominated for the purpose of
lending portions to those merchants in distress who could give security.
This bill was objected to as ineffectual against failures, and as
opening a way to the exercise of improper patronage by government, but
it was carried, and the relief proved beneficial.




RENEWAL OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY’S CHARTER.

It was generally supposed at this time that the charter of the East
India Company, which was on the eve of expiration, would be abolished,
and that the whole Indian trade would be thereby thrown open to
British enterprise. The public expectation however, was doomed to be
disappointed. On the 23rd of April Mr. Dundas brought the question
before the house, in consequence of a petition from the company, and
after taking a view of the prosperous state of India under the present
system, he brought in a bill for the renewal of the charter for twenty
years, which passed without a division. At the same time Dundas
proposed certain regulations, tending to promote a free trade, but not
interfering with the company’s charter.




RELIEF OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS OF SCOTLAND, ETC.

In the course of this session a bill was passed for the relief of the
Roman Catholics of Scotland from certain penalties and disabilities
imposed upon them by acts which incapacitated them from holding or
transmitting landed property. Towards the close of the session, at the
suggestion of Sir John Sinclair, a board of agriculture was established,
and £3000 per annum were voted for the encouragement of that science.




TRIAL OF WARREN HASTINGS.

The trial of Warren Hastings was resumed on the 15th of February, and
during the session the court sat twenty-two days, in which time the
counsel for the prisoner completed the defence set up by them on the
last three articles; namely, those relating to the Begums, to presents,
and to contracts. After this Hastings addressed the court, praying
that their lordships would order the trial to continue to its final
conclusion, but all further proceedings were adjourned till the next
session.




DISCUSSION ON A MEMORIAL PRESENTED TO THE STATES-GENERAL.

During this session some violent debates took place on a memorial
presented to the States-general, by the British and imperial ministers
at the Hague, on the 5th of April. In this memorial their high
mightinesses were called upon to prevent any of the French regicides
from finding an asylum in their states in Europe, or in any of their
colonies. The language which was used was very strong; and Earl
Stanhope moved that the British envoy, Lord Auckland, should not only
be recalled, but impeached for putting his signature to such a paper. In
the commons, also, Sheridan moved an address to his majesty, expressive
of the displeasure of the house at the said memorial; and stating that
the minister who presented it had departed from the principles on which
the house had concurred in the measures for the support of the war. In
the course of his speech, Sheridan held up to detestation the conduct of
the Empress of Russia, the Emperor of Germany, and the King of Prussia,
in the new partition of Poland, which they had just completed. Sheridan
said, that no robbery committed by the most desperate of the French, and
no crimes that had been perpetrated in France, exceeded in infamy
the injustice and tyranny of those sovereigns. Sheridan’s motion was
negatived by two hundred and eleven, against thirty-six. In the upper
house Lord Grenville made a motion for approving the conduct of Lord
Auckland, which was carried without a division.




FOX’S MOTION FOR PEACE.

Burke remarks:—“After it had been generally supposed that all public
business was over for the session, and that Mr. Fox had exhausted all the
modes of pressing his French scheme, he thought proper to take a step
beyond every expectation, and which demonstrated his wonderful eagerness
and perseverance in his cause, as well as the nature and true character
of the cause itself.” This step was taken by Mr. Fox immediately after
giving his assent to the grant of supply, voted to him by Mr. Sergeant
Adair and a committee of gentlemen, who assumed to themselves to act
in the name of the public. In the instrument of his acceptance of
this grant, Mr. Fox took occasion to assure them that he would always
persevere in the same conduct which had procured to him so honourable a
mark of the public approbation. He was as good as his word. On Monday,
the 17th of June, Fox, in accordance with his resolution, moved an
address to the throne, importing that, having obtained the only avowed
object of the war—the evacuation of Holland by the French—peace
ought to be concluded. In support of his motion Fox declaimed, in an
impassioned manner, against the partitioners of Poland, and against
all the powers in alliance with England. In the debate on this motion,
Windham observed, that it was an avowed purpose of the war to endeavour
to bring about the establishment of a government in France with which we
could safely treat; and that, therefore, the war must be prosecuted till
we could make peace with safety. Burke said that the motion involved
this serious question—whether we should make war with all Europe in
order to make peace with France. He continued:—“And with whom can we
now treat in France? M. Lebrun, with whom we were so lately called on to
treat, is in gaol. Clavière, another minister, is nowhere to be found.
Or shall we treat with M. Egalité, who is now in the dungeons of
Marseilles? And what are the principles upon which this negociation is
to be carried on? Brissot himself has told us what the French think on
this subject. In the report of a committee, upon the subject of a treaty
with Geneva, he has affirmed that treaties are useless and cannot
bind the people, who are to be united by principles alone, and
that, therefore, to make treaties with any other sovereign power, is
disgraceful to a free people.” Pitt added to the string of questions
which Burke had put, by asking Fox, whether he would enter into
negociations with Marat; that monster and his party being now lords of
the ascendant, and the arbiters and rulers of France. He added,—“But it
is not merely to the character of Marat, with whom we would now have to
treat, that I object; it is not to the horror of those crimes which have
stained their legislators—crimes in every stage rising above another in
enormity—but I object to the consequences of that character, and to
the effect of those crimes. They are such as to render a negociation
useless, and must entirely deprive of stability any peace which could
be concluded in such circumstances. Where is our security for the
performance of a treaty, where we have neither the good faith of a
nation, nor the responsibility of a monarch? The moment that the mob of
Parrs comes under the influence of a new leader, mature deliberations
are reversed, the most solemn engagements are retracted, or free will is
altogether controlled by force. In every one of their stages of repeated
revolutions, we have said, ‘Now we have seen the worst, the measure of
iniquity is complete, we shall no longer be shocked by added crimes
and increasing enormities.’ The next mail gave us reason to reproach
ourselves with our credulity, and by presenting us with fresh crimes,
and enormities still more dreadful, excited impressions of new
astonishment and accumulated horror. All the crimes which disgrace
history have occured in one country, in a space so short, and
with circumstances so aggravated, as to outrun thought and exceed
imagination.” Fox replied; but his motion was lost by one hundred and
eighty-seven against forty-seven.




MR. GREY’S MEASURE OF PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

During this session Mr. Grey brought forward a motion for parliamentary
reform. He observed, in reply to the objection, that this was not the
proper time for reform, that it would be equally rational in times
of prosperity and adversity, in times of peace and war. He
remarked:—“Whatever evils did, or might threaten the nation, there was
no preventive so certain, no safeguard so powerful, as an uninterrupted
house of commons, emanating fairly and freely from the people. To the
want of this we owed the American war, and the vast accumulation of
national debt; and if this had been done last year, it would probably
have saved us from our present distresses. No set of Britons, unless
bereft of their senses, could, after recent events, propose the French
revolution as a model for our imitation. But were such principles
even likely to threaten danger, the surest way of preventing it was
to promote the happiness and comfort of the people, to gratify their
reasonable wishes, and to grant that reform which was so earnestly
desired.” Grey’s arguments were enforced by Fox, Whitbread, and others;
and opposed by Pitt, Jenkinson, and Powys. Pitt explained his former
motives for being friendly to a parliamentary reform, and his objections
against it at the present moment. Many petitions had been presented in
favour of reform; and Pitt said, that if the principle of individual
suffrage, pointed at in some of these petitions, was to be carried out,
the peerage would be extinguished, the king deposed, every hereditary
distinction and every privileged order swept away, and there would be
established that system of equalizing anarchy announced in the code of
French legislation, and attested in the blood of the massacres at Paris.
Fox attacked Pitt on the score of inconsistency. He observed, that as
Lord Foppington said in the play, “I begin to think that when I was a
commoner, I was a very nauseous fellow; so Pitt began to think, that
when he was a reformer, he must have been a very foolish fellow.” Fox
called the objection to the time for reform a fallacy; a mere pretext
for putting off what the house knew was necessary, but felt unwilling
to grant. The debate lasted two days; when the motion for referring the
petitions to a committee were negatived by two hundred and eighty two,
against forty-one.

{GEORGE III. 1793–1794}




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

The king prorogued parliament on the 21st of June. In his speech his
majesty noticed the rapid and signal successes which, in an early period
of the campaign, had attended the operations of the combined armies; the
respectable force which he had been enabled to employ by sea and land,
and the measures which he had concerted with the other powers for the
effectual prosecution of the war. From all this his majesty augured a
happy issue to the important contest in which we were engaged.




AFFAIRS OF IRELAND.

During this year an important concession was made to the Roman Catholics
of Ireland. Many events led to this measure. On the failure of Pitt’s
attempt, in 1785, to reconcile the commercial interests of the two
countries, resolutions were made in Ireland to abstain from the
importation of English manufactures, and efforts were made by the
populace to enforce these resolutions on all who disapproved of them.
The tumults and alarms which followed these proceedings, gave rise, in
the session of 1786, for an act, establishing a police in the city of
Dublin, which, as the inhabitants were taxed for the support of the
officers appointed by the crown, gave great offence. In the south, also,
there existed serious disturbances. Men, called “Right Boys” banded
together in order to defraud the Protestant clergy of their incomes. For
this purpose the farmers entered into a combination, under the sanction
of an oath, neither to compound for tithes, nor to assist any clergyman
drawing them. This insurrection commenced in Kerry and the combination
soon extended to Cork and other neighbouring counties, where the
insurgents marched in large bodies, administering their oath in the name
of Captain Right, giving out their laws, and punishing those who broke
their faith. In these proceedings they were secretly encouraged by many
gentlemen of landed property, who hoped from their violence that
their estates might be exonerated from tithes; but when the insurgents
proceeded to limit the rents of land, to increase the price of labour,
and to oppose the collection of hearth-money, then an outcry was raised
by these landlords against their designs, and an act was passed in 1787
for preventing tumultuous and illegal assemblies. Upon inquiry it was
discovered that the clergy instead of receiving one-tenth scarcely
received one-twentieth of the produce, and that the insurrection was
owing to the avarice of the landlords, who charged the peasantry six
pounds an acre for their land, and yet made them work for fivepence per
day. It was also found that some landlords had excited their tenants
to rob the clergy, for the purpose of adding the value of the tithes
to their rack-rents, and that the magistrates had in several instances
connived at the outrages. These troubles passed over, but the same
spirit of disaffection towards the government still existed in Ireland.
And this, perhaps, was increased by the contests which took place in the
Irish parliament between the patriotic band, headed by Mr. Grattan, and
those who adhered to government. It has been seen that at the time the
regency bill was discussed in the British parliament, the Irish were in
favour of the Prince of Wales. An address to him was carried by a large
majority in the Irish parliament, and when the lord-lieutenant refused
to forward it, commissioners were deputed to present it, as before
narrated. Encouraged by his success in the matter of the address Mr.
Grattan proposed several bills of a popular description, which were
carried. But this patriotic bias did not long continue. When his majesty
recovered, then many who had voted against government changed their
sentiments, and again supported it. The very men who had voted for the
introduction of the popular bills proposed by Grattan, on the committal
of them gave their votes against them, and they were rejected. Hitherto
the professed principles of the Marquess of Buckingham’s government had
been strict economy, but when this struggle terminated every source of
influence was thrown open in order to prevent future opposition to its
measures. This system of corrupt influence was continued after the Earl
of Westmoreland was appointed lord-lieutenant, in 1730, notwithstanding
strenuous opposition had been made to it by the patriotic party. In order
to render their opposition more systematic and strong, this party formed
themselves into a Whig club, similar to that in London, and at their
meeting arranged plans of parliamentary tactics, assigning to each
member his particular post. The declared objects for which this
association was pledged were bills for the limitations of places and
pensions; for excluding certain descriptions of placemen, &c., from
parliament; to disqualify revenue-officers from voting; to repeal the
Dublin Police Bill; and to secure the responsibility of public officers
in regard to payments from the treasury. But the efforts of the
patriotic party were vain. When they banded together for these purposes
they were unable to oppose government effectually, and when a new
election took place in 1791, they rather lost strength than otherwise.
Such was the state of affairs in Ireland when the French revolution took
place. This event was looked upon by the mass of the Irish with strong
sensations of joy. Ever disposed to revolt, they looked upon it as the
harbinger of their own liberty. Meetings were held to celebrate
its anniversary in different places, and also for the discussion of
politics. The chief topics at these meetings were parliamentary reform
and Catholic emancipation, in favour of which strong resolutions were
entered into with a view of intimidating government to concede them. In
Dublin a society was formed, under the title of “United Irishmen,” and
which declared itself to be “a union of Irishmen of every religious
persuasion, in order to obtain a complete reform of the legislature,
founded on the principles of civil, political, and religious liberty.”
 Against this and similar associations government issued a proclamation,
interdicting all seditious assemblies, and commanding the magistrates,
if necessary, to disperse them by military force. Still the society of
United Irishmen resolved to persevere. It issued a counter proclamation,
exhorting the volunteer companies which had been formed in Dublin to
take up arms for the maintenance of public tranquillity against domestic
and foreign foes, and recommending the Protestants to unite cordially
with the Papists for the purpose of obtaining universal emancipation
and a representative legislature. This agitation led government, in the
session of 1792, to grant some new indulgences to the Papists, but these
by no means satisfied them. They still persevered in seeking a redress
of grievances, and in order to lay before government the sentiments of
the collective body of Catholics, a secret committee for managing the
political concerns of the Irish Catholics, which had long subsisted in
Dublin, fixed on the plan of a convention of delegates from the several
towns and counties, to be elected by persons deputed, two from each
parish. At the same time this committee thought proper to disavow
all dangerous tenets respecting the excommunication of princes, the
persecution of heretics, the violation of oaths, the infallibility of
the pope, &c., and to renounce all claims to forfeited estates, and all
designs of subverting the present establishment. The convention met
in December, 1792, and after various displays of eloquence, voted a
petition to the king, stating the grievances, patience, and long-tried
loyalty of his Catholic subjects, and dwelling particularly on the
deprivation of the elective franchise. This petition was presented by
deputation, and received graciously by his majesty, who, when the Irish
parliament met on the 10th of January, 1793, pressed on its attention
such measures as might be most likely to strengthen and cement a general
union of sentiment among all classes and descriptions of his Catholic
subjects, in support of the established constitution. In consequence of
this recommendation Mr. Secretary Hobart brought the bill of relief into
the house of commons; the chief enacting clause of which enabled the
Catholics to exercise and enjoy all civil and military offices, and
places of trust or profit under the crown, under certain restrictions.
This privilege was not to extend so far as to enable any Roman Catholic
to sit or vote in either house of parliament, or to fill the office
of lord-lieutenant or lord chancellor, or judge in either of the three
courts of record or admiralty, or keeper of the privy-seal, secretary
of state, lieutenant or _custos rotulorum_ of counties, or
privy-counsellor, or master in chancery, or a general on the staff, or
sheriff of any county, &c. This bill passed with few dissentient voices,
and though it fell short of complete emancipation, it was supposed to
contain all that the executive government, could, at this time, without
too violent an exertion, effect; upon which account it was received with
gratitude. As a further concession to Ireland, a libel bill, similar to
that of England, was passed; the power of the crown to grant pensions on
the Irish establishment was limited to the sum of £80,000; and certain
descriptions of placemen and pensioners were excluded from the privilege
of sitting in the house of commons. His majesty also declared his
acceptance of a limited sum, fixed at £225,000 for the expenses of his
civil list, in lieu of the hereditary revenues of the crown. Having thus
conciliated opposition, government carried several bills for the safety
of the country. Among these were the alien and traitorous correspondence
bills, analogous to those of England; a bill to prevent arms and
ammunition from being imported, or kept without license; and another
“to prevent the election or appointment of assemblies,” purporting to
represent the people or any number of the people, under pretence of
preparing or presenting petitions, &c., to the king or either house of
parliament, for alteration of matters established by law, or redress of
alleged grievances in church or state. As a further measure for securing
the safety of the country, a bill was passed for raising a body of
militia by ballot, to serve the period of four years. This measure,
how-over, gave rise to discontent and outrage. As each person, on whom
the lot fell, was obliged to serve unless he could procure a substitute
or pay a large fine, it was considered a heavy grievance. To alleviate
the burden, subscriptions for raising recruits were adopted, and
insurance offices established to indemnify individuals on the payment
of a stated sum. It was not, however, without great difficulty that
recruits could be raised; the peasantry imagining, that, as was the case
in the American war, if they joined the militia, they should be sent out
of the kingdom. This caused discontents and riots, which cost the lives
of many persons. But apart from this, there were other causes which
produced disturbances in this unhappy country. About the year 1784, a
set of insurgents, called “Defenders,” succeeded the White Boys. These
arose from a quarrel between some Catholics and Protestants, in the
county of Armagh, the former of whom, being possessed of arms, overcame
their opponents. Enraged at this defeat the Protestants began to take
arms from the Catholics; styling themselves “Peep-of-day Boys,” from
their breaking into the houses of their opponents at break of day.
On the contrary, those who strove to prevent them called themselves
“Defenders;” but these, in 1789, seem to have been regularly organised,
prepared for assault as well as defence, and, becoming private
aggressors, committed some atrocious murders. Their outrages attracted
the notice of parliament, and a secret committee of the lords in this
session was appointed to make a report of their proceedings and also
of the “United Irishmen.” At the time when this committee made their
report, they had extended their associations through several counties,
which associations assembled by night to learn the use of arms, and also
for the purpose of plundering houses and murdering the protestants, and
especially the established clergy. In many parts of the country, indeed,
gentlemen were obliged to quit their houses, or to place soldiers
therein for defence. It was hoped that the Catholic Relief Bill would
have the effect of conciliating the marauders, but it failed to produce
this effect. The principle of contention, in fact, still remained in
full force. By this bill the Catholics were vested with the elective
franchise; and now the question between them and the Protestants was,
whether they should form a part of the government. They had gained much,
but they wanted more, and so the system of agitation and outrage was
still continued.




PROSPECTS OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, &c.

At the commencement of this campaign, France had to combat 55,000
Austro-Sardinians from the Alps; 50,000 Spaniards from the Pyrenees;
66,000 Austrians, reinforced by 38,000 Anglo-Batavians, on the Lower
Rhine and in Belgium; 33,000 Austrians, between the Meuse and the
Moselle; and 112,000 Russians, Austrians, Prussians, and Imperialists,
of the Middle and Upper Rhine. Against these formidable enemies the
convention ordered a levy of 300,000 troops, and at the same time
established a committee of public safety, with dictatorial power over
persons and property. Meanwhile Dumouriez was occupied with an ambitious
plan of reaction. Instead of remaining neutral between the contending
factions composing the national convention, as was the duty of a
general, he proposed to establish the constitutional monarchy of 1791.
But first he intended to deliver Belgium from the rule of the Jacobins,
to secure Holland by aid of the Batavian republicans, and to unite
those two countries into a single state. With this end in view,
Durnouriez moved from Antwerp and attacked the Dutch towns of Breda,
Kiundert, and Gerbruydenberg, all which capitulated, after little more
than a show of resistance from the garrisons. His plan was to penetrate
into the heart of the United Provinces; but he was brought to a pause
at the fortress of Williamstadt, That fort was occupied by the
Dutch general Botzlarr, with some Dutch troops, who held no Jacobin
principles, and by a strong detachment of English guards, who made an
obstinate resistance; and while the French troops were still engaged
in the siege of this fortress, intelligence arrived from the eastern
frontier of the Netherlands, which materially changed the aspect of
the war. Durnouriez had sent General Miranda, his second in command, to
reduce the important town of Maestrecht, on the Maes or Meuse. On the
1st of March General Clairfait having suddenly passed the Roer in the
night, attacked the French posts on that side, and compelled them
to retreat, with the loss of 2,000 men; and this was followed by two
successive victories over the French, on the 2nd and 8th of March; the
one gained by the Archduke Albert, brother to the Emperor of Germany,
and the other by the Prince of Saxe-Cobourg, who obtained a singular
advantage over the main body of the French, in front of Aix-la-Chapelle,
driving them from thence with the loss of 5,000 men, and twenty pieces
of cannon. On hearing of these events, General Miranda gave orders for
retreating to Tongres, whence the French armies were again compelled
to fall back to Saint Tron. At Saint Tron Miranda was joined by General
Valence, who had evacuated Liege and its territory, and they then moved
towards Tirlemont, where Durnouriez soon after arrived to take the
command in person, leaving the conduct of affairs on the northern
frontier to General de Fluers. Dumouriez was attacked by the Prince of
Saxe-Cobourg, at Tirlemont, with great spirit; but he kept his ground,
and obliged the Austrians to fall back upon Neerwinden. This was on the
16th of March, and two days after Durnouriez moved to attack the Prince,
but received a signal defeat; 4,000 killed and wounded remained on the
field of battle, and ten thousand deserted, and scarcely paused in
their flight until they reached the other side of the French frontier.
Durnouriez attributed the origin of all his misfortunes to the Jacobin
Club of Paris, and to the Mountain, which at this time was preparing
to crush the Gironde. Half-crazed, he retreated towards Louvaine and
Brussels, and in his route he was met by Danton and Lacroix, who came
as commissioners from the convention to draw up a report on his conduct,
both civil and military. He was devoted to destruction by the Jacobins,
if they could get hold of him, for he had long ago offended Marat and
Camus, two of the prime leaders of that fraternity. Dumouriez knew this,
and the commissioners had scarcely left him, when he sent an officer of
his staff to the head-quarters of the Prince of Saxe-Cobourg, to make
some arrangements relative to the wounded and prisoners. This officer
was referred to General Mack, who was considered to be a consummate
politician, and it was agreed that Mack and Durnouriez should meet
and confer together. When they met it was agreed that the Imperialists
should not again attack the French army in force; that Durnouriez should
be allowed to retire to Brussels; and that after the French should have
evacuated Brussels the two generals should have another interview.
All this was done, and at the future meeting, which took place at
Ath, Durnouriez, knowing that there was nothing for him but a
counter-revolution, or death, or flight, agreed with Mack to co-operate
with the Imperialists against the Republicans; to give up to them the
whole of Belgium; to march with his own army to Paris; and to call
in the aid of the Austrians, if he should not prove strong enough to
disperse the Jacobin rulers of France, and dictate the law at Paris. It
is supposed that Dumouriez intended setting the Duke of Chartres on
the throne of France, and that the Duke of Saxe-Cobourg assented to
his project, hoping that if a counter-revolution could be effected, the
young dauphin might be liberated from the Temple, and the regular
line of the monarchy restored in him. The project seemed the more
practicable, because the Prussians were preparing to invade France from
the Moselle; the Spaniards, against whom the convention had declared
war, were descending through the passes of the Pyrenees; an English army
was collected in Holland to co-operate with the Duke of Saxe-Cobourg;
and the royalists in the Vendee had gained several victories over the
troops of the republican government. Dumouriez evacuated all the places
he held in the Netherlands, and slowly retired towards the French
frontier. In his route he met a great number of persons who were flying
from Paris to escape the guillotine, many of whom encouraged him to
persevere in the enterprise. The designs of Dumouriez, however, did
not pass unsuspected at Paris, and three commissioners, friends of his
mortal foe, Marat, were dispatched to watch his movements, under the
pretence of conferring with him concerning the affairs of Belgium. In
an interview with these commissioners, Dumouriez expressed himself
with great violence against the Jacobins, and denounced the republican
constitution as too silly a thing to last. “Ever since the battle of
Jemappe,” he observed “I have regretted every advantage I have gained in
the field for so bad a cause.” Growing warm in conversation, he likewise
remarked:—“The convention is composed of two hundred brigands and five
hundred fools. As long as I have three inches of steel at my side,
I will never suffer it to reign or to shed blood by means of the
revolutionary tribunals they have just established.” All Dumouriez said
was carefully treasured up in the minds of these commissioners, and,
on their return, reported to the Jacobins. In the mean time, Dumouriez
attempted to gain possession of the three important frontier fortresses
of Lille, Condé, and Valenciennes. Some secret communication with
friends was opened by him in these fortresses, but the convention had
sent commissioners to each of them, and both the populace and the troops
were declared republicans, so that his designs were frustrated. Thus
unsuccessful, Dumouriez removed his head-quarters to the baths of Saint
Arnaud. Meanwhile the convention had summoned him to their bar, and
imagining that he would not come without compulsion, had despatched four
of their members to bring him and win over his army. The commissioners
transmitted their orders to Dumouriez, while they remained at Lille; and
finding that he did not obey them, they resolved to proceed to the
camp. Dumouriez received the commissioners at the head of his staff, but
refused to quit his troops; at the same time he promised, at a calmer
time, he would demand an investigation of his conduct, and give an
explanation both of his actions and designs. In order to gain their
point, the commissioners replied that no harm was meant to his person,
and alleging the example of the ancient Roman generals, they contended
that it was his duty to submit to the republic. To this Dumouriez
rejoined, “Gentlemen, we are constantly committing mistakes in our
quotations from the classics; we parody and disfigure Roman history
in citing their virtues to excuse our crimes. The Romans did not kill
Tarquin: the Romans had a well-regulated republic and good laws; and
they had neither a Jacobin Club nor a revolutionary tribunal. We are
plunged in anarchy; we are wading in blood.” “Citizen general,” said
Camus, one of the commissioners, “will you obey the decree of the
National Convention or not?” “Not exactly at this moment,” replied
Dumouriez. “Well then,” continued Camus, “I declare, in the name of the
convention, that you are no longer general of this army, and I order
that your papers be seized, and that you be arrested,” “This is very
strong,” replied Dumouriez, and calling for his German hussars, he
ordered them to seize the commissioners, and to convey them to General
Clairfait’s head-quarters at Tournay, as hostages for the safety of
the royal family of France. During that night Dumouriez drew up a
proclamation to his army and to all France, in which he called upon
all true Frenchmen to rise and rally round him and the monarchical
constitution of 1791. His troops were informed of all that had happened
on the following morning, and the measure was enthusiastically approved
by those of the line and the artillery. Dumouriez, however, had enemies
in his camp. He had an appointment with Colonel Mack, the Archduke
Charles, and the Prince of Saxe-Cobourg on the 4th of April, in order to
regulate future operations; and at an early hour on the morning of that
day he set off with his staff; but he and his party had scarcely got
upon the road which led to Condé, when they met two battalions of
volunteers who were marching without order, and apparently without
instructions. The design of these volunteers was to arrest Dumouriez and
his party; and on discovering this they quitted the high-road and struck
across the country, towards the Austrian lines, for protection. They
reached Rury in the evening, where they were soon after joined by
Saxe-Cobourg and Mack, who, with Dumouriez, passed the night in
preparing a proclamation to be issued in the name of the Austrians, and
in further explaining and settling the treaty between the French army
and that of the emperor. But Dumourez was doomed to be disappointed. He
still imagined that his regular troops were faithful to his person,
and on the morrow he resolved to throw himself among them. His
army, however, was now no more. Instigated by some emissaries from
Valenciennes, who told them that Dumouriez was either killed or drowned,
the artillery had risen upon their officers in the night, and
had marched, with all their guns, baggage, and ammunition, for
Valenciennes, whither they were soon followed by the troops of the line.
When, therefore, Dumouriez returned in the morning to Saint Arnaud,
his army was no more; and he with the Duke of Chartres, the Duke of
Montpensier, Colonel Thouvenot, and the rest of his numerous staff’,
joined the Austrians. They were followed by the entire regiment of
Berchingy, 1,500 strong, and some fragments of some French regiments,
and the sons of Orleans. The rest of his army joined the camp at Famars,
under Dampierre, who was now invested with the chief command. On the
following day, Dumouriez issued a proclamation, which contained a
recapitulation of his services to the French republic, and an animated
picture of the outrages of the Jacobins and of the mischiefs to be
apprehended from a continuation of anarchy in France; concluding with
an exhortation to the French to restore the constitution of 1791, and
a declaration on oath that he bore arms only for that purpose. This
proclamation was accompanied by a manifesto on the part of Saxe Cobourg,
now commander-in-chief of the armies of Austria, announcing that the
allied powers were no longer to be considered as principals, but
merely as auxiliaries of France; that they had no other object than to
co-operate with the general in giving to France her constitutional king,
and the constitution she formed for herself. These proceedings were
no sooner known at Paris than the convention declared its sittings
permanent, denounced Dumouriez as a traitor, and fixed a price on his
head; banished all the Bourbons, and established that “committee of
public safety,” which was destined to complete the crimes and destroy
the chief authors of the revolution.

This defection of Dumouriez gave great advantage to the Jacobins. They
exclaimed that he was leagued with the Girondists, and that all were
loyalists and traitors. Robespierre attacked many of them by name in
the convention, and Marat denounced them in the popular assemblies. The
committee of public safety, to which the plots of their enemies gave
rise, seemed to promise advantage to the Girondists; but it served only
to excite their adversaries more violently against them. The struggle
between these contending parties at length approached a crisis. At this
time Lyons, Orleans, Bordeaux, Marseilles, and La Vendee, indignant
against the anarchists, were all declaring themselves for the party
of moderation and the Girondists. These were startling events to the
Jacobins, and they prepared to strike a blow which should prostrate
their antagonists. A plot had been devised for their destruction, but it
was discovered, and the infamous Hébert, who was at the head of it,
was thrown into prison. Tumults in the assembly and commotion in the
city now became the order of the day; and at length, on the 25th of May,
a furious multitude assembled at the hall of the convention, and loudly
demanded the suppression of the committee of public safety and the
liberation of Hébert. These proposals were resisted, but the Girondists
could not long sustain the conflict with the Jacobins. On the 27th, the
Sans-culotte bands of the anarchists appeared in a body at the door of
the convention, bearing a general petition of the sections, and despite
the expostulations of the assembly, they took their seats with the
members, and, under the influence of terror, the commission of twelve
was broken, and Hébert set at liberty. On the morrow, however, the
convention boldly reversed this compulsory vote; at the same time
seeking a compromise with the populace. But it was in vain that the
Girondists sought to conciliate an enraged populace. On the 2nd of
June, the mob, under the command of Henriot, surrounded the hall of the
convention, and thirty of the leaders of the Girondists were arrested.
The political career of the Girondists, indeed, was now over: henceforth
they were known only as individuals by their courage in the midst of
calamity and death. Many of them saved themselves by concealment, others
by flight, while many fell by their own hands, or were cut off by
the axe of the executioner. Twenty-one of them languished in long
imprisonment, until a decree of accusation was issued against them, and
the guillotine ended their sufferings.

With the Girondists, the last bulwark against the inbreaking tyranny
fell. All the good lamented their fall, while the evil-disposed
rejoiced. On their ruin the revolutionary government was formed.
Robespierre, who directed all acts in the committee of public safety,
became dictator, while his associates divided the departments among
themselves, and the superintendence of the police was vested in a
committee of general safety, possessed of formidable authority. One
of the first results of this new order of things was a change in the
divisions of the year, and the names of the months and of the days,
which republican calendar soon led to the abolition of public worship.
One of the prime leaders of this new movement was Marat, who did not
long enjoy his triumph over the Girondists. He was assassinated by a
young Norman girl, named Charlotte Corday, who fancied that by cutting
him off she could destroy his party.

The tyranny displayed in the capital, and the appearance of some of
the proscribed Girondist deputies, stirred up the spirit of war in
the provinces. The people of Normandy at once declared against the
anarchists, and raised an army which, under General Wimpfen, pushed
forward to Evreux, within a day’s journey of Paris. The victorious
insurgents of La Vendee also marched upon Nantes, in order to procure
themselves a stronghold and a sea-port. Moreover, Bordeaux, indignant
at the arrest of the deputies, despatched a remonstrance to Paris, and
began to levy an army to second it; and Toulouse, Lyons, and Marseilles
all arrayed themselves against the Jacobins. Their fall seemed
inevitable, and they themselves anticipated such a consummation.
Rendered desperate, thereby, they prepared to ward off the blow. In a
brief period the republicans had on foot fourteen armies, consisting in
the whole of 1,200,000 soldiers and the whole of the hostile provinces
cowered before their arms.

In the meantime several engagements had taken place between the
republican forces of France and those of the allied powers. After
succeeding to the command, General Dampierre threw himself into the
fortified camp of Famars, which covered Valenciennes, He made some
attempts to cover Condé also, but that important fortress was securely
invested by a part of the Austrian army; and the Duke of York soon after
arriving with some English troops, it was resolved to make a vigorous
attack along all that part of the French frontier, and to reduce
Valenciennes, Condé, and Lisle. The supreme command of the armies, which
consisted of. Austrians, Prussians, English, and Dutch, was held by
General Clairfait. Against these Dampierre issued from his camp at
Famars, on the eighth of April, but his best troops were beaten at all
points, and he himself received a mortal wound. After this defeat
the republicans fell into a lamentable state of discouragement and
disorganization; General Lamarche, who had succeeded to the command,
being a man of neither skill nor energy. Had the allied powers pushed
forward, they might have carried the fortified camp of Famars without
any difficulty; but they allowed a whole fortnight to elapse before they
made the attempt; and then, reinforcements having been received, it was
not carried before many lives were lost on both sides, and after all
Lamarche was allowed to retire and occupy another fortified camp
between Valenciennes and Bouehain. The allied armies now laid siege to
Valenciennes, and it was in vain that General Custine, who had arrived
to take the command of the French army, sought to relieve the place;
it was captured towards the end of July, and the Duke of York took
possession of it in the name of the Emperor of Germany. About the same
time the garrison of Condé yielded themselves prisoners of war, and
Mayence submitted to the Prussian arms. A few days later the French were
driven from a strong position near the Scheldt, called Caesar’s Camp.

At this point the success of the allied armies during this campaign
closed. Jealousies and dissensions had long existed in their camp; and
after the French were driven from their position behind the Scheldt,
a grand council of war was held, wherein it was determined that the
British, Hanoverians, Dutch, and Hessians should form a distinct army,
not dependent upon the co-operation of the Austrians. This was the
origin of sad disasters; had they held together, and had they acted
vigorously against the enemy’s masses, which were weakened and depressed
by defeat, it is probable that the object of the war would have been
gained. The Prince of Saxe-Coburg and General Clairfait strongly
opposed the fatal step; but the British army, conducted by the Duke of
York, decamped, and moved towards Dunkirk, while the Imperialists sat
down before Quesnoy. The Austrians were successful in their enterprise:
after fifteen days the garrison of Quesnoy capitulated. A different fate
awaited the British army. The Duke of York arrived in the vicinity of
Menin on the 18th of August, where several severe contests took place,
and the post of Lincelles, lost by the Dutch, was recovered by a gallant
charge of the English guards, led on by General Sir John Lake. His royal
highness now laid siege to Dunkirk, where he was attacked by Houchard
and Jourdan, and from whence, after losing a great number of his forces,
he was compelled to make a precipitate retreat. This victory excited
great joy at Paris, and changed the aspect of the war from the German
Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea. Relieved from the immediate danger of
invasion, the convention had now time to mature its plans of conquest,
and to organise its numerous troops. Houchard, however, did not follow
up his success as a skilful general would have done. He neglected to
concentrate his forces and to attack the English, and after a series of
actions against detached corps and gaining a victory over the Dutch,
he was defeated at Courtray by General Beaulieu, and driven behind
the Lys. His army sought shelter under the cannon of Lisle, but he
was exposed to the fury of the convention; he was accused by his own
officers, brought before the revolutionary tribunal, condemned, and
executed.

By this time the French had formed an overwhelming force on the Belgian
frontier. Had they made a series of single concentrated attacks on
the divided forces of the allies, they could scarcely have failed of
crushing them in detail. Instead of acting thus, however, a scattered
enemy was attacked by separate corps, and there was fighting from
Dunkirk to Maubeuge, and from Maubeuge to Luxembourg.

After the retreat of the Duke of York, the French attacked every post
on that long frontier line, but were everywhere repulsed. They were more
successful at Maubeuge. The Austrians, after the capture of Quesnoy,
laid siege to this place, but the French under General Jourdan, attacked
them in their trenches on the 15th of October, and after sustaining a
great loss, forced them to raise the siege. Nothing more of importance
was undertaken in Flanders, and both parties went into winter-quarters:
the Austrians at Bavay, and the French at Guice. Jourdan was removed
from the chief command, and it was conferred on Pichegru, who had
all the talent, energy, and enterprise which the situation of the
republicans demanded.

After the capture of Mayence, and after having gained some trifling
advantages in skirmishes on the Rhine, the King of Prussia, impatient to
secure his iniquitous acquisitions in Poland, travelled with all speed
into that country. The command of his army was given to the Duke of
Brunswick, who was to act in concert with a small Austrian army under
Wnrihser. These two generals drove the French from several strong
posts, and expelled them from their fortified lines at Weissumberg, and
from the fortified camp and triple lines a Lauter. The Prussians
then laid siege to Landau, while the Austrians invested Strasburg, the
capital of the province of Alsace. The Austrians had been invited by
the noblesse of Strasburg, and the convention in consequence despatched
thither Saint Just and Lebas, who introduced the reign of terror, not
only into the town, but also into the whole of Alsace, except where
the Austrians were located. General Oustine was sent to Paris to be
beheaded, and Saint-Just called young Hoche from Dunkirk and gave him the
command of that army, which was now reinforced by nearly the whole of
the army of the Moselle. Wurmser was obliged to retreat, and Strasburg
was left to the mercy of the two commissioners of the convention.
General Hoche sought to get between Wurmser and the Duke of Brunswick,
but he was repulsed and put to flight with the loss of three or four
thousand men. The republican general then effected a junction with
the French army of the Rhine, and with some troops collected by the
commissioners in Alsace, and taking Wurmser by surprise, he defeated
the Austrians, making many prisoners. On the 26th of December, aided
by Desaix, Pichegru, and Michaud, General Hoche made an attack upon the
lines of Weissemberg, and was on the point of driving the Austrians from
thence, when he was checked by the Duke of Brunswick, who broke up the
siege of Landau, in order to assist his allies. The Duke of Brunswick
wished Wurmser, who, on the morrow, withdrew his army from the lines
of Weissemberg, to remain on the left bank of the Rhine, until all
his artillery and stores should be well advanced on the road towards
Mayence; but the Austrian general would not consent to remain a single
day, but crossed the Rhine, and left the duke to shift for himself. The
duke conducted his army safely to Mayence, but he soon after resigned
his command, with many bitter accusations against the Austrians. By the
end of this year the French had not only recovered their old frontier
lines in this direction, but had the whole of the Palatinate at their
mercy. They soon appeared before Manheim, and Germany began to tremble
for the safety of its own frontier.

The most energetic opponents with whom the republicans had to contend in
this campaign were the Spaniards. Two armies were formed in Spain; one
of 30,000 men to invade Rousillon; the other of 25,000, to penetrate
France on the side of Bayonne. The former of these two armies, under
Don Ricardos, gained several important victories, passed Perpignan, and
interrupted the communication between Rousillon and Languedoc. Alarmed
at the progress of this, formidable foe, the convention took energetic
measures to reinforce their armies. Two divisions were ordered to
advance against a corps of Spaniards under Don Juan Courten; and this
being defeated, the republicans determined to assault the camp of the
Spaniards at Truellas. The intrenchments were carried, and they were
on the point of gaining a victory, when Don Ricardos arrived with his
cavalry, and turned the fortune of the day: three French battalions
laid down their arms, and 4,000 were slain. The French general Davoust,
however, having been reinforced by 15,000 men, compelled Don Ricardos to
act on the defensive, and to retire to a strongly intrenched camp near
Boulon. But Ricardos still showed himself to be a formidable foe. Having
received reinforcements in the beginning of December, he attacked and
routed the republican army with a loss of 2,500 men, and this success
was followed by the capture of Port Vendre and Collioure. Davoust’s army
was so much discouraged that whole battalions disbanded and returned
home, and the national guards deserted their colours. The general
announced to the convention that he was left with only 8,000 men; but
Don Ricardos, ignorant of his opponent’s condition, did not follow up
his successes, and the arrival of reinforcements, sent from Toulon
in the beginning of the next month, rescued France from peril in this
quarter. The other force of the Spaniards, under Don Ventura Caro,
crossed the Bidassoa, and on the 1st of May drove the republicans from
one of their intrenched camps, taking fifteen pieces of cannon; and on
the 6th of June, after storming another camp and taking all its cannon
and ammunition, forced the French troops into Saint Pied de Port. Having
fortified some posts in the country, they repulsed a vigorous attack
made by the Republican forces, and so crippled them that no movement of
consequence could be undertaken during the rest of the campaign.

On the side of the Alps, the King of Sardinia, having received some
money from England, commenced the campaign with considerable vigour. He
was reinforced by some fresh Austrian regiments, under the command of
General Devins, and having collected the mass of their forces on the
maritime Alps, they resolved to make a descent into the country of Nice,
in order to wrest it from the French republicans, it being wholly in
their hands. Before they descended, fortified camps were to be made, and
sundry fortresses improved or reconstructed, to render it impossible,
even in case of a reverse, that the French should force the passes of
the mountain, and get into Piedmont on that side. Kellerman held the
command in chief of the French army of the Alps, and towards the end
of May he ordered Brunet, who commanded in Nice, to push forward to the
crests of the maritime Alps, and dislodge the Piedmontese and Austrians,
before they should have time to complete their fortifications. Brunet
divided his army into four columns, giving them instructions to attack
three of the more important points at once, and then to unite and fall
upon Fort Raus, which was the strongest of all, and the key to all the
country behind. The French columns ascended the steep heights on the 8th
of June, and the Piedmontese were driven from every position except
Fort Hans; but when they had ascended that loftier mountain, they were
repulsed and, finally, driven down the mountain with great loss. The
attack was renewed on the 12th; but they were again repulsed from Fort
Rtaus, and driven down the mountain, with a loss more dreadful than
the first. The French, disheartened by these reverses, were obliged to
confine themselves to the low country of Nice, and fearing the descent
of the enemy, Kellerman placed strong detachments in the gorges through
which they must have descended, and caused trenches to be dug and
redoubts raised to impede their progress. But the King of Sardinia did
not adhere to his purpose. General Devins was of opinion that while a
part of the army should be left on the maritime Alps to keep the French
forces in check, the greater part of the army, composed of the Austrians
and of the best Piedmontese and Sardinian troops, should march through
Savoy, drive the French out of that country, chastise the Savoyard
Jacobins, and thence march straight on the populous city of Lyons. The
King of Sardinia finally resolved to unite this plan with his own, and
to pursue them both at the same time. His son, the Duke of Montferrat,
was sent to drive the republicans out of Savoy and the Tarantaise; and
though the duke took the field several weeks too late, he drove the
French before him, took possession of the Tarantaise, and became master
of the whole of Upper Savoy and of a great part of the low country.
Instead of advancing rapidly upon Lyons, however, the Duke halted at
Aigur Belle; and Kellerman, hearing of his successes, rushed from his
camp at Tornns with reinforcements for the French camp at Conflans,
and being joined by other republicans from Annecy and the country round
Geneva, the Duke of Montferrat was obliged to retrace his steps, and to
abandon everything he had gained on the eastern side of the Alps. The
King of Sardinia had remained on the maritime Alps, and, like his son,
began operations by driving the republicans before him. Descending from
the crests of his mountain station, he made himself master of all the
advanced posts and works of the French; but on the 18th of October
he was repulsed with great loss at the bridge of Giletta, and then he
retreated by the roads through which he had come, leaving Nice to the
French, and depriving the English and Spaniards, with his other allies
at Toulon, of any hope they might have entertained of future assistance
from him.

Before war was declared against Great Britain, the French resolved
to make use of their sovereignty over the Mediterranean sea. Admiral
Truguet was sent with nineteen ships of the line and some frigates to
make the conquest of Sardinia, chiefly, it would appear, for the purpose
of obtaining corn from that exuberantly fertile island. It was imagined
by the French that the Sardinians, who were an unruly and turbulent
people, were ripe for revolt, and that, therefore, with their aid,
they would throw off the yoke of monarchy. But if the Sardinians were
turbulent they were not disaffected; and, moreover, they had a mortal
aversion for all changes, all projects, all foreigners, and all
interlopers. Truguet soon discovered their temper. He sailed into the
bay of Cagliari on the 24th of January; and as soon as he had anchored
his great ships in front of the town, he sent an officer and twenty
soldiers to summon the place, and to represent the advantages which the
islanders would derive from a union with the French republic. No sooner,
however, had the boat got within the range of their guns, than the
Sardinians opened a fire upon it, and killed the officer and fourteen
of his men, and wounding nearly all the rest. Truguet, enraged at such a
reception, commanded a bombardment on the town, which lasted three days
without any visible effect on its walls; and having suffered great loss
from the red-hot shot of the garrison, he was compelled to haul off, and
come to anchor at the mouth of the Gulf. About the same time an attack
was made with the same ill-success on La Madalena, a small island
belonging to the Sardinians in the Straits of Bonifacio, by a small
republican force from Corsica, among which was Napoleon Buonaparte, It
was months after Truguet’s Sardinian adventure, when the English put
to sea for the purpose of encountering the French fleet. On the 14th of
July Lord Howe took the command of the channel-fleet; and though he
kept cruizing till the 10th of December, and several times descried
the French fleet, the services he rendered did not much exceed that of
securing the safe arrival of our West-India convoys. The first encounter
between two frigates of the hostile nations took place in the Channel;
when the Nymph, of thirty-two guns, commanded by Captain Edward Pellew,
captured the Cleopatra, of forty guns, commanded by one of the ablest
officers in the French service. In the West Indies the French island
of Tobago, St. Pierre, Miquelon, and Domingo were reduced; but at
Martinique the English met with a repulse. In the East Indies all the
small French factories were seized, and Pondicherry, which had been
restored at the last peace, surrendered to General Brathwaite.

{GEORGE III. 1793–1794}

During the month of July Vice Admiral Lord Hood entered the
Mediterranean with a small fleet, and presented himself before Toulon.
Many old officers of the French navy were in this city, and they entered
into a correspondence with Lord Hood suggesting the separate measures,
of surrendering their fleet to him, and putting him in possession of the
ports and forts. As a proof of their loyalty and sincerity, Hood called
upon them to acknowledge Louis the Seventeenth, and upon that condition
he promised the people of Toulon, together with those of Marseilles
and other towns, all the support in his power. The sections met to
deliberate upon this proposal; and notwithstanding the fierce opposition
of the Jacobins, it was carried. Thus victorious, the majority put to
death the president of the Jacobin club; persecuted and imprisoned many
of their persecutors; and re-revolutionized everything. They committed
themselves so deeply that they felt they had nothing to expect from the
republicans but destruction; and as they were victorious at Marseilles,
the counter-revolutionists concluded their treaty with Lord Hood; and
thus the most important maritime place of the kingdom, with immense
magazines, and with a fleet of seventeen ships of the line and five
frigates, fell, without a stroke of the sword, into the hands of the
English. Lord Hood, however, had scarcely put the port in order and
taken possession of the town, before General Cartaux arrived with his
victorious army from Marseilles, and cantoned himself in the surrounding
villages and bastides. He was subsequently joined by volunteers and
other corps; and Lord Hood, sensible that the most desperate efforts
would be made to recover the place, and that his sailors and the French
royalists would be unequal to its defence, applied in all directions
for assistance. He was joined by the Spanish Admiral Langara, by some
Neapolitan and Sardinian troops, and by other ships of the line and
frigates from England, and subsequently by some troops from Gibraltar.
Before active operations commenced General Cartaux was succeeded in the
command of the republican forces by General Dugommier. But there was
one in his army who was more skilful than Dugommier himself. This was
Napoleon Buonaparte, who had served at Nice during the summer as a
young officer of artillery, and in whom Dugommier placed the greatest
confidence. Buonaparte was also in favour with the Jacobin commissioners
of the convention; and though but a youth, he obtained the command of
the whole besieging artillery. The executive at Paris sent a plan of
attack to Dugommier, and the commander-in-chief assembled a council upon
it. Dugommier thought the plan a good one, but Buonaparte suggested
a better. He remarked: “All that you want is to force the English to
evacuate Toulon. Instead of attacking them in the town, which must
involve a long series of operations, try and establish batteries which
shall sweep the harbour and the roadstead. If you can only drive away
the ships, the troops will not remain.” Buonaparte contrived to conduct
the works according to his own plan, and his genius decided the fate
of Toulon. After a series of operations, Lord Hood was compelled to
evacuate the town, and its wretched inhabitants were left to the mercy
of their furious republican conquerors. Dugommier subsequently strongly
recommended Buonaparte to the notice of the convention, remarking,
“that, if neglected, he would assuredly force his own way up.” On this
recommendation he was placed on the list for promotion, and confirmed in
a provisional appointment of chef-de-battaillon in the army of Italy.

The capture of Toulon crushed all hope of resistance to the Jacobins in
the south of France. Every danger to the republican government of Paris,
indeed, arising from an ill-converted and ill-directed confederacy, had
been warded off in all quarters. At the commencement of the contest
the allies had the advantage both in numbers and discipline; but this
advantage was no match for that spirit which the revolution had infused
into their opponents. Moreover, their adherence to the old system of
warfare, and the policy of merely keeping up their contingents, soon
exposed them to dispersion or annihilation, as the overthrow of all
pacific employments in France enabled the convention to send out armies
in large masses wherever danger was discovered.

Revolutionized France, therefore, was left free to act and to conquer.
And how fearfully the republicans acted, how cruelly they treated their
vanquished foes, the pages of history unfolds. It has before been stated
that in all the revolted provinces their arms during the year were
finally victorious—wherever they conquered there followed vengeance.
The most fearful scenes wore enacted in the Vendée. The inhabitants of
this department, which is situated in the old province of Poitou, were
terrified at the idea of liberty, which had never come before their
understanding, and they repeated the execrations that priests and nobles
threw out against the revolution and its leaders. From small beginnings
a terrible storm arose: the insurrection which began in Lower Poitou
extended the whole length of the Loire, both north and south of that
river. In the space of one month there were forty thousand men under
arms, and two months later, thrice that number threatened death to
the republicans. In many bloody engagements the republican troops were
defeated by them. During the battle-cry, “Vive Louis XVII! Vive Jesus
Christ!” they rushed upon the soldiers of the republic, and in their
native country appeared invincible. Alarmed at their valour and success,
the convention, upon the proposal of Barrère, decreed the extermination
of the Vendée within twenty-one days; and in order to carry this decree
into execution they poured their troops from all sides into that
doomed country. The decisive battle was won near Chollet: D Elbée
and Beauchamp, two of their most noble leaders, fell, and then their
soldiers, seized with terror, fled, and the republic celebrated the most
bloody triumph. Humanity shudders at the atrocities which then ensued.
The convention had proscribed the whole population of the Vendée,
and its generals executed the dreadful proscription with tiger
rage;—children, old men, and women were pitilessly massacred, and ruin
marked the path of the victors. The bulk of the Vendee army had passed
the Loire, where it was reinforced by many malcontents arriving from
Bretagne, and after several victories intended to march upon Paris;
whilst Charette with a small force occupied the most inaccessible parts
of the Vendée, and conquered the islands of Boccin and Noirmoutier.
But it was in vain that they struggled against the masses which the
convention soon poured forth against them.

After changing results, the death-blow was given to them at Maus, in the
month of December: 20,000 then fell in the field of battle, and, soon
after, the remnant of their army was annihilated. Again vengeance
fell upon the inhabitants of the Vendée: columns sur-named “Infernal”
 inarched through the country in all directions, destroying thousands
of its inhabitants, and carrying thousands more as prisoners to Nantes,
where they were delivered over to the tiger-fangs of the monster
Carrier. Doomed to death, they were there either crushed in bodies by
the cannon’s thunder, slain with the sword, or drowned by hundreds in
the Loire. Similar atrocities filled Lyons, the ornament of the south of
France; and Bordeaux and Marseilles suffered the like hard fate.

Nor was Paris, the seat of the revolution, free from scenes of
slaughter. As it has been said of Rome, she did “fearful execution
on herself.” After the fall of the Girondists, their mortal foes, the
Jacobins, proceeded to establish the most democratic constitution
that ever existed. From that time the committee of public safety, now
composed of decimvirs under the infamous, Robespierre, exercised all the
powers of government, ruling the provinces, generals, and armies, with
despotic sway, by means of its commissioners, and exercising, by the
revolutionary tribunal, supreme authority over both property and life.
Every section of the community was held in terror by this miscalled
“committee of public safety.” Even the representatives of the people,
which thought itself called to liberate the world, and with them the
whole people, trembled before these few tyrants, who, elevated from the
dust by the power of accidents more than by that of genius, displayed
a hideousness never yet beheld. “The whole people was in fearful
excitement by anger, by fear, and love of liberty; and the terrorists,
grasping at the terrible as the only means of salvation, manifested
hereby the fever convulsions of the nation.” The prisons in Paris were,
during this year, filled with all that yet remained of dignity or
virtue in the republic; while thousands upon thousands perished by the
blood-stained guillotine. The “committee of public safety,” consisting
of Robespierre, Barrère, Billaud, Varennes, Callot d’Herbois, Carnott,
Prieux, Lindet, Couthon, Saint Just, and Jean Bon Saint André, sat
almost uninterruptedly, dealing destruction to all around. A law, to the
application of which an unlimited extension was given, exposed even the
suspicious to the mercy of this revolutionary tribunal. Every day
new victims, both in Paris and in the provinces, were sent to the
guillotine. Among the more afflicting tragic scenes of these fearful
times was the execution of Marie Antoinette. She,—the once all-powerful
queen of France, she,—the daughter of Maria Theresa, sister of
three emperors, and aunt of one emperor still living,—after she
had languished many months in prison, was finally dragged before the
criminal tribunal, condemned, and carried in a cart to the place of
execution. So perished the innocent Princess Elizabeth, the sister of
the slain monarch; and so fell the criminal Duke of Orleans. But
the terrorists murdered not only princes and royalists, but also
acknowledged friends of the revolution. The “Mountain” party even turned
its rage against itself: Chaumette, Hébert, and Anarcharsis Cloots,
all fierce demagogues and heads of the common-council of Paris, were
arrested by order of the “committee of public safety,” and executed with
sixteen of their partisans. Thus perished also their violent enemies the
Cordeliers, among whom were Danton and Desmoulins; and thus fell several
of the most successful generals of the republic. This unheard-of tyranny
continued for eighteen months, during which space of time one million of
persons perished, as is proved by detailed calculations, by the hand of
the assassin and the executioner: others died of grief and misery. Many
of these perished in the provinces, for the furious “Sansculottes” were
commissioned to march through the bleeding kingdoms carrying along with
them a movable guillotine, beneath which thousands perished. And these
made war, not only upon their species, but upon the arts and sciences,
which they regarded as allies of the aristocracy. Scenes of folly
alternated with those of rage and brutality: Vandalism obtained the
possession of the beautiful country of France. The fine tone of society
was superseded by the rudest manners; and even the better sort affected
them that they might not be suspected of favouring aristocracy. As
a climax to their folly and madness, the republicans even assailed
religion. First, the republican calendar was substituted for the
Christian calendar; then, the celebration of the Christian festivals
was restricted; and, finally, the ordinary worship gave place to the
so-named “service of reason,” as the emblem of which prostitutes were
placed upon the altar. Such was the liberty for which the French had
contended—such the liberty for which some in England would even at the
close of this year have obtained, at the price of the blessings which
they enjoyed under a monarchical and free constitution.

     “Scorn and contempt forbid me to proceed!
     But history, time’s slavish scribe, will tell,
     How rapidly the zealots of the cause
     Disbanded—or in hostile ranks appeared;
     Some tired of honest service; these, outdone,
     Disgusted, therefore, or appalled by aims
     Of fiercer zealots—so confusion reigned,
     And the more faithful were compelled to exclaim
     As Brutus did to virtue—
     ‘Liberty, worshipped thee, and find thee but a shade.’
            —Wordsworth.”




CHAPTER XXI.

{GEORGE III. 1794–1795}

     Meeting of Parliament..... The   Militia  augmented.....
     Suspension   of  the Habeas Corpus Act..... Agitation in
     England and Scotland..... introduction of Foreign
     Troops..... The Slave-trade Question..... Motion on behalf
     of La Fayette..... Motion of Inquiry into the recent
     Failures of our Armies..... The Trial of Warren
     Hastings..... The Prorogation of Parliament..... Ministerial
     Appointments..... Embassy to China, &e...... Corsica annexed
     to the Crown of England..... Lord Howe’s Naval Victory.....
     British Conquests in the West Indies..... Disputes in
     America..... Military Operations on the Continent..... The
     internal Condition  of France..... Convention with Sweden
     and Denmark..... The State of Poland..... Meeting of
     Parliament.

{A.D. 1794}




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

THE British parliament assembled on the 21st of January. In his opening
speech, the king observed, that he and his subjects were engaged in a
momentous contest, on the issue of which depended the maintenance of the
constitution, laws, and religion of the country, and the security of
all civil society. Having mentioned the advantages obtained by the
confederated powers, he added, that the circumstances by which their
progress had been impeded not only proved the necessity of vigour and
perseverance, but confirmed the expectation of ultimate success. Their
enemies, he said, had derived the means of temporary exertion from a
system which enabled them to dispose of the lives and property of the
people; but these efforts, which were productive of internal discontent
and confusion, would tend to exhaust the national and real strength of
the country. His majesty regretted the necessity of continuing the war;
but he thought that he should ill consult the interests of his people,
if he desired peace on any grounds exclusive of a due provision for
their permanent safety, and for the independence and security of Europe.
An attack had been made on him and his allies, founded on principles
tending to the destruction of all property, to the subversion of
the laws and religion of every civilized nation, and to the general
introduction of a horrible system of rapine, anarchy, and impiety.
Amendments to the address were moved in both houses, but they were
rejected by large majorities; in the lords, by ninety-seven against
twelve, and in the commons, by two hundred and seventy-seven against
fifty-nine. Fox, Sheridan, Lords Lansdowne and Lauderdale, and others,
persevered in maintaining the inexpediency of war, as well as the
improbability of success; they denied that France had been hostile
to England; they foretold her career of conquests, and predicted
disappointment to the nation, similar to that which had been experienced
at the close of the American war; they repeated all their arguments
in favour of peace: but it was all to no purpose; the majority in both
houses were convinced that there could be no radical peace, except
France was humbled. On every occasion, though sure of exhibiting their
numerical weakness at every division, Fox and his friends attacked
the war measures of government. On the vote for augmenting the navy
to 85,000 men, they agreed with ministers, but when it was proposed to
raise the regular army to 60,000, they renewed their opposition with all
their vigour. At a subsequent date, the 17th of February, the Marquess
of Lansdowne moved an address to “represent to his majesty the extreme
improbability of conquering France; that the dismemberment of France, if
attainable, would augment the strength of the powers most to be
dreaded; that opinions cannot be controlled by arms; that experience has
demonstrated the futility of every attempt to interfere in the internal
government of France, even if the justice were problematical; and that
we must incur the keenest reproaches, if we encouraged further revolts
in a country where we had been unable to save those who put confidence
in us from extermination and ruin—therefore to implore his majesty to
declare, without delay, his disposition to make peace upon such just,
disinterested, and liberal terms as were calculated to render the peace
lasting, and that he would signify this intention to his allies, that
a stop might be put to the effusion of human blood.” This motion was
seconded by the Duke of Grafton, but it was negatived by one hundred and
three against thirteen. Every effort of the opposition, indeed, to stem
the tide of war proved fruitless. It was resolved to carry it on with
vigour; and, to meet the extraordinary exertions, a loan of £11,000,000
was voted by parliament, and some new taxes granted.




THE MILITIA AUGMENTED, ETC.

On the 6th of March Pitt moved for an augmentation of the militia, and
for the levy of a volunteer force of horse and foot; intimating that the
chances of war might expose Britain to an invasion. During the debate
which followed this motion, Fox and his party taunted ministers with
having produced such a prospect by their war measures; and strong
objections were taken to a requisition circulated by ministers, and to
a subscription entered into by country gentlemen and others, for the
purpose of providing arms and other necessaries for the volunteer corps.
Sheridan moved “That it was dangerous and unconstitutional for the
people of this country to make any loan of money to the crown without
consent of parliament;” but the previous question was carried by a
large majority. Subsequently, Pitt brought in a bill to enable French
royalists and emigrants to enlist in the service of the king of Great
Britain on the continent of Europe, and to employ French officers as
engineers, under certain restrictions. Two amendments were offered: one
by the attorney-general, to exact the oath of allegiance from those
who enlisted; the other by Sheridan, to limit the number of such French
troops at any time stationed in the kingdom, to 5,000. Both these
amendments were adopted; and, notwithstanding the opposition of Fox and
his party, the bill was carried in the commons by the usual majority,
and it subsequently passed the Lords. About this time, parliament was
informed, by royal message, that a large subsidy had been granted to the
King of Prussia. This was criticised and condemned by opposition in the
severest manner, as were all the subsidiary treaties concluded with
some of the powers of the coalition, who were too poor to maintain the
expenses of the war without English money. But every motion on these
subjects was carried by a large majority. On the other hand, every
motion tending to put an end to the war was negatived by overwhelming
numbers. Thus, when, on the 30th of May, the Duke of Bedford moved a
series of resolutions to this end, in the lords, and Fox in the commons,
the former was defeated by one hundred and thirteen against twelve, and
the latter, by two hundred and eight against fifty-five. By this time
opposition had still further reverses on the theatre of war to urge
against its continuance, but these arguments were rendered futile by the
intelligence which came, at the same time, of the augmented and still
augmenting atrocities in France, which encouraged members of parliament
to believe that such a system could not sustain itself for any length of
time. And this feeling was prevalent among the people. On hearing of the
reverses, opposition, and men of the same principles in private life,
made great efforts to get up popular petitions for a peace; but the
majority of the people had conceived a horror of the French republicans,
and, except among some political clubs, no progress was made in this
business; and the petitions got up among such clubs were, of course,
unheeded.




SUSPENSION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS ACT.

On the 12th of May a royal message was delivered, referring to the
seditious practices of democratic societies, and intimating the
necessity of taking measures for baffling their dangerous designs. The
message stated that seditious practices had been carried on by societies
in London in correspondence with other societies, for the purpose of
assembling a convention to represent the people, in defiance of and
in opposition to parliament, and on principles subversive of our
constitution, and calculated to introduce anarchy similar to that in
France; that the papers of these societies had been seized, and would be
laid before parliament; and that his majesty recommended them carefully
to examine these papers, and to adopt such measures as might appear
necessary. These papers were produced on the next day, and Pitt moved
an address of thanks to the king, and proposed that the papers should
be referred to a committee of secrecy, consisting of twenty-one persons,
who should be chosen by ballot. This was agreed to, and on the 16th of
May Pitt produced the report of this committee of secrecy. This report
did not reveal anything very mysterious, for it merely contained the
report of the two London societies from the year 1731, most of which
had been already published, by the societies themselves, in the public
papers. Yet Pitt, on the strength of this report, demanded the immediate
suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, as necessary to the salvation of
the country. In this demand he was supported by Burke, who said that
it was the best means of preventing the vast and imminent dangers with
which we were menaced; and by Windham, who observed that if these evils
could not be averted by the laws in being, other laws, more stringent,
must be framed. The bill was carried, through all its stages, by
overwhelming majorities, and it also passed the lords, though not
without a strong-protest from the Duke of Bedford, and the Earls
Stanhope, Lauderdale, and Albemarle. An address was moved in the upper
house, on the 13th of June, by Lord Grenville, to assure the king of
their lordships’ loyalty and determination to punish the participators
in the conspiracy which had been laid before them, and to invest his
majesty, if needful, with additional power for the suppression of
attempts against government. This was warmly opposed by Lord Lauderdale;
but the address was carried, and sent to the commons for their
approval. Fox—after endeavouring to show that there was no ground for
apprehension; that though seditious language might have been uttered,
it would be imprudent to notice it;—moved to omit that part of the
address which expressed the conviction that a conspiracy had been
carried on against the constitution, but his amendment was rejected, and
the house concurred in the address as sent down by the lords.




AGITATION IN ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND.

Although government had scarcely so much cause of alarm at the movements
of political bodies as it exhibited, yet that there was some cause for
fear there can be no reasonable doubt. This is manifest from the state
trials which occurred at this period. One of the first of these trials
took place at the Lancaster spring assizes. Mr. Thomas Walker, of
Manchester, a strenuous advocate for parliamentary reform, at whose
house meetings for political purposes were occasionally held, was
indicted, with nine other persons, for conspiracy to overturn the
constitution by arms, and to assist the French in case of an invasion.
The principal evidence adduced was a person of the name of Dunn; but his
testimony was so contradictory that the prosecution was abandoned, and
Dunn was committed to prison to take his trial for perjury. Soon after
this a rumour was raised of a design to assassinate the king, and some
persons were arrested and committed for trial; but they were soon
after liberated, and the story fell into contempt under the popular
designation of the “Pop-gun Plot;” it being averred that the king’s
death was to be encompassed by shooting him with an instrument
resembling a walking-stick. More important proceedings subsequently
took place in the Sessions-House at Clerkenwell. At this time the
London Corresponding Society counted more than 30,000 members in
its association, and it fully justified its title by entering into
correspondence with every seditious club in the kingdom. According to
a Jacobinical expression, it soon affiliated itself with the
Constitutional Society; their respective secretaries—Thomas Hardy, a
shoemaker, and Daniel Adams, an under-clerk—making known to the world
the results of their deliberations, signed and sanctioned by their names
and authorities. Hardy’s club, that of the London Corresponding Society,
however, exercised a species of metropolitan jurisdiction over all. By
means of the handbills and pamphlets which this club circulated, and by
means of its lecturers and the meetings it concocted, a union of all
the clubs was formed; and this union finally arrived at a complete
organization, with a central board in London, a division into provinces
and districts, and a list of members, approaching to half a million, in
correspondence or direct connexion. Government thought it high time now
to interfere; and, suspecting the machinations of the ringleaders, they
adopted the usual policy under such circumstances, of employing spies
to become members, in order to betray the secrets with which they may
be entrusted. The morality of such a practice may be questioned; but
policy, and not morality, is too frequently the doctrine of even the
best-regulated states. The scheme, however, succeeded. In consequence
of the discoveries of these spies, Hardy, Adams, Martin, an attorney,
Loveit, a hair-dresser, the Rev. Jeremiah Joyce, preceptor to Lord
Mahon, John Thelwall, the political lecturer, John Home Tooke, the
philologist, Thomas Holcroft, the dramatist, Steward Kydd, a barrister,
with several others, were all arraigned at the Old Bailey. The papers of
Hardy and Adams had been seized, and an indictment was made out, which
contained no less than nine overt acts of high-treason, all resolving
themselves into the general charge, that the prisoners conspired to
summon delegates to a national convention, with a view to subvert the
government, to levy war against the existing authorities of the country,
and to depose the king. The evidence adduced, however, did not bear out
this strong indictment. Hardy, Home Tooke, and Thelwall were tried
and acquitted; and then the crown lawyers abandoned all the other
prosecutions, and those who had been indicted were liberated.

In the mean time some trials had taken place in Scotland which resulted
in a different manner to those which had occurred in the Old Bailey.
Thomas Muir, a Scotch barrister, and the Rev. Fysche Palmer, a Unitarian
preacher at Dundee, had been tried for sedition, convicted, and
sentenced to transportation. This excited considerable alarm among their
friends and associates in England, and attracted the attention of some
members of parliament. Early in the session Mr. Adams moved, in the
house of commons, for leave to bring in a bill for making some important
alterations in the criminal law of Scotland; and this being refused, he
gave notice that he would bring forward a motion for the relief of
Muir and Palmer, in another form. In the meantime Sheridan presented a
petition from Palmer, representing that he conceived the sentence
passed upon him by the high-court of justiciary, from which there was no
appeal, to be unjust. Dundas startled those who were about to plead for
the prisoners, by intimating that the sentence was already executed,
and that the warrant for the transportation of Palmer was both signed
and issued. Nevertheless Pitt found himself compelled to allow the
reception of the petition. But petitions on the table of the house of
commons are not always successful in their prayer. On the 10th of March
Mr. Adams moved for a copy of the record to be laid before the house,
upon the ground of which he meant to question the legality of the
sentence. He undertook to prove that, by the law of Scotland, the
crime imputed to them, of “lease-making,” was only subject to fine,
imprisonment, or banishment, and not to transportation; and that the
acts attributed to Muir and Palmer did not even amount to that crime.
Adams supported his legal positions with extensive knowledge, both
judicial and historical; endeavouring to establish them by statute,
analogy, and precedent, as well as by civil and political reasons. He
showed that the acts, cases, and decisions which he brought forward were
not detached and isolated, but all resulting from the same spirit
and principles, established in the best times and by the highest
authorities. He also contended that transportation was not a part of the
Scottish law before the union, and that since the union no act had
been passed allowing Scotch courts to transport in cases of sedition.
Finally, he forcibly stated the evils, moral and political, which must
result from a perversion of the law. The Scottish court and its sentence
were defended by the lord-advocate, who had officially acted against
Muir and Palmer, and by Pitt and Windham, while Fox supported Mr. Adams.
The lord-advocate contended that the Scotch laws were better than the
English for the punishment of libels and the suppression of seditious
practices; and the majority of the house seemed to agree with him,
for the motion was negatived by one hundred and seventy-one against
thirty-two. Motions made in favour of the two convicts in the upper
house, by Earls Lauderdale and Stanhope, were not more successful; and
the lord-chancellor afterwards carried a resolution that “there were no
grounds for interfering with any of the criminal courts as administered
under the constitution, and by which the rights, liberties, and
properties of all ranks of subjects were protected.”




INTRODUCTION OF FOREIGN TROOPS.

On the 27th of March a message from his majesty informed the house of
commons that a body of Hessians was placed in temporary winter-quarters
at Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight, with a view to co-operate with the
royalists in Brittany and the neighbouring districts. As similar cases
had occurred at different periods, and as the cause and necessity of
such a measure were obvious, it was concluded by government that the
usual communication of the fact to parliament would be satisfactory;
but opposition contended that Pitt ought to have moved for a bill of
indemnity; and he was charged with having violated the Bill of Rights
and the Act of Settlement. Mr. Grey moved, as a resolution of the house,
that to employ foreigners in any situation of military trust, or to
bring foreign troops into the kingdom, without the consent of parliament
first had and obtained, is contrary to law. This motion, however, was
negatived; and propositions made in both houses, at a subsequent
date, for a bill of indemnity, met with no better success, ministers
contending that it would be absurd to indemnify measures which were in
themselves both justifiable and constitutional.




THE SLAVE-TRADE QUESTION.

In the course of this session, a bill, brought forward by Wilberforce
and supported by Pitt, for the abolition of that branch of the
slave-trade by which we had supplied the islands, was passed by the
commons, despite the strenuous opposition of the West Indian interest.
It was, however, thrown out in the house of lords, and a motion for
referring to a committee the further hearing of evidence concerning the
slave-trade was likewise negatived.




MOTION ON BEHALF OF LA FAYETTE.

On the 17th of March General Fitzpatrick moved for an addresss to his
majesty, beseeching him to intercede with the King of Prussia for the
release of La Fayette, who was confined in one of his prisons. The
situation of La Fayette and his companions excited the sympathy of many
persons; but there were others who had no fellow-feeling for them. Burke
said, that La Fayette, instead of being termed an “illustrious exile,”
 was then, and ought always to be, an outcast of the world; who, having
no talents to guide or influence the storm which he had laboured to
raise, fled like a coward from the bloodshed and massacre in which he
had involved so many thousands of unoffending persons and families. Pitt
denied that La Fayette’s conduct had ever been friendly to the genuine
cause of liberty; and affirmed that the interference required would
be setting up ourselves as guardians of the consciences of foreign
potentates. The motion was negatived by a large majority.




MOTION FOR INQUIRY INTO THE RECENT FAILURES OF OUR ARMIES.

As all the efforts of opposition to procure a termination of the war, or
a dissolution of alliances with foreign potentates, had failed, they now
proceeded to inquire how far the objects proposed had been obtained,
and what was the probability of ultimate success. After reviewing the
measures and events of the last campaign, in a speech of considerable
ability, Major Maitland moved for a committee to inquire into the causes
which led to the failure of the army under the Duke of York, and to the
evacuation of Toulon. In reply it was urged, that though the possession
of Dunkirk would have been a valuable acquisition, its conquest was
impracticable, from the enormous efforts of the French; and that the
same cause occasioned the evacuation of Toulon. On a general view of the
campaign it was stated that the British arms had acquired great glory;
and the house seemed to be of this opinion, for the motion was negatived
by a great majority.




THE TRIAL OF WARREN HASTINGS.

On the 5th of March, Burke moved for a committee to inspect the
journals of the lords relative to the proceedings of the trial of Warren
Hastings; and to report the facts and observations on them to the house.
Leave being given, he diligently set to work, and the report, occupying
nearly two hundred pages, was made on the 17th of April; and it is said,
by competent judges, to be one of the most able and elaborate papers
that have come from his pen. It was published, without authority, in
form of a pamphlet; and Lord Thurlow embraced an early opportunity of
venting his indignation against both its publication and its
contents. He characterised it as “disgraceful and indecent, tending to
misrepresent and vilify the conduct of judges and magistrates intrusted
with the administration of justice and the laws of the country.” Burke
made a pointed reply to this charge on the following day, in his seat
in the house of commons. He remarked:—“It accuses the judges neither
of ignorance nor corruption: whatever it says, it does not say it
calumniously; that kind of language belongs to persons whose eloquence
entitles them to a free use of epithets. The report states that
the judges had given their opinion secretly, contrary to the almost
uninterrupted tenor of parliamentary usage. It states that the opinions
were given, not on the law, but on the case. It states that the mode of
giving opinions was unprecedented, and contrary to the privileges of
the house of commons. It states that the committee did not know on what
rules and principles the judges had decided in those cases, as they
neither heard them, nor are they entered on the journals. It is very
true that we were and are extremely dissatisfied with those opinions,
and the consequent determination of the lords; and we do not think such
a mode of proceeding at all justified by the most numerous and best
precedents. The report speaks for itself: whenever an occasion shall
be regularly given to maintain everything of substance in that paper, I
shall be ready to meet the proudest name for ability, learning, or
rank, which this kingdom contains on that subject.” This reply of Burke
contains an allusion to the result of this long-pending trial, as will
be seen. Hastings was acquitted. As for the gauntlet which Burke threw
down, no one seemed inclined to take it up; and Burke soon after quitted
the house of commons for ever, he accepting the Chiltern Hundreds. But
before Burke left the house, Pitt moved the thanks of the commons to him
and the other managers, “for their faithful management in discharge of
the trust reposed in them.” This motion was carried; and Burke in his
reply observed, that prejudices against himself, arising from personal
friendship or obligations to the accused, were too laudable for him to
be discomposed at them. He had thrown out no general reflections on the
Company’s servants; he had merely-repeated what Mr. Hastings himself
had said of the troops serving in Oude, and the house had marked
their opinion of the officers in the very terms he used. As for other
expressions attributed to him, they had been much exaggerated and
misrepresented. This was the last day that this philosophical statesman
took his seat in the house of commons. Among his last words were a
warning to the country to beware of the fate of France. But this warning
was now scarcely needed. He had sounded the trumpet of alarm with such
effect for several sessions, that the nation was roused to a sense
of danger, and was prepared to ward off the blow by its most vigorous
efforts. He had rendered a noble service, not only to his own
generation, but to posterity—not only to his own country, but to every
nation in Europe.




THE PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued on the 11th of July. In his speech his majesty
congratulated the lords and commons on the victory obtained over the
French at sea on the 1st of June, and the acquisitions made in the East
and West Indies. He also took occasion again to urge the two houses to
persevere with increased vigour and exertion in the present contest,
against a power irreconcilably hostile in its principles and spirit to
all regular and established governments.




MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS.

At the conclusion of the session, the Portland party joined the
ministerial ranks. The Duke of Portland received a blue riband, with
the office of third secretary of state; Earl Spencer accepted the privy
seal, which he soon laid aside to preside over the admiralty; and Mr.
Windham, was made secretary at war. Before the close of the year, Lord
Fitzwilliam was promoted to the vice-royalty of Ireland, in the place of
Lord Westmoreland; the Earl of Mansfield succeeded to the presidency
of the council; and Lord Chatham, brother to the premier, was made
lord privy-seal. About the same time ten new peers were created. These
measures greatly strengthened the administration; and at the same time
confirmed the existing disunion of the old whig party.




EMBASSY TO CHINA, ETC.

Government had some time ago despatched Lord, Macartney on an embassy to
China, and about this time the result of his mission became known. The
embassy had been fitted out without any reasonable ground of success;
but it was still expected that it might be the means of establishing a
communication with that great empire. But the event did not answer these
expectations. His lordship was received with suspicion, and ordered to
depart as soon as he had made some costly presents, and received some
trifling ones in return, being refused even a few days’ delay. As one
of the ambassador’s suite observed, “They entered Pekin like paupers,
remained in it like prisoners, and quitted it like vagrants.”




CORSICA ANNEXED TO THE CROWN OF ENGLAND.

The nation was somewhat consoled for this failure by the annexation
of Corsica to the crown of Great Britain; an event which, from its
political importance, was a topic of ministerial exultation. After the
disaster at Toulon, Lord Hood sailed to this island, which was in
a state of revolt against the government. He landed three thousand
soldiers and marines, and these nearly effected the reduction of the
island by the capture of Bastia, which capitulated on honourable terms.
Calvi, the only remaining-stronghold of the republicans, was then
besieged, and on the 1st of August it surrendered to the British arms.
Paoli and the aristocratical party then offered the cession of the
island to the King of Great Britain, which was accepted. Efforts were
made to confer the blessings of the British constitution on the rude
islanders, but they were not successful; while one party looked to
England, the other cast their eyes on France.




LORD HOWE’S NAVAL VICTORY, ETC.

About the middle of April, the ships composing the Channel fleet,
commanded by Lord Howe, assembled at St. Helen’s. It consisted of
thirty-two sail of the line and nine frigates; but six of the ships of
the line and four frigates were detached under Rear Admiral Montague,
to escort some outward-bound convoys off Cape Finisterre. With the
remainder of the fleet Lord Howe proceeded to Ushant, to look after
the Brest fleet and a French convoy which were expected to arrive from
America and the West Indian Islands. The French convoy escaped Howe’s
vigilance, and arrived safely in the French ports; but he caught sight
of the French fleet on the 28th of May, and on the evening of that day
he attacked a part of their line. As it grew dark the firing ceased; but
the two fleets kept within sight of each other until the 1st of June,
when they came to a regular engagement. In the size of their vessels,
in the aggregate number of their guns, and in the weight of metal, the
French had a considerable superiority; and they had also twenty-six
ships of the line, while, at the time of the engagement, Lord Howe had
twenty-five—one, the “Audacious,” having separated, on the 28th, in a
shattered condition. Lord Howe, however, having discovered the French
early on the morning of the 1st of June, about three or four miles to
leeward, in order of battle, immediately stood towards them. At about
seven in the morning, he was abreast of them, and then he wore to the
larboard tack, the French awaiting his approach in the same position.
The signal for action was made about half-past eight o’clock, orders
having previously been given for the fleet to close, to pass through the
French line, and engage them to leeward, van to van, rear to roar, every
ship engaging her opposite in the enemy’s line. Some of the ships, as
the “Defence,” the “Marlborough,” the “Royal George,” the “Queen,” the
“Brunswick,” and the “Nott,” were enabled thus to engage the enemy; but
the far greater part of them engaged their adversaries to windward, thus
enabling the French, when defeated, to get off before the wind. Howe’s
own ship engaged that of Villaret Joyeuse, the French admiral; and these
two opened their fire a little after nine o’clock, and at nearly the
same time the action became general in the centre. Villaret Joyeuse’s
ship mounted 120 guns, and it was so lofty that it frequently waved its
ensign over the quarter-deck of the “Queen Charlotte.” But it was soon
discovered that the French could not withstand that close fighting;
after having manfully fought for about an hour, Villaret Joyeuse gave
way, and stood off to the northward, followed by all his ships that
could carry sail. Ten of them were left behind almost totally dismasted,
and nearly surrounded by the English; and seven of these fell into the
hands of the victors. One of them had received so many shots between
wind and water, that she filled and went down almost as soon as the
English flag was hoisted on her. After securing the other six, Lord Howe
made the signal for his fleet to close round him, with the intention of
again attacking Villaret Joyeuse, if he should attempt to retrieve the
fortune of the day; but the French admiral thought of nothing but of
securing his retreat. On the side of the English the number of killed
was 279, and of wounded 877; while in the six captured ships alone the
killed were 690, and the wounded 580. More than 300 were supposed to
have gone clown in the ship which sunk, and the number of prisoners
removed is stated at 2,300. On board the French fleet was Jean Bon
Saint André, the friend and creature of Robespierre; and he was there
on commission, to remind every officer and man of the guillotine, and
of the duty he owed to the republic. Jean Bon Saint André wished himself
ashore as soon as the battle commenced; and, in bold defiance of facts
which had been witnessed by many thousands of individuals, he declared,
in his report to the convention, that the English had thirty-six ships
of the line; that the battle lasted from ten in the morning to three in
the afternoon; and that the English, after having seen several of their
ships sunk, finally sheered off with all the sail they could carry.
Barrère, the reporter and oracle of the committee of public safety,
even outstripped Bon Saint André in the strength of lying and power
of invention: he amused the national convention with an account of
the victory of the republican fleet, far more fabulous than the
commissioner’s. Some of his statements, gross and unfounded as they
were, have even been adopted by historians; especially by those who give
credit to French writers. Thus Barrère asserted, that the republicans
on board the ship which sunk soon after the English flag was hoisted
on her, refused, to a man, to seek safety by surrendering, fought their
lower-deck guns till the water reached them, and, having hoisted every
flag, pennant, and streamer, went down with her, shouting _Vive la
Republique! Vive la France!_ and that the last thing which disappeared
beneath the waves was the tri-coloured flag. This splendid fiction, or,
more properly speaking, gross falsehood, was seized upon by poets and
painters of every grade of genius; poems and pictures on it appearing in
great abundance. But the very reverse of all this was the fact. Instead
of challenging certain death and glorying in their fate, the crew of the
ship in question, the “Vengeur,” who had fought bravely, substituted the
British union-jack for the republican ensign, and spread themselves over
the sides and rigging of the ship, stretching out their hands to their
enemies, and imploring assistance. Some of them were saved; but the
crowds which attempted to spring into each boat threatening those who
came to their assistance, as well as themselves, with destruction,
checked the compassionate zeal of their conquerors, and compelled them
to leave the poor wretches to their fate. Yet there were two exceptions:
two French officers betrayed no anxiety to avail themselves of any
means of safety, but continued walking up and down the stern-gallery,
apparently engaged in conversation, until the ship, having admitted the
water into her ports, was engulfed.

Lord Howe’s fleet put to sea again on the 3rd of September. It then
consisted of thirty-seven sail of the line and seven frigates; added to
which were five ships of the line, and three frigates furnished by the
king of Portugal. The French fleet was then in Brest harbour, out of
which it did not venture to appear till Howe had returned to port; and
then it commenced a cruise, which ended in the loss of five of their
ships of line, by storms and accidents. During this year and the
preceding there were numerous contests between small squadrons and
frigates, and, in general, the superiority of the English, as sailors
and combatants on their own element, was maintained. These engagements
took place in the Channel, on the coast of France, in the Mediterranean
and Archipelago, and in the East and West Indies. In the whole of this
year the British lost only one ship of the line; and this ship, the
“Alexander,” did not surrender, until she had sustained the assault
of three French ships of the line for two hours. The spirit which the
British seamen displayed, indeed, at the commencement of this momentous
struggle, gave fair hopes of a successful issue.

{GEORGE III. 1794–1795}




BRITISH CONQUESTS IN THE WEST INDIES.

The superiority of the British navy soon began to excite public
exultation, and to produce its wonted effects on the colonial
possessions of our enemies. Tobago had been taken by a British squadron
soon after, the commencement of hostilities; and early in this year,
a fleet, under Sir John Jervis and General Sir Charles Grey, was
dispatched against Martinique, which, after a vigorous resistance, was
captured. The reduction of Martinique was followed by the conquest of
the islands of Saint Lucie and Guadaloupe. After these successes, Sir
Charles Grey returned to Martinique, leaving General Dundas to command
at Guadaloupe; but before the close of the year that island was
regained by the French.




DISPUTES WITH AMERICA.

About this time the British government became involved in a contention
with the United States of America. Soon after the commencement of
hostilities with France, orders were issued for detaining American
vessels freighted with corn for that country, and confiscating their
cargoes, though at the same time paying both for them and their freight.
The Americans were indignant at these orders, considering them to be an
attack on their independence. Their complaints, however, were not only
disregarded, but an order was afterwards issued to seize all American
vessels carrying provisions and stores to the French colonies, and also
to compel their ships sailing from the British islands to give security
for landing their cargoes in British or neutral ports. In consequence
of this measure,—vigorous, but necessary under existing
circumstances,—more than six hundred American vessels were seized in
the space of five months. Added to these causes of complaint there were
others given to the United States by the occupation of some ceded forts
on the frontiers of Canada, and by a conference which the governor, Lord
Dorchester, held with some Indian tribes. By way of retaliation, the
American government laid an embargo of thirty days on the British
shipping in their ports, and appointed Mr. Jay, its minister, to compose
the difference between the two countries. Mr. Jay delivered a memorial
on the subject, and Pitt having tendered a conciliatory answer, and both
parties being inclined to peace, the dispute was, for the time being,
compromised. But on a future day it was productive of serious effects.




MILITARY OPERATIONS ON THE CONTINENT.

While the English were in general victorious on the sea during this
year, on land, they, in common with their allies, were generally
unsuccessful. This arose from two causes: from the division of sentiment
which existed among the officers of the coalition, and from the
continued extraordinary efforts of the French republicans. Resolved to
extend their sway over the neighbouring countries, to enlarge their
own boundaries, and to obtain by plunder the means of supporting their
gigantic efforts, at the close of the year 1783 the French had nearly
one million armed men in the field, three hundred thousand of whom were
on the northern frontier of the republic. To oppose these masses, the
allies had not more than 140,000 men. And what rendered the immense
force of the French particularly formidable, was the ability, as well as
the unanimity, with which it was managed, and the military talent which
was rising up among its ranks. On the other hand, the allies, composed
of different nations, were commanded by leaders who were jealous of each
other, and were far from acting with that cordial co-operation which
was necessary, not merely to ensure success, but to prevent defeat.
The rivalry of Austria and Prussia, and the jealousy which each had
conceived of the other, became so visible, that, early in January, the
Duke of Brunswick addressed a letter to the king of Prussia, in which
he announced the resignation of his command; stating, as his motive,
the unhappy experience that want of connexion, distrust, and cabal had
disconcerted the measures adopted during the two last campaigns. After
alluding to the unanimity which existed among the French republicans,
he said: “If, instead of co-operating with similar principles, each army
acts separately and without concert with the others, without fixed plans
and without concord, the consequences to be expected are such as have
been seen at Dunkirk, at Maubeuge, at the capture of Lyons, at the
destruction of Toulon, and at the siege of Landau.” He added, in
conclusion:—“The same causes which divided the allied powers divide
them still; the movements of the armies will again suffer as they have
suffered; they will experience delay and embarrassment, and these will
prove the source of a train of misfortunes the consequences of which are
incalculable.” The Duke was succeeded in command of the Prussian army
by Field Marshal Mollendorf; but, in the month of March, a proclamation
announced that the King of Prussia had seceded from the coalition. But
this was only a _ruse_ on the part of his Prussian majesty: he wanted
English money, and when he had extracted the subsidy from Great Britain,
he again joined his allies. Great part of this subsidy, however, was
diverted from its original purpose, to forward designs on Poland, to
secure the territories which had been allotted to the King of Prussia in
the last partition, and to set up a pretension to more. His conduct on
this occasion has been well pronounced loose and spiritless; for the
troops which he furnished fell far short of the stipulated number, and
yet he pocketed more than two millions of English money. The Emperor of
Austria was equally slow in providing contingencies: he recommended the
Germanic confederation to oppose the republic by a levy _en masse_; but
he neglected to set them an example.

The campaign did not open under better auspices in the Netherlands.
Austrians, English, Dutch, and Hanoverians were to fight together there;
but a great number of the Dutch were inclined to democracy, and the Duke
of York quarrelled with the Austrian commanders, and refused to serve
under General Clairfait. At a general council of war held at Ath, it was
proposed that the Prince of Saxe Cobourg should continue at the head of
the grand imperial army, and that General Clairfait should command the
auxiliary forces, the Duke of York acting under his orders. This his
royal highness refused with disdain; and the dispute was only settled by
the determination that the emperor should take the field in person, and
that the supreme command should be vested in him. This ill-timed quarrel
has been generally attributed to the pride, petulance, and jealousy
of rank of the Duke of York. It would appear, however, that the young
prince had nobler reasons for objecting to the supreme command of
General Clairfait; he having evinced, on several occasions, his
indifference to the common interests of the coalition, and even a
readiness to sacrifice that interest to the views of his own government.
When the quarrel was settled it was agreed that the campaign should be
opened with vigour on the French frontier; that the heads of the columns
should be again turned towards Paris; that the army of the King of
Prussia should move from the Rhine by the valley of the Moselle,
traverse Luxembourg, and join the allies on the Sambre, or co-operate
with them on their advance; and that England should send 10,000 men,
under Lord Moira, to the coast of Brittany, in order to assist the
Vendeans, and to advance with them from the west towards Paris. It was
hoped also that the Spaniards might advance from the Pyrenees, and that
the King of Sardinia might repossess himself of Savoy, and once more
open the road to Lyons.

His imperial majesty arrived at Brussels early in April; and after
reviewing the whole army on the heights above Cateau, it marched in
eight columns to invest Landrecies. As the allies were already in
possession, on the same frontier, of Valenciennes, Coudé, and Quesnoy,
this place was not worth the trouble and time it cost to take it. The
fortress fell, after a short siege, into the hands of the Prince of Saxe
Cobourg; but while the allies were engaged here, Pichegru had penetrated
into West Flanders, where General Clairfait was stationed with a
division of the imperial army, and had captured Courtrai and Menin.
Jourdan, another republican general also, who was already stationed in
the country of Luxembourg, had, in the meantime, increased his army to
a prodigious extent; after which he fell upon the Austrian general
Beaulieu, who attempted to check his progress, and drove him from
his lines with great loss. After his conquest of Courtrai and Menin,
Pichegru wheeled round upon the Duke of York, who with about 30,000
men, English and Hanoverians, were stationed at Tournay; but here the
republican general was signally defeated. Yet, on the next day, Pichegru
attacked Clairfait, who was advancing to retake Courtrai, and compelled
him to retreat to Flanders. A few days after this Pichegru threw his
right wing under Kleber and Marceau, across the Sambre, to attack the
Austrian general Kaunitz; but he was defeated with the loss of 4.000
men.

These victories revived the spirits of the allies, and, without waiting
for the Prussians, who were not inclined to move, in a grand council of
war, they determined to envelope the left, or chief and victorious part
of the French army on the Maine, by moving upon it in five attacking
columns, from the various points they occupied. The success of these
movements depended upon the celerity and good understanding among the
commanders; and in these requisites they were sadly deficient. The Duke
of York pushed forward towards the appointed centre round which all the
columns were to meet, but when he arrived at Turcoing, where he expected
to meet General Clairfait, he was surrounded by the republican forces,
under Souham and Bonnaud, and completely defeated. The other columns now
fell into confusion, and, from the heights of Templenor, the Emperor of
Austria had the mortification of witnessing the retreat of the entire
army of the allies; after which he returned, first to Brussels, and then
to Vienna, leaving the Prince of Saxe Cobourg to command in his inline.

Although the English and Hanoverian column had suffered great loss in
the battle of Turcoing, it soon rallied, and even foiled Pichegru in
an attempt to seize upon Tournay. The Austrian general, Kaunitz, also
gained another victory over the republicans, on nearly the same ground,
and drove them across the Sambre. But these victories only served to
allure the allies on to their ruin. Every day fresh masses of men from
the armed hive of France advanced towards the Sambre, now the theatre of
war. Even Jourdan, who had been watching the Prussians on the Moselle,
finding that they would not move, repaired thither. At the same time the
reinforcements of the allies, having to be brought from great distances,
and being difficult to raise, arrived but slowly and in few numbers.
Such was the situation of the belligerents when Pichegru, after some
manouvres which perplexed the allies, struck off to the left and laid
siege to Ypres. General Clairfait marched to the relief of the besieged
town and defeated Pichegru; but he recovered the ground he had lost,
drove back his opponent, and took the town; the strong garrison therein
opening the gates to him, as so many traitors or cowards. In the
meantime Jourdan laid siege to and captured Charleroi; although in the
route thither he had been defeated in a pitched battle and driven across
the Sambre, by the hereditary Prince of Orange, who had been dispatched
with a part of the army of the coalition to oppose his designs upon that
place. The Prince of Saxe Cobourg was expected to relieve Charleroi;
but he did not arrive until after the place was reduced; and then he was
attacked by Jourdan on the plains of Fleurus, and, after an obstinate
battle, which lasted the whole day, was compelled to order a general
retreat. The prince retired in good order to Halle, and again prepared
to fight for the preservation of what remained to Austria in the
Netherlands; but the Sans-culotte portion of the Belgians now again
declared for the French. Bruges opened its gates to them; Pichegru,
aided by General Moreau, compelled the Duke of York to retreat to
Antwerp; and then the places which the English left in their rear
followed the example of Bruges. The Duke of York was joined at Antwerp
by Lord Moira with the 10,000 troops originally intended for the war
in the Vendée, but who was not ready till that war was over and the
Vendeans crushed. The two armies of the Duke of York and General
Clairfait occupied the country between Antwerp and Louvain, holding both
those towns and Mechlin which lay between them. In the meantime part
of the army of Pichegru invested Valenciennes, Condé. Quesnoy, and
Landrecies, the garrisons of all of which fortresses, overawed by the
threats of the convention, almost immediately capitulated. Pichegru
and Jourdan, about the same time, effected a junction, and marched
upon Brussels; and, after defeating the Prince of Saxe Cobourg in their
route, they entered that city amidst the welcomes of the Jacobin party.
The ancient town of Ghent also submitted to the republicans; and, on the
12th of July, the Duke of York and Lord Moira were attacked by the enemy
in great force, and compelled to take shelter in Mechlin. Three days
after he was compelled to leave Mechlin, and Clairfait was overwhelmed
near Louvain, and obliged to abandon both that city and Liege. General
Beaulieu was likewise compelled to evacuate Namur, and the citadel of
Antwerp, to which the Duke of York had repaired, was not considered a
safe retreat. After staying there a week, indeed, the English crossed
the Scheldt, and abandoned both the city and citadel to the French. The
Duke of York concentrated his forces in the neighbourhood of Breda
for the defence of Holland, while General Clairfait retired behind the
Meuse. Thus the whole of Austrian Flanders and Brabant, fell under
the dominion of the French in one brief campaign. Disheartened by
the reverses of the allies, the Prince of Saxe Cobourg, after some
altercations with the Dutch generals, who refused to risk another
battle, and after making a powerful but vain appeal to his German
countrymen on the Rhine and the Moselle, to rise _en masse_, for the
defence of all that was dear to them—of their altars and firesides, of
their emperor, their liberty, and their old Germanic honour,—retired
from the command of the imperial army. As for the emperor himself, he
was so irritated by the want of energy and disaffection of the people,
and so discouraged by the events of the war, that a notion got abroad of
his intention to abandon the coalition, and seek a separate peace
with the republicans. This report of secession, however, was probably
circulated for the same purpose as the previous report of the secession
of the King of Prussia; namely, to obtain money from England. At all
events this was the effect produced: alarmed at it, Pitt dispatched Earl
Spencer and Mr. Thomas Grenville to Vienna, and the result was, that the
emperor accepted a large subsidy, in the shape of a guarantee of four
millions, as the price of his adherence to the coalition. As for the
report that the emperor evacuated Flanders, in order that his subjects
might experience the difference between his mild government and that of
the republicans of France, it seems to be wholly without foundation. But
if it afforded him any consolation to know that the Netherlands smarted
under the republican rule, his feelings must have been gratified to
the utmost. Every young man capable of bearing arms was called into the
field of battle; the coin of the country was called in and exchanged
for assignats at par; merchandise and property of all descriptions were
seized by the freebooting republicans; and the guillotine was kept in
constant motion by commissioners sent to fraternise and unite Belgium
with France. Moreover, Ghent, Bruges, Ostend, and other towns, with the
villages, were heavily taxed, and the plunder derived from the whole
country was conveyed to Lisle and Dunkirk, for the use and service of
republican France.

During this campaign, a new treaty was concluded with the Duke of
Brunswick, who engaged to furnish his Britannic majesty with a body of
2,289 troops, upon condition of receiving the same liberal remuneration
as the Hessians, and granting over and above to the noble duke an annual
subsidy of £16,000 sterling. This treaty, however, was made too late in
the year for the troops to be of any service, and they were, moreover,
contemptible in number, compared with the hundreds of thousands which
the French poured forth against their enemies. But the King of Prussia
appears to have been the grand obstacle in the way of the success of
the allied armies. Early in the year, the Germanic diet had agreed to a
_conclusum_ for a general armament of the people of the empire—of the
burghers and peasantry of all the circles, states, principalities, and
electorates comprised in the league; but Frederick William declared
that if this _conclusum_ were not withdrawn, he would withdraw his
troops; as he could not expose them to the danger which would result
from such a measure. The reasons he gave in a declaration for his
opposition were, that, by employing the peasantry against the enemy,
agriculture would suffer; that arms were wanting for such a mass of
people that it was impossible to teach the manual exercise to the
inhabitants in so short a time; that, to be victorious, the soldiers
exposed to the French must be perfectly exercised; and that it was
dangerous, at a time like the present, when the French were watching
their opportunity to insinuate their principles, to assemble such a mass
of men, whose ideas of government must be various, and among whom, from
that cause, dissensions might arise, disastrous in their consequences,
not only to the armies, but to the empire. These were Frederick
William’s promulgated reasons; but it would rather appear, that, as many
parts of his kingdom were dissaffected to the house of Brandenberg,
he feared that if the population were armed they might assert their
independence, or struggle to be restored to the states to which they
formerly belonged. Be that as it may, the opposition of Frederick
William to this measure was successful, for the _conclusum_ of the diet
was not carried into effect. And yet it was manifestly the only measure
which, if it could have been accomplished, could have successfully
stemmed the torrent of French conquests.

Although the Prussians were not wholly inactive during this campaign,
yet they did not act with much vigour. Early in the year the French army
on the Rhine advanced and took the fort of Kaiserslautern, the town
of Spires, and several other towns and fortresses. They intrenched
themselves at Kaiserslautern; and early in May the Prussian general
Mollendorf drove them from thence with great slaughter. But from this
time, the French having been shortly after reinforced, the Prussians
and their allies did nothing of any consequence. A battle was fought in
July, which was maintained, at different points, four whole days; but
after both sides had suffered greatly, the imperialists crossed the
Rhine, and the Prussians retreated down the left bank of the river to
Mayence, leaving the republicans in the possession of territory sixty
miles in length. Thus successful, the French marched to the reduction of
Treves, and then poured down in great numbers to the Netherlands, first,
to assist in the war there, and after that to conquer Holland.

The armies of the republic were also successful in Spain and Italy. In
Spain, early in the year, the French having penetrated into the province
of Catalonia, a battle was fought near Saint Jean de Luz, in which they
were victorious. In May, also, another victory was gained near Ceret;
and soon afterwards a third, of still greater importance, over the
principal Spanish army posted in the vicinity of Collioure. On the
western side, moreover, the towns of Fontarabia and Saint Sebastian fell
into the hands of the republicans: the latter, partly by feat of arms,
and partly by the treachery of some of the notabilities of that place.
By these successes the French had obtained a good basis of operations;
but they still had to fight desperately for every foot of ground. During
the month of October the French general Moncey received the orders of
the convention to overrun the whole of the Basque provinces, occupy
Navarre, seize Pampeluna, and transfer his camp to the banks of the
Ebro. In compliance with these orders, Moncey led his columns into
Roncesvalles, that deep valley, formed by the Pyrenees of Navarre,
between Pampeluna and Saint Jean Pié-de-Port, on the French frontier,
and after sustaining a loss of 3,000 men, he gained possession of it.
But winter was fast approaching, provisions were falling short, and
unless he could force his way to Pampeluna, he saw that he must retreat
to Saint Jean Pié-de-Port. The Spaniards now occupied excellent ground
at the head of the pass between the French army and Pampeluna; and here
Moncey attacked them in vain: his left wing was completely defeated, and
he was compelled to leave Roncesvalles and to winter his army; some in
that part of Guipuscoa of which he had obtained possession in the valley
of Bastan, and some at Saint Jean Pié-de-Port.

In Italy the Piedmontese had, at the command of the King of Sardinia,
risen _en masse_, but being destitute of the enthusiasm of liberty, they
constituted a body without a soul. Before the middle of April, the army
of the Alps amounted to 75,000 men, opposed to which were only 40,000
Piedmontese and 10,000 Austrian auxiliaries. The committee of public
safety enjoined their commanders to drive the enemy over the mountains
and to seize the passes; and by the middle of May the whole ridge of
the Alps between Savoy and Piedmont, and the key of Italy, fell into the
hands of the republicans. On the frontier of Nice, the operations of the
French leaders were directed by Napoleon Buonaparte, whose design was to
turn Saorgio by its left, and cut off the retreat of its garrison by the
great road from over the Col di-Tende. The attacking army was divided
into three columns: the first, of 20,000 men, under Massena, advanced on
the first of April, intending to pass between Saorgio and the sea; the
second, under Dumerbion, of 10,000 men, remained in front of the enemy;
while the third, of equal force, directed its course to the upper
extremities of the valleys of the Vesabia, to communicate with the army
of Savoy by Isola. These movements were eminently successful: the rocky
citadel of Saorgio, surrounded by the French, surrendered at the first
summons; while the French, who ascended the Vesabia, drove the allies
back to the Col de Finisterre, and General Serurier cleared the valley
of the Tinea and established a communication with the army of Savoy by
Isola. Subsequently, the republicans became masters of all the passes
in the maritime Alps; and while from the summit of Mont Cenis they
threatened a descent on the valley of Susa and Turin from the Col di
Tende, they could advance to the siege of the fortress of Coni. It was
Napoleon’s wish to push on to the conquest of Italy; but the convention
withdrew 10,000 men from the army of the Alps, in order to support that
of the Rhine, and the remainder were left to repose in their aerial
citadels.

In the meantime the Duke of York had been assisting the hereditary
Prince of Orange to cover the United Provinces; but their forces
were miserably insufficient, while the democratic party was again
corresponding with the French republicans, and giving them every
assistance. In Dutch Flanders, Cadsandt and Sluys were reduced before
the end of August, and by the beginning of October, after defeating the
imperialist general Clairfait, with the exception of Mayence, the French
became masters of every place on the left bank of the Rhine between
Landau and Nimeguen. On the Maes the strong fortress of Venloo had been
allowed to be captured by a _coup-de-main_, and Bois-le-Duc surrendered
after a short siege. The Duke of York, who was stationed at Nimeguen,
was now cut off from all hope of reinforcement from Germany; but he,
nevertheless, resolved to cover that place, the possession of which
would greatly facilitate the advance of the French into the heart
of Holland. But his force was insufficient for that purpose: after
sustaining two severe assaults, he was compelled to withdraw his troops;
and then Nimeguen fell into the hands of the republicans. The Duke
retreated across the Waal and the Rhine, and stationed himself at
Arnheim in the province of Guelderland, still hoping to arrest the
progress of the French arms in Holland. About the same time, Kléber,
after a siege of five weeks’ duration, obtained possession of the
fortress of Maestricht, although it was garrisoned by 8,000 Dutchmen and
Germans in the pay of the States-general, and was, moreover, well stored
with provisions and everything necessary for sustaining a long siege.
But the Dutch generally fraternized with the republicans, and even the
Dutch troops would, in the main, rather have fought against their allies
than with the French. Disaffection, treachery, and corruption everywhere
prevailed; which sufficiently accounts for the ease and rapidity with
which the republicans made conquests in Holland. Early in December, the
Duke of York, conceiving that the campaign was finished, set out for
England; leaving to General Walmoden the perilous task of protecting the
country against superior troops who were already flushed with victory.
The elements, also, assisted the French. After several attempts to
cross the Waal, about the middle of December a hard frost set in, which
enabled them to cross that river, and the Dutch were driven from their
posts, while sixty pieces of cannon and nearly 2,000 prisoners, fell
into the hands of the republicans. They made themselves masters of
several posts on the Waal; but as the ice did not permit the passage of
heavy artillery, Pichegru, who was charged by the convention with the
conquest of Holland, withdrew his forces again to the left bank,
where Grave was captured and Breda invested. Thus threatened, the
States-general, imagining that it was possible for them to negociate a
separate peace, sent ambassadors to request the ruling faction at Paris
to grant such terms as their _known good faith and generosity_ should
dictate. The convention flattered the ambassadors with hopes of peace,
while at the same time they sent their orders to Pichegru to force his
way to Amsterdam. They depended on the disaffection of the people to
accelerate their advances, more than the most formidable inundations
could check them; in which opinion they were confirmed by frequent
invitations sent from the principal towns in every part of the United
States, with promises of a cordial reception. It is a notorious fact,
indeed, that the English who were defending them were considered by the
Dutch people in general to be their enemies, rather than the French who
invaded their country; and their antipathy to their defenders was seen
in the total inattention paid to their comforts. At this time, from the
increasing severity of the weather, sickness greatly prevailed in the
English camp; but scarcely any accommodations were prepared for the sick
in the hospitals, a scanty allowance of straw only being obtained for a
covering. It is said that hundreds were found dead on the banks of the
rivers and canals, and that a straggling Englishman, finally, at the
close of this campaign, became an object, not only of ill treatment, but
of frequent assassination.




THE INTERNAL CONDITION OF FRANCE.

It has been seen that the French had decreed that there was no God:
a day soon arrived which demonstrated, not only to France, but to
all Europe, that there is a God, and that He is “the Judge of all the
earth.” Hitherto the Jacobins had been one and indivisible as regards
crime; but shortly after this display of madness, they split into two
contending parties. Danton, the cruel Danton, became sated with
blood, and wished to stop its effusion. But not so did his colleague
Robespierre; and, fearing his vengeance, Danton retired into the
country, and left his colleague to rule in cruelty alone. His vengeance
first fell upon the heads of Rousin, Vincent, Chaumette, the apostle
of reason, Hébert, the apostate archbishop of Paris, and Anacharisis
Clootz; these were arrested on a charge of conspiring to overturn
the government, and were hurried from the bar of the tribunal of the
Jacobins, Robespierre being at their head, to the scaffold. Then fell
Hérault-d-Séchelles, the friend of Danton, who was guillotined for
sheltering a suspected person. Danton was then hunted down, with
Desmoulins, editor of the _Vieux Cordelier_, Phelippean, Lacroix,
Chabot, Baziere, and Fabre d’Eglantine: he was brought before the
tribunal, and all perished on the scaffold. The death of these leaders
of the revolution was followed by that of the innocent. The massacres
which daily took place are too numerous for recital: the rage of the
terrorists spared neither rank, nor age, nor sex. Nobles, magistrates,
generals, ladies, and peasants, all in their turns, were guillotined
without mercy. Nor was it in the capital alone that such scenes were
committed. At Arras, Orange, and Nantes, the tribunals were equally
guilty. At Nantes, Carrier still seemed to outrival Robespierre: the
very fish of the river became unfit for food, from feeding on the
carcases of his victims. Thus Robespierre and his party triumphed over
all who dared oppose them. But, by a righteous retribution, they were
soon made the instruments of their own punishment. Like Danton, it would
appear that Robespierre became sated with blood; that he saw there
was necessity for the cessation of these tragical scenes, and the
establishment of order in the republic. He devised a plan for making the
convention decree the existence of a Supreme Being, he deeming atheism
the natural religion of the lazy and the rich. By his efforts, a fêté
was ordained in honour of that Deity whom they had so long and so
flagrantly despised. Robespierre was president of the convention for
that day, and hence high-priest of the ceremonial. It was a proud day
for him, but his career was to end in blood. Mad with envy, there
were those who, in lieu of incense, saluted his ears with this ominous
allusion: “The capitol is near the Tarpeian rock.” Robespierre thought,
that by denouncing atheism, men might be disposed to become more
orderly; in other words, that the Parisians and the nation at large
would quietly submit to his rule. But he had accustomed the people
to scenes of horror and bloodshed, so that their minds had become
familiarised with them. There was danger in his own camp. At this time
there was a committee of “general surety,” subordinate to the committee
of “public safety:” and from this committee went forth all accusations
and arrests which were tantamount to condemnation.. Against these
Robespierre now turned his power, but as they had been accustomed to
act as they pleased, as they had been allowed to send victims to the
scaffold even out of mere wanton cruelty, this act of Robespierre gave
them offence, and they resolved upon his overthrow. It was reported by
them, that Robespierre had demanded the heads of half the assembly, and
this alarmed the major part into resistance. Foreboding the approaching
storm, Robespierre, with his confidants, especially Saint Just and
Couthon, made out new lists of proscription. But it was too late. In
a session of the convention, Tallien suddenly fell upon him with
denunciations, and a fierce cry of “Down with the tyrant,” arose on
every hand. Robespierre and his friends made impotent attempts to defend
themselves, but their voices were drowned in the cry of “Down with
the tyrant.” A decree for their arrest was passed and executed; but
Robespierre, with the aid of the Jacobins, escaped from custody, and
proceeded to the Hotel de Ville, where his adherents assembled around
him. The municipality, the populace, and Henriot, the furious commandant
of the citizen guards, were all on his side. Had Robespierre acted
vigorously, the convention would have been lost. Henriot, indeed, caused
the hall of assembly to be surrounded, and pointed the cannon against
it; but, before this, the assembly decreed Robespierre, Henriot, and
their adherents to be “out of the law,” and this vigorous proceeding
decided the fate of the day. The cannoneers refused to fire; the
convention resumed the offensive; and the armed sections, under the
command of Barras, surrounded the Hotel de Ville, intent upon the
destruction of the Jacobins. Robespierre discharged a pistol at his own
head and fractured his jaw; the younger Robespierre threw himself out
from a window, but survived the fall; Lebon stabbed himself; Couthon did
the same, but without fatal effect; and Henriot was flung from a window
into a drain and mutilated: all the rest were taken unhurt; and on the
morrow, Robespierre, and all that survived, were all executed amidst the
acclamations and applause of the citizens. On the two following days,
likewise, eighty-three heads, mostly of municipal councillors and
revolutionary judges, were decapitated. All Paris and France resounded
with triumph. But the victory was not yet complete: the partisans of the
system of terror were still numerous, both in the convention itself
and throughout the city and the country. Their present leaders, indeed,
Billaud-Varennes and Collot d’ Herbois, were no less sanguinary than the
ferocious Robespierre himself. Hence the storm of passion and the work
of strife did not cease with that tyrant’s fall. There was a cessation
of strife, but the parties composing the convention soon came again into
collision. These parties are known in history as the Thermidorians and
the Jacobins. In one thing, both these parties were agreed; that since
death was sworn to liberty by foreign and intestine enemies, terror
only promised salvation. But the motives for this resolution were very
dissimilar. The Thermidorians adhered with pure zeal to the republic,
and regarded it as a duty to sacrifice all other interests to those
of liberty; while the Jacobins sought only their own interests and
paramount influence. From the opposition of these parties arose
an undecided, and often contradictory course by the members of the
convention. On the one hand, many prisoners were liberated, a milder
form given to the revolutionary tribunal, and the power of the committee
of safety restricted; while, on the other hand, the Jacobin club, which
had been closed at the fall of Robespierre, was opened anew, executions
were continued, the forms of the revolutionary government retained, and
every assault averted from the leaders of the terrorists. Gradually,
however, moderation got the upper hand; or, in other words, the
Thermidorians triumphed. Their power was manifested by the execution of
the monster Carrier, together with some of his infamous accomplices, and
by a decree of investigation which finally passed against the highest
heads—against Billaud-Varennes, Collot d’Herbois, and Rarrère, with
some of their assistants. In the meantime their predominence was also
shown in many beneficial decrees, as in those which abolished the
_maximum_ and arbitrary requisitions, put the relatives of the executed
in the possession of their property, and prevented Vandalism in arts and
sciences, and the profanation of churches. The provinces, also, felt the
powerful influence of this new system. The Vendée again rose out of
its ashes; bands of soldiers were again collected there to resist the
republicans, as well as in Upper Poitou, and among the Chouans. Such
were the results of this year of the revolution. At its close sentiments
of humanity, long unknown, began to appear in the French government;
but there was no relaxation in that energy and spirit which pushed its
armies on to conquest. Revolutionary France still defied all Europe.

{GEORGE III. 1794–1795}




CONVENTION WITH SWEDEN AND DENMARK.

Sweden and Denmark still persevered in their determination to preserve
a strict neutrality in this eventful contest. A convention was concluded
between them on the 27th of March, by which they agreed to protect
the freedom of commerce on the Baltic, on the principles of the avowed
neutrality of 1780. Each were to equip a fleet of sixteen ships of the
line for that service; and by the tenth article the Baltic was declared
to be a neutral sea, absolutely inaccessible to the armed vessels of the
belligerent powers.




THE STATE OF POLAND.

During this year the fate of Poland was sealed. The Czarina having
demanded that its army should be reduced to 16,000 men, the Poles
resolved to resist her will, and to try once more the fate of arms. The
celebrated Kosciusko was placed at their head; but their struggle was to
no purpose; Kosciusko was defeated by the Russians, wounded, and taken
prisoner. On the refusal of the king to give up Warsaw, the capital, it
was stormed by Suwarrow, who brutally gave orders to allow no quarter.
Poland was now partitioned between the plunderers—Russia, Austria, and
Prussia—and ceased to be a kingdom; the patriots being proscribed,
their property confiscated, and Stanislaus compelled to live in Russia,
where he ended his days. “Poland fell,” says an eminent writer, “the
victim of her own dissensions; of the chimera of equality insanely
pursued, and the rigour of aristocracy unceasingly maintained; of
extravagant jealousy of every superior, and merciless oppression of
every inferior, rank. The eldest born of the European family was the
first to perish, because she had thwarted all the ends of social union;
because she had united the turbulence of democratic to the exclusiveness
of aristocratical societies; because she had the vacillation of a
republic without its energy, and the oppression of a monarchy without
its stability. Such a system neither could nor ought to be maintained;
the internal feuds of Poland were more fatal to human happiness than the
despotism of Russia; and the growth of improvement among its people was
as slow as among the ryots of Hindostan.” These are just remarks; but
the causes of Poland’s overthrow do not extenuate the guilt of the
spoliators: the dismemberment of the country is a foul blot upon the
historic page of Russia, Austria, and Prussia—a blot which can never be
wiped out.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

The British parliament assembled on the 30th of December. In the speech
from the throne his majesty admitted the disasters of the last campaign;
but he urged the necessity of continuing the war, and recommended
additional efforts and vigour as the only means of producing successful
results. His majesty also admitted the desperate condition of Holland
and the United Provinces, which the Duke of York had vainly endeavoured
to defend; and he informed the houses that the States-general had been
led by a sense of present difficulties to enter into negociations with
the republicans for peace; but he added, that no established government
or independent state could, under the present circumstances, derive real
security from negociations; and that, on our part, no negociations could
be entered into without sacrificing both honour and safety to an enemy
whose chief animosity was avowedly directed against these kingdoms. The
king mentioned his acceptance of the crown and sovereignty of Corsica,
and announced the happy conclusion of a treaty of amity, commerce, and
navigation with the United States of America. He also announced the
conclusion of a treaty for the marriage of the Prince of Wales with the
Princess Caroline of Brunswick, and called upon his faithful commons to
make such provision for the heir apparent as they might deem suitable
to his rank and dignity. In the lords, the Earl of Guildford moved an
amendment to the address, and urged the impracticability of attaining
the object of the war; namely, the dictating of a government with
France. He was supported by the Marquis of Lansdowne, who said, that he
saw no difficulty in treating with France at the present period. But the
amendment was rejected by a majority of one hundred and seven against
twelve. The strength of ministers in the commons was manifested,
likewise, on this occasion, in an unequivocal manner. The address was
moved by Mr. Knatchbull, and seconded by Mr. Canning, who was fast
rising into reputation, and who particularly distinguished himself in
these debates. Mr. Canning defended ministers against every imputation
of the calamities and disasters of the war being the result of their
ignorance and mismanagement, and ridiculed the warnings and predictions
of opposition. He observed,—“It is true they have often foretold the
desertion of our allies, as well as the astonishing exertions of the
enemy; and I cannot but confess that such is unfortunately the result.
It is not, however, any difficult matter to prophesy disappointment and
ill-success: if the prediction proved false, gentlemen would feel too
much satisfaction in the success of their country to think of it; if it
proved true, those who made it would triumph, as they would certainly
feel some satisfaction for their superior sagacity. But while I thus
give credit to the opposition for their predictions, I also claim some
credit for those on my own side of the question; for when Jacobinism was
at its greatest height, when its influence circulated through every part
of the French government, and when Robespierre governed the country with
the most absolute sway, even then its fall was foretold in that house,
and happily with truth. But let me not be misunderstood. I do not mean
that by the accession of the moderates to the sovereign power in France,
the possibility of our treating with them has become greater. The only
difference between them and the Jacobins is, that they professed the
intentions, though they had not the power of the latter. Their hostility
to this country is equal to that of the Jacobins; and the house will
have an opportunity of judging what reliance can be placed on their
moderation by the terms they may give to the Dutch, who were not
instigators of the war, but compelled to join in it; and if the terms
they give to the Dutch prove hard, what might this country expect? If we
could even have a peace now with France, it would be an insecure one.
It must be a peace with all the inconveniences and expenses of a war
establishment; such a peace as this country would never assent to.”
 On this occasion Pitt was mortified by the opposition of his friend
Wilberforce, who objected that the obvious tendency of the address was
to pledge the house to a prosecution of the war till there should be
a counter revolution in France. He expressed himself alarmed at the
terrible doctrines which had been promulgated from the throne and
reiterated from the ministerial side of the house. A perpetual war,
which could only cease with the restoration of the French monarchy, was
to him a startling proposition, calculated to shock his principles and
appal his feelings. Wilberforce deprecated both the speech and address,
and took an extensive view of the comparative state of both countries
after a long and sanguinary conflict, in which both had intensely
suffered; and he concluded with moving an amendment, embracing the
principal topics in the speech. Several members spoke in favour of
the amendment; and Pitt rose with excited feelings to reply. He
remarked:—“The reasons that have induced gentlemen to dissent from the
prosecution of the war, seem to have possessed a considerable influence
on the manner in which they speak of its justice and necessity at the
commencement; and their language is fainter and feebler than I had
reason to expect. Contending as these gentlemen and I did with the new
and monstrous system of cruelty, anarchy, and impiety, against
those whose principles trampled on civilised society, religion,
and law;—contending, I say, with such a system, I could not have
entertained the slightest expectation that from them would have
proceeded such an amendment. It has pleased an inscrutable Providence
that this power ef France should trample over everything that has been
opposed to it: but let us not therefore fall without any efforts
to resist it; let us not sink without measuring its strength.” Pitt
affirmed that neither the speech nor the address pledged the house
never to make peace with the republican government of France, though he
confessed that he had no idea of a secure peace till the return of the
monarchy. The change which had taken place in that government was a
change merely in the name, and not in substance; it no more deserved
the name of moderate than that under Brissot, which had provoked this
country to war. If peace could be obtained it would not place us, he
said, in a situation of confidence, and therefore precautions must
be increased. Even if disposed to peace, fear would compel the French
rulers to give their troops employment; and if we dissolved the
continental confederacy, we could not hope to see it again restored; and
then we should be exposed alone to the fury of France. In conclusion,
Pitt entered into a variety of details, showing that the French finances
were on the gulf of bankruptcy, and auguring from thence their final
overthrow, gold ever being the sinews of war. Pitt’s sentiments
prevailed the amendment was negatived by two hundred and forty-six
against seventy-three.




CHAPTER XXII.

{GEORGE III. 1795–1796}

     Bill for the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act
     (continued)..... Subsidy to Austria..... Supplies, &c.
     Pitt’s Plan to man the Navy, &c. The Slave-Trade
     Question..... Termination of the Trial of Warren
     Hastings..... Motion for Inquiry into the State of the
     Nation rejected..... Marriage of the Prince of  Wales.....
     Parliament Prorogued..... The Affairs of Ireland..... Naval
     Affairs in the Mediterranean, &c. French Operations in
     Holland, &c. Treaties between France and Prussia,
     &c. Treaty between England and Russia, &c. The
     Campaign of the Alps..... Affairs of La Vendee..... Armies
     on the Rhine..... Affairs at Paris..... Meeting of
     Parliament..... Bill to prevent Seditious Meetings, &c.

{A.D. 1795}




BILL FOR THE SUSPENSION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS ACT (CONTINUED.)

On the 5th of January, Sheridan rose to move for leave to bring in a
bill for the repeal of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act. This
motion was unsuccessful; and on the 15th the attorney-general moved for,
and obtained leave to bring in a bill for continuing the suspension for
a limited time. The second reading of this bill was carried on the
23rd, after a long debate, by a majority of two hundred and thirty-nine
against fifty-three, when it was transmitted to the lords. It passed the
house of peers without a division; but the Dukes of Norfolk and Bedford,
the Marquis of Lansdowne, and the Earls of Lauderdale and Guildford
entered a spirited protest against the measure. It was argued by the
opposition that the preamble of the suspension act, which stated that
a dangerous conspiracy existed in the country, was not true; that
a verdict in court—on the trial of Walker, Hardy, Home Tooke, and
others—had shown this conspiracy to be a fabrication; and that, as
no treason had been brought to light, and the alleged ground of the
suspension act did not exist, if was unnecessary. On the other hand
it was argued, that the determination of the jury was no proof of the
existence of a conspiracy; that the guilty were often acquitted in
courts of justice, not because they were innocent, or considered
innocent, but merely because there was no strictly legal evidence to
confirm the truth; and that, therefore, a verdict in their favour could
not operate as a motive for repealing the act, even if it were admitted
that their indictment for high treason had not been supported by legal
proof.




SUBSIDY TO AUSTRIA.

Early in this year it became evident that, besides the United Provinces,
both Prussia and Spain were on the point of breaking with the coalition,
and concluding separate treaties with France: Prussia, from the mutual
distrust which existed between her and Austria, and from her exhausted
finances; and Spain from the recent defeats in Biscay and Catalonia.
Austria remained our steadfast ally; but Austria too wanted money, and
thought herself entitled to call upon England for a subsidy. On the 4th
of February Pitt delivered a message from the king, intimating that
a loan of nearly five millions sterling would be wanted to aid the
exertions of his imperial majesty in the ensuing campaign, on the credit
of the revenues arising from his hereditary dominions. Much discussion
arose upon this subject. Fox said, that the recent defalcation of the
King of Prussia, after he had obtained our gold, ought to operate as a
caution against all advances to German princes. This was just; for the
subsidy granted to the King of Prussia had been most foully applied; it
had not been employed on the Rhine, or the Moselle, but on the Vistula;
not against republican France, but against the Poles. Even Pitt and his
supporters were forced to admit that the conduct of Prussia was bad; but
they insisted that there was a wide difference in the case and conduct
of Austria, whose own vital interests were dependent on the issue of
this war. Austria also had shown herself sincere in the cause; her
generals might have made mistakes, but she had made great and costly
exertions in the common cause, and, notwithstanding failures, still
remained firm. The motion for complying with the emperor’s demands was
agreed to by large majorities.




SUPPLIES, ETC.

After previous discussions on the navy and army estimates, on the 23rd
of February Pitt submitted his annual statement on the supplies to the
consideration of the house. The force required for the service of the
year was 85,000 seamen, and 15,000 marines; 120,000 regulars for guards
and garrisons; 56,000 militia; 40,000 regulars for Ireland, and the West
Indies, and other colonies; besides fencibles and volunteers, foreign
troops in British pay, and embodied French emigrants. The supplies
demanded for the support of these forces were £16,027,000, to which sum
was to be added £200,000, annual subsidy to the King of Sardinia. The
whole expenditure amounted to £27,540.000, and the loan proposed was
£18,000,000, the largest, up to this period, ever voted by parliament.
In order to make up the remainder, new duties were imposed upon tea,
coffee, raisins, foreign grocery and fruits, foreign timber, insurances,
writs, and affidavits, hair-powder, licenses, &c.; and to increase
the receipts of the post-office, the privilege of franking letters was
somewhat abridged. As a counterpoise for these additional burdens,
Pitt mentioned the extraordinary increase of commerce, which, in the
preceding year, had exceeded that of the most flourishing period of
peace. The ways and means were voted as Pitt desired; but some of
his adherents were not very favourable to some of the new duties, and
especially to the powder-tax.




PITT’S PLAN TO MAN THE NAVY, ETC.

As it became expedient to devise some method for the levying of soldiers
and sailors, Pitt brought forward a new plan for manning the navy
without throwing the burden so heavily on a particular class of persons
by press warrants. He proposed that the proprietors of merchantmen, who
were deeply interested in our naval superiority, should, on clearing out
their ships, furnish a certain number of men according to the tonnage of
each ship; and that every parish in the kingdom should furnish one
man. This proposition, with a few modifications, passed into a law, and
officers were appointed to superintend the levies. Subsequently,
Mr. Windham, as secretary at war, proposed the improvement of the
discipline, and the augmentation of the numbers of the militia, as a
means of internal defence. This was objected to by Fox and Sheridan, as
tending to increase the influence of ministers, and as preparatory to
the establishment of arbitrary power; but it was carried with the usual
ministerial majority. At this time provisions were so expensive, arising
from the war and from scarcity, that the pay of the military was wholly
insufficient for their support; and government, without applying to
parliament, granted them an extraordinary allowance. This was properly
objected to by the opposition, as tending to impress the recipients with
the false idea that the bounty proceeded from the crown, and not
from the pockets of the people, and as being an insult offered to the
legislature, which was sitting at the time. General Macleod moved that a
committee should be appointed to take the matter into consideration; and
so strong were the feelings of the house upon the subject, that, though
Pitt endeavoured to exculpate the ministry by representing the relief as
temporary and arising out of the circumstances of the moment, &c.; this
motion was only got rid of by the previous question, which was carried
by a majority of sixty-seven against twenty-three.




THE SLAVE-TRADE QUESTION.

On the 26th of February, Mr. Wilberforce brought the question of the
slave-trade before the house of commons again, by moving for its total
abolition. But this was opposed as before by the West Indian, or rather
self-interest; and on a division, the motion was postponed for six
months, by a majority of seventeen.




TERMINATION OF THE TRIAL OF WARREN HASTINGS.

The trial of Warren Hastings terminated on the 23rd of April. The public
interest in this trial had been much diminished by its prolongation;
and at this time it seems to have been superseded by other matters of
overwhelming importance. Only twenty-nine peers assembled at the final
judgment; to each of whom every one of the sixteen articles was put
separately, with the question of guilty or not guilty. On two charges
he was unanimously acquitted; and with respect to the others the votes
varied from three to six “guilty,” against the remainder “not guilty.”
 The lord chancellor then pronounced Warren Hastings acquitted of all the
charges, and the ex-governor bowing to the court retired in silence.
The propriety of his sentence was chiefly disputed by the advocates of
strict justice; the public in general seemed satisfied with the result
of the trial. The East India Company paid him the cost of his trial,
amounting to more than seventy thousand pounds sterling, and conferred
upon him a pecuniary donation. This was nothing but just; for Hastings
had attended more to their interests in his government than his own: if
he was cruel, it was for them; and if he exacted money from tributaries
beyond that which was due, it was for them likewise. It must be
confessed that the conduct of Hastings was, in some instances,
inconsistent with the rules or British justice and the sentiments of
humanity; but, at the same time, it must be confessed that his abilities
secured the authority and established the dominion of this country over
the east.




MOTION FOR INQUIRY INTO THE STATE OF THE NATION REJECTED.

On the 24th of March Fox moved that a committee of the whole house
should inquire into the state of the nation. His speech on this occasion
is characterized by Burke as one of the most eloquent ever delivered in
the house of commons. In it he showed the necessity for inquiry, from
the rapid progress of the enemy and their acquired superiority; from
the losses sustained by our armies, and from the vast expenditure and
increased taxation. Fox then adverted to the affairs of Ireland; the
recall of its lord-lieutenant, which had recently taken place; and
to the general irritation of its inhabitants. He then alluded to the
dissatisfaction which prevailed in England, asserting that an opinion
was gaining ground among the people, that, since the commons complied
with every measure proposed by ministers, they could not fairly
represent the nation. He asked what were the grounds for confidence in
men whose schemes continually miscarried? And, supposing the war to
be just, did the succession of plans and events afford any reason for
reposing unlimited confidence in his majesty’s present counsellors, as
wise, energetic, and effective war ministers? In conclusion, he said,
that if ministers really deserved confidence, they would not resist
inquiry, as no man, conscious of an able and upright discharge of his
duty, would shrink from an investigation into his actions. Pitt
allowed that some of the subjects proposed by Fox were of the highest
importance; but he objected to inquiry as being incompatible with other
parliamentary business. Part of the proposer’s objects, also, he said,
were inexpedient and unreasonable; he had exaggerated our losses,
detracted from our advantages, and on the whole exhibited an unfair
statement of our situation. Mr. Canning followed on the same side as
Pitt, and argued with reference to Ireland, that its turbulent situation
was a sufficient excuse for declining all such discussions at present.
Fox and Sheridan replied, that the minister, instead of meeting, had
only shifted the question; that if the state of the country had been
misrepresented, the means of refuting this misrepresentation lay in a
fair investigation of conduct. The motion was rejected by two hundred
and nineteen against sixty-three; and a similar motion made six days
after in the lords, by the Earl of Guildford, was negatived likewise by
a large majority. Motions were subsequently made in both houses for an
inquiry respecting Irish affairs, but with the same ill-success.




MARRIAGE OF THE PRINCE OF WALES.

The marriage of the Prince of Wales with the Princess Caroline of
Brunswick took place on the 8th of April. At the time it was generally
supposed that his royal highness was influenced in forming this
connexion by the promise of an ample provision to pay his debts, now
amounting to the enormous sum of £600,000. Be that as it may, on the
27th of April, his majesty sent a message to the house announcing the
marriage; and at the same time expressing deep regret in being obliged
to declare, that the benefit of any settlement which might then be made
could not be effectually secured to his royal highness, except he
were provided with the means of liberating himself from the large
encumbrances to which he was liable. At the same time his majesty
disclaimed all idea of proposing that parliament should make any
specific provision for that object: rather, he requested the house to
consider the propriety of providing for the gradual discharge of those
encumbrances by the reservation for a time of the revenues of the Duchy
of Cornwall, as well as of a proportion of his royal highness’s annual
income. After some discussion, the house, on the suggestion of Pitt,
determined that £125,000, together with the rents of the Duchy of
Cornwall, estimated at £13,000, should be settled upon the prince, and
that £78,000 should be applied annually out of his total income for
the liquidation of his debts. A law was also passed to prevent the
heir-apparent in future from being involved in similar difficulties; and
a jointure of £50,000 per annum was settled on the Princess of Wales,
in case she survived her royal consort. All this was carried by large
majorities, but there were few who imagined that this settlement was a
final one.




PARLIAMENT PROROGUED.

The king prorogued parliament in person on the 27th of June. In his
speech his majesty expressed a hope “that the present circumstances of
France might, in their effects, hasten the return of such a state of
order and regular government, as might be capable of maintaining the
accustomed relations of peace and amity with other powers.” He also
remarked that our main reliance for success must be on our naval and
military forces: thereby indicating the continuance of the war.




THE AFFAIRS OF IRELAND.

Allusion has been made to the agitated state of Ireland. That country
was, indeed, at this period, every day approaching nearer to the verge
of open rebellion.

The progress of the United Irishmen had not been stopped by the
conciliatory measures of 1793; for early in the following year they
published a plan of equal representation on the principle of universal
suffrage. Before the close of that year their association in truth
became so manifestly revolutionary that it demanded the interposition
of government. A charge of treasonable correspondence with the French
rulers was brought against Archibald Hamilton Rowan; but he with others
of the association fled to the continent. In the following year the Rev.
William Jackson, a Protestant clergyman, was tried and found guilty, and
in order to avoid the shame of a public execution he swallowed a dose of
poison at the bar of the court. All this tended to prove that Catholic
emancipation, however extensive it might be in its principles, would
never satisfy the people of Ireland. Nevertheless, Earl Fitzwilliam, the
then lord-lieutenant, resolved to try the efficacy of that measure.
That nobleman, indeed, imagined that he was authorised to carry such a
measure into effect when he accepted the office of viceroy. Acting under
this supposition, his first step was to remove from their places
such servants of the government as he knew would be hostile to his
proceedings. Among those he removed was the right lion. John Beresford,
first commissioner of the revenue, whose family had always been ardent
supporters of ministerial measures. But this act gave great offence
to the English cabinet; and as Earl Fitzwilliam refused to alter his
arrangements, it was resolved to recall him. In the meantime Mr. Henry
Grattan brought in a bill into the Irish house of commons for the repeal
of all the remaining disqualifications of the Roman Catholics. This bill
was received so favourably that only three dissentient voices were heard
against it: and, encouraged by it, the Catholics sent a deputation
to the king deprecating the removal of a viceroy who had gained the
confidence of the people. These deputies were graciously received; but
the burden of their petition was not granted: Earl Fitzwilliam resigned,
and Lord Camden was appointed his successor. Lord Camden commenced his
administration under ominous circumstances; for on the 31st of
March, when he was sworn into office, the primate and Lord Chancellor
Fitzgibbon were attacked by a mob on their return from the Castle, and
narrowly escaped with their lives. His unpopularity increased, chiefly
because he as strenuously opposed Catholic emancipation as Lord
Fitzwilliam had supported it. On the 4th of May a bill was brought in
for that purpose, but after a violent debate it was rejected by a large
majority. In order, however, to soothe the chafed minds of the people,
a motion was carried this session for the establishment of a college
at Maynooth for the education of young Irishmen destined for the
priesthood, and who were at this time deprived of the advantages of
foreign universities from the disordered state of the continent; and the
Catholics also obtained permission to study at the university of Dublin.
But these indulgences were not duly appreciated. From this time the
society of United Irishmen rapidly extended itself over the whole
kingdom. They formed, indeed, a new system, combining malcontents of
every class and of all religious persuasions against the government. The
leaders of the society began, in fact, to entertain dangerous designs,
and to form illegal and treasonable connexions with the government of
France. Towards the close of the year, disaffection became so general
that the existing laws were deemed insufficient to repress popular
violences, and the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended, by which the agents
of government were enabled to imprison obnoxious or suspected persons
without any cause assigned, or any time of trial appointed. In the
western counties, government resorted to a measure which nothing but
stern necessity could justify. By an act which passed in January, the
lord-lieutenant and council were authorised, on a petition from seven
magistrates of a county assembled at a session of the peace, to proclaim
that county, or any section of it, to be in a state of disturbance, and
to empower the magistrates to treat all suspected persons as culprits,
and in default of bail to send them on board the fleet. This act also,
which was called the Insurrection Act, enacted that the administering
of treasonable oaths, which was a practice in the society of United
Irishmen, was a capital offence; and that in case a witness was
murdered, which frequently happened, before a trial, his written
testimony should be considered sufficient evidence. While government
was thus grappling with the disaffection which prevailed, a body of men
united under the name of Orangemen, for the purposes of security.
This was natural; but, unfortunately, it only increased the religious
animosities which already existed between the two parties. Government,
moreover, began to embody an armed yeomanry to assist the regular troops
and the militia. In the course of six months this force amounted to
37,000 men, and it was still increasing. But nothing could allay the
fury of the storm that was gathering over the country. The leaders of
the United Irishmen were as active as government; and in a short time
the plan of an invasion was settled between them and the French rulers.
This invasion was the subject of familiar conversation both in England
and Ireland; yet the British government, either doubting or disregarding
the intelligence, neglected to take suitable measures for defence. In
the meantime mutual injuries between the society of United Irishmen and
the Orangemen, many of whom on both sides were desperate and abandoned
characters, engendered a fixed hatred between them; and these
dissensions rapidly increased, till the whole country exhibited a scene
of terror, consternation, and blood. In their encounters the Orangemen
were generally victorious; and in the end, in the county of Armagh,
where the Association was first formed, they succeeded in expelling
several thousands of Catholics from the county. During the latter part
of this year and the commencement of the next, the roads leading from
the city of Armagh presented the most heart-rending scenes: groups
of miserable families were seen endeavouring to escape from their
persecutors into the south and western districts of the country. So
strife and tumult prevailed among brethren.




NAVAL AFFAIRS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN, ETC.

The French government made great exertions to put their navy on a
respectable footing; but all their efforts on the ocean led only to
disaster. On the 28th of February their commander, Rear-Admiral Pierre
Martin, sailed out of the harbour of Toulon with fifteen sail of the
line, six frigates, and three corvettes, having positive orders to
engage the English fleet under Vice-Admiral Hotham, if he met it, and to
drive the English out of Corsica. At that time the Mediterranean
fleet under Hotham, which consisted of thirteen sail of the line, four
frigates, and two sloops, with two or three Neapolitan ships, was
at Leghorn; and the enemy succeeded in capturing the Berwick, of
seventy-four guns, which found itself suddenly surrounded by the enemy.
On discovering the intentions of the enemy, Admiral Hotham instantly
unmoored and went in search of them. The two fleets came in sight
of each other on the 12th of March, between Corsica and Genoa, and a
partial engagement ensued, in which two French ships of the line, the
Ca Ira and the Censeur, fell into the hands of the British, principally
through the skill and courage of Nelson, who commanded the Agamemnon.
This action saved Corsica for the time; but the victory was incomplete;
and soon after, the arrival of six ships of the line at Toulon from
Brest gave the French a decided superiority as regards numbers of ships.
Had they known how to have used it, they might have made themselves
masters of the Mediterranean; for the British navy, though manned by
brave sailors, was not in a condition to withstand a superior force.
On this subject, Southey remarks:—“The British navy had been much
neglected during Lord Chatham’s administration at the admiralty; and it
did not for some time feel the beneficial effects of his removal. Lord
Hood had gone home to represent the real state of affairs, and solicit
reinforcements adequate to the exigencies of the times, and
the importance of the scene of action; but that fatal error of
under-proportioning the force to the service, that ruinous economy
which, by sparing a little, renders all that is spent useless, infected
the British councils; and Lord Hood, not being able to obtain such
reinforcements as he knew were necessary, resigned.” For three long
months the Mediterranean fleet was left in its state of inferiority; but
at length, on the 13th of June, it was joined by eleven sail of the line
and several frigates. Since the recent battle the French admiral had
avoided an encounter, although superior in force; but he now shunned
it more cautiously than ever. Hotham, however, got sight of the French
fleet near Cape Roux; and in a chase which he gave it, succeeded in
capturing the Alcide; the rest of the ships got safely into Frejas Bay.
These were the chief events on the ocean during this year; except by
Nelson, who was detached on some coast service, scarcely another gun
was fired in the Mediterranean. Many encounters of detached ships took
place, generally to the advantage of the English; but the only other
action which occurred was between the Channel fleet, of fourteen sail
of the line, under Admiral Lord Bridport, and a part of the Brest
fleet, consisting of twelve ships of the line and eleven frigates, under
Vice-Admiral Villaret. In this action three French ships were taken; the
rest fled for protection to their own port and their own land batteries.
In the West Indies the English cruizers and squadrons were not so
successful; all their vigilance was not sufficient to foil the daring
projects of Victor Hugues. The French, indeed, recovered the whole of
Guadaloupe, attacked with success the fort of Tiburon, in St. Domingo;
and made themselves masters of St. Lucia; Grenada, Dominico, and St.
Vincent’s were with difficulty preserved. But in these victories the
French revolutionists were aided by the negro population. Victor Hugues
flew from island to island, preaching liberty and equality to the
negroes and all people of colour, and a crusade against the English and
French royalists; and it was chiefly by this means that, the French were
victorious. The African slave learned to adopt the tri-colour flag and
the red cap of liberty, and the British were either butchered, or forced
to flee from the recaptured islands. Under the same auspices, the
Maroons, of Jamaica, likewise commenced a sanguinary conflict with
the English, and did not lay down their arms till they were nearly
exterminated; those who escaped the slaughter consented to be removed to
Canada, where a portion of land was allotted to them.




FRENCH OPERATIONS IN HOLLAND, ETC.

It has been seen that when the Duke of York returned to London, he left
the command of the British troops to Count Walmoden, and that Walmoden
was attacked by the French army on the Waal, under Pichegru. It became
evident that nothing but a hasty retreat could save the British army
from destruction; and, after spiking their guns, and destroying all
the ammunition they could not carry away, on the 16th of January they
retired towards Leek. In his retreat Walmoden was pursued by Pichegru;
but Walmoden, after sustaining several assaults, and after a march of
nearly two months through countries inimical to the British, finally
reached the mouth of the Elbe, when the Duke of York’s army embarked at
Bremen for England. Throughout their whole route it was manifest that
the population of Holland were, in the main, revolutionists; in every
Dutch town and village through which they passed, the majority of the
inhabitants looked upon them as the original cause of the calamities
inflicted upon their country, and took every opportunity of insulting
them in their misery and adding to their sufferings. Now that the
British were departed the feelings of the Dutch were manifested in a
clearer light. Before this, our ally, the stadtholder, and his son, the
hereditary Prince of Orange, had fled for refuge to England, so that the
democrats, which everywhere abounded, had no check in a display of their
principles. Those of Amsterdam planted the tree of liberty in the chief
places of the city, mounted the French cockade, and gave an enthusiastic
reception to Pichegru. Utrecht, Rotterdam, Haerlam, Leyden, Flushing,
Middlebourg, and Bergen-op-Zoom, one of the strongest fortresses in the
world—these all fell into the hands of the French, either by conquest
or by treachery. The States-general, indeed, or as many of them as chose
to assemble at the Hague, issued proclamations, calling upon the people
to admit the friendly troops of the republic; so that scarcely one of
the many fortresses which studded the country, made more than a show of
resistance. Many of them had opened their gates to the republican troops
of France before the Duke of York left the country, and those which
remained in the occupation of the Dutch, or of German troops in the
pay of the stadtholder, for the most part now followed their example.
Holland fraternised with France. A requisition of clothes and provisions
for the use of the republican army, to the amount of one million and a
half sterling, cooled the ardour of the thrifty Dutchmen for a moment;
but it soon returned, on considering the blessings they were to
obtain for their money. They were flattered by a convocation of a
representative assembly, on the principles of equality and liberty: an
assembly which abolished the hereditary stadtholderate, with all the
forms of the preceding constitution, published the declaration of the
rights of man, reversed the sentences passed in a previous year
against democrats, and recalled all those who had been exiled for their
democratical principles. On discovering this movement in Holland, the
English government immediately laid an embargo upon all Dutch ships and
goods in the ports of Great Britain, Ireland, and our colonies; and the
ministry soon took into consideration the important subject of the
Dutch colonies. An expedition was sent out on the 14th of July, under
Vice-Admiral Sir G. Keith Elphinstone and Major-General Craig, who took
possession of the Cape of Good Hope. Instructions were also sent to our
naval and military commanders in the East Indies, to prepare for the
reduction and occupation of the Dutch settlements in that part of the
world; and about the close of the year all the places which the Dutch
held in Ceylon, with Malacca, Cochin, Chinsura, Amboyna, and Banda, fell
into the hands of the British. Other plans were also arranged for the
seizure of the Dutch colonies in the West Indies, and on the coast of
South America. Holland was, therefore, now reckoned among the enemies of
England.

{GEORGE III. 1795–1796}




TREATIES BETWEEN FRANCE AND PRUSSIA, ETC.

Although the King of Prussia had been the first of all the coalition to
assail republican France, yet, in the spring of this year, he concluded
a separate treaty with its democratic rulers. This treaty was settled at
Basle on the fifth of April; and by it the king ceded to France all the
Prussian territory on the left bank of the Rhine, and France restored to
Prussia the territories that her armies had overrun on the right bank of
that river. Both the contracting parties pledged themselves not to grant
a passage to the enemies of the other through their territories; and all
prisoners taken respectively since the war commenced were restored.
All the commercial communications and relations between France and the
Prussian states were re-established by this treaty on the same footing
upon which they stood before the war. At a later date, on the 17th of
May, a supplementary treaty was concluded at Basle, for the purpose of
establishing a line of demarcation and neutrality, in order to remove
the war from all the north of Germany. One link cf the chain being thus
broken, others soon snapped asunder. In the early part of this year
the French met with great success over the Spanish troops, and again
threatened to advance even to the gates of Madrid. Dismayed and
discouraged, and, moreover, urged on by a strong French party, Godoy,
the prime minister, humbly sued for peace. This was granted at the price
of that part of the island of Saint Domingo which the Spaniards had
possessed since the time of Columbus; and the proud monarchy of Spain
with its Bourbon monarch, recognised the French republic, and engaged
to a reciprocity of friendship and good understanding. As a testimony
of amity to his Catholic majesty, the French government agreed to accept
his mediation in favour of the King of Portugal, his relatives and
allies, the King of Naples, the Infanta Duke of Parma, the King of
Sardinia, and the other states of Italy; and to accept his good offices
in favour of other belligerent powers that should apply to him in order
to enter into negociations with the French government. This example
of the kings of Prussia and Spain was followed by the Grand Duke of
Tuscany; and even George III., in his quality of Elector of Hanover,
though he remained the most active member of the confederacy in his
capacity of King of Great Britain, ordered a treaty of peace to be
signed, as far as related to the electorate, as did also the Landgrave
of Hesse Cassel. Moreover, the court of Sweden, and the Protestant
cantons of Switzerland, recognised the French republic, as well as its
dependency the Batavian republic, that is, the United States of Holland.




TREATY BETWEEN ENGLAND AND RUSSIA, ETC.

Ever since the commencement of the war, great exertions had been made
to bring the Empress of Russia into the coalition. That sovereign had
an instinctive dread of the French revolution and its principles; but
imagining that she had but little to gain by becoming a party to the war
in the west of Europe, she constantly declined joining the allies. At
length, however, on the 18th of February, she was induced to consent to
a treaty of defensive alliance with Great Britain; in which treaty,
the contracting parties guaranteed to each other all their dominions,
territories, &c., as well such as they actually possessed, or might
hereafter acquire, by treaty; and agreed, that in case of one of
them being attacked by sea or land, the other was immediately to send
succour: Russia was to send land troops to the aid of Great Britain, to
the number of 10,000 infantry and 2,000 horse, and Great Britain was
to send a squadron of twelve ships of the line to the aid of Russia.
A treaty of defensive alliance, upon the same principles, was also
concluded between the Emperor of Germany and England, the succours on
either side, in case of attack made, being 20,000 foot and 6,000 horse.
But these treaties meant little more than that Russia might, at some
time, require the assistance of an English fleet, and that Austria
would require an English subsidy. Equally unprofitable to England was a
treaty, or agreement, entered into at the close of this year, with the
infidel and piratic Dey of Algiers. This last treaty originated with Sir
Gilbert Elliot, the viceroy of George III. at Corsica. There had been
for a long time a mortal hatred existing between the Corsicans and the
Algerines; and Sir Gilbert Elliot wished to conciliate the latter. By
this treaty, the Algerines were to be permitted to carry their prizes
into the forts of Corsica, and to sell them there; whilst the Corsicans
were to be permitted to frequent the African coast for the coral
fishery, &c., on condition that the Viceroy of Corsica should pay to the
Dey of Algiers 179,000 piastres, and a further sum of 24,000 piastres
for a cargo of grain which had been taken by the English from the
Algerines.




THE CAMPAIGN OF THE ALPS.

During the severity of the winter, the French, who had taken possession
of the Alps, were in a state of miserable destitution from desertion
and sickness, and no measures were taken by the convention to reinforce
them. On the other hand, the courts of Vienna and Turin were making
vigorous efforts for prosecuting the war on the Piedmontese frontier.
All that the republicans aimed at, was to retain possession of the
posts they had gained on the Alps; but, after various actions, they were
obliged to evacuate every position on the maritime Alps, and the allied
armies threatened the country of Nice and the territory of the republic.
If the allies had pushed their advantages with vigour, the republicans
must have lost more; but they, as was their general rule, were sluggish
and irresolute. Nelson, who had been detached with a small squadron
to co-operate with the Austrian general, Devins, and who served on the
coast of Nice, was almost frantic at his sluggishness. A plan had
been formed for getting between the French divisions that occupied the
Nissard territory and a part of the Western Riviera, or coast of the
republic of Genoa, for taking the first of these divisions in the rear,
and for blockading the port and city of Nice. But planning and executing
were two different things. To carry out the plan proposed it was
necessary that the allies should occupy the town and bay of St. Remo;
but when Nelson suggested its capture, Devins, imagining that Nelson
wanted possession of St. Remo for its harbour, argued that the bay of
Valdo, which could be of no service in reducing Nice, was a much better
and safer anchorage. He finally agreed to send 10,000 men to St. Remo,
if Admiral Hotham would send him ten ships of war, and transports
sufficient to carry them; but Hotham declined sending any more ships,
and the plan therefore failed, the old German attributing its failure
to the British admiral. While these divisions paralysed the movements
of the allies, the Alpine legions of the republicans were re-enforced
by 7000 men from the Eastern Pyrenees, and 10,000 from the army on the
Rhine. Moreover, the neutral powers and states assisted France more
effectually than the allies assisted each other. Great as had been the
insults and wrongs which the Genoese republic had suffered from the
French republic in 1794, yet privateers carried abundant supplies of
provision from Genoa to the French armies. Moreover, while the Genoese
senate presumed to claim from the British fleet all the rights of a
neutral state, they allowed all their roadsteads, bays, harbours, and
even the well-defended port of the city of Genoa itself, to be crowded
with French privateers, and men were enlisted in the city for the
French army. Thus re-enforced and supported, Massena, who commanded
the republicans, at length made a general attack on the confederates,
assisted by Generals Scherer and Serrurier. The allies were so supine
that they were not aware of his movements till a cannon-ball, at sunrise
of the 23rd of November, aroused them from their lethargy. The French
general’s great object was to get between the Austrians and Piedmontese,
to cut them off from one another, and then to defeat them in detail: no
very difficult task, as both armies were indiscreetly scattered over a
wide extent of mountainous country. The battle took place among rocks
and precipices, and in the midst of a storm of hail and snow. The
republicans were everywhere successful: the centre and the right wing
were beaten from post to post, and at last put to flight; and the left
wing, though it withstood the shock of assault bravely, was compelled
to flee likewise. It is said that many thousands took to flight who
had never seen the enemy, and some of whom were thirty miles from the
advanced posts. The retreat, indeed, became a rout, and the republicans
captured 5000 prisoners, all the artillery of the allies, and an immense
store of ammunition. This terminated “the campaign of the Alps,” for the
Austrians and the Piedmontese were driven from all that coast, and the
French triumphantly wintered in Vado and Savone.




AFFAIRS OF LA VENDEE.

During this year the pacification of the Vendee was effected. Charette
with a few thousand royalists had, in the winter of 1794, maintained the
contest there, and the princes of Europe looked up to him as the only
man capable of restoring the royal cause. After some slight reverses,
however, Charette listened to overtures made by secret agents of the
convention; and at the end of February, 1795, a treaty of peace was
concluded and signed. It seems probable that Charette was the more
induced to take this step from the moderation recently displayed by the
French government. It soon became evident, however, that neither party
was sincere, that each suspected the other, and that both were preparing
for another struggle. The seeds of inextinguishable discord prevailed
between them, and this promised a future outbreak. Charette, indeed,
seemed, after he had signed the treaty, to be living the life of
a country gentleman; but all the while he was carrying on a secret
correspondence with the Bourbon princes, and receiving supplies from
England to aid him in his future operations. It would have been well
for Charette if money had been all that he obtained from England; but,
unfortunately, a number of emigrants crossed the Channel, and led
him and the rest of the Vendean chiefs on to their ruin. The English
ministry, indeed, embarked 6000 of these exiles in our pay, and a
regiment of artillery from Toulon, as well as arms and accoutrements
for 80,000 men. These were separated into two divisions; and a third,
composed of British troops, was destined to support the whole when they
had landed on the coast of France. The chief command of the expedition
was given to the Count d’Artois, and great hopes were entertained of
success, as the Chouans and Vendeans had engaged, on his landing, to
place 80,000 men at his disposal. Subsequently, however, the Count
d’Artois gave up the command to Puissaye, together with some £10,000
in gold, and several millions of livres in assignats. In expectation
of being joined by numerous bands of royalists, Puissaye took with him
27,000 muskets, powder in abundance, and complete uniforms for more than
20,000 soldiers. All obstacles in the way of transporting his troops to
France were removed by the defeat of the French fleet, from Brest, by
the Channel fleet under Lord Bridport, in which the French lost three
ships of the line, and were obliged to seek shelter with those
that remained in the harbour of L’Orient. Under these auspicious
circumstances, the expedition set sail; and on the 27th of June appeared
in Quiberon Bay, where the troops immediately landed, and took Fort
Penthièvre, situated on a small peninsula, or promontory, which
encloses Quiberon Bay on one side, and which is joined to the main
land by a low sandy isthmus, called La Falaise. The news of the
disembarkation of these troops caused great sensation through all
France; the bravery of the Vendean peasants in their recent conflicts
had been deeply remembered. But by the time they had landed, the whole
of Brittany was enveloped by three or four armies under the command of
Hoche, while General Canclaux, who had collected a large force to watch
Charette, prevented the arrival of any succour from the Vendée. Hoche
took immediate measures to avert the danger. Having disposed a part of
his forces so as to overawe Brittany, he proceeded with 7000 men to the
peninsula of Quiberon, and drove back the royalists to their intrenched
camp near Fort Penthièvre. Here the royalist troops were shut up by the
forces of Hoche; and while in this situation an open rapture took place
between the emigrants and Chouans. Desertions became frequent, no new
royalist troops arrived, and nothing was heard of the forces that had
been promised from Jersey, the Elbe, and the English coast. But had all
these forces arrived simultaneously it would have been to no purpose,
as Hoche and Caudaux had collected such immense forces, and had cast, up
such strong intrenchments on the heights of St. Barbe, which commanded
the sandy isthmus of La Falaise, that no hope could be entertained of
dislodging them. On the 15th of July the English convoy arrived with
some royalist troops from the mouth of the Elbe, under the Count de
Sombreuill; but their total number did not exceed 1100 men, which did
not make up for the recent losses by desertion. Yet, encouraged by their
arrival, before they had well landed, Puissaye detached Vauban with
12,000 Chouans to make a diversion on the right of Hoche’s camp, to
effect a junction with some other insurgents, said to have been gathered
behind the heights of St. Barbe; while Puissaye himself marched from
the narrow promontory, crossed the sandy desert, and boldly attacked the
republicans in front. But all their efforts were fruitless: after some
desperate fighting the royalists once more were compelled to retreat to
their intrenched camp on the isthmus of La Falaise. There was treachery
in that camp. In Puissaye’s army there were Frenchmen who had enrolled
in it merely for the chance of escaping from England, and these now
settled with the republicans, to desert and put them in possession of
Fort Penthièvre. This dark deed was done on the dark and stormy night
of the 20th of July, when a detachment of republican grenadiers having
approached near to the spot, some of these sham royalists who were
on guard betrayed the fort, and assisted in slaughtering their own
comrades. All was lost; the storm prevented the British fleet from
approaching the coast; hundreds perished in the waves, and thousands by
the sword of their own countrymen. Early on the morning of the 21st, the
British frigates worked up to the south-east point of the peninsula, and
received on board, by means of boats, about 2500 men; the rest were made
prisoners or perished, and nearly all the arms and uniforms, with
the ammunition and stores, were left behind for the benefit of the
republicans. Those royalists who were taken prisoners were all marched
off to Vannes, where a sort of military tribunal condemned the Count de
Sombreuill, the Bishop of Dôl, and all the officers and gentlemen taken;
and these being-all shot, the common men enrolled themselves in the
republican army. The broken remains of this expedition were landed in
the isle of Plouat, where they were soon afterwards joined by 2500 men
from England, who gained possession of the Isle d’Yeu; but at the close
of this year the English troops were re-embarked, and both ships and men
returned to England.

In the meantime, as soon as Canclaux weakened his army to strengthen
that of Hoche, and crush the royalist expedition at Quiberon Bay,
Charette resumed the offensive, and had gained several advantages over
the republicans. He looked eagerly for the promised arrival of Count
d’Artois; and on the 10th of October the count disembarked at Isle
d’Yeu. While here a place of rendezvous was appointed, and Charette,
fully assured that the prince would land at the port of La Tranche,
united his forces, dispersed some republican detachments, and cut his
way to within a day’s march of the appointed place. But Charette was
doomed to be disappointed; the count’s aide-de-camp here met him, with
the intelligence that his highness had changed his mind, and would
choose a more opportune moment and a better place for landing. The Count
d’Artois returned to England; and from this time the affairs of the
royalists in the western provinces rapidly declined. The efforts of the
Chouans and Vendeans were, indeed, confined to a species of guerilla
warfare, which, as will be seen, was completely extinguished in the
following year, by the republicans under Hoche. On discovering the
determination of the Count d’Artois the brave Charette saw the extent of
his fate. “My friends,” he exclaimed to those around him, “we are lost;
this is my death sentence! To-day I have fifteen thousand troops around
me, to-morrow I shall not have three hundred.” Charette fell back
immediately from the coast; and he soon had the mortification of seeing
his troops dispersing, and his enemies gathering around him on all
sides. Such was his situation at the close of this year.




ARMIES ON THE RHINE.

During this campaign Moreau commanded the army of the north, encamped in
Holland; Jourdan that of the Sambre and Meuse, stationed near Cologne;
and Pichegru that of the Rhine, cantoned from Mayence to Strasburg. The
contending armies were separated by the Rhine, from the Alps to the sea,
at the commencement of the year; and nothing was done on either side
till the end of June. At that time the old Austrian general, Bender,
who, on the retreat and dissolution of the grand army of the coalition,
threw himself into Luxembourg, was reduced by the republicans to
capitulate; himself and numerous garrison being allowed to retire
to Germany, upon condition or not serving against the French till
exchanged. With the exception of Mayence, the republicans were now
masters of the whole left bank of the Rhine, and of the estuaries
through which the Rhine flows into the North Sea, from Holland to
Strasburg. After the conquest of Holland, as before related, Pichegru
undertook the reduction of Mayence, which was occupied by imperial
and Austrian troops; and, as preparatory steps, he crossed the Rhine,
captured Dusseldorf, and occupied Manheim. At this time Wurmser, one of
the most active and skilful Austrian generals, was advancing with a good
army to effect a junction with Clairfait, succour Mayence, and drive the
French from the left bank of the Rhine. Pichegru endeavoured to prevent
this junction by detaching a division against him; but Wurmser drove
this division back with great loss to Manheim. Soon after this Pichegru
was joined by Jourdan; crossing the Rhine he established himself on the
right bank, opposite the town, to cover the siege and assist in it. But
at this period the balance of fortune suddenly turned in favour of the
Austrians. Being reinforced by 15,000 Hungarians, General Clairfait made
a rapid and skilful advance, took Jourdan by surprise, obliged him
to decamp hastily, and leave part of his artillery behind him, and
harrassed him during the whole of his route to Dusseldorf, and there
compelled him to re-cross the Rhine. Clairfait now threw a considerable
part of his army across the Rhine into Mayence, in spite of the French
lines drawn around it; and on the 29th of October he took those lines,
which had cost the French a year’s labour to construct, by storm;
the republicans were driven from them with a terrible loss, and their
battering train, with most of their field-pieces, were captured.
About the same time Wurmser gained the bridge of the Necker, and drove
Pichegru within the walls of Manheim. Pichegru, having strengthened the
garrison, soon after quitted Manheim, recrossed the Rhine, and effected
a junction with jourdan. During the month of November, Manheim, with a
garrison of 9000 men, capitulated to Wurmser, who then formed a
junction with Clairfait, and the two quickly recovered the whole of the
Palatinate, and of the country between the Rhine and the Moselle.
The Austrian generals formed a project of penetrating once more into
Luxembourg; but their movements were slow, and Jourdan and Pichegru
advanced along the Rhine by forced marches, and kept them in check.
Several obstinate encounters took place; but the winter was fast
approaching, and as both imperialists and republicans were exhausted by
the campaign, it was deemed expedient to agree to an armistice, which
was not to be broken on either side without ten days’ notice, and
during which, each were to remain in the same position they then
occupied.




AFFAIRS AT PARIS.

This year witnessed the close of the empire of the Jacobins. When the
reign of terror was overthrown, there still remained two parties in
Paris to contend for superiority; that of the committees of Jacobins,
which endeavoured to retain the remnant of their power, and that of the
Thermidorians. The Jacobins were still formidable enemies: for four days
after the death of Robespierre they resumed the sittings of their club;
and as they possessed a strong hold on the feelings of the populace, the
Thermidorians saw that it was necessary to rouse themselves into action.
For a long time, however, they found themselves compelled to proceed
with great caution against their antagonists; and had they not been
supported by the _Jeunesse Dorée_, it is probable that the Jacobins
would have been more than a match for them. These young men, after
several encounters, attacked the club at one of its sittings and
dispersed them; and then the commissioners of the convention put a seal
on its papers, by which its existence, and with it the union of the
democratic party, was destroyed. It was immediately after this victory
over the club of Jacobins that the monster Carrier was executed; and the
convention was soon able to effect more humane designs, and to abridge
the power of the revolutionary tribunals. Gradually it proceeded to
abolish unconstitutional measures; and at length, strengthened by the
increasing force of public opinion, which appears to have undergone
considerable reaction, it ventured on the impeachment of Billaud de
Varennes, Collot d’Herbois, Barrère, and Vadier. These were arrested
on the 2nd of March; but their arrest alarmed the other leaders of the
Jacobins, and they prepared to avert the storm gathering over them.
Their plan was to rouse the populace; and their design was aided by
a famine which then prevailed, and by the extreme depreciation of
assignats, which threatened the whole population with ruin. The revolt
was organized in the fauxbourgs, and it broke out on the 1st of April.
The cry of the insurgents was “Bread;—the constitution of 1783, and
the freedom of the patriots.” Uttering this cry a crowd rushed into the
hall of the convention. Everything indicated the approach of a crisis,
and the Jacobins were recovering their former audacity, when, on a
sudden, a large body of the _Jeunesse Dorée_ entered the hall under
Pichegru, and the power of the insurgents was restrained. The convention
now proceeded to energetic measures; the accused leaders were condemned
to transportation, and seven of the Jacobin members were arrested, and
sent to the castle of Ham, in Picardy. But the malcontents were not yet
tranquillized; they organized, indeed, a more formidable insurrection.
This broke out on the 1st Prairial, or the 20th of May, when the
populace of the fauxbourgs, amounting to 30,000, again surrounded the
hall of the convention. This time they committed mischief; the hall was
broken open, the deputy Ferand killed, and his head put upon a pike.
Boissy d’Anglas, who was president, for a long time braved the violence
of the mob; but he was finally compelled to quit the chair. Vernier took
it when he retired, and several decrees, demanded by the populace,
were then passed, These decrees were the liberation and recall of the
deputies lately transported and arrested, the restoration of arms to
the fauxbourgs, the arrest of emigrants and Parisian journalists, the
re-establishment of the communes and sections, and the suspension of
the existing committees of government, which were to be superseded by a
sovereign commission. On obtaining these demands, many of the insurgents
retired; and soon after the hall of convention was surrounded by the
armed sections, who, after a brief struggle, obtained possession of it.
Those deputies who had fled now returned, and annulled the decrees so
recently passed by the minority, and ordered the arrest of some of their
colleagues. The storm lasted several days; but finally the convention
forced the fauxbourgs to submit; some leaders and six deputies of the
“Mountain” were put to death, and the dominion of the populace was
destroyed. Similar scenes were also witnessed in the provinces;
everywhere the Jacobins were hunted down, and those who had practised or
even favoured terrorism, were massacred. The mischief they had brought
upon others, by a righteous retribution, returned upon their own heads.
After their fury had subsided, and their enemies were destroyed or
subdued, the Thermidorians, or the convention, proceeded to form a
new constitution, widely differing from the institutions of 1793. A
commission of eleven had previously been appointed to consider this
subject, and the decision they arrived at was, that two chambers were
necessary: one called the lower chamber, which was to consist of five
hundred members; and the other denominated the upper chamber, which was
to consist of half their number. Both of these were to be elected by the
people, and there were to be five directors, chosen by the two councils,
one of whom was to go out of office every year. The convention saw that
their fate was sealed, for all France had become weary of their sway;
and therefore this directorial constitution was forthwith voted. A
display of public opinion, however, was fatal to its establishment. At
this time the middle class, fearing the return of ochlocracy, and the
noblest patriots of 1739 and 1791, had become re-inclined to monarchy;
and finding themselves the majority of the sections of Paris, they
looked forward to the elections with exultation. This alarmed the
members of the convention; and in order to avert the danger which might
arise to themselves, they decreed that two two-thirds of the members
should be re-elected, and that the convention itself should make choice
of those members. But this dictatorial act met with stern opposition
from the sections; with one voice they declaimed against it, and
petitions and remonstrances were poured in from them to the convention.
The reply made to the sections by the convention was by bringing the
army to its aid; and thus supported, the new constitution and decrees
were declared law. Civil war was now inevitable. The sections rose in
arms to the number of 40,000 men, and prepared to resist the convention.
Thus menaced, the convention assembled several thousand regular troops,
and they also formed out of the republicans a battalion on whom they
could depend in the contest against the royalists. The command of
these forces was given to Napoleon Buonaparte, who, for his exploits at
Toulon, had been appointed brigadier-general of the army in Italy. The
decisive contest took place on the 5th of October, when Buonaparte, by
his artillery, swept the ranks of the armed sections at every point,
so that they were soon utterly routed. In one brief hour two thousand
perished; and some arrests and executions confirmed the victory. By it
the convention was enabled to form the two-thirds of the councils from
their own body, as proposed; and having effected this, on the 26th of
October, it declared its session terminated. It commenced and ended its
career in blood.

{GEORGE III. 1795–1796}




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

During this year the public mind was in such an agitated state, arising
chiefly from the dearness of bread and general scarcity of provision,
and from the successes of the French, which made the war to some extent
unpopular, that ministers convoked parliament for an unusually early
day. It met on the 29th of October; and as the king was going down to
the house of lords to open the session, he was surrounded by a numerous
mob, who with loud voices demanded peace, cheap bread, and Pitt’s
dismissal. Some voices assumed a menacing tone; and when the state-coach
came opposite to the ordnance-office, then in St. Margaret-street, a
bullet, supposed to have been discharged from an air-gun, passed through
the window. His majesty behaved on this occasion with all his natural
coolness and intrepidity; on arriving at the house of lords he merely
said to the chancellor, “My lord, I have been shot at.” A number of
persons were immediately arrested, and carried for examination into
the Duke of Portland’s office; and, waiting the result of these
examinations, no business was done for some hours. At length, having
previously moved that strangers should withdraw, Lord Westmoreland
related in a formal manner the insult and outrage with which the king
had been treated; adding that his majesty, and those who were with him,
were of opinion that the bullet had been discharged from an air-gun,
from a bow-window of a house adjoining the ordnance-office, with a view
to assassinate the king. The rage of the populace was not yet exhausted.
On his return his majesty was again assaulted and insulted; stones were
thrown at him, and there was a good deal of hooting and shouting, and
loud cries of “Bread,” “Peace,” and “No Pitt!” But while one part of
the mob thus assailed him, another part cheered and applauded him, and a
detachment of horse-guards, which arrived as he was passing through the
park, presently dispersed them all. So gross an outrage as this had not
been offered to any other monarch of Great Britain since the days
of Charles the First. A reward of £ 1,000 was offered, to be paid on
conviction of any person concerned in the assault; and one Kidd Wake,
a journeyman printer, was convicted, and sentenced to five years’
imprisonment in Gloucester goal. But his majesty received much
consolation from the assurances of loyalty to his person contained in
the numerous addresses which were presented to him from all parts of the
kingdom.

His majesty’s speech on this occasion made the most of the check
which the French had received from the Austrians on the Rhine. It said
likewise, that the ruin of their commerce, the diminution of their
maritime power, and the unparalleled embarrassments of the French,
induced them to exhibit some desire for peace, and gave assurance that
any disposition on their part to negociate for a general peace, on just
and suitable terms, would be met, on the part of his majesty, with
a full desire to give it speedy effect. At the same time the king
recommended energy, in order to meet the possible continuance of
the war, and the improvement of our naval superiority. An amendment,
proposed by Fox, to the address was negatived.




BILL TO PREVENT SEDITIOUS MEETINGS, ETC.

On the 6th of November Lord Grenville introduced a bill in the house
of lords “for the safety and preservation of his majesty’s person and
government against treasonable and seditious practices and attempts.”
 On the same day a bill was introduced into the commons by Pitt “for the
prevention of seditious meetings.” These bills, which went to restrict
the right of the people to assemble for petitioning the crown and the
legislature, and for discussing political subjects, and which were
therefore almost sufficient to provoke and create the evils they were
intended to prevent, met with a warm opposition in all their stages and
in both houses; but they were carried by very large majorities. Many
members at this time connected a meeting which had taken place in June,
in Copenhagen-fields, with the outrages offered to his majesty; while
others were of opinion that the unchecked harangues of demagogues were
calculated to lead the people into excesses; and therefore ministers met
with more than usual support in these measures.

Beyond this, little was done in parliament before the recess, except the
voting of supplies and receiving information relative to the failure of
the last year’s crop. The number of seamen voted was 110,000, and the
number of land-forces 207,000; and a loan of twenty millions and a
half, including a vote of credit, was granted. On the 8th of December, a
message from the king was delivered to both houses, announcing, not only
the regular formation of a government in France, but a readiness to meet
any disposition for pacific negociations, and to give them full effect.
His majesty expressed a hope, that the spirit and determination of
parliament, added to the recent successes of the Austrian arms, and to
the continued and growing embarrassments of the enemy, might speedily
conduce to the attainment of this object. Motions were afterwards made
in both houses for addresses in reply to his majesty’s message; and,
in the debates, opposition argued that the recent changes in the French
government rendered that nation no more fit to be treated with now, than
it had been at any period of the revolution. The addresses, however,
were carried in both houses by large majorities; and thus a delusive
hope was held out to the people that the war was about to be terminated.
Yet, had they reflected upon the temper of parliament, they could
scarcely have entertained such a hope; for motions made by opposition
for addresses requesting the king to open negociations with the French
government, were sternly objected to by ministers, and negatived. It was
left for the French to make the first advances for peace, and they were
not sufficiently humbled to take such a step; so war continued.




CHAPTER XXIII.

{GEORGE III. 1796–1798}

     Grey’s Motion for Peace, &c. Pitt’s Financial
     Measures..... Prorogation of Parliament..... Negociations of
     Peace..... Military Affairs on the Continent..... Surrender
     of Corsica and the Isle of Elba..... Dutch Attempt to retake
     the Cape of Good Hope..... French   Expedition to
     Ireland..... . Disputes between France and America.....
     Meeting of Parliament..... Pitt’s Financial Statement.....
     Mission of Lord Malmesbury to Paris..... Stoppage of Cash-
     payments at the Bank..... Meeting in the Fleets..... .
     Grey’s Motion for Reform, &c. French Descent on
     Wales..... Battle of Cape St. Vincent..... Battle of
     Camperdown..... The Blockade of Cadiz, &c. War on the
     Continent..... Internal History of France..... Meeting of
     Parliament

{A.D. 1796}




GREY’S MOTION FOR PEACE, ETC.

After the Christmas recess, on the 15th of February, Mr. Grey moved
an address to the king, praying him to communicate to the executive
government of France his readiness to meet any disposition to negociate
a general peace. Pitt in reply said that there was a sincere desire for
peace, if it could be obtained on honourable terms; but that the country
could not break her faith with her allies that remained true to her, or
consent to any arrangement which should leave the French in possession
of Belgium, Holland, Savoy, Nice, &c. The motion was negatived by
one hundred and ninety against fifty. On the 10th of March the same
honourable gentleman moved that the house should resolve itself into
a committee, to inquire into the state of the nation; in his speech on
which he dwelt upon the enormous expenses and hopeless prospects of
the war, and represented our commerce as declining, and the country as
reduced to a state in which it could not bear any more taxes. Pitt and
his friends insisted, however, that the commerce of the country had
increased, and was increasing, and justified the lavish expenditure,
though much of it was unjustifiable. This motion was also negatived; but
a few weeks later Mr. Grey moved a long series of resolutions, charging
ministers with numerous acts of misappropriation of the public money,
in flagrant violation of various acts of parliament, and of presenting
false accounts, calculated to mislead the judgment of the house. The
order of the day was likewise carried against this motion, by a majority
of two hundred and nine to thirty-eight. On the 10th of May an address
to the king was moved in the upper house by the Earl of Guildford, and
in the lower house by Mr. Fox, declaring that the duty incumbent on
parliament no longer permitted them to dissemble their deliberate
opinion, that the distress, difficulty, and peril, to which this
country was then subjected, had arisen from the misconduct of the king’s
ministers and was likely to increase as long as the same principles
which had hitherto guided these ministers should continue to prevail in
the councils of Great Britain. Fox enlarged much on “that most fatal of
all the innumerable errors of ministers,” their rushing into a ruinous
and unnecessary war, instead of mediating between France and the allied
powers. He contended that his majesty, by undertaking the office of
mediator, would have added lustre to the national character, and have
placed Britain in the exalted situation of arbitress of the world. On
the other hand, Pitt insisted that the king could not have interposed
his mediation without incurring the hazard of involving himself in a war
with that power which should have refused his terms. Pitt enlarged on
the danger arising to all Europe from the revolutionary decree of the
19th of November, and the insult offered to this country in particular,
in the encouragement given to the seditious and treasonable addresses
presented to the convention. He contended, that while negociations were
pending, war was actually declared by France, and that France, and
not England, was therefore the aggressor. This nation, he said, had
no alternative; and he asked if the house, after a war of three years,
which they had sanctioned by repeated votes and declarations, would now
acknowledge themselves in a delusion? whether they would submit to the
humiliation and degradation of falsely arraigning themselves, and of
passing on their own acts a sentence of condemnation? Pitt said that it
was a war of which the necessity and policy were manifest; and that if
the country should at any time suffer a reverse of fortune, he should
still exhort them to surmount all difficulties by perseverance, until
they could obtain safe and honourable conditions of peace. On the other
hand, he added, if success should attend our arms, the prospect of
obtaining further advantages should not be relinquished by a premature
readiness to make peace. These arguments were deemed conclusive: the
motions both of Fox and Lord Guildford were lost by immense majorities.




PITT’S FINANCIAL MEASURES.

In the course of this session two budgets were produced, and two loans
contracted, amounting in the whole to £25,000,000. The total supplies
granted for the year were £13,821,430. In order to meet the expenditure
many taxes were augmented, as those on wine, spirits, tea, coffee, silk,
fruit, tobacco, salt, horses, dogs, hats, and legacies to collateral
relatives; the assessed taxes were also increased by ten per cent.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

This session, in which little appears to have been done, terminated on
the 19th of May. In his speech from the throne his majesty expressed the
happy effects experienced from the provisions adopted for suppressing
sedition, and restraining the progress of principles subversive of
all established government; and the highest approbation of the uniform
wisdom, temper, and firmness which had appeared in all then-proceedings
since their first meeting. A few days afterwards parliament was
dissolved.




NEGOCIATIONS FOR PEACE.

In the course of the debate on Fox’s motion, for an address to the
crown, it was stated by ministers that Mr. Wickham, our envoy to the
Swiss cantons, had already had some communication with Barthélémy, the
French negociator in chief, and they urged that these communications
were quite sufficient to induce the republic to treat, if it really had
any pacific intention. Opposition, however, urged that Mr. Wickham
had not done enough to conciliate the French; and thus urged on, Pitt
considered himself obliged to continue the overtures which had been
made. Mr. Wickham asked Barthélémy whether the directory were desirous
to negociate with Great Britain and her allies on moderate and
honourable conditions, and would agree to a meeting of a congress for
this purpose. Barthélémy replied, that the directory sincerely desired
peace, but that they would insist on keeping Belgium, or all the
Austrian dominions in the Low Countries, as they had been annexed to the
French republic by a constitutional decree that could not be revoked. It
was, however, as clear as the sun at noon-day that the directory did not
desire peace at all; or that, if they did, it would be on terms that
could not be accepted. At this very time they were not only meditating a
blow at the commerce of England, by preventing the admission of English
goods into any port of France and Belgium, and into any of the French
dependencies, but they were fostering and entertaining a number of Irish
revolutionists at Paris, and were contemplating a grand expedition
to Ireland, in order to co-operate with the rebellious there, and to
convert that country, as they had done Holland, Belgium, &c., into a
French dependency. Yet, though it was manifest that the French directory
had no desire for peace, in the autumn of this year, Pitt was induced to
renew his overtures. Government applied for passports for an ambassador
to go to Paris; and Lord Malmesbury arrived there on the 22nd of
October. But all negociation for peace was vain. It-lasted for several
weeks; and then, the directors having required Lord Malinesbury to
define what compensation would be demanded for the restoration of the
French colonies, and to state all his demands within four and twenty
hours, his lordship replied that their requisition precluded all further
negociation; and on the next day his lordship was told that he must quit
Paris within forty-eight hours.

In the meantime Pitt had prepared for a vigorous prosecution of the war.
In order to confirm the cabinet in the warlike disposition displayed,
to rouse the national spirit for renewed exertions, and to point out the
dishonour of forming treaties with men notorious for their bad faith, in
the course of this summer Mr. Burke published his celebrated “Letters on
a Regicide Peace.” These letters, and the two others that were published
after his death, are among the most splendid efforts of his mind. In
them he took a different view of the war from Pitt; he thought that
it would be both violent and protracted. At the same time he did not
despair of the final result, provided only a check could be given
to that despondence which had seized upon many minds, and which the
opposition were inculcating and promoting. It was his opinion that
it was essential to success to disclaim all partition of the soil of
France, to distinguish between the government and the nation, and to
declare against the Jacobins, as distinct from the people; that France
ought to be attacked in her own territory, and, in the first instance,
by a British army sent into the Vendée; that it was impolitic to employ
troops and fleets in reducing West Indian islands while the French
armies were overrunning the Continent; and that England, with a force
of nearly 300,000 men, with a navy of 500 ships of war, might make an
irresistible impression on any part of the French territory. This was
the last effort which Burke made to stem the onward torrent of the
progress of the French revolutionists. He had recently endured a severe
calamity in the death of his only son, of whose talents he had formed
the highest expectations, and for whose advancement he had vacated his
seat in parliament; and in the next year he himself was brought to
the grave. He was one of the greatest men of his age; and his views of
political philosophy will go down to posterity as the most enlightened
that ever flowed from a human mind.




MILITARY AFFAIRS ON THE CONTINENT.

During this year France had three objects in contemplation: an invasion
of Germany, another of Italy, and the subjugation of La Vendée.

In Germany the Austrian army was headed by the Archduke Charles of
Austria, with whom was joined the veteran Wurmser. Under them were
175,000 troops, of which 40,000 were the finest cavalry in Europe. They
defended the entrance of Germany on the side of the Rhine; and Jourdan
and Moreau were despatched with 150,000 men against them; the former
approaching the empire by the Upper Rhine, and the latter directing his
course through Suabia. At first the French were eminently successful.
They drove all the Austrian corps back from the frontiers; deprived
them of their magazines, cannon, and arms; and threatened the hereditary
states. Within six weeks the Austrians were reduced by a third of their
original force—partly by loss and partly by drafts out of it for
the service in Italy; and the French armies covered the country from
Stutgard to the Lake of Constance, a line of one hundred and fifty
miles. But at this point their successes ended. Perceiving their error
in thus extending their front, the Archduke Charles narrowed his own,
and gradually bringing nearer to a converging point the separate
forces of Wartensleben and Wurmser, he slowly retreated; watching his
opportunity for striking a blow. At length, when Moreau had captured Ulm
and Donawert, on the Danube, and was preparing to cross the river Leek
into Bavaria, and thence to move onward to the defiles of the Tyrol, the
Archduke Charles fell upon Jourdan at Amberg, and completely defeated
him. This occurred on the 24th of August; and on the 3rd of September
the archduke overtook the republicans again at Maine, where he once more
thinned their ranks. Still pressing on their rear, the republicans fell
into a miserably disorganized state; and on the 16th of September
the archduke came up with them at Aschaffenburg, and drove them with
terrible loss to the opposite side of the Rhine. In the whole, Jourdan
lost 20,000 men, and nearly all his artillery and baggage. Moreau was
too far off to render him any assistance; and he could neither advance
nor maintain himself where he was without him. Under these circumstances
he commenced his retreat with 70,000 men, followed by the imperial
general, Latour, who had not above 24,000 men. Latour, pressing on
Moreau’s rear too closely, suffered a defeat; and the French reached the
banks of the Rhine in safety. Here, however, the Archduke Charles was
ready to meet them with a force equal, or, perhaps, superior to their
own. Moreau was compelled to fight two battles, in both of which he was
defeated; and nothing but a violent storm saved the wreck of his army.
This, and the pitchy darkness of the night, prevented the Austrian
cavalry from acting, and enabled him to get his broken columns on
the safe side of the Rhine. The archduke Charles had therefore saved
Germany.

In Italy the republicans were more successful. The command of the
army there was given to Napoleon Buonaparte; and he arrived at his
head-quarters at Nice on the 26th of March. His army, which was in a
wretched state of discipline, amounted to about 50,000 men, while that
of the Austrians and Piedmontese amounted to about 60,000 men. The
imperial army was under the command of Beaulieu, and was stretched
along the ridge of the Apennines, at the foot of which the French were
advancing. On leading his troops to the Alpine frontier, Napoleon made
the first of his remarkable appeals to his troops:—“Soldiers” said he,
“you are almost naked and half-starved; the government owes you much,
and can give you nothing. Your patience and courage in the midst of
these rocks are admirable; but they reflect no honour on your arms. I am
about to conduct you into the finest plains on earth; fertile provinces,
opulent cities, will soon be in your power; there you will find rich
harvests, honour, and glory. Soldiers of Italy, will you fail in
courage?” Without waiting to be attacked Beaulieu descended from the
heights, and met the advanced guard of the French at Voltri, near Genoa,
which he repulsed. D’Argenteau, who commanded Beaulieu’s centre, at
the same time traversed the mountains of Montenotte, in the hope of
descending upon Savona, and thus take the French in flank; but, when
more than half of his march was completed, he met a French division of
1500 men, who threw themselves into the redoubt of Montelegino, and thus
shut up the road of Montenotte. D’Argenteau attacked this post, but he
was unable to take it; and in the meantime Buonaparte marched round by
an unguarded road to his rear, and attacked and defeated him. This was
the first of a series of victories on the part of the French. Before the
end of April, besides this battle of Montenotte, Buonaparte had gained
those of Millesimo, Dego, and Mondovi, by which he effected a separation
of the Austrian and Piedmontese armies. The King of Sardinia was so
discouraged by his losses, that to procure a cessation of hostilities he
delivered up some of his principal fortresses to the French; and a peace
was shortly concluded, by which he ceded the Duchy of Savoy and the
county of Nice to the conquerors for ever. The reply of Buonaparte
to his negociators was characteristic. He remarked:—“It is for me
to impose conditions: unless you obey, my batteries are erected by
to-morrow, and Turin is in flames.” Having imposed his conditions on
the king of Sardinia, Buonaparte, on the 10th of May, advanced to Lodi,
where he encountered and, after a fierce conflict, defeated Beaulieu.
It was after gaining this victory, as he himself said many years
afterwards, that the idea first flashed across his mind that he might
become a great actor in the world’s drama. In order to obtain the ends
of his ambition, Buonaparte now stretched every nerve. In five days
after the action at Lodi he made his triumphant entry into Milan; and
all Lombardy was at the feet of the conqueror, except Mantua. At Milan
the French had many converts and partisans, and Napoleon received an
enthusiastic welcome; but, notwithstanding all this, he levied immense
contributions, not only on the Milanese, but on Parma and Modena, as the
price of an armistice. Thus the Milanese were compelled to contribute
20,000,000 francs; the Duke of Parma was made to pay 1,500,000 francs;
and the Duke of Modena 6,000,000 francs in cash, 2,000,000 more in
provisions, cattle, horses, etc., and to deliver up some of his choicest
paintings. This regular plunder was called for by the five directors at
the Luxembourg, who were perpetually demanding of Napoleon, money, more
money. How effectually he responded to their demand is shown by his own
statements; for he says, that besides clothing, feeding, and paying the
army during the first Italian campaign, he remitted 50,000,000 of francs
to the Luxembourg. But these harsh terms of the French fraternisation
produced their fruits in an extensive revolt in Lombardy; and at Pavia,
whither Napoleon was compelled to return, it could only be quelled by
energetic measures. With the artillery he battered down the gates
and cleared the streets; after which he gave up the city to plunder,
debauchery, and every species of violence and crime which his republican
army were capable of committing.

Napoleon advancing southward now overran Tuscany, where he showed
how the French directory respected neutrality by taking possession of
Leghorn, and seizing all the goods belonging to the English, Portuguese,
and others, in the warehouses of that great free port. Subsequently
he plundered the states and possessions of the pope; and when Pius VI.
dispatched envoys to sue for terms, he granted an armistice only at
the following price:—15,000,000 francs in cash, and 6,000,000 in
provisions, horses, &c.; a number of paintings, ancient statues and
vases, and five hundred manuscripts from the Vatican; the cession of the
provinces of Bologna and Ferrara; the cession of the port and citadel of
Ancona; and the closing of all the papal ports to the English and their
allies. The spoiler was recalled from this work by intelligence that old
Wurmser was marching against him from the Valley of Trento, with an army
consisting of nearly 60,000 men. Napoleon was besieging Mantua when he
heard of the approach of the German veteran; and drawing his army from
thence, he hastened to meet his enemy. Unhappily for Wurmser’s success,
he had divided his forces; while he himself moved with the larger
portion along the eastern shore of the lake of Guarda, he sent
Quosnadowich with the other division along the western bank. This was
a fatal error. Buonaparte instantly threw the entire weight of his
concentrated forces upon Quosnadowich and crushed him at Lonato; and
then sought Wurmser with a force nearly double to that of the
Austrians; and in two battles, fought on the 3rd and 5th of August, near
Castiglione, defeated him, and drove him back into the Tyrol, with the
loss of his artillery and several thousand men. But though defeated, the
Austrian general was not subdued. Striking across the mountains to the
east of Trento, and descending the valley of the Brente, the old general
again entered Italy, and advanced to Bassano. Here he was joined by some
reinforcements from Carinthia; but Napoleon followed hard after him, and
he was compelled to throw himself into the fortress of Mantua. It was
on the 14th of September that Wurmser shut himself up in Mantua; and
shortly after two fresh Austrian armies, raised chiefly through another
subsidy from England, descended into Italy; one of which, under Marshal
Alvinzi, descended from Carinthia upon Belluno, and the other, under
Davidowich, moved down from the Tyrol. Had these forces been united
they would scarcely have been a match for Buonaparte, whence there
cannot be any wonder that the result was disastrous to the Austrian
arms. Taking advantage of this error, Napoleon, with the mass of his
forces, rushed to meet Alvinzi; and after a series of battles, in which
the French suffered great loss, he finally succeeded in defeating the
Austrian general at Areola. Alvinzi made his retreat upon Vicenza and
Bassano; and on the same day that he commenced this retreat on the left
side of the Adige, Davidowich came down on the right side of that river,
and entered the plains between Pescheira and Verona. His defeat was
inevitable: Napoleon turned against him with forces flushed with
victory; and he was driven back to Ala, Reverodo, and the steep hills
that hang over the pass of the Tyrol. This action concluded what has
been aptly called “the third Italian campaign of the year 1796.”




SURRENDER OF CORSICA AND THE ISLE OF ELBA.

At this time Napoleon felt that the conquest of all Italy was within
his reach. Treaties and the rights of foreign powers, whether neutral or
friendly, were little regarded by him. Thus, in open contempt of both,
he had invaded Tuscany, and had taken possession of Leghorn, his excuse
being the dislodgement of the English. In consequence of this movement
Nelson blockaded that port, and landed a force in the isle of Elba, in
order to secure Porto Ferrajo. Moreover, as Genoa, taking the part of
France, had excluded the English from its ports, Nelson seized on the
island of Capraia, which had formerly belonged to Corsica. But the
British admiral’s vigour was not seconded by the British government;
orders were given for even the evacuation of Corsica itself; and soon
after the British fleet, in consequence of peace being made between
Naples and France, left the Mediterranean station, and proceeded to the
support of Portugal.




DUTCH ATTEMPT TO RETAKE THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.

The Dutch government having determined not to suffer the loss of
the Cape of Good Hope without a struggle to regain it, fitted out an
expedition for that purpose. This expedition anchored on the 2nd of
August in the bay of Saldanha; and at the moment when General Craig was
marching down the coast to meet the invaders, a British fleet was seen
advancing, with a fair wind, to the mouth of the harbour. The English
admiral, Elphinstone, anchored within gunshot of the enemy, and sent a
summons to the Dutch admiral; and seeing that resistance was useless,
he delivered up his squadron without having fired a gun. The prizes
were two sail of the line, three smaller ships of war, and three armed
vessels.




FRENCH EXPEDITION TO IRELAND.

In Ireland the Papists had long sought to overthrow the Protestant
supremacy, while the liberals were anxiously seeking the triumph of
their principles. The disposition which prevailed among these two
powerful parties was known to the French directory; and they were
encouraged thereby to attempt the striking of a blow of no common
magnitude in that quarter. On the 20th of December General Hoche
embarked at Brest with 15,000 troops, to co-operate with the Irish
insurgents; but the fleet, which was under the command of Vice-admiral
Morard de Galles, had scarcely left the harbour when it was dispersed by
a storm. Only eight sail out of eighteen ships of the line reached the
Irish coast, and the weather was so stormy that the French could not
land; and the whole expedition, after having suffered great loss,
was obliged to return to France. One of the line-of-battle ships was
attacked, before she could reach a port, by two English frigates, and
was finally driven on shore, where she went to pieces, and many of the
crew perished in the sea. In the whole, the French lost three ships of
the line and three frigates from the adverse elements; and they narrowly
escaped the attack of a British fleet, under Lord Bridport, who arrived
off the Irish coast immediately after their departure. During the whole
of this year, indeed, the maritime power of France suffered greatly;
and her remaining commerce was much diminished by the exertions of the
British cruisers. Upwards of seventy sail of armed vessels belonging
to the enemy were captured; among which were five ships of the line
and twelve frigates. On the other hand, the French made a successful
expedition to Newfoundland, where shipping and merchandise to a large
amount were captured or destroyed.




DISPUTES BETWEEN FRANCE AND AMERICA.

The new government of France had scarcely commenced operations when it
became involved in a quarrel with America. This dispute arose from the
treaty recently executed between America and Great Britain; which treaty
the directory supposed was inimical to France, and incompatible with
the idea of neutrality. By the treaty of 1778, which was still in force,
the Americans had guaranteed to France their West Indian colonies; but
by the treaty of 1795 they consented that even supplies of provisions
sent to those islands should be treated as illegal commerce. In
consequence of this, the directory affected to regard the Americans as
enemies, and made such depredations on their commerce as amounted to
almost open war. An _arrêt_ also was issued, on the third of July,
ordering French ships of war to observe such conduct towards the vessels
of neutral nations as they had hitherto suffered from the English. Thus
began that oppressive system by which neutral powers were doomed to be
persecuted in the future progress of the war. Towards the close of this
summer, Mr. Monroe, the American ambassador at Paris, was recalled; and
the directory not only refused to receive a successor, but suspended M.
Adet, French resident at Philadelphia, from his functions. Such was the
situation of the foreign relations of the United States in the year when
Washington finally retired from the cares of government, to enjoy repose
in the shades of Mount Vernon, on the banks of the Potowmac.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

The British parliament had been dissolved by proclamation soon after
the close of the last session; and ministers had, in consequence, been
chiefly occupied by the elections. The new parliament was opened by
the king in person on the 6th of October. In his speech, his majesty
repeated his anxious wish for an honourable peace; announced the
intended mission of Lord Malmesbury to Paris for that purpose; and made
allusion to the success of our arms in the East and West Indies, and to
the brilliant campaign of Archduke Charles. Some difference of opinion
existed between ministers and their supporters, on the propriety of
entering upon a negociation with republican France; but, nevertheless,
the usual addresses passed without a division. A clause in his majesty’s
speech declared apprehension of an invasion; and therefore Pitt
recommended the adoption of measures to repel the attempt. He proposed a
plan for augmenting the national force by a levy of 15,000 men from
the parishes, to be divided between the sea and land service; and by
a supplementary levy of 60,000 men for the militia, and 20,000 men for
irregular service, not to be called out immediately, but enrolled and
gradually trained. This plan, after some bitter remarks made by the
habitual opponents of government, and after the alteration of a clause
which proposed to convert gamekeepers into soldiers, passed without a
division. A bill was also brought in and carried by Mr. Dundas, to raise
a militia in Scotland. The total number of land-forces voted for the
year 1797 was 195,694; that of seamen, 120,000.




PITT’S FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

Pitt opened the budget on the 7th of November. The money he required was
£27,945,000; and among the ways and means which he proposed was a loan
of £18,000,000. There seems to have been a universal spirit of loyalty
in the house, for all that was said by Pitt as to the courage and
resources of the nation, and our capability of withstanding the power
of France and our various enemies, was loudly cheered, while Fox, who
opposed him, was heard in dead silence. The propositions were agreed
to, and this loan was soon followed by a second of equal amount, and
including a vote of three millions for the Emperor of Austria. On
opening the budget, Pitt stated that ministers had made an advance of
£1,200,000 to the emperor; and on the 13th of November, Fox moved “That
his Majesty’s ministers, having authorised and directed at different
times, and without the consent and during the sitting of parliament, the
issue of various sums for the services of his Imperial Majesty, and
also for the service of the army under the Prince of Condé, have acted
contrary to their duty, and to the trust reposed in them, and have
thereby violated the constitutional privileges of this house.” At first
Pitt admitted that it was an irregular act, but afterwards he attempted
to bring what he had done within the authority of the ordinary vote of
credit, and endeavoured to find a principle in other discretionary and
indefinite expenditures. Pitt was manifestly in a dilemma; but he was
rescued by the Hon. Charles Bathurst Bragge, who moved as an amendment
to Fox’s resolution, to the effect that the advance made to the Emperor,
“Though not to be drawn into precedent but upon occasions of special
necessity, was, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, a
justifiable and proper exercise of the discretion vested in his
Majesty’s ministers by the vote of credit, and calculated to produce
consequences which have proved highly advantageous to the common cause,
and to the general interests of Europe.” This amendment was carried by a
majority of two hundred and eighty-five to eighty-one.




MISSION OF LORD MALMESBURY TO PARIS.

As intimated by the King in his speech on opening the new parliament,
during the course of the autumn. Lord Malmesbury was sent to Paris to
treat for peace. At this time, however, peace was not easily obtained;
the republicans were too much elated by their success in Italy and their
hopes from Ireland to listen to any pacific overtures with complacency;
and moreover an envoy, despatched about the same time to the court of
Berlin, with an intent, as was supposed, of drawing Prussia again into a
coalition, excited considerable jealousy in the minds of the directors.
Lord Malmesbury’s mission was in fact a complete failure. On his return
his Majesty sent a message to parliament, declaring that the rupture of
the negociation did not proceed from the want of a sincere desire on his
part for the restoration of peace, but from the excessive pretensions
of the enemy—pretensions which were incompatible with the permanent
interests of this country and the general security of Europe. On the
next day the British ministry also published a manifesto, enlarging
on their own pacific dispositions, and setting forth the malignant
hostility of the French republicans. Copies of all the memorials and
other papers relating to the negociation were likewise laid before
parliament, and on the 30th of December the King’s massage was taken
into consideration in both houses. In the commons, Pitt asserted that
the rupture of the negociations was wholly due to the directory, who
demanded, not as an ultimatum, but as a preliminary, to retain all
territories of which the war had given them possession; and respecting
which they had thought proper to pass a decree, annexing them
unalienably to the republic. He continued, “And not content with thus
abrogating the law of nations, as well as previous treaties, they have
offered a studied insult to his majesty by ordering his ambassador to
quit Paris, and proposing to carry on the negociation by reciprocal
couriers. The question then is, not how much you will give for
peace, but how much disgrace you will suffer at the outset; how much
degradation you will submit to as a preliminary? Shall we then persevere
in the war with a spirit and energy worthy of the British name and
character; or shall we, by sending couriers to Paris, prostrate
ourselves at the feet of a stubborn, supercilious government? I hope
there is not a hand in his majesty’s council that would sign the
proposal; that there is not a heart in this house which would sanction
the measure; and that there is not an individual in this realm that
would act as courier.” In private, Fox confessed that this would be the
very worst moment for making a peace with France; but, nevertheless, he
moved an amendment to the address to be returned to the king’s message,
replete with inculpations of ministers for not having concluded a treaty
with the French republic. His friend, Lord Guildford, moved a similar
amendment in the Lords; but both were negatived by large majorities.

{A.D. 1797}




STOPPAGE OF CASH PAYMENTS AT THE BANK.

At the commencement of this year the aspect of public affairs wore a
gloomy appearance. The directors of the Bank of England had recently, on
several occasions, represented to the chancellor of the exchequer their
inability of supplying his increasing demands; and the dread of an
invasion had produced a run upon the bank for specie; so that when Pitt
requested a further advance, early in this year, of £1,500,000 as a loan
to Ireland, he was informed that a compliance with this request would
most likely cause the directors to shut their doors. In this state of
affairs the privy council, on the 26th* of February, sent an order,
prohibiting the directors of the Bank from issuing any cash or specie
in payment till the sense of parliament could be taken, and measures be
adopted for supporting public credit.

     *This was on a Sunday; and it was the first time, during the
     reign of the present monarch   that business had been
     transacted on that day.

This decisive step was announced by a royal message to parliament on the
next day; and the subject was immediately taken into consideration.
It was thought by the opposition that this would crush Pitt; and Fox
exultingly gave notice that he would move for an inquiry into all the
past transactions between the Bank and the minister; and Sheridan,
Whitbread, and others made motions all having one end in view—Pitt’s
overthrow. But Pitt was too firmly seated to be overthrown by his
opponents, however ardently they might seek his downfall. The first step
taken was to appoint two secret committees for ascertaining the assets
of the Bank beyond its debts; and their reports stated that these
amounted to the sum of £3,826.890, exclusive of a permanent debt of
£11,666,800 in the three per cent, stock, due from government; and
also that the demands which occasioned this drain of cash had of late
increased, and that they were likely to go on increasing until the Bank
would be deprived of its means of supplying that cash to government
which it might require. The committees added, that it, was proper
to continue the measures already taken for such time and under such
limitations as should seem expedient to parliament. This report was
taken into consideration by a committee of the whole house; and Pitt
moved for leave to bring in a bill to continue and confirm for a limited
time the restriction of the issue of specie by the Bank of England;
and after various clauses, added by the ministers themselves, this
bill passed. The Bank was authorized to issue specie to the amount of
£100,000, for the accommodation of private bankers and traders; and
bank-notes were to be a legal tender to all, except to the army
and navy, who were to be paid in cash. From this time till 1819 the
circulation of gold coin in a great measure ceased, and notes of one
pound and upwards became the general medium of commercial intercourse.
Pitt’s bill was, indeed, limited in its operation to the 24th of June;
but the restriction was afterwards continued from time to time by a
succession of new acts, so that the return to cash payments did not take
place till the above date, when Sir Robert Peel carried his well-known
bill on that subject.

{GEORGE III. 1796–1798}




MUTINY IN THE FLEETS.

During the sitting of parliament mutinies broke out in the fleet, which
gave far greater alarm than the suspension of cash payments by the
Bank. For some time great dissatisfaction had prevailed among the seamen
respecting their pay and provisions; and in the month of February Lord
Howe received several anonymous letters, praying for his lordship’s
influence towards obtaining an increase of pay, and an improvement in
the quality and quantity of food. At the same time a correspondence was
established between the crews of the different ships, and a committee
of delegates was appointed to obtain a redress of grievances. These
proceedings were conducted with great secrecy; and it was not till Lord
Bridport made a signal to prepare for sea, in April, that they became
known. Then, instead of weighing anchor as the signal imported, the
seamen of the admiral’s ship ran up the shrouds, and saluted the
surrounding ships’ crews with three cheers, to which a long and loud
response was given. It became manifest that the spirit of disobedience
was general; and this was soon shown by action as well as by the voice.
The next step of the delegates was to assemble in the cabin of the
admiral’s ship, and to place the officers in custody, in order to
prevent them from going on shore. A petition to the admiral was drawn
up, and presented on the spot; accompanied with a declaration that, till
the prayer of the petition was granted, till their pay was increased and
their provisions altered, they should not quit their present station,
“unless the enemy was known to be at sea.” On discovering this mutinous
spirit, a committee of the admiralty, with Earl Spencer at their head,
repaired to Portsmouth, with a view of inducing the seamen to return
to their duty. This was on the 18th of April; and five days later the
admiral returned to his ship, when, after hoisting his flag, he informed
the crew that he had brought with him a redress of all their grievances,
accompanied by his majesty’s pardon for their offence. These offers
were cheerfully accepted, and every man returned to his duty. There was
reason for believing that all cause of dissatisfaction was removed; but
there was still mischief lurking behind. On the 7th of May, when Lord
Bridport again made the signal to put to sea, every ship at St. Helen’s
refused to obey, the seamen being under the impression that government
would not fulfil its promises. A meeting of delegates was convened to
be held on board the “London;” but Vice-admiral Colpoys, having
determined to prevent the illegal assembly from being held on board his
ship, ordered the marines to fire upon the boats as they approached; and
five seamen were killed. Irritated by this resistance on the part of
the admiral, the crew of the “London” now turned their guns towards
the stern, and threatened to blow all aft into the water, unless the
commander submitted; and Admiral Colpoys and Captain Griffiths were
both taken into custody by their crew, and confined for several hours in
separate cabins. Such was the state of affairs on the 14th of May, when
Lord Howe arrived from the admiralty with plenary powers to settle all
differences; and as his lordship was the bearer of an act of parliament,
which had passed on the 9th, granting an additional allowance of pay to
the seamen, and also of his majesty’s proclamation of pardon, the flag
of insurrection was struck, and the fleet prepared to put out to sea.
The dangerous spirit of disaffection, however, was not yet subdued.
While these things were transacting at Portsmouth, a fresh mutiny broke
out at Sheerness. This gave little alarm at first, it being supposed
that the terms which had been offered Lord Bridport’s ships, and which
were to be extended to all ships and fleets whatsoever, would satisfy
those fresh mutineers. It was not so. On the 20th of May, many of the
ships lying at the Nore, and soon afterwards nearly all those belonging
to the North Sea fleet, hoisted the red flag, chose two delegates from
every ship, and elected a president, who styled himself “President
of the floating republic.” The demands made by these mutineers were
a greater freedom of absence from ships in harbour; a more punctual
discharge of arrears of pay; a more equal distribution of prize-money;
and a general abatement of the rigours of discipline. Compliance to
these concessions was demanded as the only condition upon which they
would return to their duty. The admiralty, however, gave a decided
negative to their demands; and, with a promise of pardon, insisted that
they should return to their duty and proceed to sea in search of the
enemy. The delegates now demanded that some of the board of admiralty
should come down to Sheerness to negociate with them; and the mutineers
of the “Sandwich,” of ninety guns, Vice-admiral Buckner’s ship, in which
“President Parker” was serving, struck the admiral’s flag, and hoisted
the red flag in its stead; and then all the ships of war which lay near
Sheerness dropped down to the great Nore. Pardon was again offered
them and again rejected on the 24th; and on the 29th a committee of the
admiralty went down to Sheerness, and sent for the delegates, and tried
to conciliate them without yielding to any of their new demands. But
all their endeavours were fruitless. The delegates behaved with great
insolence to the commissioners; and as soon as they returned to the
fleet, the mutineers moored their ships in a line across the river, and
detained every merchant vessel bound up or down the Thames. This was in
effect blockading the port of London; and two vessels, laden with
stores and provisions, were seized and appropriated to the use of the
mutineers. On the 4th of June the whole fleet celebrated the king’s
birthday by a royal salute; and on the 6th they were joined by four
ships of the line from Admiral Duncan’s squadron, making in the whole
twenty-four sail, consisting of eleven ships of the line and thirteen
frigates in a state of mutiny.

In the meantime government was not inattentive to the perilous state of
the country. His majesty’s pardon was offered to such of the mutineers
as should immediatety return to their duty; two acts of parliament were
passed for restraining the intercourse between the revolted crews and
the shore, and for the punishment of any attempt to seduce seamen or
soldiers into mutinous conduct; all the buoys at the mouth of the Thames
were removed; and batteries were erected along shore for firing red-hot
shot. Government was assisted in their efforts to quell the rebellion by
the two divisions of the fleet lying at Portsmouth and Plymouth, each
of which addressed an exhortation to the mutineers, urging them to be
content with the indulgences granted, and to return to their duty. But
their warnings were all ineffectual. The mutineers sent Lord Northesk,
who had been confined on board his ship, the “Monmouth,” with conditions
to his majesty, on which alone, they said, they were willing to
surrender the ships. The terms they demanded were submitted to the king
in council, and were instantly rejected; and all hopes of accommodation
being thus at an end, preparations were made to enforce obedience to
the laws. The bold tone which government assumed, being seconded by
the voice of the people, at length had its effect. Several of the ships
deserted the rebels; in those that remained the well-disposed rose upon
the refractory, and some lives were lost; and by the 13th of June every
red flag had disappeared. President Parker and some of the delegates
were executed, some were flogged through the fleet, and others left
under sentence on board prison-ships, while the mass received his
majesty’s free pardon. This general pardon was proclaimed in October,
after Admiral Duncan’s victory off Camperdown, which will be noticed in
a subsequent article.




GREY’S MOTION FOR REFORM, ETC.

While the country was agitated by the mutiny of the fleets, Mr.
Grey rose in the house of commons to move “for a sweeping reform in
parliament.” This motion was seconded by Fox and others of his party;
but it was lost by a majority of two hundred and fifty-eight against
ninety-three. Not one of the Foxites could have expected that the motion
would pass; but pretending to despair of succeeding in their plan of
reform, Fox and most of his friends seceded from parliament, declaring
that their attendance there was useless. Some of them returned
subsequently to their seats, but none of them attended during Parker’s
mutiny; and from this time till the year 1800 Fox spoke only three or
four times in the house. Sheridan refused to secede; and when the debate
took place concerning the rebellion at the Nore, in defiance of his
party he strengthened the hands of government. The Foxites asserted that
he was acting under selfish motives, and that he was seeking a seat on
the treasury bench with some well-paid place. They might be correct; for
all history shows that the true and disinterested patriot, is of rare
occurrence; all have their own self-interest at heart. No other business
worthy of historical note occurred till the 20th of July, when his
majesty prorogued parliament by a speech from the throne, in which he
declared that he was again engaged in a negociation for peace, and
that nothing should be wanting on his part to bring it to a successful
termination.




FRENCH DESCENT ON WALES.

Early in this year the French sent an expedition of about 1500 men,
mostly criminals and vagabonds, attired as French troops, who landed in
Cardigan Bay. The Welsh peasantry, animated by the gentry, armed with
scythes, sickles, and pitchforks, marched forth to meet the invaders;
and Lord Cawdor assembled a mixed force of seven hundred militia,
fencibles, and yeoman cavalry. This was sufficient. The French
commander, after a short negociation, capitulated to Lord Cawdor; while
the two frigates which accompanied the expedition, were captured
on their return to Brest. Such was the result of this long-menaced
invasion; but in other quarters preparations were made on a more
formidable scale.




BATTLE OFF CAPE ST. VINCENT.

“The year of mutinies” was not altogether inglorious to the British
navy. It was proposed by the republic that the fleets of Holland and
Spain should join the French fleet at Brest, and that the whole armada
should bear down for the coast of England. In order to frustrate this
design, Sir John Jervis was directed to blockade the port of Cadiz,
while Admiral Duncan was sent to watch the Dutch in the Texel. Sir John
Jervis fell in with the great Spanish fleet, under the command of Don
José de Cordova, off Cape St. Vincent, The Spanish fleet consisted of
twenty-seven sail of the line, and the English of only fifteen; but the
greater part of the Spanish crews were inexperienced, and Nelson was
with the English admiral, so that there was no hesitation in engaging.
Four Spanish ships of the line were captured, and all the rest were
driven into Cadiz, and there blockaded. Intelligence of this victory
occasioned great joy throughout the nation; and while the fleet was
honoured with the thanks of both houses of parliament, Sir John Jervis
was created Earl St. Vincent; Nelson was invested with the order of the
Bath; Captain Robert Calder was knighted; and gold medals and chains
were presented to all the captains. The victory was due to the prompt
and daring conduct of Nelson, whose watchword, as he went into the
battle, was “Westminster Abbey or victory.”




BATTLE OFF CAMPERDOWN.

The most complete naval action of this year happened off Camperdown.
On the 11th of October Admiral Duncan, with sixteen sail of the line,
attacked a Dutch fleet, commanded by Admiral De Winter, of eleven sail
of the line and four fifty-six gun ships. The Dutch fought in a very
different style from the Spaniards, ardently contending for the victory.
Admiral De Winter, whose ship was attacked by Admiral Duncan’s, did not
strike his flag before all his masts fell overboard, and half his crew
were either killed or wounded; and when the battle terminated, almost
every Dutch ship was found to be in a disabled state. Eight ships of the
line, two fifty-six gun ships, and two frigates remained as trophies
of victory to the English. This action excited great joy at home; and
Duncan was elevated to the peerage, by the title of Viscount Duncan of
Camperdown. In consideration of this and the other signal victories
that had crowned our fleets, his majesty ordered a general thanksgiving
throughout the kingdom, which took place on the 19th of December.




THE BLOCKADE OF CADIZ, ETC.

After the battle off Cape St. Vincent, Nelson was employed in the
blockade of Cadiz, which he bombarded on the 23rd of June and 3rd of
July. This bombardment, however, produced but little effect; and soon
afterward, owing to an unfounded report that the viceroy of Mexico had
arrived at Teneriffe with treasure ships, Nelson proceeded thither in
search of them. He made an unfortunate attack on Santa Cruz in that
island, which ended in the loss of his own right arm, and also of
about two hundred men. Previous to this, the Spanish island of Trinidad
capitulated to an expedition of six sail of the line, with troops on
board, under the command of Sir Ralph Abercrombie and Admiral Harvey;
but the same commanders were subsequently defeated in an attempt to take
Porto Rico.




WAR ON THE CONTINENT.

At the commencement of this year, Alvinzi, the Austrian general,
re-enforced with 50,000 troops, made great efforts to recover the
fortune of the war. In this he was aided by the pope, who raised troops
for his support. But again Alvinzi had the temerity to divide his
forces; the principal division marching, under his own command, by
the old route from the Tyrol, and the other taking a circuit down the
Brenta, to relieve Mantua. In order to impede his progress Napoleon
posted himself at Rivoli, on a lofty plain above the Adige, between that
river and the Alpine Montebaldo. In this position he was attacked
by Alvinzi; but the Austrian general was repulsed on all sides, and
compelled to take refuge in flight. The other division of the Austrian
army fought its way to the walls of Mantua, but Wurmser sought in vain
to form a junction with it; and in February Mantua was captured by
Napoleon. The conqueror’s vengeance next fell upon his holiness the
pope. Not tarrying even to receive the sword of Wurmser, Napoleon headed
his legions and marched towards Rome. Within eight days one half of the
states of the church were conquered, and the pope had no hope but in
submission. The conqueror granted him political existence, on condition
that he should cede to the republic Wignon, Venaissin, and the legations
of Bologna, Ferrara, and Romagna: he was compelled to pay, also, a
contribution of thirty millions, and to give up more works of art.

The directory saw that another victory would place Austria at its feet;
and in order to ensure this consummation, Bernadotte was dispatched with
30,000 men to re-enforce Napoleon, while Hoche was sent to supersede
Pichegru, on the lower Rhine. Napoleon crossed the Alps early in March;
and he was opposed by the Archduke Charles. But opposition was vain; for
his legions were yet incomplete, and unable to withstand his victorious
enemy. The French penetrated on the one side into Tyrol, and on the
other over the Paive, towards the Carinthian passes. Victory followed
victory; and the conquerors entered Klagenfurt and Laubach, and stood in
Tyrol, at the foot of the Brenner mountains. The main army, driving the
Austrians before them, finally marched into Leoben; and the archduke
retreated as far as Styria. The enemy was now only thirty-six leagues
from the Austrian capital; and the inhabitants were seized with terror
and consternation. But here the victories of Napoleon were stopped for a
season. Jealous of his success, or deterred by dissensions which raged
in Paris, the directory stayed the progress of the armies of the Rhine,
without whose co-operation it would have been imprudent in that of Italy
to advance. Under these circumstances Napoleon sent to the archduke
proposals of peace; and after some delay a preliminary treaty was signed
at Leoben, on the 18th of April. By this treaty Austria ceded to the
republic Belgium and the countries of Italy as far as the Oglio; for
which she was to receive in return the Venetian territory from the Oglio
to the Po and the Adriatic Sea, Venetian Istria, and Daimatia; and when
general peace should be re-established, Mantua and Peschiera. “This
peace,” says Rotteck, “concluded when the hour of great decision was
approaching: more yet, its conditions, unexpectedly favourable to the
vanquished, proved the mutual fear of those that made peace. For
Austria, the fall of Vienna would have been a severe and humiliating
blow. But could Buonaparte advance so far after he actually stood in
danger of being surrounded, and, perhaps, annihilated by the swelling
masses of the enemy? On the one side approached the Hungarian
insurrection army, on the other and around, the Austrian land-storm. But
in Venice a general revolt had broken out against the French, which the
aristocratic government had excited out of hatred towards the democratic
revolutionary system. In this situation a reverse might be ruinous to
Buonaparte: he therefore concluded peace.”

The insurrection in Venice had not been commenced by the aristocracy,
but by the democracy. It broke out in the towns of Brescia and
Bergamo, and the senate, in its turn, raised the mountaineers and the
anti-revolutionary peasants, who proceeded to every species of atrocity:
their watchword being “Death to Frenchmen and Jacobins.” On Easter
Monday more than four hundred Frenchmen are said to have been massacred
at Verona. But the knell of Venice itself was rung. Napoleon having made
peace at Leoben, brought his cannon to the edge of the lagoons, and the
panic-stricken senate and cowardly doge, passed a decree to dissolve
their ancient constitution, and to establish a species of democracy.
Venice fell after a political existence of more than one thousand years.
The aristocracy of Genoa, also, succumbed to the same storm; but they
were permitted to retain an independent government, under the name of
“the Ligurian republic.”

The definitive treaty between the Emperor of Austria and the French
republic was signed on the 17th of October, at Campio Formio, near
Udina. Its conditions were somewhat different from those of the first
treaty: Austria, in recompense for the Netherlands, receiving the
Venetian provinces to the Adige, and not to the Oglio; and Mantua being
retained by the French. In return for these possessions, France obtained
the Netherlands; the Greek islands belonging to Venice in the Adriatic;
an acknowledgment of the Cisalpine republic; and an indemnification for
the Duke of Modena in Brisgau. Some secret conditions were annexed
to this treaty; and it was agreed that a congress should be held at
Radstadt, for settling the peace of the empire.

By these victories France remained in possession of Savoy, Nice,
Avignon, and Belgium. She was also mistress of Italy and Holland,
and could reckon on the dependence of the German empire, owing to the
cession of the left bank of the Rhine. The German empire, abandoned by
Austria, likewise was at her mercy, and tremblingly expected its fate;
while the government of the church and the kingdom of Naples were
tottering to their very foundations. Spain, moreover, with all its
resources, was wholly in the hands of the French. England now stood
alone in the contest; and though she remained mistress of the ocean,
it was deemed advisable to renew pacific negociations with France. Lord
Malmesbury was again sent on this mission; and the city of Lisle was
fixed on by the directory for a conference. But the directory were
not inclined for peace; after continuing at Lisle until September,
exchanging useless notes and receiving many insults, Lord Malmesbury was
ordered to quit the place within four and twenty hours. It was demanded
by the French negotiators that the Cape of Good Hope, and every island
or settlement, French, Dutch, or Spanish, in the possession of Great
Britain, should be given up without receiving any compensation. Such
terms as these were incompatible with the nation’s interests and
safety; whence the failure of this mission. Moreover, there was a
belief existing in France that England was on the verge of ruin; and the
directory fondly imagined that they would one day triumph over her as
they had done over the nations on the Continent.




INTERNAL HISTORY OF FRANCE.

During this year the harmony between the directory and the legislative
councils vanished. The new elections produced this change; for men of a
different spirit were returned by the communes. The royalist party had,
indeed, obtained the control of elections; and the newly elected
third entered the chambers of the representatives with plans of
counter-revolution. The directory had the mortification of seeing the
emigrants allowed to return, the re-establishment of priests, and a vote
of censure passed upon the conduct of their emissaries in the colonies.
The directory were, in fact, shorn of power, and there was a faint
prospect of the whole work of the revolution being set aside. But
the nation was not yet prepared for such a step. As the plans of the
royalists, which were concocted in the club of Clichy, became disclosed,
the government regained strength. From fear of the return of the old
order of things, the patriots of 1791 united with the party of the
convention; and the club of Salm was got up in opposition to that of
Clichy. A contest soon followed. The directory relied upon the armies,
and they assembled some troops in the neighbourhood of Paris; while the
councils decreed the restoration of the national guards. The directory,
however, by one fell blow, annihilated the hopes of their enemies.
On the 10th Fructidor, answering to the 4th of September, troops were
brought to the capital under pretence of a review, and placed under the
disposal of Augereau. These troops surrounded the Tuileries, which
was protected by the guards of the legislative body, which, upon the
question of Augereau, “Are you republicans?” immediately laid down their
arms. The contest was then decided. Augereau took possession of the
palace, and arrested the opposition deputies. Barthélémy and Carnot,
with forty members of the “Council of Five Hundred,” eleven of the
“Council of the Ancients,” and ten other persons of note were condemned
to be deported to Cayenne. Most of these underwent their punishment;
but some escaped, and others were pardoned. Thirty-five journalists
were likewise sentenced to deportation; and the elections of forty-eight
departments were declared null. In the whole one hundred and forty-nine
members were excluded, and the vacancies were filled up by the
directory, with men willing to give them their support. The laws enacted
in favour of priests and emigrants were revoked, and the oath of hatred
to royalty renewed. Thus a revolutionary government returned; and
the constitution was trodden underfoot by men who ostensibly were its
supporters. And all this they called “Liberty.”




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

The British parliament met on the 2nd of November. In his speech his
majesty dwelt on the excessive pretensions of the French; the failure
of the negociations at Lisle; the flourishing state of trade and the
revenue; our naval victories, and our new conquests in the West Indies:
and recommended those exertions which could alone ensure peace. As Fox
and the other great orators of the opposition still absented themselves
from parliament, there was little interest in the debate which followed,
or in any of the debates during this session. The army and navy
estimates were readily passed, and supplies were early voted, to the
amount of £25,000,000. Among the ways and means adopted was the trebling
of all the assessed taxes. This measure met with strenuous opposition
from a few members; but the bill passed by a large majority.




CHAPTER XXIV.

{GEORGE III. 1798–1801}

     Redemption of the Land-Tax, &c. Irish  Rebellion.....
     Invasion of Belgium..... Expedition  to Minorca..... Battle
     of the Nile, &c. Meeting of Parliament..... Income Tax
     sanctioned, &c. Treaty with Russia..... Union with
     Ireland considered..... Prorogation of Parliament.....
     Campaign in Italy..... Campaign in Egypt..... Establishment
     of the Consular Government in France..... Affairs of
     India..... Meeting of Parliament..... Parliamentary
     Discussions..... Union   with  Ireland  completed.....
     Prorogation of Parliament..... Campaign in Italy.....
     Capture of Malta..... Naval Operations..... Meeting of
     Parliament..... Motions for Peace, &c.

{A. D. 1798}




REDEMPTION OF THE LAND-TAX, ETC.

Early this session Pitt proposed and carried a bill for the redemption
of the land-tax. This was followed by a bill, proposed by Mr. Dundas,
for enabling his majesty to call out a portion of the supplementary
militia. A second bill was also carried, to encourage voluntary armed
associations for the protection of the country, it being now considered
as menaced with invasion. Another bill was brought into the house by
Dundas, by which the suspension of the _habeas corpus_ act was revived.
The alien bill also was renewed; and Pitt proposed and carried a measure
for more effectually manning the navy. As in the last session, so
likewise in this, the chancellor of the exchequer found himself
compelled to lay before the house a second estimate of supplies, and to
make a further demand of more than £3,000,000, which was readily voted,
as were also a new increase of taxes on salt, tea, dogs, horses and
carriages, &c. to meet it. Late in the session Mr. Wilberforce renewed
his motion for the abolition of the slave-trade; and though his
proposition was rejected, several regulations were enacted for
alleviating the sufferings of the wretched Africans on their passage.
These were the principal measures taken into consideration during this
session. Parliament was prorogued on the 29th of June.




IRISH REBELLION.

During the sitting of parliament a rebellion had broken out in Ireland.
Discussions on this subject had been entered into with closed doors; and
in the month of June, when the Irish insurgents had attacked and beaten
several detachments of the king’s troops, a message was delivered to
parliament from the king, desiring that he might be enabled to take
all such measures as might be necessary to defeat any enterprise of his
enemies. The chief object of this message was to allow the officers and
privates of different militia regiments, who had made a voluntary tender
of their services to assist in the suppression of the rebellion, to go
to that country and act with the royal troops; and a bill was brought
in and carried for that purpose. The rebellion, which was one of a
formidable nature, had its origin in the association of United Irishmen,
first instituted for obtaining universal suffrage. This association was
afterwards re-organized for the accomplishment of a revolution and
a separation from Great Britain: parliamentary reform and catholic
emancipation being demanded only as pretexts to cover ulterior designs.
A correspondence had long been maintained between the leaders of this
association and the French directory, and notwithstanding the failure of
Hoché, and likewise of a design of another armament, an agent was still
resident in Paris. Application was made to the directory for a loan to
assist the revolutionists; but the French rulers refused to grant it,
unless they were permitted to send sufficient forces to effect the
conquest of the country. It was evident that they wanted Ireland for
themselves; but the Irish “patriots” wanted to rule themselves, and not
to exchange masters; whence they expressed themselves averse to this
plan of invasion. The Irish indeed prepared for an insurrection without
waiting for continental assistance. They had been ripe for rebellion
through a long succession of ages, and no concessions made to them
soothed their chafed minds. Their turbulence had manifestly increased
from the time of the American war, when the Irish volunteers had been
allowed to arm themselves; and, “whether acting wisely or unwisely,
liberally or illiberally—whether granting concessions or withholding
them, nearly every act of government had tended to augment the
disaffection.” For the last ten years concessions had been made to the
Irish catholics, who formed about seven-tenths of the population: but it
was all to no purpose—the more they obtained, the more they wanted. At
length the smouldering embers of disaffection burst forth into a flame.
Early in this year a military commission was appointed by the executive
council of the United Irish, and nocturnal assemblies were held in
various parts of the kingdom. People were, indeed, everywhere sworn
in, and it was finally settled that they should take up arms. Rebellion
commenced by midnight outrages. The most savage atrocities were
committed on those whom the associates were taught to consider as
enemies and interlopers in their domains, which outrages were severely
retaliated by the Orangemen and military. In February, a pressing letter
was addressed by the Irish executive to the French directory, urging
them to send immediate succour, and stating that the people of all
classes throughout Ireland ready to take up arms amounted to 300,000
men. It was soon discovered that mischief was afloat; and on the 28th
of February, Mr. Arthur O’Conner, said to be lineally descended from
Roderic O’Conner, King of Connaught, Binns, an active member of the
London Correspondent Society, and Coigley, an Irish priest, were
arrested at Margate, as they were on their route to France. A paper was
found on the priest, addressed “To the French directory;” and this
paper and the trial which followed put government in possession of many
important secrets. Coigley was executed on Pennenden Heath; O’Conner
was remanded on another charge of high-treason; and Binns was acquitted.
Several arrests took place in consequence of the information thus
gained, and some more papers were discovered in the printing-office
where O’Conner had been publishing the revolutionary journal called,
“The Press.” But the most complete information obtained by government
was from Thomas Reynolds, who was deep in the secrets of the association
of United Irishmen. On his information, warrants were issued against
several of the principal conspirators: as, Messrs. Emmet, Sampson, and
McNevin, and Lord Edward Fitzgerald. The three former of these were soon
apprehended; but Lord Fitzgerald concealed himself for some time;
and when discovered he made such a desperate resistance, killing a
magistrate and wounding others sent to apprehend him, that Major Sirr
lodged the contents of a pistol in his shoulder, from the effects of
which he soon after died. He was the leader of the conspirators. But
notwithstanding his fall, and in spite of the flight or arrest of every
member of the “executive.” the Irish flew to arms on the 23rd of May:
that being the day appointed for their muster. A body of pikemen,
amounting to 14,000, and headed by Father John Murphy, soon made
themselves masters of Wexford and Enniscorthy; and having procured some
artillery, they fortified a position on Vinegar Hill. Colonel Walpole
with a small detachment of Cork Militia fell into an ambuscade, and was
slaughtered, together with nearly all his men, by the insurgents; and
encouraged by these and other successes they made a rush at Newross,
where they began to plunder the inhabitants. But here they received a
check. Like the London rioters, they soon became mad with drink; and
being attacked by General Johnson, nearly three thousand were either
slain or captured. This victory over them was followed by another
more decisive: on the 21st of June General Lake attacked the fortified
position at Vinegar Hill, and carried it with a frightful loss to the
insurgents. The rebels, indeed, never rallied again; and though some
fearful atrocities were committed by isolated bands of them, they were,
in effect, from that time subdued. Soon after, Lord Camden was
recalled from the lieutenancy of Ireland, and he was succeeded by Lord
Cornwallis, who brought with him a general pardon to all who submitted.
Four of the leading conspirators were executed; O’Conner, McNevin,
Emmet, and Sampson were banished; and others were pardoned. The
rebellion was somewhat revived in August, when three French frigates
reached Killola, and threw on shore nine hundred troops of the line,
commanded by General Humbert; but though these troops were joined by
some catholics, and though Humbert defeated General Lake, and advanced
into the heart of the country, he was eventually beaten by the advanced
guard of General Cornwallis, who was marching against him with troops of
the line, and on the 8th of September, the French laid down their arms,
and became prisoners of war. Subsequently, another French armament
reached the western coast of Ireland; but Sir John Borlase Warren met it
there with his squadron, and captured one ship of the line, and three
frigates; and the rest of the armament, consisting of five frigates,
returned to France. On board the French ship of the line was Wolfe Tone,
one of the Irish leaders of the rebellion: his execution was the last on
account of this outbreak. Ireland was again quieted, but it was only for
a brief season. It has ever been its fate to be disturbed by agitation,
and to this hour it remains the same. It is, in fact, a fine field for
the agitator: the ardent passions of the people are easily worked
upon; and he who is bold or artful enough to address himself to
those passions, is ever sure of obtaining a listening and an admiring
audience.




INVASION OF BELGIUM.

In the month of May, after due preparations, Captain Home Popham, with
a small squadron, having on board a body of troops commanded by Colonel
Coote, set sail for the purpose of destroying the sluices, gates, and
basin of the Bruges canal at Ostend. This town was bombarded, and the
sluices were blown up; but on returning to the beach to re-embark, the
soldiers were hemmed in by a superior force, and Coote found himself
under the necessity of surrendering.




EXPEDITION TO MINORCA.

An expedition to Minorca was more successful. In the autumn Admiral
Duckworth’s squadron landed in Addaya Bay in that island a land-force
of about eight hundred men, under General Sir Charles Stuart, which
compelled the Spanish governor to surrender the whole of the island by
capitulation.




BATTLE OF THE NILE, ETC.

The grand aim of the French directory this year was the seizing and
colonizing of Egypt. This idea had been suggested by Vergennes to the
French government during the monarchy, and it had for some time been
entertained by Napoleon. The blow was chiefly aimed at England; for
the project was to gain possession of Egypt, with a twofold design of
obtaining the riches of the Nile, and extending their sway to the banks
of the Ganges, so that the empires of Turkey and Hindustan might become
annexed to the French republic. It was to these ends that Napoleon
proposed an expedition to Egypt; and the directory were well pleased
with it, because if its great object should fail, they hoped thereby
to rid themselves of a dangerous and troublesome rival. But funds were
wanting to carry this design into effect; for though Italy and other
countries had been pillaged by the French soldiery, with a defiance
of all principle or political honesty, yet was the government
poverty-stricken: however, the French directory looked around for some
weak ally or neutral to plunder, and their cupidity was directed towards
free Switzerland. Berne had a well-replenished treasury; and on the
flimsy pretext of its having publicly enrolled emigrants and given
shelter to deserters, a French army, under General Breme, was sent on
the marauding errand of demanding the public purse of its citizens.
Success attended this armed banditti; the ruling families of Berne were
displaced; the government changed; the most respectable senators were
banished; the treasury was confiscated; and large contributions likewise
exacted for the supply of the invading army. The money thus fraudulently
obtained enabled Napoleon to set sail for Egypt. His expedition counted
thirteen ships of the line, with seven frigates and smaller vessels,
making in the whole forty-four sail. The fleet was commanded by
Bear-admiral Brueys, and the transports had on board about 20,000 men,
with a proportionable number of horses and artillery, provisions and
military stores, as well as a lai-ge body of scientific men, who joined
the armament in order to make researches into the antiquities and
productions of Egypt. The capture of Malta was included in the plan of
the French directory, and Napoleon arrived there on the 9th of June;
and Hompesch, the Grand Master, terrified by the threats of some of the
Knights of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem in the French interest,
capitulated on a summons to surrender. Having plundered the churches,
and the Alberghi, and other establishments of the order, and having left
General Vaubois to take care of the island, Buonaparte re-embarked for
Egypt. He came in sight of Alexandria on the 29th of June, and on the
next day the troops landed within three miles of that city. Alexandria
was captured, and from its walls Napoleon issued a proclamation, telling
the inhabitants that he came as the friend of the Sultan, to deliver
them from the Mamelukes, and that he and his soldiers respected God, his
prophet Mohammed, and the Koran. On the 7th of July Napoleon moved from
Alexandria to Cairo, and on the 21st, on arriving in sight of the great
pyramids, he discovered the whole Mameluke force, under Murad Bey and
Ibraham Bey, ready to meet him. Battle was soon joined, and was
easily won by the French. Such of the Mamelukes as escaped destruction
retreated towards Egypt. The conqueror took possession of Grand Cairo,
sending Desaix against Murad Bey in Upper Egypt.

As the French fleet was sailing towards Egypt, it passed near an English
squadron, under Nelson: a thick haze sheltered it from his observation,
and favoured its progress. Nelson had been despatched by Lord St.
Vincent to watch the preparations at Toulon, having under him three
ships of seventy-four guns and four frigates. At the time of the French
fleet’s sailing he had put into the Sardinian port of San Pietro, to
relit his squadron, it having been damaged by a storm. While here, he
received a re-enforcement of ten line-of-battle ships, and one of fifty
guns; and with this force—except the frigates, which had been separated
from him during the storm, he finally set sail towards Naples. Here he
learned that the enemy’s fleet had visited Malta; and being left by his
commander to act upon his own judgment, he formed a plan of attacking
it there. On his arrival, however, he discovered that the French had
already departed eastward, and rightly judging that Alexandria was
their destination, he steered thither. He arrived at Alexandria on the
28th of June, and gaining no intelligence of the enemy, he returned to
Sicily. By the public voice of England, he was declared for this failure
worthy of impeachment; and Earl St. Vincent was censured for sending so
young an officer on so important a service. On arriving at Sicily, the
Neapolitan ministry, anxious to avoid everything which could endanger
their peace with the French directory, declared openly to aid him;
but through Lady Hamilton’s influence at court, Nelson procured secret
orders to the Sicilian governors, under which he obtained all necessary
supplies from Syracuse. As soon as he had re-victualled and taken in
fresh water, he turned his power again toward Egypt, asserting in a
letter to his commander, that if the French were bound to the Antipodes,
or if they were anywhere above water, he would discover them and bring
them to action. He searched for them in vain along the coast of the
Morea, and he took the resolution of again sailing towards Alexandria;
and on the 1st of August, Captain Flood in the “Zealous” signalized the
enemy’s fleet at anchor in Aboukir Bay. No time was lost by Nelson
in preparing for action: he had sought them with eagerness, and he
determined to conquer them now that they were discovered. Signals were
given for battle: to attack the enemy’s van and centre, as they lay at
anchor. Nelson had scarcely taken rest or food for some days, but he now
ordered dinner to be served up; and he observed to his officers as they
rose from the table: “Before this time to-morrow I shall have gained a
peerage or Westminster Abbey.” The enemy’s ships were moored in compact
line of battle, describing an obtuse angle, close in with the shore,
flanked by gun-boats, four frigates, and a battery of guns and mortars
on an island in their van. This was a formidable position, and to some
commanders one which would have deterred from an attack. But it was
not so with Nelson. As soon as he discovered the enemy’s position, his
genius dictated what should be done. Where an enemy’s ship could swing,
he reasoned, there was room for a British ship to anchor. Acting upon
this thought, therefore, he determined to station his ships on the
inner side of the French line. In this way the two fleets joined battle.
Minutely to describe this great sea-fight would require many pages, it
will be sufficient therefore to say, that the victory on the part of the
English was complete. Of the thirteen French ships of the line, eight
surrendered, two struck on the shore and were afterwards captured, one
blew up, and two only escaped. Had Nelson not received a severe wound in
the head in the very hottest of the battle, it is probable that not one
of the enemy’s fleet would have left Aboukir Bay. The British loss in
killed and wounded was 895; the French, 8330 in killed, wounded, and
captured. “Victory,” said Nelson, “is not a word strong enough for such
a scene: it is a conquest.”

The effects of this battle were soon seen in Egypt. The Sultan issued
an indignant manifesto, declaring war against France for invading one of
his provinces in a time of peace and amity; and called upon the Pashas
of Syria to collect their forces. The destruction of the French fleet
was announced far and wide by fires kindled by the Arabs; and on the
22nd of September, the people of Cairo killed a great number of the
French in the streets. This insurrection was put down by a dreadful
massacre of the inhabitants; but the blood of the Moslems thus slain,
and many of them in the great mosque of the prophet, called for
vengeance, and it was easy to forsee that Napoleon, albeit he proclaimed
himself to be the man of destiny foretold in the Koran, would soon be
compelled to retire from Egypt.

In Europe, the effects of this battle were instantaneous and surprising.
It raised the drooping spirits of the Anti-Gallican party in every
country; and it filled all England with transports of joy and triumph.
Nelson was raised to the peerage with the title of Baron Nelson of
the Nile, and many other honours were heaped upon him. He returned to
Naples, where he found that the king was collecting a numerous army,
with a view of driving the French from Rome and Tuscany; that the
congress at Radstadt had been virtually broken up; that the Emperor of
Austria was again arming; and that a new coalition was forming against
the French; their conduct at Rome, in Switzerland, and other countries,
being in direct opposition to the conditions of the treaty at Oampo
Formio. In November the island of Gozo, separated from Malta by a narrow
channel, capitulated to a detachment of Nelson’s squadron, and Malta
itself was closely blockaded.

[Illustration: 294.jpg PORTRAIT OF LORD NELSON]




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament assembled on the 20th of November. In his speech from the
throne his majesty spoke with exultation of the victory gained by
Nelson; and after alluding to other successes, and to the suppression
of the Irish rebellion, congratulated the country on the prospect of
new alliances, by which it might be anticipated that the power of France
would be humbled. This alluded more especially to Russia, where the
Czarina Catherine had recently been succeeded by her son Paul, whose
line of policy was different from that of his mother. The address was
animadverted upon in both houses by some members of opposition; but it
was, nevertheless, carried without a division.




INCOME TAX SANCTIONED, ETC.

During this session the primary objects of parliamentary Consideration
were, financial propositions, with measures for internal defence, for
invigorating the European confederacy now forming, and for effecting
a permanent union between Great Britain and Ireland. The estimated
supplies for the ensuing year were put at £29,272,000; and Pitt proposed
a new plan for raising a considerable part of them—by an income tax. A
series of resolutions to this new and bold plan were passed in the house
of commons before the close of the year; and the bill finally passed
into a law on the 18th of March ensuing, the 5th of April being the
day fixed upon for making the returns of personal property. Pitt’s
resolutions in substance were, that the augmentation of the assessed
taxes made in the last session should be repealed, and have its place
supplied by a duty upon all incomes above sixty pounds a year. If a
man’s income exceeded two hundred pounds a year, he was to pay ten
per cent, upon it; if it exceeded one hundred pounds, he was to pay
considerably less upon it; and if between sixty pounds and one hundred
pounds, he was to be taxed in a diminished proportion. This bill, after
undergoing some amendments of detail, passed; and Pitt anticipated a
revenue from it of £10,000,000, the yearly income of the whole nation
being about £102,000,000. Early in the session 120,000 men were
voted for the navy, and an increase of the yeomanry and militia was
sanctioned.




TREATY WITH RUSSIA.

On the 18th of December a provisional treaty was concluded between
Great Britain and Russia; the general object of which was to oppose
the progress of the French arms. In allusion to this, on the 18th of
December, Mr. Tierney moved, “That it was the duty of ministers to advise
his majesty against entering into engagements which might prevent
or impede negociations for peace with the French republic.” On this
occasion Mr. Canning delivered a master-piece of eloquence, which
inspired the country at large with admiration of his talents. Mr.
Canning entered into a full investigation of our foreign policy,
and vindicated the treaties and alliances made by government. He
remarked:—“It is justly contended that the deliverance of Europe cannot
be effected by our exertions alone, and that, unless other powers are
sincerely disposed to co-operate, we are setting out on a romantic and
absurd enterprise, which we have no chance of accomplishing, no duty
or call to undertake. I perfectly agree, that if other powers are not
disposed to co-operate, we have no chance of success; but I cannot help
asking at the same time, if there be no such disposition on the part
of other powers, where is the use, or what is the necessity of the
honourable gentleman’s motion? Why need parliament interfere to prevent
his majesty’s ministers from taking advantage of dispositions which do
not exist, and from accepting co-operation which will not be offered?
But if the powers of Europe, or any of them, are ready to do their
part toward the common salvation, and want only our countenance
and encouragement to begin; if the train is laid, if the sparks of
resentment, which the aggressions of France have kindled in every
nation throughout Europe, want but our breath to blow them into a
conflagration, it is the dictate of our duty, our interest, our
feeling, to save France from destruction, and not by a coarse and hasty
proceeding, like that now recommended to us, to throw a wet blanket on
the flames.” Mr. Canning proceeded to show how an alliance with Russia
and Turkey might enable us to sweep the remains of the French armament
from the Levant and the Mediterranean, and how the probable accession
of other allies might wrest from the republic both Italy and the
Netherlands, Pitt followed in the same strain, eloquently unfolding the
favourable prospects of another coalition. The picture he drew made a
favourable impression on the house; and Mr. Tierney’s motion was lost.
Moreover, all sums required for Russia were voted, and three millions
more also were granted to his majesty, for making good such other
engagements as he might contract. Soon after this the Porte, Russia, and
Naples signed a treaty of union with England, the duration of which
was fixed for eight years. Their conditions were generally a mutual
guarantee of all possessions, including Egypt in the case of the Porte;
a common prosecution and termination of the war; the closing of all
harbours, and especially those in the Mediterranean, against the French;
with British subsidies to other states. Italy was to be the first field
of action for the allied powers, the design being to save the King of
Naples from French domination.




UNION WITH IRELAND CONSIDERED

{A.D. 1799}

A plan for uniting Ireland under one legislature with Great Britain,
as Scotland, had been discussed and seriously entertained before the
breaking out of the recent rebellion; but that event had made the
necessity of such a union more apparent. The union of England and
Ireland, indeed, was a favourite measure at this time with Pitt; and a
pamphlet was published, under his auspices, by the under-secretary,
Mr. Cooke, setting forth its advantages. The public mind was therefore
prepared to discuss the question; and parliament was soon called upon
to take it into consideration. On the 22nd of January a message was
received from his majesty, recommending the consideration of the most
effectual means of defeating the designs of our enemies to promote a
separation between the two kingdoms, by settling such a complete and
final adjustment as might perpetuate a connexion essential for the
common security, and consolidate the power and resources of the British
empire. This message was reported next day, when Mr. Duudas moved and
carried an address, importing that the house would proceed with all
speed to a consideration of the several interests submitted to their
attention. It was agreed that the question should be considered on the
31st of January; and on that day Pitt, after explaining the grounds
which would make the union as beneficial to Ireland as to England,
proposed certain resolutions as the basis of the measure. Those
resolutions were, that the two islands should be united into one
kingdom, by the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland;
that the succession to the crown should be limited and settled as at
present; that the united realm should be represented by one parliament,
in which a certain number of Irish lords and commons, hereafter to be
defined, should have a seat; that the churches of England and Ireland
should be preserved as by law established; that the Irish should be
entitled to the same privileges, in point of navigation and trade, with
the English, subject to certain regulations relative to equality of
duties; that the charge for payment of the interest of the debt of
each kingdom before the union, should be continued to be paid by the
respective countries; and that all laws in force at the time of the
union, and all the courts, civil or ecclesiastical, should remain as
already established, subject only to such alterations as circumstances
might recommend to the united parliament. After some long and warm
debates these resolutions, with some slight amendments, were agreed to,
and sent up to the peers; and after another warm debate in the upper
house, a joint address to the king was agreed to, presenting the
resolutions as a proper basis for the union. But here, as regarded
England, the matter rested for the present year.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

During the remainder of this session no subject of vital interest
was discussed. Parliament was prorogued on the 12th of July, when his
majesty declared that the decision and energy of his ally, the Emperor
of Russia, and the intimate union established between them, would enable
him to employ the means intrusted to him advantageously, both for
the safety and honour of this country, as well as the independence of
Europe. His majesty also adverted with satisfaction to the restored
tranquillity of Ireland and its future security, intimating that it
could only be insured by a complete union with Great Britain.

{GEORGE III. 1798–1801}




CAMPAIGN IN ITALY.

Before the subsidiary treaty was signed between England and the Emperor
Paul, the court of Vienna had formed a close alliance with the czar; and
Russian troops had begun to assemble on the frontiers of Austria, while
a large German army was collecting between the rivers Inn and Lech. The
great object proposed was to drive the French out of Italy, where their
arms were still making great progress. In November of the last year the
liberation of the states of Italy was undertaken by the King of Naples,
who placed General Mack at the head of his forces. Mack succeeded in
making himself master of Rome; while 5000 troops, conveyed by British
ships, took possession of Leghorn. But this success was of short
duration. In the month of December the Neapolitan troops suffered a
signal defeat at Civita Castellana; and this disaster was followed
by the evacuation of Rome. Nor did the French successes stop here.
Following up their victory, under General Champiounet, by the middle of
January they obtained possession of Naples; and the King of Sardinia was
obliged to take refuge on board the British fleet. He afterwards went
to Palermo under British protection, resigning all his continental
territories to his conquerors, who also soon occupied all Tuscany;
Sicily was preserved from their domination by the energy of Nelson,
assisted by Sir Charles Stuart, who hastened from Minorca with 1000
troops, in order to assist him in measures for its defence.

While Naples was thus falling a prey to the French, Austrian and Russian
troops were collecting on the other side of the Alps. After demanding
from the Emperor of Germany the dismissal of all the Russian troops,
the French negociators declared the congress at Radstadt dissolved. War,
therefore, commenced anew with Austria; and Jourdan once more crossed
the Rhine, and established himself in Suabia. In the month of March
he advanced towards the Danube; but he was again met by the Archduke
Charles, who drove him back over the Rhine. About the same time, also,
the Austrian generals, Bellegarde and Hotze, recovered the Grison
country, and poured into Switzerland, driving the French, under Massena,
before them. In the meantime another Austrian army, commanded by General
Melas, poured through the Tyrol, driving all the French outposts before
him, and entered Upper Italy, where he obliged the French general,
Scherer, to retire beyond the Mincio. Moreau subsequently took the
command of Scherer’s forces; but he was likewise defeated by Melas. It
was while Melas was giving chase to Moreau that Suvaroff came up with
50,000 Russians, and assumed the chief command of both armies. A great
battle was gained by Suvaroff at Cassano, on the 27th of April, and by
that victory the fate of the Cisalpine republic was sealed; everywhere
the people rose in arms against the French; and the native democrats
whom the French had set up as a government, Brescia and Peschiera,
surrendered; Mantua was invested; and Suvaroff entered Milan in triumph.
Moreau continued his retreat towards Genoa, hoping to be joined there
by the army of Macdonald from Naples. But Macdonald was already on
his route to meet the Russo-Austrian army, which he found by the river
Trebia. In his route he had been joined by General Victor; but after
three days’ hard fighting on the banks of the Trebia, he was defeated
by Suvaroff; and flying thence towards the pass of Bochetta, he joined
Moreau, who had recently received some re-enforcements from Nice and
Genoa. Moreau had made some entrenchments on the declivities of the Apeu
nines, and in the entrance of the Bochetta pass, behind the Piedmontese
town of Novi. While here he was superseded in command by Jourdan, who
stationed himself on the same heights behind Novi, and improved and
extended his field-works. He was attacked in this formidable position
by Suvaroff; and his army was defeated and himself slain. Shortly
after this victory Suvaroff struck across the Alps to make head against
Massena, who had recently defeated a Russian corps under General
Korsakoff, who had arrived in Switzerland to co-operate with General
Bellegarde and the Austrians. There was some fearful fighting in the
ravines of St. Gothard, and Suvaroff opened a way into the heart of
Switzerland; but not being assisted by either the Russian general,
Korsakoff, or the Austrian general, Bellegarde, he turned aside towards
the lake of Constance and Germany. He was interrupted in his march
by Massena; but he attained his object, and effected a junction with
Korsakoff; and then the two Russian generals marched to Augsburg,
leaving the French once more absolute masters of Switzerland.

The Neapolitan kingdom was recovered in the course of the months of
June and July by Cardinal Ruffo, assisted by Lord Nelson. A sanguinary
vengeance was taken on the republicans by the Neapolitan government; and
Nelson himself tarnished his fair fame by deeds at which a right-minded
Englishman must shudder, and which no one will venture to palliate. It
had been guaranteed to the republican garrisons that their persons and
property should be respected; but these garrisons were delivered over
to the vengeance of the Sicilian court, and that by the brave Nelson. “A
deplorable transaction,” says his biographer, “a stain on his memory and
on the honour of England! to palliate it would be vain; to justify
it wicked.” Nelson conceived that nothing more was essential to the
tranquillity of Naples than the recovery of Rome; and this he effected
by a small detachment of his fleet, under the able conduct of captains
Trowbridge, Hallowel, and Louis. The French having no longer any hope in
arms soon concluded a capitulation for all the Roman states; and Captain
Louis, rowing up the Tiber in his barge, hoisted the British standard on
the capitol, and acted for a time as governor of Rome.

While the arms of France were thus occupied in Germany and Italy, a
favourable opportunity seemed to offer itself for the liberation of
Holland. A treaty was effected with the Emperor Paul, by which 17,000
Russian troops were engaged to co-operate with 20,000 English troops in
that country. Troops set sail from England in the month of August; find
the fleet, under Sir Ralph Abercrombie, after encountering much bad
weather, came to anchor off the Helder, a point which commands the
entrance of the Zuyder Zee. The troops were disembarked on the 27th,
and on the next day took possession of Helder, the French and Dutch
republicans having abandoned it in the night; and the Dutch fleet in the
Texel surrendered to the British admiral without firing a shot. The main
part of the army destined for this enterprise was still in England,
and the Russian auxiliaries had not yet arrived. Before they received
re-enforcements the invaders were attacked by about 12,000 men; but so
strong was their position on the Zuyp, and so bravely was it defended,
that the assailants were defeated, with the loss of nearly one thousand
men. The Duke of York, with the main force from England, arrived on the
day after this battle; and as the allied troops now amounted to 35,000
men, his royal highness, who superseded Abercrombie in the chief
command, ventured on active operations. The army advanced, on the
19th, in four columns. That on the extreme right, consisting chiefly of
Russian troops, under General De Hermaun, made an unsuccessful attack
upon Bergen. Abercrombie with a column penetrated to the city of Hoorn,
which surrendered; and the two other columns under Generals Dundas and
Pulteney, also forced their way through great difficulties, in a tract
of country intersected with deep ditches and canals. The rash confidence
of the Russians, however, soon exposed the whole army to such danger
that it was compelled to retire to its original position. For some time,
in consequence of tempestuous weather, the invading force was blocked up
by inferior numbers; but on the 2nd of October the British army resumed
the offensive, and commenced an attack on the enemy’s whole line. A
battle was fought at Egmont, which was favourable to the British; for,
although it was indecisive, yet the retreat of the enemy in consequence
gave them an opportunity of occupying several strong positions. The
republican soldiers took up a strong post between Beverwyck and the
Zuyder Zee; and the Duke of York resolved to attack them there, before
their position could be strengthened by fresh works or re-enforcements.
An action took place on the 6th of October, and it terminated so far in
favour of the British and the allies, that they were left masters of the
field; but the loss on both sides was very severe; and the enemy, who
soon afterwards received a re-enforcement, maintained their position.
The allied army, indeed, soon found itself in so critical a situation
from the strength of the enemy, the severity of the weather, and the
indifference of the party of the stadtholder, that the Duke of York
suddenly issued an order for the troops to assemble; and they commenced
a retreat toward Pelleu and Alkmaer. Before the troops could re-embark,
however, the Duke of York was compelled to conclude a convention, by
which it was agreed that the English and Russians should be allowed to
leave Holland without molestation, on condition that 8000 prisoners of
war, French and Batavians, then detained in England, should be released.

{GEORGE III. 1798—1801}




CAMPAIGN IN EGYPT.

It has been seen that Napoleon had entered Cairo, and that his fleet
while there was annihilated in Aboukir Bay. In the month of February he
quitted Cairo, with the intention of dispersing the Turkish forces that
were collecting near the Syrian frontier, and then of conquering all
Syria. Gaza and Jaffa were stormed; the man of destiny, as Napoleon
styled himself in Egypt, swept everything before him until he came to
the walls of Acre. This place, which is the key of Syria, was defended
by the Pasha Djezzar; by Colonel Philippeaux, an emigrant royalist; and
by Sir Sidney Smith, with some of his sailors and marines. It was in
vain that Napoleon attempted to breakthrough the crumbling walls of this
ancient place: sixty days were spent before them, and seven or eight
assaults made; but he was every time repulsed, and after losing three
thousand men, he was compelled to raise the siege and return to Cairo.
During his absence General Desaix had ascended the Nile, and had driven
the remnant of the Mamelukes from Upper Egypt and beyond the cataracts
of Assonau; and soon after his return he was called down to the coast,
where Nelson had annihilated the French fleet, by the arrival of a
Turkish army, amounting to 18,000 men. A terrible battle was fought on
the 25th of July; but the French were victorious—10,000 Turks perished.
Napoleon now began to make secret preparations for returning to France;
and on the 23rd of August he embarked secretly in a frigate, leaving his
army, which was reduced to 20,000 men, behind him.




ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CONSULAR GOVERNMENT IN FRANCE.

The return of Napoleon agitated all France and all Europe. The character
of this bold soldier was, indeed, now well known, and none could tell
what game fraught with blood he next might play. Suspicion was well
founded: Napoleon had designs in view when he returned from Egypt which
time alone could unfold. The fact is, when in Egypt, letters from his
brothers Joseph and Lucien, and from some of his admiring friends,
informed him that Italy was lost; that the French armies were everywhere
defeated; that the directory were quarrelling among themselves; and that
the people, sick of the present state of affairs, were ripe for another
revolution. Here then was another field for the ambitious to play their
part; and Napoleon resolved to return to it. He had arrived in Paris two
days before the directory knew anything about it; and in the meantime he
had been consulting with chiefs of parties and officers of the army as
to what step should be taken. Talleyrand and the Abbé Sieyes gave his
councils the benefit of all their abilities; and a plan of attack upon
the constitution was soon agreed upon. The Council of Ancients were
easily persuaded that a new constitution was wanting; but the Council of
Five Hundred vowed that they would die for that which they had already
got. On the 9th of November it was agreed in the Council of Ancients
that the assembly should adjourn to St. Cloud, and that Napoleon should
put this into execution, being made supreme commander of all the forces
for that purpose. The sitting was then dissolved; and Napoleon instantly
issued two proclamations, announcing his command, and inviting the army
and national guard to aid him in restoring liberty, victory, and peace
to France. In this state of affairs, Barras, Sieyes, and Ducos, three
of the directory, resigned; Moulins and Gohier remained to support the
present constitution. These, however, by the orders of Napoleon, were
guarded in the Luxembourg, so that the directory was in point of fact
dissolved. It remained now for the councils to form a new executive; and
to this end they met at St. Cloud, surrounded by troops. The Council of
Five Hundred swore fidelity to the constitution; and Napoleon resolved
to crush them. At his command the troops entered the Orangery with fixed
bayonets, and the deputies were glad to make their escape by the windows
and through the adjacent woods. On that evening the Council of the
Ancients and about fifty of the scattered Five Hundred abolished the
directory, and established in its place three consuls, who, with two
committees chosen from each council, were charged with the task of
preparing a new constitution. These consuls were Napoleon, Sieyes,
and Ducos, the men who concerted together to bring about this new
revolution. “Thus the French revolution closed its agitated career
almost in the point from whence it set out—in despotism.” All their
hopes of the blessings of liberty were with one fell blow dashed to the
ground by the conqueror of Egypt and Italy—by one man, and he of men
one of the meanest.

[Illustration: 298.jpg LAST EFFORT OF TIPPOO SAIB]




AFFAIRS OF INDIA.

During this year the power of Tippoo Sultaun was destroyed. Recently he
had been encouraged in his hostility by the French, who eagerly sought
to strike a blow at the commercial prosperity of Great Britain. It was
for this purpose that the Egyptian expedition had been undertaken, and
for this purpose likewise alliances were formed with the native powers
of India. In Tippoo Sultaun the French found an implacable foe to the
English—a foe which was ever ready to unsheathe his sword to destroy
them. In order to crush their power and to regain what he had lost in
the late war, Tippoo Sultaun had sent an embassy to Cabul, to bring the
Affghan tribes down into India; he had negociated with the Nizam of
the Deccan and with other native princes; and in 1797 he had sent two
ambassadors to the Isle of France to propose an alliance with the French
republic, and to request a supply of troops sufficient to enable him to
expel the English from every part of Hindustan. The governor of the Isle
of France had no troops to spare; but he forwarded Tippoo’s letters to
France, and allowed his ambassadors to enrol some Frenchmen for his aid.
Some sixty or seventy of these volunteers proceeded to Tippoo’s capital,
where they first set up a tree of liberty, and next proceeded to
organize a Jacobin club. These proceedings soon became known to
the government at Calcutta; and the Earl of Mornington, then
Governor-general of India, determined to anticipate Tippoo. Troops were
sent under Generals Harris and Stuart; and the sultan was defeated
in the route, and compelled to take refuge in his fortified capital.
Seringapatam was besieged, and on the 4th of May was stormed and
captured. Two of his sons were taken alive; but Tippoo fell near one
of the gates, and was found buried under a heap of dead bodies.
His territories were divided among his enemies; the English kept
Seringapatam with the island on which it is situated, the whole of his
territories on the Malabar coast, the district of Coimbatoor, and all
the country that intervened between the company’s possessions on the
western and those on the eastern coast; the Nizam of the Deccan obtained
a more inland country; and another great tract of country was
conferred upon a descendant of the ancient Hindoo rajahs, who had been
dispossessed by Hyder Ali. Thus ended a dynasty which was founded by a
daring adventurer on the ruins of the Hindoo house of Mysor. It began
and ended its career in spoliation and the shedding of blood.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

The British parliament assembled on the 24th of September. The chief
object of this early meeting Was the introduction of a bill for
facilitating the re-enforcement of our regular army, by allowing
three-fifths of the militia of each county to enlist in the regulars,
for service within Europe. This bill passed into a law on the 4th of
October; the remainder of the session, previous to the Christmas recess,
was occupied by commercial and financial matters. The supplies granted
were between six and seven millions; but these were only for the time
being: parliament again separated on the 12th of October.




PARLIAMENTARY DISCUSSIONS.

{A.D. 1800}

On Christmas day of the preceding year, the first consul, Napoleon,
addressed a letter from the ancient palace of the Bourbons to the King
of Great Britain, indicating a desire of peace in these terms:—“How can
the two most enlightened nations of Europe, powerful and strong beyond
what their safety and independence require, sacrifice to ideas of vain
greatness, the benefits of commerce, internal prosperity, and domestic
happiness? How is it that they do not feel that peace is of the first
importance as well as the first glory? These sentiments cannot be
foreign to the heart of your majesty, who reign over a free people, and
with the sole view of rendering them happy. France and England, by the
abuse of their strength, may still, for the misfortune of all nations,
long retard the period of their exhaustion, but I will venture to say,
that the fate of all civilized nations is attached to the termination of
a war which involves the whole world.” The answer given to this letter
intimated, that the French government afforded no ground for trust;
but notwithstanding this repulse, Napoleon made another attempt
at negociation. Talleyrand, in a letter to the British secretary,
vindicated France from the censures contained in this reply; throwing
the blame of war on the league of European powers, and offering a
suspension of arms, that plenipotentiaries might meet at Dunkirk or
elsewhere, as might be agreed upon, for the purpose of making a treaty
of peace. The reply to this communication was equally unsatisfactory as
that made to the letter of the first consul. His majesty expressed his
concern that the unprovoked aggressions of France were defended by her
present ruler; and refused to enter into a refutation of allegations
universally exploded, and, as far as his own conduct was concerned,
utterly groundless. This correspondence was the first subject of
importance which engaged the attention of parliament after its
adjournment; and while the minority animadverted on the precipitancy
by which the door was closed against all hopes of pacification, the
majority approved of what had been done, and it was determined to
prosecute the war with vigour.

On the 17th of February a debate took place on a royal message, in which
his majesty, after stating that he was concerting such engagements with
the Emperor of Germany, the Elector of Bavaria, and other powers of the
empire as might be conducive to the advantage of the common cause in the
course of the ensuing campaign, informed the house that he was desirous
of authorising his minister to make provisionally such advances of money
as might be necessary for this purpose. Pitt declared that £500,000
was all that he required at the commencement; and after some little
opposition, his motion for the grant was carried by a large majority.
Ministers were also equally well supported in a proposal, made by
opposition, for an inquiry into the causes of the disgraces which had
attended the British arms in Holland: it was quashed at once.

The total supplies voted for this year was £47,900,739. The income-tax
was continued; and there was a loan of £21,000,000, including a vote of
credit. For two months 120,000 seamen and 90,000 soldiers were granted,
exclusive of subsidiaries; but for the rest of the year 10,000 were
deducted from each number. On the annual motion for renewing the act for
suspending the _Habeas Corpus_ bill, there was a stormy debate; but
the measure was carried with the usual majorities. An attempt made by
a maniac named Hadfield to shoot the king in Drury-lane theatre, led to
the insertion of two additional clauses in the insanity bill, by which
the privilege of bail to alleged lunatics was abridged, and the personal
safety of the sovereign thereby consulted. Subsequently a committee of
each house was appointed to consider of the most effectual means for
remedying the distress which prevailed at this time, from a scarcity
of corn; and a bill was brought in and passed, prohibiting the sale of
bread which had not been baked twenty-four hours, it being generally
admitted that stale bread satisfied the appetite sooner than new bread.
The Archbishop of Canterbury recommended a series of resolutions in
the upper house, and a voluntary association, by which each of their
lordships should bind himself to lessen the consumption of bread and
flour in his family, by using such articles as might be conveniently
substituted in the place thereof. These resolutions were passed
unanimously in the upper house; and the commons, from a message sent
them from the lords, fully concurred with their lordships. This example
of the lords and commons was followed very generally by the upper
classes throughout the kingdom; and thus effectual relief was afforded
by the simple means of self-denial.

Another measure taken into consideration this session tended to morality
of conduct. Of late the crime of adultery had become very prevalent; and
it was thought by political moralists that intermarriage, permitted to
the offending parties after a divorce, was one fertile source of crime.
A bill was proposed by Lord Auckland to prevent such intermarriage; but
it was rejected by a considerable majority, it being doubted whether
it would prove effectual to the diminishing of the crime to which it
referred.

Among other parliamentary topics discussed this session was that of the
affairs of the East Indies. Mr. Dundas having investigated the state of
its finances, detailed them to the commons; and on the whole, from
his statements, the company’s affairs appeared to be in a flourishing
condition. An act was passed, instituting a high court of judicature for
that of the recorder of Madras.




UNION WITH IRELAND COMPLETED.

The most important act of this session was the completion of the union
between Great Britain and Ireland. At first the resolutions which had
passed the British parliament excited much opposition in the Irish
parliament and throughout the country. When the Irish commons debated
on an address proposed by ministers, in answer to the speech from the
throne in January, 1799, it was carried only by one vote; but on the
15th of January, 1800, a motion made in the same house to declare
their disapprobation of the union, was negatived by one hundred and
thirty-eight against ninety-six. Subsequently the measure of the union
was agreed to by a large majority in the Irish parliament, both in
the lords and the commons. On the 27th of March, indeed, the two Irish
houses agreed in a joint address, informing his majesty that they
considered the resolutions of the British parliament as wisely
calculated to form the basis of an incorporation of Great Britain and
Ireland into one kingdom; that they adopted them as their guide; and
that they now laid before his majesty certain resolutions which they had
agreed to, and which, if they should be approved by the two houses of
parliament of Great Britain, they were ready to confirm and ratify, in
order that the same might be established for ever, by mutual consent of
both parliaments. On the 2nd of April this address was made the subject
of a message from his majesty to the British parliament. In addition to
the resolutions adopted by the British parliament, it was proposed by
the Irish parliament, that the number of Irish peers to be admitted to
the house of lords of the United Kingdom should be four lords spiritual,
by rotation of sessions, and twenty-eight lords temporal, elected for
life by the peers of Ireland; and that the number of representatives
to be admitted into the house of commons should be one hundred. Such
a union as this was opposed in the upper house by Lord Holland, on the
grounds that it would not remedy the discontents of the various classes
of society in Ireland; that it would not insure a redress of their
grievances, but would increase the influence of which they now loudly
complained; that it was offensive to the great body of the Irish people;
and that, if carried into effect, it would endanger the connexion
between the two countries, and probably produce mischief. The measure
was defended in the upper house by Lord Grenville; and on a division
eighty-one peers voted with him, and only two with Lord Holland. In the
commons the union was opposed from the supposition that it would injure
our constitution, inasmuch as the influence of the crown, arising from
places in Ireland being to be concentrated upon only one hundred members
instead of three hundred, it must necessarily be augmented. Pitt denied
that the union would, or that he wished it to have such an effect;
and he contended that the system proposed was calculated to favour the
popular interest. The members for Irish counties and principal cities,
he said, would be sixty-eight, the remaning thirty-two members being to
be elected by towns the most considerable in population and wealth; and
that, as the proposed addition would not make any change in the internal
form of representation, it would entail none of those dangers incident
to innovation. If anything could counterbalance the advantages that
must result from the union, he remarked, it would be the necessity of
disturbing in anyway the representation of England; a necessity which
happily did not exist. He continued:—“In stating this I have not
forgotten what I have myself formerly said and sincerely felt upon
the subject of parliamentary reform; but I know that all opinions must
necessarily be subservient to times and circumstances; and that man who
talks of his consistency merely because he holds the same opinion for
ten or fifteen years, when the circumstances under which that opinion
was originally formed are totally changed, is a slave to the most idle
vanity. Seeing all that I have seen since the period to which I allude,
considering how little chance there is of that species of reform to
which alone I looked, and which is as different from the modern schemes
of reform as the latter are from the constitution;—seeing that where
the greatest changes have taken place the most dreadful consequences
have ensued, and which have not been confined to the country where they
originated, but have spread their malignant influence to almost every
part of the globe, shaking the fabric of every government;—seeing
that in this general shock the constitution of Great Britain has alone
remained pure and untouched in its vital principles;—I say, when I
consider all these circumstances, I should be ashamed of myself if any
former opinions of mine could now induce me to think that the form of
representation which, in such times as the present, has been found amply
sufficient for the purpose of protecting the interests and securing the
happiness of the people, should be idly and wantonly disturbed from any
love of experiment or any predilection for theory. Upon this subject I
think it right to state the inmost thoughts of my mind; I think it right
to declare my most decided opinion that, even if the times were proper
for experiments, any, even the slightest, change in such a constitution
must be considered as an evil.” Pitt proposed the adoption of the
resolutions voted by the Irish house of parliament; and after some
opposition, especially from Mr. Grey, who moved an amendment, which was
lost, they were carried without further delay. All proceedings both in
England and Ireland relative to this great measure were concluded in
the month of June; and on the 2nd of July the act of union received the
royal assent. His majesty declared that he ever should consider this
measure as the happiest of his reign. The Irish session, which had been
prolonged till the bill passed in England for the purpose of ratifying
it was dissolved on the 2nd of August, and with it the existence of the
Irish parliament. On the subject of this union Dr. Miller remarks:—“The
whole history of Ireland up to the union presents a series of events
most curiously combined. Its early period, unhappy as it was, prepared
that party of Roman Catholics which, in the struggles terminated by the
English revolution, was opposed as an antagonist force to the Scottish
Presbyterians, and thus assisted in effecting the adjustment of the
English government. When this important function had been discharged,
Ireland had to prepare itself for entering with advantage into the
general incorporation of a united empire; the preceding period of its
history, however beneficial in assisting to adjust the balance of the
English constitution, having been inauspicious to the domestic interests
of the country. Of that preparation it was a necessary condition that
one of the two parties by which it was distracted should suffer a
temporary depression, so entire that the other should not be embarrassed
or obstructed in its efforts to obtain national independence. The
prosperity, however, thus acquired extended its influence even to the
party by whose depression it had been obtained; and the Roman Catholics,
participating in the advantages of Protestants, rose again to a
political importance, in which they were opposed to the ascendancy of
the prevailing party. A short struggle of rebellion, the natural
result of an ungoverned desire of independence among a portion of the
Protestants, aided by the ancient disaffection of the adverse party,
brought the country into a situation in which the minister was able to
consolidate the empire by the union of Ireland.” It was hoped that this
great measure would have the effect of conciliating the Irish Catholics;
but experience has proved that they are still dissatisfied with the rule
of England. It is evident, in fact, that ages will elapse before
the Irish consider themselves to be “one and indivisible” with the
English—before they are satisfied with the sway of the house of
Brunswick.

{GEORGE III. 1798—1801}




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued on the 29th of July. His majesty’s speech
expressed peculiar satisfaction at the effecting of an entire union
between England and Ireland, he being persuaded that it would tend to
their mutual interests. There were other less cheerful notes in the
royal speech; for the campaign of this year, which had been commenced
with success, had by a sudden reverse ended in defeat.




CAMPAIGN IN ITALY.

It has been seen that the Russian troops had plucked the laurels which
the French had gained in Italy from their brows. Thus situated the
French government sent Massena across the Alps, together with generals
Soult, Oudinot, and Brune, to refix the national banners on the banks
of the Po. Their efforts were vain; Massena was finally driven by the
Austrians within the ramparts of Genoa. Assisted by a British squadron
the Austrians formed the siege of Genoa; and Massena had in a little
time no other alternative but to force his way through the enemy or to
surrender. In this emergency Soult attempted to open the blockade, and
leading on his division he attacked their fortified post of Monte
Creto, and penetrated into the enemy’s camp. But his career was checked.
Recovering from their surprise, the Austrians met the French with
firmness, and they were put to flight. Massena was obliged to
capitulate, and Genoa was evacuated. But here the success of the allied
armies was checked. Giving the command of the Rhine to Moreau, Napoleon
assumed the direction of the army of Italy. A battle was fought in
the plain of Marengo, which annihilated the fruit of all the Austrian
victories in the preceding campaign, and put Italy again under the
power of France. Melas saw himself forced, by the hopelessness of
his position, to the proposal of an armistice as the only means of
deliverance; and it was granted upon these conditions:—that the
Austrians should retreat beyond the Mincio; and that Genoa, Tortona,
Alessandria, Turin, Arona, Coni, Ceva, Savona, Milan, and several
other-cities, with all Piedmont and Liguria, and nearly all Cis-alpinia
should be given up to the French government. The star of Napoleon shone
more brilliant than ever; and leaving the Italian army under Massena, he
returned to Paris to reap the fruit of his conquest.

In the meantime the Austrians had been likewise defeated in Germany.
On the 25th of April Moreau crossed the Rhine upon six points; and
in several battles at Enger, Stockach, and Moesskirch, defeated
Field-marshal Kray, who was now at the head of the Austrian troops. Kray
was compelled to retreat before him; and Moreau finally occupied a large
part of Bavaria as well as Munich. Lecourbe also drove the Austrians
from the Grisons and entered the Tyrol; while on the left another army
of French and Batavians were preparing to penetrate into Franconia
and Bohemia. The court of Vienna now sued for an armistice, which was
granted; and on the 28th of July preliminaries of peace, on the basis
of that of Campo Formio, were signed at Paris. The world now expected
peace. The emperor, however, having received his subsidy from England,
and concluded a new treaty with that power, again unsheathed his sword.
He declared the truce at an end; and both sides prepared again for the
strife. The emperor putting himself at the head of his army, endeavoured
to rouse the whole force of Germany; but the north was kept inactive
by the neutrality of Prussia, and other princes were overawed by the
invaders. Another armistice was purchased by him for the short space of
forty-five days, by the delivery of Philipsburg, Ulm, and Ingoldstadt;
and when this period expired, late as the season was, both parties took
the field. The contest was soon decided. On the 2nd of December a battle
was fought at Hohenlinden, between the rivers Iser and Inn, in which the
Austrians, under Archduke John, were utterly defeated. Moreau advancing
occupied Saltzburg; and the road to Vienna was not only open to his
army, but also to the armies of Brune and Macdonald. In this emergency
the Emperor Francis was compelled to sue for a separate peace, and
the British government obliged to release him from the terms of his
alliance. A treaty was signed in the ensuing February, which ratified
all the conditions of the treaty of Campo Formio, and included several
new articles of an humiliating nature to the house of Austria. Tuscany
was taken away from the Grand Duke Ferdinand and bestowed upon Louis,
son of the Duke of Parma; and the emperor again acknowledged the
independence of the Cisalpine and Ligurian republics, renouncing all
right or pretension to any of those Italian territories, A new and
extended frontier also was drawn for the Cisalpines, the line of the
Adige being taken from where that river issues from the Tyrol down to
its mouth on the Adriatic. Piedmont was for the present left to the King
of Sardinia; and shortly after this monarch, through the mediation of
the Czar Paul, obtained a peace, agreeing on his part to close his ports
against the English, withdraw some troops sent into the Roman states,
and to give up the principality of Piombino, with some other detached
territories on the Tuscan coast. Through the same mediation Italy was
treated by Napoleon with leniency; and Pope Pius VII., recently elected
to the Pontificate, was allowed to retain the reins of government.




CAPTURE OF MALTA.

During this year the island of Malta, which had been blockaded for
more than two years, was surrendered to Major-general Pigot. The French
troops who had defended it were permitted to return to France, on
condition of not serving till regularly exchanged. This was a great
prize, for Malta is the citadel of the Mediterranean, as Gibralter is
its key: from this time it became a pillar of the British throne.




NAVAL OPERATIONS.

The naval operations of England this year were various, though no very
important results accrued therefrom. The small island of Goree on the
western coast of Africa surrendered to Sir Charles Hamilton; and the
British captured the Dutch island of Curaçoa. A squadron was sent under
Sir Edward Pellew to the peninsula of Quiberon; but all that was done
was to destroy some brigs, sloops, gun-boats, and a few trading vessels.
This armament proceeded to the coast of Spain to destroy the arsenal and
the shipping at Ferrol; but it was attended with the same ill-success.
The land forces accompanying it under Sir James Pulteney then joined to
those of Sir Ralph Abercrombie, who, with the Mediterranean fleet under
Lord Keith, was to make an attack upon Cadiz, and to capture or destroy
the Spanish fleet. But this enterprise was given up as impracticable;
and soon after General Pulteney was sent to Lisbon for the defence of
Portugal, now threatened by Spain; and General Abercrombie received
information that his troops were to be employed in Egypt. The year,
however, was now far spent, and it was the middle of December before the
armament arrived as far as Malta.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

In the midst of these foreign reverses—for such many of the events
may be termed—the scarcity of grain still continued in England. The
national spirit was greatly depressed by these circumstances, and
notwithstanding the hand of charity was active in the alleviation of
distress, several riots took place throughout the kingdom. London was
much agitated: but the Lord Mayor, Mr. Combe, by the aid of volunteers,
succeeded in repressing the commotion without bloodshed. In order to
obtain relief, the city of London and other places petitioned the King
to convene parliament; and it assembled in the month of October, and
passed in rapid succession a number of acts, granting bounties on the
importation of foreign corn, enjoining the baking of mixed and inferior
flour, &c. The distillation of spirits from grain was also suspended.
But the hand of private charity did more good than all this legislation:
it was opened wide, and the sufferings of the poor were thereby greatly
alleviated.




MOTIONS FOR PEACE, ETC.

On the 1st of December, after sundry attacks on the foreign policy of
the ministers, Sheridan moved for an address to his Majesty, praying
him to enter into a separate négociation with France, for a speedy and
honourable peace. This was negatived; and on the 4th of December, Mr.
T. Jones moved another address, imploring his Majesty to dismiss his
present ministers; but this was likewise rejected. The supplies voted
were for three lunar months only; 120,000 men were granted for the
service of the navy, from the 1st of January to the 1st of April, 1801.
The king closed the session of parliament on the last day of the year.
His majesty said that the time fixed for the commencement of the union
of Great Britain and Ireland necessarily terminated their proceedings,
and that the Imperial Parliament—as the united parliament was to be
denominated—was appointed to meet on the 22nd of January, 1801. Before
he retired, his majesty ordered the chancellor to read a proclamation,
declaring that the individuals who composed the expiring parliament,
should be members on the part of Great Britain, of the New or Imperial
Parliament.




CHAPTER XXV.

{GEORGE III. 1801–1806}


     Commencement of  the Union with Ireland..... Meeting of
     Parliament..... Resignation of Mr. Pitt, &c. The New
     Ministry..... Motion for an Inquiry into the State of the
     Nation..... Parliamentary Measures..... War with the
     Northern Powers..... Dissolution of the Northern
     Confederacy..... Expedition to Egypt..... Affairs on the
     Continent..... Naval Operations..... Treaty of Amiens.....
     Meeting of Parliament..... Parliamentary Measures.....
     Preparations for Hostility..... Meeting of the New
     Parliament..... Trial of Colonel   Despard.....
     Parliamentary  Proceedings..... Act to  Relieve Catholics,
     &c. War Proclaimed with France..... The Causes for the
     renewal of War with France..... War with Holland.....
     Militia Bill, &c. Financial Measures..... Prorogation
     of Parliament..... Insurrection in Ireland..... Letter of
     the Prince of Wales..... Movements of the French..... Naval
     Conquests..... East India Affairs..... Meeting of
     Parliament.




COMMENCEMENT OF THE UNION WITH IRELAND.

{A.D. 1801}

On the 1st of January a royal proclamation was issued, concerning the
style and titles appertaining to the imperial crown of Great Britain and
Ireland; and also to the ensigns, armorial flags, and banners thereof.
The regal title was thus expressed:—“George the Third, by the Grace of
God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland King,
Defender of the Faith.” The great seal was made in conformity with the
alterations made in the titles and arms. In the new heraldic arrangement
the _fleur de lis_ was omitted, and the title of the King of France
wisely expunged. The arms or ensigns armorial were ordered to be
quarterly:—first and fourth England, second Scotland, third Ireland.
In honour of the union, many new titles were conferred on the Irish
nobility, and several of them were created peers of the United Kingdom.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

The first imperial parliament was opened by commission on the 22nd of
January. The king did not meet his parliament till the 2nd of February,
when, in his speech from the throne, after adverting to the happy
accomplishment of the union, and to the adverse course of events on
the continent, he announced a fresh storm in the north. The court of
Petersburgh, he said, had proceeded to commit outrages against the
ships, property, and persons of his subjects; and a convention had been
concluded by that court with those of Copenhagen and Stockholm, by
which they were engaged to re-establish a new code of maritime law,
inconsistent with the rights and hostile to the best interests of the
country. His majesty stated that he had taken the earliest measures
to repel the aggressions of this confederacy, and he called upon both
houses of parliament to afford him the aid required in the emergency.
The debates which ensued were of an interesting character. In both
houses opposition recommended conciliatory measures; and some even
proposed the suspension of the right of search we claimed at sea, or a
tacit assent to the principles of the armed neutrality, on the ground
that terrible consequences would attend the closing of the corn-ports on
the Baltic in this season of scarcity. In the upper house an amendment
to the address was moved by Earl Fitzwilliam; but on a division the
address was carried. Mr. Grey was the chief opposer of the address in
the commons; he likewise moved an amendment; but the address was there
carried by a majority of one hundred and eighty-two. Preparations were,
therefore, now made for sending the British fleet into the Baltic; and
this, it will be seen, together with the death of the Czar Paul, soon
put an end to this coalition.




RESIGNATION OF MR. PITT, ETC.

In bringing about the union of England and Ireland, Pitt had given
assurances to the Irish Catholics of a complete participation in
political privileges, as soon as that union should take place. This
proposition was submitted to the cabinet-council, some of the members of
which expressed their dissent to the measure. But its chief opposer was
the king, who alleged that the coronation oath precluded his compliance
with a scheme which might endanger the ecclesiastical establishment.
Under these circumstances Pitt felt bound to retire from the
administration; for although his majesty promised not to use his
influence in obstructing the progress of the measure through parliament,
it was manifest, that as he was known to be adverse to it, there would
be no chance of success. On the resignation of Mr. Pitt, his majesty
entrusted the formation of a new cabinet to Mr. Addington, who resigned
his post for that purpose. On account of financial arrangements,
however, and the difficulty of settling the new appointments, Mr. Pitt
consented to remain at his post a little longer. His majesty a few days
after was taken ill; and it appears that his indisposition was a return
of his former malady, brought on by the Catholic question and the
resignation of the premier. This caused him to remain at his post still
longer, and then further delay was occasioned. On the 18th of February
the house resolved itself into a committee of supply. The sum required
was £42,197,000 of which Ireland was to pay £4,324,000, and England
the remainder. To raise this, recourse was had to the old system:
£25,000,000 was borrowed, and the rest was raised by taxes, some of
which were newly imposed. Besides the money borrowed for England, it
was found necessary to borrow about £2,500,000 for Ireland. These
resolutions being agreed to, with some slight alterations, Pitt, on
the 14th of March, resigned office; and he was accompanied in his
resignation by Dunclas, Earl Spencer, Lord Grenville, and Windham; and
other changes took place shortly after. In the lords, the reasons of
their resignation were thuss given by Lord Grenville:—“We wished that
the benefits of the union should be rendered as great and extensive as
possible, by the removal of certain disabilities under which a great
portion of the inhabitants of Ireland laboured. Imagining that this
measure could only be effectual by coming from the executive government,
we felt it our duty to propose it to those who direct his majesty’s
councils: it was not deemed eligible, and we were unable to prevail. As
our opinion of its policy remained unaltered, and we still think this
measure alone capable of establishing the tranquillity and prosperity of
the empire on a permanent basis, we consider ourselves bound to retire.
Accordingly we have tendered to his majesty the resignation of our
several employments, and he has been graciously pleased to dispense with
our services.” By Pitt’s enemies it was said, that his delicacy about
his pledged faith to the Irish, and his sense of the justice and
expediency of granting Catholic emancipation were but pretexts; and that
the real cause of his resignation was the tardy conviction that he had
involved the country in a labyrinth from which he had not the power to
extricate it—being too weak to carry on the war, and too proud to make
peace with the French. These imaginings were not founded in justice.
Pitt, up to the period of the union, had uniformly opposed Catholic
emancipation; but he now thought conscientiously that it ought to be
carried into effect, in order to make the union complete. As for being
dismayed at the hostile array in the north or in any part of Europe, it
does not appear at all probable. Almost the last words of Pitt before he
resigned office were full of hope and confidence: “he was convinced,”
 he said, “that the British fleet would, with one blow, shatter the
coalition of the north.” There is no reason, in truth, for doubting the
word of Pitt that the question of Catholic emancipation was the real
cause of his resignation. How far he was implicated in the question, and
to what extent he stood pledged, is not fully known; but that was the
rock on which Pitt’s ministry foundered their bark.




THE NEW MINISTRY.

The new ministry when formed consisted of Mr. Addington, first lord
of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer, the Duke of Portland,
president of the council; Lord Eldon, chancellor; Earl St. Vincent,
first lord of the admiralty; the Earl of Chatham, master general of
the ordnance; Lord Pelham, secretary for the home department; Lord
Hawkesbury, secretary for foreign affairs; Lord Hobart, secretary for
the colonies; Viscount Lewisham, president of the board of control for
the affairs of India; Mr. Yorke, secretary of war, &c. In this general
change, indeed, the Duke of Portland and Lord Westmoreland alone
retained their seats in the cabinet, the former as president of the
council, the latter as lord privy seal. The sentiments which the new
ministry maintained were made known by Lord Grenville in his explanation
before mentioned. After commenting on the effect of past exertions, his
lordship remarked:—“It is our consolation to reflect, that the same
vigorous line of conduct will be still pursued; no change of measure
will take place; but the system which has already proved so salutary
will be maintained by our successors.” This proved true; although some
supposed that they would seek peace, it was soon discovered that war
was to be continued. Addington professed anti-warlike sentiments, but he
found there was no alternative but to continue the contest.




MOTION FOR AN INQUIRY INTO THE STATE OF THE NATION.

A motion was made both in the lords and the commons, soon after the
reassembling of parliament, for instituting an inquiry into the state
of the nation. In the upper house it was moved by Lord Darnley, who
proposed such an inquiry as might point out remedies for the disorders
of the state. He was supported by the Earl of Carlisle, the Marquis
of Lansdowne, and Earl Fitzwilliam; but his motion was lost by a
considerable majority. In the commons the necessity of inquiry was
strongly urged by Mr. Grey, and ably supported by Sir William Young and
Lord Temple, but his motion shared the fate of its counterpart in
the upper house. The debate was chiefly remarkable in the commons for
calling up Pitt to defend himself and the system which he had pursued,
which he did with unanswerable argument. It was on this occasion that he
made explicit declaration of the motives which induced him to resign.




PARLIAMENTARY MEASURES.

During the sitting of this new parliament acts were passed for the
suppression of rebellion, and for the suspension of the _Habeas Corpus_
Act in Ireland, that country still remaining in a turbulent state. The
suspension of the _Habeas Corpus_ Act was continued also for England and
Scotland, and an act for preventing seditious meetings was revived. Acts
of indemnity were likewise passed in favour of all persons concerned
in the securing, imprisoning, and detaining individuals under the
suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, both in Great Britain and Ireland,
from the period when that suspension took place in the respective
countries. Various motions to the miscarriage of expeditions—to the
conduct of Admiral Lord Keith in breaking the convention of El Arish,
&c.—were made during the session, but were all negatived. Additional
supplies were demanded by Mr. Addington, and sanctioned by the house.
The session was prorogued by commission on the 3rd of July.




WAR WITH THE NORTHERN POWERS.

The late ministry had issued an order in council, dated the 14th of
January, imposing an embargo on all Russian, Swedish, and Danish vessels
in the ports of Great Britain; and preparations were also made to send a
fleet into the Sound, and to hazard all the evils likely to result from
a war, which threatened to exclude the British flag from the navigation
of the Baltic, and her commerce from the shores of the Elbe, the Embs,
the Vistula, and the Weser. On the other band, preparations were also
made by the governments of Russia, Denmark, and Sweden for the coming
strife. In the course of the spring the Danes took possession of
Hamburgh, for the alleged purpose of stopping the British trade to
that port. The King of Denmark was now likewise joined by the King of
Prussia, who seized this occasion to invade Hanover, and to reduce it
to his own dominion. As no hopes, therefore, could be entertained of the
pacification of Europe on terms honourable to Great Britain, a British
fleet, consisting of eighteen ships of the line, and four frigates,
with a number of gun-boats and bomb-vessels, were dispatched against her
enemies. This fleet proceeded from Yarmouth Roads for the Baltic, under
the command of Admiral Sir Hyde Parker, assisted by Vice-admiral Lord
Nelson and Rear-admiral Tolly. It sailed on the 12th of March, and as it
was supposed that Denmark, whose prosperity had increased considerably
during the war, might be prevailed upon to sue for forbearance; the
first efforts of the armament were directed against her capital. On
board was Mr. Vansittart, who, as minister plenipotentiary, was to seek
to detach the court of Copenhagen from the northern alliance before
proceeding to extremities. His mission, however, failed; he returned
with a report that he had left the Danish government hostile in
the highest degree to the court of Great Britain, and in a state of
preparation far exceeding what our cabinet had considered possible.
Nelson advised that no time should be lost in attacking the enemy; and
Sir Hyde Parker, who was “nervous about dark nights and fields of
ice,” having yielded to his persuasions, it was determined to force the
passage of the Sound. This was done without great loss: on the 31st of
March the fleet anchored between the isle of Huen and Copenhagen. Sir
Hyde Parker, Lord Nelson, and other officers proceeded in a lugger to
reconnoitre the enemy’s preparations, which they found to be of a very
formidable nature. Undaunted, however, by any fear of danger, Nelson
offered to lead the attack, requiring for the service ten ships of the
line, with all the smaller craft. Sir Hyde acceeded to his proposal,
adding two other ships of the line to the number demanded, and leaving
the whole business to his management. It was on the 2nd of April that
Nelson made the signal to weigh and engage the Danish line of defence.
The difficulty of the navigation and the ignorance of the pilots were so
great, that three of the ships grounded, and others were unable to
take their proper station in the line. With those, however, that could
approach the enemy, Nelson ventured an action. It commenced soon after
ten o’clock; and at one, few, if any, of the enemy’s ships had ceased to
fire, while some of the English ships had sustained much injury. Under
these circumstances, therefore, Sir Hyde Parker made a signal for
retreat. But Nelson had no idea of retreating. All the notice he took
of the signal was to give strict orders that his own signal for close
action should be kept flying, and, if necessary, nailed to the mast; and
turning to Captain Foley, he jocosely remarked: “You know I have only
one eye; I have a right sometimes to be blind:” and putting his glass
to the blind eye, he added, “Really, I don’t see the signal for recall.”
 The action continued unabated for another hour; but at that time the
greater part of the enemy’s ships ceased to fire; some of the lighter
vessels were adrift, and the carnage on board their ships was dreadful
the crews having been continually re-enforced. Soon after this, the
Danish commodore’s ship took fire, and drifting in flames before the
wind, spread terror and dismay throughout their line. The ships ahead,
however, with the crown-batteries, as well as the prizes made by the
British, still continued to lire, and Nelson, humane as he was brave,
being shocked at the slaughter which their bold resistance caused him to
make in their ranks, retired into the stern gallery to write a letter
to the crown prince. This letter stated, “that he had been commanded to
spare Denmark when she no longer resisted; that her line of defence had
struck to the British flag; and that, if the fire were continued, he
should be obliged to destroy all the floating batteries which he had
taken, without having the power of saving their brave defenders, who
were the brothers, and ought not to be the enemies, of Englishmen.” This
letter, with a flag of truce, was sent by Captain Sir Frederic Thesiger;
and in about half-an-hour he brought an inquiry from the prince: What
was the object of Nelson’s note? Nelson’s reply was, that he sent the
flag of truce out of humanity; and that he consented that hostilities
should cease, and that the wounded Danes might be taken on shore. He
added: “Lord Nelson, with humble duty to his royal highness the prince,
will consider this the greatest victory he has ever gained, if it may
be the cause of a happy reconciliation and union between his own most
gracious sovereign and his majesty the King of Denmark.” Sir F.
Thesiger was dispatched a second time with the reply, and the Danish
adjutant-general was referred to the commander-in-chief for a conference
upon this overture. Nelson availed himself of this critical moment to
get his crippled ships under weigh, and the imminent danger from which
he had extricated them soon became apparent. His own ship, the Elephant,
and three others remained fixed upon the shoal for many hours. Nelson
left the Elephant soon after she took the ground, observing as he
left her: “I have fought contrary to my orders, and I shall perhaps be
hanged. Never mind, let them.” It was soon agreed that there should be
a suspension of hostilities for twenty-four hours; that all the prizes
should be surrendered; and that the wounded Danes should be carried on
shore. Nelson landed on the day after the battle, and had an interview
with the crown prince for the purpose of arranging preliminaries. The
négociation lasted some time, and on one occasion was on the point of
breaking off; but Nelson’s firm conduct overawed the Danish negociators,
and it was agreed that there should be an armistice of fourteen weeks.
Nelson’s own account of the battle of Copenhagen was, that it was the
most dreadful he had ever witnessed. Several British officers fell in
the action, and among the rest “the gallan, good Rion.” For this
victory Nelson was raised to the rank of Viscount; a reward which, his
biographer, Southey, justly observes, was inadequate for services of
such paramount importance to the interests of England.




DISSOLUTION OF THE NORTHERN CONFEDERACY.

After the battle of Copenhagen it was intended to act against the
Russians before the breaking up of the frost should enable them, to
leave Revel. Sir Hyde Parker, however, having heard that the Swedes had
put to sea to effect a junction with their allies, altered his course,
hoping to intercept that part of the force of the confederacy. The
Swedish fleet was discovered on the 19th of April; but on perceiving the
English, it took shelter behind the batteries of Carlscrona. Sir Hyde
Parker lost no time in acquainting the governor with the armistice that
had been concluded between Great Britain and Denmark; and he called on
the Swedish government to renounce the northern confederacy. At this
critical juncture news was received of the assassination of the Czar
Paul, and the accession of his son, Alexander, who commenced his reign
by the abolition of the innovations of his predecessor, and by ordering
all British sailors in confinement to be conveyed to the ports where
their ships were stationed. Hostilities now ceased; Lord St. Helens was
sent to Petersburgh, as minister plenipotentiary, and a convention
was concluded between Russia and Great Britain, which subsequently
comprehended Sweden and Denmark, recognising the principle contended
for by England, and imposing such restrictions on the right of search as
might prevent any unwarrantable exercise of it on neutral vessels. Thus
the northern confederacy was dissolved.




EXPEDITION TO EGYPT.

The fate of the French army in Egypt was sealed about a fortnight before
the battle of Copenhagen. The British troops destined against Egypt in
the preceding year were sent to Marmorica, on the coast of Caramania,
under an expectation of receiving assistance from the Turks. This
expectation was not realized; but Sir Ralph Abercrombie resolved at all
hazards to attempt the dislodgement of the French from Egypt. He landed
in Aboutir Bay on the 8th of March, in the very face of the French, and
under a heavy fire of grape-shot from artillery, as well as from the
cannon of Aboukir castle. The French, however, were dispersed at the
point of the bayonet; and on the 12th the British army moved forward,
and came within sight of the enemy, advantageously posted on a ridge
between the canal of Alexandria and the sea. In point of numbers the
British were far inferior to the French, but Sir Ralph Abercrombie
proceeded to the attack next day. This failed; but on the 21st of March
a general battle took place, which resulted in the complete success of
the British arms. The triumph of our troops was dearly purchased by the
death of Abercrombie, who received his mortal wound by a musket-ball in
the thigh during the heat of the battle, but who sustained himself till
the victory was gained, when he died, universally lamented for his great
and good qualities, both of head and heart. The loss of the English in
killed, wounded, and missing was computed at two thousand, and that
of the French at double that number. The command of the British army
devolved on General Hutchinson, who perfected the work which his
predecessor had commenced; for although the French were defeated, they
were still powerful both at Alexandria and Cairo. Menou, the French
commander, had retired into Alexandria; and this was almost insulated by
General Hutchinson, by cutting through the embankments which served to
retain the waters of the Aboukir lake, and by inundating a dry bed
of the ancient lake Mareotis. Leaving General Coote with 6500 men to
maintain the lines before Alexandria, General Hutchinson proceeded to
Ramani Eh, and having driven the French from this post, he advanced
still further up the Nile, towards Cairo. He was joined near Cairo by
some Mamelukes, Turks, Arabs, Syrians, and Copts, who now all offered
their aid to expel the French from Egypt. Cairo was invested, and on the
27th of June, the French General, Belliarde, capitulated, on condition
that his troops should be embarked and conveyed to the French ports of
the Mediterranean at the expense of the allied powers. At this moment
Major General Baird was ascending the Red Sea with an army of British
and Sepoys, and some of the East India Company’s artillery. But before
he could unite his forces at Cairo, Menou capitulated on the same
conditions as Belliarde, and Egypt was now cleared of the French. The
expedition which had been commenced with a series of victories, ended in
defeat and disgrace. With an inferior force, the British army wrested an
important country from the enemy, and restored it to their allies.

{GEORGE III. 1801–1806}




AFFAIRS ON THE CONTINENT.

In the month of March, the court of Madrid, hoping to stop a French
invasion of Spain by submission to the will of the first consul,
declared war against Portugal. A Spanish army invaded the Portuguese
provinces in April; and in the month of June Lisbon purchased peace by
yielding some territory to Spain, and by engaging to shut their ports
against the English. In this treaty, however, Napoleon refused to
concur; and he sent a French army through Spain to attack Portugal.
Almeida was invested, and Lisbon and Oporto menaced, when the court of
Lisbon consented to a treaty, by which Buonaparte agreed to withdraw
his troops, and respect the integrity and independence of Portugal,
on condition that they, on their part, should confirm to Spain all
the territory which had recently been ceded; should make one-half of
Portuguese Guiana over to the French; should shut all the ports and
roads of Portugal in Europe against all English vessels, until peace
was concluded with England; should nullify all preceding treaties and
conventions with England; should treat France in all matters of commerce
as the most favoured nation; and should admit all French commodities
and merchandise whatsoever. The Portuguese court likewise paid twenty
millions of francs to the French republic. In their distress, the
Portuguese court had solicited the aid of England; but our government
could do nothing more than to send an expedition to take possession of
the island of Madeira, in order to secure it for Portugal.




NAVAL OPERATIONS.

The naval war this year was very languid. The French and Spanish fleets
did not venture out of port, and their detached squadrons put to sea
only in the absence of the English. On the 6th of July a French squadron
was attacked by Sir James Saumerez in the road of Algeiras; but after
a hard struggle he was induced to retire. This disappointment, however,
only served to stimulate the British to another action. The ships which
had been damaged in the late contest were repaired with all possible
expedition, and when the French, joined by a Spanish squadron, were
sailing towards Cadiz, he attacked them, and one line-of-battle ship, of
seventy-four guns, was captured, and two others blew up with the loss of
about two thousand men. On the 1st of August Admiral Lord Nelson, with
a flotilla of gun-boats and other vessels, stood over to the coast
of France to reconnoitre the preparations said to be making for the
invasion of England. On the 4th of the same month he sunk two floating
batteries and destroyed some gun-boats; but a subsequent attack on the
flotilla in the harbour failed. During this year the islands of St.
Martin and St. Eustatius were reduced; while in the east, the Batavian
settlement of Ternate, the principal of the Molucca islands, surrendered
to the British, under Captain Haynes.




TREATY OF AMIENS.

Many circumstances rendered the first consul at this time really
desirous for some short suspension of hostilities with England.
Preliminaries were agreed to on the 1st of October, and in the month
of November the Marquis Cornwallis went over to France as ambassador
plenipotentiary. He was received with great joy by many of the
Parisians, who were equally desirous of peace, as were many of the
English nation. From Paris, his lordship repaired to Amiens, the place
appointed for holding the conferences; and, after much angry discussion,
on the 2nd of March, 1802, a definitive treaty of peace was signed. By
this treaty, England agreed to restore all the acquisitions made during
the war, except the island of Trinidad, and the Dutch possessions in
Ceylon: the Cape of Good Hope was to be given back to the Dutch as a
free port: the Porte was to be preserved in its integrity; France was to
recognise the republic of the seven islands; apart of Portuguese Guiana
was given up to France by a new adjustment of boundaries; and the Prince
of Orange was to receive compensation for the loss of property and
power. “Thus,” it has been remarked, “ended the first act of the
revolutionary war, though most persons thought the whole concluded,
fancying that the chief ruler of France would find his real interest in
the preservation of peace; and relying on his repeated declaration
of regret, that the two first nations of the world should waste their
resources and the blood of their people in enmity. Some persons,
however, took a different view of the subject, seeing neither indemnity
for the past, nor security for the future in the restitution of all
our colonial conquest, and in the recognition of that gigantic plan of
continental sovereignty which had been conceived by the first founders
of the French republic, and pursued with unremitting diligence by its
successive rulers.”




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1802}

Parliament met in the autumn of 1801; but the chief business done before
the Christmas recess was to debate on the preliminaries of the peace of
Amiens; some defending—and among them Pitt himself—what the Addington
administration were doing, and others condemning their line of policy.
Conspicuous among those who condemned their measures was Windham, who
said that the preliminaries were disgraceful, and that war was to be
preferred to a peace bought on such conditions. This debate continued
after the Christmas recess, up to the 13th of May, when the last
struggle took place on the subject. In the upper house the opponents of
the treaty were headed by Lord Grenville, who made the cession of Malta
the principal point of his attack. It was absurd, he said, to place that
island under the guarantee of six powers, who could not be expected to
agree on any one point relating to it; and it was still more absurd to
restore it to the Knights of St. John, whose funds had been confiscated,
and whose existence thereby might be said to be ended. In adverting to
other parts of the treaty he observed, that our rights in India had
not been recognised, and that the Cape of Good Hope, a most important
station to the maintenance of British sovereignty, was given up. Lord
Grenville concluded his strictures with proposing an address to the
throne, recommending every practicable economy, but such as would still
leave the country in a state of proper defence for the suppression of
any danger; acknowledging that the national faith was pledged to the
observance of the treaty, but pointing out the danger to which this
country was exposed on account of the great sacrifices she had made
without any adequate compensation on the part of France; and finally
praying his majesty to endeavour to arrange speedily, by amicable
adjustment, those various points which were left unsettled by the
definitive treaty of Amiens. His lordship was ably supported by some
who entertained Pitt’s general views and others of his own party; but a
counter address, moved by Lord Pelham, was carried without a division.
A counterpart to Lord Grenville’s motion was made in the lower house
on the same day, by Windham, who, in a speech of three hours, bitterly
condemned the treaty. In the course of his speech he remarked:—“It
is impossible to have seen, without the utmost anxiety and alarm, the
unexampled circumstances that have attended the final conclusion of the
present peace; the extensive and important sacrifices which, without any
corresponding-concession, this treaty had added to those already made
by the preliminary articles; the unlooked-for and immense accession
of territory, influence, and power which it has tacitly confirmed to
France; the numerous subjects of clashing interests and unavoidable
dispute which it has left entirely unadjusted; and, above all, those
continued and systematic projects of aggrandizement of which, in the
very moment of peace, we have seen such undeniable and convincing
evidence.” Mr. Windham was supported by Lord Folkstone, Sheridan, Grey,
and Whitbread; but a counter address, moved by Lord Hawkesbury, similar
to that which had been moved in the upper house by Lord Pelham, was
carried by a majority of two hundred and seventy-six against twenty. But
these long discussions forbade the hope that peace would be durable.




PARLIAMENTARY MEASURES.

Early in this session Mr. Canning moved the house on the subject of the
slave-trade. He made two motions: the first being a preliminary relating
to the cultivation of the land in the island of Trinidad, lately ceded
to England, which, some contended, should be performed by negro slaves;
and the second a distinct motion on this subject. In his second speech
he remarked, “In considering the acquisition of Trinidad, it seems as
if Providence had determined to submit to the trial our boast of
speculative benevolence and intended humanity, by placing in our power a
colony where, if we pursue our old course, it must be purely for its own
sake, without the old inducements or the usual apologies. This is a
day of tests; I trust we shall abide the trial.” During this session an
important act was passed for consolidating the existing militia laws,
and for augmenting that force: it was agreed that the militia should
remain permanently 60,000 strong, and that 40,000 should be called out
in the first instance, and the remainder when the king deemed necessary.
In announcing his budget, on the 5th of April, Mr. Addington stated
the intention of government to abolish the income-tax, and fund the
£56,000,000 with the payments of which it was charged. This announcement
gave great satisfaction, and the resolutions upon the budget were agreed
to without a division. Provision was made during this session for their
royal highnesses the Dukes of Sussex and Cambridge, and the Prince of
Wales’s embarrassments were taken into consideration; the magnificent
sum of £60,000 annually was granted him for three years and a half,
commencing from the 5th of January, 1803, and ending the 5th of July,
1806. Sums of money were voted to Dr. Jenner for the promulgation of
his valuable discovery of vaccine inoculation; to Mr. Greathead for his
invention of the life-boat; and to Dr. Carmichael Smith for a discovery
of nitrous fumigation, for preventing the progress of infectious
disorders. Parliament was prorogued on the 28th of June by the king in
person, who congratulated the country on the peace and prosperity it was
enjoying; and on the next day it was dissolved by proclamation.




PREPARATIONS FOR HOSTILITY.

Peace had scarcely been proclaimed when the note of war was again heard
in the distance; when a little cloud in the horizon betokened the rising
of another furious storm. In the month of December the French government
had sent a naval force, under General Le Clerc, for the purpose of
recovering St. Domingo and Guadaloupe from the revolted negroes; and the
English government sent Admiral Mitchell with seven sail of the line to
watch his motions. But England had more cogent reasons for displeasure
in the following year. At that time the interference and intrigues of
the first consul were manifested in various parts of Europe. Thus, in
the month of March, he presided over a meeting at which a treaty was
signed with the Cisalpine republic, preparatory to his assuming the iron
crown, in imitation of Charlemagne; and he not only procured the cession
of Louisiana, but the duchy of Parma, from Spain. Disputes likewise
having arisen respecting the formation of a new constitution in
Switzerland, and the mediation of the first consul being solicited, the
diet was dissolved by his troops, the Swiss patriots were arrested, and
the independence of the country annihilated by the power on which it
relied for protection. In the course of the year, moreover, Piedmont was
turned into a provincial appendage to France; and in October the Spanish
king, at the suggestion of the French government, annexed all the
property of the Maltese knights in his dominion to his royal domains,
by which act the treaty of Amiens was to a certain degree violated. All
these events were indications of a future rupture; and another grand
provocative to the rupture was the fierce and systematic hostility
displayed by Napoleon against the commerce of Great Britain. Instead
of being allowed, through the return of peace, to flow into its old
channels, it was still more impeded in France and in the countries where
the French held sway than it had been during the war. Every month, or
week, indeed, the first consul made some new encroachment or advanced
some new claim; while on the other hand he pretended to bind England to
the strict observance of every article in the treaty of Amiens which was
against her, and insisted on the immediate evacuation of Malta, the Cape
of Good Hope, and of every place she had agreed to restore. It was, in
truth, fully manifested, before the close of the year, that the treaty
of Amiens was an experiment that had signally failed, and that recourse,
at no distant day, would be again had to the sword to decide the contest
for superiority between the two countries of France and England.

Nor was the conduct of Napoleon in Paris less indicative of war;
ambition being conspicuous in every movement. Some of his measures were
prudent and salutary, but many of them were unprincipled, unjust, and
even criminal. His aim was to be the despot and sole ruler of France;
not to be the venerated head of a great and free people. His first act
exhibited the despot in lively characters. This was to put the press in
chains: Fouche, with an army of “Arguses and police servants, mastered
the domain of thought itself;” and when conspiracies arose from this
arbitrary measure, then the executioner was called in to do his fearful
work. At the same time Napoleon established special tribunals throughout
the kingdom, composed of judges of his own appointment. His despotism
extended itself to the civil code, and even to religion and the church.
By his fiat, there was to be but one liturgy and one catechism in all
France! During this year, indeed, Napoleon was approaching his object
at a rapid pace. He already ventured to attack the idol of the
revolutionary French, the fundamental principle of the revolution,
that of equality, by proposing and carrying a law for the creation of a
legion of honour—that is, for establishing a new nobility in the place
of that which the revolutionists had destroyed, from the one end
of France to the other. Public opinion declared loudly against this
institution, but Napoleon was sufficiently strong to defy public
opinion. Nay, about the same time, soon after the peace of Amiens,
Chabot proposed that a signal national acknowledgment should be made
to him, and he was created consul for life. The throne was, therefore,
visibly rising over the grave of the republic—one step more, and
Napoleon would be sitting thereon in all the pride and pomp of Imperial
majesty. That step, as will be hereafter seen, was taken boldly and
successfully. France again submitted to the rule of one man, a man whose
little finger proved to be thicker than the loins of the monarchs of the
house of Bourbon.




MEETING OF THE NEW PARLIAMENT.

The newly returned parliament met on the 16th of November. The speech
from the throne seemed to intimate that the renewal of war was probable,
by his majesty saying, “that notwithstanding his desire for peace, it
was impossible for him to lose sight of that system of policy by which
the interests of other states were connected with our own welfare; and
by which he was obliged not to be indifferent to any material change in
the relative condition and strength of the European powers.” His majesty
also recommended the adoption of all those means of security which
were best calculated to preserve the blessings of peace. The responsive
addresses, both in the lords and commons, were carried without a
division; Fox at the same time expressing a hope, that ministers would
not be influenced by those politicians who would rush into a war without
necessity.

Augmentations both of the navy and of the army were proposed by
ministers a few days after the commencement of the session: 50,000
seamen were voted, and 128,000 men for the army. On this occasion,
Sheridan, who was fast falling away from the Foxite party, made a
notable patriotic speech, declaring that the time had arrived when it
was necessary for England to adopt vigorous measures of defence. He
concluded his speech in the following language: “I wish Buonaparte not
to mistake the cause of the people’s joy; he should know, that if he
commits any act of aggression against them, they are ready to enter
singly into the contest, rather than suffer any attack on their honour
and independence, I shall proceed no further; I perfectly agree with
my honourable friend, that war ought to be avoided, though he does not
agree with me on the means best calculated to produce that effect. From
any opinion which he may express, I never differ but with the greatest
reluctance; for him my affection, my esteem, and my attachment are
unbounded; and they will only end with death; but I think an important
lesson is to be learned from the arrogance of Buonaparte. He says, he is
an instrument in the hands of Providence, an envoy of God; he says, he
is an instrument in the hands of Providence, to restore Switzerland
to happiness, and to elevate Italy to splendour and importance. Sir, I
think he is an instrument in the hands of Providence to make the English
love their constitution better, to cling to it with more fondness, to
hang round it with truer tenderness. Every man feels, when he returns
from France, that he is coming from a dungeon, to enjoy the light and
life of British independence. Whatever abuses exist we shall look
with pride and pleasure on the substantial blessings we still enjoy. I
believe, also, that he is an instrument in the hands of Providence to
make us more liberal in our political differences, and to render us
determined, with one hand and heart, to oppose any aggression there may
be made on us. If that aggression be made, my honourable friend will, I
am sure, agree with me, that we ought to meet it with a spirit worthy of
these islands; that we ought to meet it with a conviction of the truth
of this assertion—that the country which has achieved such greatness,
has no retreat in littleness; that, if we should be content to abandon
everything, we should find no safety in poverty, no security in abject
submission; finally, that we ought to meet it with a firm determination
to perish in the same grave with the honour and independence of our
country.”

On the 21st of December, a bill was passed for appointing commissioners
to inquire into frauds and abuses in the several naval departments, and
for the better conducting the business of those departments. No other
business of importance was transacted before the Christmas recess.




TRIAL OF COLONEL DESPARD.

{A.D. 1803}

During the month of November in the preceding year, a conspiracy against
the king and government was discovered. This originated with Colonel
Despard, an officer of courage and ability, who, having been reduced in
circumstances, on account of the abolition of an office held by him on
the coast of Honduras, organized a society in London for the subversion
of that tyranny which he attributed to the ministers of his sovereign.
In the scheme proposed by him, his objects were the constitutional
independence of Great Britain and Ireland; an equalization and extension
of rights; a liberal reward to all who would exert themselves in the
cause of the people; and an ample provision for the families of those
who might fall in the cause. Despard, however, with twenty-nine of his
followers were arrested in the act of deliberating on the execution of
their designs; and in the month of February of this year were tried by a
special commission. The colonel himself was found guilty, and executed,
as were also six of his associates; the rest were either acquitted by
the jury, or were pardoned on their recommendation.




PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.

Parliament reassembled on the 23rd of February, but no debate of
importance occurred until the 8th of March. On that day a message from
the king to both houses represented the preparations made in the French
and Dutch ports as grounds for defensive arrangements. The message
stated that discussions of great importance were carrying on between his
majesty and the French government, the result of which was uncertain.
His majesty said that he relied with confidence on parliament to enable
him to take such measures as circumstances might require, for supporting
the honour of his crown, and the essential interests of his people. Lord
Hobart moved the responsive address in the lords, and it was carried
_nem. con_.; but in the commons, many members wished for further
information before the ministerial recommendations received attention.
Fox, in particular, wished to know the precise reasons for putting
the country into a warlike attitude; he still thought peace might
be preserved. But in the commons, likewise, the address was voted
unanimously; and, in compliance with the ministerial demands, on the
11th of March, 10,000 seamen were added to the existing number. A motion
to that effect was agreed to without a division.




ACT TO RELIEVE CATHOLICS, ETC.

Before the Easter recess, an act was passed to relieve Roman Catholics
from certain penalties and disabilities, on subscribing the declaration
and oaths contained in the act of the 31st of George III. A bill was
also introduced into the upper house by Lord Ellenborough, which
made the maliciously maiming, wounding, and disfiguring of any of his
majesty’s subjects, a capital felony; attempts also to discharge loaded
fire-arms, with intent to kill or wound, were made subject to the
penalty of death. The attention of both houses was also occupied by
a clergy residence bill, the coroner’s bill, debates on the Paneras
workhouse, &c. After the Easter holidays, a bill was unanimously carried
which was intended to put down the rioting which had occurred among
the electors of Nottingham, by allowing the magistrates of the county a
concurrent jurisdiction in the town of Nottingham with the magistrates
residing in that town. A bill was likewise passed for continuing the
militia in Ireland, as well as in England and Scotland, but which
substituted in that country the giving of bounties for the system of
ballot.




WAR PROCLAIMED WITH FRANCE.

On the 6th of May Lord Pelham communicated to the lords, and Mr.
Addington to the commons, another message from his majesty, stating that
orders had been given to Lord Whitworth, our ambassador, to quit
Paris immediately, unless he found a certainty of bringing the pending
négociations to a close against a certain period; and that the French
ambassador had applied for a passport to be ready to leave London so
soon as he should be informed of Lord Whitworth having quitted Paris.
Both houses adjourned till the Monday following; and after they again
met, on the 16th of May, they were informed by another royal message,
that Lord Whitworth was recalled, and that the French ambassador had
departed. On the next day after the message was delivered, an Order of
Council was published, directing that reprisals be granted against the
ships, goods, and subjects of the French republic; and a proclamation
was issued for an embargo belonging either to the French and Batavian
republics, or to any countries occupied by French arms. Papers relating
to the correspondence between France and Great Britain, were laid before
both houses on the 18th of May and on the 23rd the subject was taken
into consideration. In each house an address was moved, reechoing the
sentiments of the king’s message and declaration; and though stern
opposition was made by some members and peers, they were carried by
large majorities. Recently Pitt had absented himself from the commons,
but on this occasion he was present to defend the approaching contest.
His speech produced a great impression on the house, and was greatly
admired; Fox himself said, that if Demosthenes himself had been present,
he must have admired, and might have envied. Notwithstanding, Fox placed
himself at the head of those few who opposed the address; and ventured
to palliate the conduct of Napoleon’s haughtiness and insolent language
to Lord Whitworth. Buonaparte, he said, had as much right to complain of
our aggrandizement in India, as we had to complain of his encroachments
in Europe; that his expressed determination to take possession of Egypt
on some future day, was not a sufficient cause for war; and that we
were going to war on a sordid principle, which would deprive us of the
possibility of obtaining any allies. The tendency of Fox’s speech was
severely reprehended by several members, but he nevertheless continued
his opposition. On the 27th he even moved an address, to advise his
majesty to accept the proffered mediation of the Emperor of Russia; but
this he was induced to withdraw, on a declaration from Lord Hawkesbury,
secretary for foreign affairs, that the government, though it could not
suspend the preparations for pursuing the war, would be ready to accept
the mediation of Russia, if the first counsul would accept it, and
accede to reasonable terms. In both houses censures were moved on the
conduct of the Addington administration, but they were negatived by
large majorities.




THE CAUSES FOR THE RENEWAL OF WAR WITH FRANCE.

The causes of the renewal of hostilities between France and England were
manifold. Some of the remote causes have before been noticed; and it has
been remarked in a previous page, that while the first consul required
England to fulfil every stipulation in the treaty of Amiens, he denied
our right of interference in his own political arrangements. This
naturally gave rise to disputes between the two governments; disputes
which soon became warm and acrimonious, and which finally ended in an
open rupture. The first remonstrance of the British cabinet against the
unjustifiable encroachments of the first consul related to his
conduct with reference to Switzerland. This remonstrance was vain; and
expostulation, as regards usurpations in Holland and Italy, were equally
fruitless. The British government also complained that numerous persons
were sent to reside in our maritime towns on pretence of trade, but in
reality to procure such intelligence as might be useful in the event
of war; and that while this scheme was put in practice, restrictions
on British commerce were enforced in France with extraordinary vigour.
Moreover, the British cabinet complained of insults: such as, that Great
Britain could not contend alone with France; an insult which should have
been treated only with contempt. On the other hand, Napoleon complained
of the freedom with which the British press handled his character, and
of the protection given to discontented emigrants. But the chief object
of his complaint was the retention of Malta. He remarked:—“My pretended
encroachments are mere trifles; and even if they were highly important,
you have no concern with them: but in refusing to surrender Malta,
you are openly violating the treaty of Amiens, which I will not tamely
suffer to be infringed.” Dissension increased. Napoleon demanded that
the Bourbons and their partisans should be expelled from England, which
met with a firm and generous denial. Thus baffled, the first consul
directed his political agents to circulate outrageous libels against
the highest characters in the kingdom; they plotted, he averred,
conspiracies against his life. At length Napoleon demanded, why the
British government had not evacuated Malta, according to stipulation?
The reply was, “because he had increased his European territories and
threatened Egypt.” To demand Malta of the first consul was in reality to
declare war; he declared that harmony could not be restored, unless that
island was restored to the knights, or put into the possession of some
continental power; and that he would as soon see Paris in the hands of
the English as Malta. The Russian emperor now offered his mediation,
but as he proposed no scheme of accommodation, his offer was politely
refused. Finally, Lord Whitworth suggested the following terms of an
amicable arrangement:—If the cession of Lampedosa could be procured
from the King of Naples, it should serve as a naval station for the
English in lieu of Malta, which should then be left to the natives on
the basis of independence. At the same time Holland was to be evacuated
by the French troops, while Switzerland was to be freed from all
encumbrance. His Britannic majesty promised to recognize the Spanish
prince who had been made King of Etruria, as well as the Cisalpine and
Ligurian republics; in return for which France was required to cede some
valuable territory to the King of Sardinia. By a secret article, Malta
was to remain ten years under British government before the exchange
took place. On the acceptation or refusal of these terms, peace or war
was to be determined. A week only was allowed for a reply; and at the
lapse of that time, no reply being given—Napoleon wishing still to
prolong the discussion—the British ambassador, in compliance with his
instructions, declined all further négociations, and prepared to quit
Paris, which he did on the 12th of May. Orders were immediately issued
for seizing the ships of France, and of the states subject to her
power, in British ports; and Napoleon detained all British subjects who
remained in the French territories after Lord Whitworth, our ambassador,
had taken his departure. Thus recommenced the struggle betwixt the
two rival nations of England and France: a struggle which, for the
inveteracy of its spirit and the variety of its fortunes, stands
unrivalled in the history of the world. Vast were the treasures spent,
and still more vast was the blood shed, before the sword thus drawn was
again sheathed.

{GEORGE III. 1801–1806}




WAR WITH HOLLAND.

As the proposal that French troops should be withdrawn from Holland was
refused, war was accordingly denounced against that unfortunate
State. On the 17th of June, the king announced by message, that he had
communicated to the Batavian republic his disposition to respect its
neutrality, provided only the French government would respect it, and
withdraw its forces from that country; but that, this proposition not
having been acceded to by France, his majesty judged it necessary to
recall his minister from the Hague, and to give order for the issuing
of letters of marque and reprisals against the Batavian republic.
Subsequently, the sum of £80,000, and a pension of £16,000 per annum was
granted to the ex-stadtholder of Holland, our late ally, the Prince of
Orange, who had by this event been despoiled, and left without a home,
and without any reliance, except on the generosity of this country.




MILITIA BILL, ETC.

A bill for rendering the militia as effective as possible was passed on
the 20th of May; but in consequence of a message from his majesty on the
18th of June, recommending more extensive measures, a proposition was
carried for embodying a new species of Militia, to be denominated “the
army of reserve.” This body was to consist of 50,000 men for England,
and 10,000 for Ireland, and they were to be raised by ballot, but
allowed to volunteer into the regular army. This bill, however, was only
the precursor of one of greater magnitude—a bill which comprehended the
arming and training of the whole effective male population, and which
passed into a law on the 27th of July. This measure was proposed in case
of an invasion; and as the opposite coasts of France and Belgium were
lined with troops, and the French and Brussels papers were calculating
how many days it would take Napoleon to reach London, it met with very
general support. Fox himself offered his hearty concurrence to it,
because it was for the defence of the country, rather than for any
project of offensive war. It passed in the commons _nem. con_.; and the
lords adopted it unanimously, one or two peers only censuring ministers,
as Pitt had done in, the lower house, for not producing it sooner. This
scheme, however, was not generally acceptable to the nation at large,
nor was the danger so great as to justify its adoption. Nevertheless a
large body of volunteers started up in every part of the realm, and a
force of 400,000 men wore soon collected on the coasts to defend their
beloved country. The whole population of England, under the impression
that their altars and firesides were endangered by the menace of the
first consul of France, rose

     “Like one man, to combat in the sight
     Of a just God, for liberty and right.”




FINANCIAL MEASURES.

In discussing the military estimates during this session, an addition of
30,000 men was proposed and agreed to. Supplies were demanded in June
to the amount of £33,730,000, but the whole granted during the year
exceeded £41,000,000. In order to raise this sum, the custom and excise
duties were increased, and the income-tax was renewed, though not to its
former extent; a duty of one shilling in the pound was imposed on land,
to be paid by the landlord, and nine-pence by the tenant. The war taxes
were estimated at £12,700,000 annually, but they were to cease at the
end of six months after the return of peace, Some of the new taxes
imposed were extended to Ireland, and the lord-lieutenant of that
country was authorised to raise £1,000,000, by loan.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

This session closed on the 12th of August, by a speech from the throne.
In his speech, his majesty expressed his reliance that, under the
continuance of the Divine protection, the exertions of his brave and
loyal subjects would prove to the enemy and to the world, that an
attempt to subvert the independence of the United Kingdom would
terminate in the ruin of that people by whom it was sought. He assured
his parliament that economy in the public expenditure should be carried
as far as was consistent with the necessary exertions to frustrate the
designs of the enemy.




INSURRECTION IN IRELAND.

During this summer an insurrection, headed by one Robert Emmett, a
brother to the barrister of that name who took part in the recent
rebellion, broke out in Ireland. Emmett had been expelled from the
university of Dublin, and had resided abroad so long as the _Habeas
Corpus_ act was suspended, but on the removal of that obstacle, he
returned to Ireland. On his return, as rebellious spirits still abounded
in every part of that unhappy country, he formed a party for the purpose
of endeavouring to overturn the existing system of government. The
stoppage of the coaches was to be the signal for revolt in the country,
while the grand object of the insurgents in the metropolis was to
secure the seat and ministers of government, and to proclaim a new
constitution. There were scarcely above one hundred immediately
connected with the plot; but these were so sanguine of success, that
they supposed the spirit of rebellion would, at their bidding, pervade
the whole kingdom. It was on the 23rd of July that the spirit of revolt
began to manifest itself. On the evening of that day, a mob assembled
in St. James’s-street and its vicinity, and about nine o’clock the
concerted signal was given by a number of men riding furiously through
various parts of the city. Outrage followed; the chief justice of
Ireland, Lord Kilwarden, was stabbed to death with pikes, Colonel Brown
was shot, and others were wounded. But this conspiracy was soon quelled;
about half-past ten, a small body of regular troops approached the
insurgents, and they fled in every direction; nothing more was heard of
Emmett or his associates till they were brought to justice. A special
commission was issued for the trial of those rebels who were captured,
and Emmett and several others were executed. On this occasion, the Roman
Catholics, with Lord Fingal at their head, came forward and rendered
government important services in quelling the rebellion.




LETTER OF THE PRINCE OF WALES.

While parliament was sitting, and when the country was preparing for
war, the Prince of Wales repeated a claim, which he had often made
before, for military promotion, requiring to be placed in a situation
where his example might contribute to excite the loyalty of the people.
This was a natural request; for the Duke of York had for some years been
captain-general and commander-in-chief of the forces, and the Dukes of
Kent, Cumberland, and Cambridge were lieutenant-generals, but the prince
himself was simply a colonel of dragoons. No notice, however, was taken
of this letter, and it was only by repeated applications that a reply
was elicited. That reply was, that should the enemy succeed in landing,
he, the prince, would have an opportunity of manifesting his zeal at the
head of his regiment. Thus disappointed in his views, six days before
the prorogation of parliament, he addressed a letter on the subject to
the king himself; and from him likewise received a similar reply. The
prince now exhibited a very unfriendly spirit both towards his majesty
and Mr. Addington. In a letter to the Duke of York, he called “the
opportunity of displaying his zeal at the head of his regiment,” which
was intended to be consolatory to his feelings, “a degrading mockery.”
 The whole correspondence, in truth, brought great discredit, both on the
heir-apparent and his advisers. It ended, however, in the prince
joining his regiment at Brighton, in opposition to the expressed wish of
Addington; he being bound to do so, he remarked, “by the king’s precise
order, and by that honest zeal which was not allowed any fitter sphere
for its action.”




MOVEMENTS OF THE FRENCH

A few days after the king’s message had been sent to parliament, the
French admiral, Linois, was despatched with a strong squadron for the
East Indies. The armies of the republic were increased to 480,000 men;
that of Holland being destined to occupy Hanover; and that of Lombardy
to invade Naples, garrison Tarentum, and other parts of the Adriatic.
The first consul was resolved to occupy Hanover, as a pledge for the
restitution of Malta. The electorate was summoned by Mortier on the 25th
of May, and the Hanoverians being unable to resist, soon capitulated
possession was taken of the country, and Mortier was enabled to
control the navigation of the Elbe, and the Weser, as well as to
levy contributions on the rich towns of Hamburg and Bremen. A British
squadron, however, blockaded the mouths of those rivers, which measure
caused such distress to Hamburg and Bremen, that they appealed to the
King of Prussia for protection, as one of those sovereigns who guarded
the neutrality of the empire. The King of Prussia, however, declined
to interfere, and the French were left to continue their exactions with
impunity. Napoleon, also, made severe exactions on the Batavian and
Italian republics; drew pecuniary assistance from Spain and Portugal;
and augmented the supplies of the French treasury, by the sale of
Louisiana to the United States, for three millions of dollars. His
grand objects, however, at this time, were the army and flotilla for
the invasion of England. His army was swelled by contingents of allied
states, and the command of it was given to Soult, Davoust, and Ney; the
familiarity of his old generals having by this time offended his pride.
It was for this invasion chiefly that he drew his contributions from the
neighbouring countries. Rome and Naples were plundered on base pretexts,
and the latter was obliged to let the French occupy a part of its
territories and ports.




NAVAL CONQUESTS.

The naval campaign of this year in Europe, was of a comparatively
trifling character. The port and town of Granville were attacked by Sir
James Saumarez, on which occasion the pier was demolished, and a number
of vessels destroyed; the town and fort of Dieppe were bombarded by
Captain Owen; and the Dutch ports, from the Zandvoort, in the vicinity
of Haarlem, to Scheveningen, were also severally bombarded, and many
vessels destroyed.

In June, an expedition under General Grinfield and Commodore Hood,
captured the islands of St. Lucie and Tobago; and in September, the
Dutch colonies of Demerara, Essequibo, and Berbice surrendered to the
British arms. The islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, likewise, were
captured, and the French were compelled to abandon the colony of St.
Domingo.




EAST INDIA AFFAIRS.

In the East Indies, war was carried on by land on a large scale, and
with great success. Since the death of Tippoo, and the capture of
Seringapatam, a new enemy had appeared in the Mahratta confederacy, and
Perron, a clever Frenchman, was lending his aid in the strife. M. Perron
had first appeared in India, when the government of Louis XVI. were
struggling with the genius and resources of Warren Hastings for the
supremacy in Hindustan. In the course of events he was raised to
the rank of a general, and to the command in chief of the forces
of Scindiah, in whose ranks he had entered against the British. His
honours, wealth, and authority, all given him by his grateful master,
excited the envy and malice of the Mahratta chiefs, for they were
eclipsed by this foreigner. In 1802, when the Scindiah made war upon
the Mahratta sovereign of Poonah, and expelled him from his territories,
Perron, who had recently had a large portion of the Jumna region
assigned him, lent his valuable assistance. This event led to a war
with the British. The dispossessed chief applied for assistance to the
English, and a subsidiary treaty was concluded with him at Bassein.
Lord Wellesley, the governor-general, had two great objects in view—to
restore the Peishwa, and to crush the forces which Perron had raised,
and which had long given him uneasiness. He was joined by the Nizam
of the Deccan, while the Rajah of Berar united his forces to those of
Scindiah. Lord Wellesley calculated that he might detach Perron from his
old Indian master by bribery; for when General Lake took the field with
an army of 10,000 men, he instructed him to make every possible effort
to destroy, scatter, or win over Perron and his officers. Proclamations
were made to this end, but without effect; Perron took the field with
about 17,000 infantry, disciplined in the usual European manner, besides
a large body of irregular infantry, about 20,000 Mahratta horse, and
a numerous and well-appointed train of artillery. In the mean time a
younger brother of the governor-general had rescued Poonah from the
Mahratta troops of Holkar, and had re-established the Peishwa in
his capital. Holkar joined Scindiah and the Rajah of Berar; and this
confederacy was the more dangerous, as Scindiah possessed several
sea-ports from whence he could receive assistance from the French. This
confederacy, however, was soon dissolved. General Lake defeated, routed,
and annihilated that army of Perron which caused the governor-general
such great and reasonable alarm; and, between him and General Wellesley,
all the perilous portion of the Mahratta confederacy was shaken, and
the power of Scindiah broken. Both the Rajah of Berar and Scindiah were
compelled to sue for peace, which was granted; the Rajah agreeing to add
the important province of Cuttack, with the district of Balasore, to the
company; and Scindiah to yield to them all the country between the
Jumna and the Ganges, besides numerous forts, territories, rights,
and interests. Both the Rajah of Berar and Scindiah likewise agreed to
dismiss all the French or other European officers in their service,
and the latter was never to take them into his service again, without
consent of the British government. In the course of the same year, two
other armies were sent into the Mahratta dominions, which resulted in
the conquest of much Indian territory. The varied successes of this
year, indeed, gave to the British empire, not only the Mahratta
dominions between the Jumna and the Ganges, but other and still more
important advantages. By them the British secured the possession of
Delhi, Agra, and Calpee, which gave them the mastery and free navigation
of the Jumna, with an important tract of country along the right bank
of the river. They secured, likewise, the greater part of the rich
province of Bundelcund, the whole of Cuttack in Orissa, and the most
valuable territory in Guzerat, with ports which were before accessible
to our mortal enemy, France. Finally, they gave to the company a
stronger frontier in the Deccan, and to our allies, the Nizan and the
Peishwa, an important accession of strength. Subsequently a war ensued
with Holkar; but his forces were rapidly dispersed by General Wellesley,
and peace again prevailed in India; and in 1805 the victorious general
returned to Europe.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament reassembled on the 22nd of November. In his speech, the
king enlarged upon the successes in the West Indies, and upon the
early suppression of the Irish insurrection. He alluded, also, to the
conclusion of a friendly convention with Sweden, for the purpose of
adjusting certain differences about maritime rights, arising out of an
article in an old treaty concluded by Charles II. Mention was made of
the measures adopted for a vigorous prosecution of the war; and his
majesty declared, in reference to the menaces of an invasion, that as
he and his people were embarked in a common cause, it was his
determination, should occasion arise, to share their exertions and
dangers in defence of the constitution. The usual addresses were agreed
to without a division, and without opposition; and the houses occupied
themselves up to the Christmas holidays with passing acts to continue
the Habeas Corpus Act, and the prolongation of martial law in Ireland,
and to grant certain exemptions in favour of the volunteers of Great
Britain. The regular force proposed for the public service amounted
to 167,000 men the embodied militia of Great Britain and Ireland,
were 110,000, and the volunteer corps about 400,000. According to the
statement of Lord Castlereagh, indeed, the effective force of this
country, in rank and file, amounted to 615,000 men, or reckoning the
non-commissioned officers, 700,000. The number of ships of war, amounted
to four hundred and sixty-nine.




CHAPTER XXVI.

{GEORGE III. 1804—1807}

     His Majesty’s Indisposition..... Change in the Ministry:
     Pitt Resumes Office..... The Slave-Trade Question.....
     Additional Force Act..... Debate on the Corn Laws..... The
     Budget: Parliament Prorogued..... Affairs of France:
     Napoleon created Emperor..... Naval Affairs..... Coalition
     between  Pitt and Addington..... Meeting of Parliament.....
     Army and Navy Estimates, &c. Debate on the Rupture with
     Spain..... Claims of the Catholics..... The Slave Trade
     Question..... Impeachment of Lord Melville..... Parliament
     Prorogued..... Dissensions    in    the   Cabinet.....
     Napoleon crowned  King of   Italy..... Conquests of Napoleon
     in Bavaria..... The Battle   of   Trafalgar, &c.
     Meeting  of  Parliament..... Death of Mr. Pitt..... The
     Grenville   Administration..... Negociations  for Peace.....
     Windham’s Military  Plan..... The   Budget..... Trial of
     Lord   Melville..... The Slave-Trade Question.....
     Parliament Prorogued, &c. Death of  Fox..... Naval
     Successes..... Disputes   with   America..... Affairs   of
     Sicily..... War between France and Prussia, &c.,..... Meeting
     of Parliament.




HIS MAJESTY’S INDISPOSITION.

Parliament had scarcely reassembled after the Christmas recess, before
it became known that the king was suffering from an attack of his old
malady. It was announced by a bulletin on the 14th of February, that his
majesty was much indisposed, and a succession of similar notices left
little doubt as to the nature of the complaint. The attack, however,
was not so serious as to render a suspension of the royal functions
necessary; and on the 14th of March the lord chancellor declared that
“the king was in such a state, as to warrant the lords commissioners in
giving the royal assent to several bills.”




CHANGE IN THE MINISTRY—PITT RESUMES OFFICE.

At this time a systematic attack on ministers was pursued by all parties
in opposition, through the medium of investigations into the military
and naval affairs of the empire. Pitt himself at length appeared in the
character of a direct antagonist to Addington. On the 15th of March he
moved for an address, requesting that his majesty would order to be laid
before parliament an account of the number of ships in commision on the
31st of December, 1793, on the 30th of September, 1801, and on the
31st of December, 1803, specifying the service in which they were
respectively employed. The debate on this motion lasted several hours,
but it was lost on a division, by a majority of two hundred and one
votes against one hundred and thirty. Addington was next attacked by
Fox, who, on the 23rd of April, moved for a committee to revise the
several bills that had been proposed for the defence of the country. Fox
had supported Pitt in his motion, and Pitt now stood forward to support
his ancient rival. There was, indeed, but one point on which these two
eminent men differed on this occasion, and that was, the power vested in
the sovereign of calling all his subjects out to defend the country
in case of an invasion. Fox questioned the royal prerogative in this
particular, while Pitt asserted and maintained the principle. The
concurrence of opinions, on all other points between the two rivals,
however, produced a division, in which ministers had a majority of only
fifty-two in a full house. Two days after the attack was renewed in a
more effective manner; Mr. Yorke moved for the house to resolve itself
into a committee on a bill for suspending the army of reserve act,
and though Pitt resisted this, ministers had a majority of only
thirty-seven. Mr. Addington now resolved, as soon as the financial
concerns of the year could be adjusted, to retire from office. This was
effected on the 12th of May; the supplies granted, being £36,000,000 for
Great Britain alone; and on that day it was announced that Addington had
resigned the office of chancellor of the exchequer, and that Pitt had
been appointed to succeed him. Those of the Addington ministry retained
were the Duke of Portland, president of the council; Lord Eldon,
chancellor; the Earl of Westmoreland, lord privy seal; the Earl
of Chatham, master-general of the ordnance; and Lord Castlereagh,
president, at that time, of the board of control. The new members were
Lord Melville, first lord of the admiralty; Lord Harrowby, secretary for
foreign affairs; Lord Camden, secretary for the department of war and
colonies; and Lord Mulgrave, chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, with
a seat in the cabinet. The government of Ireland was left unchanged,
except that Mr. Wickham, chief secretary, retired on account of ill
health, and was succeeded by Sir Evan Nepean. The appointments made in
the subordinate offices of state, were, Mr. William Dundas, secretary
at war; George Rose and Lord Charles Somerset, joint paymasters of the
forces; the Duke of Montrose and Lord Charles Spencer, joint paymasters
general; Messrs. Huskisson and Sturges Bourne, secretaries to the
treasury; and Mr. Canning, treasurer to the navy. No changes were made
in the law departments of the country, and very few in the household
offices; the most important in the latter was the appointment of the
Marquis of Hertford to be master of the horse.




THE SLAVE-TRADE QUESTION.

On the 30th of May Mr. Wilberforce, who had been labouring in his
vocation session after session, without making any visible progress
in the noble cause he had espoused, moved for the appointment of a
committee to consider the propriety of introducing a bill for the
abolition of the slave-trade, after a time to be limited. Both Pitt
and Fox supported the philanthropist, and his motion was carried by a
majority of seventy-five against forty-nine. A bill was now brought
in for the abolition, and the third reading was carried on the 28th
of June, by a majority of sixty-nine voices against thirty-three. Mr.
Wilberforce began to have hope that his long labour was about to be
rewarded—that the one grand object of his life was now about to be
accomplished. But he was doomed to be disappointed. It was rejected in
the upper house, on the ground, that having been introduced at so late
a period of the session, interested parties would be unable to obtain
substantial justice.




ADDITIONAL FORCE ACT

On the 5th of June Pitt introduced a bill for raising and supporting a
military force, and for a general reduction of the additional militia,
and which was denominated, “The additional force act.” The essential
part of his plan was to increase the permanent strength of the regular
army, to which end he proposed limiting the militia to its usual
amount of 40,000 for England, and 8000 for Scotland, and removing the
difficulties which now stood in the way of recruiting for the regular
army, by destroying the competition existing between those who recruited
for the regular service, and those who recruited for limited service
only. He likewise proposed that the army of reserve should be raised
for five years, and that while it was not to be called out for foreign
service, it should serve both as an auxiliary force to the regular army,
and as a stock from which that army might be recruited. According to
his plan, it was to be joined to the regular army in the way of
second battalions; and he considered that from so close a connexion, a
considerable number of the reserve might be induced to volunteer for the
regular army, Pitt’s bill was opposed by Windham, Fox, Addington, and
others, but it was carried through the commons with small majorities,
and in the lords, by one hundred and fifty against sixty-nine.




DEBATE ON THE CORN-LAWS.

In consequence of a report of the commons, it was thought expedient,
at the close of this session to adopt some new legislative regulations
concerning the corn-laws. From that report, it appeared that though
yielding, on an average, a fair remuneration to the grower, the price
of corn from 1791 to 1803 had been irregular. It was also found that
the effect of high prices had begun to stimulate industry, and to
bring-large tracts of waste land into cultivation. This added to the
last two favourable seasons had occasioned a great depreciation in the
value of grain, and it was thought agriculture would be discouraged
unless immediate relief were afforded. Under this impression, although
£30,000,000 had been paid to foreign countries for the supplies of corn,
it was proposed to annex a bounty to exportation. A bill was introduced
allowing exportation when the price of wheat was at or below forty-eight
shillings a quarter, and importation when the price, in the twelve
maritime counties of England, should exceed sixty-six shillings. This
“bill to starve the poor” passed, and became the law of the land.




THE BUDGET—PARLIAMENT PROROGUED.

The budget had been discussed before Pitt’s return to office; but on the
2nd of July, the house of commons resolved itself into a committee
of supply, to which several accounts were referred relative to the
augmentation of the civil list, which was now greatly in arrears. During
the session the total supplies granted were £12,350,600 for the navy;
£6,159,114 for the militia and fencible corps; £3,737,091 for the
ordnance; £4,217,295 for miscellaneous services in Great Britain;
£2,500,000 for miscellaneous services relating to Ireland; £591,842
for discharging arrears and debts on the civil list; and £60,000 for an
additional sum for the better support of his majesty’s household. The
sum total granted was, £53,609,574; to raise which recourse was had to
new taxes and duties, loans, annuities, and to three lotteries. Little
other business of importance was transacted during this session. The
session closed on the 31st of July, when the king expressed a hope that
the exertions of the country might, by their influence on other states,
lead to the re-establishment of a system which would oppose a barrier
against those schemes of ambition which threatened the ancient
monarchies of Europe.




AFFAIRS OF FRANCE: NAPOLEON CREATED EMPEROR.

In the midst of this prosperity Napoleon was not without his enemies;
about this time, indeed; a formidable conspiracy was formed against him
in the heart of France. At the head of this conspiracy was Pichegru, a
French refugee in England. Pichegru, acting with the royalist agents,
corresponded with Moreau, whom Buonaparte had recently slighted, and
entered into a plot with him for overthrowing the consular government.
With them the Chouan leader, George Cadoudal, was also associated.
Pichegru, left England early in the year 1804, to assist in carrying
their plan into effect; but the conspiracy was discovered in February,
and Pichegru and Cadoudal suffered death, while Moreau was banished.
Others of less note were likewise executed for this conspiracy. Coupled
with it stands a fearful deed in the page of Napoleon’s history—the
foul murder of the Duke D’Enghein. This noble youth, who was the last
scion of the house of Condé, inhabited a place called Ettenheim, in the
duchy of Baden. As he was an emigrant, and naturally attached to the
fortunes of his house, it was resolved that he should be sacrificed,
in order to strike terror into the heart of the Bourbons. By Napoleon’s
order he was surprised in his castle, which stood on neutral ground,
conducted to Vincennes, tried by a military commission, and shot in the
fosse of the château, with the grave in which he was to be buried full
in his view. Yet it was immediately after this execrable deed that
Napoleon ascended the summit of his desires—the throne of France. By
it he endeared himself to the old regicidal Jacobin party; and they
promised to support him in his attempt to mount the imperial throne.
The blood of the Duke D’Enghein, indeed, cemented the steps of the
adventurer’s throne. Immediately after the senate prayed him that he
would govern France under the name of Napoleon Buonaparte and with the
title of “emperor;” and on the 18th of May they passed a decree styling
him “Napoleon Buonaparte, Emperor of the French.” The remainder of this
year was spent by Napoleon in making arrangements on assuming his new
title. Excepting England, all the states of Europe were consulted; and
even Austria, his ancient foe, recognised his title. Finally the pontiff
was brought to Paris from Rome in order to consecrate the new dynasty.
He was crowned on the 2nd of December, 1804, on which occasion Pope Pius
VII. in his homily compared himself to Elias and Samuel, and Napoleon to
Hazael, Jehu, David, and Saul.

     “Look now on that adventurer who hath paid
     His vows to fortune; who, in cruel slight
     Of virtuous hope, of liberty, and right,
     Hath followed wheresoe’er a way was made
     By the Wind goddess—ruthless, undismayed;
     And so hath gained at length a prosperous height,
     Round which the elements of worldly might
     Beneath his haughty feet like clouds are laid.
     Oh, joyless power that stands by lawless force
     Curses are his dire portion, scorn, and hate,
     Internal darkness and unquiet breath;
     And if old judgments keep their sacred course,
     Him from that height shall heaven precipitate
     By violent or ignominious death.”
      —WORDSWORTH.

On ascending the throne of France Napoleon surrounded himself with all
the array of courts. His brothers Louis and Joseph were created
princes, and many of his officers dignified with the title of marshals.
Dignitaries of the crown were also appointed, and pages and chamberlains
swarmed in his palace. His court vied with that of the Bourbons in their
most palmy days for its magnificence. “Princes of the house,” it has
been observed, “grand dignitaries without emoluments, without other
functions than the ceremonial of presentation; grand officers of the
empire, officers of the court in manifold gradation, with all the
oriental pageantry, formed a barrier between the sultan and his people.”
 Then, indeed, was the proud nation of France humbled. From a nation of
kings they became a nation of slaves to one man, and that one man of men
the meanest. Their one cry had been “Equality and liberty,” and now they
saw themselves under the feet of one of their own order; of one who was
able to keep them in a state of utter and abject subjection.




NAVAL AFFAIRS.

During this year Napoleon made great efforts to acquire the means of
meeting the British navy on equal terms. By a convention with Genoa
he obtained the service of 6000 seamen, with the use of its harbours,
arsenals, and dock-yards; while the Ligurian republic engaged to enlarge
the basin for the reception of ten sail of the line at its own expense.
The fleet of Spain also was now at his own disposal, the Spanish
government being compelled by France to make preparations for the
resumption of hostilities. A Spanish squadron was preparing for action
in the port of Ferrol; and Captain Moore was sent with four frigates
in order to intercept such Spanish vessels of war homeward bound as
contained Dullion or treasure; it being supposed that the Spanish
government waited only for their arrival before they commenced war. In
the month of October Captain Moore fell in with four large frigates, and
an engagement took place, in which one of the Spanish ships blew up, and
the others struck in succession after sustaining considerable loss.
This squadron was from the Rio de la Plata, and it contained about four
millions of dollars, besides merchandise of great value.

Early in this year a gallant action was sustained by the British off the
straits of Malacca. When Admiral Linois, whose departure for the East
Indies has before been noticed, withdrew from the road of Pondicherry,
he captured several East India ships, made a successful descent on
Bencoolen, and then, collecting his whole force, he cruised off the
Straits of Malacca, in expectation of the British homeward-bound fleet
from Canton. As he had with him one ship of the line, three frigates,
and a brig, and as our merchant-vessels had no men-of-war to convoy
them, he made sure of a rich prize. On the 14th of February he fell
in with his expected prey. But by this time the company’s ships were
generally armed and well officered, and Captain Dance, who was acting
as commodore to the fleet of traders, gallantly hoisted his colours and
offered him battle. The French admiral, however, stood aloof; and Dance
formed in order of sailing and pursued his course. Linois now followed
him; and on the 15th Dance finding that the enemy’s intention was to cut
off his rear, made the signal to tack, and bear down on them, and engage
in succession. The “Royal George” bore the brunt of the action, being
ably seconded as they came up by the “Ganges,” “Warley,” “Alfred,” and
the “Earl Camden.” The action lasted nearly one hour, and then, before
any of the other ships could come up, the enemy hauled away to the
eastward with all the sail they could set. This was two o’clock in the
day, and Dance pursued Linois till four in the afternoon; when fearing
that a longer pursuit would carry him too far from the Straits of
Malacca, he made the signal to tack, and by eight in the evening they
all anchored safely in a situation to enter the strait next morning.
Nothing more was seen of Linois; and the squadron returned safely to
England, when Dance was knighted by the king, and with his brave crew
rewarded by the East India Company. Liberal sums were also given him and
to the officers and crews by the committee of the “Patriotic Fund.”

During the autumn of this year, after various attempts to destroy
the French flotillas in their own harbours had failed, Lord Keith
was directed to make an experiment with the catamaran flotilla. The
catamaran’s were copper vessels filled with combustibles, and so
constructed as to explode at a given time by clock-work. They were to be
fastened to the bows of the vessels by the aid of a small raft rowed by
one man who, being up to the chin in water, was expected in the darkness
of the night to escape discovery. Sir Sidney Smith with other able
officers were selected for this perilous enterprise; and the attack was
to be covered by Lord Keith’s squadron. The expedition anchored about
a league and a half from Boulogne on the 2nd of October; and soon
after nine at night a detachment of fire-ships was launched. But this
enterprise proved signally abortive. The catamarans sent exploded
with an awful noise, and created a great alarm, not only in the French
flotilla, but also in the shore batteries; but the explosion only
wounded some half-dozen Frenchmen, while they blew up nothing but
themselves. In the whole affair, which lasted till four o’clock in the
morning, the French had only fourteen killed and seven wounded, while
the English had not a single man hurt. This catamaran expedition,
indeed, from which mighty things were expected by the whole nation,
ended only in laughter and derision. It brought disgrace not only on the
projectors, but to our national character, it being a plan unworthy OF
men of valour. It had been projected by the Addington administration;
but as it was tried under the present cabinet, the admiralty won for
themselves the dishonourable appellation of “The Catamaran Admiralty.”
 As for Napoleon, it served him for a pretext for disseminating the most
bitter invectives against the English throughout the continent; and
many, even in England, were induced to believe that he had not adopted
his own violent measures without the means of justification.

{GEORGE III. 1804—1807}




COALITION BETWEEN PITT AND ADDINGTON.

At the close of this year Pitt felt his ministerial condition to be one
of extreme difficulty. Under these circumstances he was compelled to
make peace with Addington, who had carried with him a considerable force
to the mixed opposition. It is said that the king insisted upon this
reconciliation; and it appears to be proved, not only by expressions
used by Pitt himself in hisletters to Wilberforce, but from the fact
that Addington was raised to the peerage as Viscount Sidmouth of
Sidmouth. He was brought into the cabinet as president of the council,
in the room of the Duke of Portland, who resigned office on account
of age and infirmity. At the same time Lord Mulgrave was appointed
secretary of state for the foreign department, in the place of Lord
Harrowby, who was suffering from a severe illness; and the Earl of
Buckinghamshire took Lord Mulgrave’s post, as chancellor of the Duchy of
Lancaster.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1805}

Parliament was opened by the king in person on the 15th of January. In
his speech the king announced that preparations for invasion were still
carried on by France with unceasing activity; and that Spain, under
French control, had declared war against this country. But his majesty
was still confident of ultimate success; for after referring to the
skill and intrepidity of the British navy, the formidable state of the
army, and the general ardour manifested by all classes of his subjects,
he characterized the intended invasion as “presumptuous and desperate.”
 The usual addresses were passed unanimously in both houses.




ARMY AND NAVY ESTIMATES, ETC.

On the 23rd of January the commons voted 120,000 men, including marines,
for the service of the navy during the present year. A few days after
the secretary at war moved the army estimates, which amounted to
£12,395,490 for 312,000 men under various heads of service; on which
occasion lie stated that in the United Kingdom there were 600,000 men
in arms, including volunteers, of whom 240,000 were fit for active and
immediate service. The budget was opened on the 13th of February,
when the supplies stated amounted to £44,500,000 for Great Britain and
Ireland. The ways and means comprised a loan of £20,000,000 for Great
Britain, and £2,500,000 for Ireland; and a considerable addition was
made to the war-taxes. Thus the income-tax was raised to six and a
quarter per cent., and the salt-duty was augmented by one-half. The new
taxes were estimated at £1,000,000; yet Pitt, while thus adding to
the public burden, and while war menaced England on every hand,
congratulated the house on the increasing prosperity of the country.
At this time, however, the prime minister had lost much of his usual
confidence, arising partly from his declining health. Although in the
prime of life, Pitt, from the task which he had undertaken, and which he
so energetically performed, was now in constitution a worn-out man.
The burden of office was too great for his strength; and it had become
manifest that he would never arrive at the allotted age of man.




DEBATE ON THE RUPTURE WITH SPAIN.

In the month of February a debate took place on the rupture with Spain.
Opposition endeavoured to prove that it arose from our attack on its
frigates, before recorded. Ministers, they said, had rushed into this
war unnecessarily; and Lord Grenville reprobated the act of attacking
the frigates of Spain, as contrary to all the laws of civilized warfare.
“No capture of treasure,” he remarked, “could wash away the stain of
innocent blood thus brought on our arms.” Ministers replied that Spain,
by her treaties with France, in which she bound herself to furnish, on
demand and without demur or inquiry into the justice or policy of the
war, a certain aid of ships and men to France, became a principal in
the war—an argument which could not be refuted. It was plain to all
the world, indeed, that Spain intended to declare war as soon as her
treasure-ships arrived at Cadiz; she had, in truth, no alternative,
for the Spanish government was under the vassalage and dictation of the
ruler of France.




CLAIMS OF THE CATHOLICS.

In the debate on the address in the commons, Pitt had been reminded that
he had done nothing to redeem the pledge which he was understood to have
given to the Roman Catholics. In his reply the prime minister stated,
that on a future occasion he should have an opportunity of explaining
what had induced him to let their claims remain unsatisfied, and that he
had no doubt the house would then, for the reasons he should give, give
him credit for consistency. Notwithstanding this assurance, petitions,
praying relief from civil disabilities, were presented by Lord Grenville
in the lords, and by Fox in the commons. Pitt, however, declared that
existing circumstances were unfavourable to their request; and it was
accordingly rejected by large majorities. As he resigned office because
he could not compel the king to grant the claims of the Roman Catholics,
and as he resumed it with an acquiescence in their disabilities, Pitt’s
character has been vehemently attacked on this question—he stands
charged with sacrificing principle to ambition. There is no good reason
for such a charge: it is evident that Pitt did intend bringing this
question before the house whenever a favourable moment should arrive.
That moment did not arrive during the present session; and before the
next was two days old Pitt was dead. It is unreasonable therefore to
stigmatize his memory as unprincipled, on a subject which he had no
opportunity of bringing forward; for, from the time of his resuming
office till the day on which he died, his mind was wholly occupied in
providing for the safety of his country.




THE SLAVE-TRADE QUESTION.

During this session, contrary to the advice of Pitt, the question of the
slave-trade was again brought forward by Wilberforce. His bill was read
the first time on the 10th of February, and the second reading was fixed
for the 28th. He seemed to have nothing to fear in the house of commons;
but on the 28th his constancy in the righteous cause he had undertaken
was severely tried. On “that fatal night,” as he called it, not one of
his usual supporters, excepting Fox, spoke in its favour; and several
who had been neutral in the last session now voted against him. The
Irish members also were either absent or hostile, although they had
hitherto been warm in his favour. His bill was lost by seventy-seven
against seventy.




IMPEACHMENT OF LORD MELVILLE.

Early in this session Lord Melville was threatened with impeachment.
In February Wilberforce wrote, “Rumour has for some time impeached Lord
Melville’s integrity. I have had much talk with George Rose about him.
Rose is confident that Pitt will defend him, though he tells me some
stories, and strong ones, of jobs which have fallen under his own view.”
 The storm which menaced Melville fell upon his head in April. In 1803
a bill had been passed, appointing commissioners to make inquiries into
the abuses of the naval department. These commissioners produced many
reports, the truth of which appeared to implicate Lord Melville, who,
while he filled the office of treasurer of the navy, had illegally
retained balances of the public money. This report was brought under
the consideration of the commons by Mr. Whitbread, who exhibited three
charges against Lord Melville:—first, his application of the public
money to other uses than those of the naval department, in express
contempt of an act of parliament;—secondly, his connivance at a system
of peculation in an individual, for whose conduct he was officially
responsible;—and, thirdly, his own participation in that system.
This second charge had reference to Mr. Trotter, who, it was said,
appropriated the public money to private purposes, at the express
connivance of Lord Melville. In making these charges Whitbread
remarked:—“To the honour of public men, charges like the present have
seldom been exhibited; and it is a remarkable circumstance that the
only instance, for a long-period, is one that was preferred against
Sir Thomas Rumbold by this noble lord himself, on the ground of
malversations in India.” With respect to the first point of accusation,
it appeared from the report that there had been for several years
deficiencies in the accounts of the treasurer of the navy, to the amount
of £600,000 a year and upwards. When Lord Melville was asked a plain
question respecting the appropriation of this money, he, as well as
Trotter, professed total ignorance of the deficiencies; but presently,
beginning to recover his recollection, he confessed that from the year
1788 down to the period of his examination, he had been in the habit
of drawing out public money, and placing it in the hands of his own
bankers. When the commissioners extended their inquiries a little
further, he had the assurance to declare that they had no right to
interfere in his private affairs. In a letter to the commissioners he
acknowledged the fact of advances having been made to him, but said that
he could not give the other information required, because he could not
disclose state secrets, and because he was not in possession of the
accounts of advances made to other departments, having himself committed
them to the flames. And not only had the noble lord destroyed the
papers, but he had actually lost all recollection of the whole
transaction. This was the principal charge against the noble lord; and
Mr. Whitbread concluded by moving thirteen resolutions, founded on the
circumstances which he developed in making the whole of his charges.
Lord Melville was defended by Pitt, who observed that neither the report
nor Mr. Whitbread himself alleged that any loss had proceeded from the
transactions set forth to the public. The subject, he said, was of a
grave and solemn nature; and that if, in a great pecuniary department,
irregularities had been committed, though unattended with loss, the
house might justly set a mark on such proceedings. As, however, all
the circumstances of the case were not before them in the report, he
contended that till they were the house could not be in a situation
to come to any vote. Pitt moved the previous question; and after some
observations from the attorney-general, Mr. Canning, the master of the
rolls, and Lord Castlereagh, in support of Pitt’s views,—and from
Lord Henry Petty, Messrs. Ponsonby, Fox, and Wilberforce in support of
Whitbread’s resolutions, the house divided. On a division there were
two hundred and sixteen votes for, and an equal number against Mr.
Whitbread’s motion, and the speaker gave a casting vote in its favour.
This led to Lord Melville’s retirement from office. On the 10th of April
the house was informed that he had tendered his resignation to the king,
and that it had been accepted. On the 6th of May Mr. Whitbread
proposed the erasure of the delinquent’s name from the list of the
privy-councillors; but as Pitt observed that the measure was generally
considered expedient, no motion was made on that subject. Later in the
session, after a long and able speech, he moved that “Lord Viscount
Melville be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors;” and this measure
was adopted on the 25th of June, Mr. Whitbread being appointed manager.
On the next day, in company with a great number of members, Whitbread
impeached Lord Melville at the bar of the house of lords; and
subsequently he brought a bill into the commons to avoid those
differences of opinion which had arisen in the case of Warren Hastings,
or to prevent the proceedings in the impeachment of Lord Melville from
being affected by any prorogation or dissolution of parliament. This
bill was carried without a division; but here the proceedings rested for
the present. Before any further progress could be made in them, Pitt,
on whose health and strength they had operated unfavourably, was laid in
Westminster Abbey.




PARLIAMENT PROROGUED.

Parliament was prorogued by commission on the 12th of July. On that
occasion, his majesty sent a message to the lords and commons, stating
that the communications which had taken place, and were still depending
between him and some of the powers on the continent, had not yet been
brought to such a point, as to enable him to lay the result of them
before the house, or to enter into any further explanation with the
French government consistently with the sentiments he uttered at the
opening of the session. At the same time he recommended parliament to
consider the propriety of making provision for enabling him to take
such measures, and entering into such engagements, as the exigencies
of affairs might require. A sum, not to exceed £3,500,000 was instantly
voted by the commons, for the purposes stated in the message.




DISSENSIONS IN THE CABINET.

Soon after the Easter recess, Lord Sidmouth had suggested the propriety
of removing Lord Melville from the privy-council, but Pitt imagined that
the country would be satisfied with the resignation of his office, and
therefore refused to comply. Lord Sidmouth was also offended by the
premier’s refusal to place his friend, the Earl of Buckinghamshire, at
the head of the admiralty; and expressed his intention of retiring from
office, together with the Earl and Mr. Vansittart. This intention
was delayed by the erasure of Lord Melville’s name from the list of
privy-councillors, and the vote of impeachment which followed; but
the breach made was too wide to be thus healed. Two days before the
prorogation, Lord Sidmouth and the Earl of Buckinghamshire resigned,
and were succeeded by Lords Camden and Harrowby, while Lord Castlereagh
obtained Earl Camden’s place of secretary for foreign affairs. These
dissensions, as well as the loss of so able a colleague as Lord
Melville, occasioned deep anxiety to Pitt, and contributed to oppress
and wear down a constitution already on the decline. His anxiety was
further increased by the uncertain state of affairs on the continent.




NAPOLEON CROWNED KING OF ITALY

An Italian historian, writing of Napoleon’s character at this period,
says: “The nature of Napoleon was restless, disordered: constant only in
ambition. He never remained long at the same point, changing continually
to rise the higher. It appeared, and it was even solemnly, and with
magnificent words, said by him, and by Melzi, the vice-president of the
Cisalpine republic, that the regulations made at Lyons with the Italian
consulta, were to be unchangeable and eternal; but before two years
those regulations were described as defective, insufficient, and not
conducive to anything good or lasting. All this signified, that he who
had made himself an emperor in France, must be made a king in Italy. It
was not without a design that so many Italians of note had been invited
to Paris, to attend, in the name of the Cisalpine republic, the imperial
coronation and ceremonies. Melzi, the vice-president, the councillors
of state, together with deputies from colleges, &c., obeyed the summons,
and remained some considerable time in France. They were given to
understand, that the emperor must be king on the other side of the Alps;
that the Italian republic was an anomaly; and that the proceedings
at Lyons must be condemned and reversed.” This plain language was
understood by the state consulta of the Italian republic, and they chose
the powerful monarch of France King of Italy. On the 26th of May in
this year Napoleon placed the iron crown of Charlemagne upon his head
in Milan, and appointed Eugene Beauharnois, his step-son, viceroy. By
a stroke of his pen he also annulled the constitution of the Ligurian
republic, and incorporated Genoa with the French empire. Three
departments, Genoa, Moulenotte, and the Apennines were formed out
of this republic; and the incorporation of Parma and Piacenza was
subsequently formed by an imperial decree. About the same time, the
people of Lucca having expressed a wish to be governed by a prince of
the house of Napoleon, the emperor gave them his brother-in-law,
Pascal Felix Bacciochi, for hereditary prince. Moreover, in Batavia the
republican principle became incompatible with the interest of the
new imperial state, and that country had to accommodate itself to the
monarchic form; its government was dissolved, and superseded by a grand
pensioner, elected for five years, and invested with almost unlimited
power. By incorporating Genoa with the empire, Napoleon said that he had
only one end in view—that of obtaining 15,000 seamen, for the purpose
of venturing a great naval struggle, in which, if he proved victorious,
he should then invade England. His plan was to distract the British
government; to scatter its fleets, by despatching his own squadrons,
some to the West Indies, and others to the Spanish ports; and then
to effect a junction of all, and collect such a force as would ensure
success in a naval combat. This, however, could not have been his
principal object. At this time he could not have been ignorant of the
coalition forming against him, which it was his interest to provide
against. So many violations of treaties, and such unbounded desire of
aggrandizement this year promoted the formation of a third coalition
against him, of which England was the centre. Sweden first, then Russia,
and next Austria, joined themselves with the British government in
a league against France; and though Prussia stood neutral, yet she
secretly approved the spirit of this coalition. But its ruin was
nevertheless induced by the policy of Russia. Austria was exposed alone
to the blows of the enemy; the aid of Russia was too remote, and England
fought only with money and vessels. The treaty aimed at nothing less
than a league of all the European states against France, and the
re-establishment of all the relations that existed before the war of
the revolution. But these designs were frustrated, and that chiefly by
Prussia’s remaining neutral; without the accession of this power, it
was scarcely possible to make an effectual attack on the enemy. Its
neutrality was, in fact, a protection to the northern half of the French
empire.




CONQUESTS OF NAPOLEON IN BAVARIA.

Certified of the nature and extent of the coalition formed against him,
Napoleon hastened to secure Bavaria to himself, by the promise of a
large aggrandizement of territory. In consequence of this, Austria
advanced her troops, peremptorily requiring the elector to join the
imperial standard. This he refused to do, and then the Austrian army was
ordered to occupy Munich. On his return from Italy, Napoleon had spoken
of the invasion of England as an enterprise fully determined upon; but
on the 28th of August he announced that “the army of England” was to
become “the army of Germany.” Forthwith, the 150,000 men collected at
Boulogne, and along that coast, struck their tents, and forming
into five separate corps, marched for the Rhine. He affected great
disappointment in abandoning his scheme of invasion; but it is doubtful
whether he ever really intended to take such a step. The readiness,
indeed, with which he dictated his masterly plan for a continental
campaign, proves that it had been the subject of a long and mature
reflection, and would indicate that this was in reality his grand
design. At the same time, such was his mortal hatred to England, that,
if he had discerned the remotest chance of success, there is little
doubt but that he would have engaged in the desperate enterprise. But
England was freed from all fears, and the armies destined to act against
her took another route. The five great columns which marched from
Boulogne were led by Marshals Soult, Davoust, Ney, Lannes, and Murat;
but in the month of September Napoleon took the command of the whole in
person. He prefaced his departure for the “Grand Army” by going in
state to the senate, and there delivering a speech on the causes of
the present war. He remarked: “The wishes of the eternal enemies of the
continent are at-last fulfilled; war is begun in the middle of Germany.
Austria and Russia have joined England; and our generation is again
plunged into the calamities of war. The Austrian army has crossed the
Inn; the elector of Bavaria has been driven away from his capital: all
my hopes of the preservation of peace have vanished. In this instance,
the wickedness of the enemies of the continent has fully revealed
itself. They feared the manifestations of my deep love for peace—they
feared that Austria, at the sight of the abyss they have dug under her
feet, might return to sentiments of justice and moderation, and they
have hurried her into war. I sigh in thinking of the blood that this
will cost Europe; but the French name shall derive a lustre from it.
Senators, when, at your request, at the voice of the whole French
people, I assumed the imperial crown, I received of you, and of all
citizens, a solemn engagement to preserve it pure and without stain. My
people will rush to the standard of their emperor and of his army, which
in a few days will have crossed the frontiers. Magistrates, soldiers,
citizens, are all determined to keep our country free from the influence
of England, who, if she should prevail, would grant us none but an
ignominious peace, the principal conditions of which would be,
the burning of our fleets, the filling up of our harbours, and the
annihilation of our industry.” At the time Napoleon joined his “Grand
Army” at Mayence, and when the Austrians commenced operations, the
Russians had scarcely arrived in Gallicia. The Austrian army was
commanded by Field-marshal Mack, who, notwithstanding his shameful
discomfiture in the south of Italy, in the year 1799, still passed with
the Aulic Council as a great military genius. Under him were 80,000
men, with which army he took post at Ulm, thinking that Napoleon must
of necessity take the same route which Moreau had formerly taken. The
French emperor, however, finally divided his immense army into seven
corps; and before Mack was aware, an overwhelming force was in his rear.
Retreat was impossible; Mack was defeated on every hand, and he shut
himself up in Ulm, where he was soon compelled to capitulate. An
imperial bulletin announced the capture of 60,000 prisoners, two hundred
pieces of cannon, and eighty stand of colours, in a campaign of fifteen
days. Nothing now arrested the onward march of the French. Although the
Russians, commanded by Kutosow, had finally arrived on the banks of
the Ister, they were unable to arrest the enemy’s progress. The
French, attended by continual victory, arrived at Vienna on the 13th of
November; and on the same day they crossed the Danube, on the left bank
of which the Russians were marching to Moravia. Napoleon concentrated
his forces at Bruma; and on the 27th of November the forces of Austria
and Russia, under the command of their respective emperors, who had
united at Olmutz, marched against him. The battle of Austerlitz was now
fought and lost. On the 1st of December Francis and Alexander saw the
destruction of thirty thousand of their soldiers, the capture of fifteen
thousand more, and the wild flight of those who escaped the slaughter;
one hundred cannon and a rich booty fell likewise into the hands of
the French. In the meantime the Austrian army in Italy, under Archduke
Charles, and another in the Tyrol, under the Archduke John, had been
compelled by the French to retreat; and having united, they marched
towards Vienna. But the Emperor of Austria had now lost all heart.
Prussia had recently made peace with France; and two days after the
battle of Austerlitz Francis repaired in person to the camp of Napoleon,
near Saroschuez, and entered into a preliminary convention relative to
an armistice and peace. Finally, a treaty was signed at Presburg,
on December the 26th, which broke the power of Austria, and gave the
continent into the hands of France. By this treaty, all the countries
usurped by Napoleon before the war were ratified to him, and Austria
likewise ceded the Venetian territory on both sides of the sea to his
“Kingdom of Italy;” to Bavaria, Tyrol, Vorarlberg, Eichstaedt, and
a part of Passau; and to Bavaria, Wurtemburg, Baden, the Suabian
territories, and the Breisgau. In return, Austria received Salzburg, and
Berchtesgaden; and the dignity of Grand Master of the Teutonic order
was to be assigned, hereditarily, to an Austrian prince. By this treaty,
likewise, the electors of Bavaria and Wurtemburg were acknowledged as
kings, and the elector of Baden as independent. The Emperor of Russia
was invited to become a party in this treaty, but he disdained it, and
led his forces into his own dominions. It was not merely the loss of
territory that made the peace of Presburg, humiliating to Austria: the
moral effects of a fall of such unexampled rapidity, and the complete
change of all relations in Germany, made it still more depressing.
South Germany, hitherto the vassal realm of Austria, now acknowledged
the rule of France. The German imperial dignity no longer possessed
importance; and the whole system of the European states was overthrown.
The smaller German States of the Rhine, were formed by the conqueror
into what was called “the Confederation of the Rhine;” the old Germanic
empire was therefore dissolved, and the influence of the French fully
established over a great part of Germany. Very soon after this treaty,
indeed, the Emperor Francis formally renounced his title of Elective
Emperor of Germany, and assumed that of Hereditary Emperor of Austria.
The conquests of Napoleon were followed by the aggrandizement of his
house. Less than three weeks after signing the treaty of Presburg,
Eugene Beauharnois married the daughter of the King of Bavaria, and
shortly after, Princess Stephanie Beauharnois, Eugene’s cousin, was
given in marriage to the son and heir of the Grand Duke of Baden.
Another matrimonial alliance was also contemplated with the family of
the King of Wurtemburg.

{GEORGE III. 1804—1807}




THE BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR, ETC.

Though successful on the Continent, the power of Napoleon by sea was
this year broken. Nelson had been appointed to the command of the
Mediterranean fleet in the autumn of the year 1803. In the first
month of the present year, while at anchor off Sardinia, he received
intelligence that the Toulon fleet had put to sea. Nelson instantly
weighed, and after beating about the Sicilian seas for ten days, he ran
for Egypt, under the impression that they were bound for that country.
Subsequently he discovered that the enemy had put back to Toulon; and,
in the hope of tempting it out to sea, he bore away for the coast
of Spain, and ran down as far as Barcelona. This stratagem failed of
effect; but on the last day of March he received intelligence that
Villeneuve had put to sea, with eleven ships of the line and seven
frigates, and when last seen was steering towards the coast of Africa.
Under the impression that the enemy was bound for Egypt, Nelson covered
the channel between Sardinia and Barbary, and when he found that he
was mistaken, he bore up for Palermo, and despatched cruizers in all
directions, lest it should pass to the north of Corsica. At length,
feeling that Villeneuve was not gone toward the Levant, he despatched
frigates to Gibraltar, to Lisbon, and to Admiral Cornwallis, off Brest,
beat up against contrary winds, and arrived in sight of Gibraltar, on
the 30th or April; but being unable to pass through the Straits, by
reason of a strong westerly gale, he anchored off the coast of Barbary.
In the mean time the French admiral had hastened on to Cadiz, and
Sir John Orde, who commanded the blockading squadron, retired at his
approach. Villeneuve was joined at Cadiz by six Spanish, and two French
ships of the line; making his whole force, eighteen line-of-battle
ships, six frigates of forty guns each, and four smaller vessels. The
united squadrons now sailed for the West Indies, and Nelson having
discovered their place of destination, set sail with ten ships of the
line, and three frigates, in pursuit of them. It has been supposed that
Nelson would not have engaged his enemy, had he met with them, his force
being so disproportionate: but it is clear from his own words that he
would have fought had he come up with them. “Take you each a Frenchman,”
 he observed to his officers, “and leave the Spaniards to me: when I
haul down my colours, I expect you to do the same.” But Nelson was again
doomed to be disappointed in his search. He sought the enemy at Tobago,
Trinidad, and Grenada, but not being able to discover or to gain any
certain intelligence of them, he came to Gibraltar, where he went
on shore for the first time since June, 1803. While at Gibraltar, he
communicated with Admiral Collingwood, who, with a detached squadron,
had taken his station off Cadiz, to prevent any progress of the
Spaniards, and who had divined that the enemy’s intention, or at least a
part of it, was to invade Ireland. Subsequently Nelson sought the
enemy off Cape St. Vincent, at Cadiz, in the Bay of Biscay, and on
the north-west coast of Ireland. Frustrated in all his hopes, after a
pursuit which exhibited the most indomitable ardour, and which scarcely
has its parallel in history, he judged it best to re-enforce the
Channel-fleet, and accordingly, on the 15th of August, he joined Admiral
Cornwallis, off Ushant. While off Ushant, Nelson received orders
to proceed with the “Victory,” his own ship, and the “Superb,” to
Portsmouth. It was at Portsmouth that he first received certain
intelligence of the enemy’s movements. Sir Robert Calder, who had been
sent out to intercept their return, fell in with them on the 22d of
July, sixty leagues west of Cape Finisterre; and though his force
consisted only of fifteen ships of the line, and two frigates, he boldly
attacked the enemy, who now numbered twenty-seven of the line, three of
fifty guns, and two frigates; and after a combat of four hours succeeded
in capturing two ships of the line, and defeated the greatest and best
combined project ever formed by the genius of Napoleon. The French
admiral sought refuge in Ferrol, and then threw himself into Cadiz.
Nelson was now once more appointed to the command of the fleet, and once
more he went in search of the enemy. He considered the enemy’s fleet,
which he had so long pursued, his own proper game, the price and reward
of his long and anxious search. In this feeling, also, his country
joined.

Describing his departure from Portsmouth, his biographer remarks:—“Many
were in tears, and many knelt down before him, to bless him as he
passed. All men knew that his heart was as humane as it was fearless;
that there was not in his nature an alloy of selfishness or cupidity,
but that he served his country with a perfect and entire devotion;
therefore they loved him as truly and fervently as he loved England.”
 Nelson arrived off Cadiz on the 29th of September, the very day on which
the French admiral received orders to put to sea the first opportunity.
That it might not be known to the enemy that the hero of the Nile was
watching them, Nelson did not suffer his flag to be saluted, and took
every precaution of keeping his arrival secret, as well as the numerical
force of his fleet. He took his station fifty miles westward of Cadiz,
near Cape St. Mary, where he prepared his plan of attack, which he sent
to Admiral Collingwood, who was blockading all the small ports between
Cadiz and Algesiras, in order that Villeneuve might finally be compelled
for want of provision to set sail. Nelson’s plan was to be nearly that
of sailing, which was in two lines, with an advanced squadron of eight
fast-sailing two-deckers: the second in command, having the direction of
his line, was to break through the enemy about twelve ships from their
rear, and Nelson himself was to lead through the centre, while the
advanced squadron was to cut off three or four ahead of it. This plan
received Collingwood’s cordial approbation; and Nelson then called his
admirals and captains together, and thus addressed them:—“The enemy’s
fleet is supposed to consist of forty-six sail of the line, the British
forty; if either is less only a proportionate number of the ships are to
be cut off. British to be one fourth superior to the enemy they cut off.
Something must be left to chance. Nothing is sure in a sea-fight; shot
will carry away the masts and yards of friends as well as of foes; but
I look with confidence to a victory before the van of the enemy could
succour their rear; and then that the British fleet would most of them
be ready to receive their twenty sail of the line, or to pursue them
should they endeavour to make off. If the van of the enemy tack, the
captured ships must run to leeward of the British fleet; if the enemy
wear, the British place themselves between the enemy and the captured
and disabled British ships; and should the enemy close I have no fear
for the result. The second in command will, in all possible things,
direct the movements of his line by keeping them as compact as the
nature of the circumstances will admit. Captains are to look to their
particular line as their rallying point; but in case signals cannot be
seen clearly or understood, no captain can do very wrong if he places
his ship alongside that of an enemy.”

[Illustration: 317.jpg YARMOUTH: NELSON’S MONUMENT]

At length the day which Nelson had long looked for arrived. On the 19th,
signal was made by the “Mars,” first, that the enemy were coming out
of port, and then that their fleet was at sea. On that day they were
narrowly watched by the British fleet, as they were through the night;
and on the morning of the 20th the combined fleets, consisting of
thirty-three sail of the line and seven large frigates, were seen ahead
in a close line of battle, on the starboard tack, about twelve miles to
leeward, and standing to the south. On board the enemy had four thousand
troops, and numerous Tyrolese riflemen were dispersed through the ships.
The British admiral had with him only twenty-seven sail of the line and
four frigates; six ships of the line having been dispatched to Gibraltar
for provisions and water. With this force he resolved to attack
the enemy on the next day; and soon after daylight he called Captain
Blackwood on board the “Victory,” the last words he uttered to whom
were:—“God bless you, Blackwood; I shall never see you more.” He had
a presentiment that, while he was certain of victory, it would,
nevertheless, be gained at the price of his own life. Yet, with this
prospect before him, appalling as it must have been to his mind, he was
calm and serene. His whole attention was fixed on Villeneuve, who was
wearing to form the line in close order upon the larboard tack, thereby
to bring Cadiz under his lee, and to facilitate, if necessary, his escape
into that port. This induced Nelson to steer somewhat more to the north,
and telegraph Collingwood, “I intend to pass through the van of the
enemy’s line, to prevent his getting into Cadiz.” Villeneuve’s movements
had also produced another danger, for they had brought the shoals of San
Pedro and Trafalgar under the lee of both fleets; and to guard against
this danger Nelson made a signal for the British fleet to anchor at the
close of day. All things prepared, the hero of the Nile gave his last
signal:—“England expects every man to do his duty!” which was greeted
with three cheers on board of every ship in the fleet. “Now,” said
Nelson, “I can do no more; we must trust to the Great Disposer of all
events and to the justice of our cause: I thank God for this grand
opportunity of doing my duty.” While gradually approaching the enemy,
whose ships had fallen into a crescent form, Nelson dressed himself,
putting on the coat which he had usually worn for weeks, and on which
the order of the Bath was embroidered. The captain of the “Victory,”
 Hardy, suggested that this might become a mark for the enemy; to which
Nelson replied, “He was aware of it; but that, as in honour he had
gained his orders, so in honour he would die with them.” The battle
commenced about ten minutes after the hour of noon, when Admiral
Collingwood, in the “Royal Sovereign” engaged the “Santa Anna,” the
flag-ship of Vice-Admiral Alava, the second in command. Ship after ship
followed his example, and the battle waged fiercely on every hand. The
“Victory,” in which Nelson was, singled out the “Santissima Trinidad,” a
huge four-decker, which he had encountered before, and which he was wont
to call his old acquaintance. At the same time seven or eight French and
Spanish ships opened a fire on the “Victory.” Mr. Scott, his secretary,
was killed, Captain Hardy was wounded in the foot, and fifty sailors
perished before the “Victory” returned a shot. At length orders were
given to fire; and as it had been discovered that the French admiral,
who hoisted no colours, was in the “Bucentaure,” of eighty guns,
Nelson’s terrible sixty-eight pounder carronade from the “Victory’s”
 forecastle was turned chiefly against that ship. In two minutes nearly
four hundred men were killed or wounded in this ship; twenty of her guns
were dismounted, and she was almost disabled. The next ship which the
“Victory” encountered was the “Redoubtable,” against which she ran foul,
the anchor of the one striking the spare anchor of the other, and the
hooks and boom-irons getting intermixed or catching in the leash of the
sails, holding the two ships together. Again the starboard carronade was
fired, which cleared the French ship’s gangway in a moment. At the
same time the “Victory’s” larboard guns did fatal execution in the
“Santissima Trinidad,” now engaged likewise. At length the “Redoubtable”
 took fire, and the flames spread to the “Victory.” The English
sailors put out their own fire, and threw buckets of water into the
“Redoubtable” to help the French to extinguish theirs. In the midst of
this terrific scene Nelson—the brave, undaunted Nelson—fell: a rifle
or musket-ball from the mizen-top of the “Redoubtable” passed through
him, and he fell on his knees on the very spot where his secretary had
before him breathed his last. “They have done for me at last,” said
he to Hardy, who was anxiously bending over him, “my backbone is shot
through.” He was carried down to the cockpit, which was crowded with
the wounded and the dying, and where it was too soon discovered that his
wound was mortal, the ball had entered his left shoulder, through the
forepart of the epaulette, and had lodged in his spine. In the meantime
the battle raged with fury. In the midst of the roar of cannon and the
shrieks of the wounded and the dying, the crew of the “Victory” ever
and anon by their shoutings announced that some ship of the enemy had
struck. On hearing their shouts, joy sparkled in the eyes of the
dying Nelson; and he sent for Captain Hardy to inquire how the battle
proceeded. It was some time before Hardy could leave the scene of
carnage on the quarter-deck; but on reaching the side of the dying
Nelson he informed him that twelve or fourteen of the enemy’s ships had
struck, but that five of their van had tacked and shown an intention
of bearing down upon the “Victory,” and that he had called two or three
ships round it to guard against the clanger. Hardy then returned to the
quarter-deck; but in less than an hour he returned, and congratulated
his dying friend on having obtained a brilliant and complete victory:
fourteen or fifteen of the enemy’s ships, he said, were captured.
“That’s well,” replied Nelson; “but I bargained for twenty;” then in a
louder tone he exclaimed, “Anchor, Hardy, anchor!” Hardy suggested
that Admiral Collingwood would now take upon himself the direction of
affairs: but Nelson, endeavouring to raise himself from his bed, replied
that he would command while he lived, and gave imperative orders to
anchor. It is supposed that he meant, in case of his surviving until all
resistance was over, he would anchor the ships and prizes, as the surest
means of saving them, should a gale of wind arise. Soon after this
the hero’s gallant spirit fled: his last words, thrice repeated, were,
“Thank God, I have done my duty.” The victory was complete; and Admiral
Collingwood, who now succeeded to the command of the fleet, and who had
largely contributed to gain the battle, distinguished himself no less
by his skill after it was gained, than by his undaunted bravery in the
action. The number of ships captured was nineteen; and Villeneuve and
two Spanish admirals fell into the hands of the British. One French ship
blew up after her surrender, two hundred of the crew of which were saved
by our tenders. The total number of prisoners taken amounted to nearly
12,000 men; the total British loss was 1,587, including many officers
and the gallant Nelson. Out of eighteen sail of the line the French
only preserved nine; and out of fifteen sail of the line the Spaniards
preserved only six. Most of the captured vessels, however, were
subsequently lost at sea through stress of weather; four only were saved
and carried to Gibraltar. “Our own infirm ships,” says Collingwood,
“could scarce keep off the shore: the prizes were left to their fate;
and as they were driven very near the port, I ordered them to be
destroyed, that there might be no risk of their again falling into the
hands of the enemy.” Thus ended the greatest naval victory recorded in
history, whether in ancient or modern times. By it England was rescued
from all chances of invasion, and left sole mistress of the seas. And
the moral effect of the victory was as great as the physical one; the
marine force of Napoleon might be said to be annihilated. It was, in
fact, a glorious set off to his successes on the continent; and deep
must have been his chagrin on hearing the news. In England the joy was
great, and was only damped by the consideration that posthumous honours
alone could be awarded to him who was instrumental in gaining the
victory. These honours were with gratitude heaped on his memory. His
brother was made an earl, with a grant of £6000 per annum; £10,000
were voted to each of his sisters; and £100,000 for the purchase of an
estate. As for the hero himself, a public funeral and a public monument
in St. Paul’s was decreed to him, and statues, columns, and other
monuments were voted in most of our principal cities. Nor did the
gratitude of the nation stop at the moment. Recently a noble monument
has been erected to his memory in Trafalgar Square, chiefly by private
contributions. His name will live in the history of England and the
memories of his grateful countrymen down to the latest period of time.
Faults and errors in private life may have stained his character;
but his memory will nevertheless be precious in the sight of admiring
posterity.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1806}

Parliament met on the 21st of January. The speech was delivered by
commission, and it dwelt upon our great naval successes, and attempted
to alleviate regret for the disasters of our allies on the continent,
with the assurances the Russian emperor had given that he would still
aid us in the strife. It mentioned also that £1,000,000 accruing to
the crown from the droits of admiralty should be applied to the public
service; and concluded with a strong recommendation of vigilance and
exertion against the common enemy. Amendments were read in both houses;
but they were not moved in consequence of the intelligence that Pitt was
at the point of death.




DEATH OF MR. PITT.

When parliament reassembled, Pitt, who at the close of last session was
obliged to relinquish all exertions and retire to Bath, was lying in
a state of debility and exhaustion at Putney, whither he had recently
returned. Two days after the meeting of parliament, on the 23rd of
January, he expired, in the forty-seventh year of his age; a young
man in years, but aged in constitution from incessant toil and
mental anxiety. On the motion of Mr. Henry Lascelles he was buried
in Westminster Abbey, at the public expense, and a monument, with a
suitable inscription, was erected to his memory. As he had died in debt,
a sum not exceeding £40,000 was voted for the payment of his creditors,
without any opposition. “Never had a minister that ruled the country for
twenty long years, or for half or fourth of that time, done so little
to enrich himself and family—never had statesman and dispenser of
patronage and places been more indifferent to his private interests.”
 These sentences speak volumes as to the character of this eminent
statesman. In politics he may often have erred; but not even his
bitterest foe can impeach his integrity. “I allow,” said his inveterate
opponent, Fox, “I allow that a minister is not to be considered as
moderate and disinterested, merely because he is poor during his life
or at his death; but when I see a minister who has been in office above
twenty years, with the full command of places and public money, without
any peculiar extravagance and waste, except what might be expected from
the carelessness that perhaps necessarily arose from the multiplicity
of duties to which the attention of a man in such a situation must be
directed,—when I see a minister under such circumstances using his
influence neither to enrich himself nor those with whom he is by
family ties more particularly connected, it is impossible for me not to
conclude that this man is disinterested.”




THE GRENVILLE ADMINISTRATION.

The death of Pitt, at the particular crisis in which it took place,
was considered a virtual dissolution of the administration. The post of
premier was offered to Lord Hawkesbury; but he deemed it too arduous,
and chose rather to retire from office with the sinecure of the
cinqueports. Lord Sidmouth also declined the task; and his majesty was
compelled to repress his personal antipathies, and to seek the aid
of Lord Grenville. The new arrangements were completed on the 3rd of
February; and the ministry embraced the leading members of two parties,
known as the old and new opposition, together with the party led by Lord
Sidmouth. The arrangement stood thus:—Lord Grenville, first lord of
the treasury; Fox, secretary of state for foreign affairs; Viscount
Sidmouth, lord privy seal; Earl Fitzwilliam, lord resident of the
council; Lord Howick, first lord of the admiralty; Earl of Moira,
master-general of the ordnance; Earl Spencer, secretary of state for the
home department; Windham, secretary for the colonies; Lord Henry Petty,
chancellor of the exchequer; Erskine, lord high chancellor; and Lord
Minto, president of the board of control. Among the minor appointments,
Sheridan obtained that of the treasurer of the navy; Lord Auckland, the
presidency of the board of trade; Earl Temple and Lord John Townshend,
the joint paymastership of the forces; General Fitzpatrick, the
secretaryship of war; and Sir Arthur Pigott and Sir Samuel Romilly, the
posts of attorney and solicitor-general. As Lord Grenville’s office of
auditor of the exchequer was thought incompatible with that of first
lord of the treasury, and as his lordship was unwilling to resign
that lucrative office, a bill was subsequently brought into parliament
empowering him to name a responsible trustee for holding auditorship
so long as he should continue premier. Law, who had been created Baron
Ellenborough in 1802, was appointed to this place, with a seat in the
cabinet; an act which created strong prejudices in the minds of the
people at large against the new administration. But his lordship’s
parliamentary interest was considered essential to the support of the
new ministry, and the murmurs of the people were hence not regarded.
Such a sweeping ministerial change as this had not taken place for
years; all places were swept clean and new men put into them. The
administration, however, was made of discordant materials. In it were
Grenvillites, Foxites, Wind-hamites, Lansdownites, Addingtonians or
Sidmouthites, &c. and this division brought so many expectations,
hopes, and pretensions in their several trains, that it was easy to
foresee that there would soon be quarrelling, and strife, and splittings
among them. They had no general political creed; and their interests,
like their theories, lay wide asunder. Moreover, it was soon found
that it was on very few questions they could command anything like a
respectable majority. They were triumphant, indeed, when it was moved
in the lords and commons “that it was highly inexpedient, and tended
to weaken the administration of justice, to summon to any committee or
assembly of the privy council any of the judges of his majesty’s
courts of common law,” in allusion to the recent appointment of Baron
Ellenborough; but beyond this the present motley ministry could only
command majorities of the narrowest kind; and sometimes during this
session they were even left in a minority. Wearying and worrying
debates, and all to little or no purpose, became the order of the day.
Sheridan on one occasion, indeed, suggested that ministerial members,
distributed in parties of twenty, should go home to rest in the midst of
debate, and then come back to rest after they had slept and breakfasted.
The house sometimes sat till seven o’clock in the morning, and then
separated without having effected anything of importance.




NEGOCIATIONS FOR PEACE.

At the death of Mr. Pitt the state of Europe rendered it difficult for
Great Britain to negociate with France for a safe and honourable
peace. As Mr. Fox, however, had succeeded to power, there were some who
entertained expectations of peace, and he was thought to have undertaken
the foreign department with that end in view. France manifestly desired
peace; and but a short time elapsed before the government contrived to
bring about some negociations, in order to ascertain what terms of peace
the new ministry would be likely to allow. Before ten days elapsed from
the appointment of the new administration an agent of that government
arrived at Gravesend without a passport, and acquainted Fox by letter,
that he had a very important communication to make. Fox sent him a
passport, and admitted him to an interview; but indignantly repelled
his disclosure, true or false, of a plot to assassinate Napoleon. Fox
detained his man in custody, and communicated his designs, if they were
really entertained by him, to the French government; and this led to
a communication between him and Talleyrand. It appeared, from the
negociations which took place, that the greatest obstacle was the
determination of Napoleon to obtain Sicily for his brother Joseph, in
addition to Naples. Fox, however, had sufficient penetration to discover
that he had other ambitious demands to be satisfied, should this be
complied with—that he would demand Holland for his brother Louis,
etc.; and therefore he determined to break off the negociations, and
to continue the war. He made this determination fully known, when he
rejected the treaty of Amiens as a basis, and insisted on the Emperor of
Russia being admitted as a party. Yet the French Government seem to have
considered that England would one day soon consent to peace, even on
the hard terms proposed. Negociation was renewed in June, when Lord
Yarmouth, who had been released from prison at Fox’s intercession, was
invited to a conference with Talleyrand. At this interview it was said
that the Emperor was willing to restore Hanover, as well as to gratify
the British court in other respects, while France asked for nothing.
Pleased with this intelligence, the King sent a commission to Lord
Yarmouth, but desired him to withhold the communication of his full
powers, until it was promised that Sicily should not be alienated from
the house of Bourbon. It was replied that Napoleon was anxious to obtain
Sicily for his brother Joseph, and would procure the Hanstowns for
Ferdinand; but this answer was not deemed satisfactory, and the
negociations were still held in abeyance. The Russian Government, at
this time, having become acquainted with the negociations in progress,
sent an agent to act on Russia’s behalf, and to watch proceedings. The
arrival of this agent was what the French desired, for they knew that
they could soon cause a rupture between England and Russia. In a short
time, indeed, through French intrigue, D’Oubril, the Russian agent,
suspected the good faith, of Lord Yarmouth, and Lord Yarmouth suspected
the good faith of D’Oubril. A quarrel ensued between them, and then
Talleyrand raised his demands and abated his proffered concessions.
D’Oubril returned to Petersburgh, but Fox still persevered in seeking
peace. An accredited agent, in the person of Lord Lauderdale, was now
sent over to Paris, and negociations lasted from the 9th of August to
the 6th of October; when they were broken off by a demand for passports.
France still insisted that Sicily should be given up to Joseph
Buonaparte; and this could not be conceded, so the negociations finally
failed. About that time Fox died, and the French government attributed
publicly the failure of these negociations to his death. But the truth
was, Fox had long ago expressed his convictions that peace would be
unattainable; and after he had commenced the negociations, he had said
in the house of commons:—“My wish, the first wish of my heart, is
peace; but such a peace as shall preserve our connexions and
influence on the continent, as shall not abate one jot of the national
honour,—and such only:” how then could his death have been an obstacle
to peace? Fox, with all his faults, had a heart glowing with love for
his country, and he would not have lightly sacrificed her honour and her
interest at the shrine of French ambition.

{GEORGE III. 1804—1807}




WINDHAM’S MILITARY PLAN.

On the 3rd of April Windham brought forward a plan for altering the
military system, and particularly the mode of recruiting the army. His
plan was that the soldier should enlist for a certain term of years;
that this term should be divided for the infantry into three periods of
seven years each; and for the cavalry and artillery, the first period to
be ten years, the second six, and the third live years; and that at
the end of each of these periods a man might have a right to claim his
discharge, and that his privileges, pensions, etc., should be augmented
in proportion to the length of his services. As a preliminary step
to the introduction of this bill he moved for a bill to repeal Pitt’s
Additional Force bill, which raised a storm of opposition from the
friends and admirers of the deceased minister. His views were especially
combated by Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Canning; but the repeal bill was
finally carried, and then Windham’s plan was adopted: it was introduced
and carried as a clause in the Annual Mutiny bill. A bill for the
training of a certain number of persons, not exceeding 200,000, out of
those that were liable to be drawn for the militia; a bill to suspend
the ballot for the militia in England for two years, with a reserved
power to government for recurring to it in order to supply the vacancies
of any corps which should be reduced below its quota; a bill called
the Chelsea Hospital bill, to give security to invalid, disabled, and
discharged soldiers, for such pensions as they were entitled to; and a
bill for settling the relative rank officers of yeomanry, volunteers,
militia forces, and troops of the line, completed Windham’s system, and
were all carried, though not without much opposition. An increase was
also voted to the pay of sergeants, corporals, privates of the line, to
the Chelsea pensions, and to the pensions of officers’ widows: similar
benefits were also voted to the navy, and the Greenwich Hospital
allowances to out-pensioners were increased.




THE BUDGET.

The budget was opened by Lord Henry Petty on the 28th of March. From
his statement it appeared that the unredeemed debt of Great Britain and
Ireland was about £566,000,000, of which the annual interest was about
£27,500,000. The supplies of England and Ireland for the year were
estimated at £62,187,465; and among the ways and means, were a loan of
£18,000,000 and an augmentation of the new taxes to £19,500,000, to be
effected principally by raising the income-tax from six and a half to
ten per cent. The new Chancellor of the Exchequer also imposed a duty
of forty shillings a ton on pig-iron; an additional duty on beer and
spirits, in Ireland; and a paltry tax on appraisements. The duty
on pig-iron and the increase of the income-tax raised a storm of
opposition; but they were nevertheless decreed. As the burdens of the
people were so increased, it was deemed expedient that some attempt
should be made to prevent the misapplication of the money raised from
the public. It was proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that,
beside the five commissioners to whom the task of general investigation
had hitherto been confided, particular auditors should be appointed;
and though this new arrangement was to cost from £28,000 to £42,000
per annum, his proposition was agreed to. Some slight improvements were
likewise made in the acts regulating commercial intercourse between
Great Britain and Ireland; and a law was passed for permitting the
free interchange of grain of every kind between the two islands. By the
burdensome imposts of this year the new ministry obtained much odium,
the friends of Pitt taking care to enhance their disgrace in the sight
of the nation by ridicule and reproach. Mr. Canning, in particular,
assailed them both by his oratory and his pen, impugning even their
motives. “All the talents,” as this ministry was called, indeed, stood
in no very enviable position in the sight of the country at large.




TRIAL OF LORD MELVILLE.

The trial of Lord Melville commenced in Westminster-hall, on the 29th
of April, before the lords, the members of the house of commons being
present in a committee of the whole house. Although there were ten
charges preferred against him, there were only three in substance. These
were:—“That as treasurer of the navy, Lord Melville had applied
divers sums of public money to his private use and profit. That he had
permitted his paymaster, Trotter, to take large sums of money from the
Bank of England, issued to it on account of the treasurer of the navy,
and to place it in his own name, with his private banker; and that he
had permitted Trotter to apply the money so abstracted to purposes
of private emolument, and had himself derived profit therefrom.” Lord
Melville pleaded “not guilty” to these charges, and then Whitbread
produced his evidence to prove his guilt. In this, however, he failed as
regard’s Melville’s personal delinquency. All that was made clear in
the course of the trial was that Mr. Trotter had increased his salary by
deriving profit from the banking-house of Coutts, on the deposits; and
that while Lord Melville had made use of some sums of money, he had
nevertheless repaid those sums with interest. The trial lasted sixteen
days, and then the lords voted on the several charges, acquitting
the accused of every charge. “Henry Viscount Melville,” said the
Lord Chancellor to him, “I am to acquaint your lordship, that you are
acquitted of the articles of impeachment exhibited against you by the
commons, for high crimes and misdemeanours, and of all things contained
therein.” Melville made a low bow, and then retired; and the Chancellor
having announced that the impeachment was dismissed, the lords and
commons retired to their respective chambers. A motion of thanks to the
managers was subsequently voted in the commons, and thus this business,
which had cost the country some thousands of pounds, ended. This
impeachment, however, was not without its moral effects: while the
impeachment of Hastings set limits to the exercise of a too arbitrary
power in India, that of Melville taught ministers to be more careful of
their public accounts at home.




THE SLAVE-TRADE QUESTION.

The glory of this session and this ministry was a blow struck at the
slave-trade. A bill was introduced by the attorney-general prohibiting,
under a strict penalty, the exportation of slaves from the British
colonies, after the 1st of January, 1807. This bill was carried, and
then Mr. Fox proposed that, as it was contrary to the principles of
justice, humanity, and sound policy, effectual measures should be taken
for putting an end to the slave-trade, in such a manner and at such
a period as might be deemed advisable. The mover of this motion
remarked:—“If during almost forty years I have enjoyed a seat in
parliament, I had been so fortunate as to accomplish this, and this
only, I should think I had done enough, and should retire from public
life with comfort, and conscious satisfaction that I had clone my
duty.” This motion was carried by one hundred and fourteen votes against
fifteen; and a similar motion, made by Lord Grenville in the upper
house, was adopted by forty-one against twenty. The last step taken
on this subject during the present year was a joint address from both
houses, beseeching his majesty that he would take measures for obtaining
the concurrence of foreign powers, in the abolition of this abominable
traffic. That amiable philanthropist, Wilberforce, was delighted at the
success of his labours; and he expressed a hope that during next year he
and his coadjutors in this noble work would witness the termination
of all their toils and anxieties. On the fact that Fox was mainly
instrumental in carrying his wishes into effect, he writes:—“How
wonderful are the ways of God! Though intimate with Pitt all my life,
since earliest manhood, and he most warm for abolition, and really
honest, yet now my whole dependence is placed on Fox, to whom this life
has been opposed, and on Grenville to whom I have always been rather
hostile till of late years, when I heard he was more religious.” It has
been assumed, because Pitt did not make this a cabinet question, that he
was lukewarm in the cause of abolition; but it is clear if he had done
so, he could not have carried it before parliament, and the country were
prepared for it. Up to this period the temper of the public mind may be
discovered in these noble sentiments of the poet Cowper:—

     “Canst thou, and honoured with a Christian name,
     Buy what is woman born, and feel no shame?
     Trade in the blood of innocence, and plead
     Experience as a warrant for the deed?
     So may the wolf whom famine has made bold,
     To quit the forest and invade the fold:
     So may the ruffian, who, with ghostly glide,
     Dagger in hand, steals close to your bedside;
     Not he, but his emergence forced the door—
     He found it inconvenient to be poor.
     Has God then given its sweetness to the cane—
     Unless his laws be trampled on—in vain?
     Built a brave world, which cannot yet subsist,
     Unless his right to rule it be dismissed?
     Impudent blasphemy! so Folly pleads,
     And, avarice being judge, with case succeeds.”

At this time, however, the labours of Wilberforce, Clarkson, and their
friends had prepared the majority of the country and of parliament for
alleviating the sufferings of the human race; some there were still
whose avarice led them to defend the inhuman system of trafficking in
the blood, bones, and sinews of man; but the many now saw its iniquity,
and were prepared to wipe the foul stain from the annals of England.




PARLIAMENT PROROGUED, ETC.

Various discussions arose during this session, financial and general,
respecting the affairs of India. Mr. Paul, with the assistance of Sir
Philip Francis, “that adventurous knight” prepared charges against
the administration of the Marquis Wellesley; but on the 4th of July
he declared that he was not ready to go into these charges, and it
was agreed that this business should stand over till next session.
Parliament was prorogued on the 23rd of July.

[Illustration: 321.jpg PORTRAIT OF CHARLES JAMES FOX]




DEATH OF FOX.

This session had been a harassing one to Fox. Canning, bound by the
chains of party, assailed him and his colleagues on every measure
brought forward, whether excellent or otherwise. Ministers, moreover,
were not only harassed by his bitter sarcasms, but also by Percival’s
legal knowledge, and by Lord Castlereagh’s prolixity. These were thorns
in their sides; and as this active opposition had rendered Mr. Fox’s
appearance in his place necessary, it told with great effect upon his
constitution at this time: indeed, Fox was dying from the effects of
disease augmented by the cares of office, and a laborious attendance on
the house; and though this was visible, no mercy was shown him by his
opponents. He did not long survive after the session was closed: he died
on the 13th of September, and was buried by the side of his great rival,
Pitt, in Westminster Abbey. His character as a politician has been seen
in previous pages; as a man, he seems to have been loved in life and
lamented in his death. Unhappily, however, a large portion of the
affection with which he was regarded by his contemporaries, was bestowed
on qualities which impaired the dignity of his moral character, and
rendered his talents less acceptable to the public. He was what is
called “the delight of society;” but his fascinating manners by no means
made up for his unsteady principles, and inconsistency of opinion.
The death of Fox involved some changes in the ministry. His nephew and
pupil, Lord Holland, was brought into the cabinet as privy seal, and Fox
was succeeded in the foreign department by his friend Lord Howick. The
other ministerial changes were simply these:—Mr. T. Grenville became
first lord of the admiralty, instead of Lord Howick; Tierney, president
of the board of control, instead of Grenville; and Sidmouth became
president of the council, in lieu of Earl Fitzwilliam, who resigned.
Lord Holland, therefore, was the only new member brought into the
cabinet.




NAVAL SUCCESSES.

The successes of the British fleets during this year were various, and
very encouraging to the nation to persevere in the struggle. Operations
were, indeed, naval and military, extended to the south of Italy and
Sicily, Portugal, the Cape of Good Hope, the East and West Indies, and
South America. At the close of the preceding year Admiral Villauruez,
accompanied by Joseph Buonaparte, succeeded in escaping from port
with eleven sail of the line, and a number of frigates. This fleet
subsequently separated: five ships of the line, two frigates, and
a corvette steered, under the command of Admiral Le Seigle, for
St. Domingo; but they were attacked off Ocoa Bay by Admiral Sir T.
Duckworth, and after a furious action three ships struck, while the
other two were driven on shore and burnt; the smaller vessels escaped.
The other squadron, under Villauruez, steered first to the coast of
Brazil, and afterwards to the West Indies: but it was driven from thence
by the fury of the elements; and, finally, three ships were destroyed
on the American coast, one reached the Havannah, and then escaped
into Brest, and a third, which was commanded by Jerome Buonaparte, was
stranded on the coast of Brittany. A third squadron of French ships,
under Admiral Linois, had long been carrying on a predatory warfare in
the Indian Seas, and the Isle of France had been the grand depot of his
plunder; but this year he was overtaken by Sir J. B. Warren, who had
been sent in pursuit of Jerome Buonaparte, and after a running fight
of three hours the French were compelled to strike. Another squadron
of five French frigates and two corvettes was encountered at sea by Sir
Samuel Romilly, and four of the frigates were captured; Romilly lost his
arm in the action. During this year, also, an expedition was sent, under
the command of Sir David Baird, with a naval force commanded by Sir Home
Popham, against the Cape of Good Hope, and that country was added to
the English possessions; the enemy was compelled to retreat, and the
governor-general, Janseus, surrendered, on condition of his forces being
conveyed to Holland at the expense of the British government, and not
considered as prisoners of war. Finally, in the course of this year, Sir
Home Popham undertook an expedition against Buenos Ayres, which he took
from the Spaniards: but it was afterwards recaptured; and as Sir Home
undertook this enterprise without orders, he was recalled by government
and tried by a court-martial, which adjudged him to be severely
reprimanded. It is clear, however, that if Popham had been successful he
would have been acquitted of all blame; for on hearing that Buenos Ayres
was taken, the nation was intoxicated with joy; and it was not till
the news arrived that the Spaniards had recaptured it that the voice of
censure was heard against him. So fickle is public favour: the man
who is held in high estimation to-day, may, by one unfortunate action,
become the object of contempt to-morrow.




DISPUTES WITH AMERICA.

At this time disputes, which threatened war, arose between England and
America. The Americans complained of impressing British seamen on board
their merchant vessels on the high seas; of their violation of their
right as neutrals, in seizing and condemning their merchantmen, though
engaged in lawful commerce; and of the infringement of their maritime
jurisdiction on their own coasts. As an amicable arrangement of these
differences was desirable, a special mission was despatched to England,
and the disputes were finally settled by an assurance, on the first
point, that the right of impression should be exercised with caution,
and redress afforded for any act of injustice; and by establishing a
rule defining the difference between a continuous and an interrupted
voyage to the colonies of the enemy, and stipulating that on
re-exportation there should remain, after the drawback, a duty to be
paid of one per cent., _ad valorem_, on all European articles, and not
less than two per cent, on colonial produce. The maritime jurisdiction
of the United States was guaranteed, and some commercial stipulations
framed for the reciprocal advantage of the two countries.




AFFAIRS OF SICILY.

It has been seen that Napoleon coveted Sicily for his brother Joseph,
and that England would not consent to the overtures made on this
subject. This, however, did not prevent him from adding it to his
numerous conquests. Whilst yet at Schoenbrunn in December. 1805,
Napoleon declared war against Naples; his grand plea being, that the
king of that country had, in contempt of the treaty of neutrality,
recently received an English-Russian army landing there with friendship.
His decree was, “the royal house of Naples had ceased to reign;” and he
immediately sent his troops to put it into execution. The army sent
was commanded by Massena and Joseph Buonaparte; and by the month
of February, this year, it marched into the capital, and Joseph was
appointed by Napoleon hereditary King of Naples and Sicily. The new king
was to remain a French prince, and retain his rights of inheritance in
France; but this was only a preliminary step to future operations.
The two crowns were, however, never to be united upon one head. By the
reduction of Gaeta, in July, this revolution was consolidated. Soon
after this, a Batavian deputation appeared at Paris, and implored Louis
Napoleon for Regent, and that prince was proclaimed King of Holland,
upon the same conditions as his brother Joseph, King of Naples.
Moreover, Prince Eugene Beauharnois was appointed to the throne of
Italy, which kingdom was increased by the incorporation of the rich
countries once forming the State of Venice. Finally, Napoleon gave
Cleves with Berg, purchased of Bavaria, to Joachim Murat, the husband of
his sister, Caroline Annunciade, upon the same conditions as those upon
which he had given Naples and Holland to his two brothers.




WAR BETWEEN FRANCE AND PRUSSIA, ETC.

This year Prussia awoke from her fatal blindness. That country resolved
upon war with France; and England and Sweden became reconciled with her
king, while Russia promised him powerful aid. It was in October that
a mutual declaration of war took place, and hostilities commenced
immediately. A Prussian army, 120,000 strong, was assembled round
Erfurt; but though it was composed of valiant soldiers, it was ill
commanded, and, therefore, unfit to meet such a master of war as
Napoleon. Two battles were fought at Jena and Auerstadt, by which the
Prussian power was overthrown; more than 50,000 men were slain. These
battles were followed by the capture of Erfurt, Span-dau, Potsdam,
Berlin, Luben, Stettin, Kuestrin, Hameln, Nienburg, and Magdeburg; and
by victories over Prince Hohenlohe, near Prenzlow; and over the reserve
army of Brucher, towards the lower Elbe. Within six weeks after the
battle of Jena, all the country, from the Rhine to the other side of
the Oder, with a population of nine millions, fell into the hands of
Napoleon. The French troops occupied Brunswick and Hesse Cassel, the
Hanseatic cities, and finally Mecklenburg and Oldenburg. North Germany
groaned under the scourge of the victor; and South Germany paid him
homage, and gave him troops and gold. The houses of Brunswick and Hesse
Cassel ceased to reign; the electors were dispossessed. The King of
Prussia sought refuge with his Russian ally: his sudden fall was an
object of terror and grief. With Prussia, the grand bulwark of
Russia fell; Napoleon entertained, indeed, a project of raising up an
independent throne on the very frontiers of the northern power. The
injured Poles were summoned to insurrection, and an auxiliary army was
formed in Prussia-Poland. Hopes of success in this enterprise were well
founded, because at this time war broke out, through the intrigues of
the French ruler, between Russia and the Porte. Operations followed
on the Danube, which caused a powerful diversion of the Russian force,
which might otherwise have extended a more efficient aid to the Prussian
monarch.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

The new session of parliament was opened by commission, on the 19th of
December. The speech dwelt on the calamities of war; the progress of the
arms of France; the failure of pacific negociations through the
ambition of the French ruler; and the necessity of union, firmness, and
courageous endurance in the nation, to meet the peculiar exigencies
of the crisis. In the debates on the address, Lord Hawkesbury in
the lords, and Mr. Canning in the commons, took a very active part,
censuring the actions of the cabinet ever since it had been in office.
No amendment, however, was moved in either house, so that the addresses
passed without a division. Canning’s speech on this occasion, though
in some parts it exhibited a show of candour, was, nevertheless, one of
unrelenting hostility to the government. Thus, after strongly condemning
the policy of breaking with Prussia for Hanover, he remarked: “Prussia,
unable to resist France, encroached on us; we had, however, the option
to pass over a just cause of complaint, and to leave untouched the
only state in Europe which appeared capable of forming the germ of an
alliance hostile to the ambitious views of France; but the conduct of
ministers was the converse of their policy. By that conduct Prussia had
been compelled to act without our advice or assistance, and to plunge
into a war, of which, if our advice could not have prevented it, our
assistance might at least have meliorated the termination. Would any man
of common reflection say, that, for the restoration of Hanover, it was
worth while to make war on Prussia? The British government, however,
continued at war with her as long as the resources of Prussia were
unimpaired, and her strength unexhausted; but as soon as there seemed a
prospect of war between Prussia and France, an ambassador was sent to
Berlin, with instructions adapted to all possibilities, except that
which was most probable; namely, the actual commencement of war: for
that no provision had been made. As soon, however, as Lord Morpeth
returned, our government began to see their error, and to think that
there really was something like war between the two powers, from the
trifling circumstance, that the Prussian army was annihilated: and when
the Prussian monarchy shall be destroyed, they will perhaps send
an army.” In equally bitter terms Mr. Canning censured the foreign
diplomacy of the country, instancing the case of one minister being at
Paris to negociate peace, while another at Berlin was instigating war
for the same object. Canning also adverted to the letter which Fox had
sent to Talleyrand, observing that the insertion in it, that the British
government were beginning a new cause, as illustrated by the transaction
alluded to, was false, since the British government had never been
stimulators of assassination. The character of Fox was powerfully
vindicated by Lord Howick, who endeavoured to prove that the deceased
statesman was wholly free from any imputation on his integrity or his
political wisdom. Three days after this Lord Grenville presented to the
house of lords papers relative to the late negociations with Buonaparte;
and on the same day the thanks of both houses were voted to the British
officers who had commanded in the plains of Maida, in Calabria, where,
though inferior in numbers, they had defeated the French with great
slaughter. But, notwithstanding this defeat, as before seen, the French
made the conquest of the kingdom of Naples.




CHAPTER XXVII.

{GEORGE III. 1807—1809}

     Debate on the negociation with France..... Financial
     Arrangements..... The Slave-Trade Question..... Bill for
     Removing the Disabilities of the Roman Catholics.....
     Dismissal of Ministers..... New Cabinet..... Trial of
     Strength between   the   two Parties..... Dissolution   of
     Parliament..... The New Parliament—Campaign of
     Napoleon..... The Peace of Tilsit..... Expedition   to
     Copenhagen..... Hostilities against Turkey..... Expedition
     to Egypt..... Disasters in South America..... War with
     Russia..... French invasion of Portugal..... Milan Decree,
     &c. Disputes with America..... Meeting of
     Parliament..... Debates on the Orders in Council.....
     Financial Measures..... Debate on Ireland..... Motion
     respecting the Droits of Admiralty, &c. Prorogation
     of Parliament..... Rising  of the Spanish Nation, &c.
     Affairs of Portugal..... Confederation of France and
     Russia..... Operations in Spain..... Naval Affairs in the
     Mediterranean..... State of the Continent.




DEBATE ON THE NEGOCIATION WITH FRANCE.

{A.D. 1807}

The papers which Lord Grenville had laid on the table relative to the
negociations with France, were taken into consideration on the 5th of
January. In both houses addresses were moved to express to his majesty
approbation of his attempts to restore the blessings of peace, and
determination to support him in such measures as might yet be necessary,
either for the restoration of peace or the prosecution of war. In
both houses the motion was carried unanimously, though there were long
debates in which the comparative merits or demerits of the late and
present ministries were canvassed. All parties, however, agreed that
the continuation of war, and that an increase of power and a proper
direction to our military forces were necessary. An augmentation of sea
and land forces was voted; the total sum devoted to the navy alone being
£17,400,337. The number of seamen including marines was 130,000, and the
number of men under arms about 300,000; while the volunteers actually
armed and regimented nearly amounted to the same.




FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS.

On the 29th of January Lord Henry Petty, as chancellor of the
exchequer, submitted to the house an estimate of the supplies required
for the year, and of the ways and means by which he proposed to meet
them. The expenditure was calculated at a grand total of £45,841,340,
being £40,527,065 for Great Britain, and £5,314,275 for Ireland. Lord
Petty’s plan of finance, in order to meet this expenditure, assumed that
the annual produce of the permanent and temporary revenue would continue
equal to the produce of the preceding year; keeping these premises in
view, Lord Petty proposed that the war-loans for this year and the two
next should be £12,000,000 annually; for 1810, £14,000,000, and for the
next ten years £16,000,000. These loans were to be made a charge on the
war-taxes, which were estimated to produce £21,000,000 annually, and
this charge was to be at the rate of ten per cent, on each loan, five
per cent, interest, and the remainder as a sinking-fund, which at
compound interest would redeem any sum of capital debt in fourteen
years. Lord Petty said that the portion of war-taxes thus liberated
successively might, if war continued, become applicable in a revolving
series, and be again pledged for new loans. It was material, however, he
explained that the property-tax should cease on the sixth of April next,
after peace was ratified, and that on the result of the whole measure
there would not be any new taxes imposed for the first three years from
this time. All that was necessary would be new taxes, of less than £300,
000, on an average of seven years from 1810 to 1816, inclusive. This,
he continued, would procure for the country the full benefit of the plan
proposed, which plan would be continued for twenty years, during the
last ten of which no additional taxes would be required. This plan
after repeated discussions was agreed to, and the funds rose so high in
consequence, that the chancellor of the exchequer was able to negociate
a loan on advantageous terms to the public.




THE SLAVE-TRADE QUESTION.

Wilberforce seems to have placed his main dependence upon Fox, in the
great question of the abolition of the slave-trade; but on the death of
that minister, Lord Grenville took up the matter with greater zeal than
he had manifested. On the 2d of January he introduced a bill for the
total abolition of that inhuman traffic, and this bill was read a first
time and printed. Counsel was heard at the bar of the house against it
on the 4th of February; and next day, after an elaborate speech, Lord
Grenville moved the second reading. He was warmly supported by the Duke
of Gloucester, the Earl of Selkirk, Lord King, the Earl of Rosslyn, Lord
Northesk, the Bishop of Durham, Lord Holland, the Earl of Suffolk, and
Lord Moira; and as warmly opposed by the Duke of Clarence, the Earl
of Morton, the Earl of Westmoreland, and Lords Sidmouth, Eldon,
Hawkesbury, and St. Vincent. On a division, the bill was read a second
time by one hundred against thirty-six; and on the 10th of February it
was read a third time, and ordered to be sent to the commons for their
concurrence. In the commons the reading was moved by Lord Howick; and
so great had been the progress of philanthropic sentiments among British
legislators that only sixteen ventured to oppose it; two hundred and
eighty-three raised their voices in favour of it. The bill was read a
third time on the 16th of March, and on the 18th it was carried back to
the lords. Some amendments had been made in the commons, and these were
assented to by the lords; and on the 25th the bill received the royal
assent by commission. The bill enacted that no vessel should clear out
for slaves from any port within the British dominions after the 14th of
May, 1807; and that no slave should be landed in the colonies after the
1st of March, 1808. Thus this dark spot in the English annals was
wiped out, and a noble example was set to the nations around who still
trafficked in human flesh. It has, indeed, been justly observed that
“almost all the mild and benignant laws, enacted for the benefit and
protection of the negro slave, were of subsequent date to the first
agitation of the question by the British parliament; and may, therefore,
be fairly presumed to have been suggested by that movement.”

     “Quick at the call of virtue, freedom, truth,
     Weak withering age, and strong aspiring youth,
     Alike the expanding power of pity felt;
     The coldest, hardest hearts began to melt;
     From breast to breast the flame of justice glowed—
     Wide o’er its banks the Nile of mercy flowed;
     Through all the isle, the gradual waters swelled,
     Mammon in vain the encircling flood repelled
     O’erthrown at length, like Pharaoh and his host,
     His shipwrecked hopes lay scattered round the coast.”

Through the labours of Wilberforce, Clarkson, and other philanthropists,
the slave-trade was therefore abolished: it remained for future
philanthropists to emancipate those on whose naked limbs the shackles
were fastened. On the day after the abolition bill had been carried,
Lord Percy moved to bring in a bill for the gradual abolition of slavery
in the West Indies. This motion was negatived; but it showed that the
subject of their entire freedom would one day or other follow that of
the abolition of the slave-trade.




BILL FOR REMOVING THE DISABILITIES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS.

With the present administration, the catholic question was made a
subject of paramount importance. It was made a matter of discussion in
the cabinet; and although, in consequence of Lord Sidmouth’s aversion to
the measure, and some interviews held by Lords Grenville and Howick with
his majesty, the subject was for a time abandoned, yet about this time
it was partially renewed by a bill for allowing promotion in the army
and navy to Roman Catholics, as well as to other dissenters from the
protestant establishment. This bill which had received the reluctant
acquiescence of his majesty, was read a first time on the 5th of March,
and was ordered to be read on the twelfth of the same month. In
the meantime the king’s sentiments underwent a material change; his
coronation-oath would not, he said, allow him to give his royal assent
to such a measure. The bill was postponed from the 12th, in consequence
of this communication, to the 18th, during which time ministers sought
to remove the king’s scruples. This, however, was a task which they were
not able to perform, and they were at length compelled to consent to
withdraw the bill altogether.




DISMISSAL OF MINISTERS.

The introduction of the bill described above caused a breach between
his majesty and his ministers; a breach which admitted of no reparation.
Confidence, indeed, between his majesty and his cabinet had never
existed; for the king had accepted his ministers, not by choice, but by
necessity. This was well known; and it is easy to believe, as some have
represented, that his suspicion of them was increased by the whispers of
men who were in search of place and power. Secret advisers, it is
said, encouraged his majesty’s scruples on the subject of the catholic
question, while on the other hand it is asserted that the cabinet sought
to impose the bill on his majesty by unfair means. Be this as it may, it
led to their dismissal. On the 24th of March, Lord Grenville received a
letter from his majesty, directing him and his colleagues to appear at
the Queen’s palace on the morrow, at half-past eleven o’clock, for the
purpose of delivering up their seals of office. This mandate was obeyed;
and “all the talents” ministry was thus dissolved.




NEW CABINET.

Previous to the dismissal of “all the talents” ministry, the king had
been engaging successors. Between the 26th and the 31st of March the
following appointments were announced:—the Duke of Portland, first lord
of the treasury; Lord Hawkesbury, secretary for the home department;
Canning, secretary for foreign affairs; Lord Castlereagh, secretary
for war and the colonies; the Earl of Chatham, master of the ordnance;
Spencer Perceval, chancellor of the exchequer and under-treasurer of the
exchequer; Earl Camden, lord-president of the council; Earl Bathurst,
president of the board of trade, with George Rose for his vice; and the
Earl of Westmoreland, keeper of the privy-seal. Lord Erskine had been
permitted to retain the great seal for a week, in order that he might
have time to pronounce his decrees on some chancery-suits which had been
argued before him; but on the 1st of April, Lord Eldon was appointed,
and sworn in in his stead. On the same day the Duke of Richmond was made
lord-lieutenant of Ireland; and on the 3rd of April Lord Mulgrave was
named first lord of the admiralty, and the honourable Dundas, president
of the board of control. The remaining offices were filled up a few days
after; and, among other appointments, George Rose became treasurer
of the navy. The late ministry seems to have obtained not only the
displeasure of his majesty, but of the country, by their introduction of
the catholic question into the cabinet. A loud cry of “No popery!” was
indeed heard at this time, and when they were dismissed, the public
voice applauded his majesty’s decision. Addresses poured in from all
quarters, expressive of approbation, the terms of which may be seen from
his majesty’s reply to the address of the corporation of the city of
London: “I receive with the greatest satisfaction the assurances you
give me of your concurrence in those principles which have governed my
conduct on the late important occasion. It has ever been my object to
secure to all descriptions of my subjects the benefits of religions
toleration; and it affords me particular gratification to reflect,
that during my reign these advantages have been more generally and
extensively engaged than at any former period; but at the same time
I never can forget what is clue to the security of the ecclesiastical
establishment of my dominions, connected as it is with our civil
constitution and with all those blessings which, by the favour of
Providence, have hitherto so eminently distinguished us among the
nations of the world.”




TRIAL OF STRENGTH BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES.

On the first meeting of Parliament, after the new appointments, there
was a great trial of strength. In the course of negociation with the
late ministers, his majesty had been advised to exact a written pledge
from them, not only to abandon the catholic question, but never to
resume it. His majesty could scarcely have found it necessary to demand
of his new ministers such a pledge; yet, on the 9th of April, Mr. Brand
moved in the commons, “that it is contrary to the first duties of the
confidential servants of the crown to restrain themselves by any pledge,
expressed or implied, from offering to the king any advice that the
course of circumstances might render necessary for the welfare and
security of any part of his majesty’s extensive empire.” As it has been
observed, this was a constitutional truism, a principle not to be denied
without attacking the constitution itself. As, however, this motion, if
carried, would have been followed by other resolutions, implying a want
of confidence in men who had given such advice to his majesty, &c., the
new cabinet determined to try their strength on Brand’s first motion. It
was warmly supported by Mr. Fawkes, Sir Samuel Romilly, and others;
and as warmly opposed by Perceval and Canning. The friends of the late
administration were sanguine of success; but the Prince of Wales, having
declared that the motion was of a nature which must affect the
king personally, the prince’s friends, including Sheridan, absented
themselves, so that on a division it was rejected by two hundred and
fifty-eight against two hundred and twenty-six. A similar motion was
made in the lords, by the Marquis of Stafford; but it was there defeated
by a large majority, chiefly through the same means and agencies by
which it was lost in the commons. Lord Sidmouth on this occasion spoke
and voted against his late colleagues. Moreover, a motion made in the
commons, by Mr. Littleton, to express regret at the late change of
administration, was defeated by a majority of two hundred and forty-four
against ninety, so that ministers were triumphant.




DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.

Yet, notwithstanding their victory, ministers seem to have considered
that they stood on very unsafe ground; for they advised his majesty to
dissolve parliament, in order that a general election might take place.
Canning had threatened this in opposing Brand’s motion; but it was not
supposed that a dissolution would take place before the end of May,
and the regular close of the session. On the 27th of April, however,
parliament was prorogued by commission, and on the 29th the king
dissolved it by royal proclamation. Great efforts were made by both
parties at the new general election; but so effectual were the exertions
of the ministry,—so potent the cry of “No popery!” and, “The church is
in danger!” &c., raised by their partisans, both from the pulpit, by
the press, and in society at large, that of all the members of the late
cabinet, only Mr. Thomas Grenville resumed his seat in the commons for
the place which he had before represented. Bribery, also, did its work
effectually on this occasion: boroughs were sold at a price beyond all
precedent; Tierney offered £10,000, for two seats, but his offer was
refused, as too small for acceptance.




THE NEW PARLIAMENT.

The new parliament was opened on the 22nd of June, and the king’s speech
delivered by commission on the 20th of the same month. The result of the
elections soon became manifest. An amendment to the address, censuring
the late dissolution of parliament, was rejected in the lords by one
hundred and sixty against sixty-seven, and in the commons by three
hundred and fifty against one hundred and fifty-five. The business
transacted by the new ministry during this session was of little
importance. A new military plan was introduced by Lord Castlereagh for
increasing the regular army from the militia regiments, and supplying
the deficiencies so occasioned by a supplementary militia. A bill was
also introduced by Sir Arthur Wellesley for suppressing insurrection in
Ireland, and another was passed to prevent improper persons from keeping
arms. A bill was brought in by Whitbread for the education of the poor,
by establishing schools in all the parishes of England. This bill passed
the commons, but it was rejected by the lords. An address was carried
in the commons, on the motion of Mr. Bankes, praying his majesty not
to make any grant of an office in reversion till six weeks after the
commencement of the session. In all these measures ministers had a large
majority, and they had a fair prospect of being established in office.
Parliament was prorogued on the 14th of August, when the king’s speech,
which was again delivered by commission, breathed hope and cheerfulness.




CAMPAIGN OF NAPOLEON.

Although the King of Prussia at the close of the last year seemed to be
ruined, yet his spirit was not subdued. When Napoleon advanced in the
hope of crushing him, Frederic William was at Memel, and his Russian
allies were at Prussian-Eylau, A battle took place at Eylau on the 8th
of February, between the Russians and the main body of Napoleon’s army.
A fearful slaughter took place on both sides, and neither could claim
the victory. The Russians, indeed, still kept their ground, but as
they had lost thousands, and there was no prospect of succours, and as
Napoleon on the other hand would soon be joined by Bernadotte’s fresh
division, Beningsen, the Russian general, thought it prudent on the
next day to retreat. Having remained one week at Eylau, Napoleon moved
onwards to the river Passarge, his head-quarters being at Osterode.
From Osterode he sent offers of peace to the King of Prussia, while
at the same time he took measures for recruiting his army and reducing
Dantzic. The important city of Dantzic surrendered in May to Léfêbvre,
and in the meantime re-enforcements had reached both armies. Then
followed the battle of Friedland, in which Napoleon was again
victorious; the Russians were utterly defeated, and while thousands fell
on the field of battle, thousands more perished in the river Passarge,
into which they plunged in order to escape from their pursuing enemies.
Konigs-burg now surrendered to the French ruler. Beningsen retreated
beyond the Niémen; but the French soon reached that river in the
pursuit. The Russians now demanded an armistice, and this was conceded,
and preparations made for an interview between the emperors on a
raft moored in the middle of the river. There they met and embraced,
conversing for a considerable time in sight of their armies on the
opposite banks. In the course of their conversation, Alexander having
expressed resentment against the British ministry—his reason being that
they had departed from Pitt’s system of subsidies—Napoleon replied, “In
that case, the conditions of a treaty will be easily settled.” On the
following day Alexander crossed the river to Tilsit, where the two
emperors where soon on terms of equality and friendship. But not so
was the fallen monarch of Prussia: he was treated by his conqueror with
harshness and disrespect, and even Alexander became cold in his manners
towards his late ally.




THE PEACE OF TILSIT.

A peace was concluded between France and Russia on the 7th of July. The
conditions of this peace were various. The King of Prussia was restored
to about one half of his dominions as far as the Elbe, but all the
Prussian fortresses and sea-port towns were to remain in the hands of
the French until England should be compelled to sign a treaty of peace.
All the Polish provinces which Frederic William had acquired in the
partition of 1772 were disunited from his kingdom, and erected into a
separate territory, to be called the Duchy of Warsaw, and were placed
under the rule of the King of Saxony, who was to be allowed an open road
through the Prussian province of Silesia. The circle of Cotbuss, also,
was taken from Prussia and annexed to Saxony, and Dantzic was to be
under the control of both kingdoms, only until a general peace it was
to be garrisoned by the French. As a matter of course, the czar was not
called upon to make any sacrifice. On the contrary, he was gratified
with the cession of a part of Prussian-Poland, which materially
strengthened his own frontier. France allowed Russia also to take
Finland from Sweden; and Russia on her part engaged to close her
ports against British ships, and to place herself at the head of a new
northern coalition. Both Russia and Prussia acknowledged the thrones
which Napoleon had erected, and recognised the confederation of the
Rhine, and every other league which he had formed. Nay, they even
sanctioned future spoliation and wrong. They recognised a throne which
Buonaparte was about to erect for his brother Jerome—the throne of
Westphalia. It was declared that this kingdom should consist of the
provinces ceded by the King of Prussia, on the left bank of the Elbe,
and of other states at present in the possession of his majesty, the
Emperor Napoleon. In return for this courtesy, it was agreed that the
relatives or connexions of Alexander, namely, the Dukes of Saxe Cobourg,
Oldenburg, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, should be restored to their states, but
only upon conditions that their sea-ports should be garrisoned by French
soldiers till a treaty of peace should be signed between France and
England. By the treaty of Tilsit, Russia agreed to make peace with the
Porte, and to abandon Moldavia and Wallachia. Russia, likewise, ceded
the Ionian Isles to France, and promised the evacuation of Cattaro,
which as well as Ragusa was united with the kingdom of Italy. Although
Russia promised to make peace with the Porte, a scheme was concocted for
the future dismemberment of the empire, and for the distribution of its
spoils to Russia, France, and Austria. Plots were also devised against
Sweden and Spain, although the latter country had recently sacrificed
its whole navy in Napoleon’s cause, and whose army was still engaged for
him in the north. The treaty of Tilsit was, in fact, nothing less than
a league, avowed or secret, to enchain the world; most of the
European countries were already enslaved, and those that were not were
threatened. Even England was menaced; but England was still destined to
be the avenger of humiliated thrones.




EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN.

The naval force of England during this year maintained its supremacy. It
was manifest to all the world, from the terms of the treaty of Tilsit,
that Napoleon would, whenever it suited his purpose, occupy Denmark.
Nay, it has been seen that a new northern confederation was to be
formed, with Alexander the Emperor of Russia at its head. It was
determined, therefore, by the British cabinet, that the confederated
emperors should be anticipated: an armament of 20,000 men under Lord
Cathcart, accompanied by a powerful fleet under Admiral Lord Gambier,
was sent against Denmark. Before the expedition commenced operations,
a British envoy required that the Danish fleet should be delivered
into the hands of the British admiral, under a solemn agreement for
its restoration whenever peace should be concluded between England
and France. In case of refusal, the prince-royal was informed that the
British commanders would proceed to hostilities; and as a direct refusal
was given, operations soon commenced. The English army landed on the
16th of August without opposition; and Copenhagen was closely invested
on the land side, while the fleet formed an impenetrable blockade
by sea. A proclamation was issued by Lord Cathcart, notifying to the
inhabitants of Zealand the motives of the expedition, and the conduct
that would be observed towards them, with an assurance, that whenever
his Britannic majesty’s commands should be complied with hostilities
would cease. Copenhagen was bombarded on the 2nd of September, and the
firing continued, more or less actively, for four days, when a flag
of truce was sent to the British commanders by the commandant of the
garrison. A capitulation was settled on the 8th of September, and the
British army took possession of the citadel, dock-yards, and batteries;
engaging to restore them, and to evacuate Zealand, if possible, within
six weeks. All the ships laid up in ordinary were rigged out and
fitted by the British Admiral; and at the expiration of the term, they,
together with the stores, timber, and other articles of naval equipment
found in the arsenal, were conveyed to England. In the whole there were
seventeen ships of the line, eight frigates, besides sloops, brigs,
schooners, and gun-boats captured by the British admiral. But the most
valuable part of the seizure consisted of the masts, spars, timber,
sails, cordage, and other naval stores. They were so immense, that,
exclusive of the quantity shipped on board of the British and Danish
men-of-war, ninety transports brought away full cargoes. The expedition
reached the Yarmouth-Roads and the Downs in safety on the 21 st of
October.

As soon as the British fleet had passed the Sound, the Danes fitted out
a number of small armed vessels, which made successful depredations on
the English merchantmen in the Baltic. Soon after a declaration of war
followed on the part of the Crown-Prince, being instigated thereto by
having a formidable French army near at hand for his aid, and by having
an alliance with the Emperor of Russia in perspective. This was followed
by an order of reprisals from the British government against the ships,
goods, and subjects of Denmark. But even before the capitulation of
Copenhagen Vice-admiral T. Macnamara Russell and Captain Lord Falkland
captured the small Danish island of Heligoland. All Europe exclaimed
loudly against the apparent outrage that had been committed, whence
his Britannic majesty ordered a declaration to be published, in
justification of the motives which induced this expedition. In this
declaration it was stated, “that the king had received positive
information of the determination made by the ruler of France to occupy
with a military force the territory of Holland, for the purpose of
excluding Great Britain from her accustomed channels of continental
communication; of inducing or compelling the court of Denmark to close
the passage of the Sound against British navigation; and availing
himself of the aid of the Danish marine for the invasion of Great
Britain and Ireland.” Further, that Holstein once occupied, Zealand would
be at the mercy of France, and the navy of Denmark at her disposal.
Looking on the surface of the matter, the justice of the expedition
appears to be of an equivocal nature; but when it is recollected that
Denmark would have formed one of the most formidable sections of the
projected northern confederation, it must be confessed that it was a
justifiable precaution on the part of the British government.

During the month of December the Danish West India islands of St.
Thomas, St. John’s, and Santa Croce surrendered to a squadron commanded
by Sir Alexander Cochrane, and a small military force under General
Bowyer. A great many merchant vessels carrying the Danish flag were also
captured.




HOSTILITIES AGAINST TURKEY.

Another armament dispatched by the Grenville administration led to
no very honourable result. Towards the end of November, 1806, when our
diplomatists at the Ottoman Porte had been circumvented by the French,
and had failed in their endeavours to prevent the sultan from engaging
in a war with the czar Admiral Louis appeared off Tenedos and the coast
of Troy with three line-of-battle ships and four frigates. It was an
ancient rule, that no ships of war were to pass either the straits of
the Dardanelles or the straits of the Bosphorus; but, nevertheless,
Admiral Louis sent a ship of the line and a frigate through the former,
and the Turks, wishing to avoid hostilities with the English, let them
pass their tremendous batteries without firing at them. They came to
anchor off Constantinople, and while there some attempts at negociation
were renewed on shore. These negociations, however, were all rendered
abortive, partly by the skill of the French envoy, Sebastiani; partly
by the lack of ability in our ambassador, Mr. Arbuthnot; partly by the
victories that Napoleon was gaining over the Austrians and Russians;
and partly by the neutral ground which the Austrian envoy took, and the
shuffling and tergiversation of the ministers of Spain and Holland. Evil
reports, also, had their effect on the sultan. It was told him that
a large English fleet was on its way to the Dardanelles and
Constantinople, and that his capital would soon be bombarded. In such
an unenviable position did the British envoy stand, that he thought it
prudent to take his departure from Turkey. Secret preparations were made
for this purpose, and a scheme was also devised for carrying off with
him the persons attached to his embassy, and the British merchants
settled at Constantinople. After disclosing his project to two or three
persons, he requested the captain of the English frigate, “Endymion,”
 which remained at anchor near the mouth of the Golden-Horn, to invite
him, his legation, and the merchants, to a grand dinner on board. All
were invited, and all went to partake of the captain’s good cheer, not
dreaming that there was anything in the wind beyond a good dinner and
a few patriotic toasts. While yet round the festive board, however, Mr.
Arbuthnot gravely informed the merchants that they must go with him to
England; and it was in vain that they pleaded their wives and numerous
families were left on shore: it was answered, the Turks would not hurt
their wives and families, and that they must go away with him as they
were. The guests lost their appetites by this announcement; and at eight
o’clock in the evening the “Endymion” cut her cables, and got under
weigh; subsequently joining Admiral Louis’s squadron, off the island of
Tenedos. Mr. Arbuthnot now finding himself in safety, wrote to the
divan to explain the motives of his sudden departure, and to propose the
renewal of negociations. Feyzi Effendi, a Mussulman of high rank, was
ordered to open a conference with the British ambassador; and day after
day passed in negociations, but all to no purpose. At length, on the
10th of February, Sir John Duckworth arrived off Tenedos, with some more
ships of the line and two bomb-vessels; and this force being united to
that of Admiral Louis, made up a squadron of eight line-of-battle ships,
two frigates, and two bombs. The French envoy, by his agent, M. de
Lascours, had endeavoured to impress the necessity of exertion on
the mind of the Turkish negociator; but he had a predilection for the
English, and would not believe that they would commence hostilities with
the divan. It was not written in the book of destiny that the English
should come; and if they did, there were guns enough to sink them all:
the expenses which the French recommended, were, in fact, unnecessary:
God was great. Nor did the arrival of the squadron of Sir John Duckworth
interrupt the conference between the British envoy and the Turkish
negociator, or incite him to greater exertion; he still smoked his pipe,
and hoped that all things would end well. His confidence was possibly
increased by a terrible disaster which befell the “Ajax,” one of Sir J.
Duckworth’s squadron. While at anchor off Tenedos, she took fire, and
about two hundred and fifty men and women perished in the flames; the
rest, including the Captain, Blackwood, escaped by leaping into the sea,
where they were picked up by boats sent for their relief.

Sir John Duckworth had orders to force the passage of the Dardanelles,
anchor before Constantinople, and bombard the city, unless certain
conditions were complied with. The passage of the straits was effected
in the midst of a fire from the forts of Sestos and Abydos. At the same
time Sir Sidney Smith directed his efforts against a squadron; and a
battery, which, if completed, might have defended the Turkish vessels,
was stormed by a party of the British. The Turkish squadron and bastion
were destroyed, in which enterprise Sir Sidney Smith lost only four men
killed and twenty-six wounded. Sir John Duckworth now passed in apparent
triumph into the Bosphorus, whence he sent a letter to the Reis Effendi,
demanding a declaration of the sultan’s views—whether he was determined
to espouse the cause of France, or renew his alliance with England, and
second her efforts in opposing the tyranny of Napoleon. The British
were again overreached by French subtilty. Sebastiani, the French envoy,
inspired the Sultan with confidence, and persuaded him to enter into a
negociation, while in the mean time all the approaches to Constantinople
should be fortified. All this was done, and when the proposals of the
British government were rejected, the wind and current, as Sebastiani
had foreseen, prevented the hostile fleet from taking such a position
as would enable it effectually to bombard the city. Sir John Duckworth,
therefore, was obliged to hasten his departure; and in repassing
the Dardanelles, he sustained considerable loss from the fire of the
castles. A new enemy was added to the list already in battle array
against England. In Turkey, her agents and settlers were exposed to
considerable annoyance, and a sequestration of British property to a
large amount was promptly executed in various quarters. The fate which
awaited the Mussulman negociator was a lamentable one: he was accused
of imbecility or treachery; and his head was taken off his shoulders to
decorate the niche over the Seraglio gate: he paid dear for his friendly
feelings towards the English. So ended the famed expedition to the
Hellespont and the Bosphorus. It broke the spell by which the passage of
the Dardanelles had for ages been guarded; but beyond this it was little
more than a brilliant bravado, followed by a series of humiliating
blunders. And yet no investigation was instituted into the causes of
the failure, Sir John Duckworth being a favourite admiral of the “all
talents” ministry; and subsequently, after their dismissal, he being
sheltered from censure by the strife of parties.

{GEORGE III. 1807—1809}




EXPEDITION TO EGYPT.

A still more imbecile expedition was sent by the “all talents,” ministry
against Egypt. In the hope of subduing that country, and thus opposing
a barrier to the design which Napoleon meditated against our oriental
possessions, a force of 5,000 men, under the command of Major-general
Mackenzie Fraser, was ordered to invade it. These troops effected a
landing on the coast of Alexandria, and a detachment seized and occupied
the fort of Aboukir. Alexander also surrendered to the British arms,
and its easy conquest induced General Fraser to attempt the reduction
of Rosetta. The inhabitants of that town, however, were more courageous
than the Alexandrians: every house therein was used as a fortress,
whence a constant fire was directed against the assailants. The attempt
to take it was a complete failure: the British were obliged to retreat
with loss. A second attempt was made with about half the army; but it
was fruitless: a retreat again became necessary, and the troops were
obliged to fight their way back to Alexandria. General Fraser remained
at Alexandria till September, when, finding that its retention was
impracticable, he obtained the release of every British prisoner by
consenting to evacuate Egypt.




DISASTERS IN SOUTH AMERICA.

It is an old proverb that “misfortunes never come alone.” Thus it was
with the expeditions planned by the “all talents” ministry—t was hoped
that the reverses in the Mediterranean might be compensated in the
South Atlantic Oceans; but this hope was illusive. In October 1806, a
re-enforcement had been sent to the Rio de la Plata, under Sir Samuel
Auchmuty, who, on arriving at Maldonado, resolved to attack the strong
post of Monte Video, the key to the navigation of that river. His
efforts were at first successful,—the town and castle with fifty-seven
vessels of war and trade were captured. This success, however, was
followed by a series of reverses, induced by rashness and misconduct.
When intelligence arrived in England of the recapture of Buenos Ayres
by the Spaniards, orders were transmitted to General Crauford, who had
been sent against Chili with 4,200 men, accompanied by a naval force,
under Admiral Murray, to proceed with his army to the river Plate.
He reached Monte Video on the 14th of June, where he found General
Whitelocke, with a re-enforcement from England of 1,600 men. The chief
command of the British forces was entrusted to General Whitelocke, and
he had orders to reduce the whole province of Buenos Ayres. A general
attack on the town was ordered to be made on the 5th of July, each
corps being directed to enter the streets opposite to it, and all with
unloaded muskets. No mode of attack could have been so ill-adapted
against a town consisting of flat-roofed houses, disposed in regular
streets, intersecting each other at right angles. Volleys of grape-shot
were poured on our columns in front and flank as they advanced, and they
were equally assailed from the house-tops. The service was executed,
but it was with the frightful loss of 2,500 men in killed, wounded, and
prisoners. Sir Samuel Auchmuty succeeded in making himself master of
the Plaza de Toros, where he took eighty-two pieces of cannon, and an
immense quantity of ammunition; but General Crauford, with his brigade,
and Lieutenant Colonel Duff, with a detachment under his command, were
obliged to surrender. Surrounded with foes, General Whitelocke, who
had arrogantly refused to treat before the attack, now consented to
a negociation with the Spanish commandant; and he not only agreed to
evacuate the town, on condition of recovering his own prisoners, and
those taken from General Beresford, but to give up Monte Video, with
every other place on the Rio de la Plata held by British troops, within
the space of two months. The result of this expedition brought General
Whitelocke before a court-martial, and he was sentenced to be cashiered
for lack of zeal, judgment, and personal exertion. Against the
ill-success of these expeditions, the solitary capture of the Dutch
colony of Curacoa only can be recorded: this island surrendered, on the
1st of January, to a squadron of our frigates under Commodore Brisbane.




WAR WITH RUSSIA.

The Emperor of Russia strongly resented the conduct of England towards
Denmark; and as the treaty of Tilsit had tended to relax the bond of
union between England and Russia, it was feared that Alexander might
soon combine against that power with which he had so long co-operated.
These fears were soon realized. A manifesto soon issued from the
imperial palace of Petersburgh, in which this country was not only
accused of provoking a war by the enterprise against Denmark, but as
“cooly contemplating a bloody war, which had been kindled at her will,
while she sent troops to attack Buenos Ayres; and as despatching from
Sicily another army, which appeared destined to make a diversion
in Italy, to the African coast, for the purpose of seizing and
appropriating Egypt to herself.” This declaration was followed by a
spirited reply on the part of the British government, by the British
ambassador’s leaving Petersburgh, and by a grant of letters of marque
and reprisals against Russian vessels. The Emperor of Russia now issued
a declaration of war against England, and proclaimed anew the principles
of the armed neutrality, and engaged that there should be no peace
between Russia and England until satisfaction should have been given
to Denmark. Such were his pretexts for declaring war against his late
powerful ally; but it is clear from the treaty of Tilsit, that war
was in his heart before England had committed the aggressions, if
aggressions they were, of which he so loudly complained. Moreover, had
English subsidies still been forthcoming, Alexander had yet been the
friend of King George.




FRENCH INVASION OF PORTUGAL.

Napoleon was equally clamorous against England as was Alexander for her
conduct towards Denmark. While, however, he was making Europe ring with
his maledictions against her, for violating the neutrality of Denmark,
he was devising schemes and giving positive orders for falling upon
Portugal in a time of peace. On the 27th of October it was agreed
between France and Spain—That Spain should grant a free passage through
her territories, and supply with provisions a French army to invade
Portugal; that she should also furnish a body of troops to co-operate
with the said French army; and that as soon as the conquest should be
completed, the provinces which now composed the kingdom of Portugal
should be divided between the King of Etruria, the King of Spain’s
grandson, and Manuel Godoy, who was the Queen of Spain’s infamous
favourite. Thus the province of Jutra Douro, and Minho, with the city
of Oporto, was to fall to the lot of the King of Etruria, and was to be
erected into a kingdom, under the name of Northern Lusitania; and the
sovereignty of the Alentejo and Algarves was to be given to Godoy, who
was to assume the title of the Sovereign Prince of the Algarves. These
two principalities were to own the King of Spain as their protector;
but France was to keep the city of Lisbon, and the provinces of
Tras-os-Montes, Beira, and Estremadura until the period of a general
peace. In consideration of obtaining this new kingdom, the Queen of
Etruria, acting as regent for her son, was to abdicate and give to
Napoleon those districts in Italy which he had previously annexed to the
King of Etruria’s kingdom. This treaty was not signed, as before seen,
until the 27th of October; but nine days before this a French army had
crossed the Bidaso, and had commenced its march through Spain for the
Portuguese frontier. This army was commanded by Junot; and on the 26th
of November that commander advanced to Abrantes, within three days’
march from Lisbon. The Moniteur had already announced that “the house of
Braganza had ceased to reign;” and as if to fulfil this imperial edict,
the royal family embarked on board a British fleet and set sail for the
Brazils, leaving the country in the hands of the enemy. In the whole,
about 18,000 Portuguese abandoned their homes and their country with
their sovereign. They were accompanied a part of their voyage by a
strong British squadron, under the command of Admiral Sir Sidney Smith;
and when that commander left them, he returned to blockade the
Tagus. Junot’s first measure was, on entering Lisbon, to disarm the
inhabitants: and this done he commenced the levy of contributions. In
every respect he treated the country as a conquest of France, and
his Spanish auxiliaries followed the example of his rapacity. The
Portuguese, indeed, were so oppressed by the French and Spanish, that
they everywhere cherished the intention of rising upon the invaders,
and they looked to England, whose flag was never out of sight of their
coasts, for aid in their extremity.




MILAN DECREE, ETC.

The British order in council of the 7th of January, prohibiting neutrals
from trading to any port in the possession or under the control of the
enemy not being efficient, additional orders were issued, on the 11th of
November, declaring every port from which England was excluded to be in
a state of blockade, and all trade in its produce illegal, and liable
therefore to be captured. The Americans were allowed still to trade
with the enemy’s colonies for articles of their own consumption; but the
double restriction was imposed on their intercourse between France and
her colonies, of calling at a British port and paying a British duty.
To avoid the losses and hostilities apprehended from the measures of the
two great belligerent powers, the British council likewise laid a strict
embargo on all American vessels, by which they were prohibited from
leaving their ports, while the ships of all other nations were ordered
to quit the harbours of the United States, with or without cargoes, so
soon as they should receive notification of the act. These directions
were responded to by Napoleon, by his celebrated Milan decree, which
enacted “that all vessels entering a port of France after having touched
England should be seized and confiscated, with their cargoes, without
exception or distinction.” This decree was succeeded by another on the
19th of December, which had more explicit reference to our late orders
in council, and which declared “that every neutral which submitted to
be searched by an English ship, or which paid any duty to the British
Government, should, in consequence, become liable to seizure, as a
lawful prize, by French ships of war.” Neutral powers, as it has been
observed, were thus placed between two fires: if they entered a French
port without paying a duty on their cargoes in England, they were
subjected to capture by British cruizers; and if they touched at England
for that purpose, they became subject to confiscation in the ports of
France. The system, however, which Napoleon had adopted towards British
commerce, and which gave rise to these perplexities among nations, was
the means by which he was hurled from his throne.




DISPUTES WITH AMERICA.

The orders in council described above gave rise to much irritation in
the United States. Another unfortunate subject of dispute also rose
between the two countries: an American vessel was seized by Captain
Humphries, because the commandant refused to admit a search for some
deserters which were supposed to be on board. In consequence of this a
proclamation was issued by the president, ordering all British ships
of war to quit the harbours of the United States. Satisfaction for the
outrage was demanded of Great Britain; and although the British ministry
expressed their readiness to make reparation for the act of unauthorized
aggression which had been committed; disavowed the conduct of Admiral
Berkley, under whose orders Captain Humphries had acted; and sent a
special envoy to America, with overtures of conciliation, as will be
seen in a future page, the breach was not healed.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1808}

Parliament met on the 31st of January, when the speech, which was
delivered by commission, dwelt at great length upon foreign affairs, and
mentioned nearly every country in Europe as in a state of hostility
to England. Some light was thrown by it upon the system conceived by
Napoleon for uniting all the navies of Europe against us: it was shown
that he had counted upon obtaining the fleets of Portugal and Denmark;
and regret was expressed that, in the latter case, we had been compelled
to resort to force. The Hostility of Russia was attributed to the
military successes and machinations of France. Allusion was made to the
differences existing between England and the United States of America.
Greater exertions were inculcated, and the determination was announced
of never yielding to pretensions inconsistent with the maritime rights
of Great Britain. Commerce, notwithstanding Napoleon’s Berlin and Milan
decrees, was still in a flourishing state; for the produce of the taxes
and duties was considered to demand his majesty’s congratulation to
parliament. The speech concluded with asserting that the sole object of
the war was to attain a lasting and honourable peace; that there never
was a more just and national war waged than the present; that the eyes
of all Europe and the world were fixed upon the British parliament; that
his majesty felt confident that they would display the characteristic
spirit of the British nation, and boldly face the combination which
had gathered around us; and that his majesty was firmly persuaded
that, under the blessings of Providence, Great Britain would ultimately
triumph. The addresses were carried in both houses without a division.

The attention of parliament was early called to the expedition to
Copenhagen; which was, by a large party, both in parliament and the
kingdom at large, considered a disgrace to the administration from
whom the plan emanated. The act was chiefly defended on the plea of
necessity, arising from the powerful combination of European states
formed against us after the treaty of Tilsit. Several motions were made
on this subject by opposition; but in every instance they were outvoted
by immense majorities. In these debates Mr. Canning was the great
champion of the ministry; and his eloquence was such that he bore
away the palm from every competitor, and carried conviction to every
unprejudiced and candid mind. It has been well remarked, “A capital part
of the case reduced itself simply to this:—if we did not make sure
of the Danish fleet, Buonaparte was sure to get it, a little sooner or
later. The justification adopted by our government may be explained with
almost equal brevity: a man knows that his next-door neighbour has in
his possession a large barrel of gunpowder; he may believe that his
neighbour will not set fire to this powder so as to endanger his house
and property, but he knows that there is an evil-disposed person living
over the way, who has a design upon the powder, and the intention of
blowing up his house with it; and knowing at the same time that the
owner of the powder cannot defend it or keep it out of the way of the
evil-disposed person, he demands that it should be put into his hands,
which are strong enough to keep it, and which can put it beyond the
reach of the evil-disposed party; offering to restore it when the danger
shall be passed, or to pay the price of it: and when the weak neighbour
rejects this proposition, he takes the powder by force, to prevent its
being seized and employed against his own house and property.” Just so
it was in the matter of Denmark. That country had a powerful navy which
she would not have used against England herself, but Napoleon wanted it
for that purpose; and to prevent his designs, England demanded it for a
time till the danger was over; and this being refused, seized it _sans
cérémonie_. It was the law of self-preservation which dictated this act
of our government; and Grotius, a great writer on the law of nations,
has remarked:—“I may, without considering whether it is merited or
not, take possession of that which belongs to another man, if I have
any reason to apprehend any evil to myself from his holding it. I cannot
make myself master or proprietor of it, the property having nothing to
do with the end which I propose; but I can keep possession of the thing
seized till my safety be sufficiently provided for.” The instinct of duty
and self-preservation suggests this course. And thus it was that our
government was induced to seize the navy of Denmark. And it was seized
without any declaration of war on our part, for the simple reason that
dispatch was necessary. If we had delayed, the Danish fleet would soon
have been in the hands of the enemy; hence his maledictions against
what he termed our “aggressions:” we had anticipated him, and he was
mortified with the bitter disappointment he thereby sustained.




DEBATES ON THE ORDERS IN COUNCIL.

On the 5th of February Mr. Perceval, the chancellor of the exchequer,
moved that the orders in council should be referred to the committee of
ways and means. The opposition took this opportunity of declaring that
we ought not to retaliate by such measures; that these orders were
unjust, and would do as much mischief as the Berlin and Milan decrees;
that they were as contrary to justice as to policy; and that they went
to violate both the law of nations and the municipal law of England. On
the other hand it was argued, that we had a right to retaliate upon the
enemy his own measures; that if he declared we should have no trade,
we had equal right to declare he should have none; and that if he
proclaimed British manufactures and colonial produce good prize, we were
justified in doing the same with respect to France. This was inculcating
the old worldy maxim of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth;” and
ministers were supported in their line of policy by a large majority.
Subsequently, a bill, brought in by the chancellor of the exchequer, for
regulating the orders in council, as they affected neutrals, was carried
through both houses. This had reference to the differences between
England and America; and it was followed by a bill for regulating
commercial intercourse with the United States, which was intended to
give time for making some amicable arrangements with the Americans;
continuing at the same time another act without which trade could not
have been carried on with England in American vessels.




FINANCIAL MEASURES.

In opening the budget for this year the chancellor of the exchequer
stated the amount of supplies at about £43,000,000 for England, and
£5,700,000 for Ireland. The produce of the war-taxes was estimated at
£20,000,000, and among the ways and means was a loan of £8,000,000, and
more than £300,000 additional taxes. As Portugal was occupied, Sicily
threatened, and Sweden brought to the brink of ruin by its alliance with
England, an increase of soldiers and sailors was demanded. The number of
seamen voted for the year was 130,000; and the total number of soldiers,
cavalry and infantry, was 300,000. All the corps were represented as
being in a higher state of discipline than heretofore; and although
24,000 men had been drafted from the militia into the regular army, it
was stated that it was nearer to its establishment than it had been
last year. On the motion of Lord Castlereagh a bill was introduced
for establishing a local militia of 200,000 men, to be trained for
twenty-eight days every year; and this bill, which passed into a
law, extended to Scotland. Lord Castlereagh moved, likewise, for the
insertion of a clause in the mutiny bill, to permit soldiers to enlist
for life; and this was carried in spite of the stern opposition of
Windham, whose system it affected. Early in the session Mr. Bankes
reproduced his bill for preventing the grant of offices in reversion,
or for joint lives with benefit of survivorship; but though it passed
the commons, it was rejected by the lords. Subsequently he brought
forward a new bill, limited to one year’s duration, which passed into a
law.




DEBATE ON IRELAND.

In the course of this session there was a vehement debate on Ireland.
The late ministry and their friends attributed the disaffection which
still prevailed in that unhappy country to the coercive policy of the
present administration. The appointment of Dr. Duigenau, to a seat in
the privy-council, which took place about this time, was considered as
a wanton insult to the feelings of the Irish people; and as Mr. Canning
was mainly instrumental in making that appointment, he was unsparingly
condemned for the act. Mr. Tierney asked how ministers could suppose,
that in recommending such an appointment, they were cherishing that
unity and harmony which it appeared to be his majesty’s earnest desire
to cultivate. It was the boast of Mr. Canning, he said, to be the
representative of Mr. Pitt’s opinions; but, he would venture to
say, that if Mr. Pitt were living, he would be ashamed of such
an appointment; and that he never would have lent himself to the
contemptible system of irritation which the present administration
seemed to have adopted. This debate took place on the presentation of
the Roman Catholic petition, on which occasion ministers were anxious to
elude the question. Opposition, however, not only pressed it upon them
in this debate, but also in others, when it was wholly out of place;
going occasionally to some unjustifiable lengths, in the way of
assertion. Thus Lord Hawkesbury affirmed, that ministers and the country
had learned from the disaffected in Ireland, that there were secret
engagements in the treaty of Tilsit, which secret engagements he
declared in his speech. All the powers of Europe, he said, were to be
confederated to engage or seize on the fleets of Denmark and Portugal;
and then Ireland was to be attacked from two points, i.e. from
Lisbon and Copenhagen. This ministers, he added, had learned from the
disaffected in Ireland, and they had never yet found the information of
these parties false!




MOTION RESPECTING THE DROITS OF ADMIRALTY, ETC.

Sir Francis Burdett, considering that the proceeds from the droits of
admiralty were so large as to become dangerous to public liberty, moved,
with a view to ulterior inquiry, that an account of the net proceeds
paid out of the court of admiralty since the 1st of January, 1793, with
the balances now remaining, be laid before the house, which motion was
agreed to. This year witnessed a diminution of rigour in our criminal
code. Sir Samuel Romilly introduced a bill to repeal so much of an
act of Elizabeth as tended to take away the benefit of the clergy from
offenders convicted of stealing privately from the person. A clause was
introduced by the solicitor-general, providing that the act, instead of
being punished by death, should be punished by transportation for life,
or for a term of years, according to the discretion of the judge. During
this session a bill was also passed for the better administration of
justice in Scotland; its object being to divide the court of session
into two chambers of seven or eight judges; to give those courts certain
powers for making regulations with respect to proceedings, and to
executions in pending appeals, and also for issuing commissions to
ascertain those cases in which it might be proper to establish a trial
by jury. In the course of this session the charges against the Indian
administration of the Marquess Wellesley were fully disposed of by his
full and entire acquittal. Sir John Anstruther’s motion, that the noble
marquess had been actuated by an ardent zeal for the service of his
country, and by an ardent desire to promote the interests, safety,
and prosperity of the British empire, was carried by one hundred and
eighty-nine against twenty-nine. Subsequently a vote of thanks was given
to the noble marquess for his services in the Copenhagen expedition; and
in communicating this, the speaker of the house of commons dilated on
his Indian exploits, and pointed him out as the officer best fitted to
command in chief a great expedition. While parliament was sitting,
a grand movement had begun in Spain against the French nation; and
Sheridan called the attention of the house to this subject, and demanded
its exertions in favour of the Spanish cause. But ministers seemed to
think, that though they fully sympathized with the patriots who
had taken up arms in that country, the time had not arrived for the
interference of England.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued by commission on the 4th of July. By this
time ministers had become convinced that it was their duty to aid the
Spaniards in their struggle against Napoleon; for the commissioners
stated, in his majesty’s name, that the Spanish nation must now be
considered as the ally of Great Britain, and that it was his majesty’s
intention to make every exertion in his power for the support of their
cause.




RISING OF THE SPANISH NATION, ETC.

It has been seen that a compact had been entered into between Napoleon
and the Spanish court for a division of Portugal, when the conquest
of that country should be made. Napoleon, however, never intended that
Spain should share in the spoils of his conquests. Contrary to the
treaty, the Spaniards were almost wholly excluded from the occupation
of the country; and added to this, French troops suddenly marched
by different routes into the very heart of the Spanish kingdom. The
Spaniards saw their soil in the hands of a foreigner, and their proud
hearts beat high with indignation at the outrage committed. Godoy,
the “Prince of Peace,” saw that he had been overreached, and that his
empire, as well as that of his master, was at an end. He advised the
royal family to take refuge in flight; but the people seeing that this
was determined upon, resolved upon a desperate resistance. One voice
alone was heard throughout the provinces, and that one voice loudly
accused Godoy of imbecility or treason. A terrible sedition broke out at
Aranguez, in March of the present year. Summoned to arms by Ferdinand,
the Prince of Austria, an avowed foe to Godoy, the whole population
rose, stormed the palace in which the favourite dwelt, abused him, and
would have murdered him, but for the intercession of the queen. Covered
with wounds, he was, however, conducted to prison, and then they
compelled the king to resign, and placed the sceptre of power in the
hands of his son Ferdinand, who had incited the revolt. Ferdinand
entered Madrid in the character of King of the two Spains; but the
French troops, under Murat, entered that city on the next day, and the
newly-created king soon discovered who was to be master. Murat refused
to acknowledge the Prince of Austria as king, and announced the near
arrival of Napoleon in Madrid. He was advised to go to meet Napoleon,
in order to secure his favour; but when he met him at Bayonne, he was
informed that the French emperor’s determination was to remove the
Bourbon house from the Spanish throne. He was compelled to declare the
unconditional restoration of the crown to his father, who was called to
Bayonne for the purpose of receiving it; and then the old monarch ceded
to Napoleon by treaty all his rights to the throne of Spain and India,
with the single condition, that the prince whom the emperor intended
to place thereon should be independent, and that the Roman Catholic
religion should continue to be the only religion in Spain. The king, the
queen the royal family, and Godoy received in return an assured abode in
France, with certain pensions; and the whole court went immediately to
the castle of Compeigne, which the conqueror allotted them. Napoleon now
gave the throne of Spain to his brother Joseph, who reigned at Naples,
giving the latter throne to Joachim Murat, Grand Duke of Bergand Cleves.
The members of the national junta were now convoked to Bayonne from
all parts of the kingdom, and anew constitution was formed, after which
Joseph set out for his kingdom in Spain. Napoleon thought his work
consummated; but events proved that it was only now commenced. The royal
house of the Bourbons had vanished, but the nation still lived. The news
of what had passed at Bayonne filled all Spain with fury: the national
pride revolted against the yoke of the foreigner, and a contest was
roused, the flames of which raged over all the provinces of the kingdom.
In the very day that Napoleon declared his brother King of Spain, the
junta of Seville proclaimed war against the oppressor; and on the day of
the entrance of King-Joseph into Madrid, the French were repulsed from
Saragossa, and compelled to lay down their arms at Baylen, to the number
of 26,000 men. So furious was the storm of war which Napoleon had thus
called up throughout the whole country, that his brother Joseph was
obliged to quit Madrid one week after his entry therein. In every part
the population rose to arms and massacred the French: the very clergy
aiding the people and the army to root them from their soil. From this
time for six long years Spain fought against the formidable forces of
the world’s tyrant; and, as will be seen in a future page, she came
off victorious. At the very first onset, indeed, by the capitulation at
Baylen, the charm of French invincibility was broken, and the star of
Napoleon was covered with an opaque cloud. It was this battle, fought
in July, which induced England to assist the Spaniards. Money, arms,
munitions of every sort, and troops were sent to both Spain and
Portugal; and, as regards the latter country, their power was soon
rendered effective.

{GEORGE III. 1807—1809}




AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL. CONFEDERATION OF FRANCE AND RUSSIA.

Upon receiving the intelligence of these reverses, Napoleon assembled a
far more powerful army, and resolved to crush the insurrection of Spain
at least in person. Other dangers, however, awaited him. Alarmed at
the treaty of Tilsit, and invigorated by its consequences, Austria had
increased her regular force, and organized a militia; and the French
reverses in Spain and Portugal gave a new impulse to her evident
preparations for war. Napoleon saw this with alarm, and he resolved at
once to menace and insult that country, by arranging the co-operation
of Russia and the confederated states of the Rhine against the Emperor
of Austria, should he attempt to take advantage of the Spanish war. A
meeting between Napoleon and Alexander of Russia took place at Erfurt in
September and October; and although the sovereigns of the confederation
of the Rhine were permitted to pay their court there, Austria was
excluded as a secondary power. Thus insulted afresh, the Emperor of
Austria resolved in the course of the next year to renew the struggle
with France, though he should find himself opposed to Russia likewise. A
mysterious veil covered for a time the transactions of Erfurt; but what
transpired in relation to them and what ensued justified the conjecture
that they confirmed the conventions of the treaty of Tilsit; and that
the new dynasty in Spain was acknowledged by Russia for permitting her
to aggrandize herself in the north and the east. From Erfurt the two
emperors directed a common proposal of peace to the King of England,
accompanied by the declaration, that this step was the consequence
of the most intimate connexion of the two greatest monarchs of the
continent for war as well as for peace; but this proposal was without
effect. They were answered that, however desirous both the government
and the people might be to put an end to the miseries of war, they were
prepared to endure any extremity before they sacrificed the interest
of their allies by negociating a separate peace, and leaving Sicily,
Sweden, Portugal, and Spain to the tender mercies of Napoleoa. “The
hideous presence of the British leopards” was still to prove a terror to
Frenchmen.




OPERATIONS IN SPAIN.

Having strengthened his alliance with the Emperor of Russia, Napoleon
recalled his legions from the banks of the Niémen, the Spree, the Elbe,
and the Danube, in order to reduce Spain. Placing himself at the head
of them, he crossed the Pyrenees early in November, and the battles of
Burgos, Espinosa, and Tudela, fought under his auspices, once more placed
his brother Joseph on the throne of Spain. Napoleon, accompanied by
Joseph, again occupied Madrid; and he now sought to appease the fury
of its inhabitants and of the people in the provinces by conciliatory
measures. The promises made to the Spanish people were ample; but
he spoke to men who had no ears for his offers, On every hand the
population flew to arms, and all vowed to drive him from their land.
Even conflicting parties agreed to shake off their natural enmity to
each other, in order to effect this triumph. A guerilla warfare was now
pursued: agile bands of men appeared, and having cut off some of their
enemies, retired with equal rapidity. In the meantime a British army,
under General Moore, was marching to their aid from Portugal. When
this army had arrived at Salamanca, however, the Spaniards had already
experienced successive defeats, so that when Napoleon advanced against
him, General Moore deemed it prudent to retreat. The French emperor
expressed his joy aloud at seeing the “British leopards” fly before him;
but while pursuing them he received fresh accounts of the preparation of
Austria, and suddenly turning his horse, he returned to Burgos, and from
thence hurried to Paris. Soult was left to combat with the English; and
that general, overtaking them at Corunna, was defeated by them, though
inferior in numbers. The greatest loss on the side of the English was
that of their commander, Sir John Moore, who was mortally wounded by a
cannon-ball. So great was the bravery displayed by General Moore on this
occasion, that his very antagonists erected a monument to his memory.
After his death the command of the army devolved on Sir John Hope, who
pursued a plan devised by General Moore, that of embarkation during the
night, and who carried this plan into effect with complete success.
The British quitted Spain in January, 1800, leaving the Spaniards to
struggle with the French by their own prowess.

The flame of patriotism enkindled in Spain soon spread to Portugal. The
Portuguese arose against Junofc, and they were quickly aided in
their struggle by the English. A small army, collected for a distant
enterprise, was ordered thither, under the command of Sir Arthur
Wellesley. This army landed in August at the mouth of the river Mondego,
north of Lisbon; and soon after Sir Arthur defeated the French forces,
under de la Borde, at Rohia, and the main army, under Junot, at Vimiera.
The result of this last victory was the capitulation of Cintra, in
virtue of which Junot’s army was conveyed to France upon English
vessels; and all Portugal was left in the power of the British. From
this time the English had a firm, foundation for their campaigns in the
Peninsula. Subsequently a Russian fleet of nine ships of the line, which
lay in the Tagus, under Admiral Siniavin, surrendered by convention:
it was to be held with all its stores by England as a deposit, till
six months after the conclusion of a peace; the admiral, officers,
and seamen being sent to Russia at the expense of England. After the
evacuation of Portugal by the French troops, a regency was established;
which, by restoring comparative tranquillity, taught the people to
estimate the advantages they had obtained from their British allies.
It was not long, indeed, before the Portuguese, laying aside their
characteristic pride and vain boasting, clung to their ancient
protectors, and submitted to their direction with a docility and
patience that produced the happiest result.




NAVAL AFFAIRS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN.

Napoleon had not yet abandoned all hopes of assistance from his navy, or
relinquished the fond wish he had entertained of diminishing the power
of the British on the sea. Nay, he had recently declared that a true
Frenchman could not rest till the sea was open and free. This year he
had collected a large squadron at Toulon, to co-operate with his troops
on the side of Calabria, in an attack on Sicily. Possessed of that
island, he would have been able to injure our commerce effectually; and
in order, therefore, to counteract his views, measures were taken
to fortify that part of the Sicilian coast where a landing could be
effected; while Lord Collingwood blockaded the port of Toulon as
closely as he could consistently with his efforts to second the Spanish
patriots in their noble cause, which double duty was imposed upon him by
the British Government. A considerable French fleet, stationed at Cadiz,
surrendered in June to that people who had experienced so many insults
and injuries from its flag. Collingwood wished these men-of-war to join
his squadron, for the purpose of intercepting any French fleet that
might be sent against the Spanish dominions in South America; but the
supreme junta of Seville, instead of complying with his request, began
to dismantle them. A want of confidence in the British government, and
an overweening trust in their own internal resources, notwithstanding
the serious reverses they had recently met with; still pervaded the
Spanish nation.




STATE OF THE CONTINENT.

During this year the Russian autocrat and the Emperor Napoleon pursued
that system of aggrandizement, which they had contemplated in making
the treaty of Tilsit. In February a Russian army entered Finland, which
province had always been an object of cupidity to the court of St,
Petersburgh, and on the accession of Frederic VI. to the crown of
Denmark, that monarch declared war against Sweden. After several bloody
battles, the fate of Gustavus Adolphus appeared inevitable; when, to
avoid falling under the yoke of Russia, he entered into a convention
which virtually left the granary of Sweden in the hands of his
conqueror.

This year Napoleon affected great changes in the affairs of Italy.
Having adopted his son-in-law, Eugene Beauharnois, as his own son, he
settled that kingdom upon him in tail male, and incorporated with the
legations of Ancona, Urbino, Macerata, and Camerino, which were the
pope’s dominions; stating in a decree as the sole reason for this act of
undisguised despotism, “that the sovereign of Rome had refused to make
war against England.” Parma, Placentia, and Guastalla, were also annexed
to the kingdom of Italy, as were Kehl, Wesel, Cassel, and Flushing to
France. To complete his domestic policy, Napoleon now instituted an
hereditary nobility; princes, dukes, counts, barons, and knights of the
empire sprung up like mushrooms on every hand, in order to ennoble
his newly created empire. Napoleon likewise instituted an imperial
university; but his school was rather calculated to train up agents of
imperial despotism, than men of learning and enlightened minds. As the
sworn enemy of liberty, he declared himself the head of this university,
and decreed that all schools or seminaries should be under its control.




CHAPTER XXVIII.

{GEORGE III. 1809—1812}

     Meeting of Parliament..... The Supplies, &c. Charges
     against the Duke of York..... Parliamentary Corruption.....
     Motion  for Reform..... Prorogation of Parliament.....
     Affairs of Spain..... Further Operations in Spain.....
     Campaign of Napoleon in Italy..... British Expedition
     against Naples and Walcheren..... Dissensions in the
     Cabinet..... Meeting of Parliament..... Debate on the
     Walcheren   Expedition..... Proceedings against Sir Francis
     Burdett..... The Supplies..... The Slave-Trade Question.....
     Petition of the Irish Catholics. &c. Prorogation of
     Parliament &c. . Campaign in Portugal..... Affairs of
     Spain..... Foreign Conquests, &c. The Marriage of
     Napoleon, &c. Illness of His Majesty: Opening of
     Parliament, &c. Opening of Parliament by the
     Regent..... Debate on the Re-appointment of the Duke of York
     to the War-office..... The Supplies..... The Bullion
     Committee, &c. Subject of Military Discipline..... Lord
     Sidmouth’s Motion respecting Dissenting Preachers.....
     Affairs of the Irish Catholics..... Amendment of the
     Criminal law..... . Prorogation of Parliament..... Disputes
     with America..... Capture of Java..... Affairs of
     Portugal..... Affairs of Spain;   Capture of Badajoz,
     &c. Naval Affairs..... Affairs of France.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1809}

Parliament was opened by commission on the 19th of January. The royal
speech stated his majesty’s reasons for rejecting the proposals made for
a negociation with France and Russia, and spoke of the perseverance of
the Spaniards in the cause of their legitimate monarchy and national
independence, which would induce his majesty to support them so long as
they should prove true to themselves. Satisfaction was expressed at the
liberation of Portugal; a continuance of aid to the King of Sweden was
recommended; and a speedy augmentation of our regular army inculcated.
The addresses were voted without a division, but opposition at the same
time were not wholly silent. They seem indeed to have hoped that the
misfortunes in Spain, and some mistakes which had been made in the
Portuguese convention, would lead to the dissolution of the cabinet.
A motion, however, moved in the Commons by Lord Petty, for directly
censuring the convention in Portugal, and for attributing the whole
blame of it to government, was negatived by two hundred and eight
against one hundred and fifty-eight. A motion also, made by Mr.
Ponsonby, for an inquiry into the conduct of the late campaign in
Spain, was rejected by two hundred and twenty against one hundred and
twenty-seven. In reviewing the principal incidents connected with this
campaign, Mr. Ponsonby drew no very favourable picture of the capacity
and judgment of the cabinet. He remarked:—“With so many opportunities
and resources at command, they had instituted no proper inquiry into the
state of the Peninsula, the bent of the public mind, the inclinations of
the higher ranks, the views of the middle classes, and the probability
that effective resistance would be made to a vigorous and mighty foe.
Extraordinary indecision and unnecessary delays had injured the cause
which the king pretended to support. Several Spanish armies were routed
before the British troops were prepared to act, and when they became
engaged in the contest, they were in danger of total ruin.” The
character of Sir John Moore, however, does not seem to have been called
into question by any member of opposition. Almost his last words were,
“I hope the country will do me justice;” and the general feeling of the
public mind from that day to this is, that he exhibited great skill
and bravery, although circumstances compelled him to retreat before his
enemy.




THE SUPPLIES, ETC.

No time was lost in taking that part of his majesty’s speech into
consideration which had reference to the augmentation of our military
force. By two acts greater activity was given to enlistment into the
militia, and that force was carried to its full number. The vacancies
also, left by the bill of last session, for allowing the militia
soldiers into the line were filled up, and from 20,000 to 30,000 regular
troops were added to the corps disposable for foreign service. Additions
were also made to the navy. Above £27,000,000 were voted for the army
and ordnance, and about £19,000,000 for the navy: the total amount of
supplies for the year for Great Britain and Ireland was £53,802,000.
Among the ways and means was a loan of £11,000,000; which loan was
contracted for at a lower rate of interest than money had even been
borrowed for on the public account. Ministers quoted this as an instance
of prosperity; but the opposition contended that money was lent to
government at a low rate of interest because capitalists could not
employ it in any other way, foreign trade being almost annihilated by
the Berlin and Milan decrees, and by our own orders in council.




CHARGES AGAINST THE DUKE OF YORK.

Early in this session a subject was introduced which excited
extraordinary interest throughout the whole nation. This subject was,
that a paramour of the Duke of York had made military patronage a
medium of infamous traffic. On the 27th of January, Mr. Wardle, a Welsh
gentleman, and colonel of militia, affirmed in the house of commons that
everything was wrong and rotten at the Horse-guards; that the Duke
of York, the commander-in-chief, suffered himself to be swayed by a
low-born mistress, one Mary Ann Clarke, who had been carrying on a
traffic in commissions and promotions. Several cases were instanced
in which money had been paid to the said Mary Ann Clarke, and Colonel
Wardle insisted that the duke was a partaker in the benefit of her
traffic. He concluded with moving for the appointment of a committee
to investigate the charges, and it was finally agreed that the inquiry
should be carried on by a committee of the whole house. This committee
sat for the first time on the 1st of February, and the inquiry occupied
the undivided time and attention of parliament for seven weeks. In the
course of the investigation Mary Ann Clarke and one or two others of the
same class of females were examined; but though it seemed clear from
the evidence adduced that Mrs. Clarke was guilty of taking money from
expectants, it was not proved that the duke had any knowledge of her
practices. Mrs. Clarke herself sought to involve the duke in her guilt;
but that he had participated in her gains, or had even any knowledge
of her transactions, were circumstances which depended on her veracity
alone. And her credibility was somewhat shaken, because the duke
quarrelled with her and parted from her, and she was at the time of her
examination living under the protection of Wardle, the duke’s accuser.
Some there were, however, who believed her testimony, which was made
manifest in the several divisions that took place on this subject.
Colonel Wardle moved for an address to his majesty, praying that he
would be graciously pleased to dismiss the Duke of York from the command
of the army, on account of the corrupt practices which had been proved
against him: this was rejected by three hundred and sixty-four against
one hundred and twenty-three. Mr. Bankes moved an amendment to the
effect that abuses had existed, which could scarcely have existed
without exciting suspicion in the mind of the commander-in-chief, and
suggesting the propriety of his removal from office: this was negatived
by a majority of only ninety-five. Afterwards a resolution, proposed
by Sir T. Turton, declaring that grounds for charging the duke with
a knowledge of the corrupt practices of Mrs. Clarke rested on good
evidence, was thrown out by three hundred and thirty-four against
one hundred and thirty-five. Subsequently Mr. Percival made a motion
declaratory of the duke’s innocence, and this was carried by a majority
of only eighty-two. It is evident, therefore, that many members deemed
him not wholly innocent of the charges against him; and the duke seems
to have felt this, for he soon after took the opportunity of resigning
his official situation. The subject seems to have engrossed the
attention of the public for a long time, and this too at a period
when more important events were taking place daily: events big with
importance to all Europe. From the highest to the lowest members of the
community, these transactions formed the leading topic of conversation.

It has been well observed that “this affair was not without its
beneficial results. A striking proof was given to the world, that under
our constitution, no rank, however elevated, could shelter abuses from
detection, or screen those concerned in them from the effects of public
displeasure. The king’s second and favourite son, a prince so near the
throne himself, had been driven from office by a member of the house of
commons, who was unheard of before this transaction, and who possessed
neither the influence of character nor the influence of talent. It had
been proved to the conviction of the country that the Duke of York was
so far culpable as to render his resignation proper; that resignation
had taken place in consequence, and public opinion had thus obtained
a most signal triumph. When the duke had thus incurred punishment and
disgrace, individuals of less rank and influence could not expect that
their official delinquencies or irregularities should escape: the
fate of the prince was an example and an admonition not easily to be
forgotten. Until the time when there will be no more war, and when men
will no more want commissions in armies, or profitable places under
government, it will be in vain to expect perfection in anything, vain to
hope that the distributors of patronage will not occasionally yield
to favouritism and other influences, besides that great parliamentary
influence over appointments, which—fatal as it often is—can hardly be
destroyed without destroying the constitution. But notwithstanding the
occasional interference of friends, wives, sisters, cousins, and other
connexions, which may possibly be as mischievous though less indecorous
than that of a mistress, we believe it is admitted by all candid
and properly informed persons, that since the investigation in 1809,
patronage at the Horse-guards, as well as in the other offices of
government, has been distributed with more attention to the public
service than any time preceding that inquiry.”

It had been hoped, on the resignation of the Duke of York, that the
office of commander-in-chief would be put in commission; but General Sir
David Dundas was appointed successor to his royal highness. One of
the early consequences of this investigation to the country, was the
enactment of a law declaring the brokerage of offices in the army,
church, or state to be a crime highly penal. This bill was brought in by
the chancellor of the exchequer, who observed that the practices lately
disclosed consisted not in the sale of offices by those who had the
power to give them, but in the arts of those who had pretended to
possess influence over such persons. In the case of Mary Ann Clarke,
however, there was no pretension in the matter; for there can be no
question that she did possess too much influence over the mind of the
duke, and that she obtained promotion for several of whom she took
money. On the other hand it was proved that she had successfully exerted
herself on behalf of meritorious individuals who did honour to the
service, and who, being in distressed circumstances at the time,
could not have paid her for the commissions which by her influence she
procured them. Guilt, therefore, was attached to the duke in suffering
this woman to gain an unbounded influence over his mind: public men
should hold themselves free from favour or prejudice.




PARLIAMENTARY CORRUPTION.

     “Examine well His milk-white hand; the palm is hardly clean—
     But here and there an ugly smutch appears.
     Foh! ’twas a bribe that left it: he has touched
     Corruption.   Whoso seeks an audit here
     Propitious, pays his tribute, game or fish,
     Wild fowl or venison; and his errand speeds.”
      —COWPER.

It had been for some time reported by opposition that government had
made, and was making, a regular traffic in East India appointments. A
select committee of the house of commons was appointed to inquire into
this matter; which committee reported that it appeared many places had
been disposed of in an illegal manner. One source of corruption brought
another to light. In the course of the examinations it was discovered
that Lord Castlereagh, as president of the board of control, had
placed a writership at the disposal of Lord Clancarty, which writership
Clancarty was to give to one Mr. Reding, as the price of a seat in
parliament for himself, the said Mr. Reding meaning to sell the said
writership for 3000 guineas. Lord Archibald moved that Lord Castlereagh
had been guilty of a violation of his duty, of an abuse of his influence
and authority as president of the board of control, and also of an
attack upon the purity and constitution of parliament. The noble lord’s
defence was that when this transaction took place he had no notion that
such a person existed as a trafficking-broker for places; that Reding
had represented to him that a member of the house of commons, who
intended to vacate his seat, had a nephew whom he wished to send out to
India as a writer, and would favour the election of any friend of
his. His lordship remarked:—“I perceived no impropriety in the case,
considering it perfectly fair for one friend to serve another at an
election.” The house acquitted Lord Castlereagh of any intention to do
wrong; but this exposure enabled Mr. Curwen to carry a bill for better
securing the purity and independence of parliament, by preventing the
obtaining of seats through corrupt practices, and also for the more
effectual prevention of bribery. While this bill was pending, Mr.
Maddocks brought forward a charge against the treasury of corrupt
conduct in the purchase of parliamentary seats, which were filled by
members attached to the interests of ministers, and bound to support all
their measures; but a motion for a committee of inquiry was negatived by
three hundred and ten against eighty-five. During this year, also, the
commissioners of naval inquiry and revision presented another report,
which brought to light many more abuses in that department. Moreover,
the commissioners of military inquiry, who still continued their
labours, presented several reports, showing that large sums of money,
and large powers in money transactions, had often been entrusted
to various persons, without the necessary securities, checks, and
precautions; that in the West Indies a regular and unchecked system of
peculation had been carried on in the most unblushing manner; that the
paymasters, the agents of the commissary-general, and others in our West
India islands, had been in the habit of committing great frauds, &c., for
a series of years. Corruption, in fact, pervaded at this time all
orders of public men, and this was the more inexcusable, because the war
necessarily imposed heavy burdens on the people. These burdens were made
heavier by the extravagance which prevailed in the expenditure of the
country, and which had been augmented since last year by the enormous
sum of nearly eight million pounds sterling. The extravagance of
government was attacked in the month of June by Colonel Wardle, who
seems to have set himself up for a reformer of abuses; but, though from
his statements many came to the conclusion that great saving might be
effected, there were few who thought that he had pointed out a proper
mode of retrenchment. Moreover, many of his statements were incorrect or
unfounded, so that he failed to sustain the character he had assumed. He
who wishes to reform public abuses should prove their existence to all
the world, and be able to point out how they may be remedied.




MOTION FOR REFORM.

On the 15th of June Sir Francis Burdett made a motion for a sweeping
parliamentary reform. Nearly all the country gentlemen had left town,
and those that remained were generally disinclined to enter upon this
momentous question. On a division, therefore, Sir Francis was outvoted
by seventy-four against fifteen. His scheme of reform divided itself
into three parts: by the first article it was proposed that all
freeholders, householders, and others, who paid direct taxes to the
state, the church, or the poor, should have votes; by the second, that
a convenient division of places entitled to send representatives to
parliament should be marked out, each division be again subdivided, and
each subdivision to return one member, the elections being conducted in
the several parishes in one day; and by the third, that the duration of
parliaments should be reduced to the period of time most agreeable to
the British constitution. The merits of this scheme may have been great;
but one thing is certain, that the period at which it was introduced
was not the proper one for its consideration. This forms the best excuse
which can be made for the defence of manifest abuses made by such men as
Perceval and Canning, and who said they saw no reason whatever to enter
upon the subject of reform. There was evident reason for taking this
subject into consideration; but while the nation was engaged in a
contest for its national existence, it would have been unwise to have
tampered with the machinery of government; especially as that machinery
was acknowledged by all parties to work well for the prosecution of the
arduous contests in which we were engaged with Napoleon and his allies.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

The session closed on the 21st of June, when the speech from the throne
was again delivered by commission. It dwelt chiefly upon the resistance
of Spain against the tyranny of the French government, and upon the
successes which had recently crowned the arms of the Emperor of Austria,
under the conduct of the Archduke Charles.




AFFAIRS OF SPAIN.

After the battle of Corunna, the cause of Spain seemed wholly lost. The
Austrian war, however, which broke out when Napoleon was in pursuit
of Sir John Moore, operated as a grand diversion, favourable for the
Peninsula, inasmuch as it distracted his attention, and obliged him to
withdraw his imperial guards from Spain, and prevented him from sending
re-enforcements to that country so quickly as he otherwise would
have done. In the meantime King Joseph had, on the 23rd of January,
re-entered Madrid. His party was increased by a considerable number of
the Spanish people, who thought that a new order of things was necessary
to resuscitate the Spanish monarchy. After the departure of Napoleon
seven divisions of the French forces remained in Spain; Marshal Jourdan
having the chief command, under the auspices of King Joseph. The war
was continued with success, although with less vigour; but the Spanish
nation only became more exasperated by every defeat, so that it was not
subdued. On the other hand, the French, enraged by obstinate resistance,
and more yet by the stratagems and assassinations compassed by the
Spaniards, became daily more severe and cruel.

The spirit of the Spanish people is well exemplified in the siege of
Saragossa. This siege had been formed anew before Napoleon returned
to Paris, and it was carried on by the third and fifth corps, under
Marshals Moncey and Mortier. The citizens of Saragossa prepared an
internal system of defence, far more effectual than that of external
fortification; transforming the city itself into one huge fortress, and
coalescing with the troops in one energetic garrison. The French made
but little progress until Marshal Lasnes took the command, and then the
external defences of the city were quickly demolished. Saragossa itself,
however, still defied all the efforts of the French. The war-cry was
heard in all her streets, and every house became a fortress, and every
church and convent a citadel, garrisoned by heroic men, resolved to die
for its defence. The French had laboured and fought without intermission
fifty days; they had crumbled the walls with their bullets, burst the
convents with their mines, and carried the breaches with their bayonets;
fighting above and beneath the surface of the earth, they had spared
neither fire nor sword; their bravest men were falling in the obscurity
of a subterranean warfare; famine pinched them; and Saragossa was still
unconquered. Lasnes, however, persevered in his attempts to take the
city, and at length he was successful. Discovering that a pestilence
raged within the devoted city, that the living were unable to bury the
dead, he ordered a general assault; and then, when one quarter of the
city was laid waste, Saragossa was captured. The garrison were allowed
to “march out with the honours of war,” to be sent prisoners to France,
while the possession of their property and the exercise of their
religion were guaranteed to the inhabitants.

The first burst of popular enthusiasm in Spain, however, was followed by
a withering lethargy. Even with the assistance of Lord Collingwood and
his fleet, with arms from Malta and Sicily, and with the regiments that
had been released by the convention of Cintra, and which had by this
time joined the patriots, the Spaniards were unable to prevent the
capture of Rosas. After the fall of this place everything seemed to go
wrong. Though in considerable force, the Spaniards dispersed whenever
the enemy appeared, and although they were continually making
application to the English for money, arms, and ammunition, they made no
use of them when they were supplied. Their very navy was left to rot in
the harbours of Cadiz and Carthagena, although money was advanced by
the British government, and the assistance of its seamen offered to fit
them out for sea. But for the co-operation of the British fleet Spain
would have been, after the capture of Saragossa, easily conquered, for
the Spaniards, though lions in their fortresses, acted like women in the
field.

It was not the English fleet alone that defended Spain from the arms of
the French. While that nation was thus on the verge of ruin, Sir Arthur
Wellesley arrived in Portugal to take the command of the British army,
which by re-enforcements amounted to 30,000 men. At this time, in April,
the French had obtained possession of Ferrol, Bilboa, and all the most
important places on the northern coast of Spain. Soult had even advanced
into Portugal, and had taken possession of the city of Oporto. Sir
Arthur Wellesley’s first business was to dislodge the French general
from this place, and on the 11th of May Oporto fell into his hands.
Soult retired by Amarante, with the intention of passing through
Tras-os-Montes into Spain. He left behind him all his sick and wounded,
with many prisoners, and much artillery and ammunition. Sir Arthur wrote
to him, requesting that he would send some French medical officers
to take care of his sick and wounded, as he could not spare his own
army-surgeons, and as he did not wish to trust to the practitioners of
the town of Oporto. It does not appear, however, that Soult was able
to respond to his request, for there was murmurings and discontents,
arising from defeat, among his troops; and besides this, the Portuguese
peasantry mercilessly attacked the French in their retreat, cutting
off great numbers of them. He was followed in his retreat by Sir Arthur
Wellesley, and on the 16th of May he was overtaken at Salmonde, and a
great many of his rear-guard were either killed or taken prisoners. More
would have been lost, but night favoured the retreat of the fugitives,
and Soult finally gained the frontier of Spain. Sir Arthur Wellesley
stopped his pursuit at Montealegre, a few miles from the frontier, and
returned by Renairs, Braga, and S. Terso to Oporto. According to his
letters, the rout of Soult was complete. He had lost everything, cannon,
ammunition, baggage, and military-chest. The mountainous road through
which he passed was indeed covered with dead horses and mules, and with
the bodies of French soldiers, who were put to death by the peasantry
before the British could come up to their rescue. The cruelty of the
Portuguese peasantry, however, was provoked by the conduct of the
French themselves. Sir Arthur Wellesley writes:—“Their soldiers have
plundered and murdered the peasantry at their pleasure; and I have seen
many persons hanging in the trees by the sides of the road, executed for
no other reason, that I could learn, excepting that they have not been
friendly to the French invasion and usurpation of the government of
their country; and the route of their column on their retreat could
be traced by the smoke of the villages to which they set fire.” These
horrible scenes occurred in all the subsequent retrograde movements of
the French: before them, the countries through which they passed were
lovely as the garden of Eden—behind them they were desolate as the
wilderness.

{GEORGE III. 1809—1812}




FURTHER OPERATIONS IN SPAIN.

On the departure of Soult for Oporto the Spaniards again rose in arms,
and several places in the Asturias and in the Biscayan provinces had
been recaptured. After his return, urged by the importunities of the
Spanish government and generals, Sir Arthur Wellesley determined to
advance into that country against the French. His projected route was by
the way of Plasencia and Almaraz, and his design was to co-operate with
the Spanish general Cuesta, who commanded the army of Estramadura. A
junction was formed between the two armies at Orepesa on the 20th of
July; Sir Arthur’s army amounting to about 23,000, and Cuesta’s to
30,000 men. At this time the French forces were thus disposed:—Marshal
Victor was in Estramadura with the first corps, amounting to 35,000 men;
General Sebastiani, with the fourth corps, consisting of 20,000 men, was
in La Mancha; General Bessolles, with a division of reserve and Joseph’s
guards, amounting in the whole to 15,000 men, was in Madrid; Kellermann
and Bonnet, with two divisions of 10,000 men, were in Old Castile; Soult
had collected the second corps of 20,000 men in the northern provinces;
and immediately dependent upon Soult were Marshal Mortier, with the
fifth corps of 16,000 strong, and Ney, with the sixth corps of about
10,000 men under arms. Besides all these forces there were 50,000
Frenchmen in Aragon and Catalonia, under Suchet and Augereau; and 35,000
more were scattered over the surface of Spain, to maintain the many
posts and fortresses the French had captured in Spain, and to keep open
the various lines of communication. It was agreed upon by the British
and Spanish commanders to march themselves against the French under
Marshal Victor, while at the same time Vinegas advanced against Fuente
Duenna on the Upper Tagus, in order to draw Sebastiani thither, that he
might not aid Victor; or if that general refused to move, Vineeas was to
march on Madrid from the south-east, while Sir Robert Wilson menaced it
from the opposite quarter. The combined armies of Sir Arthur Wellesley
and Cuesta attacked Marshal Victor’s outposts at Talavera on the 22nd
of July, and drove them in. Oh the 23rd, the British again formed for
the attack of the French position; but Cuesta “contrived to lose
the whole of the day, owing to the whimsical perverseness of his
disposition.” Sir Arthur wished to defeat Victor before he could be
joined by Sebastiani, and his disappointment was great when, on the
24th, he discovered that the enemy had retreated towards Torrijos, in
order to form a junction with that general. After Victor’s departure,
Sir Arthur occupied Talavera; and finding that the Spanish general did
not cordially co-operate with him, he resolved to return into Portugal.
He writes with reference to this, and to the privations his soldiers
were enduring,—“His majesty’s troops have been engaged in very active
operations, the success of which depended no less upon their bravery
and exertions, than upon the example they should hold out, and the
countenance they should give to the Spanish troops; and yet they have
been in actual want of provisions for the last two days. Even if I
should have been willing, under such circumstances, to continue my
co-operation with General Ouesta, I am unable to do so with justice to
my troops.” Sir Arthur, however, was soon compelled to recommence active
operations. While he halted at Talavera, on a sudden, Cuesta was seized
with an irrepressible energy and activity. His columns dashed forwards,
with him at their head, to Torrijos; but on the 26th he returned with
the French in full pursuit of him. The French halted before they came
upon Talavera; but it became evident to Sir Arthur that he would not be
permitted to enjoy long repose, and therefore he busily employed himself
in examining and strengthening his position at Talavera. While thus
employed, a great army was collecting in his front, under Victor, while
his old enemy, Soult, supported by Marshal Mortier, was unknowingly
rapidly advancing from Salamanca against his rear; and Marshal Ney was
hurrying from Astorga, with the hope of falling upon his flank. His
front was threatened by 50,000 men, and an equal number was ready
to fall upon his flank and rear, while he had only 20,000 British to
withstand them, save Cuesta’s army, on which he could not place much
reliance. It was under these disadvantageous circumstances that the
battle of Talavera was fought. But, notwithstanding their superior
force, the French were utterly defeated: out of the 50,000 men which
Victor headed against the British, 7,000 were either killed or wounded,
and among them an immense number of officers and two generals. On
the side of the British 857 were killed, 3,913 wounded, and 653 were
reported missing: the Spaniards returned about 1,200 killed and wounded;
but the correctness of their report was much doubted. This great battle
was fought on the 27th and 28th of July; and by the 1st of August
Sebastiani’s corps and the reserve retreated to Illescas, on the road
between Madrid and Toledo, while Victor entrenched himself behind the
Alberche. By this time Soult had entered Plasencia, whence he designed
joining the forces of Victor. Sir Arthur Wellesley determined to prevent
this junction; and on the 3rd of August he marched forward to Orepesa,
leaving Cuesta at Talavera to take care of the hospitals. On that day
Sir Arthur learned that Soult’s advanced posts were at Naval Moral,
and consequently between him and Portugal, and soon after he received
intelligence that the forces which he had defeated were recollecting
and again threatening Talavera. General Cuesta was so alarmed at his
position that he sent word to Sir Arthur he intended to leave Talavera
that evening, and join the British army at Orepesa, in order to assist
it in repelling Soult. Cuesta rejoined Sir Arthur on the next morning,
leaving 1,500 in the hospitals unprotected. Sir Arthur was now placed
between the mountains and the Tagus, with a French army advancing upon
each flank, and with his retreat by the bridge at Almaraz completely
cut off. As, therefore, he could place no confidence in Cuesta and the
Spanish army, and as with 17,000 British forces fatigued and famishing,
he could not hope successfully to fight with two French armies each
about three times stronger than his own, he resolved to retire to
Portugal. One way was happily still left open for him a little below
Talavera, where the Tagus was crossed by the bridge of Arzobispo, and
by this route he retreated. Cuesta followed in his route, halting his
troops at the bridge of Arzobispo, in order that they might be ready
to pass the Tagus at any moment. While here Cuesta was attacked by the
French, and lost nearly 2,000 men, and the rest only escaped by taking
refuge in the mountains. In the meantime the British army was advancing
unmolested towards the frontiers of Portugal. Sir Arthur had his
head-quarters at Badajoz, close to those frontiers, on the 2nd of
September, and in a day or two a part of his army with the sick and
wounded re-entered that country. About six days after his arrival at
Badajoz, Sir Robert Wilson arrived on the frontier, having successfully
eluded the vigour of Marshal Ney, who was in pursuit of him. The other
corps, which had advanced upon Madrid under General Vinegas, had been
defeated at Alinoracid by General Sebastiani, who drove it back
upon the Sierra Morena and the Andalusian frontier, from which it had
advanced. On the arrival of Sir Arthur Wellesley at Badajoz, the French
armies again separated. Soult with his forces went into cantonments at
Estramadura and Leon, near the borders of Portugal; Joseph Buonaparte,
who accompanied Marshal Mortier in this campaign, returned with that
General to Madrid; while some French moveable columns traversed various
parts of Spain in order to subjugate the country. From this time until
the month of November no events of importance, however, took place in
Spain. A guerilla warfare was carried on in many distant provinces and
districts, and some towns on the eastern coast in Catalonia and Valencia
were captured by the French, but the French masses remained inactive.
The manner in which this campaign had been conducted by the British
army received all due applause in England: the thanks of parliament were
voted to officers and men, and Sir Arthur Wellesley was created Viscount
Wellington of Talavera. By this time Viscount Wellington had placed
his army in cantonments on the line of the Guadiana, in order to cover
Portugal from Soult, whose cantonments, as before mentioned, were in
Estramadura and Leon. While thus stationed, he heard in November of the
defeat of the Spanish troops under General Areizga at Ocana, and of the
Duque del Parque at Alba de Tonnes. These events caused Lord Wellington
much mortification; and feeling convinced that he could no longer
afford assistance to Spain, he marched from the lines of Guadiana into
Portugal, in order to defend it against the enemy. Here he laid the
foundation of those measures which finally carried him triumphant
through the Peninsula. The Spanish junta exclaimed loudly against him
for deserting their cause; but it was evident that if neither Soult nor
any other French forces had threatened the Portuguese frontier, it would
have been impossible for him to have tried another advance into Spain.
It was only by drawing on his magazines in Portugal, which were chiefly
filled by England, that he could preserve his troops from starvation,
and it was impossible for him to co-operate with undisciplined Spanish
troops, and proud, obstinate, and incapable Spanish generals. It was in
vain that his brother, the Marquis Wellesley, who resided with the
junta at Seville as British envoy, laboured to convince the Spanish
authorities of the fatal consequences which, must arise from their
wretched military system: the dons were all wiser than the marquis, and
not satisfied with neglecting his advice, they cast reproaches on his
brother. There was a want of vigour and capacity in the members of
the junta, and in the Spanish military, and this being coupled with an
overweening confidence in their own powers, it was clear that no British
force could successfully co-operate with them. In the event of another
British army acting again in Spain it would be necessary, as Lord
Wellington observed in one of his dispatches to his brother, that
the chief command of the Spanish forces should be vested in the
commander-in-chief of the English.




CAMPAIGN OF NAPOLEON IN ITALY.

In the meantime Napoleon was carrying on war with Austria. The battles
of Eckmuhl, Ratisbon, and Ebersberb, opened the gates of Vienna to him,
and he entered that city about a month after the Austrians had commenced
hostilities. From Vienna he issued a decree revoking the grant
of territory made to the pope by Charlemagne, “his illustrious
predecessor,” and annexing Rome to the French empire; the pontiff being
allowed to remain there as bishop, with a certain revenue. Pius VII.
opposed this decree by a bull of excommunication; and it is said that
Napoleon received this intelligence with a considerable degree of
anxiety. Orders, however, were issued by him, under which the pope was
seized in his palace, and transported over Mount Cenis to Savona, where
he lived three years, partly on a prison allowance and partly on alms.
On the defeat of the Austrians, who were commanded by the Archduke
Charles, that commander took a circuitous route through Bohemia, and
finally occupied the bank of the Danube opposite Vienna, over against
the proud victor Napoleon, who, selecting for the passage of the river
the place where two islands divide the Danube into three arms, conducted
his battalions to the left bank, occupied Aspern, Engesdorf, and
Esslingen, and offered battle. In this position the archduke fell upon
him with his army, glowing with anger and exalted by the sight of the
imperial city, and gained a great victory. The French army retreated to
the island of Lobau, leaving 11,000 dead on the field, while 30,000 were
wounded. The world saw now that Napoleon was not invincible: but this
victory was not attended with the expected results. An armistice of six
weeks followed, during which time Napoleon was making preparations for
a second attack; and at the lapse of that time he again passed the river
with 150,000 men, and six hundred cannon, fully resolved to crush the
house of Austria. The terrible battle of Wagram, which lasted two whole
days, followed, and Napoleon was once more victorious: the archduke,
after sustaining a fearful loss, retreated into Moravia. He might still
have contested the palm of victory, for his army was still formidable,
and Napoleon in the battle of Wagram had lost more in dead and wounded
than the vanquished. An armistice, however, was concluded about the
middle of July, and after negociations which lasted for three months, a
treaty called the “peace of Vienna” was concluded. The articles of
this treaty were the cession of Saltzburg and other territories of the
Rhenish confederation to France; Cracow, and part of the Austrian spoil
of Poland, to the duchy of Warsaw; and another small portion of it to
Russia, Napoleon did not stop here in his attempts to ally himself
with Austria: regardless of his union with the faithful Josephine,
he stipulated for the hand of an Austrian princess; and the Austrian
emperor sold him his daughter. He was married early in the next year to
the Archduchess Maria Louisa.




BRITISH EXPEDITION AGAINST NAPLES AND WALCHEREN.

During this year the British cabinet prepared two expeditions: the first
against Naples, under Sir John Stuart; and the second against Antwerp,
for the purpose of destroying Napoleon’s maritime preparations in the
Scheldt. Each, also, had a secondary object in view: that of creating a
diversion in favour of the Austrian emperor. Both, however, failed, from
being too long in preparation: Murat had ample notice of the Sicilian
expedition, and he defeated every attempt to obtain a footing, or to
excite insurrection in his kingdom. As for the armament destined for
the Scheldt, the chief command of which was given to Admiral Sir Richard
Strachan, it was so long getting ready that news arrived of the Austrian
defeat at Wagram, some days before it sailed. It was the largest and
most complete armament that ever left the British shores; and
consisted of thirty-nine sail of the line, thirty-six frigates, and
a proportionable accompaniment of gun-boats, bomb-vessels, and small
craft. The troops which it was intended to convey amounted to about
40,000 men, making together with seamen and marines a sum total of
100,000 men. The expedition was intended to be secret; but long before
it sailed its destination was disclosed to the enemy, who took all
possible means to frustrate its designs. It sailed on the 29th of July,
and at first it was successful: Flushing was captured after having
sustained a severe bombardment. But here the British successes ended.
Antwerp was by this time placed in such a posture of defence that it
would have been in vain to have made an attack upon it; while the forts
on the Scheldt were well manned, and preparations had been made for
carrying the fleet of the enemy still higher up the river, in case
the British should succeed in forcing a passage. Immediately after the
capture of Flushing, with a view of pursuing ulterior measures, three
thousand men were transported to the isle of Walcheren; but while here
they were attacked by an enemy more fatal than the sword—disease. The
British troops were soon seized with the dreadful endemic fever of the
country; nearly one half of them were swept away by it, and the greater
part of the remainder carried its effects with them to the grave. At
length, about one month after the treaty of Vienna, the few remaining
troops that were still left alive were directed to demolish the defences
and basin of Flushing; and this done they were ordered to re-embark.
This expedition, which had originated with Lord Castlereagh, cost
England 10,000 men, with not a little money, and not a little credit. It
brought disgrace on his memory, in which Lord Chatham, who had the chief
military command, and Admiral Sir Richard Strachan largely partakes. It
was conceived in imbecility, and with imbecility carried forward,
whence its signal failure. It was soon after the British had evacuated
Walcheren that Napoleon returned to Paris; when, in a speech before the
submissive and admiring _corps législatif_, he told them that, except
Spain and Portugal, the continent of Europe was in a happy peace.




DISSENSIONS IN THE CABINET.

The untoward course of events on the continent, the disastrous issue of
the British war, and various other causes, produced violent dissensions
in the British cabinet. So violent was the strife between Lord
Castlereagh and Mr. Canning, that it led to a duel on Putney Heath, when
the latter was severely wounded Before this duel took place they had
resigned office; and the Duke of Portland followed their example, on
account of age and infirmity. The ministers that remained in office
after these three resignations were reduced almost to despair, scarcely
knowing where to look for a new leader, and for two new colleagues. At
length, however, after negociations with Earl Grey and others, which
failed, Mr. Perceval took the place of the Duke of Portland—who by this
time was dead—adding thereby the office of first lord of the treasury
to that which he held as chancellor of the exchequer. The Marquess
Wellesley was recalled from his Spanish embassy to take charge of the
foreign department; while Lord Liverpool was transferred from the home
department to that of war and the colonies, Mr. Ryder being appointed
his successor. Finally, Lord Palmerston was appointed under-secretary
at war, in the room of Sir James Pulteney.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1810}

The session opened on the 23rd of January, when the king’s speech was
again delivered by commission. It contained but little except the late
disasters and the necessity of granting further assistance to Portugal
and Spain. Amendments strongly condemning the ministerial direction of
the whole war, and particularly the Walcheren expedition were moved in
both houses, but were rejected by considerable majorities.




DEBATE ON THE WALCHEREN EXPEDITION.

On the 26th of January Lord Porchester, in the commons, moved for a
committee of the whole house, which might inquire into the conduct of
the late expedition to Walcheren, by examining oral evidence as well as
written documents. This motion was seconded by Mr. Windham, and opposed
by Mr. Croker, who moved the previous question; but the proposition was
carried by a majority of one hundred and ninety-five against one hundred
and eighty-six. After the examination of evidence on this ill-fated
expedition was concluded, Lord Porchester proceeded further in the
matter, by moving two sets of resolutions, to the effect that the
enterprise was undertaken under circumstances which afforded no rational
hope of adequate success, and at the precise season of the year when the
disease which had proved so fatal was known to be most prevalent; that
its advisers were therefore highly reprehensible; and that their conduct
in delaying the expedition called for the severest censure. The first
set of these resolutions, after four nights’ debate, was lost by
a majority of two hundred and twenty-seven against two hundred and
seventy-five; and the second set by two hundred and seventy-five against
two hundred and twenty-four. Subsequently a resolution approving their
conduct in retaining the island till the time when it was abandoned,
was carried by a similar majority; but “the indignant nation plainly
perceived that the house felt unwilling to sanction the disgraceful
measures of the principals concerned in this expedition; while it was
too courtly to visit the commander with any severity of punishment, and
too dependent to condemn the acts of a cabinet which did not seem likely
to be dissolved.” Lord Chatham, however, quailed before the storm
raised against him; for, to avoid the consequences of an address for his
removal, he resigned the office of master-general of the ordnance.

{GEORGE III. 1809—1812}




PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SIR FRANCIS BURDETT.

During these proceedings the standing order of the house for the
exclusion of strangers was enforced, chiefly by the instrumentality of
Mr. Charles Yorke. This exclusion of strangers, however, not only failed
in the object, for which it was intended—that of keeping the public
ignorant of what passed within the walls of St. Stephens—but led to
new troubles and disgraceful scenes. At this time there was a debating
society in London, called the “British Forum,” the president and chief
orator of which was one Gale Jones, who, though an obscure individual,
was suddenly raised into the dignity of a patriot and martyr. Gale Jones
proposed the subject of the exclusion of strangers from the house of
commons, as a proper subject of discussion in the British Forum; and in
this debate the conduct of Mr. Yorke was so freely censured, that he
was resolved to punish the delinquent. He complained of a breach
of privilege, and Gale Jones was brought to the bar of the commons;
and notwithstanding a humble apology made by him, he was committed to
Newgate. Sir Francis Burdett was not in the house when a vote for his
committal passed; but on the 12th of March he loudly condemned the
measure as a violation of the common law, of Magna Charta, and of
the trial by jury, in a case where the offence was punishable by the
ordinary course of justice; and concluded by moving that Gale Jones be
forthwith discharged. Sir Francis was outvoted by a large majority; and
in consequence of this decision he printed his speech in an enlarged
form, and with stronger language than he had used in the house. It was
published in Cobbett’s Register, with his own name appended to it, and
accompanied with a letter to his constituents. The paper was a libel
from beginning to end; but the question which gave most offence was that
in which Sir Francis denied the right of the house to commit for breach
of privilege. The house determined to assert their privilege; and they
replied to Sir Francis by a vote that he should be committed to the
Tower, on the speaker’s warrant, for a libel on the commons. This
warrant was issued; but Sir Francis shut himself up in his mansion in
Piccadilly, barring his doors and windows, and declaring that he would
yield only to force, A letter was sent to the speaker expressive of this
resolution, of his contempt for the house, and his conviction that the
warrant was illegal, On the receipt of this letter the opinion of
the attorney-general was taken; in consequence of which the
ser-geant-at-arms, accompanied by a number of police-officers and
a detachment of troops, proceeded to his mansion, and, after some
altercation, conveyed Sir Francis to the Tower. Before this the mob had
collected round the house of the right honourable baronet, in token of
their admiration of his patriotism, while they had broken the windows
of many of his known opponents in token of their displeasure. They
accompanied him to the Tower; and in the way they so grossly insulted
his escort, that the soldiers fired in self-defence, and two individuals
were killed, while several more were wounded. Petitions were presented
by some public bodies, particularly the electors of Westminster and
London, praying for the release of Sir Francis; but he continued
in confinement to the end of the session, when he was released.
Subsequently Sir Francis commenced actions against the speaker of the
house of commons, who issued the warrant; against the ser-geant-at-arms,
for executing it; and against Earl Moira, governor of the Tower, for
illegal imprisonment. His object was to ascertain whether an appeal lay
to a court of law against the house, acting as accuser and judge,
in proceedings that affected the liberty of the subject. The judges,
however, would not admit that any unlawful measure had been adopted
in his case, or that the warrant issued by the speaker was an illegal
instrument. The privilege, therefore, of the house was confirmed,
and its claims solemnly recognised by the courts of law. Since the
“No-popery” riots of Lord George Gordon, there had not been a commotion
in London equal to that which attended this question of privilege: in
the sight of the public at large, he was “a martyr of liberty.” Gale
Jones, also, who was liberated with him at the close of the session,
shared the popular favour. The mob were waiting at the Tower-gates on
the day of his release, in order to escort him with popular applause
to his residence; and great was their disappointment when it was
discovered, that with one or two friends he had retreated from the Tower
by water. Gale Jones, however, gratified them by allowing them not only
to surround the hackney coach in which he departed from Newgate, but
also to chalk his name upon the panels. As he went along, he stopped
from time to time to harangue his admiring attendants: and one of the
leading topics of complaint which fell from the patriot’s lips was,
that he had been turned out of Newgate at two minutes’ notice! Many left
behind within the dreary walls of that prison would have congratulated
themselves on their escape, had they been turned out with even less
ceremony than Gale Jones.




THE SUPPLIES.

The supplies voted for this year were, for England and Ireland
£52,185,000. The ways and means included a loan of £8,000,000, which was
negociated on terms even more moderate than those of the preceding year.
No new taxes were proposed, and a very favourable picture was drawn of
the general prosperity of the country. Of the money voted, £1,380,000
was devoted to foreign subsidies; nearly £20,000.000 was appropriated to
naval services; and nearly £25,000,000 to the land forces and ordnance.
A vote of credit was passed for £3,000,009. Mr. Perceval contrasted the
state of commercial affairs in England to those of France. Our orders
in council, he said, had already reduced the receipts of customs in that
country from £2,590,000 to that of £500,000. But these orders had not in
reality done all this mischief to the enemy; for a large portion of it
must be attributed to Napoleon’s war-system, and the working out of his
continental system.




THE SLAVE-TRADE QUESTION.

During this session the question of the slave-trade was renewed in the
lords by Lord Holland, and in the commons by Mr. Brougham. They moved
for addresses requesting the king to persevere in his measures to induce
other nations to co-operate in the abolition of slavery, and to take
such further steps as might be necessary. By this time it was discovered
that persons in this country carried on a clandestine trade in slaves;
and the address in the commons prayed that orders for checking such
practices might be given to the commanders of his majesty’s ships, and
to the officers of the customs. Both addresses were agreed to, and a
resolution, moved by Mr. Brougham, for taking-measures early in the next
session to prevent evasions of Wilberforce’s slave-trade act, likewise
received the sanction of the house.




PETITION OF THE IRISH CATHOLICS, ETC.

During this session, a petition was presented from the Irish Catholics
by Mr. Grattan; but after a long and animated debate it was rejected by
a large majority. A motion by Mr. Brande on the subject of parliamentary
reform was also negatived by a large majority; as was likewise a
resolution, moved in the upper house by Lord Grey, “to take into
consideration the state of the nation.” Lord Grey prefaced his motion by
an eloquent and argumentative speech, in which he dwelt upon the power
of Napoleon; the mismanagement of our internal resources; the expediency
of conciliating the Roman Catholics; the subjects of parliamentary
privileges and reform, &c. On the subject of parliamentary reform
he remarked:—“This question has long been one of my most serious
contemplation. I took an active part in it at an early age: I pursued my
object with all that eager hope and sanguine expectation so natural to
the ardour of youth. I will not say that in subsequent times there have
not been some differences from my former impressions; but of this I
assure your lordships, that on its great grounds it has never been
abandoned by me. To the temperate and judicious reformation of abuses
I am now a decided friend; and whenever it shall be brought forward, it
shall receive from me my most anxious assistance. I never did, nor
ever will, rest my views of salutary reform on the ground of theoretic
perfection; though I am always ready to correct by the constitution a
practical inconvenience when it is practically felt. On this point I was
formerly misrepresented by that description of persons who at this day
continue the same course. The folly and presumption of the present day
have taken up a new doctrine—that every branch and exercise of
our constitution was defined by law, and only to be found in the
statute-book: but I have understood from the most able men, that the
great and fundamental blessing of the British constitution was fixed
in the co-operation and harmony of its powers, all leading to free and
efficient government.”




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

During this session motions were made by Mr. Parnell on the subject
of Irish tithes; by Mr. Grattan and Lord Donoughmore on Catholic
emancipation; and by Sir Samuel Romilly on the reform of our sanguinary
criminal laws. These subjects will receive attention in a future page.
Beyond this there was nothing of importance taken into consideration
this session, which terminated on the 21st of June. The royal speech
was again delivered by commission: and it affirmed that Portugal was
exerting herself with vigour and energy; and that in Spain, though the
French were victorious, the spirit of resistance was unsubdued.




CAMPAIGN IN PORTUGAL.

When Lord Wellington moved his troops from the banks of the Guadiana,
he placed them in quarters along the valley of the Mondego. His
head-quarters in January were at Viseu; General Hill being left with
10,000 men, half British and half Portuguese, at Abrantes, in order to
watch Badajoz and protect Lisbon; while Marshal Beresford was stationed
at Thomar. In the meantime the French armies had fully established
themselves in Spain. Cadiz indeed defied the proud enemy, and the
highest junta retired to the island of Leon, while the wild Sierra
Morena carried on a guerilla warfare against the French; but there
was no real army to oppose them, and the country might therefore be
considered for the time being as conquered. Lord Wellington foresaw that
the conquest of this country would lead to the invasion of Portugal; and
he turned his whole attention to the defence of that country. And what
the English general foresaw soon came to pass. The peace with Austria
had enabled Napoleon to send large re-enforcements from Germany into
Spain, audit was rumoured that he himself was coming. By the beginning
of the month of April, Ney, Kellermann, and Loison, with about 60,000
men, were in Old Castile and Leon, threatening the Portuguese frontier
in that direction: as a preliminary step they had captured Astorga, and
had made preparations for the siege of Ciudad Rodrigo. General Meigner
was also at this time on the borders of Spanish Estramadura, menacing
the frontier of Portugal on that side. Subsequently, as Napoleon was now
engaged with his bride of Austria, he sent Massena to take the command
of the forces in Old Castile and Leon, which now assumed the name of
“The army of Portugal,” thereby declaring its destination. Massena
arrived at Valladolid about the middle of May; and he not only assumed
the command over the forces of Ney, Kellermann, and Loison, but also
over those of Junot and Drouet, which had recently crossed the Pyrenees
from German. In the whole, Massena had a force of 80,000 men under arms
for the field; but the corps of Drouet, about 18,000 strong, and the
forces of Régnier in Estramadura did not immediately join him in his
expedition into Portugal. As it was, however, Massena had a force
of about 62,000 men when he first put himself in motion against Lord
Wellington. Against these Wellington could only bring about 24,000
British troops, and from 28,000 to 30,000 Portuguese regulars; a part
of which he was compelled to leave south of the Tagus, in order to guard
against any sudden movement of Soult’s army of Andalusia. Moreover, Lord
Wellington could only confidently rely on the British forces, as the
Portuguese soldiers, whether regulars or militia men, were as yet
untried. On the other hand, Massena’s soldiers were skilled in the
dreadful art of war, and flushed with recent success; so that the odds
against Wellington were alarmingly great. The campaign commenced in
earnest early in June, when Massena invested Ciudad Rodrigo, which was
defended by a Spanish garrison, but which was almost within sight of the
British advanced posts on the Azava. The Spaniards made a brave defence;
but on the 10th of July Massena made himself master of the place
by capitulation. Lord Wellington was taunted by the French, by the
Spaniards, and by many of his own officers, for suffering the siege to
proceed without making an attempt to relieve the place. His lordship,
however, knew his business better than to take any false step by a rash
movement: his object and paramount duty was to defend Portugal, and
above all Lisbon. He had, in fact, pledged himself to do this; and
hence, while the French were taking Ciudad Rodrigo, he calmly retained,
his position on the Coa, having his light division advanced a little
beyond that river. Subsequent events justified Wellington’s line of
policy. After the fall of Ciudad Rodrigo, Ney went thundering on till he
came in contact with the light division, which was commanded by General
Crawford; and though he succeeded in causing the English general to
retreat, it cost him 1000 men in killed and wounded. Massena now crossed
the frontiers of Portugal; but although he had boasted he would drive
Lord Wellington out of that country in three months; he passed nearly
one month on the line of the Coa in total inactivity. In the meantime
General Régnier quitted Estramadura, crossed the Tagus, and established
himself at Coria and Plasencia, while General Hill, making a
corresponding movement, took post at Atalaya, from whence he could
either join Wellington, or could be again thrown in front of Régnier. At
length, on the 15th of August, the French broke ground before Almeida,
which was captured on the 27th of the same month, Lord Wellington had
brought his army nearer, in order to strike a blow if the enemy should
afford an opportunity; but Massena let three weeks pass after the
reduction of Almeida before he moved forward; and then, as the rainy
season had come on, Wellington moved his army to the valley of the
Mondego, and fixed his head-quarters at Gouvea. The French army
commenced its march down this valley on the 15th of September, taking
its route along the right bank of the river, in the direction of
Coimbra, through Viseu. This was the very worst road Massena could have
taken; and Wellington, perceiving his error, crossed the river and took
up a strong position in front of Coimbra. On the 24th, his whole army,
including the Portuguese, and the corps of Generals Hill and Leith,
which he had called up for the purpose of assisting in the
coming struggle, were collected upon the Serra de Busaco, a lofty
mountain-ridge extending from the Mondego to the northward. From these
heights, on the 26th, the French army was seen advancing. One of the
spectators of the imposing sight says:—“Rising grounds were covered
with troops, cannon, or equipages: the widely extended country seemed
to contain a host moving forward, or gradually condensing into numerous
masses, checked in their progress by the grand natural barrier on which
we were placed, at the base of which it became necessary to pause.
In imposing appearances, as to numerical strength, I have never seen
anything comparable to that of the enemy’s army from Busaco: it was not
alone an army encamped before us, but a multitude—cavalry, infantry,
artillery, cars of the country, horses, tribes of mules with their
attendants, suttlers, followers of every description, formed the moving
scene upon which Lord Wellington and his army looked down.” By the
evening of the 26th this army encamped in the plains below Busaco; and
on the next morning, as the mist and the gray clouds rolled away, they
made two desperate simultaneous attacks on the English, the one on the
right and the other on the left of Wellington’s position. These attacks
were vain: the enemy was repulsed, leaving 2000 killed upon the field of
battle, and having from 3000 to 4000 wounded, and several hundreds taken
prisoners. Both the British and the Portuguese alike fought valorously;
the latter, according to Wellington’s own statement, proving themselves
on this their first trial to be worthy of contending in the same ranks
with the former. Thus checked in his career, on the 28th, the day after
the battle, Massena moved a large body of infantry and cavalry from the
left of his centre to the rear, and his cavalry was seen marching
over the mountains by another road to Oporto Colonel Trant with his
Portuguese division was ordered to occupy the pass of Boyalva to the
north of Busaco, through which this cavalry must pass; but a Portuguese
general had previously ordered this division to inarch elsewhere; and
before this could be countermanded, the French descended into the plains
that lie open to the sea-coast, and seized on the road leading from
Oporto to Coimbra, in the rear of the British. Massena, however, had
only made the march which Wellington foresaw he would make, and he now
commenced a retreat towards Lisbon. Both the British and the Portuguese
effected their retreat with ease and regularity. They were followed by
the French, whose van caught sight of the chain of hills behind which
lay the city of Lisbon on the 7th of October:

     “But in the middle path a lion lay.”

Wellington by this time occupied the lines of Torres Vedras, the
formation of which have conferred as much honour on him as any of the
great victories which he achieved. A recent writer gives this outline
sketch of these lines:—“The peninsula, or promontory, at whose
south-eastern extremity Lisbon is situated, is crossed rather obliquely
by two serras, or chains of mountains, which extend with various
altitudes and various degrees of steepness, but with partial
interruptions or openings, from the shore of the Atlantic to the right
bank of the Tagus. These two serras run nearly parallel with each other,
at a distance of from six to eight miles; the point of the line nearest
to Lisbon being close to the Tagus, between Via Longa and Quintilla.
Through the passes in these serras and the low ground bordering the
Tagus four roads from the interior of the country led to the capital.
The hand of nature had marked out these two lines of defence, and
British science and engineering had been employed for a whole year in
strengthening them, and in blocking up the openings which seemed the
most accessible. Here redoubts were erected; here the whole face of a
mountain was scarped and hewn into the appearance of the facet of some
Titanic fortress; here the threads of mountain-rivulets—which would be
something more than rivulets at the end of October and in November—were
collected and brought together into one bed; and here rivers,
tributaries of the great Tagus, were dammed up, or were provided with
dams which could be used, and with flood-gates which could be shut, so
as to inundate the country at the foot of the hills, on the approach of
the invader. The line of defence was everywhere double, while in some
parts there was a treble range of batteries and redoubts. The first
line, which was twenty-nine English miles in length, began at Alhendra
on the Tagus, crossed the valley of Aruda, and passed along the skirts
of Monte Agraca, where there was a large and strong redoubt. It then ran
across the valley of Zibreira, skirted the deep ravine of Ruda, to the
heights of Torres Vedras, and thence followed the course of the little
river Zizandre to its mouth on the Atlantic. The second or inner line,
at a distance varying from six to eight, and in some parts to ten miles,
extended from Quintilla on the Tagus by Bucellas, Monte Chique, and
Mafra, to the mouth of the little river St. Lourenço, on the sea-coast,
a distance of about twenty-four miles. This was by far the stronger line
of the two, both by nature and by art; and if the first line were forced
by an enemy, the retreat of the army upon the second was secure at all
times. Both these lines were secured by breast-works, abattis, and stone
walls, with banquettes and scarps: not an opening nor interstice through
which a mountain goat could pass but was blocked up or guarded. Down
the hollows in which the roads ran were pointed the black muzzles of
numerous guns, projecting from batteries which could maintain a fire
in front, and a crossing fire from the flanks. And, to provide for every
occurrence, to make sure of a safe and easy passage to our ships of war
in the Tagus, there was in the rear of the second line a shorter, closer
line, to protect the embarkation of our troops. This innermost line of
all was strong enough to check even a brave enemy, had there been
no other lines before it: it rested at one extremity on a tremendous
redoubt, and at the other on the broad ditch and lofty walls of the
castle of S. Julian. About one hundred redoubts or forts, containing
altogether more than six hundred pieces of artillery, were scattered
along these lines.”

Lord Wellington and the allied army entered within the foremost of
these lines on the 8th of October. On arriving each division took up its
assigned quarters, and the defences, which were strong enough before,
were made still stronger. In the whole the troops which manned them
amounted to about 130,000; of which 70,000 were regulars, and half of
them British. Massena arrived in the plains below Torres Vedras on
the 11th: he appears to have been taken by surprise at the sight of
Wellington’s lines; and he employed several days in examining their
nature, and in endeavouring to discover a spot through which he might
force a passage. Some demonstrations were made in order to compel the
British divisions to exhibit their force; and on the 14th there was some
fighting between the town of Sobral and the lines, in which the French
were defeated by the English bayonet. The war was now reduced to a
species of blockade. The heart of Massena was smitten with despair at
the sight of the scarped rocks, and the cannon on the eminences; and the
object he had in view now was to support his army till re-enforcements
should arrive. In the meantime re-enforceinents had arrived in
Wellington’s camp from England and Gibraltar, so that he had a force
numerically equal to that of the enemy. Massena’s situation soon,
however, became desperate. In order to starve his opponents Lord
Wellington brought down the Portuguese militia from the north, and
persuaded Carlos d’Espaua to pass the Tagus with a considerable corps
of Spaniards, to co-operate in cutting off all communication with
the French rear and, as it were, enclosing the blockades. Massena was
reduced to such straits for provisions that he was obliged to send
movable columns to scour the country; and, on these columns the
independent corps of Portuguese Spaniards sought revenge for desolated
homes and slaughtered kindred: they were attacked and slain with as
little mercy as they had shown to others. Losses by the sword, by
sickness, and by privation, amounting to about 15,000 men since the
battle of Busaco, at length induced Massena, on the 15th of November,
to make a retrograde movement. He withdrew his army from the low wet
grounds in front of Torres Vedras, and placed it in cantonments for
the winter: the second, or Itegnier’s corps, being placed in and near
Santarem; the eighth in Perns; the sixth corps further back, in Thomar;
while his head-quarters were at Torres Novas. Before Massena could reach
these safe positions, his soldiers were molested by the British light
division and cavalry, who took some prisoners. Lord Wellington did not
deem it prudent to attack them in these several positions, but leaving
part of his army in the lines, he moved forward with the remainder; and
having placed Hill’s division on the banks of the Tagus, he fixed his
head-quarters at Cartaxo. Such were the positions of the belligerent
forces during the winter. By his movements Lord Wellington had saved the
capital of Portugal, and reduced the enemy to a state of inactivity. The
sequel of Massena’s invasion of that country belongs to the history of
the next year.




AFFAIRS OF SPAIN.

These events in Portugal had the effect of counteracting some of the
designs of the French in Spain. During their transaction Soult had
been devising measures for the capture of Cadiz; but towards the end of
December, instructions arrived requiring him to co-operate with Massena.
He repaired to Seville, taking with him Latour Maubourg’s cavalry, and
5000 infantry; but such was Lord Wellington’s precaution, and such the
activity of the partidas, that he could not effect any communication
with Massena, as directed. Under these circumstances, Soult represented
that as his force was weakened by the blockade of Cadiz, and the
protection of Seville, he dared not penetrate into the Alemtejo. This
movement, he said, would oblige him to leave Olivenza and Badajoz in his
rear, with two Spanish corps under Ballasteros and Mendizabel; and he
requested permission to besiege these two places. Napoleon consented
to his request, and Soult prepared for a siege of these cities. At this
time General Hill was obliged to return home on account of ill health;
and the command of the troops, British, Spanish, and Portuguese, on the
Tagus, was given to Marshal Beresford. The Marshal’s instructions were
to prevent the passage of the river; to intercept all communication
between Massena and Soult; and to join the main army by Vellada if in
retreat, and by Abrantes if in advance. His head-quarters were fixed at
Chamusea, and his troops dispersed along the Tagus, from Almey-rim to
the mouth of the Zezere. During the winter several attacks were made by
the irregular forces and Portuguese militia on the French detachments;
but each commander waited for re-enforcements before they assumed
offensive operations.




FOREIGN CONQUESTS, ETC.

In other quarters of the world our operations this year were of
considerable importance. In the lists of our conquests was that of
Santa Maura, added to the other Ionian Islands rescued from the French
dominion; the Dutch settlement of Amboyna, with its dependent islands;
the Dutch settlement of Banda, the principal of the Spice Islands;
and the islands of Bourbon and Mauritius. In the latter island a large
quantity-of stores and valuable merchandise, five large frigates, some
smaller ships of war, twenty-eight merchantmen, and two British captured
East Indiamen were taken by the conquerors. In the West Indies a
combined naval and military force, under Admiral Sir Alexander Cochrane
and Lieutenant-General Beckwith, made the important conquest of the
island of Guadaloupe, the last colonial possession of France. Nearer
home the arms of the British were also successful. In the month of
July Murat collected a large armament on the coast of Calabria, for
the invasion of Sicily; but 900 of his troops were taken prisoners by
General Campbell, and the rest were driven for shelter to their vessels.
With similar success the island of Anholt, in the Baltic, was defended
by Captain Maurice with 380 men, against a Danish force of eight times
the number.




THE MARRIAGE OF NAPOLEON, ETC.

In Paris this year “all went merry as a marriage bell.” After the treaty
of Vienna at the close of 1809, Napoleon caused it to be intimated to
Josephine that she must be supplanted by an imperial bride; and she
submitted to his will. His divorce with the faithful Josephine was soon
followed by his marriage with the daughter of the Emperor of Austria. On
the 11th of March Berthier, acting as his proxy, received, in the palace
of Schonbrunn, the hand of the Archduchess Maria Louisa, who soon
left the home of her fathers for France. The act of divorcement from
Josephine and Napoleon’s marriage with the Austrian Princess received
the sanction of the senate, who in an address expressed their gratitude
for the steps he had taken, and predicted that this “child and champion
of democracy” would live to see children and grandchildren, who would
perpetuate his empire and the glory of France. Yet it was manifest, even
to Napoleon himself, that his marriage was looked upon by the nation at
large with dislike. His own clergy, in fact, were ashamed of the scene
of the celebration of the marriage at St. Cloud, deeming it neither
more nor less than an act of bigamy, while very few of the cardinals
or prelates would sanction it by their presence, As for the mass of the
people, among them there was a great party that still loathed the name
of hereditary monarchy, and that thought it monstrous that a son of
the revolution should ally himself with a branch of the “corporation
of tyrants.” His marriage, in a word, was universally admitted to be a
capital error in his political career. Mignet says:—“Napoleon quitted
his position and part as a parvenu and revolutionary monarch, who had
been acting in Europe against the ancient courts, as the republic
had acted against the ancient governments; he placed himself in a bad
situation with respect to Austria, which he ought to have crushed after
his victory of Wagram, or to have re-established in her possessions
after his marriage with the Archduchess. Solid alliances repose only
upon real interests, and Napoleon could deprive the cabinet of Vienna
neither of the will nor the power to fight him again. This marriage
changed also the character of his empire, and separated it still more
from the popular feelings and interests; for he now sought after the old
French families to decorate his court, and he did all that he could
in order to mix and unite together the ancient noblesse and his new
noblesse, even as he had mixed royal dynasties.” Men were not wanting,
however, who thought they saw in this union the guarantee of the welfare
of the world and the beginning of a golden age; who conceived that this
connexion of the favourite of fortune with one of the most illustrious
houses of Christendom would reconcile the revolution with its opponents.
“But after fortune had done everything for her ungrateful bosom-child;
after the Corsican master of war had arrived to such a degree of glory
and power as no mortal had attained before him, he wantonly overthrew by
his insatiable ambition the colossal edifice of his grandeur.” Some
of the acts which tended to his final downfall have been recorded in
previous pages: this year added to their number. In the first place,
the territory of the Prince Primas was augmented by Hanan and Fulda,
and elevated to the grand duchy of Frankfort; but it was declared the
hereditary portion of Prince Eugene Beauharnois, because for the future
no temporal dominion was to be united with spiritual dignities. At the
same time the remnant of the electorate of Hanover was adjoined to the
kingdom of Westphalia, reserving a certain revenue for France: and other
decrees equally despotic regulated the aggrandizements of Bavaria and
Wurtemberg. But one of the most despotic acts which was committed by
Napoleon during this year had reference to Holland. To appease his wrath
and gratify his revenge, Louis, Napoleon’s brother, and King of Holland,
interdicted all commerce with England, and agreed that a French army
should be established on the coast of Holland for the purpose of seeing
this interdict put into execution. Holland was also to equip a fleet
for the service of France, and to cede Dutch Brabant, Zealand, and other
territories to this insatiable empire. Yet, after all, Napoleon was not
satisfied with his brother’s rule. French troops approached the capital
of Holland, and Louis abdicated in favour of his eldest son, and sought
refuge in Austria. Immediately after Napoleon proclaimed the union of
Holland with France, and the people of that country were compelled to
submit to his lordly will. By the union of the two countries the empire
of France numbered 130 departments, and a population of 42,000,000,
and Napoleon ruled this vast empire with absolute power. All Europe, in
fact, submitted to his yoke in silence: England alone continued the war
both by sea and land. But Russia was beginning to wake as from a dream,
and to arise “against the world-empire, which approached nearer and
nearer to her frontier.” The day of retribution was fast approaching, a
day when God and man united to punish this haughty ruler of France and
his people, for all the desolations they had commited over the fair face
of creation. As they had done unto others, so it happened unto them.

{GEORGE III. 1809—1812}




ILLNESS OF HIS MAJESTY—OPENING OF PARLIAMENT, ETC.

By the non-attendance of his majesty at the opening and closing of the
session of parliament for some time, it had been suspected that he was
suffering under his old distressing malady. This was found to be too
true. His illness has been referred to several proximate causes, both of
a public and private nature. The cause, however, most commonly assigned
for his affliction was the illness and death of his favourite daughter,
the Princess Amelia. As her end drew near, she placed a mourning-ring,
with the inscription, “Remember me,” on the finger of her doating
parent, and it is said that he never recovered the shock thus given to
his feelings. His mental distress became immediately great, and in a few
days the royal family were alarmed by symptoms of that fearful malady
which ever afterwards afflicted him. This was on the 20th or 21st of
August; and on the 25th, the anniversary of the king’s accession to the
throne, it was publicly announced that his majesty was labouring under
his old complaint. Parliament stood prorogued till the 1st of November,
on which day both houses assembled. As the king, however, was not
present, and as no communication could be sent, there was no power
either to prorogue or to open parliament. Under these circumstances an
adjournment for fifteen days was proposed in both houses, and agreed to,
and successive adjournments took place until the 13th of December,
when they finally met for the transaction of business. In the meantime
committees had been appointed to examine the attendant physicians
respecting his majesty’s health. From them it appeared that there were
very slight hopes of his recovery, at least for a considerable period;
and, besides, the chancellor of the exchequer had by this time took
measures for the appointment of a regency. He brought forward three
propositions: one, declaring the king’s incapacity for the performance
of the functions of royalty; a second, asserting the right of the two
houses to supply this defect in the executive power; and a third, that
means should be devised for giving the royal assent to a bill on the
exercise of the regal authority during his majesty’s indisposition. The
two former of these propositions were assented to without a division,
though not without some opposition from Sir Francis Burdett, who
declared his solemn protest against the whole proceedings, as aiming
a mortal blow against the constitution. Against the third proposition
several exceptions were taken. Mr. Ponsonby, indeed, denied that the
houses had a right to command the chancellor to apply the king’s seal to
an act which was thence to be considered as having the royal sanction,
and he moved for an address to the Prince of Wales, praying him to take
the regal functions on him during his majesty’s illness. Sir Samuel
Romilly thought the resolutions inconsistent with each other. He
remarked:—“In one, the right of the lords and commons to fill up the
vacancy is asserted; and yet that vacancy being acknowledged, the royal
assent to a bill is to be procured, to which his majesty can give no
assent: the will of the lords and common: can in nowise be construed
into the king’s will; nor can they by any means legislate for the
nation. As well might a set of men in common life make a contract for an
insane person, and then employ an individual as his solicitor to affix
his seal and signature to the deed: in fact, the personal presence of
the king, or of a commission signed by him, was essential to every act
of legislation; and if the house could dispense with this in one case,
they might in others; they might make war or peace, and say such was the
king’s pleasure.” Mr. Ponsonby’s motion for an address to the prince
was rejected by two hundred and sixty-nine against one hundred and
fifty-seven. All the original resolutions were therefore carried, and
the same three resolutions were likewise agreed to by the lords. Mr.
Perceval, now, on the 3rd of December, proposed the same limitations and
restrictions on the powers of the regent as were passed in 1788. These
limitations and restrictions were contained in five resolutions. The
first four of these resolutions were agreed to on the same day; but the
fifth, relating to the care of his majesty’s person was postponed till
the next day.

{A.D. 1811}

The fifth resolution of the regency bill was not settled for some
days. On the 1st of January an amendment to it, tending to diminish the
expenses of the king’s household, and to curtail the authority of the
queen over that household, was carried against ministers by a majority
of thirteen; and this decision was confirmed the next day by the
rejection of an amendment moved by Mr. Perceval, which went to restore
the fifth resolution to its original state. All the resolutions were
then sent up to the lords, who, after some discussion, agreed to them;
inserting an amendment in the second for allowing the regent to bestow
the peerage upon deserving civilians, lawyers, etc. The commons readily
agreed to this alteration in the second clause; and, by an act founded
upon the whole, it was provided that the restrictions upon the royal
authority, as exercised by the regent, should continue till the 1st of
February, 1812, if parliament should be then assembled, and should have
been sitting six weeks previously; otherwise, till the expiration of six
weeks from the assembling of parliament after that day. A deputation
now waited on the prince regent and the queen, to acquaint them with the
resolutions which had been passed, and both accepted the office proposed
to them, though the prince complained that his powers were to be
exercised under so many restrictions and limitations. Their replies were
reported to parliament on the 11th of January, when Lord Liverpool moved
in the lords a resolution for putting the great seal to a commission
for opening the parliament under the regency. This resolution passed the
lords, after some opposition from Earl Grey, by a majority of fifty-one
against thirty-three, and it was afterwards agreed to by the commons;
and then both houses adjourned until the 15th of January, when the
session was to be opened for the despatch of business under the regency
by the commission thus appointed.




OPENING OF PARLIAMENT BY THE REGENT

Parliament was not opened till the 12th of February, on which day the
prince regent, having been previously installed at Carlton-house,
opened it by commission. The speech delivered upon this occasion by the
commissioners in the regent’s name dwelt upon the success of our armies
in the Indian seas, and the repulse of the French and Neapolitans in
their attack on Sicily; upon the failures of the French in Portugal
and at Cadiz; and it expressed a hope that parliament would enable the
regent to continue the most effectual assistance to the brave nations
of the Peninsula. The whole speech breathed a warlike spirit; and though
some deprecated war in the debate which followed on the addresses, they
were carried in both houses without a division.




DEBATE ON THE RE-APPOINTMENT OF THE DUKE OF YORK TO THE WAR-OFFICE.

Soon after the installation of the prince regent it was reported that he
intended to restore the Duke of York to the office of commander-in-chief
of the forces. During the investigation the duke had been warmly
defended by the Perceval administration, so that the report was not
likely to be ill-founded. On the 25th of May, indeed, the duke’s
reappointment was gazetted; and, although the nation seems generally
to have acquiesced in the measure, it did not pass without some
animadversion in parliament. Lord Milton moved in the commons, that it
had been highly improper and indecorous in the advisers of the regent
to recommend the reappointment; but he found few supporters, the
motion being lost by a majority of two hundred and ninety-six against
forty-seven. The duke signalized his return to office by re-establishing
regimental schools on Bell’s system.




THE SUPPLIES.

Mr. Perceval brought forward his budget on the 20th of May. The supplies
demanded and voted for the year amounted to £58,021,869; out of which
sum £20,276,144 were appropriated to the navy; £23,269,940 to the army;
£5,012,378 to the ordnance; £2,100,000 to subsidies, etc., for Portugal;
and £400,000 as a subsidy to Sicily.




THE BULLION COMMITTEE, ETC.

At this period, from our differences with America, which were not yet
settled, as well as from Napoleon’s continental system, a considerable
commercial depression was felt, together with a derangement in the
money-market, arising in a great measure from the necessity that existed
of constantly sending specie to the continent. During the preceding year
Mr. Horner had obtained the appointment of a committee to inquire into
the reason of the high price of gold bullion, and the state of the
circulating medium, and of the exchanges between Great Britain and
foreign parts. The report of this bullion committee was presented by Mr.
Horner on the 6th of May, on which occasion he addressed the house in
an elaborate speech, advocating a speedy return to cash-payments, as
the only means of saving the credit of the country. The report itself,
indeed, tended to recommend this measure to parliament. It stated,
that there was an excess in the paper circulation, of which the most
unequivocal symptom was the very high price of bullion, and, next to
that, the low state of the continental exchanges; that the cause of this
excess of bank-notes was to be found in the suspension of cash-payments;
there being no adequate provision against such an excess, except in the
convertibility of paper into specie; and that the unfavourable state of
the exchanges originated in the same cause, and was further increased
by the anti-commercial measures of the enemy. The report added, that
the committee could see no remedy for the present or security for the
future, except the repeal of the Suspension Act; that they thought this
could not safely be done at an earlier period than two years from the
time of their report; but that they recommended parliament to make early
provision for this purpose. This subject occupied the house four long
nights, but Mr. Horner’s resolutions were all rejected. Subsequently,
however, a bill was carried in the lords, which declared that bank-notes
should be taken only at their professed value, and deprived the landlord
of a summary remedy by distress whenever tender had been made in
bank-notes. This bill was strongly opposed in the commons; but it was
eventually carried by majorities of about four to one. In the lords, the
bill was chiefly opposed by Lord King, who argued that it would create
additional mischiefs and inconveniences; that landlords would refuse
to grant leases; and that the bill could not effect the object which it
professed to have in view, or retard depreciation of bank-notes. Lord
King had recently issued a circular-letter to his tenants, that he would
no longer receive bank-notes at par, but that his rents must for the
future be paid either in English guineas, or in equivalent weight of
Portuguese gold coin, or in bank notes amounting to a sum sufficient to
purchase such an equivalent weight of gold. In his reply to Lord King’s
objections, made in the lords, the chancellor, Eldon, insisted that
the claim set forth in this circular to his tenants was oppressive
and unjust, and that the bill was necessary to prevent such a grievous
oppression. He remarked:—“The restriction act of 1797 interfered so
far with individual contracts as to say that a debtor should not be
arrested, if he tendered his debt in bank-notes: the justice of that
enactment has never been, disputed; and is it now to be said, that a
tenant shall have his goods or stock seized, because he cannot pay in
gold, which is not to be procured? Let us suppose a young professional
man, struggling with the world, who has a rent to pay of £90 per annum,
and who has £3,000 in the bank, in the three per cents. His lordship
demands his rent in gold, but the bank refuses to pay the tenant his
dividend in gold. Would not the tenant have a right to say—’ As a
public creditor, I am refused any other payment than in bank-notes; but
here is a legislator—one of those by whose act of parliament I am thus
refused to be paid except in bank-notes, insisting up on my paying him
his rent in gold, which I cannot procure; and because I cannot procure
it, my goods are to be distrained?’ Would not this be a grievous
oppression? Surely, so long as it should be expedient to continue the
cash-suspension act of 1797, this present bill must become a part of it;
for otherwise there would be no equality in the situation of different
contracting parties, nor would equal justice be dealt out to those who
had an equal claim to it; as there could be no justice in leaving the
tenant who had tendered bank-notes exposed to be distrained upon by his
landlord, whilst the debtor, in other cases, who had tendered bank-notes
was exempted from arrest.”




SUBJECT OF MILITARY DISCIPLINE.

During this session, the subject of military punishment was discussed
in the commons. On this subject Sir Francis Burdett particularly
distinguished himself. He moved an address on the subject to the prince
regent, in doing which he remarked:—“There are but few persons who
know what is the dreadful manner in which this torture is inflicted. The
instrument, formed of pieces of whipcord, each as thick as a quill, and
knotted, is applied by the main strength of fresh men, relieving each
other, until human nature can bear no more; and then, if pains are taken
to recover the unhappy sufferer, it is only that he may undergo
fresh agony. The most disgusting part of the whole transaction is the
attendance of a surgeon—whose business seems to be a profanation of the
healing art—to detect any lingering principle of life, which can enable
the wretched man to undergo more suffering. I do not believe that in the
description which the poets give of hell there are any tortures equal to
what is called a military punishment.” Sir Francis was ably seconded by
Mr. Brougham, who contrasted the conduct of the Duke of Cumberland with
the more noble conduct of the Duke of Gloucester, whose regiment was in
the highest state of discipline, although there had not been a single
flogging in it for more than two years. But though the house had been
prepared to ameliorate the condition of the slaves of India, the members
were not yet in a temper to soften that of their brethren at home: and
the address was rejected by a large majority. Subsequently they showed
still less sympathy with the sufferings of their fellow-subjects.
A corporal in a militia regiment had been sentenced to one thousand
lashes. He received two hundred of these; but it was found that he could
not endure anymore, and he was placed in the hospital for three months;
when, having recovered, he had the option of undergoing the rest of his
sentence, or of serving in a condemned regiment for life in the West
Indies, which latter alternative he chose rather than expire under the
lash. Colonel Wardle moved for inquiry into this case, and only one was
found to vote with him. This apathy manifested in the commons tended to
increase the desire of parliamentary reform among the people.




LOUD SIDMOUTH’S MOTION RESPECTING DISSENTING PREACHERS.

In the course of this session Lord Sidmouth introduced a bill, as an
amendment of the toleration act; prohibiting any person from obtaining a
license to preach, unless he obtained the recommendation of at least six
respectable householders of the congregation to which he belonged, such
congregation being willing to listen to his instructions. The bill
also required that those who intended to be itinerants should bring
testimonials, stating that they were men of sober life and character,
and qualified to perform the functions to which they aspired. This bill
raised a great sensation among dissenters, it being considered liable to
be perverted to purposes of intolerance. It encountered, indeed, such a
storm of opposition, and the house was so inundated with petitions,
that when it came to be read a second time it was rejected without a
division.




AFFAIRS OF THE IRISH CATHOLICS.

It was generally understood among the Irish Catholics that the prince
regent was favourable to their claims, and his investment with power
contributed to increase their activity and zeal. Among other measures,
they proposed to establish a committee in Dublin, composed of delegates
from each country, for the management of their affairs. But this
was deemed unlawful by government; and Mr. Wellesley Pole, the Irish
secretary, sent a circular-letter to all the sheriffs and county
magistrates, requiring them to arrest all persons engaged in such
elections. This letter being brought before parliament excited much
discussion; and on the 3rd of March Mr. Pole, having returned from
Ireland, stated in explanation that the Catholic committee of 1809, had
confined their deliberations to petitioning, whereas the delegates of
1810 were empowered to manage the affairs of the Catholics generally;
and that a committee of grievances, which met weekly, imitated all the
forms of the house of commons. The opinion of the great law-officers,
he said, had been taken by the lord-lieutenant, and the attorney-general
had drawn up the circular. This explanation had a due effect noon the
house; for when the petition which had been prepared by the committee
was presented, although it was supported by the eloquence of Grattan,
it was rejected by a majority of one hundred and forty-six against
eighty-three. It shared the same fate in the lords, it being thought
dangerous to grant any power to men who would be likely to abuse it. The
rejection of this petition caused great disturbances in Ireland.




AMENDMENT OF THE CRIMINAL LAW

Among the various statutes of this session there were two which tended
to diminish, in the instances of stealing linen and cotton from fields
and out-buildings, that long list of offences to which our law assigned
the punishment of death. Three other bills, having a similar tendency
were passed in the commons, but were rejected by the lords. All these
bills were brought in by that enlightened legislator, Sir Samuel
Romilly.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued on the 24th of July by commission. The speech
expressed the regent’s approbation of the wisdom and firmness which the
two houses had manifested, in enabling him to continue the exertions
of the country in the case of our allies, and to prosecute the war with
increased activity and vigour. At this time there was an end of all
hopes of his majesty’s ability to resume the functions of royalty. In
the early part of the year his health underwent some variations, with
lucid intervals; but the report of the queen’s council on the 8th of
July stated that his majesty was totally unable to resume his kingly
duties.




DISPUTES WITH AMERICA.

The orders in council not being repealed on the 2nd of February, Mr.
Pinkney, the American minister in London, was recalled. He had his
audience of leave on the 1st of March, from which time the American
ports were closed against English ships, and open to those of our enemy.
Attempts were made, in the course of the summer, to effect an adjustment
of the subjects in dispute; but these failed, and on the meeting of
congress in November, the president recommended vigorous measures
of preparation both by sea and land. The finances of the American
government, however, were little suited to meet the expense of a war;
and the friends of peace, though outvoted in the legislative assemblies,
yet felt confident that the prospect of loans and taxes would cool the
military ardour of a people unaccustomed to such burthens.




CAPTURE OF JAVA.

A formidable expedition was this year fitted out by Lord Minto,
Governor-General of India, and placed under the command of Sir Samuel
Auchmuty, against the Dutch settlements in the island of Java. A landing
was effected without opposition on the 5th of August, and by the 8th the
city of Batavia was captured without resistance. Its garrison retreated
to a fortified position within two miles of Cornells, where General
Jansens was stationed with the principal Dutch force. These works were
now assailed, and they were carried by assault on the 26th; and the
whole of the Dutch army was either killed, captured, or dispersed.
Jansens fled to Samarang, and prepared for defence; but he was soon
compelled to capitulate, and then the whole island of Java surrendered
to the British arms.




AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL.

During the months of January and February the English and French armies
in Portugal remained in their respective positions. The French marshal,
Massena, was re-enforced by the ninth corps, under General Drouet;
and about the same time Soult received orders from Napoleon to act in
concert with him by attacking Portugal south of the Tagus; and a new
French army was formed in the north of Spain, consisting of about 70,000
men, and placed under Marshal Bessières, who was ordered to give all
the assistance he could to the army of Portugal. Soult, as before seen,
moved towards the frontiers of Portugal; but deemed it indispensable
to reduce Olivenza and Badajoz, before he crossed them, lest he should
leave a Spanish garrison in his rear. Napoleon had given his generals
directions to keep the English in check, and to cause them loss of men
every day by engagements of advanced guards, until the season became
favourable for main operations. Wellington, however, was too cautious
to waste his army in affairs of advanced guards, or in any useless
skirmishes or operations, so that he kept his forces entire; and at the
beginning of March he was re-enforced by about 7000 men. By this time
Massena’s army had so eaten up the country that he found it necessary to
move his quarters. He retreated to the frontiers of Spain, followed
by the English, who in the course of the pursuit cut off many of the
fugitives, and took much baggage and ammunition. When, indeed, Massena,
recrossed the frontiers of Spain, his loss, including the sick and
wounded, amounted to no less than 45,000 men. But Massena still counted
40,000 men, besides the garrison left in Almeida; and having placed his
army in cantonments between the Coa and Agueda, and given instructions
for the blockade of Almeida, Lord Wellington departed for the south, to
see the state of affairs on the Guadiana and the country near Badajoz.
Thus terminated the third French invasion of Portugal.




AFFAIRS OF SPAIN, CAPTURE OF BADAJOZ, ETC.

During his pursuit of the French army, Lord Wellington was mortified by
the intelligence that Soult had captured Badajoz. He had besought the
governor, General Menacho, to make a good stand, and promised him
speedy assistance; but, unfortunately, the Governor was killed by a
cannon-ball, and the command of the garrison devolved upon General
Imaz, who proved unworthy of his trust. Although General Imaz knew
that Massena was retreating, and that Wellington would soon send him
succours, before any practicable breach was made in the walls; and
although he was able to hold out for one month, he held up the white
flag and suspended hostilities. Badajoz was surrendered on the 11th
of March, the garrisons becoming prisoners of war: 9000 Spaniards
surrendered to a besieging army which did not exceed 9600 infantry, and
2000 cavalry.

After the fall of Badajoz Soult put his troops in motion to cross the
Guadiana and the southern frontier of Portugal; but intelligence from
Andalusia induced him to give up the command to Mortier, and to repair
to Seville. General Graham, who commanded at Cadiz, when Soult departed
from thence, concerted a plan with the Spaniards to drive Marshal Victor
out of his lines. For this purpose 10,000 infantry, and 600 cavalry
of the allies, being embarked at Cadiz, were landed in February at
Algesiras, from which place they marched to Tarifa. At Tarifa they were
joined by a considerable British, German, and Portuguese force, and the
whole was placed under the command of the Spanish General La Peha. The
combined forces marched in the direction of Medina Sidonia, and when
within four leagues of the enemy’s posts, they were re-organized: the
vanguard being given to General Lardizabal; the centre to the Prince of
Anglona; the reserve, composed of the British and two Spanish regiments,
to Graham; and the cavalry to Colonel Whittingham, an English officer
in the Spanish service. On the morning of the 5th of March the allies
arrived on the low ridge of Barossa, about four miles from the mouth of
the river Santi Petri. A successful attack on the rear of the enemy’s
lines opened the communication with the Isle of Leon; after which
General Graham moved down to the Torre de Bermesa, about halfway to the
Santi Petri, to secure the communication across that river, over which a
bridge had been recently thrown. He moved on through the wood in front,
but when he had advanced into the middle of the wood, he received
notice that the enemy was advancing towards the heights of Barossa; and
considering that position as the key to Santi Petri, he instantly made
a counter-march to support the troops left for its defence. Before the
troops of Graham, however, could reach the ridge of Barossa, the troops
left for its defence were obliged to retire, and the left wing of the
enemy was rapidly ascending those heights. To retreat in the face of
a superior enemy would have exposed the allies to great danger; and,
relying on the courage of his troops, General Graham determined on an
immediate attack. He was successful: in an hour and a half the French
were in full retreat, leaving behind them 3000 killed and prisoners,
and some of their cannon. The English, however, lost 1,243 in killed
and wounded, among whom were several officers high in estimation; and
General Graham finding it impossible to procure supplies, withdrew the
next day across the Santi Petri, and afterwards returned to the Isle of
Leon. La Peira, whose co-operation in this movement did him no honour,
returned with his forces to Cadiz, and the French resumed the blockade.

In the meantime Marshal Beresford, acting under the directions of Lord
Wellington, had directed his efforts against Badajoz. He invested that
city on the 8th of May; but he had scarcely commenced the siege when
intelligence arrived that Soult was returning thither with 15,000 men
for its relief. Beresford immediately suspended his operations, removed
the battering cannon and stores to Elvas, and being joined on the 14th
by the Spanish Generals Castanos and Blake prepared to meet the enemy.
Soult appeared in front of the allies, with a force of about 20,000 men;
5000 having joined him in his route. They were attacked by him on the
next day; but after a fearful slaughter on both sides, the enemy
was driven back across the river. Soult retired to the ground he had
previously occupied; and on the night of the 17th he commenced his
retreat towards Seville, leaving Badajoz to its own defence. The British
sustained a greater loss in this battle than in any that had been
fought in the Peninsula; but the steadiness and gallantry of the troops
obtained the highest commendations not only from their commander, but
from both houses of parliament.

Shortly after this battle Lord Wellington joined General Beresford, and
the siege of Badajoz was recommenced. He had left his army opposed to
Massena in the north of Portugal under General Spencer, and about
this time Massena was recalled to France, and Marmont became Spencer’s
opponent. Marmont was resolved to succour Badajoz, if possible; and for
this purpose he sent 15,000 men, under Drouet, to re-enforce Sonlt if
he should be again able to advance to its relief. This had the effect
of quickening Lord Wellington’s operations upon Badajoz: two different
attacks were made upon it; but though his troops behaved with their
accustomed valour, both attempts failed, and the siege was soon after
raised.

In other parts of Spain during this year, the patriots were equally
unfortunate. Thus the French marshal Suchet took Tarragona by assault;
General Blake was repulsed by the enemy in an attack on Niebla; Soult
defeated the army of Marcia, in the vicinity of Baza; Figueras was
retaken by the French general, Macdonald; the Spanish general, Abudia,
was defeated by Dorsenne in the vicinity of Astorga; Suchet captured the
town and castle of Murviedro; and General Blake was attacked by Suchet
in December, and compelled to retire within the walls of Valencia.
On the 4th of September Lord Wellington formed the blockade of Ciudad
Rodrigo; but on the 25th he retired, and his rear was attacked by
Marmont. The infantry, however, forming a square, and presenting a firm
front, retreated without being broken. General Hill, with a division of
the allied army, surprised and completely routed a French column on
the 28th of October, taking 1400 prisoners and all Girard’s artillery,
baggage, &c., together with the money which he had levied at Merida.
About the same time also the Baron d’Eroles defeated the French near
Perigeorda. After Marmont had relieved Ciudad Rodrigo he retraced
his steps to the valley of the Tagus; and the allied army went into
cantonments, Lord Wellington resolving in the course of the winter to
collect such materials as would enable him to carry Ciudad Rodrigo by a
more effectual and rapid method than that of blockade.

{GEORGE III. 1809—1812}




NAVAL AFFAIRS

The navy of England had not at this period any adequate antagonist to
encounter, so that it was only by occasional surprises that it could
perform any achievements. During this year, however, there were several
severe frigate fights and in-shore operations. In the Adriatic Sea,
Captain William Hoste obtained, on the 13th of March, with four English
frigates, a complete victory over five French frigates and six smaller
vessels, with five hundred men on board. Another victory was gained near
Foul Point, Madagascar, by Captain Schomberg, who with three frigates
and a sloop recovered Tamatava, which had been recently recaptured
by the French, and captured all the vessels in the port, including the
commodore’s frigate. A gallant exploit was also performed at Sagone-bay
in the island of Corsica by Captain Barrie, who with three frigates
burned three armed vessels laden with timber for the dock-yards
at Toulon, although they were protected by strong batteries and a
martello-tower, and defended by two hundred soldiers. On the 24th of
August, likewise, Captain Ferris, hoisting French colours, sailed up the
Garonne, and captured five French vessels without losing a single man
in the enterprise. The actions of this year, indeed, are too numerous to
recount. Our fleets and squadrons were engaged in all the four quarters
of the globe, and the vessels of the enemy could nowhere move in safety
while his coast was kept in continual alarm.




AFFAIRS OF FRANCE.

Fortune still seemed to smile on Napoleon. According to outward
appearance everything was still in his favour. On the 20th of March his
cup of prosperity seemed to be full; for his empress, Maria Louisa,
was safely delivered of a son, to whom was given the titles of Napoleon
Francis Charles Joseph, Prince of the French Empire, and King of Rome!
Congratulatory addresses were poured in from all the departments and all
the principal cities of France, as well as from Belgium, Holland, the
Hanse Towns, the confederated states of the Rhine, and from Italy. Soon
after this Napoleon opened the session of the _Corps Législatif_. In his
speech he told the members that his son would answer the expectations of
France, and bear to their children the sentiments which his father now
bore to them; that they must never forget that their happiness and glory
were dependent on the prosperity of the throne which he had raised,
consolidated, and aggrandized by them and for them, and that the love of
France was their first duty. This must have sounded oddly in the ears of
some of the members; for at this time Dutchmen from Holland, &c., Germans
from the Hanse Towns, Swiss from the Valais, which was now incorporated
with France, and Italians from the confiscated states of the church
had taken their seats in the _Corps Législatif_. With conscious pride
Napoleon also declared to these “complaisant tools of tyranny,” that
French dominion during the last year had been extended over sixteen
departments, containing five millions of people; the mouths of the
Rhine, Meuse, and Scheldt, together with the whole course of the latter
river, were now French; that improvements on a gigantic scale had taken
place throughout the empire; and that its finances were in such a state
that France could go on for ten years without borrowing money. It is
possible, however, that Napoleon in making this last assertion had an
eye to the plunder of some rich kingdoms, for it was well known that
France was not in a prosperous condition. At this very time, indeed,
the French, having lost their colonies, were substituting roasted
horse-beans for coffee, and extracting sugar from beetroot. The boast
of Napoleon, however, was pleasing to a vain-glorious people, and none
dared dispute his word. Subsequently to making it, accompanied by his
young empress, he visited Ostend, Antwerp, and Amsterdam, where
he announced the division of the departments of Holland, and their
proportion of the annual expenses. On his return to Paris, however, the
course of events bid fair to run more roughly with Napoleon than they
had hitherto done. All the cabinets of Europe were at this time anxious
to break their fetters, and a rupture with Russia had become inevitable.
The czar was offended by Napoleon’s seizure of Oldenburg, the extension
of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, and the continued occupation of Dantzic,
and prepared for a contest; and Napoleon replied to his menaces by angry
complaints, and by calling out fresh conscripts in order to meet him in
the field. At the close of the year 1811 the preparations for war were
on such a gigantic scale, that most men in France saw they would be
followed by an unprecedented campaign.




CHAPTER XXIX.

{GEORGE III. 1812—1814}

     Meeting of Parliament..... Augmentation of the Civil List.....
     Bill for Prohibiting the Grant of Offices in Reversion,
     &c. Changes in the Ministry, &e...... Attacks upon
     Ministers..... Assassination of Mr. Perceval.....
     Administration of Lord Liverpool..... Financial
     Statements..... Population Returns, &c. Bill for
     Preservation of the Peace..... Bill to extend the Privileges
     of Dissenters..... Prorogation of Parliament, &e......
     Capture of Ciudad Rodrigo by the British..... Storm and
     Capture of Badajoz..... Operations in Spain..... War between
     France and Russia..... War with   America..... Meeting of
     the New Parliament..... Debates on the War with America.....
     Financial Statements..... Renewal of  the East India
     Company’s Charter..... The Catholic Question..... Curates’
     Bill, &c. Appointment of  Vice-Chancellor..... Delates
     on the Treaty  with Sweden..... Prorogation of
     Parliament..... Affairs of Spain..... American Campaign.....
     Meeting of Parliament..... Bill for allowing the Militia to
     volunteer into the Line.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1812}

Parliament reassembled on the 7th of January, when the speech of the
prince-regent was delivered by commission. It dwelt chiefly on the
events which had happened in the Peninsula, and on the differences which
existed between England and America. The addresses were carried in both
houses without a division, though not without debate and censure. In
the lords, Grenville and Grey denounced the measures of government in no
very soft language as regarded their war and foreign policy, and uttered
some predictions of calamities which must follow any new rupture with
America. In the commons Sir Francis Burdett proposed instead of an
address a strong remonstrance to the regent, containing an elaborate
statement of grievances, among which the constitution of the house
was one of the most conspicuous. In making this proposal, the right
honourable baronet declared that Englishmen for the last eighteen
years had been daily losing their liberty; that a detestation of French
liberty had produced the present war; that nothing had been done for
Spain, and that if its cause was now taken up by the British government
it had become hopeless; that the victories won by our armies were
useless; and that parliament should be reformed.




AUGMENTATION OF THE CIVIL LIST.

At this time no change had taken place in the indisposition of the king.
The general impression on the minds of the people, indeed, was that his
recovery was hopeless, that the remainder of his days would be spent in
mental debility. This impression was heightened when, in the house
of commons, in a committee to consider the question of the king’s
household, Mr. Perceval stated that, according to the physicians,
the expectation of his majesty’s recovery was diminished. Under these
circumstances he laid before the house the measures proposed to be
adopted. Several objections were taken to his plan; but the following
resolutions were finally agreed to:—“1. That, for making provision for
the due arrangement of his majesty’s household, and for the exercise
of the royal authority during the continuance of his majesty’s
indisposition, and for the purpose of enabling the queen to meet the
increased expenses to which, in consequence of such indisposition, her
majesty may be exposed, there be granted out of the consolidated fund
of Great Britain the yearly sum of £70,000. 2. That it is expedient that
provision be made for defraying the expenses incident to the assumption
of the personal exercise of the royal authority by his royal highness
the prince regent, in the name and on the behalf of his majesty.” The
bill framed upon these resolutions encountered some opposition, but they
passed triumphantly. A large addition was also subsequently made to
the income of the princesses; and it was in vain that some honourable
members pleaded internal distress, and urged that such demands were not
needed: the courtly zeal of parliament prevailed.




BILL FOR PROHIBITING THE GRANT OF OFFICES IN REVERSION, ETC.

As the bill for prohibiting the grant of offices in reversion was now
about to expire, Mr. Bankes introduced a new bill in order to render
the measure permanent. This was opposed on the second reading by Mr.
Perceval, and thrown out; and then Mr. Bankes proposed a bill for the
same purpose, but limited to two years. This met with no opposition in
the commons, and it was carried through the lords after the rejection of
an amendment proposed by Earl Grosvenor for continuing its operation
to 1840. At a later date Mr. Bankes brought in a bill for utterly
abolishing many sinecure places, and this was carried against ministers
by a majority of one hundred and thirty-four against one hundred and
twenty-three. On the 7th of May Mr. Creevey also called the serious
attention to the tellerships of the exchequer, now held by the Marquess
of Buckingham and Lord Camden, which offices were as old as the
exchequer itself, and conferred a vested right, with which it was held
parliament could not interfere. He moved a series of resolutions, the
last of which declared:—“That it is the duty of parliament in the
present unparalleled state of national expenditure and public calamity,
to exercise its rights still further over the fees now paid out of the
public money at the exchequer, so as to confine the profits of the
two tellers to some fixed and settled sum of money more conformable in
amount to the usual grants of public money for public services, etc.”
 Ministers opposed this motion, and it was lost without a division. An
amendment, likewise, proposed by Mr. Brand, for appointing a committee
to inquire into precedents, was rejected by a large majority. In these
debates the greater part of the opposition took the part of ministers,
but in the minority were Whitbread, General Fergusson, Lord Tavistock,
Lord Archibald Hamilton, and Mr. Brougham. But though parliament would
not interfere in these vested rights, in November of this year the two
noble tellers intimated their intention of appropriating to the public
service a third of their salary and fees from the 5th of January next
to the end of the war: this was an act of true patriotism. Before the
session closed an attack was made upon another patent place, that of
the office of registrar of the admiralty and prize courts. A bill for
regulating this office was brought in by Mr. Henry Martin, but it was
rejected by a majority of sixty-five against twenty-seven. In the
course of this last debate it was made to appear that Lord Arden, the
registrar, whose fees amounted to about £12,000 a year, had made £7000
a year more by interest and profits of suitors’ money, and that he had
sometimes above £200,000 of such money employed at interest. A bill,
however, proposed by Mr. Perceval himself, which declared that the
registrar should be entitled to one-third part only of the fees of his
office, and that the remaining two-thirds should go to the consolidated
fund, was carried, though not without some opposition. This was noble
conduct on the part of Mr. Perceval; for this office had been granted in
reversion to his elder brother, Lord Arden, and after Lord Arden’s death
it was to revert to Mr. Perceval himself. Its merits were, however,
lowered by the consideration that the reductions of emoluments were
not to take place till after the expiration of the existing present and
reversionary interests; that is, till after the deaths of Lord Arden and
Mr. Perceval.




CHANGES IN THE MINISTRY, ETC.

At this period the present cabinet was not only weak but distracted.
The Marquess Wellesley, indeed, who was dissatisfied with some of his
colleagues, had signified his intention of resigning almost as soon as
parliament met, although he agreed to hold office till the expiration
of the year to which the restrictions on the regent were limited. He
resigned on the 19th of February, and he was succeeded as secretary for
foreign affairs by Lord Castlereagh. Six days before the resignation of
Marquess Wellesley the regent wrote a letter to his brother, the Duke of
York, in which he began with alluding to the fast approaching expiration
of the restrictions; stated that motives of filial affection had induced
him to continue the present cabinet; adverted to the success of his
first year’s administration, and expressed a hope that a new era
was arriving. He concluded with these words:—“Having made this
communication of my sentiments, I cannot conclude without expressing the
gratification I should feel if some of those persons with whom the early
habits of my public life were formed would strengthen my hands, and
constitute a part of my government. With such support, and aided by a
vigorous and united administration, founded on the most liberal basis, I
shall look with additional confidence to a prosperous issue of the
most arduous contest in which Great Britain was ever engaged. You are
authorized to communicate these sentiments to Lord Grey, who I. have no
doubt will make them known to Lord Grenville.” The prince’s letter was
shown to both Grey and Grenville, but they flatly refused to join the
Perceval administration. The letter, and their reply to the Duke of
York, were published in all the newspapers of the kingdom, and from this
moment the Whigs began to revile the Prince of Wales, whom they had so
long flattered and applauded. They had anticipated a return to power
under his rule; and when they discovered that he adhered to his father’s
line of policy, they no longer looked up to him as their rising sun. The
old cry was indeed raised, that there was something behind the throne
stronger than the throne itself, something that was subversive of the
constitution. Earl Grey declared in the house of lords that the ministry
depended for its existence upon an unseen influence; a power alien
to the constitution; a disgusting and disastrous influence which
consolidated abuses into a system, and which prevented both complaint
and advice from reaching the royal ear; an influence which it was the
duty of parliament to set its branding mark upon. Both in and out of
parliament it was asserted that Lord Castlereagh’s return to office was
the effect of the influence of a certain lady, and the auspices of the
Hertford family.




ATTACKS UPON MINISTERS.

These murmurs broke out into open attacks upon the cabinet. On the 19th
of March Lord Boringdon moved in the house of lords for an address to
the prince regent, beseeching him to form an administration so composed
as to unite the confidence and good will of all classes of his majesty’s
subjects. His real meaning was that the regent should form a Grey and
Grenville administration; but his irregular, if not unconstitutional
motion, was got rid of by an amendment proposed by Lord Grimstone, which
was carried by one hundred and sixty-five against seventy-two. A
more violent attack on the ministry was subsequently made by Lord
Donoughmore, when he moved for a committee on the Roman Catholic claims;
but though his lordship’s motion was seconded by the Duke of Sussex his
motion was lost: his speech was too much tainted with private pique to
be heeded by parliament. A similar motion, urged by the eloquence of
Mr. Grattan in the commons, met with a similar fate. At a later period,
however, Mr. Canning carried a motion in opposition to ministers,
pledging the house to consider early next session the state of the laws
affecting the Roman Catholics of Great Britain and Ireland. In the lords
a similar proposal made by the Marquis Wellesley was rejected.




ASSASSINATION OF MR. PERCEVAL.

During this session, as the continuance of outrages in several of the
manufacturing counties continued, a severe law was enacted, which made
the breaking of frames and administration of oaths a capital felony.
These commotions were generally attributed to the operation of our
orders in council, diminishing the demands for articles of British
manufacture; and petitions were presented to both houses for a
revocation of these edicts. In compliance with the general wish, a
formal inquiry was instituted; but while it was depending, its leader
was suddenly cut off by a tragical death. As Mr. Perceval, on the 11th
of May, was entering the lobby of the house of commons he was shot
through the heart, and after uttering a slight exclamation and
staggering a few paces, he expired. The assassin, whose name was
Bellingham, made no attempt to escape, and he was immediately
arrested. Apprehensions were at first entertained that there might be
a conspiracy; but it was soon discovered that no other person had been
concerned with him, and that there was no mixture of political feeling
in his motives. Bellingham had been a merchant; and in a commercial
visit to Russia some time before he had met with serious losses, which
he attributed to violence and injustice. He had repeatedly addressed
Lord G. Leveson Gower, who had been our ambassador at Petersburgh, and
he had presented memorials to the treasury, soliciting a compensation
for losses; but these losses not having been incurred in the course
of any public service, were considered as affording him no title
to compensation. Mr. Perceval had rightly refused to listen to his
applications; but Bellingham was enraged at his refusal, and resolved to
sacrifice his life. He was found guilty of murder at the Old Bailey,
and he underwent the extreme sentence of the law within one week of
his perpetration of the fearful deed. Two days after the assassination
parliament voted £50,000 for the children of the sacrificed minister,
and £2000 to his widow for life. Subsequently another pension was
voted to his eldest son, as was also a monument for the deceased in
Westminster Abbey. The talents of Mr. Perceval were not splendid, but
as chancellor of the exchequer he displayed considerable skill in
augmenting the public burdens at a time when the war was conducted on a
scale of unprecedented expenditure. His advancement seems to have been
owing to his inflexibility on the Catholic question, at a time when a
majority of the talented members of parliament was in favour of some
concession. But if Mr. Perceval’s talents were not of the highest order,
in private life few persons were more deservedly respected, and whose
death was in consequence more lamented. Sir Samuel Romilly, in his
“Diary of Parliamentary Life,” remarks that he could hardly have
accompanied his refusal to listen to Bellingham with any harshness, for
few men had ever less harshness in their nature than he had. A recent
writer also says:—“We remember well walking through the populous
streets and suburbs of the capital on that afternoon and evening, and
seeing the mixed feelings of horror and pity expressed on almost every
countenance.”




ADMINISTRATION OF LORD LIVERPOOL.

Considerable difficulty was experienced in supplying the vacancy
occasioned by the death of Mr. Perceval. Overtures were made to the
Marquis of Wellesley and Mr. Canning; but they refused to associate
themselves with government, assigning as their reason the avowed
sentiments of ministers on the Catholic question. An address was moved
to the prince regent on the 21st of May, by Mr. Stuart Wortley, praying
that he would take such measures as might be best calculated to form
an efficient government. This address was carried; and in his reply the
prince regent said he would take it into his most serious consideration.
The Marquis of Wellesley was the first applied to; and he proposed,
as the chief conditions on which the new cabinet should be formed, the
early consideration of the Catholic question, and the more vigorous
prosecution of the war in Spain. He attempted to form a ministry on
these conditions, but failed; and at length, on the 8th of June, Lord
Liverpool informed the house of lords that the prince regent had that
day appointed him first commissioner of the treasury, and had authorized
him to complete the arrangements for the ministry. The principal
accessions made to the cabinet by Lord Liverpool were Lord Sidmouth as
secretary of state for the home department; the Earl of Harrowby as
lord president of the council; and Mr. Vansittart as chancellor of the
exchequer.




FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

On the 17th of June Mr. Vansittart, the new chancellor of the exchequer,
brought forward his budget, which had been nearly arranged by his
predecessor. The charges were stated at £7,025,700 for Ireland; and
£55,350,648 for Great Britain. This was a terrible extent of charge, he
said; but great as it was, the resources of the country were still equal
to it. By an enumeration of ways and means, he produced a result
of £55,390,460, including a loan of £15,650,000; but there had been
previously a loan of £6,789,625; which, added to the new loan, and
to exchequer-bills funded this year, created an annual interest of
£1,905,924. To provide for this Mr. Vansittart proposed to discontinue
the bounty on printed goods exported, and to increase the duties on
tanned hides, glass, tobacco, sales by auction, postage of letters, and
assessed taxes. The aggregate product of these increased duties were
estimated at £1,903,000. The augmentation of the duty on leather was
strongly opposed; but the whole budget received the sanction of the
house.




POPULATION RETURNS, ETC.

During this session returns under the population act were laid before
parliament. From these returns it appeared that Great Britain in
1801 had a population of 10,472,048 souls, and in 1811 no less than
11,911,644. These results revived the question of population compared
with its means of subsistence. It appeared by accounts produced about
this time, that during eleven years, from 1775 to 1786, the average
quantity of grain imported was 564,143 quarters, from 1786 to 1798,
1,136,101 quarters, and from 1799 to 1810, 1,471,000 quarters. The
average prices were in the first period named thirty shillings
per quarter, in the second forty shillings, and in the third sixty
shillings. During the last year no less a sum than £4,271,000 went out
of the country to purchase subsistence for its inhabitants. It must be
remembered, however, that at this period vast tracts of land remained
uncultivated, and that the science of agriculture was but imperfectly
understood.




BILL FOR PRESERVATION OF THE PEACE.

On the 27th of June the regent sent a message to each house of
parliament, acquainting them that he had ordered copies to be laid
before them of the information recently received relative to riots
which had recently occurred in the cotton manufacturing districts of
Lancashire and part of Cheshire, the clothing districts of Yorkshire,
&c., confiding in their wisdom to adopt measures for restoring
tranquillity. These papers were referred to a secret committee in each
house, and the result was the introduction of a severe bill for the
preservation of the public peace in the disturbed districts. Some
members questioned the extent of the danger and the policy of the
coercive bill; but it was carried through both houses.




BILL TO EXTEND THE PRIVILEGES OF DISSENTERS.

On the 10th of July Lord Castlereagh brought in a bill to extend the
privileges of the dissenters. This bill, which proposed to repeal
certain intolerant statutes and to amend others, relating to religious
worship and assemblies, &c. was carried. A bill for improving the
ecclesiastical courts in England also received the sanction of the
legislature.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT, ETC.

Parliament was prorogued on the 30th of July by commission; and on
the 20th of September a proclamation was issued by the prince regent,
announcing its dissolution.




CAPTURE OF CIUDAD RODRIGO BY THE BRITISH.

During the latter months of the preceding year Lord Wellington had
been secretly preparing the means of recapturing Ciudad Rodrigo,
the possession of that place still serving the French as a basis of
operations on one of the frontiers of Portugal. His situation, says
a Peninsular historian, was simply that of a man who felt that all
depended on himself; that he must by some rapid and unexpected stroke
effect in the field what his brother could not effect in the cabinet.
Marmont favoured his designs on this place; for, deceived by his
apparent careless attitude, the French armies were spread over an
immense tract of country, and Ciudad Rodrigo was left unprotected. Lord
Wellington marched against it early in January; and in twelve days from
its first investment Ciudad Rodrigo was recaptured. In the assault the
British suffered severe loss, there being in the whole about 1000 killed
and wounded, among whom were many officers. General Mackinnon, and many
of his brigade, were blown up by the explosion of a powder-magazine on
the ramparts, and General Craufurd was mortally wounded. The loss
of the garrison was also about 1000, besides 1700 prisoners. For the
capture of this piece the Spanish Cortes passed a vote of thanks to Lord
Wellington, and conferred on him the title of Duke of Ciudad Rodrigo. In
England also his lordship obtained a step in the peerage, being created
Earl of Wellington, with an annuity of £2000 annexed to the title.
Thanks were voted by parliament both to him and his brave army.

The recapture of Ciudad Rodrigo was attended with fearful scenes.
Colonel Napier says:—“Throwing off the restraint of discipline the
troops committed frightful excesses: the town was fired in three or
four places; the soldiers menaced their officers, and shot each other;
intoxication soon increased the tumult; and at last the fury rising to
absolute madness, a fire was wilfully lighted in the middle of the great
magazine, when the town, and all within it, would have been blown
to atoms, but for the energetic courage of some officers and a few
soldiers, who still preserved their senses.” After order had been
restored, orders were given to repair the breaches and level the
intrenchments, while means were taken to provision the place.

{GEORGE III. 1812—1814}




STORM AND CAPTURE OF BADAJOZ.

Having recovered Ciudad Rodrigo, Wellington resolved to attempt the
recovery of Badajoz. In preparing for this enterprise great secrecy was
maintained; and when all was ready, his lordship, leaving one division
of his army on the Agueda, marched with the rest from the northern to
the southern frontier of Portugal. His artillery had previously been
conveyed from Lisbon by sea to the Setubal river, whence it was carried
by land across the Alemtejo to the banks of the Guadiana; and on the
16th of March Lord Wellington crossed that river, and immediately
invested Badajoz. The Picurina, an advanced work separated from the body
of the place by the small river Ribillas, was taken on the 25th, and on
the 26th two batteries opened on the town. Expedition was essential; for
at this time Marshal Soult was preparing for its relief, and Marmont, in
the hope of effecting a diversion had entered Portugal, and was ravaging
the country east of the Estrella. Thus called upon to action on the 6th
of April, after three breaches were reported to be practicable, Lord
Wellington gave orders for storming the place at ten o’clock that
night. Badajoz was captured, but it was with great loss, owing to the
formidable obstacles encountered by the allies. General Philippon,
the governor of Badajoz, had adopted such an ingenious defence that
effectually stopped the way of the British, that had not General Picton
succeeded in carrying and establishing himself in the castle, and
General Walker in entering the town by escalade in an opposite
direction, the attempt might have failed. These successes distracted
the French; and Lord Wellington, who had ordered his divisions to retire
from the attack, now directed them again to advance, and then every
obstacle was overcome. General Philippon with a few hundred men escaped
across the Guadiana, and threw himself into Fort St. Cristoval, where
he surrendered on the following morning. On the side of the allies about
1000 were slain, and from 4000 to 5000 wounded. The French lost about
1500 men slain, and nearly 4000 were taken prisoners. In Baclajoz from
3000 to 4000 Spaniards, English, and Portuguese, who had been taken
prisoners by the French, were found, and were consequently released. It
was on the 7th of April that Lord Wellington captured Badajoz, and on
the 8th Soult had collected his army at Villa-franca, between Llerena
and Merida; but hearing of the fall of the place he commenced a retreat
to Seville. He was warmly pursued by the British cavalry, who cut up his
rear-guard at Villa Garcia.




OPERATIONS IN SPAIN.

As soon as Lord Wellington had captured Badajoz he endeavoured to put
the place into a state of defence. His lordship, however, had but little
time to attend to this important measure. Marmont was at this time
making himself strong in the north, and was blockading both the Spanish
fortress of Ciudad Rodrigo and the fortress of Almeida. Leaving General
Hill in the south, therefore, his lordship, on the 13th of April moved
the main body of his army back to the north. Marmont now retreated to
Salamanca, hoping to effect a junction with Soult; but he was prevented
from this step by the capture of the strong forts which the French had
erected at Almaraz on the Tagus, and which were captured by General
Hill. At length, on the 13th of June, Lord Wellington broke up from
his cantonments between the Coa and the Agueda with about 40,000 men,
leaving General Hill near Almaraz with 12,000 more. As his lordship
advanced into Spain, he received reports that Marmont was about to
be re-enforced by a division consisting of nearly seven thousand men.
Marmont already counted 40,000 infantry, 3000 artillery, and 4000
cavalry, so that he already had a decided superiority in numbers. Still
Wellington pursued his march, and the whole of his army arrived upon
the Val Musa rivulet, about six miles from Salamanca, on the 16th of
June. Some of the cavalry and infantry of the enemy lay in front of the
town of Salamanca; but they were driven in by the British, and Marmont
evacuated the town in the night, leaving a garrison of some eight
hundred men, in forts constructed on the rains of colleges and convents,
which commanded the bridge that crosses the river Tormes. The allies,
however, forded the river in places above and below the bridge, and
on the 17th entered the town. Marmont made some efforts to relieve the
forts which were now invested; but they were all taken by the 27th, and
he then took up a strong position on the northern bank of the Duero. He
was followed by Wellington, who took up a line on the southern bank of
that river directly opposite to his opponent. Early in July Marmont was
re-enforced by the expected division, and on the 11th of that month he
threw two divisions across the Duero at Toro, when Wellington moved his
army to the left to concentrate it on the Guareha, an affluent of the
Duero. Marmont now ascended the northern bank of the river with his
whole army, and again crossed over to the southern bank of the Duero,
and assembled at Nava del Bey. He succeeded in re-establishing his
communications with King Joseph and the army of the centre, which
was advancing from Madrid to join him. The two armies remained on the
opposite banks of the Guarena till the 20th of July, on which day they
moved towards the Tormes in parallel lines. They crossed the Tormes on
the following day; the allied army passing by the bridge of Salamanca,
and the French by the fords higher up the river. The hostile troops were
still facing each other, and both armies were still near Salamanca. In
the course of the night Lord Wellington was informed that Marmont was
about to be joined by the cavalry and horse-artillery of the north.
No time was to be lost, and his lordship determined, if circumstances
should not permit him to attack Marmont on the morrow, he would then
move towards Ciudad Rodrigo. The morning of the morrow was spent in
anxious suspense by the allies, birt the enemy gave no indication of his
design to commence battle till noon, when some confusion was observed
in his ranks. After a great variety of skilful manouvres on both sides,
Marmont, inspired with the hope of destroying at one blow the whole
English army, extended his line in order to enclose his allies within
the position which they had taken up. This was an error of which
Wellington immediately took advantage. Nearly the whole of his army was
brought opposite to the enemy’s left, and an attack was commenced upon
that wing. Three divisions, under Generals Leith, Cole, and Cotton,
charged in front, while General Pakenham formed another across the
enemy’s flank. This movement decided the victory. The left wing first,
then the centre, and finally the right wing were defeated, and as the
evening closed the whole force of the enemy was in total rout. The first
great blow was given to the power of the French in Spain. In this battle
the French lost three generals slain, and Marmont, Bonnet, and Clausel
were wounded. Their total loss in killed and wounded was very great, and
they left 7000 prisoners, eleven guns, and two eagles in the hands of
the conquerors. The loss of the allies was also great, nearly 5000 being
slain and wounded: among the slain was General Le Marchant, and among
the wounded Generals Beresford, Leith, Cole, Spry, and Cotton; The
pursuit of the enemy was renewed next day beyond the Tormes, when the
British troops succeeded in capturing three brigades. In the course of
the day Marmont was joined by a corps of 1200 cavalry from the army of
the north, which covered the retreat of the centre as it hastened toward
Valladolid. The pursuit was continued on the 24th, and the enemy
was driven from Valladolid towards Burgos. Lord Wellington reached
Valladolid the eighth day after the battle, and here he gave over the
pursuit in order to make another important movement. On the day after
the battle of Salamanca King Joseph had marched from the Escurial with
20,000 men, for the purpose of joining Marmont. On arriving at Arevalo
he heard of Marmont’s defeat, and he then marched off by the right
to Segovia, to attempt a diversion in favour of Clausel, who was
now leading the retreating army. Lord Wellington therefore quitted
Valladolid, recrossed the Duero, and marched against King Joseph,
leaving a force on the Duero under General Paget to watch Clausel. King
Joseph now retreated towards Madrid, whither he was followed by Lord
Wellington, and from whence he was driven by his lordship. The British
forces entered Madrid on the 12th of August, and was received with
enthusiastic acclamations. Joseph fled to the left bank of the Tagus to
rally his army between Aranjuez and Toledo, leaving a garrison in
the Retiro palace. The troops found in the Retiro, however, were made
prisoners of war on the 14th of August, so that Lord Wellington had
complete possession of the Spanish capital. He appointed Don Carlos de
Espaha Governor of Madrid, and the new constitution which the Cortes had
made at Cadiz was proclaimed with great exultation. The air resounded
with the shouts of “Long live the Duke of Ciudad Rodrigo! long live
Wellington!” Subsequently a deputation waited upon his lordship with a
congratulatory address, to which he wisely replied: “The events of the
war are in the hands of Providence.”

In consequence of the capture of Madrid Soult raised the blockade of
Cadiz, abandoned the whole of Western Andalusia, and concentrated his
forces in Grenada. His retreat to Grenada was very disastrous: his army
suffered greatly from the attacks of the allied force of the English
and Spanish, the occasional attacks of the armed peasantry, and from the
excessive heat and famine. In the meantime General Hill advanced from
the Guadiana to the Tagus, and connected his operations with those of
Wellington. On his approach, Joseph Buonaparte abandoned the line of the
Tagus, and fell back to Almanza in Murcia, that he might preserve the
line of communication with Soult in Granada, and Suchet on the borders
of Valencia and Catalonia. By the close of August General Hill occupied
all the places on the south of Madrid, and which occupation enabled him
to cover the right of the allied army. These successes, however, were
far from completing the recovery of Spain, and the situation of Lord
Wellington in the Spanish capital was yet very critical. So ineffective
was the aid which the natives afforded, and so great the military power
which yet remained to be subdued, that a triumphant result was still
uncertain. In a little time, indeed, Lord Wellington saw himself menaced
by the three armies of the south, the centre, and the north, and he was
compelled to retreat from Madrid. Before he commenced his retreat he
made an attempt to capture Burgos: an attempt which failed chiefly
from want of the requisite means of success. Lord Wellington now
moved towards the Duero, and marched upon Salamanca, where he hoped
to establish himself; but Soult having united his forces with those
of Souham, which had advanced from Burgos, obliged him to continue his
retreat. He effected his retreat in a masterly manner, before an army of
90,000 men, against which he could only oppose about 50,000, and on
the 24th of November, he fixed his head-quarters at Freynada, on the
Portuguese frontier. King Joseph now returned once more to Madrid,
while Soult, who took the chief command of the combined French armies,
established his head-quarters at Toledo, with his right wing resting on
Salamanca. A great outcry was raised against Lord Wellington in England,
on account of this retreat; but, fortunately, ministers were satisfied
with the explanation of his motives, and resolved to send him all the
assistance in their power. His lordship employed the winter months in
rendering his army more effective, that he might in the ensuing campaign
enter on a more decisive and extended course of operations. For this
purpose he proceeded to Cadiz, to make arrangements for the co-operation
of the Spanish armies, when it was settled that 50,000 troops should be
placed at his disposal. This was full proof that the Cortes still placed
confidence in him. They augured, indeed, that under the direction of so
great a leader, those troops would pitch their tents on the banks of the
Seine. The president remarked, “It would not be the first time that the
Spanish lions had there trampled on the old _fleur-de-lys_ of France.”




WAR BETWEEN FRANCE AND RUSSIA.

It has been seen that the Emperor of Russia had declared war against
Napoleon. Thwarted in his ambitious views upon the Ottoman empire, which
he had been led to expect would be realized from the treaty of Tilsit,
Alexander first became cool towards his brother spoliator, and then
openly broke with him. Great preparations were made on both sides for
the gigantic struggle, and Napoleon resolved to humble the czar in his
own dominions. With an army of about 800,000 men he crossed the Vistula
in June, and his onward march was a series of triumphs. The Russians
everywhere retreated before him, until he came to the plains of Moscow,
where he fought a hard battle with an army under Kutusoff, over whom he
gained a victory. Moscow now fell into the hands of the conqueror. He
entered it on the 14th of September, and took up his residence at the
Kremlin, the ancient palace of the czars. But here his triumphs ended.
The Russians had only retreated before him in order to allure him to
destruction. Their plan was to avoid a battle till the enemy should be
cut off from support, and till winter, famine, and fatigue had wasted
his resources. And in order to ensure this final result they were
willing to make large sacrifices. Smolensko was reduced to ashes, while
Napoleon was on his route to Moscow, lest it should afford a shelter to
his troops, and Napoleon had not been long in the imperial city, when
the flames were seen casting their lurid glare to heaven on every side.
In a brief space Moscow was in ruins, and Napoleon was compelled, in the
month of October, to give orders to his troops to return to France. Few
of his proud army, however, were destined again to behold their native
country.

     “Now did the Most High
     Exalt his still small voice; to quell that host,
     Gathered his mighty power, a manifest ally;
     He, whose heaped waves confounded the proud boast
     Of Pharaoh, said to Famine, Snow, and France,
     ‘Finish the strife by deadliest victory.’”
      —Wordsworth

Scarcely had Napoleon commenced his retrograde march when the snow,
like a violent storm of the Alps, beat around the devoted heads of
his soldiers, and their progress was henceforth a combat against their
pitiless foes the Cossacks, who hovered around them, and the still more
pitiless elements. Danger awaited him at every step and on every hand,
and when he arrived on the margin of the Beresina, his vast army was
reduced to about 14,000 men. And not all these reached France. The
Russians under Wittgenstein now appeared in his rear, and one of his
divisions was either destroyed or captured. Napoleon had passed over the
Beresina with a part of his army by means of two frail bridges, leaving
the defence of the retreat to Victor. A scene ensued which defies
description. The retreating French tumbled each other into the stream,
or voluntarily rushed in to escape the fire of the Russians; and in the
midst of their terror one of the bridges gave way, and the crowd passing
over it perished. When that river was frozen, it presented to the eye
of the beholder one vast heap of human beings. Those who gained the
opposite bank were saved, and Napoleon, leaving them under the care
of Murat, repaired to Paris. He was stripped of everything; and yet he
hoped to repair his fortunes. It is said that in the beginning of the
next year, when the snow had melted away, 300,000 human bodies and
160,000 dead horses were burnt upon the Russian soil.




WAR WITH AMERICA.

During this year the disputes between England and America broke out
into a war. On her part England had done what she could to bring
these disputes to an amicable adjustment: even offering to suspend
the offensive regulations of which the Americans complained, if the
Americans would repeal the restrictive acts by which they had marked
their resentment. The person, however, who now directed the councils of
the United States was inimical to the interests of Great. Britain, and
devoted to the views and interests of Napoleon. War was declared, and
the world saw with surprise, a government calling itself free banding
with a military despotism which had not its parallel In the world’s
history. The Americans commenced the war by the invasion of Canada; but
they were defeated in two engagements, and compelled to relinquish the
enterprise. They consoled themselves, however, for these disasters by
their success at sea, they having captured two English frigates, chiefly
from the superiority of their own in size, weight of metal, and number
of men. Similar disasters also attended our naval armaments on the
lakes, arising chiefly from the above-mentioned cause. The English
cabinet was much censured for want of foresight, in not having been
prepared with ships of sufficient size to cope with their antagonists,
but neither ministers nor people expected a long continuance of this
war, as it was well known that in the northern states there existed a
large and powerful party averse to it, as it was prejudicial to their
interests. Proposals, apparently conciliatory, were, indeed, made by
both parties, but the year closed without witnessing a suspension of
hostilities.




MEETING OF THE NEW PARLIAMENT.

Parliament, with a newly-elected house of commons, assembled on the 24th
of November; and on the 30th, the regent delivered an address from the
throne, which embraced a variety of topics, the most prominent of
which was the war in the Peninsula, that in Russia, and the contest in
America. In the debates on the addresses, these events gave rise to much
discussion in both houses, but they were carried unanimously. The most
prominent; measures previous to the Christmas recess were a grant of
£100,000 to the Marquess of Wellington for his services in Spain, and of
£200,000 for the relief of the sufferers in Russia. The bullion question
was also again discussed; but the house repeated Mr. Vansittart’s
resolution of last year; namely, that guineas and bank-notes were of
equal value in public estimation. Without such a resolution the war
could not have been carried on, for there was not sufficient gold in the
country to maintain the public credit.




DEBATES ON THE WAR WITH AMERICA.

{A.D. 1813}

On the reassembling of parliament in February, several stormy debates
took place on the American war. In these debates the opposition not only
blamed the ministry for the negligent manner in which the maritime part
of the conflict had been conducted, but also with being the aggressors,
and with having provoked an unnecessary and fatal contest. In order,
therefore, to clear themselves from all imputations, Lord Castlereagh,
on the 18th of February, moved an address to the prince regent,
expressing entire approbation of the resistance proposed by his royal
highness to the unjustifiable claims of the American government, a full
conviction of the justice of the war on our part, and the assurance of
a cordial support from that house. The opposition reiterated their
complaints; but they would not venture upon a division, and the address
was agreed to _nem. con_. Another address of a similar nature also
passed the lords in the same triumphant manner.




FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

The budget was introduced on the 31st of March. The supplies demanded
were £72,000,000 out of which England and Scotland were to furnish
£8,500,000. This was a larger amount than had been voted in any
preceding year, but as the American war promised to be expensive, and as
it was generally felt that we should put forth all our strength in order
to finish the contest in Spain, and prolong our aid to Russia, &c., all
the estimates were voted by large majorities. Among the ways and means
were taxes to the amount of £21,000,000; a fresh loan to the same amount
and a vote of credit for £6,000,000.




RENEWAL OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY’S CHARTER.

One of the most important questions which came before parliament during
this session was the renewal of the East India Company’s charter. On
the 22nd of May Lord Castlereagh observed that the term of the existing
charter would expire in May, 1814, and his majesty’s ministers had to
consider these three propositions.—“Whether the existing government in
India should be allowed to continue in its present state;—whether an
entire change should take place in the system;—or whether a middle
course should be adopted.” Evidence was heard at the bar of the house
in order to throw light upon this important subject; and the witnesses,
chiefly persons who had occupied high stations in India, were generally
against opening the trade, or allowing missionaries to repair to
the East for the purpose of converting the natives to the Christian
religion. Finally, a bill was enacted for the prolongation of the
company’s territorial power to April, 1834. At the same time it was
resolved that such measures ought to be adopted as might tend to the
introduction of useful knowledge, and of religious and moral improvement
among the natives. The church establishment of the British territories
in India was now, indeed, placed under the direction of a bishop
and three archdeacons, and missionaries were to be licensed for the
propagation of the gospel among the natives.




THE CATHOLIC QUESTION.

During this session Mr. Grattan carried a motion for referring the
Catholic claims to a committee of the whole house. On the 30th of
April, he presented to the house a bill for the removal of the civil
and military disqualifications under which his majesty’s Roman Catholic
subjects laboured; but this bill, though read a second time, was lost
on its passage through the committee, Mr. Abbott, the speaker, having
divided the house on the clause by which Catholic members were to be
admitted to a seat in Parliament. This was rejected by a majority of two
hundred and fifty-one against two hundred and forty-seven, and then the
bill was abandoned by its supporters.




CURATES’ BILL, ETC.

The toleration displayed in the debates on the Catholic question induced
Mr. Smith, one of the members for Norwich, to bring in a bill for the
relief of Unitarian dissenters from the pains and penalties to which
they were subject by a statute of William III. This bill passed into
a law; neither the ministers nor the bench of bishops opposing its
principle. Another bill, introduced by Lord Harrowby, was also passed,
for the augmentation of stipends payable to curates; a class of divines
who, though they bear “the burden and heat of the day,” have always,
even to the present hour, been inadequately paid for their labours.




APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHANCELLOR.

In consequence of the great accumulation of business in the court of
chancery, a bill, proposed by Lord Redesdale, was passed this session,
for the appointment of a vice-chancellor of England. This new official
was to have full power to determine all cases of law and equity in
the court of chancery to the same extent as the chancellors had been
accustomed to determine; and his decrees were to be of equal validity,
only they were to be subject to the revision of the lord chancellor, and
not to be enrolled until signed by him.




DEBATES ON THE TREATY WITH SWEDEN.

On the 11th of June a treaty with Sweden was laid before parliament,
which excited strong animadversion. By the solicitations of the Emperor
of Russia the king and crown-prince had been induced to enter into the
confederacy against France; and it was resolved, that, as the Danes had
been subservient to French interests, they should be deprived of Norway
for the gratification of the Swedes. To this stipulation the British
court had acceded for two reasons:—first, that by the occupation of
Norway the Swedes would be better enabled to secure their independence;
and, secondly, because it was desirable that a country which abounded
with naval stores should be possessed by a power friendly to England.
The Swedes, also, were to receive a subsidy of one million from the
English treasury; and the island of Guadaloupe was to be ceded to
its monarch, on condition of his opening a depot for British goods at
Gottenburg and other ports, in defiance of the continental system. Lord
Holland deprecated the transfer of Norway; denounced the cession of
Guadaloupe; and opposed the subsidy as inconsistent with the financial
difficulties under which the country was labouring. The treaty was
disgraceful, he said, both to Russia and Great Britain; and he expressed
his disgust at the gross inconsistency of the two courts, which had so
loudly exclaimed against Napoleon’s encroachments. Earl Grey was equally
severe in his censures; but Lord Holland’s proposal to suspend the
execution of the treaty was rejected. In the commons a similar
debate took place; Mr. Ponsonby taking the lead as the opposer of
the agreement; but a proposal to the same effect as that made by Lord
Holland was rejected, and the prince regent was subsequently gratified
with a compliant address.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

The session closed on the 22nd of July with a speech from the throne, in
which the prince regent expressed satisfaction at the favourable state
of affairs on the continent, regret at the continuance of the war
with the United States, and his approval of the arrangements for the
government of British India. He concluded by expressing his resolution
to employ the means placed in his hands by parliament in such a manner
as might be best calculated to reduce the extravagant pretensions of the
enemy, and facilitate the attainment of a safe and honourable peace.

{GEORGE III. 1812—1814}




AFFAIRS OF SPAIN.

The Russian campaign had operated favourably for the progress of the
British arms in Spain. The catastrophe by which it was concluded not
only prevented Napoleon from re-enforcing his marshals in Spain, But
it also obliged him to recall the best of them; and among them Marshal
Soult, whose generalship had cost Lord Wellington very serious thoughts.
Still the French in Spain were formidable. Soult left behind him 70,000
men to oppose Wellington; and there was still an army, under Suchet,
in the eastern provinces. At the opening of this year the French armies
were thus disposed:—the army of Portugal, under General Reille, was
in and around Valladolid; the army of the centre, under Drouet, was
distributed round Madrid; and the army of the south was at Toledo.
All these forces were under King Joseph, who was assisted by Marshal
Jourdan; Generals Clausel and Foy commanded separate divisions in Aragon
and Biscay. Against these forces Lord Wellington could only bring 63,000
British and Portuguese infantry and 6,000 cavalry, on whom he could
rely; for, though measures had been taken to improve the Spanish troops,
their slothfulness and indiscipline were evils which could not be
suddenly remedied; and therefore his lordship did not expect great
things from them. He commenced operations about the middle of May,
making the allied army enter Spain in three separate bodies; the left
under Sir Thomas Graham, the right under General Hill, and the centre
under his own command. The French were alarmed; and on the 1st of
June they were in full retreat before Graham. Subsequently the three
divisions of the allied army united; and Wellington was also joined by
the Spanish army from Galicia, and by a Spanish force from the south.
Thus strengthened Lord Wellington advanced towards Madrid; and as he
advanced Joseph Buonaparte again took refuge in flight. The French
army retired to Burgos; but as Wellington approached they blew up
the fortifications of the castle, and retreated to the Ebro. A strong
garrison was thrown into the fortress of Pancoros, a little in advance
of the river, and they conceived that they could defend this line;
but Lord Wellington found out a new road through a rugged country,
completely turned their position on the Ebro, and drove them back upon
Vittoria, after a successful engagement at Osma. Lord Wellington still
pursued them; and on the 21st of June he gained a complete victory
over them on the plains of Vittoria. In this battle the enemy lost one
hundred and fifty-one pieces of cannon, four hundred and fifteen waggons
of ammunition, all their baggage, provisions, and treasures, with the
French commander’s, Jourdan’s, baton of a marshal of France. Their loss
in killed and wounded, according to their own statement, amounted to
eight thousand men; while the total loss of the allies was seven
hundred and forty killed, and four thousand one hundred and seventy-four
wounded. The French army was, indeed, reduced to a total wreck; and they
saved themselves from utter destruction only by abandoning the whole
_materiel_ of the army, and running away from the field of battle like
an undisciplined mob. About one thousand were taken prisoners in their
flight; but, lightened of their usual burdens, they ran with so much
alacrity that it was generally impossible to overtake them. The spoils
of the field also occupied and detained the troops of Wellington,
they thinking more of the money and the wine than the flying foe. Lord
Wellington, however, continued the pursuit; and on the 25th took the
enemy’s only remaining gun. This victory was complete; and the battle of
Vittoria was celebrated in England by illuminations and fêtes; while
the Cortes, by an unanimous vote, decreed a territorial property to Lord
Wellington, in testimony of the gratitude of the Spanish nation.

When the battle of Vittoria was fought General Clausel, with about
14,000 men, had commenced his march to support Joseph; but now changing
his direction, he turned towards Logrono, and then to Saragossa, with
the guerilla forces of Mina and Sau-chez hanging on his rear. As for
Joseph he scarcely looked back before he reached the walls of Pamplona
in Navarre. Joseph was admitted into its walls; but the fugitives from
Vittoria were refused an entrance; and when they attempted to scale the
walls they were fired upon by their own countrymen, as if they had been
mortal foes; and they were compelled to continue their flight across the
Pyrenees towards France. Subsequently General Clausel retreated by the
central Pyrenees into France; and General Foy likewise, who was with
another division of the French army at Bilboa, fell back rapidly upon
French territory and the fortress of Bayonne. Except on the eastern
coast, where Suchet was with about 40,000 men, there was not a spot in
all Spain where the French dared show themselves. Lord Wellington, under
these circumstances, turned his attention to the capture of some of the
strongholds in which French garrisons were maintained. He established
the blockade of Pamplona, and directed Graham to invest San Sebastian;
and he then advanced with the main body of his army to occupy the passes
of the Pyrenees from Roncesvalles to Irun, at the mouth of the Bidassoa.
Early in July, having driven the enemy to his own soil, his sentinels
looked down from the rugged frontier of Spain upon the lovely and
fertile plains of France. In forty-five days he had conducted the allied
army from the frontiers of Portugal to the Pyrenees; he had marched four
hundred miles; had gained a great and complete victory; had driven the
French through a country abounding in strong positions; had liberated
Spain; and now stood as a conqueror upon the skirts of France.

The campaign was not yet over. Sensibly affected by this defeat of
Jourdan, Napoleon immediately superseded that officer in the command,
and appointed Soult to succeed him, with the title of Lieutenant-general
of the empire. His directions were to re-equip the defeated troops, to
gather formidable re-enforcements, to lead his masses speedily against
Wellington, to clear the French frontier and the passes of the Pyrenees,
relieve Pamplona and San Sebastian, and to drive the allied army behind
the Ebro. Soult undertook to do all this; and having collected
all manner of disposable forces, on the 13th of July he joined the
disorganized fragments of Jourdan’s army. On his arrival he forthwith
issued one of those boastful addresses for which the French emperor
and his marshals had become celebrated. He remarked:—“I have borne
testimony to the emperor of your bravery and zeal: his instructions are
that you must drive the enemy from those heights, which enable them to
look proudly down on our fertile valleys, and then chase them beyond the
Ebro. It is on the Spanish soil that your tents must be pitched and
your resources drawn. Let the account of our successes be dated from
Vittoria, and let the fête-day of his majesty be celebrated in that
city.” At this time Wellington’s attention was divided between the care
of his army on the frontier of France and the siege of San Sebastian.
He was returning from San Sebastian to his head-quarters on the night of
the 17th of July, when he received intelligence that the great army
of Soult, from 70,000 to 80,000 strong, was in rapid motion; that the
French had overpowered his troops in two of the mountain passes on
the right of the allied army; had penetrated into the valleys of the
Pyrenees, and were pressing onwards for Pamplona. “We must do the best
to stop them,” was the prompt reply; and stop them he did after a week’s
almost incessant fighting. From the 25th of July to the 2nd of August a
series of engagements took place, the result of which was the retreat of
Soult from the Spanish frontiers into France, with a loss, in killed
and prisoners, of nearly 20,000 men. In a private letter, just after the
“battles of the Pyrenees,” Wellington wrote, “I never saw such fighting
as we had here. It began on the 25th of Jury, and, excepting the 29th,
when not a shot was fired, we had it every day till the 2nd of August.
The battle of the 28th was fierce bludgeon work. The fourth division was
principally engaged, and the loss of the enemy was immense. I hope Soult
will not feel any inclination to renew his expedition. The French army
must have suffered considerably. Between the 25th of last month and the
2nd of this they were engaged seriously not less than ten times, on many
occasions in attacking very strong positions, in others beat from them
or pursued. I understand their officers say they have lost 15,000 men:
I thought so; but as they say so, I now think more. I believe we have
about four thousand prisoners. It is strange enough that our diminution
of strength up to the 31st did not exceed 1,500 men, although I believe
our casualties are 6,000.” In his retreat Soult was closely followed
by his adversaries; but, after meeting with severe loss, especially in
crossing the Bidassoa, he conducted the main body of his army in safety
to France. Lord Wellington at first designed to follow the enemy into
his own country, but weighty considerations induced him to abandon this
design; and the two armies therefore rested quiet in their respective
positions. In the interval of repose efforts were made by the French to
relieve San Sebastian; and these were met by an increased activity on
the part of the allies to capture both, that place and Pamplona. In
his attempt to relieve San Sebastian Soult was defeated by the Spanish
troops alone, and the place was captured on the 8th of September, when
the garrison, consisting of about 1,800 men, were made prisoners. On the
31st of October, also, the French in Pamplona, having lost all hope of
relief, surrendered prisoners of war to Don Carlos de Espana, who had
latterly commanded the blockading forces. But before the reduction of
Pamplona Lord Wellington had called down part of his troops from the
heights of the Pyrenees, and had led them forward a march or two on
French ground. Early in October he took possession of the French hills
of La Rhune; and on the 10th of November he called down the rest of the
allied army, and began to descend into the valleys on the French side.
Before taking this decisive step he told the officers and soldiers of
the various nations that followed his standard, to remember that they
were at war with France because the ruler of the French would not allow
them to be at peace, and wanted to force them to submit to his yoke; and
he exhorted them not to retaliate on the peaceable inhabitants of France
the injuries that the soldiers of Napoleon had inflicted on their own
countrymen. It was difficult to convince the Spanish and Portuguese
troops that they ought not to retaliate upon the French; but the
Portuguese at least attended to the exhortation. The admirable
discipline maintained, indeed, the care bestowed to see that the
property and persons of the French were protected, converted all around
into friends, and they came flocking to the English camp with provisions
and wine as to a friendly market. Men, women, and children, struck with
admiration at their conduct, followed our troops and wished them success
in their enterprise. In the meantime, Soult had retired to a strong
position on the Nivelle, his right resting upon St. Jean de Luz, and
his left upon Ainhoe. From this position he was driven on the 10th of
November, and Lord Wellington established his head-quarters at St. Jean
de Luz, on the right bank of the Nivelle, while the allies went into
cantonments between the sea and the river Nive, where their extreme
right rested on Cambo. The enemy guarded the right bank of the Nive from
Bayonne to St. Jean Pied de Port; but Lord Wellington, being straitened
for room and supplies for his army, resolved to cross the Nive, and
occupy the country between that river and the Adour. This was effected,
and the French were driven to Bayonne. Subsequently, during the month of
December, Soult made several attempts to dislodge the British; but
all his attacks were repulsed with great loss, and the French marshal
finally drew off his troops in despair, and retired into his entrenched
camp The allied army had also need of rest and re-enforcements, and it
went into winter-quarters. The campaign of 1813, in which the troops of
France had been taught the frail tenure of human fame, was terminated.

In the meantime, ill-success had attended the British arms on the
eastern coast of the Peninsula. On the 3rd of June, General Sir John
Murray had invested Tarragona, but after advancing his batteries against
it he received reports that Suchet was marching from Valencia for its
relief, and he immediately re-embarked his army, leaving his cannon in
the batteries. General Murray was succeeded in his command in August by
Lord William Bentinck, who resumed the siege of Tarragona, but it was
abandoned on the approach of Suchet, and the French marshal entered the
city, destroyed the works, withdrew the garrison, and retired towards
Barcelona. At this time the state of affairs in Sicily, and the
ill-success of political changes there, rendered it necessary for Lord
Bentinck to repair thither, and the command devolved on Sir William
Clinton; who as soon as arrangements could be made for restoring the
works at Tarragona and supplying with provisions the Spanish troops
attached to his command, fixed his head-quarters at Villa-franca With an
inadequate force, Sir William had to prevent Suchet from following up
his recent advantages, and so to occupy his attention, as to stop the
succours which he might send to Soult.




AMERICAN CAMPAIGN.

In the midst of the important affairs on the continent, the events of
the war with the United States scarcely attracted public attention.
These events were various, though unimportant. In the month of January
the Americans collected a large force in the back settlements, and again
approached Detroit, when Colonel Proctor routed their advanced guard,
and captured five hundred men, with their commander, General Winchester.
In April, the American general, Dearborn, took possession of York,
at the head of the Lake Ontario, from whence General Sheaffe and the
garrison was compelled to retire. About the same time, also, General
Vincent was obliged by superiority of numbers to vacate Fort St. George,
on the Niagara frontier, and on the 5th of June he compelled the enemy
to fall back again on Niagara; but soon after Colonel Proctor was
attacked by the American General, Harrison, with 10,000 men, who
captured nearly the whole of his force, he himself escaping with a
few attendants. Towards the end of October three American armies,
each amounting to 10,000 men, marched from different points upon Lower
Canada: but this great effort was frustrated by the vigilance of Sir
George Prévost. During the autumn a squadron of six British vessels was
captured by a superior American squadron, on Lake Erie, but on the whole
the campaign was honourable to the British arms. When defeated, it was
only by dint of overwhelming numbers. Between the “Shannon” and the
“Chesapeak,” ships of superior force, there was a fierce battle in
Boston Bay, which resulted in the capture of the American vessel, the
“Chesapeak,” although she had in number and weight of guns, as well
as in the number of its crew, a considerable superiority over the
“Shannon.” After a fierce conflict of fifteen minutes’ duration,
the “Chesapeak” was on its way with the conqueror, Captain Broke, to
Halifax. In St. George’s Channel, also, an American sloop of war was
captured by the British sloop, “Pelican.”




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament met on the 4th of November. In his speech the prince declared
that no disposition to require sacrifices from France, inconsistent with
her honour and just pretensions, would ever be an obstacle to peace; and
that he was ready to enter into discussion with the United States, on
principles not opposed to the established maxims of public law and the
maritime right of the British empire. The speech naturally noticed the
successes which had crowned his majesty’s arms and those of his allies
in the present year, and it also spoke of the now prosperous state of
British commerce, despite the enemy’s efforts to crush it. The speech of
the prince regent was received with universal assent and joy. The voice
of opposition, indeed, was entirely hushed, and in both houses the
addresses were carried _nem. con_.




BILL FOR ALLOWING THE MILITIA TO VOLUNTEER INTO THE LINE, ETC.

Early in this session Lord Castlereagh introduced a bill for allowing
three-fourths of any militia regiment to volunteer for foreign service,
which bill passed without opposition. Parliament also gave its ready
sanction for a loan of £22,000,000 as well as for subsidies to Sweden,
Russia, and Austria. Previous to this, £2,000,000 had been advanced
to Spain, two to Portugal, and one to Sweden: the sum to be allowed
to Russia and Prussia was estimated at £5,000,000 and the advance to
Austria consisted of £1,000,000, together with 1,000,000 stand of arms
and military stores in proportion. At this time men of all parties,
from a desire to humble our one great foe, concurred in supporting
the foreign policy of our cabinet. The desired grants being obtained,
parliament adjourned to the month of March.




CHAPTER XXX.

{GEORGE III. 1814–1818}

     Parliamentary Measures..... Campaign of Lord Wellington.....
     The Allies enter Paris; Napoleon dethroned, &c. Treaty
     of Peace..... Honours conferred on Wellington, &c.
     Visit of the Allied Sovereigns..... Congress of Vienna.....
     Campaign in America, &c. Treaty of Peace with America,
     &c.Meeting of Parliament..... Return of Napoleon from
     Elba..... Trial by Jury, &c. War resolved on; Financial
     Measures..... Prorogation of Parliament..... Congress of
     Vienna..... Affairs of France..... Battle of Waterloo.....
     Capture of Paris..... Surrender of Napoleon, &c. Return
     of Louis XVIII. to Paris..... Britain gains Possession of
     the Island of Ceylon..... East India Affairs..... Meeting of
     Parliament..... Debates on the Treaties..... Financial
     Statements..... Royal Marriages..... Various Motions.....
     Prorogation of Parliament..... Riots,   &c. Expedition
     to Algiers..... Meeting of Parliament..... Measures of
     Economy..... Restrictions on Public Liberty..... Committee
     on the Poor Laws, &c. Prorogation of Parliament.....
     Riots at Manchester, &c. Death of the Princess
     Charlotte.




PARLIAMENTARY MEASURES.

{A.D. 1814}

The legislative measures of parliament, when it met in the month of
March, are of little historical importance. The budget was laid before
the commons on the 30th of July, and the whole amount of supplies
exceeded £75,600,000. The session was closed on the 30th of July by the
prince regent in person. Nor did the autumnal session present any matter
of historical interest. It was opened on the 8th of November by a speech
again delivered by the regent in person, and on the 2nd of December the
houses adjourned till the 9th of February, 1815. But in the meantime
events of the greatest importance took place on the continent which
demand attention.




CAMPAIGN OF LORD WELLINGTON.

The last act of the drama was played during this year with great
rapidity. At the commencement of this year the progress of Lord
Wellington was retarded by the state of the weather, but as soon as it
became favourable he broke up his cantonments, resolving to penetrate as
far as possible into the interior of France. He first cleared the ground
on his right wing by driving the enemy eastward, and by pushing forward
his centre with a corresponding movement, after which he prepared with
his left wing, under Sir John Hope, to invest Bayonne. Marshal Beresford
was also detached with two divisions to occupy Bordeaux, the mayor and
inhabitants of which, on his arrival, of their own accord, proclaimed
Louis XVIII. Lord Wellington himself, with the main army, advanced to
Vig Bigorre, while Soult retreated to some good positions at Tarbes, and
then to Toulouse. Soult arrived at Toulouse on the 24th of March, and on
the 27th Wellington was close to him in front of that city. Between them
lay the deep and rapid river Garonne, and it was not till the 9th of
April that Wellington was enabled to get the allied army to the right
bank of that stream. On the 10th of April was fought the bloody battle
of Toulouse, in which Wellington was again victorious. Soult was driven
from his entrenched camp on the eastern side of the city of Toulouse
with a terrible loss: the victors also suffered severely. Soult
evacuated Toulouse on the 11th of April, retiring by Castlenaudry to
Carcassonne. He left behind him in the town 1,600 wounded men, and three
generals, besides artillery and ammunition, all of which were taken by
the allies, Wellington entered the city on the 12th, when a deputation
waited on him, requesting him to receive the key of the good and loyal
city in the name of King Louis XVIII. The battle of Toulouse was the
last real battle that Wellington had to fight during this campaign.
Four days after Soult’s defeat, indeed, and when the allies were in
possession of the city, and the French were flying from it, General
Thouvenot, who commanded in Bayonne, chose to make a desperate sortie
on the allies in their cantonments, while the troops were all buried in
sleep, but though he succeeded in cutting off many, he was repulsed with
an equal loss. In the meantime the English Colonel Cooke and the French
Colonel St, Simon arrived from Paris with the news that the allies
had entered the French capital; that a provisional government had been
established in the name of Louis XVIII.; and that Napoleon had abdicated
at Fontainbleau, on the 4th of April. These officers were despatched
from Wellington’s head-quarters to those of Marshal Soult, and after
some negociation a friendly convention was signed, and a line of
demarcation drawn between the two armies. This convention was signed on
the 18th of April, and on the 21st Lord Wellington, by general orders,
congratulated his army on the near prospect of the termination of their
toils and dangers, and thanked them for their valour in the field, and
for their conciliating conduct towards the inhabitants of the country.




THE ALLIES ENTER PARIS; NAPOLEON DETHRONED, ETC.

At length the “world-tyrant” was humbled. Equitable terms of peace had
been recently proposed to Napoleon by the confederated princes on the
Rhine, where they were assembled in great force, but they were rejected
by him with disdain. The confederated princes had collected their armies
on the Rhine after Napoleon’s disastrous retreat from Moscow, resolved
either to restrain his insatiate ambition, or to hurl him from his
throne. There were three armies arrayed against him. Bernadotte, crown
prince of Sweden, menaced him from the north; Blucher with a Prussian
army from the east; and Schwartzenberg, with the grand army from the
mountains of Bohemia, on the south. In the whole they numbered about
500,000 men, and Napoleon by fresh conscriptions was enabled to face
them with an army of 300,000. He had recently gained victories over the
Prussians at Lutzen, and the Russians at Bautzen, and these victories
seem to have led him on to ruin. He calculated upon victory still,
and therefore, when his generals advised him to retreat at once to
the Rhine, he refused, and bade them obey his commands. He marched to
Dresden, recently taken by Schwartzenberg, and victory again waited on
his steps; his enemies were routed with the loss of their cannon and
20,000 prisoners. But this victory was counterbalanced by the capture
of the whole force of Vandamme by the Russians and Prussians, and by the
defeats of Oudinot by the Prince of Sweden at Buelow; and of Macdonald
at Katzbach. Napoleon now retreated to Leipsic, whither he was followed
by the Russians, Prussians, and Austrians. In the plains of Leipsic
was fought the battle of nations, in which God gave the victory to the
allies. This battle lasted from the 14th to the 19th of October,
1813, and it ended with the terrible loss of 80,000 men on the side of
Napoleon, and 50,000 of the allies. The French fled towards Erfurt, and
finding no refuge there, continued their flight to Mentz and the Rhine.
As he hastened towards the Rhine his path was intercepted by an army of
Bavarians, who had taken up their position at Hanau; but he routed
them, and then established his troops on the Rhine, the allies encamping
opposite, and occupying Frankfort as their head-quarters. After the
battle of Leipsic, Europe gained her freedom, and seeing every nation
taking up arms against him, Napoleon sued for peace. He was offered
France, with the Rhine for its boundary, but he rejected this dominion
as too limited for his sway. War continued; and in January, 1814, the
allies crossed the Rhine, and invaded France. Thus menaced, the entire
male population of France was summoned to arms, 30,000 of the national
guard of Paris were put in motion, and the last resources of France
called into action. Napoleon was defeated by the Austrian and Prussian
forces at Brienne, in which battle he lost many cannon and prisoners.
Peace on equitable terms was again offered him, but peace was again
refused: he resolved to conquer or perish. Victory again waited on his
arms at Champaubert, where the Prussians had arrived in their onward
march to Paris, and he subsequently gained a victory over the Prussians
at Montmirail, and also over the Austrians at Montereau. After the
battle of Montmirail, a last effort was made to bring him to terms with
the allies, but he refused to sheathe his sword. He gained a victory
over the Russians at Craonne, but his loss was so great that it was
tantamount to defeat. The Russians retreated to Laon, where they
united with the Prussians, and where, three days after, they routed and
destroyed the French division of forces under Marmont. Hope now fled,
and Napoleon sought peace on any terms. But it was now too late: the
allies had recently agreed to drive him from his throne as a ruler
dangerous to the peace of the world. His own subjects moreover, were now
conspiring against him. Paris, Bordeaux, and other cities, were sending
upwards shouts for the return of the reign of the Bourbons. Rendered
desperate, Napoleon now turned to combat with the Austrians under
Schwartzenberg at Arcis; but after a faint struggle his troops
retreated. In the meantime the Russians and Prussians were hastening
onwards to Paris. It was on the 27th of March that the Parisians heard
the sound of war approach their gates. Marmont, Mortier, and Joseph
Buonaparte placed themselves with some forces in and around the city for
its defence; but on the 30th they were driven from their positions, and
then Paris was delivered into the hands of the Russians and Prussians.
When Napoleon heard of the fall of Paris he was hastening to its relief,
and astounded at the news he returned to Fontainbleau. He still clung
to hope, and talked of vindicating his rights by the sword, but his
marshals refused to support him, and some hinted that he was no
longer emperor. Then his proud spirit was humbled, and he drew up a
declaration, which stated that as he was the sole obstacle to the peace
of France, he was willing to resign his crown, and leave her shores, if
the succession of his son and the regency of the empress were ensured
by the allied sovereigns. But this could not be: his unconditional
abdication was demanded, and as there was no alternative, he signed a
treaty on the 11th of April, which declared him and his descendants to
have forfeited the throne of France for ever. By this treaty the island
of Elba was assigned to him in full sovereignty, and on the 20th of
April he departed with four hundred of his guard to lord it over this
island instead of a world. Thus expired the dynasty of Napoleon: a
dynasty founded in blood, and which, therefore, by the immutable law of
the Ruler of the universe, was doomed to perish. Before Napoleon signed
his abdication, the senate, hitherto obsequiously submissive to him, had
decreed that he had forfeited the throne of France, and had created a
provisional government, charged with the office of re-establishing the
functions and administration of the state. The installation of this
provisional government was signalized by an address to the French
armies, in which they were told that they were no longer the soldiers
of Napoleon, that the senate and all France had released them from
their oath. Subsequently it was resolved by the senate that the Bourbon
dynasty should be restored; and Louis XVIII. soon after arrived from
England, whither he had been residing in rural retirement, and made
his solemn entry into Paris. A definitive treaty of peace was signed
at Paris between Louis and the allies on the 30th of May and peace was
again restored to the distracted world.




TREATY OF PEACE.

The treaty of peace and amity signed at Paris, secured to France its
boundaries as they existed in January, 1792. The contracting parties
agreed that Holland should have an increase of territory; that the
lesser German states should be independent, and united by a Germanic
federal league; that Switzerland should enjoy its independence under the
government of its own choice; and that Italy, beyond the limits of the
Austrian dominions, which were to be restored, should be composed
of sovereign independent states. France recovered her colonies from
England, with the exception of Tobago, St. Lucie, and the Isle of
France with its dependencies. Malta was to be retained by England, which
country had recently obtained the Cape of Good Hope by a separate treaty
with Holland. French Guiana was restored by Portugal, and the rights of
France of fishery on the bank of Newfoundland were all to be restored
as they were by the peace of 1783. As a proof of their sincerity in
the repeated declarations they had made, that they meant no ill to
France—that they waged war only against Napoleon, the allies agreed
that their armies should evacuate France, and that all the French
prisoners should be restored. This treaty was considered final as
regards France; but there were other affairs of an extensive and
complicated nature still to be settled, the greater part of Europe
requiring reorganization, and her past misfortunes demanding some
preconcerted defences for the future—and it was therefore agreed in a
separate article that all the powers engaged in the late war should send
plenipotentiaries to a congress to be held at Vienna, for the object
of completing the pacific dispositions of the treaty of Paris, and of
preventing the recurrence of such a war as that in which they had for so
many years been engaged, and by which the countries of Europe had been
desolated.




HONOURS CONFERRED ON WELLINGTON, ETC.

The news of the important events which had taken place in Fiance arrived
while the spring session of the British parliament was sitting.
Loud acclamations were heard from every part of the house when Lord
Castlereagh, who had been our negociator at Paris, appeared again in the
house; but louder and longer still were the shouts of applause, when the
great general, who had recently been raised to a dukedom, took his seat
among them. A splendid provision was settled on him by parliament. In
addition to a former grant of £100,000 the chancellor of the exchequer
moved a farther vote of £300,000 for the purchase of an estate for him,
but at the suggestion of Whitbread and Mr. Pousonby, two leading members
of opposition, it was increased to £400,000. Moreover, the house of
commons conferred on his grace the unprecedented distinction of sending
a deputation to offer him its thanks, as well as congratulations on
his return to his own country. The duke acknowledged this compliment in
person on the 1st of July, on which occasion he was greeted by all the
members with enthusiasm, and addressed by the speaker in an appropriate
and animated speech. Nor were the duke’s companions forgotten. Grants
and peerages were bestowed on Sir Thomas Graham, Sir William Beresford,
Sir Rowland Hill, Sir John Hope, and Sir Stapleton Cotton. But there was
one name omitted in this list which gave general dissatisfaction in the
country—the name of “Picton,” by whose sword the British troops were
led to the victorious assault of Ciudad Rodrigo; by whose daring
hand the British standard was planted on the castle of Badajoz; whose
battalions, when the usurper of the Spanish throne was driven to his
last stand at Vittoria, filled the centre of that formidable line,
before which the troops of France fled in dismay; and by whose skill,
prudence, and valour, exerted in a critical hour, the enemy was foiled
in his desperate attempt to break through the barrier of the Pyrenees.
Picton received the thanks of the house for his valorous conduct for the
seventh time; but that was all, his services were left unrewarded.




VISIT OF THE ALLIED SOVEREIGNS.

As soon as the allied sovereigns had imagined their work was completed
in Paris, the Emperor of Russia with his sister, and the King of Prussia
with his two sons, came to England on a visit to the prince regent. They
were accompanied by a numerous body of counts, barons, dukes, princes,
marshals, and generals, among whom were Blucher, and Platoff the Hettman
of the Cossacks. The reception given these distinguished visitors was
both honourable and flattering; such continuous shows, spectacles,
and fêtes were given in honour of their visit as London never before
witnessed.




CONGRESS OF VIENNA.

The congress of Vienna was opened on the 1st of November. There were
present at this assembly the Emperors of Russia and Austria; the Kings
of Prussia, Denmark, Bavaria, and Wurtemburg; the Elector of Hesse:
the Grand-duke of Baden; the Dukes of Saxe Weimar, Brunswick, Nassau,
Coburg, and several other places. The principal ambassadors and
ministers were—from the pope, Cardinal Gonsalvi; from Austria, Prince
Metternich; from Russia, Prince Rasumoosky, with Counts Stakelburg
and Nesselrode; from Great Britain, Lord Castlereagh and the Duke of
Wellington; from Prussia, Prince Hardenburg and Von Humboldt; from
France, Talleyrand and Dalburg; from Spain, Don Labrador; from Portugal,
Counts Palmella and Lobo da Silveria; from the Netherlands and Nassau,
Spoen and Gagern; from Denmark, Bernstorf; from Sweden, Lowenheim; from
Sardinia, St. Marsan, &c., &c. One of the first acts of congress was
to recognise a new regal title annexed to the British crown, that
of Elector of Hanover not being considered suitable to existing
circumstances, or to the sixth article of the treaty of Paris respecting
the independence of the German states and their federal union. In
accordance with the new title annexed to the British crown, a general
diet assembled in Germany on the 15th of December, which was opened
by the Duke of Cambridge, and which agreed to the plan of a new
constitution founded on a representative system. In the same month a
protocol from congress announced to the astonished Genoese that their
republic would be incorporated with the territories of the king of
Sardinia. The fate of its old rival, Venice, was similar; the whole of
Lombardy with its fine capital, Milan, was subjected to the leaden yoke
of Austria. Of all the sovereigns by right of French conquest
Murat, King of Naples, alone was permitted to hold his acquisitions
undisturbed.




CAMPAIGN IN AMERICA, ETC.

On the 7th of January the president of congress presented copies of
letters which had passed between Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Monroe, in
which the former proposed to appoint commissioners to treat about terms
of peace, either at London or Gottenburg. The appointed place of meeting
was Gottenburg; but the negociations were removed to Ghent, and they did
not commence till the following August. In the meantime war continued.
Early in February the American general, Wilkinson, moved his
head-quarters to Bridlington and Platsburg; and he subsequently attacked
a post commanded by Major Hancock, but was repulsed with considerable
loss. In the month of May Sir James Yeo and General Drummond reduced the
fort of Oswego, on the Lake Ontario, an achievement which was chiefly
serviceable by retarding the equipment of the enemy’s armament on that
water. Soon after this, however, the Americans became the assailants.
General Brown, crossing the Niagara, compelled the garrison of Fort Erie
to surrender prisoners of war; and then attacked the British lines at
Chippawa, and compelled General Riall to retreat on Fort George.
This officer, however, being re-enforced by some troops under General
Drummond, returned, and compelled the enemy to take refuge under the
cannon of Fort Erie. About this time the British government, on the
dethronement of Napoleon, having resolved to prosecute the contest with
increased vigour, a numerous fleet arrived in the St. Lawrence with
14,000 of the brave troops that had fought in the Peninsula. Sir George
Prévost commanded them, and in the month of September he entered the
American territory, and advanced against Platsburg, on Lake Champlain,
in conjunction with a flotilla under Captain Dordnie of the navy. This
expedition, however, resulted disastrously, and Sir George Prevost was
recalled to answer charges preferred against him by Sir James Yeo;
but he did not live to await his trial. Success, however, attended
the British arms in other quarters. During this year Admiral Cochrane
destroyed the Baltimore flotilla in the Patuxent; General Ross captured
and set fire to the city of Washington, after having encountered and
defeated an army of 9,000 Americans; General Pilkington reduced Moose
Island, and two others, in the bay of Passamaquoddy; and the English
frigate “Phobe” captured the United States’ frigate “Essex,” off
Valparaiso, on the western coast of South America. On the other hand, a
British sloop of war was captured by the American sloop “Wasp;” and
an expedition, under Admiral Cochrane and Sir E. Pakenham, against New
Orleans failed, after a severe rencontre with the American troops who
defended the city. The final event of the war was the capture of Fort
Bowyer, by the British, in the Gulf of Mexico. But before this event
took place, a treaty of peace and amity had been signed at Ghent, which
was afterwards ratified by both governments.

{GEORGE III. 1814–1818}




TREATY OF PEACE WITH AMERICA, ETC.

The treaty of Ghent was negociated on the part of America by Messrs.
Adams, Bayard, Clay, Russel, and Gallatin; and of Great Britain by Lord
Gambier, Mr. Goulburn, and Dr. Adams. On the grand cause of the war,
and the primary object of dispute—the right of search, the treaty was
wholly silent: the Americans tacitly abandoning their resistance to the
maritime claims of England. The treaty restored conquests on both sides,
and concluded a settlement of boundaries on the Canadian frontier, to be
afterwards adjusted. Both parties bound themselves to do their utmost in
abolishing the slave-trade—yet America is the land of slaves unto this
day. The Indians were to be restored to the rights and possessions which
they held in 1812. During the interval of the actual conclusion of this
treaty and the circulation of the intelligence thereof, a sea-fight took
place between the “President,” one of the largest American frigates,
and the “Endymion,” a British frigate, commanded by Captain Hope: the
“President” was captured.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1815}

The British parliament reassembled on the 9th of February. The first
measure brought under notice was the state of the corn-laws. Mr.
Frederic Robinson proposed that no wheat should be imported while
the price of a quarter remained under eighty shillings in the United
Kingdom; but that it might be introduced from the British territories in
North America when the price was sixty-seven shillings. He argued that
it was highly impolitic to depend on foreign supplies; and that the
greatest encouragement ought to be given to the production of such
a quantity of corn as would preclude famine and the necessity of
importation. This argument was forcibly controverted by Mr. Baring,
who alleged that the practice of importation was not inimical to the
progress of agriculture; that the accommodation of general consumers
ought to be consulted before the interests of landlords; and that the
suggested standard was improperly calculated on the supposed continuance
of the present expenses of the latter class. Numerous petitions from
the manufacturing and commercial towns were presented against any
alterations in the corn-laws, but the bill passed both houses. When it
was passed, the corporation of London addressed the prince regent, in
hopes that he would withhold his assent from a measure so generally
disliked by the nation, but it received his sanction. From that day to
this the corn-law question has been a source of constant clamour and
discontent. The ferment which the bill occasioned was great: the mob
attacked the houses of its supporters, and the military were obliged
to be called in to the aid of the civil power before the riots could be
quelled: two individuals were shot by the soldiers.




RETURN OF NAPOLEON FROM. ELBA.

While England was thus agitated an event took place which compromised
the peace of Europe; this was the return of Napoleon from his insular
kingdom to repossess himself of his old French empire. A message from
the prince regent was delivered to each house on the 6th of April,
communicating this information, and stating that his royal highness had
been induced to give directions for the immediate augmentation of our
land and sea forces, and to lose no time in communicating with our
allies, for the purpose of forming such a concert as might effectually
provide for the general and permanent security of Europe. The address
in the house of lords passed without a division, but in the commons Mr.
Whitbread moved an amendment expressly recommending the preservation of
peace. He was under the impression that the address covertly pledged the
house to war, but others of his party thought not, and his amendment was
lost by a majority of two hundred and twenty against thirty-seven.




TRIAL BY JURY, ETC.

In the beginning of this session an important act was passed for
extending the trial by jury to Scotland. Its provisions differed
from those of the English law, and the granting such a trial was made
optional in each case with the judges; but the lord chancellor, by whom
the bill was introduced, expressed a hope that at no distant period the
principle of the bill would receive a further extension. At a later
date a bill was passed for the continuance of the restriction of
cash-payments by the Bank of England till the 5th of July, 1816.




WAR RESOLVED ON; FINANCIAL MEASURES.

The question of peace or war was discussed at the latter end of May in
consequence of a message from the throne. In the lords Earl Grey urged
the necessity of a pacific policy, while Lord Grenville advocated war.
In the commons Mr. Grattan came forward, and with vehement and eloquent
indignation declaimed against the despoiler of Europe, and advocated
the most energetic measures to hurl him from his usurped throne. War
was resolved on by both lords and commons, and the latter granted the
necessary supplies. And this they did munificently; no less a sum than
£90,000,000 was voted for the public service. Out of this sum £9,000,000
was to be paid in subsidies to our allies, they still requiring the
gold of England to urge them onwards to action. In order to meet the
expenditure the unjust and inquisitorial income-tax was continued, and
£42,000,000 were obtained by loan. The Irish proportion of the supplies
was £9,760,814; the rest was furnished from the inexhaustible sources of
Great Britain.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued on the 11th of July by a speech from the
throne, in which the prince regent, after recapitulating the events
which led to the glorious termination of the war—for the war, as will
be seen, had terminated—trusted that there would be no relaxation in
the exertions necessary to establish the permanent peace and security of
Europe.




CONGRESS OF VIENNA.

The Congress of Vienna continued its sitting at the commencement of this
year. The result of the deliberations of the allied sovereigns may be
thus briefly stated:—The King of Prussia obtained the electorate of
Saxony, Swedish Pornerania, and a great portion of the territory between
the Rhine and the Meuse; Russia obtained the grand duchy of Warsaw under
the name of the kingdom of Poland; Austria, as before related, recovered
Lombardy, etc.; Tuscany was given to the Archduke Ferdinand; Genoa was
bestowed upon the King of Sardinia; Parma and Placentia were ratified to
the ex-empress Maria Louisa; the foreign policy of the German states
was submitted to the decision of a federal diet, under the control of
Austria and Prussia; Sweden acquired Norway at the expense of Denmark;
England was gratified by the acquisition of Heligoland, the Cape of
Good Hope, the Isle of France, the Ionian Islands, Malta, and all the
colonies won during the war; and Holland and Belgium were confirmed as
the kingdom of the Netherlands, under the House of Orange. The
allied sovereigns were thus engaged in parcelling out the world, when
Talleyrand informed them that the prisoner of Elba had returned to
France, and was again seated on the throne of the Bourbons.




AFFAIRS OF FRANCE.

Although Napoleon consented to retire to the island of Elba over which
he was to rule, it was never his intention to remain there. No sooner
had he arrived, in fact, than he commenced his intrigues, in order to
effect a return to France and empire. Under the plea of nonnecessity he
dismissed his few troops, and these joined their old regiments for the
purpose of preparing the general mind to receive back the emperor, who
had so often led them on to victory. All these regiments were, in fact,
almost to a man in his favour; the tri-coloured cockade was preserved in
their knapsacks, and his memory in their hearts. These sentiments were
reported to Napoleon; and on the 27th of February he embarked in a brig
of war, followed by six light barks, and, stealing cautiously over the
Mediterranean, arrived on the 1st of March at Camres. He had with him
one thousand soldiers, and his three generals, Bertrand, Drouet, and
Cambronne. With these he proceeded onwards to Paris; and during several
days he marched without meeting any forces. On the 7th of March,
however, a body of seven hundred men presented themselves at the defile
of Vizille, near Grenoble; and the officer in command threatened to fire
on his party. But Napoleon was not afraid of being shot by
Frenchmen. Advancing alone, and throwing open his riding coat, he
remarked:—“Soldiers, it is I! Look upon me! If there is a man amongst
you who would slay his emperor, he comes with uncovered breast to offer
himself to his weapon!” Instead of the sound of musketry the loud
shout of “Long live the emperor!” rent the air; and, hoisting the same
standard with his own troops all marched together upon Grenoble. They
were soon after joined by Colonel Labédoyère, at the head of the seventh
regiment; and Ney was the next to join his ranks. Ney had been sent by
the French government to check his progress; and he had boasted that
he would bring Napoleon to Paris in an iron cage: but no sooner had he
reached Auxerre than he declared the Bourbon cause hopeless, and at the
head of 14,000 men joined his old emperor’s standard. Finally, with the
exception of Marmont, Macdonald, and some other marshals, all the
army deserted the cause of the Bourbons. Louis fled from, and Napoleon
entered Paris in triumph.

Napoleon resumed the reigns of empire in the midst of the loud
acclamations of the Parisians; though there were many who preserved
an ominous silence. All, however, seemed to go well; for at an
extraordinary assembly in the Champ de Mai of the electoral colleges, a
new constitution was sworn to by the emperor and men of all parties. But
there was a storm arising in the horizon which was to shatter his throne
into pieces for ever. All Europe was preparing to crush his newly risen
power. Britain, Russia, Austria, Prussia, and Holland entered into a
treaty, binding themselves to support the house of Bourbon; to preserve
inviolate the treaty of Paris; to bring into the field 150,000 men each;
and not to lay down their arms until Napoleon was for ever crushed.




THE BATTLE OF WATERLOO.

Napoleon saw the storm arising, and prepared to ward off its fury.
France became an immense camp. Armies were dispatched towards Belgium,
Lorraine, Franche Comte, the Alps, and the Pyrenees. The head-quarters
of the grand army were at Laon, from whence communications were
preserved with Valenciennes, Mauberge, Lisle, and the armies assembled
on the Moselle. Napoleon joined that section of the army destined to
enter Belgium, his design being to “measure himself with Wellington.”
 The army raised for this project consisted of about 125,000 men and
three hundred and fifty pieces of cannon. Against this force Wellington
could only oppose 76,000 men, not one half of which were British, and
but some eighty-four pieces of cannon. The duke’s head-quarters were at
Brussels; and on his left, in and around Namur, lay Marshal Blucher,
with about 80,000 men and two hundred cannon. Napoleon commenced
operations by crossing the Sombre and taking Charleroi, which was
garrisoned by Prussians. This accomplished, Napoleon hastened towards
Brussels, resolving to strike a signal blow against the British. The
Duke of Wellington was at a ball when intelligence arrived of this
movement; and he gave orders for every man to repair to his post. At
first the English took up their position at Quatre Bras; but tidings
having arrived that Napoleon had again defeated the Prussians at Ligny,
the Duke fell back with his army to the position of Waterloo. It was at
the dawn of the 18th of June that Napoleon discerned the British on the
heights of Waterloo; and in the exuberance of his joy he exclaimed, “Ah!
I have these English!” The position taken up by the duke was in front of
the village of Waterloo, and crossed the high roads from Charleroi and
Nivelles. It had its right thrown back to a ravine near Merke-Braine,
and its left extended to a height above the hamlet of Ter la Haye; in
front of the right centre the troops occupied the house and gardens of
Hougomont, which covered the return of that flank; and in front of the
left centre they occupied the farm of La Haye Sainte. By his left the
duke communicated with Blucher at Havre, who promised to support him
with one or more corps if necessary. In the rear of the British centre
was the farm of Monte St. Jean, and a little further behind a village of
the same name. While stationed at Quatre Bras a partial engagement
had taken place between the two armies—Ney commanding the French—and
Wellington had lost 2.380 in wounded, and three hundred and fifty in
killed: his force united in the position at Waterloo, therefore, was not
73,000 men, 21,000 of whom were Belgian and Nassau troops, mostly of
an inferior quality. Napoleon had lost many in his conflicts with the
Prussians at Charleroi and Ligny, and with the British at Quatre
Bras. He had also despatched 32,000 men, under Grouchy, to follow the
Prussians, and to prevent their joining the English, so that his army
was reduced to about 78,000 men when the battle of Waterloo commenced.
But his troops were veterans almost to a man, and there were at least
100,000 soldiers of the same quality behind them in France. He collected
his army on a range of heights in front of the British position, and not
above a mile from it. His right was in advance of Planchenois, and his
left rested on the Genappe road, while his rear was skirted by thick
woods. On the morning of the 18th, when Napoleon mounted his horse to
survey Wellington’s position, he could see but few troops, and he
was induced to fancy that the British general had made a retreat.
“Wellington never exhibits his troops,” said General Foy; “but if he
is yonder, I must warn your majesty that the English infantry in close
fighting are very demons.” Soult added his warning to that of Foy; but,
nevertheless, Napoleon commenced the battle confident of victory. It was
shortly after ten o’clock on the Sabbath-day—a day sacred to devotion
and rest—that a stir was observed along the French lines, and
especially near the farm of Rossome, where Napoleon stood with
his celebrated old guard. The post of Hougoumont, on the right of
Wellington’s centre, was first attacked, which post was occupied by
General Byng’s brigade of guards: but the attack was vain; the post was
maintained, notwithstanding the desperate and repeated efforts of
large bodies of the enemy to obtain possession. This first attack was
accompanied by a heavy cannonade on the whole line of the British; which
was answered from Wellington’s cannon, and which committed a fearful
havoc among the French columns, which successively attacked the post of
Hougoumont. The object of Wellington was to maintain his positions till
the arrival of some Prussian corps; and the object of Napoleon was to
crush him before Blucher could send a single battalion to his support.
Hence it was that he repeated his attacks with heavy columns of
infantry, with a numerous and brilliant cavalry, and with his formidable
artillery. But from every charge his columns returned shattered and
thinned. Scarcely a gleam of success dawned upon Napoleon during the
whole day. In one of their attacks, indeed, the farm-house of La Haye
Sainte was carried by the French; but it was not till the German
legion which defended it had perished to a man. Thus affairs stood when
Napoleon ordered his cavalry to charge the British infantry in squadrons
and in masses—to charge home, and to find a passage through their
glittering bayonets. Their efforts were determined, but they all proved
fruitless; the British infantry formed in squares, and the best of his
horsemen bit the dust. Still Napoleon’s cry was “Forward!” thus goading
them on to destruction. Their overthrow was hastened by a charge
of British cavalry, which had hitherto been very little more than a
spectator of the battle. Seizing the moment favourable for the charge,
Wellington called up Lord Ernest Somerset’s brigade of heavy cavalry,
consisting of the life-guards, the royal horse-guards, and the first
dragoon-guards, and directed them to charge the already crippled cavalry
of Napoleon. These regiments proved irresistible; horses and men fell on
every hand; and the French cuirassiers, whose breastplates had glittered
in so many battles and victories, were completely destroyed. When Lord
Ernest Somerset’s brigade returned from their charge, they brought with
them about two thousand prisoners, and an imperial eagle. By this time,
about seven o’clock in the evening, every part of the French army,
except the guards, who had been kept as a reserve had been engaged,
repulsed, and beaten. The British loss in killed and wounded had also
been immense; but they had not lost a single position, and they were yet
full of heart and confidence in their leader. It was evident, indeed,
that even if no Prussians should arrive Napoleon would be defeated. At
this critical moment, however, a numerous body of men was seen in the
distance; and anxiety was depicted in the faces of both Napoleon and
Wellington. Napoleon hoped it might be Grouchy, and Wellington hoped it
might be Blucher. Onwards the moving mass came, and it proved to be the
Prussians under Blucher: he had left a body of men to confront Grouchy,
and hastened to support Wellington, As soon as the French generals
discovered who the new comers were, they advised Napoleon to retreat;
but although his defeat was now morally certain, his cry was still,
“Forward!” Calling forward his guard, he bade them make a desperate
effort on the British left centre, near the farm of La Haye Sainte. This
guard advanced in two massy columns, leaving four battalions of the
old guard in reserve, near to the spot where Napoleon sat on his horse,
rigid as a statue, watching their motions. They moved on resolutely
under a destructive fire from the British position; and when within
fifty yards from the British line they attempted to deploy. The close
fire upon them, however, was too terrible to admit of this movement;
their flanks were enclosed by some of our guards; they got mixed
together in a mass; and in that mass they were broken and slaughtered,
or compelled to hasten down the hill in irretrievable confusion. The
grand army of Napoleon never again stood to face its enemies; it was in
fact destroyed, for “all the rest of the work was headlong, unresisted
pursuit, slaughter of fugitives who had entirely lost their military
formation, and capture of prisoners, artillery, and spoils.” As the
imperial guards reeled from the British position, and just as Blucher
joined in person with a corps of his army to the left of the British
line, Wellington moved forward his whole line of infantry, supported by
the cavalry and artillery, and swept all before him. At every point
the attack succeeded. The French fled in the utmost confusion; Napoleon
himself setting them the example; and one hundred and fifty pieces
of cannon, with all their ammunition, fell into the hands of the
conquerors. Wellington and Marshal Blucher met at a farm-house, called
Maison Rouge; and here the duke gave orders for his troops to halt,
and left the task of pursuit to the Prussians. Blucher declared that he
would follow up the French with his last horse and his last man; and he
instantly started off with two Prussian corps in pursuit of them. The
fugitives dispersed all over the country; but the Prussians did fearful
execution upon them, knocking them down in heaps like cattle: at one
place eight hundred of them were thus dispatched. Many of the French ran
across fields and into woods, where numbers were afterwards found dead
or grievously wounded. As for the high-road it resembled the sea-shore
after some fearful shipwreck—cannon, caissons, carriages, baggage,
arms, and wreck of every kind were picked up by the pursuers. One of
the first hauls, indeed, which Blucher made, was sixty pieces of cannon
belonging to the imperial guard; and with these were captured carriages,
baggage, &c., belonging to Napoleon himself. The retreat, in a word, was
most disastrous; the French did not cease flying until they had passed
all their frontier fortresses; and then they dispersed all over the
country, selling their arms and their horses, and running to their
homes. In the battle and in the retreat the French had lost thirty
thousand men in killed and wounded; and, what was more fatal to them, by
this event their spirits were broken, and they could not again take the
field. The loss on the part of the allies was also immense; the British
and the Hanoverians alone having 2,432 killed, and 9,528 wounded, in
which number there were more than six hundred officers. Among the slain
were Generals Picton, Sir William Ponsonby, Lieutenant-colonel the
Honourable Sir Alexander Gordon, and Colonel de Lancy, Wellington’s
quarter-master general. Among the wounded, the Earl of Uxbridge,
General Cooke, General Halkett, General Barnes, General Baron Allen,
Lieutenant-colonel Lord Fitzroy Somerset, and the Prince of Orange. Of
Wellington’s staff, indeed, there was scarcely an officer who did not
receive a wound. Such was the battle of Waterloo: the victory was
gained at a great price; but by it this long and terrible war, which had
desolated hearths and firesides and the fair face of nature for many a
long year, was finished. So fearful was the scene after the battle that
the Duke of Wellington, forgetting the exultation of victory, exclaimed,
as he viewed it in the bright moonlight night which succeeded, “My heart
is almost broken by the terrible loss I have sustained of my old friends
and companions, and my poor soldiers.” Such a sentiment does honour to
humanity.

[Illustration: 360.jpg BATTLE OF WATERLOO]




CAPTURE OF PARIS.—SURRENDER OF NAPOLEON, ETC.

The first man that carried the news of the disaster to Paris was
Napoleon himself. Leaving his brother Jerome on the frontier to try if
he could rally some of the remains of his army, he flew to the capital,
where he arrived on the night of the 20th. It is evident that he still
calculated upon the devotion of the _corps législatif_ to his cause; but
he soon discovered that he had forfeited their affection. Had he been
victorious they would, doubtless, still have fawned upon him; but now
he was thoroughly beaten, they demanded his abdication. Both chambers
declared that there was but one man between France and peace; and
Napoleon found himself compelled to sign his second abdication. He did
this in favour of his son; but the chambers refused to pronounce his son
emperor, and formed a temporary government for the purpose of conducting
the administration. In the meantime the allies had been marching towards
Paris. They were opposed by French troops at St. Cloud, Issy, and
Mendon, but no successful opposition could be made; and Blucher prepared
to take a terrible revenge on Paris for the calamities brought on
suffering Europe. His vengeance, however, was averted. On the 3rd
of July Massena, commander-in-chief of the French forces, signed a
capitulation with the allies, by which it was agreed that Louis XVIII.
should be restored to his throne; that the French troops should evacuate
Paris; and that Paris should be garrisoned by the allied armies Thus
deserted, Napoleon resolved to retire from France. A frigate was waiting
at Rochefort to convey him to America; but the English cruisers were
hovering about the port, and he found escape impossible. In this
extremity he presented himself with his suite on board the English ship,
Bellerophon, from whence he wrote a letter, asking the prince regent’s
protection. He imagined that he would be allowed to reside in England
in a private capacity; but his known restless ambition precluded the
possibility of this favour being extended to him. Taught by experience
that his ambition was irrepressible, an order was given to convey him to
St. Helena; and soon afterwards he was conveyed to that rock which was
destined to be his retreat, his restraint, and for a time his tomb. The
dream of his ambition had passed away for ever.

     “Fame is the shade of immortality,
     And in itself a shadow; soon as caught
     Contemn’d, it shrinks to nothing in the grasp.”
      —Young

{GEORGE III. 1814–1818}




RETURN OF LOUIS XVIII. TO PARIS.

Louis XVIII. returned to his capital on the 8th of July. It was
not, however, until the 7th of October that the two French chambers,
corresponding with the British parliament were assembled. At that time
a treaty or convention of the allies was formally announced, and on
the 20th of November it received the final signature of the contracting
powers. By this treaty—seven French fortresses were to be occupied by
150,000 of the allied troops at the expense of France for a period not
exceeding five years, and France was to pay 700,000,000 francs as an
indemnity. Among the concessions made, was that of the Ionian Islands
being declared independent, under the protection of England. On their
part, the allies engaged to employ their united forces on any future
occasion, should the same revolutionary principles which supported
the usurpation of Napoleon under other forms again disturb France, and
menace the repose of other states. This was planting an iron foot upon
the neck of rebellion, but it was the only means of securing the peace
of Europe. The French government and the nation at large felt the
bitterness of the terms: but, conscious of their justice, they submitted
to them without a murmur. On the re-establishment of the kingly
government in France, measures were taken for the punishment of those
who had been most active in the late rebellion. Among those who were
punished with death was the celebrated Marshal Ney: “he had sown the
wind, and he reaped the whirlwind.”




BRITAIN GAINS POSSESSION OF THE ISLAND OF CEYLON.

During this eventful year the sovereignty of Great Britain was extended
over the island of Ceylon. The King of Candy, who possessed the
interior, by his atrocities, compelled the inhabitants to throw off his
yoke. Early in the year, General Brownrigg, the governor cf the British
possessions on the coast, issued a proclamation declaring that he made
war on the tyrant alone, and that protection would be afforded to his
oppressed subjects. He penetrated to the capital amidst the acclamations
of the inhabitants; the king-was delivered into his hands; and a treaty
was concluded by which the British authority was established in the
whole island, the rights and immunities of the chiefs being secured:
torture and mutilation were abolished, and no sentence of death was to
be executed without a warrant from the British governor. Thus this fine
and fruitful island was added to “Britain’s wide domain.”




EAST INDIA AFFAIRS.

In the East Indies some disputes took place this year between the
British government and the state of Nepaul, respecting boundaries.
Dispute was followed by hostility, and a force of 30,000 men was ordered
by the governor-general, Lord Moira, to penetrate that mountainous and
intricate country. Several gallant but unsuccessful attempts were
made upon the fort of Kalunga, in one of which General Gillespie the
commander, was slain. The fort, however, was finally evacuated by its
garrison; but a series of warlike operations was continued for several
months with great bravery on both sides, and with various success. The
final result of the war, however, was favourable to the British. After
a campaign of great difficulty, the whole country from Kemaoon to the
Sutlej was ceded to the British company.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1816}

Parliament assembled on the 1st of February, when, in consequence of
the indisposition of the prince regent, it was opened by commission. The
speech congratulated the two houses upon the successes obtained by his
majesty’s arms with those of his allies, and expressed a hope that it
would be followed by the lasting repose and security of Europe, The
prince regent lamented the heavy pressure which the late extraordinary
exertions had produced upon the country; but he assured the houses
that they might rely on every disposition on his part to concur in such
measures of economy as might be found consistent with the interest of
the country, and with that station which it occupied in Europe. The
address was agreed to in the lords _nem. con._, and in the commons an
amendment, moved by Mr. Brand, censuring ministers for the length of
the late prorogation, which had caused delay in public affairs of
importance, was negatived by ninety against twenty-three.




DEBATES ON THE TREATIES.

On the 9th of February Mr. Brougham moved for a copy of the treaty
concluded at Paris, and designated by the title of “the Holy Alliance.”
 By this document, the three potentates by whom it was signed—the
sovereigns of Austria, Russia, and Prussia—declared their resolution
to take for their guide the precepts of the Christian religion, both
in their domestic administration and foreign relations. Mr. Brougham
observed, that there was something so singular in the wording of this
document as to warrant jealousy of their designs. He could not imagine
that it referred to objects merely spiritual, for the partition of
Poland had been prefaced by similar language, and the proclamation of
the Empress Catherine, which concluded that fatal tragedy, was couched
in nearly the same terms. Lord Castlereagh vindicated the motives of
the confederated sovereigns, and stated that the prince regent—whose
accession to this alliance was prevented by the forms of the British
constitution—expressed his satisfaction in its tendency. He opposed the
production of the document, because it was contrary to the practice of
parliament to call for copies of treaties to which this country was no
party.




FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

From an abstract of the net produce of the revenue in the years ending
the 5th of January, 1815, and the 5th of January, 1816, the amount
appeared to be £66,443,802, showing an excess of £1,013,821 over that
of the preceding year. But notwithstanding this excess the chancellor of
the exchequer announced his intention of proposing an income-tax of
five per cent., there being no mode, he observed, less oppressive, or so
economical. With a view of gaining over the great mass of the people, he
declared himself ready to exempt all incomes under £150 per annum, and
farms paying less than that sum in rent. But the people were not thus
to be bribed. Such a storm of opposition was raised against it by the
nation at large that when a motion for the continuance of the income-tax
was made, it was negatived by two hundred and thirty-eight against two
hundred and thirty one. Thus defeated, the chancellor of the exchequer
had recourse to a loan; and this loan was increased by £2,000,000,
by the voluntary relinquishment of the war-tax on malt, which tax was
relinquished in order to afford some relief to the agriculturists, who
were at this time labouring under great distress. In bringing forward
the budget on the 27th of May, the chancellor of the exchequer announced
that the surplus of the preceding year’s grants in hand amounted to
£5,663,755. The supplies for the year were estimated at £39,400,000,
and the ways and means to meet them as deficient about £2,500,000;
which deficiency was made up by a loan of £3,000,000, obtained from the
directors of the Bank of England, at three per cent. The amount of the
army estimates provoked a long and vehement discussion; but ministers
were successful in their favourite object of maintaining a large
standing army, their principal argument being that the situation of
the continent rendered such a measure necessary. The number voted was
176,615 men, including 30,000 stationed in France; and a vote of 33,000
men for the navy was also agreed to, after a violent debate. Out of the
large military force voted 25,000 men were to be stationed in Ireland,
in order to keep that country in awe. The necessity of such a force
naturally excited some surprise, and led to some animadversions on the
measures of the existing cabinet. But no cabinet: which has ever existed
can fairly be charged with all the evils and the abuses which have
plagued that country. Generally speaking, these evils and abuses have
arisen from the Irish people themselves, their factious spirit having
elicited the severe laws enacted to preserve peace. Mr. Peel, who had
lately commenced his political career, justly ascribed the disturbances
in Ireland to a systematic violation of all laws, which loudly called
for the introduction of a military force. The general routine of motions
for inquiry into the state of Ireland, and the repeal of Catholic
disabilities were followed by their usual results; but a measure of some
importance—the consolidation of the British and Irish exchequers—was
effected in the course of this session. A bill was also passed for a new
silver coinage.




ROYAL MARRIAGES.

A message from the prince regent to both houses on the 14th of March,
announced the marriage contract of his daughter, the Princess Charlotte
Augusta, with his serene highness, Prince Leopold of Saxe Cobourg. An
annual sum of £60,000 was voted to them during their joint lives, the
whole to be continued, should the prince die first, and £50,000 to him
should he be the survivor; £60,000 were also granted by way of outfit.
The nuptials were celebrated on the 2nd of May; the nation partaking in
the joy, not only from the lively interest which the people took in the
personal character of the princess, but from the circumstance that she
united herself with the object of her own choice. Two months after the
marriage of the Princess Charlotte, another marriage took place, between
the Princess Mary, fourth daughter of his majesty, and the Duke of
Gloucester, her cousin. Their establishments were formed on a scale
which rendered a further application to the public purse unnecessary.




VARIOUS MOTIONS.

During this session, Mr. Tierney moved the abolition of the office of
secretary of state for the department of war and the colonies, which
was lost by a great majority. A proposition that the expenditure of the
civil list should not exceed the revenue, &c., was also rejected. A
bill relative to the registry and regulation of slaves, which had been
introduced by Mr. Wilberforce towards the close of the last session,
became the subject of warm debates, in consequence of an insurrection
which had taken place at Barbadoes. A petition from the merchants of
Bristol deprecated the measure, as disclosing a spirit of interference
with the local legislation of the colonies; and on the suggestion of
Lord Castlereagh, Mr. Wilberforce postponed his motion, and moved for
papers on the subject. Mr. Palmer, who argued that the insurrection
arose from expectations among the slaves of entire emancipation,
fostered by the proposed registry-bill, moved an amendment to the effect
that the colonial authorities should be recommended to promote the moral
and religious improvement, as well as the comfort and happiness of the
negroes: this amendment was carried.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued on the 2nd of July. The speech of the prince
regent expressed regret at the distresses suffered by many classes of
his majesty’s subjects; but which it was hoped would be found to have
arisen from causes of a temporary nature.




RIOTS, ETC.

The general distress felt at this period arose from the expensive war
in which England had been so long-engaged. As the year, advanced, the
calamities of an inclement season and a deficient harvest were added to
a general stagnation of trade and commerce. The consequence of all this
was a sudden rise in the price of the necessaries of life, which was
combined with a reduction of wages and want of employment among the
poor. Distress engendered discontent; and, unfortunately, there were
mischievous characters abroad, who availed themselves of the irritated
feelings of the people to stir them up to sedition. Serious tumults took
place in the counties of Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridge, and various other
parts of the kingdom; and in the Isle of Ely an organized insurrection
broke out which was not suppressed without great difficulty. Some of
the rioters were taken, and twenty-four were found guilty, of whom five
suffered the extremity of the law. The metropolis had continued tranquil
until nearly the close of the year, but at length the distress felt
goaded the multitude on to seditious acts. Two meetings were convened
in Spa-fields by some of the mob-orators, to petition the regent for a
reform of abuses; and a vast concourse of rabble attended which on the
second occasion led to a serious riot. Mr. Henry Hunt figured as
the principal demagogue; but though his language was seditious and
inflammatory, he had the prudence to withdraw before the consequences of
his harangue were manifested. Like Gash-ford, however, he had stirred up
mischief, though he retired before it was committed. A band of his more
desperate associates, who had attended him with a tri-coloured flag,
and other symbols of a revolutionary nature, endeavoured to lead the mob
into the city. Some few followed their standard; and on their march they
broke into the shop of a gunsmith, on Snowhill to obtain arms, and
a young man, named Watson, there shot a gentleman who offered some
resistance. Seizing all the arms they could find in that and other
shops, they proceeded to the Royal Exchange, when the lord mayor and
aldermen, after vainly exhorting them to disperse, boldly secured some
of the most forward, and shut the gates against the remainder. The mob
fired, but without effect, over the gates on the magistrates; but a
strong body of troops having been quickly marched into the city, the
rioters were finally overpowered, and compelled to disperse. Some
examples were made of the ringleaders; but the greatest criminal,
Watson, effected his escape to America. The vigilance of government was
by these events excited; and, after experience of this danger, every
popular meeting in the vicinity of the metropolis was watched by large
bodies of the military and special constables.




EXPEDITION TO ALGIERS.

The piratical state of Barbary had for ages infested the commerce of the
Mediterranean, and subjected Christians to the most dreadful slavery. No
check had been given them in their career, although during the late
war the fears of the barbarians had induced them to respect the British
flag. The renewed freedom of commerce, however, after the peace, tempted
the three principal states of Tunis, Tripoli, and Algiers to augment the
number of their corsairs; and the ferocious system of depredation which
they carried on against the vessels of nations in alliance or under the
protection of Great Britain, rendered it imperative on the mistress of
the ocean to vindicate her honour. For this purpose Lord Exmouth, at
this time commanding in the Mediterranean, was instructed to demand
security from these piratical states for the commerce of the Ionian
Islands; to negociate a peace for Naples and Sardinia; and, if possible,
to obtain a general abolition of Christian slavery. His lordship
proceeded first to Algiers, where he obtained the release of all Ionian
captives, and the ratification of a pacific treaty for Naples and
Sicily: the former nation paying a ransom of five hundred dollars, and
the latter three hundred dollars per head for their redeemed slaves. His
lordship then proceeded to Tunis and Tripoli, the deys of which places
appeared disposed to accede to any terms. Lord Exmouth proposed a
treaty, for ever prohibiting the making of Christian slaves, and that
such prisoners as might be taken in war should be treated according to
the practice of civilized Europe. These stipulations were agreed to and
the treaties signed. In the meantime he had received instructions to
claim from Algiers the privilege of selling and refitting privateers
in its port. On his return to that place upon this mission, he took
the opportunity of pressing on that state the abolition of Christian
slavery; but his request was haughtily refused, and when his lordship
was returning to the fleet he was insulted by the crowd, and narrowly
escaped assassination. As Lord Exmouth had not received definite
instructions from the admiralty, he did not think himself justified in
proceeding to extremities; and he therefore agreed that the dey should
appoint an ambassador, who might proceed first to Constantinople, for
the purpose of gaining the sanction of the Ottoman Porte, and thence to
London, to treat on his proposal. His lordship then returned to England;
but before he reached its shores, accounts arrived, which determined
government at once to exact satisfaction for the past and security for
the future. On the 21st of May the dey had ordered the British consul,
Mr. Macdonald, to be confined, and all the English vessels in Oran to
be seized. The Algerines likewise murdered the crews of several Italian
vessels under the British flag, that were engaged in the coral-fishery
at Bona. Thus braved, ministers resolved to punish the Algerines, and
to enforce obedience on the common enemies of the civilized world. Lord
Exmouth received instructions to complete his work; and he sailed on
the 28th of July, in the “Queen Charlotte” of 110 guns, with four other
ships of the line, five frigates, with sloops, bomb-vessels, &c., for
that purpose. With this fleet he arrived at Gibraltar on the 9th of
August, where he met with a Dutch squadron of five frigates and a
corvette, commanded by Vice-admiral Von Capellem, who, on learning the
object of the expedition, solicited and obtained leave to assist in the
enterprise. The Algerines expected this attack, and had been preparing
for it by the removal of every article of value, and by strengthening
their already formidable fortifications. The city of Algiers is built
on the declivity of a hill, in a triangular shape; the base being the
sea-front, which rises directly from the water, and is about a mile in
length. It was strongly defended by batteries rising one above another,
and along a tongue of land, which defends the entrance into the inner
part of the harbour, and also the approach to it, was a range of strong
batteries, which our ships were obliged to pass, to take their station
near the town, for the purpose of bombarding it. In the whole, the
city was defended by about one thousand pieces of ordnance. During a
conversation with Captain Brisbane, Lord Nelson had named twenty-five
ships of the line as the force requisite to attack Algiers, but Lord
Exmouth was satisfied he could accomplish the enterprise with the small
fleet above described. He arrived off Algiers on the 27th of August; and
all proposals for conciliation, and all demands for the relief of the
British consul being ineffectual, the fleet passed the batteries and
commenced their appointed work. The “Queen Charlotte” led the attack,
and she answered to the guns of the batteries with a broadside which
swept off’ about five hundred men from the crowded mole, soldiers and
spectators. Before the battle became general, the “Queen Charlotte” had
demolished the fortifications on the mole; then drawing her broadside
more to the northward, she soon brought down the tower of the
light-house. Gun after gun fell from the batteries, and the last of them
was dismounted just as the artillerymen were in the act of discharging
it. The battle had not long commenced when the enemy’s flotilla of
gim-boats advanced with daring courage to board the “Queen Charlotte,”
 which by this time was seconded by the “Leander;” but as soon as they
were discovered in the midst of the smoke, a few guns from both these
ships sent thirty-three of the Algerine gun-boats to the bottom. The
cannonade, which was of the most awful description, had continued for
an hour without producing any signs of submission, and then Lord Exmouth
determined to destroy the enemy’s ships. This was effected by throwing
laboratory torches and carcass-shells on board of the nearest frigates,
which, taking fire, communicated the flames to the rest, until they
were burnt to the water’s edge. The bombardment continued, with little
intermission, till nearly eleven: the Algerines fighting all the time
with the utmost fury and desperation. About ten it was deemed advisable
to take a large offing during the night. It was extremely dark: but the
darkness was illuminated by a violent storm of lightning accompanied
with thunder, and by the incessant fire of the batteries. The firing
ceased about half-past eleven, and Lord Exmouth collected in his cabin
all the wounded that could safely be moved to join with him and
his officers in thanksgiving to the Almighty for their victory and
preservation. The work was indeed effected: at the dawn of the returning
day the city and harbour of Algiers exhibited a shattered heap of ruins.
In the conflict, the loss of the Algerines amounted to about 7,000: the
British had 128 killed, and 690 wounded, and the Dutch, who nobly aided
in this enterprise, thirteen killed and fifty-two wounded. The dey was
now humbled. Lord Exmouth now repeated with effect the proposals which
had been before rejected, and the result of the victory was, that the
dey agreed to abolish Christian slavery; to deliver up all the slaves in
his dominion, of whatever nation they might be; to return all the money
received for the redemption of slaves since the commencement of the
present year; and to make reparation, and a public apology to the
British consul for the wrongs and indignities to which he had been
subjected. Before Lord Exmouth quitted the bay of Algiers every
Christian prisoner was set at liberty, and the dey had refunded 382,500
dollars to the governments of Naples and Sardinia. The squadron quitted
the bay on the 3rd of September, with the conscious satisfaction of
having rescued the British character from the imputation of tamely
permitting the atrocities which these piratical states had so long
exercised against the weaker powers, and with the proud consciousness
that every man had done his duty. Lord Exmouth, who was twice slightly
wounded in the action, was raised from the dignity of baron to that of
Viscount, and a considerable promotion likewise took place among the
officers who had so nobly participated in the chastisement of the
barbarian foe of the Christian world.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1817}

Parliament was opened by the prince regent in person. The chief topics
of his speech were the continued assurances of amity received from
foreign powers; the recent victory at Algiers; and the still existing
deficiency in the revenue. He concluded thus:—“In considering our
internal situation, you will, I doubt not, feel a just indignation at
the attempts which have been made to take advantage of the distress
of the country for the purpose of exciting a spirit of sedition and
violence. I am too well convinced of the loyalty and good sense of the
great body of his majesty’s subjects, to believe them capable of being
perverted by the arts which are employed to seduce them; but I am
determined to omit no precautions for preserving the public peace, and
for counteracting the designs of the disaffected. I rely with the
utmost confidence, also, on your cordial support, and co-operation,
in upholding a system of law and government from which we have
derived inestimable advantages; which has enabled us to conclude, with
unexampled glory, a contest whereon depended the best interests of
mankind, and which has been hitherto felt by ourselves, as it is
acknowledged by other nations, to be the most perfect that had fallen to
the lot of any people.”

The prince regent had good reason to complain of the turbulent spirit
displayed by the factions: for on his way to the house he had been
assailed with tumultuous expressions of disapprobation; and on his
return from it, he was assailed by missiles of every description, and
the glass of his carriage was broken by what was supposed to be
two balls from an air-gun, aimed at his person. This outrage was
communicated to the lords by Lord Sidmouth; and a conference was held
with the house of commons, at which a joint address, congratulating his
royal highness on his escape, was agreed upon. The consideration of the
usual address in answer to the speech was postponed till the following
day, when Earl Grey moved in the lords an amendment, chiefly for the
purpose of expressing an opinion that the prince regent was under a
delusion respecting the degree and probable duration of the pressure on
the resources of the country. He declared this to be much more extensive
in its operations, more severe in its effects, more deep and general
in its causes, and more difficult to be removed, than that which had
prevailed at the termination of former wars. Added to this declaration
in the amendment, was a profession of regret that the prince regent
should not have been sooner advised to adopt measures of rigid
economy and retrenchment, especially with respect to our military
establishments; and a resolution that the house should go immediately
into a committee on the state of the nation. This amendment, however,
was negatived without a division; and a similar one moved in the commons
was rejected by two hundred and sixty-four against one hundred and
twelve.

{GEORGE III. 1814–1818}




MEASURES OF ECONOMY.

On the 7th of February a communication was made by Lord Castlereagh from
the prince regent, stating that out of sympathy to a suffering people he
had determined upon a cession of £50,000 per annum of that part of his
income which related to his personal expenses, during the continuance
of the existing distress. At the same time his lordship communicated
the intention of ministers to dispense with one-tenth of their official
incomes, while the necessities of the state should require such a
sacrifice. Lord Camden, also, one of the tellers of the exchequer,
relinquished, _pro tempore_, the whole of his large profits with the
exception of £2,500, the regulated income of the other tellers. On the
reduced scale the expenditure of the year was estimated at £6,500,000
less than that of the preceding year, and a further saving of upwards of
£1,000,000 was calculated upon for the year 1818. On the same day that
Lord Castlereagh made the above communication to the house, he moved
for the appointment of a committee of inquiry respecting the income and
expenditure of the state. The first report of this committee was made on
the 5th of May, when Mr. Davies Gilbert stated that, in recommending the
suppression of certain offices, it was at the same time necessary that
his majesty should be enabled to reward meritorious persons, by the
power of granting pensions according to merit and length of service. A
bill, entitled “the Civil Services Compensation Bill,” was accordingly
introduced, with another for abolishing the offices of wardens and
justices in Eyre, both of which passed the houses with very little
opposition. About the time this bill passed Mr. Abbott resigned the
speakership, and was created Lord Colchester, with a pension of £4000
to himself and his immediate successor. He was succeeded by Mr. Charles
Manners Sutton, eldest son of the Archbishop of Canterbury.




RESTRICTIONS ON PUBLIC LIBERTY.

On the 3rd of February a message was communicated to both houses,
announcing that the prince-regent had ordered the production of papers
which contained an account of certain meetings and combinations held in
various parts of the country, tending to disturb public tranquillity,
to alienate the affection of the people from his majesty’s person
and government, and to overthrow the whole frame of the laws and
constitution. His royal highness recommended these papers to the
immediate consideration of parliament; and they were accordingly
referred by each house to a secret committee. It was expected that
coercive measures would be adopted; but in the face of this a mob,
headed by Henry Hunt and others, met in Spa-fields on the 10th of
February, under the pretext of petitioning for parliamentary reform. The
reports of the secret committees were presented on the 18th of February;
and, on their recommendation, stringent acts were passed to correct the
evil. The first consequence of these reports was the apprehension of
the elder Watson, Preston, Hooper, and Keene, who were committed to the
Tower on a charge of high-treason; a reward of five hundred pounds was
also offered for the apprehension of a man named Thistlewood; and he
was also taken and lodged with his associates. The measures adopted by
parliament for the security of the public peace, were the suspension of
the _Habeas Corpus_ Act until the 1st of July next; an extension of
the act of 1795, for the security of the king’s person, to that of the
regent; the revival of an act of 1795 against corresponding societies;
and a reenactment of that regarding the seduction of soldiers and
sailors from their allegiance. Petitions were presented against these
restrictions on public liberty, and they were opposed in every stage
by the opposition; but they were carried in both houses by large
majorities. Although these acts appeared to infringe on the public
liberty, yet they were effectual in saving the country from violence
and bloodshed, if not from the horrors of anarchy. Powerful measures are
required for the restraint of hydraheaded faction. The suspension of
the Habeas Corpus struck an unexpected blow against the hopes and plans
of the apostles of reform; and Mr. William Cobbett, who at this period
figured as one of the most ardent reformers, deemed it prudent to retire
to America, promising, however, to return as soon as England should be
again under the protection of her constitution, and in the meantime to
transmit his weekly register from the land of his voluntary exile.

On the assembling of the peers after the Easter recess, it was ordered,
on the motion of Lord Grey, that a copy of the circular-letter recently
addressed by the secretary of state for the home department to the
lord-lieutenants of counties, relative to seditious or blasphemous
publications, be laid before the house. In this document Lord Sidmouth
had stated, as it was of the greatest importance to prevent, if
possible, the circulation of the blasphemous and seditious pamphlets and
writings then distributed in great numbers through the country, he had
thought it his duty to consult the law-officers of the crown, whether
a person found selling, or in any other way publishing such writings,
might be brought immediately before a justice of peace by warrant to
answer for his conduct; and the law-officers had given their opinion to
the effect, that a justice of the peace might issue his warrant for
the apprehension of a person charged before him, on oath, with the
publication of such libels, and compel him to give bail to answer such
charge. Under these circumstances the attention of the lord-lieutenants
was earnestly called to the subject; and they were requested to notify
such opinion to the chairman of the quarter-sessions, in order that
magistrates might be led to act upon it. When this circular was produced
Lord Grey addressed their lordships in a speech, in which he contended
against the principle that a justice of the peace might be called on by
any common informer to decide what was, or what was not a libel, and
to commit or hold to bail, on his sole judgment, the accused party. His
lordship argued that such a specific intimation to magistrates regarding
the mode in which they were to construe the law, even supposing the
law itself to be clear and undisputed, was a high offence against
the constitution. He moved for the production of a case that had been
submitted to the law-officers; but it was negatived on a division by a
majority of seventy-five against nineteen. A similar motion was made
in the commons by Sir Samuel Romilly, and a similar decision given. As
towards the close of the session the spirit of disaffection throughout
the country was not subdued, a further suspension of the _Habeas Corpus_
Act to the 1st of March, 1818, was carried by a large majority.




COMMITTEE ON THE POOR-LAWS, ETC.

During this session a committee on the poor-laws, with Mr. Sturges
Bourne for its chairman, was appointed. This committee made its report
in July; but not much new light was thrown upon the subject, as the
object of the members seemed to be that of neutralizing every topic as
much as possible; probably from ministerial instructions, as the cabinet
were averse to making experiments. On the 9th of July Mr. Wilberforce
moved for an address to the prince regent, submitting in dutiful,
but urgent terms, the expression of our continued solicitude for the
universal and final abolition of the slave-trade amongst the European
powers, which was agreed to _nem. con_. On the same evening a discussion
of considerable interest took place upon a series of resolutions on
finance, which had been brought forward by Mr. Tierney; and after a
debate of great length the previous question was carried upon each of
these resolutions, and counter resolutions, moved by Mr. Grant, adopted
in their stead. The last important debate of the session took place in
the commons on a motion made by Mr. Brougham, for an inquiry into the
state of the nation; a motion introduced chiefly for the purpose of
enabling the mover, as the organ of opposition in the lower house
to enter a protest, in detail, against the whole of the acts and
proceedings of ministers. In exposing the false system on which
parliament had long legislated on the subject of commerce, Mr. Brougham
remarked:—“The period is now arrived when, the war being closed and
prodigious changes having taken place throughout the world, it becomes
absolutely necessary to enter on a careful but fearless revision of our
whole commercial system, that we may be enabled safely, yet promptly,
to eradicate those faults which the lapse of time has occasioned or
displayed; to retrace our steps where we shall find that they have
deviated from the line of true policy; to adjust and accommodate our
laws to the alteration of circumstances; to abandon many prejudices,
alike antiquated and senseless, unsuited to the advanced age in which
we live, and unworthy of that sound judgment which distinguishes this
nation.” The motion was negatived without a division.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued on the 12th of July. In his speech the prince
regent expressed regret at the king’s continued indisposition; glanced
at the subjects which had been considered during the session; and
noticed the prospect of an abundant harvest, not only in this country,
but on the continent, from which he anticipated an improvement in the
commercial relations of this and other countries.




RIOTS AT MANCHESTER, ETC.

In the last report of the secret committee of the house of commons,
mention was made of disturbances which had been experienced at
Manchester. These disturbances appear to have been of an extraordinary
description. A large body of men, calling themselves friends of
parliamentary reform, and urged by the resolution of despair, determined
to proceed to London to explain their distress to the regent in person.
Each individual provided himself with a blanket and a small stock of
provisions. On the day of their departure they met near St. Peter’s
church; and such crowds assembled around them that the magistrates
thought it expedient to call out the military. The principal instigators
of the mob were arrested; but, nevertheless, a considerable number set
out on their mission to London. More than five hundred proceeded as
far as Macclesfield, where a troop of yeomanry was stationed to
provide against contingencies. All, however, remained quiet; and this
“Blanketeering Expedition” penetrated into Staffordshire, where it
ended; the poor creatures who composed it being obliged to give it up
from exhaustion and the want of sustenance. But these riots had at least
one effect, it filled the prisons throughout the country with objects of
suspicion or of crime. Many of these were as arbitrarily released by the
authorities as they had been committed; but the more prominent leaders
were either detained in custody, or sent, for greater security, to the
metropolis. The trial of the prisoners in the Tower was commenced in the
month of June; but Watson, the first tried, being acquitted by the jury,
the other cases were abandoned. The prisoners captured in the riots
which took place in the northern and midland counties were tried at
Derby by a special commission, and twenty-three received sentence of
death; three of them only, however, suffered the extreme penalty of
the law. The last prosecution was that of a man named Hone, for some
political parodies on the Litany and other parts of our church-service.
He was tried for a blasphemous libel; but he was acquitted, chiefly on
the ground that his parodies were political, and hence not blasphemous;
and the public sympathized with the demagogue by raising a subscription,
in order to reimburse him for his expenses, and to reward him for the
trouble and fatigue which he had undergone in the prosecution. Hone
seems to have profited by the lesson he had received; for he withdrew
from the disgraceful career which he had commenced, and engaged in
literary pursuits more worthy of a rational and thinking being, and of a
good citizen of the world.




DEATH OF THE PRINCESS CHARLOTTE.

The close of this year was marked by an event that filled the nation
with mourning; this was the death of the idolized hope of a free nation,
the Princess Charlotte: she whose looks of health and gladdening smiles
had been long hailed by the nation with heartfelt satisfaction by her
future subjects, expired on the 6th of November, after giving birth to a
still-born child. The indications of sorrow on this event becoming
known were unusually general and sincere. The civic procession and
entertainment on the Lord Mayor’s Day was abandoned; public
entertainments were suspended; and on the 19th, the day of her
interment, every shop was closed, and funeral sermons were preached in
churches and chapels to large and attentive congregations. The day of
her funeral was one of voluntary humiliation, and of sorrowful
meditation on the instability of human happiness. Brief as were the days
of this good princess, she had not lived in vain; her life was a bright
illustration of piety and virtue. “Put not your trust in princes, nor in
the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, he
returneth to the earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.”




CHAPTER XXXI.

{GEORGE III. 1818—1820}

     Meeting of Parliament..... Motion for Secret Committees
     preparatory to a Bill of   Indemnity..... Extension   of
     the  Bank  Restriction..... Treaty with Spain..... Royal
     Marriages..... The Supplies..... The Alien  Act, &c.
     Prorogation of Parliament..... State of the Manufacturers of
     Lancashire, &c. Death of Queen Charlotte..... Meeting of
     Parliament..... Duke of. York appointed Guardian to His
     Majesty..... Committee on the Criminal Code..... Measures
     for   Resumption   of   Cash-Payments..... Financial
     Statement..... Catholic   Claims..... Foreign   Enlistment
     Act..... Slave-Trade, &c. Prorogation of
     Parliament..... Seditious Assemblages..... Meeting of
     Parliament..... Motion for Inquiry  into the State of tha
     Nation..... Parliamentary Reform..... Cession of Parga to
     the Turks..... Death of George III.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1818}

Parliament was opened on the 27th of January by commission. The
principal topics of the speech were the continued indisposition of
his majesty; the death of the Princess Charlotte; an assurance of the
continued friendly disposition of foreign powers; the improved state of
industry and public credit; the restored tranquillity of the
country; the treaties with Spain and Portugal on the abolition of the
slave-trade; and a recommendation that additional churches should be
built, “to meet the increased population of the country, and to promote
the religious and moral habits of the people.” In the lords the address
was voted _nem. con_.; in the commons it met with animadversion from
Lord Althorp and Sir Samuel Romilly, who deprecated the demoralizing
system of _espionnage_, as well as the arbitrary imprisonment and
tyrannical persecutions which had lately been carried on by government;
but the address passed without a division.




MOTION FOR SECRET COMMITTEES PREPARATORY TO A BILL OF INDEMNITY.

On the 4th of February Lord Castlereagh brought down a bag of papers
respecting the internal state of the country, for the examination of
which he proposed a secret committee. As this was understood to be a
preliminary step to a general bill of indemnity for all acts performed
under the suspension of the _Habeas Corpus_ Act, by which the persons
then imprisoned, and since liberated without trial, would be deprived of
all legal remedy for such imprisonment, the appointment of a committee
was strenuously resisted by opposition, who contended that a different
sort of inquiry was called for by the conduct of the administration. The
green bag and its contents formed the subject of much sarcasm; but the
appointment of a secret committee was agreed to, and a similar committee
was also appointed in the upper house. The report of the committee in
the house of lords was presented on the 23rd of February. It related
chiefly to recent disturbances in the counties of Nottingham, Derby,
and York; to the progress and the check which it had received by various
arrests and trials; and to the necessity which existed for continued
vigilance against a spirit of conspiracy still active, particularly
in the metropolis. The report stated that forty-four persons had been
arrested, and discharged without trial; but that such arrests were
justified by circumstances, and that no warrant of detention appeared
to have been issued, except in consequence of information on oath; the
persons detained and not prosecuted had been discharged at different
times; and the committee were of opinion that government had exercised
the powers vested in them with discretion and moderation. A bill
of indemnity, founded on this report, was brought in by the Duke
of Montrose on the 25th; and on its second reading the Marquess of
Lansdowne proposed, as an amendment, that it should be postponed for
a fortnight, to give time for all the petitions recently received
from persons who had been imprisoned to be brought up. This amendment,
however, was negatived, as was another on the third reading of the bill,
the object of which was to do away with it altogether. When introduced
in the commons on the 10th of March, it was strongly opposed by Sir
Samuel Romilly, who contended that it was improperly called a bill
of indemnity. The object of indemnity, he said, was only to protect
individuals against public prosecution, without interfering with the
rights of private men; but the object of the bill was to annihilate all
such rights, to take away all legal remedies from those who had suffered
an illegal and arbitrary exercise of authority, and to punish those who
presumed to have recourse to such remedies by subjecting them to the
payment of double costs. Mr. Lambton moved an amendment that it be read
again that day six months, but this was lost by one hundred and ninety
to sixty-four. The bill was read a second time on the next day, but the
chief discussion took place on the order for committing it, when several
petitions, complaining of grievous oppression, were presented to the
house: the bill, however, passed on the 13th, and four days after
received the royal assent.




EXTENSION OF THE BANK RESTRICTION.

At an early period of the session, Mr. Grenfell inquired of the
chancellor of the exchequer whether any event had occurred, or was
likely to occur, which would prevent the resumption of cash-payments by
the Bank in July. He observed that the public stood in the situation
of debtor to the bank for £3,000,000 advanced without interest, and for
£6,000,000 at an interest of four per cent; but as the Bank had secured
possession of public money deposited in their hands, which for the last
twelve years had amounted on an average to £11,000,000 for the
repayment of these sums, he asked whether any arrangement was made
for discharging, or placing them on a better footing. In reply, the
chancellor of the exchequer stated, that the Bank had made ample
preparation for resuming cash-payments at the time fixed by parliament,
but that pecuniary transactions were going on with foreign powers which
might probably require an extension of the restriction: as regards the
loan of £6,000,000, he said, he should shortly submit a proposal for its
repayment, allowing the country still to enjoy the benefit of that on
which no interest was paid. Later in the session, in submitting some
propositions to a committee of the house, he observed that in January,
1817, the Bank had given notice of its readiness to pay in specie
outstanding notes of a particular description, for which cash to
the amount of about £1,000,000 might have been demanded, but a very
considerable sum was called for. At that time, gold bullion was £3. 18s,
6d., and silver 4s. 10d. the ounce: in October notice was given that
the Bank was ready to pay in cash all the notes dated prior to January,
1817; but the result was very different, for upwards of £2,500,000 were
drawn out, of which scarcely any portion remained in circulation. This
arose from the large remittances to foreign countries, consequent on the
importation of corn; the residence of Englishmen on the continent; and
the negociation of a loan in this country by France. It now therefore
became inexpedient for the Bank to resume cash-payments, and the
restriction was continued till the 5th of July, 1839.




TREATY WITH SPAIN.

During this session a treaty with Spain, by virtue of which, in
consideration of a subsidy of £400,000, that country consented to
abolish the slave-trade on all the north coasts of the line, received
the sanction of parliament. But this was only a half measure: Spain
still continued the privilege of retaining the traffic south of
that limit. A right of search was stipulated for each nation, but no
detention of vessels was to take place, unless when slaves were found on
board.




ROYAL MARRIAGES.

During this year marriages were contracted between the Duke of Clarence
and the princess of Saxe Meningen; the Duke of Kent and the Princess
Leiningen; and the Duke of Cambridge with the Princess of Hesse.

At the recommendation of the prince regent to parliament, suitable
provisions were made for the royal personages, though not on an
extravagant scale. During the discussions on the provision to be made
for them, Mr. Wilberforce inveighed in strong terms against the royal
marriage act: an act which prevented the several branches of the family
on our throne from entertaining the best feelings, and from forming
connexions which might at once promote their happiness, and guarantee
their virtue.




THE SUPPLIES.

The supplies of this year were estimated at £20,952,400. To meet this,
in addition to the ways and means, a three-and-a-half per cent, stock
was created to the amount of £14,000,000, so that no new taxes were
levied, nor any additions made to those existing.




THE ALIEN ACT, ETC.

During this session it was resolved that the alien act should be
continued for two years longer; it being necessary to keep out as well
as send out of Great Britain persons who might take advantage of the
vicinity of France, to excite a spirit hostile to the security of this
and other European governments. Sir Samuel Romilly introduced a bill to
do away with the capital part of the act respecting private stealing
in shops, &c., setting forth in his preamble, that extreme severity of
punishment tends to procure indemnity for crime; but the house was not
yet prepared to legislate in a merciful spirit: the bill was rejected.
Before the close of the session Mr. Brougham succeeded in his motion for
a committee of inquiry respecting the education of the poorer classes;
the first step towards that system of popular instruction in which he
has effected so much. Fourteen commissioners were to be appointed by
the crown, six of whom were to have no salaries. This bill, however,
underwent many alterations in the upper-house, chiefly through the
exertions of Lord Eldon, who used all his influence against it. The
commissioners to be appointed were limited to the investigation
of charities connected with education; they were precluded from
investigating the state of education among the poor generally; and they
were directed to traverse the country and to call witnesses before
them, without possessing any authority for enforcing attendance, or for
demanding the production of documents. As Mr. Brougham observed, the
bill as it came from the lords left everything to the good will of those
who had an interest at variance with the inquiry. Yet much good, he
anticipated, might result from the exercise of the powers possessed
by the house. The means to be used were, that the commissioners should
proceed and call witnesses; that they should report to the house, and
make returns of the names of all those who refused to give information
or produce documents without alleging any just cause of refusal; and the
committee, which would be re-appointed next session, might be empowered
to call those persons before them.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued on the 10th of June by the regent in person. In
his speech his royal highness stated his intention of giving direction
for a new parliament, after which he observed:—“I cannot refrain from
adverting to the important change which has occurred in the situation of
this country, and of all Europe, since I first met you in this place.
At that period, the dominion of the common enemy had been so widely
extended over the continent, that resistance to his power was, by many,
deemed to be hopeless; and in the extremities of Europe alone was such
resistance effectually maintained. By the unexampled exertions which
you enabled me to make, in aid of countries nobly contending for
independence, and by the spirit which was kindled in so many nations,
the continent was at length delivered from the most galling and
oppressive tyranny, under which it had laboured; and I had the
happiness, by the blessing of Providence, to terminate, in conjunction
with his majesty’s allies, the most eventful and sanguinary contest in
which Europe had for centuries been engaged, with unparalleled success
and glory. The prosecution of such a contest for so many years, and
more particularly the efforts which marked the close of it, have been
followed within our own country, as well as throughout the rest of
Europe, by considerable internal difficulties and distress. But,
deeply as I felt for the immediate pressure upon his majesty’s people,
nevertheless I looked forward without dismay, having always the fullest
confidence in the solidity of the resources of the British empire, and
in the relief which might be expected from a continuance of peace,
and from the patience, public spirit, and energy of the nation. These
expectations have not been disappointed. The improvement in the internal
circumstances of the country is happily manifest, and promises to be
steadily progressive; and I feel perfect assurance that the continued
loyalty and exertions of all his majesty’s subjects will confirm these
growing indications of national prosperity, by promoting obedience
to the laws, and attachment to the constitution from which all our
blessings are derived.”




STATE OF THE MANUFACTURERS OF LANCASHIRE, ETC.

Distress, though mitigated, as stated in the regent’s speech, still
prevailed in the country. The cotton-spinners as well as other classes
of manufacturers of Lancashire remained in a state of organized
opposition to their masters on the subject of wages. From this cause
disturbances took place at Burnley, Stockport, and other places,
which could only be quelled by the prompt exertions of the Manchester
yeomanry. A diversion from these troubles was created by the general
election which took place during the summer. Men were too busily
employed in securing the election of their favourites to think of the
troubles by which they were surrounded.




DEATH OF QUEEN CHARLOTTE.

During the last session of parliament, in consequence of the Queen’s
declining health, two amendments had been made in the regency bill; the
first empowering her majesty to add six new members, resident in Windsor
to her council, in the event of her absence from that residence; and
the second repealed the clause which rendered necessary the immediate
assembling of a new parliament in the event of the queen’s death. These
amendments were opportunely made, for her majesty, after a lingering
illness of six months, expired at Kew Palace, on the 17th of November,
in the 75th year of her age. Her remains were interred at Windsor on the
2nd of December, and the day was observed with every suitable mark of
respect. Queen Charlotte possessed those accomplishments which add grace
and dignity to an exalted station. As a wife and a mother she was a
pattern to her sex; performing all the tender and maternal offices of a
nurse to her offspring, which is so seldom performed by persons even in
less exalted stations than that which she occupied. Her morality was,
also, unquestionably of the highest order: during the period in
which she presided over the British court, she preserved it from the
contamination of vice, notwithstanding the dangers proceeding from the
licentious examples of other European dynasties, as well as from that
moral relaxation which our own prosperity was so well calculated to
produce. During the reign of Geo-ge III., indeed, England presented from
the throne the example of those virtues that form the great and binding
link of the social chain. To this may be in part ascribed our happiness
in having withstood the storm which visited the rest of Europe with all
the horrors of invasion or anarchy. “The wicked are overthrown, and are
not; but the house of the righteous shall stand.”




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1819}

The new parliament met on the 14th of January when Mr. Manners Sutton
was re-elected speaker, and Chief Baron Richards took his seat on
the woolsack _pro tempore_, in consequence of the lord chancellor’s
indisposition. Both houses were occupied till the 21st in swearing
in their respective members, on which day the session was opened by
commission. The chief topics of the royal speech were the king’s health:
the demise of the queen; the evacuation of France by the allied troops;
the favourable state of the revenue; the improved aspect of trade,
manufactures, and commerce; the favourable result of the war in India;
and the extension of the commercial treaty now existing between this
nation and the United States of America to a further term of eight
years. In both houses the addresses were carried without a division,
though ministers were severely censured by Lord Lansdowne in the
lords, and Mr. Macdonald in the commons, for the want of truth in
their statements concerning the state of the nation, and for their many
political blunders.




THE DUKE OF YORK APPOINTED GUARDIAN TO HIS MAJESTY.

As the death of the queen rendered it necessary that a guardian of his
majesty’s person should be appointed, Lord Liverpool named the Duke
of York, and his nomination met with general approval. The duke was
appointed guardian with a salary of £10,000 per annum out of the public
purse for the performance of this filial duty. The grant met with severe
opposition, and was only carried by a small majority; and subsequently
several debates took place respecting the establishment at Windsor, the
expenses of which excited much freedom of remark. It was represented
as a mockery of the national distress, no less than of the melancholy
visitation of the aged monarch, kept up for the purpose of ministering
to the prodigality of the regent, and the rapacity of his courtiers.
These sentiments were shared by the people at large.




COMMITTEE ON THE CRIMINAL CODE.

Early this session the attention of parliament was called to the state
of the criminal code: a subject deeply interesting to the best friends
of humanity. Philanthropists had long deplored the state of our
statute-book, more than two hundred crimes being defined by it as
worthy of death. This state of things had been denounced as a national
disgrace, and Sir Samuel Romilly had frequently brought it under the
notice of parliament, and in some instances had been the means of
softening down the rigour of our laws. That great man was now dead; but
in this session the subject was taken up by Sir James Mackintosh,
who proved to be a worthy successor to the deceased philanthropist. A
petition from the corporation of London, complaining of the increase
of crime, and pointing out the commutation of capital punishment, was
referred to a committee for the examination of the discipline and police
of the different prisons throughout the country. The appointment of this
committee was moved by Lord Castlereagh; but it was thought by some that
a distinct committee should be appointed, for the purpose of taking the
whole subject into consideration. A motion to this effect was made by
Sir James Mackintosh on the 2nd of March; and though Lord Castlereagh
opposed it, as unnecessary, it was carried by one hundred and
forty-seven against one hundred and twenty-eight. In his speech on this
occasion, Sir James Mackintosh, after setting forth a great variety of
facts and observations, illustrating the system of subterfuge which
the extreme severity of the law in many cases had produced among
prosecutors, witnesses, and jurors, with the consequent impunity and
increase of crime, proceeded to explain his views of melioration,
observing that it was neither his wish nor intention to form a new
criminal code. He did not, he said, even propose to abolish capital
punishment; but, on the contrary, he regarded it as a part of that
right with which societies are endowed. He held it to be, like all
other punishments, an evil when unnecessary; but capable, like them, of
producing, when sparingly and judiciously inflicted, a preponderance of
good. He aimed not at the establishment of any universal principle;
his object was, that the execution of the law should constitute the
majority, and its remission the minority of cases. Subsequently Sir
James divided the cases connected with capital punishment into three
classes: those in which it was always, those in which it was frequently,
and those in which it was never put in force. The first and second of
these cases he proposed to leave untouched; the third, which comprised
more than one hundred and fifty crimes, he contended should be expunged
from the statute-book, as a monument of barbarous times, disgraceful to
the character of a free and enlightened nation.




MEASURES FOR RESUMPTION OF CASH-PAYMENTS.

On the 2nd of February Mr. Tierney moved for a committee to inquire into
the effects of the Bank restriction act. This was met by an amendment
from the chancellor of the exchequer, directing an investigation of the
state of the Bank of England, with reference to the expediency of its
resumption of cash-payments at the appointed period; such information to
be reported by the committee as might be disclosed without injury to the
public interests. The first report, which was brought up by Mr. Peel on
the 5th of April, represented that the Bank, having been induced to pay
in specie all notes issued previous to 1817, had been drained of cash
to the amount of more than £5,000,000, most of which had gone to the
continent, and had been there recoined; and that, to prevent this drain
continuing, and to enable the Bank to accumulate a larger store of
bullion, with a view to the final resumption of cash-payments, it was
expedient to restrain the further payment of notes alluded to in specie.
A bill was brought in to this effect, and, the standing orders of the
house having been suspended, it was passed through its different
stages in the same evening. In the upper house Lord Harrowby moved
the suspension of the standing orders, that the bill might pass at one
sitting; but Earl Grey and others opposed it at considerable length,
contending that, if necessary, it would have been better for ministers
to issue an order of council for suspending Bank payments on their
own responsibility. The bill, however, was read a third time on the
following day and passed; and a similar measure was also carried in both
houses for the protection of Ireland. The second report was presented
on the 5th of May, when two bills were passed, founded on a plan
recommended by the committee for a gradual return to cash-payments. The
principal provisions of these bills were, that a definite period should
be fixed for the termination of the restriction, while preparatory
measures should be taken, with a view to facilitate and ensure, on the
arrival of that period, payment of the promissory notes of the Bank of
England in legal coin of the realm; that provision ought to be made
for the repayment of £10,000,000, being part of the sum due to the Bank
on account of advances for the public services; that from the 14th of
February, 1820, the Bank shall be liable to deliver on-demand, gold
of standard fineness, having been assayed and stamped at the mint, a
quantity of not less than sixty ounces being required in exchange for
notes at the rate of £4. 1s. per ounce; that from the 1st of October,
1820, the Bank shall be liable to deliver gold at the rate £3. 19s. 6d.
per ounce: and from the 1st of May 1821, £3. 17s. 10d.; that the Bank
may at any period between the 1st of February and the 1st of October,
1820, undertake to deliver gold as before mentioned, at any rate between
tha sums of £4. Is. and £3. 19s. 6d. per ounce, and at any rate between
the 1st of October, 1820, and the 1st of May, 1821, at any rate between
the sums of £3. 19s. 6d. and £3. 17s. 10 ½ per ounce, but that such
intermediate rate having been once fixed by the Bank, that rate shall
not subsequently be increased; that from the 1st of May, 1823, the Bank
shall pay its notes, on demand, in the legal coin of the realm; and
that it is expedient to repeal the laws prohibiting the melting and the
exportation of the coin.

Another select committee was appointed this session, on the motion of
Lord Castlereagh, to inquire into the income and expenditure of the
country. The receipts for the year ending the 5th of January, 1818, were
£51,665,458, while those for the following year were £54,620,000. There
were, however, certain arrears of war-duties on malt and property, which
reduced the income of 1818 to £49,334,927, while the arrears due to
January, 1819, amounted only to £566,639: the expenditure was also less
by about £650,000 than was expected, so that the result was a total
surplus of £3,518,000, applicable to the reduction of the national debt.
If one million were allowed for the interest on the loan, observed Lord
Castlereagh, there remained two millions and a half of surplus
revenue. Mr. Tierney remarked, that an old debt on the sinking-fund,
of £8,300,000, which must be liquidated before the surplus in question
could be made available for the expenses of the current year, had
been altogether concealed. The various taxes, taken together, exceeded
£7,000,000; but this was the extreme of the amount applicable to the
army, navy, ordnance, and miscellaneous services; how then, he asked,
could it be possible that, with an income of only £7,000,000, and an
expenditure of £20,000,000, both ends should be made to meet, and
a surplus be left? Would it not be a gross delusion to speak of the
sinking-fund as applicable to the public service, while government were
obliged to borrow £13,000,000 a year to support it? The chancellor
of the exchequer answered, that this statement included certain
particulars, which could not be admitted in making a fair comparison. By
taking the whole charge of the consolidated-fund and the sinking-fund,
it had been shown that our expenditure exceeded our receipts. This must
necessarily be the case, since a great portion of the war-taxes had been
abolished. Parliament had relieved the country of £15,000,000 of taxes;
and thus they prevented the effect which would have been produced in
the redemption of the debt by such an annual sum. With respect to any
financial plans for the present year, the chancellor stated he should
reserve to himself the power of adopting that which the situation of
public affairs rendered most expedient.

{GEORGE III. 1818—1820}




FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

A series of financial resolutions was moved by Mr. Vansittart on the 3rd
of June. These resolutions stated, that by the removal of certain
taxes, the revenue of Great Britain was reduced by £18,000,000; that the
interest and charge of the funded and unfunded debt of Ireland exceeded
the whole revenue of the country by £1,800,000; that it was necessary to
provide, by a loan or other means, for the service of the present
year, the sum of £13,000,000, which, deducted from the sinking-fund
of £15,000,000, reduced it to £2,000,000; and that for the purpose of
raising this sinking-fund to £5,000,000, it was necessary to impose
annually the amount of £3,000,000. This sum parliament agreed to
raise by a large duty on foreign wools, and by smaller duties on other
articles, such as tobacco, tea, coffee, and cocoa-nuts. Two loans of
£12,000,000 each were also raised; one of them supplied by monied men,
the other derived from the sinking-fund. Out of these sums there was to
be a surplus, of which £5,000,000 were to go towards the repayment of
the debt due to the Bank, as recommended by parliament previous to the
resumption of cash-payments; and £5,597,000 to the reduction of the
unfunded debt. “In adopting this course,” the speaker observed to the
prince regent at the close of the session, “his majesty’s faithful
commons did not conceal from themselves that they were calling upon the
nation for a great exertion; but well knowing that honour, character,
and independence have at all times been the first and dearest objects of
the hearts of Englishmen, we feel assured that there was no difficulty
that the country would not encounter, no pressure to which she would not
cheerfully submit, in order to maintain pure and unimpaired that which
has never yet been shaken or sullied—her public credit and good faith.”




CATHOLIC CLAIMS.

On the 3rd of May, after numerous petitions had been presented both
for and against the claims of Roman Catholics, this great question of
internal policy was again brought before the commons by the eloquent
Grattan. The causes of disqualification, he observed, were of three
kinds—the combination of the Catholics, the clanger of a pretender,
and the power of the pope. Grattan asserted, that not only had all these
causes ceased, but that the consequences annexed to them were no more;
and he concluded by moving for a committee of the whole house to take
into consideration the laws by which oaths or declarations are required
to be taken or made as qualifications for the enjoyment of office, or
the exercise of civil functions so far as the Roman Catholics were
affected by them. This motion was lost by a majority of only two in a
full house; but a corresponding proposition made in the lords by Earl
Donoughmore was lost by a majority of one hundred and forty-seven
against one hundred and six. Subsequently another effort was made in the
lords by Earl Grey; but, as before, without effect. The bill Earl Grey
introduced was for abrogating so much of the acts of the 25th and
30th of Charles the Second, as prescribed to all officers, civil and
military, and to all members of both houses of parliament, a declaration
against the doctrines of transubstantiation, and the invocation of
saints. His motion was rejected by a majority of one hundred and
forty-two against eighty-two.




FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT.

On the 13th of May, in consequence of complaints made by the Spanish
ambassador that English officers were aiding the cause of independence
in South America, the attorney-general brought in a bill for prohibiting
the enlistment of British subjects into foreign service, and the
equipment of vessels of war without licence. The first of these objects,
he observed, had been in some measure provided for by the statutes of
George the Second, by which it was an offence, amounting to felony,
to enter the service of any foreign state. If neutrality were to be
observed, however, it was important that the penalty should be extended
to the act of serving unacknowledged as well as acknowledged powers;
and part of his intention therefore was to amend those statutes, by
introducing after the words, “king, prince, state, potentate,”
 the words, “colony or district, which do assume the powers of a
government.” It was his wish, he said, to give to this country the
right of preventing its subjects from breaking the neutrality towards
acknowledged states, and those assuming the power of states; and upon
a similar principle, he wished to prevent the fitting out of armed
vessels, and also the fitting out or supplying other vessels with
warlike stores in any of his majesty’s ports, These propositions met
with stem opposition. Sir James Mackintosh warned the house, that,
in whatever manner the motion might be worded and its real object
concealed, the bill ought to be entitled,—“A bill for preventing
British subjects from lending their assistance to the South American
cause, or enlisting in the South American service.” The statutes of
George the Second, he said, were not to have been laws of a general
nature, applying to all times and circumstances; but, on the contrary,
“intended merely for the temporary purpose of preventing the formation
of Jacobite armies, organized in France and Spain against the peace and
tranquillity of England.” He concluded by reprobating the measure as
one which was virtually an enactment to repress the liberty of the South
Americans, and to enable Spain to re-impose that yoke of tyranny which
they were unable to bear, which they had nobly shaken off, and from
which, he trusted in God, they would finally and for ever be enabled
to extricate themselves. In reply, Lord Castlereagh argued that the
proposed bill was necessary to prevent our giving offence to Spain, whom
that house was too just and generous to oppress because she was weak,
and her fortunes had declined. In the subsequent stages of the bill,
ministers avowed that the measure had been suggested by the stipulations
of a treaty with Spain in 1814, and by the representations which the
ministers of Ferdinand VII. had considered themselves entitled by
such stipulations to address to the British government. This admission
excited severe remarks on Ferdinand’s character; but the bill was
carried—in the commons by one hundred and ninety against one hundred
and twenty-nine, and in the lords by one hundred against forty-nine. But
though this bill was rigorous in its propositions, it was by no means
rigorously enforced.




SLAVE-TRADE, ETC.

During this session Mr. Wilberforce complained in parliament of
the reluctance displayed by the two great powers to enter into the
arrangements necessary for carrying into effect the total abolition of
the slave-trade. It grieved him, he said, to cast this reproach on a
high-minded people like the French; and he was still more grieved to
find that America was not free from blame; but he still trusted that all
nations would unite in their endeavours to civilize the inhabitants of
Africa. He concluded by moving an address to the prince regent, to renew
his exertions for the attainment of this noble object, which was agreed
to unanimously, as was a similar one in the lords, on the motion of Lord
Lansdowne.

An act of grace for reversing the attainder of Lord Edward Fitzgerald,
also passed this session without opposition. The preamble of the bill
stated that his lordship had never been brought to trial; that the act
of attainder did not pass the Irish parliament till some months after
his decease; and that these were sufficient reasons for mitigating the
severity of a measure decreed in unhappy and unfortunate times. The
attainder itself, as passed by the Irish parliament, was an instance of
contemptible servility to the ruling powers by that corrupt assembly. A
bill was introduced in the commons on the 11th of May, for enabling the
public to accept the Marquis Camden’s liberal sacrifice of the surplus
profits accruing from his unreduced tellership of the exchequer, as
mentioned in a previous page. It was necessary to carry a bill to
authorize contributions by his majesty’s ministers and other public
officers, lest his donation of £69,000 per annum might be considered an
illegal benevolence.

The only other business of importance this session was the granting of
£50,000, for the purpose of enabling government to divert the current of
emigration from the United States to the Cape of Good Hope, the colony
to which, it was considered, that it might be most advantageously
directed. This money was to be spent in defraying the expenses, &c., of
those who emigrated to that colony.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued on the 13th of July. The prince regent in his
speech expressed a confident expectation that the measures adopted
for the resumption of cash-payments would be productive of beneficial
consequences; regretted the necessity of additional taxation;
anticipated important advantages from the efforts made to meet our
financial difficulties; and avowed a determination to employ the powers
provided by law for the suppression of sedition, which still existed in
the manufacturing districts.




SEDITIOUS ASSEMBLAGES.

Many causes operated after the war in producing general distress among
the poor, both in the agricultural and manufacturing districts. The
agricultural population being more thinly scattered, and more passive by
habit and education, bore their sufferings with exemplary patience; but
the manufacturing labourers in the midland and northern districts, as
well as in some parts of Scotland, exhibited a contrary spirit. Secret
combinations and seditious assemblages became the order of the day in
these parts; nor could all the efforts of parliament put down their
factions. At this time a party, which had denominated themselves
“Radical Reformers,” obtained much notice by their active exertions,
and acquired much influence from the sedulity which they propagated the
notion that such a reform of parliament, as would make its members true
representatives of the people, would be the surest means of putting an
end to present and future sufferings. One of the most notorious of the
demagogues was Henry Hunt, a man whose only merit consisted in bold
daring and mob oratory. The first step of this association was to apply
to the Manchester magistrates to convoke a meeting for the alleged
purpose of petitioning against the corn bill. This request was refused;
and in consequence the meeting was held without authority. Hunt was the
hero of the day; and it was not his fault that the assemblage dispersed
without tumult. The example thus set by Manchester was followed by the
reformers of Glasgow, Leeds, Stockport, and other places; and many were
the dangerous doctrines broached by the orators. The strong measures of
precaution, however, taken by the local authorities, in most instances,
had the effect of preserving order and tranquillity; but it was feared
that if these meetings were allowed still to be held, the inflammatory
harangues of their orators would one day stir up the multitude to acts
of mischief. Government, indeed, resolved to interfere. At a meeting
held at Birmingham the reformers hazarded a bolder experiment than any
before displayed. This was the election of a member to represent that
great and populous town in the house of commons. Sir Charles Wolseley
was put in nomination, and instantly chosen by show of hands. Soon after
this Sir Charles attended a meeting at Stockport; and he was taken
into custody on account of seditious expressions used at that meeting.
Subsequently a meeting took place at Smithfield, when a man named
Harrison was arrested for the same offence; and both were tried next
year at the assizes, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment. The
officer by whom they were apprehended narrowly escaped assassination at
Stockport; and government immediately adopted vigorous measures for
the discovery of the offenders, and to put a stop to these seditious
meetings. A proclamation was issued against them; but still the
reformers were resolved to agitate. Those of Manchester being informed
that a meeting they had given notice of, to be held for the purpose of
proceeding to the election of a representative as at Birmingham, was
illegal, relinquished it; but they held another for the avowedly legal
object of petitioning for a reform in parliament. The estimated numbers
present were 60,000; and among them were two bands of female reformers,
under white silk banners. Hunt was again the lion of the day; but no
sooner had he commenced speaking, than the commanding officer of a body
of yeomanry, who advanced with drawn swords to the stage, took him into
custody. Several other persons were also apprehended, and the yeomanry
then aimed at the destruction of their banners. A scene of dreadful
confusion arose; many persons were trampled under the feet of the
horses, and some were cut down by sabres. A few were killed, while there
were between three and four hundred wounded. In a short time the ground
was cleared of the mob, and military patroles were stationed in the
streets to preserve tranquillity. Hunt and his associates were, after
a short examination, conducted to solitary cells, on a charge of
high-treason. The next day notices were issued by the magistrates,
declaring the practice of military training, alleged to have been
carried on secretly for treasonable purposes, to be illegal; and
government applauded all that had been done. But the public did not look
upon the proceedings at Manchester with the same favourable eye as the
cabinet. A meeting was held at the Crown and Anchor in London, at which
a series of resolutions was adopted, strongly censuring the conduct
of the magistrates and military, and returning thanks to Hunt and his
colleagues. Meetings in a similar spirit were held at Smithfield and
in the precincts of the palace-yard, Westminster; and at the latter an
address to the prince regent, founded on resolutions conspicuous for
their violence, was unanimously agreed to. Subscriptions were entered
into, likewise, at all these meetings, and throughout the country,
for the purpose of defraying the expenses of defending the prisoners.
Government contemplated the trial of Hunt and his associates for
high-treason; but the circumstances of the case were not sufficiently
treasonable to warrant such a course; and the prisoners were told that
they would be prosecuted for a conspiracy only. This was a bailable
offence; but Hunt refused to give bail, resolved to be a martyr in the
true sense of the word. Some of his friends, however, liberated him;
and his return from Lancaster to Manchester had the appearance of a
triumphal procession. He was the mob’s idol; and he was attended by
thousands on horseback and on foot, who hailed him with loud shouts as
the assertor of British freedom. His trial took place in the next year,
at York, when he was sentenced to two years and a half’s imprisonment at
Ilchester jail, and then to find security for good behaviour during
five years. Three of his associates were also condemned to one year’s
imprisonment in Lincoln Castle, and were likewise ordered to find
sureties. Still faction prevailed. It requires an iron foot to put down
a democratical spirit. Meetings were still held at Leeds, Glasgow, and
other places; and the orators had the horrible details of the events at
Manchester, Birmingham, and other places, wherewith to entertain their
auditory. The sufferers at those places were compared to the Russells,
Hampdens, and Sidneys of ancient times, and ensigns of mourning were
established. The corporation of London even ventured to present an
address to the regent, censuring the authorities; but the regent
administered to them a forcible rebuke, as prejudging the matter without
having had any opportunity of understanding it. In order to counteract
the effects of these meetings, and the exertions of the regular
opposition, or whig party, loyal addresses and offers to raise yeomanry
corps were promoted by the friends of the administration. At the close
of this year, indeed, parties became bitterly exasperated against each
other; and as persons of property generally adhered to the ministerial
side of the question, the lower orders began to entertain a deep-seated
indignation against their superiors. But all this exhibition of feeling
ended finally in happy results; it contributed greatly to the reform of
our institutions. When the minds of men became sobered, the general
wish was, as it ever will be in the breasts of true born Englishmen, to
promote the general welfare. It cannot be denied that the artisans of
our manufacturing districts had their grievances; but there is no state,
however well ordered it may be, in which one class of persons are not
called upon to suffer more than the others. But if one member suffers,
it should always be remembered that every member suffers with it.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament met on the 23rd of November. In allusion to these
disturbances the prince regent remarked in his speech:—“I regret to
have been under the necessity of calling you together at this period of
the year; but the seditious practices so long prevalent in some of
the manufacturing districts of the country have been continued with
increased activity since you last assembled in Parliament. They have led
to proceedings incompatible with the public tranquillity, and with
the peaceful habits of the industrious classes of the community; and a
spirit is now fully manifested, utterly hostile to the constitution
of this kingdom, and aiming at not only the change of those political
institutions which have hitherto constituted the pride and security of
this country, but at the subversion of the rights of property and of all
order in society. I have given directions that the necessary information
on this subject shall be laid before you; and I feel it to be
my indispensable duty to press on your immediate attention the
consideration of such measures as may be requisite for the counteraction
and suppression of a system, which, if not effectually checked, must
bring confusion and ruin on the nation.” The regent promised to lay
before parliament all the information requisite to direct them in their
deliberations, and pressed on the attention of lords and commons, the
enactment of such regulations as might tend to suppress the evil. An
amendment to the address was moved in the upper house by Earl Grey;
in which, whilst the necessity of checking practices dangerous to
the constitution was admitted, a strong opinion was expressed of the
expediency of conciliation, and of inquiry into the transactions of
Manchester, to allay the feelings to which they had given birth,
and satisfy the people that their lives could not be sacrificed with
impunity. Lord Sidmouth, in reply, stated that there had been
more exaggeration, misrepresentation, and falsehood applied to the
transactions at Manchester, &c., than to any other public transaction in
his knowledge. His lordship defended both the magistrates and yeomanry,
denying that they had done anything beyond their duty. The greatest
authorities maintained, he said, that the magistrates were justified
in the orders they had given, and that the meetings at which the
disturbances took place were illegal. The original address was carried
by one hundred and thirty-nine against thirty-four, and in the commons,
ministers were equally triumphant. A similar address to Earl Grey’s, was
moved by Mr. Tierney, and was rejected by a large majority. The mover
of this address drew a melancholy picture of the state of the country,
affirming that ministers had brought it to the verge of ruin, Lord
Castlereagh declined following him in his remarks on the state of the
country, because the only definite proposition offered, was one for
inquiry into the transactions at Manchester, respecting which he should
lay a mass of information before the house on the next day and explain
the measures contemplated by government. On the next day the promised
documents were produced; consisting partly in the correspondence of
official persons with the home secretary, and partly in communications
made by parties whose names were not made known. The letters from the
Manchester magistrates set forth that apprehensions were entertained of
a formidable insurrection being in contemplation. At the same time they
bore testimony to the alarming distress of the manufacturing classes,
and assigned hunger as a natural inducement with the poor to adopt
pernicious doctrines, as projects for the amelioration of their
sufferings. Other depositions stated that the practice of secret
training prevailed to a great extent among the reformers, but merely
with a view of enabling themselves to march in the semblance of
military array to their meetings, sticks being their only weapons.
Lord Fitzwilliam stated in a communication that in the West Riding of
Yorkshire the rage for seditious assemblies might be safely left to die
away of itself, as the good sense of the people already began to feel
they were in error. Sir John Byng, military commander of the district,
stated, that simultaneous meetings were to be held in various towns,
but that the plan had been frustrated by the disunion existing among the
leaders. Other communications represented that pistols, pikes, and
other weapons were being manufactured in the factious districts, both in
England and Scotland. Finally, the grand jury of Cheshire expressed
the alarm which was felt in that county for life and property by his
majesty’s subjects. This body of evidence having been submitted to the
two houses, ministers proceeded to open their measures of defence. As a
preliminary step, the lord chancellor introduced a bill for the purpose
of taking away from such as should be tried for seditious practices the
right of traversing; allowing the court, however, to postpone the trial,
on his showing reason for delay. Against this measure as well as others
in preparation, Earl Grey entered his protest; they being calculated, he
said, to bring misery, if not ruin on the country. On the second reading
of the bill it was opposed by Lords Erskine and Liverpool: and Lord
Holland urged on ministers the necessity of legislating on both sides of
the question, so as to prevent the delays which occurred in prosecutions
on _ex-officio_ informations, as well as in those of indictment. In
compliance with this suggestion, the lord chancellor, on the third
reading, proposed an additional clause, compelling the attorney-general
to bring a defendant to trial within a year, or to enter into a
_noli-prosequi_, and the bill thus amended passed without further
opposition. The additional measures introduced in the upper house
by Lord Sidmouth, and in the commons by Lord Castlereagh were to the
following effect:—“An act to render the publication of a blasphemous or
seditious libel punishable, on a second conviction, at the discretion of
the court, by fine, imprisonment, banishment, or transportation; and to
give power, in cases of a second conviction, to seize the copies of the
libel in possession of the publisher: a stamp duty, equal to that
paid by newspapers, on all publications of less than a given number of
sheets, with an obligation on all publishers of such pieces to enter
into recognizances for the payment of such penalties as might be in
future inflicted on them.” The press being thus restrained, seditious
meetings were to be controlled by the following provisions:—“That a
requisition for holding of any meeting other than those regularly called
by a sheriff, boroughreeve, or other magistrate, should be signed by
seven householders: and that it should be illegal for any persons not
inhabitants of the place in which such meeting was held to attend it:
also, that magistrates should be empowered, within certain limitations,
to appoint the time and place of meeting.” To repel danger from the
muster of an illegal force, it was proposed to prohibit military
training, except under the authority of a magistrate or lieutenant of
the county; and in the disturbed districts, to give to magistrates a
power of seizing arms believed to be collected for unlawful purposes,
and also to apprehend and detain persons so carrying arms. All these
bills met with stern opposition, except that for the prevention of
secret military training. A clause in the act concerning blasphemous and
seditious libels, which decreed the punishment of transportation on
a second conviction was withdrawn in the commons, but the penalty of
banishment, hitherto unknown in England, was enacted in its stead. The
seditious meeting bill was also subjected to a modification, by
which all meetings held in a room or building were exempted from its
operations. Several alterations, moreover, were admitted into that which
subjected small publications to the newspaper stamp duty.




MOTION FOR INQUIRY INTO THE STATE OF THE NATION.

After passing the celebrated “six acts,” the Marquess of Lansdowne moved
for a select committee to inquire into the state of the nation, and
especially in those districts where distress and radicalism prevailed.
His lordship said that the principle called radicalism existed in
exactly the same proportion as that of distress in the respective
districts; and that he had a right to infer this from the agricultural
part of the country being yet untainted, and from the spirit of the
principle having reached its height in the manufacturing districts both
of England and Scotland. The distress, he thought, arose from the long
war, which gave us the carrying trade of the world, and which created
a fixed capital, which still existed, and filled the markets, while
no vent could be found for their produce. It was also increased,
he thought, by the poor laws, the paper currency, and the spirit of
speculation. Two propositions were enforced by his lordship on the house
for the alleviation of the distress: namely, to rescind the duties on
articles which had decreased in various districts, as tea &c.; and the
establishment of favourable commercial treaties, which government had
not yet succeeded in accomplishing. The Marquess Wellesley deprecated
all such inquiries, as did other noble lords, and the motion was
negatived by a large majority.

{GEORGE III. 1818—1820}




PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

Although the time appeared very unfavourable for a discussion on
reform, yet Lord John Russell called the attention of the commons to
the unrepresented towns, many of which had risen into great commercial
wealth and importance, while certain boroughs which sent representatives
to parliament, had fallen into decay. His lordship adduced examples
from history, to show that the principle of change had been often
acknowledged, and the suffrage withdrawn and conferred on various
occasions. He proposed several resolutions in accordance with them,
the last being for the disfranchisement of Grampound, the corruption of
which borough was notorious. At the suggestion of Lord Castlereagh, who
appeared willing to concur in the motion to a certain extent, Lord
John withdrew his motion; but he subsequently brought in a bill for the
disfranchisement of Grampound, and the transfer of its privileges to
some populous town, the second reading of which was deferred until after
the Christmas recess.




CESSION OF PARGA TO THE TURKS.

During this year a convention was concluded between Great Britain and
Turkey by which the fortress of Parga, which remained after the war
in British protection, was ceded nominally to the latter power, but in
reality to its bitter foe, Ali Pasha. Considerable animadversion was
excited in the political circles by the fulfilment of this convention.
The Parghiotes were the last of the Christians in Epirus who had
successfully resisted the tyranny of Ali Pasha. In 1807, after the
treaty of Tilsit had given the Ionian Isles to Napoleon, they had
solicited and obtained a French garrison from Corfu; and in 1814 they
had placed themselves under British protection. During the command of
General Campbell they enjoyed security; but his successor, Sir T.
Maitland, after much intriguing with Ali Pasha, ordered them either to
submit to the Albanian despot or to quit their country. Finding their
fate inevitable, and knowing the vindictive nature of Ali Pasha, they
chose the latter alternative. An estimate was made of their buildings,
lands, and plantations, amounting to nearly £500,000; but the
compensation ultimately obtained for them was less than a third of that
sum. When this circumstance, and the harshness of all the decrees
against this brave but unfortunate people are considered, it is no
wonder that the whole continent rang with exclamations against the
British government, and that they were reiterated even in our own
country.




DEATH OF GEORGE III.

{A.D. 1820}

The protracted existence of the venerable monarch who had so long swayed
the British sceptre was drawing to a close. Virtually his long reign
terminated in 1810, with the establishment of the regency; but he was
still alive, and was still dear to the hearts of his people. In November
of the preceding year, however, his health underwent a considerable
change, and a general decay of the constitution ensued, which betokened
dissolution. Yet the strong was taken away before the weak. On the 21st
of January the Duke of Kent, after a short illness, died, leaving behind
him an estimable character, a devoted wife, and a princess who now fills
the throne. Eight days after this his royal father expired without a
struggle, in the 82nd year of his age, and, counting the ten years of
the regency, in the 60th year of his reign. Over the last nine years of
his reign a dark and mysterious veil had been drawn. In the periods of
the deepest national solicitude his mind had felt no interest; and in
the hour of the most acute domestic feeling his eye had not been wet
with the tears of affection. All was dark within and without, for both
reason and sight had departed from him. It does not appear, indeed, that
any temporary return of reason allowed him to comprehend and rejoice at
the issue of the momentous struggle in which he left his country when
his malady drove him into retirement.

“Why,” said a London mechanic, with tears in his eyes, as he viewed the
festivities and rejoicings in Hyde Park for the peace of Paris,—“Why
is not our good old king well and here to see this sight?” This question
displays the general feeling of the nation for the “good old king.”
 Although the latter part of his life had been a blank, his people had
never lost sight of him: their interest had not been wearied by his long
seclusion, nor had their love expired in the flood of victories that
distinguished the regency. The least information concerning him was
read with avidity, while the tear of pity and affection rolled down the
cheeks of the reader. When he died, the nation went into mourning; and
the writer of this section of the history well recollects the intense
anxiety displayed by his subjects to catch a sight of his coffin and the
crown that he once wore, when he lay in state. Day after day thousands
upon thousands waited at the gate of royalty to gain admittance; and
many were the tears shed, and many were the sighs heaved from the full
heart, as they paced through the chamber of death. All felt that
they had lost a father. The influence of his virtuous character, in
preserving the nation from the contagion of French principles; the
steady progress which civil and religious liberty had made during his
reign: the desire which he had ever evinced to improve the moral and
intellectual condition of his people, still lived in their memory, and
taught them to feel when he descended into his grave that they had lost
a benefactor. He was mourned over as “the dear old king,” and “the
good old king,” and he will be venerated as such as long as the roll of
British history remains in existence.




CONTINUATION

OF

THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND,


By E. H. Nolan


GEORGE IV.


[Illustration: 374.jpg PORTRAIT OF GEORGE IV.]




CHAPTER XXXII.

{GEORGE IV. 1820–1821}

     Accession of George IV...... Declaration of the King,
     &c. Dissolution of Parliament..... Cato-Street
     Conspiracy..... Meeting of Parliament..... Bills for
     amending the Criminal Code..... Education Bill..... Motion
     for a Committee on the Corn Laws..... Motion for a Committee
     respecting Free Trade..... The Civil List, &c. Message
     respecting the Queen..... Trial of the Queen.




ACCESSION OF GEORGE IV.

{A.D. 1820}

GEORGE IV. had long governed the empire, so that the acquisition of the
crown effected no other change than that of the title of regent to
king. The assumption of this new dignity, however, was followed by
perplexities of great magnitude. He had long repudiated his wife, now
Queen Caroline, and she had been living in foreign lands as an exile.
This step had alienated the affections of his people from him; and at
his accession to the throne, when he was induced to extend the limits of
the hostility he had displayed towards his consort, they became, out
of sympathy for an injured and helpless female, still more embittered
against him. His accession to the throne, however, gave Caroline an
opportunity of retaliation, which, as will be seen, she was not backward
in exercising.




DECLARATION OF THE KING, ETC.

The first public act of the new king was to summon a council, at which
the emblems of office, having been surrendered by the officers of the
crown, were immediately restored to their former possessors. His majesty
then made a declaration, in which, after having alluded to the demise
of his father, and his own long exercise of the royal prerogative,
he remarked that “nothing but the support which he had received from
parliament and the country, in times most eventful and circumstances
most arduous, could inspire him with that confidence which his present
situation demanded.” He added, that he trusted the experience of the
past would satisfy all classes of his people, that it would ever be his
desire to promote their prosperity and happiness, as well as to maintain
unimpaired the religion, laws, and liberties of the kingdom. This
declaration, at the request of the council, was made public; and on
Monday, the 31st of January, the king was proclaimed, first, under the
portico of the palace, and then at various stations throughout his good
city of London. On the same day the members of parliament were sworn in,
and they adjourned to the 17th of February. In the meantime, however,
alarming reports arose concerning his majesty’s health. He was attacked
by a severe inflammation of the chest, which had lately proved fatal to
his brother; and his physicians were in doubt about the result. Their
forebodings, however, proved groundless; after the lapse of a week he
was declared out of danger, although it was a considerable time before
his health was re-established.




DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.

According to the principles of the British constitution, the demise of
the crown is followed by a dissolution of parliament within the next
six months. On the meeting of parliament a royal message announced an
immediate design of calling a new parliament, and invited them to concur
in the necessary arrangements for carrying on the public service during
the interval, Loyal addresses, suitable to the occasion, were voted
_nem. con._; and next day ministers obtained a pledge that the desired
measure for the wants of government should be adopted. When the
requisite votes of money were proposed, however, Mr. Hume, that
pertinacious interrogator, took occasion to ask a very embarrassing
question. In the necessary alteration of the form of prayer for the
royal family, by his majesty’s command, the name of the queen was
omitted. Mr. Hume desired to know whether any provision was to be made
for her as queen? As Princess of Wales, her former allowance had of
course ceased on the death of the late king: was she, as Queen of Great
Britain, to be left to wander in beggary through foreign lands? or
would parliament make a suitable provision for the maintenance of her
dignified station? Lord Castlereagh endeavoured to evade this subject,
and to elude an acknowledgment of the queen’s title, by stating that the
“exalted personage” should suffer no pecuniary difficulties. In reply,
Mr. Tierney, by commenting on the omission of her majesty’s name from
the liturgy, on the rumours in circulation against her character, and on
the report of a commission sent abroad to collect evidence against her,
strove to force ministers into a direct consideration of the question;
but they still preserved a cautious silence. Other members also
endeavoured to provoke them to a discussion on the question; but they
still adhered to their text—the required supplies, and these were
suffered to pass without a division. This done, parliament was dissolved
by commission on the 28th of February.




CATO-STREET CONSPIRACY.

In his speech on the occasion of the dissolution of parliament, the
lord chancellor referred, in vindication of their late enactments, to a
sanguinary conspiracy which had just been detected, and which, he said,
was sufficient to open the eyes of the most incredulous to the dangers
of the country. The conspiracy referred to was one of the most desperate
that could have been conceived by the perverse mind of man. It had
for its object the overthrow of the government, and the irremediable
confusion of national affairs, by the assassination of the whole
cabinet. The chief leader of this plot was Arthur Thistlewood, who had
once served as a subaltern in the West Indies. He had imbibed republican
principles in America, and these had been confirmed by a residence in
France during the darkest period of the revolution. He had recently been
tried as an accomplice of the elder Watson; and when he was acquitted he
sent a challenge to Lord Sidmouth, for which offence he was sentenced
to a fine and imprisonment. On his liberation he determined to take
revenge, and that of the most ample nature. For this purpose he gathered
around him men of bold daring and reckless characters. The principal of
these accomplices were, Ings, a butcher; Davidson, a Creole; and Brunt
and Tidd, shoemakers. After a series of meetings the united band of
these desperadoes determined to destroy his majesty’s ministers. Their
plan was this:—that forty or fifty of them were to commit the tragical
act under a pledge of forfeiting their own lives should their resolution
fail them; and that other detachments were to seize on the field-pieces
at the artillery-ground, and at the London Station in Gray’s Inn, and
then to occupy the Mansion-House and the Bank, and to set fire to
the buildings of the metropolis at different places. This plot was
determined upon on, Sunday, the 20th of February; and it was to be
put into execution on the following Wednesday, when there was to be a
cabinet-dinner at Lord Harrowby’s, in Grosvenor Square. It was agreed
that a single conspirator should go to Lord Harrowby’s with a note
addressed to his lordship; that when the outer door should be opened
others should rush in; and that while some proceeded to bind the
domestics, the rest should perpetrate the horrid massacre. The heads
of Lord Sidmouth and Castlereagh were to be brought away as trophies of
their success. The whole of the Wednesday was passed in preparations for
this fearful tragedy. Arms and ammunition were provided; proclamations
were written, ready to be affixed to those edifices which were devoted
to the flames; and strict watch was kept on Lord Harrowby’s mansion, in
order to ascertain whether any of the police or military entered it or
were concealed in its vicinity. Towards the evening the conspirators
crept towards their place of rendezvous, and by six o’clock all had
assembled. The place of rendezvous was a stable in Cato-street, near the
Edgeware-road; a building which consisted of two upper rooms, the ascent
to which was by a ladder. In the largest of these rooms the conspirators
were seen, by the glimmering light of one or two small candles, making
ready for their bloody enterprise. They were rejoicing in the speedy
prospect of revenge; but their projected crime had been unfolded. Among
them was one Edwards, who, though a pretended colleague, was a spy. This
man had given them the information of the cabinet-dinner, and then gave
the cabinet information of all the proceedings of the conspirators.
Every precaution was adopted by ministers to lull suspicion; and the
preparations for dinner had been going on as though the ministers would
really assemble. By this means the conspirators were detected with arms
in their hands. Their capture was effected by a party of police, headed
by Mr. Birnie, the magistrate, and supported by a detachment of the
Coldstream Guards. The conspirators were on the point of starting for
Grosvenor-square, when on a sudden the police entered the room in which
they were assembled, and called upon them to surrender. Smithers, an
active police-officer, rushed forward to secure the ringleader; but he
was pierced through with the desperado’s sword, and fell. The lights
were now extinguished, and the conflict became general, while some of
the gang endeavoured to make their escape. Although, indeed, the police
were soon aided by thirty soldiers of the Coldstream Guards, nine of
the conspirators only were taken. Thistlewood himself escaped; but, in
consequence of £1,000 being offered for his apprehension, he was
seized next morning in bed. Others were apprehended also during the
two following days; and on the 27th of March true bills, on a charge
of high-treason, were returned against eleven of the prisoners.
Thistlewood, Ings, Tidd, Brunt, and Davidson were severally tried and
condemned, the other six being permitted to withdraw their plea and to
plead guilty; five of them received sentence of transportation for
life, and the other, who appeared to have been ignorant of the
destined purpose of the meeting in Cato-street, received a free pardon.
Thistlewood and his condemned associates were brought to the scaffold;
and he, with three of them, died with great hardihood, glorying in their
purpose, regretting its failure, and declaring themselves martyrs to the
prostituted name of liberty.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Although the country was still in a disturbed state, and seditious
meetings were held on every hand, yet the elections proceeded without
any acts of outrageous violence. The result of the elections was that
opposition gained a slight accession of strength; but the new parliament
appeared to take the complexion of that by which it had been preceded.
Its members began to assemble on the 21st of April; but the session was
not opened until the 27th of that month. On that day the king declared
in his speech that he should follow the example of his father in
solicitude for the welfare of the nation, and that the regal dignity
should be supported without any additional burdens on the people. He
expressed a determination to maintain public peace and tranquillity,
lamented the pressure of distress and the prevalence of sedition, and
concluded with a hope that the misguided multitude might be brought
back to a sense of their errors. The usual addresses were carried
unanimously.




BILLS FOR AMENDING THE CRIMINAL CODE.

Early this session Sir James Mackintosh moved for leave to bring in six
bills, founded on the suggestions of the committee appointed by the last
parliament to consider the important subject of the amendment of our
criminal code. Three of these bills passed into law. The first of these
was to repeal the act by which private stealing in shops, to the
amount of forty shillings, was made punishable with death; the penalty,
however, was still retained against those who should so steal to the
amount of ten pounds and upwards; by which it would appear that our
legislators conceived that a man’s life was not equal in value to such
an amount. The second went to repeal certain acts which denounced death
to any Egyptian who should remain in England one year, on all
notorious thieves who should take up their residence in Cumberland or
Northumberland, and on every one who should be found disguised in the
mint, or injuring Westminster Bridge. The third repealed various clauses
in certain acts, which constituted the offences specified in them
capital, and which were converted into simple felonies. Among the
offences thus modified were, that of taking away any woman, whether
maid, wife, or widow, for the sake of her fortune; the receiving of
stolen goods; the destroying of trees, breaking down banks of rivers,
and wounding of cattle; the sending of threatening letters; and all the
capital offences created by the marriage act and laws of bankruptcy.
For these offences, transportation, imprisonment, or hard labour
were substituted for death, at the discretion of the judges. Thus the
statute-book of England was purified from many grievous stains; but
it was still blotted by many imperfections, and even to this day it
contains much that requires purging by enlightened legislators.




EDUCATION BILL.

After having rendered important service to his country by his efforts
to establish a system for detecting and remedying abuses in charitable
funds and establishments, Mr. Brougham brought forward his plan for
the education of the poor. This subject, however, was not destined to
receive the concurrence of parties at this period, though the object in
view was generally admitted to be desirable. The chief difficulty, and
that which induced Mr. Brougham to abandon the bill, arose from the
dissenters. They opposed it because they conceived that some of the
enactments originated in imperfect information respecting the dissenters
in this country, and because, overlooking their numbers, property, and
intelligence, and religious character, the whole affair was to be under
the management of the clergy of the established church. The consequence
of this opposition was that, after the first reading of the bill on the
11th of July, it was abandoned. But this failure only seemed to give an
additional incentive to the zeal of Mr. Brougham, and he subsequently
reaped the fruit of his labours.




MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE ON THE CORN-LAWS.

During this session Mr. Holme Sumner moved for a select committee to
take into consideration the agricultural state of the country. The
table of the house was loaded with petitions on this subject from all
quarters. The petitions complained of distress; and their general prayer
was for additional restrictions, fora high permanent duty in place of a
limited prohibition, The debates arising from the motion occupied much
time and attention. It was seconded by Mr. Western, and supported by
Mr. Gooch, who repeated the statement, that without protection the
agriculturists of this country were unable to compete with foreign
growers; that the act of 1815 afforded no protection; and that measures
more effectual were indispensable. Mr. Robinson, president of the board
of trade, in reply, deprecated the motion as tending to excite hopes
which could not be realized. He was followed by Messrs. Baring and
Ricardo, the latter of whom entered into a luminous exposition of the
principles of political economy, and condemned all restrictions on the
freedom of the corn-trade as injurious in their tendency. The landed
interests, however, prevailed, and the motion for the committee was
carried. On the following evening, however, ministers succeeded in
neutralizing its effects, by proposing that its inquiries should be
limited to the best mode of ascertaining the weekly average of corn
prices. This was opposed as a trick of state; but it passed by a large
majority, and every material alteration of the corn-laws was deferred
till a more convenient season.




MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE RESPECTING FREE TRADE.

A commercial question of still greater importance than that of the
corn-laws was also, during this session, introduced into parliament.
Petitions from the city of London, and from Glasgow, prayed for free
trade; and Mr. Baring, who presented that of the London merchants to the
commons, insisted that freedom from restriction is calculated to give
the utmost extension to foreign trade, as well as the best direction to
the capital and industry of the country. No formal motion was made in
the commons on this subject; but in the lords, on the 26th of May, Lord
Lansdowne moved for a committee of inquiry concerning the foreign
trade of the empire. This proposal elicited a speech from the Earl
of Liverpool, in which his lordship, as head of the administration,
declared his assent to the principles of free trade, expressing his
conviction that it would have been better for the world had such
principles always been acted upon, and advising the recognition of such
exceptions only, as the policy of the world and the laws of the country
dictated. The motion was carried unanimously.




THE CIVIL LIST, ETC.

The civil list was settled at £1,057,000; and on the 19th of June the
chancellor of the exchequer produced his financial statement. There
was an increase both in the army and navy estimates, owing to the
augmentation of force, necessary from the peculiar state of the country.
The sum total for the service of the year, including the interest of the
debt, was estimated at £50,500,000. The ways and means proposed to
meet this large expenditure were, exclusive of permanent revenues, a
continuation of the usual annual taxes; the sum of £2,500,000 from the
produce of the temporary excise duties, which had remained in force
during the war; £240,000 arising from the lottery; £260,000 from
old naval stores; exchequer bills for £7,000,000 to be funded; and
£12,000,000 from the sinking-fund. But all questions, whether financial,
commercial, or political, were swallowed up in one absorbing topic—this
was the arrival of Queen Caroline from Italy.




MESSAGE RESPECTING THE QUEEN

Queen Caroline had retired to Italy to avoid persecution in 1814, by the
advice of Mr. Canning. The persecutions to which she had been subjected
arose in a quarter from which she least expected it—from her husband,
the regent. Her name was not often mentioned in England during her
absence; but though the public seemed regardless of her existence,
subsequent disclosures showed that she had not been forgotten by her
persecutors. Spies had been sent into Italy to watch her conduct; and
the result was that she was finally charged with living in open adultery
with an Italian courier, named Bergami, a man whom she had raised from
that station to the first office in her household. In consequence of
these movements, Mr. Brougham, her legal adviser, made a proposal, in
June, 1819, to Lord Liverpool, that the income of £35,000 per annum
enjoyed by her royal highness, but which was to expire on the death of
his majesty, George III., should be secured to her for life, provided
she consented to remain abroad without assuming the title of Queen of
England. This singular proposition was stated at the time to be made
without the knowledge of the princess; and the reply given was, that
when the king came to give attention to the subject, there would be no
indisposition to acquiesce in such terms, provided she would give
her consent. Thus matters rested till she became Queen of England.
Government then thought it necessary that some line of conduct should
be taken regarding her, which might prevent disclosures that were on all
accounts to be deprecated, and a compromise, founded on Mr. Brougham’s
former proposal, was transmitted to her: she was to receive £50,000 on
condition of renouncing the royal title, and residing in foreign lands.
She had heard of the death of her father, and the accession of her
husband in February, while at Rome, and she immediately assumed the
royal title, and demanded a guard of honour from the papal government.
This demand was not complied with, because no official communication
had been received from the king or his ministers on the subject: his
holiness, indeed, represented that he did not know whether the Queen of
England was in Rome or not. Incensed at this reply, her majesty drew
up a narrative, dated Match 16th, relating her wrongs, and in which she
stated her determination to repair to England. This document, together
with a letter written by her to Lord Liverpool, demanding that her name
should be inserted in the liturgy, and that a palace should be prepared
for her on her arrival, appeared in the papers about the middle of
April, and a general idea prevailed that she was rapidly proceeding
towards England. Various reasons, however, concurred which induced her
to prolong her sojourn at Rome, so that she did not arrive at Geneva
till the 9th of May. From Geneva she dispatched a letter to Mr. Brougham
requiring his attendance either there, or at one of the sea-ports. In
consequence of this communication, Messrs. Denman and Brougham, with
other friends of the queen, held a consultation, in which they agreed
to request her to repair to Calais without loss of time. Her majesty
quitted Geneva instantly on receiving this advice, and in her route
thither she was joined by Lady Anne Hamilton, who had formerly been in
her service, and by Alderman Wood, one of the representatives of the
city of London. On the 20th she arrived at Villeneuve le Roi, whence
she wrote two letters, one to the Duke of York, and the other to Lord
Liverpool, declaratory of her intention, to be in London within five
days, reiterating also her demand for a palace, and requesting that a
royal yacht might be in readiness at Calais to convey her to England. At
St. Oroers she was met by Mr. Brougham, and Lord Hutchinson, a personal
friend of the king, who was entrusted with a confidential communication.
The fact is, ministers had determined, from the evidence in their
possession, that the queen could not be received in England with the
honours due to royalty, and Lord Hutchinson was sent to intimate this,
and to make a similar proposition to that which had before been made.
Ministers proposed to settle £50,000 per annum on her for life, subject
to such conditions as the king might impose; which conditions Lord
Hutchinson stated he had reason to believe, were, that she was not to
assume the style and title of Queen of Great Britain, or any other title
attached to the royal family of England; and that she was not to reside
in England, or even to visit that country: the consequence of such a
visit would be an immediate message to parliament, and an entire end of
all compromise or negociation. The threatened message to parliament was
understood by the queen and her counsellors to signify that a public
charge of adultery would be exhibited against her; and, indignant at
such treatment, the proposal was rejected as one that could not be
listened to for a moment. Lord Hutchinson still made attempts at
negociation, but they were all vain; nothing could induce her to change
her purpose. Irritated by studied insults abroad; incensed by threats of
ministerial vengeance; brooding over the wrongs she had endured from one
who had promised before the altar of God to love and cherish her through
life; and, above all, assured of the popular support, she pursued her
way; and she reached the shores of England on the 6th of June. Although
government had made no preparation for her reception, the people’s
hearts gave her a ready welcome. Multitudes met her on the beach at
Dover, with loud acclamations, banners, and every sign of popular
enthusiasm. Her progress to London resembled a triumphal procession,
and she was met in the metropolis by 200,000 persons, all shouting her
welcome at the top of their voices. They would have conducted her at
once to Carlton House, but she was induced to go to Alderman Wood’s
mansion in South Audley Street, there to wait the issue of the matter.

The king was now obliged to take the field against a woman in, whose
favour the British people were generally interested. On the 6th of
June a message was read from the woolsack, communicating certain papers
relative to the conduct of her majesty since her departure from England,
which the king recommended to the immediate and serious attention of
their lordships. A similar message was also delivered to the commons:
and in both houses ministers expressed their intention of moving for
an address to the king, and a reference of the papers to a secret
committee on the following day. In the commons the minister was
anticipated on the 7th by Mr. Brougham, who presented a communication
from her majesty, setting forth that she had returned to England for the
purpose of maintaining her innocence and rights; protesting against any
secret tribunal appointed by her accusers; complaining of the insults
received from foreign courts, influenced by that of Great Britain; and
appealing to the justice of the commons of England. In reply, after
the cheers with which this document was received had subsided,
Lord Castlereagh said that ministers were neither persecutors nor
prosecutors: the king’s message was most gracious; and the secret
committee was only a preliminary step to ascertain whether there was any
case to proceed with. The trial should be, he added, if there was
any trial, open and honourable, Mr. Brougham strongly resisted the
appointment of the committee, since although not final, it must deeply
affect her majesty’s character. Mr. Canning vindicated the conduct of
ministers, and Mr. Wilberforce recommended delay, that, if possible,
some compromise might be entered into. In consequence of this suggestion
of Mr. Wilberforce the house adjourned to the Friday following; and
in the interval the queen, on the advice of her friends, made a
communication to Lord Liverpool, through Mr. Brougham, in which,
deferring to the expressed opinion of the house of commons, she declared
herself ready to take into consideration any arrangement consistent with
her dignity and honour. In reply, Lord Liverpool referred her to the
memorandum placed in the hands of her own attorney-general and the
queen declared that this document, which had been superseded by Lord
Hutchinson’s proposition, was now submitted to her for the first time.
She added that the recognition of her rank and privileges must form
the basis of any arrangement. In reply, ministers declared that any
proposition on the part of the king must have for its basis the queen’s
residence abroad. To this her majesty rejoined, that she was willing to
leave her cause in the hands of any person or persons of high station
and character, whom both parties might select; their decision being
subject to the approbation of parliament. This proposal was accepted.
On the part of the king the Duke of Wellington and Lord Castlereagh were
appointed, while Messrs. Brougham and Denman were appointed on behalf
of the queen. Meanwhile parliament, to give time for their negociations,
was further adjourned. The referees met on the 15th of June; but it was
all to no purpose. The protocol set forth that “the queen must not be
understood to admit nor the king to retract any position,” with which
insuperable barrier before them the negociations finished as they had
commenced: it was contended _in limine_, on her majesty’s behalf, that
her name should be inserted in the liturgy, and as this was refused by
the king, the conference was broken up. This failure in negociations was
reported on the 19th; but on the following day Mr. Wilberforce asked and
obtained further delay, in order that he might make a proposition, which
he conceived might set the matter at rest. This proposition was made on
the 22nd, and it consisted of two resolutions; one regretting the recent
failure of negociation, and the other soliciting her majesty to gratify
the house by conceding a few points, for the sake of an amicable
arrangement. Lord Archibald Hamilton moved as an amendment that the
queen’s name should be inserted in the liturgy, which was ably supported
by Sir Francis Burdett, who delivered a speech, censuring ministers,
which produced a great sensation in the house. In reply, Mr. Canning
stated, that, however much provoked by the honourable baronet’s speech,
he should abstain from entering the lists with him till a future day;
which determination produced a sarcastic retort from Mr. Tierney,
who observed, that, “as the better part of valour was discretion, he
commended Mr. Canning’s prudence, in postponing his defence of ministers
till the effect of Sir Francis’s speech was done away: the fact proved
that it was unanswerable.” Mr. Wilberforce’s motion, however, was
carried by three hundred and ninety-one against one hundred and
thirty-four. A deputation waited on the queen with the message of the
commons; but she peremptorily rejected their advice, and its members
were, on their return, hissed and hooted by the populace. Every hope of
conciliation being now at an end on the motion of Lord Castlereagh,
the commons voted a further adjournment, in order to leave initiatory
proceedings to the house of lords. But though the commons waited quietly
till their lordships made a further movement in the matter, the
country did not. The whole kingdom was turned into one great arena
of disputation, in which the innocence or the guilt of the queen was
advocated according to the different views of the people. Addresses were
sent to the queen from all quarters; and in answer to that presented by
the common-council of London, she made this declaration,—“In the many
and deep sorrows and afflictions with which it has pleased Providence
to visit me, I have derived unspeakable consolation from the zealous and
constant attachment of this warm-hearted, just, and generous people; to
live at home with, and to cherish whom, will be the chief happiness of
the remainder of my days.”

The secret committee made their report on the 4th of July. This report
stated that the charges appeared calculated so deeply to affect, not
only the honour of the queen, but also the dignity of the crown, that
in the opinion of the committee it was necessary they should become the
subject of a solemn inquiry, which might best be effected in the course
of a legislative proceeding. This was followed, on the 6th of July, by a
motion in the lords, moved by the Earl of Liverpool, for a bill of pains
and penalties; or an act which, according to precedents in former ages,
might pronounce the queen guilty of an adulterous intercourse; degrade
her from her exalted station; and dissolve the marriage between her and
the king. This bill was read a first time as a preliminary step to the
introduction of evidence, and then a copy of it was sent to her majesty
by the usher of the black rod. The day fixed for the second reading was
the 17th of August, on which day counsel appeared in support of the bill
and on behalf of the queen.

In the meantime addresses were presented to her from cities, towns, and
villages in every part of the United Kingdom. Encouraged by the popular
support, the queen took a house at Hammersmith, on the banks of
the Thames, and thither processions went every day, except Sundays,
numbering on an average 30,000 people. Eventually she was obliged to
appoint certain days in the week for receiving them: the other days were
employed in riding about the city and its environs, in which she was
always followed by a vast concourse of people. The king was, also,
compelled to endure some noise and bustle. In their processions to and
fro, the people generally stopped opposite his palace, but it was only
to show him the bitter feelings which they entertained towards him. So
unpopular had he become by this persecution of his wife, that he was
compelled to go from London to the cottage, and from the cottage to
London under cover of the night; and even then the people were on the
watch to salute him roughly as he passed.




TRIAL OF THE QUEEN.

On the 17th of August mobs of the most terrific description surrounded
the two houses of parliament, and filled every street in the vicinity.
In this state of things the lords took their places to try the queen:
the judges being requested to assist at the deliberations. The names of
the peers having been called over, Lord Liverpool moved the order of the
day for the second reading of the bill of pain and penalties. The Duke
of Leinster moved as an amendment that the order should be rescinded;
but this was negatived, and the Earl of Liverpool then moved that
counsel be called in and heard in support of the preamble of the bill.
On the appearance of the counsel Mr. Brougham obtained leave to state
his objections to the principles of the bill in its present state
of progress, which he did in a speech of great length, and with
extraordinary talent. Taking advantage of the popular feeling he
concluded in these terms:—“True it is, that your committee has reported
in favour of the bill, but that cannot pledge the house: and he is
the greatest of all fools who consults his apparent consistency at the
expense of his absolute ruin. The sooner you retrace the step into which
you may have been led at an unwary moment, the greater will be the
service you render to the country. If you decide that this bill ought
not to proceed, you will be the saviours of the state.” Mr. Denman
followed on the same side with a speech of great eloquence; and the
speeches of the queen’s counsel were answered by the king’s attorney and
solicitor-general. Mr. Brougham replied: urging a variety of arguments
in favour of his original proposition, and showing the impolicy of the
principle contended for by ministers. Successive attempts were made by
Lords King and Grey to stop all further proceedings; but their motions
were negatived, and the attorney-general was ordered by the lord
chancellor to state his case. His statement occupied two days, and the
examination of witnesses engaged the attention of the peers to the 6th
of September. The evidence in support of the bill was summed up on the
7th of September, and on the 9th an adjournment took place to the 3rd of
October, in consequence of an application from her majesty’s counsel. On
that day Mr. Brougham entered on the defence in a speech of great power;
and he was followed by Mr. Williams, who declared that he should be able
to rebut many of the prominent points sworn to in the prosecution by
the clearest testimony. The examination of the witnesses for the defence
lasted from the 5th of October to the 24th, and Mr. Denman proceeded to
sum up the evidence. At the conclusion of his speech he remarked:—“We
have fought the battles of morality, Christianity, and civilized society
throughout the world; and in the language of the dying warrior I may
say:—

     ‘In this glorious and well foughten field
     We kept together in our chivalry.’

“While he (Mr. Brougham) was achieving the immortal victory, and the
illustrious triumph, protecting innocence and truth by the adamantine
shield of his prodigious eloquence, it has been my lot to discharge
only a few random arrows at the defeated champions of this disgraceful
cause.” Dr. Lushington followed on the 26th of October, with a luminous
view of the case, and the king’s attorney and solicitor-general replied.
The peers then debated, and on the 6th of November divided on the second
reading of the bill, Which was carried by one hundred and twenty-three
against ninety-five. Many peers entered strong protests; and a protest
was read from the queen by Lord Dacre, in which she made the most solemn
assertions of innocence. In this protest it was observed, that “unless
these unexampled proceedings should bring the bill before the commons,
the queen would make no reference whatever to the treatment experienced
by her during the last twenty-five years.” This _innuendo_ produced its
effects. The lords, indeed, now evidently began to tremble, lest they
should be precipitated into the gulf which by their recent vote they had
approached. It was felt, moreover, that the king did not come into court
“with clean hands;” and therefore when the divorce clause came under
discussion several peers, and among them several bishops, who considered
the queen guilty, declared their aversion on religious scruples, to
vote for it. The partisans of the queen, headed by Earl Grey, seized
the advantage offered to them by this difference of opinion among her
opponents, and they gave their strong support to it, and the clause was
carried. But by this movement the fate of the bill became evident. It
was read a third time by a majority of nine on the 10th of November; but
there was yet one question to be put,—“that this bill do now pass,”
 and ministers shrunk from the point. The queen petitioned to be heard by
counsel against this final step; but Lord Liverpool, in reply, declared
that with so small a majority, in the actual state of public feeling,
he, and his colleagues felt bound to abandon the bill. A motion was made
that the question should be put off to that day six months, which was
carried; and thus ended, in defeat and disgrace, the domestic war
which George IV. had been carrying on for twenty-five years against
his consort. On the 29th of November, her majesty went in state to St.
Paul’s to return public thanks, on which occasion she was surrounded by
such multitudes as to make it difficult for her to reach the cathedral.
The general joy was also manifested by illuminations, ringing of bells,
firing of cannon, and the presentation of addresses of congratulation.
But Queen Caroline was soon destined to see her popularity wane. Tired
with the constant rout, orders were given that addresses should only
be presented on one day of the week; and she gradually withdrew
herself from the leaders of the whig party. This was the signal for the
desertion of her cause. What Queen Caroline was doing soon became as
indifferent to the people as what other members of the royal family were
doing, and her final fate an object of curiosity more than of interest.
At the close of the trial of Queen Caroline, parliament was prorogued to
the 23rd of January.




CHAPTER XXXIII.

{GEORGE IV. 1821—1823.}

     Meeting of  Parliament..... Debate on the Holy Alliance.....
     The Catholic Question..... Motions for Parliamentary
     Reform, &c. Report of the Agricultural Committee.....
     The Navigation Laws..... The Supplies, &c. Coronation of
     George IV...... Death of Queen Caroline..... Meeting of
     Parliament..... Changes in   the Cabinet..... Motion   to
     restore   Roman Catholic Peers to their Seats in
     Parliament..... Motion on Agricultural Digress, &c. Acts
     for the Reduction of Expenditure..... Debates on the
     Currency..... Reduction  of Imposts, &c. Motion   for
     Parliamentary Reform..... Cause of the Greeks.....
     Prorogation of Parliament..... Change in the Cabinet.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1821}

Parliament reassembled on the 23rd of January, and was opened by the
king in person. In his speech, he expressed satisfaction at decreasing
evils with reference to domestic concerns; and in noticing foreign
commotions, he stated, that his great object would be to preserve the
blessings of peace. He noticed the queen, but it was only to suggest the
settlement of a provision upon her. But notwithstanding these pacific
demonstrations the opposition in both houses prepared all their strength
for the overthrow of the ministry. The whigs joined the radicals, and
one of the results of this alliance was the presentation of petitions
praying for the restoration of her majesty’s name to the liturgy;
reprobating the late bill of pain and penalties; and requesting the
house to exert its influence with the king to dismiss his ministers. In
consequence of these petitions a motion was made on the 26th of January,
by Lord Archibald Hamilton, for a vote of censure on ministers for the
omission of the queen’s name in the liturgy; but though ably supported
by Messrs. Brougham, Hobhouse, Scarlett, Wetherell, and Sir James
Mackintosh, the motion was lost by a large majority. A few days
afterwards, on a proposition by Lord Castlereagh, for a committee to
take into consideration a provision for the queen, Mr. Brougham stated
that her majesty was resolved not to accept of any settlement, while her
name was excluded from the liturgy. But notwithstanding this statement,
his lordship proposed a provision of £50,000 per annum, and after
vehement debates the vote passed without a division, and a bill for this
annuity was forwarded through the usual stages. On the 5th of February,
Lord Tavistock renewed the attack on ministers, by a motion of direct
censure on the whole proceedings against the queen, with a view of
compelling the ministers to resign. This motion, however, was lost by a
large majority; and a last effort made in the queen’s cause, namely, a
motion made for the restoration of her name to the liturgy, met with
a similar fate. In the meantime the queen had been reduced to the
necessity of either being left without any provision, or of accepting
the voted settlement, in contradiction to the statement made by her
counsel. Her acceptance of it was necessary to her very existence, but
the inconsistency of this determination extinguished all her influence
over the public mind. By the issue of this trial, indeed, both the king
and the queen were lowered in the public estimation: the respect of the
nation for the throne and its occupant especially was greatly impaired.




DEBATE ON THE HOLY ALLIANCE

During this session the consideration of foreign affairs was brought
before parliament by motions from Lord Grey in the lords, and by Sir
James Mackintosh in the commons. The ostensible object of these
motions was the production of all communications between his majesty’s
government and foreign states on the concerns of Naples. In reality,
however, the purpose of these motions was to elicit the minister’s
sentiments concerning the conduct of the Holy Alliance, whose manifesto,
recently published at Troppau, had excited feelings of alarm among all
the friends of constitutional liberty throughout Europe. In his speech
Lord Grey adverted to a document published at Hamburgh, purporting to
be a circular of the allied powers, in which a claim was set up of a
general superintendence over European states, and the suppression of all
changes in their internal administration, hostile to what the alliance
deemed legitimate principles of government. These monarchs, his lordship
said, had assumed the censorship of Europe; sitting in judgment on the
internal transactions of other states, and even taking on themselves
to summons before them an independent sovereign, in order to pronounce
sentence on a constitution which he had given to his country. Ministers,
in their defence, said that our government was in no respect a party
to the league; and the motion for the production of the papers was
negatived. When the declaration against Naples arrived, however, the
subject was renewed by a motion made by Lord Lansdowne, for an address
to his majesty for a remonstrance with the allied powers. But this was
met by the pretext of a strict neutrality adopted by Great Britain; and
Naples was left to fall into the hands of the Austrians.




THE CATHOLIC QUESTION.

Grattan, the great advocate of Catholic emancipation, had recently
departed this life; but there were still men in parliament able to
advocate his principles. On the 28th of February the question was
brought forward by Mr. Plunkett, whose able and lucid speech elicited
acclamations from all parts of the house. Mr. Peel was the chief
opponent of the measure; but the motion for a committee was carried by a
majority of six votes. The house resolved itself into a committee on the
2nd of March, when six resolutions, proposed by Mr. Plunkett, received
the sanction of the house. On these resolutions he framed two bills; one
repealing disabilities, and the other enacting securities for the safety
of the Protestant succession to the crown, and of the Protestant church.
These bills passed the commons; but in the upper house the atmosphere
was not quite so congenial to their existence. Their fate was decided
on the second day’s debate, by a speech delivered by the Duke of York,
presumptive heir to the throne. He remarked in that speech:—“Educated
in the principles of the established church, the more I inquire, and the
more I think, the more I am persuaded that her interests are inseparable
from those of the constitution. I consider her as an integral part, of
that constitution, and I pray that she may long remain so. At the same
time there is no man less an enemy to toleration than myself; but I
distinguish between the allowance of the free exercise of religion and
the granting of political power.” This speech had its effect: the bill
was thrown out by a majority of one hundred and fifty-nine against one
hundred and twenty.




MOTIONS FOR PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, ETC.

While the peers were thus engaged the commons were considering the
subject of parliamentary reform. Mr. Lambton proposed to divide
the kingdom into elective districts, extend the franchise to all
householders, and limit the duration of parliament to three years. This
plan being rejected, Lord John Russell proposed another, which would
have extended the right of electing members to populous towns then
unrepresented in parliament, and disfranchise every borough convicted
hereafter of corruption. The house, however, was not yet prepared to go
even thus far, for the motion was rejected by a majority of one hundred
and fifty-five. But one decided measure of practical reform was at least
effected this session; this was the disfranchisement of the corrupt
borough of Grampound, and the transfer of its privileges to the
populous county of York.




REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEE.

Early in this session, from numerous petitions presented on the
prevalence of agricultural distress, and on the motion of Mr. Gooch, a
committee had been granted to investigate this subject. The report of
this committee was presented to the house on the 18th of June; and it
stated that the complaints of the petitioners were founded in fact,
in so far as they represented that, at the present price of corn, the
returns to occupiers of arable land, after allowing for the interests of
investments, were by no means adequate to the charges and outgoings. It
also acknowledged that the committee, after much anxious inquiry, had
not been able to discover any means calculated to relieve the present
pressure. The report, in fact, when made public, extinguished all hopes
which had been entertained from the labours of the committee. It stated,
“So far as the pressure arises from the superabundant harvests, it is
beyond the application of any legislative provisions; so far as it is
the result of the increased value of money, it is not one peculiar to
the farmer, but extends to many other classes of society.” This was
essentially true; and our legislators, perceiving that they could not
alleviate the distress by legislation, left the matter to be ameliorated
in the progression of time.




THE NAVIGATION LAWS.

In the course of the last session ministers had proclaimed views in
favour of free trade; and these were more formally developed this year
by series of resolutions, proposed by Mr. Wallace, president of the
board of trade, the object of which was to pave the way for a complete
revisal of the navigation laws, and the removal of those restrictions
which forbade the free interchange of commodities in foreign shipping.
Leave was given to introduce bills for the enactment of these important
measures in the ensuing session.




THE SUPPLIES, ETC.

The total amount of supplies for this year was £20,018,200; and in aid
of the ways and means £13,000,000 were taken from the sinking-fund.
A sum of £500,000, also, arose from the pecuniary indemnity paid
by France. A preposition to repeal the malt-tax was negatived; but
ministers afforded some relief to agriculturists by removing the duty
from horses employed in husbandry. In the debates on the estimates of
expenditure, Mr. Hume pursued his plan of sifting and disputing almost
every item of supply; and though he did not succeed in effecting any
reduction of expense, yet by this system ministers were compelled into
the necessity of originating measures of retrenchment. Parliament was
prorogued by commission on the 11th of July.




CORONATION OF GEORGE IV.

It had been intended that the king’s coronation should have taken place
in August, 1820; but the queen’s appearance had set that intention
aside. Her trial further delayed it; but after the storm of passion
with which that was accompanied had subsided, it was announced that the
coronation would take place on the 19th of July of the present year.
This announcement brought the queen again into the field. On the 25th
of June she preferred a claim to be crowned like her royal
predecessors; and the case was argued, at the king’s request, before the
privy-council. Her majesty’s claim, however, was rejected; and as soon
as she received it, she stated her fixed determination to be present
at the ceremony, and demanded a suitable place to be provided for her
accommodation. This also was refused; and the queen then requested the
Archbishop of Canterbury to crown her alone, a request with which he had
not the power to comply. Thus repulsed she prepared a protest, which she
determined to deliver personally into the king’s hands on the day of
his coronation. This occasioned expectations that the celebration of
the coronation would be interrupted, if not prevented, by some popular
commotion or infraction of the peace. Every precaution, however, was
taken by ministers to preserve the public tranquillity, and to draw off
public attention from the queen. Shows, balloons, fireworks, and all
sorts of entertainments attracted the populace from the vicinity of
the abbey, while, in case any commotion should arise, every disposable
regiment was brought into or near the metropolis. There needed, however,
no warlike preparation; for while the queen’s popularity had abated,
that of the king had so much increased as almost to fulfil Lord
Castlereagh’s prediction, that, at the end of six months after the
trial of the queen, his majesty would be the most popular man within his
dominion. He had, in fact, from that time been courting popularity,
and the goddess had greatly favoured him. On the day of the coronation,
therefore, no tumult was created in favour of the queen; she, in fact,
on whom the populace, almost as one man, had, but a little time before,
waited with addresses, assuring her of support and commiseration, was
allowed to go from door to door of the abbey seeking admittance, and
to be at every door rejected with contumely and scorn, with impunity.
George IV. was crowned without interruption; and a ceremony more august
and imposing in all its parts, or more, calculated to make the deepest
impression both on the eye and the feelings, could not be conceived. But
the propriety of the pomp and magnificence displayed may be questioned,
as the nation was still suffering from the effects of the late expensive
war.




DEATH OF QUEEN CAROLINE.

Although Queen Caroline had borne her wrongs and injuries proudly up
to the coronation of her husband, yet, by the treatment she on that day
received, not only from officials, but the populace, her spirit was at
length subdued. She had placed her last stake on the hazard of a
day; and having totally failed in her object, sunk under the deepest
humiliation. But death came to the relief of all her anxieties and all
her woes. Soon afterwards she was attacked with an obstruction of the
bowels, which, in her state of mind and body, brought on mortification,
and terminated fatally on the 7th of August. Her ruling passion was
strong in death. She directed that her remains should be interred in
her own country, and that this inscription should be engraved on her
tomb:—“Here lies Caroline of Brunswick, the injured Queen of England.”
 Her funeral procession was attended with riots of a serious description.
The first stage, where it was to cross the sea, was to Romford in Essex.
The road that led to that place from her residence on the banks of the
Thames was through the heart of the capital, by her husband’s palace,
and St. Paul’s Cathedral. Ministers unwisely sought to prevent the
corpse from proceeding in this direction, and endeavoured by the
military to force it up a narrow street or lane, so that it might reach
the northern outskirts of London, and get into the Romford road
without occasioning any popular commotion. The populace, however,
whose predilection for the queen, now that she was dead, seems to have
returned, were determined that the procession should proceed by the
natural route. To this end the pavement was torn up, trenches made
in the road, and the avenues blocked up in every other direction. The
people triumphed; but at Hyde-Park upper-gate a conflict between the
military and the people took place, and two of the latter were shot
dead. At length the hearse was forced into the city; and here the
procession was joined by the lord mayor and other authorities; the shops
being closed, and the bells of the different churches tolling. It is
said that his majesty, who, at the time these commotions took place, was
enjoying the pleasures of conviviality in Ireland, expressed in somewhat
contemptuous terms his dissatisfaction at the want of arrangement and
energy on the part of ministers. But this seemed to proceed from the
failure of their plans rather than from any respect to his deceased
queen. She was persecuted even to the last. In the course of the
procession Sir Robert Wilson remonstrated with some soldiers on duty,
and this humane interference deprived him of his commission; the
directing civil magistrate, also, who consulted humanity in preference
to his orders, was dismissed from office. It was unmanly to persecute
the departed while in the land of the living; it was unworthy of manhood
to carry resentment beyond the grave.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1822}

On the meeting of parliament in January, one of the first subjects taken
into consideration was the state of Ireland. For some years that country
had been comparatively peaceable, but distress and outrage were again
walking hand in hand in every part. To repress the spirit of lawless
outrage, the Marquess of Londonderry—Lord Castlereagh, who had
succeeded to that title at his father’s death—introduced and carried
two bills for arming the administration with additional powers, the
insurrection act, and the suspension of the _habeas corpus_. Several
members wished the state of Ireland to be thoroughly investigated; but
this did not accord with the views of ministers. At length a famine,
from the failure of the potatoe-crop in 1821, spread over the country,
and disease waited in its train. A fever, of the typhus kind, swept
off its thousands, while starvation carried off its thousands more.
Government, on discovering this, placed £500,000 at the disposal of Lord
Wellesley, the lord-lieutenant, to be dispensed in charitable relief,
or in employing the poor on works of public utility, and private charity
afforded even more effectual aid; but still the people of Ireland could
not be wholly rescued from the calamity which had overtaken them. Many
were snatched from the jaws of death by this timely relief, but many
more perished.




CHANGES IN THE CABINET.

The continued distress of the agriculturists in England, at the
commencement of this year led to some modification in the state of
public parties. At many county meetings such a loud and imperative call
for retrenchment and remission of taxation, was made by both landholders
and farmers, that the treasury-bench began to feel alarm. This, in fact,
drove them to the expediency of strengthening their ranks by opening the
doors of office to the Grenville party; which, though not united with
the whigs, was generally opposed to ministers. Lord Grenville, the
political head of the party, had retired from public life, but the
Marquess of Buckingham was gratified by a ducal coronet, and Mr. Charles
Wynne was made president of the board of control. A greater accession
was gained in the exchange of Lord Sidmouth for Mr. Peel, as secretary of
state for the home department. Lord Sidmouth, however, was permitted to
retain a seat in the cabinet, but Mr. Canning was compelled to retire,
the part which he had taken in the affairs of the queen having created
feelings of resentment against him in the king’s mind.




MOTION TO RESTORE ROMAN CATHOLIC PEERS TO THEIR SEATS IN PARLIAMENT.

On the 30th of April, Mr. Canning, “wishing perhaps to give éclat to his
departure from the scene of his glory,” moved in the house of commons
for leave to bring in a bill for restoring the right of sitting and
voting in parliament to Roman Catholic peers. In his speech he asked;
“Do you imagine it never occurred to the representatives of Europe, when
contemplating the imposing spectacle of the coronation; that it never
occurred to the ambassadors of Catholic Austria, of Catholic Fiance, or
of states more bigoted, if there be any more bigoted, to the Catholic
religion, to reflect, that the moment this solemn ceremony was over, the
Duke of Norfolk would become disseized of the exercise of his privileges
among his fellow peers? stripped of his robes of office, which were
to be laid aside, and hung up, until the day, when the coronation of a
successor to his present most gracious sovereign should again call him
forth to assist at a similar solemnization? Thus after being exhibited
to the peers and people of England, to the representatives of princes
and nations of the world—the Duke of Norfolk, highest in rank among the
peers—the Lord Clifford and others, like him, representing a long line
of illustrious ancestors, appeared as if they had been called forth and
furnished for the occasion, like the lustres and banners that flamed and
glittered in the scene; and were to be, like them, thrown by as useless
and temporary formalities. They might, indeed, bend the knee and kiss
the hand; they might bear the train, or rear the canopy; they might
perform the offices assigned by Roman pride to their barbarian
forefathers—_Purpurea tollant auloa Britanni_—but with the pageantry
of that hour their importance faded away. As their distinction vanished,
their humiliation returned: and he who headed the procession of peers
to-day, could not sit among them as their equal, to-morrow.” This motion
was strongly opposed by Mr. Peel, who was unable to see any reason for
exempting Roman Catholic peers from political restrictions to which
a community professing the same tenets were by law subject. The bill,
notwithstanding, passed the commons by a majority of five; but it was
rejected by the lords.




MOTION ON AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS, ETC.

Early in this session Mr. Brougham moved that it was the duty of the
house to relieve agricultural distress by a reduction of taxes. This
motion was made with a view of trying the strength of parties, as the
small corps of Grenvillites, which had lately joined their ranks,
could not support ministers, if the country members deserted them. Lord
Londonderry met this covert attack on the ministers, however, by an
assurance, that they intended to propose measures for that purpose, so
that the arrow aimed at them fell pointless to the ground. The motion
was negatived from this assurance, and his lordship soon after proposed
the reappointment of the agricultural committee. On the report of this
committee he submitted a plan of relief to the house; the principal
heads of which were a repeal of the annual malt-duty, and a loan of
£1,000,000 in exchequer-bills to the landed interest, on the security of
warehoused corn. It was also enacted that when wheat should reach
eighty shillings a quarter, a new scale of duties should be brought into
permanent operation. At the same time the chancellor of the exchequer
brought forward two financial operations. The first of these was a
reduction of the navy five per cents., to stock carrying only four per
cent; the holders having the option of being paid off at par, or of
accepting the lower rate of interest with a small increase of capital as
a bonus: the second was a plan to diminish the present charge for naval
and military half-pay and civil pensions, known in financial jargon
under the name of the dead-weight, by extending it in the form of
annuities over a period of forty-five years, instead of allowing it to
be gradually extinguished through the death of annuitants. This scheme
appeared fallacious to many members, and unintelligible to others; but
it was passed by the house, though subsequently the chancellor of the
exchequer had to remodel his plan, as the great capitalists complained
of its principles. The arrangement was completed in the following year
by a bargain with the Bank of England.




ACTS FOR THE REDUCTION OF EXPENDITURE.

During this session ministers felt themselves obliged to yield to the
loud call made upon them for the reduction of expenditure. Encouraged by
the co-operation of many of the landed proprietors, opposition commenced
a series of attacks on the cabinet on these grounds. The first attack
was made by a motion to repeal the salt-duty, which was defeated by
the small majority of four only. Sir M. W. Ridley next moved for the
reduction of two out of seven lords of the admiralty, which was carried
by a large majority against ministers. Thus encouraged, Lord Normandy
proposed an address to the throne for the dismissal of one of the two
postmasters general, and opposition again triumphed. They now assailed
one of the strongholds of corruption, the diplomatic expenditure of the
country. But here they were defeated. Lord Londonderry declared that if
the house persisted in going into a committee on that subject, it would
be the signal for breaking up the administration. This menace had the
effect of bringing over the country gentlemen to vote with the
cabinet as heretofore, and the motions for inquiry were lost by large
majorities.




DEBATES ON THE CURRENCY.

In order to relieve the agricultural distress, Mr. Western brought
forward a motion on the subject of the currency. He moved for a
committee to inquire into the effect which the act of 1819, for
the resumption of cash-payments by the Bank, had produced on our
manufacturing and commercial interests. In his speech he assigned the
alteration of the currency as the chief cause of the calamity, since
it operated injuriously on all classes except the fundholder and
annuitant, and by its ruinous effects on private contracts, as well as
public payments, was calculated to endanger all kinds of property. Mr.
Huskisson combated his views at considerable length; and moved as an
amendment, “that this house will not in any way alter the standard of
gold and silver.” The house then adjourned; and on the following day the
debate was resumed. After many members had spoken on both sides of
the question, Mr. Peel rose, and said, that “he would not enter on the
discussion of abstract subjects. From the reasonings of gentlemen, down
to the speech of the honourable member for Westminster, he was at a loss
to guess the objects of the committee. The honourable baronet fairly
stated that the real object of the motion was to repeal the bill of
1819; he had declared that the aim of the honourable gentleman, Mr.
Western, was to establish a new standard of value, and to reduce the
value of one pound to fourteen shillings. The house, he hoped, would
pause before they adopted a proposition for reducing the value of
the currency by one-third. An honourable gentleman had talked of
establishing and securing the foundations of public prosperity; but
what would be the consequence to-morrow if that night they adopted the
proposition of the honourable gentleman? Every man of common sense
would buy up every guinea in the country; the whole of our mercantile
transactions would be disturbed, and all private contracts be open to
inquiry and to defeat. Seven or eight years had already elapsed since
the house had pledged itself to return to the ancient standard of value.
In 1814 the house came to a resolution that the Bank of England ought
to return to cash-payments; in 1816, when his right honourable friend
proposed a resolution on the subject, the Late Mr. Horner would not
consent until an express declaration was made, that the legislative
would see that cash-payments should soon be resumed; and his proposition
was accordingly adopted. But the restriction was continued to enable
the Bank to resume cash-payments with greater convenience; so that since
1814 the country was accommodating itself to this new state of things;
and after having accomplished that object, the house was told that the
intent of the honourable gentleman’s motion was to reduce the value of
money from twenty to fourteen shillings. With respect to the situation
of the public creditor, he has been paid in a depreciated currency. The
public creditor lent his money in 1798 and 1800 on the understanding
that, when the Bank restriction should expire, he would be entitled to
his demand in the ancient standard of value. If the house, therefore,
were to come to any adjustment of the value proposed by the honourable
gentleman, undoubtedly the creditor would have a right, and would demand
the full payment of his debt. It should be recollected that a great
number of persons held debentures who were not the original purchasers,
but had bought them for a full and valuable consideration; could the
government turn round upon these persons, and say, The original holder
gave for this debenture only eighty pounds, you gave ninety-five pounds,
but we will not pay you more than eighty pounds? If the house were to
proceed upon this principle there would be an end for ever to the very
idea of national faith—that faith which had supported us under every
difficulty, and which constituted the pride, the glory, and the support
of this country.” These arguments prevailed; parliament determined not
to interfere with the currency. On a subsequent day, however, as the
distress among the agriculturists grew to an alarming height, ministers
repealed that part of the bill of 1819 which confined the issue of small
notes to the period of 1823; the privilege was extended till January,
1833. This measure had the effect of causing symptoms of returning
prosperity. Country bankers increased their paper issues; farmers
obtained a higher price for their produce; landlords were paid a higher
rate for their land; and the natural consequence of all this was the
prosperity of trade and commerce. At the same time it proved to be an
illusive prosperity.




REDUCTION OF IMPOSTS, ETC.

Warned by their recent defeats, ministers, on the completion of their
financial arrangements of this year made several reductions in the
imposts. They had resisted the abolition of the salt-tax, but they now
announced an intention of lowering it from fifteen to two shillings a
bushel. They also remitted the annual duty on malt, the additional tax
on leather, and that on windows and hearths in Ireland. By these means
a reduction of taxation was effected to the amount or £3,500,000. These
important measures were followed by several bills having for their
objects the relaxation of the navigation laws, and the promotion of the
system of free trade. Ship-owners raised a loud outcry against these
enlightened enactments; but time has shown that they were equally
beneficial to themselves as to the community at large. It was said that
the repeal of the ancient navigation laws would enable other states
to outstrip our own and prepare our ruin; but so far from increasing
foreign competition, and diminishing British production, it has been the
means of decreasing foreign importation, and of increasing our domestic
manufactures.




MOTION FOR PARLIAMENTARY REFORM

Early in this session Lord John Russell called the attention of the
commons to the subject of parliamentary reform. The scheme he proposed
was to add one hundred members to the house, to be returned by the
counties and larger towns, and to divest the minor boroughs of half the
privileges they enjoyed. This was a moderate proposal, and yet it met
with the most strenuous opposition, and especially from Mr. Canning. He
conjured the house to oppose the introduction of any visionary schemes;
and asserted, that a search after abstract perfection in government was
not an object of reasonable pursuit, because it would prove vain. He
added:—“I conjure the noble lord to pause before he again presses
his plan on the country. If, however, he shall persevere, and if his
perseverance shall be successful, and if the results of that success
be such as I cannot help apprehending—his be the triumph to have
precipitated those results, mine be the consolation, that to the
utmost, and the latest of my power I have opposed thorn.” The motion was
negatived; and the proposal of a general resolution by Mr. Brougham on
the influence of the crown, which was introduced with the same ultimate
views of reform, shared the same fate.




CAUSE OF THE GREEKS—PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

The contest which was raging between the Greeks and their oppressors
this year came under the notice of parliament. The Mussulmen had
everywhere committed the most atrocious cruelties, and the sensations of
horror which they produced in England caused Mr. Smith to put a
question in the commons, regarding connivance, or at least neglect of
remonstrance on the part of our diplomatic agents. Lord Londonderry
answered in a flippant manner, that a calamity had occurred in which
ten or twelve hostages had been executed, but which was justified by the
barbarity of the Greeks. Sir James Mackintosh now took up the question
in a strong remonstrance. He asked whether it was mentioned in any of
the despatches that the markets of Smyrna and Constantinople were filled
with Greek ladies and children? whether ministers could afford the
nation any account of the new slave-trade recently established in the
East for Christian families? and whether any of those persons who had
been murdered at Constantinople had been under the protection of the
British minister, or had surrendered themselves to the Turks under
any pledge, promise, or assurance of safety from our ambassador? Lord
Londonderry now confessed that eighty or ninety individuals had been
executed; but he denied that they could be considered at all under
the protection of the British government, or in such a situation as to
require our interference.

Many questions of minor importance were discussed this session, but none
that requires our consideration except the foregoing. Parliament was
prorogued on the 6th of August: and then, on the 10th, the king paid a
visit to Scotland; to drink “health to its chieftains and clans, and to
bless the land of cakes.”




CHANGE IN THE CABINET.

While the king was in Scotland an event occurred which caused a change
in the cabinet: this was the death of Lord Londonderry who put a period
to his own existence. The difficulty in finding a successor to the
deceased minister was so great as to subdue the resentment which the
king entertained toward Mr. Canning. He had recently been appointed
governor of India; but just as he was preparing to set sail he was
invited to take the high office of secretary of state, which he
accepted. About the same time Mr. Robinson was made chancellor of the
exchequer, and Mr. Huskisson president of the board of trade. About the
time of his death Lord Londonderry was about to join the congress of
Verona, and the Duke of Wellington was deputed to take that place. His
grace nobly endeavoured to stem the despotic acts of the sovereigns
assembled; but all his endeavours proved unavailing.

They still pursued the despotic measures they had commenced, and Spain
especially was doomed to feel their tyranny.




CHAPTER XXXIV

{GEORGE IV. 1823—1825}

     Meeting of Parliament..... Affairs of Agriculture and
     Commerce..... The Supplies..... The Catholic Question.....
     Affairs in Ireland..... Motions to Reform the Criminal
     Law..... Motion to Reform the Scotch  Representation.....
     New Loudon Bridge Bill..... Motion respecting the Duty on
     the Leeward Islands..... Expenses of the Coronation.....
     Munificence of George IV...... Irish Tithe Commutation Bill,
     &c.—Prorogation of Parliament..... State of the Country.....
     Meeting of Parliament..... Attack on Ministers with
     Reference to Spain, &c. Financial Statements..... The
     Trade Question..... Alien Bill, &c. Discussion on the
     Revolt in Demarara,&c. State of the British
     Colonies..... East India Affairs.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1823}

Parliament reassembled on the 4th of February. It was opened by
commission; and in the speech his majesty declared that he would be no
party to those proceedings at Verona which sanctioned the interference
of France with the internal affairs of Spain; and that he would
endeavour to avert the calamity of war between those countries. This
declaration elicited general approbation; but it was thought by some
that more energetic measures should be taken than those adopted by
ministers. During the session Lord Ellenborough moved in the upper house
for an address to his majesty, expressing, in high terms, a condemnation
of the conduct of France and other allied powers, as well as of the
British cabinet, in requiring Spain to alter her constitution at their
dictation. The majority of the lords, however, seemed to consider that
ministers had used every judicious and practicable effort to prevent
the attack on Spain; and the motion was rejected. A similar disposition
prevailed in the commons. Some few thought further interference
necessary, and Mr. Macdonald introduced a motion to that effect, but it
was lost by a majority of three hundred and seventy-two against twenty.
So Spain was left to the mercy of the despots: soon after despotism was
restored in that country, together with Ferdinand VII.




AFFAIRS OF AGRICULTURE AND COMMERCE.

The distress of the landed interests was early discussed in the commons,
and it led to a proposition made by Mr. Whitmore for reducing the
import price of grain two shillings a year till it should fall to sixty
shillings. This was negatived; but government manifested a disposition
to open the trade in corn. At the same time the foreign committee was
re-appointed, and further steps taken to free commerce from restrictions.




THE SUPPLIES.

The new chancellor of the exchequer brought forward his budget on
the 21st of February. The total revenue of the year was estimated at
£57,096,988, and the expenditure, at £49,852,786. This left a surplus
of above £7,000,000, and Mr. Robinson proposed to relieve the burdens of
the country by a repeal of assessed taxes to the amount of £ 2,000,000,
retaining the other £5,000,000 toward the liquidation of the national
debt. His views and statements obtained much applause, so that he
carried his estimates for the year triumphantly.




THE CATHOLIC QUESTION.

A motion was made on the 17th of April for a committee on the Catholic
claims by Mr. Plunkett The discussion on this subject was chiefly
remarkable for an attack made by Mr. Brougham on Mr. Canning. After
praising the conduct of Mr. Peel, who had never swerved from his
opinions, and who had not taken office with the secret understanding to
abandon the question in substance, while he continued to sustain it in
words, alluding to Mr. Canning, he remarked that when the point was,
whether he should submit to a sentence of transportation to India, or
be condemned to hard labour at home—when his fate depended on Lord
Chancellor Eldon, and his own sentiments on the Catholic question, he
had exhibited the most incredible specimen of monstrous truckling
for office, which the whole history of political tergiversation could
furnish. At this moment Mr. Canning suddenly started up and exclaimed
“It is false.” A deep silence ensued; after which the speaker called on
the right honourable secretary to retract an expression which he must
know violated the rules and orders of the house. Mr. Canning replied
that though he was sorry to have used any word which might violate
the decorum of the house, yet he would not retract the sentiment. This
declaration was repeated; and as Mr. Brougham would not explain till Mr.
Canning had retracted, Mr. Bankes moved that both members be taken into
custody by the serjeant-at-arms. All parties, however, were extricated
from their situation by the suggestion made by Sir Robert Wilson, of
an hypothetical and mutual explanation. Mr. Bankes then withdrew his
motion, and the belligerents declared that they would forget their
recriminations. The motion which gave rise to this scene was lost.




AFFAIRS IN IRELAND.

A large portion of this session was wasted in discussing the insolence
exhibited by the agents of the ascendant party in Dublin. Lord Wellesley
had prohibited the Orange faction to dress up the statute of King
William in College Green: a ceremony which perpetuated animosity and
frequently led to strife and bloodshed. This gave the Orangemen great
offence; and on one occasion, when his lordship visited the theatre, a
bottle was thrown at him from the gallery. Three persons were taken into
custody, and the attorney-general indicted them for a misdemeanour; but
the grand jury would only find bills of indictment against two of them,
and as two persons cannot commit a riot, the finding released them all.
Mr. Plunkett then filed an ex-officio information against those persons,
whom he, on evidence received, believed guilty; but the petty jury would
not agree in their verdict, and the prisoners were discharged. This
matter was investigated in parliament; but the result merely showed in
what a daring manner juries were packed, and the name of justice was
abused in Ireland.




MOTIONS TO REFORM THE CRIMINAL LAW.

On the 21st of May Sir James Mackintosh renewed his efforts to reform
our criminal code. He moved a series of resolutions on the subject; and
though these were rejected, four bills were afterwards brought in to the
same effect by Mr. Peel. By these bills government was enabled to
employ convicts in hard labour, and the judges were relieved from the
obligation of passing sentence of death on certain malefactors, except
in case of murder. Subsequently Mr. Lennard obtained leave to bring in a
bill to abolish the old and barbarous law which sentenced the corpse of
one guilty of _felo de se_ to be buried at two cross-roads with a stake
driven through it; leaving the burial to be performed in private,
without the ceremonies of the church.




MOTION TO REFORM THE SCOTCH REPRESENTATION.

On the 2nd of June, Lord Archibald Hamilton proposed five resolutions on
the state of the Scotch representation, the last of which went to pledge
the house to take the subject into its serious consideration during
the next session, with a view to effect some extension of the number of
votes, and to establish some connexion between the elective franchise
and the landed property of the country. His lordship invited the
attention of Mr. Canning to this subject, as one with which he had
not grappled, and as perfectly different from the question of English
reform; but he failed in securing his approbation, and the motion was
negatived by one hundred and fifty-two against one hundred and seventeen
voices.




NEW LONDON BRIDGE BILL.

Mr. Brogden brought up the report of a bill on the 6th of June, by
which the sum of £150,000 was to be advanced by government toward
the construction of New London Bridge. Mr. Hume objected against this
advance in the shape of a gift, and Mr. Ricardo agreed with him. Mr.
Alderman Wood, however, argued that the work was one of great national
utility, and not intended exclusively for the benefit of the city of
London; that the money was to be paid by instalments, extending over
a time of seven years; and that the corporation were ready to give up
nearly £200,000 that was in their hands, and to raise £400,000 more on
mortgage. The report was received, and the resolution for the proposed
advance carried.




MOTION RESPECTING THE DUTY ON THE LEEWARD ISLANDS.

On the 9th of June Mr. Creevey called the attention of the house to a
grievance under which the Leeward Islands were oppressed, by what was
called the four and half per cent. duty. He held petitions in his hands
from five of these islands, setting forth their distress, stating their
utter inability to bear such a tax, and throwing themselves on the
liberality of parliament. Mr. Creevey proposed the abolition of this
impost; an impost on which were saddled so many pensions granted to the
aristocracy. He thought it hard that these five islands should maintain
so many ladies and gentlemen in England. He was, he said, the last man
to interfere with the private arrangements of the royal family, but
the king had given pensions to two of his sisters at the expense of the
unfortunate Leeward Islands, and why these islands were singled out for
such a purpose he could not conceive. Then there were pensions of £500
each to the Misses Fitzclarence; and there were also gentlemen high in
office who condescended to allow the Leeward Islands to support their
families. Right honourable gentlemen, he continued, could not say
that they were ignorant of the colonies; their own acts proved their
knowledge of the fact. They could support the colonies and urge their
distress in a particular way; they could tax East India sugar, and the
consumer of West India sugar in England; but they could not abate that
tax out of which their own pensions were derived. Mr. Canning, who
received one of these pensions, replied at great length, objecting
to this motion as affecting the right of the crown to this branch of
revenue, and its right of appropriating the same in any manner deemed
suitable by his majesty’s government. With respect to his own case, to
which Mr. Creevey had made allusion, he remarked:—“It was true that
many years ago he had held an office; on retiring from which, by uniform
practice, and that sanctioned by law, he became entitled to a pension
of £1200 per annum. He had waived his claim to that annuity; and it was
true that such right was afterwards commuted for a pension of half the
amount for a person who had direct claims on him for protection. It was
certainly open to parliament to deliberate on particular instances in
the disposal of this fund, and he would not complain of the manner
in which the right honourable gentleman had exerted his right in the
present instance; yet he well knew that he could be taunted with the
names of persons in the same situation, and connected with parties whom
he highly respected. That mode, however, was too invidious to follow:
the house had a right to examine into supposed abuses as to the
application of this as well as any other branch of the revenue; but the
honourable gentleman had not made out any case calling for censure.”
 The motion was lost by a majority of one hundred and three against
fifty-seven.




EXPENSES OF THE CORONATION.

During this session the expenses of the coronation came under
consideration. Mr. Hume inveighed not only against the length of time
which had elapsed before they were laid on the table, but against their
enormous extent. The chancellor of the exchequer, he said, had promised
that they should not exceed £100,000; but they were £238,000, the
surplus having been taken from French indemnities. Estimates at variance
with the expenses were a farce. And of what service, he asked, was it to
attempt the relief of public burdens by cutting down small clerks, and
inflicting distress on other individuals, when such sums were expended
for such purposes as the decoration of Westminster-hall, which cost
£111,000, and the habiliments of his majesty, for which the master of
the robes was paid £27,700? Mr. Hume also reproached the ministry with
bad faith, in calling for a smaller, and expending a larger sum. He
also accused the chancellor of the exchequer and his colleagues with
violating the public faith, by taking money to which they had no right
in order to pay the difference. He thought the house would fail in
its duty to the public, if it did not call for an examination into the
profligate extravagance of this affair: and he concluded with a proposal
for a committee for such purpose, and more especially to inquire by
what authority the sum of £138,000 had been applied to the coronation
expenses without the previous sanction of the house. This motion was
negatived; and the house next went into committee, in which the sum of
£160,000 was proposed toward the civil contingencies of 1823. This
gave Mr. Hume an opportunity of exhibiting the extravagant system of
expenditure pursued, particularizing items as proofs. He moved for a
reduction of £52,799 from the sum required; but Mr. Canning defended
the expenditure, and satisfied the house, so that this motion also was
negatived.




MUNIFICENCE OF GEORGE IV.

This year the king gave an instance of royal munificence, calculated to
benefit not only the present age, but to extend its advantages to remote
generations. By a letter addressed to Lord Liverpool he signified his
intention of presenting the valuable library collected by his father
to the British nation. This letter, with certain resolutions of the
trustees of the British Museum on the subject, was by his majesty’s
command laid before the house of commons. The letter and resolutions
were referred to a committee, and on the 16th of April this committee
made a report which noticed the great value and extent of the library,
and expressed an opinion that if his majesty’s magnificent donation
were placed under the care of the trustees of the British Museum, the
greatest benefit would accrue to the public. The report recommended
that a building should be raised for its reception, and that successive
grants should be made to effect the purposes above specified. In
consequence of this report the house voted a sum of.£40,000 to commence
the work, and the foundation of the structure was forthwith laid. The
building was completed in 1827, and the following summer this valuable
library was transferred to the Museum. It is a splendid monument of the
good taste and patriotic spirit of George IV., and will to the latest
ages redound to his honour.




IRISH TITHE COMMUTATION BILL, ETC.—PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

During this session an act was passed for the commutation of tithes in
Ireland. A motion was made in the upper house by Lord Lansdowne for the
second reading of the dissenters’ marriage bill, which might enable
them to perform the ceremony of marriage in their own chapels. This was
warmly supported by Lords Ellenborough, Calthorpe, and Liverpool; but
if, was thrown out by a majority of twenty-seven against twenty-one. The
session was closed by commission on the 19th of July.




STATE OF THE COUNTRY.

During this year the prosperity of the country appeared to advance, and
the confidence of the people in the government to be established.
This feeling was chiefly attributable to the altered tone of the
administration, and the tenor of their measures. From their measures
commerce and manufactures revived, and, by a natural consequence,
agriculture was improved. Unfortunately this revival of prosperity gave
a dangerous activity to enterprise, and generated a spirit of headlong
speculation, which produced disastrous consequences in a subsequent
year. It was during this year, indeed, that the memorable era of
joint-stock schemes commenced, which ended in the ruin of many families.
They that will be rich often fall into a snare.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1824}

Parliament reassembled on the 3rd of February. It was opened by
commission, and one of the leading topics of the speech was, the general
prosperity of the country; which congratulations were echoed back in the
addresses of both houses.




ATTACK ON MINISTERS WITH REFERENCE TO SPAIN, ETC.

Early in this session the affairs of Spain occupied the attention of
both houses. In the upper house Lord Lansdowne deplored the fate of that
country, which was occupied by French troops, and thought that a greater
advance should have been made towards our complete recognition of South
American independence. In the commons, Mr. Brougham attacked the tyranny
and particular cruelties of the Austrians in one peninsula and of
Ferdinand in the other, and denounced the impotent efforts of government
to ward off the blow from the constitutionalists. Subsequently our
foreign policy was discussed, on motions made by Lords John Russell and
Nugent, but Mr. Canning successfully vindicated it. He showed that the
conduct of Great Britain had been regulated by a due regard for her
own interests and dignity, as well as by an honourable attention to
the first principles of international law; and that while we preserved
peace, we had by bold remonstrances paralysed schemes formed by the holy
alliance for extending their system of interference from the government
of Spain to the internal condition of her colonies. These explanations
were satisfactory to the house, and the motions were not pressed to a
division. Before the close of the year, ministers gave a pledge of their
sincerity by admitting the South American colonies into the rank of
independent powers. Treaties of amity and commerce were concluded with
Mexico, Columbia, and Buenos Ayres, which gave a fresh impetus to trade
and commerce.




FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

With the prosperity of the country the public revenue improved.
Taxes had been remitted last year to a considerable amount, but
notwithstanding this the revenue had increased. It produced £57,672,999,
leaving a clear balance of £1,710,985 over the expenditure, besides the
established sinking-fund of £5,000,000. The chancellor of the exchequer
proposed to employ a part of this surplus in a grant of £500,000 for
the erection of new churches; of £300,000, for the renovation and
improvement of Windsor Castle; and of £60,000 for the purchase of the
Angerstein pictures, in furtherance of a design to establish a national
gallery for the fine arts. In his financial calculations for this year
the chancellor of the exchequer anticipated a continued surplus, on the
strength of which he proposed a further repeal of taxes to the amount
of more than £1,000,000; and as an auxiliary measure, he suggested the
discontinuance of certain bounties on fisheries and manufactures, which
he considered no longer necessary. In his arrangement an extension
of the scheme for reducing the interest of the national debt formed a
prominent feature. He proposed to convert the old four per cent, stock,
amounting to £75,000,000, into a new fund, bearing interest at three and
a half per cent.; and giving the holders the option of being-paid off
at par, or of acceding to the new plan. This arrangement met with the
decided approbation of parliament, and was carried into execution
with great facility. It may be mentioned that during this year Austria
unexpectedly repaid £2,500,000 for loans advanced by the British
government during the late war. This was but a small dividend on the
debt due to England, but it enabled the ministers to be liberal, as they
were disposed.




THE TRADE QUESTION

During this session important steps were taken towards a more
unrestricted system of trade. One important measure consisted in a
repeal of what were still left of the protecting duties between Ireland
and Great Britain. Enactments were also passed tending to withdraw
British silk manufacturers from the protection of laws which prohibited
the importation of foreign silks. The plan adopted for this was to lower
the import duties on raw and thrown silk; to repeal all bounties on the
exportation of this article of manufacture; and to substitute a duty
of thirty per cent, on foreign silks, instead of prohibiting their
importation. This scheme met with the opposition of partial interests,
but it was carried by a large majority. Among other important measures
of relaxation passed this year was the immediate removal of all unequal
restrictions on the import and export trade of wool, with a gradual
approach to the same system in the linen manufactures. All these
measures greatly tended to increase the trade and commerce of England,
and to benefit the community at large. The British silk trade is
increased twofold since their enactment, although utter ruin was
predicted by the silk manufacturers, and the articles manufactured,
though lower in price, vie in beauty with the silks produced by and
Indian looms.




ALIEN BILL, ETC.

The alien bill was renewed this session. It was vehemently opposed by
Mr. Hobhouse and Sir James Mackintosh; and from their opposition, the
act, though carried, henceforward operated with less stringency than
before. Much discussion arose on the subject of the abuses in the church
of Ireland, but it led to no legislative enactment. Much attention
was also given to the state of Ireland; a committee of inquiry being
appointed in both houses. But nothing effectual was done to improve
the condition of that country. The close of this year, indeed, saw
the establishment of a political engine of extraordinary power in the
Catholic Association. Mr. O’Connell, a barrister of eminence, soon
became the acknowledged leader of the disaffected party, and encouraged
them to effect by union and agitation what had been denied to petition.
This association subsequently extended its correspondence, and appointed
agents for every Roman Catholic parish in the kingdom, and then levied
a large revenue under the denomination of Catholic rent, for the support
of the demagogues who were at its head. This “rent” continues to be
collected to this day, and Mr. O’Connell and his party divide it among
them, promising great things in return, but failing to perform their
promises from utter, inability. Ireland, therefore, is still hoodwinked
by interested agitators: stop the “rent,” and then they would be
silent. Their patriotism depends upon the amount they receive from their
miserable, poor, and suffering countrymen.




DISCUSSIONS ON THE REVOLT IN DEMARARA, ETC.

During this session Mr. Brougham called the attention of the commons to
the circumstances of a revolt in Demarara. The negroes of that
island had been led to believe that their freedom had been granted by
parliament, and was withheld by the colonial assemblies. This delusion
caused an insurrection; and a missionary, named Smith, was tried by
martial law, on a charge of exciting the negroes to revolt, and was
condemned to death. His case was sent to England for the consideration
of the privy-council; but he died in prison before the pardon extended
to him could arrive. Mr. Brougham moved that the court-martial held
on him was illegal, and the sentence unjust; and it was with great
difficulty that ministers could procure a small majority to acquit his
judges. This discussion, however, led to beneficial results. Government
formed plans for abolishing the habitual use of the lash; for regulating
the punishment of refractory slaves; for preventing the separate sale
of husband, wife, and children; for protecting the property of slaves,
admitting their evidence, and facilitating their manumission; and for
providing them religious instruction, and a regular ecclesiastical
establishment, with two bishops at its head; one presiding over Jamaica,
and the other over the Leeward Islands, These were the principal
measures of parliament during the present session.




STATE OF THE BRITISH COLONIES.

At this time our settlements at the Cape of Good Hope were greatly
disturbed by the unpopularity of the governor, Lord Charles Somerset.
Another part of the great African continent was also the scene of more
tragical events. The administrators on the Gold Coast having taken
part in the quarrels of the natives, and violated the terms of a
treaty concluded some years before with the Ashantee monarch, he led
a well-appointed army against them. Sir Charles Macarthy, Governor
of Sierra Leone, advanced against him with a few Europeans and some
thousands of barbarian allies; but the King of the Ashantees was
victorious. Sir Charles Macarthy was slain, and his forces were defeated
with dreadful carnage. Alarm was entertained for the safety of the
principal settlements at Cape Coast Castle; but the “Thetis” frigate
having arrived with a few troops, and the garrison being strengthened
by some auxiliaries from Acra, the enemy were repulsed. They were
afterwards overthrown in several engagements by Colonel Sutherland, and
compelled to desist from hostilities. In North America our colonies were
in the enjoyment of great commercial prosperity, though in Lower
Canada dissensions had commenced, which portended future important
consequences. From the continent of Australia, also, the most pleasing
prospects continued to be unfolded. In New South Wales and Van Diemen’s
Land the population, from emigration, had doubled itself; and important
returning cargoes of wool, &c., began to compensate for the expenditure
of the mother country. A brisk trade was also carried on from thence
with India and the remotest regions of the world. Similar pleasing
features were unfolded in the Society Islands and the Sandwich Isles; in
the former of these Christianity was established. In New Zealand, also,
there was a marked improvement in the manners of the natives: they began
to eat potatoes, which they derived from trafficking with New South
Wales, instead of human flesh. These improvements were the elements of a
new order of things, to be developed fully in the lapse of time.




EAST INDIA AFFAIRS.

During this year a serious war broke out between the East India Company
and the Burmese sovereign. For some years a misunderstanding had existed
between the two powers, arising from a mutual claim to the countries of
Chittagong and Dacca, Moorshedabad and Cassimbazar. These, the Burmese
monarch said, did not belong to India; and on several occasions he had
demanded them of the company, threatening to destroy their country if
the revenues were not given up. It was the Rajah of Ramere who actually
laid claim to them; but he could do nothing without the aid of
the Burmese king; and the latter took up his quarrel. Under the
administration of Lord Teignmouth and Lord Hastings various petty
encounters with the Burmese troops had been sustained, as well as
with other predatory hordes of India. The contest between the British
government and the Burmese empire did not actually commence till
the present year. The Burmese forces had advanced for the purpose of
restoring the deposed Rajah of Cachar, who had sought refuge in the
Burmese dominions, and whose successor was supported by the British. For
this and other acts committed by the Burmese sovereign, it was resolved
to chastise him. Early in this year orders were given for equipping a
force of about six thousand men at the presidencies of Forts William
and St. George; and the two divisions were directed to assemble at Port
Cornwallis, in the Great Andaman island, whence the combined forces
were to proceed to attack Rangoon, the principal sea-port in the Burmese
territories. The command was given to Major-general Sir Archibald
Campbell; and the total number of troops under him was 8,071, about half
being British. The expedition put to sea on the 5th of May, at Calcutta;
and a part of the force was detached, under General McCreagh, against
the island of Cheduba, and another, under Major Wahab, against Negrais.
The rest of the fleet sailed up the Rangoon river on the 11th of May,
and anchored off the town. As the place was not prepared for resistance,
the governor, after a few shots had been fired from the principal
battery, which was quickly silenced by one of the ships, directed the
inhabitants to retire into the recesses of the jungle. The city, with
its mud houses, was abandoned to the invaders, and everything that could
serve for provision was removed far beyond their reach. It had been
imagined that the capture of Rangoon, or any part of the enemy’s
maritime possessions, would induce the king to accept the terms of
government. It was soon found, however, that not only the Burmese
monarch, but the people of Pegu, whose co-operation had been reckoned
upon, were preparing for decided hostilities. Distress soon prevailed
among the British troops, for there were no provisions near, and the
boatmen of the Rangoon had removed every serviceable vessel out of their
reach. To add to the distress of the army, the rainy season set in;
and it was also kept in continual alarm by the nightly irruption of the
enemy into its lines. The chief command, however, had been given to an
officer of ability and zeal; and every obstacle was finally surmounted.
On hearing of our offensive operations, the court of Ava lost no time
in making preparations for our expulsion. Every town and village within
three hundred miles of Bangoon was obliged to send its complement of
armed men, under their respective chiefs; and the Irrawaddy was covered
with fleets of warriors from all the towns on its banks, proceeding to
the general rendezvous of the army. The Burmese monarch had said that
the English should not disturb the women cooking their rice at Rangoon;
and now that they had not only been disturbed, but driven from their
homes, he resolved to be revenged on them. The first conflict took place
on the 16th of May, when Captain Birch dislodged the enemy from the
village of Kemmendine, a war-boat station three miles above Rangoon.
Nothing daunted, however, the enemy, as their numbers increased,
gradually approached the British position, and threw up stockades in the
jungle within hearing of our advanced posts. Of this work the British
commander took no notice, as it was his wish to come into close contact
with his antagonists, he being unable to attempt any distant operation.
On the 28th of May an advanced corps was stockaded within little more
than musket-shot distance from our piquets; and Sir Archibald Campbell,
with four companies of Europeans and four hundred native infantry, with
two field-pieces, moved out to reconnoitre. His advanced guard soon
came on the first stockade thrown across the path; but the work
being incomplete its defenders retired after exchanging a few shots.
Continuing its march, after a progress of about five miles, the column
came to a narrow wooden bridge over a morass, where the enemy was
beginning to form. This bridge had just been forced by the fire of the
artillery, when one of those tempests which usher in the south-west
monsoon came on; and as the field-pieces could be dragged no further,
the general left them in charge of the native infantry, and advanced
with his European troops. They moved on by _échellon_ of companies; and
the left flank, which passed close to the jungle, found some villages
defended in front by two stockades, whence proceeded shouts of defiance
from the enemy. These stockades were attacked at the point of the
bayonet; and a fierce and sanguinary conflict took place, in which great
numbers of the enemy were slain. During this attack on the stockades the
Burmese general in the plain made no movement for their defence; but as
soon as the British were seen in possession of the works, a horrid yell
was heard, and the whole line of Burmese troops was seen to advance
towards them. They were checked by a company which had not yet been
engaged, and by the appearance of those troops which had carried the
works, who moved forward to receive these new opponents. An attempt at
negociation was now tried by the enemy; but it was rather to gain time
than to seek peace. They were, in fact, still occupied in erecting
fortifications; and our troops were obliged again to attack the war-boat
station of Kemmendine, as well as other stockades in different parts.
Before the end of June, however, the enemy recovered from their panic;
and, having received large re-enforcements, advanced again, under Sykia
Wongee, third minister of state. The jungles were animated with
living masses, and their tumultuous preparations for battle contrasted
strangely with the stillness and quiet of the British lines. Our troops
at this time had been much diminished by sickness and death; but they
were recruited by the eighty-ninth British regiment from Madras, and the
detachments that had been sent to the capture of Cheduba and Nagrais,
places which soon fell into their hands. Early in July a battle took
place round the great pagoda, in which the Burmese were signally
defeated. Sykia Wongee was recalled in disgrace; but his successor,
Soombe Wongee, was not more successful. This latter general lost his
life, with eight hundred men, in the fortification; and the jungles
and villages around were filled with unhappy creatures who were left to
perish. Soon afterward the rains were at their height, and operations
ceased in this quarter; but an expedition was sent eastward, under
Colonel Miles, who reduced the whole coast of Tenasserim. During the
season of tranquility the princes of Tonghoo and Irmwaddy joined the
Burmese army, in order to inspire them with confidence, and to keep the
officers to their duty. They were accompanied by numerous astrologers,
as well as by a corps called “Invulnerables:” men curiously tattooed,
and accustomed to exhibit the war-dance of defiance, and to expose
themselves to the hottest fire of an enemy, that they might inspire the
rest with courage and confidence. The astrologers were some time before
they could mark out a propitious day for attacking the British position.
At length, however, they fixed on the night of the 30th of August. The
invulnerables promised to assault and carry the great pagoda, that the
princes and grandees might celebrate the grand annual festival in that
sacred place. On the night in question, therefore, this body advanced
with swords and muskets, uttering clamorous imprecations against the
invaders. They advanced toward the northern gateway; but they were
greeted with showers of grape-shot and successive volleys of musketry,
which made such havoc in their masses, that they were compelled to seek
shelter in an adjacent jungle. At length the Burmese monarch determined
to repair the loss of honour which his troops had sustained. He had sent
his most celebrated general, Maha Bandoola, to take the command of the
Arracan army, destined for the invasion of Bengal. Maha Bandoola had
routed a detachment of native infantry at Ramoo, and was busied in
erecting stockades as the basis of future operations, when an order
arrived for him to return to the defence of the golden empire. His
return to Ava not only restored confidence to the Burmese troops opposed
to the British, but acted as a spell to draw the reluctant people round
his banners. In the meantime, whilst a large fleet of war-boats, with a
train of artillery was preparing to fall down the river, and orders were
issued for the various detachments to join Bandoola on his progress, the
British ranks were thinned by the endemic fever of the rainy season, and
a severe dysentery. It was determined to remove the sufferers to Mergui
and Tavoy, two towns on the coast of Tenasserim, where they rapidly
recovered, and were soon restored to their comrades. In the early part
of November, the rains having ceased, and the men again become fit
for action, they anticipated with joy a forward movement. At this time
re-enforcements were received from Calcutta; and a regiment of cavalry,
a troop of horse-artillery, and a rocket corps were ordered to join.
Before, however, the British could advance, they had to dispose of
the whole military force of Ava, This force now consisted of 35,000
musketeers, 700 Cassay cavalry, and other troops, amounting in the whole
to 60,000 men. On the 30th of November this great force assembled in the
forest of Rangoon, fronting the great Shoedagon pagoda. On the following
night the low hum of voices proceeding from the encampment suddenly
ceased, and it was succeeded by the distant but gradually increasing
sounds of a multitude moving stealthily through the woods. The British
commander soon became aware that the enemy’s masses had approached to
the edge of the jungle, ready to rush from their cover at break of
day. A great number of war-boats had been seen in the morning, by
the “Teignmouth,” coming down the river; and in the evening they came
forward with fire-rafts. The post was left open to a furious attack by
land and water; but it was courageously defended by the garrison under
Major Yates, supported on the river by a small naval force. Hostilities
commenced on the morning of the 1st of December with a heavy fire of
musketry and cannon at Kemmendine, where the “Teignmouth” was again
driven from her station by fire-rafts. The yells of the assailants were
distinctly heard by our troops at the great pagoda; but when the firing
ceased, and the smoke dispersed, the masts of our ships were still seen
at their old station off the fort. In the course of the morning, Burmese
columns appeared on the west side of the river, marching in five or six
divisions; and when they reached the bank of the river opposite Rangoon,
they commenced stockades and batteries for the destruction of our
shipping. Later in the day columns were seen issuing ont of the forest,
with flags and banners, about a mile in front of the eastern face of the
pagoda; and the different corps, successively taking up their positions
along a sloping woody ridge, formed the left of the line, the centre
of which extended from the pagoda to Kemmendine. When this position
was taken, the troops began to apply their intrenching tools with such
activity and skill, that, in about two hours their moving masses were
concealed behind a mound of earth. A detachment of the British army,
however, soon forced these intrenchments, and drove the whole line from
their cover. The intrenchments were discovered to be a succession of
holes, capable of receiving two men each, and so excavated as to shelter
their occupants from the weather as well as from the enemy. Every hole
contained a supply of water, rice, and fuel, and a bed of brushwood,
on which one man could sleep while the other kept watch. The Burmese
re-occupied these trenches in the evening, which they protected by a
strong corps; and on the next day they intrenched themselves within
musket-shot of the northern face of the great pagoda. As their fire
could now be brought to bear on the barracks of the soldiers, it became
necessary to dislodge them from various points; and a series of attacks
and combats commenced which lasted seven clays. Great spirit was
manifested by the Burmese troops; for when their left wing was defeated,
it merely retreated on the right, and the struggle was renewed until
that division also was routed, with the loss of 5,000 men. Still
undismayed, the Burmese general intrenched himself within four miles of
the great pagoda, at the village of Kokeen, but he was driven from his
post after several brilliant exploits, in which the operations of
the army were powerfully seconded by the flotilla. This was the last
conflict during this year: after it had taken place the Burmese general
retired to Donoobew, about fifty miles up the river. After their defeat
the Burmese had recourse to negociations; but they were found to be not
sincere, and therefore were unheeded. As a great number of inhabitants
had returned to Bangoon, they introduced incendiaries into that town,
who lighted up a conflagration which was not extinguished until more
than a fourth part of the place was destroyed. During the whole of this
campaign the British vessels and their boats were occupied in destroying
fire-rafts, most of which were about one hundred feet square, and
composed of dry wood piled up, with oil, turpentine, gunpowder, and
other combustibles.




CHAPTER XXXV.

{GEORGE IV. 1825—1826.}

     Meeting of Parliament..... Bill for the Suppression of
     Unlawful Associations in   Ireland..... Catholic Relief
     Bill..... Committee of  Inquiry into  the State of
     Ireland..... Mr. Hume’s Motion against the Irish Church
     Establishment, &c. State of the Irish Charter
     Schools..... Debates on Alleged Abuses in Chancery.....
     Regulation of the Salaries of the Judges..... Rejection of
     the Unitarian Marriage Act, &e...... Act against
     Combinations  among   Workmen..... Free   Trade
     System..... Surrender   of  the Charter   of   the Levant
     Company..... Report of  Treaties..... Financial
     Statements..... Proposals for the Abolition of certain
     Taxes, &c. Prorogation of  Parliament..... Great
     Commercial  Panic..... The  Burmese War..... Review of
     Foreign Relations.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was opened by commission on the 3rd of February. The speech
took a pleasing view of all our affairs, foreign and domestic, except
those of Ireland, where strife and animosity still prevailed. The usual
addresses were carried by large majorities.




BILL FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF UNLAWFUL ASSOCIATIONS IN IRELAND.

The proceedings of the Catholic Association in Ireland created alarm
in the minds of ministers. It was clear, however, to them that public
opinion would be against the enactment of a partial law against that
body, while the Orange societies, which were also mischievous in their
tendency, were tolerated. A bill, therefore, was introduced by Mr.
Goulburn “to amend the acts relating to unlawful associations in
Ireland.” This produced a warm discussion, which extended by adjournment
through four nights. In the course of this debate Mr. Canning vindicated
himself against the insinuations of those who considered him estranged
from the Catholic cause. He remarked:—“I have shown that, in 1812, I
refused office rather than enter an administration pledged against the
Catholic question. Nor is this the only sacrifice I have made to the
Catholic cause. From the earliest dawn of my life, ay! from the first
visions of my ambition, that ambition was directed to one object,
before which all others vanished comparatively into insignificance;
that object, far beyond all the blandishments of power, beyond all the
rewards and favours of the crown, was to represent in this house the
university at which I was educated. I had a fair chance of accomplishing
it, when the Catholic question crossed my path. I was warned, fairly and
kindly warned, that my adoption of that cause would blast my prospects;
I adhered to the Catholic cause, and forfeited all my long-cherished
hopes and expectations. Yet I am told that I have made no sacrifice;
that I have postponed the cause of the Catholic to views and interests
of my own.” Mr. Goulbum’s bill was carried by large majorities; but
though the Catholic Association yielded to legal authority and became
defunct, it was soon resuscitated under a different form. Ostensibly
regulating itself according to the late act, it disclaimed all religious
exclusions, oaths, powers of acting in redress of grievances, and
correspondence with depending societies; and, concealing its intentions
under the mask of charitable purposes, it pursued its original course
with impunity.




CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.

After the above bill had passed, Sir Francis Burdett brought forward
a plan, in which the principal bill for the removal of Catholic civil
disabilities was accompanied by two others: one to enact a state
provision for the Roman Catholic clergy, and the other to raise the
Irish franchise from forty shillings to ten pounds. The principal of
these bills passed the commons with large majorities; but it was clearly
foreseen that it would not in the lords. In the interval of the second
and third readings the Duke of York, in presenting a petition to the
upper house from the Dean and Chapter of Windsor, declared that the
concession of Catholic claims was repugnant, not only to the king’s
coronation, but to the principles of the constitution. He added:—“I
will oppose them to the last moment of my life, whatever may be my
situation, so help me God!” This declaration was extolled by those who
opposed the claims, as the most manly, patriotic, and noble expression
of sentiment that could be uttered at a critical moment; and it was
printed in letters of gold, and became their watchword. On the
other hand it gave rise to bitterness of feeling among that class of
politicians who were in favour of the bill. Its effect on them was
strongly displayed by an intemperate sally into which, on the very next
night, Mr. Brougham broke out in the house of commons against the speech
of the royal duke, in which he was several times called to order. The
great bulk of the nation, however, concurred in the principles to which
his royal highness had declared his adherence, from an honest conviction
that such concessions to the Roman Catholics were inconsistent with the
coronation oath, and fraught with danger to the cause of Protestantism.

The bill was carried up to the lords, and read a first time on the 11th
of May; and on the 17th Lord Donoughmore moved the second reading.
He was supported by Lords Camden, Darnley, Lansdowne. Harrowby, and
Fitzwilliam, and the Bishop of Norwich; and opposed by Lords Colchester,
Longford, and Liverpool, and the Bishop of Chester, and the lord
chancellor. The debate presented little novelty; on the one side the
right of the Catholics to political equality was insisted upon, together
with the innoxiousness of their religious creed, &c.; while, on the
other hand, it was contended that, with respect both to the nature of
the religion in its political consequences, and to the inconsistency of
admitting Catholic elements of power into a Protestant constitution, the
reasons for excluding Catholics ought to be as operative now as at any
other period. The most remarkable circumstance in the debate, was the
vehemence with which Lord Liverpool opposed the measure. In allusion
to the grand argument in favour of the bill, that of conciliation, he
remarked:—“I cannot bring myself to view this measure as one of peace
and conciliation. Whatever it might do in this respect in the first
instance, its natural and final tendency will be to increase dissensions
and to create discord, even where discord did not previously exist. I
entreat your lordships to consider the aspect of the times. The people
are taught to consider Queen Mary as having been a wise and virtuous
queen, and that the world had gained nothing whatever by the
Reformation. Nay, more than this: it was now promulgated that James the
Second was a wise and virtuous prince, and that he fell in the glorious
cause of toleration. Could the house be aware of these facts, and not
see that a great and powerful engine was at work to effect the object of
re-establishing the Catholic religion throughout these kingdoms? And if
once established should we not revert to a state of ignorance, with all
its barbarous and direful consequences? Let the house consider what
had been the result of those laws, what had been the effects of that
fundamental principle of the British constitution which they were now
called upon to alter with such an unsparing hand. For the last hundred
and thirty years the country had enjoyed a state of religions peace,
a blessing that had arisen out of the wisdom of our laws. But what
had been the state of the country for the hundred and thirty years
immediately preceding that period? England had been the scene of the
most sanguinary religious contentions. The blessings of the latter
period were to be attributed solely to the nature of those laws which
granted toleration to all creeds, at the same time that they maintained
a just, a reasonable, and a moderate superiority in favour of the
established church. Their lordships were now called upon to put
Protestants and Catholics on the same footing; and if they consented
to do this, certain he was, that the consequence would be religious
dissension, and not religious peace.” Upon a division the bill was
thrown out by a majority of one hundred and seventy-eight against one
hundred and thirty. The two auxiliary bills, called, by way of derision,
“the wings,” after this failure were of course abandoned, although they
also would have passed the commons by large majorities.




COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO THE STATE OF IRELAND.

In the last session a committee of the lords had been appointed to
inquire into the state of those districts in Ireland which were subject
to the operation of the insurrection act. Early in this session another
committee was appointed to inquire into the state of Ireland generally.
The result of the labours of the committee was a brief and vague report,
but accompanied by a mass of evidence, which threw great light upon the
condition of the general body of the Irish people. It showed that they
lived in the most degraded state; that they were without property; and
that their existence was sustained by an insufficient quantity of food
of the most unwholesome kind. This report, however, was presented at too
late a period of the session to be made the basis of any enactments; and
though various discussions took place during the session on particular
circumstances connected with the state of Ireland, none of them led to
any result affecting the condition of the people.




MR. HUME’S MOTION AGAINST THE IRISH CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT, ETC.

On the 14th of June Mr. Hume moved two resolutions relative to the
Protestant church of Ireland:—first, “That the property now in the
possession of the established church in Ireland is public property,
under the control of the legislature, and applicable to such purposes as
in its wisdom it may deem beneficial to the best interests of religion
and of the community at large, due regard being had to the rights of
every person in the actual enjoyment of any part of that property.” And
second, “That this house will, early in the next session of parliament,
appoint a select committee, for the purpose of considering the
present state of the Irish church, and the various charges to which
ecclesiastical property is liable.” The first of these resolutions was
negatived without a division, and the second was lost by a majority of
one hundred and twenty-six against thirty-seven.




STATE OF THE IRISH CHARTER SCHOOLS.

In consequence of the report of the commissioners on education, which
showed that great abuses existed in the chartered schools of Ireland,
Sir John Newport called the attention of the commons to that subject.
After detailing at considerable length the condition of the funds of
these schools, and the barbarous manner in which the pupils placed in
them were treated, he moved, “That an humble address be presented to his
majesty, expressing the marked sentiments of regret and indignation with
which the house of commons perused the details of unwarrantable cruelty
practised on the children in several of the charter schools of Ireland,
contained in the report presented to both houses of parliament by the
commissioners appointed by his majesty for examination into the state of
the schools of Ireland; and praying that his majesty may be pleased to
direct the law-officers of the crown in that part of the United Kingdom
to institute criminal prosecutions against the actors, aiders, and
abettors of these dreadful outrages, as far as they may be amenable to
law.” Mr. Peel admitted that the system of charter schools was one which
did not admit of correction, but ought to be extinguished altogether. He
stated that an order had been sent prohibiting the admission of any more
children upon those foundations. He thought, also, that if any of
the masters could be proved judicially to have been guilty of such
atrocities as were stated in the report, they ought not only to be
dismissed, but prosecuted. At the same time he hoped that Sir J. Newport
would so far alter the wording of the motion, as not to assume the
existence of the guilty practices which were to constitute the subject
of inquiry. In consequence of this suggestion the right honourable
baronet withdrew the original motion, and substituted the
following:—“That an humble address be presented to his majesty, that he
will be graciously pleased to give directions to the law-officers of the
crown in Ireland, to institute criminal proceedings against the persons
concerned in the cruelties detailed in the report of the commissioners,
so far as they may be amenable to law,” This motion was agreed to _nem.
con._




DEBATES ON ALLEGED ABUSES IN CHANCERY.

A commission of inquiry had been appointed last session to inquire into
the abuses which were said to exist in the court of chancery. The report
of this commission had not yet been made, but nevertheless the subject
was again mooted in the commons. Two discussions on it took place in
the present parliament. The first of these was introduced on the 31st
of May, by Mr. J. Williams, on the occasion of presenting some petitions
complaining of particular proceedings in chancery. The speech which Mr.
Williams made was an attack not merely upon the court of chancery, but
upon the whole law of England. He particularly animadverted upon the
law of real property, upon which, notwithstanding, he declared himself
ignorant; and the most important part of his speech went to prove, that
courts of common law should cease to be so, and that the equitable and
legal jurisdiction should be confounded. The subject was brought under
discussion again on the 7th of June, by Sir Francis Burdett, who moved
that the evidence taken by the commission instituted to investigate
the practice of the court of chancery be printed. Mr. Peel opposed this
motion, because to print such evidence, without any accompanying report,
was contrary to the practice of the house; and that if it were printed,
the session was too far advanced to take the subject into consideration.
These attacks were chiefly made against Lord Eldon; and in the course of
the discussion, Sir W. Ridley made a remark to which his own party, from
whom those attacks came, would have done well to attend. “He wished,” he
said, “as much as any man to see the system altered, but he must object
to the mode in which an individual was attacked night after night. He
was persuaded such attacks did no good; for Lord Eldon stood very high
in the estimation of the people of England.” Mr. Brougham, however, did
not profit by this advice; for he broke forth into an uncalled-for and
indelicate attack upon Lord Gifford, who had been distinguished by the
patronage of the chancellor, and was then deputy-speaker of the house
of lords. The motion was rejected by a majority of one hundred and
fifty-four against seventy-three. A remarkable circumstance in all the
debates which took place on the court of chancery was, that none of its
assailants ventured beyond general declaration. No part of the system in
which the alleged evil lay was specified, and no remedy was propounded.
All that these discussions could lead to, therefore, was to render the
court of chancery the subject of popular odium, and to lower the general
administration of justice in the public estimation.




REGULATION OF THE SALARIES OF THE JUDGES.

During this, session the chancellor of the exchequer brought forward a
measure for augmenting the salaries of the judges, and at the same time
for prohibiting the sale of those ministerial offices which the chiefs
of the respective courts had been allowed so to dispose of. It was
proposed at first to allow the puisne judges £6,000 a year; but
the scheme ultimately adopted was to give £10,000 a year to the
chief-justice of the king’s bench; £7,000 to the chief-baron of the
court of exchequer; £8,000 to the chief-justice of the court of common
pleas, and £5,500 to each of the puisne justices of the courts of
king’s bench, common pleas, and the exchequer. This arrangement met with
considerable opposition, some of the members as Messrs. Hume, Denman,
and Hobhouse, arguing that the dignity of a judge did not depend upon
money, and that the cheapest mode of doing the judicial business of
the country was the best. On the contrary, Mr. Scarlett argued that the
arrangement was improper because it diminished the emoluments of the
lord chief-justice of England; and he moved an amendment, which was
lost, that the sum of £12,000; should be given to him. Mr. Brougham, in
a different spirit, proposed that £500 a-year should be taken from the
salary of the puisne judges, but that alteration was also rejected.




REJECTION OF THE UNITARIAN MARRIAGE ACT, ETC.

The Unitarian marriage act was this year again rejected, although
supported in the lords by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of
Lichfield, and Lord Liverpool. The same fate was awarded Mr. Serjeant
Onslow’s bill for the repeal of the usury laws, though Mr. C. Wynne
stated that not only himself, but the chancellor of the exchequer,
and most of the cabinet ministers, were favourable to their abolition.
Ministers had left the house when the subject was discussed,
anticipating that the division on the bill would not take place till a
late hour, and that their presence was not necessary for its success.
While they were absent the bill was rejected by a majority of forty-five
against forty. This decision was owing partly to the arguments of the
solicitor-general against the measure. Borrowers, he said, might be
divided into three classes: mercantile borrowers, landed borrowers, and
persons who might be considered general borrowers; they not belonging
to either of the above classes. Mercantile borrowers, he continued,
generally obtained a loan to profit by it. They did not borrow from
necessity, but to trade; and if they could make ten or twelve per cent,
on the borrowed money, there was no reason why they should not pay the
lender seven or eight per cent. But was there, he asked, any landed
proprietor so ignorant, as not to see, that, if the monied man could
lend to the trade, at a higher rate than five per cent., he would not
lend to him at that sum. It was one advantage to the lender, that he
could recall his capital at pleasure, or get it back at a short notice.
Now when a man lent capital to a trader, he was generally enabled to
command the use of it when he pleased; but if he lent his money on land
he could not do this: there was all the trouble and inconvenience of a
mortgage; he could not recall it for two or three years; and therefore
in proportion as he could not command the use of his capital when
he lent it to the landowner, he would make him pay a higher rate of
interest for it than the trader. He believed he was not wrong when he
stated that eight out of every ten estates in the kingdom were loaded
with debt. Now under what circumstances did the country gentlemen borrow
money? Was it to employ it at some seasonable crisis, when by prudence
and dexterity he might obtain vast profit? No. The benefits which he
could receive as its produce were fixed: he never could obtain from a
borrowed sum beyond a determined amount. Could any one say, therefore,
that the repeal of the usury laws would be beneficial to the latter
class? But if the terms of borrowing were so unfavourable to the landed
class, what expectation could the general borrower entertain of being
able to obtain a loan under any other than oppressive terms? These
persons generally stood in need of only small sums; their necessities
were pressing, and therefore they were exposed to the most grinding
demands. They could have no choice but to submit to the terms imposed
upon them, be they never so oppressive.




ACT AGAINST COMBINATIONS AMONG WORKMEN.

In a former session, Mr. Hume had obtained the passing of an act
repealing both the statute and common law concerning combinations among
workmen. This act was attended with mischievous effects; and therefore,
during this session, Mr. Huskisson called the attention of the house to
the subject. In his speech he detailed some painful reports regarding
it which had been forwarded to the secretary of the home department:
reports which went to show that the most atrocious acts of outrage and
violence had been committed by workmen on their employers. Misconceiving
the real object of the legislature in the late act, they had, he
said, manifested a disposition against the masters, and a tendency to
proceedings destructive of the property and business of the latter. This
disposition, if it remained unchecked, he asserted, would produce
the greatest mischiefs in the country; and the evil was growing to so
alarming a pitch in some districts that if not speedily arrested, it
would soon become a subject for Mr. Peel to deal with in the exercise of
his official functions. As a general principle, he admitted that every
man had a right to carry his own labour to the best market, as labour
was the poor man’s capital. On the other hand, he contended for the
perfect freedom of those who gave employment to them; whose property,
machinery, and capital ought to be protected. Mr. Huskisson entered into
details to show the nature of the system which was acted upon in several
quarters. Associations were formed, he said, which, if persevered in and
prosecuted successfully, must terminate in the ruin of the very men
who were parties to them. The associations had their delegates, their
presidents, their committees of management, and every other sort of
functionary comprised in the plan of a government. By one article in
a set of regulations it was provided, he remarked, “that the delegates
from all the different works should assemble at one and the same place,”
 on certain occasions; so that it was not the combination of all the
workmen of one employer against him, or even of one whole trade against
the masters, but systematic union of the workmen of many different
trades, and a delegation from each of them to one central meeting.
Thus there was established as against the employers a formal system of
delegation, a kind of federal republic, all the trades being represented
by delegates, who formed a sort of congress. Another regulation which
Mr. Huskisson noticed was to this effect:—“Each delegate shall be paid
out of his own work with, these exceptions only—the president, the
secretary, and the treasurer are to be paid out of the general funds.”
 The delegates are elected for six months, and may be re-elected. Here
he remarked was a tax levied upon each workman for the maintenance of
general funds applicable to purposes of a most mischievous character.
Other articles declared that it was the duty of the delegates to point
out the masters disliked, and to warn such masters of the danger in
which they were placed in consequence of this combination. Here, Mr.
Huskisson rightly observed, was an acknowledgment of the dangerous
nature of these associations. But, he asked, what followed? Why another
duty of the delegates was to try everything which prudence might dictate
to put the disliked masters out of the trade: not everything which
fairness and justice might dictate to workmen who sought to to obtain a
redress of grievances, but everything which “prudence” might dictate. In
such a position, “prudence” must be understood as implying that degree
of precaution that might prevent the “Union” from being brought within
a breach of the law, such as the crime of murder. Was it, he asked,
fit, right, or reasonable that persons engaged in commercial or other
pursuits should, by combinations thus organized, be kept in constant
anxiety and terror about their interest and their property. After
noticing other regulations of this class of associations, Mr. Huskisson
went on to show that others were governed by regulations, if possible,
more extraordinary. One of these regulations was, that no man coming
into any given district or county within the control assumed by the
associating parties, should be allowed to work without previously paying
five pounds sterling, to be applied to the funds of the association.
In a similar spirit, another regulation set forth, that any child being
permitted to assist, should at ten years old be reckoned a quarter of a
man, and pay a proportionate sum accordingly. It was also provided that
any man being called in by any collier to his assistance should not be
at liberty to work, unless previously adopted, like the collier, by the
society, and unless, like him, he should previously pay his five pounds.
Mr. Huskisson rightly asked whether this amercement of five pounds,
and this subscription of one shilling a week to the funds of the
association, which every member was called upon to pay and contribute,
would not produce to each of the parties, if placed in a saving-bank,
far more beneficial and advantageous results? and whether there were
not, among these combinations, men anxious for the enjoyment of the
power and distinction which they considered the attainment of certain
posts would confer upon them? With reference to Mr. Hume’s act, he
declared that when he looked at the way in which it was worded, and the
artful misconstruction that might be put upon it by those who best
knew how to mislead and deceive the men who had engaged in these
combinations, he was not surprised that the associators should consider
themselves to be warranted in their proceedings under that act. It
repealed all former statutes, and then enacted that no proceedings at
common law should be had by reason of any combinations or conspiracies
of workmen formerly punishable under those repealed statutes. Without
imputing to the framers of the bill the slightest idea that any
misapprehensions could be entertained of its enactments, he did not
doubt that a great portion of the associated and combined workmen in the
country did actually believe, that so far from violating the law, its
second section proved that they were only pursuing a course strictly
conformable to the legislature. It declared that “journeymen, workmen,
and other persons who shall hereafter enter into any combination to
obtain higher rates of wages, &c., or to regulate the mode of carrying
on any manufacture, trade, or business, or the management thereof, shall
not be subject or liable to any indictment or prosecution for a criminal
conspiracy or combination, or to any other proceeding or punishment
whatever, or under the common statute law.” “Would not,” Mr. Huskisson
asked, “any person, on reading this sentence, suppose it was something
fit and commendable for workmen to conspire together to regulate and
control the management of any manufacture?” In conclusion, he said, that
under this act, the plotting together for the destruction of machinery,
and even threatening life or property were no longer any criminal
offence; and that he considered the existing law was not adequate to put
down an evil which was increasing to a formidable extent: not the evil
of committing the offences to which the act adverted, but the evil of
workmen being permitted to plot, and the bold, open avowal of carrying
such permission into effect. He moved for the appointment of a committee
to inquire into the effects of this act, and to report their opinion how
far it might be necessary to repeal or amend it. This motion was agreed
to, and the committee, after a laborious investigation, made a report,
in which they recommended the repeal of Mr. Hume’s bill; the effect
of which would be to restore the operation of those laws which were
suspended by the second and third clauses of that act. But while
recommending that the common law should be restored, the committee
expressed an opinion that an exception should be made to its operation
in favour of meetings and consultations amongst either masters or
workmen, the object of which was peaceably to consult upon the rate of
wages to be either given or, received, and to agree to co-operate with
each other in endeavouring to raise it or lower it, or to settle the
hours of labour; an exception which, while it gave to those in the
different classes of masters and workmen ample means of maintaining
their respective interests, would not afford any support to the
assumption of power or dictation in either party to the prejudice of the
other. But in recommending that liberty of associating and co-operating
together, so far as wages or labour were concerned, should be preserved
alike to masters and workmen, the committee deemed it requisite to
propose that the resolution of any such association should be allowed
to bind only parties actually present on personally consenting; all
combination beyond this should be at the risk of the parties, and
open to the animadversion of the common law, and should be dealt with
according to the circumstances of each case. The committee further
proposed that every precaution should be taken to ensure a safe and free
option to those who were not inclined to take part in such associations.
The language of the report on this subject is emphatic. “The most
effectual security,” it says, “should be taken that legislative
enactment can afford, that, in becoming parties to any association, or
subject to their authority, individuals should be left to act under the
impulse of their own free will alone; and that those who wish to abstain
from them, should be enabled to do so, and continue their service, or
engage their industry, on whatever terms, or with whatever master, they
may choose, in perfect security against molestation, insult, or personal
clanger of what kind soever.” The punishment of offences of the nature
alluded to recommended by the committee, was, in case of conviction,
six months’ imprisonment, with or without hard labour, according to the
circumstances of the case. A bill founded on this report was brought
into the commons, and after considerable discussion, was passed into
a law. In the committee several of its clauses were resisted, and
especially that which made it penal to induce any man to leave his work
by threat, or intimidation, or by molesting, or in any way obstructing
him. This was said by Mr. Hume to be too vague, as what one man might
consider an obstruction, another might not; and by Mr. Mansfield, as
being deprecated by the workmen. In reply, Mr. Huskisson said, that he
had no intention of acting harshly towards the operative mechanics: the
object of the bill was to protect the weak against the strong; to
afford to the man who chose to give his labour for a certain value that
protection against the combination of large bodies to which every man
was entitled. Upon a division the clause objected to was carried by a
large majority; the members rightly conceiving that man is free to act
upon his own responsibility, and that he should not suffer from the
control of others. If a man chooses to give his labour for a certain
rate of wages he should be at liberty to do so without intimidation or
molestation. And he is the more entitled to act thus independently of
his fellow-workmen’s interference, because no man will throw away his
labour. Self-interest is, in fact, the best protection from oppression.
A skilful mechanic with a good character can always obtain the true
value of his labour without the aid of his fellow-operatives. He can act
as a man; can ask, and obtain his just wages.




FREE-TRADE SYSTEM.

Many petitions had been presented in the course of this session for and
against the existing system of the corn-laws. On the 25th of April
Mr. Whitmore was induced to move for a committee of the whole house to
consider of these laws; but his motion was rejected. Previous to this,
however, Mr. Huskisson, in pursuance of the scheme of commercial policy
which he had adopted, brought forward three important subjects: first,
“The system of our commercial policy in respect to our colonies;”
 secondly, “The expediency of revising many of the duties payable
upon the import of the raw materials used in our manufactures, and of
relaxing the prohibitory duties which, under the name of ‘protection,’
were enforced against the manufactured productions of other countries;”
 and, thirdly, “The means of affording some further degree of relief
and assistance to the interests of our shipping and navigation.” The
alterations he proposed in our colonial system were explained by him on
the 23rd of March, when, by entering into historical details at
great length, he proved to demonstration that all those articles of
manufacture which had been most fostered had most languished; that
excessive duties made the smuggler’s fortune, while the manufacturer was
disappointed, and the exchequer defrauded; that the apprehension which
guarded our fabrics with high duties was unfounded; and that the true
policy of the state, as well as the advantage of individuals, would
be consulted by the reduction of duties sufficiently to countervail
whatever might be imposed upon the raw material used in the different
manufactures. Having shown the ungrateful return made by the United
States of America, which had been allowed to trade with our colonies,
he proposed to open their ports to all friendly powers on the same
principle, though with some modifications, as that on which they now
traded with Jersey or Ireland. With the further view of encouraging our
own trade and that of our colonies with the countries of South America,
he proposed to extend to certain ports in those colonies the benefits
and regulations of our warehousing system as it was established in this
country, by allowing goods from all parts of the world to be bonded
and deposited in warehouses without payment of duty till proper
opportunities of selling or exporting them should occur. Another boon
proposed by him to our colonies and trade was, the abolition of the
large fees which were levied for the benefit of public officers in
almost all our colonial ports. He further proposed two alterations of
a local and specific nature; the one relating to the Mauritius, and
the other to Canada. That relating to the Mauritius lowered the duty on
sugar to the same rate as that from the West Indies, and that relating
to Canada admitted the importation of corn from thence on a fixed and
permanent duty. The resolutions embodying Mr. Huskisson’s views were
adopted _nem. con._, and were afterwards, with one trifling exception,
carried into effect. That exception was, that the bill for establishing
the free intercourse in the article of corn, subject to the duty of five
shillings per quarter, between Canada and this country, should not be
permanent, but limited in its operation to a period of two years.

The other part of Mr. Huskisson’s scheme for promoting commerce was
brought forward on the 25th of March. These parts referred to protection
rather than revenue, and to the affording relief to the shipping and
navigation interests. He began by proposing a reduction of duties on
the cotton and woollen trade, as well as those on manufactured linen. In
some cases these rose as high as one hundred and eighty per cent.; and
Mr. Huskisson proposed to lower them to ten, fifteen, and twenty-five
per cent, respectively. He next adverted to foreign paper, books, and
glass, which were almost prohibited by excessive duties. He proposed a
duty upon all books, bound and unbound, imported into this country,
of sixpence per pound; on paper threepence per pound; and upon glass
bottles three shillings per dozen. He next proceeded to the duties
on metallic substances, as iron, copper, zinc, and lead. The duty on
foreign iron was to be reduced from £6. 10s. to £1. 10s. per ton; that
on copper from £54 to £27 a ton; that on zinc from £28 to £14 a ton;
and that on lead from £20 to £15 per cent. _ad valorem_. Upon tin he
proposed to reduce the duty from £5. 9s. 3d. to £2. 10s. the cwt. Mr.
Huskisson next proceeded to consider how far it was possible to reduce
certain imposts on raw materials which interfered with the success of
the capitalist, who was obliged to use them in his manufactures. He
instanced the cases of articles used in dyeing, as well as olive and
rape-oil. He wished to take off the duty from the latter altogether, and
thereby enable the manufacturer to supply the farmer with cake instead
of compelling him to procure it at a large cost in the foreign market.
He proposed also to reduce the duty on all foreign wool imported at a
lower price than one shilling the pound to one halfpenny. He concluded
with proposing measures to relieve the commerce and navigation of the
country. There was already a bill on the table to do away with the
quarantine duties, which the committee on foreign trade had proposed to
lay on the community at large. Mr. Huskisson thought this proposition
was equitable, as the amount of these duties was considerable; and they
were placed on the shipping interest for the protection of the country.
lie proposed further the abolition of all fees on commerce with our
colonies, and the removal of the duty payable on the transfer of any
share in a ship, or of a whole ship, from one person to another. There
was still another mode by which he proposed to relieve the shipping
interest. This consisted in a reduction of stamps for bonds, required
from exporters of certain goods to be delivered at certain places, from
forty shillings to four shillings. He also proposed to apply the same
principle to Custom-house debentures, or documents given by way of
security to those who were entitled to drawbacks. As conducive to
the same end, he further proposed an alteration in the system of our
consular establishments, granting instead of fees a regular salary to
the officers who superintended them, retaining only certain fees,
which were to be small, for acts which were extra consular. Though some
members of the house expressed an apprehension that these changes might
prove injurious, yet in general they were acceptable both to parliament
and the country. The resolutions in which they were embodied were
adopted unanimously; and they were afterwards carried into execution by
bills framed in conformity with them.




SURRENDER, OF THE CHARTER OF THE LEVANT COMPANY.

Connected with the above changes was the surrender of the charter of
the Levant Company. That company was established by royal charter in
the reign of James the First, when considerable privileges were bestowed
upon it. Thus they were allowed to appoint all the consuls in the
sea-ports in the Levant; to levy duties on all English ships for the
maintenance of their consuls; and to exercise a certain jurisdiction
within the territories of the Ottoman Porte. These powers and trusts had
been exercised by the servants of the company with general fidelity for
two centuries; but, considering the state of the countries in which
the company’s consuls resided, in apolitical point of view, it was now
deemed expedient that the public servants of this country in Turkey
should hold their appointments from the crown. A meeting of the company
was called in consequence of a communication from the ministers; and
Lord Grenville, the governor, having proposed the surrender of their
charter, the company acceded to it; and an act of parliament was
subsequently passed for carrying that surrender into effect.




REPORT OF TREATIES.

During the month of May the secretary for foreign affairs laid three
papers on the table of the house of commons, which were of considerable
importance. The first of these papers was a treaty of commerce with the
independent states of Rio de la Plata; the second, a treaty concluded
with Russia, settling the disputed claims which had existed between
the two countries with regard to territories on the north-west coast of
America, and to certain rights of trade and navigation in the Pacific
Ocean; and the third was a treaty between Great Britain and Sweden,
having for its object the abolition of the slave-trade, as carried on
under the flag of either nation. The effectual measure of visitation and
detention was, with a manly policy, adopted by both powers; so that the
cruisers of either under certain limitations, were permitted to stop,
and bring in for adjudication, slave-vessels trading under their
respective colours.




FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

On the 28th of February the chancellor of the exchequer gave an
exposition of the financial situation of the country, and of the
pecuniary arrangements for the year. From his statement it appeared
that, notwithstanding the reductions made in taxation during the last
session, the finances continued to improve. There was a surplus, he
said, of £1,437,774; and he proceeded to show that the receipts of the
customs, though about one million pounds sterling had been taken off
some of the articles it comprised, had been equal to those of former
years. He asked:—“What are the causes which have produced this result?
The proximate cause, doubtless, is the increased capacity of the people
of this country to consume the produce of other countries, aided and
invigorated by the reciprocal facility which our consumption of foreign
articles gives to other nations in the extended use of the products
of our own industry. That increase may arise in some degree from the
demonstrated tendency of population to increase; but, independently
of that cause, there is a principle in the constitution of social man,
which leads nations to open their arms to each other, and to establish
new and closer connexions by ministering to mutual convenience; a
principle which creates new wants, stimulates new desires, seeks for new
enjoyments, and, by the beneficence of Providence, contributes to the
general happiness of mankind.” The chancellor of the exchequer next
stated that the produce of the excise and of stamps had been greater
than had been anticipated by government; and then proceeded to make
his calculations for the present year. He calculated the produce
of everything at £56,445,370; and that the expenditure would be
£56,001,842, including £5,486,654 for the sinking-fund. This would leave
a clear surplus of £443,528. He argued from this, that a surplus of
£864,676 might be expected for 1826; and of £1,254,676 for 1827. This,
together with the surplus of 1824, namely £1,437,744, would make a total
of £4,000,624; and in applying this surplus to the diminution of the
public burden, the chancellor of the exchequer explained that he had
three objects in View: increased facility of consumption at home,
in conjunction with increased extension of foreign commerce; the
restriction of smuggling; and some alleviation of the pressure of direct
taxation. To accomplish these objects, he proposed to lower the taxes on
various articles to the amount of £1,526,000. This relief was in general
judiciously applied: the imposts reduced were on hemp, coffee, wines,
British spirits and rum, cider, and those articles in the assessed
taxes, as husbandry-horses let to hire, taxed carts, etc., which pressed
particularly on the lower classes of society. Of this it was calculated
that there would be lost during the present year about £600,000, so that
the total surplus of this and the two ensuing years, estimated at
more than £4,000,000, would be sufficient to meet the diminution. Some
parties were dissatisfied because there was not a greater diminution
of direct taxation; others, because greater relief was not given to the
West Indian interests; and others, because the duties on tobacco were
not lowered. On the whole, however, Mr. Robinson’s financial statements
were satisfactory to the public at large. The estimates for the year
were voted with little opposition.




PROPOSALS FOR THE ABOLITION OF CERTAIN TAXES, ETC.

During this session Mr. Maberly moved for the repeal of the assessed
taxes, which was lost by a great majority. On the 5th of May, also, a
resolution, proposed by the same member, respecting the duties on beer
was negatived. The same fate awaited a motion made by Mr. Hobhouse, for
the repeal of the window-tax; and likewise a motion for the repeal of the
duties on soap and candles. A more than ordinary share of the time
of the members was occupied this year in the consideration of private
bills. So great was the passion for joint-stock companies, and so
abundant the capital ready to seek employment in schemes of local
improvement, &c., that four hundred and thirty-eight petitions for
private bills were presented, and two hundred and eight-six private acts
were passed.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued on the 6th of July by commission. The speech
announced that foreign powers were amicably disposed; regretted the
continuance of the war in the East Indies; and expressed satisfaction at
the measures adopted by parliament for the extension of commerce. “These
measures,” said the speech, “his majesty is persuaded, will evince to
his subjects in those distant possessions the solicitude with which
parliament watches over their welfare. They tend to cement and
consolidate the interests of the colonies with those of the mother
country; and his majesty confidently trusts that they will contribute to
promote that general and increasing prosperity on which his majesty
had the happiness of congratulating you on the opening of the present
session, and which, by the blessing of Providence, continues to pervade
every part of the kingdom.”




GREAT COMMERCIAL PANIC.

The golden prospects unfolded in the speech of the chancellor of the
exchequer when making his financial statements, and reiterated in that
of his majesty at the close of the session, soon vanished away. The
causes of this reverse were manifold. The abundance of capital, and the
consequent low rate of profit, during the last three years, had greatly
increased export manufactures. As the system of country banks continued
in operation, this apparent prosperity of manufactures attracted much
capital to them; and a system of credit was generated which caused a
still further extension. Speculation added its impulse to this system;
until, in the course of this year, paper money thrown into circulation,
increased the currency beyond what the causes determining the supply of
gold could sustain. The exchanges now turned against us; the currency
became depreciated; and gold, the sinews of a nation’s prosperity, began
to flow out of the country. The Bank of England finding that the demand
for gold diminished its stock of coin, contracted its issue of notes
and its discounts. In this way, if the state of trade had been good, the
currency might have been reduced so as to restore the exchanges to
par; but the reduction in quantity took place first among those who had
pushed their credit to the utmost; and these persons being unable to
meet their engagements became bankrupts. The distress soon reached
the bankers themselves. Some of the country banks stopped payment; and
apprehensions springing up from thence with respect to the stability of
the London banks, caused such a run upon them, that many failed. In the
month of December all the usual channels of credit were stopped, and the
circulation of the country completely deranged. In this state of
affairs several cabinet deliberations took place; and it was at length
determined that one and two pound bank notes should be issued for
country circulation. This measure was carried into effect on the 16th
of December; and an order was also issued to the officers of the Mint
to expedite an extraordinary coinage of sovereigns. For one week one
hundred and fifty thousand were coined daily. In the meantime meetings
were held in London and the great trading towns, in which resolutions
were adopted for the support of commercial credit and these had the
effect of restoring mutual confidence to a considerable extent. Such
was the contrast between the commencement and the close of the present
year: it began in visions of prosperity, it closed with a certainty of
adversity. The derangement of commercial affairs doubtless arose from
the dangerous mania of speculation, aided by a vicious system of
making paper money, which increased the currency, drove gold out of the
country, and then caused a demand for it in exchange for paper, which
it was impossible to meet. The natural consequence was an almost general
breaking up of those who depended on paper money, and an approach to its
utter annihilation.




THE BURMESE WAR.

{GEORGE IV. 1825—1826.}

During this year the hostilities against the Burmese were prosecuted
actively and successfully, but yet without producing any decisive
result. After the successes gained by Sir Archibald Campbell, towards
the end of the previous year, he remained unmolested at Rangoon; and the
only military operations in that quarter in the month of January were
some unimportant skirmishes. During that month it was discovered that
the Burmese generalissimo had stationed himself at Donoobew, about fifty
miles up the river, where, having drawn to his army all the resources of
the Pegu vice-royalty, he prepared himself to sustain an attack. It was
now determined by Sir Archibald Campbell, though his invading force was
small, and his Siamese allies reluctant to join him, to advance into the
interior of the empire. He joined the camp on the 13th of February
at Mienza, passing through forests lined with formidable stockades,
a deserted country, and destroyed villages. On the 26th he arrived
at Soomza, of which the governor of the place gave him possession by
retiring from his post. In the meantime, Donoobew had been attacked by
a division of the British force which had proceeded thither by water,
under Brigadier-general Cotton. The outworks of Donoobew were carried,
but the main-work was too strong to risk a further advance, and the
troops were withdrawn for a time. By the 18th of March General Campbell
crossed the Irrawaddy to the west bank in some of the country canoes,
and on the 25th reached Donoobew. He pitched his camp before the
extensive works of Maha Bandoola on the 2nd of April. During that
morning the enemy kept up a heavy fire on our ranks; but towards noon it
ceased. A calm succeeded; but it was the harbinger of a storm. About
ten o’clock, when the moon was fast verging towards the horizon, a sharp
sound of musketry mingled with war-cries roused the sleeping camp.
The soldiers seized their muskets and formed into a line; and this was
scarcely effected, when the opposing columns advanced with an intention
of turning our right, and at the same time keeping up a distant fire
against the left and centre. On their outflanking the right, our two
extreme regiments changed front, and by a constant discharge of musketry
checked every attempt, so that the assailants were compelled to retreat.
A series of various petty actions now took place by river as well as by
land; but in the meantime preparations were being made for the attack of
the enemy’s works. The mortar-batteries and rockets began their work of
destruction on the 1st of April, and on the following day the breaching
batteries opened, when two Lascars, who had been left prisoners in the
fort, came out to inform Sir Archibald Campbell that Bandoola had been
killed the day before by a rocket, and that the garrison, in spite of
the remonstrances of the other chiefs, had fled. This information was
quite correct; for the enemy had retired, leaving behind them all their
guns and a large depot of grain. In this service the British commander
was ably seconded by the navy under Captains Alexander and Chads, who
assisted in forcing the stockades, capturing the formidable war-boats,
and conveying our troops to the best places of attack. After the
dispersion of Bandoola’s army, Prome was considered the best place
to stop the invading troops, and the utmost energies of the local
authorities were employed in fortifying that place and organizing a
force for its defence. All the disposable force of the empire was, in
fact, concentrated at this spot: a spot memorable for the many battles
fought there with the people of Pegu. But all the Burmese preparations
were wholly disconcerted by the rapid movement of our army: Sir
Archibald Campbell entered Prome on the 25th of April without firing
a shot. Before they withdrew, the enemy had set fire to a part of the
town, and one quarter of it was reduced to ashes. In their flight,
also, the Burmese troops burned and laid waste all the villages in
their route, driving thousands of helpless people to the woods. This now
became their mode of warfare; and it has been said that Russia in her
memorable resistance to the French armies did not offer to the invading
hosts such a scene of desolation as did the Burmese empire to the
British troops. Neither man nor beast escaped the retiring columns; and
heaps of ashes, with groups of howling dogs, alone indicated the spots
where villages and towns had stood. While these movements occurred, a
series of actions had put the British in possession of the kingdom of
Arracan, and the Burmese were totally expelled from Cachar and Assam.
Thus terminated the second campaign of this desolating war. The British
army took up its winter-quarters at Prome, where cantonments were
provided for the troops, and preparations made for future operations.
Nor was the Burmese monarch idle; rejecting all overtures made by the
British general, troops were levied in every part of the kingdom, and
the tributary Shan tribes bordering on China were called on to furnish
their contingent force. Before the end of September a disposable force
of 70,000 men was ready to act against the British, who threatened to
advance on the capital. At the close of the year an armistice was agreed
upon, and negociations were entered into for a definitive treaty of
peace; but as there was no honesty on the side of the Burmese, and no
lack of penetration on that of the British, all proposals failed.




REVIEW OF FOREIGN RELATIONS.

Among the events of this year that which seemed pregnant with the most
important consequences to Europe, was the death of the Emperor Alexander
of Russia. This appeared capable of putting not only the tranquillity of
the empire in jeopardy, but of changing the whole course of its foreign
policy. This event however, was not felt beyond the limits of Russia;
the grand duke Nicolas succeeded to the throne, and professed a
determination to pursue that course of policy which had been adopted by
his predecessor. France was this year occupied in the coronation of its
monarch, whom the people was soon again to repudiate. Sweden, Denmark,
and Germany remained without much alteration of circumstances; but Spain
was not only in the possession of foreign troops, but was distracted
by the miseries of factions, revolts, and changes of administration. In
Portugal, the king was induced, chiefly through British influence, to
recognise the independence of Brazil, the sovereignty of which was ceded
to his eldest son, Don Pedro. The interior state of Brazil, however, was
much disturbed by the tyrannical, conduct of its new emperor, and war
was also commenced between Brazil and Buenos Ayres. In Italy and Austria
all were tranquil; but the relations between Turkey and Russia still
continued to be in a very critical state, though no hostilities were
commenced on either side. Greece was torn by internal dissensions,
and assailed by barbarian foes, who reduced Navarino, and invested
Missolonghi. In the United States, Mr. John Quincy Adams was chosen
president; and in South America the various republics were proceeding to
consolidate their power, though Chili was much disturbed, and Paraguay
had fallen under the tyranny of D Francia. The independence of the
united provinces of Rio de la Plata was formally recognised by Great
Britain, and a treaty of commerce and friendship was concluded between
the two powers. A treaty of amity and commerce was also concluded with
the congress of Columbia, and with the new sovereign of Brazil.




CHAPTER XXXVI.

{GEORGE IV. 1826—1827}

     Meeting of Parliament..... Measures proposed for relieving
     commercial Distress..... Bill to enable private Banks to
     have an unlimited Number of Partners, &c. Appointment of
     a Committee on Emigration..... Modification of the Corn-
     Laws..... Debates on Free trade..... Financial
     Statements..... Bill to prevent   Bribery at Elections.....
     Parliamentary Reform..... Alteration of the criminal
     Code..... Case of Mr. Kenriek..... State of the Colonies.....
     Motion for amending the Representation of Edinburgh,
     &c. Resolution for the Regulation of private
     Committees..... Motion to disjoin the Presidency of the
     Board of Trade from the Treasurership of the Navy......
     Motion to hold Parliament occasionally in Dublin and
     Edinburgh..... Restoration of forfeited Scotch Peerages.....
     Catholic Emancipation, &c. India Jury Bill, &e......
     Naturalization Act, &c. Prorogation and Dissolution  of
     Parliament..... General Election..... The  Burmese War.....
     Meeting of the New Parliament..... Motion for a select
     Committee on Joint Stock Companies, &c. King’s Message
     respecting the Conduct of Spain, &e...... Resolutions
     against Bribery at Elections.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1826}

Parliament reassembled on the 2nd of February, when the speech was
again delivered by commission. Its principal topic was the depression
of manufactures and commerce which still existed. The commissioners
remarked:—“We are commanded by his majesty to inform you that his
majesty has seen with regret the embarrassment which has occurred in
the pecuniary transactions of the country since the close of the
last session of parliament. This embarrassment did not arise from any
political events, either at home or abroad. It was not produced by any
unexpected demand upon the public resources, nor by the apprehension
of any interruption to the general tranquillity. Some of the causes
to which this evil must be attributed lie without the reach of direct
parliamentary interposition; nor can security against the recurrence
of them be found, unless in the experience of the sufferings which they
have occasioned. But to a certain portion of this evil, correctives, at
least, if not actual remedies, may be applied; and his majesty relies
upon your wisdom to devise such measures as may tend to protect both
private and public interests against the like sudden and violent
fluctuations, by placing on a more firm foundation the currency and
circulating credit of the country.” The commissioners further stated
that they had his majesty’s commands to lay before parliament copies of
conventions, founded on the acts relative to trade and commerce passed
last session, which had been concluded with France, and the Hanseatic
towns of Lubeck, Bremen, and Hamburg. They concluded by stating that his
majesty’s attention had been directed to certain measures recommended in
the last session of parliament for the improvement of Ireland, and that
his majesty had the satisfaction of acquainting the peers and members
assembled, that the industry of that part of the United Kingdom was in
the course of a gradual and general advancement; an advancement mainly
attributable to the tranquillity which now prevailed in that country.
The addresses in both houses passed without any serious opposition,
although much discussion took place on every topic on which the speech
touched, and on some to which it made no allusion. In the upper house
Lord King, after ascribing the pecuniary embarrassments to over-issues
of paper money by the Bank of England, attacked the corn-laws, and urged
the necessity of a complete alteration in them. He moved an amendment to
the address, pledging the house to revise the corn-laws in this session;
but this proposal was resisted as too precipitate, and the amendment
was negatived without a division. The principal object of Lord King,
however, and of other peers who spoke on the occasion, was to elicit
from the minister some general description of the measures alluded to
in the speech, as likely to be proposed for the purpose of preventing
future pecuniary embarrassments. Lord Liverpool, in gratifying them,
attributed the embarrassments to the mad spirit of speculation which had
existed for the last two years; a spirit doubly mischievous, because it
had affected the issues of the country banks to such a degree that
they had increased in a far higher proportion than those of the Bank of
England. He showed that in the course of the last two years the issues
of the country banks had increased from four to eight millions.
The correctives government intended to apply were to prohibit the
circulation, after a certain period, of notes under £2, whether issued
by the Bank of England, or by any private banker; to increase the
stability of private banks by enabling them to augment their capital;
and to repeal that clause in the charter of the Bank of England which
rendered it unlawful for any private banking establishment to consist of
more than six partners. In the commons, on the occasion of the debate on
the address, Mr. Brougham stated that he believed that the distress now
existing proceeded from causes much more complicated than those to which
the speech ascribed to it. He believed it to be universal; and he took
occasion to combat the opinion of those who derived it from the late
introduction of more liberal principles into a commercial policy. He
remarked.—“If the embarrassment were confined to any one branch of
our commerce, for instance, to the silk trade, then an argument might be
raised, and, without any great violence to facts, the distress might be
attributed to our new commercial policy. But when it is observed that
not only silk, but wool, cotton, and linen are equally affected, it is
in vain to deny that the nature of the facts rebut the assertion of
any connexion between the present distress and the principles of free
trade.” The chancellor of the exchequer maintained that many of the
difficulties arose beyond the control of government, although he allowed
that some were within its reach, and that their influence might at least
be modified. The principal of these, he said, were the great increase of
the issues of the country banks, and the weak foundation on which many
of these establishments stood in point of capital. Mr. Hume denied this
hypothesis, and maintained that the true causes of the distress were
to be found in the pressure of taxation, and the lavish expenditure
of government. The whole empire, he said, presented one scene of
extravagant misrule, from the gold lace and absurd paraphernalia of
military decoration of the guards up to the mismanagement of the Burmese
war: it was a farce, he added, to attribute the distress to the banking
system. Other members defended the country banks from the imputations
cast upon them; and Mr. Baring passed a high eulogy on the conduct of
the directors of the Bank of England in this crisis. He remarked that
it was impossible for any public body, for any set of men, to have acted
with more honour, promptitude, or good sense, than the Bank evinced upon
that emergency. Although it was not till the 10th that the propositions
for proscribing the small notes and enlarging bank partnerships were
formally brought forward, yet they were incidentally up to that period
the subject of discussion. The views of different members on the
subject, however, will be better seen in the debates which ensued when
the measure was proposed.




MEASURES PROPOSED FOR RELIEVING COMMERCIAL DISTRESS.

On the 10th of February the whole house having resolved itself into
a committee on the Bank charter bill, the chancellor of the exchequer
brought forward the proposition for prohibiting the circulation of small
notes. In doing so he said that though fluctuations were inseparable
from trade, in defiance of any precautions which ingenuity could invent,
yet their effects were often aggravated by a state of currency, and a
facility of speculation like those produced by the existing issues of
paper. The small notes especially carried the consequences of these
changes among those on whom they pressed most severely. These notes
were chiefly in the hands of the labouring classes, and a few of them
constituted a poor man’s fortune; consequently when a panic took place
he hastened to save his little store by withdrawing it from the banker.
As the alarm spread, the more wealthy imitated this example, and a
sudden run brought with it the downfall of the bank. From this he argued
that if these notes were replaced by a metallic currency, the security
of the banks would be ensured, and the misfortunes which their failures
would otherwise produce limited. This measure, he said, was not a
novelty, but had been the regular policy of the country; for an act had
been passed in 1775 prohibiting the tissue of bank-notes, and in 1777
another act had prohibited their issue under the sum of five pounds. The
chancellor of the exchequer argued that any apprehensions of injury to
commerce from the proposed measure must be founded upon this—that the
prohibition of small notes would diminish the circulation by the amount
of these notes; that their absence could not be supplied by gold; and,
that, therefore, manufactures and trade would, to this extent, be left
without their necessary and legitimate purposes. He went on to show that
these apprehensions were visionary; that the withdrawal of the small
notes, while it gave security to the bank which issued, and to the party
who held them, would not operate injuriously on the currency, or on the
trade and manufactures of the country. There were two ways, he said, of
effecting this withdrawal: one by enacting that no small notes should be
stamped after a certain period; the other by allowing those already in
circulation to run a certain course till a fixed period, and prohibiting
any new ones to be created. In three years the first of these modes
might lead to unsatisfactory results; for if the power of stamping were
to remain unlimited during that period, so considerable a number might
be stamped as to subject the country, in its ultimate endeavours to
get rid of them, to all its present evils. It was intended therefore
to propose, that no new notes should be stamped, and that those in
circulation should cease to circulate at the end of three years.
In conclusion, the chancellor of the exchequer moved the following
resolution:—“That it is the opinion of this committee, that all
promissory notes payable to the bearer on demand, issued by licence,
and under the value of five pounds, and stamped previous to the 5th of
February, 1826, be allowed to circulate until February 5th, 1829, and
no longer.” Mr. Baring took the lead in opposition to the measure,
objecting to it as being inadequate to meet the evils complained of, and
ill-suited to the present state of the country. He could not agree, he
said, in attributing the existing embarrassments either to speculation
or over-trading: much of it had been owing to the conduct previously
pursued by the Bank. The resolution was likewise opposed by Sir John
Wrottesly, Alderman Thompson, Alderman Heygate, and Mr. Wilson, who were
adverse to it on various grounds: that it would be wholly inoperative to
give any effectual relief; that it would be positively mischievous; and
that the present state of the country required the postponement of such
a measure. The scheme of increasing the number of partners in a bank by
way of security was treated by opposition as visionary, since it was not
on numbers, but on prudence, and their mode of conducting business,
that their credit depended. Sir J. Wrottesly maintained that the country
bankers, instead of exciting the mad spirit of speculation, were the
only persons who had not speculated; and, in reality, were obliged, from
a regard to their own safety, to discourage such a practice on the
part of their customers. He asked, where did this spirit of speculation
commence? It first showed itself in Manchester and Liverpool, where no
local notes circulated. The cotton speculations, in these two places
were the first heard of, and yet in neither of them was a single note
circulated. The next point at which this spirit was manifested, and
at which it had led to its un-happiest results, was not in the country
where the notes in question circulated, but on the stock-exchange of
London. It was further urged by the opponents of the measure that the
very essence of the present pecuniary embarrassments consisted in the
curtailed state of the currency; and that the direct tendency of the
proposed measure was to increase them by limiting it still more. Taking
the currency at twenty millions, it was argued, and the deduction to be
made on account, of the recent failures at three millions and a half,
the effect of the scheme in contemplation would be to cause a still
further deficiency, and reduce it to about ten millions, with which
it was impossible to carry on the trade of the country. It was further
argued that although a respite of three years was ostensibly granted to
the small notes, yet the adoption of the resolution would be tantamount
to driving them out of circulation at once, inasmuch as every banker
who entertained a due regard for his credit would be compelled to take
measures for withdrawing his notes as quickly as possible. They had been
issued, it was said, in reliance on the stability of the system, and on
the faith of acts of parliament, which ought to be as inviolate as the
charter of the Bank; and if these sources were now called in, the course
of industry in various channels must be stopped. How, it was asked, was
the gap made in the circulation of the country to be filled up? At the
termination of the war there existed a strong desire to return to a
metallic currency; and during the first years of peace there was a great
facility of obtaining specie; but it was not so at the present time. No
country could obtain it without giving its value in commodities. At the
end of the war, our manufactures, still in their prime, commanded
every market, and enabled us to obtain our gold: but at present the
manufactures of the continent and America were springing up all around
us, and every year we were more and more excluded from foreign markets.
The inability to dispose of our commodities was, in fact, it was stated,
one of the most aggravated features of the existing distress. In such
circumstances, therefore, it was urged, that it would be most unwise to
adopt a measure, which besides injuring an individual class, would tend
to increase public calamity. The resolution was supported by Messrs.
Huskisson, Peel, and Canning, who denied that to ascribe much of the
distress which had prevailed to the issues of the country banks, was
to attack the character of the country bankers, or that anything had
occurred to justify the extreme sensibility which had been manifested on
their behalf. With regard to the measure itself, they stated it was not
intended so much a remedy for existing evils, as a preventative against
their future recurrence, by bringing the currency, to a certain extent,
to be a metallic one, and especially that portion of it which alone
supplied the wants of the lower classes. All experience, it was urged,
proved that this restoration of a metallic currency could not be
effected so long as small notes were allowed to be circulated; a
permanent state of cash-payments could never exist by their side. It was
argued, that if crown notes and half-crown notes were issued, crowns and
half-crowns would disappear; and that if the one pound notes continued
to circulate, sovereigns would become rarities. There never was a gold
circulation in the country except in Lancashire, where no country notes
existed; and when, in the year 1822 and 1823, the Bank of England was
anxious to supply the country with gold, the sovereigns sent down by
one mail-coach returned with the next. Great sacrifices had been made
to effect the introduction of even the partial metallic currency now in
existence; and these sacrifices had been made in vain: the currency
of the country could never be placed, on a solid basis unless country
bankers were prohibited from issuing notes, excepting such as were of a
considerably higher denomination than the current coin, so as to save it
from the paper currency. The principle of the measure therefore could
be resisted only by those who held that the pecuniary relations of the
country were best secured by proscribing a metallic currency. But its
necessary effect would be to give solidity to the banks themselves,
by compelling them to maintain a portion of their circulation in gold,
instead of worthless paper; and thus, even where a failure took place,
extensive misery, which such an occurrence produced among the lower
classes, would no longer return. The security of the poorer classes in
such cases lay in the absence of small paper. Let the Bank of England
retain in its hands as much gold as might be necessary for the ordinary
operations of commerce, for such demands as the exigencies of government
might require, or to adjust an unfavourable state of foreign exchanges;
let every country bank be governed by the same rules, and compelled
to keep an amount of gold proportioned to its operations; and a
sensitiveness to occurrences likely to cause a pressure on the country
banks would be created, which would tend to the security of the whole
kingdom; the issues would be kept within bounds, and gold would be kept
in the kingdom. The expulsion of small notes, it was stated, could not
operate injuriously to the country bankers. The number of country banks
was about eight hundred, and the circulation of each of these would
average about £8,000; could it be supposed that a stability which
had stood the late shock would be shaken or destroyed by a gradual
curtailment of paper, to the extent annually of two or three thousand
pounds for three successive years? When the difficulty was thus reduced;
when the means were so limited and humble by which a mighty principle
was to be established; when, by an operation so minute, and a process
almost insensible, the prodigious advantage could be obtained of placing
the pecuniary concerns of the country on the broad and imperishable
basis of a metallic currency; it would be as imprudent to let slip
the opportunity as it would be unreasonable to deny the principle. The
intended change was neither to affect the paper circulation at large,
nor to trench upon the great mass of paper currency, which was confined
to notes of the higher denominations: these might be piled mountains
high, provided the base be refreshed by streams of the metallic
currency. To those members who, without objecting to the principle of
the measure, wished it to be postponed, it was answered, that instead of
coming too soon it had come too late. Mr. Brougham, who also supported
the resolution, strongly urged the inexpediency of delay when the work
was already half done, in consequence of the general want of confidence
having of itself greatly limited the issues of the country banks. Mr.
Baring moved as an amendment, “That it is the opinion of this house
that, in the present disturbed state of public and private credit, it
is not expedient to enter into a consideration of the banking system
of the country.” This was negatived by an overwhelming majority; as was
also an amendment moved by Mr. Gurney, to exclude the Bank of England
from the operation of the resolution. A bill for carrying this
resolution was immediately brought in by the chancellor of the
exchequer; and, though much resistance was offered to some of its
details, both in the commons and in the lords, the bill passed into
a law. The Earl of Carnarvon, who moved, on the second reading in the
lords, that the bill should be read that day six months, stated a new
reason why an actual gold circulation ought to be kept as far from
our doors as possible. A return of it, he said, would bring back the
highwaymen of Bagshot and Hounslow heath.

There was a greater temptation to commit robbery in the case of gold
than in the case of paper, because there were greater facilities for
escaping detection. It was easy to understand that there could not be
so strong an inducement to crime when the currency consisted in notes,
numbered, and signed with a known name, as when it consisted of gold
coin, which it was impossible to identify. Lord Liverpool, however, had
no such fears of highwaymen as the noble earl. He once, when he was a
boy, he said, lost all the money he had in his pockets by a highwayman;
and it was natural that he should be as much alive to this danger as
the noble earl. But still, with all his early associations, he could
not help thinking that if danger must revive with a return to a metallic
currency, it would have been felt during the last four or five years;
for during all that time their lordships had been travelling about,
not with notes, but with sovereigns in their pockets. The almost total
extinction of highway robberies was to be attributed to the only thing
that could check or extinguish them—the establishment of a powerful and
effective police.

While this measure for annihilating the issue of small notes in England
was making its way through parliament, the fitness of its application
to Ireland and Scotland was discussed. In Scotland there was a great
opposition even to the very idea of it. In every city and county public
meetings were held to deprecate the destruction of the one pound and
guinea notes, and men of all ranks and parties joined in one unanimous
outcry against the threatened introduction of gold. During the
discussion on the bill regarding England, indeed, the tables of both
houses were loaded with petitions from Scotland, setting forth the
benefits which that country so long had enjoyed from its banking system,
and the evils which would arise from every attempt to give it a new
and an untried form. Parliament rightly paid respect to the anxiety and
unanimity with which these opinions were expressed, especially as they
came from parties who were acquainted with the nature and practical
effects of the system. Moreover, the difference between the two systems
of the two countries, and the difference between the effects of the
two systems, formed good reasons why parliament should pause before
extending the plan to Scotland. Accordingly select committees were
appointed by both houses to inquire into the state of the circulation of
small notes in Scotland and Ireland, and to report upon the
expediency of altering the laws regarding it. Many Scottish merchants,
manufacturers, and bankers were examined by these committees; and
the reports presented to both houses towards the end of the session
justified the resistance made. The stability of the banking system in
Scotland, the committee stated, did not justify any alteration; and
they were apprehensive that a prohibition of small notes would injure
one branch of the Scottish system which it was essential to preserve,
namely, the giving of cash credits. Under these circumstances they
recommended that the paper money of Scotland should not be meddled with.
Sir M. W. Ridley, however, who, with others, was apprehensive that
a metallic currency in England could not exist with a small paper
circulation in Scotland, moved a resolution that the house would, in the
course of next session, institute an inquiry as to how far the interests
of England and Scotland were likely to be affected by the existence of
different systems of currency in the two countries; and to ascertain
whether any, or what means ought to be adopted to assimilate the
currency in both. But this motion was negatived without a division; and
thus Scotland was left for the present in possession of that system of
currency under which her commerce, manufactures, and agriculture had so
long flourished.




BILL TO ENABLE PRIVATE BANKS TO HAVE AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF PARTNERS,
ETC.

The bill extinguishing small notes in England was followed by two other
bills affecting the currency. The first of these bills was to permit the
number of partners in each country bank to be unlimited; and the second,
as a compensation to the Bank for conceding to this measure, extended
its exclusive privileges to a circle round the metropolis, with a radius
of sixty-five miles, and authorised the directors to establish branch
banks in different parts of the country. While these measures were
before parliament, in which they received general support, distress
widely prevailed throughout the country. An idea was entertained that
ministers would relieve this by the issue of exchequer-bills; but
they had the prudence to abstain from any short-sighted and injurious
palliatives. They expressed themselves willing, indeed, to keep the Bank
harmless to the extent of two millions, if it should think proper to go
into the market and purchase exchequer-bills; but they would not involve
themselves in a system of artificial relief for a disease which they
thought would cure itself better without their interference. Petitions
were presented, praying the house to take commercial distress into its
consideration; and government was charged by several members with
being insensible to the misery which prevailed, and the danger which
threatened; but nothing could move them to implicate themselves in
transactions which might have involved them in pecuniary embarrassments.
But relief was afforded in some degree by the Bank itself. Although
the directors had refused to go into the market for the purchase of
exchequer-bills, they came to a resolution of lending three millions on
direct or collateral security. This measure was immediately carried into
execution; and commissioners were appointed by the Bank in the principal
provincial towns, in order to distribute the money. The whole of this
sum, however, was not applied for; the very knowledge that such loans
were attainable having a considerable effect in restoring confidence
among the commercial classes. In some of the provincial towns the
offices of the Bank commissioners, who were almost uniformly mercantile
persons connected with the district where they were stationed, were
almost unfrequented. The applications for advances, indeed, were made
with great moderation; none were required beyond what the need of the
applicant demanded. The adoption of this measure rendered it necessary
for the security of the Bank to introduce a bill regarding the law of
principal and agent. The Bank, indeed, in consenting to advance three
millions, made it a condition of their compliance, that the protection
of the statute should be extended to them immediately. Accordingly a
bill was brought in and passed to enable persons in the possession of
goods, and of the documents conferring the property of them, although
such persons should be merely factors or agents, to pledge them with the
Bank as effectually as if such persons were the owners. Such were
the measures recommended by ministers, and adopted by parliament, to
palliate the existing distress, and to provide security against some of
the causes which had produced it. And they tended greatly to those
ends. Commerce, feeling itself unshackled, soon repaired its losses
and extended its operations; it found its way not only through European
nations, where barriers had hitherto been raised against it, but
penetrated the most barbarous regions of the earth.




APPOINTMENT OF A COMMITTEE ON EMIGRATION.

During the last four years government had lent its aid to those who
desired to emigrate to Canada. In the present year the general misery
which prevailed increased the claims of emigration, as a means of
relief, tenfold. In Scotland, even the landholders of a county applied
to ministers to afford encouragement to intended emigrants; and among
the artisans societies were formed for the purpose of projecting plans
of emigration, and obtaining assistance both from the crown and from
other sources. The subject was brought before parliament on the 14th
of March, when Mr. Wilmot Horton moved for the appointment of a select
committee to inquire into the expediency of encouraging emigration.
Government did not deny the importance of the question, or shut the door
against its consideration: no opposition was made to the appointment of
the committee; but nothing further occurred on this subject during the
present session.




MODIFICATION OF THE CORN-LAWS.

On the first day of this session Lord King had moved an address,
pledging the upper house to take the corn-laws into immediate
consideration; and the tables of both houses were covered, almost
nightly, with petitions, partly from the agriculturists, praying that
the law might be allowed to remain as it was; but chiefly from artisans
and manufacturers, praying for its instant repeal. Ministers did not
deem it prudent to introduce the subject during this session, although
they acknowledged its importance. The advocates of a repeal, however,
embraced many opportunities in charging government with keeping back
the settlement of this great question; and were at length determined
to bring it again before parliament. On the 18th of April Mr. Whitmore
moved, “That the house do now resolve itself into a committee, to
consider the propriety of a revision of the corn-laws.” He allowed
that the time at which he submitted his motion was not unattended with
inconvenience and the possibility of loss; but not only the expediency,
but the absolute necessity of an immediate alteration appeared to him
to be imperative. It was mischievous, he said, to delay the decision of
the question a single moment after government had applied the principles
of free trade to other branches of industry; inasmuch as these
principles could never be applied with due effect, nor have practical
justice done them so long as the present corn-laws formed part of our
commercial policy. Sir Francis Burdett supported the motion, not from
any expectation that it would produce the anticipated effects
expressed by the mover, but because the discussion would show, that the
landowners, in supporting their own class and station, were advocating
that which was essential to the general interests of the country, Mr.
Huskisson, in reply, without entering into the merits of the question,
deprecated its discussion at the present time. Ministers had announced
that the subject would not be brought forward this session, and nothing
had happened since to warrant this ill-timed motion. He had every
reason to suppose that the subject would be brought forward in the next
session, in which case he was most anxious to give it a serious and
dispassionate consideration. The motion was lost by a large majority;
but though the arrangement of the corn-laws still remained unsettled,
it was found necessary, before the end of the session, to introduce two
bills for modifying their strict operation. At the present time there
was but little diminution of distress; and its continued pressure led to
a series of disgraceful riots in Lancashire, where the vengeance of the
mob was furiously directed against machinery, especially power-looms,
under a notion that these were the great cause of the want of
employment. The impression arose from ignorance; but that ignorance had
been stimulated by a state of suffering which could not be overlooked.
At this time, in the immediate neighbourhood of the scene of distress,
in Hull, Liverpool, and other ports, there were between two and three
thousand quarters of wheat in bond; and it was supposed that the
admission of this into the market would diminish the extent of
suffering, while it would have no material effect on the agricultural
interests. Mr. Canning brought forward a proposition to allow bonded
corn to come into the market, on payment of a duty of ten shillings
per quarter, which was passed almost unanimously. Another measure of
modification proposed by government, however, met with stern opposition.
As it was impossible to foretell the result of the ensuing harvest, it
was proposed, as a measure of precaution, to vest in government during
the recess a power of permitting foreign grain to be imported on payment
of a fixed duty. This was resisted as irregular and unconstitutional,
both in the commons and in the upper house; but it was finally
carried. Before it passed, however, the opposition was gratified by the
limitation of the quantity of corn admissible to 500,000 quarters and
the period to two months from the opening of the ports.




DEBATES ON FREE TRADE.

The legislature had begun to act on the principles of free trade in
1824, by taking off those restrictions which prohibited the importation
of foreign silks. To the bill which permitted their admission with an
_ad valorem_ duty of thirty per cent., and which was now to come into
operation, a large portion of both masters and workmen referred the
depression of the trade, rather than to causes which did not come so
readily within general comprehension. Many manufacturers limited their
orders until the effect of this untried system should be somewhat known,
while others joined in the outcry against it. The general impression
among them was, that the “untried state of being” should not be tried;
and many petitions were presented from the persons and districts
interested in the silk manufacture, praying for a repeal, or at least
a modification of the provision of 1824, for a total prohibition of
foreign fabrics, or a higher duty upon their importation. On the 23rd
of February, Mr. Ellice, member for Coventry, moved that the petitions
which had been presented on this subject should be referred to a select
committee. This motion led to a debate, which, by adjournment, continued
two evenings. In this debate Mr. Huskisson was compelled to vindicate
the leading part he had taken in the measure under consideration, in
which he was ably supported by Mr. Canning. This motion was lost; but
soon afterwards Mr. Huskisson was obliged to vindicate the late policy
pursued respecting the shipping interest and navigation laws. This arose
from the complaints of the shipowners and others connected with the
shipping interests, who believed themselves to be affected by the late
navigation laws. They complained especially of the system which had
been adopted of removing discriminating duties, and allowing articles of
merchandise to be imported in foreign vessels, under the same burthens
as if they had been imported in British bottoms, on condition of
reciprocity in regard to ourselves. They contended in numerous petitions
to parliament that such a reciprocal removal of discriminating duties
was ruinous to British shipping, because the British and foreign owner
could never be put upon an equality, unless the latter were burthened
with a higher duty. The petitioners and their adherents in parliament,
repeated these complaints at every opportunity; but they did not venture
to bring the question formally under the notice of the legislature.
Mr. Huskisson, however, thought it expedient to show that their
representations were groundless; and on the 12th of May, in moving for
“returns of ships built in the British dominions, between 1824 and 1825,
both inclusive, distinguishing the number in each year, and the amount
of their tonnage,” he entered into an elaborate defence of the late
policy. Nothing could be clearer than his exposition of the principles
on which the former system was founded, of the changes which had since
occurred, and of the consequent necessity of our conformity to those
altered circumstances. Having developed the general principles on which
the navigation laws were originally founded, the different objects to
which these principles had been applied, the modifications which from
time to time had been made upon these objects, and the causes, political
and commercial, which had rendered such changes necessary he stated,
that all the allegations of mischief having ensued, and of an undue
preference having been given to foreign over British shipping, in
consequence of the late policy, were contradicted by the actual results.
The complaint was, that in consequence of this policy a decrease had
taken place in the employment of British shipping. Now in December,
1824, the number of British ships which entered our harbour was 19,104,
and the tonnage 2,364,000, and the number of foreign ships, 5,280, the
tonnage being 66,940. In 1825 the number of British ships entered was
21,980, and the tonnage, 2,768,844, and the number of foreign ships,
in the same period, 5,661, the tonnage being 68,192. It was to be
recollected, he said, that during this year there was an unusual
demand for shipping, both British and foreign, in consequence of the
unprecedented extent of speculation in almost every branch of commerce.
On looking to these returns, therefore, it was clear that the amount of
British shipping had increased in a far greater proportion than that of
all foreign nations put together. Such being the case, we were certainly
not in such a situation as was calculated to excite alarm with respect
to the comparative growth of British and foreign shipping. Even if the
latter had increased last year, it formed no ground for alarm, because
it might be fairly attributed to the unusual demand for shipping
produced by the prevailing spirit of speculation. The alarm felt upon
this subject was in part grounded upon the state of our commerce in the
Baltic, and the number of Prussian ships which entered our ports, as
compared with British. Now in 1824, the British ships which entered from
the Baltic was 440, and in 1825, 942. The number of Prussian ships which
entered in 1824 was 682, and in 1825, 827. The number of Prussian ships,
therefore, increased only by a fourth, while that of the British ships
was more than doubled. Such was the comparative state of the shipping
of both countries in the last year; and as Prussia seemed to be the
main object of jealousy when there existed so little ground for it
with respect to that nation, all apprehensions on this point might
be dismissed. Mr. Huskisson’s motion was agreed to; Sir W. Ridley
expressing a hope that the subject would receive a full investigation
in the next parliament. Later in the session, Mr. Huskisson brought in a
bill to give effect to some commercial treaties which had been concluded
between this country and Colombia, and the united provinces of the Rio
de la Plata. It had been stipulated, as these republics were not
in possession of any commercial marine of their own, that vessels,
wheresoever built, being the property of any of the citizens of either
republic, should be considered as national vessels of that republic:
the master, and three fourths of the mariners of the vessel being always
citizens of such republic. The design of Mr. Huskisson’s bill was to
give effect to these stipulations, and it was passed into a law.




FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

{GEORGE IV. 1826—1827}

The chancellor of the exchequer opened the budget on the 13th of March.
In doing so he took a large review of the whole financial system,
particularly of reductions which during several years had been made in
taxation, and of the effect of these reductions in the productiveness
of the revenue. His statements for the year partook of the favourable
character which they had sustained for the last three years, although he
admitted that he must make allowance for some loss in various branches
of revenue, consequent on the present state of public embarrassment.
After all the deductions, however, he reckoned the probable produce of
the year before him at not less than £57,000,000, while he calculated on
the whole expenditure at £56,328,421. This statement, holding out
much happier prospects than, from the distress which prevailed in the
country, could have been anticipated, was received by the house with
general satisfaction. Mr. Maberly and Mr. Hume, however, maintained not
only that there had been no reduction of the public debt, but that
there had been an actual increase both in the capital, and in the annual
charge, and that taxation had been raised instead of being diminished.
They alleged that the capital of the debt had been increased by the
enormous sum of £61,646,000 between 1819 and 1826, and that the annual
charge had grown in proportion. This assertion, however, rested on an
obvious fallacy, arising out of a total misapprehension of the nature of
what is called the dead-weight scheme, and of the arrangements which, in
pursuance of it, had been made with the Bank for discharging part of
the half-pay and pension list. Mr. Hume’s assertion, that taxation had
increased during the last three years was still more erroneous; for the
chancellor of the exchequer in his statements proved to demonstration,
by actual figures, that from 1816 to 1825 taxes had been reduced to the
large amount of £27,522,000, and that no new taxes had been imposed.
Subsequently the state of the public debt underwent much discussion, the
great questions being not whether it ought or might be reduced, but what
was its actual amount, and whether, in point of fact, any diminution of
it had been effected during late years. The amount of the army, navy,
and civil estimates was also censured by Messrs. Maberly and Hume with
other members, but the necessary supplies of the year were readily
voted.




BILL TO PREVENT BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.

On the 2nd of March Lord John Russell moved for leave to bring in a bill
for the better prevention of bribery at elections. Leave was given; and
on the second reading of it Mr. Wynn stated that he had many objections
to it, which he feared it would not be practicable to remove so as to
render it fit for the adoption of the house. As he understood it, he
said, the principle of the bill was, that upon complaint made to the
house by petition, a select committee should be appointed to try the
issue, and that their decision should be final. There was an obvious
objection to this; namely, that the decision of no committee could be
binding upon that house. The inquisitorial powers of the house might be
delegated, but not the judicial. A body might be appointed to bring in
a true verdict as to fact, but the question of corruption was a question
of influence. All that a committee could do was to report to the house,
and the house could proceed on that report or not as it pleased. Mr.
Wynn also objected to the clause which gave power to present petitions
of complaint within six years from the period of election; and that
there was no penalty or punishment assigned to an unfounded charge. The
bill was supported by Messrs. Hobhouse, Smith, and Fyshe Palmer, but
it did not proceed further; for when the report on the bill was to be
taken into consideration, Lord John Russell stated that it was not his
intention to press it during the session, but that he would probably
embody its provisions in the shape of resolutions. On the last day
of the session he moved, therefore, that “whenever a petition shall be
presented to this house after the expiration of the time allowed for
presenting petitions against the validity of the return of any member of
this house, by any person or persons, affirming that at any time within
eighteen calendar months previous to presenting the said petition,
general bribery or corruption has been practised for the purpose of
procuring the election or return of any member or members to serve in
parliament for any borough, cinque-port, or place, and it shall appear
to the house that such petition contains allegations sufficiently
specific to require further investigation, a day and hour shall
be appointed by the said house for taking the said petition into
consideration, so that the space of twenty days shall intervene between
the day on which the said petition shall have been presented, and the
day appointed by the said house for taking the same into consideration,
&c.”—“that at the hour appointed by the said house for taking such
petition into consideration, the said house shall proceed to appoint a
select committee to inquire into the truth of the matters contained in
the said petition, and report the result of their inquiry to the said
house, and such select committee shall consist of thirteen members
chosen by lot, &c.” Mr. Wynn said, that he did not intend to object to
the principles of these resolutions, but he thought they had better be
reserved till the next parliament, as they would have to be confirmed by
it. Mr. Peel thought so likewise, as the last day of the session was not
a fitting time to give them that consideration which their importance
demanded. Lord John Russell, however, pressed his motion to a division,
as he could not be certain of having a seat in the next parliament, and
the numbers on each side being equal, the speaker gave his casting vote
in favour of the resolutions.




PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

On the 27th of April Lord John Russell again brought forward the
question of parliamentary reform. The resolution he proposed was “that
the present state of the representation of this country in parliament
requires the most serious consideration of this house.” In his speech on
this occasion he laid down two premises: first, “that it was a matter of
paramount importance to adapt every government to the wants and wishes,
the prejudices and existing circumstances of the country for which
it was intended; and that the people of this country had arrived at a
degree of knowledge, intelligence, and wealth, which made them a people
more worthy than had ever before existed of being entrusted with
the privilege of electing their representatives, and more capable of
exercising it with advantage.” From these premises he concluded that the
house of commons as it existed at present, was badly constituted; for
instead of being chosen by the more numerous, the more intelligent,
and the mora wealthy class, it was elected by the minority, the less
intelligent, and the less wealthy. As therefore the elective franchise,
instead of remaining in the hands of the many, had become the property
of a few, and as such a discrepancy between the condition of the
people, and the constitution of the government had unhappily come into
existence, calamities would one day or other ensue, unless the state of
the representation were amended, from which neither the constitution nor
the country would ever recover. After noticing the objections commonly
urged against the necessity of reform, the noble mover continued, that,
of two modes of reform which it was customary to propose, the one a
total reconstruction, and the other a partial renovation of the house of
commons, the latter appeared to him of the soundest principle, and the
best suited to the condition of the country. The principal feature of
his plan, he explained, would be, to restrict a hundred of the smaller
boroughs to one member instead of allowing them two, and to give
the number of representatives thus subtracted from them to towns of
importance unrepresented. These details, however, he said, would be
matter of future deliberation. The object he had in view was, in the
words of Mr. Fox, “not to pull down, but to work upon our constitution;
to examine it with care and reverence; to repair it where decayed; to
amend it where defective; to prop it where it wanted support; and to
adapt it to the purposes of the present time, as our ancestors had
done from generation to generation, and always transmitted it not only
unimpaired, but improved, to posterity.” The measure was supported by
Mr. Hobhouse, and opposed by Messrs. Dennison and Lamb; but the debate
did not present much novelty, and it terminated in the rejection of the
motion by a majority of two hundred and forty-seven to one hundred and
twenty-three.




ALTERATION OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.

At this period Mr. Peel applied the powers of his clear and
dispassionate mind to the simplification and improvement of our criminal
code. On the 9th of March he introduced a bill to consolidate the
various acts which related to offences against property. He explained
the nature of these acts at great length; but the bill was not carried
through the commons during this session, Mr. Peel stating, that from the
multiplicity of its details, it was necessary to proceed in it with the
most cautious deliberation. Another bill, which was introduced by
him, and which passed into a law, had for its object the removal of
inconveniences belonging to the administration of the criminal law
generally, and in particular the amendment of the existing regulations
relative to admitting bail in cases of felony. One clause, which Mr.
Lamb endeavoured to introduce into the bill, was contested with great
vigour on both sides of the house. This was a proposal, which had
already frequently been rejected, for allowing counsel to
prisoners. This clause was supported by Messrs. Williams, Twiss,
Scarlett, Brougham, and Denman; and opposed by the attorney
and solicitor-generals, and by Messrs. Peel and Canning. The
attorney-general allowed that in regard to its merits the opinion of
the bar was divided; but he expressed his conviction that it would be
injurious to the prisoner as well as to justice. As criminal proceedings
were now conducted, the prosecutor’s case was opened by a simple
statement of facts; and the judge always took care that his counsel
should not go further, and the evidence was heard dispassionately. After
this the prisoner’s case was gone through in the same way, except that
there was no previous statement of facts, because the general nature of
the case was already understood. There was, finally, the charge of the
judge, carefully sifting the evidence, and calmly applying the law. But
the case, he argued, would be different if counsel were heard on both
sides. There would then be all the zeal, the animation, and the
struggle for victory which were usually seen in civil cases. Besides, he
continued, the counsel for the prosecution would always have the benefit
of a reply whenever the accused called a witness, which might more than
counterbalance any favourable effect of evidence. The functions of the
judge, also, would assume a character disadvantageous to the prisoner;
for if the address of the counsel of the prisoner threatened to be
efficient, the judge in many cases would have to interfere: In doing
this, it was urged, he might unconsciously pass the exact boundary that
ought to circumscribe his remarks; the impression then would probably go
forth that the verdict of the jury had been elicited by those remarks;
and the judge, instead of being, as he was now, counsel for the
prisoner, would be almost compelled to become an advocate against him.
On the other side Mr. H. Twiss set forth in a strong light the absurdity
of permitting counsel to start and multiply the most frivolous and
visionary objections to the form and phraseology of an indictment, with
the merits and evidences of their client’s case. He also set forth the
hardships under which a prisoner lay, who, wishing to address the jury
of the facts of a case, must do it with his own lips, under all the
disadvantages of natural disability, physical impediments, or accidents
of his situation, while the very incompetency to do himself justice would
be aggravated by a knowledge of the serious consequences attendant
on his failure. As to the fiction of the judge being counsel for the
prisoner, he said, it would in most cases be much more true to say, that
he was counsel against the prisoner, and for the prosecutor. Whence,
he asked, came the only instructions which the judge received in any of
these cases? From the depositions of the witnesses for the prosecution.
Sir Robert Atkyns, in his notes upon Lord Russell’s trial, had truly
said, “I well know by experience what sort of counsel judges usually be
for the prisoner.” Mr. Peel admitted that the arguments which might be
raised on both sides of this question were very equally poised; that the
legal opinions upon it were nearly equiponderant; and that if he were
convinced of the alteration being fitting itself, he would not oppose to
it merely the antiquity of the law which it was intended to change. His
own experience, however, and the knowledge acquired from his official
situation, led him to think that justice was most satisfactorily
administered under the present system: he felt unwilling to risk any
change. The clause was lost on a division by one hundred and five
against thirty-six.




CASE OF MR. KENRICK.

In the early part of this session the house considered a charge brought
by Mr. Denman against Mr. Kenrick, a magistrate of the county of Surrey,
and one of the Welsh judges. Evidence on the charge was entered into;
and Mr. Denman moved, that as Mr. Kenrick had shown himself an unfit
person to exercise the judicial functions, an address be presented to
his majesty, praying him to remove that gentleman from the office of
judge of the great session of Wales. The motion, however, was negatived
without a division; and this fact became a powerful argument in favour
of parliamentary reform.




STATE OF THE COLONIES.

During this session cases of great cruelty and injustice, exercised
by owners, magistrates, and judicial courts, against the slaves in our
colonies, were brought before the parliament, and eloquently exposed. At
the close of 1823, and the early part of 1824, a plan of an insurrection
among the slaves on certain plantations in Jamaica had been discovered;
and eight negroes had been executed as implicated in the conspiracy.
The papers connected with these trials had been laid on the table of the
house in 1825; and Mr. Denman now brought the legality and justice
of these proceedings under discussion, by moving a resolution to the
effect, that the house having taken into consideration the trials which
took place at Jamaica for rebellion, conspiracy, and other offences, in
the years 1823 and 1824, deem it their duty to express their sorrow and
regret at the violation of law which took place upon the said trials;
that they lament the manner in which the sentence of death was passed
and executed; and recommend some alteration in the mode of administering
the code of criminal justice affecting the slaves in the said colony.
This motion was prefaced by a speech of great eloquence, analyzing the
evidence upon which the accused had been convicted, demonstrating its
contradictions, its insufficiency, its absurdity, and arriving at the
conclusion that such atrocities, perpetrated under the mask of justice,
and the law of evidence which permitted them, required the abolition of
the system which placed a negro for trial before interested masters for
his judges and jury; and in giving him an appeal to the council, merely
gave him an appeal to another body of masters equally prejudiced. Having
detailed the trials at length, Mr. Denman said he proposed the above
resolutions, that the commons of England might have an opportunity of
raising their voice against such acts of crying injustice and barbarity.
He was ably seconded by Mr. Brougham, who, in the course of his
speech, declared that if the circumstances of undefended justice passed
unreproved, it would go out to the West Indies that the same error,
injustice, or cruelty might be committed again and again with impunity,
so long as the present system continued; and if the house negatived
the motion, it would set the seal of its sanction on a great and crying
injustice, and do more than it would be able speedily to undo towards
perpetuating the existing system in our colonies. On the other hand, it
was maintained by Mr. Wilmot Horton that the courts had only applied
the law which they were bound to apply; and that they had applied it
according to the forms required by that law, and in circumstances which
fairly called for the interference of the legal authorities. He moved
an amendment, that the house sees in the proceedings brought under their
consideration a further proof of the evils attendant upon slavery, and
derives from them an increased conviction of the propriety of resorting
to the measures recommended by government in the order of council; but
does not deem it necessary, however desirable a change of the law may
be, to impeach the sentences passed according to law by a competent
trial, and convicted by a jury sworn to give a verdict according to
the evidence. This amendment was supported by the attorney-general and
solicitor-general, both of whom, however, frankly admitted the vices
of the system of law under which the proceedings in question had taken
place. It was impossible, said the attorney-general, to look at the
case, arising as it did out of the vice of the system, without wishing
for a change. If the white man upon his trial had an opportunity
afforded him of knowing the charge, and thereby preparing his defence,
why should not the black slave have the same advantage? An act of the
legislature had lately passed to compel the charge to be delivered in
writing. This act was brought into the colonial legislature of Jamaica;
but it was accompanied by a proviso that no objection should ever be
made on a point of form. Men were prone to confound substance and form
to be permitted this latitude. An instance of this was supplied in the
present case. The prisoners were accused of being guilty of a rebellious
conspiracy, and other charges; thus the prosecutor could adduce whatever
evidence he chose under a charge so very broad. Here was a conspiracy
charged; but with whom? No individuals were mentioned. Any overt act
specified? Time? No time certified. Place? No circumstance or place.
When the Slave Evidence Bill was introduced into the colonial assembly
of Jamaica, it was rejected on the ground that the slave was too low in
the scale of moral beings; that he had no character, no distinct notion
of morality, no notion of religion, or of the distinction between truth
and falsehood. But when the slave was to be tried, other slaves were
admitted as witnesses; and that, too, on their bare word, and an
exhortation from the judge not to speak falsely. It was a known rule
in this country—and the common law of England was in force in the West
Indies—that hearsay evidence should not be received; yet the whole
course of these proceedings showed manifold departures from this
important rule: while it was an acknowledged law in regard to the
whites, it had no application in regard to the blacks. But while the law
was acknowledged to be bad, it was argued, that it was another thing to
pass a vote of censure for the observance of it, however defective it
might be. The house ought, it was said, to separate the defects-of the
law from the alleged delinquency of the parties, and reject a motion
which went, not to denounce the system of slavery or to censure the
law, but to condemn individuals who had no power to alter the one, or
to abolish the other. On a division the amendment was carried by one
hundred and three against sixty-three. During this session, however,
delay and remedial measures were suggested by Lord Liverpool in the
upper house, and by Mr. Canning in the commons, for the extinction of
slavery. Mr. Canning declared that if immediate and hasty steps were
not taken, our West Indian possessions would be abandoned to a state
of savage desolation, of which wild speculators had not the slightest
notion. At the same time he was obliged to confess that in most of our
colonies the exhortations sent by government, for the amelioration of
the condition of their slaves, had been treated with intolerable neglect
and contempt. In the lords the resolutions were objected to, on the
ground that they were too feeble for the nature of the subject; that
though adopted they would produce no practical effect; and that the
three years which had elapsed since they were voted by the house
of commons—for they had been adopted in May, 1823—had furnished
irrefragable evidence of their futility. Lord Calthorpe expressed his
deep regret that the commons had not passed resolutions more conformable
to the light in which slavery ought to be regarded by a Christian
community, and that their lordships were now called upon to concur in
opinions better suited to their own dignity. There were not ‘wanting
members in the commons who were equally desirous of legislating in the
spirit of Christianity, equally with his lordship. It was maintained
there with great eloquence that slavery was inconsistent with
Christianity and the constitution. Occasion was given for the expression
of these sentiments in the commons, by a motion made by Mr. Brougham on
the 19th of May, to the effect that “the house has observed with extreme
regret that nothing had been effected by the colonial legislature, in
compliance with the declared wishes of government and the resolutions
of the house of the 15th of May, 1823, for ameliorating the condition of
the slaves in the West Indian colonies; and that this house, therefore,
pledges itself, early in the next session of parliament, to take into
its most serious consideration such measures as may be best calculated
to carry into effect the recommendation of the government and the
house.” This motion was supported by Dr. Lushington and Mr. Denman; but
opposed by Messrs. Canning, Ellis, and Horton. Mr. Canning, however,
asserted that government only wished to retard a little the attainment
of the object, in order that they might arrive at it with greater
security. Sir T. Ackland said, that he did not wish directly to negative
the motion; but as he thought the adoption of it would retard the good
effects to be looked for from the resolutions of 1823, he moved the
previous question, which was carried by a large majority. In the upper
house, on the 17th of April, Lord Suffield brought forward a motion to
prohibit persons in official situations in the West Indies from being
proprietors of slaves; a motion which, he said, had no connexion with
the emancipation of the negroes; and was directed not so much to the
conceding of civil rights, as to the preventing of criminal wrong. The
same topic was brought before the commons by Mr. W. Smith on the 20th of
April; but the resolutions thereon were negatived in both houses. At
the close of the session, indeed, the colonial legislatures were allowed
further opportunity of showing how far they were inclined by timely
concessions and purposes of good faith to avert the direct interference
of the mother country in their internal regulations.




MODE FOR AMENDING THE REPRESENTATION OF EDINBURGH, ETC.

During this session Mr. Abercromby moved leave to bring in a bill to
alter and amend the representation of the city of Edinburgh, which, he
said, contained a population of more than 100,000 inhabitants, while the
elective franchise was in the hands of a town-council of thirty-three
members, self-elected, and what were called the vested rights of that
body were generally the principal obstacles thrown in the way of a
better system. This motion was strongly opposed by the members for the
town and county of Edinburgh, on the ground that no corruption had been
charged against the corporation of Edinburgh; and by Mr. Canning, who
considered it was intended to undermine the barriers which resisted the
inroads of a more wide and sweeping innovation. Mr. Canning also brought
forward the unexampled prosperity of Edinburgh, and the contentment
which pervaded its population, as a convincing proof of the excellence
of the old system. After expatiating on the advantages connected with
the Scotch representation, he remarked that his objection to the present
motion was its application, as a single instance of reform in a borough,
to the general question. It was not unusual, he said, to bring forward
an attack on a single borough by an allegation of the prevalence of
abuses; but it was quite new to institute a charge against it because
its elective was not in proportion to its actual population. This
principle, if once admitted, would let in the general question of
reform, which would lead to endless squabbles. At the same time he
expressed a hope, that the motion might be repeated annually; but it
was to this end, for the innocent gratification of Lord John Russell and
those who advocated reform! On a division the motion was lost. About the
same time that this question was discussed, Sir John Newport moved for
leave to bring in a bill for the repeal of the Irish act, 21 Geo. 2nd.,
c. 10, relating to the elective franchise. By that statute it had been
enacted, that, in consequence of the difficulty of finding a sufficient
number of resident Protestant freemen, sufficiently wealthy and
sufficiently educated to exercise the elective franchise, non-resident
freemen should be entitled to vote. Sir J. Newport argued that the
cause which produced these enactments had ceased to operate, and that
therefore the act itself ought to be removed from the statute-book. On
the other hand it was argued by Mr. Plunkett that the country had gone
on for seventy years with the principle of non-residence applied to
boroughs and corporate towns, and that the effect of the measure would
be to affect vested rights, and disturb persons actually in possession.
If that act were repealed, he said, the election of every officer of
a corporation would be impeachable. The house should especially pause
before it assented to such a proposition on the eve of a general
election, a proposition, the effects of which upon existing rights,
could not be measured. The motion was negatived by seventy-six against
thirty-eight.




RESOLUTION FOR THE REGULATION OF PRIVATE COMMITTEES.

On the 19th of April, Mr. Littleton brought forward a series of
resolutions for the better regulation of private committees on private
bills, especially those relating to joint-stock companies. Great
complaints had been made of the conduct of these committees; but Mr.
Littleton observed that he believed they were generally ill-founded.
It was certain, however, he continued, that the present constitution of
committees rendered improper conduct perfectly possible; but this, the
plan he had in view would prevent. The grand features of this plan were
to remodel the list for the counties; to secure impartiality by taking
only one half of the committee from the county in which the bill
originated; to make attendance compulsory, and to prevent the chance
of abuse by creating a standing committee of appeal. His scheme was
embodied in eight resolutions which were adopted with the general
approbation of the house. The only one on which a division took place
was that which provided that every petition complaining of the decision
of a private committee should be referred to a committee of appeal; and
this was carried by a majority of forty-four against thirty-three.




MOTION TO HOLD PARLIAMENT OCCASIONALLY IN DUBLIN AND EDINBURGH.

On the same day that Mr. Littleton brought forward the resolutions
alluded to, Mr. Pelham, made one of most extraordinary motions that ever
was proposed within the walls of Saint Stephen’s. After adverting to the
great increase of wealth and population in the principal towns of the
kingdom, their distance from the seat of legislation, and the expense of
sending witnesses and deputies to London whenever their interests
were at stake, he gravely moved, “That it is expedient the imperial
parliament should be occasionally holden in Dublin and Edinburgh.” The
very idea of such a change was justly scouted by the house as unworthy
their attention, and no one was found bold enough to second the motion:
so St. Stephen’s was not yet to be deserted.




RESTORATION OF FORFEITED SCOTCH PEERAGES.

Acts were passed during this session for the restoration of five Scotch
peerages which had been forfeited by rebellion in the last century.
These were the peerages of the Earl of Carnwath, Earl of Airlee, Lord
Duff, Lord Elcho, and the Baron of Threipland of Fingarll. The only
person who opposed this measure was Lord Minto, and he avowed that his
opposition was founded upon political sentiments. He asked, why should
not a bill be brought in for the restoration of titles against all acts
of attainder passed under the present and preceding dynasties? Why make
a selection of forfeitures incurred for treason, not against the crown,
but against the liberties of the subject? Why, for instance, was not the
Duke of Buccleugh restored to the dukedom of Monmouth? He confessed that
the selection which had been made was most unfortunate; and he was sorry
that he had not stated his objections when the bills made their first
appearance in the house. Mr. Peel replied by the simple statement that
these reversals of attainders had commenced with that of Lord Edward
Fitzgerald, and that he himself had made the motion that the descendants
of Lord Strafford should be restored to their family dignities.




MOTION TO DISJOIN THE PRESIDENCY OF THE BOARD OF TRADE FROM THE
TREASURERSHIP OF THE NAVY.

On the 7th of April, the chancellor of the exchequer moved, in a
committee of supply, to disjoin the presidency of the board of trade
and the treasurership of the navy. Mr. Huskisson filled these two
offices at a salary of £3,000, and it was now proposed that he should
become president of the board of trade alone, with a salary of £5,000.
The most willing homage was paid to the great talents of Mr. Huskisson
by all parties in the house, together with the high value of his public
services; but the proposal was met by a decided opposition, on the
ground that the disjunction of the two offices was unnecessary, as
no active duty was attached to the treasurership of the navy. At
all events, it was urged, its duties might without inconvenience be
transferred to the paymaster, the real officer in that department;
that by adding £2,000 to the present salary of the treasurer, or giving
£2,000 additional as the salary of the presidency of the board of
trade., the same amount of remuneration to the individual holding
both offices would be made up at a smaller cost to the public. It was
insinuated that the scheme of disjoining the offices was merely a cloak
for the introduction of a new placeman into the house. On the other hand
it was contended by Mr. Huskisson and others that considerable anxiety
and hardship arose; out of the union of the two offices; and that
it was; altogether erroneous to suppose that the occupation of the
treasurer of the navy was merely to pay money. Opposition, however, was
so strong against the measure that in a discussion, when the report was
brought up, Mr. Canning said that he did not feel himself called upon to
press it. He viewed with regret the small support which had been given
to it; and though as a matter of principle he was ready to defend it,
yet he would abandon it on the ground of expediency.




CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION, ETC.

The question of Catholic emancipation, although not formally stirred
in either house during this session, was nevertheless kept alive
by petitions from different districts and bodies in Ireland. These
petitions were now especially directed to a disclaimer of the imputation
of owing a divided allegiance; manifestly on account of the weight
which the argument of the anti-Catholics on this point had carried with
it in the debate of the preceding session. The speeches delivered on
the presentation of them also characterized the imputation of a divided
allegiance as a false pretence, because the Catholics in all their
petitions declared, that, in the oaths which they took and were ready
to take, they swore allegiance to his majesty alone. But Lord Liverpool
rightly answered, that although he never doubted the sincerity of the
Catholics in disclaiming civil allegiance to any foreign power, the fact
could not affect the argument: he contended that spiritual subjection
to a foreign power was inconsistent with civil obedience to our own
sovereign.

While the claims of the Catholics were merely the subject of incidental
remarks, the condition of the Protestant church in Ireland, became the
subject of more direct discussion. Lord Kingston moved in the upper
house for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the state of
the Protestant church in the province of Munster. His motion was founded
upon the evils which he stated to have arisen from the union of livings,
and the consequent want of churches for Protestant worship. It was not
uncommon, he said, to unite five, six, or even seven livings in one
person; and in many parishes, if the Protestant inhabitants wished
spiritual consolation, or to have the benefit of religious worship, the
nearest clergyman who could advise them, and the nearest church in which
service was performed was probably at a great distance. It was answered
that as the returns on the table of the house, furnished by the lords’
committee to inquire into the state of Ireland last session, showed all
the parishes that existed in Ireland, and the authority by which they
had been made, the motion was unnecessary: it was withdrawn. The want
of churches, which it was the object of this motion to supply, was
connected with the administration of the fund formed of the first-fruits
of all ecclesiastical benefices. These revenues, or the first year’s
income of every benefice, had been originally payable to the pope; but
on the Reformation they were vested in the crown, and they had been
appropriated by an act of Queen Anne, in part at least, to the building
of churches. Sir John Newport brought the management of this fund, and
the insufficiency of the system according to which the contributions of
the clergy to it were regulated, under the notice of the commons, by a
series of resolutions declaratory of its nature and history, and by a
motion for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into its
condition and administration. He justified his motion by the fact that
the first-fruits, where they were paid at all, continued to be paid
upon the rate of valuation, for which there was no authority, and that
consequently the greater portion of the fund sacrificed by the crown
was allowed to remain in the hands of the clergy, while new burdens were
laid upon parishioners to effect those very objects for which the fund
had been created. This motion was opposed as a covert and most dangerous
attack upon the property of the Irish church, and through it upon the
property, not only of the church of England, but of all bodies in the
state; and as being derived from a fallacious interpretation of the law,
warranted neither by history, authority, nor expediency, On a division
it was rejected by a majority of forty-eight to twenty-one. The mover,
Sir John Newport, was subsequently more successful in endeavouring to
institute an inquiry into abuses said to exist in the administration of
the parochial rates levied in Ireland for the religious service of the
Protestant establishment. He moved resolutions pledging the house to
adopt measures for their removal, and on a division the motion was
carried. Measures of greater importance were carried by government
itself, namely, for promoting the education and moral improvement of the
great mass of the Irish people. Grants for these important purposes were
voted, though not without opposition from many members, on the grounds
of the abuses and oppressions in the management of the schools in
Ireland as detailed in the report of the preceding year; and that
proselytism was made a part of the system of education pursued therein.
In these discussions government manifested no desire to perpetuate
abuses, nor any disinclination to cautious and practicable amendment.
The same spirit was carried into other departments more strictly
connected with the civil administration of Ireland. A committee on the
state of the country had presented a report in 1825, recommending the
adoption of various measures; and during this session several of those
measures were carried into effect. Thus an act was passed consolidating
the laws for the regulation and management of prisons; better
regulations were enacted for the administration of justice in towns
corporate; provision was made to remedy the inequalities of local
assessments, by introducing an uniform valuation of baronies, parishes,
and other divisions of counties; an act was passed which made provision
for a more convenient and abundant distribution of lunatic asylums; and
the law of Ireland was amended respecting the assignment and subletting
of lands and tenements, by which some check was put to that infinite
division, not of property but the use of property which had so
impoverished and degraded the Irish peasantry. On the recommendation
of the select committee of 1825, also, a motion for an address to his
majesty was carried, praying him to order a commission for inquiry into
the tolls and customs collected in fairs, markets, and sea-ports
in Ireland. These tolls and customs had been granted to particular
individuals and corporations, and great evils existed in the levying of
them, whence the motion for inquiry. It was opposed both on the general
merits of the measure, and on the inefficiency of the particular mode
of inquiry proposed; but the motion was carried, and a select committee
accordingly appointed.




INDIA JURY BILL, ETC.

An important alteration was introduced this session into the
administration of justice in India, by a bill brought in by Mr. Wynn,
for the regulation of juries within the territories of the East India
Company. The existing law admitted all British subjects to serve upon
juries; but the right had never been extended to all persons born within
the British dominions. During late years a large population had sprung
up in India, known by the name of “half-caste,” one of their parents
having been a native, and the other an European. This class, though
born in wedlock, as well as another numerous class, consisting of
the illegitimate children of European fathers by Indian mothers, were
disqualified from serving upon juries, under the idea that they were not
British subjects; and Mr. Wynn moved that this disqualification should
be removed, which motion was adopted. A bill was also passed this
session allowing the East India Company to appoint any person to a
writership who should produce testimonials of character, and undergo
such an examination as might be fixed by the court of directors and the
Indian board. By an act, passed in 1813, no person was eligible to be
a writer in the Company’s service who had not passed four terms in
the East Indian college; and in consequence of the extension of the
Company’s territories, and the establishment, of new courts in Bengal,
much inconvenience had arisen from the restriction, as the college could
not supply a sufficient number of young men fit for office.




NATURALIZATION ACT, ETC.

During this session the law of naturalization was extended in Canada. By
the act, 179 no person could be summoned to the legislative council, or
elect, or be elected, to the legislative assembly of these provinces,
unless he was either a natural born subject of Great Britain, or a
subject become so by the conquest and cession of the Canadas, or had
been naturalized by an act of the British parliament. A bill was now
passed giving to a naturalizing act of the Canadian legislature the same
effect as to one of the legislature in England; providing, however, that
such act should be null and void, unless ratified by his majesty within
two years after being presented to him for that purpose. The only other
measure regarding our relations with foreign states, besides these
already noticed, which occupied the attention of parliament, was the
expiry of the Alien Act. This session it died a natural death; and a
milder set of regulations, conferring no power of sending aliens out of
the country, were adopted in its stead. In relinquishing that power, Mr.
Peel said that he had the gratifying consciousness that in no instance
had it been abused. The only case in which it had been used was one
which had not the slightest shade of a political aspect attached to it.
It was that of a person who had menaced a foreign ambassador, and who,
it was believed, would have carried his threats into execution had he
not been brought before the privy-council and dealt with according to
that act.




PROROGATION AND DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.

The session of parliament was shortened by the approach of its
dissolution. The session was terminated on the 31st of May by
commission. The speech, which was delivered by the lord chancellor,
mentioned his majesty’s intention of dissolving the present parliament,
and directing the issue of writs for the calling of a new one. A leading
topic in the speech was the success of the British arms in the Burmese
empire, success which had led to the signature on honourable terms of a
preliminary treaty with the Burmese monarch, which his majesty had
every reason to expect would be the foundation of a secure and permanent
peace. Parliament was dissolved on the 2nd of June; and writs were
issued for a new election, which were to be returnable on the 25th of
July.




GENERAL ELECTION.

The elections which followed immediately the dissolution of parliament
presented several scenes of active and vigorous individual combat; but
they did not possess the interest which attaches to them when their
issue is to decide the fate of contending parties. The chief topics
on which candidates were tested were the corn-laws and Catholic
emancipation. As the lower classes were under the impression that bread
was high, because of the corn-laws, and that they existed to enrich the
landholders, an expressed opinion in favour of their abolition was sure
to gain cheers at a popular election. But the most prominent question
on the hustings, even in England, was Catholic emancipation. The Duke
of York’s speech, and the violence exhibited in Ireland, had created
a strong feeling against the Catholics; and as it was known that their
claims would be one of the earliest subjects of discussion in the new
parliament, the success of a candidate generally depended as to whether
he was, or was not in favour of Catholic emancipation. It was in
Ireland, however, that the giving or refusing of a vote mostly depended
on the answer received to the question, Will you vote for emancipation?
The demagogues of the Catholic Association gave themselves up to the
carrying of this one point; and they were aided by that powerful band
of agitators, the Irish priests. The contest on the Irish hustings was,
indeed, converted into an award of eternal damnation: the consolations
of the church here, and the joys of heaven hereafter, were promised
those who voted for an emancipation candidate; but the darkness of
excommunication in this life, and the gloom of purgatory first, and
then the pains of hell, were denounced against those who voted for
an anti-Catholic. The associated barrister and the political priest
travelled the country together in order to propagate the common creed;
the one by threats of damnation, and the other by the more temporal
considerations of civil and religious power; and this tyrannical sway
of the artful and designing was irresistible among the forty-shilling
freeholders—it procured the large majority pledged to support the
claims of Catholic emancipation. The great influence which the priests
had over the ignorant multitude was seen in a remarkable manner by the
issue of the election for the county of Waterford. Mr. O’Connell and the
Rev. Mr. Sheehan traversed that county to rouse it against the family
of Beresford; and every tie of respect and civil influence which had
hitherto united the Catholic tenant to his Protestant landlord gave
way before the power of the church, The electors were wielded by the
priesthood; and Lord George Beresford was compelled by his own tenantry
to give tip the contest. At a meeting held in Clonmel to celebrate this
triumph, Mr. Sheehan, the priest, remarked, “We said to the people,
‘Here are the natural enemies of your country, and here are your priests
who wait on the bed of your sickness, and are your friends alike
in prosperity or in woe: follow us or them.’” Such an appeal to the
feelings of a superstitious multitude was sure to prevail: there is
more might in superstition than in any of the lawful weapons in argument
which man can use.




THE BURMESE WAR.

{GEORGE IV. 1826—1827}

There was no faith manifested by the court of Ava in the armistice which
had been concluded in September, 1825, and so the war continued. During
the negociations which followed, the Burmese monarch had made vigorous
preparations for its continuance; and when the armistice had nearly
expired, in reply to the proposals made for peace by the British
commanders, this haughty and laconic answer was given, “If you wish for
peace, you may go away; but if you wish either money or territory, no
friendship can exist between us. This is Burmese custom.” The reply was
seconded by the advance of 60,000 Burmese troops along the banks of the
Irrawaddy against the British and native Indian troops at Prome. The
right division, consisting of 15,000 men, under the command of Sadda
Woon, moved along the western bank of the river; the centre, of about
30,000, commanded by the Kee Wongee, or head minister, marched along the
eastern bank, with numerous war-boats and stores; and the left, 15,000
strong, under Maha Nemiow, moved by a route about ten miles distant from
the river, and separated from it by an extensive forest. Besides these
there was a reserve of 10,000 men, under Prince Memiaboo, occupying a
strongly fortified position at Melloone; another force ready to oppose
any movement from Arracan; and Sykia Wongee was still carrying on a
desultory warfare in the vicinity of Pegu, and threatening Rangoon.
The British force consisted only of 5,000 men, besides a garrison to
maintain Prome, and some native troops opposed to Sykia Wongee, and in
garrison at Rangoon. A rencontre took place between our advanced guard
and Maha Nemiow’s division on the 10th of November, in which the British
suffered severely; their commander, Colonel M’Dowall, was slain, and the
troops were obliged to retreat. Encouraged by this success, Maha Nemiow
marched directly on Prome, close to which he took up his position. About
8,000 of his men were slain whose confidence had not been shaken by
contact with our troops; and these levies were accompanied by three
young and beautiful women of high rank, who pretended to have the gift
of prophecy, and to be possessed of power to turn aside a musket-ball.
The Shans were led to believe, indeed, that they were invincible; but
they soon discovered that they were unable to compete with the British.
Being surrounded by danger on every side, Sir A. Campbell resolved at
once to become the assailant; and on the 30th of November arrangements
were made to attack the enemy’s forces on the following morning;
Commodore Sir James Brisbane with the flotilla being directed to
cannonade their posts on both sides of the river at daylight, while
a body of native infantry made a feigned attack on the centre as the
columns were marching out for the real attack on the Burmese left,
at Simbike. For this purpose the principal force was formed into two
columns: one under Brigadier-general Cotton, which marched by the direct
road; and the other, led by the commander-in-chief, which crossed the
Nawine river and moved along its right bank, in order to come round
to the Burmese rear, and to cut off all retreat. The attack everywhere
succeeded; the Shans themselves, though they fought with fury, were
obliged to take refuge in flight. Every division of the Burmese numerous
force was routed with great slaughter; and many of the chiefs,
among whom was Maha Nemiow, perished in the fight. One of the fair
prophetesses also received a bullet in her breast, and being carried to
a cottage in the rear expired. Sir A. Campbell now determined to advance
on Ava; and nothing was wanting in the troops, or forgotten by their
commander, to ensure success. But the enemy did not yet despair. The
stockades at Meaday were made as strong as art could make them; and at
Melloone, on the west bank of the Irrawaddy, the reserve under Prince
Memiaboo was augmented to 15,000 men. The British troops arrived at
Meaday on the 19th of December; and they found it just evacuated by the
rear-guard of the enemy, the Burmese having retired to Melloone, where
they had received orders again to concentrate. The neighbourhood of
Meaday presented to the British a scene of horror and desolation. Within
and around the stockades the ground was covered with the dead and the
dying; the victims of wounds, disease, and want. The beach and the
surrounding jungles were filled with dogs and vultures, collected to
consume the loathsome prey. Round about the stockades gibbets were
erected, each bearing the mouldering remains of three or four victims,
who were thus crucified for, perhaps, no greater crime than that of
wandering from their posts in search of food, or of following the
examples of their chiefs in flying from the foe. The same horrors
presented themselves to the British for fifty miles up the river; and in
some places the soldiers could not find a place for their tents without
removing dead bodies. The pursuit was continued by forced marches; and
on arriving within five miles of Patanagoh, a town opposite to Melloone,
it was discovered that the whole of the enemy’s force had crossed to the
Melloone side of the river, and occupied with some 12,000 men a series
of fortified heights, and a formidable stockade, having in front a rapid
stream six hundred yards broad. While the British force was preparing
to attack this formidable position, a flag of truce was sent in, with
a notice that a commissioner had arrived with full powers to conclude a
treaty of peace. This led to a discussion, but without effect; for
the Burmese leaders again betrayed a want of faith, and the new envoy
hazarded the most glaring falsehoods. Operations again commenced. The
British troops having been carried across the Irrawaddy, under the
protection of Captain Chads, an attack was made on the fortifications at
Melloone; their defenders were driven in utter confusion from the place:
and Memiaboo’s treasures, to the amount of 30,000 rupees, with all his
stud, fell into our hands. The army again moved forward on the 25th
of January; and on the 31st it was met in its advance by Dr. Price, an
American missionary, and Mr. Sandford, an assistant surgeon of the army,
taken prisoners some months before, whom fear had induced the Burmese
monarch to restore to liberty, and despatch as messengers of peace. They
brought proposals for a short truce, which was readily granted; and
they returned in full confidence that they should be sent back to ratify
terms of peace. This hope, however, proved fallacious: by high bounties,
by grants of important privileges, and by the most earnest appeals,
40,000 men had been collected, and the Burmese monarch resolved to
continue the war. This new army was styled, Gong to doo, or, “Retrievers
of the king’s glory;” and it was placed under the command of a
savage warrior, called Nee-Woon Breen, which has been variously
translated,—“Prince of Darkness,” “King of Hell,” and “Prince of the
Setting Sun.” The certainty of another contest became evident to the
British on the 8th of February; and the next day, as they debouched from
the forests into the open country, they discovered the Burmese drawn up
in an inverted crescent. The British force amounted to about 2,000
men; but undismayed by the number of the enemy and strength of
their position, Sir A. Campbell pushed boldly on. The enemy was soon
overthrown; their centre was broken, and they were closely pursued
in their works, where they were routed with great slaughter; hundreds
perished by jumping into the river; and, with the exception of about
3,000 men, the whole army was dispersed. The road to Ava was now opened,
and our troops pushed on to within forty-five miles of that city. There
was now no longer time for disguise, deceit, or treachery; peace must be
made, or Ava would be captured. On the evening of the 24th of February,
therefore, Mr. Price, with two ministers of state, arrived at the camp
at Yandaboo, to announce that the king and the court would come to
terms. A treaty was ratified; the Burmese government engaging to furnish
boats for the conveyance of a great part of our force to Rangoon. The
articles of peace were, that the four provinces of Arracan, and the
provinces of Mergui, Tavoy, and Zea, should be ceded in perpetuity to
the East India Company; that the Burmese government should pay one
crore of rupees by instalments; that the provinces or kingdoms of Assam,
Cachar Zeatung, and Munnipore, should be placed under princes to be
named by the British government, residents with an escort of fifty men
to be appointed at each court; that British ships should be admitted
into Burmese ports to land their cargoes free of duty, not to unship
their rudders, or land their guns; that Burmese ships should have the
same privileges in British ports; that no persons should be molested for
their opinions or conduct during the war; and that the Siamese nation
should be included in the treaty. This war was thus brought to a
close; a small band, composed of British warriors and their Indian
fellow-subjects, stood as conquerors in the centre of the great Burmese
empire. After peace had been concluded a party of officers from the
army visited Ava, and were received by the humbled monarch with all due
honour. Soon after the conclusion of peace the British troops who had
maintained this unequal contest commenced their return to Rangoon; and,
subsequently, our Indian government sent an embassy to Ava, at the head
of which was Mr. J. Crawford, who finally settled points relative to
the frontiers, and concluded a treaty of commerce very favourable to
the Company. The conduct of Sir A. Campbell advanced his character for
enterprise and prudence, as well as military talent, to high renown. In
the year 1831 he was created a baronet, and proceeded to New Brunswick
as Lieutenant-governor of that province.

Contemporaneously with the exploits of Sir A. Campbell in the heart
of the Burmese empire, an important service was rendered to our Indian
empire by the commander-in-chief. Lord Combermere. The late Rajah of
Bhurtpoor had died in strict alliance with our government; and by the
terms of the treaty each party was bound to assist the other against all
enemies. Apprehensive of the consequences which might follow his death,
the rajah had during his lifetime declared his son, Bulwart Singh, his
successor, and included him in the treaty of alliance with the Company.
On the death of the rajah, however, his nephew, Doorjun Sal, having
gained a party in the army, raised a successful revolt, gained
possession of Bhurtpoor itself, and seated himself on the ground. The
expelled prince applied for aid to Sir David Ochterlony, the Company’s
resident at Delhi, and that officer embraced his cause. At first Lord
Amherst, governor-general of India, disavowed the conduct of Sir
David; but on receiving further information he confirmed it; and
Lord Combermere was directed to march with an army for the purpose of
expelling the usurper. His lordship took the field with 25,000 European
and native troops, and he directed his first attempt at Bhurtpoor. The
fortifications of that place were such, that it might have been supposed
they were erected in those days when unlimited command over life and
labour produced those stupendous monuments of human art, the pyramids.
The wall of the city was of mud, sixty feet in thickness, and of great
height, with a very wide and deep ditch. The circumference of the whole
was about seven miles; and the walls were flanked with bastions at short
intervals, on which were mounted a numerous artillery. The preparations
for the attack, however, were made on a scale commensurate with the
difficulties; and on the 10th of December Lord Combermere appeared
before the city with more than one hundred pieces of artillery. During
the night the enemy had cut the embankments of a lake to the northward,
for the purpose of filling the broad and deep ditch, a measure of
precaution which had been very serviceable in 1805, when the British had
vainly attacked the place. In the present instance, however, our troops
arrived in time to repair the breach before the water had flowed into
the fosse sufficiently to render it impassable. After this a few-days
were spent in reconnoitring the works, and fixing on the best points of
attack, until the whole battering train with its appurtenances should
arrive. In the meantime, from a desire to save the women and children
from the effects of the terrible bombardment about to take place, Lord
Combermere addressed a letter to Doorjun Sal, requesting him to send
them out to him, and promising them safe conduct. This request, however,
was barbarously refused; and on the 23rd of December the besiegers
commenced their first parallel, under a heavy fire, about eight hundred
yards from the north-east angle of the works. On the following morning
three batteries opened on the town, and continued, with several others
afterwards erected, so vigorous a fire that scarcely a roof in the town
was left uninjured. The mud walls, however, still stood erect, so that,
on the 3rd of January, it was deemed expedient to employ miners. Several
attempts failed; but on the 16th two mines were blown up under one of
the bastions; and, with the aid of a day’s cannonade, effected such a
breach that the result of the enterprise appeared no longer doubtful.
The final assault was made on the 18th. Troops destined to rush into the
city established themselves in the advanced trenches unperceived by the
enemy; and the explosion of a mine, loaded with 12,000 pounds of powder,
was to be the signal of attack. At eight o’clock this mine was fired,
and the effect was terrific; the ground trembled as if agitated by an
earthquake, and after it had heaved up with several convulsive throes,
the volcanoes burst forth. The whole of the salient angle and the stone
cavalier in its rear were lifted into the air, and, after the smoke and
clouds of dust had passed away, the bastion with three hundred men were
seen precipitated below. The two grand divisions of the army now rushed
up to the breaches, and the foremost of the opposing foe were soon
laid low by the British bayonets, and the rest were chased along the
ramparts; in two hours the whole of the rampart was in our possession,
and early in the afternoon the citadel surrendered. Doorjun Sal, who
attempted to escape, was captured, together with his wife and two sons.
The garrison consisted of 36,000 troops, near 10,000 of whom are said
to have been slain during the siege. On the side of the British the
loss was about 1200 men, many of whom were killed by the explosion of
the great mine. After the capture of Bhurtpoor its fortifications
were demolished, and all the other fortresses in the rajah’s dominions
surrendered. The rightful prince was reinstated in his authority,
and the inhabitants returned to their abodes and allegiance. For this
achievement Lord Combermere was raised to the rank of viscount, and the
governor-general, on account of the general success of the British arms,
was raised to the dignities of Viscount Holmsdale, and Earl Amherst of
Arracan.




MEETING OF THE NEW PARLIAMENT.

The new parliament met on the 14th of November. It was opened by
commission; and the speech, which was delivered by the lord chancellor,
expressed great satisfaction at the termination of war in India. It
spoke, also, of the distress which still prevailed in the commercial and
manufacturing districts; but expressed a hope that the time was not far
distant when, under the blessings of Divine Providence, the commerce
and industry of the United Kingdom would resume their wonted activity.
Another leading topic in the speech was the admission of foreign grain
into the ports of the United Kingdom, not then admissible by law. His
majesty said that he had called parliament together for the special
purpose of communicating to them the measures which he had deemed
necessary to take in this particular, and that he had directed a copy
of the order in council, issued on that subject, to be laid before them,
trusting that they would see sufficient reason for giving their sanction
to the provisions of that order, and for carrying them into effect. The
address was opposed in the upper house by Lord King, and in the commons
by Mr. Brougham, both of whom complained that the speech consisted of
nothing but blanks. Amendments were moved in both houses; but they were
lost by overwhelming majorities. The grand error pointed out by
the opposition in the speech was the omission of the subject of the
corn-laws, and much discussion was entered into thereupon. When the
report on the address was brought up, indeed, Mr. Western moved another
amendment, pressing the consideration of this subject on the house;
but it was negatived without a division. In the debates, however, Lord
Liverpool in the upper house, and Mr. Canning in the commons declared
that ministers were prepared to propose a general measure regarding the
corn-laws; but that it would be unfair towards the country and towards
parliament to bring it forward before the Christmas recess. Under these
circumstances the bill of indemnity, which was rendered necessary by the
order of the council for the admission of certain grain into the ports
of the United Kingdom, a measure demanded by the late scanty harvest,
was passed without opposition.




MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE ON JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES, ETC.

On the 5th of December Alderman Waithman moved for the appointment of
a select committee upon the joint-stock speculation of the last three
years. In his speech he showed that during the time mentioned there
had been no less than six hundred companies formed, requiring for the
execution of their intended operations, a capital of many millions. He
complained of the dishonest views with which many of these were set on
foot; the knavery by which a fictitious value was given to shares
which had cost nothing; and of the misery produced by this systematic
swindling. He remarked, that if a man purchased in the lottery, he knew
something of what he was doing, that he was giving a certain sum for
a very unlikely chance, and that in doing so he was conferring some
benefit on government. But the joint-stock gambling was of a much more
atrocious kind: it was gambling with false dice. The loss itself on the
whole speculation was an evil, but the great and signal grievance was,
that the holders of the shares, now worth nothing, were not the losers.
The original swindlers worked up the market to the point which they had
expected it to attain: then down went the shares, and when they were
down the original swindlers again bought them up, and were now the
holders. He instanced the Arigna Mining Company as a proof of this
nefarious practice. In that company, he said, there were three thousand
shares, and the first deposit was £5. In one day the premium rose upon
those shares from 8 ½ to 24, then it got to 26. and then it dropped to
24. Whether this was or was not a trick he would leave it to the house
to determine. How such proceedings were brought about, he said, he would
leave to any one to form an opinion. Afterwards, however, he boldly told
the house how the proceedings originated. This Arigna Mining Company,
he said, were seeking to obtain an act of parliament, and it was first
intended that the sum of £15,000 should be divided between four or five
individuals. This, however, was not considered safe, and it was agreed
to divide the spoil more extensively. One gentleman put into his pocket
£2,500 of this money, and afterwards £1,500 as profit upon shares,
although he had not paid for those shares, but still owed £375 for them.
That individual, he continued, was Sir William Congreve, a member
of parliament: and was not, he asked, parliament called upon to do
something towards an inquiry into conduct so dishonourable? Never had
there been a fouler stain upon the house. After some remarks on the
Equitable Loan Company, the alderman moved, “that a select committee be
appointed to inquire into the origin, the management, and the present
state of the joint-stock companies formed during the years 1824, 1825,
and 1826, and to report on the same, together with any special matter
touching any member of that house.” Mr. Canning, in reply, objected to
the inquiry on account of its extent, asserting that for inquiry to be
useful it must be limited and precise. Enough had been said to show that
there was strong ground for suspicion, that in the affairs of some few
companies there was matter deserving inquiry; but the motion as it stood
involved many companies against the utility and management of which
no charge had been brought. He moved an amendment, therefore, that the
inquiry of the committee should be limited to the management and history
of the Arigna Company. He was supported by Mr. Huskisson, who, in
his speech, denounced the idea that joint-stock companies of every
description were public evils. He was astonished, he said, to hear men
of business talk of mining carried on by joint-stock companies as a
thing of recent date. No mine worked in this country had ever been so,
except by means of joint-stock companies. Without the formation of such
companies, those mines, indeed, would not have been explored. It
ought to be, he added, the policy of the law to encourage joint-stock
companies; for when embarked in properly and fairly, they are beneficial
to the public interests, and fraught with great public advantages. At
the same time, he was ready to admit, that those who had been concerned
in the speculations and bubbles of the last two years had disgraced
themselves; especially if they knew at the time they engaged in them
that they were not likely to lead to the public benefit. Mr. Canning’s
amendment was agreed to without a division, and the committee appointed.




KING’S MESSAGE RESPECTING THE CONDUCT OF SPAIN TOWARDS PORTUGAL.

On the 11th of December, Lord Bathurst in the upper house and Mr.
Canning in the commons, unexpectedly delivered a message from the king
recounting the hostile and faithless conduct of Spain towards Portugal,
and requesting that parliament would enable his majesty to fulfil his
obligations towards the oldest of his allies. The message stated that
his majesty had for some time past, in conjunction with the King of
France, endeavoured to prevent the hostile aggression from Spain, and
had repeatedly assured the court of Madrid that such aggression would
not be tolerated by England; but that notwithstanding these assurances,
hostile inroads into the territory of Portugal had been concerted in
Spain, and had been executed under the eyes of the Spanish authorities
by Portuguese regiments, which had deserted into Spain, and which the
Spanish government had repeatedly engaged to disarm and disperse.

The facts of the aggression complained of were briefly these. On the
death of John IV., King of Portugal, he was succeeded by his son, Don
Pedro, of Brazil. As the constitution of Brazil had provided that its
crown should never be united on the same head with that of the mother
country, Don Pedro preferring his transatlantic sceptre, resigned his
European crown to his infant daughter, and appointed a regency to govern
during her minority. At the same time he remodelled the old political
institutions of Portugal, and gave it a constitution in the form of a
representative government. There was, however, a large party in Portugal
hostile to this constitution, and a conspiracy broke out against it and
the regency; Don Miguel, the emperor’s brother, being proclaimed king,
and having sworn to maintain his rights. Miguel was supported by
some regiments of the Portuguese army, and a war ensued between his
supporters and the troops in favour of the constitution. For the most
part Don Miguel was unsuccessful; and whenever his troops were compelled
by want or by his opponents to cross the frontiers, they were not only
received and protected by the Spanish authorities, but again organized
at the expense of the Spanish government, and sent forth to the
invasion of Portugal. The British and Portuguese ministers at Madrid
remonstrated; but the cabinet of Spain answered by lying disavowals,
or hollow promises; and every day its conduct became more and more
perfidious. The invasion was, to all political intents and purposes,
an invasion by Spain; and as the danger increased, the Portuguese
ambassador at London made a formal application to our government for
the military assistance which the treaties between the two countries
stipulated. Ministers waited a few days till the conduct of Spain had
been placed beyond a doubt, and then advised his majesty to send the
above message to the commons.

In proposing an address to the throne on this occasion, Mr. Canning
vindicated our interference in the affairs of the Peninsula and fully
developed the principles of his foreign policy. Disclaiming every
purpose of interference in the internal dissensions of Portugal or
influencing the settlement of her domestic institutions, he considered
England as merely called upon to defend her from an invasion organized
by foreign aid. In order to prove this position he detailed the
provisions of subsisting treaties; after which he called the attention
of parliament to the present relative state of Portugal and Spain,
asserting that he asked for a vote merely for the defence of Portugal,
and not for aggression against Spain. There is still a road open to
Spain, he said, for retraction and redress; and this would be
greatly promoted by the presence of a British army on the Portuguese
territories. Concerning the new constitution he remarked:—“As to the
merits of the new constitution of Portugal, I do not think I have any
right to offer any opinion. Personally I may have formed one; but as an
English minister all I have to say is, May God prosper this attempt at
the establishment of constitutional liberty in Portugal! and may that
nation be found as fit to enjoy and to cherish its new-born privileges,
as it has often proved itself capable of discharging its duties among
the nations of the world!” Mr. Canning next went into a detail of the
aggressions of Spain, as well as her motives: expressing an earnest
hope, that, on hearing of the step we were about to take, that power
would act so as to render hostilities unnecessary. He dreaded war; but
he begged to be understood not as dreading war in a good cause, from any
distrust of our strength and resources; on the contrary, he feared it
because this country possessed the power to push any war in which she
might engage to consequences the bare notion of which made him shudder.
Our position at this time was not one of mere neutrality between
contending nations, it was a position preserving the balance of power
necessary for the safety of Europe. “Nearly four years of experience,”
 he remarked, “have confirmed that opinion; and it is to be feared that
the next contest in Europe, if it should extend beyond the narrow limits
of Portugal and Spain, will be a war of the most tremendous nature,
because it will be a war of conflicting opinions. And although this
country may enter into it with a desire to mitigate and control its
horrors, yet she cannot help seeing under her banners all those who are
restless and dissatisfied, with or without cause, in every nation with
which she may be placed at variance. The consciousness of the fact, the
knowledge that we possess such tremendous power, forces me to feel as I
now feel. But it is one thing to have a giant’s strength, and another to
use it like a giant. The consciousness that we have this power keeps us
safe: our business is not to seek opportunities of displaying it; but to
keep it, that hereafter the world may see we knew its proper use, while
we shrunk from converting the empire into an oppressor. The consequences
of letting loose those passions which are chained up, may be such as
will lead to a scene of desolation which no one can contemplate without
horror; and such as I could never lie easy on my couch, if I was
conscious of having by one hour precipitated. I would fear much and
forbear long; I would almost put up with anything that did not touch our
national faith and national honour rather than let slip the furies of
war, when we know not whom they may reach, and where the devastation
may end. Such is the love of peace which the British government
acknowledges, and such the duties of peace which the circumstances of
the world inculcate. In obedience to this conviction, and with the hope
of avoiding extremities, I will push no further the topics of this part
of the address. Let us defend Portugal whoever may be the assailants,
because it is a work of duty; and let us end where that duty ends. We go
to Portugal, not to rule, not to dictate, not to prescribe laws. We go
only to plant there the standard of England, and where that standard is
planted foreign dominion shall not come.” The speech of Mr. Canning had
a most powerful effect upon the house: loud cheers resounded from all
sides as he sat down, much exhausted. Yet there were dissentients to the
proposed measure. Mr. Hume opposed the address, on the ground that this
country was not in a situation to enter upon, and to maintain for any
length of period a war on a great scale. He moved an amendment that
“the house be called over this day week,” which motion was supported by
Messrs. Wood and Bankes. On the other hand the motion for an address
was supported by Sir Robert Wilson, and Messrs. Baring and Brougham.
The latter, in adverting to the ground on which the amendment was
principally supported, remarked that its supporters must recollect, and
the house and the country must bear in mind that the question is not at
present, whether, even at the expense of your character for good faith,
you will consent to bear hereafter among mankind a stained reputation
and forfeited honour; but whether for a little season of miserable,
insecure, precarious, dishonourable, unbearable truce, whether for this
precarious, disgusting, and intolerable postponement of hostilities,
you will be content hereafter to have recourse to war when war can be
no longer avoided, and when its horrors will fall upon you, degraded and
ruined in character in the eyes of all the nations of Europe; and,
what is ten thousand times worse degraded and ruined in your own. He
contended that the burdens of the country, however oppressive, would be
borne cheerfully through the impending struggle, if war should be the
result, inasmuch as we were governed on wise, liberal, and truly English
principles. Mr. Canning’s reply to those who opposed the address was
even more eloquent than his opening speech. Government was censured for
allowing France to usurp and retain the occupation of Spain. In answer
to this, Mr. Canning remarked, that when the French army entered Spain,
we might if we chose have visited that measure by a war. But we were
not then bound to interfere on behalf of Spain, as we now are bound to
interfere on behalf of Portugal, by the obligation of treaty. And such a
war would not in these days have been the proper method of restoring the
balance of power, which varies as civilization advances and new nations
spring up. To take a leaf from the book of European policy in the times
of William III., or of Queen Anne, for supporting the balance now,
would be to slight the march of events, and to regulate our policy by
a confusion of facts. He continued:—“I admit that the entrance of a
French army into Spain was a measure of disparagement to Great Britain;
that it was a severe blow to the feelings of this country. One of the
modes of redress lay in a direct attack on France through a war on
the soil of Spain: the other was to make the possession of the Spanish
territory harmless in rival hands; to make it worse than harmless, to
make it injurious to be the possessor—the latter mode I have adopted.
Do you think that for the disparagement of England we have not been
compensated? Do you think that for the blockade of Cadiz England has
not received a full recompense? I looked at Spain by another name than
Spain: I looked on that power as Spain and the Indies; and so looking
at the Indies, I have there called a new world into existence, and
regulated the balance of power; thus redeeming the movement of France,
and leaving her own act on her unmitigated and unredressed, so that she
would now thankfully get rid of her responsibility, and shake off a
burden too heavy to be borne without complaint. France would now be
glad if England would assist her in dispensing with this burden; and the
only way of riveting France to the possession of Spain, would be to
make that possession a point of honour. I repeat it, the object of the
present expedition is not war, but to take the last chance of peace. If
England does not go promptly to the aid of Portugal, Portugal will be
trampled on, England will be disgraced, and then war will come; come,
too, in the train of degradation. If we wait until Spain has courage to
ripen her secret machinations into open hostility, we shall have war;
shall have the war of pacificators: and who can tell when that war shall
end?” Mr. Canning’s eloquence prevailed. Mr. Hume’s amendment received
the support of only three or four members; and the original question
was carried with only that number of dissentients. A similar address was
moved by Lord Bathurst in the upper house, and was carried with the
same unanimity. The measure was, indeed, a popular one, not only in the
walls of St. Stephen, but throughout the country. The prompt decision
of government quickly effected the purpose intended. It was on the 11th
that the king’s message was delivered; and on the 14th 5,000 troops,
under the command of Sir William Clinton, began to march towards the
coast; and by the 25th the first detachment appeared in the Tagus. Their
appearance in Portugal was sufficient. The treachery and dissimulation
of Ferdinand gave way to his fears; the French government recalled the
diplomatic instrument of its intrigues, and the independence of Portugal
with its constitution was for a time preserved.




RESOLUTIONS AGAINST BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.

By the dissolution of parliament the resolutions of Lord John Russell
for detecting bribery at elections, which had been carried on the last
day of the session, had expired. Under these circumstances they were
moved anew by Lord Althorp, in doing which he said that he hoped the
new house of commons would not now, by rejecting them, afford a singular
contrast between the last session of an old parliament and the first
session of a new one. In reply, Mr. Peel said, that if this new
jurisdiction was to be created at all, it had better be created by a
bill than by resolutions; if there were to be any interference, it would
be wiser to make that interference effective, than to adopt a measure so
imperfect and inoperative as these resolutions presented. Was it not, he
asked, a serious consideration that the committee forming the tribunal
before which this offence was to be tried, was without the power of
administering an oath? Here was an imperfection and an evil for which
the resolutions made no provision; and it was vain to hope that any
measure could be salutary or effective in its operations if deficient in
so important a point. Mr. Wynn also objected to the resolutions, deeming
them, with Mr. Peel, insufficient for the purpose designed. Mr. Scarlett
observed, that the resolutions might possibly not meet the difficulties
which it was desirable should be overcome; but at the same time he
thought the right honourable secretary had taken a partial view of the
question. The resolutions, he said, were not altogether unexceptionable;
but he was persuaded that they might be so far modified as to remedy the
evil without going the length of inflicting a penalty or imposing costs,
as Mr. Peel suggested, and which could be accomplished only by means
of a bill. He added, that he thought they might be withdrawn, and
reintroduced in an amended form; and Lord Althorp adopted, this
suggestion, and withdrew the resolutions for the present. Subsequently
Mr. Littleton again proposed the resolutions for the regulation
of committees on private bills which had been passed by the late
parliament, and they were all adopted.




CHAPTER XXXVII.

{GEORGE IV. 1827—1828}

     Death of the Duke of York..... Meeting of Parliament.....
     Catholic Question..... The Corn-laws..... Dissolution of the
     Ministry..... Re-assembling of Parliament..... Explanations
     of, and Hostility to the Ministry..... Opinions of His
     Majesty on the Catholic Question..... Motion on the
     Chancellor’s Jurisdiction   in    Bankruptcy..... Motion
     regarding  the   Stamp    Duty and Cheap Publications.....
     The Corn-law Question..... Financial Statements..... Corrupt
     Boroughs..... The Game-laws..... The Court of Chancery.....
     Prorogation of Parliament..... Death of Mr. Canning.....
     Administration of Lord Goderich..... Review of Foreign
     Policy.




DEATH OF THE DUKE OF YORK.

{A.D. 1827}

The earliest public event of the year was the death of the Duke of York,
the heir presumptive of the crown. His royal highness had been for some
time seriously ill, and as far back as the month of July his disease
had assumed the character of dropsy. The progress of the complaint had
rendered an operation necessary in September; but though the result
of the operation, aided by the effects of medicine, removed the
constitutional complaint, its partial influence on the frame was
followed by a mortification in the legs, which, assuming sometimes a
more favourable, and sometimes a more alarming appearance, gradually
weakened the whole system. His constitution sunk beneath the power of
art which was intended to revive it: nature gave up the struggle on the
5th of January, his royal highness being in the sixty-fourth year of
his age. His death was accompanied by sincere and universal regret; for
though he had failings, they were hidden from the public gaze by his
more prominent virtues. Seldom, indeed, have the public services of one
so near the throne produced to the country so much solid and lasting
good, as resulted from his long administration of the British army. His
private character was also formed to conciliate personal attachments:
he never made a personal enemy, nor lost a friend. Everyone who had
intercourse with him was impressed with the kindness of his heart,
kindness which appeared in all his actions. In a word, his public and
private character excited one universal sentiment of respect and esteem.
The soldier mourned over him as that of a benefactor to whom he was
indebted for comfort, security, and respectability; and all other ranks
of society joined in their lamentations over a prince whose personal
qualities had been always popular, and to whom, in his public capacity,
they felt that the empire owed a heavy debt of gratitude for all that he
had effected for its safety and honour. His royal highness was succeeded
as commander-in-chief by the only man in whom personal merit and the
fullest confidence of the country were united—the Duke of Wellington.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament resumed its sittings on the 8th of February. One of its
earliest measures was to vote an address of condolence to the king on
the death of his royal brother, on which occasion all political asperity
was forgotten in an unanimous expression of respect for the private
character and official conduct of the deceased. Men of all parties, as
Mr. Peel, Sir R. Wilson, Mr. Brougham, and others, paid the tribute of
high respect to his memory. Mr. Brougham considered it no small praise
to the Duke of York that, in his office of commander-in-chief, he never
allowed his political principles to interfere in the discharge of the
duties of his office; and Sir R. Wilson remarked, that it was worthy of
observation that the improvement which he had effected in the discipline
of the army was maintained without undue severity. On these improvements
Mr. Peel dwelt at great length, clearly showing that the high state of
discipline now existing in the British army was chiefly owing to the
exertions of the deceased prince.

By the death of the Duke of York his next brother, the Duke of
Clarence, became heir presumptive to the crown. Ministers embraced this
opportunity of proposing an increase of £6,000 per annum to his income,
as well as £3,000 as a jointure to his consort. This motion was strongly
opposed by Lord Althorpe, and by Messrs. Hume, Brougham, and Abercromby.
Mr. Hume contended that it was ungracious and inconsistent to be
proposing an additional burden of £9,000 a year, so soon after a royal
letter to the bishops had exhorted them to use all their influence
in promoting charitable contributions for the relief of the starving
population. He had himself recently presented a petition from the
weavers of Blackburn, praying that something might be done which would
provide them with food; and the answer given to their prayers was a vote
for adding to their burdens. Unwilling, however, to do anything which
might look like a reproach to the crown, he would not oppose the motion
by a direct negative; but, in order to give ministers an opportunity of
withdrawing it, he would move that the chairman should report progress,
and sit again for the further consideration of the proposed grant. The
principal plea of the opponents of the grant was, that no additional
expenses were entailed on his royal highness; but it was finally voted
by a majority of ninety-nine against fifteen.




CATHOLIC QUESTION.

At this period circumstances seemed peculiarly favourable to the claims
of the Roman Catholics. The Duke of York was dead, Lord Liverpool was
seriously ill, and the influence of Mr. Canning was all potent in the
cabinet. Public attention had been fixed on this subject, from the
opening of the session, more eagerly than any other which promised to
occupy the attention of parliament; and petitions against their claims
nightly covered the tables of both houses from the Protestant community.
On the other hand, the Catholics were equally active; and at length,
on the 5th of March, after having presented their general petition, Sir
Francis Burdett brought the question before the house of commons. He
moved—“That this house is deeply impressed with the necessity of
taking into immediate consideration the laws inflicting penalties on his
majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects, with the view of removing them.” The
speech which Sir Francis Burdett delivered on this occasion gave rise
to a debate that lasted two nights. In the course of his speech, he
remarked, that the claims of the Catholics rested on more undeniable
grounds than were supplied by general justice, or by historical
deductions—they had been secured to them by treaty. “Every hour,” he
said, “that the disqualifications were allowed to continue, was a new
violation of our solemn engagements, and a breach of public faith. What,
the Catholics asked, had been secured to them by the treaty of Limerick?
The first article of that treaty was the following:—‘The loyal
Catholics of this kingdom shall enjoy such privileges in the exercise
of their religion as are consistent with the laws of Ireland, or as they
did enjoy in the reign of King Charles II.; and their majesties, so
soon as their affairs will permit them to summon a parliament in this
kingdom, will endeavour to procure the said Roman Catholics such further
security in that particular as may preserve them from any disturbance
upon the account of their said religion,’ Now he apprehended that
Catholic peers sat in parliament in the reign of Charles II., so that
here was an express stipulation for the benefit of Catholics generally.
It was impossible to admit the interpretation put upon this provision
by the opponents of the Catholic claims, as if its benefits had been
limited to the persons besieged in Limerick; for strange, indeed, would
it be, if those who held out longest in arms, and therefore did the
greatest extent of mischief to the ruling powers, should yet be held to
have been entitled to public favour. It was monstrous to suppose that
this treaty related solely to the garrison of Limerick; for what said
the 9th article?—‘The oath to be administered to such Roman Catholics
as submit to their majesties’ government shall be the oath aforesaid and
no other.’ The oath referred to was the ‘oath of allegiance,’ and no
other; and the article comprehended all submitting Catholics generally.
But how had faith been kept with them? when it was by the exaction of
new oaths, and nothing else, that they had ever since been excluded from
the enjoyment of their proper privileges? But even if the interpretation
that the men in arms alone were included were conceded, then their
descendants (and they must have some) were, though Catholics, invested
with these privileges. There necessarily must be some Catholics in the
kingdom who were not excluded with the rest of their brethren: and
where were they? But such a construction was trifling, contrary to all
rules of logic, and all fair modes of reasoning. So far as the treaty
of Limerick went, the case was conclusive: faith had been pledged, and
faith had been broken.” The treaty of Limerick thus brought forward by
Sir Francis Burdett became the grand argument in the debate; and it was
relied on both by those who favoured and those who opposed emancipation.
In supporting the motion, Mr. Plunkett, the attorney-general for
Ireland, said that it certainly did appear to him that at the time of
signing the articles of the treaty of Limerick, the Roman Catholics of
Ireland possessed certain important privileges; and amongst others the
right of admission into parliament. The first article fully recognised
their privileges, for it did not refer merely to the exercise of
religious rights, but also to the enjoyment of such political privileges
as they had exercised in the reign of Charles II., one of which was
eligibility to sit in the Irish parliament. It was argued, he said, that
this provision extended only to persons who were in the garrison;
but the words of the article, which mentioned generally, and without
reservation, “the Roman Catholics of this kingdom,” sufficiently proved
that it was meant to include the whole body of Irish Roman Catholics.
One of the most powerful pleaders on the other side of the question was
Mr. Peel, whose speech made a deep impression on the house. “If I
could be satisfied that any of the privileges withheld from the Roman
Catholics of Ireland, were so withheld in violation of the treaty of
Limerick, it would very materially influence my judgment in deciding on
the present question. But after having examined into this matter with
the greatest attention, I feel a more perfect conviction that that
treaty afforded the Catholics no claims to have their disabilities
removed. There were various articles in the treaty of Limerick, the
first referring to the Roman Catholic gentry and the others to the
inhabitants of Limerick generally. Now what he meant to contend was,
that political privileges were never in the contemplation of either of
the parties to the treaty. It had been contended that the passage in the
first article, which stated that the Roman Catholics should be allowed
the free exercise of their religion without disturbance or molestation,
in the same manner as they had been allowed it in the reign of Charles
II., meant that they were not to be subjected to any disabilities on
account of their religion. Now, with regard to the construction which
was to be put on these terms, it appeared from every writer of that
age, that, by the free exercise of their religion, was merely meant
toleration instead of political power. That such was the meaning of the
expression was clearly proved from the mouth of King William, one of the
parties to that treaty, who, shortly after the making of it, stated that
he was willing to grant to the Catholics the undisturbed exercise of
their religion, but not political power: that they should enjoy freedom
with respect to their persons and estates, and the exercise of their
religion; that with that they ought to be satisfied; and that he could
not comprehend how, when they enjoyed this, they could feel themselves
justified in disturbing the quiet of the kingdom. The true construction
of the treaty, as proved at the very time of making it, was not that
which was now put upon it by the friends of Catholic emancipation.” With
regard to the general question Mr. Peel confessed that he distrusted the
Roman Catholics. He remarked:—“I do not find fault with the faith of
any man, and I think quite as highly of a Catholic as of a Protestant;
but if on a man’s faith there be founded a scheme of political
influence, then we have a right to inquire in to that scheme. And I
cannot contemplate the doctrines of absolution, of confession, and of
indulgences, without having a strong suspicion that these doctrines are
maintained for the purpose of confirming the authority and influence
which man exercises over man. What is it to me, whether that authority
be called spiritual, or otherwise, if practically it influence man
in his conduct in society? Is it because religious doctrines are made
subservient to worldly and political purposes, that they are therefore
to be excluded from the consideration of the legislature in the
discussion of the present question? On the contrary, if the authority
derived from these doctrines be only the stronger on account of their
being borrowed from religion, and misapplied to worldly purposes, that,
in my opinion, furnishes an additional motive for closely investigating
the doctrines themselves. When I find the pope issuing bulls to the
Irish Catholic bishops, and such documents sent forth to four or five
millions of people who possessed not the advantages of education, I must
say that they are very likely to influence their practice in life. When
I hear, too, such doctrines ascribed to a desire to support the pure
faith of Christianity, I cannot help having a lurking suspicion that
they are rather intended to maintain a spiritual authority capable of
being applied to temporal purposes, which has been said to be extinct,
but which I contend, is still existing. In 1807 Pope Pius VII. sent to
the Catholic bishops of Ireland a bull, which granted an indulgence of
three hundred days to all those persons who should with devout purpose
repeat a certain ejaculatory address; and by the same instrument another
indulgence of one hundred days was granted, for the repeating of a
certain other formula, both of them applicable to souls in purgatory. It
is painful to think that such a mockery should be made of religion,
in order to press the authority of man; it is disgusting to find such
things sent by rational men to rational men, to be disseminated amongst
an illiterate and fanatical populace. The friends of emancipation may
ridicule, if they choose, the indications of a new reformation which now
show themselves in Ireland; but so long as free discussion is allowed,
and such means as these are used as means of influence over the ignorant
multitude, nothing will deter pious persons from doing all in their
power to counteract and undermine such influence. The gentlemen of the
Catholic Association will soon find that their political discussions
have reacted on the public mind; that a spirit of inquiry has gone forth
on the subject of their religion. I have no objection to the professors
of the Catholic religion as individuals; I quarrel not with their
religious tenets as a system of faith; but I am jealous of the political
system which is ingrafted on those tenets, and I think I have a perfect
right on the present occasion to consider what has been the influence of
that political system in different countries. I do not desire to look at
this point as it is to be found illustrated in ancient councils, or in
times when bigotry and superstition were prevalent throughout the world;
but, viewing the effect of the Catholic religion as it exists in the
present day in various countries, in some where it luxuriates in
undisputed growth, in those where it is only struggling for supremacy,
and in others where it is subordinate to another and a purer system,
contemplating it under those different aspects, the result of my
observation is, that it is expedient to maintain in this kingdom the
mild, mitigated, and temperate predominance of the Protestant church.”
 With regard to the question as to whether the concessions demanded would
restore tranquillity to Ireland, Mr. Peel said that he could not make
up his mind to believe that the removal of the disabilities of the
Roman Catholics would be attended by such a consummation. If they gained
power, he said, they would naturally wish to better the condition of
their religious system, to extend its influence over the country, and
to draw it into closer connexion with government. The consequence of
the change would be to bring the Catholic and Protestant religions
into collision in such a manner, as might prove the destruction of the
latter. And what greater evil, he asked, could be conceived than the
confusion which must prevail for ages during the conflict? If, indeed,
he could be persuaded that by concession tranquillity would be restored
in Ireland, although he believed that the admission of their claims
would endanger our constitution, he would sacrifice his apprehensions
of the ultimate result to the attainment of the present benefit. But
he could not make up his mind to believe that it would have any such
effect. If the friends of emancipation proposed, after having carried
their point, to make the religion of the great majority, the religion
of the state of Ireland, and open to them all its high offices, he could
understand how such a line of policy might appease and tranquillize the
Catholics. But this they disavowed. Yet if they proposed to maintain the
Protestant establishment as that of the state, there would still be a
barrier which the Catholics would endeavour to remove. After passing a
censure on the Catholic priesthood for the undue interference exercised
at the late elections, and making some observations on the neglect
shown by their prelates in restraining such interference, and on the
extraordinary asperity of Dr. Doyle’s publications, Mr. Peel concluded
thus:—“I have now discharged a most painful duty, the opposing the
resolution before the house. I have felt that I had no choice but to
state with firmness, but I trust without asperity, the principles
which my reason dictates, and which honour and conscience compel me
to maintain. The influence or some great names, of some great men, has
lately been lost to the cause which I support; but I never adopted
my opinions upon it from deference either to high station or to high
ability. Keen as the feelings of regret must be, with which the loss of
these associates is recollected, it is still a matter of consolation to
me, that, in the absence of these individuals I have now an opportunity
of showing my adherence to those tenets which I formerly espoused; of
showing that, if my opinions be unpopular, I stand by them still, when
the influence and authority that may have given them currency are gone;
and when it is impossible, I believe, that, in the mind of any human
being, I can stand suspected of pursuing them with any view to favour
or personal aggrandisement.” The motion was also opposed by Sir
John Copley, master of the rolls, in a long, learned, eloquent, and
argumentative speech. In his opinion the whole question was one of
expediency, and if the concessions demanded could be granted with safety
to the civil liberties and to the religious faith of the Protestant
community, he admitted that the Catholics were intitled to them. He
denied, however, that any such securities had been or could be offered,
A blank and bare proposal of concession, he remarked, which neither
acknowledged the necessity, nor contained even the elements of such
securities, could not be entertained by the house, if it did its duty to
the constitution, the religion, and the feelings of the country. Several
departed statesmen, he said, had declared in the most decisive terms
their determination not to grant Catholic emancipation without special
and efficient securities; and the present secretary for foreign affairs
himself, and the Irish attorney-general had uttered sentiments to the
effect, that it could not be granted unless adequate securities
were given to protect the country against the dangers of foreign
interference. It became the house, also, he said, to consider well if
the concessions are made, what are the feelings of that body of men
who should be returned as members of parliament towards the Protestant
church for which they would be called upon to legislate. He thought
those feelings could not be learned more correctly than from the
language of Dr. Doyle, who thus described the church of Ireland:—“She
is looked up to, not as the spouse of the Redeemer, but as the handmaid
of the ascendancy. The latter, whenever she becomes insolent or forgets
her rank, if rank it may be called, rebuke her into a deportment more
becoming her situation. They extend their protection to her for their
own advantage only; and she, working alternately on their hopes and
fears, continues to hold her place as a necessary appendage of the
family to which she owes her existence. When indulged, she is indolent;
when rebuked, she becomes attentive; she draws tight or relaxes her
discipline as it may please, or be determined by her masters. Her eye
is ever fixed upon her own interests, and she deems nothing forbidden
or unhallowed which may serve to promote them. As those who do an injury
can never forgive, she is implacable in her hostility to the church
which she supplanted; and at this day, she seems indifferent to all
things else, but to the concealment of her riches, and the persecution
of popery. She occasionally revolts against her fellow-servants, who lay
bare her spoils, who tell of her frauds and oppressions, who remind her
of her origin, and upbraid her with the profligacy of her misspent
life. But she is much more frequently employed in forming offensive
and defensive leagues with her fellows in the corporations, showing the
advantages of injustice and oppression, in confounding the charter of
her servitude with the title-deeds of her employers, in asserting her
claim to a tithe of the land and labour of the kingdom, and proving to
the satisfaction of the Christian community that, though she receive
the patrimony of the poor, she is not bound to exercise towards them a
single act of mercy.” Such language as this, said Sir J. Copley, is not
confined to the individual who used it; the same sentiments are avowed
by some of the leading men of the Catholic body, and proclaimed aloud
in the Catholic Association. He asked, therefore, when such are
the sentiments of a Roman Catholic bishop when speaking of that
establishment for which Catholics, elected probably by his influence,
would be called to legislate, whether the house would consent that such
men, returned by such influence, should have the power of legislating
for a church thus described by one of their own communion, without
insisting upon securities by which all danger might be averted? The
debate was closed by Mr. Canning, who had been pointedly alluded to
throughout the whole of Sir J. Copley’s speech, and, after disposing of
its argument, he ironically vindicated himself for not having concerted
measures of security with the Pope of Rome. Government had not the same
facilities, he said, with the court of Rome as was possessed by several
foreign courts, as those of Prussia, Saxony, and the Netherlands. He
had seen in some popular tracts, that to correspond with the pope
was high-treason; and, therefore, when his holiness addressed a
complimentary note to our present gracious sovereign, he, as secretary
of state, took the opinion of the great law-officers on the subject of
a reply; and they declared that if he did answer the pope’s letter, he
would incur the penalties of a premunire. Now the law-officers who gave
this opinion were R. Gifford and Sir John Copley himself. I, being an
ignorant person, next looked into Burn’s Justice, and there I found that
the penalties attached to a premunire, were attainder, forfeiture of
goods, incapacity to bring an action, and liability to be slain by
any one with impunity. As this was a matter touching life and fortune,
therefore he could not be expected, after having acquired such
knowledge, to go to the Pope of Rome; and yet to the pope they must go
if they would have any security. Mr. Canning declared that it was the
intention of Mr. Pitt to cany this question, to the truth of which
assertion he was ready to depose before any tribunal. He avowed his
opinion that the cause had lost ground in the house as well as in the
country; but he was convinced that all unfavourable impressions must
give way to the effect of repeated discussions; that which right reason,
humanity, and justice demanded could not fail to find an echo in the
breasts of Englishmen. On a division the motion was lost by two hundred
and seventy-six against two hundred and seventy-four. In consequence of
this result, the order of the day in the house of lords, for taking into
consideration the Catholic petition, was discharged on the motion of
Lord Lansdowne, “who feared to increase, in the present state of feeling
in Ireland, the disastrous conviction that a majority of both houses
in parliament was opposed to a consideration of the claims of their
Catholic brethren.”




THE CORN-LAWS.

Ministers had pledged themselves to bring the corn-law question before
the house this session; and great anxiety was felt throughout the
nation on this subject. It had been originally intended to introduce the
subject simultaneously in both houses; but the illness of Lord Liverpool
prevented it being brought forward in the upper house. Mr. Canning
introduced the subject in the commons on the 1st of March, when he
expressed his surprise that so much of hostile feeling should have been
allowed to enter into the consideration of a question where none ought
to have been found, and that this asperity should arise where there was
no necessity to fly to extremes, and where the difficulties, in point of
fact, were less than they were stated in argument. Every body admitted,
he said, the necessity of protecting the agricultural interests; the
only question was the mode and degree in which the protection should
be administered. Of late years three modes of protection, without
prohibition, had been proposed: the first, that of Mr. Ricardo, which
imposed a duty of 20s. per quarter, to be diminished every year till
it should have reached a minimum of about 10s.; the second proposed
to begin with a duty of 16s., to be gradually lowered to 10s.; and the
third was to impose a duty of 15s, or 16s. once for all, without any
reference to the price. All these plans he been devised by persons
generally favourable to a free trade in corn; but to all of them there
lay the objection that when a pressure came it would bring with it
distress to the agriculturists. Experience, he said, proved, that to
impose a fixed duty without any reference to the variation of prices was
objectionable and insufficient, because it was inevitably sometimes
too high, and at other times too low with reference to the state of the
country. It was therefore more advisable to adopt a scale of duties,
which should vary in a relative proportion to the state of the country.
He moved that—“Whenever the average price of wheat made up and
published in manner required by law, shall be 60s., and under 61s. per
quarter, the duty shall be for one quarter £1. And in respect of every
integral shilling, by which such price shall be above 60s., such duty
shall be decreased by 2s., until such price shall be 70s. Whenever such
price shall be at or above 70s., the duty shall be for every quarter Is.
Whenever such price shall be under 60s., and not under 59s., the duty
shall be for every quarter £1. 2s. And in respect of each integral
shilling, or any part of each integral shilling, by which such price
shall be tinder 59s., such duty shall be increased by 2s.” Mr. Canning
moved resolutions similar to the above on barley, oats, rye, peas,
beans, wheat-meal, and flour, oatmeal, maize, &c. If the produce of, and
imported from any British possession in North America, or elsewhere out
of Europe, he moved that wheat should be admitted at 5s. per quarter,
until the price of British wheat should be 65s. per quarter; and that
whenever such price should be at or above 65s., the duty should be for
every quarter only 6d. Similar resolutions were also moved on other
grains coming from the same parts of the world. Mr. Canning’s last
resolution on this subject was, “That it is the opinion of this
committee, that all the said duties shall be regulated and determined
from week to week by the average prices of corn, made up in the manner
required by law; which prices shall, at the several ports of the United
Kingdom, determine the several rates of the said duties for and during
the week next after the receipt of the proper certificates of such
average prices at such ports respectively.” The debate on these
resolutions was postponed for a week, that every appearance of
precipitancy in such an important measure might be avoided. When the
discussion was resumed, the motion for the house going into committee
was opposed by Lord Clive, Sir E. Knatchbull, and other leading members
of the landed interest. Their opposition rested on the grounds that
domestic agriculture was entitled to all the protection which parliament
could give it, even in the shape of a prohibition; that it was unjust
to expose the home-grown, oppressed with taxes, and obliged to purchase
costly labour, to a competition with the farmers of foreign countries,
where taxation was light and labour cheap; that the plan was only
experimental in its nature, in a matter where all experiment was
mischief; that its effect would be to reduce prices much below what
could be considered a fair remunerating price to the grower; and
that, while it thus deprived the agriculturist even of the imperfect
protection which he at present enjoyed, it would ultimately prove
injurious to the public welfare, by throwing poor lands out of
cultivation, thus leaving the country at every moment dependent for
its food on foreigners. The chancellor of the exchequer and Mr. Peel
replied, and the opposition to the speaker’s leaving the chair was not
pressed to a division. In the committee, however, an amendment was moved
to the effect of raising the medium price by taking 64s. instead of 60s.
as the point at which what might be considered the prohibitory duty of
20s. should attach, on which the house divided. But this was lost; and
an amendment, proposed by Mr. Whitmore, for an exactly opposite purpose,
namely, to reduce the medium price at which the duty of 20s. should
attach, shared the same fate. During the progress of the bill through
the committee other alterations were likewise proposed, almost all
tending to the benefit of the home grower. Thus it was proposed to raise
the medium price of rye, peas, and beans, from 35s. to 40s.; to lower
the quantity of oatmeal, on which, as being equivalent to a quarter of
oats, a given duty should be paid from one hundred and ninety lbs. to
one hundred and seventy-six lbs.; and a similar attempt was made to
raise the duty on wheat-flour. All these amendments were lost; but
ministers themselves, from the representations of county meetings both
in England and Scotland, raised the medium price of barley to 32s., and
the duty to 12s.; and the medium price of oats from 21s. to 25s., and
the duty to 8s. This concession to the agriculturists gave great offence
to those who advocated free trade. Mr. Wood told ministers that they
had allowed themselves to be bullied by them; to which Mr. Peel calmly
answered, that he did not see how a proper and justifiable addition of
2s. to the price of barley could require such an extravagant expenditure
of indignation and abuse. The report was brought up on the 27th
of March; and the resolutions were carried, after a division on an
amendment moved by Mr. Hume. A bill founded on them was brought in; and
on the second reading the opposition to it on the part of the landed
interest was renewed with undiminished hostility. Sir Thomas Lethbridge
described the bill as one which ought to be entitled, “An act for the
more effectual encouragement of speculation in the corn-trade, the more
rapid diminution of the growth of grain in Great Britain, and the better
encouragement of the growth of grain in other countries for the supply
of the British market.” He moved as an amendment, that the bill should
be read a second time on that day six months; and its supporters gave
ministers to understand that the success of the bill would deprive them,
in regard to certain other questions connected with expenditure, of the
customary support of their most valued friends. If the price of corn was
reduced, they said, everything else ought equally to be reduced. Were
ministers then ready, they asked, to reduce the taxes? The defence of
the bill was chiefly undertaken by Mr. Grant, the vice-president of
the board of trade, who entered into an elaborate view of the whole
question. Possessing, as the landowners did, the law of 1815, it was
necessary, he said, to show some good reason for the change proposed;
and he found a most satisfactory reason in the fact that the law had
failed in every one of the objects which had been contemplated in its
enactment. The intention of that law had been to effect three objects;
namely, uniformity of price, protection to the farmer, and independence
of foreign supplies; but it was notorious that the law had not answered
any one of these purposes. The amendment was pressed to a division; and
the second reading of the bill was carried by a majority of two hundred
and forty-three to seventy-eight. It subsequently passed a committee
with no other alteration than a clause, authorizing the king to
prohibit, by an order in council, the importation of grain from any
country where British vessels should be subject to a higher duty than
was imposed on the vessels of such country coming to British ports. The
bill was finally read a third time, and passed on the 12th of April, on
which day the house adjourned for the Easter holidays.




DISSOLUTION OF THE MINISTRY.

About the middle of February the Earl of Liverpool was suddenly attacked
by a paralytic stroke. By the end of March his case became hopeless,
and Mr. Canning was summoned at that time by the king to Windsor. It
was well known that dissensions existed in the cabinet, and that serious
difficulties were created by a large portion of it, hostile in the
highest degree to Mr. Canning. At the same time a majority of the
commons, as well as of the people at large, called upon him to take up
the mantle of the premier, and to direct the councils of Great Britain.
Mr. Canning was called to this interview with the king merely in his
capacity of privy-counsellor, to assist the king in the reconstruction
of the cabinet. He recommended that a ministry should be formed
unanimous in the rejection of Catholic emancipation; to forward which
arrangement he professed his own willingness to retire from office. This
advice had the appearance of great disinterestedness and self-denial;
but Mr. Canning must have known that it was utterly impracticable: those,
indeed, on whom it would have thrown the responsibility of government
saw the embarrassment such an arrangement would produce, and instantly
rejected it. His majesty now proposed that the plan of administration
should be unchanged; and that some anti-Catholic peer should be
appointed premier, to prevent such increase of adherents to the Catholic
cause as a minister of that rank, being its known advocate, would
necessarily promote. To this arrangement, however, Mr. Canning objected,
declaring that he would never degrade himself by forming part of an
administration which considered a person entertaining those views which
he entertained concerning the Catholic question as disqualified to fill
the highest office in the state. By this declaration, in effect, Mr.
Canning made known to the king that his services could only be secured
by the highest office; and it seems quite clear from other circumstances
that such was his aim. But this resolution was the cause of breaking up
the Liverpool cabinet. At the same time Mr. Canning obtained the object
of his ambition: aided by the general voice, he was made premier. His
exaltation, however, was the signal of retreat to other members of the
cabinet. Mr. Peel had previously declared that if such an event took
place he should decline office; and Lord Eldon resigned, ostensibly on
account of his advanced age, but in reality on Mr. Peel’s principles,
namely, that he could not co-operate with a friend to Catholic
emancipation as premier. On the 12th of April the king had received, in
addition to these, the resignations, also, the Duke of Wellington,
and Lords Bexley, Westmoreland, and Bathurst. Nevertheless, the king
confirmed the appointment of Mr. Canning; and it was announced in
the house of commons on the same evening, where it was received with
deafening shouts of applause. Mr. Canning now proceeded to reconstruct
the cabinet. The new ministers were, the Duke of Clarence, as lord
high-admiral of England; Lord Anglesea, as master-general of the
ordnance, with a seat in the cabinet; Lord Dudley, Mr. Sturges Bourne,
and Mr. Robinson, nominated respectively for the foreign, home, and
colonial departments; the Duke of Devonshire, as lord-chamberlain; the
Duke of Portland, as privy-seal; and Lord Harrowby, as president of the
council. Lord Bexley retracted his resignation and retained office; and
Lord Palmerston, with Messrs. Huskisson and Wynne, likewise remained in
the cabinet. Sir John Leach, Sir Anthony Hart, and Sir James Scarlett,
were respectively made master of the rolls, vice-chancellor, and
attorney-general. Mr. Canning occupied the two offices of first lord
of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer. A negociation had been
opened with the Marquis of Lansdowne to supply several places; but no
official appointments resulted from it, although a large body of Whigs
offered their support to the administration. The new ministry was
gazetted on the 27th of April; and on the 30th his majesty held a court,
at which Lords Eldon, Westmoreland, and Bathurst, as well as Mr. Peel,
severally had audiences to resign their seals of office; and the new
ministers kissed hands on their appointments. Mr. Canning was loudly
cheered by the populace in going to and returning from the palace; but
he soon discovered that his high office was not a bed of roses. “The
premiership had for twelve years been a bed of slumber; it now fell
into the hands of one who made it a bed of feverish anxiety and bitter
wakefulness,—George Canning, the first debater, the most dexterous
politician, and the happiest wit of the house; the most perplexed,
unhappy, and disappointed of ministers.”




REASSEMBLING OF PARLIAMENT.

The house of commons reassembled on the 1st of May. So much
time, however, had been lost through the dissolution of the old
administration, and the hostility of parties now consumed so much time,
that very little business was completed during the session. At its
meeting the public were eager to learn something of the causes which had
separated men who had acted so long together in good and in evil report,
and which had accomplished an union between parties and individuals
whose contest had generally been a war to the death. The public had not
to remain long on the tip-toe of expectation, for no sooner had the house
met than the strife of words commenced.




EXPLANATIONS OF MEMBERS, AND HOSTILITY TO THE MINISTRY.

On the motion that a new writ should issue for the borough of Ashburton,
for the election of a member in place of Mr. S. Bourne, Mr. Peel said,
that as the motion was connected with the succession to that office
which he had resigned, he trusted that the house would allow him the
opportunity of explaining the grounds on which he had retired from
the situation of secretary of state, disclaiming at the same time all
intention of opposing the new government, and carrying himself free from
every appearance of a factious spirit. He remarked:—“I retired from
office because, from the first moment of my public life, I have taken
an active and decided part on a great and vital question, that of the
extension of political privileges to the Roman Catholics. For eighteen
years I have constantly offered an uncompromising, but, I hope, a
temperate, fair, and constitutional resistance to every proposition for
granting to them any further concessions. My opposition is founded
on principle. I think the continuance of those bars which prevent
the acquisition of political power by the Catholics necessary for
the maintenance of the constitution, and for the interests of the
established church. It is not merely that my honourable friend differs
in opinion from me on this important question, but the change in
administration occasions the transfer of all that influence and power
which belongs to the office of a prime minister into the hands of one
who will use it for the purpose of forwarding an object which I have
always resisted. It is not a transfer of that influence and power
from one ordinary man to another ordinary man, but from the most able
opponent of the Catholic claims to their most zealous and eloquent
advocate.” Mr. Peel then vindicated the course taken by his late
colleagues in resigning office; the act, he said, was “a splendid
example of disinterested conduct to all public men.” He vindicated
them from the charge of acting in concert, or in the spirit of cabal;
declaring that he not only did not hold any communication with the
lord-chancellor, as had been said, but that he did not even know hip
lordship’s intentions The very first person, he said, to whom I stated
my inability to acquiesce in the appointment of my right honourable
friend as prime minister, was my right honourable friend himself; and
I did not then known the intention of any other member of the
administration. He added:—“A separation from my right honourable
friend, with whom I have acted so cordially on every point but one, is
to me a source of deep regret, mitigated, however, in some degree by
the recollection that I have done everything becoming my character
to prevent it. I retire from the service of my sovereign without any
personal regret, except upon one point, namely, that I can no longer
avail myself of those opportunities which office afforded of introducing
a system of improvement into the existing laws. To effect that object is
the chief desire of my life; and I have the satisfaction of reflecting
that, during the five years I have held the office of home-secretary,
every institution coming under my immediate cognizance has been subject
to such reforms as were considered advantageous and useful. I have
likewise the satisfaction of recollecting that every law which I found
on the statute-book at my entrance into office, imposing extraordinary
restrictions on the liberties of the subject, has been either modified
or altogether repealed. I may be a Tory, but I have the satisfaction of
observing that such has been my conduct. Tory, as I am, it is gratifying
to me to reflect that no law stands on the statute-book, in connection
with my name, which has not for its object the mitigation of the
severity of the criminal law, and the prevention of any abuse in the
administration of justice.” This speech was received with loud cheers,
and elicited much applause from Mr. Brougham, who at the same
time declared his determination to support the policy of the new
administration. On the contrary, Mr. Dawson, a brother-in-law to Mr.
Peel, and late under-secretary for the home department, damaged his
reputation by his explanation, inasmuch as he allowed himself to get
into a passion with the premier. Mr. Dawson insisted that Mr. Canning
was bound to declare immediately what he intended to do with the
Catholic question, and also to bring it forward without delay. In reply
Mr. Canning said, that throughout a continued intercourse with Mr. Peel
he had uniformly found his conduct distinguished by the same feeling and
high principle which were so strongly pourtrayed in the speech he had
just delivered; he had behaved, he said, throughout with manliness and
candour. He continued:—“The house is greatly mistaken if they imagine
my situation to be one of gratified ambition. From the beginning of
the discussions on the Catholic claims I felt that the separation of my
honourable friend and myself was inevitable, and not far remote. Would
to God I could now persuade myself that his retirement will be but for a
short time! Had the necessity which has made the retirement of one of as
inevitable been left in my hands, my decision would have been for my own
resignation, and against that of my right honourable friend. My first
object was to quit office; my next to remain in it, with all my old
colleagues exactly—exactly on the same terms as usual regarding
this very Catholic question.” Mr. Canning then went into a long detail
concerning the circumstances which preceded his appointment; and he
concluded with saying,—“I sit where I now do by no seeking of my
own. I proposed at first my own exclusion: it was not accepted. Then
conditions were offered to me, which I refused, because they were
accompanied by an admission of my own disqualification, to which if I
had submitted, I should have been for ever degraded. In the year 1822
I was appointed to an office fraught with wealth, honour, and ambition.
From that office I was called, not on my own seeking, but contrary to my
own wish; and I made a sacrifice—a sacrifice, be it remembered, of no
inconsiderable nature to a poor man—and the offer of a share in the
administration was made to me without any stipulation. But if that offer
had been made with this condition, that, if the highest place in the
administration should become vacant, the opinions which I held on the
Catholic question were to be a bar to my succeeding to it, I would turn
the offer back with the disdain with which I turned back that of
serving under a Protestant premier, as the badge of my Helotism, and the
condition of my place.” The only parties left to explain their conduct
were those members of opposition who had quitted their former station
and were settled beside the new ministry. This duty was discharged by
Sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Brougham. Their support was defended by Sir
Francis as likely to promote enlightened principles of government both
at home and abroad, and especially the cause of religious liberty. He
had no doubt but the country would soon be operated upon by sentiments
of sound policy, justice, and liberality. Mr. Brougham maintained
that he and his party, in supporting the present ministry, were acting
consistently, as well as disinterestedly. For himself, he said, he
had quitted a situation, eminent beyond his hopes or merits, on the
opposition benches, where he was surrounded by one of the largest, one
of the most honourable, and one of the most disinterested oppositions
ever known in the house, an opposition consisting of men who do what
they think best for their country; though in doing so they should feel
sure that they were helping to confirm their adversaries in office.
“I have quitted this station, enough to satisfy the ambition of the
proudest man, under arrangements which made my own acceptance of office
impossible. My opinions on foreign and domestic policy have led me to
this step with the sincere desire of furnishing a useful assistance to
the liberal sentiments of Mr. Canning—including the Irish question.
Not that I am for giving it that prominent situation in the public
councils which is required by some; but I wished that it should derive
every possible advantage from the junction of the two parties which
have divided the house and the country, but are now united in a cordial,
hearty, and uniform support of such measures as should be deemed best
for the country.”

The house of lords met on the 2nd of May; and in that branch of the
legislature more explanations were given than in the house of commons.
On the first opportunity Lord Eldon declared that the accusations made
against him, of having attempted an unconstitutional dictation to his
sovereign, was a base and scandalous falsehood. His opinion was, and
always had been, that if the claims of the Catholics were conceded,
there was an end of the religious liberties of this country, and that
with its religious liberties its civil freedom would perish. Holding
such opinions as these it was impossible for him to coincide with the
views of the new minister, whether those views were immediately to be
carried into execution, or suspended for the better securing of
his purpose. Could he, he asked, honestly remain in office under an
administration formed on principles at variance with his own? He could
not allow that the new administration had been formed on principles
similar to that of Lord Liverpool. That nobleman had been a zealous,
honest, and candid opponent of the Catholic claims; but the present
premier would be as zealous in supporting them. As to the mode of his
resignation, his lordship wholly disclaimed the imputation of having
concerted it with Mr. Peel; that gentleman, for whom he entertained
the highest regard and esteem, knew nothing about his sending in his
resignation; and he believed the same to be the case with every other
minister who had retired. As the retirement of the Duke of Wellington,
not only from the administration, but from the command of the army,
which was not a cabinet office, seemed to indicate hostility of a more
decided character than that of any other seceder, it had excited greater
interest. On both these points his grace entered into a full and manly
explanation. After adverting to the press which had endeavoured to
blacken his character, he remarked, that he was not requested to come
and receive explanations concerning evident omissions in the letter
first sent to him, nor was he referred to any person for information
on these points; although, as he afterwards learned, his colleagues had
been invited to go to the minister, and receive any explanations which
they might require, or the minister himself had gone to them. Still he
would not let any pique of this kind stop an amicable communication, and
in that spirit he carried on his correspondence, and wished to contrive
means of continuing in his majesty’s councils. When, however, he found
that the right honourable gentleman was to be at the head of affairs,
he doubted whether he could, consistently with his principles, join the
administration; and under these circumstances he declined office. He
considered that the principles of Lord Liverpool’s policy had been
abandoned, and that the measures of a government constituted on the
principles of Mr. Canning’s sentiments would be viewed with suspicion by
foreign governments, and would give no satisfaction to the country; and
therefore he requested Mr. Canning to communicate to his majesty that
he wished to be excused from forming a part of the new cabinet. Would he
not, he asked, have degraded himself, and deceived the public, if he
had sat in a cabinet with a gentleman at its head whom he felt bound to
oppose? It was no answer to tell him that the present cabinet acted upon
the same principles with that of which Lord Liverpool had been at the
head. The two cabinets materially differed: that of Lord Liverpool was
formed on the principle of maintaining the laws as they now were, whilst
that of Mr. Canning was founded on the principle of subverting them.
“Those,” remarked his grace, “who formed part of Lord Liverpool’s
cabinet knew well what it was to which they pledged themselves, for they
knew that his lordship was conscientiously opposed to all changes in the
existing form of government; but those who coalesced with Mr. Canning
had no idea how far their coalition was to carry them,—for he was the
most able, active, and zealous partisan of those changes with which the
country was at present threatened. The principles of the noble earl were
principles by which any man might safely abide; the principles of
Mr. Canning fluctuate daily, and depend upon transitory reasons of
temporary expediency. These are the conscientious reasons of my
resignation.” As for the absurd calumny, that he had threatened the king
with his resignation unless he was made prime minister, the duke said
it hardly deserved an answer. “Could any man believe,” asked his grace,
“that after I had raised myself to the command of the army, I would have
given it up for any but conscientious reasons? I say, raised myself,
because I know that, whatever his majesty’s kindness had been towards
me, he could not have exalted me through all the grades of military
rank to the very highest if I had not rendered him and my country some
service of which he entertained a high sense. Will any man then believe
that when I was in a situation which enabled me to recommend to the
notice of his majesty all my former friends and companions in arms, and
to reward them according to their merits for the exertions which they
had formerly made under my command in the field, I would voluntarily
resign a situation so consonant to my feelings and habits for the mere
empty ambition of being placed at the head of the government?” In regard
to his resignation of the command of the army, his grace said, that
although it was not a cabinet office, yet it was one which placed its
possessor in a constant and confidential relation with the king and
his government. With the prime minister the commander-in-chief is in
communication every day, he has not a control even over the army, the
chief direction of which is placed in the minister’s hands; at the same
time the premier himself cannot withdraw any part of the army from a
foreign station without consulting the commander-in-chief; he cannot
make up his budget, or introduce any reform into the organization of
the army without seeking his opinion. No political sentiments, however,
would have prevented him from retaining this office under ordinary
circumstances, but from the tone and tenor of the communications he had
received from his majesty, from the nature of the invitation given to
him by the right; honourable gentleman in his first letter, and from
the contents of the last, which he had received from Mr. Canning by
his majesty’s commands, he saw that he could not remain with credit to
himself or advantage to the country: his line of conduct had not been
hastily adopted, though he had been wantonly and unjustly abused. The
other seceding peers justified their retirement generally on the same
ground of political principles which had been taken by the Duke of
Wellington, except that Lord Melville and Lord Bathurst expressed an
opinion, that without such men as his grace, Lord Eldon, and Mr. Peel,
no administration could be formed possessing sufficient stability and
capacity for the government of the country. The task of defending the
new administration fell to the lot of Lord Goderich, who declared that,
so far from casting any imputation of conspiracy among, and cabal on his
former colleagues, he believed that if there had been more communication
among them, much of the mischief and disorder which had occurred
might have been prevented. If the government was not constituted in
a satisfactory manner, it was not the fault of either himself or
his honourable and noble friends. Mr. Canning had sought to keep the
elements of the late ministry together; but they had fallen away: and
was he to say to his majesty, “I will run away, and leave you in such a
predicament as no sovereign was ever placed in before?” The Marquis of
Lansdowne finally explained the principles, and defended the propriety
of the coalition of parties; and he justified it on the grounds which
had been made in the lower house—the identity between the principles of
his party and the spirit of the measures which government had for some
time been pursuing, in regard both to foreign and domestic policy. From
his statement it appeared that the overtures of alliance had come under
the sanction of the king from the ministry; for, he said, when the
individuals with whom the formation of a government rested brought
to him his majesty’s commands, he felt it no less his duty than his
interest maturely to consider them, and that after this consideration he
felt it his duty to obey them. The union which had taken place, he
said, was not the result of a sudden impulse; for three years ago he
had supported the just views of government in repairing the finances,
widening the resources, improving the commerce and navigation of the
country, and in cultivating relations of amity and friendship with that
new world whose treasures were now opening to them. In conclusion, he
admitted in their full extent the reasons which had been given by the
noble lords for their several resignations, and the statements which
they had made in accounting for that remarkable coincidence; but he
could not help expressing his surprise that government had been able to
go on so long, being conducted, as it now appeared, by ministers who did
not think proper to communicate with one another upon the most important
question which could be agitated among them. Other noble lords, as the
Earls of Mansfield and Winchilsea, and Lord Ellenborough, expressed
their determined hostility to the new government, and a total want of
confidence in its leader. Lord Ellenborough remarked, that it appeared
clear to him, and he believed to others, that some deceit was about to
be practised. Either his majesty, who had permitted this administration
to be formed with the understanding that the Catholic question was to be
given up, was deceived, or the hopes held out to Ireland, that the new
administration was to extend to that country the peace and tranquillity
which that boon alone could bestow, were fallacious. Earls Mansfield and
Winchilsea expressed a determination of bringing the principles of
the new cabinet at once to the test; and gave notice of motions on the
Catholic question and the state of the nation. Neither of these motions,
however, was ever brought to a hearing; and the retired ministers
exhibited as little concert out of office as they had displayed in
their resignation. In one matter, however, they were all agreed, that of
hostility to the present government. In both houses a desultory warfare
was carried on against it: single individuals taking upon themselves at
intervals the task of castigating its members. In the commons Sir Thomas
Lethbridge chiefly undertook this task; but, although he performed it
with much pertinacity, he was unfortunately deficient in speech. In the
lords the most powerful assistance on the side of the seceders was found
in Lord Grey, who announced his want of confidence in the ministry. He
gave, his lordship said, all due credit to those members of his party
who coalesced with that ministry for disinterestedness, but he could see
nothing in it which called for his support. It was said to be formed on
the principle of Lord Liverpool’s government. That principle consisted
in the exclusion of the Catholic question: was the Catholic question
then not to be made a cabinet measure? If so, his determination was
taken; it would prevent him from giving support to the government. His
lordship then reviewed the whole political career of Mr. Canning, and
expressed himself opposed to every part of it; attacking with peculiar
severity the noted declaration of the premier of calling the republics
of the new world into existence. It was true, he said, that Mr.
Canning was called a friend of civil and religious liberty, and that
he supported Catholic emancipation, at the same time he proclaimed his
opposition to a repeal of the test and corporation acts. He would not
dwell on his known opposition to parliamentary reform; that question
had not been so uniformly supported, nor had public opinion been so
expressed in its favour as that any one should make it a _sine qua non_
in joining an administration; but he could not conceal from himself the
fact, that within a few years numerous laws had been passed hostile
to civil liberty, every one of which had received the right honourable
gentleman’s dissent. Unless he could retrace his steps, and erase some
that remained in the statute-book, no confidence ought to be reposed in
him as a friend to civil liberty. His lordship added, that he differed
from the known opponents of government on most questions as widely as
the poles were asunder; but neither could he join those who supported
it: the only course, therefore, left him was to pursue the same
principles which he professed through life. When the measures of
government agreed with those principles he would support them; when
repugnant, they should have his opposition.




OPINIONS OF HIS MAJESTY ON THE CATHOLIC QUESTION.

{GEORGE IV. 1827—1828}

The question of Catholic emancipation was soon set at rest for the
present. In an interview which the Archbishop of Canterbury and
the Bishop of London had with his majesty, soon after Mr. Canning’s
elevation, he stated “that he was as firmly fixed as his father had
been, in opposition to the pretensions of the papists.” This declaration
was made public in a meeting of prelates at Lambeth-palace, and
announced by the bishop in the house of lords, so that it was evident
that this was a measure not to be forced. On this declaration, indeed,
the motions previously named, which would virtually have been a renewal
of the discussion, were withdrawn, and the Catholic question was thereby
laid aside for a time. The test acts, no less than Catholic emancipation
had been a principal bond of union among the opposition; but neither was
this urged; so that every subject which could have brought any party
in the coalition to the test, was avoided. Under these circumstances,
towards the close of the session some of the Whigs took office. Thus
Lord Lansdowne was appointed secretary for the home department; Lord
Carlisle, privy-seal; and Mr. Tierney, master of the mint. But about
this time the opposition received a more regular form and abler
direction. Hitherto Mr. Peel had acted with moderation and urbanity, but
he now gave indications of decided hostility. In discovering this Mr.
Canning said, that he rejoiced to see the standard openly raised: he
always preferred direct hostility to hollow professions or pretended
neutrality.




MOTION ON THE CHANCELLOR’S JURISDICTION IN BANKRUPTCY.

On the 22nd of May, Mr. Michael Angelo Taylor again brought the subject
of delays in the court of chancery before the commons. The delays, he
said, which disgraced that court, and the arrears of business under
which it was sinking, were the consequences of the system of the court
itself. An additional judge had in a former year been appointed, and yet
the arrear of business had not been extinguished. To adopt the language
of Mr. Shadwell, not three angels could discharge the duties of the
office of lord-chancellor, constituted as that office now was. He
proposed, therefore, to withdraw all matters of bankruptcy from the
great seal: matters which had not originally been subject to that
jurisdiction, but had been made so by parliament, and which were of
themselves sufficient to occupy the attention of any single judge. He
moved, therefore, “that this house do resolve itself into a committee
of the whole house to consider of the statute of the 13th year of
Elizabeth, and of certain subsequent statutes, which gave to the
lord-chancellor of England jurisdiction in matters of bankruptcy.”
 This motion was opposed by the attorney-general, Mr. Brougham, and Dr.
Lushington, the former of whom vindicated the present system at great
length. It was an unsound principle, he said, to make places fit
to particular men. On the contrary, they ought to seek men fit to
particular places; and it would be easy to show that, with three
efficient judges, such as they had now got, there was not the least
necessity of subtracting from the court of chancery any part of the
jurisdiction which it at present possessed. He argued that there were
more cases in the court of chancery than could be considered during
the year, and that with the present judges in the court of chancery all
those in arrear would be speedily dismissed. Mr. D. W. Harvey supported
the motion, and entered into an exposition of the mischiefs of the
bankrupt-law as at present administered by the commissioners, whom he
described as being in general, either young men possessing capacity
without experience, or briefless old men possessing experience without
capacity, and to whom the appointment was an act of charity. Above all
he complained of the inconsistency of those who now pretended that all
the evils would be removed by the mere change of men, while the system
must remain unchanged. All the splendid denunciations, he said, which
had thrilled through every bosom in that house and in the country, were
to be considered only as party tactics, were to be looked upon as
the result of disappointed ambition. Professional advancement being
obtained, those who had been most loud in their attacks upon the late
Lord-chancellor Eldon, had now become the warmest eulogists of his
merits. The house was now told, that, if in the vehemence of debate,
anything had been said which was calculated to injure his character, it
ought to be considered as nothing, as the mere accidental effusion
of party spirit. It fell to the lot of Mr. Brougham to defend certain
members from this charge of political delinquency, which he did with his
usual tact, It had been said, he remarked, that a wondrous change was
now visible in various members of parliament; that they were all opposed
to the alterations in the court of chancery which they had formerly
advocated; and that now being in office they had no objection to the
arrangements of that court, though out of office they had poured forth
against them torrents of fiery indignation. It was assumed, also, for
the purpose of an unfair attack, that he himself, and those who thought
with him, had changed their opinions on the subject. Now on what measure
of government, on what chapter of policy, on what officer of state, on
what judge of the land, had his opinions or principles changed? It had
been said by those who contended that Lord Eldon was not to blame for
the arrears in the court, that no man could get through the business.
But if the business of the court had increased, the means of disposing
it had likewise increased by the establishment of the vice-chancellor’s
court. But instead of having an efficient chancellor, vice-chancellor,
and master of the rolls, there had always been either an unfit
vice-chancellor, or an unfit master of the rolls, which left the court
in the same situation as before the vice-chancellor’s bill passed. But
it was different now: they had as efficient a master of the rolls as
could be required; and of the vice-chancellor he would say, that he had
been one of the most experienced practitioners in the court of chancery.
The new lord chancellor, also, was a person of great legal talents, and
of an independent mind. From all this, he had a confident expectation
that the business of the court would be despatched in proper time. On
a division the motion was lost by a majority of one hundred and
thirty-four against thirty-seven.




MOTIONS REGARDING THE STAMP-DUTY AND CHEAP PUBLICATIONS.

During the troubled state of the country in 1819 and 1820, certain
legislative measures had been adopted, known by the name of the Six
Acts, for the purpose of checking the course of sedition. Some of
these had expired by the lapse of time; but one, which subjected cheap
periodicals issued for the purposes of agitation to a stamp-duty still
remained on the statute-book. On the 31st of May, Mr. Hume brought
forward a motion for the repeal of this statute. He had intended, he
said, to have made this motion during the preceding session, but he
congratulated himself upon the delay, as the changes which had
taken place in the government were favourable to the question he now
advocated. But Mr. Hume soon found himself mistaken. Mr. Canning and
others when in opposition had condemned this statute as a tyrannical
and unwarrantable attack against the liberty of the press; but to a man
they now resisted the motion, and abused and ridiculed the mover. It was
lost by a majority of one hundred and twenty against ten.




THE CORN-LAW QUESTION.

The new corn-law, which had been sent to the house of lords before
the recess, only furnished them with an opportunity of triumph. It had
originated in the late cabinet of which the Duke of Wellington was a
member; but notwithstanding this, he moved an amendment, prohibiting the
removal of foreign corn from bond until the price of wheat should
have reached sixty-six shillings per quarter. This proposal, though
at variance with the principle of the bill, which provided for the
admission of corn at all times on payment of a duty proportionate to the
average market price, was supported by the high Tory party and peers,
who preferred their own interests as landowners, so that ministers were
left in a minority of one hundred and twenty-two to one hundred and
thirty-three. The consequence of this amendment was, that, when the
bill returned to the commons, ministers rejected it altogether; it being
fatal, they said, to the principle of the bill, and inconsistent with
its application. As for the supporters of the amendment they were
abused both within and without the walls of St. Stephen, as men who had
sacrificed the public good to forward the purposes of mere faction.
Even Mr. Canning, imagining that the opposition was directed personally
against himself, described the Duke of Wellington as a tool in the
hands of more crafty intriguers. He could not, he said, exclude from
his consideration that even so great a man as the Duke of Wellington had
been made an instrument in the hands of others on that occasion. As to
the members by which that amendment was carried, he asserted, that he
believed it impossible that such discordant materials could have been
brought together by a conviction of its merits. He looked upon the
union not as arising from the merits of the question, but from some
deep-rooted design to produce another effect in the other house, or that
house, or elsewhere. There was no reason, however, to believe that this
step arose from the spirit of faction as a whole; and Mr. Canning’s
language was, to say the least of it, indiscreet; language, which pique
and provocation might account for, but which neither sound sense nor
good feeling could justify. In consequence of the failure of this bill
it became necessary to prevent a recurrence of that alarm which had
arisen last year on account of scarcity. A temporary bill was therefore
prepared and suffered to pass both houses, permitting the release of
foreign corn from bond, on the same scale of duties as that proposed by
the measure which had been abandoned.




FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

Mr. Canning brought forward the budget on the 1st of June. The method
which he adopted in his statement, was, to state first the financial
situation of the country at the end of the preceding year; then to
combine and compare that one year with the several years which had
preceded it; and finally, to suggest the provision to be made for the
service of the present year, and the grounds on which he felt himself
justified in looking forward with confidence to the result. By a review
of income and expenditure during the four past years, it appeared from
his statements, that, on an expenditure of £230,000,000, including the
annual sinking-fund of £5,000,000, there was an apparent deficiency
of £1,265,687. Against this, however, was to be placed the amount of
advances from the exchequer, either in loans to carry on public works,
or for beneficial purchases, which the public had in possession as
available securities for repayment. The amount of excess in these
advances for the four years, was near £2,000,000, so that in fact
there remained about £1,100,000, as a real surplus of income beyond
expenditure. Mr. Canning suggested the propriety of providing for the
temporary deficiency by an issue of exchequer-bills. The supplies
which he demanded for the year amounted to £57,500,000, including the
sinking-fund; and the various items of which they were composed were
all voted without opposition. At the conclusion of his statements Mr.
Canning said, that he intended to bring the expenditure of the country
to the lowest possible scale consistent with the public service, and
that it was the determination of government to apply their best efforts
to the matter, and to call the house into council on the subject. His
financial statements, indeed, were made with such ability and candour,
that they secured for him the confidence both of the house and the
country.




CORRUPT BOROUGHS.

As is usual in the first session of a new parliament, the reports
of election-committees disclosed scenes of gross bribery. Samples of
corruption were brought before the house by Colonel Maberly and Mr.
Sykes from the boroughs of Northampton and Leicester.

Enormous sums had been abstracted from corporation funds for the purpose
of defraying the expenses of candidates for the boroughs. Colonel
Maberly moved, with reference to the borough of Northampton, that a
select committee be appointed to take into consideration the petition
which had been presented to the house, complaining of the conduct of the
corporation. The attorney-general, in reply, said, that if the case were
really as it had been stated, and if the corporation had been guilty of
the breach of trust mentioned, then there was an undoubted remedy in the
court of chancery, and he argued that this was the ordinary and legal
mode of obtaining redress in such cases. The motions, however, was
supported by Messrs. Spring Rice, II. Gurney, and Abercromby, with Lords
Althorp and Russell, on the ground that there was more in the case than
the mere misapplication of funds. They argued that the purpose to which
the funds had been misapplied directly affected the privileges and
constitution of the house of commons; that the house would degrade
itself if it sanctioned the attorney-general’s going before any court,
whether of law or of equity, to obtain the decision of that court on the
propriety or power of the house to interfere in cases of this nature,
and that the case was a fitting one to be investigated by a committee.
The application of money for such purposes found an advocate in Mr.
Peel, who asked, that if corporation funds should not be spent for any
other than corporation purposes, what was to be said of that of London,
which had recently voted £1000 to the Greeks? The real question before
the house was, that supposing the corporation to have power to apply its
funds to other than charitable purposes, had it a right to appropriate
them to such a purpose as paying the legitimate expenses incurred in
forwarding the election of a particular member of parliament? This was
a question which merited deep consideration. Might a peer subscribe one,
two, or five thousand pounds towards defraying such expenses?—might not
a corporation do so too? He would not advise them to do it; but he was
not prepared to say that in doing it they were acting illegally, or
would be guilty of a breach of the privileges of the house of commons.
He should suggest that a select committee be appointed simply to
inquire into the payment, or engagements for payment, of any sum for
electioneering purposes, made by the corporation of Northampton at the
last election, which suggestion was adopted. Concerning the borough of
Leicester, Mr. Sykes moved that a select committee should be appointed
“to take into consideration the petition from the borough of Leicester,
to examine witnesses, and to report to the house thereon.” This motion
was opposed by Messrs. C. Wynn and Peel, as a manifest attempt to evade
the provisions of the Grenville Act, which might forthwith be repealed
if motions of this nature were sanctioned. The petitioners, it was said,
had taken legal advice on the subject, and finding that they had no
case, they allowed the time limited by that act to elapse, and now
demanded the special interference of the house. They found this mode of
procedure more convenient than the former, under which they would have
had to find security for costs in the event of the petition turning out
to be frivolous, and would have been obliged at least to maintain
their own witnesses. It was inconvenient, unjust, and degrading to the
character of the house, it was asserted, to descend into the politics of
borough elections, and that applications like this ought to be resisted.
On the other hand, Sir Francis Burdett argued that if the petition were
rejected, it would be viewed as indicating a want of that constitutional
jealousy which should induce them to open their doors widely, instead of
shutting them abruptly to complaints of this nature. The house, he said,
was imperatively called on to investigate the circumstances connected
with the offence. On a division, however, the motion was lost by a
majority of ninety-two to sixty-eight.

A severer fate menaced some of the Cornish boroughs. Two of them
appeared so pre-eminent in dishonesty, that the most determined
advocates of the old system could not ward off retributive justice. A
petition against the return for Penryn had been presented, and although
corrupt practices could not be traced to the sitting members, yet
the committee reported that the most gross and shameful bribery had
prevailed. Mr. Legh Keck, chairman of the committee, was compelled by
a sense of duty to move the following resolutions:—“That it appears to
this house that the most notorious bribery and corruption were practised
at the last election of members to serve in parliament for the borough
of Penryn, and that such practices were not new or casual in the
borough, the attention of the house having been called to similar
practices in the years 1807 and 1819. That the said bribery and
corruption deserved the most serious consideration of parliament. That
leave be given to bring in a bill for the more effectual preventing of
bribery and corruption in that borough.” These resolutions were agreed
to; the sitting members for Penryn only raising their voices against
it, and a bill was ordered to be brought in in accordance with the
third resolution. This bill having been read a second time, the house
proceeded to examine further evidence in proof of the corruption. In
that evidence there was much of mere belief, and much prevarication on
the part of some of the witnesses; but the house came to the conclusion
that a clear case of bribery and corruption had been established. The
grand point, therefore, to consider was, the punishment to be inflicted,
or the remedy to be applied. On that subject there was a diversity
of opinions. Mr. Keck proposed the extension of the franchise to the
hundreds, while Lord John Russell contended that the borough, like
that of Grampound, should be disfranchised altogether. He moved as an
amendment, “that the borough of Penryn shall be excluded hereafter from
returning burgesses to serve in parliament.” The original motion was
supported by the ministry, who contended that though enough had been
proved to call for the interference of the house, yet there was not
sufficient to induce it to proceed to total disfranchisement. Mr.
Canning remarked, that he thought it clear that a verdict of “guilty”
 must be given; but he did not think such a degree of guilt was
established as would warrant the extinction of that which in its
blameless exercise was a valuable possession, and the taking it entirely
away from those who had exercised it innocently because others had
abused it. He protested, however, against its being supposed that, in
such a case as Grampound, he should feel any difficulty in erecting a
new representation in lieu of that which might be taken away; and in
giving his vote for the original motion, he would give it with reference
to this particular case, avoiding the general question, and the general
principles on which it was to be considered. The amendment was supported
by Lords Althorp and Milton; by Messrs. Ferguson, Hobhouse, and
Brougham; and by Sir John Newport. Such a case, they argued, had been
made out that it would be an injustice to the constitution and to the
principles on which the house had acted towards other places if Penryn
were not disfranchised, and the right transferred elsewhere. The
transfer of its privileges, they said, to the adjoining hundreds, would
merely bestow them on a few wealthy individuals. On a division the
amendment was carried by a majority of one hundred and twenty-four
against sixty-nine.

A petition had been presented against the return for East Retford,
and the committee had reported that the sitting members were not duly
elected; that the election was void, and that bribery had been general
and notorious. Similar resolutions to those in the case of Penryn were
adopted, therefore, in regard to this borough. The house resolved that
no new writ should issue until the evidence should have been taken into
consideration; and the result of that consideration was, that leave
was given for a bill of disfranchisement. The session, however, closed
before any effective proceedings were taken for the disfranchisement of
either of these boroughs; but Manchester was generally looked to as a
recipient of the forfeited privileges of Penryn, and Birmingham was
held out as the place to which the franchise of East Retford would be
transferred.

During this session Lord Althorp obtained the appointment of a committee
to inquire into the mode of taking the poll at county elections; and
Colonel Davies obtained a similar one to inquire into the mode of
taking the polls at elections of cities and boroughs. The object of
this inquiry was to get rid, if possible, of the enormous expense of
electing, whether in county, city, or borough; for in many cases, as
matters stood, it was only men of large fortunes who could venture to
stand candidates. Lord Althorp likewise brought in and carried a bill
for the better prevention of corrupt practices at elections, and for
diminishing the expenses. His object was to prevent substantial
bribery from being perpetrated under the mask of giving employment,
and therefore to deprive all persons of the right to vote who should be
employed by a candidate at the election. It was notorious, he said, that
at elections different nominal offices were created, to be filled by
voters who were classed as plumpers, and received double the pay of
split votes. The provisions of the bill, however, were not to apply to
any real and fair agent of a candidate, but to those who went under the
spurious names of runners, flagmen, and musicians. On the suggestion of
Mr. Spring Rice it was further determined to prohibit the distribution
of riband and cockades. Both parts of the bill were opposed: the one
as being unjust, and the other as frivolous; but the bill passed into
a law. By its provision any person who, within six months before an
election, or during an election, or within fourteen days after it,
shall have been employed in the election as counsel, agent, attorney,
poll-clerk, flagman, or in any other capacity, and shall have received
in consideration of such employment any fee, place, or office, shall
be incapable of voting at such elections; and that a penalty of £10 for
each offence shall be inflicted upon every candidate, who, after the
test of the writ, or if parliament be sitting, after the seat has become
vacant, shall directly or indirectly give to any voter or inhabitant
any cockade, riband, or any other mark of distinction. On the whole,
therefore, a great step was taken this session towards the purification
of elections; a branding mark, at least, was set upon shameless
corruption.




THE GAME-LAWS.

During this session Lord Wharncliffe introduced a bill into the lords
for altering the system of the game-laws. The provisions of this
bill were threefold: first, it removed the absurd and contradictory
qualifications of the old law, and substituted in their place the
qualification of property, by permitting every proprietor to kill game
on his own lands, whether great or small; secondly, it legalized the
sale of game, as one great means of diminishing the temptations for
poaching; and, thirdly, it mitigated the severity of the punishments
provided by the existing law for certain offences against the game acts.
This bill was allowed to be read a second time; but on the third
reading it was lost by a majority of one. It had, however, scarcely
been rejected when the Marquis of Salisbury introduced another, which
proposed to empower all persons qualified by law to kill game to take
out a licence, authorizing them to sell game to licensed dealers. This
bill was likewise allowed to pass a second reading; but it was lost on
a motion for the third reading by a majority of fifty-four to
thirty-eight. One great alteration, however, was effected by a bill
introduced by Lord Suffield, which abolished the practice of setting
spring-guns and other engines of destruction for the preservation
of game. This bill, which passed into a law, declared it to be a
misdemeanour in any person to set a spring-gun, man-trap, or other
engine calculated to kill, or inflict grievous injury, with the intent
that it should destroy life, or occasion bodily harm to any trespasser
or other person who might come into contact with it. An exception was
made in favour of gins and traps for the destruction of vermin, and
of guns placed in a dwelling-house between sunset and sunrise for the
protection of that house. Scotland was excepted from the operation
of the law; the six judges of the court of justiciary in that country
having recently pronounced, in a case on which they had adjudicated of a
man who had recently been killed by a spring-gun, that such killing, by
the law of Scotland, is murder.




IMPROVEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.

Although out of office Mr. Peel still proceeded with his improvements of
the criminal code. By his enlightened exertions five acts were passed,
which consolidated into one body the whole law regarding offences
against property, purified from an incredible quantity of ancient
rubbish, and advantageously simplified in all its arrangements. The
first of these five acts repealed about one hundred and thirty-seven
different statutes, wholly, or in part, commencing with the charter _De
Foresta_ of Henry III., and ending with the session of 1826. The second
statute removed doctrines which had hitherto been useless lumber in
the statute-book, or laid down general rules applicable to the whole
criminal code. It abolished _in toto_ the benefit of clergy in cases of
felony; appointed certain punishment for offences to which no special
statute affixed any particular penalty; relieved discharged prisoners
from severe official expenses; and purified the law from a load of
obscure and unnecessary verbiage. The third act contained the law of
offences against property in its new and simplified form; bringing the
various species of crime into one view; assigning to each its plain
description, with its punishment; and removing distinctions which had
frequently given rise to subtile and embarrassing doubts. It abolished
the distinction between grand and petty larceny; defined the true nature
of burglary; and removed many subtilties regarding possession, and the
conversion of possession in the law of embezzlement, as well as in the
distinctions of larceny and fraud. It also mitigated the rigour of the
penal law, while it recognised four classes of punishments, the offences
being distinctly set forth to which each was applicable. The first of
these punishments was death: the second, transportation for life, or any
term not less than seven years, with the alternative of imprisonment
for not longer than four years, with public whipping; the third was
transportation for any period under fourteen years, or imprisonment for
three years and whipping; and the fourth was transportation for seven
years, with the alternative of imprisonment for two years and whipping.
The fourth statute comprised those offences which consisted of
maliciously injuring the property of another. This act reserved capital
punishment for arson, for the demolition of buildings or machinery by
rioters, for showing false lights to a vessel, &c.; but left other kinds
of injury to be repaid by transportation or imprisonment. Altogether
the number of capital offences was considerably diminished; and in many
cases a summary mode of proceeding was introduced, which was so far a
limitation of trial by jury. The last statute regulated the redress to
be sought from the hundred by persons whose property had been injured by
rioters, and laid down the mode for applying for such remuneration.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued on the 2nd of July. The speech was delivered
by commission, and chiefly referred to the assurances of friendship from
foreign powers; to directions which had been given for a review of
the financial state of the country, with a view to a diminution
of expenditure; to the revival of employment in the manufacturing
districts; and to the corn-law question. On this latter subject the
speech remarked:—“His majesty trusts that, although your deliberations
on the corn-laws have not led, during the present session, to a
permanent settlement of that important question, the consideration of
it will be resumed by you early in the ensuing session, and that such an
arrangement of it may finally be adopted as shall satisfy the reasonable
wishes, and reconcile the substantial interests of all classes of his
majesty’s subjects.”




DEATH OF MR. CANNING.

The close of this session was soon followed by an event which again
dismembered the government, and disappointed all those hopes which
the genius and enlightened principles of Mr. Canning had raised in the
nation; an event, also, which taught an impressive lesson on the vanity
and uncertainty of ambition. Immediately after the close of parliament
Mr. Canning issued orders to the heads of different departments, that
they should transmit to him accurate accounts of the expenses connected
with their several establishments, with a view to their reduction. He
had no sooner done this than he was visited by an attack of illness.
His attack seemed to yield to medical treatment; and he went down to
the beautiful seat of the Duke of Devonshire, at Chiswick, to seek
tranquillity and a purer air. The fatigues and cares of office, however,
had worn down his constitution, while the desertion and bitter hostility
of his ministerial colleagues—men whom he had loved—acted on a frame
naturally irritable and enfeebled, and hastened his dissolution. His
disease returned; inflammation commenced, and proceeded with a violence
and rapidity which defied all art; and on the 8th of August he expired
in the same room where his predecessor, Charles James Fox, had drawn
his last breath. He was buried in Westminster Abbey, at the foot of Mr.
Pitt’s tomb, and his funeral, though private, was attended by a large
concourse of noblemen and gentlemen, to whom the deceased was endeared,
either by the ties of relationship or personal friendship. The public
character of Mr. Canning is clearly unfolded in the altered policy of
our government, both foreign and domestic, during his connexion with the
Liverpool administration. His ambition was lofty and imperious, but
it was coupled with noble ends—the glory of his own country, and the
advancement, through her greatness, of the surrounding nations. He was
anxious that all should benefit by her commercial prosperity and
the blessings of her constitution. Perhaps no minister was ever more
thoroughly influenced by the free spirit of the British constitution
than he was, at least in the latter part of his career. He began life,
indeed, on Tory principles; but he gradually imbibed that spirit, until
at length he threw off the trammels of that oligarchy, and acted as a
true patriot. When he found that the principles which he professed in
his early years began to threaten the safety of the constitution he
abandoned them as far as expedient; and conciliating his opponents, he
availed himself of their assistance to carry on the measures which
he devised for the welfare of his country. Some of these measures, as
previous pages unfold, were carried; others were to have been brought
forward in the lapse of time, had not death cut short his useful
career. It has been truly said, that in him England regretted the most
accomplished orator that the age had produced; and that the liberal
portion of Europe mourned over the loss of his moral influence as a
calamity to the world at large. He will be remembered in England as one
who nobly defended the honour, and asserted the dignity of the country
among nations, and as having made himself prime minister of England by
the mere force of talent.




ADMINISTRATION OF LORD GODERICH.

It might have been expected that, on the death of Mr. Canning, his
cabinet, which was composed of heterogeneous materials, and kept
together by his influence, would have been broken up. Few changes,
however, took place; and their effect was to bring back some of Mr.
Canning’s former friends into office. Lord Goderich became first lord
of the treasury, and Mr. Huskisson succeeded to him in the colonial
department. The Duke of Wellington re-accepted the command of the army,
but without a seat in the cabinet. There was a difficulty in finding
a chancellor of the exchequer; it was declined by Messrs. Tierney,
Huskisson, and Sturges Bourne; but finally accepted by Mr. Hemes,
who had been secretary of the treasury under Lord Liverpool’s
administration. The nomination of Mr. Herries, who was brought up in the
Vansittart school, was well nigh the cause of breaking up the cabinet.
The Whigs objected to him on political grounds; and the Marquis of
Lansdowne waited upon the king to tender his resignation. His chief
objection, however, was, that he was said to have been a nominee of the
king; and when it was explained that the recommendation came from Lord
Goderich, and was accepted by his majesty, who was anxious to avoid the
fatigue of new arrangements, his lordship consented to retain office.
This new ministry, the third which the country had seen in the space of
seven months, had within it, however, the seeds of its own dissolution;
and, as will be seen, the year was scarcely out when it was dissolved.




REVIEW OF FOREIGN POLICY.

The foreign policy of Mr. Canning occasioned difficulties with which his
successor was not able to contend. At this time, not only the commerce
of the Levant was destroyed, but all Christendom was shocked by the
atrocious cruelties exercised by the Turks in a war with the Greeks.
Such a state of things could not be suffered long to exist; and when it
was found that the Turkish court was resolved to pursue its own course,
Great Britain, France, and Russia resolved to interfere. A treaty was
signed between these three powers on the 6th of July, in this year,
to defend Greece from the Sultan’s power. One of the articles of
this treaty provided, that if the Ottoman Porte did not accept their
intervention, the high contracting powers would establish commercial
relations with Greece, and order the admirals commanding their naval
forces to impose an armistice on the belligerents. Instructions were
drawn up, which authorized those commanders to prevent the transmission
of troops and supplies from Turkey or Egypt to Greece; but enjoined
them to avoid hostilities unless the Turks should endeavour to force a
passage. Despatches were sent at the same time to Constantinople and
to the Greek government: and Colonel Cradock was sent to Alexandria to
endeavour to persuade the pacha to withdraw his Egyptian army. It was
arranged that a combined fleet should give effect to these resolutions,
and two line-of-battle ships were sent to re-enforce Sir Edward
Codrington. The French government, also, sent four ships of the line
into the same seas, and Admiral Siniavin arrived at Spithead with a
Russian squadron of eight sail of the line and eight frigates; half of
which only, however, joined the confederates. But although thus menaced,
the Reis Effendi would not listen to any terms. He would not even deign
to receive such a communication as the treaty of the 6th of July; and
when a copy was left on his sofa, he refused to answer it, or to admit
any explanations. The Russian minister now proposed to starve the Divan
into compliance by a joint blockade of the Bosphorus and Hellespont.
The French minister entered into his views; but Lord Dudley objected on
the part of England to such a step, as too violent. Negociations were
in this state, when suddenly ominous sounds proceeded from the Bay of
Navarino. In that harbour the Turkish and Egyptian fleets were blockaded
by the combined squadrons of England, France, and Russia, under the
chief command of Sir Edward Codrington. The Greeks had readily accepted
an armistice under the treaty; but Ibrahim Pasha not only refused its
terms, but aggravated the miseries of war by devastating the country
of Greece. The inhabitants were massacred; villages, vineyards and
olive-trees, in which the principal riches of the nation consisted,
destroyed. Irritated by such barbarity the allied admirals determined
to enforce the armistice on Ibrahim. Their plan was to enter the harbour
and renew their demands of an armistice, under the alternative, that,
if he refused, they would attack and destroy his fleet. Their first
movement towards the harbour was an hostile act. About noon on the 20th
of October the combined fleets passed the batteries to take up their
anchorage, formed in the order of two sailing lines: the British and
French squadrons forming the starboard line, and the Russian squadron
the lee line. As it was Admiral Codrington’s object only to have the
enemy’s fleet within his grasp, and then, before laying hold of it, to
make his propositions anew to Ibrahim, orders were given that not a
gun should be fired unless the Turks should begin. These orders were
strictly obeyed; but on seeing the approach of the allies, the Turkish
commander concluded that they had come to attack them without any
further ceremony, and therefore prepared for battle. As they approached,
the Capitana Bey observed,—“The die is now cast; I told you the English
would not be trifled with.” Their flotilla was drawn up in a crescent
with springs on its cables, and it consisted of seventy-nine ships of
war, armed with 2,240 guns, beside those in the formidable batteries on
shore. In point of strength the Turks had the advantage over the allies,
as their ships amounted only to twenty-six, carrying 1,324 guns. The
Turks, however, had only three two-deckers, while the allies had ten
sail of the line, which greatly compensated for the discrepancy of
strength. The fire commenced on the enemy’s side; for when the British
admiral despatched one of his pilots to the flag-ship of the Turkish
commander, expressing an earnest desire to avoid all effusion of blood,
the messenger was shot at and killed. The same vessel also soon after
fired into the “Asia,” and the conflict then became general. The battle
continued with fury during four hours; the English bearing the brunt of
the engagement. At the end of that time the Turkish and Egyptian fleets
had disappeared: the Bay of Navarino was covered with their wrecks, and
only a few of the smaller vessels escaped into the inner harbour. The
carnage on board the Turkish ships was dreadful: nearly six thousand men
had perished in the action. On the part of the allies the severest
loss was sustained by the British squadron; having seventy-five
killed, including Captain Bathurst of the “Genoa,” and one hundred and
ninety-seven wounded. The French, who emulated the skill and valour
of the English, had forty-three killed and one hundred and seventeen
wounded; and the Russians fifty-seven killed and one hundred and
thirty-seven wounded. The scene of wreck and devastation on the side
of the Turks was such as had not been witnessed since the battle of
Lepanto: of about one hundred men-of-war and transports, about half were
burnt, sunk, or driven on shore. The allies took no prizes, and detained
no prisoners; and in the hour of vengeance they showed mercy by saving
many of the Turkish sailors. At the time of the battle Ibrahim Pasha,
was absent on a military excursion; but he returned in time to see
the smoking remains of his fleet. It is said that he looked on the
catastrophe with complacency, as it extricated him from the dilemma in
which he was placed between the sultan’s orders and the mandates of the
three great European powers. After the battle, the admiral entered into
a fresh correspondence with the commanders; and after agreeing that
hostilities should cease, the allied fleet quitted Navarino. The news
of the disaster was received by the sultan as though he submitted to the
will of fate: he heard it without dismay or loss of temper. He demanded,
indeed, reparation for what he called a violation of the law of nations;
but instead of sending the ambassadors to the Seven Towers, as had been
the usual custom, he permitted them to return to their respective courts
in safety. In Europe the news of the victory was heard with joy and
gladness; but the feeling of exultation was in England confined to a
minority. The Tories loudly exclaimed against this aggression upon the
forces of an ancient ally, as a wanton act of perfidy, and as forwarding
the designs of the Russian autocrat. As for the ministry, they appeared
paralysed by the event; for they were afraid to take a manly line of
defence, and were uncertain as to what course they ought to pursue.
Finally, they virtually pronounced an opinion on the victory by
rewarding the officers who achieved it; but they marred this action by
despatching Admiral Sir John Gore to the Mediterranean, for the purpose
of collecting information. By this vacillating conduct they gave their
opponents an opportunity of taunting them with inconsistency. Before
parliament met, however, and therefore before the question could be
debated, the administration of Lord Goderich had become dissolved. At
its dissolution it left England at war with the sultan, together with
France and Russia; but the two former powers though united against him
were still at heart his friends. Though Russia had been working through
a long course of never-changing policy, to accomplish his ruin, they,
though at present apparently the instruments of this ambition, were
deeply interested in counteracting its designs.




CHAPTER XXXVIII.

{GEORGE IV. 1828—1829}

     Duke of Wellington’s Administration..... Meeting of
     Parliament..... Discussions and Explanations concerning the
     Dissolution of the Goderich Ministry, &c. Questions of
     Finance..... Motion for a Grant to the Family of Mr.
     Canning..... Financial Statement..... Repeal of the Test and
     Corporation Acts..... The Catholic Question...... Motion on
     the State of  the Law, &c. Bills connected with the
     Election of Members of the House..... Corn-Law Question.....
     Divisions in the Cabinet..... Prorogation of Parliament.....
     Disturbances in Ireland..... Death of the Earl of
     Liverpool..... Foreign Policy.




DUKE OF WELLINGTON’S ADMINISTRATION.

{A.D. 1828}

It soon became manifest that the cabinet with the loss of it great
leader had lost all its preservative qualities. Lord Goderich was a man
of unquestionable integrity; but he exhibited a lamentable deficiency
in that energy, judgment, and firm resolution, which were absolutely
necessary for the keeping together of the discordant materials of which
his administration was composed. His incapacity was plainly manifested
when he proposed to redeem a pledge given by Mr. Canning, to appoint
a committee for the investigation and reform of the finances, in the
ensuing parliament. Mr. Tierney, one of the most active members of the
Whig cabinet, proposed Lord Althorp as chairman, to which Lord
Goderich expressed no objection; merely observing that the appointment
principally concerned the house of commons, and referring Mr. Tierney to
Mr. Huskisson, its ministerial leader. Lord Althorp was by the consent
of Mr. Huskisson appointed; but by some oversight or intention, the
matter was not mentioned to Mr. Hemes, who, as chancellor of the
exchequer was more immediately concerned in the investigation. It
was only on the 28th of November that Mr. Hemes, calling at the
colonial-office, accidentally saw a list of the committee and its
chairman, drawn out by Mr. Tierney. On the subject being discussed,
the chancellor of the exchequer was thought to have acquiesced in
the appointment; but Mr. Hemes, in the course of the parliamentary
explanations which followed, and which will be related in a subsequent
article, denied this to have been the case: declaring at the same time
that though he had unfeigned respect for the private character of Lord
Althorp, he distinctly objected to his being appointed as chairman
of the committee. It is quite clear that Mr. Hemes objected to the
appointment; for within twenty-four hours after he saw the list he
waited on Lord Goderich, and informed him, that, after considering
Lord Althorp’s political views maturely, he must resign office if his
appointment were not set aside. On the other hand the retention of
Mr. Huskisson, who considered himself pledged to Lord Althorp, became
involved in the question, and occasioned much perplexity to the premier.
About the same time the news of the battle of Navarino arrived; and,
wearied with his situation, on the 8th of January he went down to
Windsor, laid his difficulties before the king, and resigned. The
coalition ministry was no more. It perished, the victim of that want of
confidence which is the natural result of new-born friendship, and of
want of power and energy in its leader.

Thus abandoned by his ministers, the king sent for the Duke of
Wellington, and commissioned him to reconstruct the cabinet. The new
government was speedily constructed, and, with the exception of Lord
Eldon, whom infirmity prevented from taking office, the Liverpool
administration was reinstated. The Duke of Wellington relinquished
the office of commander-in-chief to Lord Hill, and presided over the
treasury; Mr. Peel succeeded to the home department; Lord Bathurst
became president of the council; Lord Ellenborough was made keeper of
the privy-seal; Viscount Melville and the Earl of Aberdeen were made
president of the board of control and chancellor of the duchy of
Lancaster; Lord Lyndhurst was created chancellor; Mr. Huskisson and Earl
Dudley became colonial and foreign secretaries; Lord Palmerston was
made secretary at war; Mr. C. Grant became president of the board
of trade; and Mr. Goulburn succeeded Mr. Hemes as chancellor of the
exchequer. Mr. Hemes was made master of the mint and his acceptance of
office under the new administration was considered by the Whigs as a
proof that he had undertaken his former office from other motives than
qualifications or choice. Mr. Huskisson’s union with the new ministry
displeased the personal friends of Mr. Canning, who thought that he
displayed no regard to the memory of his friend, in so soon taking
office with those who had deserted him in the hour of need.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament reassembled on the 29th of January. It was again opened by
commission; and the principal topic in the speech was an allusion to the
late naval conflict. It remarked:—“Having been earnestly entreated
by the Greeks to interpose his good offices, with a view to effect
a reconciliation between them and the Porte, his majesty concerted
measures in the first instance with the Emperor of Russia, and
subsequently with his imperial majesty and the King of France. His
majesty has given directions that there should be laid before you copies
of a protocol signed at St. Petersburg by the plenipotentiaries of his
majesty, and of his imperial majesty the Emperor of Russia, on the 4th
of April, 1826, and of the treaty entered into between his majesty and
the courts of the Tuilleries and of St Petersburg, on the 6th of July,
1827. In the course of the measures adopted with a view to carry into
effect the object of the treaty a collision wholly unexpected by his
majesty took place in the port of Navarino between the fleets of the
contracting powers. Notwithstanding the valour displayed by the combined
fleet, his majesty deeply laments that this conflict should have
occurred with the naval force of our ancient ally; but he still
entertains a confident hope that this untoward event will not be
followed by further hostilities, and will not impede that amicable
adjustment of the existing differences between the Porte and the Greeks
to which it is so manifestly their common interests to accede.” This is
the first time in the British annals that a victory is characterized
as an “untoward event.” But the men now in power hated Greece and her
cause, and were so blinded by admiration of despotic principles, as not
to perceive thé advantages which might accrue to Russia in her future
projects, from the destruction of the Ottoman navy, and from the lack
of confidence which the sultan would now have in his western allies. In
both houses the language of the king’s speech respecting the victory
of Navarino was loudly denounced by opposition, it being supposed to
indicate that the Duke of Wellington’s cabinet abandoned the line of Mr.
Canning’s policy. In the lords the Duke of Richmond especially fixed a
quarrel on the phrase “ancient ally:” contending that the sultan could
not be termed in any correct sense of the word an ally of this country
at all, and much less an “ancient ally.” He disapproved still more
of the epithet “untoward,” as applied in the speech to the battle
of Navarino. If the term was meant, he said, to cast any blame on the
gallant officer who commanded the fleet at Navarino, he would protest
against the baseness and ignominy of such an insinuation in the most
solemn manner; or if it was to be understood that it referred to that
which happened by accident, and which stood across the object we had in
view, he entered his protest against it. However much he might lament
the effusion of blood which had taken place at Navarino; however much
he might lament that we had not yet accomplished the pacification of the
two countries, and effected the liberation of Greece, still, if by that
word it was meant to say, that the battle of Navarino was an obstacle to
the independence of Greece, he could not agree in such views. To him
it appeared a great step towards the pacification of Eunrae, and he
considered it of more use than a contrary policy could have been in
promoting that great and desirable object. In explaining, the Duke of
Wellington maintained that the epithets excepted against were fairly and
truly applicable. The Ottoman empire, he said, had long been an ally of
this country, and the Ottoman power was an essential part of the balance
of power in Europe. Its preservation had been for many years an
object not only to this country, but to the whole of Europe, while
the revolutions and changes of possessions which had taken place had
increased the importance of its preservation as an independent state,
capable of preserving itself. As to the term “untoward,” the sense in
which it was used referred to the stipulations of the alliance, that its
operation was not to lead to hostilities and that the contracting powers
were to take no part in hostilities. When, therefore, the operations
under the treaty did lead to hostilities it was certainly an “untoward
event.” “I must say,” continued his grace, “that the gallant admiral
was placed in a very delicate situation; and that he has done his duty
to his king and his country. He was in command of a squadron of
ships, acting in conjunction with admirals of other nations; and he so
conducted himself as to acquire their confidence, and to induce them to
lead them to victory. Such being the case I should feel myself unworthy
of the high situation I hold in his majesty’s councils, if I were
capable of uttering a single word against the gallant admiral. Meaning
as I did, that the government should carry the treaty into execution,
it would be blamable in me to insinuate a censure against a man who was
charged with the execution of difficult orders under a treaty.” Similar
exceptions were taken in the commons against the speech; but the usual
addresses to the throne were carried in both houses without a division.




DISCUSSIONS AND EXPLANATIONS CONCERNING THE DISSOLUTION OF THE GODERICH
MINISTRY, ETC.

As the dissolution of the late ministry had been unexpected, and little
had been said of the causes which produced it, and as the conduct
of those members who had passed into the new government appeared
suspicious, some explanation of these matters was looked for in both
houses of parliament. The disclosures began by Messrs. Hemes, Huskisson,
and others who had accepted office under the new government. They
commenced with Lord Goderich, on whom it was especially incumbent to
explain the civil dissensions which had broken in pieces a cabinet of
his own framing, and had induced him to throw up the government in a
manner neither understood by his older friends or more recent allies.
His statement in reply attributed the dissolution of the ministry to
an irreconcilable difference between Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Herries,
regarding the proposed chairman of the finance committee; and since that
difference had caused the resignation of the minister, it implied an
admission that his cabinet was so constructed that the removal of either
of these gentlemen naturally dissolved it. It remained for Messrs.
Huskisson and Herries to state the grounds, therefore, of an obstinacy
which had been so fatal to the cabinet; but both remained silent, until
Lord Normandy called directly upon them to explain their conduct in the
matter. Mr. Huskisson, in his version of the events which had led to the
dissolution of the ministry, agreed in general with the statement made
by Lord Goderich, simply supplying some deficiencies which his lordship
had been unable to fill up. On the contrary, Mr. Herries averred broadly
that the difference concerning the appointment of Lord Althorp as
chairman of the committee was not the cause of the dissolution of Lord
Goderich’s administration. He remarked:—“There is no truth whatever in
the allegation that that difference caused the dissolution of the late
cabinet. In all the rumours which have been propagated about design, and
artifice, and stratagem, there is not one word of truth. I deny them all
most unequivocally. They are false and unfounded in every particular,
and have not even the slightest shadow of a foundation.” Mr. Tierney and
Lord Althorp followed; but they threw no new light on the subject; and
all parties ended where they had begun: the public had to believe which
of the statements made they chose, according to this or that man’s
political bias. In a discussion which followed, the attention of the
house was directed to the character of the new government, and the
conduct of those members of the former government who had joined it.
Mr. T. Duncombe remarked, that the house had still to learn how the
difference between Messrs. Huskisson and Herries had been made up, and
how these members continued to sit in the same cabinet. The colonial
secretary, he said, had still to explain “how their pulses, which
formerly were so irregular, could beat so soon in unison; by what means
the _quietus_ had been produced, and the direful wrath appeased.” He was
inclined to impute all that had happened to a secret and powerful agency
which had not yet been unmasked, and which was exercised, according to
the statement of the honourable member, by a Jew stock-broker, and a
Christian physician. He had, indeed, “been credibly informed that there
is a mysterious personage behind the scene, who concerts, regulates, and
influences every arrangement.” He continued, “There is, deny it who can?
a secret influence behind the throne, whose form is never seen, who name
is never breathed who has access to all the secrets of the state, and
who manages all the sudden springs of ministerial arrangement,

     ‘At whose soft nod the streams of honour flow,
     Whose smiles all place and patronage bestow.’

“Closely connected with this invisible, this incorporeal person, stands a
more solid and substantial form, a new and formidable power, till these
days unknown in Europe. Master of unbounded wealth, he boasts that he
is the arbiter of peace and war, and that the credit of nations depends
upon his nod. His correspondents are innumerable; his couriers outrun
those of sovereign princes and absolute sovereigns; ministers of state
are in his pay. Paramount to the cabinets of continental Europe, he
aspires to the domination of our own. Even the great Don Miguel himself,
of whom we have lately heard and seen so much, was obliged to have
recourse to the purse of this individual, before he could take
possession of his throne. Sir, that such secret influences do exist is
a matter of notoriety: they are known to have been but too busy in the
underplot of the revolution. I believe their object to be as impure as
the means by which their power has been acquired; and I denounce them
and their agents as unknown to the British constitution, and derogatory
to the honour of the crown.” Mr. Buncombe’s denunciation of the secret
influence behind the throne was followed by the explanations of Messrs.
Stanley and Peel, and Lords Morpeth, Milton, and Palmerston, as to their
reasons for joining or not joining the present government. But after the
house, as Mr. Brougham remarked, had heard a great deal, it was still
left nearly as much in the dark as ever, regarding the substantial
facts of the case which it was desirable should be known. The whole
transaction, he said was another illustration of Odenstien’s remark to
his son;—“You see with how little wisdom the world can be governed.”
 It appeared that two members of the cabinet had been walking about in
uncertainty whether they belonged to the government or not; and the
head of that government was chiefly distinguished for carrying the
resignations of two of his colleagues in his pocket, and for an alarm,
when they should leave him, as to what he should do to provide himself
with new ones. As for the quarrel of the two resigning members, it was
endless, hopeless. Walls of brass were raised to divide the contending
parties for ever: to communicate with each other was impossible.
Communications were only to be held with a third person, and that third
person was not to repeat what either party communicated to him. Every
possible course had been resorted to to avoid an explanation, although
it would have put an end to the difficulty altogether, is to the
explanations of Mr. Herries, said Mr. Brougham, they give me no
satisfaction. That gentleman’s shining of his ground, first assenting or
not objecting to the appointment of Lord Althorp, afterwards protesting
against it, and then attributing the dissolution of the ministry to a
preconcerted plan on the part of others—all this left doubts remaining
in the public mind. There was still something untold which would have
explained the matter at once. The most important thing spoken in the
debate, he said, was the assertion of Mr. Huskisson, that he never
intended to say that he had got a guarantee for office in the new
administration before the old one was dissolved. No man had ever meant,
or supposed that he had stipulated for and obtained a guarantee, in the
legal sense of the words, set down in a formal writing, and on a proper
stamp. But, he asked, if a man spoke to an audience of having had
conversations, explanations, and understandings, would they not apply
those conversations, explanations, and understandings to that
subject just as much as if it were written? Would it not be said that
explanation was the result, of that conversation; and that the result of
that explanation, in the case before the house, was the acceptation of
office by the right honourable gentleman? In alluding to the unusual
circumstance of a military man being at the head of the government, Mr.
Brougham used very emphatic language. He remarked:—“No man values more
highly than I do the services and genius of the noble duke as a soldier;
but I do not like to see him at the head of the financial department of
this country, with the full confidence of his sovereign, enjoying all
the patronage of the church, the army, and the state; while he is
also entrusted with the delicate function of conveying constant and
confidential advice to his royal master. This state of things strikes me
as being very unconstitutional. I am, indeed, told that the noble duke
is a person of very great vigour in council, and that his talents are
not confined to the art of war. It may be so. But that does not remove
my objections to his possession of so immense a mass of civil and
military patronage. It is said that the noble duke is incapable of
speaking in public as a first minister or the crown ought to speak. Now
I consider that there is no validity in that objection; for I happened
to be present when the noble duke last year had the modesty and candour
to declare, in another place, his unfitness for the situation of first
minister; and I really thought I had never heard a better speech in my
life, or observed less want of capacity in any one who might be called
on to take part in a debate. This therefore is not a reason with me for
objecting to the appointment. My objection rests on the unconstitutional
grounds which I have before stated, and on the experience of the noble
duke being wholly military. Let it not, however, be supposed that I am
inclined to exaggerate. I have no fear of slavery being introduced into
this country by the power of the sword. It would demand a stronger man
even than the Duke of Wellington to effect that object. The noble duke
might take the army and the navy, the mitre and the great seal—I will
make him a present of them all; let him come on with his whole force,
sword in hand, against the constitution, the people will not only beat
him by their energies, but laugh at his efforts. There have, indeed,
been periods when the country heard with dismay that the soldier was
abroad; but such is not the case now. Let the soldier be never so much
abroad in the present age, he can do nothing. Another person, less
important, nay, even insignificant in the eyes or some persons, has
produced this state of things. ‘The schoolmaster is abroad,’ and I
trust more to the schoolmaster, armed with his primer, for upholding the
liberties of this country than I fear lest the soldier, in full military
array, should destroy them.” Mr. Brougham had no occasion to fear the
effects of a military premier, even though the schoolmaster had not been
abroad; for no prime minister that ever presided over the councils
of the British nation has ever shown himself to be more alive to the
interests of the country, and the preservation of its constitutional
rights, than the Duke of Wellington.




QUESTIONS OF FINANCE.

While these explanations were proceeding, that committee of finance
which had dissolved the late administration, was appointed. The motion
was made by Mr. Peel, now the acknowledged leader of the house of
commons. He prefaced his motion, with an able and comprehensive
statement. By his details, it appeared that a reduction of £48,608,000
had taken place in the funded and unfunded debt since the year 1815,
while the actual sum of unredeemed debt amounted about £777,476,000.
This being the total encumbrance, Mr. Peel next looked at the revenue
and expenditure; and after detailing the various items, he stated the
income of last year at £49,581,000, and the expenditure at £49,487,000,
thus leaving an excess of income equal to £94,000,000. The estimates
of the present year, he said, were not completed; but, without binding
himself down to extreme accuracy they would be less than those of the
present year by £1,168,260. After having made this general statement Mr.
Peel declared that he and his colleagues would listen to any suggestion
of the committee, for the appointment of which he was about to move. He
took that opportunity, he said, of pressing one subject particularly
on its notice, namely, the simplification of the public accounts, in
imitation of France and America. The motion passed without opposition,
except from Mr. Hume, who contended, that if any good was to be done,
there should be ten or eleven finance committees; but his plan received
no countenance, except from Mr. Brougham; and a single committee of
twenty-three members was appointed. The labours of this committee were
multifarious and important. One of the first fruits of its appointment
was the discovery that the public was regularly losing large sums of
money by the system on which the government annuities had been granted.
Mr. Hemes submitted a statement to the committee concerning the
finances, which Lord Althorp described as, “able, clear, and
satisfactory;” and it appeared from that exposition that these
annuities had been sold at a considerable loss. The evidence of this
was found in certain calculations made by Mr. Finlayson, who was said to
have communicated the fact to Lord Bexley in 1819, and subsequently to
Lord Goderich. His calculations stated the rate of loss to be £8,000 a
month, and to arise from a false calculation of the duration of life
in the tables given by Dr. Price. Either these tables were originally
inaccurate, or human life, in consequence of increased comforts,
conveniences, and scientific aid, was extended to a longer period. The
truth of this statement soon appeared to the committee; but nothing
could be done to alter those annuities which had been sold. On the
recommendation of the committee, however, a bill was brought in and
speedily passed, to suspend the operation of the act under which they
had been granted, until a more correct system could be arranged. During
the session the committee reported on various matters which had been
brought under their consideration, but not early enough to allow their
recommendations to be carried into effect. In a report on the state
of the ordnance department, the abolition of the office of its
lieutenant-general was recommended; but this proposition was opposed
by the ministry, and a motion to give it effect was lost by a large
majority.




MOTION FOR A GRANT TO THE FAMILY OF MR. CANNING.

When Mr. Canning died he was a poor man. He had begun the world without
fortune; he had spent his life in the public service; and the emoluments
of the offices which he had held had scarcely sufficed to cover the
expenses of his station. As, therefore, he held no sinecures, his sudden
death had left his family without a due provision. On these grounds the
chancellor of the exchequer proposed to grant a pension of £3,000 a year
to his second son, as a mode of providing for the family less onerous
than voting a large sum for the payment of debts. This proposition was
vehemently opposed by Lord Althorp, Sir M. Ridley, Messrs. Hume, Bankes,
D. W. Harvey, P. Thompson, and others, partly on the score of economy,
and partly on the ground of its not having been deserved. On the
contrary, ministers placed the question on the broad ground, that Mr.
Canning had devoted a long life, and talents of the first order, to the
service of his country; and in following that service, had not merely
lost the means of improving, but had deteriorated his private fortune.
What had he not surrendered, it was asked, when he gave up the
government of India to fill the unprofitable office of foreign
secretary? Mr. Huskisson remarked:—“I regret to be obliged to make
reference on such an occasion to information derived from the privacy of
confidential intercourse; but I can state, upon my own personal credit,
that whatever were the feeling of others, who were justly near and dear
to Mr. Canning, it had for years been his warm and anxious wish to
be placed in some public situation, however it might sacrifice or
compromise the fair and legitimate scope of his ambition, which, while
it enabled him to perform adequate public services, would enable him
also to place upon a better footing his wife’s private fortune, which
he had lessened, and the inheritance of his children, which he had
impaired. I will not go so far as to say, that this was a prospect fixed
upon Mr. Canning’s mind, or an object that he was bent upon pursuing,
for it is difficult to trace the springs of so susceptible a
temperament; but under the circumstances it was quite natural,
considering his means and his family, that while he honourably sought a
situation to render service to his country, he should not be unmindful
of the means of repairing the family fortune, which he had diminished
while in the service of his country.” A further objection was raised to
the grant, founded on disapprobation of Mr. Canning’s policy, or of that
policy with which he had been officially connected; but to this it was
answered, that the proposition touched no political principle, and did
not imply the abandonment of any political dogma. If the motion, it was
argued, went to vote a monument to commemorate his services, members who
thought that he had not performed any services to be commemorated,
would do right to appose it; but when the motion went only to reward his
family, they had merely to consider the fact, whether he had devoted his
talents to the public service to the detriment of his private interests.
On a division the grant was confirmed by a large majority. Both in the
house indeed, and throughout the country, it was felt that this grant
was only an act of justice, as Mr. Canning had spent not only his life,
but his fortune, in the public service. On this subject it has been well
remarked:—“It should be known, in justice to those who held the higher
offices under the crown, that their salaries fall short of the expenses
to which they are subjected, by the manners of the country and a
mischievous convention. This gorgeous scale of living has the double
effect of giving an example and impulse to extravagance through every
department of the public service; and of securing, perhaps by design, to
private wealth, a monopoly of administration. A man vigilantly prudent
might perhaps have lived within his income in Mr. Canning’s situation,
and it is known that he had no prodigal or expensive tastes; but it is
also known that he had that utter carelessness of money through which
fortune is not less effectually dissipated.”




FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

The budget was opened by the chancellor of the exchequer on the 11th of
July; and it was opened with a clearness and simplicity that disarmed
even the opposition of Mr. Hume, disposed as he was at all times to
cavil about figures. The total ordinary net revenue of the year 1827 was
£49,581,576; but to this were added £4,245,000 received from the Bank
on account of the dead-weight, and the sum of £660,081 under the head of
extraordinary and miscellaneous, making a total revenue of £54,486.657.
The chancellor of the exchequer said, that the total ordinary revenue
for the year 1828 might be considered as amounting ta £50,381,530, to
which must be added £3,082,500, to be received from the trustees of
military and naval pensions, together with miscellaneous payments
of £438,000, making a grand total of £53,902,030. The expenditure he
calculated as £50,104,522, which, being deducted from the revenue, left
a surplus of £3,797,508 From this, however, was to be taken the advances
to public works, £708,000, so that the clear surplus was only £3,088,708
instead of £5,000,000 to be applied as a sinking-fund. It was considered
impossible in the present circumstances of the country, to supply this
deficiency of the sinking-fund by additional taxation; so that it was
agreed to limit the said fund to the amount of such a balance as might
remain after the expenses of the year were liquidated. It was stated by
the chancellor of the exchequer that, in the course of the last
eleven years, the amount of debt redeemed was £29,000,000. It must be
acknowledged, however, that the existing system of incurring debt with
one hand, and redeeming it with the other, was a delusion.




REPEAL OF THE TEST AND CORPORATION ACTS.

The grand question of this session was the repeal of the Test and
Corporation Acts: acts which excluded dissenters from offices of trust
and power, and shut the doors of all corporations against them, unless
they consented to take the sacrament according to the ritual of the
church of England. Lord John Russell introduced this subject on the
26th of February, by moving “That this house will resolve itself into a
committee of the whole house, to consider of so much of the acts of
the 13th and 25th of Charles II., as require persons, before they are
admitted into any office or place in corporations, or having accepted
any office, civil or military, or any place of trust under the crown, to
receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper according to the rites of the
church of England.” In introducing this motion Lord John Russell took
a review of the history of the statutes in question, and he argued that
they had been originally enacted for reasons which no longer existed. He
maintained the justice and expediency of the motion on the ground that
while these tests were an infliction on the dissenters, they afforded no
protection to the church of England; but on the contrary, exposed her to
dangers to which she would not be otherwise obnoxious. Without serving
any good purpose, he said, they made the dissenters irritated enemies,
instead of converting them into companions or friends. Another
objection, he said, rose from the nature of the test, which made it a
shameless abuse of the most solemn of all religious rites. The sacrament
of the Lord’s supper was held by the church to be most sacred; and yet
it was prostituted bylaw to be a mere qualification for office. History
stated, he remarked, that it was the custom for persons to be waiting
in taverns and houses near the church, and when service was over an
appointed person called out, “Those who want to be qualified will
please to step up this way,” and then persons took the communion solely
for the purpose of receiving office. Such, said his lordship, were the
consequences of mixing politics with religion. Political dissensions
were aggravated by the venom of theological disputes, and religion
profaned by the vices of ambition; making it both hateful to man and
offensive to God. The only answers, continued his lordship, which could
be made to these objections, were that the dissenters, in consequence
of the Indemnity Act, suffered no real hardship, and that the law in its
present state was necessary to the security of the church. But neither
of these positions was true. The practical grievance suffered by the
dissenters was much heavier than the legal grievances appearing on the
face of the statutes: even the indemnity act was passed on the ground
that the omission to qualify had proceeded from ignorance, absence, or
unavoidable accident, and thus refused all relief to those in whom the
omission flowed from conscientious scruples. The fact was, that many
dissenters refused to take office on such degrading terms; they refused
to attain by a fraud upon the statute, honours and emoluments which the
law declared they should not attain in any other way. In conclusion his
lordship remarked;—“I have proved that these acts violate the sacred
rights of conscience, and are of the nature of religious persecution;
I have shown that so far from not having inflicted any hardship on
the body upon whom they operate, they are fraught with great mischief,
irritation, and injustice; and I have shown that they are totally at
variance with our own policy in Scotland and Ireland, as well as with
the enlightened legislation of all the Christian countries of Europe. If
I am asked what advantage the country is to derive from the abrogation
of such laws, I answer, that the obvious tendency of the measure,
independently of its justice, will be to render the dissenters better
affected to the government; to inspire them with dispositions to bear
the heavy burdens imposed on them by the necessities of the state with
cheerfulness, or at least, with resignation; and above all, it will be
more consonant to the tone and spirit of the age than the existence
of those angry, yet inefficient and impracticable laws, which are a
disgrace to the statute-book.” This motion was seconded by Mr. J. Smith,
and ably supported by Lords Milton, Althorp, and Nugent, and by Messrs.
Brougham, Ferguson, and Palmer. One of its most powerful advocates was
Mr. Ferguson one of the members for Scotland, who desired the house to
look at the Test and Corporation Acts, as they affected not merely a
minority in England, but even the established religion of a constituent
part of the empire. Scotland had a legal national religion equally with
England; for at the union it was provided by the parliament of England
that no alteration should be made in the principles, doctrine, or
discipline, of the church of England, and the Scotch parliament, true
to their own particular doctrines, immediately issued orders to their
commissioners, that any clause should be null and void which militated
in any way against the principles, doctrines, or discipline of the
Protestant Presbyterian religion. The religion of Scotland was,
therefore, a state religion as well as that of England, yet its members
were affected by these penal laws, and prevented from serving their
king, but at the risk of incurring these penalties, or renouncing their
religion. Why, he asked, this proscription of a whole nation, upon the
notion that this mode of exclusion was the best way of defending
the church and state as by law established? Why deny a community of
privileges to those who confer equal services, and encounter equal
danger? On what occasion had the people of Scotland not contributed
their full share in support of Great Britain? Were they no longer
wanted? Hid the church of England desire to be left to defend the empire
exclusively? If so, let the dissenters be told to withdraw, and quit a
defence which they could only remain to make under exposure to ignominy.
Take the battle of Waterloo, he continued, which had crowned the renown
of the most illustrious leader of their times. What would have been the
fate of that battle, and that leader, if the army which had conquered,
had been filled only by the sons of the church of England? Take from
the field the Scottish regiments; take away too the aid of those sons of
Ireland, the proscribed Catholics: what then would have been the chance
of their arms, divested of the Scottish and Irish soldiers, who filled
their ranks and served their navy in every quarter of the globe! And if
they had the assistance of such men, when the hour of peril came upon
them, they ought not to deny their confidence in a time of tranquillity
and peace. Ministers opposed the motion, the opposition being conducted
by Messrs. Huskisson and Peel. Their chief defence was that the acts in
question led to no particular hardship; and they sought evidence of
this in the Indemnity Acts, and in the long silence of the dissenters
themselves, from whom it was to have been expected that the constant
infliction of a permanent grievance would have drawn forth incessant
complaints. Mr. Huskisson said, that he doubted whether the present
motion was calculated to remove any grievance. The grievances, indeed,
complained of were of an imaginary character: he had yet to learn what
obstacles existed against the honourable ambition of the dissenters.
They had, he said, their full share of the civil power of the country,
and were qualified to fill the first offices in the army and navy. Forty
years had elapsed since this subject was discussed, and that period
had been marked by many eager discussions on another great question
involving the principles of religious liberty: could it be credited
that the petitioners before the house, many of whom possessed acute
intellects and intelligent minds, enjoyed the highest consideration in
the country, if they knew there was anything in the state of the law to
impede the fair, useful, and honourable exercise of their talents, would
not have long since, firmly and unanimously, called upon the house to
remove the grievance. The fact could not be so, for they had preserved
total silence for the long period of forty years. Mr. Peel said that the
question was attended with great difficulty. He was not prepared to say
that it was essentially interwoven with the interest of the church of
England; he did not think, indeed, that the two were so connected, that
the church of England must fall, if the Test and Corporation Acts were
repealed. He thought, however, with Mr. Huskisson, that the Protestant
dissenters did not labour under such grievances as had been represented,
and that they did not look at the Test and Corporation Acts, together
with the Indemnity Act as honourable gentlemen had described. It
had been said, he remarked, that we had shed the blood of the Scotch
regiments in the Peninsula and at Waterloo. “What office of naval or
military command had been closed against their officers? It was also
said that the Test Acts shut them out from the higher offices of
government. For an answer, look at the ministry: of the fourteen members
of the cabinet, three, namely, Lords Aberdeen and Melville, and the
president of the board of trade, were Scotsmen and good Presbyterians,
whom these acts nevertheless had not succeeded in shutting out. The fact
was,” he continued, “the existing law gave merely a nominal predominance
to the established church; and he heartily wished, therefore, that this
question had been allowed to remain quiescent, especially as it was
practically offensive to no one.” In answer to the views taken by
ministers, on the subject, Mr. Brougham maintained that the acts were
daily and positively felt to be a most decided grievance. AVas it no
grievance, he asked, to bear the mark of the chain remaining, after
the fetter had been knocked away? Was it no grievance for a dissenter,
wherever he went, to look like, and to be treated like a different
being? It was said that temporal interests were not concerned: this
he denied. A dissenter could not stand for a corporation. It had been
stated that the late lord mayor of London was a dissenter, and that he
had taken the sacrament: that statement was in favour of the argument.
With respect to Scotland he knew that not one Presbyterian in a thousand
would take the sacrament, would not even go to a place of worship where
there was an organ, would consider it idolatry to kneel at an altar;
if they conscientiously thought so, was it to be wondered at that they
evinced a repugnance at what they considered a mixture of idolatry with
Christian worship? If in the recent contest at Vintry ward, one of the
candidates had differed from the other as to trans-substantiation or
anything of that sort, there would be an end to this legal controversy:
the court of king’s bench would never have heard of it, and the
churchman would have been elected. Was not this a grievance? The
knowledge of this act operated so, that, though the dissenter might
walk on in his course, when not opposed, yet even if he aspired to
a corporation, and no individual opposed him; if he was unanimously
elected, and actually filled the place, a single individual might upset
his election, he must retire. The consequence was that the dissenter
would not seek such places: he retired to his library, to retirement, to
private pursuits, with what feelings he might towards the government
and the constitution. He was condemned to privacy, because he was of a
different religion from the state, and because he would not sacrifice
his religion for his place. Lord Palmerston said that he thought it
would be an act of injustice to the Catholics to repeal this minor
grievance while they suffered under much severer enactments. Sir T.
Acland conceived that a middle course would afford relief, while the
theoretical principal of the law would remain untouched. But it was
found useless to strive against the spirit of the age. After an abortive
project of Sir T. Ackland for suspending instead of repealing the acts
in question, as well as a proposition made by Mr. Peel to take more time
for consideration, Lord John Russell’s motion was carried by a majority
of two hundred and thirty-seven, against one hundred and ninety-three.

Government had now one of two courses to adopt; either to resign their
opinions or their places. They chose the former alternative; for when
the motion for the house going into a committee was brought forward, Mr.
Peel said he could not think of pressing his sentiments against those of
the majority. Government itself, indeed, now took up the measure, adding
by way of security to the established church a form of declaration,
which all who accepted office were to take, that they would not exert
any power or influence which they might possess by virtue of that
office to the injury or subversion of the Protestant church as by law
established, or to disturb it in the possession of those rights
and privileges to which it is by law entitled. This declaration was
described by those who supported simple repeal as both useless and
unnecessary; but they recommended that the suggestion should be adopted
rather than the bill should not pass. With this amendment it was
carried, and it was introduced into the house of peers by Lord Holland.
There was no ministerial deposition encountered here, and being in
a manner a bill of the government it was generally supported by the
spiritual peers. The bishop of Chester said:—“I wish the bill to pass,
if for no other reason, yet for this—because the present laws do not
answer their purpose. If the declaration now proposed be taken by a
conscientious dissenter, it will prevent him from endeavouring, at least
from indirectly endeavouring, to injure the establishment; and that is
more than the sacramental test, if taken, could effect: if it be taken
by a person who does not conscientiously intend to observe it, that
person would not be kept out of office by any test whatever.” Lord
Eldon, however, gave the bill his most decided opposition. He had heard
much, he said, of “the march of mind,” but he never expected to see it
thus march into the house with the Duke of Wellington and the bishops at
its head. Of the declaration, he said, that instead of making the
taker of office describe himself as belonging to some sort of religion,
whether a Unitarian, a Catholic, or a Free-thinker, it did not require
him to say, he had only to answer, that he was of the Christian faith;
neither did it call on him to observe the declaration by such phrases
as “I am a Christian,” or as, “I stand in the presence of my God.” The
confidence to be reposed in the declaration did not rest upon the faith
of a Christian, or any other faith whatever. Then again, he said, the
declaration is to be extended to all offices of trust and emolument
under the crown, and the bill left it entirely to the king to say in
such cases, whether his majesty would, or would not require such a
declaration: he could not but object to the provisions of a bill, the
object of which was to take away the sacramental test merely on the
ground of expediency, and to substitute in its place a declaration
which, in some instances, might or might not be taken, according to
the will of the sovereign. The form of declaration was also strongly
objected to in the committee; and several amendments were carried to
meet the views of the objectors, though not narrowing the principles of
the bill; and it finally passed by a large majority. The amendments made
simply consisted in this, that the man assuming a public office in
a Christian community should declare that he was a Christian, or, at
least, that he was not an infidel. The commons agreed to all that were
made, although some members did not approve of them.




THE CATHOLIC QUESTION.

{GEORGE IV. 1828—1829}

During the discussion on the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts,
frequent allusion had been made to Catholic emancipation. The opponents
of that repeal found an additional argument against it, in the
supposition that it was but the first step in a course which was
to terminate in Catholic emancipation. On the other hand, those who
supported the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts denied that it
had any such tendency. The Duke of Wellington remarked, in order to show
that he might vote for the measure then before the house, and yet be a
determined enemy of the Papists, that there was no person in the house
of peers whose feelings and sentiments, after long consideration, were
more decided than his with regard to the subject of the Roman Catholic
claims; and that until he saw a great change in that question, he
certainly should oppose them. Notwithstanding, the repeal of the Test
Acts was immediately followed by a motion for removing the Catholic
disabilities. On the 8th of May Sir Francis Burdett moved, “That the
house do now resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, for the
purpose of taking into consideration the state of the laws affecting his
majesty’s subjects in Great Britain and Ireland, with a view to such a
final and conciliatory adjustment as may be conducive to the peace
and strength of the United Kingdom, to the stability of the Protestant
establishment, and to the general satisfaction and concord of all
classes of his majesty’s subjects.” The debate lasted two nights; but
as the speeches were merely repetitions of former arguments, it would
be tedious and useless to give even a sketch, of them. The principal
speakers in favour of the motion were Messrs. Brougham, Fitzgerald,
North, Grant, and Huskisson, and Sirs J. Newport and J. Mackintosh. It
was opposed by the attorney-general, Sir R. Inglis, and Messrs. Moore,
Foster, Bankes, and Peel. On a division the motion for a committee was
carried by a majority of six; and in the committee this resolution was
agreed to:—“That it is expedient to consider the state of the laws
affecting his majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects, with the view of
effecting such a final adjustment of them as may be conducive to
the peace and strength of the United Kingdom, the stability of the
Protestant establishment, and the general satisfaction and concord of
all classes.” Here, however, the commons stopped. Instead of forming
resolutions in detail, it was determined to seek a conference with the
lords, in order to ascertain whether their sentiments on the subject had
changed. This proposal was agreed to by the peers; and a conference was
held on the 19th of May, when the resolution of the commons, after being
read in the upper house, was ordered to be taken into consideration on
the 9th of June. The debate lasted two days; but the proposition of
the Marquis of Lansdowne, “that their lordships should concur in that
resolution,” was lost by a majority of one hundred and eighty-one
against one hundred and thirty-seven. In this debate, however, the
Duke of Wellington’s speech was marked by a conciliatory tone; and the
friends of emancipation augured from this that their wishes on a future
day would meet-with a less obstinate and uncompromising opposition.




MOTION ON THE STATE OF THE LAW.

Early in this session Mr. Brougham directed the attention of the commons
to the state of the common law courts, and the common law itself, in a
speech which occupied six hours in delivery, and was remarkable for its
vast variety of detail. He moved “that an humble address be presented
to his majesty, respectfully requesting that it may be his majesty’s
pleasure to cause a commission to issue, to inquire into the abuses
which have been introduced in the course of time into the administration
of the law of these realms, and of the courts of common law; and to
report on what remedies it may seem fit and expedient to adopt for their
removal.” It was generally agreed that there was no subject more worthy
of attention than the improvement of the law; but at the same time it
was obvious that the unbounded nature of the inquiry proposed by Mr.
Brougham would prevent it from producing any practical effects. Mr.
Brougham’s motion therefore was lost: but in the course of the session
two commissions were issued, one to inquire into the state of the common
law, and the other to take into consideration the state of the law of
real property.




BILLS CONNECTED WITH ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE.

In the course of this session bills were introduced into parliament to
disfranchise the corrupt boroughs of Penryn and East Retford. Penryn
first engaged the attention of the commons. A bill transferring its
elective privileges to Manchester was carried and sent up to the lords;
but the lords threw it out, as not being supported by evidence of
corruption sufficient to warrant disfranchisement. A bill was also
brought into the house to transfer the franchise of East Retford to
Birmingham; but as at the time it was introduced there was a certainty
that the Penryn bill would be rejected by the peers, the commons
agreed that the measure should stand over till the next session, on the
understanding that no new writ should be issued for East Retford. Other
bills connected with elections of members of the house were brought into
the commons; but they either did not pass that house, or were rejected
by the lords, except one, which regulated the manner of taking the poll
at city and borough elections, and which passed into a law. The chief
feature of this latter bill was, that it cut down the duration of the
poll from fifteen to six days.




CORN-LAW QUESTION.

One of the most important questions debated during this session was a
new settlement of the corn-laws. This subject was introduced by Mr. C.
Grant, on principles similar to those in the bill lost in the preceding
session. The act he introduced was constructed on a graduated principle
of ascending and descending duties, like that of Mr. Canning; but the
medium price was raised from 60s. to 64s. In introducing this bill Mr.
Grant scarcely attempted its vindication; declaring at the same time
that it was the best that could be framed with any chance of being
passed into a law. The resolutions, he said, so far as the legislature
was concerned, were permanent, until the minds of men could be led to
entertain juster notions upon this subject; and they would be changed
only as the notions which at present prevailed were altered for the
better. They were offered to the landed interests as a resting-place,
a firm and solid ground on which time and experience might accumulate
a richer soil. They were a compromise between conflicting interests and
opinions. For himself, he conceived them imperfect, because they fell
short of the bill of last year; but they had been brought as near to
that measure as was consistent with the likelihood of their being passed
into a law. Other members of government also described the measure
as one which did not satisfy their own ideas of what was right and
expedient; but what they called a compromise of conflicting opinions,
was in reality nothing less than a sacrifice of what they admitted they
knew to be for the public good, to the views of a party which they were
fearful of displeasing. Notwithstanding, the opposition which had been
made to the bill of last year was renewed by the agriculturists on the
same grounds as before. They struggled for still higher duties; but the
bill finally passed both lords and commons without alteration. It has
been observed of the contest on this occasion, that “agriculture was
considered improperly as opposed both in its nature and objects to
manufactures; while, in fact, it is itself a manufacture, and the most
advantageous of all manufactures; for its profits are certain, and its
employment healthy. All grain raised beyond the seed sown adds the whole
extent of such produce to the wealth, and the people employed in its
production to the strength of the state. The grand object of every good
government is to provide employment for the industry of its people; and
the first point to be attended to in this respect is the manufacturing
of the raw material produced by the country: for this is real wealth;
hence agriculture must always prove the most useful kind of manufacture
to every state. The fruits and productions of the soil, raised by
labour and capital, are disseminated and divided among all classes, who
exchange their labour for that of the agriculturist, until sustenance is
obtained by all. It is this internal commerce which is so beneficial and
so important, from the rapidity of the exchange and the stability of it,
as far as every description of produce is consumed by the inhabitants of
a country; and by no other means can manufacturers and tradesmen be so
extensively injured as by an oppression of the agricultural interests.”
 While this, however, may be admitted to be true to a certain extent, it
is clear that the agricultural interests should not be protected to the
injury of the manufacturing interests, properly so called; and time, as
will be seen, has convinced the nation at large of the unreasonableness
of such a protection.




DIVISIONS IN THE CABINET.

In the division which took place on the transfer of the franchise of
East Retford to Birmingham, Mr. Huskisson redeemed a pledge which he had
given to support it; and in so doing divided against his colleagues. On
his arrival at home from the house of commons he addressed a letter to
the Duke of Wellington, marked “private and confidential,” in which he
said that duty led him, without loss of time, to afford his grace an
opportunity of placing his office in other hands. The duke immediately
laid this letter as a resignation before his majesty; but Mr. Huskisson
seems to have written it solely with a view of being solicited to remain
in office. He declared to Lord Dudley that he never intended to resign,
and that his letter was marked private in consequence. Lord Dudley
immediately waited on the premier, and attempted to pass the matter off
as a mistake; but his grace declared emphatically that it was not, and
should not be any mistake. Mr. Huskisson made further attempts to retain
office; but the Duke of Wellington was inexorable, probably because he
did not coincide with all the views of his colleague; and the dismissal
of Mr. Huskisson was followed by the resignations of Lords. Dudley and
Palmerston, and of Mr. Charles Grant. Their places were filled up in the
cabinet by Sir Charles Murray, who succeeded Mr. Huskisson; Sir Henry
Hardinge, who was made secretary at war; and Mr. Vesey, who accepted the
office of the board of trade; while the Earl of Aberdeen received the
seals of the foreign secretary. No further change took place, except
that the Duke of Clarence resigned his post of lord high admiral, when a
board was appointed on the old system, with Lord Melville at its head.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued on the 28th of July. On this occasion two
interesting subjects of foreign policy were introduced into the speech,
which was again delivered by the commissioners. These subjects were,
war between Russia and Turkey, and the suspension of our relations
with Portugal. The sections relating to these events read thus:—“His
imperial majesty has found himself under the necessity of declaring
war against the Ottoman Porte, upon grounds concerning exclusively the
interests of his own dominions, and unconnected with the stipulations
of the treaty of the 6th of July, 1827. His majesty deeply laments the
occurrence of these hostilities, and will omit no effort of friendly
interposition to restore peace.” “His majesty commands us to acquaint
you, that his majesty had every reason to hope, when he last addressed
you, that the arrangements which had been made for administering the
government of Portugal., until the period at which the Emperor of Brazil
should have completed his abdication of the throne of Portugal, would
have secured the peace and promoted the happiness of a country in the
welfare of which his majesty has ever taken the deepest interest. The
just expectations of his majesty have been disappointed; and measures
have been adopted in Portugal, in disregard of the earnest advice and
repeated remonstrances of his majesty, which have compelled his majesty,
and the other powers of Europe acting in concert with his majesty, to
withdraw their representatives from Lisbon.” As regards the declaration
of war against the Ottoman Porte by Russia, the chief pretext for it
was, the imperious behaviour of the Porte, in its delay to fulfil the
treaty of Ackerman. It seems certain, however, that though it was said
to be waged for objects wholly national, that the chief object was
aggrandisement. In Portugal affairs had assumed a strange aspect. Don
Pedro had recently named Don Miguel regent of the kingdom, on which,
a few months before, he had sought to establish himself as monarch.
Miguel, however, had spontaneously sworn allegiance to him as natural
sovereign, as well as to the constitutional charter, and had also
engaged on oath to deliver up the crown to Donna Maria II., as soon as
that princess should become of age. After his appointment to the regency
Don Miguel paid a visit to England, where he was treated by the nobility
in general with high respect. He was twice entertained at the admiralty
by the Duke of Clarence, and after visiting the king at Windsor he
returned to Portugal. Before he set sail he addressed a letter to
the king, declaring that, if, on his return to Portugal, he attempted
anything against his brother or niece, or against the constitution, he
should be an usurper, and prove a perjured wretch. Yet Don Miguel had
scarcely drawn this character of himself before he assumed it. On his
arrival at Lisbon his mother resumed her ill-fated influence over him;
and after a series of atrocities the courts were dismissed, the charter
abolished, and Don Miguel proclaimed king. All the dungeons in the realm
were filled with victims, and thousands perished in them, or on the
scaffold; whilst thousands more were banished to the desert coasts of
Africa, or voluntarily abandoned their country, to endure the sorrows
of unmerited exile. It was these circumstances that gave rise to the
withdrawal of his majesty’s representatives from Lisbon, as intimated in
the speech at the close of parliament. On hearing of these events, Don
Pedro, by his ministers at Vienna and London, entered solemn protests
against the violation of his hereditary rights, and those of his
daughter. He had sent his daughter to Europe, and her destination was
Vienna; but on touching at Gibraltar, and learning the events which had
occurred in Portugal, she took counsel with the principal officers of
her suite, and by their advice she sailed to England, where she was
received with royal honours, and entertained with great hospitality and
magnificence.




DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

During the two previous administrations, those of Mr. Canning and Lord
Goderich, Irish agitation had been partially suppressed. The reason of
this was that the Catholics had some hopes that government would grant
their claims. When, however, the Duke of Wellington assumed the reins
of government, hope fled, and Irish agitation instantly revived in full
force. The cry of war was raised by its leaders, and they proceeded,
aided by the Popish priesthood, to re-organize the Catholic Association.
The first display of this united power was exhibited in a contested
election for the county of Clare, when Mr. O’Connell adopted the novel
experiment of offering himself a candidate for the representation. His
opponent was Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald, an advocate for emancipation; but
his votes and speeches were considered only as a mockery, while the
government to which he belonged was based on the principle of exclusion;
and Mr. O’Connell was declared duly returned. The agitator had pledged
his professional character as a lawyer, not merely, that, although a
Catholic, he was capable of being elected, but that he could sit
and vote in the house of commons. After his election, a petition was
presented against his return to the house of commons; but the season was
so far advanced, that no decision could be pronounced upon it before
the prorogation of parliament, and the matter rested as it was, Mr.
O’Connell promising to demand his seat in the ensuing session. In the
meantime this triumph of the Association urged them to arrange more
extended plans of conquest; for it appeared that it might be practicable
to carry into effect their threat of returning all the county members of
Ireland. With these views a plan was formed and executed, with the aid
and agency of the priests, to break that link which united the Catholic
forty-shilling freeholders with their landlords. Certain tests were
framed, and resolutions adopted, to reject every candidate who should
decline a pledge to oppose the Duke of Wellington’s administration,
and to vote for parliamentary reform, as well as for the repeal of the
subletting-act. The plan which the Association adopted to confirm and
extend its power was well fitted to compass the objects it had in
view. In almost every county liberal clubs were established, under the
direction of the Association, for the purpose of receiving and adopting
the pledges, and drilling the county to be in readiness to act upon
them on the instant, if required. The agitators, indeed, restrained the
Catholic peasantry from habitual outrage and lawless violence, but at
the same time they assembled them in large companies, regularly trained
for the exertion of physical force, and anxious for its display, if
necessary. The state of Ireland at this period was powerfully
portrayed by Mr. Shiel, at a meeting held in full force at Munster. He
remarked:—“What has government to dread from our resentment in peace?
An answer is supplied by what we actually behold. Does not a tremendous
organization extend over the whole island? Have not all the natural
bonds by which men are tied together been broken and burst asunder? Are
not all the relations of society which exist elsewhere gone? Has not
property lost its influence? Has not rank been stripped of the respect
which should belong to it? And has not an internal government grown
up, which, gradually superseding the legitimate authorities, has armed
itself with a complete domination? Is it nothing that the whole body of
the clergy are alienated from the state, and that the Catholic gentry,
and peasantry, and priesthood are all combined in one vast confederacy?
So much for Catholic indignation while we are at peace. And when England
shall be involved in war,—I pause; it is not necessary that I should
discuss that branch of the division, or point to the cloud which,
charged with thunder, is hanging over our heads.” As the year advanced,
the state of the country of Ireland assumed a new and still more fearful
aspect. Irritated by the violence of the agitators, alarmed at the
menacing attitude of those who followed them, ready to do their bidding,
and provoked by the apparent apathy of the British government, the
Protestants began to unite in self-defence. The Orange-lodges which had
ceased to exist, were now revived, with the grand lodge in Dublin as the
centre of their operations: while new associations, under the title of
“Brunswick clubs,” which included in their lists the most influential
classes, and contributed to break up society for the more extended
indulgence of mutual animosity. These Protestant clubs had an extensive
sway throughout the north, while the Catholic Association held the
dominant sway throughout the south. The Association, however, made
strenuous exertions to extend their sway even in the camp of the enemy.
One Mr. Lawless, an appropriate name for an agitator, was sent thither
as an apostle of agitation. This man traversed the different districts
from parish to parish, assembling the people in crowds in the Catholic
chapels, and addressed them with the usual incentives to steady
animosity against their fellow-countrymen. He entered the towns at
the head of immense multitudes; and though he was in the stronghold
of Protestantism, yet he never allowed himself to be deterred from his
mischievous enterprise by any apprehension of the consequences which
might arise from bringing into contact multitudes already bitterly
incensed against each other. He boasted of having entered Protestant
towns at the head of twenty or thirty thousand Catholics, which appears
to have been essentially correct. At first he met with no opposition in
his wild career. The magistrates warned the people against joining
in his processions, and even entreated the man himself to give up his
mischievous crusade. On, however, the man went, until at length the
people of the north were aroused to resist his progress. It was his
custom to proclaim beforehand the day on which he was to make his entry
into the different towns at the head of his legions; and, in accordance
with this custom, he gave notice that he should “take possession” of the
town of Armagh on the 30th of September. The Protestants of that town,
however, resolved to impede his progress, and many of them marched into
the city, armed, from all parts of the county. Mr. Lawless proceeded no
further with this intention, and the Protestants quietly dispersed.
He next announced his intention of entering Ballabay in the county of
Monaghan; and here likewise the Protestants resolved to resist him. He
was met in the vicinity of the town by a magistrate, who stated what the
result would be, and prevailed on him to forego his intentions. Some of
his followers, however, were less prudent; and a collision took place
between the two parties, in which a Catholic was killed. Mr.
Lawless returned to Carrickmacross to await further orders from the
Association, at the same time declaring that he would visit all the
strongholds of the Orangemen. It was plain to all the world, however,
by this time that the Orangemen would not allow these tumultuous find
insulting visits to be made without opposition. By the end of September,
indeed, the two parties were prepared for a collision, the result of
which it was impossible to foresee. The Association, however, began to
fear that they had gone too far; and they were wise enough to foresee
that if a collision took place the Catholics would be the losers. They
boasted, indeed, great things; “that the might of the Catholics would
crush the Orangemen into dust,” &c., should a collision take place; but
they felt to the contrary. They knew that Protestant Great Britain
would interfere, and, as Mr. Shiel said, “cut them down in a week.” “The
Protestants,” said the same powerful orator, “are becoming every day
more alienated by our display of power. The great proprietors, and all
men who have an interest in the security of the state, are anxious for
the settlement of the question; but still their pride is wounded, and
they see with disrelish the attitude of just equality which we have
assumed, Our Protestant advocates, with few exceptions, declined the
invitation to join in our late proceedings. As individuals, I hold
them in no account; but I look upon their absence as a feature in the
existing circumstances of the country. It is clear that the division
between Catholic and Protestant is widening. They were before parted,
but they are now rent asunder; and while the Catholic Association rises
up from the indignant passions of our great body of the community,
the Brunswick club is springing up out of the irritated pride and the
sectarian rancour of the Protestants of Ireland. As yet they have not
engaged in the great struggle; they have not closed in the combat; but
as they advance upon each other, and collect their might, it is easy to
discern the terrible passions by which they are influenced, and the
fell determination with which they rush to the encounter. Meanwhile the
government stand by, and the minister folds his arms as if he were a
mere indifferent observer, and the terrific contest only afforded him a
spectacle for the amusement of his official leisure. He sits as if two
gladiators were crossing swords for his recreation. The cabinet seems
to be little better than a box in an amphitheatre, from whence his
majesty’s ministers may survey the business of blood. There are three
parties concerned, the Catholics, the Protestants, and the government:
the Catholics advance upon the one hand; the Protestants upon the other;
and the government, by whom all ought to be controlled, looks passively
on.” Alarmed at the position in which they had placed themselves,
the agitators began somewhat to retrace their steps; or at least
they adopted measures to secure peace. The Association on the 26th
of September adopted these resolutions:—“1. That while we warmly
congratulate the people of Tipperary upon the happy cessation of their
feuds, we implore them to discontinue the holding of assemblies of the
peculiar character which have recently taken place. 2. That we humbly
entreat the Catholic clergy to co-operate with the Association in
carrying the above resolution into effect. 3. That Daniel O’Connell, to
whose influence deference should be made is hereby called upon to employ
his powerful and deserved authority in deterring the people of Tipperary
from the holding of such meetings, in an address to be printed and
circulated at the expense of the Association. 4. That it be referred to
the standing committee to report whether it be, or may become expedient,
that a deputation shall be sent to Tipperary, and suggest such other
measures, as shall be deemed advisable, in order to dissuade the people
from holding such meetings.” Mr. O’Connell issued an address to the
people of the county of Tipperary, which enjoined them to obey the laws;
and the storm which had threatened to burst over Ireland was allayed.
The Catholic priests, sharing in the alarm of the agitators, enforced
the directions of the address from their altars; and the threatened
danger was prevented. When it was over, government exhibited symptoms of
returning life: the lord-lieutenant issued a proclamation enjoining
that which Mr. O’Connell had already done; namely, the discontinuance
of large and armed meetings, as illegal and alarming. The only effect
of this proclamation was to confirm Mr. Lawless in his resolution to
proceed no further in his mission to the north; for the assemblies had
disappeared before he ventured to call them in question. The apathy of
the government at this crisis is scarcely to be accounted for, as it
must have been clear to its members that the train was laid, and that it
only required the application of the match to occasion a most terrible
explosion. The only remarkable declaration which ministers substituted
for active measures, consisted in a private letter sent by the Duke of
Wellington to Dr. Curtis, Catholic primate of Ireland. In that letter he
expressed an anxiety to witness the settlement of the Catholic question;
but confessed that he saw no prospect of such a consummation; adding
with a species of studied obscurity:—“If we could bury it in oblivion
for a short time, I should not despair of a satisfactory result.” A copy
of this letter was sent to Mr. O’Connell, and he forthwith carried it
to the Association, where it was received with plaudits as a declaration
that the Duke of Wellington was now favourable to the Catholic claims.
It was ordered to be recorded in their minutes as such, although it
was not easy to foresee how such a conclusion could be adduced from the
letter. This conclusion, however, was arrived at, and it naturally added
to the exultation and confidence of the Catholics. This, however, was
trifling compared with the mischiefs which followed. Dr. Curtis, in his
reply to the duke, told him plainly, that the proposition to bury the
question in oblivion for a time was inadmissible, and would only serve
to exasperate those who were already excited. After this he sent a copy
of the duke’s letter, and of his answer to it, to the lord-lieutenant,
the Marquis of Anglesea. His excellency’s reply showed that he
entertained different opinions on the contents of the duke’s letter
to those which the Catholics had deduced from it. At the same time he
showed himself to be strongly in favour of the Catholic claims. The
great agitator himself might have written the following sentences
contained in his reply. After expressing his ignorance of the duke’s
intentions, and advising the Catholics to make much of him, to avoid
provoking him or any other member of the government by personalities,
to trust to the legislature, and to avoid brute force, he remarked:—“I
differ from the opinion of the duke, that an attempt should be made to
bury in oblivion the question for a short time; first, because the thing
is utterly impossible; and next, if it were possible, I fear advantage
might be taken of the pause, by representing it as a panic achieved by
the late violent reaction, and by proclaiming, that if the government
at once and peremptorily decided against concession, the Catholics would
cease to agitate, and then all the miseries of the last years of Ireland
will be reacted. I therefore recommend that the measure should not for a
moment be lost sight of; that anxiety should continue to be manifested;
that all constitutional means should be adopted to forward the cause,
consistent with the most patient forbearance, and submissive obedience
to the laws: that the Catholics should trust to the justice of their
cause and to the growing liberality of mankind, but should not desist
from agitation.” For this advice the lord-lieutenant was extolled to the
skies by the same lips which three years before had denounced him as
an object of execration. The next wind, however, that blew from England
brought the mandate which deprived him of office and recalled him from
Ireland. This recall furnished him with an example of the value set
on the advice which he had tendered to the Catholics not to insult and
vilify any one, and especially the Duke of Wellington. At the first
meeting of the Association after the recall of the Marquis of Anglesea
was known, Mr. O’Connell remarked;—“In my own knowledge of Irish
history, and I believe I know Ireland’s history well, I never heard
any thing so monstrously absurd as the recall of this gallant and high
minded-man. The Duke of Wellington said he would be worse than mad if
he became premier. He is therefore a self-convicted madman! And yet,
gracious Heaven! he continues the insane pilot, who directs our almost
tottering state.” But if Mr. O’Connell had known the duke’s intentions
he would not have been thus abusive. On receiving his recall the Marquis
of Anglesea is said to have divined immediately the true reason of
his dismissal. He remarked:—“I know the duke: his mind is made up to
emancipate the Catholics; and I am recalled, because he would have no
one to share his victory.” It is strange, but it is no less certain,
that the latter part of this year was employed by the cabinet in
testifying their repugnance to a measure? which it was their first act
in the coming year to introduce.




DEATH OF THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL.

During the month of December the Earl of Liverpool, after various
fluctuations of health, expired at Combewood. It has seldom happened
that a minister ever acquired so much influence, or conciliated so much
favour by the mere weight of personal character, as did his lordship.
He was undistinguished by great brilliancy of genius or parliamentary
eloquence; at the same time he possessed, what is infinitely superior,
a sound judgment, with a mind well adapted to business, and stored
with all that political knowledge which is requisite to make a great
statesman. That which gained the confidence of the country, however,
was his unquestionable integrity, and his open and manly conduct: he was
never suspected of governing for mere party purposes, or of intriguing
for the acquisition of power. It was the good of the country alone that
he sought in all his actions. In his distribution of ecclesiastical
preferment he set a splendid example to future premiers. Passing by
parliamentary retainers, or those whose only claims are the ties of
kindred and affinity, he made a careful selection of men of piety and
talent for offices of dignity and responsibility in the church.




FOREIGN POLICY.

The foreign policy of our administration connected with Turkey and
Portugal has already been noticed; those of France and Greece require a
few words. In France the ministry of M. de Villéle had fallen last year,
because they lent themselves to the designs of the court and the church,
instead of consulting the growing spirit and intelligence of the nation.
The new ministers forced upon the king by this triumph of the liberal
party were men of moderate principles; and they were only tolerated
by the king as a necessary evil At the head of them was M. Roy, who
possessed a considerable knowledge of finance; but the rest were of very
mediocre talent. At this time the priests and Jesuits were striving
in France for the absolute control of public education, as the most
effectual means of recovering their domination. This attempt was
resisted by the people, who raised a loud cry of “No Jesuitism!” as in
England there was formerly the cry of “No popery!” The new ministers
took part with the nation; and in so doing opposed the wishes of the
monarch. His majesty’s speech also took a different view from our
cabinet of the transaction at Navarino, thus showing that the new
administration of France was hostile to our policy. The French, indeed,
were in right earnest for the liberation of Greece from the power of
the Ottoman Porte. In the autumn of this year the French government sent
General Maison, with a strong military force, to the Morea, in order
to liberate it from the hands of the Turks. On the 6th of October, the
second day after Ibrahim had sailed, Navarino was summoned to surrender,
and the demand was supported by a body of French troops under the walls,
ready to commence operations. The Turkish governor replied, that the
Porte was not at war with the French or the English, and that although
no act of hostility would be committed by the Turks, yet the place would
not be given up. The French soldiers, however, immediately set to work;
and after making a hole in an old breach, they marched in and took
possession of the place without opposition. A similar demand was made
the same day of the governor of Modon; and the gates were forced open,
and the garrison quietly submitted. Coron was more contumacious; but
Coron, on learning the fate of Modon, followed its example, and opened
its gates. The Castle of Patras had already shown the same complaisance;
and the Morea castle alone remained in possession of the Turks. But this
castle also, after sustaining a severe battery, surrendered; and by the
end of November the Morea was freed from foreign control, and was left
at liberty to select the course which she might choose to follow. It
was left to the direction of its provisional government, at the head
of which was the Count Capo d’Istria, who had been installed president
early in the year. In his inaugural address the count told his
countrymen that the first care of government should be to deliver them
from anarchy, and to conduct them by degrees to national and political
regeneration. He continued:—“It is only then you will be able to give
the allied sovereigns the indispensable pledges which you owe them, in
order that they may no longer doubt of the course which you will take
to obtain the salutary object which led to the treaty of London, and the
memorable day of October 20th. Before this period you have no right to
hope for the assistance I have invoked for you, nor for anything which
can serve the cause of good order at home, or the preservation of
your reputation abroad.” The president set himself sternly against the
piratical habits by which independent Greece had disgraced herself; and
he had sufficient authority to make the fleet, which was placed at his
disposal, carry his orders into execution. As yet, neither he nor the
government had enjoyed leisure to frame any system of finance; but he
obtained a loan of money from Russia, and looked forward with confidence
for subsidies from Great Britain and France. The question, however,
which most engaged the attention of the Greek government was, what
were to be the boundaries of their new state? It belonged to the allied
powers and Turkey, indeed, to settle this matter; but the government had
its own ideas upon the subject, as it was right and proper it should. A
commission of the national assembly proposed to the allied powers that
the northern mountains of Thessaly, and the course of the river Vioussa,
should form its boundary on the north, to the exclusion of Macedonia;
those limits, as they observed, seeming to be pointed out by nature
herself, and as they had always gotten the better of political events.
These considerations were ultimately set aside. And yet they were the
very best that could have been adopted. It is true that this boundary
would have included some districts which had taken no share in the
national struggle, and would have excluded others which had taken an
active part in the war; but still it was the most proper. The natural
conformation of the line gave it a special political recommendation;
and where boundaries do not coincide with some great natural features,
but are lines arbitrarily laid down, they tend to tempt an usurper by
the dangerous facility which they offer to violation. Sooner or later
they produce discord between the neighbouring states. But all these
considerations were set aside; and, indeed, at this time our government
displayed much apathy on the subject of Greek independence.




CHAPTER XXXIX.

{GEORGE IV. 1829—1830}

     The Catholic Question..... Meeting of Parliament.....
     Suppression of the Catholic Association..... Rejection of
     Mr. Peel at Oxford..... The Triumph of Catholic
     Emancipation..... Bill for the Disfranchisement of the
     Forty-Shilling Freeholders..... The Case of Mr.
     O’Connell..... Financial Statements..... Motion for
     Parliamentary Reform..... Prorogation of Parliament.....
     State of  Affairs in Ireland..... Agricultural and
     Commercial Distress..... Affairs on the Continent.




THE CATHOLIC QUESTION.

{A. D. 1829}

The recommendation of the late lord-lieutenant to agitate, was followed
in Ireland to the very letter. When the Duke of Northumberland arrived
in Dublin as his successor, he found agitation pervading the whole
country. Protestants and Catholics alike were in the field, breathing
defiance and revenge against each other, so that there was every
prospect of a civil war. The premier’s situation at the opening of the
year, from this cause, was one of great and peculiar difficulty. The
whole tenor of his political life had been marked by hostility to
the Catholic claims; and every individual associated with him in the
government was pledged to resist their claims. The time had arrived,
however, at the opening of the year, when it became necessary for the
Duke of Wellington to decide on some mode of action; either to determine
not to yield, or to grant emancipation, or to retire from the helm of
state for a season, and permit a Whig government to carry the measure.
The course which he pursued astounded the nation. The wisest and most
honourable course which his grace could have taken, would have been to
have retired, since it was scarcely fair to steal the crown of victory
from statesmen who, during the whole of their political career, had
ably and eloquently pleaded the cause of the Catholics. Yet such was the
course he adopted. Although he had declared that he saw no prospect of
the settlement of the question, and although he had recalled the late
lord-lieutenant because he favoured the Catholics, yet he was now
determined to grant with a free and liberal hand all that they had ever
demanded. Nor did his grace alone change his opinions on this subject.
While the country was reposing confidence that the leading members of
the government were still faithful to their trust, these very men had
determined to go over to the Catholics; and in secrecy and silence were
arranging plans for carrying out a broad measure of emancipation. The
first thing they did was to obtain the consent of the king; a matter of
no small difficulty, as his reluctance to concession was deep-rooted
and vehement. It cost the premier months of management, vigilance, and
perseverance, to overcome his majesty’s antipathies; and it is probable
that he would never have succeeded had it not been for the king’s
indolence and love of ease. A dissolution of the ministry would have
interrupted his ease; and the thought of this overcame his repugnance to
the question. Till his consent was obtained not a whisper had been heard
of the change of sentiment which had taken place in the cabinet; but a
few days before the meeting of parliament the grand secret was told.
The surprise which the announcement excited was only equalled by
the indignation and contempt roused by so sudden an abandonment of
principle. The Protestant community complained—and very justly—that
they had been deceived. Up to that period, indeed, they had been allowed
to rest in the belief that the question would not be mooted, or if it
were, that the influence of the cabinet would stand in its way; but
these, their long-tried friends, had been planning and plotting how they
might secure a triumph to their enemies. They had been trusted by the
Protestant party as the champions of their cause; but on a sudden
they were found offering the hand of friendship to their enemies. It
certainly would have been more manly if they had, on resolving to
change sides, fairly and honestly avowed it from the first, for then the
Protestants would have had time to counteract their designs; but it
was evident at the meeting ol parliament that all opposition would be
useless. It was too late to make a successful stand against the measure:
it must be carried.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament reassembled on the 5th of-February. The speech, which was
again delivered by commission, detailed at length our foreign
relations, and announced the continued improvement of the revenue. The
all-absorbing topic of interest, however, was that which referred to
the coming measure of Catholic emancipation. It remarked:—“The state of
Ireland has been the object of his majesty’s continued solicitude. His
majesty laments that in that part of the United Kingdom an Association
should still exist which is dangerous to the public peace, and
inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution, which keeps alive
discord and ill-will amongst his majesty’s subjects; and which must, if
permitted to continue, effectually obstruct every effort permanently to
improve the condition of Ireland. His majesty confidently relies on
the wisdom and on the support of his parliament; and his majesty feels
assured that you will commit to him such powers as may enable his
majesty to maintain his just authority. His majesty recommends that,
when this essential object shall have been accomplished, you should take
into your deliberate consideration the whole condition of Ireland; and
that you should review the laws which impose civil disabilities on his
majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects. You will consider whether the removal
of those disabilities can be effected consistently with the full and
permanent security of our establishments in church and state, with the
maintenance of the reformed religion established by law, and of the
rights and privileges of the bishops and of the clergy of this realm,
and of the churches committed to their charge. These are institutions
which must ever be held sacred in this Protestant kingdom; and which it
is the duty and the determination of his majesty to preserve inviolate.
His majesty most earnestly recommends to you to enter upon the
consideration of a subject of such paramount importance, deeply interest
ing to the best feelings of his people, and involving the tranquillity
and concord of the United Kingdom, with the temper and moderation
which will best ensure the successful issue of your deliberations.” The
tendency of this recommendation to parliament was at once perceived by
the advocates of exclusion; and they loudly complained of desertion and
surprise, charging the duke with a perfidious concealment of his designs
till the last moment, and loading Messrs. Peel and Goulbourn with the
most bitter execrations, on account of their supposed apostasy. The
usual addresses, however, were carried without a division.




SUPPRESSION OF THE CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION.

The first thing to be done was the vindication of the laws: laws which
had been long trampled beneath the feet of the Catholic agitators. In
pursuance of the recommendation in the royal speech to suppress the
Catholic Association, on the 10th of February Mr. Peel asked leave to
bring in a bill for that purpose. The general outline of the measure
which he proposed was briefly this. It was his intention, he said, to
commit the enforcement of the law to one person only; and to intrust to
him, who was fully cognizant of the state of affairs in Ireland, and
who was also responsible for the tranquillity of that country, the
new powers with which the house were now asked to invest the executive
government. He proposed to give the lord-lieutenant, and to him alone,
the power of suppressing any association or meeting which he might
deem dangerous to the public peace, or inconsistent with the due
administration of the law; together with power to interdict the
assembling of any meeting, of which previous notice should have been
given, and which he should think likely to endanger the public peace, or
to prove inconsistent with the due administration of the law. In case it
should be necessary to enforce the provisions of the law by which
these powers would be conferred, it was proposed, by Mr. Peel, that the
lord-lieutenant should be further empowered to select two magistrates
for the purpose of suppressing the meeting, and requiring the people
immediately to disperse. Finally, it was proposed to prohibit any
meeting or association which might be interdicted from assembling, or
which might be suppressed under this act from receiving and placing at
their control any monies by the name of “rent,” or by any other name.
In conclusion Mr. Peel said, that he was of opinion the act should, like
that of 1825, which had been intended to suppress the Catholic and other
associations, be limited; and he proposed to limit it to one year, and
the end of the then next session of parliament. The bill passed both
houses without opposition; for although its provisions were somewhat
arbitrary in their nature, the friends of the Catholics voted for it
as part of a system which was to result in Catholic emancipation. The
associators, however, rendered the act unnecessary; for before it was
completed, their dissolution was announced. They had gained their point,
and for the present they were satisfied; they had demanded emancipation,
unqualified emancipation, and nothing else; and when this was promised,
when government submitted to their imperious demands, they put up the
sword of defiance into its scabbard. The government boasted that they
had suppressed the Association. But such a boast, as it has been justly
observed, was as if a man should boast of his victory over a highwayman
to whom he exclaims, when the pistol is at his breast, “Down with your
pistol, Sir, and you shall have my purse and my watch:” the robber would
have the best of it, and so had the Association.




REJECTION OF MR. PEEL AT OXFORD.

The University of Oxford had elected Mr. Peel as a champion to the
Protestant cause; and when his mind underwent the change it manifested
on the subject of Catholic emancipation, he could not in common decency
or honesty retain his seat as member for that University. Under these
circumstances he addressed a letter to the vice-chancellor, announcing
his new views of policy by which he was to be guided, acknowledging that
his resistance to the Catholic claims had been one main ground of his
election by the University, and tendering his resignation. Mr. Peel,
however, was proposed as a candidate at the new election, trusting that
he might skill sit as the representative for Oxford in parliament. But
in this he was disappointed. He had for an opponent Sir Robert Harry
Inglis; and though the united influence of the Whigs was pushed to its
utmost limit in behalf of the Home Secretary, Sir Robert Inglis, who was
supported by the dignitaries of the church, and by the parochial clergy,
was elected. Mr. Peel was subsequently returned for the borough of
Westbury; and in this character he brought forward those measures which
for twenty years he had repudiated as dangerous and ruinous to the
best interests of the country, and which even now he was convinced were
pregnant with danger to the constitution.




THE TRIUMPH OF CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION.

On the 5th of March Mr. Peel moved “that the house resolve itself into
a committee of the whole house to consider of the laws imposing civil
disabilities on his majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects.” He commenced by
stating, that, he rose as a minister of the king to vindicate the advice
which an united cabinet had given to his majesty to recommend to the
consideration of parliament the condition of the Catholics, and to
submit to the house measures for carrying such recommendation into
effect. He was aware, he said, that the subject was surrounded with
difficulties; which difficulties were increased by the relation in which
he himself stood to the question. Having, however, come to the honest
conviction that the time had arrived, when an amicable adjustment of
the disputed claims would be accompanied with less danger than any
other course that could be suggested, he was prepared to act on that
conviction, unchanged by the forfeiture of public confidence, or by the
heavy loss of private friendship. He had long felt, he said, that with a
house of commons favourable to emancipation, his position as a minister
opposed to it was untenable; and he showed that he had more than once
intimated his desire to resign office, and thus remove one obstacle to
a settlement of the question. He had done so on the present occasion,
though at the same time he notified to the Duke of Wellington, that
seeing how the current of public opinion lay, he was ready to support
the measure, provided it were undertaken on principles from which no
danger to the Protestant establishment need be apprehended. He was
aware, he said, that he was called on to make out a case for this change
of policy; and he was now about to submit to the house a statement which
proved to his own mind, with the force of demonstration that ministers
were imperatively called on to recommend the measure, however
inconsistent it might appear with their former tenets. The argument
by which the case was made out by Mr. Peel resolved itself into the
following propositions:—First, matters could not remain in their
present state, the evils of divided councils being so great, that
something must be done, and a government formed with a common opinion on
the subject. Secondly, a united government once constituted must do one
of two things—either grant further political rights to the Catholics,
or recall those which they already possess. Thirdly, to deprive them
of what they already have would be impossible; or at least would be
infinitely more mischievous than to grant them more: therefore, no case
remained to be adopted but that of concession. Having illustrated these
propositions at great length, and with much force of argument, Mr.
Peel proceeded to explain the nature of the measure which he and his
colleagues proposed as that which ought finally to settle and adjust the
question. The principle and basis of the measure was to be, he said, the
abolition of civil distinctions and the equality of political rights,
with a few exceptions only. Another pervading principle would be, in
fact and in word, the maintenance of the Protestant religion as by law
established, its doctrines, its discipline, and government. First of
all, he would repeal those laws which placed Catholics, unless they took
certain oaths, on a different footing from Protestants even in regard
to real property; a distinction which Protestants and Catholics were
equally interested in abolishing. The next provision would be the
admission of Catholics to parliament on the same terms with Protestants;
for unless this was granted, all other concessions of political power
would be of no avail. The bill would, also, render Catholics admissible
to all corporate offices in Ireland, and all offices connected with the
administration of justice, and to all the higher civil offices of the
state. He was aware, he said, of the objection as to the last; but
having once resolved to yield political power, this could not be
refused. In order to leave the avenues of ambition open to the Roman
Catholic, he was of opinion that we ought to render him capable of
being employed in the service of the country. As regards the oaths to
be taken, it necessarily followed from their concessions, he said, that
they should be modified. In the new oath, the Catholic would be called
on to swear allegiance in the usual terms; to disclaim the deposing
power of the pope, and the doctrine that his holiness had any temporal
or civil power, directly or indirectly, within the realm; solemnly to
abjure any intention of subverting the church establishment; and to bind
himself not to employ any of his privileges to weaken the Protestant
religion or government. As regarded the exceptions from the general
rule, Mr. Pitt said that they lay within a narrow compass, and related
to duties or offices connected with the established church. The
only offices he meant to exclude Catholics from were those of
lord-lieutenant, or chief governor of Ireland, and of lord high
chancellor, or keeper, or commissioner of the great seal. He meant,
however, to exclude Catholics from appointments in any of the
Universities or Colleges, and from exercising any right of presentation,
as lay patrons, to the benefices and dignities of the church of England.
In the bill, also, there were certain prohibitions against carrying the
insignia of office to places of Roman Catholic worship, and against the
assumption, by prelates of that communion, of the same episcopal titles
as those belonging to the church of England. There were also certain
precautions against the increase of monastic institutions, particularly
that of the Jesuits. A more effective check, however, on the
consequences which might result from admitting Roman Catholics
in Ireland to civil power, was meditated in a law for raising the
qualification of the elective franchise, in counties, from forty
shillings to ten pounds: by which means that privilege would be limited
to persons really possessed of property, and less liable to be misled by
the priests. After detailing the features of the plan in a speech which
occupied more than four hours, Mr. Peel remarked:—“And now, although
I am not so sanguine as others in my expectations of the future, I
have not the slightest hesitation in saying, I fully believe that the
adjustment of this question in the manner proposed will not only give
much better and stronger securities to the Protestant interest and
establishment than any other that the present state of things admits of,
but will also avert evils and dangers impending and immediate. I might
have taken a more popular and palatable course: more popular with
the individuals in concert with whom I long thought and acted, more
palatable to the constituents whom I have lost; but I have consulted
for the best, for Protestant interests and our Protestant establishment.
This is my defence against the accusations I have endured; this is my
consolation under the sacrifices I have made; this shall be my revenge.
I trust that, by the means now proposed, the moral storm may lie lulled
into a calm, the waters of strife may subside, and the elements
of discord be stilled and composed. But if these expectations be
disappointed; if unhappily civil strife and contentions shall arise;
if the differences existing between us do not spring out of artificial
distinctions and unequal privileges, but if there be something in the
character of the Roman Catholic religion not to be contented with
a participation of equal privileges, or with anything short of
superiority, still I shall be content to make the trial. If the battle
must be fought; if the contest which we would now avoid cannot be
averted by those means, let the worst come to the worst—the battle
will be fought for other objects, the contest will take place on other
grounds; the contest then will be, not for an equality of civil rights,
but for the predominance of an intolerant religion. If those more gloomy
predictions shall be realized, and if our more favourable hopes shall
not be justified by the result, we can fight that battle against the
predominance of an intolerant religion more advantageously after this
measure shall have been passed than we could do at present. We shall
then have the sympathy of other nations; we shall have dissolved the
great moral alliance that existed among the Roman Catholics: we shall
have with us those great and illustrious authorities that long supported
this measure, and which will then be transferred to us, and ranged
upon our side: and I do not doubt that in that contest we shall be
victorious, aided as we shall be by the unanimous feeling of all classes
of society in this country, as demonstrated in the numerous petitions
presented to this house, in which I find the best and most real
securities for the maintenance of our Protestant constitution; aided, I
will add, by the union of orthodoxy and dissent, by the assenting voice
of Scotland; and, if other aid be necessary, cheered by the sympathies
of every free state, and by the wishes and prayers of every free man, in
whatever clime, or under whatever form of government he may live.”

The motion was not very powerfully opposed. The principal speakers in
opposition were Sir Robert Inglis and Mr. Estcourt, the two members of
Oxford University. The chief argument used was an assumption that the
grant of equal privileges to Roman Catholics would be the destruction of
the Protestant establishment. With regard to Ireland, it was said that
discord and agitation were not new features in the condition of that
country; that they were not a result of the penal laws; and that they
would not cease on the removal of civil disabilities. As regarded the
fear of civil war, it was remarked that reliance ought to have been
placed on public opinion, and the moral determination of the British
people. At best, too, it was argued, the evil days would only be
postponed, and resistance to ulterior struggles rendered more difficult.
It was asked, with respect to the divided state of the cabinet, why the
Duke of Wellington and Mr. Peel, instead of changing their own line of
policy, did not rather attempt to bring over their colleagues to their
views, especially as they still confessed that there was danger in
granting Catholic emancipation. Ministers were also taunted with
conceding the question from intimidation; a fact which was evident in
the provisions, called securities, against the danger of admitting
the Catholics to wield the civil, judicial, and military powers of the
state. If Mr. Peel and other converts, it was said, thought they could
no longer resist, because they had not a majority in the house
of commons, why did they refuse to accept a majority? Why was not
parliament dissolved? Such a course, it was argued, was right at
any time, when a measure strongly affecting the constitution was
contemplated; and it was peculiarly necessary in the present instance,
when the country had been deceived into a security, of which those who
had practised the deception were now seeking to take advantage. The
Marquis of Blandford even maintained, that if the house sanctioned the
present audacious invasion of the constitution, it would break the trust
reposed in it by the people of England, who were taken by surprise by
the unexpected announcement made by ministers. Was it right, he asked,
for the government to persist in measures to which public feeling was so
strongly opposed? Constituted as the house was then, it did not
express the just alarms of the people for the safety of the Protestant
institutions of the country. As regards the securities proposed by
ministers, they were treated with contempt. Viscount Corry said, that
he had in vain looked for them: with the exception of the forty-shilling
franchise being raised to ten pounds, there was no attempt at
securities; and even that was a half measure.

The motion was supported by Sir. G. Murray, colonial secretary, and
by Messrs. Grant, North, and Iiuskisson. These members repeated and
enforced the positions that the pacification of Ireland was necessary
to the safety of the empire; and that without emancipation pacification
could not be effected. All classes in Ireland, it was argued, had
identified themselves with the question, and Ireland had hence fallen
into a state in which it was impossible for it to remain: it must either
advance or recede; for all the ties which held society together had been
loosened or broken. It was conceded that a certain state of things,
not deserving the name of society, might be maintained by means of the
sword; but such a frame of society, it was added, could have no analogy
whatever to the British constitution. The only intimidation to which
ministers could be accused of yielding, was the fear of continuing
such a state of affairs, and aggravating all its evils by gradual
accumulation, instead of restoring mutual goodwill and the peaceful
empire of the law. No other intimidation existed: none was felt in
Ireland; for what was the force of an unarmed multitude when measured
against the force of the state? The power of the Catholics was as
nothing. But when it was considered what effects might arise from
disunion; when it was considered that a spirit of resentment was growing
up, which roused men against each other, there did appear a kind
of intimidation, of a nature which did not admit of contempt. The
Protestant body—at least the body which arrogated to itself that
title—knew the enthralment under which they had held the Catholics,
and that an unarmed multitude must submit. But were we, it was asked,
to destroy one part of the people, by rousing and inciting the other? It
was rather the duty of government to protect the whole; to ensure them
the greatest degree of protection; and to give to the people all the
privileges they had a right to enjoy. To those who urged a dissolution
of parliament, it was answered, that parliament as it existed was as
capable of discussing the question now, as any parliament had been at
any time during the last twenty-five years; that the question was a fit
one for the consideration of the house of commons at all times; and that
it was particularly fit for their consideration when it came recommended
from the throne, as necessary for the safety and peace of the United
Kingdom. A dissolution of parliament, remarked Mr. Peel, must leave the
Catholic Association and the elective franchise in Ireland just as they
were. If parliament were dissolved, the Catholic Association must be
left as it was, as the common law was inadequate to suppress it; and
being so left, it would overturn the representation of Ireland. Whatever
majority might be returned from Great Britain, Ireland would return
eighty or ninety members in the interest of the Association, forming a
compact body, against the force of which it would be impossible to
carry on the local government of the country. It had, indeed, been said,
“Increase the army, or the constabulary force;” but a greater force
could not be employed there. He would state one simple fact. Above
five-sixths of the infantry had been engaged in aiding the government
of Ireland, as by interposing between two hostile parties. Under
such circumstances a reaction would compel them gradually to this
alternative; namely, instead of resting the civil and social government
on its base, to narrow it and to rest it on its apex. It was also denied
that there was anything peculiar in the nature of the proposed measure
to require a special appeal to the people, since it was incorrectly
called a violation of the constitution. That constitution, it was
argued, was not to be sought for solely in the acts of 1688: its
foundations had been laid much earlier; laid by Catholic hands, and
cemented with Catholic blood. But, even taking the compact of 1688 to
be the foundation of our rights and liberties, yet the most diligent
opponent of the Catholic claims would be unable to point out in the Bill
of Rights a single clause by which the exclusion of Roman Catholics from
seats in parliament was declared to be a fundamental, or indispensable
principle of the British constitution; that bill merely regarded the
liberties guaranteed to the people, and the protection of the throne
from the intrusion of Popery. To the objection that the measure now
contemplated was unconditional concession, concession without a single
security for the Protestant establishment, it was answered, that
principles of exclusion were not the securities to which the established
religion either did trust, or ought to trust. The real securities of
Protestantism would remain, unaffected by this bill, in the unalterable
attachment of the people, who, though divided on minor topics, would
unite in resisting the errors of Popery. The house, it was said,
should also look at the great security which they would derive from
the generous attachment of the people of Ireland, who, after ages of
oppression, would find themselves restored to their place in society.
Moreover, the securities which the bill contained were not so nugatory
as they had been represented. Mr. Peel said, that when he looked at the
petitions sent from all parts of the country, he could not help being
struck with one extraordinary coincidence. These petitions prayed for
those securities; and the prayers of them were similar, whether they
came from the county of Wicklow, or from the county of Armagh, &c.;
that it was impossible to arrive at any other conclusion than that those
prayers, and the terms in which they were conveyed, had been suggested
by one common head and source. And what were the securities prayed for?
Why, the first was, “Put down the Catholic Association;” the second,
“Correct the elective franchise of Ireland;” and the third, “Abolish for
the future the order of the Jesuits in this country.” Now the bill which
he proposed contained all these securities; and if the necessity of
obtaining them were so great as the petitioners contended, let him be
answered this question: “Would the Protestants ever have had the least
chance of obtaining them if his majesty had not recommended that the
disabilities of the Catholics should be taken into consideration, with
the view to an adjustment of this question? Could any man say it was
possible, though the unanimous voice of the Protestants of Ireland
declared those securities to be necessary, that any one of them could
have been obtained, unless a proposal or adjustment had been made?” On
a division the motion was carried by a majority of three hundred and
forty-eight against one hundred and sixty; a preponderance which, as
regarded the house of commons, was decisive of the ultimate fate of the
question.

Resolutions, proposed by Mr. Peel in the committee, were immediately
agreed to; and a bill founded on them was introduced and read for the
first time on the 10th of March. The opponents of the measure allowed
the first reading to take place without opposition, it being arranged
that the debate on the principle of the bill should take place on the
second reading. That reading was fixed for the 17th, on which day it
was moved by Mr. Peel. The motion led to a very warm debate. Sir
Edward Knatchbull strongly attacked Mr. Peel on the desertion of his
principles, as well as other members of the government, asserting that
from it the confidence which had hitherto been accorded to public men,
had received a blow from which it never would recover. Mr. Goulburn
admitted that he had adopted new opinions on this subject; but he had
done so, he said, because it was impossible that any other thing could
be wisely done in the present state of Ireland. He contended that the
measure proposed was calculated to give more complete ascendancy to the
Protestant establishment, by diminishing the irritation, and removing
the prejudices of its opponents. He argued, that it would also have the
effect of causing the people to treat the ministers of the Protestant
church with the respect and attention to which their character and
virtues so eminently entitled them; and that it was only under such
circumstances that the church could be employed as an important engine
in the moral improvement of the people. These notions, however, were
ridiculed by Mr. G. Bankes, who contended that, although the house did
not surrender all the rights of the Protestant church at once, they
gave the Catholics the first stepping-stone for reaching everything
they might desire. It was admitted, he said, that the adherents of the
Catholic faith would struggle for ascendancy; and that this bill was to
give them the political power which would be the great instrument used
in the struggle: and how a bill which did all this would tend to the
security of the Protestant church surpassed human comprehension. The
very framers of the measure saw the absurdity and the danger which it
was employed to conceal; and they had endeavoured to obviate the danger
by a precaution which proved its existence, but was impotent to prevent
it. They had devised this remedy—that when the prime minister happened
to be a Roman Catholic, all power connected with the established church
should be vested in the hands of commissioners. But who was to appoint
the commissioners? Why the prime minister. Lord Tullamore followed in a
similar strain. Ministers, he said, had themselves given the tone on the
opposite side of the question at public meetings; they had sat at the
festive board, hearing with approbation the avowal of sentiments which
they themselves had avowed, but now disclaimed completing the picture
drawn by the poet—

     “Drunk at a borough, civil at a ball.
     Friendly at Hackney, faithless at Whitehall.”

The measure was supported by Lord Palmerston and Sir George Murray with
much eloquence and animation; but the speech which on this occasion
claimed and deserved the greatest attention from the house was that
of Mr. Sadler, a man of distinguished abilities, who had recently
been returned to parliament for the borough of Newark, by the Duke of
Newcastle’s interest. He rose, he said, to add his humble vote to that
faithful band who had resigned the countenance of those whom they had
hitherto deeply respected; who had surrendered, in the language of many,
all pretensions to common sense or general information; who are branded
as intolerants and bigots, from whom ministers had happily escaped; and,
what was still more painful to generous minds, who were ranked among
those that were as devoid of true liberality and benevolence, as of
reason and intelligence. He continued: “All these things, however, move
us not. In a cause like that of the Protestant constitution of England,
now placed for the first time since its existence in a situation of
imminent peril, an humble part in its triumph would indeed give me a
share of that unmeasurable joy which its rescue would diffuse throughout
the nation; but to be numbered as one of those who, faithful to the end,
made a last though ineffectual struggle in its defence, will afford a
melancholy satisfaction, which I would not exchange for all the pride,
and power, and honours which may await a contrary course.” After this
preamble, Mr. Sadler argued at great length against the principles of
the bill, and its dangerous tendency toward the Protestant church: and
showed its utter futility in remedying the evils which oppressed, or
repaying the wrongs which she had suffered from so many generations.
He remarked:—“Ireland degraded, deserted, oppressed, pillaged,
is turbulent; and you listen to the selfish recommendations of her
agitators. You seek not to know, or knowing you wilfully neglect, her
real distresses. If you can calm the agitated surface of society, you
heed not that fathomless depth of misery, sorrow, and distress whose
troubled waves heave unseen and disregarded: and this, forsooth, is
patriotism, Ireland asks of you bread, and you proffer her Catholic
emancipation: and this, I presume, is construed to be the taking into
our consideration, as his majesty recommended, the whole situation of
Ireland.” As regards the nature of the measure, Mr. Sadler contended
that it could only be described as an inroad on the constitution of the
country, and a preparatory movement towards its final destruction.
The securities, also, were treated by him as vague and unsatisfactory.
Matters, he said, had reached such a point of noisy and dangerous
discord between parties in Ireland, that ministers contended there must
be an adjustment of the question. Adjustment generally terminated in
mutual concessions and reciprocal advantages: but would the authors of
this bill point out what it gave to the Protestant constitution for
that which it took away? The Protestant faith surrendered everything,
it received nothing. As a security, the office of viceroy, an office of
pageantry, was to continue Protestant: but what Protestant cared an iota
about it, when its holder was to be surrounded with Popish advisers,
and to act by Popish instruments? The king, too, it seems, must still
continue to be a Protestant. This reservation was the worst of all, and
heightened every objection to the measure into abhorrence and disgust.
“What!” he continued, “after establishing by a solemn act the doctrine
that conscience ought to be free and unrestrained; that disabilities
like that sought to be removed, inflict a wound upon the feelings of
those whom they reach, intolerable to good and generous minds, worse
than persecution, than even death itself, how do you apply it? Why you
propose to sear this brand high upon the forehead, and deep into the
heart of your very prince, while you render the scar more visible, and
the insult more poignant, by making him the solitary individual, whose
hereditary rank must be held and transmitted by the disgraceful
tenure which you have stigmatized as the badge of slavery. Freedom
of conscience to all subjects, but none to your king! Throw open the
portals of legislation, that a Duke of Norfolk may take his seat in your
senate; but hurl from his loftier seat there, the throne of the realm,
a Duke of Lancaster, if he exercise the same privilege, and presume
to have a conscience! Hitherto the British constitution has been fair,
uniform, equal, demanding from all the same moral qualification.
That qualification has long been declared, by a certain school of
politicians, to be slavery. Ministers have now adopted their creed; yet
they are content, nay, they propose, that the king shall be the only
proclaimed slave in his dominions. Worse than this, however, remained
behind: the proposed measure not only hurt the feelings of the monarch,
it touched his title. It was a bill to reverse the attainder which had
been passed upon Popery, and the natural consequences of this reversal
were obvious. The privileges of Protestantism were the title-deeds of
the royal family to the throne, the actual transfer of the estate
which the king held in parliament and in the country. It was Protestant
ascendancy now become a term of reproach, and Protestant ascendancy
alone, that introduced the royal line that rules us; it was that which
still formed the foundation of the throne, which combined its title with
the very elements of the constitution, identified it with our liberty,
consecrated it with the sanctities of our religion, and proclaimed our
monarch king by the unanimous suffrages of all our institutions. The act
of settlement indeed was to remain; and though it had been passed with
difficulty by a parliament exclusively Protestant, it would of course be
zealously maintained by a parliament partly Catholic: but still this
was to remove the royal title from the broad foundation of national
principles, supported by all the analogies of the constitution, and
place it upon a mere act of parliament, or rather upon an exception from
that act: whatever became of the legal title, the moral title of the
king would be touched. But,” continued Mr. Sadler, “the intended
change of the constitution was doubly objectionable on account of
its unavoidable consequences. He contended that it would put the real
liberties of the people in jeopardy; and that the united church of
England and Ireland would be placed in peril by it, the moment it was
passed. The real object of the attack was the establishment, or rather
its principles and immunities. The war had begun; the siege commenced:
the first parallel was nearly completed; the very leaders of the
garrison were summoning a bold and numerous band of fresh assailants to
the attack; and the approaches would be carried on till a final triumph
was obtained over the most tolerant, the most learned, and the most
efficient establishment which any country had ever yet been blessed
with. And could any man, he asked, flatter himself that even when this
was destroyed, a long and uninterrupted reign of quietness and peace
would ensue? When this victim had been hunted down, the same pack would
scent fresh game, and the cry against our remaining institutions would
be renewed with double vigour, till nothing remained worth attack or
defence. An oath was certainly to be taken, verbally forbidding Roman
Catholics from harming the establishment; but they must be more or less
than men to be enabled to keep such an oath. It was even immoral to
present it to them: it established a war between words and principles,
oaths and conscience: and which of these would finally prevail needed
no explanation. That Roman Catholics once seated in the house should not
feel disposed to lessen the influence, and finally to destroy a church
which they abhorred was impossible; and that they should not make common
cause for a similar purpose with other parties inspired by similar
views was equally impossible. Much, it was true, had been said about
the weakness of such a party in point of numbers; but a party acting
invariably in unison on this point would ultimately carry it, and with
it, all others of vital importance.” Referring to the apologies which
had been made for these portentous changes, Mr. Sadler said that the
country had been beguiled by them. He continued:—“I was one of those
who thought the conduct of the noble and right honourable individuals
who resigned in 1827 a sacrifice to principle and consistency: what it
really was, it is now not worth while to inquire, since it was anything
than that. It is now too late to rectify the error; all that remains
is to regret most deeply, that, faithfully following those who have so
secretly, suddenly, and unceremoniously deserted us, we were taught to
regard a highly gifted individual, unhappily now no more, as one who
ought not to serve his king and country as the head of the government,
because he was favourable to the measure now so indecently forced upon
the country. I do heartily repent of my share in the too successful
attempt of hunting down so noble a victim; a man whom England and the
world recognise as its ornament, whose eloquence was, at these days at
least, unrivalled, the energies of whose capacious mind, stored with
knowledge and elevated by genius, were devoted to the service of his
country. This was the man with whom the present ministers could not
act, and for a reason which vitiates their present doings. Coupling,
therefore, that transaction with the present, if the annals of our
country furnish so disgraceful a page, I have very imperfectly consulted
them. But peace to his memory! My humble tribute is paid when it can
be no longer heard nor regarded—when it is drowned by the voice of
interested adulation now poured only into the ears of the living. He
fell; but his character is reserved, it rises and triumphs over that of
his surviving,—what shall I call them? Let their own consciences supply
the hiatus.” Having paid this eloquent tribute to Mr. Canning, a tribute
as just also as it is eloquent, Mr. Sadler contended that it was the
duty of ministers to have gone to the people, since the invasion of the
constitution, bad in itself and ruinous in its consequences, was beyond
the power of parliament. The people of England, he continued, had not
sent the members of the house of commons for the purpose of throwing
open the doors of that house to the admission of Popery, to the scandal,
disgrace, and danger of the Protestant establishment in church and
state. He added in conclusion:—“Be assured they will resent it deeply
and permanently if we proceed. I know how dear this sacred, this
deserted cause is to the hearts and to the understandings of Englishmen.
The principle may be indeed weak in this house, but abroad it marches in
more than all its wonted might, attended, in spite of the aspersions of
all its enemies, by the intelligence, the religion, the loyalty of the
country; and if the honest zeal, nay, even the cherished prejudices of
the people, swell its train, thank God for the accession. Here, sir,
that cause, like those wasting tapers, may be melting away: there it
burns unextinguishably. It lives abroad, though this house, which is
its cradle, may be now preparing its grave. To their representatives the
people committed their dearest birthright, the Protestant constitution,
and have not deserted it, whoever has. If it must perish, I call God
to witness that the people are guiltless. Let it, then, expire in this
spot, the place of its birth, the scene of its long triumphs, betrayed,
deserted in the house of its pretended friends, who while they smile are
preparing to smite; let it here, while it receives blow after blow from
those who have hitherto been its associates and supporters, fold itself
up in its mantle, and, hiding its sorrow and disgrace, fall when it
feels the last stab at its heart from the hand of one whom it had armed
in its defence, and advanced to its highest honours.”

Mr. R. Grant on the other side contended that it was in vain to speak of
applying to the evils of Ireland such cures as it was supposed might be
found in the establishment of poor-laws, or the compulsory residence
of the absentees: even if the expediency of these measures was assumed,
this was not the proper time for their application: the question at
present was, how existing discontent might be allayed, how the raging
pestilence might be stopped. It was only after that had been done, that
preventives could rationally be suggested, and it was only by removing
the grievances of which Ireland complained, that that object could be
effected. Although the evils of Ireland, he said, had been traced to
many causes these causes themselves, even where they existed, were but
the effects of the political distinctions founded on the difference of
the religious creeds. The house had been told, for instance, to seek for
the source of these evils in the local oppressions practised in Ireland,
rather than in the general restrictive laws. Of local oppression, no
doubt, plenty had always existed, but it had existed merely because the
adherents of one creed were armed with power to oppress the believers in
another faith, who were vested with no power. The same mischiefs, it
was said, existed before the Reformation, when all Ireland was of one
religion. True: and they had existed, just because, even before the
Reformation, the same system of excluding the natives from political
power had been long followed, though on different grounds. What Sir John
Davies, who wrote in the days of Elizabeth, stated to be the cause
of the evils of Ireland in his time, was in force still:—“From the
earliest times,” said that writer of the English government of Ireland,
“it seemed to be the rule of policy that the native Irish should someway
or other be not admitted to the privileges of the constitution equally
with the English residents. And in order to perpetuate the ascendancy
of the latter, the governors of Ireland had determined to oppress the
former as much as possible. Accordingly, it has been the system of rule
in that country, for the last four hundred years, to attempt by all
manner of means to root out the native Irish altogether.” That system
had been acted on since the time of Sir John Davis in some form or
other, and with consequences which would last so long as the laws
against the Catholics remained unrepealed. This inequality of political
power, then, was the cause; and by removing it, an end would be put
to the turbulence and exasperation to which it gave birth. Mr.
Grant further argued that this might be done without injury to the
constitution, and that the constitution did not recognise any principle
of exclusion against any portion of the community. Its essence, he said,
was the communication of its protection and privileges to all. Lord
Palmerston followed on the same side. He admitted that if the question
were, whether we should have any Catholics at all; whether the religion
throughout the empire should be exclusively Protestant; then all Ireland
should be made Protestant. But this was not possible, Catholics there
were, and Catholics there must be. There they were, good or bad; and,
whether their tenets were wholesome or unwholesome, the persons holding
them were six millions in number, and they were seated in the very heart
of the empire. What, then, he asked, were we to do with them, since we
were not able to exterminate them? Were we to make them our enemies,
fiercer and more inveterate in proportion as we persecuted them? or were
we by kindness and conciliation to convert them into friends? The latter
was clearly the more expedient and desirable in itself, unless it were
accompanied by some imminent danger. He called upon the house to turn
the materials of discord into strength, and to imitate the skilful and
benevolent physician, who from deadly herbs extracted healing balms, and
made that the means of health which others, less able, or less good,
used for the purposes of destruction.

Of all declaimers against the bill, Sir Charles Wetherell, the
attorney-general, was the most violent. He had refused to draw up this
bill in his official capacity; but he still remained in office, under a
minister who was understood to have made implicit submission to his
word of command the tenure by which office was to be held. Knowing
that nothing but the difficulty of supplying his place prevented his
discharge, he delivered a speech of defiance to his colleagues in
office, which produced a great impression in the house and throughout
the country. In explaining his objection to frame this bill, he
said,—“When my attention was drawn to the framing of this bill, I
felt it my duty to look over the oath taken by the lord chancellor,
as well as that taken by the attorney-general; and it was my judgment,
right or wrong, that, when desired to frame this bill, I was called to
draw a bill subversive of the Protestant church, which his majesty
was bound by his coronation-oath to support. If his majesty chose to
dispense with the obligations of the coronation-oath, he might do so;
but I would do no act to put him in jeopardy. These are the grounds on
which I refused, and would refuse a hundred times over, to put one line
to paper of what constitutes the atrocious bill now before the house.
Hundreds of those who now listen to me must remember the able,
valuable, and impressive speech delivered two years ago by the present
lord-chancellor, then master of the rolls, and a member of this house.
It will also be in the recollection of hundreds that that eminent
individual, than whom none is more acute in reasoning, more classical
in language, and more powerful in delivery, quarrelled with the late
Mr. Canning on this very subject. Am I then to blame for refusing to
do that, in the subordinate office of attorney-general, which a more
eminent adviser of the crown, only two years ago, declared he would not
consent to do? Am I, then, to be twitted, taunted, and attacked? I
dare them to attack me. I have no speech to eat up. I have no apostasy
disgracefully to explain. I have no paltry subterfuge to resort to. I
have not to say that a thing is black one day and white another. I have
not been in one year a Protestant master of the rolls, and in the next
a Catholic lord-chancellor. I would rather remain as I am, the
humble member for Plympton, than be guilty of such apostasy;
such contradiction; such unexplainable conversion; such miserable,
contemptible, apostasy.” As for the bill itself, Sir Charles stated,
that when it was dissected and anatomized, it destroyed itself. It
admitted the danger, and yet provided no security for Protestants. He
would not have condescended to stultify himself by the composition of
such a bill. The folly and contradictions be upon the heads of those who
drew it. They might have turned him out of office; but he would not be
made such a dirty tool as to draw that bill. “Let who would, he would
not defile pen, or waste paper, by such an act of folly, and forfeit
his character for common sense and honesty.”

This attack of the attorney-general called up Mr. Peel, who closed the
debate. After complaining of the violence of his colleague, he reverted
to the grounds on which he had first proposed the bill; again urging
the state of Ireland, and the absolute necessity of doing something; the
inability of his opponents to do anything better, though they vehemently
opposed the measure now offered; the impossibility of any government
standing which should set itself on avowed principles against
concession; and the folly of treating the question as one which had any
connexion with religion. The Catholics were never excluded at any time
because of their religious creed; they were excluded for a supposed
deficiency of civil worth, and the religious test was applied to
them, not to detect the worship of saints, or any other tenet of their
religion, but as a test to discover whether they were Roman Catholics.
It was a test to discover the bad, intriguing subject, not the
religionist; and, therefore, when he parted with the declaration against
transubstantiation, it was not from any doubt which he entertained as to
the doctrines of the Roman Catholics, but from looking at it as a test
of exclusion, and from thinking that, when the exclusion was deemed
unnecessary, the test of exclusion, might be dispensed with. Mr. Peel
complained grievously that an unfair application had been made of his
unhappy phrase, that the proposed measure would be “a breaking in upon
the constitution of 1688.” He meant no more, he said, than that there
would be an alteration in the words of the Bill of Rights: and if an
alteration of its words were a breaking in upon the constitution, then
had the constitution been often broken in upon. He called upon the
house to consider the altered position of affairs in Ireland since the
annunciation of this measure had been made; and warned it that if the
bill was rejected, it would be attended with consequences fatal to the
repose of the empire. He added, “I am well aware that the fate of this
measure cannot now be altered: if it succeed, the credit will redound
to others; if it fail, the responsibility will devolve upon me, and upon
those with whom I have acted. These chances, with the loss of private
friendship, and the alienation of public confidence, I must have
foreseen and calculated before I ventured to recommend these measures. I
assure the house that, in conducting them, I have met with the severest
blow which it has ever been my lot to experience in my life; but I am
convinced that the time will come, though I may not live perhaps to see
it, when full justice will be done by men of all parties to the motives
on which I have acted; when this question will be fully settled, and
when others will see that I had no other alternative than to act as I
have acted. They will then admit that the course which I have followed,
and which I am still prepared to follow, whatever imputation it may
expose me to, is the only course which is necessary for the diminution
of the undue, illegitimate, and dangerous power of the Roman
Catholics, and for the maintenance and security of the Protestant
religion.”

The result of the division on this great question was three hundred
and fifty-three for the second reading of the bill, and one hundred and
eighty against it. The success of the bill in the commons was therefore
certain; and it passed the committee in three days. During its progress
in the committee several amendments were moved by the opponents of
the bill, but they were all rejected; and on the 31st of March it was
carried up to the lords by Mr. Peel, with an unusually large escort
of members. It was immediately read a first time; and the Duke of
Wellington then moved that it should be read a second time on the 2nd
of April. This motion was opposed by Lord Bexley and the Earl of
Malmesbury, as too precipitate, urging that on all former occasions
a longer time had been allowed for consideration, and that breathless
haste was the conduct of men called upon to decide as another dictated,
rather than of legislators called to deliberate on a grave matter of
public policy. Lord Holland, however, justified the motion, by referring
to the haste with which the statutes about to be repealed had been
originally passed: and it was carried without a division.

On the appointed day the Duke of Wellington moved the second reading of
the bill, by stating that he trusted the house would believe that the
course which he had now adopted on this question had not been adopted
without the fullest conviction that it was a sound and a just one. His
grace then went on to show the state of Ireland as it had existed for
many years, describing it as bordering upon civil war, and attended
by all the evils of civil war, adducing this state of things in
justification of the measure. He conceived it his duty, he said, to
correct the evil by other means than force. “I am one of those,”
 said his grace, “who have been engaged in war beyond most men, and,
unfortunately, principally in civil war; and I must say this, that, at
any sacrifice whatever, I would avoid every approach to civil war.
I would do all I could, even sacrifice my life, to prevent such a
catastrophe.

“Nothing could be so disastrous to the country; nothing so destructive
to it prosperity as civil war; nothing could take place that tended so
completely to demoralize and degrade as such a conflict, in which
the hand of neighbour is raised against neighbour; that of the father
against the son, and of the son against the father; of the brother
against the brother; of the servant against his master: a conflict
which must end in confusion and destruction. If civil war be so bad when
occasioned by resistance to government; if such a collision is to be
avoided by all means possible, how much more necessary is it to avoid
a civil war, in which, in order to put down one portion, it would be
necessary to arm and excite the other? I am quite sure that there is no
man that now hears me who would not shudder were such a proposition made
to him; yet such must have been the result had we attempted to terminate
the state of things to which I have referred otherwise than by a measure
of conciliation. In this view, then, merely, I think we are justified
in the measure we have proposed to parliament.” On the other hand, his
grace asked, what benefit could arise to any one class in the state from
pertinaciously persisting in an opposition which had already produced
bad consequences, and threatened worse? One of the chief obstacles to
the measure, he continued, was the safety of the Protestant church. Now
that part of the united church of England and Ireland which was placed
in the latter kingdom, was in the peculiar situation of being the
church of the minority of the people; and if violence against it were
apprehended, he would ask whether that church was more likely to be
defended against violence by an unanimous government, and a parliament
united with government and with itself, or by a divided government, and
a parliament of which the parts were opposed to each other? No man could
look with patience and attention at the present state of this question
without being convinced that the real interests of all classes in this
country, and particularly the church itself, required the consideration
and settlement now proposed. This settlement would give security to
the church, strength to every department of the government, and general
tranquillity to the country at large. In conclusion, his grace said,
“On the whole I entertain no doubt that, after this measure shall have
passed, the Roman Catholics will cease to exist as a separate interest
in the state as they at present do. I have no doubt that they will cease
to excite disunion in this or the other house of parliament. Parliament
will then, I hope, be disposed to look at their conduct, and everything
as respects that country, as they would look upon the people and the
affairs of England and Scotland. I will say, however, that, if I am
disappointed in my hopes of tranquillity after a trial has been given
to the measure, I shall have no scruple in coming down to parliament and
laying before it the state of the case, and calling for the necessary
powers to enable the government to take the steps suited to the
occasion. I shall do this in the same confidence that parliament will
support me, that I feel in the present case.”

In reply, the Archbishop of Canterbury moved an amendment, that the bill
should be read a second time that day six months. He was surprised,
he said, that any man remembering the conduct of the Catholics at all
times, and who knew, as every one must know, that even what was now
proposed fell short of their ultimate objects, should attempt to justify
a measure, on the ground that it would bring peace to Ireland. When he
considered the use which had been made of the concession of the elective
franchise, to produce consequences which, it was said, had rendered the
present measure necessary; he could see no return of gratitude in the
conduct of the Roman Catholics. When, too, he considered the liberality
of the public, which had established a college for educating the Roman
Catholic youth; when he looked at the liberality of parliament granting
supplies for its support; when he saw those very men who had been bred
up at the public expense becoming members of an Association which had
existed in contempt of the government, and in defiance of the laws,
lending themselves to the exaction of a tax levied on the people, and
converting their places of worship into meetings for factious purposes;
when he looked at all these circumstances, he saw little hope that the
measure proposed would produce either tranquillity in Ireland, or safety
to the church. To him it appeared irreconcilable with the Protestant
essence of the constitution. It mattered not what circumstances produced
the laws about to be repealed; they had been adopted, and re-established
at the Revolution, as a necessary security for the constitution. By the
coronation-oath, as then arranged, the king swore to maintain the
true profession of the gospel, and the Protestant reformed religion
established by law. How, he asked, was the king to do this? By attending
churches in person? No! The king could only act by responsible advisers;
and, therefore, when such a clause was inserted in the oath, it was
presumed that the king would always have proper servants about him, who
would enable him to discharge the obligations imposed upon him by the
oath. Suppose the king to be surrounded by ministers who were all Roman
Catholics; if so, it was clear he could do nothing towards fulfilling
those obligations, for whatever measures he might contemplate for that
purpose, there would be no one to carry them into effect. No adviser or
minister of the crown, who could not enter into the views of the king
for the maintenance of the true profession of the gospel and of the
Protestant reformed religion, could assist the king to fulfil those
obligations which were imposed upon him by the coronation-oath. His
grace then went on to show the vital importance of having ministers
in every department of the state well affected towards the Protestant
religion. For instance, the secretary of the colonies, he said, had
absolute power in respect to the church; church patronage was at his
disposal, and the clergy were under his control. In dissensions, also,
among the clergy, and for the protection of their interests, he was the
person appealed to; and if there was not a strong Protestant spirit
in the secretary, it would be in his power to discourage to the most
alarming degree, and even almost to extinguish, the church of England
in many of the colonies. Under all these circumstances, therefore, his
grace concluded by moving, as an amendment, that the bill should be read
a second time that day six months.

The debate in the lords continued four successive nights by adjournment.
The spiritual lords who spoke, in addition to the mover of the
amendment, were the Archbishops of York and Armagh, the Bishops of
London, Salisbury, Durham, and Oxford. All of these opposed the bill,
except the last, who contended that concession was called for, not
merely by the situation of Ireland, but by the turn which talent and
education had taken in this kingdom with reference to the question.
Those peers, said his lordship, who opposed concession, were men
advanced in years; but the individuals who were rising in the natural
progress of things to fill the high offices of the state, were, with
scarcely an exception, in favour of this measure. But independently
of the fact that the talent, intelligence, and education of the country
were marshalled in favour of concession, there were abundant reasons
why he should vote for the measure. He would vote for it because it came
recommended by his majesty’s speech from the throne; seconded by the
declaration of the heir presumptive to the crown; supported by all
the members of the royal family, except the Duke of Cumberland; carried
through the other house by an overwhelming majority; supported by many
members of the house of lords; supported, too, for many years by that
great and eloquent statesman whom Providence had recently snatched away
from the service of his country; and specially brought forward by those
ministers who had hitherto been champions of the Protestant interest.
These were extraordinary circumstances which had never been combined
before; and he thought that a bill introduced in these circumstances
would in a few years produce a different state of things in Ireland. As
to the safety of the church of England he had no doubt, since the people
of England possessed the most hostile feelings towards all the doctrines
of Popery. The Irish church was certainly, he said, placed in an
anomalous situation, and he had no wish to depreciate the dangers to
which she was exposed; but instead of being increased by the measure
before the house, they would be diminished by it. On the other hand,
the Archbishop of Armagh argued, that the Irish church had everything to
fear from Catholic emancipation. If the house, indeed, could subdue the
intolerant spirit of the church of Rome, disarm the priests of their
influence over the people, and withdraw the people from their allegiance
to the see of Rome, making them citizens of their own country, and
letting them take their stand among other dissenters, all might be well.
But would any man, he asked, say that they could make the church of Rome
tolerant, or persuade the priesthood of that church to hold an inferior
rank to a clergy, the validity of whose orders they denied, and whose
church they reviled as adulterous? Could any one suppose that the Roman
Catholic priests would quit their hold upon the consciences, wills,
and the passions of men, when their spiritual despotism was the most
powerful engine for their own aggrandisement? The Roman Catholic
priesthood must ever stand alone. It had set the indelible mark of
separation on its own forehead, by its unnatural, though politic,
restrictions, by its claim to exclusive pre-eminence, and by its
dangerous and unconstitutional connexion with a foreign state.
Ascendancy, he contended, would be placed within the reach of the Roman
Catholics by this bill; and could any one believe that they would not
attempt to seize upon that ascendancy when it was well known that the
promotion of the interests of their church was with them a point of
principle and of honour, which they considered as far superior to
the claims of country or kindred. The confederacy of the priesthood,
actuated by a hatred of whatever was Protestant, would leave no
means untried to exalt their church at the expense of the Protestant
establishment, and especially when they found that those who ought to
support that establishment were divided into parties. Such must be their
objects and their wishes; and the bill would furnish them with both. The
bishops of London and Durham expressed the same sentiments regarding
the inevitable danger to the Protestant establishments, which must
necessarily spring from what was neither less nor more than a deliberate
arming of the Catholics with the power required to effect objects
which the Catholics themselves bad the caution carefully to conceal
or disguise. They also denounced the folly of legislating upon the
principle that men would lay down their mischievous designs whenever
they obtained the means of putting them in execution. The enemies of
Protestantism knew better; and it was remarkable, the Bishop of Durham
observed, how strange a combination of persons hailed the dawn of the
new policy. It had united in its favour the acclamations of Catholics
and of all classes of liberals, down to the lowest grade of Socinians.
When men, he added, whose opinions led them to keep down the ascendancy
of any church, and others whose conscience bound them to labour against
the ascendancy of the Protestant church, so acted, he could not help
thinking that the consequences of the measure would be anything but
friendly to that ascendancy.

Of the temporal peers the defence of the bill was principally undertaken
by the lord-chancellor, the Marquis of Lansdowne, Viscount God
erich, the Earl of Westmoreland, Earl Grey, and Lord Plunkett. The
lord-chancellor had a difficult task to perform. He was among those
who up to this period had earnestly refuted all the pleas of concession
which were now brought forward, and he had now to confute all these
refutations. As late as last year he had declared his conviction, that
emancipation, though accompanied by weighty securities, was pregnant
with danger to the constitution and establishment; and he now declared
his equally conscientious conviction, that emancipation, without any
securities at all, would be conducive to the safety and prosperity of
that constitution and establishment. This change of opinion might be
fair and honest; but, unfortunately, Lord Lyndhurst denied the change
which had taken place in his mind on this subject. He said that he had
always held that if concession could be granted consistently with the
security of the Protestant established church, and the great interests
of the empire, it was the duty of parliament to give it. This was a
bold assertion, and one which the public generally was not disposed to
believe, since they knew that he had opposed concession with all the
force of his learning and eloquence. The world might be wrong in saying
that Lord Lyndhurst adopted his new creed by compulsion; but it was
undoubtedly right in saying that it was a new creed. Having, however,
defended his consistency in the best manner he could, or as he thought
most proper, Lord Lyndhurst passed on to the merits of the measure.
Ireland, he contended, had for years been growing worse and worse; and
it was necessary, to effect a better state of things, that recourse
should be had to conciliation. As to the dangers to be apprehended from
concession, Lord Lyndhurst said he was now convinced that they were
merely imaginary. And even if there were some danger, it seemed to him
that the danger to be dreaded from the discontent of five millions of
subjects, if their prayer were rejected, was infinitely the greatest
and the worst. But he, for one, entertained no apprehensions that if
the professors of the Roman Catholic religion should be introduced into
parliament, they would exercise their influence to overthrow or injure
the Protestant established church; and he entertained no apprehensions
whatever, that in the discussion of those questions which concerned the
church, her interests would be sacrificed. Looking at this measure both
on a political and a religious principle, he was sure that it would
put an end to the contentions and animosities which had prevailed,
particularly in Ireland, and that it would operate to the advantage
of the Protestant church and the Protestant religion. The Marquis of
Anglesea, who had recently been recalled from his government of Ireland
because he held out hopes of Catholic emancipation, also entered
the ministerial phalanx which combated for that measure. He insisted
principally on the military points of view in which the question ought
to be considered. Every man, he said, acquainted with the state of
Ireland would agree with him, that in a time of profound peace, under
the exclusive laws, 25,000 men was but a scanty garrison for Ireland.
In the event of war, or even of the rumour of war, that would be an
improvident government which did not immediately add a force of 15,000
men to the previous military force. It could not be a question that
both France and America wished to do us injury; and in the case of any
collision with either of these powers, the first object of both would
be to throw arms to a great extent into the hands of the discontented
Irish. “I am arguing,” he continued, “be it observed, upon the
supposition that the exclusive laws are in existence: for if they were
not, the arms would not be received, or, if received, would be turned
against the donors. But suppose that we are absolutely at war, and
that there is a combination of the powers of Europe (no very unlikely
contingency) against us: I then say that it would be madness in any
administration, not to throw 70,000 men into Ireland. I should be sorry,
with all the power of steam to convey troops from the continent, and all
the advantages which modern science has recently introduced into the art
of war, to see Ireland with so scanty a garrison in time of war, under
the exclusive laws. But, on the other hand, suppose this bill to be
passed into law by this day month; declare war if you like the next
day; and I assert that you will have no difficulty, within six weeks,
to raise in that country 50,000 able-bodied, and what is better,
willing-hearted, men, who will traverse the continent, or find their
way to any quarter of the globe to which you may choose to direct their
arms. The passing of this bill is worth to the British empire more, far
more, and I do not wish to exaggerate, than 100,000 bayonets.”

The measure was strongly opposed by Lord Tenterden, the chief-justice
of England, the Duke of Richmond, and the Earls of Winchilsea, Harewood,
Mansfield, Falmouth, and Ermiskillen. Lord Tenterden declared against
it, because he knew it to be a violation of the constitution, and
because he believed that it threatened ruin to the Protestant church,
which he valued, not only for the purity of its doctrines, but because,
of all churches that ever existed, it was most favourable to civil
liberty. The other noble lords said that the Protestants had derived
consolation from the declaration of the Duke of Wellington, at the
opening of the session, that the measure would be found to be one which
would satisfy the Protestants, give security to their institutions, and
check the growth of Popery. The measure, however, was the reverse of
what had been promised, and justified the worst apprehensions of those
who loved the constitution. Instead of being calculated to satisfy the
Protestants, the Protestant opinion of the country had already been
unequivocally expressed against it. The expression of that opinion,
had become louder and more general since the details of the measure had
become known; and the rallying sound throughout the country now was,
“Protestant ascendancy.” The Protestants of Great Britain were called
on to bend before Irish rebels and seditious demagogues, and that too on
mere conjectural grounds of imagined expediency. It was said, “You are
to examine two dangers, and that the danger of disturbance was greater
than any that could flow from concession.” When the latter clanger,
however, was the sacrifice of the Protestant constitution, the
parliament which incurred it was inexcusable, whether their conduct
proceeded from dread of foreign attack, or of domestic dissension. It
was easy to understand how men who did not believe that Protestantism
formed an integral part of the constitution should pay for tranquillity
what must appear to them so low a price. His majesty’s ministers,
however, had always been of a different opinion. They had maintained
and avowed that a measure like this was pregnant with danger to the
constitution; and though their views of the expediency or inexpediency
of incurring that danger might have changed, the danger itself must be
the same. Nothing that had happened or was likely to happen could be
put in the balance against this violation of the constitution. Was the
British Protestant constitution a thing for which it was not worth while
to encounter danger? would we defend it with our lives against invaders
abroad, and yet sacrifice it to demagogues at home? The horrors of civil
war were threatened: be it so; was the constitution to be sacrificed,
whenever a number of unprincipled men threatened rebellion, if it was
maintained? But that apprehension was groundless. The noble mover of
this very measure had himself admitted that resistance was nowhere
offered; that the Catholics were too wary and cautious to offer it; and
that his troops found no occupation because they met with no enemy. Wise
and good men would endeavour to tranquillize Ireland; but they would not
give up, even for this object, the Protestant constitution of Ireland.
The Marquis of Salisbury who had moved the address at the opening of the
session, said that he had done so because he was prepared to change the
condition of the Catholics; but he had never imagined that securities
would not be provided, which securities he thought were to be found
only in connecting the Catholic priesthood with the state. By abandoning
securities their lordships would be signing the death-warrant of the
Protestant establishment of Ireland and if the Protestant establishment
of Ireland fell, that of England would shortly follow; and with
the downfall of the church a revolution would ensue. Lord Eldon, in
obedience to a general call made on him by the house, spoke at great
length, and with evident sincerity on this important question. He
commenced by stating that ministers who had introduced the bill, were
actuated by a sense of their duty, though he lamented their conduct. At
the same time he could not acquit the Duke of Wellington and Mr. Peel
of wilfully deceiving the people, and bringing them into a state of
apathy, by leading them into a persuasion that no measure of the kind
would be brought forward at least this session. On Lord Lyndhurst,
however, the ex-chancellor was more severe; that noble lord having
endeavoured to excuse his own frailty by fixing a similar charge of
inconsistency on Lord Eldon. As regards the measure itself, Lord Eldon
said that he must say, once for all, that he did not mean to rest
any part of his opposition to it on the terms of the coronation-oath;
neither would he contend that to alter any of the laws enacted at the
Revolution was beyond the competence of parliament. This, however,
(looking at the 13th, 25th, and 30th of Charles II., that the exclusion
from parliament produced by the last of those statutes,) was in
conformity with the true construction of the acts of 1688, and with the
act of union between England and Scotland in the reign of Queen Anne.
These he contended were meant to be the ruling and governing principles
of the constitution, until a strong necessity for altering it should
be made apparent. His lordship then went on to show the futility of
the securities demanded, and of the measure itself, as it regarded the
tranquillization of Ireland. The securities tendered, he said, were of
two kinds: first, those which belonged to the change as it might operate
upon the minds of the Roman Catholics; secondly, those which were
connected with the bill itself, and the other measure by which it
was attended. First, they had passed a law to put down the Catholic
Association; but although that was due to the dignity of Parliament,
as a security against the dangers which he apprehended, neither that
measure nor the precautionary clauses of the one then before the house
were, in his mind, anything else than a mere nullity. But it was said,
that only six or seven Roman Catholics could be admitted into that
house, and only some thirty or forty into the commons. I ask, said his
lordship, whether there is no other mode of obtaining seats in that
house but by the suffrage of freeholders? The bill itself is one to
which I feel the strongest objection. It provides in no shape for that
advice which may be given by the ministers of the crown, who may all but
one, be Roman Catholics. If there should be but one or two Protestant
ministers I cannot see how they can maintain their opinions; and perhaps
on the maintenance of their opinion might depend the maintenance of the
Protestant constitution. In conclusion, Lord Eldon said, that he should
have preferred that a proposition had been made by the noble duke for
going into a committee to examine the reasons for originating such a
bill, because it would have been but right that, in a matter of so
much importance, your lordships should have known something more of the
grounds of that expediency upon which you are called to legislate. Lord
Plunkett said that he had reserved himself for the purpose of hearing
the unanswerable arguments against the bill which Lord Eldon had
threatened to produce when the measure came fairly before the house. As
that noble and learned lord, however, had brought forth nothing but
the _ipse dixit_ of his own authority, unsustained either by ingenious
argument, by historical deduction, or by appeal to public and
authenticated documents, he felt himself so far absolved from the
necessity of refuting anticipated arguments, that he would apply his
observations more particularly to the position, that the bill was
calculated to subvert the Protestant constitution. In the course of his
remarks on this vital point of the question, his lordship observed, that
he had been asked whether this was a Protestant kingdom? and whether
this was not a Protestant government, and a Protestant parliament?
In one sense he admitted it was a Protestant kingdom, but it did not
exclude papists. He admitted, also, that the parliament was essentially
and predominantly Protestant; and in that sense, but in no other, the
parliament was Protestant. He concluded by saying that the present bill
did not give the Roman Catholics any benefit without an oath; an oath
too which combined in its language every possible security that such
a form could afford. Earl Grey spoke at great length, repeating the
argument that an exclusion of Catholics had not originally formed
any part of the Protestant government, since they had been found in
parliament from the reign of Elizabeth down to that of Charles II.;
that the exclusion was adopted to guard against political dangers of
a temporary nature, which had long disappeared; that it formed no
essential part of the Revolution settlement, or of the bill of rights;
and that the coronation oath was never intended to restrain the king
from consenting to such alterations as parliament in its wisdom might
enact. Earl Grey also entered at great length into that important part
of the question, which related to its bearing on the act of union with
Scotland. On every ground, he continued, the right to make the change
was clear; and, in his opinion, the justice and prudence of making
it were equally obvious. The great object of alarm seemed to be the
political power which the bill would confer, and which, it was said, was
the object at which the Catholics had all along been aiming. The bill
would certainly bestow political power; but, he argued, it was power of
the most legitimate kind, and that to which they were justly entitled.
As to the effect of the bill on the state of Ireland, he would not say
that it would at once give tranquillity, and remove all dangers; but
he felt sure that without it it was impossible to have tranquillity and
freedom from danger in that country. By the system of exclusion, lie
said, they had produced more than one rebellion in Ireland, which
had been extinguished in blood; but had they, he asked, induced
tranquillity? By no means. On the contrary, Ireland had been growing
worse and worse every year, requiring a larger military force to keep
the people obedient to the laws, and that in a time of peace. Was this
the mode of making that country a useful portion of the empire? Was it
the way in which we should be preparing for war? But, it was urged, if
you pass this bill, the church of Ireland is destroyed, and Catholic
ascendancy virtually proclaimed. That church, unfortunately, was placed
in a situation which could not be freed from dangers of one sort or
another. The great obstacle to its triumph had always been, that it had
never been the church of more than a small minority of the people of
Ireland; and that it was the church of so very small a minority, he
verily believed, was owing to those very laws which they now sought to
repeal. Take them away, and the number of its disciples would increase,
not from the spirit of conversion..... for any open attempt in that
way would be impolitic—but from its superior reason, and from its more
wholesome tenets, which would come more fairly into play as soon as it
should be relieved from the invidious situation in which it at present
stood. Take away the false protection, of exclusive laws, and superior
excellence would prevail in the conflict of argument. The debate was
closed by the Duke of Wellington, who treated the apprehended danger to
the Irish church as futile, considering that the throne would be filled
by a Protestant, and that the fundamental article of the union between
the two countries was the union of the two churches. Adverting to the
charge of inconsistency brought against himself and his colleagues,
his grace remarked:—“A different topic to which I wish to advert, is
a charge brought against several of my colleagues, and also against
myself, by the noble earl on the cross-bench, of a want of consistency
in our conduct. My lords, I admit that many of my colleagues, as well
as myself, did on former occasions vote against a measure of a similar
description to this; and, my lords, I must say that my colleagues and
myself felt, when we adopted this measure, that we should be sacrificing
ourselves and our popularity to that which we feel to be our duty to our
sovereign and our country. We knew very well that if we put ourselves
at the head of the Protestant cry of ‘No Popery,’ we should be much more
popular even than those who have excited against us that very cry. But
we felt that in so doing we should have left on the interests of the
country a burden, which must end in bearing them down; and further, that
we should have deserved the hate and execration of our countrymen. Then
I am accused, and by a noble and learned friend of mine, of having acted
with great secrecy respecting this measure. Now I beg to tell him that
he has done that to me, in the course of the discussion., which he
complains of others having done to him; in other words, he has, in the
language of a right honourable friend of his and mine, thrown a large
paving-stone instead of throwing a small pebble. I say, that if he
accuses me of acting with secrecy on this question, he does not deal
with me altogether fairly. He knows as well as I do how the cabinet was
constructed on this question; and I ask him, had I any right to say a
single word to any man whatsoever upon this measure, until the person
most interested in the kingdom upon it had given his consent to my
speaking out? Before he accused me of secrecy, and of improper secrecy,
too, he ought to have known the precise day upon which I received the
permission of the highest personage in the country, and had leave to
open my mouth upon this measure. There is another point also on which a
noble earl accused me of misconduct; and that is, that I did not at once
dissolve the parliament. Now I must say that I think noble lords are
mistaken in the notion of the benefits which they think that they would
derive from a dissolution of parliament at this crisis. I believe that
many of them are not aware of the consequences of a dissolution of
parliament at any time. But when I know, as I did know, and as I do
know, the state of the elective franchise in Ireland, when I recollected
the number of men it took to watch one election which took place in
Ireland in the course of last summer; when I knew the consequences which
a dissolution would produce on the return to the house of commons,
to say nothing of the risks which must have been incurred at each
election—of collisions that might have led to something short of civil
war—I say that, knowing all these things, I should have been wanting in
duty to my sovereign and to my country if I had advised his majesty to
dissolve his parliament.” On a division the same house of peers which in
1828 had declared, by a majority of forty-five, that emancipation
would be a breach of the constitution, and dangerous to the Protestant
establishment, now declared, by a majority of two hundred and seventeen
against one hundred and twelve, it was consistent with the constitution;
and that, if it did no good, it would not do any harm to the Protestant
church.

On the 7th and 8th of April the bill passed through a committee, in
which, as in the commons, many amendments were moved, but none carried.
It was read a third time on the 10th of April, after another debate, in
which the former arguments were repeated on both sides of the question;
and on the 13th of the same month it received its final confirmation in
the royal assent. The working of that measure will be best seen in the
future pages of this history; but it may be here observed, that it has
proved neither an immediate, nor a sufficient cure for the disorders of
Ireland. Protestant ascendancy was too deeply and extensively rooted in
all its institutions to admit of such a remedy; nor was it likely that
the Roman Catholics, having acquired means to break their chain, would
remain long without trying their efficiency. Agitation had procured this
boon; and the Roman Catholics, thus successful, have sought to obtain
other benefits by the same unhallowed means. Agitation is, in fact,
still the bane of Ireland.




BILL FOR THE DISFRANCHISEMENT OF THE FORTY-SHILLING FREEHOLDERS.

{GEORGE IV. 1829—1830}

Emancipation having thus been gained, Mr. Peel brought in a bill for
the disfranchisement of the Irish forty-shilling freeholders, and for
raising the qualification to ten pounds. This was part and parcel of the
general measure, and it met with no serious opposition even in Ireland.
The very Whigs supported it, hostile as it was to popular rights and
destructive of vested political franchises, as an essential part of a
whole; the other and better part of which they were unwilling to
lose. Mr. Brougham said, he consented to it as the price, the almost
extravagant price, of the inestimable good which would result from
emancipation; and it was described by Sir James Mackintosh as one of
those tough morsels which he had scarcely been able to swallow. It was
opposed by Mr. Huskisson and others as a measure uncalled for by any
necessity, and not fitted to gain that object which alone was held out
as justifying it. It was absurd, it was said, to allege as a pretext for
it, the influence and conduct of the Catholic priesthood; for all who
knew anything of that influence, knew that it was chiefly felt when it
ran with the current of popular feeling; and that it was even exercised
with a view to maintain submission to the laws. If the forty-shilling
freeholders had been corrupt, like those of Penryn, their
disfranchisement might be defended; but the only offence of the persons
against whom this bill was directed, had been that they exercised their
privilege honestly and independently, according to the dictates of their
own consciences. In reply to this, Mr. Peel mentioned an instance of the
power of the priests as having occurred at the Clare election. At the
commencement of that election a landlord of the county had promised his
interest to Mr. V. Fitzgerald. The landlord had a voter on his estate
who was under great personal obligations to him; and previous to the
commencement of the contest, he said to this voter, “I shall vote for
Mr. Fitzgerald; I suppose you mean to do the same.” The man declared his
determination to imitate the example of his patron; but as the struggle
drew nearer, a degree of excitement was produced to which it was only
necessary to allude: and the freeholder did not escape its effects. He
came to his landlord with sixty pounds in his hands, and addressed him
thus:—“I have saved this sum while your tenant, and upon your property.
I cannot redeem the promise which I gave you. There, take the sixty
pounds, make use of it to promote the interests of Mr. Fitzgerald; but
my vote I must give to Mr. O’Connell.” “Could anything,” he asked, “be
so painful as the situation of him who was obliged to perform such a
part, to observe such a doubtful contest between his religion and his
conscience?” On a division only seventeen members voted against the
bill; and it passed into a law. Mr. O’Connell had publicly bound himself
to reject even emancipation if accompanied by such a condition, and to
perish in the field, or on the scaffold, if necessary, in defence of his
“forties;” but he forgot his vows, and became silent and acquiescent.




THE CASE OF MR. O’CONNELL.

At the time of the Clare election Mr. O’Connell had assured the people
that he was entitled to sit in parliament without taking the oaths,
which no Catholic could take. He had staked his professional reputation
on this point, and had given assurances that he held other learned
opinions to the same purport. His return had subsequently been
petitioned against; but a committee to whom the petition had been
referred, had reported that he was duly elected. Now, according to the
old law, under which Mr. O’Connell’s claim had arisen—he having been
elected before the measure of emancipation had passed—if a person known
and believed to be a Catholic could take certain oaths, which oaths
involved an abjuration of Popery, he was entitled to take his seat. The
new act, however, did not seem to forward his pretensions. The oath,
indeed, which it substituted for those that were abrogated, could be
taken by a Catholic as well as a Protestant; but that provision was
expressly limited to “any person professing the Roman Catholic religion,
after the commencement of this act, be returned as a member of the
house of commons.” Mr. O’Connell and his friends, however, held that
from the moment the bill received the royal assent, there was an end to
the power of administering the abrogated oaths, or demanding any of the
declarations which then stood repealed. On these grounds Mr. O’Connell
hoped to take his seat in parliament. He presented himself at the table
of the house on the 15th of May; and the clerk produced the oath which
had been repealed by the late act. A brief conversation took place;
and the clerk having communicated what took place to the speaker,
he addressed the house thus: “It is my duty to state, if I have been
correctly informed, that the course which the honourable member has
proposed to take, is a course which, until overruled by stronger
authority, I do not conceive it my duty to acquiesce in. I understand
that he proposes to take the oath prescribed to be taken by Roman
Catholics as it is to be found in an act of parliament recently passed.
As I read that act of parliament, it is my impression, and on my
impression it is my duty to act, that it involves two points relative to
the course to be pursued in taking seats in this house. The first point
is that of repealing the declaration against transubstantiation; the
other, that of appointing an oath to be taken by such members of this
house as profess the Roman Catholic creed; but with this condition, that
those members should be returned subsequently to the passing of the act.
Now the honourable member was returned, as the house is well aware, long
before the passing of this act. I have, therefore, only to refer to the
law affecting all the members of this house until the late act passed;
and, with the single exception of repeating the declaration against
transubstantiation, I have to state that the construction which has
been uniformly put on the law of the land, and which has been repeatedly
sanctioned and confirmed by act of parliament, is, that every member,
before taking his seat, shall take the oath of allegiance and supremacy
before the lord-steward, and the oath of abjuration at the table of this
house. This is the course which, by law, the dignity and the privileges
of this house require. I state this the rather because it is well known
that this house is open to an appeal by petition, or it may be brought
forward by any member in this house. In that case, the house will be
better able to judge, and to state its opinion of the propriety of the
conduct which it appeared to me to be my duty to pursue. I, therefore,
state to the honourable gentleman that he must withdraw.” Mr. O’Connell
having withdrawn, Mr. Brougham moved, that he should be called back, and
heard at the table in support of his claim to be admitted on taking
no other oath than that contained in the late act. Mr. W. Wynn was of
opinion that Mr. O’Connell was entitled to be heard at the bar of the
house, and that it made no difference whether he was heard there or at
the table, though it was his opinion it might be better to adhere to the
former course. Mr. Peel, however, thought there was a great distinction
between hearing the applicant at the table and at the bar; and that he
had no right to be heard at the former. The debate on this point was
adjourned to the 18th of April; on which day it was finally ordered, on
Mr. Peel’s motion, “that the member for Clare be heard at the bar, with
reference to his claim to sit and vote in the house of commons without
taking the oath of supremacy.” On his appearance at the bar, Mr.
O’Connell maintained that the Act of Union with Ireland entitled him to
sit without taking the oath of supremacy; and that the act lately
passed entitled him to sit without taking the declaration against
transubstantiation. He claimed, under the spirit and effect of the new
statute, to sit without taking the oath of supremacy; and he claimed
also, under its positive enactments, to sit without taking any other oath
than what was therein contained. There were many points in his arguments
very strongly put, and they were delivered with a temperance calculated
to conciliate the good will of the house. Even the lawyers, also, who
were opposed to Mr. O’Connell, confessed that there were doubts as
to the true meaning of the oath of supremacy; but the house,
notwithstanding, came to the resolution, that unless Mr. O’Connell took
that oath, he was not entitled to sit or vote in that house. A motion to
that effect, moved by the solicitor-general, was carried by a majority
of one hundred and ninety against one hundred and sixteen. Mr. O’Connell
was then called again to the bar, and the speaker having put the
question to him whether he would take the oath or not, he replied:—“I
see, in this oath, one assertion as to a matter of fact which I know
is not true, and see in it another assertion, as to a matter of opinion
which I believe is not true; I therefore refuse to take this oath.” A
new writ was now ordered for a new election, and Mr. O’Connell went back
to Ireland to be re-elected by his constituents. The decision had an
untoward effect upon his mind; for he now loaded ministers with the most
opprobrious epithets, as men who having been false to their own party
could never be true to any other. It caused him, indeed, to announce
his ulterior design to effect a repeal of the union by that system of
agitation which had already proved so successful. This purpose he has
deliberately followed up by the most inflammatory harangues, and various
other modes of popular excitement. From that day to this year, indeed,
his whole career has been one long course of agitation to effect the
repeal of the union; but whether he or any other agitator in Ireland
will ever be gratified by such an event demands a doubt.




FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

The chancellor of the exchequer opened the budget on the 8th of May.
From his statements it appeared that the revenue of the preceding year
so far exceeded his estimate as to leave a surplus of nearly £6,000,000
for the sinking-fund. For the present year, however, as the house
was anxious to abolish the absurd system of defraying the expense of
military and naval pensions, or the “dead weight” as it was called, by
postponing its burdens, he estimated the gross revenue at £51,347,000
and the expenditure at £48,333,593, by which means he left only a clear
sinking-fund of £3,000,000 for diminishing the public debt. The finance
committee had recommended that this sum should always be kept inviolate
for the purpose of reducing the national debt; and as the surplus
on which they could calculate was no greater, no part of it could be
applied to the reduction of the burthens of the country.




MOTION FOR PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

The last parliamentary result of the measures passed in regard to
Ireland was a motion for parliamentary reform. On the 2nd of June,
the Marquis of Blandford, one of the ultra-tories, moved a series
of resolutions, which went to declare that there existed a number of
boroughs the representation of which could be purchased, and others in
which the number of electors was so small as to render them liable to
the influence of bribery; and that such a system was disgraceful to the
character of the house of commons, destructive of the confidence which
the people should repose in it, and prejudicial to the best interests of
the country. The Marquis of Blandford supported his motion on the ground
that late events had shown how completely the representative body could
be separated from the feelings, the wishes, and the opinions of the
people. An imperious necessity had also been added to the already
existing propriety of putting down the borough-monger and his trade:
all the rights and liberties of the country were in jeopardy, so long
as majorities were to be obtained by a traffic of seats and services.
“After what had happened,” said his lordship, “the country demanded some
statutory provision to secure its agriculture, its manufactures, and its
trade; but more especially to secure Protestant interests against the
influx and increase of the Roman Catholic party, one mode of securing
this, and at the same time of purifying the representation, would be
to abolish the borough market, which had now been thrown open to
Catholics.” This motion, which was intended to be rather in the nature
of a notice, than made with any design of having the topics which it
embraced fully discussed, was supported by some of the old reformers,
though on different grounds from that dislike of free trade, and
apprehension of Catholic influence which animated the mover. Mr. W.
Smith, in voting for the resolutions, expressed his high satisfaction
that the relief bill had produced an effect unanticipated—the
transforming a number of the highest tories in the land, into something
very like radical reformers. The resolutions, however, were rejected by
a majority of four hundred and one against one hundred and eighteen.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT, ETC.

Parliament was prorogued by commission on the 24th of June. The speech
regretted that war still continued in the east of Europe; announced that
his majesty had been enabled to renew his diplomatic relations with
the Ottoman Porte; and adverted to the unfortunate condition of the
Portuguese monarchy. In allusion to the Catholic relief bill, the speech
remarked: “His majesty has commanded us in conclusion to express the
sincere hope of his majesty that the important measures, which have been
adopted by parliament in the course of the present session may tend,
under the blessing of Divine Providence, to establish the tranquillity
and improve the condition of Ireland; and that by strengthening the
bonds of union between the several parts of this great empire, they
may consolidate and augment its power and promote the happiness of his
people.” About this time the legal arrangements rendered necessary
by the dismissal of Sir Charles Wetherell were completed: Sir James
Scarlett, who had filled the same office under Mr. Canning, became the
attorney-general of the Duke of Wellington; Sir Nicholas Tindal was made
chief-justice of the common pleas, Chief-Justice Best being removed
into the house of peers, under the title of Lord Wynford; and Mr. Sugden
succeeded the former as solicitor-general.




STATE OF AFFAIRS IN IRELAND.

The Catholic relief bill was impotent to stem the tide of agitation
in Ireland. That country, indeed, in the very year that it passed,
presented the same scenes of violence and outrage as before. While
the registation rendered necessary by the act which disfranchised
the forty-shilling freeholders was going on, Mr. O’Connell was taking
measures to secure his re-election for the county of Clare. In a letter
to the electors he again raised the standard of defiance to government.
It represented himself and his constituents, in fact, as the conquerors
of the government; and spoke of it as faithless and insulting. In it he
remarked: “The house of commons have deprived me of the right conferred
on me by the people of Clare. They have, in my opinion, unjustly and
illegally deprived me of that right; but from their decision there is no
appeal, save to the people. I appeal to you. In my person the county
of Clare has been insulted. The brand of degradation has been raised to
mark me, because the people of Clare fairly selected me. Will the
people of Clare endure this insult, now that they can firmly but
constitutionally efface it for ever? Electors of the county of Clare, to
you is due the glory of converting Peel and conquering Wellington!
The last election for Clare is admitted to have been the immediate
irresistible cause of producing the Catholic relief bill. You have
achieved the religious liberty of Ireland. Another such victory
in Clare, and we shall attain the political freedom of our beloved
country.” The victory which had been achieved, he said, was still
necessary to be maintained in order to “prevent Catholic rights and
liberties from being sapped and undermined by the insidious policy of
those men who, false to their own party, can never be true to us,
and who have yielded, not to reason, but to necessity, in granting us
freedom of conscience.” Even the Catholic relief bill itself did not
escape the censure of Mr. O’Connell. The prohibition contained in it
against the growth of the monastic orders especially was denounced by
him. He remarked:—“I trust I shall be the instrument of erasing from
the statute-book that paltry imitation of the worst and still existing
portion of Jacobinism, a miserable imitation, which pretends to do that
which nature and religion forbid to be done—to extinguish monastic
orders in Ireland. While it is law, its penalties will be submitted to;
but let me add as a matter of fact, that its mandate will most assuredly
not be obeyed. It was formerly death in Ireland to be a friar; and the
Irish earth is still scarcely dry from the blow of martyred friars: the
friars multiplied in the face of death. Oh for the sagacity of Peel,
and the awful wisdom of Wellington, that meditate to suppress monastic
orders in Ireland by a pecuniary penalty, and the dread of a foreign
mission, under the name of banishment!” In this letter Mr. O’Connell
made some magnificent promises to the electors of Clare and the people
of Ireland at large. He would obtain the repeal of the disfranchisement
act, of the subletting act, and of the vestry bill; would assail the
system of “grand jury jobbing, and grand jury assessment;” would procure
an equitable distribution of church property between the poor on the one
hand, and the laborious portion of the Protestant clergy on the other;
would cleanse the Augean stables of the law, for which Herculean task
his professional habits gave him peculiar facilities; would procure for
every Catholic rector of a parish, a parochial house, and an adequate
glebe; would make manifest the monstrous injustice that had been done
to the Jesuits and the monastic orders; would wage war against the East
India charter; would strain every nerve in the cause of parliamentary
reform; and would provide a system of poor laws for Ireland that would
be agreeable even to those who had to pay their money for the support
of the poor. He added:—“If the gentry of Clare are desirous to have as
their representative a man who is able and most desirous to protect in
parliament their properties and permanent interests, let them do me the
honour to elect me. But let them not lay the flattering unction to their
souls, that they can, without an independent man of business as their
representative, postpone the introduction of the English system of poor
laws.” As soon as Mr. O’Connell took the field an “aggregate meeting”
 of Catholics, which was nothing else than a meeting of the Catholic
Association took place, to consider what steps should be adopted to
forward his re-election. The first thing done was to vote £5000 of the
rent as an aid to assist the agitator in standing for the county of
Clare, The election did not excite much interest, as Mr. O’Connell was
not opposed; but it was preceded and accompanied by “triumphant entries”
 as they were called; that is, assemblages of large crowds of people, to
whom were addressed harangues in which inflammatory abuse was mixed
up with low buffoonery. On the subject of the repeal of the union with
England, he said at Youghall:—“We have now a brighter era opened to us;
and I trust that all classes of my countrymen will join together, and,
by forming one general firm phalanx, achieve what is still wanting to
make Ireland what it ought to be. Ireland had her 1782, she shall have
another 1782. Let no man tell me it is useless to look for a repeal of
the odious union, that blot upon our national character. I revere
the union between England and Scotland; but the union which converted
Ireland into a province, which deprived Ireland of her parliament, it
is for the repeal of that measure we must now use all the constitutional
means in our power: that union which engenders absenteeism, and the
thousand other evils which naturally flow in its train. We are bound to
England by the golden link of the crown; and far be it from me to weaken
that connexion by my present observations: I want no disseveration;
but I want and must have a repeal of that cursed measure which deprived
Ireland of her senate, and thereby made her a dependent upon British
aristocracy and British interests. I may perhaps be told that to attempt
a repeal of the union would be chimerical. I pity the man who
requires an argument in support of the position that Ireland wants her
parliament; and that individual who pronounces the attainment of such a
consummation to be Utopian, is reminded of the Catholic question.
Look at the Catholic cause. Do I not remember when it was difficult to
procure a meeting of five Catholics to look for a restoration of our
then withheld rights? I recollect when we agitators were almost as much
execrated by our fellow-slaves, as we were by our oppressors. For the
attainment of the repeal of the union, I shall have the co-operation
of all classes and grades in society: the Orangemen of the north, the
Methodist of the south, and the quiet unpresuming Quaker, who may think
his gains shall be thereby augmented, all shall be joined in one common
cause, the restoration of Ireland’s parliament.” But this was a mild
attack upon England compared with other portions of the agitator’s
speeches. It is no wonder then that Ireland soon presented scenes of as
much violence as those from which the emancipation bill was to relieve
her for ever. The hostile feelings of parties continued, and manifested
themselves in the same way as heretofore. Catholics and Protestants
alike had recourse to organization, and the slightest accident, the most
casual collisions produced contention, and generally ended in bloodshed.
Thus on the 12th of July, which the Protestants had resolved to
celebrate, the Catholics determined to oppose their intention by force
wherever they could, and in the counties of Clare, Tipperary, Armagh,
Leitrim, Cavan, Fermanagh, and Monaghan, the aspect of open war was
assumed, and it was only prevented by the presence of the military.
Many lives were, indeed, sacrificed, and many thousands were driven from
their homes by the opposing parties. In several instances where
death had occurred from the interference of the police, or from their
resistance when attacked, trials ensued; but this only tended to
exasperate the Catholics still more. An acquittal, though proceeding
on the clearest evidence that life had been justly taken from an armed
aggressor, was uniformly ascribed to partiality. Imagining that the law
existed only to be used against them they took the task of retribution
for supposed injuries into their own hands, and assumed arms to gratify
revenge, in defiance of the law Judges, juries, and the government were
laughed at by Catholic criminals, for no witness dared to communicate
what he knew against them. At the close of this year, indeed, matters
had proceeded to such a length in Ireland, and especially in Tipperary,
that the magistrates expressed an opinion that nothing but a revival
of the insurrection act would secure the peace of the country. But
this could not be effected, for it had expired, and parliament was
not sitting. So Ireland was left to be rent asunder with the spirit of
faction. “State gipsies” were left to pick the pockets of the ignorant
as they pleased, or as they could gain control over those of the people,
by their artful and seditious harangues.




AGRICULTURAL AND COMMERCIAL DISTRESS.

{GEORGE IV. 1829—1830}

England, also, this year presented its scenes of lawlessness. This arose
from different causes to those which gave rise to the insurrection
in Ireland. These causes were the distress which prevailed among the
agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial classes. The depression in
every branch of trade experienced this year naturally gave rise to
a reduction of wages among the artisans. These artisans, however,
unreasonably ascribed this reduction, not to the necessities of trade,
but to the avarice of their employers; and they still more unreasonably
proceeded to their usual correctives—voluntary idleness, and the
destruction of property. The example was set by the silk-weavers
of Spitalfields and Bethnal-Green, who refused to work except at an
increased rate of wages, and made their way by night into the shops of
workmen possessed of materials belonging to the refractory masters, and
destroyed them. Overawed by the combination, the masters agreed
finally to pay the same wages that had been paid in 1824, although its
continuation would prove ruinous to them. Similar scenes were exhibited,
and the same results followed at Macclesfield, Nuneaton, and Bedworth.
Nor did the manufacturing districts of Yorkshire escape the contagion.
About the end of May the weavers of Barnsley, like the silk-weavers of
Bethnal-Green and Macclesfield, forced upon their employers a list
of prices. By August and September, however, the masters found it
impossible to keep to these prices; and when they proposed a reduction,
the workmen immediately left their work, and commenced a riot.
Warehouses were attacked, as were also the houses of such weavers as had
taken out work at reduced prices; and it was only by calling in the
aid of the military that tranquillity was restored. Yet lawless and
mischievous as these proceedings were, it was clear that they originated
from the misery of those engaged in them. A report, drawn up at
Huddersfield by a committee of masters, stated, “that within the several
townships engaged in fancy business, there were 13,000 individuals who
had not more than twopence halfpenny per day to live on; and out of this
they had to find wear and tear for looms.” This report added, “Whatever
be the cause of such distress, it is feared that the agonizing condition
of families so circumstanced cannot long be endured. The difficulty
of obtaining relief by the ordinary course, and the aggravating
circumstances often attending applications for it, have a powerful
tendency to drive the applicants ultimately to desperation. In laying
these painful statements before the members of his majesty’s government
and other influential gentlemen, the master manufacturers wish to do
it respectfully, impelled by a sense of duty which they owe to the
government and the public, and especially to their workmen, who have
hitherto borne their sufferings with extreme patience.” The distress
was aggravated by a bad harvest and a severe winter, all of which
contributed to bring the productive classes of the community, and
especially the lowest orders, into a state of abject misery.




FOREIGN POLITICS.

The foreign affairs requiring notice, as affecting Great Britain, were
principally those in the East. During this year Turkey was obliged to
sue to the Russian autocrat for peace; for both the Russian army and
navy were successful in all their operations. The terms granted were as
follows:—The Pruth was to constitute the European limit as before;
but Silistria was to be dismantled. An alteration was to be made in the
Asiatic boundaries, so that the whole eastern coast of the Black
Sea, from the Kuban to the harbour of St. Nicholas, together with the
fortresses of Anapa and Poti, should remain in possession of Russia. The
principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia were to be confirmed in their
rights; but the Hospodars were to be nominated only for life, and no
Turks allowed to dwell there. Free trade was to be allowed on the Black
Sea, and navigation through the straits for vessels belonging to Russia,
as well as all other countries at peace with the Porte. The sultan
was to defray the expenses of the war, and to accede to the treaties
concluded at London regarding the Greeks. The bases of the intended
negociations respecting Greece were finally arranged among the allies,
at a conference on the 22nd of March in the present year. The protocol
signed by them read as follows:—“1. The continental boundary line
of the Greek state is to be drawn from the gulf of Volo to the gulf
of Arsa. All countries south of this line to be included in the Greek
state, to which the adjacent islands, comprehending Euboea and the
Cyclades, are likewise to belong 2. An annual tribute of 1,500,000
Turkish piastres to be paid by this Greek state. Only a third part to
be paid during the first year, and to be gradually increased till it
reaches the maximum in the fourth. 3. Turkish subjects who may be forced
to depart from the Greek territory to be indemnified. 4. Greece is to
remain under the suzerainty of the Porte, which form of government is
to approach as nearly as possible to & monarchical form, and to be
hereditary in the family of a Christian prince, to be chosen for the
first time by the three powers, in concert with the Porte. He is not to
be a member of the families reigning in the states which are parties to
the treaty of July 6th.” Finally, the three powers, however, agreed to
restrict the territory of the new state within narrower limits than were
assumed in this protocol. The line adopted was further to the south.
It commenced on the east at Zeitouni, a little to the northward of
Thermopylae, and ran across the country in the direction of Vrachori,
till it reached the river Aspropotamos, or the ancient Achelous, whose
course it was then to follow as far as the sea. It thus excluded not
only Thessaly, but Acarnaniaand the town of Vonizza, which the Greeks
had taken early in the year, and an extensive tract of level country
lying round the gulf of Calarno. The whole western frontier of northern
Greece was left open by it to the attacks of its barbarian foes. And
this determination was made without the wishes of the Greeks being
consulted, or any communication made to the Greek government. The matter
was, in truth, decided at London without the intervention of either
Turkish or Greek minister; but the Porte and the Greek government were
alike compelled to agree to the articles drawn up by the three powers.

In the Netherlands the session of the States-general, during the present
year, was less tranquil and satisfactory than any that had been held
since the Restoration. The king himself continued popular; but his
government produced general dissatisfaction by some obnoxious measures;
especially by dismissing judges who were supposed to be too obstinate;
by partiality in official appointments; and by exercising severity
against the press when it criticised the policy of administration. When
the States-general met, the second chamber was immediately occupied in
discussing an immense number of petitions, recommending improvements
in the present system of government. Some ameliorations were made; but
government resisted the proposal that cases of alleged abuse of
the liberty of the press should be tried by a jury, and also the
introduction of grand juries, and the extension of jury trials to the
provincial courts and other criminal tribunals. On the other hand, a
numerous body in the chamber censured every measure of the government,
and resisted every project of its ministers; and the session ended with
an increase of that excitement and dissatisfaction which for some time
had been growing up in the public mind.

During this year, also, the government of France was embarrassed with
difficulties. A new ministry had been formed under the presidency of
Prince Polignac, all the members of which belonged to that section which
advocated irresponsible power in politics, and essential domination in
religion. Nothing could exceed the unpopularity of these appointments.
The press teemed with denouncements both of the men and their measures;
and prosecutions for its bold sentiments became the order of the day.
Prosecutions increased, from the fact that associations were formed to
resist the payment of taxes, in case ministers should attempt to rule
without a chamber. Finally, the cabinet itself became divided. One great
cause of its unpopularity was, that it contained Labourdonnaye, who had
signalized himself by recommending a terrific system of proscription,
and had, after the manner of Marius and Sylla at Rome, classified those
descriptions of people on whom he demanded vengeance. Labourdonnaye
retired towards the close of the year; but public opinion continued
against the administration as strong and unanimous as ever. At one time,
the organs of the cabinet threatened a dissolution of the chambers, and
at another, the ultra-journals preached the doctrine of ruling without
the chambers. The more accredited organs of the cabinet, indeed, did not
openly repeat such sentiments, but they were connected in the minds of
the people with that set of opinions which the cabinet represented. If
the one party, indeed, were led astray by assuming evil designs not in
existence, ministers were equally blind as to the character of their
antagonists. The year finally closed in mutual recriminations; ministers
keeping their places until the convocation of the legislature should
determine, whether the chambers were to decide the fate of the cabinet,
or the cabinet that of the chambers. One fact, however, was favourable
to the interests of France: namely, that its foreign relations remained
peaceful and unaltered.

In Portugal, Don Miguel this year unfolded to the world his true
character. Early in this year an unsuccessful attempt was made in Oporto
at insurrection in favour of Donna Maria, and the usurper made use of
this occurrence to multiply arrests in the capital. Every individual
whom any creature of government disliked, or any private enemy thought
proper to denounce by an anonymous accusation, was forthwith consigned
to the dungeons of the Limveiro, or of St. Julian. The actual
conspirators at Oporto were tried by commission, and several of them
were exiled, and the rest acquitted as persons against whom nothing was
proved. Miguel, however, was shocked at the lenity of the sentence, and
refused to ratify it; ordering at the same time a new sentence to
be framed, by which five prisoners condemned to perpetual exile were
directed to be hanged, and two who were to have been transported for
ten years, to transportation for life. In comparison with death, the
condition of the prisoners, with whom the jails and fortresses were
crowded to suffocation, was scarcely to be envied. Though all were
uncondemned, and most of them innocent, the whole were delivered over to
the merciless authority of apostolic miscreants, who seemed to find no
gratification but in the invention of new modes of inflicting misery.

Among the incarcerated were many persons in affluent circumstances,
who charitably contributed to support the poorer prisoners, whom their
tyrants were willing should perish by starvation. To deprive them of all
assistance, indeed, government ordered their benefactors to be removed
from the dungeons in the city, to those of St. Julian, Belem, and Bugio.
Here, without being brought to trial, the prisoners were cut off from
all communication, even with the members of their own families. Many
of them died of want and confinement, and the usurper was suspected of
poisoning others. No rank, sex, or character was respected; a child
of five years of age was kept in solitary confinement five days, and
subjected to the tortures of a prison to extort evidence against its
father and mother. A refugee Spanish bishop, who had been a member
of the Cortes of 1812, and had since lived in security at Lisbon,
was thrown into a dungeon, and died in four days, in consequence of
maltreatment, and his body was thrown into a hole in the esplanade of
the castle without burial. The most sanguinary scenes took place both at
Oporto and Lisbon. The rage of the tyrant was backed by the priests,
who in their sermons and publications applauded the work of death and
devastation as an acceptable offering to the Divine Majesty. One Jose
Agostino, a monk and court preacher, published a pamphlet called “The
Beast Flayed,” urging the necessity of multiplying sacrifices, and
recommending that the constitutionalists should be hanged up by the
feet, and the people joyfully treated with fresh meat from the
gallows. These sentiments only added fuel to the flames of Don Miguel’s
vengeance, and the kingdom was laid at the mercy of a set of men to
whose vengeance, brutality, and avarice there were no bounds. One step
downward in the path of moral turpitude ever leads to another. From
the moment of his return, Don Miguel had hated his sister Bonna Maria,
because she had been her brother’s regent, and had been faithful to the
constitution. Miguel learned that a footman formerly in the service of
his sister had set out for England, and he fancied that he had been sent
by Donna Maria with her money and jewels, in order to secure them from
his rapacity. It is probable, also, that he imagined the servant had
been sent to England for the purpose of making known the dreadful state
of the country; and enraged thereby, he rushed into her chamber with
a pistol in his hand, and demanded an account of the flight of her
servant. Donna Maria stood for a while trembling in silence, but as
Miguel was about to strike her with the pistol which was armed with a
bayonet, she threw herself upon him, and overturned him. Her chamberlain
now flew to her rescue. Miguel sprang up, and when on the point of
again attacking her, Count Camarido threw himself before him. The tyrant
disabled him by stabbing him in the arm, and fired at the princess;
and though the ball missed her, it killed a servant by her side. Other
domestics now interfered, and the life of Donna Maria was saved. She
was hurried away from his brutal fury. While scenes of outrage and
wrong were being committed daily throughout the whole of Portugal, the
necessities of the government increased, notwithstanding a forced issue
of paper money was made. Recourse was had to an expedition to reduce
Terceira, one of the Azores, the only spot in the dominions of Portugal
which remained true to its rightful monarch. This expedition set sail
about the middle of June, and the troops succeeded in effecting a
landing; but they were totally defeated by the islanders, under Villa
Flor, who had made his escape with the Marquis Palmella and nineteen
other general officers from the rage of Miguel. In the meantime the
tyrant’s interest was supported at Madrid by the great influence of his
mother over the family of Ferdinand, who, in fact, regarded Miguel
with peculiar complacency, because he had destroyed a constitutional
government. The other sovereigns of Europe however, still kept aloof
from any communication with the usurper. It was contended by the
Portuguese refugees, and the ministers of Don Pedro, that they ought
to drive Miguel from his throne by positive interference. These
applications were especially made to the British ministry; but though
Lord Aberdeen admitted to their fullest extent the obligations created
by the treaties existing between Britain and Portugal, he maintained
that they gave no countenance to any demand made for interference in an
internal revolution. He remarked: “It is assumed that the usurpation of
the throne of Portugal by the infant Don Miguel has given to her most
faithful majesty the right of demanding from this country effectual
succours for the recovery of her crown and kingdom. But in the whole
series of treaties there is no express stipulation which can warrant
this pretension, neither is such an obligation implied by their general
tenor and spirit. It is either for the purpose of resisting successful
rebellion, or of deciding by force a doubtful question of succession
that Great Britain is now called upon to act. But it is impossible to
imagine that any independent state could ever intend thus to commit the
control and direction of its internal affairs to the hands of another
power. For, doubtless, if his Britannic majesty be under the necessity
of furnishing effectual succours in the event of any internal revolt or
dissension in Portugal, it would become a duty, and, indeed, it would
be essential to take care that no such case should exist if it could be
prevented. Hence a constant and minute interference in the affairs of
Portugal would be indispensable; for his majesty could never consent
to hold his fleets and armies at the disposal of a king of Portugal,
without exercising those due precautions and that superintendence which
would assure him that his forces would not be employed in averting the
effects of misgovernment, folly, or caprice. Is this a condition in
which any state professing to be independent could endure to exist?
The truth is, that the whole spirit of the treaties, as well as their
history, shows that the principle of the guarantee given by England
is the protection of Portugal from foreign interference.” The British
government, therefore, refused to interfere in this domestic quarrel;
and it also considered itself bound to observe a strict neutrality in
regard to all military operations. A considerable number of Portuguese
exiles, resident on our southern coast, appeared to have some design
of fitting out an expedition against Don Miguel; and the British
government, holding such views as above unfolded, informed the Brazilian
minister that it would not allow such designs to be carried on in
British harbours, and that the refugees must remove further from the
coast. The Brazilian minister replied, that these troops were about to
be conveyed to Brazil; and accordingly four vessels, having on board
six hundred and fifty-two officers, with Count Saldanha at their head,
sailed from Plymouth. The British government, however, suspected that
the true design was to land those troops at Terceira; and notice
was given to them before they sailed that any such attempt would be
resisted. A small force, under the command of Captain Walpole, was
despatched to enforce the prohibition; his instructions being to cruise
off the island; to inform the Portuguese that he had authority to
prevent their landing; and if they made any effort to effect a landing,
to resist such an attempt by force, and to drive them away from that
neighbourhood. The suspicions of the government were in this instance
justified. The expedition of Count Saldanha appeared off Terceira on the
16th of January; and was discovered by Captain Walpole standing right
in for Port Praya. Two shots were fired for the purpose of bringing
them to; but without effect. The vessels then lay-to; and to a note
from Captain Walpole, inquiring what was their object in coming thither,
Saldanha answered, that his object in appearing there was to fulfil
the orders of her majesty the Queen of Portugal, which directed him
to conduct, unarmed, without any hostile appearance, to the isle of
Terceira, the men that were on board the four vessels in sight, which
island has never ceased to acknowledge Donna Maria II. as its legitimate
sovereign. He added:—“As a faithful subject and soldier, I think it
unnecessary to assure you that I am determined to fulfil my duty at all
peril.” Captain Walpole replied, that he had instructions to obey,
and an imperious duty to perform; that both of them prevented him
from allowing the count, or any part of his force, to land either at
Terceira, or on any part of the western islands of the Azores, or
even to continue in that neighbourhood. To this communication Saldanha
replied, that he considered himself and his men, in such circumstances,
Captain Walpole’s prisoners; that they would follow his vessels
where-ever he chose to take them; but must have a written order to that
effect, and be supplied with water and provisions; if he had not this
written order, he said, he would pursue his course, and endeavour at all
risks to fulfil his instructions. Captain Walpole’s reply still was, “Go
where you choose, but don’t stay here; if you persist in hovering about
these islands, it is my duty and firm determination to carry those
measures you are already in possession of into full effect.” After this
angry correspondence the Portuguese finally sailed away; and the British
commander having watched them until they arrived within five hundred
miles of Sicily, returned to his station at Terceira. Count Saldanha and
his squadron instead of returning to England, proceeded to Brest. This
occurrence excited much notice in Europe, and it was brought under
discussion in the British parliament. It was represented by the
opposition as a direct act of hostility in favour of the usurper,
against the acknowledged Queen of Portugal, then residing in England;
and as an armed interference in favour of Miguel at the very moment
when it was pretended that the duties of neutrality did not admit of
interference. It was asked, if not bound by treaties to assist the queen
in recovering her crown, whence arose our right to prevent her, by means
of her own subjects, from making the attempt? Why, when recognizing her
right, refusing to admit the title of Miguel, and pretending to maintain
a strict neutrality, had we interfered by force against a lawful
sovereign? And what could excuse the barbarous injustice of telling the
lawful monarch that, in so far as we were concerned, she must work out
her own restoration by her own strength; and then, when she puts forth
her strength; telling her that we would not allow it to be employed? To
all this it was replied that the armament attacked had been fitted out
in a British port, an answer which decided the merits of the question;
for whether the observance of neutrality between two competitors for the
crown of Portugal was right or wrong, appeared in this case a matter of
indifference; as it had been decided on, no other course could justly
have been taken: and if Miguel’s armament had been fitted out in
a British port, it would have met with a similar interruption. If
ministers were to be attacked, indeed, the only vulnerable point was the
maintenance of a strict neutrality towards a tyrant who had voluntarily
sworn to our government that he would obey the laws and preserve the
constitution of their country. In the meantime negociations had been
going on between Don Pedro and the ministers of England and Austria to
effect some arrangement of affairs; and a deputation had been sent by
the Portuguese constitutionalists to point out how these affairs stood,
and to urge the necessity of adopting active measures. Don Pedro,
however, refused to accept propositions from foreign negociation which
involved any sacrifice of his daughter’s claims, while he assured the
Portuguese that he would maintain the rights of their queen without
entering into any compromise with the usurper of her throne. But
Pedro did not strengthen the hopes of his friends at this time by the
resolution which he admitted of recalling his daughter from England to
Brazil; and the British government itself remonstrated with him on the
impolicy of that step. Donna Maria’s return to Rio de Janeiro seemed to
convey the idea, indeed, that she had abandoned all pretensions to the
crown of Portugal, and had left Don Miguel undisputed master of the
field. But such was not in reality the case. Don Pedro had ulterior
objects in view by the recall of his daughter; and the Brazilian
minister made a public declaration, to the effect that Donna Maria’s
departure from Europe neither involved an abdication of the crown on the
part of her majesty, nor an indifference on the part of Don Pedro to his
daughter’s rights.

The history of Spain furnishes but few events of importance during the
present year. In the early part of it, Ferdinand lost his queen, and
towards the close he contracted a third marriage with a princess
of Naples. The marriage was celebrated at Madrid, to the great
dissatisfaction of the adherents of Ferdinand’s brother, Don Carlos.
During the year, conspiracies transpired in Catalonia. They were
supposed to have been excited by the Count d’Espagne for the sake of
private advantage, and they were followed by cruel executions. The rest
of the country remained tranquil; but its finances were in so dreadful
a state of exhaustion from a long continuance of misgovernment and
exclusion, that Cadiz was declared a free port, in the hope of restoring
foreign commerce to its ancient condition. At this time, however, the
Spanish government, which had been driven from the English money-market
by its faithless conduct respecting the Cortes’ bonds, ran the risk of
losing its credit with all the European states, by a discovery of its
fraud in a French loan.




CHAPTER XL.

{GEORGE IV. 1830—1831}

     State of Parties..... Meeting of Parliament..... Motion for
     a Committee of the whole House on the State of the
     Nation..... Reduction of the Salaries of Public Officers,
     &c. Motion for revising the whole System of
     Taxation..... Committee on the East  India Company’s
     Charter..... Debate on the Proposal to alter the
     Currency..... Financial Statements..... Bill for Repealing
     the  Duty on Beer, &c. The Question of Reform..... The
     Case of East Retford, &c. Mr. O’Connel’s Bill for
     Reform by Universal Suffrage and Vote by  Ballot, &c.
     Bill for Removing the civil Disabilities affecting the
     Jews..... Bill for Capital Punishment in Cases of
     Forgery..... Bill for Amending the Law of Libel, &c.
     Alterations in   Courts of Justice..... Illness of the
     King..... Bill to authorize the adhibiting of the Sign
     Manual by a Stamp..... Death of the King, and Accession of
     the Duke of Clarence, William IV...........




STATE OF PARTIES.

{A.D. 1830}

At the commencement of this year, government found itself in a new and
unsafe position. It had carried the great party question of Catholic
emancipation, but in so doing it had lost the confidence of a large body
of its most faithful adherents. Ministers had, it is true, on the other
hand, gained the seeming support of their old enemies of the opposition;
but this could not be depended upon. The Whigs were willing to lend
them such assistance as would prevent the necessity of seeking a
reconciliation with the offended Tories; but they were not willing
to concede even this, except as the means of gradually introducing
themselves into an equal share of power. They assented to a coalition in
parliament; but the price of this assent was coalition in office. In a
word, their policy was to aid the government with their countenance and
their votes, so far as it would be sufficient to keep it alive, but by
no means to give it the robustness and vigour of perfect health. On
the other hand, the Duke of Wellington was willing to use them as
supporters; but he was not disposed to extend to them an equal share
of power. It was his wish, indeed, to be reconciled to his old friends;
and, therefore, he stood aloof from a more intimate connexion with the
Whigs, that he might keep open the door of reconciliation to the
former. He flattered himself, that as each of the two divisions of his
adversaries would be unwilling to drive him for the preservation of the
ministry into the arms of the other, he might command the occasional
assistance of both, to an extent sufficient to enable him to govern
without placing himself in the power of either. But this was chimerical.
The Tories showed no inclination to trust men whom they considered as
their betrayers, and they resisted them as statesmen who had abused
their power, and coalesced with their political antagonists, to force
upon the country a measure contrary to its opinions, interests, and
institutions. They resisted them, also, as politicians who, to effect
their purpose had abandoned their tenets, betrayed and surprised their
own confiding adherents, and introduced as a principle into the conduct
of government, that everything was to be granted which was demanded by
clamorous agitation. Between the Tories and the Whigs, the distance was
not greater than between the Tories and the ministry; and perhaps it was
not even so great, as the Whigs had not betrayed their opponents. The
Duke of Wellington, indeed, seems to have had some fear that the two
parties might coalesce, in order to effect his expulsion from power.
Nor was this fear without foundation. Neither party was in heart his
friends; and his own conduct had at once furnished the motives to such
an union, and removed one irreconcileable point of difference between
the parties whose union he feared. Moreover, in itself the ministry
was without the means of making any commanding figure in the house of
commons. With the exception of Mr. Peel, who filled the post of leader
in that house, there was no man who could fight their battles of debate
with any degree of talent and vigour, no one that held any high place in
public opinion, either for oratory or information. Finally, the ministry
increased their unpopularity by prosecutions for libel arising out of
the Catholic relief bill. While that bill was pending, the press had
given birth to much vehement and angry discussion, and some of the
papers having gone beyond the bounds of allowable invective, the
attorney-general resolved to crush them by ex-officio informations.
But these prosecutions were received with an universal dislike by
all parties in the country; and the temper in which the Whig
attorney-general conducted them, gave a severe blow to his public
character, and increased the unpopularity of the government.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was opened by commission on the 4th of February. The royal
speech expressed satisfaction at the conclusion of war between Russia
and the Ottoman Porte, and alluded to the embarrassing affairs of
Portugal. Concerning the prevailing distress, it remarked:—“His majesty
laments that, notwithstanding an indication of active commerce, distress
should prevail among the agricultural and manufacturing classes in some
parts of the United Kingdom. It would be most gratifying to the paternal
feelings of his majesty to be enabled to propose for your consideration
measures calculated to remove the difficulties of any portion of
his subjects, and at the same time compatible with the general and
permanent interests of his people. It is from a deep solicitude for
those interests that his majesty is impressed with the necessity of
acting with extreme caution in reference to this important subject. His
majesty feels assured that you will concur with him in assigning due
weight to the effect of unfavourable seasons, and to the operation
of other causes which are beyond the reach of legislative control or
remedy.” This qualified admission of the existence of national distress
gave great offence in both houses of parliament. In the lords, Earl
Stanhope moved as an amendment to the address, “That this house views,
with the deepest sorrow and anxiety the severe distress which now
afflicts the country, and will immediately proceed to examine into
its cause, and into the means of effectually providing the necessary
relief.” His lordship said that a more inappropriate and unsatisfactory
speech had never been addressed to any public assembly. The speech said
that distress existed “in some parts” of the country: he asked, in
what part it did not exist? The kingdom, he asserted, was in a state of
universal distress, embracing alike agriculture, manufactures, trade,
and commerce. These great interests had never before at one time been at
so low an ebb, nor in a condition which demanded more imperatively the
prompt and energetic interference of parliament. The speech ascribed
the distress existing, so far as it had admitted it, to unfavourable
seasons. This of course operated upon grain; but was the effect of
unfavourable seasons usually visible in a reduction of price? Did a bad
harvest make corn cheap? The evil was so notorious that nobody but his
majesty’s ministers doubted its existence, and they could not deny it,
if they only cast their eyes around, and saw the counties pouring on
them every kind of solicitation for relief. Why then was inquiry evaded
or denied? It was not true that the causes of distress were placed
beyond the reach of parliament, it was parliament that had produced
them, and yet ministers now wished parliament to disregard the effects,
and treat the public distress with indifference. The amendment moved by
Earl Stanhope was supported by the Duke of Richmond, and the Earls
of Carnarvon and Winchilsea. The Earl of Carnarvon declared that the
address called upon them to pledge themselves to statements inconsistent
with truth, and declared that he would never lend his countenance to the
fallacious representations of mere partial distress, as set forth in
the speech. That speech, he said, did not contain one word of the true
causes of the country’s suffering; but gravely desired them to take “the
state of the seasons” into their consideration. He contended that no
small part of the distress was owing to the change in the currency.
There had been periods of distress in former times, but they had soon
passed away. Now, however, the kingdom was placed in very different
circumstances, as the circulation of specie was no longer commensurate
with the demand. He suggested that a silver standard should be adopted,
by which he conceived that the resources of the country would be
emancipated from the artificial fetters in which they were now bound,
and prove sufficient to feed the now starving population. The Earl of
Winchilsea said, that, if the house refused to take the distress into
consideration, an opinion would be forced on the country, that it was
unable to legislate for the public good. A spirit was springing up, he
said, in different parts of the country, for forming associations, not
to lay the grievances of the people before parliament, but to propose
remedies of their own, and to redress their own wrongs. To that spirit,
he contended, their lordships would be supplying encouragement if
they refused to institute an inquiry into the nature and causes of
the existing distress. The amendment was opposed by Lord Goderich, the
Marquis of Lansdowne, and the Duke of Wellington. Lord Goderich
said that the true object of its noble mover was to get rid of the
alterations lately introduced into our commercial system, and to
unsettle the basis on which the currency now stood. For his own part
he had never been able to learn, from the opponents of what was called
“Free Trade,” what that was which they denounced under that name.
The noble mover seemed to menace by it the refusal to foster domestic
agriculture by prohibiting the importation of foreign wool. That refusal
was no modern invention. It was not till 1819 that the importation of
foreign wool had been prohibited; and the duty then laid was imposed
merely for the purposes of revenue, and not as a protection to trade.
The Duke of Wellington said that much more had been made out of the
expressions in the speech, concerning the bad seasons, than was meant.
It was not set down as the only cause of distress, but was alluded to
as one circumstance not to be lost sight of: there had been one bad
harvest, and another had been attended, in getting it in, with unusual
expense; these were facts to be taken into consideration. Another cause
of distress, he said, “was to be found in the state of our manufactures:
this it was to which his majesty alluded, when he spoke of me operation
of causes beyond the reach of legislative control. Were not, he asked,
competition at home and abroad, the introduction of machinery, and the
general adoption of steam, calculated to produce distress among our
manufacturers? Yet could parliament prevent competition? Could it
prohibit the use of machinery, and the application of steam, all
of which, by throwing labourers out of employment, produced
distress? But,” his grace continued, “I am satisfied that the distress
is not universal; that there are parts of the country free from it. The
exports of last year had been greater than they had ever been before;
and there was not a canal or railway in the country which did not
present an increase of traffic. It was true, no doubt, that all this had
been done at small profits; but profits there must have been, otherwise
the traffic would not exist. Pressure upon the country there certainly
was; but not so great as to prevent it from rising, though slowly. The
country was not stationary; much less was it falling; it was improving.”
 His grace in continuance said, that he could not agree with the
supporters of the amendment, that what distress existed was to be
ascribed to the restricted circulating medium to a metallic currency.
There was no foundation in fact for such an opinion: the circulation
was greater now than before the restriction, and therefore the distress
could not be properly attributed to a deficient circulation. The Marquis
of Lansdowne opposed the amendment because its true object was to
bring the house to the adoption of one of the greatest evils which this
country had ever endured, an unlimited issue of a paper circulation. If
the first were taken, it would lead to subsequent steps, against which
it was his duty to guard the house and the public. Distress, he added,
unquestionably existed to a lamentable extent; but he concurred in the
recommendation that it should receive the most cautious attention. On
a division the amendment was lost by a majority of seventy-one against
nine.

In the commons the battle on this subject was much more fierce than
in the lords. An amendment to the address was moved by Sir Edward
Knatchbull, founded, as in the lords, on the alleged misrepresentation
contained in the speech regarding the distresses of the country, and
the consequent determination of ministers to adopt no measures either of
inquiry or relief. Sir Edward Knatchbull contended that the distress was
universal; and if he were called upon for other proof than that of his
own testimony, he would say, “Let every member who now hears me state
honestly and fairly, and without reserve, what is the situation of the
place with which he as a representative is immediately connected.” The
house was asked on this first day of the session to approach his majesty
with a declaration something like a downright falsehood. He did not
mean, however, to advert at present to any remedy for the distress. All
he asked was this, to state in their address to his majesty the naked
truth as to the distress of the country. He therefore moved to strike
out of the address the clause affirming existence of partial distress,
and to insert the following:—“We lament the existence of that distress
which your majesty informs us is confined to some places; but in the
painful discharge of our duty we are constrained to declare to your
majesty that that distress is not confined to some places, as your
majesty has been advised, but is general among all the productive
interests of the country, which are severely suffering from its
pressure. We beg to assure your majesty that we shall adopt the caution
which your majesty recommends in the consideration of the measures to be
adopted in reference to these interests, and that our earnest
endeavours shall be employed to alleviate and remove the distress now so
unfortunately existing.” The amendment was supported by Messrs. Western,
Protheroe, Davenport, Maberly, Duncombe, and R. Palmer, who all joined
in condemning the extenuating phraseology used by government, as either
being the result of gross ignorance regarding the true state of the
country, or betokening a reprehensible determination to propose no
measure of relief, and to institute no inquiry. The house, it was said,
had long been in the habit of hearing complaints from individual classes
in the country; but these complaints were no longer reiterated from the
old quarters. The productive and industrious classes of the community
were in a state of great misery; their distress was settling-down into
universal discontent, and the voice of their disaffection would soon be
heard, he said, with alarm. It was urged, also, that the pressure was
severe on the classes immediately above the industrial portion of the
community; and that those who dealt in manufactured goods were in no
better situation than the agriculturists. It was stated in proof of
this, that among the great body of the traders in the city of London,
their stocks had suffered a depreciation of forty per cent. Sufferings
so general, it was argued, affecting every interest of importance
throughout the country, could not be the result of local causes. The
amendment, it was said, corrected a most erroneous representation of
a matter of fact, and it pledged parliament to nothing more than a
cautious inquiry into the origin of the state of things which in fact
existed. On the other hand the chancellor of the exchequer maintained,
that no amendment had ever been moved so little at variance with the
speech to which it was intended to apply; and that, although there was
distress among both agriculturists and manufacturers in some parts
of the kingdom, other parts were in a comparatively flourishing
and prosperous state. Mr. Goulburn contended that there was great
agricultural prosperity enjoyed in Ireland. This called up Mr.
O’Connell, who denied that such was the case. He had, he said, travelled
through the provinces of Leinster, Connaught, and Munster, where he not
only had not seen proofs of prosperity, but had observed much distress.
Mr. Huskisson supported the amendment, thereby giving the signal for
his friends to divide against the ministry. It was of the greatest
importance, he said, in the present season of universal disquietude
and dissatisfaction, not to provoke a hostile discussion between the
representatives of the people and the people themselves, and not to call
down reproach on the house of commons by understating the distress and
difficulty of the time. He believed that the country, in so far as the
productive classes were concerned, was suffering greatly; and that if
parliament looked at the subject properly, and acted with the caution
which one part of the speech recommended, they would find themselves
fully competent to cope with the existing difficulties. To some of the
causes which had led to the distress parliament could apply no remedy;
but it was in their power to satisfy the country as to what those causes
were, and to afford a partial relief by giving a better direction to the
capital of the country. Mr. Peel expressed surprise that Mr. Huskisson
should support an amendment like the present, considering his
long-expressed opinions. Session after session Mr. Huskisson
had resisted commissions of inquiry, lest he should excite false
expectations; and he now supported an amendment founded on principles
and intended to lead to conclusions from which he totally dissented,
because he thought it stated a matter of fact somewhat more correctly
than did the speech itself. Mr. Peel then contended that the speech did
not misstate facts; but proved the non-existence of universal distress
by the increase of the internal and foreign trade of the country.
Several members expressed their intention to vote for the address,
although they believed the distress to be more general than the speech
represented. As for the Whigs, they were divided between their wish not
to leave the ministry, which showed a leaning towards them, exposed to
defeat, and the fear of endangering their popularity by appearing to be
indifferent to public suffering. Lord Althorp, for instance, was sorry
to give a vote which might give him the appearance of joining the
opponents of government; but found it to be his duty to vote for
the amendment, because he believed the distress to be universal. Mr.
Brougham, also said his vote for the amendment was wrung from him,
because he thought it more correctly represented the state of things;
but if he could bring himself to think that the effect of the amendment
would be to displace the present government, he would vote for the
address. Mr. Spring Rice expressed himself to the same effect. But these
declarations of the leading members of opposition did not prevent their
adherents from carrying their votes to the ministry; and the amendment
was negatived by a majority of one hundred and fifty-eight against one
hundred and five.

On the following day, when the report on the address was brought up, the
Marquis of Blandford moved that the following extraordinary amendment,
which he termed, “a wholesale admonition to the throne,” should be
appended to the address:—“That this house feels itself called upon,
in the awful and alarming state of universal distress into which the
landed, commercial, and all the great productive interests of the
country are at this moment plunged, to take care that your majesty shall
not be the only person in your dominions ignorant of such an astounding
fact, as well as of the consequent impending danger to the throne and
other great national institutions, established by the wisdom of our
ancestors for the protection and benefit of the people over whom your
majesty has been called to preside,”—“That this house is at no loss to
indicate the real cause of this most unnatural state of things; and, in
justice to your majesty and the whole nation, it can no longer hesitate
to proclaim that cause to the world.

“It is a fact, already too notorious, that this house, which was
intended by our ancient and admirable constitution to be the guardian
of the nation’s purse, has, from causes now unnecessary to be detailed,
been nominated for the greater part by a few proprietors of close and
decayed boroughs, and by a few other individuals who, by the mere power
of money employed in means absolutely and positively forbidden by the
laws, have obtained a ‘domination,’ also expressly forbidden by act
of parliament, over certain other cities and boroughs in the United
Kingdom.

“That, in consequence of this departure from the wisdom of our
ancestors, the nation has been deprived of its natural guardian, and has
in consequence become so burdened in the expensive establishments of
all kinds, that, in a period much shorter than the life of man, the
taxation, has risen from £9,000,000 to nearly £60,000,000 a year, and
the poor-rates, or parochial assessments, during the same period, have
augmented from £1,500,000 to £8,000,000 annually.

“That to render such a mass of taxation, so disproportionate to the
whole wealth of the kingdom, in any degree supportable, recourse has
been had, either from ignorance or design, to the most monstrous schemes
in tampering with the currency, or circulating money of the country, at
one time by greatly diminishing the value of the same, and at another
time by greatly augmenting such value; and at each and every of such
changes, which have been but too often repeated, one class of the
community after another has been plunged into poverty, misery, and ruin;
while the sufferers, without any fault or folly of their own, have been
hardly able to perceive from what hand these calamities have come upon
them.

“That under such circumstances, and with this knowledge before its eyes,
this house would consider itself lost to every sense of duty towards
your majesty, and guilty of treason towards the people, if it did
not seize this opportunity of declaring to your majesty its solemn
conviction that the state is at this moment in the most imminent danger,
and that no effectual measures of salvation will, or can, be adopted
until the people shall be restored to their rightful share in the
legislation of the country; that is, to their undoubted right, according
to the true meaning of the constitution, of choosing members of this
house.” This amendment, was seconded by Mr. O’Connell, and Messrs.
Western, Protheroe. Messrs. Smith and Davenport, declared themselves
favourable to its spirit, although they thought it was injudicious
to bring forward a topic of such importance as a mere amendment on an
address. Sir Francis Burdett took the same course; and in his speech on
this occasion he gave the ministry fair warning that they must either
enter into a closer connexion with the Whigs, or no longer count on
their support. Sir Francis said, that when he found the prime minister
of England insensible to sufferings and distress, painfully apparent
throughout the land; when, instead of meeting the calamity with measures
of relief, he sought to stifle every important inquiry; when he
called that a partial and temporary evil which was both long-lived and
universal, he could not look on such a mournful crisis, in which public
misfortune was insulted by ministerial apathy, without hailing any
prospect of change in the system that produced such a state of feeling.
What, he asked, could be said of the ignorance which could attribute the
distress to the introduction of machinery, and the application of steam,
that noble improvement in the inventions of man, to which men of science
and intelligence mainly ascribe our prosperity? He felt a high respect
for the abilities of the Duke of Wellington in the field; but he thought
that the noble duke did himself equal justice when he said, previous to
his taking office, that he should be a fit inmate for a lunatic asylum
if he were ever induced to take such a burden on his shoulders. In
fact, both he and many honourable members about him had long treated the
illustrious individual with such tenderness, because they felt that he
had conferred the greatest benefit on his country. He was the only man
in England who could have accomplished what he had done; and his
praise should be in proportion. It should, however, be at the same
time remembered, that if his service was great, his recompense had
been commensurate: they had repaid him in returns of confidence and
approbation; but the time was come when it would be necessary to do
much more. On a division the Marquis of Blandford’s motion was lost by a
majority of ninety-six against eleven.




MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON THE STATE OF THE NATION.

In the debate on the address Lord Stanhope gave notice that he should
on an early day bring the state of the country under their lordships’
notice, by a special motion. He did so on the 25th of February, by
moving that their lordships should resolve themselves into a committee
of the whole house on the state of the nation. The proposition on which
his lordship founded his motion was, that all the great productive
interests of the country were suffering under the pressure of
a distress the tendency of which was to go on increasing. Complaints and
applications for relief by the agriculturists, he said, had come up from
every county, and they had been disregarded, probably because they were
couched in respectful language. He said this, because recent experience
had shown that if they had formed illegal associations, collected funds,
and spoken to government in the language of intimidation, they would
have received attention. Of the reasonableness of their complaints
no man could doubt who knew their situation. Rents were paid from the
capital of the farmer; and numbers of tenants had already been driven
from their farms in bankruptcy and beggary. The capital of others, also,
was daily extorted from them to meet their current expenses; and when
that capital was exhausted they, too, must go forth ruined men. It had
been said, “Reduce your rents, and you will remove the mischief,” But
this expedient had been tried, and had failed: rents had been reduced
fifty per cent.; but there were cases in which no rent could be paid. He
knew of one parish, for instance, in Sussex, where all the proceeds
of the land were not sufficient to maintain the poor; and neighbouring
parishes had been applied to to give them relief. If the existing state
of things was not speedily remedied, they must end in ruin and anarchy.
Nor, he continued, was the state of the manufacturing population better
than that of the agriculturists. Artisans were at work for threepence
or fourpence per day; and of those who received employment, a great
proportion worked for wages which, when compared with the value of the
article on which they were employed, were altogether deceptive. Then,
he asked, what was the state of the shipping interest? To realize profit
was out of the question; and many of the shipowners had preferred
parting with their ships at a certain loss of forty per cent., to
continuing to hold them at the risk of a loss still greater. All these
interests were, therefore, at present in a state of apparently hopless
distress. As for the symptoms to which ministers pointed as those of
returning health, they were utterly fallacious. It had been said that
the traffic on railways and canals had been increased; the same effect
would be produced if the goods had been transported on speculation, and
hawked about from one part of the country to another for sale, either
in vain or at ruinous prices. With an increasing population consumption
must increase to some extent, because the addition to the population
would not absolutely famish; but the evil was, that it was consumption
which still furnished to those employed in creating the articles
consumed the means, not of living with any reasonable comfort, but of
mere squalid starvation. Ministers had told them, likewise, to look at
the number of new houses which were springing up, and had asked if this
was an indication of distress. No one had ever said that every man in
the country was distressed. Who had ever said, for instance, that
the fund-holders and annuitants felt the general pressure? They might
continue to flourish like rank and noxious weeds among surrounding
ruins; they still drew their fixed incomes, but their security was
diminishing; for that security depended on the productiveness of the
revenue; and the revenue, as the natural result of the misery of all
the productive classes of society, was fall ing off. Lord Goderich, in
reply, said that he had expected the motion would have been supported
by something better than the two undeniable propositions that there was
great distress in the country, and that it was the duty of ministers to
relieve it to the utmost of their power. He should have thought that the
noble mover would have stated the causes which had produced the distress
of the country, and have given some notion of the remedies which he
deemed applicable to the disease. In regard to the one and the other,
the house had been left in the dark. While, however, he resisted a mode
of inquiry which promised nothing, he did not say that it was impossible
for parliament to do anything. In relation to the currency and the state
of our taxation, parliament might afford material relief to the
country. He thought parliament might also do something by a reduction of
taxation; for during the two years that he himself had been chancellor
of the exchequer, nine millions of taxes had been removed, and yet that
amount had not been eventually lost to the revenue: in some heads of
receipt there had been a diminution, but in others there had been an
increase. The Earl of Roseberry, also, spoke against the motion: he
could not support it, because he thought that in its present form it was
neither practicable nor expedient. The motion was supported by the Duke
of Richmond and Lord Eldon. The former insisted principally on various
facts proving the extent and pressure of the prevalent distress; and
maintained that in common sense the causes of the misfortune should be
investigated, before means for removing them were tendered. Lord Eldon,
in supporting the motion, accused his ancient colleagues of coming down
to parliament with a declaration that there were “other causes” for
the distress of the country, which they did not deem it expedient to
specify, and which they left to each one’s sagacity to guess at as he
might. He contended that the smallest consideration of the causes and
remedies of the present all-pervading distress would have been received
by the country with gratitude. He was the more confident of this,
he said, when he bore in mind the pacific and loyal demeanour of the
numerous thousands who were suffering under the most pinching distress,
and who, he hoped, would be prevented from being drawn away from the
line of good conduct by the expressed determination of parliament to
inquire into the causes of their sufferings, with a view to remedy
them so far as circumstances might permit. The Duke of Wellington still
denied that the existence of distress was so extensive as had been
represented, and supported his opinion by the augmented consumption
of various articles, by the increase of buildings, by the state of the
savings’ banks, and by the advanced traffic on railways and canals. He
still maintained, also, that the power of redress was beyond the reach
of parliament; and he defied noble lords opposite to do anything on the
subject which should be at once politic and satisfactory; expedient and
efficacious. Was it right, he asked, for parliament to interfere where
it was utterly impossible to do good? The noble mover might recommend
a committee; but to what end could they follow his counsel if he could
lead them no further? And not one step further had he gone. The Marquis
of Lansdowne said that he had no hesitation in stating what he conceived
to be the causes of the distress. Much of it, he thought, had been
produced by a transition from a state of war to peace. He could not help
recollecting, however, that a great part of the difficulties, out of
which we had now to extricate ourselves, was to be ascribed to that
fatal perseverance, with which we had persisted for many years, in
contracting permanent money engagements in a depreciated currency. That
was the root of the evil; but in saying so, he did not forget,
that, unfortunate as these engagements were, they nevertheless were
engagements which the honour of parliament was bound to respect, and
which we must find means to discharge. It was one thing, however, to
see the cause, and another to point out the remedy: for the present
he confessed that he saw but one means of uniting all opinions on the
subject, and that was retrenchment, retrenchment qualified by diminution
of taxation. The Marquis of Salisbury expressed an opinion that a
general inquiry would do more harm than good: he would prefer a select
committee, and if that should fail in coming at the cause of the
distress, then would be the time for an inquiry of the whole house. Lord
King, in conclusion, moved as an amendment, “that a select committee
should be appointed to inquire into the depressed state of the
agricultural and manufacturing interests of the kingdom for the purpose
of ascertaining whether any, and what relief could be afforded.” This
amendment, however, was received with as little favour as the original
motion, which was lost on a division by one hundred and eighteen against
twenty-five.

A similar motion was made, at a more advanced period of the session
in the house of commons by Mr. Davenport. The discussion in that house
lasted four nights, and in the course of it, the leading members of
all parties delivered their opinions, which were in many respects
contradictory on the extent as well as on the causes of the evil. The
arguments and the views of the speakers, however, were generally the
same that had been used in the house of lords, though being used by a
greater number of persons, they were presented under a greater number
of modifications. The motion was supported by the admitted fact of the
prevailing distress; the duty of the house to give relief, if possible;
and the necessity for that purpose of ascertaining the causes of the
evil. On the other hand it was denied that the distress was general,
and that if it was, it would be useless to enter into an inquiry without
some specific remedy being pointed out, which had not yet been done.
Great objections were also taken to the form of the proposed inquiry.
There was no subject of any difficulty with which parliament had ever
had to deal, but would necessarily come before this committee, and how
could the whole house deal with such an investigation. Sir C. Burrell
moved as an amendment that the petitions should be referred to a
select committee, but this was still more vehemently resisted: Mr. Peel
declaring that a committee of the whole house was the better of
the two. Lord Althorp, with the leading members of the Whig party
generally, as well as Mr. Huskisson and his followers, took part with
the ministry; and the motion was eventually lost by a majority of two
hundred and fifty-five against eighty-seven.




REDUCTION OF SALARIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS, ETC.

Throughout the discussions on the state of the nation, the necessity
of reducing taxation, and curtailing the public expenditure, had been
insisted on with great force. On the 12th of February, Sir James Graham
moved for a reduction of all the salaries paid to official, persons.
The foundation of his motion was this:—that, subsequently to the Bank
Restriction Act, all salaries had been increased, because the expense of
living had increased; and he argued, therefore, that, as the restriction
had been removed, and we had returned to cash payments, the salaries
ought to be diminished. Justice, he said, demanded such a change High
prices, produced by a depreciated currency, had brought them high
salaries; low prices, produced by curing that depreciation, must
bring them low salaries He did not, however, mean to include in his
resolutions the privy-purse and the royal establishment, as these stood
upon arrangements entered into at the beginning of the reign, and were
hence inviolate. Neither would he interfere with the regular pay of the
navy, which had been fixed in 1798, when prices were about the same as
at the present time; or of the army, into which our soldiers had entered
for a term of years, at a stipulated rate. He meant, however, to
include military officers holding civil situations, such as colonial
governments, because in many cases their salaries had been augmented
without sufficient reason, and because some of these officers being
removable at pleasure, their allowances might be altered without
difficulty. Sir James Graham enumerated examples in which the salaries
of governors had been raised; and stated that there had been an addition
of one-third to the number of _employés_, and an increase of fifty per
cent, on their salaries in 1827 as compared with 1797. He concluded by
moving this resolution:—“That, whereas, subsequently to the act of the
37th George III., by which a suspension of cash-payments was effected,
large augmentations had taken place in the salaries and pay of persons
in civil and military employments, on account of the diminished value of
money; and whereas the alleged reason for such augmentations had ceased
to operate, in consequence of the passing of the 59th George III., which
restored a metallic standard of value, resolved that in order to relieve
the country from its extensive load of taxation, it was expedient
to revise our present system of expenditure in respect of all such
augmentations, for the purpose of making every possible reduction that
could be effected without violation of good faith, or detriment to
public justice.” The motion was opposed by Mr. Dawson, the secretary of
the treasury, chiefly on the ground that government had done all that as
yet had been possible in the way of reduction, and felt a sincere desire
to carry the spirit of economy to every practicable extent. Almost
every recommendation of reduction, he said, suggested in the reports of
committees, or by commissions of inquiry, had been carried into effect;
and the recommendation of a committee which sat in 1797 to abolish
sinecures and reversions had been acted upon as far as it was found
possible. Government had, indeed, already acted upon the course which
Sir James Graham recommended; it had been desirous to adopt the scale
of 1797, and though that object had not been fully accomplished, yet,
looking at the extent of public business now, and in 1797, he thought
the house would see that salaries had been brought as near as possible
to the rate of the latter year. After demonstrating the truth of his
assertions by appealing to facts and figures, he said, that he trusted
the house would negative the motion, in which case, in order to show
that he was not desirous to get rid of the question, he would himself
move the following resolution:—“That whereas his majesty was
graciously pleased, in answer to an address of the house, to assure the
house on the 27th of June, 1821, that his majesty would cause an inquiry
to be made into all the departments of the civil government, with a view
of reducing the number of persons employed in the various offices,
and the amount of salaries paid: Resolved, that an humble address be
presented to his majesty, that his majesty might be graciously pleased
to lay before the house an account of the progress which had been made
in such inquiry, and of the measures that had been taken in consequence.
Also, that it was the opinion of that house, that in every establishment
of the state, every saving ought to be made, consistently with the due
performance of the public service, and without the violation of existing
engagements.” Sir James Graham thought this proposition of the secretary
of the treasury better than his own, and he therefore withdrew his
motion, and the house agreed to that of the minister.

This motion regarded the civil establishments only. On the 15th of
February, Mr. Hume proposed a similar resolution in regard to the
military and naval establishments, by moving an address to the crown,
recommending a repeal or modification of all taxes required for the
support of all the naval and military, as well as civil establishments,
in order to afford immediate and effective relief to the country. Mr.
Hume maintained that the scale at which the army and navy were kept up
was much greater than necessity required, or the country could bear; and
that they ought to be brought back as nearly as possible to what
they had been in 1792, when the whole cost of the civil and military
government was little more than one-fifth of the present cost. In his
speech, he treated of every possible topic connected with taxation
and expenditure. The taxes he proposed to reduce were numerous; and
he insisted that all the reductions he proposed were practicable,
if government would only apply the priming-knife to our overgrown
establishments. The chancellor of the exchequer declined following Mr.
Hume over the field in which he had expatiated, but he objected to
the motion as irregular and inexpedient. It was a motion, he
said, recommending a reduction of our civil, naval, and military
establishments, without waiting for the estimates of those
establishments which was to be laid before the house—without waiting
to see whether any and what reductions might be proposed in them by
ministers. How, he asked, would parliament determine the amount or
practicability of any reduction, till it had inquired into the necessity
and general bearing of the several branches of the expenditure? And how
could that inquiry be instituted before ministers had laid before the
house the responsible official statement of the amount of the several
estimates for the year, so as to enable the house to decide upon the
economy or extravagance observed in the management of the public money?
He objected to the motion, therefore, as a departure from the usual
practice of parliament. It was opposed by Messrs. Western and Grant, on
the ground that it would be better for ministers first to produce their
plan, and then to deal with it as the house might think fit. The house
was already pledged to the full extent of this motion, which was,
generally to reduce expenditure, and the next step ought to be to point
out in what particular manner the reduction ought to be made.
Lord Althorp said, that he felt every confidence in the economical
disposition of ministers; but still it was desirable that the house
should express its opinion that the taxes ought to be reduced in
proportion to the reductions in the expenditure, although he did not
conceive it possible that the taxes ought to be reduced to the extent
proposed by Mr. Hume: his duty was to vote, therefore, for the
motion. On a division, however, the motion was lost by one hundred and
eighty-nine to sixty-nine.




MOTION FOR REVISING THE WHOLE SYSTEM OF TAXATION.

On the 25th of March Mr. Poulett Thompson moved the appointment of a
committee to revise the whole system of our taxation. His object,
he said, was to examine the incidents of our great taxation; for all
authorities of any weight were agreed that revenue did not depend merely
on the amount of what actually passed into the exchequer, but on the
manner in which it was derived from the people. Mr. Poulett Thompson
wished the house in the first place to consider the taxes which affected
raw materials; and whether a reduction was not practicable without any
diminution of revenue. He then passed in review certain very productive
taxes, as those on tea, tobacco, foreign spirits, French wines, &c., the
rate of which, he thought, might safely be lowered without any permanent
detriment to the revenue. In conclusion, he said, that his wish was to
give ministers a power which they could not exercise effectually without
a committee. The alterations which he had in view, might produce a
deficiency of revenue in the first stages of their operations, but
ministers, supported by a committee fairly and impartially selected,
might ask of parliament a vote of credit for all that would be necessary
to fill up that deficiency with a much greater certainty of obtaining
it, than they would have by acting upon their Own responsibility. The
chancellor of the exchequer said, that there could be only one opinion
as to the principle on which the motion was founded; namely, the
expediency of raising the money required for the public service, in the
way least injurious to the sources of public wealth; but he could not
accede to the motion founded on this truism, consistently with the
interests of the country, or the character of his majesty’s government.
The wish to relieve the public burthens was not the only guide to be
followed in a question like this; regard was likewise due to the faith
and honour of the country. Some of the taxes might be open to the
objections urged against them; but such as they were we had mortgaged
them to the public creditor; and it I was an imperative duty, not so
to modify them as to shake the basis of his security, and weaken
the strength of public credit. Great inconvenience would arise from
consigning to the consideration of a committee all the various topics
to which the honourable member had referred; and from calling upon the
members of it to pronounce on the amount of our taxation; to decide how
far it admitted of repeal or modification; and to declare how far, in
their opinion, ultimate compensation might be made for any loss which
might accrue from such loss or modification. The motion was supported by
Lord Althorp, Sir Henry Parnell, and Messrs. Bankes and Warburton, who
argued that it was difficult to conceive why the committee should be
refused after the appointment of the late finance committee. If that
committee had proceeded with its labours another year, it would have
been occupied with the very matters which it was now proposed to submit
to consideration. Lord Althorp said that, in his opinion, it would be
a good plan to grant relief to the productive classes by a reduction
of taxation, and the imposition of a property-tax. Mr. Peel protested
against the appointment of a committee which, he contended, was to
be neither less nor more than a delegation of the powers of the whole
house, and of the government likewise, to twenty-one members. The house,
he said, had been found sufficient in former times for the management of
the taxes, and he saw no reason why it should now resign its power. On
the other hand, Mr. Huskisson maintained that there was nothing unusual
in referring questions of taxation to a committee. The salt-duty and the
tax on leather had been referred to committees; and in these cases there
had neither been alarms in the public mind, nor change of government,
nor loss of confidence in his majesty’s ministers. If the house could
not refer such subjects to a committee without endangering the safety
of the country, he thought that it had better give up inquisition
altogether. He did not, indeed, expect any further reduction of taxation
during the present session from the labours of this committee; but
still the inquiry would do good. On a division the motion was lost by a
majority of one hundred and sixty-seven against seventy-eight.




COMMITTEE ON THE EAST INDIA COMPANY’S CHARTER.

{GEORGE IV. 1830—1831}

At this period it was the public opinion that the monopoly of the
East India Company imposed a mischievous restraint on the trade of the
country, without any reasonable cause or counterbalancing advantage. One
large portion of the community, indeed, wished to have the renewal
of their charter refused _in toto_ to any extent, or under any
modification; while another professed themselves willing to be satisfied
with reducing the company to the level of ordinary merchants in matters
of trade, leaving them in the possession of their widely-extended
territories. In this conflicting state of opinion government had
determined not to take the responsibility of proposing any measure of
its own; but had promised that in the present session a committee
should be appointed to make the inquiries which ought to precede any
arrangement affecting interests so varied and important. The appointment
of this committee was moved in both houses on the 9th of February; in
the upper house by Lord Ellenborough, and in the commons by Mr. Peel. In
making this proposition, the latter said, that he had no plan to submit
for the future government of India; no opinion of ministers to state as
to the renewal or modification of the charter. He proposed the committee
that the question in all its bearings might be examined; but the details
should be left for future consideration, when that committee should have
formed its opinion. He proposed it, he continued, with the plain and
honest view of having a full, perfect, and unreserved investigation into
the affairs of the East India Company. The house, he said, would feel
the importance of such an inquiry. It would bear in mind that higher
objects were involved than the mere extension of trade. They would
have to consider the whole character of the government, ruling over
an immense extent of territory, wielding a powerful force, and
administering an ample revenue. They were bound to consider the various
modes in which that government affected the people over whom it ruled,
and how far any alteration might affect the influence of the crown. The
present form of government extended over many millions of people, and
it had existed for a great number of years. Whether another form of
government might be devised from which equal benefits would flow, he was
not prepared to say; but sufficient was known of the present system to
induce them to pause before they rashly interfered with it. As regards
the company’s commercial concerns, the documents which would be
presented to the committee would contain full information on that
subject; and at present he would only say that a reference to these
returns would convince any unprejudiced mind that the sanguine
expectations of great benefits, which some supposed would arise from
throwing the trade entirely open, ought not to be entertained. The
most interesting objects involved in the inquiry were the welfare and
happiness of the Indian population placed under a government. He had
seen a census, which made our native subjects in India amount to ninety
millions. Looking at the extent of territory which in that country
belonged to Great Britain, the vast population there subject to our
sway, the great revolution by which they had come under our dominion,
the immense distance at which they were removed from our shores, and the
difference existing between the languages and usages of the natives and
ours, the mind was almost lost in amazement. Whatever might be the wish
of a British parliament to enlarge the rights and foster the interests
of British citizens, there could be but one feeling as to the moral
obligation which we had incurred to promote the improvement of these
distant subjects, so far as the feelings, the institutions, and the
prejudices of that country would allow. In the list of the committee
proposed by Mr. Peel there were the names of three or four East India
directors. Messrs. Hume and Baring objected to their being put on the
committee, although they expressed an opinion that they would not act
unfairly, and that there was a necessity of obtaining the information
which they possessed. Mr. Astell, one of the directors named, declared
that the company desired nothing more earnestly than the fullest
inquiry. What the directors complained of most, was the ignorance which
prevailed on this subject, and which, by deluding the country, was the
greatest enemy they had to contend with. He courted inquiry; for the
more the subject was investigated, the more likely would it be that the
directors would have justice done them. Let the committee obtain the
fullest evidence; let them examine all the documents that would be
brought before them; and then they would be able to decide whether
India could be better governed; whether justice could be more fairly
administered; and whether the happiness of the natives could be more
humanely consulted. He contended that the directors had done all they
could, and that they had never lost sight of the interests of their
country in the pursuit of their own. The committee was appointed as
proposed, retaining the members of the East India Company.




DEBATE ON A PROPOSAL TO ALTER THE CURRENCY.

During this session Mr. Attwood brought the subject of the currency
before the house, by proposing two resolutions; namely, to make silver
a legal tender as, he contended, it had been before the Bank Restriction
Act of 1797, and to restore small notes. This question underwent a full
discussion but the motion of a double standard seemed so objectionable,
and any scheme for depreciating the currency appeared pregnant with such
dangerous consequences, that the motion was withdrawn without dividing
the house. Several members, indeed, expressed an opinion that it was
far from being certain that the standard adopted was the best; but the
relief to be obtained by the double standard proposed was thought by
them to be neither so great, nor so certain, as to justify the making
of such an experiment. The motion was ably opposed by Mr. Herries, who
said, that the proposal to introduce the silver standard was almost
impracticable and unjust. The proposal was, in point of fact, to have
the two precious metals in circulation at certain fixed proportions; a
condition which rendered the execution of the scheme impossible. It was
well known that the proportion in which these two metals interchanged
now was different from the proportion which they held in 1798. The mover
himself had admitted, indeed, that the difference was five per cent.
It might not be quite so much, but assuming it to be so, to what did
it lead? It made the proposed resolution a recommendation to the
legislature to declare gold and silver equally a legal tender, although
there was a difference of five per cent, in their relative values. What
would this be, he asked, in practice? Every debtor, it was said, who had
money to pay would be enabled to discharge his debt with five per cent,
less than he was bound to pay at present; and no doubt, he would, if the
opportunity was given to him. Suppose then that the resolutions should
be agreed to; what would be the result? It would be proclaimed from one
end of the country to the other that this house had come to a resolution
the effect of which might be shortly stated thus:—namely, that every
man who had claims payable on demand, every man who held notes of
small or great value, every man who had outstanding debts, would, if he
secured the amount of what was due to him before this resolution passed
into a law, get the whole of his money; whereas, if he delayed beyond
that period, he would only get ninety-five for every hundred pounds.
What, he asked, would become of the Bank of England, or of every
banking house in the kingdom, or of all debtors who were liable to pay
upon demand all that they owed? Would not all transactions of commerce
be suspended, and the whole country present one scene of confusion, and
consternation, and ruin, when the house of commons proclaimed to all who
had debts due to them, that if they did not collect them on the instant,
they would assuredly be losers to the amount of five per cent.? Mr.
Herries also contended that the alleged justice of the proposition was
fallacious. Its justice was made to rest on this—that it was only fair
to give the debtor the power of paying as he might have done in 1798;
and it had been assumed, that up to that time men could discharge their
debts in gold or silver, as they pleased. It was a great mistake, he
argued, to suppose that silver had been the standard of this country
throughout the last century. It had only been a legal tender by weight,
but then it had become so depreciated, that, practically, there was
no such thing as tender by weight, while by law the tender in coin was
limited to twenty-five pounds; so that it was clear that in 1798 silver
could not be the standard. He concluded by saying, that if a regulation
could be made that a creditor should be obliged to take half his debt in
one standard, at the will of the debtor, and that the debtor should
not be obliged to pay more than half in one, and half in the other, it
might, perhaps, be practicable to have the two; but he did not see how,
otherwise, the two could exist together.




FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—BILL FOR REPEALING THE DUTY ON BEER, ETC.

On the 15th of March the chancellor of the exchequer produced his annual
exposition of the finances, and of the financial measures to be
adopted in raising the expenditure of the present year. His statements
presented no remarkable features except the repeal of the beer, cider,
and leather duties. By this measure ministers desired to show their
wish of alleviating the pressure of taxation on the lower classes. With
reference to the extent of the repeal, the chancellor of the exchequer
said, that “the amount of the three duties which I thus propose to
repeal will be, on freer, £3,000,000, on leather from £340,000 to
£350,000, and on cider, £25,000. These reductions will give direct
relief to the people, amounting, at least, to £3,400,000., and will give
them relief indirectly to a further amount; so that in fact the
whole relief cannot be estimated at less than £5,000,000 a year.” The
remission of duty on beer was proposed to take place on the 10th of
October following, and the reason given for such delay was, that the
repeal should take place conjointly with an opening of the trade, when
the time arrived for renewing the licences of public-houses. There can
be no doubt that the measure proceeded from excellent motives; but it
is certain that by encouraging the increase of public-houses to an
indefinite extent, immorality and crime had been introduced into every
nook and corner of the land. The picture which the poet Cowper drew of
the evils of public-houses in his day have been increased a hundredfold
by such a measure so that it is literally true, that,

     “Pass where’er we may, through city or through town,
     Village or hamlet of this merry land,
     Though lean and beggar’d, every twentieth face,
     Conducts th’ unguarded nose to such a whiff
     Of state debauch, forth issuing from the sties
     That law has licensed, as makes temperance rec.”

It is probable that this measure has occasioned more evil than any act
passed during the whole period to which this portion of the history of
England refers. Yet there can be no question that ministers conceived
that they were legislating for the poor man’s comfort; experience,
however, has proved that it was for the poor man’s bane. After stating
the intention of ministers on this subject, the chancellor of the
exchequer next gave his estimate of the revenue of the present year.
The demands of the public service, including the charge of the national
debt, were £47,812,000, and the available income was estimated at
£50,470,000, leaving a probable balance of about £2,500,000 only for
the sinking-fund. In the revenue of last year a deficiency of more than
£500,000 below the estimate was acknowledged; but at the same time a
clear surplus of £4,000,000 had been applied to the redemption of the
national debt. To compensate for the loss of revenue from the repeal of
the above duties, it was proposed to consolidate all the laws relative
to the stamp-duties, for placing the management of the whole of that
branch of the revenue under the stamp-office in England, and make
similar articles everywhere subject to the same duties. It was also
proposed to levy an additional duty on spirits; and also to effect a
yearly saving of about £800,000 by the conversion of four per cent,
stock into three and a half. These measures were subsequently carried
into effect. The chancellor of the exchequer finally held out hopes of a
reduction in the amount of expenditure, by the consolidation of various
departments of the public service: this he said was likely hereafter to
place at the disposal of the government a great surplus revenue which
would enable ministers to make a further repeal of taxes. The principal
reduction promised by government this year, that of the beer-duty, was
not carried without great opposition. Brewers and publicans alike were
arrayed against it, as it would break up their monopoly. The latter
complained loudly of the deterioration to which the capital invested by
them in the trade would be exposed, since every man who could pay two
guineas might take out a licence. The landed interest, likewise, was
against this measure: agriculturists wishing rather to see the duty
on malt than beer repealed. They spoke much of its deficiencies in
not providing any system of control, to secure the proper conduct of
publicans, such as existed under the present licensing system. It
would convert England they said, and with much truth, into one
huge tippling-house, spreading throughout the country universal
demoralization. An attempt was made on the second reading to throw out
the bill, by a motion that it should be read a second time that day six
months. This failed; but in the committee a stronger effort was made in
favour of a clause proposed by Mr. Monck, to the effect of permitting
the brewer to sell his beer on premises different from those on which it
had been brewed. It was contended that this was only an enlargement of
the former permission to sell beer on the premises on which it had been
brewed; and that it would not injure the object sought by the bill in
so far as protection against monopoly was concerned, while it would be
beneficial to the interests of the existing dealers, whose interests
ought not to be neglected. On the other hand, the clause was opposed as
inconsistent with the principle of the bill. The effect of it would
be, it was said, to prevent competition, and the public, instead of
receiving an improved commodity, would remain as they were. When the
committee divided, the proposed clause was rejected by a majority of
only twenty-five. Opposition renewed their efforts against the bill
on its third reading, when Mr. Batley moved a clause, to the effect
of enforcing the statute of James I., against the odious crime of
drunkenness. Mr. Brougham in opposing this motion said, that he was
one of those who thought the general interests of morality were better
consulted by permitting such clauses to slumber in the cells of the
statute-book than by having them enforced. He asked, What was the
real meaning of the statute of James I. It was that a penalty should be
inflicted on any person who committed the odious and ungodly crime of
drunkenness, from any liquor, except claret or champagne. If morality
was to be enforced by act of parliament, let the law be impartial, and
not punish the poor and illiterate for a crime in which the rich might
indulge with impunity. He would like to see the justice of the peace, or
magistrate, who would fine a knight of the shire, or independent member
of an independent borough, who in the morning might possibly be brought
before him in a state presenting a good imitation of the odious and
ungodly crime of drunkenness, which called down the wrath of the moral
legislators of the age of King James. Sir Robert Inglis having reminded
Mr. Brougham that a higher authority than that of James I. had denounced
drunkenness, and that if he himself were found in the street in a state
of inebriety, no magistrate performing his duty would fail to punish
him, Mr. Brougham replied, that he had not the good fortune to be
educated at the university represented by the baronet. It was, indeed,
well replied by Dr. Johnson to a lady who inquired of him to which
university she should send her son: “Why madam, I can only say, that
there is an equal quantity of port drunk at each.” He was perfectly
aware that a higher authority than King James had denounced drunkenness,
but the difference was, that that high authority made no distinction
of persons, whereas the act of James did. Could the right honourable
baronet point out one instance of a member of parliament having been
punished for drunkenness? Sir Robert repeated, that if Mr. Brougham
would go into the street drunk, he would soon meet with due punishment;
he replied, that it would be grossly unfair, inasmuch as there were
thousands of gentlemen in the same situation never noticed. This was an
unanswerable argument, and the subject was dropped.




THE QUESTION OF REFORM.

It has been seen that the Marquis of Blandford moved resolutions
pledging the house forthwith to employ themselves in the work of reform,
as an amendment to the address. On the 18th of February he brought
forward a more specific plan. The house of commons, he argued, had
ceased to be framed as the essential principles and earlier practice
of the constitution required; a circumstance which had arisen from
represented places falling into decay, on the one hand, while, on the
other, wealthy and populous towns, which had sprung up in the meantime,
were unrepresented. His object was, he said, to restore the principles
of representation as they had been established in the days of Henry III.
and the three Edwards. For this purpose he proposed that a committee
should be chosen by ballot, to take a review of all boroughs and cities
in the kingdom, and report to the secretary of the home department those
among them which had fallen into decay, or had in any manner forfeited
their right to representation on the principles of the English
constitution, as anciently recognized by national and parliamentary
usage. The home-secretary was bound to act immediately on this report,
and to relieve all such places from the burthen of sending members to
parliament in future, while he filled up the vacancies by towns which
had been hitherto unrepresented. Another part of his plan was to
revive the custom of paying wages to members for their attendance in
parliament; a provision which he thought would prevent abuses. He
also proposed to extend the right of voting to all copyholders and
leaseholders, and to place the representation of Scotland on the same
footing with that of England. He concluded, by moving, to bring in a
bill to restore the constitutional influence of the house of commons.
This motion was supported by Sir Francis Burdett, and by Messrs.
Pendarvis, Benett, and Hobhouse, with others of the school of reformers.
Sir Francis Burdett said, that he could not comprehend all the details
of the propositions; but he understood it to be a question of reform,
and, therefore, he would support it. He admitted that the house was
composed of men of as enlightened understandings, and as addicted to the
English principles of freedom, as could be found collected in any nation
of the world; but he asserted that they were returned to the house under
an influence which rendered them incapable of exerting the faculties
of their minds, and injurious to the country. He remarked:—“Look at
myself, I have gone through the whole process under the present system
of representation, and a most ruinous one it has been. Early in life, I
came into this house in order to defend the constitution of England; I
purchased my seat of a borough-monger. He was no patron of mine; he took
my money, and by purchase I obtained a right to speak in the most public
place in England, With my views, and with my love of the liberty of
my country, I did not grudge the sacrifice I made for that commanding
consideration. If I had abused the right I had thus purchased, and
passed through corruption to the honours of the peerage, I should not
enjoy the satisfaction I now feel.” He had also tried, he said, the
county system. He stood for a county, though he would not have given
twopence for the representation of that county, his object having been
to expose the abominable system, and the oppressive tyranny of solitary
confinement in England. He had also gone through the remedial operation
as it was called, of the Grenville act, so that, as he had sounded all
the shoals and shallows of the system, it was not wonderful he should
be a great advocate for an alteration. The question was this: ought the
house to be an assembly of retainers of the crown, or of representatives
of the people of England. The bill was opposed by Messrs. Feel, Twiss,
Maberly, and Stanley. Mr. Twiss said, that a scheme had never been
produced so happily calculated to ridicule parliamentary reform,
although it was of course far from the intention of the noble lord by
whom it had been introduced. Mr. Peel also amused the house with remarks
on the title of the bill, and said that he would never be a party to a
wholesale depreciation of the elective franchise, or assent even to the
first stage of the bill, which devolved on a ballotted committee the
power of destroying all boroughs which they might think ought not
to send members. Lord Althorp moved as an amendment, “That it is the
opinion of this house, that a reform in the representation of the people
is necessary,” should be substituted for the motion, for leave to bring
in a bill; but both the amendment and the original motion were negatived
without a division.




THE CASE OF EAST RETFORD.

During this session the proposal for transferring the franchise of
East Retford to Birmingham was ultimately rejected, and the privilege
extended to the adjoining hundred. During the debate Mr. Peel expressly
disclaimed the imputation which had been thrown out, that this selection
had been made with a view to increase the influence of the Duke of
Newcastle, whom the Catholic relief bill had now thrown into the ranks
of opposition. There were circumstances in the case of East Retford
which should induce parliament to extend the franchise to the adjoining
hundred. One element in the case which weighed with him, was the
consideration that the county of Nottingham sent only eight members to
parliament; and he saw no good reason why that number should be reduced.
Lord Howick declared, that though he would vote for the transfer of the
franchise to Birmingham, he thought it useless to inflict punishment
in individual instances, when it was notorious that a large majority of
members obtained their seats by venal means. The proper remedy would
be to adopt a general measure; and he, therefore, moved the following
resolutions:—“That bribery has been repeatedly and habitually employed
to influence the election of members of parliament. That this fact has
been often established, never denied, and was especially proved at the
bar of this house in the first session of the present parliament, in the
cases of Penryn and East Retford. That it is notorious that a similar
practice is openly resorted to in many of the cities and boroughs of the
United Kingdom. That the recent disfranchisement of Grampound does not
appear to have in any degree diminished the prevalence of this evil.
That this house, therefore, finding that the passing of specific
bills directed against particular cases, has neither had the effect of
removing the existence, or arresting the progress of corruption, is of
opinion that its character may best be vindicated by abandoning these
useless and expensive proceedings, in order to adopt some general
and comprehensive measure, the only means of effectually checking
so scandalous an abuse.” These resolutions were negatived by a large
majority.




MR. O’CONNELL’S BILL FOR REFORM BY UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE, ETC.

On the third reading of the East Retford bill, the first attempt was
made in the British parliament to introduce principles new to the
representation of the country: namely, that the votes of the electors
should be given by ballot. This proposition came from that most reckless
of all demagogues; that prototype of the Athenian Cleon, Mr. O’Connell,
who argued that the ballot would protect the voter from all undue
influence, whether of fear or corruption. On the other hand, it
was argued that the mode of taking votes by ballot would preclude
representatives confronting their constituents; but it was not till
after nomination, and the demand of a poll, that the ballot would
commence; so that this mode would not take away from constituents the
power they now enjoyed of requiring explanations of past conduct, and
pledges for the future. The motion, which was lost, had been favoured
by certain occurrences at Newark, which were brought before the house of
commons on the 1st of March, on a petition from some of the electors of
that borough against the Duke of Newcastle. His grace was possessed of
large property within the borough—some private, and some held under a
crown lease—and had always been able to decide the election. Mr. Sadler
had recently been returned on his interest in opposition to Sergeant
Wylde; and the petition stated that “the return of Mr. Sadler was
obtained by means of the prevailing belief, founded on the experience of
former elections, that such of the duke’s tenants as should vote against
his grace’s nominee would be expelled from their tenancies; that many
of the tenants gave their votes to the opposing candidate; and that they
had in consequence received notice to quit their holdings, whether the
same was house or land, and whether it constituted part of the estate of
the crown, or the private property of his grace.” The petition further
stated, that his grace had neither denied that such notices had been
given, nor had disclaimed them; but had rather justified them, by
stating that he had a right “to do what he would with his own.” In
moving that this petition should be referred to a select committee, Mr.
Poulett Thomson informed the house, that not only the use thus made
of crown property affected the constitutional character of the
representation, but that its original investment was a ministerial job,
which had caused a great pecuniary loss to the country. The Duke of
Newcastle, he said, held about nine hundred and sixty acres of land
surrounding the town, by a lease, granted in 1760, at a rent of
only £36. This lease had been renewed in 1815, nine years after its
expiration, at a rent of £2,060; but it was still too low, as the
estimated value was £3,500. The pecuniary loss was therefore well worthy
of attention: but this was a trifle compared to the political purposes
to which the property had been applied. The noble lessee never gave
a lease for more than one year, in order to keep the voters under his
power; and the petition stated the manner in which this power had
been employed. If the allegations were true, the house was bound to
interfere; for though he did not mean to impugn the just and natural
influence of the landlord over his tenant, he appealed to the house
whether the power arrogated in the case before them did not rather
resemble the tyranny of the slave-driver, than the proper influence of
a British landlord. There was not even, in the present instance, the
objection of interference with the rights of private property; this was
a species of property against the future abuse of which the house might
guard, though they could not interfere with the existing lease. They
could address the crown, praying that the lease should not be renewed;
and, with a view to have the allegations sifted, he moved that the
petition be referred to a select committee. This motion was supported
by Sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Hobhouse, who set no bounds to their
indignation. The latter especially exerted his eloquence on the subject.
He remarked:—“Suppose the king’s government should send to his grace
the Duke of Newcastle, to let him know that when his lease expired
he should no longer have the benefits of that lease; suppose such
an intimation was given to his grace, and that it was alleged and
understood that his ejectment from the possession of this property took
place in consequence of his having given a vote against government upon
some great and leading question. If that were done, would it not be
denounced as an attack upon our dearest privileges, as an invasion of
the most sacred birthright of Englishmen: the liberty to assert and
maintain their opinions? Compare the conduct of the government in such a
case, with the conduct of the noble peer in the present instance:
there were these poor men, because they had to vote against his grace’s
candidate, banished from their homes, driven from their happy firesides,
and deprived of all the comforts of life. Could such conduct on the
part of the noble duke bear comparison with the case of the government
depriving the noble duke of these crown-lands on account of his giving
a vote against them?” It was stated on the other hand, that many of
the allegations in the petition were gross perversions of fact. The
crown-lands, for instance, were not in the immediate neighbourhood of
the town, but were scattered about among the adjacent villages to a
considerable extent; and the crown at the renewal of the lease had
only twelve houses and twenty-six cottages. There were others in the
neighbourhood who held land to a much greater extent than that belonging
to the crown. Mr. Sadler himself said that the petition was a mere
election paper, made up of wanton exaggerations, and unfounded
misstatements, for electioneering purposes. He also vindicated his
patron’s character for humanity and consideration, as regarded the
inhabitants of Newark. He denied that he was exposed to the operation
of any sinister influence, and could conscientiously say, that the noble
duke had left him on all questions to pursue his own line of conduct.
Mr. Peel defended the principle of the whole transaction, as well as the
mode by which the land in question had been acquired. He could see no
valid distinction between this property and that which descended to a
man as a freehold from his ancestors. He remarked:—“The lease which his
grace possessed of this crown-land gave him a right to deal with it
as any other possessions during that period; and in dealing with the
property of the crown as with his own, it was obvious that he committed
no breach of privilege. Now the petitioners entirely confined themselves
to the crown possessions held by the noble duke, praying that a lease of
them might in future be refused to him. They did not even refer to his
other property, with regard to which he had dealt precisely in the same
manner. It was plain therefore that if, in the management of his own
private possessions, he had committed no breach of privilege, he had
committed none by dealings in a similar manner with the property of the
crown. He would not say that the Duke of Newcastle did not dispossess
these tenants; but, without entering into the question, he would say
that superior to the privileges of that house were other considerations,
to which they were bound in duty and conscience to defer, namely,
the rights of property. Here was no allegation that menaces had
been employed; there was only the fact that seven tenants had been
dispossessed. Now, if they were to control the rights of property,
under the idea that those rights had been exercised in controlling
an election, a precedent would be set which would be not merely
inconvenient, but positively dangerous; for nothing could be more
dangerous than to say, they would not suffer any tenant to be
dispossessed who had voted in opposition to his landlord’s wishes. It
was in vain that honourable gentlemen exclaimed against the influence
which any peer derived from the possession of property: there was no
difference between that, and the influence which any other great
landed proprietor enjoyed; nor could any species of reform exclude such
influence. Property, he contended, should always have an influence
in that house, no matter whether it was in the hands of peers or
commoners.” The motion for referring the petition to a select committee
was negatived by a majority of one hundred and ninety-four against
sixty-one.




MR. O’CONNELL’S BILL FOR REFORM BY UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE AND VOTE BY
BALLOT, ETC.

Of all the various plans for altering the representation, whether
suggested by an honest desire to obviate the necessity of sweeping
innovations, or springing from the designs of restless demagogues, there
were none against which so little could be said as the proposition for
conferring the elective franchise on populous commercial towns. When,
therefore, Lord John Russell failed in transferring the elective
franchise of East Retford to Birmingham, he did not hesitate to bring
the subject before parliament again, by moving for a bill to confer
that privilege, independently of all other considerations, on Leeds,
Birmingham, and Manchester. He founded the constitutional nature of the
proposed alteration on the known practice of parliament, which extended
such rights to unrepresented places, when they had acquired importance
by their wealth and population. He remarked:—“It is true the proposal
hitherto had been, that the franchise should not be conferred till the
house had a forfeiture to dispose of; but it is now plain that if
the towns in question are to wait for such a transfer, there is no
probability of their obtaining it: so numerous are the difficulties
stated in both houses of parliament.” His lordship said that it did
not seem very reasonable that the fitness of Leeds or Manchester to be
represented should be said to depend on the good or bad conduct of
the electors of Penryn or East Retford: their claims must rest on
circumstances in their own situation; and if that situation was such as
to render it just and desirable that they should be represented, where,
he asked, was the sense of saying, that what was just and reasonable
ought not to be done, because the electors of some other place had
refused to do what was wicked? Lord John Russell then entered into
various details demonstrative of the growing greatness of the towns in
question. In continuation he remarked that he could not discover any
sound reason why so many citizens, and so much wealth, should remain
unrepresented, when the principle as well as the practice of the
constitution, had pointed out the manner of admitting them into
parliament. He knew it would be said that there was no limitation to
the principles that if it was held good to admit three towns, it might
equally be extended to twenty, thirty, forty, or even indefinitely. He
confessed this; and he saw no reason why, if Sheffield, or any other
town should at some future period attain the same rank, it should
not obtain the same privilege. It was not probable, however, that the
principle could ever be applied to more than four or five towns in the
whole realm. Parliament, moreover, had not always been so fastidious
in regard to the extension of a principle. It had not refused, for
instance, the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders. But
the present bill would not even add permanently to the members of
the house; he proposed that in future cases of disfranchisement,
the franchise should be allowed to drop altogether, instead of being
transferred. The whole measure seemed to him incapable of alarming the
most timid person, and it ought to be received with willingness by the
sternest opposers of innovation. When he looked at other countries, the
wisdom and policy of the measure was still more imperiously forced on
his conviction. We could not shut our eyes to the fact that a collision
between royal authority and popular resistance was rapidly approaching
in France, though all must regret that some compromise was not
contemplated which might save society from its consequences. It was for
us, then, to profit by the warning, and awaken in time to a perception
of the nice mechanism of our own representative government. It behoved
all who were lovers of liberty without disorder, and of peace without
slavery, to watch anxiously at such a period; endeavouring so to
accommodate our system to altered times and circumstances, as to render
it worthy of the respect and affection of the people. The constitution
itself supplied us with the means; we had only to use its own renovating
principles. Its fabric was not, as some supposed, that of a Grecian
temple, perfect and complete in all its parts, which could not suffer
alteration without the destruction of its symmetry; it was rather like
a Gothic building, susceptible of enlargement, consistently with the
integrity of its ornaments and the security of its duration. The views
on which this bill was founded were repeated and enforced by Lord
Sandon, General Gascoyne, Dr. Lushington, and Messrs. Huskisson, Bright,
and Brougham. All of these members did not go to the same lengths as
Lord John Russell, but all admitted that it was desirable the towns in
question should be represented. Some would give them members only as a
sequel of the disfranchisement of corrupt boroughs. Mr. Huskisson, who
delivered his last speech on parliamentary reform, said that he would
have been better pleased to have been able directly to transfer the
franchise of East Retford to Birmingham; but as the late decision of the
house had rendered that impracticable, he would support the motion.
He observed that the time was fast approaching when ministers would
be compelled to come down to the house with some measure, or to resign
their situations, and nothing was more unwise than for a government to
delay important propositions, till compelled by overwhelming majorities.
He did not wish it to be understood, however, that his vote implied he
could ever be brought to sanction the substitution of a new system of
representation for that which existed. He added:—“To a more extensive
parliamentary reform, a measure founded upon the principle of a general
revision, reconstruction, and remodelling of our present constitution, I
have always been opposed; and while I have a seat in this house I shall
give it my most decided opposition. If such an extensive reform were
effected, we might go on for two or three sessions in good and easy
times, and such a reformed parliament might adapt itself to one mode
of government on the ordinary concerns of the country; but if such an
extensive change were effected in the constitution of parliament, sure I
am that, whenever an occasion shall arise of great popular excitement
or reaction, the consequence will be a total subversion of our
constitution, followed by anarchy and confusion, and terminating either
in the tyranny of a fierce democracy, or a military despotism; these two
great calamities maintaining that natural order of succession which they
have been always hitherto seen to observe. I am, therefore, opposed to
such an extensive change and revision of our representative system.” The
motion for leave to bring in the bill was negatived by a majority of one
hundred and eighty against forty.

If this bill was the most harmless modification under which reform could
be proposed, that which was subsequently brought before parliament by
Mr. O’Connell was, on the other hand, the most wild and ruinous. That
arch-demagogue moved for leave to bring in a bill to establish triennial
parliaments, universal suffrage, and vote by ballot, the foundation of
this system being this proposition—simple indeed in its nature, but
tending to anarchy—that every man who pays a tax, or is liable to serve
in the militia, is entitled to have a voice in the representation.
Lord John Russell, who took occasion of the motion to introduce certain
resolutions of his own, embracing a more comprehensive scheme of change
than his former proposal, said, that he could not consent to any of
Mr. O’Connell’s scheme. Triennial parliaments might not be very
objectionable; but as to the other propositions, he considered them
totally incompatible with the constitution of England. Lord Althorp
spoke to the same effect: as any change was an evil, he said, the least
change was the limit to which he should go. Mr. Brougham adopted the
same course: the duration of parliaments might be shortened, he thought,
but he set his face against universal suffrage and vote by ballot.
His arguments against them were very cogent and convincing. A county
election, he said, could not be managed like an election at a club,
where the box was handed round, and the pellet thrown in, and there was
an end of it. To contest for a county or extensive city, a man must
be constantly among the people. His friends and himself should be
unremittingly engaged in active canvas; committees and subdivisions of
committees must be occupied in parcelling out the several districts,
and ascertaining how their strength stood in this part and the other;
landlords were to be sought out, and they of course would exercise an
influence over their tenants. He would suppose that those who advocated
this system would be able to devise some plan by which the voter was
to be able to vote in such a manner as that mortal could not discover,
except from himself, how he voted; that he was to be placed in some
kind of sentry-box, and provided with some kind of stamped pellet, the
forgery of which would no doubt be made an offence: it being assumed all
this while that notwithstanding promises made to his landlord, and the
candidate, his friend, the elector intended to give his vote to another.
The vote was given, and against a promise. Well, he went afterwards
to the candidate, congratulated him upon his prospect of success, not
failing to add, that his vote was one of the items which contributed
to the prospect. But then see the moral; see how far the concealment of
what was done could be continued; how far the knowledge of it could be
kept from the landlord, to secure whose interest in retaining him in
his farm he had made the promise. No one could see what passed in the
sentry-box, or how the pellet was disposed of; but were there no such
things as conversation amongst friends in going to or coming from
church, or at the club, or at the alehouse? was nothing of the nature of
the vote to be allowed to transpire? was a man to keep such a watch
and guard over his words and actions for three years, until the next
election come, that no mortal could discover what he did? He must not
tell it to his wife or his child; he must keep it locked up from his
bosom friend; he must not broach it to his pot-companion, but be as dumb
as the tankard which they had emptied between them; and this state of
silence must be observed for three years. Thus far for the elector: how
far was the concealment to be operated upon by the candidate? He had
found out that he was unsuccessful; that where he had been promised five
hundred votes he had not got fifty, the seed giving back one for ten,
instead of yielding ten for one, as a good husbandman had a right to
expect. Inquiries will be set on foot as to where the deficiency was. It
might be a mistake of the poll-clerks: the poll-books were examined
and all was right still. Then the Lord Johns and Sir Roberts, who had
promised their interests, were questioned; but they insisted that it
could not be amongst their tenants, for they had all promised, and
had all, no doubt, religiously kept their words. Each defended his own
tallies; but one had not voted for every tally promised. Suspicions were
excited, and some of the voters questioned. The man so questioned had
only one of three answers to give: he must say that he voted against the
candidate, by which he was sure to lose his farm; or he must refuse
to say how he voted, by which his loss of the farm would be equally
certain; or he must insist and solemnly call God to witness that he had
voted as he had promised. But even this latter alternative would not
completely lull suspicions: there would still be the watchings and
questionings of friends, and of agents, for no act that could be framed
could prevent these. In the course of these something would turn up to
fix the suspicions on which bad landlords would be ready to act against
their tenants; and it was on the assumption of bad landlords, who would
visit the refusal to vote for them or their tenants, that the necessity
of vote by ballot was at all defended. The bad landlord would act upon
suspicion: the more so, as, there being only fifty votes where five
hundred had been promised, the chance was ten to one that any one of
the five hundred who said he kept his word, was stating a falsehood.
Examples would then be made of a few: and what would be the result? Why,
that at the election a vast number would not vote at all. Some even of
those who had kept their word would take that as the surest way to prove
that they were not in the pay of the opposite party. The landlord would
compel others, whom he strongly suspected, not to vote, as the only way
of preventing their accession to the other side; or he might persuade
some of those who, he knew, if they voted at all, would vote against
him, to pair off with those whom he suspected, and thus deprive his
adversary of the whole. But was there no other way of coming at the fact
of how a voter had kept his word? If, in voting against his promise, he
acted for his principles, he would be likely to make it known for the
sake of those principles; if from friendship, he would probably tell
it to gratify his friend; or if he gave it from motives of interest,
nothing was less likely than that he should conceal it, for the
attainment of the object would render the disclosure useful; and in this
way the secret would come out, and the offended landlord at last get at
it, and the visitation upon him, which the vote by ballot was intended
to avert, would follow. But was this the only evil which resulted from
this system? Was there not a far worse remaining behind? Did not all
this study and concealment of a solemn promise violated; this long
watching and guard over a man’s words and actions, so as constantly
to appear that which he was not, tend to make him lead the life of a
hypocrite; that character of whom it was so justly and eloquently said,
that his life was one continued lie! What could be expected from a man
who had deceived those who had trusted him, and from one election to
the other was obliged to keep a constant watch on his words, lest, in
an unguarded moment, he should betray his secret, the discovery of
which would not be more injurious to his interests than fatal to his
character? What must be the opinions of those who could believe that a
man, who was for years, nay, even for months or weeks, habitually false
on one subject which was dear to him, could be true on all others? Such
an opinion was founded in utter ignorance of the human mind: false
such a man was, and false he must be, until human nature became totally
changed, or until men’s opinions of each other were totally subverted.
Thus the ballot would have but little efficiency, and that little would
be purchased at a great price. Mr. O’Connell’s motion was lost by
a majority of three hundred and nineteen against thirteen; and the
resolutions moved by Lord John Russell were afterwards negatived by
two hundred and thirteen against one hundred and seventeen. These
resolutions proposed to give members to large and manufacturing towns,
and additional members to counties of great wealth and population. They
also proposed to decrease the numbers of members for boroughs, giving to
such boroughs compensation by means of a fixed sum to be paid annually
for a certain number of years. Among the towns which were proposed to
be comprehended were Macclesfield, Stockport, Cheltenham, Birmingham,
Brighton, Whitehaven, Wolverhampton, Sunderland, Manchester, Bury,
Bolton, Dudley, Leeds, Halifax, Sheffield, North and South Shields, and
it was stated that the same principle would extend to the representation
of such large cities as Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Belfast. But the
time was not yet come when such an extensive reform as this could be
entertained in the British parliament.




BILL FOR REMOVING THE CIVIL DISABILITIES AFFECTING JEWS.

{GEORGE IV. 1830—1831}

The only other measure affecting the constitution of the legislative
body during this session was proposed by Mr. Grant, who moved for leave
to bring in a bill to repeal the civil disabilities affecting British
born subjects professing the Jewish religion. In support of this
motion Mr. Grant narrated to the house the treatment which the Jews had
received from the conquest down to the last century, when the act for
naturalizing foreign Jews was repealed within a few months after it was
passed, in consequence of the commotions excited by the measure. From
that time, he said, nothing had been done respecting: the Jews; they had
derived no benefit from the growing liberality of legislation; and
were alone still placed beyond the pale of the constitution. They were
excluded from practising law and physic, from holding any corporate
office; and from being members of parliament. They might even be
prevented from voting for members of parliament, if the oath were
tendered to them. They were, also, subject to local grievances; for in
the metropolis, at least, they could not obtain the freedom of any of
the companies, nor exercise any retail trade. And yet they formed a
community of peaceable and industrious persons. They were less stained
with political offences than any other body of men; and by their wealth
they added to the opulence of the country; and all they asked in return
was to be admitted to the benefits of the constitution. The house had
nothing to do but follow the example presented by the Catholic bill of
last year. The introduction of the bill was opposed by Sir Robert Inglis
and the chancellor of the exchequer, as inconsistent with what had
been the constant practice of the legislature; namely, to protect
Christianity under some of its forms in all their enactments. The
proposition could only stand upon the principle that no regard should
be paid to a man’s religion. It would therefore apply to Turks and
Mohammedans as well as to Jews; and it would only teach the people
that parliament held Christianity a matter of indifference, though
Christianity was bound up as part and parcel of the constitution. As
for the Catholic relief bill, that was no precedent; there was a broad
distinction between admitting to power in a Christian state, those who
were sworn enemies to Christianity, and those who were Christians of
different denominations. Jews were aliens in the popular and substantial
sense; they had another country and an interest not merely distinct
from, but hostile to that of the country which they might happen to
inhabit. The solicitor-general said, that, according to the law of
England, the Jews had no rights; for when they came back to this country
at the Restoration, after being driven out, no law had passed giving
them the rights of citizenship. But how did they stand at present? Their
religion was protected; their children legitimate; and they had power to
purchase land, and to transmit it to posterity. No man could doubt that
Christianity was a part of the law of England; and this was to be borne
in mind in legislating for those who were not Christians. The question
is, “Will you put an end to all religious distinctions?” There could
never be a thorough community between Christians and Jews; there was a
marked line of distinction between them; a complete individuality in the
Jewish character. The bill was supported by Sir James Mackintosh, Dr.
Lushington, and Messrs. Macauley and Smith, on the ground that it was
persecution to look at a man’s religion when speaking of his fitness for
civil rights; and that from the introduction of Jews, no danger was to
be dreaded either to the constitution or to Christianity. To refuse the
bill, it was said, after admitting Catholics, would be an absurd and
inexplicable contradiction. On a division the motion for introducing
the bill was carried by a majority of one hundred and fifteen against
ninety-seven. Before the second reading came on several petitions were
presented in favour of the bill, from London, Leeds, Liverpool, and
other places, as well as from private individuals. On the second
reading the usual topics in favour of it were enforced by Sir Robert
Wilson, Lord John Russell, and Messrs. O’Connell, Brougham, and
Huskisson. Sir Robert Peel—for the honourable secretary had now become
a baronet by the death of his father—said that he would not go so far
as to say that this bill would unchristianize the legislature; but its
principle was clearly this, that every form and ceremony whatever, which
gave an assurance of adherence to Christianity, should be abolished;
and all who supported the bill must maintain that every man, whether a
sectarian or infidel, would have a right to the same concession, though
he could give no affirmation which would afford a security to the state.
General Gascoyne moved as an amendment that the bill should be read a
second time that day six months, and on a division this was carried by
a majority of two hundred and twenty-eight against one hundred and
sixty-five, and the bill was lost.




BILL FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN CASES OF FORGERY.

On the 1st of April Mr. Peel brought in a bill to alter the law in cases
of forgery. The principal object of this bill was to abrogate partially
the capital punishment which had so long been affixed to almost every
branch of this offence. Thus he proposed to remit the capital punishment
in all those cases where serious doubts attended its infliction, and
where the complainants by due caution could have saved themselves—such
as forging receipts for money, orders for the delivery of goods, forging
stamps, uttering forged stamps, attempting to defraud by issuing forged
orders for goods, the fabrication of the material of Bank of England
paper, and forging deeds and bonds. Capital punishment was still
retained in all forgeries of the great seal, privy seal, and
sign-manual; in forgeries of wills, on the public funds, on bank or
money notes, or orders for the payment of money; and, in a word, of all
documents which represent money, and are negotiable and transferable
for it. This bill did not meet with the views of a strong party in the
house, who thought that the punishment of death should not be inflicted
in any cases of forgery, nor extended to any offence short of murder.
On the third reading of the bill, Sir James Mackintosh moved a clause
repealing the punishment of death in all cases of forgery, except that
of the forgery of wills. It also provided that any person against whom
a conviction of forgery should pass should lie in prison, either with or
without hard labour, at home for the space of fourteen years, or if
sent abroad to a penal colony, should be transported for any term not
exceeding that number of years. He further proposed to give, not only
the power of inflicting either of these punishments, but also that of
accumulating both whenever the circumstances of the case should be so
atrocious as to deserve the greatest severity. He proposed, likewise, to
vest a power in the crown, authorising it to treat all persons convicted
of forgery in such a manner as would mark forgery as an offence of a
blacker dye than any other which was not directed against life. Finally,
to meet the objection that the importance of employing persons of
education in the public service in new and remote colonies would lead,
first to the pardon, and then to the employment in public situations of
such persons convicted of forgery, he proposed to take away all power
of remitting or relaxing the punishment of forgery, except by a
representation to the king of the grounds on which it was proposed to
remit it, and by a remission of it by the king at home. This clause was
carried, and Mr. Peel thereupon relinquished all charge of the bill,
hinting at the same time that the house would probably regret the
decision to which it had come. On its introduction in the lords,
therefore, the lord chancellor declared himself against so sweeping
a repeal of the capital punishment, and moved that the bill should be
restored to the state in which it had originally been introduced into
the house of commons. His views were supported by Lords Tenterden,
Wynford, and Eldon. The amendment of the lord chancellor was carried by
a large majority; and although when the bill was returned to the commons
those who supported Sir James Mackintosh’s amendment complained that the
lords had improperly treated them, the lord chancellor’s amendment was
finally agreed to, and the bill passed.




BILL FOR AMENDING THE LAW OF LIBEL.

In a previous article certain state prosecutions for libel have been
noticed. These prosecutions, and the conduct of the attorney-general in
promoting them, were brought before the house of commons by Sir Charles
Wetherell, on a motion for copies of the proceedings on the three _ex
officio_ informations against the proprietor of a London newspaper.
As the motion was merely for the production of papers, and the
attorney-general was willing that the papers should be produced, there
was no debate, but the general impression of the house seemed to be that
the prosecutions were harsh and vindictive, and that Sir James Scarlett,
notwithstanding his Whig education and opposition life, was inclined to
be a very dictatorial attorney-general. Sir James attempted to recover
the favour of the house by a bill to mitigate in some respects the laws
of libel as they existed in what were called the Six Acts. By one of
these acts it was provided that a second conviction for a seditious or
blasphemous libel might be punished with transportation; and another set
forth that every person who should publish a newspaper, or certain other
publications, should first enter into a recognizance of three hundred
pounds, with two sufficient securities, in the metropolis, or of two
hundred pounds, if in the country. The object of this clause was to
guard against the circulation of blasphemous and seditious libels, and
to ensure a forthcoming fund, out of which their authors should pay
the awarded penalty. By the bill now introduced the punishment for the
second offence was to be repealed, and the securities demanded raised
from three to four hundred pounds in London, and from two to three
hundred pounds in the country. To the first of these propositions there
was no objection; but a strenuous opposition was made to the second, to
adopt which, it was said, would be imposing new shackles on the press.
When the bill was in committee the clause was rejected on a motion by
Lord Morpeth; but on the third reading, the attorney-general having
collected a more numerous attendance of ministerial members, moved and
carried its restoration.




ALTERATIONS IN COURTS OF JUSTICE.

Committees of the house of commons, and the law-commissioners appointed
by the crown, had recently found much to blame in the arrangements for
the distribution of justice in Wales. In consequence of this an act
was passed during the present session abolishing the separate system of
Welsh judicature, and annexing the jurisdiction of the Welsh judges to
that of the judges of England. By the same bill the number of puisne
judges was increased from twelve to fifteen—a new one being added to
each of the courts of king’s bench, common pleas, and exchequer. In
Scotland, on the other hand, while courts were abolished, the number of
judges in the remaining court was diminished by the subtraction of two
from its fifteen lords ordinary, or working judges, on whose ability
to get through the work depends whether the eight other judges, who
sit four and four in two courts of review, shall have judgments brought
before them.




ILLNESS OF HIS MAJESTY.

During the sitting of parliament, business was interrupted by
the illness of the king. His majesty’s health had, indeed, for a
considerable time been in a precarious state, but the first bulletin
was not issued till the 15th of April, when it was announced that he
was labouring under a bilious attack, accompanied by an embarrassment
of breathing. The disorder was subsequently ascertained to have been
ossification of the vessels of the heart. The symptoms continued to
vary, the patient enjoying temporary intervals of comparative ease; but
they did not give way, and they brought with them such an accession of
bodily debility as rendered painful even the slightest exertion.




BILL TO AUTHORISE THE ADHIBITING OF THE SIGN-MANUAL BY STAMP.

In consequence of the illness of his majesty, on the 24th of May a
message was sent down to both houses of parliament, stating that his
majesty found it inconvenient and painful to sign with his own hand
those public documents which required the sign-manual, and requesting
the parliament to provide means for the temporary discharge of that
function of the crown without detriment to the public service. A bill,
therefore, was immediately passed, allowing the sign-manual to be
adhibited by a stamp. Before the stamp could be affixed, a
memorandum, describing its nature and its objects, signed by three
privy-councillors, was to be endorsed upon the document. The stamp was
then to be affixed in the presence of his majesty, by some person whom
his majesty should command to do so by word of mouth. The presence of
certain high officers of state was likewise required to attest what had
been done; and the party affixing the stamp was to adjoin to the royal
signature the words, “In his majesty’s presence, and by his majesty’s
command,” and subscribe the same with his own name. The bill was limited
in its duration to the present session.




DEATH OF THE KING, AND ACCESSION OF THE DUKE OF CLARENCE, WILLIAM IV.

About the end of May a favourable turn of the disorder of his majesty
gave rise to a hope of his recovery. This feeling, however, was soon
dispersed, for the chest became affected, the lungs completely decayed,
blood was mingled with the expectoration, and general debility rapidly
ensued. His end was evidently near; and a short time before it
took place his physicians intimated to his majesty that all further
endeavours to avert the stroke of death would be unavailing. He calmly
answered, “God’s will be done,” and subsequently received the sacrament
from the hands of the Bishop of Chichester. Soon after his voice became
faint and low, and for several days his words were scarcely articulated;
his sleep also was broken and disturbed. At length, on the night of the
25th of June, the angel of death once more approached the palace of
the kings of England. He had slept little during the evening, and from
eleven to three was in a restless slumber, opening his eyes occasionally
when the cough caused great pain. At three o’clock his majesty beckoned
to the page in waiting to alter his position, and the couch, constructed
for the purpose, was gently raised, and the sufferer lifted to his
chair. At that moment, however, a blood-vessel burst, and his attendants
hastened to apply the usual stimulants, and to call in the physicians.
The royal patient himself perceived that his dissolution was at hand,
and exclaimed, “O God, I am dying!” then in a few seconds he added, in
a whisper scarcely audible, “This is death!” and when the physicians
entered the apartment George IV. had ceased to breathe.

The decease of the monarch had become so much an object of daily
expectation, and for years he had lived so much retired from his people,
that his death excited less sensation than commonly follows that of
English monarchs. Moreover, George IV. was not one of the most popular
monarchs in English history.

As soon as the decease of his majesty was known, his next brother,
William Henry, Duke of Clarence, was proclaimed by the title of William
IV. The new monarch in a short time rendered himself very popular by the
plainness of his habits and manners, and by the condescension, or rather
the familiarity of his intercourse with his people—qualities which
rendered him more popular by a comparison with the secluded life of his
predecessors. No immediate change took place in the government, for
his majesty, after the usual oaths for the security of the church of
Scotland, having signed the instruments requisite at the commencement
of a new reign, re-appointed the judges and other great officers of
the state to the places which had become vacant, and signified to the
members of government that he desired to retain their services.




CONTINUATION

OF

THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND,


By E. H. Nolan


[Illustration: 466.jpg WILLIAM IV.]




CHAPTER XL. (Continued)

{WILLIAM IV. 1830—1831}

     _Royal Message to Parliament..... Rupture between the
     Ministers and the Whigs..... Debates on the Question of
     Regency..... Prorogation and Dissolution of Parliament.....
     Formation   of Earl Grey’s Administration..... Death of Mr.
     Huskisson..... State of foreign Nations._




ROYAL MESSAGE TO PARLIAMENT—RUPTURE BETWEEN THE MINISTERS AND
WHIGS-DEBATES ON THE QUESTION OF THE REGENCY.

On the 29th of June the new king sent down a message to parliament,
in which he paid a tribute of respect to his deceased brother, and
requested the commons to make temporary provision for the public service
preparatory to the dissolution of parliament, which would speedily take
place according to constitutional usage. An address, in answer to that
part of the message relating to the death of the late monarch, was
immediately moved by the Duke of Wellington in the upper, and by Sir
Robert Peel in the lower house, in the terms of which all parties
expressed their hearty concurrence. This harmony, however, did not long
prevail. The Whigs had become uneasy because the session had passed
away without bringing them into closer contact with ministers; and this
uneasiness increased when they saw a new reign commencing, and a new
parliament about to be chosen, without any invitation given, or hope
held out to them. The time, they conceived, had arrived, when it became
necessary, if they hoped to participate in the sweets of office, again
to try their strength. They did this on the following day, when the
remaining parts of the speech were taken into consideration. The king
had recommended that parliament should make provision for carrying on
the public service. The Whigs insisted that parliament should continue
to sit until a bill be carried through, appointing a regency in case
the new king should die before the new parliament could meet—the
heir-presumptive, the infant of the late Duke of Kent, being a minor.
Accordingly, the ministers having moved in both houses an address simply
noting that they would make the temporary provision recommended in the
royal message, Earl Grey in the lords, and Lord Althorp in the commons,
moved as an amendment, that the consideration of the address should
be postponed to the following day. They objected, generally, to the
dissolution of parliament, when so many important bills were pending;
and insisted more specifically on the necessity of providing for a
possible demise of the crown during the interval which must elapse
before a new parliament could assemble. They argued that the only
inconvenience that could occur was that of sitting a month longer, and
they asked why they should not sit, when so imperative a duty required
it. The matter, at all events, was so important as to make it reasonable
that parliament should have twenty-four hours more deliberation how
to address the crown. Ministers replied, that the importance of the
question, the difficulties which would arise in the course of it, and
the caution with which every part of it must be considered, were the
strongest possible reasons for not hurrying it through at the end of a
session, when members of the lower house would be thinking much more of
the elections for the next parliament than the business of the present.
There was, moreover, no present necessity, they said, for this weighty
arrangement, as there was no prospect of danger from the king’s health.
Earl Grey had himself said, it was urged, that his majesty’s strong
constitution and temperate habits gave promise of a long reign. While
the inconvenience, then, was positive and present, the danger was
imaginary and remote. It was in vain to say that the object was to gain
twenty-four hours’ deliberation. “If the motion is agreed to,” said
the Duke of Wellington, “it will be viewed as a complete defeat of
ministers.” Lord Grey declared that the _bona fide_ intention of his
motion was to obtain a day’s delay, in the hope that the crown might
thereby be induced to come forward itself with a recommendation to
parliament to consider the question of the regency; and the Duke of
Wellington remarked that he believed him. But his grace was right in
suspecting that, whatever the mover’s object might be, the result was to
end in a trial of strength. The discussion, in truth, opened his eyes
to the fact that all parties but his own were determined to oppose him:
Lords Harrowby, Winchelsea, and Eldon, the Duke of Richmond, the Marquis
of Londonderry, Earl Mansfield, and Lord Wharncliffe, one after another,
stated their determination to vote for the amendment; even Lord Goderich
himself expressed similar sentiments. On discovering this, ministers
and their friends lost their temper, and railed against the “unnatural
coalition” which, the said, was now shown to have taken place between
parties opposed to each other in principle. Earl Grey, in reply, assured
the house that he had never either felt or expressed confidence in the
government. They had done well in carrying the Catholic Relief bill;
they had received all the political and personal support he could give;
and that support he could not but feel was of some benefit to the cause;
but he claimed no gratitude for what he had done; and, on the other
hand, he had none. As to general confidence in the present cabinet, he
never entertained such an idea. His public declarations must be known
to some of their lordships, and he was certain that, in private, he had
often made the same statements. He had repeatedly expressed his belief
of the incapacity of ministers, and therefore he could not have any
confidence in them. On a division, ministers had a majority of one
hundred against fifty-six; but the debate was a declaration of war;
and it became evident that their scheme of government, by balancing and
trimming their measures, so as to secure the aid of one section of those
who trusted them not, against another, was now at an end.

In the house of commons, the language was still more vehement and
bitter. The amendment was supported by Messrs. Brougham, Wynn, and
Huskisson, Sir Charles Wetherell, and Lord John Russell. Sir Robert
Peel had the mortification of receiving a lecture on the subject of
consistency from Mr. Huskisson. On a division, the amendment was lost
by a majority of one hundred and eighty-five against one hundred and
thirty-nine.




PROROGATION AND DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued by the king in person on the 28rd of July. In
his speech he thanked both houses for their expressions of sympathy and
affectionate attachment, conveyed to him on the demise of his lamented
brother, and on his accession; and said that he ascended the throne with
a deep sense of the sacred duties which devolved upon him, and with a
humble and earnest prayer to Almighty God, that he would prosper his
anxious endeavours to promote the happiness of a free and loyal people.
His majesty referred to the Catholic Relief bill, expressing a hope
that it would put an end to religious feuds; and declaring that he was
determined to support the Protestant religion as by law established. On
the next day parliament was dissolved by proclamation, and writs were
ordered to be issued for the election of a new one, returnable on the
14th of September.




STATE OF PARTIES.

The session just closed had broken up the alliance which enabled
ministers to retain office; and as this alliance, whilst it lasted,
seemed to widen the breach between them and their ancient friends,
they were destined, in the ensuing elections, to meet with a formidable
opposition. To oust the ministry was the avowed object of the Whigs, and
whoever professed the same object was their friend. The hostility of the
Tories rested on different grounds from that of the Whigs, but it was
equally formidable. The ministry, therefore, was forced to an election
in face of the combined opposition of the two parties—by playing off
one of which against the other it had flattered itself with being able
to retain its power. Yet the opposition was not stated on any special
ground. The manifestoes of the Whigs attacked it on the ground of
incapacity; but in what they were incapable was not shown. The Duke of
Wellington was said by them to be a domineering soldier, unfitted to
conduct alone the government of the nation, yet determined to surround
himself with men of mean capacity and dependent spirit, who would act as
the unreflecting instruments of his will. Such were the views put forth
by the Whigs, and though the offended Tories did not deliberately act
in union with them, yet their influence operated in the same
direction—namely, to overthrow the ministry. This general spirit of
opposition suddenly gained an addition of strength by a revolution in
France. The ministers of Charles X., discovering that the new elections
increased the number of their opponents, broke through the fences of the
constitution, with a determination to establish a species of Prussian
government, in which the material interests of the people should
dominate over those that are intellectual and political. A royal
ordinance abolished the liberty of the press; cancelled the existing
system of representation; and fashioned for the kingdom a new system of
election, which would produce a chamber of deputies more subservient to
the royal will. Paris rose in arms against these decrees, and the rabble
overcame the troops. Charles X. and his descendants were then excluded
from the throne by the deputies then in Paris, and the French crown
was presented by them at the same time to the Duke of Orleans. This
revolution in France was followed by another in Belgium, where a
national congress declared Belgium an independent state, excluded the
house of Orange from the throne, and set themselves about the election
of a new king. These events were hailed in England by the Whigs with
applause, as the dawning of a new and glorious era in the history of
man. Public meetings were held to pass resolutions commending the spirit
with which the Parisians had shaken off encroaching despotism, and
deputations were sent to congratulate them on their triumph. The people
of England were especially called on to remark how little they had to
fear from military power, since the citizens of Paris and Brussels
had been able to set it at defiance. It was also stated that they were
clearly entitled to be heard in the government, since it was in their
power to make the government what they chose. The excitement produced
by these events, indeed, acted in the elections very unfavourably to
ministers; and it had also the effect of bringing forward the question
of parliamentary reform in a much more prominent and remarkable shape
than it had yet assumed. The force of example was now added to the
existing motives for change, and the notion of transferring the
privileges of a corrupt borough to an unrepresented place, or giving
the elective franchise to a populous town, was discarded. A wild and
indiscriminating change was abroad. Meetings, petitions, and addresses
were got up on every hand, advocating extensive alterations in our
representative system, all of which, however vague and indeterminate in
their respective conditions, tended to confer the elective rights on
a much larger proportion of the people than had hitherto enjoyed them.
Threats were even uttered that a refusal of these rights would lead to
a general convulsion, in which the privileged orders might possibly
be forced to yield more than was required. As a natural consequence
of these menaces and demands, disturbances took place throughout the
country. Lurking incendiaries wreaked their vengeance on property, the
destruction of which only tended to aggravate the prevailing distress.
Night after night they lighted up conflagrations, by which a large
quantity of grain, and even of live stock, was consumed. Bands of men,
also, still more daring than the incendiary, attacked machinery of
all kinds, particularly thrashing machines, the use of which became so
unpopular that insurance-offices refused a policy to those who kept them
on their premises. The military force was increased in the disturbed
counties, and a proclamation was issued, offering a reward of
five hundred pounds for the conviction of an incendiary. A special
commission, also, was ordered to proceed into those counties where the
outrages were committed. The first offenders that were seized, being
tried before county magistrates, met with lenity, from commiseration
for their starving condition. But this only increased the evil; and,
therefore, the government resolved to quell the riotous proceedings by
the strong arm of the law. They were aided in this work by the yeomanry
and fanners, who, mounting their horses and scouring the country, aided
the civil officers in the discovery and apprehension of offenders.




MEETING OF THE NEW PARLIAMENT.

It was under these gloomy circumstances that, on the 26th of October,
the new parliament met for the dispatch of business. The meeting of
parliament found parties precisely as they had been at the dissolution,
with this difference, that all the elements of opposition had acquired
new vigour by the course of events, while new topics had sprung up,
on which it would be forced to make a trial of strength. It appeared
certain that the question of reform would speedily be brought forward;
and the ministers may have hoped that such a discussion would restore to
their ranks their former adherents. The session opened in reality on
the 2nd of November, the intervening days being occupied in swearing
in members, and in the re-election of Mr. Manners Sutton as speaker. The
king attended on that day in person. In his speech his majesty alluded
to the important events which had occurred on the continent; to the
continuance of his diplomatic relations with the new French dynasty; to
the endeavours he was making to restore tranquillity in the Netherlands;
to the maintenance of those general treaties by which the political
system of Europe had been established; and to the hope of renewing
his diplomatic relations with Portugal, because the government of that
country had determined to perform a great act of justice and humanity by
the grant of a general amnesty. The remainder of his majesty’s address
referred to the estimates, the expiration of the civil list on the
demise of his late brother, and his own dependence upon the generosity
and loyalty of the house and the country.

The usual addresses were carried in both houses, though not without
signs of opposition to ministers on the subjects of reform and
retrenchment. Earl Grey, in allusion to that part of the address which
spoke of the proceedings in Belgium as a revolt against an enlightened
government, and expressed our determination to maintain in regard to it
those general treaties by which the political system of Europe had been
fixed, said, that all this sounded like threatened interference,
while our principle should have been, as in the case of France,
non-interference. He could not conceive why we should be bound by
treaties to interfere between Holland and the Low Countries. We ought to
learn wisdom from what had passed before our eyes; and when the spirit
of liberty was breaking out all around, it was our duty to secure our
own institutions by introducing into them a temperate reform. Unless we
did so, he was persuaded that we must make up our minds to witness the
destruction of the constitution. He had been a reformer all his life;
but at no period had he been inclined to go further than he would be
prepared to go now, if the opportunity offered. He did not found this
on abstract right. It was said that every man who paid taxes, nay,
that every man arrived at years of discretion, had a right to vote for
representatives. He denied this. The right of the people was to have
a good government, one calculated to secure their privileges and
happiness; and if that was incompatible with universal suffrage, then
the limitation, and not the extension, was the true right of the people.
In reply to Earl Grey on this subject, the Duke of Wellington went
beyond his usual prudence and reserve. He remarked:—“The noble earl has
alluded to something in the shape of a parliamentary reform; but he
has been candid enough to acknowledge that he is not prepared with any
measure of reform. I have as little scruple to say, that his majesty’s
government is as totally unprepared as the noble lord. Nay, on my part
I will go further, and say, that I have never read or heard of any
measure, up to the present moment, which could in any degree satisfy
my mind that the state of the representation could be improved, or be
rendered more satisfactory to the country at large than at the present
moment. I will not, however, at such an unseasonable time enter upon
the subject, or excite discussion; but I shall not hesitate to declare
unequivocally what are my sentiments upon it. I am fully convinced that
the country possesses at the present moment a legislature which answers
all the good purposes of legislation, and this to a greater degree than
any legislature ever has answered in any country whatever. I will go
further, and say, that the legislature and the system of representation
possess the full and entire confidence of the country—deservedly
possess that confidence; and the discussions in the legislature have a
very great influence over the opinions of the country. I will go still
further, and say, that if at the present moment I had imposed upon me
the duty of forming a legislature for a country like this, in possession
of great property of various descriptions, I do not mean to assert that
I would form such a legislature as we possess now, for the nature of man
is incapable of reaching it at once; but my great endeavour would be to
form some description of the legislature which would produce the same
results. The representation of the people at present contains a large
body of the property of the country, in which the landed interest have a
predominating influence. Under these circumstances I am not prepared
to bring forward any measure of the description alluded to by the noble
lord. I am not only not prepared to bring forward any measure of this
nature, but I will at once declare that, as far as I am concerned, as
long as I hold any station in the government of the country, I shall
always feel it my duty to resist such measures when proposed by others.”

In the house of commons Mr. Brougham did not wait even till the address
was moved before he gave notice that, on the 16th, he would submit a
distinct proposition for a change in the representation. Sir Robert Peel
professed that he saw difficulties about the question which he was by
no means prepared to encounter. He wished, nevertheless, to say nothing
then which might prevent discussion hereafter, or interfere with its
advance towards a satisfactory termination. These declarations of
ministers spread widely the flames of discontent, which had already been
kindled against government; and the consequences appeared in formidable
combinations, both in and out of parliament, to embarrass ministers, and
thwart their measures.




DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING THEIR MAJESTIES’ VISIT TO LONDON.

The embarrassment to which ministers were exposed was greatly increased
by a domestic occurrence. Some time before the meeting of parliament
the king and queen had promised to honour the lord-mayor’s feast at
Guildhall with their presence: great preparations had been made by the
citizens on the approach of that civic festival, and all London was on
tip-toe expectation of the splendid procession. On the 7th of November,
however, all their expectations were disappointed: the lord-mayor
received a note from the home-secretary, stating that his majesty had
resolved, by the persuasion of his ministry, to postpone his visit to a
future opportunity, because, from information recently received, “there
was reason to apprehend that, notwithstanding the devoted loyalty and
affection borne to his majesty by the citizens of London, advantage
would be taken of an occasion which must necessarily assemble a vast
number of persons by night to create tumult and confusion, and thereby
to endanger the property and lives of his majesty’s subjects; and it
would be a source of deep and lasting concern to their majesties were
any calamity to occur on the occasion of their visit to the city of
London.” This announcement filled the metropolis with doubt and alarm.
Men conceived that some atrocious conspiracy had come to light—that
a new gunpowder-plot had been discovered—and that the crisis of the
constitution and of the country had arrived. The funds fell three per
cent.; and in the country every man expected that the next mail would
bring intelligence that London was in a state of insurrection. All,
however, remained calm; and ministers were naturally called upon to
explain the grounds on which they had acted. It appeared that the
principal foundation of their proceedings was a note from some person
in private life, stating that he was apprehensive the Duke of Wellington
would not be very favourably received. Mr. John Key, lord-mayor elect,
wrote to his grace informing him that “in London, as well as in
the country, there was a set of desperate characters,” fond of every
opportunity of producing confusion, and that, according to information
received by him, some of these desperadoes intended to make an attack
on his grace’s person on his approach to the hall; and, therefore,
suggesting that his grace should come strongly and sufficiently guarded.
The Duke of Wellington stated in the house of lords, and Sir Robert
Peel in the commons, that on receiving this letter it was considered
an imperative duty to recommend to his majesty the postponement of his
visit to a future occasion. “But, besides the letter of the lord-mayor
elect to the Duke of Wellington,” remarked Sir Robert, “information had
been received that an attack was to be made on his house in the course
of the night, when the police were at a distance, under the pretence of
calling for lights to illuminate. Any such attack must be accompanied by
riot; and the attempt to suppress such riot by force, when the streets
were filled with women and children, must be accompanied by consequences
which all of us must lament. That, however, is only one of the causes
which I have for believing in the possibility of such an attempt at riot
taking place. Every one is aware that there exists in the public mind
considerable excitement against those authorities which have been
appointed, under the sanction of the house, to maintain the public
peace—I allude of course to the body which is known by the name of the
new police.” In the course of Saturday and Sunday the most industrious
attempts were made in various quarters to inflame the public mind
against the new police. Thousands of printed handbills were circulated
for the purpose of inciting the people against that portion of the
civil force which is entrusted with the preservation of the public
tranquillity. These were not written papers drawn up by illiterate
persons, and casually dropped in the streets, but printed handbills,
not ill adapted to the mischievous purposes which they were intended
to answer. After reading some of these missives, Sir Robert
continued:—“Now, after hearing the inflammatory language of the bills,
I call upon the house to consider how great the likelihood is that,
after the police had returned to their ordinary duties in their
respective portions of the town, a desperate attack would have been made
upon them. If it were made, it would of course be resisted by the civil
force; if the civil force were insufficient to repel it, military aid
would be called in; and then on that night of general festivity and
rejoicing, in the midst of crowds of unsuspecting men, women, and
children, there might be resistance, and if resistance bloodshed,
occasioned by the necessity of supporting civil authorities.” In reply,
Mr. Brougham observed that, so far as the statement made did not proceed
on the unpopularity of the Duke of Wellington, it amounted simply to
this—that it was a bad thing to have a large assembly on the 9th of
November; and for this reason, that though nine hundred and ninety-nine
men out of one thousand might be peaceable and loyally disposed, yet the
odd units, the few who were riotously inclined, might put out the lights
in the streets, might involve the town in darkness, and might afterwards
commence a scene of riot and confusion which could not end without
bloodshed. If this were any objection to his majesty’s attendance at the
civic festival, it was not an objection to which the course of events
had suddenly given birth within the last two or three days. Every one
must have known that such an event as the visit of his majesty to the
city of London must, from its rarity, collect thousands, if not myriads,
to witness it; so that any accident to which the metropolis was exposed
at present, from the collection of a large mass of people together,
must have been as palpable a month ago as at the present moment. In
the course of his speech Mr. Brougham contrasted with severity the
popularity of the king with the hostility exhibited towards the premier.




MAJORITY AGAINST MINISTERS FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE CIVIL LIST.

It was now obvious that the duke’s administration had received a
shock from which it could not recover. The opposition made a final and
successful attack upon it on the 15th of November, when the chancellor
of the exchequer stated to the house his arrangement for the civil list,
which he proposed to raise to the annual sum of £970,000. They insisted
that government in many of its departments was extravagant, and, above
all, that the portion which was incurred on the personal account of the
monarch ought to be kept apart from every other item. Sir Henry Parnell
moved, “That a select committee be appointed to take into consideration
the estimates and accounts, presented by command of his majesty,
regarding the civil list.” The debate on this proposition was brief.
Messrs. Calcraft and Hemes, both members of government, opposed the
motion, chiefly on the ground that it had never been customary to submit
the civil list to a committee, and that retrenchment and simplification
had been earned as far as was practicable or prudent. The motion was
supported by Lord Althorp and Messrs. Bankes, Wynn, and Holme Sumner,
three of which members would in other times have been loath to lend
their votes to unseat a Tory ministry; and on a division there appeared
a majority in its favour of two hundred and thirty-three against two
hundred and four, thus defeating ministers. The consequence of this vote
was that on the next day the Duke of Wellington in the lords, and Sir
Robert Peel in the commons, announced that they had tendered, and his
majesty had accepted, their resignations, and that they continued to
hold their offices only until successors should be appointed. They
afterwards declared that they came to the resolution not so much on
account of the vote on the civil list as from anticipation of the result
of a division on Mr. Brougham’s proposition for reform, which stood
for the day on which this announcement was made. But if the civil list
question had not been deemed important enough to justify a resignation,
the majority that decided it showed a settled and stern system of
opposition, which must have convinced ministers that they could no
longer rule the country. At the request of his friends, Mr. Brougham
postponed his motion for reform till the 25th of November, professing to
do so with reluctance, “because he could not possibly be affected by
any change in administration.” He pledged himself to bring forward his
motion on the day appointed, whoever might be his majesty’s ministers.
He repeated the same declaration on a motion made by Sir M. W. Ridley to
postpone the consideration of election petitions till after Christmas;
but two days afterwards Mr. Brougham was gazetted as lord high
chancellor of Great Britain with a peerage.




FORMATION OF EARL GREY’S ADMINISTRATION.

{WILLIAM IV. 1830—1831}

The Tories had lent their votes to displace the ministry, but they had
formed no plan, and taken no steps, to ensure to themselves any share
in the succession. Earl Grey was authorised by the king to form a new
administration, of which he himself should be the head; and his lordship
accepted the office on condition that he should have authority to make
parliamentary reform a cabinet measure. The ministry was formed in about
a week, and it consisted of Whigs, and of those who had been formerly
adherents of Messrs. Canning and Huskisson, and who had held office
with the leading members of the displaced administration. The greatest
difficulty lay in managing Mr. Brougham, who had just declared that no
change could affect him, by which it was found he meant that no change
would bring him the offer of an office sufficiently high for his
ambition. Earl Grey was afraid to leave him neglected or discontented
in the lower house, and the honourable gentleman was determined not to
sacrifice his importance in that home for any subordinate office. The
negotiation ended in Mr. Brougham being made lord-chancellor—a striking
instance of the most important judicial functions in the empire being
entrusted, as the reward of merely political services, to a man who
possessed splendid talents, but who was unprovided with judicial
learning, and, above all, destitute of habits and capacity in judicial
thinking. No man pitied the fate of Sir James Scarlett, but many thought
the Irish chancellor, Sir Anthony Hart, who had stood impartially
between contending parties, harshly treated in being made to resign for
Lord Plunkett—the new premier considering it necessary to have an Irish
chancellor whom he could fully trust and employ in Irish politics. The
Duke of Richmond was the only leading member of the old Tory party who
entered the new cabinet, and he became postmaster-general. The other
members of government were as follows:—Lord Althorp was appointed to
lead the house of commons as chancellor of the exchequer; the offices of
home, foreign, and colonial secretaries were given respectively to Lords
Melbourne, Palmerston, and Goderich; Sir James Graham was made first
lord of the admiralty; Lord Lansdowne became president of the council,
and Lord Durham privy seal; Messrs. Denman and Home were attorney and
solicitors general; Lord Hill was commander-in-chief; Lord Auckland,
president of the board of trade, and Mr. C. Grant, of the board of
control; Lord Holland, chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster; the Duke
of Devonshire, lord chamberlain; the honourable Agar Ellis, chief
commissioner of the woods and forests; Mr. E. Grant, judge-advocate;
Lord John Eussell, paymaster of the forces; Mr. Poulett Thompson,
vice-president of the board of trade and treasurer of the navy; Sir
Edward Paget and Sir Robert Spencer, master and surveyor-general of the
board of ordnance; Mr. C. W. Wynne, secretary at war; and Messrs. Ellice
and Spring Rice appointed joint secretaries of the treasury. In Scotland
there were no offices liable to change except those of the lord-advocate
and the solicitor-general, the former of which was given to Mr. Jeffrey,
and the latter to Mr. Cockbum, both of them long-tried friends of the
lord-chancellor, and at the head of their profession. Ireland received,
as its chief governor, the Marquis of Anglesea, with Mr. Stanley
as secretary, Lord Plunkett as chancellor, and Mr. Pennefather,
attorney-general. It was necessary that the new ministers, who had
vacated their seats by taking office, should be re-elected, and this
afforded an opportunity to the radical party of showing their strength.
Thus Mr. Stanley was defeated at Preston by the notorious democrat,
Plenry Hunt. After the new ministry had secured seats, no business of
importance was transacted during the remainder of the year, except the
passing of a regency bill in conformity with the recommendation in the
speech from the throne. This bill had been introduced into the house
of lords on the day when the fate of the late cabinet was sealed in
the commons. It provided that in the event of a posthumous child of the
present queen, her majesty should be guardian and regent of the kingdom;
and that if such an event did not occur, then the Duchess of Kent was to
be guardian and regent during the minority of her daughter, the Princess
Victoria, the heir-presumptive. The princess herself was not to marry
while a minor without the consent of the king, or, if he died, without
the consent of both houses of parliament; and the regency was to be
at an end if the Duchess of Kent, while regent, married a foreigner. A
select committee was appointed on the 9th of December to inquire what
reduction could be made in the salaries and emoluments of offices
held during the pleasure of the crown by members of either house of
parliament, and to report their opinion and observations thereupon
to the house. On the 23rd both houses adjourned to the 3rd of
February—ministers declaring that a long adjournment was necessary,
in order to enable them to prepare the different measures which they
intended submitting to parliament, especially that plan of reform to
which they had pledged themselves on accepting office, and by which
alone they could hope to retain it.




DEATH OF MR. HUSKISSON.

Among the most interesting events of this year may be reckoned the
opening of the Liverpool and Manchester railway. It was, however,
attended by a lamentable catastrophe. Mr. Huskisson, as one of the
members for Liverpool, accompanied the Duke of Wellington in the
procession; and, neglecting the caution given to visitors against
leaving the carriages, he was knocked down by one of the returning
engines, and his leg was so dreadfully crushed, that amputation could
not be performed. He died of that disorder called tetanus, which
commonly occurs after extensive lacerated wounds. His character is
recorded in the previous pages of this history.




STATE OF FOREIGN NATIONS.

The revolutions in France and Belgium have already been noticed. The
spirit of insurrection displayed in these countries extended itself to
Leipsic, Dresden, Hesse-Cassel, Hamburgh, Berne, Basle, and Poland. In
this latter country, however, the insurrection did not arise from
civil discord, or political machinations, but rather from the harsh and
insulting proceedings of Duke Constantine, its viceroy. It was a light
to guide and warm a noble people to attempt their national redemption
from the hand of a foreign and tyrannical master. A contest took place
in the streets of Warsaw, between the people and the Russian troops,
and the latter were expelled the city. Subsequently the grand duke
was obliged to retire from the frontier, but not till it had been
represented to him that it was the universal wish of the nation that the
constitution should be carried into complete execution; that the promise
of Alexander should be fulfilled, of incorporating with Poland its
ancient provinces now under the dominion of Russia; but that no demands
pointed to the dethronement of the emperor as their king, in whose name
all the changes lately made in the government had been effected. The
Poles, however, being doubtful in what light Nicholas, Emperor of Eussia
would regard their proceedings, prepared for resistance, should he
be determined to treat them as rebels. General Klopicki was named
commander-in-chief of the army, and he soon found himself at the head
of a powerful force. All the Polish regiments joined the cause of the
people; but, divided and mutilated as Poland was, it seemed a hopeless
prospect for a portion of it to engage in a struggle with the gigantic
power of Russia. Fears were also entertained—and they were too soon
realised—that Austria and Prussia, in fear for their plunder, would be
adverse to its cause. Notwithstanding, the Poles made themselves ready
for the contest with stout hearts. To secure energy and promptitude in
their measures, they invested Klopicki, after the manner of the Romans
of old, with dictatorial power. But even in assuming this office, which
was to endure till the chambers of the diet, which were convoked for the
18th of December, could be assembled, the dictator disclaimed any design
on the part of Poland of throwing off its king, or of demanding anything
more than to enjoy under that king, an independent national existence,
with the free constitution which had been promised. “The Poles,” said
Klopicki, “know how to be faithful; and when all Europe abandoned him
before whose victorious eagles the nations had prostrated themselves,
the Polish battalions, firm in the hour of reverses, never ceased till
the last moment to range themselves round the fallen conqueror. But in
the present instance the power of evil had overstepped all bounds; it
was impossible to convey the language of truth to the head of the state;
flatterers, greedy of reward and prodigal of calumnies, gave us
every day new chains instead of liberty. Never was insurrection more
legitimate. No; the king himself will be forced to admit the justice of
our cause, when he comes to know the extent to which he was abused.” But
what could the unhappy Poles have expected from the mercy of the haughty
autocrat Nicholas? They sent two commissioners to St. Petersburg, in
order to attempt to arrange some terms of compromise; but the emperor
refused to listen to their representations, and issued proclamations in
which he threatened to inflict on the Poles the most severe punishment
for what he called “their horrid treason.” The year closed with a storm
thickly gathering over the unhappy country of Poland.

In Spain, Ferdinand deeply offended the Carlists by his abolition of the
salique law in favour of the child, if it should be a female, with which
his queen was pregnant, and thus gave rise to a war which long desolated
the northern provinces of Spain, as well as to the quadripartite treaty,
under which it was hoped that the country might enjoy the blessings of
a constitutional government. When the infant was born, it proved to be
a daughter, and the nation was called upon to proclaim Don Carlos
immediately. A civil war commenced; but the Carlists were at the close
of the year so far subdued as to leave the government in apparent
security. In Portugal, Don Miguel, still cut off from direct
communication with European sovereigns, except his brother of Spain,
continued, by means of special commissions, to take vengeance on those
of his subjects suspected of political delinquencies, and to supply
his wants by the confiscation of their property. Blood had, it is
true, ceased to flow; but a more terrible and lingering destruction was
ensured to his victims by their deportation to servitude in the African
settlements. In the beginning of the year about fifty persons, whose
only offence was that of being suspected of being malcontents, were
shipped off for Angola. These unhappy men, though of good families,
and respectable characters, were chained up with the most abandoned
ruffians, robbers, and assassins, and doomed to the same punishment. In
the middle passage, they were even stowed away in the smallest compass
possible, like the slaves of Africa, while the best places were assigned
to the malefactors; magistrates, members of the cortes, and other
reputable persons occupied the most deadly and pestilential berths.
Out of respect for their former situation in life, and pity for their
present sufferings, they were for some time spared the fatigues of hard
labours; but the superintendent soon received orders to discontinue this
lenity. Nor were the political prisoners confined in the dungeons at
Lisbon much better treated. They could scarcely obtain trials, and when
declared innocent, they could not gain their liberty. The treatment they
received may be seen from a petition which those confined in the castle
of St. Julian presented to Miguel against their jailer:—“The prisoners
of the tower of St. Julian have been lodged in the worst cells,
subterraneous, dark, exposed to rain and all weathers, and so damp that
it has frequently been necessary to strew the ground with furze, to
enable them to walk on it. They have occupied apartments only nine yards
long and three yards wide; and these being crowded, the temperature has
been raised to such a degree as to cause cutaneous eruptions, and other
complaints. Among these sufferers are the Spanish bishop, Dr. Diego
Munoiz Torrero, Doru. Ant. Pinho, and J. Ant. Cansado, these latter
being already declared innocent by the commissioners. In one of these
cells a complete inundation has occurred more than once, leaving a
continual dampness, and causing a consequent deterioration of health.
Besides this dreadful state, sir, the governor has ordered the windows
to be closed, to shut out the few spans of light of the heavens, and the
fresh air, the only remaining part of it being from the fissures of
the door, whereto the prisoners apply in turn their mouths, to breathe
particles of that air which the Almighty spreads so unsparingly to all
animals and living beings. Another cell, called the principal one, from
below, is also inhabited, and so dark that, let the sun be as brilliant
as possible, six lights will not suffice to lighten it, being twenty
steps below the surface of the ground. Such, sir, has been the
habitations of your prisoners, not for the space of a few days, but for
eighteen, twenty, and twenty-three months; whereas several other better
cells are occupied by only three or four prisoners.” The petition
further stated that the food given to them was of the most revolting
kind; and that those who were sick were thrust into solitary
confinement, in dungeons without light, without water, food, or bed,
and filled with vermin. But the heart of Miguel was steeled against this
petition. It was in vain that complaints were poured into his ears;
nor did the death of his mother, who had been blamed for much of this
cruelty, and who this year was called to her account at the bar of an
offended Maker, make any change in the proceedings of a disposition
which her maxims had deadened to the voice of mercy. Earl Grey, on
assuming the reins of government, very properly refused to make an
alliance with such an infamous usurper; notwithstanding, he was blamed
for this line of policy by the members of the late administration.
Towards the close of the year, indeed, there were signs of a rupture
between the two countries. Part of the Portuguese navy was employed in
an attempt to blockade Terceira, where the regency, in the name of the
young queen, was still ruling. Miguel made the non-success of these
vessels a pretext for seizing some English ships; and threats from the
government were resorted to before he would give up the pretended prizes
to their owners. Then the usurper relinquished his prey, and war was
averted.

The administration of Greece, during the present year, remained in the
hands of Capo d’Istrias and his partisans. The allied powers, however,
were occupied in attempting to make arrangements for the permanent
settlement of its government. The crown was tendered by them to Prince
John of Saxony, who declined it. Several candidates were then passed
over in favour of the pretensions of Prince Leopold of Saxe Coburg, and
the sovereignty was unanimously offered to him; but, though he had been
once anxious for the prize, he also finally rejected it. The causes of
his rejection of it were these:—Early in the year the prince wrote to
Capo d’Istrias to announce his acceptance of the sovereignty, and to
communicate to the Greek community the efforts he had made, and was
still making, to obtain from the allied sovereigns as many advantages as
possible for the new state. The count, however, did not like the idea
of relinquishing his power; and he transmitted letters and documents
expatiating on a variety of objections to the arrangements of the
allies, and on the dissatisfaction which they had produced throughout
Greece. These letters and documents excited the apprehensions of
the prince; and the horrors of an embarrassed administration, and of
discontented, unruly subjects, prevailed over the glittering radiance of
a crown. At the same time the illness of George IV., which was likely to
terminate fatally, opened to him new prospects. The question, therefore,
regarding the new boundaries of the kingdom, and the separation of
Candia from its territory, formed a ready pretext for his rejection
of the offer. The three allied courts endeavoured to change his
determination; but their efforts were unsuccessful; he definitely
declined the crown.

Before the revolution of July, the French government had sent a powerful
fleet and army, under the command of General Bourmont, against the dey
of Algiers. Bourmont was successful; the dey capitulated, and retired
to Naples, leaving the head of the piratical states in the hands of
the conquerors. The expedition was principally undertaken to obtain the
glory of a military exploit which had baffled the most powerful nations
of Europe, and of thus creating popularity for the despotic ministers
of Charles X. But no exploit could raise them in the estimation of
the people; monarch and statesmen alike were overthrown; and when the
expatriated dey heard of the event, he exclaimed, “Allah! Allah! God
is great, and the avenger of injustice.”

In Belgium, where Prince Leopold finally obtained a crown, the progress
of military events was interrupted by foreign interference. The kingdom
of the Netherlands had been created by Great Britain, Austria, Russia,
Prussia, and France, which powers held themselves bound to look after
their work. Some of them wished to compel the Belgians to submit by
force. The Rhenish provinces of Prussia were directly opposed to the
infection of that spirit which had severed the United States; the
Germanic confederation was already attacked by formal claims on
Luxembourg; and the King of the Netherlands had appealed to the allied
powers to preserve the throne which they had created. On the other
hand, it was certain that the new government of France would favour
the independence of Belgium, and its people would desire nothing
more ardently than a pretext for war, which might terminate in the
restoration of these provinces to her dominion. One party in Belgium,
indeed, openly declared that her interests demanded a reunion with
France; and that there was no doubt that she would receive the
protection of that power in case any of the allies should attempt to
preserve her connexion with Holland. To avoid war, therefore, the allies
agreed to interpose their good offices; and as their first object was to
stop hostilities, a protocol, signed at London on the 4th of November,
bound all parties to negotiation rather than to have recourse to
the sword. These negotiations involved many difficulties, and were
counteracted by many conflicting interests; but their result, as will be
seen, was the erection of Belgium into an independent kingdom.




CHAPTER XLI.

{WILLIAM IV. 1831—1832}

     _State of the Reform Question..... Meeting of Parliament.....
     Introduction of the Reform Bill..... Debate on the Motion
     that the Bill be read a Second Time, &c. Motion of
     Adjournment pending the   Ordnance Estimates carried against
     Ministers..... Prorogation and Dissolution of
     Parliament..... The Budget..... Proposed   Change   in
     Taxes, &c. Arrangement of the Civil List..... General
     Election..... Meeting of Parliament: The Reform Question
     renewed in Parliament, and carried in the Commons.....
     Rejection of it by the Lords..... Consequences of its
     Rejection..... Financial Statements..... Prorogation of
     Parliament..... Coronation of William IV...... Opening   of
     the  New London Bridge..... Ravages  of the Cholera.....
     Foreign Affairs..... Meeting of Parliament..... New Reform
     Bill..... State of Ireland_




STATE OF THE REFORM QUESTION.

{A.D. 1831}

It has been seen that the ministry which succeeded that of the Duke of
Wellington were pledged to apply themselves forthwith to what was termed
the reform of the representation; that is, to strengthen and enlarge the
democratic part of the constitution. While they were occupied in this
work, the details of which were as yet unknown, meetings were held in
all parts of the country, for the purpose of getting up petitions in
support of their policy. The prayers of the petitions were various, and
in many cases very indefinite. Thus one set of petitioners prayed that
the right of suffrage should be equalised and extended; but whether they
meant such an extension and equalisation as would convert the government
into a democracy, or some more modified degree of change, did not
appear. Others said that a real, substantial, and effectual reform in
the representation of the people had become necessary; but what reform
they actually wanted was all conjecture. Some petitions, however,
plainly declared what species of reform the petitioners required.
These demanded the annihilation of all influence on the part of the
aristocracy in returning members of the house of commons; the shortening
the duration of parliaments; the extension and equalisation of the
elective franchise; and vote by ballot. Another set of petitions
recommended a reform of property as well as of representation, actually
demanding that the possessions of the church should be seized, and
appropriated to “the necessities of the state.” In other petitions, the
petitioners, apparently at a loss to conceive what kind of reform was
required, were satisfied with announcing that the country was ruined,
and that it could only be restored by reform; at the same time gravely
leaving it to his majesty’s ministers to declare what change would
best answer the purpose. But, besides petitions in favour of reform,
permanent political associations had begun to be formed in different
parts of the country, for the purpose of organising large numbers of
individuals into one body, to act on the mind of the public, and to
press the question upon government. These associations took the name
of Political Unions; and they had a regular array of officers, with a
council, which transacted the ordinary business. Their objects were to
push on changes to any extent possible; to insist on whatever they chose
to demand, as a right which could not justly be refused; to repress
opposing opinions in their neighbourhood; and to make even the
government feel that they existed in order to dictate, not to obey. The
whole kingdom was indeed in a ferment; and not only the correction of
abuses, but immediate relief from national calamities, was confidently
expected by the multitude in a reform of parliament. It was to prove
a balm for all their sufferings—the commencement of a golden era of
prosperity.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament met, pursuant to adjournment, on the 3rd of February.
Hitherto ministers had veiled in profound secrecy the plan of reform
which they intended to produce. The question was introduced on this day
by Earl Grey; but it was only to state that ministers had succeeded in
framing a measure which would be effective, without exceeding the
bounds of a just and well-advised moderation; that it had received the
unanimous assent of the government, and that it would be introduced into
the house of commons at an early period.




INTRODUCTION OF THE REFORM BILL.

The measure of reform concocted by ministers was brought forward on
the 1st of March by Lord John Russell, to whom, though not a cabinet
minister, it was entrusted, in consideration of his constant and
strenuous exertions in this great question. His lordship commenced by
stating, that he was about to propose what had been formed in the mind
of Earl Grey himself. Ministers, he said, had discarded the notion of
complying with violent and extravagant demands, and had framed a measure
which would satisfy every reasonable man in the country. They wished
to take their stand between two hostile parties; neither agreeing with
those, on the one hand, who thought that no reform was necessary, nor
with others who conceived that only one particular reform could be
wholesome or satisfactory. His lordship then proceeded to detail the
plan by which ministers proposed to satisfy a demand for reform which,
as they themselves believed, could be no longer resisted. That plan had
been framed so as to remove the reasonable complaints of the people,
which complaints were principally directed, first, against nomination by
individuals; secondly, against elections by corporations; and, thirdly,
against electioneering expenses. As regards the first two grounds of
complaint, the ministerial plan consisted, first, in disfranchisement,
in whole or in part, of places which had hitherto sent members
to parliament; secondly, of enfranchisement, in order to enable
unrepresented places to elect members; and, thirdly, of an extension
of the franchise, in order to increase the number of electors in those
places which were to be allowed to retain, in whole, or in part,
their existing privileges. The part of the plan which related to
disfranchisement proceeded on a plain rule; namely, to disfranchise all
boroughs whose population did not exceed a certain number. It was true,
said Lord John Russell, it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the
wealth, trade, extent, and population of a given number of places; but
we have been governed by the population return of 1821, and we propose
that every borough which at that date did not contain two thousand
inhabitants should be deprived of the privilege of sending members to
parliament. This, he explained, would disfranchise sixty boroughs, and
get rid of one hundred and nineteen members. Disfranchisement was not
to stop here. There were some boroughs which should be blotted out
altogether, while others, although more flourishing in point of
population, were too low to have any good title to retain their present
privilege of sending two members to the house of commons. It was
therefore proposed that all boroughs whose population exceeded,
according to the census of 1821, two thousand, and yet was under four
thousand, should only send one instead of two members. The number of
these boroughs was forty-seven; and Weymouth, which had hitherto sent
four members, was in future only to send two. Having proposed the
disfranchisement of these places, amounting in the whole to one hundred
and sixty-eight members, Lord John Russell explained the ministerial
plan of enfranchisement. It was proposed that each of seven considerable
towns should send two members, and twenty others one member each. Then
twenty-seven of the largest counties, including Yorkshire, was in
future to return four members instead of two, with this exception, that
Yorkshire, already possessing four, was to return an additional member
for each riding. The representation of London, likewise, was to be more
than doubled; the Tower Hamlets, Finsbury, Lambeth, and Marylebone,
were each to return two members. But the most important part of the new
constitution was as follows:—The cities, boroughs, and counties which
were to send members, and the number of members to be elected being
ascertained, the existing right of franchise in them all was to be
altered, and a new franchise introduced, extending equally to those
which remained untouched, with the declared purpose of increasing the
number of electors, and of having but one uniform election throughout
the empire. The elective franchise was to be extended to all persons
paying a rent of ten pounds per annum, whether they occupied the
premises or not; copyholders, whose property was of the same yearly
value, and all householders to an equal amount, were to be electors for
counties; all holders of leases for twenty-one years, which had not been
renewed within two years, were to have the privilege of voting in towns;
and all leaseholders for twenty years of property worth fifty pounds per
annum, were to vote for counties. Existing resident electors were not
to be deprived of their right during their lifetime; but no non-resident
elector was to be allowed to retain his franchise. Finally, no
alteration was to be made in regard to the forty-shilling freeholders.
The new constituency being thus formed, Lord John Russell explained the
ministerial plan regarding the actual election. All voters were to be
duly registered; and in order to diminish the expense of elections,
as well as opportunities for bribery, drunkenness, and corruption, the
duration of the poll was to be diminished; that for counties was to be
taken simultaneously at different places. Such was the general outline
of the reform bill, in so far as England was concerned. The only
alteration in Wales, was to consist in adding unrepresented towns to
those which already sent members: for instance, Holyhead was to be
united with Beaumaris, and Bangor to Carnarvon. A new district of
boroughs was to be erected, consisting of Swansea, Cambridge, Langhorn,
and three other places, which should have the privilege of sending one
member to parliament; the only additional one proposed to be added to
the representation of Wales. In Scotland the existing county franchise,
which depended on a mere feudal right of superiority over lauds
belonging to others, was to be annihilated; the election of members
for boroughs was to be taken from the town-councils, and vested in the
citizens at large; and the new English franchise was to be introduced,
both in counties and in boroughs. Every resident owner of land or houses
worth ten pounds per annum, and every tenant under a written lease for
nineteen years or upwards, paying fifty pounds a year, was to have a
vote in county elections; and in towns the franchise was to attach to
the occupancy of a dwelling-house, rented at ten pounds per annum. To
some of the large towns, which hitherto had elected only in conjunction
with others, as Glasgow and Aberdeen, separate or new members were to be
conferred; while the Fife district of burghs was annihilated and
thrown into the county; and some counties were conjoined. In the whole,
Scotland was to have fifty members instead of forty-five. In Ireland
the principal alterations were to be the introduction of the ten pounds’
qualification; and that in towns the franchise should be taken out of
the hands of the corporations, and given to the duly qualified citizens:
Belfast was to return one member, and Limerick and Waterford two each,
thus adding three to the existing members for Ireland. The general
result of the whole measure, Lord John Russell said, would be to create
a new constituency of about 500,000 persons; the increase in counties
would be about 100,000; that in towns already represented, about
110,000; in new boroughs 50,000; in Scotland 60,000; and in Ireland,
perhaps, 40,000. This numerous body, he said, was connected with
property, and possessed a valuable stake in the country; and upon this
body it would depend, if any future struggle should arise, to support
parliament and the throne in carrying that struggle to a successful
termination. The probability of this franchise, he continued, would be
an inducement to good conduct; for when a man found that by being rated
at a certain rent, and by paying rates, he became entitled to vote in
the election of members of that house, he would feel an inducement to
be careful, frugal, and punctual in all his dealings, to preserve his
character amongst his neighbours, and the place which he might hold in
society. This large increase of the constituency would provide for the
political and moral improvement of the people. It was true, he said,
that the arrangements which he had detailed would diminish the total
number of members in the house; but that would not be a disadvantage.
There would be an absolute diminution in the whole of sixty-two, which
diminution was inflicted exclusively upon England; but it was the
opinion of ministers that this reduction would enable the house to
transact business more effectually and conveniently. After accounting
for two omissions, which might be brought as charges against
him—namely, that no provision was made for shortening the duration
of parliaments, or for introducing the vote by ballot—his lordship
concluded by requesting leave to bring in a bill to amend the
representation of the people in England and Wales.

This motion brought on a debate which lasted seven nights, and elicited
opinions from between seventy and eighty members. This debate would of
itself form a volume, and therefore only a brief outline can be given of
it in these pages. Sir Robert Inglis admitted that there was excitement
and expectation among the people; but he argued that the origin of it
was to be found in the events which had occurred in France and Belgium,
and that, if government would oppose instead of fomenting it, it would
soon pass away. Mr. Horace Twiss took the same view of the question.
Lord Althorp denied the validity of the grounds of opposition relied
upon by the previous speakers, and, in terms nearly identical with those
used by Lord John Russell, advocated the measure. Mr. Hume declared
that, radical reformer as he was, the plan proposed had exceeded
his anticipations. Mr. Baring Wall and Lord Stormont used the usual
arguments against the bill; Lord Newark trimmed between its opponents
and supporters; and Mr. Macaulay advocated it on the strange grounds
that, being opposed to universal suffrage and revolutionary measures,
he felt constrained to adopt this proposal. Mr. Hunt, the radical member
for Preston, and Lord Morpeth, strenuously supported the motion, and
Sir Charles Wetherell most bitterly and vehemently denounced it. The
baronet’s speech was one of the most eccentric pieces of vituperative
declamation ever delivered within the walls of parliament. He nicknamed
the bill “Russell’s purge!” which afforded much amusement to honourable
and right honourable gentlemen on his side of the house, and was taken
up out of doors, the party throughout the country using it as if it were
expressive of something which ought to be considered very fatal to
the measure. Mr. Hobhouse replied with smartness to Sir Charles, aptly
quoting Hume’s History of England for illustrations of his arguments.
This speech was effective on the ministerial side. Mr. Baring made a
heavy speech, which fell flatly on the house, and was replied to by Lord
Palmerston, who, in a most statesman-like oration, reviewed the whole
question, defended the motives of ministers, and exposed the fallacy
and folly of the arguments on the anti-ministerial, side. This speech
produced a most damaging effect upon the opposition. Sir Robert Peel
revived the hopes of the latter by one of his most studied speeches. It
was, however, defective in temper, and although received with cheers
by the opposition, failed to convince any one that reform was either
the unjust or dangerous thing which he represented it. The speech was
specious, sophistical and acrimonious; its effect upon the country was
to strengthen the public prejudice against the anti-reformers. The
Hon. Mr. Stanley, secretary for Ireland, made his reply to Sir Robert
effective by illustrations drawn from the condition and wants of
Ireland, its yearnings for freedom, and the restrictions which were laid
upon the franchise. Mr. Croker made one of those speeches which proved
nothing but the impolicy of the speaker. The bill was supported by Lords
Dudley Stuart and Howick, Sir J. Johnston, and Messrs. Russell, Wood,
Tennyson, and Long Wellesley. It was opposed by Colonels Sibthorp and
Tyrrell, Sir George Clerk, Sir George Warrender, and Mr. William Peel,
who merely repeated Sir Robert Peel in an ineffective manner. Mr.
O’Connell delivered a persuasive and eloquent oration in favour of the
immediate adoption of the bill, and intimated that there was danger of
insurrection in Ireland if that country were left any longer without
reform. Sir James Graham spoke well on the same side, especially in
reply to certain unguarded statements of Mr. Croker. Lord John Russell
replied, and the motion for leave to bring in the bill, as well as those
for Scotland and Ireland, was not resisted. The bill itself was not
brought in till the 14th—a delay which gave occasion to some members
of the opposition to express their surprise that a plan which ministers
were stated to have so long carefully pondered and concocted, and which
had already been amply discussed, should be in so incomplete a state
as to be unfit to be presented to parliament. On the 14th, however, the
bill, in which one or two alterations and corrections had been made,
was brought in, and read a first time without opposition. It was not
known why the opponents of the bill allowed the contest to terminate
without a division, but it appears to have arisen from the fact that
they did not form a combined body, and that they had no regular plan of
party operations. Ministers subsequently admitted that if a division had
taken place they would have been left in a minority; but the opposition
reserved themselves for the second reading—a stage at which, according
to the forms of the house, the fate of the principle of a bill is
usually decided.




DEBATE ON THE MOTION THAT THE BILL BE READ A SECOND TIME, ETC.

From the moment that the general outlines of the plan of reform proposed
by ministers had been discussed in parliament, public excitement daily
increased. The bill contained few of those changes for which violent
reformers had long clamoured; yet these persons professed to receive
it with joy. The secret of their conduct was easy to be understood; for
though the bill gave less than they wished or demanded, it granted more
than they had expected. They were told, moreover, by their leaders,
whose hopes lay in the future, that as ministers had determined to go no
further, all would be lost unless government were strenuously supported
by those who conceived a change desirable. From these causes they
agreed to forget the defects of the bill, and to be silent regarding
the ballot, universal suffrage, and annual parliaments. The ministerial
measure became their standard; “the bill, the whole bill, and nothing
but the bill,” became their watchword; and ministers were invested for
a time with a species of infallibility. No part of their measure was
wrong, and their conduct was not to be questioned. The manufacturers of
petitions again set to work; and the same places which had petitioned
a month before for much more, now prayed that the bill might pass
untouched and unimpaired. Men, in fact, who had craved reduction
of taxation and retrenchment of expenditure—who had desired a more
democratic house of commons as the only means of securing those good
objects, now conjured the house to enact a measure of which even its
patrons declared that it would neither reduce taxation or expenses. The
number of petitions was large, but the majority of the names attached
to them were from the lowest classes of society, to whom ministers
had declared no power could be given. But all this petitioning, though
regular, constitutional, and powerful, did not promise to be effective.
Ministers had threatened convulsions as the consequences of refusing
the bill, and the reformers resolved to support them by opinions which
indicated its approach, and exhibitions of mob force which might be used
as its means. Language of an intimidating nature was constantly used
at their assemblies, and in petitions, against all who should dare to
oppose the bill, which intimidation served the purposes of the reformers
in two ways: on the one hand, many who were averse to the violent
changes proposed were driven into acquiescence from the apprehension
that resistance would produce confusion; and on the other hand, those
who would actively have resisted the change were overawed from any
public expression of their sentiments. The menaces of the reformers
were even accompanied with a display of the means of executing them.
Everywhere the political unions boasted of the numbers they could bring
into the field. Ten thousand men, said Colonel Evans at a reform meeting
held in London, are ready to march hither from Beigate to support his
majesty’s ministers if they should be defeated; and the chairman of the
Birmingham union openly declared that it could supply two armies, each
of them as numerous and brave as that which had conquered at Waterloo,
if the king and his ministers required them in the contest with the
boroughmongers. Nor was the press idle in this critical state of
affairs; that daily supplied the fuel by which the excitement was kept
up, preaching, in some instances, doctrines subversive of all order and
government. Individuals who distinguished themselves in opposing the
change were attacked with every species of calumny that enmity could
invent; the property of the church and the rights of the peerage were
held out as illegally amassed treasures, which the people, in the
exercise of their rights, would soon have the pleasure of pillaging; and
pretended lists of the names of pensioners and placemen were circulated,
in which were to be found the names of men who had never received one
farthing from the purse of the state. Even parliament itself was the
object of incessant and absurd attack, and privilege seemed no longer to
exist.

Such was the state of the public mind when, on the 21st of March, the
second reading of the bill was moved. The debate lasted only two days.
It was commenced by Sir R. Vyvyan, one of the members for Cornwall, who
moved that the bill should be read that day six months. He declared that
the bill affected no interests of his own, but it was a measure full
of danger to the institutions of the kingdom, and which, therefore,
his conscience bound him to oppose. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Cartwright, who stated that Mr. Hume had actually written to the radical
reformers of Glasgow, entreating them not to say a word about the
ballot. Mr. Sheil, an Irish agitator, repeated the usual arguments in
favour of the bill, dwelling at great length on the disfranchisement
of the Irish boroughs at the time of the union, and the later
disfranchisement of the Irish forty-shilling freeholders, as justifying
in principle everything that was now proposed. He treated as ridiculous
the idea that the bill could be dangerous either to the crown or to the
aristocracy. There was variance between the logic of the non-reformers
and their sarcasms. The syllogisms were overthrown by their satire, and
their arguments evaporated in their vituperation. This bill would
wrench despotism from oligarchy, but it would not touch the legitimate
influence of property, and birth, and station, and all the other
circumstances which create a title to respect. It would take power from
individuals, and give it to a class; it would cut off the secret and
subterraneous conduit-pipes through which aristocratic influence was
now conveyed to that house, and would make it flow in a broad, open,
constitutional, and natural channel. Mr. Charles Grant followed on the
same side. The solicitor-general said that the whole argument against
the bill seemed to proceed on the assumption that there was something in
the British constitution inconsistent with change, and that to make
an alteration would be to effect its destruction. The history of this
country, however, and its institutions, showed that there had been
an almost uninterrupted series of conflicts between the principle
of democracy and despotism, with alternations of success, and the
inevitable consequences of that, a system of perpetual change. The
present bill, therefore, was in every point of view in perfect harmony
with the whole current of our legislation. In six years after the
Revolution, he said, the triennial act was passed, distinctly admitting
on the part of the legislature of that period that the Revolution
was not a settlement to be permanently unchangeable. Neither was the
triennial act itself treated with undeviating respect, for, in the year
1715, its repeal was sanctioned by some of the very men who had brought
about the Revolution; then the septennial act was passed, and another
great change effected in the constitution of parliament. Did any one at
that period hold that the septennial bill was a revolutionary measure?
So far from any such character being imputed to it, the measure had
always been treated as one within the constitution of parliament to
enact. Sir Edward Sugden complained that the solicitor-general had gone
back to the bill of rights, instead of attempting to explain and justify
this bill of wrongs. It was perfectly true that the septennial act did
not spring from the Revolution; it was brought in by Whig ministers
for the same purpose for which the present bill was brought in by Whig
ministers—as the only means by which they could retain their places.
Mr. Pendarvis warmly supported the bill; and Mr. Cavendish declared his
intention of voting for it, although his constituents at Cambridge had
petitioned against it; many of them, he said, were not hostile to the
whole measure, but objected to the new qualification as being too
low. Mr. Ward, on the other hand, opposed it in opposition to his
constituents in the city of London, who had petitioned in favour of the
bill. He had passed the earlier years of his life, he said, principally
in two close boroughs; and among the representatives of those had been,
during his remembrance, Messrs. Fox, Pitt, Canning, Perceval, the
noble lord at present at the head of foreign affairs, and the Duke of
Wellington. Such had been the representatives of those close boroughs,
and he much doubted if by a reformed system more able members would be
introduced into that house. Again, when he first entered that house he
had looked at both sides to see who were the most influential members,
and he saw on the ministerial side Messrs. Canning and Huskisson, and on
the opposition side Mr. Tierney, Sir James Mackintosh, and the present
lord-chancellor (then Mr. Brougham), all of whom had either been, or
were at the present time, members for close boroughs. Such was the case,
and it would be fortunate if large and populous places always found and
returned men of such abilities. On the other hand, during his
experience but three members had been called to account by that house
in consequence of their conduct, and all these three members were the
representatives of large and populous places. Mr. Calcraft, paymaster
of the forces under the late administration, who had expressed his
unqualified disapprobation of the bill, startled the house by declaring
that he intended to vote for the second reading. At length the house
divided on Sir B. Vyvyan’s motion, when there appeared for the amendment
three hundred and one against three hundred and two, thus leaving Lord
John Eussell a majority of only one in an assembly of more than six
hundred members. This division was, indeed, in substance, a defeat of
ministers, although the mob celebrated it as a victory by illuminations,
and by venting its vengeance on the houses of all who would not join in
the triumph. Ministers, however, could not labour under such a delusion,
although they still resolved to try their fortunes in a committee. That
committee was delayed till the 18th of April, and in the meantime the
bill was brought in for Ireland.

The bill for amending the representation of Ireland was brought in by
Mr. Stanley, the Irish secretary, on the 24th of March. In explaining
the bill, he said, in the first place, that the right of voting for
comities would be left to freeholders, as they already stood; but that
leaseholders of fifty pounds a year, under leases of twenty years,
would be added to them. Clergymen likewise were to vote, if they were
freeholders to the extent of fifty pounds; and householders who occupied
a house let at the yearly rent of ten pounds per annum. The machinery of
the bill was to be nearly the same with that proposed for England; and
the necessary result of the measure would be to take the franchise out.
of the hands of the corporations, who had hitherto monopolised it; and
Mr. Stanley thought that no one could deny its propriety. The English
bill, he said, in continuation, made no change in the election of the
members for the universities; but an alteration was to be made in regard
to the University of Dublin. In future it was to return two members
instead of one; and the number of electors was to be increased by
bringing back the right of voting to what it had originally been.
At Oxford and Cambridge the masters of arts had always voted; but in
Dublin, a subsequent charter having excluded scholars from receiving
their _stipendia_ after the expiry of the five years, it had been held
by a forced construction that they lost their right to vote for the
university-member after the same period, though they still continued
to be scholars. The present bill would restore the original right, by
extending their academic franchise to all persons who at any time had
been scholars of the university, provided they placed their names on the
books, as claimants of the right, within six months after the passing of
the act. Mr. O’Connell admitted that the bill would prove a great boon
to Ireland, and would produce an effective constituency; but there were
parts of it which he hoped would be altered. In the first place, he
thought that a greater number of members ought to be given to Ireland.
He objected, likewise, to the arrangement concerning the university,
because it still left to the franchise an exclusive character; no Roman
Catholic could vote there, because he could not become a scholar of a
Protestant university; scholarships, therefore, ought to be thrown open
to all classes of the community. Nor did the Irish counties receive
justice. Many counties in England, because their population extended to
200,000, were to receive two members each, while in Ireland there
were twelve counties, with a population above that point, whose
representation was not to be increased. In reply to the demand for
opening the university-scholarships to Catholics, and making all masters
of arts voters, the Irish solicitor-general announced that the charter
did not allow it. At Oxford and Cambridge the charters gave the rights
to the masters, but at Dublin it was only given to the fellows and
scholars, and it was the principle of the bill to preserve vested rights
and settled institutions, as far as could be done consistently with an
efficient reform. Mr. Bankes, and Sir C. Wetherell, and Mr. Hardinge,
argued, that the giving of additional members to Ireland, as well
as Scotland, was unjust towards England, and inconsistent with the
fundamental principles of the two legislative unions. They also
complained of the effects which the bill would inevitably produce upon
the Protestants of Ireland. If the bill passed, it would be impossible,
they said, for an Irish Protestant to be returned to parliament, unless
two-thirds of the Catholic population chose to vote for him. It would
be a virtual exclusion of all Protestants from the representation of
Ireland; not one would be elected unless he became an agitator, pledged
himself to all that was demanded, and basely pandered to the passions
and views of the Catholic electors. The chancellor of the exchequer, in
reply to these objections, stated that the bill did not interfere with
the unions, any more than the union with Ireland had violated the union
with Scotland; and that as to the different circumstances in which Irish
Protestants might find themselves, he and his colleagues entertained
no apprehensions of their opponents being able successfully to raise
against them a no-popery cry; the public mind was too enlightened to be
affected by such idle clamours. The bill was allowed to be read a first
time; and the second reading was fixed for the 18th of April.

When the house met, on the 12th of April, after the Easter recess, Lord
John Eussell communicated certain alterations which it had been found
necessary to make in the schedules of boroughs to be disfranchised,
in consequence of inaccuracies discovered in the population returns of
1821, on which the whole plan had been founded. Lord John Russell
also declared that, although ministers had not changed their opinion
regarding the propriety of reducing the numbers of the house, and would
try to carry that clause in the bill, still “they were not prepared to
say that this was a question of such essential and vital importance,
that, if the feelings of the house were strongly shown in a desire to
keep up the present number, they might not be induced to relax their
determination on that point. If it should appear to be the sense of
the house that the whole number of six hundred and fifty-eight members
should be retained, the government would not feel that they were
altering a vital or essential part of the measure by agreeing to that
proposition.” On the following day Mr. Stanley, when adverting to the
same topic, to prevent any misconception that ministers, though they
might consent to retain the numbers, would leave them to the boroughs,
stated, that they were determined to adhere in all circumstances to
the disfranchisement of every borough whose population did not reach a
particular standard, and the partial disfranchisement of every borough
falling beneath a certain other standard; the number of members to be
added should be given to such populous towns as might be considered in
that event to have a fair claim to representation.

On the 18th of April, Lord John Russell moved that the house should
resolve itself into a committee on the reform bill. In doing so he
stated the alterations which had been recently made in it by ministers.
According to his statement, it appeared that five boroughs had been
transferred from schedule A to schedule B, and allowed to retain one
member, and that seven of those in schedule B were allowed to retain
their two members, in consequence of its having been ascertained that
the population returns had not accurately represented the number of
inhabitants. On the other hand members were to be added to the following
counties: namely, Bucks, Berks, Cambridge, Dorset, Hereford, Hertford,
Oxford, and Glamorgan. Members were also to be added to the following
towns: namely, Oldham, Buly, Bochdale, Whitby, Wakefield, Salford, and
Stoke-on-Trent: Halifax was restricted to the township, and to return
only one member, the parish being twenty-five miles in extent. Sons of
freemen entitled to the privilege of freemen, and apprentices having
entered into indentures in the same manner, were to retain their
franchise on taking out their freedom, being resident, and registered
under the provisions of the bill. General Gaseoyne moved as an
instruction to be given to the committee, “That it is the opinion of
this house, that the total number of knights, citizens, and burgesses
returned to parliament for that part of the United Kingdom called
England and Wales, ought not to be diminished.” This motion was designed
to get rid of the bill altogether, and it produced a violent and
contentious debate. Mr. Sadler, who seconded it, delivered a long,
argumentative, and learned speech against the general principles of
the whole plan of reform. He was followed by the chancellor of the
exchequer, who declared that he was quite sure that the amendment
was put with a view of destroying the bill. It was impossible to
misunderstand it: it was the first of that series of motions by which it
was intended to interfere with the progress of the committee, and which,
if agreed to, would be fatal to the bill. The debate was adjourned till
the next day. On that occasion, of the members who opposed it, some did
not see how an agreement to the amendment could be considered hostile to
the principle of the bill, even if it were carried; and not one, except
ministers themselves, pretended it would be a good reason for abandoning
the whole bill. Mr. Bulwer, for instance, thought that this question
regarding the number of members would make no difference in the general
character of the measure, and Mr. J. Campbell hoped that the bill
would go on, though the amendment should be carried. Mr. Wynn, who had
resigned office because he was opposed to the bill, also thought that
this motion was not of much consequence one way or the other. Sir George
Warrington, though opposed to the bill, would resist the amendment, on
the idea that the effect of it would be, if the bill went on, to prevent
the giving of additional members to Scotland. Sir George Clerk said,
that he, also, would vote against it if he anticipated any such results;
but he saw no reason that it should be so. Sir Robert Wilson, one of the
most zealous of all the reformers, expressed great surprise at the
view which ministers, after all that had passed, chose to take of this
amendment. In voting for it he was not voting against increasing the
representation of either Scotland or Ireland, nor did he believe that
the fate of the bill depended in the slightest degree on the success or
the failure of the present motion. Mr. Stanley, however, declared that
this discussion would decide the fate of the bill. The amendment, he
said, was concocted in a spirit of hostility to the bill, and brought
forward to embarrass ministers. He warned those honourable members,
who, while they professed themselves friendly to reform, supported this
amendment, that it would decide the fate of the bill, and that by their
votes on this occasion they would be judged by their constituents and by
the country. In giving their votes, he added, they would either vote for
or against the carrying of that question, for the carrying of which, if
now lost, an opportunity so favourable might not soon again return, and
that the result of that night’s division would be, either to carry that
great question, or to defeat the hopes of the people of this country.
Sir James Graham, on the same side, remarked that he did not say if this
amendment was carried, ministers would abandon the bill; but he did say,
that if it should be, it would be a matter of very grave consideration,
whether the bill would be so impugned, that they ought not to attempt
to carry it through its other stages. General Gaseoyne expressed his
surprise at being told that the motion he had made for keeping the
sixty-two members was inconsistent with the essence and principles of
the bill. If I understood the noble lord who brought in the bill, right,
in a conversation which I had with him only yesterday, he distinctly
admitted to me that my amendment would not touch the principle of the
bill. Lord John Russell replied that the amendment now moved was a
different one to that to which General Gaseoyne alluded: and thus ended
this debate. On a division, the amendment was carried by two hundred
and ninety-nine against two hundred and ninety-one, being a majority of
eight against ministers.




MOTION OF ADJOURNMENT PENDING THE ORDNANCE ESTIMATES CARRIED AGAINST
MINISTERS—PROROGATION AND DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.

{WILLIAM IV. 1831—1832}

It has been seen that ministers looked at the amendment of General
Gaseoyne as one likely to destroy the bill of reform which they had
introduced into parliament. It was evident from the beginning that a
majority of the present house could not be relied on by its supporters.
Ministers, however, did not seem at first determined to have recourse
to a dissolution. On the 20th, nothing transpired except that Mr. Hume
declared that he would offer no opposition to the ordnance estimates,
because, after the vote of last night, he was anxious to assist
ministers in getting through the necessary business, in order that a
dissolution might take place. On the following day, Lord Wharncliffe,
in the upper house, asked Earl Grey whether ministers had advised his
majesty to dissolve parliament, and whether it had been resolved
that that course should be adopted. Earl Grey declined answering the
question; and his interrogator then gave notice that he would next
day move an address to the king, praying that his majesty would be
graciously pleased not to exercise his prerogative of dissolving
parliament. The same question was put in the commons by Sir R. Vyvyan,
and Lord Althorp replied, that it was not his duty to answer the
question. The discussion on the propriety of a dissolution was continued
till the morning of the 22nd, and an adjournment on the ordnance
estimates was then moved till the next sitting. This was strenuously
resisted by the chancellor of the exchequer, on the ground that the
topic which had occupied so much time was not a question before the
house; and that he wished to get on with the report of the committee of
supply on the ordnance estimates. On a division, however, ministers were
left in a minority of twenty-two. It was clear from this that ministers
had more to decide on than the reform question, and that they had to
straggle not merely for their bill, but their places. On the next day,
therefore, they resolved to dissolve parliament.

When the house met on the 22nd, the presentation of a petition connected
with parliamentary reform furnished occasion in the commons for another
discussion on that subject. Sir R. Vyvyan inveighed strongly against
the desperation with which ministers were believed to be urging on a
dissolution in the present state of the country. He was called to order
by Sir Francis Burdett; but the speaker declared that Sir B. Vyvyan was
not out of order. A scene of indescribable confusion ensued, in which
the authority of the speaker was for some time set aside. At length Sir
B. Peel was enabled to address the house. He referred to the scene which
had been exhibited, and made a disingenuous use of it, declaring that it
was a specimen of what might be expected in a reformed house of commons,
whereas the disturbance was created by those who were desirous, _per fas
et nefas_, to obstruct the measure before the house. Sir Robert, in a
strain of unhappy invective, reiterated his previous denunciations of
all reform.

Sir Robert was interrupted by the sergeant-at-arms, who knocked at the
door, and the usher of the black rod, who suddenly appeared to summons
the speaker and the members, to the house of peers, to hear the
prorogation of parliament.

In the upper house proceedings had been of a similar nature to those in
the commons. Lord Wharncliffe had scarcely risen to move for an address
to his majesty against the dissolution, when the Duke of Richmond rose
to complain that all the peers were not sitting in their proper places,
as usual on such occasions. This gave rise to a scene of noise and
confusion, in which one noble lord was heard to say that ministers were
taking the crown off the king’s head. Lord Wharncliffe, being at length
allowed to proceed, stated that, without wishing to provoke discussion
on the subject, he was anxious that it should be entered on the journals
of the house, that he in his place yesterday did give notice that
he would move an humble address to his majesty not to exercise his
undoubted prerogative of dissolving parliament. His lordship then made
a motion to that effect. The lord-chancellor said, that he had never yet
heard it doubted that the king possessed the prerogative of dissolving
parliament at pleasure; still less had he ever known a doubt to exist on
the subject at a moment when the lower house has thought fit to refuse
the supplies. The near approach of his majesty was now announced, and
Lord Shaftesbury was called to the chair amid discordant noises which it
was difficult for him to subdue. Lord Mansfield addressed the house, but
was interrupted in his speech by the entrance of the king, and the house
of commons having been summoned, his majesty prorogued parliament in
these words:—“My lords and gentlemen,—I have come to meet you for the
purpose of proroguing this parliament with a view to its dissolution.
I have been induced to resort to this measure for the purpose of
ascertaining the sense of my people, in the way in which it can be
most constitutionally and authentically expressed, on the expediency of
making such changes in the representation as circumstances may appear
to require, and which, founded upon the acknowledged principles of
the constitution, may tend at once to uphold the just rights and
prerogatives of the crown, and to give security to the liberties of the
people.” Parliament was prorogued to the 10th of May, and a proclamation
appeared the next day announcing its dissolution, and directing a new
election, the writs of which were made returnable on the 14th of June.

The dissolution of parliament was hailed by the people with great joy.
Illuminations were got up on every hand. That in London was authorised
by the lord-mayor; and the consequence was that, in the west end of the
town, the rabble vented their fury on the houses of all those members of
parliament who had expressed sentiments unfavourable to the bill, and
in whose windows no candles were placed. Many people, doubtless,
illuminated their houses lest they should become obnoxious to the mob;
yet these illuminations were made use of by the reformers to keep up
their incessant cry, that the inhabitants of the country, from one end
to the other, were animated by one universal feeling of enthusiasm for
the reform bill, and for the act which got rid of a parliament that
refused it. It has been well remarked that, in political disputes,
to place candles in windows is no proof of political opinion, or of
anything else than a prudent desire to avoid the outrages of a mob.




THE BUDGET—PROPOSED CHANGES IN TAXES, ETC.—ARRANGEMENT OF THE CIVIL
LIST.

The other business of this session related chiefly to financial matters.
The budget was opened on the 11th of February by Lord Althorp, who
estimated the charge for the year at £46,850,000; while the revenue, on
account of the many taxes repealed, would yield only £47,150,000, and
thus give an excess over the charge of only about £300,000. This, he
said, did not afford much room for the reduction of taxation; but still
he thought that something might be done, especially by reducing those
imposts which pressed on the industry of the country; by relieving trade
from fiscal embarrassments; and by introducing, in many cases, a more
equal distribution of taxes. Lord Althorp avowed that he had taken his
principles and general views from Sir Henry Parnell’s work entitled
“Financial Reform.” He divided the taxes into three classes:—first,
taxes on commodities of which there would be an increased consumption
and revenue; secondly, taxes which, instead of being equally and
impartially distributed amongst all classes, pressed more severely
on one part of the community; and thirdly, those taxes which, besides
interfering with commerce, took more out of the pockets of the people
than was furnished to the revenue. Under the first head, his lordship
explained that he intended to reduce the duty on tobacco, and on
newspapers, stamps, and advertisements; under the second, that of
sea-borne coal, which he proposed to repeal altogether; and under
the third, the duties on tallow and candles, calicoes, glass, &c.
The estimated loss of the reductions in the whole was £3,170,000, a
reduction which the revenue could not sustain. The next point was,
therefore, how to make good this loss without imposing an equal burthen
on the people. Lord Althorp proposed to equalise the duties on foreign
wines, and foreign European timber and exported coals; and to place
duties on cotton, steam-boats, and the _bona fide_ sale or transfer
of landed property. The estimated revenue from these sources was
£2,740,000; while on the other hand, the amount of taxes repealed or
reduced was £4,080,000; so that the country gained £1,340,000, while it
was stated the public services would not suffer. This financial project
of Lord Althorp was vehemently attacked by all parties in the house. The
experiment, it was said, was a dangerous one, and the probability was,
that it would be necessary to raise by exchequer-bills a sum to meet
the charges of the year; thus gratifying the country for a time by
an apparent relief from taxation, only to produce the necessity of
afterwards imposing heavier taxes on the people. The experiment was
represented as the less justifiable, as not one shilling was included in
the budget as being applicable to the diminution of the national debt.
It was always believed by some that the budget was not one of reduction,
but of mere transposition. Some taxes were reduced, but others were
imposed to make up the loss. At all events, it was said, the budget was
merely a pretext of doing something, while in truth it did nothing,
or did mischief. An attack was especially made on the tax proposed on
transfers in the public funds, and Lord Althorp was induced to abandon
it. Ministers were also defeated on a division in regard to a proposed
diminution of duties on Baltic timber, and an augmentation of those
grown in Canada. The tax on steam-boat passengers was likewise
abandoned, and an increased duty on our colonial wines, which his
lordship consented to reduce. Finally, the proposed duty on the
importation of raw cotton was reduced, and the whole affair produced a
strong impression of the practical inefficiency of the government. Under
any other circumstances, indeed, ministers could not survive the defeats
they had experienced; but the anchor of reform saved the ship in which
they had embarked, albeit it was a crazy one, from foundering in the sea
of politics.

Ministers were not more skilful in the arrangements of the civil list.
The late ministry had gone out of office after a vote by which the house
of commons declared its opinion that the civil list should be referred
to a select committee. When these arrangements were considered, it
appeared that the most material changes made after the abolition of
certain offices, were the reduction of the pension list in future to the
sum of £75,000 per annum, and the subtraction of £460,000 from the
civil list, to be placed under the control of parliament. On hearing the
statements of the chancellor of the exchequer, the members of the late
government expressed their satisfaction that the present ministers, so
loud against expenditure when out of office, and pledged to retrenchment
when they came in, had been driven to acknowledge that they found it
impossible to carry economy further, in the matter of the civil list,
than had been done by their predecessors. The new estimate, they said,
was identically the same with the former, except as to the principle,
whether a certain portion of the amount should be kept constantly under
the control of parliament. The system of retrenchment proposed was by
no means satisfactory to Messrs. Hume, Hunt, and others of the radical
school. Ministers, they said, had not adhered to their promises of
retrenchment in framing the estimates, especially in regard to the
pensions. It was of no use to tell the people that most of these
pensions were charitable; charity begins at home; and the house was
bound to be just to the people before being generous to poor peers, or
the poor relations of wealthy peers. Another point on which ministers
had to encounter stern opposition from their old allies, was a proposal
which they made for an increase in the army of 7680 men. No opposition,
however, was offered to a resolution moved in consequence of a royal
message, assigning to the queen, in case she should survive his majesty,
£100,000 per annum, with Marlborough House and Bushy Park as town and
country residences.




GENERAL ELECTION.

The election of the new parliament took place in the midst of general
excitement. This was very auspicious for the ministry. The declared
intention of the dissolution had been to obtain from the people a house
of commons pledged to support the reform bill. The only test by which
candidates were tried, was their determination to support that measure.
Nor was it sufficient to save a candidate from the storm which raged
all over the country, that he should be willing to reform the
representation. It was demanded of him that he should support the
particular measure which the ministry had proposed. It was to be “the
bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill.” Candidates who had long
represented places were told by the electors that they could no longer
vote for them, not because they were against the bill, but that they
were against the king; they did not know much about it, but it was the
king’s, and it must pass. The official influence of the ministry was
put forth unsparingly and unblushingly. In some instances, indeed, it
defeated its own object. Thus, in Ireland, two pledged supporters of
the bill were elected for the city of Dublin. The losing candidates
petitioned against the return, and it came out in the proceedings before
the committee, that the vice-regal government had interfered directly to
ensure the success of the sitting members. The consequence of this was
that the committee found the sitting members were not duly elected; and,
on a new election, two members were returned who were hostile to reform.
The tumult and license which usually characterise a general election
were more than ordinarily rampant and intolerant. Anti-bill candidates
and their supporters were exposed to the most lawless violence wherever
they dared to show themselves on the hustings, and were denounced on
the one hand as oppressors of the people, and on the other as disloyal
opponents of the people. In some instances the life, as well as the
property of unpopular men was sacrificed; and in Scotland especially,
the elections were controlled by the violence of riotous mobs. At the
election for the county of Lanark, the late member was attacked with
stones and missiles, from the gallery of the church in which the
election took place; and when he was re-elected, those who voted for him
were detained prisoners for some hours, until the military arrived to
shield them from lawless violence. At Dumbarton, also, the successful
candidate for the county was obliged to conceal himself in a garret,
till the mob, believing he had escaped, dispersed. From the excitement
and violence which everywhere prevailed, it was not surprising that the
great majority of the elections terminated in favour of the reforming
candidates. Out of the eighty-two county members for England, with
the exception of about twelve, all were pledged to support the bill.
Ministers, indeed, completely succeeded in obtaining a house of commons
fashioned after their own mind: the great majority of the members were
pledged to implicit obedience to the will of the people.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT—THE REFORM QUESTION RENEWED IN PARLIAMENT.

Parliament met on the 14th of June; being opened by commission till the
preliminary forms necessary to be gone through in the house of commons
should have been completed. On the 21st. after Mr. Manners Sutton had
been re-elected speaker without opposition, and all the members were
sworn in, his majesty opened the session in person. In his speech his
majesty remarked: “I have availed myself of the earliest opportunity of
resorting to your advice and assistance, after the dissolution of the
late parliament. Having had recourse to that measure for the purpose of
ascertaining the sense of my people on the expediency of a reform in the
representation, I have now to recommend that important question to
your earliest and most attentive consideration; confident that in any
measures which you may propose for its adjustment, you will carefully
adhere to the acknowledged principles of the constitution, by which the
prerogative of the crown, the authority of both houses of parliament,
and the rights and liberties of the people are equally secured.” No
amendment was proposed to the address in the upper house. The discussion
chiefly turned on the dissolution of parliament, the inattention of
government to the security of property during the London illuminations,
and the arts used to inflame the public mind during the election. The
same topics were also discussed in the commons, and the address was
carried there without opposition.

The house of commons having been elected for the purpose of passing a
measure of reform, no time was lost in bringing it forward. Lord John
Russell moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the representation
of England on the 24th of June. No debate took place on this occasion:
Sir R. Peel having stated that he did not wish to divide the house on
the first reading, or to have a long debate without a division. At his
suggestion the second reading was postponed from the 30th of June to the
4th of July. In the meantime the Irish and Scotch bills were brought in
and read the first time: the former on the 30th of June, and the latter
on the 1st of July. On the appointed day for the second reading of the
English reform bill an animated debate took place. Sir John Walsh moved
that the bill should be read that day six months. The debate which
followed this amendment continued three nights; and it consisted chiefly
of a repetition of the views, arguments, and anticipations which
had been brought out at such great length in the former parliament.
Ministers and their supporters, however, found new matter for triumph
in the evidence with which the general election had furnished them, that
the people were generally for reform. All doubt or hesitation was at an
end: the voice of the people had decided, not merely that there must
be reform, but that it must be that kind of reform contained in the
ministerial bill. This voice had been pronounced unanimously, for the
returns from close boroughs and particular counties could not be taken
into account in estimating the will and the wishes of those who formed
the people. The opposition on the other hand contended, that the
argument drawn from the mere fact of a popular clamour having been
raised in favour of this measure, was fit only for legislators who
had been invested with that character on no other terms than those of
pledging themselves to discharge the humble duty of delegates, and not
to act according to any opinions which they might form on the measures
proposed by government. No man, it was said, could deny the violent
excitement which had taken place, and few would maintain that large
bodies of electors were the fittest persons for deciding on the merits
of so complicated and delicate a question; and every man must concede,
that least of all could the decision of such assemblages be regarded
when made under the influence of agitation, sedulously cherished by
false pretexts, and supported by groundless anticipations. Nor could the
returns, it was argued, be considered as manifesting the opinion of the
country on this plan of reform. They had been influenced, it was said,
by considerations not connected with the merits of the proposition; and
by identifying it with consequences, to which even its most rational and
candid friends admitted that it never would lead. It was asked, Where
had been the unanimity in favour of reform before the promulgation of
the present measure, and the triumphs of the democracy of France? How
little ministers could trust to reason and calmness among the people,
and how much they reckoned on everything that was the reverse, was clear
from the delicacy and respect with which they treated bodies that ought
to have been unknown to them as a government, except for the purpose
of checking their pretensions. Ministers had resolved not to intrust
ten-pound voters who paid weekly; and this having displeased
the Birmingham Political Union, they addressed a letter to the
prime-minister on the subject, and that noble lord honoured them with
the most friendly recognition. The speech of Mr. Macaulay, a nominee of
Lord Lansdowne for the borough of Calne, in favour of the bill, elicited
much applause. He remarked:—“The country and their children for ages
to come will call this the second bill of rights; the greater charter
of the liberties of England. I believe that the year 1831 is destined
to exhibit to mankind the first example of a great, complicated, and
deeply-rooted system of abuses removed without violence, bloodshed, and
rapine; all forms observed, the fruits of industry not destroyed, and
the authority of the law not suspended. These are things which may well
make Englishmen proud of the age and country in which they live. These
are things which may make them look forward to a long series of tranquil
and happy years, during which nothing will disturb the concord of a
popular government and a loyal people; of years in which, if war
should be inevitable, it will find the people a united nation: of years
pre-eminently distinguished by the mitigation of public burdens, by the
prosperity of industry, by the reformation of jurisprudence, and by all
the victories of peace: in which, far more than in military triumphs,
consist the true prosperity of states and the glory of statesmen. It is
with such feelings and hopes that I give my most cordial assent to this
measure of reform, a measure which, in itself, I think desirable,
but which in the present temper of the public mind is indispensably
necessary to the repose of empire and the stability of government.” The
debate was closed by Lord John Russell, who defended his plan: and on a
division the second reading of the measure was carried by a majority of
three hundred and sixty-seven against two hundred and thirty-one.

It was proposed that the house should go into committee on the 12th of
July, when Lord Maitland, one of the members for Appleby, rose to oppose
the disfranchisement of that borough, on the score of a mistake in the
population returns. He moved that his constituents should be heard at
the bar by themselves and their counsel against the bill, in so far as
it affected them, and in support of the allegations in their petition.
Ministers declared that they would resist such an inquiry. They asked,
whether the progress of this great measure was to be stopped to enter
into the examination of a particular case of so insignificant a borough
as Appleby? Members would be heard in committee in regard to this and
every other borough; but if the house was to hear counsel in the case
of Appleby, they might likewise be called on to hear them in the case of
the other condemned boroughs, and that would be vexatious. The house
had the information furnished by the population returns, which ministers
deemed sufficient: if witnesses were examined at the bar, they must
necessarily, if they had not been engaged in taking the census, be
unable to furnish any other evidence; and if they had been so engaged,
they would furnish the same evidence. A stormy debate followed,
several members maintaining that there never had been an instance of so
arbitrary and unconstitutional an attempt as ministers were now making.
The second reading had carried the principle of the bill; but these
petitioners were not objecting to the principle, but simply maintaining
that, adopting this principle, the rule laid down by the bill itself,
and founded on matters of fact, could not apply to them. Ministers,
however, were deaf to all remonstrances; and the motion was negatived,
although several supporters of the bill ventured to vote in the
minority, feeling that the petitioners were justly entitled to show
cause why they should not be disfranchised, and that justice would
not be done if the motion were rejected. This motion being lost, a
new discussion arose before the speaker left the chair, on the general
principles and tendencies of the bill. As many members wished to express
their sentiments, and the majority seemed impatient to cut all argument
short, Mr. Gordon moved for an adjournment. The chancellor of the
exchequer, however, asserted that he would have no further general
argument on the bill after that night; and, notwithstanding the motion
was ably defended, it was negatived. Repeated motions for adjournment
were made, and were as repeatedly negatived; but as the minority still
kept to their point, and seven o’clock in the morning was approaching,
the chancellor of the exchequer said, that if the house would allow him
to go into committee _pro forma_, the chairman might report progress,
and ask leave to sit again to-morrow, when the discussion might go on as
before. This was agreed to, and the house then adjourned. On the
13th, when the motion was made for the speaker leaving the chair, some
discussion took place on the general principles of the bill; but it was
very brief; and the house then discussed the measure clause by clause.
The discussion on the several clauses continued from the 13th of July to
the 15th of September, the opposition combating every point foot to foot
with ministers. Amendments were moved as to the general principles
of the bill, and as regards particular boroughs; but ministers were
triumphant in almost every instance of importance. An amendment, moved
by the Marquis of Chandos, that the right of voting should belong-to
all occupiers of land paying a rent of not less than fifty pounds, was,
however, earned by a majority of eighty-four; and it was incorporated
with the original clause, which gave a right of voting for counties to
leaseholders for a certain period, and a defined rent. The committee
finished its labours on the 7th of September; and the bill, as amended,
was reported to the house. The third reading was carried without a
debate, on the 15th of September, by a majority of fifty-five; but on
the motion that the bill do pass, a debate arose, which continued during
the 19th, 20th, and 21st of September. Mr. Macaulay, with brilliant
eloquence, admonished the peers to look to the deserted halls of France,
and take warning not to oppose popular lights. Mr. Croker who seemed
to make a point of rising to address the house after Mr. Macaulay,
ridiculed the idea of the peers of England being deterred by fear from
the performance of their duty, and reminded Mr. Macaulay that if the
halls of France were deserted, it was because the French nobility were
so foolish as to make any concessions to popular clamour. Mr. Stanley,
then in the noon of his reputation, replied with his usual debating
power to Mr. Croker, and carried the sympathies, if not the opinions
of the house. Useless and angry recrimination entered largely into the
remainder of the debate, in which Mr. Wynn and Sir Charles Wetherell
especially figured. The personal influence of Lord Althorp and Sir
Robert Peel allayed this angry spirit.




REJECTION OF THE REFORM BILL BY THE LORDS.

The reform bill having been carried in the commons, on the next day Lord
John Russell, attended by many of its supporters, delivered the bill
to the lord-chancellor in the house of lords. The bill was read a first
time, and, on the motion of Earl Grey, was directed to be read a second
time on the 3rd of October. In the meantime the reformers vigorously
employed all the means in their power to intimidate the peers into
submission. Political unions again sent forth their addresses and
petitions, and meetings were convened to warn them of “the tremendous
consequences of rejecting the bill,” and to inform them how “deeply and
fearfully the security of commercial, as well as of all other property,
was involved” in passing it without delay. In a meeting held in the
common-hall of London, Colonel Torrens remarked:—“Let the peers refuse
this bill if they dare; and if they do, dearly will they rue their
obstinacy hereafter. You all remember the Sibyl’s story. She presented
her oracles to the court of Tarquin, and they were rejected. She burned
a portion, and again offered them, but they were again rejected. After
diminishing their number still further, she once more returned, and
the remaining volumes were gladly purchased at the price which she had
originally demanded for the entire. We, however, mean to reverse the
moral, for should the present bill be defeated, we shall bring their
lordships another bill, demanding a little more; and then, should they
still dare to resist the might, and insult the majesty of the people of
England united as one man, we will come forward with a bill of reform in
which their lordships will find themselves inserted in schedule A.” Such
language as this was used from one end of the country to the other, and
the press and orators alike endeavoured to intimidate the peers into
submission. They were to have no direct influence in the deliberations
of the commons, and now they were to have no deliberate voice in their
own house. Such was the state of public feeling when, on the 3rd of
October, Earl Grey moved the second reading of the bill. After
some prefatory remarks, he said, that being called to form a new
administration, he stated to his majesty that the only condition on
which he would accept office was that he should be allowed to bring
forward the question of parliamentary reform as a measure of government.
That condition was sanctioned by the monarch, assented to by the
commons, and hailed with joy by the people. Earl Grey next went into the
details of the bill, an account of which is given in the previous pages.
He added: “You are asked to give up that which is odious, unjust, and
unconstitutional, and by retaining which the security of this house
may be shaken. The influence which your lordships possess in the
representation of sixty-five old boroughs may be taken from you by this
bill, but the peers and the landed interest are not thereby deprived of
their influence in the representation—on the contrary, that influence
is increased.” Earl Grey proceeded to contend that the measure had
received the approbation of the country. He was, he said, one of the
last men in that house who would grant anything to intimidation, and
he would say, “Resist popular violence, and do not give way to popular
commotion,” but here there was neither violence nor commotion. The
opinion of the people was fairly and unequivocally expressed, and
no government could turn a deaf ear to it, and least of all could a
government founded on free principles take such a step. The time was
passed for taking half-measures; their lordships must either adopt this
bill, or they would have in its stead something infinitely stronger and
more extensive. The measure was brought forward at the recommendation of
the crown; it had been carried by an overwhelming majority of the other
house, and it was supported by the prayers of millions, who respectfully
knocked at their lordships’ door, and asked, for that which they
considered to be the restoration of their just rights. Were their
lordships prepared to reject a bill so supported, and that, too, on its
second reading? He would venture for a moment, he continued, to address
himself to the right reverend prelates who sat near him. While he
assured that body that no man was more sincerely attached than he was to
the maintenance of all the rights and privileges of the church—no man
held in higher veneration the purity of its doctrine and discipline—no
man was more ready to admit the zeal, and learning, and piety of those
who presided over it,—let him at the same time ask, that if this bill
be rejected by a narrow majority of the lay peers, and if its fate
should thus within a few votes be decided by the votes of the heads of
the church, what would then be their situation with the country? Those
right reverend prelates had shown that they were not indifferent or
inattentive to the signs of the times; they had introduced measures for
effecting some salutary reforms in matters relating to the temporalities
of the church, let them be implored to follow up the same course. The
eyes of the country were upon them; he called upon them to “set their
house in order,” and prepare to meet the coming storm—to consider
seriously what would be the opinion of the country should a measure on
which the nation had fixed its hopes be defeated by their votes. They
were the ministers of peace; he hoped that the result of their votes
would be such as might tend to the tranquillity, peace, and happiness
of the country. Earl Grey concluded his speech by saying that he
was prepared to stand or fall by this measure; the question of his
continuance in office for one hour would depend on the prospect of
being able to carry through that which he considered important to the
tranquillity, safety, and happiness of the country. Lord Wharncliffe
addressed the house against the measure, defending nomination, not
because it was made by peers or other influential individuals, but
because its effect in the house of commons was that it acted as a check
on those places which were popularly represented. He further argued,
that if a house of commons were once elected on the principles of this
bill, it would cramp the crown in the exercise of its prerogatives, and
create a body in that house so irresistible as to make their lordships’
decisions on all public questions a dead letter. The house of commons
would become too much the image of the people. The dangers, indeed,
which at this moment surrounded their lordships proved the accuracy of
his argument. They had now a popular house of commons—a delegate house
of commons; that house had passed this measure, and their lordships
were told that nothing was left for them but to record and register the
decree of the house of commons. He moved, therefore, that “this bill
be rejected.” Lords Mulgrave and Mansfield followed..... the former
in support of, and the latter against the bill. After which Lord
Wharncliffe, lest his motion should be interpreted as an insult to the
house of commons, begged leave to withdraw his motion, and to propose in
its stead that the bill be read a second time that day six months. After
some discussion this alteration was allowed, and the debate was resumed
by Lord Winchilsea, who opposed the bill. Lord Melbourne supported the
measure, and the Duke of Wellington opposed it. After some introductory
remarks, the duke referred to language which Earl Grey had uttered
concerning the house of commons in 1817. His words were—“Constituted as
it now is, I in my conscience believe that the house of commons is, of
all institutions, in all countries of the world, the best calculated
for the general protection of the subject.” In 1830 he (the Duke of
Wellington) had pronounced an opinion in parliament on the subject of
reform, of which the noble earl disapproved. What he said was, that he
approved of the constitution of parliament; and if he were to invent a
constitution for parliament over again, he would endeavour to frame one
like it, in which property should preponderate. The noble earl had said
that it was this sentence which had created the spirit of reform
now pervading the country. It was not so; the spirit of reform had
originated with the French revolution. Ever since the American war, the
minds of the people had been occasionally disturbed by the spirit of
reform; and when any insurrection grew up in Europe, a desire for reform
was sure to be exhibited. Concerning the measure before the house,
the noble duke asked whether it was founded on the principles of the
constitution? He thought not; he thought the bill violated both the
principles and practice of the constitution. It went to establish a
new system of representation in every county, borough, and town in the
United Kingdom, with the exception of the two universities. The town
representation would be placed in the hands of close, self-elected
committees, like that which had appointed itself in the metropolis
at the close of the last session, and which dissolved itself only
in consequence of the notice which its proceedings had attracted in
parliament. The undue enlargement of the powers of the town constituency
would entirely destroy the balance of the agricultural representation of
the counties. The towns already exercised an extraordinary influence in
the election of county representatives, and the evil would be aggravated
tenfold by the clause of the bill which gave votes to leaseholders and
copyholders. The noble duke entered into the details of the measure at
great length, and concluded by eulogising the constitution as it now
existed. Under it, he said, we enjoyed the largest commerce, and the
most flourishing colonies in the world. There was not any country in
the universe in which so much happiness, so much prosperity, and so much
comfort, were diffused amongst all the various classes of society; none
in which so many and such large properties, both public and private,
were to be found as in England. There was not a position in Europe in
any degree important for military purposes, or advantageous for trade,
which was not under our control, or within our reach. All these great
and numerous advantages we possess, he added, under the existing system;
but it will be impossible to retain them if we once establish a wild
democracy, a complete democratic assembly under the name of a house of
commons. On the two following evenings the principal speakers for the
bill were Lords Lansdowne, Goderich, and Plunkett; and against it, Lords
Dudley and Ward, Haddington, and Carnarvon. The fifth and last night of
the debate was begun by Lord Wynford, who was followed by Lord Eldon,
who condemned the measure as subversive of the right of property as
well as of the monarchy, and of every principle acknowledged by the
constitution. Lord Eldon concluded his speech by warning their lordships
of the danger of conceding the terms required; and by declaring that
if the measure passed, there would be an end to the monarchy. The
lord-chancellor, after taking a review of the courses taken by the
opponents of the bill, denied that the bill was founded upon population,
and not property. Lord Lyndhurst resisted the bill because it appeared
to him inconsistent with the prerogative of the crown, and with the
authority of their lordships; but, above all, because it was detrimental
to the rights and liberties of the people. The bill was opposed by Lord
Tenterden and the Archbishop of Canterbury, both of whom expressed their
belief that it would have a mischievous tendency. The Duke of Sussex
supported it; but the Duke of Gloucester, although desirous of temperate
reform, opposed it, as he conceived it to be a scheme for a new
constitution. Lord Grey, in reply, complained that the opposition to the
measure seemed to be carried on, less with a view to defeat the bill,
than to drive its advocates from office. He repeated that he was pledged
to this measure, or to one of equal extent; and said, that if a more
moderate scheme would satisfy the people, he would not be the person
to introduce such a measure. As to what course he should follow if
defeated, he could not say; but he should be culpable if he were to
resign his office and abandon his king, so long as he could be of use to
him; for he was bound to him by gratitude as great as ever subject
owed a sovereign. The house at length divided; and the bill, which had
occupied so much of the attention of parliament during this session,
and for which the people had long been earnestly striving, was lost by
a majority of one hundred and ninety-one against one hundred and
fifty-eight.

{WILLIAM IV. 1831—1832}

This division in the house of lords took place on the 8th of October.
When the house met on Monday, the 10th, Lord Ebrington brought forward a
motion, the object of which was to prevent ministers from resigning, by
pledging the house of commons to support them. He founded their claims
to public confidence, not merely on what they had done for the question
of reform, but likewise on other measures which had distinguished their
course; the relief, in particular, granted to the poor by the repeal of
the duty on soap and candles, the improvements introduced by them into
criminal jurisprudence, and the cleansing of the Augean stable of the
court of chancery. He moved the following resolution;—“That while this
house laments the present state of a bill for introducing a reform into
the commons house of parliament, in favour of which the opinion of the
country stands unequivocally pronounced, and which has been matured by
discussions the most anxious and the most laborious, it feels itself
most imperatively called upon to reassert its firm adherence to the
principles and leading provisions of that great measure, and to express
its unabated confidence in the integrity, perseverance, and ability of
those ministers who, by introducing and conducting it, so well consulted
the best interests of the country.” The motion was supported by Messrs.
O’Connell, Shiel, Macaulay, Hunt, and Duncombe, all of whom argued that,
as matters stood, the continuance of ministers in office was the only
thing that would secure public tranquillity, and that perseverance for
a short time was sure to make reform triumphant, while their resignation
would produce a state of things where demagogues would be above the law.
Mr. Hume described the vote of the house of lords to be the unreasonable
and wilful blindness of a miserable minority withholding from the
majority their just rights. Others insisted that government should not
hesitate, if it seemed necessary, to create as many peers as might be
required to secure a triumphant majority. “The people,” it was said,
“have sent a sweeping-majority of reformers into the house of commons;
why should not ministers send an equally decisive majority into the
other house?” The motion was opposed by Sir C. Wetherell and Sir Robert
Peel, and by Messrs. Croker and Goulburn, as being unnecessary and
unfounded. If agreed to, it was said, it would only be a repetition of
former votes. Lord Althorp said that the motion was made without any
suggestion on the part of ministers. For himself, unless he felt a
reasonable hope that a measure equally efficient would be brought
forward and carried, he would not remain in office a single hour. The
opponents of reform had gained a great triumph, and might rejoice in
their success; but he did not think that any great triumph would be
eventually gained; he was confident that the measure was only postponed.
If the people of England remained firm and determined, but peaceable,
he hoped and believed that there would be ultimate and speedy success.
There was only one chance of failure; namely, if their disappointment
led them into acts of violence, or to unconstitutional measures of
resistance. The motion was earned by a majority of three hundred and
twenty-nine against one hundred and ninety-eight.




CONSEQUENCES OF THE REJECTION OF THE REFORM BILL.

The rejection of the reform bill produced an extraordinary sensation
throughout the country. Meetings were instantly convened in the
metropolis. One was held at the Thatched-house Tavern, consisting of
all the members who had supported the bill in its passage through
the commons. The common-council also promptly assembled; and this was
followed by a meeting at the Mansion-house of merchants and bankers, who
passed resolutions approving of the conduct of government, and pledging
themselves to its support. Petitions were also carried to the king,
praying him to continue his ministers, and have recourse to a new
creation of peers, sufficient in numbers to carry the bill. The
lord-mayor and corporation went to St. James’s with an address to
the throne, and the civic procession was joined in its route by such
numerous bodies with similar addresses, that, before it reached the
palace, it consisted of more than 500,000 persons. Soon after their
arrival the parochial deputies waited on Lord Melbourne, who prudently
advised them to commit their addresses to the county members for
presentation at the levee. This was announced to the multitude by Mr.
Hume, who, while he exhorted them to be firm and united, advised them to
be peaceable, and to disperse immediately, so that no advantage might
be given to the enemies of reform. Mischief, however, was on foot. The
mansions of the Duke of Wellington, the Marquis of Bristol, and that of
Earl Dudley, were attacked, and were only saved from destruction by the
timely interference of the police. The Marquis of Londonderry and the
Duke of Cumberland were personally attacked in the park; and the latter
would probably have been killed had not the police rescued him. In the
country, also, violence and outrage became the order of the day. At
first they were confined to the counties of Derby and Nottingham, at the
latter of which places the mob set fire to the castle, the seat of the
Duke of Newcastle, one of the sternest opposers of the reform bill. The
house of Mr. Masters, also, in the vicinity, was sacked and pillaged;
and his wife died in consequence of being obliged to seek shelter under
the bushes of a shrubbery in a cold and rainy October night. In both
houses of parliament ministers loudly expressed their disapprobation of
such proceedings; but they were charged by their opponents with having
indirectly encouraged the rioters by the language they had used, and the
connexion in which they had placed themselves with large bodies of
men acting illegally. While the bill was before the lords a meeting of
political unions took place at Birmingham; and this assembly voted
an address to the king, setting forth their alarm “at the awful
consequences” which might arise from the failure of the bill; their pain
at imagining the house of lords so infatuated as to reject it; and their
earnest desire that his majesty would create as many peers as might
be necessary to carry the measure. The most violent and threatening
language was uttered by the speakers at this meeting; and one of the
resolutions agreed to was a vote of thanks to Lords Althorp and
John Russell. This was answered in these courteous terms:—“I beg to
acknowledge with heartfelt gratitude the undeserved honour done me by
150,000 of my countrymen. Our prospects are now obscured for a moment,
and I trust only for a moment. It is impossible that the whisper of
faction should prevail against the voice of a nation.” This courteous
reply to a body of demagogues was severely deprecated in the house of
commons, especially by Sir H. Hardinge, Sir R. Vyvyan, and Sir Charles
Wetherell. In the meantime the spirit of insubordination seemed to
increase. At Croydon the Archbishop of Canterbury was grossly insulted
while presiding over a meeting of the Society for the Propagation of the
Gospel; and in Somersetshire the bishop of the diocese was attacked when
engaged in the solemn ceremony of consecrating a new church. Several
other obnoxious prelates were burned in effigy. But these were trifles
compared with the devastation committed at Bristol, when its recorder.
Sir Charles Wetherell, arrived there late in October, on his official
duties. He had no sooner opened his commission than he was attacked with
such violence by the mob, that he was compelled to seek for safety by
flight and disguise. Even his departure did not stop the mad fury of the
populace. The episcopal palace, the mansion-house, the excise-office,
with great part of Queen’s Square, fell a sacrifice to the flames. A
large number of warehouses, also, many of which were filled with wine
and spirits, shared in the conflagration. The soldiers had been sent out
of the city, but they were compelled to be recalled; and as parties of
them arrived, tranquillity was restored. The total number of killed and
wounded amounted nearly to one hundred; and about two hundred were taken
prisoners during the outrages, while others were captured afterwards
with plundered property in their possessions. About the same time
partial disturbances broke out at Bath, Coventry, and Worcester; but
these being vigorously opposed by the municipal and military powers,
were speedily checked. A proclamation was finally issued by his majesty
in council on the 2nd of November, exhorting all classes of his subjects
to unite in suppressing tumults. As winter advanced, however, the alarm
of the executive government increased, and serious apprehensions were
entertained lest the peace of the country should be endangered by the
formidable associations which everywhere existed, and especially by
those in London, Birmingham, and Manchester. These associations began
even to appoint councils and officers, and to assume a regular plan of
organization. The rapid increase of unions at length made it necessary
that some steps should be taken to lay them under restraint; and the
Gazette of the 22nd of November contained a proclamation, declaring
their illegality, and warning all subjects of the realm against entering
into such combinations. About the same time a special commission
was appointed to try the Bristol rioters, and the result was that
eighty-five were convicted: five were left for execution, but four only
suffered the extremity of the law. A military court of inquiry was also
instituted on the conduct of the officers commanding at Bristol, and a
court-martial was appointed on Colonel Brereton and Captain Warrington.
The former, overcome by his feelings, and the weight of evidence against
him, destroyed himself, and the latter rested his defence for his
neglect in suppressing the riots, and preserving the buildings, on the
want of directions from Colonel Brereton, and of assistance from the
city magistrates, the head of whom purposely concealed himself when his
presence was needed; whilst all the aldermen excused themselves for
not accompanying the soldiers, by their inability to ride on horseback.
General Sir Charles Dalbiac, however, the crown-prosecutor, laid it down
as a fundamental principle of the common law:—“That if the occasion
demands immediate action, and no opportunity is given for procuring the
advice or sanction of a magistrate, it is the duty of every subject to
act on his own responsibility, in suppressing a riotous and tumultuous
assembly; and whatever may be done by him honestly, in the execution of
that object, he will be justified and supported by the common law. That
law acknowledges no distinction between the private citizen and the
soldier, who is still a citizen, lying under the same obligation, and
invested with the same authority to preserve the king’s peace as any
other subject.” Later in the year commissions were issued to try the
rioters at Nottingham and Derby.

During all this time Ireland continued in a most distracted state.
Associations were promoted in the country by Mr. O’Connell for the
repeal of the union, until at length the magistrates dispersed one of
his meetings, and apprehended the great agitator and his accomplices for
illegal acts. True bills were found against them by the grand jury,
and Mr. O’Connell put in a demurrer; but withdrew it, and pleaded not
guilty. After several attempts to delay the trial, he withdrew that
plea, also, and pleaded guilty to the first fourteen counts in
the indictment respecting the holding of meetings in contempt of
proclamations. Mr. Stanley, secretary for Ireland, distinctly stated
in the house of commons, in answer to a question put by the Marquis of
Chandos, that he and his accomplices would be brought up for judgment;
but this promise was never fulfilled, and many discussions took place
in parliament, as to whether government had made any compromise with the
agitators. Ministers denied that such was the case; and that they were
not brought up for judgment is perhaps sufficiently accounted for by
the state of both England and Ireland. In the latter country the
disturbances toward the close of the year greatly increased. In the
counties of Clare, Roscommon, Galway and Tipperary, all law was
trampled under foot; murder, robbery, and searching for arms by bodies
of men were the ordinary occurrences of every day. The lord-lieutenant
made a progress through the disturbed counties in the vain hope that
his presence would restore tranquillity; but things remained in the same
state on his return to Dublin as before his departure from thence. More
vigorous measures were afterwards adopted: proclamations were issued in
several counties applying the insurrection act to them, and a special
commission was sent down to try all offenders captured. A great number
of miserable creatures were convicted, but few individuals suffered the
last penalty of the law. But notwithstanding these trials, the outrages
in Ireland lost little of their horrors. The refusal to pay tithes
became general; and many frightful collisions occurred between the
peasantry and the authorities which endeavoured to repress their lawless
proceedings, The law was, in fact, powerless; and whenever the officers
of the law interfered, open war was declared against them.

[Illustration 482.jpg BRISTOL FROM ROWHNAM FERRY]




FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

On the 3rd of October the chancellor of the exchequer laid his view of
finance for the year before the house of commons. This was the second
statement within the year; for the original budget was a failure,
and his lordship had been driven to the necessity of changing his
operations. His present statement was that the total amount of
receipts for the present year would be £47,250,000, and the expenditure
£46,756,221. He had, he said, to allow for £200,000 more received from
the account of the last year, so that he would take the surplus of
revenue over expenditure at £493,000. He begged to observe that
this surplus was larger than he had anticipated in February last,
notwithstanding he had not succeeded in carrying several of the taxes he
had proposed. In the customs there had been a falling off this quarter;
but he had grounds for concluding that it would not continue. In regard
to the sinking-fund, he said, that, at the commencement of each quarter,
he had taken an average of the four preceding quarters, and that sum he
had applied to the reduction of the debt in the succeeding quarter, if
the revenue was not clearly falling. The act allowed the commissioners
for the reduction of the national debt to apply the surplus to the
purchase of exchequer-bills, as well as stock; and since the revenue had
been diminished so much by the reduction of taxes, the surplus had been
applied in the purchase of such bills. He had done this in order to
diminish the number of securities in the hands of the bank; and although
the plan was operose, the effect was, that the debt was not reduced,
unless there was a real surplus of revenue.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

The king prorogued parliament on the 20th of October, in person. On the
one all-absorbing topic, that of reform in parliament, he remarked:—“In
the interval of repose which may now be afforded to you, I am sure it is
unnecessary for me to recommend to you the most careful attention to the
preservation of tranquillity in your respective counties. The
anxiety which has been so generally manifested by my people for the
accomplishment of a constitutional reform in the commons house of
parliament, will, I trust, be regulated by a due sense of the necessity
of order and moderation in their proceedings. To the consideration of
this important question the attention of parliament must necessarily
again be called at the opening of the ensuing session; and you may
be assured of my unaltered desire to promote its settlement by such
improvements in the representation as may be found necessary for
securing to my people the full enjoyment of their rights, which, in
combination with those of the other orders of the state, are essential
to the support of our free constitution.” Parliament was prorogued to
the 22nd of November, but subsequently by proclamation to the 6th of
December.




CORONATION OF WILLIAM IV.

The coronation of William IV. took place on the 8th of September. The
ceremony was shorn of the grotesque pageantry of chivalric times, and
was confined to the interior of the abbey. The royal procession moved
in state carriages from St. James’s Palace, and was escorted by the
cavalry. His majesty was saluted with hearty cheers from the multitude,
such as greeted his father in the most palmy days of his reign. His
majesty, the first naval king that ever sat on the British throne, was
dressed in an admiral’s uniform. As the procession passed, the bands
which were stationed at different points played the national anthem,
which tended to excite the enthusiasm of the people. In conformity
with precedents, the coronation was distinguished by the grant of new
honours. Three marquesses, four earls, and fifteen barons were created;
and this increase of the peerage was afterwards succeeded by the
addition of twenty-eight names to the list of baronets of the United
Kingdom, for the express purpose of carrying the reform bill.




OPENING OF NEW LONDON BRIDGE, ETC.

The ceremony of opening new London Bridge took place on the 1st of
August. It was honoured by the presence of their majesties, who partook
of a banquet in a pavilion erected on the bridge. On the day following,
another exhibition of royalty took place in the procession of their
majesties to the house of lords, that the king might give his assent
to the queen’s dower bill. On the same day, in consequence of a royal
message, delivered by Earl Grey, the importance of making a further
provision to support the honour and dignity of the Princess Victoria,
as presumptive heiress of the crown, was taken into consideration. It
appeared that, in consequence of Prince Leopold’s election to the throne
of Belgium, £6000 per annum, which he had hitherto allowed his sister
and niece, had been withdrawn. Lord Althorp made a similar statement
in the commons; and he proposed an addition of £10,000 per annum to the
income of the duchess, which resolution was agreed to _nem. con_.




RAVAGES OF THE CHOLERA.

While the country was in the disturbed state described in previous
pages, its confusion was increased by the appearance of the cholera
morbus. This frightful malady first appeared on the banks of the Ganges,
in 1817. The early manifestations of it consisted in violent vomitings
and discharges of the bowels. After this, spasmodic contractions,
beginning in the fingers, gradually extended themselves to the trunk;
the pulse sank; the skin became cold; the lips, face, neck, hands, and
feet, and soon after the thighs, arms, and surface assumed a leaden,
blue, purple, black, or deep brown tint, according to the complexion
of the individual, or the intensity of the attack. The fingers and
toes were reduced in size; the skin and soft parts covering them became
wrinkled, shrivelled, and folded; the nails assumed a bluish, pearly
white hue; the larger superficial veins were marked by flat lines of a
deeper black; the pulse became small as a thread, and sometimes totally
extinct; the voice sunk into a whisper; the respiration was quick,
irregular, and imperfect; and the secretion of urine was totally
suspended. Death took place often in ten or twelve, and generally in
eighteen or twenty hours after the appearance of well-founded symptoms.
Many were the thousands who perished by this visitation in India; the
cities of Decca and Patna, the towns of Balasore, Burrishol, Burdavan,
and Malda suffered greatly, and throughout the Gangetic Delta the
population was sensibly diminished. The scourge was extended eastward
along the coast of the Asiatic continent, and through the islands of
the Indian Ocean, to China and to Timor. Before the end of 1827, it had
traversed the Molucca islands, and the island of Timor, and continuing
for several years to ravage the interior of China, it had, by 1827,
passed to the north of the great wall, and had desolated some places
in Mongolia. In the meantime, also, it extended to the west. Bombay,
Persia, Asiatic Turkey, Russia, Poland, Austria, and Prussia, all
experienced the dreadful visitation, from 1818 to 1831. Precautions had
been taken in England, by enforcing quarantine regulations, to protect
the country from the malady; but notwithstanding, in the month of
October of this year, it made its appearance in Sunderland. Before the
close of the year, it found its way from Sunderland and Newcastle to the
suburbs of the metropolis. At first its outrages were generally confined
to the victims of intemperance; but it soon began to attack patients
of all descriptions, and to spread from the capital into the provinces.
Scarcely any part in the empire, eventually, escaped the fearful
scourge, but its inflictions, probably by reason of the habits of the
people, and the nature of the climate, were less violent than in the
other nations which it had visited. A board of health was established,
which made a daily report of cases. Concerning the disease, there was
great contrariety of opinion among medical men. The main points on which
they differed were as to whether the disease was contagious or not;
whether it was the Asiatic cholera or a new complaint; whether it was
imported or indigenous; and whether it partook of the properties of
the plague, or was to be regarded as a transient scourge. The ratio of
deaths in England was found to be about one to three. Some places were
entirely free from its ravages, although it was raging near, which gave
rise to an opinion that its propagation was extended by currents in the
air.

     “God proclaims His hot displeasure against foolish men,
     That live an atheist life; involves the heaven
     In tempests; quits his grasp upon the winds,
     And gives them all their fury; bids a plague
     Kindle a fiery boil upon the shin,
     And putrefy the breath of blooming health.
     He calls for famine, and the meagre fiend
     Blows mildew from between his shrivelled lips,
     And taints the golden ear.
     He springs his mines,
     And desolates a nation at a blast.”




FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

In France, this year was likewise distinguished by tumults. In Paris and
Lyons especially there were great disturbances; and at the latter place
the riot of workmen advanced to such a height that the Duke of Orleans,
accompanied by Marshal Soult, was dispatched thither with extraordinary
powers to quell the revolt. In the Netherlands, after Prince Leopold had
accepted the crown, which he did in the month of June, Holland, on the
1st of August, declared the armistice to be at an end, and prepared
to enforce by arms the rights which Europe had, on a former occasion,
declared to belong to the king of that country. A Dutch army entered
Belgium, and routed the Belgian forces at Hasselt and Louvain, which
latter city it captured. This army, however, subsequently retired before
a large French force which arrived at Brussels for the defence of the
country. The marches of the Dutch and French armies became a subject of
debate, in consequence of which the French troops were recalled. Another
set of articles was framed by the conference, which declared that the
acceptance of them should be compulsory. Belgium readily accepted them,
but they were rejected by Holland. After this, a treaty was signed
between the five powers and Leopold, who was recognized by them as King
of Belgium; but the Dutch plenipotentiaries entered a strong protest
against this instrument, feeling a certainty of being aided in their
pretensions by some of the contracting powers, and by a strong party
even in Great Britain. The state of possession however, at the close
of the year, remained undisturbed; the King of Holland having declared
that, although he would not desist from his military armaments, he would
employ them at present only for the purposes of defence. In Spain, this
year two attempts at insurrection were made; but they were followed
by defeats, arrests, and executions. In Portugal, where Don Miguel’s
cruelties continued unabated, the hopes of the constitutionalists were
revived in the return of Don Pedro, with his daughter. Donna Maria, to
Europe, and his preparations for a descent on Portugal. Don Miguel made
every exertion to put the forts of the Tagus into a state of complete
preparation to repel the expected attack; but all his efforts were
weakened by the want of money; and at the close of the year his usurped
throne was in danger of being overthrown. Insurrections were also, this
year, prevalent in Italy. They occurred in Parma, Modena, and the Papal
States, and were put clown by Austrian interference. Greece, during the
same period, for whose pacification the powers of Europe had laboured so
long, was a scene of violence and war. The popularity of Capo d’Istria,
either from his too great attachment to Russian interests, or from the
jealousy and discontents of the chiefs, unused to control and jealous
of power, had rapidly declined. In consequence of this he became
suspicious and tyrannical; and before the year closed he lost his life
by assassination. This year was fatal to the liberty of Poland. Driven
to insurrection by the faithless and tyrannical conduct of Nicholas,
betrayed by France, deserted by England, and persecuted in their low
estate by Austria and Prussia, the Poles, after heroically struggling
with the armies of Eussia, were finally subdued. Warsaw was captured;
the Polish armies disbanded; the nobles degraded; and thousands of every
rank, age, and sex subjected to the most cruel punishments, and the
nationality of the country destroyed, so far as human ingenuity could
accomplish so fell a destruction. Poland rose for a desperate struggle
against the Russian giant, and astonished the world with its prowess;
but it proved unequal to stem the crushing movements of the Muscovites.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{WILLIAM IV. 1831—1832}

The British parliament reassembled on the 6th of December. During
the recess, ministers had been urged by their reforming adherents to
reintroduce the reform bill without delay; and it became evident, from
his majesty’s speech, that this subject would become the absorbing topic
of the next session. His majesty distinctly stated his views on the
subject of reform in the opening of the speech, thus:—“I feel it to
be my duty, in the first place, to recommend to your most careful
consideration the measures which will be proposed to you for a reform in
the commons house of parliament; a speedy and satisfactory settlement of
this question becomes daily of more pressing importance to the security
of the state, and to the contentment and welfare of my people.” The
other parts of the speech referred to the distress which prevailed; to
the appearance of the cholera morbus; to the agitation prevailing in
Ireland; to the Portuguese affairs; to the separation of the states of
Holland and Belgium; to a convention entered into with the king of the
French for the suppression of the slave-trade; to the estimates; and to
the recent riots. The address did not produce any division, but several
parts of it were objected to in both houses. In the lords, the principal
matter of discussion was found in those parts of the royal speech
which regarded the foreign policy of the government, the opposition
particularly objecting to that part of the address in answer to it
which expressed satisfaction that an arrangement had been made for the
separation of the states of Holland and Belgium. At the suggestion of
Lord Harrowby the paragraph was slightly altered, so as to meet the
views of all parties. In the commons, Sir Charles Wetherell brought
under notice that part of the speech which related to the riots at
Bristol, in the course of which he made some severe remarks on the
libels of the press, which had charged him with being the author of
those events; the charge was false, he said, in all its parts, and known
to be false by those who made it. Sir Robert Peel proposed the same
alteration in that part of the address that related to the affairs of
Holland and Belgium, which Lord Harrowby had suggested in the upper
house, and it was adopted. In his speech, besides adverting generally
to the other topics in the address, he protested against a precedent now
established, that of assembling parliament for the dispatch of business
without giving the usual notice. He admitted that, by the letter of the
law, government was entitled to call parliament together after fourteen
days’ notice; yet it was laid down by the highest authority that, up
to the period when the old law was altered, it was deemed of high
importance that forty days’ notice should be given of the meeting of
parliament. Of the allusion in the speech and address to the necessity
of a speedy and satisfactory settlement of the reform question, Sir
Robert said that he would not object to it, as ministers had declared
that it was not intended to express any pledge. He would candidly avow,
however, that he despaired of seeing the question brought to a speedy
and satisfactory settlement. In the different discussions on the reform
bill, ministers had agitated principles which did not admit of any
satisfactory settlement. It was his conscientious belief, indeed, that
the principles of the bill were so many impediments to the settlement
of the question, which the ministers themselves had not the capacity
to remove. In reply, Lord Althorp justified the short notice on which
parliament had been called together, by the circumstances of the
country. Mr. Hume made some remarks on the distress of the country,
which he connected with the paper currency, and he moved this
amendment:—“That in the present critical and alarming state of the
country, when trade and manufactures were reduced to such difficulties
by the withdrawing of, and narrowing the circulation, without a
proportionate reduction of taxation, by which the means of all but those
who lived upon the taxes were reduced one-half in value, the greatest
distress existed; that these were aggravated by the baleful system
called free-trade, by which a competition of foreign silks, gloves, and
other articles was permitted with our own manufactures; that by these
means the people were driven to desperation and frenzy, and that to
these causes were to be attributed those incendiary proceedings going
on in the country; that for these reasons the house do adjourn, to give
time to ministers to prepare a suitable address, taking proper notice of
the state and condition of the country.” Mr. Hume said that he did not
move this amendment to get rid of the address, but to give ministers
time to consider whether they would not depart from the practice of
making the address a mere echo of the speech. No member, however, would
second the amendment, and therefore it fell to the ground.




NEW REFORM BILL.

On the 12th of December, pursuant to notice, Lord John Russell moved for
leave to bring in a new reform bill. He first called upon the house to
remember Earl Grey’s declaration on the rejection of the former bill
in the house of lords—namely, that he remained in office only with
the view of bringing forward another and no less efficient measure of
reform. The principles of the two measures, he said, were the same—any
alterations which had been made left its efficiency unimpaired. He
conceived that, as a resolution had been passed by the house of commons
in favour of the last measure, it was only necessary to explain the
alterations in the present bill, which alterations regarded the manner
of carrying into effect principles already adopted by the house.
These principles consisted in the disfranchisement of decayed and
inconsiderable boroughs; the enfranchisement of large and opulent
towns; and the introduction of a general new electoral qualification.
As regards the disfranchisement of decayed boroughs, the former bill had
taken the census of 1821 as the rule, and had fixed on a certain amount
of population, disfranchising all those whose population did not at that
time reach the amount. Since that time a new census had been taken. This
census could not be thrown out of view, but, at the same time, it was
liable to objection, having been taken after a particular point of
population had been fixed as that of disfranchisement, it was not
improbable that pains had been taken to raise certain boroughs above
the line of disfranchisement. Ministers had, therefore, rather taken
the number of houses than that of inhabitants, it being less likely that
improper practices would be adopted in regard to the former than to the
latter. It had been found difficult, he continued, to draw a line which
should mark where the census should be attended to, and where it was
to be disregarded. Ministers had used every effort to obtain a correct
account of the size and importance of the boroughs which were to be
abolished; and on the data they had obtained schedule A of the new bill
was to be founded. The drawing of the line at which disfranchisement
should stop, he said, must necessarily be arbitrary, whether the
population, the houses, or the amount of the assessed taxes, or the
number of boroughs, was to be taken into consideration. It had appeared
to ministers that the number which had been fixed last session to be
disfranchised was proper, and therefore they proposed to strike off
fifty-six, the number which stood in schedule A of the former bill. The
consequence of this was that some of the boroughs which formerly escaped
disfranchisement in consequence of the population of their parishes
being large, though the boroughs themselves were inconsiderable, would
now be placed in schedule A, whilst others would be raised out of it,
and placed in schedule B. Another part of the disfranchising clauses of
the bill regarded the boroughs in schedule B, which were to be deprived
of only one of their two members. Ministers had now resolved to give
an additional member to a certain number of boroughs in this schedule,
taking the number to be included in it to be forty-one, as it had been
fixed last session, and dividing the rest of the twenty-three members,
with two exceptions, among the newly enfranchised towns which, under the
late bill, were to have only one representative.

Of the twenty-three members required to fill up the numbers of the
house, it was proposed that ten should be given to the most considerable
towns in schedule B, one to Chatham, so as to render it independent of
Rochester, and another to the county of Monmouth, from which there had
been several petitions, stating that there was only one district of
boroughs in that county, although its population exceeded 100,000. The
rest of the twenty-three, he continued, were given to the large towns to
which the late bill gave one representative each. The consequence of
all this was, that there would be only thirty boroughs in schedule B,
instead of forty-one, and that in schedule C. instead of twelve members,
there would be forty-two: instead of ninety-six places, as by the old
bill, there would be only forty-nine returning one representative each.
His lordship next proceeded to the ten-pound qualification clause. As it
stood in the last bill, he said, the right of voting in boroughs was
to be enjoyed by occupiers of houses assessed to the house-duty, or
poor-rates at ten pounds, or rented, or of the annual value of the same;
but then this right was afterwards limited thus:—that no one whose
landlord compounded for the rates should be entitled to vote unless he
claimed to be rated in his own name, and that no one should be entitled
to vote for airy premises, unless he had occupied them for twelve
calendar months, and had not been in the receipt of parochial relief
during that time. He now proposed that every one who occupied a lease
of the value of ten pounds should have a right to vote in behalf of it,
provided he was rated,—not that he should be rated at ten pounds, but
that he should be assessed to the poor-rates, and then the only question
to be decided would be, whether he was the occupier of a house or a
warehouse of the stated value. It would also be enacted, that any person
who was not rated to the poor-rates might demand to be placed upon them,
and being so placed upon them, might claim to be put on the registry.
In other matters, his lordship said, connected with the right of voting,
the present bill would be found to differ from the last, though most of
what stood in the latter was still allowed to remain. Thus the former
bill had allowed the right of voting to freemen during the lives of
those now in possession; the present bill did the same, but it went a
step further, in preserving the rights of freemen, acquired by birth
or servitude, for ever. Another change related to officers, about which
some difficulty arose in the committee on the late bill: it was
this, that in any case where his majesty might grant a charter
of incorporation to any of the new boroughs to be created by the
bill,—such as those in schedule C,—it was intended that the mayor or
other chief officer of such corporation should be returning officer of
such borough. It was thought much better, he said, to unite the voters
in such boroughs in a corporate form on liberal principles, the same as
those of London and other places, than to leave them the right of voting
without such corporate form. Another right reserved in the bill related
to the rights of freeholders in cities being counties in themselves.
Freeholders were of three classes: some voted in the county at large;
others only for the county of the city or borough; and others did not
vote for either. It was intended that the voters for counties at large
should remain undisturbed, and those who voted for the county of the
city would also be allowed to continue that vote, but those who by the
former bill were not to be allowed to vote for either place would now be
allowed to vote for the county in which the city or borough happened
to be situated. Lord John Russell added in conclusion, that by the late
bill commissioners were appointed to make inquiries, and to ascertain
the limits of boroughs, and that the reports of these commissioners
would be laid before parliament, for it to determine the limits of
each. In consequence of the inquiries of these commissioners a mass of
information had been obtained, which he hoped to be able to lay before
the house soon after the Christmas recess. There were other alterations
of minor importance, he said, in the bill, and some verbal changes, but
it was not necessary to allude to them, as the discussion of these would
be more proper in the committee. Sir Robert Peel said that in one thing
there must be an unanimous feeling on all sides—that of gratitude at
the escape which the country had had from the bill of the last session,
a danger which he had not till now fully appreciated. The new bill, he
contended, was a full and complete answer to the calumnies of which they
had heard so much in the last session against the factious delays, as
they were then called, of those who sought to introduce some of those
very modifications now adopted by the noble lord who brought forward the
former measure. There was scarcely an amendment in schedule A which had
been offered from the opposition side of the house which had not been
adopted. The principle of population was abandoned; and the preservation
of the rights of freemen, which the opposition had vainly struggled to
introduce last session, was now voluntarily urged by the noble lord, as
an improvement in his new plan of reform. He would not stop to inquire,
he said, why when five boroughs were taken out of schedule A as many
more should be added, so as to make the number fifty-six; nor would he
now examine why the number of boroughs having but one member each should
be reduced from sixty-nine to forty-nine; nor would he enter into any
inquiry as to the cause of the change in the right of voting in cities
and counties; he left all these matters for future discussion;—but
he must congratulate himself and his friends on the effect of the
opposition which they made to the last bill. He was not surprised that
the noble mover should have been so severe on the last bill; but he must
say, that he was not prepared for such a sacrifice to the manes of the
late parliament as the adoption of the resolution of General Gaseoyne,
by keeping up the number of members undiminished. After all that had
been said, both in and out of the house, as to the nature and the object
of the opposition, it was declared to be the deliberate conviction of
the king’s government, that the objections which the opposition took
were well founded. He rejoiced for the sake of the character of those on
that side of the house with whom he had the honour to act, that such a
triumphant refutation was brought forward of the charges which had
been made against them. He rejoiced, also, not only on account of the
amendments which had been made in the details of the bill; but because,
if the house should determine, on the second reading of the bill, to
adopt the principle of the measure, and to make so extraordinary and
extensive a change in the frame and constitution of the government of
this country, he could not help thinking that when they approached the
discussion of the details, there would be a disposition on the part
of the majority of the house to follow the course of ministers, and to
introduce more amendments into the measure. Lord Althorp, on the
other hand, said that he could not recollect a question moved from the
opposition side of the house with respect to any of the alterations
which had since been made in the bill. Ministers had given their
attention to every reasonable suggestion with regard to the details of
the bill, and some of those alterations now proposed might have been
pressed upon their consideration; but he did not remember that an
opportunity had been given them last session to adopt such resolutions.
The bill having been rejected, ministers had employed the interval
which had since elapsed in endeavouring to remove all objections to the
details of the measure, and in introducing such improvements as were
consistent with its great principle; and yet, because they had done so,
the right honourable baronet taunted them with unstable conduct. The
giving up the clause regarding commissioners, he asserted, was the
necessary consequence of the fact of the commissioners having now made
their inquiry. Great alterations were said to have been made in schedule
A: fifty-one boroughs out of fifty-six remained as before. The ten-pound
clause, again, it was admitted, had not suffered from the alteration
which had been introduced in it: the fact was, the clause had been
merely simplified in its wording and provisions; in its practical effect
it was precisely similar to that contained in the late bill. Some of
the Irish members complained that injustice was done to Ireland in
not allowing her a greater number of members: twenty-three additional
members, it was said, had now been given to England, and eight to
Scotland; and yet Ireland was still to receive only the one hundred
and five which had originally been allotted her under very different
circumstances. The bill, however, was read a first time without a
division, and the second reading was fixed for the 16th; after which,
Lord Althorp stated that the house would adjourn for the Christmas
holidays.

On the 16th, on the motion being made that the bill be read a second
time, Lord Porchester moved an amendment that it should be read a second
time that day six months. He had hoped, he said, that ministers would
have framed a bill which would have been generally acceptable. The
debate which followed was continued by adjournment on the 17th. Sir E.
Sugden, who seconded the amendment, agreed with Lord Porchester that
the bill was more democratic in its tendency than its predecessor, and
equally unfounded in any sound principle of the constitution, though
some of the alterations made in the details were changes for the better.
There were other changes, however, which were alterations greatly for
the worst, setting aside the mischievous and unconstitutional tendency
of the measure. Mr. Macaulay contended that since opposition admitted
that the principles of the bill were unchanged, they had no reason for
the exultation in which they had indulged over minor alterations, as
if ministers had abandoned their own plans, and gave the preference to
theirs. The new bill, he said, was an improved edition of the first; but
the first was superior to it in one point, inasmuch as it was the first,
and was, therefore, more likely to cement a reconciliation between the
refractory aristocracy and the exasperated people. It had been asked, he
continued, why they had the temerity to legislate in haste? He did not
mean to dispute that a hurried settlement at a season of excitement
might not be wholly unaccompanied with evil; but if so, the
responsibility must be with those who had withheld concession when there
was no excitement. The time had arrived when reformers must legislate
in haste, because bigots would not legislate early; when reformers
must legislate in excitement, because bigots would not do so at a more
auspicious opportunity. Bigots would not walk with sufficient speed,
nay, they could not be prevailed on to move at all; and now, therefore,
the reformers must run for it. Mr. Macaulay entered into a defence of
the principles of the bill; and in conclusion asserted, that, by fair
means or foul, either through or over parliament, the question must be
carried. He was followed by Mr. Croker, who said that the doctrine now
set up, of some terrific and uncontrollable necessity, put an end to
all argument and consideration. Lord Althorp, in reply, challenged the
opposition to point out any instance in which, ministers had neglected
their duty, or had looked with apathy on the violations of the public
peace, or on outrages against persons and property. Mr. Stuart
Wortley said he had hoped that ministers, after knowing the sentiments
entertained in another place, would have introduced a measure which
might, to a great extent, have met the ‘wishes of those who, like
himself, were disposed to mitigate their opposition, if it could be done
without sacrificing the principles for which they contended. He had been
disappointed: and, therefore, notwithstanding the improvements made in
the bill, he could not give it his support. He was satisfied that in
principle, and in some of the details, this bill was dangerous: yet if
members on the other side would declare their willingness to admit of
further amendments, he would not be indisposed to give up the point of
disfranchisement to a considerable extent, as being the point on which
the popular feeling was most strongly excited; provided that, on the
other hand, concessions were made in parts of the bill on which the
public did not feel so strongly. Lord John Russell contended that
it signified little whether they took away this or that number of
nomination-boroughs; the time was gone by when any government could be
earned on by means of their operation. It must be carried on under the
control of the intelligent and respectable part of the community,
which control would be provided by the bill. If the bill passed into
operation, he had no doubt that men would be returned of sound views,
and entitled to the confidence of the country. Sir C. Wetherell, on the
other hand, maintained that while the present was the most unfit of all
seasons to agitate reform, in consequence of the violent excitement into
which the country had been thrown, that excitement itself was mainly
attributable to ministers, who had fostered it for the express purpose
of carrying the bill. Sir Robert again combated the details of the bill,
arguing that they tended to the destruction of the British constitution.
He added, in conclusion, “This bill, therefore, I shall oppose to the
last, believing, as I do, that the people are grossly deluded as to the
practical benefits which they have been taught to expect from it; that
it is the first step, not directly to revolution, but to a series of
changes which will affect the property, and alter the mixed constitution
of the country; that it will be fatal to the authority of the house of
lords; and that it will force on a series of further concessions. I
will oppose it to the last, convinced that, though my opposition will
be unavailing, it will not be fruitless, because the opposition now made
will oppose a bar to further concessions hereafter. If the whole of the
house were now to join in giving way, it would have less power to resist
future changes. On this ground I take my stand, not opposed to any
well-considered reform of any of our institutions, which the well-being
of the country demands, but opposed to this reform in our constitution,
because it tends to root up the feelings of respect towards it, which
are founded in prejudice, perhaps, as well as in higher sources of
veneration for all our institutions. I believe that reform will do this;
and I will wield all the power I possess to oppose the gradual progress
of that spirit of democracy to which others think we ought gradually to
yield; for if we make those concessions, it will only lead to establish
the supremacy of that principle. We may, I know, make it supreme; we may
be enabled to establish a republic full, I have no doubt, of energy—not
wanting, I have no doubt, in talent; but in my conscience I believe
fatal to our mixed form of government, and ultimately destructive of all
those usages and practices which have long ensured to us a large share
of peace and prosperity, and which have made and preserved this the
proudest kingdom in the annals of the world.” The bill was supported by
Sir H. Willoughby, Lord William Lennox, Messrs. Bulwer and Slaney, and
other members, who all insisted on the absolute necessity of yielding,
and of yielding precisely what was contained in the bill, because all
the principles therein contained, and the extent to which they should be
applied, had been submitted to the people, and had been adopted by them,
with a determination which rendered resistance useless. On the other
hand, the bill was opposed by Lord Mahon, Sir E. H. Inglis, and other
members. It was stated that most members of the house had seen an
address to the inhabitants of Leeds, signed “Thomas Babington Macaulay,”
 in which that gentleman stated that he by no means considered the bill
as final, but that he looked upon it only as a step towards a more
extended suffrage. The house divided on the morning of the 18th, which
was Sunday, and the motion for the second reading was carried by a
majority of three hundred and twenty-four against one hundred and
sixty-two. Immediately after the division, the house adjourned for the
Christmas holidays, till the 17th of January.




CHAPTER XLII.

{WILLIAM IV. 1832–1833}

     _Reform Bill passed by the Commons..... Debates on the Reform
     Bill in the Lords..... Disturbed State of the Nation.....
     Re-assembling of Parliament..... Failure of the Attempts to
     form a New Administration..... Ministers Recalled.....
     Reform Bill passed..... Irish and Scotch Reform Bills
     passed..... Bill to Prevent Bribery at Elections,  &c.
     Committees on  Irish Tithes..... Financial Statements.....
     Committee on the Charter of the East India Company, &c.
     The Affairs of the West Indies..... Prorogation of
     Parliament..... General Election..... Resignation of the
     Speaker..... State of Ireland..... State of the Continent_




REFORM BILL PASSED BY THE COMMONS.

{A.D. 1832}

When parliament reassembled on the 17th of January ministers expressed
their intention of going into committee on the reform bill on the 20th.
Messrs. Croker and Goulburn rejected this proposition, as bringing the
house into a consideration of the details of the bill before it had been
put in possession of the proper information. Lord John Russell and Lord
Althorp, however, would not consent to any delay of the committee. On
the 20th, when the motion was made for the house to go into committee,
Mr. Croker repeated his objection to their proceeding in the state of
imperfect information in which they were now left. Lord Althorp, and
the material adherents, asserted that the information called for was
unnecessary in deciding on the first clause, which respected the number
of boroughs to be disfranchised, though they admitted that when they
came to the schedule, information would be necessary in order to see
whether the boroughs designated ought to be retained or not. Mr. Croker
moved as an amendment that the committee should be delayed till the
24th; but it was negatived by a large majority; and the house then went
into committee. On the first clause being read, Lord John Russell said,
that as the line must, in any case, be arbitrary, it had been thought
best to take the number which had received the sanction of the house
in the former bill. Ministers would have liked quite as well fifty or
fifty-five, sixty or sixty-five; but in fixing upon a number different
from that of the preceding bill, they would have been acting on their
own responsibility. After combating this clause with all the arguments
that could be enforced, Mr. Croker, in accordance with the views of the
opposition, moved, as an amendment, that the number fifty-six should
be omitted. Lords John Russell and Althorp, however, repeated that the
number had been adopted because it had been sanctioned in the preceding
session. The former bill, they said, containing precisely the same
number of disfranchised boroughs in schedule A, had been rejected by the
lords; and it appeared of great importance to ministers that as little
risk as possible should be run of its being again rejected by them,
while at the same time they felt it to be of equal importance, to
satisfy the country, that the great disfranchising principle of the
former bill should be preserved. Mr. Croker’s motion was negatived; and
then a similar discussion took place regarding the next clause, which
enacted that thirty boroughs, to form schedule B, should in future send
only one member to parliament. This was opposed on the ground that no
reason was given why this number had been selected, and also on the
ground that the principle of giving only one member was an inexpedient
principle. Sir Robert Peel moved an amendment, that each of the boroughs
in schedule B should continue to return two members; but this motion
was also negatived by a large majority. The clauses giving members to
various towns hitherto unrepresented, and those which united different
places into one for electioneering purposes, were agreed to without much
opposition, and without a division. The provision, also, that each of
the three ridings of Yorkshire should return two members passed without
opposition. Colonel Sibthorp made an ineffectual attempt to prevent the
division of the county, but the clause was carried by a large majority.
On the clause which provided that the limits of all places having the
right of electing members, should be held to be such boundaries as shall
“be settled and described by an act to be passed for that purpose in
this present parliament,” Lord Althorp admitted an amendment, that the
present act should not operate as a law until the boundary bill should
have been passed. The provision, that where no particular returning
officer was named in the schedule, the sheriff within whose jurisdiction
the place lay should annually appoint such resident person as he
thought fit to be returning officer, was strongly objected to; but the
objections to the clause were not pressed to a division. The clause
for dividing certain counties and giving two members occasioned much
discussion. An amendment was proposed for the purpose of getting rid of
it, and giving the four members to the undivided county. The principal
support of this amendment was from the reformers, who opposed this part
of the ministerial scheme on the ground that it was inconsistent with
the main principles of the bill, as it narrowed the sphere within which
aristocratic influence was to act, thus adding to its energy; and
that it was a wanton and unnecessary interference with the ancient
institutions of the country. Some members who had voted for this clause
in the preceding session now declared themselves opposed to it in
consequence of the extension of the comity franchise to tenants-at-will;
while on the other hand several members who had voted against it in the
former session, conceiving that the division would do good by preventing
contests and unsatisfactory compromises, now supported it. Sir Robert
Peel said, that though he intended to vote for the clause, he wished to
suggest that another arrangement might be made with respect to the right
of voting for counties, which would simplify the operation of the bill,
and improve it; namely, that wherever a right of voting accrued from
property, of whatever nature, in any city or borough, the individual
possessing such property should be allowed to vote for the city or
borough, but not for the county. Having made that provision for cities
or boroughs, he would continue the integrity of the counties, and
propose that each county should return four members. He offered this
suggestion _bona fide_, as an alteration that would simplify the
operation of the bill; and though he did not mean to move it as an
amendment, he would ask whether it was not a proposition that was likely
to please all parties? Ministers defended the clause on the ground that
it would greatly diminish the expenses of county elections, and thus
contribute to the purity of the representation, while it would neither
tend to throw the power of the elections into the hands of the rural
voters exclusively, nor of large proprietors, as it had been objected.
As for Sir Robert Peel’s proposition, there was the great objection
which he had himself suggested; namely, that it was too great a
distinction between the inhabitants of towns and those who were more
immediately connected with counties. If the proposition succeeded, the
consequence would be that many voters possessing freeholds in boroughs,
which, as the bill now stood, would enable them to vote for counties,
would be disfranchised. The original clause, however, was carried by an
overwhelming majority. An amendment, intended to have a similar result
with Sir Robert Peel’s proposal, was subsequently moved by Mr. Praed on
the clause, to the effect that no county franchise should arise from the
possession of property of any kind situated in a represented borough,
and that forty-shilling freeholders in boroughs returning members should
be entitled to vote for the borough members only; but this amendment was
likewise negatived. No division took place on the clause giving three
members to certain of the middle-sized counties, although it was
denounced as monstrous and unjustifiable on any principle of fairness
or common equity. In the preceding session, while the former bill was
in committee, the Marquis of Chandos had succeeded in carrying as
an amendment a provision which conferred the county franchise on
tenants-at-will paying a rent of not less than fifty pounds per annum.
Ministers had opposed this, but had been defeated; and they now,
although they had made the provision part of the new bill, sought to
get rid of it by an amendment which went to strike it out of the clause
altogether. The amendment was moved by Sir Robert Heron, and supported
by Lord Milton and Mr. C. Ferguson, but only thirty-two members voted
for it, while two hundred and seventy-two supported what was now part
of an original clause. A variety of amendments on the clause fixing the
qualification of borough electors at ten pounds was moved by Mr. Hunt
and others, but were all negatived. The clauses which regulated the
formation of registers of the voters, the duration of elections, and the
mode of polling, were carried without giving rise to much discussion.
By the 20th of February the committee had gone through the different
clauses, and then proceeded to take up the schedules, which it had been
agreed should be postponed till the other provisions of the bill should
be arranged. Mr. Croker argued that great inconvenience and injustice
would result, if the committee proceeded to determine what boroughs
should stand in schedules A and B, before they had ascertained whether
the calculations on which disfranchisement was made to depend were
correct and uniform. In some boroughs, he said, game-certificates and
yeomanry exemptions were included, while in others they were omitted: if
the rule was not uniform it would be unjust. The fifty-six boroughs for
schedule A, and the thirty for schedule B would come up to No. 86 in
the list: Helstone No. 84; neither the yeomanry exemptions, nor the
game-certificates for that borough had been included; if the former were
added, Helstone would be No. 88; if the game-certificates were likewise
added, it would be No. 89; in either case it would be raised above the
line of disfranchisement. It was impossible for the committee to decide
what boroughs ought to be disfranchised, until they had returns of the
assessed taxes of each borough, specifying whether game-certificates and
yeomanry exemptions were or were not included. The consideration of the
schedule ought to be postponed till that information had been obtained.
Lord John Russell admitted that there was a difference with respect
to many boroughs, and that one uniform rule ought to be observed.
Directions for that purpose had been given to the commissioners, and
they had endeavoured to obtain returns comprehending the game-duties;
but from some misunderstanding there still remained a few cases where
the game-duties were omitted. He argued, however, that this was no
reason for delay; and the house supporting him in his views, it
was resolved to proceed. After a discussion on the principles and
calculations on which the schedules had been framed, which led to no
division, the committee proceeded to the particular boroughs, and
the disfranchisement of the first fifty-two was agreed to without an
amendment. The next was Appleby, in regard to which it was contended by
the opposition that ministers had repeated the injustice which they had
committed last session, by leaving out details which ought to have been
introduced, which omission was made for the purpose of securing its
disfranchisement. A motion was made for its exclusion from schedule A;
but the committee having divided, it was decided that it should remain
in the schedule. The last of the fifty-six boroughs to be disfranchised
was Amersham, and Mr. Croker moved that Midhurst should take its place.
No reason was offered why the one should be disfranchised and the other
not; but Midhurst was saved by taking in an adjoining district. Alderman
Waithman justified the disfranchisement of Amersham, because it was a
corrupt borough, where there had been no election within the memory
of man. But this had been the case equally at Midhurst, and yet it was
decided by vote that Amersham should be No. 5G in schedule A, instead
of Midhurst. Mr. Shiel, who wished to extend the disfranchisement in
England, in order that Ireland might receive a larger number of members,
moved that Petersfield should be taken out of schedule B and transferred
to schedule A. If successful in this, he intended to follow up the
motion by one regarding Eye, Wareham, Midhurst, and Woodstock. He
conceived it impossible that his motion should be rejected, considering
what had been done to Amersham, as that town had far higher claims
to return a member than Petersfield, whether as regarded population,
wealth, rental, or number of ten-pound houses. Lord Althorp admitted
that he could not oppose the motion on principle, though he resisted
it on the ground of expediency. Prudence, he said, required that the
success of the bill in the house of lords should not be hazarded by
sending up to their lordships a bill disfranchising a greater number of
boroughs than had been contained in that which they had rejected. Mr.
Shiel withdrew his motion; and on the 28th of February the committee
proceeded to the consideration of the thirty boroughs which were to
form schedule B. Having thus disposed of the disfranchising clauses, the
committee proceeded to schedule C, which gave members to places
hitherto unrepresented. The only debate or division which took place in
considering this schedule, was on the clause which proposed to confer
eight members on the metropolitan districts: the Tower Hamlets, Finsbmy,
Marylebone, and Lambeth. The Marquis of Chandos, after contending that
to extend the elective franchise in that quarter would lead to a great
excitement, and give the capital a preponderating influence over the
rest of the country, moved an amendment, that the clause should be
omitted. He was supported by Sir E. Sugden, Sir George Murray, and Lord
Sandon, who argued that the provision was unnecessary, and far from
being expedient. The clause was defended by Lords Althorp and John
Russell, and Messrs. Macaulay and C. Grant, who, on the other hand,
maintained that an increase to the metropolitan representation, was
required both by justice and by the principles of the bill; and that
the dangers apprehended from it were visionary, while those which would
attend its refusal were real and unavoidable. On a division, the motion
of the Marquis of Chandos was lost by a majority of three hundred and
sixteen against two hundred and thirty-six. In the consideration of
schedule D, which contained those new boroughs which were only to
return one member, an unsuccessful attempt was made to include
Stockton-on-Tees, and Merthyr Tydvil; but on the bringing up of the
report, Lord John Russell informed the house that ministers had resolved
to allow the latter place a member of its own: “treating it,” he said,
“rather like an English town than a Welsh contributory borough.” By the
9th of March the committee had gone through the bill, and the report was
considered on the 14th, on which day Mr. Croker put several resolutions
on the journals without pressing them to a division, embodying the
objections, not to the principles of the bill, but to the manner in
which they had been applied. On the 19th the motion for the third
reading of the bill was met by an amendment, moved by Lord Mahon, that
it should be read a third time that day six months.

The amendment was seconded by Sir John Malcolm, and was followed by a
debate which continued to the 22nd, in which old arguments, both for and
against, were reiterated with deep earnestness. On a division, the bill
was carried by a majority of three hundred and fifty-five against two
hundred and thirty-nine; leaving a majority of one hundred and sixteen
for ministers. On the 23rd the bill was finally passed; an amendment
which went to raise the qualification to twenty pounds in Liverpool,
and all the new boroughs, returning two members, having been negatived
without a division.




DEBATES ON THE REFORM BILL IN THE LORDS.

When the reform bill had been thus carried through the commons a second
time, the reformers began again to be apprehensive of its fate in the
upper house, and to bring again into operation their various engines
of clamour and intimidation. It was industriously reported abroad that
ministers had been armed with a _carte blanche_ for the creation of
peers, in order to carry the measure; but though they did not deny it,
it does not appear that any such power had been delegated to them. At
all events the bill was laid before the house of lords without a single
peer having been created, and it was read a first time on the 26th
of March. The most important part of its reception consisted in the
speeches of Lords Harrowby and Wharncliffe, who had led the opposition
of last session, but who now declared their intention to vote for the
second reading. The Bishop of London was also so impressed with the
dangers hanging over the country, that he resolved to follow this
example. On the other hand, the Duke of Wellington, the Earl of
Carnarvon, and the Marquis of Londonderry, expressed their undiminished
aversion to the measure. The second reading was moved on the 9th
of April, and the debate was continued up to the 13th. Before the
discussion commenced, the Duke of Buckingham gave notice that if there
should be, as he trusted there would be, a majority against the second
reading of this bill, he would bring in, after the Easter recess, a bill
for the purpose of giving representatives to such of the large towns
therein to be named, whose importance entitled them to representation;
and also for the purpose of joining and consolidating the representation
of certain boroughs which now elected members, so as to make room for
the new representatives without adding to the members of the house of
commons, and to extend the franchise in such a way as to prevent its
abuse in boroughs. In proof of his sincerity, his grace moved the
insertion of this notice on the journals of the house.

In moving the second reading of the reform bill, Earl Grey said, that he
considered himself almost relieved from entering into discussion of its
principles, because there were few of their lordships who did not now
recognise those principles, and admit that some degree of change
was necessary. After briefly mentioning the nature of the bill, its
interesting object, the large majority that had sent it from the commons
to the lords, and the support it had received from the people, he
proceeded to notice the Duke of Buckingham’s intended motion for
reform. His very notice, he said, admitted all the three principles
of disfranchisement, enfranchisement, and an extension of the right
of voting. He felt, therefore, justified in calling on the house to
sanction the second reading of a measure founded upon a basis which was
acknowledged to be just, even by those who opposed the measure itself;
inasmuch as they would have an opportunity of proposing in the committee
such alterations in its details as might appear necessary and expedient.
The noble earl next proceeded to notice the alterations introduced into
the bill, and to defend the ten-pound qualification from objections
that had been raised against it. He concluded with an appeal to their
lordships on the unjust attacks made on him for having proposed a
measure which, in his opinion, was required by that duty which he owed
to his sovereign and his country. He especially called their lordships’
attention to the awful silence on the part of the people now prevailing,
and taking place of that outcry which first marked the progress of the
bill. Silence, he said, might perhaps lead some to imagine that they
were not viewing this measure with the same feelings of interest; but he
cautioned their lordships against forming such an opinion. “Though the
people are silent,” he added, “they are looking at our proceedings
this night no less intensely than they have looked even ever since the
question was first agitated. I know that it is pretended by many that
the nation has no confidence in the peers, because there is an opinion
out of doors that the interests of the aristocracy are separated from
those of the people. On the part of this house, however, I disclaim all
such separation of interests; and therefore I am willing to believe that
the silence of which I have spoken is the fruit of a latent hope still
existing in their bosoms.” Lord Ellenborough opposed the motion for the
second reading, and moved as an amendment that the bill should be read a
second time that day six months. His lordship admitted that the bill
had passed the commons by a large majority, and that the majority was
seconded by a large body of the people: but when he recollected
how often material alterations had been made in the bill; that the
qualification clause had been remodelled eleven times; that a town had
been enfranchised at the very last moment; that among forty-six boroughs
of the original bill there had been forty-seven changes; and that
no such sweeping alteration had ever been made in the established
constitution of a great country, he could not see any reason for
adopting this last emanation of an ever-changing mind. There could be no
doubt that there were many respectable persons whose opinions ought to
be held in proper regard, who were anxious that some change should
take place in our system of parliamentary representation. He contended,
however, that if this bill passed it was clear, from the constituency
which would be created by it, that parliament must be prepared to go
further. It would be impossible, he said, to resist the demands of the
most numerous and most necessitous class in the state: concession must
proceed until universal suffrage was established. Lord Melbourne spoke
briefly in favour of the bill, and the Bishop of Durham opposed it.
At the same time, the latter said, he by no means considered that the
rejection of the present measure implied a rejection of reform
_in toto_; it was the duty of ministers to have proposed a measure
calculated to satisfy both the party that was anxious for reform, and
the party which felt alarmed at the consequences of great changes, while
they had introduced a proposition which would gratify neither party.
Earl Bathurst took the same view of the question: he had no objections
to a bill for reform, but the present measure would make parliament
worse than it had ever been. His lordship particularly called on the
house to recollect the declaration which the lord-chancellor had made
regarding the ten-pound qualification: that it was emphatically a
subject for deliberation in committee, and for such alterations as their
lordships should think fitting. Now, however, it was not to be touched,
though it was a qualification opposed to the recorded opinions of its
present patrons, as well as of the people. The Earl of Haddington had
changed his opinion on the subject of reform. On the former occasion, he
said, till within a few days before the debate, his mind had been made
up that the bill should be read a second time, because he conceived it
expedient that the question should be arranged by the house as soon as
possible. He had abandoned these sentiments from a conviction that, in
the existing state of feeling in the country, anything like an amendment
in the bill would not be practicable. Lord Gage also declared that he
had changed his opinion. He thought it impossible to prevent the people
from having a reform, and by refusing to go into committee, their
lordships might deprive themselves of the opportunity of introducing
such amendments as they wished into the bill. On the other hand,
the Earl of Wicklow conceived that the reasons which had led to the
rejection of the bill of the last session were equally as potent for
rejecting the present; and he therefore continued his hostility to it.
The Earl of Shrewsbury, a Catholic peer, distinguished himself while he
supported the bill by a violent attack against the Protestant bishops.
The Earl of Mansfield objected to the present bill, as he did to the
former. The Earl of Harrowby had already announced that he would vote
for the second reading; but he had yet to state his reasons for this
change of sentiment, he having been one of the most distinguished
opponents of the bill of last session. In doing so, he denied that the
sentiments he had delivered against the former bill were those of a
man determined to resist, under all circumstances whatever, the
considerations of parliamentary reform. On the contrary, the opinion
which more than another he was anxious to express was, that they should
not treat the present bill as they had treated the last; that though
they had then acted right in rejecting the bill, they would not
be warranted to do so again; and that they could not hope again
successfully to resist a measure which the house of commons had
sanctioned a second time by a large majority, and in favour of which
the people of England had expressed a decided opinion. It was for this
reason that he had prepared a resolution by which the house would pledge
itself, in the then next session, to take into serious consideration
some plan for extending the franchise to his majesty’s subjects, and for
correcting the abuses which had crept into the representative branch of
the constitution. He was on the point of moving this resolution, when
he was persuaded by some noble friends that to do so then would do more
harm than good; that it would be better to wait till the excitement of
the public mind had been somewhat allayed before a more moderate measure
of reform than that brought forward by ministers should be submitted
to parliament. He yielded to the suggestion, hoping that the interval
between the two sessions would afford the public and their lordships
time to consider maturely the merits of the question, and that both
would see that, if the ministers’ plan were adopted, it would prove
injurious to all existing interests. In this he had been disappointed;
there had been time enough to allow a reaction to have manifested
itself; but it could not be denied that, notwithstanding the potent
objections which had been urged against the bill, no such reaction had
occurred. On these grounds, with others, his lordship said he would vote
for the second reading. He was followed by the Duke of Wellington, who
said that he could not shift into the course which the Earl of Harrowby,
and those who thought with him had adopted. Why he could not, he
explained at great length; and he afterwards descanted at large upon the
objections which he had to the bill itself. It was bad, he said, because
it went to overturn the whole established system of representation;
it destroyed for the mere pleasure of reconstructing: it totally
revolutionised the representation of Scotland, and put an end to all the
arrangements which, three years ago, had been entered into for the final
settlement of the catholic question. It put an end, also, to that
most valuable principle of our existing constitution—the principle of
prescription—which sanctioned the descent, and secured the possession
of all kinds of property in this country. It went to destroy a number of
boroughs—some holding by prescription, and some by charter—and for no
reason whatever, except that such was the will of the minister of the
day. Lord Wharncliffe, who had moved the amendment which threw out the
former bill, had now come to the conclusion that the danger of rejecting
the bill was greater than that of taking it into consideration; and
that, by going into committee they might get rid of those parts of it
against which a strong objection was felt; and, at all events, would be
enabled more thoroughly to weigh its provisions. The effect of rejecting
the bill, in his opinion, would be to place all those who voted against
the second reading in a perilous situation with the country. The Duke of
Buckingham opposed the bill. His grace introduced no new argument,
but urged the house at all costs to resist reform in every shape. He
severely animadverted upon the speech of the Earl of Shrewsbury, for
attacking the constitution and the ministers of the protestant religion.
The Bishops of Lincoln and Llandaff, who had opposed the last bill, now
announced their intention of voting for the second reading; at the same
time they did not pledge themselves to adopt the measure as a whole. On
the other hand, the Bishop of Exeter announced his intention of giving
the bill his decided opposition. His speech gave occasion to an angry
episode, founded on a somewhat common occurrence. It was generally
believed that the Times newspaper, which had recently distinguished
itself by great abuse in favour of the bill, was not altogether excluded
from the confidential communications of ministers. The Bishop of Exeter,
in descanting on the tone and the temper of the press, spoke of some
articles in this journal as “breathing the inspiration of the treasury.”
 On the following evening Lord Durham, son-in-law of the premier,
assuming that he was the party pointed at, attacked what he called “the
bishop’s gross and virulent invective—his malignant, calumnious, and
false insinuations—his well-known powers of pamphleteering slang.” Here
the noble lord was called to order, and the Earl of Winchelsea moved
that the words “false insinuations” and “pamphleteering slang” should
be taken down. After some observations from Earl Grey, Lord Holland, and
the Duke of Buckingham, Lord Durham went on to state that he had not
the slightest objection to the words being taken down, and denied the
imputations cast upon him. The Marquis of Lansdowne argued in favour
of the measure; in doing which he denied that he, or the rest of his
majesty’s ministers, were introducing new doctrines. They wished, he
said, to go back to the elements of the constitution; and he argued that
there was nothing contrary to the principles of that constitution,
in extending the right of voting to those places which had become the
depositories of that knowledge, and the possessors of that influence on
society, to which the wisdom and policy of this government had always
endeavoured to attach itself; or in disfranchising small and unimportant
places, and enfranchising others of importance. As to the apprehensions,
he continued, that the new constituency were likely to be governed in
their choice of representatives by factious or revolutionary motives,
and, above all, by anything like a desire to disturb the tranquillity
of the country, they were groundless. In moments of great excitement it
might be so; but the class of persons on whom the franchise was now
to be conferred would generally feel themselves flattered on being
consulted by their superiors, and would in the end rely on their
judgment. His belief was that their choice would be governed by a desire
to elect such persons as would advocate measures contributing to the
public tranquillity; for, having acquired their property by their own
industry, they had as deep a stake in the country’ as any noble baron
who derived a splendid fortune from his progenitors. Small fortunes
were as valuable to them as the ample incomes of any of their lordships.
Their lordships might convey away their land, and go to another country
to avoid the evils of a revolution; but to the professional man, who
depended upon the peaceful exertions of his talents; to the mechanic,
who depended upon his weekly wages; to the annuitant and small
proprietor, who depended upon their half-yearly and quarterly
incomes—revolution, or even agitation, would bring greater ruin than
could come upon their lordships, even by the confiscation of their
estates. Lord Wynford, in opposing the bill, said that those who were
voting for the second reading, in the hope of introducing amendments
in committee, were acting a very foolish and dangerous part. They might
beat government on different clauses; but all that was done in the
committee might be undone on bringing up the report. Lord Eldon, on the
same side, said that no man was or could be an enemy to reform; but, he
thought, the first duty of every peer was to consider whether what
was proposed was or was not reform; whether it was a measure which the
people ought to expect, and which would confer any additional happiness
on those for whom it was intended. He had opposed reform for forty
years, because he had seen no plan which, in his opinion, would improve
the condition of the people: and this last was so vicious in its
principles and details, that it would be impossible to carry it
into effect with any safety to the institutions of the country. Lord
Tenterden likewise declared his continued hostility to the bill; and he
went so far as to say that he would never enter the doors of the house
again if the bill should be carried, “after it had become the phantom
of its departed greatness.” The Bishops of Rochester and Gloucester
likewise expressed their determination to vote against the bill; and the
latter took occasion to animadvert, with pointed but just severity, on
the attack which had been made by the Catholic Earl of Shrewsbury on
the ecclesiastical bench. The Earl of Carnarvon opposed the motion,
and Viscount Goderich spoke in favour of it. They were followed by the
lord-chancellor, who referred to the petitions which had been addressed
to the house, the resolutions adopted at public meetings of merchants
and bankers, and the composition of the majorities and minorities in the
house of commons, to show that the opinion of property, as well as
of members, was in favour of the measure, and that the feeling of the
people had in no degree subsided. Lord Lyndhurst said that he had not
heard or seen anything to convince him that he had acted erroneously
in voting against the principles of the former bill; and as the present
bill was admitted to be the same, he should vote against the second
reading. Earl Grey, in his reply, repeated the answers which had already
been put forward to the views taken of the bill by its opponents, and
denied the charge of having excited the country. On the subject of the
threatened creation of peers, which had been so frequently alluded to,
his lordship said that the best writers on the constitution admitted
that, although the creation of a large number of peers for a particular
object was a measure which should rarely be resorted to, yet in some
cases, such as to avoid a collision between the two houses, it might be
absolutely necessary. For many reasons he was averse to such a scheme;
but he believed it would be found that in a case of necessity, like that
which he had stated, a creation of peers would be justifiable, and in
accordance with the most acknowledged principles of our constitution. On
a division, the second reading was carried in favour of ministers by a
majority of nine, the numbers being one hundred and eighty-four against
one hundred and seventy-five.

After the reform bill had been read a second time, the lords broke up
for the Easter recess. Previous to their breaking up, however, the
Duke of Wellington thought proper to enter a protest against the second
reading on the journals. This protest embodied all the objections
urged against the bill; and it was signed by seventy-four other peers,
including the Dukes of Cumberland and Gloucester. The committee was
appointed the first day after the Easter recess.




DISTURBED STATE OF THE NATION.

{WILLIAM IV. 1832–1833}

The interval which elapsed before the reassembling of parliament was a
very memorable one in the annals of the country. Every association and
political union, tremblingly alive for the fate of the bill, was on the
alert, it being conceived that it was in imminent clanger of being lost
in committee. At Leeds, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield,
Edinburgh, Glasgow, Paisley, Dundee, as well as throughout the south
of England, meetings were held, at all of which resolutions were passed
expressing confidence in Earl Grey and his colleagues; and petitions
were got up to the king and the house of lords, beseeching them to
pass the bill unmutilated. In the counties of Warwick, Worcester, and
Stafford, all the associations agreed to meet at the foot of Newhall
Hill, and an immense assembly was collected on the day appointed, when a
petition to the house of lords was carried, “imploring them not to drive
to despair a high-minded, generous, and fearless people; nor to urge
them on, by a rejection of their claims, to demands of a much more
extensive nature; but rather to pass the reform bill into a law,
unimpaired in any of its great parts and provisions, more especially
uninjured in the clauses relating to the ten-pounds franchise.” At
Birmingham, the council of the union declared its sittings permanent
until the fate of the bill should be decided. In the metropolis, an
extraordinary assembly of the national union took place. Mr. Hume was
in the chair, and various resolutions were agreed to, all urging the
necessity of the bill being passed without alterations; while a
petition to the house of lords stated that, in case of its mutilation or
rejection, “there was reason to expect that the payment of taxes would
cease; that other obligations of society would be disregarded; and that
the ultimate consequence might be the utter extinction of the privileged
orders.”




REASSEMBLING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament reassembled after the Easter recess on the 7th of May. The
house of lords then went into committee on the reform bill, no attempt
having been made by the opposition to move any obstructions to it.
In the committee, Earl Grey stated that the house would probably be
inclined to follow the course which had been adopted by the commons;
namely, to dispose of the disfranchising clauses, leaving the schedules
for future consideration. He proposed that the number fifty-six should
not be specified, but that their lordships should come to a successive
vote on each individual borough as part of the clause. He thought this
the best method of obviating objections which had been made to the
clause as it now stood. Lord Lyndhurst, however, thought it would be
still more convenient to postpone the consideration of the first
clause altogether. If this were done, he should likewise propose the
postponement of the second clause; and he would take this course for the
purpose of entering on the consideration of the boroughs and places
to be enfranchised—a matter which, he thought, ought to be discussed
before the house entered on the question of disfranchisement. His
lordship admitted that he considered the second reading of the bill to
have fixed the three principles of disfranchisement, enfranchisement,
and extension of suffrage; but he contended that the house was not
fettered, in the slightest degree, as to the point to which these
principles were to be carried, although he had no hesitation in saying
that, after all that had passed in both houses of parliament, and
looking at the state of the country, and the expectations that were
abroad, neither he, nor those with whom he acted, were disposed to
suggest any alterations which would render the measure unsatisfactory
to intelligent reformers. He observed, that Lord John Russell had
said on a previous day, “Let us first agree as to what towns shall
be enfranchised, and then we shall see what is to be the extent of
disfranchisement—what alterations it may be necessary to propose.” He
would proceed on the same principle. It was not prejudging the question
of disfranchisement; for their lordships would afterwards measure the
extent of disfranchisement by the extent to which they should have
carried the principle of enfranchisement. On these grounds, therefore,
he moved that the first and second clauses of the bill should be
postponed. The lord-chancellor said that, although Earl Grey had
proposed to omit the number, that had no connection whatever with any
intention not to propose the disfranchisement of all the fifty-six.
There would be an inconvenience attending the clause, if it were
proposed at once that fifty-six boroughs should be disfranchised, and
therefore it had been proposed to leave out the number, but with
the certain intention of proposing the insertion of every one of the
fifty-six as they went on. The present proposition, however, was of a
different character, and considering by whom it was made, and likely to
be supported, he could view it in no other light than as a negative
of the most important part of the bill. The amendment was supported by
Lords Harrowby, Wharncliffe, Winchelsea, and Ellenborough, and the
Duke of Wellington, and others, on the ground that its object was not
to defeat schedules A and B. Several of these noble lords deemed it
expedient to enter on a defence of their character for integrity and
fair dealing in thus supporting the amendment; but the Duke of Newcastle
avowed boldly that he gave it his support, as he would any other measure
likely to frustrate the bill. Lord Holland argued that the proposition
was inconsistent with the decision to which that house had come on the
second reading; being in reality a proposition against the principles of
the bill. The Earl of Harewood thought, that as the bill had passed the
second reading, and entered the committee, it ought to be dealt
with fairly; and if he believed that the motion now before the house
contained anything of a sinister character, he would not support it. If
ministers knew the nature of the amendments which would be proposed if
the postponement should be agreed to, much of their objection to the
proposition would be removed. They were under the impression that the
object of the amendment was to defeat schedule A; but he believed that
no such intention was entertained; if it were, he would not support
it. It was his belief that the amendments which would be proposed would
comprise the whole of schedule A. Earl Grey, however, asserted that
nothing could have been devised better calculated to defeat the bill
than this amendment; and he would state at once that, if it were
carried, he would consider it fatal to the bill. He was pledged to the
principles of disfranchisement, enfranchisement, and the extension of
the qualification. With respect to the two first, he was ready to
listen to any suggestions which might be made with a view of preventing
injustice in details, but he would not consent to any reduction of the
extent of either disfranchisement or enfranchisement. His lordship
also stated that he would resist with the most fixed determination any
proposition which, under the pretence of regulation, would have the
effect of raising the qualification. These things being fixed, he was so
far from considering the proposed motion of little consequence, that it
appeared to him of the greatest importance. If it did not subvert the
principle of the bill, it materially affected it; and therefore it
was impossible that he should give it his assent. He was unable
to understand why enfranchisement should be proceeded with before
disfranchisement; he might reverse the proposition, and say, that the
amount of enfranchisement could not be ascertained till the extent of
disfranchisement was settled. A noble lord had expressed a hope that
ministers would confide in the peers on the other side of the house, to
grant a proper measure of reform to the people; had he observed any such
disposition, no one would have been more ready than himself to have met
it in a proper spirit; always recollecting that he was irrevocably fixed
to the bill. Another noble lord had said, that if any alteration should
be proposed which would defeat the principles of the bill, ministers
might reckon upon many coming over to them from the opposite side: he
could not rely on such a hope consistently with his duty to his king,
his country, and himself. It was his opinion that if the present motion
should be carried, there would be a difficulty in bringing the bill to
a successful issue; and if it should, it would then be necessary for him
to consider the course he should be constrained to adopt. At length the
house divided, and ministers were left in a minority, the votes for
Lord Lyndhurst’s amendment being one hundred and fifty-five, and those
against it, one hundred and sixteen.

On this defeat of ministers, Earl Grey immediately moved that the
house should resume; and stated that he would then move that the further
consideration of the bill be postponed till Thursday, the 10th. Lord
Ellenborough expressed his regret that ministers should interpose
delay; and took the opportunity of detailing the amendments which his
party, after serious consideration, intended to propose. These consisted
in a disfranchisement of one hundred and thirteen boroughs, their
privileges to be distributed among other places; a prohibition of
persons to vote for counties in respect of property situated
in boroughs; the adoption of a clearer and more certain mode of
ascertaining the genuineness and value of holdings; and the retention,
not only of the ten-pound qualification, but of scot and lot where it
existed.

Having postponed the further consideration of the bill, Earl Grey and
the lord-chancellor proceeded to Windsor, and tendered his majesty the
alternative of either arming the ministers with the powers they deemed
necessary to enable them to carry through their bill—namely, a creation
of peers—or of accepting their resignation. The ministers seem to have
expected that he would have adopted the former alternative; but the king
hesitated on account of the great number requisite, and the danger of
such a precedent. He did not give his answer till the next day, when
he informed Earl Grey that he had determined to accept his resignation
rather than have recourse to the only alternative which had been
proposed. Ministers then resigned _en masse_; and on the 9th Earl
Grey in the lords, and Lord Althorp in the commons, announced that the
ministry was at an end, and that they held their offices only till their
successors should be appointed. Earl Grey in doing so moved that the
order for going on with the committee next day should be discharged; and
he did not think it necessary to name another day for that purpose. The
Earl of Carnarvon strenuously resisted this proposition: the house would
not do its duty, he said, to the country or the sovereign, if it left
them in this extraordinary state, by suspending so important a subject
as reform. The motion for taking the committee on the following Monday
was agreed to.

In the commons, on the announcement of the resignation of ministers,
Viscount Ebrington gave notice that he would next day move an address to
the king on the state of public affairs, and that he would likewise
move a call of the house, that he might “guard against backsliders and
time-watchers,” and show the people who were their honest and consistent
representatives and who were not. In pursuance of this notice, on the
10th of May his lordship moved, “That an humble address be presented to
his majesty, humbly to represent to his majesty the deep regret felt
by this house at the change which has been announced in his majesty’s
councils by the retirement of those ministers in whom this house
continues to repose unabated confidence. That this house, in conformity
with the recommendation contained in his majesty’s most gracious speech
from the throne, has framed and sent up to the house of lords a bill
for a reform in the representation of the people, by which they are
convinced that the prerogatives of the crown, the authority of both
houses of parliament, and the rights and liberties of the people, are
equally secured. That, to the progress of this measure, this house
considers itself bound in duty to state to his majesty that his subjects
are looking with the most intense interest and anxiety; and they cannot
disguise from his majesty their apprehension that any successful attempt
to mutilate or impair its efficiency would be productive of the greatest
disappointment and dismay. This house is therefore compelled, by warm
attachment to his majesty’s person and government, humbly, but most
earnestly, to implore his majesty to call to his councils such
persons only as will cany into effect, unimpaired in all its essential
provisions, that bill for the reform of the representation of the
people, which has recently passed this house.” The motion was opposed by
Mr. Baring, who, before proceeding to speak against it, expressed a
hope that Lord Althorp would give some explanation of the nature of
that advice which ministers had tendered to the king, and his majesty’s
refusal of which had led to their resignation. Lord Althorp declined
answering, and Mr. Baring then went on to say that the house was thus
left in utter ignorance. He asked on what facts, therefore, was the
proposed address to be rested? Lord Althorp, in reply, said, that he had
no objection to state plainly that the advice which ministers had given
to the king was, that he should create as many peers as would enable
them to carry the reform bill through the house of lords in all its
efficiency. It was true he had treated a similar proposition to Lord
Lyndhurst’s, when made in the house of commons, as a matter of small
importance; but after the decision to which the lords had come, there
was no hope left of carrying the measure. From that moment the bill
had passed into the hands of its declared enemies; and ministers had to
choose between two alternatives,—either to resign immediately, or to
tender such advice as would place them in a situation in which they
might be responsible for the further progress of the bill; they had
adopted the latter alternative, and their advice having been rejected,
all that was left them was to resign. Mr. Hume, in supporting the
proposition, stated that it did not go far enough. Lord Morpeth
supported, and Sir Robert Peel opposed the motion. The latter said,
that the first resolution implied a complete confidence in the existing
government. He could not consent to this; with reference to the
general course they had taken, he could not say that they deserved his
confidence. With respect to the reform question, and with reference
to some other points, he was decidedly opposed to the course which the
government had pursued. Mr. Macaulay, in supporting the proposition,
contended that the house had a right, with respect to the prerogative of
the sovereign in the choice of his ministers, as with regard to all the
other prerogatives of the crown, to offer its respectful advice. The
prerogative vested in the crown of creating peers, for the purpose
of carrying any public question, was a valuable and useful power, the
existence of which was absolutely necessary, in order, on important
questions, to obviate great and pressing inconveniences. He argued,
also, that there existed a strong necessity for counterbalancing, by a
creation of peers from the Whig party, the number of peers which, during
the last forty years, had been made from the Conservative party. There
could not be a strong objection to the creation of fifty peers in one
day, when no objection had been raised to the creation of two hundred in
the course of a generation by the one party that held power during that
period. He heartily concurred in the advice which ministers had given to
the king, and he regretted it had not been taken: unless ministers were
recalled, the reform bill would be lost. On a division, the resolutions
were carried by a majority of two hundred and eighty-eight against two
hundred and eight.




FAILURE OF THE ATTEMPTS TO FORM A NEW ADMINISTRATION—MINISTERS
RECALLED, ETC.

During these proceedings in parliament great agitation prevailed
throughout the country. The political unions convened large assemblies
in the open air, and violent resolutions were passed, which threatened a
dissolution of society. Addresses were voted to the king, praying him
to create as many peers as might be necessary, while others were sent
to the commons, praying them to stop the supplies. One meeting, which
styled itself “a meeting of the inhabitants of Westminster,” assured the
king, that, unless their advice was complied with, “tumult, anarchy,
and confusion would overspread the land, and would cease only with
the extinction of the privileged orders,” The national political union
resolved to present a petition, praying that, till the bill passed,
no supplies should be allowed to go into the hands of the lords of the
treasury, but should be paid over to commissioners named by the house of
commons; this course was specifically recommended to them, on the ground
that it was taken from “that admirable resolution adopted by the house
of commons in 1642.” The national union also resolved “that the
betrayal of the people’s cause was not attributable to Lord Grey, or
his administration; but to the base and foul treachery of others; that
meetings be recommended in every comity, town, and parish throughout the
kingdom; which, by inducing compliance with the unanimous wishes of the
people, may prevent the mischief that would otherwise result from
the general indignation; that a petition be presented to the house
of commons, praying the appointment of commissioners to receive the
supplies; and that, until the bill pass, they be not managed by the
lords of the treasury.” The common-council met at Guildhall, and
passed a number of resolutions, expressing their mortification and
disappointment at the distressing communication made by ministers,
that his majesty had refused them the means of carrying the reform
Dill through the house of lords; declaring that the advisers of such a
refusal had put to hazard the stability of the throne and tranquillity
of the country; and petitioning the commons to withhold supplies till
the reform bill was carried. Tire livery of the city also met, and
passed a similar set of resolutions; adding, that “they viewed with
distrust and abhorrence attempts, at once interested and hypocritical,
to delude and mislead the people by pretended plans of reform, promised
or proposed by the insidious enemies of all reform.” The speeches at
this meeting dared any administration to assume the reins of government,
without undertaking to carry the whole bill. The Duke of Wellington
was particularly censured by the speakers: nor did his majesty himself
escape censure for yielding to domestic influence, and following the
advice of pernicious counsellors. The majority of the house of lords,
however, was more particularly attacked: it was said, they were men
who would mix blood with corruption; that they were friends of
every despotism; and that they were representatives of Miguel and of
Ferdinand, of Russian lords and German ladies. Similar meetings were
held in Westminster, Southwark, Marylebone, St. Paneras, and Paddington.
At Birmingham also, the news of Earl Grey’s resignation had no sooner
arrived, than the inhabitants assembled at Newhall Hill, and a petition
was voted to the house of commons, which, in addition to a prayer that
the supplies might be stopped, contained this ominous sentence: “Your
petitioners find it declared in the bill of rights that the people of
England may have arms for their defence, suitable to their condition,
and as allowed by law; and they apprehend that this great right will
be enforced generally, in order that the people may be prepared for any
circumstances that may arise.” Some of the inhabitants defied the laws
of their country by exhibiting printed placards in their windows to the
effect that no taxes would be paid until the reform bill had passed.
Similar meetings were held, similar petitions were got up, and similar
language used at Manchester, Liverpool, and in various parts of Scotland
and Ireland. The annals of England, indeed, clo not present a more
alarming period than the interval between the 9th and the 16th of May.
The language used at the numerous meetings indicated the bitterness of
the disappointment which the people, or at least a certain portion of
the people, felt, and their determination of having “the bill, the whole
bill, and nothing but the bill,” be the cost what it might. At a public
meeting at Paddington, Mr. Hume told the multitude, “that military were
marching upon the metropolis; and he asked whether, when other nations
were free, they would submit to walk the streets with the brand of
slavery upon them? whether they were prepared to bend before a military
yoke?” He added that there were one hundred and fifty peers against
them, but he did not know how many women, though he heard there were
some. This allusion to the queen was immediately followed by groans; and
shortly after her majesty, while taking an airing, was grossly insulted
by the populace. In fact the king himself, at this period, learned
the true value of the shoutings which had attended him as the personal
protector of the reform bill. In one of the metropolitan unions a member
was loudly applauded for declaring that till the reform bill was passed
there was no William IV., but only a Duke of Clarence. The queen, also,
was dragged forward, as an active enemy of the bill, to be made the
theme of atrocious insult.

In the meantime the king found a difficulty in forming an
administration. As soon as he had resolved to accept the resignation
of his cabinet, he sent for Lord Lyndhurst, desiring that nobleman
to obtain the opinion of parties respecting the advice which he had
rejected, and also authorising him to adopt measures for the formation
of a new ministry. At the same time his majesty declared, that
“extensive reform was necessary, and was the express condition on
which such a ministry must be based.” Lord Lyndhurst, on receiving his
majesty’s commands, immediately waited upon the Duke of Wellington.
The sentiments of his grace on the subject of reform had been fully and
openly declared; but he, nevertheless, was found willing to make large
sacrifices, and to encounter any obloquy, in order to extricate his
majesty from embarrassment. He desired no office, he said, much less
that of prime-minister; yet if necessary for the king’s service, he
was ready to serve in any way that might be thought fit. After some
consultation, these noble lords considered it advisable to offer the
first place to Sir Robert Peel. He was asked if he would accept the
office of prime-minister; on the clear understanding that he must carry
through a measure of extensive reform, in fulfilment of his majesty’s
declaration? Sir Robert replied that by an “extensive reform” he assumed
to be understood all the principles of the bill, and that under such a
condition, it was impossible to accept office: hostile as he uniformly
had been to every plan of extensive reform, he felt that he could be of
no service to the king or to the country. Lord Lyndhurst communicated
the nature of his commission to several other influential persons, and
they were not unwilling to take subordinate situations, but no one came
forward as a leader. In the meantime Lord Ebrington’s motion interposed
insurmountable difficulties in the way of negotiations. The new ministry
was of necessity to be sought for among the opponents of the bill;
office must be accepted in defiance of the lower house; and the utter
hopelessness of any change from a dissolution of parliament was evident
from the agitation already distracting the country. Lord Lyndhurst,
therefore, was compelled to inform his majesty that the commission with
which he had been entrusted had failed. The king was now reduced to the
necessity of renewing his intercourse with his former ministers. On
the 10th Earl Grey announced in the house of lords that he had that day
received a communication from his majesty, though of too recent a date
to be followed by any decided consequence. Both houses adjourned to
the 17th; but before the commons separated, a debate took place on the
presentation of the London petition, which for boldness of invective
and declamation was scarcely ever surpassed. It turned chiefly on
the supposed conduct of the Duke of Wellington, and some others, in
accepting office under the peculiar circumstances of that period. On the
17th, however, the lords had no sooner met, than the Duke of Wellington
and Lord Lyndhurst gave an explanation of their conduct in this matter.
The Duke of Wellington remarked:—“When his majesty found that he could
not consistently with his duty to the state, follow the advice of his
confidential servants, so little communication had he with men other
than his responsible advisers, that he had had recourse to a nobleman,
whose judicial functions took him almost out of the line of politics,
to inquire whether means existed, and what means, of forming an
administration on the principle of carrying into execution an extensive
reform. That nobleman communicated to me the difficulties in which his
majesty was placed, in order to ascertain how far it was in my power
to assist in extricating him from them. With this view, I thought it
my duty to institute similar inquiries of others, the rather as I was
myself as unprepared as his majesty for the advice which his ministers
had tendered, and for the consequences which had ensued from its being
rejected. On inquiry I found that there was a large number of most
influential persons not indisposed to support a government formed to
aid his majesty in resisting the advice tendered to him by his late
administration. Under this conviction I attended his majesty; and my
advice to him was, not that he should appoint me Iris minister, but
certain members of the other house of parliament. So far from seeking
office for myself, I merely named those persons I thought best qualified
for the service; adding, that, for my own part, whether I was in
office or out of office, he and those persons might depend upon my most
strenuous support. The object of this advice and tender of assistance
was to enable his majesty to form an administration upon the principle
of resisting the advice which he had just rejected. These are the first
steps of the transaction; and I believe they show that, if ever there
was an instance in which the king acted with honesty and fairness
towards his servants, and if ever there was an instance in which public
men, opposed to those servants, kept aloof from intrigue, and from the
adoption of all means except the most honourable, in promoting their own
views of the public weal, this was that individual instance; and I will
add with reference to myself, that these transactions show that, so far
from being actuated by those motives of personal aggrandizement, with
which I have been charged by persons of high station in another place,
my object was, that others should occupy a post of honour, and that for
myself I was willing to serve in any capacity, or without any official
capacity, so as to enable the crown to carry on the government.” Lord
Lyndhurst, in explaining the part he had taken in the matter, bitterly
complained of being calumniated by the press, which, he said, now
reigned paramount over the legislature and the country. “As far as I am
myself concerned,” he said, “I despise these calumnies. They may wound,
however, the feelings of those allied to me by the dearest ties, and so
far they are a source of pain to myself; but apart from the feelings of
others, I hold them in the utmost scorn.” Several noble lords, although
they had in no way been connected with the transactions which had been
explained, declared that the conduct of the Duke of Wellington had been
high-minded and disinterested. He had been hunted down day after day
because he had dared to become minister; and it turned out that he had
neither accepted nor sought office. Earl Grey expressed his surprise
that the Duke of Wellington and Lord Lyndhurst should have indulged in
violent invective against the reform bill and ministers, and “dinned
their lordships’ ears” with denunciations of the measure, and
declarations that the bill, instead of saving, would tend to the
destruction of that house and of the monarchy. He thought differently.
There were clangers, not imaginary or hypothetical, but substantial and
imminent, both to that house and to the monarchy, to be apprehended
from proceedings which tended to a collision between the hereditary and
representative branches of the constitution. He concluded by declaring
that his continuance in office must depend on his conviction of his own
ability to carry into full effect the bill on their lordships’ table,
unimpaired in principle and all essential details. The Earl of Carnarvon
said, that if he could venture to make any comment on the reasons
assigned for the proceedings of ministers, he would say that they had
hurried on in their violent course, because they feared that if their
opponents were permitted to introduce their measures, not all the power
and influence of ministers could have produced a collision between the
two houses. It was his duty, as the continued day for the committee had
been fixed on his motion, now to get rid of it. He therefore moved
that “the order for the committee on the reform bill be discharged.” He
added:—“Thus I leave it to other noble lords to do their dirty work.”
 The order was accordingly discharged.

On Friday, the 18th of May, on the assembling of the peers, the Earl of
Harewood asked Earl Grey whether it was yet settled that ministers were
to continue in office? His lordship answered, that in consequence of
having received the king’s request to that effect, and in consequence
of now finding himself in a situation which would enable him to carry
through the bill unimpaired in its efficiency, he and his colleagues did
remain in office. He moved that the committee on the bill, under
these circumstances, should be taken on Monday. The Earl of Harewood
continued, that he had understood the continuance of Earl Grey in office
depended on the power he should receive to carry the reform bill—a
power which might be conferred by the creation of peers, or by the act
and will of certain lords in seceding from their opposition to the bill.
In the choice of these two evils, it was his duty to select the lesser.
He had opposed the bill on the second reading, and he would likewise
have opposed many of its details in the committee, but the wiser course
would be now to withhold further opposition to the bill, rather than
render the calamity of creating a great number of peers unavoidable.
But though he adopted this course, let it be understood that it was
by compulsion, and with a feeling that he never would again enjoy an
opportunity of uttering in that house one word in an independent form.
Bidding farewell to freedom of debate, let those who had brought this
infliction on the country be responsible for their acts when the nation
came to its senses. On the other hand, the Earl of Winchilsea, while
he admitted that the independence of the house was at an end, and that
their lordships might be pointed at with scorn, as belonging to a body
which went through the mockery of legislative functions while it was
denied all legislative power, expressed his determination still to offer
every possible opposition to the bill. Earl Grey had not yet stated in
what shape the power of carrying the bill had been conferred; and Lord
Wharncliffe, conceiving that before any peer could decide on the course
he would adopt, it was necessary to know, put the question direct
to him, whether their deliberations were to be carried on under the
immediate threat of a creation of peers? or whether it was to be
understood that a certain number of peers would absent themselves from
the house on the occasion of the discussions that might ensue upon the
bill? Earl Grey replied, “I do not feel myself called on to answer the
questions which have been put to me by the noble baron. I have already
stated to your lordships that I continue to hold office under the
expectation that the bill will be successfully carried in its future
stages through this house. I do not consider that the noble lord has any
right to call on me for any further explanation; and I will add, that
I wish to be bound only by what I state myself.” Lord Wharncliffe
rejoined, that he could come to no conclusion as to what course he
should take until he saw more clearly the real position in which their
lordships were placed. The noble earl opposite had no right to call for
any statement as to the course his opponents meant to pursue when he
hesitated to communicate his own. The Earl of Carnarvon repeated Lord
Wharncliffe’s question, whether it was intended to create peers? but
the minister replied that it was a question which ought not to be put,
and one which he would not answer. The motion for going into committee
on Monday was agreed to.

Although ministers, however, refused to give any answer as to the
intended creation of peers, it was soon known that this power was
assured to them—at least, as an alternative or an expedient. Sir
Herbert Taylor, in the name and by the authority of the king, wrote a
circular note to the opposition peers, stating his majesty’s wish that
they should facilitate the passing of the bill by absenting themselves
from the house when any important part of the measure to which they
could not consent came under discussion. Such a request implied that
his majesty desired it, as the only means of avoiding the creation of
a number of peers; and the opposition lords,—that is, the
majority,—understanding the hint, were thus compelled to abandon for a
time their rights and duties as legislators. During the remainder of
the discussions on the bill, therefore, not more than between thirty or
forty attended at a time. The king and the lords were equally opposed to
this measure, but both were compelled to bend to the will of the house
of commons.

A similar announcement to that which Earl Grey made in the lords was
made in the commons by Lord Althorp. This announcement stopped another
address to the king in the house of commons, which Lord Milton intended
to have brought forward, and furnished to Sir Robert Peel an opportunity
of explaining the share he had taken in the late negotiations to form a
new administration.




REFORM BILL PASSED.

{WILLIAM IV. 1832–1833}

The committee on the bill was resumed on Monday, the 21st of May, and,
as was natural, it now passed rapidly through the upper house.
The inverted order of the schedules, taken up at Lord Lyndhurst’s
suggestion, was adopted, though in a very different spirit from that
which was in the noble mover’s mind. Schedule C was voted at the first
sitting up to the Tower Hamlets; and next day the clauses on the Tower
Hamlets, to which so many objections had been raised, were passed. Lord
Ellenborough wished the county of Lancashire to be divided into three
districts, each retaining two members, he conceiving that as the bill
now stood the agricultural interest of that county would be utterly
helpless; but there were only fifteen peers who ventured to vote with
him, while seventy-five adhered to the bill. The bill, in fact, passed,
with some few slight verbal alterations, on the 4th of June, one hundred
and sixty voting for it, and twenty-two against it. The bill was now
ordered back to the commons, and the amendments of their lordships
having been agreed to on the following day without any discussion
regarding their merits, the royal assent was given to the bill by
commission on the 7th of June.




IRISH AND SCOTCH REFORM BILLS PASSED.

It was easy to foresee that the English reform bill having passed,
those relating to Scotland and Ireland would be equally triumphant.
Deliberation was, in point of fact, at an end. Both bills had been read
a first time, and had awaited on the table of the house of commons the
fate of the English bill in the house of lords. The bill relating to
Scotland was read in the commons on the 21st of May, the day on which
the restored ministry resumed the committee in the lords on the English
bill. No resistance was made to the second reading, the opposition
knowing that it was hopeless, and feeling assured that this measure
must follow as part of the general scheme, all the elements of which
had triumphed in regard to England. Various amendments were moved in the
committee, but they were all rejected by large majorities, and it passed
the third reading unmutilated. In the house of lords also, as in the
commons, no opposition was made to the second reading, and it passed
that house on the 13th of July, The Irish bill called forth more
resistance than that of Scotland, though its triumph from the first
was equally certain. Mr. Lefroy moved, on its re-introduction, that it
should be read that day six months. He said, that if a reform bill
was to be passed at all, the present measure, in so far as the country
representation was concerned, was not very objectionable; but he
could discover no advantage to be derived from it in respect to the
alterations in the boroughs. Seven of these boroughs had sent reformers
to parliament, and eight possessed an open constituency. In the others
the constituency varied from twelve to ninety-four, and none of them
could be called decayed boroughs; on the contrary, they were more
flourishing than at the time when they received the franchise. Of the
one hundred Irish members, eighty-three were popularly returned. Where
then, he asked, was the necessity or expediency of the measure? Would
any rational man have deemed a reform bill necessary in England under
such circumstances? And while the bill was unnecessary, he continued,
it was also dangerous—dangerous not merely to the Protestant church of
Ireland, but to the sister church of England, and the integrity of
the empire. The fall of the Irish church would endanger the connection
between the two countries. The leader of the Catholic population in
Ireland had told them to choose reformers as the best means of opening
the way to repealers; yet it was proposed by opening the boroughs to
put them into the hands of this party—a party whose influence would be
increased to an extent that no government would have power to oppose.
The amendment was seconded by Lord Castlereagh, and supported by Messrs.
Shaw, Conolly, and Gordon, who all said that the bill would be ruinous
to the Protestant interest in Ireland. Messrs. O’Connell and Shiel
defended the bill against the objections urged by the supporters of the
amendment, but pointed out other defects, which they expressed a hope
would be remedied in the committee. For instance, the name of the
ten-pound franchise had been given to Ireland without the reality; the
Irish and English freeholders, from the nature of their tenures, and the
disproportion between their means, were in opposite positions to each
other. In respect to houses also, the franchise was too high; and,
instead of being the instrument of reform, it would be productive of
corruption. Thus Portarlington, which was formerly sold by a single
proprietor, would now be sold by one hundred members. In England, no
man was called upon to show his title unless by previous notice; but
in Ireland a scrutinising assistant-barrister examined it without any
process being-served on the man who came to vote. In Ireland, also,
half-a-crown was the sum paid for registry; in England it was a shilling
only. Was this equality? Was this union? Could this conduce to the
continuance of the union between the two countries? But while he found
so much in the bill of an objectionable nature, he would support it for
the good it would effect; he would support it because it would strike
down the corporation of Dublin, and because it would open the borough of
Belfast, whose representative had hitherto been appointed by the noble
Marquis of Donegal, like his groom or his footman. After a few words
of opposition from Sir Robert Peel, the house divided on the second
reading, and it was carried by two hundred and forty-six against one
hundred and thirty.

It was in the committee that the attacks of the Irish reformers against
the bill commenced in reality. The emancipation act had been accompanied
by the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders. Mr. O’Connell
moved that it should be an instruction to the committee to restore the
franchise to these freeholders. The Irish reform bill exhibited gross
injustice. England was to have thirty members more than had originally
been contemplated, but Ireland was not to derive any such advantage. It
was always the way when Ireland was concerned; her aid was invoked in
the battle, but when the division of the spoil came, she was forgotten.
And in the present instance insult had been added to injury. The Scotch
bill had been brought forward by a Scotch legal luminary. Was there no
Irish gentleman to whom ministers could entrust the Irish reform bill?
Ministers wished to put an end to agitation in Ireland. But how did
they set about it? By perpetrating an act of injustice, which would
perpetuate agitation. The amendment was supported by Mr. Shiel, who
contended that the restoration of the forty-shilling freeholders was
just in principle, because it would assimilate the constituency of
England and Ireland, and because it would conciliate the people of
Ireland without being detrimental to England. Ministers replied, that
if the proposed instruction was carried, it would have, the effect of
impeding, if not ultimately defeating, the measure. Mr. O’Connell’s
motion was lost! by a majority-of one hundred and twenty-two against
seventy-three; and he immediately moved, as a modification of it; that
“the franchise should be restored to persons seized of an estate for
three lives, renewable for ever, of the yearly value of forty shillings,
provided that the rent did not exceed four pounds per annum, of which
one-third was to be profit, and provided also that the renewal fee did
net exceed two-pounds.” This was opposed by Mr. Stanley, on the ground,
that it would create a minute subdivision of independent, property,
and by that means would also create an immense multitude of independent
voters. The motion, was not pressed to a division; and Mr. O’Connell
then took up the subject of the increase of representation in Ireland.
Of the five additional members, one was to be given to the University of
Dublin, which was now to return two members; and Mr. O’Connell and his
party objected to this arrangement, because it would strengthen the
Protestant interest. Sir Robert Heron moved as an instruction to the
committee, that the University of Dublin should continue to return
only one member. The motion was opposed by Mr. Crampton, the
solicitor-general of Ireland, who vindicated the character of the
electors of Dublin University from the attacks which the Irish reformers
made upon it. The proposal was rejected by a large majority: and Mr.
O’Connell returned to the attack by moving, as an instruction to the
committee, to extend the franchise to persons occupying freehold estates
of the yearly value of five pounds. His motion was founded on
this reasoning—that, as Ireland was a poorer country, a ten-pound
qualification in England was a twenty-pound qualification in Ireland,
and the constituency of the latter would consequently be curtailed.
In his speech, he said that the object of all parties seemed to be to
exclude the people of Ireland as much as possible from the enjoyment of
the franchise. He was justified in making this charge, when he saw two
members given to Trinity College, Dublin, in the constituency of which
it was impossible there should be a Roman Catholic voter. If the system
was acted on, the Catholic question still remained to be settled. Mr.
Stanley complained of the unreasonable conduct of Irish members, and
especially of Mr. O’Connell, who first desired alterations in the bill,
and then complained that it was no longer the same. The change in
the plan of registration, he said, had been recommended by Sir Henry
Darnel. An alteration had also been made in the leasehold from
twenty-one years to fourteen, and this was done at the instance of
Irish members. Mr. O’Connell himself had entreated ministers to omit the
fifty-pound qualification, which was complied with: but he had hardly
effected his purpose, when he turned round and accused the government
of making unfavourable alterations in the bill. Members might be
astonished, but it was fact, that he had given notice of a motion
for the restoration of a qualification which was omitted on his own
suggestion. This motion was likewise rejected; as was another, made by
Mr. Mullins, to extend the franchise in counties to leaseholders for
nineteen years, at a rent of thirty pounds. Ministers, however, yielded
something in the committee by consenting to extend the franchise to
leaseholders for twenty years, having a beneficial interest to the
amount of ten pounds. Mr. Shiel divided the house without success, to
get rid of a proviso that required ten-pound voters in boroughs to pay
all municipal taxes. The recorder of Dublin was equally unsuccessful in
a motion tending to place Irish freemen on the same footing with their
brethren in English boroughs; that is, to have their rights as freemen
perpetuated, instead of terminating with the lives of those existing,
as provided in the Irish bill Before the bill left the committee, Mr.
Dominick Browne, one of the members for the county of Mayo, proposed a
different plan for Ireland; but his proposition was not entertained by
the house. The bill passed the commons on the 18th of July, and was read
a second time in the lords on the 23rd. No division took place; but the
Duke of Wellington stated at length his objections to the measure, which
were replied to by Lord Plunkett. The bill passed through the committee
in the peers almost without discussion. The only amendment of importance
was one which had been rejected in the commons; namely, to place the
rights of freemen in boroughs on the same footing on which they stood in
the English bill, by continuing them in perpetuity instead of confining
them simply to the children of freemen born after the passing of the
bill. When the bill returned to the commons, Mr. Stanley declared that
he felt a strong repugnance to this amendment. It was, however, allowed
to stand, and by the first week of August all the three bills had
received the royal assent.




BILL TO PREVENT BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS, ETC.

Soon after, the reform bill was carried the house of commons was filled
with complaints, that, in its working, it was producing, extensive
disfranchisement among the new constituencies. It was required by the
English bill, that the intended voter should have paid up by the 20th of
July all rates and taxes, payable in the preceding April in respect
of the premises on which he claimed. That period was now past, and
the non-payers were so numerous as greatly to diminish the new
constituencies. Under these circumstances Lord Althorp, on the 7th of
August, moved for leave to bring in a bill “for allowing further time
for persons to pay the poor-rates, in pursuance of an act passed in the
present session to amend the representation of the people in England and
Wales.” This was resisted on the ground that the act contained no clause
allowing it to be altered, during the present session, and that the
proposition was a breach of pledge. The house, it was said, had fully
discussed and finally passed a measure effecting a great and extensive
change in the constitution of the country, and that measure had gone
forth to the country as being the final act of those who had originated
it; yet it was now proposed to make an alteration in one of its most
essential provisions. The alteration proposed was not unreasonable in
itself; but there was danger in permitting any alteration to be made
with respect to the reform act. Who could say, if changes were to
be made, when they would stop? Lord Althorp argued that there were
precedents which would enable the house to get over the difficulty in
point of form, but as the bill was to be opposed, and as, in that case,
it could not be carried through before the 20th of August, he would
withdraw it altogether; he was the more ready to do so, because he
thought that the inconvenience had been exaggerated. The subject,
however, was taken up by Colonel Evans, who thought that a great number
of tax and rate payers entitled to vote were defaulters, and therefore
not able to enjoy their franchise. He moved a resolution, which, after
adverting to the disfranchisement likely to arise, suggested that the
mischief might be remedied by substituting for “the 6th of April,” in
the 27th clause of the reform act, “the 25th of September last” for the
payment of the poor rates, and the “10th of October last” for the
payment of the assessed taxes. This motion was only supported by two
members, yet the colonel brought the matter before the house again on
the 10th of August, by moving “that an address be presented to his
majesty, praying that he will be graciously pleased to prorogue the
present, and convene another short session of parliament, to take
into consideration the unexpected disfranchisement produced by certain
restrictive clauses of the act for amending the representation of the
people in parliament.” This motion was opposed by ministers, and was
not pressed to a division. It had become clear, indeed, that many of
the statements concerning the number of non-payers were without good
foundation, and therefore there was no reason for altering the clause.
About the same time objections were raised to the boundaries of
boroughs as laid down by the commissioners whom ministers had employed,
principally on the ground of the influence which, it was supposed, had
here and there been given to individuals, by adding large portions of
their lands to boroughs. It was objected, for instance, that, in the
case of Whitehaven, a rural district, comprehending thirty voters, had
been added to a borough containing three hundred. It was said that this
was done to conciliate opposition; as this district was the property of
Lord Lonsdale, it was stated, he would acquire by its junction with the
town a preponderating influence. An amendment was made to exclude it,
but ministers resisted it, and it was lost. Lord Althorp said, that
nobody who knew the state of parties would believe in these theories of
conciliation; and that Lord Lonsdale would have no more influence in
the borough than the legitimate influence to which rank and property
entitled their possessor. A similar objection was stated against the
boundary allotted to Stamford, which was followed by a similar motion of
exclusion; but it found only nineteen supporters, while one hundred and
seventy-two voted against it.

Another measure connected with the changes in the representation was a
bill brought in to amend and render more effectual the laws relating to
bribery and corruption in elections. Lord John Russell, who brought in
the bill, stated that its principal object was to subject all cases
of bribery to a more complete investigation. With that view, the bill
extended the term for presenting petitions complaining of bribery at
elections from fourteen days to two years; and provided that it would
be lawful for any person to petition the house during that period,
complaining that the election of any particular borough had been carried
by bribery and corruption. The bill also provided that where the parties
complained of undue elections in consequence of bribery, if they proved
their case, all their costs and expenses in sustaining their petition
should be defrayed by the public. Objections were urged against this
measure from both sides of the house. It was argued, that the extension
of the period for petitioning would keep members in a state of vassalage
for two years; that a new petition might be presented every week, if
it only related to a different alleged act; and that the terms which
defined what bribery was were so vague, and yet so comprehensive, that
it was impossible for a member to know whether a charge could be brought
against him or not. Some members thought that nothing but the ballot
would prevent bribery, while others suggested that every member on
entering the house should take an oath that he had neither given, nor
promised to give, or would promise hereafter, by himself, his agents,
or friends, any money, security, order, or other thing of value, or any
pecuniary fee, or reward of any kind, in consideration of any vote or
votes, by which his return to that house had been promoted or served.
The bill passed the commons; but when it came to the lords its
postponement for six months was moved by Lord Wynford, and the lord
chancellor agreeing with him as to the impossibility of carrying its
provisions into effect, the bill was thrown out.

During the discussion on the reform question, one strong objection
against the destruction of nomination-boroughs had been, that without
them there would be no certain means of members who vacated their seats
by accepting office of securing a new return. In order to obviate this
inconvenience, the Marquis of Northampton brought in a bill to repeal,
in so far as certain offices were concerned, the act of Queen Anne,
by which an acceptance of any of them vacated a member’s seat. On the
motion for the second reading of this bill, the Duke of Wellington
said there could be no doubt that some measure of this description was
necessary; but it appeared to him that the present bill was only a half
measure, because it provided for only half of the inconvenience likely
to result. He also objected to the bill being brought forward in the
individual capacity of the noble marquis. As the inconvenience would
arise from a government measure, government should introduce a
remedy, and recommend it to both houses of parliament upon their own
responsibility. The lord-chancellor likewise thought that the second
reading should be delayed till the matter had been more ripely
considered. The second reading, therefore, was postponed, and, as the
end of the session approached, the bill was ultimately laid aside. The
last subject of direct reform in the representation was introduced by
Mr. Bulwer, who moved an address to the king, praying that his majesty
would give the free inhabitants of New South Wales a representative
system. He grounded their title to it on the score both of population
and taxation; but while ministers admitted that New South Wales must in
time have a representative body, they did not think the elements had yet
been formed out of which a safe constituency could be created, and the
motion was negatived.




COMMITTEES ON IRISH TITHES.

{WILLIAM IV. 1832—1833}

In the speech from the throne, on the opening of parliament, there was
this clause:—“In parts of Ireland a systematic opposition has been made
to the payment of tithes, attended in some instances with afflicting
results; and it will be one of your first duties to inquire whether it
may not be possible to effect improvements in the laws respecting this
subject, which may afford the necessary protection to the established
church, and at the same time remove the present causes of complaint.”
 Both houses, during this session, appointed select committees to inquire
into the collection and payment of tithes in Ireland, and the state of
the laws relating thereto. The report of the committee of the house of
lords was presented on the 16th of February, and that of the commons
on the 17th. The report stated that in different parts of Ireland
resistance had been made to the payment of tithes, by means of
organised, illegal, and in some instances armed combinations, which, if
allowed to extend themselves successfully to other districts, would be
applied to other objects, and ultimately subvert the dominion of the
law, and endanger the peace and security of society. In many districts
the report further stated, where resistance had been made to the payment
of tithes, the clergy had been reduced to the greatest distress; and in
order to obviate this, the committee recommended that his majesty should
be empowered to advance to the incumbent, where tithes or compositions
had been illegally withheld, or to his representatives, sums not
exceeding the amount of the arrears due for the tithes of the year 1836,
proportioned to the income of each, according to a scale diminishing as
their incomes increased. It further recommended that as a security for
repayment of the sums so advanced, his majesty should be empowered to
levy, under the authority of a law to be passed for that purpose, the
amount of arrears due for the tithes of the year 1831, without prejudice
to the claims of the clergy for any arrear that might be due for a
longer period. Where the arrears were due in a compounded parish, the
sum to be advanced was to be regulated by the composition, and where
there was no special agreement, by an average of the produce of the
tithe for the years 1827, 1828, and 1829. As the crown was to become
entitled to the arrears, it was recommended that the attorney-general
should be empowered to sue for them, either by petition in chancery or
exchequer, or by civil bill at the county quarter-session. On the tithe
system, the committee stated that they had seen sufficient to satisfy
them, “that with a view to serve both the interests of the church and
the lasting welfare of Ireland, a permanent change of system will be
required: that such a change, to be safe and satisfactory, must involve
a complete extinction of tithes, including those belonging to lay
impropriators, by commuting them for a charge upon land, or an exchange
for or investment in land, so as effectually to secure the revenues of
the church, so far as relates to tithes, and at the same time to remove
all pecuniary collisions between the clergymen and the tithe-payer,
which, at present, were unavoidable.” On the 8th of March, the Marquis
of Lansdowne in the upper house, and Mr. Stanley in the commons, moved
resolutions adopting and embodying the recommendations of the report. In
the lords no opposition was offered to them, but in the commons it did
not pass so readily. Mr. Stanley said that as he intended to state the
whole plan which government had in contemplation, with all its details,
he should move for that purpose that the house should resolve itself
into a committee on the report; a course which he deemed advisable,
because it would put it into his power to give every explanation which
might be required, and to take the opinion of the committee separately
on each of the resolutions. This motion was sternly opposed by the Irish
members. Mr. Brownlow led the attack, by maintaining that the report
was too partial and imperfect to be made the subject of consideration in
committee. He moved “that the debate be adjourned, until the committee
had gone into a full inquiry into the subject of tithes, and the
appropriation of church property in Ireland, and until the evidence
and report of the committee came before parliament.” In support of the
amendment, Mr. Shiel said that the Irish members did not oppose the
resolutions: they only said, “Wait for the final report, and do not
decide on a document resting on one-sided evidence.” Catholics, he
said, had been excluded from the committee, and only one out of eighteen
Catholic witnesses had been examined. Was this just, or fair dealing?
It was as if a jury were desired to retire on the closing of the
plaintiff’s case. They find their verdict; judgment is given; and then
the defendant was desired to proceed with her case. If the committee had
confined themselves to the recommendation of assisting the clergy, the
Irish members would not have complained; but while they came with a
purse of gold for the church, they also came with a rod of iron for the
people. Mr. Shiel proceeded next to discuss the plan which was supposed
to be unknown, in doing which he discovered the true objection of the
Irish members to it, namely, that the Protestant church of Ireland was
still to be preserved. Other Irish members urged the same objections;
and added, that if every thing else in the supposed plan were right, it
was wrong to pay the arrears to the clergy, and then ask repayment by
coercive measures. Lord Ebrington, who had been on the committee, and
concurred in its report, now sided with the Irish members. Sir Robert
Peel said that the discussion on the anticipated propositions was
foreign to the question before the house. The question was, whether the
propositions should be explained now, or after the house had gone into
a committee. Pie thought that the latter was the course most conformable
to the practice of the house; and by supporting a motion to that
effect, no member pledged himself in the least to the proposition of the
government. Lord Althorp and Mr. Stanley complained of the course the
Irish members had taken in commenting on propositions of which they knew
nothing; and on a division the amendment of the Irish members was lost
by an overwhelming majority.

The committee was delayed till the 18th, on which day Mr. Stanley moved
a series of resolutions similar to those which had been agreed to by the
lords. The first of these resolutions was, “That it appears to the house
that in several parts of Ireland, an organised and systematic opposition
has been made to the payment of tithes, by which the law has been
rendered unavailing, and many of the clergy of the established church
have been reduced to great distress.” Mr. Stanley entered at great
length into the evidence which proved both parts of this resolution. It
was quite clear from the evidence that a system of opposition had been
established in Ireland to the payment of tithes, which could not be
overcome by ordinary means. Every plan had been adopted by which
the operations of the law might be traversed. Tithe-proctors and
process-servants were violently assailed; impediments were interposed to
prevent the seizure and sale of cattle; and, in a word, every system
of determined and organised opposition was manifested that could be
displayed by a whole population acting as one man against the payment
of a claim legally due. Having proved the truth of the first resolution,
Mr. Stanley proceeded to the second, which provided means of relief.
It read thus:—“That, in order to afford relief to the distress, it is
expedient that his majesty should be empowered, upon the application of
the lord-lieutenant, or other chief governor or governors of Ireland, to
direct that there be issued from the consolidated fund such sums as
may be required for this purpose. That the sums so issued shall be
distributed by the lord-lieutenant, or other chief governor or governors
of Ireland, by and with the advice of the privy-council, in advances
proportioned to the incomes of the incumbents of benefices wherein
the tithes, or tithe composition lawfully due may have been withheld,
according to a scale diminishing as the incomes of such incumbents
increase.” To this resolution Mr. Stanley said that he did not
anticipate any objection, inasmuch as it was from no fault of the clergy
that the resistance, and the consequent distress had arisen. He then
proceeded to the third resolution, which provided for the reimbursement
of the sums advanced:—“That, for the more effectual vindication of the
authority of the law, and as a security for the repayment of the sums to
be advanced, his majesty may be empowered to levy, under the authority
of an act to be passed for this purpose, the amount of arrears for the
tithes or tithe-composition of the whole or any part of the year 1831,
without prejudice to the claims of the clergy for any arrear which may
be due for a longer period; reserving, in the first instance, the amount
of such advances, and paying over the remaining balance to the legal
claimants.” The last resolution pledged the house to an alteration of
the existing tithe system on some principle of commutation, though Mr.
Stanley said he was not prepared to state the nature of the change.
Those who dissented from the resolutions consisted chiefly of the Irish
members, and, singular enough, their opposition was chiefly confined
to the last resolution. This was, it was said, to introduce a change of
system, but it implied that the tithe was still to be a fund available
to the established church. It was said to be unjust to demand
extraordinary powers for the execution of a law acknowledged to be bad
and mischievous, and that every renewed attempt to recover tithes by
coercion would only hasten the ruin of the church establishment in
Ireland. Some adjustment must be made by which the church property
should be applied to the support of the three prominent sects in
Ireland, instead of its being bestowed exclusively on one, which only
comprehended about a third of the population. It was admitted at the
same time that it was right to relieve the clergy who were suffering;
but it was asserted that the resolutions held out no hope of any
substantial amendment of the existing state of things. Mr. Shiel argued
that the last resolution did not pledge the house not to appropriate
church property as it might deem fit, and insinuated that this was
what the ministry meant, though they could not venture to speak it
out plainly. Sir Robert Peel supported the plan of the ministry, for,
although hostile, he said, on general principles, to pledges that
the house would do something at a future period, he thought that the
interests of religion and the Protestant church required that the
present case should be made an exception. As to the proposal to delay
the question till the committee should have given a full report, he
deemed it unnecessary and mischievous. If the spirit of combination was
to be checked, it should be so at once; it would be true mercy to
check it as soon as possible, for any delay would only add wings to
its already rapid progress. The first resolution was agreed to finally
without a division. On the second, Mr. Hunt divided the house, as he did
not think the distress of the clergy in Ireland was such as to warrant
money being taken out of the pockets of the people of this country for
their relief. He was, however, only supported by eleven members, while
eighty-six voted for the resolution. The third then passed without a
division, and an amendment on the fourth was negatived without being put
to the vote, so that the whole were carried. The bill was brought in
to be read a second time on the 6th of April, when the Irish opposition
pressed for a delay on the ground that it was inconsistent with sound
policy to carry through this coercive measure before introducing the
other measure for the change or extinction of tithes; that if the
arrangements regarding the latter were complicated and required delay,
that was the best reason for delaying the former, and that Mr. Stanley,
the Irish secretary, ought to take advantage of the Easter recess, then
approaching, to pay a visit to Ireland. Ministers resisted all delay,
however, and the second reading was carried by a majority of one hundred
and nineteen against twenty-one. It was read a third time, without much
discussion, on the 16th of April; and in the house of lords, where the
resolutions had been agreed to, the bill was passed without opposition.

The tithe-committees still continued their investigations, and on the
25th of June Mr. Stanley stated to the house of commons the measures
which ministers intended to recommend for the final settlement of the
questions connected with tithes. Three bills were to be introduced:
the first, to make the composition act permanent and compulsory, and to
render it at the same time more equitable and effective in some of its
details; the second, constituting the bishop and beneficed clergy of
each diocese into a corporation for the purpose of receiving the tithes
for the whole body, and dividing them for their common benefit in the
proportion to which the respective parties would be entitled: and the
third, providing for a commutation of the tithe on the same principle as
the land-tax redemption in England, or the redemption of quit-rents in
Ireland—that is, that the party liable to the charge might redeem
it, and the money thus paid for redemption would go to a fund as
a provision for the clergy in the proportions to which they were at
present entitled. Mr. Stanley explained the principles of these three
bills at great length; but stated that it was not intended to carry all
of them through the house at so late a period of the session. And
this, he continued, was not necessary, as the first and second were
independent of the third. He moved therefore for leave to bring in
a bill for making the tithe-composition act compulsory, and the
composition permanent, and another for establishing the ecclesiastical
corporations. Subsequently the latter of these was delayed, and the
composition bill only pressed on. The motion for this was opposed by Mr.
J. Grattan, who moved as an amendment the following resolutions:—“That
it is essential to the peace of Ireland that the system of tithes in
that country should be extinguished, not in name only, but in substance,
and unequivocally: That in coming to this resolution we recognise the
rights of persons having vested interests, and declare that it is the
duty of parliament to provide for those persons by making them a just
compensation: That we also recognise the liability of property in
Ireland to contribute to a fund for supporting and promoting religion
and charity; but that such may and ought to be quite different in the
mode of collection, and much lighter in effect than that raised by the
system of tithes: That we are also of opinion that the mode of levying
and the application of such fund and its distribution ought to be left
to the decision of a reformed parliament.” As the session was drawing
near to a close, the opposition seemed to entertain hopes of rendering
the measure abortive by mere opposition. Ministers were first compelled
to adjourn the debate from the 3rd of July to the 10th, and on the 10th
it was found necessary to adjourn it again to the 13th. On that day,
after stern opposition from the Irish members, and especially Mr.
O’Connell, who descanted in his usual strain on the “insulting contempt
with which all Irish affairs were treated,” a division took place on Mr.
Grattan’s resolutions, which were rejected by a large majority, and then
the bill passed the second reading without opposition, and the house
went into committee. Mr. Stanley in opening the ministerial propositions
had adverted to the payment of church-cess and church-rates by
Catholics, and expressed an opinion that they might be got rid of by
a proper application of the first-fruits. Mr. Shiel moved that “the
committee should be instructed to recite in the preamble of the bill,
that the tithe composition should be extended, with the view to the
levying of first-fruits according to their real value, and to such
future appropriation of them to the purposes of religion, education,
and charity, as, after making a due provision for the maintenance of
the church, should to parliament seem proper.” Mr. Shiel said that the
preamble already set forth that the bill was to effect a commutation.
The government, however, ought not to stop there: they had declared that
they intended to relieve the people from the church-rate, by levying
their first-fruits to their full extent, and it was their object to
ascertain the full amount of tithes through Ireland in order to tax the
church. The committee, also, had reported that the people ought to be
relieved in this particular: wherefore then was it not set forth in
the preamble? They should be embodied in the bill, and the legislature
should give an earnest of their determination to rescue the Irish
nation from the most odious imposition in the annals of ecclesiastical
taxation, the erection of temples with which the people had no concern.
Mr. Stanley, in reply, admitted that he agreed in the principle that
the fund arising from the first-fruits should be made available for the
repair and erection of churches. When asked, however, “Why not say
in the preamble of this bill that there should be an abolition of
church-cess and rates for the future?” he said he was not prepared to go
to that extent. If he consented to the introduction of these words
into the preamble, he should be doubtless told that church-rates were
abolished, and that the people of Ireland so understood it. He did not
wish, he said, to declare that to be the object of the bill which was
not its object, however it might be likely to be effected by the
passing of the bill. On a division Mr. Shiel’s motion was rejected by
seventy-nine to eighteen. The bill now proceeded without further delay,
and was passed by the commons and the lords. On the second reading in
the upper house the Duke of Wellington expressed a wish that it should
pass unanimously, he believing it to be the commencement of a series of
measures which had the pacification of Ireland for their object.




FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

As the reform bill and the management of Ireland were the great business
of this session, matters of trade did not occupy much attention
in parliament. The chancellor of the exchequer made his financial
statements on the 27th of July, when it appeared that in the quarter of
the year ending on the 5th of January, there had been a deficiency of
£700,000, making the revenue of that quarter fall short of the estimate
by no less a sum than £1,200,000; ministers having calculated on a
surplus of £500,000. The revenue in the year 1830, the chancellor of the
exchequer said, was £50,056,616, while the expenditure was £47,142,943,
leaving a surplus of £2,913,673. The expenditure of 1831 ending in 1832
was within £19,664 of that of 1830; but this equality did not proceed
from an equality of votes in the two years, because in the latter
year there arose, from the reduction of four per cents., a saving of
£777,443. After entering into minute particulars of the receipts
and expenditure, with the savings which government had effected, the
chancellor of the exchequer said, that upon the whole there was a
decrease of income in 1831, as compared with 1830, of £3,682,176. From
this, if the surplus, which would have accrued if the income had
been equal to the expenditure in that year, that was £2,933,319, were
deducted, there would be an excess of expenditure in 1831 over the
income amounting to £698,857. The state of the revenue, therefore,
in the commencement of 1832, was, that instead of having a surplus of
£2,913,673, as in the commencement of 1831, the expenditure of 1831
being £19,646 below that of 1830, there was a falling off to the amount
he had already shown; and the real excess of expenditure over income in
1831 was the sum of £698,857. Lord Althorp attributed this deficiency
chiefly to the reduction of taxation in 1830. The whole reduction of
taxation in 1831 amounted to £4,780,000. From this, if £3,364,412 were
deducted as the loss on customs and excise, there would be a balance
of £1,414,588; a clear proof that the resources of the country had
increased by nearly a million and a half in the consumption of articles
not affected by taxation. He owned he had been too sanguine in the
calculation he had made of increased consumption from reduced taxation,
but it was satisfactory to observe that, notwithstanding the great
reduction of taxation, the deficiency in the revenue had been so small.
He felt it right to state, he continued, that the deficiency at the
end of the year was increased in the April quarter, the amount in
that quarter being £1,240,413. Finding this deficiency his majesty’s
ministers had endeavoured to meet it, not by an increase of taxation,
but by a reduction of expenditure. They had lowered the estimates by
more than £2,000,000, and had reduced official salaries and appointments
to the utmost of their power. In two years, the reductions they had made
in salaries and officers amounted to £334,353. Lord Althorp next entered
into a statement of the gradual decrease of the surplus, and then
proceeded to the estimates for the year ending-April, 1833. He
calculated that the expenditure of the year ending April, 1833, would
be £45,696,376, which would be £2,162,051 less than that for the year
ending in April, 1832. He next proceeded to give a comparative estimate
of the income as it was in April, 1832, and as he calculated it to be
for 1833. From the various items he expected a total of £46,470,000;
deduct from that £45,696,376, as the amount of expenditure, and it left
a surplus for the year ending in April, 1833, of £773,624. Against this,
however, was to be set the deficiency of 1832, amounting to £1,240,413,
and take from that sum the surplus of £773,624 for 1833, and it would
leave a deficiency on the two years of £466,789. Mr. Goulburn contended
that, according to the noble lord’s statement, there would be a
deficiency at the end of the current year, on account of 1832, although
in this year there was a surplus. After a few words from Sir Robert
Peel, however, who questioned the reality of the reductions made by
government, the financial arrangements were carried without opposition.




COMMITTEE ON THE CHARTER OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY, ETC.

On the 27th of January the president of the board of control moved the
appointment of a committee upon the affairs of the East India Company,
and to inquire into the state of trade between Great Britain, the
East Indies, and China. This was, in fact, only the reappointment of
a committee which had sat during previous sessions; but the president
hinted that as the charter would expire in April, 1834, and the East
India Company had declined to make itself a party to the discussion,
it would be necessary that the government should take a more direct
management of the question, though without intimating its intentions, so
as not to disappoint expectations. It would be necessary to carry
this proposal into effect, he said, to have a considerable number of
sub-committees, at least six or seven, each taking a separate branch of
the inquiry. In the East India House, and in the board of control, the
business was divided into six departments, each division having its
separate functionaries; and he proposed, therefore, that there should be
at least six sub-committees, each taking one of these departments. As it
was necessary, he continued, to provide for the absence of members,
and as five or six members would be necessary in each subcommittee, he
should propose that there should be at least forty-eight or forty-nine
in the committee. The present committee, he added, would have this
advantage, that, the subject was not entirely new. A large mass of
testimony had been obtained; and though the evidence had not been
systematically collected, yet the materials were in preparation, and the
committee would be supplied with them. In addition to this the board
of control had for some time been preparing for the discussion, officers
having been employed in classifying the evidence laid before both
houses, and in separating the different branches of the evidence. The
committee was appointed without opposition. Subsequently, the chancellor
of the exchequer proposed the appointment of “a committee of secrecy,
to inquire into, and report upon the expediency of renewing the charter
of the Bank of England; and also on the existing system of banking by
banks of issue in England and Wales.” The circumstance which gave rise
to this motion was the renewal of the charter with the Bank of England.
As the occasion of a renewal of that charter had always been considered
the proper time for an inquiry into the banking system, and had been
looked forward to by the public as a proper season for taking the
principles of the Bank of England into consideration, therefore the
proposition was made. In making the proposal, the chancellor of the
exchequer said that he trusted the house would agree in the propriety of
making it a committee of secrecy, in order to prevent any discussions
in that house upon the subject pending the inquiry; on such a question,
involving the money transactions of the country, nothing could be more
objectionable than these discussions. As to the questions which the
committee would have to consider, they would have first to decide
whether the charter should be renewed, and then, in case of renewal,
whether any, and what exclusive privileges should be given to the Bank.
Another question for their consideration would be the existing system of
banking with reference to banks of issue; and they would likewise have
to consider the Bank of England in its quality of banker to the state.
It was not, however, intended that the committee should go into the
question of the currency; it was to confine itself to banking, properly
so called. But one exception to this would be found in the one-pound
notes: it would be impossible to exclude that question from the
consideration of the committee, if they should consider it was necessary
to enter upon it. It was thought by some members that it would be better
to restrict the committee from entering into that question, and by
others that it would be better to delay the whole subject till a new
parliament. In substance, in fact, it was so delayed, for, although
a committee was appointed, it had made no report when parliament was
prorogued and subsequently dissolved.




THE AFFAIRS OF THE WEST INDIES.

In the latter part of 1831, a violent hurricane had occasioned a great
deal of injury in Barbadoes, St. Vincent, and St. Lucia. During this
session ministers proposed, and parliament agreed, to grant his majesty
£100,000 for the relief of the sufferers in those islands. Jamaica was
soon after visited by a calamity of a different kind, though not less
destructive. About the end of 1831, a formidable insurrection, which had
been organised for some time, broke out among the slaves, particularly
in the parishes of Trelawney, Portland, and St. James. The negroes on
several estates began at first to refuse to go to their work, and then
they assembled together in large bodies, and marched over the country,
spreading devastation around them. The destruction which they caused
was not confined to the whites; the houses and small settlements of free
people of colour were attacked equally with the large plantations of
the white inhabitants. It was found necessary on the 20th of December
to proclaim martial law, and the militia of the different parishes was
called out. Sir Willoughby Cotton also marched to Montego Bay, with
between two and three hundred troops. Two engagements took place between
the negroes and the militia, in both of which the former were routed.
They again made head in some quarters; but at length the troops
succeeded in dispersing them; and offers of pardon being issued to all
but the ringleaders, the greater part of them returned to their masters.
Of the ringleaders, some were shot after trial by courts-martial; and
by the middle of January the danger was over, though some of the negroes
still remained out, and martial law was not recalled. The insurrection
was ascribed by the whites partly to the vague notions existing among
the negroes by the orders in council intended to effect the amelioration
of their condition, and partly to the arts or imprudence of sectarian
missionaries. A belief had been produced among the former that their
liberty had been granted by the king; and it was said that they had
been encouraged in these ideas by some of the missionaries. This
unfortunately gave rise to the work of retaliation. At Montego Bay.
Falmouth, Lucia, and Savanna-la-Mer, the chapels of the Baptists were
razed to the ground by the mob, probably at the instigation of the
planters. A Baptist and Moravian missionary were arrested on the charge
of exciting the insurrection, but nothing was found to criminate them.
But apart from the effect which the orders in council might have had
in misleading the negroes, they were regarded by the colonists as an
unnecessary and mischievous interference with the rights of property,
and even with their political privileges. The orders appointed
slave-protectors to attend to the rights of negroes against their
own masters, fixed the hours of labour, and contained various other
regulations, all deemed useful, and intended to prepare the way for
a general emancipation. These orders were considered in both sets of
islands as dangerous incitements to turbulence among the negroes,
and ruinous to the property of planters. There were discontent and
irritation everywhere against the government at home; and in the
colonies which had legislative assemblies it was plainly spoken out by
resolutions and petitions. Nor were the proprietors at home silent on
the occasion. On the 6th of April the West-India mercantile body of
London presented a protest against the order in council to the secretary
of state. This was followed by a public meeting of persons interested
in the colonies, where it was resolved to petition the house of lords,
praying, “That a full and impartial parliamentary inquiry should be
instituted for the purposes of ascertaining the laws and usages of the
colonies, the condition of the slaves, the improvements that had been
made in that condition, and what further steps could be taken for the
amelioration of that condition consistently with the best interests of
the slaves themselves, and with the rights of private property.” This
petition was presented on the 17th of April, by the Earl of Harewood,
and the prayer of their petition was granted. Mr. Buxton, on the 24th of
May, made a motion on the other side of the question. He moved: “That a
select committee be appointed to consider and report upon the measures
expedient to be adopted for properly effecting the extinction of slavery
throughout the British dominions at the earliest period compatible with
the safety of all classes.” Lord Althorp objected to this motion as too
unqualified, and he wished Mr. Buxton to add the words, “in conformity
with the resolutions of 15th of May, 1823.” To this Mr. Buxton would not
consent, and Lord Althorp then moved them as an amendment on the
motion, and they were carried by a large majority. These measures
were subsequently followed by pecuniary relief to those who had lost
property. The sum of £100,000, which had been granted to the sufferers
from the hurricane in Barbadoes, St. Vincent, and St. Lucia, was
raised to £1,000.000, and extended to the sufferers in Jamaica by the
insurrection. In addition to this, the sum of £58,000 was granted to be
applied in giving aid in regard to the internal expenses to the crown
colonies, which had adopted the orders in council, and had carried the
same into effect.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued by his majesty in person on the 16th of August.
On the great question of the session his majesty remarked:—“The
matters which you have had under consideration have been of the first
importance; and the laws in particular which have been passed for
the reforming the representation of the people have occupied, as
was unavoidable, the greatest portion of your time and attention. In
recommending this subject to your consideration, it was my object, by
removing the just causes of complaint, to restore general confidence
in the legislature, and to give additional security to the settled
institutions of the state. This object will, I trust, be found to have
been accomplished.” Ireland was still in a disturbed state, on which
his majesty remarked:—“I have still to lament the continuance of
disturbances in Ireland, notwithstanding the vigilance and energy
displayed by my government there, in the measures which it has taken
to repress them. The laws which have been passed in conformity with
my recommendation at the beginning of the session, with respect to the
collection of tithes, are well calculated to lay the foundation of a new
system, to the completion of which the attention of parliament, when it
again assembles, will of course be directed. To this necessary work my
best assistance will be given, by enforcing the execution of the
laws, and by promoting the prosperity of a country blessed by Divine
Providence with so many natural advantages. As conducive to this
subject, I must express the satisfaction which I have felt at the
measures adopted for extending generally to my people in that kingdom
the benefits of education.” At the close of his majesty’s speech the
lord-chancellor said, that it was his majesty’s royal will and pleasure
that parliament be prorogued to Tuesday the 16th of October next, to be
then holden, and this parliament is accordingly prorogued to Tuesday the
16th day of October next.




GENERAL ELECTION.

{WILLIAM IV. 1832–1833}

After parliament was prorogued, the great objects of public attention
were the registration of the new constituency under the reform bill, and
other preparations for a general election, which was to follow as soon
as the registration was completed. The registration, which was conducted
very quietly, having been completed, parliament, which had been
prorogued by commission on the 16th of October, was dissolved on the 3rd
of December, and the first general election under the reform act took
place. The writs were made returnable on the 29th of January, 1833. As
regards the machinery of the act, it appeared to work more smoothly than
had been anticipated. Generally speaking, in the most populous places,
the polling was concluded within the two days allowed by the act. Less
time and opportunity were allowed for bribery, and the disturbances
which used to arise from drunkenness and profligacy in a great measure
ceased. As regards the candidates which the machinery of the act
produced, there was a great dislocation of old connexions and
previous interests. There were three parties in the field: ministerial
candidates; Tories, now called Conservatives; and the Radicals, who
have been aptly termed “the apostles of pledges.” The elections were
generally in favour of the ministerial candidates, or at least of
candidates who professed the same general views, and declared their
adherence to a reforming ministry. This was natural, for in almost all
the boroughs success depended on the newly created electors, who could
scarcely refuse their votes to that party by whose means they had
procured the right of voting. The Whigs were most successful in
Scotland: out of fifty-three representatives elected in that portion of
the empire, not more than twelve were Conservatives; nor could half that
number be termed “apostles of pledges.” In Ireland, however, the Whigs
were not so successful. O’Connell had denounced the ministers, even
while the reform bill was in progress, as acting with insult and
injustice towards Ireland in the measure of change meted out to her; and
the refusal to abolish the Protestant established church in Ireland
had converted him and his adherents into declared enemies. All their
energies, therefore, were employed to return members who would either
drive ministers from the helm, or drive them to sacrifice the church,
and repeal the union. The consequence of his agitation was, that, while
Mr. O’Connell was himself elected for Dublin, he brought over with him
when parliament met some half-dozen of his own immediate relations,
besides various demagogical dependents, as the representatives of
Ireland. O’Connell’s manners and language on this occasion were violent
in the extreme. In a letter “To the Reformers of Great Britain,” he even
ventured to put forth articles of impeachment against the ministers, and
he went so far as to offer to coalesce with the Orangemen in order to
defeat them. The result of his agitation was that, by his exertions and
influence, coupled with that of the minor demagogues of Ireland, the
number of Radicals, or “Repealers” was greatly increased.




RESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER.

As the end of last session was approaching, Mr. Manners Sutton, who had
filled the speaker’s chair in six successive parliaments, announced his
intended resignation. His chief reason appears to have been that
the next parliament would consist of many new faces; and would be
differently constituted to those in which he had presided. All parties,
however, received his announcement with regret; and Lord Althorp moved,
Mr. Goulburn seconded, and the house voted by acclamation the usual
resolution of thanks in such cases. An address was also voted to the
king, praying his majesty to confer some signal mark of his favour on
the speaker; and this was carried into effect by granting to Mr. Sutton
£4000 a-year, to be reduced one-half if he accepted office under the
crown of equal value, and £3000 a-year to his son on his demise.




STATE OF IRELAND.

This year witnessed the disaffection of all parties in Ireland. Towards
the conclusion of the preceding year a systematic opposition to
tithes had been organised, and the repeal of the union had been openly
advocated. Ministers, doubtless, conceived that the reform bill would
conciliate both the agitators and their followers; but in this they
were mistaken. The reform bill, indeed, gave rise to new sources
of discontent. The Protestants lost all confidence therefrom in the
government; and they very naturally felt inclined to have recourse,
for means of defence, to the same instruments which the Catholics
used against them. They were surrounded by Catholic bands, inclined to
pillage and murder, and it was no wonder that they felt irritated by
a measure which appeared to give licence to the lawless. A meeting
of Protestant noblemen and gentlemen, held in Dublin, put forth a
manifesto, enumerating the various grievances of which they thought
themselves entitled to complain, and calling upon all their brethren
to be vigilant and true to their own interests. The example of this
assembly was followed in many parts of the country, and addresses
were voted by numerous meetings to the king. In one of these addresses
dissatisfaction and alarm was expressed at the spirit that appeared to
influence the councils and direct the measures of the Irish government.
Unconstitutional and mischievous associations, it was stated, had been
suffered to be formed and continued, the efforts of which were directed
to usurp the power of government, and destroy the civil and religious
institutions of the country; and these associations, instead of being
suppressed, were allowed to take place even in the metropolis, while
the instigators of them were rewarded with favour and confidence. This
address also expressed strong opinions on the reform bill. It would
transfer, it was said, to the Catholics and Catholic clergy an
overwhelming influence in the representation; that the boroughs,
whose franchise was to be taken from the Protestant corporations and
transferred to a larger constituency, had been incorporated for the
express purpose of maintaining, by a Protestant constituency, the
connexion between the two countries; and that the measure in progress
could have no other effect than to vest the dominion of Ireland in the
Catholics. On the other hand, the reform bill did not give satisfaction
to the Catholics; it gave much, but it did not give all that they
desired, or all that was necessary to the completion of their schemes.
Their object was ascendancy. Popery could not retain its glories in
Ireland, or the Protestant church be destroyed, so long as their fate
depended on a Protestant parliament. The union must be repealed; and
unless Ireland sent into the house of commons a large body of Catholic
repealers, there was no chance of such a consummation. Hence it was that
Mr. O’Connell attacked the Irish bill with such bitterness; it did not
make a larger addition to the representatives of Ireland, and it did not
sink the qualification to a scale sufficiently low to ensure the return
of all repealers to the reformed parliament. These “defects of the
bill,” therefore, supplied the demagogues with new sources of agitation.
The people were told that this pretended reform was an insult; that they
had received only a small portion of the justice that was due to them;
and that they must still offer unyielding opposition to a government
which granted only a part of their demands.

Meanwhile the tithe question became & fruitful source of discontent and
bloodshed. A petition was entrusted to Mr. O’Connell to the house of
commons against the Protestant church, which, while it announced in
plain language their own wishes, gave direct encouragement to violence
and outrage. The different counties, in fact, from the agitation of the
demagogues, presented one scene of growing lawlessness and crime. The
king’s speech was even made to foster this spirit of insubordination. It
had recommended the consideration of the tithe question in parliament;
and the Irish Catholics construed this into a condemnation of the tax.
Looking upon the tithes, therefore, as already denounced by the king
and the parliament, they thought they were justified in resisting
the payment of them. Everyman refused to pay; and threats, arson, and
murder, were directed against all who in any way connected themselves
with the payment, or collection of tithes, whether as clergyman,
proctor, policeman, or payer. Recourse was even had to intimidation
by public proclamation; chapel doors were desecrated by placards
threatening death and destruction to all who should pay tithes. Thus
instructed at the very sanctuary where peace alone should have been
taught, the ignorant and misguided peasantry everywhere committed acts
of violence and outrage. The premises of the tithe-payer were reduced to
ashes, and his cattle were houghed, or scattered over the country, or,
as in Carlow, hunted over precipices. Moreover, scarcely a week
elapsed in which a proctor, or a process-server, or a constable, or
a tithe-payer, were not murdered. An archdeacon of Cashel was even
murdered in broad daylight, while several persons who were ploughing in
the field where the act was committed, either would not, or dared not
interfere. Neither life nor property were safe; and in the beginning of
February the Irish government found it necessary to have recourse to the
peace-preservation act, and to proclaim certain baronies in the county
of Tipperary to be in a state of disturbance. This, however, had no
effect; large bodies of men everywhere openly defied the law, and roamed
about the county, compelling landlords to sign obligations to reduce
their rents, and to pay no tithes. They even compelled some farmers
to give up their farms and their houses, and, in some instances, they
committed the most atrocious cruelties. An end was put not only to
the payment of tithe, but to the payment of rent; and the terror which
prevailed on every hand acted as a shield to the offenders. In fact, it
was considered a crime to be connected with any attempt to execute the
law against the insurgents, and to betray any activity in preserving
order was to become a marked man; such a man was sure of being made
the victim of open violence, or secret assassination. Such an extensive
combination had been entered into to resist the payment of tithes, and
to protect all who might be implicated, that the ends of justice could
not be attained. Jurors were in danger of losing property and life; and
at Kilkenny the attorney-general even found it necessary to delay the
trials.

Government, as the year advanced, filled the disturbed districts with
troops and an augmented constabulary force; but no approach was made to
the restoration of order. The magistrates of the county of Kilkenny made
an unanimous application to the Irish government for stronger measures
to meet the crisis; but the lord-lieutenant stated in his answer, that,
from circumstances which had taken place, he had no expectation left of
any appeal to the law under the existing excitement proving effectual.
He sent, indeed, into that county three additional stipendiary
magistrates, and one hundred additional policemen; but this was
ineffectual: crime still prevailed, and resistance was successfully
made to the payment of tithes. In the meantime, the agitators and their
political unions, while they affected to deplore the perpetration of
the outrages which were every day occurring, did not cease to address to
their countrymen the same exciting language in which they had hitherto
indulged, and to devise new schemes and combinations for open resistance
to the law. It was quite evident, indeed, that they were at the bottom
of all the mischief that was afloat. It is true, they did not recommend
openly murder and arson, and that they preached passive resistance; but
they called upon every man to refuse payment of tithes, and in that call
was involved disobedience to the laws. Dublin was the seat of most
of the mischief going forward. From thence the agitators continued to
describe Ireland to its inhabitants as the slave of England, and to
denounce the existence of tithe. The remedy of the tithe-owner was
distraint; but in a few instances only could a sale be carried into
effect, and the clergy were at length compelled to give up all attempts
to enforce their rights, the more especially as the arrears, if the
measures proposed by ministers were carried, would become debts due to
government. Where-ever a sale was effected, all those connected with it
were objects of vengeance. Thus, in Kildare, a farmer who had purchased
some distrained cattle, was obliged to throw up his farm and leave
the country. The opposition against the payment of tithe was directed
against the government as well as the clergy. Its intention was to drive
ministers, if possible, to recommend and enforce their abolition, by
rendering the recovery of them impracticable. Anti-tithe meetings were
held in every part of Ireland, and the greater part of the country was
involved in one huge conspiracy. During the year government seemed to
think it time to try whether the law could not reach the tumultuous
assemblies of the conspirators. A circular was addressed to the Irish
magistracy, directing them to disperse all meetings collected in such
numbers as to produce alarm and endanger peace, as distinguished by
banners, inscriptions, or emblems, which tended to disturbance, or to
throw contumely on the law. This circular was denounced by Mr. O’Connell
as illegal, though he advised that it should be obeyed. Several large
meetings were dispersed by the military, headed by a magistrate; but
where the meeting was strictly parochial, no opposition was offered to
their proceedings. It was this spirit of lawlessness which gave rise to
the Irish tithe-bill of this session. The passing of that bill neither
mitigated the discord which everywhere prevailed, nor diminished the
crimes which that discord produced. The people had been taught to demand
as their right, and to expect as a concession, the annihilation of
tithe; but they found that the crown, by the Irish tithe-bill, had
become creditor instead of the clergymen. They had now, therefore, to
struggle with the crown. Proceedings were adopted by the law-officers
of government to enforce payment of arrears, and at the same time it
was resolved to try the power of the law against the ringleaders of the
“anti-tithe meetings.” A great number of persons were apprehended on the
charge of conspiracy, and of holding illegal assemblies. Some of these
on their trials were convicted, and others, on the advice of O’Connell,
pleaded guilty, and they were fined and imprisoned; but they were looked
upon as martyrs, and the penalties which they were suffering were noted
down as another unpardonable injury committed against Ireland by the
English government and the Protestant church. The law, however, was not
equally successful when directed against the more atrocious crimes of
arson and murder, which had been committed in the southern counties.
Life was not safe in those parts, and jurors and witnesses alike dreaded
the execution of a duty which might involve a sentence of death upon
themselves. Rather than attend, they paid the fine for absence; or if
they attended, they were afraid to convict, even in the most atrocious
cases. The law-officers were, in fact, compelled to give up the
prosecutions in despair, and murder remained unavenged. In celebration
of this triumph over law and justice, the county of Kilkenny blazed
with bonfires, announcing to the world that the guilty had escaped
punishment. As for the “acquitting jurors,” they were greeted with the
popular applause; and because they allowed murder to be committed
with impunity, the peasantry hastened in crowds to their fields in
harvest-time, and reaped their fields for nothing. Crime, therefore,
prospered; and the tale of murder was repeatedly told in the newspapers
of the day, while the perpetrators thereof escaped the punishment due
to their crimes. Yet no lament was raised by the political guides of
Ireland over murdered landholders and clergymen; it appeared to be, in
their sight, a just revenge. At the same time a long wail of woe was
heard throughout the country, if it happened that any of the resisting
peasantry were killed by the military in the performance of their duties
in securing the tithe. Four were thus killed in the county of Cork, and
others wounded, the military being compelled to fire in self-defence;
and Mr. O ‘Connell immediately sent forth a letter to the reformers of
Great Britain, invoking vengeance. And yet this man, who could deplore
the fate of violators of the laws, could not find any cause for lament
in the deaths of the many clergymen and laymen who had been slain by the
infuriated peasantry. He could not find it in his heart to deplore the
fact that the blood of peaceful, respectable, and virtuous citizens, had
been shed on Irish ground; but he could palliate the conduct of their
murderers, and by his agitation virtually sanction the foul crime.




STATE OF THE CONTINENT.

During this year Don Pedro carried his threat into execution, of
attempting to recover the throne of Portugal from his brother by force
of arms. He had been permitted to levy men, and to purchase vessels and
shipments of arms and ammunition, both in England and France, and the
naval part of the expedition was placed under the command of a British
officer, who became a Portuguese admiral. The expedition sailed from the
rendezvous, in the Azores, on the 27th of June, and it consisted of
two frigates, three corvettes, three armed brigs, and four schooners,
besides transports, and a number of gun-boats to cover the landing. The
army on board, including British and French recruits, did not amount to
ten thousand men, and it was scantily provided, both with cavalry and
artillery. The invaders landed off Oporto on the 9th of July, without
any opposition; and in the course of the day they took undisturbed
possession of the city, the enemy having retired to the left bank of
the Douro, and destroyed the bridge. The possession of this city was
doubtless of great importance to Don Pedro; but it was far removed from
the capital. He had hopes that the country would rise in his favour,
and that the military would abandon his opponent. In these expectations,
however, he was doomed to be disappointed. Don Miguel was enabled to
concentrate his forces, and to organise the means of resistance; and at
the close of the year, after some slight successes in engagements with
the enemy, he was shut up in Oporto by the Miguelites, who bombarded the
town, blockaded the Douro, and placed him in a very critical situation.

In the East a quarrel took place between the Sultan and Mehemet Ali,
Pasha of Egypt, which threatened serious consequences to the Turkish
empire, and occasioned such interference on the part of Russia as
awakened the jealousy, and aroused the watchfulness of the other
European powers. Ibrahim wrested Syria from the Porte, and the Ottoman
empire was tottering to its fall, unless the European states should
interfere to prevent it, or Russia should realize her long-cherished
schemes of aggrandizement by taking the shores of the Bosphorus, which
the Sultan was not able to defend, under her own protection. It was
feared by the European powers that Russia would thus act; and toward
the end of June, ministers dispatched the son-in-law of the premier on
a special mission to Russia. Much confidence was placed by the public
in the integrity and talents of Lord Durham, and an attempt was made to
induce the ministers to embrace this opportunity of mitigating the
cruel fate which hung over the unhappy Poles. Poland, however, was still
doomed to be unbefriended. Russia was left to seek the annihilation of
its existence as a separate nation at her pleasure. By an ukase
this year, indeed, the emperor declared that Poland, with a separate
administration, should become an integral part of the empire, “and its
inhabitants form but one nation with the Russians, bound together by
uniform and national sentiments.” During this session, also, there was
a debate on the subject of payments made to Russia without the authority
of parliament. This question was connected with the financial affairs
of the country, though it was treated more as a question of political
party. It arose out of the treaty of 1814 for the incorporation of the
Belgian provinces with Holland. By that treaty Great Britain had agreed
to pay a certain share of a debt due to Russia by Holland, so long as
Holland and Belgium were united. They had now been disjoined for nearly
a year, and yet ministers had been making these payments without any
new authority from parliament. The subject was brought forward by
Mr. Herries, who entered at length on the subject, and contended that
England had no right any longer to pay money to Russia: the Dutch had
refused to pay any more, and ministers should not have done so without
at least new powers from parliament. He moved three resolutions:—“That
by the 55 Geo. III., for carrying into effect the convention between
Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Russia, the treasury was empowered
to issue sums to pay the interest and capital due by Holland to Russia,
conformably with the provisions of the convention: That the payment of
these sums was made to depend upon the non-separation of the kingdoms
of Holland and Belgium; and that, as the kingdoms of Belgium and
Holland had been separated, all payments made since that separation were
unwarranted by act of parliament, and contrary to the treaty recognising
the loan.” Lord Althorp, in reply, said that the true question was,
whether the country was not bound in honour to the continued payment
of those sums. Looking at it only according to the strict letter of
the treaty, we might not be bound; but he thought that by a careful
examination of its spirit and provisions, it would be found that our
honour was pledged to the payments, and that on no other consideration
than that it was so pledged should we have interfered as we had done
in the affairs of Holland and Belgium. He argued that the separation
contemplated by the framers of the treaty was one produced by extreme
force, and had nothing to say to any severance proceeding from internal
causes. He argued further, that it was by giving Russia an interest
in preventing the severance of Holland and Belgium, that this country
concluded the treaty; and that, therefore, to that treaty we were
equally pledged. That Holland had refused to pay was immaterial: if one
pledged himself to the payment of a debt to which there was also a third
party, it would be dishonourable to take advantage of that third party
having refused to fulfil his engagement, as a legal reason for also
refusing to fulfil your engagement. With respect to the resolutions, he
had only to say, that, as the two first were merely declaratory of
the fact, he should, as far as they were concerned, move the previous
question; but as the third was a direct censure on ministers, he should
meet it with a direct negative. Ministers had acted on the opinion of
the attorney and solicitor-general, and they now defended that opinion.
Lord John Russell also argued that it was the spirit and not the letter
of the treaty which must be looked at, and that that spirit justified
the payment. He complained that the resolutions were moved with a mere
party view, and not from any love of economy or from any desire to
maintain a constitutional principle. He complained also, that a motion
should be made for censuring ministers, without calling for papers, and
without any allusion to the circumstances which had occurred in 1830
and 1831, and on which the interpretation of the treaty might in a great
degree depend. After some stinging comments upon this speech, Sir Robert
Peel wound up the debate in one of his most plausible parliamentary
addresses. He clearly confuted the main arguments which Lord Althorp
used, and produced an effect unfavourable to ministers. When the house
divided, the previous question was carried by a majority only of twenty;
and government had but the narrow majority of twenty-four for the third
resolution. Many of their adherents, including Mr. Hume, voted against
them on this occasion; and even their secretary-at-war, Sir Henry
Parnell, failed to attend to vote for them, for which conduct he lost
his place, and was succeeded by Sir John Cam Hobhouse. The truth was, as
it afterwards appeared, ministers had entered into a new convention with
Russia, although that convention had not been ratified. Ministers laid
this before parliament on the 27th of June; and on the 12th of July Lord
Althorp moved the house to go into committee to consider of it, with the
view that a bill should be brought in to enable his majesty to execute
it. The convention provided for continuing the payments, and the
opposition thought this a powerful argument in their favour; if a new
convention was necessary, it was said, the former payments were made
without authority. They moved the following amendment to Lord Alfhorp’s
motion:—“That it appears to this house that the payment made by the
commissioners of the treasury on account of the interest due on the
Russian loan in Holland, in January last, when the obligation and
authority to make such payment had, according to the terms of the
convention with Holland and Russia, and of the act of parliament founded
thereon, ceased and determined, and also when a new convention with
Russia, not then communicated to this house, had been entered into,
recognising the necessity of recurring to parliament for power to
continue such payments under the circumstances which had attended the
separation which had taken place, was an application of the public
money not warranted by law.” Ministers still argued the question on the
ground, whether this country was bound in good faith to continue the
payments? if we were, they said, this convention was only to fulfil that
duty. But the strongest argument in their favour was that adduced by
Lord Althorp, which was to the effect, that, if his motion were lost,
it would upset the ministry. As the reform bill was still pending, many
voted for, who would have voted against them; and, on a division, the
amendment was lost by forty-six—one hundred and ninety-seven voting for
it, and two hundred and forty-three against it. During the progress of
the bill, founded on the motion, Mr. A. Baring moved an address to the
king, “praying his majesty to be graciously pleased to direct that there
be laid before that house copies or extracts of any documents relating
to the convention of the 19th of May, 1815, between Great Britain,
Russia, and the Netherlands, explanatory of the spirit and objects of
that convention;” but this motion was lost by a majority of thirty-six in
favour of ministers. On this occasion Mr. Hume voted for them, although,
he said, he knew they were in the wrong. He had come down to the house
on the 12th of July, he said, with a firm determination to vote against
them; but when he found by whom he was surrounded, he was unwilling to
join them in driving ministers from office. He had changed his opinion,
and would vote with the Whigs against the Tories, although he believed
the Whigs were in the wrong. But the fact was, he was determined not
to assist in turning out ministers until they had completed the great
measure of reform. A great deal remained to be done, and he wanted to
see a new election take place; he was determined, therefore, to support
ministers. The conduct of Mr. Hume was followed generally by the
liberal party, and this policy of the extreme sections of liberals alone
preserved ministers in office. Another interesting subject was brought
before the house by Mr. Lytton Bulwer, relating to the Germanic states.
He moved for “an address to the king, requesting his majesty to exert
his influence with the diet in opposition to the course which that body
was then pursuing.” In making this motion, Mr. Bulwer traced an outline
of the political history of the Germanic confederacy, from its free
government to its termination with the victories of Austerlitz and Jena,
when the principle of aggrandizing the larger states at the expense of
the smaller was first avowed and practised. He said that the defeat
of Napoleon in his Russian campaign gave to Germany the opportunity of
casting off a yoke which had been reluctantly borne. Russia and Prussia
then appealed to her former free constitutions, the restoration of which
was distinctly promised, when the Germanic states rose _en masse_; and
the battle of Leipsic, with the downfall of the French power, speedily
followed. By the second article of the congress of Vienna, he continued,
the promises of Russia and Prussia were respected, and the rights of
every class in the nation were solemnly guaranteed, the only state
disagreeing being Wurtemburg. The late protocol of the diet, however,
had for its object the rendering of the representative bodies of the
several states useless, by relieving their despotic princes from every
embarrassment which an efficient control by such assemblies might
create, and to protect Austria and Prussia against the influential
example of popular institutions. The sovereigns of these two states, he
said, are willing to give just so much constitutional liberty to Germany
as will not allow its writers to write, its professors to teach, its
chambers to vote taxes, make speeches, or propose resolutions; whilst
every state should be so inviolate, so independent, that, with or
without the invitation of its sovereign, a deputation of Austrian or
Prussian hussars may be sent to keep it in order! The question was,
therefore, was it politic for England, under such circumstances, to
interfere? Our situation, he said, rendered it incumbent on us to
express an opinion, at least, in favour of the German people, or we
must be thought to take part with their rulers. He could not recommend
a foolish and hasty interference with foreign states, yet he could not
consent that England should be a cipher in the political combinations of
Europe, looking with indifference on the continent, as though no changes
could affect her interests. And if there was any one thing more than
another which immediately affected British interests, he thought it was
the fate of Germany. Unite that country under a good government, and it
would be at once a check on the aggrandisement of France and ambition of
Russia. Mr. Bulwer concluded with his motion for the address; but Lord
Palmerston dissented from his opinions, and was willing to believe that
the government alluded to would not be so impolitic as to put down free
constitutions. The motion was therefore negatived.

During this year Greece was involved in absolute anarchy. After the
assassination of Capo d’Istrias it was left without a government, and
although Augustine, brother of the murdered president, concocted a
provisional government, and placed himself at the head, the refractory
chiefs could not brook his authority, and began to act for themselves.
A national assembly met at Argos in the middle of December, 1831; but
it was not more successful in restoring obedience and tranquillity.
Everywhere there was confusion and bloodshed, as in the days of the
ancients. The national assembly of Argos was overthrown, and every
chief ruled despotic in the small district which he was strong enough to
occupy. In the meantime the courts of Britain, France, and Russia were
occupied in selecting a king who might reduce the country to order more
easily and effectually than they could do by protocols and despatches.
Their choice fell on Otho, son of the King of Bavaria; and his majesty
having accepted the crown on behalf of his son, the conditions were
fixed by a treaty, concluded in May, between him and the sovereigns of
England, France, and Russia. The territory to be comprehended in the
new state was to be somewhat larger than when its sovereignty had been
offered to Leopold; and the King of Bavaria was to send along with his
son an army of 36,000 men, to be supported entirely at the expense of
the country. It might have been expected that the Greeks would have been
averse to the rule of a foreign monarch, attended by foreign troops, and
professing a different religion to themselves. The assembly of Napoli,
however, as soon as they had been informed of the conclusion of the
treaty, dispatched an address to the King of Bavaria, praying him to
hasten the arrival of their monarch. The address was followed by a
deputation, which was received at Munich with marks of royal favour, and
which had been commissioned to assure their future sovereign of their
good will and ready submission to his rule. The young monarch quitted
Munich for Greece on the 6th of December, proceeding by the way of
Naples, Otranto, and Brindisi, to Corfu, where he was to be met by the
army intended to support his newly-erected throne. He made his entrance
into Napoli on the 5th of February, 1833; and the regency appointed
for the duration of his minority—for he was a minor—replaced the
provisional government.




CHAPTER XLIII.

{WILLIAM IV. 1832–1833}

     _Meeting of Parliament; Reelection of Mr. Manners Sutton as
     Speaker..... . Opening of the Reformed Parliament by the
     King in person..... Case of Mr. Pease..... Irish  Coercion
     Bill..... Irish   Church  Bill..... Irish Tithe Bill.....
     Financial Statements..... Bank of England Charter
     renewed..... . East India Question..... Abolition of Slavery
     in the Colonies..... Factory Bill..... The Corn  Laws.....
     Resolutions against Bribery,  &c. Bill  to Remove the
     Civil Disabilities of Jews..... Prorogation of
     Parliament..... Foreign Affairs_




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT—RE-ELECTION OF MR. MANNERS SUTTON AS SPEAKER.

{A.D. 1833}

The first reformed parliament was opened by commission on the 29th of
January. The first business of the commons was to elect a speaker. Mr.
Manners Sutton had not been advanced to the peerage, although such a
mark of honour is usually bestowed on those who have filled the chair
for so long a period, and with such distinguished applause. At the
general election he had been returned one of the members for the
university of Cambridge; and ministers having obtained his consent to
put him in nomination, resolved to support his re-election as chairman.
This intention was not concealed; and on the meeting of parliament Mr.
Hume moved that Mr. Littleton, one of the members for Staffordshire,
should take the chair. The Radicals, of whom Mr. Hume was one of the
leaders, took this step on the score of Mr. Manners Sutton’s politics,
considering it a matter of the greatest importance that the speaker
should concur generally in the political sentiments entertained by a
majority of members. Mr. Hume’s motion was seconded by Mr. O’Connell,
who denounced the intention of government as “another instance of the
paltry truckling of the present administration.” On the other side, Lord
Morpeth moved, and Sir Francis Burdett seconded the motion, that Mr.
Manners Sutton should take the chair. In doing so, they insisted on the
admitted fact of his superior qualification, as well as the candid
and impartial conduct which he had observed during the late political
struggles. Mr. Littleton himself requested Mr. Hume to withdraw
his motion; but that gentleman declined to do so. Seeing the house
universally in the favour of Mr. Manners Sutton, the Radicals now
chiefly confined themselves to the question of the pension. The attorney
and solicitor-general argued that there was no feasible ground for these
objections, and asserted that he would have no claim to his retiring
annuity. By act of parliament, any speaker was entitled to his salary
till a successor was elected, and Mr. Manners Sutton, being thus
entitled to his salary, he could have no claim for a pension. On a
division, Mr. Manners Sutton was re-elected by a majority of two hundred
and forty-one against thirty-one.




OPENING OF THE REFORMED PARLIAMENT BY THE KING IN PERSON.

The first session of the new parliament was opened by the king in
person, on the 5th of February. His speech on this occasion took a
comprehensive view of our foreign and domestic relations, in which the
affairs of Holland, the approaching termination of the charters of the
Bank and the East India Company, the temporalities of the church, and
the state of Ireland, were prominently introduced.

In the house of lords the address was voted almost unanimously, a slight
discussion only being elicited by the sentiments of Lord Aberdeen and
the Duke of Wellington, against the foreign policy of government, and
especially that regarding Portugal and Holland. Such harmony, however,
did not exist in the commons. A part of the speech which pointed at the
adoption of extraordinary measures to suppress insubordination, excited
violent indignation among a large portion of the Irish members.
Mr. O’Connell denounced the address as “bloody, brutal, and
unconstitutional.” He concluded by moving an amendment, that the house
do now resolve itself into a committee of the whole house to consider of
the address to his majesty. Mr. Stanley replied in a speech of caustic
severity, which the agitators of Ireland have never forgotten or
forgiven. He argued that coercion was necessary; that crime could not
be put down in Ireland but by the strong arm of the law. Colonel Davis
considered Mr. Stanley’s speech as an insult to Ireland, and as proving
that he was totally unfit for office. He was opposed to the repeal of
the union; but unless justice were dealt out to Ireland by measures
of relief being proposed, he would vote against the coercive policy
contemplated by government. Mr. Roebuck expressed himself to the same
effect: he would not join with ministers in doing what must produce a
civil war in Ireland: if they did not take care, they would find the
people rise up in such terrible array that they would not know where to
turn. Lord Althorp declared that it was the intention of ministers to
remove every grievance they possibly could; but, he asked, was it not
a grievance that, in Ireland, life and property were not secure—that
murder, burglary, and arson should exist in every part of that country?
If it was their duty to remove grievances, ought they not to remove this
grievance also? The debate was continued by adjournment on the three
following days; the general strain of the arguments adduced coinciding
with those expressed on the first day of the debate. The opposition
to the address was chiefly conducted by Irish members, although
they received likewise the support of Messrs. Hume, Cobbett, Bulwer,
Tennyson, and Clay. Mr. Bulwer told ministers that the independent
representatives of the people in that house, three hundred in number,
were allied to no old party, and attached to no superstitious observance
of Whig names; and that these members could not, night after night, hear
grievances stated by the Irish members, which, received no other answers
except demands for soldiery, without dropping off in serious defection
from the ministerial majority. Mr. Tennyson said, that he had no doubt
of the good intention of ministers; but he could not approve of their
conduct in pressing the house to adopt the address. At the same time
he could not support the amendment of Mr. O’Connell, and he therefore
proposed another to this effect:—“That the house should declare its
readiness to sanction such measures for restoring social order in
Ireland, as might appear, on mature deliberation and inquiry, necessary,
and to entrust his majesty’s official servants with additional power for
that purpose, and to employ its best energies to the putting an end to
the disturbances which affect that country; that, while the house would
give a willing ear and earnest attention to the complaints and petitions
of the Irish people, with the view to promoting an efficient remedy, it
was prepared to resist by every means in its power all lawless attempts
to effect a repeal of the legislative union between the two countries.”
 Mr. Macaulay taunted Mr. O’Connell with not having ventured to bring
the question of repeal before the house. He asked, what was meant by the
watchword of repeal of the union between Great Britain and Ireland. If
those who used it meant a complete separation, or a species of Hibernian
republic, their conduct was both comprehensible and consistent; but if,
as they asserted, they only meant two separate independent legislatures,
under the same monarch, the motion was inconsistent with the first
principles of the science of government. After having shown this
inconsistency by a chain of conclusive reasoning, he said, that he
admitted Ireland had grievances to remove; but, he asked, was he in the
meantime to see the law outraged and despised by a misguided multitude?
Talk of the distribution of church property in a country where no
property was respected! and be told that to enforce the laws against the
robber, the murderer, and the incendiary, was to drive an injured people
into civil war! Did those who talked thus wildly recollect that sixty
murders, or attempts at murder, and six hundred burglaries, or attempts
at burglary, were committed in one county alone, in the space of a few
weeks? This was worse than civil war. He would rather live in the midst
of many civil wars he had read of, than in some parts of Ireland. Civil
war had commenced, and if not checked, it would end in the ruin of the
empire. Mr. Shiel, in reference to repeal, entrenched himself behind
quotations from speeches delivered by Lord Grey at the time of the
union, in which he predicted that it would only lead to distress,
suspicion, and resentment, and that the people of Ireland would seek an
opportunity of recovering rights which they would believe to have been
wrested from them by force. The interest of the debate ended with Mr.
Shiel’s speech, although addresses were subsequently made by Mr. Grant,
Mr. Hume, and Sir Robert Peel. On a division, Mr. O’Connell’s amendment
was lost by a majority of four hundred and twenty-eight against forty;
and Mr. Tennyson’s, by three hundred and ninety-three against sixty. On
the bringing up of the report, Mr. Cobbett moved that the whole of the
address should be rejected, and that another which he had concocted
should be adopted. This crude amendment was negatived by an overwhelming
majority: only twenty-three in a full house voted for it.




CASE OF MR. PEASE.

During the general election, the southern division of the county of
Durham had returned Mr. Pease, a gentleman who belonged to the Society
of Friends. On the 9th of February, when he appeared to be sworn in,
as a Friend he refused to take an oath, but offered to give his
solemn affirmation. He was desired by the speaker to withdraw, as no
affirmation could be made without the sanction of the house. A committee
was appointed, on the motion of Lord Althorp, to report what precedents
were to be found on the journals, and what was the state of the law in
regard to Friends being allowed to substitute affirmation for oath. The
report of this committee was taken into consideration on the 14th, and
its chairman, Mr. Wynn, moved that Mr. Pease was, on making his solemn
affirmation, entitled to take his seat, without taking those oaths which
were demanded from the other members of the house. Mr. Wynn stated, at
great length, the reasons which induced him to make this motion, and the
solicitor-general agreed in his views. It was quite clear, the latter
said, that at the time of passing the 7th and 8th William III., Friends
could not sit in parliament, having been excluded, along with all other
dissenters, by the 30th Charles II.; but under the act of William they
would have been admissible, if its provisions, as they ought to have
been, had been construed liberally. At all events, the act of George
II. removed every doubt: it was evident that the legislature, in passing
that act, intended to put Friends on the same footing in England with
all other dissenters, except Catholics; such being the case, the
act ought to be construed in accordance with the intention of the
legislature in passing it. The motion to allow Mr. Pease to make his
solemn affirmation in place of the usual oath was agreed to unanimously.




IRISH COERCION BILL.

On the 15th of February, Earl Grey introduced into the house of lords
a bill for the suppression of disturbances in Ireland. In doing so,
his lordship related the evils which called for such a measure, clearly
showing that it was necessary. In explaining the provisions by which
ministers proposed to meet the evils, he said, that the bill combined
many provisions of the several laws that had been passed both in the
Irish and English parliament for the repression of such outrages as he
had related, with such alterations as circumstances seemed to require.
Provision was made for proclaiming districts in a state of disturbance;
and it was provided that courts should be appointed in which offences
connected with such districts were to be tried. It was also provided
that persons prosecuted under this act should be obliged to plead
forthwith, as in cases of felony, and not be permitted to delay their
trial. By the bill the lord-lieutenant was to be empowered, on due
information, to proclaim any district to be in a disturbed state.
All persons were to be warned to abstain from seditious and illegal
meetings; and no one was to be absent from their houses after sunset
until sunrise, unless they could give good reason for their being
abroad, under the penalty of being found guilty of a misdemeanour.
Another provision was, that meetings for the purpose of petitioning
parliament, or for discussing grievances, should not be held without
giving ten days’ notice to the lord-lieutenant, or without his sanction.
It was further thought advisable that proclaimed districts should, to a
certain extent, be subjected to martial law. Military courts were to
be formed for the trial of all offences under this act, with power
to pronounce sentence as definitively as any commission of oyer and
terminer. The lord-lieutenant was to have the power for the appointment
of courts-martial; and it was provided that courts-martial should not
consist of more than nine gentlemen nor less than five. It was further
provided, that no officer under twenty-one years of age, or who had
held his commission for less than two years, should act on such
courts-martial; and that the said courts-martial should not have the
power of trying for any offence to which a felonious punishment was
attached, except by special direction of the lord-lieutenant; and that,
in that case, they should only pronounce sentence of transportation,
either for seven years or for life. It was made imperative that
a serjeant-at-law or a king’s counsel should sit to assist in the
judgment. A clause was likewise introduced to shield officers who had.
acted on courts-martial under this act from future prosecution: any
complaints made against them on account of their proceedings at any
court-martial were to be inquired into by a court-martial to be called
for that purpose. The bill further gave power to enter houses in
search of arms; and persons refusing to produce them were subjected to
punishment. It was also made a misdemeanour to disperse seditious papers
in a proclaimed district; with a provision that, if the persons actually
dispersing them gave up his employer, the former should be discharged.
Finally, it was to be enacted, that when an individual arrested under
this bill sued out a writ of _habeas corpus_ within three calendar
months after his arrest, it should be a sufficient return to the writ,
that the person so detained was kept in custody on a charge of offence
perpetrated in a proclaimed district; at the same time it was provided
that every person arrested should be brought to trial within three
calendar months, or should be discharged. This bill was carried in the
lords without opposition; some slight amendments being adopted in the
committee with reference to the constitution, the powers, and the mode
of procedure of the courts-martial. The bill, however, had to encounter
a stormy course in the commons. On its appearance there on the 22nd, the
first reading was postponed till the 27th, and Mr. O’Connell gave notice
that he would move a call of the house for that day, and would repeat
the call whenever he perceived any relaxation of its effects, so long as
the bill was before them. He taunted ministers with the delay, which he
insinuated was interposed to their remedial measures, and reminded them
there was another house of parliament through which they might find it
impossible to carry redress of grievances, whatever was the unanimity
with which it enacted measures of coercion: “a house where any proposal
springing from malignant hatred of Ireland was sure to pass.” Mr.
Stanley denied that there was any necessity for remedial and repressive
measures going on together; but at the same time he declared that
if ministers found themselves unable to carry both they would resign
office. On the 27th, the house having been called over, Lord Althorp
moved the first reading of the bill. Ministers, he said, had waited
to the last, to ascertain what order could be restored by the ordinary
administration of the laws; and after relating at length the evils
which afflicted Ireland—telling-many a tale of murder committed with
impunity, even in broad daylight—he explained the provisions of the
bill concocted to repress them. In conclusion, he asserted that the bill
had no reference to the collection of tithes, as some had hinted, or any
other individual purpose, except the maintenance of social order. The
motion was met by an amendment from Mr. Tennyson, that the bill should
be read a second time that day fortnight: his object being, as he
stated, to give government an opportunity, whether in a select committee
or otherwise, to satisfy the house that the dangers which had been
stated really existed, and that there were no other means of effectually
checking them. The amendment was supported by Messrs. Bulwer and Grote,
the former of whom was averse to coercion in any shape, and contended
that it would only produce mischief. Mr. Grote admitted that good
grounds had been stated why the hands of justice should be strengthened,
but he objected very strongly to courts-martial being employed in the
administration of justice. To him it appeared that it would be much
better if, instead of creating these courts-martial, the bill had
granted more extensive, prompt, and efficient powers to the civil
courts. Mr. Stanley, in reply to Mr. Grote, said it was true that the
committee of last year had recommended a tribunal consisting of the
magistrates of the neighbourhood sitting at quarter-sessions, and having
power to sit by adjournment from time to time, till tranquillity was
restored. He contended, however, that it would be a most objectionable
thing to confide the administration of such a law to the local
magistracy. The debate was continued up to the 5th of March, the Irish
members threatening to have recourse to repeated motions of adjournment
if any attempt was made to close the discussion prematurely. The
opposition was composed of those who considered that the bill ought to
be resisted altogether, as well as of those who thought that delay, as
involved in the amendment, should be conceded. The members who opposed
it were Messrs. O’Connell, Shiel, O’Connor, Baldwin, Barron, O’Dwyer,
and Ruthven, among the Irish members; and Messrs. Romilly and Harvey,
with Majors Beauclerk and Fancourt, among the English members. On the
other hand, the necessity and efficacy of the bill were maintained by
Lord John Russell, Sir R. Peel, and Mr. Macaulay, with other English
members; and by Messrs. Carew, Tennent, and Lefroy, Lords Castlereagh
and Acheson, and Sirs R. Bateson and C. Coote, among the Irish members.
The opposition contended that no necessity for the bill had been made
out to any extent, much less to the effect of utterly destroying the
constitution over the whole of Ireland; that the “prædial agitation”
 had no connection with political agitation, and did not require any
measure like this to put it down; and that the true cause of these
disturbances was the refusal of ministers to abolish tithes, and the
true object of it to prevent all expression of public sentiment in
Ireland against their faithlessness and misgovernment. Those who
supported the bill contended, on the other hand, that not only were the
existing outrages such as to require extraordinary measures contrary
to the constitution, and that when this necessity for overstepping the
constitution once existed, it was safer to err on the side of vigour
than to run the risk of a half-measure; but that it was likewise proved
that this “prædial agitation,” as it was called by the repealers, was
closely connected with the political agitation; the principle of both
was intimidation. Sir Robert Peel admitted that the measure was one of
intolerable severity if there was not a paramount necessity for it; but
he denied that it was a suspension of the British constitution. As for
the amendment proposing delay, Sir Robert said that he could not listen
to it for one moment; the necessity for the measure was urgent. What
could be answered to the astounding fact that in one year and in one
province there had been one hundred and ninety-six murders and attempts
at murder, one hundred and ninety-four burnings, one thousand eight
hundred and twenty-seven burglaries and attacks on houses? How could the
state of society be worse! and how could the people of Ireland be better
off by persevering in maintaining the existing law! One hundred and
ninety-six murders! Why, great battles had been fought, and great
victories achieved by this country at a less expense of human blood.
The battle of St. Vincent had been gained at less cost of life; the
sanguinary bombardment of Algiers had caused less loss of life; and we
had rolled back the impetuous tide of French exultation at the battle of
Busaco with less loss of life. There was something animating in the idea
of a battle; but what horrid recollections haunted the mind which
had witnessed a murder! The debate was closed by Mr. O’Connell,
who, smarting under the severe remarks made by some of the speakers,
delivered a speech of remarkable energy. Ministers, he said, after
combating at length the principles of the measures, had done their best
by enforcing the tithe act; it was not their fault that the case was not
worse. As for the attacks made upon himself he cared nothing for them
personally; but the wrongs of his country were mixed up with them. Why,
he asked, did they not pass an act to banish him? That would be fair
and manly, and he would consent to it; but let them not banish the
constitution from Ireland. He stood in a reformed parliament, in
the midst of the representatives of the great and glorious people of
England, who, disguise it as they might, were about to legislate against
a single individual. What mighty work! He felt compassion for them. On
a division, the first reading of the bill was carried by a majority
of four hundred and sixty-six to eighty-nine. This was a preponderance
which seemed to promise an easy passage through its other stages,
especially as the discussion which is generally elicited at the second
reading took place on the first reading. When, however, the order of the
day for the second reading was moved, Mr. Hume opposed it in a violent
speech, denouncing the apostasy of ministers: they had forgotten, he
said, and violated the principles of which they had been the noisy
advocates for twenty-five years, and to which advocacy they were wholly
indebted for their political reputation and power. He warned them
against “the wickedness of their proceedings,” and called on them to
pause in their rash career. He moved as an amendment:—“That the house
deeply laments the disturbed state of some of the districts in Ireland,
and is willing to entrust to his majesty whatever powers may be
necessary to control and punish the disturbers of the public peace, and
the midnight violators of the law; but is of opinion that it has not
been satisfactorily shown that the existing laws are not sufficient for
these purposes, and it cannot, therefore, give its consent to a bill
which places Ireland out of the pale of the British constitution.”
 Alderman Wood seconded this resolution; but, on a division which took
place on the 11th, the second reading being put off on some matter of
form to that day, the amendment was rejected, and the second reading
carried by three hundred and sixty-three against eighty-four. But
notwithstanding this overwhelming majority, the progress of the bill
through the committee on the 13th, 15th, 18th, 19th, and 22nd of
March was a series of conflicts. On the 13th Mr. O’Connell moved an
instruction to the committee to “preserve inviolate and effectual
the undoubted right of his majesty’s subjects in Ireland peaceably to
propose, prepare, and present petitions for redressing grievances to his
majesty, and to both houses of parliament.” This, he said, would still
leave hope to his country. This proposition was rejected by one hundred
and twenty-five against sixty-three; and in the committee Mr. O’Connell
moved several amendments, which were likewise negatived. In the
committee ministers themselves inserted a provision by which, even in
proclaimed districts, offences purely political were withdrawn from the
cognizance of the military tribunals, and left to be dealt with by
the ordinary civil jurisdiction. Ministers, also, of their own accord,
omitted, in the clause giving powers to search, arrest, and detain for
trial in proclaimed districts, the provision which gave this power
to “such other persons as the said lord-lieutenant shall think fit
to authorize in that behalf.” Divisions took place on the clauses
establishing the courts-martial, suspending the Habeas Corpus Act,
and protecting those who should act under the bill: but these were all
carried by large majorities. The bill finally passed on the 23rd of
March, and was immediately sent back to the peers for their concurrence
in the alterations which had been made in the commons. Their lordships
took these into consideration on the 1st of April; and though much
dissatisfaction was expressed by the peers with the amendments, and
especially with a proviso inserted in one of the clauses, that no
district should be proclaimed because tithes were not paid in it, the
bill was finally passed. The effect of the bill was such as was
desired. On the 10th of April the lord-lieutenant issued a proclamation
suppressing the association of volunteers, after which he applied the
provisions of the act to the county of Kilkenny with the best effect. It
soon appeared, indeed, that the list of outrageous offenders against the
laws decreased throughout the country. The discussions on the coercion
act had produced many personal conflicts in debate between Mr. O’Connell
and the Irish secretary. O’Connell seemed to regard Mr. Stanley with
bitter hostility, arising partly from the vigour with which he repelled
the attack of the repealers, and from the supposition that he was
not disposed to give up any of the revenues of the Irish church. Mr.
Stanley, however, now retired from the battle by accepting the more
tranquil office of colonial secretary, which had become vacant by
Viscount Goderich being made lord-privy-seal, and advanced a step in the
peerage by becoming Earl of Papon. Sir John Cam Hobhouse succeeded Mr.
Stanley as Irish secretary.




IRISH CHURCH BILL.

{WILLIAM IV. 1832–1833}

While carrying on their measures for tranquillizing Ireland, ministers
had uniformly admitted that grievances existed in Ireland which ought
to be redressed. They had also declared their readiness to propose
expedients for that purpose. At the head of these grievances, the Irish
established church had always been placed, it standing in the peculiar
predicament of possessing large revenues, whilst a majority of the
people belonged to a faith, the clergy of which had once been the
possessors of that opulence. The object of the repealers was to diminish
these revenues, while they disclaimed any wish of seeing them bestowed
on their own clergy. There were others, at the same time, and those
not Irishmen, who, regarding every religious establishment as an evil,
considered the property of the church as a fund which might be seized
for what they denominated the purposes of the state. It was with this
subject that government next dwelt, and in doing so they adopted a
middle course—conceding much, but not conceding all that was required
of them. The measures which they intended to pursue were unfolded in the
commons by Lord Althorp, on the 12th of February. It appeared from his
statement that the total revenues of the Irish church were found not to
exceed £800,000 per annum. On these funds, he said, it was the intention
of ministers, after abolishing first-fruits, to impose a tax varying
from five to fifteen per cent. This tax, however, was not to be imposed
on clergymen whose livings were under £200 per annum. The larger
revenues of the primates, he said, were to be reduced respectively to
the amounts of £10,000 and £8000 per annum. The sum thus collected was
to be applied under commissioners to the abolition of church-cess; the
augmentation of poor livings and building of glebe-houses; the division
of unions, and the erection of churches. With respect to the offices of
deans and chapters, it was proposed, wherever they were unconnected with
the cure of souls, to abolish them altogether, or to unite them to such
cure; and with regard to livings, where no duty had been done for the
last three years, it was further proposed to suspend the appointment of
ministers at the discretion of the commissioners. Ten bishoprics were
to be abolished, and the vacated sees were to be annexed to those
preserved. With reference to the lands attached to bishoprics the
chancellor of the exchequer laid down this principle, namely, that if
by the act of parliament to be introduced any new value was given to
benefices, that new value not belonging properly to the church might be
appropriated to the exigencies of the state. He believed, he said, that
£500,000 per annum was the value of all Irish episcopal lands to
the lessees or tenants, though the bishops did not receive more than
£100,000. By a different mode of granting leases, his lordship showed
that a sum of near £3,000,000 might be acquired for the state without
any diminution of income to the bishops. His lordship concluded by
moving for leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the laws relating
to the established church in Ireland. The plan thus unfolded by
Lord Althorp was calculated to produce hostility from two opposite
quarters,—from the conservative opposition, who thought its principles
destructive to the Irish church; and from the economists, repealers, and
radicals, who thought that it left too much of the church untouched.
At the same time it was clear that these different kinds of opposition
would not endanger the success of the bill in the commons, as ministers
were sure of being joined by one of the parties in resisting any
amendment proposed by the other. Moreover, most of the Irish members
approved of tire plan so far as it went, although Mr. O’Connell
denounced the estimate of the Irish church revenues as “a base
delusion,” and the design of government as one which tended to “relieve
no grievance except church-cess, not even suspending the war against the
poor man’s pig and tenth potato.”

Leave was given to bring in the bill; but it was not brought in before
the 1st of March. It was read a first time on the same evening; but the
proposal to take the second reading on the 13th was successfully opposed
by Sir Robert Peel, Sir R. Inglis, and others, ministers consenting to
let it stand for the 14th. On the 14th, when the motion was made for
reading the order of the day, Mr. C. Wynn objected that the bill was a
tax-bill, and therefore could originate only in a committee of the whole
house. This view was combated by Lord Althorp, Mr. Stanley, and the
solicitor-general; and supported by Sir Robert Peel, and Messrs.
Goulburn and others. The objection was so strong that Lord Althorp found
himself under the necessity of discharging the order for the second
reading; and, on the suggestion of Sir R. Peel, a select committee was
appointed to search for precedents, and report its opinion whether the
bill should, according to the rules and orders of the house, originate
in a committee of the whole house. This committee reported that the bill
was a tax-bill; and in consequence of this decision Lord Althorp, on the
1st of April, moved three resolutions with reference to the Irish church
in a committee of the whole house. These resolutions having been agreed
to, the bill relating thereto, which was a counterpart of the former,
was read a first time. The second reading was fixed for the 6th of May,
on which day Mr. Shaw met the motion with an amendment that it should be
read that day six months. He opposed the bill, he said, because it
would violate the rights of property, and because it tended to lower the
character of the clergy. If property so fenced by acts of parliament,
as church property was, could be assailed, he asked, what species of
property could be safe? He admitted that it was desirable to change
the system of church-cess; the Irish clergy themselves would not
have objected to a proper remedy for this; but he would have sought a
substitute for it in the reduction of the incomes of the bishops, and
not in the diminution of their number. The amendment was seconded by Mr.
Estcourt, one of the members for the University of Oxford, who thought
that where the principles of the bill were not mischievous, as involving
the first example of a confiscation of property, they were fallacious
in the results which it was promised they would produce. Sir Robert
Peel said that he approved of many parts of the bill—as that part which
required that the spiritual duties of the clergy should be personally
discharged, and of that which provided for the abolition of the
church-cess. At the same time there were other parts of the bill, he
said, which he disliked. Lord Althorp and Messrs. Stanley and Grant
maintained that there was no ground for denying the right of parliament
to interfere with the church property; and argued with regard to the
diminution in the number of bishops, that the bill did not suppress
bishoprics, but only consolidated them. The second reading of the bill
was carried by three hundred and seventeen to seventy-eight. Before
the house went into committee, Mr. Gillon moved an instruction to the
committee, that the bill should contain certain provisions for resuming
all the temporalities of the Irish church, and applying them after the
demise of the present incumbents to purposes of general utility; but
this motion was at once negatived. The reduction of the number of
bishops was strongly opposed by the committee; but the clause was
nevertheless carried. The most important discussion arose on that part
of the measure which took £3,000,000 from the church to apply it to
state purposes. Both the conservative and radical party were opposed to
this; and though there could be no doubt that ministers would be able to
carry the clause through the commons, they had ascertained that it would
certainly be rejected by the lords. On these grounds, when the house
came to that clause, Mr. Stanley moved that it should be omitted. He
remarked:—“I am well aware that a strong feeling exists against the
alienation of church property, and therefore I propose that the
sum alluded to should be paid into, the hands of the ecclesiastical
commissioners, to be applied to the same purposes as the other with
which they are entrusted.” Mr. O’Connell immediately attacked government
in a strain of unmeasured reproach. Many other members also contended
that ministers, by relinquishing this cause, had degraded themselves
in the eyes of the country, and that, if the house was to have tory
measures, it ought to have them under a tory ministry. But although many
of the supporters of the ministers deserted them from this cause, yet
the omission of the clause was carried by a majority of two hundred and
eighty against one hundred and forty-eight. In the committee, also,
it was agreed that beneficed clergymen in present possession of their
livings were to be exempted from the graduated tax: it was only to
affect their successors. On the third reading of the bill, Mr. Shiel
moved the insertion in the preamble of the following words:—“That
whereas the property in the possession of the established church of
Ireland is under the control of the legislature, and is applicable to
such purposes as may be deemed most fitting for the best interests
of the community at large, due regard being paid to the rights of all
parties interested.” A long discussion took place on this motion, in
which old arguments were repeated, and on a division it was rejected.
The bill was read a third time on the 8th of July, by a majority of two
hundred and ninety-seven against ninety-four.

It was in the upper house, however, that the bill was exposed to the
greatest danger, since there existed among the peers a majority capable
of defeating ministers on any occasion which they might consider
expedient. It was read a first time in that house _pro forma_, and the
second reading was fixed for the 17th of July. In the meantime, the
commons, aware of the danger to which the bill was exposed, were on the
alert. On the 15th of July Sir J. Wrottesly proposed a call of the house
of commons, to promote its success as that of the reform bill had been
ensured, namely, by putting the members under arms, as it were, at
the critical point of its progress. Ministers deprecated the motion as
tending to embarrass the administration, and defeat the very end
for which it was proposed. At the same time they declared that their
official existence would depend on the success of the bill. The motion
was pressed to a division; but it was lost by a majority of one hundred
and sixty to one hundred and twenty-five. The debate on the second
reading of the bill in the upper house was continued by adjournment on
the 17th, 18th, and 19th of July, it being strongly opposed by many of
the bishops and peers. After an animated discussion, however, the
second reading was carried by one hundred and fifty-seven votes
against ninety-eight. In the committee it was proposed by the Duke of
Wellington, that instead of all the three civil commissioners being
named by the crown, one of them should be named by the head of the
church, one by the primate of Ireland, and one by the archbishop of
Dublin. Ministers conceded this point; but they successfully resisted
another, moved by the Earl of Wicklow, to the effect that the
appointment of the four bishops to the board of commissioners should be
vested in the bench of Irish bishops. They also successfully resisted an
amendment moved by Lord Gage, that the clause imposing the tax should be
extended to lay-impropriators as well as clerical. A proposal was next
made that the ten bishoprics should not be immediately abolished, but
that as they became vacant the crown, if so minded, might grant them to
be held in _commendam_ with the see to which the bill proposed to
unite them, while it should have power at the same time to grant their
revenues to the commissioners. Earl Grey declared that if this amendment
were carried it would be fatal to the bill; and it was lost, though only
by a majority of fourteen, seventy-six voting for it, and ninety against
it. Lord Wharncliffe then moved that the produce of tax imposed upon the
clergy should be appropriated to the augmentation of small livings,
and that the commissioners should not have power to apply it to other
purposes for which parish cess was levied. This amendment was lost by a
majority of twenty; but ministers were left in a minority of two, on the
clause empowering the commissioners to suspend appointments to benefices
in which divine service had not been performed during three years before
the 1st of February, 1833. An amendment was agreed to, that in all such
cases the bishop of the diocese in which the benefice might be situated,
should be entitled to act as a member of the board; and that the
revenues of the suspended benefice should be applied to the building
or repairing of the church or glebe-house in such benefice; or if they
should not require it, that then the revenues should be paid into the
general fund, under the management of the commissioners. On this
defeat Earl Grey adjourned the committee, in order to allow time for
considering whether ministers ought not to throw up the bill and resign.
On the next day, however, his lordship stated that they had resolved to
proceed with the bill; the effect of the amendment would be far from
an improvement to the bill, but he did not deem it such an alteration,
affecting the general efficiency of the measure, as would justify him in
abandoning the duty he had imposed upon himself of conducting it through
the house. At the same time, he said, he would not disguise from their
lordships that he laboured under deep sensations of difficulty and
embarrassment in consequence of the vote; and he felt that if any
further alterations of the like nature should be made, it would be for
him to consider how far it would be possible for him, consistently with
his duty to his sovereign and his country, to continue the conduct of
the measure. Some further alterations were admitted on the bringing up
of the report. One of these went to guard against the future contingency
of the lord-chancellor and lord-chief-justice of Ireland, members of the
board, being Catholics; and another placed at the disposal of the two
archbishops ten livings, not exceeding £800 a-year each, connected with
the suppressed bishoprics, for the purpose of being bestowed on the
junior fellows of the University of Dublin. The bill was passed on
the 30th of July, by a majority of one hundred and thirty-five
against eighty-one; and on the 2nd of August the commons agreed to the
amendments which had been made by the peers. Mr. O’Connell observed
that the lords had not made the bill much worse than they found it, and
protested against its being considered in any other light than as the
first instalment of the debt due to Ireland.




IRISH TITHE BILL.

Another measure connected with Ireland arose from the difficulty of
collecting tithes. It has been seen that in the preceding year an act
was passed, enabling government to advance to the Irish clergy such
amount of tithes as had been illegally withheld during the year 1833,
and empowered the executive, on making such advance, to levy the arrear
itself. This expedient only inflamed the animosity of the tithe-payers,
since it created a creditor whom it was apprehended would be more
difficult to resist. Ministers, therefore, resolved to relinquish
this plan; and they proposed instead of it that government should be
empowered to abandon all processes under the existing law, to pay up all
arrears, and to seek reimbursement in a different manner. On the 12th of
June Lord Althorp moved that it was the opinion of this committee that
an advance of money should be paid to the clergy of the established
church in Ireland, in order to relieve the occupying tenants from
payments on account of arrears of tithes, or composition of tithes
in the year 1833, such advance to be paid within a limited time by a
land-tax chargeable on all land liable to the payment of tithes, the
owners of which should not have paid the tithes, or composition of
tithes, which became due during such years. This was generally approved
of by O’Connell and the Irish members, though they insisted that it
should be extended to lay-impropriators as well as clerical. There were
others who opposed it because they thought it would be holding out a
premium to lawless violence, and an invitation to resistance to the
payment of tithes. Moreover, a third party were for rejecting it,
because instead of involving the principle that the Catholic population
should not be taxed in any shape for the Protestant church, it seemed
to contemplate the perpetuation of the impost. In accordance with
the expressed opinion of the committee, a resolution was moved to the
effect:—“That his majesty be enabled to direct exchequer-bills to
an amount not exceeding £1,000,000 to be issued, for the purpose of
advancing, under certain conditions, the arrears of tithes due for
1831 and 1832, subject to a deduction of 25 per cent., and the value of
tithes for 1833, subject to a deduction of 15 per cent., to such
persons as may be entitled to such arrears on such tithes, and as may be
desirous of receiving such advances; and that the amount advanced shall
be included in the tithe-composition, so as to be repaid in the course
of five years, being payable by half-yearly instalments.” This plan was
strongly opposed, principally on the ground that the money would never
be repaid, since repayment was still to depend on a collection of tithe,
which never would succeed. The pretended loan would be converted into a
gift, and England, besides paying its own tithes, would also be
paying those of Ireland. The resolution was carried by eighty-seven
to fifty-one, and a bill founded on it was brought in and passed both
houses without any important alteration. The measure was regarded by
the Conservatives as a mischievous precedent, and they asserted that
any existing necessity for it had been produced by ministers’ own
misgovernment.




FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

The budget was opened on the 1st of April. As this was the first
occasion of bringing any financial statement before a reformed
parliament, the chancellor of the exchequer said that he thought it
right to state what progress had been made in redeeming that pledge of
economy on which the administration had taken office. In the number of
places abolished, he showed that there had been a saving effected of
£192,000, and he said that the diplomatic expenses had been reduced by
£91,735. A saving of £28,000 had also been effected by bringing a number
of persons from the retired list in the revenue department, and placing
them on active service. The state of the finances was more satisfactory
than during the last session. The chancellor of the exchequer
stated that the amount of the income and expenditure of the year was
respectively £46,853,000 and £45,366, leaving an excess of income over
expenditure of £1,487,000, an excess which would be more than sufficient
to cover the deficiency of £1,240,412 of the preceding year. He
estimated the revenue for the present year at £46,494,128, and the
expenditure at £44,922,219, which would leave a surplus of about
£1,572,000. He thought it desirable, he continued, that a reduction of
taxes should be made to the extent of this surplus. He proposed to make
the reductions on taxes chiefly which fell on industry; and he selected
tiles, marine insurance, advertisements, the assessed taxes, cotton, and
soap, as the taxes to be reduced. The estimated loss to the revenue by
these reductions was £1,056,000, which would leave a surplus for the
year, after the above reductions, of £516,000. Mr. Hume thought the
reductions were neither sufficiently great nor sufficiently numerous;
they ought to be pushed at least to the extent of the estimated
surplus. On the contrary, Sir Robert Peel was disposed to think that
the chancellor of the exchequer had carried reduction too far: it was
dangerous, he said, to reduce taxes to such an extent as might affect
our ability to keep faith with the public creditor. He concurred,
however, in the general view the noble lord had taken of the subject:
he had acted wisely in maintaining the system of taxation as it stood
at present. The financial statements of the chancellor of the exchequer
appear to have given general satisfaction, for there was no discussion
on the details.




BANK OF ENGLAND CHARTER RENEWED.

On the 31st of May Lord Althorp brought the subject of the renewal of
the Bank of England charter before the commons. In doing so he stated at
great length the terms on which government had determined to consent to
a renewal of that charter; after which he laid the following-resolutions
on the table of the house, that they might be considered:—“That it is
the opinion of the committee, that it is expedient to continue to
the Bank of England, for a limited period, the enjoyment of certain
privileges now vested in law in that corporation, subject to provisions
to be hereafter made: That provided the Bank of England continued
liable, as at present, to defray, in the current coin of the realm,
all its existing engagements, it was expedient that its promissory note
should be constituted a legal tender for sums of £5 and upward: That
one-fourth part of the debt at present due by the public to the Bank be
repaid during the present session of parliament: That the allowances
to the Bank on the management of the national debt, and other public
business be continued, subject to an annual deduction of £120,000 from
the remuneration at present assigned for that purpose: That the laws
restricting the interest of money to five per cent, be repealed, so far
as concerned bills not having more than three months to run before they
become due: That it is expedient that royal charters be granted for
the establishment of joint-stock banks, within a certain distance from
London: That all banks should enter into a composition, in lieu of
stamp-duties, at present chargeable at the rate of seven shillings for
every one hundred pounds issued in notes: That it is expedient that a
bill should be introduced into parliament to regulate country banks, the
provisions of which should be such as to encourage joint-stock banking
companies in the country to issue the notes of the Bank of England.”
 These resolutions were moved on the 1st of June, and the first of them
was met by an amendment to the effect of delaying the consideration
of the measure till the ensuing session. The opposition proceeded
principally from members hostile to the renewal of the privileges of
the Bank; and to that hostility they now added objections to particular
parts of the proposed plan. They demanded delay in order that there
might be more full inquiry, and they contended that such inquiry would
make it manifest, that the exclusive privileges of the Bank ought not
to be renewed. The amendment, however, was lost by three hundred
and sixteen to eighty-three, and the first resolution, affirming the
propriety of continuing the privileges of the Bank was agreed to without
a division. The second resolution, making the notes of the Bank of
England a legal tender for sums of £5 and upwards was opposed still more
energetically, as being both unnecessary and mischievous; but it was
carried by a majority of fifty-eight. Lord Althorp, however, agreed so
far to modify the proposal as to make it incumbent to pay all £5
notes in gold, if demanded. To the resolution which provided for the
continuance of remuneration, a counter resolution was moved, to the
effect that it was, in the opinion of the committee, expedient that
the remuneration now insured by law to the Bank of England for the
management of the public debt and other public business should cease;
but this was also lost by a large majority. The sixth and eighth
resolutions, which went to regulate the establishment of joint-stock
banking companies were abandoned for the present, Lord Althorp
conceiving that the opposition was so strong that he should not be able
to carry them, at least during this session. A bill founded on these
resolutions was brought in and read the first and second time without a
division. On the motion for going into the committee, Mr. Gisborne moved
as an amendment that the committee should be taken that day six months;
but this was lost by a majority of one hundred and nineteen against
forty. In the committee multifarious amendments were proposed, but
without success. One alteration, however, was made by ministers
themselves. They had believed that the existing law prohibited
deposit-banks, no less than banks of issue, consisting of more than six
partners, from being established in the metropolis, or within a short
distance of it; but the solicitor-general had now satisfied himself
that, as the law stood, no such restriction existed, and a clause was
introduced declaring such to be, and to have been the law, although
there were legal opinions the other way, and although the Bank, and all
mercantile men, had acted on the belief that the restriction did exist.
As the bill passed the commons, its chief provisions were, a monthly
publication of the Bank accounts; the repayment of a portion of its
capital; a partial repeal of the usury laws which impeded its action; an
annual payment of £120,000 in return for privileges conceded; its
notes made a legal tender except at the Bank itself, or its branches;
a quarterly return of the amount of circulation of all other banks; and
certain regulations for the improvement of joint-stock banks. The bill
passed the upper house without alterations: an amendment moved by Lord
Whynford to leave out the declaratory clause regarding deposit-banks, as
being contrary to law, mercantile understanding, and good faith, having
been rejected. Government, also, refused to allow the opinion of the
judges to be taken regarding the legality of such companies under the
existing law.




EAST INDIA QUESTION.

Another monopoly with which the government had to deed was that of
the East India Company, their charter approaching its termination.
The arrangements which government proposed should be adopted with the
company were explained in a committee of the whole house by Mr.
C. Grant, on the 13th of June. He stated first that the political
government of India was to be continued in the hands of the company
for some time longer; the reasons for it being the good which
that government had done. That there were evils in the system of
administration in India he would admit; but he argued, that they were
more than counterbalanced by the security of life and property, which
had been secured to the natives by the rule of the company. The next
great question was, he said, the company’s monopoly of the trade with
China. Public opinion had decided that it should no longer exist; and it
was only justice to the expression of the public opinion in this case to
state that it was not the clamour of the moment—that it was the voice
of an enlightened community formed during a succession of years. After
detailing various facts, to show that from the competition of private
traders the monopoly of the company could not long continue, even if
parliament did not interfere, Mr. Grant said that government proposed
the monopoly should cease in April, 1834, and that the trade to
China should then be open to all the merchants of this country. In
consideration of the East India Company surrendering all its rights and
privileges, Mr. Grant said it was proposed that the government of India
should be continued in the hands of the company for the period of twenty
years, and that an annuity of £630,000 per annum should be granted to
them, to be charged on the territory of India. At the end of twenty
years, he said, if the East India Company should be deprived of
the government of India, then the payment of their capital might be
demanded; and if not, the payment of the annuity was to be continued
for forty years. He explained further, that certain alterations were
likewise to be introduced in the frame of the government of India; and
he said that he should further have to call the attention of the house
to the state of the ecclesiastical establishments in that country. He
concluded by moving the following resolutions:—“That it is expedient
that all his majesty’s subjects should be at liberty to repair to the
ports of the empire of China, and to trade in tea and in all other
productions in the said empire, subject to such regulations as
parliament shall enact for the protection of the commercial and
political interests of this country: That it is expedient that, in case
the East India Company shall transfer to the crown, on behalf of the
Indian territory, all assets and claims of every description belonging
to the said company, the crown on behalf of the Indian territory, shall
take on itself all the obligations of the said company, of whatever
description; and that the said company shall receive from the revenues
of the said territory such a sum, and paid in such a manner as
parliament shall enact: That it is expedient that the governments of
the British possessions in India be entrusted to the said company,
under such conditions and regulations as parliament shall enact, for the
purpose of extending the commerce of this country, and of securing the
good government, and promoting the moral and religious improvement
of the people of India.” These resolutions were agreed to without any
opposition; and on the 5th of July they passed the lords without a
division, although they were sternly opposed by Lord Ellenborough, who
denounced the whole scheme as being a crude and ill-digested plan, the
offspring of unfounded theories, formed by men who knew nothing, and
desired to know nothing of India. A bill was subsequently brought
into the house of commons founded on the resolutions, and, after some
unsuccessful motions of amendment, was carried. In the upper house Lord
Ellenborough renewed his opposition, and moved, “That all provisions
in the bill, which went to alter the existing laws in the East Indian
presidencies, should be omitted.” This amendment, however, was not
pressed to a division; and the bill was finally passed. One of the
greatest advantages which the public gained by this important measure,
was that which opened a rich field for the enterprise and industry of
our merchants by destroying the monopoly of the trade in tea. Facilities
for conducting this branch of commerce, together with a considerable
relief from taxation on the article of tea, was given try a subsequent
bill for regulating its importation. It must be confessed, indeed, that
the adoption of this measure by parliament was highly beneficial to
the interests of the community at large. By it the long and complicated
account between commerce and territory was settled; the pernicious union
of imperial and economical functions in the body of proprietors of East
India stock was at an end; every office under the company was thrown
open to British subjects without distinction, and the whole of India was
opened to European enterprise and European capital. A grand feature of
the bill, also, was that which provided for extending the influence and
utility of the Anglo-Indian church.




ABOLITION OF SLAVERY IN THE COLONIES.

{WILLIAM IV. 1832–1833}

At the commencement of this session, the minds of reflecting persons
were fixed with intense anxiety on the subject of West India slavery.
The excitement attending the reform act, indeed, had not been neglected
by the friends of emancipation. Meetings were held and petitions got up:
and government found themselves under the necessity of framing a measure
for the gradual abolition of the trade in the bones and the sinews of
man. The subject was brought before the commons by Mr. Stanley on the
14th of May, when he explained the ministerial scheme in a committee of
the whole house. Government, he said, impelled by the force of public
opinion, resolved to propose a plan which would insure the extinction
of slavery, and manumit not only future generations, but likewise the
existing generation, providing at the same time against the dangers of
a sudden transition. It was proposed, he said, to place the slave for a
limited time in an intermediate state of apprenticeship. He was to enter
into a contract, by which his master would be bound to give him food
and clothing, or in lieu thereof a pecuniary allowance; for which
consideration he, on his part, was to give his master three-fourths of
his time in labour, leaving it to be settled between them whether that
should be for three-fourths of the week or of each day. The remaining
fourth of his time, Mr. Stanley said, the slave would be at liberty to
transfer his labour elsewhere; but if he were inclined to give it to
his master, then his master would be obliged to find him employment
according to a fixed rate of wages. It was a difficult point, he said,
to settle the scale of wages; and he could devise no better mode than
that of compelling the planter to fix a price on the labourer at the
time of his apprenticeship, and by enacting that the wages to be paid by
the master should bear such a proportion to the price fixed by him, that
for the whole of his spare time he should receive one-twelfth of his
price annually. In this manner, he said, the slave and his master would
both act in reference to each other: if the master fixed a high price
on his negro, he would have to pay him proportionate wages; and if a low
price, then upon the payment of that price by any other person on
his behalf, the negro would be free. This measure, he continued, must
necessarily occasion loss to many of the West Indian proprietors; and,
as it was not fitting that they alone should lose by the destruction
of this species of property, the legality of which had at least been
recognised by parliament, ministers proposed to advance to the West
Indian body a loan to the amount of ten years’ purchase of their annual
profits on sugars, rum, and coffee, which would amount to £15,000,000.
It was for parliament to say in what manner, and upon what condition,
that loan should be repaid to the country; it might be considered equal
to one-fourth of the proceeds of the slaves’ labour; and with that sum
and the other three-fourths of his labour, the planter, at the end of
twelve years, would have received a just compensation for the price of
his slave, and for all the expense to which the slave might have put him
for food and clothing. It was right, however, to state that during that
time the planter would have to pay interest for his loan, and to that
amount, perhaps, he might be the loser. In conclusion, Mr. Stanley said,
he would call upon the house to aid the local legislatures in the West
Indies in establishing schools for the religious and moral education of
the slave population. He moved the following resolutions:—“That it is
the opinion of this committee that immediate and effectual measures be
taken for the entire abolition of slavery throughout the colonies,
under such provisions for regulating the condition of the negroes as may
combine their welfare with the interest of the proprietors: That it is
expedient that all children born after the passing of any act, or who
shall be under the age of six years at the time of passing any act of
parliament for this purpose, be declared free, subject, nevertheless, to
such temporary restrictions as may be deemed necessary for their
support and maintenance: That all persons now slaves be entitled to
be registered as apprenticed labourers, and to acquire thereby all
the rights and privileges of free men subject to the restriction of
labouring under conditions, and for a time to be fixed by parliament,
for their present owners: That, to provide against the risk of loss
which proprietors in his majesty’s colonial possessions might sustain
by the abolition of slavery, his majesty be enabled to advance by way of
loan, to be raised from time to time, a sum not exceeding in the whole
£15,000,000, to be paid in such manner, and at such rate of interest, as
shall be prescribed by parliament: That his majesty be enabled to
defray any such expense as he may incur in establishing an efficient
stipendiary magistracy in the colonies, and in aiding the local
legislatures in providing for the religious and moral education of
the negro population to be emancipated.” The consideration of these
resolutions was adjourned to the 30th of May. On that day the first
resolution, after considerable debate on the character of the planters,
and on the subject of the compensation to be given to them, was agreed
to without a division. Sir Robert Peel said that he would have preferred
a declaratory resolution, it appearing to him that the co-operation
of the colonial legislative was indispensable to tire success of
the measure. He doubted the policy of using the words “immediate and
effectual measures shall be taken for the entire abolition of slavery
throughout the colonies;” they were calculated to raise expectations
unwarranted by the measure; it was a great evil in establishing a
preliminary resolution. The first impression of any man upon reading
this resolution, and especially the first impression of an illiterate
and ignorant man would be this:—“You never meant to subject me to
coerced labour for twelve years.” The second resolution also passed
without a division; but the third, which involved the principle of the
compulsory apprenticeship, was met with a direct negative by Mr. Fowell
Buxton, on the ground that it was unnecessary and impracticable. It was
founded on this assertion—that emancipated negroes would not work,
or, at least, would not work more than was necessary to supply the mere
wants of life. This opinion he showed by facts was ill-grounded; and
he proved to demonstration that the negroes, if free, would work
more cheerfully than while enslaved. He moved that the resolution be
rejected. He was supported by Mr. Halcomb and Buford Howick, the latter
of whom said that it was not necessary as a groundwork for future
proceedings; and that, on the other hand, if the house agreed to it,
they would pledge themselves to a system of apprenticeship of which they
did not yet know the full effect. This was dealing rather hardly by the
house; government should avoid calling upon the house, at this stage of
the proceeding, distinctly to pledge themselves to do that of which
they had not yet heard a satisfactory account. It was easy to talk of
apprenticing negroes; but the plan was neither more nor less than a
subversion of the existing relations of society in the colonies, and
organising an untried system, the adoption of which must be attended
with difficulties. His objection to the provision was, that the labour
of the negro was, for the greater part of his time, to be obtained by
direct compulsion; his opinion was that the negroes would be in a worse
condition at the termination of the experiment than they were at the
present moment. Ministers replied that the question was not, as it
had been represented, merely one of gradual or immediate abolition; no
matter what might be the period of apprenticeship, whether ten or twelve
years, from the moment the bill passed, slavery in the British colonies,
in its offensive and essential features, was for ever annihilated.
The bill recognised the rights of property; it conferred freedom from
corporal punishment; it respected the domestic ties of the negro in
their tenderest relations; and it ensured to him a considerable portion
of the fruits of his own labour: with these great enactments surely it
was not too much to say that slavery, in its obnoxious features,
could not be said to exist. Mr. Buxton, having been assured that the
resolution did not bind the house to any particular period of compulsory
labour, withdrew his motion to reject it, and proposed to insert
words declaring that the labour was to be for wages. He withdrew this
likewise; but Mr. O’Connell insisted on dividing the house on
the original resolution, when it was carried by three hundred and
twenty-four to forty-two. The fourth resolution, respecting the
compensation to planters, was attended with still greater difficulty.
The original proposal was a loan of £15,000,000, for which they were to
pay interest; but ministers found such stern opposition from the West
India planters, that they were compelled to convert this loan into
an absolute payment of £20,000,000. Mr. Stanley, after admitting the
difficulty of ascertaining what the amount of compensation ought to be,
moved that “Towards the compensation of the West India proprietors,
his majesty be enabled to grant a sum not exceeding £20,000,000, to be
appropriated as parliament may hereafter think fit.” This proposition
called forth much opposition and many amendments; but it was
finally earned by a majority of two hundred and ninety-six against
seventy-seven. The fifth and last resolution was carried by a majority
of two hundred and ninety-six against seventy-seven; and the whole were
then sent to the peers, who agreed to them on the 25th of June. On the
motion for going into committee on the bill brought in pursuant to
the resolutions, Mr. Buxton again discussed the question of compulsory
apprenticeships. He moved, that it be an instruction to the committee
that they shall not, for the sake of the pecuniary interests of the
masters, impose any restraint or obligation on the negro which shall not
be necessary for his own welfare, and for the general peace and order
of society; and that they shall limit the duration of any temporary
restrictions which may be imposed upon the freedom of the negroes,
to the shortest period which may be necessary to establish, on just
principles, the system of free labour for adequate wages. He was
supported by Lord Howick and Mr. Macaulay, who before had opposed him
on the same question, but who now declared that he had an insurmountable
objection to the transition state, which was to be interposed between
the cessation of slavery and complete freedom. If it could be proved,
he said, that any restraint was proposed, the effect of which was to
improve the morals of the negro, to promote his habits of industry, and
to enable him better to discharge the duties of a freeman and citizen,
he would give his assent to such a restraint; but he thought that the
restraint was not laid upon the negro, as it ought to be, with the sole
view of improving his character: one of the objects was, not his own
advantage, but as a compensation to the planter. In reply, Mr. Stanley
said that the compensation was of two sorts: one was a sum to be paid
down now for the remission of one-fourth of the labour of the slave, and
the whole would be paid by the end of twelve years, when the negro would
be completely free. The sum to be paid to the colonies was taken with
reference to the estimated value of the slave, and to the interest of
money: taking that value at £30,000,000 for 800,000 slaves, would give
£37 10s. for each. It was not extravagant to say that such a sum was
about the average value of a slave. He went on to say that one-fourth of
the labour of the negro was to be taken from the master, and placed at
the disposal of the negro himself; but for the remaining three-fourths
he was to be maintained by the master. Now the maintenance, taken at
a moderate average, was calculated at fifty shillings each; this for
800,000 negroes would be £2,000,000 per annum, and the one-fourth of
this would be £500,000; and this at the end of twelve years would make a
great difference in the sum to be paid to the master. Calculations would
show that if the value of £30,000,000, or £37 10s. each were taken, and
the interest of money calculated at six per cent., the sum to be paid
to the master would be £27,000,000; but if the value of the slaves
were taken at £24,000,000, and the interest of money at six per cent.,
£15,000,000 would be the sum to be paid to him. Besides this, the
allowance for the advances for the support of the slave would, at ten
per cent., amount to £3,406,000; at eight per cent., to £3,786,000; and
at six per cent, to £4,900,000. This would show that the apprenticeship
materially came into the account, in estimating the compensation to the
master for his loss; and the compensation would not be made in a state
of slavery, but in a state of comparative freedom. Mr. Stanley said that
if the West India proprietors were asked what they thought of the plan
of apprenticeship, they would say that they could not go on without it;
and that without the application of such a principle in the bill, the
colonies would go to ruin, and the proprietors be reduced to beggary.
In fact, he said, if Mr. Buxton’s motion should be carried, he must
be prepared to see the whole frame of civilization in the colonies
destroyed, and a state of things brought about which, however they
might in time settle down into some improvement, must at least begin in
barbarism. On a division, Mr. Buxton’s amendment was lost by a majority
of only seven, one hundred and fifty-one having voted for it, and
one hundred and fifty-eight against it. The result of this division
convinced government that they must make some concession on this point;
and on the following day Mr. Stanley resolved to reduce the period of
prodial apprenticeship from twelve years to seven, and of non-prodial
from seven to five years. This was adopted, and clauses were added,
empowering the commissioners for the management of the national debt to
raise the money by a loan, specifying the manner in which the operation
was to be conducted after which the bill passed. In the upper-house some
amendments were added to the bill, which did not affect its substance,
and these were finally agreed to by the commons. Thus the dark spot of
slavery was wiped out of the British annals; we had no slaves at home,
and now it was nobly resolved that we should have none abroad—that
wherever Britain’s power was felt, mankind should feel her mercy also.




FACTORY BILL.

During the former session, Mr. Sadleir had introduced a bill for
shortening and regulating the employment of children of certain ages in
cotton and other factories, and protecting them against maltreatment, to
which it was alleged they had long been exposed. Evidence had been taken
regarding the subject matter of the bill before a committee of the
house of commons, and in this session a similar measure to that of Mr.
Sadleir’s was introduced by Lord Ashley. The bill was opposed by the
great body of the manufacturing capitalists, many of whom had been sent
into the house by the reform act, and who possessed powerful interest
out of it. Mr. Patten moved an address to the king to name a royal
commission, for the purpose of collecting evidence anew, founding his
motion on the ground that the evidence taken before the committee was
partial, defective, and untrue. Lord Ashley, and others, contended that
this motion was not only uncalled for, but would be detrimental: fresh
inquiry was needless, inasmuch as the house was in a condition to
legislate on the subject, not only in consequence of the information
obtained from the committee of last year, but also of that furnished by
the other house of parliament. Mr. Patten’s motion was negatived, and
the bill was read a second time; and then ministers, alarmed at the
probable success of a measure which, as it stood, would seriously
interfere with the manufacturers of the country, arrayed themselves
more openly against it. Lord Althorp opposed the motion for going into
committee, and moved, “That the bill be referred to a select committee,
with this instruction—that the committee should make provision in said
bill, that no children who had not entered into their fourteenth year
should be allowed to work for more than eight hours a-day; and that in
the intervals of their labour, care should be taken for their education,
and that inspection of the mills should take place, in order to secure
the operation of the above provisions.” This motion was rejected,
and Lord Ashley’s bill was carried into committee, by one hundred and
sixty-four to one hundred and forty-one. Government, however, did not
give up its opposition. The bill had adopted ten hours as the maximum of
labour daily, which extended to all persons under eighteen years of age;
and when the second clause, which involved the principle, was moved in
committee, Lord Althorp opposed it. He proposed as an amendment, that
instead of the word “eighteen,” the word “thirteen” should be inserted;
expressing, at the same time, his intention of following that up by
substituting “eight” instead of “ten”. The amendment was carried by a
large majority, and Lord Ashley abandoned the bill to the chancellor
of the exchequer, in whose hands its enactments were considerably
mitigated. As altered, the bill provided that the labour of children in
factories under thirteen years of age should be limited to eight instead
of ten hours a-day; that the provisions of Sir J. Hobhouse’s bill should
be extended to other mills besides cotton mills; and that persons under
eighteen years of age should not be required to work more than sixty
hours in the week. It also provided that it should be illegal to
employ any children under nine years of age; that inspectors should be
appointed to see that the provisions of the bill are duly enforced;
and contained provisions for introducing a general system of education
amongst the children in all the manufacturing districts. In the
committee Mr. Wood proposed an amendment, to the effect, that at the
expiration of six months after the passing of the act, no child under
eleven years of age should be permitted to work more than eight hours
a-day; that no child under the age of twelve years should be permitted,
after the expiration of eighteen months from the passing of the bill, to
work for more than eight hours a-day; and that after the expiration
of two years from the passing of the bill, no child under the age of
thirteen years should be permitted to work more than eight hours a-day.
This amendment was opposed by Lord Althorp, on the ground that it would
postpone the operation of the measure, but it was carried against him
and it formed a part of the measure.




THE CORN LAWS.

The people had long been taught to consider the corn laws as unjust
monopolies, which enriched the landowner, by depriving the poor of
“cheap bread,” and they firmly expected that reforming ministers and a
reformed parliament would forthwith abolish them. Ministers, however,
were not inclined to take up the question, and parliament was not yet
prepared to respond to the general demand. On the 17th of May, Mr.
Whitmore moved the following resolutions:—“That the present system of
corn laws, founded on a high and ever-varying scale of duties, while
it fails of conferring permanent benefit on the agricultural interest,
tends to cramp the trade, and impair the general prosperity of this
country; that an alteration of these laws, substituting in their stead
a moderate duty, fixed at all periods except those of extreme dearth,
while it indemnified the agriculturists for the peculiar burthens which
press upon them, would, by restoring the commercial relations between
this kingdom and foreign countries, increase the manufactures, and
render more equal the price of the produce of the country.” Lord Althorp
objected to the resolutions principally on account of the time at which
they were brought forward, considering the many important questions
which yet remained for the consideration of parliament; he therefore
moved the previous question, which was carried by three hundred and five
against two hundred and six. A few days previously certain resolutions
relative to the same question were negatived in the house of lords
without a division; and in the commons, on the 18th of June, a motion
for leave to bring in a bill to alter the corn laws was rejected. The
corn laws, therefore, were yet retained in the British code.




RESOLUTIONS AGAINST BRIBERY, ETC.

The result of the elections showed that the first reformed parliament
had no small quantity of bribery to deal with. The prevention of this
evil, therefore, was an object which a reformed house of commons was
especially bound to secure. On the 6th of February, Lord John Russell
moved the same resolutions which had been adopted by the preceding
house, and which diminished obstacles that stood in the way of
effectually questioning a corrupt election. According to the resolutions
which had hitherto been adopted as the standing orders of the house on
this subject, the return of a member could be questioned only within
fourteen days after the assembling of parliament, or after his return,
if the house were then sitting; and it was the practice of persons who
made use of bribery to secure their elections, not to make any payments
till that period was passed, in order to avoid the penalties attached
to such conduct. In the hope of checking this evil, Lord John Russell
moved, “That all persons who question any future return of members to
serve in parliament upon any allegation of bribery or corruption, and
who shall in their petition specifically allege any payment of money or
other reward to have been made by any member, or on his account, or
with his privity, since the time of such return, in pursuance of, or in
furtherance of, such bribery and corruption, may question the same at
any time within twenty-eight days from the time of such payment; or if
this house be not sitting at the expiration of the said twenty-eight
days, then within fourteen days after the day when the house shall next
meet.” This resolution was agreed to, many members regretting that
it did not go further, and maintaining that a bribery-oath should be
administered to the members as well as to the electors. Subsequently
petitions were received from Liverpool, Warwick, Stafford, Hertford,
Londonderry, Carrickfergus, and Newry; and in all these cases it was
proved that gross bribery had been resorted to at the elections.
Writs were suspended for Warwick, and bills were brought in for the
disfranchisement of Stafford, Hertford, and Carrickfergus, while several
individuals were ordered to be criminally prosecuted. As the session
was drawing to a close, the bills were not persevered in before its
termination. An attempt was made by Mr. Grote, one of the members for
the city of London, to establish voting by ballot; that alone, in his
estimation, being the only means of securing purity of election. This,
however, was negatived, after a long and earnest discussion, by two
hundred and eleven against one hundred and six. Another discussion
relative to the constitution arose on a motion by Mr. Tennyson, for
leave to bring in a bill to shorten the duration of parliaments. In
support of his motion, Mr. Tennyson enforced the ordinary topics, that
the septennial act had been passed to meet a temporary emergency; that
it had originally been an exception from the rules of the constitution;
that the consequence of it had been general corruption both among the
electors and the representatives; and that it rendered the members too
independent of their constituents, and in so far defeated the object of
a representative government, and prevented the operation of the public
opinion. There was a difference of opinion, he said, as to the number
of years which ought to be fixed for the duration of parliaments, some
being in favour of five, others of four, and others of three years. He
thought they were bound to consult the general wishes of the people, and
it appeared to him that they were in favour of triennial parliaments. At
the same time, in the bill which he proposed to bring in, he intended
to leave the term of future parliaments unfixed, so that it might form
a subject of debate in committee. His bill contained two clauses, one to
repeal the septennial act, and the other to determine the period of each
parliament’s existence. The resistance of the proposition was left to
ministers themselves, and Lord Althorp’s mode of getting rid of it was
by moving the previous question. He was ready to acknowledge, he said,
this was a question which he would support, if parliament were in
the same situation as heretofore; but things were now changed, and
he believed that the feelings and opinions of the people were fairly
represented in that house. He did not think, therefore, that the same
necessity existed for abridging the duration of parliaments, as before
the passing of the reform bill. The motion was supported by Messrs.
Cobbett, Kennedy, Shiel, and other members, and opposed by Lord John
Eussell and Mr. Stanley. On a division, the previous question was
carried by a majority of forty-nine, two hundred and thirteen having
voted for it, and one hundred and sixty-four for the motion.




BILL TO REMOVE THE CIVIL DISABILITIES OF JEWS.—PROROGATION OF
PARLIAMENT.

At this period the Jews alone were the only class of the community whose
religion affected their rights. Towards the close of the session Mr.
Goulburn brought in a bill to remove their civil disabilities, and it
passed the commons, but was thrown out on the second reading in the
house of lords. The session was closed on the 29th of August by his
majesty in person, who in his speech touched upon the various important
measures that had this session occupied the attention of parliament. It
may be mentioned that government had recently appointed a commission
for inquiring into the state of corporations, and for digesting into one
body the enactments of the criminal law, and inquiring how far, and by
what means, a similar process might be extended to the other branches of
our jurisprudence. It may also be mentioned that two important acts had
been passed for giving constitutions upon sound principles to the royal
and parliamentary burghs of Scotland, a change by which the whole system
of self-election was entirely abolished. His majesty embraced all these
topics in his speech. On the subject of Ireland his majesty expressed
his regret that coercive measures had been necessary; but he had not
found it desirable, except in a very limited degree, to use the powers
confided to him, and he hoped that the time was not far distant when
repressive laws might be no longer unavoidable.




FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

{WILLIAM IV. 1832–1833}

During this year a prospect of the close of the dreadful calamities
which had so long weighed down the people of Portugal dawned upon
them. At its commencement Oporto still continued to be the scene of
operations; the regent occupying that city, and Don Miguel maintaining
his positions and his battery on the left bank of the river and to the
north of the city itself. The operations continued to consist of
partial bombardments across the river, or engagements of detachments,
occasionally varied by more regular attacks and sallies to destroy works
already erected, or prevent new ones from being raised. There was not
much blood shed, and the results of the operations made no decisive or
permanent change in the relation of the armies to each other. At the
beginning of March, indeed, a battle was fought, in which it was stated
that the Miguelites lost fifteen thousand men, and their adversary only
one hundred; but still it left matters where it found them—Oporto was
still besieged. At length, however, a decisive blow was struck at the
power of Don Miguel on the seas. While the operations on land were going
forward, Don Pedro was involved in a dangerous quarrel with his admiral,
Sartorius, which resulted in his giving up the command of the fleet,
and with his being replaced by another British officer, Captain Napier.
Under his command an expedition sailed to the Algarves, the most
southern province of the kingdom, having on board two thousand five
hundred men, commanded by the Duke of Terceira, for the purpose of
invading that part of the country. The cities of Tavira, Faro, and Lagos
were soon captured, and in the course of a week the whole province
of Algarves was in possession of Don Pedro. But a still heavier blow
awaited Don Miguel. Admiral Napier, having disembarked the troops and
witnessed their success, set sail to return to the mouth of the Tagus to
watch the squadron of Don Miguel, or bring it to battle. He fell in with
it on the 2nd of July, off Cape St. Vincent, and a battle ensued, in
which the squadron of Don Miguel was annihilated. He had now only the
land to trust to, and there he was soon defeated. Having regained the
province of Algarves, the Duke of Terceira marched towards Lisbon, and
having reached the left bank of the Tagus he was encountered by an army
said to have consisted of five thousand men, under the command of Talles
Jordao. The battle was brief, and the victory complete: Jordao was
routed, his army scattered, and he himself killed. The effect of the
battle was to put Don Pedro’s troops in possession of Lisbon: they
entered unmolested on the 24th of July, and Donna Maria was immediately
proclaimed Queen of Portugal. As soon as Don Pedro received intelligence
of what had taken place at Lisbon, he sailed from Oporto to assume
the government. The war was now transferred to Lisbon; and a series of
battles took place between the troops of Don Pedro and those of Miguel,
and the year closed before the contest was decided. Donna Maria,
however, ruled in Portugal, and a British minister again presented
himself at the court of the rightful sovereign of the country. The
English government at the same time strictly adhered to the neutrality
which it had imposed on itself; but, taught by experience, it did not
trust to assurances of the same line of conduct from other powers, and
especially from the court of Madrid. It prepared itself, indeed, for
all events, by sending a powerful squadron under Admiral Parker to the
Tagus, with orders to take an active part for Don Pedro the moment a
Spanish force should appear in Portugal to assist Don Miguel.

Early in this year Greece received her youthful monarch. Otho was
welcomed by the various chiefs and populace with all due marks of
respect and obedience; and awakening from the torpor of ages, Greece
took her place among the civilized nations of Europe. The kingdom was
divided into ten departments:—1. Argolis and Corinth; 2. Achaia and
Elis; 3. Messene; 4. Arcadia; 5. Laconia; 6. Acarnania and Ætolia; 7.
Locris and Phocis; 8. Attica and Beotia; 9. Eubcea; 10. the Cyclades.
The local government of each department was assisted by a council; and
at the head of each circle or district into which they were subdivided,
was placed an eparch, with a distinct board. The first acts of the
government were to disband the irregular troops, to organise a new
and regular army, and to endeavour to provide something like an
administration of justice. The disbanding of the irregular troops,
however, did not contribute to the internal tranquillity of the country;
on the contrary, it threw large numbers of savage men out of employment,
and many of them formed themselves into bands for the purposes of
plunder. One of these bands sacked the Turkish town of Arta, in Epirus
slaughtering the inhabitants, and setting their houses on fire. The
massacre lasted three days; after which the marauders, laden with booty,
took refuge in the mountains.

While Turkey was thus shorn of one of her European provinces, she was
doomed to see a rebellious, but victorious vassal make himself master
of her Asiatic territories. Ibrahim Pacha, who had during the last year
opened a way across Mount Taurus, lost no time in descending into the
plains of Caramania. Here he fought a great battle with the Turkish
troops, under the command of the grand vizier, Redschid Pacha, whom he
utterly defeated and took prisoner. Constantinople was almost at his
mercy; there was no obstacle between Ibrahim and the shores of the
Bosphorus; and he seemed to be only waiting for the arrival of fresh
troops, which were on their march through Syria to join him, to traverse
Anatolia and assail the capital. The danger, however, was averted by
the exertions of the British government, assisted by that of France. The
Egyptian army retired from Asia Minor; and the Russians, whom the Sultan
had called in for its defence, and from whom he was in no less danger
than from the sword of Ibrahim, left Constantinople. By a treaty which
was concluded between the Sultan and Mehemet Ali, the former gave up
the whole of Syria, granting at the same time an amnesty to all its
inhabitants for the conduct which they might have followed during the
expedition of Ibrahim. The Pasha of Egypt became by this treaty more
powerful than the master from whom he had revolted; his rule extended
from the limits of Asia Minor to the mouth of the Nile. A treaty was
subsequently concluded between the Porte and Russia, in which the
preponderating power of the latter was fully established. Russia was
to aid the sultan in repressing all disturbances, and the sultan was
to shut the Dardanelles, in particular circumstances, against all other
nations. Both England and France complained that such a treaty had been
concluded without their concurrence, and each of them had a fleet near
the Sea of Marmora; but their remonstrances were unheeded, and their
fleets returned. The popular and prophetic belief of the Byzantines,
namely, that “the Russians in the last days should become masters of
Constantinople,” seemed to be rapidly approaching its fulfilment.

The Belgian question had its origin in events antecedent to the
formation of the present British cabinet, so that ministers were
compelled to follow a course which had been adopted by their
predecessors. When the revolution first broke forth in the Netherlands,
the king called on his allies for troops. These were refused by the
English government; but his next request, for the assembling of a
conference, was granted. By subsequent acts of that assembly, the
principle of separation between the two countries was established; and
the task imposed on the present government was to settle the terms on
which a separation should take place, so as to provide for the interest
and security of all parties. The difficulties encountered in performing
this task arose from the obstinacy of the Dutch monarch. By the
armistice which his majesty had invoked in November, 1830, the citadel
of Antwerp was to be evacuated in fifteen days; but the possession of
that fortress enabled him to harass the Belgians, and to intercept their
trade on the Scheldt, and therefore he refused to give it up. England
and France, failing to obtain the co-operation of the other three
powers, were obliged to have recourse to force: Antwerp was besieged
by the French troops, and an embargo was laid on Dutch vessels by Great
Britain. These vigorous measures disconcerted all the calculations of
the Dutch monarch and of his partizans. At the beginning of this year
Antwerp, supposed to have been impregnable, surrendered to Marshal
Gerard. This event, together with the embargo laid on Dutch vessels,
produced the convention of the 21st of May, by which the Belgian
question was settled. This convention provided, “That immediately on the
ratifications being exchanged, the embargoes laid on by Great Britain
and France should be removed, and the vessels and cargoes restored, and
that the Dutch garrison which had defended the citadel of Antwerp should
return to Holland with all their arms and baggage: That Holland should
not recommence hostilities against Belgium so long as a definite treaty
had not settled their mutual relations; that the navigation of the
Scheldt should be free, which was explained in a supplementary article
to mean, that it was to be placed on the same footing as it had been
prior to the 1st of November, 1812: That the navigation of the Meuse
should be opened, subject to the provisions of the convention of Mayence
of the 31st of March, 1831, relative to the navigation of the Rhine:
That the communications between the frontier of North Brabant and
Maestricht, and between that fortress and Germany, should be unimpeded:
That the contracting parties should occupy themselves immediately with
the definitive treaty, to which Austria, Prussia, and Russia should be
invited to become parties.” The King of Holland having agreed to these
articles, the principal point of discussion remaining was that of
compensation: in the meantime Europe was secured against the danger of
a general war, arising from the differences which had existed between
Holland and Belgium.




CHAPTER XLIV.

{WILLIAM IV. 1834}

     _Meeting of Parliament..... Mr. O’Connell’s Motion for the
     Repeal of the Union..... Divisions in the Cabinet.....
     Commission issued to inquire into the state of the Irish
     Church..... Irish Tithe Question..... Renewal  of Irish
     Coercion Bill..... Resignation of Earl Grey, etc......
     Rejection of the Irish Tithe Bill by the  Peers..... State
     of Ecclesiastical Questions, and the Claims of
     Dissenters..... Poor Laws Amendment Act..... The Corn-Law
     Question..... Financial Statements, etc...... Bill for the
     Removal of the Civil Disabilities of the Jews, etc......
     Disputes with France regarding the Newfoundland  Fisheries,
     etc...... Steam Navigation..... Prorogation of
     Parliament..... Dissolution of the Cabinet..... Sir Robert
     Peel appointed Prime-Minister..... Dissolution of
     Parliament..... The Act abolishing Slavery in the West
     Indies carried into effect..... The Affairs of Ireland.....
     State of the Continent, etc._




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1834}

On the 4th of February the session was opened by the king in person. In
his speech his majesty alluded to the slavery abolition bill introduced
last year, stating that the manner in which that beneficent measure had
been received throughout the colonies, and the progress made in carrying
it into effect by the legislature of Jamaica, afforded just grounds for
anticipating the happiest results. Among the various important subjects
still calling for consideration, his majesty enumerated reports from
the commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of municipal
corporations, into the administration of the poor laws, and into
the ecclesiastical revenues of England and Wales. His majesty also
recommended the early consideration of such a final adjustment of the
tithes in Ireland as might extinguish all just causes of complaint,
without injury to the rights and property of any class of his subjects,
or to any institution in church or state. Concerning the state of
Ireland, his majesty remarked that the public tranquillity had been
generally observed, and that the state of Ireland presented a more
favourable appearance than at any period during the last year. The
speech then reverted to the agitations in Ireland for the repeal of the
legislative union, which it denounced in the strongest terms. The
chief point in our foreign policy noticed by the king related to the
government of Spain. He remarked:—“Upon the death of the late King
of Spain, I did not hesitate to recognise the succession of his infant
daughter; and I shall watch with the greatest solicitude the progress of
events which may affect a government, the peaceable settlement of which
is of the utmost importance to this country, as well as to the general
tranquillity of Europe.” On the motion for an address in the house of
lords, the whole policy of government, both domestic and foreign, was
vehemently attacked by the Duke of Wellington, but no amendment was
moved. In the commons, Mr. Hume, in opposition to the address said, that
although there was a great deal in the speech about the independence
of Turkey, and something about Portugal, &c., yet there was not one word
about poor tax-ridden England. He moved an amendment to the effect, that
the house would pledge itself to take into its immediate and serious
consideration the state of the established church, as regarded its
temporalities and the maintenance of the clergy, and also with a view to
the removal of complaints which arose out of the mode in which tithe and
church-rates were levied, in order to accomplish such changes as might
give effectual relief both to churchmen and dissenters. This amendment
was negatived by a large majority; and another, altering the paragraph
in the address to his majesty, expressive of the satisfaction of the
house at the “uninterrupted enjoyment of the blessings of peace,”
 shared the same fate. Mr. O’Connell moved that the clause referring to
the agitation for the repeal of the union should be omitted; but this
was also negatived by an overwhelming majority. On the bringing up
of the report on the address, an incidental discussion arose on the
coercion bill of last session, which gave rise to an extraordinary
scene, and to the committal of Lord Althorp and Mr. Shiel to the custody
of the serjeant-at-arms. A charge had been made by Mr. Hill, one of the
members for Hull, that one of the Irish members who had voted against
the coercion bill, went secretly to one of the ministers, urging him not
to bate a single jot of that bill, or it would be impossible for any man
to live in Ireland. Mr. O’Connell referred to this charge, and he put
two questions to the chancellor of the exchequer respecting it—namely,
whether he, or any other member of the cabinet, had ever stated that an
Irish member had acted in such a manner, and whether any Irish member
ever went to the noble lord, or any other minister, and made the
statement which had been imputed to him. Lord Althorp replied in the
negative to both these questions; but, he added, that he should not act
a manly part, if he did not declare that he had good reason to believe
that more than one Irish member who voted and spoke against the bill,
did in private conversation use very different language. A scene of
confusion and crimination then ensued, in which Lord Althorp charged Mr.
Shiel with being one of the gentlemen who had so acted, which Mr. Shiel
denied in terms which left the house under the impression that a duel
between those two members would ensue. Upon the motion of Sir Francis
Burdett, both were placed under arrest until assurances were given that
the matter should not lead to the apprehended results. Subsequently a
committee of privileges was appointed to examine into this affair, and
it appearing to the committee that there was no evidence to establish
the charge, they made their report in favour of Mr. Shiel. Mr. Hill
himself, finding that he had been deceived, acknowleged his error; and
Lord Althorp said, that if Mr. Shiel would distinctly say that he had
not done what his lordship had stated he had done, he should be bound to
believe his assertion. Mr. Shiel readily made this statement, and thus
ended this ridiculous interlude. Many believe that the subject was
obtruded upon the house as much from a hope of embarrassing a rival in
the work of agitation, as from a desire to vindicate the character of
a friend. The public in general, however, looked on the matter with
indifference.




MR. O’CONNELL’S MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE UNION.

Mr. O’Connell had long made his boast in Ireland, that he would
bring forward the question of the repeal of the union in the British
parliament. His courage, from his non-performance of this promise, began
to be doubted; and to save his credit, he was obliged to bring himself
to trial. On the first day of the sessions he had given notices of
two motions: one that the house should take the act of union into
consideration, with a view to its repeal; the other for the appointment
of a “select committee to inquire and report on the means by which the
dissolution of parliament was effected—on the effects of that measure
upon Ireland, and upon the labourers in husbandry, and the manufacturers
in England—and on the probable consequences of continuing the
legislative union between both countries.” He proceeded only with the
last of the two motions, and he brought that forward on the 22nd of
April. He commenced by declaring that there had never existed a greater
mistake than to suppose that England possessed any right of dominion
over the former country. He then entered at great length into the
incompetency of parliament to pass the act of union; and having detailed
the means by which it was accomplished, he proceeded to prove that the
financial and legislative terms on which the great question had been
settled were in their very nature fraudulent and unjust. Looking at
these circumstances, he said, he dreaded the probable consequences of a
continuance of the union. Ireland felt strongly on the subject; and he
demanded that the bitter recollection of the past should be for ever
effaced by the restoration of her people to their inalienable rights.
Mr. O’Connell was answered at great length by Mr. Spring Rice, who
enumerated the manifold advantages gained by Ireland from the union.
He moved, therefore, that an address be presented to his majesty,
expressive of the fixed and steady determination of the commons to
maintain inviolate the legislative union between Great Britain and
Ireland—a determination to be justified, not only on general grounds,
but by reasons of special application to Ireland itself; declaring also,
that while the house endeavoured to remove all just causes of complaint
alleged by the Irish people, it would promote every well-considered
measure of rational liberty. The debate on the subject was continued by
adjournment for several days. The members who took part in it were—for
the original motion, Messrs. O’Connor, Barron, Ruthven, Shiel, and
others; and for the amendment, Messrs. Tennent, Littleton, Sandford,
Lambert, and Sir Robert Peel, and others. Perhaps the most effective
speech was that which was delivered by Sir Robert Peel, who said, he
believed that no array of official documents, and no force of argument,
could strengthen the conviction of the great majority of the house—a
conviction that lay deeper than any argument could reach—that they
would on no account consent to dismember the British empire. There were
convictions connected with the feelings of the heart as well as with the
faculties of the mind. Mr. Canning had said, “Repeal the union! re-enact
the heptarchy!” The security of the empire depended on the maintenance
of that union; without it England would be reduced to the condition of
a fourth-rate power in Europe, and Ireland to the desolation of a
wilderness. On a division the amendment was carried by the triumphant
majority of five hundred and twenty-three against thirty-eight; the
minority, with one exception only, consisting of Irish members. On the
30th of April the commons, in a conference, communicated their
address to the lords, who, in one spirit, unanimously concurred in
its sentiments, and ordered the blank, which was purposely left, to be
filled up with the words, “lords spiritual and temporal.” It was then
presented to the king as the joint address of both houses; and his
majesty, in reply, expressed the great satisfaction with which he had
received the solemn and united declaration of both houses to maintain
the union inviolate.




DIVISIONS IN THE CABINET.

In opposing the repeal of the union, ministers carried along with them
the sense and feeling of the people; that was a question on which no
man differed from them except O’Connell and his followers. Questions,
however, connected with the Irish church stood in a different light.

The agitators supported the repeal as a measure tending not more
to perpetuate their own domination, than to secure the ruin of the
Protestant establishment. Many, also, who resisted repeal, still
demanded changes and curtailments in that establishment, they
considering it the principal cause of all the turbulence and misery
afflicting Ireland. There were others again who disliked it, not because
it was a Protestant, but because it was a religious establishment; and
such men inveighed against what they termed an unhallowed connection
between church and state, and the practical injustice of compelling
persons of one belief to support the institutions of a different creed.
This party was ready to attack, not only the revenues, but the very
existence of the Irish church, as the first step towards the destruction
of that of England. Union in the cabinet, coupled with a determination
not to be driven further than themselves were inclined to go, might
have rendered ministers sufficiently strong to defy such destructive
reformers. Unfortunately, however, on this question, the cabinet itself
was divided. One portion of the ministers, numerically the strongest,
seemed inclined to admit the principle of appropriation, which they had
repudiated in the bill of last session, by withdrawing the clause in
which it was contained. On the other hand, the minority, however willing
to remove striking and useless inequalities in the distribution of
the ecclesiastical revenue, and to adopt measures which would prevent
irritating collisions in its collection, resisted on principle any
transfer of it to other purposes; and they especially refused to
acquiesce in proposals for making the Protestant establishment depend
on the comparative strength or weakness of the Romish church. This
discordance of opinion would have prevented ministers from starting the
subject; but it was forced on them by a numerous party, which made up in
fury and zeal what was lacking in knowledge and discretion. On the 27th
of May, Mr. Ward, one of the members for St. Albans, moved a resolution
for reducing the temporalities of the Irish church, as exceeding the
spiritual wants of the Protestant establishment. This motion gave rise
to a division in the cabinet. In supporting his proposition, Mr. Ward
contended that vital and extensive changes in the church of Ireland
had now become unavoidable on the grounds of mere expediency. The
tithe system, he said, was the source of all the disorganisation
that prevailed in Ireland. Resistance to it was almost universal,
comprehending both Catholics and Protestants. Commutation, he argued,
would do no good; a new appropriation of church property alone could
produce even a momentary calm. Mr. Ward’s motion was seconded by Mr.
Grote, who said that the means of relief must be suggested from a higher
quarter when once the principle was recognised. Lord Althorp here arose
to request the house to adjourn, in consequence of circumstances which
had come to his knowledge since he had entered the house. He could not
at present, he said, state the nature of these circumstances; but the
house would doubtless believe that he would not make such a proposition
without being convinced of its propriety. The house adjourned, according
to Lord Althorp’s request; and it appeared that the circumstances to
which he had alluded, and which had been communicated to him while Mr.
Ward was speaking, was the resignation of those ministers who would not
consent to the principle which his motion involved. Those who resigned
were Mr. Stanley, colonial secretary; Sir James Graham, first lord of
the admiralty; the Duke of Richmond, postmaster-general; and the Earl
of Ripon, lord privy-seal. These vacant offices were soon filled up:
the Marquis of Conyngham became postmaster-general; the Earl of Carlisle
accepted the privy-seal; Lord Auckland became the first lord of the
admiralty; and the colonial office was filled up by Mr. Spring Rice.
Lord Althorp stated afterwards that he was not aware of the necessity of
these changes till after he had entered the house on the 27th; and the
adjournment seems to have arisen from the fear that the retirement of
these ministers would bring along with it the resignation of the whole.
An address was got up and presented to Earl Grey by a great number of
the ministerial adherents in the commons, entreating his lordship to
retain his place; but though, in reply he announced his intention of
making every personal sacrifice that might be required of him in
support of the principles of the administration, he admitted that much
embarrassment, as well as mischief, was produced by the reckless desire
of innovation. The embarrassment of ministers was rendered still greater
by the king himself, who, in reply to an address presented to him by
the Irish bishops on the 28th of May, on behalf of the Irish church,
remarked with peculiar emphasis:—“I now remember you have a right to
require of me to be resolute in defence of the church. I have been,
by the circumstances of my life and by conviction, led to support
toleration to the utmost extent of which it is justly capable; but
toleration must not be suffered to go into licentiousness: it has its
bounds, which it is my duty, and which I am resolved to maintain. I
am, from the deepest conviction, attached to the pure Protestant faith,
which this church, of which I am the temporal head, is the human means
of diffusing and preserving in this land. I cannot forget what was the
course of events that placed my family on the throne which I now fill.
These events were consummated in a revolution, which was rendered
necessary, and which was effected, not, as has sometimes been most
erroneously stated, merely for the sake of the temporal liberties of
the people, but for the preservation of their religion. It was for the
defence of the religion of the country that the settlement of the crown
was made which has placed me in the situation which I now fill; and that
religion, and the church of England and Ireland, the prelates of which
are now before me, it is my fixed purpose, determination, and resolution
to maintain. The present bishops, I am quite satisfied, have never been
excelled at any period of the history of our church by any of their
predecessors in learning, piety, or zeal in the discharge of their high
duties. If there are any of the inferior arrangements in the discipline
of the church—which, however, I greatly doubt—that require amendment,
I have no distrust of the readiness and ability of the prelates now
before me to correct such things; and to you, I trust, they will be left
to correct, with your authority unimpaired and unshackled.”




COMMISSION ISSUED TO INQUIRE INTO THE STATE OF THE IRISH CHURCH.

On the 2nd of June, when the house reassembled, Lord Althorp stated that
Mr. Ward’s motion had compelled ministers to take up the question of the
Irish church; and he informed the house that his majesty had appointed
a commission of inquiry into the state of church property and church
affairs generally in Ireland. This commission, he said, was to be a lay
commission; and it was to visit the different parishes and districts
throughout Ireland; to inquire on the spot into the number of
Protestants in each parish; whether that number was stationary,
increasing, or declining; whether it was a benefice, or if a parish
forming part of a union; the distance and number of churches and
chapels; the situation of the clergyman, how paid, and whether resident
or non-resident; the times which divine service was or had been
performed; the number of Protestants attending such service; and whether
that attendance was stationary, on the increase, or declining. Similar
inquiries were to be made in each parish and district with respect to
Roman Catholics, and to Dissenters of every description, as well as to
the number and the nature of schools in each parish. The commissioners
were further to make minute inquiries in all parishes, touching other
matters connected with the Irish church or church property, and to
report thereupon. Lord Althorp, after making these statements, said that
Mr. Ward’s motion went to pledge the house that the amount of church
property in Ireland was beyond the wants of that establishment; and
next, that parliament had a right to regulate the distribution of
church property, and to determine upon the reduction of the Irish church
revenues as now established by law. He was of opinion that the house
should legislate deliberately upon so grave a question, and he trusted
that Mr. Ward would withdraw his motion, and feel satisfied with what
government had done. Mr. Ward, however, refused to withdraw his motion:
he must press, he said, for a recognition of the principle, because,
from what was passing around him, he was afraid that the present
ministers would not long continue in office. Lord Althorp then moved
the previous question, principally on the ground that, of all questions,
this was one which most required much previous inquiry and detailed
information. Mr. Hume, and Colonels Davies and Evans supported the
original resolution, declaring that the shuffling mode of proceeding
adopted by government in regard to this question, rendered it impossible
to repose confidence in ministers. After a long debate the amendment,
however, was carried by a majority of three hundred and ninety-six
against one hundred and twenty. The majority would have been still
larger, had not a considerable number of conservative members, unwilling
to wear even the appearance of tampering with the question, left the
house before the division. The subject was brought before the lords on
the 6th of June, by the Earl of Wicklow, who moved an address to his
majesty for a copy of the commission, a motion which Earl Grey said he
would not oppose. Many of the peers embraced this opportunity of stating
their objections to the commission, contending that the measures on
which ministers appeared to have resolved would end in the ruin of the
church. Concession, it was said, could not stop here; it must go on from
step to step, till nothing was left to be conceded. Earl Grey denied
that he and his colleagues looked forward to anything that could be
justly called spoliation of the church; they contemplated a great
alteration, but nothing more.




IRISH TITHE QUESTION.

In the meantime ministers had been proceeding with a bill for the
amendment of the tithe system in Ireland, founded on principles which
should extinguish tithe altogether as a payment to be demanded in kind,
and should lay the burden, directly at least, on a different class of
payers. The provisions of the intended measure were explained on the
20th of February, by Mr. Littleton, the Irish secretary, in a committee
of the whole house, met for the purpose of considering the portion
of the king’s speech relating to this subject. Government, he said,
proposed in the first place, that from and after the month of November
next, composition for tithe should cease in Ireland, and in lieu thereof
a land-tax should be imposed, payable to the crown, and to be collected
and managed by the commissioners of woods and forests, of the same
amount as the tithe-payment now exigible, and to be paid by the same
parties who at present were liable. In the second place, he said,
ministers proposed that this land-tax should be redeemable at the end
of five years, by all who had a substantive interest in the estate.
Thirdly, they proposed, he said, that so much of the land-tax as
remained unredeemed on the 1st of November, 1839, should be converted
into a real charge, equal to four-fifths of the land-tax, and payable by
the owner of the first estate of inheritance in the land, who should be
entitled to recover the whole amount over against his tenantry; these
rent-charges would be redeemable or saleable for the best price to be
had, not being less than the consideration for redemption of land-tax.
In the fourth place, ministers proposed that the tithe-owners should be
paid by warrants issued by the ecclesiastical commissioners for Ireland,
and addressed to the commissioners of woods and forests: such payments
to be of the amount of the compositions to which the tithe-owners might
be severally entitled, subject to a deduction for the trouble, loss, and
expense of collection. Finally, ministers proposed that on redemption
of the land-tax or sale of rent-charges taking place, the payments by
warrants were to cease; and that the redemption or purchase-money should
be paid over to the commissioners for the reduction of the national
debt, and to yield an interest of 2 ¼d. per diem. The money was to be
drawn out from time to time, and invested in land, for the benefit of
the tithe-owner entitled to the principal money. The great object of
the measure, Mr. Littleton explained, was, if possible, to invest the
produce of the land-tax and rent-charge in land, so as to give the
tithe-owner £80 in land for every £100 tithe to which he had a claim.
Where clergymen had already agreed to compositions, they would get tax
to the same amount, redeemable on the same terms as in other cases;
clergymen would, indeed, he said, be probably gainers of five per
cent, by the change. Mr. Littleton concluded with moving the following
resolution:—“That it is the opinion of this committee, that composition
for tithes in Ireland ought to be abolished on and after the 1st day of
November in the present year, in consideration of an annual land-tax to
be granted to his majesty, payable by the persons who would have been
liable to such composition for tithes, and of equal amount; that such
tax shall be redeemable; and that out of the produce provision be made
in land or money for the indemnification of the persons entitled to such
composition.” The moderate members reserved their opinions until the
details of the measure should be more fully before the house; but
Messrs. O’Connell, O’Conner, Shiel, Grattan, and others of the same
class, attacked it with unmeasured violence. The bill did not abolish
tithe, and therefore it was not a bill to suit their notions. Of all the
delusions which had ever been practised, they said, this was the most
gross. Did ministers, they asked, think so meanly of the people of
Ireland as to imagine that a change of name would be mistaken for a
change of the thing, or that tithes would become less odious by being
called a land-tax or an annuity? The people of Ireland objected not
merely to the amount of tithes paid, but to the application of the
funds thence arising: the objection to tithes was double, and now that
objection would mix itself with rents. The landlords of Ireland must now
look to themselves, for the principle upon which opposition to tithes
had hitherto been conducted would forthwith be applied to rents: the
Irish people would not regard the present measure as the smallest
alleviation of their misery. Mr. O’Connell proposed that two-thirds of
the existing tithes should be abolished, the remaining third being left
as a quit-rent on the land; and after providing for the life-interest of
present incumbents, he said, he would apply the produce to relieving the
landlord from grand-jury assessments, to the support of charities, and
to other public purposes. Mr. Barron proposed that the tithe levied, to
which he did not object, should be restored in part to the poor, they
originally having had an interest in it. Mr. Grattan proposed a third
scheme: he wished parliament to recognise the liability of property in
Ireland to contribute to a fund for the support of religion and charity,
but he wished also that such a fund should be different in collection
and lighter in its amount than that now raised by the system of tithes.
Lord John Russell characterised Mr. O’Connel’s plan as one of direct
robbery and spoliation, which would be advantageous to none but
landowners. On a division the original motion was carried by a majority
of two hundred and nineteen against forty-two. A bill founded upon it
was then brought in; and on moving the second reading on the 2nd of May,
Mr. Littleton mentioned certain alterations which had been introduced
into the measure, evidently for the purpose of conciliating Irish
members. The principal changes were that instead of a varying rate of
deduction on account of the trouble and expense of collecting, there
should be one uniform deduction of fifteen per cent, to tithe-owners, to
be increased two and a half in cases where landlords had already taken
upon themselves the payment of compositions; and that when leases of
tithes had been made to the possessors of lands, the rent reserved on
such leases or the composition, whichever was the smaller in amount,
should be the measure of the land-tax; but the incumbent lessee was
to receive the amount of the rent, subject to a reasonable charge for
deficiency, the deficiency being made good out of the funds arising from
the deductions. But no change could conciliate the Irish members:
their opposition continued not only unrelaxed, but it even increased in
violence. No plan, indeed, would have been acceptable to them which did
not recognise the principle of despoiling the Protestant church.
The new bill, they contended, would be as inefficient to tranquillise
Ireland as its predecessors had been; and that a new insurrection act
and an additional army would be necessary. The second reading, from the
hostility of the Irish members, was not carried without long debates and
various manouvres; and even the conservative members aided in delaying
the measure. Their objection to it was not that it left too much to the
clergy, but that it took too much from them. They deemed it necessary,
however, to support ministers, in order to prevent worse measures
from being brought forward. It was their belief that the money to
be secured by the present measure was to be applied exclusively to the
purposes of the church. This belief was somewhat shaken by Lord John
Russell, who stated that he understood the bill to be one for securing
a certain fund appropriated to religious and charitable purposes; and if
parliament found it was not so applied, it would be its duty to consider
of a new appropriation. His own opinion was, he said, that the revenues
of the church of Ireland were too large for the religious and moral
instruction of the persons belonging to that church, and for the
safety of the church itself. When, therefore, this property was once
successfully vindicated against those who unjustly withheld it, he would
be prepared to do justice to Ireland, for if ever a people had reason to
complain of a grievance it was the people of Ireland, in relation to the
present appropriation of tithes. These sentiments were hailed by some of
the Irish members as announcing an approaching concession of all their
demands, while others who thought differently complained that, if such
were the intentions of government, they had been induced by a false
belief to receive the bill with favour, even at the sacrifice of some of
their own convictions. On a division, the second reading of the bill was
carried by a majority of two hundred and fifty against fifty-four, the
greater part of the minority being Irish members.

When the bill went into committee, lengthy debates ensued, and several
important alterations were introduced into it from the opposition
encountered. Thus the enemies of the Protestant church had loudly
declaimed against the provision by which the redeemed land-tax was to
be vested in land, and the land vested in the tithe-owner; and in
consequence of this opposition that part of the bill which invested the
revenues of the church in land, and consequently the redemption clauses
were dropped. The composition was to be converted into a land-tax
payable to the crown by the same parties who were now liable for the
composition. The amount so collected was to be paid to the tithe-owners,
subject to a deduction of three per cent. This state of things was
to continue five years, at the end of which period four-fifths of the
land-tax was to be converted into a rent-charge to be imposed on
the owners of estates of inheritance, who should have the power of
recovering it from their tenants, and all others who were primarily
liable under the existing composition laws. The amount of these
rent-charges was to be received by the crown, and to be paid by the
crown to the tithe-owners, subject to a further reduction of two and a
half per cent. for the expense of collection. Another objection to the
bill had been that under the composition-acts, the tithe had been valued
too high, and the payers determined to pay no tithe, and had even failed
to attend the commissions by whom the composition had been struck.
Effect was now given to this objection by the insertion of a provision
conferring a power of appeal against the valuation of the amount of
tithe-composition in certain cases and under certain restrictions. All
the concessions made, however, failed to conciliate the Irish members.
What was required by them was, a legislative declaration to the effect
that the tithe should be diverted from Protestant religious purposes.
On the 23rd of June, Mr. O’Connell moved as an instruction to the
committee, “that after any funds which should be raised in Ireland
in lieu of tithes had been so appropriated as to provide suitably,
considering vested interests and spiritual wants, for the Protestants of
the established church of Ireland, the surplus which remained should be
appropriated to purposes of public utility.” This motion was seconded
by Mr. Hume, and it led to another long debate, in which all the usual
topics were again urged on both sides. This resolution, however, was
lost by a majority of three hundred and sixty to ninety, and on the 30th
of June the order of the day was moved for going into committee. This
step was prefaced by the announcement of new and extensive alterations
in the bill. It was now proposed to offer an inducement to the
imposition of voluntary rent charges, by exacting that, in any case
where the owner of the first perpetual estate in the land should be
willing to subject his estate to a rent-charge in lieu of land-tax, and
should declare his intention to that effect before the 1st of November,
1836, the land-tax should then cease, and his property should become
liable to a rent-charge, which should be a sum equal to the interest at
three and a half per cent, on the amount of the land-tax multiplied by
four-fifths of the number of years’ purchase which the land might be
fairly worth. Mr. Littleton said he thought that the landowners should
be subject to no greater interest than three and a half per cent, on
the amount of the land-tax thus determined by the proportion of years’
purchase of the land, but that the difference between the amount of
the rent-charge and the amount of the land-tax should not be less than
twenty per cent, or more than forty per cent, on the amount of such
land-tax. The difference, he continued, between the bonus given to the
landlord and the deduction made from the tithe-owner, which deduction
was to remain as originally proposed, would produce a considerable
deficiency in the funds accruing to the commissioners of land revenue.
It was proposed at first to make up this deficiency in the first
instance from the consolidated fund, and to repay it from the perpetuity
purchase-fund in the hands of the ecclesiastical commissioners under the
act of last session. Finally, in all cases where a rent-charge should
not have been voluntarily created before the expiry of five years, a
rent-charge equal to four-fifths of the land-tax would be compulsorily
imposed. Mr. O’Connell taunted ministers with weak and vacillating
conduct, and insisted that the bill should not go into committee till
it had been printed with the new clauses. The bill, he argued, was no
longer the same: it had been altered again and again; eight additional
clauses not originally contained in it, had already been inserted,
and now came a fresh quantity of matter. Familiar as he was with the
subject, he was not sure that he understood the new alterations, and he
was quite sure that nine-tenths of the members did not understand them.
Messrs, Stanley and Shaw joined Mr. O’Connell in thinking that some
postponement was reasonable and necessary. Mr. Stanley said that it
would be more decent to give time for the great alterations in view, and
the deviations from the principles formerly adopted to be deliberately
considered, after the bill should be again printed and put into the
hands of members. The objection to proceeding with the bill was so
forcible that Mr. Stanley’s proposal was acceded to, and the committee
was postponed. On the 4th of July, the house having gone into committee
on another bill connected with the Irish church, Mr. Littleton explained
more in detail the mode of fixing the bonus to be given to the landlords
who submitted to voluntary rent-charges and the financial effects of
it on the consolidated fund. He moved “that for any deficit which might
arise in the sums accruing to the commissioners of woods and forests
out of the land-tax or rent-charges, payable for the composition
of ecclesiastical tithes in Ireland, to the payment of which the
consolidated fund was pledged, that fund should be indemnified from the
revenues in the hands of the ecclesiastical commissioners, and out of
the perpetuity purchase-fund, placed at their disposal by the act of
last session, entitled the Irish church temporalities act.” After a
few words from Messrs. O’Connell and Hume, and some other members,
Mr. Stanley attacked the measure and the proceedings of his former
colleagues in a vehement harangue. He opposed the resolution, he said,
because it was both impolitic and dishonest; because it was at variance
with the great principle, which for the last three or four years it had
been the object of government to abolish, namely, the final extinction
of tithes in Ireland by means of redemption; and because it seemed to
him to be the commencement of a new system of plunder, and that too by a
system of plunder not characterised by the straightforward course which
bold offenders followed, but marked with that timidity, that want of
dexterity, which led to the failure of the unpractised shoplifter. He
believed that government was committing great injustice, and would yet
fail in its aim; that the country was against this injustice, and that
Ireland after it had been perpetrated would not be more tranquil; and
therefore he would take the sense of the committee on the resolution
now proposed. Lord Althorp replied to Mr. Stanley, and vindicated the
resolution from the charge of spoliation. He did not see, he said, how
it could be spoliation to take property not from a corporation, but from
a mass of different corporations, and apply it to other purposes, if,
in doing this, he was giving security to the church. Mr. Hume said he
believed in his conscience that ministers were afraid of their late
colleague, and intimated his intention of acting with him. He moved an
amendment the effect of which would be to re-enact the 147th clause of
the act of last session, by substituting for the original resolution the
following:—“That the surplus monies to the credit of the ecclesiastical
commissioners in the perpetuity purchase-fund, to be kept by the said
ecclesiastical commissioners pursuant to an act of last session of
parliament, should be applicable to such purposes, for the adjustment
and settlement of tithes in Ireland, as by an act of parliament of this
session should be provided.” This amendment gave rise to a lengthy
and sharp debate, but it was thrown out by a large majority, and the
ministerial resolution was then carried by two hundred and thirty-five
votes against one hundred and seventy-one. At this stage, however, the
progress of the bill was arrested for a time by circumstances to which
it becomes necessary to advert, those circumstances being calculated by
their moral and political effects on the composition of government, and
on the relations of parties, to exercise a great influence on the spirit
of all subsequent measures.




RENEWAL OF THE IRISH COERCION BILL.

{WILLIAM IV. 1834}

In the preceding session it had been found necessary to pass what
was termed the coercion bill—a bill intended to put down that
insurrectionary violence and combination which filled Ireland with crime
and confusion. This act was to expire in August; and ministers, acting
upon information received from various parts of Ireland, had determined
to propose its renewal, omitting those parts that related to the trial
of offenders, in certain cases, by courts-martial. There were, however,
other provisions in the bill which the agitators of Ireland viewed with
still greater dislike, they interfering with their own influence, by
preventing those meetings which enabled them to work on the ignorance
and passions of the misguided multitude. To escape from these
restrictions was to Mr. O’Connell and his followers an object of greater
importance than that the multitude whom they misled should be tried only
by the regular tribunals of the country—that the peasant should have
the benefit of the jury, or of an investigation by the civil magistrate.
The lord-lieutenant of Ireland had recommended that the whole act should
be renewed, with the exception of the clause relative to courts-martial;
but on the 23rd of June, Earl Grey received a communication from
him, stating that the provision against public meetings might also
be omitted. What influence had been used with the Marquis Wellesley
subsequently became the subject of much discussion. It appeared that
certain members of the cabinet had been corresponding with him without
the knowledge of Earl Grey, and that the object of their correspondence
had been, not to insure more tranquillity in Ireland, but to smooth the
way of ministers by making concessions to O’Connell and his adherents.
On discovering this, Earl Grey, who dissented from such views,
immediately wrote to the lord-lieutenant to reconsider the subject,
taking nothing into account but what was fitting for Ireland. Lord
Wellesley, however, still adhered to his recommendation, more especially
if, by means of such omission, an extension of the term for the act
could be obtained. The subject was now brought before the cabinet, and
its members were found to be divided in opinion thereon. The minority,
consisting of Lord Althorp, and Messrs. Grant, Rice, Ellice, and
Abercromby, objected to a renewal of the clauses in question, though
they acquiesced in the determination of the majority, that the bill
should be proposed in the form desired by the premier. On the second
reading of the bill, Lord Durham objected to the clauses regarding
public meetings, when Earl Grey declared his dissent from him to be
absolute; if he could not have proposed the bill with these clauses, he
would not have proposed it at all. Without them, he said, the bill would
be ineffectual, impolitic, and cruel: it would punish the miserable
victims of delusion, and let those escape who supplied to Ireland
the fuel of agitation and disturbance. In these sentiments the
lord-chancellor coincided; the clauses, he said, were as necessary as
any others. Attention must be paid to the cause of excitement, as well
as to the parties excited; the clauses regarding public meetings no
doubt were a suspension of rights; but so were all the other clauses of
the bill, to which no objection had been raised. The second reading of
the bill was carried without any serious opposition, and the committee
was fixed for the 7th of July; but in the meantime disclosures were made
in the commons, which stopped the progress of the bill in its present
shape, and which led to the resignation of Earl Grey.




RESIGNATION OF EARL GREY, ETC.

Instead of meeting O’Connell with bold defiance, Mr. Littleton, the
Irish secretary, had committed the fatal error of secretly negotiating
with him, soothing him, and even entrusting him with the views and
determinations of the cabinet, giving him assurances, or encouraging
expectations, for which he had no authority. He seems to have expected
some communication from the lord-lieutenant regarding the omission of
the clauses; and he resolved, before the ministers or the cabinet had
made any decision known to him, to communicate to O’Connell, under the
seal of secrecy and confidence, the sentiments of the Irish government,
and to communicate it as ensuring a similar determination on the part
of government. He spoke of the propriety of acting thus to Lord Althorp,
who said that he saw no harm in it; but, at the same time, entreated him
to use extreme caution in his communication, and by no means to commit
himself in what he said. Under these circumstances Mr. Littleton
sent for Mr. O’Connell on the 20th of June, and made the desired
communication, with an assurance that only a short measure for
repressing agrarian disturbances would be proposed: and, also, that if
the coercion bill was again thought necessary, he would not introduce
it. In consequence of this interview, Mr. O’Connell promised his
assistance in putting down disturbances; and he actually withdrew the
repeal candidate whom he had started for the county of Wexford. To
the dismay of Mr. Littleton, however, the premier and majority of the
cabinet determined to retain the clause respecting public meetings, and
he was compelled to belie his confidential communication. He had told
Mr. O’Connell that he would not be the person to introduce the bill in
that shape: and yet he did not resign when it was determined that the
bill should be introduced in that shape alone. At the same time he
communicated to Mr. O’Connell that his hopes could not be realised; but
begged him to take no public notice of this until he should have seen
Earl Grey’s speech introducing the bill. Mr. O’Connell replied to him,
that if he did not resign, he would be guilty of deception; and Mr.
Littleton answered, “Say nothing of that to-day,” or, “Wait till
to-morrow.” But with regard to the fact, whether such an answer was or
was not given, both O’Connell and Mr. Littleton averred that what the
other stated was not consistent with truth. Be this as it may, O’Connell
thought he was not bound to secrecy; and on the 3rd of July, two days
after the bill had been introduced in the lords, he asked Mr. Littleton
whether it was true that the renewal of the coercion bill in its present
shape had been advised and called for by the Irish government? Mr.
Littleton answered that this was an unusual inquiry to make respecting a
bill not before the house; but he would say that the introduction of
the bill had the entire sanction of the Irish government. Mr. O’Connell
again put his question, as to whether the bill had been called for by
the Irish government? and not obtaining a more direct answer, he said,
“I now ask the Irish secretary if it his intention to bring the bill
forward in this house?” Mr. Littleton replied, “It will be for the
government to decide as to its introduction here when the proper time
arrives; but, whoever may bring in the bill, I shall vote for it.” Mr.
O’Connell then said, “Then I have been exceedingly deceived by him;”
 and the Irish secretary was driven to the necessity of stating the
whole matter, and an angry discussion ensued. Two days afterwards Mr.
Littleton tendered his resignation; but it was refused, his colleagues,
as Lord Althorp stated in the house, valuing his services too highly
to dispense with them on such grounds. The coercion bill passed through
committee in the lords on the 7th of July, and on the same evening, in
the house of commons, Lord Althorp, for the purpose of announcing its
approach, presented papers relative to the state of Ireland, which he
moved should be printed. This led to a discussion on the sentiments
of the cabinet, and the change of opinion manifested by the Marquis
Wellesley. Mr. O’Connell moved an amendment, that the papers should
be referred to a select committee; and this being rejected by a
large majority, he gave notice for the production of so much of the
lord-lieutenant’s correspondence as would explain the reason why he
opposed a renewal of the coercion act on or about the 20th of June.
Hitherto there had been no symptoms of change in the ministry, however
unfortunate might be the figure which they had been compelled to make.
They had even refused to accept the resignation of Mr. Littleton, whose
indiscreet negotiations had been the source of all their embarrassments.
Lord Althorp, however, seems now to have come to the conclusion that
ministers would not be able to carry the bill through in its original
form, for, on the very night of this discussion, he sent in his
resignation, and persisted in retiring from office. The resignation of
the chancellor of the exchequer involved that of Earl Grey. The prime
minister, convinced that it was impossible for him to proceed when
deprived of Lord Althorp’s assistance, gave in his own resignation,
which his majesty accepted. By the retirement of the head of the
cabinet, the cabinet itself was dissolved; but no other resignation
followed. The members of the old cabinet, indeed, resolved to
remain together, and selected a new head; and Lord Melbourne, the
home-secretary, was elevated to this post, and kissed hands on the 16th
of July as first lord of the treasury. Lord Melbourne’s first act was
to inform the house that ministers did not intend to proceed with the
coercion bill now before it, but that another bill, omitting certain
clauses contained in the former, would immediately be brought into the
house of commons. This announcement produced a vehement discussion, in
which the conduct of government and some of its individual members was
assailed by the Dukes of Wellington and Buckingham, and several other
peers, who maintained, that since the Revolution, no instance had
occurred of such inconsistency and tergiversation. A modified coercion
bill, however, was introduced on the 18th of July; and having been
rapidly carried through the commons, passed the lords on the 29th, under
a strong protest, signed by the Dukes of Cumberland and Wellington, with
twenty-one other peers. This modified bill re-enacted only those parts
of the former which referred to the proclamation of districts. The
lord-lieutenant was to have power to proclaim any district which he
thought necessary, and in these districts any meeting, not convened by
the high sheriff of the county, was to be held illegal. No person was to
leave his house between sunset and sunrise, except on lawful business;
and constables were to have power to make people show themselves at any
hour of the night when they might call at their houses. The operations
of the bill were to cease on the 1st of August, 1835.




REJECTION OF THE IRISH TITHE QUESTION BY THE PEERS.

Ministers having thus provided for the tranquillity of Ireland, by
what they considered enactments of sufficient energy and severity, now
returned to their tithe bill, which, according to them, was to be the
great recompense of the temporary submission to a strained power of the
law. Accordingly, on the 29th of July, the order of the day was read
for the house resolving itself into a committee on the tithe bill. Mr.
O’Connell moved as an amendment that the house should resolve itself
into a committee that day six months. He did so, he said, on the ground
that it was preposterous to go into a committee on a bill containing
one hundred and twenty-two clauses at that period of the session, on
the ground of the demerits of the bill itself, and on the ground that
it would be time enough to legislate after the report of the commission
which had been issued should have been received, a regular plan arranged
and submitted, with all its details, and all necessary information, to
a select committee composed of men of all parties. This amendment,
however, obtained only fourteen votes in its favour, though others were
carried in committee, which went to alter the operation and consequences
of the bill. Thus Mr. O’Connell moved an amendment, the object of which
was to relieve the tithe-payer immediately to the extent of forty
per cent.; and in consequence of the accommodating language and coy
resistance of ministers, it was carried by a majority of eighty-two to
thirty-three. Additional concessions were also made in the committee;
and even Mr. Shiel remarked that Ireland ought to be grateful. Such,
indeed, was the departure from the original principles and arrangements
of the bill that one hundred and eleven out of one hundred and
seventy-two clauses were expunged. Thus altered, the bill was read a
third time, and passed on the 5th of August.

On the second reading of the bill in the lords, the peers were given
to understand by Lord Melbourne that, if it was lost, government would
propose no other grant to relieve the Irish clergy. He admitted, he
said, that there might be reason for viewing with jealousy and distrust
the quarter whence certain alterations made in the bill, subsequently to
this introduction, proceeded; but, at the same time he did not think
the arrangement bad for the church. The tithe for the future was to be
received by the crown, and paid by the landlord, who, in return for the
burden thus imposed on him, was to have a deduction of two-fifths or
forty per cent, of the original composition. The incomes of the clergy,
however, were not to bear the whole deduction, which was only to be
twenty-two and a half per cent, on them; that is, twenty per cent, for
increased security, and two and a half per cent, for the expenses of
collection. The incumbents would, in fact, receive £79 10s. for every
£100 without trouble, without the risk of bad debts, and without the
odium which had hitherto attended the collection of tithe property.
Another consequence was that the clergy would be relieved from the
payment of sums already advanced to them from the treasury, as that
charge would be laid on the landlord. In conclusion, he said that he
thought the revision of existing compositions, made under the acts of
1823 and ‘32, was also a proper enactment. The bill underwent a complete
discussion—the Conservatives seeing no security for the rights and
interests of the Irish clergy in its provisions as now altered; while
their opponents thought that it would be much more advantageous to the
clerical body to obtain the sum proposed without risk, than to recover
a smaller—if they recovered any at all—through scenes of blood and
slaughter. The Earl of Ripon and the Duke of Richmond pursued a middle
course—they wished the bill to go into committee in order to restore
it to its original state; if unsuccessful there, they would vote against
the third reading. The lords, however, were determined to reject it
forthwith; and on a division the bill was thrown out by a majority of
one hundred and eighty-nine against one hundred and twenty-two. By the
rejection of the bill, the Irish clergy was thrown on the charity of
the British public, who liberally responded to their demand: a large
subscription was made to relieve their distresses.




STATE OF ECCLESIASTICAL QUESTIONS AND THE CLAIMS OF DISSENTERS.

It was not the Catholics alone who regarded the Protestant establishment
with a jealous eye; there were discontents and heart-burnings, also,
among dissenters. The great majority of the people of England adhered
to the established church, yet the dissenters formed a numerous
body, possessing in many instances great respectability, wealth, and
influence. As a body they were impressed with the idea that, by the
church being supported as a national institution, they were stamped with
a mark of inferiority. Acting upon this impression, they very naturally
employed the power with which they were now invested to bring down the
established church to the same level on which they themselves stood; to
annihilate all the rights, powers, and privileges which belonged to
its members; and, by depriving it of all support from the funds of the
state, convert it into a self-constituted religious community. Their
great objects were to obtain those privileges from which they were
excluded, and to be relieved from the necessity of supporting an
establishment in the advantages of which they did not participate.
The occasion was favourable for the enterprise, in consequence of the
unsettled and uncertain state in which things stood, and the hopes held
out by a ministry who seemed disposed to make concessions to all classes
of men if they were but importunate. In accordance with their views,
various petitions were presented by them to parliament in the beginning
of the session, praying to be relieved from church-rates; and in many
instances urging the separation of church and state, or recommending the
general establishment of the voluntary system. These petitions, however,
led to no other result but that of producing a strong expression of
opposite opinions, and calling forth numerous anti-petitions, praying
parliament to preserve the church inviolate. Ministers declared
that they would listen to no proposition for its destruction; but,
notwithstanding this, a motion was made by Mr. Rippon, the new member
for Gateshead, to expel the bishops from the house of lords. This motion
was seconded by Mr. Gillon, a Scotch member; but on a division it was
lost by a majority of one hundred and twenty-five against fifty-eight.
The minority seems to have been much larger than had been anticipated,
for the announcement was hailed with loud cheers.

Among the grievances of which the dissenters complained in their
numerous petitions, none were more forcibly insisted on than their
practical exclusion from degrees at Oxford and Cambridge, in consequence
of its being required, as a preliminary, that they should conform to the
church of England, or to subscribe to her articles. As a matter of civil
right, they demanded that all religious tests should be abolished, and
the universities thrown open for the education and graduation of men
of all creeds. Exertions were made by them to get up petitions from the
universities, and in one of them they succeeded. On the 21st of March
Earl Grey presented, in the house of lords, a petition from certain
members of the senate of the University of Cambridge, praying for the
abolition by legislative authority of every religious test exacted from
members of the university before they proceed to degrees, whether of
bachelor, master, or doctor, in arts, law, and physic. On this occasion,
as on others when similar petitions were presented, there was much
incidental discussion of the merits of the demand. Ministers declared
it to be just and proper, and showed an inclination to grant it; but no
distinct motion was made on the subject till after the Easter recess.
On the 17th of April, however, Colonel Williams moved an address to
the king, “requesting his majesty to signify his pleasure to the
universities of Oxford and Cambridge respectively, that these bodies no
longer act under the edicts or letters of James I., 1616; by which he
would have all who take any degree in schools to subscribe to the
three articles’ of the thirty-sixth canon, with the exception of those
proceeding to degrees in divinity; nor to require the declaration,
namely, ‘that I am _bona fide_ a member of the church of England,’ nor
any subscription or declaration of like effect and import.” It was,
however, thought for many reasons more advisable to proceed by bill;
and Mr. Wood, one of the members for Preston, moved as an amendment for
leave to bring in a bill to grant to his majesty’s subjects, generally,
the right of admission to the English universities, and to equal
eligibility to degrees therein, notwithstanding their diversities of
religious opinion, degrees in divinity alone excepted. The address was
withdrawn; and after a discussion, in which even the introduction of the
measure was opposed by Messrs. Goulburn and Estcourt, and Sir R. Inglis,
three of the four members for the universities, it was carried by a
majority of one hundred and eighty-five to forty-four. Although the
Cambridge petition had been presented in both houses by members of
the cabinet, and government had declared its entire concurrence in the
prayer of the petitioners, neither the proposition for an address, nor
that for a bill, was brought forward by ministers. They were favourable
to the measure, however, and supported it by their speeches and votes.
At the same time they wished that neither parliament nor the government
should be pressed or hurried to intermeddle, before they could take
up the matter with the prospect of terminating it in the best and most
satisfactory manner. They hoped, they said, that as a portion of one
of the universities was already inclined to it, the object, by allowing
some time for consideration, might be effected with the concurrence
of those learned bodies, and in a much better form, and to much better
purpose, than if they were made reluctantly to act under the compulsion
of a statute. That hope, however, was vain. Before the bill was brought
in, the sentiments of the great mass in the two universities were fully
expressed. It was soon discovered that the sixty-three petitioners
at Cambridge, by offending the honest principles of many, and the
party-spirit of others, had raised a storm which no argument or
explanation could allay. Meetings were almost daily held, pamphlets were
distributed on every hand, the public press joined in the contest, and
the university pulpits resounded with the most awful denunciations.
During the excitement at Cambridge, a counter-petition was signed by two
hundred and fifty-eight members, resident and non-resident, comprising
eleven heads of houses, eight professors, and twenty-nine tutors; while
a second was signed by seven hundred and fifty-five under-graduates and
bachelors of arts. These were presented on the 21st of April by the Duke
of Gloucester in the lords, as chancellor of the university, and by
Mr. Goulburn in the commons, as one of its representatives. A similar
document was presented from the university of Oxford by Mr. Estcourt,
and on the 9th of May a second petition was sent from Cambridge, signed
by one thousand members of the senate who had not signed the other.

Although Mr. Wood brought his bill into the house soon after the Easter
holidays, it was not till the 20th of June that he was enabled to move
the second reading. Mr. Estcourt proposed as an amendment that it should
be read that day six months. Mr. Herbert seconded the amendment. Messrs.
Paten, Poulter, and Ewart spoke in favour of the bill, contending
that the alteration was necessary, no less for the benefit of the
universities, than in justice to the dissenters. By the present system
the latter were impeded in their progress to the bar, by having to keep
terms for five years instead of three; and were prevented from becoming
fellows of the college of physicians, for want of academical degrees.
These were positive and weighty grievances, which ought, it was urged,
to be remedied. Mr. Spring Rice complained that it was unfair to treat
the bill, not according to its own deserts, but according to measures
which might or might not be immediately connected with that now under
discussion. He asked what could be more inconsistently unjust than
the practice of Cambridge, where dissenters were admitted so far as
instruction was concerned, but then excluded from everything to which
instruction ought to lead? They were admitted to the fullest and most
complete course of study until the twelfth term, when, on being brought
into fair competition with their fellow-students, the odious principle
of exclusion intervened: the dissenter was told that, however obedient
he had been to college regulations, however high the eminence he had
acquired, still he would not be allowed the badge or symbol of his
acquirements, simply because he was a dissenter. The house, indeed, had
the benefit of experience; for in Dublin dissenters were admitted to
degrees, though excluded from fellowships, and all participation in the
internal management of the university. And what mighty mischiefs, he
asked, had followed the admission? Was the university less orthodox in
its principles? or less a Protestant foundation than before? Had
the zeal of its public instructors been lessened, or their sphere of
usefulness narrowed by this interference? It should be remembered
that those on whom the exclusions fell were men of active and stirring
spirits, men who would excite and probably guide the councils of those
with whom they agreed in opinion. It had been said that the dissenters
ought to found universities of their own. He concurred in that argument;
but the English universities would not allow them to do this. When
they proposed such a step, in order to educate the youth of their own
persuasion, and reward them with those honours which the university
denied, and thus sought to secure to themselves academical honours and
privileges, the universities stepped forward and said:—“We will not
only exclude you from our own seats, but will also prevent you from
enjoying the advantages and privileges of a university of your own.”
 This double ground of exclusion and prohibition was most undefensible.
The colonial secretary was answered by Mr. Goulburn, who argued that in
proportion as the friends of the bill enforced the danger of excluding
dissenters, they rendered manifest the ruinous consequences of
concession. If the dissenters really deemed it so great a hardship to be
deprived of the empty honour of a degree, what would they say, if they
were admitted to degrees, and found a bar raised against their admission
to college emoluments and distinctions? Sir Robert Peel characterised
the bill as an enactment intended to give to Jews, infidels, and
atheists—to the man who professed some religion, and to the man who
professed none—a statutable right of demanding admission into our
universities. Sir E. Inglis and Lord Sandon opposed the bill, contending
that it was impossible to establish any system of religious education in
institutions into which persons professing different religious opinions
were admitted. Lord Althorp, on the other hand, supported the bill,
disclaiming at the same time any hostility to the established church. On
a division the second reading was carried by a majority of three hundred
and twenty-one against one hundred and seventy-four. In the committee
the speaker gave his decided opposition to the bill; and some amendments
having been made, it was read a third time, and passed by a majority of
one hundred and sixty-four against seventy-five. The bill was conducted
in the lords by the Earl of Radnor, who moved the second reading on the
1st of August. The Duke of Gloucester, Chancellor of the University of
Cambridge, denounced the bill as being not only uncalled for, but most
unjust and mischievous. His royal highness concluded by moving as
an amendment that the bill should be read a second time that day six
months. He was followed by the Duke of Wellington, Chancellor of the
University of Oxford, who sustained the same view of the question. The
Earl of Carnarvon spoke against the bill; the Archbishop of Canterbury
maintained the same side. Lord Melbourne admitted that the subject was
surrounded with difficulties; that he did not altogether approve of the
bill; but, notwithstanding this, the question being brought before the
house, he would vote for the second reading of the bill, because he
thought a question of such magnitude and importance was entitled to
the fullest and most anxious consideration. Lord-chancellor Brougham
supported the bill, because he thought it went to remove a practical
grievance, without affecting the discipline of the universities or the
safety of the church. The discussion was closed by the Bishop of
Exeter, who, in a long and ingenious speech, opposed the bill in all its
bearings. On a division, the amendment to reject the bill was carried by
a majority of one hundred and eighty-seven against eighty-five.

Another grievance of which the dissenters complained was, that they were
liable to church-rates—that is, they were taxed towards the expenses
of the established church. On the 21st of April Lord Althorp brought
forward his plan for the mitigation of this evil in the shape of a
resolution: “that, after a fixed time, church-rates should cease and
determine; and, in lieu thereof, a sum not exceeding £250,000 should be
granted from the land-tax to be applied to the expenses of the fabrics
of churches and chapels in such manner as parliament should direct.”
 He said that his intention was not merely to relieve dissenters, but
likewise to provide for the fabrics of the church. This plan, however,
did not suit the views of either churchmen or dissenters. The friends
of the dissenters, indeed, immediately attacked it with unmeasured
violence. Mr. Hume moved that all the words in the resolution should be
expunged, except those which declared “that church-rates should cease
and determine.” The proposal, it was said, was a contemptible juggle,
founded on the old financial principle that if money were taken out of
the pockets of the people by indirect means, they would not be sensible
of their loss. On the other hand, the friends of the church objected to
the plan because it questioned the rights of the church, infringed on
some of them, and left others on a foundation less sure than before; and
all this without any reason in principle, and confessedly without any
good result in practice. Lord Althorp, in his reply, expressed
much surprise that the dissenters should receive the proposition so
ungraciously; but expressed his determination to persevere in bringing
it forward. On a division the original motion was carried by a majority
of two hundred and fifty-six against one hundred and forty; but
notwithstanding this majority, and the certainty of ultimate success,
ministers proceeded no further with the measure. Churchmen considered
that one advantage was gained, in the dissenters having been brought to
disclose somewhat prematurely the real purposes which they had in
view, and to proclaim opinions tending to the complete abolition of a
religious establishment. Government were equally unfortunate in another
attempt to gratify the dissenters, by allowing them to celebrate the
marriage ceremony in their own chapels, and thus escape what was deemed
by them a grievous oppression.

The commutation of tithes in England was a subject still more
complicated and difficult. It in fact involved so many interests of
different kinds, and so many details requiring minute attention, that
the adjustment of the question was a work requiring both time, patience,
and circumspection. Lord Althorp brought forward the ministerial plan
on the 15th of April, and it was contained in the following
resolution:—“That it was expedient that the payment of tithes in kind
should cease and determine, and that in the several parishes throughout
England and Wales there should be substituted in lieu thereof a payment
to the parties who might be entitled to such tithe, such payment bearing
a fixed proportion to the annual value of all land whence tithe might be
payable, that value to be ascertained throughout the several counties at
large, striking an average on the parishes in each county; also that all
owners of property liable to tithe be at liberty to redeem the same at
the rate of twenty-five years’ purchase.” Lord Althorp then proceeded to
develop his plan at great length; but its principles and details were so
strongly objected to both by landlords and the clergy that the measure
was dropped for the present. Lord Althorp stated as a reason for not
going on with it, that he saw, from the state of the public business,
and the time which would require to be devoted to the more urgent
question of the amendment of the poor-laws, that there was no
probability of its being brought to a successful issue before the
termination of the session.




POOR-LAW AMENDMENT ACT.

{WILLIAM IV. 1834}

One act was carried this session, which, in itself, is sufficient
to signalise the administration under whose auspices it was brought
forward. Soon after their accession to office the present ministry had
issued a commission of inquiry into the state and operation of the
poor laws. The inquiries of the commission were to be directed towards
ascertaining what was the cause why, in some parts of the country, the
poor-laws were considered a benefit by parishes, while in others their
operation had been ruinous and destructive. The commissioners had made
their report, and an abstract of the evidence which they had taken had
been printed in the course of the preceding session. Government was
so strongly impressed by that report, with a conviction of the evils
produced by the system in many districts of the country, that they
resolved to propose a remedy to parliament. On the 17th of April,
therefore, Lord Althorp moved for leave to bring in a bill to alter and
amend the laws relating to the poor. The necessity of interference was
maintained on the ground that the present administration of those laws
tended directly and indirectly to the destruction of all property,
whilst their continued operation was fatal even to the labouring classes
whom they had been intended to benefit. It was the abuse of the system,
rather than the system itself, which was to be apprehended. Its worst
abuses, indeed, were scarcely older than the beginning of the present
century, and they had originated in measures intended for the benefit of
that class of the community to whose interests and welfare they were
now most destructively opposed. A feeling at that period prevailed that
great discontent existed among the working classes, and a principle was
then adopted in legislation, which, though humane and well intended, was
found to produce the most baneful consequences. The 36th of George III.
laid down the principle that the relief to paupers ought to be given in
such a manner as to place them in a situation of comfort. It might have
been desirable to place all our countrymen in this situation; but to
give relief in the manner prescribed by this statute was rather the duty
of private charity than of the public legislature. The effect of this
law had been to give the magistrates the power of ordering relief to the
poor in their own dwellings, and the principle being followed up, led
from bad to worse, until every spark of independence in the breast of
the peasantry had been nearly extinguished. The parish must keep them,
it was often said; and they did not care to obtain an honest livelihood
by the sweat of their brow. The existing state of things had indeed
reduced the labouring population in many districts to a state of
deplorable misery and distress. It was evident that there were great
dangers to be incurred if matters were left as they stood, and that it
was absolutely necessary to adopt sounder principles, and to carry them
into execution unflinchingly. In fact, there were examples already to
be followed. In about one hundred parishes the evils of the system had
compelled the inhabitants to adopt an approved mode of administration,
and in every instance they had succeeded, although some of them had been
completely pauperised. Where, again, the former system still prevailed,
cultivation had been abandoned; so heavy was the pressure of rates, and
so great the evils of mismanagement. The consequence of this was that
the neighbouring parishes were compelled to support the poor; and it was
evident that they also would soon be reduced to a similar situation if
the system was not soon and effectually altered. It was on the grounds
of this mischief, and the necessity of checking it, that Lord Althorp
defended the principle of entrusting the poor-laws to a board of
commissioners. He admitted that this was an anomalous course of
legislation, and that the board would be entrusted with extraordinary
powers. This, however, he argued, was rendered unavoidable by the
necessity of the case; a discretionary power must be vested somewhere,
in order to carry into effect the better principles to be introduced.
But before extending any discretionary power, he continued, it would be
necessary to fix a day on which the allowance system should cease; and
in the bill it would be fixed in some of the summer months, when the
labourers were in full employment. The allowance system, he said, was
the foundation of almost all other evils; and until it was abolished,
any attempt at amending the poor-laws would be nugatory.

The allowance system being abolished, and the central board established,
next came the powers of the commissioners. He proposed one uniform
system operating over the whole country, in order to obtain which they
were to have power to make general rules and orders as to the mode of
relief, and for the regulation of workhouses, and the mode of relief
afforded therein. As a check against any abuse, every such rule, order,
or regulation so proposed by the commissioners would be submitted to the
secretary-of-state: forty days were to elapse before it could be brought
into operation, and during that period it should be competent, by an
order in council, issued for that purpose, to prevent it from being
carried into effect. The commissioners would further have power, he
said, to make specific rules and orders for the regulation and mode of
relief of the poor in separate districts and parishes: to form unions of
parishes, in order to make larger districts; to arrange classifications
of the poor in the same or different workhouses; to exercise a general
control in such unions as might be established without their consent;
and to dissolve unions which might now exist. Unions having been
formed, each parish in the union would have to maintain its own poor,
or contribute to the general fund the proportion of expense which it had
hitherto borne by itself. The commissioners would likewise have power
to call the attention of parishes and unions to the state of their
workhouse establishments, and to suggest to them the propriety of adding
to those formed, or of building separate and distinct establishments.
Another fertile source of mischief had been the practice of ordering
relief to the poor in their own houses. The bill would provide that
justices should have no power for the future, thus bringing back the
law to the state in which it had been previous to the year 1796. Other
features of the bill, he explained, consisted in simplifying the law of
settlement and removal; in rendering the mother of an illegitimate child
liable for its support, and, for its ailment, to save from imprisonment
the putative father to whom she might swear it. The great principles
of the proposed plan, therefore, went to stop the allowance system;
to deprive the magistracy of the power of ordering out-door relief; to
alter, in certain cases, the constitution of parochial vestries; to give
large discretionary powers to the commissioners; to simplify the law
of settlement and removal; and to render the mother of an illegitimate
child liable for its support. The bill by which these principles were
to be carried into effect having been brought in, the second reading was
opposed by Colonel Evans, one of the members for Westminster, and Sir
S. Whalley, one of the members for Marylebone. The latter moved an
amendment, that the bill should be read a second time that day six
months. It was his opinion, he said, that the bastardy clause, which
threw all the burden on the mother, on whom the odium rested already,
thus held out a premium to immorality and an inducement to infanticide;
and the clauses which effected the law of settlement would of themselves
justify the house in throwing out the bill. His great objection,
however, was to the board of commissioners. The board was unnecessary,
for the principal existing defect consisted in the ratepayers not having
sufficient control over the expenditure. If they were only vested with
complete control over the poor-law management, the evils of the present
system would soon disappear. He doubted whether the house had authority
to give powers of the description proposed to any set of men—at all
events it was impolitic. The bashaws whom the bill proposed to start
into life would be omnipotent; they might do as they pleased, and
account for their acts by merely stating it was their pleasure. There
were to be no less than thirty-six discretionary powers vested in the
commissioners; a degree of authority entrusted to three men of which
the country afforded no parallel. Government ought to wait before they
undertook any poor-law reform: the report of the commissioners had
already led to the correction of many abuses, and time only was
required to secure a trial to the greater part, if not all, of the
recommendations that report contained. The amendment was seconded by
Alderman Wood, and supported by Mr. Walter, a reforming representative
of Berkshire. Messrs. Grote and Hume, and Sirs J. Scarlett and Francis
Burdett, with other members who spoke on the occasion, all agreed that
there was no good reason against the second reading of the bill, though
none of them approved it as a whole. The chancellor of the exchequer
argued in reply, that nothing had been stated which could be regarded
as an ostensible reason for not going into committee; and that when
in committee all matters which had been noticed would be open to
consideration. The second reading was carried by a majority of three
hundred and nineteen to twenty. In the committee a discussion took place
as regarded the effect of the bill in establishing workhouses, a system
which some members disliked; but the clause was retained. Another
discussion also took place on the clause which allowed occupiers
and owners to vote in vestries, the latter having accumulative votes
proportioned to their property. It was objected to as being inconsistent
with popular rights and good management; but it was nevertheless
retained. The forty-fifth clause provided that it should be lawful for
the commissioners, by such orders or regulations as they should
think fit, to declare to what extent the relief to be given might be
administered out of the workhouse. An amendment was moved, “that no rule
or order of the commissioners shall prohibit the guardians of unions
from giving relief out of the workhouse, to such of their sick or
impotent poor, and to such widows, orphans, and illegitimate children,
as they may think fit so to relieve.” This amendment, however, was only
supported by forty, while one hundred and forty-eight voted against it.
In the clauses regarding settlement, settlement by having occupied a
tenement, and having been assessed to the poor-rates for one year,
and having paid such assessment, was added to settlement by birth and
marriage.

The clauses which laid the burden of supporting an illegitimate child
on the mother, as if she had been a widow, gave rise to much discussion.
Mr. Robinson moved that they should be omitted, he objecting to them
chiefly on the ground that they removed the liability from the father.
He did not object, he said, to so much of them as repealed certain acts
affecting the mother, but to that part which let the father go free.
The bill proposed, he said, that in case the woman should be unable to
support the child, the liability should rest on the father, or if he
were not alive, or being alive and not able to support it, then the
liability was to fall on the grandfather or grandmother. Could the
house, he asked, seriously entertain propositions of this nature, or
consent to pass enactments so contrary to every principle of justice
and humanity? Lord Althorp protested against these provisions being
discussed as matters of feeling; they should be considered not as they
affected one portion of society, but the whole of it; and looking at it
in this point of view he was prepared to support this part of the bill
as a boon to the female population. He left it as an alternative to
the committee, that if this clause was struck out, the bastardy clauses
should be wholly severed from the bill, and proceeded with in a future
session of parliament. The general feeling in the house seemed to
be that the clauses should be struck out, and the matters which they
involved made the subject of a separate measure, or that they should
be postponed till some middle term should be devised. The majority,
however, preferred the latter alternative, and it was decided that the
provisions in question should not be expunged. On the 21st of March Mr.
Miles proposed a modified clause, which still refused any claim to
the mother against the father, and gave no power of demanding security
before the child was born; but it exposed him to a claim at the instance
of the managers of the poor, in the event of the mother and the child
becoming chargeable to the parish. The chancellor of the exchequer said
he would have preferred the original provisions of the bill; but he
acquiesced in the adoption of the proposed clause, because he saw that
the opinion of the house was in its favour. Subsequently clauses were
added, disqualifying the commissioners from sitting in parliament;
requiring all general orders and regulations to be laid before
parliament; and limiting the operation of the act, in so far as regarded
the commissioners, to five years. The bill was read a third time and
passed on the 1st of July. It was introduced to the lords on the day
following, and the second reading was fixed for the 8th of July; but in
consequence of the resignation of Earl Grey, it was not again brought
forward till the 21st of July. The second reading was moved by the
lord-chancellor, who, after giving an historical account of the progress
of the poor-laws, pointed out the manner in which they had become the
sources of so much evil. The bill found its most violent opponent in
Lord Wynford, who moved as an amendment that it be read that day six
months. He did not oppose it, he said, on the ground that there was
not much in the administration of the poor-laws which required to be
corrected, but because he conceived that the remedies proposed by the
bill were partly unnecessary and partly inefficient, while some of
them were perfectly tyrannical. The Earl of Winchilsea and the Dukes
of Richmond and Wellington supported the motion for the second reading,
though they did not approve of all the provisions of the bill. The
division on the amendment gave seventy-six peers for the second reading,
and only thirteen against it. In the committee Lord Alvanley proposed
that the bill should be dropped. Lord Wynford urged strong objections
to the central board of commissioners, but this was defended by the
lord-chancellor, the Earl of Winchilsea, and the Duke of Wellington. The
only alteration made in the clauses respecting them and their powers was
an addition proposed by the Duke of Wellington, to the effect that they
should be bound to keep a record of each letter received, the date of
its reception, the person from whom it came, the subject to which it
related, and the minute of any answer given to it, or made thereon,
and also, where the commissioners differed, of the opinion of each
commissioner, and that a copy of such record be transmitted to the
secretary-of-state once a year, or oftener if required. The Bishop of
Exeter moved to substitute for the leading enactment in reference to
bastardy, “That the father and mother of an illegitimate child, or the
survivor of them, shall be required to support such child, and that no
parish shall be bound to support such child whilst either parent is
able to do so, and that all relief occasioned by the wants of such child
shall be considered as relief afforded to the father and mother, or
the survivor of them.” This amendment, however, was negatived by
thirty-eight votes against thirty-four; but the clause itself, being
that which the house of commons, on the motion of Mr. Miles, had
substituted for the original clause, was likewise rejected. On the
third reading the Bishop of Exeter again brought the question before
the house, by moving the omission of the clause which provided that any
person marrying a woman who had an illegitimate child or children by
another man, should be liable to maintain them. The original clause,
however, was retained, although by a majority of only eleven, eighty-two
voting for and seventy-one against it. Instead of the rejected clause
which Mr. Miles had carried in the house of commons, clauses were
introduced on the motion of the Duke of Wellington, enacting, that
the putative father of any bastard child, so soon as such child became
chargeable to the parish by the mother’s inability to maintain it,
should be liable to reimburse to the parish the expenses of its
maintenance until it attained the age of seven years, on his paternity
being proved before the quarter-sessions, but not without the testimony
of the woman being corroborated by other evidence; that when a woman had
had one bastard child, she should obtain no order in a subsequent case;
that an order should be operative only till the child attained the
age of seven years; that sums to be recovered from the putative father
should be recoverable only by attachment or distress; and that he should
not, in any case, be liable to imprisonment for costs. Subsequently,
several other amendments were made of minor importance, as alterations
in the allowance system, and in administering out-door relief, &c.; and
the bill thus altered passed the third reading on the 8th of August, by
a majority of forty-five against fifteen. On the 11th of August, when
Lord Althorp moved the commons to agree to the lords’ amendment, an
amendment was moved that they should be read that day six months. This
proposal was chiefly supported by those who were opposed to the bill
altogether, or who wished it should be delayed till next session; but
Lord Althorp declared that if it did not pass, he would not again bring
it forward; and the amendment was negatived by a large majority. All the
amendments of the lords were then agreed to, with the exception of the
omission of the clause which provided for the instruction of pauper
children in the religious creed of his surviving parent or god-parent,
and entitled dissenting clergymen to visit workhouses at all times, for
the purpose of religious instruction, at the desire of any pauper of
any sect. This amendment was said to be a violation of the principle of
religious liberty, and an insult to the small portion of good feeling
towards dissenters which existed in the upper house, and it was
rejected. Finally, the amendment of the commons restoring the clause
which had been expunged, was agreed to by the lords, and thus the great
experiment of a revision and alteration of the poor-laws commenced.

From the great change effected in the poor-laws, no class of men could
eventually expect greater relief than the owners and occupiers of lands.
At this time, however, the agriculturists longed after means of relief
of more immediate, direct, and certain operation. The subject of
agricultural distress had, indeed, formed a paragraph in the king’s
speech, and it was now brought forward by the Marquis of Chandos. On the
21st of February, after ably stating both the local and general causes
of the evil, he moved a resolution, “That, in any reduction of national
burdens by the remission of taxes, due regard be shown to that distress
of the agriculturists which had been alluded to in the speech from the
throne.” The resolution was supported by Mr. A. Baring, who said, that
importunity and clamour, threats of commotion and resistance to the law
obtained that which was refused to the patient suffering of the farmer.
Several members spoke against the resolution, not meaning to deny that
the agriculturists were suffering, but considering the resolution as not
likely to lead to any result; and that the means alluded to by those who
supported it were neither efficient nor just. Moreover, the supporters
of the motion were far from being of one mind as to the manner in which
relief ought to be afforded. On a division the resolution was lost by
a majority of four only in a very full house. This success induced the
noble mover to bring the subject before the house again. On the 7th of
July he moved, “That an humble address be presented to his majesty,
expressing the deep regret that this house feels at the continuance of
the distressed state of the agricultural interests of the country, to
which the attention of parliament was especially called in his majesty’s
most gracious speech from the throne, and humbly to represent the
anxious desire of this house that the attention of his majesty’s
government should be directed, without further delay, to this important
subject, with a view to the immediate removal of some portion of those
burdens to which the land is subject through the pressure of general and
local taxation.” On a division the motion was lost by a majority of one
hundred and ninety against one hundred and seventy-four.

On the 17th of March the question of the malt-duty was brought directly
before the house by a motion of Mr. Cobbett, that it should cease and
determine from and after the 5th of October next. It was rejected by one
hundred and forty-two to fifty-nine.




THE CORN-LAW QUESTION.

While the agriculturists were thus demanding relief, the corn-laws
were not only insisted on as an answer to all complaints by those who
maintained a different interest, but were also themselves made the
subject of a formal attack. On the 6th of March, Mr. Hume moved, “That
this house do resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, to
consider of the corn-laws, and of substituting, instead of the present
graduated scale of duties, a fixed and moderate duty on the import at
all times of foreign corn into the United Kingdom, and for granting
a fixed and equivalent bounty on the export of corn from the United
Kingdom, with the ultimate view of establishing a free trade in corn.”
 Sir James Graham defended the present system as necessary to prevent the
destruction of the farmers, and the annihilation of the occupations
of an immense body of agricultural labourers. On the other hand, Lord
Morpeth, who was himself connected with the landed interest, Lord
Howick, and Mr. Clay, member for the Tower Hamlets, supported the
motion, contending that it was the corn-laws which kept the agricultural
interest in a state of depression while all other interests were
prospering. The Irish members who spoke were adverse to the proposition;
the very agitation of the question, it was said, would do much mischief
in Ireland, unless the house distinctly declared that there should be
no change in the existing law. Lord Althorp said that he would meet the
motion with a direct negative, although his opinions were favourable to
an alteration of the existing system. In opposition, therefore, to his
theoretical opinion, he would resist the motion; and he believed that
every cabinet minister would vote against it. There were, however, some
of the members of government favourable to a repeal of the corn-laws;
and Mr. Thompson, vice-president of the board of trade, supported the
motion, and delivered a long speech, principally in answer to Sir James
Graham’s. He contended that so far from the existing system conferring
any benefit on the corn-growers, the farmers, who had been deluded
by it, had more reason to complain of it than any other class in the
country. And what, he asked, were the effects on our manufactures of
this system which had ruined the farmers? The motion was rejected by
three hundred and twelve against one hundred and fifty-five. The subject
was again discussed incidentally, on the occasion of the presentation of
a petition from Liverpool in favour of free trade, and especially of
a free trade in corn. Sir Robert Peel embraced this opportunity of
expressing his opinions on the subject—opinions utterly at variance
with the enlightened policy adopted by him at a subsequent date. On the
other hand, Sir Henry Parnell said that the pretext of farmers being
interested in a continuation of the corn-laws was a gross delusion
practised on them by the landlords. It was for their advantage alone
that the whole community was taxed.

At this time, also, those concerned in the shipping-interest complained
loudly of distress, which they considered to be either caused or
aggravated by the admission into our ports of the ships of foreign
nations on the same terms on which our vessels were admitted into
theirs; an admission which the crown had the power of conceding under
the fourth of George IV., c. 77, commonly called “the Reciprocity of
Duties Act.” Many petitions for the repeal of this act were presented;
and on the 5th of June Mr. G. F. Young moved for leave to bring in a
bill for that purpose; but the motion was resisted by ministers, and
rejected by one hundred and seventeen against fifty-two.




FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, ETC.

Notwithstanding the distress of the country, the financial affairs of
the present year exhibited an encouraging aspect. The chancellor of the
exchequer indeed, after providing for the interest on the £20,000,000
granted to West India proprietors, had a disposable surplus of
£1,620,000. From various alterations about to be made in the state of
taxation with respect to spirits and beer, the estimated surplus might
be taken at £1,815,000. Under these circumstances, the chancellor of the
exchequer made the following reductions in taxation: in the house-tax,
which was wholly abolished,£1,200,000; customs,£200,000; starch,
£75,000; stone bottles and sweets, £6000; almanacks, £25,000; small
assessed taxes, £75,000—leaving still a surplus of about £230,000. But
this surplus would be further reduced by a change which was proposed
in the spirit duties. The duty on spirits distilled in Ireland had for
several years been fixed at the same amount as in Scotland. That policy
was now to be departed from, and the duty on Irish spirits was to be
reduced from 3s. 4d. to 2s. 4d. per gallon. After a few words from
Mr. Baring against the views of the chancellor of the exchequer,
the resolutions proposed were adopted by the house. Subsequently, an
important measure of finance was attempted in a plan for the reduction
of the four per cent, annuities created in 1826. All holders of that
stock who should not signify their dissent, were to have, for every
£100, three and a half per cent, in a new stock to be consolidated with
the existing three and a half per cent, annuities, which were not liable
to redemption before January, 1840. The dissentients were found to be a
greater number than had been anticipated. Before the 9th of June, nine
hundred and sixty-nine had expressed their dissent, and they held stock
to the amount of £4,600,000. In order to provide funds for paying
off these dissentients, a resolution was passed on the 7th of June,
authorising the commissioners of the national debt to pay them out
of the monies, stocks, or exchequer-bills which they held under “the
savings’ bank act.” The dissented stock was from the tenth of October
following to be considered as converted into an equal amount of three
and a half per cents., which were to be vested in the commissioners, and
placed in the bank-books to the account intituled “funds for the banks
of savings.”




BILL FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE CIVIL DISABILITIES OF THE JEWS, ETC.

{WILLIAM IV. 1834}

During this session Mr. Robert Grant again brought in a bill for
removing the civil disabilities of the Jews. The second reading was
opposed by Mr. C. Bruce. He moved that the bill be read a second time
that day six months. The amendment, however, was rejected, and the bill
carried through committee by large majorities, and it was read a third
time and passed on the 11th of June by fifty votes against fourteen.
In the lords, on the second reading, the Earl of Malmsbury moved the
amendment that the bill should be read that day six months. The Earl of
Winchilsea seconded the amendment. On a division the bill was lost by
one hundred and thirty-two against thirty-eight.

The distress felt at this time by all classes of the community was
dexterously made use of by the opponents of ministers to render their
administration unpopular. They became exposed to great inconvenience
from a statutory rule of the constitution, which requires that all
members of the house of commons who accept certain offices under the
crown shall vacate their seats, and take the chance of a re-election. In
more instances than one, the candidate thus stamped with the approbation
of government had not been re-elected; and even the attorney-general,
having, by his promotion, lost his seat for Dudley, was unable to
appear in the house of commons. This was the first practical grievance
experienced under the reform act, which had swept away all the close
boroughs without any exception, and provided no means to compensate the
loss. This state of matters induced Sir Robert Heron, on the 1st of May,
to move for leave to bring in a bill to obviate the necessity of members
vacating their seats on their accepting certain offices under the crown.
Mr. E. L. Bulwer was dissatisfied with the proposition, because it
failed to remove the worst clanger of the present system. The principle
of the constitution, he said, was not that the people should choose
ministers, but that they should have an opportunity of deciding whether
or not they wished their representatives to become ministers, and this
principle the present measure would destroy. Pie moved, as an amendment,
“That, for the convenience of the public service, and the promotion
of the public interests, it is desirable that one member of each of the
principal departments of state should have a seat in that house, but
without the privilege of voting, unless returned by the suffrages of
a constituency.” Dr. Lushington and Mr. Ward opposed both these
propositions, as taking from the people one of the most valuable
privileges given to them by the constitution, merely for the purpose of
consulting the convenience and safety of the party now in power. Lord
Althorp assured the house that the subject had been introduced without
the sanction of government; but, at the same time, he stated that
ministers had been put to great inconvenience. On the whole, however, he
thought that the time was not yet come when a measure like that
should be pressed on the house. Both the motion and the amendment were
withdrawn.

On the 15th of May Mr. Tennyson submitted a motion for leave to
introduce a bill to shorten the duration of parliaments. He reserved to
himself the right, he said, of suggesting the precise period to which
parliaments should extend, when the measure had gone into committee. The
motion was seconded by Sir Edward Codrington, who expressed himself in
favour of five years as being more likely to reconcile the different
parties. Colonel Davies opposed the motion as being premature; and Lord
Dalmeny thought the passing of the reform act the strongest possible
reason against entertaining the question. In reply, Mr. Tennyson stated
that those who supported the bill would bind themselves only to the
propriety of shortening the duration of parliaments, without at all
pledging themselves to any particular period, which might be reserved
for determination in committee; whereas, those who voted against it,
would give a conclusive opinion that the present term ought to be
continued. Mr. E. J. Stanley moved, byway of amendment, that the bill be
one to shorten parliaments to five years, which was negatived without
a division: the original motion was lost by a majority of fifty.
Subsequently Colonel Evans moved for leave to bring in a bill for the
amendment of the reform act, in so far as it made the payment of
rates and taxes an essential qualification for voting at parliamentary
elections, which was supported by Messrs. Hume, Roebuck, Attwood, and
O’Connell. The motion was opposed by Lords John Russell and Althorp; and
it was lost, on a division, by a majority of eighty-seven. Previous
to this, Lord John Russell had introduced a bill to prevent bribery at
elections, which had passed the commons. The peers had referred this
bill to a select committee; and on the 28th of July, the Marquis of
Lansdowne, on presenting the report of the committee, stated that there
had been no interference with the powers possessed by the election
committees of the house of commons. The single object kept in view by
the committee was the attainment of the proposed end in the speediest
manner possible. Accordingly an amendment on the bill was suggested, by
which it was directed that, when a committee of the house of commons
had come to the conclusion that gross and extensive bribery had been
committed in any place, the result of that inquiry should be laid before
their lordships; and then the crown should issue a commission, over
which one of the judges should preside, to form a court of inquiry on
the whole matter in dispute. He proposed that this court should consist
of seven members of the house of commons, five of their lordships, and
one judge, who should have the power of calling before them all persons
and documents affecting the subject of inquiry; that the witnesses
should be exempted from the consequences of any evidence which they
might be called on to give; and that a statement of the result having
been drawn up, any legislative enactment with regard to the alleged
abuse should be left to the discretion of the two houses of parliament.
When these amendments were brought under the consideration of the lower
house, Lord John Russell thought them of so extensive a nature as
to render the bill almost a new measure; and ultimately he agreed to
withdraw it.

On the 15th of April, Mr. Roebuck moved for a select committee to
inquire into the political condition of the Canadas. These provinces,
he said, in consequence of bad government, were in a state of revolt.
By their constitution they had a governor, a legislative council, and a
house of assembly. Some years after the constitution had been conferred
upon them, the two provinces were permitted to provide for their own
expenses, and consequently to have control over the expenditure of the
government. It had been proposed to pass the estimates annually; but
that plan had been thwarted by the government, which charged the house
of assembly with disrespect to his majesty. The representatives of
the people next resolved to vote their money by items; but this having
excited the jealousy of the officials, put a stop for the time to the
business of the state. In consequence of all this the public mind was
embittered, and the country was divided into two hostile sections—a
small band of official persons on the one hand, and the nation, with
their representatives at their head, on the other. Mr. Stanley said,
that he was glad of the opportunity of bringing under the notice of
the house the present state of the province of Lower Canada, and after
entering into the subject at great length, he moved as an amendment for
the appointment of a select committee, to inquire and report whether the
grievances complained of in 1828 by certain inhabitants of that colony
had been redressed; and also, whether the recommendation of a committee
of that house, to which the question of those grievances was referred,
had been complied with on the part of government: also to inquire into
other grievances set forth in the resolutions of the house of assembly
in Lower Canada, and report thereupon to the house. Mr. O’Connell said
that the object of government was to thwart the Catholic clergymen of
Canada, and to throw obstacles in the way of their building chapels.
He recommended that the motion should be withdrawn, and the amendment
allowed to be carried, so as to throw upon government the responsibility
of appointing the committee. Mr. Hume contrasted the tyranny exercised
over the colony by the present government, with the leniency of the
measures adopted by Lord Goderich; and Lord Howick expressed a hope
that the committee about to be appointed would succeed in effecting
an amicable adjustment of the differences prevailing in Lower Canada.
Finally the motion was withdrawn, and the amendment of Mr. Stanley
adopted.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued by the king in person on the 15th of August. In
his speech his majesty lamented the still unsettled state of Holland
and Belgium; but expressed satisfaction that civil war had absolutely
terminated in Portugal. He rejoiced, he said, that the state of affairs
in the Peninsula had induced him to conclude with the King of France,
the Queen Regent of Spain, and the Regent of Portugal that quadripartite
treaty, which had materially contributed to produce so happy a result.
Events, however, had since occurred in Spain, to disappoint for a time
those hopes of tranquillity, which the pacification of Portugal
had inspired. In his speech his majesty alluded to the numerous and
important questions that had engaged, and would still engage the
attention of parliament.




DISSOLUTION OF THE CABINET.

Before parliament was prorogued the weakness and vacillation of
the ministry had been very apparent. From the moment of Earl Grey’s
resignation, indeed, the want of intrinsic power had rendered them
dependent on O’Connell and his faction. And this very support was
vouchsafed to them in such a way as tended to bring their government
still more into contempt: while the Irish demagogues supported them,
they expressed the utmost contempt for them. Thus, in the month of
October, O’Connell wrote a series of letters to Lord Duncannon, in which
every species of abuse was heaped upon the ministry and the Whigs.

Another circumstance which contributed to lower the reputation of the
ministry was the hostility evinced to them by the public press. There
was scarcely a daily newspaper, except the _Morning Chronicle_, which
did not occasionally express contempt for them; and as for the _Times_,
its columns perpetually exposed their feebleness and incapacity to
carry on government on any fixed set of principles. The conduct of Lord
Brougham also tended to bring his colleagues into contempt. During
the autumn he traversed different parts of Scotland, making speeches
wherever hearers were to be found, in which at one time he would go the
utmost lengths of ultra-radicalism, and at another, would speak in such
a way as would have induced the Conservatives to hail him as their own.
The dissolution of the ministry, however, was especially aided by the
death of Earl Spencer, which took place on the 10th of November. As that
event moved Lord Althorp to the house of lords, it was requisite to
find a new chancellor of the exchequer, and a new leader of the house of
commons.

On the 14th of November Lord Melbourne waited on the king at Brighton,
to submit to his majesty the changes in official appointments which the
death of Earl Spencer had rendered necessary, Lord John Russell being
the individual selected as leader of the house of commons; but the king
thought that business could not be carried on by such a ministry as
it was proposed to construct, and he expressed his opinion that Lord
Brougham could not continue chancellor, as well as his dissatisfaction
with the selection of the members of the cabinet who were to frame
the Irish church bill. The king, in fact, announced that he should
not impose upon Lord Melbourne the task of completing the official
arrangements, but would apply to the Duke of Wellington.




SIR ROBERT PEEL APPOINTED PRIME-MINISTER.

Having thus dismissed the cabinet, his majesty sent for the Duke of
Wellington, who advised him to entrust the government to Sir Robert
Peel. As Sir Robert, however, was in Italy, he offered to carry on
the public business till his return. This course was adopted, and as
a temporary arrangement, his grace was appointed first lord of the
treasury, and sworn in as one of the principal secretaries of state. On
the 21st of November, Lord Lyndhurst received the great seal, and
took the oaths as lord-chancellor, but he did not resign the office of
lord-chief-baron till the settlement of the ministry in December. Sir
Robert Peel, who had been sent for by a special messenger, arrived on
the 9th of that month, and one of his first steps was to propose to
Lord Stanley and Sir James Graham that they should be members of the new
administration; but they both declined pledging themselves to the extent
to which they might be considered bound by the acceptance of office. The
official arrangements, however, were completed by the end of December,
and the new cabinet consisted of the following members:—Sir Robert
Peel, first lord of the treasury; Lord Lyndhurst, lord-chancellor;
the Earl of Rossyln, president of the council; Lord Wharncliffe,
lord-privy-seal; the Duke of Wellington, secretary-of-state for foreign
affairs; Mr. Goulburn, secretary-of-state for the home department; the
Earl of Aberdeen, colonial secretary; Mr. Alexander Baring, president of
the board or trade; Sir George Murray, master-general of the ordnance;
Sir E. Knatchbull, paymaster of the forces; Earl de Grey, first lord
of the admiralty; Lord Ellenborough, president of the board of
control; Lord Maryborough, postmaster-general; the Earl of Jersey,
lord-chamberlain; the Earl of Roden, lord-steward; Lord Lowther,
vice-president of the board of trade, and treasurer of the navy; Mr. C.
Wynn, chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster; Mr. Hemes, secretary-at-war;
Mr. F. Pollock, attorney-general for England; and Mr. Follett,
solicitor-general. The Earl of Haddington went to Ireland as
lord-lieutenant; Sir Edward Sugden was appointed lord-chancellor
of Ireland; Sir Henry Hardinge became chief-secretary to the
lord-lieutenant; and Sir James Scarlett succeeded Lord Lyndhurst as
lord-chief-baron of the exchequer, with the title of Lord Abinger.




DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.

Every man of penetration saw that the new ministry had too much of the
old leaven to stand long as the present parliament was constituted.
Sir Robert Peel, however, did not despair. Though there was a reformed
parliament, he fully anticipated carrying on the government with
advantage to the country. In the month of November he expounded the
principles on which he designed to conduct government, in a long address
to his constituents at Tamworth, observing, that he would not accept
power on the condition of declaring himself an apostate from the
principles on which he had hitherto acted, and declaring that he had
not been a defender of abuses, or an enemy to judicious reforms, either
before or after the reform bill had passed. It was evident, however, to
Sir Robert Peel and his colleagues that government could not be carried
on with the present parliament; and therefore, on the 30th of December,
a proclamation was issued, dissolving it, and convoking a new one to
meet on the 5th of February, 1835.




THE ACT ABOLISHING SLAVERY IN THE WEST INDIES CARRIED INTO EFFECT.

On the 1st of August in the present year, the act for the emancipation
of the negroes came into operation. In some islands symptoms of
insubordination were exhibited, and the planters were obliged to have
recourse to punishment and force, in order to overcome the reluctance of
the black population to regular labour; yet this great change took
place without any serious disturbances. In Barbadoes, indeed, there
was perfect tranquillity and order; and in Jamaica the transition was
accompanied with very little alarm or commotion. The slave felt grateful
that he was permitted to take his proper station among the great family
of mankind.




STATE OF THE CONTINENT.

At the close of the last year, the government of the Queen of Portugal
was in possession of the capital, as well as of Oporto. Having an
efficient army, as the authority of Don Miguel was obeyed over a large
extent of country, the government resolved to pursue its military
operations with vigour. The plan adopted was to crush the smaller bodies
of men in arms for the pretender in various parts of the kingdom, till
there should be no Miguelites but those who were around himself at
Santarem. In pursuance of this plan, the Duke of Terceira joined the
queen’s army in January, in order that Saldanha might undertake other
operations. Saldanha made himself master of Leyria, between Lisbon and
Coimbra, and Torres Novas, in which a system of massacre was adopted
disgraceful to himself and his officers. His army now separated Miguel
from the north, while the army of the Duke of Terceira pressed upon
him from Lisbon. Saldanha took up his position at Almoster, where, in
February, he was attacked by the Miguelites; but he repulsed them with
great slaughter. Events equally favourable to the queen took place in
the north, where considerable numbers of Miguelites were still in arms.
The provinces north of the Duero were, indeed, cleared of the enemy
by the Duke of Terceira; and he then retraced his steps to expel the
partisans of Miguel from the positions which they still held between
the Duero and the Tagus, particularly Coimbra, on the Mondego, and
Figueiras, at the mouth of that river. Figueiras was reduced by a naval
expedition, under Admiral Napier, and Coimbra opened its gates to the
duke himself. The queen’s forces now pressed upon Don Miguel; and on the
18th of May he abandoned his lines at Santarem, and retreated towards
Guadiana, in the direction of Evora. He was followed by Count Saldanha
and the Duke of Terceira, who were at the head of 20,000 men; and seeing
no hopes of success or escape, he sought a suspension of arms for
the purpose of negociating. The government refused to enter into any
negociation, or to listen to any terms different from those which had
been already tendered; namely, that Don Miguel should leave Portugal
within fifteen days, and engage never to return to any part of the
Spanish provinces or the Portuguese dominions, nor in any way concur in
disturbing the tranquillity of these kingdoms; that he would be allowed
to embark in a ship of war belonging to any of the four allied powers;
and that he should receive a pension of sixty centos of reis, about
£15,000, and be permitted to dispose of his personal property, on
restoring the jewels and other articles belonging to the crown and to
private individuals. The troops of Don Miguel were to lay down their
arms, and return peaceably to their homes under the protection of the
amnesty; and he was to issue orders to commanders of fortresses, or of
troops, who still recognised his authority, immediately to submit, under
the same protection, to the government of the queen. To these terms Don
Miguel now consented; and having signed the convention, he went on board
a British vessel of war, which carried him to Genoa. The civil war was
thus brought to an end in Portugal; and it was this happy event which
led his majesty to conclude a treaty with that government, as alluded
to in his speech. One act of ingratitude which the Portuguese government
committed, however, must not be forgotten. It was chiefly by the valour
of the British volunteer auxiliaries that the cause of the queen was
triumphant; and these volunteers had been induced to enter into the
service by promises of pay equal to that of England, exclusive of
allowances for compensation and other advantages. The Cortes, however
resolved, in January, 1834, that they should only receive Portuguese
pay; and when the war came to an end, the British troops remained
unpaid. The men, in fact, on whose bravery the sole dependence was
placed when danger was threatened, were left to wander through the
streets of Lisbon in rags and poverty, and compelled to prolong a
miserable existence on scanty rations of beans and bread, with the
occasional addition of a morsel of salt fish. Such is the usual reward
of mercenaries who hire themselves out as the supporters of foreign
revolutionary governments.

During this year the political relations between Holland and Belgium
continued in the same state of uncertainty in which they had been left
at the close of the former year. In Spain, also, the history of the
present year opens with a continuance of the same contests for the
succession to the crown which had marked the close of the preceding.
Throughout the whole year, indeed, there was war between the
queen-regent and Don Carlos; and the year closed while yet they were in
arms. In Switzerland some agitation was occasioned by an attempt of the
Poles in that country, in concert with Italian fugitives in the French
departments of the Rhone and Isère, to overthrow the Sardinian throne in
Turin, by a sudden attack upon Savoy. Greece, during the present year,
suffered both the evils of civil war and of political intrigue. In
Turkey, the ascendancy of Russia was increased by an alliance, offensive
and defensive, which was concluded between those two powers. The
emperor gave up two-thirds of what remained to be paid in respect of
the indemnities stipulated for by the treaty of Adrianople; and, on the
other hand, to surround his Asiatic frontier, the Porte ceded to him an
extensive tract of country in the pachalic of Athattsick. Turkey was
to pay that portion of the indemnity which was not relinquished when it
might suit her finances; and, in the meantime, Silistria was to remain
as a pledge in the hands of the Russians, an arrangement which gave them
the effective command of Moldavia and Wallachia, and left the frontier
of Turkey defenceless against invasion. Russia also was to have the free
passage of the Dardanelles.




CHAPTER XLV.

{WILLIAM IV. 1835—1836}

     _State of Parties..... General Election..... Ecclesiastical
     Commission..... Meeting of Parliament; Contest for the
     Office of Speaker..... Opening of the Session.....
     Discussion in the Lords regarding the Slavery Abolition
     Act..... Motion of the Marquis of Chandos to repeal   the
     Malt-tax..... The Dissenters’ Marriage Act..... Ministerial
     Plan for  the Commutation  of Tithes in England..... Report
     of Commission regarding the Church  of England, &c. The
     Question   of   the  Appropriation  of   the   Surplus
     Revenues of  the  Irish   Church..... Resignation of
     Ministers   and   the Restoration of Lord Melbourne’s
     Cabinet..... Municipal Reform and the Irish   Church.....
     Agricultural   Distress..... Municipal   Corporations.....
     Bill  for regulating the  Irish   Church..... Discussion
     regarding  Orange Societies in Ireland..... The Vote by
     Ballot, &c. Motion for the Repeal of the Window-tax,
     &c. The Budget..... Discussions regarding Canada.....
     Prorogation of Parliament..... State of the Continent_




STATE OF PARTIES.

{A.D. 1835}

The state of the political world in this country was, at the opening of
the present year, one of great interest and excitement. The dismissal
of the Melbourne ministry was received by the country with undisturbed
composure and perfect good-humour; but this was viewed by its members
and partisans with alarm and humiliation; and, conceiving that it
betokened a relaxation of power in the springs to whose action they
trusted for their speedy return to office, they resolved to leave no
means untried to agitate the country from one end to the other, in order
to recover their waning influence. To this end the dismissal of the
ministry was announced as exclusively the work of the queen, and as the
result of a deep tory plot, and complicated tory intrigues. These tales,
however, failed in creating the universal dismay so much desired; and
then the organs of the party in opposition constantly insisted on the
dreadful fate which awaited the country from the removal of the only
men who had either head to conceive or courage to undertake the task of
saving the public weal, and putting in their place politicians who would
repeal the reform act, impose new taxes, restore and multiply pensions,
establish military law, and finally produce civil war. Still the country
remained quiescent: it was known that the picture was fictitious, and
men refused to be dismayed. One thing, however, was effected: although
the Radicals did not raise any clamorous outcries at the downfall of
their former associates, they struck a bargain with the Whigs, and came
to terms for the purpose of putting down a common enemy.




GENERAL ELECTION.

The result of the elections crushed the present hopes of the Whigs.
Instead of increasing either their numbers or their radical accomplices,
it brought an addition of more than one hundred members to the
Conservatives, exclusive of those whig reformers, such as Lord Stanley,
who refused to identify themselves with the whig opposition in its
present character and conduct, and of those among the Radicals, as Mr.
Cobbett, who would not consent to be used merely as instruments for
lifting men into power who would not manfully adopt any one of their
opinions, and yet boasted their alliance as being engaged in a common
cause. It must be confessed, however, that the Conservatives placed
their all on this cast of the die. The Carlton Club dispersed its agents
far and wide throughout the country, and every engine which aristocratic
wealth and ecclesiastical influence could put in motion was employed in
their cause. In the counties, the fifty-pound clause operated greatly
to their advantage, and success generally attended their efforts; but
in towns the opposite party were more successful. In Scotland there were
some changes, but the comparative strength of parties remained there
nearly the same as before; but in Ireland the retinue of the popish
agitator was somewhat diminished, although the popish priests exerted
themselves to the utmost in his favour. As for O’Connell himself,
together with his coadjutors, he practised every form of violence and
intimidation against every candidate who would not join in his cry
for repeal, vote by ballot, short parliaments, and extension of the
suffrage. Thus the Knight of Kerry, who started as a candidate for his
native county, and who had spent his whole life in resisting Orangemen,
because he refused to become an instrument in the hands of the popish
priesthood and their agitator, was denounced as unworthy of being
elected; every man who dared to vote for him was to have a death’s-head
and cross-bones painted on his door: and the consequence was that he was
rejected. Of a candidate for New Ross, who refused to enlist under his
banner, O’Connell said, “Whoever shall support him, his shop shall be
deserted; no man shall pass his threshold. Put up his name as a traitor
to Ireland; let no man deal with him; let no woman speak to him; let the
children laugh him to scorn.” Mr. Shiel likewise opposed a candidate for
the county of Clonmel in the following words: “If any Catholic should
vote for him, I will supplicate the throne of the Almighty that he may
be shown mercy in the next world; but I ask no mercy for him in this.”
 Yet this unconstitutional line of conduct was not always successful,
and even O’Connell himself, with Mr. Ruthven his colleague, found it
difficult to obtain their return for the city of Dublin. The final
result of the elections secured to the ministry a decided majority, in
so far as England was concerned.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.—CONTEST FOR THE ELECTION OF SPEAKER.

Parliament met on the 19th of February. The attendance in the house of
commons on the first day was more numerous than had ever been witnessed,
even on the discussion of any great political or party question, it
being determined by both parties to contest the election of speaker.
Lord Francis Egerton moved that Sir Charles Manners Sutton should be
called to the chair. The motion was seconded by Sir C. Burrell, who said
that though he had supported Mr. Wynn as a candidate for the chair in
1817, in opposition to the late speaker, he had never found reason to
regret his want of success on that occasion. On the other hand, Mr.
Denison proposed that Mr. Abercromby should take the chair, which motion
was seconded by Mr. Orde. Both these gentlemen expressed the pain which
they felt at being compelled by an imperative sense of public duty to
oppose the re-election of the late speaker, and declared their
hearty concurrence in all that had been said regarding his excellent
qualifications; but they maintained that a great public principle
rendered it necessary that those qualifications should not be taken into
consideration. A debate of considerable length ensued, in which the
two candidates themselves took part. On a division Mr. Abercromby was
elected, three hundred and sixteen voting for him, and three hundred and
six for Sir Charles Sutton. The honourable gentleman was then conducted
to the chair, and next day, appearing at the bar of the house of lords,
he received from the lord-chancellor an assurance of his majesty’s
approval of his election. His election was the first fruits of the
treaty of alliance between the opposition and O’Connell; but the
smallness of the majority by which it was obtained demonstrated to the
opposition that, without his aid, they could never hope to triumph over
the present ministry.




OPENING OF THE SESSION.

His majesty opened the session in person on the 24th of February; the
intervening days from the election of speaker having been employed in
swearing in members of the house of commons. Recently the two houses
of parliament had been destroyed by fire, and temporary rooms had been
fitted up for the accommodation of the British senate. In the lords the
address was moved by the Earl of Hardwicke, and seconded by Lord Gage.
An amendment was moved by Lord Melbourne, which was apparently framed
for the purpose of catching stray votes, by being so constructed that
even its success could not lead to the resignation of the ministry. The
Earl of Ripon and the Duke of Richmond, who had both been connected with
the late government, expressed their intention of supporting ministers,
so far as they could applaud their measures, though they were unable
to promise them full confidence. Finally, the amendment was negatived
without a division.

In the commons, the address was moved by Lord Sandon, and seconded by
Mr. Branston. Lord Morpeth moved an amendment to this effect:—“That
in place of the concluding paragraphs should be substituted words
expressing a trust that his majesty’s councils would be directed in
a spirit of well-considered and effective reform; that, in the same
liberal and comprehensive policy which had dictated the reform of
our representation and tire abolition of negro slavery, the municipal
corporations would be placed under vigilant popular control; that
all the well-founded grievances of the Protestant dissenters would be
removed; that all the abuses in the church which impair its efficiency
in England, and disturb the peace of society in Ireland, would be
corrected; and that the commons beg submissively to add, that they could
not but lament that the progress of these and other reforms should have
been unnecessarily interrupted and endangered by the dissolution of the
late parliament.” The amendment was seconded by Mr. Bannerman, and the
debate was continued by adjournment on the 25th and 26th of February.
The members who took part in it were, for the original address, Sir
Robert Peel, Lord Stanley, Messrs. Pemberton, Richards, Robinson,
Goulburn, and Praed, and Sir James Graham; for the amendment, Lords John
Russell and Howick, Dr. Lushington, and Messrs. Grote, Poulton, Ward,
Ewart, Harvey, Fox Maule, Gisborne, Duncombe, O’Connell, and Sir Samuel
Whalley. On a division, the amendment was carried by a majority of three
hundred and nine against three hundred and two. The majority being so
small, Sir Robert Peel intimated that it was possible he might take the
sense of the house again on the question of bringing up the report; but
next evening he stated that it was not now his intention to do this. The
address, therefore, as amended, was presented to the king, who made the
following reply:—“I thank you sincerely for the assurances which you
have given me, in this loyal and dutiful address, of your disposition to
co-operate with me in the improvement, with a view to the maintenance,
of our institutions in church and state. I learn with regret that you do
not concur with me as to the policy of the appeal which I have earnestly
made to the sense of my people. I never have exercised, and I will never
exercise any of the prerogatives which I hold, excepting for the single
purpose of promoting the great end for which they are entrusted to
me—the public good; and I confidently trust that no measure conducive
to the general interest will be endangered or interrupted in its
progress by the opportunity which I have afforded to my faithful and
loyal subjects of expressing their opinions through the choice of their
representatives in parliament.” On a subsequent day, in answer to some
questions put by Lord John Russell, the premier stated that he had not
felt it his duty, in consequence of the vote on the address, to tender
his resignation; that with respect to the Irish church, he retained
his opinion that ecclesiastical property ought not to be diverted from
ecclesiastical purposes, although any measures not inconsistent with
this principle should have his best consideration; that he had no motive
or intention to obstruct corporation reform; and that, in regard to
a rumour which had been promulgated about another dissolution, and an
alleged intention of government, in case the mutiny bill should not
pass, to keep up a standing army in defiance of parliament, he had never
sanctioned the first either directly or indirectly, and he had never
heard a whisper about the second until it fell from Lord John Russell’s
own lips. These assurances, however, were not sufficient to satisfy the
objections of his political opponents.

The conduct of Sir Robert Peel, in retaining office after an adverse
vote upon the address, became the subject of indignant declamation
throughout the country, and strengthened the general impression that
ministers intended, if possible, to destroy the measures enacted by the
reform bill, and to obstruct all further melioration of the law. It
was true, as the partisans of the government urged, that there were
precedents for the retention of office in the face of adverse votes; but
this was a vote upon the general policy of the government, not upon its
policy in some non-essential particular, and constitutionally decided
that the ministry did not possess the confidence of the commons house
of parliament. According to all rule and precedent, Sir Robert ought
to have resigned. The Duke of Sussex, Lord Holland, the great Fox, and
other statesmen of acknowledged constitutional principles and respect
for public rights, had always maintained these views. The conduct of Sir
Robert and his cabinet was, therefore, justly held to be opposed to the
practice of parliament and the doctrines of the constitution. Much of
the odium of this procedure fell upon the Duke of Wellington, who was
supposed to be the potential adviser of Sir Robert in this matter, and
whose despotic sympathies, betrayed in many ways, gave great offence
to the people. Had not the previous ministers, by their inconsistency,
incompetency, and truckling to O’Connell and the Irish priest party,
forfeited the confidence of a large portion of their British supporters,
the efforts of Sir Robert Peel to retain office in opposition to a
majority of parliament, would have created such a storm of hostility to
him throughout Great Britain, as would have made it difficult for him to
hold any office for many a year.




DISCUSSION IN THE LORDS RESPECTING THE SLAVERY ABOLITION ACT.

On the 27th of February the Earl of Mulgrave, whose efficient
administration of the government of Jamaica had made him an authority
on the West India slavery question, inquired of the secretary for the
colonies, whether it was the intention of the present government
to carry out the measure of emancipation recently passed through
parliament. Lord Mulgrave strongly represented to the house the
apprehensions entertained by the public that, in two respects, the
government would differ from its predecessor:—the appointment of
impartial magistrates—men not holders of slave property; and the
protection of the missionaries, to whom the planters entertained
an unjust prejudice, but who, in the experience of Lord Mulgrave in
Jamaica, were a most useful body of men, who had in no way transgressed
the bounds of their sacred calling in their conduct to slave or master.
To these inquiries and remarks the Earl of Aberdeen replied very much
in the tone and spirit in which he was accustomed to answer questions
when, many years later, during the Russian war, he was prime-minister.
He affected surprise that any one should suppose him an opponent
to freedom; promised everything that popular opinion demanded; but
betrayed, nevertheless, by his sneers and misrepresentations where the
missionaries were concerned, and his deep sympathy with the planters,
that his heart was set against justice and liberty to the poor
apprentices. The Duke of Wellington brusquely said, that he had been
opposed to the philanthropic view of the negro question altogether, but
the bill passed by parliament he would not consent to see made a dead
letter. The duke evidently said what he meant. The well-known honesty of
his character assured the Earl of Mulgrave who accepted the reply. It
was a good sign as to the policy which the cabinet intended to pursue
on this question, that the Marquis of Sligo was requested to retain his
office as Governor of Jamaica. The noble marquis was not an experienced
politician or administrator; but in his management of the difficult and
complicated concerns of Jamaica at that time, he proved himself to be a
man of ability and honour.




MOTION OF THE MARQUIS OF CHANDOS TO REPEAL THE MALT-TAX.

The first proposal which ministers found themselves compelled to resist
proceeded from one of their own supporters, and it was also one in which
their opponents were compelled to join them in resisting. On the 10th of
March, the Marquis of Chandos moved a resolution for the repeal of the
malt-tax, as a source of relief to the agricultural interest. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Handley. Sir Robert Peel, in reply, contended that
the motion, if it was to be made at all, ought not to have been brought
forward till after an authentic declaration of the national means had
been laid before the house. In the course of his speech, Sir Robert Peel
said that if the malt-duty were repealed, there was no alternative but
to have a property-tax to make up the deficiency. Messrs. Cobbett and
Bennett, who supported the motion, saw no objection to such a tax; and
the latter gentleman said that the English landowners were too depressed
in their circumstances to fear anything from the change, as the property
was in the hands of the mortgagees and money-jobbers. The Earl of
Darlington was bound, he said, to vote in favour of the resolution,
however great his reluctance to do anything that might embarrass a
government to which he was friendly, and a minister who, he believed,
would endeavour to effect what he considered best calculated for the
interest of the country. Messrs. C. Wood, Rice, and Poulett Thompson,
all of whom had been connected with the late government, spoke against
the motion; as did also Sir Edward Knatchbull, Sir J. Graham, Mr.
Baring, Sir R. Gresely, and Mr. Grote. The debate was closed by Mr.
Hume, who supported the motion. On a division, however, the motion
was negatived by three hundred and fifty votes against one hundred and
ninety-two. So convincing were Sir Robert Peel’s arguments, that several
members voted with him who had either pledged themselves at their
election to take a different side, or had, at least, induced their
constituents to believe they would.




THE DISSENTERS’ MARRIAGE ACT.

Sir Robert Peel introduced the first important measure of government on
the 17th of March, being a bill to provide relief for those dissenters
who objected to have their marriage rites performed according to the
ritual of the English church. The measure provided that a civil marriage
should take place before a magistrate, who should refer the certificate
to the parish clergyman, by whom it was to be inserted in the parochial
registry. The various bodies of dissenters might, by arrangements of
their own, provide a religious form as a sort of addendum to the civil
ceremony. This brief affair was stated by Sir Robert in a very verbose
speech, in which he showed a desire to conciliate all parties, and an
apprehension that he would fail to conciliate any. Leave was given to
bring in a bill.




REPORT OF COMMISSION REGARDING THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, ETC.

One of the first acts of the new ministry had been the appointment of
a commission, consisting principally of the heads of the church, to
inquire into and report upon the changes which might be effected in
regard to ecclesiastical territory, income, and patronage, so as to
render remuneration and labour more commensurate with each other; to
enforce residence; and to destroy the necessity of pluralities, by
providing for all a sufficient maintenance. The first report of this
commission was presented to the house of commons on the 19th of March,
which proposed a new arrangement of diocesses. As regards emolument, the
principle adopted was to proportion, as far as might be, the revenues
of the bishops to their several stations and duties; not making any
reduction where the income did not exceed £5500, and making an addition
where it amounted to £4500. The division of large parishes was further
recommended; the revenues of new incumbents being supplied from prebends
and other preferments which might fall.

On the 12th of March the attorney-general obtained leave to bring in
a bill for improving, the administration of justice in ecclesiastical
causes, which was one of the measures alluded to in the speech from the
throne. On the same day also he obtained leave to bring in another bill,
having for its object the better maintenance of the discipline of the
church of England. On the 24th of March, Sir Robert Peel brought the
subject of the commutation of tithes in England before the house of
commons. After a long statement explanatory of his views, he concluded
by moving the following resolution:—“That it is expedient to give
facilities for the commutation of tithe in the several parishes of
England and Wales, and for a payment in moneys, in substitution thereof
to be allotted on the tithable lands in each parish; such payment to be
subject to variation at stated periods, according to the prices of corn,
or for the allotment of land in lieu of tithe in parishes wherein the
parties concerned may consent to such allotment.” This resolution was
agreed to, and a bill founded on it was ordered to be brought in.




REPEATED DEFEATS OF THE MINISTRY IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

While the ministry, by the introduction of these important measures,
were vindicating their claim to the character of men who in their policy
regarded the prosperity of the country, and were not wedded to anything
which might interfere with its welfare, their conduct in other
matters furnished manifold indications of the same spirit, and hence
disappointed the opposition, which had predicted the continuance and the
restoration of every species of abuse. Several committees which had been
appointed by the late government were re-appointed; and they professed
themselves willing to carry out their well-founded measures. But,
notwithstanding all this, their rule was brief; they were unable to
disarm the spirit of hostility. During the period in which ministers
were proposing their important measures, some minor topics were
introduced, in which they found themselves unable to resist the
numerical force of their opponents. Thus they were left in a minority on
the subject of a petition presented, complaining of Colonel Tremenhere,
an officer in the public service at Chatham, as having interfered
unconstitutionally in the election for that borough, in which election
the government candidate had been returned. Ministers were also left in
a minority, when Mr. Tooke moved an “address to his majesty, beseeching
him to grant his royal charter of incorporation to the London
University, as approved in the year 1831, by the then law-officers of
the crown, and containing no other restriction than against conferring
degrees in divinity and medicine.” Mr. Goulburn moved, as an amendment,
that the address should be for copies of the memorials which had been
presented against granting the charter, together with an account of the
proceedings before the privy-council; but, on a division, the motion was
carried by a majority of two hundred and forty-six against one-hundred
and thirty-six. On the 1st of April the king returned this answer to the
address:—“That his majesty, desirous that such a subject should receive
the fullest consideration, had referred it to his privy-council; that
the reply of his privy-council had not as yet been communicated to him;
but that his majesty begged to assure his most faithful commons that he
should call upon his privy-council without delay, for a report of the
proceedings they had adopted on the subject, in order to enable his
majesty to judge what would be the best mode of carrying into effect
the wishes of his faithful commons respecting a charter to the London
University, and what might be the conditions on which it should be
granted.” These questions, however, did not distinctly affect the
government. Frequent hints, indeed, were given to Sir Robert Peel that
he ought to retire; but as yet no motion was ventured which, if carried,
must necessarily have led to that result. On one occasion, Lord John
Russell having remarked that all the prerogatives of the crown seemed in
a fair way of being successively compromised, in the course of what he
called an attempt on the part of the administration to govern with
a majority of tire house of commons against them, Sir Robert-Peel
complained that the opposition did not bring the question of the
retirement of the ministry to a fair issue. No one was more anxious for
this, he said, than he himself was; and if the opposition could not find
a day for the purpose, he would facilitate their views. He asked Lord
John Russell whether, if ministers had thrown up the government, he
would not have turned round on them and said, “You are guilty of a
cowardly abandonment of office; you never meant to remove grievances; we
never brought forward a direct vote of censure; we were prepared to hear
your propositions; but you yourself have shrunk from the trial.” Mr.
Hume admitted that ministers had reason to complain that the question
had not yet been brought to an issue; but he hinted at the same time the
opposition would take their own time and day for the attack. Lord John
Russell said, that if a direct vote of want of confidence had been
brought forward, ministers might have gained a number of votes on the
plea of being unfairly treated. They might have said to the opposition,
“You now preclude us from being heard; you want to condemn us without
trial; and to reject our reforms before you are able to judge of them.”
 He would not expose himself to the chance of receiving such an answer;
he would wait for the promised measures of reform. The reply sent by
the king to the house of commons on the 1st of April created great
dissatisfaction in the minds of the liberal members, and among their
supporters in the country. It was denounced as another instance of
“back-stairs government” by many; this phrase was intended to describe
the influence of the queen, and certain ladies of her suite, in
political matters. Many of the people, however, absolved the court from
all blame, and attributed what so much offended them to the despotic
opinions and dispositions of the cabinet, especially “the duke” and Sir
Robert Peel. This feeling was chiefly directed against his grace.




THE QUESTION OF THE APPROPRIATION OF THE SURPLUS OF THE REVENUES OF THE
IRISH CHURCH.

On the 20th of March Sir Henry Hardinge, the secretary for Ireland,
brought forward, in a committee of the whole house, the ministerial plan
for settling the Irish tithe question, and moved a resolution to this
effect:—“That it is expedient to abolish tithes in Ireland, and to
authorise a composition in lieu of it, charged upon the land, and
payment to the tithe-owner; that such rent-charge might be redeemed, and
the redemption money invested in land or otherwise, for the benefit of
the persons entitled to such composition; and that the arrears of
tithe due in the year 1834 should be made up from what remained of the
£1.000,000 advanced by parliament to the clergy of Ireland in 1833.”
 After a determined resistance from a large portion of the radical
members, the motion was carried by a majority of fifteen. This would
probably not have been the case, had not Lord John Russell given Sir
Robert Peel a qualified support.

Ministers had brought forward everything that could be done practically
to remove the evils attending the collection of tithes in Ireland; and
the opposition propounded no measure which would go further in the way
of securing or arranging the payment of tithe to the Protestant church;
they even complained that the new government was merely imitating the
conduct of its predecessors. Their only position now was to maintain
that it was not enough merely to place on a better and surer foundation
the collection of tithe for the Protestant church, but that, to some
extent at least, though to what extent nobody attempted to define, it
must cease to exist as tithe payable to the Protestant church, and be
applied to purposes in which Catholics might have an equal interest.
This ground was now taken by the opposition. On the 30th of March Lord
John Russell moved the following resolution:—“That this house resolve
itself into a committee of the whole house, in order to consider the
present state of the church establishment in Ireland, with the view of
applying any surplus of the revenues not required for the spiritual care
of its members to the general education of all classes of the people,
without distinction of religious persuasion.” Lord John Russell said,
that if the house should resolve itself into a committee on the motion,
and should the resolution be carried in a committee of the whole house,
he would move an address to the crown, embodying that resolution with an
humble entreaty to his majesty, that he would be pleased to enable the
house to carry it into effect—for a measure of this kind should be
introduced by a message from the crown. The debate which followed was
continued by adjournment up to the 2nd of April. Sir Edward Knatchbull,
who followed Lord John Russell, objected to the proposition itself, he
said, on the distinct ground that he was not prepared to apply church
property to other than Protestant church purposes. Mr. Ward, whose
motion of a similar character had been set aside by the appointment of
the commission, entered at great length into the general question of the
right of the state to appropriate church property to whatever purposes
it thought proper; contending that no member should give his vote
without remembering the undoubted right which parliament possessed of
dealing with all corporate property as the welfare of the community
might require, and of so disposing of it as to accommodate its
distribution to that state of things which the alterations of time
might unfold, or the progress of society occasion. Sir James Graham, in
opposing the motion, showed that the income of the Irish church did not
amount to so large a sum as represented by opposition; and contended
that the evils of the proposed appropriation would not be limited to
Ireland, but would extend to England: the church of England would not
only be endangered by it, but ultimately destroyed. Lord Howick spoke
in favour of the resolution, but at the same time disclaimed all
participation in any wish that it should be the means of turning out the
ministry. Messrs Shiei, Poulter, and Wood also supported the resolution;
and Messrs. Lefroy and Gladstone, and Sir R. Inglis spoke against it.
Sir William Follett, the solicitor-general, followed on the same side as
the latter. Mr. O’Connell, after reiterating his charge of misrule, said
that he would avoid any discussion upon tithes, and content himself with
laying down the broad principle that the emoluments of a church ought
not to be raised from a people who did not belong to it. Ireland did
not ask a Catholic establishment; the Irish desired political equality
alone; they would not accept a shilling for their church. Their church
was unpolluted by the mammon of unrighteousness; the voluntary principle
had answered every purpose of the Catholics, and they desired no
connexion with the state in matters of religion. It was said, he
continued, that the number of Protestants was on the increase in
Ireland; he contended that the reverse was the case. It was said, also,
that there was danger in giving the Catholics ascendancy; they had been
in power three times since the Reformation, and they had not persecuted
the Protestants. The address of Mr. O’Connell aided very much in
deciding the question against the government. His protestations of
moderation as to the desires of enlightened Roman Catholics, and his
disclaimers of any wish for the ascendancy of his church, produced an
effect favourable to Lord John’s motion among such liberal members of
the house as possessed little knowledge of ecclesiastical history. The
protestations of Mr. O’Connell were as insincere as his statements were
historically untrue. His church had never been in power without efforts
to persecute; and while he made the voluntary principle his confession
of faith, it was notorious to the leading Whigs that his pet measure
was the purchase of glebes for the Irish priesthood by the funds of
the state, and the further endowment of Maynooth College on an enlarged
scale. After various addresses, especially one in a very defiant strain
by Sir Robert Peel, Lord John Russell briefly replied, and the motion
was carried by a majority of three hundred and twenty-two against two
hundred and eighty-nine.

The next step was to consider the resolution in committee; and Sir
Robert Peel proposed that the committee should not be taken till the
following Monday; but the opposition, flushed with victory, would not
consent to a single day’s intermission. They insisted that the committee
should be taken that very day, which was done; and the debate continued
by adjournment on the 5th. In the committee, Lord John Russell
substituted “moral and religious instruction” for “general education.”
 On a division in the committee, two hundred and sixty-two voted in
favour of the resolution, and two hundred and thirty-seven against it.
In the meantime the opposition had partly changed their intended plan
of operation. It had been announced by them that the carrying of the
resolution would be followed up by an address to the crown; but Lord
John Russell now gave notice that he would interpose another step
between the house and the throne, by asking the former to pledge itself
to this further resolution:—“That it is the opinion of this house
that no measure upon the subject of tithes in Ireland can lead to a
satisfactory and final adjustment, which does not embody the principle
contained in the foregoing resolution.” Sir Robert Peel allowed the
report to be brought up without a division, but he said that he would
certainly divide the house on the new resolution. In support of it, Lord
John Russell treated it as a necessary corollary of what the house had
already voted; it behoved the house, he said, to continue the work which
they had begun, and to say that the principle which they had declared to
be essential to the maintenance of peace and the due administration of
justice in Ireland, should be carried into effect by some legislative
measure. The resolution was opposed by Sir Robert Peel and Mr. George
Sinclair; while Messrs. Spring Rice, Perrin, and Gisborne supported it.
On a division, the resolution was carried by a majority of two hundred
and eighty-five against two hundred and fifty-eight.




RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS, AND RESTORATION OF LORD MELBOURNE’S CABINET.

{WILLIAM IV. 1835—1836}

The majorities of the opposition caused the resignation of ministers. On
the meeting of the house, April 8th, Sir Robert Peel stated that he and
his colleagues had placed their offices at the disposal of the king.
On the same evening a similar announcement was made in the lords by
the Duke of Wellington. After Sir Robert Peel’s announcement of his
resignation, the house of commons met on the 9th for an election ballot,
and then adjourned till the 13th. On that day the house was informed by
Sir Robert Peel that he had received an intimation from his majesty that
the new arrangements were in progress, but were not completed, and the
house again adjourned till the 16th. On the 16th Sir Robert was under
the necessity of making a similar communication, and the house adjourned
to the 18th, on which day the new administration was announced in both
houses of parliament. The new cabinet was formed as follows:—Viscount
Melbourne resumed his place as first lord of the treasury; Mr.
Spring-Rice became chancellor of the exchequer; Lord Auckland was the
first lord of the admiralty; Sir John Cam Hobhouse, president of the
board of control; Mr. Poulett Thompson, president of the board of trade;
Lord Duncannon was placed at the head of the woods and forests; Lord
John Russell took his place in the home department; the colonial office
was given to Mr. Charles Grant; the seals of the foreign office
were again entrusted to Lord Palmerston; Viscount Howick was
secretary-at-war; Sir Henry Parnell was paymaster-general; Mr. Cutlar
Ferguson, judge-advocate-general; and Sir John Campbell and Mr.
Rolfe again became attorney and solicitor-general. There was no
lord-chancellor appointed; the great seal was put in commission, the
commissioners being the master of the rolls, the vice-chancellor,
and Mr. Justice Bosanquet; Lord Mulgrave was made lord-lieutenant of
Ireland, with Lord Plunkett once more as chancellor, and Lord Morpeth
as Irish secretary. Mr. Perrin was named attorney-general, and Mr.
O’Loghlin, solicitor-general. The lord-advocate of Scotland was Mr. J.
A. Murray; the Marquis of Conyngham was postmaster-general; and the
Marquis of Wellesley, lord-chamberlain. After the announcement had
been made, the house adjourned to the 30th of April, but with an
understanding that no public business should be undertaken till the 12th
of May. In the upper house Lord Alvanley asked Lord Melbourne how the
ministry stood in regard to Mr. O’Connell and his followers. He wished
to know whether government had or had not secured their aid; and
if they had, the terms on which that support had been obtained. Lord
Brougham said that these questions were improper, and advised Lord
Melbourne not to answer them. Lord Melbourne, however, was more
courteous. The noble lord had asked him, he said, how far he coincided
in opinion with Mr. O’Connell? His answer was, “Not at all. As for the
question as to ‘whether I have taken any means to secure the assistance
of Mr. O’Connell, and if so, on what terms?’ I answer that I do not know
whether I shall have his assistance or not. I have taken no means to
secure it, nor have I said anything from which any inference could be
drawn in order to secure that individual’s support.” As to tithes,
Lord Melbourne said, that he did not hesitate to say that he considered
himself pledged to act on the resolution of the other house. After the
houses had adjourned, the new ministers who belonged to the commons
sought to be re-elected; but although they were in general successful,
they encountered some failures. The severest stroke of all occurred in
the case of Lord John Russell himself: he again presented himself to the
electors of the southern division of Devonshire; but he was defeated
by Mr. Parker, and he did not procure a seat till after parliament
had reassembled. Colonel Fox, member for Stroud, accepted the Chiltern
hundreds in his favour, and became secretary to the ordnance. By a
similar negotiation, Mr. Kennedy, member for Tiverton, made room
for Lord Palmerston. These failures were very discouraging, and gave
symptoms of the alarm which had been created in the public mind.




MUNICIPAL REFORM AND THE IRISH CHURCH.

When the new ministers explained what they intended to do this session,
it was found that the only measures which they meant to bring forward
were a bill for the reform of municipal corporations, and a bill founded
on the late resolutions of the commons regarding tithes. Changes in the
mode of electing municipal authorities and in the general government of
boroughs had become inevitable from, and after the passing of the reform
bill. A commission had been appointed, in 1833, to inquire into the
state of corporations in England and Wales; and on more than one
occasion his majesty had alluded, in his royal speeches, to the objects
of the commission. The report of the commissioners had not been made
when Sir Robert Peel went out of office, but soon after they framed a
general report, besides separate reports on individual corporations.
The former, and several of the latter, were presented in May, and
the general report thus concluded:—“In conclusion, we report to your
majesty, that there prevails amongst the inhabitants of a great
majority of the incorporated towns a general, and in our opinion a just,
dissatisfaction with their municipal institutions; a distrust of the
self-elected municipal councils, whose powers are subject to no popular
control, and whose acts and proceedings, being secret, are unchecked by
the influence of public opinion; a distrust of the municipal magistracy,
tainting with suspicion the local administration of justice, and
often accompanied with contempt of the persons by whom the law is
administered; a discontent under the burdens of local taxation, while
revenues that ought to be applied for the public advantage are diverted
from their legitimate use, and are sometimes wastefully bestowed for the
benefit of individuals—sometimes squandered for purposes injurious to
the character and morals of the people. We therefore feel it to be
our duty to represent to your majesty that the existing municipal
corporations of England and Wales neither possess nor deserve the
confidence or respect of your majesty’s subjects, and that a thorough
reform must be effected before they can become what we humbly submit to
your majesty they ought to be—useful and efficient instruments of local
government.” Lord John Russell, proceeding on this recommendation,
on the 5th of June detailed the plan of municipal government which
ministers intended to provide for one hundred and eighty-three
corporations. After detailing the many abuses which existed, he said
that, instead of the present irregular government of corporations, it
was proposed that there should be one uniform system of government—one
uniform franchise for the purpose of election: and the like description
of officers, with the exception of some of the larger places, in which
it might be desirable to have a recorder, or some other magistrates
different from the other smaller boroughs. In regard to the
qualification of electors, he said it had been determined not to adhere
to the parliamentary franchise. By the proposed bill they would be
obliged to pay the borough rates, and accord to the established
practice of the English government, and the acknowledged and recognised
principles of the British constitution. He thought it fair that they
should have a voice in the election of those by whom the rates were
made, and by whom the corporate funds were expended. As, however,
the electors ought to be the fixed inhabitants of the town, known to
contribute to the rates, it was proposed that they should be persons
who had been rated for three years, and had regularly paid those rates.
Provision was also made in the bill for the case of those individuals
who might have omitted to pay their rates. In regard to the governing
body, there was to be one only—a mayor and common-council. The
common-council would consist of various numbers, generally regulated by
the population of the different places; their numbers would vary from
fifteen in the smallest places to ninety in the largest. It was proposed
that the largest towns, of which there were only twenty, should be
divided into wards, and a certain proportion, which would be regulated
by the schedules to the bill, of common-councillors should be chosen
in each ward. In all the rest of the boroughs it was proposed that the
whole common-council should be elected for three years. They were to be
elected for three years; but one-third were to go out of office every
year, thus taking care that two-thirds of the common-council should
have experience in the transaction of town business. The mayor was to be
elected annually, and he was to be, during the time of his mayoralty,
a justice of peace for the borough and likewise for the county. The
town-council was to have the power of appointing a town-clerk and
treasurer, and it was left to their option whether they would retain
their present town-clerks in their office. If, however, another was
chosen, and the dismissal of the present town-clerk was attended with
any pecuniary loss to the individual, he was to receive compensation.
All the old modes of acquiring the freedom of a corporation, such
as birth and apprenticeship, were to be abolished; but all pecuniary
rights, such as rights of common, exemption from tolls, &c., would
be preserved to the persons now enjoying them, during their lives; in
future, however, no person should be a burgess, or admitted into the
corporations, except in consequence of the permanent occupancy of a
house, and the payment of the borough rates. All exclusive rights of
trade were to be abolished, due regard being paid to the pecuniary
interests of existing individuals. It was proposed, touching the
pecuniary affairs of corporations, that town-councils should have the
power to appoint committees in order to manage their financial matters;
that their accounts should be regularly audited; and that they should
no longer be secret accounts, but regularly brought before the public.
Town-councils were further to become the trustees of charitable funds,
appointing a committee, if they thought proper, to manage them. For the
management of these funds a separate secretary and treasurer was to
be appointed, and provision was made for auditing them in a different
manner from the general accounts of the borough. The number of persons
chosen for the management of these charitable estates were not to be
less than fifteen, and they were to be chosen from among the general
body of burgesses. The police, as far as regarded the watching of the
towns, were to be placed under the control of the town-council.
The power of granting alehouse licences was also to be left to
town-councils, or to a committee chosen by them from their own numbers,
to grant these licences. It was proposed to divide the one hundred and
eighty-three boroughs into two schedules; the greater part of these, one
hundred and twenty-nine, were to be placed in schedule A, and would have
a commission of the peace granted them. The remaining fifty-four might
also, if they chose, have a commission of the peace on application to
the crown. With respect to those in schedule A, the town-councils were
to have the power of recommending to the crown certain persons whom
they thought proper to receive the commission of the peace within the
borough; but they were not to have the power of electing magistrates in
such sense as that the assent of the crown should not be necessary to
perfect the election. These magistrates were not to have the power
of sitting in quarter-sessions; but the bill enacted that, on a
town-council applying to the crown for the establishment of a court of
quarter-sessions, and stating that they were willing to continue the
salary paid to the recorder, the recorder should be retained if a
barrister of five years’ standing. With respect to other towns desiring
to have quarter-sessions, but which either had no recorder, or where the
recorder was not a barrister of five years’ standing, it was intended
that the crown should in future have the nomination of that officer. Sir
Robert Peel said that he would present no impediment to the introduction
of the bill, but would reserve all consideration of its details, every
one of which deserved a separate discussion, to a future stage of
proceedings. The bill was read a second time, without debate and without
opposition, on the 15th of June, and the committee began on tire 22nd
of the same month. The first disputed point regarded the fixing of the
boundaries of those boroughs whose limits had not been defined in the
act passed for that purpose in reference to the reform bill. The bill
provided, “That they should be, and remain the same as they are now
taken to be, until such time as his majesty shall have been pleased to
issue his letters-patent under the great seal, that he may be certified
concerning the fit metes and bounds to be allotted unto the same
respectively, and until such further time as it shall please his
majesty, by advice of his privy-council, upon inspection of the return
thereof made by the commissioners unto whom such letters-patent
shall have been directed, to declare fit metes and bounds of the said
last-named boroughs, and the metes and bounds of the said last-named
boroughs thenceforward, for the purposes of this act, shall be the same
so declared as last aforesaid.” This was objected to by several members,
as placing a dangerous power where it ought not to be placed. Sir Robert
Peel said, he would consent that the boundaries of the existing boroughs
should continue as they were until they should be otherwise settled by
parliament: and Lord Stuart Dudley, although a friend of the ministry,
moved an amendment to that effect. He was supported by Sir James Graham,
Mr. Goulburn, and other members, who argued, that the clause gave the
crown a power which the crown ought not to possess, and devolved upon
the executive, duties which clearly belonged to the legislature. Lord
John Russell said, he had no objection to add words to the effect that
his majesty having appointed a commission to settle the boundaries,
the report of that commission should be laid before parliament at its
meeting, and the boundaries therein named should be and remain the
boundaries of these boroughs, unless parliament should otherwise decide.
Lord Dudley Stuart, however, pressed his motion to a division; but it
was lost by a majority of two hundred and fifty-nine against one hundred
and ninety-two. A more important discussion took place on the clause
which affected the rights of existing freemen, and the future modes of
acquiring freedom in corporations. The bill enacted, “That after the
passing of this act no person shall be elected, admitted, or enrolled a
citizen, freeman, liveryman, or burgess, of any borough, or by any name,
a member of any body corporate in respect of any right or title other
than by occupancy and payment of rates within such borough, according to
the meaning and provisions of the act.” Sir William Follett opposed
this sacrifice of freemen; and he moved an amendment to the effect
of preserving their rights without interfering with the municipal
government of corporate bodies. Government vehemently opposed this
amendment; but various members accustomed to go with ministers declared
their intention to vote for it. Sir James Graham thought it would
simplify the question if the amendments were limited to the rights of
freemen under the reform bill, because the question of inchoate rights
would arise more properly under another clause. Sir William Follett
acceded to this suggestion; but Lord John Russell still maintained that
the provision contained in the clause was a necessary consequence of
adopting this new municipal franchise; and, if so, ministers were not
proposing it for the sake of altering the reform bill, but for the sake
of amending the municipal corporations. The amendment said that the
clause must not affect either the rights of property or the privileges
to which the freemen were at present entitled. Many of these rights
and privileges were of a description hurtful to the inhabitants of towns
generally; many of them consisted in a monopoly of trades; and many in
an exemption of tolls to which the inhabitants generally were liable.
Lord Stanley supported the amendment: he could not see how the clause
came to appear in a bill which professed to be a measure to provide for
the regulation of the municipal corporations in England and Wales. On
a division the clause was carried by a majority of two hundred and
seventy-eight against two hundred and thirty-two.

The question, however, was again raised by Mr. Praed, who moved the
following amendment:—“Provided always, and be it enacted, that in every
borough, whether the same be a county of itself or not, where the right
to vote in the election of members or a member to serve in parliament
for such borough, is, according to the laws now in force, enjoyed by
persons entitled to vote in virtue of some corporate right, nothing
whatsoever in this act contained shall in anywise hinder or prevent any
person or persons who now enjoy, or who hereafter, according to the laws
now in force, might have acquired such corporate right, from enjoying
or acquiring such corporate right for the purpose of voting in such
elections.” In opposing this amendment, Lord John Russell denied that he
was interfering by this municipal bill with the parliamentary franchise:
he was not enacting that there should be no freemen; and, therefore,
though there would no longer be freemen voting for members of
parliament, that was only an incidental consequence of the principle of
the bill, which principle was again brought into action, not with a
view to parliamentary franchise, but solely with a view to municipal
government. The amendment was lost by a majority of two hundred and
thirty-four against two hundred and sixty-two. Another amendment, moved
by Mr. Ponsonby, for the purpose of protecting inchoate rights of
freemen, was equally unsuccessful, being negatived by a majority of two
hundred and thirty-four to two hundred and three. The bill arranged all
the boroughs into two classes, according to their population, the
larger boroughs being divided into wards. In all these boroughs the bill
required no qualification in the common-councilmen, except that of being
ratepayers. Sir Robert Peel moved as an amendment, “Provided such
members of council who shall be elected in boroughs divided into wards
shall, at the time of their election, be seized or possessed of personal
property of the clear value of £1000, or that they shall be rated on
a rental of not less than £40 a-year: and also, provided that all such
members elected in towns not divided into wards shall, at the time of
their election, be seized or possessed of property, real or personal,
of the clear value of £500, or be rated to the relief of the poor on a
rental of not less than £20.” Sir Robert founded his amendment on what
had been the usual practice in enactments regarding corporate towns.
It was true that, according to ancient practice, no pecuniary
qualifications were required for members of corporations; but the spirit
of the charter was, that persons fit for their respective offices
should be appointed; and he apprehended that, even in those self-elected
corporations, whatever might be their defects in other respects, care
was taken to elect persons of wealth and respectability. In opposing the
amendment, Lord John Russell, Sir J. C. Hobhouse, Mr. Blackburne, and
other members, argued, that it was in contradiction to the spirit of
the bill, not agreeable to the provisions of the original charters,
incapable of being generally and fitly applied, and not productive of
any practical benefit. It was lost by a majority of two hundred and
sixty-seven against two hundred and four. On the same day Lord Stanley
moved an amendment on the clause which fixed the periods of election,
which he proposed should take place only every second year; but this
also was lost by a majority of two hundred and twenty against one
hundred and seventy-six. Mr. Grote attempted to engraft on this part of
the bill a modification of his favourite measure of vote by ballot; but
the amendment was withdrawn. A division took place on the clause of the
bill which declared that the town-clerk should be removable at pleasure;
but it was retained by a majority of sixty. Sir James Graham was also
unsuccessful in an amendment on the clause which gave to the set of men
who should once get into office a formidable instrument for maintaining
their predominance, by vesting in the council the power of granting or
refusing all licences within the limits of the borough; the original
clause was retained by a majority of forty-five. The labours of the
committee were finished, and the report received on the 17th of July;
and on the 20th the bill was read a third time without a division, the
opponents of the bill leaving it to the house of lords to accomplish
those ameliorations in its enactments which they deemed requisite.

The day fixed for the second reading of the municipal bill in the house
of lords was the 28th of July. On that day petitions were presented
against it from Coventry, Doncaster, Lancaster, Worcester, Lincoln, and
other corporations, praying to be heard against the bill by counsel;
and from Bristol and Liverpool, praying to be heard against it by their
respective recorders. It was moved, that the petitioners should be heard
by counsel, which Lord Melbourne opposed. The Duke of Wellington and
other peers contended that it would be a denial of justice to refuse to
hear parties against a measure which affected their character as well
as their interests. Lord Brougham also said that there would be no
objection to counsel being heard, provided the matter was so arranged
as to prevent that hearing from becoming interminable. He suggested that
two counsel should state all that was to be stated for the whole of the
corporations. In this suggestion Lord Melbourne concurred, and it was
agreed to by the whole house, after which the bill was read a second
time _pro forma_. The hearing of the counsel commenced on the 30th of
July, and was continued up to the 1st of August. The two gentlemen who
appeared for the corporations were Sir Charles Wetherell and Mr. Knight,
who insisted largely on the general character of the bill, as putting
an end to all rights enjoyed under any corporate charter in the kingdom;
and attacked the reports made by the commission regarding the different
boroughs. They claimed a right to tender evidence in order to prove the
ignorance and partiality with which the corporations had been treated.
After the counsel had concluded their argument, Lord Melbourne gave
notice that he would oppose any motion for allowing evidence to be
adduced in defence of any corporation. Notwithstanding this notice,
however, on the 3rd of August, after his lordship had moved that the
house should go into committee on the bill, the Earl of Carnarvon moved,
as an amendment, that evidence should now be taken at the bar of the
house in support of the allegations of the several petitions. After a
long debate on this counter-motion, which was strenuously opposed by
the ministers and their party, the house determined in its favour by a
majority of one hundred and twenty-four to fifty-four.

Evidence was now heard at the bar, which occupied the house from the
5th to the 8th of August. Witnesses were examined in relation to about
thirty boroughs; and the evidence went to show that the commissioners
had acted like attorneys employed to get up a case, and with but little
prudence, since they chiefly derived their information from partizans
of their own opinions. The evidence having been finished, the house
went into committee on the bill on the 12th of August, when the Duke
of Newcastle proposed the rejection of the bill, by moving that the
committee should be taken that day’six months. He did not, however,
press his motion to a division, the conservative peers having resolved
to pass the bill, in so far as they thought it might do good, after
stripping it of those provisions which seemed to be most operative for
evil. Lord Lyndhurst proposed the first alteration; He moved a clause
preserving to all freemen, to every person who might be a freeman but
for this measure, and to their widows and children, or the husband
of their daughters or widows, the same rights in the property of the
boroughs as would have belonged to them by its laws and customs if this
act had not been passed. He did not refer, he said, to general corporate
property, but to individual and specific rights of property enjoyed by
freemen in many boroughs—rights of commons and others. Lord Melbourne
opposed the motion. He would not be disinclined, he said, to consider
a proposal for extending the period during which these rights should be
preserved further than it was now fixed by the bill; but he could
not consent to preserve in perpetuity rights which he believed to be
prejudicial both to the freemen themselves and to the whole community.
The Earls of Haddington and Ripon supported the amendment, while
Lords Plunkett and Brougham, and the Marquis of Lansdowne opposed it,
contending that the rights to which the bill put an end were not rights
of property. On a division the amendment was carried by one hundred
and thirty against thirty-seven; and, thus victorious, Lord Lyndhurst
immediately moved another, to preserve the freemen their parliamentary
franchise as secured by the reform bill. Lord Melbourne was hostile to
this amendment; but as there was no hope of success, he did not call
for a division, and it was adopted. Another amendment, moved by
Lord Lyndhurst, which required a certain qualification in the town
councillors, after stern opposition from the ministers, was carried by
a majority of one hundred and twenty to thirty-nine. The next alteration
proposed by the opposition peers was an amendment which provided that a
fixed proportion of the town-council should hold office for life. This
was described by the supporters of the bill as being more glaringly
inconsistent with the principle of the bill than any of those which had
been adopted. To agree to it, they said, was to lose the bill; but it
was carried by one hundred and twenty-six against thirty-nine. Further
amendments proposed by the conservative peers were agreed to without
much discussion, and without any division. The provisions which declared
that persons who were at present justices of the peace under borough
charters should cease to be so in future, were struck out, as were the
clauses which took from the county magistrates, and gave to the new
town-councils the power of granting licenses. The ecclesiastical
patronage of the town-council was further limited to the members of the
church of England; and it was decided that town-clerks should hold
their offices during good behaviour. All towns containing six thousand
inhabitants instead of twelve thousand were to be divided into wards;
and the number of councillors allotted to each was to be fixed by a
compound ratio of members and property. Finally, instead of the power of
dividing boroughs into wards, and fixing the number of councillors which
each ward should return, being left to the king in council, who could
only act through commissioners, it was given to the revising barristers;
and instead of the determination of the boundaries of the burgal
territory being left to the government of the new councils, the peers
retained it in the hands of parliament. The bill, as amended, was passed
by the house of lords on the 28th of August, and the amendments were
brought before the commons on the 31st. Lord John Russell in bringing
them before the house, said that the lords, by their mode of proceeding,
had caused their own amendments to be viewed in a more unfavourable
light than would have belonged to them, if they had merely been the
result of calm deliberation. The question, however, for the house was,
whether the bill even as altered, might not be moulded into an efficient
instrument of good municipal government. He would not recommend the
adoption of the amendments by which town-clerks were made irremovable,
and by which borough magistrates who were now justices by virtue of
their offices, should continue to be so. Neither was he favourable
to the provision inserted by the lords, that a certain number of
councillors, under the name of aldermen, should be elected for life; he
would rather propose that the same number of members of the town-council
as the lords proposed should be elected for life, should be chosen for
a period of six years, and that one half should always be made at ‘the
expiration of three years. Another amendment, from which he did not
intend to dissent altogether, regarded the divisions of towns into
wards; he proposed that instead of six thousand inhabitants there
should be nine thousand in any borough so divided. As regards the lords’
amendment, which gave the crown the power of nominating justices, he
proposed that the house should not agree with the alteration. In most
of the other amendments he concurred; but he would not ask the house
to accede to the provision which limited the exercise of ecclesiastical
patronage to such members of the town-councils as might belong to the
church of England, or to that clause which perpetuated the exemption
from toll enjoyed by freemen in certain boroughs. The radical section
of the commons blamed ministers for conceding too much, and indulged in
violent language against the house of lords. Mr. Roebuck asked why the
real representatives of the people should bear the insults of the lords,
when they had the power to crush them? He was an advocate for democracy,
and the sooner they brought the matter to an issue the better. It was
necessary to stir up the people upon this subject to something like a
revolution. On the part of the conservative members of the house there
was, also, a difference of opinion; some thought that the amendments of
the lords should be preserved in all their integrity, while others
were of opinion that the modifications proposed by ministers should be
adopted.

Sir Robert Peel, after entering at length into the merits of the
amendments adopted by the lords, in which he generally concurred,
proposed an additional and alternative qualification for voters—namely,
the being rated in £30 in the larger, and £15 in the smaller boroughs.
Ministers acceded to this. But there was a greater difficulty
encountered in dealing with the exercise of ecclesiastical patronage.
Lord John Russell proposed the rejection of the amendment of the lords
on this subject; but Mr. Spring Rice proposed an expedient, which was
ultimately adopted, to insert a clause directing the ecclesiastical
patronage belonging to boroughs to be sold, and the price to be invested
for the purpose of being applied to the public good of the boroughs. The
amendments of the commons were taken into consideration by the lords on
the 4th of September, and were agreed to with few exceptions. They still
retained, however, their original amendments providing that justices
should be named by the crown, and that the division into wards should
begin with boroughs containing a population of six thousand. On the 7th
of September the commons agreed to the bill as it had been returned to
them from the house of lords, and in that shape it finally passed.

In the meantime, while the lords were occupied in the consideration
of the municipal bill, the commons were occupied with the Irish church
bill. Lord Morpeth brought this measure forward on the 26th of June, and
in doing so, he stated that, in conformity with the bill of last year,
and of that which the late government had contemplated, he proposed to
convert the existing composition into an annual rent-charge, payable by
the owners of the first estate of inheritance, or such other equivalent
estate as would be defined by the bill, equal to seven-tenths of the
amount of composition, or £70 for every £100, charging the cost of
collection, to the amount of sixpence in the pound, on the tithe-owners.
He thought it advisable to make a distinction not only between existing
and future clerical incumbents, but also between clergymen and lay
impropriators; and he proposed that the existing clerical incumbent
should receive £73 8s. for every £100 of composition, the additional
five per cent, being charged upon the perpetuity purchase-fund. As the
machinery of the bill, he said, was similar to that of last year, he
did not feel called upon to enter into any of the details respecting the
real charges payable to the crown, and the investments which would be
placed under the management of the commissioners of land revenue. The
bill would authorise a revision and revaluation of benefices for the
tithe composition; and it was likewise proposed to extend the provisions
of Lord Tenterden’s act for the limitation of suits to Ireland, in the
same way as it was included in the bill of last year. By the report of
the commissioners of public instruction, the members of the established
church amounted to 853,064, the presbyterians to 642,356, and other
dissenters to 21,808 persons; tire number of Roman Catholics was
6,427,712, in other words, the members of the established church
amounted to 853,064, and the number of those who dissented was
7,091,876. The distribution of the members of the established church,
also, was as disproportionate as their total amount; in the diocese of
Dromore, there were 264 members for every 1000 acres; in the diocese of
Glogher 26 to every 1000 acres, and in the diocese of Tuam there were
only 8 to every 1000 acres. It was proposed, therefore, to suspend
the presentation to every benefice in Ireland where the number of
Protestants did not exceed fifty. In the case of a suspended parish, in
which there was any number of members of the establishment from one to
fifty, the ecclesiastical commissioners would be empowered, subject to
the approbation and consent of the lord-lieutenant in council, either to
assign the cure of souls in that parish to the care of the neighbouring
minister, or else to appoint a separate curate. It would further be
enacted, that, in all parishes where there now existed a church and a
resident officiating minister, a separate curate should be appointed.
When the cure of souls was committed to a neighbouring minister, the
amount of stipend to be given was not to be less than £10, or more than
£50 per annum; and where a separate curate was appointed, the salary was
not to exceed £75 per annum, with permission to live in the glebe-house,
if he undertook to keep it in repair. In every parish where the cure of
souls was committed to a neighbouring minister, or a separate curate,
provision was to be made for the erection of suitable places of worship,
fit to accommodate the probable number of the different congregations.
These places of worship were to be built at a cost not exceeding £100,
or rented at a cost not exceeding £15 per annum. In making all these
provisions the archbishop of the province and the bishops of the
diocesses were to be associated with the ecclesiastical commissioners.
With respect to other parishes, if it should appear, after deducting
thirty per cent, from the existing tithe-composition and the payment
of that tax on ecclesiastical benefices, that the income of any parish
should exceed £300 per annum, the commissioners would be required
to report the circumstance on the voidance of the benefice to the
lord-lieutenant, who would be empowered to make any reduction he might
deem proper. The incomes, however, were in no case to be reduced below
£300 per annum. In cases of livings in the gift of the crown and the
bishops, he thought that it would be acknowledged there should be no
delay in carrying these provisions into effect; but power would be
given to indemnify the owners of lay advowsons, and to charge that
indemnification on the fund which would be created from the various
sources which he had mentioned, and which it was proposed to call “the
reserved fund;” a fund which would be applicable to pay the salaries of
the neighbouring ministers or separate curates—to pay all charges which
might accrue on the suspended parishes, and to pay for the erection
of places of public worship. These purposes having been satisfied,
the surplus fund accruing from year to year was to be applied by the
commissioners of national education in Ireland to the religious and
moral instruction of all classes of the people, without reference to
creeds or sects. The total number of parishes, he continued, that would
come under the operation of the bill, would be eight hundred and sixty.
He had computed the salaries of the curates at £65 each, and after the
existing interests were provided for, there would accrue to the reserved
fund, 47,898, to which there was to be added, on account of indemnified
patronage, £10,178, making the whole amount £58,076. Lord Morpeth added,
that in the report of the committee on public instruction, it was stated
that the Protestants of the church of England were on the increase.
Government was not inattentive to this; and it was proposed that where
it should appear to the ecclesiastical commissioners that the number of
the members of the established church in any of the suspended parishes
had increased to such a degree as to make the provisions of the bill
inadequate to the religious wants of the place, they would be required
to report the circumstance to the lord-lieutenant, and to submit a
proposition to meet the exigency. If the lord-lieutenant approved of
it, the report and the proposition were to be laid on the tables of both
houses of parliament; and the ecclesiastical commissioners, after the
expiration of six months, would be empowered to carry the proposition
into effect, if parliament should not otherwise direct.

The bill was brought in and read a first time. It contained two distinct
sets of provisions—some relating solely to the mode of collecting
tithe, and others which established a new distribution of the church
funds, so as to create a surplus to be applied to other purposes. Sir
Robert Peel gave notice on the 7th of July, that, on the motion for
committing the bill, he would move an instruction to the committee to
divide it into two bills, that he might have an opportunity of rejecting
altogether those parts of the bill which suppressed the Protestant
churches of eight hundred and sixty parishes, appropriating their
revenues to purposes not immediately in connection with the interests
of the established church, and of supporting those provisions in which
he could concur. The bill was read a second time _pro forma_ on the 13th
of July, and the motion to commit it was made on the 21st. Sir Robert
Peel moved the instruction of which he had given notice. Mr. Spring Rice
answered Sir Robert Peel. The debate was continued by adjournment on
the 22nd and 23rd of July, the leading speakers in support of the motion
being Sirs R. H. Inglis and J. Graham, Lord Stanley, and Messrs. Lefroy
and Jackson; while the ministerial side of the question was maintained
by Lords Howick, Morpeth, and J. Russell, and Messrs. Hume, Shiel, and
O’Connell. On a division ministers had a majority of three hundred and
nineteen against two hundred and eighty-two, a majority which secured
the success of the bill in the commons. It passed, in fact, without any
further opposition, the minority declining to discuss details which, in
their opinion, could not be amended except by omitting them. Ministers,
however, seem to have been convinced that Sir Robert Peel was correct
in stating that they would have no surplus, for they introduced a clause
providing that the consolidated fund should immediately begin to make
an annual payment of £50,000, for the purposes of general education in
Ireland, on the faith of the anticipated surplus, from which it was to
be repaid.

The bill passed the commons on the 12th of August, and the second
reading took place in the house of lords on the 20th. No opposition was
made to the second reading; but it was intimated that the opposition
intended in committee to strike out of the bill all the clauses
containing the new scheme of appropriation, and the machinery by which
it was to be worked. The house went into committee on the 24th of
August, and agreed to all the clauses forming the first part of the
measure, with the exception of the provisions for opening compositions
and for taking a new average, both of which were expunged. When the
house arrived at the first of the clauses which formed the new system of
appropriation, the Earl of Haddington moved that they should be omitted.
The bill was defended by the Marquises of Lansdowne, Glarincarde, and
Conyngham, and Lords Plunkett, Brougham, and Glenelg. Lord Melbourne
announced that if the motion were carried he would abandon the bill;
he would not be a party to sending it back to the house of commons in a
shape, both as to form and principle, which would compel that house
to reject it entirely. On a division, the motion to omit all the
appropriation clauses was carried by one hundred and thirty-eight
against forty-one. Ministers now abandoned the bill, being in such
a position, by the Catholic majority in the commons, as rendered
honourable retreat impossible. On the 29th of August the chancellor
of the exchequer brought in a bill empowering the government, on
application from the clergy, and on satisfactory proof being given that
the parties were not in a condition to pay, to suspend the claim for
the instalment which was due from the Irish clergy to the 5th of April,
1846. This bill passed both houses without opposition.




AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.

{WILLIAM IV. 1835—1836}

On the 25th of May the Marquis of Chandos again brought forward the
subject of agricultural distress. The object of his present motion was
to give relief by diminishing the pressure of the local burdens to which
land was subject. The farmer, he said, severely felt the heavy pressure
of the maintenance of prisoners in gaol, and building and repairing
county bridges. He was likewise compelled to perform statute labour
on the highway. He thought all this should be thrown on the general
taxation of the country. He thought also that the duty on windows
in farm-houses, and on horses used in husbandry, should be taken off
entirely. Lord Althorp had made some reductions; but the benefit would
be increased by total relief from these burdens. He moved:—“That an
humble address be presented to his majesty, expressing the deep regret
this house feels at the continuing distressed state of the agricultural
interest of this country, to which the attention of parliament was
called by his majesty’s most gracious speeches from the throne at the
commencement of the preceding and of the present session of parliament;
and humbly to represent the anxious desire of this house that the
attention of his majesty’s government may be directed without delay to
this subject, with a view to the immediate removal of some portion
of those burdens to which the land is subject through the pressure of
general and local taxation.” The motion was seconded by the Earl of
Darlington. Government opposed it on the ground that what was proposed
would give no relief, and that the suggestions at which it pointed
required deliberate consideration. The home-secretary moved an amendment
to the effect, that “the house would direct its early attention to the
recommendations of a committee which sat last session of parliament
upon the subject of county-rates, with a view to the utmost practical
alleviation of those burdens to which the land was subject through the
pressure of local taxation.” Sir Robert Peel supported the amendment,
because the resolution pledged the house to objects which must excite
expectations on the part of the agriculturists which could not,
consistently with public credit, be fulfilled. The Marquis of Chandos,
however, pressed his motion to a division, which was lost by a majority
of two hundred and eleven against one hundred and fifty. In the course
of the debate on this subject, some members urged that all the evil had
arisen from the resumption of cash payments, and that it could only be
cured by some alteration of the currency. On the 1st of June, Mr. Cayley
moved the appointment of “a select committee, to inquire if there be
not effectual means within the reach of parliament to afford substantial
relief to the agriculture of the United Kingdom, and especially to
recommend to the attention of such committee the subject of a silver
standard, or conjoined standard of silver and gold.” Sir Robert Peel
and Mr. P. Thompson opposed the motion; and Sir C. Burrell and Messrs.
Wodehouse, Bennett, and O’Connell supported it; but on a division it was
lost by a majority of two hundred and sixteen against one hundred and
twenty-six.




DISCUSSION REGARDING ORANGE SOCIETIES IN IRELAND.

During this session a series of parliamentary attacks were directed
against the Orange lodges. On the 6th of March, Mr. Shiel moved for
the production of addresses presented to the king from certain Orange
societies, and the answers which had been returned to them. These
papers were granted; but this did not prevent a discussion on the
subject, which was distinguished chiefly by the abuse which the Irish
opposition poured upon the Orangemen. The subject was again brought
forward on the 23rd of March by Mr. Finn, who moved that “a select
committee be appointed to inquire into the nature, character, extent,
and tendency of Orange lodges, associations, or societies in Ireland,
and to report their opinion thereon to the house.” Mr. Maxwell, himself
an Orangeman, seconded this motion; he courted the fullest inquiry, with
a hope that the committee would be constituted in the most impartial
manner. The committee was appointed, and was still proceeding with its
inquiries when, on the 4th of August, Mr. Hume brought part of them
before the house. He had seen in newspapers portions of the evidence,
real or fictitious, taken before the committee, by which it appeared
that Orange lodges had been introduced into the army, and existed in
thirty or forty regiments of the line. These institutions were in direct
violation of general orders issued by the commander-in-chief in 1828 and
1829, which strongly reprobated the practice of holding Orange lodges in
regiments. The lodges, he said, had been formed under warrants granted
for that purpose by the Duke of Cumberland, who was the grand-master of
the Orange body, and a field-marshal. It was true the wan-ants had not
the name of his royal highness upon them; but he found it difficult to
imagine that he was ignorant of the existence of Orange lodges in the
army. Mr. Hume moved a string of eleven resolutions upon this subject.
Mr. Patten, the chairman of the committee to which the house had
referred the inquiry, complained of the manner in which the subject
had been introduced; it was a farce, he said, to appoint a committee to
inquire into a subject, if, when a portion of the evidence was printed,
and the inquiry was still pending, a member was to be permitted to bring
the subject forward in such a manner as must necessarily prejudge
the whole question, and at the same time attack the character of
individuals. He moved, as an amendment, “That a humble address be
presented to his majesty, praying that he will be graciously pleased to
direct his royal attention to the nature and extent of the Orange
lodges in the army, in contravention of the general orders issued by the
commander-in-chief in 1822 and 1829, which strongly prohibit the holding
of Orange lodges in regiments: and that his majesty will be graciously
pleased to direct an investigation to take place with respect to other
secret societies in the army.” In the debate which followed, it was
generally admitted that the establishment of lodges in the army was
pregnant with mischief and indefensible; but it was maintained, that any
use which had been made in this way of warrants for creating lodges had
taken place without the knowledge and authority of the grand-master, or
the other superior officers of the association. From statements made
by the members for Sligo and Cavan, it appeared that non-commissioned
officers received warrants signed by those gentlemen and by the Duke of
Cumberland, none of whom knew a word about the matter. Colonel Perceval,
the member for Sligo, who held the office of grand-treasurer of the
grand-lodge, stated that ever since he had held that office it had been
his duty to sign warrants in blank, after they had been signed by the
grand-secretary, the member for Cavan. In this way, he said, numbers had
been sent in parcels to his royal highness, the Duke of Cumberland, who,
on seeing his signature and that of the grand-secretary, had appended
his own, with the understanding that the warrants were to be applied to
purposes conformable to the rules of the association. Lord John Russell
condemned this practice, and observed that he could not conceive that
the Duke of Cumberland would hesitate, when convinced of the use which
had been made of the blank warrants bearing Iris signature, to retire
from the association; and he could not conceive otherwise than that he
would feel it inconsistent with his duty as a prince of the blood, and
filling a high rank in the army, to continue any longer in the situation
which in this society he now filled. Lord John Russell suggested that
the resolution should not be adopted without giving notice to his
royal highness of the debates which had taken place on his conduct
as grand-master. This suggestion was adopted; and the discussion
was adjourned until the 11th of August. In the interval the Duke of
Cumberland addressed a letter to the chairman, in which he denied
having issued, or countenanced the issuing, of warrants to soldiers, and
stated, that when such a proposal had been made to him he had declined
it, on the ground that it was contrary to the orders and regulations of
the Horse-guards, and that if any warrants had been so used, they would
be annulled. His royal highness, however, did not intimate his intention
of abandoning the Orange institutions. When the discussion was resumed
on the 11th of August, Mr. Hume withdrew the 5th and 6th resolutions,
referring to the general interference of Orange societies in political
matters, thus confining the question to their existence in the army. The
only disputed matter, indeed, was the last resolution, which stated
that the Duke of Cumberland “had signed warrants in his capacity of
grand-master of the grand Orange lodge of Ireland, which warrants have
been issued for constituting Orange lodges in the army.” Lord John
Russell said, that he did not think the letter of the Duke of Cumberland
to the chairman of the committee was all that was required of his royal
highness; but he did not wish to agree to the resolution stating
that his royal highness, in contravention of an order issued from the
Horse-guards, had signed warrants, which were issued for constituting
Orange lodges in the army. He wished such a clause to be omitted; and he
thought the resolution would then satisfy both sides of the house. The
resolution, thus modified, was carried by one hundred and eighty-three
to forty; and the other resolutions were agreed to without a division.




THE VOTE BY BALLOT, ETC.

During this session, as usual after a general election, the house had
to deal with a considerable number of election petitions. Among others
petitions were presented from Great Yarmouth, complaining that bribery
had been practised at the election for that borough; these petitions
were referred to a committee. The fact of these petitions being
presented, encouraged Mr. Grote to make his annual motion in favour of
vote by ballot. On the 2nd of June he proposed this resolution:—“That
it is the opinion of this house that the votes at elections for members
of parliament should be taken by way of secret ballot.” This motion,
which was supported on the same grounds which had been urged to the
house on former occasions, was seconded by Sir William Molesworth. Mr.
Gisborne met it by moving the previous question. Lords Howick, Stanley,
and Russell, and Sir Robert Peel opposed the motion. Sir Robert Peel
expressed his surprise that government, in opposing the motion, should
allow it to be set aside by the previous question, instead of meeting
it with a direct negative; and Lord John Russell explained that
the amendment of the previous question had been moved without any
arrangement with him; if it were withdrawn, he was ready to meet it
with a direct negative. After some demur, Mr. Gisborne withdrew his
amendment; and the motion was directly negatived by three hundred and
seventeen votes against one hundred and forty-four.




THE BUDGET.

The budget was brought forward by the chancellor of the exchequer on the
14th of August. He calculated the income of the country for the ensuing
year, ending in July, 1836, at £45,500,000, and the expenditure at
£44,715,000, leaving a surplus of £835,000. He regretted, however, to
add that this surplus, calculated on the ordinary expenditure of the
country, would be found to crumble away before the further statement
which it was his duty to make. The interest due to the slave-owners, he
said, was to be provided for from the 1st of August, 1834. The maximum
of the charge to which the country might be liable from that time was
£730,000; and supposing that the whole balance of the loan were to be
paid up within three months on discount, and that the permanent interest
on the whole amount of the stock were at once incurred, this would
subject us to a further charge of £250.935, making the total charge
for the present year, on account of the West Indian loan, nearly £1000.
Against this, as a set off, there was a surplus of £885,000; but the
probability was that the amount instead of being £1,000,000 would not
exceed a sum between £600,000 and £700,000, so that the actual surplus
which might be expected would be from £150,000 to £200,000. The
chancellor of the exchequer said, in continuation, that though the
country was in a prosperous condition, he could not under existing
circumstances be expected to make any great reduction in taxation. There
were two or three taxes, however, which he thought might be reduced, and
he proposed to reduce the duty on licences, which would cause a loss to
the revenue of about £40,000; and on flint-glass, on which there might
be a loss of about £70,000. He also proposed to relieve Ireland from the
stamp-duty on awards, the loss on which would not exceed £500 a year.
The resolutions of the chancellor of the exchequer were agreed to
without a division.




DISCUSSIONS REGARDING CANADA.

During this session, the affairs of Lower Canada were brought before
parliament. That colony was still distracted by dissensions; the
French, or democratic party, which had gained a majority in the house of
assembly, still insisting on all their pretensions, and declaring their
determination to control both the legislative council and the governor,
who represented the mother country. Their cause was advocated in the
British parliament by Mr. Roebuck, who, on the 9th of March presented a
petition from certain members of the legislative bodies of the province,
setting forth their alleged grievances. In supporting his motion, Mr.
Roebuck held out threats, that, if the demands urged in the petition
were not granted, there would be a rebellion. Lower Canada, he said,
would inevitably follow the example of the United States. Mr. Spring
Rice and Lord Stanley deprecated the use of such language as Mr. Roebuck
had adopted; language like this made matters only worse. So far back as
1828, a committee had been appointed to examine into the complaints
of the Canadians. Another committee was subsequently appointed, which
committee had come to this general resolution:—“That the most earnest
desire has existed on the part of the home government to carry into
effect the suggestions of the committee of 1823; that the endeavours of
the government to the ends recommended have been unremitting, and guided
by the desire, in all cases, to promote the interests of the colonies;
and that in several important particulars, their endeavours had
been entirely successful.” Mr. Roebuck himself was a member of this
committee, and was, therefore, a party to this report; but in the face
of it he now blamed the government. On the other hand, petitions were
presented to the commons on the 16th of March, and to the lords on
the 24th of March, deprecating the violence of the democratic party in
Canada. In presenting the petition to the house of lords, the Earl of
Aberdeen stated that it was signed by 11,000 persons, inhabitants of
Montreal and its vicinity, who represented a numerous and respectable
body in that country of not less than 100,000 persons.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued on the 10th of September. In his closing speech
his majesty alluded to the civil contest still raging in the northern
provinces of Spain; and intimated that he had concluded fresh
conventions with Denmark, Sardinia, and Sweden, calculated to prevent
the traffic in African slaves.




STATE OF THE CONTINENT.

During this year Portugal exhibited a more peaceful and prosperous
picture than it had done for some time, although it presented likewise
the contests and intrigues of political parties for power and place. The
Cortes met on the 2nd of January, and continued in deliberation till
the 22nd of April. The principal objects of their attention were the
financial state of the country, and the claims for indemnification which
had been put forward by those who had suffered under the domination of
Don Miguel, or who had sustained loss in consequence of the measures
which had now terminated in the establishment of the constitutional
system. The bill, which received the sanction of the Cortes, provided
that where injuries had been directly caused by individuals, or at the
instigation of any individual, such persons were liable for the whole
amount, and should be called upon to make it good. On the other hand,
all unavoidable damages done in order to defend or attack towns, as well
as injuries done by the usurper’s government, were to be made good by
the nation at large. In the course of this year, Prince Augustus of
Leuchtenberg, the husband of the young queen, arrived in Portugal; but
after he had been there little more than a month, he died from exposure
to cold in taking exercise. The chambers justly considered the
constitutional system to be greatly dependent upon a direct succession
to the constitutional throne, and they, therefore, presented
addresses to her majesty, praying her to enter into a new marriage as
soon as possible. She replied that she was a queen and a Portuguese, and
the chamber might be assured that she would make every sacrifice for the
public interest which was not inconsistent with her dignity. Before the
end of the year, indeed, the queen’s second marriage was arranged, the
bridegroom being the nephew of the reigning Duke of Saxe Coburg, and of
the King of the Belgians. In Spain all was confusion and revolt. The
war between Don Carlos and the queen, or rather the Spanish nation,
was still continued, and the year closed while they were yet in arms.
Towards the latter part of the year an army of 6000 men crossed the
Spanish frontier to assist in the struggle, a convention having been
signed between Spain and Portugal to that end: these troops, however,
bore no part in the events of the year. In France an attempt was made
to assassinate the king, by means of what has been denominated “the
infernal machine.” On the second day of the great political festival in
honour of the three days of July, 1830, as his majesty was riding
along the Boulevard du Temple, surrounded by the crowded citizens,
and attended by his civil and military servants, an explosion like a
discharge of musketry took place from the window of an adjoining house.
The effect was terrific. Several officer’s of rank were killed on the
spot, as well as some grenadiers of the national guard of Paris, besides
mere lookers on, while many were severely wounded. The horse on which
the king rode was wounded, but he himself escaped unhurt. The assassin
was captured, and he turned out to be a Corsican, of the name of
Fieschi, who had been a noted vagabond for many years. The questions in
dispute between Belgium and Holland remained in the same unsettled state
in which the preceding year had left them. In Belgium the formation of
Sir Robert Peel’s ministry excited alarm, lest the policy of the great
powers should now be less favourable to that country, and in particular
lest Britain should refuse to interfere to compel the Germanic
confederation to concede to the demands of the Belgians on the duchy of
Luxembourg. Communications from the English ministry, however, allayed
these fears; and finally they were relieved from them altogether by the
return of the Whigs to office. In the autumn of this year the Emperor of
Russia met the King of Prussia at Kalisah, and the Emperor of Austria at
Toplitz; but neither of these meetings seemed to have been brought about
for the purposes of political deliberation. In Greece, on the 10th of
June, King Otho having come of age, assumed the reins of government, and
the regency deposited its functions in his hands. The changes which took
place gave great umbrage to the Greeks, who were already displeased at
seeing so many offices in the hands of foreigners. Their displeasure was
increased at finding there was no intention of sending away the Bavarian
military. Turkey, during the present year, remained unchanged in her
relations to the great European powers. On her western frontier she
was occupied in putting down an insurrection which had broken out in
Albania. The Porte was likewise under the necessity of using its arms
against some tribes which had rebelled in Kurdistan. These disturbances
saved the Pacha of Egypt from any attack by the Porte in his new Syrian
acquisitions. On his part he showed no disposition to proceed further
against his sovereign; he occupying himself with completing the
subjugation of Syria, and attempting to extend his conquests in Arabia,
which attempt was unsuccessful.




CHAPTER XLVI.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

     _Meeting of Parliament..... The Question of Orange
     Lodges..... Bill to Reform the Irish Municipal
     Corporations..... Irish Tithe Bill..... Commutation of
     Tithes in England..... Bill for Registration of Births,
     Deaths, and Marriages, &c. Bill to alter the Revenues
     and Territory of the different Sees..... Bill to abolish the
     secular Jurisdiction of Bishops, &c. Bill to amend the
     English Municipal Corporation Act..... Bill to Allow Felons
     Counsel to Address the Jury, &c. Abolition of
     Imprisonment for Debt, &c. Election  Committees.....
     New Houses  of Parliament..... Motion for the Reduction  of
     Taxation  on behalf of the Agriculturists..... The Budget,
     &c. Discussions on the Colonies and our Foreign
     Relations..... Prorogation of Parliament..... The Affairs
     of Ireland..... State of the Continent_




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1836}

Parliament reassembled on the 14th of February. In his speech his
majesty alluded to disputes between France and the United States, which
he was endeavouring to allay; and to the civil contests in the northern
province of Spain, for the termination of which he had also adopted
measures which he hoped would succeed. His majesty also alluded to
a treaty which he had concluded with the Queen of Spain for the
suppression of the slave-trade. He expressed his regret that the
agricultural interests in England still suffered, and recommended
parliament to institute inquiry, with the view of ascertaining whether
there were any measures which could be adopted for its alleviation. He
then referred to the various measures affecting the united church of
England and Ireland, and the state of the poor of Ireland. In the lords
the address was moved by the Duke of Leinster, and seconded by the Earl
of Burlington. The only part of it which gave rise to a discussion was
a passage which repeated the hope, expressed in the speech from the
throne, that the Irish municipal corporations would be subjected to a
process of change, “founded upon the same principles as those of the
acts which had already passed for England and Scotland.” These words
raised a question of importance between the contending parties, for, as
the municipal acts of England and Scotland established a £5 franchise in
one country, and a £10 franchise in the other, to establish in Ireland
a system of municipal government founded on a similar basis, was to
transfer to the Papists that monopoly of municipal authority hitherto
enjoyed by the Protestants. The Duke of Wellington objected to the
house being required, in voting the address, to pledge itself to the
principles of any measure before the measure itself had come regularly
before the house. He moved to substitute the following amendment:—“We
shall proceed without delay to the consideration of any defects or evils
that may have been shown to exist in these institutions, for the purpose
of applying such remedies as may obviate all just causes of complaint,
and insure the impartial administration of justice.” Several peers
supported this amendment, and the defeat of government was inevitable;
but, on seeing this, the Marquis of Lansdowne intimated that ministers
conceded the point as one of no particular moment, and the address was
then agreed to. In the commons, however, government was stronger, and,
therefore, did not exhibit the same spirit of concession. Sir Robert
Peel moved the same amendment which the Duke of Wellington had moved in
the lords. Lord John Russell defended the clause in the address. Lord
Stanley supported the amendment. Lords Howick and Palmerston, and Mr.
O’Connell spoke in favour of the address. Mr. O’Connell gave notice,
that if Ireland got less than had been granted to England and Scotland,
the cry of repeal would immediately be resumed. With an air of
self-importance he cautioned the house to beware; if they excited that
cry again, it would be at their peril. On a division the address was
carried by a majority of two hundred and eighty-four against two hundred
and forty-three.




THE QUESTION OF ORANGE LODGES.

On the reassembling of parliament, Mr. O’Connell and his friends lost no
time in returning to the attack made last session on Orange lodges. On
the 21st of February Mr. Finn moved this resolution:—“That Orangeism
has been productive of the most baneful effects upon the character and
administration of public justice in Ireland; that its presence in the
constabulary and peace preservation force and yeomanry corps of that
country has led individual members, as well as large bodies of the above
description of force, to the gross neglect and violation of their public
duty, and to open, daring, and lawless resistance to the authority of
the magistracy and of the executive government, on various occasions;
that the systematic and surreptitious introduction of Orangeism into
every branch of the military service, in almost every part of the
empire, in direct violation of orders issued in 1822 and 1829 by the
commander-in-chief of his majesty’s forces, and the absolute power and
control vested by its governing body, the grand Orange lodge of England
and Ireland, in his royal highness the Duke of Cumberland, together with
the rank, station, influence, and numbers of that formidable and secret
conspiracy, are well calculated to excite serious apprehensions in
all his majesty’s loyal subjects, and imperatively call for the most
energetic expression on the part of the representatives of the people
of this empire, to secure the safe, peaceable, legal, and rightful
succession to the throne of these realms.” In the speech with which Mr.
Finn introduced this resolution, he treated the Orange system as one of
deadly hostility to the great mass of the population, and asserted
that it was established by the report of the secret committee, that the
Orange society set all law, justice, and authority at defiance. Mr. E.
Buller, who seconded the resolution, reiterated these sentiments. As
notice had been given for the 23rd of February by Colonel Verner, to
extend the inquiry to other existing societies in Ireland, and as Mr.
Hume was to bring forward certain resolutions directed to the same
object on that day, the house adjourned the further consideration of
the motion to that day. On the 23rd of February Mr. Hume entered at
considerable length into the evidence which had been given before the
select committee of the previous session, which included documents laid
before it by the office-bearers of the Orange association and private
correspondence. Most of the evidence, it would appear, had indeed been
derived from the officers of the institution themselves, which was by no
means a proof of guilt. Nevertheless, Mr. Hume contrived to make out a
case against the association from such evidence; and when he had laid
it before the house, he moved this condemnatory resolution:—“That this
house, taking into consideration the evidence given before the select
committee appointed to inquire into the nature, extent, character, and
tendency of Orange lodges, associations, or societies in Ireland, and of
Orange institutions in Great Britain and the colonies; and seeing that
the existence of Orange societies is highly detrimental to the peace
of the community, by exciting discord among the several classes of his
majesty’s subjects; and seeing that it is highly injurious to the due
administration of justice that any judge, sheriff, magistrate, juryman,
or any other person employed in maintaining the peace of the country,
should be bound by any secret obligation to, or be in any combination
with, any association unknown to the laws, and founded on principles of
religious exclusion, that even if justice were impartially administered
under such circumstances, which is in itself impossible, yet any
connection with such societies would create suspicions and jealousies
detrimental to the peace and good government of this country: that
Orange societies, and all other political societies which have secret
forms of initiation and secret signs, and are bound together by any
religious ceremonies, are particularly deserving of the severest
reprobation of the house, and should no longer be permitted to
continue;—an humble address be presented to his majesty, that his
majesty will be graciously pleased to direct measures to be taken
to remove from the public service, at home and abroad, every judge,
privy-councillor, lord-lieutenant, _custos rotulorum_, magistrate,
militia officer, inspector, chief-constable of the constabulary and
peace preservation force, every officer of police in Ireland, and
every functionary employed in the administration of justice, and in
maintaining the peace of the country, who shall attend the meeting of
any Orange lodge, of any riband lodge, or of any other political club,
institution, or association, whenever or wherever assembled, having
secret forms of initiation, and being bound together by any religious
ceremony, and with secret signs, and passwords, for recognition of
members of such bodies, and who shall not withdraw from such societies
or associations, on or before the expiration of one month after the
publication of any proclamation which his majesty may be pleased to
direct to be issued hereupon, forbidding their continuing to be members
of such Orange lodges, societies, and associations.” This motion was
supported by Sir William Molesworth, who endeavoured to prove that
the societies against which it was directed had already been declared
illegal; a position which should have simply led to an address to the
crown to cause the statutes to be enforced. Lord John Russell agreed
that it was desirable to suppress these institutions, and all similar
societies; but he intimated that government could not approve of some
of the modes of doing so which were now proposed. He thought that the
effect of these societies, however good their motives might be, were
injurious: by their existence, whether founded upon religion or not,
a distinction was made between them and some other part of the king’s
subjects, who formed! themselves into counter societies, with other
names and distinctions; and thus a perpetual and ever-recurring source
of disunion, disaffection, quarrels, and bloodshed was created. At the
same time, though it might be clear that it was desirable to get rid of
this and all other societies of the like nature, whether known as Orange
or Riband societies, or by any other name, it was by no means so clear
how that object was to be attained. The report of last year by the
committee on Orange lodges, stated that the existing statutes, if put in
execution, would be adequate for their suppression, as well as that of
all other societies of the like nature. He had discussed this question
with the attorney and solicitor-general; and they declared that,
without looking most carefully into the subject, they could not venture
absolutely to pronounce an opinion as to their legality or illegality.
The government, therefore, were of opinion that if the several penal
statutes already in force did not contain clear enactments against this
offence, it was not proper for them to seek some meaning in the law,
which would be construed by others into a straining of the provisions of
the law, and make it doubtful whether they had not forced the meaning
of an enactment, in order to procure a condemnation of the societies in
question. Even if they could have discovered that, although the Orange
societies had contrived to evade the law in some points, they had yet
contravened it in others, and could have obtained a conviction against
them, he thought it would be mischievous to the general liberty of the
subject to attempt giving a strained interpretation. In 1822, it was
held by Lord Gifford and other eminent lawyers, that Orange societies
were not held to come within the meaning of the law; and, therefore,
if they came at present within the terms of any act, it must be in
consequence of some recent change in their constitution. He was,
therefore, averse to putting the question on such narrow grounds.
Government also had no thought of proposing any new law against them;
for, although by such a proceeding the secret signs and distinctive
marks presently in use might be made to disappear, they might be
succeeded by some other evasion of the law. He thought, also, that a
general address to the crown affecting all judges, without entering
into the case of each individual, would be scarcely consistent with the
independence of the bench. As to removing every magistrate and person in
office belonging to the Orange societies—if they should be removed at
once by an address of this kind—without any previous declaration either
from the house of commons or the crown, they would conceive such a
stigma affixed to them, that they would still remain banded together
from a spirit of resentment, and would regard the measure only as an
unfair and biassed transaction. His colleagues and himself thought that
it would be better to adopt this course:—that where a person applied
for any official situation of trust and responsibility under the crown,
inquiry should be made whether he were an Orangeman, and if he meant to
continue in that society, that his appointment should not take place. It
was not only convenient to adopt measures of discouragement in respect
to those societies, but he was prepared to add to these discouragements
that of an address to his majesty by this house. In conclusion, his
lordship moved:—“That an humble address be presented to his majesty,
praying that his majesty would be graciously pleased to take such
measures as to his majesty seemed advisable for the effectual
discouragement of Orange lodges, and generally all political societies
excluding persons of different faith, using signs and symbols, and
acting by associated branches.” The Orange societies of Ireland were
defended by Mr. Maxwell. They refused, he said, to be tried by the
report of the committee, for its proceedings had been partial and
biassed, and the investigation had not been complete. Lord Stanley urged
the omission of the specific mention of Orange lodges in the address,
inasmuch as they were only part of the secret societies which existed
in Ireland. Lord John Russell, however, insisted on retaining the words,
denying that they implied any stigma; there was no opinion pronounced
as to the legality of these societies, but merely that they, as well as
other secret societies, should meet the disapprobation of the crown.
His motion was agreed to without a division; and the address having been
presented to the king, his majesty, on the 25th of February, returned
this answer:—“I willingly assent to the prayer of the address of my
faithful commons, that I Would be pleased to take such measures as may
seem to me advisable for the effectual discouragement of Orange lodges,
and generally of all political societies, excluding persons of a
different religious faith, using secret signs and symbols, and acting by
means of associated branches. It is my firm intention to discourage
all such societies in my dominions, and I rely with confidence on the
fidelity of my loyal subjects to support me in this determination.” The
home-secretary transmitted a copy of the address and the king’s answer
to the Duke of Cumberland, as the official head of the Orange societies,
and his royal highness replied, that before receiving the communication,
he had recommended the dissolution of the Orange institutions
in Ireland. The Orange societies immediately acquiesced in this
recommendation, and from that time they were professedly dissolved; but
it was soon discovered that the law and will of king and commons were
only evaded, and that Orange lodges were as numerous as ever. The
conduct of O’Connell and his Irish adherents in this discussion was as
faithless as in their professions of the voluntary principle. They knew
well that ribandism was far more extensively prevalent in Ireland than
orangeism, and that, whatever might be the character of the latter, the
objects and spirit of the former were utterly atrocious. The riband-men
were banded for purposes subversive of all law and order—of all
liberty, civil and religious—and they were utterly reckless as to the
means by which they promoted their ends. Assassination and incendiarism
were the common instruments of this diabolical association of fanaticism
and bigotry. Yet O’Connell and his confederates glossed over the evils
of this system, or denied their existence, while he and they pretended
zeal for public justice and liberty in the destruction of the Orange
confederation. The true policy would have been the suppression of all
secret political societies.




BILL TO REFORM THE IRISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.

A commission had been appointed to inquire into the state of the
corporations in Ireland, and the royal speech had intimated that the
subject would be brought forward during this session. Acting upon this
report and intimation, Mr. O’Loghlen, attorney-general for Ireland,
introduced a bill for the better regulation of Irish municipal
corporations. In doing so he entered into many details to show the
limited and exclusive nature of the corporations, and the abuses to
which this had led. He proposed to remedy the abuses which had crept
into the system, by a bill similar to those already adopted for England
and Scotland. In regard to the seven largest towns—Dublin, Cork,
Limerick, Kilkenny, Belfast, Galway, and Waterford—it was proposed
that every inhabitant possessing the £10 franchise under the provisions
of the Irish reform act, should be entitled to vote in the election of
municipal offices. As regarded all boroughs containing a population
of less than 20,000 inhabitants, it was farther proposed that every
occupier of a £5 house should be entitled to vote in the election of
municipal officers. With regard to councillors, the qualification in the
seven large boroughs was to consist in having property worth £1000, and
in the other towns, property worth £5000. In the seven large boroughs,
and likewise in Londonderry, Sligo, Dungannon, and Drogheda, where
the population exceeded 15,000, there would be a division of wards.
Aldermen, likewise, were to be elected by the inhabitants, and were to
consist of the councillors who had the greatest number of votes at the
election. One half of the councillors and aldermen were to retire every
three years; and in the seven large boroughs, the council was to
have the power of electing sheriffs, subject to the approval of the
lord-lieutenant. The bill further declared that a commission of the
peace might be granted in any large borough if the lord-lieutenant
thought fit, and in other towns the mayor for the time being would be
the magistrate of the borough. It was likewise intended to preserve to
the inhabitants of the Irish corporate towns the right of proceeding
summarily by petition in cases of misapplication of public funds,
instead of leaving them to the ordinary tedious process of the law,
and to retain the courts in the nature of courts of conscience, and the
right of their suitors to proceed by attachment. It was further proposed
that government should have the power of obliging the council, if either
or both the persons first chosen were not approved of, to proceed to
the election of some other persons, and not, as in the case of Dublin,
re-elect the same person. All the other provisions were similar to those
comprised in the English bill. The bill was allowed to be read a second
time on the 29th of February without opposition; but Sir Robert Peel
took occasion to state the views taken of this particular mode of
reforming Irish corporations by himself and the party to which he
adhered. He avowed that it was not possible to defend the corporation
system which existed in Ireland; but he contended that the bill would
not be a remedy for the evils. Although the views of the Conservatives,
as explained by Sir Robert Peel, did not allow them to oppose the second
reading of the bill, yet when the motion was made that the house should
go into committee, Lord Francis Egerton moved that the committee should
be empowered to make provision for the abolition of corporations in
Ireland, and for such arrangements as might be necessary on their
abolition, for securing the efficient and impartial administration
of justice, and the peace and good government of cities and towns in
Ireland. His lordship said, that in substituting abolition for the
process of restoration proposed by ministers, he was not withholding
from Ireland any of the benefits intended to be conferred on the other
parts of the kingdom by their new municipal institutions; and lie argued
generally that there was much in the situation of that country, and in
the state of its society, which distinguished it from England and other
nations, and which might render it, in certain cases, an unfit recipient
for institutions not essential in themselves to good government, and
only valuable as being machinery for that purpose. His motion was
seconded by Mr. Lefroy. The bill was defended by Lords John Russell,
Morpeth, and Hawick, Mr. O’Connell, and other members; and was attacked
by Lord Stanley, Mr. Sergeant Jackson, and Sirs Henry Hardinge and
James Graham. Mr. O’Connell insisted that Ireland must have justice; and
she would not have it if she was not treated as England and Scotland
had been treated. Lord Stanley said, that he felt some hesitation in
receiving Mr. O’Connell as the plenipotentiary of the people of Ireland
to treat with the British parliament. Lord John Russell closed the
debate on Lord Francis Egerton’s motion. On a division the motion was
lost by a majority of three hundred and seven against two hundred
and forty-three. In the committee none of the provisions of the bill
underwent any important alteration, except the allowing of sheriff’s in
the large boroughs to be chosen by the town-councils. Ministers listened
to the objections urged against this, and retained the nomination of
these officers in the power of the crown. The bill was finally passed
on the 28th of March, after another debate, by a majority of two hundred
and sixty to one hundred and ninety-nine.

A harder battle was, however, to be fought in the lords. On the second
reading Lord Lyndhurst expressed his willingness to go into committee,
but not with the intention of preserving the bill in all its present
features. He did not deny that evils existed in the Irish corporations,
but he wished to see some scheme adopted which would not only remove
those evils, but prevent the recurrence of others of a similar kind. The
present bill, however, was a bill to extend the system of exclusion, and
to aggravate all the violations to which justice was now exposed. The
town-councils would not consist of persons anxious for the preservation
of peace and the security of property, but would be filled with men
of the anti-church and Catholic party, advocates of the repeal of
the union, and of the separation of British and Irish interests.
His lordship argued that the five-pound qualification would increase
agitation, would aggrandise radical interests. If excitement, he said,
prevailed in Ireland at the election of members of parliament, how far
more prevalent would be the excitement which would attend the elections
of this bill. His lordship looked also, with alarm, at the formidable
power which the priesthood would gain by this bill; and the
town-councils, he contended, would be confined to a party of
inflammatory demagogues: justice itself would be poisoned at its source,
and corporate property devoted to anything but its legitimate purposes.
He concluded by sketching a plan similar to that which had been proposed
in the commons by Sir Robert Peel, and which he, or some of those with
whom he acted, would propose should be inserted in the bill in place
of the clauses containing the new corporations. The house went into
committee on the 26th of April, when Lord Fitzgerald moved, as had been
done in the commons, “That it be an instruction to the committee to
make provision for the abolition of such corporations, and for such
arrangements as may be necessary on their abolition for securing the
efficient and impartial administration of justice, and the peace and
good government of cities and towns in Ireland.” The lord-chancellor and
Lords Holland and Melbourne spoke against this motion; and Lords Abinger
and Lyndhurst supported it.. The motion was carried by a majority of
two hundred and three against one hundred and nineteen. The committee
proceeded on the 9th of May, and the first clause, repealing “all acts,
charters, and customs inconsistent with this act,” was agreed to; and
the existing corporations were thus abolished. Lord Lyndhurst moved
certain amendments on the second clause, which reserved the rights of
freemen; and after some debate these were carried by a majority of one
hundred and seven against fifty-three. Another debate and division took
place on the 22nd clause, which enacted that the boroughs should have
a mayor, and a certain number of councillors and aldermen, as they were
arranged in the schedules. This was struck out. And on the third reading
of the bill, the Duke of Richmond proposed limiting the bill to seven
of the largest towns. This motion, it was said, was not made by any
arrangement or communication with the ministry. Government had never
intended to preclude itself from inquiring to what towns corporate
powers should be extended. What they were most anxious to preserve
was, the corporation principle in Ireland. If that were maintained, the
Marquis of Lansdowne said, he should not argue that corporations ought
to be continued in the small towns: if any difference was to be made,
it ought to be in favour of the large towns, because it was there that
corporations must be useful if they were good for anything. The motion,
however, was negatived; and the bill, having thus been brought into the
form which the minority in the lower house had endeavoured to give it,
was sent down on the 19th of May to the commons.

In moving that the lords’ amendments should be printed, Lord John
Russell stated that, however willing he might be to come to some
arrangement in regard to the constitution of the franchise, he would
never consent to deprive Ireland of municipal government altogether,
thereby stigmatising and degrading its people. The Radicals were very
violent, boldly maintaining that there required an “organic change” in
the house of lords. The amendments were moved, by Lord John Russell, to
be taken into consideration on the 9th of June. The bill, he said, as
amended, contained little or nothing of the bill which had been sent up
to the lords. Out of one hundred and forty clauses, one hundred and
six had been in substance omitted, while eighteen others had been
introduced. A bill had been put up for regulating and renewing
corporations in Ireland on the same conditions as in England and
Scotland; they had received back a bill which abolished them entirely,
but which preserved to many of the persons who held office in these
bodies all the power and profit of their situations. In order to meet
the concurrence of the lords, however, instead of abolishing the whole
of the corporations, it was proposed that the larger towns, originally
divided between schedules A and B should be placed in one, and that all
the clauses for the government of corporate towns should be restored
to the bill, with the view of applying them to these particular towns.
These towns would be Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Gal way, Kilkenny, Limerick,
Waterford, Clonmel, Drogheda, Londonderry, Sligo, and Carrickfergus. In
regard to the other towns, he would not give them corporations; but at
the same time he would not leave them subject to the provisions of the
lords’ bill. He proposed rather, that the provisions of the act of 1828
should be applied immediately to twenty-two of the towns in schedule
C, and that so soon as the five-pound householders in these towns
had chosen commissioners, the corporate property, and the right of
appointing to the necessary offices should vest in the commissioners.
There would be commissioners elected by the inhabitants, instead of
being appointed by the lord-lieutenant. In regard to the remaining
boroughs of schedule C, as they possessed but little property, he would
neither subject them to the expense of a corporation, nor compel them to
elect commissioners under the act of 1828; but would leave it to them
to have recourse to the latter, if they thought fit. The lords had made
other alterations in other clauses of the bill, regarding the granting
of quarter-sessions, &c.; but these alterations did not impair the
spirit of the original bill, and therefore he would not quarrel with
them. The difference which still remained between them was one of
principle—should there be municipal governments or not? He thought
that municipal government, placed on a popular basis, and under popular
control, was excellent and useful in itself; and that in Ireland it
would tend to public tranquillity, by assuaging jealousies, and removing
causes of discontent. His lordship concluded by moving the rejection
of the amendment of the lords on the fourth clause, which implied the
continuance of corporations, and which the peers had therefore expunged.
This motion led to another debate of two days’ duration, in which all
the topics previously discussed were again brought forward; superadded
to which were many reflections on the house of lords, and on Lord
Lyndhurst in particular. On a division, the motion to reject the
amendment on the lords was carried by three hundred and twenty-four
against one hundred and twenty-eight; and on the 13th and 14th of June,
the bill was brought back to the shape proposed by ministers in so far
as regarded corporations being limited to the twelve towns mentioned by
Lord John Russell. Subsequently, a committee was appointed to draw up
the reasons of the house for not agreeing to the amendment of the peers;
and the amended bill was delivered to the lords at a conference on the
17th of June. On the 27th, Lord Melbourne moved that the amendments
of the commons should be agreed to, which motion was met by a direct
negative by Lord Lyndhurst. The motion was lost by a majority of two
hundred and twenty against one hundred and twenty-one; and the bill
was then sent back to the commons, with the reasons of the lords for
adhering to their own amendments. Finally, on the 30th of June, Lord
John Russell moved, and the house agreed, that the amendment should be
taken into consideration that day three months, and thus the bill was
dropped.




THE IRISH TITHE-BILL.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

Another great party measure was the Irish tithe-bill. Ministers
reintroduced this measure on the 25th of April. It was brought forward
by Lord Morpeth, the Irish secretary, who moved this resolution:—“That
it is expedient to commute the composition of tithes in Ireland into a
rent-charge, payable by the owners of the estate, and to make further
provisions for the better regulation of ecclesiastical dues and
revenues.” In opening the scheme which ministers intended to
incorporate in their bill, Lord Morpeth announced that the principle of
appropriation would still be declared and acted on. The bill, he said,
would follow the uniform precedent of three previous bills, and
he believed of four successive administrations, in converting the
tithe-composition into a rent-charge, payable by the owners of the first
estate of inheritance, as it was termed. The bill would also preserve
those terms of commutation which, in the bill of last year, had been
adopted by both houses of parliament, by conferring a deduction
of thirty per cent, upon those subject to the payment of the
tithe-composition. He would not propose any contribution from the
national funds towards payment of the arrears of former years; and, on
the other hand, he would abandon all claims for repayment of the sums
which had been advanced to tithe-owners under the million act, and
which amounted to £637,000. Ministers proposed, he said, to entrust
the collection of rent-charges to the board of woods and forests for a
period of seven years, and thereafter until parliament should otherwise
determine. The bill would also contain the provisions for allowing a
revaluation of the present tithe-composition in the cases and under
the limitations specified in the bill of last year. These were the
arrangements to be enacted in regard to existing incumbents. As regarded
the future regulation of the church revenues, government felt that they
could not abandon those declarations and principles with which they
entered upon office; that they could not shake off the engagement under
which they conceived themselves to stand, of doing justice to the Irish
nation; and the terms of that virtual and most honourable compact they
conceived to be that if, in the future disposition of the revenues of
the Irish church, something superfluous for its legitimate and becoming
uses should arise, they should, after the satisfaction of all existing
interests, apply that superfluity to the religious and moral education
of the people. He felt that he might consider the principle as
established and conceded, that parliament had a right to deal with the
revenues of the church, if it should think them superfluous for church
purposes; so long as the resolution adopted by the present parliament
stood upon their books unrepealed, he had a right to think that that
principle was admitted. It was now proposed by government, he continued,
that on any future vacancy of a benefice, providing, as before,
compensation for the patronage of private individuals in possession
of the avowson, the lord-lieutenant should direct the board of
ecclesiastical commissioners, now sitting in Dublin, to submit to
the privy-council a report containing all particulars concerning such
benefice; and a committee of the privy-council would be established with
a view to this especial purpose, consisting exclusively of members of
the established church, and named by his majesty. Power would be given
to this committee to alter the boundaries of vacant benefices, subject
to such modifications as subsequent vacancies of contiguous benefices
might render advisable to carry into effect. Since the year 1718
the lord-lieutenant and the privy-council had united two hundred and
eighty-nine parishes, consisting of the union of two or more parishes.
The committee, after fixing the boundaries, were to apportion such
income as they might think proper relative to the duties of the future
incumbents, but within certain limitations. Where the number of the
members of the established church varied from 500 to 1000, the income
would be £300; and where the number varied from 1000 to 3000, the income
would be £400. Where the number of Protestants amounted to 3000 and
upwards, the income would be raised to £500; but wherever the number
was below 50, it was proposed to assign to the incumbent an income not
exceeding £100. After thus providing for the Protestant establishment,
his lordship said that there would still be a considerable surplus of
ecclesiastical revenue. The tithes payable to the clergy at present
were £511,000, which, remitting thirty per cent, left a rent-charge of
£353,000. The ministers’ money might be stated at £10,000, without the
expenses of collection; the private bounty fund, £5000; glebe-lands,
clear revenue, £86,500; total, £459,550. There were 1385 benefices in
Ireland, a considerable number of which were sinecures, not merely from
the circumstance of having no members of the church of England within
their locality, but also from the fact that they were in the hands of
the dignitaries of the church, who performed little or no service
in them. There were also many which had been suppressed by the
church-temporalities act, divine service not having been performed in
them for three years. Perhaps the number necessary to keep up would be
about 1250. It was intended, indeed, under this bill, to give power to
the privy-council to constitute new benefices in Ireland, of which they
were likely to avail themselves to some extent. The whole payment to be
made to the clergy of the 1250 benefices he calculated at £361,928,
thus leaving a surplus of £97,612. This was a larger surplus than he had
hoped for last year; but as the committee of the privy-council would, in
certain cases, have the power to constitute new benefices, this surplus
would be likely to undergo some alteration. It would also be remembered
that no part of the surplus could be expected to be realised for some
time to come, from the necessity of satisfying vested interests, and of
making other important arrangements. After satisfying all the charges
that must be met, it was proposed to have the remainder paid into the
consolidated fund, upon which a charge of £50,000 per annum was to be
fixed, for the purpose of supplying religious and moral education to the
people of Ireland. The second reading was delayed till the 1st of June,
when Lord Stanley, who had previously given notice of his intention,
moved this amendment:—“That leave be given to bring in a bill for the
conversion of tithe into a rent-charge, and for the redemption thereof,
and for the better distribution of ecclesiastical revenues in Ireland.”
 In reply, Lord John Eussell reminded the house that he had expressed his
willingness to allow Lord Stanley to bring in his bill as a substantive
measure; but when it was moved as an amendment on the original motion
before them, it was merely a new form of opposing the second reading of
the government bill, and raising the question on the principle of that
bill. They had been appealed to as gentlemen, but he hoped they were
something more; that they were representatives of popular feelings and
popular interests—representatives, not of local bodies, but of the
whole empire, including the six millions of Roman Catholics in Ireland.
In conclusion, Lord John Russell said that it had been asked, whether he
meant the income of the glebe-lands generally, or in part, to go towards
giving glebe to the Roman Catholic church? He gave a distinct answer
in the negative; government had no intention of providing, out of any
surplus of glebe-lands in Ireland, glebe-lands for the Roman Catholic
church. The debate continued by adjournment on the 2nd and 3rd of June,
the ministerial measure being defended by Lord Morpeth, the chancellor
of the exchequer, Messrs. O’Connell, Shiel, Ward, and others; and that
of Lord Stanley being supported by Sergeant Jackson, Sirs James Graham,
and E. Peel, and Mr. Lefroy, and others. The most remarkable speeches
delivered in this debate were those of Mr. O’Connell and Sir Robert
Peel. The debate was closed by the chancellor of the exchequer, who
complained that the opposition fixed upon ministers all the opinions of
those who supported the bill. On a division, ministers had a majority of
thirty-nine; the votes for the second reading being three hundred, and
for Lord Stanley’s amendment, two hundred and sixty-one. A motion was
made on the 1st of July for going into committee on the bill, on
which day the ultimate designs and the real wishes of the Papists were
disclosed by Mr. Crawford, who moved the following resolutions:—“1.
That it is expedient that tithes, and all compositions for tithes in
Ireland should cease, and be for ever extinguished, compensations being
first made for all existing interests, whether lay or ecclesiastical;
and that it is also expedient that measures should be adopted to render
the revenues of the church lands more productive, and more available
for the support of the working clergy of the establishment; and that all
persons not in communion with the established church of Ireland should
be relieved from all assessment for its support. 2. That it is expedient
that the moneys necessary for the aforesaid compensation (estimated at
£2,500,000) should be advanced out of the public revenue, and afterwards
repaid by instalments from the proceeds of a tax to be imposed on
profit-rents; such tax to cease and determine as soon as the said debt
shall be paid.” These resolutions, however, were rejected by a majority
of fifty-one against eighteen. In the committee the Irish leader
betrayed his conviction that it would be impossible either to pass the
bill, or to make it the means of raising any popular excitement against
the house of lords. On the discussion of the first clause, he said, that
to discuss anything was only waste of time; for it was clear that no
measure for the pacification of Ireland, whether respecting tithes or
anything else, was likely to pass. Any bill containing solid relief
was sure to be destroyed; they were legislating in despair. He himself
intended to have proposed several amendments; but he should not do so,
as there could be no doubt the lords would throw out the bill. The only
debate which took place in the committee arose on the question, whether
the appropriation clause should stand part of the bill. The arguments
adopted were a repetition of all that had been formerly urged,
diversified with a few new illustrations, and some acrimony of
expression. The clause was retained on a division by a majority of two
hundred and ninety against two hundred and sixty-four. The bill was
finally read a third time, and passed on the 15th of July.

The second reading was moved in the lords on the 22nd of July. Lord
Melbourne briefly explained its provisions, observing that it was not
necessary for him to go into any lengthened argument on the subject.
It was read a second time without opposition, the Duke of Wellington
declaring that he was prepared to consider it in committee, with a view
to make such amendments as might render it consistent with the interests
of the church and the people. The house went into committee on the
25th, and the bill was passed on the 28th. When passed, however, all the
provisions for what was called appropriation were struck out, and all
the other important arrangements in the bill were modified. By the bill
the clergy were only to receive seventy per cent.; the lords raised it
to seventy-five; they raised also the minimum stipend to be paid in any
benefice to £300. In this shape the bill was sent down to the commons.

Lord John Russell brought the amendments of the lords before that house
on the 2nd of August, when he started a question of privilege, as if the
lords had interfered with a money-bill, thereby leaving the commons no
other choice than to reject it, independently of the merits or demerits
of the alterations which had been introduced. He entered subsequently
into the merits of the amendments at large; and having explained them,
he said, it was for the house to say whether, after having solemnly
affirmed certain principles, it would, because the lords had rejected
them, yield them up, and then endeavour to agree with the lords in the
alterations of this bill, or in the provisions of a new measure. For
himself, he would say, that if the members of the house of commons
were to go up to the bar of the house of lords in such humble guise,
admitting that they had been in error, and that the wisdom of the house
of lords had taught them a lesson of policy they had never learned
before, he, for one, would not accompany the commons on such a message.
Sir Robert Peel, who followed the home-secretary, moved as an amendment
that the lords’ amendments should now be taken into consideration; but,
after a brief debate, the motion for rejecting the bill was carried by
a majority of two hundred and sixty against two hundred and thirty-one.




COMMUTATION OF TITHES IN ENGLAND.

One of the leading measures of the session, as regarded England, was for
the commutation of tithes; a measure which was brought forward for the
relief of the dissenters. The ministerial plan for the commutation of
tithes was brought before the house of commons by Lord John Russell
on the 9th of February. The subject, he said, consisted of two parts:
namely, the principles on which the commutation should be made, and the
machinery by which it was to be carried into execution. The machinery,
he confessed, would be borrowed from Sir Robert Peel’s bill of last
year. There would be a central board of commissioners, consisting of
three persons, for the purpose of arranging the question of commutation;
and this board would have power to appoint assistant-commissioners to a
certain extent, and in certain cases, in the same manner as the poor-law
commissioners. His lordship admitted that the selection of the principle
on which the commutation should proceed was a subject attended with much
difficulty. In the plan government proposed, their object had been to
produce as little disturbance as possible in existing interests, not
to diminish violently or excessively the income now enjoyed by the
tithe-owners, and to produce some uniformity in the mode of calculating
and valuing tithe throughout England and Wales. As in the bill of last
year, any landowner would be allowed to agree with the tithe-owner for
a commutation of his tithe; and having made such an agreement, he would
stand to the tenant in the relation not only of landlord, but likewise
of tithe-owner. He also proposed that it should be competent for the
possessor or possessors of one-fourth of the value of the tithe to call
a meeting of the owners of land in the parish, at which parties might be
represented as they now were under the poor-law act. When three-fourths
in value of the owners of tithe agreed with three-fourths in value of
the owners of land, they would have power to make an agreement binding
on the whole parish, if no person appealed against it within a certain
period. If any person appealed, it should still be binding against those
who did not appeal. The parties appealing would be compelled to appear
before the assistant-commissioners, who, on hearing their statements,
would make an award, which award, on the ratification of the central
board, would become binding on the parish. If, at the end of a certain
period, he would say six months, no such agreement were made between
the tithe-owners and the tithe-payers, it would be competent for any
landowner, or any tithe-owner, to ask the commissioners to make such a
general award on the tithes of the parish. When such a demand was made,
an assistant-commissioner would be authorised to examine what had been
the amount of tithes, and what had been the expense of collecting the
tithes for the last seven years; he would then declare the amount of
tithes so paid for the last seven years, and that amount would be
represented by a certain quantity of wheat, barley, and oats. If any
person should appeal against this declaration, on the ground that the
amount fixed for the tithes on the composition did not fairly represent
their value, the assistant-commissioner would make an estimate of the
value of the tithes for the seven years previous, and ascertain the
actual gross value of them for that period. If it should appear that
the sum of tithes taken in any parish during a period of seven years
exceeded seventy-five per cent, of the gross value, then it would be
competent to the commissioners to determine that the commutation should
amount to seventy-five per cent. of the gross value, and no more, and
they would reduce the sum accordingly; if, on the contrary, it appeared
that the amount taken was less than sixty per cent, of the gross value
of the tithe, the commissioners would be authorised to raise the sum to
sixty per cent., and to declare that that should be the amount of the
future charge. If the sum paid was between these two limits, it should
be competent to the commissioners to make such an award as they thought
the circumstances and the justice of the case required. In some cases
tithes had been taken to such an extent as ought not to form the basis
of a permanent charge; and, on the other hand, there were instances, as
had been satisfactorily established by undoubted evidence, of clergymen
who did not receive more than forty or fifty per cent, of the amount to
which they were entitled. It appeared just to interfere in these cases;
and he thought it right to fix a sum to be taken hereafter, which should
not exceed or fall below a certain amount, in proportion to the gross
value of the tithe. It was open for consideration, whether sixty or
seventy-five pounds were the proper minimum and maximum: he referred
to these sums only as illustrating the principle. In certain cases,
however, a special regulation would be required, as tithes on hops,
orchards, and gardens, on which the tithes were extremely high. He
proposed giving the commissioners the power of taking certain hop
districts, in order to ascertain the average tithe of the last seven
years, and fix the amount in future. They would also have the power of
declaring what the tithe of any particular land or property should be,
supposing hop cultivation to be abandoned; and it was provided that in
cases where land should be brought into hop cultivation anew, it should
be subject to an additional payment of fifteen shillings an acre on
account of tithe. As regarded orchards and gardens, he had not been able
to settle a particular provision on the subject, although he admitted
lands thus cultivated were particularly circumstanced. The tithe thus
commuted, Lord John Russell continued, would become a rent-charge,
payable by the landowner according to the value of grain: thus—the
average prices for seven years of wheat, barley, and oats would be
published at certain periods by the comptroller of corn returns; this
publication would take place every year, and the payment of rent-charge
made in lieu of tithe would be varied accordingly. The prices of three
different kinds of grain were taken, for the purpose of ascertaining the
value and amount of the charge, so that if an individual were chargeable
with £300 for tithe, one-third would be estimated by the price of wheat,
one-third by that of barley, and the remaining third by the price of
oats, which would be giving each a fair proportion in the gross amount.
Finally, the intended bill did not deal, his lordship said, with the
question of redemption of the rent-charge; that was an important and
difficult subject, and would require to be dealt with in a separate
measure after the commutations should have been made, and the charge
ascertained. Sir Robert Peel said that he would not object to the
measure being introduced, since he thought himself entitled to say that
it was taken in great part from his bill of last year. The whole of its
machinery was, in fact, adopted, and to a certain extent likewise, its
principle of voluntary commutation. The bill passed the second
reading on the 22nd of February without any division, although various
objections were stated, both as to its principles and details; the
former being chiefly directed against the compulsory nature of the
commutation. When the bill went into committee, ministers made several
alterations in its provisions. Thus the period during which voluntary
commutations might be entered into was extended from six months to
twelve; and the clauses under which a single landholder might compel a
commutation in regard to his own property, while there was none for
the rest of the parish, were given up; it was now proposed that a fixed
proportion of the landowners should have power to enter into a voluntary
agreement, which, after a certain time, should become binding on the
whole parish. A great deal of hostility, however, was still expressed
against the measure, and that even among the ordinary supporters of
government. Mr. Hume maintained that no good bill could be enacted till
the corn-laws were repealed, since they had given land and its produce
an artificial value; and as their repeal was anticipated, this measure
would inflict great injury on the landowners, unless the value of the
tithe was fixed much lower than was done by the bill. Great opposition
was also manifested to the maximum and minimum of seventy-five and sixty
pounds, and fixing them merely by the average of the preceding seven
years, but the clause was retained. On the bringing up of the report,
however, government proposed a modification of the clause, to the effect
that the commissioners, on receiving a representation that the sum paid
was not a fair composition, should ascertain the gross value of the
tithe, and should have power to raise or diminish the sum to be paid in
future, but not beyond one-fifth of the sum paid during the
preceding seven years. Some amendments of minor importance were moved
subsequently, but were rejected; and the bill having gone up to the
lords, was read a second time without opposition, and was passed on the
22nd, both sides of the house approving of its general principles.
The Archbishop of Canterbury said, he thought the bill would be very
beneficial in its effects, relieving the land from the pressure of
tithes, and doing justice to the clergy, and as little liable to
objection as any measure that could be framed on a subject so difficult
and so complicated. With respect to those lands which might be brought
into cultivation as agriculture improved, and for which the bill made no
provision, he agreed that to give the clergy a tithe on such land would
be to prevent the general object of the bill—the expenditure of
capital on the land; but when waste lands were enclosed and brought into
profitable cultivation, he could see no reason why such steps should not
be taken in favour of the clergy as were usual in other cases, and why
a portion of the land should not be given to them. His grace accordingly
moved, in the committee, an amendment to the effect, that when waste
or common lands should be enclosed, the commissioners should assign a
certain portion of the land to the tithe-owner instead of his tithe.
This was objected to on both sides of the house, and the amendment was
negatived without a division. The bill passed, and the few alterations
which had been made in the lords were agreed to with one exception. The
peers had agreed to an amendment giving tithe on cows fed in stalls and
sheds. This was rejected; and the lords, when the bill returned to them,
did not insist upon its retention.




BILL FOR REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES, ETC.

On the 12th of February Lord John Russell brought in bills for relieving
dissenters from the necessity of celebrating their marriages according
to the forms of the church of England, and for establishing a system of
registration of marriages, births, and deaths. His lordship stated
that the two bills were not connected with each other, but that the
establishment of a proper system of registration was, in his opinion,
an indispensable pre-requisite to any measure for removing from the
dissenters their grievances relative to marriage. It was further,
he said, an important object, in a national point of view, to have a
general scheme of registration. At present there were no registry of
births, but only of baptisms; no registry of marriages, because they
were only such marriages as were performed by ministers of the church of
England; and no registry of burials, as the only burials registered
were those in which the service was performed by clergymen of the
establishment. He argued that it was necessary we should have a
registration, which should comprehend, indifferently and impartially,
all sects of the people. The late change effected in our domestic
policy, he continued, seemed to furnish the means of attaining this
end without any heavy additional expense. By the poor-law amendment act
there were two hundred and twenty-eight unions already in England and
Wales; and it might be calculated that, when the whole country was
divided into unions, there would be more than eight hundred. In every
union there was a relieving-officer, each union consisting of about
twenty parishes, and containing from sixteen to twenty thousand
inhabitants. There was likewise an auditor appointed by the board of
guardians. Now the government proposed that the poor-law commissioners
should have the power of appointing the relieving-officer, or any other
person whom they might think fit, to keep the register of a certain
number of parishes; and the auditor of the union, or his clerk, or any
other person appointed by the poor-law commissioners, should superintend
the register of that part. There would further be a registry-office
in each county, and a chief office in London, subject, however, to the
authority of the poor-law commissioners. The superintendent in each
union was to send the registers to the county office every two months,
and copies would be transmitted thence to the central office in London.
As regarded the manner in which the registration was to be made, his
lordship said, that the bill would require notice to be given by the
occupier of the house in which the child was born within eight days
after that event had taken place, and that within fifteen or twenty days
the registrar might call upon either the father or mother of the child,
or upon the occupier of the house, to give him certain particulars, in
order to fill up accurately the register in respect to that child. The
person who furnished these particulars would also be required to furnish
the name of the child; if that was declined at the time, and withheld
to a future period, it would be necessary to postpone it, and the
party would be obliged to produce to the registrar a certificate of the
baptism of the child, and to pay him a fee of one shilling for making
the entry. In cases of death likewise the occupier would have to give
an account of the deaths which happened in his house—of the time and
circumstances of the event—in the same manner as was provided in the
case of birth. The registrar, within a certain time, would also call
upon the next of kin, or any person living in the house, to furnish
him with further particulars with respect to the death, the age of
the deceased, information as to what part of the country the deceased
belonged to, and all such other information as was usual and material in
such cases. Persons who gave this information would not be required
to pay any fees for the entry, or, indeed, for anything; but copies or
certificates of the entry at any time afterwards supplied would have to
be paid for. Every registrar would receive two shillings and sixpence
for each name entered by him within twenty days after birth or death,
and one shilling extra after that time, and the superintendent of the
registrar would be paid twopence on each entry. It was calculated that
altogether there would be about 812,000 entries made in the course of
one year, and that the amount paid to the registrars thereon would be
somewhat more than £40,000. The total expense, including superintendents
and the register-office in London, would amount to about £80,000 per
annum. For the present the lords of the treasury would be empowered to
pay the expenses of the central register-office in London; the future
expenses would be borne by the parishes, according to the number of
entries supplied by each. Lord John Russell next proceeded to state
the provisions of the registration of marriages. He laid it down as a
principle that the state had no interest in the form of the marriage
ceremony, beyond that of its being binding on the consciences of the
parties. When it was ascertained that due notice of the contract had
been given, according to the form requisite to be followed by all
parties, that the contract was duly registered, and that the manner in
which that contract was entered into was binding upon the consciences of
the parties to it, then the state had learned all that it was essential
or necessary for it to know. The law of the country, however, as it at
present stood, took a very different view. By the marriage law of
1754 it was declared that a marriage, in order to be valid, must be
performed—after bans published in the church, or licence granted by
authority—in the church, within certain hours, except under a special
licence, and in all cases by a clergyman of the church of England. This
law he considered as an unnecessary violation of conscience, and he
proposed to leave the marriages of the members of the church of
England as they were under the present law, and to allow the Protestant
dissenters to be married in their own chapels, according to the
religious form most acceptable to themselves. Instead of the
publication of bans, he proposed that all persons, whether of the church
establishment or Protestant dissenters, should give notice of their
intention to marry to the registrar, and that their names should be
entered by him in a notice-book, open to inspection for twenty-one days
prior to the celebration; but that persons intending to marry by licence
would be required to give only eight days’ notice; and special licences,
issued under the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury, would still
be retained. If the parties were unknown to the registrar, some person
known to him would be required to declare that they were the parties
they professed themselves to be. After the names had remained twenty-one
days on the notice, the registrar would have to give them a notice to
that effect, and the marriage might be celebrated within three months
from that date. If the parties were members of the church of England,
the clergyman, on the production of the certificate within the period,
would be empowered to perform the ceremony without the publication of
bans; or, if the parties were dissenters, they would be at liberty to
go to a dissenting chapel with the certificate of notice, and, on its
production, the ceremony would there be solemnized. The chapel, however,
must first be duly licensed, on the application of at least twenty
householders, who must declare that it was a dissenting chapel, used as
a place of worship, and that they desired it to be licensed for the
celebration of marriages. It was further proposed that as a dissenting
minister was not known so well as a clergyman of the church of England,
and that as he might take upon himself the office and lay it down again,
the registrar should be present at such marriages, and should afterwards
enter the names of the parties on the registry. To those who considered
marriage to be altogether a civil contract, he would give something
like what had been proposed last year by Sir Robert Peel, with this
exception, that the parties, instead of going before a magistrate, would
go before the registrar of marriages for the district in which they
resided, who would enter the marriage contracted before him in a form
of words set out in the bill. In respect to the registration of other
marriages, the only difference between members of the establishment and
dissenters would be this—that the established clergyman might enter the
certificate of marriage in his own register, and send a duplicate copy
thereof to the superior registrar of the district, to be forwarded by
him to London; while, in the case of dissenters, it would be required
that the ceremony should be performed in the presence of the registrar,
who would certify that the marriage had taken place after a compliance
with all the forms.

The bills were brought in, and were read a second time on the 15th
of April without any opposition. The registration bill passed through
committee without any important alteration; and the house of lords
passed it on the 15th of August, with several amendments, to which the
commons agreed. In the committee on the marriage bill, it was proposed
to continue the publication of bans in rural districts, as a more
effective means of giving notice to families interested in preventing
a clandestine marriage than a register, which would require to be
daily examined. It was also proposed to allow a dissenting chapel to be
licensed for marriage purposes on the application of ten householders
belonging to the congregation, instead of twenty, because there were
many such chapels which did not contain ten householders. Both these
propositions were rejected, as was also a motion for the rejection of
the clause which allowed persons who objected to marry in church, or
in a registered meeting-house, to marry at the office of the registrar.
This clause was objected to on the ground that it altered the whole
marriage law of England, and separated the contract of marriage from all
religious sanction; but a large majority decided in its favour. On the
third reading Mr. Goulburn moved the insertion of a clause requiring, in
all cases where marriages were not solemnized in a church or chapel, nor
according to the rites of the church of England, that the parties should
make the following declaration:—“I do solemnly declare that I have
conscientious scruples against the solemnization of marriage according
to the rites and ceremonies of the church of England.” This motion,
however, was rejected by a large majority, and another was carried,
which went to reject the eighteenth clause of the bill, which required
persons married before the registrar solemnly to declare that their had
conscientious scruples against marrying in either church or chapel, or
with any religious ceremony. Sir Robert Peel said, that the bill thus
altered had assumed an entirely different aspect; while it provided
for the relief of the dissenters, it passed a gratuitous and most
intolerable insult on the feelings and principles of the members of the
church of England. Lord Lincoln, after making similar remarks, moved, as
an amendment, that the bill should be read that day six months; but the
third reading was carried by one hundred and four against fifty-four. In
the lords the second reading encountered no opposition, objections to it
being reserved for the committee. In the committee the Bishop of Exeter
moved, in order to avoid the desecration of the marriage contract when
the ceremony was not performed in church, that the parties should make
the following declaration:—“In the presence of Almighty God and these
witnesses, I, M., do take thee, N., to be my wedded wife, according to
God’s holy ordinance; and I do here, in the presence of God, solemnly
promise, before these witnesses, to be to thee a loving and faithful
husband during life,” instead of, as it stood in the bill, “I call upon
these persons here present to witness that, I, A. B., do take thee, C.
D., to be my lawful, wedded wife.” This amendment was carried; but
on the bringing up of the report, the bill, on the motion of Lord
Melbourne, was restored in this respect to what it had formerly
been. The lords, however, struck out that provision of the bill which
abolished the proclamation of bans, and they enacted with regard to all
marriages of members of the established church, that bans should still
be proclaimed. They likewise enacted that the superintendent of each
district should send to the clerks of the unions the names of all
persons who gave notice of their intention to marry, they being
Protestant dissenters, and that their names should be read weekly, for
three successive weeks, at the meetings of the guardians of the poor.
Finally, in some parts of the bill they introduced an oath in
place of a declaration, and required the interference of the
superintendent-registrar, instead of the registrar. Some of these
amendments were very unfavourably received by the dissenting interest in
the commons, and an amendment was carried expunging the enactment
that the names of dissenters intending to marry, should be read by
the guardians of the poor at their weekly meetings. To all the other
amendments of the lords, the commons, on the advice of Lord John
Russell, agreed.




BILL TO ALTER THE REVENUES AND TERRITORIES OF THE DIFFERENT SEES, ETC.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

During the administration of Sir Robert Peel, a commission had been
appointed to inquire what useful changes, if any, could be introduced in
the ecclesiastical condition of the church of England, so as to remove
anomalies which might still exist in it, and insure more effective
pastoral superintendence. This commission had made a first report before
Sir Robert Peel had resigned, and on the occurrence of that event his
successors continued it, though its official members were changed. The
second report was presented to both houses early in the present session,
when it appeared that the inquiries of the committee had been threefold:
first, their recommendations referred to the ecclesiastical division
of territory, and the revenues of the different sees; secondly, to the
cathedral and collegiate revenues, which it was desirable should be made
more useful for the church establishment; and, lastly, the residence
of clergymen on their benefices. During this session Lord John Russell
introduced into the lower house a bill founded on those recommendations,
which regarded the new modelling of the episcopal sees in relation to
territory and income; and at a later period, another measure was
brought in, providing for the suppression of cathedral and collegiate
preferments, and sinecure benefices. A third measure was likewise
brought into the house of lords by the Archbishop of Canterbury, to
carry into effect the recommendations of the commissioners regarding
pluralities and non-residence.

The bill concerning the territories and revenues of the diocesses, or
the established church bill, recited those parts of the reports of the
commissioners which set forth the proposed alterations among the sees,
and deductions from their revenues. The first of these reports had
recommended a different territorial arrangement of diocesses, with
the view of making them more equal; the suppression of two sees; the
erection of two others, those of Manchester and Ripon, in their places;
and that the revenues of the sees—the two archbishoprics, and the sees
of London, Durham, and Winchester excepted, should not exceed £5500,
nor fall below £4500. The second report proposed that the diocess
of Bristol, which, according to the previous recommendation, was to
comprehend part of the diocess of Llandaff, should be united, as far as
respected Bristol, with the diocess of Bath and Wells; and, as far
as respected the remaining portion of the see, with the bishopric of
Gloucester. It was further proposed that the Isle of Man should be
united with the bishopric of Carlisle. With regard to the revenues,
the second report recommended that the income of the Archbishop of
Canterbury should be reduced from £17,000 to £15,000; of the see of
London, from £12,200 to £10,000; of Durham, from £17,800 to £8000; of
Winchester, from £10,700 to £7000; of Ely, from £11,000 to £7500; and of
Worcester, from £6500 to £5000. The excess produced by these deductions
was to be divided among thirteen sees, so as to make their respective
revenues range between £5500 and £4500 per annum. It was further
suggested that some useful measure might be proposed with respect to the
mode of granting leases; but this was a subject which the commission had
found extremely difficult in treating with, and therefore they had not
agreed upon any proposition. After reciting these various parts of the
reports of the commissioners, Lord John Russell’s bill incorporated
a board of commissioners under the style of “the ecclesiastical
commissioners for England,” which board was composed of spiritual and
lay peers, of the lord-chancellor, the president of the council, and
first lord of the treasury, of the chancellor of the exchequer, and
such of the secretaries of state as his majesty might name for the
time being, and of the right honourable Henry Hobhouse and Sir Herbert
Jenner. The bill further enacted that the commissioners from time to
time should lay before the king in council such schemes as should appear
to them to be best adapted for carrying into effect the before-cited
recommendations, and such measures as should appear to them necessary
for the proper execution of these schemes, with a power of making such
modifications and variations in matters of detail, as might not be
repugnant to the recommendations themselves. When any such scheme had
been approved of by his majesty, it was to be ratified by an order of
the king in council, published in the _Gazette_, and recorded by the
registrars in the diocesses, and was thereafter to be of the same force
and effect as if every part of it had been included in this act. A
clause was inserted, enacting that in future no bishop should hold _in
commendam_ any ecclesiastical office, dignity, or benefice, all
such grants being declared null and void; and by another clause the
commissioners were directed to prepare a scheme for preventing the
appointment of clergymen not fully conversant with the Welsh language,
to any benefice in Wales, with the cure of souls, where the majority of
the inhabitants of the parish did not understand English. On the motion
for going into the committee on tire bill, the second reading of which
had encountered no opposition, Lord John Russell entered at considerable
length into this measure, and likewise the other two bills which were
to accompany it in reforming the church. It would be mere repetition
to record his expressions on the first measure; but passing to the
recommendation of the commissioners for suppressing collegiate and
cathedral charges, and benefices without the cure of souls, he said,
that the income which would become available from these sources would be
£130,000. In making a new application of this revenue, the first regard
would be given to the wants and circumstances of the parishes from which
the revenue was derived. The want of church accommodation in many places
was lamentable. With respect to patronage, Lord John Russell added,
it was proposed that instead of the large number of livings now in the
hands of the dean and chapters, for the future they should only have the
power either of appointing one of their own body, or one of their minor
canons to benefices; but if they were not accepted, they should, after
three months, be disposed of by the crown in some cases, and by the
bishop of the diocess in others. With respect to the patronage of the
crown, by which the church was connected with the state, he thought
it would be a great evil to have the church totally independent of the
state. Patronage was one of the means by which the church was united to
the state, and by which the latter was bound to promote the interest and
welfare of the church; and on the other hand the clergy were enlisted
in the common cause and general policy of the state. He considered also
that the patronage in the hands of bishops and individuals was useful;
and the commissioners had proposed that the patronage in the hands of
cleans, prebends, and residentiaries, should go into the hands of the
bishops. On the motion for going into committee the bill was inveighed
against as a mockery of reform, which still left the church too wealthy;
merely making a new distribution among the bishops, instead of a
reduction; not only not taking sufficient from the richer bishoprics,
but giving what it even did take to the other bishops, instead of
bestowing it on the poor and working clergy. The bill passed through the
committee on the 14th; and on the bringing up of the report, Mr. Hume
moved that it should be considered that day three months. This motion
was rejected by a majority of more than two to one; and Mr. C. Buller
then moved a clause, to the effect that, until due provision should have
been made for the adequate payment of the parochial clergy, and for the
supply of religious instruction to those parts of the country stated in
the report of the commissioners to be destitute thereof, the Archbishop
of Canterbury should receive an income of not more than £8000; the
Archbishop of York, £7000; the Bishop of London, £4500; and each of
the other bishops £4000. This proposition was rejected by a majority of
eighty-two against forty-four; but the resistance of ministers seemed
only to increase the opposition of their radical opponents. On the
motion for the third reading, Mr. Hume moved, as an amendment, that the
bill should be read a third time that day six months. It was impossible,
he said, that the bill could pass; and if ministers thought it would be
passed, they would find themselves mistaken, and do great injury to the
liberal cause which they professed to advocate; such a bill was not to
be passed while the pledges of the government in regard to the church
remained unredeemed. Mr. T. Duncombe bitterly reproached ministers for
their supposed dereliction of principle; they might talk as they chose
of their Irish tithe-bill and their appropriation clause, but English
church reform would be the touchstone by which it would be tried whether
they would retain the confidence of the country. On a division,
Mr. Hume’s amendment was rejected by a majority of one hundred and
seventy-five against forty-four, ministers being supported by the
conservatives, and generally by the Irish members. In the meantime
the lords had been proceeding with the bill regarding pluralities and
non-residence. On the second reading of that bill, the Bishops of Exeter
and Hereford expressed strong apprehensions of the consequences of the
bill, although, as the house was unanimous in its favour, they would not
occasion any vote. The bill was founded on the recommendations of the
commissioners previously alluded to. It was proposed that exemptions
in favour of non-residence should be granted only to chaplains in
attendance on their majesties, or on bishops, the principals of some
schools, and in a few other special cases. The law at present allowed
incumbents to be absent three months; and it was not proposed to shorten
the time, as circumstances did not permit the clergy generally to
take advantage of it, and pluralities produced a greater quantity
of non-residence than all other causes. In regard to pluralities,
therefore, the commissioners proposed, that no clerygyman should hold
two livings if the income of one of them exceeded £500, or they were
more than ten miles distant from each other; and that, in no case,
should any clergyman hold more than two livings. The bill further
enacted, that no person should hold more than one benefice, with one
cathedral preferment, and that no person should hold preferment in
more than one cathedral or collegiate church, except archdeacons, whose
office was very laborious, and in general ill-paid. After some remarks
made against some of these provisions by the Bishops of Exeter and
Hereford, the lords agreed to them; and the bill was passed and sent
down to the commons, but it was dropped for the session. Nothing more
was heard of the bills which Lord John Russell had successfully carried
through the commons, regarding the new modelling of episcopal sees, &c.,
and the suppression of cathedral and collegiate preferments and sinecure
benefices. With reference to the latter subject, however, a short
act was passed, in order to prevent the creation of any new vested
interests, by providing generally that all future appointments to any
ecclesiastical dignity or office referred to in the recommendations of
the ecclesiastical commissioners, should be subject to such regulations
as might subsequently be enacted regarding them; and that no appointment
should be made to any canonry or prebend of cathedrals and collegiate
churches, nor to any sinecure benefice not in the patronage of private
persons, or of one of the universities, that was now vacant, or might
become vacant during the continuance of the act, which was limited to a
year, and to the end of the next session of parliament. Various canons
and prebends were excepted, principally those which were attached to
professorships and dignities of the universities; but the canonries of
York, St. Paul, Carlisle, Chichester, and Lincoln, and prebends held
by the Bishops of Lincoln, Lichfield. Exeter, and Salisbury, in their
respective sees, were likewise excluded.




BILL TO ABOLISH THE SECULAR JURISDICTION OF BISHOPS, ETC.

During this session an act was passed, by which the secular jurisdiction
of the county palatine of Durham, with all forfeitures, mines, treasure
trove, and other rights belonging to that authority, were transferred
from the bishop of the diocess and vested in the crown. The county-court
was abolished; and it was likewise declared that the bishop elect, or
any bishop for the time being, should take and hold the see, subject to
such provisions as parliament might make regarding it within three
years from the passing of the act. By another measure, the secular
jurisdiction of the Archbishop of York over the liberty of Ripon
and other places in Yorkshire, and the stoke of Southwell, in
Nottinghamshire; and the secular authority of the Bishop of Ely over the
Isle of Ely, were separated from the sees, and transferred to the king.
A third act was passed, imposing restrictions on the renewal of leases
by ecclesiastical persons. This bill provided, that where a lease had
been granted for more than two lives, no renewal of it should be given
till one or more of those lives had expired; and that, even then, the
renewal should be only for the surviving lives, or for such new lives
as, with the survivors, would make up the number of lives, not exceeding
three, for which the lease had been originally granted. Where the lease
had been granted for forty, thirty, or twenty-one years, it was not to
be renewable till fourteen, ten, and seven years respectively of the
original term had expired; and where it had merely been for years, no
new lease was to be given for a life or lives. It was further required,
that all leases should contain a recital, setting forth, in the case of
a lease for lives, the names of the persons mentioned in the original
lease as those on whose lives it was granted, and specifying such of the
lives as were still existing, or had been exchanged for some other life.
If the lease had been for a term of years, the recital was to set forth
that term, and how much remained unexpired; and every such recital, so
far as related to the validity of the lease containing it, was to be
deemed and taken as conclusive evidence of the matter so recited.




BILL TO AMEND THE ENGLISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT.

When the bill relative to the reform of municipal corporations came into
operation, in the end of 1835, it was soon discovered that some of
the details of its machinery would require amendment. A bill for that
purpose was brought in early in the present session. In some instances
the mayor and other corporate officers had been elected, when the person
presiding at the election was not legally entitled to preside; and the
bill enacted that, notwithstanding this, all such elections, and all
acts done by the officers so elected, should be good and valid. The
act passed directed that elections should be held before the mayor and
assessors; but, in some instances, there had been elections where there
were no assessors: the present bill proposed to declare, both for
the past and the future, that elections held before the election
of assessors, but with the mayor or council presiding, should be as
effectual as if they had been made before the mayor and assessors. The
act provided, that the councillors who should go out of office were to
be those who had been elected by the smallest number of votes; and if
the votes had been equal, the majority of the council was to determine
who should first go out. This did not provide for the case when there
was no division of votes, in consequence of there being no contest; and
the present bill provided for this case, by enacting that the majority
of the council should select their outgoing colleagues. The act did not
provide for the town-councillors being equally divided in the election
of mayor or alderman, and instances had occurred of two parties in
the council dividing against each other till midnight, after which no
election could take place, as the day named in the act had expired: it
was proposed by the present bill that, in such a case, the councillor
who had the greatest number of votes at the election should preside, but
without any casting vote, and that when the councillors could not
agree on a mayor or alderman, the election should be referred to the
constituent body. The act had abolished various corporate officers,
without observing that, by their charter, their presence was necessary
at the sessions. Serious doubts had arisen from this as to the legality
of the proceedings at the sessions, before the new officers entered upon
their duties under the act of parliament. The present bill declared that
any court held since the passing of the act of last session, or before
the 1st of May, 1836, in presence of the recorder, or any two persons
who, at the date of that act, were entitled to act as justices for
the borough, had been well and lawfully held. Many of the municipal
elections having been questioned by proceedings in the King’s Bench,
as being illegally and invalidly made, it was proposed by the bill that
these causes should be decided in favour of one of the parties by act
of parliament; that the proceedings should be quashed, and suits
prohibited, by enacting that the defendants should have the right of
getting them discontinued on making payment of costs. This bill passed
the commons; and when it came to be read a second time in the house of
lords, the Duke of Wellington and Lord Lyndhurst pointed out the grave
consideration and the careful examination which many of its enactments
would require. Lord Lyndhurst especially called the attention of the
house to the tendency of those provisions which had a retrospective
operation. After the bill, therefore, had been read a second time, it
was referred, with the acquiescence of ministers, to a select committee,
which committee made various amendments upon the bill, all of which
were agreed to by the house and adopted into the bill. The commons, on
receiving the bill back again, agreed to all the amendments except two.
The first of these was an amendment on the provision, that when the
town-council was equally divided in the election of mayor or alderman,
these officers should be chosen directly by the constituent body. The
lords had altered this into a provision that, in case of equality,
the town-council should first of all name by lot one of this number to
preside at the meeting, and that their presiding councillor should have
a casting vote. The second amendment consisted in the insertion of a
clause to continue for another year the arrangement contained in the
municipal act for the management of charitable trusts. No portion of
these new institutions had produced greater jealousy between parties;
the popular party were eager to get hold of them, while the other
insisted on some arrangement which would prevent the funds of charities
from being prostituted to party and political purposes. This jealousy
was not set aside by the municipal bill, which left those charitable
trusts in the hands of the persons then administering them, till the
1st of August, 1837, unless parliament in the meantime should otherwise
provide, and if it did not, then the lord-chancellor was to appoint new
trustees. Previous to this Mr. Smith had brought in a bill to administer
these trusts by a system of popular election. The town-council of each
borough was to fix the number of trustees, and then the trustees were to
be chosen by the municipal electors, each elector voting for only half
of the number, in the idea that this would give both parties an equal
chance. The trustees were to be elected every three years. This bill
had not passed when the municipal bill was sent up to the lords; and it
proceeded upon a system which their lordships were not likely to approve
of. The lords, therefore, had inserted in the municipal bill a clause
continuing for another year that administration of these charitable
trusts which had been admitted into the original corporation act.
The attorney-general moved that the commons should not agree to this
amendment, as Mr. Smith’s bill would soon pass; and he further moved
that they should not agree to the amendment regarding the election of
mayor and aldermen when the town-council were equally divided, on the
ground, that it left to chance, and not to the voice of the people,
which should be the predominating party in the corporation. This motion
was agreed to; and the reasons of the commons for disagreeing with these
amendments were communicated to the lords in a conference. The lords,
however, still adhered to their amendments, the Duke of Wellington
contending that the rejection of them was a departure from the principle
on which he and his friends had waived all opposition to the decision of
the select committee, and had consented to adopt the amendments as that
committee had framed them. The decision of the lords to adhere to their
amendments took place on the 1st of July, and on the 28th Mr. Smith’s
bill for administering the charities by popular election passed the
commons. The second reading was moved in the lords on the 4th of
August, when it was opposed by the Duke of Wellington, who deemed it as
unreasonable in the circumstances and bad in itself. On a division the
second reading of the bill was negatived by a majority of thirty-nine to
twenty-two. The commons still refused to agree to the clause which the
lords had inserted in the bill on this subject, and there seemed to be
no alternative but to drop the bill. The lower house, however,
resolved to adopt the only course open to them, namely, that of a free
conference, at which the matter in dispute might be debated between the
managers _viva voce_. This course was pursued; but the two houses
could not come to any agreement on these clauses, and finally Lord John
Russell moved that the further consideration of the amendments should
be postponed till that day three months, which motion was agreed to.
Certain bills were subsequently brought in and passed, to supply those
parts of the dropped bill, in which both houses were agreed.




BILL TO ALLOW FELONS’ COUNSEL TO ADDRESS THE JURY, ETC.

Several attempts had been made to obtain an act for allowing prisoners
on trial for felony the benefit of counsel to address the jury on
their behalf. Hitherto these attempts had been unsuccessful; but
notwithstanding this, the subject was again brought before the commons
at the commencement of the present session. The bill was introduced by
Mr. Ewart, and it passed the commons by a great majority. The second
reading of the bill in the house of lords was moved by Lord Lyndhurst,
who descanted at large on the justice and reasonableness of the bill
in its principle, although he did not approve of all its details. Lords
Denman and Wynford also spoke in favour of the principles of the bill,
and it was accordingly read a second time without opposition. In the
committee, however, several amendments and alterations were made upon
the bill, none of which were of great practical importance except one,
and all of which, except that one, were agreed to by the commons. It
frequently happened that persons were tried for felony where no counsel
were present, and by this bill the privileges of the counsel were
extended to attornies. The bill, as it came up from the commons,
contained a clause entitling the accused to copies of the depositions
upon which he had been committed. This clause was struck out, on the
ground that the rights of a prisoner in this respect were already
settled by law; but, to prevent all doubt upon the subject, a clause
declaratory of the right was again introduced, before the bill finally
passed the lords. A more important matter, however, regarded the right
of the prisoner to have the last word. As the bill passed the commons,
this right was established; but the clause enacting that he should
possess that right was struck out, and the effect of the alteration
was to make the practice the same as in cases of misdemeanour, and in
criminal cases, giving the last word to the prisoner, only in the event
of his adducing no evidence. The bill now consisted of this simple
enactment:—“That all persons tried for felony shall be admitted, after
the close of the case for the prosecution, to make full answer and
defence thereto by counsel learned in the law, or by attorney in courts,
where attornies practise as counsel.” When the bill as amended by the
lords came to be taken into consideration by the commons, its supporters
argued that, as it now stood, it conferred no real advantage, and
that it would be better to leave to prisoners the benefit of the
commiseration which the state of the law, such as it was at present,
induced, than to deprive them of it without giving them anything
substantive in return. It was resolved that the lords’ amendments should
be referred to a select committee, and that committee reported in favour
of the other amendments; but they decided that any arrangement which
would deprive the prisoner of the last word would be injurious to his
interests, and to the ends of justice. The attorney-general urged the
house to accept the bill as it stood; but the amendment was rejected,
and its rejection immediately communicated to the other house. The
lords, however, still resolved to adhere to the amendment, and a
conference was held, at which their reasons for adhering to it were
communicated to the commons. The amendment was finally adopted by the
lower house, and the bill passed—Lord John Russell stating that the
matter in dispute would form a subject of future deliberation, and Mr.
Ewart assuring the house that he would not fail still to press upon
it the principle which he now sacrificed, rather than reject the bill,
which still retained a great deal of good.

Another act passed during this session had reference to the execution
of those convicted of murder. By the existing law a person convicted of
murder was directed to be executed the next day but one after that on
which he was convicted, unless it should happen on a Sunday, in which
case the execution was to take place on the following Monday. The law
further required that after conviction such persons should be fed only
on bread and water, except in case of sickness, and that no other person
than the gaoler, surgeon, and chaplain, should have access to them,
unless by the permission of the sheriff or the judge who had presided on
the trial. During the present session an act was passed repealing these
provisions, enacting that “sentence of death maybe pronounced after
conviction for murder in the same manner, and the judge shall have
the same power in all respects, as after conviction for other capital
offences.”

A third act passed this session related to medical attendance on
inquests. This was an act to provide that when medical men were called
from their ordinary duties to serve the public by giving evidence
on coroners’ inquests, and going through the anatomical and chemical
processes which these examinations sometimes required, they should
receive a proper remuneration. This bill, which was brought in by Mr.
Wakley, enacted that not only the coroner should have power to summon
medical witnesses, but “that if the jury were not satisfied with
such medical evidence, the coroner should be bound to summon another
gentleman of the same profession; and every medical witness so summoned
was subjected, in case of non-attendance, to a penalty of £5, to be
recovered summarily before the justices.” On the other hand, every
medical man attending to give evidence was entitled to the fee of one
guinea; and if he had performed a post-mortem examination, his fee was
to be two guineas. The fees were made payable out of the poors’-rates.




ABOLITION OF IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT, ETC.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

In the preceding session a bill for the abolition of imprisonment for
debt had passed the commons; but from the lateness of the session it
was not possible for the lords when they received it to take it into
consideration. The lord-chancellor took up the subject himself in this
session, and a bill similar to that passed by the commons was read a
first time in the lords on the 30th of June. It is unnecessary to give
the details of the measure as it was not permitted to pass. Indeed the
house of lords seemed determined to avenge itself upon the ministry
which carried the reform bill, by rejecting every measure it introduced,
except where the feeling of the country was too strongly in favour of
such measure. On the second reading, the Duke of Wellington objected
to taking up at that late stage of the session a measure involving such
extensive interests, and introducing a new system of law. His grace
moved, that the bill should be read a second time that day three
months; and his motion was supported by Lords Abinger and Wynford, who
considered it not as rejecting any measure founded on the principle of
the bill, but only as postponing the subject till they could give it
due consideration. Lord Melbourne agreed that the weight of business
pressing on the house was great; but he did not see anything in it to
deter them from proceeding with the bill. The proposed delay, he said,
would only carry them to the 1st of August; and there was no probability
that parliament would be prorogued by that time. On a division, however,
the amendment was carried; and, although the session continued till the
20th of August, the subject was not again brought forward.

In his speech from the throne the king had recommended to parliament
“to consider whether better provision may not be made for the speedy
and satisfactory administration of justice in some of the departments
of law, and more particularly in the court of chancery.” These words
had been used in reference to an intention entertained by government of
dividing the office of lord-high-chancellor, distributing his functions
between two judges, one of whom should be devoted to legal duties,
and be irremovable; while the other should retain the patronage and
political functions of the office, and should be liable to be dismissed
with the ministry who appointed him. On the 28th of April, the
lord-chancellor brought forward the measures by which this great change
was to be effected; and he founded the necessity of such measures on
the increase of business which had taken place in the court of chancery,
both in its original and appellate jurisdictions. On the second reading,
Lord Lyndhurst objected to these bills in point of principle. The
necessary effect of the measure would be, he said, to divide the office
of chancellor, and to disqualify him from exercising that very
appellate jurisdiction to which he was devoted. This separation was most
mischievous; and he, therefore, moved that the bill should be read that
day six months. On the other hand, Lord Langdale did not consider that
the bill went far enough. He held it, he said, to be indispensable that
the judicial functions of the chancellor should be separated from those
which were not judicial: and that the appellate jurisdiction of the
house of lords ought to be placed under the superintendence of a
judge having no connexion with politics. Lord Abinger and the Duke of
Wellington supported the amendment; the latter remarking that it was
important that the most eminent lawyer in the country should occupy such
a position in the councils of his majesty as would give those councils
substantial benefit from his assistance. Lord Melbourne contended that
the house could do no wrong in going into committee on the bill; but
on a division the amendment was carried by a majority of ninety-four to
twenty-nine.




ELECTION COMMITTEES.

Early in the session Mr. C. Buller brought the subject of the
constitution of election committees before the house of commons, by
moving “that a select committee be appointed to consider the laws
relating to the determination of the right of voting, and the trial
of controverted elections.” In accordance with this motion a select
committee was appointed; but its labours did not produce any fruit
during the session. In the preceding sessions bills had passed the
commons to disfranchise the borough of Stafford; but none of them had
passed both houses. A new bill was passed by the commons, and sent up
to the lords in the beginning of April. The second reading of the bill,
however, in the house of lords was negatived by thirty-eight against
twenty-two. On the 11th of June Mr. Hume moved in the house of commons,
that the issuing of the writ for the borough of Stafford should be
suspended till ten days after the next meeting of parliament. This
motion was carried by a great majority.

Another question touching parliamentary purity attracted still greater
attention. In May, 1835, the election of Colonel Bruen and Mr. Cavanagh
for the county of Carlow had been declared void by a committee. Messrs.
Vigors and Raphael were elected in their stead, by the interest of
Mr. O’Connell. Upon a petition, however, these members were likewise
unseated; and Mr. Raphael, who resided in London, believing that Mr.
O’Connell had broken faith with him, published an account of the bargain
by which he had secured his influence. It appeared that Mr. Raphael had
begun to negociate with the agitator while the petition against Colonel
Bruen and Mr. Cavanagh was still pending, and that the pecuniary treaty
was concluded on that petition having terminated unfavourably for these
gentlemen. Its terms were contained in the following letter, dated the
1st of June:—“My dear sir, you have acceded to the terms proposed
to you for the election of the county of Carlow, viz., you are to
pay before nomination £1,000—say £1,000, and a like sum after being
returned; the first to be paid absolutely and entirely for being
nominated; the second to be paid only in the event of your having been
returned, I hereby undertake to guarantee and save you harmless from any
and every other expense whatever, whether of agents, carriages, counsel,
petition against the return, or of any other description; and I make
this guarantee in the fullest sense of the honourable engagement that
you should not possibly be required to pay one shilling more in any
event or upon any contingency whatever.” Mr. O’Connell wrote to the
electors on behalf of Mr. Raphael; and, on the 10th of June, Mr.
O’Connell received through his son, likewise a member of parliament, the
first sum of £1,000. On the 21st he was returned; and, Mr. O’Connell,
apparently in the prospect of a petition, wrote thus to his protégé:—“I
am glad to tell you our prospects of success are, I do believe, quite
conclusive. If only one liberal is to be returned, you are to be the
man.

“I have made all the pecuniary arrangements.... I send you Vigors’ letter
to me. You see how secure we are. Return me this letter, as it vouches
£800 for me; with that you have nothing to do, as, of course, I stand
between you and everybody.” A petition was presented against the return;
and Mr. Raphael considered himself safe from any further expense except
the sum of £1,000, and that Mr. O’Connell was bound by the express terms
of his bargain to defend the return. He paid the second moiety of the
£2,000 on the 28th of July; on the same day the election committee
was ballotted. Mr. John O’Connell, who had received the money for his
father, was himself one of that committee; and the inquiry before the
committee having resolved into a scrutiny, Mr. Raphael soon discovered
that it was in vain to look for the defence of his seat to his patron.
He called upon Mr. O’Connell to fulfil his engagement “by fighting the
battle so long as a bad vote for the petitioners remained on the poll,
or, at all events, to the end of the session.” Mr. O’Connell, however,
either could not, or would not defend him; and Mr. Raphael was unseated
along with his colleague, on which he published the whole transaction to
the world. Mr. O’Connell felt himself called upon to answer the
charges brought against him; and in doing so, he began by abusing his
antagonist. He had been put on his guard, he said, against Mr. Raphael,
by “honest and experienced men,” who described him as “a faithless
creature, who never observed any contract, and with whom no person ever
had a dealing without being sorry for it.” He admitted the terms of the
bargain; but he insisted that he only acted as the agent of Mr. Vigors,
who was to pay all additional expenses of opposing the petition. The
first sum of £1,000 which Mr. Raphael had paid was expended on the
five days’ poll; and he urged that that gentleman had made an excellent
bargain in having all the expenses of nomination and of a five days’
poll covered by a £1,000. As for the other £1,000, he said, that had
been expended in opposing the petition; and he maintained that there was
no obligation to continue that opposition after it had been spent. He
averred that he himself had no pecuniary interest in the matter: he
had made the bargain as acting for Mr. Vigors; for Mr. Vigors he had
received the money; and to him he had paid it over. The most important
part of his statement consisted in the admission of the purpose to
which the money was to be applied in the event of the return not being
petitioned against. He remarked:—“If there should be no petition, I
agreed, on the part of Mr. Vigors, that the greater part of the second
£1,000, more than one-half of it, whatever might be the amount of the
election expenses, should be applied to commence the formation of a
fund to indemnify the voters, and their friends and relations, from that
persecution which the Carlow landlords then threatened, and have since
exercised.” The subject was brought before parliament on the 11th
of February, by a petition, setting forth the transaction in all its
bearings. The petition likewise stated “that the ballot for a committee
to try the validity of the said return took place on the same afternoon
on which the said second sum of £1,000 had been so received, in respect
of such return, by the said John O’Connell, for the use of his father,
the said Daniel O’Connell; and the said John O’Connell and Daniel
O’Connell both attended the ballot for the committee; and the said
John O’Connell was, in fact, balloted as a member to serve on the
said committee, and suffered to remain on the list of the committee
as finally reduced.” The petition prayed the house to inquire into the
circumstances; and if the charge was proved, to adopt proper proceedings
against the offenders. A similar petition was presented from Bath by
Mr. Hardy, member for Bradford; and it was proposed that both petitions
should be taken into consideration on Monday, the 15th. Mr. O’Connell
wished the discussion to be postponed till the following day, which
was agreed to. On the 16th, therefore, Mr. Hardy moved—“That a select
committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances attending the
traffic and agreement alleged to have taken place between Mr. Daniel
O’Connell and Mr. Alexander Raphael, as one of the representatives for
the county of Carlow, at the last election, and to report the minutes of
evidence taken before them, with their observations thereon.” Mr. Hardy
said, that it was impossible to consider Mr. O’Connell in the light
of an agent, as he had argued: who had ever heard of an agent becoming
responsible to such an amount? The terms of agreement were:—“I hereby
undertake to guarantee and save you harmless from any and every other
expense whatsoever, whether of agents, carriages, counsel, petition
against the return, or of any other description.” He thought that Mr.
Vigors was the agent of Mr. O’Connell at Carlow, rather than that Mr.
O’Connell was the agent of Mr. Vigors in London. At all events, the
consequence of the bargain was, that the member for Dublin, whether as
agent or principal, put in two members for Carlow—Mr. Vigors, his old
friend _ex animo_; and Mr. Raphael, his friend _ex contracta_. It was
of little consequence what sort of representatives the people of Carlow
obtained. They had never seen or heard Mr. Raphael, and they knew
nothing about his physical or intellectual abilities; all they knew was
his address, and there was nothing of him even in that but his name. In
his reply, Mr. O’Connell was violent and abusive. He contended that it
was not on account of anything connected with the Carlow election that
this charge was brought forward, but because he had contributed to put
down Toryism, and had thrown his weight into the scale of government to
accomplish that object. He demanded that the inquiry should be extensive
and searching, comprehending the whole of the late general election. He
had neither been guilty of pecuniary corruption by pocketing money,
nor of personal corruption by gratifying his ambition by the improper
expenditure of the money on the part of other persons. He entered into
a long explanation of the circumstances connected with the transaction,
making it appear that he was guiltless in the matter. In conclusion, he
demanded that the committee should not be a packed one, but a committee
of “honourable gentlemen,” by which he meant gentlemen who would be
inclined to take a favourable view of the matter. Mr. Warburton thought
that the motion did not make the object of the committee sufficiently
extensive; and he moved the addition of words, authorising them to
inquire likewise into “the application of the money said to have been
received, together with the circumstances under which it was received
and expended.” This amendment was agreed to and the committee named, its
members being taken equally from both sides of the house. Two nominees
were likewise appointed, to assist in conducting the evidence; Mr.
Sergeant Wilde on the part of Mr. O’Connell, and Sir Frederick Pollock
on the part of his opponents. The report of the committee was made to
the house by Mr. Colborne, their chairman, on the 11th of March. It read
thus:—“It appears to your committee that the subject may be arranged
under two heads—the first as relating to any traffic or agreement
between Mr. Raphael and Mr. O’Connell for a seat in parliament, and the
second as to the application of the sum said to have been given. It does
not appear to your committee to be necessary for them to enter upon any
detailed summary of the evidence, but they feel it their duty to draw
the attention of the house very briefly to the main points as they bear
upon the question. It appears that Mr. O’Connell addressed a letter,
bearing date, 1st of June, 1835, in which the agreement for Mr.
Raphael’s return for the county of Carlow for £2,000 was concluded; the
committee cannot help observing that the whole tone and tenour of this
letter was calculated to excite much suspicion and grave animadversion;
but they must add that, upon a very careful investigation, it appeared
that previous conferences and communications had taken place between
Mr. Raphael, Mr. Vigors, and other persons connected with the county
of Carlow, and that Mr. O’Connell was acting on this occasion at the
express direction of Mr. Raphael, and was the only medium between Mr.
Raphael and Mr. Vigors and the Political Club at Carlow. It appears that
the money was placed to Mr. O’Connell’s general account at his bankers
in London. It was, however, advanced the moment it was called for to
Mr. Vigors; and though some of it was paid in bills, the discount was
allowed; the amount, therefore, was available whenever wanted, and
no charge of pecuniary interest can be attached to Mr. O’Connell. It
appears also that this money had been expended under the immediate
direction of Mr. Vigors and others connected with the county of Carlow,
in what may be called legal expenses, or so unavoidable that your
committee see no reason to question their legality; and that the balance
was absorbed in defending the return of Mr. Raphael and Mr. Vigors
before the committee appointed to investigate on the 21st of July,
1835.” In moving that this report and the evidence given should be
printed, Mr. Colborne stated, that the committee had agreed unanimously
in the conclusion at which they arrived, and that he had no doubt
that the house would join in the same opinion, if the evidence were
considered without any reference to party feeling. To a large party in
the house, however, it appeared that the committee had overlooked some
important branches of the inquiry, and that matter had come out in the
evidence before the committee which rendered the whole transaction more
deserving of animadversion. On the 21st of April Mr. Hardy again brought
the subject forward, by moving a series of resolutions, which declared
that in the transactions regarding this seat, a breach of privilege had
been committed. The committee itself had found it proved, he said, that
the £2,000 had been paid and received; and if the circumstances under
which the payment and receipt were made did not constitute a breach of
privilege, he had yet to learn what did. He entered at length into
the transaction, and concluded by asserting that there could not be a
grosser case in all its bearings. There had been a contract to sell a
seat in parliament for £2,000. which money was to be appropriated in a
corrupt manner in every respect. From the evidence respecting the Carlow
club, and the £1,000 to be applied to county purposes, nothing could
be clearer than this, that any tenant who fell into arrear of rent from
want of prudence or honesty, had only to say to the club, “My landlord
is against you: if you expect my vote, you must pay my arrears of rent.”
 What a system was this! If this were to pass unnoticed, who could
object to the formation of Conservative clubs which would say to those
shopkeepers, before whose doors the priests threatened the grass should
grow, we will indemnify you. Better be without the reform-bill than
see it leading to consequences like these. In former days they had to
complain of boroughs being sold: now they had to complain of the sale of
whole counties. Mr. O’Connell applauded the conduct of the members, of
the committee: he would take this stand on their report. The agitator
was defended by Lord Francis Egerton; not that he would wish to imitate
his conduct in many respects, but he thought that he stood acquitted
of pecuniary corruption: that charge was removed, and he did not feel
inclined to go upon the minor questions arising out of the case, because
he wished to be indulgent as well as just. The transaction did not meet
with his approbation, but he looked upon it as part, at least, of the
extensive system now carried on in Ireland; and however strongly he
might deprecate that system, he doubted whether it would be just or
expedient to bring the member for Dublin, or the other parties concerned
in the transaction, within the resolutions of the house. He was not one
of those who felt a desire to bring any man within the scope of a breach
of their privileges. His own hands were as clean as those of most men;
but if everything that he had done in violation of those privileges was
to be brought against him, if a king’s evidence could be found in every
instance, he scarcely knew whether he might not himself be brought under
the grasp of a tribunal. Messrs. Warburton and Barneby also stood up in
the defence of Mr. O’Connell. Lord John Russell likewise expressed
his hostility to any further inquiry or proceeding: the report of the
committee, he said, ought not to be touched, unless the house saw some
very strong reasons to doubt the opinions, or to distrust the integrity,
of the gentlemen who had given judgment. He moved as an amendment a
series of resolutions which embodied the report verbatim, making them
the resolutions of the house, instead of the opinions of the committee.
This amendment, after Lord Stanley, Sir Robert Peel, and others had
spoken in favour of the original motion, and other members had stood up
in defence of Mr. O’Connell, was carried by a majority of two hundred
and forty-three against one hundred and sixty-nine. Lord Stanley then
brought the question still more to the point by moving, “That it appears
to this house that there was between the contracting parties a distinct
understanding, that, if any surplus should remain, after providing for
the legal expenses of the election of Mr. Raphael, that surplus should
be applied in the first place to the defraying of the expenses of the
petition against the former elections, and in the next place to the
funds of the Carlow Liberal Club: and such understanding calls for
the notice of the house, as liable to serious abuse, as a dangerous
precedent, and as tending to subvert the purity and freedom of
election.” Lord John, in reply, said he would not enter into the matter
of fact, or go into anything beyond the report of the committee; if the
committee had agreed on these facts, and had thought them material, they
would have been reported to the house.

Mr. O’Connell’s troubles, however, were not yet over. His return, with
that of his colleague, Mr. Ruthven, for the city of Dublin at the last
election had been petitioned against, and the petition had been referred
to an election committee in the usual manner. This committee made their
report on the 16th of May, when Messrs. O’Connell and Ruthven were
declared not duly elected, and they were accordingly unseated. Their
opponents at the election, Messrs. Hamilton and West, took their seats,
after having been excluded from them for the whole of one session and
the half of another: the committee being appointed in 1835, and not
making their report before 1836. Mr. O’Connell appears to have expected
the result of the inquiry, for he had provided himself with another
seat by making one of his underlings accept the Chiltern Hundreds: he
appeared during the session as the member for Kilkenny. Subsequently,
Mr. O’Connell presented a petition from certain electors of Dublin,
praying that Messrs. Hamilton and West should not be allowed to retain
their seats, on the ground that they had been connected with bribery;
but the report of the committee had stated that they were neither
directly nor indirectly implicated in such practices, and after
reading this report the house ordered the petition to be withdrawn. Mr.
O’Connell maintained that the petition must be received, because the
matter to which it referred had not come under the consideration of the
committee; but the attorney-general declared his opinion that it was one
which could not be received, and the speaker having given an opinion to
the same effect, it was withdrawn accordingly.




NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

In consequence of the destruction of the two houses of parliament by
fire in October, 1834, a select committee had been appointed by the
commons, to consider all matters connected with the rebuilding of these
edifices. On their report an address had been presented to the crown to
appoint commissioners to receive plans, from which they were to
select not fewer than three nor more than five, to be submitted to
the committee. More than ninety plans had been sent in, and the
commissioners had selected four out of that number. On the 9th of
February the committee was renewed for the purpose of determining which
of these four ought to be adopted. This was followed by a motion of Mr.
Hume’s, that it should be an instruction to the committee to consider
the propriety of removing the houses of parliament to another site. Mr.
Hume, however, only found forty-four members to vote for his motion,
while one hundred and forty-three voted against it. The committee thus
re-appointed made their report on the 16th of March. On that day they
recommended that an address should be presented to his majesty, praying
him to institute inquiries as to what would be the probable expense of
executing the plan which had been sent in by Mr. Barry, the architect.
The committee had not selected Mr. Barry’s plan as the best, but they
thought that they could not safely recommend the adoption of any plan
till the expense had been ascertained. The proceeding, was, however, a
plain intimation that the plan in question was the one which had been
adopted by the commissioners and the committee; and a committee also,
in the house of lords had arrived at the same conclusion. The manner of
proceeding gave great offence to the other competitors, and they brought
their complaints before the house of commons on the 21st of June, in a
petition which was presented by Mr. Hume. In this petition they stated
that they had, in framing their plans, taken the probable expense into
account, as an important consideration to which it was their duty to
attend; whereas the commissioners declared that they had come to a
decision wholly independent of the question of expense, as not an object
for their consideration. They further stated that they had given their
best attention to the elaborate instructions given by the committee, as
regarded the number and dimensions of the offices and apartments, while
the commissioners had been guided in the choice by the “superiority
of the elevation.” They further stated, that, as well by the general
instructions, as by a report of the committee of the house on sound and
ventilation, of which committee one of the commissioners was a member,
they had constructed their plans with reference to these objects; but
the commissioners had declared that they did not allow that subject to
have weight in determining their preference. Finally, they arraigned the
preference which had been given to the four selected plans, and prayed
the house would either hear them by counsel at the bar, or appoint
competent persons to examine the grounds of the report of the
commissioners before finally adopting any of the plans. This matter was
allowed to lie over till the evidence which had been taken before
the select committee, by whom the commissioners themselves had been
examined, should be laid on the table. The whole subject was brought
forward by Mr. Hume on the 21st of July, who, after descanting at length
on the conduct of the commissioners, moved for an address to the crown,
to direct a new competition of designs, without limits as to the style
of architecture, but not to exceed a certain fixed sum as the cost of
erection, and that such designs should be examined and reported on by
commissioners to be afterwards appointed. The motion was supported by
Messrs. Estcourt and Hawes, and opposed by Mr. Tracy and Sir Robert
Peel. The latter said, that if the house agreed to this motion, they
would strike a fatal blow at the principles of competition, and teach
the most eminent of living architects to rue the day when, in compliance
with an invitation of the house of commons, they sent in plans which had
the misfortune to be found entitled to preference. The question raised
was, not whether they should finally resolve to adopt Mr. Barry’s plan,
but whether they would declare all the proceedings that had been taken
to be null. There was not even an implied engagement with Mr. Barry;
there was only a _prima facie_ presumption that his plan was entitled to
a preference. Mr. Hume, on seeing the general feeling of the house was
against his proposition, withdrew it; at the same time he considered
that his arguments had not only been unanswered, but that they were
unanswerable.

On the 3rd of May Mr. Grantley Berkeley renewed his proposition for
admitting ladies to the debates, by moving a resolution, “that it is
the opinion of this house that the resolution of the select committee
appointed in 1835 to consider the means of admitting ladies to a portion
of the stranger’s gallery, together with the plan of Sir R. Smirke,
should be adopted, and that means should be taken to carry it into
effect with as little delay as possible.” This resolution was carried by
a majority of one hundred and thirty-two against ninety. The chancellor
of the exchequer accordingly proposed among the miscellaneous estimates,
a grant of £400 to defray the expenses of fitting up an adequate portion
of the gallery; but after a few words from the Earl of Lincoln against
the motion and Lord Palmerston in favour of it, the grant was refused by
a majority of forty-two against twenty-eight.




MOTION FOR THE REDUCTION OF TAXATION ON BEHALF OF THE AGRICULTURISTS.

The complaints of the agricultural class of the community still
continued. On the 8th of February Lord John Russell proposed the
appointment of a select committee, in order to inquire into the distress
complained of. His lordship said, that whenever any great branch
of national industry was materially depressed, it was the duty of
parliament to give a favourable consideration to the complaints of those
engaged in it, to ascertain the facts of the case, and, if possible, to
devise a remedy: the proposition arose more from this feeling than from
any hope that the distress of the agriculturists would be removed by
legislative interference. The low price of wheat was stated to be the
main cause of it: the price of wheat was certainly low, but there had
not been an equal fall in the other descriptions of grain. The committee
would, therefore, have to consider not only the price of wheat,
but likewise the alterations which had taken place in the prices of
different kinds of grain, and of other articles of agricultural produce.
They would likewise have to ascertain and to weigh the changes already
produced, and likely to be produced, by the new system of poor-laws.
This committee was appointed, and a similar committee was appointed on
the 18th of February by the house of lords. These committees, however,
ended in doing nothing. On the 21st of July the chairman of the
committee stated to the house of commons that they had resolved merely
to report the evidence, without giving any opinion. A draft of a report
had been drawn up by the chairman; but so much of it was objected to by
those who advocated the agricultural interest, that no report was made.

In the meantime the Marquis of Chandos had brought forward the
distresses of the agriculturists. On the 27th of April he moved a
resolution, “That in the application of any surplus revenue towards
the relief of the burdens of the country, either by the remission of
taxation or otherwise, due regard should be had to the necessity of
a portion thereof being applied to the relief of the agricultural
interests.” Lord John Russell objected to the motion, both on its merits
and because he thought it premature to entertain such a question, before
the agricultural committee, then sitting, had made its report. On a
division it was lost by a majority of two hundred and eight against one
hundred and seventy-two.




THE BUDGET, ETC.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

By an act of the 4th and 5th of William IV. an additional duty of fifty
per cent, had been imposed on spirit licenses. On the 10th of March Mr.
Divett moved that the house should resolve itself into committee, for
the purpose of considering the propriety of repealing this impost.
The chancellor of the exchequer resisted this motion, opposing it
principally on account of the circumstances under which it was brought
forward.

Various proposals had been made at different times for the reduction or
purification of the pension list. This list had been, in truth, as much
a matter of political principle and of party feeling as of mere finance.
In the preceding session government had consented that it should be
printed; and on April 19th, Mr. Whittle Harvey moved this resolution
on the subject:—“That a select committee be appointed to revise each
pension specified in the return ordered to be printed on the 28th of
June, 1836, with a view to ascertain whether the continued payment
thereof is justified by the circumstances of the original grant, or the
condition of the parties now receiving the same, and to report thereon
to the house.” After stating that there were 1303 persons on the pension
list, who received amongst them about £150,000 a year, Mr. Harvey went
into a history of the restrictions which had been laid on the granting
of pensions out of the civil list, from the original bill of Mr. Burke,
down to the accession of his present majesty. The motion was opposed by
Lord John Russell, on the ground that it contained a proposition against
which parliament had already decided, and as being inconsistent with
the practice which had been uniformly folio wed. Mr. Harvey’s views were
enforced by Mr. Hume; but the motion was negatived by a majority of two
hundred and sixty-eight against one hundred and forty-six.

The chancellor of the exchequer opened his budget on the 6th of May.
He first explained that the receipts of the last year had exceeded
the estimate by the sum of £338,000; while, on the other hand, the
expenditure had somewhat exceeded the estimates. The income of last
year, he said, had been £46,381,000, and he calculated that it would
amount during the present year to £46,980,000. The total expenditure
would be £45,205,807 leaving a surplus of £1,774,193. But out of this
surplus payment would fall to be made, on account of the West Indian
compensation during the year, to the amount of £1,118,633, leaving, as
the utmost disposable surplus with which parliament had to deal, a sum
of £662,000. Had it not been for the sums payable to the West-India
planters, there would have been a surplus of £2,000,000. In applying
what surplus there was, he continued, to the reduction of taxation,
he preferred selecting those taxes the repeal of which extinguished
a source of fraud to those which merely afford relief. The duties
he proposed to reduce were those on paper, plain and stained, on
newspapers, and on farming buildings; and he proposed to give up those
on taxed carts, and the additional fifty per cent, on spirit licenses.
The amount of all the taxes which he proposed to remit would be £351,000
this year, though when the proposed reductions came into full operation
it would amount to £568,000. At the same time, when the increased
consumption of paper was taken into account, the money collected from
the penny stamp, and the increase of duty from advertisements, he
thought he might say that government would not lose £530,000 a year. The
reduction of the stamp on newspapers was from fourpence to one penny,
and this was deemed by many as being a sacrifice to the demands of a
political party, and not a concession to principles of political economy
or fiscal regulations. There were many other articles, it was contended,
a reduction of the duties on which would contribute much more to the
comfort of the community, and especially of those classes to which
it was proposed to give cheap newspapers and cheap spirits. Sir C.
Knightley moved, that instead of diminishing the duty on newspapers,
the duty on soap should be reduced. This he represented as a duty
which pressed not only severely on the lower classes, but unequally in
comparison with the more wealthy—the soap of the poor man being taxed
at seventy-five per cent., and that of the rich man only at thirty per
cent. This motion was seconded by Mr. C. Barclay, who showed that the
revenue would not sustain a greater loss from the reduction of this
tax than would arise from the diminution in newspaper stamp duties. The
chancellor of the exchequer, however, preferred a reduction of the stamp
duties to those on soap; and on a division the motion was negatived by a
majority of two hundred and forty-one against two hundred and eight.

As the law stood, there was no distinction between newspapers in regard
of duty on account of their size, all differences of this nature having
been removed in 1828. By the new bill, however, this distinction was
restored, an additional duty being imposed on every newspaper containing
more than a certain number of square inches of surface. Government was
accused of having so selected the particular number of inches, as to
impose the additional duty on some of the most influential journals
opposed to them, while it did not apply to their supporters. This
imputation was repelled by the chancellor of the exchequer; but it was
still maintained that such must have been its effect. It was finally
proposed and acceded to by the chancellor of the exchequer, that 1530
square inches, of which the paper might consist without any additional
duty, should be limited to the printed part of the sheet, excluding the
margin, which would meet the size of every paper in the metropolis.
If the sheet exceeded 1530 square inches, but did not exceed 2295, an
additional duty of one halfpenny was to be paid; and if it exceeded
the latter quantity, an additional duty of one penny. Supplements were
likewise to pay a penny additional. Mr. Grote subsequently moved that
every newspaper should be stamped with a die peculiar to itself—an
enactment which was introduced into the bill. The bill enacted that two
proprietors of a newspaper should be registered along with the printer
and publisher. The Radicals contended that every proprietor should be
registered at the stamp-office, and on the third reading a clause
to this effect was carried, the chancellor of the exchequer himself
agreeing to it, he conceiving that it might establish a salutary system
of restraint. When the bill went up to the lords this was the only
clause which encountered opposition; and Lord Lyndhurst moved that it
should be omitted, on the ground that the regulations contained in it
were arbitrary, inquisitorial, unjust, and unnecessary. It was defended
by the lord-chancellor and Lord Melbourne; but the motion was carried
by a majority of sixty-one against forty. The bill was returned to
the commons without any other alteration; but on the motion of the
chancellor of the exchequer it was laid aside, on the principle that the
privileges of the members of the house of commons did not permit them
to entertain an amended money-bill. The chancellor of the exchequer,
however, immediately brought in a bill which was an exact copy of the
one laid aside, except that the provisions in dispute were omitted, and
this bill passed both houses without delay.

The speech from the throne on the opening of the session had recommended
an addition of five thousand men to the navy. This increase was
explained during the session to be necessary for the protection of
British merchants in various parts of the globe—in the Pacific, at
Lima, Mexico, Valparaiso, the coast of Peru, the northern coasts of
the Brazils, the West Indies, Newfoundland, and the East India and the
African stations. Demands had been made in all these quarters, and it
was impossible to comply with them without withdrawing the British naval
force from Spain and Portugal, where their presence was necessary.
On these grounds government proposed this additional force, which was
granted without a division. Mr. Hume, however, endeavoured to make a
compensating saving, by moving a reduction of five thousand men in
the army estimates; and when this motion was negatived, he moved a
proposition which was directed against the foot-guards as being costly
troops, maintained rather for show than use, and enjoying, for the sake
of the aristocracy, prerogatives which were degrading to the rest of the
army: this motion was also negatived.




DISCUSSIONS ON THE COLONIES, AND ON OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS.

At this period unfortunate differences prevailed in the Mauritius
between a part of the inhabitants and the government authorities, and
between one part of the population and another. They were said to
have originated in the desire of the white population to evade some
requirements of the law for the emancipation of the negroes, and were
believed to have been aggravated on the one side by indiscretion, and on
the other by the honest determination of the colonial judges. More
than one judge had been recalled; and the consequence was, that their
successors, who did not pursue the same course, and the governors of the
island were denounced as being guilty of abusing their powers to
prevent the due execution of the emancipation act. Mr. Roebuck took the
discontented inhabitants of the Mauritius under his protection. On the
15th of February he moved, that a select committee should be appointed
to inquire into the administration of justice in that colony. In
supporting his motion, he said, that the mother country had declared
slave-trading to be a felony, and that an order in council was passed,
in consequence of a resolution of that house, to the effect that no
governor, judge, or registrar of slaves, should hold any species of
slave property, either directly, in trust, or mortgage. He charged the
whole body of these functionaries with holding slave property. He
also charged Sir C. Colville, the late governor, with speculating and
creating debts in slave property; and Chief-justice Blackburne, the
officers of the supreme court, and nearly all the functionaries of the
island, with the same gross violation of that order in council. Proof of
the fact, he said, was to be found in the despatches of government; and
he entered into a long statement of mal-administration in that colony.
His statements, on the other hand, were represented by Sir George Grey,
on the part of government, as being mere repetitions of charges which
had been abandoned by those who had made them. The motion was supported
by Dr. Lushington and Mr. Fowell Buxton, the latter of whom said,
that few persons residing in that colony knew its affairs better than
himself: the slave-trade prevailed in the Mauritius to such an extent,
that no man could live for a single week as governor of the island and
not behold it under his own eyes; yet not one of the persons engaged in
the traffic had ever been brought to justice. The reason assigned for
this impunity was this—that no court would authorise a conviction,
and that no public functionary would countenance the man who dared to
interfere with their trade. If a case arose in which it was necessary
that the prosecution should be placed upon record, the accused was, on
the first opportunity, set at liberty. The motion was negatived by a
majority of two hundred and twenty-nine against seventy-one.

It has been recorded in previous pages that political discontents
prevailed in Canada. A large portion of the population, French in its
origin, democratic and intemperate in its views, led on by demagogues,
insisted on demands equally inconsistent with a monarchical government,
and with the supremacy of the mother country. Democratical as were their
views, however, they had their supporters in the British parliament.
On the 16th of May, Mr. Roebuck brought forward a proposition for the
reform of the Canadian constitution, which was to consist in nothing
less than in making both branches of the colonial legislature elective.
By the statute 81 George III., c. 81, a constitution was given to the
province of Quebec, which was thereby divided into Lower and Upper
Canada. The constitution so conferred was professedly a copy of the
constitution of England, the governor being as the king, the legislative
council as the house of lords, and the house of assembly as the house
of commons. The object, Mr. Roebuck said, which he had in view, was to
amend the legislative council, which was no more like the house of
lords at home than the governor of the colony was like the king of these
realms. The members of the legislative council, unlike the house of
lords, were poor, having no tenants, and consequently no influence over
the people; they were a _clique_ holding power for their own purposes.
On the explanation of ministers, Mr. Hume advised Mr. Roebuck to
withdraw his motion, to which he conceded, stating at the same time that
he did not believe government were prepared to say, that a measure for
remedying the evils complained of was delayed only till the report of
the commissioners was received.

Civil war was still raging in Spain, and at this time Great Britain
had interfered in it—an interference which seemed to be becoming more
direct as the situation of the queen became more critical, and the arms
of the Carlists more successful. This subject occupied the attention of
parliament. On the 26th of February Mr. Maclean directed the attention
of the house of commons to the policy of this interference. Lord
Palmerston said that the interference of this country had consisted,
first, in executing the quadruple treaty; and, secondly, in the order of
council which, by suspending the foreign enlistment act, had enabled the
British legion to be formed which was now serving in Spain. The treaty
was now a new one; it did not raise any new question—no motion had
ever been made to disapprove of it—and its execution was admitted to be
imperative.

In the beginning of tin’s year a body of Austrian, Russian, and Prussian
troops took possession of Cracow, under the plea that it contained the
elements of dangerous conspiracies against the neighbouring governments.
This subject was brought before the commons on the 18th of March, by
Sir Stratford Canning, from whose statement it appeared that the three
powers had addressed a joint note to the senate of Cracow, requesting
them to send away, within eight days, all Polish refugees and other
dangerous persons; that the senate had remonstrated against so sweeping
a denunciation of individuals, many of whom had resided there for years;
and that military possession had, notwithstanding, been taken on the
expiry of eight days. It appeared further that four hundred persons had
been given up to the commander of the occupying force, while others had
been required to find security for their good behaviour; and that the
president of the republic had resigned, and his place been supplied by
the direct nomination of the residents of the three powers. He contended
that by the treaty of Vienna, the establishment of Cracow as an
independent state was provided for by definite articles, being placed
under the protection of the three powers now in possession of it. He
further contended that Great Britain was an immediate party to this
treaty; that its provisions were parcel of our solemn engagements;
and that when circumstances so extraordinary occurred as that a state,
recognised as free and independent, was occupied by foreign powers, we
were called on to look narrowly at these events, and see whether or not
any violation of the engagement in which we were interested had or
had not taken place. Lord Palmerston found himself embarrassed in
consequence of neither the facts of the military occupation nor its
causes having been communicated to him officially by the three powers.
Doubtless the demand made by the three powers appeared contrary to
the letter of the treaty, for they had not required that the persons
referred to should be given up by the powers to which they might belong,
but that they should be within eight days removed from the territory
of Cracow. At the same time, if statements made were true, as a
justification of the measure, it might be considered as falling within
the spirit of the treaty. It was alleged that a number of person,
natives of Poland, assembled in the state of Cracow, and inspired by
feelings which, perhaps, in their peculiar circumstances were natural,
had established a communication with the inhabitants of some of
the Russian and other parts of Poland, calculated to disturb the
tranquillity of the neighbouring states. But, although the three powers
might be justified in requesting such persons to depart, it did not
follow that they were justified in going to the extreme of military
occupation because their demand was not immediately conceded. As yet no
sufficient reason had been given either for the entrance of the troops,
or the shortness of the interval which had been allowed between the
demand and the entrance which had been effected. All friendly means
should have been exhausted before any such measures were resorted to;
and, under all circumstances, as Great Britain had been a party to the
treaty of Vienna, it was the duty of those powers when they made the
demand, and before they had recourse to occupation, to have communicated
to the government of this country the grounds on which they thought
themselves entitled to act, and the intentions they were about to put
into execution. Messrs. O’Connell and Hume were violent against the
three powers. They advised, that if any part of the Russian Dutch loan
due by this country was not yet paid, payment should be refused till
satisfaction was made to Cracow. Lord John Russell deprecated the
language used by Messrs. O’Connell and Hume, the more particularly as
the honour of Great Britain was not committed in the transaction. Lord
Dudley Stuart, however, contended that the honour of Great Britain had
been violated. Was it, he asked, no affront for these three powers
to tell a great country like this, that the treaty which settled the
possession of all the powers of Europe, and to which it was a party,
should be infringed and violated at their pleasure? By the violation
of the neutrality of Cracow a serious blow had been inflicted on our
national reputation, and on the security of Europe.

During this session a lengthened discussion took place regarding the
dangers to which Europe was exposed from the systematic encroachments of
Russia. The subject was introduced by Lord Dudley Stuart, who moved
an address for the production of the treaty of Constantinople between
Russia and the Porte, the treaty of St. Petersburg, the correspondence
between the British government and the governments of Russia and Turkey
relative to these treaties, and the correspondence between the courts
of London and St. Petersburg regarding the remonstrances made by this
country against the conduct of Russia towards Poland. In reply, Lord
Palmerston said, that he had no objection to produce the treaty of
Constantinople, or Hoonkiar Skelessi; but he would not concede the
production of others. Government, in fact, was not officially possessed
of the treaty of St. Petersburg, and therefore it could not be supplied.
The correspondence, again, between this country, Russia, and Turkey,
relative to these treaties could not be produced without inconvenience
to the public service, and would not answer any object which could be
contemplated by the motion. With respect to the correspondence which had
taken place on the subject of Poland, he thought its production would
not serve any useful purpose. No good could arise from publishing to the
world, after an interval of three years, all the correspondence which
might have passed between two governments on a subject respecting which
their opinion differed, especially as nothing had occurred to make
the publication of this correspondence necessary. Lord Dudley Stuart
expressed himself satisfied with the papers which the foreign secretary
had expressed himself willing to give. Mr. P. M. Stewart, however,
thought that Lord Palmerston was either too blind as regarded Russia,
or too confiding. He referred to his lordship’s predictions in 1832
regarding Poland. He had said, “As to the idea which is entertained
by some honourable gentlemen of its being the intention of Russia to
exterminate a large kingdom like Poland, either morally or politically,
it is so utterly impracticable that there need be no apprehension of
its ever being attempted.” Since these words had been spoken, Poland
had been politically exterminated, and every exertion had been made to
exterminate her morally. On the 20th of April Mr. P. M.

Stewart brought this subject again before the house, justifying himself
for renewing the discussion on the ground that, since the last debate,
Russia had actually interfered with our commerce on the Danube.
In direct violation of treaties, he said, which declared that the
navigation of the Danube should be free to ships of all nations, Russia
had extorted tribute from British vessels passing down that river; and
she was putting a stop to the trade not merely of England, but of the
whole of central Europe on that magnificent stream, by wilful neglect to
cleanse its channel, which would soon be so filled up that a Thames
punt would not be able to cross it. Mr. Stewart moved—“That an address
should be presented to his majesty, praying him to adopt such measures
as might seem best fitted to protect and extend the commercial interests
of Great Britain in Turkey and the Euxine, and likewise to send a
diplomatic agent forthwith to the free and independent state of
Cracow.” This motion was seconded by Sir Edward Codrington, who urged
the necessity of immediately arming, as an expedient which had uniformly
been successful in checking aggression. In reply, Lord Palmerston
informed the house that government had already sent a consular agent
to Cracow, so that this part of the proposed address was unnecessary.
Government, he continued, concurred in the importance of maintaining and
extending the commercial relations of Great Britain with Turkey,
Persia, and the neighbouring countries; but, in his opinion, nothing had
happened to confine or check them. There could be no doubt that, by the
treaty of Vienna, the navigation of the Danube was free to the commerce
of all countries in Europe. We had, however, suffered no wrong as yet;
and in dealing with foreign nations, it was not prudent to anticipate
injuries at their hands: it was enough to deal with events when they
had occurred. Members of all parties expressed similar opinions; and Mr.
Stewart finally withdrew his resolution.

On the establishment of the kingdom of Greece, Great Britain, France,
and Russia, had agreed by treaty to guarantee a loan of 60,000,000 of
francs for the use of the new monarchy. Two instalments of 20,000,000
each had been paid. Greece, on the other hand, had undertaken certain
obligations in relation to her revenue and its application; and Russia,
on the ground that these obligations had not been fulfilled, refused
to concur in raising the third instalment. Under these circumstances
ministers found it necessary to introduce a bill for authorising the
advance of the money by this country alone. Lord Palmerston made the
proposal, and it encountered considerable opposition even from the
ordinary supporters of government. The resolution, however, moved by
Lord Palmerston, authorising his majesty to guarantee the portion to
which this country was liable of the third and last instalment of the
loan to be advanced to the King of Greece, was carried by a majority of
eighty-one against forty. The bill founded on the resolution encountered
the same objections which had been raised to the resolution itself; but
it passed without any determined opposition. In the house of lords
the Duke of Wellington said, that while he admitted the measure was
necessary, he thought that the necessity was an unfortunate one, and
might have been avoided. It did not appear to him that proper measures
had been taken to obtain the concurrence of Russia. The first demand
made by Greece was for 3,000,000 francs; why was not an effort made to
obtain the consent of Russia to advance her share of this sum? Why was
Russia left out of that part of the negotiation? If Russia had been
called on for her portion, it would have amounted to nearly the sum
which this country was about to advance under existing circumstances;
and the consequence would have been this—that the three powers would
now be placed on the same footing. But how would it be hereafter?
Great Britain would be a creditor of Greece to the amount of 20,000,000
francs, with a claim on the resources of Greece, which must and would
be pressed, for the interest and sinking-fund of that amount of debt. On
the other side, Russia would have in hand the third part of 20,000,000
francs to issue to Greece whenever, and under whatever circumstances she
thought proper. France was placed in a similar situation; and both these
countries would, therefore, stand in a more desirable relation towards
Greece, having always the power of conferring a benefit, than that which
would be occupied by this country, who could only be a creditor pressing
for payment of a debt.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

During this session the proposal for removing the civil disabilities of
the Jews was brought forward by the chancellor of the exchequer himself,
and was carried through the commons, but was rejected by the lords. Mr.
Rippon also renewed a proposal he had made in 1834, for the expulsion
of the bishops from the house of lords; but his motion was lost by an
overwhelming majority. Mr. O’Connell moved for leave to bring in a bill
to reform the whole house of lords, by making that body elective, a
motion which gave rise only to laughter. Mr. Grote also brought forward
his annual motion for vote by ballot; but it was lost by a majority of
one hundred and thirty-nine against fifty-one. Parliament was prorogued
on the 20th of August, by the king in person.




THE AFFAIRS OF IRELAND.

The royal speech had announced that tranquillity prevailed in Ireland;
but yet that country was not in a state of quiescence. Agitation was
still at work: societies and combinations were being formed, and the
angry passions of the multitude lashed almost into fury. At this time
the authorities were enforcing the payment of tithe; and this excited
the wrath of the leaders of the Popish party. This wrath was aggravated
by the refusal of the house of lords to create, by passing the
ministerial municipal bill for Ireland, a mass of Catholic corporations,
of which there was every reason to apprehend that, while they would
not have any useful duties to discharge as machines for municipal
government, they would become powerful and legalized engines for working
out the great aim of the Papists—the destruction of the Protestant
church. The clauses which went to reconstruct the Irish corporations
were struck out by the lords on the 17th of May; and on the following
day Mr. O’Connell put forth a letter “to the people of England,” the
object of which was to rouse them to show their gratitude to Ireland
for the aid which she had lent them in carrying the Reform Act, by
destroying the character and rights of the house of lords. This epistle,
however, was addressed to deaf ears; his sentiments rather tended to
call forth expressions of opinion that the lords should fearlessly
exercise their constitutional rights. In his letter, he had threatened
to re-organize agitation; and finding his exertions to that end useless
in England, he resolved to cany out his threat in Ireland. The course
which it was wished that the people of Ireland should adopt, was
explained by Mr. Shiel in clear terms. It was wished that a strenuous
and simultaneous movement of the popular masses should take place;
that the millions of Ireland should be roused; and that the might which
slumbered in her arm might be developed; above all, that “the active
system of organization should again be strenuously applied, with its
weekly meetings, its appeals to the people, its enthusiasm, and exciting
eloquence.” Doubts were expressed by some persons of the prudence of
forming a permanent association at present. Mr. Pigott, a barrister,
however, suggested an expedient, by which all the advantages of
association might be secured without its name. He recommended that the
requisitionists, who had called a public meeting in Dublin for the 23rd
of May, should constitute themselves an open committee, with power to
add to their numbers, which should meet from time to time as occasion
might require, and should arrange communications with the most active
inhabitants of the different towns and districts who might be disposed
to second their object, in order to obtain petitions from all parts of
the country. This plan was adopted; and the objects of the new agitation
were declared to be municipal institutions, founded on the same
principles of popular election and control which had been adopted in
England, and the speedy settlement of the tithe question. This committee
dispatched circulars all over Ireland, urging the people to hold public
meetings for the purpose of voting petitions to parliament on these two
questions, and directing the petitioners how to draw up their petitions.
It was soon found, however, that this plan was not effective, and that,
therefore, a revival of the machinery of the Catholic association would
be necessary, in order to exercise the required influence over the
public mind, and to raise funds for the support of agitation. The
“petition committee,” as it was called, complained in a meeting, held on
the 1st of July, that petitions came in slowly, and that the people of
Ireland were dormant and dead to what ought to be now their feelings,
of nationality. Under these circumstances it was deemed prudent to
“recreate the active system of organization devised by Mr. O’Connell,
with its weekly meetings,” and other appliances. A “general association”
 was now formed on the model of the Catholic association, using the same
species of influence, but bearing another name and professing different
objects. The two declared objects of the association were to obtain the
abolition of tithes and municipal corporations; to these were added a
minute attention to the approaching registrations, in order to increase
the democratic party in the house of commons. These and the other
purposes of the association required money; and accordingly the “justice
rent” was established. The association was to meet once a week in the
corn-exchange; Mr. O’Connell presented to it the chair of the Catholic
association, which had been left in his possession; and the walls of its
place of meeting displayed in large characters these words:—“Scotland
has municipal reform; England has municipal reform; Ireland has been
declared unworthy of municipal reform.” After Mr. O’Connell’s arrival,
in August, the association was put into full operation. From him
proceeded addresses to the people of England and Ireland, the complete
organization of the justice rent, the appointment of committees, and of
a reporter on the election registry of every county, city, and town of
Ireland. It was resolved that officers, called pacificators, should be
appointed in every parish in Ireland. Each parish was to contain two
pacificators; one named by the clergyman of the majority of the parish,
and the other by the inhabitants themselves. There was, therefore, the
general association sitting in Dublin, holding its weekly meetings, with
its registry inspectors, and its agitating pacificators scattered all
over the country. It was to maintain this system that justice money was
required; and in general the business of each weekly meeting consisted
in announcing the amount of “rent” collected during the preceding week,
or in receiving more. There was talking at these meetings, it is
true, but the term business can scarcely be applied to the verbose and
unmeaning speeches in which the orators indulged. The usual topics were
the greatness and determination of Ireland; the demand for justice by
getting new corporations and abolishing tithes; the flattery of every
one who sent money to the association; and the abuse of those who
differed from the agitators in opinion. Yet Mr. O’Connell and his party
did not fail to stir up the evil passions of the deluded
multitude. These “thundering resolutions” were put forth by the
association:—“Resolved—That it is incompatible with the principles
of religious liberty that any man should be compelled to pay for the
ordinances of a church with which he is not joined in communion. That,
as under the present appropriation of tithe-composition, a tribute is
levied from the whole nation for the uses of the church of only
the one-tenth portion of the community, the people of Ireland are,
therefore, justified in demanding the total extinction of an assessment
so applied. That no settlement of the tithe question can give
satisfaction to the people of Ireland which is not founded on the
foregoing principle. That the people of Ireland be called upon not to
desist from all legal and constitutional means of redress, till they
have obtained full and complete relief from an impost equally
oppressive and degrading. That, in carrying out these resolutions,
the representatives of the Irish people should always keep in mind the
adopting such a prudent and wise course as shall enable them to realise
for the Irish nation the greatest possible quantity of good, and as
shall also enable them to support and sustain in office, without any
violation of principle, the first and only true and honest government
that has ever been known in Ireland.” This call upon the peasantry
not to desist from seeking the abolition of tithes “by all legal and
constitutional means of address,” by no means tending to diminish the
resistance still shown to every attempt to enforce the steps necessary
to the recovery of tithes, where a protecting force did not attend. The
process-server was still hunted; mobs still attempted to set aside
sales of distrained cattle; and now that the efficacy of the
exchequer-process, by merely posting notices instead of service, had
been felt, the writs of that court would have been equally set at
defiance by brute force, but for the power which they possessed of
compelling police and military aid. A scene of bloodshed occurred at
Dunkerrin, in the county of Tipperary. A mob attacked a commissioner
of the exchequer and his party, in the act of serving a writ, and the
bailiff was murdered on the spot, while one of the murderers was killed
by a shot from the police. Mr. O’Connell and the association demanded
justice for the death of the latter; but not a word was said on the
heinousness of his crime, or a syllable of regret was uttered concerning
the death of the bailiff.




FOREIGN RELATIONS.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

The whole Spanish Peninsula was torn with political dissensions.
Revolutions and counter revolutions disturbed British relations with
Portugal especially, and prevented the execution of a treaty of commerce
which was looked for in England, as a benefit to both nations. England
sympathised too much with the faithless queens of both the governments
of the Iberian Peninsula, which had the effect of protracting the
disturbances which prevailed, and of exciting angry feelings against
England. The gallant men who as British subjects volunteered to
serve the queen ‘of Portugal were refused their pay, and treated with
contumely and injury, just as the British legion in Spain had been used.

The relation of the Sublime Porte to England was also a source of
embarrassment, especially to the former country. On the one hand, the
pressure of Russia, jealous of her predominating influence, and on the
other, the efforts of Britain and France to counteract the exclusive
character which that influence was assuming, imposed on the divan the
necessity of giving satisfaction to all the competitors for favour.
During this year an English merchant of Constantinople, of the name of
Churchill, while shooting in the neighbourhood of Scutari, accidentally
wounded a Turkish boy. He was dragged to the guardhouse of Scutari,
where the officer on duty ordered him first to be bastinadoed, and then
sent to the governor of Scutari. The governor declined interfering, and
caused him to be conveyed to the office of the reis effendi, or foreign
minister, by whom he was thrown into prison. Mr. Churchill immediately
addressed a letter to the British consul, acquainting him with the
accident that had occurred, and the manner in which he had been treated,
claiming, as a British subject, the interference in his behalf. The
consul sent a dragoman to the Porte to reclaim his countryman, promising
to keep him in custody till the accusation brought against him had been
inquired into. This application was rejected; and the British ambassador
then sent his interpreter to the reis effendi, who promised that the
prisoner should be delivered over to his own authorities. Instead of
this promise, however, being observed, Mr. Churchill was thrown into the
Bagnio, and fettered in iron chains, by virtue of an order granted by
the sultan. The British interpreter again waited on the reis effendi,
and expressed to him the surprise Lord Ponsonby had experienced on
witnessing so direct and intentional an infringement of the treaties
existing between the king of England and the sultan; committed, too, by
the very individual appointed by the Porte to preside over their strict
and scrupulous observance. The reis effendi now desired one of his
officers to proceed with the English interpreter to the Bagnio, and
cause the detained merchant to be given up; but the governor of the
Bagnio refused to comply with the request, pretending that since the
prisoner had been placed under his care in virtue of a firman, he could
not release him without a written order from the Porte. Lord Ponsonby
now addressed an official note, stating that, as the minister of foreign
affairs had violated one of the most important stipulations of the
treaties existing between Great Britain and Turkey, he was obliged to
declare to the government that he would not any longer hold official
communication with his excellency, and to submit to the Sublime Porte,
and emphatically to declare to the sultan himself, his just complaint
against a minister who had dared to violate the laws of his own
sovereign, and insult the British nation. This step procured the
liberation of Mr. Churchill; but Lord Ponsonby refused to consider
this alone as any reparation of the breach of the treaties securing to
British subjects the right of being tried and punished only through the
agency of their own official representatives. His lordship insisted that
the reis effendi should be dismissed from his office. He insisted upon
this the more strenuously on account of the predominating influence of
Russia; for if the injured party had been a Russian subject, the Turkish
government would have hastened to make humble apologies, and would have
consented to give any satisfaction which the offended dignity of the
czar might have required. The Porte endeavoured to mitigate the demand
lay negociation; but Lord Ponsonby refused to accept of any satisfaction
which did not include the dismissal of the minister. As the Porte seemed
to think it below its dignity to grant such a request when merely made
by an ambassador, he said he would refer the matter to his government
at home. The British merchants, likewise, resident at Constantinople,
transmitted an address to Viscount Palmerston, representing the
necessity of supporting the demand made by the ambassador. They
remarked:—“We will concede that the first outrage was committed by
subordinate local authorities, whose acts might admit of excuse or
explanation; but the subsequent imprisonment was deliberately ordered
by a high public functionary, the official depositary, in fact, of
the treaties existing between the two countries, one who could not be
ignorant of the privileges they guaranteed, and who was not ignorant
that in the instance in question he was grossly and intentionally
violating them. Considering, therefore, that the present is not the only
instance, although the most flagrant one, of personal violence offered
to British subjects, we cannot but see in their repeated occurrence,
more especially of late, an intentional infraction of the treaties, and,
indeed, the existence of some fixed design on the part of the Turkish
government to assume to itself a power of control in such matters which
it would be dangerous ever to concede.” Before the determination of the
British cabinet could be known, the divan of Constantinople had resolved
to yield: the reis effendi was dismissed, with a monthly pension of
10,000 piastres; but it was on the pretence that bad health disabled
him from regularly attending to the duties of his office. It was said
afterwards, that the British ministry viewed the matter in a less
serious light than that in which it had been viewed by Lord Ponsonby;
and that they were not inclined to consider the demand he had made as
one on which it was necessary to insist. It is certain, indeed, that the
dispatches of the Turkish envoy ill London, subsequent to the dismissal
of the reis effendi, assured the divan of the readiness of the British
ministry to settle the controversy on conditions much milder than
those on which Lord Ponsonby had stated to be the only terms which his
majesty’s government could consider proper reparation for the insult
offered to its dignity. It is also certain that the credit of the
British ambassador, whose successful firmness was neutralised by his
government, was greatly diminished at the Porte.




CHAPTER XLVII.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

     _Meeting  of  Parliament..... Consideration of the State of
     Ireland..... Irish Municipal Corporations  Bill.....
     Question of Establishing a System of Poor-Law in
     Ireland..... Irish Tithe Question..... Question of Church-
     Rates..... The Church of Scotland..... Notices of Motions
     for Constitutional Changes..... Operation of the  New Poor-
     Laws..... The Affairs of Canada..... State of the Banking
     System, &c. Consideration  of   the Foreign   Policy of
     England under the Whig Administration..... Motion on the
     State of the Nation..... Illness and Death of the King.....
     Remarks on his Reign, Character, &c._




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1837}

Parliament reassembled on the 31st of January. The session was opened by
commission; and the speech of the commissioners referred to the contests
in Spain, and the recent events in Portugal. The speech also called
the attention of both houses to the state of Canada, stating that the
reports of the commissioners appointed to inquire into which, would be
laid before them. It further recommended to their serious deliberation
the provisions which would be submitted to them for the improvement of
the law and the administration of justice, and conveyed his majesty’s
desire that they should consult upon such further measures as might give
increased stability to the established church. The revenues, moreover,
formed a subject of congratulation in the speech, and an early renewal
of inquiries into the operation of the act permitting the establishment
of joint-stock banks. The concluding topic of the speech was Ireland;
such measures as might improve the condition of that country were
recommended to be adopted. The present constitution of the municipal
corporations of that country, the collection of tithes, and the
establishment of some legal provision for the poor were especially
noticed as subjects worthy of their attention.

The address in the lords was moved by the Earl of Fingal, and seconded
by Lord Suffield. In the commons the address was moved by Mr. Sandford,
and seconded by Mr. Stuart Villiers. The debate that followed was
enlivened by Mr. Roebuck, who made a violent assault on the whole system
of ministerial policy. Sir Robert Peel referred to those parts of the
speech relating to the affairs of Spain and Portugal. His remarks with
reference to Spain were confined to that passage in the address which
expressed the satisfaction of the house that his majesty’s co-operating
force had rendered useful assistance to her Catholic majesty. Whatever
opinion he might hold on the policy of the quadruple alliance, he had
always considered it our duty to fulfil the treaty so long as we stood
pledged to it. By that treaty we stipulated to give the assistance of
a naval force to the arms of the queen of Spain; and he supported the
address on the understanding that the aid we had given had been strictly
of that character. The distinction was important. The grant of a
military force might have supposed an interference with the civil
dissensions and party conflicts of Spain. Might not the precedent be
equally adopted by despotic governments claiming a right to support
absolute principles among their neighbours? where then would be the
peace of Europe? The next paragraph in the address illustrated the
danger of interfering in the civil affairs of other countries. We
express our regret that “events in Portugal have occurred which, for
a time, threaten to disturb the internal peace of the country.” These
events are but the corollary of the revolution in that country in
1834, and which was then called in the speech from the throne “a happy
result.” A consequence of this “happy result” is that we have now six
sail of the line in the Tagus. For what purpose? To defend the queen
of that country from an attack on the part of her own subjects; and to
protect the lives and property of the English residing there from
the danger with which they are threatened. In reply, Lord Palmerston
remarked, that, “when we stated that the effect of the treaty in 1834
was to put an end to the civil war in Portugal, we did not take upon
ourselves the responsibility of the government of that kingdom in all
future times, or undertake that it should be henceforth free from the
civil disturbances to which every country was liable.” This might be
true; but if the last revolution in Portugal was the result of the one
which we had been instrumental in bringing about, then we were in no
slight degree responsible for its occurrence.




CONSIDERATION OF THE STATE OF IRELAND.

Ireland was still the cardinal point of our domestic politics. At this
time, in fact, Irish politics had acquired more importance than ever.
The state of that country was brought before parliament this session, in
a petition from the Protestants, setting forth the dangers by which
they were surrounded from the effects of the agitation which everywhere
prevailed. This petition was presented to the lords by the Marquis
of Downshire on the 28th of April, and it was the occasion of an
interesting debate on the state of Ireland. The topics insisted on,
however, were for the most part identical with those which had for
a series of years been repeatedly adduced in the commons, so that a
repetition of them is unnecessary. The debate unfolded one great fact:
namely, that the Protestant party were not behindhand with the Catholics
in the vigour and perseverance of their agitation.

Government lost no time in bringing the politics of Ireland before
parliament. On the 7th of April Lord John Russell moved for leave to
bring in a bill for the amendment of the Irish municipal corporations.
The bill differed from that of the last year on one material point only.
By the former measure the town-councils were not allowed to interfere
in the appointment of sheriffs, which was vested in the crown; but they
were now authorised to nominate or suggest a certain number of persons
for that office; the power of selection, rejection, and appointment
being given to the lord-lieutenant. Sir John Hobhouse made an
intimation, that the fate of this measure would decide that of the
cabinet; he asked of the party opposite, if they succeeded in throwing
out this bill and so coming into office, upon what principle they hoped
to govern Ireland? Was it by Orange, neckerchiefs and acclamations that
they expected to do so? They ought to be prepared to give a decided
answer to the question. Sir Robert Peel said, that he doubted the right
of any one to catechise his party on the results of a contingency.
The motion, which was merely for leave to bring in the bill, was not
opposed, and the two parties had therefore no opportunity of making
trial of their strength on a division.

The order of the day was read for going into committee on the reform
of municipal corporations on the 20th of February. Lord Francis Egerton
moved an instruction similar to that which he had brought forward in
the last session, to the effect that the committee be empowered to make
provisions for the abolition of corporations in Ireland, and for such
arrangements as might be necessary on their abolition for securing the
efficient and impartial administration of justice, and the peace and
good government of Ireland. A long discussion ensued and was adjourned.
On the following day Mr. Serjeant Jackson delivered a long speech, which
was chiefly directed against the government of Lord Mulgrave. Mr. Vesey
followed in the same track. The bill was supported, on the other hand,
by Mr. E. L. Bulwer, Lord Howick, and Mr. Roebuck. The latter asked
Sir Robert Peel this plain question:—“Can he pretend to carry on the
government of Ireland on entirely different principles from those of
Great Britain? Does he believe that, at this period of man’s history,
and by the side of the most enlightened nation of the earth, doctrines
of government suited for the meridian of St. Petersburg can be carried
into actual practice? In a word, Does he believe that the system of
Protestant supremacy can be continued in Ireland without civil war?”
 On the third night of the debate, Sir James Graham delivered a powerful
speech in support of Lord Francis Egerton’s amendment. Mr. Shiel
followed, in a speech which was more personal than argumentative. Sir
Robert Peel deprecated this mode of conducting the debate. He had been
reproached, he continued, by Lord Howick for not having earlier seen the
necessity of yielding to the Catholic claims. Would the noble lord ask
of his noble colleague of the foreign department, why he was not an
earlier convert than he had proved to reform? Would he put the same
question to the head of the present administration? If it were blindness
in him not to foresee in 1825 the necessity of concession to the
Catholics, was not the blindness of Lord Melbourne as great when, in
1826, he even opposed the transfer of representatives from Penryn to
Manchester? Mr. O’Connell followed, urging his usual topics—the long
misgovernment of Ireland, and the necessity of the repeal of the union
as her only chance of obtaining justice. After a reply from Lord John
Russell, the house divided; when Lord Francis Egerton’s amendment was
negatived by a majority of three hundred and twenty-two against two
hundred and forty-two.

Little discussion took place on the bill when in committee. The third
reading was moved on the 10th of April, when Mr. Goulburn opposed
the measure as pregnant with danger to the church, and tending by
its renewed agitation to place the two houses of parliament in an
undesirable situation. Another long debate ensued, in which the bill
was defended by Colonel Thompson, Lords Morpeth and John Russell, and
Messrs. Bulwer, Charles Villiers, and O’Connell; and opposed by Lord
Stanley, Sir James Graham, and Sir Robert Peel. The debate lasted two
nights; and on a division the bill was carried by a majority of three
hundred and two against two hundred and forty-seven.

The bill was introduced to the house of peers by Lord Melbourne on the
13th of April; and the second reading was fixed for the 25th of the same
month. On its introduction the Duke of Wellington gave no opinion on the
subject of the bill, but contented himself with observing, that it
was only one of the three measures relating to Ireland which had been
recommended to the consideration of the house in the speech from the
throne. He added, that, as he thought it desirable before the house
decided on the present measure it should have the other two before them,
he hoped the noble viscount would appoint a more distant day for its
consideration. Lord Melbourne objected to this, stating at the same
time that he could not see any necessary connexion between the three
measures. In moving its second reading, Lord Melbourne dwelt at great
length upon the good effects which had already resulted from the grant
of a similar boon to England. On these grounds he called upon the house
to accede to the measure. It was only a little to give, but a great deal
to withhold. The Duke of Wellington said, that he would agree to
the second reading of the bill, on the principle that the existing
corporations ought not to be continued. He would not, however, pledge
himself to consent to the present measure, to various details of
which he had strong objections. He would endeavour to remove these in
committee; in the meanwhile he could not but express his surprise that
Lord Melbourne should have again brought forward such a measure. Lord
Lyndhurst expressed similar sentiments. In reference to the surprise
expressed by the Duke of Wellington that the bill should have been
reintroduced, Lord Melbourne said the case was not a singular one; and
he reminded the duke that he had introduced and carried a measure to
which he had been opposed. Lord Brougham regretted that, from the tone
of the speeches of the Duke of Wellington, he was led to believe that
they would only throw away some five or six weeks of their time in
unprofitable discussions on the subject, and be left at the end of this
session where they were at the close of the last. This proved to be the
true interpretation of those speeches. On the 5th of May, when the order
of the day was read for the house to resolve itself into committee on
the bill, the Duke of Wellington rose, and moved to defer the committal
till the 9th of June. His reason for asking this delay was, that he was
anxious to see the result of the deliberations of the other house of
parliament on the pending measures of Irish tithe and Irish poor-law.
Lord Melbourne objected to the proposed postponement as inconvenient in
itself, and dangerous in the motive on which it was grounded. There was
no connexion between the church and corporation bills; and if the
house of commons should follow the example of the lords, and refuse to
consider one set of bills until the lords had passed another to their
satisfaction, he apprehended their lordships would not have the best of
the struggle. As for the appropriation clause, he denied, as his grace
had intimated, that it had been abandoned; it existed in the new bill
as strongly as in the former one. The Duke of Wellington replied, that
though he objected to much of the present measure, he was not adverse to
the establishment, under certain circumstances, of local jurisdictions
in Ireland. The Earl of Wicklow and Lord Fitzgerald made yet ampler
concessions than his grace; and the Marquis of Lansdowne argued on this,
that they assented to the principles of the bill; and that, therefore,
no further delay should take place in its progress. Lord Brougham said
that he drew no happy augury of the fate of the bill from the very
significant speech of the Duke of Wellington. He would not say any
sinister motive lurked in his proposition for delay; but if he was
averse to the present measure, as he appeared to be, why did he not
throw it out altogether? It was very well to talk of amendments; but
their lordships would so alter the bill, that the man who drew it would
not know it again. Although the different sections under the duke’s
command might move by different routes, they would all meet in the end.
On a division the motion for postponement was carried by a majority of
one hundred and ninety-two against one hundred and fifteen.

Although the postponement decided on was for more than one month, there
appeared to be little probability that either the tithe or the poor-rate
bill would be before the lords by the assigned period for resuming the
municipal corporations bill. Under these circumstances, when the 9th of
June arrived, Lord Lyndhurst rose to move a further postponement of
the bill till the 3rd of July next. His lordship took occasion again to
state his objections to the measure. Lord Melbourne opposed the further
postponement of the bill; but on a division the motion was carried by a
majority of two hundred and five against one hundred and nineteen.




QUESTION OF ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM OF POOR-LAWS IN IRELAND.

A board of commissioners had been for some time busied with the
consideration of a system of poor-laws in Ireland, and in the last
session a report containing the result of their inquiries was laid
before parliament. This report, however, was not satisfactory to
government. They thought it desirable that some inquiry should be made
as to how far it might be practicable to introduce into Ireland a system
of relief based upon the principles of the new English poor-law. For
this purpose, Mr. Nicholls, one of the commissioners, was sent to
Ireland to prosecute the matter by personal investigation. The report
of Mr. Nicholls was very able, and on it government grounded the measure
which they intended to bring forward on the subject. This measure was
introduced in the commons by Lord John Russell on the 13th of February.
In introducing it, his lordship called the attention of the house to
that part of the king’s speech at the opening of the session, in which
the establishment of some legal provision for the poor was recommended.
At the same time he laid on the table of the house a copy of Mr.
Nicholl’s report upon the subject. In his speech, his lordship first
dwelt upon the benefits derivable to a country from a well-administered
system of poor-laws; upon its tendency to preserve peace, prevent
vagrancy, diminish crime, and establish harmony among all classes of
society. Having dwelt on this subject at length, Lord John Russell
then stated the leading provisions of the bill as recommended by the
commissioner. With respect to the expense of the system, he said, it
had been calculated that the whole average charge for each person in the
English workhouses, including lodging, fuel, clothing, and diet, was one
shilling and sixpence per week. If, therefore, we take one hundred union
houses, each containing eight hundred inmates, and suppose them all
fully occupied, the annual expense for the whole would be £312,000.

In order to understand the nature of the bill brought in by Lord John
Russell, however, it is necessary to give a brief extract of the
report made by Mr. Nicholls. He stated that he found the people almost
universally favourable to the introduction of a poor-law. But with
respect to the question of how far the introduction of the English
poor-law was practicable in Ireland, two difficulties suggested
themselves—first, whether the workhouse system could be relied on as
a test of destitution in Ireland; and secondly, whether the means and
machinery existed there for the formation of unions as in England. The
great principle of the workhouse system is, that the support which is
afforded at the public charge there should be less desirable than that
to be obtained by independent exertion. It would be impossible to make
the lodging, clothing, and diet of the inmates of an Irish workhouse
inferior to those of the Irish peasantry, and therefore this security
would not be found for the efficiency of the workhouse-test. On the
other hand, it is to be remembered that the Irish are naturally or by
habit a migratory people, fond of change, full of hope, and eager for
experiment. They had never been tied down to one limited settlement, and
consequently confinement of any kind would be irksome, and therefore the
test of the workhouse is likely to prove fully as efficient in Ireland
as in England. With respect to the’ supply of local machinery for the
execution of the law, Mr. Nicholls considered that by making the unions
sufficiently large, there would be no difficulty of obtaining boards of
guardians of competent intelligence and activity. These might, he said,
be elected by the contributors to the county cess; but Mr. Nicholls
thought that, in the first instance, large general powers should be
vested in some competent authority to control and direct the proceedings
of the board of guardians, and, where necessary, to supersede their
functions altogether. He further proposed, that the same central
authority should be empowered to dispense with the election of the
first board of guardians, and to appoint such persons as it should think
proper to act in their stead. It was further proposed, that the
number of magistrates acting officially as guardians should not exceed
one-third of the elected members of the board; and that no clergyman
or minister of any denomination should be eligible to act as ex-officio
guardian. The enactment of a provision for the destitute at the
common charge, would give the community a right to interfere with the
proceedings of individuals, so as to prevent the spread of destitution,
and enable it to guard itself from loss and damage by the negligence or
obstinacy of any of its members. With this view, it was recommended that
the central authority should appoint, or empower the board of guardians
to appoint, one or more wardens or head-boroughs for every parish, who
might superintend the affairs of the district. Assuming the general
practicability and expediency of establishing a system of poor-law
in Ireland on principles the same with those of the English law, Mr.
Nicholls proceeded to consider the details of its application in that
country. It was proposed that all relief out of the workhouse should
be absolutely refused. Another point to be insisted upon, was, that no
individual of a family should be admitted unless all its members entered
the house. All relief was to be given by the orders and direction of the
central authority. With respect to the formation and regulation of
the local machinery, the report recommended that, as in England, the
appointment of guardians should be vested in the ratepayers and owners
of property in the union. A scale was proposed, by which the number of
votes possessed by an individual rate-payer might be raised from one
to five, as his rating increased from five pounds to two hundred. The
commissioners had proposed that the owner should pay two-thirds of the
rate, and that the remainder should fall on the tenant: Mr. Nicholls
thought that it would be better to divide the charge equally between the
two parties. It was not recommended to establish a parochial settlement
in Ireland, as the habits of the people were migratory: if a law
settlement should be established, it would be a union of settlement,
making the limits of the union the boundary. The simpler the conditions
on which this settlement was made to depend, it would be the better.
They might, it was stated, be limited to two—birth, and actual
residence for a term of years; but, on the whole, it would be better
to dispense with settlement altogether. One great object in the
establishment of a legal relief for the destitute would be the right it
afforded to take measures for the suppression of mendicancy. The present
state of Ireland, and the feelings and habits of the people, threw
considerable difficulty in the way of an immediate enforcement of such a
prohibition. The best method, it was stated, would probably be to
enact a general prohibition, and to cast upon the central authority the
responsibility of bringing the act into operation in the several unions,
as the workhouses became fitted for the reception of inmates. With
respect to emigration, Mr. Nicholls did not think it should be looked
to as an ordinary resource; the necessity for its adoption would be
regarded as an indication of disease, which it would be better to
prevent than thus to relieve. The source, however, would be one which
must be employed as a means of relief whenever any population became
excessive in any district, and no opening for migration to other
districts could be found. In the conclusion of his report, Mr. Nicholls
considered the nature and appointment of the central authority upon
which the whole administration of the new system would depend. He was in
favour of its being carried into effect by the existing English board,
inasmuch as the object being to carry the English system into Ireland,
it could only be done by persons practically conversant with its
administration.

Such were the principles on which the measure introduced by Lord John
Russell was founded. On its introduction, Irish members of all parties
expressed their satisfaction with it. Mr. O’Connell, however, though he
did not oppose it, expressed himself less sanguine as to its beneficial
results. The hundred workhouses which it was proposed to erect would
afford shelter and relief to eighty thousand persons in Ireland only;
and he asked, what proportion that bore to the mass of destitution in
Ireland? He objected also to the proposed gradual introduction of the
measure. They would thereby create a state of transition, during which
neither relief nor charity would be afforded to the suffering population
of the country. He disapproved, also, of that part of the plan which
confined relief and employment to the workhouses. There was no part of
Ireland, he said, which might not be made ten times more productive than
it was, and yet it was proposed to feed men in idleness in a workhouse.
The system of workhouses acted well in England, where a sort of slave
labour was adopted in them, to force the idle to seek employment
elsewhere; but what could be expected from it in Ireland where men
worked for twopence per day? Many expected that a poor-rate in Ireland
would prevent the influx of Irish labourers into England; there could
not be a greater mistake: unmarried men would still go to England; and
so would the married, leaving their families to be maintained in the
workhouse. The experiment, he saw, must be made; and, notwithstanding
his objections, he would certainly give every aid in working out its
details. Mr. O’Connell urged the necessity of extensive emigration on
the consideration of government; but Sir Robert Peel said that he
was not sanguine as to any benefits to be derived therefrom. The long
sea-voyage would always stand in the way of its adoption to any extent.
As to public works, to vote money merely to employ people, that would
only aggravate existing evils by interfering with the natural demand for
labour. Sir Robert Peel, however, was disposed cordially to support the
measure in its general objects; as was also Lord Stanley.

The second reading of the bill did not take place till the end of April.
The interval seems to have confirmed Mr. O’Connell in his hostility
to the measure. It was not his intention directly to oppose it—some
measure of the kind was inevitable; but his deliberate judgment was,
that it would aggravate, instead of mitigate, the existing evils of the
Irish peasantry. Those evils he ascribed to English misgovernment: the
distinct and direct object of the penal laws was to enforce ignorance
and poverty by act of parliament. For a century, the Irish had had
laws requiring the people to be ignorant, and punishing them for being
industrious. And what, he asked, were the natural consequences of this
legislation? He entered into a variety of statistical details to prove
that, with a less fertile soil, the quantity of agricultural produce
raised in England was as four to one compared with that of Ireland;
though, according to the number of acres under cultivation, it ought not
to exceed two to one. He then proceeded to read numerous extracts from
the reports of the commissioners, descriptive of the extreme misery of
the Irish peasantry. He described men as lying in bed for want of food;
turning thieves in order to be sent to jail; lying on rotten straw in
mud cabins, with scarcely any covering; feeding on unripe potatoes and
yellow weed, and feigning sickness, in order to get into hospitals. He
continued:—“This is the condition of a country blest by nature
with fertility, but barren from the want of cultivation, and whose
inhabitants stalk through the land enduring the extremity of misery and
want. Did we govern ourselves? Who did this? You, Englishmen!—I say,
you did it? It is the result of your policy and domination!” With
respect to the bill before the house, Mr. O’Connell ridiculed the
proposition of relieving the destitution of 2,300,000 persons by
building poor-houses to shelter eighty thousand at the expense of
£312,000 a year. The charities in Dublin alone amounted to half that
sum, and the farmers gave away in kind from a million to a million and a
half yearly. As for tranquillizing the country, Mr. O’Connell said that
the bill would not have any such effect. On the contrary, as all relief
was to be given in the workhouse, every man who was refused would have a
pretext for prædial resistance. The man refused would be the very man to
resent the refusal; he would go to others and induce them to adopt his
quarrel, and perhaps to avenge what he would consider to be his wrong.
In conclusion, Mr. O’Connell admitted that he was opposed to a law of
settlement, and also to a labour-rate: he thought emigration should
be tried on a large scale; and he was still an advocate for a tax on
absentees. However much he disapproved of the bill, he would not
vote against it: he had not moral courage enough to resist a poor-law
altogether. A long and angry debate ensued, which issued in nothing
practical.

The only point in the measure in which any serious opposition was
raised, respected the law of settlement. On the 12th of May, when the
order of the day was read for the house to go into committee on the
bill, Mr. Lucas moved,—“That it be an instruction to the committee to
introduce a provision for settlement, so as more justly to apportion
the pecuniary charges to be incurred and levied under the name of
poor-rates.” Mr. Lucas suggested a particular scheme of settlement, by
which he conceived most of the evils attaching to the system as hitherto
practised might be avoided; but his statement of its nature and probable
operation was not very intelligible, and his motion was negatived, after
some discussion of the subject, by a majority of one hundred and twenty
against sixty-eight. The bill did not proceed beyond this stage of its
progress, in consequence of the demise of the crown.




IRISH TITHE QUESTION.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

Another cardinal point of Irish policy remaining to be settled, as
pointed out to the consideration of parliament in the speech from the
throne, was the tithe question. This subject was brought forward in the
house of commons on the 1st of May by Lord Morpeth, who, in introducing
it, said, that it was the fifth measure which had been brought forward
in the last three years for the adjustment of Irish tithes. His present
plan was this. He proposed to deduct thirty per cent, from the tithe
composition, so as to make a rent-charge on the owner of the first
estate of inheritance, in the proportion of £70 to every £100 of the
tithe. By the bill of last year power was given to the commissioners of
woods and forests to collect the rent-charge; but this was thought to
make the clergy too dependant on the officers of government, and
they were, therefore, now allowed to collect it for themselves. The
provisions of former bills for the revising or reopening of compositions
were to be reserved. With respect to the regulation of the incomes of
the various benefices, Lord Morpeth proposed to adopt the scale of
last session, as recommended by Lord Stanley, with the exception of the
minimum of £300, which Lord Stanley had taken as the lowest point of
reduction to which the clerical income should be liable. The most
novel provision proposed was that which went to apply a portion of the
clergyman’s income to the purposes of general education. Lord Morpeth
observed, that by a statute, the 15th of the 28th of Henry III., it was
enacted, that “every incumbent in each parish in Ireland should keep or
cause to be kept within his parish, a school to learn English; and that
every archbishop, bishop, &c., at the time of his induction should take
a corporal oath, that, being so admitted or inducted, he shall to his
best endeavour himself teach the English tongue to all that are under
his rule and governance.” Penalties were laid both on the bishop and
clergyman for the breach of this statute; and the oath imposed by the
act was taken by all rectors and vicars. The question was, continued
Lord Morpeth, had this obligation been complied with? There were
2400 parishes in Ireland; and it appeared from the report of the
commissioners of inquiry into Irish education, there were only seven
hundred and eighty-two schools, the number of benefices being 1242, and
the amount of the contributions of the clergy £3299. It appeared from
that report, indeed, that, though there were many benefices in which
there was no school, yet the act of Henry VIII. was sufficiently
complied with by the annual payment of forty-shillings to a
schoolmaster. Attempts had been made to revise the act in 1767, and
again in the year 1806; but these were abandoned. Lord Morpeth now
proposed to raise a fixed rate of ten per cent, upon the ecclesiastical
revenues of Ireland, including the incomes of the dignitaries of the
church as well as of the parochial clergy; to take effect not on the
present holders, but on their successors. The plan of education which he
proposed was not to be confined to the teaching of the English language
only; it was to combine instruction in letters, lessons of morality and
religion, and that upon a national system, comprehending all sects
and denominations. Lord Morpeth, however, did not, he said, intend to
propose resolutions which would call upon the house to pledge themselves
to the whole of his plan; he contented himself for the present with
moving, “That it is expedient to commute the tithes of Ireland into a
rent-charge, payable by the first estate of inheritance, and to make
further provision for the better regulation of ecclesiastical duties.”
 The resolution was adopted without comment from either side of the
house; but when the bill founded on Lord Morpeth’s resolutions was
read a second time, June 9th, Mr. Sharman Crawford opposed it as wholly
inadequate to the wants of the people of Ireland. He moved that the bill
be read a second time that day six months; but on a division his motion
was rejected by two hundred and twenty-nine against fourteen. The
decision on the clause for taking livings was deferred, and nothing
further was done on this question, the death of the king on the 20th of
June precluding all further consideration of it.




QUESTION OF CHURCH-RATES.

Government had for some time been occupied in framing a scheme for the
arrangement of the question of church-rates. On the 3rd of March the
chancellor of the exchequer brought this subject before the house of
commons, by moving that the house should resolve itself into a committee
for its discussion. In his speech Mr. Rice first attempted to prove that
the existing system could not be maintained. He remarked:—“By the law
as it stood at present any vestry has the power of refusing its assent
to a church-rate. Can it then be said there is, in fact, any fixed or
satisfactory mode of providing for the maintenance of the churches
of the establishment? Not only have they the power of refusing their
assent, but this power has been frequently exercised. In consequence of
the contests that took place in Sheffield on the subject, up to the year
1818, no rate has existed there since. In Manchester, in 1833, a poll
took place on a rate, which was lost by a majority of one out of six
or seven thousand votes. It is true the majority was set aside on a
scrutiny; but it has not been ventured to collect the rate. In 1834 and
1835 the same scenes took place; large majorities were polled against
the rates; those majorities were, on a scrutiny, declared to be
minorities; but the churchwardens did not dare to act on their decision,
or levy the rate that had been assessed. Can, or ought,” asked Mr. Bice,
“this state of things to continue? If you depend upon the church-rate
for the maintenance of the church, can you depend upon the present state
of the law to enable you to enforce that payment? It is not sufficient
to assert that the law must be strengthened; if you wish to maintain
such a proposition, you must carry the house of commons with you. Can
you do so? I confess I should like to see, not the person, but the
party, however combined in force or numbers, who could come down to
this house and ask of parliament to grant additional power for enforcing
the payment of church-rates. They would soon find that they miscalculate
the character both of the legislature and of the people whom it
represents.” Having thus stated his grievance, Mr. Bice considered the
remedy. He expressed his decided objection to the voluntary system; when
he could be satisfied that the army and navy could be supported, or the
administration of justice provided for on the voluntary principle, then,
and not till then, would he apply it to the church. He also objected
to a distinctive tax on the members of the established church, to the
raising of a fund from pew-rents, and to a graduated impost on the
benefices of the clergy. He further objected to the proposition brought
forward by Lord Althorp; namely, that a sum of £250,000 should be voted
by parliament, for the purpose of maintaining the fabric of the church.
His plan would be different from all these propositions. He proposed to
take the whole property of the bishops, deans, and chapters out of
the hands of those dignitaries, and to vest them in the hands of a
commission, under whose improved system of management it was calculated
that, after paying to their full present amount all existing incomes, a
sum not less than £250,000 might be saved and applied to the purposes
of church-rates. He proposed that there should be eleven commissioners;
five of high ecclesiastical rank; three high officers of state; and
three paid members of the board. He further proposed that in all
cases where pew-rents had been received, or where they could be justly
demanded from the rich, the proceeds should be collected, and placed,
in the first instance, under the control of a parochial committee, who
should be required in ordinary cases to apportion one-fifth of the whole
space in the church to free seats for the poor; in the churches built
under the church building act, one-third; the surplus to be handed over
to the commissioners. The sums received by the commissioners were to be
paid to the ecclesiastical commission, to be applied by them to
their specific objects. All visitation fees, and fees on swearing in
churchwardens, were to be abolished; by which regulation it was stated
a saving of £180,000 a year would be effected. A short and desultory
conversation took place; in the course of which the liberal members
expressed themselves satisfied with the proposition, while those on the
other side of the house intimated their distrust of the principles of
the measure.

The friends of the church soon sounded an alarm upon this subject. Three
days after Mr. Rice had made his statement, a meeting of fifteen bishops
took place at Lambeth Palace; and they came to an unanimous resolution
in disapprobation of the bill. The same evening the Archbishop of
Canterbury, on presenting some petitions against the abolition of
church-rates, expressed his feelings on the subject to the house of
lords. The principle of the bill was so unkind to the church, he said,
and so mischievous in its effects, that he would never give his assent
to its becoming law. This protest raised the indignation of Lord
Melbourne. He heard this expression of opinion on the part of the most
reverend prelate with sorrow and concern, not less on account of the
effect which it would have on the success of the measure, than with
reference to the interests of the church itself. He would put it, he
said, to the archbishop, whether there was not something of undue haste
and precipitation in the course which he had adopted; and whether he
was not put forward by those who had more guile and deeper designs than
himself, in order that his expressed opinions might affect the decision
of the question in another place? He thought it would have been more
decent if the most reverend prelate had waited for the regular time for
the discussion of the matter, and not have thus precipitately announced
his intentions with respect to it. He learned with affliction that he
should have the most reverend prelate and his brethren against him on
this measure; but this would not alter his course: considering it
as just in itself, advantageous to the church, and beneficial to the
community, he should persevere in urging it upon parliament.

The house of commons went into committee upon the resolutions of Mr.
Rice on the 13th March. The discussion was opened by Sir Robert Peel in
opposition. Lord Howick contented himself with replying on one or two
points in the financial criticisms of Sir Robert Peel. He was convinced,
he said, that the property of the church in land and houses was much
greater than was reported by the bishops and chapters, and was greatly
improvable under a better management; and he enlarged upon the evils of
the present system, and the absolute necessity of removing them for the
sake of the church. A discussion followed which lasted several nights.
On a division the resolution was carried by a majority of two hundred
and seventy-three against two hundred and fifty.

This was a small majority on a question which involved little more than
than the taking of the plan into consideration; ministers, indeed, were
evidently dissatisfied with the reception of their measure, for they
did not seem inclined to urge it through the house. Nearly two months
elapsed before the subject was renewed by them: a delay which was made
a matter of reproach to the government by some of its supporters without
doors, as implying an acknowledgment of failure on the part of the
authors of the scheme. The second reading of the resolutions was moved
on the 22nd of May. An amendment was moved by Mr. A. Johnstone to this
effect: “That it is the opinion of this house that funds may be derived
from an improved mode, of management of church lands, and that these
funds should be applied to religious instruction within the established
church, where the same may be found deficient, in proportion to the
existing population.” Messrs. Baines, Hardy, Borthwick, and Horace
Twiss, all spoke against the measure. Sir Francis Burdett expressed his
regret that he was compelled to act against his former associates in
politics, but he could not support the measure. Mr. Shiel endeavoured to
make the honourable baronet refute himself by quoting extracts from
his former speeches on the same subject. He spoke, however, of the
honourable baronet in terms of the highest respect, as “a venerable
relic of a temple dedicated to freedom, though ill-omened birds now
built their nests and found shelter in that once noble edifice.” On the
second night of the debate the bill was supported by Messrs. Brotherton
and Charles Buller. Mr. Johnstone withdrew his amendment; and on a
division the original resolution was carried by a majority of five only,
the numbers being two hundred and eighty-seven against two hundred and
eighty-two. This division was a death-blow to the bill: ministers did
not even attempt to urge it further in the house of commons. They were
still disposed, however, to follow up the inquiries which had been
suggested, into the present method of holding and leasing the property
belonging to the bishops and chapters. On the 13th of June, Lord John
Russell moved a committee “to inquire into this subject, with a view
to ascertain the probable amount of any increased value which might
be obtained by an improved management, with a due consideration of the
interests of the established church, and of the present leases of such
property.” This motion was carried by a majority of three hundred and
nineteen against two hundred and thirty-six, although it was opposed
both by the church party and by honourable members on the part of
dissenters. Mr. Coulburn moved a resolution to be added to the original
motion, pledging the house to a specific appropriation of any increased
revenue derivable from church lands, to the extension of religious
instruction by ministers of the establishment. This was lost, but it was
only by a majority of two hundred and ninety-one against two hundred and
sixty-five. On the other hand, an amendment moved by Mr. Harvey, for the
abolition of church-rates altogether, was negatived by an overwhelming
majority of four hundred and eighty-nine against fifty-eight. These
divisions possessed some interest, as indicative of the different shades
of opinion which prevailed in the house on matters relating to the
established church.




THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

On the opening of the first session of this parliament, Sir Robert Peel
had made the deficient means of pastoral superintendence in the church
of Scotland, the matter of a recommendation from the crown to the
parliament. His government did not exist long enough in power to carry
these recommendations into effect, and their successors were supposed to
be adverse to the subject. On being pressed, however, they consented
to the appointment of a commission, which should make inquiry into the
whole of it, and report the same to parliament. The first report of
this commission was not made till February of the present year, and then
government appeared to take no notice of it. Under these circumstances
Sir William Rae moved, on the 5th of May, that the “report should be
taken into immediate consideration, for the purpose of remedying the
evils acknowledged to exist within the district to which it refers,
by extending the means of religious instruction and pastoral
superintendence furnished by the established church of Scotland, and
rendering them available to all classes of the community.” This motion
embarrassed government. Lord John Russell said that the general assembly
of the Scottish church was about to assemble within a few days, and no
doubt it was desired that they should have the ministers’ refusal to
consent to this motion, to allege as a presumption of their indifference
to the interests of the establishment. He objected to the motion,
only on the ground that they had not yet sufficient information on the
subject to enable them to deal with it satisfactorily. The motion was
opposed by Messrs. Horsman and Oillon on more general grounds; and on a
division the order of the day, which was moved by Lord John Russell,
was carried by two hundred and seventeen against one hundred and
seventy-six: Sir William Rae’s resolutions, therefore, were negatived by
a majority of forty-one.




NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES.

Within the first week of this session, the notice-book of the house
of commons presented the announcement of motions for various “organic
changes” in our constitution. Mr. Grote gave notice of his annual
proposition of vote by ballot; Sir William Molesworth announced
his intention of moving a committee on peerage reform; Mr. Tennyson
D’Eyncourt promised to introduce a bill for the repeal of the Septennial
Act; Mr. Hume gave notice for the extension of the parliamentary
suffrage to all householders; Mr. Duncombe, of another for the repeal of
the rate-paying clauses in the reform bill; Mr. Ewart, one of an
address to the crown for the appointment of a minister of education;
Mr. Roebuck, of a bill for the establishment of a system of national
education; and Mr. Clay, a motion for the repeal of the corn-laws.

The motion for the ballot took place on the 7th of March. Mr. Grote’s
speech on this occasion contained many specious arguments, and it
appears to have had a great effect upon the house. His motion was
seconded by Mr. Hodges, and supported by Dr. Lushington and Mr. Charles
Buller. The chancellor of the exchequer opposed the motion. He had as
much right as any man to complain of the effects of undue influence and
intimidation at his election at Cambridge: but he doubted whether the
ballot would prove a remedy for the evil. He thought the only way was to
let in public opinion upon the acts and conduct of individuals abusing
their power. On a division, the motion was negatived by a majority of
two hundred and sixty-seven against one hundred and fifty-five.

Another motion, referring to the exercise or regulation of the
parliamentary franchise, was that of Sir William Molesworth, for leave
to bring in a bill to abolish the property qualification of members of
parliament, which, after a brief discussion, was negatived. The other
notice which Sir William had given for a committee on peerage reform was
not followed up. The only motion relating to this subject was introduced
by Mr. Charles Lushington, who, on the 16th February, moved for leave to
bring in a bill for the expulsion of bishops from the house of peers, on
the ground that the sitting of bishops in parliament was unfavourable in
its operation to the general interests of the Christian religion in this
country, and tended to alienate the affections of the people from the
established church. This motion was decidedly opposed by Lord John
Russell, as introducing a change into one of the most ancient portions
of the British constitution. It was a motion not to amend, but to
destroy a part of our institutions. And where would such changes stop?
The conservative party seemed content to leave this question to be
debated between the two parties of their opponents; but when Mr. Buller
made some remarks on their silence, Sir Robert Peel declared that if any
unpopularity attended resistance to the motion, he was willing to put
in a distinct claim for his share. He feared he should not benefit Lord
John Russell by his compliments; but he would say that he had never
heard a speech delivered in a more manly tone than the noble lord’s, or
one that did more credit to his judgment and abilities. On a division,
the motion was lost by a majority of one hundred and ninety-seven
against ninety-two.

Another motion connected with the reform of the house of lords was
brought forward on the 9th of May, by Mr. Thomas Duncombe. He moved
by way of resolution, “That the practice of any deliberative assembly
deciding by proxy upon the rejection or adoption of legislative
enactments is so incompatible with every principle of justice and
reason, that its continuance is daily becoming a source of serious and
well-founded complaint among all classes of his majesty’s subjects.”
 This resolution went, therefore, to abolish the right of peers to
vote by proxy. Mr. Duncombe observed, that after the house should have
affirmed that resolution, he would move, “That a message be sent to
the house of lords, requesting a conference, at which the foregoing
resolution might be communicated. Lord Stanley and Sir Robert Peel met
Mr. Duncombe’s arguments on the subject, by endeavouring to show that if
voting by proxy was absurd, the custom of pairing off in the commons, or
of coming in to vote at the division without having heard a syllable of
the debate, was open to the same objection.” Sir Robert went so for as
to parody Mr. Duncombe’s resolution, by drawing up a similar one against
the practice of pairing; and he concluded by recommending that they
should take the mote out of their own eye before they made any attempt
to extract the mote out of that of another. On a division, the motion
was negatived by one hundred and twenty-nine against eighty-one.

Mr. Thomas Duncombe’s motion on the subject of the rate-paying clauses
of the reform bill was disposed of in a similar manner. He brought this
forward on the 9th of March, by moving for leave to bring in a bill
for the repeal of those clauses. Mr. Duncombe made no prefatory
observations; on which, the chancellor of the exchequer remarked, that
on so grave a motion he thought it much better that argument should
precede rather than follow the introduction of the bill. Mr. Duncombe
then said, that it was his conviction that the clauses in question
operated materially to diminish the number of voters throughout the
country. It was promised that the reform act should add half a million
to the amount of electors, whereas it did not give more than three
hundred thousand. The great reason for this was the want of punctuality
in the payment of rates and taxes, and the partiality shown by
collectors. The chancellor of the exchequer replied, that the
principle on which the clause was founded was one of the oldest in the
constitution; namely, that no man should enjoy civil rights who did
not discharge his civil obligations. If there was any unfairness in
collectors it should be inquired into; they were not appointed by the
crown. After a few words from Mr. Wakley in support of the motion, and
from Mr. Pease, who opposed it, the motion was carried by forty-nine
against thirty-eight. On the second reading of the bill, however, Lord
John Russell moved its postponement for six months, which was carried by
one hundred and sixty-six against seventy-three, so that Mr. Duncombe’s
success was but transient.

Mr. Tennyson D’Eyncourt brought forward his promised motion for the
shortening of the legal duration of parliaments, on the 8th of May. The
terms of his motion were confined to a repeal of the septennial act,
without specifying any particular period to be substituted for the
present one. The motion was supported by Mr. Hume, on the ground that
seven years was too long a tenancy of a political trust. He thought
three years a better term, and one with which, he believed, reformers
in general would be content. Lord John Russell opposed the motion. In
private affairs a man would no more be disposed to trust his interests
to another, without taking account, for three years than for seven. The
septennial act at the time of its passing had been considered essential
for the security of the Hanoverian succession; but the preamble of that
measure showed that it was not intended merely for a temporary purpose,
it stated the object to be to diminish the heavy expenses of frequent
elections, and to put an end to heats and animosities. It was
observable, he said, that from the Revolution to the passing of the
septennial act, the persons who had the chief weight and leading
authority in the country were peers; since the passing of that act
almost every person who has possessed a leading influence has sat in the
house of commons. Mr. Roebuck desired a bill of this description, not
because it would lesson, but because he thought it would increase the
stability of the government, particularly if coupled with the provision
that parliament should not sit for more or less than three years. The
motion was rejected by a majority of ninety-one against eighty-seven.

On the 4th of April Mr. Ewart renewed the motion which he had made in
the previous session, for leave to bring in a bill, providing that in
cases of intestacy, or in the absence of any settlement to the contrary,
landed property be equally divided among the children or nearest
relatives of the deceased. He quoted Adam Smith, Gibbon, Bentham, &c., in
favour of an equal partition of property, and insisted that the system
of primogeniture tended only to foster all the harsh and selfish
passions of the human heart. The attorney-general opposed the motion.
Mr. Ewart’s arguments, he said, if they went for anything, would bring
us to the system of equal distribution prevailing in France, which he
could not think a desirable consummation. The change proposed would
create great confusion in our law. The motion was lost by a majority
of fifty-four against thirty-three. Mr. Ewart had given notice of an
address to the crown, on the appointment of a minister of education;
but neither this motion nor those of Messrs. Hume, Roebuck, and Clay,
noticed at the opening of this article, were brought forward this
session.




OPERATION OF THE NEW POOR-LAWS.

From the last report of the commissioners of the poor-laws, which was
made up to July, 1837, it appeared that up to that period, of 18,433
parishes or townships in England, 12,132 had been united under the
provisions of the poor-law act. These parishes or townships contained a
population of above ten millions and a half; while the number of those
not yet included contained a population of two millions and a half.
In Wales, of 1049 parishes, twenty-eight only remained not yet united.
Those which were not yet brought under the new system chiefly consisted
of extensive and populous parishes, administering relief to the poor
under local acts; a few others united for rating and settlement; while
others were included in the unions established under Gilbert’s act. The
report stated that the progress of the new poor-law had been made in
the face of much resistance, and under the pressure of difficult
circumstances. These obstacles, however, had not been so considerable
as might have been supposed. The opponents of the law had acted on the
principle of agitation; but they had failed to accomplish that which
they desired. The report further gave a very favourable account of the
practical operation of the law in the habits of the poor. It did appear,
in truth, that the new system had so far operated as to induce the
farmers to give permanent employment to a much greater extent than
formerly. On the working of the new poor-laws, however, there were
differences of opinion, differences which were illustrated during this
session on an occasion of a motion made by Mr. Walter, to inquire
into the operation of the act. On introducing this subject, he brought
forward a great many cases of individual hardship under its operation.
The terms of his motion were, “That a select committee be appointed to
inquire into the operation of the poor-law amendment act, and to report
their opinion on it to the house;” but he disclaimed any intention
to repeal the bill. Mr. Fielden, the seconder of the motion, was more
explicit. His object was, he said, to obtain the total defeat of the
obnoxious measure; he had voted against it on every division at the time
it was passing; he had attended meetings of the people preparatory to
resistance of its introduction into the county of Lancashire; and he had
openly declared that if it were attempted to establish its operation in
his own peaceable valley of Todmorden, it would be met with opposition,
of which he would be the leader. Lord John Russell, in reply, objected
to the inquiry; and he moved, as an amendment, “That a select committee
be appointed to inquire into the administration of the relief of the
poor, under the orders and regulations issued by the commissioners
appointed under the provisions of the poor-law amendment act.” On the
second night of the debate, Colonel Sibthorp, Mr. Robinson, and other
members spoke against the measure; while Sir Robert Peel, Sir James
Graham, and the chancellor of the exchequer defended it. The latter
said, in conclusion, that the intention of government in proposing the
amendment was not to exclude any one topic of inquiry which was not
directly opposed to the principle of the bill; on which Mr. Walter
consented to withdraw his motion, and the amendment was then carried and
the committee appointed.

The committee began its inquiries immediately, and continued them almost
daily. Such, however, were the minuteness of examination to which the
witnesses were subjected, and the mass of conflicting evidence brought
forward on both sides, that the progress of the inquiry was but slow.
Mr. Harvey had been one of the members of this committee, but had
retired from it, “because it was all a delusion in its consequences,
if not in its intention.” Before he retired, he adopted the course of
printing the evidence before it was reported, in a paper called the
_True Sun_, of which he was the proprietor and editor, by way of
appealing to the judgment of the public against the prepossessions of
his colleagues in the committee. This was made a question of breach of
privilege, and as such brought before the house on the 21st of April,
by Lord John Russell. The speaker had informed Mr. Harvey that it was
a violation of the privileges of the house, and the chairman of the
committee had given him due warning that unless he desisted from the
practice he should be reported. Lord John Russell, in bringing the
subject forward, pointed out the obvious injury to the public which
would result from allowing such a discretion to every member of a
committee. Mr. Harvey defended his conduct upon grounds peculiar to
the object of the poor-law committee. He asked, “Who were the parties
composing that committee? On the one hand, there was all the property of
the country, in every variety and form, aggregated to support a measure
peculiarly framed for its interest and protection. Who was the other
party? All that was pitiable and miserable in the land, sunken alike
by ignorance and destitution. How, again, were the respective causes of
these parties conducted? On the one side was one of the most active and
vigilant bodies of men, the poor-law commissioners and their assistants;
but who was there on the other to advocate the rights of the unprotected
and oppressed millions? How was the working man, chained as he was
to the soil upon which he dragged out a miserable being, to become
acquainted with what took place except through the newspapers? Such
publicity was the more necessary, when it was recollected that the
advocates of the law in the committee were as a majority of twenty-two
to four.” Mr. Harvey’s reasoning would have been sound if the committee
had been compelled to make a daily report—a course which they
subsequently adopted of themselves; but there could be no doubt that
it rested only with the committee or the house to determine that point.
Lord John Russell’s motion was simply declaratory of the privileges of
the house in this matter which was carried without a division.




AFFAIRS OF CANADA.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

Commissioners had been appointed to inquire into the ground of the
complaints which for some years had been alleged by the prevailing party
in the legislature of Canada, and by their friends and agents in
the British parliament. Early in this session the report of these
commissioners was laid before both houses, and on the 6th of March
the subject was brought before the commons by Lord John Russell. His
lordship declared at the outset that lie did not intend to cast any
censure upon the conduct of the house of assembly in Lower Canada. He
considered their course to be so much the same with that which other
popular assemblies had followed in similar circumstances, that instead
of an act of self-will, or caprice, or presumption, it seemed to be
rather the obligation of a general law which affects all these disputes
between a popular assembly on the one hand, and the executive government
on the other. The course of these controversies, he said, seemed to
impress this general lesson—that popular assemblies are hardly ever
wrong in the beginning, and as seldom right in the conclusion of such
struggles. They began with the assertion of right, and ended with the
establishment of wrong. His lordship proceeded to state what were the
demands of the leading party in the house of assembly. The first was,
that the legislative council, which had hitherto been appointed by the
crown, should for the future be an elective assembly. The second was,
that the executive council should be responsible in the same way that
the cabinet was in this country. By a third, it was exacted that the
law of tenures should be changed, without respect to the rights obtained
under a British act of parliament. Fourthly, it was demanded that the
land company should be abolished, with a similar disregard of the rights
required under the same act. Having stated the difficulties of the case,
Lord John Russell proceeded to propose his remedies. It was now four
years and a half, he said, since the judges had received their salaries,
and it was high time for parliament to interfere on their behalf. He
proposed to apply a certain portion of the revenue of Canada to such
payments as in their rejected supply bill of 1833 the assembly had
under certain conditions agreed to. The total amount of these would
be £148,000, and in so applying them they would simply be applying the
revenue of the colony for its own benefit. His lordship next proposed to
adopt the recommendation of the commissioners which had been sent out
in 1855, and exclude the judges from the legislative council; and to
provide that in future the members of that body should not be chosen so
exclusively from persons of the English race, but that alternately one
of French and one of British extraction should be selected. With respect
to the executive council, it was proposed that there should not be more
than two or three official persons among its members, and that the rest
should be selected by the legislative council, and from the house of
assembly. The privileges of the North American Loan Company were to be
preserved inviolate; a provision might easily be framed to prevent any
abuse of them. As the complaints made against the Canada tenures act
were in some degree well founded, it was proposed to repeal that act,
care being taken that the lights of individuals vested under it should
be respected. Complaints had been likewise made of the commercial
relations between Upper and Lower Canada: the upper province, by the
act of 1791, was allowed no communication with the sea, except on
the payment of heavy duties; while the lower province put various
impediments in the way of its commercial progress. It was proposed
that, with the assent of the legislatures of the two provinces, a
joint committee should sit at Montreal, composed of four members of the
legislative council and eight of the representative assemblies of each,
making twenty-four persons in all, who should have power to prepare
laws and regulations upon all matters of reciprocal intercourse. These
propositions were embodied in a series of ten resolutions, of the first
of which, relating to the payment of the judges, &c., Lord John Russell
then moved the adoption. These resolutions met with violent opposition
on the part of the Radical section of the house of commons. Mr. Leader
called the measure a coercion bill, and reminded the noble mover of the
rule of unlimited concession in government which his lordship had a
few nights before quoted from Mr. Fox, and desired him to apply it not
merely to Ireland, but to Canada. He moved as an amendment on the fourth
resolution, “That it is advisable to make the legislative council of
Lower Canada an elective council.” Mr. Robinson said that the whole
of Mr. Leader’s argument was founded on the modest assumption that the
government, and commissioners, and legislative council had been wrong,
and Mr. Papineau and the house of assembly as uniformly right in
everything that had been done. Mr. O’Connell warmly advocated the cause
of the Papineau party, whose sole object was, separation from this
country. He called for “justice to Canada.” He remarked:—“Give them a
legislative council elected by themselves; place them in possession
of all the rights and privileges which as British subjects they could
reasonably demand; and then if they persevered in their opposition to
the home government, it would be time enough to think of adopting some
such measures as were now proposed.” The Canadas, he urged, ought not
to be governed with reference merely to British interests: Great
Britain did not want Canadian revenues. Sir William Molesworth, Colonel
Thompson, and Mr. Roebuck followed on the same side of the question. The
speech of the latter was more violent than any of his party. Like all
the orators on his side of the house, he dwelt much on the example of
the American revolution, and on the sympathy and assistance the United
States would give to the Canadians if they should resist. He asked,
“What is the evil, and what is the remedy? You say, Great merit exists
among the public servants. But do you propose to prevent the recurrence
of that difficulty? Not at all. You pay the arrears. But who will pay
the servants next year? Do you believe that the house of assembly will
do so? You know as well as I do that the supplies will again be stopped;
the same outcries will be raised, and then, I suppose we shall have
another special commission, another delay of three years, another
evasion of the difficulty, another breach of faith. Distrust will
continue; exasperation will increase; their powers of resistance will
increase also; one effort will be made, and you and your shuffling
policy, your degraded government, your unworthy peculating and
mischievous officials, will be dismissed with ignominy and hatred. I
hear eternal talk of the evil consequences of stopping the supplies to
those official servants, and hear nothing in reproof of the legislative
council, who shut up last year all the primary schools in the country,
and left 60,000 children without instruction. All your regards are
turned the wrong way. You sought to make out a case of hardship to the
servants of the people, but turned a deaf ear to the complaints of the
people themselves. But I would ask his majesty’s ministers, Have they
well weighed the policy of this measure, and do they know its inevitable
result? If not, I will tell them. The direct effect on the minds of the
Canadian population will be a determination as soon as possible to
get rid of a dominion which entails on them results so mischievous and
degrading. Every year will hereafter strengthen the feeling, and lasting
enmity and discord will thus be entailed on the mother country and the
colony—discord that will cease only when the colony shall become a
great, powerful, and independent community. The immediate effects of
this feeling will not be seen in open and violent revolt, but in a
silent though effective warfare against your trade. Non-intercourse will
become the religion of the people: they will refuse your manufactures,
and they will smuggle from the States. The long line of frontier will
render all your attempts to prevent this smuggling unavailing. The
people will refuse your West India produce, and they will view with
hatred your schools of unprotected emigrants. Impatiently will they wait
for the moment in which they shall obtain their freedom, and become part
of that happy, and, for our interests, already too powerful republic. A
war will be waged through an unrestricted press upon your government
and your people. In America you will be held up as the oppressors of
mankind, and millions will daily pray for your signal and immediate
defeat. The fatal moment will at length arrive; the standard of
independence will be raised; thousands of Americans will cross the
frontier, and the history of Texas will tell the tale of the Canadian
revolt.”

In reply to Mr. Roebuck’s declamation, Sir G. Grey, the colonial
under-secretary, appealed to all the papers on the table, to all the
instructions which had been sent out to the local government, and to
every act which had been done in pursuance of these institutions, and he
asked if anything had been done of which a free and independent people
had the slightest right to complain? Every grievance which had arisen
out of former misgovernment had been redressed: and now the house of
assembly took their stand on another ground, and declared that if the
constitution were not altered they would stop the supplies. The cry was
raised by the house of assembly in Lower Canada alone; the people of
Upper Canada disclaimed any share in it. The debate was adjourned to
another day, when it was opened by Mr. Hume, who, in a speech of three
hours’ duration, impugned the whole conduct and policy of the government
towards Canada. Finally, the three first resolutions being simply
declaratory, were agreed to without division. The fourth, also, was
carried on a division by a majority of three hundred and eighteen
against fifty-six. This resolution was to the effect, “That in
the existing state of Lower Canada, it is unadvisable to make the
legislative council of that province an elective body; but that it is
expedient that measures be adopted for securing to that branch of the
legislature a greater degree of public confidence.”

After this decision ministers expressed a hope that the opponents of
the resolutions would not throw any obstacle in the way of government.
Delay, however, was the object of the Canadian party, apparently in the
hope of giving time for a demonstration of popular feeling on the other
side of the Atlantic. The committee was not resumed till the 14th of
April, and then the fifth resolution came under consideration. This was
to the effect, “That while it is expedient to improve the composition of
the executive council in Lower Canada, it is unadvisable to subject
it to the responsibility demanded by the house of assembly of that
province.” On this occasion Mr. Roebuck again opposed government, and
intimated that the loss of the colony would be the certain eventual
consequence of their adoption. At the same time he disclaimed all
interest in, or desire to accelerate this consummation. Mr. Roebuck
broached a plan of his own for the settlement of the dispute. Since the
house would not make the legislative council elective, he proposed to
abolish it altogether. The only useful power at present exercised by the
legislative council was that of proposing amendments on the bills passed
by the house of assembly. This office he proposed to transfer to an
executive council of twelve persons, to be named by the governor, who
might amend any measure sent up from the assembly, but not to have the
power of rejecting it; that would rest with the governor. The great
object of this scheme was, he said, to concentrate responsibility, and
to bring it to bear on known individuals; but it was plain that the
effect of it would be to bring the executive in constant and direct
collision with the popular branch of the legislature by doing away every
intermediate power. The other principal feature of Mr. Roebuck’s scheme
was, the establishment of a general assembly at Montreal, composed of
delegates chosen by the houses of assembly of each of our North American
colonies, and clothed with certain judicial and legislative powers.
In its judicial capacity this assembly was to constitute the tribunal
before which the judges of the various provinces might be impeached;
and, moreover, might act as a court of appeal, and exercise the
functions now performed by our privy-council. Its legislative offices
would relate to all matters of dispute or communication between two
or more provinces. Lord John Russell remarked, in reply, that whatever
might be the merits of Mr. Roebuck’s propositions, he had no authority
from the colony to make them, and therefore parliament could not think
of making them the basis of pacification, As for the threat that the
people of Lower Canada would, if their demands were rejected, throw
themselves into the arms of their republican neighbours, his lordship
contented himself with saying, that it would not be their interest to
act thus; nor did he think that the United States would be anxious to
seek a quarrel on this question. Mr. Robinson supported and Mr. Charles
Buller opposed the resolution. Mr. Roebuck again spoke in reply, and
complained that Lord John Russell was doing all in his power to insult
and vilify the people of Canada. He doubted, if Sir Robert Peel was in
power, that with his wary prudence and caution, he would carry out these
resolutions. The right honourable baronet and his friends, he said, were
silent on certain questions; they no doubt acted so that they might
come into office with clean hands. Sir Robert Peel said that he did not
desire to withhold his sentiments on this subject. In his speech,
the right honourable baronet took the same view of the policy of the
government that had been expressed by Lord Stanley. He observed, that if
no other, interests but those of the French Canadians were involved
in the question, and if the continuation of British connexion were
unpalatable to them, he would say, “God forbid that we should force it
upon them.” In that case he should think it more for our interest than
theirs that the connexion should be dissolved. But he-doubted, if he
were to make the people of Lower Canada an offer of establishing their
own government, that they would be disposed to accept it. At any
rate the question could only be considered in reference to the French
Canadians: there was a British population in the province, which had a
right to look up to this country for a continuance of the connexion and
protection on the faith of which they had established themselves in it.
On a division the resolution was carried by a majority of two hundred
and sixty-nine against forty-six.

On the 21st of April Mr. Leader moved the postponement of the further
consideration of the resolutions, in order to give time to the Canadian
people to state whether or not they agreed to Mr. Roebuck’s scheme for
the settlement of the existing differences between the province and the
mother country. This motion was negatived by a large majority; and the
house then went into committee on the sixth resolution, which declared
the necessity of maintaining inviolate the privileges conferred by an
act of parliament on the North American Loan Company. Mr. Roebuck moved
as an amendment, deferring all resolutions on the subject of the
land company “until an inquiry shall have been instituted into the
circumstances under which the land held by that company had been
obtained.” The company found supporters in Lord Stanley, Sir George
Grey, and Mr. Robinson; and even Mr. Grote, and others of the radical
section, declined voting for the amendment. On a division the resolution
was carried by one hundred and sixty-six against six; and this closed
the discussion on this subject in the house of commons. On the 1st
of May the resolutions were communicated to the house of lords in a
conference.

The subject was brought before the house of lords by Lord Glenelg on the
9th of May, in a speech of considerable length, but which contained
the same arguments which had been so frequently urged in favour of the
resolutions in the house of commons. The resolutions were supported
by Lord Ripon, although he objected to the wording of the fourth
resolution, in which it was declared that “in the existing state” of
Lower Canada, it was not advisable to introduce the elective principle
into the formation of the legislative council. The inference from this
mode of expression was, that a state of things might arise when it would
be considered advisable to do so; but he could not acquiesce in
the principle under any circumstances. The only opposition to the
resolutions came from Lord Brougham, who objected to them entirely, as
well to the principles as to the policy of them. His lordship chiefly
dwelt upon the violation of the Canadian constitution by the advance of
moneys, without the consent of the house of assembly. Under the eighth
resolution it was intended to replace the £30,000 advanced out of the
military chest, to provide the means of defraying colonial expenses.
Lord Aberdeen remarked that Lord Brougham, who seemed so shocked at the
idea of interfering with the rights of the assembly, had himself been
a member of that government which made this advance; and the house
of assembly had designated it as a monstrous, and unconstitutional
interference, and had prayed that an impeachment might be instituted
against the noble and learned lord, and his late colleagues, for
committing it. The resolutions were agreed to without a division, Lord
Brougham alone saying, “Not content.”




STATE OF THE BANKING SYSTEM, ETC.

At this time there was a general impression that there was something in
the constitution of the joint-stock banks, that imperatively called
for legislative interference. This, indeed, was one of the subjects
immediately pressed upon the investigation of parliament, by the
speech of the lords commissioners at the opening of the session. In the
preceding session a select committee had been appointed to consider the
state of the law in reference to this subject. This committee began its
inquiries in the month of May, and continued them till the close of the
session. In their report to the house, they stated that they saw so many
difficulties in the way of immediate legislation, and so many objections
to imperfect legislation, that they would content themselves with merely
recommending that the committee should be revived in the following
session. On the 6th of February the chancellor of the exchequer made
a motion to that effect, on which occasion he observed that he did not
mean in any way to anticipate the decision of the committee; but he
should be greatly misconceived, if it were supposed that his motion was
made in hostility to the general principle of joint-stock banks. It had
been suggested, he said, that the range of inquiry should be extended;
but he considered the subjects already before them were sufficiently
complicated and difficult, without the committee embarrassing themselves
with other and still more delicate matters of investigation. He should,
however, propose the extension of the committee’s inquiries to Ireland;
and with that view would move the addition to its number of four Irish
members, two from each side of the house. Mr. Hume expressed himself
satisfied that the source of the difficulty lay, not in the conduct of
the joint-stock banks, but in that of the Bank of England; and he was
therefore anxious that the inquiries of the committee should be extended
to the proceedings of that establishment, and generally to the banking
system of the country. The conduct of the Bank of England, he contended,
should form a principal object of investigation; and he moved as an
amendment, “that there be an inquiry into the state of banking, and
the causes for the changes of the circulation since the year 1833.” Mr.
Williams seconded the amendment, and urged that the Bank of England had
displayed a more reckless disregard of the interests of the country than
had ever been shown by any public body intrusted with the management of
its financial resources. On the 28th of December, 1833, the issues of
the Bank were £32,600,000, and their stock £10,000,000. On the 28th of
March, 1835, a reduction appeared on those issues of no less than four
millions and a half. Nine months afterwards of the same year, there
appeared an increased issue of nearly nine millions, being more than
one-fourth of their circulation. What was the consequence? Such an
advance in prices, that in September last the cost of every article
of import was raised from forty to one hundred per cent. This caused a
falling off of trade. Then again in January last the circulation of the
Bank of England was £31,000,000, and they had four millions to pay that
amount, being little more than half-a-crown in the pound to meet their
engagements. The directors professed to have discovered that the true
principle for regulating their issues was to keep gold to the amount of
one-third of those issues; in so doing they would be safe. But had they
acted upon that principle? At that moment, instead of having one-third,
they had only about one-seventh or one-eighth of their issues in gold.
Mr. Gisborne took a similar view of the conduct of the Bank of England,
and urged the necessity of an inquiry into it by the committee, if, at
least, any inquiry into the banking system was at all necessary. For
his own part he did not think it was; it would only lead to expectations
which it would be impossible to satisfy. The debate was closed by the
chancellor of the exchequer, who objected to an extended inquiry, and
on a division, the original motion was carried by one hundred and
twenty-one to forty-two.




CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREIGN POLICY OF ENGLAND UNDER THE WHIG
ADMINISTRATION.

There was no part of the conduct of the Whig administration which had
been made the subject of more incessant attack than that which related
to their foreign policy. This session the line of policy followed
by Lord Palmerston in reference to Spain afforded a subject for
declamation against him and his coadjutors in the government. At
this time British soldiers were fighting in that country without the
protection of the British flag, exposed to all the shame and hardships
of a disastrous and disgraceful war. In the midst of the public anxiety
on this subject, it was brought forward in the house of commons by
Lord Mahon, who had been under-secretary for foreign affairs during Sir
Robert Peel’s administration. His lordship began by expressing a want
of confidence in government, and especially in Lord Palmerston: the
country, he said, had too long reposed a confidence in his exertions,
to which he was neither entitled by prudence nor success. He complained
that the public had been kept in a state of ignorance as to whether
they were in peace or at war: in his opinion it was a peace without
tranquillity, and a war without honour. The object of the quadruple
alliance had been to appease the civil dissensions in Portugal; not to
sanction the intervention of France and England in Spain. He did not
object to this, but he lamented the policy which led to the additional
articles signed in 1834, which stipulated for a certain degree of
interference. The Duke of Wellington, during the four months he had been
in office, had acted up to the spirit of those articles, as he was bound
to do; but Lord Palmerston had thought proper to proceed still further,
in suspending the foreign enlistment act, and allowing twelve thousand
Englishmen to enlist under the banners of the queen. Lord Mahon went on
to contrast our position throughout the peninsular campaign. The great
object had then been to drive the French out of the Peninsula, an object
which had been sanctioned by all our greatest statesmen for more than
a century and a half. Lord Palmerston had, however, departed from this
line of policy. Count Mole, the prime minister of France, said in the
chamber of deputies that “Lord Palmerston considered that circumstances
justified the co-operation of France; and that in March, 1836, he
notified to General Sebastiani, that it was his intention to land a
certain force of marines on the coast of Spain, and invited France to
join in that co-operation.” At the same time he had offered France the
occupation of the port of Passages, and left to her own option the
mode and extent of co-operation. M. Thiers had, however, declined the
invitation. Next came the revolution of La Grunja, and soon after
that event, an increased force was sent to relieve ‘Bilboa. More than
£540,000 had already been expended in the war, and all the accounts
were not as yet sent in. In Lord Mahon’s opinion, the influence of Great
Britain in Spain had not been augmented by these measures; and in
proof of it, he quoted a memorial presented by the British merchants of
Alicant, complaining that their interests had been neglected; and that
while England carried away three-fourths of the produce of Spain, that
country took very little in return. To illustrate still further the
decline of our influence with the court of Madrid, Lord Mali on alluded
to a tax imposed on British subjects. “For the liberation of the king,”
 originally levied during the captivity of King Ferdinand. This impost
had been kept up though the king was now dead. There were other
grievances of a similar kind: the only one redressed was a tax on
military quarters, which had been ceded to the English residents. Lord
Mahon concluded by calling Lord Palmerston’s attention to the provinces
of Biscay and Navarre, which had been deprived of their legal rights and
privileges; and by stating that in bringing the subject forward, he was
not actuated by any partiality for the character of Don Carlos, or
any desire of advocating his claims on the crown of Spain. Mr. Cutlar
Fergusson, while he admired the moderate and gentlemanly tone of Lord
Mahon’s speech, yet differed from his views. He defended the alteration
which Ferdinand had made in the succession, and which had been approved
of by the Cortes, while they looked upon Don Carlos as a pretender. The
question for the house was whether this country was not justified in
abiding by the terms of the quadripartite treaty. We had done no more,
he said, till Don Carlos had published the edict of Durango: after
that infamous act an important article had been appended to the treaty,
stipulating that arms and stores should be supplied for the maintenance
of the war, and, if necessary, a naval force. Mr. Gaily Knight also
dissented from Mr. Fergusson’s views; while Mr. Fenton expressed his
disapprobation of Lord Palmerston’s policy. Lord Francis Egerton said
that in his opinion we were not the proper judges of the value of those
rights and privileges for which the Basques were contending; if they
themselves held them dear, every Englishman must feel a sympathy in
their cause. Mr. Fergusson had admitted, that could we have foreseen the
failure of the Spanish generals, it would have altered the question
as to the policy of suspending the foreign enlistment act: were not
ministers culpable for such a want of foresight? Surely Lord Palmerston
and his colleagues might have distinguished between Spain in the
sixteenth century, when her troops were the first in Europe, and Spain
during the peninsular war. Had not Lord Palmerston been in office during
the war of independence? And had not its records taught him something
of Spanish generals and Spanish promises? At any rate, a glance at the
pages of a Napier, or a word from the Duke of Wellington would have
enlightened him on the subject. Mr. Cutlar Fergusson explained, and Mr.
Poulter protested against the doctrine which stigmatized the conduct of
government as intervention. Mr. Grove Price defended the character of
Don Carlos from the aspersions which had been cast upon it, but he did
not attempt to contradict or justify the fact that the Don had issued
the edict of Durango; and that, in virtue of the same, some English
soldiers had already been executed. He concluded with a tribute to his
virtue and magnanimity: so far was he from desiring to establish the
Inquisition, that his prime-minister, the Bishop of Leon, had spent his
whole life in writing against it, and had obtained a decree from his
sovereign for its abolition. This was denied by Mr. O’Connell, whom Mr.
Grove Price allowed to be a competent judge, because he was acquainted
with the Bishop of Leon. He added, “If it were supposed that Don Carlos
admitted Mr. O’Connell to his councils, then no English Protestant
gentleman would for a moment countenance the pretensions of that
sovereign.”

Lord Palmerston ably defended the policy of government. He added, if he
could contribute to the establishment of the same happy things in
Spain as existed in Belgium and Portugal, he should esteem it a proud
satisfaction to the latest hour of his life. Sir Robert Peel complained
of the line of argument which had been adopted by Lord Palmerston. He,
for one, he said, openly disavowed all participation in the principles,
or sympathy with the cause of Don Carlos. He would not say that the
objects of British policy would be advanced by the success of that
prince; and he begged most distinctly to state that he wished to see
Spain in the settled enjoyment of a free and enlightened form of
civil government. His belief was, however, that the course adopted by
ministers was defeating its professed objects; it was obstructing
the cause of improvement, and was calculated neither to raise our
own character as a nation, nor to gain the affections of Spain.
Mr. O’Connell spoke against Don Carlos, dwelling at length upon the
atrocities which had been committed by his partisans.

Lord Mahon did not press any motion on the house, he being satisfied
with the expression of opinion that had taken place. Within a fortnight
after the debate the news of the defeat at Hernani arrived; and the
political opponents of government eagerly embraced this opportunity of
renewing the discussion. Immediately after the Easter recess, Sir Henry
Hardinge gave notice of a motion on the subject, which motion he brought
forward on the 18th of April. He moved an address to the king, “praying
his majesty not to renew the order in council of the 10th of June, 1835,
granting permission to British subjects to enlist in the service of the
Queen of Spain, which order in council would expire on the 10th of
June next following; and praying also that directions be given that his
majesty’s marine forces shall not be employed in the civil contests now
prevailing in Spain, otherwise than in that naval co-operation which his
majesty has engaged to afford, if necessary, under the stipulations
of the treaty.” The motion was seconded by Sir Stratford Canning,
who argued that the terms of the quadruple treaty did not justify the
interference which government had sanctioned. On the other hand Lord
Leveson contended that government had gained great credit on the
continent by the part they had taken in the affairs of the Peninsula.
Mr. Charles Wood defended ministers: it was not uncommon, he said,
for British officers to enter into the service of foreign powers. Mr.
O’Connell remarked on the eagerness with which the recent disasters of
the legion had been seized upon by gentlemen on the opposite side.
The actions in which they had clone honour to the British name were
forgotten: nothing was said of their victories; but not a moment was
lost in bringing forward their defeat. On the second night of the
debate, Sir Robert Inglis adverted to the imputation which had been cast
against his party—that they were the enemies of the church of Rome in
their own country, but its friends in every other—from its association
with despotism. He disclaimed any such feeling on their part. Mr. Ward
considered that opposition tried this question merely by the test of
success. Why did not Sir Henry Hardinge bring forward his motion soon
after the victory at Bilboa? This was the first time that he had heard
in the house of commons the misfortunes of an ally urged as a reason for
abandoning him. No doubt the legion had suffered a defeat; but not
such as to disable their continuance of the contest. General Evans
had admitted his losses; yet it was at this moment that an old brother
officer in arms had chosen to aggravate his difficulties, and to cast
against him the weight of his authority in military matters. In reply to
the imputation as to the motives in bringing forward the motion at
this particular time, Lord Mahon contended that he and his friends had
hitherto exercised the utmost forbearance on the subject. He contended,
further, that the country had a right to know whether there was any
limit to the expense which we might be called upon to incur: twenty
millions might be required by Spain; and did the treaty oblige us to
furnish that sum? Dr. Lushington followed, and endeavoured to show
that the naval co-operation which we had afforded was precisely that
contemplated by the treaty. It could not be supposed that the British
fleet was to encounter that of Don Carlos, and drive it off the seas;
the only object could be a naval warfare along the coast. He considered
the existence of the present government depended on this motion: if the
reformed parliament of Great Britain should now abandon those principles
of liberty and independence which they had hitherto advocated, the news
would be hailed at St. Petersburg by bonfires. Mr. Grove Price supported
the motion, and Mr. Shiel opposed it. The latter argued that the
government had put a right construction on the stipulations of the
quadruple treaty; and he entered into a long apology for the ill success
of General Evans, and for the excesses and insubordination of his
troops. With respect to the naval co-operation of the mariners, he
referred to their motto, _Per mare ‘per terras_, as of itself setting
that question at rest. He continued:—“But it is alleged that the
measures of the government have not produced any good result. I ask
if those measures had not been adopted, what would have befallen the
Spanish people? Would not Bilboa have been taken by assault, and the
standard of Don Carlos at this moment have been floating from the castle
of St Sebastian? Or try the allegation by another test. Let me suppose
this motion carried. The courier that will convey the intelligence will
carry tidings of great joy to St. Petersburg, to Vienna, to Berlin; and
he will convey tidings of great dismay wherever men value the possession
of liberty, or pant for its enjoyment. It will palsy the arm of freedom
in Spain—a terrible revulsion will be produced: from Calpe to the
Pyrenees the cry, ‘We are betrayed by England!’ will be heard; and
over that nation which you indeed have betrayed, Don Carlos will march
without an obstacle to Madrid.” In conclusion, Mr. Shiel said:—“I have
heard it asked whether it be befitting that in Spain, the theatre of
so many of their best exploits, British soldiers should give way before
bands of mountain peasants? I feel the force of that question; but there
is another which I venture to put to every man who hears me, and, above
all, to the gallant officer by whom the motion has been brought
forward: I invoke the same recollections; I appeal to the same glorious
remembrances, and in the name of those scenes, of which he was not only
an eye-witness, but a sharer, I ask, whether it be befitting that in
that land, consecrated as it is in the annals of England’s glory, a
terrible, remorseless, relentless despotism should be established; and
that the throne which England saved should be filled by the tyrant by
whom your own countrymen, after the heat of battle, have been savagely
and deliberately murdered? Never! the people of this country are averse,
indeed, to wanton and unnecessary war; but where the honour of England
is at stake, there is no consequence which they are not prepared to
meet—no hazard which they will not be prompt to encounter.” The debate
was protracted by another adjournment to a third night.

Lord Palmerston, who had been repeatedly called upon in the course of
the debates, at length arose to defend government from the imputations
of their opponents. The manner, he said, in which the question had been
dealt with by opposition was not fitted to impress other people with
a notion that their own convictions were very strong in respect to it.
Having made a few observations on the conduct of General Evans, on the
sufferings of the British soldiers, and on the atrocities which had been
committed, he came to the question of the quadruple treaty. Every one
knew, he said, under what circumstances, and for what purpose it was
concluded. The most superficial observer must have perceived that the
change that had been made in the accession to the Spanish throne, though
accompanied by every circumstance cf legality and regularity, yet laid
the foundation for a great revolution in that country. It was not merely
the substitution of an infant female for a grown man; out of that change
must spring a great alteration in the internal constitutions of Spain,
and a change too in the tendencies of its external policy. What happened
on the death of Ferdinand? A Spanish minister came to London to request
of the English government a force to assist in expelling Don Miguel from
Portugal. This was refused; but we said:—“Though we will not give you
an army, we will give you a treaty.” Accordingly, we joined with the
three “great powers” of the west of Europe in one alliance. This was
the quadruple treaty; and such was its effect, that even before the
ratifications were exchanged, Don Miguel’s army of twelve thousand men
laid down their arms, and the two pretenders abandoned Portugal. Then
came the escape of Don Carlos, and his placing himself at the head of
the insurgents in the Basque provinces. The four contracting parties
considered the treaty to be fully in force, and that it was only
necessary to prepare new articles in order to provide for the altered
circumstances of the war, which articles, however, should be considered
merely as complementary of the original treaty. The noble lord proceeded
to defend the manner in which those articles had been carried into
execution; and, in conclusion, he observed, that however skilfully
the question before them might be disguised, it involved no less than,
whether England should continue to fulfil her engagement with the Queen
of Spain, or should disgracefully abandon an ally whom she had pledged
herself to succour. But this was far short of the real and ultimate
tendency of the motion. The contest now waging in Spain was but a
portion of that great conflict which was going on elsewhere throughout
the world. The house had to decide that night between two opposite
systems of foreign policy. Even these were not isolated principles,
which might be taken or neglected by themselves: they were intimately
connected with, and affected also our domestic interests. The object
of the one party was to support Don Carlos and despotism; the other to
uphold Isabella and the constitution. Sir Robert Peel replied to Lord
Palmerston, reproducing the arguments and facts already urged; and the
discussion was closed by Lord John Russell, who defended the existing
state of our foreign relations, by contrasting it with that in which
they had been left by the right honourable baronet and his friends
in 1830, when they quitted office. On a division Sir Henry Hardinge’s
motion was rejected by two hundred and seventy-eight against two hundred
and forty-two. The same subject was brought under the consideration of
the lords, April 21st, by Lord Alvanley, in a motion for the dispatches
of Lord John Hay relative to the affair at Hernani.

A circumstance occurred which brought the state of our relations with
Russia under the attention of parliament. A mercantile house, Messrs.
Bell, of London, had fitted out a vessel laden with goods for the
coast of Circassia. On attempting to land her cargo she was seized by
a Russian man-of-war and confiscated, first, on the ground of the
violation of the blockade, to which the Russian government had subjected
the whole of the Circassian coast; and, secondly, for an alleged
violation of the custom-house regulations established by the same
authority in the ports of that country. This proceeding of the Russian
government was generally denounced as unjustifiable; and the subject was
brought before parliament on the 17th of March by Mr. Roebuck, who moved
for copies of all the correspondence which had taken place between the
British and Russian government on this transaction. Lord Palmerston
entered into a lengthy statement of the occurrence; but the papers were
refused, on the ground that the question was still under negotiation.
Mr. Roebuck repeated his inquiries on the subject, when Lord Palmerston
stated that, upon a full consideration of all the circumstances of the
case, the government had come to the conclusion that there was no room
for making any further demand upon the Russian government. Another
matter, in which our relations with Russia were concerned, was brought
before the house of commons on the 22nd of March by Lord Dudley,
who inquired of Lord Palmerston whether any consular agent had been
appointed to the state of Cracow. Lord Dudley Stuart said, that in the
preceding session a motion had been made by the member for Lancaster for
an address to the king, praying that his majesty would appoint a consul
to reside in that city; and that the noble secretary for foreign
affairs had stated that it was the intention of government to make such
appointment, on which the motion for an address was withdrawn.  Lord
Palmerston admitted the correctness of this statement. It had been his
intention, he said, to send a consular agent to Cracow; but he had
since been induced to depart from his purpose, finding that greater
difficulties would attend it than he had anticipated. His lordship did
not state what those difficulties were, and the house seems not to have
thought it expedient to press the government further upon the subject.

A more important point of our foreign policy considered this session was
the situation of the province of Texas. On the 9th of March, Mr. Barlow
Hay moved for “copies of all correspondence which had taken place
between our government and those of Mexico and of the United States on
this subject;” stating at the same time his sense of its importance, and
the suspicions he entertained of the ambitious project of the American
government in respect to it. Lord Palmerston admitted the importance
of the subject, and its claim on the anxious attention both of the
government and the public; but he resisted the production of the papers
moved for, and on a division the motion was rejected by a majority of
forty-one to twenty-eight.




MOTION ON THE STATE OF THE NATION.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

At this time the state of public affairs was such as to induce Mr.
Roebuck to bring the subject before parliament. On the 9th of June, when
the order of the day had been moved for the second reading of the Irish
tithe bill, Mr. Roebuck moved an amendment that the house should resolve
itself into a committee for considering the state of the nation. He
made some observations upon the extraordinary position in which the
representatives of the people were placed. Two bills had been sent to
the other house of parliament, but they were told that the house of
lords would not take them into consideration until something had been
done by that house to please them. He contended that there was no
government in the country: ministers were no longer in the position in
which they were at the beginning of the session. They stated then that
they would place their existence as ministers on the fate of the Irish
corporation bill. What had become of that bill? It was laid on the shelf
till the lords knew what that house was about. The other house virtually
said, “If you do not what we like, we will not pass your bill.” What
good could be got from playing over the farce of discussing the Irish
tithe bill? Did they not know that if it passed that house, defeat
awaited it elsewhere. Ministers, in fact, were useless for good
purposes; and as far as the people were concerned, they were
mischievous. Mr. Roebuck’s motion was seconded by Colonel Thompson, who
said that ministers had started with a large stock of popular energy in
their favour; but, in their fear of the boiler bursting, they had let
the fire go out. Like Spanish generals, they had always one eye in
their own camp, and the other in the enemy’s; and all their efforts were
paralysed by their fear of being too successful. Their situation had
become desperate: if any event in the chapter of human accidents should
fall out to give them a reprieve, the only consequences would be, that
as they had dwindled, dwindled before, they would dwindle, dwindle
again. There was no stock of good luck which such conduct would not run
out. It was clear what was coming: the Tories must return to power. How
long they would stay there was another question; but their return was
a phasis, a phenomenon which ministers had rendered it inevitable to
go through. Mr. O’Connell eschewed the doctrines of Mr. Roebuck and
Colonel Thompson. It was his duty, he said, in the name of the people
of Ireland, to protest against his majesty’s government being blamed for
not doing more. Government had the confidence and the affections of the
people; and whatever might be the opinions of others, he, for one, hoped
that they would long continue to occupy their present situations. Lord
John Russell, in reply, disclaimed any community of sentiment with Mr.
Roebuck in the constitutional views he had broached, either in reference
to church or state. He was decidedly opposed to the voluntary system,
and to the abolition of the house of lords. As for the doctrine of the
honourable member for Bath, that men of moderation and compromise never
succeed in establishing anything good or useful, his lordship said it
was, on the contrary, his decided conviction that to the moderation and
mediation between violent or extreme opinions on both sides, which
had been exercised by Lord Somers, and the great Whig leaders at the
Revolution, the country was indebted for all her subsequent prosperity.
In reference to Mr. Roebuck’s reproach against ministers for not having
conciliated the dissenters and popular favour generally by adopting the
voluntary principle in church matters, his lordship said that such a
course would not have that effect: his own opinion was not in favour of
the voluntary system, and he believed that the people of this country
were, like himself, still attached to the established church. The
opposition, properly so called, took no part in this discussion, and Mr.
Roebuck’s motion was negatived without a division. The discussion proved
one great fact, namely, that between the extremes of opposition, the
Whigs might for a long period maintain their places on the treasury
benches; but at the same time they could not but feel embarrassment in
a position which left them dependent on their opponents, now on the
Radicals and now on the Tories. Had it been possible for the two to have
united on any great question, the Whig ministry would soon have been
no more; but oil and water might almost as soon have commingled, as the
Tories and the Radicals agree.




ILLNESS AND DEATH OF THE KING—REMARKS ON HIS CHARACTER.

Ever since his accession to the throne, the king’s health had in general
been good. In the course of the present spring, however, symptoms of
decline began to show themselves; and they increased so rapidly, that by
the beginning of June his situation became one of serious alarm to his
family. His majesty continued to transact business, but it was under
such oppressive weakness, that it was clear to his medical attendants
that his end was approaching. There was no active disease, indeed, but
a general languor and weakness, which foretokened dissolution. His last
days were spent in preparing for eternity; nothing seemed to give him
greater pleasure than the presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury,
who attended him, and from whose hands he received the sacrament. His
deportment at this solemn ceremony, as related by a church dignitary,
was fully edifying. He says:—“His majesty had already experienced the
blessed consolations of religion, and removed the doubts his anxious
attendants were entertaining, by eagerly desiring the queen to send for
the archbishop, seeming, as it were, anxious to ratify the discharge
of his earthly by the performance of his spiritual duties. His grace
promptly attended, attired in his robes, and at a quarter to eleven
administered the sacrament to his majesty and the queen, Lady Mary Fox
communicating at the same time. The king was very calm and collected;
his faculties were quite clear, and he paid the greatest attention to
the service, following it in the prayer-book, which lay on the table
before him. His voice indeed failed, but his humble demeanour and
uplifted eyes gave expression to the feeling of devotion and of
gratitude to the Almighty which his faltering lips refused to utter. The
performance of this act of religion, and this public attestation of his
communion with that church, for the welfare and prosperity of which
he had more than once during his illness ejaculated short but fervent
prayers, was the source of great and manifest comfort to his majesty.
Though the shorter form had been adopted by the archbishop, his majesty
was nevertheless rather exhausted by the duration and solemnity of the
ceremony; but as his grace retired, the king said, with that peculiar
kindness of manner by which he was so much distinguished, and at the
same time gently moving his hand and inclining his head, ‘God bless you!
a thousand, thousand thanks!’ There cannot be more certain evidence of
the inward strength and satisfaction which the king derived from this
office of religion than that, in spite of great physical exertion, his
majesty, after the lapse of an hour, again requested the attendance of
the archbishop, who, in compliance with the wishes of the queen, read
the prayer for the evening service, with the happiest effect on the
king’s spirits. This being done, the archbishop, naturally fearing the
consequences of so much mental exertion on his majesty’s debilitated
frame, was about to retire, when the king motioned him to sit down at
the table, on the opposite side of which he himself was seated. His
majesty was too weak to hold any conversation, but his spirits seemed
soothed and comforted by the presence of the archbishop, on whose
venerable, benign countenance his majesty’s eye reposed with real
pleasure. The king at this interview stretched his hand across the
table, and taking that of the archbishop, pressed it fervently, saying
in a tone of voice which was only audible to the queen, who was seated
near his majesty, ‘I am sure the archbishop is one of those persons
who pray for me.’ The afternoon of this day witnessed a still further
diminution of his majesty’s strength; but in proportion to the decay
of his bodily power, was the increase of his spiritual hope and
consolation. At nine o’clock in the evening the archbishop was again
summoned by his majesty’s desire. The king was now still less able to
converse than on the last occasion; but his grace remained more than
three quarters of an hour, supplying by his presence the same comfort
to the king, and receiving from his majesty the same silent though
expressive proof of his satisfaction and gratitude. At length, on the
suggestion of the queen that it was already late, and the archbishop
might become fatigued, the king immediately signified his assent that he
should retire; and crossing his hands upon his breast, and inclining
his head, said, as his grace left the room, ‘God bless thee, dear,
excellent, worthy man! a thousand, thousand thanks!’” This was on
Sunday, the 18th of June, the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo,
which the king remembered, expressing his desire that the Duke of
Wellington should hold his usual banquet on the morrow. That was the day
on which his majesty breathed his last. He had spent a tranquil night,
but no corresponding effect was produced upon his health. Decaying
nature could no longer be recruited by ordinary sources of strength and
sustenance. His majesty rose at seven o’clock, for during his illness
he had not been wholly confined to his bed, but there was much in his
language and manner which bespoke his sense of approaching death. “I
shall get up once more,” he said to the queen, “to do the business of
the country.” After joining in the service for the visitation of the
sick, performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, in which his majesty’s
demeanour was characterised by the most genuine spirit of devotion. Sir
Herbert Taylor was summoned, and was directed to get all things ready.
As it was Monday, however, there were no papers, and consequently there
was no business to transact. In the evening the archbishop visited his
majesty for the last time: at half-past ten the king was seized with a
fainting fit, on which he was removed into his bed, and from this time
his voice was not heard, except to pronounce the name of his valet. In
less than an hour death reigned in the palace of the English monarchs.
His majesty expired without a struggle, and without a groan, the queen
kneeling at the bedside and still affectionately holding his hand,
unwilling to believe the reality of the sad event. “Thus expired, in
the seventy-third year of his age, in firm reliance on the merits of his
Redeemer, King William IV., a just and upright king, a forgiving enemy,
a sincere friend, and a most gracious and indulgent master.”

Few monarchs, indeed, have possessed the love of their subjects in
a greater degree than King William IV. By the common consent of all
parties he had the welfare of his country truly at heart. There was but
one opinion of his character, and that was expressive of his kindness
and amiability. He does not appear to have had a personal enemy in the
world, although he sanctioned measures to which a large section of the
community were inimical: this is praise as singular as it is high when
applied to a king. His intellectual faculties may not have been of a
superior order; but he had what more than counterbalanced this defect—a
heart which beat high with love for his country.




CONTINUATION

OF

THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND,


By E. H. Nolan




CHAPTER XLVIII.

{VICTORIA. 1837—1838}

     The Accession of Queen Victoria..... The Queen’s Message to
     both Houses: Eulogies of the late Sovereign in both Houses
     of Parliament..... Bill for providing the Succession to the
     Crown..... The Budget, &c. Alterations in the Criminal
     Law, &c. Prorogation of Parliament..... State of
     Parties and Elections..... City Banquet to the Queen.....
     Opening of the New Parliament..... The Subject of the Civil
     List debated..... The Subject of the Pension List.....
     Intelligence from Canada:   Discussion on the Subject.....
     Adjournment of the House..... State of the Continent




THE ACCESSION OF QUEEN VICTORIA.

{A.D. 1837}

On the arrival of the news in town of the death of King William,
orders were immediately issued for summoning a privy-council, which was
assembled before noon on Tuesday, at the palace of Kensington. At this
council directions were given for proclaiming Queen Victoria, and the
act of allegiance was signed by all present, the first name on the list
being that of “Ernest, King of Hanover.” When the ceremony of signing
the act of allegiance had been performed, the queen made the following
declaration to the country:—“The severe and afflicting loss which the
nation has sustained by the death of his majesty, my beloved uncle,
has devolved upon me the duty of administering the government of this
empire. This awful responsibility is imposed upon me so suddenly, and
at so early a period of my life, that I should feel myself utterly
oppressed by the burden, were I not sustained by the hope that Divine
Providence, which has called me to this work, will give me strength
for the performance of it: and that I shall find in the purity of my
intentions, and in my zeal for the public welfare, that support and
those resources which usually belong to a more mature age, and to long
experience. I place my firm reliance on the wisdom of parliament, and
upon the loyalty and affection of my people. I esteem it also a peculiar
advantage, that I succeed to a sovereign whose constant regards for the
rights and liberties of his subjects, and whose desire to promote the
amelioration of the laws and institutions of the country, have rendered
his name the object of general attachment and veneration. Educated in
England, under the tender and enlightened care of a most affectionate
mother, I have learned from my infancy to respect and love the
constitution of my native country. It will be my unceasing study to
maintain the reformed religion as by law established, securing at the
same time to all the full enjoyment of religious liberty. And I shall
steadily protect the rights, and promote to the utmost of my power the
happiness and welfare of all classes of my subjects.” On this occasion
her majesty is described as displaying extraordinary self-possession:
the dignified composure and firmness of voice with which she pronounced
the above declaration were indeed a theme of admiration with those who
were present at the scene. Thus commenced the reign of Queen Victoria
over the United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland.

One effect of the descent of the crown to a female was the separation
from it of Hanover, after an union which had lasted for nearly a century
and a quarter. This abscission of territory, however, was scarcely
noticed; it hardly called forth an observation in the newspapers, much
less an expression of regret—a proof of the little value attached in
this country to foreign dominion as a source of wealth or strength.




THE QUEEN’S MESSAGE TO BOTH HOUSES—EULOGIES OF THE LATE SOVEREIGN IN
BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

On the news of the death of the king both houses of parliament were
immediately summoned to meet. On that and the following day, however,
the administration of the oath of allegiance to the members, formed the
only business transacted. On Thursday, the 22nd, Lord Melbourne brought
the following message from the queen to the house of lords:—“Victoria
Regina. The queen entertains the fullest confidence that the house of
lords will participate in the deep affliction which her majesty feels
in the death of the late king, whose constant desire to promote the
interests, to maintain the liberties, and to improve the laws and
institutions of the country, must ensure for his name and memory the
dutiful and affectionate respect of all her majesty’s subjects. The
present state of public business, and the period of the session, when
considered in connection with the law which imposes on her majesty the
duty of summoning a new parliament within a limited time, renders it
inexpedient in the judgment of her majesty, that any new measures should
be recommended for your adoption, with the exception of such as may
be requisite for carrying on the public service from the close of
the present session to the meeting of the new parliament.” Upon this
occasion the leaders of all parties in parliament expressed their strong
sense of the sterling and amiable qualities of the departed monarch.
Lord Melbourne lamented the loss of a most gracious master, and
said that the world had lost a man of the best intentions, the most
uncompromising honour, and the strictest integrity. After adverting
to the naval education of the late king, to the part which he had
occasionally taken in the debates of that house, Lord Melbourne moved
an address of condolence to her majesty upon the death of the late king,
and of congratulation upon her accession to the throne. This was carried
unanimously. Another proposition also was carried with unanimity, to the
effect that an address of condolence be sent to her majesty the
queen dowager, assuring her majesty of the sympathy which the house
entertained for her loss. Lord John Russell brought the same message to
the commons, moving a similar address in reply.




BILL FOR PROVIDING THE SUCCESSION TO THE CROWN.

A bill for providing for the contingency of another demise of the crown
was brought into the upper house by the lord chancellor on the 3rd
of July. Its object was to make provision for the carrying on of the
executive government, in such an event, during the possible absence of
the heir presumptive from the country. The bill provided that certain
great officers of state, namely, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the
lord-chancellor, the lord-treasurer, the president of the council, the
lord privy seal, the lord high admiral, and the chief-justice of
the Queen’s Bench at the time being respectively, should act as
lords-justices, to exercise all the powers and authorities of the
successor of the crown, as a king would exercise them at present, until
his arrival in the kingdom, or until he should otherwise order. The bill
also provided that the heir presumptive to the throne might at any time
deposit a list—which list was revocable at pleasure—of such persons as
he might appoint to act with such justices, and to be considered as part
of them; and the persons named in that list were to exercise, in common
with the lords already named, the functions of royalty, until the
successor to the throne should otherwise determine. By another provision
in the bill, however, the powers of the lords-justices were restricted
to those only which were necessary to carry on the government of the
country. They were not to have the power of dissolving parliament; nor
of creating peers; nor of giving the royal assent to any bill altering
the succession to the throne; or for changing the established religion
of England, Scotland, or Ireland. The bill passed almost unanimously
through both houses of parliament, Lord Brougham only urging an
objection against the omission of any portion of the royal family in the
lists of lords-justices named in the bill. His lordship even made this
omission the subject of a protest entered in the journals of the house.
His lordship began at this time to display an obstructive disposition
towards the government with which he had so long acted. He had proved
that his exaltation to the office of lord-chancellor had inflated
his vanity, and made him so self-willed and crotchetty as to render
co-operation with him either in the government of the country, or in
conducting bills through the legislature, next to impossible.




THE BUDGET, ETC.

On the 30th of June the chancellor of the exchequer made his yearly
financial statement. After adverting to the embarrassments which had
beset the commerce of the country since the close of the preceding
session, he proceeded to state the actual income and expenditure of the
country, as compared with the estimate he had formed of its probable
amount in the course of the last session. He had calculated, he said,
that the customs would produce £20,540,000; the actual receipt was
£21,445,000; the excise he had taken at £14,150,000; the actual income
was, £14,439,000: the stamps he had calculated at £7,000,000; the
receipts were £7,100,000: the assessed taxes he estimated at £3,575,000;
they produced £3,681,000: the post-office revenue he had reckoned at
£1,450,000; it amounted to £1,618,000. On the whole the income, which
on the data then before him he had calculated at £46,980,000, produced
£48,453,000. Mr. Rice then proceeded to state the expenditure, with
reference to which he had fortunately, he said, rather under than
over-estimated the probable income for the present year, as otherwise
government would have become embarrassed. He had taken the interest
on the funded debt at £28,528,000; the actual payment was £28,537,000:
other charges upon the consolidated fund, exclusive of the West India
slave-compensation, he took at £2,092,000; the actual charge was
£2,183,000. With respect to the army, navy, ordnance, and miscellaneous
estimates of the year, he had taken them at £14,585, but that estimate
was taken before all the supplies of the year were voted: the sum
actually required was £14,652,000. The estimated expenditure for the
whole year, exclusive of the West India slave-compensation fund, was
£45,205,000; the actual expenditure was £45,372,000. With respect to the
West India loan, Mr. Rice said that he had reckoned we might be called
upon to pay annually a sum of £1,111,000; but the call had on that score
amounted to £1,448,342. The chancellor of the exchequer next proceeded
to make several statements illustrative of the financial and commercial
state of the country. He dwelt especially on the excess of the amount
of tea duty in the last year over that received in former years, and
observed that it was apparent that without any change of duty, the
consumption of that article was increasing. Mr. Rice took the estimates
for the year as follows:—the army, navy, ordnance, and miscellaneous,
£14,895,000; and the charges upon the consolidated fund, and the
interest upon the funded and unfunded debt which it was necessary to
provide for the current year, £30,890,000. Thus the total expenditure
for the current year was calculated at £45,786,000; but that was
exclusive of the West India compensation, the amount of which would be
£845,000. With respect to the probable amount of the income, Mr. Rice
calculated it might amount in the whole to £47,240,000, which would
leave a surplus of £1,454,000. When the interest of the West Indian
loan, however, was deducted, the surplus would be diminished to
£608,585; and that sum would be reduced by the payment necessary to be
made to meet various deficiencies of former years; in fact, all the net
surplus upon which they could calculate was £384,673. In conclusion, Mr.
Rice made some observations on the increased interest now payable on
the unfunded debt of the country, and on the general prospects of the
nation. On the latter subject, he observed, that he had before him the
means of showing that within the last two or three weeks the elements
of improvement had been developing themselves in various parts, and
that many of the most depressed branches of trade and manufactures were
rapidly reviving. As a natural consequence of this the receipts of the
revenue were improving, and the condition of the country was such as
to inspire him with confidence. A reduction of taxation, he said, would
materially assist that revival. He inferred this from the experiment
he had made of lowering the duty on various articles of consumption,
especially in the instances of glass and paper. The trade in these
articles was now rapidly increasing; but with the present small balance
of income on hand, it was impossible for him to propose any speculative
reduction of taxation. A conversation followed this statement of the
chancellor of the exchequer, and several members proposed various
economical nostrums for the benefit of the country, but none of them met
with the approbation of the house.




ALTERATIONS IN THE CRIMINAL LAW, ETC.

In 1833, a royal commission had been issued for the purpose of inquiring
how far it might be expedient to reduce the written and unwritten law of
the country into one digest, and to report on the best manner of
doing it. A report was made on this subject in 1834; and while the
commissioners were occupied in carrying, in some degree, their own
recommendations in respect of it into effect, they were further called
upon by government to state their opinions on the subject of the
employment of counsel by prisoners, and on the punishment of death. In
their second report, which was made in 1836, at great length, this was
done, and one result was the bill which was passed in the preceding
session, for allowing the assistance of counsel to prisoners in criminal
cases. A more important result, however, was the introduction in the
present session of a series of bills, having for their object the
abolition in many instances of capital punishment. This subject had been
brought before the house of commons on the 23rd of March by Lord John
Russell, who argued that, if it were thought right that a change should
take place in the law of the land on this head, it should be delayed as
little as possible. Lord John Russell began by discussing the general
doctrines advanced by Paley on the use of severity in criminal
punishments, after which he gave some statistical details of capital
condemnations in former years. He argued from these details that such a
state of things gave a character of great uncertainty to the operation
of the law, and rendered it less calculated to inspire that salutary
dread in offenders which was the object of criminal punishment. His
lordship proceeded to contend that there was no reason to apprehend
an increase of crime from the abolition of the punishment of death in
certain offences. He instanced the crime of forgery, which, with the
exception of the cases of the forgery of powers of attorney and of
bills, was now only punishable by transportation. The number of persons
committed for this offence in the three years previous to 1833, was one
hundred and fifty-five; and in the three following years two hundred and
ten. In the first instance only fifty-eight per cent, were convicted;
in the latter period the number convicted was seventy-one per cent.
From this it appeared that there was no great increase in the number of
offences, while the number of convictions was materially increased.
The reason of this last effect of the present, criminal law was to be
ascribed to the diminished reluctance to prosecute now that the offence
was no longer capital. His lordship here stated that in a recent case
a man had been tried and convicted of forging a power of attorney. That
offence was yet capital; but previously to the case coming before the
king in council, the secretary of state received a communication
from the bankers of London, expressing their objections to capital
punishment: and also another from the governor of the Bank of England,
stating, though the Bank directors did not think it their duty to
interfere, they had no wish to press for capital punishment. His
lordship considered this to be an encouragement to proceed in their
course of mitigating the punishment, and particularly for doing away
with it in the two reserved cases in forgery. The principle as suggested
by the commissioners on which his lordship proposed to proceed was, that
capital punishment should be confined to high treason, and, with some
exceptions, to offences which consist in or are aggravated by acts of
violence to the person, or which tend directly to endanger life. It was
proposed that capital offences should be reduced to—1st, high treason;
2nd, murder; 3rd, attempt to murder; 4th, burnings of buildings or
ships; 5th, piracy; 6th, burglary; 7th, robbery; 8th, rape. Arson,
piracy, burglary, and robbery were to be capital offences only when
committed under circumstances or accompanied by acts directly calculated
to endanger life. The setting fire to stacks would be no longer a
capital offence: the crime, his lordship said, was no doubt a heinous
one; but the severity of the punishment had the effect of deterring
prosecutions. On the secondary punishments which were to be substituted
for capital condemnation, Lord John Russell expressed considerable
doubt as to whether the present system of transportation ought to be
continued. In theory it seemed desirable to remove an offender to a
great distance from the scene of his crime; but the accounts of the
practical working of the system were unsatisfactory. The four or five
thousand persons annually sent to New South Wales were not absorbed by
the population, but continued to form a large and separate vicious mass.
Crime and vice were consequently on the increase in the settlement; and
the continual importation of fresh cargoes of criminals threatened to
aggravate the evils indefinitely. The punishment operated unequally on
the convicts; it depended on the humour or temper of the masters whether
their situation should be one of indulgence, or one of intolerable
hardship. Moreover, there was no merit in the system on the score of
economy, it cost the country from £350,000 to £400,000 annually.
His lordship proposed, therefore, to abridge the number of cases of
transportation, but to aggravate its operation in those which continued
subject to it. No person should be transported for less than ten years,
it having been found that the effect of a shorter period was to make
the criminals insolent and unruly. The next period was to be for fifteen
years, and the last for life. A certain hour of labour in the chain
gangs was to be allotted to all the prisoners, and indulgences afforded
them according to their good conduct. But these were merely suggestions;
he did not in the present session intend to bring in any general measure
with a view of carrying them into effect.

No opposition was given to the passing of the bills in the commons. They
were brought into the upper house by Lord Denman, and the second reading
was fixed for the 4th of July. The propositions were moved by Lord
Denman, who alleged in their support similar facts and arguments to
those urged in the commons by Lord John Russell. Lord Lyndhurst gave his
full support to the principle and object of the bills; but he pointed
out certain inconsistencies and anomalies of detail, which were
subsequently rectified. The measures were likewise warmly advocated
by Lord Brougham, who looked with confidence towards a general and
effectual mitigation of the criminal code. Among the amendments which
were made by the lords was one changing the term of imprisonment from
five to three years, limiting the term of solitary confinement to a
month at one time, and to not more than three months in a year, and the
taking away the capital punishment for offences against the riot
act. Thus amended, the bill passed the lords, and the amendments were
afterwards agreed to unanimously by the commons.

An important alteration was made in this session, also, in the civil law
of the country in respect of the forms to be observed in the execution
of wills. This subject was introduced in the house of peers on the 23rd
of February, by Lord Langdale, the master of the rolls. His lordship
said that the general object of the measure was to collect the
provisions of several statutes relating to wills into one act of
parliament; and to make at the same time such modifications of these
provisions as should afford additional securities for the prevention of
spurious wills, and additional facilities for making genuine ones.
His lordship proposed to allow the owner of copyholds and customary
freeholds to dispose of them by will, which could not now be done. As
the law stood, a person could only bequeath such real property as he was
possessed of at the time of making his will; but his lordship said
he would enable the testator to dispose of any he might acquire
subsequently to the execution of the will. At present no person under
the age of twenty-one could make a will: his lordship proposed to give
the power of disposing of personal property to those who were beyond the
age of seventeen. With respect to witnesses the bill would enact that in
all cases the execution of the will must be attested by two, whether the
property were real or personal. An executor would be admitted to give
evidence of the validity of a will, which he could not do at present.
Under the existing law it was not necessary that both the witnesses
should be present at the same time; but the bill provided that the
signature of the testator or his acknowledgment should be made in the
presence of two witnesses, who should then attest it themselves. With
respect to the revocation of wills, no alteration was proposed in
the rule whereby a woman’s will is set aside, by marriage; but it was
proposed to alter the rule adopted from the ecclesiastical courts
in modern times, whereby a man’s will is considered as revoked by a
subsequent marriage and the birth of a child. The bill finally provided
for the due construction and effect of certain words. His lordship said
that a legislative construction of words had been objected to; but,
he argued, that when a rule of construction which plainly violated the
lawful intention of testators had been established in the courts of law,
there was no way of correcting it but by legislative interposition. The
bill was warmly approved of by the leading law authorities in the upper
house, and passed almost without discussion. In the commons, also, it
met with general approbation; the only opposition came from Sir Robert
Inglis, who objected to it chiefly on the ground of the expense which
the mode of execution there enjoined would entail on the humbler class
of testators. By abolishing holograph wills, and rendering two witnesses
necessary, a resort to professional advice would become indispensable.
The bill, however, was ably defended by the attorney-general; and it
passed into law.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

The queen went in state to the house of lords, for the purpose of
closing the session, on the 17th of July. On this occasion the speaker
delivered an address to her majesty, in which, on behalf of the house of
commons, he assured her of their cordial participation in “that strong
and universal feeling of dutiful and affectionate attachment which
prevailed among the free and loyal people of which they were the
representatives, and expressed their trust that this feeling would be
strengthened by a long course of constitutional, beneficent, and wise
government.” In recording the results of the session, the speaker
expressly mentioned the acts for the abolition of capital punishments,
&c.; and he expressed a hope that the important measures which had been
recommended to parliament, and which had not yet been perfected, might
be eventually adopted. The royal assent was then given to a number of
public and private bills; after which her majesty thus addressed both
houses of parliament:—

“My lords and gentlemen, I have been anxious to seize the first
opportunity of meeting you, in order that I might repeat in person my
cordial thanks for your condolence upon the death of his late majesty,
and for the expression of attachment and affection with which you
congratulated me upon my accession to the throne. I am very desirous of
renewing the assurances of my determination to maintain the Protestant
religion as established by law; to secure to all the free exercise of
the rights of conscience; to protect the liberties, and to promote the
welfare of all classes of the community. I rejoice that in ascending the
throne I find the country in amity with all foreign powers; and while
I faithfully perform the engagements of the crown, and carefully watch
over the interests of my subjects, it will be the constant object of my
solicitude to maintain the blessings of peace.” Her majesty next thanked
the house of commons for the liberal supplies which they had granted
for the service of the year, as well as for the provision which they had
made to meet the usual payments chargeable on the civil list. Addressing
both houses again, the queen thanked them for the zeal and assiduity
with which they had applied themselves to the public business of the
country. Notwithstanding the melancholy interruption that had taken
place in their labours, she trusted they would have the beneficial
effect of advancing the progress of legislation in the new parliament.
Her majesty expressed much pleasure in the mitigation of the severity
of the criminal code; she hailed it as an auspicious commencement of her
reign. In conclusion, her majesty said—“I ascend the throne with a deep
sense of the responsibility which is imposed upon me; but I am supported
by the consciousness of my own right intentions, and by my dependence
upon the protection of Almighty God. It will be my care to strengthen
our institutions, civil and ecclesiastical, by discreet improvement,
wherever improvement is required, and to do all in my power to compose
and allay animosity and discord. Acting upon these principles, I shall
on all occasions look with confidence to the wisdom of parliament and
the affections of my people, which form, the true support of the dignity
of the crown, and ensure the stability of the constitution.” The age and
sex of the youthful sovereign gave a singular and touching interest to
this scene, and the manner in which her majesty delivered the speech
heightened its effect. It was read in a clear and unfaltering tone,
indicating great presence of mind and firmness of character. The
appearance and manners of her majesty, indeed, enlisted in her favour
all the best feelings of the august assembly she addressed—all wished
that her reign might be long and prosperous.




STATE OF PARTIES AND ELECTIONS.

Queen Victoria ascended the throne at a period of perfect tranquillity.
The popularity of the ministers was, indeed, declining, and they were
surrounded with difficulties, partly from their own mismanagement of
affairs, and partly from the position into which their eagerness
for power had placed them. On the other hand the spirit of party was
subsiding in the country: calm and impartial thinkers began to embrace a
wider circle, yet it seemed clear that the administration could not have
long existed had the late king lived a few months longer. His majesty
had taken them back to his service with reluctance, and he was supposed
to be on the watch for the first favourable opportunity of dismissing
them. His demise, however, promised an increased stability to their
power. Under their new sovereign they looked for a new order of things.
She was believed to have been educated by her mother in principles and
predilections favourable to their rule, and her countenance and support
was expected to give not merely security, but popularity to their
government. Nor did they fail to turn the event to good account. When
pressed by their democratic allies to introduce organic measures for
which they had no predilection themselves, it had been their practice to
allege the king’s reluctance to proceed, as a reason for not falling
in with their views. When, however, Queen Victoria ascended the throne,
they eagerly declared their emancipation from the thraldom of an hostile
court, and they proclaimed that the young queen had entered warmly into
their views, and had espoused their political creed without reservation.
Another considerable resource of popular appeal to the ministerial
candidates was the alleged misdeeds of the new King of Hanover.
Immediately upon his accession to the throne of that kingdom, his
majesty had issued an ordinance, by which the then existing constitution
was suspended; and it was thought this conduct of one who was an
acknowledged leader of the Tories, might be represented to the
disadvantage of that party. These, and other topics, were not without
their weight with the multitude. Yet, with their assistance, the
ministers had sufficient to do to maintain their previous position.
By the end of July the elections for English cities and boroughs were
nearly over, and the relative strength of parties was little changed as
regarded the Whigs. In the county elections they underwent, indeed, a
serious defalcation of strength; besides losing twenty-three seats, they
failed in fifteen counties out of sixteen in which they endeavoured
to substitute members of their own party for Conservatives. As for the
Radicals, public opinion was still less in their favour: even Mr. Hume
failed in being returned for Middlesex, and was driven to the necessity
of appearing in the house as Mr. O’Connell’s nominee for Kilkenny. The
Radicals, it is true, did not suffer numerically; but the absence of
many of their leaders from the representation of important towns which
they had hitherto represented, was significant of the waning popularity
of extreme opinions. The loss, however, which ministers sustained in
the English representation, was somewhat compensated by the returns
of Scotland and Ireland. But while their numbers were not on the whole
diminished, there was an evident falling off in quality. Their friends
were not the representatives of such an extensive part of the population
as they had been in the last parliament.




CITY BANQUET TO THE QUEEN.

During this autumn the great corporation of the city of London
distinguished itself by a striking demonstration of its loyalty to the
crown, in a magnificent entertainment which was given to the queen
in Guildhall, on the 9th of November. On this occasion the utmost
enthusiasm prevailed, and her majesty’s reception, both in her progress
to the city and at the banquet, must have been highly gratifying to her
feelings. Along the entire route, in going to and returning from the
city, she was greeted with enthusiastic cheers, and in the evening a
brilliant illumination appeared along the whole line of her passage.
Nothing was wanting, indeed, to give the utmost possible splendour to
the pageant. The event showed that the “liberal” common-council of
the city of London still fostered a substantial respect for loyalty—a
circumstance of great political interest.




OPENING OF THE NEW PARLIAMENT.

On the 20th of November the queen went in state to the house of lords to
open the new parliament. Having read and signed the usual declaration,
her majesty read the speech in a clear and audible voice. The speech
expressed satisfaction at the friendly assurances of all foreign powers;
regretted that civil war still afflicted the kingdom of Spain; stated
that directions had been given for a treaty of commerce, recently
concluded with the united republic of Peru and Bolivia, to be laid
before parliament; recommended to their serious consideration the state
of the province of Lower Canada; and stated that the demise of the crown
rendered it necessary that a new provision should be made for the
civil list. On this latter subject the queen remarked, that she placed
unreservedly at the disposal of the house of commons, those hereditary
revenues which were transferred to the public by her immediate
predecessor, and that she had commanded such papers as might be
necessary for the full examination of the subject to be laid before
them. Her majesty’s speech concluded thus:—

“My lords and gentlemen—The external peace and domestic tranquillity
which at present happily prevail, are very favourable for the
consideration of such measures of reformation and amendment as may be
necessary or expedient, and your attention will naturally be directed
to that course of legislation which was interrupted by the necessary
dissolution of the last parliament. The result of the inquiries which
have been made into the condition of the poor in Ireland has been
already laid before parliament. And it will be your duty to consult
whether it may not be wise and safe to establish by law some
well-regulated means of relief for the destitute in that country. The
municipal government of the cities and towns in Ireland calls for
better regulation. The laws which govern the collection of the
tithe-composition in Ireland require revision and amendment. Convinced
that the better and more effectual administration of justice is amongst
the first duties of a sovereign, I request your attention to those
measures which will be submitted to you for the improvement of the law.
You cannot but be sensible of the deep importance of these questions
which I have submitted to you, and of the necessity of treating them in
that spirit of impartiality and justice which affords the best hope
of bringing them to a happy and useful termination. In meeting this
parliament, the first that has been elected under my authority, I am
anxious to declare my confidence in your loyalty and wisdom. The early
age at which I am called to the sovereignty of this kingdom renders it
a more imperative duty, that, under Divine Providence, I should place my
reliance upon your cordial co-operation, and upon the love and affection
of my people.”

The address was moved in the house of lords by the Duke of Sussex,
who, in the several topics of his speech, avoided every allusion or
expression capable of giving offence to any member of the house. His
royal highness referred with much satisfaction to the declaration of
the Duke of Wellington at the close of the last session, namely, that he
would assist in the settlement of the Irish questions, and also to
the approbation he had avowed of the new poor-law. His royal highness
further expressed his pleasure at the affectionate reception which the
queen had met with in her late visit to the city, and adverted to the
peculiar interest with which he regarded a sovereign whose birth he
had been one of the first to witness. The address was seconded by Lord
Portman, and fully assented to by the Duke of Wellington, who said he
would follow the example which had been set him of abstaining from every
remark that could awaken party feeling. The address was then agreed to,
and ordered to be presented with the usual forms.

In the commons the address was moved by Lord Leveson, and seconded by
Mr. Craig. A discussion followed, in which Mr. Wakley took the lead.
After hearing the speech from the throne, Mr. Wakley said he rose to
remind ministers that they had some radical supporters in the house, a
circumstance which they appeared to have forgotten. After hearing the
speech from the throne, he could not avoid asking to what purpose
they had been so anxious, in 1835, to eject Sir Robert Peel and the
Conservatives? It was complained of the speech from the throne framed by
Sir Robert in that year, that it was vague and unsatisfactory: he, Mr.
Wakley, had never read a speech from any sovereign of this country more
open to the same reproach than the present one. He thought that at the
commencement of a new reign, with a young queen educated as ours had
been, the people had a right to expect a more explicit acknowledgment of
their grievances, and some indication of the means of redress. They
were now fresh from the hustings, where they had all been liberal in
promises: even the Tories had professed themselves the friends of
the people, and declared their delight in seeing the operatives come
forward, and take a share in politics. In order to test the sincerity of
both parties, he would move an amendment, in general terms, in favour of
an extension of the suffrage. Mr. Wakley concluded his speech by moving
three amendments, which he said he would put to the house separately,
in order that members might have no excuse for avoiding to vote on any
particular proposition. The first amendment was to the effect, “That
this house embraces the earliest opportunity of respectfully assuring
her majesty, that it will in the present session of parliament take
into consideration the state of the representation of the people in this
branch of the legislature, with a view to ensure by law an equitable
extension of the elective franchise.” This amendment was seconded by
Sir W. Molesworth, and supported by Messrs. Hume and Grote. On the other
hand it was opposed by Mr. Liddell, Colonel Perceval, and Lord John
Russell. The latter admitted the reproach—if reproach it were—of
having framed the speech with a view to preclude discussion. It was
desirable that the queen should receive from her first parliament an
unanimous address. In allusion to Mr. Wakley’s amendment, his lordship
observed that the hon. member had put his powders into three separate
papers, as portions of what he considered the same medicine. Without
entering into any general discussion of the questions involved in those
amendments. He thought it necessary shortly to state his opinion of
the present operation of the reform bill, and of his own position with
respect to it. He admitted the disadvantages and injuries to which the
reform act was subject; corruption and intimidation had prevailed at the
late elections to a great extent. With respect to the registration of
voters great amendments had been made. These were points on which it
behoved parliament to be always attentive, to see that the act suffered
no essential injury, and to remedy any error in the details which
experience of its actual working might suggest. But these, his lordship
continued, were questions widely different from those now brought
forward, such as the ballot, the extension of the suffrage, and
triennial parliaments, which were, in his estimation, a repeal of
the reform act, and placed the representation on a totally different
footing. He was not prepared to go thus far. With respect to
registration, Lord John Russell said that the attorney-general was about
to bring forward the bill of last session in an amended form, and he
himself would reintroduce the measure respecting the payment of rates.
But as to a second reform of the representation, having only five years
ago placed it on a new basis, it would be a most unwise and unsound
experiment, now to begin anew the process of reconstruction; he, for
one, at least, would decline taking any share in such a measure. Sir
Robert Peel congratulated the house upon the noble lord’s aversion to
Mr. Wakley’s physic. The member for Finsbury called for a change, in
order to recover for himself and his party the predominance they had
lost; but he was confident that if he were to give Mr. Wakley a _carte
blanche_ to cut and carve the constituency as he pleased, he and his
party would still be in a minority. Mr. Ward, on the other hand, warned
Lord John Russell that by his declaration against the ballot, he had
signed his own death-warrant, and chalked out his political grave. On a
division, Mr. Wakley’s amendment was negatived by five hundred and nine
against twenty; and his two other amendments, pledging the house to the
vote by ballot and the repeal of the septennial act, were then put, and
negatived without a division.

The question having been again put on the address, Mr. Harvey proposed
an amendment to this effect:—“That whilst this house is desirous
of making the most liberal provision for the support of the becoming
splendour and just dignity of the crown, they feel that the same ought
to be derived from obvious and direct sources; and that to such end
every branch of the hereditary revenues of the crown ought to be
placed, without reservation, and without exception, under the control
of parliament, as the surest means of protecting the crown against
exaggerated impressions of their amount, and as a security against
their misapplication.” The amendment further set forth, that in the
arrangement of the civil list, the house confidently relied upon the
ready co-operation of her majesty, in promoting all needful inquiry into
the claims of persons to be continued as recipients of state provision.
In moving this amendment, Mr. Harvey observed that the former part of it
was in substance the same with the proposition ministers had themselves
made on the subject when in opposition. He pressed the second part of
his amendment, on the ground that a strong feeling existed in the
public mind against it as it now stood, which feeling was materially
strengthened by the late alteration in the poor-law system. He assured
ministers that they had not a superabundance of popularity, and he
predicted that Lord John Russell’s declaration of that night would
operate fatally to his government. In reply, Lord John Russell contented
himself with stating that an account of the actual and average receipts
from the duties in question would be laid before the committees; and
that with respect to the pension list, the precedent of 1831 would be
strictly followed. Ministers agreed in thinking it far wiser to provide
against abuses for the future, than to take away pensions already
granted. If the revision proposed by the hon. member should be adopted
by parliament, ministers would claim the right of further consideration,
before they decided whether or not they should give it their support.
After a few words from Mr. Harvey in rejoinder, his amendment was put
and negatived without a division.

Lord John Russell’s determination to resist any further movement in
the way of constitutional innovation, was made the subject of indignant
comment on the part of the radical organs, both in parliament and
throughout the country.




THE SUBJECT OF THE CIVIL LIST DEBATED.

The subject first brought before the attention of parliament by
ministers was the arrangement of the civil list. On the 23rd of November
the chancellor of the exchequer moved that the passage in the queen’s
speech relating thereto should be referred to a select committee. He
observed that former sovereigns had inherited considerable personal
property from their predecessors, while Queen Victoria had derived
nothing from that source, and would further be deprived of the revenues
of Hanover, now a separate kingdom. Her establishment must also so far
exceed that of a king or of a queen-consort, as being composed of ladies
as well as gentlemen. Under those circumstances Mr. Rice submitted that
the charges of the establishment of the late king were proper for Queen
Victoria, These charges were:—


                                       William IV.    The Queen.

     First class, privy purse........   £110,000       £60,600

     Second class, salaries..........    130,000       130,000

     Third class, bills  ............    171,500       172,000

     Fourth class, special service...     23,000        23,200

     Unappropriated money............                    9,000

                                 Total  £510,000       £470,000

In conclusion, Mr. Rice touched upon the decrease in the amount of the
pension list, and said he should be prepared to prove that the pensions
granted by Earl Grey and Lord Melbourne had been awarded in strict
conformity with a resolution of the house passed in February, 1834,
which recommended the granting of pensions to such persons only as by
their services to the crown, or the public, or by useful discoveries in
science or art, had a just claim on the benevolence of the crown or the
gratitude of the nation. The papers with reference to the civil list
were referred to a select committee, consisting of twenty-one members.
The result of their labours was a report in favour of the minister’s
proposition, which was presented on the 16th of December, when a bill
carrying out his views was brought in. The bill was read a third time on
the 19th of December, after which Mr. Hume moved that the sum granted to
the queen should be reduced from £385,000 to £335,000; and this motion
having been negatived, Mr. Grote proposed as an amendment the entire
removal of the sum allotted to pensions from the civil list. This
amendment was seconded by Mr. Hume, and opposed by the chancellor of the
exchequer, who contended that in a monarchical government, the power
of conferring honour and rewards should be inseparably attached to the
crown. The principle advocated by the honourable member struck at the
very root of monarchy. Mr. Rice proceeded to deny that politics
had influenced ministers in their grant of pensions to literary and
scientific men, as had been asserted by Mr. Grote, and expressed his
belief that were any government disposed so to prostitute its power,
there was a spirit in literature and science which would save talent
from the disgrace of such political profligacy. Mr. Grote’s motion was
further opposed by Mr. Charles Buller, albeit he was his friend. He
differed from him both as to tire policy of granting pensions at all,
and in respect to the quarter in which the power of according them
should be placed. He thought that it was desirable that men of letters
should be fostered by the government, when labouring for the public
good, and without the support of popular favour. Scarcely a great name
in English literature could be produced which had not been supported by
regal or individual generosity. At the present day, men of letters would
not brook to receive the bounty of private individuals: men like Hobbes
or Locke, could no longer consent to depend on the liberality of an
Earl of Devonshire, or an Earl of Shaftesbury. On a division Mr. Grote’s
amendment was rejected by a majority of one hundred and twenty-five to
twenty-three. An amendment was then moved by Sir Robert Peel, to the
effect that if the sum of £1200 were not granted in pensions in any
one year, the difference might be applied in any subsequent year. No
opposition was made to this amendment on the part of ministers; but the
Radicals divided against them, and it was carried by a majority of one
hundred and fourteen to twenty-six. Another and last protest was made
against the bill by Mr. Hume, but the bill passed without further
division.

The bill was taken to the lords and read a first time on the same
evening. Lord Melbourne moved the second reading on the 20th, and in
doing so entered into a full explanation of the details of the bill,
and emphatically called upon the peers to support it, as they valued the
preservation of the monarchy, laws, and liberties of England. He would
not say that monarchy was the best form of government that ever existed,
but an attempt to alter it in this country would be the height of
insanity and crime. The only opposition to the measure in the house of
lords came from Lord Brougham, who contended that due consideration had
not been employed either in the framing or passing of this bill. The
wisdom of making a definite arrangement for the life of a sovereign who
might be expected to reign for the next half century was questionable;
and yet this was to be done, and a civil list voted which exceeded that
of lier majesty’s predecessors, while parliament was left in the dark as
to those very important revenues possessed by the crown, the incomes of
the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. After a few words from the Duke
of Wellington, who expressed his apprehensions that the bill did not
contain a sufficient provision for pensions, the bill went through the
committee, and was afterwards read a third time and passed without a
division. It was customary that the royal assent should be given to
bills of this nature in person, and the queen went in state to the house
of lords on the 23rd of December for that purpose. On presenting the
bill, the speaker observed, that it had been framed in “a liberal and
confiding spirit,” on which the queen bowed her acknowledgment, and
after the royal assent had been given to that and other bills, her
majesty left the house.

On the 11th of December, a message was brought from the queen to both
houses, recommending to the consideration of parliament the provision
made by law for the support of her royal highness the Duchess of Kent,
and expressing her majesty’s reliance on their zeal and loyalty to adopt
such measures for the future provision of the duchess as her rank and
station, and increased proximity to the throne might require. On the
following day this message was taken into consideration by a committee
of the house of commons, when an additional grant of £8000 a year,
raising the annual income of the duchess to £30,000, passed without much
discussion.




THE SUBJECT OF THE PENSION LIST.

The chancellor of the exchequer redeemed a pledge which he had given
in the debate on the civil list, by moving “for a select committee to
inquire how far pensions granted in virtue of the first of William IV.
c. 24, and charged on the civil list, and in virtue of second and
third William IV. c. 116, charged on the consolidated fund, ought to be
continued, having due regard to the just claims of the parties, and to
economy in the public expenditure.” Mr. Spring Rice, on this occasion,
gave a brief history of the pension list. Sir Robert Peel opposed the
motion, and moved a series of resolutions, declaring it advisable to
make such provision as should enable the crown to continue all such
pensions as had existed at the accession of the late king, or had been
granted by him during his reign. This amendment was seconded by Lord
Elliot, and supported by several Conservative members. Mr. Harvey
took the lead in opposing it. Mr. Spring Rice closed the debate by
endeavouring to vindicate himself from the charge of inconsistency; and
on a division the motion for a committee was carried by a majority of
two hundred and ninety-five against two hundred and thirty-three.




INTELLIGENCE FROM CANADA—DISCUSSION ON THE SUBJECT—ADJOURNMENT OF THE
HOUSE.

The settlement of the civil list left ministers at liberty to move the
immediate adjournment of the house. Before they separated, however,
news arrived of a revolt in Canada. On the 22nd of December, Lord John
Russell rose to move the order of the day, for the house to resolve
itself into a committee of supply, and at the same time took occasion to
state that, although no measures could be taken by the house with regard
to Canada, he nevertheless did not consider himself justified, in the
actual condition of that province, to move the adjournment of the house
beyond the 16th of January. The present state of affairs was this: the
assembly having been convened to consider the resolutions passed
in parliament, had been adjourned on their refusal to entertain the
supplies, or to proceed to business. Despatches, subsequently received
from Lord Gosford, showed that the intention was not to seek redress by
means of that assembly, but to extort it by violence from her majesty’s
government. In this state of things Lord Gosford had tendered his
resignation, which had been accepted, and the administration of
affairs entrusted to Sir John Colborne, in whose judgment and abilities
government felt the highest confidence. They had declared to that
officer that, though they were reluctant to resort to means of extreme
severity, yet, nevertheless, if he found it necessary to proclaim
martial law in the province, they would take upon themselves the
responsibility. Accounts of open disturbance had been recently received;
and there was reason to believe that a collision had taken place between
her majesty’s troops and persons in arms for treasonable purposes. He
thought that government had done their duty in the measures they had
taken. On the morrow he purposed to produce such details from Lord
Gosford’s despatches as might be communicated without injury to the
public service, and would call upon parliament, in January, for such
measures as the exigency of the case might demand. Mr. Leader applauded
the resort of the Canadians to arms, and derided as desperate every
effort of the government to put them down; their cause was considered
a common one by all our North American colonies. Sir William Molesworth
and Messrs. Grote and Warburton all expressed their sympathy for the
Canadian insurgents, and augured their success. A discussion ensued,
in which the Radical leaders denounced the mother country in terms as
strong as any employed by the leaders of the Canadian insurgents. Mr.
Warburton advocated the separation of the colony from the empire. Mr.
Gladstone maintained a just view of the dispute between the colony and
the mother country, but so mystified his arguments by useless subtleties
and verbosity, that the speech failed to produce an effect corresponding
to its substantial merits. Mr. Leader boldly expressed his complacency
in the dismemberment of the empire, and the speech of the hon. member
was denounced by Mr. George F. Young as disloyal. Sir George Grey made
a sensible speech, expository of the true condition of Canadian affairs.
Mr. Maclean exposed and denounced the conduct of Mr. Papineau, the
leader of the French Canadian insurgent party. Lord John Russell
delivered a speech sound and statesman-like, which completely “carried
the house with the government.” As usual when ministers were at issue
with their Radical supporters, the Conservative party took no prominent
share in the debate. On the following day both houses of parliament
adjourned to the 16th of January.




STATE OF THE CONTINENT.

War still continued in Spain. At the close of the last year the troops
of the queen had succeeded in the relief of Bilboa, an event which had
the effect of giving rise to dissensions among the Carlists. After this
event, many weeks were spent by the Christino commanders in concerting
a combined movement upon the Carlist lines in Guipuscoa. An attack was
made upon them by General Evans on the 15th of March. His forces were
collected at Loyola, the right of the line being composed of Spaniards,
and the left of the British legion, which amounted to between four and
five thousand men. The attack was at first successful: the Carlists,
having maintained a furious fire, after a five hours’ conflict abandoned
their last defence, and fell back to Hernani. On the following day,
however, matters took a different turn: while the victorious troops were
preparing to descend upon Hernani, on a sudden solid masses of infantry
appeared behind the town, under the command of Don Sebastian. These
troops consisted of ten fresh battalions; and their charge was so
impetuous, that the British legion and the Spanish troops were obliged
to give way. From this time the army of Don Carlos gained courage, and
province after province was invaded by his guerilla chiefs. Still no
decisive event favoured his design upon the Spanish throne. In one grand
point he, however, succeeded, that of annihilating or dispersing the
British legion. Unsupported by the people for whom they fought, many
of them were slain in various engagements of desultory warfare; and
at length those who remained laid clown their arms, and the British
auxiliary legion ceased to exist. Before this event General Evans had
returned to England, disheartened by the want of co-operation in the
Spanish generals. But the year closed, and the Carlists and Christinos
were still arrayed in arms against each other. People of the same nation
and the same blood were seeking each other’s destruction with a deadly
animosity.

In Portugal, also, there were strifes and divisions, and rumours of
intended insurrections. In that country, moreover, the British who had
defended the cause of the queen were ill treated. The unpopularity of
the English increased daily, and the ambition and selfishness of Great
Britain were the constant themes of the popular press. So odious
were our countrymen that the English admiral in the Tagus thought it
necessary to issue the following general order to his captains:—“The
unsettled state of the country, and the differences known lately to have
existed between her most faithful majesty and her present ministers,
as well as the difficult position in which his royal highness Prince
Ferdinand is placed with regard to the Portuguese people, and the great
suspicion with which all foreigners he brought here into his service are
viewed, renders it necessary that the utmost caution, should be observed
by the English residing in Portugal with respect to private interviews
either with her most faithful majesty or her august consort,
that neither the government nor the people may have a pretext for
entertaining any undue impressions of the intentions of England. It is
therefore my most positive orders that you do not yourself call at the
palace, nor permit any officer to do so without my previous sanction.”
 The British ambassador sought, though in vain, to obtain justice for
the officers and soldiers who had been in Don Pedro’s service, and whose
claims upon the Portuguese government remained unliquidated. A royal
order appeared, indeed, informing “the foreigners lately in the service
of her most faithful majesty,” that if they were dissatisfied with the
decision of the commissioners to whom their claims stood referred, “the
law was open to them.” This was most unsatisfactory, as the Portuguese
courts of law are notorious for corruption. The privileges of the
British, indeed, ceased to be respected in Portugal, and their claims
were set aside. They were restrained from carrying on retail trades,
which they had hitherto done by virtue of early treaties, and as they
were entitled to do by law. At the same time, disputes were constantly
taking place on the Tagus between the crews of British vessels and the
custom-house officers.




CHAPTER XLIX.

{VICTORIA. 1838—1839}

     Parliament reassembles: Debates on Canada; Address to the
     Throne moved by Lord John Russell; Bill for suspending; the
     Lower Canadian Constitution..... The Question of Election
     Committees..... Motion for the Ballot..... Parliamentary
     Qualification Bill..... Personal Attacks..... Revival of
     Anti-slavery Agitation..... Debates on the Irish Poor-law
     Bill: the Bill carried in the Commons..... Motion for the
     Repeal of the Appropriation Clause..... Ministerial Plan for
     settling the Tithe Question..... Committee of the House of
     Commons upon the Irish Municipal Bill; the Bill
     rejected..... The Coronation..... Debates in the House of
     Commons on the Irish Tithe  Question..... The Irish Poor
     Law Bill carried in   the Lords..... Projected Formation
     of a  Colony in New Zealand..... Financial  Statements.....
     Motion for Repeal of the Corn Laws..... Various Improvements
     in the Law..... A Select Committee to inquire into the
     Operation of the Poor Laws..... Combinations in England and
     Ireland..... Debates in Parliament on John Thorn, alias Sir
     William   Courtenay..... Committee on Church Lands..... Act
     for abolishing Pluralities..... The Subject of Education
     discussed in both Houses..... The Question of Canada
     renewed..... Queen Prorogues Parliament..... Disaffection
     among the Working Classes..... Proposed Reduction of the
     Rates of Postage..... The State of Ireland..... The Affairs
     of Canada..... The State of the Continent.




PARLIAMENT REASSEMBLES—DEBATES ON CANADA—ADDRESS TO THE THRONE
MOVED BY LORD JOHN RUSSELL—BILL FOR SUSPENDING THE LOWER CANADIAN
CONSTITUTION.

{A.D. 1838}

Parliament reassembled on the 16th of January. The first subject brought
under notice was the affairs of Canada. This subject was introduced by
Lord John Russell, who, after recapitulating the principal events that
had occurred since the connexion of that colony with Great Britain
down to the report of the Committee in 1828, took up his ground on that
report, which the assembly of Lower Canada had characterised as
“an imperishable monument to the justice and profound wisdom of the
committee, an authentic testimonial of the reality of their grievances
and of the justice of their complaints, faithfully interpreting their
wishes and their wants.” It might have been supposed, said his lordship,
that after the people and the government of this country had proved
themselves anxious to perform all that was asked for, and that was
indicated by the reports of the committee, the Canadians would have been
not only satisfied, but willing to express their cordiality towards the
British government. The case, however, was the very reverse of this. On
the 6th of December, 1828, the house of assembly resolved, “That on
the permanent settlement before mentioned being effected, it would
be expedient to render the governor, lieutenant-governor, or person
administering the government for the time being, the judges and
executive councillors, independent of the annual vote of that house,
to the extent of their present salaries.” Having adverted to other
resolutions indicative of the growing dissatisfaction of the Canadians,
Lord John Russell proceeded to state what had been done in order to
remedy the grievances set forth in those resolutions. The independence
of the judges was demanded; and Lord Ripon, then colonial-secretary, had
fully concurred in its reasonableness, and had suggested a method for
carrying it into effect. The house of assembly, however, instead
of following out that suggestion, tacked to the law by which the
independence of the judges was to be secured, certain provisions
relating to the hereditary revenues of the crown, and to the
establishment of a court of impeachment for the judges. Then as regarded
the subject on which the widest difference between the assembly and the
imperial government had existed, no opposition had been offered to
the terms of the assembly’s resolutions. The judges were informed,
instantly, that, with the exception of the chief-justice, it was no
longer desirable that they should sit in the legislative council; and
a number of persons were added to that body totally independent of the
crown, and giving a great majority in the council to those who were
unconnected with the government. Of the forty members in the council,
indeed, not less than eighteen were French Canadians: many of the
members of English origin had quitted the province, and but seven
remained in official connexion with the government. Another grievance
related to the crown and clergy reserves; and Lord Ripon had declared
it was time to put an end to the old system; and only differed from the
assembly in wishing to prevent an undue facility from being afforded
to poor and improvident purchasers of waste lands. Concessions had also
been made with reference to the property of the Jesuits, which had
been ordered to be applied to educational purposes; and on the
much-contested, question of the duties collected under the earlier acts,
and which the crown had, according to law, the right of appropriating.
The Canadians, however, made but a poor return for these concessions. In
1833, a supply-bill, containing the most unusual conditions, passed
the house of assembly; and in the following year the assembly adopted a
course which had led to the present difficulties. It passed
ninety-two resolutions, some of grievance, some of eulogy, and some
of vituperation, and amounting in the whole to a long and vehement
remonstrance; and after spending an entire session in framing it, it
separated without having passed any bill of supply. Since that time no
supplies had been voted. The demeanour of the house of assembly in the
following years remained unaltered. At the commencement of his speech,
Lord John Russell proposed a bill to suspend for a certain time the
existing constitution of Lower Canada; and at the same time moved
an address pledging the house to assist her majesty in restoring
tranquillity to her Canadian dominions, His lordship in the course of
his speech gave an outline of the intended bill. Mr. Hume entered
at considerable length into a recapitulation of the past and present
grievances of the Canadians. He laid the blame of all that had passed
upon the government; and said that “it was not the man who shed blood,
but the man who stimulated him to shed it, who was the guilty
party.” Mr. Grote likewise opposed the proposed address. He threw the
responsibility of the failure of the measure which had been taken to
adjust the financial disputes, upon Lord Ripon. Not content, he
said, with advancing a claim to the appropriation of the casual and
territorial revenues to the purposes of civil government without the
consent of the house of assembly, that noble lord had thought fit to
propose to make them over to the clergy; a step which was at once novel
and preposterous, and only embroiled matters still further. Sir Robert
Peel promised his cordial assent to the address, because this country
had acted with justice and liberality towards Canada. He thought that
the military force in the colony should have been immediately increased.
In reply, Lord Howick endeavoured to show that the government was not
culpable in omitting to back their resolutions of the last year with a
military force. He argued that regiments were not necessary to put down
meetings: they could not stop speeches, prevent resolutions, or obtain
juries to convict men for seditious practices. An additional regiment
introduced into Halifax had, in fact, served greatly to increase the
existing discontents. Mr. Charles Buller supported the address: the law
should be vindicated, and the insurgents put down without parley, unless
we were prepared to consent to a separation, and leave Canada to itself.
There was no ground for separation, nor could we with any regard to the
interests of the colony consent to abandon it; but we ought to comply
without delay with all the just demands of the Canadians. Mr. Leader
complained of being taken by surprise; and wished the house to adjourn
for the purpose of giving himself and his friends time to consider what
course they should take, and an opportunity of refuting the “fallacies
contained in the noble lord’s speech.” This was opposed by Lord John
Russell; and on a division the motion for an address was carried by one
hundred and eighty-eight against twenty-eight.

On the following day Lord John Russell brought in his proposed bill
for the suspension of the existing constitution of Canada. Its leading
object was to enable the governor-general and council, on the motion
of the governor, to pass any laws which might be considered necessary,
during the present suspension of the legislature of the province. In
addition to the means for suppressing the insurrection, the bill would
authorise the governor-general to grant a general amnesty. With respect
to the future government of Canada, his lordship said, that it was the
intention of ministers that the governor-general should be invested with
power to convene a certain number of persons; namely, three from
the legislative councils of each of the two provinces, and ten
“representatives” from each, to form a council to concert with the
governor-general as to the measures which might be deemed advisable for
the adjustment of the affairs of the province. The persons to be named
would be chosen by the governor-general, while those who were to be
convened, having a “representative character,” might of course be taken
from the legislative assembly. But as in Lower Canada it was almost
impossible that the assembly would be brought to act beneficially, it
would be competent to the governor-general, both in the upper and lower
province, to hold elections for persons, amounting to twenty in the
whole, to concert with him upon the general state of affairs. Sir Hussey
Vivian said that Mr. Hume had constantly stated in that house that he
anticipated a revolt. No man had a greater right to foretell such
an event. The man Martin had recently foretold the destruction of
Yorkminster; and he had set it on fire to fulfil his prediction. In
that same manner Mr. Hume had taken measures for the fulfilment of
his prophecy. Sir George Grey, the under-secretary for the colonial
department, in reply to some doubts which had been raised by Mr. Hume,
with respect to the loyalty of the other North American colonies, cited
facts to prove that the best possible spirit existed in Nova Scotia and
New-Brunswick. Mr. Grote presented a petition from Mr. Roebuck, praying
that he might be heard at the bar in defence of the house of assembly
of Lower Canada, and in opposition to the ministerial bill. Lord John
Russell thought that the house should be allowed time to consider
precedents; and after some further conversation Mr. Grote gave notice
that he should call the attention of the house to the subject on the
22nd instant.

The subject of Canada was brought before the lords on the 18th by Lord
Glenelg, who moved an appropriate address to the queen. After adverting
to the disturbances in that province, he made reference to the intended
bill. With respect to ulterior arrangements his lordship saw great
difficulties in the way of a legislative union between the two
provinces, but thought that considerable advantage might be made of
a federal union. In conclusion, his lordship defended the conduct of
government in not having provided more troops for the suppression of
the insurrection. Lord Brougham ridiculed Lord Glenelg’s despatches, to
which that noble lord had referred in his speech. The despatches
were certainly the products of a mind inadequately furnished with the
experience and knowledge necessary for the task imposed upon it, but
the honest intentions of the writer were equally apparent, and might
have protected him from the kind of invective to which the noble
logomachist subjected him. The whole speech of Lord Brougham was as
damaging to himself as to the government which he assailed. He pursued
the government with his irony and abuse, not because they fell beneath
him in point of honour or principle, but because they refused him their
confidence as Lord Chancellor, when his indiscretions and bullying
rendered him alike odious to the court and unendurable to the cabinet.
His lordship might fairly be considered as much the “standing counsel”
 for the rebellious Canadians in the lords, as Mr. Roebuck was in the
commons. Nevertheless, the denunciations of the government by the
eccentric peer were in the main grounded upon their errors and
vacillation, and these vices in their administration were depicted with
a scathing eloquence, and a malignant spirit. Lord Brougham played the
part of a mere partisan, and was set down by the country for such. The
patriotic prestige associated with his name passed away. Lord Melbourne,
in reply, characterized Lord Brougham’s speech as “a laboured and
extreme concentration of bitterness.” Concerning the charge against
ministers of neglect in not providing against the possibility of an
outbreak, his lordship said, that it was a difficult question which they
had at the time to decide. By not re-enforcing the troops they ran
the hazard of what had in fact occurred; but, on the other hand, had a
considerable force been sent out, there would have been an end to all
chance of an amicable termination of the disputes. It would have been
instantly said, that we were filling Canada with troops, and thus
manifesting a fixed intention of putting down public opinion by the
force of arms. The Duke of Wellington thought that the proceeding’s
should have originated in a message from the throne. With reference to
the military force, he said, that he must do ministers the justice
to say that he could not blame them for not having taken more active
measures. He knew several officers in Canada; and the opinions of these
officers, as communicated to him, were, that there was not the smallest
reason to apprehend anything like insurrection in Lower Canada. At the
same time his grace said, that he could not understand, when ministers
had found it expedient to move troops from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick
into Canada, they did not despatch fresh troops to supply the vacancy
thereby occasioned. After a few words from Lord Ripon, who condemned the
conduct of government, the Marquess of Lansdowne applauded the candid
terms in which the Duke of Wellington had expressed his opinion on the
military part of the question. The Earl of Durham, who was about to go
to Canada as governor, said, that it was impossible for words to express
the reluctance with which he had undertaken the arduous task, and
incurred the awful responsibility which must await him in his endeavours
to execute the objects of his mission. Nothing but the most determined
devotion to her majesty’s service, and the welfare of his country, could
have induced him to place himself in a situation in which he feared he
should neither answer the expectations of his friends nor of the nation.
Having noticed the various tasks which would devolve upon him, his
lordship said, with an apparent foreboding of what was to ensue, that he
could not perform them without the cordial and energetic support of her
majesty’s cabinet, and the co-operation of the imperial parliament. Lord
Glenelg closed the debate by retaliating on Lord Brougham for his fierce
denunciations, and by contrasting his conduct with that of the Duke
of Wellington, whose candour and magnanimity he warmly applauded. The
address was agreed to.

According to notice, Mr. Grote, on the 22nd, moved that Mr. Roebuck be
heard at the bar on behalf of the assembly of Lower Canada. Mr. Roebuck
relied on his title to be heard as general agent for Canada, but Mr.
Gladstone said that he was not aware of any constitutional right or
privilege of colonies to appoint agents with powers of this general
description. If allowed in practice, it must lead to interminable
confusion. Lords John Russell and Stanley also expressed their aversion
to hearing Mr. Roebuck as an agent of Canada; but the motion was
nevertheless acceded to. On the motion of Lord John Russell, the bill
for suspending the constitution of Lower Canada was read a second time;
after which Mr. Roebuck proceeded to address the house from the bar. His
speech was by no means conciliatory; on the contrary, his care seems to
have been to select such topics as were most likely to prove
generally offensive to its temper and prejudices. In one passage he
remarked:—“Talk to me of being frightened at being called a traitor—at
being told that my life is forfeited—at the newspapers setting
forth that I am to be sent to the Tower! Do you think that I am to be
frightened by such petty warfare? If I be guilty, why are there not some
who dare accuse me lawfully? My papers have been seized: let them be
produced. I have not run away; because I know that there is a jury
in England who will render justice to the accused.” On Mr. Roebuck’s
withdrawal, Mr. Hume moved the postponement of the committal to that day
six months. This motion was opposed by Sir George Grey, who replied to
Mr. Roebuck’s speech in a very able harangue. The subject was renewed on
the 23rd by Sir William Molesworth. Mr. E. L. Bulwer gave ministers his
cordial support. He thanked them for their determination to uphold the
integrity of the empire, and the maintenance of the laws; and he thanked
them as a friend to a liberal and popular policy, for their declared
resolution to redress the grievances of Canada. He would ask Mr.
Warburton and his friends, whether they were aware that till within the
last seventy years printing-presses were forbidden in Canada; that at
the present day the vast majority of the electors could neither read nor
write; and that it often happened that the foreman of a jury could not
give in the verdict because of his inability to read it? Was this a
colony fit for independence? If it were a republic to-morrow, it would
be a monster in legislation—half-jacobinism, half-feudalism. Mr. Bulwer
designated Mr. Warburton and his friends, in the course of his speech,
by the term “philosophical Radicals.” Mr. Grote, in reply, said that
the designation was quite as respectable as that of “literary Whig.”
 The debate was closed by Lord John Russell. On a division the motion
for going into committee was carried by a majority of two hundred and
sixty-two against sixteen.

On the 25th Lord John Russell, in moving that “the speaker leave
the chair,” informed the house that in looking over the bill he had
discovered a number of verbal amendments to be necessary, and as it
was desirable that these should be introduced before the discussion was
resumed, he moved that the house should go into committee _pro forma_,
in order to afford an opportunity for making the requisite alterations.
Upon the question being put that the speaker leave the chair, Mr.
Warburton rose and made a long speech in opposition, which was utterly
devoid of any practicable suggestions. A long and rambling debate
followed, without any result.

The house finally went into committee on the bill, and proceeded to
consider its several clauses and the amendments proposed. The bill was
read a third time, and passed on the 29th of January, by a majority of
one hundred and ten against eight; the few non-contents being Radicals.

The bill came before the house of lords on the 2nd of February, when
it was opposed by Lord Brougham, in a speech of great length, and in an
acrimonious spirit. Lord Aberdeen also, though he supported the measure,
expressed his contempt of the conduct of the government. Lord Melbourne
had quietly endured the repeated attacks which had been made upon
ministers; but on this occasion he retorted upon Lord Brougham’s
censures with effect, convicting him of a change of principles. Lord
Brougham, however, denied that he had changed his principles: it was
the changed conduct of others that had compelled him to oppose them. The
Duke of Wellington reproduced many of the objections that had been urged
in the other house; and Lord Wharncliffe, after censuring the conduct of
ministers, gave a reluctant assent to the bill. On the 5th of February,
Mr. Roebuck, on the motion of Lord Brougham, was heard by the house as
agent of the house of assembly of Lower Canada; but his speech could not
arrest the progress of the bill. It was passed on the 8th of February;
Lords Ellenborough, Fitzwilliam, and Brougham entering their protest
against it on the journals of the house, though on different grounds.

The more important provisions of this bill were that the constitution
of Lower Canada was suspended till November, 1840; that her majesty in
council was empowered to constitute a special council, and to appoint,
or authorize the governor to appoint, such and so many special
councillors as she might think proper; that, until November, 1840, it
should be lawful for the governor, with the advice and consent of the
majority of the said councillors convened for the purpose, to make such
laws or ordinances for the peace, welfare, and good government of Lower
Canada, as the legislature of that province, at the time of passing the
act, was empowered; and that all laws or ordinances so made, subject to
the provisions thereinafter contained for disallowance thereof by her
majesty, should have the like force and effect as laws passed by the
legislative bodies. The governor was further to have the initiative of
all measures proposed in the council, five of whom were required for a
quorum. Certain restrictive provisoes followed these provisions; and it
was directed that a copy of every such law or ordinance “be transmitted
to the home government;” and her majesty was empowered, by an order
in council, to disallow the same at any time within two years of its
receipt.




THE QUESTION OF ELECTION COMMITTEES, ETC.

The necessity of an alteration in the mode of trying controverted
elections under the Grenville act had been for some time recognised. A
committee had been appointed to examine into this subject in 1837; and
Mr. Charles Buller, who had been chairman of that committee, had, on the
21st of November last, obtained leave to bring in a bill similar in
its provisions to one which had been in the hands of members in the
preceding session, though it had not been discussed. This bill, in
its original shape, provided that three assessors, barristers of seven
years’ standing, should be appointed by the speaker to act as chairmen
of election committees for the session only, and as a court of appeal
from the revising barristers on matters of law. Subsequently, when this
bill was in progress, it was thought better that the first assessors
should be named in the act, and that the future appointments should be
placed at the disposal of the speaker, subject to the confirmation of
the house. On the same day Mr. O’Connell said that he also had devised a
plan, which he was anxious to submit to the consideration of the house;
and he likewise obtained leave to bring in a bill for a similar
purpose. Mr. Buller’s bill came on for the second reading on the 27th of
November, when it was opposed by Lord Stanley, who moved that the second
reading be postponed till the 12th of May, in order that the question
might receive a fuller consideration. Mr. Williams Wynn approved of
the bill; and Mr. O’Connell abandoned his own in its favour. Lord John
Russell recommended that the bill should be read a second time, thinking
that it at least provided some remedy for the evils complained of. On a
division the second reading was carried by a majority of two hundred
and fourteen against one hundred and sixty. Nothing further was done,
however, before Christmas, except that there was much discussion on the
subject of election committees.

The house of commons was again occupied with the subject of controverted
elections on the 2nd of April. On the motion for the re-committal of Mr.
C. Buller’s bill, Sir Robert Peel rose for the purpose of bringing
the subject generally before the house, and of submitting to their
consideration a proposition of his own. Sir Robert’s scheme was, that
the speaker should nominate a committee, which should be called “a
general committee for elections,” and which should consist of four or
six, or some such limited number. To this committee he would leave the
duty of appointing select committees, by whom election petitions were to
be tried. These last committees might consist of seven or nine members,
and each was to have the aid of an assessor who should be its chairman,
and in all respects on an equal footing with the members of the
committee. These persons were not to be permanent, but employed as
occasion might demand. There was to be no attendance of members at a
ballot and the operation of chance was entirely excluded. Mr. O’Connell
still thought it would be advisable to take the adjudication of these
contests out of the present hands, and to transfer it to the judges. He
moved as an amendment, that Mr. Buller’s bill should be referred to a
select committee, who might report on the subject at large. Lord Stanley
moved that Mr. Buller’s bill be considered that day six months; and
proposed that a committee should be appointed to examine the conflicting
cases, and to report on a mode of giving uniformity to the law. Mr.
Shiel approved of Sir Robert Peel’s plan; but he thought that party
spirit would stand in the way of their obtaining a declaratory
act, since on some questions the two parties in parliament were
systematically opposed to each other. Mr. O’Connell’s proposition was
negatived, and Mr. Buller consented to withdraw his measure. On the 10th
of May, therefore, Sir Robert Peel moved for leave to bring in his
bill, dropping that part of his scheme, however, which established
assessors. Leave was given to bring in the bill; but the
attorney-general thought that all that was necessary was to repeal
the Grenville act. They might then go on making one experiment after
another, until they arrived at some plan that would give universal
satisfaction.

Before the Christmas recess, the freemen and parliamentary electors’
bill, which had been dropped in the preceding session, had been
reintroduced. The two grand objects of this bill were to relieve
householders entitled to the elective franchise, by extending the time
fixed by the reform bill for payment of rates and taxes; and to remove
the stamp-duty payable by freemen on their admission. The former part
of the bill met with much opposition; and Mr. T. Duncombe moved an
amendment, tending altogether to repeal the rate-paying clause of the
reform act. This amendment, however, was rejected, and the original
clause carried by a large majority. The third reading of the bill came
on on the 19th of February, when it was condemned by Sir Robert Peel as
involving a serious infraction of the great principle understood to be
settled when the reform bill was passed. The bill was finally passed by
the commons, by a majority of one hundred and eighty-nine against one
hundred and seventy-two; but it was rejected in the house of lords on
the second reading, on the 8th of March. The house of commons passed
another bill, conceding tire desired relief to freemen alone; but
the session closed before the lords were called upon to take it into
consideration.




MOTION FOR THE BALLOT.

On the 15th of February Mr. Grote made his annual motion for the ballot.
The debate at this time was expected with considerable interest, because
it was generally understood to be a question which was becoming an
element of disunion in the camp of the reformers. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Ward, and supported by Mr. E. L. Bulwer. Mr. Ward,
in seconding the motion, intimated that after Lord John Russell’s
declaration respecting the ballot, the extension of the suffrage, and
the duration of parliaments, the people were anxious to see how far
the other members of the administration were prepared to identify their
opinions with those of the noble lord. He represented the constituents
of Sir John Hobhouse, Mr. Poulett Thomson, Sir Hussey Vivian, and Sir
Henry Parnell as especially watching their conduct in this matter, and
concluded by expressing his conviction that anything like a government
opposition to the measure would “have for its effect the production of
a new combination most important to the country and to that house.” Lord
John Russell again manfully stated his general objections to the change;
and Sir Robert Peel, in a speech of considerable power, attacked the
system of secret voting with effect. On a division, the motion was
lost by a majority of three hundred and fifteen against one hundred and
ninety-eight.




PARLIAMENTARY QUALIFICATION BILL.

During this session a bill was introduced and passed, which had for
its object the extension to personal property of the privilege hitherto
confined to real property, as regarded a qualification for parliament.
By this act, an estate for life, or for the life of another; or a term
of years of which thirteen shall be unexpired at the time of election,
or personal estate and effects of any description within the United
Kingdom, or the interest or dividends of such, may constitute either
the whole or part of the sum required to qualify a member. By another
clause, every member before he takes his seat is required to deliver
to the clerk, while the house is sitting, a paper signed by himself,
containing a statement of the real or personal property whereby he makes
out his qualification. By the same clause he is also called upon to
subscribe a declaration, that to the best of his belief he is duly
qualified to be elected a member of the house. To make a false
declaration is declared to be a misdeameanour, and the election becomes
void if the member sits or votes without complying with the provisions
of the acts. This statute, however, does not extend to the members for
the universities, to the eldest sons of peers, or to persons qualified
to be knight of the shire.




PERSONAL ATTACKS.

On the 6th of March Sir William Molesworth, with a view of bringing the
whole colonial administration of the empire before the consideration of
the house of commons, moved that an address be presented to her majesty,
respectfully expressing the opinion of the house, that in the present
critical state of many of her majesty’s foreign possessions, the
colonial minister should be a person in whose diligence, activity, and
firmness the house and the public may be able to place reliance; and
declaring that her majesty’s present secretary of state for the colonies
does not enjoy the confidence of the house or the country. The right
honourable baronet prefaced his motion by a speech of two hours’
duration. His speech was very moderate, although it might have appeared
that he was guided by some acrimonious feeling in selecting Lord
Glenelg for attack. Mr. Leader seconded the motion; and Lord Palmerston
undertook the defence of the colonial secretary. He would meet the
motion by a simple negative. Lord Sandon said that he had expected that
the affairs of Canada would have formed the basis of the present
motion. Lord Palmerston was right in saying that it should not have
been directed against Lord Glenelg alone, but against the entire
administration. He could not vote with Sir William Molesworth; nor could
he be content with a simple negative of his motion. He considered that
the troubles in Canada were attributable to the misconduct of ministers;
and under these circumstances he should move an amendment, in the
shape of an address to the queen, in which would be laid down his own
principles, and those of the party with whom he acted. His lordship’s
address expressed the regret of the house at the treasonable movements
in Canada, and their determination to aid her in the suppression of the
revolt, and the establishment of a sound constitution; but representing
also their opinion, that the present state of things in that colony was
mainly owing to the want of foresight and energy, and to the ambiguous,
dilatory, and irresolute course of her majesty’s ministers. Lord
Stanley then addressed the house, and after a speech from Sir Charles
Grey the house adjourned; and on the following evening the debate was
renewed, many members expressing their opinions on the subject. In the
course of his speech Lord John Russell directed some bitter remarks
against Lord Stanley, and said that in respect of temper and judgment he
was more comfortable now that Lord Glenelg was his colleague than he was
when the former nobleman was at the head of the colonial department.
His lordship demanded to know whether in the event of the resignation
of ministers, there existed means of forming a better administration,
or whether the tories could safely appeal to the test of a popular
election? Lord John Russell concluded by suggesting to Sir William
Molesworth the expediency of withdrawing his motion, in order that the
house might divide upon the amendment. The right honourable baronet
consented to this; but said that, for his own part, he felt precluded
from voting on either side on the amendment of Lord Sandon. On a
division ministers had a majority of twenty-nine only; the numbers
being, against the amendment, three hundred and sixteen; for it, two
hundred and eighty-seven.




REVIVAL OF ANTI-SLAVERY AGITATION, ETC.

At this period anti-slavery agitation again became the order of the
day. On the one hand there existed a large class of declaimers and needy
orators who were interested in the revival of the subject; and on
the other, there was a powerful body of humane people, to whom the
contemplation of the sufferings of the negro people had become habitual,
and who required little inducement to recur to such an exciting theme.
But there was a cause for this display of philanthropy: the slave
was still in chains, and was still suffering from the lash of the
hard-hearted driver. The legislatures also in the colonies were not free
from blame; they acted in many cases with obstinacy and intemperance;
and Jamaica especially afforded many instances of systematic violations
of the imperial law. The apprentice system, in point of fact, was a
complete failure: it produced on the part of the slaves contumacy; and
on the part of the masters breaches of the law, cruelty, and violence.
From these circumstances there was no difficulty in lighting up a flame
in England on the subject. Meetings were held and petitions got up, with
a view of hastening the time when the slave should become a man among
his fellow-men. The subject of slavery was brought before the house of
lords, on the 29th of January, by Lord Brougham, who, after presenting
a petition from Leeds, praying the immediate abolition of negro slavery,
delivered an eloquent and impassioned speech on the enormities still
committed in the slave-trade. The Duke of Wellington and Lord Glenelg
admitted that Lord Brougham’s statements of the horrors of slavery were
substantially correct. In his speech his lordship had said, that British
officers were induced to allow vessels equipped for the slave-trade to
escape, in order to secure the head-money, and to wait at the mouth of
rivers till the cargoes had been shipped. Lord Minto, first lord of
the admiralty, in reply, said, that he would not assert that no single
instance of this nature had occurred; but he could say that none such
had come to his knowledge, and that he did not believe a similar
case had ever existed. He could assure their lordships that the only
complaint he had heard against British officers thus employed, was, that
they were too ready to take these vessels, and too little careful of
themselves, not attending sufficiently to their own security against
prosecutions. Every letter he received from those officers lamented
the difficulties in the way of obtaining the means of the capture and
conviction of these vessels until the cargo was embarked; and they all
pressed for the conclusion of further treaties. If those treaties could
be extended to all nations under whose flag the traffic was carrying on,
there would be no difficulty in putting it down. The case was not the
same with respect to Spain as to Portugal. With the former there was a
treaty which enabled us to capture all slavers under her flag; but our
cruisers could not capture vessels under Portuguese colours until they
had taken in their cargoes. Lord Brougham asked, if a reward according
to the tonnage of the vessel captured could not be substituted
for head-money? His views were supported by Lords Ellenborough and
Ashburton, the latter of whom said strong measures should be taken to
compel Portugal to desist from the traffic. Lord Glenelg said, that Lord
Palmerston was engaged in negotiating a treaty with that country, with a
view of putting a stop to the trade. He thought with Lord Brougham that
our interference had aggravated the horrors of slavery; but at the same
time he contended that parliament had no alternative but to act as it
had done; and that the fear of increasing the evil ought not to
have prevented us from taking steps to extirpate the practice. The
conversation on this subject here dropped; but it was renewed again
on the 20th of February by Lord Brougham, who urged upon the house the
propriety of immediately emancipating the negro apprentices. His speech
on this occasion gained for him the golden opinions of the good and the
wise. He commenced by painting in poetic language the “delicate, calm,
and tranquil joy” which pervaded the Antilles on the day when slavery
ceased to exist. He continued to show that the predictions of those who
had declared that labour would cease when slavery was abolished, had
failed. Twice as much sugar was made under the new system; and one
planter had said, that with twenty free labourers he could do the
work of a hundred slaves. His lordship next proceeded to show that
the slave-holders had not kept faith with this country, and that the
condition of the negroes, instead of being made better, was in many
respects worse than before. They were, he said, the victims of partial
tribunals, and of excessive and illegal punishments; and he related the
case of eleven females having perished from the punishments inflicted
upon them, but whose deaths were, nevertheless, ascribed by a coroner’s
jury to “the visitation of God.” At the conclusion of his speech his
lordship, after moving that an address be presented to her majesty,
beseeching her to take steps for the suppression of the slave-trade,
laid these resolutions on the table:—“That the practice of paying
head-money to British cruisers should be discontinued. That letters of
marque should be issued to private individuals, empowering them to fit
out vessels for the capture of slavers. That it was expedient that the
period of prædial apprenticeship should cease on the 1st of August,
1838.” The resolutions also further indicated certain regulations
for the protection of apprentices in the meantime. Lord Glenelg, in a
powerful speech, objected to Lord Brougham’s propositions of issuing
letters of marque to privateers, and the discontinuance of head-money.
With respect to the condition of the apprentices in the West India
colonies, he contended that the change had been more advantageous
than Lord Brougham had supposed, although he allowed that abuses and
difficulties of a serious nature did exist. Still he did not think that
sudden emancipation would be for the advantage of the negroes; and he
must, therefore, oppose Lord Brougham’s resolutions. Lord Brougham
took the sense of the house on the resolution which regarded immediate
emancipation; and on a division it was lost by a majority of thirty-one
against seven.

Soon after this the vigilance of Lord Brougham brought to light what
appeared to be a new method of establishing a slave-trade. In the
colony of British Guiana there had been an old law, which permitted the
importation of labourers without restriction. In 1836 a law was passed
by the governor and council of policy of the colony, with a view to
regulate the relations between the labourers who should come to the
colony under articles of indenture, and their employers. On being
transmitted to England for approval, the plan was considered on the
whole to be an improvement, and therefore it was sanctioned. An order
in council was issued in March, 1837, giving assent to the act of
the colonial legislature, but with several important alterations, and
especially reducing the period of service from seven to three years,
and prohibiting the introduction of labourers from Africa, or islands
peopled chiefly by the African race. Shortly after these modifications
of the law had been promulgated, an application was made for a different
regulation, to be extended to individuals from the East Indies, who, it
was said, could not be brought into the colony with any profit, unless
the term of service was prolonged to five years. This was conceded by
Lord Glenelg; and arrangements were made for the deportation of a class
of Hindoos, called “Hill Coolies,” or Highland labourers, to British
Guiana. This subject was brought forward by Lord Brougham on the 6th of
March, who moved two resolutions in condemnation of the order in council
of July. In his speech he asserted that twenty-five thousand Africans
had been introduced into the Mauritius in defiance of the law; and
predicted that they were about to expose to this infernal traffic the
entire Asiatic coast. His lordship complained that no precautions had
been taken to secure proper ships, provision, or accommodation for the
labourers on their voyage. Lord Glenelg contended that Lord Brougham’s
alarm was premature; that he had exaggerated the danger, and was urging
ministers to present a “barrier to the circulation of voluntary labour.”
 The Duke of Wellington suggested that arrangements should be made for
the superintendence of the embarkation of labourers by responsible
persons; that the nature of the bargain made should be fully explained
to the labourer; that provision should be made for his return, if he
wished it, at the expiration of his period of service; and that persons
should be appointed to go with them while on board, and on their
landing, to see the due performance of their respective bargains by the
masters and the workmen. Lord Melbourne said that Lord Brougham’s
ardent imagination rendered him an unsafe guide in such matters; but
he intimated that the Duke of Wellington’s suggestion should receive
attention. His grace then said that he thought it unadvisable to divide
upon Lord Brougham’s motion; and therefore he would move the previous
question. On a division the previous question was carried by a large
majority; and the original motion being put, was negatived.

The subject of slavery was introduced on the 29th of March in the house
of commons, by Sir George Strickland, who moved the immediate abolition
of negro apprenticeship. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pease, and
supported by Dr. Lushington and Lord Howick. On the other hand, it was
opposed by Sir George Grey, Sir Edward Sugden, Lord John Russell, and
Mr. W. E. Gladstone; and on a division it was negatived by a majority
of two hundred and sixty-nine to two hundred and five. An attempt was
subsequently made by Sir Eardley Wilmot to obtain a resolution from the
house in favour of immediate abolition. He succeeded, his motion being
carried by a majority of ninety-six against ninety-three. Government,
however, still expressed aversion to any alteration of the present
system; and on the 28th of May Sir George Grey proposed and carried
a resolution which virtually rescinded that of Sir Eardley Wilmot, by
declaring that, in the opinion of the house, it was not advisable to
adopt any proceeding for the purpose of giving effect to the resolution
of the 26th of that month. Sir George Grey’s motion was carried by a
majority of two hundred and fifty against one hundred and seventy-three.

Although slavery was still allowed to exist, yet two important bills
connected with this subject passed the legislature this session. One
of these was entitled “An act to amend the act for the abolition of
slavery;” and it contained various provisions, giving further protection
to the apprentices, and enforcing such regulations of the former act
as had been disregarded by the planters. The second bill empowered her
majesty in council to make rules for the government of the prisons in
the West Indies; to appoint inspectors of prisons; to dismiss or suspend
officers; and to determine on the fitness or unfitness of any place to
be used for the purposes of penal confinement.




DEBATES ON THE IRISH POOR-LAW BILL—THE BILL CARRIED.

It will be remembered that the Irish poor-law bill had arrived at an
advanced stage, last session, in the committee, and that many of its
important clauses had been discussed and determined, when the demise of
the crown put a stop to its further progress. The subject was renewed
on the 1st of December, when the bill was read a first time. It was
proposed that the house should go into committee on the 9th of February,
on which day Mr. O’Connell moved, as an amendment, that it be committed
that day six months. When the bill was last year before the house, he
said he had addressed them at considerable length in opposition to it.
At the same time he had avowed that he had not moral courage to take the
course of direct opposition to the measure, although perfectly convinced
of its injurious tendency. Since then he had grown both older and
firmer; and he was now determined to take the sense of the house on the
committal of the bill. He was opposed to the introduction of poor-laws
into Ireland, at least so far as regarded able-bodied persons; it might
induce them to abandon their habitual industry and economy, and prevent
them from providing for the wants of age and supervening infirmity.
Any such plan was calculated to diminish self-reliance, to paralyse
industry, to decrease economy, and, above all, to damp and extinguish
the kindly and generous feelings of nature. He further objected to
the bill, because it taxed the occupiers of lands, and involved many
difficulties of apportionment between his landlord and himself: it would
be a constant source of litigation. Besides, he contended that the mode
in which the poor-law was proposed to be carried into effect, was not
calculated to benefit Ireland: and he enlarged on the poverty of the
people in general, in order to show that they ought not to be called
upon to endure taxation to the amount of another million. Messrs. Shaw,
W. S. O’Brien, Lucas, and Redington supported the bill, though they
all thought that many of its details were objectionable. Mr. O. Gore
supported Mr. O’Connell’s amendment, he objecting to the workhouse
system as prejudicial to the best habits and feelings of the Irish.
Other members, as Messrs. Barron, Young, and Litton, supported the
measure; while others, as Mr. J. Gibson and Sir F. French, opposed
it. On a division the original motion was carried by a majority of two
hundred and seventy-seven against twenty-five.

The house went into committee on the 12th of February. The third reading
of the bill came on on the 30th of April, when Mr. O’Connell again
endeavoured to arrest its progress. His opposition, however, was
bootless: it passed the house of commons by a majority of two hundred
and thirty-four against fifty-nine.




MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE APPROPRIATION CLAUSE—MINISTERIAL PLAN FOR
SETTLING THE TITHE QUESTION.

On the 14th of May Sir Thomas Acland moved for the repeal of the
appropriation clause. Lord John Russell had previously given notice that
he would bring forward his resolutions concerning Irish tithes; and in
moving that the speaker should leave the chair, the noble lord said that
it had been his original intention to refrain from saying a single word,
and to reserve his remarks to the time when the house should go into
committee. It had pleased the gentlemen opposite, however, to give
notice that they meant to interpose another question in order to raise
a debate, and produce a division, before allowing the resolutions to be
considered in committee. He should consider the proposition made by Sir
Thomas Acland in two points of view; with reference to its object of
producing discord and bitterness of feeling in the house, and how far
such a course was conformable to the professions made by gentlemen
opposite with respect to the Irish church. After descanting at
considerable length on the subject of the alliance of the church
and state generally, and the small influence which the Irish church
exercised over the people, the noble lord went on to unfold his scheme.
The existing tithe-composition, he said, would be converted into a
rent-charge at the rate of £70 for every £100; and he proposed that the
rent-charge should, with a saving of existing interests, be redeemed by
the government at the rate of sixteen years’ purchase on the full sum
of £100. The money received in redemption of the rent-charge he proposed
should be invested in land, or in such other way as the ecclesiastical
commissioners should advise; and the rent-charges themselves, when
purchased, should go towards a fund, from which £160,000 should be
paid yearly to the constabulary force of Ireland; £20,000 to the Dublin
police; £70,000 to the expense of criminal informations; and £100,000
for the purposes of education, instead of the £50,000 now voted annually
for that purpose; any surplus was to be applied to charitable purposes.
After developing his plan, Lord John Russell descanted on the obstinacy
and exorbitance of the clergy, and then attacked Sir T. Acland’s motion.
He commenced this part of his speech by quoting the Duke of Wellington’s
declared desire to see the Irish questions brought to a settlement,
contending that the present motion was not in accordance with that
declaration. With respect to the principle of the appropriation
resolutions, his opinion was unaltered: it was a wise and just
principle, and he could not consent to its reversal: it would imply
a stigma upon ministers which he could not endure. Sir Thomas Acland,
however, rose to move that the resolutions of the 7th and 8th of April,
1835, should be read; and after addressing the house at considerable
length, he further moved that they should be rescinded. The motion was
seconded by Sir Eardley Wilmot. After a long speech from Lord Stanley,
and a few words from Lord Morpeth in defence of government, the house
was adjourned till the following day, when Mr. Litton renewed the
discussion by delivering a speech in favour of Sir T. Acland’s
amendment. Messrs. Young, Laseelles, Bennett, and Lord Sandon also
supported it; while Messrs. Redington and Townley opposed it. Mr.
O’Connell remarked that the real question before the house was, how
should Ireland be governed? This was the question that had been under
discussion for seven hundred years. Should Ireland, he asked, be
governed by a section? A loud shout interrupted the speaker, and in the
midst of continued uproar, he continued thus:—“I thank you for that
shriek. Many a shout of insolent domination, despicable and contemptible
as it is, have I heard against my country.”—[Here the speaker
interfered]—“Let them shout; it is a senseless yell—the spirit of a
party. Ireland will hear their shrieks. They may want us again. What
would Waterloo have been if we had not been there? I ask not that
question for the renowned commander-in-chief, who is himself an
Irishman, but for the hardy soldiery of Ireland, who fought the battle
for him. I say again, that is the question.” In conclusion, Mr. O’Connell
admitted that the ministerial plan did not go far enough, but he was
ready to accede to it for the sake of an amicable arrangement. Sir
Robert Peel and other members addressed the house, a discussion ensued,
when Sir Thomas Acland’s motion was lost by a majority of three hundred
and seventeen against two hundred and ninety-eight. On the following day
Lord John Russell gave the house distinctly to understand that the tithe
measure would solely consist of a proposition to the effect that the
composition then existing should be converted into a rent-charge.




COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS UPON THE IRISH MUNICIPAL BILL—THE
BILL REJECTED, ETC.

On the 29th of May Lord John Russell moved that the house should go into
committee on the Irish municipal corporation bill. Sir Robert Peel then
rose and stated his views and intentions with respect to the two great
Irish questions.

The consideration of the subject was renewed on the 1st of June, when,
the house being in committee, Mr. Shaw moved that schedules A and
B should be consolidated, so that there should be but two schedules
instead of three; the first to contain the towns to which corporations
were to be given with an uniform ten-pound franchise; and the second to
contain those in which the majority of the ten-pound householders might,
according to their option, be incorporated. Mr. Shaw further proposed
that Sir Robert Peel’s mode of estimating the qualification of electors
should be adopted. Lord John Russell consented to that part of the
proposition which regarded the distribution of towns to be incorporated,
but at the same time intimated that government considered an uniform
ten-pound franchise too high a qualification. On this point, indeed, the
two parties were at issue, for Lord John Russell proposed a five-pound
assessment as the qualification, while Sir Robert Peel advocated the
ten-pound assessment. On the 11th of June Sir Robert moved to substitute
the latter for the former sum; but on a division it was negatived by
a majority of two hundred and eighty-six against two hundred and
sixty-six. The bill came on for the third reading on the 25th of June,
when Lord Francis Egerton moved that it should be read that day three
months; but on a division the bill passed by a majority of one hundred
and sixty-nine against one hundred and thirty-four.

The bill came under deliberation in the house of lords on the 12th of
July, and it was read a third time on the 27th of the same month. The
lords, however, had, on the motion of Lord Lyndhurst, substituted
the ten-pound for the five-pound franchise, and had also made further
alterations in the bill at the instigation of the same noble lord. When
the bill in its amended shape came under the consideration of the
house of commons on the 2nd of August, Lord John Russell entered into
a detailed examination of these amendments. In order to settle the
question of the franchise, he proposed that a rated house of eight
pounds rent should confer it; and he carried this by a majority of one
hundred and sixty-nine against one hundred and fifty-four. A variety of
alterations were then introduced into the other amendments of the lords,
and the bill was once more sent up to that house. A conference took
place, but with no effect, and the matter ended by Lord John Russell
moving in the house of commons that “the lords’ amendments should be
further considered that day three months.” The bill, therefore, was
again laid aside, and that for the most part from a difference of a
pound or two in the qualification. The great principle of granting
popular corporations to the Irish towns was conceded by the
Conservatives; but they would not overlook the trifling difference
contested by them and their opponents in the qualification.

[Illustration: 589.jpg CORONATION CHAIR]




THE CORONATION.

The coronation of Queen Victoria took place on the 28th of June.
The principal novel feature of this august ceremony consisted in the
substitution of a procession through the streets of London for the
banquet in Westminster-hall. The result of this change justified
the departure from an ancient usage. The people of all ages, sexes,
conditions, professions, arts, and trades assembled on that day to greet
their youthful sovereign. The ceremony was conducted with great
harmony: happiness and cheerful good humour prevailed among the enormous
multitude which thronged the streets; and courtesy and self-restraint
were everywhere conspicuous. The coronation was succeeded by a series
of fetes and banquets, and many weeks elapsed before the metropolis
had ceased to hold festivals in its remembrance. In a word, the utmost
enthusiasm for the youthful sovereign prevailed on every hand, and gave
promise of a happy and glorious reign.

It was stated in the house of commons shortly after the coronation that
the expenses incurred for the coronation of George IV. were £243,000,
and that the expenses incurred for that of his successor did not exceed
£50,000. On the present occasion the charges amounted to about £70,000,
and the chancellor of the exchequer, in explaining the cause of this
excess, said, that it was in no respect occasioned by any portion of
the ceremony as regarded the sovereign, but for enabling the people to
participate in the national festivity. The public, he continued, had
voluntarily paid for seats commanding a view of the procession not less
than £200,000; and four hundred thousand persons had visited London
for the purpose of witnessing the ceremony. He added:—“Never was there
given to a sovereign, or to a country, a more exalted proof of good
conduct and discretion, than was afforded by the assembled multitude on
this occasion.”




DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON THE IRISH TITHE QUESTION.

On the 2nd of July the house of commons proceeded to take Lord John
Russell’s tithe resolutions into consideration. On the motion for
going into committee, Mr. Ward condemned ministers for abandoning the
appropriation principle, and moved a series of resolutions for the
appropriation of the surplus revenues of the Irish church to the moral
and religious education of all classes. Mr. Hawes seconded and Mr. Hume
supported the motion. Mr. O’Connell, however, opposed it, contending
that it led to a deception and delusion: it offered to the Irish people
something as the purchase-money of a tithe bill, which bill they had
refused unanimously to take. Their determination was not to pay tithe;
and he required that provision should be made for the established church
of Ireland out of the consolidated fund, and that the tithe fund should
be applied to the maintenance of peace in the country. By converting
tithes into a rent-charge, they would turn landlords into tithe
proprietors; and would further throw many landlords into the ranks of
White-boys. Mr. Harvey said that three years ago he was denounced by Mr.
O’Connell for not supporting the motion which his learned friend was now
opposing. On a division Mr. Ward’s motion was rejected by two hundred
and seventy against forty-six. On the house going into committee, Mr.
Shaw moved, as an amendment, that twenty-five instead of thirty per
cent, should be substituted. This amendment was carried by a majority of
one hundred and eighty-eight against one hundred and sixty-seven.

In a preceding year one million sterling had been voted by parliament
for the relief of tithe-owners who had been unable to pay their dues;
and out of this sum they had by this time actually received £640,000. At
the time of the grant it was intended that the advances should be repaid
as soon as the tenants should pay up their arrears. That event was not
likely to happen; for, since the grant had been made, a new arrear of
tithes had accrued. It was now generally agreed that repayment of the
money advanced should not be required; but it became a question how far
the fresh arrears were to be settled. Sir Robert Peel suggested that
a commission should be appointed to ascertain the entire amount of the
tithe, and the nature of each particular case; and that in proportion
to that amount, and with due regard to individual circumstances, the sum
remaining of the million not yet advanced should be distributed among
the respective tithe-owners in purchase of their interests. According
to his plan, if a landlord owned tithe, he was not to be included in
the proposition; but where the debtors were occupying tenants, there
tithe-owners were to have the option of enforcing their claims, or of
accepting their proportion of the fund, and exonerating their debtors:
government was also to have the right of proceeding against the tenant
at their option. This proposition was favourably received; and, on July
16th, Lord John Russell, when the house resumed the consideration of
the bill in committee, adopted it with some slight modifications. On
the 26th of July the bill came on for the third reading. Mr. D. Browne
moved, that the bill be read that day six months; in doing which he
contended for a total abolition of tithes. On a division the bill was
carried by a majority of one hundred and forty-eight against thirty; and
thus terminated the contests concerning “the appropriation clause.” The
adoption of it had assisted the Whigs in their return to power; and the
sacrifice of it enabled them to maintain office.

Lord Melbourne brought the Irish tithe-bill before the house of lords on
the 3rd of August. After descanting on the million loan and the arrears,
his lordship remarked that it was obvious, unless they closed up all
questions with reference to arrears, they would not be giving the
measure fair play. This bill directed the lord lieutenant to remit to
the clergy the instalments due from them in respect of the loan; and the
residue of the million was to be applied in satisfaction of the arrears,
according to the claims of the spiritual tithe-owners, which had
been accruing during the last four years. Nothing was said of the
“appropriation clause” by his lordship: on which Lord Brougham
remarked:—“I had not looked to see the day when appropriation should be
given to the winds, as if the thing had never been talked of—as if it
never had been the means of seating one ministry and unseating another.”

The bill was read a third time on the 9th of August, Lord Clancarty
alone raising a dissentient voice.




THE IRISH POOR-LAW BILL CARRIED IN THE LORDS.

On the 21st of May Lord Melbourne moved the second reading of the Irish
poor-law bill in the lords. The motion was opposed by Earl Fitzwilliam,
who said that he was opposed to the whole principle of poor-laws. As for
the present bill, he said, it could never be carried into effect; it
was not an Irish bill, nor was it a bill desired either by the landed
interests, the middling gentry, or the poorest classes of Ireland.
The Marquis of Londonderry also opposed the bill; while the Duke of
Wellington recommended their lordships to give it a second reading, with
a view of amending it in committee. Lord Lyndhurst, having adverted to
the unpopularity of the bill in Ireland, and cautioned their lordships
against setting themselves up as better judges than the Irish people
themselves of what was best calculated to promote the interests of that
nation, said he should not object to a trial of the bill, provided
he thought that they would, in the event of failure, return to their
original situation. His lordship then stated his various objections to
the proposed bill; but, in conclusion, intimated his intention of voting
for the second reading, in the hope that it might be brought into a
better state in committee. The Marquis of Clanricarde, Lord Brougham,
and the Marquis of Westmeath opposed the bill; and Lord Radnor and the
Earl of Devon supported it. On a division the second reading was
carried by a majority of one hundred and forty-nine against twenty.
In committee, Earl Fitzwilliam moved an am end-mend to the forty-first
clause, by which he limited the relief under the bill to age, bodily
infirmity, &c.; and he was supported by Lord Fitzgerald and Vesci, who
contended that the operations of the bill would be mischievous; but
it was not carried. On the 31st the latter noble lord moved another
amendment, empowering the guardians to relieve in poor-houses “all
destitute persons who are either incurably lame, or blind, or sick, or
labouring under permanent bodily infirmity;” also all orphan children
left in a state of destitution. Ministers, however, succeeded in
carrying the original clause of the bill by a majority of one hundred
and seven to forty-one. Subsequently some amendments were made in the
minor details of the bill, and it was read a third time on the 9th of
July, and carried by a majority of ninety-three against thirty-one.
The momentous experiment, therefore, of introducing a poor-law into a
country where the people were everywhere opposed to it was to be tried.




PROJECTED FORMATION OF A COLONY IN NEW ZEALAND, ETC.

At this period an association had been formed for the purpose of
colonizing New Zealand, under certain grants of territory which had been
obtained from the native authorities. During this session an application
for a parliamentary sanction to the undertaking was made, and Mr. F.
Baring, on the 23rd of June, moved the second reading of a bill to
establish the said colony. Sir George Grey opposed the motion. The bill
was also opposed by Sir Walter James, Lord Sandon, and Messrs. Goulbourn
and Pease, while Messrs. Hutt and P. Howard pointed out the advantages
which would accrue to Great Britain from the measure. The bill was
rejected by a majority of ninety-two against thirty-two.




FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, ETC.

The navy estimates were presented to the house of commons on the 5th of
March, when Mr. C. Wood moved a resolution to the effect, that there be
employed in the fleet for the next thirteen lunar months, ending on the
31st of March, 1839, 33,665 men including 2,000 boys and 9,000 marines.
After some opposition, this motion was agreed to; as was another, made
by Lord Howick, on the 12th of the same month, to the effect that
89,305 men should be raised for her majesty’s land-forces. The ordnance
estimates were moved by Sir Hussey Vivian on the 27th of April, and
these, likewise, were granted. The chancellor of the exchequer presented
his financial statement on the 18th of May, when it appeared that the
past year had been one of increased expenditure and diminished receipt.
The estimate of revenue, he said, had amounted to £47,240,000, while the
actual income did not exceed £46,090,000. The estimate of expenditure
had been £47,873,000, and the actual expenditure £47,519,000; so that
there existed a deficiency of £1,428,000. But, continued Mr. Rice, if
the house would compare the income and expenditure of the two years
1836 and 1837, they would find a surplus of income; and he showed that,
taking these two years together, and comparing the anticipation with the
actual results, there was no deficiency. The right honourable gentleman
proceeded to say that he calculated the income of the next year would
be £47,271,803, and the expenditure £47,479,000. Here, also, would be a
deficiency; and the question arose, how was this deficiency to be
met? There was no ground for considering it permanent; and he should
therefore propose to take the course adopted by parliament on former
similar occasions. In 1827 Mr. Canning found himself with a deficiency
of £2,900,000, and he met it by a resort to a corresponding issue of
exchequer-bills. Mr. Spring Rice intimated that he should follow the
same course, and should ask for a vote of credit to the extent of a few
hundred thousand pounds only.




MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE CORN-LAWS.

On the 15th of March Mr. Villiers moved for a committee of the whole
house to consider the act of 9 George IV. c. 60, relating to the
importation of corn. In his speech he remarked that the purpose and
principle of the corn-laws were protection to the landed interest. It
was alleged that the British farmers could not compete with the foreign
grower without protection. He considered this principle indefinite and
unjust. The motion was seconded by Sir William Molesworth, who drew a
gloomy picture of the operation of the corn-laws. Through them, he
said, there was an excess of farmers without farm, shopkeepers without
customers, lawyers without briefs, clergymen without cure of souls,
doctors without patients, sailors and soldiers without employment;
besides shoals of architects, painters, surveyors, tutors, clerks, and
others. All these classes were uneasy, and the victims of competition.
The corn-laws had further the effect of producing great immorality:
people either could not marry, or were obliged to many late in life, and
consequently there was an excess of unmarried women! Hence immorality
prevailed, and every foreigner who visited the land was shocked at the
exhibition of profligacy in the streets. Only a few members supported
the motion, which was consequently lost.

On a subsequent evening Colonel Seale proposed that foreign corn in this
country should, under certain restrictions, be permitted to be ground
while in bond, and exported, security being given for its exportation.
The object of this measure was to enable merchants trading to foreign
countries, and shipowners, to lay in their supplies in the ports of
the United Kingdom, instead of being compelled to obtain them, as at
present, from the Baltic. The Marquis of Chandos contended that this
measure would repeal the corn-laws: extensive frauds would take place,
and a great alteration ensue in the price of corn. On the other hand,
Messrs. Warburton and Poulett Thomson argued that the agricultural
interest would not suffer from it in the least degree. The latter said
that no fraud could take place, and he entered into details to show that
the preservation of the whole revenue of the country depended upon the
security afforded by the bonded warehouses. Corn could not be smuggled
out of them more easily than sugar and tobacco, &c., on which much higher
duties were payable. After hearing these statements of Mr. Thomson,
several members intimated their disposition to make a concession upon so
immaterial a point. Colonel Seale’s motion was carried by a majority
of one hundred and twenty-seven against ninety-two, but the bill was,
notwithstanding, thrown out on the second reading, by a majority of two
hundred and twenty against one hundred and fifty.




VARIOUS IMPROVEMENTS IN THE LAW.

An important alteration in the law took place this session, in the
abolition of imprisonment for debt on mesne process. Public attention
had been for some time directed to this subject; and during last session
a bill passed the house of commons with reference to it, but at too late
a period to admit of its discussion in the upper house. On the 5th of
December the lord-chancellor brought the subject before the lords, by
moving the second reading of a similar bill. Many of the details of the
bill, however, were thought to be so defective, that it was referred
to the consideration of a select committee. The lord-chancellor again
presented his bill, as altered and amended by the committee, on the 12th
of June. In his exposition of the measure, his lordship stated that it
would empower creditors to get possession of various descriptions of
property, which were at present exempt from execution. Thus the bill
would authorize the sheriff to seize cash, bank-notes, and bills of
exchange; and, under the authority of a judge’s order, and with certain
restrictions, stock in the public funds would be available to the
creditor. These and similar provisions were framed for the purpose of
doing justice to the creditor, by enabling him, if possible, to obtain
payment out of his debtor’s property. Having effected this object it
seemed but right to abolish imprisonment on mesne process. Still, to
prevent fraud, it was necessary to secure to the creditor the right of
seizing the debtor’s person in certain cases. The bill, moreover, would
authorize a judge, on the creditor’s application, to issue a warrant
to restrain a fraudulent debtor from leaving the country before he had
surrendered his property. Lords Brougham and Abingdon commended the
measure as far as it went; but they still thought it incomplete. The
bill was read a third time and passed; and after some minor alterations
had been introduced in it by the commons, it finally became law. Another
useful act passed during this session was one which facilitated the
recovery of possession of tenements after the determination of the
tenancy. This bill empowered any two justices at petty-sessions,
in certain cases, and after proof given of the determination of the
tenancy, and of the refusal of the tenant to render possession, to issue
their warrant to the peace-officers of the place, directing them to
enter, by force, if needful, upon the premises unlawfully held over,
and to give possession of the same to the landlord or to his agent; such
entry to be made not less than twenty, and not more than thirty days
from the date of the warrant. The provisions of this bill, however,
are confined to premises held at will, or for less than a term of
seven years, and which are let for less than £20 per annum, without the
reservation of a fine.

In the course of this session, a bill for securing to authors, in
certain cases, the benefit of international copyright passed the
legislature, and which enabled her majesty in council to direct that the
authors of books published abroad shall have a copyright here, provided
there be a reciprocal protection in favour of this country in the state
in which such publications first make their appearance.




A SELECT COMMITTEE TO INQUIRE INTO THE OPERATION OF THE POOR-LAWS.

During the past and the present year the New Poor-law was exposed to a
severe trial. Distress, from a severe winter and the high price of corn,
abounded on every hand, while in various parts of the country local
and temporary causes operated unfavourably to the labourer. Under these
circumstances, the New Poor-law encountered great opposition, and this
appeared to be becoming progressively formidable. In the northern
parts of the country, indeed, Tories, Whigs, and Radicals alike arrayed
themselves against it, all agreeing to seek its entire abolition. The
subject had been introduced into the commons as early as the 27th of
November of the past year, when Lord John Russell moved for a select
committee to inquire into the operation of the New Poor-law. This
afforded, however, but little satisfaction to the opponents of the
measure; and on the 20th of February Mr. Fielden moved for a repeal of
the act itself. He was seconded by Mr. Wakley; and, in the course of the
evening, a discussion ensued, in which many members took part. Those
who spoke generally concurred in the impolicy of taking any steps in
the question until the committee should have made its report. Sir
Robert Peel bore testimony to the merits of the bill; remarking that,
considering the magnitude of the experiment, which had been but four
years under trial, it was as satisfactory as any man could expect. On
a division, the motion was rejected by a majority of three hundred and
nine against seventeen.

The commissioners made their report on the 4th of August. It had
been proposed to authorize the guardians to relieve the families of
labourers, by taking one or more of their children into the workhouse.
The report stated, “that in the practical application of this exception,
it would be difficult to avoid the establishment of a system similar in
principle to the scale system; i. e. a regular allowance, in addition to
the labourer’s earnings, depending on the number of his children and the
rate of wages.” It had further been proposed to obviate the hardship of
obliging a man to part with his cottage and furniture, and take up his
abode, with his family, in the workhouse, by admitting the head of the
family only into that establishment, and leaving his family at home. The
report stated an objection to this proposal thus:—“The small degree of
inconvenience sustained by the labourer by a temporary sojourn in the
workhouse, whilst his wife and family remain at home, ceases altogether
to have the effect upon the employer which is produced by the strict
workhouse system; namely, the creating a great reluctance, on his part,
to lose temporarily the services of the labourer, lest he should find
it impossible to regain them; and a desire so to arrange the work of
his farm, as to afford employment, during the unfavourable part of the
season, to those upon whose assistance he must rely for the necessary
services during the more active periods of the year.” The report
proceeded to notice other particulars of the system, as the migration of
families from the southern to the northern counties; and the emigration
of others to the Australian colonies. It remarked, that the most
important and characteristic circumstance of the last twelve months had
been the extreme severity of a long winter, and the continuance of the
interruption to manufacturing industry which had commenced in 1836. From
this circumstance the guardians of various unions had been induced to
give out-door relief to able-bodied male paupers, but the commissioners
were of opinion that, with few exceptions, it might have been safely
withheld.




COMBINATIONS IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND.

For some years combinations of workmen for the purpose of regulating
the rate of wages, and other matters connected with the employment of
labour, had been permitted by law to exist. At this time, however,
these confederacies had become formidable. “Strikes” were constantly
recurring, so that the masters lay at the mercy of the operatives. Thus
at Ashton fifty-two mills and thirty thousand persons were thrown out
of work, by the “strike” of three thousand “coarse spinners,” who could
clear at the time about thirty shillings per week; and at Manchester one
thousand “fine spinners” struck work, because the masters would not pay
them more than thirty-five shillings per week. At Glasgow, where the
cotton-spinners had been long noted for the violent and arbitrary
proceedings of their confederacy, five individuals connected with their
body were taken up, charged with murder, attempts at arson, and other
grave offences of a similar character. On their trial, the evidence
disclosed some revolting details of the practices and formidable
organization of the cotton-spinners’ union of Glasgow; but the jury
found the prisoners guilty of the minor charges only, and they
were transported for seven years. There was much in these judicial
proceedings that, in the opinion of Lord Brougham and Mr. Wakley,
required correction, and accordingly they brought the subject under the
consideration of parliament, each in their respective spheres.

The subject was introduced by Mr. Wakley in the house of commons,
by moving for a select committee to inquire into the constitution,
practices, and effects of the association of operative cotton-spinners
in Glasgow and its neighbourhood. Mr. O’Connell moved, by way of
amendment, for a select committee to inquire into trades’ unions and
combinations generally, in the United Kingdom. He remarked that
there was no tyranny equal to that which was exercised by the trades’
unionists in Dublin. He had in vain wished to convince those people of
the wickedness and impolicy of their proceedings. Hour after hour had
he had interviews with the deputation from the various trades, and had
seldom met with men of more ability, information, or skill, in putting
forward their own views. He had also challenged discussion, and two
assemblies had been held for that purpose; but the workmen had concerted
interruption, and they could not proceed in the business of the day. He
could not be heard, and they expressed their determination to persist in
their system of outrage. Mr. O’Connell proceeded to detail some of the
more prominent regulations of the combination. One of their rules was
to limit the number of apprentices; another prescribed a minimum rate of
wages, so that the best workmen received no more than the worst; and
by a third the masters were deprived of all freedom in their power of
selecting workmen. The honourable gentleman then proceeded to relate
some instances of the prejudicial effects of combination on the
manufacturing industry of the country; and he concluded by adverting to
the murders and outrages committed by stipendiary assassins acting under
the authority of the unions, and by asserting that he had no wish
to re-enact the old combination laws. Some combinations were even
meritorious: his aim would be to separate unions of this kind from those
of a pernicious character. The chancellor of the exchequer paid some
just compliments to Mr. O’Connell for the course he had pursued with
respect to this subject, and said that he proposed a second amendment,
which did not materially differ from that of the member for Dublin. He
moved for a select committee to inquire into the operation of the 6th
of George IV., and into the general constitution of trades’ unions, and
also the combinations of workmen and masters in the United Kingdom. Mr.
Wakley expressed himself satisfied to leave the question in the hands
of her majesty’s ministers, and the chancellor of the exchequer’s motion
was agreed to without a division.




JOHN THOM. ALIAS SIR WILLIAM COURTENAY.

A few years back an individual of the name of John Nicholls Thorn
left his home in Cornwall, and went into the county of Kent. Here he
exchanged his name for the more euphonious one of Sir William Courtenay,
Knight of Malta, and he commenced a practice of parading his naturally
commanding person before the admiring people, clad in rich costumes, and
pouring forth streams of exciting and persuasive eloquence. Attracted by
his romantic appearance, the populace flocked round him with the wildest
enthusiasm; and even the superior classes of society, furnished him with
partizans. In 1833 he became a candidate for the representation of the
city of Canterbury, and he succeeded so far as to poll nine hundred and
fifty votes. Not long after, however, he was found to be implicated in
a transaction which resulted in his conviction for perjury, and he was
sentenced to six years’ transportation. Decided symptoms of insanity
having exhibited themselves, instead of being sent on board the hulks,
in conformity with the act 9th George IV., he was removed from Maidstone
gaol to the county lunatic asylum. He remained here four years, and at
the expiration of that period, Lord John Russell, in virtue of a power
conferred on him as secretary of state by the same act, delivered him up
to his friends upon their engaging to take care of him. His friends ill
discharged their duty; for in 1838 John Thom reappeared in Kent, and
this time under a higher title than that of baronet: he claimed to be,
and the people acknowledged his pretensions as, another Messiah. The
delusion led to the “Canterbury riots,” in which a constable was shot by
Thom himself, and Lieutenant Bennet was killed by some of his
enthusiastic followers. Thom on his trial was proved to be of unsound
mind; and several of his followers were sentenced to be transported,
some for life, and others for longer or shorter periods of time,
according to the parts they had acted in the tragical scene.




COMMITTEE ON CHURCH LANDS.

It has been seen in a former page that a committee had been appointed
to ascertain the probable amount of any increased value which might be
obtained by an improved management of church property. On the 3rd of
May Lord John Russell proposed the reappointment of this committee. He
estimated the revenue of the church of England at £3,439,767, and
he calculated this income would admit of considerable increase. With
respect to the disposal of such additional revenue, when obtained,
his lordship said that both himself and colleagues held it as a
fixed principle that it ought to be devoted to a purpose clearly and
intimately connected with the church. Many honourable members were
of opinion that such a fund should be applied to the education of the
people: government would prefer to dedicate it to the repairs of the
fabric of the church itself. His lordship then entered into details to
show that the present system of managing church property was improvident
and unsatisfactory; and that the funds of the church were often disposed
of in a way contrary to their original purposes, and not desirable
for the spiritual interests of the country. By proper arrangements he
expected that an annual surplus of £300,000 might be secured. The motion
was opposed by Mr. Liddell, who, in moving a direct negative to it,
observed that government had been stimulated to stir this “mischievous
question, and unsettle men’s minds and properties by the clamour of
persons hostile to the church.” The church of Durham, he said, was the
great object of their appetency. It certainly had rich possessions, but
then its charities were in proportion. It had, moreover, crying wants:
many of its cures were underpaid, and many new churches were requisite,
for which there were no adequate means of endowment. The honourable
gentleman concluded by saying, that should the motion for a committee
be carried, he would further move the addition to it of the following
words:—“with a view of applying such amount to the gradual diminution
of the evils which flow from the deficiency in the means of religious
instruction and pastoral superintendence by ministers of the established
church.” The original motion was carried by a majority of two hundred
and seventy-seven against two hundred and forty-one; and Mr. Liddell’s
second amendment was lost by a majority of two hundred and sixty-five
against two hundred and fifty-four.




ACT FOR ABOLISHING PLURALITIES, ETC.

During this session an act was passed for “abridging pluralities,” and
for making better provision for the residence of the clergy. This bill
enacts that no person holding more benefices than one shall accept and
hold any cathedral preferment or other benefice; and that no person
holding preferment in one cathedral shall hold any in another, with
certain exceptions in favour of archdeacons. The bill further enacts
that two benefices are not to be enjoyed together, unless within ten
miles of each other, nor if the population of the one exceeds three
thousand, or the joint revenue £1,000, unless the yearly value of
the one fall short of £150, while the population exceeds two thousand
persons; in which case the bishop of the diocese may authorize the two
to be held jointly, though at the same time it was made necessary to
obtain a dispensation from the Archbishop of Canterbury. By another
clause of the bill any spiritual person in the possession of preferment
is prohibited from farming more than eighty acres of land without the
consent of his diocesan, and from engaging in any trade, unless in
cases where the number of partners exceed six, or where the share in a
business may devolve upon the individual by operation of law; but in
no case may such person carry on or manage trade personally. The bill
finally empowers the bishops to grant dispensations to their clergy from
residing in the parsonage-houses when unfit to be occupied, provided
that the residence selected be within a certain distance of the cure,
and further enumerates a variety of other instances in which the bishops
may grant licences for non-residence.

During this session also, in consequence of a recent decision in the
court of exchequer, that it was unlawful for a clergyman to be a member
of a joint-stock company, an act was passed, altering the law on that
head. In 1817, an act had been passed prohibiting all spiritual persons
from engaging in any trade for gain or profit, and imposing a penalty
upon transgressors of the law. It also declared the acts of any
partnership into which such spiritual person had been introduced to be
null and void.

On the 22nd of February the Earl of Ripon announced to the house of
lords that the ecclesiastical commissioners had resolved to recommend
the continuance of the bishopric of Sodor and Man as a separate see,
and not to unite it with the diocese of Carlisle, as had been proposed.
During this session, therefore, a bill was passed for continuing the see
upon its original footing.




THE SUBJECT OF EDUCATION DISCUSSED IN PARLIAMENT.

On the 1st of December Lord Brougham brought the subject of national
education under the consideration of the house of lords. His lordship’s
plan was disclosed in two bills, corresponding with that which he had
brought forward in the preceding session, and which were only separated
for the sake of convenience. The measure of Lord Brougham seems to have
been conceived in an enlightened spirit, and its outline exhibits
many excellent features; but it was clear that there would be great
difficulty in carrying out its details. The bill was generally approved
of, and was read a first time, but it did not come again under the
consideration of parliament during this session.




THE QUESTION OF CANADA RENEWED.

While parliament was sitting, Lord Durham sailed for his seat of
government in Canada; and news arrived of his first acts in that
province. Before his lordship had sailed, however, attacks were
made upon him by the opposition, although they had exercised so much
forbearance towards him at the outset of his mission.

The main attack on Lord Durham was opened in the house of lords on the
30th of July. Of the many important matters which Lord Durham found on
his arrival in Canada unsettled, the disposal of the state prisoners was
“by far the most delicate and dangerous.” This difficulty was increased
by the restrictions which the home-government had thought it expedient
to impose upon the governor-in-chief. These restrictions were contained
in a letter written by Lord Glenelg, and were to this effect:—“From the
very commencement of the late disturbances it has been, as your lordship
is aware, the earnest desire of the government, that the utmost lenity
compatible with the public safety should be exercised towards the
insurgents. This is a principle inculcated in my various despatches
to the authorities of Lower and Upper Canada, and it is a principle
supported by considerations, not only of humanity, which cannot be in
such cases admitted as the exclusive test of right conduct, but also of
true policy, in reference to the well-being of the Canadas. You will,
I am persuaded, enter into the views of the government on this subject;
and in order to enable you to act with promptitude in this respect,
you are relieved from the restrictions by which your predecessors
were prevented, in case of treason, from giving an absolute pardon, or
granting more than a respite, till the royal pleasure should be known.
The power thus entrusted to you, of granting an amnesty or pardon in all
cases, should, in the opinion of her majesty’s government, be exercised
largely, but not entirely without exception. Independently of persons
committed on charges of murder, to whose cases I have referred in my
despatch of the 19th of March to Sir J. Colborne, as exceptions to the
class of cases fit to be included in an amnesty, there must probably
among the prisoners be some flagrant and prominent cases of delinquency,
which it would not be just or advisable to comprehend in the general
lenity. These cases it will be for you to select, in order that they may
be brought to trial. In the constitution of the tribunals before which
these prisoners are to be arraigned, and in the conduct of these trials,
her majesty’s government are, after full deliberations, satisfied that
there should be no further deviation from the established mode of legal
procedure, than was sanctioned in my despatch to Sir J. Colborne. You
will, therefore, bring them to trial in the usual manner before the
courts of justice, as at present constituted for the trial of criminal
offences. By the verdict of the ordinary juries, the fate of the
prisoners must be decided.... Except in cases of murder, capital
punishments should be avoided.” In dealing with this difficult subject
Lord Durham availed himself of the assistance of his special council,
the members of which were Vice-admiral Sir Charles Paget, Major-general
Sir James Macdonnell, Colonel Couper, the governor’s military
secretary, and principal aide-de-camp, Colonel Grey, and Mr. Charles
Buller. The council met on the 18th of June; but it was not for the
purposes of consultation that Lord Durham convened his board, for on the
very day on which they were summoned to meet, appeared the celebrated
ordinance, by which Lord Brougham not only accomplished his fall, but
contrived that all the odium of the transaction should attach to the
ministers themselves The nature of this ordinance will be clearly seen
in the following debates which took place in both houses of parliament.

On the day before mentioned (30th July), when the attack was opened on
Lord Durham in the upper house, Lord Brougham called the attention of
the peers to the ordinance which had been passed by the noble governor
of Canada, asserting that if carried into effect it would involve the
crime of murder, the whole proceeding being at variance with law. Seven
days after, Lord Brougham renewed the attack. No power, he said, to
inflict pains and penalties upon individuals who had not been brought to
trial, which that ordinance usurped, was conferred upon Lord Durham.
He might make general laws for the good government of the colony, but
subject to an exception which restrained him from altering any act
of the British parliament. The ordinance in question contravened the
provisions of the act 7th William III. “for the trial of treasonable
offences;” and if Lord Durham had the power of dispensing with that act,
he might condemn in every case as traitors men against whom no witnesses
had been examined, and into whose alleged offences no inquiry had
been made. Lord Glenelg remarked that Lord Durham had been placed in
a situation of extreme difficulty: he had been solicited for extreme
punishments on the one hand, and for a complete amnesty on the other;
he had adopted a middle course, and when his decision was announced, it
gave general satisfaction. Lord Brougham replied, that the noble earl
might have accomplished all he was desirous of doing without a breach of
the law. If he had said to parties accused or suspected, “I won’t bring
you to trial, if you conduct yourselves properly,” he would have acted
in a legal manner; but instead of doing this, he said, “I shall send
you to Bermuda; and if you leave that island, I declare you guilty of
high-treason.” Lord Melbourne deprecated such rigid criticism. He owned
that the clause in the ordinance which related to Bermuda was an error
on the part of Lord Durham, but he declared his belief that the whole
of the remainder was perfectly legal, and warranted by the powers which
parliament had committed to the noble governor of Canada. On the other
hand Lord Ellenborough contended that all the penal provisions of the
ordinance were illegal, and that the whole transaction was alien from
the spirit of British jurisprudence. The Duke of Wellington said that
he did not approve of the constant attacks on Lord Durham; but he really
thought that steps should be taken to set the government of Canada right
on proceedings which appeared to be illegal. Lord Brougham followed up
the course he had taken on the following night by introducing a bill
“for declaring the true intent and meaning of an act passed in the
present session of parliament, intituled ‘An act to make temporary
provisions for the government of Lower Canada,’ and for indemnifying
those who have issued or acted under a certain ordinance made under
colour of the said act.” This bill was read a first time in silence,
but on the second reading on the 9th of August, Lord Brougham, by way
of preface, propounded certain “canons of policy” by which the
administration of the government of Lower Canada, during the suspension
of the constitution ought, in his opinion, to have been directed. The
bill introduced by Lord Brougham was so loosely framed that it afforded
Lord Glenelg fair occasion for criticism. He availed himself of
this opportunity of encountering his adversary with some effect. In
conclusion, Lord Glenelg observed that the bill before the house was not
a mere declaratory act, but a new law restricting the powers which the
act of that session had already conferred upon the governor of Canada.
It would be inexpedient and extraordinary, if, having invested Lord
Durham with plenary authority, they were suddenly to abridge the powers
which he had been led to suppose he possessed. A warm and acrimonious
debate was maintained by the Earl of Ripon, the Duke of Wellington, and
other opposition peers on the one hand, and Lord Melbourne and the lord
chancellor on the other. The two ex-chancellors made themselves very
remarkable on this occasion, Lord Brougham manifesting the utmost
excitement, and the most bitter personal hostility to Lord Durham,
to whose instrumentality he attributed his being overlooked by Lord
Melbourne in his cabinet arrangements. Lord Lyndhurst did the excellent
qualities of Lord Durham justice, and displayed a calmness in debate
which contrasted strikingly with the irritability and personalities of
Lord Brougham. The debate brought forcibly to light the disposition of
Lord Durham to carry matters with a high hand in his new government,
and his deficiency in that wariness and prudence so essential to a chief
governor. After a few remarks from Lord Brougham, the bill was read
a second time by a majority of fifty-four against thirty-six. On the
following day Lord Melbourne informed the house that ministers had
resolved to advise the queen to disallow of the whole ordinance. It was
with the deepest regret and alarm that they had taken this course; nor
was it without the greatest apprehension of the consequences that they
had come to this determination. His lordship then intimated his approval
of the indemnity bill, and that he should in a future stage of the
proceedings move a clause explanatory of Sir William Follett’s proviso.
Lord Brougham commended ministers for their “judicious, wise, politic,
and most virtuous resolution.” The Duke of Wellington was by no means
inclined to sanction Lord Melbourne’s proposed explanation of the
proviso: Sir John Colborne had acted under the law as it stood, and
must have found it sufficient for the purpose. The Marquis of Lansdowne
remarked, that if the noble lords opposite acquiesced in the mode in
which Sir John Colborne had exercised his authority; if they admitted
that he had not exceeded the law, Lord Melbourne’s proposed clause would
be unnecessary. That gentleman had been permitted to pass an act
of attainder, which had lain unnoticed on the table for six weeks.
Ministers only claimed for Lord Durham the power which was conceded to
his predecessor: he desired to know whether Sir John Colborne had acted
in conformity with the law. Lord Brougham replied, that Lord Durham’s
powers were coextensive with those of Sir John Colborne; but as to
whether or not that officer had exceeded the limits of his authority, he
begged to say that he did not feel himself at liberty to answer. It
is quite clear, indeed, that no noble lord could have answered this
question satisfactorily; for if Lord Durham had been guilty in passing
an act of attainder, the same guilt must have attached to Sir John
Colborne; and if the one had been pronounced innocent, the other must
have shared in his innocence. This question, which was one of the
greatest importance, however, was allowed to pass over; and in the
course of the evening Lord Melbourne moved the insertion of his
explanatory clause, which, after reciting the proviso, proceeded to
declare, that it should not extend to prevent the governor and council
from passing such laws as might be necessary for the safety of the
province, or from providing for the punishment or detention of persons
engaged in conspiracies against the government. By the results of this
clause, in fact, and the discussions which followed, Lord Brougham’s
bill was stripped of its declaratory character, and reduced to a mere
act of indemnity to the parties concerned in the transportation and
detention of the Bermuda prisoners. In this mutilated condition Lord
Brougham moved the third reading of the bill, which he did with evident
reluctance, inasmuch as he rightly considered that its chief value lay
in its declaratory character. “As I have been accidentally mixed up with
this business,” said his lordship, “I have no hesitation in moving the
third reading of the bill, as it now stands, although quite sensible
that I am making that motion on the part of her majesty’s government.”
 On this occasion the lord-chief-justice Denman spoke on the question for
the first time. His objections to the ordinance were directed to a gross
violation of the constitution. As to the indemnity, he was entirely
opposed to it; the passing of such bills was one of the most
unjustifiable practices of parliament. Publie functionaries might
be justified by their good intentions in overstepping the law; but
parliament had no right to say to the parties who had suffered by such
excess of authority, “You can have no redress against those persons who
have wronged you, because it is our pleasure to indemnify them.” “If
indeed,” he continued, “parliament are of opinion that individuals,
actuated by a good and upright intention, and only zealous for
the public service, have broken the laws, let them indemnify those
individuals out of the public purse, against the consequences of the
legal proceedings that may be instituted; but let them not leave the
injured party without a remedy.” The bill was finally read a third time,
and passed in the lords.

Lord Brougham’s bill was introduced into the house of commons on the
13th of August, and read a first and second time without any discussion.
On the following day, however, Lord John Russell brought the subject
before the house. His lordship said it was his intention to submit to
the house of commons a proposal which he made with extreme reluctance;
namely, that they should assent to the bill as it came down from the
lords without any amendment. He presumed that no objection would be made
to the indemnity which it was the object of the bill to provide; and he
then explained in what sense he understood the act for governing Canada.
The discussion which ensued was similar in argument and spirit to the
debates in the house of lords. The house went into committee on the
bill. No amendments were introduced; and on the 15th of August Lord
John Russell moved the third reading, which, after a short debate, was
carried without a division.




QUEEN PROROGUES PARLIAMENT.

The queen prorogued parliament on the 16th of August. Being seated on
the throne her majesty was addressed by the speaker of the house of
commons on the subject of the suspension of the constitution of Lower
Canada, and the Irish poor-law and tithe bills. The queen then gave the
royal assent to a series of bills, after which she proceeded to read the
speech. In the speech her majesty lamented that war still continued in
Spain; adverted to the affairs of Canada; noticed the progress which
had been made towards the entire abolition of negro-apprenticeship; made
some approving observations on the attention which had been bestowed
upon the amendment of the domestic institutions of the country; thanked
the commons for providing for the expenses of her household, &c.; and
expressed her satisfaction in having given her assent to a bill for the
relief of the destitute poor in Ireland. Her majesty concluded thus: “My
lords and gentlemen,—The many useful measures which you have been able
to consider, while the settlement of the civil list and the state of
Canada demanded so much of your attention, are a satisfactory proof
of your zeal for the public good. You are so well acquainted with the
duties which now devolve upon you in your respective counties, that it
is unnecessary to remind you of them, In the discharge of them you may
securely rely upon my firm support; and it only remains to express an
humble hope that Divine Providence may watch over us all, and prosper
our united efforts for the welfare of our country.”




DISAFFECTION AMONG THE WORKING CLASSES.

During the autumn of this year a turbulent spirit displayed itself among
the working classes in the manufacturing districts. Meetings were held
in various quarters, and demagogues addressed the assembled multitudes
in the most inflammatory language. The twofold cause of this
disaffection was the poor-laws and the price of bread; and as a remedy
for these evils the people were taught to ask for universal suffrage.
A favourite practice with the parties to these transactions was to
assemble by torchlight in the open air—a practice which gave a mystery
to the meetings well calculated to strike the imagination of the vulgar,
and which gave those whose employment did not admit of their being
present in the daytime, an opportunity of attending them. The speeches
delivered at these meetings have been well characterized as “furious
nonsense;” but at the same time they were calculated to work mischief
in the community. Happily, however, the Whigs were in office, and for
their own interest’s sake they restrained these ebullitions. Had there
been a Conservative government, possibly the danger might have been
greater.




PROPOSED REDUCTION OF THE RATES OF POSTAGE.

At this time the question of an alteration in the rates of postage was
beginning to occupy attention. A proposal was submitted to the country
by Mr. Rowland Hill, for substituting a uniform rate of one penny upon
every half-ounce, without any reference to distance. This scheme was
loudly applauded by all classes of society; and the subject was referred
to a committee of the house of commons. The report of this committee
was, that the high rates of postage then in existence were extremely
injurious to the community, interfering with moral and social
improvement; restricting commercial enterprise; impairing general
national prosperity; restraining the progress of art and science;
circumscribing the operations of religious societies, and acting as a
grievous tax upon the poor. The report further stated that the illicit
conveyance of letters prevailed to a great extent, and was on the
increase; that the law was impotent to arrest the practice; and that the
only mode of effectually suppressing it would be to reduce the charges
to the standard of the contraband carrier. The report recommended that,
prior to the establishment of an uniform rate of one penny, a similar
rate of twopence per half-ounce on inland general-post letters should be
adopted at the rate of one penny with every additional half-ounce, with
certain exceptions. It further suggested that as soon as the revenue
would bear a large temporary reduction, it would be expedient to subject
all inland letters to a penny postage the half-ounce, increasing at the
rate of one penny with every additional half-ounce. It advised also
that payment of postage should be required in advance; and for the
facilitation of this plan, recommended the adoption of stamped covers,
which should have the effect of franking the letters enclosed. The
use of these stamps was to be made compulsory as soon as justified by
experience. At this time, the report added, it was calculated the number
of letters, &c., passing through the post-offices of the United Kingdom
were from 75,000,000 to 80,000,000 annually; of which about 5,700,000
were general-post letters. The number of franks was about 7,000,000; and
of newspapers, 44,000,000.




THE STATE OF IRELAND.

As usual, Mr. O’Connell devoted his time during the parliamentary recess
to “agitation.” A series of manifestoes issued from his retreat at
Derrynane Abbey, all well calculated to stir up the evil passions
of human nature. Nor were these missiles the only instruments of his
agitation. On the very day of his arrival in Dublin, after parliament
was prorogued, he convened a meeting of his constituents for the morrow,
in order to take into consideration “ulterior measures, to procure from
the British legislature ‘full justice for Ireland,’ or to provide for
the contingency of a perseverance in the refusal of that legislature to
right the people of Ireland.” Accordingly, a large concourse of people
assembled at the Corn-exchange, and were addressed by the demagogue
in that braggart style which he well knew would win its way to their
feelings. In his speech Mr. O’Connell intimated his intention of forming
a new association, the exertions of which were to be directed to obtain
for Ireland a greater share in the representation of the United Kingdom.
He developed his plan for accomplishing this design in a series of
letters to the people. In these letters he founded his allegation, that
Ireland had not her fair proportion of members of the house of commons,
on this data. By the last census it appeared that the population
of England and Wales was 13,899,675; of Scotland, 2,365,930; and of
Ireland, 7,943,940. Scotland, he said, had fifty-three representatives,
while Ireland had only one hundred and five; so that the Scotch had more
than half the number of representatives possessed by the Irish; whereas,
in order to be on an equality, the latter ought to have one hundred and
fifty-nine. In order to be on an equality with the English, he said,
they ought to have one hundred and sixty-six; but Mr. O’Connell said
that he would be satisfied with one hundred and fifty. In order to
obtain that number he proposed the organization of an association
sufficiently numerous to speak the sentiments of all Ireland. For this
purpose, he said, the “Precursor Society” had been established, and
was now in progress of enrolment. Mr. T. M. Ray was secretary to the
“Precursor Society,” and to become a member it was necessary to pay
him one shilling at the enrolment. All the population might have the
privilege of enrolment—men, women, and children—for the more shillings
that were paid, the better for the pockets of the agitators. The
operations of the society was to be conducted by local boards,
corresponding with that over which Mr. Ray presided at the Corn-exchange
Rooms, Dublin. The duty of the “Precursor Society,” in every parish,
was to procure petitions to parliament for “justice to Ireland;” for a
corporate reform; for an amendment of the law of election, and extension
of the suffrage, and an increase of representatives. The precursors
were also instructed to furnish accurate details of the state of the
franchise in every parish, and to keep up and extend the registry. This
was what Mr. O’Connell designated in one of his letters as “one great
experiment more to obtain justice;” and if this failed, then he would
have repeal.




THE AFFAIRS OF CANADA.

It has been seen in the parliamentary debates that the affairs of Canada
were in a very unsettled state; it is now necessary, however, to give
a brief account of the transactions which had taken place in that
province.

During several preceding years great dissensions had existed in Lower
Canada; and in the year 1837 these dissensions broke out into open
insurrection. The provincial parliament of that province assembled on
the 18th of August; but from its refractory conduct Lord Gosford was
compelled to prorogue it. He had no other alternative but to dismiss
the members, since they plainly declared that they suspended all
deliberation until the consummation of the reforms announced by and
in the name of the imperial authorities. On the prorogation of the
provincial parliament everything denoted imminent troubles. The
authorities were on the alert; and plans were formed for the effective
disposition of the small force that the local government possessed. Nor
were the loyalists inactive: a great meeting was held at Montreal, at
which resolutions were adopted in support of the British government.
These resolutions were followed up by the formation of regiments of
volunteers, thus showing a steady determination to carry them out to the
utmost. But, notwithstanding all this, the French party, or patriots,
convened a great meeting in the county of Richelieu, which they termed
“the meeting of the five counties,” at which place delegates were
collected from the various parishes. The people met in a large meadow;
and in this meadow was erected a column, surmounted with a cap of
liberty, and bearing this inscription:—“To Papineau, by his grateful
brother patriots.” Papineau was there; and after haranguing the
multitude with other leaders of the faction, and a string of
insurrectionary resolutions having been passed, the transatlantic
demagogue was conducted to the foot of the column, where an address was
delivered to him by one of his brother agitators. The proceedings of the
day terminated with a procession of young men, who, marching up to
the pillar, sung a patriotic hymn, and, with their hands placed on the
column, devoted themselves to their country. Mischief was now fairly
afloat. Soon after this a collision took place in the streets of
Montreal between the “loyalists and patriots,” in which the latter were
defeated. The troops in Lower Canada were reinforced by two regiments
sent from Halifax; and Sir Francis Head placed the whole of the troops
stationed in Upper Canada at the disposal of the Lower, although there
were symptoms of disaffection within his jurisdiction. Still rebellion
continued. Every day displayed a new manifestation of an intended
rising: on the one side men assembled in arms, using threatening
language; and on the other the magistrates issued proclamations and
warrants, which the military were called on to enforce. On one occasion
a party of volunteer cavalry, who composed the escort of some prisoners,
was waylaid by an overpowering assemblage of insurgents, who, receiving
them with a galling fire, put them to the rout, and rescued the
prisoners. Before the close of the last year many of the leaders of the
faction were in prison, and more of them, among whom was M. Papineau,
had withdrawn to a place of safety.

The insurrection in Lower Canada rendered it necessary for the British
government to appoint a species of dictatorial governor, one who should
possess the power of making temporary provision for the government of
Canada. It has been already seen that Lord Durham was selected for this
important mission, and that he had arrived in the province. Before,
however, relating the particulars of his government, it is necessary to
take a retrospective view of events in Upper Canada.

Sir Francis Head at this time was governor of the upper province of
Canada; and at the period when he arrived there a Mr. Lyon Mackenzie,
who had originally emigrated from Scotland, was a principal leader of
the “Reform,” or malcontent party in the province. In the year 1832 Mr.
Mackenzie made his appearance in London, as the agent of his party;
and in that capacity he was received with every mark of respect. Mr.
Mackenzie, in fact, was so successful in his mission as to procure
the removal of the attorney and solicitor-generals from their posts, a
penalty which they paid for the part they had taken in joining in a
vote which had expelled their antagonist from the house of assembly. He
returned in triumph to Upper Canada; and, supported by the approval
of the English cabinet, succeeded in regaining a seat in the house
of assembly. At the ensuing election “the reformers” obtained a
large majority in that assembly; and the result was that a “grievance
committee” was appointed, which committee made a report that was
subsequently transmitted to England. It was to redress the grievances
therein stated that Sir Francis Head was despatched to Canada; and he
was hailed on his arrival there as a “tried reformer.” His appearance
under such circumstances naturally excited the distrust of the
loyalists, who gave indications of their dissatisfaction. Sir Francis
Head, however, was nothing daunted at this demonstration; he had the
grievances of Upper Canada to redress, and he had the remedies; and
whether the Tories liked the medicine or not, he did not care a straw.
At the same time he soon gave an intimation to the Republican leaders
that he was not the kind of man they believed him to be. Beyond the
grievances they had enumerated in the report, they had a variety of
others hitherto unmentioned; and when this was intimated to him, he gave
a distinct intimation that he should not take these into consideration.
His graphic account of his interview will well illustrate the manner
in which he treated the Republicans. He says,—“When Mr. Mackenzie,
bringing with him a letter of introduction from Mr. Hume, called upon
me, I thought that of course he would be too happy to discuss with
me the contents of the report; but his mind seemed to nauseate
its subjects. Afraid to look me in the face, he sat with his feet
not-reaching the ground, and with his countenance averted from me at
an angle of about seventy degrees, while, with the eccentricity, the
volubility, and, indeed, the appearance of a madman, the tiny creature
raved in all directions about grievances here, and grievances there,
which the committee, he said, had not ventured, to enumerate. ‘Sir,’
I exclaimed, ‘let us cure what we have got here first!’ pointing to the
report before me. But no; nothing that I could say would induce this
pedlar to face his own report; and I soon found that it had the same
effect upon all the members, and that, like the repelling end of a
magnet, I had only to present it to the Radicals to drive them from the
very object which his majesty’s government expected would have
possessed attractions.” On his arrival Sir Francis Head promulgated his
instructions; a step which had the effect of precipitating matters in
Lower Canada. He then proceeded to act, by adding three Reformers to
his executive council, making the total number six. By this means the
executive council was brought into unison with the majority of the house
of assembly. Thus favoured, in furtherance of the views of that body as
then constituted, the board requested the governor to bestow upon it a
considerable enlargement of its powers. But this sealed the fate of the
executive council. Instead of granting their request, Sir Francis, who
had already become hostile to the Reformers, dismissed the whole of
the members of which the council was composed. This brought him into
collision with the house of assembly; the supplies were stopped, and
violent and condemnatory addresses drawn up. Sir Francis, however,
fought them with their own weapons; when they stopped the supplies, he
refused to assent to bills providing for their own contingencies; and
in April, 1836, first prorogued, and then dissolved his exasperated
parliament. The next assembly presented a majority of opposite politics
to the last, and Sir Francis had everything his own way: he “rode on a
full tide of popularity.” Still he was beset with difficulties on every
hand; and his mode of governing was of so novel and experimental a
nature, that it was evident he must sooner or later become offensive to
his superiors at home. Before the close of the year, indeed, he found
himself in collision with Lord Glenelg. During that period and in the
following year he addressed several memorandums to the colonial office,
in which he gave a description of the political state of Canada, and
offered his advice as to what measures were necessary for its good
government. It must be confessed that his views were generally of the
most eccentric character; and hence they were either unnoticed by the
government at home, or he was given to understand that they were not
thought worthy to be included among those submitted to the imperial
government. The points at issue between Sir Francis and his superiors
progressively accumulated, until at length the lieutenant-governor
broke out into insubordination, and thereby made his recall a matter
of necessity. But before his recall, and while the correspondence was
passing between Sir Francis and Lord Glenelg, an insurrection broke out,
which was headed by Mr. Mackenzie: Toronto was attacked by him, bearing
on his colours the name of “Bidwell,” the judge-elect for the court
of Queen’s Bench. This attack failed, and it became incumbent on Sir
Francis Head’s successor, Major-general Sir George Arthur, to institute
proceedings against some of those engaged in the outbreak, who had been
taken prisoners. Among these were Samuel Lount, a native of the United
States, and Peter Mathews, an Upper Canadian, both of them men of
considerable property. Mathews had headed a party, and attacked the
city, when Sir Francis Head was shut up in the Town-hall; on which
occasion a bridge and several houses were set on fire. Being brought to
trial they pleaded guilty, and were sentenced to death—a sentence that
was executed on them. Upon being informed of this event, Lord Glenelg
wrote to express his regret that these severities should have been
deemed requisite, and expressed a hope that no similar necessity might
recur. No more of the offenders suffered capital punishment; but great
embarrassment was occasioned by the number of prisoners, it being alike
inexpedient to pardon and inconvenient to punish. Sir Francis Head had
instituted a board of commissioners, with the vice-chancellor of the
province at their head, for the purpose of investigating the cases,
and classifying the offenders according to their guilt. A considerable
number were finally discharged on bail; others were bound over to
keep the peace; some were set at liberty; and of the remainder, a
few, principally Americans, were banished from the province; while the
residue, for the most part men of property and influence, were sentenced
to transportation to the penal colonies. But while the government
was occupied in the disposal of these prisoners, the marauders on the
American side of the border were making preparations for a renewal
of hostilities; and on the 30th of May, 1838, a band of these outlaws
boarded the Sir Robert Peel British steamer at Well’s Island, situated
in the river St. Lawrence, and belonging to the United States. The
passengers were robbed of everything, and the vessel was set on fire and
then abandoned. Lord Durham, who had just arrived, offered £1,000 reward
for the discovery and conviction of the offenders; but the marauders
set the authorities, British as well as American, at defiance. Johnson,
their commander, celebrated for his address and courage, became the
terror of the coast, and executed his schemes of plunder with success
and impunity. During the summer and autumn the preparations for invasion
continued to be conducted on the American border without any attempt at
concealment, and the alarm of the Canadians was naturally proportionate
to the danger. Sir George Arthur devoted himself with the greatest
assiduity to the defence of the province upon an extensive scale;
but the known lenity of Lord Durham had excited a strong feeling of
dissatisfaction in the upper province, and had created a feeling of
lukewarmness, against which it was difficult to work. On the other hand,
Lord Durham thought that the local government had erred on the opposite
side of severity. On this subject he wrote to the government at
home:—“It cannot be doubted that events of the past year have greatly
increased the difficulty of settling the disorders of Upper Canada. A
degree of discontent, approaching, if not amounting to disaffection, has
gained considerable ground. The causes of dissatisfaction continue to
act on the minds of the reformers; and their hope of redress, under the
present order of things, has been seriously diminished. The exasperation
caused by the conflict itself, the suspicions and terrors of that trying
period, and the use made by the triumphant party of the power thrown
into their hands, have heightened the passions which existed before.
It certainly appeared too much as if the rebellion had been purposely
invited by the government, and the unfortunate men who took part in it,
deliberately drawn into a trap by those who subsequently inflicted so
severe a punishment on them for their error.”

It seemed, too, as if the dominant party made use of the occasion
afforded by the real guilt of a few desperate and imprudent men,
in order to persecute or disable the whole body of their political
opponents. A great number of perfectly innocent individuals were thrown
into prison, and suffered in person, property, and character. The
whole body of reformers were subjected to suspicion, and to harassing
proceedings, instituted by magistrates whose political leanings were
notoriously adverse to them. Severe laws were passed, under colour of
which individuals very generally esteemed were punished without any form
of trial—I make no mention of the reasons which, in the opinion of the
local government, rendered those different steps advisable, because my
object is not to discuss the propriety of its conduct, but to point
out the effects which it necessarily had in augmenting irritation.
The revolt in Lower Canada has been noticed at the commencement of this
article. After this event Lord Gosford was recalled, and during the
interval between his departure, and the arrival of Lord Durham, the
functions of government in that province devolved on Sir John Colborne.
The first care of Sir John, after the termination of the revolt,
concerned the disposal of the prisoners, of whom a great number remained
in custody. In the whole, about three hundred and twenty-six were
from time to time liberated, leaving about one hundred and sixty in
confinement, among whom seventy-two stood charged with being among the
principal promoters of the insurrection. It was not expected that any of
these would be convicted if tried by ordinary juries; but Lord Glenelg
being informed of this, declined to sanction a resort to any other
species of court, without previously submitting as a practical test
the anticipations as to the issues of the ordinary tribunals. Sir
John Colborne was instructed to take steps for reducing the number of
prisoners still remaining, by allowing some of them after arraignment to
plead guilty, on the assurance that the judgment recorded against them
should not be executed, if they would consent to leave the province.
From the remaining number he was directed to select four or five cases,
and bring them before the ordinary courts of the province, the juries
being convened according to the existing practice; but in case this line
of proceeding should not appear expedient, it was suggested that a
law should be passed, suspending the _habeas corpus_ act, and that
the prisoners should be detained until Lord Durham’s arrival. Sir
John Colborne adopted this latter course, being little disposed to try
state-prisoners under what he considered a certainty of their acquittal.
In the meantime, however, the news arrived of the new act of parliament,
which provisionally invested him with the powers which were eventually
to devolve on Lord Durham. In pursuance of his fresh instructions he
proceeded to nominate provisionally a special council, consisting
of twenty-one members, of whom eleven were French Canadians, and two
natives of the province. After preparing a series of “rules and orders”
 for the better conduct of their deliberations, this council proceeded to
pass ordinances for such domestic objects as would have come before the
local parliaments in the ordinary course, and to take necessary measures
to meet the peculiar exigencies of the time. Among the latter class may
be mentioned enactments suspending the _habeas corpus_, and imposing
certain restrictions on the publishers of newspapers. An ordinance
was also passed to continue the local act for the transportation of
offenders from the province to England, and from thence to New South
Wales and Van Diemen’s Land; an act which was on the point of expiring.
By a second ordinance it was provided that, upon the petition of any
person charged with high treason committed in the province, it should
be lawful for the person administering the government, before the
arraignment of the offender, to grant a pardon upon such terms as should
seem proper, which pardon should have the same effect as an attainder,
so far as regarded the forfeiture of the real and personal estate of
the person therein named; and further, that in case any person should be
pardoned under that ordinance, upon condition of being transported,
or of voluntary banishment, either for life or for a shorter time,
and should afterwards return without lawful excuse, contrary to the
condition of his pardon, he should be deemed guilty of felony, and
forfeit his life. By a third ordinance it was enacted that if a person
against whom an indictment for treason was found by a grand-jury in
the province would not appear, he might be summoned by proclamation to
surrender himself by a given day, such day not to be less than three
months from the date of the proclamation; and in the event of his
failing to do so, should stand and be adjudged attainted of the crime
expressed in the indictment, and suffer and forfeit accordingly, and
judgment be recorded to that effect. After issuing these ordinances,
with others of minor importance, and after repealing martial-law in the
district of Montreal, on the 5th of May the council was prorogued.
On the 29th of the same month Lord Durham arrived at Quebec, and
immediately proceeded to the council-chamber at the castle, and took
possession of the government with the accustomed formalities. His first
act was to issue a proclamation, assuring the people that he appeared
among them as a friend and arbitrator, ready at all times to listen to
them without respect to party, race, or politics. On the 31st of May he
addressed a circular to the respective members of the executive council,
dispensing with their services, having previously formed another,
composed of the secretaries to the general government; namely, C.
Buller, Esq., M.P., chief secretary; T. E. M. Turton, Esq., secretary;
Colonel G. Couper, military secretary; the provincial secretary; and the
commissary-general. Among the earliest measures of Lord Durham was the
mission of Colonel Grey to Washington, with instructions to expostulate
with the American government on the state of things existing on its own
borders. Colonel Grey obtained the fullest assurances of the president
that the American government desired to preserve the good understanding
existing with England, and ample promises of co-operation in any
measures which Lord Durham might think necessary to adopt for restoring
the peace of the frontier. A more difficult affair for Lord Durham to
settle was the disposal of the state prisoners. His lordship himself
remarked that it was “by far the most delicate and dangerous” of all the
matters requiring settlement. The manner in which his lordship settled
this question has already been seen in the record of the recent debates
in parliament. Having appointed a special council, consisting of
five members only, he, with the sanction of this council, issued an
ordinance, which, after reciting that Wolf Nelson, and seven others
therein named, had acknowledged their participation in high-treason, and
submitted themselves to her majesty’s pleasure, and that Papineau with
fifteen others had absconded, enacted that it should be lawful for her
majesty to transport Nelson and his seven associates to Bermuda, during
pleasure, there to be subjected to such restraints as should be deemed
fit; and further, that if any person of the above classes should be
found at large, or within the province without permission, they should
be deemed guilty of high-treason, and on conviction of coming within the
province, suffer death. The ordinance further empowered the governor
for the time being to grant, whenever he should think fit, permission to
all, or any, of the above-named individuals to return to the province.
By a special clause two other classes of persons implicated in the
murder of Lieutenant Weir and one Joseph Chartrand, were excluded from
the operation of the ordinance, and from the benefit of any amnesty
which might be proclaimed. The ordinance was accompanied by a
proclamation of amnesty, which declared that, with the exception of
the persons named therein, all persons then in custody on a charge of
high-treason, or who had withdrawn themselves from justice beyond the
limits of the province, should, on giving proper security, be at liberty
to return to their own homes. What views were taken in the imperial
parliament has been seen. During the debates there, Lord Durham applied
himself to the consideration of questions connected with the management
of the crown-lands within his dominion. He formed a design for making
these lands more subservient to the purpose of emigration than they
had hitherto been. A commission of inquiry into the disposal of the
crown-lands to that end was issued by him, and he directed similar
investigations to be instituted in the other colonies subject to his
control. Subsequently his lordship commenced a progress through the two
provinces; and, according to his despatches, he was warmly greeted on
every hand. He writes:—“Everywhere, in the most insignificant village,
as in the most populous town, I have been received with the utmost
enthusiasm: in fact, in no part of England have I ever been more warmly
greeted, or received more unequivocal marks of respect from all ranks
and classes. I announce this fact with much satisfaction, as it is
an unerring mark of the feelings with which the measures which I have
adopted for the public good have been regarded by the great majority of
the inhabitants of the two provinces.” It is quite clear, however, that
Lord Durham had not conciliated the great body of the people. During the
month of September, those who were charged with the crime of murdering
the French Canadian, Chartrand, were tried, and although they were
arraigned before a jury consisting exclusively of French Canadians, and
were moreover notoriously guilty, they were acquitted. On this subject,
in one of his reports, Lord Durham says:—“A perusal of the notes
of the chief-justice in this case, will satisfy every candid and
well-ordered mind, that a base and cruel assassination, committed
without a single circumstance of provocation or palliation, was brought
home by evidence, which no man ever pretended to doubt, against the
prisoners, whom the jury nevertheless acquitted. The duty of giving this
dishonest verdict had been most assiduously inculcated by the French
press before the trial came on; the jurors are said to have been kept
for some time in the hands of zealous partizans, whose business it was
not only to influence their inclination, but to stimulate their courage;
the array of the leaders of the party who were present at the trial, was
supposed to be collected for the same purpose; and it is notorious that
the acquittal was celebrated at public entertainments, to which the
jurors were invited, in order that they might be thanked for their
verdict.” This intelligence seems to have had the effect of opening
the eyes of Lord Glenelg and his colleagues, as to the impolicy of the
restrictions which had been imposed upon the colonial authorities with
respect to the trial of political offenders. In his reply, Lord Glenelg
stated that it was the desire of her majesty’s government that an
ordinance should be passed by the special council of Lower Canada,
constituting a tribunal for the trial of treason and murder; leaving it
to Lord Durham’s own discretion how such a tribunal should be formed. It
does not appear, however, that Lord Durham adopted any plan for securing
the conviction of such offenders as it might be deemed expedient to
bring to trial. He scarcely, indeed, had an opportunity of making
any alteration in the criminal law. Soon after Lord Glenelg had
given directions on that point, he was compelled to communicate the
determination of ministers to annul his celebrated ordinance. After
informing him that so much of that edict as related to the Bermudas was
generally admitted to be invalid, and that in all other respects
the law-officers of the crown thought its provisions were within
the competency of the governor and special council; he said that, in
consequence of the discussions in parliament, and the unpopularity
of the penal parts of the ordinance, government, though reluctantly,
advised her majesty to disallow the ordinance. Lord Glenelg then
proceeded to direct Lord Durham, with a view of preventing the return of
the prisoners from Bermuda, to pass an ordinance subjecting them to such
penalty, short of death, as might be thought expedient, in the event of
their being convicted of returning to the province without permission.
With regard to those who had previously fled from justice, it was
suggested it might be sufficient by proclamation to make it known that,
should they re-enter the province, they would be forthwith arrested, and
dealt with according to law, on the charge of treason. The expediency
of suspending the _habeas corpus_ act was pointed out; and the despatch
concluded with an assurance of the earnest desire of ministers to afford
Lord Durham the utmost support in the arduous discharge of his duties.
Before these instructions were received, however, Lord Durham had
despatched a letter notifying his resolution to resign his office.
In this letter he dwelt on the incessant persecutions to which he was
exposed in the house of lords; the backwardness of ministers in his
defence; and the injurious effects of these circumstances upon the
moral authority of his government. “Upon two things,” said he, “could I
chiefly rely for ultimate success: first, the great extent of the legal
powers conferred upon me; secondly, the impression which prevailed
throughout the colonies, that I might reckon with perfect confidence on
the undeviating support and approval of the government.” Deprived of
these by the proceedings in question, he proceeded to say, the prestige
of his situation was gone for ever, and he had resolved to quit his
untenable post, Soon after this, Lord Durham forwarded to Lord Glenelg a
statement of the grounds upon which he was prepared to maintain that no
part of the ordinance was illegal, however imperative it might, and must
of necessity be without assistance and co-operation at home. In another
paper, of the same date, he entered at great length into an examination
of the conduct of ministers in the late proceedings, arraigning them
with great severity for deserting him in the hour of need. He asked,
“in what their opposition to the second reading of Lord Brougham’s bill
consisted? In a concession far more calculated to weaken my hands than
would have been any vote of the house of lords, in which it is notorious
that her majesty’s government have never commanded a majority.” His
lordship added, “A vote of the house of lords adverse to her majesty’s
government, or merely condemnatory of any proceedings of mine, would
have been considered almost as a matter of course in the present
state of parties; and would, if it had been decidedly opposed by the
ministers, have left my authority untouched, because it would have been
attributed to the mere party motives of a powerful opposition.” After
remonstrating against the conduct of ministers, Lord Durham proceeded
to vindicate his policy. As regarded the particular defect of the
ordinance, his lordship contended that he had power to banish people
from the province, to keep them in custody during the transit, and
to land them at Bermuda or elsewhere. At the same time his lordship
admitted that his jurisdiction did not extend further: once landed in
Bermuda, the prisoners were subject only to the laws of the island.
Lord Durham, after justifying his policy, made some remarks on the
impossibility of governing the country with any effect; and then
proceeded to consider Lord Glenelg’s suggestions of the course which it
was advisable to adopt in the present emergency. His lordship treated
the suggestion of another ordinance, banishing from the province the
eight persons who had been sent to Bermuda, as futile; and stated that
he had strong objections to the suspension of the _habeas corpus_. He
remarked:—“Men’s notions of right and freedom would be more shocked at
such an universal violation of every man’s dearest rights, than by any
summary process adopted for the punishment of the undeniable guilt of
a few. In the event of a general outbreak, it might be proper that the
government should be armed with the power of arresting objects of its
suspicion without trial. But there existed no such necessity at present;
and he did not think it justifiable to take away the franchise of a
whole people, in order to punish a few known and dangerous individuals,
or to guard against the misconduct of twenty-three men, by enveloping
them in a general forfeiture of personal liberty.” In conclusion Lord
Durham intimated his intention of remaining a few weeks longer, only in
order to complete certain measures then in progress. Upon the receipt
of Lord Durham’s first announcement of his intention to throw up his
office, Lord Glenelg endeavoured to soothe his mind, by acknowledging
that he had much reason to complain; and entreated him, upon public
grounds, to reconsider his decision. His lordship, however, remained
firm: he retained office only until arrangements had been made for
some one to assume the reins of government. Before he left Canada he
proclaimed the act of indemnity, and notified her majesty’s disallowance
of the ordinance. He accompanied the promulgation of these acts with a
manifesto, in which he forgot alike what was due to the country and to
himself. The tendency of this manifesto will be seen by Lord Glenelg’s
remarks upon it. He observed:—“The proclamation of the 9th of October,
her majesty’s confidential advisers regard not merely as a deviation
from the course which has hitherto been invariably pursued by the
governors of British possessions abroad, but as a dangerous departure
from the practice and principles of the constitution. They consider as
open to a most serious objection an appeal by such an officer to the
public at large, from measures adopted by the sovereign, with the advice
and consent of parliament. The terms in which that appeal has been made,
in this instance, appear to her majesty’s ministers calculated to impair
the reverence due to the royal authority, to derogate from the character
of the imperial legislature, to excite amongst the disaffected hopes
of impunity, and to enhance the difficulties with which your lordship’s
successor will have to contend. The ministers of the crown having humbly
submitted this opinion to the queen, it is my duty to inform you that
I have received her majesty’s commands to signify to your lordship her
majesty’s disapprobation of your proclamation of the 9th of October.
Under these circumstances, her majesty’s government are prepared to
admit that your continuance in the government of British North America
could be attended with no beneficial result.” Lord Durham’s manifesto
was deservedly condemned by all parties, as unbecoming the office and
character of the queen’s representative: it procured for him, in the
_Times_ newspaper, the unenviable title of “the lord-high seditioner.”
 In Canada, however, it increased the golden opinions entertained of
him greatly. Public meetings were convened, and addresses expressive of
sorrow at his resignation poured in upon him from all quarters. At
home, also, there were those who admired his character and applauded his
conduct. His lordship sailed from Quebec on the 1st of November, and
on the 26th he arrived in Plymouth harbour. At Plymouth, Devonport, and
Exeter he received complimentary addresses, and unfortunately he was
betrayed upon these occasions into renewed indiscretions, the only
excuse for which could be that he had received most serious provocation.

In his reply to the addresses at Devonport and Plymouth, Lord Durham
boasted that he had “effaced the remains of a disastrous rebellion,”
 and “had conciliated the esteem of a great and powerful nation, in which
were to be found all the elements of danger or security to our North
American possessions.” Before he reached Exeter, however, where another
address awaited him, he was compelled to say that he had foreseen
another event, the intelligence of which had just been conveyed from
Liverpool—the renewal of the rebellion in Canada.

On the departure of Lord Durham, the government again provisionally
devolved upon Sir John Colborne. It was expected before he set sail that
a renewal of the rebellion would take place during the winter. On the
20th of October, indeed, his lordship had informed Lord Glenelg that
the indications of mischief were so numerous and urgent that it was no
longer possible to conceal a consciousness of danger. The indications
of conspiracy had, in fact, become undeniable. Throughout the French
population there existed a formidable organization, bound together by
oaths and secret signs. Knowing this, the loyalists in both provinces
either took up their abode in the towns, or fled altogether from the
British dominion. What made their situation the more critical was the
reluctance of the militia and volunteers to take up arms. This was
especially the case in Upper Canada, and it seems to have chiefly
originated in their dissatisfaction with the lenity of the government.
No sooner had Lord Durham departed than the danger became imminent.
Arrests took place at Montreal on the following night: domiciliary
visits were general; guards and pickets were dispersed in all parts of
the city, and its approaches occupied. It was originally intended by the
insurgents that the rising should take place at Montreal, on Sunday,
the 3rd instant, when the troops were unarmed, and at church. The
precautions of Sir John Colborne, however, defeated this scheme, and
Beauharnois was selected for the theatre of war. The _habitans_ were
now, therefore, once more in arms against the British crown. A numerous
party attacked the house of Mr. Ellice, late private secretary to Lord
Durham, and that gentleman with three others were carried away by the
rebels. On the same day an interesting incident occurred at Caughnawaga,
an Indian village. While at church, the Indians were informed that
a large body of armed men were secreted in their neighbourhood; and
rushing from the sacred walls, they hurried home, seized what arms came
to hand, raised the war-whoop, fell upon the enemy, and captured seventy
prisoners, with scarcely a show of resistance. The Indians conveyed
their prisoners to Montreal, bound with their own sashes and
garters; and when Sir John Colborne thanked the chief of the party, he
characteristically offered to bring in the scalp of every _habitant_ in
the vicinity within twenty-four hours. Sir John Colborne, however, did
not think it prudent to give him such a commission, though use of these
warriors was made during the struggle. Every day the number of the
insurgents increased. Between the 3rd and 6th of November, four thousand
were concentrated at Napierville, in La Prairie, under the command
of Dr. Robert Nelson, Dr. Cote, and one Gagnor. Upon this point
Major-general Sir James Macdonnell was directed to march; but before he
could arrive the rebels had dispersed, and were beyond pursuit. In
their route they were twice attacked and defeated by a small party of
volunteers, losing in the whole sixty men killed, and having about an
equal number wounded. The loyalist forces now scoured the insurgent
districts, and it was found impossible to prevent many excesses from
taking place. The village of Beauharnois was partially destroyed by
fire, and the houses of disaffected persons in every part shared the
same fate. But while the war was thus easily suppressed in Lower Canada,
their American coadjutors were actively engaged on their side. On the
evening of the 12th they effected a landing at a place called Prescott,
in Upper Canada, to the number of five hundred men, carrying with them
several field-pieces. These were, however, defeated by the troops under
the command of Colonel Dundas, Major McBean, Colonel Young, and Captain
Sandom. Nearly two hundred of them were taken, and conveyed to Kingston,
to be tried by court-martial; many were slain, and the rest escaped
across the river. Another attack was made by the American marauders on
the 4th of December, near Sandwich, at the western extremity of Upper
Canada. A steam-boat and the barracks were set on fire, and Dr. Hume,
a military surgeon, having fallen into their hands, was barbarously
murdered. On discovering this outrage, the militia, under the command
of Colonel Price, assembled, and on their approach the enemy fled.
Twenty-six of their number were slain in their flight, and twenty-five
captured.

In the meantime Sir John Colborne and his special council were busy in
the exercise of their legislative functions. Ordinances were passed for
substituting martial law, for suspending the _habeas corpus_, for the
attainder of persons against whom the sentence of courts-martial
should be given, and for preventing, by highly penal provisions, the
administering of unlawful oaths. It had been suggested by Lord Glenelg
to Lord Durham, that a special court for the trial of “rebels and
murderers” should be instituted. Sir John Colborne, however, preferred
to resort to courts-martial for the disposal of prisoners recently
captured. Soon after the dispersion of the insurgents, therefore, a
general court-martial was convened, and twelve prisoners, all of French
extraction, were arraigned before it. Two of these were acquitted, and
the rest were sentenced to death; a sentence, however, which was
only executed upon two of the most notorious—Cardinal, a notary, and
Duguette, a tavern-keeper, who had commanded in both insurrections.
In Upper Canada, where Sir George Arthur provisionally governed, the
difficulties attendant upon the disposal of the prisoners were greater.
The Upper Canadians demanded severity, and would not hear of mercy being
extended to men whom they deemed robbers and murderers. A court-martial
was assembled at Kingston for the trial of some of the recently captured
prisoners; and several of them, as Van Schoultz, a Pole, who commanded
the brigands, and three of his associates in command, Abbey, George, and
Woodruff, were executed. Not long afterwards five more of the prisoners,
three of whom had been engaged in the affair near Sandwich, suffered
the same fate. At this time, indeed, according to Sir George Arthur’s
report, the feelings of the loyal portion of the inhabitants of
the upper province, were in the highest degree exasperated. He
writes:—“Never was there a task more difficult than to decide what
course, under the existing circumstances of the country, should be
pursued, so as to combine the least possible violation of public feeling
with a sense of justice, preserving withal a due and necessary regard
to mercy in its administration; mercy not only as regards the prisoners,
whose fate was yet undecided, but which respectively has reference to
the lives that may hereafter be sacrificed by the adoption of a present
injudicious measure.”

It may be mentioned that while these events were transpiring in Upper
and Lower Canada, the remainder of the British North American provinces
were in perfect harmony with the British government. In Newfoundland,
indeed, there were the elements of discord between the colonial
legislature and their rulers, superadded to which were religious
dissensions; but these circumstances gave no cause for alarm. The broils
prevailing there owed their existence to Roman Catholic agitation; but
the Protestant interests were too strong to be shaken by them, or the
government disturbed.




THE STATE OF THE CONTINENT.

During the whole of this year the war still continued in Spain. The
Carlists were less successful and less enterprising than in the two
preceding years; but their cause was not yet hopeless. A body of them
was defeated at Yebenes, in the province of Toledo, and at Val de Penas
in New Castile, by Major-general Flinta; but shortly after this latter
defeat they took possession of Almaden, with its famous quicksilver
mines, the only element of credit remaining with the queen’s government.
Basilio Garcia, however, failed in his endeavours to destroy the works
of the mines; and having evacuated the town, retired into the mountains
of Toledo, whence he harassed the surrounding country, and levied heavy
contributions. While Basilio Garcia was carrying on war in Castile and
Grenada, another body of Carlists, under the command of Count Negri, was
making its way into the interior. He advanced as far as Segovia, but he
then turned to the northward; and after presenting himself to no purpose
before the walls of Valladolid, he hastened his retrograde march with
all possible diligence towards the mountains. In the meantime Basilio
Garcia had been again defeated at Bejar with great loss; and he hurried
with the remains of his column into the province of Soria, where he
effected a junction with Balmaseda. All this time Don Carlos was at
Estella; but on the 10th of May, the discontent of the Nayarese in his
service compelled him to withdraw to Tolosa. About this time Espartero,
who had been elevated to the rank of captain-general of Spain, commenced
active operations. He advanced to Pampeluna, and Don Carlos then removed
to Glorrio. A series of conflicts now took place; and the struggle
closed with the battle of Maella, in which Cabrera, who was the only
Carlist general who in this year increased his reputation, defeated
the Christino general, Pardinas, with great loss: out of 4,500 men only
1,500 men are said to have escaped: Pardinas himself was slain. But one
of the most important events that took place during this year in Spain
was an insurrection at Seville, headed by Cordova and Narvaez; this,
however, was quelled by the activity of Espartero.

The history of Portugal for the year is marked by no very striking
event. The efforts of the Cortes were chiefly directed to the averting
of the catastrophe of a national bankruptcy, which was effected by
the acceptation of a loan, conjointly tendered by the Mercantile
Association, and the Lisbon bank. Early in March a street riot took
place in the capital, and threw it into disorder for some few days; but
it did not produce any result beyond the bloodshed which it occasioned.
The Miguelite guerillas, however, ravaged Portugal, and especially
the southern provinces, more this year than they had hitherto done.
Remeihido, especially, who had been educated for the priesthood,
committed many daring acts; but in the course of the summer he was
attacked in his mountain-fastnesses by Colonel Fontoura, and after a
sharp conflict his band was routed, and himself captured: he was shot at
Faro.

In the month of March the king of Holland intimated to the conference
at London sitting on the Hollando-Belgic question, that “having been
constantly disappointed in his just expectations of being able to obtain
by negociation better terms for his beloved subjects, he had become
convinced that the only pledge which still remained for him to give of
his regard for their welfare, and the sole means to attain his object,
consisted in a full and entire assent on his part to the conditions of
separation which the courts of Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia,
and Russia, had declared to be unalterable and irrevocable.” His
majesty, therefore, declared his readiness to accept the twenty-four
articles which had been agreed upon in the year 1831. Belgium, however,
now refused to accede to the arrangement, by resolving not to cede
Luxembourg. But the conference insisted peremptorily on its cession;
and it was quite apparent that Belgium would be compelled to render
obedience to its decree.

It may be mentioned that an important treaty of amity, commerce, and
navigation, was this year concluded between Great Britain and Austria,
thus further cementing the ancient and natural alliance between two
countries, of whom it has been said, “that for one hundred and fifty
years they have always had the same enemies, though those enemies have
not been the same.”




CHAPTER L.

{VICTORIA. 1839—1840}

     State of Parties..... Meeting of Parliament..... The Corn-
     law Question..... The Affairs of Ireland discussed in
     Parliament..... Proceedings in Parliament respecting
     Jamaica..... Resignation of Ministers, and Failure of Sir
     Robert Peel to form a new Administration, &c. National
     Education..... The Affairs of Canada..... The second Jamaica
     Bill, &c. Bill for the Suppression of the Portuguese
     Slave trade, &c. Motion for the Ballot..... Act for the
     better ordering of Prisons..... Motion for a Committee of
     the whole House to consider the National Petition.....
     Birmingham Riots, &c. The Budget; proposed Reduction of
     Postage Duties, &c. Prorogation of Parliament.....
     Affairs in the East Indies..... State of the Continent.




STATE OF PARTIES.

{A.D. 1839}

It has been noticed in a previous page that the relative strength of the
two great parties in the country continued much the same as they were
at the commencement of the year 1837. The Whigs, indeed, gained by the
change which had taken place in the monarchy, inasmuch as by the death
of the late king they were delivered from an avowed adversary, and by
the accession of Queen Victoria they gained a known friend to their
cause. The ministers, indeed, found considerable advantage in her
support. Yet in the house of commons the number of’ their supporters had
upon the whole rather decreased since their accession to the government;
and in the country generally their popularity may be said to have
continued on the decline. One of the principal grounds in this change is
to be found in the connection of government with the agitator O’Connell.
Although that gentleman had rendered many services to the cause of
reform, yet his delinquencies were so many, that he never enjoyed the
sympathy of any considerable mass of the English people. Moreover,
popery, of which he was one of the leaders, is still unpopular in
this country, and the Conservatives sedulously took advantage of the
connection of the ministers with him to raise apprehensions of Romanist
intrigue and encroachment. This was, therefore, a great source of
embarrassment to the ministry; and yet they could not offend this man
of the people of Ireland by standing aloof from him. Another cause
of embarrassment was the movement of the people calling themselves
Chartists.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was opened by the queen in person on the 6th of February.
The speech referred to the discontents in England and Ireland and the
insurrection in Canada, and recommended improvements in the law, and
reforms as the remedy for this state of things, while it expressed a
determination to maintain the authority of the crown.

The addresses in the lords and commons were, as usual, the occasion of
long party debates, in which all the irritating topics of the day were
made the most of by the opposition. The affairs of Ireland and the
East occupied the greatest prominence; next to these, Chartism and
the general distress; while Canada and the Iberian peninsula afforded
fertile subjects for the opposition speakers, with which to annoy the
government. Free-trade, and the duties on the importation of corn,
became a subject of important debate at this juncture. In the commons
Sir Robert Peel threw himself, acrimoniously, and with all his energy,
into this controversy, and used all the exploded arguments of the
protectionists with the air of one who for the first time urged them
upon the house. Mr. Villiers severely chastised the protectionist
champion, showing how unscrupulously he played the part of a plagiarist
even in the sophisms he employed. Mr. Duncombe had the bad taste to move
an amendment, which he knew there was no hope of carrying, or of finding
a tolerable minority to support, thus impeding the public business
without any counterpoising benefit.

When the address was brought up, Mr. O’Connell animadverted in strong
language upon the transfer of Limbourg and Luxembourg to Holland: it was
one of the greatest cruelties ever committed that the five powers should
impose such terms on Belgium. In reply, Lord Palmerston observed that by
the treaty of Vienna Limbourg was annexed to the Seven United Provinces.
Luxembourg, by the same treaty, was constituted a separate sovereignty,
as a grand duchy, to be held by the same individual who should be king
of the Netherlands; but by a separate title, and transmissible in a
separate line of succession. The kingdom of the Netherlands went to the
heirs general of the king, while Luxembourg would descend to the heirs
male only: the king of the Netherlands in that character was not a
member of the Germanic confederation, but he was a member as grand duke
of Luxembourg; and when the grand duchy was formed, it became subject to
the federal constitution, and to the regulations which bound the
members of the confederacy. When the revolution broke out it extended to
Luxembourg, and the king of the Netherlands applied for aid to the
five powers. It was ultimately found that the only way of arranging the
difficulties between Holland and Belgium was a separation; but the
five powers did not feel themselves competent, nor were they competent
according to the treaties which governed the relations of the states
of Europe, to deal with the question as regarded Luxembourg. In the
progress of the negociation the Belgian government expressed a strong
desire that a portion of Luxembourg and Limbourg should form a part
of Belgium; and the five powers had no objection to this, provided
the consent of the Germanic confederation, which had full liberty to
re-establish the grand duke in his rights, could be obtained. The diet
gave permission, on condition that some equivalent portion of territory
should be ceded by Belgium in return for what was detached from the
duchy of Luxembourg. To these terms the Belgian government consented,
and an arrangement was made, by which it was agreed that for the
incorporation of a part of Luxembourg in the kingdom of Belgium an
equivalent should be provided by the latter state. This arrangement
formed part of the twenty-four articles; and it was perfectly true that
these articles, as Mr. O’Connell had said, were accepted by Belgium, and
not by Holland. When, however, these articles were incorporated into
a regular treaty between Belgium and the five powers, then that treaty
became a binding instrument on the contracting party: the five powers
were entitled to keep Belgium to the terms of the treaty, and Belgium
in turn was entitled to claim their observance of it. The Belgian
government had, indeed, on various occasions appealed to the treaty
as the charter of its rights; and it was preposterous that, after so
regarding it for eight years, they should finally declare to all Europe,
because it suited their convenience, that the fundamental articles of
the treaty were of no obligation to them. His lordship concluded by
saying that, so far from its being an injustice in the five powers to
refuse to add Luxembourg to Belgium, it would have been an act of the
grossest oppression if they had consented to make a violent seizure of
that territory for the purpose of transferring it: all that was done was
to leave the matter as it was settled at the congress of Vienna.




THE CORN-LAW QUESTION.

At this time a great many petitions had been presented to both houses of
parliament on the subject of the corn-laws. On the 18th of February Lord
Brougham moved that these petitions should “be referred to a committee
of the whole house, and that evidence be heard at the bar.” The Dukes of
Buckingham and Richmond and Earl Stanhope opposed the motion; and Lord
Melbourne thought that the plan proposed would have no other result
than the obstruction of the business of the house, and to perplex and
embarrass the question itself. The Duke of Wellington said that the
proposed mode of inquiry was without a precedent, and contended that
without protection agriculture could not prosper. The reduction of the
duty even a trifle too much might involve the country in the utmost
difficulty, by rendering the cultivation of the soil impossible, and
thereby ruining a large class of industrious and at present happy
people. The motion was negatived without a division.

The subject of the corn-laws was debated in the house of commons on the
following day. Mr. Villiers moved, “that certain persons be heard at the
bar of the house by their agents, witnesses, or counsel, in support
of the allegations of the petition presented to the house on the 15th
instant, complaining of the operation of the corn-laws.” In support of
this motion, Mr. Villiers considered at great length the effect of the
corn-laws upon the manufactures and commerce of the country. Sir Francis
Burdett objected to the course proposed; but, at the same time, he
stated that it was his conviction that the landed interest, in which he
was himself concerned, was under erroneous impressions on the subject.
The debate which followed brought out speeches from many of the men who
afterwards took so prominent a part in promoting or opposing the repeal
of the corn-laws—such as Mr. Mark Philips (member for Manchester), Lord
Stanley, Lord Howick, and Sir Robert Peel. The first-named made a useful
and practical speech; Lord Stanley an absurd one; Lord Howick was as
capricious and crotchetty as on most other occasions; Sir Robert
Peel repeated himself and other hack orators on the side of the
protectionists. Mr. Villiers made a calm and effective reply, in which
he especially directed his skill as a debater to the exposure of the
fallacies of Sir Robert Peel, whose ignorance or partizanship he
handled with a calm and dignified severity. On a division the motion
was rejected by three hundred and sixty-one against one hundred and
seventy-two.




THE AFFAIRS OF IRELAND DISCUSSED IN PARLIAMENT.

On the 1st of January an Irish nobleman, Lord Norbury, was savagely
murdered. His lordship was shot within sight of his own house, in clear
daylight, with many people at hand, and yet the assassin escaped with
impunity. The occurrence was the more shocking, because the deceased
nobleman was a most exemplary character both as a man and as a landlord.
His lordship expired on the 3rd of January, after forty-three hours of
suffering; and on the same day a notification to the magistrates was
issued by the lord-lieutenant of the county, requesting their attendance
on the 10th instant, to consider the measures necessary to be taken
in consequence of the late outrage. This meeting was held, under the
auspices of Lord Osmantown, at Tullamore, and in the course of it
resolutions to the following effect were unanimously adopted:—“That
it appears to this meeting, that property had its duties as well as its
rights; that the answer conveyed to the magistrates of Tipperary by
Mr. under-secretary Drummond has had the effect of increasing the
animosities entertained against the owners of the soil, and has
emboldened the disturbers of the public peace. That finding from the
circumstances mentioned in the former resolutions that there is little
room to hope for a successful appeal to the Irish executive, we feel
it a duty to apply to the people of England, the legislature, and the
throne, for protection. That the magistrates assembled are determined
to co-operate with the government in any manner pointed out by her
majesty’s ministers which may give the slightest hope of restoring
tranquillity in this distracted country.” In the meantime the opposite
party made efforts of counteraction. Mr. O’Connell was indefatigable
in stirring up his Precursor Society and other similar machines of
agitation. Festivals were even held in honour of the demagogue; and at
one of these Mr. O’Connell actually asserted that the assassin of Lord
Norbury had left on the soil where he had posted himself, not the print
of a rustic brogue, but the impress of a well-made Dublin boot. By this
and other insinuations, indeed, the arch-agitator directed the minds of
the audience to the conclusion that the earl had met his death at the
hands of one bound to him by the nearest of natural ties—his son.

The state of Ireland being such, it naturally became a subject for
discussion in parliament. On the 7th of March Mr. Shaw moved for
returns of the number of committals, convictions, inquests, rewards, and
advertisements for the discovery of offenders in Ireland, from 1835 to
1839, in order to enable the house to form a judgment with regard to
the actual amount and increase of crime in that country. Lord Morpeth
expressed his satisfaction at the course Mr. Shaw had taken; instead of
appealing to parliament for a verdict of censure upon government, he had
simply moved for papers. There could be no objection to the issue of any
information respecting Lord Normanby’s administration: he might, indeed,
move for returns applicable to a period beyond the last four years, in
the confidence that the late lord-lieutenant would have nothing to fear
from the comparison. Mr. Colquhoun endeavoured to show, from a long
enumeration of cases, that crime had been gaining ground under the
system of agitation which prevailed, and which was connived at by the
present government. Colonel Conolly, and Messrs. Villiers, Stuart,
Litton, and Emerson Tennent, all urged the same serious charge against
the Irish administration which had been made by preceding speakers, Mr.
O’Connell, after delivering a violent speech, in which he was constantly
interrupted, and in which he charged several members with coming to
parliament for the sole purpose of villifying their native land, moved
that after the word “Ireland” there be added the words, “also similar
returns for England, Wales, and Scotland.” The last speaker on this
evening was Serjeant Jackson, who maintained that by almost every
single exercise of patronage, and especially by the appointment of
Lord Ebrington to the vice-royalty, government had favoured the cause of
agitation. The debate was resumed on the 11th of March, when the house
was addressed by Messrs. Lefroy, French, and Sir Charles Styles. As
the latter gentleman was speaking the house was counted out, and the
discussion, which had little reference to the motion, therefore dropped.
The subject of the state of Ireland was introduced in the upper house
on the 21st of March by Lord Roden, who moved for a select committee
of inquiry into the state of Ireland since 1835, with respect to the
commission of crime. His lordship, indeed, adopted the most inculpatory
view of the question, and every circumstance in his delineation of the
matter—the deeply-rooted ribbon conspiracy; the unredressed grievances
of the persecuted Protestants at Achill, and the general insecurity of
life and property, were, in his opinion, either created by the conduct
of Lord Normanby, or had acquired an aggravated character under his
auspices. In reply Lord Normanby vindicated his administration with very
great ability. Lord Melbourne also ably defended the noble marquis. The
Duke of Wellington and Lord Brougham offered an earnest and eloquent
support to Lord Roden’s motion. The two noble lords spoke as if they had
had a previous concert and arrangement. This alliance of Lord Brougham
with the Duke of Wellington did not silence Lord Plunkett. He begged to
know what course Lord Brougham would pursue in the event of the motion
being carried. Had he any measure of his own to propose, or was he
willing to adopt the propositions of others? Was he willing to commit
all the friends with whom he had hitherto acted, and to surrender all
the principles and opinions which he had advocated throughout life? On a
division, Lord Boden’s motion was carried by a majority of sixty-three
against fifty-eight: a result which gave great dissatisfaction to the
ministers. On the day following, indeed, Lord John Russell gave notice
of his intention to take the opinion of the house of commons on the
government of Ireland in late years in the very first week after the
Easter recess.

The vote of the house of lords also alarmed and gave umbrage to
Ireland’s agitators. Incensed by it, Mr. O’Connell crossed St. George’s
Channel as soon as the houses had arisen, in order to increase the
turbulence of his country. Day after day was he to be seen on the corn
exchange haranguing the multitude; on Sundays, after mass, he attended
parochial meetings; and the columns of the newspapers were filled with
the exercitations of his pen. On the 11th of April a grand meeting was
held in the theatre-royal, to prepare petitions to the queen and
the house of commons, declaratory of their confidence in the actual
administration of Ireland. On this occasion Mr. O’Connell exerted all
his eloquence to rouse the passions of his hearers, and their shouts
told that he was but too successful. “Shout!” he exclaimed at the close
of his harangue. The shout that that day emanated from that theatre
would be heard in St. Stephen’s, and it would cheer the heart of the
queen at St. James’s.

When the house of commons, resumed its sittings on the 8th of April,
Lord John Russell gave notice of his intention on the 15th to propose
the following resolution:—“That it is the opinion of this house that
it is expedient to persevere in those principles which have guided the
executive government of Ireland of late years, and which have tended to
the effectual administration of the laws and the general improvement of
that part of the United Kingdom.” On the following day Sir Robert Peel
gave notice that he should move an amendment on this resolution, and on
the 12th the right honourable baronet brought forward the draught of his
resolutions. They read thus:—“Resolved, that on the 13th day of March
last, a motion was made in this house for the production of various
documents connected with the state of Ireland, in respect to crime and
outrage; including communications made to the Irish government relating
to offences connected with ribbonism, and all memorials, resolutions,
and addresses, forwarded to the Irish government by magistrates, or
other official persons, in respect of crimes and outrages committed in
Ireland, and the answers thereto. That the period included within the
returns so called for extends from the commencement of the year 1835 to
the present time; and that the motion made for the production of them
was assented to by this house, no opposition to it having been offered
to it on the part of her majesty’s government. That on the 21st day of
March last, the house of lords appointed a select committee to inquire
into the state of Ireland since the year 1835, in respect to crime and
outrage, which have rendered life and property insecure in that part of
the empire. That, in consequence of the appointment of such committee by
the house of lords, it has been proposed that this house should resolve,
‘That it is the opinion of this house that it is expedient to persevere
in those principles which have guided the executive government of late
years, and which have tended to the effectual administration of the
law, and the general improvement of that part of the United Kingdom.’
Resolved, that it appears to this house, that the appointment of a
committee of inquiry by the house of lords, under the circumstances,
and for the purposes above-mentioned, does not justify her majesty’s
ministers in calling upon this house, without previous inquiry, or even
the production of the information which this house has required, to make
a declaration of opinion with respect to one branch of the public policy
of the executive government, still less a declaration of opinions, which
is neither explicit as to the principles which it professes to approve,
nor definite as to the period to which it refers; and that it is
not fitting that this house should adopt a proceeding which has the
appearance of calling in question the undoubted right of the house
of lords to inquire into the state of Ireland in respect to crime and
outrage, more especially when the exercise of that right by the house of
lords does not interfere with any previous proceeding or resolution of
the house of commons, nor with the progress of any legislative
measure assented to by the house of commons, or at present under its
consideration.” The adroitness with which these resolutions were framed
are apparent, and needs no comment; they completely evaded all the
difficulties of the case. The situation of the ministers was also
rendered more difficult by the conduct of the radical section of the
house, whose tactics were called into play on this occasion. They felt
themselves bound, indeed, to support Lord John Russell’s motion, but
then they wished him to go further. No sooner had Sir Robert Peel sat
down, indeed, than Mr. Duncombe stated that in the event of the noble
lord’s resolution being-carried, it was in his contemplation to move an
addition to it in the following terms:—“And that it is expedient also
to effect such further reforms in the representation of the people in
parliament as would conduce to their contentment, and to the security
and welfare of the kingdom at large.”

On the 15th of April Lord John Russell moved his long-announced
resolution of confidence on the part of the house in the executive
government of Ireland. His lordship dwelt at great length on the
constitutional right of the lords to make inquiry into the state of
Ireland and the conduct of its government. He did not deny that right;
but considering such a measure under all its circumstances, the
indiscriminate vehemence of the inculpations allowed to circulate, the
limitation of time, the very name of the mover, he could not but feel
that he was called upon to demand from the house of commons a definite
opinion upon the conduct of the Irish administration. Sir Robert
Peel contended that the noble lord’s resolution was partial and
unintelligible. Mr. Spring Rice, in reply, contended that the vote
of the house of lords was a vote of censure upon government; and he
remonstrated against the unfairness of making the existence of crime
in Ireland a charge against the present government, when nobody ever
thought of censuring preceding administrations on account of turbulence
and outrages in Ireland. At the close of Mr. Spring Rice’s speech the
debate was adjourned, and subsequently two adjournments took place.
In the course of the debate ministers were supported by Messrs. Smith
O’Brien, Bellew, Henry Grattan, Grote, Edward Lytton Bulwer, Hume, the
O’Connor Don, Sir William Somerville, and others, and opposed by Messrs.
Lascelles, Sidney Herbert, Lucas, Shaw, Colonel Conolly, Sir James
Graham, and others. Mr. Shiel delivered a long and eloquent speech in
defence of Lord Normanby. The debate was closed by Mr. O’Connell,
whose statements, as usual, were more distinguished for their animated
delivery than their accuracy. On a division Sir Robert Peel’s amendment
was negatived by three hundred and eighteen against two hundred and
ninety-six; and Mr. Duncombe’s rider by two hundred and ninety-nine
against eighty-one.




IRISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILL.

On the 16th of February Lord Morpeth again moved for leave to bring in
a bill for the regulation of municipal corporations in Ireland. It has
been seen that the main point of dispute on this subject between the two
houses was the amount of the franchise; the house of lords contending
that it should be acquired by the occupation for twelve months of a
tenement of the value of ten pounds, to be made up of the sum at which
it was rated to the relief of the poor; and the house of commons, that
the occupation of a tenement rated at the net annual value of eight
pounds for six months should confer the qualification in question. It
was proposed to retain this last franchise in the present measure; and
the only material difference between the present and the former bill
consisted in a provision which was now made for the eventual adoption
of the English franchise. Lord Morpeth proposed that in whatever town,
otherwise competent to receive such institutions, the poor-law act
should have been in operation for three years, all persons resident for
that period, and rated to any amount, should be entitled to vote for the
election of municipal officers. The whole of schedule A, containing the
towns in which corporations were to be established, remained the same;
but with regard to schedule B, which enumerated those towns to which
municipal institutions might be granted on petition of the inhabitants,
it was proposed that, without the signatures of an absolute majority,
the crown might establish corporations in those places as well as in
any other town of three thousand inhabitants, in which there might be
a number of persons occupying premises at not less than £4 per annum,
sufficient to make up a constituency. On the second reading of the bill
it met with a stern opposition of the conservative party; but it was
eventually carried through by the small majority of twenty-six. The bill
was committed _pro-formâ_ on the 19th of April; but many delays took
place in order that thirty-four clauses, which should have made part of
the original measure, should be included. On the 4th of July, however,
the house went into committee upon clause twenty, which referred to the
value of the franchise. An attempt was made by Mr. Shaw to introduce a
£10 qualification, which had been the ultimatum of the Conservatives
in the last session: but after a short debate the original question was
carried by one hundred and fifty-four against fifty-four. Some other
minor amendments were subsequently proposed, but they were negatived;
and the bill was finally carried in the commons by a majority of
ninety-seven against seventy-six.

On the 22nd of July, the Irish Municipal Corporations bill was read a
second time in the house of lords. On the 25th of July, before the house
went into committee, Lord Lyndhurst gave notice of the amendments which
he intended to move in the course of the evening, and of his intention
to vote against the third reading, if the bill should come unaltered out
of the committee. The only amendment of the noble lord which gave rise
to any discussion after their lordships went into committee was for
raising the qualification from £8 to £10. This was objected to by Lord
Melbourne, who said, that he could not but think that their lordships
were acting no very worthy part, in raising difficulties in the way of
what they all considered desirable—the settlement of the question.
The Duke of Wellington administered a severe rebuke to his lordship for
uttering such a sentiment; and on a division the amendment was carried
by a majority of ninety-three against forty-three. A number of
minor amendments were also made in conformity with Lord Lyndhurst’s
suggestions; and on the 5th of August the bill was read a third time,
and passed.

Lord John Russell moved the order of the day, for the consideration
of the lords’ amendments, on the 12th of August; on which occasion he
stated that it was not advisable, in his opinion, to take objection to
the bill on the question of privilege, on account of certain clauses
transferring certain fiscal powers from the grand-juries to the new
town-councils, which had been struck out in the other house, and to send
it back to the lords. The only course to pursue would be to bring in a
new bill either now or at the beginning of the next session. He moved,
therefore, that the amendments be taken into consideration that day
three months, in the hope that he might be able finally to adjust the
question. This motion was agreed to.

On the 6th of August Lord Brougham brought forward several resolutions
on the administration of justice in Ireland under the Marquis of
Normanby. His lordship’s remarks were chiefly confined to Lord
Normanby’s public measures; and the debate in general was conducted in
a tone friendly to the noble marquis, even by the opposite party. At
the same time the resolutions were carried by a majority of eighty-six
against fifty-two.




PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT RESPECTING JAMAICA.

It has been seen that in the earlier part of the preceding year the
agitation on the subject of West India slavery had become general
throughout the kingdom, and that it gave rise to discussion in
parliament. An important bill was passed, entitled “An act to amend the
act for the abolition of slavery.” Many salutary provisions were made
in this instrument for the further protection of the apprentices; and in
order to serve the execution of such regulations of the former enactment
as had been disregarded by the planters. This act was promulgated in
Jamaica by the governor on the 1st of June; and on the 5th of the same
month he convened the legislature of that colony. In his speech Sir
Lionel Smith informed the assembly that he had called the house together
to take into consideration the state of the island, and to recommend
the early and equal abolition of apprenticeship for all parties. The
assembly entered a warm remonstrance against the abolition amendment
act; but nevertheless on the 16th of June the governor gave the royal
assent to an act for the entire abolition of prædial apprenticeship from
the 1st of August, 1838.

On the arrival in England of the news of this voluntary abandonment on
the part of the planters of the remaining term of apprenticeship. Lord
Melbourne presented to the house of lords an important bill, founded on
the report of Captain Pringle, empowering her majesty in council to
make rules for the government of the West India prisons, to appoint
inspectors, and regulate other matters of necessary discipline. This
bill was sent out and promulgated by the governor in a proclamation
affixed to the doors of their house about six weeks before the meeting
of the assembly. That meeting took place on the 30th of October, and
their very first procedure was to pass four resolutions condemnatory of
Lord Melbourne’s bill; complaining of the violation of their rights
by the parliament of Great Britain; asserting that as a body they (the
assembly) had ceased to exist for any useful purpose to the people
whom they represented; and that therefore they would abstain from
the exercise of any legislative function, excepting such as might be
necessary to preserve inviolate the faith of the island with the public
creditor, until her majesty’s pleasure should be known, whether her
subjects of Jamaica, now in a state of freedom, should henceforth
be treated as subjects, with the power of making laws for their own
government, or as a conquered colony. Sir Lionel now prorogued the
assembly for a few days; but when they again met they asserted their
determination to adhere to their resolutions, and the result of their
contumacy was the final prorogation of their house.

In consequence of these transactions, on the 9th of April Mr.
Labouchere introduced a bill to suspend the existing constitution for
five years. In the meantime it was proposed to make provision for the
government of that colony by investing it _pro tempore_ in the hands of
a governor, and a council augmented by the accession of three persons,
who would be sent from England as commissioners, especially qualified by
experience to assist in the consideration of some of the more important
topics to which their early attention would be directed, as the
improvement of the negroes, the poor-laws, and prison discipline. This
interval, it was said, would give time for the enactment of such laws
as were called for by the transition state of the colony, and the
government afterwards proposed to restore the ancient constitution,
subject to the requisite modifications. The introduction of this measure
was not opposed by the Conservatives. The bill arrived at the second
reading on the 23rd of April, when Sir Robert Peel stated that he would
again allow it to be read _pro formâ_. Counsel would then be heard
at the bar against the measure: he was even content to have the bill
committed, and take the discussion on the question that the speaker do
now leave the chair. At the same time, before they proceeded to suspend
the constitution of Jamaica for five years, and to vest so great an
authority of taxation in an unpopular government, he could wish to give
to the assembly the power of reconsidering their course, and returning
to their duties. If the house of assembly should still adhere to their
refractory courses, he was disposed to confide to ministers the power
of carrying on the government for a time, until parliament should decide
otherwise; or if it could be further shown that public business would be
prejudiced by such delay, he would, make no more opposition to the
bill. Counsel were then heard; the cause of the colony being pleaded
by Sergeant Mereweather and Mr. Burge, the accredited agent of the
colonies. The debate on the question was opened on the 3rd of May, when
Sir Robert Peel expressed his disappointment that it had not been found
practicable to come to some arrangement with regard to the government of
Jamaica without any party conflict, or even any serious division on
the course to be pursued. He thought that the temporary abrogation of
a popular form of government was by no means desirable. Mr. Labouchere
maintained that the result of the great experiment of emancipation
would depend on the fate of this bill. The only chance of securing the
investment of English capital, and ensuring success to the experiments
to be tried of cultivating the estates by free labour, lay in the timely
introduction of proper regulations. It would be vexatious if, after all,
the negroes should take to squatting, and pass their lives in indolence;
but half of the good work would have been achieved until the black was
raised to the condition of a free and laborious citizen. As matters
stood, the negroes refused to enter into contracts; the only method
for obtaining from the black population the continuous labour which was
notoriously indispensable for the cultivation of sugar, was to induce
them to enter into an agreement to work uninterruptedly for a stipulated
sum of money. So arbitrary and partial, however, was the power assigned
by the present law of contract, that the negro was reluctant to engage
on such conditions. This called for alteration; and so likewise did
the law relating to the militia, as well as the vagrancy law and the
constitution of the courts of justice. It would also be advisable to
introduce some measure of relief for the poor; but nothing could
be effected in the present discontinuance of all legislation. Mr.
Labouchere added, that the present measure, though avowedly an arbitrary
one, would, after all, only place Jamaica on the same footing with the
other crown colonies, who were administered by a governor and council.
He concluded by proposing two years and a half instead of five as the
shortest interval within which the measures in contemplation could
be prepared. Mr. Godson opposed the measure; and Mr. Charles Buller
delivered a clever speech in its support. Mr. Hume expressed his
reluctance to separate himself from the government on this question;
but he could not vote in favour of such injustice. Sir George Grey
vindicated the measure, noticing a variety of instances in which the
assembly had eluded the recommendations of government in favour of
the negroes, and referring, in proof of his assertion, to several
conservative authorities.

The house then adjourned; and the debate was opened on the following
Monday by Mr. Maclean. The bill on this night was supported by Sir
Eardley Wilmot, and Messrs. Warburton and O’Connell; and opposed by
Messrs. Grote, Gaily Knight, Goulburn, Gladstone, and Lord Stanley. The
debate was closed by Lord John Russell, who enumerated a short summary
of the arguments for the bill, and declaimed against those of his usual
supporters who were about to desert him. On a division the measure was
carried by a majority of five only, the numbers being, in favour of
the bill, two hundred and ninety-four; against it, two hundred and
eighty-nine.




RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS, AND FAILURE OF SIR ROBERT PEEL TO FORM A NEW
ADMINISTRATION, ETC.

The result of the debate on the Jamaica suspension bill was followed by
the resignation of the ministers. On the 7th of May the leading members
of the administration in both houses declared their inability to carry
on the government with advantage to the public service, and that they
had in consequence tendered their resignations, which her majesty had
graciously accepted. After the lapse of a week the house of commons
again met, when Lord John Russell stated, that since he last addressed
them Sir Robert Peel had received authority from her majesty to form a
new administration; and that the attempt of the right honourable baronet
having failed, her majesty had been graciously pleased to permit that
gentleman to state the circumstances which had led to that failure. In
explanation, Sir Robert Peel said that her majesty had invited the Duke
of Wellington to assist her in the formation of a new government;
and that his grace had informed her that, in his opinion, the chief
difficulties a government would have to encounter would be in the house
of commons; and for that and other reasons the noble duke had advised
her majesty to send for him as the person best qualified to undertake
the duties of prime minister. Her majesty accordingly sent for him, and
when he waited on her, he stated his sense of the difficulties a new
government would have to encounter; but that, having been a party to
the vote of the house which led to those difficulties, nothing should
prevent him from tendering to her majesty every assistance in his power.
Subsequently he submitted the following list of names to her majesty for
approval in the formation of the new cabinet:—The Duke of Wellington,
Lords Lyndhurst, Aberdeen, Ellenborough, and Stanley; Sirs James Graham,
and Henry Hardinge, and Mr. Goulburn. Sir Robert proceeded to state
that no difficulties arose to lead to his relinquishing to form a new
administration until Thursday; and that difficulty arose, he said,
exclusively from that portion of the household which is filled by the
ladies in her majesty’s service. On the Wednesday night previous to this
event, he had stated to those whom he proposed to submit to her majesty
as ministers, the course he intended to pursue with respect to the
household. He had little considered the subject; and with regard to the
female part of it, he scarcely knew of whom it consisted. He took the
red book in his hand, however, and there saw the different appointments.
He then stated that with reference to all the subordinate appointments
below the rank of a lady of the bedchamber, he should propose no change
to her majesty; and that with respect to the superior class he took
for granted they would relieve him from any difficulty, by at once
relinquishing their offices. If such offices, however, should not be
voluntarily relinquished, he gave it as his opinion that they should be
subject to some change, although in some instances the absence of all
political feeling might render any such change unnecessary. On the
Thursday he saw her majesty, when he made a verbal communication to
such an effect. He would not enter into the precise nature of this
communication, but simply read two letters which had subsequently
passed: one, conveying her majesty’s impressions, and the other his own.
These letters read thus:—


“_Buckingham Palace, May 10th_, 1839.

“The queen having considered the proposal made to her yesterday by Sir
Robert Peel, to remove the ladies of her bedchamber, cannot consent to
adopt a course which she conceives to be contrary to usage, and which is
repugnant to her feelings.”


“_Whitehall, May 10th_, 1839.

“Sir Robert Peel presents his humble duty to your majesty, and has
had the honour of receiving your majesty’s note of this morning. In
respectfully submitting to your majesty’s pleasure, and humbly returning
into your majesty’s hands the important trust which your majesty had
been graciously pleased to transmit to him, Sir Robert Peel trusts that
your majesty will permit him to state to your majesty, his impression
with respect to the circumstances which have led to the termination of
his attempt to form an administration for the conduct of your majesty’s
service. In the interview with which your majesty honoured Sir Robert
Peel yesterday morning, after he had submitted to your majesty the
names of those whom he proposed to recommend to the principal executive
appointments, he mentioned to your majesty his earnest wish, to be
enabled by your majesty’s sanction, so to constitute your majesty’s
household that your majesty’s confidential servants might have the
advantage of a public demonstration of your majesty’s full support and
confidence; and that at the same time, as far as possible consistently
with that demonstration, each individual appointment in the household
should be entirely acceptable to your majesty’s personal feelings. On
your majesty expressing a desire that the Earl of Liverpool should hold
an office in the household, Sir Robert Peel requested your majesty’s
permission at once to offer to Lord Liverpool the office of
lord-steward, or any other which he might prefer. Sir Robert Peel then
observed, that he should have every wish to apply a similar principle to
the chief appointments which are filled by the ladies of your majesty’s
household: upon which your majesty was pleased to remark that you must
reserve the whole of these appointments, and that it was your majesty’s
pleasure the whole should continue, as at present, without change. The
Duke of Wellington, in the interview to which your majesty subsequently
admitted him, understood that this was your majesty’s determination, and
concurred with Sir Robert Peel in opinion, that, considering the great
difficulties of the present crisis, and the expediency of making every
effort in the first instance to conduct the public business of the
country with the aid of the present parliament, it was essential to
the success of the commission with which your majesty had honoured Sir
Robert Peel, that he should have that public proof of your majesty’s
entire support and confidence, which would be afforded by the permission
to make some changes in that part of your majesty’s household, which
your majesty resolved on maintaining entirely without change. Having
had the opportunity, through your majesty’s gracious consideration, of
reflecting upon this point, he humbly submits to your majesty that he is
reluctantly compelled, by a sense of public duty and of the interest of
your majesty’s service, to adhere to the opinion which he expressed to
your majesty. He trusts he may be permitted at the same time to express
to your majesty his grateful acknowledgments for the distinction which
your majesty conferred upon him, by requiring his advice and assistance
in the formation of an administration, and his earnest prayers that
whatever arrangements your majesty may be enabled to make for that
purpose, may be most conducive to your majesty’s personal comfort and
happiness, and to the promotion of the public welfare.”


After reading these letters, Sir Robert Peel proceeded to notice certain
misrepresentations with regard to his conduct in this affair, and
to vindicate his policy in requiring the change alluded to in those
letters. Lord John Russell replied at great length, and in reference
to the point which proved a stumblingblock to Sir Robert Peel in
his efforts to form an administration, said, that her majesty, after
relating all the circumstances, was pleased to ask him whether he
thought she was justified in making the refusal of a change in her
household to the required extent? His lordship said, he replied that he
thought her majesty was justified; and then she was pleased to observe,
that as in the exercise of the powers of the crown she had hitherto
given her support to the administration, she hoped I would consider
myself bound now to support her majesty in return. His lordship
then proceeded to state that on the next day a cabinet was held in
Downing-street, at which her majesty’s confidential servants having
taken into consideration the letter addressed by her majesty to Sir
Robert Peel, and the reply of the right honourable baronet, were of
opinion that for the purpose of giving to the administration that
character of efficiency and stability, and those marks of the
constitutional support of the crown, which are required to enable it
to act usefully to the public service, it is reasonable that the great
officers of the court, and situations held in the household by members
of parliament, should be included in the political arrangements made
in a change of the administration; but they were not of opinion that a
similar principle should be applied or extended to the offices held by
ladies in her majesty’s household. Lord John Russell concluded by saying
that he conceived that those who thought her majesty justified in what
she had done, should not refuse to assume the responsibility which
belongs to their opinion; and that they should neither conceal nor evade
the avowal of it, but should trust to the opinion of parliament, and of
the country as to the result. In reply Sir Robert Peel said that Lord
John Russell had relieved him from the greatest load of anxiety he had
ever suffered under during his whole life; and as there was no important
difference in their explanations, he thought it would be more respectful
to her majesty to let the matter rest where it was. On the following
evening a supplementary explanation of these matters was given in the
lords; but as it would be mere repetition, it is not necessary to
detail any portion of the speeches delivered. In the end the cabinet was
reconstructed, and the first act of the house of commons, when it again
met, was to elect Mr. Shaw Lefevre to the office of speaker, in the
room of Mr. Abercrombie, who had three weeks previously declared his
intention of resigning. Mr. Goulburn was nominated by the Conservatives
in opposition to Mr. Shaw Lefevre; but the latter gentleman was elected
by a majority of three hundred and seventeen against two hundred and
ninety-nine. Mr. Shaw Lefevre took the chair accordingly.




NATIONAL EDUCATION.

Since the year 1833 parliament had granted annually the sum of £20,000
for the purposes of education. This money had been equally divided
between the National Society and the British and Foreign Bible Society.
Government, however, were not satisfied with merely asking an increase;
they required liberty to change entirely the mode of its distribution.
Their views on this subject were first made known to the house on the
12th of February, when Lord John Russell, in presenting certain papers
connected with education, gave an outline of his views upon it, and
stated the determination of himself and colleagues respecting it.
His lordship proposed that the president of the council, and other
privy-councillors, not exceeding five, should form a board for the
consideration of the manner in which the grants made by parliament
should be distributed. He further stated that the first object of such a
board should be the establishment of a good normal school; and, in order
to make that as perfect as possible, attention should be mainly directed
to four objects—religious instruction; general education; moral
training; and habits of industry, applied in learning some trade or
profession. This brief outline was regarded with various feelings by
the house and the public. Sir Robert Inglis confessed the noble lord
had proposed to do less evil than he expected; while Mr. Wyse complained
that he proposed much less good than was hoped for. The manner in which
this step was followed up by the government subsequently was unfolded in
a minute of the privy-council. This minute recommended that the sum of
£10,000 granted by parliament in 1835 towards the erection of normal
or model schools, should be given in equal proportions to the National
Society and the British and Foreign School Society; and that the
remainder of the subsequent grants of the years 1837 and 1838 yet
unappropriated, any grant that may be voted in the present year,
be chiefly applied in aid of subscriptions for buildings; and, in
particular cases, for the support of schools connected with these
societies. The report further stated, that the committee did not feel
themselves precluded from making grants in particular cases which
shall appear to them to call for the aid of government, although the
application may not come from either of the two mentioned societies.
The opinion of the committee, it was stated, was that the most useful
applications of any sums voted by parliament, would consist in the
employment of those moneys in the establishment of a normal school,
under the direction of the state, and not placed under the management of
a voluntary society. Finally, the committee recommended that no further
grant be made now or hereafter for the establishment or support of
normal schools, or of any other schools, unless the right of inspection
be retained, in order to secure a conformity to the regulations and
discipline established in the several schools, with such improvements as
may from time to time be suggested by the committee. The report added,
that a part of any grant voted in the present year might be usefully
applied to the purposes of inspection, and to the means of acquiring
a complete knowledge of the present state of education in England and
Wales. The day after these resolutions appeared, Lord Ashley moved a
call of the house for the 14th of June. This motion was seconded by
Lord John Russell, who embraced the opportunity of warning the members
against the petitions which had been presented against the ministerial
scheme. Great error and misrepresentation, his lordship said, prevailed
on this subject throughout the country. At the same time he stated that
government would not persist in their proposal to found a normal school.
His lordship concluded by some remarks on the merits of the National
and British and Foreign School Society; and by stating that he should be
ready to go into the report of the committee of the privy-council, and
should also propose that the vote of £30,000, of which he had given
notice, should be divided as it hitherto had been, between the two
societies. Lord Stanley objected to the proposition for giving a direct
control over the moral and the religious education of the people to a
board or committee exclusively political in its character, and having
no fixed principle of action. His lordship also objected to the plan
for giving a secular rather than a religious education; contending that
schoolmasters entrusted with the instruction of youth should be of sound
doctrine. He concluded by moving an amendment to this effect, “That an
address be presented to her majesty to rescind the order in council for
constituting the proposed board of privy-council.” Lord Morpeth
said that he conceived that the speech of Lord Stanley went to this
extent—to separate by a specific vote of the house the executive
government of the country from all superintendence and control over the
general education of the people. He combated this notion at considerable
length; arguing that so long as the state thought proper to employ Roman
Catholic sinews, and to finger Unitarian gold, it could not refuse to
extend to those by whom it so profited the blessings of education. Lord
Ashley said that he considered the scheme propounded to the house to
be hostile to the constitution, to the church, and to revealed religion
itself, although he did not mean to assert it was unconstitutional. The
remainder of the debate was conducted by Mr. Wyse, Mr. D’Israeli, Sir
Robert Inglis, Mr. O’Connell, Mr. Gladstone, and Sir Robert Peel. The
house divided on the original question, that the order of the day for
a committee of supply be read, which was carried by a majority of two
hundred and eighty against two hundred and seventy-five. In accordance
with this vote Lord John Russell, on the 24th of June, moved that
the house should resolve itself into a committee of supply, in which
committee, after recapitulating many of the arguments previously urged
by himself and other members, he proposed that £30,000 be granted by her
majesty for public education in Great Britain for the year 1839.
Lord Mahon said, he felt it his duty to meet the motion with a direct
negative. The debate which followed was chiefly remarkable for an
eloquent speech delivered by Mr. Shiel in support of the motion. After
a few words from Mr. Goulburn in opposition to the grant, the committee
divided, and Lord John Russell’s proposition was carried by a majority
of two only, the numbers being, for the grant, two hundred and
seventy-five; against it, two hundred and seventy-three.

The subject of national education was introduced in the lords on the
5th of July, by the Archbishop of Canterbury; who, after defending the
clergy from the attacks made on them by certain parties in regard to
this government scheme, and entering into some details of the progress
of education in this country, moved a series of resolutions condemnatory
of the proposed system of education; and the resolutions were carried
by a majority of two hundred and twenty-nine against one hundred and
eighteen.

In consequence of this majority the lords went in a body to her majesty
to offer their remonstrance against the proposed alteration in the
manner of distributing the educational grant.

At a later period of the session Lord Brougham brought forward his
plan for educating the people; but its merits were not canvassed by the
house, and the consideration of it was adjourned till next session.




AFFAIRS OF CANADA.

On the 11th of February Lord Melbourne laid the report of Lord Durham,
and other papers, on the table of the house of lords, expressing a hope
at the same time, that before the Easter recess he should be enabled
to introduce a measure for the purpose of putting a speedy end to the
discontents in that part of the empire. This report had appeared in the
columns of the _Times_ newspaper some days before it was presented to
either house of parliament; in allusion to which unusual circumstance,
Lord Durham said he deeply regretted the premature publication of it.
His subsequent statement, however, proved that it could not have been
a matter of surprise to his lordship. There had been, he said, an
understanding with the ministry that the document should be printed
before the meeting of parliament, in order to save time, and accordingly
two thousand copies were prepared; and he had himself half a dozen for
circulation among his private friends. It would appear from this report
that the chief cause of all the troubles that had disturbed Lower Canada
was to be found in the spirit of exasperation that had grown up between
the two races by whom it was peopled. It was possible, it stated, that
under a better system of management this temper would never have been
called forth, and that the present disparity between the numbers of
the two races would not have existed. During the eighty years that
had elapsed since the conquest of Canada, the French inhabitants had
increased from sixty thousand to four hundred and fifty thousand souls,
while the English settlers amounted to no more than a fourth of the
entire population, notwithstanding the great influx of emigrants which
had taken place between the years 1829 and 1837. Another source of evil
pointed out by Lord Durham in his report was the lack of education in
the colonies. According to returns laid before parliament in 1835, there
were in Lower Canada, besides several Roman Catholic colleges, and a
number of private seminaries for the higher branches of education, two
grammar-schools, one at Quebec and the other at Montreal, and in the
three districts of Quebec, Montreal, and Three Rivers, thirty-seven
free-schools, with nearly two thousand scholars. In addition to these
there were established, under a provincial act of parliament,
one thousand one hundred and seventy-one elementary schools, with
thirty-seven thousand six hundred and fifty-eight scholars, distributed
through the colonies, and placed under the superintendence of trustees
annually elected by the inhabitants. The utility of these schools,
however, may be estimated by this passage from Lord Durham’s
report:—“It came to my knowledge that out of a great number of boys and
girls assembled at the school-house door of St. Thomas, all but three
were admitted upon inquiry to be unable to read; yet the children of
this large parish attend school regularly, and make use of books. They
hold the catechism-book in their hands as if they were reading, while
they only repeat its contents, which they know by rote.” The only
exception to this state of things made by Lord Durham was in favour of
the Catholic clergy, who were represented by him as a respectable and
well-conducted class of men, and well-disposed towards the government.
The report further stated that there was no combination between the
two races for public objects. All public meetings, no matter for what
purpose they were called, were attended exclusively by one or the other
of the races. They could not harmonize even in associations of charity;
and the only public occasion on which they met was in the jury-box, and
then they met only to obstruct justice. With such feelings existing
in the colony, there could be no wonder that insurrections and tumults
abounded.

No discussion arose on the presentation of Lord Durham’s report to the
lords. On the 15th of February the Duke of Wellington moved an address
to her majesty for copies of the correspondence of Sir F. Head with her
majesty’s government on the affairs of Upper Canada; and also for copies
of the correspondence of Sir J. Colborne and her majesty’s government
relative to the establishment of rectories in Upper Canada.
Viscount Melbourne said he was ready to produce such portions of the
correspondence as appeared to be necessary for the defence of Sir F.
Head, or which afforded general information; he further suggested that
the motion should be for “copies or extracts” as to the correspondence
of Sir J. Colborne relative to the establishment of rectories. The Duke
of Wellington, in reply, intimated that, although he thought the whole
correspondence ought to be produced, he would alter his motion according
to the suggestion of the noble viscount. The Earl of Aberdeen said it
was impossible for the house to legislate upon the affairs of Canada
without being in possession of this correspondence; and the Earl of
Wicklow contended that there should be superadded any report given
by Lords Gosford or Aylnaer. On the 19th of February Lord Winchilsea
further moved, that a humble address be presented to her majesty,
praying that she would be graciously pleased to order to be laid upon
the table of the house any correspondence that had passed between her
Majesty’s government and Lord Durham, relative to the appointment of Mr.
Turton as his lordship’s secretary. This was a topic which had excited
severe animadversion in parliament, as well as on the part of the public
press; but it does not appear that government had anything to do with
it, or that there were any papers to be produced. In the desultory
conversation which followed, indeed, Lord Durham took the whole
responsibility of the appointment on himself, and insisted that he was
justified in making that appointment. He had known Mr. Turton from his
earliest infancy; and he knew also his high professional reputation. He
had been employed as advocate-general in India, by Lords Combermere and
Amherst, and had discharged his office so much to the satisfaction of
the governor and council in India, that they voted him five thousand
sicca rupees, and a vote of thanks for his conduct. It was not to be
endured, therefore, that he was to be taunted for appointing to this
trumpery office a man who had previously filled the highest judicial
functions in India. Lord Durham concluded by threatening that if this
matter were proceeded in further by parliament he would not rest until
he had obtained an inquiry into the case of every public man who had
received official employment after having been convicted of the same
kind of immorality as Mr. Turton.

On the 3rd of May Lord Melbourne presented the following message from
the queen to the imperial parliament:—“Her majesty thinks it proper
to acquaint the house of lords, that it appears to her majesty that the
future welfare of her majesty’s subjects in Upper and Lower Canada would
be promoted by the union of the said provinces into one province for
the purpose of legislating, from and after the period to be fixed
by parliament. Her majesty therefore recommends it to the house, to
consider such measures as may be submitted to them for that purpose. Her
majesty is persuaded that the house of lords will be careful to combine
a due regard for the peace and security of these important provinces
with such provisions as may be conducive to the welfare of England, and
the permanent freedom and prosperity of her majesty’s North American
provinces.” The idea of uniting the two provinces originated in Lord
Durham’s report, in which he gave several cogent reasons for such a
measure. The subject was taken into consideration on the 3rd of
June, when Lord John Russell said it became his duty to call upon
the parliament to lay the foundation of a permanent settlement of the
affairs of Canada. In his speech, his lordship recapitulated the various
circumstances connected with the subject of Canadian affairs. With
reference to the recommendation contained in her majesty’s message, Lord
John said that the act of 1791 was founded on two principles: first,
that by dividing the province into two the French population might
remain in that portion called Lower Canada, whilst British emigrants
would have free scope for their industry, and power to establish their
own institutions and customs, in the other portion of the province,
which was to be called Upper Canada. Another reason was, the French
inhabitants being very loyal to the crown, of very simple habits, and
possessing institutions to which they were attached, it was advisable
that means for maintaining those institutions should be reserved to
them. His lordship acknowledged that there might have been at the time
reasons for introducing the constitutional act of 1791, but argued at
great length that it was a mistaken act of policy. The grievances which
had arisen out of it were manifold; and as a remedy for them he proposed
the re-union of the two provinces. Other remedies had been suggested,
but his lordship thought that they were not sufficient to meet the
exigencies of the case. In support of his own proposition his lordship
stated that there were many persons in Lower Canada anxious for such a
union, and that the legislature of Upper Canada had decided in favour of
the plan. The noble lord concluded by moving these resolutions:—I. “It
is the opinion of the house that it is expedient to form a legislative
union of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, on the principles of a
free and representative government, in such a manner as may most conduce
to the prosperity and contentment of the people of the united provinces.
II. That it is expedient to continue until 1842 the powers vested in the
governor and special council of Lower Canada, by an act of last session,
with such alteration of those powers as may be deemed advisable.” Mr.
Hume protested against this plan, and Mr. Goulburn moved the adjournment
of the house. Sir Robert Peel expressed his surprise to find that it was
not the intention of her majesty’s government to propose any legislative
measure in the present session, having reference to Canada. His
parliamentary experience was entirely against resolutions pledging
the house to any particular course. The debate was adjourned to the
following Monday, when Lord John Russell stated his intention of
withdrawing his resolution, pledging the house to the abstract principle
of a union of Upper and Lower Canada; giving as his reason for this
change in the policy of government, the strong protest against such a
measure on the part of the commons house of assembly of Upper Canada; a
protest which was contained in a report drawn up by a select committee
of that body and presented to her majesty. With reference to the second
resolution, Lord John Russell proposed the continuation for three more
years of the power now placed in the hands of the governor and special
council of Lower Canada. On the resumption of the debate on the 13th
of June, Lord John Russell moved for the withdrawal of the first
resolution. He was still of opinion, he said, that at some future period
such an union should be carried into effect, but in the meanwhile he
thought it necessary that certain exciting topics should be disposed of
by the legislature. Accordingly he proposed to introduce a measure for
the continuance of the act of last session, for the suspension of the
constitution until 1842, and at the same time amending that act in
several particulars. The amendments proposed by his lordship were the
alteration of the clause authorizing the governor to suspend the
_habeas corpus_ act; the alteration of the clause known as Sir William
Follett’s, limiting its operation to measures affecting the clergy, on
the tenures of land; and the introduction of a new clause, giving power
to impose rates and taxes not to be paid into the public treasury, but
to be applied to such local purposes as watching and the roads. With
regard to the bill for the union of the provinces, his lordship said,
that he thought it might be necessary to change some of its provisions.
The bill he would ask to introduce provided for the establishment of a
central district at Montreal and its neighbourhood, where the meetings
of the assembly should be held. The other parts of Upper and Lower
Canada he proposed to divide into two districts. There would then be
a central district, and four other districts. Each of these was to be
subdivided into nine other districts, so that supposing each division
to return two members, there would be ninety members for the electoral
divisions. In addition to these, his lordship proposed that the
four largest towns should return two members, making in the whole
ninety-eight. After a brief discussion, leave was given to bring in the
bill, and to amend the act of last session, appointing a provisional
government.

It was not until the 4th of July that Lord John Russell moved the order
of the day for the second reading of this bill. The discussion which
followed was a mere repetition of former debates. The bill was then read
a second time.

Lord John Russell moved the order of the day forgoing into a committee
of the whole house on the 11th of July, when Sir William Molesworth
moved a resolution, the object of which was to declare on the part of
the house, that considerations of humanity, justice, and sound policy
demanded that parliament should apply itself without delay to legislate
for the permanent government of the Canadas.

The debate which followed threw no new light upon Canadian affairs, or
the policy which ought to be pursued towards the people of the Canadian
provinces. The discussions, however, demonstrated the incapacity of the
government to deal with matters of such magnitude, and the desire of
the opposition to sacrifice justice and expediency to party spirit. The
house divided, and the original motion was carried by a majority of two
hundred and twenty-three against twenty-eight.

In the committee Mr. Hume objected to the first clause, which
appertained to the increased number of councillors, as only making an
addition to despotism; but the clause was carried by a large majority.
On the second clause being moved, Lord Stanley objected to it as
enlarging the extraordinary powers already granted to the governor and
council; but, after much discussion, it was carried by a majority of one
hundred and seventy-six against one hundred and fifty-six. On the 4th
clause being proposed, Sir Robert Peel moved an amendment to prevent any
alteration in the law of tenures, which was agreed to; and the remaining
clauses were then passed, and the report of the committee ordered to be
received on the following Monday.

This bill was brought forward in the house of lords on the 20th of July,
by the Marquis of Normanby, who, in introducing it, confined himself
to its immediate subjects, and to an explanation of its intentions. The
bill, as amended by the commons, was carried. Thus ended all attempts to
legislate for the Canadas in the session of 1839: the great expectations
formed at the commencement of the session on this important subject were
doomed to be disappointed in the results. Conversations of a personal
nature took place, but neither party approached the question as became
the legislators of a great and mighty empire. Government, it is
true, intimated that they had framed a plan for the union of the two
provinces, but it was scarcely intimated before it was abandoned.
Finally came forth the fragment of a measure which had not the
confidence of either party, but which was nevertheless passed into a
law.




THE SECOND JAMAICA BILL, ETC.

On the 30th of May Mr. Labouchere brought forward a second measure
relative to the affairs of Jamaica. In the newly-proposed bill ministers
had resolved to call together once more the colonial assembly, in order
to allow them what had been termed a _locus penitentio_. This assembly
represented the necessity of ameliorating the existing laws regarding
vagrancy, the relation between master and servant, the state of the
militia, and the electoral qualification. At the same time no fewer than
seventeen annual acts of importance had been suffered by the assembly
to expire, although in many cases the peace of the colony depended upon
them. The first clause of the bill related to those matters which did
not fall under the head of expired enactments, as vagrancy, contracts,
and squatting. With reference to these questions, orders had already
been transmitted to the crown colonies, and were now in successful
operation. By the bill, therefore, the assembly of Jamaica would be
referred to them, with injunctions to legislate in conformity with the
spirit of those provisions; and should they fail to do so, it would be
competent for the governor, with the aid of the council, after a certain
interval, to make tire requisite laws, _mutatis mutandis_, upon the
models which had before been indicated. The object of the second
clause was to leave a certain time to the assembly for re-enacting
the seventeen annual laws, and to invest the governor in council with
authority to renew them, in the event of their failing to do so. A brief
conversation took place, in which Sir Robert Peel declined offering any
opinion on the merits of the bill in its present stage, and the house
went into committee upon it. On the 10th of June Sir Edward Sugden
proposed on this occasion to omit the first clause of the bill,
after which he proceeded to dissect its provisions with considerable
acuteness. Mr. Labouchere defended the measure, and Messrs. Gladstone
and Goulburn objected to it. The latter said that tire present bill
differed but little from the former, and, in his opinion, only differed
for the worse, as it offered a premium to the council for disapproving
of the acts of the assembly, in order that it might itself acquire the
power of legislating in its place. On a division the clause was carried
by a majority of two hundred and twenty-eight against one hundred and
ninety-four: a result which was chiefly owing to the circumstance that
the Conservatives were not prepared for so early a division, but which
was nevertheless received with great cheering from the ministerial
benches. The order of the day was moved for the third reading on the
19th of June, when Mr. Labouchere stated that the time left to the
assembly for deliberation could be extended from the 1st to the 15th of
October. The bill was then read without opposition; but Mr. Goulburn
immediately rose to move the omission of the first clause, in which he
was seconded by Mr. Hume. Lord John Russell urged that the rejection
of that clause would prevent any useful legislation on the subjects
embraced by its provisions, and that the constitutional difficulty
rather rested on the second section. Sir Robert Peel contended that the
government was about to give just grounds of complaint to the assembly.
In reply, Mr. Labouchere admitted that the method in contemplation was
not an agreeable mode of proceeding; but at the same time he argued that
it was the best which, under the circumstances, could be adopted. On
a division the clause was carried by a majority of two hundred and
sixty-seven against two hundred and fifty-seven.

The second reading of the bill was moved in the house of lords on the
1st of July by the Marquis of Normanby, who made some stringent
remarks on the conduct and constitution of the Jamaica assembly. On the
following day, after the order of the day had been read for going into
committee, Lord Lyndhurst moved the expunction of the first clause of
the bill. The opposition charged the government with a desire to subvert
the constitution of Jamaica, and to tyrannize over the colonists. Lord
Brougham made the question an occasion to vent his personal spleen
against the cabinet. The opinions expressed by his lordship were so
utterly at variance with those which he had so often uttered when
eloquently advocating the cause of the negro, as to betray his personal
motives in his opposition to the bill, and to lessen public confidence
in his justice and consistency. Lord Melbourne vehemently disclaimed,
on the part of himself and colleagues, the least desire to abolish the
Jamaican constitution, or to interfere with the rights of the people
either in this country or in any of the colonies. What they had done had
been done with deep regret and reluctance; and it was with the utmost
unwillingness that they made both the previous and present propositions.
On a division, the first clause was expunged by a majority of one
hundred and forty-nine against eighty. Lord Brougham then moved an
amendment to the second clause, limiting the power of the governor with
regard to the renewal of money-bills; but was prevailed upon to postpone
the discussion till Thursday, on which day, the other clauses having
passed, it was agreed that the report should be brought up. When the
order of the day for bringing up the report was read, his lordship
moved as a proviso, “that nothing herein contained shall enable the said
governor, with the assent of the said council, to continue or renew
any acts for the raising or appropriating money.” This amendment was
strongly opposed by Lord Melbourne and other members of the cabinet, and
it was negatived without a division. The report was then received, and
on the 5th of July the bill was read a third time and passed. On
the 9th of the same month Lord John Russell recommended the house to
acquiesce in the amendments of the lords, which was agreed to; and thus
the bill finally assumed the very shape which Sir Robert Peel at first
suggested should be adopted.




BILL FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE PORTUGUESE SLAVE-TRADE, ETC.

On the 8th of March Sir Robert Inglis took occasion to remind Lord
Palmerston of the address which had been carried on the subject of the
Portuguese slave-trade, and begged to be informed whether the government
had succeeded in obtaining a treaty with Portugal, or were prepared to
resort to the measures promised by the noble lord in the event of the
failure of such negociations. In reply, Lord Palmerston stated, that
after four years spent in negociation, a note, which had just been
received from Lord Howard de Walden, assured him that there was no
longer any hope of procuring the assent of the Portuguese cabinet to
a treaty for the suppression of the traffic. It was, therefore, the
intention of government to introduce a bill which should give to her
majesty’s cruisers and commissioners the same right of search with
regard to slave-trading vessels met with below the line, which they
already possessed in the case of those which were found north of the
equator. This bill was introduced on the 10th of July, and it passed
through all its stages in silence until it arrived at the second reading
in the house of lords. On that occasion Lord Minto said, that he deemed
it necessary to state the present condition of the law relating to
the slave-trade, and the existing treaties between Great Britain and
Portugal. The most important of these treaties, his lordship said,
was that of 1815, by which the slave-trade was declared illegal; and
Portugal undertook to bring about its eventual abolition, consenting in
the meantime not to suffer her flag to be employed in that traffic
for any other purpose than to furnish slaves for her own transatlantic
dominions. For this concession England had agreed to pay, and had paid,
£600,000. In 1817, an additional convention was entered into, defining
still more precisely the limits within which the slave-trade to the
Brazils was to be exercised. By this treaty the Portuguese government
undertook, within two months from the date on which it was signed, to
pass a law declaring the commerce in question unlawful, and subjecting
persons implicated therein to punishment. It was further stipulated
that, within a specified period, Portugal should treat with this
country for the final abolition of the slave-trade, and assimilate its
legislation on the subject with that of Great Britain. His lordship
went on to say, that when Portugal ceased to hold the Brazils, the
slave-trade ought to have been abolished, as there were no longer any
transatlantic possessions to which the terms of the treaty would apply.
Yet, notwithstanding these engagements, the traffic had been carried on
almost entirely under the flags of Portugal and Spain. With the latter
country, however, we had concluded an efficient treaty, which gave
us the power of seizing vessels equipped for the slave-trade, without
waiting till they had taken on board their miserable cargo, which gave
rise to hopes that this would have the effect of extinguishing the
trade. It was desirable that we should obtain similar conditions from
Portugal; and he was bound to say that the persons opposed to the
abolition were not the Portuguese people, but certain influential
parties who were interested in the maintenance of the contraband
commerce, and continued to violate the treaty with the sanction of the
Portuguese government. In conclusion, his lordship entreated the house
to pass this bill, which had been introduced in redemption of the pledge
given by government in the last session, and formed an indispensable
preliminary to any undertaking upon a greater: scale. Through the
influence of the Duke of Wellington the bill was rejected by a majority
of thirty-eight against thirty-two.

On the 2nd of August Lord Brougham moved the following resolution on
the same subject:—“That an humble address be presented to her majesty,
praying her majesty, by all the means within her majesty’s power, to
negociate with the governments of foreign nations, as well in America as
in Europe, for their concurrence in effectually putting down the traffic
in slaves; and also, that her majesty will be graciously pleased to
give such orders to her majesty’s cruisers as may be most efficacious
in stopping the said traffic, more especially that carried on under
the Portuguese and Brazilian flags, or by the Brazilian and Portuguese
ships, assuring her majesty that this house will cheerfully concur with
the other house of parliament in whatever measure might be rendered
necessary, if her majesty shall be graciously pleased to comply with
this prayer.” Lord Brougham intimated that he moved this address under
the apprehension that if it went out to Portugal that the bill recently
rejected was done so by the unanimous opinion of the house of lords,
their lordships might be represented as giving a sanction, which none
of them had ever contemplated, to so odious a traffic. The motion for
an address, after some observations from the Duke of Wellington, the
Marquis of Lansdowne, and the Earl of Minto, was agreed to, and ordered
to be communicated to the other house. On the 8th of August the Duke
of Argyle, as lord-high-steward of the household, announced that her
majesty had been waited on with the address, and returned the following
gracious answer:—“I receive this address with great satisfaction. I
will direct orders to be given to my cruisers in accordance with your
wishes, fully relying upon your assurance that you will concur in the
measures which will thus be rendered necessary.”

On the same evening, in the house of commons, Viscount Palmerston moved
for leave to introduce another bill in the place of that which had been
rejected. After stating the grounds of objection against the former
bill, the noble lord proceeded to unfold the nature of the clauses in
the new bill. Although, he said, the crown might undoubtedly, by its
prerogatives, take measures which would effectually put down Portuguese
slavers, there were still inconveniences which demanded a remedy. The
officers, his lordship said, acting under its orders, would be exposed
to harassing suits in the courts of law at London; and, although we
might capture ships, and deal with them accordingly, it would not be
proper of this country to dispose of vessels which were the _prima
facie_ property of subjects of other states without having proved
before some court of record the grounds of such proceedings. An act was
therefore required to define what constituted a slave-trader. It was not
considered necessary for the slaves to be on board: a ship equipped in a
certain manner was a proof that she was engaged in the slave-trade; but
the courts of admiralty could not condemn a ship on that ground without
an act of parliament. It was further requisite, to enable the crown, by
the same proceeding, to give to those who capture slave-vessels under
this treaty bounties similar to those secured by conventions with other
powers. These provisions, his lordship thought, would be sufficient to
put down the commerce carried on by the Portuguese flag, and a great
point would thereby be accomplished. After, indeed, that they had
united all the flags in Christendom to put down this horrid traffic,
the slavers might repudiate all flags, and divest themselves of
every document which might enable th captor to identify them with any
particular nation. That would be the last refuge of despairing crime;
and in order to meet those circumstances, he would propose a clause
by which such a ship should be dealt with as though it were an English
trader, unless it appeared, in the course of the trial, that she
belonged to some particular state, in which event the case should not
be adjudicated by the court of admiralty, but dealt with as if at the
outset she had been of the nation to which she was ultimately shown to
belong. His lordship added, that when the nations of Europe were once
united in giving a mutual right of search, or the power of condemning
by a mixed commission, there would no longer remain any defence for
carrying on the slave-trade under any European flag; and he reminded
the house that he had already concluded treaties with Chili, Grenada,
Venezuela, and that intelligence had recently arrived of a treaty made
with Buenos Ayres. After a few words from Dr. Lushington, Sir E. Inglis,
and Captain Pechell, leave was given to bring in the bill, and it was
brought in and read a first time. The next evening it was read a
second time, went through a committee, and passed the commons without a
division.

The second reading of this new bill for the suppression of the
slave-trade was moved by Lord Melbourne on the 15th of August. Previous
to making this motion the noble viscount requested that the address
of the house of lords on the slave-trade, together with her majesty’s
gracious answer, should be read; and after explaining the provisions of
the measure, he stated that, in compliance with the prayer contained in
the address, her majesty had given directions to her cruisers to take
the most efficacious measures for putting down the traffic, and
that this bill was necessary in order to fulfil their lordships’ own
intentions and wishes, as expressed in their petition to the crown. The
Duke of Wellington still continued his opposition to this measure, and
he moved as an amendment that it should be read that day six months. He
was supported by Lord Ellenborough, who demanded that any orders which
had been issued to her majesty’s cruisers should be laid before the
house. The measure, however, was supported by the Bishop of London,
the lord chancellor, the Earl of Minto, and Lords Brougham, Denman, and
Colchester, and the second reading was eventually carried by a majority
of thirty-nine against twenty-eight. On the next evening, when the bill
was in committee, Lord Lyndhurst moved an amendment to the following
clause;—“That in case her majesty should please to issue orders to her
cruisers to capture Portuguese vessels engaged in the slave-trade, or
vessels of any state whatever engaged in the slave-trade, not having
on board, or the masters whereof should neglect to produce, on demand,
papers showing of what state she belongs;” which amendment was to this
effect:—“That in case her majesty should please to issue orders to her
cruisers to capture Portuguese vessels engaged in the slave-trade, or
any other vessels engaged in the slave-trade, and Hot justly entitled to
claim the protection of any flag.” This amendment, which was intended to
confine the operation of the bill to Portuguese vessels, and piratical
vessels engaged in the slave-trade, after some remarks from Lord
Brougham in opposition to it, was finally adopted, and on the 19th of
August it was read a third time without discussion. After it had passed,
the Duke of Wellington, who had put in a protest both against the second
and third reading, stated, that he still retained all his objections to
the principles of the bill; it still exhibited its criminal character,
for it was a breach of the law of nations, a violation of international
treaties, and would rather tend to encourage than to prevent the
traffic against which its enactments were directed. On the motion of the
chancellor of the exchequer the amendments were agreed to in the house
of commons, and the measure became law.




MOTION FOR THE BALLOT.

Circumstances had revived the interest attending the question of voting
by ballot, and thus encouraged, on the 18th of June Mr. Grote again
brought the subject forward in the house of commons. The motion was
seconded by Lord Worsley, and supported by Mr. Macauley; but was opposed
by Lord John Russell, who, on this occasion, spoke with unusual energy.
It was further opposed by-Lord Howick, Sirs J. Graham and Robert Peel,
and Messrs. Gaskell and Milnes. On a division it was rejected by a
majority of three hundred and thirty-five against two hundred and
seventeen: one cabinet minister only voted with Mr. Grote; but others,
who were in favour of it, absented themselves on the occasion.




ACT FOR THE BETTER ORDERING OF PRISONS.

During this session an act was passed for the “better ordering of
prisons.” By this act it was provided that prisoners might be separately
confined, though that separate confinement should not be deemed solitary
confinement. No cell was to be used for the separate confinement of
any prisoner which was not of such a size, and lighted, warmed, and
ventilated in such a manner as might be required by a due regard to
health, and which did not furnish the means of enabling the prisoner to
communicate at any time with an officer of the prison. Every prisoner so
confined was to have the means of taking air and exercise at such times
as should be deemed necessary by the surgeon, and was to be furnished
with the means of moral and religious instruction, and with suitable
books, as well as with labour or employment. All prisoners were to be
divided into the following classes: namely, debtors in those prisons in
which debtors might be lawfully confined; prisoners committed for trial;
prisoners convicted and sentenced to hard labour; prisoners convicted
and not sentenced to hard labour; and prisoners not included in either
of the foregoing classes.




MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE TO CONSIDER THE NATIONAL
PETITION.

On the 12th of July Mr. Attwood moved for a committee of the whole
house, to take into consideration a “National Petition,” which had been
presented on the 14th of June. In making this motion, Mr. Attwood stated
this petition was signed by 1,200,000 persons of the working classes. In
it the petitioners urged five demands: namely, universal suffrage,
vote by ballot, annual parliaments, remuneration of members for
their attendance in parliament, and the abolition of the property
qualifications. This proposal gave rise to a considerable discussion;
but it was rejected by a majority of two hundred and thirty-five against
one hundred and eighty-nine.




BIRMINGHAM RIOTS, ETC.

The defeat of Mr. Attwood’s motion was contemporaneous with alarming
riots at Birmingham. These riots arose out of the proceedings of the
Chartists. That dangerous body of men had recently resorted to many
methods, in order to impose upon the majority of the people that they
were the strongest party in the country, and that they could carry their
plans into effect without resistance. One mode of proceeding was to go
round from house to house with two books, and to say that those persons
who subscribed should be registered in one book, while those who did not
subscribe were entered in another. Those who put down their names paid
a small contribution, and received in return a ticket, which was to be
their security in a time of danger: non-subscribers were warned that a
time would come when their refusal would be remembered. Another practice
of these rash demagogues was to go in procession to the churches some
time before divine service commenced, and to take possession of the body
of the edifice; some smoking their pipes, and others wearing their hats.
These Chartist combinations were very prevalent throughout the country,
and in the early part of this year, these combinations in the different
cities of the United Kingdom proceeded to the election of deputies,
in order to form a national convention, which was to have moveable
sittings, and to be entrusted with the ultimate direction of their
proceedings. Out of this arrangement arose the “National Petition,”
 mentioned in the previous article, and which was presented by Mr.
Attwood on the 14th of June. Having discharged this duty imposed on
them, the deputies proceeded to hold a national convention in the
city of Birmingham. By this step great activity was contributed to the
motions of the Chartists. It was their practice to assemble in great
numbers every evening, on the open place called the Bullring. They met
as usual on the 5th of July; but by this time the borough magistrates
had communicated with the home-office, and it was resolved to send down
sixty policemen from the metropolis to disperse them. The railway train
delivered them at Birmingham that evening, and they proceeded to
the scene of confusion, and directed the people to disperse. This
injunction, however, was unheeded, and then the police filed off four
abreast, and made for the monument of Lord Nelson, which stood in the
centre of the Bullring, and which was decorated with the flags of the
convention. The flags were captured by them; but the mob, when they
saw them in the hands of the police, recovered them by force, broke
the poles up into short sticks, and after a fierce struggle overpowered
their antagonists: several of the policemen were seriously hurt, and
more than one of them stabbed. At that juncture the 4th dragoons arrived
on the spot; riding by concert up every avenue which led to the place,
the Bullring was completely enclosed. Their appearance was the signal
for the people to disperse, and the routed mob proceeded, with the
cavalry in close pursuit, down Digbeth and up Broomsgrove-street, to
St. Thomas’s church. Hero they tore up the palisades, and made a brief
stand; but the tumult was eventually reduced: by midnight quiet was
restored, and the military, planting a guard in the great square,
returned to their barracks. In this encounter several Chartist leaders
were captured; as Dr. Taylor, the Paisley delegate to the convention,
and Messrs. Lovett and Collins. There was still, however, an
under-current of agitation: in fact, the late event was but the
precursor to a more furious storm. While it was taking place, Mr.
Attwood brought forward his motion for taking the National Petition
into consideration. The rejection of’ his motion irritated the already
inflamed minds of the Chartists. It was generally expected that Mr.
Attwood would on the 15th of July address them on his old ground at
Holloway-head. Under this apprehension the spot was occupied during the
day by small groups of artisans, who amounted at half-past six to about
two hundred. Several speakers addressed them; but when it was found
that Mr. Attwood would not come, an orator recommended them to form into
line, and parade through the principal streets. He recommended that they
should walk orderly; but instead of that they proceeded tumultuously to
the Bullring. No police were on the spot; and thus favoured, the mob,
having been reinforced from all quarters, proceeded down Moor-street to
the public office. All the windows of this building were broken by them;
and, under the impression that neither the police nor the military were
able to withstand them, the tumultuous concourse poured back into the
square. Weapons were now sought: broken flagstones, heavy bludgeons, and
scythes were brought into use, while some loosened the pavement for the
purpose of arming empty hands with missiles. The work of demolition
soon commenced: the houses of Mr. Bourne, a grocer, and Mr. Leggett, an
upholsterer, were plundered and set on fire. A simultaneous attack was
next made upon the Nelson hotel; and by casting the lighted brands into
other shops, which had been forcibly driven in, the mob were on the
point of kindling a general conflagration. At this point, however, the
police made their appearance; and at ten o’clock they were followed
by some magistrates and the military. The first onset was followed
by complete discomfiture: before the troops came up the ringleaders
escaped, and by midnight quiet again reigned. The morning, however,
showed a dismal scene of devastation: besides the premises which
were consumed by fire, nearly twenty shops were destroyed; and it was
reckoned that £40,000 would not cover the damages.

In consequence of these lamentable occurrences, and the excited state
of the northern districts of the kingdom, on the 22nd of July, Lord John
Russell announced his intention of taking the requisite precautions for
securing the tranquillity of the country, by placing at the hands of the
magistrates a better organized constitutional force for putting the law
into execution, and providing sufficient military means for supporting
them in the performance of their duty. On the next evening he moved
a resolution to authorize the treasury to advance £10.000 out of the
consolidated fund, for the purpose of establishing an efficient police
force at Birmingham, which was to be repaid out of the rates to be
levied on the said town. In explanation of this resolution, his
lordship stated, that there were difficulties in the way of an immediate
organization of such a force on account of the excited state of
Birmingham, and from the question lately raised in Manchester, with
regard to the corporation, whether the municipal body of Birmingham
had the power to impose a rate for the establishment of a police. Under
these circumstances he proposed that the state should interfere so far
as to advance certain funds, to be repaid by the town. This would not
be a vote of supply, but a vote forming the foundation of a bill which
should provide for the recovery of the money by a rate on the borough,
to be imposed by an act of parliament, and, therefore, irrespective of
the authority of the corporation. This resolution was carried, and a
bill was brought in, which became law. Similar bills, with the exception
of the advance of funds from the treasury, were subsequently applied to
Manchester and Bolton, to remain in force until the power of the civil
functionaries to raise a rate should be determined. A bill was also
passed, with the same intention, to enlarge the powers of the justices
of the peace for appointing county and district constables, and charging
their support upon the districts to which they might be nominated. This
measure, however, was not intended to be imperative; but justices in
quarter-sessions were authorized to report to the secretary of state
the necessity of an additional appointment of constables, wherever the
circumstances of their district should call for such an augmentation, in
a proportion not exceeding one for every one thousand of the population.
At the same time magistrates were to create one or more chief-constables
of the county, with whom should rest the nomination of petty-constables
and a deputy. A further enactment forbade any constable under the
provisions of this hill from voting at an election, or exercising any
other employment. In order further to secure the peace of the country,
Lord John Russell subsequently moved that an addition of five thousand
men should be made to the present military establishment; and after
an amendment by Mr. Hume, which was unsuccessful, the house went into
committee, and a vote of £75,000 was carried for the increase of the
army.




THE BUDGET—PROPOSED REDUCTION OF POSTAGE DUTIES, ETC.

The chancellor of the exchequer brought forward his financial statement
on the 5th of July. From his statement it appeared that the expenditure
had exceeded the estimates; chiefly in consequence of the war in Canada.
The estimates were £46,974,000, and the expenditure £47,760,000, so that
there was a deficiency of £786,636. Mr. Rice, however, stated that he
did not think himself justified in laying a permanent charge on that
account upon the country, and he proposed to meet the deficiency by a
vote of exchequer-bills on a subsequent occasion, in the nature of
a vote of credit. The chancellor of the exchequer next stated the
estimated income and expenditure of the present year; the former being
£48,128,000, and the latter £47,988,000, leaving an excess of £140,000.

In his statements the chancellor of the exchequer took a cheerful view
of the commercial prospects of the country; and he referred to the
increase of exports for the present year over those of 1838 as a symptom
of returning prosperity. So confident was he of a return of prosperity,
that he proposed to reduce the rates of postage. At this time there was
a committee sitting on the post-office acts; and Mr. Rice moved this
resolution:—“That it is expedient to reduce the postage charged on
letters to the uniform rate of one penny, for every letter of a weight
to be hereafter fixed by law; parliamentary privileges of franking being
abolished, and official franking strictly regulated. This house pledges
itself at the same time to make good any deficiency of revenue which
may be occasioned by such an alteration in the rates of the existing
duties.” In moving this resolution the chancellor of the exchequer said
that he proposed a penny rate, because he had been convinced by the
arguments and evidence of the committee that the latter expedient would
involve less loss to the revenue than a twopenny postage, which had been
recommended by the committee. After some observations from Mr. Goulburn
and Sir Kobert Peel, both of whom intimated further hostility to such a
change, the resolution was agreed to without a division. On the 12th of
July, when the order of the day was read for receiving the report of
a committee on the postage-acts, Mr. Goulburn rose for the purpose of
proposing a series of resolutions to be substituted for the report.
These resolutions were:—“That with a deficiency of revenue during
the three years ending on the 5th day of April, 1840, of not less than
£8,860,987, it is not expedient to adopt any measure for reducing the
rates of postage on inland letters to an uniform rate of one penny,
thereby incurring the risk of a great present loss to the revenue, at a
period of the session so advanced, that it is scarcely possible to
give to the details of such a measure, and to the important financial
considerations connected with it, that deliberate attention which they
ought to receive from parliament.” This amendment was opposed by the
chancellor of the exchequer, and supported by Sir Kobert Peel. After
a few words from Messrs. P. Thomson and Warburton in favour of the
proposition, the original question was carried by a majority of two
hundred and fifteen against one hundred and thirteen. The report was
then brought up and read; and on the question that the resolution
agreed to by the committee be read a second time, Sir R. Peel moved an
amendment to omit such part of the resolution as pledged the house to
supply any deficiency of the revenue occasioned by the reduction. This
amendment, however, was rejected, and the report agreed to; and on the
18th of July Mr. S. Rice brought in a bill, intituled, “An act for
the further regulation of the duties on postage until the 5th day of
October, 1840.” This bill was read a second time without a division, and
by the 29th of July it passed the commons.

The second reading was moved by Lord Melbourne in the house of lords on
the 5th of August; on which occasion the Duke of Wellington criticised
the manner and circumstances under which it had been brought forward in
the face of a deficiency of more than one million, which, considering
the state of our affairs both at home and abroad, was likely to be
greatly augmented by the 5th day of October, 1840. At the same time the
noble duke said that he would vote for the bill, and would recommend
their lordships to follow his example. Several other noble lords
addressed the house, chiefly in favour of the measure; and the bill was
then read a second time, and subsequently became law without further
opposition.

In his remarks on the postage-bill the Duke of Wellington recommended
ministers to reduce the amount of the floating debt, under the pressure
of which the market had been labouring, by funding exchequer-bills.
Apparently acting upon this suggestion, on the 12th of August Viscount
Melbourne and the chancellor of the exchequer made public their
determination, subject to the approval of parliament, to effect the
funding of four millions of exchequer-bills in the three per cent,
consolidated annuities. This arrangement was effected on the 17th.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

In the house of lords the labours of the session were brought to a
close by a long and animated discussion on a motion made on the 24th of
August, by Lord Lyndhurst, for “a return of all bills that had arrived
from the house of commons since the commencement of the session, with
the dates at which they were brought up.” In his speech, the noble
lord directed the attention of the house to the fate of four important
subjects—the Irish municipal corporations, the affairs of Canada,
the recommendations of the ecclesiastical commissioners, and tire
administration of justice; after which he went on to pass under a
searching review, the whole parliamentary conduct of ministers in the
course of the expiring session. Lord Melbourne replied in an effective
speech. Lord Brougham contended that the country would be glad to see
the Conservatives return to office.

Parliament was prorogued by her majesty in person on the 27th of August.
After being addressed by the speaker on the various measures which had
occupied the attention of parliament, and after having given the
royal assent to several bills, her majesty read the speech, which the
lord-chancellor put into her hands, in her usual distinct and impressive
manner. The speech referred to the various topics which had engaged the
attention of parliament, and the differences which had lately sprung up
between the British government and that of Persia.




AFFAIRS IN THE EAST INDIES.

Her majesty, in her speech on the prorogation of parliament, alluded to
an army which the governor-general had led across the Indus. This
“army of the Indus” was put in motion for the western frontier at the
commencement of the present year; and the circumstances which led to so
important a proceeding were briefly these. The kingdom of Affghanistan
has been called the land of transition between eastern and western Asia:
a proverb says, “No one can be king of Hindoostan without first becoming
lord of Cabool.” The founder of the Affghan empire was Ahmed Shah, who
died in 1773. Ahmed Shah made several victorious incursions into the
East; and his son, Timour Shah, followed his example. The decease of
Timour Shah, however, delivered over the Affghan empire to the domestic
hostilities of his sons; and the rival tribe of the Barukzyes
took advantage of their dissensions to precipitate them from their
sovereignty. When, indeed, Sir Alexander Burnes visited Affghanistan in
1833, the only portion which remained in the hands of a descendant of
Ahmed Shah was the principality of Herat. The remainder was parcelled
out in the following manner between the usurping family:—Dost Mohammed
Khan ruled in Cabool; Sirdar Sooltan Mohammed Khan ruled Peshawar,
although his two brothers. Peer and Sared Mohammed Khan, shared its
revenues; and Candahar was governed by Kohun Dil Khan, assisted by
Ruhun Dil and Shere Dil, his two brothers. The chief of Cabool owed his
success to Futteh Khan, the chief of the great family of Barukzyes, and
the most powerful of the Affghan nobles. Futteh Khan, in fact, governed
the kingdom under the designation of vizier, while Mahmood abandoned
himself to debauchery. If Mahmood, however, submitted to the ascendancy
of his able minister, not so did his son, the prince Kamrau. By his
orders Futteh Khan was seized at Herat and deprived of his eyesight;
and a few months afterwards the unhappy vizier was literally hacked to
pieces by the courtiers of Mahmood, in the presence of that monarch.
In the days of his power Futteh Khan had distributed the different
governments of his kingdom among his numerous brothers, and this act
drove them into rebellion. Mahmood abandoned his throne without a
struggle, and, although he retained Herat, with the title of king,
became, in effect, a vassal of Persia. The Barukzye brothers were
left to dispose of his dominions at pleasure, and they determined on
recalling Shoojah to the throne, who after many perilous adventures had
fallen into the hands of Runjeet Sing at Lahore. Shoojah escaped from
Lahore; but the Barukzye brothers having taken offence at his arrogant
treatment of one of their friends, transferred their support to his
brother, Gyooh: the trappings of royalty were given to him, while
they retained to themselves the power and revenues of the kingdom. The
dismemberment of the Affghan empire, however, from this time proceeded
more rapidly. Runjeet Sing seized some of its finest provinces,
including Cashmere; Shere Dil Khan established himself at Candahar as an
independent prince; Dost Mohammed made himself master of Cabool; Sirdar
Sooltan Mohammed Khan became tributary governor of Peshawar; Balkh was
annexed to the kingdom of Bokhara; and the Ameers of Scinde declared
themselves independent. Gyooh fled to Lahore; and the only province of
the kingdom which remained in the hands of a descendant of the royal
family was Herat. The prince who governed Herat was Kamrau, who had
directed that the eyes of his lather’s vizier, Futteh Khan, should
be put out. Without directly acknowledging the sovereignty of Persia,
Prince Kamrau had been for some years in the practice of rendering an
occasional tribute to the shah, as often as the governor of the Persian
province of Khorassan was strong enough to extort it from him. At
this time, however, the prince of Herat refused to perform any such
engagement; and he even permitted his vizier to pass through Siestan
into Khorassan, where he compelled the chiefs of Khiva and Khafin to
pay tribute to his master, and carried away twelve thousand persons, and
sold them as slaves. This conduct of Kamrau furnished Mohammed Shah, the
Persian monarch—who had recently ascended the throne by tire
assistance of British officers, and supplies of money from the English
treasury—with a pretext for endeavouring to make himself master of
Herat. There was an existing treaty between England and Persia, which
stipulated “that if war should ensue between the Persian and Affghan
governments, the English government should take no part in it; nor
should give assistance to either party, except as a mediator, at the
solicitation of both parties, for the purpose of producing peace.” Had
the Persian monarch limited his views to an attack upon Herat, this
treaty would have been binding on the English nation; but it soon became
evident that he extended them to Ghizni and Candahar. Mr. Ellis, who had
been sent to Persia as British envoy in the year 1835, thus wrote at the
commencement of the following year:—“The intention cannot be mistaken:
Herat once annexed to Persia, may become the residence of a Russian
consular agent, who would from thence push his researches and his
communications, avowed and secret, throughout Affghanistan. Indeed, in
the present state of the relations between Persia and Russia, it cannot
be denied that the progress of the former in Affghanistan is tantamount
to the advance of the latter, and ought to receive every opposition
from the British government that the public faith will permit.” Russian
influence, was, in fact, predominant in the councils of Mohammed Shah,
and the power of Russia appeared to stand higher in the general opinion
than that of Great Britain. Moreover, the Russian ambassador was urgent
upon the shah to complete his designs against Herat, and he even offered
his military services in the expedition. Under these circumstances Mr.
Ellis signified to the Persian ministers the extreme displeasure with
which the English would look upon the prosecution of any extended
schemes of conquest in Affghanistan: without disputing their right to
obtain redress from the prince of Herat, he intimated that the British
government would be better pleased if that purpose could be effected
by negotiation; and offered to send a British officer to Herat for the
purpose of facilitating the adjustment of the existing differences.
To this proposal the Persian ministers at first assented, but they
afterwards rejected it altogether. In the meantime Uzeez Khan arrived
on a mission from Kohun Dil Khan and his brothers at Candahar, with the
object of effecting an alliance offensive and defensive, with the shah,
and uniting in the attack upon Kamrau. Towards the close of 1835, Dost
Mohammed Khan, the chief of Cabool, also dispatched an agent to the
court of Persia with letters, in which he offered to co-operate in an
attack upon Herat, and sought in general the protection of the shall
against the Sikhs. The real objects of the chiefs of Candahar was also
to obtain protection from the same enemies; and neither they nor the
chief of Cabool had any disposition to become feudatories of Persia.
Thus supported, the shah set forth on his expedition; but owing to the
appearance of the cholera by the 3rd of November, 1836, he had only
reached Asterabad. His army was in fact reduced to such a deplorable
condition, from the scarcity of provisions and the predatory incursions
of the Turcomans, that all hopes of undertaking a winter campaign
against Herat were given up, and, despite the remonstrances of the
Russian plenipotentiary, the shah led back his forces into Persia. In
the meantime Mr. M’Neill had succeeded Mr. Ellis, and he did not fail to
make known the advice which had been tendered by the Russian ambassador
in the late expedition; and Lord Palmerston directed the Earl of Durham,
our envoy at Russia, to inquire of Count Nesselrode whether the Russian
envoy was acting in accordance with the instructions of his government.
It was stated in reply that if Count Simonich had acted in the manner
mentioned, it was done in direct opposition to his instructions: he had
been ordered to dissuade the shah from prosecuting the war at any time
and in any circumstances. It was added, that our minister in Persia must
have been misinformed; but in a subsequent despatch, Mr. M’Neill stated
that tire information he had given had been confirmed by the concurrent
testimony of all the Persians with whom he had conversed on the subject,
including the prime-minister. The allegations against Count Simonich
were, in fact, indisputable; and the prospect of a combination of
Russian and Persian influence could not fail to alarm the government of
India; and as the shah’s designs against Herat were not given up, Mr.
M’Neill was instructed to inform him that any attempt to prosecute
schemes of aggrandizement in Affghanistan would diminish the cordiality
existing between England and Persia. Mohammed Shah, however, was so far
from giving up his designs upon Herat, that he sought to obtain a more
intimate alliance with Russia; and he was so far successful, that an
envoy was dispatched by him with presents from himself and the Russian
envoy resident at his court, to Candahar and Cabool. His preparations
for war were still continued; and in the midst of them a messenger
arrived from Herat to negotiate an arrangement. Mr. M’Neil was invited
to take part in the conference. The terms brought by the envoy from
Herat were so advantageous that the British envoy recommended the
Persian government to accept them, lest the British government should
suspect that Persia, in persisting to prosecute the war, had other
objects in view than those avowed. The conditions, however, were
rejected, and it was evident that the shah would only be satisfied with
the sovereignty of Herat. His troops were again put in motion on the
23rd of July; but in consequence of obstructions, on the 14th of October
they had advanced no further than Nishapoor, about half the distance
from Teheran to Herat. About this time an emissary from Russia appeared
in the Persian camp, from whence he proceeded to Candahar and Cabool;
everywhere giving out that he was sent to intimate the arrival of a
large Russian army to co-operate with the army against Herat. Dost
Mohammed, the chief of Cabool, had sent agents to St. Petersburg, as
well as Teheran, to procure assistance against the Sikhs; and shortly
after, he applied with the same intention to Lord Auckland, who had just
arrived in India as governor-general. Lord Auckland decided on sending
Captain Burnes on a commercial mission to Cabool; and that officer
reached the capital of Dost Mohammed about the time that the Persian
and Russian agents arrived in Candahar and Cabool. Negotiations were
commenced between these various agents and the chief of Cabool; and
they were not concluded when the Persian army arrived before Herat. The
shah had previously captured the border fortress of Ghorian; but he was
destined to meet with a different reception before the city of Kamrau
Shah: week after week elapsed, and not the slightest impression was made
upon its walls. While the siege was proceeding, Lord Auckland directed
Mr. M’Neill to proceed to the camp, and make one more endeavour to
effect a pacific adjustment, and to obtain redress. He had so far
succeeded as to bring the mind of the shah to be favourable to a
treaty; but all his efforts were again set aside by the arrival of Count
Simonich, the Russian envoy, in the Persian camp. The siege, therefore,
continued, nor could subsequent efforts made by Mr. M’Neill set it
aside. His failure was made known to the British government; and on
the 21st of May he received a despatch from Lord Palmerston, which
authorized him to inform the shah that his designs were in complete
contravention of the spirit of the alliance subsisting between the two
nations; and that he must expect the cessation of intercourse in the
event of such hostile proceedings being persevered in. In consequence
of this direction Mr. M’Neill wrote the following letter to the Shah of
Persia:—“I am directed to inform your majesty that if Herat should have
surrendered to your majesty, the British government will consider your
continuing to occupy that or any other portion of Affghanistan as an
hostile demonstration against England. Your majesty is no doubt informed
by your government of Fars, that a body of British troops, and a naval
armament, consisting of five ships of war, have already arrived in the
Persian Gulf, and that for the present the troops have been landed in
the Island of Karrak. The measures your majesty may adopt in consequence
of this representation, will decide the future movements and proceedings
of that armament; but your majesty must perceive, from the view which
her majesty’s government has taken of the present state of affairs,
and from the effect which must have been produced upon the minds of her
majesty’s ministers and the British authorities in India, and by the
subsequent proceedings of the Persian government, with which they were
not then acquainted, that nothing but the immediate adoption of measures
complying with the demands of the British government, can induce the
authorities acting under the orders of that government to suspend the
measures that are now in progress for the defence of British interests,
and the vindication of British honour.” Before this declaration had come
to the hands of the Shah, the Persian army, after six days of incessant
battering, had made a general assault upon Herat; but although the
troops went forward courageously, and had even planted their standards
three several times upon the breach, they were finally defeated in
their attempt: the Affghans attacked them sword in hand, with energy too
resolute to be resisted, and drove them with great slaughter across the
ditch: nearly two thousand Persians were slain. This failure, however,
had not the immediate effect of forcing the Shah to raise the siege.

In the meantime Captain Burnes had failed in his mission to Cabool, and
Lieutenant Leach, who had been sent to Candahar, had met with the same
ill-success. A treaty had been concluded between Persia and the latter
state, under the warrant of the Russian minister; and a treaty of nearly
similar import was in progress at Cabool. Under these circumstances
preparations were set on foot for marching an army into Affghanistan.
The moment was very critical: there was a prospect of Persian dominion
and Russian supremacy in all the Affghan states. By Russian subsidies,
Kohun Dil Khan, chief of Candahar, besieged Furrah, a dependency of
Herat; and Dost Mohammed Khan, chief of Cabool, commenced a system of
hostile intrigues even in India. The Ameers of Scinde were called upon
to join the league against the English even by the Shah himself; and his
efforts were seconded by the Russian emissary, who had so successfully
fulfilled his mission at Candahar and Cabool. But notwithstanding all
these efforts, the failure of the recent assault of Herat, together with
the debarcation of troops at Karrak, and the military preparations which
were being made in the north of British India, finally led the Shah to
comply with all the demands of the British ambassador, and to abandon
his enterprise: the camp broke up on the 9th of September, 1838, and
returned to Teheran. Later in the year Count Nesselrode disclaimed
on the part of the Emperor of Russia all intentions of disturbing the
tranquillity of the British possessions in India; and by the month of
February, after considerable negociation, harmony was restored between
the Russian and the British governments. The operations of the British
army in India were not, however, wholly set aside by these events. At
the time of the raising of the siege of Herat, and the retreat of the
Shah of Persia, “the army of the Indus” was encamped at Simla, and was
about to be put in motion for Ferozepore, on the Sutledge. At Simla,
Sir Harvey Faroe, who commanded the troops, under the direction of the
governor-general, published a manifesto, which set forth the causes for
the assembling of the army, and the objects which the British government
had in view. As regarded the objects in view, the governor-general
said, in the manifesto, that he felt the importance of taking steps
for arresting the rapid progress of foreign aggressions towards our own
territories, and that his attention was naturally drawn to the position
and claims of Shah Soojah, who had, when in power, cordially acceded
to measures of united resistance against internal enmity; and as the
Barukzye chiefs were unfitted, under any circumstances, to be useful
allies to Great Britain, or aid us in our measures of national defence,
the governor-general felt warranted in espousing the cause of Shah
Soojah, whose popularity had been proved by the best authorities. A
tripartite treaty had, therefore, been concluded between the British
government, Runjeet Sing, and Shah Soojah, whereby the maharaja of the
Sikhs was guaranteed in his present possessions, and bound to co-operate
in the restoration of the Shah. The manifesto further set forth that a
guaranteed independence would be tendered to the Àmeers of Scinde; that
Herat would be left in the possession of its present ruler; and that
Shah Soojah should enter Affghanistan surrounded with his own troops,
and supported against opposition, foreign or domestic, by a British
army. As soon as these objects were effected, the British army was to
be withdrawn from the Affghan territory; but British influence was to
be used to further every measure of general benefit, and heal the
distractions which had so long afflicted the Affghan people: even those
chiefs whose hostile proceedings had been the cause of the measure,
would receive a liberal and honourable treatment. The grand objects,
therefore, for which the British troops were assembled at Simla, on tire
Jumna, were to dethrone the hostile chiefs of Candahar and Cabool, and
to re-establish the Shah Soojah in his dominions. On hearing of the
raising of the siege of Herat, the intentions of the Indian government
were in some degree modified. It was determined not to send forward the
whole force, a part only being thought sufficient to effect the objects
in view. The army of the Indus was in fact reduced to a _corps d’armée_,
and it was to be commanded by Sir John Keene, the commander-in-chief at
Bombay. The army was divided, and proceeded by two different routes; the
Bombay division being destined to bring Scinde to submission. The first
step of this division was to march upon Hyderabad, which was captured
without any effectual resistance. The seizure of the capital was
followed by the occupation of Kouratchee, the richest city in Scinde. By
these means the Ameers were brought to contract a fresh treaty with the
Indian government; agreeing to make an immediate payment of £300,000; to
abolish the tolls on the Indus; to maintain an auxiliary corps of four
or five thousand men under the command of British officers; and to pay
a tribute amounting to nearly one-half of their revenue. Each Ameer,
moreover, was for the future to look upon the English government as
his suzerain, and procure his separate recognition at its hands. In the
meantime the Bengal division was descending the bank of the Sutledge to
unite with the Bombay army at Shikarpore, on the confines of Scinde
and Affghanistan. The whole army assembled at Shikarpore, with the
contingent of Shah Soojah, towards the beginning of March. The fatigues
of the march, together with the assaults of the Beloches, had already
made fearful havoc with the ranks of the expedition; and as they
proceeded their sufferings increased. In the midst of trials and
difficulties, however, they pressed forward., and towards the middle
of April, they assembled beyond the reach of danger, in the valley of
Pisheen. How dreadfully they suffered in their route may be inferred
from the fact, that of 6,000 men which comprised the contingent of Shah
Soojah, only 1,500 escaped. Their greatest dangers were encountered
in the defiles of Bolau, where they not only had to contend with the
natural difficulties of the pass, but with the elements and fierce wild
robbers, who hovered upon their flank day and night. In the valley
of Pisheen, however, the survivors recruited their strength, and then
proceeded to action. Candah offered them no resistance; Kohun Dil Khan
quitted the capital and took refuge with his brother, Dost Mohammed., at
Cabool. The Bengal division entered the city of Candahar on the 24th of
April, and the Shah Soojah was solemnly crowned on the 8th of May. The
troops spent several weeks at Candahar, but on the 27th of June they
marched forward to Ghisneh. Operations, however, did not recommence till
the 21st of July. Ghisneh was captured, after a fierce struggle, on the
22nd, and the son of Dost Mohammed taken prisoner. The capture of
this strong fortress made a great impression upon the Affghans. It was
expected that the fortress would have kept the English in check for some
time; and under this impression Dost Mohammed was proceeding towards the
capital with his cavalry and a park of artillery. On hearing of the fall
of Gisneh, however, his army broke up, and Sir J. Keene then resumed his
march along the rich valley from Ghisneh to Cabool. Shah Soojah entered
Cabool on the 7th of August; and his rival, Dost Mohammed, being
abandoned by all but the members of his own Barukzye tribe, fled beyond
the mountains of the Hazareh into Bokhara. In order to complete the
conquest Major Outram was sent into certain disturbed districts between
Cabool and Candahar to tranquillize the disaffected Ghilzee tribes,
who had not yet acknowledged Shah Soojah, and replace the refractory
chieftains with newly-appointed governors. Khelat was also reinvested:
that fortress was captured by General Willshire, and the khan, Mehrat,
with many of his chiefs, fell fighting, sword in hand. Having achieved
these conquests, Sir J. Keene, leaving a detachment for the protection
of Shah Soojah, returned home with the main body. Mr. M’Naughten
remained as resident at the court of Cabool. Such was the issue of the
campaign in Afghanistan. Subsequently her majesty rewarded the services
of the more eminent actors in the war. The governor-general was created
Earl of Auckland, Sir John Keene was created Baron Keene of Ghuznee
in Affghanistan; and baronetcies were conferred on Mr. M’Naughten and
Colonel Pottinger.




STATE OF THE CONTINENT.

This year witnessed the virtual conclusion of the war in Spain. The
principal event which contributed to this consummation was the rupture
between the chief Maroto and Don Carlos. Maroto, indeed, with the
battalions of Castile, made their submission, and his defection was
followed by twenty-one more Carlist battalions. The terms of this
pacification were effected by Espartero; and having concluded them, he
led his army towards Don Carlos at Lecumberri. Not daring to await his
arrival, Don Carlos withdrew into the defiles of the Bastan; and from
the Bastan he fell back to Elisonda; and, finally, on the 14th of
September, with six Alavese and two Navarrese battalions, he took refuge
in France. The French government assigned to him the city of Bourges for
his temporary residence, and he was escorted thither by Marshal Soult.
The Carlist chief, Cabrera, continued for some months to maintain
his ground in the central provinces; but the struggle finally became
hopeless, and at the commencement of the succeeding year, he, with
20,000 men, followed the example of his master, and took refuge in
France. In Portugal the arrival of the bill which had been passed for
the suppression of the slave-trade, gave rise to much dissatisfaction.
The author of the measure, Lord Palmerston, was loudly charged with
hostility to Portugal, and a great estrangement prevailed for some time
between the two governments. The breach was widened by the demand made
by the British upon the Portuguese government for the payment of the
long pending civil and military claims due to the subjects of Great
Britain. The requisition was, it is said, accompanied by a menace, that,
in the event of a non-compliance, the British government would resort to
coercive measures. During this year the territorial differences between
Belgium and Holland were settled. The terms which the five powers
resolved should be agreed upon between the two parties have been seen in
a previous article; and it may be sufficient to state that Belgium, at
least accepted them with great reluctance. In Turkey events occurred
which attracted the notice of European powers. In 1838 the pacha of
Egypt had refused to pay any further tribute to the Porte; and this
announcement, together with the usurpation on the part of Meliemet
Ali of attributes peculiar to the commander of the faithful alone,
determined the sultan to make another effort for the reduction of his
vassal. He assembled a large army on the eastern bank of the Euphrates,
which menaced the Syrian dominions of the pacha; while Ibrahim, on
the other hand, proceeded to concentrate his forces around Aleppo.
The governments of France and England were apprehensive lest the
discomfiture of the Turkish army should be followed by the arrival of a
Russian force in the Bosphorus, in accordance with the stipulations of
the treaty signed on an analogous juncture at Unkiar Skelessi. Under
this apprehension the representatives of their respective courts at
Constantinople and Alexandria were directed to make every effort to
prevent war. Large concessions were made by Ibrahim through their
mediation; but the interpreters of the law at Constantinople assured
the sultan that it was the duty of every true believer to take up
arms against an impious usurper, and a solemn declaration of war was
accordingly read in all the mosques. In the month of June a great battle
took place between the contending armies near Nezib, in which the Turks,
under Hafiz Pacha, were utterly discomfited; six thousand of them were
left dead on the field, and ten thousand were left in the hands of
Ibrahim Pacha, together with fifteen thousand muskets, and more than
one hundred pieces of artillery. The sultan did not live to hear of
this disaster; he died on the 1st of July, and Abdul Mcdjio, a youth of
seventeen, assumed the reins of empire. The death of Sultan Mahmoud the
Second gave rise to negociation. The first act of the new sultan was to
forward to the viceroy of Egypt an offer of pardon, together with the
hereditary possession of the province of Egypt, on the condition that he
conformed to his duties of obedience and submission. Mehemet Ali appears
to have been willing to submit to these terms; but about the same time
that he received them, Achmet, the capitan pacha, had revolted from
the sultan, and had arrived at Alexandria. The Ottoman monarchy was
tottering to its fall; but at this critical juncture England, France,
Russia, Austria, and Prussia resolved to uphold the independence of
Turkey, as an essential element of the balance of power. The year,
however, closed before the negociations commenced were perfected.




CHAPTER LI.

{VICTORIA. 1840—1841}

     Meeting of Parliament:   Announcement of the Queen’s
     Marriage..... Bill for the Naturalization of Prince
     Albert..... The Civil List..... Question of Privilege:
     Hansard and Stockdale..... Affairs of China..... Irish
     Municipal Corporations   Bill,  &c. Financial
     Statement..... The   Union   of   the Canadas.....
     Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill..... The Regency
     Bill..... Prorogation of Parliament..... Affairs  of British
     India..... The Marriage of the Queen..... State of the
     Continent.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.—ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE QUEEN’S MARRIAGE.

{A.D. 1840}

Parliament was opened on the 16th of January by her majesty in person.
The opening of her majesty’s speech was one of great interest. It read
thus:—“My lords and gentlemen—Since you have last assembled, I have
declared my intention of allying myself in marriage with the Prince of
Saxe Cobourg and Gotha. I humbly implore that the divine blessing
may prosper this union, rendering it conducive to the interests of my
people, as well as my own domestic happiness; and it will be to me a
source of the most lively satisfaction, to find the resolution I have
taken approved of by parliament. The constant proofs I have received
of your attachment to my person and family, persuade me that you will
enable me to provide for such an establishment as may appear suitable to
the rank of the prince, and the dignity of the crown.” In continuance,
her majesty congratulated parliament on the termination of civil war in
Spain; expressed a hope that the five powers would be able to preserve
the integrity of the Ottoman empire, and the peace of Europe; and
referred to the success of the European and native troops in India with
great satisfaction. Her majesty also declared her confident hope of
adjusting our difference with the court of Persia; and intimated that
serious attention had been given to her commercial relations with China.
In conclusion, her majesty recommended to the early consideration of
parliament two important measures relating to our home policy: namely,
the state of the municipal corporations in Ireland, and the measures
suggested by the ecclesiastical commissioners with respect to the church
establishment in this country. In the lords the address was moved by the
Duke of Somerset, and seconded by Lord Seaford. The Duke of Wellington
fully concurred in the expression of congratulation to her majesty upon
the alliance which had been announced to the country. But, his grace
continued, every precedent of the reign of George III. had been followed
in this matter except one, and that was the declaration that this prince
was a Protestant. He knew the prince was a Protestant; but as this was a
Protestant state, the fact that the prince was a Protestant should have
been officially declared. The house of lords could not omit this; and
therefore he moved the insertion of the word Protestant before the word
prince, in the first paragraph of the address. Lord Melbourne said that
he considered the amendment superfluous. The act of settlement required
that the prince should be a Protestant, and it was not likely that
ministers would advise her majesty to break through the act of
settlement. All the world knew that Prince Albert of Saxe Cobourg was
a Protestant, and that he was descended from the most emphatically
Protestant house in Europe. Lord Winchilsea did not regard the insertion
of the word Protestant as unnecessary. Near and dear relations of the
prince had become Roman Catholics, and the husband of the Queen of
Portugal, a first cousin of this very prince, was an avowed Romanist. In
the close of his observations, Lord Winchilsea adverted to the alarming
state of the country, and censured Lord Melbourne for having recently
presented Mr. Owen to the queen—a man who was the notorious advocate
of doctrines which struck at the root of all religion and morality.
The amendment was agreed to, and the address, as amended, ordered to be
presented to her majesty.

In the commons the address was agreed to; and her majesty subsequently
replied to the addresses of both houses, expressing satisfaction
at their loyalty and affection; thanking them for their support and
concurrence in her intended marriage; and assuring them that it would
be her endeavour to make her reign conducive to the happiness of all
classes of the community.




BILL FOR THE NATURALIZATION OF PRINCE ALBERT.

On the 20th of January, in the house of lords, a bill for naturalizing
his serene highness Prince Albert of Saxe Cobourg and Gotha was passed
through all its stages. On the second reading, the Duke of Wellington
objected that it was not only an act for the naturalization of Prince
Albert, but contained also a clause entitling the prince, “for and
during the term of his natural life, to take precedence in rank after
her majesty, in parliament and elsewhere, as her majesty may think
fit and proper; any law, statute, or custom to the contrary
notwithstanding.” Under these circumstances, his grace moved that the
debate be adjourned, as the house had not sufficient notice of the
contents of the bill, and as the title of it did not state anything
respecting the precedence of the prince. Lord Melbourne replied,
that the omission was purely accidental, and, in his opinion, of no
importance. At the same time his lordship admitted that this bill
differed in form from any other bills, inasmuch as it gave her majesty
an ability to bestow on Prince Albert a higher station than that
assigned to Prince George of Denmark, or Prince Leopold. But the reason
for the difference, he contended, was to be looked for in the relative
situation of the parties. The arrangements with regard to the marriage
of the Princess Charlotte were temporary; in this act it was intended
to raise the prince to a station next to that of the queen; and
no opposition had been offered to this course by those peculiarly
interested in point of rank. After a few observations from Lords
Brougham and Londonderry, the debate was adjourned till the following
week, when the lord-chancellor stated that he should propose that power
be given to the crown to allow the prince to take precedence next after
any heir-apparent to the throne.

Subsequently, however, Lord Melbourne, in moving the committal of the
bill, expressed himself so anxious that it should pass with all
possible expedition, that he had determined to leave out all relating to
precedence, and reduce it to a naturalization bill, as expressed in the
title. In that shape the bill passed without further opposition. In the
commons the bill was passed without discussion.




THE CIVIL-LIST.

On the 24th of June, after moving that the paragraph in the queen’s
speech relative to Prince Albert’s annuity be read, Lord John Russell
went into a long detail of precedents of grants to princes and
princesses allied to the royal family of England; and concluded by
moving “that her majesty be enabled to grant an annual sum of £50,000
out of the consolidated fund, for a provision to Prince Albert, to
commence on the day of his marriage with her majesty, and to continue
during his life.” The debate was adjourned for a few days, and on
its resumption Mr. Hume moved as an amendment, that £21,000 be voted
annually to Prince Albert, instead of £50,000. In his opinion, indeed,
no grant should be made during her majesty’s lifetime. The chancellor
of the exchequer replied to Mr. Hume, and several members spoke
in opposition to the grant; after which the house divided, on the
amendment, which was lost by a majority of three hundred and five
against thirty-eight. Ministers, however, were doomed to be defeated on
this question. Colonel Sibthorp had given notice that he would move an
amendment that £30,000 should be the extent of the annuity; and on
the defeat of Mr. Hume’s motion, the gallant colonel rose to move this
amendment. On a division it was carried by a large majority, the numbers
being two hundred and sixty-two against one hundred and fifty-eight.
This was a great triumph over the ministers, and Colonel Sibthorp was
so elated by it, that he endeavoured to follow it up a week or two
afterwards by moving for the insertion of a clause in the bill for
Prince Albert’s provision, to the effect that the annuity of £30,000
should cease altogether in case his serene highness should reside for a
less period than six months consecutively in each year within the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or should ally himself in marriage
with any foreign princess who should not be a Protestant, or should
cease to profess and adhere to the Protestant religion as by law
established in these realms. Both Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell
contended that such restrictions were inexpedient and inconsistent, and
the gallant colonel, finding that there was no chance of success, did
not press his motion to a division.




QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE—HANSARD AND STOCKDALE.

In the year 1835, a bill was proposed in the house of lords, by the Duke
of Richmond, for the purpose of appointing inspectors of prisons. In the
report of these inspectors, which was printed by Messrs. Hansard, it was
stated, that amongst other books in use by the prisoners, one published
by John Joseph Stockdale, in 1827, was of the most disgusting nature,
the plates being obscene and indecent in the extreme. In 1836, Stockdale
brought an action against Messrs. Hansard for the sale of this report,
on the ground that the allegation therein contained about the work was
a libel. The defendants pleaded two picas: first, “Not guilty;” and,
secondly, “That the words complained of in the declaration were true.”
 The jury gave a verdict for the defendants on the second plea; and in
his charge to the jury, Lord Denman said that the fact of the house
of commons having directed Messrs. Hansard to publish all their
parliamentary reports, is no justification for them, or for any
bookseller, who publishes a parliamentary report containing a libel
against any man. On the 6th of February, 1837, Messrs. Hansard
communicated to the house of commons that legal proceedings had been
instituted against them by Stockdale, for the publication of the report,
in which he conceived himself to have been libelled. A select committee
was then appointed by the house to examine precedents, and report upon
the question of its privileges in regard to the publication of reports
and other matters. This committee decided in favour of the privilege,
which would protect any publication ordered by the house from being made
the subject of an action for libel; and the house of commons, on the
30th of May, 1837, passed the following resolutions:—“First, that the
power of publishing such of its reports, votes, and proceedings as
it shall deem necessary, or conducive to the public interest, is an
essential incident to the constitutional freedom of parliament, more
especially of this house, as the representative portion of it.—Second,
that by the law and privileges of parliament, this house has the sole
and exclusive jurisdiction to determine upon the existence and extent of
its privileges; and that the institution or prosecution of any action,
suit, or other proceedings, for the purpose of bringing them into
discussion or decision before any court or tribunal elsewhere than a
parliament, is a high breach of such privilege, and renders all
parties concerned therein amenable to its just displeasure, and to
the punishment consequent thereon.” The action, however, went on;
and Messrs. Hansard pleaded to the declaration to the effect that the
publication in question was a privileged one, on the ground that it was
issued by the authority of the house of commons. This plea was demurred
to as insufficient in point of law; and judgment was given by the court
against the defendants, and damages afterwards assessed, which were paid
over to the plaintiff. On the 31st of July, 1839, Messrs. Hansard
again informed the house that similar legal proceedings were threatened
against them on behalf of a Mr. Polack on account of some alleged
defamatory matter contained in a report of the state of New Zealand,
which had been published by order of the house of commons. In this case
they were directed by the house not to take any step towards defending
the action with which they were threatened; but subsequently Mr. Polack
communicated to the house that proceedings had been commenced without
his sanction, and that he had no intention of taking any legal steps
in the matter. The matter seemed thus set at rest; but on the 26th of
August, Stockdale commenced a third action against Messrs. Hansard, for
again publishing the same libel; the sale of each copy of the report
containing the alleged libel being, in contemplation of law, a fresh
publication of it. This was also communicated to the house of commons;
and Messrs. Hansard were again directed that the action should not
be defended. In consequence of this direction Messrs. Hansard served
Stockdale with formal notice of the resolutions of the house of commons;
but notwithstanding this, on the 26th of October, Stockdale filed
a declaration in the said action, wherein the damages were laid at
£50,000. On the 1st of November intercalatory judgment was signed for
want of a plea; and then Messrs. Hansard again caused notices against
proceeding with the said action, together with fresh copies of the
resolutions, to be served upon Stockdale. The action, however, went on;
notice was given that a writ of inquiry of damages would be executed
before the sheriff of Middlesex on the 12th of November. This writ was
executed, when the sheriffs’ jury assessed the damages at £600. Stockdale
then applied to the court of Queen’s Bench for a rule to compel the
sheriff to return the writ of inquiry. This was ordered; and on the
23rd of November a writ of _fieri facias_ was issued and lodged with the
sheriff, who thereupon took possession of the printing-office, premises,
and stock in trade of Messrs. Hansard. On the 16th of December, Mr.
Winsland, a builder, purchased of the sheriff goods belonging to Messrs.
Hansard to the amount of £695. The sheriff, however, had not paid this
money into the hands of Stockdale, when, on the 16th of January, the
case of Messrs. Hansard was brought before the commons by Lord John
Russell, who presented a petition from them, which prayed for such
relief, under the circumstances, as the house should deem proper. His
lordship said that it was incumbent upon the house to come to a decision
upon the question. There was, he continued, many ways in which they
might dispose of it. They might act upon their ancient and undoubted
right, and vindicate the violation of their privilege by the ancient
mode of commitment. That was the most constitutional course, and the one
most consistent with the dignity and privileges of the house. Again, the
house could, if it thought fit, direct that Messrs. Hansard should
plead in all cases of future action, and thereby bring the question of
privilege before the courts. They could abandon all their privileges,
confining all their papers to a circulation among the members only;
or they might proceed, if they thought it necessary to have the papers
circulated for general use, to provide for the settlement of the
question by a bill brought in for that purpose. But their present
position was one which ought not to continue; and he should move
that, John Joseph Stockdale, the plaintiff, Thomas Barton Howard,
his attorney, William Evans, the sheriff, Mr. Burchell, the deputy
under-sheriff, and the bailiff who acted in this case, be called to
the bar of the house, and then it would be in the power of the house to
adopt that course which, under all circumstances of the case, it might
think proper to pursue. After a long discussion, in which Sir. E.
Sugden, the attorney-general, and other members took part, this motion
was agreed to by a majority of two hundred and eighty-six against one
hundred and sixty-seven. On the following clay, January 17th, the
order of the clay for taking into consideration the petition of Messrs.
Hansard was read, and Lord John Russell moved that John Joseph Stockdale
be called to the bar. He was accordingly called in, and placed at the
bar, when the attorney-general interrogated him concerning the facts of
the different actions against Messrs. Hansard in which he was plaintiff.
After examining him, he was ordered to withdraw; when Lord John Russell
moved that John Joseph Stockdale, having brought an action against
Messrs. Hansard for the publication of a report ordered by this house
to be printed, has been guilty of a high contempt and breach of the
privileges of the house. Mr. Law proposed as an amendment that Mr.
Stockdale be discharged from his attendance at the bar; but, after an
animated discussion, the original question was carried by a majority of
two hunded and forty-nine against one hundred. Lord John Russell then
moved, that John Joseph Stockdale, for the said breach of privilege, be
committed to the custody of the sergeant-at-arms, and that the speaker
do issue his warrant for the committal. After a brief discussion, this
was carried by a large majority; and on the next day the sheriffs and
bailiffs were called in, and, after examination, ordered to attend
on the following Monday. On that clay, the 20th of January, Lord John
Russell said that it became him now to state the precise course which
should be taken in the present stage of the proceedings; and, after
going at length into the whole question of privilege, he moved, “that
it appeared to the house that an execution in the cause of Stockdale
v. Hansard had been levied to the amount of £640, by the sale of the
property of Messrs. Hansard, in contempt of the privileges of that
house; and that such money then remained in the hands of the sheriff
for Middlesex.” If that resolution should be carried, he should move
further, “that the said sheriff be ordered to refund the said amount
forthwith to Messrs. Hansard.” Mr. F. Kelly opposed this motion, and
moved, by way of amendment, the following resolutions:—“That, it
appearing to this house that an action has been brought against James
Hansard and others, for the publication by them, under an order of this
house, of certain papers containing libellous matter upon John Joseph
Stockdale, and that judgment has been obtained, and execution issued
by due course of law against the said James Hansard and others in
such action: it is expedient that the said James Hansard and others be
indemnified against all costs and damages by them sustained in respect
of such action.” This amendment was supported by Sir Edward Sugden, and
opposed by Sir Robert Peel and the attorney-general; and, on a division,
the original motion was carried by a majority of two hundred and five
against ninety. Subsequently the sheriffs were called in, and committed
to the custody of the serjeant-at-arms; and Mr. Howard, the attorney
of Stockdale, reprimanded by the speaker at the bar, when he was
discharged. The matter, however, was not yet at rest.

On the 27th of January Lord John Russell gave notice that he had
received a petition from Messrs. Hansard, stating that a fresh action
had been commenced against them by Stockdale, and that a writ of summons
had been issued upon them on the 25th of January, by Thomas Burton
Howard, as attorney for Stockdale. A motion was carried, ordering the
said Thomas Burton Howard, forthwith to attend the house: but it was not
till the 6th of February that he could be found, and on that evening
he was ordered to be committed to her majesty’s gaol of Newgate.
Subsequently, on the 17th of February, Lord John Russell presented
another petition from Messrs. Hansard, to the effect, that the fifth
action had been renewed against them by Stockdale, for the same cause as
before, and praying to be directed as to the course they should pursue.
His lordship moved to the effect, that Stockdale, by commencing this
fresh action, had been guilty of a contempt of the house, and of a
breach of its privileges, and that the sheriffs, under-sheriffs, and
others, who should aid in the prosecution of the said action, would be
guilty of a contempt of the house, and of a violation of its privileges,
and would subject themselves to the severe censure and displeasure of
the house. This was carried; and on the following evening Thomas
Howard, jun., the attorney in this action, was, on the motion of the
attorney-general, committed to the custody of the sergeant-at-arms.
In the meantime several motions had been made for the discharge of the
sheriffs from prison, on the plea of ill-health. These had been all
negatived; but on the 5th of March, Mr. Sheriff Evans was allowed to be
set at liberty, being at the same time directed to attend at the bar
of the house on Monday, the 6th of April. On the same evening Lord John
Russell moved for leave to bring in a bill to give summary protection to
persons employed in the publication of parliamentary papers, which was
carried by a large majority; and the bill was brought in and read a
third time on the 12th of the same month. On the 31st of March the
sergeant-at-arms appeared at the bar, and acquainted the house that
on Saturday last the assistant-sergeant and four other officers of the
house had been served with notice that an action had been commenced
against them in the court of Queen’s Bench, at the suit of Thomas Burton
Howard. Under the impression that a verdict would certainly be given for
the defendants, the attorney-general moved that they should be allowed
to appear and defend the action; a motion which, after a few words in
opposition by Viscount Howick, was carried by a majority of one hundred
and forty against ninety-one. On the 6th April the bill relating to
the protection of persons employed in the publication of parliamentary
papers was sent up to the lords; and, after making some amendments
in committee, the lords passed it and returned it to the commons, who
agreed to the amendments; and on the 14th April the royal assent was
given to it by commission. On the 15th of April, on the motion of Sir R.
Inglis, Mr. Sheriff Evans and Mr. Howard, jun., were discharged. Messrs.
Thomas Burton Howard, sen., and Stockdale were still left in Newgate;
but, on the 15th of May, on the motion of Mr. T. Duncombe, they were
liberated likewise, and thus terminated this much-agitated and important
question. In the course of the discussion in the commons the ablest
lawyers spoke in favour of the particular privilege of free publication
claimed by the house, as essential to the due discharge of its functions
as a constituent branch of the legislature; but many of them dissented
from the doctrine that it was a breach of their privilege to bring them
under the cognizance of a court of law. Above all, they thought that
having once submitted the case to the court of Queen’s Bench, by
pleading in the action, they were bound to respect the judgment of the
court; and if they considered it erroneous, to bring it under the review
of a court of error, in the legal and constitutional mode, and not
proceed by arbitrary imprisonment against officers who merely acted
in their ministerial capacity, and who would have stood exposed to the
process of attachment, if they had refused to obey the writs which the
court called upon them to execute. Sir William Follett, indeed, broadly
stated that the commons were enforcing their privileges in a manner
that could not be maintained; that they were assuming powers which the
constitution did not give them; and that he was not able to vote for any
of the committals which had taken place. He did not deny that the house
was the exclusive judge of its own privileges, and that they had the
power of committal; but he did not think that if a servant of the house
should be questioned for any act done under their orders, that they had
a right to deprive the courts of law of their jurisdiction over that
servant.




AFFAIRS OF CHINA, ETC.

During the last year a serious collision took place between the Chinese
authorities and the British subjects at Canton. This arose out of the
contraband traffic in opium. The government of China resolved to put
an end to the commerce altogether, and with this view an imperial
commissioner arrived at Canton. He resorted at once to decisive
measures, by demanding that every particle of opium on board the ships
should be at once delivered up to the government to be destroyed; at
the same time requiring a bond that the ships would never again dare
to introduce that article. In the event of any opium being thereafter
brought, the goods were to be confiscated, and the parties were to
submit to death. Should the foreigners fail to comply with these
requisitions, Commissioner Lin threatened that they would be overwhelmed
by numbers and sacrificed. The whole foreign community was thrown into
a state of the deepest distress at these demands; and the chief
superintendent, Captain Elliot, considered it to be his duty to take his
own countrymen under his protection. He issued a circular, requiring the
surrender into his hands of all the English opium actually on the coast
of China. On the 3rd of April, however, 20,283 chests of opium were
delivered over to the commissioner, from the ships which had assembled
for that purpose below the Bocca Tigris. Some merchants had been
imprisoned by the Chinese authorities; but on the 4th of May leave was
given for all to quit Canton with the exception of sixteen individuals,
who ultimately took their departure with injunctions never to return.
Captain Elliot immediately ordered every subject of her majesty out of
the river; but he did not himself remove from Canton until the 25th of
May, when the proscribed persons had been released, and there remained
no other British subject in jeopardy. When they were out of danger,
he immediately wrote to the governor-general, detailing the course of
violence and spoliation which had broken up this great trade; and at the
same time applied for armed vessels from the Indian station to protect
life and property. Later in the year the breach was widened by an affray
which took place at Macao, between some English sailors and Chinese
villagers, in which, unfortunately, one of the latter was killed.
Commissioner Lin demanded of Captain Elliot that the homicide should be
given up; but this was refused, and in consequence an edict was issued
by Lin prohibiting any provisions or other articles being supplied to
the British at Macao. The British superintendent subsequently removed
his residence to Hong Kong, off which lay the _Volage_ frigate,
commanded by Captain Smith. At the latter end of the year Commissioner
Lin issued an edict against the importation of any British goods,
in which he ordained that a bond should be required from any vessel
entering the port, certifying that it did not contain any British
property on board, and consenting to the confiscation of the ship
and cargo, if any such should be therein discovered. In his edict,
Commissioner Lin gave all foreigners to understand that it was no use to
deceive the Chinese; for there were skilful translators and interpreters
among them, who would certainly ascertain the country from whence
they came. In this state of affairs. Captain Elliot sent a petition
to Commissioner Lin,’ entreating for the restoration of the trade with
Canton, until he received further advice from England. The commissioner
replied by a haughty refusal; enumerating all the offences of which, in
the eyes of the “great pure dynasty,” the British had been guilty; and
declaring that, until the murderer of the Chinese was given up,
there could be no intercourse allowed between the two nations. But
notwithstanding this peremptory refusal, a temporary adjustment of the
matters in difference so far took place, that Commissioner Lin permitted
the commerce of Great Britain to be carried on below the Bocca Tigris
until further instructions should be received from England. The
high-commissioner still insisted that the captains of all vessels
which traded with Canton should sign the required bond; and this was
unfortunately consented to by Mr. Warner, master of the ship _Thomas
Coutts_. The consequence of this consent was, that Commissioner Lin
determined to break off the arrangement concluded, unless the whole
British shipping which was re-entering the Bocca Tigris should agree
to the same terms: if not, the vessels were again to depart, or be
destroyed. Matters now proceeded to extremities; and the Chinese soon
received a lesson from British artillery. Finding that the inhabitants
of the celestial empire were preparing to attack the fleet, and that
Admiral Kwan lay in considerable force near Chuenpee, two English
frigates, the _Volage_ and _Hyacinth_, were removed to that
neighbourhood. Captain Elliot now prepared another address to
Commissioner Lin, and then went on board the _Volage_ frigate. That
vessel took up her station, on the 2nd of November, not far below the
first battery, where an imposing force of war-junks and fire-vessels was
collected. On the 3rd, the Chinese squadron, consisting of twenty-nine
sail, anchored close to the British vessels, and their attitude became
so menacing that Captain Smith, of the _Volage_, resolved to compel them
to return to their former anchorage. A brief action took place, which
told with terrible effect on the celestials: one war-junk blew up at
a pistol-shot distance from the _Volage_, three were sunk, and several
others water-logged. In about half-an-hour Admiral Kwan and his squadron
retired in great distress to their former anchorage, no obstruction
being offered to their retreat. But notwithstanding their palpable
defeat, as the English ships soon after set sail for Macao, the Chinese
claimed the victory. But this was only the beginning of their sorrows.
At the close of the year the English government determined to send an
expedition into the Chinese seas, which should be sufficient to attain
all the ends we had in view, and compel the great pure dynasty to
acknowledge the principles of international law which were acted upon by
all the civilized nations of the earth. This armament, which consisted
of eight ships of war with frigates, transports, and steamers, arrived
at its place of rendezvous at Singapore, in the month of April of
the present year. It was placed under the command of Admiral Elliot;
Commodore Sir J. J. Gordon Brewer was next in command, and Major-General
Burrell had the command of the military force. Previous to this an edict
had been issued, warning all foreign vessels from anchoring near the
devoted English ships, lest they should be involved in the destruction
preparing for the latter—“lest the gem should be consumed with the
common stone.” The first arrival of this armament in the Canton river
was her majesty’s ship _Alligator_, Captain Kuper, on the 9th of June.
Previous to this the Chinese authorities at Canton had sent a boat-load
of poisoned tea, packed in small parcels, to be sold to the English
sailors. This boat was captured by Chinese pirates, and her cargo
sold to their own countrymen, many of whom died in consequence. A
proclamation was issued, by the Chinese authorities, offering rewards to
all who should destroy the English, and who should be able to capture
an English man-of-war. An attempt was indeed made to burn the British
shipping, but this happily failed, and then Sir J. J. Gordon Brewer gave
public notice, that on and after the 28th of June, a blockade of the
river and port of Canton would be established. The commodore, however,
with several ships, sailed northward in the direction of Cliusan, and
he was followed on the 28th by Admiral Elliot and Captain Elliot. The
Chinese authorities now bestirred themselves vigorously to meet the
danger. By a proclamation issued on the 2nd of July, the people were
called upon to unite heart and hand with the government in opposing
the barbarians. All the proclamations and precautions of the Chinese,
however, were vain. On Sunday, the 5th of June, the British captured
Chusan: for the first time British cannon wrested from his celestial
majesty a portion of his dominions.

The policy of government with reference to the affairs of China was made
the subject of a series of condemnatory resolutions in parliament.
These were brought forward by Sir James Graham on the 7th of April,
who introduced the subject by calling the attention of the house to the
magnitude of the interests involved in our relations with China. The
right honourable baronet then went into a detailed history of the
disputes of which a brief account is given above; and finally concluded
by moving, that “it appears to the house, in consideration of the
papers relating to China, presented to this house by command of
her majesty, that the interruption in our commercial and friendly
intercourse with that country, and the hostilities which have since
taken place, are mainly to be attributed to the want of foresight and
precaution on the part of her majesty’s present advisers in respect to
our relations with China; and especially to their neglect to furnish
the superintendent at Canton with powers and instructions calculated to
provide against the growing evils connected with the contraband traffic
in opium, and adapted to the novel and difficult situation in which the
superintendent was placed.” Mr. Macauley replied to Sir James Graham;
and a long debate ensued, in which the motion was supported by Sir
W. Follett, Messrs. Thesiger, Sidney Herbert, W. E. Gladstone, and G.
Palmer; and opposed by Sirs George Staunton, S. Lushington, and J. C.
Hobhouse, and Messrs. Hawes, C. Buller, and Ward. The debate was closed
by powerful speeches from Sir Robert Peel in support of the motion, and
Viscount Palmerston against it. On a division the motion was negatived
by a majority of two hundred and seventy-one against two hundred and
sixty-two.




THE IRISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILL, ETC.

The second reading of the Irish municipal corporations bill was moved on
the 14th of February in the commons by Viscount Morpeth. It was carried
by a majority of one hundred and forty-nine against fourteen; and the
house, on the 24th of February, went into committee on the bill, when
several amendments were proposed and negatived. The bill was read a
third time in the commons on the 9th of March; but the second reading
was not moved in the lords until the 4th of May. The Earl of Winchilsea
moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months, which
amendment was supported by the Marquis of Westmeath; but the Duke of
Wellington recommended their lordships to vote for the second reading;
and, after a few words from Viscount Melbourne, it was carried by a
large majority. The house went into committee on the 19th of June,
when the Bishop of Exeter delivered a powerful speech against it. Their
lordships, however, went into committee, and Lord Lyndhurst proposed
several amendments, which were ordered to be printed. On a subsequent
evening, Lord Lyndhurst explained the nature of his amendments, and when
the house was in committee, he moved and carried an amendment which went
to preserve the inchoate rights of freemen, which under this bill were
threatened. Several other amendments were agreed to without a division,
and some clauses were struck out; and on the 6th of July the bill was
recommitted in the house of lords. The third reading was moved by
Viscount Duncannon on the 31st July, when Lord Lyndhurst proposed and
carried an amendment relating to the recorder of Dublin. He proposed to
strike out of the 161st clause, which had reference to the holding of
the recorder’s court, these words, “or as the lord-lieutenant shall
from time to time think fit to direct.” This proposition was resisted
by ministers, but was carried by a majority of sixteen. On the question
that the bill do now pass, it was again opposed by the Bishop of Exeter,
who predicted that “it would not, and could not come to good;” but it
passed, and the bill was, on the 3rd of August, brought down to the
commons.

After a brief discussion in the lower house, managers were appointed to
conduct a conference with the lords on the subject of their amendments,
and the result was more harmonious than heretofore: in some things the
commons gave way to the lords, and in others, the lords gave way to the
commons; and by this mutual concession, the bill finally received, on
the 10th of August, the royal assent.

On the 14th of February Mr. Labouchere moved the second reading of the
importation of flour info Ireland bill, which, after some opposition
offered by Mr. E. Tennent, was carried by a majority of one hundred and
fifty-four against one hundred and two.




FINANCIAL STATEMENT, ETC.

The ministerial budget was brought forward on the 15th day of May. The
total income of the year 1840 amounted to £47,685,000, and the total
expenditure £49,300,000; leaving a deficiency of £1,457,000. With a
view of meeting this deficiency, however, a vote of £1,000,000 of
exchequer-bills had been taken, which reduced the balance to £457,000.
Mr. Baring calculated the expenditure of the current financial year to
be £49,432,000, and the income £46,700,000. To meet the deficiency he
proposed to increase the assessed taxes fen per cent.; the customs and
excise five per cent.; to lay an additional duty of fourpence per gallon
on all spirits, British, colonial, and foreign; and to take a vote of
credit of £395,000. He, expected, also, that by a more strict collection
of the assessed taxes he should obtain £150,000. His income and
expenditure would thus be made equal; but as the increase to be derived
from raising the duties would not be available to the full extent this
year, he thought it would be necessary to take a vote of credit for
£350,000. He concluded by moving resolutions authorizing him to make the
proposed additions to the taxes.




THE UNION OF THE CANADAS.

On the 23rd of March Lord John Russell moved for leave to bring in
a bill for the union of the Canadas. His lordship said, that he had
allowed no time to elapse since the arrival of the propositions from
the governor-general of Canada, who had taken the greatest pains to
ascertain the sentiments of the people in that colony upon the measure
he was about to introduce. In his opinion the union would not have
been expedient, had it been repugnant to the feelings of the Canadians
themselves. “But,” continued his lordship, “the council of Lower Canada
have been called together, and have passed resolutions agreeing to
the principle of an union, but leaving the details to the imperial
parliament. In Upper Canada, the measure has been much discussed,
both in the assembly and the legislative council; and, after a full
consideration of the whole question, a resolution in favour of the union
was passed, unfettered by any restrictions or conditions.” His lordship
proceeded to state the nature of the proposed union. With regard to the
legislative council and assembly, it was proposed, that, together with
the governor, they should form the legislature; and that the crown, or
the governor on the part of the crown, should appoint the legislative
crown councillors. The nomination of the council was to be for life, the
only disqualification being bankruptcy or crime. It was further proposed
that the number of representatives sent by Upper and Lower Canada should
be equal, with the power of adding members as the population increased.
Thirty-nine members were to be allowed to each province, and distributed
without any great alteration of the existing boundaries. In Upper
Canada, the towns of Kingston, Hamilton, Brockville, London, Niagara,
and Cornwall, and in Lower Canada, Montreal, Quebec, and the three
Rivers were each to send one member; the rest of the members for each
province were to be returned by districts which were to be denominated
“counties.” Lord John Russell next entered upon the question relating
to the laws, and to the mode in which they were to be enacted. A general
power only was to be given to the assembly to enact laws: certain
subjects were to be reserved for the assent of the crown, such as those
pointed out by the constitutional act of 1791. It was proposed that
money-votes should not originate with the assembly; but that a message
from the governor, giving the assembly the power of addressing him,
should precede any vote on such matters. A permanent appropriation was
to be made for the governor and judges, and the civil secretary and all
the various expenses connected with the civil establishments were to be
voted, either for a period of years, or during the life of the queen. It
was also proposed that the duties included in the act introduced by the
Earl of Ripon, and collected under the 14th George III., should become
part of the crown revenue. His lordship continued to say, that in Upper
Canada there was already the form of a municipal government: there were
townships and elective offices; and they had likewise districts formed
of two or more counties, which were attached to the local courts for the
administration of justice: but their powers were limited. He proposed
that the power of these municipal councils should be increased, and
that they should be enabled to lay a tax of threepence an acre upon
all lands. The same authority in local matters was to be granted to
the municipal courts in Lower Canada—that of forming districts and
settling the boundaries of such districts. His lordship concluded by
making some remarks on the clergy reserves, in the course of which he
stated that a bill had been passed by the Upper Canada assembly, which
proposed that the clergy reserves should be sold, and that one half of
the proceeds should be given to the churches of England and Scotland,
and that the remaining half should be divided among the clergy of all
denominations of Christians recognised by certain acts of the province,
such as that of registration. His lordship thought that this bill would
give general satisfaction; but Mr. Hume stated that the noble lord
was mistaken in supposing that such a bill would settle discontent in
Canada. The Canada union bill was read a first and second time without
opposition; and on the 29th of May Lord John Russell moved that the
house should go into committee on its details. After a few words in
opposition from Messrs. Pakington and O’Connell, and in support of it by
Messrs. Gladstone and Charles Buller, the house went into committee, and
the various clauses of the bill were all agreed to almost unanimously.
The third reading was carried by a majority of one hundred and fifty-six
against six. In the course of the discussion Sir Robert Peel had
suggested that the civil-list should be charged on the consolidated fund
of the provinces, and Mr. Ellis had proposed the omission of all the
clauses relating to district councils; and on a subsequent evening Lord
John Russell intimated that he should adopt those suggestions. On
the second reading in the house of lords, on the 30th of June, a
considerable discussion took place; but the bill was allowed to go into
committee without a division. In committee the Duke of Wellington moved
that the commencement of the operation of the act should be postponed
to fifteen months, instead of six, after its passing, as proposed by
government; and Lord Ellenborough moved a clause to empower the governor
and two-thirds of the council to suspend any member guilty of unworthy
and disreputable conduct. Both these amendments were agreed to, and the
bill afterwards was read a third time. A bill introduced by Lord John
Russell for the sale of the Canada clergy reserves also subsequently
passed, without much opposition, through both houses of parliament.




ECCLESIASTICAL DUTIES AND REVENUES BILL.

During Sir Robert Peel’s administration in 1835 an ecclesiastical
commission had been appointed for the purpose of considering what
changes could be made in the distribution of the revenues of the church
of England with benefit to the establishment and to the community at
large. These commissioners had made their report, and her majesty in her
speech at the opening of parliament had advised the prosecution of the
measures recommended by the commissioners. The plan chiefly consisted in
a modification of the constitution of chapters and cathedral colleges,
and in the reduction of the expenses of cathedral establishments to a
large amount; the saving to be expended in the augmentation of small
livings, and the supplying the existing want of spiritual instruction
by means of additional churches and resident clergymen. The measure
for these purposes, which was introduced in the commons by Lord John
Russell, created but little discussion and still less opposition; but
in the house of lords it was not looked upon with so much favour. The
second reading was moved by Lord Melbourne on the 27th of July, and
was carried by a majority of ninety-nine against forty-eight. The house
subsequently went into committee, and some amendments were proposed, but
none which affected the leading principles of the bill.




THE REGENCY BILL.

In consequence of a message from the crown, a bill was passed during
this session, appointing his royal highness Prince Albert regent in
the possible event of her most gracious majesty’s decease, during the
minority of any issue to her majesty, whilst such issue should be under
the age of eighteen years, and for the care and guardianship of such
issue. This bill was introduced by the lord-chancellor on the 16th of
July, and was passed with the unanimous approbation of both houses of
parliament.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued by her majesty in person on the 11th of August.
The speech congratulated both houses on the termination of the civil
war in Spain; and informed them that the government of Portugal had made
arrangements for satisfying certain just claims of some of her majesty’s
subjects, and for the payment of a sum due to this country under the
stipulations of the convention of 1827. Her majesty further said that
she was engaged, in concert with the Emperors of Austria and Russia
and the King of Prussia, in measures tending to effect the permanent
pacification of the Levant. After alluding to the disputes with China,
her majesty proceeded to make some remarks on the subject of Canada and
the legislative bodies of Jamaica, &c.: and the speech concluded with
an expression of regret that it had been found necessary to impose
additional burdens upon the people.




AFFAIRS OF BRITISH INDIA.

The army of the Indus having achieved the object for which it had
been sent to the north-western extremity of India, by seating Shah
Soojah-ool-Moolk on the throne of Cabul, and by storming the fortresses
of Ghuznee and Khelat, commenced its retrograde march in the middle of
October. 1839. The army marched in two divisions, one to Bengal, under
Sir J. Keene and the other to Bombay, by the Bolau Pass and Scinde. At
this time Dost Mohammed seemed shorn of his power; he had retired across
the Hindoo Koosh, the passes of which were guarded, and the chiefs
of Balkh and Bokhara refused to join him. But although the prowess of
British arms had wrested from him the throne of Afghanistan, Shah Soojah
was by no means secure of it a moment longer than he was supported by
European aid, The precarious tenure by which he held his power was seen
early in this year, when Syed Hoshein, the chief of Koona, sent a letter
to his majesty, couched in the most insulting terms, and stating that,
as he had heard the Russians were advancing, it was his intention to
join them. On hearing this Sir Willoughby Cotton, who commanded one
division of the force which was returning to Bengal, despatched Colonel
Orchard from Jellalabad, with a body of troops to attack the fort of
Pooshat, where the Koona chief resided. Pooshat was captured, but Syed
Hoshein escaped. The state of Affghanistan, however, still remained
unsettled, for Dost Mohammed was employed with restless activity in
intriguing among the native princes, with a view to recovering the
throne which he had lost; and at the close of the year the British
troops which had been left to support Shah Soojah imperatively demanded
refreshment and repose. In testimony of the services of the army of the
Indus, Lord Auckland resolved that all the corps, European and native,
in the service of the East India Company, which proceeded beyond
the Bolau Pass, should have on their regimental colours the word
“Affghanistan,” and such of them as were employed in the reduction of
the fortress of that name the word “Ghuznee” in addition. In the same
general order he stated, on behalf of the queen’s regiments, that he
would recommend to her majesty that the same distinction should be
granted to them. Besides this complimentary notice, Lord Auckland
ordered that a donation of six months’ full or field batta should
be given to officers and men of every rank attached to the army who
advanced beyond the Bolau Pass.




THE MARRIAGE OF THE QUEEN.

Her most gracious majesty Queen Victoria was married to Prince Albert
of Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha on the 10th of February. This event gave great
satisfaction to the people generally, both in the dominions of her
majesty and in the duchy of Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha.




STATE OF THE CONTINENT.

During this year the Carlists in Spain were compelled to give up the
contest which they had so long carried on against the queen regent. All
the principal places held by the chiefs of that party still remaining in
the country, fell into the hands of the Christino generals; and Cabrera
and Balemaseda took refuge in France, while Borso, another Carlist
leader, was captured and shot. In the spring of this year a question
arose with the Neapolitan government and the British cabinet, which led
to hostilities on the part of England, and at one time threatened to
involve other powers in Europe in a general quarrel. This question
related to the “sulphur monopoly.” A treaty existed which gave certain
commercial advantages to England in respect of sulphur, and the treaty
set forth that the Neapolitan government was not to grant any
state mercantile privileges hostile to the British interests. But
notwithstanding this distinct stipulation, the King of Naples granted
some natives of France, in 1838, as well as others of different
countries, a monopoly of all the sulphur produced and worked in Sicily.
Great Britain naturally considered this grant to be a direct infraction
of the stipulation of the existing treaty; and Lord Palmerston called on
the Neapolitan government for the immediate termination of the monopoly,
and full indemnity for all losses sustained by British subjects arising
therefrom. The king professed to comply: Prince Cassaro, the minister
for foreign affairs, wrote a note to Mr. Kennedy, stating that the
monopoly should be abolished, and that the King of Naples acted thus
in deference to England. Shortly afterwards, however, his Neapolitan
majesty signified to the British minister that he had determined not to
consent to the demands of Great Britain, he not considering the sulphur
contract a violation of the treaty of 1816. The British government now
proceeded to enforce its demands: orders were sent to Admiral Sir R.
Stopford, in the Mediterranean, to hold himself in readiness to commence
active hostilities against the Neapolitan flag. Hostilities commenced on
the 17th of April by the British ships of war in the vicinity of Naples;
an embargo was laid on all in the ports of Malta that bore the Sicilian
flag. At first the king prepared to resist: but he was induced finally
to accept the proposed mediation of France, in adjusting the quarrel,
on the principle that the monopoly should be dissolved, and an indemnity
given to the contractors. Early in May amicable relations between the
courts of England and Naples commenced. In the month of July this year,
the affairs of the Levant were brought to a crisis. A convention was
signed at London between England, Russia, Austria, and Prussia—France
declined to concur in it; whereby the following ultimatum was offered
to the viceroy of Egypt. He was to have the hereditary sovereignty of
Egypt, and the possession of the pashalic of St. Jean d’Acre for life.
If within ten days from the notification of these terms the pasha should
not accept them, the Sultan was to offer him Egypt alone; and, if he
still persisted in refusing, the four powers were to compel him by force
to accede to the proposed settlement. Disliking the terms, Mehemet Ali
endeavoured to gain time by offering a negociation with the Porte: Rifat
Bey was sent to Constantinople with certain proposals; but these were
not deemed satisfactory; and the Sultan, acting upon intemperate
advice, pronounced the formal deposition of the Sultan of Egypt from his
pashalic, and sent a firman to Alexandria to notify that event. Mehemet
Ali intimated his intention of repelling force by force; and it was then
resolved by the four powers that the ports of Syria and Egypt should
be declared to be in a state of blockade. Captain Napier immediately
captured some Egyptian vessels off the coast of Syria; and on the 9th of
September, Admiral Stopford appeared off Beyrout, and the next day made
preparations for bombarding and taking that town and fortress. Beyrout
was captured, and the troops of Ibrahim Pasha, which consisted of 14,000
men, subsequently dispersed, while he himself fled to Damascus. The
ports of Syria and Alexandria were now strictly blockaded, and in a
short time after, Tripoli, Tortosa, and Latakia were evacuated by their
Egyptian garrisons, St. Jean d’Acre was next captured, and the Egyptian
garrisons in Caiffa and Jaffa immediately evacuated those places; and
while they were endeavouring to force for themselves a passage through
Palestine into Egypt, were taken prisoners of war. The Syrian tribes,
which had hitherto been in the interest of the Pasha of Egypt, now
declared in favour of the Sultan, and on the 19th of November the
Seraskier was informed that the garrison and inhabitants of Jerusalem
had returned to their allegiance to the Porte. About this time
negociations were commenced between Commodore Napier and the Pasha of
Egypt, but the year closed before a convention was ratified. In Holland,
this year was signalized by the abdication of its monarch, William I.
In the month of October he voluntarily laid down the crown, and was
succeeded by his eldest son, the Prince of Orange, who ascended the
throne by the title of William II. In Prussia there was also a change
in the monarchy: Frederick William III. expired at Berlin on the 7th of
June, and he was succeeded by his son Frederic William IV.




CHAPTER LII.

{VICTORIA. 1841—1842}

     Meeting of  Parliament..... Poor-law Amendment Act.....
     Jews’  Civil  Disabilities Removal Bill..... Church of
     Scotland; Non-intrusion Question, &c. Law Reform.....
     Financial Statements..... Discussion on the Corn-laws.....
     Resolution of Want of Confidence in the Government.....
     Prorogation  and Dissolution of Parliament..... State of
     Parties..... Meeting of the  new House of   Commons,
     &c. Resignation of Ministers..... Sir Robert   Peel’s
     Administration..... Statement of Sir Robert Peel as to his
     intended   Course of Proceeding,  &c. Financial
     Statement..... Poor-laws, &c. East India Affairs.....
     State of the Continent.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1841}

Parliament was opened by her majesty in person, on the 26th of January.
Her majesty’s speech chiefly referred to the posture of affairs in the
Levant and China, and to serious differences which had arisen between
Spain and Portugal about the execution of a treaty concluded by those
powers in 1835, for regulating the navigation of the Douro.

On the 4th of February the Earl of Minto moved the thanks of the house
to Admiral Sir Robert Stopford, G.C.B., and the officers and men under
his command in the late operations on the coast of Syria. This motion
was carried _nem. con_. The same unanimity prevailed also in the commons
on the same subject.




POOR LAW AMENDMENT ACT.

On the 29th of January Lord John Russell moved in the house of commons
for leave to bring in “a bill to continue the poor-law commission for a
time to be limited, and for the further amendment of the laws relating
to the poor in England.” The powers of the commissioners were to be
continued for ten years, and when his lordship had made this known,
several members, as Sir. Burdett, and Messrs. Wakley and Hume, opposed
such an extension of powers to them. Leave, however, was given to bring
in the bill on the 8th of February; and an important debate took place
on the second reading. The debate was opened by Mr. D’Israeli, who
opposed the bill, and moved that it should be read that day six months.
Mr. Wakley seconded this amendment. The motion was carried by a majority
of two hundred and one against fifty-four. But although the principle of
the bill was thus emphatically confirmed, yet on several occasions the
attacks upon it were renewed by its opponents with much acerbity. Upon
the motion for the committal of the bill, Mr. Townley Parker moved, and
Mr. Grimsditch seconded the motion, that it should be committed that day
six months: but this was negatived by a large majority, and the bill was
committed. When the bill was in committee, government gave up the
longer period of ten years for the continuance of the powers of the
commissioners, and reduced it to five, in deference to the opinion
expressed by Sir Robert Peel, and other members. After this, the
bill was considerably delayed in its progress by a great variety of
amendments suggested by members on both sides of the house, to several
of which government assented, and one or two of which were carried
against the wishes of ministers.




JEWS’ CIVIL DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL.

During this session, Mr. Divett, one of the members for Exeter,
introduced a bill, the object of which was to do away with the
declaration required by the municipal corporations act from all persons
taking corporate offices, by reason of which members of the Jewish
persuasion had been debarred from holding civic magistracies. This bill
was opposed on the second reading by Sir R. Inglis; but on a division
it was carried by a majority of one hundred and thirteen against
twenty-four. On the third reading Mr. Gladstone moved that it be read
that day six months; a motion which was seconded by Mr. Pringle; both
objecting to the principle of the bill, as hostile to the constitution
and repugnant to the feelings of Christians. Mr. Macauley and Lord
Sandon supported, and Mr. Goulburn and Sir R. Inglis opposed the
measure. The third reading was carried in the commons by a majority of
one hundred and eight against thirty-one; but the bill experienced a
different fate in the house of lords. It passed a second reading; but
on the third reading its rejection was moved by the Bishop of Llandaff,
which was carried by ninety-eight against sixty-four: the bill was
consequently lost.




CHURCH OF SCOTLAND: NON-INTRUSION QUESTION, ETC.

On the 1st of May, the Duke of Argyle introduced a measure with
reference to the right of patronage in the church of Scotland: a
question which had been long the subject of controversy. In introducing
his bill, the noble duke, after referring to the history of the various
acts of the legislature affecting the right of patronage in the church
of Scotland, proceeded to read some letters from Drs. Gordon and
Chalmers, and others of the dominant party in the church, with the view
of showing that the total abolition of patronage, as by law established,
was not the means by which this party desired the settlement of the
existing differences. The object of the bill proposed, the noble
duke subsequently explained, was to give effect to the principle of
non-intrusion on the right of the congregation to give their approval or
dissent to the appointment of any presentee that might be offered them
by the patron. He felt convinced, he said, that unless some measure to
this effect were passed, the most lamentable consequences to the church
of Scotland would ensue, and there can be no doubt but a secession of
a large number of the members of the church would take place; while, if
the principle of non-intrusion were conceded, the surest means would
be taken to put an end to the agitation of those who were opposed to
patronage. Lord Aberdeen said that he wished to give full expression
to the genuine and honest feelings and wishes of the people in these
matters, but he could not give his support to a measure which might lead
to the monstrous consequence of compelling the presbytery to reject a
presentee, though he were objected to for no other reason than because
he had been presented, or because he had been compelled to take the oath
of allegiance. Lord Dunfermline and the earl of Haddington opposed, and
the marquess of Breadalbane supported the measure, and it was read a
first time. On the 27th of May, the general assembly of the church of
Scotland deposed seven clergymen of the presbytery of Strathbogie, and
these seven ministers appealed to parliament. A petition was presented
from them on the 15th of June, by Lord Aberdeen, in which they called
upon the house to save them, by its interference, from the consequences
of the sentence which had been pronounced. This petition gave rise to
a discussion in the house of lords, but no step was taken for the
restoration of the deposed ministers.




LAW-REFORM.

During this session there was a further mitigation of the criminal code.
Two bills were introduced for this purpose in the house of commons. The
first of these was introduced by Mr. Kelly, who proposed to abolish the
punishment of death for all the crimes still capital, except murder and
treason. This motion was seconded by Mr. Ewart, and the bill was brought
in; but shortly afterwards a measure was introduced on the part
of government, by Lord John Russell, which proposed to abolish the
punishment of death in certain cases of embezzlement; for the offence of
returning from transportation; for burning ships, where the act involved
no treasonable intent; and for the crime of rape. Mr. Kelly approved of
this measure as far as it went, but contended for the superiority of his
own more comprehensive measure. He particularly objected to leaving the
offence of setting fire to ships in the royal dock-yards capital, and to
retaining the punishment of death for attempts to murder. Mr. Kelly’s
bill went first into committee; but he experienced so many defeats that
he was induced to leave government to deal with their own measures on
the same subject. The result was, that near the close of the session a
bill was passed, whereby the punishment of transportation for life is
substituted for death in all cases of forgery and embezzlement, which
had before remained capital, and the crime of rape is made subject to
the same mitigated penalty.




FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

On the 31st of April, the chancellor of the exchequer entered into his
financial statement. When he came forward last year, he said, he had
anticipated that the expenditure would amount to £49,499,000, and the
income to £48,641,000; leaving a deficiency of £858,000. The results
of the year had proved less favourable than he had anticipated: the
expenditure had amounted only to £49,285,000, but the income had only
reached £47,443,000, leaving a deficiency of more than £1,840,000.
He calculated that the expenditure for the ensuing year would be
£50,731,226, and the income £48,310,000, which would leave a deficiency
of £2,421,000 to be provided for. In order to raise the revenue, Mr.
Baring proposed to deal with the two articles, timber and sugar. The
present duty on colonial timber, he said, amounted to ten shillings
a load, and on Baltic timber fifty-five shillings. These duties he
proposed to modify, by raising that on colonial to twenty shillings,
and reducing that on Baltic to fifty shillings a load, by which he
anticipated an increased revenue of £750,000. He next explained that the
alteration which he intended to propose in the sugar-duties would still
leave a protection of fifty per cent. to colonial sugar. He would leave,
he said, the duty on colonial sugar at the present amount of twenty-four
shillings per cwt., but that on foreign sugar, amounting to sixty-three
shillings, he proposed to reduce to thirty-six shillings per cwt.; from
which change he expected an augmentation of revenue of £700,000. There
would still, he said, be a deficiency to be provided for. But Lord
John Russell had that evening given notice of his intention at an early
period to submit the question of the corn-trade to the consideration of
the house; and if the propositions of his noble friend were agreed to,
he should be under no uneasiness about the deficiency; if not, it would
be his duty to make provision by direct taxation. Messrs. Hume, Ward,
Villiers, and other members, expressed their satisfaction at the
propositions of the chancellor of the exchequer, while Lord Francis
Egerton, Viscount Sandon, Sir Robert Peel, and Messrs. Goulburn and
Christopher, complained of them, and especially of the announcement of
an intended alteration in the corn-laws. The debate on the budget was
protracted to a considerable length, and the nature of the discussion
will be seen in the following article.




DISCUSSION ON THE CORN-LAWS.

The announcement made by Mr. Baring, that an alteration in the corn-laws
was contemplated by government, caused the anti-corn-law party to set to
work with activity to organize new associations, to despatch lecturers
and emissaries, which might rouse the public mind throughout the
country, and to get up requisitions for public meetings in the principal
towns. In parliament, also, the opposition lost no time in coming to the
attack. On the 3rd of May, the Duke of Buckingham presented one hundred
and twenty petitions against a repeal of the corn-laws.

In the house of commons, Viscount Sandon gave notice of the following
resolution, which he would move on going into the committee of ways and
means: “That, considering the efforts and sacrifices which parliament
and the country have made for the abolition of the slave-trade and
slavery, with the earnest hope that their exertions and example might
lead to a mitigation and final extinction of those evils in other
countries, this house is not prepared, especially with the present
prospects of the supply of sugar from the British possessions, to adopt
the measure proposed by her majesty’s government for the reduction of
the duty on foreign sugars.” Lord John Russell gave notice, in the event
of the house not going into committee on the sugar duties, and
Viscount Sandon’s resolution being put from the chair, he should move
a counter-resolution; namely, “That it is the opinion of this house,
that it is practicable to supply the present inadequacy of the revenue
to meet the expenditure of the country, by a judicious alteration of
protective and differential duties, without any material increase of the
public burdens; that such a course will, at the same time, promote the
interests of trade, and afford relief to the industrious classes, and is
best calculated to provide for the maintenance of the public faith and
the general welfare of the people.” A third notice was given by Mr.
O’Connell, to the effect that any diminution of the duty on foreign
sugar should be limited to that which was produced by free labour, and
not extend in any way to the produce of slave labour. The debate on the
sugar question was preceded by the presentation of petitions both for
and against the alterations proposed by government. In commencing the
debate, which lasted eight nights, Lord John Russell took the formal
motion for going into committee out of Mr. Baring’s hands, and
availed himself of the opportunity for pre-occupying the ground, and
anticipating the arguments of his opponents. In his speech his lordship
remarked, that if this had been merely a financial question, he should
have left it in the hands of the chancellor of the exchequer. He
regarded it, however, as constituting, by the variety and magnitude of
its relations, a great national subject. Government were well aware,
he continued, at the commencement of the year, that the finance of
the country was matter of great difficulty, and would require great
attention. Their resolution to consider the corn-laws was formed before
the 11th of March, when the notice was given that the colonial duties
would be reviewed.

Government had to meet a deficiency of £2,400,000. It was open to the
house to have objected to the expenditure at the time; but now to oppose
the going into committee of ways and means, without suggesting any other
plan as preferable to that of the government, was unworthy of a great
party. Ministers had preferred the plan of altering the import duties,
as now proposed, for the purpose of relieving instead of oppressing the
people. Being prepared to deal with sugar and timber as questions of
revenue, they would not have been justified in excluding the other great
question, that of corn; especially with their opinions on the merits of
that question, and their belief that, sooner or later, it must be made
the means of an extensive change in the commercial situation of this
country. Before the house had gone into committee, Lord John Russell had
announced the rate of duties which he meant to propose on corn; namely,
on wheat, a duty of eight shillings per quarter; on rye, of five
shillings; on barley, of four shillings and sixpence, and on oats, of
three shillings and sixpence. His lordship now said that the duties he
meant to propose, added to the charge of freight, would constitute a
sufficient protection, keeping the price of wheat, in all probability,
at from fifty to sixty shillings a quarter. With respect to sugar,
he considered the true principle was protection, not prohibition. He
entered into some details, for the purpose of showing that West Indian
interests would be protected under the proposals of ministers, and
that freedom of commercial intercourse among nations had a tendency to
improve and cheapen the productions of each. By the admission of foreign
sugar, his lordship said, the industry of the West Indies would be
stimulated to better means of production, and the English labourer would
obtain his sugar on more reasonable terms. His lordship next entered
into various statistical details, to prove that the great measure of
slave emancipation had been eminently successful; and that the condition
of the negroes was not only promising, but prosperous. On Lord
John Russell’s resuming his seat, Viscount Sandon rose to propose a
resolution of which he had given notice.

Lord John Russell then moved _pro forma_ the resolution of which he had
given notice as an amendment to Viscount Sandon’s; but it was negatived
without a division; and that of Viscount Sandon’s being carried, the
house adjourned. After this defeat it was generally expected that
ministers would resign; but on the next day business was resumed,
and carried on as though nothing of importance had happened; and when
business was over Lord John Russell simply moved that the house at its
rising should adjourn to the Monday following. The Earl of Darlington,
on hearing this, said that he had been relieved of all suspense as to
the intentions of government: it was plain that they meant to stay in
office with a tenacity unparalleled in the history of governments,
and with the deliberate decision of the house of commons unequivocally
declared against them. He asked when Lord John Russell intended to bring
forward the question of the corn-laws. And his lordship replied, “On
Friday, the 4th of June;” but before that day arrived ministers had
suffered another signal defeat, and were compelled to postpone the
subject.




RESOLUTION OF WANT OF CONFIDENCE IN THE GOVERNMENT.

On the first day on which the house met after its temporary adjournment,
Sir Robert Peel gave notice that he should move, on the 27th of May,
this resolution:—“That her majesty’s ministers do not sufficiently
possess the confidence of the house of commons to enable them to carry
through the house measures which they deem of essential importance to
the public welfare; and that their continuance in office under such
circumstances is at variance with the spirit of the constitution.” On
the day named the right honourable baronet introduced this resolution
with a speech of considerable length and ability. The debate which
ensued lasted five nights; in the course of which much was said for
and against the motion. The leading speakers in support of it were Lord
Stanley, Sirs James Graham and William Follett, and Messrs. Christopher
and Sergeant Jackson; those against it were Viscount Morpeth, Sir George
Grey, Dr. Lushington, and Messrs. Macauley, Handley, O’Connell, and
Shiel. Towards the close of the debate, Lord John Russell denied that
the motion was in the spirit of the constitution, and ably defended his
own conduct and that of his colleagues in retaining office. Sir Robert
Peel briefly replied; and on a division the motion was carried by a
majority of three hundred and twelve against three hundred and eleven.
After this division, Lord John Russell announced that he would state
on the following Monday the course which the government should resolve
under existing circumstances to pursue.




PROROGATION AND DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.

At the meeting of the house on the following Monday, after moving the
order of the day for the committee of supply, Lord John Russell said
that he and his colleagues had come to the determination not to bring
on the alteration of the corn-laws as a government measure. He further
stated that, after the late division, he felt that tire government could
expect no further majorities in the house of commons, and that they
would not make any further struggle for the retention of their offices
until the opinion of the nation had been ascertained. A desultory
conversation followed, in which his lordship expressly declared that the
intentions of government were to advise that no time should be lost in
dissolving the present Parliament, and that a new one should be summoned
without delay. Subsequently the house resolved itself into a committee
of supply; and the estimates were voted without opposition. The session
was now virtually at an end, although the condemned parliament lingered
on for about a fortnight after the ministerial announcement of a
dissolution. In the course of that period Lord John Russell announced
many bills, in more or less advanced stages, as abandoned; but he still
sought to carry the bill for the better administration of justice. This
bill, however, was opposed by Sir E. Sugden, who moved that it should
not come into operation till the 10th day of October. This motion was
carried; and Lord John Russell then declared his determination to throw
up the bill altogether. It thus fell to the ground; but it was revived
in the next session, and then passed into a law. After this discussion
nothing worthy of note occurred; and on the 22nd of June, parliament
was prorogued by the queen in person, after having previously given her
assent to the appropriation and other bills. The lord-chancellor then
declared parliament to be prorogued to Tuesday, the 29th of June; and
on the following day the queen’s proclamation was issued, by which the
parliament thus prorogued was declared to be dissolved; and writs for a
new one were issued, returnable on the 19th of August. Thus terminated
the first session of 1841; a more barren and unprofitable one than which
is not to be found in the annals of modern parliaments. It lasted nearly
five months, and yet all the great questions brought forward were still
in an unsettled state. It has indeed been well remarked, that “the whole
operations of this session might have been at once blotted out of the
records of parliament, with scarcely any sensible effects upon the laws
or institutions of the country.”




STATE OF PARTIES.

On the dissolution of parliament both the great parties in the
state—the Conservatives and Liberals—prepared themselves for the
struggle which was immediately to ensue at the general election. The
hopes and expectations of the two parties were essentially different. On
the one hand, the Conservative party had been for some time increasing
in numbers throughout the country. Their ranks had been recruited
by those who had been accustomed to identify themselves with their
opponents, but who believed that the time was come when the exigencies
of the country demanded a strong and efficient government, and who were
willing to accord to Conservative statesmen the merit of being ready to
support all measures of real amendment; knowing that they only had the
power of carrying such measures into effect. There were, moreover,
many who although they stood aloof from the Conservative party, and
professed jealous suspicion of its future policy, who were not averse
to give it once more a trial in the possession of power. It was clear,
indeed, that the Conservative party at this period stood the highest in
the estimation of the people. The landowners and farmers were united in
their favour, and the mercantile body, alarmed at the attack which had
been made upon our West Indian and Canadian interests in the articles of
sugar and timber, agreed, too, in an anxious desire for their return to
power. The Liberal party, however, could still reckon confidently upon
the support of the Radicals; and they had an advantage even from their
recent defeat. The defeat happened in consequence of certain financial
measures which they brought forward in their budget, which measures
assumed the character of a removal of disabilities from trade. This
afforded good grounds for an appeal to the people, and an attack
upon monopoly. Land-owners and West Indian proprietors were styled
monopolists: the former, because the legislature had imposed a duty on
corn for the protection of agriculture; and the latter, because their
interests were protected by a duty on sugar. In like manner it was
attempted to excite popular odium against other classes, as favoured
in the acquisition of wealth at the expense of the community: all who
supported the Conservatives were subjected to the same charge, while the
supporters of government were exultingly denominated anti-monopolists.
The watchword of the Liberal party was, in truth, “anti-monopoly;”
 and a strenuous effort was made to enlist popular feeling in its behalf.
This cry, however, did not succeed.. Even the city of London, which had
before returned four Liberals, now returned only two, which were coupled
with two Conservatives. As for the elections, in the counties they went
everywhere against the ministry: and in the towns and manufacturing
districts the cry of “Low wages!” was raised against that of “Cheap
bread!” with considerable effect. In a word, the returns proved more
favourable to the Conservative party than the most sanguine among them
had anticipated; and it appeared certain that Sir Robert Peel would
command a stronger and more efficient majority than had supported any
minister for a long period.




MEETING OF THE NEW HOUSE OF COMMONS, ETC.

The new session of parliament was opened by commission on the 19th of
August, and the speech was read by the lord-chancellor on the 24th of
the same month. The speech referred to a treaty concluded on the 15th of
July, 1840, between her majesty and the Emperor of Austria, the King of
Prussia, the Emperor of Russia, and the Sultan, the objects of which,
it was said, had been fully accomplished. The speech also informed the
house that her majesty had ordered the return of her minister to the
court of Persia, and announced that the differences which had arisen
between Spain and Portugal about the execution of a treaty concluded
by those powers in 1835, for regulating the navigation of the Douro had
been amicably adjusted. In reference to the disputes with China, a hope
was expressed that the emperor would see the justice of the demands
which her majesty’s plenipotentiaries had been recently instructed to
make. The speech concluded thus:—“My lords and gentlemen,—We are more
especially commanded to declare to you that the extraordinary
expenses which the events in Canada, China, and the Mediterranean have
occasioned, and the necessity of maintaining a force adequate to the
protection of our extensive possessions, have made it necessary to
consider the means of increasing the public revenue. Her majesty
is anxious that this object should be effected in the manner least
burdensome to her people: and it has appeared to her majesty, after
full deliberation, that you may at this juncture properly direct your
attention to the revision of duties affecting the productions of foreign
countries. It will be for you to consider whether some of these duties
are not so trifling in amount as to be unproductive to the revenue,
while they are vexatious to commerce. You may further examine whether
the principle of protection upon which others of these duties are
founded be not carried to an extent injurious alike to the income of the
state and the interests of the people. Her majesty is desirous that you
should consider the laws which regulate the trade in corn. It will be
for you to determine whether these laws do not aggravate the natural
fluctuation of supply—whether they do not embarrass trade, derange the
currency, and by their operation diminish the comfort and increase the
privations of the great body of the community.” In the house of lords
the address was moved by Earl Spencer, and seconded by the Marquess of
Clanricarde, both of whom in their speeches vindicated the conduct of
government, and advocated the repeal of the corn-laws. The address was
opposed by the Earl of Ripon, who arraigned government on many points,
more especially on their financial operations. He concluded a long and
able speech by proposing as an amendment, that an address be presented
to her majesty, “humbly to represent to her majesty, that we observe
with great concern that the public expenditure has of late, in each of
several years, exceeded the annual income, and that we are convinced of
the necessity of adopting measures for the purpose of remedying so
great an evil: To assure her majesty that we are deeply sensible of
the importance of those considerations, to which her majesty has been
graciously pleased to direct our attention in reference to the commerce
and revenue of the country, and to the laws which regulate the trade in
corn: That in deciding the course which it may be advisable to pursue
with reference to such matters, it will be our earnest desire to consult
the interest and promote the welfare of all classes of her majesty’s
subjects: That we feel it, however, to be our duty humbly to submit
to her majesty that it is essential to the satisfactory results of our
deliberations upon these and other matters of public concern that her
majesty’s government should possess the confidence of this house and
of the country; and respectfully to represent to her majesty that that
confidence is not reposed in the present advisers of her majesty: To
assure her majesty that in the gracious expression of her majesty’s deep
sympathy with those of her subjects who are now suffering from distress
and want of employment, we recognise an additional proof of her
majesty’s tender regard for the welfare of her subjects; and that we
cordially join in the prayer of her majesty that all our deliberations
may be guided by wisdom, and may conduce to the happiness of her
people.” Viscount Melbourne expressed himself to the effect that
the Earl of Ripon’s motion came like a thunder-clap upon him. He was
ignorant that there existed in the house the spirit on which the motion
seemed to proceed. The Duke of Wellington, after alluding to the various
allegations brought against government by the Earl of Ripon, said that
they sufficiently justified him in calling on that house to vote
against the address. He continued to animadvert upon, and to condemn the
introduction of her majesty’s name in the royal speech, in such a way
as to give the country to believe that those who opposed the proposed
alterations in commerce opposed her majesty. At the same time the
noble duke passed a warm eulogium upon the general conduct of Viscount
Melbourne in his relation to the crown, frankly admitting that the noble
viscount had rendered the greatest possible service to her majesty, in
making her acquainted with the mode and policy of the government of this
country; initiating her into the laws and spirit of the constitution;
and teaching her to preside over the destinies of the empire of Great
Britain. His grace concluded by making some severe remarks on the
budget, about which so much had been said; and by expressing himself to
be still adverse to any alteration in the corn-laws. The noble duke was
followed by the Duke of Richmond, who, in a short speech, advocated the
interests of the agriculturists. The Marquess of Lansdowne said that
the government had not proposed a repeal of the corn laws _in toto_, as
the Duke of Richmond seemed to have understood: they simply contemplated
some change. After a few words from the Earl of Coventry and the
Marquess of Northampton, in support of the amendment, and from Lord
Brougham, partly in favour of the address, and partly condemnatory of
the measures of government, their lordships divided on the original
question, when there appeared for it only ninety-six, and against it one
hundred and sixty-eight; so that ministers were left in a minority of
seventy-two.

In the commons the first business performed was the election of a
speaker, and Mr. Shaw Lefevre was re-elected by the consent of all
parties. The house then adjourned; after which several days were
consumed in swearing in members. This being done, the speaker having
read from the chair the speech delivered in the other house by the
lords-commissioners, an address was moved in consonance with it by Mr.
Mark Phillips, and seconded by Mr. John Dundas. An amendment was moved
by Mr. J. S. Wortley, which expressed the regret of the house at the
recent increase of expenditure; its determination to provide for that
increase; its earnest desire to promote the welfare of her majesty’s
subjects; and respectfully to represent to her majesty the necessity
that her ministers should enjoy the confidence of the country, which the
present administration did not possess. This amendment was seconded
by Lord Bruce; and a long discussion followed, in which many members
expressed their views. The result showed that ministers were even
deserted by some of their tried friends: even Mr. Roebuck declared that
he should vote in favour of the amendment. On this occasion Mr. Cobden,
who had been elected in the new parliament, and who was destined to be
the greatest antagonist of the corn-laws that had ever appeared in the
house of commons, came forward to express his views on the subject. On
a division the amendment was carried by a majority of three hundred and
sixty, against two hundred and sixty-nine. When the house of commons
met for the purpose of receiving the report on the amended address,
Mr. Sharman Crawford proposed another amendment, to the effect that the
house would feel it their duty so to extend the suffrage as to give
to the working classes their just weight in legislation; but this was
negatived by an overwhelming majority.




RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS.—SIR ROBERT PEEL’S ADMINISTRATION.

At the next meeting of the house of commons, Lord Marcus Hill appeared
at the bar, and read this answer to the address:—“It is the greatest
satisfaction to me to find that the house of commons are deeply sensible
of the importance of those considerations to which I directed their
attention in reference to the commerce and revenue of the country, and
the laws which regulate the trade in corn; and that, in deciding on the
course which it may be desirable to pursue, it will be their earnest
desire to consult the welfare of all classes of my subjects. Ever
anxious to listen to the advice of my parliament, I will take immediate
measures for the formation of a new administration.” The division on Mr.
J. S. Wortley’s amendment had so emphatically declared the sense of the
new house of commons upon the continuance of the Whig government,
that no other course remained to them but retirement from office.
Accordingly, on the 30th of August, Viscount Melbourne in the lords,
and Lord John Russell in the commons, intimated that they and their
colleagues had resigned, and that they only continued to hold their
respective offices till their successors were appointed. The task of
forming a new government was assigned by the queen to Sir Robert Peel,
and this time he was successful; the change embracing the queen’s
household. The following were the principal members of the new
administration:—the Duke of Wellington was leader in the lords; Sir
Robert Peel himself was first lord of the treasury; Lord Lyndhurst
became lord-chancellor; the honourable H. Goulburn, chancellor of the
exchequer; Lord Wharncliffe, president of the council; the Duke of
Buckingham, privy-seal; Sir James Graham, home-secretary; Earl of
Aberdeen, foreign secretary; Lord Stanley, colonial secretary; Earl of
Haddington, first lord of the admiralty; Lord Ellenborough, president
of the board of control; Earl of Ripon, president of the board of trade;
Sir H. Hardinge, secretary-at-war; Sir E. Knatchbull, treasurer of the
navy and paymaster of the forces; and Lord Lowther, postmaster-general.
After the new government was formed, writs were moved for in the commons
for various places, in consequence of the acceptance of office of those
members who belonged to that house; and the house afterwards adjourned
until the 16th of September.




STATEMENT OF SIR ROBERT PEEL AS TO HIS INTENDED COURSE OF PROCEEDING,
ETC.

The re-election of the members of government took place without the loss
of a seat, and the house of commons reassembled on the day appointed.
Business was commenced by Sir Robert Peel moving _pro forma_ for a copy
of the letter of the first commissioners of woods and forests, on the
subject of warming and ventilating the new houses of parliament. The
right honourable baronet on this occasion stated his intentions as to
the course to be pursued with respect to the public business of the
country.




FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

Mr. Goulburn brought forward his financial statement in a committee
of ways and means on the 27th of September. He first stated what was
wanted, showing that the house was called on to provide for a deficiency
of £2,467,432. This sum, he said, did not differ materially from the
deficiency anticipated by his predecessor; and to meet it he proposed
funding a portion of the unfunded debt. He had, indeed, already made
proposals to the public, which, he said, had been completely successful;
the subscription he had obtained would enable him to give the requisite
relief. The sum subscribed exceeded £3,500,000; and the terms he had
offered were not higher than those offered by Mr. Spring Rice in 1838.
The bonus would be found to be about 18s. 10d. per cent. With respect to
the requisite supply, immediate taxation was out of the question; and he
should therefore propose a mode of supply, which as a permanent resource
he should deprecate, by an issue of exchequer-bills or a sale of stock,
at the option of government. He suggested this alternative method,
in order that the market might not be presently flooded again with a
quantity of exchequer-bills equal to that from which it had just been
relieved. Mr. Goulburn concluded by moving a resolution in accordance
with the plan which he had explained, for funding the recent
subscriptions in three per cent, consols. This proposition met with
considerable opposition from Mr. Baring and other members; but the
resolutions necessary for carrying it out were, nevertheless, passed
without a division.




POOR LAWS, ETC.

The only measures of importance brought forward this session, after the
supplies had been granted, were the bill for the better administration
of justice in the court of Chancery, and the poor-law commission
continuance bill. The former of these measures was merely a revival of
that which was thrown up by the former government, as seen in a previous
page; and it now quickly passed both houses, and received the royal
assent. The latter subject gave rise to more opposition and debate.
It was brought forward by Sir Robert Peel on the 21st of September,
by moving for leave to bring in a bill to continue the office of
commissioners for six months only; namely, till 31st July, 1842. In the
course of the discussion, Mr. Lefroy bore testimony to the generally
successful working of the Irish poor-law. On the house going into
committee, Mr. R. Yorke moved an instruction to the committee, to
the effect that the poor-law commissioners should not be empowered to
enforce separation between man and wife, except where application for
relief arose from idleness, vice, or crime. The honourable member quoted
the injunction of Scripture against separating those whom God had joined
together, and called on members on the ministerial side to redeem the
pledges they had given to their constituents. After some discussion,
this instruction was negatived.

The bill went through the committee and passed.

Parliament was prorogued by lords-commissioners on the 7th of October.




EAST INDIA AFFAIRS, ETC.

It has been seen in the last chapter that Dost Mohammed was still in
arms. About the close of the last year his army was completely routed
at Bamean by Brigadier Dennie, and he then fled across the Hindoo
Koosh into the Khoohun territory. In the mean time, Sir Robert Sale was
employed in reducing the strongholds of the partizans of the ex-king in
Kohistan; a work in which he experienced considerable difficulty, owing
to the determined manner in which the forts were defended. Dost Mohammed
subsequently summoned his son Afzul Khan to join him, and he moved
from the Nijrow towards the Ghorebund Pass, leading into the Kohistan
valley, to effect the junction. Sir Robert Sale, hearing of this
movement, resolved to frustrate its object, and breaking up his camp at
Bolan, proceeded towards Purwau. At Purwau a battle took place, and Dost
Mohammed again received a signal defeat. His soldiers refused to make
any further efforts against the British forces, and Dost Mohammed threw
himself upon the generosity of his foes, surrendering himself to
Sir William M’Naghten on the 3rd of November. His confidence was not
misplaced; he was permitted to take up his residence at Loodianah, and a
yearly pension of three lacs of rupees (£30,000) was granted to him. His
treatment was so generous that he wrote to his three sons, who were
in different parts of the country, to follow his example, and deliver
themselves up to the British. During the remainder of this year
Afghanistan remained comparatively tranquil; nothing occurred of a
hostile nature except the capture of the old fort of Khelat-i-Ghilzee by
Major Lynch, on which occasion the garrison was destroyed by a mistake,
an event which caused great commotion among the whole of the Ghilzee
tribe, as will be seen in a future page. It may be mentioned that in
Scinde, during this year, the fortress of Khelat, which had again
fallen into the hands of the enemy, was recaptured, and the whole of the
Punjaub fell into a state of disorganization; but the British were not
called upon to interfere in the internal dissensions which shook the
throne, so long and ably occupied by our steadfast ally, Runjeet Sing,
whose death gave rise to the commotions.

In China, after Chusan fell into our hands. Admiral Elliot, accompanied
by Captain Elliot, sailed to the Pechelee harbour, where he arrived
on the 9 th of August, 1840. On the 30th of that month an interview took
place between Captain Elliot and Keshen, the-imperial commissioner, the
third man in the empire, and the negociations were protracted until the
15th of September, on which clay the admiral sailed away from the Peho.
When the squadron returned to Chusan, it was discovered that Admiral
Elliot had consented to transfer the negociations from the Pechelee
to Canton, where all details were to be settled, and where the Chinese
government promised to arrange everything to the satisfaction of the
British. Negociations were carried on; but in the meantime Keshen was
busily employed in erecting new batteries at the Bogue, barricading
the bars in the rivers by sinking boats laden with stones, throwing up
breast-works near Canton, and levying troops. It was so evident that the
Chinese commissioner was insincere, that hostilities recommenced on the
7th of January. Two of the Bogue forts were reduced, and Keshen then
offered to adjust matters without delay. These arrangements were made
between Captain Elliot and the imperial commissioner:—“1. The cession
of the harbour and island of Hong-Kong to the British crown. All just
charges and duties to the empire upon the commerce carried on there to
be paid as if the trade were conducted at Whampoa. 2. An indemnity to
the British government of 6,000,000 of dollars, 1,000,000 payable at
once, and the remainder in equal annual instalments, ending in 1846.
3. Direct official intercourse between the two countries upon an equal
footing. 4. The trade of the port of Canton to be opened within ten days
after the Chinese new year (the 2nd of February), and to be carried
on at Whampoa till further arrangements are practicable at the new
settlement. Details to remain matter of negociation.” The terms of this
convention were much censured; and Lord John Russell declared in the
house of commons, on the 6th of May, that they were not approved of by
her majesty’s government; that Captain Elliot had been recalled; and
that Sir Henry Pottinger had been appointed plenipotentiary in his
stead. In the meantime it had become evident that the Chinese had no
intention of fulfilling these engagements. On the morning of the 19th of
February, a hostile shot was fired at the boat of the _Nemesis_ steamer
from North Wangtong, and hostilities again commenced. The British
squadron now attacked the Anunghoy batteries, which were soon silenced,
and they then landed, and both the ships and land troops proceeded
towards Canton. The British colours were soon hoisted on Howqua’s fort;
and while Sir George Brewer and General Gough were preparing to attack
those forts which still remained between them and Canton, the Kwang-chow
Foo, as prefect, accompanied by the Hong merchants, came down and
admitted that Keshen had been degraded, and that no commissioner had yet
arrived to treat for peace, or make any new arrangements. Keshen had, it
appeared, delayed the execution of the treaty until he could obtain the
emperor’s confirmation of it. The emperor, however, looking upon the
English “as dogs and sheep in their dispositions,” and considering that
“both gods and men were indignant at their conduct, refused to ratify
a treaty with them; and Keshen was ordered to be delivered over to the
board of punishment.” The Chinese again contemplated hostilities, and in
the month of May the British commanders again determined to advance upon
Canton. All the surrounding forts were captured, and it was determined
that the city should be taken by assault; but a flag of truce was
hoisted on the walls, and Captain Elliot again requested Sir H. Gough
to suspend hostilities. He was employed, he said, in a settlement of
the difficulties upon the following conditions:—“1. The imperial
commissioner, and all the troops, other than those of the province, to
quit the city within six days, and to remove to a distance exceeding
sixty miles. 2. 6,000,000 dollars to be paid in one week for the use
of the crown of England; 1,000,000 dollars payable before to-morrow at
sunset. 3. British troops to remain in their actual positions till the
whole sum be paid. No additional preparations on either side; but all
British troops and ships of war to return without the Bocca Tigris as
soon as the whole be paid. Quang-tong also to be evacuated; but not
to be re-armed by the Chinese government till all the difficulties are
adjusted between the two governments. 4. The loss occasioned by the
burning of the Spanish brig, _Bilbaino_, and all losses occasioned
by the destruction of the factories, to be paid within one week.” In
consequence of this arrangement, the British flag was lowered in the
various captured forts, and the troops inarched out, and returned to
Tsing-hae. The 6,000,000 of dollars amounted to about £120,000, and
Captain Elliot appropriated about half that sum to reimburse those who
had surrendered their opium-chests to him at the commencement of the
disturbances; but this payment was subsequently disallowed by the
British government. Matters were at this point, when, on the 9th of
August, Sir Henry Pottinger, the new plenipotentiary, arrived in the
Canton waters, accompanied by Sir William Parker, who assumed a command
of the fleet in the Chinese seas. Having published a copy of his
credentials, authorizing him to negociate and conclude with the minister
vested with similar power and authority on the part of the Emperor of
China, any treaty or agreement for the arrangement of the differences
now subsisting between Great Britain and China; and having warned all
her majesty’s subjects and foreigners against putting themselves in the
power of the Chinese authorities, during the anomalous and unsettled
state of our relations with the emperor, Sir Henry Pottinger embarked
for Hong-Kong, whither Sir William Parker had preceded him. The
superseded plenipotentiary, Captain Elliot, left China on the 24th of
August.




STATE OF THE CONTINENT.

An important treaty was signed in London in December, between France,
Austria, Prussia, Russia, and Great Britain, whereby the former powers
agreed to adopt the English laws relating to the slave-trade. Spain
still remained in a state of insecurity. A quarrel took place between
that country and Portugal, relative to the navigation of the Douro, and
both countries prepared for war; but the question was finally settled
without an appeal to arms. Later in the year there was an insurrection
at Pampeluna and Vittoria, in behalf of the queen-mother, and a
desperate attempt was made to seize the queen in the palace at Madrid,
but, through the energetic measures of Espartero, the insurrection was
suppressed: Don Diego Leon, one of its leaders, was tried and executed.
During this year the long agitated question of the East rapidly
approached a settlement. On the 11th of January. Mehemet Ali gave up the
whole of the Turkish fleet; and about the same time a finnan was
sent from Constantinople, whereby the sultan accorded to Mehemet the
hereditary possession of Egypt. At the same time also Ibrahim Pacha
was directed by his father to evacuate Syria. Several causes, however,
combined against the complete restoration of peace between the sultan
and the pacha; and the year closed before negociations were concluded.




CHAPTER LIII.

{VICTORIA 1842—1843}

     Meeting of Parliament..... Debate on the Corn-Laws:
     Proposition of Ministers on the subject of the Corn-
     Laws..... Financial Measures; Income-Tax Bill, &c.—New
     Tariff..... Mr. Villiers’s Motion on the Corn Laws..... The
     Great Chartist Petition..... Bill for Restraining the
     Employment of Women and Children in Mines and
     Collieries..... Bribery at Elections..... Law Reforms.....
     Bill for the Protection of the Royal Person..... Copyright
     Act..... Poor Law Amendment Bill..... Prorogation  of
     Parliament..... East India Affairs, &c.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1842}

Parliament reassembled on the 3rd of February. The session was opened
under circumstances of unusual splendour, occasioned by the presence
of the King of Prussia, who had arrived in England, in order to stand
sponsor at the christening of the infant Prince of Wales. Her majesty
again addressed lier parliament in a speech of considerable length, and
which embraced a variety of interesting and important topics. The chief
of these were, the birth of an heir to the throne, the treaty which had
been concluded with the other great powers of Europe for the suppression
of the slave-trade: the pending negociations with China; the restoration
of friendly intercourse with Persia; and a treaty which had been
concluded with the Emperors of Austria and Russia, and the Kings of
France and Prussia, having for its object the security of the Turkish
empire, and the maintenance of the general tranquillity. In conclusion,
her majesty recommended attention to the state of the finances and
expenditure of the country; urged the consideration of the corn-laws;
stated that measures would be submitted for the amendment of the law
of bankruptcy; and expressed regret at the continued distress in the
manufacturing districts.

In the house of commons, on the 4th of February, Sir Robert Peel gave
notice that he would, on the 9th, move that the liouse resolve itself
into a committee of the whole house, to take into consideration the laws
which affect the importation of corn. The address was agreed to _nem.
con_.




DEBATE ON THE CORN-LAWS—PROPOSITION OF MINISTERS ON THE SUBJECT.

On the 9th of February, the day on which Sir Robert Peel had announced
he would develop the ministerial plan for the alteration of the
corn-laws, extraordinary interest was exhibited both in and out of the
house of commons. Every avenue of the house was thronged at an early
hour by persons eager to obtain admission; and when the doors were
opened every seat in the strangers’ gallery was instantly occupied. A
number of the anti-corn-law delegates attempted to station themselves in
the lobby; but being prevented by the police they stationed themselves
outside the house, where they saluted the members as they passed with
the cries of “No sliding-scale!” “Total repeal!” “Fixed duty!” &c.
Shortly after five o’clock Sir Robert Peel moved: “That this house
resolve itself into a committee, to consider the trade in corn.” He then
requested that the clerk of the house should read that portion of her
majesty’s speech which related to that subject. This being done, he
observed that it was difficult to discuss this subject without making
statements or admissions which would be seized upon by his opponents:
but that he trusted to the reason, moderation, and judgment of
parliament. The right honourable baronet then proceeded to state that
he would not excite a hope that his measure would tend immediately to
mitigate the existing commercial distress, and to enumerate the causes
which had given rise to that distress. He then adverted to the various
opinions obtained in the country as to a change of the corn-laws. Some
opposed, he said, all change; others demanded immediate and instant
repeal; and others required some modification. His own opinion was,
that a total repeal of the corn-laws would aggravate the manufacturing
distress; the prosperity of the two classes being identical. There were
advantages in a fixed duty which did not apply to a variable duty; but
the objection to the principle of imposing any duty on corn was equally
applicable to both. Nor could, he argued, a fixed duty be permanent: he
did not think they could impose any amount of fixed duty sufficient for
the protection of agriculture in years of average supply, which
they could determinately and fixedly impose in times of distress and
scarcity. Sir Robert Peel next entered into a variety of arguments to
show that this country, in ordinary years, was able to supply its own
population. From the arguments he used he came to the conclusion that it
was not advisable for parliament to alter the principle of the existing
law; and the alteration which he would therefore propose went on the
principle of retaining a duty on corn, varying inversely with the
price of corn in the home market. He continued by observing that the
maintenance of that principle involved the maintenance of a system of
averages; and after expressing doubts whether there had not been
much exaggeration as to the frauds and combinations to influence
the averages, he thus stated the proposals of government respecting
them:—“We shall propose to take the averages in the present mode, from
the factor, the miller, or the purchaser. We shall propose that the duty
of collecting the returns shall devolve on the excise. The excise is
perfectly competent to this duty; it has officers employed in each
market-town fully competent for the discharge of this duty by having
greater duties to perform, and who will be able at a comparatively
small increase of expense to fulfil this employment; and by their
intelligence, their business habits, and the responsibility which
attaches to them as public officers, they will afford far greater
security against fraud than can be obtained by intrusting this duty to
private individuals.” After stating that the averages were to be taken
in all the principal corn-markets, Sir Robert stated the amount of
protection to be given to the produce of this country. Having shown how
the duty varied under the existing laws, and that they induced fraud,
and having made some remarks on the term “remunerating price,” he thus
described his new scale:—“We propose that when corn is at 50s. and
under 51s. in price, a duty of 20s. shall be taken; but that in no case
shall that duty be exceeded. We propose that when the price is 51s. and
under 52s., the duty shall be 19s.; and after this we propose that there
shall be what I should term a rest in the scale. That at the next items
of price the duty should be uniform. Thus it would be: When the price is
52s. and under 53s. and 54s., 18s.; and when 54s. and under 55s., still
18s. When the price is 55s. and under 56s., we propose that the duty be
17s.; when 56s. and under 57s., that it shall be 16s.; and when 57s. and
under 58s., that it shall be 15s.; and when 58s. and under 59s.. that it
shall be 14s.; and when 59s. and under 60s., that it shall be 13s.; when
60s. and under 61s., that it shall be 12s.; when 61s. and under 62s.,
that it shall be lis.; when 62s, and under 63s., that it shall be 10s.;
when 63s. and under 64s., that it shall be 9s.; when 64s. and under
65s., that it shall be 8s.; and when 65s. and under 66s., that it shall
be 7s. At the three next items of price I propose another rest in the
scale similar to the former. I should propose on the next three a duty
of 6s., that is to say, when the price is 66s. and under 67s., when it
is 67s. and under 68s., and when it is 68s. and under 69s. In each of
these cases the duty would be 6s. When the price is 69s. and under 70s.,
I propose a duty of 5s.; when 70s. and under 71s., a duty of 4s.; when
71s. and under 72s., a duty of 3s.; when 72s. and under 73s. a duty of
2s.; and when 73s. and under 74s., a duty of Is. the quarter. When that
price is arrived at, I propose that the duty should altogether cease;
the sum of the proposition, then, is this, that when corn in the British
market is under the price of 51s. the quarter, a duty of 20s. shall be
levied, which duty shall never be exceeded, for I am quite satisfied
that it is useless to take any greater amount of duty.” With respect to
other grain than wheat, Sir Robert Peel proposed to adopt the proportion
of value and duty which he found in the present law. “Colonial wheat and
flour,” he continued, “shall be imported at a duty of 5s. whenever the
price of British wheat is below 67s.; that when the price of British
wheat exceeds 67s. it shall then be admissible at a duty of 6d. I
propose to give the same advantage to colonial wheat, respecting
the reduction of prices at which it shall be admissible, as is given to
other descriptions of wheat. But considering that the sudden drop in
the prices from 5s. to 6d., on account of the difference of Is. in the
price, is at variance with the principle of the law, which seeks to
establish as equable and uniform a reduction of duty as possible, we
propose to make this arrangement respecting colonial wheat—that when
the price of British wheat is under 55s., the duty upon every quarter of
British colonial wheat shall be 5s.; that when at 55s. and under 56s.,
it shall be 4s.; and when at 56s. and under 57s., it shall be 3s.; and
when at 58s. and upwards it shall be Is., thus taking away that sudden
fall in the amount of duty, levied upon colonial wheat, which takes
place under the existing law; but giving the colonial wheat that
advantage in the reduction of the price which is given to other
descriptions of wheat.” Sir Robert Peel finally thus recapitulated the
reduction which his new scale would effect:—“When corn is 59s. and
under 60s., the duty I propose is 13s. When the price of corn is at 50s.,
the existing duty is 36s. 8d., increasing as the price falls; instead of
which I propose, when corn is at 50s., that the duty shall be only 20s.,
and that the duty shall in no case be exceeded. At 56s., the existing
duty is 30s. 8d.; the duty I propose at that price is 16s. At 60a., the
existing duty is 26s. 8d., the duty I propose at that price is 12s. At
63s., the existing duty is 23s. 8d.; the duty I propose is 9s. At 64s.,
the existing duty is 22s. 8d.; the duty I propose is 8s. At 70s., the
existing duty is 10s. 8d.; the duty I propose is 5s. Therefore it is
impossible to deny, in comparing the duty which I propose with that
which exists at present, that it will cause a very considerable decrease
of the protection which the present duty affords to the home grower, a
decrease, however, which, in my opinion, can be made consistently with
justice to all the interests concerned.” In conclusion, Sir Robert Peel
disclaimed the idea of legislating in favour of particular interests,
and expressed his conviction that the present was a favourable time
for the settlement of the question. After a few words from Lord John
Russell, and a brief reply from Sir Robert Peel, the house adjourned. On
the following day Lord John Russell gave notice that he should, on the
ensuing Monday, move a resolution condemnatory of a sliding-scale. The
resolution was couched in these terms:—“That this house, considering
the evils which have been caused by the present corn-laws, and
especially by the fluctuations of the graduated or sliding-scale, is
not prepared to adopt the measure of her majesty’s government, which is
founded on the same principle, and is likely to be attended by the same
results.” Mr. Villiers next announced that, on going into committee, he
should take the sense of the house on the policy of imposing any duty
whatever on foreign corn or food imported into this country. A third
notice was given by Mr. Christopher that he should move in committee a
scale of wheat duties, instead of Sir Robert Peel’s, imposing a maximum
duty of 25s. when the price is 50s., and a minimum duty of Is. when
the price is 73s., the duty falling by Is., as the price rises by Is.;
except that at the rise of price from 59s. to 60s., the duty falls by
2s. The debate commenced on the 14th, when Sir Robert Peel moved that
the speaker do leave the chair, in order to a committee of the whole
house on the corn-laws. Lord John Russell then brought forward
his amendment, and stated his objections to the sliding-seale. He
remarked:—“The first objection I have to a sliding-scale, is, that a
high, I would say a prohibitory duty, always forms part of it. I could
understand a scale not exceeding 10s. or 12s., and going down to 4s.,
to 3s., or to Is.; but I find that whenever gentlemen speak of a
sliding-scale, it is of such a nature as to contain a prohibitory duty.
The first duty, when the price is at 50s., and under 51s., is 20s.;
and I shall now proceed to show that that is a prohibitory duty. I
have looked over the papers containing the latest information. From the
information obtained by Mr. Meek, who was sent to the north of Europe
expressly to collect information on the subject, it appears that the
original price of Dantzie wheat, when brought from the interior of
the country, is 35s.; that the charges, which seem to satisfy that
gentleman’s mind amount in all to 10s. 6d.; thus making the price at
which it could be sold in England in ordinary years 45s. 6d. If you add
to that the proposed duty of 20s., you make the entire price of Dantzie
wheat, 65s. 6d., when the price at home, is 50s.; showing of course that
20s. amounts to a prohibitory duty. In the same way at Odessa, as stated
in the consul’s returns, the price would be 26s.; adding to which 10s.
for freight, and some further charges, which cannot be taken or less
than 5s., as on the former occasions, and adding then the proposed
duty of 20s., you would have the price up to 61s., without counting the
profit of the merchant who had to deal with this corn; and therefore,
though you may say that you have reduced the duty to 20s., to 19s., and
to 18s., yet in all three instances it can be shown that the duty is
prohibitory; and that when the price is at 55s. or 56s., the price at
which the right honourable gentleman said it would please him to see it,
nobody can tell why, there would then be a prohibitory duty upon
foreign corn.” Lord John Russell concluded by moving his amendment. The
amendment was opposed by Mr. E. Gladstone, who thought that some of Lord
John Russell’s opinions ought to have led him to support the government.
The debate which followed lasted three nights, and the principal
speakers were, on the ministerial side, Lord Sandon, Sir J. Graham and
E. Knatchbull, and Messrs. Childers, Ormsby Gore, and B. Ferrand; and in
favour of the amendment, Lord Worsley, and Messrs. C Wood, Labouchere,
Ward, E. Buller, and Roebuck. The greater part of the speeches delivered
consisted of recapitulations and reproductions of the reasonings and
statements used by the leaders of either party. On a division the
amendment was rejected by a majority of three hundred and forty-nine
against two hundred and twenty-six. The house having thus pronounced in
favour of the principle of a sliding-scale of corn-duties, it might have
seemed illogical and superfluous afterwards to discuss a proposition
of which the affirmative had been involved in the preceding decision;
namely, whether corn should be subjected to any duties at all. Nothing
daunted, however, Mr. Villiers brought forward his intended motion to
that effect; a motion which, after five nights’ debate, was rejected by
a majority of three hundred and ninety-three against three hundred and
three. Subsequently Mr. Christopher brought forward his scale of duties
as a substitute for those of Sir Robert Peel; but the original
proposition was carried by an equally overwhelming majority. In
committee various amendments were proposed, but they were all rejected
or withdrawn, and the bill was, on the 5th of April, read a third time,
and passed.

The second reading of the corn-law bill was moved in the house of lords,
on the 18th of April, by the Earl of Ripon. Lord Brougham rose and
moved the total and absolute repeal of the duty on foreign corn; but
his amendment was rejected by an overwhelming majority. On the following
day, on the motion to go into committee, Viscount Melbourne moved,
“That it is the opinion of this house that a fixed duty upon the
importation of foreign corn and flour would be more advantageous to
trade and more conducive to the general welfare of all classes of the
people than a graduated duty, varying with the average of prices in
the markets of this country.” This proposition gave rise to a lengthy
discussion; but it was rejected by a majority of one hundred and
seventeen against forty-nine. Subsequently Lord Brougham moved these
resolutions:—“That no duty ought to be imposed upon the importation of
foreign corn, for the purpose of protecting the agriculturist, by taxing
the introduction of food. That no duty ought to be imposed upon the
importation of foreign corn, for the purpose of regulating trade, by
taxing the introduction of food. That no duty ought to be imposed upon
the importation of foreign corn, for the purpose of raising the revenue,
by taxing the introduction of food.” These resolutions were rejected, as
were others moved by Earl Stanhope, Lord Beaumont, and Lord Mountcashel,
and the bill passed in its original state.




FINANCIAL MEASURES—INCOME-TAX BILL, ETC.

On the accession of Sir Robert Peel to office he was embarrassed with
great financial difficulties. For the ensuing year he had to deal with
a deficiency of £2,570,000; with contingencies in China and India of
uncertain amount. The present juncture, indeed, demanded a remedial
measure of a bold and comprehensive character, and Sir Robert did
not fail to bring forward such a measure. On the 11th of March, in a
committee of ways and means, the right honourable baronet said, that for
the year ending April, 1843, the estimated revenue would be £43,350,000,
and the estimated expenditure £50,819,000, leaving a deficiency of
£2,469,000. With the contingencies in India and China, indeed, he
calculated that the deficit, in the two years ending May next, would not
be less than £4,700,000. How, he asked, were these deficiencies to be
met? Should the system of loans and exchequer-bills be continued? Was
there the prospect of any considerable reduction in expenditure? Was the
present deficiency a casual one? Should he impose a tax on articles of
consumption and the necessaries of life? Should he revive old taxes?
Should he go back to the post-office? or revive the taxes upon salt,
leather, or wool? Finally, should he resort to locomotion for the
purposes of taxation? All these expedients Sir Robert repudiated; and
he fixed upon one which, while it justly gave offence to a large body
of the people, has proved to fully answer the end for which it was
designed. This was an imposition of an income-tax of sevenpence in the
pound upon all incomes from £150 and upwards, and in which was included
not only landed but funded property, whether in the hands of British
subjects or of foreigners. He estimated the assessable yearly value
of the land at £39,400,000; of houses, at £25,000,000; and of tithes,
shares in railways and mines, and other similar property, at £8,400,000:
total, £72,800,000. From this he would deduct one-fourth for the
exemption which he proposed to give to all incomes under £150, and
then the tax thus far would give him £160,000. The occupiers of land,
assessed at half their rent, would yield £120,000. Next came funded
property. The dividend paid in 1841 was £29,400,000, from which he would
deduct £1,000,000 in respect of savings’ banks; but he added upon
bank, foreign, and other stocks £1,500,000, making a total of almost
£30,000,000, from which, deducting one-fourth for incomes under £150
a year, he would derive £646,000. Sir Robert Peel next proceeded to
incomes of trades and professions, from which he expected to obtain
£1,253,000; and he then stated that from the incomes of public officers
he calculated upon £150,000. The total would be £3,771,000. With respect
to the duration of this impost, he said, that government might probably
require it for five years; but he would in the first instance propose
its continuance for three years. In case of war he should deem it
reasonable that Ireland should bear her proportion of this tax; but
during peace, and for a limited period, he should prefer to raise the
quota of that country by other means. He proposed, therefore, a duty of
one shilling per gallon upon spirits; the equalization of the stamp-duty
with that of England; and a tax of four shillings upon coal exported
in British vessels from this country. The aggregate revenue from
these sources and the income-tax in England would be about £4,380,000;
constituting a considerable surplus, after covering the deficiency on
the votes of annual expenditure. This surplus Sir Robert Peel proposed
to apply in relaxing the commercial tariff. The duties on raw materials
were in no case to exceed five per cent.; the duties upon articles
partially manufactured were to be diminished, the highest being twelve
per cent.; and upon complete manufactures no duty was to be imposed
higher than twenty per cent. He laid upon the table this amended scale
of duties, which had been distributed under twenty different heads; in
which, he said, would be found an abatement in about seven hundred and
fifty articles, and that on about four hundred and fifty the duty had
been left untouched. The total diminution of revenues occasioned by
the reductions was estimated by the right honourable baronet at about
£270,000. He regretted to say that upon sugar, ministers could not offer
any reduction; but with respect to coffee he proposed a reduction of
fourpence upon British, and eightpence upon foreign, which he calculated
would cause a loss of £171,000 to the revenue. On the subject of timber,
he said that his measure would be the reverse of that which was brought
forward by his predecessors in office; he would advise a great reduction
of duty, which would benefit all classes, from the agriculturist to the
shipbuilder. His propositions were to lower the duty on foreign timber
to twenty-five shillings a load, and to let in the timber of Canada at
a duty of one shilling a load; causing a probable loss to the revenue
of £600,000. There were yet two other reductions he had to propose:
one upon the export of certain British manufactures, and another upon
stage-coach duties. These two heads of reduction would produce a loss
of £70,000. On the whole these reductions, in addition to the excess
of expenditure, would increase the deficit to about £3,700,000; but the
estimated produce of the income-tax would not only cover this, but leave
more than £500,000 applicable to the contingencies of war in India and
China. Sir Robert Peel concluded with an earnest appeal to the house to
support the name which the English had inherited from their forefathers,
untarnished: and he then moved his first resolution, which was to
grant a duty on Irish spirits. No discussion followed Sir Robert Peel’s
speech: the motion was agreed to, and the house resumed.

A few nights subsequently, Sir Robert Peel entered into an explanation
of the details of the measures he had announced; especially with respect
to the machinery by which the income-tax was to be collected. On the
motion to go into a committee of ways and means, Mr. T. Baring found
fault with Sir Robert Peel’s calculations; and he was followed by Lord
Howick, who strongly censured the income-tax, and Lord John Russell, who
condemned the construction of tire tariff for not working out its own
principle, but sparing certain articles, as sugar, merely from fear
of the influential interests connected with them. After three several
motions by Messrs. Cobden, H. Berkeley, and Bernai, “That the chairman
do report progress,” which were all negatived by large majorities, Sir
Robert Peel was compelled to defer the measure till the 4th of April.
The income-tax was resumed immediately after the Easter recess. The
first resolution, to impose a tax of sevenpence on every pound upon all
incomes, except the incomes of occupiers of land, was put and carried
without discussion. On the second resolution, however, imposing a tax on
the occupation of laud, calculated at the rate of threepence-halfpenny
in the pound on the yearly value being read, Lord John Russell pointed
out the operation’ the tax might have in inducing landlords to split
their farms, so as to make the rental of each below the amount liable
to taxation; and gave notice that, on the report of the resolutions, he
should move this amendment:—“That it has been stated to this house,
on official authority, that the deficiency of income to meet the
expenditure of the country, may be estimated for the years ending the
5th day of April, 1842, at £2,350,000, and on the 5th day of April,
1843, at £2,569,000. That this house is fully sensible of the evil of a
continued inadequacy of the public income to meet the expenditure, and
will take measures for averting the same in future years. That, by
a judicious alteration of the duties on corn, by a reduction of the
prohibitory duty on foreign sugar, and an adjustment of the duties on
timber and coffee, the advantage of a moderate price to the community
may be combined with an increased revenue to the state. That, in
addition to those main articles of general consumption, the interests of
trade will be promoted by the repeal or reduction of various prohibitory
and differential duties, and that extended commerce will improve the
revenue, whilst it gives employment to industry. That the amount of
taxes taken off, or reduced, from the termination of the last war to the
end of the year 1836, exclusive of the tax on income, may be stated in
round numbers at £23,873,000. That the income-tax, having been first
imposed in a period of extreme emergency and during a most perilous war,
was repealed on the re-establishment of peace; and having been again
imposed on the renewal of war, was again repealed in 1816, on the
termination of hostilities. That considering the various means of
supplying the deficiency without enhancing the price of the necessaries
of life, or embarrassing trade, it is the opinion of this house that
the renewal of a tax, inquisitorial in its character, unequal in its
pressure, and which has hitherto been considered as the financial
reserve of the nation in time of war, is not called for by public
necessity, and is therefore not advisable.” The second resolution
was then put and agreed to; as was also the third, equalizing certain
stamp-duties in Ireland with those of England; and the report was
ordered to be brought up. Lord John Russell’s amendment came on for
discussion on the 8th of April, when his lordship, in a speech of great
length, charged the government with taking too gloomy a view of
affairs, comparing the present aspect of the finances with that when an
income-tax was formerly proposed. If new taxes must be resorted to, his
lordship recommended a tax on the succession to real property, or the
revival of some of the repealed assessed taxes. Mr. Goulburn defended
the ministerial policy; and Sir Robert Peel vindicated himself from the
charge of over-rating difficulties, and contrasted the state of finances
which the Melbourne government found on entering office in 1835, with
that which they left on their departure, in the British and Indian
empire. The debate on Lord John Russell’s amendment lasted four nights,
most of the principal speakers on both sides taking part in it. On the
fourth night the house divided; when it was lost by a majority of three
hundred and eight against two hundred and two. The report was then
brought up and read, and leave given to bring in a bill founded on Sir
Robert Peel’s resolutions. On the motion for the first reading of the
bill, on the 18th of April, Lord John Russell moved that it be read a
first time that day six months. A debate of considerable length ensued,
in which arguments urged for or against the measure were repeated;
after which the amendment was rejected by a majority of two hundred and
eighty-five to one hundred and eighty-eight. The bill was then read a
second time, and a few days afterwards the house went into committee.
In committee the first question discussed was the period when the tax
should commence; and the time finally decided was the 5th of April,
1842. The original proposition respecting schedule A was then affirmed,
as was also schedule B. On schedule C Mr. Ricardo moved an amendment
to exempt terminable annuities, and to subject them to special scales
according to their market value; but, on a division, the motion was
rejected by a large majority. In considering schedule D, which rendered
incomes derived from professions, trades, and employments liable to the
tax of sevenpence in the pound, Mr. Roebuck moved that it be fixed at
half that sum. This motion was warmly supported by several speakers; but
it was rejected, as was also another amendment to defeat this clause,
moved by Mr. Sharman Crawford. Sir Charles Napier made a proposition on
schedule E, to exempt officers in the army and navy from taxation; but
this was also rejected: and after this the progress of the bill went
on rapidly, more than eighty clauses being disposed of in one night’s
debate. A second sufficed to get through the bill; amendments moved by
Messrs. Baring, Hume, and Benjamin Wood, being all rejected by large
majorities. On the third reading, Mr. Sharman Crawford moved an
amendment, to the effect that the present house of commons could not be
considered a fair representation of the people; and that therefore it
was unfit that any system of increased taxation should be imposed by
parliament until all just causes of complaint, with regard to the mode
of electing members, should be redressed. Lord John Russell himself
opposed this motion, and it was at once rejected; and after some further
discussion on the bill, it was read a third time by a majority of one
hundred and ninety-nine against sixty-nine. The bill then passed.




NEW TARIFF.

The question of the income-tax being thus settled, government proceeded
to carry into effect the other great branch in their financial
scheme—the alterations in the tariff or customs duties. A complete
copy of the tariff was placed in the hands of each member of parliament
previously to the 5th of May, on which day it was announced that it
would be moved to go into committee on this important subject. On
that day the proceedings in the house of commons, were commenced by an
elaborate preliminary statement on the part of the prime-minister, in
which he showed that the general object of the present government was to
simplify the existing law. Sir Robert Peel then went over in detail
some of the chief alterations proposed in duties on what is called raw
material. Among the articles under this denomination were clover-seed,
woods, ores, oils, extracts, and timbers, on all of which he proposed
to reduce the duties. On articles of foreign manufacture, Sir Robert
continued to explain that he proposed to levy an amount of duty,
generally speaking, not to exceed twenty per cent. He next proceeded
to combat the argument of his opponents, that he had begun at the wrong
end, that he should have reduced the duties on articles of provision,
and have dealt more largely with the corn-laws. Taking the whole tariff,
he contended that it would be seen that the cost of sustenance was
greatly reduced. At that moment, he said, under the old law the duty on
foreign wheat would have been 27s. a quarter; under the new law it
was 13s. Then again, beef, fresh or slightly salted, was absolutely
prohibited; but he proposed to admit it at 8s. a hundred-weight. He
further proposed to lower the duties on lard, hams, salmon, herrings,
hops, &c. Sir Robert then explained that in the amended tariff, on the
representation of straw-plait makers, the duty had been increased from
5s. to 7s 6d. in the pound; at the same time he showed that it would be
no protection to them, inasmuch as the article was of such a nature that
it could be easily smuggled into this country without detection. He then
endeavoured to convince those who feared the reduction of duties on live
cattle, that their alarm was groundless, arguing that the English grower
had substantial security in the quality of the article, and that England
from this circumstance might become an exporting country. Mr. Labouchere
said that he had heard the speech of the right honourable baronet with
great pleasure. At the same time he asserted that the late government
had announced a tariff reform; and that it was only the want of success
which attended its plans with respect to corn, timber, and sugar, which
had prevented it from submitting to the house measures of a similar
character to those now brought forward. After a protracted discussion,
the house divided on the question, that the speaker do now leave the
chair, which was carried by a majority of two hundred and nineteen
against one hundred and fifty-two. On the 13th of May, on the motion of
going into committee on the customs’ duties bill, Lord Howick proposed
this resolution:—“That in making a new arrangement of the customs’
duties, it is not expedient to impose different rates of duty upon
the same articles when imported from foreign countries or from British
possessions, in any case where no such difference now exists; and that
in those cases in which such a difference already exists, it is not
expedient that it should be increased.” He argued that such differences
would injure the revenue without benefiting the consumer; while they
would force colonial traders into precarious existence. This view of the
case was ably combated by Mr. Gladstone; and on a division the motion
was negatived by a majority of two hundred and eighty-one against one
hundred and eight. The house considered the tariff in detail after the
Whitsuntide recess; when the duties on cattle and provisions excited
keen discussion, the agricultural members being alarmed at the prospect
of foreign competition, which they anticipated from the reduced duties.
On the house going into committee on the 23rd of May, the motion being
made, “That in lieu of the present rates of duty now payable on the
articles enumerated in the annexed schedules, there shall be raised,
levied, and paid upon the importation of the said articles into the
United Kingdom, the rates of duty proposed in the annexed schedules;”
 Mr. Miles moved, by way of amendment, the following words:—“All live
stock imported from foreign countries being charged by weight.” In
support of his amendment Mr. Miles went into a variety of calculations
to show the injury that would result to the farmer from the proposed
arrangement of duties, contending that the United States, Denmark,
Holland. Prussia, and the various states of Germany, would fatten cattle
for the English market, and thus render it impossible for the farmers at
home to compete with the foreign breeder. He was supported by the Earl
of March, and Messrs. H. Palmer and G. Heathcote, and opposed by
Lords Alford and Norreys, Colonel Wyndham, and Messrs. Gaily Knight
and Gladstone. The latter said that a material omission in Mr. Miles’s
argument, was the want of proof that a large quantity of cattle could
be imported so as to injure the English farmer. Lord John Russell, in
continuation, said that he rejoiced to hear the principles laid down
by Sir Robert Peel; but he argued that they should have been extended
to the corn-laws. Other members spoke on both sides of the question; and
after a reply from Mr. Miles, the amendment was rejected by a majority
of three hundred and eighty against two hundred and sixty-seven.
When the committee resumed on the following day, Mr. Miles moved an
amendment, imposing a duty of 5s. 6d. per cwt. on live cattle, and 9s.
4d. per cwt. on the dead meat. This amendment, however, was withdrawn;
and one moved by Mr. Villiers, that the duty of one shilling per head
on oxen and bulls be substituted for the government proposition,
was rejected. The items in the tariff were then taken _seriatim_.
Discussions took place, and amendments were proposed on the duties
affecting swine and hogs, foreign fish, apples, butter, potatoes,
timber, cotton manufactures, foreign silk, &c.; but in each case the
duties affixed by government were affirmed by large majorities. The
third reading of the customs’ act was at length moved on the 28th
of June, on which occasion Mr. John Jervis moved a clause to grant a
drawback on coals proved to be exported for the consumption of British
steam-vessels. This motion was rejected; and on the question that the
bill do pass, Lord John Russell made some few remarks on its general
provisions, and Sir Robert Peel acknowledged the support which he had
generally received from both sides of the house. The question being then
put from the chair, the bill was read a third time, and passed in the
midst of loud cheers.

The customs’ act was read a first time in the house of lords two days
after it had passed the commons, and the Earl of Ripon moved the second
reading on the 5th of July. Two days afterwards the house went into
committee on the bill, and every amendment proposed by opposition lords
was negatived without division, and the bill passed through committee,
and was reported.

The subject of the duties on sugar was brought forward in a committee of
ways and means, on the 3rd of June, by the chancellor of the exchequer,
who explained the reasons why government could not consent to the
admission of foreign sugar at a lower rate of duty, and moved a
resolution that the present duties should be continued one year; which
proposition, after a lengthened discussion, was confirmed.




MR. VILLIERS’S MOTION ON THE CORN-LAWS.

On the 11th of July, it having been moved to go into committee of
supply, the opposition party brought forward the subject of the state
of the nation. Mr. Villiers having moved as an amendment for the
appointment of a select committee on the laws regulating the importation
of corn, with a view to their total repeal, prefaced his motion with
a speech, in which he said that he brought the subject forward in
compliance with the request of the anti-corn-law delegates; and because,
in the late discussion on the state of the nation, a taunt had been
thrown out on the ministerial side, that, if the opposition thought that
a repeal of the corn daws would remedy the evil, they ought to submit
that proposition to the house. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fielden,
and supported by Mr. Aglionby, who declared the new sliding-scale was a
delusion. Sir Charles Napier and Mr. Gaily Knight conceived that these
debates ought not to be protracted: it was an unfair way of conducting
any opposition to a government. Sir Robert Peel bitterly complained of
the continual interruption to public business, and of the impediments
opposed to a fair trial of the new corn-law. Lord J. Russell, Viscount
Howick, Sir John Hanmer, and Mr. Cobden supported the motion; but, on
a division, it was rejected by two hundred and thirty-one against one
hundred and seventeen.

While these discussions were taking place in the house of commons, the
same class of topics were brought forward in the house of lords by Lord
Brougham, who moved that a select committee be appointed to inquire into
the distress of the country. This motion was supported by Lord Kinnaird
and the Marquis of Clanricarde; and opposed by the Earl of Ripon,
Viscount Melbourne, and Earl Stanhope. On a division it was rejected by
a majority of sixty-one against fourteen.




THE GREAT CHARTIST PETITION.

The most striking shape in which the grievances of the working classes
presented themselves to the notice of the legislature during this
session, was the presentation of a petition, which, for bulk and
signatures, was unparalleled in the annals of parliament. The signatures
attached to it exceeded 3,000,000; and in conveying it to the house of
commons, it required sixteen men to support it. It was, in fact, too
large to be admitted into the door of the house of commons; and, in
order to effect its enhance, it was divided into sections. It was
presented by Mr. T. Duncombe, who, in calling the attention of the
house to its contents, thanked them for the kind and respectful manner
in which it had been received. The petition, he remarked, had nearly
3,500,000 signatures; and, making allowance for the signatures of youths
and females, he was prepared to prove that there were above 1,500,000
of families of the industrious classes subscribers to that petition. The
prayer of the petition was for the enactment of the great constitutional
changes which form the “six points” in the Chartist creed, to which
was added a demand for the abolition of all kinds of monopolies. Mr.
Duncombe concluded by moving, “that the petitioners of the national
petition be heard at the bar of this house, by themselves, their
counsel, or agents, in support of the allegations of then-petitions.”
 The motion was seconded by Mr. Leader. The spirit of this petition was
bitter, and its language offensive. It was pervaded by a desire for
class legislation, and propounded doctrines subversive of the rights
of property, and of the national faith and credit. On a division, the
motion was negatived by two hundred and eighty-seven against forty-nine.




BILL FOR RESTRAINING THE EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN MINES AND
COLLIERIES.

In a previous session, after having been the means of carrying a
humane law to prevent the cruelties inflicted on children employed in
factories, Lord Ashley procured the appointment of commissioners for
inquiry into the employment of children. These commissioners examined
into the state of young persons in mines and collieries; and the course
of their inquiries brought to light more than the sufferings of children
alone; for they found the cases of the women in many places equally
pitiable. This subject was brought forward by Lord Ashley in the house
of commons on the 7th of June, when his lordship moved for leave to
bring in a bill for restraining the employment of women and children
in mines and collieries. The speech of Lord Ashley disclosed a state
of things in the mining districts the most appalling. Cruel oppressions
were perpetrated by the mine owners and overseers, especially upon women
and children; and frequently parents showed an utter callousness to
the sufferings of their offspring. The work assigned to girls and young
women was destructive of health, and was conducted under circumstances
so indecent that it was difficult for the noble speaker to state
the details to the house. The commons received the intelligence with
amazement and indignation; they had no conception that such outrages
upon female decency, and upon humanity, existed in England. Lord Ashley
proceeded to state the means, which he should call upon the legislature
to adopt for an immediate removal of the most hideous and appalling
features of the system he had described. The means explained by his
lordship were fourfold: the total exclusion of female labour from all
mines and collieries in the country; the exclusion of all boys under
thirteen years of age; the prevention of the employment of males
under twenty-one years of age as engineers; and the abolition of
apprenticeship. Lord Ashley concluded his able and humane speech in this
appropriate and emphatic language of scripture:—“Let us break off our
sins by righteousness, and our iniquities by showing mercy to the poor.”
 A hearty concurrence was manifested on all sides of the house in the
proposition; and the bill having been brought in, was passed rapidly
through all its stages, and finally read a third time amidst loud
cheers. Before the measure came into the upper house, it was announced
by Lord Wharncliffe that ministers would be passive respecting it,
each individual member taking what part they deemed prudent. The second
reading was moved by the Earl of Devon, who, after vindicating the
measure, contended that without any evidence the house would be
justified in preventing the employment of women in the places described.
Subsequently, the earl explained the alterations which it had been
thought advisable to make in the bill; namely, the postponement of the
time at which the employment of females should cease until the 1st of
March next; the abandonment of a clause for regulating the hours
during which children should be employed; the restricting the term of
apprenticeship in any mine or colliery to eight years instead of entire
prohibition; and the enacting that no boy be apprenticed under ten years
of age. Several noble lords spoke for and against the measure; but the
motion for going into committee was carried by forty-nine against three.
In committee several amendments were successively proposed by Lords
Beaumont, Littleton, Skelmersdale, Dunmore, and Mount Cashel; but they
were all rejected, and the several clauses were agreed to, with some
verbal amendments, and the bill reported. The third reading was opposed
by Lord Londonderry, but without success; and the bill passed. The
amendments were subsequently agreed to in the commons.




BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.

On the 6th of May, Mr. Roebuck, having given notice previously of his
intention, moved for a committee of inquiry into the election of the
members for Reading, Nottingham, Lewes, Penryn, and Harwich. In making
this motion Mr. Roebuck entered into particulars concerning these
elections, in all of which he contended bribery had been practised. He
wished to inquire into these transactions in order to expose them to the
people of this country. He had not, he said, confined his accusations to
one side of the house or the other. He had made no party question of it:
he stood up for the purity of the house; and, God willing, it should be
made pure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzroy, member for Lewes, who
warmly challenged inquiry into his conduct. Captain Plumridge, also,
member for Penryn, declared that he had never given one penny towards
the expenses of his election. On the other hand, Mr. Elphinstone,
another of the accused members, declared frankly that, in his election,
both parties had been guilty of bribery, and that if the inquiry had
proceeded, none of the four candidates for his seat would now have been
members of parliament. After a lengthened discussion a committee was
appointed, and at the latter part of July the report of this committee
was presented to the house, shortly after which Mr. Roebuck gave
notice of his intention to move the following resolutions:—“That the
compromises of election petitions, as brought to the knowledge of this
house by the Report of the Select Committee on Election Proceedings,
must, if for the future they be allowed to pass without punishment or
censure, tend to bring this house into contempt with the people, and
thereby seriously to diminish its power and authority. That all such
practices are hereby declared to be a violation of the liberties of the
people, and a breach of the privileges of this house; which it will in
all future cases inquire into, and severely punish. That whereas in the
late elections for Harwich, Nottingham. Lewes, Reading, Falmouth, and
Penryn, and Bridport, the present laws have been found insufficient to
protect the voters from the mischievous temptations of bribery, it be
ordered that Mr. Speaker do issue no writ for any election of members
for the said towns, till further legislative enactments have been
adopted to protect the purity of elections.” In moving these resolutions
Mr. Roebuck said that they mentioned no names, but simply provided for
future mischiefs. He had proved all his assertions, and much more:
and would the reflecting and honest people of England believe, that
in buying up poor voters, in debauching, poor constituencies, and
afterwards shielding themselves by a contemptible quibble, and buying
off the consequences, the conduct of members was either honourable to
themselves, or beneficial to their constituents? He believed the people
would say the chief criminal was the briber; the rich man who went
down with money in his pocket to a large constituency.—some of them
oppressed by poverty—and offered them bribes to sell their consciences.
A lengthened and stormy debate took place; but the resolutions were all
negatived. But, notwithstanding the house of commons refused to affirm
these resolutions, the investigation that had taken place had some
practical result. One of the terms on which the petition against the
return of one of the members for Reading was compromised, was the
acceptance of the Chiltern hundreds within a limited time. When that
time arrived, however, for carrying this stipulation into effect, an
unexpected difficulty occurred. The chancellor of the exchequer now made
aware, by the publication of the report, for what the application
was preferred, declined to grant it; and the individual who had bound
himself to resign his seat, found it beyond his power to do so. The
course of proceeding adopted by the chancellor of the exchequer became
the subject of discussion in the house of commons on the 6th of August,
when Lord Palmerston moved for “copies of any correspondence which had
taken place since the 1st day of July last, between the chancellor of
the exchequer and any member of this house, upon the subject of the
stewardship of the Chiltern hundreds;” the result of which motion was
that the copies were ordered. Subsequently, the writs for filling up
vacancies created by the unseating or collusive resignation of members
at Ipswich, Southampton, Nottingham, and Newcastle-under-Lyne were all
ordered to be issued. The disclosures before the committee concerning
Sudbury, induced Mr. Redington, the chairman, to bring in a bill for the
disfranchisement of that borough; but though this bill was supported by
government, and passed through the commons, owing to the late period at
which it was sent up to the lords, it only reached a second reading in
that house. The writ, however, was suspended _sine die_. In connection
with this subject, it may be mentioned that Lord John Russell brought in
a bill for the prevention of bribery, and remedying some of the abuses
to which election proceedings were liable; which bill, with some
modifications in committee, passed both houses, and received the royal
assent.




LAW REFORMS.

In the early part of this session the lord-chancellor gave notice of
bills respecting bankruptcy, lunacy, and county courts. Adverting first
to the subject of bankruptcies, he commenced by paying a compliment to
Lord Brougham, upon the improvements in that department of the law
which he had introduced. His lordship continued:—“That system, however,
excellent as it was, comprised within its jurisdiction only a circuit
of forty miles round London. He proposed to extend the metropolitan
district to a hundred miles round London; which would add a fifth to the
business of the commissioners, without inconvenience to them. For
the country, it was proposed to appoint commissioners at five central
points, in five great towns, beyond the London district, invested with
the same power which was at present reposed in the London commissioners.
They would perform the same quantity of duty now performed by the London
commissioners, having a similar range and a similar jurisdiction.” The
course respecting the law of lunacy was somewhat similar. His lordship
remarked:—“The law of lunacy was administered like that of bankruptcy,
the London commissioners having jurisdiction for twenty miles round the
metropolis; and the country commissions being like those of bankruptcy,
directed to persons of little or no experience, though the inquiries
were of the nicest and most delicate character. He proposed that two
commissioners should be appointed, for the purpose of executing
all those commissions, not only in the metropolitan districts, but
throughout the country. From an examination of details he was satisfied
that those two commissioners would be amply sufficient for discharging
those and other important duties connected with lunacy. The payment of
commissioners by fees would be abolished, and they would be added to the
visitors at present appointed to inspect the condition of lunatics. They
would be taken from among the highest members of the bar.” Concerning
the county courts, his lordship said that he was averse to any sweeping
change: his measure went merely to extend their jurisdiction. They were
presided over by the county clerk, whose jurisdiction extended to forty
shillings. “If,” said his lordship, “I appoint a particular place,
and give them a jurisdiction to the extent of five pounds, and appoint
persons of respectability and learning, I think I do not innovate upon
ancient institutions.” His lordship proposed further, that for the
recovery of debts to the amount of twenty pounds, persons should be
appointed judges of these courts, who should not reside in the provinces
where they administered the law, but that they should make circuits,
like the judges of the land, into the provinces with which they were not
acquainted, and where they had no local connections or prejudices. His
lordship proposed that there should be six or eight circuits in the
year, to be made by barristers of a certain standing, to be appointed by
the crown; who should return to the metropolis after the circuits, where
they could mix with their colleagues in the profession, and thus give
a security for the uniformity of the law which they administered.
The bills were generally approved of, and they passed the upper house
unopposed. In the commons an attempt was made to induce government to
postpone the consideration of them; and that relating to the county
courts was postponed till the following year, but those respecting
bankruptcy and lunacy were passed. Another bill, introduced by Sir James
Graham, for the amendment of the law relating to the registration
of votes in England, was delayed; and three bills proposed by Lord
Campbell, to alter the administration of the house of lords as a court
of appeal, to alter the system of appeal to the judicial committee
of the privy council, and to amend the administration of the court of
chancery, were rejected. A question of general interest respecting
the marriage law was also raised this session in the commons, by Lord
Francis Egerton, who moved for leave to bring in a bill to alter the
laws relating to marriage within certain degrees of affinity. The chief
feature of this bill was, that it would enable a widower to marry a
deceased wife’s sister; but, on a division, the motion for leave to
bring in the bill was lost by one hundred and twenty-three against one
hundred.




BILL FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE ROYAL PERSON.

During this session, in consequence of an attempt upon the queen’s life,
by an insane person of the name of Bean, Sir Robert Peel brought in a
bill on the subject, which met with the unanimous approbation of the
house. In introducing this bill, after adverting to the act passed in
the reign of George III., for the protection of that monarch, Sir Robert
said that he proposed to extend the change of procedure involved in that
act, namely, the abolition of the forms usually attendant on trials of
high treason, &c., to cases where the offence was that of compassing
the wounding of the sovereign. Concerning the class of offences against
which his measure was to provide, Sir Robert remarked:—“I propose that,
after the passing of this act, if any person or persons shall wilfully
discharge, or attempt to discharge, or point, aim, or present at or
near the person of the queen, any gun, pistol, or other description of
fire-arms whatsoever, although the same shall not contain explosive or
destructive substance or material; or if any person shall strike, or
attempt to strike the person of the queen with any offensive weapons, or
in any manner whatever; or if any person shall wilfully throw or attempt
to throw any substance whatever at or on the person of the queen, with
intent, in any of the cases aforesaid, to break the public peace, or
with intent, in any of the cases-aforesaid, to excite the alarm of the
queen; I propose that any party so offending—that is, intending to
hurt the queen, or to alarm the queen, shall be subject to the same
penalties which apply to cases of larceny; that is, he be subject to
transportation not exceeding seven years. I propose, also, another
punishment, more suitable to the offence, and more calculated to repress
it, that there be a discretionary power of imprisonment for a
certain period, with authority to inflict personal chastisement.” In
continuance, Sir Robert Peel expressed an opinion that such a punishment
would awe miscreants capable of harbouring such designs, and that the
provisions of the bill would be amply sufficient for the purpose of
protecting her majesty. “For,” he added, “observe what we have to guard
against—it is not any traitorous attempt against the peace of the
nation by conspiring to take away the life of the sovereign, but it is
the folly or malignity of wretches who are guilty of acts prompted by
motives which are scarcely assignable. The law, in its charity to human
nature, has omitted to provide for the case of any being formed like a
man who could find a satisfaction in firing a pistol at a young lady,
that lady a mother, and that mother the queen of these realms. It
never entered into the conception of former law-makers that anything
so monstrous should arise, as that the queen of these realms should not
enjoy a degree of liberty granted to the meanest of her subjects. I am
sure the house will respond to the proposition to give the security of
this law for the protection of her majesty.” The bill was passed with
unanimity.




POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

During this session government proposed and carried a bill re-enacting
the poor-law commission for five years, abolishing the Gilbert unions,
and forming districts for the purposes of education and various minor
matters. This bill, however, was not carried without much opposition.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued on the 12th of August by the queen in person.
Having given the royal assent to several bills, her majesty expressed
her grateful sense of the assiduity and zeal with which both houses
had applied themselves to the discharge of their public duties. In her
speech her majesty also alluded to the measures which had been
taken into consideration; thanked her parliament for the loyalty and
affectionate attachment shown to her person by the act passed for her
protection; and made some allusions to reverses which had befallen a
division of the army westward of the Indus, and to a victory gained at
Jellalabad.




EAST INDIA AFFAIRS, ETC.

During the preceding year the British power in India came into hostile
collision with the Ghilzies. This collision was thus brought about. The
Khoord Cabul Pass is a long and dangerous defile through which the
road between Cabul and Jellalabad runs, and which, therefore, it was
necessary to keep open for the purpose of safe intercourse between Cabul
and British India. This part of Affghanistan was occupied by the eastern
Ghilzies: and it was thought advisable to purchase from them the right
of traversing the pass without molestation. An agreement was, in fact,
entered into with the Ghilzee chiefs, whereby it was stipulated that
a certain sum of money should be paid them yearly out of the Cabul
treasury, if they would keep the pass open, and offer no molestation
to our troops on their passage between Cabul and Jellalabad. Owing,
however, to the financial difficulties of the Cabul treasury, or to some
mismanagement on the part of the officer who was appointed to disburse
the money, the whole amount of the stipulated sum was not paid, and
the Ghilzies immediately rose in arms and closed the passes. It was
necessary to open it by force; and Major-general Sir Robert Sale was
sent by General Elphinstone from Cabul for that purpose. The brigade
which Sir Robert commanded entered the pass on the 12th of October. The
Ghilzies were posted behind a breastwork near the middle of the pass;
and as the assailing body approached, the enemy withdrew from this
position, and occupied the steep and precipitous ridges of the mountains
on either side, from whence they opened a well-directed fire. General
Sale was wounded in the ankle and obliged to leave the field; and
Lieutenant-colonel Dennie then took the command. Under his direction
one section of the brigade got possession of the heights, and their guns
were established in a deserted fort on the southern gorge of the pass;
but the other division marched back through the defile to the camp at
Boothak. But, although the Khoord Cabul Pass was thus cleared, the force
under General Sale was compelled to fight with the enemy during eighteen
days in their route to Gundamuek, which was reached on the 30th of
October. After this the British troops commanded the route to Sookhab;
and on the 12th of November they reached Jellalabad. In the meantime
a fearful tragedy, which ended in the total destruction of our Cifeul
force, had commenced in that city. The British troops were placed in
a cantonment on the north side of the city, which cantonment consisted
only of a low rampart and narrow ditch, in the form of a parallelogram,
thrown up along the line of the Kohistan road, one thousand yards long
and six hundred broad, with round flanking bastions at each corner,
every one of which was commanded by some fort or hill. The “Mission
Compound,” where Sir William M’Naghten, the envoy, and his suite
resided, was attached to the cantonment on the north side, and
surrounded by a single wall. On the eastern side, about a quarter of
a mile off, the Cabul river flowed in a direction parallel with the
Kohistan road; and between the river and cantonments there was a
wide canal. In itself this cantonment was most insecure; but General
Elphinstone threw a bridge over the river so as to render the
communication between the Seeah Sung camp and the cantonment still more
easy. The most extraordinary oversight, however, was the allowing
the commissariat stores to be placed in an old fort detached from the
cantonment, and in such a state as to be wholly indefensible. The troops
were thus placed when a rebellion took place under Ameenoollah and
Abdoolhah Khan. It commenced by an attack on the dwellings of Sir
Alexander Barnes and Captain Johnson, who resided in the city of Cabal;
Sir Alexander, his brother, Lieutenant Burnes, and Lieutenant Broadfoot
were murdered. On discovering this, General Elphinstone sent an order to
Brigadier Shelton to march forthwith with a body of troops to the Bala
Hissar, or royal citadel, situated at the eastern extremity of the city;
the rest of the troops in that camp were withdrawn into the cantonment,
and the whole of the camp followers when collected amounted to twelve
thousand, exclusive of women and children. A long and miserable siege
now took place. The Affghans surrounded the cantonments, and poured in
a constant fire from every quarter; and, at length, on the 11th of
December, the commissariat fort being captured by the enemy, Sir William
M’Naghten was compelled to sign this humiliating agreement with
the rebel chief:—“That the British should evacuate the whole of
Affghanistan, including Candahar, Ghuznee, and Jellalabad: that they
should be permitted to return unmolested to India; and that supplies
should be granted to them on their road thither—certain men of
consequence accompanying them as hostages; that means of transport
should be furnished to the troops; that Dost Mahomed Khan, his family,
and every Affghan then detained within our territory should be allowed
to return to their own country; that Shah Soojah and his family should
have the option of remaining at Cabul or proceeding with the British
troops to Loodianah, in either case receiving from the Affghan
government one lac of rupees per annum; that an amnesty should be
granted to all who had taken the part of Shah Soojah; that all prisoners
should be released; that no British force should ever be sent into
Affghanistan, unless invited by the Affghan government.” The chiefs,
in retiring from the conference, took with them Captain Trevor as a
hostage. Much delay took place in carrying any of these terms into
effect; and in the meantime a trap was laid for Sir William M’Naghten,
into which he fell. On the 22nd of December two Affghans came into the
cantonment, and had a private conference with him, in which they made
a proposal on the part of Akbar Khan, that Ameenoolah Khan should be
seized the next day, and delivered up to the British as a prisoner; that
the Bala Hissar should be occupied by one of our regiments: that Shah
Soojah should continue king, and Mahomed Akbar become his Wuzeer, or
prime-minister; and that our troops should remain in the cantonment
until the following spring. To these specious terms the envoy unwarily
assented; and on the 23rd of December, accompanied by three officers, he
left the Mission-House to attend a conference with Mahomed Akbar Khan
in the plain toward Seeah Sung. While in the act of conference, however,
Sir William M’Naghten and the officers were seized from behind by armed
men; and he and Captain Trevor were murdered; the other officers escaped
with difficulty. The situation of the British troops was now evidently
desperate, and Major-general Elphinstone deemed it necessary to provide
for their safety by again attempting to negociate with the enemy. A
convention was entered into, in pursuance of which the troops commenced
their march on the 6th of January. In the whole there were 4,500
fighting men about 12,000 camp followers, and a large number of women
and children. Their retreat was most disastrous. The snow lay deep upon
the ground, and the rear-guard had scarcely quitted the camp before it
was attacked by the enemy. As far as Bareekhur the whole way was strewed
with the dead and dying, who were immediately stripped and left naked
by the Affghans; while the merciless Ghuzees hacked the dead corpses to
pieces with their long knives. While at Bareekhur a communication was
opened with Akbar Khan, who now offered to restrain the Affghans from
further outrages, provided hostages were delivered to him as a security
that the British would not march beyond Tezeen, until General Sale had
evacuated Jellalabad. The proposal was accepted, and Major Pottinger
and Captains Lawrence and Mackenzie became hostages. The troops now
proceeded to the Khoord Cabul Pass; but Akbar Khan’s promise was futile:
they had to force the difficult pass with considerable loss. The next
morning the treacherous chief sent to the encampment, professing his
concern at his inability to restrain the Ghilzies, who had been most
active in the attacks of the preceding day; but he offered to protect
the ladies, provided they would put themselves under his care. Eight
ladies, including Lady Sale and Lady M’Naghten, placed themselves under
his protection; those who had husbands being solaced by their company.
In resuming the march the contest recommenced, and it did not cease
until they reached Jugdulluck. Few, however, reached that place. Of the
whole force which had left Cabul, amounting to more than 16,000 persons,
not more than three hundred are said to have escaped. At Jugdulluck,
Akbar Khan effectually interfered, and the unfortunate British were
allowed to occupy, without molestation, a ruined enclosure, where they
lay down, worn out by fatigue, and helpless, in the snow. Out of this
number only one man, Dr. Brydon, lived to reach Jellalabad; the rest,
subsequent to the protection afforded them by Akbar Khan at Jugdulluck,
were all slain, either by the Affghan troops, or by the inhabitants of
the villages through which they passed in their flight. As for General
Elphinstone, he was detained prisoner by Akbar Khan, who sent for him
under pretence of treating personally with him.

The enemy now approached Jellalabad, which was occupied by Sir Robert
Sale, who had maintained his position there since the day on which he
reached it. This gallant general had been engaged in several encounters
with the enemy, in which he had uniformly punished them. When the enemy
approached Jellalabad, Lady Sale, then a prisoner in the hands of the
Affghans, wrote a letter, exhorting lier husband to defend his position;
saying that she preferred death to dishonour. Sir Robert Sale refused,
when summoned, to abandon his post, and he was consequently besieged
by the enemy. Vigorous efforts were soon made to relieve the besieged
garrison. Lord Auckland was about to retire from the government of
India, and a new governor-general, Lord Ellenborough, had arrived at
Calcutta on the 18th of February. In the meantime Sir Jasper Nicholls,
who was commander-in-chief of the British forces in India, was urged by
Lord Auckland to push on to Peshawar as many troops as he could spare.
A body of 3500 men arrived at Peshawar on the 27th, but he having failed
to force the Khyber Pass, was compelled to remain passive until joined
by Major-general Pollock, who, when he arrived, took command of the
forces destined for the relief of Jellalabad. A portion of the forces
under his command consisted of Sikhs, the troop of the Maha Rajah Shere
Sing, ruler of the Punjaub, under General Abitabile. On the arrival
of Major-general Pollock at Peshawar, accounts were received from
Jellalabad, representing General Sale as in want of immediate succour.
Two brigades, consisting of 4,000 men, under the command of Colonel
Bolton, had not yet joined his forces; but General Pollock nevertheless
resolved to advance forthwith, having under his command about 8,000 men.
The task he had to perform was one of the most difficult nature. From
Jamrood, on the eastern side, the Khyber Pass extends for twenty-eight
miles towards Jellalabad; and the defiles had hitherto been considered
as impassable to an army if opposed by an enemy. The pass was defended
by the Khyberries; but, despite their opposition, his whole force
cleared it by the 14th of April; the first instance in history of an
army forcing its way through these dreaded defiles in face of an enemy.
The Sikh troops were left in possession of the pass, and on the morning
of the 16th of April the troops, under the command of General Pollock,
came in sight of Jellalabad, and were loudly greeted by the beleaguered
garrison.

Before the arrival of General Pollock at Jellalabad, General Sale had,
however, gained some important victories over his adversaries. The most
important victory was obtained on the 7th of April, and Sir Robert
Sale thus describes the contest:—“The troops issued from the Cabul and
Peshawar gates at daylight this morning. So far from the Sirdhar (i.e.
Akbar Kahn) having made any dispositions to avoid the encounter, his
whole force (not falling short of 6,000 men) was formed in order of
battle, for the defence of his camp, its right resting on a fort, and
its left on the Cabul river; and even the ruined works, within eight
hundred yards of the place, recently repaired, were filled with Ghilzie
marksmen, evidently prepared for a stout resistance. The attack was led
by the skirmishers, and a column, under Captain Havelock, which drove
the enemy in the most satisfactory manner from the extreme left of his
advanced line of works, which it pierced, and proceeded to advance into
the plain; whilst the central column directed its efforts against a
square fort upon the same base, the defence of which was obstinately
maintained. With the deepest regret I have to record that, whilst
nobly leading his regiment to the assault, Colonel Dennie, C.B., of her
majesty’s thirteenth light infantry, received a shot through his body,
which shortly after proved fatal. The rear of the work having been
finally gained by passing to its left, I gave orders for a combined
attack upon the enemy’s camp. It was in every way brilliant and
successful. The artillery advanced at the gallop, and directed a heavy
fire upon the Affghan centre, whilst two of the columns of infantry
penetrated his line near the same point; and the third forced back his
left from its support on the river, into the stream of which some of his
horse and foot were driven. The Affghans made repeated attempts to
check our advance by a smart fire of musketry, by throwing forward heavy
bodies of horse, which twice threatened in force the detachments of foot
under Captain Havelock, and by opening on us three guns screened by
a garden wall, and said to have been served under the personal
superintendance of the Sirdhar; but in a short time they were dislodged
from every point of their positions, their cannon taken, and their camp
involved in a general conflagration. The battle was over, and the enemy
in full retreat in the direction of Lugliman by about seven a.m. We have
made ourselves masters of two cavalry standards; recaptured four guns
lost by the Cabul army and Gundamuck forces; and seized and destroyed a
great quantity of _materiel_ and ordnance stores, and burned the whole
of the enemy’s tents. In short, the defeat of Mahomet Akbar in open
field, by the troops whom he had boasted of blockading, has been
complete and signal.” After his defeat Akbar Khan retired in the
direction of Cabul, but his troops deserted from him to a man. Such was
the state of affairs when the junction between the forces of General
Sale and General Pollock took place at Jellalabad. The garrison was
suffering severely from want of provisions, but plentiful supplies
soon began to pour in from Peshawar, and the two generals subsequently
resolved upon offensive operations. At this time the monarch whom the
British power had placed on the throne at Cabul was dead: he had ordered
a general levy of troops to be made in his capital, to march upon
Jellalabad; and, while he was on his way to join these troops at Seeah
Sung, he was fired upon by fifty Juzdilchees, who were placed in ambush,
and was killed. General Pollock remained at Jellalabad upwards of four
months, during which time his troops suffered severely from sickness,
and their ranks were greatly thinned by death; and it was not until the
20th of August that he commenced his march towards Cabul. The prisoners,
male and female, which were captured by Akbar Khan were in separate
forts within the valley of Tezeen, where General Elphinstone died; and
during the period of General Pollock’s stay at Jellalabad, Akbar
Khan sent two of the British officers in captivity to treat for the
liberation of the whole. He wished, however, to make our evacuation
of Affghanistan the condition of restoring the prisoners; but as this
proposal could not be entertained, all negotiations ceased, and the
prisoners were subsequently removed from Tezeen to forts between Cabul
and Bameean. Previous to his departure from Jellalabad, General Pollock
had issued a manifesto to the chiefs at Cabul, stating his intention
of marching upon the city, and promising them that if they restored the
prisoners, their property would be protected and their city spared; but
that if they allowed Akbar Khan to remove them, they must all be held
responsible for the consequences, and that every house in Cabul should
be razed to the ground. At length, on the 20th of August, General
Pollock advanced from Jellalabad. The first conflict with the enemy
took place at Mammoo Khail, about two miles from Gundamuck, where about
12,000 troops under the command of the chiefs Hadji Ali and Kyrrollah
Khan were defeated. The two chiefs retreated towards Cabul, and General
Pollock advanced thither on the 7th of September. On the 8th he reached
the Soorkah, a small river, from which he had to traverse the formidable
pass in order to arrive at Jugdulluck, which is about twenty miles
distant. An obstinate opposition was made to his progress from the
heights by which this pass is surrounded; but it was overcome by the
prowess of the British forces, and the enemy took refuge in flight.
Their onward march still lay through a difficult country; but General
Pollock did not again encounter the enemy until he arrived at the valley
of Tezeen. Here the pass was occupied by Akbar Khan himself; and while
the British troops were halting to allow the cattle to recover from the
effects of the fatigue of their forced march, they were attacked by the
Affghans, though without success. A general action took place on the
13th of September, which General Pollock has thus described:—“The
valley of Tezeen, where we were encamped, is completely encircled by
lofty hills; and on the morning of the 13th it was perceived that the
Affghans had occupied in great force every height not already occupied
by our troops. I commenced my march towards the mouth of the Tezeen
Pass, where I had left two guns, two squadrons of her majesty’s third
dragoons, a party of first light cavalry, and the third irregular
cavalry. The enemy’s horse appeared in the valley, with the intention
of falling upon the baggage; but the dragoons and native cavalry made a
most brilliant charge, and with such effect that the whole body of the
enemy’s force was completely routed, and a number of them cut up.
The Pass of Tezeen affords great advantages to an enemy occupying the
heights; and on the present occasion Mahomed Akbar neglected nothing to
render its natural difficulties as formidable as numbers could make
it. Our troops mounted the heights, and the Affghans, contrary to their
general custom, advanced to meet them, and a desperate struggle ensued;
indeed their defence was so obstinate that the British bayonet, in many
instances, alone decided the contest. The light company of her majesty’s
ninth foot, led by Captain Lushington, ascending the hills on the
left of the pass under a heavy cross-fire, charged, and overthrew their
opponents, leaving several horses and their riders, supposed to be
chiefs, dead on the hill. The slaughter was considerable; and the
fight continued during the greater part of the day, the enemy appearing
resolved that we should not ascend the Huft Kothul. One spirit seemed
to pervade all, and a determination to conquer overcame the obstinate
resistance of the enemy, who were at length forced from their numerous
and strong positions; and our troops mounted the Huft Kothul, giving
three cheers when they reached the summit. Here Lieutenant-colonel
Cunningham, with a party of sappers, pressed the enemy so hard, that
they left in their precipitation a twenty-four pound howitzer and
limber, carrying off the draft-bullocks. Having heard that another gun
had been seen, and concluding that it could not have gone very far,
I detached a squadron of dragoons, under Captain Tritton, and two
horse-artillery guns, under Major Delafosse, in pursuit; the gun, a
twelve-pound howitzer, with bullocks sufficient for two guns, were
soon captured. The dragoons again got among the enemy, and succeeded in
cutting up many of them. Captain Broadfoot with the sappers advanced,
and, with the dragoons, happened to fall in with another part of the
enemy, of whom upwards of twenty were killed. I have ascertained there
were about 16,000 men in the field opposed to me, of whom a considerable
portion was cavalry. Mahomed Akbar Khan, Mahomed Shah Khan, Ameen Oolla,
and many other chiefs with their followers were present.” After this
decisive battle Akbar Khan made no further resistance; and on the 15th
of September they encamped on the race-ground at Cabul. During their
march from Jellalabad, Prince Futteh Jung had arrived in the camp as a
wanderer; and on the 16th, General Pollock, accompanied by him, marched
to the Bala Hissar, and there planted the British colours. Several of
the English prisoners had already joined the camp; and before the
21st of the month, the whole of them, with the exception of Captain
Bygrave—who was subsequently liberated—were restored to British
protection. By these successes the stain brought upon the British arms
was effaced, and the prestige of our name regained its former influence
in the East. It was, however, resolved that we should leave Cabul; and
a proclamation to that effect was made by the governor-general. But,
before leaving Cabul, General Pollock despatched General M’Caskill with
a body of troops into Kohistan, where the Affghan chiefs were still
assembled in considerable force. On the 29th of September, General
M’Caskill made himself master of the strong town of Istalif, totally
defeating the numerous bodies of Affghan troops collected for its
defence, under Ameenoollah Khan and other chiefs of Cabul and Kohistan.
This town was set on fire; and a work of plunder and savage slaughter
commenced, which brought a great stain upon the British arms. For two
days the place was given up to fire and sword; and all the bitterness of
hatred was manifested by the soldiery, both European and native. “Not a
man was spared; the Affghans were hunted down like vermin; and whenever
the dead body of an Affghan was found, the Hindoo sepoys set fire to
the clothes, that the curse of a ‘burnt father’ might attach to his
children.” General Pollock also determined to destroy the Char Chouk,
the principal bazaar in Cabul, where the remains of the unfortunate Sir
William M’Naghten had been exposed to insult. This bazaar was destroyed
by gunpowder; and indeed the whole city, with the exception of the Bala
Hissar and the quarter of the Kuzzilbashes, was laid in ruins. About
this time General Pollock was joined by General Nott from Candahar; and
on the 12th of October the two armies left Cabul, the advanced column
being under the command of General Pollock, and that in the rear under
General Nott. No event of consequence occurred during their march, and
on arriving at the fortress of Jellalabad it was levelled with the dust,
and rendered unfit for human habitation. Along the whole line of march,
indeed, every kind of devastation was committed by the troops, who were
exasperated by the sight of the unburied skeletons of their unfortunate
companions in arms, who fell during the fatal retreat early in this
year. When the British forces at length emerged from the Bolan Pass,
which they did on the 1st of October, thereby evacuating the whole
of Affghanistan, they had left behind them a name which will long be
execrated in that country. It is true they had suffered deep wrongs; but
mercy to the vanquished is a nobler quality than unlimited revenge.
The spirit of revenge appears to have pervaded the whole of the British
community in India. Even the governor-general, Lord Ellenborough,
exhibited it in a proclamation issued to all the princes, and chiefs,
and people of India. He writes:—“My brothers and my friends,—Our
victorious army bears the gates of the temple of Somnauth in triumph
from Affghanistan, and the despoiled tomb of Sultan Mahmoud looks upon
the ruins of Ghuznee. The insult of eight hundred years is at last
avenged. The gates of the temple of Somnauth, so long the memorial
of your humiliation, are become the proudest record of your national
glory—the proof of your superiority in arms over the nations beyond the
Indus. To your princes and chiefs of Sirhind, of Bajwarra, of Malwa, and
Guzerat, I shall commit this glorious trophy of successful war. You will
yourselves, with all honour, transmit the gates of sandalwood through
your respective territories, to the restored temple of Somnauth. The
chiefs of Sirhind shall be informed at what time our victorious army
will first deliver the gates of the temple into their guardianship at
the foot of the bridge of the Sutlej.” In another proclamation Lord
Ellenborough announced that all the Affghans then in the power of the
British government should be permitted to return to their own country,
and that the Affghan chiefs who were thus released, were, before they
passed the Sutlej, to present themselves at the durbar, or levee, of the
governor-general in his camp at Ferozepore.

The insurrection at Cabul, which has been described, was not confined to
that quarter of Affghanistan. At the time it broke out, General Nott was
in command at Candahar, with a force of nearly 10,000 men. The hostility
of the Affghans in this part of the country soon displayed itself;
Candahar was invested by a large body of insurgents under the command of
Mahomed Atta. This chief was joined by Sufter Jung, one of the sons of
Shah Soojah; but Tiniour, the eldest brother of that family, remained
nominal governor of Candahar. His fidelity, however, was afterwards
suspected, and he was placed in confinement. On the 12 th of January the
insurgent chiefs took up a strong position on the right bank of a river
running through the Achuzye country, about five miles from Candahar.
They mustered about 5,000 men; and General Nott attacked them with a
force consisting of five regiments and a half of infantry, 1,000
horse, and sixteen pieces of artillery. The position of the army was
formidable, being protected in front by canals and a marsh, and both
flanks resting on strong gardens. The enemy, however, was routed, and
compelled to flee in all directions. Tin’s success was followed by
another victory over the insurgents, on the 10th of March; after which
they disappeared from the neighbourhood of Candahar. The situation
of the British troops, however, at Candahar, Khelat-i-Ghilzee, and
Gliuznee, being thought precarious in the midst of a population
universally hostile, Brigadier-general England, who commanded the forces
in Scinde, determined to march to the relief of General Nott. In his
route General England encountered a formidable opposition at the Rujjuk
Pass, where Mahomed Seedez, with a large army, was posted to impede his
progress. In an engagement, General England, indeed, lost nearly one
hundred men, and he was compelled to return to Quetta: This attempt,
therefore, for the relief of Candahar failed; and, not long before this,
the British had another humiliation in the surrender of Ghuznee. Ghuznee
was garrisoned by about 1,000 troops, under the command of Colonel
Palmer, and when the general rising on the part of the Affghan
population took place, that fortress and Khelat-i-Ghilzee, in which was
a garrison of five hundred men, were invested by the insurgents. Colonel
Palmer was obliged to capitulate; and on the 6th of March the garrison
marched out from the citadel, and were quartered in a portion of
the town immediately below. Scarcely, however, had the troops
taken possession of the quarter assigned them by the terms of the
capitulation, when they were suddenly attacked by the infuriated
Ghuznees. Day after day the murderous attacks continued; and in the end
the whole were either slain, or sent in camel-chairs to Cabul, to be
kept in custody by Akbar Khan. It was these events that determined
General Nott, on evacuating Candahar, in order to co-operate with
General Pollock, in case the resistance offered by Akbar Khan should
be of such a nature as to render a reinforcement of the British troops
necessary. Candahar was evacuated on the 7th and 8th of August, and the
troops marched onwards without molestation till they came to Gonine,
about thirty miles south-west of Ghuznee. Here General Nott found that
Shumsooden, the Affghan governor of that fortress, was awaiting his
approach with about 12,000 men. This force, however, was quickly
defeated, and their guns, tents, and ammunition captured; General Nott
then moved on Ghuznee, which he found full of armed men, under the
command of Sultan Jan. Ghuznee was stormed, and the enemy driven from
thence in all directions; after which the city and the whole of its
works were destroyed. General Nott now advanced upon Cabul, and at Mydan
he again encountered the enemy; but the British troops dislodged them
from their strong positions; and General Nott effected a junction with
General Pollock without further molestation.

In China the British troops still pursued an inglorious war. In the
month of August, last year, Sir Henry Pottinger and Sir W. Parker had
sailed for Hong-Kong, which was the place of rendezvous for the ships
destined for the expedition to the northward. On the 21st they sailed
from that island, and anchored on the 25th in the harbour of Amoy. This
city is said to have been inhabited by about 70,000 people; and the
Chinese army garrisoning it was 10,000 strong. The number of guns
possessed by the garrison was about five hundred; and the place was so
strongly fortified by nature and art, that the Chinese fancied the place
to be impregnable. Amoy, however, wanted a brave and skilful garrison;
and lacking this, the place was soon captured. The mandarins and
soldiers fled, leaving the city occupied by only a few coolies. This
success was attained without the loss of a man on the part of the
British; and the number of Chinese killed is supposed not to have
exceeded one hundred and fifty. Sir Hugh Gough was mainly instrumental
in effecting this conquest; but, on the 30th of August, the troops were
withdrawn from the city, a garrison of five hundred men only being left
on the island of Cohun-soo, which is distant about 1,200 yards from
Amoy. In the proclamation addressed by Sir H. Pottinger on this occasion
to “her Britannic majesty’s subjects in China,” he says:—“Her majesty’s
plenipotentiary deems it quite superfluous to say one word as to the
manner in which this important service has been performed. The facts
require no eulogium. The Chinese government vainly imagined that they
had rendered Amoy impregnable; but they were undeceived in presence of
the viceroy of the provinces of Chekeang and Fokien (who, with a number
of high officers, witnessed the attacks from the heights above the
town), in the short space of four hours from the firing of the first
gun; and had the opposition been a hundred times greater than it was,
the spirit and bearing of all employed showed that the result must have
been the same.” The state of the weather prevented the expedition from
putting to sea and continuing its progress northward before the 5th
of September. On the 21st it reached the Chusan group of islands, and
afterwards reconoitered the Tinghae and Chusan harbour. The walls of
Tinghae were escaladed, and the British colours soon waved over the
fortifications. In this attack upon Tinghae the enemy suffered severely;
several mandarins were killed, while, on the side of the British, two
only were killed, and twenty-four wounded. The next place attacked
was Chinghae, which was captured with the same ease, although it was
enclosed by a wall thirty-seven feet in thickness, and twenty-two feet
in height. Sir William Parker writes concerning this conquest:—“About
eleven o’clock we had the gratification of seeing the British colours
planted by the troops in one of the batteries on the opposite side
of the shore: and in a few minutes the others on that side were all
carried, and the Chinese observed flying in every direction before our
gallant soldiers on the heights. At a quarter past eleven the wall of
the citadel was breached by the fire from the ships; and the defences
being reduced to a ruinous state, the Chinese abandoned their guns,
which they had hitherto worked with considerable firmness, and a large
portion of the garrison retreated precipitately towards the city. Not a
moment was lost in making the signal for landing the battalion of seamen
and marines, with the detachments of artillery and sappers. Before
noon, the boats were all on shore; every impediment presented by the
difficulty of landing on rugged rocks was overcome, and the force
gallantly advanced to the assault, with a celerity that excited my
warmest admiration. An explosion at this time took place in a battery
near the citadel gate; and the remnant of the garrison fled without
waiting to close it. The citadel was therefore rapidly entered, and the
union-jack displayed on the walls. Our people had scarcely passed within
them when another explosion occurred, happily without mischief, but
whether by accident or design is uncertain.” Captain Herbert having
secured this post, quickly reformed his men, and advanced towards the
city; the Chinese still occupying in considerable force the walls of it,
as well as the two batteries beneath the hill on the river side, against
which our troops had already turned some of the guns taken on the
right bank. A few volleys of musketry speedily dislodged them from both
positions, and the battalions of seamen and marines pushed on in steady
and excellent order to attack the city.

The wall was escaladed in two places, and in a short time complete
possession was taken of Chinghae, the Chinese troops having made their
escape through the western gate. Subsequently Sir Hugh Gough captured
Ningpo with the same facility, after which no event of importance
occurred during the past year. Early in the present year the district
cities of Yuydo, Tsikee, and Ftmghwa were temporarily occupied by the
British troops; and the Chinese made a bold but ineffectual attempt to
recover Ningpo. After their unsuccessful attack upon Ningpo, the Chinese
attempted to annoy the British garrison by obstructing the supply of
provisions. A body of about 4,000 Chinese soldiers were encamped at the
town of Tse-kee, about eleven miles westward of Ningpo; but they were
quickly driven from thence by Sir Hugh Gough with great loss. Ningpo was
evacuated by the British on the 7th of May, and on the 16th the fleet
came to the city of Chapoo, which was captured. Sir H. Pottinger, who
had recently been to Canton rejoined the squadron before it sailed
from Chapoo: and its subsequent operations were detailed by him in
a “circular,” dated on board the steam-frigate _Queen_, in the
Yang-tze-Kiang river. Its operations were first chiefly confined to the
destruction of batteries along the Woosung river; after which the fleet
entered the great river Yang-tze. In this river operations were directed
against the cities of Suyshan, Chin-Keang-foo, and Nankin. The two
former were captured: but when preparations had been made for attacking
the latter, Sir Hugh Gough and Sir William Parker received instructions
from Sir Henry Pottinger to suspend hostilities, in consequence of
negociations which he was carrying on with the Chinese high officers who
had been appointed by the emperor to treat for peace. Full powers had
been given to three commissioners, Keying, Elepoo, and Newkéén, to
negociate a treaty of peace which was finally concluded on the 26th of
August. The conditions of this treaty were:—That the Chinese should
pay 21,000,000 dollars; that the ports of Canton, Amoy, Foo-chow-foo,
Ningpo, and Shanghae, should be open to British merchants, with
permission to consular officers to reside there; that the island
of Hong-Kong should be ceded to the British in perpetuity; that
correspondence should be conducted on terms of perfect equality between
the officers of both governments; and that the islands of Chusan and
Kolang-soo should be held by the British until the money payments were
made and arrangements for opening the ports completed.




CHAPTER LIV.

{VICTORIA. 1843—1844}

     State of the Country..... Meeting of Parliament.....
     National Distress..... The Corn-law Question..... Address to
     the Crown on the Subject of Education..... Affairs of India,
     &c. The Corn-law  Question  resumed..... Irish
     Affairs..... Financial   Statements,   &c.
     Education..... Church   Extension, &c. Law Reform.....
     Prorogation of Parliament..... Agitation; Ireland.....
     Formation of the Free Church in Scotland..... The State  of
     India..... Continental Affairs.




STATE OF THE COUNTRY.

{A.D. 1843}

AT the opening of this year the aspect of public affairs was such as to
create disquietude and anxiety. In every branch of trade and industry
there was great depression, which was by some attributed to the workings
of the new tariff, and by others to a groundless panic occasioned by
that measure. Whatever it arose from it certainly existed; and the fact
of its existence was clearly proved by the diminished consumption of
those articles which contribute in so large a proportion to the public
revenue. The total decrease in the excise, stamps, customs, and taxes
on the quarter was £1,379,057, which was equivalent to a total yearly
deficiency of £5,516,222. The distress which prevailed naturally
give rise to various opinions as to the remedies to be applied. Some
suggested and advocated the repeal of the corn-laws; others threw the
blame upon the income-tax, and the other financial measures of Sir
Robert Peel’s government; some attributed the distress to the poor-laws;
and others pointed to emigration as the natural safety-valve and outlet
for the pressure of a too rapidly increasing population. All these
subjects were discussed at length in both houses of parliament; but few
practical results arose from these discussions.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was opened by commission on the 2nd of February. The speech,
read by the lord-chancellor, referred to a treaty which had been
concluded with the United States of America and the adjustment of
differences which, from their long continuance had endangered the
preservation of peace. Allusion was also made to the termination of
hostilities in China; and a hope expressed “that, by the free access
which would be opened to the principal mart of that populous and
extensive empire, encouragement would be given to the commercial
enterprise of her majesty’s people.” The speech continued:—“In
concert with her allies, her majesty has succeeded in obtaining for
the Christian population of Syria, the establishment of a system of
administration which they were entitled to expect from the engagements
of the Sultan, and from the good faith of the country. The differences
for some time existing between tire Turkish and Persian governments
had recently led to acts of hostility; but as each of these states has
accepted the joint mediation of Great Britain and Russia, her majesty
entertains a confident hope that their mutual relations will be speedily
and amicably adjusted. Her majesty has concluded with the Emperor of
Russia a treaty of commerce and navigation, which will be laid before
you. Her majesty regards this treaty with great satisfaction, as the
foundation for increased intercourse between her majesty’s subjects
and those of the emperor.” The affairs of India and the events in
Afghanistan were next adverted to; satisfaction being expressed at the
victories obtained “on the scenes of former disasters.” Concerning
the decrease of revenue the speech remarked:—“Her majesty regrets the
diminished receipt from some of the ordinary sources of revenue.
Her majesty fears that it must be in part attributed to the reduced
consumption of many articles, caused by that depression of the
manufacturing industry of the country which has so long prevailed, and
which her majesty has so deeply lamented. In considering, however, the
present state of the revenue, her majesty is assured that you will
bear in mind, that it has been materially affected by the extensive
reductions in the import duties which received your sanction during the
last session of parliament, and that little progress has hitherto
been made in the collection of those taxes, which were imposed for the
purpose of supplying the deficiency from that and other causes. Her
majesty feels confident that the future produce of the revenue will be
sufficient to meet every exigency of the public service.” The speech
concluded by adverting to her majesty’s recent visit to Scotland;
to disturbances which had taken place in some of the manufacturing
districts; and to measures connected with the improvement of the law
which were to be brought forward during this session.

The address was agreed to, and the house adjourned.

In the house of commons also the address was agreed to without a
division, and the house adjourned.




NATIONAL DISTRESS.

Allusion had been made in the royal speech to the distress which
pervaded the country at this time; and in this state of things Lord
Howick give notice for a committee of the whole house to investigate the
causes of this distress. The debate commenced on the 18th of February,
by Lord Howick, calling attention to the paragraph in her majesty’s
speech referring to diminished revenue. This having been read by the
clerk at the table, his lordship then moved that the house do now
resolve itself into a committee upon the said passage in her majesty’s
speech. The debate on the motion continued during five nights: various
members on both sides of the house supporting or opposing the motion. On
the fifth and last night Mr. Cobden said that his chief objection to
the motion was, that it did not include agricultural as well as
manufacturing distress. The agricultural labourers were in a wretched
state; neither them nor the farmers were any gainers by the corn-laws.
With neither of these classes had landlords any right to identify
themselves. The landlord was no agriculturist: he might live all his
days in London or in Paris. He was no more an agriculturist than a
shipowner was a sailor. The real agriculturists were beginning to get a
glimmering of light upon this question. The member for Dorsetshire had
attacked the league; he protested against the notion that the league had
been the movers of sedition and assassination. He would next inquire
why the present motion was to be resisted by the government. When Sir R.
Peel took the reins of government, he took with them the responsibility
of introducing the measures necessary for the country..The ministers
were advocates of free-trade: why did they not carry it into effect?
They adopted it, it was said, only in the abstract: the house had
nothing to do with abstractions. Length of time was pleaded; he should
like to know whether that would be a defence to the claim of a just
plaintiff in a court of law? It could not be said that the period was
unsuitable; the year lay before them, and there was no pressure of
legislative business, publie or private. Had government any other
remedy? They had last year imposed a corn-law which gave umbrage to
all classes of mercantile men. That law had not given any extension to
regular trade, and had ruined the speculators. The tariff had reduced
the duty on seven hundred articles, and had omitted the only two which
would have done anything for tire people—corn and sugar. Sir R. Peel
had it in his power to carry the measures necessary for the people; and
if he had not that power as a minister, he would have it by resigning
his office. The right honourable baronet should be held responsible
individually: the electoral body would compel him to do them justice.
Sir Robert Peel declared that no responsibility which Mr. Cobden could
fix upon him, or induce others to fix upon him, should deter him from
doing his duty. He then proceeded to analyse the nature of the motion,
in order to show that it could not be conceded. It was not a motion, he
said, to inquire into the causes of the distress; but a motion that the
house should resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, Lord
Howiok having some proposition to bring forward for the relief of the
distress. Lord John Russell justified the form of the present motion,
and the fitness of the time at which it was brought forward; but on a
division it was rejected by a majority of three hundred and six against
one hundred and ninety-one.




ADDRESS TO THE CROWN ON THE SUBJECT OF EDUCATION.

On the 28 th of February Lord Ashley moved the following resolution
in the house of commons:—“That an humble address be presented to her
majesty, praying that her majesty will be graciously pleased to take
into her instant and serious consideration the best means of diffusing
the benefits and blessings of a moral and religious education among the
working classes of her people.” The motion was agreed to.




AFFAIRS OF INDIA, ETC.

In the early part of this session, some interesting discussions
occurred in both houses of parliament, on the recent events and military
operations in India. The first of these discussions took place on the
9th of February, when Mr. Vernon Smith moved for the production of some
papers relative to Indian affairs. The motion was agreed to.

The following resolutions, after considerable discussion, were carried
in both houses:—“That the thanks of this liouse be given to the
Right Honourable Lord Ellenborough, governor-general of the British
possessions in the East Indies, for the ability and judgment with which
the resources of the British empire in India have been applied to the
support of the military operations in Affghanistan. That the thanks
of this house be given to Major-general Sir George Pollock, G.C.B.,
to Major-general Sir William Nott, G.C.B., to Major-general Sir John
M’Gaskill, K.C.B., to Major-general Richard England, and the other
officers of the army, both European and native, for the intrepidity,
skill, and perseverance displayed by them in the military operations in
Affghanistan, and for their indefatigable zeal and exertions throughout
the late campaign. That this house doth highly approve and acknowledge
the valour and patient perseverance displayed by the non-commissioned
officers and private soldiers, both European and native, employed in
Affghanistan, and that the same be signified to them by the commanders
of the several corps, who are desired to thank them for their gallant
behaviour.” About the same time resolutions were passed both in the
lords and commons, with respect to the services of the fleet and army
employed in the late operations in China. The affairs of India became
the subject of discussion again in the house of commons on the 2nd of
March, when Mr. Roebuck moved for a select committee to inquire into the
causes which led to the late war in Affghanistan; but it ended in
mere words: the motion was rejected by a majority of one hundred and
eighty-nine against seventy-five.




THE CORN-LAW QUESTION RESUMED.

This great question—a question which interested all parties, and all
classes of society—formed the subject of several debates during this
session. It was first brought prominently forward by Mr. Ward, who,
on the 14th of March, moved, “That a select committee be appointed to
inquire whether there are any peculiar burdens especially affecting the
landed interest of this country, or any peculiar exemptions enjoyed by
that interest; and to ascertain their nature and extent.” This motion
was negatived, after a lengthened discussion, by a large majority; but,
on the 13th of May, the whole subject of the corn-laws was brought under
discussion upon the motion annually brought forward by Mr. Villiers, for
a committee of the whole house to consider the duties on the importation
of foreign corn. This was met by Mr. Gladstone with a direct negative.
The most remarkable speeches delivered were those of Sir Robert Peel and
Mr. Cobden. Mr. Cobden combated the notion that if the corn-laws were
repealed, the whole system of revenue must be cut down; and declared
that the anti-corn-law league would persist in agitation until the
attainment of their object. On a division, the motion was rejected by
a majority of three hundred and eighty-one against one hundred and
twenty-five. Another general debate on the same subject occupied the
house on the 13th of June, when Lord John Russell again proposed the
consideration of the corn-laws in a committee of the whole house;
which, however, was negatived by a large majority. But, previous to this
debate, a measure partially effecting the operation of the corn-laws had
been proposed in the house of commons by Lord Stanley, the secretary for
the colonies. His lordship moved the following resolutions—“Resolved
that, on the 12th day of October, 1842, an act was passed by the
legislative council and legislative assembly of the province of Canada,
and reserved by the governor-general for the signification of her
majesty’s pleasure, imposing a duty of 3s., sterling money of Great
Britain, on each imperial quarter of wheat imported into Canada, except
from the United Kingdom, or any of her majesty’s possessions, and being
the growth and produce thereof. That the said act recites that it was
passed in the confident belief and expectation that, upon the imposition
of a duty upon foreign wheat imported into the province, her majesty
would be graciously pleased to recommend to parliament the removal or
reduction of the duties on wheat and wheat flour imported into the
said United Kingdom from Canada. That, in consideration of the duty so
imposed by the said act of the legislature of Canada, it is expedient
to provide that, if her majesty shall be pleased to give her sanction
to the said act, the duties imposed upon wheat and wheat flour imported
into the United Kingdom from Canada should be reduced. That, during the
continuance of the said duty, in lieu of the duties now payable upon
wheat and wheat flour imported into the United Kingdom from Canada,
under an act passed in the last session of parliament, entitled ‘An act
to amend the laws for the importation of corn,’ there shall be levied
and paid the duties following:—viz., for every quarter of wheat,
1s.; for every barrel of wheat, meal, or flour, being one hundred
and ninety-six pounds, a duty equal in amount to the duty payable on
thirty-eight and a half gallons of wheat.” In moving these resolutions,
Lord Stanley said that exaggerated notions of the measure had prevailed
on all sides; and if he had not given a direct promise to the Canadian
legislature, he would not have brought forward a question tending to
create uneasiness among them. He brought it forward, in fact, only as a
boon to Canada, which he had reason to expect, and of which the refusal
would be highly injurious to her interests and feelings. His proposal
was, not to let American wheat into England, but to let into England
Canadian wheat, and flour ground in Canada, from whatever growth it
might be manufactured. That was in accordance with the broad principle
of the navigation act—“that all manufactured goods shall be deemed
to be the produce of the country in which they are manufactured.” The
resolutions of Lord Stanley, after a stormy debate, were confirmed by
a majority of two hundred and forty-four against one hundred and
eighty-eight. A few days afterwards the house went into committee on
them, when Lord John Russell moved an amendment, which proposed to
omit that part of them which referred to the Canadian legislature, his
lordship objecting to the making of the legislation of the imperial
depend on that of the colonial parliament. Lord Stanley defended the
course taken by government as necessary to secure the object; and
after a desultory conversation, the amendment was negatived. Another
amendment, to the effect that no alteration should be made in the
corn-law of the preceding session, and in the degrees of protection
which it afforded to British agriculture, was moved by Lord Worsley;
but this also was negatived; and after some further discussion the house
divided on the original resolutions, which were carried by a majority
of two hundred and eighteen against one hundred and thirty-seven. On the
2nd of June, a bill founded on the resolutions was brought in when Lord
Worsley moved that it be read that day six months. This led to a renewed
debate on the measure: but ultimately the second reading was carried
by a majority of two hundred and nine against one hundred and nine. A
debate in the house of lords took place on the committal of the bill,
which was moved by Earl Dalhousie on the 4th of July. Lord Brougham
seconded the motion, not “because the measure was a step in the right
direction”—that is, towards the removal of the corn-laws—“but because
it removed an anomaly.” Earl Stanhope moved, as an amendment, that
the bill be committed that day six months; and he was supported in
his opposition by the Duke of Richmond, the Earl of Radnor, and Lords
Beaumont and Teynham. The amendment was, however, negatived by a
majority of fifty-seven against twenty-five. The house subsequently went
into committee, and the bill passed without amendment.




IRISH AFFAIRS.

Towards the close of the session the unusually agitated state of
Ireland, produced by the repeal movement, noticed in a subsequent
article, gave rise to angry debates in parliament. In the month of May
ministers proposed a bill requiring the registration of fire-arms, and
restricting the importation of arms and ammunition. The second reading
of this bill was moved on the 29th of May by Lord Eliot, the secretary
for Ireland, who, in introducing the subject, gave a short history of
the origin and successive renewal of the Irish arms acts, beginning with
the 33rd George III. c. 2, and ending with the bill introduced by Lord
Morpeth in 1838. This measure was opposed with uncommon energy and skill
by the Irish Roman Catholic members, and by several liberal Protestants
among the representatives of Ireland. Messrs. Hume, Roebuck, Buller, and
other liberal representatives of Great Britain were also its strenuous
opponents. Mr. Shiel, always eloquent, made a brilliant speech in
resisting it, which won members of various schools of politics to his
opinion. The general feeling of the house and of the country was in
favour of the bill, and the Protestants of Ireland declared by their
petitions, and through their representatives, that it was necessary to
their safety, as in many districts of the country property and life were
in constant danger, armed bands of lawless ruffians prowling about by
night, committing outrage, incendiarism, and murder upon those who were
obnoxious to their political or religious opinions. The second reading
was carried by a majority of two hundred and seventy against one hundred
and five. On the motion for committing the bill, Mr. Smith O’Brien
moved as an amendment, “that a select committee be appointed to inquire
whether the condition of Ireland was such as to require statutory
enactments different from those of Great Britain; and, if so, to
ascertain to what cause the difference of legislation was to be
attributed.” This amendment was negatived without a division, and the
bill was then ordered to be committed. In the committee the measure
encountered the most pertinacious and protracted opposition from many
members, who moved repeated amendments, and divided again and again on
some of the most obnoxious sections. It was, in fact, the 9th of August
before the Irish arms bill reached its final stage in the house of
commons. On that day Lord Eliot moved that it should be read a third
time, which motion was met by an amendment by Lord Clements, that it be
read a third time that day six months. Another warm discussion followed,
but the bill was carried by a majority of one hundred and twenty-five
against fifty-nine. In the house of lords two nights’ discussion took
place upon the bill; but it met with a much easier passage in that
house, and towards the close of August it passed into law.

In the meantime discussions of a different nature took place in
both houses of parliament on Irish affairs. On the 14th of July Lord
Clanricarde moved resolutions declaring the dismissal of certain
magistrates by the Lord Chancellor, for taking part in the movement
in favour of repeal, unconstitutional, unjust, and inexpedient.
Their dismissal, he said, had given a great impulse to the prevailing
agitation, manifested by the rise in the repeal-rent; and he imputed
the state of Ireland, bordering on anarchy, to the policy of the present
government. The Duke of Wellington met these resolutions by a direct
negative, and contended that repeal agitation originated in the time
of the later ministers; the acts impugned were forced upon the present
administration. A long discussion ensued; but on a division the
resolutions were negatived by a majority of ninety-one against
twenty-nine. The state of Ireland again came under discussion in the
house of lords on the 8th of August, when Lord Rod en presented a
petition from upwards of five thousand of her majesty’s Protestant loyal
subjects residing in the county of Down, praying for measures to repress
the rebellious spirit in Ireland, and expressing surprise at seeing
the marked difference made between Protestants and Roman Catholics in
respect of the enforcement of the law against processions.

In the house of commons, on the 4th of July, Mr. Smith O’Brien moved,
“That this house will resolve into a committee for the purpose of taking
into consideration the causes of the discontent prevailing in Ireland,
with a view to the redress of grievances, and to the establishment of
a system of just and impartial government in that part of the United
Kingdom.” The debate which this motion gave rise to occupied five
nights, and, unlike the other debates on Irish affairs, it was conducted
in a calm, practical, and dispassionate temper. The chief speakers for
the motion were Messrs. Wyse, Charles Wood, Smythe, Mr. J. O’Connell,
Captain Rous, and Viscount Howick; against it, Lord Eliot, Sirs J.
Graham and R. Peel, and Messrs. B. Cochrane, Lascelles, and Colquhoun.
On a division the motion was negatived, by a majority of two hundred and
forty-three against one hundred and sixty-four.




FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

Mr. Goulburn made his annual statement of ways and means on the 8th of
May. His statements were by no means cheering. The revenue, he said,
calculated upon by Sir Robert Peel for the year, from the customs, had
been £22,000,000, but the actual produce had only reached £21,750,000.
On the estimated produce of the excise, there had also been a deficiency
of £1,200,000; and upon the whole the revenue had fallen short of the
estimate by somewhat more than £2,000,000. That defalcation, however,
had been diminished to about £1,250,000, by a payment from China of
about £725,000. Against the deficiency thus constituted also was to be
set the produce of the income-tax, which had exceeded the expectation
formed of it: the net revenue from that source would be about
£5,100,000. It might be asked, Mr. Goulburn continued, in what way he
intended to meet the deficiency:—he had no new measure to propose; his
calculation was, that the causes which had occasioned the deficiency
of the last year were of a temporary character; that in the next and
subsequent years there would be a surplus of revenue, and out of that he
proposed to discharge the deficiency of the past year. Mr. Goulburn next
proceeded to present his estimate for the ensuing year. There were two
heavy charges, he said, which did not form part of the ordinary expenses
of the year—the one a payment of £800,000 to the owners of opium seized
in China; the other a payment of £1,250,000 to the East India Company,
on account of expenses borne by them for the Chinese war. He proposed
to advance the money requisite for these two payments, and to take
repayment from the future remittances of China. The total estimate of
revenue stated by Mr. Goulburn was £50,150,000, in which, however, he
included a sum of £870,000 from the Chinese government; and the
total estimated outlay was £49,387,645, which being deducted from the
£50,150,000, would leave a surplus of £762,000 in favour of revenue
above expenditure. In conclusion, the chancellor of the exchequer said,
that though he was not in a condition to make a flattering statement of
the country’s resources, he trusted the time was not far distant when he
should be able to come down with a proposal for easing the industry of
the country by important resolutions. He moved a vote of £47,943,000,
which, after some discussion, was granted.

At a later period of the session the state of the public finances was
made the subject of debate in the house of lords. On the 14th of August
Lord Monteagle moved this series of resolutions:—“1. That this house
observes with much concern and disappointment, that the expectation held
out of a surplus revenue, exceeding £500,000, for the year ending the
5th of April. 1843, has not been realized; but that there has been an
actual deficiency of £2,421,000, notwithstanding the imposition of a tax
on property, the application to the public service within the year of
£511,406, obtained from the government of China, and a receipt exceeding
£1,300,000, as duties upon grain imported. 2. That the charge for
the permanent debt has been increased during the last two years,
the exchequer balances have been reduced, and upwards of £1,000,000
exchequer-bills held by the trustees of the savings’ banks converted
into stock. 3. That under these circumstances it is most peculiarly the
duty of the legislature, and of her majesty’s government, to enforce the
strictest economy which is consistent with the public service, and
to adopt all such measures as may increase the ordinary revenue, by
insuring to British industry, whether agricultural, manufacturing, or
commercial, its widest and freest extension, and its largest reward;
thus averting from the country the calamity of the reenactment of a
tax upon property in time of peace, and promoting the well-being of
all classes of her majesty’s subjects.” The object of Lord Monteagle in
introducing these resolutions was to vindicate the Whig administration
of the public finances, and to show that the same line of conduct which
had been censured in the late ministry had been pursued by the present
government. His lordship delivered a long and able speech to this end,
which was replied to with equal ability by the Duke of Wellington and
Lord Brougham.

Another question, involving fiscal considerations, which occupied
the attention of parliament, related to the sugar duties. Government
proposed a renewal of tire duties of the year preceding, on which
the free-trade party in the house of commons made their usual protest
against the preference shown to the produce of the British colonies. On
the 22nd of June, when it was moved that the speaker should leave the
chair, in order to the house going into committee on the subject, Mr.
Cobden moved: “That it is not expedient to compel payment of a higher
price for colonial than for other commodities; and that, therefore, all
protective duties on colonial produce ought to be abolished.” As this
resolution, however, extended further than the mere sugar question, on
which it had been moved “that the speaker leave the chair,” it could not
be put; and the house then went into committee on the sugar duties.
In committee Mr. Ewart, who condemned the policy of government on this
subject, proposed that one uniform duty on foreign and colonial sugar
should be levied; but this motion was lost by a majority of one hundred
and thirty-five against eighty-five. Mr. Hawes subsequently proposed
that the house should cease to maintain an impost which was equivalent
to total prohibition, and should lower the duty to 34s.; but this was
negatived by a still larger majority, and the proposition of government
was confirmed. On a later day, the 17th of July, another important
article of traffic was brought under consideration. As an amendment on
the motion for going into a committee of supply, Mr. Charles Wood moved
“that the house do resolve itself into a committee of the whole house,
to consider so much of the 5th and 6th Victoria, c. 47, customs’ act, as
relates to the duties on the importation of foreign sheeps’ and lambs’
wool.” Mr. Wood supported his motion on the ground that the trade
had been declining for nearly thirty years; but it was opposed by the
chancellor of the exchequer; and after a desultory conversation, it was
rejected by a majority of one hundred and forty-two against seventy.
About the same time, however, government showed that they were not
disinclined to all further commercial relaxation; for at their instance
the restrictions on the importation of machinery, imposed by an act of
King William the Fourth, were taken off. A bill for this purpose was
brought in by the president of the board of trade, and, being supported
by all parties in the house, passed without difficulty. After some
opposition from Earl Stanhope, it was subsequently carried in the lords,
and was incorporated finally into “an act for amending the customs,”
 which received the royal assent before the close of the session.




EDUCATION.

It has already been seen that, on the motion of Lord Ashley, an address
was voted to the crown on the subject of the education of the working
classes. The queen’s answer to this address was delivered by Earl Jermyn
at the bar of the house, on the 8th of March. It read thus:—“I have
received your loyal and dutiful address. The attention of my government
had been previously directed to the important object of increasing the
moral and religious education among the working classes of my people;
and the assurance of your cordial co-operation in measures which I
consider so necessary, confirms my hope that this blessing will be
secured by legislative enactment.” On the same day Sir James Graham
introduced his promised bill for regulating the employment of children
and young persons in factories. Its clauses were, in fact, strongly
opposed both in parliament and by the people, being objected to chiefly
on the ground of giving a too exclusive management of the schools to
the clergy of the church of England, thereby prejudicing dissenters and
Roman Catholics. This objection was forcibly urged by several members
in the discussion which ensued; while, on the other hand, it was
controverted by several members with equal force. Avoiding this source
of contention, Lord Ashley earnestly enforced the arguments respecting
the necessity of the measure. The bill was finally read a second time.
The measure, however, met with so much opposition from the dissenting
and Roman Catholic bodies, and appeared to be so distasteful to a large
section of the community, that Sir James Graham, on the 1st of May,
produced a series of amendments which had been prepared by government.
But although the bill was thus altered to meet the views of all classes,
it was still strenuously opposed by several members, though eventually
it was recommitted. Such was the animosity still displayed by the Roman
Catholic and dissenting bodies against the measure, that government
at length came to the resolution of abandoning it. The home secretary
announced this intention on the 15th of June, on which occasion he
promised to state on an early day the future intentions of government.
In fulfilment of this promise, on the 19th he declared that government
did not mean to give up the remainder of the factories’ bill; and on his
motion it was recommitted.




CHURCH EXTENSION, ETC.

On the 5th of May Sir Robert Peel brought forward, in a committee of the
whole house, a plan for relieving the spiritual wants of the kingdom by
the endowment of additional churches, and augmentation of small livings.
In explaining his measure, the right honourable baronet said that at the
end of 1834 he had advised the crown to issue a commission to ascertain
whether aid might not be obtained for religious instruction from
ecclesiastical resources. The result of the inquiries of this commission
had been to show that the revenues of certain bishoprics, cathedrals,
and other ecclesiastical establishments, were larger than their purposes
required. The commissioners recommended the transfer of such surplus
receipts of the church to a new fund, which now amounted to £25,000.
Out of this fund about £16,700 per annum had been applied to the
augmentation of small livings; and other analogous purposes had been
marked out, which, with the sum applied for, would absorb about
£32,000. In a few years the fund would be increased by the falling in of
canonries and other preferments; and the question was whether it would
be better to wait till that increase should have been realized, or to
anticipate that increase by some immediate measure. Government were in
favour of the latter course, and for this purpose it would be necessary
to combine the instrumentality of two bodies—the ecclesiastical
commissioners and the board of Queen Anne’s bounty for the augmentation
of small livings. The latter board possessed about £1,200,000, invested
in the funds; and what he now proposed, was to authorize the advance
of £600,000 by this board, to the ecclesiastical commissioners, on the
security of the before-mentioned revenue of the ecclesiastical fund,
existing and hereafter accruing. This advance to the extent of £30,000
a year he would apply in endowments for ministers of the church of
England; and that annual sum, with the interest on the principal at
three per cent., being £18,000 a year, would in seventeen years
exhaust the whole. By that time the accumulation in the hands of the
ecclesiastical commissioners would, even upon the narrowest calculation,
exceed £100,000 a year, and the commissioners would thenceforth continue
the £18,000 a year interest, and the proposed augmentation of £30,000 a
year, together with the £32,000 already applied, or destined by them
to similar or analogous purposes; and they would then possess a
considerable surplus, applicable to future improvement. In conclusion,
Sir Robert Peel said that he should have rejoiced if he could likewise
have carried a grant of public money for these purposes with general
goodwill; but he did not think that a public grant without such
goodwill would have effectually accomplished the benefits which he
anticipated from the application of ecclesiastical revenues. Several
members spoke in terms of approbation of the measure, and the motion was
unanimously voted.

The great secession in the church of Scotland gave occasion to the
introduction of a bill proposed by Lord Aberdeen, on the part of the
government to remove doubts respecting the admission of ministers to
benefices. This bill provided that the presbytery, or church court,
to which objections should be referred to be cognosced, should be
authorized to inquire into the whole circumstances of the parish, and
the character and number of persons by whom the objections and reasons
should be preferred; and if the presentee should be found not qualified
or suitable for that particular parish, the presbytery should pronounce
to that effect, and should set forth the special grounds upon which
their judgment was founded. The bill further abolished the veto, to
guard against any doubt or difficulty on that point; providing that it
shall not be lawful for any presbytery, or other ecclesiastical court,
to reject any presentee upon the ground of any mere dissent or dislike,
expressed in any part of the congregation of the parish in which he
was presented, and which dissent or dislike should not be founded upon
objections or reasons to be fully cognosced, judged of, and determined
in the manner aforesaid, by the presbytery, or other ecclesiastical
court. Lord Aberdeen declared his belief that the adoption of this
measure would retain in the establishment a numerous body of ministers
then in a state of suspense. Those parish ministers who had seceded
were about two hundred and forty, or one-fourth of the whole number; the
unendowed ministers, about two hundred, or about one-third of the entire
clergy of Scotland. He did not apprehend, he said, any fatal consequence
from the secession; but the bill would tend to tranquillise those who
remained within the pale. The measure encountered the most strenuous
opposition of Lords Brougham, Cottingham, and Campbell in all its
stages; but it passed the upper house, and was introduced in the commons
by Sir James Graham on the 31st of July. After explaining the nature of
the bill, and supporting it by all the arguments he could bring forward
in its favour, the right honourable baronet expressed a hope that the
church of Scotland would find a haven of peace and security, and in that
spirit of hope and peace he moved its second reading. Mr. Wallace said
that the bill would create more doubts than had heretofore existed, and
would make the people renounce the church; on which grounds he moved
that it be read that day six months. This amendment was supported by
Lord John Russell, and Messrs. Rutherford, Hume, Cochrane, and
Alexander Campbell. On the other hand the bill was supported by the
solicitor-general, Sir George Clerk, Mr. Hope Johnstone, and Sir Robert
Peel; and on a division the second reading was carried by a majority of
ninety-eight against eighty. The opponents of the measure renewed their
attempts of throwing it out on the motion for going into committee, when
Mr. P. M. Stewart moved that it be committed that day three months; but
this was negatived, and the bill finally passed, and received the royal
assent.




LAW REFORM.

Several reforms in the law were made during this session. One of the
most important of these changes was the registration act. This passed
the commons without any difficulty; and the second reading of the bill
was moved in the upper house by Lord Wharncliffe, on which occasion his
lordship thus explained its leading provisions. The objects of the bill,
he said, were first, to establish in every part of the country a real
and _bona fide_ list of voters; secondly, to settle certain doubts with
respect to qualifications which had arisen in the revising barristers’
courts; and, thirdly, to prevent the personation of voters, or the
possibility of individuals voting twice at the same election. One of the
greatest alterations in the bill was that which related to the right of
voting, as it depended on the payment of taxes. As the law at present
stood a person could not have his name placed on the list of voters
unless he had paid all his rates and taxes up to the time of making his
claim. By this bill it was provided, that persons should be allowed
to have their names inserted in the list of voters if they paid, on or
before the 20th of July next ensuing after making their claim, all the
poor’s-rates and assessed taxes payable from them for twelve calendar
months before the 6th day of the preceding April. One great objection to
the existing law was, that the decisions of the revising barristers
were final; but by this measure an appeal from their decisions, on legal
points, was allowed to the court of common-pleas. Provision was also
made to clear up doubtful points as to the right of voting in counties,
and likewise with reference to the place where a claim to the right
of voting should be made, when the party resided in an extra-parochial
district where there was no overseer. Another important point provided
for by the bill was that which related to votes on account of trusts on
mortgage estates. It was now provided that no mortgagee of any lands
or tenements should have a vote for members unless he was in actual
possession or receipt of the rents and profits of the lands or tenements
mortgaged; but that the mortgager in actual possession, or in receipt
of the rents or profits, should be allowed to vote in respect of the
property, notwithstanding the mortgage. Another bill carried this
session made some alterations in the law relating to defamation and
libel. By this bill, which was introduced by Lord Campbell, it was made
lawful to give evidence of the truth of the allegations complained of in
any criminal proceedings for libel, but subject to this limitation—that
the truth shall not, _ipso facto_, constitute a defence, unless the
party shall also make out that the publication of it was for the
public benefit. Provision was also made for the case of publication
of libellous matter by inadvertence in newspapers. In such case the
defendant was empowered to plead the facts in extenuation, and also
to pay money into court by way of amends. Other clauses were directed
against that nefarious system practised by some conductors of
newspapers, who drive a trade in slander; while others imposed
additional penalties upon those who make the publication of libels,
or the threat of such publication, a means of extorting money from
individuals. Two other measures brought in by government during this
session—namely, a measure for the reform of the ecclesiastical court,
and a bill for the extension of county courts—were not received with so
much favour as the preceding: both met with stern opposition, and were
in consequence postponed.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued by the queen in person on the 24th of August.
In the speech her majesty alluded with satisfaction to the various
measures passed during the session; and thanked both houses for the
measures they had adopted for enabling her to give full effect to the
several treaties which had been concluded with foreign powers. Her
majesty also alluded to the lawless combinations and commotions which
had disturbed the public peace in some districts of Wales; and to the
agitation in Ireland for a repeal of the legislative union.




AGITATION IN IRELAND, FORMATION OF THE FREE CHURCH IN SCOTLAND, ETC.

After the attainment of the Roman Catholic relief act, Mr. O’Connell had
from time to time held out the repeal of the legislative union to the
deluded people of Ireland as the great ultimatum, in his view, for
their benefit. His exertions in this pursuit were at times relaxed, or
diverted in favour of some other object; and there were many who
thought his sincerity in this matter demanded a doubt. During this
year, however, he took up the cause of repeal with redoubled energy.
Abandoning the house of commons, he gave himself wholly up to the task
of raising the banner of national independence in Ireland. In this work
he resorted to the same plan of organization which had been adopted
with success in prosecuting the Roman Catholic claims. An association,
indeed, for the furtherance of repeal, provided with all the machinery
requisite to give effect to its comprehensive designs, formed the main
instrument by which the union was to be assailed. This body, which was
styled the National Loyal Repeal Association, consisted of associates,
members, and volunteers. The distinction of these classes was marked
out by money-payments; for it was the “rent” to which the agitator was
mainly looking. Thus associates were to pay one shilling each; while
members were to pay one pound each. Cards were issued to all sections of
the association; but those issued to members, or those who paid the most
“rent,” were distinct from the rest. This card bore the names of four
places in Ireland, the scenes of fights in which the Irish had conquered
either the Danes or the English. A printed document described these
victories. In another part of the card the geographical position of
Ireland was contrasted with various states with the following words
underneath:—“Ireland has not a parliament.” The card further set forth
the revenue expended by Ireland during the last great war in France, and
stated that the commander-in-chief, and two-thirds of the officers and
men of the English army and navy on that occasion were Irishmen. Added
to these features there was a scroll at the top of the card, bearing the
following words:—“Resolved unanimously that the claims of any body of
men, other than the king, lords, and commons of Ireland to make laws to
bind this kingdom are unconstitutional, illegal, and a grievance;” which
resolution was agreed to by the Dungannon volunteers in 1782. At the
bottom of the card was an extract from a speech of Mr. Saurin, declaring
the union not to be binding on conscience. In addition to the several
kinds of members, the Repeal Association comprised officer’s, consisting
of general inspectors, repeal-wardens, and collectors. Repeal-wardens
were appointed by the association on the recommendation of the clergymen
of their parishes; and a book of instruction was prepared, in which the
several functions which they were to execute were described. One leading
branch of their duties was the transmission and circulation among the
associates in every district of certain newspapers devoted to the repeal
cause, to be purchased out of the subscriptions in aid of the general
object. The main object of the association appears to have been to
provide a machinery of the most effective kind for the collection of
funds, and to train the people to combination, and prepare them for
simultaneous movements at the bidding of their leaders. How well
calculated it was for the former object the weekly reports of the “rent”
 show; and its effectiveness in the latter design was proved by the
“monster meetings,” which were held at Trim, Mullingar, and other places
throughout Ireland. At all these meetings the most violent language was
used by Mr. O’Connell and his coadjutors; and government was importuned
to adopt some energetic measures for the suppression of this dangerous
conspiracy. The only measures, however, adopted by the ministry for some
time was the Irish arms bill, and the removing from the commission of
the peace the names of those magistrates who attended or participated
in any of the repeal meetings. But the more lenient government showed
itself, the more bold and insolent the repealers became. At a “monster
meeting” held at Tara on the 15th of August, Mr. O’Connell spoke
out with unequivocal significancy. Another “monster meeting” was
subsequently held at Roscommon, which Mr. O’Connell said, from its
numbers, ought “to strike their enemies with terror, and to give their
friends a great consolation.” At a later period of the year other
“monster meetings” were held; and at each succeeding meeting the
language of the repealers grew bolder and bolder. At length government
was roused to action. A great meeting was announced for the 8th of
October, to be held at Clontarf, the scene of an Irish victory over
the Danes; and the programme of the proceedings to take place on this
occasion, and the regulations to be observed by those who should attend
it, had been announced with more than common ostentation and solemnity.
Against this meeting government issued a proclamation; and as soon as
the issue of it was known, Mr. O’Connell called a special meeting of the
repeal association, at which, speaking with marked calmness, he said, in
consequence of the step taken by government, there would be no meeting
on the next day at Clontarf. A counter-proclamation was adopted by this
meeting, in which the abandonment of the intended assembling at Clontarf
was announced, and the people were exhorted not to assemble. As,
however, the proclamation and the counter-proclamation were issued only
the day before the intended meeting was to take place, thousands knew
nothing of their promulgation, and consequently repaired to Clontarf, in
the expectation of meeting their leaders. Instead of Mr. O’Connell
and his associates, they met with troops; and thus disappointed, they
returned home. Happily the day passed off with tranquillity; for,
notwithstanding the vast concourse who thronged to the scene throughout
the day, no disturbance took place. But the operations of government
against the repealers did not stop here. A few days afterwards the
public were startled by the announcement of the arrest of Mr. O’Connell
and his coadjutors, on charges of conspiracy, sedition, and unlawful
assembling. Mr. O’Connell entered into recognisances, himself in £1000,
with two sureties of £500 each, to abide his trial on the charges
preferred against him. Both Mr. O’Connell and his coadjutors were
bound to appear on the first day of Michaelmas term, at the court of
Queen’s-Bench at Dublin; and on their appearance the grand jury brought
in the indictment, “a true bill;” but the proceedings of the trial were
so much hindered by the various pretexts of the prisoners’ counsel,
that it was finally agreed that it should be deferred till the 15th of
January, 1844.

One of the most remarkable events which occurred in the course of this
year, was the secession of a considerable number of the ministers
and laity of the established church of Scotland from that body. This
secession arose out of a controversy which had been raised upon the
limits of ecclesiastical and civil jurisdiction, and the agitation which
had been produced in tire minds of the non-intrusion party since
the adverse decision of the law-courts and the house of lords in the
Auchterarder case. The final act of separation took place in the month
of May, during the meeting of the General Assembly of the church of
Scotland. A committee had been appointed to consider the propriety of
separation; and on the 22nd of May, at a general meeting in the church
of Dr. Candlish, the report of this committee was produced, and a
resolution incorporating the recommendations of the report was adopted,
in which it was resolved that an act of separation should be reported
to the Assembly on the morrow. The next day, accordingly, the act of
separation was produced; which act solemnly renounced for those who
should affix their names to it the status, privileges, and emoluments
derived from the establishment, reserving to ministers the right to act
as pastors of particular congregations, or portions thereof, adhering to
them, with the rights and benefits accruing from the ministers’ widows’
fund. This document contained an order that the act of separation should
be transmitted to the Moderator of the General Assembly—denominated
by the seceders “Ecclesiastical Judicatory, by Law Established.” The
signing of the document occupied four hours, and the act of separation
was then transmitted to the General Assembly. The number of ministers
who signed it, or were enrolled in the list of the secession during its
first assembly, was three hundred and ninety-five; but the ranks of the
separatists were subsequently swelled by the addition of a considerable
number of ministers and others, who from time to time gave in their
adhesion to the “free church.” This secession is one of the most
remarkable ecclesiastical revolutions on record; and its effects were
extensively felt throughout Scotland. The secession even gave rise to
outrages on the part of the people. In the course of the autumn several
serious disturbances took place throughout the country in connection
with the free church movement; but it is just to remark that those who
took part in these disgraceful proceedings formed only a minority cf the
people: the general demeanour of the population during this change in
their domestic affairs, was that of peace and good order.

In South Wales there was a commotion of a very different nature. The
disturbances which took place there, and which were denominated the
“Rebecca riots,” were equally singular and unexpected. The grievance
which gave rise to them was the heavy and vexatious tolls to which
the peasantry were subjected by the mismanagement and abuses of the
turnpike-system. Galled by this burden, they resolved to take the law
into their own hands, and to break down the gates in every part. There
was, in fact, a crusade against toll-gates commenced during this year,
in almost every part of South Wales. The supposed head or chief of the
gate-breakers was called “Rebecca,” a name derived from this passage in
the book of Genesis: “And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Let
thy seed possess the gates of those which hate them.” (Gen. xxiv. ver.
60.) “Rebecca,” who was in the guise of a woman, always made her marches
by night; and her conduct of the campaign exhibited much dexterity
and address. Herself and band were mounted on horseback; and a sudden
blowing of horns, and firing of guns, announced the arrival of the
assailants at the turnpike selected for attack. The work of demolition
was soon effected: gate, posts, and tollhouse were razed to the ground;
and the work was no sooner done than the mysterious assailants galloped
off, firing their guns and blowing their horns; and no trace was to be
found of the quarter whence they had come, or to what place they had
retreated. At first the trustees re-erected some of the gates; but
“Rebecca,” and her associates speedily demolished them; so that the
trustees were finally compelled to desist, and to leave the roads free
from toll. All the efforts of the magistrates were unavailing; and they
were obliged to appeal to government for protection and support. In
the meantime the unchecked success of the insurgents began to work its
natural effect in beguiling them into further violations of the laws.
Other grievances, as the poor-law amendment act, the working of the new
tithe-law, the fees paid to magistrates’ clerks in the administration of
justice, and the alleged extortionate rents taken by the landowners for
their farms, were all considered burdens too heavy to be borne, and fit
objects for removal. Meetings were held in secluded spots, where plans
for carrying on the warfare against the ills to be redressed were
concocted; and these deliberations soon broke out into action. On the
10th of June “Rebecca” and her followers visited Caermarthen, and in
open day proceeded to attack the workhouse. In the midst of their work
of demolition, however, the military arrived, and the whole force was
compelled to decamp, leaving behind them about one hundred, who
were taken prisoners. The insurrection, notwithstanding this, still
continued, and even assumed a more malignant aspect. Houses in which
persons lived who were obnoxious to the rioters were attacked; and
a growing feeling of alarm and insecurity pervaded the peaceable and
well-disposed portion of the community. One poor woman, who kept
the Hendy turnpike-gate, on the confines of Glamorganshire and
Caermarthenshire, was barbarously murdered by the rioters; and such
was the influence of fear exercised over the minds of the jurymen who
investigated the case, that they brought in a verdict to the effect,
“That the deceased died from suffusion of blood, which produced
suffocation, but from what cause is to the jurors unknown.” By the
continuance of these outrages, government at length sent down to Wales
a large body of troops, under a general officer, who was to take the
command of the disturbed districts. At the same time a strong body of
the London police was sent to exercise their skill in ferreting out the
rioters, who had long escaped detection. These measures did not wholly
prevent violence under cover of night; but, in a short time, some of
the more active leaders of the riots were captured in an affray with the
county police, on the borders of Glamorganshire; and from this event,
and various other causes, the spirit of disturbance, towards the close
of the year, began to decline. Perhaps the most effectual cause of
this decline was a prospect of the redress of those hardships which had
formed the theme of so much complaint. In October government sent down
a commission, which was to examine into the operation of the
turnpike-laws, and other alleged grievances of the country. From the
report of this commission, poverty and the hardness of the times had
more to do with the outbreak than any other specific cause; but, at the
same time, the inquiries instituted, and the report itself, showed
that the turnpike-laws as administered in Wales did afford a real and
substantial ground of complaint.




DISPUTES WITH AMERICA.

During last year the boundary question, which had formed a subject of
dispute between England and America, had been happily adjusted by Lord
Ashburton, who had been sent to the United States for that purpose.
There still, however, remained serious questions of dispute between the
two countries; namely, the Oregon territory, the right of search, and
the non-payment of state debts. In the year 1818, a treaty between Great
Britain and America had been ratified by the prince-regent; and in the
month of January, 1819, by the President of the United States, the third
article of which stipulated that “whatever territory may be claimed
by one or other of the contracting parties on the north-west coast of
America, to the west of the Rocky Mountains, as also all bays, creeks,
or rivers thereon, shall be free and open to the ships, citizens, and
subjects of both powers for ten years from the date of the signature
of the present convention.” In accordance with this stipulation of the
treaty, the Oregon territory had been conjointly occupied up to the
present time—the period of ten years being afterwards indefinitely
extended by consent of both governments. In the early part of this
session of congress, the president announced that he was about to
negotiate with the British government for finally settling the claims
of the two countries to this territory. Whilst these negotiations were
pending, a bill for the occupation and military organization of the
Oregon territory was brought into congress by Mr. Linn. This bill, which
stated that “the title of the United States to the territory of Oregon
is certain, and will not be abandoned,” was carried by a majority of
twenty-three against twenty-two. On being sent down, however, to the
house of representatives, the committee on foreign affairs reported
against it, and it was abandoned for this session. Another object which
gave rise to dissension between the government of Great Britain and the
United States, was the repudiation of public debts by several states of
the union. A third subject of dispute between the governments of Great
Britain and America was the right of search. Conflicting interpretations
existed between them of the treaty of Washington, which gave rise to a
tedious and disputatious correspondence. The year closed, also, before
the question was settled; but at the same time, though there were
signs of an open rupture between the two governments, yet there were
circumstances which gave rise to a well-founded hope, and it has happily
proved to be correct, that the swords of England and America would
not again be drawn against each other. There was especially a desire
existing in America of entering into a commercial treaty on the basis
of mutual reductions of import duties; so that it was clear that
the Americans saw, equally with the English, that it was their best
interests to avoid that dread ultimatum—war.




THE STATE OF INDIA.

The events of the present year in India, although not so exciting as
those which occurred in the last, possess deep interest. In Affghanistan
nothing of importance occurred after its evacuation by the British,
except that Dost Mahomed, who had been permitted to leave our
territories when we left Affghanistan, concentrated the chief power of
that country in his own hands, and became in effect its ruler. A more
important event occurred in the annexation of Scinde to our dominions
in the East. Scinde lies between the 23° and 29° of N. latitude, and the
67° and 70° of E. longitude. It is bounded on the south and south-east
by the Indian Ocean and Cutch; on the west by Beloo-chistan; on the
north by the southern portion of Affghanistan and the Punjaub; and on
the east by a sandy desert, separating it from the districts of Ajmeer.
The river Indus flows nearly in the centre of the country, through its
whole extent, from north to south; and a little below the city of Tatta
is divided into two great branches, between which lies a delta, through
which smaller channels force their way. Scinde had recently been
governed by four chiefs of the Beloochee tribe called Talpoor. The name
of the eldest of these chiefs was Futteh Ali Khan, who had the principal
direction of affairs, inasmuch as he had been the chief instrument in
overthrowing the dynasty of the Caleras, on the ruins of whose throne
the Talpoor chiefs sat. The brothers of Futteh Ali Khan were Gholam
Ali, Kunn Ali, and Moorad Ali; and the four brothers enjoyed a joint
sovereignty over Scinde, under the name of the _Char Yar_, or the “Four
Friends.” All these rulers died by the year 1833, the whole leaving male
issue except Kunn Ali. Their deaths were followed by a civil war between
the sons of the deceased chiefs, which resulted in a distribution of
territory amongst them. They were distinguished respectively as Ameers
of Hyderabad, Khyrpore, and Meerpore. At the beginning of the present
year, the Ameers of Scinde consisted of the following persons:—at
Hyderabad, Nusseer Khan, Shabad Khan, Hussein Ali Khan, Mahomed Khan,
and Sobhdar Khan; at Khyrpore, Rustum Khan, Nusseer Khan, Ali Moorad
Khan, and Chakur Khan; at Meerpore, Shere Mahomed Khan. All of these
were Talpoor chiefs, and several of them had sons who were associated
with them in the government. They ruled over Scinde with a rod of iron,
living entirely for themselves, and wallowing in wealth, while their
people were living in the most wretched condition. In 1832, a treaty,
bearing date the 20th of April, was executed between the British
government in India and Meermoorad Ali, who at that time was the
principal Ameer of Scinde, in which a bond of friendship was entered
into, and mutual commerce was agreed upon. Another treaty was concluded
in 1834, by which the British obtained a reduction of tolls upon vessels
navigating the Indus; and it was agreed that a native British agent
should be allowed to reside at the mouth of the river. In 1838, in
consequence of the incursions of Runjeet Sing, the ruler of the Punjaub,
in the Scinde territory, which were checked by British mediation, it was
further conceded that an accredited British minister should reside at
Hyderabad, attended by such an escort as might be deemed suitable by his
government. Captain Pottinger was appointed to this service. It was soon
found, however, that the Ameers of Scinde were not in heart friends of
the British. When, in the autumn of 1838, the great military expedition
into Affghanistan was undertaken, a large body of Bengal troops marched
through a portion of Upper Scinde towards the Bolan Pass. The Bombay
troops, also, under the command of Sir John Keane, took their route into
Cabul by the way of the Indus; in doing which they encountered great
difficulty in prosecuting their onward progress, from the jealousy and
disaffection of the Ameers. Their conduct, in fact, became so hostile,
that a force was sent from Bombay to be stationed as a reserve in
Scinde, to keep the Ameers in check. This force was established at
Kurrachee; and before the army of the Indus left Hyderabad in February,
1839, another treaty was concluded with the Ameers, by which it was
stipulated that a British force should be stationed to the westward of
the Indus: that three of the Ameers—Noor Mahomed, Nusseer Khan, and
Meer Mahomed—should pay one lac of rupees (£10,000) each annually,
to defray part of the expenses of this force; that all tolls on boats
navigating the Indus within the Scinde territories should be abolished;
and that the Ameers should rule absolutely in their respective
territories; and in case of difference, the British representatives in
Scinde should mediate between them. A similar treaty was also concluded
with the Khyrpore Ameers; and shortly afterwards Shere Mahomed, Ameer of
Meerpore, on his own application was allowed, on the payment of half a
lac of rupees yearly, to participate in the treaty granted to the
Ameers of Hyderabad. From this time up to the end of 1840, when serious
disturbances occurred at Khelat, the state of Scinde was comparatively
tranquil. There were, however, strong reasons to suspect that the Ameers
were holding communications with the refractory Brahoe tribes, with a
view of attacking the British on a favourable opportunity. At this time
Major Outram was British resident at Hyderabad; and he had on several
occasions to mediate in family discords between the courts of Hyderabad
and Khyrpore. In the year 1840 Noor Mahomed died, and was succeeded by
his two sons, Meer Sliahdad and Meer Hossein Ali. Their uncle, Nusseer
Khan, wished, on the death of his brother to be acknowledged by the
British government as the rais or head of the Hyderabad branch of the
Tulpoor family, which distinction was not conceded. From that time he
seems to have meditated plans of active hostility against the British.
The indications of his enmity were so apparent, that he was threatened
by Lord Ellenborough with the loss of his dominions if he proved
faithless. But he was not the only Ameer hostile to the British
government. They were all in arrears with reference to the contribution
they were bound by treaty to supply towards the support of the British
force at Tatta; and when pressed for payment they evaded compliance, and
concerted measures of hostility against us, which rendered it possible
they would attack our forces on the first favourable opportunity. Under
these circumstances Sir Charles Napier was invested with the chief
command of all the forces in Scinde, and also with the authority of
a political functionary. He was invested with authority by the
governor-general of India, to propose a new treaty to the Àmeers of
Hyderabad and Khyrpore, which was to contain these stipulations:—That
the Ameers should be relieved from the payment of any subsidy for the
support of British troops; that the British government should have the
right to fell wood within one hundred yards of either bank of the Indus
for the use of steamers; and that Karrachu, Tatta, and three other
towns, with a strip of land on each side, should be ceded in perpetuity
to the British government. Sir Charles Napier appointed Major Outrarn
to conduct these negociations; and as it was necessary to maintain a
resolute front in the management of this treaty, Sir Charles himself
marched in February with his troops towards Khyrpore. Meer Rustum Khan
fled from his capital to a fort in the desert called Emaumghur, whither
he was followed by Sir Charles Napier, who, on arriving at this fort,
and finding it deserted, destroyed it with gunpowder, that it might not
form a place of refuge. The Ameers were at first adverse to the terms of
the treaty; but ultimately they agreed to the stipulations, which were
signed on both sides. There was, however, treachery among the Beloochee
chieftains. On the 15th of February the British residences at Hyderabad
were attacked by a body of 8000 troops, with six guns, who were
commanded by Meer Shahdad Khan. Major Outrarn, and the small garrison,
of about one hundred men, were compelled to take refuge in flight: they
fled to the Indus, where they were received on board one of the British
steamers, which conveyed them to Sir C. Napier at Hala. This event was
the signal of war; and bitterly did the Ameers pay for their treachery.
A great battle was fought at Meeanee, in which the Beloochee rulers
suffered a signal defeat: about 5000 of their followers were slain, and
the whole of the enemy’s artillery, ammunition, standards, and camp,
with considerable stores, were captured by the British. Meer Rustum
Khan, and Meer Nusseer Khan; Meer Wullee Mahomed, of Khyrpore; Meer
Nusseer Khan, Meer Shadad Khan, and Meer Hossein Khan, all came into Sir
Charles Napier’s camp, and surrendered their swords as prisoners of war.
Hyderabad, also, was given up to the British commander; and on the
20th of February the British flag waved over that city. The contest
in Scinde, however, was not yet over. There was still a large body of
troops on the banks of the Fullahi, one of the branches of the Indus,
under the command of Shere Mahomed. This body of troops, indeed,
consisted of 20,000 men, and they were strongly posted behind one of the
large nullahs by which that country is intersected in all directions;
but after a combat of three hours they were wholly defeated, and all
their standards and cannon were captured. After this latter victory Sir
Charles Napier took possession of Meerpore, and on the 4th of April the
fortress of Oomercote, an important stronghold in the desert, opened its
gates to the victorious British. By these events Scinde was subdued,
and the “Scindian population,” says the conqueror, “everywhere expressed
their satisfaction at the change of masters.” At a subsequent period
of the year Shere Mahomed and Shah Mahomed gathered each an army around
them, in order to recover their lost power; but the former was
defeated by a detachment under Captain Jacob, and the latter by another
detachment under Colonel Roberts. No further disturbance took place this
year in Scinde, and the governor-general was able to announce that
that country had become a part of our eastern dominions. The six fallen
Ameers were conveyed to Bombay; and although they were treated kindly,
they arrived there “the very pictures of unmingled grief and hopeless
despondency.” It should be mentioned that Ali Moorad, the Ameer of
Khyrpore, remained faithful; and a portion of the territories of the
Koostum Khan and Nusseer Khan was transferred to him; but he seems to
have imagined that he ought to have had all that the British had taken
from the defeated Ameers. Shortly after the country was conquered Sir
Charles Napier was appointed governor of Scinde, and empowered to
take such measures as might appear best calculated to suppress the
slave-trade in every part of the country, and to abolish all duties of
transit in every part occupied by the British army. The gallant conduct
of Sir Charles Napier obtained the warmest praise of the people of
England.

During this year, also, the British troops gained two brilliant
victories over the Mahratta forces. The events which led to these
contests are briefly these. On the decease of the Maharaja, Jhunkojee
Rao Scindia, the British government acknowledged as his successor the
Maharaja Jyajee Rao Scindia, who was the nearest in blood to the late
Maharaja. During the minority of the new ruler of Mahratta the dignity
and power of regent were conferred upon the Mama Sahib. The widow of the
late Maharaja and the chiefs concurred in this adoption of a regent,
and the British government confirmed their choice. After a short time,
however, notwithstanding the remonstrance of the British resident,
Mama Sahib was violently compelled to quit the Gwalior state. On this
occurrence becoming-known, the British resident was instructed to
withdraw from Gwalior; and a British army was sent into Scindia, “not
as an enemy, but as a friend to the Maharaja, bound by treaty to respect
his highness’s person, and to maintain his sovereign authority against
all who were disobedient and disturbers of the public peace.” Having
established a strong government at Gwalior, capable of maintaining the
authority of the Maharaja, the British armies were subsequently ordered
to withdraw to their own territory. They were not, however, destined to
return without a severe conflict with the Mahratta forces. They had left
Agra in the early part of December; and on the 23rd they crossed the
Chumbul river, and halted at Hingona, about twenty miles distance from
Gwalior. The governor-general was with the British troops; and during
the interval of five days’ halt at Hingona, the Mahratta Vakeels, or
agents for the Gwalior Durbar, had an interview with him. He supposed
that they were desirous of peace, but war was in their hearts. They were
evidently desirous only of gaining time by negociation to assemble
and concentrate their forces. This at last became so evident that the
governor-general determined on active measures of hostility. While the
main body of our army moved on under the command of Sir Hugh Gough from
Agra, another division, under Major-general Grey, advanced on Gwalior
from Bundle Khand. The main division crossed the Khoraee river early in
the evening of the 29th of December; and they found the Mahratta forces
drawn up in front of the village of Mahrajpoor, in a strong position.
The British troops were about 14,000 strong, with forty pieces of
artillery; and the Mahrattas numbered 18,000 men, including 3000
cavalry, and one hundred guns. An obstinate battle was fought, in which
the British lost about one hundred killed, and had about seven hundred
wounded; while the Mahrattas are said to have lost more than three
thousand men. The British were victorious, not only defeating the enemy,
but capturing many of their standards, and most of their guns. On the
same day, Major-general Grey, with a force of only 2000 men gained
another victory at Punniar over a Mahratta force, estimated at 12,000
in number. The consequence of these victories was the submission of the
Mahratta Durbar to the demands of the Indian government; Colonel Stubbs
was appointed by the Maha Ranee governor of the fort of Gwalior, which
commands the city; the Mahratta troops were disbanded: and a British
contingent, consisting of seven regiments of infantry and two of
cavalry, was to be maintained in the country at the cost of the Gwalior
government, which government was also to pay forthwith the expenses of
the campaign.

During this year Sir Henry Pottinger issued a proclamation, in which
he announced that the ratification of the treaty, mentioned in the last
chapter, between Great Britain and China had been exchanged, and that he
had concluded with the Chinese high commissioner, Keying, a commercial
treaty and tariff. The ports to which the British were admitted by this
treaty were those of Canton, Amoy, Foo-chow-foo, Ningpo, and Shanghae;
and an order in council was issued, in which her majesty prohibited her
subjects from resorting, for the purposes of trade and commerce, to any
other ports than these in the dominions of the Emperor of China, under
a penalty not exceeding £100 for every such offence, or a term of
imprisonment not exceeding three months, at the discretion of the court
before which the conviction should take place. Mr. T. Lay was appointed
consul at Canton, and Sir Henry Pottinger formally assumed the
government of the island of Hong-Kong. The town destined for the seat
of government, and the residence of merchants and others, was founded
on the northern side of the island, and named Victoria. It was not long
before the cupidity of trade displayed itself. Sir Henry Pottinger had
refused to allow opium to be stored in warehouses in Hong-Kong; and
six of the merchants at Victoria withdrew to Macao on account of this
decision. In consequence of this manifestation of dissatisfaction, a
proclamation was published in order to point out the risk which those
subjected themselves to who were resolved at all hazards to import
opium.




CONTINENTAL AFFAIRS.

An interesting event took place in September of this j’ear, when
her majesty Queen Victoria, accompanied by Prince Albert, paid Louis
Philippe a visit in his own dominions. They arrived in their steam-yacht
at Tréport, close to Eu, where the royal family of France were
sojourning; and after receiving a most cordial reception from their
illustrious host and the French people, they proceeded on their voyage
to Ostend. About the same time one of the French monarch’s sons, the
Prince de Joinville, was married to Princess Francisca, the sister of
the Emperor of Brazils, and the Queen of Portugal. But while in France
all were merry as a “marriage bell,” the unhappy country of Spain was
disturbed from one end to the other by insurrections. Madrid was even
captured by Generals Narvaez and Aspirez, who headed the insurgent
forces; and Espartero was compelled to take refuge on board an English
ship of war at Cadiz, after having in vain bombarded Seville. Espartero
proceeded to Lisbon, whence he issued a manifesto to the Spanish nation,
after which he sailed to England. At the close of this year, indeed,
Spain was torn in pieces by factions, though the queen was still enabled
to keep her seat on the throne.




CHAPTER LV.

{VICTORIA. 1844–1845}

     Meeting of Parliament..... Motion of the Stoppage of
     Supplies..... Affairs of India..... Irish Affairs: Irish
     Municipal   Franchise, The   Irish Church Question, Irish
     Charitable Trusts  Bill,  Roman Catholic Penal Acts Repeal
     Bill..... Restrictions on Labour in Factories, &c. The
     Corn Laws and Free Trade Question..... Financial
     Statements..... Sugar Duties Bill,   &c. Bank Charter
     and   Banking   Regulations..... Dissenters’ Chapels
     Bill..... Sees of Bangor and St. Asapli..... Miscellaneous
     Measures of the Session..... Prorogation of Parliament.....
     The State of India..... Proceedings against Mr.
     O’Connell..... Continental Affairs.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1844}

Parliament was opened by the queen in person on the 1st of February. Her
majesty’s speech first alluded to her friendly relations with foreign
powers; to the treaty concluded with China; to the annexation of Scinde
to the British empire in India; to the estimates; and to the improved
condition of several important branches of the trade and manufactures
of the country. The speech then recommended attention to the revision of
the charter of the Bank of England; to the state of the law and practice
with regard to the occupation of land in Ireland; and to the law of
registration in that country.

The debates on the address in both houses were not in any way
remarkable, except for a bold speech by Mr. Sharman Crawford, demanding
redress of the grievances of which the people of both England and
Ireland complained. A contest also occurred between Lord John Russell
and Sir Robert Peel in reference to the duties on the importation of
foreign corn, the opposition leader maintaining that a fixed duty was
desirable, and the ministerial leader advocating the system of variable
duties, called a sliding-scale.




MOTION FOR THE STOPPAGE OF SUPPLIES.

In his speech during the discussion on the address, Mr. Sharman Crawford
had threatened to move the stoppage of supplies. In accordance with this
threat, on the 6th of February, after enumerating the grievances which
the house had refused to inquire into, such as class legislations
consisting of various commercial monopolies, he moved his resolution.
After a few words in favour of the motion by Mr. Hume, and against it by
Colonel Sibthorp and Mr. Trelawny, it was negatived by a majority of one
hundred and thirty against twenty-two.




AFFAIRS OF INDIA.

During this session the policy of government in relation to the affairs
of India became the subject of discussion on several occasions. On the
12th of February motions were brought forward in both houses for the
thanks of parliament to Sir Charles Napier and the army employed in the
operations of Scinde, which motions were agreed to unanimously. Soon
after this an event occurred which produced a startling effect. On the
21st of April Sir Robert Peel, in answer to a question put to him by
Mr. T. B. Macaulay, said, “I beg to state that, on Wednesday last,
her Majesty’s government received a communication from the court of
directors, that they had exercised the power which the law gives them,
to recall at their will and pleasure the governor-general of India.”
 This announcement soon spread abroad; and in the house of lords, on the
29th of April, Lord Colchester addressed to the Duke of Wellington these
questions:—“Whether the communication from the court of directors to
government alleged any reason for the recall of the governor-general?
If so, whether there was any objection to state such reason? and whether
the reasons were considered satisfactory by government?” In reply, the
noble duke stated that reasons had been given for the recall of the
governor-general, but that those reasons had not been concurred in
by her majesty’s government; nay, more, they remonstrated against
the measure. The noble duke, in fact, roundly condemned the court
of directors for taking such a step, pronouncing it to be the most
indiscreet exercise of power he had ever known. Several discussions
subsequently took place in both houses of parliament on the recall
of Lord Ellenborough; and motions were moved for copies of the
correspondence between the court of directors and her majesty’s
government relative to this subject; but these motions were negatived,
and the discussions led to no practical result. They were, in truth,
only made the medium of giving utterance to party sentiments and
opinions.




IRISH AFFAIRS.

The subject which gave rise to the most animated discussions in
parliament this session was the ministerial policy towards Ireland;
especially their conduct in reference to the trial of Mr. O’Connell and
his associates. On the 13th of February, the Marquis of Normanby moved
in the house of lords, a resolution condemnatory of the government
administration of Irish affairs. After a very long and angry discussion,
the debate was adjourned, and on the next evening was continued by Earl
Fitzwilliam and Lord Monteagle on one side, and the Earls of Haddington
and Ripon on the other. On a division, the motion was negatived by a
majority of one hundred and seventy-five against seventy-eight.

In the house of commons, on the 13th, Lord John Russell, in a speech of
three hours’ continuance, opened a discussion on the subject of Irish
policy, which was protracted for nine evenings. The motion which he made
on this occasion nominally aimed at the appointment of a committee
of the whole house to consider the state of Ireland. The debate which
ensued presented much sameness and repetition. On a division, Lord
John Russell’s motion was negatived by a majority of three hundred and
thirty-four against two hundred and twenty-five.

It had been announced in the speech from the throne that government
would, in the present session, take up the question of the registration
of voters in Ireland. In fulfilment of this announcement, Lord Eliot,
early in April, introduced a bill into the house of commons for that
purpose; leave was given to bring in the bill; but it was evidently so
distasteful to the Irish members and their supporters, that, on the 1st
of July, Sir Robert Peel announced that it was abandoned by government.

On the 9th of May Mr. Hume moved:—“That an humble address be presented
to her majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to consider
whether it would not be for the advantage of Ireland, and for the
interest of the United Kingdom, to abolish the office of lord-lieutenant
of Ireland.” Mr. Hume contended that this office was one of the
principal causes of repeal agitation, and that by abolishing it peace
would be restored to the country. His motion was seconded by Captain
Bernai, and opposed by Lords John Russell and Eliot, Sir Robert Peel,
and Captain Layard. Ultimately, Mr. Hume withdrew his motion. On the
11th of July Mr. Ward brought on his annual motion about the Irish
church. On a division it was rejected by a majority of two hundred and
seventy-four against one hundred and seventy-nine.

A measure of great importance to the Roman Catholic community in Ireland
was introduced by government, and passed during this session; namely, a
bill which had for its object the making of a provision for the better
security and regulation of moneys settled upon charitable and religious
trusts. This bill was first introduced in the house of lords, where it
passed with very little opposition. Sir James Graham moved its second
reading in the commons on the 29th of July. In making this motion,
he explained the law as it then stood relative to the management
and supervision of charitable bequests and donations in Ireland. The
existing system was regulated by a statute passed at the beginning of
the present century, by which a board was constituted for the government
and administration of charitable trusts. This board consisted almost
exclusively of Protestants; whereas nearly three-fourths of the bequests
placed under its jurisdiction were Roman Catholic endowments. By the
bill now proposed, it would be enacted that the master of the rolls, the
chief baron of the exchequer, and the judges of the Prerogative Court,
should be _ex officio_ members of the board; and that in the presence of
them, or any of them, one or the other should preside, according to his
rank—first, the master of the rolls; in his absence, the chief baron
of the exchequer; or, in the absence of the other two, the judge of the
prerogative court. The bill next provided that the crown should appoint
ten commissioners, five of whom should be Protestants, and five Roman
Catholics. By the sixth section it was further provided, with respect
to matters concerning the doctrine, discipline, or constitution of the
church of Rome—that if a question arose as to the _status_ or condition
of any person who had a right, or claimed to have a right, under any
of the deeds of bequest brought under the consideration of the
commissioners, such question should be referred, if the claimant were
a Roman Catholic, to the Roman Catholic commissioners only; and it was
provided that they should grant a certificate of their decision,
which certificate should be received as evidence. One of the principal
objections to the existing law was removed by the tenth clause, which
limited the power of the commissioners to apply donations and bequests
according to the intention of the donor or donors. The thirteenth clause
also obviated the existing difficulty under the statute of mortmain,
which made bequests chargeable upon land for a given class of persons,
or their successors. This clause would enable real or personal property,
without limitation as to its amount, to be held in perpetuity,
for building and maintaining chapels, for building and maintaining
residences for the Roman Catholic clergy, or for the use of the priests
for the time being, for the purpose of any particular charge. In
conclusion, Sir James Graham said that he could only anticipate one
objection to the bill on tire part of the Roman Catholics, and that
arose from the peculiarity of their ecclesiastical jurisdiction. He
believed they would object to the decision of any ecclesiastical matters
relating to their church by persons who were not in holy orders of the
church of Rome; but he would remind them that under the existing law,
such matters might be brought before the supreme judicial tribunal
of the country—the judge of that court, the lord-chancellor, being a
Protestant. According to the present bill, however, such matters
would be left to the decision of a board, composed of Protestants and
Catholics equal in number. The bill was loudly condemned by Messrs.
More, O’Ferral, Bellew, and Shiel; while, on the other hand, Lord
Arundel thanked government for the conciliatory spirit it displayed. Mr.
Hume said that the bill seemed to him to be framed in a spirit of peace,
and he wished all the Irish grievances were met in the same feeling. The
proposed tribunal was a fair and proper one, and he should be glad to
see as good a one for the administration of English charities: there
ought to be “justice to England.” The second reading was carried by a
majority of seventy-one against five; and on the motion that the bill
should be committed, Mr. M. J. O’Connell gave notice that he should in
committee move amendments. The bill having been subsequently reported,
and being moved for a third reading, Mr. Dominick Browne expressed a
wish for its postponement. The Roman Catholic hierarchy, he said, was
entirely opposed to it; although he admitted that he believed it to be
proposed in a spirit of conciliation. He moved that the bill be read
that day three months; but the amendment found no one to second it; and
after a few observations from Mr. M. J. O’Connell, who now expressed
himself in favour of it, the bill passed.

During this session Lord Beaumont, a Roman Catholic peer, brought in
a bill for the abolition of a number of penal acts, for the most
part obsolete, though still retained in the Irish statute-book. The
lord-chancellor urged Lord Beaumont to abstain from pressing his bill,
as government were about to revise the whole of the penal laws; but
finding his lordship resolved to press the matter, he took the bill into
his own hands. The measure having been amended by the lord-chancellor,
was brought before the house of lords on the 30th of July. In explaining
the various enactments which it was intended to repeal, Lord Lyndhurst
said that the first was a statute of Elizabeth’s reign, directing a
particular form of prayer to be used, under a penalty of three months’
imprisonment for a first offence, six months for a second, and for life
for a third. The second act intended to be repealed punished the denial
of the sovereign’s supremacy in ecclesiastical and religious matters:
first, with forfeiture of goods and chattels; second, with the
penalties of a premunire; and for a third offence, with the penalties
of high-treason. Another act made reconcilement to the see of Rome
high-treason; and imposed a fine of two hundred marks on every priest
performing, and one hundred marks on every person hearing the ceremony.
By another, a Jesuit remaining in England a certain number of days was
made liable to be prosecuted for high-treason; and persons residing
abroad for the purpose of being educated, who should not return within
six months after proclamation to that effect, were also rendered liable
to the penalties of high-treason. Other statutes imposed penalties on
any Roman Catholic who should be found more than three miles distant
from his abode; on parents who sent their children abroad to be
educated; and for not going to church. Another act declared any one
newly converted to the Roman Catholic faith, and his children, if
educated in that faith, incapable of holding any place of trust or
profit. A statute of William and Mary enacted that no Roman Catholic
should come within ten miles of the metropolis, and forbade them to have
any weapons of defence in their houses. By the same bill it was also
provided that if they possessed a horse worth more than five pounds, it
was liable to be forfeited and seized. The bill would also repeal the
act of the 31st George III., which act was an extraordinary jumble of
legislation: they had an act of Elizabeth which required a party to take
a certain oath, and if he refused he was guilty of high-treason; but
by the subsequent act they provided that if he took another oath, and a
much milder one, he was free: yet if a man professing the Roman Catholic
religion did not take either of the oaths, he would be guilty of
high-treason, and liable to all the penalties which attached to that
crime. The only “non-content” to this measure in the house of lords
was the Bishop of London: and he only opposed it because government had
taken it up at the eleventh hour, and without consulting the hierarchy.
The second reading was moved in the house of commons on the 5th of
August by Sir Robert Peel, who took occasion to explain that it did
not do away with any security which had been taken for the established
church by the act passed in 1829 for the relief of Roman Catholics; the
acts to be repealed were mere dead letters, encumbering and discrediting
the statute-book. Mr. Hawes requested to know whether, if obsolete
statutes of a similar nature were to be found on the statute-book,
applicable to the same or other denominations of Christians, government
would be prepared to frame a measure for repealing them. Sir Robert Peel
replied that he would not make any pledge upon the subject; but if there
were any statutes which compelled a conscientious dissenter from the
church of England, upon a heavy penalty, to attend divine service in
that church, he could see no objection to its being erased from the
statute-book. The bill then passed, and received the royal assent.




RESTRICTIONS ON LABOUR IN FACTORIES, ETC.

On the 5th of February Sir James Graham introduced a bill for
the regulation of labour in factories. In explaining the proposed
enactments, he said, that with respect to age, it was resolved that
the term “child” should be defined to mean children between nine and
thirteen, instead of eight and thirteen. Such children were not to be
employed for more than six hours and a half each day, and were not to
be employed in the forenoon and afternoon of the same day. In the
existing law, “young persons” were defined to be persons between the
ages of thirteen and eighteen: he did not wish any alteration in this
respect; but he should propose that such young persons should not be
employed in any silk, cotton, wool, or flax manufactory, for any portion
of the twenty-four hours, longer than from half-past five o’clock to
seven in the summer, and from half-past six o’clock to eight in the
winter:—thus making thirteen hours and a half each day, of which one
hour and a half, should be allowed for meals and rest. In respect to
females, they were not, under any circumstances, to work more than
twelve hours. By this bill, moreover, the recovery of lost time, from
the use of steam and water, would not be allowed, except where the power
used was water-power only: no person so employed was to work more than
thirteen hours. Inspectors would be empowered to notify to mill-owners
whenever they observed that any portion of their machinery was
dangerous, and that in their opinion it required to be cased or covered
up: and if after such notification any accident should occur injurious
to any of the workmen employed, then the inspector would be empowered
to institute a suit for recovering compensation for such injury, and the
damages awarded should be given to the injured party. As to education,
all that the bill would do, would be to give the child from eight to
thirteen years old time for receiving instruction: he was not to be
employed more than six hours and half daily—the remaining portions of
the day _might_ be devoted to education. Leave was given to bring in the
bill, and the house went into committee upon it on the 15th of March.
On one of the clauses being proposed which fixed the limitations of the
hours of labour, Lord Ashley, after forcibly depicting the effects of
factory labour, the injury it inflicted on those employed in it as the
system now existed, both physically, mentally, and morally, moved that
the night, instead of being computed from eight o’clock in the evening,
should be computed from six o’clock. This amendment gave rise to an
animated and earnest debate, which lasted two nights; and on a division,
it was carried by a majority of one hundred and seventy-nine against
one hundred and seventy. The proposal of government having been thus
negatived, Sir James Graham said it would not be consistent with his
duty to drop the measure at the present stage. On the eighth clause,
Lord Ashley would have to move the substitution of “ten” for “twelve”
 hours, and the question could then be considered in a more substantive
form. On the next day Lord Ashley said that it was his intention to
make this proposition; and if affirmed, he should then prepare a clause,
enacting that the present duration of labour, twelve hours, should
continue till the 1st of October, 1844; the period should then fall to
eleven hours, to continue so till the 1st of October, 1846, when the
period of ten hours should commence. In pursuance of this intention,
on the 22nd, when the eighth clause was taken into consideration, which
provided that no young person should be employed daily more than twelve
hours, Lord Ashley moved an amendment, substituting “ten” for “twelve.”
 A contest followed this motion; but the debate which ensued was
characterized by very little novelty, and on a division it was rejected
by a majority of one hundred and eighty-eight against one hundred and
eighty-one. At the same time the clause for twelve hours was rejected by
one hundred and eighty-six against one hundred and eighty-three. Sir
J. Graham then moved that the chairman report progress; stating that he
should take until the following Monday, the 25th, to consider the course
proper for him to adopt under these circumstances. On the 25th Sir James
Graham announced that government had resolved to abandon the bill in
order to bring in a new one. This was not effected without considerable
opposition; but ministers finally triumphed, and leave was given to
bring in a new bill on the 27th. The new bill stood for the second
reading on the 22nd of April; previous to which Lord Ashley announced
that he was determined to move, on the third reading of the bill,
the addition of certain clauses, for the purpose of carrying out the
amendments which he had proposed in the former bill. On the 22nd, the
second reading of the bill having been moved, with an understanding that
the main question was to be considered at a subsequent stage, Mr.
T. Duncombe said that in agreeing to such a course Lord Ashley had
surrendered the whole case. He now merely proposed to take a flying shot
at the bill when it was leaving the house after the third reading: if
that shot missed, the bill would be gone before he could fire a second
barrel. Under these circumstances, on the order of the day for going
into committee of the whole house, he would move that the bill should be
referred to a select committee above stairs. This motion was made,
but it was rejected, and the bill passed through committee without
alteration. The debate on the third reading commenced on the 10th of
May, and was continued for two nights by adjournment. The new bill
enacted that no young person should be employed more than “twelve” hours
daily, as in the abandoned measure: but Lord Ashley, according to his
notice, moved on this occasion a clause restricting the hours of labour
to eleven from October, 1844. On a division, however, this amendment
was negatived by a majority of two hundred and ninety-seven against one
hundred and fifty-nine, and the bill then passed the commons. In the
house of lords this controverted bill passed without much discussion.




THE CORN-LAWS AND FREE-TRADE QUESTION.

During this session, as Sir Robert Peel had proclaimed at its
commencement the intention of government to maintain the recent
settlement of the corn-laws, the exertions of the free-trade party
in parliament were confined to two or three desultory motions, rather
indicating their protest against the existing system than tending to
practical results. On the 12th of March Mr. Cobden brought the corn-law
question before the house of commons, in the shape of a motion for
a committee to inquire into the effects of protective duties on
agricultural labourers and tenants. This motion gave rise to a
considerable debate, but it was negatived by a majority of two hundred
and twenty-four against one hundred and thirty-three. About the same
time Mr. Ricardo moved, “That an humble address be presented to her
majesty, praying that her majesty will be graciously pleased to give
directions to her servants not to enter into any negociation with
foreign powers which would make any contemplated alterations of the
tariffs of other countries; and humbly expressing to her majesty the
opinion of this house that the great object of relieving the commercial
intercourse between this country and foreign nations from all injurious
restrictions will be best promoted by regulating our own customs’
duties, as may be most suitable to the financial and commercial
interests of this country, without reference to the amount of duties
which foreign powers may think it expedient for their own interests to
levy on British goods.” In advocating this motion, Mr. Ricardo dwelt on
the inutility of all our recent commercial diplomacy; and contended that
our objects might be as effectually attained by judicious legislation
with respect to our imposts, as by intricate negociations with respect
to exports. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ewart, and supported by Sir
J. Hanmer and Mr. Hume; but there not being forty members present, the
house was counted out. Mr. Villiers brought forward his annual motion
against the corn-laws on the 25th of June. He moved:—“That it appears
by a recent census, that the people of this country are rapidly
increasing in number. That it is in evidence before this house that a
large proportion of her majesty’s subjects are insufficiently provided
for with the first necessaries of life. That, nevertheless, a corn-law
is in force, which restricts the supply of food, and thereby lessens its
abundance. That any such restriction, having for its object to impede
the free purchase of an article upon which depends the subsistence of
the community is indefensible in principle, injurious in operation, and
ought to be abolished. That it is therefore expedient that the act 5 &
6 Vic. c. 14, shall be repealed forthwith.” The debate on this motion
occupied two evenings. Mr. Villiers supported it on the same ground
which had been traversed by former argument on the same subject. By the
facts and arguments which he adduced, he contended that he established
these positions:—“That the supply of food had been deficient; that
great inconvenience had resulted; and that the protective system had
led to the cultivation of the land in a most slovenly manner.” Mr.
Gladstone, on the part of government, announced his intention of calling
upon the house to give a direct negative to the original resolutions.
Lord John Russell said that the motion placed him in a difficult
position: he could not vote for the total and immediate repeal of
the protective duty, neither could he assent to maintain the existing
corn-law. Sir Robert Peel, who spoke towards the close of the debate,
said that the performance of the evening had been for the benefit of the
company which usually performed at Covent Garden Theatre. Mr. Villiers,
in closing the debate, said, that there was nothing for him to reply to,
since no one had controverted his arguments. The speech which Sir Robert
Peel had delivered would please the agriculturists; but he had made
the same sort of speech for them in 1839, and had thrown them overboard
afterwards, because the state of the season and the distress of the
people had made it indispensable to give some relief to the country.
He predicted that the same thing would happen again. The motion was
rejected by a majority of three hundred and twenty-eight against one
hundred and twenty-four.




FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

At this time, in consequence of the great abundance of capital in tire
market, there was a general impression that the time had arrived when a
considerable saving might be effected to the country, by a reduction
in those stocks which bore the highest rate of interest. Early in the
present session, indeed, it was discovered that government contemplated
a plan for reducing the three and a half per cent, consols, which, at
the commencement of the year, had reached the price of 102 ½. This
plan was developed by Mr. Goulburn, in a lucid and able speech, on the
8th of March. He was about to ask the house, he said, to deal with the
largest sum for which any government had been called on to propose
a regulation, being no less than £250,000,000 of money. Never, he
continued, was there a period when capital, seeking an investment, was
so plentiful, and the rate of interest so low as at present; and there
was nothing in the circumstances of the times which gave any reason to
suppose that this state of things would prove transient. The condition
of the public finances also was favourable to the proposed object; for,
thanks to the firmness of the house of commons, the revenue once more
exceeded the expenditure. In explaining this measure, he said that
he was not disposed to purchase an immediate relief by increasing the
burdens of succeeding times. He had, therefore, rejected the idea of
lowering the present interest by augmenting the capital of the debt. His
intention was to propose the conversion of the three and a half into
a three and a quarter per cent, stock, which should continue until
October, 1854, after which period the interest should be reduced to
three per cent., with a guarantee that for twenty years there should be
no further reduction. By this measure the public, from October, 1844, to
1854, would save £625,000 per annum, which saving, from and after 1854,
would become £1,250,000 per annum. Mr. Goulburn also proposed to make
such arrangement that, from next October, the payments of interests
would be nearly equalized in each quarter. His speech was received with
loud demonstrations of approbation from both sides of the house; and the
resolution being put, was carried unanimously. The bill brought in,
to give it effect, passed rapidly through its stages in the house of
commons; and it was carried through the upper house with equal unanimity
and facility, all being convinced that it was a sound and practical
measure, and honest withal to the public creditor.

The annual financial statement for this year was made on the 24th
of April, when Mr. Goulburn had the satisfaction of showing that the
receipts exceeded the expenditure. There had been an increase of amount
in all the estimates: in the customs, the excise, the stamps, the taxes,
the post-office, and the property-tax. The estimate of the total revenue
was £50,150,000; the sum received £52,835,134, showing an increase of
about £2,700,000. The expenditure also was less than the estimate
by £650,000; and the total result was that, instead of the estimated
surplus of £700,000, the gross surplus amounted to £4,165,000. From
this, however, there was the deficiency of last year to be taken,
namely, £2,749,000; and when this was discharged there was a net surplus
of £1,400,000 over the expenditure of the year ending April, 1844. The
total estimate of the revenue for the year following was £51,790,000,
and the expenditure £49,643,170, whereby an apparent surplus of
£3,146,000, or, making a deduction for a portion of the debt to be
discharged next year, £2,376,000. Mr. Goulburn proceeded to say that
this balance having been anticipated, he had been pressed from all
quarters to reduce various taxes. He would gladly have done so, but the
source of the surplus was not permanent: it was mainly the income-tax
which was to be considered next year, in order to determine whether
it should be prolonged, as had originally been proposed, for two years
beyond the first. If other taxes were now hastily reduced before
the operation of the tariff could be known, the house might have no
alternative next year but to continue this tax. It was under these
circumstances that he resisted large reductions; but he thought there
were some articles upon which remission might be afforded, with a fair
prospect of making up revenue by an increased consumption, and with a
probability of increasing the consumption of other articles. The items
which he proposed to select for such remission were glass, vinegar,
currants, coffee, marine insurance, and wool, upon the aggregate of
which the amount of duty to be remitted would be £387,000 per annum.
Later in the session he intended to take the sugar duties into
consideration; when he should recommend that England should admit, at a
differential duty of ten shillings per cwt., the sugar of those
states which do not cultivate that commodity by slave-labour. After
considerable discussion, in which several members recommended the
reduction or abolition of other taxes, the motion of Mr. Goulburn was
agreed to; and the customs duties bill, and other bills founded on his
proposition, subsequently passed through both houses with unanimity.




SUGAR-DUTIES BILL, ETC.

The great conflict of parties was reserved for the sugar duties. The
chancellor of the exchequer’s views on this subject were propounded on
the 3rd of June, when, after delivering a lucid and able speech on
the sugar duties at present existing, and explaining his intended
alterations in those duties, he moved:—“That towards raising the supply
granted to her majesty, the several duties now payable on sugar be
further continued for a time to be limited, save and except that from
and after the 10th day of November next, there shall be charged on brown
Muscovado, or clayed sugar, certified to be the growth of China, Java,
or Manilla, or of any other foreign country, the sugar of which her
majesty in council shall have declared to be admissible as not being the
produce of slave-labour, £114s. the cwt., together with the additional
duty of £5 per cent, on the afore-mentioned rate. That from and after
the 10th day of November next her majesty be authorized by order in
council to give effect to the provisions of any treaty now in force,
which binds her majesty to admit sugar, the produce of a foreign
country, at the same duties as are imposed on sugar the produce of the
most favoured nation.” Lord John Russell had announced that he would
propose an amendment for including slave-grown sugar in that foreign
produce which was to be admitted at diminished duties; but Mr. Goulburn
said he could not believe that the house would consent to throw away the
whole of that large amount which the country had recently paid for the
abolition of slavery, by creating, through a new rise of prices, an
additional stimulus to the importation of slaves into the foreign
colonics. Lord John Russell, however, combated the views of government
at great length; after which he moved, as an amendment, “That towards
raising the supply granted to her majesty, instead of the duties of
customs now payable on sugar, there shall be charged on brown, or
Muscovado sugar, the produce of any foreign country, the sum of £1 14s.
per cwt.” In support of his motion the noble lord argued, that the time
was come when the sugar duties ought to undergo a full consideration.
It was proposed, he said, to admit the sugar of Java and Manilla as
free-grown, though the policy of these countries was questionable in
point of personal freedom; but the sugar of Porto Rico was excluded,
because our conscience was shocked at the notion that some part of
it might have been produced by slaves. But what was thus forbidden
directly, was allowed circuitously; we were willing to refine and
export this slave-grown sugar, and to take the hemp and tallow of
Russia in its stead, which seemed to be an easy way of letting down
our consciences. This savoured of hypocrisy. If the United States were
permitted to send us their sugars, which they would do to the extent of
50,000 tons per annum, they would take slave-grown sugar into their own
consumption to the same extent; and to that whole extent, therefore,
would give encouragement to slave-grown sugar. No implicit faith,
moreover, was to be placed in the certificates of the Americans. Messrs.
Gladstone and Baring defended the government measure; and Messrs.
Hume, Labouchere, and M. P. Stewart opposed it. On a division Lord
John Russell’s amendment was negatived by one hundred and ninety-seven
against one hundred and twenty-eight. A few days afterwards, a bill
founded on the chancellor of the exchequer’s resolutions was brought
in, and was read a second time without discussion. But the most critical
crisis for ministers had yet to be encountered. On the 14th of June, the
house having resolved itself into committee on the sugar-duties bill,
Mr. P. Miles objected to the change proposed by ministers in the old
amount of protection as a measure which was not expedient, and not final
in its settlement; wherefore he moved as an amendment, “That, from the
10th of November next, the duty on British colonial sugar should be.
20s.; on the sugars of China, Java, and Manilla, 30s.; with a duty
of 34s. upon the foreign sugars, when imported at a certain degree of
refinement, and with an addition, as usual, of five per cent, upon the
whole.” This amendment was seconded by Mr. H. Baillie, who described the
measure of government as causing general dissatisfaction; and asserted
that, while it violated the principle of refusing encouragement to
the foreign slave-trade, it gave but partial advantages to the British
people. A long discussion took place, in which many members took part;
and on a division government was defeated by a majority of two hundred
and forty-one against two hundred and twenty-one. The committee then
adjourned to the 17th; on which day Sir Robert Peel rose to put the
house in possession of the course which government intended now to
pursue. After explaining the nature of the sugar duties, and their
views in the proposed alterations, and asserting that he believed a
concurrence between the friends and the opponents of ministers had been
concerted in the late division, he said the course which government
would now take, and on which all members would be free, who had not
engaged to vote for Mr. Miles’s proposal of 20s., would be to propose,
as an amendment, that 24s. should be the duty. They wished it to
be known in the countries east of the Cape what the intentions of
government were. Sir Robert Peel went on to explain the reasons why he
did not content himself with merely proposing a renewal of the present
sugar duties; after which, he said, that he was not insensible to
the impediments which had been opposed to the progress of ministerial
legislation. In certain of their measures, government had failed to
obtain the approbation of some whose support they valued: but they were
not prepared to purchase that approbation at the price of refraining
from the policy which they deemed essential to the welfare of the
country. They had felt it their duty to make a relaxation of duties;
in that course they held it their duty to persevere: and he was anxious
that on so important an occasion there should be no deception and no
reserve. Lord John Russell considered that the proposal of Sir Robert
Peel was neither more nor less than that the house should retract its
former vote, and thus disgrace itself with the country. For his own part
he was not much moved by their threats of quitting office, as he had not
been one of the general supporters of the government. He justified
the degree of concert which had taken place between Mr. Miles and the
opposition; and asked if there had not also been a combination on his
side. In conclusion, he warned the house that if they gave Sir Robert
Peel the victory on this occasion, they would henceforth be wholly in
his power. Mr. P. Miles denied that the conspiracy existed of which the
right honourable baronet had spoken, and expressed his regret that he
intended to persevere with his bill: he should have thought he would
have been justified in paying due deference to the decision of a
majority of that house, and postponing his measure till another session.
Messrs. Cochrane and Labouchere opposed; and Sir Howard Douglas, and
Messrs. Kemble and Warburton expressed their intention to vote with
ministers. Mr. D’Israeli was not a little lost in wonder when he heard
the threatened resignation of ministers; and facetiously congratulated
the administration and the country, that instead of resigning, the right
honourable baronet had simply moved an amendment. Several other members
took part in the debate; and on a division Mr. Miles’s motion was
negatived this time by a majority of two hundred and fifty-five against
two hundred and thirty-three; after which Sir Robert Peel’s amendment,
that 24s. and 84s. should be inserted, was agreed to. In committee
further discussion occurred, and several amendments ‘were moved; but
they were all negatived and the bill finally passed the commons.

The principal debate in the house of lords took place on the 2nd of
July, when Lord Dalhousie moved the third reading. In his speech, the
noble lord showed the prejudicial effects of the emancipation of the
slaves in the West Indies on the supply of labour, and the consequent
diminished production of sugar. This diminution had increased the price;
and it became requisite to provide a supply from other quarters to
answer the increase of demands. It was for this purpose that the present
measure was introduced. By the act, which it was intended to supersede,
all foreign sugar was subjected to a duty of 63s. per cwt. and five per
cent.; and British sugar to a duty of only 24s., and five per cent. This
bill proposed to leave the duty on sugar, the produce of the British
possessions, as it then stood, namely, 24s. and five per cent.; but
it proposed to effect an important alteration with respect to foreign
sugar, by allowing the sugar of China, Java, and Manilla to be admitted
at a duty of 34s. and five per cent., such sugar being the produce of
free labour; and it also proposed to give to her majesty in council
a power to admit, under peculiar circumstances, sugar, the produce
of other countries with which we had reciprocal treaties, such
being-certified to be _bona fide_ the sugar of those countries, and
the produce of free labour. The bill was opposed by the Marquis of
Lansdowne, Earl St. Vincent, and Lord Monteagle; and supported by the
Earl of Radnor, and Lords Ashburton and Brougham. After a few words from
Earl Dalhousie, in reply, it was read a third time, and passed without a
division.




BANK CHARTER AND BANKING REGULATIONS.

In the speech at the opening of parliament, her majesty had alluded to
measures about to be brought forward for the regulation of the Bank of
England, and the administration of banking concerns in general. On the
6 th of May, in accordance with this announcement, the house having
resolved itself into a committee upon the Bank charter, Sir Robert Peel
explained these measures. The act of 1833, he said, had empowered the
government to notify to the Bank, before August, 1844, that parliament
meant to deal anew with the subject; and government now proposed
that parliament should exercise that power of notification. The right
honourable baronet went on to consider the principle of value. What, he
asked, was a pound, and what the engagement to pay a pound? He contended
that the word meant more than an abstraction—that it meant a certain
weight of precious metal; and the engagement of a maker of a promissory
note was to pay on demand a definite amount of that metal and fineness.
A real measure of value in this just sense had existed till the year
1797, when bank paper became issuable without being convertible into
metal. For some years the subject attracted little attention, until
the bullion committee of 1810 propounded a sounder theory. This theory,
however, was unsatisfactory to the people at large, and a notion became
general that a pound was merely an abstraction. Some writers had argued,
he continued, that gold was unfit to be a particular medium, because
it was an article of commerce. There were several theories upon this
subject. For instance, Mr. Ricardo conceived that paper should be
convertible only when the notes tendered for specie should reach to
upwards of a certain high amount; but he preferred, to adhere to
the present system of a single gold standard, and a five pound note
convertible into gold. The right honourable baronet next proceeded to
state his views respecting the principle for the regulation of a paper
currency, making a distinction between bills of exchange and those
promissory notes, which, being payable to bearer, served the direct
purposes of money. He next stated the outline of the practical measures
he was prepared to recommend. He remarked: “I propose, with respect to
the Bank of England, that there should be an actual separation of the
two departments of issue and banking—that there should be different
offices to each, and a different system of account. I likewise propose
that to the issue department should be transferred the whole amount
of bullion now in the possession of the Bank, and that the issue of
bank-notes should hereafter take place on two foundations: first, on a
definite amount of securities, and, after that, exclusively upon that of
bullion; so that the action of the public would, in this latter respect,
govern the amount of the circulation. There will be no power in the
Bank to issue notes on deposits and discount of bills; and the issue
department will have to place to the credit of the banking department
the amount of notes which the issue department by law will be entitled
to issue. With respect to the banking business of the Bank, I propose
that it should be governed on precisely the same principles as would
regulate any other body dealing with Bank of England notes. The fixed
amount of securities on which I propose that the Bank of England should
issue notes is £14,000,000; and the whole of the remainder of the
circulation is to be issued exclusively on the foundation of bullion.
I propose that there should be a complete and periodical publication
of the accounts of the Bank of England, both of the banking and issue
departments, as tending to increase the credit of the Bank, and to
prevent panic and needless alarm. I would, therefore, enact by law that
there should be returned to the government a weekly account of the
issue of notes by the Bank of England; of the amount of bullion; of
the fluctuations of the bullion; of the amount of the deposits; and, in
short, an account of every transaction, both in the issue department and
the banking department of the Bank of England; and that the government
should forthwith publish, unreservedly and weekly, a full account of the
circulation of the Bank.” Sir Robert Peel next explained the regulations
proposed by him for private banks. The general rule, he said, would be
to draw a distinction between the privilege of issue, and the conduct of
banking business: the object being to limit competition, but to make the
great change with as little detriment as possible to private interests.
From this time no new bank of issue would be constituted; but all those
existing would be allowed to retain the privilege, upon condition that
they do not exceed the present amount, to be calculated upon the average
of a term of years. This would enable the Bank of England to know the
extent of issue with which it would have to compete. While the issues
would be restricted, banking business would be facilitated; the
privilege of suing and being sued, at present withheld from joint-stock
banks, would be accorded; the law of partnership would be so altered,
that while the acts of an individual director, or otherwise authorized
partner, would bind the whole, the acts of an unauthorized partner would
not do so; and joint-stock banks in London, at present forbidden to
accept bills for a date of less than six months, would be placed on an
equality with other banks, and allowed to accept bills of any amount and
any date. If the last privilege were abused by the circulation of small
bills, he would then appeal to parliament to correct the evil. All
joint-stock banks would be required to publish a full and complete
periodical list of all partners and directors, and banks of issue to
publish an account of their issues. Joint-stock banks would also be
prohibited from having shares of less than £100, £50, or some fixed
amount; and no new joint-stock bank should be constituted except upon
application to a government department, on registration of prospectuses,
and probably registration of shares and paid-up capital. Reverting
to the proposition respecting the Bank of England, Sir Robert Peel
remarked:—“It is to be allowed issues to the extent of a fixed
amount of securities, £14,000,000. The existing loan of £11,000,000 to
government, at three per cent., will be continued, there appearing no
advantage in change.

“The remaining £3,000,000 will be based upon exchequer bills and other
securities, over which the Bank will have entire control; with
the power, however, of limiting its issues on that portion of the
securities, to restore the exchanges, and so forth: there could hardly
be a case in which the securities could safely be diminished to less
than £11,000,000. The Bank will also be allowed to extend its issues
beyond the £14,000,000 on emergency, but only with the assent of three
members of the government; and in such case the whole of the net profit
on any amount beyond the £14,000,000 will revert to government. A
case might arise such as the sudden extinction of £2,000,000 of the
provincial currency, which would need an extension of the Bank currency
to fill the gap. Without seeing any great advantage in the ‘legal
tender’ clause, it is proposed to continue it, in order to facilitate
the circulation of bank paper. The pecuniary arrangements between the
Bank and government have to be explained, The Bank retains the privilege
of issuing notes on securities to the amount of £14,000,000, at three
per cent., which would yield £420,000. From this there are deductions to
be made. The total cost of the Bank on an issue of £20,000,000, has been
estimated at £117,000; but take it at about £113,000, which, taken from
£420,000, leaves £307,000. There is then to be deducted about £60,000
composition with the Stamp-Office for the privilege of issuing notes.
Then there is about £24,000 paid by the Bank to those bankers who
undertake to issue Bank of England notes: taking-one per cent, on a
payment of three per cent. The result, after subtracting these items, is
£220,000 derived from the issuing of notes. Hitherto the Bank has paid
£120,000 to government for its privileges: its privileges are now to be
affected; but on the other hand increased stability is to be given to
its banking business; and I propose that in future the Bank should
still pay that sum, besides the £60,000 for the composition with the
Stamp-Office, making in all about £180,000. Government pay to the Bank
£240,000 for the management of the public debt; and the difference
between the two last sums would be the balance that government would
have to pay over to the Bank.” After stating that the present measure
would not be extended to Ireland and Scotland, Sir Robert Peel
concluded with moving a string of resolutions which embodied the above
propositions. His scheme met with general approbation; and on the 20th
of May, the house having gone into committee on the resolutions, Sir
Robert Peel made some further explanations upon points in the detail
of the measure. He would suppose, he said, that the circulation in
the country was £8,000,000; that the country banks would desire, by
agreement with the Bank of England, to reduce this by one-half; and that
it might become necessary for that establishment to make fresh issues in
order to supply the vacuum. The cases then in which he would allow the
Bank to do so, would be those of a country bank failing, or closing,
or commuting its own circulation for that of the Bank of England.
With respect to the question, whether the bullion on which the Bank of
England was to issue its notes should include silver, he proposed that
it should; but without departing from the great principle that there
must be but one standard, and that standard a gold one; all he meant
was, that if a party brought silver to the Bank, the Bank might, within
a certain limit, give its notes in exchange for it. If this were not
permitted, the Bank having no interest in keeping a supply of silver,
would probably cease to keep it; but it was important for the country
to have access to such a supply, not only for domestic circulation, but
with reference to foreign commerce. He proposed, therefore, to permit
an issue of notes upon silver bullion, in the proportion of one-fifth of
the whole, or one part in silver to four in gold. With respect to banks
of issue, he would save them their circulation until parliament should
make further order, and he would compute that circulation upon the
average of its amount from the 6th May, 1842, to the 6th May, 1844,
requiring henceforth a weekly publication of it. Where one bank took
the business of another, the benefit of the averages of the extinguished
bank should be given in the circulation of the surviving bank. If a bank
should increase its branches, it would not be allowed to increase
its total issues. If private banks should coalesce, the consolidated
concern, being still a private bank, should be permitted to retain the
benefit of the circulation of all the component banks, but a change
of character would not be permitted: joint-stock banks would not be
authorized to buy up the circulation of private banks. Sir Robert Peel
next explained the way in which he intended that the new plan should
operate with respect to those banks which had been issuing Bank of
England notes, and announced that the Bank of England was prepared to
enter into negociations with other banks for arrangements under which
its notes should be circulated by them. He concluded by adverting to
some exceptions which had been taken to some parts of his measure,
in doing which he showed that they were founded upon safe and just
principles. After a brief discussion, the resolutions were passed, and
the second reading of the bill founded upon them was moved on the 13th
of June. Mr. Hawes moved as an amendment:—“That no sufficient evidence
has been laid before the house to justify the proposed interference with
banks of issue in the management of their circulation.” This motion
was supported by Messrs. Hastie, Woolehouse, C. Buller, Gisborne, and
Williams; and opposed by the chancellor of the exchequer, Sirs R.
Peel and W. Clay, and Messrs. Hume and Warburton. On a division it was
negatived by a majority of one hundred and eighty-five against thirty;
and after some further discussions in committee, in which some members
attempted to introduce modifications in the bill, all the original
propositions were carried, and, with the exception of a small section,
with the general concurrence of the house. In the house of lords it
received very little discussion. The first and second readings passed
_sub silentio_; and it went through committee without any division: the
Earl of Radnor and Lord Ashburton only expressing fears of its practical
working.




DISSENTERS’ CHAPELS BILL.

During this session a bill was brought into the house of lords by the
lord-chancellor for confirming the possession of religious endowments in
the hands of dissenters, and arresting such litigation as had recently
taken place in the case of Lady Hewley’s charities, which were endowed
by her for Calvinistic Independents, but which had gradually passed
to the Unitarians, whose occupancy was successfully opposed. The
lord-chancellor’s bill proposed to terminate all further legal
controversy respecting the right to voluntary endowments connected with
dissenting chapels, by vesting the property in the religious body in
whose hands it had been for twenty years. The bill was opposed in
the house of lords by the Bishops of London and Exeter, the Earl of
Winchilsea, and Lords Kenyon, Teynham, and Mountcashel; but it was
carried by a large majority. Before it came under discussion in the
house of commons a vigorous opposition was manifested against it,
especially by the Trinitarian dissenters. Public meetings were held,
and petitions were sent up from all quarters against the obnoxious
proposition. Under these circumstances, on the 6th of June, when the
second reading of the bill was moved, the attorney-general explained its
objects, which, he said, had been misunderstood. The alarm which this
bill had created, namely, that it would have the effect of encouraging
Unitarian doctrines, he contended was wholly unfounded. An act had been
passed in 1813, legalizing the foundation of schools and chapels for
the benefit of the Unitarians, and placing them upon the same footing
as other Protestant dissenters. The question then arose respecting
foundations which might have been made before 1813, when the Unitarians
were excepted out of the Toleration Act: namely, would they or ought
they to take from that body, which was now legal, and could legally
endow chapels, that which they possessed, because it was given them
before the year 1813? The first clause of the bill put not only
Unitarians, but all Protestant dissenters on the same footing; it
rendered the toleration act retrospective. The second clause, he
continued, related to dissenting chapels only; not to general charitable
foundations. By the present law, the will of the donor must be binding;
but it was not to be assumed, in the case of every religious charity,
that it was founded for a particular sect, even though the donor held
the doctrine of that sect. It was said, that the bill would encourage
trustees to violate their trusts, and hand over the property for
purposes not intended by the donor. It could do no such thing.
Dissenting chapels were thus founded:—Congregations of dissenters
wishing to establish places of meeting and chapels for worship, formed
together voluntary associations, which associations subscribed funds,
purchased the land, and built the chapels. In the first instance these
chapels were vested in trustees; but he was told that so little had the
trustees to do with the arrangement or control of these chapels, that
in the great majority of cases when the original trustees died, no
fresh ones were appointed to succeed them: the congregation relying upon
possession. In this country every question of private right was decided
upon usage; twenty or thirty years’ possession prevailed against both
the crown and the church. Why then should it not be applied to the
property in dissenters’ chapels? He was told that the consequence might
be, that property now possessed by Presbyterians or other dissenters
would in the lapse of time fall into the hands of the Unitarians. How
could it be so? By the bill the usage must be that of the congregation.
Notwithstanding this explanation, the bill was strenuously opposed in
the commons by Sir Kobert Inglis, who moved that it should be read a
second time that day six months, and by other members of the house, who
looked upon it as outraging and insulting the Christian feeling of the
country. On a division the amendment of Sir Robert Inglis was negatived
by a majority of three hundred and seven against one hundred and seven.
The house then went into committee on the bill, and having made some
unimportant amendments to it; it passed and was sent up to the lords,
where it again became the subject of discussion. It was opposed in its
progress by the Bishop of London, who moved “that the amendments be
taken into consideration that day three months,” but this was negatived
by two hundred and two against forty-one, and the bill then passed.




SEES OF BANGOR AND ST. ASAPH.

During this session the Earl of Powis renewed his proposition for
repealing so much of the act of the 6th and 7th William IV. as related
to the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor. In Ins speech the
noble lord laid great stress on the numerous petitions from every county
in North Wales, and from many in South Wales and England, as testifying
the unanimous feeling pervading the clergy throughout both countries
and all classes in Wales against the suppression of one of those ancient
bishoprics. On its second reading, the measure was opposed by the Duke
of Wellington and the Archbishop of Canterbury; and supported by the
Bishops of St. Davids, Lincoln, Exeter, London, and Salisbury, and the
Earls of Winchilsea and Harrowby. On a division, it was carried by
a majority of forty-nine against thirty-seven; but though the second
reading was thus carried, a difficulty arose in another quarter, which
frustrated the endeavours of the friends of North Wales to preserve the
integrity of its episcopate. On the motion for its third reading, the
Duke of Wellington announced that the bill was one which touched the
prerogative of the crown, and that he was not authorized to give her
majesty’s consent to its further progress. The manner in which the
question of the crown’s prerogative arose in this case was explained by
the lord-chancellor. His lordship remarked, that during the vacancy of
a see, the temporalities belonged to the crown; and any alterations in a
see, therefore, affected the pecuniary interests of the crown; and there
could be no doubt that where the pecuniary interests of the crown
were concerned, its consent was necessary. He doubted whether he was
authorized in putting a question affecting the royal prerogative without
the consent of her majesty; and he suggested the appointment of a
committee to search for precedents. A committee was appointed, and under
these circumstances Lord Powis announced his determination to withdraw
the bill, stating at the same time his conviction that the matter would
not rest where it was. He believed that during the whole period the
house of Hanover had been on the throne there was no precedent to be
found to sanction the present course adopted by government. There was
no measure that parliament had expressed a wish for them to consider,
in which the crown had introduced its authority to prevent the further
consideration of that measure.




MISCELLANEOUS MEASURES OF THE SESSION.

In the course of the session there were several acts passed of great
utility without any prominent discussion. One of the most important of
these was an act for the regulation of railways, which was brought in
by Mr. Gladstone, and which embodied a variety of enactments designed
to protect the public against the injurious effects of monopoly and
combination, by vesting in the government a controlling power over such
companies as should thereafter come to solicit powers from parliament,
and a right of intervention for the reduction of charges and tolls
whenever the profits of a railway should exceed the maximum of ten per
cent, on its capital. The act also contained salutary regulations
for securing economy and comfort in travelling to the poorer classes.
Another act passed contained provisions of practical importance for the
regulation of joint-stock companies. The main object of this measure
was to protect the public against fictitious and delusive schemes,
by requiring from all joint-stock companies the observance of certain
conditions for the purpose of ascertaining their real character, and
subjecting them to an efficient responsibility. There was to be a system
of registration under a proper superintendence, whereby the names and
descriptions of the projectors, and the particular nature and objects
of the undertaking were required to be enrolled at an office established
for that purpose. Upon compliance with these regulations, certain
privileges were to be accorded to the company, and some anomalies and
inconveniences heretofore existing removed. Reports were also to be
made annually to parliament by an officer to be appointed under the act,
relating to such companies as should have come within its provisions
during the year. A third Act remodelled the entire system of
turnpike-road management in South Wales, the abuses of which had given
rise to the Rebecca riots. The leading principle of this measure was the
consolidation of trusts, the debts of those existing being paid off by a
system of arbitration, to be conducted by three commissioners appointed
by government; the money required for this purpose being lent by
the treasury, and secured on the rates of the several counties. The
consolidation having been effected, all the roads in each county were
to be administered by a now executive body, consisting partly of
_ex-officio_ members, partly of magistrates, and partly of ratepayers.
A further alteration was made this session in the original poor-law
amendment act, the principal feature of which was an alteration in
the enactments of the statute of 1835, relating to the maintenance of
illegitimate children. By this alteration, a more efficient mode of
obtaining from the father a provision for his child’s maintenance was
placed in the power of the mother, by means of a proceeding in which
she herself was entitled to make the application, and not, as under the
original law, the officers of the parish: more stringent remedies were
also substituted for enforcing the remedy against the putative father
than had before existed. Towards the close of the session, repeated
discussions of an animated nature took place in both houses of
parliament, on the subject of a petition which was presented by Mr.
Thomas Duncombe, from Serafino Calderara, Joseph Mazzini, W. J. Linton,
and William Lovett, complaining that their letters had been opened at
the post-office. Mr. Duncombe, in the commons, and the Earl of Radnor
in the lords, moved for committees of inquiry, which were ultimately
appointed; and these committees made their reports during the session;
from which reports it appeared that the warrants of the secretary of
state had only been issued in peculiar emergencies; and that the cases
in which his power had been exercised formed a small annual average,
and did not amount to an invasion of private correspondence, which the
assailants of government had represented. No other result arose out of
the conflicts upon this subject than a bill introduced by Lord Radnor,
in the house of lords, for the abolition of the power complained of; but
this bill did not proceed beyond the first reading.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued by commission on the 5th of September. The
speech announced that her majesty had given her cordial assent to
the bill for regulating the issue of bank-notes; adverted to some
discussions which had taken place with the government of the king of the
French on events calculated to interrupt the friendly relations of the
two countries, but which danger had been averted; congratulated the
houses on the improvement which had taken place in the condition of
manufactures and commerce; and expressed high satisfaction at the spirit
of loyalty and cheerful obedience to the law manifested in all parts of
her majesty’s kingdom. The commissioners concluded:—“We are commanded
by her majesty to assure you that when you shall be called upon to
resume the discharge of your parliamentary functions, you may place
entire reliance on the cordial co-operation of her majesty in your
endeavours to improve the social condition and to promote the happiness
and contentment of her people.” Thus ended this important session—a
session signalized in the addition to the statute-book of severed
important measures, conceived in a safe and judicious spirit of reform,
well suited to the circumstances of the country and to the temper of the
age.




THE STATE OF INDIA.

The event of chief interest connected with the present year was the
recall of Lord Ellenborough, the governor-general, by the unanimous vote
of the court of directors. This subject, as noticed in a previous page,
gave rise to discussion in both houses of parliament. What were the real
motives of the directors of the East India Company in exercising their
right of recalling a governor-general, which from non-use had almost
become obsolete, and in thus acting in direct opposition to the views
and wishes of her majesty’s government have never been fully developed;
and the public have therefore been driven to conjecture on the subject.
The most probable opinion, perhaps, may be, that the directors were
offended at his evident mania for military achievements. Throughout the
whole of his administration he showed his desire of conquest; and
even when he left India he did not scruple to say, at a farewell
entertainment given him by the military society of Calcutta, that the
only regret he felt in leaving India was that of being separated from
the army; and that the most interesting period of his life was that
which he had passed in cantonments and camps. Another cause of offence
may have been derived from his proclamations, which were offensive to
good taste, and which justly exposed him to ridicule. His behaviour
towards the directors also was by no means judicious; for, although he
had bound himself to attend exclusively to their orders, he was by no
means an obedient servant. But whatever may have been the directors’
motives, Lord Ellenborough was recalled from his government, and Sir
Henry Hardinge was, at the suggestion of Sir Robert Peel, appointed his
successor; and he arrived in India in the month of July.

In Scinde nothing of importance occurred this year. The worst foe which
the British had to encounter there was the climate, owing to which a
distressing sickness prevailed among the troops. In consequence of this
several Bengal native regiments were ordered to march on Scinde; and,
although they at first refused to march, from an impression that they
were destined for foreign service, they finally marched thither, with
the exception of the thirty-fourth native infantry; and that regiment
was ignominiously broken at Meerut, in presence of all the troops at the
station.

During this year a governor-general was appointed over our recent
acquisitions in China, in the person of Mr. Davies, well-known for his
admirable work on China, and who had resided many years at Macao, as
chief superintendent under the East India Company. Mr. Davies arrived on
the 7th of May at Hong Kong, the seat of the new government; and, at the
end of July, Sir Henry Pottinger, whose mission to that empire had been
attended with such complete success, sailed for England.




PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MR. O’CONNELL.

It has been seen in the last chapter that the trial of Mr. O’Connell
and his associates for a seditious conspiracy was postponed till the
commencement of the present year. It was intended that the trial should
commence on the 15th of January; and, although the defendant sought to
obtain a postponement of it till the 1st of February, this intention
was carried out. On that day the Court of Queen’s Bench was crowded
with barristers and spectators, in the expectation that the trial would
commence. Before the jury were sworn, however, Sir Coleman O’Loghlen,
on the part of Mr. O’Connell, challenged the array, on the ground of the
irregularities in the preparation of the jury lists, stating at the same
time that the challenges of the other counsellors, or traversers,
as they were called, because they had traversed the indictment,
were identically the same, and would be handed in very shortly. The
attorney-general demurred to the challenge; on which the question
previously debated was re-argued. The judges, however allowed the
demurrer; and then the court adjourned without swearing the jury. On
the 16th, after some delay, twelve jurymen were sworn, when Mr. Napier
opened the pleadings; after which Mr. Smith, the attorney-general,
opened the case. The court adjourned at five o’clock; and next day the
hearing of evidence commenced, which continued up to the 11th day of the
trial, January 26th, on which day the case for the prosecution closed.
On the next day Mr. Shiel opened the case for the defence, as counsel
for himself and Mr. John O’Connell. In his speech he contended that Mr.
O’Connell shrank with abhorrence from the sanguinary aims imputed to
him; and bitterly complained that poems and articles in newspapers
should be brought as evidence against him, as if he were the editor of
the several journals from which that evidence had been collected. It was
like making, he said, Mr. Cobden answerable for all that appeared in the
_Chronicle_, or the _Globe_, or the _Sun_: he was accused, in fact, of
conspiracy with men who, so far from conspiring together, were rivals.
“They pay their addresses to the same mistress; but they cordially
detest each other.” How formidable, then, was this doctrine of legal
conspiracy! In 1819, when England was in a perilous condition, it was
proved that men were drilled by night near Manchester; yet an English
jury would not find Henry Hunt guilty of conspiracy. Mr. Shiel next
undertook to show that his clients’ objects were legal, and sought by
legal means; and concluded with an impassioned address to the jury on
behalf of Mr. O’Connell and all the traversers. He asked:—“Shall I,
who stretch out to you in behalf of the son the hand whose fetters the
father had struck off, live to cast my eyes upon that domicile of sorrow
in the vicinity of this great metropolis, and say, ’Tis there they
have immured the liberator of Ireland with his fondest and best beloved
child. No; it shall never be! You will not consign him to the spot to
which the attorney-general invites you to surrender him. No! When the
spring shall have come again, and the winter shall have passed—when
the spring shall have come again, it is not through the windows of this
mansion that the father of such a son, and the son of such a father,
shall look upon those green hills on which the eyes of so many a captive
have gazed so wistfully in vain; but in their own mountain home again
they shall listen to the murmurs of the great Atlantic; they shall go
forth, and inhale the freshness of the morning air together; ‘they
shall be free of mountain solitude;’ they will be encompassed with
the loftiest images of liberty upon every side; and if time shall have
stolen its suppleness from the father’s knee, or impaired the firmness
of his tread, he shall lean on the child of her that watches over him
from heaven, and shall look out from some high place, far and wide, into
the island whose greatness and whose glory shall be ever associated with
his name. In your love of justice; in your love of Ireland; in your
love of honesty and fair play, I place my confidence. I ask you for an
acquittal, not only for the sake of your country, but for your own. Upon
the day when this trial shall have been brought to a termination;
when, amidst the burst of public expectancy, in answer to the solemn
interrogatory which shall be put to you by the officer of the court, you
shall answer, ‘Not guilty,’ with what a transport shall that glorious
negative be welcomed! How will you be blessed, adored, worshipped! And
when retiring from the scene of excitement and of passion, you shall
return to your own tranquil homes, how pleasurably will you look upon
your children, in the consciousness that you will have left them a
patrimony of peace, by impressing upon the British cabinet that
some other measure beside a state prosecution is necessary for the
pacification of your country.” On the thirteenth day Mr. Moore addressed
the jury on behalf of the Reverend Mr. Tierney, and Mr. Hatchell for Mr.
Ray. On the fourteenth day Mr. Fitzgibbon spoke on behalf of Dr.
Gray, his address occupying two days. In the course of his address an
extraordinary scene took place, in consequence of a challenge which the
attorney-general had sent to Mr. Fitzgibbon to fight a duel. Of this
circumstance Mr. Fitzgibbon took every advantage. After handing the note
to the judges which contained the challenge, he said that he left him
to their lordships to answer for his conduct. Mutual recriminations
and explanations followed; but the matter resulted in Mr. Smith’s
withdrawing the note, which was allowed by the consent of all parties.
On the four following days, Messrs. Fitzgibbon, Whiteside, M’Donnah,
and Henn, successively addressed the court for different clients. On the
nineteenth day, Mr. O’Connell commenced his defence. He began by showing
that he had a right to demand from the jury a favourable verdict; after
which he came to the consideration of the case itself; in doing which he
retraced, with more or less of variety, arguments already employed. In
referring to the indictment, he said that it was the history of the last
nine months; and that he defied the most brilliant imagination to grasp
the monstrous accumulation of matter. Its entire strength rested on the
meaning of that cabalistic word, “conspiracy.” He continued:—“If, my
lords, I look into the dictionary for the meaning of that word, I find
that it is ‘a secret agreement between several to commit a crime;’ and
that is the rational, common-sense definition of it. This word,
however, in recent times, has been taken under special protection by the
government; and the definition of it now is, not only a secret agreement
between several to commit crime, but they have taken two loops to their
bow, and the further depiction given of it is, to effect, or
attempt to effect, a legal object by means that are considered illegal;
and thus a conspiracy is spelt out by the construction put upon the
means that are used to attain the object sought, however legitimate that
object may be. It has been admitted even by the crown, that in this case
there is no privacy, no secresy, no definite agreement to do anything
whatsoever; but, above all, no secret agreement, no secret society, no
private information. It has been admitted by the crown that there has
not been even one act of private communication; that everything was
openly avowed, published to the world; that this ‘secret conspiracy’
had no secrecy at all. What a monstrous thing it would be to hold that
that was a conspiracy which everybody knew of, everybody heard of, and
three-fifths of the people of this country were engaged in. And what
was the evidence of those conspirators assembling together? That Mr.
Such-a-one attended at such a meeting; that Mr. Barret attended at a
certain meeting; and that Mr. Duffy attended once or twice; that I.
myself attended; and this is the way the charge of conspiracy is to
be spelt out. Is it common sense that that should be denominated a
conspiracy? Conspiracy! where was it made? when was it made? how was it
made? Was it made in winter, or in summer? in spring or in autumn? Was
it made on a holiday, or on a Sunday, or on a week day? Tell me the
hour, the week, the month, the year it was made? In which of the three
quarters of the twelve months did the gestation of this conspiracy
commence? Who proposed it? Who seconded it? Who was present at it? I
don’t know whether it was said that I was present at the concoction of
this conspiracy, or this agreement, private or public, or who else was
there. When and where did it take place? Ought I not, at all events, to
have the advantage of being-able to prove an alibi? No; but you must go
over nine months, and toss up which time or place you may select. Do you
not believe that if there was a conspiracy it would be proved, and that
the only reason it was not proved, is, because it did not exist? The
attorney-general told you it did exist; that it must have existed: but
that is all imaginary; and you are called upon to find me ‘guilty’ if
you imagine that this agreement was entered into. I don’t want to speak
of the talents of the attorney-general. I admit the ingenuity, the
talent, and the industry with which he conducted this case. He was
eleven hours, eleven mortal hours detailing the facts to you. What did
he tell you the conspiracy consisted of? He made a long statement, and
when he came to the end, he told you to go back to the beginning, find
out the conspiracy, and what it consisted of. I say, gentlemen of the
jury, without tire least affectation, if any gentleman could have
found out evidence of a conspiracy, it would have been found by the
attorney-general.” Mr. O’Connell proceeded at great length to defend the
means of his agitation, and then proceeded to vindicate its object—the
repeal of the union. On the latter subject he remarked:—“I mean first
to demonstrate that the English Parliament has, from the remotest
period at which she possessed the power, governed Ireland with a narrow,
jealous, restrictive, and oppressive policy. By way of parenthesis,
I would first beg of you to recollect the history of the woollen
manufactures of Ireland, in the reign of a monarch whom you are not
disposed to condemn. I shall next demonstrate in succession, that the
transactions of 1782 were intended to be a final adjustment, and that
it was then intended and agreed that the Irish parliament, after having
achieved its independence, should maintain it, and that the union was
forced upon the Irish people against their consent, by the most criminal
means. I shall next show you in detail the many evils that resulted from
the union, and the gross injustice of the enactment of that statute. I
shall show you the increasing distress and destitution which have
arisen from that statute; and that there is no probability of restoring
prosperity to this country, or of avoiding ultimate separation from
England, save by the restoration of her parliament.” In support of these
propositions, Mr. O’Connell read extracts from the writings and speeches
of various statesmen, both native and foreign. In conclusion he said to
the jury:—“I leave the case in your hands. I deny I have done anything
to stain me. I reject with contempt the appellation of conspirator. I
have acted boldly, in the open day, in the presence of the magistracy:
there lias been nothing secret or concealed. I have struggled for
the restoration of the parliament of my native country. Others have
succeeded before me; but, succeed or fail, it is a struggle to make the
fairest land in the world possess those benefits which nature intended
she should enjoy.” On the next day some evidence was gone into on behalf
of the defendants, in the course of which it was proved that on the 16th
of July, when an arch was erected bearing the inscription, “Ireland,
her parliament, or the world in a blaze,” Mr. O’Connell expressed
disapprobation of it, and Mr. Steele stood by to see that it was taken
down before the people were fully assembled. The next two days were
chiefly occupied by the solicitor-general’s reply, which recapitulated
the principal points of the evidence, and stated its bearings upon the
different charges laid in the indictment. After he had concluded,
the lord-chief-justice commenced the charge: in doing which he first
explained the nature of the indictment, and of the single offence with
which the traversers were charged, “conspiracy;” then explained the law
of public discussion and public meeting; next proceeded to consider
the evidence that had been given; then commented on the large funds
collected in Ireland, England, Scotland, and America, towards the
“exchequer” of the association; and finally, alluding to the scheme
for bringing into disrepute the courts of justice as established by law
through the arbitration courts, showed in what maimer the conspiracy
was to be inferred. He asked:—“Have you or have you not Dr. Gray coming
forward and telling the assembled multitude that the time was coming
when they would be taken out of the hands of those petty tyrants who at
present preside in their courts of justice? Have you or have you not Mr.
O’Coimell himself adverting to the same system at the Clifden and other
subsequent meetings; recommending the appointment of arbitration courts,
and the placing thereon the magistrates who had been dismissed? And have
you or have you not Mr. John O’Coimell making a speech recommending the
same systems, and appearing himself to act under the appointment of the
repeal association, in presiding over an arbitration court established
in Blackrock?” The jury retired about half-past seven o’clock, and the
judges withdrew. Later in the evening, Mr. Justice Crampton returned,
and remained in court to await the return of the jury. They brought in
a verdict of “guilty” against all the traversers on various counts; but
stated “no finding” upon others, deeming them too comprehensive. This
verdict was handed back by Mr. Justice Crampton, saying, that it was
imperfect: they must find a verdict of “guilty” or “not guilty” upon
every part and every person. Finally, they were ordered to be locked
up till Monday, on which day they were summoned, and an issue paper was
given them, which set forth the five several issues in the indictment
in a distinct shape, against which they were directed to write their
finding. This was done, and all the prisoners were found guilty on one
or other of the counts, and some of them, including Mr. O’Coimell,
on them all, Sentence was pronounced on the 30th of May against the
traversers, with the exception of the Reverend Mr. Tierney, against whom
the attorney-general did not press judgment, by Mr. Justice Burton in
these terms:—“With respect to the principal traverser, the court is
of opinion that he must be sentenced to be imprisoned for the space of
twelve calendar months; and that he is further to be fined in the sum of
£2000, and bound in his own recognizances in the sum of £5000, and two
sureties in £2500, to keep the peace for seven years. With respect to
the other traversers, we have come to the conclusion that to each shall
be allotted the same sentence: which is, that they be imprisoned for the
space of nine calendar months, each of them to pay £50 fine, and enter
into their own recognizances of £1000, and two sureties of £500, to
keep the peace for seven years.” In accordance with this sentence the
traversers were imprisoned: but in consequence of the sympathy, real
or supposed, which they met with in the English parliament, their full
sentence was not carried into execution. On the 9th of August, Messrs.
Shiel, Wyse, Lord John Russell, and others, called upon government to
release them from imprisonment; and the result of this appeal was,
that on the 4th of September, the judgment of the house of lords
was pronounced, reversing the judgment of Mr. O’Connell and his
co-defendants. The prisoners were freed from confinement; but the result
of the trial was, that the virulence of the agitation for repeal abated.




CONTINENTAL AFFAIRS.

France this year was engaged in a war with the Emperor of Morocco, over
whose forces the French troops triumphed on the banks of the river Isly
on the 14th of August. The result of this battle was a treaty between
the two countries, in which the Emperor of Morocco engaged to prevent
troops from assembling on his frontiers for the invasion of Algeria.
During the autumn, Louis Philippe and the Emperor of Russia paid a visit
to Queen Victoria, and stayed a few days in England, where they were
treated with all due honours. In Spain the civil war which had so long
convulsed the nation was ended; but it was succeeded by a state of
doubtful tranquillity, and isolated insurrections broke out in various
parts of the country, which were only put down by force of arms. The
same fate awaited Portugal: there was a revolt of troops at Torres
Novas, headed by Count Bomfin; but the rebels having shut themselves up
in Almeida, that place was invested with government troops, and finally
surrendered, the leader of the insurrection taking refuge in flight.
In Greece the most important event was the framing of a constitutional
charter by the National Assembly, consisting of one hundred and seven
articles, which was signed and ratified, after some hesitation, by
King Otho. During this year the King of Prussia narrowly escaped
assassination at Ischl by the Burgomaster Tschech, who fired two shots
from a double-barrelled pistol in quick succession against the carriage.
In the early part of the year a conference took place at Vienna of
plenipotentiaries from the different German states to frame measures to
secure themselves by all the means in their power against the slightest
change in the existing order of things, which at this time were
threatened by a formidable parly, in the different states hostile to all
authority. In Sweden this j’ear witnessed the death of Bernadotte,
the king of that country, the most permanently successful of all the
generals who took part in the French revolution. Although of obscure
birth and a foreigner, he was called upon to wear the crown of Sweden
by the unanimous voice of the nation; and he so identified himself with
their interests, that he reigned in peace and died universally beloved
by his subjects. In Switzerland disturbances took place this year in the
Valais and at Lucerne: but order and tranquillity were quickly restored
by the federal troops of that country.




CHAPTER LVI.

{VICTORIA. 1845–1846}

     Meeting of Parliament..... Finance and Commercial
     Policy..... Retention of the Income Tax, &c. The Sugar
     Duties Question..... Corn Laws and Free Trade..... The
     Affairs of Ireland..... Maynooth Improvement Bill, &c.
     Academical Education in Ireland..... Colonial Policy.....
     Question of the Oregon Territory..... Miscellaneous
     Measures  of   the   Session..... Prorogation of
     Parliament..... The Affairs of India..... The State of the
     Continent.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1845}

Parliament was opened by the queen in person on the 4th of February. The
speech first referred to the prosperous state of trade and commerce; to
the royal visits made to her majesty by the Emperor of Russia and the
King of France; to the estimates for the ensuing year; and to the peace
which at this time prevailed in Ireland. Her majesty continued:—“I
recommend to your favourable consideration the policy of improving and
extending the opportunities of academical education in Ireland. The
report of the commission appointed to inquire into the law and practice
in respect to the occupation of land is nearly prepared, and shall be
communicated to you immediately after its presentation. The state of
the law in regard to the privileges of the Bank of Ireland, and to other
banking establishments in that country, and in Scotland, will no doubt
occupy your attention. The health of the inhabitants of large towns
and populous districts in this part of the United Kingdom has been the
subject of recent inquiry before a commission, the report of which shall
be immediately kid before you. It will be highly gratifying to me if the
information and suggestions contained in that report shall enable you
to devise the means of promoting the health and comfort of the poorer
classes of my subjects. I congratulate you on the success of the
measures which three years since were adopted by parliament for the
purpose of supplying the deficiency in the public revenue, and arresting
the accumulation of debt in the time of peace. The act which was passed
at that time for imposing a tax upon income will shortly expire. It will
be for you to determine whether it may not be expedient to continue
its operation for a further period, and thus to obtain the means of
adequately providing for the public service, and at the same time of
making a reduction in other taxations. Whatever may be the result of
your deliberations in this respect, I feel assured that it will be your
determination to maintain an amount of revenue amply sufficient to meet
the necessary expenditure of the country, and firmly to uphold that
public credit which is indispensable to the national welfare. The
prospect of continued peace, and the general state of domestic
prosperity and tranquillity, afford a favourable opportunity for the
consideration of the matters to which I have directed your attention;
and I commit them to your deliberation, with the earnest prayer that you
may be enabled, under the superintending care and protection of Divine
Providence, to strengthen the feelings of mutual confidence and goodwill
between different classes of my subjects, and to improve the condition
of my people.”




FINANCIAL AND COMMERCIAL POLICY—RETENTION OF THE INCOME-TAX, ETC.

The great scheme of commercial reform alluded to in her majesty’s speech
at the opening of the session was brought forward by Sir Robert Peel,
in a committee of ways and means, on the 14th of February. The right
honourable baronet commenced by saying that though he had considerable
experience in the discharge of official duties, and though he had often
addressed the house on matters of great public concern, he could not
approach the subject on which he had then to address the committee
without great anxiety, and a deep consciousness how inadequate and
imperfect the explanation would be which he should endeavour to place
before it. After the declaration made in her majesty’s speech, that
it was the intention of ministers to propose the continuance of the
income-tax for a certain number of years; he had no other alternative
than to submit to the house the general views which the government took
of the financial condition and the commercial policy of the country. In
explaining their views, after referring to the estimate of the probable
revenue and expenditure made by the chancellor of the exchequer in
April, 1844, and, after showing that the surplus revenue, on which
he had calculated for the whole year had been greatly exceeded by
the actual amount of revenue received on the 5th of January, 1845,
he proceeded to estimate the surplus revenue which would be in the
exchequer on the 5th of April in the present year, at a sum not less
than £5,000,000. He next submitted to the house an estimate of the
probable receipt of the revenue for the year ending the 5th of
April, 1846, on the assumption that the house would not sanction the
income-tax. He calculated that the receipts up to that period would be
£51,000,000, and the expenditure £48,557,000; but if they deducted from
this surplus the revenue derived from half a year’s income-tax, which
would become due in the interim, and from the payment of the instalment
from China, there would then be a small deficiency in the revenue as
compared with the expenditure of the year. The question then arose,
whether ministers were justified in demanding, under such circumstances,
an increased expenditure on account of the public service. He was
satisfied that they were justified. He did not propose an increase
in the army, but he could not consent to its diminution. The military
estimate for the present year would be £6,600,000; and there were
reasons which induced him to propose an increased estimate for the navy;
namely, the growing necessity for a further protection to our commerce
in every part of the globe, and in the establishment of three new naval
stations—one on the coast of Africa, another in the Pacific, and
a third in the Chinese seas. He should propose an increase of four
thousand men, which would cost £184,000; and in respect of the vote for
the navy, and tire ordnance connected with the navy, there would be in
the votes of this year an increase of nearly one million. He thought the
revenues of the next year would meet this increased expenditure, even
if the house would not consent to continue the income-tax. It was quite
clear, however, that if it did not continue the income tax, there would
be a decrease of revenue in the following year. The question, therefore,
which he must put to the committee was, whether they would run the risk
of deficiency by making no provision to meet it, or whether they would
postpone the consideration of the deficiency till the year 1846. But
ministers were induced to propose the continuance of the property-tax
for a further period. If the committee sanctioned it, the revenue on
the 5th of April, 1846, would amount to £53,700,000; and so long as the
other sources of revenue were productive, might be calculated at that
sum, deducting only a sum of £600,000 from China, which would only
be receivable for one year more. He would take the amount then at
£53,100,000, and deducting £49,000,000, the estimated expenditure, from
that sum there would be a net surplus of £4,100,000, or if the committee
acquiesced in the increased naval estimates, £3,409,000. Sir Robert Peel
next approached the most important question of all; namely, the mode in
which this surplus was to be applied to the relief of taxation. If
the property-tax were continued, ministers intended to make a great
experiment with respect to taxation; and in explaining their views Sir
Robert Peel said that he would first take the customs, and submit to
the house a proposition with respect to the duty on sugar. On brown
Muscovado sugar, which now paid a duty of 25s. 3d., he proposed to
reduce the duty to 14s.; on free-labour sugar he proposed that the
protecting duty should not exceed 9s. 4d., and therefore the duty would
be 23s. 2d.; on British plantation sugars he proposed that the duty
should be 16s. 4d., instead of 25s. 3d.; that the duty on sugar imported
from India should be 21s. 9d.; and that the duty on free-labour
foreign sugar should be 21s. 9d.—thus retaining the whole amount of
discriminating duty which was imposed last year, but applying that
discriminating duty in a different manner; giving 9s. 4d. as a
protection on Muscovado sugar, and an increased protection of lis. 4d.
on the more valuable and costly article. Sir Robert Peel said that he
proposed to reduce the duty on molasses; and after giving an estimate
of the supply of sugar which he considered likely to come from our
possessions this year, stated that the effect which would be produced on
the price of sugar by this reduction in the duty would be a reduction of
three halfpence per pound. The estimated loss to the revenue from this
source would be £1,300,000. Sir Robert Peel next proceeded to state
that in the tariff of 1842 he had abolished generally the duty on all
exports, with the exception of some few articles: he now proposed to
abolish the duty on all articles. By this plan the export duty on coal
would cease to exist, which would be a loss to the revenue of £120,000.
He next proceeded to a consideration of the duties on raw materials used
in manufactures: the tariff included eight hundred and thirteen such
articles, and he proposed to remove the duties applicable to four
hundred and thirty of them; which would occasion a loss to the revenue
of about £320,000. He next stated that he was prepared to abolish the
duty on cotton-wool, which would cause a loss to the revenue of not
less than £680,000. These were all the alterations he proposed in
the customs; and the right honourable baronet next proceeded to the
excise-duties. Among the duties which he proposed to to repeal was the
auction-duty on the transfer of property. He likewise proposed that
auctioneers, instead of taking out several licences, at an expense of
five pounds each, for selling different articles, should take out one
general licence only, at fifteen pounds each; and as the number of
auctioneers was 4000, this would produce a revenue of £60,000. Sir
Robert Peel next stated that he proposed to relieve the article of glass
from all duty, the loss of revenue arising from which would be £642,000.
This was the whole of the articles, he said, on which he proposed a
remission of taxation; and the total immediate loss which the revenue
would sustain by their repeal or abolition, would amount to £3,338,000,
which would nearly absorb the surplus of £3,409,000. He confessed that
this was a bold experiment; but, responsible as he was to parliament
for its success, he was not afraid to ran the risk of making it. He
then proposed to the committee to continue the income-tax for a further
limited period of three years; because he had a confident persuasion
that the reduction in the price of articles of great importance would
be, if not a complete, yet a great compensation for its burden. He would
not say that it might not be wiser to give a longer time than three
years for testing this experiment; but he thought that parliament ought
to have a control over the duration of such a tax. Sir Robert Peel
concluded by expressing a hope that the house would be prepared to
decide on the principle of his resolutions on the following Monday, the
17th, and after several members had made some brief remarks on isolated
parts of the plan, most of them expressive of satisfaction with it, he
moved that the chairman report progress; and gave notice that on
the following Monday he would move—“That it is the opinion of the
committee, that, towards raising the supply to her majesty, the
respective duties on property, professions, trades, and offices, and the
stamp duties in Ireland, granted by two several acts passed in the fifth
year of her present majesty, be continued and further granted to
her majesty for a time to be limited.” This resolution was read in a
committee of ways and means on Monday, the 17th of February, after which
Lord John Russel addressed the committee, factiously opposing the scheme
of the premier, without offering any sound practical suggestion, or
propounding any principle. Several amendments were moved by various
members; but they were all negatived, and the bill passed through
committee. A discussion of considerable length was renewed on the 10th
of March, by Mr. Charles Duller, but the bill was read a third time and
passed.

In the house of lords the principal discussion on the income-tax took
place on the 4th of April, when the third reading of the bill was moved
by the Earl of Ripon. The bill was read a third time and passed.




THE SUGAR-DUTIES QUESTION.

On the 24th of February, the house of commons having resolved itself
into a committee of ways and means, Mr. Gibson, with a view of obtaining
a permanent arrangement of the sugar-duties, moved, as an amendment
upon the resolution of Sir Robert Peel, a resolution stating that no
arrangement of these duties would be satisfactory and permanent, which
did not involve an equalization of duty on foreign and colonial sugar.
In support of this resolution Mr. Gibson called the attention of the
house to a plain matter of justice in taxation, and asserted that it was
not consistent with the fair performance of their functions, when
they were resolving themselves into a committee of ways and means to
consider of a supply to her majesty, in order to enable her to meet
the expenditure of the country, to levy another tax, which was not paid
either to the crown or to the exchequer, but to a class of men who had
not made good their claim to any compensation fora grievance inflicted
on them. The protection afforded to the West India proprietors, he said,
was not for revenue, for it defrauded revenue; not for the protection
of the producer, for his produce had not been increased; not for the
benefit of the exporter at home, for the export to those colonies were
stationary; and not to be defended on the score of consistency, since
Sir Robert Peel was going to admit cotton, the produce of the East
Indies and the United States of America, on the same terms. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Ewart, and supported by Lord Howick, and Messrs.
Ricardo, Cobden, Villiers, Miles, and Bright. On the other hand, it was
opposed by Sir George Clerk, and Messrs. James, Gladstone, Labouchere,
and Goulburn. On a division it was rejected by a majority of two hundred
and seventeen against eighty-four. Subsequently several amendments were
moved, but without success, with the exception of one proposed by Mr.
Hawes; namely, to the effect—“that provision be made in the bill for
the drawback of the amount of the duty reduced on such duty-paid sugar
as now remains in the queen’s warehouses.” This amendment was at first
resisted by Mr. Goulburn; but finding that the house was in favour of
it, Sir Robert Peel consented to make arrangements, not to return the
whole duty, but to make compensation for the loss. On this understanding
Mr. Hawes withdrew his amendment, and the bill passed through committee.
Various discussions took place, during the progress of the hill, upon
the other parts of the ministerial tariff, but they were all affirmed,
and the bill then passed. Its progress through the upper house was
speedily effected.




CORN-LAWS AND FREE TRADE.

This long-agitated and great question formed a prominent subject of
debate during this session. The first occasion which led to a general
discussion of the policy of the protective laws as regards agriculture,
was furnished by a motion made by Mr. Cobden, on the 13th March, “for
a select committee to inquire into the causes and extent of the alleged
existing agricultural distress, and into the effects of legislative
protection upon the interests of landowners, tenant-farmers, and
farm-labourers.” In support of this motion Mr. Cobden endeavoured to
prove the existence of distress among the farmers; asserting that half
of them were in a state of insolvency, and that the other half were
paying rents out of their capital, and were fast hastening to the same
melancholy condition. Mr. Cobden next contended that there was a want
of security in tenure, and that this fact not only prevented the
application of capital, but that it also kept the land in a bad state of
cultivation. The farmer without a lease was afraid that if he made any
improvement in his farm, he should be called upon to pay a higher
rent; and he proved this fact by reference to the language used by many
distinguished members of agricultural associations. He asked why land
should not be let on the same condition as manufactories, which were
let with a schedule of the state of the manufactory; and when the tenant
left them he was bound to make compensation for any damage which it
might have suffered. Having advocated the plan of leasing farms at great
length, Mr. Cobden proceeded to contend that a free trade in corn would
be more beneficial to the farmers and to the labourers than to any other
class of the community. He had thought so before the new tariff; and
he contended so now with tenfold confidence. He then described the
lamentable condition of the agricultural peasantry; and asked the
landlords, after they had brought their labourers to such a melancholy
state, whether they could have anything to fear from risking this
inquiry? What had government done for them in their financial scheme?
Nothing that was calculated, if he had heard aright, to benefit the
agricultural population. Well, then, what would they do? Protection had
been a failure when it reached a prohibitory duty of 80s. a quarter; it
had been a failure when it reached the pivot price of 60s.; and it was a
failure now when they had got a sliding-scale; for they had admitted the
lamentable condition of their tenantry and peasantry. Let them accede,
then, to his proposition for a committee, and he would pledge himself to
explode the fallacy of agricultural protection, and to put an end to the
present system within two years from the publication of its report. Mr.
S. Herbert, secretary at war, announced that government would meet Mr.
Cobden’s motion with a direct negative. On a division the motion was
negatived by a majority of two hundred and thirteen against one hundred
and twenty-one.

On the 3rd of June Mr. Ward resumed his exertions to obtain a select
committee to inquire into the existence of the peculiar burdens and
exemptions of the landed interests. Taking advantage of an admission
contained in a speech of Sir James Graham, that during the last twelve
months pauperism had diminished, and trade and commerce had improved in
the country because the price of wheat was low, Mr. Ward said that he
was not going to underrate the benefit produced by an abundant harvest,
but he believed that still greater benefit had been effected by the
liberal policy of government. The idea that there were any peculiar
burdens on the land, was a fallacy peculiar to English gentlemen
brought up in the school of the corn-laws. He denied that the land-tax,
poor-rates, tithes, county-rates, highway-rates, the malt-tax, and
similar impositions, were peculiar burdens on land; but if they were,
he contended that there were to be set against them the exemptions
enjoyed by the land in not being liable to the legacy and probate duty,
and in the cultivation of it being relieved from the horse-tax, from the
tax on husbandry servants if employed for domestic services, and various
other taxes. Mr. Ward moved for a select committee of inquiry into this
subject; and his motion was supported by Dr. Bowring, and Messrs. Cobden
and Vernon Smith. Sir John Tyrell opposed it, as did also Messrs. Sidney
Herbert and Newdegate. On a division it was rejected by a majority of
one hundred and eighty-two against one hundred and nine.

The subject of the corn-laws was taken into more complete consideration
on the 26th of May, when, pursuant to notice, Lord John Russell moved
the following resolutions:—“That the present state of political
tranquillity, and the recent revival of trade, afford to this house
a favourable opportunity to consider of such measures as may tend
permanently to improve the condition of the labouring classes. That
those laws which impose duties, usually called protective, tend to
impair the efficiency of labour, to restrict the free interchange of
commodities, and to impose on the people unnecessary taxation. That the
present corn-law tends to check improvements in agriculture, produces
uncertainty in all farming speculations, and holds out to the owners
and occupiers of land prospects of special advantage which it fails to
secure. That this house will take the said laws into consideration,
with a view to such cautious and deliberate arrangements as may be most
beneficial to all classes of her majesty’s subjects. That the freedom of
industry would be promoted by a careful revision of the law of parochial
settlement which now prevails in England and Wales. That a systematic
plan of colonization would partially relieve those districts of the
country where the deficiency of employment Iras been most injurious to
the labourers in husbandry. That the improvements made of late years
in the education of the people, as well as its more general diffusion,
have been seen with satisfaction by this house. That this house will
be ready to give its support to measures founded on liberal and
comprehensive principles, which may be conducive to the further
extension of religious and moral instruction. That a humble address be
presented to her majesty to lay the foregoing resolutions before her
majesty.” In support of these resolutions, Lord John Russell made a long
and comprehensive speech, embracing the several topics to which they
had reference. Adverting to the corn-laws, he said, that experience had
shown that the present system was founded in error, and produced the
very evil against which it was intended to guard. The graduated scale
was a complete failure, and equally injurious to the purchaser and
consumer. It was contrary to all true commercial principles, and
was perfectly ruinous to the farmer. It also tended to check all
improvements in agriculture, and to render the cultivator of the soil
careless as to the system of cultivation which he pursued. Mr. Sharman
Crawford moved as an amendment that the following words be inserted
after the word “opportunity,” in the first clause:—“To give immediate
attention to the claims, so repeatedly urged in the petitions of the
people, for the extension of the parliamentary suffrage, as well as—.”
 Sir James Graham, in reply, said that he agreed to the first resolution
moved by Lord John Russell, but not to the rest; and, therefore,
he moved the previous question. The house divided on Mr. Crawford’s
amendment, which was negatived by a majority of two hundred and
fifty-three against thirty-three. Sir James Graham then moved the
previous question, which was carried by a majority of one hundred and
eighty-two against one hundred and four.

Mr. C. Villiers, according to his annual custom, on the 10th of June
submitted to the house of commons a motion for the appointment of
a committee of the whole house for the purpose of considering his
resolutions for the abolition of all restrictions on the importation of
foreign corn. On a division, the motion was negatived by a majority of
two hundred and fifty-four against one hundred and thirty-two.




AFFAIRS OF IRELAND—MAYNOOTH IMPROVEMENT BILL.

On the 3rd of April, Sir Robert Peel brought in a measure for improving
and increasing the grant to the college of Maynooth. The intention of
the premier had been made known before, and a large number of petitions
were on that evening presented against any such grant; in reference
to which Sir Robert Peel said that he had given timely notice of his
intention to consider the case of Maynooth in a friendly spirit; and
therefore he was not unprepared for the demonstration which had
been made, and which no doubt proceeded from persons actuated by
conscientious scruples. In continuation, he observed, that it appeared
to the ministers there were three courses which they might pursue:—to
continue the present system, and grant without alteration; to
discontinue the vote altogether, and to repudiate all connexion with
Maynooth; or liberally to adopt, improve, and extend the institution
provided for the education of the Roman Catholic priesthood. He
proceeded to discuss these three courses in succession; and after
showing that they could not conscientiously adopt the two first, he
said:—“There remains, therefore, but one other course, and that is the
course we are prepared to take. We are prepared, in a liberal sense and
confiding spirit, to improve that institution, and to elevate the tone
of education there. Will you not take that course?” Sir Robert Peel
then stated the proposals of government to the house. The trustees of
Maynooth college, he said, could purchase land to the extent of £1,000
per annum; but they could not receive it on any other terms than for the
lives of the trustees; he proposed to incorporate the trustees by the
title of “the trustees of Maynooth college;” and to enable them to hold
real property to the amount of £3,000 per annum, should members of
the Roman Catholic faith be desirous to contribute to the college so
incorporated. The stipend of each professor did not now exceed £120
per annum; instead of defining what should be the amount paid to each
professor, he proposed to allot to the trustees a certain sum, which
should be placed at their discretion for the payment of salaries. The
sum would admit of a payment of £600 or £700 per annum to the president
of the college; of £260 or £270 to the professors of theology; and of
£220 or £230 to the other professors. A sum not exceeding £6,000 would
be allotted to the trustees for making provision for the officers of
that institution. At present there were about four hundred and thirty
students in the college, divided into three classes: the twenty
Dumboyne students, the three senior classes, and the four junior
classes. It was proposed to allot £40 per annum to each of the Dumboyne
students: and to make provision on the whole for five hundred free
students; that there should be two hundred and fifty students in the
four junior classes, and two hundred and fifty in the three senior
classes, these being divinity students. For the maintenance of each
of these students, it was proposed that a sum should be placed at the
disposal of the trustees of £28 on the average. It was further proposed
that to each of the students in the three senior classes, £20 per annum
should be allowed for their own personal expenses. The sum required
for the students would be £14,560; the total sum for the establishment,
£26,360. It was further proposed that the college should be made, in
appearance and in fact, worthy of an institution of the kind; and that
proper provision should be made for the accommodation of the presidents
and professors; and for every purpose ministers asked for a vote, not
annual, of £30,000. Sir Robert Peel further stated, that it was proposed
the board of works should undertake the repairs of the college, as they
did of the other public buildings, in order that they might be conducted
with the greatest economy; and that the expenses of the repairs should
be an annual vote, included in the annual estimates for the board
of works, as in other cases. Instead of the present _ex-officio_
ministers—the lord-chancellor and the judges—it was further proposed
that the crown should appoint five visitors, who were to visit the
college once a year, and as often as the lord-lieutenant might direct.
These visitors were not to interfere with any matters relating to the
doctrine and discipline of the church of Rome; but for those objects
three more visitors would be elected by the other five, as at present
to be members of the Roman Catholic church. Such, Sir Robert Peel
continued, was an outline of the measure. It had not been the subject of
any stipulation with the authorities of the Roman Catholic church: but
the ministers had intimated their intentions to these dignitaries; and
they had every reason to believe they were satisfied with, and grateful
for, the measure. He added, in conclusion:—“We do not think that there
is any violation of conscientious scruples involved in our proposition.
We believe that it is perfectly compatible to hold steadfast the
profession of our faith without wavering, and at the same time to
improve the education, and to elevate the character of those who, do
what you will—pass this measure or refuse it—must be the spiritual
guides and religious instructors of millions of your fellow-countrymen.”
 Sir Robert Inglis met the motion for leave to bring in this bill by a
direct negative. Messrs. Law, Bruce, Grogan, and others, followed with
similar expressions of sentiment. Mr. Plumptre especially expressed
in strong terms his repugnance to the proposal on religious grounds;
avowing, as the basis of his objections, the belief that the Roman
Catholic religion was idolatrous. On the side of the liberal, all were
in favour of the motion, except Mr. T. Duncombe, who expressed himself
averse to all religious establishments supported out of the public
revenue. Some on the conservative side, as Lords Francis Egerton and
Sandon, and Mr. J. S. Wortley, spoke in favour of the measure. Several
of the Irish members anticipated a great improvement in the Roman
Catholic priesthood, and Lord John Russell, while he supported the
motion, expressed a hope that it was the commencement of a series of
measures which would unite the two countries in an enduring bond. On
a division, the motion for leave to bring in the bill was carried by
a large majority; but the measure, though destined to become law, was
subsequently most strenuously opposed, both in and out of parliament.
Those who were ardently attached to the vital principles of
Protestantism felt an apprehension that the endowment of the Roman
Catholic hierarchy in Ireland, and the rapid downfall of the established
church in that country, if not in England also, was involved in such a
measure; and their zeal being thus awakened, no exertions were spared
to frustrate the plans of government. On the second reading of the
bill being moved on the 11th of April, the measure was opposed by Mr.
Colquhoun. Mr. Colquhoun concluded by moving that the bill be read a
second time that day six months. Mr. Grogan followed on the same side;
and the Earl of Arundel and Mr. Gladstone supported the measure: the
latter stating that he did so in opposition to the prevailing opinion,
and to his own deeply cherished prepossessions. Mr. D’Israeli said that
Sir Robert Peel had declared there were three courses open to him. “In
a certain sense, and looking to his own position, he is right: there is
the course the right honourable gentleman has left; there is the course
that the right honourable gentleman is following; and there is usually
the course which the right honourable gentleman ought to pursue.
Perhaps, sir, I ought to say that there is a fourth course; because
it is possible for the house of commons to adopt one of those courses
indicated by the right honourable gentleman, and then having voted for
it, to rescind it.” Mr. D’Israeli proceeded to complain of the course
pursued by Sir R. Peel towards his supporters, in which he indulged in
private personalities, which was strongly condemned by Mr. Roebuck, who
described his speech as being poor in execution as it was malicious in
motive. Mr. Roebuck proceeded to defend the measure; and he was followed
by Messrs. Fox Maule and Stafford O’Brien, both of whom opposed it. Mr.
Macauley considered it merely a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence:
it was not a question of principle, but purely a question between £9000
and £26,000. Mr. Shaw energetically opposed the endowment; and Lord
Lincoln and Mr. Sidney Herbert supported it. Mr. Byng, the venerable
member for Middlesex, also declared himself in favour of the measure;
and Lord Ashley and G. A. Hamilton opposed it; Lord Ashley had never
known a measure more important for good or evil, not even excepting the
Roman Catholic relief bill. His lordship contended that the proposal of
government amounted to almost a declaration, that, as far as the power
of enactments and statutes extended, the Roman Catholic religion should
never cease to be the religion of Ireland. But while Lord Ashley opposed
the measure, he disclaimed being actuated by any feeling of hostility
towards the people of Ireland. If he thought, indeed, that this
concession would really content the people of Ireland, he would pause
before he came to a decision in the matter. The bill was further
supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lords John Manners and
Russell, Sirs George Grey and James Graham, and Messrs. Cobden, Smyth,
and Shiel. On the other hand it was opposed by Messrs. Bright, dimming,
Bruce, Blackstone, Ferrand, Sharman Crawford, T. Duncombe, Muntz, and
Law. The debate was closed by Sirs Robert Inglis and Robert Peel; the
former against, and the latter for the measure. On a division the second
reading was carried by a majority of three hundred and twenty-three
against one hundred and seventy-six. The battle, however, was not yet
ended. On the order of the day being read for going into committee, Mr.
Ward moved the following resolution as an amendment:—“That it is the
opinion of this house, that any provision to be made for the purposes of
the present bill, ought to be taken from the funds already applicable
to ecclesiastical purposes in Ireland.” A long debate ensued on this
motion, which was continued for two nights; but on a division it was
negatived by a majority of three hundred and twenty-two against one
hundred and forty-eight. On the 25th a resolution, authorising a grant
of £30,000 for improving Maynooth college, and for the payment of
the amount requisite for salaries and other expenses, out of the
consolidated fund, was passed by the house; but on the motion for
bringing up the report, opposition to the measure was renewed by Mr.
Law, who moved as an amendment that it be brought up on that day
six months. Another lengthened debate took place, but the motion was
negatived by one hundred and twenty-eight against fifty-two; and several
other amendments, subsequently moved by Mr. Hindley and other members,
were rejected by large majorities. The whole question was reopened
on the motion for the third reading, and a discussion commenced which
continued for three nights; but the third reading was carried by
a majority of three hundred and seventeen against one hundred and
eighty-four. The last attempt to defeat the measure was a motion by Mr.
T. Duncombe, on the question, “That the bill do now pass,” proposing a
clause to limit its operation to three years. This was objected to by
Sir Robert Peel, and the proposal was negatived by a large majority,
after which the bill was passed.

The second reading was moved by the Duke of Wellington in the house of
lords, on the second of June. Lord Roden had given notice of intention
to move, as an amendment, for a select committee to inquire into the
character of the education given at Maynooth; and he now rose for the
purpose of thus endeavouring to get rid of the bill. Instead of the
measure being looked upon in Ireland, he said, as a boon, it was looked
upon as one extorted by fear. He quoted a letter from Dr. Higgins, one
of the Roman Catholic bishops, to show that no conciliatory effects
could result from the measure. Nor was it his opinion that it would
improve the education given at Maynooth: rather, it would afford
facilities for recruiting the priesthood from the lower classes of the
people. He maintained that the system of instruction given there had
anti-social and disloyal tendencies, which he illustrated by a reference
to the text-books, and details in the history and conduct of the
institution. The Bishop of London supported the amendment: he could
not consent to any measure which would make the college of Maynooth an
integral part of the constitution. The Earl of St. Germains and Lord
Beaumont vindicated the measure; and the Duke of Manchester and the
Bishop of Cashel opposed it. The debate having been adjourned, was
resumed by the Earls of Hardwick and Carnarvon, who supported the bill.
The Earl of Winchilsea followed, and condemned the bill in vehement
terms; and the Marquis of Normanby defended it as a proper concession to
a nation of which seven-eighths were Roman Catholics. The Archbishop of
Dublin supported the measure. The Bishop of Exeter argued against the
measure that the college was not originally meant to be endowed by the
state; and denied that the improved visitation which the bill professed
to give would be a system of education. The debate having been again
adjourned, was resumed by Earl Spencer and the Bishop of Norwich. On
a division, Lord Roden’s amendment was negatived by a majority of one
hundred and fifty-five to fifty-nine; and the house having again divided
on the original resolution, the second reading was carried by a majority
of two hundred and twenty-six against sixty-nine. Subsequently, a
discussion took place on the committal of the bill. On the motion for
the third reading another debate took place; and the Bishop of Llandaff
moved that the bill be read a third time that day six months; but on a
division this amendment was negatived by a majority of one hundred and
eighty-one against fifty. On the question that the bill do pass, the
Earl of Winchilsea moved another amendment to the effect that the
operation of the bill should be limited to a period of three years; but
tins also was negatived, and the bill then passed.




ACADEMICAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND.

Another scheme, emanating from government, for the improvement of the
Irish people, was a plan for the extension of academical education in
Ireland. This measure was developed by the secretary of state for the
home department. On moving for leave to bring in the bill, on the 9th of
May, Sir James Graham said that the object in bringing it forward was to
improve the social condition of Ireland. The difficulty of accomplishing
such an object, he said, would be discerned, when he stated that the
plan which he conceived to be the most essential was the diffusion
of the benefits of education among the higher classes of the people.
Religious differences formed the great obstacle to the adjustment of the
general question of education in Ireland. For a long series of years
the religion of the majority of the Irish people had been treated by the
state as hostile. That notion, however, had been gradually abandoned:
the penal laws had either been removed, or were in the course of
removal, although traces of them were still perceptible, and operating
most noxiously in their interference with the education of the people.
Sir James Graham next proceeded to discuss what was the best mode of
educating the people of Ireland, contending that it consisted in the
absence of all religious tests. It was on this principle that the
bill he proposed was founded. Government recommended to the house the
establishment of three provincial institutions for education in Ireland,
and founded upon the same principles as the metropolitan colleges of
London and Edinburgh. Cork was proposed as the site of the college for
the south; Galway, or Limerick, for the west; and Deny, or Belfast, for
the north of Ireland. He could not pledge himself for the exact amount
of the expense which would be necessary to carry this proposal into
execution; but he conceived that £30,000 would be wanted for the
erection of each college; and he would therefore mention £100,000 as a
sum amply sufficient for that purpose. He further recommended the sum
of £6000 for each of the colleges, to meet the annual expenses of the
officers of these institutions, and of the prizes to be established for
the encouragement of learning. Sir James Graham then gave a sketch of
the different officers whom he would establish in these institutions. In
each college there was to be a principal and ten or twelve professors;
and at Belfast and Cork there would be a medical school attached to each
college. The professors were to be nominated by the crown; and the crown
was to possess the power of removing them for good cause. There were no
professorships of divinity to be established; but religion was not to
be neglected; on the contrary, every facility would be given for the
voluntary endowment of theological professorships; but the attendance at
these lectures would not be compulsory, for the fundamental principle
of the measure would be the avoidance of all interference, positive or
negative, in all matters affecting the conscience. The right honourable
baronet went on to state that there was already an academical
institution at Belfast for the Presbyterians of the north of Ireland,
which was supported by a parliamentary grant, at the cost of £2100 per
annum; and government proposed to continue this grant. There was another
subject, he said, with which, although a difficult one, he was prepared
to grapple. The bill only founded colleges in Ireland: the question
was:—“Should these three colleges be incorporated into one great
central university, or should parliament invest each of them with the
power of granting degrees in the arts, sciences, and medicine?” He
proposed that the bill should afford her majesty means to establish a
new university in Dublin for this purpose—Trinity College being founded
on Protestant principles, and therefore excluding Roman Catholics or
dissenters from all privileges—or to incorporate into the existing
university these colleges. Lord Palmerston promised ministers the fair
and honest support of the Whigs. The measure was opposed by Sir Robert
Inglis; but leave was given to bring in the bill, and it was read a
first time. On the motion for the second reading, which was moved on the
2nd of June, a debate was commenced, which continued by adjournment for
two nights. The debate was opened by Lord John Manners, who moved that
it be read a second time that day six months: his belief was, that if
it passed in its present shape it would prove a curse, and not a boon to
Ireland. Sir James Graham defended it from this charge. He proceeded to
state some proposed alterations in the bill. The first change proposed
was with regard to the visitorial power of the crown. He proposed to
give the crown the power of appointing visitors, which visitors would
have authority to inquire into any abuse which might arise in these
institutions, and to apply an effective remedy thereto. He also now
thought that there should be attached to each of the colleges a hall or
halls in which religious instructions might be given to the students by
pastors of their own religion; and he was disposed to add a clause to
that effect. The Roman Catholic bishops had presented a memorial praying
that a fair proportion of the professors and office-bearers in the new
colleges should be members of the Roman Catholic church; that
Roman Catholic professors should fill the chairs of history, logic,
metaphysics, moral philosophy, geology, and anatomy; that there should
be a Roman Catholic chaplain in each of the colleges, to superintend the
moral and religious instruction of the Roman Catholic pupils, and that
each of these chaplains should be provided with a suitable salary; and
that all Roman Catholic professors should be appointed to a local board
of trustees. Sir James Graham could not consent to such demands: as a
majority of the students would belong to the Roman Catholic church, it
was probable that a majority of the professors would belong to it also;
but they could not be exclusively provided by the measure. Mr. E. B.
Roche, who had at first hailed the measure as a boon, now declared his
intention of opposing its further progress, because the nomination of
all the professorships was in the crown, and there was no “fixity of
tenure” for any administration which entertained friendly sentiments
toward the Roman Catholic population of Ireland. Sir Robert Inglis
repeated that this bill was “a gigantic scheme of godless education;”
 and agreed with Mr. O’Connell in thinking that these new institutions
would be deficient in that species of education which was the only
legitimate one for an immortal being—education in the duties which
every man had to perform, and the principles on which those duties
rested. The second reading was supported by Lord John Russell, who
nevertheless wished to amend it in committee, and Lord Mahon, and
Messrs. Redington, Milnes, Osborne, Wyse, and R. M. O. Ferrol; and
opposed by Messrs. Acland, B. Hope, and Hamilton. Mr. Acland called
attention to the fact that some of the speakers in behalf of the bill
gave an unqualified support to it; and contended that not one of them
had proved that it would give such education as would be useful in any
respect to Ireland. Sir Robert Peel spoke at great length in behalf of
the measure; and announced that, if adopted, and the plan worked
well, government would consider whether the three colleges should be
incorporated into a university, and what power that university should
have in conferring degrees. After a few words from Messrs. M. J.
O’Connell and Shaw in favour of the second reading, though not of entire
approval of the measure, the amendment was negatived by a majority of
three hundred and eleven against forty-six, and the bill was read a
second time. Upon the resolution of the committee of the whole house
for the grant being reported, Mr. O’Connell took occasion to declare
his protest against it; and to thank Sir Robert Inglis for calling it
“a godless system of education.” Subsequently, on the committal of the
bill, he again declared his objections to its principle: and Lord John
Russell coincided with him in his statement, that unless the bill was
made acceptable to the Roman Catholics, by providing for the religious
instruction of the pupils, it would be useless. On the first clause,
relating to the grant of £100,000 for building the three colleges and
necessary buildings, Lord John Russell proposed, as an amendment,
to include among the buildings to be thus paid for, halls for the
accommodation of the students. This motion, however, was negatived; as
was also another, moved by Mr. Wyse, on the clause which declared that
the appointment of professors should be vested in the crown, and after
a time limited should revert to parliament. Mr. Wyse desired that
the professors should be chosen, after an investigation into their
qualifications, by a competent board of examiners; but Sir Robert
Peel opposed the amendment, as premature, and likely to operate to the
discouragement of the students.. Several other amendments were proposed
in committee, but they were all rejected; and on the third reading Mr.
Bernai Osborne introduced a collateral discussion upon the revenues
and management of Trinity College, Dublin, by proposing the following
resolution:—“That an humble address be presented to her majesty,
praying that she will be graciously pleased to direct an inquiry to be
made into the amount of the revenue of Trinity College, Dublin, from
rents of college-lands, endowments, and bequests, fees on matriculation,
on taking degrees, and from every other source; also into the manner in
which that income is expended; the number of senior and junior fellows,
of professors, scholars, and all other officers of the college, with
the amount of salary and allowances to each of them, with a view to
ascertain whether the income or funds at present applied solely to
the benefit of Protestants in Trinity College, Dublin, might not be
beneficially extended so as to make Roman Catholics and Protestant
dissenters eligible if otherwise qualified, to all scholarships, and
to all such fellowships, professorships, and other offices in Trinity
College, Dublin, as are not intended for ecclesiastical purposes
immediately connected with ecclesiastical endowment.” Mr. Osborne,
in support of this resolution, contended that Trinity College was
not founded with Protestant money, but with the property of the Roman
Catholic Earl of Desmond, confiscated by Elizabeth in 1592; and that
it was not until forty years afterwards, in the time of Strafford,
that Roman Catholics were mentioned, and rendered ineligible for the
professorships. The motion was opposed by Sirs Thomas Freemantle and
R. Inglis, the latter of whom denied that the college was founded with
Roman Catholic money. It was erected on the site of the old monastery
of All-Hallows, which having become vested in the mayor and citizens
of Dublin, by grant from Henry the Eighth, was by them given for the
establishment of this college. The funds for its erection and endowment
were raised by a contribution among the gentry of Ireland, for
which purpose a circular letter was sent to them by the Lord-deputy
Fitzwilliam, the archbishop, and the lords of the council in 1791:
the original foundation of the college might, therefore, he said, be
as purely Protestant as could be imagined. The motion was supported by
Messrs. Warburton and Shiel, the latter of whom contended that Queen
Elizabeth’s charter did not contemplate exclusively Protestant objects.
But it was rather on the ground of justice than on such grounds, he
said, that this subject ought to be discussed. He remarked:—“There
are seventy scholarships; the scholars have lodging and commons for a
nominal sum, with £10 a-year and £40 a-year in the last three years: the
scholarships being exclusively Protestant. So long,” he continued, “as
you keep up Trinity College in its supremacy you will make your measure
of academical education, for all political purposes, an entire failure.
Your provincial academies will be marked with all the characteristics of
mediocrity, which will only render the elevation of Trinity College more
conspicuous by the inferiority with which it will be surrounded. How
stunted and dwarfed the groves of our new academies when compared with
the rich luxuriance of the gardens of Trinity! I had a thousand times
rather you had applied your £18,000 a-year to the establishment of new
fellowships and new professorships in the metropolitan and national
institutions; because if you had done so, Englishmen would have got a
value—a value in peace, a value in contentment, a value in pacificatory
results—for their money. Now your measure, for political purposes—I
say, for political purposes, though I won’t deny that the advantages
of education will be distributed to a certain extent—but your measure,
though for political purposes it may partially succeed, yet as a message
of peace it will be a failure.” Sir Robert Peel contended that he and
his colleagues had exerted themselves to make equality in Ireland, at
the expense of giving umbrage to the majority of the people in this
country. He appealed to the enlarged grant to Maynooth, and to the way
in which the charitable bequests act had been carried out, as showing
the conciliatory disposition of the government. Yet, after all their
exertions for peace they were doomed to be disappointed. He regretted
Mr. Shiel’s speech on account of the use that would be made of it in
this country. It would be said—“See how unavailing all attempts are to
conciliate the Roman Catholics of Ireland. Regardless of the warnings,
the feelings, and fears of their friends, they hoped by proposing
certain measures, that they would make an impression on the Irish mind;
but, instead of this, the leading Roman Catholic member in the house of
commons gets up and tells them that, unless they went ten times as far
as they had yet gone, they would have an insurrection in Ireland.”
 This he believed, however, was not the feeling of the Irish people; he
believed that government had made an impression on the feelings of
the Irish people. After a few words from Lord John Russell, the house
divided on Mr. Osborne’s amendment, which was negatived by a majority
of one hundred and sixty-eight against ninety-one, and the bill was then
read a third time and passed.

The second reading of the Irish education bill was moved in the house
of lords by Lord Stanley on the 21st of July. The Earl of Shrewsbury
opposed the measure. Government he said, had been overawed by the
fanatic feeling of the English people; and he urged ministers to
withdraw the bill for a season, and reintroduce it in a shape better
suited to the wants and wishes of Ireland. The bill was further opposed
by the Earl of Carnarvon, who protested against the divorce of religion
from education, and expressed his fears that such a precedent might be
applied to Oxford and Cambridge. The bill was defended by the Duke of
Newcastle, the Marquis of Lansdowne, the Bishop of Norwich, and Lords
Brougham, Beaumont, and Clifford. The second reading was affirmed
without a division; and subsequently the bill passed through committee,
and was read a third time without any fixed opposition.




COLONIAL POLICY.

In the early part of this session intelligence had arrived which
announced a disastrous collision in New Zealand between the natives and
the settlers at the Bay of Islands, and which terminated in defeat
and serious loss on the part of the latter. This intelligence produced
considerable sensation in the public mind, more especially among those
connected with the colonists in those islands. The New Zealand Company
loudly accused the colonial office, and the administration of the
governor, Captain Fitzroy; while other parties contended that the evil
which had arisen had been in a great measure induced by the company
itself. The event became the subject of several discussions in
parliament. The first of these discussions took place on the 11th of
March, when Mr. Somes moved for all copies of correspondence between the
colonial office and the governor of New Zealand, respecting the issue
of debentures and the rendering them a legal tender in that colony,
the taxes proposed in the legislative council, the outrages recently
committed by the natives in the Bay of Islands, and a proclamation
issued by the governor of New Zealand, allowing the sale of land by the
natives at a less price than that fixed by the act of the 5th and 6th
Victoria. This motion was seconded by Mr. Aglionby, who asked whether
government was not aware that in that colony inconvertible paper
had been made by the governor a legal tender for sums as low as two
shillings? whether the governor had previously received authority by
warrant from the colonial department to issue such debentures to the
amount of £15,000? whether it was true that in a colony that was to
flourish by its agriculture a tax of 10s. had been levied on every sheep
imported, and a similar tax on every dog imported to herd them? what
the house thought of a governor who placed a tax of £1 on every house in
which more than three rooms were inhabited? and whether the governor had
vindicated the character of this country by protecting the whites from
the outrages of the natives? Nine of our countrymen, he continued, had
been tomahawked after they had given up their arms: had the governor
made inquiry into the circumstances of this massacre? or had he gone, as
was reported, to the murderous tribes, and declared himself satisfied?
He also wanted to know in what manner the honour of the British flag
had been vindicated, after it had been cut down at the custom-house;
and made several inquiries respecting the sale of lands in New Zealand,
observing that when he had obtained an answer to his questions, he
should bring forward a distinct motion on the subject, and should
call for further information. Mr. Hope, the under-secretary, protested
against the course pursued by Mr. Aglionby, demanding why he did not
boldly come forward, make his charge against government, and endeavour
to substantiate it. He proceeded, however, to answer the questions
put by Mr. Aglionby. The government, he said, had disapproved of the
debentures issued by the local governor, ami they had been withdrawn.
Respecting the taxes imposed in New Zealand he knew nothing, as
government had been an unusually long time without intelligence from
that colony. With respect to the outrages at the Bay of Islands, troops
had been sent for their repression; and the governor, he thought had
sufficiently vindicated the honour of the British flag. On the other
subjects of interrogation he had no information to communicate. Other
members took part in the discussion; and finally the motion was agreed
to.

A more lengthened discussion on the condition of this colony took
place on the 17th of June, on which occasion Mr. Charles Buller brought
forward a series of resolutions relating to the policy pursued towards
New Zealand. In his speech he contended that the colonization of New
Zealand, after it had been successfully commenced by the New Zealand
Company, had been marred by the interference of her majesty’s
government. He proceeded to show the superiority of the scheme of
colonization adopted by the company with that pursued by the colonial
office. After pointing out the great importance of New Zealand in
a national and political point of view, and the fair field which it
afforded for the development of the capital and labour of England, he
showed that at the time when it was first colonized, strong reasons
existed for colonizing it regularly, lest it should be colonized
irregularly. The whole of the native population did not exceed 100,000
souls, and they were principally concentrated in the northern parts of
the island. Was that a circumstance which ought to prevent any other
country from colonizing the southern parts of it, which were almost
totally unoccupied, or the northern parts, which were almost all left
uncultivated? It was wicked to deny the right of civilized man to
cultivate the wilderness; but he was bound to treat the savage with
kindness, and to communicate to him the advantages of civilization. The
New Zealand Company had treated the savage with kindness, making him
ample compensation for the land purchased of him, by setting a part
of it to his service after it had been brought into cultivation. The
colonial office, however, conceived that its duty was discharged towards
the savage when it had obtained for him a large price for his land, and
had not taken any measure to apply it to his future amelioration. Mr.
Buller next entered into a minute history of the proceedings of the
colonial authorities in New Zealand, from the time of the conclusion of
the treaty of Waitangi, down to the present period; and vindicated the
conduct of the New Zealand Company, showing that their settlements had
been founded on a scale of liberality and munificence hitherto unknown
in the history of English colonization. Their principal object had been
merely to protect themselves from loss, whilst engaged in diffusing the
arts and industry along with the laws and language of England; yet Lord
Stanley had adopted measures which had marred all their prospects of
future success. Mr. Buller proceeded to enter into a discussion of
the land question between Lord Stanley and the New Zealand Company. He
contended that the company had a right to expect to be put in possession
by government of the number of acres awarded to them; yet, after
spending £800,000 of its own, and £300,000 more on credit, obtained from
the public, it had not obtained the grant of a single acre. Its capital
was exhausted; its proceedings were suspended; and, what was worse, the
unhappy emigrants had been debarred from all access as owners to the
land which they had purchased with hard cash in England. The crops
which they had raised were destroyed by fire, and their lives had been
menaced; and when they applied for redress to the colonial office, that
aid had been coldly refused. They now apprehended a general massacre;
and yet Captain Fitzroy prohibited them from arming themselves in
self-defence. His policy had inspired the New Zealanders with an
overweening confidence, and our countrymen with fierce resentment; and
the consequence would be that the first would perish under the attacks
of the last, as they would be no more in the hands of Englishmen than
mere children in the hands of full-grown men. In conclusion, Mr.
Buller expressed his conviction that Lord Stanley had put down the most
promising experiment of colonization that had ever been attempted by
England; and moved that the house resolve itself into a committee of the
whole house to consider the resolutions. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Milnes, who contended that a case had been made out for the interference
of the house. Mr. Hope defended the character of Lord Stanley at great
length, denying that his lordship was influenced by any hostility either
to colonization or to the New Zealand Company. He was not prepared, he
said, to justify all the acts of Captain Fitzroy; but he was convinced
that he did himself frequent injustice by the scanty reports he sent
home. In reply to the allegation that the colonial office was chargeable
with all the disasters of the colony, he insisted that they were mainly
attributable to the hasty proceedings of the New Zealand Company, in
taking possession of that island without authority from the crown.
Mr. Hope next proceeded to give an account of the state of the colony
according to the latest advices received from thence; endeavouring to
show that the settlers and the natives generally were on good terms,
and that there was no fear of a collision between them. He concluded by
entering into a consideration of the resolutions, and by declaring that
government would not consent to them. The debate was then adjourned, and
on the following day it was resumed by Captain Rous, who brought some
grave charges against the New Zealand Company. He did so, he said,
for the purpose of giving the directors of that company, who had been
described as philanthropic gentlemen, an opportunity of replying to
those charges. Mr. Aglionby, in reply, protested against them; but
declined to enter into a refutation of them on the present occasion: the
details of them all had been inquired into in the previous session by
the select committee, and on every one of them a verdict of acquittal
had been given by that committee. Other members who took part in the
debate for the motion were Lords Howick and John Russell, and Messrs.
Ellice, Hawes, Mangles, Colquhoun, and Shiel; against it, Sirs Robert
Peel, James Graham, Robert Inglis, and Howard Douglas and Mr. Cardwell.
After a brief reply from Mr. Buller, the house divided on the motion,
which was negatived by a majority of two hundred and twenty-three
against one hundred and seventeen.

Towards the end of the session the New Zealand question again became
the subject of a lengthened investigation. Intelligence continued to be
received from New Zealand of the hostile disposition and violent
conduct of the natives, and the precarious tenure on which the lives and
properties of the settlers depended. Under these circumstances, on
the 21st of July, a petition was presented by the New Zealand Company,
praying the house “not to separate without taking measures calculated
to allay the apprehensions prevalent among the colonists of New Zealand,
and to revive confidence in the company, by which its usefulness would
be restored, the friendly communication between the colonists and the
aboriginal races renewed, and the prosperity of New Zealand secured.”
 On the same day Mr. C. Buller proposed a resolution to the effect, that
“the house regarded with regret and apprehension the state of affairs in
New Zealand, and that those feelings were greatly aggravated by the want
of any sufficient evidence of a change in the policy which had led to
such disastrous results.” A long debate ensued, which was continued by
adjournment; but on a division the motion was negatived by one hundred
and fifty-five against eighty-nine. A few nights afterwards, on the vote
being proposed, in a committee of supply of £22,565 for New-Zealand,
Mr. J. A. Smith stated that negociations had been resumed between the
Colonial office and the New Zealand Company, and that the result only
waited the final approval of Lord Stanley, who was absent from town. He
asked, if the hope of a favourable issue were not realized, whether Sir
Robert Peel would afford another opportunity, before the close of the
session, for some remarks on the present state of New Zealand, Sir
Robert Peel promised to do so; but expressed a strong desire to
co-operate in the colonization of New Zealand, and to bring the
differences with the company to a conclusion. It would seem that
government were now, indeed, convinced that the policy of the government
of New Zealand was unfavourable to the prospects of the colony; for
about this time Captain Fitzroy was recalled. Government also appears
to have been convinced that some better policy must be adopted; for Mr.
Hope, on the occasion of the last debate on New Zealand, stated, that
a gentleman unconnected with the subject had been called in to give
his advice, and he was now engaged in arranging the matter for his full
consideration.




QUESTION OF THE OREGON TERRITORY.

The great question of this year between Great Britain and the United
States was the boundary-line running through the Oregon territory. The
proposals of the British government to Congress were not acceded to; and
up to this period, negociation, in which the British cabinet had shown
themselves desirous of terminating the dispute amicably, had failed. The
American authorities asserted a valid claim to all the territory, and
were unwilling to allow any portion of it to be given up to England. In
the present year, the dispute assumed more the aspect of war than it
had hitherto done; for Mr. Polk had been chosen president, and he was
decidedly hostile to the claims of the British to this or any portion of
this territory. His hostility was clearly unfolded to the world by his
presidential message to congress.

The inaugural address of President Polk being of such a belligerent
nature, naturally created strong apprehensions in the public mind of
England of an intended encroachment upon our rights in the matter of the
Oregon territory. The subject was introduced in the house of lords,
by Lord Clarendon, on the 4th of April, with a view to elicit from
government some information as to our relations with the United States
upon this question, and the course it was intended to pursue, in case
congress, acting upon the president’s express opinion, should proceed to
take possession of the country. His lordship expressed an anxious hope,
that, while whatever could be justly claimed by the United States should
be readily conceded, government would not shrink from vindicating, if
necessary, the nation’s honour, and upholding her interests. In reply,
Lord Aberdeen said that our position was precisely the same as it
had been for the last eighteen years, under the treaty of 1827. The
provisions of that treaty had been prolonged for an indefinite period,
subject to the right of either party to terminate it by giving a year’s
notice. This could not be done without a vote of congress, and that body
would not assemble until December; so that sufficient time was still
left to bring the matters in dispute to a satisfactory conclusion.

The same subject was brought before the commons on the same day by Lord
John Russell.

The Oregon question was introduced into the discussions of the American
Senate on the 15th of December, by General Cass, who made a violent
speech in favour of President Polk’s views of the subject. Referring to
the above debate in Parliament, and particularly to the speeches of Lord
John Russell and Sir Robert Peel, he dwelt strongly upon the rapacities
of England; and congratulated his country that it had secured Texas in
spite of her attempts to wrest it from America. The object of the speech
of General Cass was clearly to involve the United States in a war with
Great Britain; but there were men in the American senate who, conscious
of the weakness of their cause, stood in the breach. This year closed,
however, before the dispute was terminated: it was still left open to
arbitration.




MISCELLANEOUS MEASURES OF THE SESSION.

Early in the present session Lord-chancellor Lyndhurst introduced a bill
into the upper house, having for its object the relief of persons,
of the Jewish persuasion from certain tests which had previously been
required from them upon their election to municipal offices. The bill
was read a second time in the house of lords on the 10th of March,
without a division; and having passed through that house, it came down
to the commons, where the second reading was moved by Sir Robert Peel
on the 17th of July. It was opposed by Sir Robert Inglis, who regretted
that Sir R. Peel had lent the sanction of his name to it. And moved
that it be read that day three months. On a division the amendment was
negatived by a majority of ninety-one against eleven. The second reading
was then carried, and the bill subsequently became law.

During this session a bill was introduced by the Lord-advocate for the
amendment of the poor-laws in Scotland. The chief objects of this bill
were thus described by Sir James Graham on the debate on the second
reading:—“Provisions had been made for local inspection; for a
responsible supervision by a board sitting in the capital; for perfect
publicity; for an appeal to the sheriff of the county on the part of the
poor man to whom relief was refused; for empowering the sheriff to
order relief; and, if the quantum were too small, for a power of appeal,
without expense, to the central board, which had complete power, without
limitation, to deal with the quantum of relief; and on the other hand,
if the quantum was too great, the parish might appeal to the court
of session. Provision had also been made for subscription to lunatic
asylums; for the education of pauper children; for medical attendants;
and for building poor-houses in large cities.” This bill encountered
much opposition in both houses; but it finally passed into law, with
very trifling alteration made in the house of lords.

Among the minor fruits of this session were two bills introduced by Lord
Ashley; one for the regulation of juvenile labour in calico-print works,
and the other to provide for the better care of lunatics. The former
of these bills was a supplement to Lord Ashley’s exertions in former
sessions, for the protection of persons employed in factories.
In introducing the latter, Lord Ashley startled the house by some
distressing statements of the abuses by which the law had been perverted
in the treatment of pauper lunatics.

Mr. Duncombe opposed it; but the feeling of the house was strongly in
its favour, and it was adopted.

Two bills were this year brought in by Sir Robert Peel, for the
regulation of banking in Scotland and Ireland, based on similar
principles to that by which he had remodelled the English banking system
in the preceding year. In explaining these measures he first touched
upon a peculiarity in Irish banking as distinct from Scottish—the
existence of the national bank of Ireland. It enjoyed the exclusive
privilege of issuing and paying notes, except of large amounts and
at longdates, within a circle of sixty-four English miles radius. Its
capital was £6,729,000.; and there was a debt due by government of
£2,630,000, on which three and a half per cent, interest was paid. There
were eight other banks of issue in Ireland—joint-stock banks: those
banks had four thousand shareholders, and many thousand more customers;
to many of whom it was a serious inconvenience that they could not
transact business through the national bank. He proposed, with the
willing concurrence of its directors, to withdraw all the exclusive
privileges of the national bank, except that he would continue to it the
government business, and the present rate of interest on the government
debt, as payment for conducting the official business. He would also
abolish the oaths in that establishment, distinguishing Roman Catholic
office-bearers from Protestants. The bank would also make a weekly
return, like that of the Bank of England. In Scotland, as in Ireland,
there were no private banks of issue: all were joint-stock banks. There
were nineteen banks, to which number they were restricted by the acts
of last session. Three had charters; two were incorporated under act of
parliament; the rest were not incorporated. It would be better to
give them all charters of incorporation; but still he would make that
permissive. He would not abolish the power of issuing notes under five
pounds in amount either in Scotland or Ireland—he would not run the
risk of encountering the opposition which such a proposal would excite;
though he did not know that the use of tire small notes could be
justified by argument. He would not establish any fixed proportion
between the notes under £5, or above; but he would, as in the case of
the English banks, restrict the future issues of the banks to the amount
of the average issues for a ces tain time past; namely, the period
of the 27th of April, 1844, thirteen lunar months. In Ireland it was
necessary to take an extended time, because there had been a greater
increase on the issues within the last three or four months. He would
solve the doubt in Scotland as to the question of law, whether Bank of
England notes were a legal tender or not, by making them _not_ a legal
tender. There was in this country a security against derangement of the
currency, in the general diffusion of gold coin, probably not less than
£30,000,000 or £35,000,000, through every part, a security which did not
exist in Ireland or Scotland: he would therefore oblige any excess of
the issues of the banks, over the amounts now fixed, to be based not on
bullion or Bank of England notes, but on bullion alone; gold or silver
bullion; making silver under two pounds a legal tender. It would be
advantageous to encourage an increase of silver, especially in Ireland.
The banks would, in future, be obliged to make weekly returns of the
notes in circulation: but in Scotland, returns of the circulation each
day would be fallacious, on account of exchanges with other banks; and
therefore he would continue the present system of making a return of the
last day in each week; the average would be struck on the returns for
four weeks, and the circulation, or any excess, calculated on that
average. Several statistical particulars, such as the amount of gold
in each bank, or distinction between the £5 and the lower notes, the
description of issues, &c., would be required; but the information
thus exacted by government would be in confidence: the monthly returns
published by the stamp-office resembling those now made in England. The
average circulation of the Scotch banks in the thirteen months since the
27th of April was £3,041,000; but there was in the November of each year
an excess in the issues of about £500,000, which would of course have
to be based on bullion. The average circulation in Ireland would
in future be, of the national bank, £3,706,000; of the other banks,
£2,565,000; in all. £6,271,000. As there was in Scotland no national
bank to supply any deficiency caused in the circulation by the failure
of any joint-stock bank, he would give permission for any bank to
dispose of its circulation to another bank; the aggregate of the two
amounts to be taken as the joint circulation. To avoid any inconvenience
or precipitancy, the plan would not come into operation until the 1st of
January, 1846. Sir Robert Peel concluded by expressing his belief that
this plan would add to the stability of the circulation in the United
Kingdom, and would be an equitable way of making Ireland and Scotland
bear their share of the burden of providing a guarantee against
commercial panic. These bills passed through both houses without much
discussion, and became law.

During this session a measure was passed by government for facilitating
the enclosure of commons in England and Wales, by appointing a board
of commissioners with extensive powers, and removing the necessity of
obtaining private acts of parliament for the enclosing of lands.

The business of the session was closed by Lord John Russell’s taking
the opportunity for a formal motion for papers, to enter into a critical
review of the results of the session, and the general policy of the
administration.




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued by the queen in person on the 9th of August.
After the speaker had addressed her majesty on the measures of the
session, and some bills had received the royal assent, her majesty read
the royal speech.




THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA.

In the early part of this year the important subject of railroads in
India was taken into serious consideration. Various companies were
formed in England, for the purpose, if possible, of carrying out schemes
of railway communication in that country. In order that full preliminary
information might be obtained before any project was sanctioned, the
court of directors sent a despatch to the governor-general, directing
him to take the subject into his best consideration, as one in which the
interests of India were deeply concerned.

Until the close of the year, peace pervaded the whole of India, and Sir
Henry Hardinge was employed in promoting the interests of the natives,
by giving his attention to the important question of education. While
thus humanely employed, the state of our north-western frontier summoned
him to engage in warlike preparations. The Anglo-Indian dominion on the
left bank of the Sutlej was suddenly invaded by a Sikh army. What part
the government at Lahore took in this invasion is uncertain. It is
alleged on the part of the Ranee, the queen-mother, and the other
advisers of the youthful monarch, Dhuleep Singh, and the Durbar at
Lahore was at the mercy of the army; and that the restless and mutinous
Sikh soldiers, in defiance of government, determined to cross the
Sutlej, in hopes of finding the British unprepared, and carrying off an
immense quantity of booty. This sounds like fiction; and it would rathe
appear that the Lahore government, standing in awe of the Sikh army, was
glad of any pretext for finding it employment in British India, in order
to avoid violence within the Punjaub territory. Be this as it may, the
Sikhs invaded our borders; and we had no alternative but to treat
the invasion as a formal declaration of war on the part of the Lahore
government, and to take measures for proceeding against the Punjaub
government as a hostile state. On the 2nd of December Sir Henry Hardinge
arrived at Umballah; on the 6th he removed from Umballah towards
Loodianah; and on the 12th his whole force marched towards the Sutlej,
and took up a position at Busseeau, an important point, where the roads
leading from Umballah and Kurnaul meet. It was not till the 13th that
the Sikh army crossed the Sutlej, and on that day Sir Henry Hardinge
issued the following proclamation:—“The British government has ever
been on terms of friendship with that of the Punjaub. In the year 1809 a
treaty of amity and concord was concluded between the British government
and the late Maharaja Runjeet Singh, the conditions of which have
always been faithfully observed by the British government, and were
scrupulously fulfilled by the late Maharaja. The same friendly relations
have been maintained with the successors of Maharaja Runjeet Singh, by
the British government, up to the present time. Since the death of
the late Maharaja Shere Singh, the disorganized state of the Lahore
government has made it incumbent on the governor-general in council to
adopt precautionary measures for the protection of the British frontier;
the nature of these measures, and the cause of their adoption were
at the time fully explained to the Lahore Durbar. Notwithstanding the
disorganized state of the Lahore government, during the last two years,
and many most unfriendly proceedings on the part of the Durbar, the
governor-general in council has continued to evince his desire to
maintain the relations of amity and concord which had so long existed
between the two states, for the mutual interests and happiness of
both. He has shown on every occasion the utmost forbearance, from
consideration to the helpless state of the infant Maharaja Dhuleep
Singh, whom the British government had recognised as the successor to
the late Maharaja Shere Singh. The governor-general in council sincerely
desired to see a strong Sikh government re-established in the Punjaub,
able to control its army and protect its subjects. He had not, up to
the present moment, abandoned the hope of seeing that important object
effected by the patriotic efforts of the Sikhs and people of that
country. The Sikh army recently marched from Lahore towards thu British
frontier, as it was alleged, by the orders of the Durbar, for the
purpose of invading the British territory. The governor-general’s agent,
by direction of the governor-general, demanded an explanation of this
movement; and no reply being returned within a reasonable time, the
demand was repeated. The governor-general, unwilling to believe in the
hostile intentions of the Sikh government, to which no provocation
had been given, refrained from taking any measures which might have
a tendency to embarrass the government of the Maharaja, or to induce
collision between the two states. When no reply was given to the
repeated demand for explanation, and while active military operations
were continued at Lahore, the governor-general considered it necessary
to order the advance of troops towards the frontier, to re-enforce the
frontier posts. The Sikh army has now, without a shadow of provocation,
invaded the British territories. Tire governor-general must, therefore,
take measures for effectually protecting the British provinces; for
vindicating the authority of the British government; and for punishing
the violaters of treaties and the disturbers of public peace. The
governor-general hereby declares the possessions of Maharaja Dhuleep
Singh, on the left, or British bank of the Sutlej, confiscated and
annexed to the British territories. The governor-general will respect
the existing rights of all jagheerdars, zemindars, and tenants in the
said possessions, who, by the course they now pursue, evince their
fidelity to the British government. The governor-general hereby
calls upon all the chiefs and sirdars in the protected territories to
co-operate cordially with the British government, for the punishment
of the common enemy, and for the maintenance of order in these states.
Those of the chiefs which show alacrity and fidelity in the discharge
of this duty, which they owe to the protecting power, will find their
interests promoted thereby; and those who take a contrary course will
be treated as enemies to the British government, and will be punished
accordingly. The inhabitants of all the territories on the left bank of
the Sutlej are hereby directed to abide peaceably in their respective
villages, where they will receive efficient protection by the British
government. All parties of men found in armed bands, who can give no
satisfactory account of their proceedings, will be treated as disturbers
of the public peace. All subjects of the British government, and those
who possess estates on both sides of the river Sutlej, who by their
faithful adherence to the British government, may be liable to sustain
loss, shall be indemnified and secured in all their just rights and
privileges. On the other hand, all subjects of the British government,
who shall continue in the service of the Lahore state, and who disobey
this proclamation, by not immediately returning to their allegiance,
will be liable to have their property on this side of the Sutlej
confiscated, and declared to be aliens and enemies of the British
government.” On crossing the Sutlej, the Sikh army, under the command
of Sirdar Tej Sing, invested Ferozepore on one side, and took up an
intrenched position at the village of Ferozeshah, about ten miles
in advance of Ferozepore, and nearly the same distance from Moodkee.
Ferozepore was garrisoned with about 5000 troops, with twenty-one guns,
under the command of Major-general Sir John Littler. The great object
of the governor-general was to effect a junction between the separated
portions of the Anglo-Indian army before an attack could be made
upon them by the Sikhs. For this purpose orders were issued by the
governor-general, while on his route, to the force at Umballah, with
Sir Hugh Gough at their head, to move up towards Ferozepore by rapid
marches. On the 18th those troops reached the village of Moodkee, and
on that day a battle was fought, which will be best told in Sir Hugh
Gough’s own words. In his dispatch he writes:—“Soon after midday, the
division under Major-general Sir Harry Smith, a brigade of that under
Major-general Sir J. M’Caskill, and another of that under Major-general
Gilbert, with five troops of horse-artillery, and two light
field-batteries, under Lieutenant-colonel Brooke, of the
horse-artillery, and the cavalry division, consisting of her majesty’s
3rd light-dragoons, the body-guard, 4th and 5th light-cavalry, and 9th
irregular cavalry, took up their encamping ground in front of Moodkee.
The troops were in a state of great exhaustion, principally from the
want of water, which was not procurable on the road, when, about three
p. m., information was received that the Sikh army was advancing;
and the troops had scarcely time to get under arms and move to their
positions, when the fact was ascertained. I immediately pushed forward
the horse-artillery and cavalry, directing the infantry, accompanied by
the field-batteries, to move forward in support. We had not proceeded
beyond two miles, when we found the enemy in position. They were said
to consist of from 15,000 to 20,000 infantry, about the same force of
cavalry, and forty guns. They had evidently either just taken up this
position, or were advancing in order of battle against us. To resist
their attack, and to cover the formation of the infantry, I advanced
the cavalry, under Brigadiers White, Gough, and Martier, rapidly to
the front, in columns of squadrons, and occupied the plain. They were
speedily followed by the five troops of horse-artillery, under Brigadier
Brooke, who took up a forward position, having the valley then on his
flanks. The country is a dead flat, covered, at short intervals, with
a low, but in some places, a thick low jungle, and dotted with sandy
hillocks. The enemy screened their infantry and artillery behind this
jungle, and such undulations as the ground afforded; and whilst our
twelve battalions formed from echellon of brigade into line, opened a
very severe cannonade upon our advancing troops, which was vigorously
replied to by the battery of horse artillery under Brigadier Brooke,
which was soon joined by the two light field-batteries. The rapid and
well-directed fire of our artillery appeared soon to paralyse that of
the enemy. And as it was necessary to complete our infantry dispositions
without advancing the artillery too near the jungle, I directed the
cavalry, under Brigadiers White and Gough, to make a flank movement on
the enemy’s left, with a view of threatening and turning that flank, if
possible. With praiseworthy gallantry, the 3rd light-dragoons, with
the 2nd brigade of cavalry, consisting of the body-guard and 5th
light-cavalry, with a portion of the 4th lancers, turned the left of the
Sikh army, and, sweeping along the whole rear of its infantry and
guns, silenced for a time the latter, and put their numerous cavalry
to flight. Whilst this movement was taking place on the enemy’s left,
I directed the remainder of the 4th lancers, the 9th irregular cavalry,
under Brigadier Martier, with a light field-battery, to threaten their
right. This manouvre was also successful. Had not the infantry and guns
of the enemy been screened by the jungle, these brilliant charges would
have been productive of greater effect. When the infantry advanced to
the attack, Brigadier Brooke rapidly pushed on his horse-artillery close
to the jungle, and the cannonade was resumed on both sides. The infantry
under Major-generals Sir Harry Smith, Gilbert, and Sir John M’Caskill,
attacked in echellon of lines the enemy’s infantry, almost invisible
amongst wood and the approaching darkness of the night. The position
of the enemy was such as might have been expected from troops who had
everything at stake, and who had long vaunted of being irresistible.
Their ample and extended line, from the great superiority of numbers,
far outflanked ours; but this was counteracted by the flank movements of
our cavalry. The attack of the infantry now commenced, and the roll of
fire from this powerful arm soon convinced the Sikh army that they had
met with a foe they little expected; and their whole force was driven
from position after position, with great slaughter, and the loss of
seventeen pieces of artillery, some of them of heavy calibre; our
infantry using that never-failing weapon, the bayonet, whenever the
enemy stood. Night only saved them from worse disaster; for this stout
conflict was maintained during an hour and a half ot dim starlight,
amidst a cloud of dust from the sandy plain, which yet more obscured
every object.” This victory, however, was dearly purchased: amongst
those who fell was Sir Robert Sale, the hero of Jellalabad, and Sir
John M’Caskill. After remaining encamped for two days, Sir Hugh Gough
moved with his whole force towards Ferozeshah, where the Sikh army was
posted in a strongly entrenched camp, defended by a formidable park of
artillery. Here a junction was formed between the troops under Sir John
Littler and those of Sir Hugh Gough. About four o’clock on the afternoon
of the 21st, the united forces advanced to attack the entrenched camp of
the Sikhs. At this time Sir Henry Hardinge himself had joined Sir Hugh
Gough; and he took an active part in the events of the day, as second
in command. The camp of the enemy was in the form of a parallelogram, of
about a mile in length, and half a mile in breadth, including within its
area the strong village of Ferozeshah: the shorter sides looking towards
the Sutlej and Moodkee, and the longer towards Ferozepore and the open
country. The British troops moved against the last-named place, and
their operations were thus detailed by Sir Hugh Gough:—“The divisions
of Major-general Sir John Littler, Brigadier Wallace, and Major-general
Gilbert, deployed into line, having in the centre our whole force
of artillery, with the exception of one on either flank, and one in
support, to be moved as occasion required. Major-general Sir Harry
Smith’s division and our small cavalry force moved in second line,
having a brigade in reserve to cover each wing. I committed the charge
of the left wing to Lieutenant-general Sir Henry Hardinge, while I
personally conducted the right. A very heavy cannonade was opened by
the enemy, who had dispersed over their position upwards of one hundred
guns, more than forty of which were of battering calibre: these kept
up a heavy and well directed fire, which the practice of our far less
numerous artillery, of much lighter metal, checked in some degree, but
could not silence: finally, in the face of a storm of shot and shell,
our infantry advanced, and carried these formidable entrenchments: they
threw themselves upon their guns, and with matchless gallantry wrested
them from the enemy; but when the batteries were partially within our
grasp, our soldiery had to face such a fire of musketry from the Sikh
infantry, arrayed behind their guns, that, in spite of the most heroic
efforts, a portion only of the entrenchment could be carried. Night fell
while the conflict was raging. Although I now brought up Major-general
Sir Harry Smith’s division, and he captured and long retained another
part of the position, and her majesty’s 3rd light-dragoons charged, and
took some of the most formidable batteries, yet the enemy remained in
possession of a considerable portion of the great quadrangle, whilst
our troops, mingled with theirs, kept possession of the remainder, and
finally bivouacked upon it, exhausted by their gallant efforts, greatly
reduced in numbers, and suffering extremely from thirst, yet animated by
an indomitable spirit. In this state of things the long night wore away.
Near the middle of it, one of their heavy guns was advanced, and
played with deadly effect upon our troops. Lieutenant-general Sir
Henry Hardinge immediately formed her majesty’s 80th foot, and the 1st
European light-infantry. They were led to the attack by their commanding
officers, and animated in their exertions by Lieutenant-colonel Wood,
who was wounded in the outset. The 80th captured the gun; and the enemy,
dismayed by this countercheck, did not venture to press on further.
During the whole night, however, they continued to harass our troops by
fire of artillery, wherever moonlight discovered our position. But with
daylight of the 22nd came retribution. Our infantry formed in line,
supported on both flanks by horse-artillery, whilst a fire was opened
from our centre, by such of our heavy guns as remained effective, aided
by a flight of rockets. A masked battery played with great effect upon
this point, dismounting our pieces, and blowing up our tumbrils. At this
movement Lieutenant-general Sir Henry Hardinge placed himself at the
head of the left, whilst I rode at the head of the right wing. Our line
advanced, and, unchecked by the enemy’s fire, drove them rapidly out of
the village of Ferozeshah and their encampment; then, changing front to
its left, on its centre, our force continued to sweep the camp, bearing
down all opposition, and dislodged the enemy from their whole position.
The line then halted, as if on a clay of manoeuvre, receiving its two
leaders, as they rode along its front, with a gratifying cheer, and
displaying the captured standards of the Khalsa army. We had taken
seventy-three pieces of cannon, and were masters of the whole field. The
force assumed a position on the ground which it had won; but even here
its labours were not to cease. In the course of two hours, Sirdar Tej
Sing, who had commanded in the last great battle, brought up from the
vicinity of Ferozepore fresh battalions and a large field of artillery,
supported by 30,000 Ghorepurras, hitherto encamped near the river. He
drove in our cavalry parties, and made strenuous efforts to regain the
position at Ferozeshah. This attempt was defeated; but its failure had
scarcely become manifest, when the sirdar renewed the contest with more
troops, and a large artillery. He commenced by a combination against
our left flank; and when this was frustrated, made such a demonstration
against the captured village, as compelled us to change our whole front
to the right. His guns during this manouvre maintained an incessant
fire; whilst, our artillery ammunition being completely expended in these
protracted combats, we were unable to answer him with a single shot.
I now directed our almost exhausted cavalry to threaten both flanks at
once, preparing the infantry to advance in support, which apparently
caused him suddenly to cease his fire, and to abandon the field.” This
victory, by which the enemy was driven to the banks of the Sutlej,
was not achieved without heavy loss; and among the slain were Major
Broadfoot, political agent in the north-western provinces, Colonels
Wallace and Taylor, and Major Fitzroy Somerset, military secretary
to the governor-general. The Sikh army retreated on the fords of the
Sutlej, and, disheartened by the capture of its artillery, and the loss
it had sustained in killed and wounded, crossed over to the other side
of the river. Early in the next year the victorious British followed
them, and pressed onwards to Lahore. Terms of peace were agreed on; and
one of the stipulations between the two states was the disbandment of
the Sikh force. The importance of these victories was acknowledged by
government, and the people of England at large; who joined in admiration
of the conduct of the governor-general, the commanders, and the troops,
by whom the victory was achieved.

In the vicinity of Scinde Sir Charles Napier was employed in military
operations against the mountain desert tribes on the right bank of the
Indus, north of Shikarpoor.

This was a hazardous service, requiring, as Sir Henry Hardinge remarked,
“on the part of the general, the utmost prudence, skill, and foresight;
and on the part of the troops, the greatest fortitude in enduring
the fatigues and privations to which they were exposed.” In these
operations, however, Sir Charles Napier was completely successful. On
the 9th of March he wrote to the governor-general an account of his
victory in these terms:—“I have to report to you the conclusion of the
war against the mountain and desert tribes, who, driven into their last
refuge, the stronghold at Truckee, have this day laid down their arms:
the fort of Deyrah is destroyed; and Islam Boogtie, the only chief not a
prisoner, is said to be a lonely fugitive in the Ketrau country, far in
the north, and ruled by a chief whose daughter Islam married. To detail
the movements which led to this result, would produce a despatch
of greater length than is necessary; nor, indeed, could it be well
understood, as no map exists of this part of Schwistan and Cutchee;
suffice it therefore to say that the mountain tribes occupy a country of
extensive deserts and barren mountains, stretching about one hundred
and forty miles from east to west. Into this apex, or smaller part, we
succeeded in driving the robber chiefs; but with great difficulty, for
this part of the country is full of the most dangerous defiles. To
enter them with a regular force is an operation which threatens it with
destruction. The only credit to be acquired in such a war is that which
results from patience, under privations created by the dearth of water,
and the difficulty of getting supplies. These deprivations were borne
by this whole force with so much good humour as to show that the eager
desire of every one to do his duty absorbed all other feelings; and
deserves my highest praise. These privations fell especially hard upon
those hard-working and much-enduring men, called camp-followers. The
result of this campaign may be divided into two parts—the physical
effect and the moral effect. With regard to the first the results are
as follows:—First, the total destruction of the robber tribes; Deyriah
Khan, chief of the Jackranies, Dinanah Moondrannee, Sooliman Ramdanee,
and Toork Ali, and their tribes, all surrendered on the 5th, accompanied
by Jumea Khan, nephew of Beeja Khan Doomkie, with a large portion
of that tribe. These men I pardoned, and saved from plunder, but on
condition of their being transplanted into the Scinde territory. The
great chief, Beeja Khan, and the rest of the Doomkies, refused to
surrender on the proffered conditions. They held out till this day, when
they were forced to submit unconditionally, together with Meer Hussen
Notanee, a leading chief ot the Boogtie tribe, and his followers; also
Mundoo Khan Doomkie, nephew to Beejar Khan, and Wuzeer Doomkie, son of
Beejar Khan: Ali Sher Boordie, a minor desert chief, surrendered a week
ago, and was the first who broke the coalition. The chiefs and their
tribes who have held out have been deservedly plundered by the troops
which I had despatched in all directions to intercept their retreat,
with their baggage, cattle, and household furniture; almost everything
has been taken except what was in possession of their women and
children, who have been in no way molested, or even approached by the
troops. The moral effect of this expedition has been:—1st. To spread
a wholesome respect for our arms among the neighbouring nations, who,
seeing that tribes so warlike and honoured among them have been broken
to pieces without daring to fight a battle, even when posted in the
celebrated fastness of Truckee, will form a just idea of the British
power. Indeed, I have already received, within the last few days,
letters from neighbouring tribes, asking me to attach their territory to
Scinde, to be under the British rule, and thus to be protected from the
pillage and misery in which they live. 2nd. The moral effect in Scinde
will be to give confidence to the people; especially those bordering on
the desert frontier, whose cries against the government during the last
summer, for not affording them protection against the robber tribes,
were both frequent and just; but the great heat at that time rendered
it impossible to give them that protection. The example now made of the
robber tribes, will show the people of Scinde that the government has
both the will and the power to protect them.”




THE STATE OF THE CONTINENT.

The war which France had waged in Algeria for a considerable period
continued throughout the whole of this year and was marked by several
reverses experienced by its forces.

Little of interest occurs in the annals of Spain during this year. The
chiefs, Zurbano and Muro, were captured near Logrono, and were both
shot. The hopes of Don Carlos were now cut off, and he was under
the necessity of issuing this farewell address to the Spanish
nation:—“Spaniards, my faithful defenders, called to the crown of
Spain by imprescriptible rights, my sole desire has constantly been,
the happiness of my beloved country. That happiness now requires my
renunciation in behalf of my very dear eldest son, Charles Louis, prince
of the Asturias. No sacrifice could be too great to me when the welfare
of my land was at stake. I have willingly made that of the renunciation
in behalf of my son, whom you will acknowledge as my lawful successor,
and surround with the same affection and fidelity. He will, on his side,
know how to reward, as they deserve to be, your loyalty and constancy in
upholding the sound principles which alone can save Spain. In quitting
public life, I feel great satisfaction and consolation in expressing my
gratitude for the heroic achievements by which you have astonished the
world, and which will ever remain engraven on my heart. Farewell, my
constant defenders and faithful companions. Pray unto God with me
that He may take pity on the miseries of our country, and vouchsafe us
quieter and happier days.” During the year some disturbances occurred
at Madrid, and the state of Catalonia caused government considerable
uneasiness; but these insurrectionary movements were finally put down,
though not without loss of life.

At Rimini, in Italy, on the 23rd of September, a revolt broke out
against the papal authority. A number of persons, armed with muskets,
assembled in the Square-del-Corso; and when the garrison was called out
the soldiers joined the populace, and a provincial junto was appointed.
Other towns followed the example of Rimini, and emigrants from the
Tuscan dominions united with the insurgents. Their leaders were Counts
Biancoli, Pasi, and Beltrami; and they took up a position near Faenza;
but being attacked by detachments of pontifical and Austrian soldiers
at this place, they were finally compelled to fly for refuge into the
Tuscan states, where they were protected by the grand duke, and whence,
subsequently, they set sail for Marseilles.

During this year the King of Holland paid a visit to her majesty Queen
Victoria, to which event, on his return to his dominions, in his speech
to the States-general, he thus referred:—“The visit which I have
paid to her majesty the Queen of England will contribute, I hope,
to consolidate the good understanding which exists between the two
countries and their governments. For my part, I shall retain the most
agreeable impression of the welcome which I received on that visit.”




CHAPTER LVII.

{VICTORIA. 1845–1846}

     State of Public Affairs at the Commencement of this Year,
     &c. Meeting of Parliament..... Settlement of the Corn
     Law Question.




STATE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS YEAR, ETC.

{A.D. 1846}

The close of the last year and the commencement of the present, were
marked by great activity among all classes on the subject of the
corn-laws. The agents of the anti-corn-law league were everywhere
active. Meetings were held in every part of England; and converts to the
free-trade doctrine were made daily. Even the farmers at this time began
to think that their interests were concerned in the matter; and some
landowners adopted the views of the great leader of the movement, Mr.
Cobden. A stimulus was given to the exertions of the free-traders in the
failure of the potato crop in the autumn of 1845, both in England and
Ireland. It was generally felt, indeed, that some alterations in the
corn-laws must be made, and that government itself would be compelled to
throw the trade open. While the hopes of the free-traders in Sir Robert
Peel were thus excited, those of his own party seemed proportionably
cast down. They, too, held meetings, and formed agricultural protection
societies in every part of the United Kingdom. It was, in truth, evident
to every man that a change was coming; and while the mass hailed the
prospect with delight, the great landowners, with some exceptions,
stretched every nerve to stem the onward progress of free-trade
principles. The hopes of the one party, and the fears of the other, were
heightened by the quarrel with America concerning the Oregon territory.
It was thought by all that the abolition of the corn-law would for
ever destroy all chance of war between England and the United States,
inasmuch as the latter country would see that its interest was concerned
in cultivating that great blessing of life—peace. Coming events thus
cast their broad and ample shadows before.

From the thirteenth century, downwards, there are numerous instances on
record of the interference of the legislature with the course of trade
in every department. A few centuries ago, indeed, it was usual to fix
the prices of many articles of consumption; and that of corn was more
interfered with than any other. One circumstance which led to this
interference was scarcity; and another, the want of adequate means of
internal communication, which often rendered it more profitable to the
corn-factor to ship the surplus produce of our maritime districts to a
neighbouring country, than to send it to other counties in England. As a
remedy for these evils, exportation was prohibited. But such a measure,
inasmuch as exportation would not take place except when a better
price could be got abroad than at home, was a palpable injustice to the
grower. On the other hand, when the general supply was supposed to be
more than sufficient, importation was prohibited; but as wheat could
never be imported except when it was cheaper in foreign countries than
in our own, an injustice was done to the consumer. These restrictions
failed to effect their object, and a third party was then fixed upon
as the object of further legislation; from alternately restricting
the export and import of corn, stringent restrictions were laid on the
buying and selling of corn within the country itself. The buying of corn
in one place, to sell in another, was even looked upon as an unnecessary
and improper interference on the part of the dealers. Both the farmers
and the people looked upon them as interlopers: men who had no right to
deal in corn, and who, to enhance their own gains, increased the price
without any profit to the former, and the manifest detriment of the
latter. The complaints against them were so general that the legislature
interfered. Protection to the growers of corn pervaded the legislature
down to the period of 1815; but so badly were the arrangements for this
purpose laid, that the protective laws were often abortive. Generally,
the country raised more corn than it consumed—a sufficient cause for
rendering protection inoperative. In 1773 the period closed during
which this country commonly raised a surplus of corn beyond its own
consumption, and the duties on importation became oppressive. Mr.
Robinson brought forward the resolutions which were embodied in the
celebrated corn-law of 1815. The report of a committee in 1814 fixed the
remunerating price at 80s., and it was proposed absolutely to prohibit
the importation of foreign wheat till it reached that price, and
of colonial wheat till it reached 67s.; when over those prices,
respectively, the imports were to be free. This measure was in itself
oppressive, but it was made doubly so by the mode adopted for fixing
the averages. These were fixed every three months upon the prices of the
previous six weeks, and continued the same until the expiration of the
quarter. However great might be the demands of the country for import,
no rise of price could affect the scale of duties until the arrival
of the next period for fixing the averages. The measure created a great
sensation throughout the country, and met with much opposition in both
houses of parliament; but it passed into law. Agriculturalists now
considered that the price of 80s. per quarter for their corn was
certain, and cheerfully entered into contracts with their landlords upon
that basis. It soon, however, proved to be mere delusion. The three next
years witnessed deficient harvests, which had the effect at one time of
raising the price to 112s. 7d.; but the ports were at length opened, and
in September, 1817, the price had fallen to 74s. The harvest of 1819 was
an average one, and the price of corn through’ the year, ranged at 72s.
But this was a remunerating price, and the farmers and landowners were
induced to increase the breadth of land sown, in the hope of selling the
produce at remunerating prices. They were still convinced that the act
of 1815 was efficient to protect their interests, and they should still
flourish. But the harvest of 1821 was abundant, and the effect was such
as to surprise, though it did not instruct them. The price of corn in
July, 1821, was 51s., and the two next harvests being abundant likewise,
the price sunk in August, 1822, to 42s. The law of 1815, therefore, had
the effect of seducing the farmer into a course of conduct which induced
ruin rather than prosperity. Committees were appointed to inquire into
the causes of distress then prevailing among them. These inquiries were
useless; but, by the year 1824, much of the capital invested in the
poorer description of soils, under the stimulus of the high prices of
previous years, was withdrawn, and less corn being brought to market,
the price rose considerably, and an improved condition of the farmer
took place accordingly. For several years nothing was done permanently
to settle the terms upon which foreign corn could be admitted into the
market. Colonial corn was still excluded till the average price reached
67s. In 1825, however, an act was passed, admitting corn from our North
American colonies at a fixed duty of 5s. per quarter, till July, 1827;
and by another act passed at the same time, corn from our other colonies
was admitted at reduced duties: the stocks of corn in bond were further
admitted for consumption at lower duties. In 1826 there was a partial
failure of the corn-crops, and an order in council was issued in
September 1st, admitting for home consumption oats and oatmeal, rye,
peas, and beans, on the ground that there was great cause to fear that
much distress might ensue to all classes of his majesty’s subjects. A
meeting of parliament was summoned in November, to indemnify ministers
for this order in council, on which occasion Mr. Canning announced the
intention of government early in the ensuing session to introduce a
general measure on the corn-trade. This measure was brought forward soon
after the next meeting of parliament; and its plan was a sliding-scale,
with a more regular and artificial range of duties than those of the
existing law; the object being to keep the price of wheat somewhere
between 55s. and 65s. This bill passed the house of commons by a large
majority; but the bill met with so much opposition in the upper house,
that Mr. Canning, whose health was now declining, dropped the measure,
and announced another of a similar character early in the ensuing
session. Before that period arrived, however, Mr. Canning died, and
the task of introducing the measure of 1828 fell to the share of Mr. C.
Grant, then president of the board of trade. His resolutions differed
from those of Mr. Canning, chiefly in making the protection afforded
when the average price should range between 60s. and 70s. more
restrictive by an amount varying from 3s. to 7s. per quarter. The new
scale was also less regular in its construction; and thus afforded
greater inducements to the commission of frauds upon the averages. This
bill, notwithstanding, passed both houses: it being accepted by the
landed interest as the best to be obtained in the then state of parties,
and by their opponents as a step towards further reform. The scale of
duties as established by this law fixed the price of 1s. per quarter
when the average of six weeks per quarter was 73s.; but when the average
was 60s. no less a sum than 36s. 8d. was to be paid for duty. From
this period down to 1842 no further change took place in the corn-laws,
though year after year the subject was agitated in one shape or the
other, and committees were appointed to inquire into the state of
agriculture. In the year 1842 her majesty’s speech at the opening of the
session recommended the taking of “the state of the laws which affected
the import of corn” into consideration, and expressed regret at the
continued distress in the manufacturing districts. For the measure
brought forward by Sir Robert Peel, the reader is referred to the
parliamentary debates of that year; it will be sufficient here to state,
that in his resolutions he retained the sliding-scale, and introduced
such amendments as he conceived would diminish the oscillations
previously experienced under that mode of levying the duties. Up to the
year 1846, Sir Robert Peel resolutely defended the measure passed in
1842; giving a decided negative to all the free-trade propositions moved
by Lord John Russell and Messrs. Cobden and Villiers, with other members
of parliament. His constant reply was, to these propositions, that
his experience of the present system was not such as to induce him to
propose “further change at present.” He was at length convinced by the
arguments of his opponents that the corn-laws were no longer tenable. He
resigned office, promising Lord John Russell, whom he recommended to her
majesty as his successor, his support in the final adjustment of this
great question. There was no one, however, able to settle this
question but himself; and when Lord John Russell failed in forming an
administration, he resumed office with a fixed resolution, at the risk
of being denominated a changeling and a deceiver of party, to open the
English ports to all the world. How he grappled with and settled the
question will be seen in the ensuing debates.




MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament reassembled on the 19th of February. As her majesty proceeded
to the walls of St. Stephen, a significant incident occurred: at the
corner of Bridge-street, one of the spectators exclaimed, “No monopoly!”
 at which her majesty smiled, graciously bowing, at which a hundred
voices united in the shout of “God save the queen!” The speech delivered
by the queen first referred to friendly relations with allied powers; to
an adjustment of differences between the Ottoman Porte and the King of
Persia, to negociations pending for the pacification of the states of
Rio de la Plata, in which for several years a desolating and sanguinary
war had existed; and to the convention concluded with France last year
for the more effectual suppression of the slave-trade. On the dispute
with America her majesty remarked:—“I regret that the conflicting
claims of Great Britain and the United States, in respect of the
territory on the north-western coast of America, although they have been
made the subject of repeated negociation, still remain unsettled. You
may be assured that no effort consistent with national honour shall
be wanting on my part to bring this question to an early and peaceful
termination.” Having adverted to the estimates, and to the crime of
assassination in Ireland, which was more flagrant than even in former
years, her majesty proceeded to say:—“I have to lament that in
consequence of a failure of the potato crop in several parts of the
United Kingdom, there will be a deficient supply of an article of food
which forms the chief subsistence of great numbers of my people. The
disease by which the plant has been affected, has prevailed to the
utmost extent in Ireland. I have adopted all such precautions as it was
in my power to adopt for the purpose of alleviating the sufferings which
maybe caused by this calamity; and I shall confidently rely on your
co-operation in devising such other means for effecting the same
benevolent purpose as may require the sanction of the legislature. I
have had great satisfaction in giving my assent to the measures which
you have presented to me from time to time, calculated to extend
commerce, and to stimulate domestic skill and industry, by the repeal of
prohibitory and restrictive duties. The prosperous state of the revenue;
the increased demand for labour, and the general improvement which
has taken place in the internal condition of the country, are strong
testimonies in favour of the course you have pursued. I recommend you to
take into your early consideration, whether the principles on which you
have acted, may not with advantage be yet more extensively applied,
and whether it may not be in your power, after a careful review of the
existing duties upon many articles the produce or manufacture of other
countries, to make such further reductions and remissions as may tend to
insure the continuance of the great benefits to which I have adverted,
and, by enlarging our commercial intercourse, to strengthen the bonds of
amity with foreign powers.”

Before proceeding with the address, Sir Robert Peel announced that on
the next Monday, he should propose the appointment of a committee to
consider the mode in which the house should deal with railway bills; and
that on Tuesday, the following day, he would make, in committee of the
whole house, a statement as to the intention of her majesty’s government
with respect to the commercial policy of the country, and the corn-laws.

The address was moved in the commons by Lord Francis Egerton. Lord
Francis had long been a noted Conservative, and a supporter of the
corn-laws; but he now avowed himself favourable to free-trade. The
address was seconded by Mr. Beckett Denison. Sir Robert Peel rose to
explain the late ministerial crisis, and his own views and measures.
He attributed the cause which led to the dissolution of the cabinet, to
that great and mysterious calamity—the failure of the potato crop. At
the same time he confessed, that it would be uncandid to attribute undue
importance to that one cause. “That particular cause,” he continued,
“appeared to me to preclude any further delay, and to require immediate
decision—decision, not only upon the measures which it was necessary
at the time to adopt, but as to the course to be ultimately taken with
regard to the laws which govern the importation of grain.” Sir Robert
Peel continued to say he should have wished that another parliament
should have had the opportunity of considering this question; but in
the course of last autumn occurred that visitation of Providence, the
consequences of which it was still difficult to foresee—the failure of
the potato crop in Ireland, and in some parts of England—and it became
a question whether it was not desirable to take immediate steps to
meet the threatened evil. Government had instituted inquiries, and had
received much correspondence from foreign countries on the subject;
and from all the accounts they had received, it became evident that
something must be done. The right honourable baronet next came to the
explanation of what had occurred in the cabinet, and how he had been
led to tender his resignation. He would not have abandoned his post, he
said, if he had been supported by an unanimous government; but that was
not the case, and he had no alternative but to quit office. Her majesty
accepted his resignation, and of her own choice sent for Lord John
Russell, who undertook the task of forming an administration. Their
appeared every probability that the question would have devolved on his
lordship; but before he went to Windsor to take a final farewell of the
queen, he learned that Lord John had failed to form a government. On
meeting Sir Robert, the queen informed him that so far from taking
leave, she was obliged to require him to continue his services; and the
colleagues who differed from him not having advised the formation of a
cabinet on the principles of protection, and Lord John having failed, he
did not hesitate to withdraw his resignation. Accordingly he resolved
to meet parliament, prepared to submit those measures which he thought
necessary to meet the emergency. These measures would be brought forward
on Tuesday next, and therefore he would not anticipate the discussion.
Lord John Russell rose to explain his conduct during the recent
negociations, and how he had failed in forming an administration. Having
received her majesty’s commands, he called together those with whom he
had been in the habit of acting, and had stated that he would endeavour
to frame an outline of a measure on the corn-laws. He had previously
been informed by Sir Robert Peel that it was not advisable he should
state the details of the measure he should have brought forward under
the responsibility of his own government: and, therefore, he had to
consider what it would be the duty of his government to propose, should
he succeed in forming one. The result of his exertions on this subject
would be best explained by reading a letter which he addressed to her
majesty:—“Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your majesty,
and has the honour to state that he has found it impossible to form an
administration. Lord John Russell was aware from the first moment, when
your majesty was pleased to propose this commission, that there were
very great difficulties in the way, which it required the most cordial
co-operation on the part of his friends, and the firm support of a large
portion of those who followed Sir Robert Peel to surmount. Those who
have served your majesty and your royal predecessor in cabinet-offices
during the administration of Lord Grey and Lord Melbourne, who were now
in political connexion with Lord John Russell were consulted by him.
They agreed on the principles by which they would be guided in framing
a measure for the repeal of the corn-laws. Thus one great difficulty was
surmounted. But, as the party which acts with Lord John Russell is in a
minority in both houses of parliament, it was necessary to ascertain
how far they were likely to obtain the support of Sir Robert Peel. Your
majesty is acquainted with all that has passed on this subject. Lord
John Russell is quite ready to admit that Sir Robert Peel has been
willing, from the commencement to the end, to diminish the difficulties
in the course of a new government prepared to attempt the settlement
of the corn-laws. But Sir Robert Peel could not, of course, rely on the
support of his political friends should the proposed measure be in their
eyes dangerous and unwise. In this uncertainty of obtaining a majority
in the house of commons it was absolutely necessary that all those who
were prominent in the political party to which Lord John Russell is
attached should give their zealous aid, and act in concert in the new
administration. Lord John Russell has, in one instance, been unable to
obtain this concert; and he must now consider this task as hopeless,
which has been from the beginning hazardous. Lord John Russell is deeply
sensible of the embarrassment caused by the present state of public
affairs. He will be ready, therefore, to do all in his power, as a
member of parliament, to promote the settlement of that question which,
in present circumstances, is the source of so much danger, especially
to the welfare and peace of Ireland. Lord John Russell would have
formed his ministry on the basis of a complete free trade in corn, to
be established at once, without gradation or delay. He would have
accompanied that proposal with measures of relief to a considerable
extent of the occupiers of land from the burdens to which they are
subjected. But he will be little disposed to insist, as a member of
parliament, on what may seem to your majesty’s advisers an impracticable
course. The country requires, above all things, an early and peaceable
settlement of a question, which, if not soon settled, may, in an
adverse state of affairs, cause a fearful convulsion.” Lord John Russell
concluded by expressing the obligations he felt to her majesty for the
gracious manner in which she entrusted him with the task of forming the
administration; and by stating that, whether in office or out of office,
he should be ready to give his assent to measures calculated to benefit
the country, without reference to the proposer. Mr. D’Israeli was not so
liberal in his sentiments. As the champion of protection, he asked,
what would be thought of a statesman who, having served under four
sovereigns, came forward and declared that, after an observation of
three years, he had found it necessary to change his convictions on a
subject which must have presented itself for more than twenty years to
his notice?

The peers waved their right to discuss these great topics on the first
night of the session; awaiting the discussion in the commons. The
Duke of Richmond endeavoured to bring on a debate; but ministers were
taciturn; and after a long and discursive speech delivered by Lord
Brougham, which touched upon the subjects of the Oregon dispute, the
corn-laws, and Irish affairs, the address was carried. In the course
of the evening, the Duke of Richmond wished the Duke of Wellington
to explain the reasons which induced the government to accept and to
re-accept office; but his grace said that he could not do so without her
majesty’s permission. On the following Monday, however, the noble
duke explained their reasons in his own plain, straightforward, and
characteristic manner. What these reasons were has been touched upon
before.




SETTLEMENT OF THE CORN-LAW QUESTION.

The house of commons resolved itself into committee on Tuesday, the
3rd of February, to consider that portion of the speech from the throne
referring to the commercial policy of the government. Sir Robert Peel
commenced his speech by bespeaking the patient indulgence of the house.
He was about to act, he said, on the assumption adopted in the queen’s
speech, that the repeal of prohibitory duties, and the relaxation of
protective duties is in itself a wise policy. He was about to act on
the presumption, that during the last three years, notwithstanding the
relaxation of heavy taxes, there had been increased revenue, increased
demand for labour, increased commerce, increased comfort, contentment,
and peace in the country. Passing on to the explanation of his views and
designs, the right honourable baronet said, that within the last three
years, the tariff, that is, the whole scheme of customs’ duties, had
been submitted to the review of parliament; and the general principle of
the changes then effected was, to remit the duty on raw materials,
and to subject foreign manufactures to a duty of twenty per cent.
Notwithstanding the fears of a falling revenue, those remissions were
carried further: in 1844, the duty on wool was altogether reduced; in
1845, the duty on cotton-wool. Almost the only articles of the nature of
raw material still subjected to duty were timber and tallow; and he
now proposed to reduce these. Tallow, which was chiefly imported from
Russia, had a duty on it of 3s. 2d. per hundred weight; he proposed,
mainly with a view to our own interests, and partly to induce Russia
to follow our liberal policy, to reduce it to Is. 6d. With respect
to timber, he could not yet state particulars, as the details needed
careful adjustment. The course which government would probably take
would be a gradual reduction of the existing amount of duty, where it
should rest a certain time lower than at present: the reduction being
so apportioned, if possible, as to prevent any derangement of internal
trade by inducing parties to withhold the supply of timber, in the hope
of realising a large amount of duty; and yet at the same time, as the
importation of timber from the Baltic partook in some respect of a
monopoly, care would be taken that the reduction of duty should be an
advantage, not so much to the producer as to the consumer. Having given
the manufacturer the advantage of a free command, without any impost, of
the raw materials which enter into his fabrics, he should call upon the
manufacturers of the three great articles which entered into consumption
as the clothing of the great body of the community, to give a proof
of the sincerity of their convictions as to the impolicy of protective
duties, by consenting to relax the protection on their manufactures.
These three great articles were linen, woollen, and cotton manufactures;
and he asked the manufacturers of these at once to set the example to
others, by relaxing, voluntarily and cheerfully, the protection they
enjoyed. It should not be said, that he considered only the “great
interests,” and injured the minor interests. As the case now stood, the
great articles of the cotton manufacture, such as calicos, prints, &c.,
were subject to a duty of 10 per cent, on importation; while cottons
made up, as cotton stockings, &c., were subject to a duty of 20 per cent.
With respect to the former articles, he proposed that they should
be duty free; and that the duty of 20 per cent, on the manufactured
articles of cotton in a more advanced state should be reduced to 10 per
cent. He proposed also to call on the manufacturers of linen and
woollen to relinquish protection on the coarser manufactures used in the
clothing of the great body of the people. There would be some loss
to the revenue; but he believed that the importation of some articles
competing with the production of our manufacturers would stimulate their
skill; and, with the capital and enterprise of this country, he did not
doubt but they would beat foreign manufactures. At present woollen goods
which were made up were subject to a duty of 20 per cent.: he proposed
they should be reduced to 10 per cent. Flax was a raw material, he
continued, imported free of duty: the duty will be taken off the coarser
manufactures; on the finest and made up kinds it would be reduced one
half. Silk enjoyed apparently a protection of 30 per cent., practically
ranging indeed to 78, or even 145 per cent, on some made up articles,
such as net and bonnets, or turbans: but a false reliance was placed
on that protection. It was a delusion: many houses in London and Paris
undertook to introduce silken goods into this country at half the
duty. The revenue and the trade were robbed by the smuggler; and the
manufacturer was deluded by an unreal protection. With respect to silks,
he proposed, therefore, to adopt a new principle. The general rule would
be, enumerating each article of silk manufacture, to levy a duty of so
much per pound, giving an option to the custom-house officers of levying
for every £100 value of silk, a duty of 15 per cent. Sir Robert Peel
went on to explain the reduction of duties on paper-hangings, carriages,
metal manufactures, soap, &c., most of which articles are noticed in a
subsequent page. By the measure of 1842, he continued, the tariff was
greatly simplified. There were one thousand articles still on the list,
five hundred of which were free of duty: he proposed that many other
articles should be relieved from duty. Brandy and foreign spirits were
to be reduced from 22s. 10d. per gallon to 15s. With respect to sugar,
he could not enter into details; and he feared his proposition would not
satisfy all parties. He would still exclude slave-labour sugar; but on
free-labour sugar, the differential duties would be reduced from lis.
8d. for clayed sugar, to 8s.; for Muscovado, from 9s. 4d. to 5s. 10d. He
next came to the articles connected with agriculture; first taking those
not immediately used as food for the people. On leek and onion seed, he
said, the duty was 20s. per cwt.: he proposed to reduce it to 5s. With
reference to maize, or Indian corn, he proposed that the duty upon it
should hereafter and immediately be nominal. By removing this duty he
did not conceive that he was depriving agriculture of any protection.
Maize was generally used in the United States, and partly for human
food: and he believed that, though it was disregarded in this country,
on parts of the Continent it was made into excellent food. His object
in providing for its free importation was the better feeding of
cattle, which would be an advantage rather than a detriment to the
agriculturist. Buck-wheat was to be subject to the same rule: maize and
buck-wheat, and the flour of these corns, were to be admitted duty free.
“Rice feed,” as a substitute for the expensive article of linseed-cake
was also to be introduced, for the better feeding of cattle, duty free.
He now came to the food of man. He feared that his proposal would not
satisfy both sides—those who insisted on protection, and those who
insisted on its total abolition. He could assure both that his desire
was, without any favour or undue partiality, to suggest that which he
believed to be just, and calculated to terminate that conflict, the
continuance of which all must regret. He considered that it was for the
public advantage, at least, to lay the foundation of a final settlement
of this question; but he was not about to propose the immediate repeal
upon grain. But first he explained his course with reference to other
articles. Butter, the duty of which was 20s. per cwt., hops £4 10s.,
and cured fish 2s., were each to be reduced one half. On those articles
which constituted meat as distinguished from grain, namely, fresh or
salted beef, salt or fresh pork, potatoes, vegetables of all sorts,
and un-enumerated articles of the kind, he proposed a total repeal. The
duties on live animals also would be abolished. Some urged him to make
a distinction in the importation of lean or fatted cattle, as it was
unfair to levy an equal amount on both kinds: his proposal to admit
materials for fattening cattle would meet that objection. He hoped that
these advantages would be considered as somewhat a compensation for any
immediate loss that might be felt by the introduction free of the
other animals. He asked those connected with agriculture, while he was
proposing these reductions, to bear in mind that he had already proposed
the removal of protection from some of the great articles of manufacture
connected with clothing in this country. He directed their attention
not merely to the protection connected with the land, but asked them
to remember that he had called on the manufacturers to set the first
example of the relinquishment of protection. They would bear in mind
that their farm servants and domestics would be able to command a
cheaper supply of clothing; and they would, therefore, be disposed to
follow the example of those whom he had called upon to make the first
example of relinquishment. Sir Robert continued:—“I will now state,
with the permission of the house, the proposal which I mean to make on
the subject of grain. I propose that, from the passing of the act, some
articles shall be admitted duty free. On the one hand, I do not propose
the immediate repeal of the corn-laws; but in the hope of a final
arrangement, of preventing undue apprehensions, and giving time for the
adjustment of agriculture to the new state of circumstances, though
I propose a temporary continuance of protection, I propose it on the
distinct understanding, that, after the lapse of a certain time,
foreign grain shall be imported into this country duty free. I am deeply
convinced that any intermediate proposal would be of no avail. It
would have been entirely out of my power to explain or to suggest any
modification of the existing corn-law with a guarantee that it should
be continued. The choice is either between the maintenance intact of
the existing amount of protection in every particular, or laying the
foundation for an ultimate settlement by means of ultimate freedom. I
propose, therefore, a considerable reduction in the existing amount of
duties; and I propose that the continuance of the duty so reduced shall
be for a period of three years; that it shall then continue till that
period of the year in which I believe there will be least inconvenience
in the termination of that protection. I propose that on and after the
1st of February, 1849, oats, barley, and wheat shall be subject only to
that nominal rate of duty which I have proposed to apply to maize and
buck-wheat. But what shall be the intermediate state of the law during
the continuance of these three years?” Sir Robert Peel then explained the
duties on wheat, oats, and barley, which will be found in a subsequent
page; after which, he stated that the arrangement of them would
be accompanied by other provisions, calculated, if not to give
compensation, at least to advance the interests of the agriculturists.
“Take,” he said, “some of the burdens on land, and see whether they
are not capable of alleviation, not by their transfer to others, but
by introducing reforms into their administration. Take that admitted
grievance, the highway-rates. As railways advance, the parish highways
will become of increased importance. There are 16,000 local authorities
that have charge of these highways. There is a nominal surveyor to each
parish—a surveyor who knows nothing about rates. Such a division of
authority makes lax expenditure and bad management. An existing act
of parliament authorizes the union of parishes for the management of
highways; but the act is permissory—the union must be voluntary; and
in very few cases has advantage been taken of the statute. I propose
to make what is now voluntary, compulsory. Taking the scale of the
poor-law, there will be 600 district authorities, instead of 16,000.”
 Further aid would be given to agriculture in loans of public money for
improvement of estates, to persons applying for assistance; the public
to be secured against ultimate loss. The loans were to be made by the
exchequer-bill commissioners, and the administration of the measure
entrusted to the newly-appointed inclosure-commissioners; the
preliminary expenses to be borne by the applicant for aid. An annual
repayment by instalments was to be secured as a rent-charge, having
priority over other charges; but the commissioners would have the
discretion left to them of allowing objections made by parties already
having a charge on the land. This alteration, Sir Robert said, he
believed would lay the foundation for great agricultural improvement
throughout the country. He further proposed to relieve the counties of
the whole expense of prisoners, and place it upon the consolidated
fund: the charges of that fund to be subject to periodical review in the
house. The estimated cost of that change was £64,900. In England
half the expense of the prosecutions, in Scotland all, is paid by the
treasury: he proposed to make the treasury pay the whole in England
and in Ireland. The relief would not be great; but it would be of
importance, as giving greater control over prosecutions: the estimated
expense in England was £100,000; in Ireland, £17,000. At present part of
the police force in Ireland was borne by the land: he proposed to impose
the whole expense on the state. He proposed, also, that government
should bear a share in the cost of medical relief under the new poor-law
act; half to be defrayed by government, half by local authorities—the
estimated cost was £100,000 for England, and £15,000 for Scotland. Aid
also would be given in providing education in workhouses; the unions to
appoint, and government to pay the schoolmasters. The expense of this
would be £30,000. Finally, government proposed to pay the poor-law
auditors in England and Ireland, which would cost £15,000. Sir Robert
concluded by thanking the house for the patience with which they had
listened to his financial exposition.

A long and desultory conversation followed this explanation of the
ministerial measure of free trade; several members avowing their
determined hostility, and others promising unlimited support. At the
suggestion of Sir Robert Peel, Monday, the 9th of February, was fixed
for the day on which the discussion should commence. In order to enable
the reader to understand rightly the reductions and alterations proposed
in the tariff, it is necessary to glance at the resolutions proposed by
Sir Robert Peel in committee of the whole house on the customs and corn
act. The first resolution related to the importation of corn, grain,
meal, or flour, setting forth the duties to paid until the 1st day of
February, 1849, when the duties were wholly to cease. Thus, on wheat,
when under 48s. per quarter, 10s. duty was to paid; and this duty was to
be lowered Is. on the rise of wheat up to 53s., when there was to be a
duty paid of 4s. for every quarter. Barley, oats, rye, peas, and beans,
wheat-meal and flour, barley-meal, oatmeal, rye-meal, pea-meal, and
bean-meal were by tire same resolution, taxed in equal proportion, until
the 1st day of February, 1849, when these duties were likewise to cease
and determine; or, at least, to pay only a nominal duty of 1s. per
quarter on wheat, let the price be what it might, and the other corn in
proportion to its value. By the second resolution, in lieu of duties of
customs then chargeable on certain articles, reduced duties were, from
the passing of the bill, to be exacted. These articles consisted of what
might be termed the necessaries and luxuries of life; and the duties
were reduced on some to the amount of one hundred per cent. The articles
enumerated in the resolution were agates, or cornelians; ale and beer;
almonds; amber (manufactures of); arrowroot; band-string twist; bailey,
pearled; bast-ropes; twines, and strands; beads: coral; crystal; jet;
beer or mum; blacking; brass manufactures; brass (powder of); brocade
of gold or silver; bronze (manufactures of); bronze-powder; buck-wheat:
butter; buttons; candles; canes; carriages of all sorts; casks;
cassiva-powder; catlings; cheese; china or porcelain; cider; citron;
clocks; copper manufactures; copper or brass wire; cotton; crayons;
crystal (cut and manufactured); cucumbers; fish; gauze of thread; hair,
manufactures of hair or goats’ wool, &c.; hams; harp-strings; hats
or bonnets of straw, silk, beaver, felt, &c.; hops; iron and steel,
wrought; japanned or lacquered ware; lace, made by the hand,
&c.; latten-wire; lead (manufactures of); leather (manufactures
of)—calashes, boots, and shoes, of all sorts; linen, or linen and
cotton, viz., cambrics, lawns, damasks, &c.; maize, or Indian corn;
musical instruments; mustard-flower; paper, painted or stained paper,
&c.; pencils, lead and slate; perfumery; perry; pewter; pomatum; pots
of stone; puddings and sausages; rice; sago; seeds, garden, &c.; silk
(manufactures of), &c.; silkworm gut; skins (articles manufactured of);
soap, hard and soft; spa-ware; spirits, viz., brandy, geneva, and other
foreign spirits, &c.; steel manufactures; tallow; tapioca; tin; tobacco;
tongues; turnery; twine; varnish; wafers; washing-balls; wax (sealing);
whipcord; wire; woollen manufactures. If any of the articles here
enumerated was the production of a British possession, they were to be
admitted at a reduced duty. Thus, while the woollen goods of foreign
countries were to pay £10 for every £100 value, those of British
possessions were only to pay £5. By a third resolution the duties of
customs, chargeable upon certain goods, wares, and merchandise imported
into the United Kingdom, were to cease and determine. These goods,
wares, and merchandise were—living animals: viz., asses, goats, kids,
oxen, and bulls; cows, calves, horses, mares, geldings, colts, foals,
mules, sheep, lambs, swine, and hogs, and sucking-pigs; bacon; beef
(fresh and salted); bottles of earth and stone; casts of busts, statues,
or figures; caviare; cranberries; cotton manufactures, not being
articles wholly or in part made up, not otherwise charged with duty;
enamel; gelatine; glue; hay; hides, tawed, curried, or in any way
dressed, not otherwise enumerated; ink for printers; inkle (wrought);
lamp-black; linen, manufactures of linen, or of linen mixed with cotton,
or with wool, not particularly enumerated, or otherwise charged with
duty, not being articles wholly or in part made up; magna-grocia ware;
manuscripts; maps, and charts; matresses; meat, (salted or fresh), not
otherwise described; medals; palmetto-thatch manufactures; parchment;
pens; plantains; potatoes; pork, fresh and salted; silk, thrown or
dyed, viz., silk, single or tram, organzine, or crape-silk; thread, not
otherwise enumerated or described; woollens, viz., manufactures of wool,
not being goats’ wool, or of wool mixed with cotton, not particularly
enumerated or described, not otherwise charged with duty, not being
articles wholly or in part made up; vegetables, all, not otherwise
enumerated or described; and vellum.

Sir Robert Peel announced the intentions of government with respect to
the reductions in the timber duties on Tuesday, the 10th of February.
He was anxious to make the statement at the earliest opportunity, on
account of the importance of the subject, and as the American mail was
on the eve of sailing from Liverpool. “We propose,” he said, “to make
ultimately a reduction in the differential duty on foreign timber, so
that the duty shall remain after the reduction at 15s., instead of the
present amount. I think on hewn timber the duty is now 25s.; we propose
to reduce it 15s. But, with the view of insuring to the consumer as
great a benefit as possible, the Baltic timber-trade partaking now
very much of the nature of a monopoly, in consequence of the very great
demand for it, we do not propose that the reduction shall be immediate.
We propose that from the 5th of April, 1847, the period of the year we
think most suitable for making a reduction of duty, the duty on hewn
timber shall be reduced by 5s.; and on the 5th of April, 1848,
by another 5s. With respect to sawn timber maintaining the same
proportions, the reduction of duty ought to be 6s. on the 5th of April,
1847, and another 6s. on the 5th of April, 1848. With respect to the
smaller description, such as lath-wood, spars, and oars, the reduction
will be proportionate.”

Such were the great measures of free-trade brought forward by
the government. By the people they were not met with any national
demonstration, or by any well-pronounced declaration. The signs of
the prevalent opinion, however, were well seen in various quarters,
particular as well as general, official as well as popular. Meetings
were held in various parts of the country, but success was very partial;
and if there was no enthusiastic and unqualified manifestation of the
abolition of the corn-laws on the part of “the country,” the opposition
to it proved, to be disjointed and petty in the extreme. In parliament
the Conservatives put forth all their remaining strength to check the
onward progress of free-trade. On the 10th of February, the day fixed
for the resumption of the discussion, a “monster debate” commenced,
which, as will be seen, continued for some weeks. It was brought on by
Mr. P. Miles, who, on the motion that the house resolve itself into
a committee, moved that it should do so on that day six months. The
measure was further opposed by Lord Norrys, Sirs W. Heathcote and J.
Walsh, and Mr. W. S. Lascelles: Lord Sandon and Mr. Cochrane, both of
whom were Conservatives, supported it. Lord John Russell proceeded to
discuss the mode in which Sir Robert Peel had treated the question.
With the principles of the measure he agreed; but he advocated immediate
abolition of the corn-laws, and hoped that Sir Robert Peel would
reconsider that part of his plan. His lordship concluded by drawing
a contrast between the disinterested support which the Whigs were now
giving to the free-trade measures of a Tory government, and the factious
opposition which the Tories gave to the same measure when proposed by a
Whig government. He thought that if the free-trade measures of the Whig
government had been allowed to pass when originally proposed, much of
the sufferings of 1842 would have been avoided; and that if Sir Robert
Peel had then been true to himself, he would have escaped, much of the
invective now heaped upon him. After a few words from Sir Robert Inglis
and Captain Fitzmaurice in support of the amendment, and from Mr. S.
Herbert in favour of the measure, he having “changed his opinion on the
subject,” on the motion of Mr. S. O’Brien, the debate was adjourned. The
debate continued by adjournment up to February 28th, before any division
or amendment took place: the opposition wishing to stop it on the very
threshold. On the last night of the debate the house was addressed by
Mr. Cobden, who complained that extraneous matter had been introduced
into the discussion to a greater extent than had ever been introduced
previously into any corn-law debate. The two main topics, he said, on
which it had turned, were the conduct of ministers and the propriety
of an appeal to the country. The people of England believed that the
discussion on the first topic was a quarrel got up for no other purpose
than to evade the real question, and to conceal from public observation
that there was no justification for the corn-laws. He assured their
opponents that the more they covered ministers with obloquy, the more
sympathy they would obtain from the country. In point of fact they
were making ministers popular: if Sir Robert Peel were to visit the
manufacturing districts, his march through them would, be one continued
triumph. Even Sir James Graham, who had rendered, himself unpopular by
certain measures, by his magnificent contribution to free trade, and
still more by the nightly attacks which had been made upon him during
this debate, had become an object of popular sympathy in Manchester
and Liverpool. As to the wish of the protectionists to appeal to the
country, nobody knew better than they did, that they had no chance of
obtaining a majority at the next election. Three months ago he had
said that the advocates of a free trade had no chance of obtaining that
majority; but now that the protectionists were a broken party, and
had lost all the talent and intelligence which formerly directed their
tactics, the case was altered, and it was they who had now no chance of
success in an appeal to the constituency. Speaking of the intelligence
of the people on this subject, Mr. Cobden remarked:—“I will tell you
what my thoughts were, as T sat at home patiently reading these debates.
As I read speech after speech, and saw the fallacies which I had knocked
on the head seven years ago reappearing afresh, my thought was, What
fun these debates will afford the men in fustian jackets! All these
fallacies are perfectly transparent to these men; and they would laugh
at you for putting them forward. Dependence on foreigners! Who in the
world could have supposed that that long-buried ghost would come again
to light! Drain of gold! Wages rising and falling with the price of
bread! Throwing land out of cultivation, and bringing corn here at 25s.
a quarter! You forget that the great mass of the people now take a very
different view of these questions from what you do. Seven years ago they
gave in to your reiterated assertions that wages rise and fall with the
price of bread. You had a very fair clap-trap against us, as we happened
to be master manufacturers, in saying that we wanted to reduce wages.
But the right honourable baronet at the head of the government, and the
right honourable baronet, the home-secretary, are not suspected by the
English people of having such motives on these questions. The English
people have no disinclination to refer to high authorities on these
matters. They assume that men high in office have access to accurate
information; and they generally suppose that those men have no sinister
motive for deceiving the great body of the people on a question like
the present. You see I do not underrate the importance of your leaders
having declared in favour of free trade. On the contrary, I avow that
that has caused the greatest possible accession to the ranks of the free
traders. Well then, the working classes, not believing that wages rise
and fall with the price of bread, when you tell them that they are to
have corn at 25s. per quarter, instead of being frightened, are rubbing
their hands with the greatest satisfaction. They are not frightened at
the visions which you present to their eyes of a big loaf, seeing they
expect to get more money, and bread at half the price. And then the
danger of having your land thrown out of cultivation! Why, what would
the men in smock-frocks in the south of England say to that? They would
say, ‘We shall get our land for potato-ground at ½ d. a lug, instead
of paying 3d. or 4d. for it.’ These fallacies have all been disposed of;
and if you lived more in the world, more in contact with public opinion,
and less within that charmed circle which you think the world, but which
is anything but the world—if you gave way less to the excitement of
clubs, less to the buoyancy which arises from talking to each other
as to the effect of some smart speech in which the minister has been
assailed, you would see that it is mere child’s play to attempt to balk
the intelligence of the country on this great question, and you would
not have talked as you have talked for the last eleven days.” Mr. Cobden
proceeded to discuss the effect of the march of free trade on farmers;
proving to demonstration that they were not alarmed by it, and that
they were at the very time the discussion was going forward, and with a
certainty of the repeal of the corn-laws in prospect, taking farms at
a higher rent, and engaging to drain lands at great cost. Speaking
of public opinion on protection, he said:—“What is this boasted
protection? The country has come to regard it as they regard
witchcraft—as a mere sound and a delusion. They no more regard your
precautions against free-trade than they regard the horse-shoes that
are nailed over stables to keep the witches from the horses. They do
not believe in protection; they have no fear of free-trade; and they are
laughing to scorn all the arguments by which you are trying to frighten
them. How can protection, think you, add to the wealth of a country? Can
you by legislation add one farthing to the wealth of a country? You may
by legislation, in one evening, destroy the fruits and accumulations of
a century of labour: but I defy you to show me how, by the legislation
of this house, you can add one farthing to the wealth of this country?
That springs from the industry and intelligence of the people of this
country.” In conclusion, Mr. Cobden called upon the protectionists
cheerfully to make concessions for the good of the community. The debate
was closed by Lord George Bentinck, who condemned the proposition of
government as vicious in principle, and likely to be deeply injurious,
not only to agriculturists, but to all the great interests of the
country, On a division, the amendment was negatived by a majority of
three hundred and seven against two hundred and forty.

This great fact was now apparent to all men. The Conservatives, however,
did not yet give up the struggle, though they fought as men in despair.
Having failed in defeating the measure in the whole, they sought to
defeat it in its details. On the house resolving itself into committee
on the customs’ acts, amendment after amendment was moved by them; and
when these were all negatived, they commenced another struggle to defeat
the second reading. A division on the second reading took place on the
28th of March, which was carried by a majority of three hundred and
two against two hundred and fourteen. Nor yet was the battle won. As if
exhausted by the struggle, both parties rested awhile from the strife;
but it recommenced on the 5th of May, on a motion that the house resolve
itself into a committee of the whole house on the corn-importation bill.
This was opposed by Lord George Bentinck, who was considered as the
champion of protection; he moved that the speaker do leave the chair
that day three months. No division took place on his lordship’s
amendment, and the house resolved into committee on the corn-law
importation act. Amendments were moved on some of its clauses, but they
were all either negatived or withdrawn; and by the 9th of May the report
was brought up. Sir G. Burrell moved that the report should be received
that day six months; but after a long discussion, which was more
distinguished for personal attacks than for sober argument, the
amendment was withdrawn, and the bill was ordered to be printed, and
to be read a third time on the 12th. The third reading was on that
day moved by Sir James Graham, and the final struggle in the house of
commons on this great subject commenced. The Marquis of Granby moved
that the bill be read a third time that day six months; and in doing
so, he did not believe the measure would pass the legislature; but if
it did, he hoped their anticipations of evil would prove inaccurate,
and that the anticipations of Sir Robert Peel, however vague, would be
verified. The debate on the third reading continued by adjournment up
to the 16th of May, its opponents putting forth all their strength to
defeat it—arguing and pleading for the corn-laws as though the very
existence of England depended on their continuance.

On a division, the third reading was carried by a majority of three
hundred and twenty-seven against two hundred and twenty-nine, and the
bill was then read a third time, and passed amidst loud cheering.

The report of the customs’ duties bill was brought up in the commons on
Monday the 18th of May, and though strenuously opposed by Lord George
Bentinck, and others of his party, was agreed to without a division;
and on the morrow it was read a third time without either discussion or
division, and passed.

On the 18th the corn-importation bill was introduced into the lords
by the Duke of Wellington, who moved its first reading. The Duke of
Richmond said that he could not permit the bill to be read even a first
time without entering his protest against it. The first reading was
carried without a division, the Duke of Richmond being the only peer who
expressed dissent. The Duke of Wellington gave notice that he would
move the second reading of the bill on Monday the 25th. This motion
was introduced, however, on that day by the Earl of Ripon. The Duke of
Richmond moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months;
feeling it to be a measure likely to inflict a deadly blow upon
British agriculture and the national greatness. The debate continued
by adjournment up to Thursday the 28th of May, most of the peers
being anxious to deliver their sentiments on this great subject.
Lord Ashburton justified the principles of protection. The system of
protection, he said, was founded upon three grounds: it was necessary
in order to secure industry; it secured us against dependence on foreign
countries for food; and there were peculiar burdens upon the land, for
which landowners were entitled to compensation. The debate was closed by
the Duke of Wellington, who justified the measure in an emphatic speech,
and warned their lordships, that if they rejected it, it would only be
to have another brought before them. On a division, the second reading
was carried by a majority of two hundred and eleven against one hundred
and sixty-four.

The customs’ duties bill was read a first time, after the stern
opposition of the Duke of Richmond, in the house of lords, on the 20th
of May. The second reading was moved by the Earl of Dalhousie on the 4th
of June; in doing which is lordship stated generally the ground on which
it was based. The noble lord went through the detail of the several
articles of the tariff on which reductions were proposed, and concluded
by repudiating the notion that the measure was one of pure free trade,
and therefore did not go far enough: it was no free-trade measure at
all; but one for the removal of prohibitive, and the gradual repeal of
protective duties. The Duke of Richmond said, that after the decision to
which their lordships had come on the corn-importation bill, he felt it
was little use to trouble them with any remarks; and therefore he should
content himself with moving that the bill be read a second time that
day six months. After a few words from the Earl of Wicklow and Lord
Ashburton against the bill, and from Earl Grey and Lord Monteagle in its
support, the bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on
Monday week. Before proceeding with the tariff, however, their lordships
went into committee on the corn-importation bill. The first night of
the committee’s sitting was Friday, June 12th; and the opponents of the
measure brought forward so many amendments, that the several clauses
were not gone through till the 19th. On that day, after all the
amendments had been negatived, it was arranged that the report should
be brought up on the 22nd; that afterwards the tariff bill should be
proceeded with, as far as possible, and continued on the following
day; and that on the 25th the corn-bill should be read a third time. In
accordance with this agreement the report of the corn-bill was brought
up on the following Monday, and the house went into committee upon the
tariff-bill. Several amendments were proposed and negatived, and
at length the opponents of the measure gave up the contest. On the
following day the bill was reported without amendments, and ordered to
be read a third time on Thursday with the corn-importation bill. Upon
the motion for the third reading of these bills several noble lords,
in opposition, urged their previous arguments, and entered their solemn
protests against them; but all opposition was futile: they passed their
final stage triumphantly, and on the morrow, Friday, the 26th, the royal
assent was given to them by commission, and they became laws.

Thus triumphed Sir Robert Peel. Yet with his triumph as a patriot came
his downfall as a minister. Simultaneous with these great and twin
measures, the corn-bill and the customs-bill, he had brought in a
protection life-bill for Ireland. The premier, in bringing in this bill,
was aware that the Whigs, who had supported him in his great free-trade
measures, would be to a man adverse to any coercive measure for that
country; and his only hope of success was that those of his recent
colleagues whom he had so grievously offended by striking the final blow
at their darling measure, the corn-laws, would forget their resentment,
and act according to their conscience, in a matter which, under ordinary
circumstances, and according to their usual policy, would have obtained
their hearty support. That hope was vain. They, his former stanch
adherents, considered that government had forfeited all claim to their
confidence, and therefore declined “to supply them with unconstitutional
powers.” The protection life-bill was thrown out by the commons—the
Tories uniting with the Whigs, that they might crush a man whom they had
idolized—by a majority of seventy-three, although it was urged by stern
necessity, and enforced with the whole weight of a triumphant cabinet.
On the day after the triumph of the corn-bill and the customs-bill,
the premier went down to Osborne-house to tender the resignation of
his ministry, in his retirement he carried with him the sympathy and
admiration of the great body of the people. All felt that he had not
only benefited England by these great measures, but all the world. Nor
must the name of Cobden be forgotten in this achievement. The retiring
premier, indeed, nobly attributed the whole triumph to that long-tried
champion of free-trade. But the names of Peel and Cobden will ever
be associated in the annals of the country, as the names of those who
struck the final blow at laws which enriched the few at the cost of the
whole population.




CHAPTER LVIII.

{VICTORIA. 1846}

     Position of the Conservative Party on the Defection of Sir
     Robert Peel, and the Parliamentary   Success of his  Free-
     Trade  Measures..... Formation of a Whig Cabinet..... The
     Sugar Duties..... Dreadful Condition   of Ireland.....
     Decline of Mr. O’Connell..... The Young Ireland Leaders.....
     Colonial Affairs..... War with the Sikhs..... Foreign
     Affairs..... Coolness with France..... Spanish Marriages




POSITION OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY ON THE DEFECTION OF SIR ROBERT PEEL,
AND THE PARLIAMENTARY SUCCESS OF HIS FREE-TRADE MEASURES.

{A.D. 1846}

The adoption of a free-trade policy by Sir Robert Peel disorganised the
conservative party, then more frequently designated Protectionist. The
chief difficulty arose from the scarcity of talent in its ranks, and,
therefore, the apparent impossibility of procuring a leader. At last
the commons and the country were startled by the announcement of a
new conservative chief in the person of Lord George Bentinck. So
unfavourable were the antecedents—at all events, the immediate
antecedents—of this nobleman, that the announcement of his name as
the leader of the Protectionists excited the mirth of parliament, which
found a loud echo in the country. After the public press had lampooned
him—the _Times_ scarcely condescending to launch its thunders,
only allowing a distant rumble to be heard—after the _Examiner_ had
exhausted its pungent and polished satire, and _Punch_ had caricatured
the noble member for King’s Lynn, and while yet his own party scarcely
ventured to hope anything from his leadership, Lord George proved
himself an orator and a debater, a party tactician, and an energetic,
vigilant, intelligent chief of opposition. Perhaps no public man
ever burst so suddenly upon the house of commons as a leading party
politician. He had been well known as a member of parliament, had
conciliated general esteem, and won extensive respect, as a private
gentleman, from both sides of the house; but as a politician he had
scarcely been noticed, nor had he taken any pains to make himself
felt in debate: his irruption, so to speak, upon the ranks of the
ministerialists, was sudden and effective. Mr. Disraeli has written an
elaborate memoir of the noble lord, which exaggerates his capabilities
and achievements, and in a style less eloquent than showy, holds up his
policy to the admiration of his country. Mr. Disraeli, however, pays in
many respects a tribute that is no more than just to the memory of Lord
George, and his book affords material for an impartial judgment. At
that period the noble lord was a distinguished patron of the turf: all
England knew him as a sporting gentleman, a first-rate judge of horses,
and an extensive winner on the course. In allusion to his habits
in these respects, it became a popular sneer that the Conservatives
required “a stable mind,” after the versatile performances of Sir Robert
Peel, and they had at last found such in Lord George. But although his
whole mind had apparently been given up to the turf, it was not actually
so. He had been a member of parliament for eighteen years, and was a
shrewd observer of party, as he was of men and things in general life.
Before entering parliament he had for three years served as private
secretary to Mr. Canning, whose sagacity was seldom at fault in the
selection of persons of indisputable ability. The great statesman was
connected with Lord George, for he married the sister of the Duke of
Portland. The young nobleman’s powers of observation were such, that he
was not likely to be in constant and intimate communication with such
a man as Canning, without gleaning some political intelligence and
experience. After Lord George entered parliament he remained for some
time in the army, but gradually abandoned his military tastes for those
of the turf, and his speculations in that direction were carried out
on a scale of unprecedented magnitude. Politically, his sympathies and
opinions appear to have been what might be designated Conservative-Whig.
When the partisans of Mr. Canning left the Duke of Wellington’s
administration, Lord George Bentinck ranged himself in opposition. Under
Earl Grey’s administration, he sat on the ministerial side of the
house. The Mends of Mr. Canning, who were associated with Lord Grey,
entertained high opinions of Lord George’s talents for official and
administrative service, so that he was requested to accept office,
but he declined. These offers were repeatedly renewed, under the same
auspices, and as often rejected. He desired to be unfettered in his
parliamentary position, and freely gave up the chances of Downing Street
for those of the race-course. He voted for the reform bill, and afforded
a cordial and constant support to that and nearly every measure of the
whig administration, until Lord Stanley abandoned the party. To that
noble lord he was personally and politically much attached, and of Mr.
Spring Rice, afterwards Lord Monteagle, he also had a high opinion; but
no friendship nor influence was sufficient to retard what may be called
his retrograde course: like his friend, Lord Stanley, he became less and
less a Whig, and finally stood in the foreground of Conservatism. He was
a warm supporter of the Irish Roman Catholics, but did not appear ever
to have understood their political tactics. His sympathy for what
is termed Puseyism may have accounted for his leanings to the Irish
Romanist party, although in this respect, according to Mr. Disraeli, “he
was for the Established Church, and nothing more.” According to the
same author he was a Whig of 1688. It is admitted that his personal
prejudices were strong; but those who allow this maintain that he had no
prejudice as to things, but examined all doctrines and theories with
a strong common sense and a clear judgment. His painstaking to inquire
after truth is much vaunted by his biographer; but his speeches as
leader of the Protectionists do not reveal this quality,—for while
no orator of the time, not even Sir Robert Peel, relied more upon
statistics, or at least made a larger use of them, no advocate of any
cause was ever more unfortunate in the data selected as groundwork for
argument. Such was the man in whom the conservative opposition found
a leader, when despairing of being again able to form an effective and
organised opposition. It was on the 27th of February, 1846, that Lord
George made his _début_ in his new capacity. His speech was excellent in
everything but its logic. Modest yet courageous in manner, plain but not
ungraceful in style, his address told upon the house. The tone, however,
was too aristocratic for the place and the times, and his arguments
proved that he had not mastered the controversy, into the midst of which
he had so chivalrously launched. He brought forward numerous details;
but his facts were, as they say in Ireland, “false facts.” He had not
investigated the science of political economy, or the condition of the
nation, but had only “crammed,” as they say in college phrase, for the
occasion and the controversy. He had industriously read whatever was
written, and listened to whatever was said on the side of protection,
but had not followed the counsel of an ancient adviser—_audi alteram
partem_; and the result was that even the most transparent fallacies of
the Protectionists were uttered by him with an air of serious but honest
importance, as if they were truths which he was raised up irrefragably
to establish by new and original arguments. When a free trade in corn
was at last sanctioned by the legislature, Lord George continued to
offer an industrious, courageous, and ingenious opposition, and by the
vigour of his mind and the incessant energy of his attacks, kept up the
party life of the opposition, which he resuscitated and led. Lord George
looked upon himself as the champion of a class; to save or serve the
aristocracy, irrespective of the interests of the masses of the people,
was, in his opinion, patriotism, and he was willing “to spend and be
spent” in that service. Throughout the debates on the customs bill, and
upon the measures of reduction of duties generally which Sir Robert Peel
proposed, Lord George offered an animated and pertinacious, although
unavailing opposition.

At this juncture the state of Ireland was melancholy in the extreme.
Unlawful confederacies were formed among the peasantry and small
farmers, and outrages of the most sanguinary character were perpetrated
in the open day. Disaffection pervaded the masses of the Roman Catholic
population, and language of daring menace was employed towards the
government by the popular leaders of every rank, both in and out of
parliament. Neither life nor property was safe, in any part of the
country, except where the Protestants predominated. The loyal and
peaceable petitioned for some measures of protection, and this class was
indignant that the government did not propose laws which would afford
security to the well-disposed. Sir Robert Peel listened to these
demands, and prepared a bill, known as the “life-protection bill,” which
was very stringent in its nature, and proposed utterly to disarm the
whole population, except under restrictions which would not be felt by
the peaceable inhabitants, but would reach effectually the disaffected
masses. This bill was at first supported by both the Whigs and Tories,
acting under a sense of the common danger to society in Ireland, which
would exist so long as the refractory populace had easy access to arms.
The efforts to procure both fire and side-arms, all over the country,
were extraordinary; this fact alarmed the Whigs, and made them feel
disposed to support Sir Robert: the Conservatives were always ready
to entertain repressive measures for Ireland. Both parties at last
perceived that the tendency of the bill was to strengthen Sir Robert’s
government, and, therefore, although they supported the first reading,
they determined to give it, in its future stages, a determined
opposition. The ground taken by Lord John Russell, as the whig leader,
was, that if Ireland was criminal she was also oppressed; that measures
of coercion and redress should proceed _pari passu_. He would not
support repression, unless accompanied by relief. Lord George Bentinck,
as the conservative leader, took different ground. He admitted that the
state of Ireland was such as to require extra constitutional remedies,
but such ought not to be entrusted to any but constitutional ministers;
that Sir Robert did not advise her majesty in the spirit of the
constitution, and he (Lord George) would not therefore confide so large
a responsibility to his administrative discretion. The union of the two
parties ensured the minister’s defeat, although the first reading was
carried after seven nights’ debate. Sir W. Somerville, then a popular
and influential member of the whig party, proposed an amendment on the
9th of June, when the bill was brought up for a second reading; the
amendment was its postponement for six months, and was carried by a
large majority. This decided the fate of the Peel administration. During
the debate Lord George Bentinck gave an unhappy proof of his inaccuracy
of statement and party spirit. He accused Sir Robert Peel of having made
up his mind in favour of Roman Catholic emancipation, before he turned
Mr. Canning out of office on that very question. This allegation was
made in terms of the bitterest reproach, and was placed in such a form
and light before the house, as, if true, must have left the impression
that Sir Robert was a man destitute of all principle and honour. The
following Friday, the 12th of June, the honourable baronet exculpated
himself in one of the happiest speeches which he ever delivered in
parliament. On this occasion Mr. Roebuck defended Sir Robert, and
assailed Lord George with much justice and more acrimony; but the speech
was well received by the house, and by the country, and increased the
honourable member’s reputation as a debater and a politician. Mr. Hume,
then in the zenith of his influence, followed up the blows so heavily
dealt by Sir Robert and Mr. Roebuck. The efforts of Lord George’s
followers to cover his disastrous defeat were feeble and fruitless.
It was not until the 20th that the amendment proposed by Sir William
Somerville on the 9th was carried, and on the 29th the announcements
were made in the lords and commons that ministers had resigned. The Duke
of Wellington made it known to the lords, as the ministerial leader
in that house, and never was a similar communication so laconically
delivered. Sir Robert made a long speech, vindicating his policy and
his personal consistency, and declaring his unabated confidence in the
measures in favour of free-trade, which he had been enabled to carry,
and which he averred would bring peace, contentment, and prosperity to
the country. The farewell address of the minister was rendered still
more remarkable than it otherwise would have been, by his announcing
that the Oregon dispute with the United States had been amicably
adjusted. This was well received by the house and by the country,
although, perhaps, neither had given such attention to the nature of the
differences between the two countries on that subject, or the character
of the adjustment. The foreign policy of Sir Robert had neither been
firm nor dignified, and the basis of the settlement of the Oregon
dispute was simply concession on the part of England. There can be no
great merit in a minister preserving peace by giving up everything,
or nearly everything, for which he might have to go to war. On
this principle our foreign politics would be easy enough to all
administrations, and the only talent really necessary would be, the
ability to persuade parliament that, in conceding what was justly ours,
we saved the expense of defending it, and that such a course was wise,
honourable, and statesman-like. The spirit infused into our foreign
policy by Sir Robert, and which the Earl of Aberdeen too faithfully
represented, proved, afterwards, costly alike to our resources and our
honour.

On the resignation of Sir Robert, her majesty sent for Lord John
Russell, and confided to him the task of forming an administration. His
lordship succeeded in this object, and presented himself to parliament
as first lord of the treasury and prime-minister, with Lord Cottenham as
lord-chancellor, Lord Lansdowne as president of the council, Mr. Charles
Wood as chancellor of the exchequer, and the three chief secretaries of
state—home, foreign, and colonial—were Sir G. Grey, Lord Palmerston,
and Earl Grey.

The public were not displeased with the formation of a whig ministry,
although, had the parliament been dissolved upon the question simply
of Sir Robert or Lord John, the former would have had an overwhelming
majority. Some discontent was expressed with the prevalence of the Grey
family in the cabinet—three members of that connexion in three of the
principal offices gave too much patronage and influence to a single
family, especially as their nepotism had brought discredit upon the late
earl, even in the height of his popularity. The chancellorship of the
exchequer, and the home and colonial secretaryships, being now in the
hands of this aristocratic house, the departments, it was alleged,
would be overwhelmed with scions and _proteges_ of the noble lord, the
representative of the race. Some of the liberal journals sneered at the
administration as “the Grey government” from the beginning, and
prepared the minds of the more radical portion of the people for an
administrative failure. The conservative press caught up the tone of
the Radicals, and ridiculed the new whig government in similar terms,
affecting to feel a constitutional alarm and jealousy at the prevailing
influence of “the Grey sept.”

When Lord John appeared in the house as the head of the government,
Mr. Duncombe, one of the members for Finsbury, a popular and patriotic
commoner, challenged the premier to make a full and explicit statement
of the principles upon which he intended to administer the affairs of
the country. This appeal met with a noble response in a clear, manful
enunciation of free-trade principles, justice to Ireland, peace as far
as that could be maintained in justice and honour, and the “maintenance
and extension of religious liberty, which, together with its civil
liberty, had made England conspicuous as one of the greatest nations of
the world.”

The first parliamentary measure introduced by the Whigs was a plan for
the better regulation of the sugar duties. On the 20th of July Lord
John introduced his plan, which he professed would meet the wishes
and expectations of the producer, the consumer, and the treasury. His
proposal was substantially a protective duty of twenty shillings the
cwt. upon all foreign Muscovada sugar, to be diminished annually in a
certain ratio, so that in 1851 it would be only fifteen shillings and
sixpence, and after that year permanently fourteen shillings. This was
a great advantage to the consumers as compared with the old prohibitory
duty of sixty-three shillings, and the protective duty of twenty-three
shillings and fourpence. Lord John met the objections of “the negroes’
friends,” as to the admission of slave-grown sugar, by showing that the
exclusion of such sugar was impracticable, inasmuch as by treaty, states
producing slave-grown sugar were entitled to demand its admission
under “the most favoured nation clause.” To conciliate the West-India
interest, his lordship announced that it was his intention to introduce
a bill giving the queen power to assent to any act of the West-India
legislatures, modifying or abolishing the differential duties
established there in favour of British goods. As these differential
duties were only five or seven per cent., the West-India interest
considered that his lordship mocked them by a show of concession. The
whole of that interest was “up in arms,” as their parliamentary and
colonial opposition, moral and political, was described. This interest
had not joined the Conservatives in resisting the repeal of the corn
laws, but, nevertheless, it now supplicated conservative support in
impeding the measures of the ministry. The English landed interest was
anxious to strengthen itself by the aid of the West-India planters and
merchants, and therefore affected to be generous, and to repay evil
by good. Lord George Bentinck’s boastful words were paraded before all
monopolists to induce their co-operation with his party—“If we are a
proud aristocracy, we are proud of our honour, inasmuch as we have never
been guilty, and never can be guilty, of double-dealing with the farmers
of England, of swindling our opponents, deceiving our friends, or
betraying our constituents.” The West-India party was happy to gain help
from any quarter, and joined “the farmers’ friends” in adopting
Lord George Bentinck as their leader. The premier had proceeded by
“resolution,” as it is constitutional to do in all measures affecting
the public revenue. When the resolution was reported, Lord George moved
as an amendment, “That in the present state of the sugar cultivation in
the East and West-India possessions, the proposed reduction of duty upon
foreign slave-grown sugar is alike unjust and impolitic, as tending to
check the advance of sugar produced by British free labour, and to
give a great additional stimulus to slave labour.” In support of this
amendment the noble mover paraded a vast array of “facts and figures,”
 which made a wonderful show of industry and knowledge; but his
statistical statements were illusory as his logic was unsound. The
awkward manner in which his amendment was expressed embarrassed his
arguments and those of his party, justifying the description of him in
the following passage of his memoir, written by Disraeli:—“He had not
much sustained his literary culture, and of late years, at any rate,
had not given his mind to political study.” Sir Robert Peel gave the
government a qualified and hesitating support. He started so many
objections to the government measure that the opposition might have
fairly looked for his support, but he answered his speech by his vote.
In the course of his oration he predicted evils which never came to
pass, and after all that had occurred, even his own glorious triumph
in repealing the corn laws, the speech proved that he was not only an
unwilling reformer, but that he had not clear and fair convictions of
the truth of the great principles of political economy, that he was
still the man of mere political expediency, and almost as jealous
as ever of all bold attempts at theoretical or practical reform. The
support of Sir Robert, such as it was, saved the government, for on this
question, at all events, he held the balance of power. The debate
lasted through the nights of the 27th and 28th, the West-India interest
affecting great horror of slavery, and depicting the encouragement the
measure would give to that evil in terms of great and even pious alarm.
Never did a party resort more scandalously to cant and hypocrisy to
serve a purpose than this, on the memorable occasion of “the sugar
debate.” The resolution was carried, and a bill embodying it rapidly
passed the commons, but was resisted in the lords with much tenacity of
purpose. This was in a considerable measure the result of a remarkable
petition presented to that house by Mr. Clarkson, of whom Mr.
Wilberforce had been a disciple. Mr. Clarkson was a philanthropist and
a Christian, but neither a political economist nor a politician. The
Bishop of Oxford proposed an amendment, on the second reading, which
would have virtually destroyed the bill; but the original motion was
carried, and the remaining stages were unobstructed.

This was a most important measure to the comfort of the people and the
commerce of the country. The government was logically and politically
right; and the Whigs left the impression upon the country, by the bill
itself, and the arguments by which they conducted it through the
house, that they had been of late successful students in the important
department of economics. A considerable stir among the wealthy and
influential body of English citizens, the Society of Friends, was
created, by the support which Mr. Bright, Mr. Crewdson, and others of
the Quakers of the north of England, gave to the sugar bill. The body
at large considered that support inconsistent with their professed
principles. Mr. Bright, and those who took his views, eloquently
defended themselves against the criticisms of the Friends, and Mr.
George Thompson, the celebrated anti-slavery lecturer, espoused their
cause with great ardour. Mr. Bright and his fellow-labourers of the
Quaker persuasion were in a minority. The great body of the Friends
disapproved of his conduct, and the old anti-slavery party throughout
the country joined in the disapprobation. Mr. Bright was not a man to
be deterred by friends or foes from pursuing a course which he thought
right, and he persisted in giving to the government a very hearty and
efficient support. The Manchester school accepted the bill with great
favour, and upheld the ministry in carrying it. Large assemblages were
convened in Manchester and the manufacturing districts, but especially
in South Lancashire, Cheshire and Staffordshire, on behalf of
the measure, and the various chambers of commerce and commercial
associations passed resolutions or sent petitions in its favour. It was
a good beginning for Lord John as premier, and conduced to the tenure of
office which he was enabled to maintain.




THE CONDITION OF IRELAND.—DISTURBED STATE OF THE COUNTRY.—DISAFFECTION
OF THE POPULACE.—FAILURE OF THE POTATOE CROP.—DISTRESS.—AGITATION BY
THE YOUNG IRELANDERS.—DECLINE OF O’CONNELL.

Some notice has been taken of the condition of Ireland as leading to the
dissolution of the Peel ministry. It is appropriate to resume here the
thread of Irish history. The affairs of that country, politically and
socially, became rapidly worse. From day to day the people of England
were startled with tidings of fierce conflicts which faction waged, the
disloyalty of the great majority of the people, the relentless cruelty
with which the Ribbon Society exacted its victims, and the continued
pressure of famine and sickness upon the physical life of the people.
Ireland, so long conversant with misery, was still to taste the cup in
all its bitterness. Everything meant for her good by the legislature
brought with it some new form of evil, or aggravated some that existed.
She had sought and obtained emancipation, but while her arms wore no
longer a manacle, she still clanked her broken chain, and with it smote
her benefactors or wounded herself. The removal of restrictions from
commerce, effected by Sir Robert Peel, she regarded as an injury; the
majority of Irishmen believed that the repeal of the corn laws was
designed to enrich England at the expense of Ireland, and that it
was the most fatal blow ever given to her agricultural and commercial
prosperity. There were many enlightened Irishmen who advocated the
repeal of the laws which made the food of the people dear;—of seven
men who met in Manchester to form the anti-corn-law association, out of
which sprang “the League,” at least two were Irishmen. Perhaps the man
to whom that cause was originally indebted, more than to any other, was
Archibald Prentice of the city just named, a native of Scotland; but
among his earliest and most earnest coadjutors were Irishmen. The
merchants of the three principal cities in Ireland—Dublin, Cork,
and Belfast—favoured Sir Robert Peel’s law, especially those of
the enlightened and enterprising town last named; but the Irish
agriculturists, and the inhabitants of the country generally, resented
it as a new Irish grievance! Lord George Bentinck did not misrepresent
the feeling of the Irish people towards the free-trade movement, when he
claimed the country, with some exceptions only, as on his side. Even the
educational boon, so recently accorded by parliament, was regarded as
a religious affront. “The Queen’s colleges” were denounced by Mr.
O’Connell and the priests as “godless colleges.” In parliament he
opposed, in Ireland he vituperated it.

A new phase of mischief gradually ripened during the year 1846.
O’Connell had taught the people habits of political organisation,
and while he had so wielded the masses thus organised as to prevent
insurrection, he kept the government in continual alarm, lest some
sudden outbreak should rend society and deluge the country with
blood. The “agitator” professed to hold the doctrine of moral force in
opposition to physical force; but while he proclaimed that the liberties
of Ireland were “not worth the shedding of one drop of blood,” and in
long letters and speeches declared that whoever committed crime was his
enemy, and the enemy of Irish freedom, he palliated those crimes, when
committed, defended the criminals, shifted the blame to the Protestants,
the local authorities, the government, the law, or the Saxon; and so
wrote and spoke as was calculated to lead the perpetrators of outrage
to regard themselves as having an excuse for their crimes, in their
own condition or that of their country. The general feeling of the
disaffected in reference to Mr. O’Connell’s exhortations of peace was,
that he was only sincere so far as expediency dictated; that he had no
other objection to physical force than his conviction that the prospects
of success did not warrant recourse to it. Accordingly, whilst a great
display was made of carrying out his “moral force” policy, and his
“pacificators” were the ostensible preservers of the peace,—taking the
credit themselves, or claiming it for their chief, of preventing an open
insurrection,—murder, incendiarism, assault, and religious persecution
were carried out in detail. When any were arraigned, no scruples were
entertained as to the means by which conviction might be prevented;
perjury, intimidation, and assassination were among these
instrumentalities. When convicted, the criminal was regarded as
suffering for his religion and country, although the crime for which he
was condemned was some cruel and cowardly assassination, or attempt
to commit such. “The liberal press,” as the newspapers devoted to the
agitation were designated, was filled with extenuations or denials of
the culprit’s guilt, and the most vengeful attacks were made upon all
who sought to enforce the laws, and preserve peace and life from the
ruffian hands of the Ribbonmen, and “the moral force agitators.” Lord
John Russell has often resorted to _finesse_ in his parliamentary
tactics which has not always done him honour, but he never erred in this
respect more egregiously than when, withdrawing the Irish arms bill, he
reported that the law had its unimpeded course, that juries did their
duty, and that crime was effectually restrained. So far from juries
doing their duty, it was difficult in the provinces to obtain
convictions, where a portion of the jury were O’Connellites, if the
person before them was arraigned for an agrarian offence, or an
outrage against the persons of those who were loyal. Neither Whigs, nor
Protestants who were politicians of a school yet more free, nor liberal
Roman Catholics who respected the law, or enforced their rights as
landlords, were spared by the secret societies, any more than the most
rabid Tories or the most flaming Orangemen. A reign of terror prevailed
through the country; the perpetrators of outrage were everywhere, and
the popular masses sympathised with them. An illustration of the state
of things then prevailing was afforded in the following paragraph from
the _Illustrated London News_ of the 21st of February, 1846:—

“On Friday (last week) Bryan Seery was executed at Mullingar. The
conviction took place under the following circumstances:—Some time
since Sir Francis Hopkins was shot at by a man in Westmeath; Sir Francis
tried to seize the assassin, but he escaped; and afterwards Seery was
captured. The sole witness to the prisoner’s identity with the assassin
was the prosecutor: the defence was the common Irish defence—_alibi_,
which was of course sworn to stoutly, as it always is in Ireland. One
jury could not agree to the verdict, two Roman Catholics standing out
against conviction: a second jury condemned the man: efforts to procure
commutation of his sentence failed, and he was left for execution.
Seery, at the place of execution, solemnly denied his guilt. A
circumstance highly characteristic of the feeling of the public
occurred. The morning was calm—the sounding of bugles and peeling of
drums were heard in all directions: there was a perfect cessation of
business in the town. About ten o’clock all the shops were closed,
and not a single human being was to be seen in the streets—not one
individual came in from the country. Thus the people determined to mark
their opinion of this awful tragedy, for all regard Seery as a martyr.
At eleven o’clock the military were paraded before the gaol, and not one
human being appeared before the scaffold but themselves and the
police. Even the magistrates of the county stayed away—not one of
them appeared, except Mr. Uniacke, who walked up and down with Captain
Despard. Under the imposing head of the ‘Mullingar Tragedy,’ the
reporter of the _Dublin Freeman_ furnishes that journal with a long and
highly-coloured account of the interment of Bryan Seery. The melancholy
spectacle took place on Sunday, in the presence of vast multitudes of
the country people, whose numbers were estimated by the writer to amount
to fifty thousand or sixty thousand souls.”

On other occasions the populace attended the execution of criminals in
large numbers, and exhibited their sympathy by demonstrations of respect
and of regret for their fate, speaking of them as “the blessed martyrs”
 for their religion, or their country, or both. An execution took place
at Nenagh, in the county of Tipperary, early in June, which was thus
noticed in a paper, neither unfavourable to the rights of the people,
nor the exercise of the utmost clemency on the part of the government
towards the misguided:—“Three men were executed at Nenagh on Friday
(last week), pursuant to their sentences; two—namely, Patrick Hayes and
Patrick Rice—for conspiring to murder the late Mr. Patrick Clarke; and
one, named William Fogarty—for shooting at Mr. M’Donald, a steward in
the slate quarries. An immense multitude collected to witness the scene.
The three men were accompanied to the drop by Roman Catholic clergymen.
They died after a brief struggle, having made no public confession of
their crimes. A large police force of one hundred and fifty men, and a
company of the 72nd depot, comprised the guard in attendance. All was
quiet and peaceable, says a local paper, and nothing heard but the
moanings of the friends of the culprits. After the usual time of
hanging, the bodies were lowered into coffins, and given to the
relations. The long respite obtained by these men whilst various points
of law were urged in their favour, gave much additional interest to
their cases.”

Executions did not, however, extinguish the prevalence of crime, nor
were the precautions of the executive sufficient to wrest the weapon
from the murderous hand. A Galway paper, in “the liberal interest,”
 recorded a murder near the junction of that county with the county of
Clare, immediately after the execution at Nenagh, and various others of
a similar character throughout the country. This atrocity was very much
in character with those which disgraced the whole south and west of
Ireland, and which, to a less extent, took place in the north and
north-eastern portions of the land:—“We regret to state that, on the
night of Thursday (last week), a barbarous murder was committed at a
village near Woodford, in this county. The unfortunate object of the
assassin’s vengeance was a man named Pat Hill. Two persons came into
his house, and brought him out of his bed to a place about forty yards
distant, and there inflicted no less than forty-two bayonet wounds
on his person, besides a fracture of the skull. His wife, hearing his
screams, went to his assistance, and, having begged for mercy, she was
told by the heartless ruffians that if she did not go away, she would
herself be treated in a like manner. Having completed their purpose,
the miscreants, who are unknown, walked off, and their victim almost
immediately expired. An inquest was held at Portumna, when a verdict of
‘Wilful murder’ was returned against persons unknown. Deceased was in
rather comfortable circumstances, and bore a most excellent character.”

While disaffection, secret societies, fanatical intolerance, and
wide-spread personal outrage cursed unhappy Ireland, the failure of the
potato crop intensified every other form of evil to which the country
was subjected. Very early in the year it was obvious to intelligent
observers that the failure of 1845 would be exceeded in 1846. The
distress developed itself very early. In February the Rev. W. B.
Townend, rector of Aghadda, in the diocess of Cloyne, county of Cork,
published a letter, in which he thus described the sufferings and the
prospects of the people:—“In this part of Ireland we are in a frightful
state—the humbler classes are all living on the contaminated potato;
the sides of fields and gardens literally covered with rotten ones,
thrown away. The detail of destruction is endless. That employment
should be wanted for the people, while one-third of Ireland is as
much waste as the woods in Canada, and the rest badly cultivated, not
affording half labour, is a strange anomaly.”

Later in the year the Rev. J. B. Tyrwhitt, an English clergyman of
the Established Church, settled in Keny, published an account of the
sufferings and prospects of the people of the south and west of Munster,
truly appalling. The reverend gentleman wrote in the celebrated Vale
of Iverah, where the O’Connells held property, and exercised an almost
absolute sway:—“The prospects of the people of this very poor barony,
and all along from the River Kenmare, Sneem, Darrynane, to Cahirciveen,
and thence towards Killorglin, is harrowing and startling. The whole
potato crop is literally destroyed, while over a very wide surface the
oat crop presents an unnatural lilac tinge to the eye; at the same
time, in too many instances, the head is found flaccid to the touch, and
possessing no substance. The barley crop, too, in many places, exhibits
the effect of a powerful blight. In some places, also, where turnips
have been grown, they present—as, indeed, has been the case in other
parts of the county—a healthier exterior in top and skin, but, on being
opened, are found deeply impregnated with a taint similar to that which
has smitten the potato, to such an extent, that one cannot stand in the
blackened fields without being overpowered by the offensive effluvia.”

From the county of Clare statements arrived in London, if possible,
more appalling. Early in April pestilence manifested itself in various
places, and the county of Tipperary was disturbed by famine riots,
independent of the normal disturbances which subjected that county to
such misery, and earned for it so terrible a reputation. At Clonmel
food riots assumed a formidable appearance, and the military had to
guard the flour mills. The Roman Catholic clergy exerted themselves
successfully to soothe the minds of the peasantry, and prevent that
increase of their sufferings, which would result from the plunder of
private property. The peasantry of Ireland were not addicted to robbery,
and whatever outrages fanaticism, political and religious, might goad
them to commit, the necessities of their famishing wives and children
alone could cause them to resort to plunder. Thus, at a large and
peaceable meeting of the peasantry in the county of Galway, at the end
of April, they made this declaration:—“If employment be not immediately
given, we can no longer stand the distress under which we are
suffering.” Of course it was necessary to put down tumult and protect
property, and very painful were the duties which in consequence devolved
upon the civil and military power. _Ex uno disce omnes_. At Kilsheelan,
between the counties of Tipperary and Waterford, an occurrence took
place, which was described in the language of one of the leading
journals of the south of Ireland in the following terms:—“On Thursday
morning, in consequence of information received by the magistrates,
they very prudently had cars stationed in the barracks for the
prompt conveyance of the troops in case of necessity; and subsequent
proceedings will show how very judicious and prudent their arrangements
were. In a short time an express arrived in town stating that an
immense mob was plundering the boats at Kilsheelan, within four miles of
Clonmel, and forthwith a party of the 33rd got on the cars and proceeded
to the scene of outrage, together with a party of the 1st Royal
Dragoons, under the command of Major Galloway. Mr. J. Bagwell, Mr. W.
Riall, Major Shaw, and Sub-inspector Fosberry accompanied them, and when
within a short distance of the scene of plunder, word reached them that
the robbery going on was most extensive. Mr. Fosberry and a mounted
policeman immediately galloped on, and when they reached the spot, the
scene which met their view is more easily imagined than described. An
immense multitude were plundering the boats; a vast quantity of Indian
corn, the property of Mr. Going, of Caher, was destroyed or made off
with, and a quantity of wheat, the property of Mr. T. Hughes, was
also stolen and destroyed. The military quickly came up, and a regular
engagement took place. Stones were firing in all directions—several
soldiers were struck; Mr. Fosberry received a blow of a stone in the
leg, and it was not until some time had elapsed that this lawless rabble
were subdued, and thirteen of them taken prisoners and brought into our
gaol. Nothing could exceed the coolness of our magistrates, officers,
and soldiers during this rencontre, and we are happy to say that a
portion of the wheat was retaken.”

Such was the state of Ireland up to the harvest time of 1846, when,
unhappily, all the fears of men, such as have been quoted, and the
predictions of Sir Robert Peel, were fulfilled. There was another
failure of the harvest; the crops of potatoes and oats suffered to
such an extent as to increase, many fold, all the miseries previously
experienced, and the dangers previously apprehended. Five millions,
five hundred thousand tons of potatoes, and five millions two hundred
thousand quarters of oats, below the average, was produced that harvest.
The estimated loss in money, from the deficient produce of the year, was
sixteen millions pounds sterling!

The efforts to mitigate these evils were manifold. Subscriptions were
raised in every part of the British Isles, and, indeed, in every part
of the British empire. From various places on the continent, especially
France, donations were transmitted in either money or food. The Sultan
of Turkey sent a generous contribution to the common stock of relief.
From the United States of America supplies also came. The world might
be represented as laid under contribution to relieve the miseries of
Ireland. The government also made great exertions. Sir Robert Peel’s
administration made secret and extensive purchases of Indian corn, which
were sold, or distributed gratuitously, according to circumstances. By
donations for public works, and “general presentments,” Sir Robert Peel
also prepared for the coming disaster. He had expended in this way more
than eight hundred thousand pounds, a little more than the half of which
had been repaid by rates levied in Ireland under the powers intrusted
to the grand juries. Lord John Russell, soon after he passed his
sugar duties bill, made proposals to parliament calculated to meet
the distress as it then existed, and in some measure to anticipate the
relief which he foresaw would be required. He proposed to empower the
lord-lieutenant to summon sessions of counties and of baronies, to
consider the propriety of making public works for the relief of the
poor, and to give to those sessions, under certain circumstances,
authority to determine upon what works were desirable or necessary,
which the board ot works would upon such decision execute. The imperial
treasury was to make advances for carrying on these works, to be repaid
in ten years at three and a half per cent, interest. Grants of £50,000
each would be made to certain poor districts which would be unable
to repay advances. His lordship moved resolutions embodying these
proposals, which were carried, and a bill founded upon them passed
through both houses with the utmost rapidity. The introduction of these
measures seemed to produce a good effect on Ireland, for crime and
outrage abated. The ministers took advantage of this circumstance to
claim great merit for their administration, and, on the 28th of August,
when parliament was prorogued by commission, the speech delivered
ascribed to her majesty great satisfaction in the relief so cordially
provided by parliament for the Irish poor, and the beneficial effects
produced. These tokens of returning peace were as the morning dew, which
soon passes away, and the measures of parliament, notwithstanding their
magnitude, were soon proved to be inadequate. The government acted,
however, with generosity and courage, although their wisdom and
administrative aptitude were not equally conspicuous. During a portion
of the interval of the reassembling of parliament, in January, 1847, the
government, unauthorised by parliament, expended a million sterling
per month. The cabinet felt assured that parliament would indemnify and
England approve. Immense supplies of Indian corn and other articles of
food were carried by government steamers to such points of the coast
as were convenient for their prompt dispersion to the interior. The
labourers on the public works were paid from one shilling to one
shilling and sixpence per day. In the county of Mayo, where the distress
was peculiarly aggravated, nearly half a million sterling was expended
in public works, in districts the Ordnance valuation of which was little
more than half that amount. These works were unproductive, and baronies
were pledged to their whole value, some for a year, and others for
several years, in repayment of the grants, although the plan of
repayment to the government was, that only half the amount advanced
should be refunded. Many private individuals, both in Ireland and
in Great Britain, exhibited a noble generosity; and the heroic
self-sacrifice of clergymen, medical men, and others, in the midst of
the famine and plague-stricken people, cannot be too much commended. The
liberality and exertions of the Irish residents in England and Scotland
was much to their own honour and to the reputation of their country.
Notwithstanding all these exertions, the aid of the government and
of private individuals was abused, and the annals of the world do not
contain any narrative of ingratitude and selfishness more base than
those which record the transactions of certain classes of the Irish
people during that terrible crisis. Many of the landed gentry took
occasion to have their own fences and private roads repaired at the
public expense, and there were few parts of the country where “public
works” did not mean improvements of the domains, and the creation of
roads to the mansions of the gentry. The Roman Catholic chapels, and the
ways of access to them, were also treated as “public works.” The
conduct of “the Board of Works” was far from unimpeachable, and men
distinguished in her majesty’s service cut a poor figure in connection
with the inquiries and discussions to which the modes of managing the
public relief ultimately led. The moral effect of the charity was most
injurious to the country, whatever its material advantage in the urgency
of the occasion. This was exemplified in many ways. The peasantry were
unwilling to bestow a fair amount of labour upon works of acknowledged
utility, although paid nearly double the ordinary rates of wages; they
lazily preferred public works, so that there was a scarcity of hands to
gather in the imperfect harvest until the government partially withdrew
its competition from the labour market. Considerable numbers of farmers,
some of whom held as many as sixty acres of land, applied for tickets
from the relief committees, and were placed upon the public works, thus
drawing off the money from the legitimate objects of aid. Small farmers
in numbers received gratuities of Indian corn and other food, whose
means were such as ought in common decency and common honesty to
have prevented such an application. The local committees acted with
partiality and injustice, and numbers of the peasantry perished of
starvation, while the greedy, who were not necessitous, preyed upon the
public charity. In the county Clare, five thousand persons were struck
off the lists of those who were employed by the labour rate, and who, it
is scarcely necessary to add, rendered no return for the money they had
received, for the ostensible labour was in these cases a sham. The most
scandalous of all the exhibitions of want of probity which the crisis
developed was the revival of efforts to procure arms. The peasantry,
farmers, town-population—all of every rank—sought to possess
themselves of weapons of war, especially fire-arms. The demand for powder
and percussion-caps was as eager as for weapons. Birmingham was kept
busy; every hand in the gun-making trades there was employed; Sheffield
was also labouring at sword cutlery, and in the manufacture of daggers
and bayonets; while the smithies of Ireland were extensively engaged in
the manufacture of pike heads. The money expended by benevolent persons
and by the government on the vast scale which the emergency and a
noble compassion dictated, was employed to procure arms which those who
purchased them intended to turn upon the hands that fed them as soon
as opportunity allowed. Whatever thanks might be felt by the peasantry
towards those who on the spot gave of their private store to mitigate
the pangs of the sufferers, no gratitude was entertained to the British
public or to the government. Starving Ireland armed to strike down her
benefactors with weapons procured by the misuse of the boon which these
benefactors had extended. However painful it may be to relate the story
of such turpitude, truth constrains it: the Irish peasant begged, that
he might arm against the charitable hand that succoured him. Persons
actually perished leaving some, money, with which surviving relatives,
in the depths of their misery, purchased arms. It was thought that no
other opportunity so favourable would arise to turn the gold of the
Saxon into steel, which might be pointed against his own breast. The
object most at heart with the famishing crowds was the ascendancy
of their religion, to be accomplished by the subjugation of British
authority; for this they famished and bought muskets and horse-pistols,
powder and percussion caps, old swords and bayonets. To such an extent
was this carried that in Clonmel, a town of about 18,000 inhabitants,
and where the people rioted for food, as already recorded, nearly twelve
hundred stand of arms were sold in a few days. These were purchased
by the silver which the government Board of Works had paid in the
charitable employment of the people on non-productive labour.

Much difficulty arose, in the distribution of gratuitous supplies
of food, from the routine of the public offices. So complex were the
details which the under-officials were obliged to observe, that men
actually perished while a useless routine correspondence was being
conducted. It was satirically said by an English observer, “the delivery
of a few quarters of English corn to those who want it requires as much
correspondence and documentary forms as a chancery suit.”

The refusal of grand juries to “present” was another obstacle to the
prompt relief of the people. They were unwilling to carry into force the
presentment act, because the money advanced should be one-half repaid,
and, while held as a loan, be chargeable with interest. These bodies,
which refused presentments on grounds that it was not desirable or
necessary to make them, were amongst the most clamorous in the kingdom
for their share of patronage in dispensing the money and food for which
no repayment was to be made.




POLITICAL AGITATION.—YOUNG IRELAND.

During the progress of all this misery and turbulence, and while the
government required to put forth all its energies to mitigate the one
and suppress the other, Ireland was torn by political factions, and
the voice of party was never for a moment silent. On previous pages the
reader will find the state of Irish parties depicted as they stood in
1845. Throughout the year 1846 some new phases of the political spirit
of the people were presented. O’Connell still declared that the only
remedy for Ireland was the repeal of the union; and that while he gave a
modified support to a whig government, so long as it sincerely attempted
the melioration of Irish circumstances, he merely did so to prove that
he was not a partisan, and in the hope of eventually bringing all men
to believe that no effectual redress for the wrongs of Ireland was to be
expected from the imperial legislature—that Ireland’s only hope lay in
“a native parliament.” This the great agitator declared he would obtain
by moral force only, if the people of Ireland abstained from rebellion,
and preserved the moral attitude of a united demand for the repeal of
the legislative union between Great Britain and Ireland. Gradually there
arose in “the Repeal Association” a more spirited section, which went
by the designation of “Young Ireland.” These men laughed at O’Connell’s
moral force doctrines, or denounced them with disdain. At first they
professed unbounded respect for himself, and an approval of his aims,
but an irreconcileable antipathy to his measures. They maintained the
right of all men to use arms in defence or in the assertion of liberty;
proclaimed that Ireland was too noble a country, and the Irish too fine
a race, to be subjected to a provincial _status_. “Ireland a nation—not
a province,” so often proclaimed by O’Connell, became in earnest the
watchword of this new and vigorous party. They derided the time-serving
and place-hunting of O’Connell’s partisans, and declared that, by asking
places from the English government for his followers, O’Connell had
corrupted and dishonoured his country. They also opposed “the rent,”
 which O’Connell received as a tribute from the people, and a means
of enabling him to employ various agencies for the prosecution of his
labours. He had given up the practice of his profession, to him most
lucrative, in order to devote himself wholly to what he believed to
be the good of his country, and, accordingly, the people contributed
liberally to enable him, as the leader of the Roman Catholics of
Ireland, to hold his place without indignity in the face of the
parliament and people of England. In theory this contribution was at all
events creditable to the generosity and zeal of the Irish people, and no
discredit to O’Connell himself. Nor can it be alleged with truth that
he accepted it from mercenary motives, or used it selfishly. His fortune
was small; his position required large expenditure; and it is notorious
that the money he received was not hoarded, nor used to enrich his
family, but employed for political and often charitable purposes which
had the entire approbation of the donors. The Young Irelanders, however,
at first furtively and anonymously, afterwards more or less openly,
and, finally, in the columns of the newspaper press, and in the Repeal
Association itself, stigmatised the rent as mercenary. This new party
divided influence with “the Liberator” upon the boards of the Corn
Exchange, and in public meetings generally, and was the cause of great
distraction in the councils and operations of the Repeal Association.
At first they treated O’Connell as conscientiously wrong-headed on the
subjects of moral and physical force; but they gradually widened their
ground of attack, and suggested that he was actuated by corrupt motives,
not for his own advantage, but in order to obtain places for a host of
needy adventurers who constituted what was termed his “tail.” Finally,
they denounced him as a coward, and the abettor therefore of a cowardly
policy: that being afraid to place himself at the head of his armed
countrymen, he affected to abhor bloodshed, and held out a hope which he
knew to be delusive—that Ireland could conquer the restoration of her
legislature by moral, in contradistinction to physical force.

Before noticing further the effect of these differences upon O’Connell
and the Irish repeal party, it is desirable to glance at the character
and talents of the leading Young Irelanders, as these men will occupy
much prominence in the history of succeeding years. Thomas Davis was
generally alleged to be the founder of this section of the repeal party.
He was only a student in Trinity College, Dublin, when he first entered
upon political life. He imbibed early in youth a passionate love of
country, and retained it until his death, which, to the general regret,
occurred in a few years after he had entered upon political life. Mr.
Davis was a poet, although not of a high order; several specimens of
good ballad composition are amongst his remains. He cultivated classic
literature with success; as an antiquary and an historian acquired
reputation; wrote energetically and fluently; spoke in public with
earnestness and force, but had none of the graces of the finished
orator, and he despised all “rhetorical artifices.” In conversation
he was persuasive, but in public debate deficient in this quality; and
while he possessed courage to confront mobs, or dictators, as he
did also to meet an armed host in his country’s service, he was
not characterised by that presence of mind in public discussion, so
necessary for effective repartee and popular power. He was in religion
a Protestant, and a member of the Established Church; but it is obvious,
from his various papers in connection with Irish affairs, that he
was not a very earnest Protestant, and was entirely unacquainted with
theological studies. His letters and speeches also show that he was
not conversant with political economy, and that his social views were
unsound. He was a man of many excellences, a true friend, an amiable
companion, an honest and brave patriot, a gentleman, a scholar, and a
_litterateur_.

The next most notable person among the leaders of the Young Irelanders
was William Smith O’Brien. Like Thomas Davis, his integrity was
indisputable. A member, and the representative of probably the oldest
family in Europe, descended from the celebrated Brien Boroighome, who
was monarch of Ireland in the twelfth century, he was proudly jealous
of the honour of his lineage and of his name, and never did man bear a
proud name with more unsullied honour than O’Brien. He mourned over the
sufferings of his country with a tender and compassionate heart, and he
ascribed these sufferings to bad government. It was his desire to remove
all grievances by constitutional means, but his experience as a member
of the imperial parliament led him to believe that Ireland never could
receive proper legislative consideration until the union was repealed.
Perceiving that O’Connell’s agitation was never likely to effect that
object, despising the mean and corrupt practices by which that agitation
was attended, and being filled with horror at the occurrence of so much
agrarian crime, he came to the conclusion that an armed attempt to sever
Ireland from Great Britain was the duty of Irishmen, and the only hope
left for her political or social redemption. Mr. O’Brien was a member
of the Church of England, and his sympathies were with the evangelical
section. He was well acquainted with the great fundamental differences
between the church of Rome and Protestant communions, and was
conscientiously and firmly a Protestant, while his mental habits and
religious principles alike made him the consistent friend of religious
liberty. It was generally supposed that his views of government were
monarchical; and as he was the undoubted representative of the Irish
monarchy, it was also believed that he had sufficient ambition to look
forward to the time when independent Ireland would restore to him his
family honours. The personal and moral influence of Mr. O’Brien were
such as to qualify him to be a leader. He was much loved, and deserved
to be so. As a man he was amiable, as a gentleman courteous, as a friend
true. Intellectually, he was not fit to conduct a powerful party through
great dangers. Scholarly and accomplished, he was yet not profoundly
read, nor did he possess any great power as a writer or speaker. He
could not shake the senate like Grattan, Flood, or Curran, nor could
he move the popular will by his pen, like Moore or Davis. Whatever he
undertook for Ireland was in the spirit of a patriot, and his courage
was as unquestionable as his truth. He had studied too little the
character of his countrymen, and the political influence of their
religious predilections, or he probably would never have embarked upon
the stormy sea of the repeal agitation. Had he pondered deeply the
philosophy of Irish character, and of the Protestant and Roman Catholic
religions, by which the people were so extensively and sincerely
influenced, he must have foreseen that the Irish Roman Catholic
population would never enter upon any political enterprise to which
their priests were opposed; that the priests would never favour any
political scheme that did not comprise the ascendancy of Rome; and that
the Irish Protestants, deeply and thoroughly convinced of that fact,
would not extensively join any confederacy for political purposes where
the priesthood could possibly exercise any authority. All these
things William Smith O’Brien, from his position as an Irish Protestant
gentleman, ought to have known; knowing these things, he never could
have plunged into the raging surge of an Irish popular insurrection. He
meant honestly, failed signally, and suffered himself to be involved in
a hapless enterprise, because he had not sufficiently studied the people
among whom he lived, nor the religious influences to which they were
subjected.

A third leader of this party was Thomas Meagher, who afterwards called
himself O’Meagher, son of a wealthy and respectable Roman Catholic
citizen at Waterford. Mr. Meagher was the youngest of all the Young
Ireland leaders.

He had been educated at the Jesuit College, Stonyhurst, Lancashire,
where it would appear that one principle undermined another in his
education; for while he came forth a Roman Catholic politician and a
patriot, he found that the consistent profession of the one came into
such frequent collision with the other, that his honest and manly mind
could not reconcile them, and, as some regarded it, he sacrificed his
creed to his country. Sir Jonah Barrington represents the Roman Catholic
leaders of his day as sacrificing their country to their church.
Thomas Meagher certainly appeared to perform the converse of this.
His enunciations of religious opinion were boldly liberal, and utterly
incompatible with the ascendancy of his own or any other church. In this
respect, as, indeed, in every other, he preserved throughout his course
a most laudable consistency. He probably comprehended the principles of
civil and religious liberty better than any other member of the Young
Ireland confederacy. Young Meagher was full of ardour for the cause of
repeal. Like Davis and Smith O’Brien (to both of whom he was attached
by the tenderest friendship), he believed it to be the salvation of his
country. His soul was inflamed with love of her, and he consecrated
his genius and his life to her resuscitation by the modes which
alone appeared to him calculated to restore her from political death.
Intellectually, Mr. Meagher was superior to any other leader of the
party. Davis had neither the compass nor versatility of Meagher, who
was the only finished orator of the remarkable group of men whom he
intellectually outshone. Some of his orations are as chaste and
fervent as Emmet’s, as rich and varied as Curran’s, as intellectual
as Grattan’s, as logical as Flood’s, and as graceful and eloquent as
Shiel’s. There are few specimens of political oratory in the English
language which rival some of the speeches of this young tribune. He was
almost as gifted with his pen as with his tongue. His letters abound
with pathos, and poetry of thought and feeling; his descriptions
are graphic and lifeful; his analysis of character accurate and
discriminating; his aspirations noble and pure. There was a pleasing
fascination in his oratory and writing which never passed away. One can
hardly think of his sad story without remembering also the simile of his
national poet:—

     “You may break, you may ruin the vase if you will,
     But the scent of the roses will hang round it still.”

John Mitchell was another remarkable member of this fraternity. He was a
solicitor, a Protestant, and a Dissenter. He was the most fiery of all
“the rebels,” as these agitators ultimately became. Mitchell was a native
of Ulster, and possessed much of the spirit of the old Presbyterian
United Irishmen of 1798; indeed, some of their leaders were his
relations. He possessed a vigorous intellect, great energy of
thought and action, overbearing-purpose, and unflinching courage. His
information was not extensive, nor his judgment profound, and yet he was
a well-educated, well-read, and very thoughtful, reflective man. He was
adapted to be the sole leader of an insurrection where the object might
be clear, the undertaking desperate, and the work short. His nature was
not adapted either to lay an extensive plan, or co-operate with other
men of mental power in the execution of such. He was crotchetty and
impracticable, a man of rash judgment and hasty action-as brave and as
tenacious as a bulldog. In private life he was gentle and loving; it
was easy, as a friend or companion, to argue with John Mitchell, but
impossible to co-operate with him as a compatriot. He had not the mind
of a statesman, nor had he the prudence and policy requisite for a
popular leader anywhere, much less in Ireland, at a crisis of her
history so peculiar. This gentleman did much to precipitate the
insurrection which drew down upon Ireland, so soon after the period of
which we write, disgrace and ridicule. Like Smith O’Brien, he did
not thoroughly understand the people he was to lead, nor those of his
countrymen to whom he and they were so certain to be opposed, nor did
he compute the religious prepossessions by which those distinct parties
were respectively influenced. Mr. Mitchell was nominally a Unitarian in
his religious creed, but he held very lax notions of this theology, and
verged to Deism.

His views of political economy were erroneous and impracticable; yet he
seemed to pride himself upon his absurd economical theories. He seemed
to have no fixed views of government; he was neither monarchist,
aristocrat, nor republican: his opinions seemed to be incompatible with
all organised government, except a popular despotism, such as the French
empire exemplified. Hatred to England, her name, race, and institutions,
seems to have amounted to a monomania with him; yet he was not himself
of Celtic lineage. His intolerance of opinion and rashness of action
would have been utterly unendurable, were it not for the directness of
his aims, the sincerity of his motives, the disinterestedness of his
spirit, and the suavity of his disposition. The only other member of the
Young Ireland party deserving notice as a chief was Charles Gavin Duffy,
the editor and proprietor of the _Nation_ newspaper. Mr. Duffy was a
Roman Catholic, and professed unbounded respect for the priests. He was
generally suspected of coquetting with them to secure their patronage
of the Young Ireland cause, and that at heart he despised the popular
subserviency to them. There was much in his speeches and literary
articles to confirm this view, but there was also a great deal to lead
to the belief that he was at heart “a priest’s man.” Certainly their
reverences did not think, or, at all events, appear to think him, a
very particular friend to their order, for they frequently opposed
the circulation of his paper, and denounced himself. He bravely,-’-but
respectfully battled with them, and lost the game-the circulation of his
paper fell as the Roman Catholic tone of it was lowered. Whether this
circumstance had any influence, as was alleged, it is beyond doubt that,
while he continued to maintain his young Ireland theories, he became
more chary of combat with the clergy, and no paper put forth a more wild
and daring ultra-montanism than the Dublin _Nation_, at the very time
that its columns were filled with passionate poetry dedicated to the
rights of country and of kind. Articles asserting that all Irishmen
should be held equal before God and the law, and that Orange ascendancy
and all party ascendancy was destructive to Ireland, were strangely in
contiguity with others asserting the most despotic claims for the
church of Rome that ever were put forth in her name. On the whole, the
inference might be fairly drawn from the writings and speeches of Mr.
Duffy that he hated England with an indiscriminating and malignant
rancour; that her peculiar virtues were as hateful to him as her vices,
her glorious deeds as her errors; and that he hated her for the power
with which she supported a certain degree of civil and religious
liberty, as much as from any grievances of which his country had to
complain, or any distaste he entertained to her race, her habits, or the
idiosyncracies of thought by which her people were characterised. He was
anxious to see his country independent and prosperous, and in order
to be so, wished to see a severance from England, and a full and
unmitigated ascendancy of the Roman Catholic religion. Personally, Mr.
Duffy was too generous, kind-hearted, and manly to persecute, and would
have been among the first to endanger himself by interposing to protect
another from the chain or brand of the persecutor; but the tone of his
writings, and the writings of those who found readiest access to the
columns of his journal, was relentlessly bigoted. If mobs fell upon
zealous, or, it may be, over-zealous clergymen or Scripture-readers,
the Nation always extenuated the ruffianism, and abused the objects of
popular violence. Some reason for this course, applicable only to the
particular case, or to a class of cases under which it was ranged,
was always relied upon in justification of these bitter outbreaks of
intolerance, but the paragraphs in which the vituperation found vent
always disclosed some bigoted principle which constituted the core of
the article. O’Connell obtained an unhappy celebrity for his violence
in religious disputation, but there was always a waggery in his
most virulent sectarian harangues which relieved them, and left the
impression that his bigotry was professional or forensic rather than
heartfelt, but the _Nation_ newspaper allowed no humour to shed a ray
of relief upon the dark sentences of its intolerance. If indomitable
fortitude, endurance, and perseverance could win a cause, Charles Gavin
Duffy would have secured all for which he afterwards struggled and
suffered. The political economy of Mr. Duffy, judging from the columns
of the _Nation_, was not much more enlightened than that of his
coadjutors.

Such were the men who constituted the leaders of the Young Ireland
section of the Repeal Association. There were others who possessed
eloquence, courage, and patriotism, but they did not occupy the
front rank. With this fresh, youthful, earnest, intellectual, and
uncompromising body of young men O’Connell had to compete almost
single-handed; for although he was well supported by the priests, and by
the old hacks of the association, he alone could confront intellectually
so gifted an array of antagonists, or maintain, with any chance of
victory, his side in the logomachy which was perpetually proceeding
within the circle of the Repeal Association. Moore, in one of his
melodies, represents the demon of discord as annually appearing in the
Boyne, and casting forth the burning arrows which were ignited by his
breath; but the scene of the fiery fiend’s operations might be well
supposed as changed to “Conciliation Hall,” and his arrows thence flung
over the inflammable isle. However indifferent the loyalists might be
to the conflicts between Old Ireland and Young Ireland, the government
could not be so, for “O’Connell’s tail” was, if no ornament, of some use
on the ministerial benches. O’Connell denounced the Whigs, but intrigued
to keep them in power, or help them to obtain it. The old Ireland party
had votes in parliament, and gave them with more or less fidelity on the
side of Lord John’s administration; whereas the Young Irelanders had
yet to gain the heart, if not the ear of their country, and were not
recognised as a power, except so far as they constituted an _imperium
in imperio_ within the circle of the Repeal Association. The bolder
doctrines of this young party tended also to inspire a spirit of
determined and organised revolt, which the government could not observe
without concern, and the temper of the people was so embittered by
the feuds of their leaders, as to be at least an unfavourable set-off
against the probability that these contests would impair the moral
influences of those who waged them. As a specimen of the state of
feeling between these two parties, the proceedings of the Repeal
Association for June 22nd may be adduced. At that time Sir Robert Peel
was still in office, if not in power; but every one in Ireland believed
that the Whigs would soon resume place, and that O’Connell would pass
from the sphere of unqualified opposition to that of qualified support.
The Young Irelanders took advantage of these impressions to weaken
O’Connell’s influence as a leader. This cut him to the heart: he
received the tidings in London, and chafed under the vigilant restraint
which this opposition in his own parliament placed him as to the policy
he might adopt at St. Stephen’s. He wrote to the association a letter,
which showed his annoyance and apprehension; the following is an
extract, the most pertinent to the purpose for which the reference
is made:—“It is with the bitterest regret and deepest sorrow that I
witness the efforts which are made by some of our juvenile members to
create dissension and circulate distractions amongst the repealers. It
is manifest that the great majority of the Repeal Association must exert
themselves strenuously to support the association, or the persons to
whom I allude will divide its ranks, and finally destroy the association
itself. For my poor part, I will not be an idle spectator of such a
struggle. ’Tis true that the people may be induced to desert me, but I
never will desert the people. I perceive that it is—I will not use the
proper term—but I will say, most unhandsomely suggested that, in
the event of the Whigs coming into power, the repeal cause is to be
abandoned, or postponed, or compromised. I utterly deny the assertion.
While I live the repeal cause shall never be abandoned, postponed, or
compromised, to advance any persons to power, to support any party or
faction. I have long since; nailed the colours of repeal to the mast,
and they shall, during my life, never be taken down, unless to cover the
entry of the Irish members into the Irish parliament in College Green.”

The contests between the two sections of repealers ended in the
secession of the Young Irelanders from the Repeal Association. O’Connell
was at heart glad of this, for his physical and intellectual energies
were flagging, and the constant tantalising to which he was subjected
in the association by these young men irritated his nervous system, and
impaired his health. He made a show of conciliation, and sent a Roman
Catholic clergyman of considerable importance, the Rev. Dr. Miley, to
open negotiations with Smith O’Brien, whom he did not hesitate publicly
to declare was the only man of weight among them. O’Brien was not to be
won by the voice of the charmer, and O’Connell became furious, attacking
the literary men, who principally led the Young Irelanders, in terms
which gave offence to the whole press, and strengthened the ranks of his
opponents. The Whigs treated the Young Irelanders contemptuously, but
endeavoured by every means in their power to conciliate the old repeal
party. Not only was the arms bill dismissed from parliament, but place
and patronage was at the beck of O’Connell; and many of his followers,
notwithstanding their anti-English feeling, and the need of their
services which they supposed their country had, accepted situations in
England and the colonies. The magistrates who had been dismissed by Sir
Robert Peel’s government for attending repeal meetings, or joining the
association, were all restored to the commission of the peace. Dublin
Castle unbarred its venerable portals to those who had ceased to be
welcome there, because of their connection with the repeal agitation.
O’Connell’s reiterated declaration, that the Young Ireland leaders did
not possess the intelligence, experience, tact, or discretion to conduct
any great movement, much less one of such magnitude and peril as they
proposed, made a deep impression on the minds of the people, and checked
the insurgent progress of these eloquent declaimers.

A circumstance occurred in the English house of commons, in the early
part of the year, which damaged the _prestige_ of Smith O’Brien, and
although O’Connell exerted himself in parliament on his behalf, the
event gave the arch-agitator satisfaction. He had many a private joke
at the expense of O’Brien, and few men could wound with a brighter point
than O’Connell in his best moods of satire. Mr. O’Brien was nominated
on a committee, and refused to serve, alleging that the affairs of his
country were so neglected that he would not attend to any other business
than such as related to it. This was untrue, the affairs of Ireland
had for some years occupied much of the attention of the house, and,
moreover, if Mr. O’Brien did not choose to be amenable to the rules
of the assembly, he ought to have resigned his seat. Persisting in his
refusal to serve on the committee, he was, by order of the speaker,
taken into custody by the serjeant-at-arms, and confined to a chamber
within the precincts. After some time he was released, upon the motion
of Mr. Shaw, an Irish Conservative member. The obstinate conduct of
Mr. O’Brien, on this occasion, vindicated no principle and asserted no
right; it caused his own pure patriotism to be suspected, and brought
his country and himself into ridicule.

Such was the political condition of Ireland when 1846 closed in cold and
gloom over its sickening, starving population. The year expired in
the midst of the most frightful social condition to which any European
people had ever been reduced. O’Connell too truly described it, in one
of his strange and varied harangues in the Repeal Association, in the
following manner:—He commenced by saying, that he deeply regretted to
be obliged to announce that the state of the country was tenfold worse
than it was that day week. The frost had set in, and cold and hunger
were doing their work—in fact, starvation was stalking through the
land. In Connaught there were no less than forty-seven deaths
from starvation within the week—not merely reports of deaths, but
forty-seven cases in which coroners’ juries returned verdicts of death
from starvation. This was a horrible state of things, and he hoped that
they would soon be put an end to. The landlords had come forward to give
relief—at least, to some extent; but the merchant classes, he regretted
to say, were holding back. He had seen no meeting of these men; however,
he soon hoped to hear of one; and, in the name of the forty-seven
starved and murdered victims, he would implore of them, and the men of
all classes, to come forward and render every assistance in their power
to relieve the distress.

The orator on that occasion was less than just to the merchants, and
somewhat more than just to the landlords. It was brought to light by
certain correspondents of the London press, that on Mr. O’Connell’s own
land the state of the people was most deplorable; that this was so even
before the failure of the crops; that the ordinary condition of his
tenantry bordered upon famine. Mr. O’Connell was, in fact, “a middle
man;” he rented extensive lands, and sub-let at a very large profit. The
persons who were his tenants were ground down with an oppressive rent,
and vainly endeavoured, without capital, profitably to cultivate their
“takings.” On the land over which he had himself full control, the
people had little ground of complaint, and much cause for gratitude.
Although he did not come out unscathed from the controversy, which was
raised about the state of the people on his own lands, he was as much
sinned against as sinning—there was an unfair effort to fasten upon him
an imputation of selfishness, which, at all events, he confuted.

Such was Ireland in 1846. Much was done for her; but she suffered
not only in spite of these benevolent efforts, but even by them. She
sorrowfully exemplified the song of her bard—

     “Thy suns, with doubtful gleam.
     Weep while they rise.”

The effect of the opposition of the Young Irelanders upon O’Connell
was signal; he evidently began to droop; his physical power no longer
endured. The attacks made upon him by the London press, in connection
with his conduct as a landlord, deeply depressed him; for although he
positively denied the imputations, and furiously assailed his critics,
he felt to the core the exposure of whatever was wrong in his conduct on
that matter. The failure of the potato crop, and the starvation of the
people, were all that seemed necessary to complete the physical decline
of this remarkable man. It was remarked in Dublin, at the close of the
year, that his voice had so far failed that he could scarcely be heard
in the Repeal Association; indeed, similar complaints had been made in
parliament months before. He walked as if weary; his head drooped, and
he wore a prodigious mass of clothing, especially about his throat and
chest. He might be sometimes seen walking between his sons, leaning on
their arms, his head bowed down, as if to escape the winter’s blast,
and his body bent as if unable any longer to walk upright. Sometimes he
might be seen passing to or from the association on a “jaunting car,”
 so muffled up that only those conversant with his habits could have
identified him. The public power of O’Connell was evidently drawing to a
close.




AFFAIRS OF INDIA.—BATTLE OF ALIWAL.—TOTAL EXPULSION OF THE SIKHS
FROM THE WEST BANK OF THE SUTLEJ.—SUBMISSION OF THE LAHORE
GOVERNMENT.—INSURRECTION OF THE CASHMERE PEOPLE.

The year 1846 was an eventful one for India and for British interests
there; it opened in the midst of one of the most formidable warlike
straggles ever witnessed since the English first began their conquering
progress under Clive. Although the Sikhs had experienced such defeat at
Moodkee and Ferozashooshah, they were not yet disheartened, but were
determined to maintain the war. By the close of 1845 they had been
driven from all their posts of importance on the left bank of the
Sutlej, except their strong works at the bridge of Sobraon. Early in
January, 1846, they began operations by crossing the river, so as to
draw supplies from the fertile resources of the territory from which
they had been so recently, and after such hard fighting, expelled.
The Sirdar Runjoor Singh Majeethea crossed over to the bank opposite
Philoor, and occupied Baran Hara. This place was situated between the
old and new courses of the Sutlej, and was favourably situated for
the purpose of cutting off the communications of the British, and of
alarming the garrison of Loodiana, then one of the most important places
in that part of the country. Brigadier-general Godby held command of the
garrison at Loodiana, which consisted of only three regiments of native
infantry; but other troops were rapidly moving up to reinforce it. Some
of those troops had to march from Umballah. While Runjoor Singh was
crossing the Sutlej and taking up a position at Baran Hara, the British
were also engaged in active operations. Lord Gough had sent a detachment
from the division of Sir Hairy Smith against Dhurrumkote. The town was
defended by a fort, and it was reported that the garrison would make
a desperate resistance. Sir Harry Smith in person commanded the troops
sent against the place, and proceeded with such celerity, that the town
and fort became an easy conquest. The garrison proved to be entirely
composed of irregular auxiliaries to the Khalsa, and they made no show
of determination. The movements of the sirdar, already described, became
so threatening to Loodiana, that Sir Harry Smith was ordered, upon the
reduction of that place and the security of the stores of grain which it
contained, to manouvre for the defence of the menaced British garrison;
and Brigadier-general Wheeler was ordered, with the second brigade
of Sir Harry’s division, to follow in support. General Smith marched
rapidly from Dhurrumkote to Jugroon, and then, to use the language
of General Gough, “breaking down” from Jugroon, he marched towards
Loodiana. This movement was extremely hazardous, for the sirdar’s
forces were by far the more numerous, and his infantry, active and well
disciplined, burned to avenge the previous disasters. Runjoor marched
his forces parallel to those of the British general, opening upon him,
as occasion allowed, a heavy cannonade; for the Sikh forces were well
supplied with cannon, and their gunners were capable of maintaining,
with coolness and skill, a well-directed fire. Both parties showed great
skill in manoeuvring, and the major-general required all the ability
which he displayed to extricate himself from the superior force, which
pursued his march and harassed all his movements. On several occasions,
the whole force of Major-general Smith was in imminent peril, but its
gallant commander never quailed, was never thrown off his guard, and
was not in a single instance out-generalled. On one occasion the enemy
obtained, by his superior numbers, a most advantageous position, which
placed the small British force in great peril, for, bending round one
wing of his army, the sirdar enveloped the flank of the British.
The English general with admirable coolness, extricated his brigade,
retiring by _échelons_ of battalions, suffering heavily, but maintaining
the order and steadiness of his troops until the imminency of the peril
was over, when he opened his communications with Loodiana, at
once securing his own force, and affording safety to the garrison.
Brigadier-general Wheeler was unable at once to follow up these
movements; the skilful and complicated manoeuvres which Sir Hairy made
to evade the enemy threw the brigadier off the communication. The
Sikhs were, on the whole, encouraged by these proceedings; they had
interrupted the communication of Generals Smith and Wheeler, captured
considerable baggage, acted for some time on the aggressive, and
inflicted loss upon the British. It was, therefore, with some
confidence, that they took up an intrenched position at Budhawal,
resting for support on the fort connected with that place. The position
was not, however, a safe one. Smith and Godby were on one Hank, and
Wheeler, cautiously feeling his way, hung dangerously upon the other.
The sirdar became alarmed lest Wheeler should be reinforced, and the
British generals should then fall on both his flanks; he accordingly
fell back upon the Sutlej, a movement bad in strategy, but which was
forced upon him by the movements of the English generals—unless,
indeed, he had suddenly, with great rapidity and boldness, attacked them
in detail. Wheeler and Smith formed a junction, and moved clown upon the
abandoned post of Budhawal. Here General Smith was further reinforced,
and he found himself at the head of a body of men, European and native,
sufficiently formidable to justify him in acting at once upon the
offensive. Before General Smith could attack the new position of the
sirdar, the latter was reinforced by a brigade of cavalry, twelve guns,
and a small division of infantry, probably numbering about four thousand
men. Finding himself at the head of a force numerically so superior to
the British, the enterprising sirdar once more took the offensive;
but instead of attacking the army of Sir Harry Smith, he attempted to
intercept his communications with the main army, by the occupation
of Jugroon. To prevent the accomplishment of this object, the English
general determined to bring on a general engagement. Accordingly, on the
morning of the 28th of January, the British force made directly for the
enemy, with whom they came up after a march of six miles. The Sikhs were
in position along a ridge of elevated ground, close to the village of
Ullewall, or, as it is called in the British despatches, Aliwal. The
right of the enemy rested upon a somewhat precipitous ridge, while the
left was defended by intrenchments. As the British cavalry came near the
enemy, they deployed, and advanced boldly, presenting an imposing array,
especially the European lancers. The ground was favourable for cavalry;
it was like a fine English sward. The troopers then took ground to the
right and left by brigades, the infantry advancing in column. From the
Sikh camp the scene was more brilliant; as the cavalry broke away the
columns of the advancing infantry appeared full in view, the sheen of
their bayonets brightly gleaming in the eastern morning sun. Still more
brilliant was the scene as the advancing columns deployed into line, for
what sight so impressive, where masses of men constitute the objects of
interest, as lines of British infantry drawn up in the array of battle
‘? The cavalry now assumed direct échelon to the rear of both flanks
of the infantry. The artillery were placed on either flank and in the
centre. A review day in Hyde Park, Aldershot, or in the undulated and
picturesque Phoenix Park, at Dublin, could not present a more orderly
and trim appearance than this magnificent line of British soldiers,
drawn up before the acclivities of Aliwal. There was no wind, no dust.
The sun was bright, but not so hot as might be expected in that climate,
and the troops moved with noiseless foot, hoof, and wheel over the hard
grass, as if it were a fairy scene, and the baton of the British chief
were the wand of an enchanter, every movement of which called into
gay and brilliant reality some new feature of the “glorious pomp and
circumstance of war.” Viewed from the British lines, the Khalsa host
was also imposing, as its dark masses of infantry were ranged along the
position, from whence they looked sullenly down upon their skilful
and gallant foe. The Sikh cavalry, in constant and unnecessary motion,
gave some life to the stillness which brooded over the long lines of the
compact and motionless infantry of the Khalsa army. It was a moment of
extreme suspense, for upon the fortune of this battle much depended.
If the sirdar repulsed the British, he would undoubtedly cutoff their
communications, oblige them to fall back upon Loodiana, and paralyse the
advance of Lord Gough upon Sobraon. If the British conquered the enemy’s
lines, the sirdar’s army had no retreat; the river was in his rear, and
it was in no place easily fordable, nor had he other means of crossing,
adequate to the safe retreat of such an army—defeat and destruction
were to him the same. It was a day for valour to aid men; life, hope,
honour to both armies depended upon the deeds to be that day enacted
upon the grassy slopes of Aliwal.

The superiority of the enemy in numbers enabled him, by his left, to
outflank the British; Sir Harry Smith, accordingly, ordered the troops
to break into open columns and take ground to the right. The British
line had advanced one hundred and fifty yards; it was now ten o’clock,
and suddenly from the whole of the Khalsa position a fierce cannonade
was opened. At first the balls fell short, but as the British advanced,
the enemy’s shot told fearfully upon their ranks. Still, under this
heavy fire, the line was halted, that the general might execute a
manoeuvre which appeared to open a prospect of more speedy victory. The
village of Aliwal was discovered to be the key of the position, and the
British general, by moving his right successfully upon it, could with
great advantage operate against the left and centre of the enemy’s line.
This the English commander executed in the most brilliant manner: the
first brigade of his own division, under Brigadier Hicks, immediately
supported by Brigadier Godby’s brigade, which had constituted the
garrison of Loodiana, gallantly stormed the village of Aliwal, and
from this new vantage-ground opened a deadly fire upon the right of the
enemy’s left, and his left centre. Sir Harry then ordered his whole
line to advance, which was gallantly achieved, the 31st (or Young Buffs)
European regiment distinguishing itself, although the native regiments
showed a noble emulation to be first in front. The cavalry on the
enemy’s left were now in a position to act effectively against the
British, but the brigade of cavalry on our right flank, commanded by the
skilful and clashing Brigadier Cureton, charged them, sabring numbers,
and driving the rest pell-mell upon their infantry, whom they threw
into confusion. Another body of British cavalry, consisting of the
light-horse and the body-guard, made a second charge equally brilliant.
The intrenchments of the enemy, filled with infantry, were now brought
into view; but General Smith ordered Godby’s brigade to change front
and take them _en revers_; this manouvre increased the confusion of the
enemy, whose infantry gave way, leaving several guns in the hands of the
victorious brigade. These movements on the enemy’s left were decisive
of the action, but the British behaved equally well on other portions of
the field. Brigadiers Wheeler and Wilson assailed their right, storming
their lines and capturing their guns. The Khalsa army reeled back,
broken and despairing, and sought the river, in the vain hope that they
might manage to cross by fording or by boats. The rapid movements of the
British turned the retreat of the enemy into a disorderly and desperate
flight. The sirdar had, however, made some provision for defeat; he had
occupied strongly the village of Bhoardec, so as to cover the retreat
to the river, and if possible to cover also the passage. Here the 16th
Lancers behaved splendidly. The enemy had a strong force of infantry
drawn up on one flank of the village; the 16th charged them; the foe
stood the charge heroically; the 16th penetrated their square; the Sikh
square, notwithstanding the efficiency of the lance in such warfare,
closing behind the cavalry as they charged through. The lancers wheeled,
and this time used the sword more than the lance, disconcerting the
arrangement of the enemy, and breaking their square. The 3rd Light
Cavalry completed the work of destruction, bursting through the
formation of the infantry, and putting great numbers to the sword. The
fighting might be said, to be in some sense more desperate after
the battle was lost and won than during the operations upon which
stragetically its issue depended. While these brilliant, cavalry charges
were occurring on the right of the village, her majesty’s 53rd carried
the village itself by storm, and the 30th native infantry, wheeling
round by the left of the houses, took the fugitives in rear. The same
masterly skill and heroic valour which was shown in taking Aliwal
conquered Bhoardee, the last hope of the defeated; for although about
1000 Khalsa infantry rallied under a high bank to check the destructive
advance of the English, there was no longer any hope of covering a
retreat across the river. Even this rally only added to the slaughter
and the ultimate confusion: a heavy fire of musketry from 1000 men,
closely directed, was galling to our soldiers, but the 30th native
infantry took them, at the point of the bayonet, and as they retreated,
twelve guns which were previously moved up to within three hundred
yards, opened a deadly fire of canister, mowing down the fugitives in
a manner which even those engaged in deadly strife thought it awful to
witness. To complete the horror of this flight, her majesty’s 63rd,
who moved up to the support of the 30th native infantry, pursued the
fugitives, pouring in a close, deadly, unremitting stream of musketry.
With wild cries of despair, casting away their arms, and lifting up
their hands as if beseechingly to their victors, the whole of the Khalsa
troops cast themselves into the river, except such of the earliest
fugitives as secured the boats and made good their passage. The river
was swollen; at the shallowest place the infantry were up to their
necks, and were under the fire of the artillery and musketry of their
pursuers. Those who succeeded in crossing drew up with a few guns, but
the fire of the artillery caused their speedy departure, leaving their
cannon behind. Lieutenant Holmes, of the irregular cavalry, and gunner
Scott, of the 2nd brigade horse-artillery, here performed a gallant
exploit; they swam their horses across the stream, and spiked the guns,
exposed to the fire of the enemy’s skirmishers, but covered by the
British fire from the left bank. The conflict of Aliwal was over, and
one of the most skilfully fought and completely won battles of modern
times reflected its glory upon the name of Sir Harry Smith, and the
valour of the British army of India.

The scene after the battle was horrible; the whole field of combat was
covered with the slain; the river’s banks were thickly strewn with the
dying and the dead; the Sutlej itself bore to the Sikhs at Sobraon
the tidings of the battle, for not only “redly ran its blushing waters
down,” but the corpses of the slain Khalsa soldiery were borne along
in such numbers by the current as to reveal the horrible nature of the
slaughter, and to fill with dismay the Khalsa host.

The slain of the enemy was computed variously, from eight to ten
thousand men; the trophies of war were, nearly all the Khalsa standards,
fifty-one pieces of cannon, and a vast quantity of ammunition, small
arms, and camp equipage.

Every arm of the British force behaved with admirable gallantry and
skill; the infantry carried every point under the most galling fire,
preserving their formation in a manner beyond all praise; the cavalry
swept the horsemen of the enemy from the field, as the tide rolls the
wreck upon the shore; the artillery could not be surpassed by that of
any army in Europe: towards the close of the action, the manner in
which two 8–inch howitzers, ordered up by Sir Harry Smith himself, were
worked, excited the admiration of the troops.

This battle, however, did not determine the war. The Sikhs occupied such
strong positions on both sides of the river at Sobraon, that they were
willing to believe their post impregnable, that an attempt to storm it
would be fruitless, and that in fact there a barrier existed, against
which the surging wave of British power would be broken. This was the
only point of occupation then held by the Khalsa army on the left bank
of the Sutlej. All fears for Loodiana having now subsided, the mission
of Sir Harry Smith at the head of a separate _corps d’armée_ was over,
and he marched to join the grand army under the command of the intrepid
veteran Sir Hugh Gough, one of the noblest soldiers that ever served in
the British army. General Sir Charles Napier, in his own eccentric way,
said of him that he was “as brave as ten lions, each with two tails
and two sets of teeth.” Sir Charles rivalled Mr. Roebuck, the radical
English commoner, in the scantiness of his commendations; his droll
eulogy of Sir Hugh Gough will therefore be appreciated. On the 8th of
February, Sir Harry Smith made his junction with the army of his chief,
and was received in terms not more flattering than just from a general
who never refused to merit its just meed.

The first duty of the English commander-in-chief was now to capture the
stronghold of the enemy, which was extensively fortified, mounted more
than seventy heavy pieces of cannon, and was garrisoned by 30,000 men,
the select troops of the grand Khalsa army. Even with the addition of
Sir Harry Smith’s division, the brave old chief was hardly strong enough
for the task imposed upon him; but happily his artillery, which very
much needed it, was reinforced from Delhi by several howitzers and
mortars.

On the morning of the 10th, General Gough considered himself in a
condition to proceed against the works of Sobraon; these had been well
reconnoitred previously, and never was an army more confident in its
chief, its resources, and its own will than the British army of the
Sutlej. The enemy had been ceaselessly employed since the battle of
Aliwal in throwing up field-works on the right bank of the river, so as
to command the flanks of the works on the left bank. Easy communications
between the two camps were preserved by an excellently constructed
bridge. As this is a general History of England, and not a History of
India, or of the War in India, the space allotted to our task will not
allow of more minute particularisation of the defences.

Sir Hugh Gough made his dispositions of battle on the evening of the
9th, according to which, at daybreak on the 10th, the cannonade was to
open. A dense mist, however, covered the sphere of intended operations,
rendering it impossible to open fire until the sun had penetrated the
obscure atmosphere. On the extreme right of the works, close by the
river, Major-general Sir K. Dick, with two brigades of infantry,
awaited the signal to begin. On this point the attack was to be led by
Brigadier-general Stacey, at the head of her majesty’s 10th and 53rd
foot, brigaded with two native regiments: the 10th now, for the first
time, came under fire during this war. Brigadier Wilkinson, at the
head of the sixth brigade, was posted within 200 yards in support of
Brigadier Stacey. The reserve was commanded by Brigadier Ashburnham. The
right of the attack was occupied by the division of Major-general Sir
Hany Smith, its extreme right approaching the river. The centre was
commanded by Major-general Gilbert, whose division was posted with
its right resting on the Little Sobraon. Brigadier-general Cureton
threatened the ford at Hurrakee, and remained in observation of the
enemy’s horse, posted on the other side. The force under Cureton was
to make a feint of attempting the ford.

The supports were commanded by Brigadier-general Campbell and
Major-general Sir Joseph Thackwell; the former in support of Smith’s
left and Gilbert’s right, the latter in support of Gilbert’s left and
the right of General Dick.

As soon as the mists were dispersed by the morning sun, the Sikhs
appeared behind well-constructed redoubts and breast-works of planks
and fascines. The British field-batteries opened fire, and received a
terrible response.

At nine o’clock, Brigadier Stacey advanced, supported on either flank
by artillery. The movement was orderly and beautiful, the infantry
preserving its line in double quick time, the artillery galloping up
to take possession of every advantage of the ground, until the infantry
again occupied the advanced position; thus mutually supporting, the
artillery and infantry arrived within three hundred yards of the
ponderous batteries of the works. Here a terrible fire opened upon the
advancing force, before which many fell, and few believed, who could
see what was passing, that Stacey and his brigade would ever reach the
intrenchments of the enemy. The troops of Brigadier Wilkinson were
well up in support, and under cover of the fire of our field-pieces and
horse-artillery. Stacey’s brigade charged’ the intrenchments, entered
them, drove the enemy in at the point of the bayonet, fighting
desperately as they receded. This took place within view of a large
portion of the army, and the exultation and assurance of victory which
was consequently excited, materially affected the fortunes of the
day. The whole of this brigade, European and native, behaved with the
greatest intrepidity, “the brave Irish of the 10th,” as Major Edwardes
on another occasion described them, were especially distinguished. They
never fired a shot until within the intrenchments; they discharged their
pieces into the breasts of such of their enemies as withstood them, or
in pursuing volleys upon those who retreated within the inner area of
the works. The 53rd regiment also, as in the battle of Aliwal, behaved
with great courage, and showed the highest discipline.

As soon as General Gough perceived the success of Stacey, supported by
Wilkinson, he directed brigadier the Hon. T. Ashburnham to follow the
supports, and Generals Gilbert and Smith’s divisions to throw out their
light troops against the enemy’s centre and left, and to open a heavy
fire of artillery. The cannonade against the enemy’s centre, and more
especially against his left, was delivered with amazing rapidity, at a
close range, and with deadly aim. The Sikhs, at the same time, worked
their very heavy pieces with skill, so that while a fierce bayonet
encounter went on within the trenches on the enemy’s extreme right,
one hundred and twenty pieces of cannon sent their messengers of death
across the opposing lines, and rolled their thunders over the valley
and the waters of the Sutlej. The Sikhs began to expect that the British
centre and right would confine the attack to an artillery battle, and
therefore detached their infantry in masses from those points against
Stacey’s brigade, which had then fought their way well within the works.
General Gough, thereupon, ordered the centre and left trenches to be
attacked, so that the whole semi-circle of the works was stormed. At the
first onset the Sikhs gave way on every point, but they returned with
desperation to the conflict, especially where there was a chance of
precipitating themselves upon the native regiments. Three British
divisions of infantry fought hand to hand with the enemy; but the
battle seemed doubtful, from the numbers and desperation of the enemy.
A manoeuvre was now executed which was generally regarded as novel, but
which, on a small scale, British cavalry accomplished also in America.
The sappers and miners of the left attack broke passages through the
intrenchments, through which the cavalry of Sir Joseph Thackwell rode,
in single file, forming as they passed through, and then charging
within the area of the defences, cut down the Sikh gunners and infantry
mercilessly. The 3rd Dragoons, with less assistance from the sappers,
and making many “break-neck leaps,” sprang within, the defences,
and used their swords with the skill for which that gallant corp had
obtained so high and so well-deserved a reputation. The conduct of that
intrepid regiment surpassed, if that were possible, its own glory at
Moodkee and Ferozashooshah. Light field-pieces were brought in through
every opening, and were worked in murderous proximity to the enemy.
Infantry, cavalry, and artillery were now within the works, which were
no longer tenable, and the Khalsa soldiery fled precipitately to the
bridge, pursued with a carnage similar to that at Aliwal. Here, however,
the bridge befriended the fugitives, but an artillery and musketry fire
was directed upon it, making havoc in the confused and dense masses—men
whose hurried flight impeded their progress, and increased the
slaughter. As they gained the bridge their pursuers were at hand,
precipitating them over it into the Sutlej. Another column of fugitives
attempted to ford the river, but the waters were high, and swept them
from their feet. The horse artillery galloped into the river, and
discharged showers of grape upon the unresisting masses who struggled
through its dark waters. Little quarter was given, for, true to Eastern
usage, those who now were fugitives and cried for mercy, murdered the
prisoners whom in the early part of the action they had captured. Their
conduct resembled that of another Asiatic nation which calls itself
European, years afterwards, on the slopes of Alma, and on the plateau of
Sebastopol. To the circumstance of the Khalsa soldiery refusing to give
quarter the unsparing vengeance of our troops was to be attributed; and
it must also be admitted that when the Sepoy soldiery are thoroughly
excited, they display a ferocity which none who are only acquainted with
their ordinary conduct and character would ever suppose possible. The
battle was over by eleven o’clock. History furnishes few instances of
such a signal victory so soon won. On no occasion, not even excepting
Aliwal, did the Company’s troops fight better: the testimony of Sir
Hugh Gough was very much to their honour in this respect. He especially
selected for encomium the Ghoorkhas, as bravest where all were brave.
“I must,” wrote the general in his despatch, “pause in this narrative
to notice the determined hardihood and bravery with which our two
battalions of Ghoorkhas met the Sikhs wherever they were opposed to
them. Soldiers of small stature, but indomitable spirit, they vied in
ardent courage in the charge with the grenadiers of our own nation, and,
armed with the short weapon of their mountains, were a terror to the
Sikhs throughout this great combat.”

The battle of Sobraon destroyed the Khalsa army, and humbled the
military power of the nation. The spoils of war were sixty-seven pieces
of cannon, more than two hundred camel swivels, numerous standards,
ammunition, small-arms, side-arms, accoutrements, tools, and every
appendage of a fortified place. The loss of the British army was very
serious in effecting such important achievements.

Major-general Dick, one of the heroes of Waterloo, was killed; also
Brigadier-general Taylor; and Major-general McLaren was mortally
wounded. In all, thirteen European, and three native officers, were
killed; one hundred and one European, and thirty-nine native officers,
were wounded. The total of men killed was only three hundred and twenty,
but more than two thousand were wounded, many of them mortally. The loss
on the part of the Khalsa army was enormous; notwithstanding that they
fought behind works, a larger number were slain than at Aliwal.

Sir Hugh Gough lost no time in utilising his victory, for the same day
he passed a division of native infantry over a bridge of boats across
the Sutlej, the bridge of Sobraon having been broken and burnt at the
close of the action, and the ford at Hurrakee being impassable, the
river having risen some seven inches in a short time. The destruction of
the bridge of Sobraon does not appear to have been a politic measure;
it was not necessary as a precaution, because the enemy was so totally
defeated as not to be able to make use of it any longer.

On the 14th of February, the whole of the British army of the Sutlej
bivouaced at Kussoor, within thirty-two miles of Lahore, the Sikh
capital. The governor-general there issued a proclamation, announcing
his determination to prosecute the war until the complete submission
of the Lahore government was obtained; at the same time, his excellency
declared that he had no wish to subvert the Sikh government, but only
desired to obtain security for the future good faith of the maharajah’s
ministers, and the peace of the bordering possessions of British India.
The Lahore government was terror-struck at the rapid approach of the
British army, and at the moral effect which the proclamations of the
governor-general were likely to have upon the Sikh population. Gholab
Singh, the wuzeer, represented to the ranee, or queen-mother, that the
Khalsa army had lost twenty thousand men in the last two battles, and
that unless terms were made with the governor-general, the dominions of
her son would be soon forfeited. The ranee called a council, and it was
then agreed that Gholab should repair to the British camp and sue for
peace. The wuzeer undertook the task, on the condition that the ranee,
the durbar, and the chief officers of the army, as well as the members
of the punchayete, should sign a solemn declaration that they would
abide by the terms he might accept, and do all in their power to enforce
their observance by the Sikh soldiery and population. This was acceded
to; and on the 15th the wuzeer, accompanied by Dewan Deena Nath, and
Fakeer Kboroodeen, proceeded to the British camp. These three persons
were conjointly empowered to negotiate, and they were attended by many
influential Sikhs, anxious for peace; among them was the Banuhzie chief,
Sultan Mohammed Khan, and several sirdars of great eminence. Thus a
strong moral guarantee was given to the British that the negotiations
were sincerely opened by the Lahore government. Sir Henry Hardinge
admitted the deputation coldly, refusing to receive the muzzars offered
and accepted on all occasions of important negotiations in the East. The
terms demanded by Sir Henry were the surrender of the territories east
of the Beas, in addition to the province which had in December been
declared confiscated; the surrender of every gun which had been
pointed at the British; the disbanding of the Khalsa army, and its
reorganisation on the principles observed by the Maharajah Bunjeet
Singh; the entire regulation and control of both banks of the Sutlej;
a reorganisation of the Lahore administration, and the payment of one
million and a half sterling as indemnification for the expenses of the
war. It was also demanded that the young Maharajah Dhuleep Singh should
meet the governor-general eleven miles from Lahore. Sir Henry refused to
discuss these points in person with the Rajah Gholab Singh, but referred
him to his secretary, Mr. Currie, and to Major Lawrence. The rajah
remained until midnight discussing the terms with these officers, and
finally accepted them. On the 17th Gholab again renewed his interview
with Mr. Currie and Major Lawrence, when various details were settled.
On the 18th the young maharajah, attended by a magnificent suite,
presented himself, at Lulleeanee, to Sir Henry, who received him without
a royal salute, or any other mark of royal distinction. The maharajah,
an amiable and gentle prince, submitted to the governor, expressing
his contrition for the outrage which had been inflicted upon British
territory. Of course this was a mere formal ceremony, as the prince was
too young to take any share in the responsibility of these occurrences.
When submission was made in due form, a royal salute thundered from
the British camp, and all the etiquette due to an eastern prince was
observed towards the young maharajah.

The relics of the Sikh army were at this time drawn up about eighteen
miles from Lahore, at a place called Raebaun, under the command of
the two notorious leaders, Sirdar Fej Singh, and Rajah Sail Singh. The
soldiery of this force had the hardihood to request that they should be
led against the British, and their murmurs and threats of revenge did
not cease during the proceedings which were taking place, and which
ended in the establishment of peace. Indications were already given
that neither the Khalsa army nor its chiefs felt even yet vanquished.
Immediately after the maharajah made submission, the governor-general
put forth the following proclamation:—“The chiefs, merchants, traders,
ryots, and other inhabitants of Lahore and Umritsir, are hereby informed
that his highness Maharajah Dhuleep Singh has this day waited upon the
right honourable the governor-general, and expressed the contrition of
himself and the Sikh government for their late hostile proceedings.

“The maharajah and durbar having acquiesced in all the terms and
conditions imposed by the British government, the governor-general
has every hope that the relations of friendship will speedily be
re-established between the two governments. The inhabitants of
Lahore and Umritsir have nothing to fear from the British army. The
governor-general and the British troops, if the conditions above
adverted to are fulfilled, and no further hostile opposition is offered
by the Khalsa army, will use their endeavours for the re-establishment
of the government of the descendant of Maharajah Runjeet Singh, and for
the protection of its subjects. The inhabitants of the cities in the
Punjaub will, in that case, be perfectly safe in person and property
from any molestation by the British troops, and they are hereby called
upon to dismiss apprehension, and to follow their respective callings
with all confidence.”

On the morning of the 20th the British army were under the walls
of Lahore, where not a cannon appeared in the embrasures. The
governor-general thought it politic to send Dhuleep Singh, the young
king, with some ceremonial to his palace, he accordingly issued the
following general order, which made a favourable impression on the
inhabitants of Lahore, as well as on the chiefs of the Sikh nation:—

“The right honourable the governor-general requests that the
commander-in-chief will cause the following arrangements to be made for
escorting his highness the Maharajah Dhuleep Singh to his palace, in
the citadel of Lahore, this afternoon. The escort will consist of two
regiments of European cavalry, two regiments of native cavalry—the
body-guard to be one—one regiment of irregular horse, two troops of
horse artillery, one European and one native. The secretary to the
government of India, F. Currie, Esq., will take charge of his highness
and his suite, and will be accompanied by the political agent, Major
Lawrence; the governor-general’s private secretary, Charles Hardinge,
Esq.; the aides-de-camp of the governor-general; two aides-de-camp of
the commander-in-chief, one aide-de-camp from each general officer
of division, in uniform. The escort will be formed at the nearest
convenient spot to the governor-general’s camp at two o’clock, and
proceed to his highness’s camp, and thence to his palace. On alighting
from his elephant a salute of twenty-one guns will be fired by the horse
artillery.

“His highness the maharajah of the Sikh nation, selected by the chiefs
as their sovereign, having on the 18th instant intimated his intention
to proceed to the governor-general’s camp at Lulleeanee, attended by
his highness’s wuzeer, the Rajah Gholab Singh, and other chiefs, was
received in durbar on the afternoon of that day by the governor-general,
the commander-in-chief and the staff being present. His highness’s
ministers and chiefs there tendered his submission, and solicited the
clemency of the British government.

“The governor-general extended the clemency of the British government to
a prince the descendant of the maharajah, the late Runjeet Singh, for
so many years the faithful ally and friend of the British government,
as the representative of the Sikh nation, selected by the chiefs and the
people to be their ruler, on the condition that all the terms imposed
by the British government and previously explained to his highness’s
ministers and chiefs should be faithfully executed.

“On withdrawing from the durbar, the maharajah received the usual
salutes due to his highness’s exalted rank. His highness has since
remained near the governor-general’s camp; and, as it will be conducive
to his highness’s comfort that he should rejoin his family, the
governor-general desires that he may, with all honour and in safety, be
conducted by the British troops to the gates of his palace this day.

“A proclamation was issued on the 18th instant by the governor-general,
promising protection to all persons at Lahore and elsewhere who
peaceably continue in their usual employments of trade and industry.

“The governor-general is satisfied, after the experience of this
campaign, that he can rely on the discipline of this invincible army,
as fully and securely as he has always been confident that the clay of
battle, under their distinguished commander, would be one of victory.

“He trusts, at present, that no officers or soldiers will pass the
advanced sentries of their encampment to enter the town of Lahore, and
he requests his excellency the commander-in-chief to give the necessary
instruction to carry this order strictly into effect, as well as to
protect all persons bringing provisions into the camp.”

The report of the secretary concerning the installation of the young
maharajah in his palace, under the British auspices, is very striking,
and exemplifies the grandeur and customs of oriental courts and
conquerors:—

“I have the honour to state, for the information of your excellency,
that, in accordance with the instructions contained in the order of the
governor-general of yesterday’s date, I proceeded in the afternoon with
the escort ordered, and accompanied by the officers mentioned below, on
elephants, to conduct the Maharajah Dhuleep Singh to his palace in the
citadel of Lahore:—Major Lawrence, the govern or-general’s political
agent; W. Edwards, under-secretary of the foreign department; R. Oust,
Esq., assistant-secretary to the foreign department; C. Hardinge, Esq.,
private secretary to the governor-general; Lieutenant-colonel Wood,
military secretary to the governor-general; Captain Cunningham; Captain
Hardinge, aide-de-camp to the governor-general; Captain Grant, ditto;
Lord Arthur Hay, ditto; Captain Mills, ditto; Captain Bagot, aide-decamp
to the commander-in-chief; Captain Edwardes, ditto; Captain Gilbert,
aide-de-camp to General Gilbert; Captain Tottenham, aide-de-camp to
General Smith; Lieutenant-colonel Smith, ditto; Captain Napier, ditto;
Captain Smith, ditto.

“The procession was arranged in the following order:—9th irregular
cavalry, 3rd light cavalry, her majesty’s 16th Lancers; troop horse
artillery, Europeans; troop horse artillery, natives; her majesty’s
9th Lancers, the secretary, with the maharajah and suite, the
governor-general’s body-guard.

“The escort was formed in open column of troops left in front, commanded
by Brigadier Cureton, C.B. We proceeded in this order to the encampment
of the maharajah, about one mile and a half from our pickets, and
nearly the same distance from the citadel gate of the city. At about
three-quarters of a mile from the maharajah’s camp I was met by the
minister, Rajah Gholab Singh, and some of the chiefs. Intimation of our
approach was then sent on to the maharajah, that he might be ready upon
his elephant upon our arrival.

“On reaching the maharajah’s camp, the troops of our escort drew up, and
the maharajah, with Bhaee Kam Singh on the same elephant, came forward
from his tent, accompanied by several chiefs. After the usual salutation
and complimentary questions and replies, I placed the maharajah’s
elephant next to mine, and the troops having fallen in, as at first,
proceeded round the walls of the city to the gate of the citadel. On
arriving, Brigadier Cureton drew up the escort in line in front of
the gateway, and I took the maharajah, accompanied by the officers
enumerated in the former part of this letter, with Rajah Gholab Singh
and the other chiefs, into the interior of the citadel, and to the inner
door of his palace. I then observed to the maharajah and chiefs, that by
the order of the right hon. the governor-general, I had thus brought
the maharajah, conducted by the British army, to his palace, which his
highness had left for the purpose of tendering submission to the British
government, and for placing himself, his capital, and his country at the
mercy of the governor-general, and requesting pardon for the insult that
had been offered; and that the governor-general had thus restored him
to his palace as a mark of the favour which he desired to show to the
descendant of the late Maharajah Runjeet Singh.

“A salute of twenty-one guns was then fired by the horse artillery.
We then took leave of the maharajah at the gate of his palace, and
returning to the outside of the city, we, continuing our progress round
Lahore, thus returned to our camp. As our camp is situated opposite the
south-east end of the city face, and the citadel is immediately within
the city walls, at the north-west angle, we made the entire circuit
of Lahore. I considered this preferable to going through the city,
the streets of which are very narrow, and would have much impeded the
progress of our large escort. We did not see one gun on any part of the
walls, all their embrasures were empty.”

On the 22nd of February the governor-general occupied the citadel and
the palace, and issued a general order, proclaiming the termination of
the Sikh war. The army which had been engaged, and all regiments ordered
up to its support, received a year’s _batta_ (pay). Fej Singh, who was
twice wounded at Sobraon, was at the head of a very considerable force
in the neighbourhood of Umritsir; but, notwithstanding the devotion
of his troops, he did not dare to offer resistance; his cannons were
surrendered, the soldiery uttering loud cries of rage, and the officers,
in tears, uttering suppressed groans of remorse and shame. The disbanded
troops disturbed and plundered various districts in the country.

On the 25th of February, the men of the 16th Lancers and of the 31st
foot (Young Buffs) were ordered to Bombay to embark for England,
permission being given to such of the men as thought proper to volunteer
into regiments still serving in India. The bulk of the British army
remained in the Punjaub for some months, various circumstances affording
grounds for suspicion as to the good faith of the ranee and her durbar.
The treaty of Lahore was however completed, and was sufficiently
stringent. It has already been shown upon what terms negotiations were
opened: when the stipulations were reduced to regular form, they
assumed a more binding character, the following items having been
introduced:—The hill country between the Beas and the Indus to be
ceded instead of one lac of rupees, part of the indemnity. Fifty lacs
of rupees to be paid by the maharajah on the ratification of the treaty.
The Lahore army to be limited to twenty-five battalions of regular
(Aeen) infantry, and twelve thousand cavalry. The entire control of the
rivers Beas and Sutlej, to the confluence of the Indus at Mikenkote, and
the control of the Indus from the point of the confluence to the borders
of Beloo-chistan. The maharajah never to take into his service any
British subject, nor the subject of any European or American state
without permission of the British government. Rajah Gholab Singh to
be recognised as an independent sovereign over such territories as the
British should make over to him. All disputes arising between him and
the Lahore government to be referred to the British. All change in the
frontiers of the Lahore state prohibited without British sanction.

In pursuance of the stipulations concerning Gholab Singh, a treaty
between him and the British government was concluded at Neuritzen on the
16th of March. The following articles of it will sufficiently disclose
its character:—In the first article, the British made over to the
rajah all the hilly country just conceded by the Lahore government. This
territory was situated to the eastward of the river Indus, and
westward of the river Ravee, including Ohumba, and excluding Lahool.
In consideration of this transfer, the rajah should pay to the British
government fifty lacs of rupees on the ratification of the treaty, and
twenty-five lacs on the 1st of October. The British government to give
the rajah assistance against all external enemies. Maharajah Gholab
Singh to acknowledge the supremacy of the British government; and in
token thereof to present annually one horse, twelve perfect shawl goats,
and three pairs of Cashmere shawls. The symptoms of discontent, on the
part of the disbanded troops and the defeated chiefs, rendered necessary
an extra article to the treaty of Lahore, for the purpose of
garrisoning that city for the defence of the young maharajah during
the reorganisation of his army on a different footing. It was agreed to
occupy the citadel and town of Lahore to the end of 1846.

While all these events were passing, Sir Charles Napier, the governor of
Scinde, made great exertions to render such service as he could to the
policy of the governor-general of India. Sir Charles hastened forward
from the seat of his government, but on passing up the Sutlej was fired
upon; he landed at Ooch, and proceeded to Bhawulpore, where he arrived
on the 20th of February. He there made a political visit to the rajah,
and proceeded on to Ferozepore, which he reached on the 22nd of
February; but the governor-general was then in the neighbourhood of
Lahore. Before Sir Charles could arrive, all that has been related
transpired. By the same date, Lord Elphinstone had arrived as far as
Delhi, _en route_ to the governor-general’s camp.

Matters did not long remain quiet in the Punjaub. The ranee was an
unprincipled woman; her paramour, Lall Singh, was an unprincipled man;
and this pair began to plot further commotions before those which had so
nearly overwhelmed them were entirely composed. Lall Singh hated Gholab;
the installation of the latter as maharajah of Cashmere excited his
jealousy, especially as Gholab, having been wuzeer, continued to tender
his advice to the ranee. It was in fact determined at Lahore,
that Gholab should never enter upon his independent sovereignty.
Mohee-ood-Een had been governor of the district under the Lahore
supremacy. A son of this person, entitled the Sheik Enam-ood-Een, was
made Sail Singh’s instrument for carrying out his scheme. Acting as the
new wuzeer of the ranee, who was regent during the minority of her son,
Dhuleep Singh, Lall Singh directed the sheik to summon a meeting of
the chieftains of the mountain country subjected by treaty to the new
Maharajah Gholab Singh, and to organise among them an armed resistance
to his power. Gholab was more of a diplomatist than a soldier; he
marched against the bold mountaineers, was defeated, and obliged to call
for the aid of the English. Brigadier-general Wheeler, an experienced,
gallant, and spirited officer, was ordered to march upon Cashmere
and occupy the capital. The sheik, panic-struck, came in and made
submission, revealing the treachery of the ranee’s paramour and adviser.
Lieutenant-colonel Lawrence got possession of such documents as proved
the treacherous complicity of the Lahore government; a formal demand was
therefore made upon that government for the expulsion of Lall Singh from
the Lahore territory, and for a renewed promise that the treaty of the
9th of March between Gholab Singh and the British should be respected.
The Lahore government was once again all submission, and Lall Singh
was seized and carried across the Sutlej into the British territory. In
consequence of these transactions, the governor-general demanded that
a British resident should be received at Lahore, to whom all political
questions should be referred before obtaining a practical application.
Also that English troops should be at liberty to occupy any fort or
territory, if necessary to preserve the public peace and enforce the due
observance of the treaty. The Lahore state to pay twenty-two lacs of
new Nameck-shee rupees, of full tale and weight, per annum, in order
to reimburse the expenses which the British government should incur,
in preserving by an armed force the authority of the maharajah, and
the observance of the treaty against the refractory chiefs or disbanded
soldiery. On the attainment of his sixteenth year, the maharajah to be
recognised as of age, and the regency of the ranee and the council of
regency to cease, or sooner, if the governor-general and the Lahore
durbar so agreed. Thirteen of the principal sirdars of the Punjaub
signed these agreements in the presence of Lieutenant-colonel Lawrence
and Mr. Currie, not one of whom, in all probability, contemplated the
observance of the stipulations a moment longer than suited their own
views.

Little further of importance occurred in the Punjaub during 1846.
British India generally was quiet, but disturbances of all sorts
prevailed in the surrounding territories. The new conquest of Scinde
was consolidated by the genius of the eccentric and gallant man who
conquered it, and his name was, by a strange perversion of compliment,
used as a synonyme for “_Shatan_” all over Beloo-chistan, Affghanistan,
Delhi, and the Punjaub. Lieutenant-general Sir G. Arthur was
incapacitated by ill-health from that active administration of the
Bombay presidency which had characterised his government. He had
done much to consolidate British authority there by his firmness and
humanity, his goodness and justice, and not only by those high moral
qualities, but also by his intellectual aptitudes for sustaining the
responsibility imposed upon him.

One of the causes of disquietude in various places, and more especially
in the Punjaub, was an increasing desire of the whole native population
to expel the British. This partly arose from fanaticism, and partly from
hostility of race. The Sikh ranks had been mainly recruited from our
disbanded Sepoy soldiery and deserters. Sir Charles Napier made vigorous
efforts to correct the evils which he found to exist in the army within
his own government, and made representations to Sir Henry Hardinge full
of prophetic foresight as to the disposition of the Sepoys, whom the
gallant conqueror of Scinde believed to be disloyal almost to a man.
According to statements made long afterwards by Major-general Tucker
(the adjutant-general), and by Major-general Lord Melville, Sir Henry
Hardinge, while he actually eulogised the Sepoy army especially for
their loyalty, privately expressed his alarm at the unsafe foundation
upon which British power in India rested, in consequence of the secret
unfaithfulness of the Sepoy troops! This very much resembled Sir Henry’s
procedure afterwards, when Lord Plardinge and commander-in-chief of the
British army. Possessing administrative capacity, military talents of a
high order, and as dauntless a heart as ever beat in a British soldier’s
breast, he had the soul of a “red-tapist” and a “snob,” and was ready to
sacrifice his own opinions and the welfare of the service, to official,
aristocratic, or court influence. He fought and governed well, but not
so much for the good of the country as the objects of his caste.
His conduct in reference to the Sikh war was much reprehended for
unpreparedness, want of promptitude, and for a tampering and concessive
policy unsuitable to oriental nations. His extreme gallantry in
the field, and the successful issue of the war, blotted out these
reprehensions both from his own name and from the public mind. His
instructions from home accounted for his time-serving hesitation,
unpreparedness for the war, and forbearance with an enemy upon whom such
indulgence was lost. All this vacillation harmonised with the foreign
and domestic policy of Sir Robert Peel, under whose instructions he
acted. It met with the disapprobation _ab initio_ of all men competent
to form an opinion on Indian affairs. The chivalry of the soldier
covered the faults of the governor-general, and the impolicy of the
government under whose instructions he acted.

When the tidings of these events in India reached England, the rejoicing
was very great. Never had the arms of England been more signally crowned
with success; and never had such suspense attended the first tidings
of the dangers to our Indian empire, menaced by the invasion of the
far-famed and highly-disciplined Khalsa army. The country felt relieved
of a great pressure of care, as when, after a long and gloomy night—

     “Man wakes again to joy, and peace, and hope,
     Day dreams, and bright reality.”

Parliament was prompt to express the general admiration for the brave.

On Monday, the 4th of May, the House of Commons resolved itself into a
committee on a message from her majesty, respecting a provision for the
governor-general and the commander-in-chief. Both these gallant men had
been raised to the peerage. Sir Robert Peel (the minister) proposed a
grant of £3000 a year to Lord Hardinge and his two next male heirs,
and £2000 a year to Lord Gough and his two next male heirs. These
propositions received the assent of the house. Mr. Hogg, on the part of
the East India Company, announced that the company had made grants of
£5000 per year to Lord Hardinge for life, and £2000 per year to Lord
Gough. Lord Francis Egerton drew attention to the claims of Sir Harry
Smith, which both Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell treated as an
interference with the prerogative of the crown.

On the following night, in the Lords, the Earl of Ripon moved an address
to her majesty in answer to her message. On that occasion the Earl
of Clanricarde eloquently eulogised both the gallant generals whose
exploits in the Punjaub had added fresh wreaths to the chaplets of their
fame.

The civil affairs of India were occasionally the subject of discussion
in the British press throughout this year: the Indian railway projects,
the high price of money at Calcutta and Bombay, and the fluctuations
of commerce in our Eastern territories, demanded the attention of
economists and politicians.

On the 9th of November, an extensive list of brevet promotions in the
Indian army was announced in the _Gazette_, which comprised thirty-four
major-generals, twenty lieutenant-colonels, and two bunded and forty-one
captains. This gave great satisfaction to the profession and the public.

An interesting occurrence in connection with India took place in the
earlier part of the year. Lieutenant Waghorn, whose enterprising genius
led him to prosecute the problem of an overland route to India, saw
his labours at last crowned with success. The government resolved, with
certain modifications, to adopt the basis of his scheme.




STATE OF AFFAIRS AT THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.—SUCCESSES OF THE
CAFFRES.—VICTORY OVER THE TRIBES OF STOCK AND PATO BY COLONEL SOMERSET.

Among the many eventful matters of 1846 was a Caffre war. The tribes
bordering the British territory were brave, restless, and predatory.
Almost the only property which they valued was cattle, and they were
tempted by the large flocks of the colonists to make border raids. The
force at the disposal of the settlers was not sufficient to preserve
their property, nor check these incursions, much less to punish them.
The various tribes could precipitate nearly thirty thousand, and, on
occasions, forty thousand men at once upon the colony; resolute, robust,
wild men, physically superior to the Fingoes and Hottentots within the
territory of her majesty, and equal in that respect to the Boers or
British. The marauders were also mentally superior to the black races
within the colony, and altogether more interesting savages, braver
in battle, and capable of a higher civilisation. One of these tribes,
numbering about ten thousand, was in alliance with the British, but the
whole population of the Cape able to bear arms, and the troops, taken
together, did not reach twenty thousand men. The nature of the country
favoured the action of savage assailants, especially such as were
intellectually so well capable of taking advantage of it as the Caffres.
For disciplined troops it was unfavourable, where there was such an
enemy to encounter. During the early part of the year the Caffres moved
simultaneously on various points, capturing cattle, and slaying or
driving the settlers into every post upon which they might fall back for
safety. It was not war, for the Caffres literally hunted the borders,
striking terror into the hearts of the colonists, and carrying off their
property. As the year advanced the settlers assumed a well-organised
attitude; the Fingoes and Hottentots were armed, and showed some courage
in defence of the colony and the harassed troops; by dint of courage and
exertion they appeared in various directions intime to keep the enemy
at bay, and preserve the lives and habitations of the Dutch and English
settlers. This was the state of matters when, on the 26th of April,
the Caffres came down in great numbers and swept away the cattle of the
colonists, driving them through the Fish River. In carrying away this
booty they passed, with great hardihood, close to the fortified post
called “Trompetter’s Drift.” The guns of the position opened with
grape and canister, at point-blank range, and accomplished a dreadful
slaughter, but none of the booty was recaptured; the enemy even earned
away all his wounded and slain.

On May the 5th a formidable force came upon the neighbourhood of Fort
Beaufort. The colonists stood to their defence, and a sharp action
ensued, in which three of the settlers were killed and many wounded. A
much larger number of the marauders were put _hors de combat_, but the
victory, on the whole, was with the Caffres, who brought away seven
horses, three hundred and thirty head of cattle, and seventeen thousand
sheep. At this juncture Colonel Somerset, of the 7th Dragoon Guards
(then quartered at the Cape, and mounted as light cavalry), displayed an
enterprise and courage which entitled him to much honour. He was wise in
council, energetic in business, indomitable in resolution, and heroic in
battle. To these qualities of a man’s sterner nature, he added those
of a humane and amiable heart. The colonel was on the watch for an
opportunity to strike a severe blow against these freebooters, and on
the 8th of June opportunity was afforded. On the previous evening a
party of burghers and Fingoes scoured the Fish River bush, and performed
this duty efficiently, the Fingoes showing spirit, and generosity to the
enemy. Colonel Somerset formed a junction with this force on the morning
of the 8th. The colonel had under his command the Cape Mounted Rifles,
a detachment of the 7th Dragoon Guards, and two heavy guns. Early in
the day the united detachments encountered a very large force, under the
command of the notorious marauding chief, Stock. The Caffres, confident
in their numbers and in their recent successes, challenged the British
to come on, and, in fact, commenced the action, throwing out skirmishers
with something of the practice of regular troops; they afterwards made
some furious charges with the assigai. The measures taken by Colonel
Somerset were marked by his usual ability and promptitude, and the enemy
suffered a most sanguinary defeat. When Stock perceived that the day
was going against him, notwithstanding a protracted combat, he sent off
several mounted men express for Pato, another chief. The latter sent a
chief named Umhala, who advanced at the head of his tribe, but having no
conception that his friends had experienced defeat, and supposing that
he was only about to aid in taking a spoil, he was astonished to
find himself suddenly in front of the fine force of Colonel Somerset.
Meanwhile, Lieutenant-colonel Lindsay, who commanded in Fort Peddie,
perceiving that the firing of cannon and musketry was heavy and
protracted, sent out Captain Hogg, with a troop of the 7th Dragoon
Guards and a gun, who came upon the rear of Umhala’s party just as
Colonel Somerset met them. The Caffres, placed between two fires, their
retreat cut off, numerous although they were, lost confidence and broke.
They were charged fiercely, and cut to pieces. Estimates were given of
their loss, varying from three hundred to twice that number. The British
loss was slight; about seven troopers fell, and several officers were
very severely wounded, in close combat, by the assigai, a formidable
weapon in the hands of a South African. Among the officers hurt were
Sir Harry Darell, who was wounded in the thigh and arm severely; Cornet
Bunbury also received several wounds. Captain Walpole, of the Engineers,
was shot in the thigh, and a blow from an assigai upon the neck laid
bare the windpipe. Those officers, Lieutenant O’Reilly, and others,
displayed much personal prowess, cutting down the Caffres with their
swords in close, desperate, and successful conflict.

The following letter gives a good description of the scene presented to
the reinforcement sent out by Lieutenant-colonel Lindsay:—

“Colonel Somerset has been out to-day in the direction of Stock’s Kraal.
About an hour after he left we heard heavy firing, which lasted for two
or three hours. It appears that they were challenged by a lot of Caffres
in the bush; they went in after them and gave them a regular mauling,
shot a great number of them, and coming out on the flat when they had
polished these gentlemen off, they fell in with a body of about five
hundred to six hundred, whom they also charged, and shot like so many
dogs. I believe, at the lowest computation, three hundred and fifty
were left dead on the field. This last body that they fell in with
were Pato’s Caffres, who heard the firing at Stock’s Kraal, and were
hastening to his assistance, when, luckily for us, they were caught upon
the open flat, and the 7th Dragoons and Cape Corps charged them, and
literally rode over them. I trust that this affair, coupled with the
attack on Peddie, will cool their courage considerably. One corporal
of the Cape Mounted Rifles was shot dead, and Sir Harry Darell, Captain
Walpole, Royal Engineers, and Bunbury, together with some men of the
7th, are slightly wounded: I think four of them slightly, and one very
dangerously. Colonel Somerset seems the only man that can bring them
to their senses. They were all going down to attack supply waggons that
were to come up from Trompetter’s to-morrow morning, but I fancy, after
to-day, they will not attempt it. I must now give you an account of the
slaughter that took place shortly after. We were all very tired, having
been on our legs from nine o’clock last night to midday to-day, with
hardly any refreshment; we therefore hastened to the camp; however, we
were disappointed in having refreshment. We saw the colonel’s division
a mile or two ahead, marching quietly on. Presently we saw a party ride
ahead, and soon after a race. Then firing commenced. I rode up as fast
as I could to the ridge; a spectacle was then presented to my view which
I shall not forget. A large party of Caffres had collected near the
Kieskamma, intending to move to-day towards the Fish River to intercept
the waggons, and stop the communication. This party heard the firing and
thought that the waggons were attacked. They hastened to help, but what
was their astonishment when they found a large force in front of them.
Fortunately, there was no bush to shelter them; they fired one volley
and dismounted from their horses—about three hundred mounted and seven
hundred foot. The Dragoons then charged them, and killed many; a panic
seized them—they ran off, and were shot like sheep—dragoons, Cape
Corps, Boers, all firing at them, following them up full six miles.
They became completely exhausted—they could not run. The slaughter was
awful! They were followed up to near the Kieskamma. The slaughter was
on the Gwanga, near Mr. Tainton’s late place. The lowest estimate is, I
believe, three hundred killed; very few were seen to get away. We took
three prisoners—one at Hmpa-kati, belonging to Creili. He said the
intention of the Caffres was to drive the Umlunguinto the sea. We asked
how it was to-day. He said it was all finished to-day. Pato has crossed
the Kieskamma. Umhala and Seyolo were with this command. How they fared
we cannot tell. It is supposed that Stock was this day killed.”

After this Colonel Somerset followed up his success. Many skirmishes,
much plunder, and considerable loss of life occurred, but, in the end,
the British forces remained victors. The Caffres, however, were not
prevented from reorganising themselves for fresh forays.




STATE OF NEW ZEALAND.—SUPPRESSION OF THE NATIVE REVOLT.

It was not at the Cape only that our troops had to contend with savages
of a superior race: the year began with a conflict in New Zealand.
Captain Grey, the governor, having in vain endeavoured to conciliate
the disaffected chiefs, proceeded, at the head of eleven hundred
men—sailors, marines, and soldiers—to attack the principal pal,
which was defended by stockades, so skilfully constructed, that it was
necessary to erect works, and mount cannon and mortars, to dislodge
their occupants. The subjugation of the place was effected after severe
loss on the part of the enemy, and, unhappily, considerable loss on the
part of her majesty’s force. The capture of the pal led to the surrender
of the chiefs, and before the month of January expired, peace was
restored to the colony.




BORNEO.

The proceedings of the Borneo pirates having led the British Rajah
Brooke to demand assistance, Captain Mundy, under the direction of
Admiral Sir Thomas Cochrane, operated during the month of July in
command of an effective maritime force. The squadron sailed up the river
to Brune, the capital of the country, which was defended by several
strong forts, and a heavy battery, _à fleur d’eau_, of eight brass and
two iron guns, sixty-eight pounders. All; these defences were carried by
the British sailors and marines, and terrible destruction inflicted upon
the pirates. After effecting what appeared to be a complete subjugation
of these hordes of sea robbers infesting these coasts, the squadron
retired.




OUR NORTH AMERICAN COLONIES.

_Canada._—The relations between Great Britain and the United States
were so unsatisfactory at the beginning of this year that considerable
uneasiness existed in Canada lest war should break out, and that colony
become the chief theatre of contest. A militia bill passed the Canadian
legislature, which was calculated to give confidence to the imperial
government, and which placed the colony in an armed attitude towards her
great neighbour.

The free-trade measures proposed to the British parliament caused
even more disquietude than the differences with the United States. The
Canadian producers were very jealous of these states as a competitor in
supplying the English market, the legislature passed strong resolutions
expressive of their alarm, and addressed the crown, representing that
free trade in corn between the neighbouring states and the mother
country would be productive of the heaviest injuries to the colony.
This address was one of the most sturdy pronouncements of protectionist
opinion which the discussions of the day brought forth. The Canadians
were happily disappointed. The imperial legislature was not checked in
the enactment of its free-trade measures by this memorial; good was done
to Canada in spite of herself; the legislators of the parent country
understood the interests of Canada better than her own provincial
parliament did, and the great prosperity of that country may be said to
have begun with free trade. The year was one of alarm and discontent
in both the upper and lower provinces. A dreadful fire in Quebec, which
nearly destroyed the city, added to the other causes of disquietude.

_Nova Scotia._—This colony also suffered some commercial depression,
and endured apprehension of a war upon the North American continent. The
fisheries were comparatively unproductive, and the potato crop failed.
Happily the corn crops prospered, relieving considerably the pressure
upon the resources of the people. A militia bill, occasioned by the
apparently hostile policy of the United States government, provided
for the defence of the province. Certain differences arose between the
legislature and the crown, in connection with the crown revenues and
the civil list, but the year closed upon the colony in peace, and with a
fair measure of prosperity.

_Newfoundland._—The affairs of this colony were characterised by
nothing remarkable during the year, in a political point of view, but a
great social calamity attracted the attention of the American colonies
and of the mother-country. A conflagration broke out at St. John’s, which
laid nearly the whole city in ashes. The fire happened on the 9th of
June, and as the houses of the town were mostly built of wood, it
soon spread beyond the power of any efforts which the population
could command to restrain it. The Custom-house, Roman Catholic Church,
Protestant Episcopal Cathedral, Court-house, jail, ordnance store, all
the newspaper and printing-offices, the banks, the Hall of Legislature,
post-office, and police-office, were all burnt clown, together with
two whole streets, each more than a mile long, leaving 12,000 persons
without a habitation. The shipping, near the wharves also caught fire,
and some of the vessels were destroyed. The loss of property exceeded a
million sterling.




FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

_The United States._—On another page sufficient reference has been
made to the circumstances attending the chief subject of dispute between
Great Britain and the North American Union. The Oregon boundary was
adjusted, and all fear of war between the two countries removed. The
propositions made by the Earl of Aberdeen, the English foreign minister,
were so unfavourable to his own country, and so completely a concession
to America, that the president and senate at once accepted them. Had the
navy of the United States driven our fleets from the Pacific, President
Polk could hardly have expected terms more favourable to his nation.
Indeed, the only energy which the noble earl displayed in his management
of foreign affairs was in conceding what his queen and country had a
good right to claim.




SOUTH AMERICA.

_Brazil and La Plata._—On the southern part of the American continent
events also occurred of some interest to England. During the previous
year a united British and French force operated successfully against the
dictator Rosas, who, in spite of the remonstrances of England, France,
and Brazil, persisted in hostile operations against the republic of
Monte Video. Notwithstanding the chastisement inflicted by the European
navies, Rosas continued his hostility to Monte Video during the year.
The measures taken against the tyrant by the governments of England and
France were half measures. The Earl of Aberdeen and M. Guizot seemed to
be associated in wondrous harmony of action, or rather inaction, when
the joint interests of the two powers were concerned.

Differences arose between Great Britain and the Brazils in connexion
with the slave-trade. A convention had existed between the two countries
for its suppression on the coasts of Brazil; the period for which the
convention existed expired early in the year, and the government of
the Brazilian emperor notified to that of her Britannic majesty that it
should not be renewed. This gave great umbrage to the latter government,
which saw that the design of the Brazilians was to continue the
infamous traffic. The British parliament consequently passed an act for
subjecting Brazilian vessels, suspected of being engaged in the trade,
to the jurisdiction of the English tribunals. Against this the Brazilian
government protested, and sent a circular note conveying a copy of the
protest to all other powers. On the 3rd of May the emperor delivered
an address to the representatives of the nation, stating that he would
support the dignity of his crown against the interference of Great
Britain, and calling upon the assembly to support him. He at the same
time, however, declared that he would be faithful to his engagements
in putting an end to the trade in Africans. This was so vaguely
expressed, and the desire of the Brazilian government was so evidently
to foster that illicit commerce, and, if possible, involve England in
a quarrel with some of the other maritime powers, that the English
government was much incensed, and resolved upon stringent measures. In
this they were opposed by the Manchester party, even by some among them
who had taken a most active part in anti-slavery movements. The persons
thus inconsistent were chiefly among the Society of Friends, who, while
on the one hand they hated oppression, on the other hated war, even
when waged to succour the oppressed. The chief movers in the Manchester
agitation against the government policy towards Brazil, were, however,
neither anti-slavery men, nor members of the Peace Society, but certain
merchants engaged largely in the Brazilian trade, and whose political
principles were very accommodating, always, somehow, being on the side
of their interests, or supposed interests, in commercial matters. No war
ensued, but the firm attitude taken by the English government prevented
the renewal of the slave-trade by Brazilian merchants.




RELATIONS WITH CONTINENTAL EUROPE.

_France_.—The year 1846 was one of much discussion between England and
France. Louis Philippe proved himself as insincere and selfish as
the Bourbons always were, to whatever branch of that faithless family
belonging. M. Guizot, the chief minister of the king, was as little
candid as his master. The same treachery which sullied the reminiscences
of Ghent, characterised the procedure of the minister towards England
in 1846. There were various subjects of difference between the two
countries; but that which most occupied the attention of Europe was the
Spanish marriages. Louis Philippe had a numerous family, was avaricious
to the last degree, and allowed avarice and nepotism to govern his
policy, rather than the honour and interests of the great kingdom over
which he presided. He was desirous that one of his sons should marry
the Queen of Spain, and that another should be united to her sister.
The queen-mother favoured this idea, as did also the chief minister,
Narvaez. On the other hand, it was alleged that the English government
was intriguing for a prince of the house of Cobourg. This was not the
case—at all events, when the Whigs came into power. Lord Palmerston, on
behalf of his court and government, disclaimed it, and demanded that
the royal family of Spain should be left free to follow their own
inclinations, excepting only as regarded members of the royal family
of France, against a union with which the English whig foreign minister
protested, as a breach of the treaty of Utrecht. Mr. Disraeli, and
others of the conservative party, were of opinion with M. Guizot, that
such marriages as the French ministry contemplated would not infringe
that treaty, which guaranteed that the throne of France and Spain
should not be filled by the same person, but made no provision against
marriages upon which such an event might appear to be contingent.
The British government was firm in regarding the proceedings of Louis
Philippe as directed by an unprincipled ambition, in defiance of
treaties, and of the alliance between Great Britain and France then
subsisting. The English government did not encourage a member of the
house of Cobourg, but advocated the pretensions to her majesty’s hand of
a Spanish prince, Don Enrique, the Queen of Spain’s own cousin. To this
the French government was opposed, because Don Enrique was of liberal
political opinions, and it was the policy of Louis Philippe and his
_alter ego_, M. Guizot, to keep down liberal aspirations in Spain. The
reaction policy of the French king and his minister was now in full
operation, and this was, unfortunately, more felt at Madrid than at
Paris. The King of the French wished, he alleged, to see the choice of
the Spanish princess fall within the Bourbon circle; but a ban was laid
on Don Enrique, because of his constitutionalism, or, as Guizot was
pleased to designate it, his revolutionary opinions. The intrigue of
the French government was successful, so far that the Queen of Spain
was married to a Spanish Bourbon, brother to Don Enrique, a man whom
the queen personally hated, a bigoted devotee and reactionary, whose
fanaticism against liberty was morbid, and who was an avowed Carlist,
openly denying the right of the Queen of Spain to the throne. Whatever
could be supposed as likely to influence the fortunes of the young queen
and of the Spanish nation, unfavourably, in connection with a royal
marriage, was associated with this; but Louis Philippe and M.
Guizot cared for none of these things, so as their own project was
accomplished. At the same time the sister of the queen was married to
the Duc de Montpensier, a son of Louis Philippe. The two marriages were
celebrated together with great pomp and ceremony. The Spanish government
did not much care whether the royal lady married an Orleans or a
Cobourg, so as France or England were engaged on its side against the
apprehension of a republican or Carlist revolt; and, on the whole,
France was supposed more likely to interfere for such a purpose than
Great Britain.

The singular dishonesty of M. Guizot and his master startled the
politicians of Europe. The French government had pledged itself to the
English not to take any step to secure the hand of either of the royal
ladies of Spain for a French prince. M. Guizot afterwards justified his
conduct by alleging that the English government was secretly abetting
the interests of a Cobourg. He admitted that he could not prove this,
but justified his acting upon such a strong suspicion as he entertained.
When, in 1847, M. Thiers brought on certain stormy discussions in the
French chambers on this subject, the admission was wrung from the
French foreign minister that the conduct of England had been loyal and
honourable—that no efforts had been made to press a Cobourg upon
the attention of the Spanish court; this too celebrated person thus
convicting himself of premeditated bad faith, and of resorting to
accusations and falsehood to vindicate a policy which he had falsely and
wilfully initiated, or, at all events, pursued, when initiated by his
royal master.

One feature of the infidelity of the French court and minister to their
engagements excited the indignation of all honourable minds acquainted
with it. When the English government detected the intention of Louis
Philippe to break his engagements and to prosecute the Montpensier
marriage, that government urged that, at all events, it was desirable,
if the treaty of Utrecht was to be observed, that the Queen of Spain
should have an heir to the throne before the marriage of her sister took
place. The French minister promised that the marriages should not take
place _at the same time_. When the English government remonstrated upon
the disregard of this engagement, shown in the actual fact that the two
marriages had their celebration together, M. Guizot justified himself
by alleging that, inasmuch as the queen was married first, although her
sister was married immediately after, the ceremonial was not celebrated
at the same time! This audacious departure from every decent observance
of truth and honesty was perpetrated by a man who is lauded by the
_savons_ of France to this day as one of their illustrious number. His
Memoir of Sir Robert Peel is popular in England, and he has since been
received with favour in London! The whole administration of M. Guizot,
foreign and domestic, was a dishonour and a curse to France, and
supplies one of the dark pages of her history.

It was on the 10th of October that Louis Philippe and M. Guizot
consummated their treachery to England, and their selfish policy towards
Spain, and laid the foundation for an alienation between the French and
English governments, which continued until the hypocrite king was hurled
from the throne of France.

_Spain_.—The policy of the King of the French to Spain was not regarded
with any interest by the mass of the Spanish people. The English
government and citizens supposed that the Spanish marriages would bring
about a revolution, but the people looked coldly on. The French king
understood the Spanish nation better than it was understood in England.
There was, however, a large party in Spain which regarded the designs
of the French king with an enlightened and politic alarm. Thus, when the
Spanish government selected him as mediator with the pope, to effect a
reconciliation between the courts of Rome and Madrid, the language of
suspicion uttered by Senor Leijas Lozano expressed the real views of
most men of cultivated minds in Spain:—“For my part, I admit that I
had much suspicion, mingled with fear, when it was determined to select
France as our mediator with Rome, and these fears I have not yet got
rid of. The question is, are the offers of service made by France to the
Spanish government sufficiently frank?—are they sincere? I fear
they are not. _Her interests are not identified with ours_. I may be
mistaken, but my firm belief is that it is the interests of France
that we shall remain as isolated as possible until the great events she
desires be effected.”

A strong conviction was entertained by many eminent men in Spain, that
Sir Robert Peel and the Earl of Aberdeen had complicated the question
of the Spanish marriages; that, although the Whigs repudiated with
sincerity all interference, these two statesmen had coquetted with the
question of a Cobourg alliance for the Spanish queen, and that in doing
so they were only carrying out the wishes of the English court; that
the knowledge obtained of these facts by the secret agents of the French
king, and of the queen-mother of Spain, made both less scrupulous, and
hastened the perfection of a plot which, but for such discoveries, the
royal intriguants would not have had the boldness to prosecute.

Ministerial changes were frequent in Spain throughout the year. The
Narvaez ministry was broken up, and that of Senor Isturitz followed;
that too was destroyed. Narvaez was successful in his intrigues,
supported by the queen-mother and the King of the French. England
looked on with jealousy; and it was supposed in Spain that, but for
the disasters and conflicts which occurred within the bounds of her own
empire, she would have interfered in a more tangible manner. French gold
was freely spent in Spain to facilitate French policy; and so corrupt
were the public men of that country, that, as Louis Philippe well knew,
money, applied skilfully, could change ministers and effect revolutions
with a facility unknown to any other country in the world.

_Portugal_.—The Portuguese government gave satisfactory assurances,
in answer to the demands of England, that the anti-slavery stipulations
between the two countries should be carried into effect more
efficaciously than heretofore; the intercourse between the two nations
was therefore peaceful and satisfactory. The intrigues of the French
court were, however, extended to that part of the Iberian peninsula
also. The court of Portugal was invited to reactionary measures by
the French minister, and French political agents were busy in Lisbon,
Oporto, Coimbra, and elsewhere. The Cabrai government became unpopular;
Castro Cabrai was supposed to exercise an undue influence; and José
Cabrai, his brother, the minister of justice, was unpopular everywhere,
but especially at Oporto, from which city he had to flee for his life.
The Cabrai government was ultimately driven from office and from the
capital: these events occurred in May. The queen now committed affairs
to the Marquis de Palmella, and issued proclamations restoring liberty
of the press, and remitting the exorbitant burial fees demanded by
the priests, which had been enforced by the government: these measures
restored peace. The French court incessantly intrigued against this
government also, and in four months after its formation it was abruptly
dismissed; the result was civil war. Two distinct insurrections went
on together—a republican or radical one in the south, and a Miguellite
revolt in the north. It was generally supposed by the Portuguese that
the faction of the court was in favour with the court of England, as
Colonel Wylde, equerry to Prince Albert, attended the camp of the royal
commander-inchief. The colonel, however, acted as commissioner of the
British government, which felt a deep interest in the distresses of
Portugal—peculiar treaties binding the two countries. The year 1846
closed over the Iberian peninsula in discord, turbulence, and woe.

_The Papal States_.—According to the constitution, England held no
diplomatic connection with the court of Rome. The proceedings of that
court, however, had an important influence upon the British empire, as
four-fifths of the Irish population were Roman Catholics, and in Eastern
Canada, Newfoundland, and other British colonies or dependencies, many
of the people were of the same religion. The events of the year at Rome
were the death of Pope Gregory XVI., and the election of Cardinal Mastei
to the pontifical chair, who assumed the title of Pius IX. One of his
first acts was to publish an amnesty for political offenders, which
gave great satisfaction to the inhabitants of the Roman States. This
was speedily followed by a tariff reform, based upon sound views of
the interests of the Roman people. Throughout the year, his civil
and sacerdotal administration were alike popular within the states,
throughout Italy, and all over Europe. The French, Austrian, Neapolitan,
Spanish, and Portuguese governments were all, however, incensed at the
liberal tendencies of the new pope. The Roman Catholic subjects of the
Queen of Great Britain and Ireland received the announcements of the
pontifical liberality with favour; it was thought that by these means
the objections of Protestants would be softened, and a way opened for
the reconciliation of many, especially liberal churchmen, to Rome.

_Poland_.—The sympathies of England were aroused by events in Poland,
which extinguished the last spark of Polish liberty. Throughout all the
provinces, a desire existed to make one effort more for freedom. The
hope of disenthralling their native land animated every heart. An
ill-concerted insurrection, was the inevitable consequence of this
strong feeling; and as Cracow was a free city, under the guarantee of
the treaty of Vienna, the insurgents believed that they could use it as
a _point d’appui_. In the month of February, the circle of Tarnow rose
in arms. The peasantry of Silesia, armed with scythes, attacked the
Austrian troops under General Collin, and drove them out of Cracow. A
provisional government was instituted there; Poland was called upon
to rise at once; and all nations, especially France and England, were
appealed to in passionate terms for aid. After various successes by
the revolters, they were at last encountered by superior forces,
and repeatedly defeated: Cracow was taken by the Austrians, and its
independence extinguished. The English and French ministers protested
against this as a violation of the treaty of Vienna. Russia and Prussia
supported the policy of Austria, who replied to the Western diplomatists
that the proceedings of the Poles was a violation of the treaty of
Vienna, and that it was necessary to the integrity and peace of the
Austrian empire that Cracow should be no longer a focus of rebellion.
The Western governments satisfied themselves with protests, and the last
green spot of Polish independence had its life stamped out by the foot
of Austrian despotism.

Such were the general relations of England during the year 1846.
Colonial revolt was suppressed; a powerful invader was driven back from
her oriental territory; and she maintained with honour her European
policy, and peace with neighbouring nations, under circumstances of
great provocation; her star shone with more lustre in the eyes of
foreign nations when the year terminated than when it opened.




HOME.

The parliamentary events of the year have already been narrated. There
were many home incidents which were not comprised in the records of
parliament. In the month of January, Wales was visited with disastrous
inundations, which destroyed a vast amount of property, and caused much
distress. More liberal arrangements were made about this time for the
reward and promotion of deserving privates and non-commissioned officers
of the army. In the month of February, Captain Rous, the member
for Westminster, having accepted office under Sir Robert Peel’s
administration, a new election became necessary. The captain was opposed
by Lieutenant-general Sir de Lacy Evans, one of the most chivalrous and
accomplished soldiers in the British army. The result was in favour of
the gallant general by nearly one thousand. Sir de Lacy, being returned
as a thoroughly liberal politician, this event was “a heavy blow, and
great discouragement” to the administration of Sir Robert Peel. In South
Nottinghamshire an election also occurred, in which Lord Lincoln, a
political _protégé_ of Sir Robert’s, was defeated by Mr. Hildyard, a
protectionist, by a very large majority. These events were supposed
to foreshadow the speedy demise of the Peel administration. In the
following month, Lord Lincoln was defeated at North Nottingham, polling
only two hundred and seventeen votes against one thousand seven hundred
and forty-two, polled by Lord H. Bentinck. During the early part of the
year, a serious revulsion took place in railway speculation; the rate
of money became high; a panic seized the speculators and adventurers in
such undertakings: in this way many incurred serious loss. The public
were startled in various parts of Great Britain by shocking railway
accidents, generally the result of carelessness on the part of the
officials, or deficient inspection and control on the part of directors.

On the 25th of May, her: majesty was safely delivered of a daughter.

Much interest was excited in June by a visit from Ibrahim Pasha, the
celebrated Egyptian prince and soldier. His highness inspected the
dock-yards and public places, paid his respects to the court, and was
feted and entertained by public men, especially of the navy and army.

A public dinner was given to the postage reformer, Mr. Rowland Hill, on
the 17th of June, and a testimonial presented to him on the part of the
merchants of London, which (including a first instalment handed to him
in 1845) amounted to £13,360 19s. 5d.

On the 25th, the infant princess was baptised: the name given to her
was Helena Augusta Victoria. The sponsors were her Royal Highness the
Duchess of Kent, proxy for the Duchess of Orleans; his Royal Highness
the Hereditary Grand-duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz; her Royal Highness
the Duchess of Cambridge.

Prince Albert visited the town and port of Liverpool, on the 30th, for
the purpose of opening the Albert Dock, and of laying the first stone of
the Sailors’ Home. The reception of his royal highness was worthy of the
great commercial community by which he was invited.

August was ushered in by one of the most terrible hailstorms ever
witnessed in London. It lasted for more than three hours, and created
great devastation. Inundations spread, and the windows of the public
buildings were extensively shattered. The glass in the roof of the
picture-gallery at Buckingham Palace was totally destroyed; the damage
was estimated at £2000. In the Houses of Parliament and Westminster
Hall, seven thousand panes of glass were broken; in the head office
of police, Scotland Yard, three hundred; in Burford’s panorama, ten
thousand. A Citizen steamer on the river was struck by lightning
off Battersea. The suburbs of London suffered from floods, hail, and
lightning, and the royal parks were much damaged, especially that at
Windsor.

Much interest was excited by the marine excursions taken by her majesty
during that summer to the Channel Islands, and various places on the
southern coast of England.

On the 29th of September, an event occurred in London which attracted
much attention. The equestrian statue of the Duke of Wellington, by
Wyatt, was removed from the artist’s studio, in the Harrow Road, to the
Triumphal Arch, at Hyde Park Corner, where it was set upon the pedestal
prepared for it. The illustrious spectators in Apsley House were almost
as much objects of interest to the multitude below, as the colossal
statue erected to the honour of the hero of Waterloo.

The failure of the harvest throughout the British Isles caused in
England a profound sensation. Prayers set apart to be used in a time
of scarcity were offered up, and subscriptions for the poor were most
generously bestowed by those whose means were ample, and by many from
limited resources: British benevolence had been seldom seen to such
advantage. During the month of November tempestuous weather prevailed
along the coasts, causing many wrecks and much loss of life. Early in
December, the severity of winter fell upon the British Isles. On the
10th, the mercury was fourteen degrees below the freezing-point in
London. This severe weather added to the sufferings of the people,
already pressed by scarcity of food. In the Highlands of Scotland, and
in Ireland, stern destitution was experienced by the whole peasantry.

During the year many eminent persons died whose names shed a lustre on
British history. In January, the Eight Honourable John Hookham Frère,
M.A., expired, who had been ambassador to Spain at the beginning of the
century. His representations had much influence in inducing the English
government to set on foot the expedition to the peninsula, which shed
so much glory on the arms of Britain. Earl Granville, whose name is so
closely associated with English political and diplomatic history, also
died within the month. During the following month, the antiquary,
Gaily Knight, and General Sir Henry Clinton, G.C.B., were among the
celebrities who passed away. In the month of March, the decease of Mr.
Liston, the comedian, attracted public notice. In June, Haydon, the
celebrated painter, died by his own hand, impelled by want. He had
frequently been indebted to the generous-hearted liberality of Sir
Robert and Lady Peel for aid, and the last assistance he ever received
was from these compassionate benefactors, the friends of so many artists
and literary men, as well as of poor Haydon. The genius of this artist,
as well as the record of his misfortunes, will go down to posterity.
Soon after Haydon’s melancholy death, in the month of July, “Charlotte
Elizabeth,” the writer of so many beautiful religious books, was called
to her happy home. The same month, the Eight Honourable Sir George
Murray, the friend and companion of Wellington, in both his military and
political career, died in London. August witnessed the decease of the
veteran anti-reformer, Sir Charles Wetherell. In September Lord Metcalfe
died, regretted much by the political world; and Thomas Clarkson, the
philanthropist, to whose exertions in the first instance humanity was
indebted for the abolition of the slave-trade, also passed into rest. In
the last month of the year the Eight Honourable Thomas Grenville died
in his ninety-first year, after a political and diplomatic life very
eventful.

The year 1846 was replete with transactions of great historical
importance; at its close England stood with a crown of many victories
upon her brow, but with many cares and anxieties; the chief of these was
the distress in England, and wide-spread starvation in the Highlands of
Scotland and in Ireland. Another chapter will reveal how evils of such
magnitude were encountered.




CHAPTER LIX.

{VICTORIA. 1847}

     Colonial Affairs..... Foreign Relations..... State of
     Ireland: Progress of Famine and Disease; Political
     Agitation; Prevalence of Crime..... Death of O’Connell.....
     Old Ireland and Young Ireland Parties..... General State of
     Affairs in Great Britain..... Naval and Military Events.....
     Home Incidents..... Decease of Remarkable Persons.....
     Parliamentary Proceedings.




COLONIAL AFFAIRS.

{A.D. 1847}

It is convenient to notice first in order the colonial and foreign
relations of the country, as home events derived their character from
these; parliamentary and party proceedings, more especially, turned
often, in a great measure, upon the prospects and condition of our
colonies, and the relations which we bore to foreign powers. This was
less the case in 1846 and 1847 than in most other periods, because the
failure of the harvests, the consequent overwhelming distress through
out the British Isles, and the disaffection in Ireland, demanded the
most earnest attention of parliament and the ministry.

_India_.—The state of India, throughout this year, was one of
prosperity and peace. The Punjaub, however, created some disquietude,
and there were border disturbances within the acquired territory of
Scinde.

It will be recollected that in the last chapter the appointment of a
council of regency at Lahore was recorded. This body excited the ranee’s
jealousy, whose disposition for intrigue was once more evoked; she
endeavoured to neutralise the action of the council. Representations
concerning this state of things were made to the governor-general, who
signified his approbation of the policy proposed by the council for
her exile from the capital. She was accordingly seized, and sent under
escort to a distance, where she’ was detained, and Lahore and the
Punjaub were exempt from troubles throughout the year.

In Scinde the border tribes were restless, and made frequent predatory
incursions upon the British territory. On one occasion, a body of seven
hunded infantry and a troop of horse, headed by several chiefs, made
a foray. Lieutenant Merewether, of “the Scinde Irregular Horse,” was
sent, at the head of about one hundred and thirty men, to observe, and,
if possible, disperse them. This gallant young officer came up with the
marauders in a locality unfavourable for immediate action; they were
moving in a direction which would have afforded them the protection
of some sand hills and jungle. Mr. Merewether rode along their front
without charging them, in order to gain their flank, and compel them to
keep the open plain, in a situation more favourable for the action
of cavalry. They did not understand this manouvre, and supposed it to
signify that the lieutenant did not deem it prudent to assail them.
Encouraged by this idea they attacked him, coming on with great
exultation. This gave the skilful and intrepid young officer the
advantage he desired; he wheeled to the left, formed his men in
an instant, charged, and cut up the enemy fearfully. The infantry
endeavoured to retreat; such of the horsemen as were left galloped away.
Mr. Merewether allowed their infantry no opportunity to retire to a
position where they might receive cavalry advantageously; but still
acting upon their flank, and keeping them in the open plain, he again
and again charged, each time cutting them down as the mower cuts the
ripe hay. They were offered quarter, but with great bravery stood to
their arms, until not one-fourth of their original number remained; they
then laid down their weapons. Of the whole body, except the few horsemen
who became fugitives after the first charge, not one escaped destruction
or captivity. Lieutenant Merewether lost very few men; he himself
had miraculous escapes, for he was foremost in every charge, exposing
himself with the utmost audacity. This gallant little action drew
upon the young soldier the attention and commendation not only of
his superiors in authority, but of the army of India. The exploit was
recorded in the papers at home, and was the theme of every news-room and
club. The English people are always more quick to appreciate and reward
valour than their government.

Sir Charles Napier, after conquering Scinde by the highest military
daring and skill, ruled it with a rare political sagacity. His attempts
at military reform brought upon him the ill-will of the Indian military
authorities, and the directors at home. The reforms introduced by the
gallant general bore the impress of his genius and his indomitable will.
His prophetic predictions concerning the evils that would certainly
result from the state of discipline in which he found the Sepoy armies,
were, unfortunately, all fulfilled. In the memoir of this gallant
general, written by his brother, Lieutenant-general Sir William Napier,
the merits of the case are amply, although it must be admitted, not
dispassionately discussed. The material is, however, afforded for a
just judgment upon the controversy. It can hardly be doubted the gallant
general was insubordinate; that he assumed authority to which he was not
entitled, and ruled with a glorious and intellectual tyranny, which was
not the less a tyranny because of the genius by which it was directed.
The general’s faults were, however, overlooked by his country, which was
served by him through an eventful life, with much honour to himself; it
is sad to say that his services as well as his errors were overlooked by
the government.

The public appreciation of him was just; they regarded him as a hero,
and a bold and skilful governor. His brother justly described the public
opinion of England when he wrote—“His fame has been accepted by the
British people as belonging to the glory of the nation.”

Lord Hardinge did not long continue to govern India after Sir Charles
resigned the government of Scinde. Upon his resignation Lord Dalhousie
was appointed, through the especial influence of the Duke of Wellington.
This appointment has been described as the only job which the
illustrious duke ever perpetrated, and reasons were assigned for this
unsuited to the pages of this history. Lord Dalhousie possessed many
qualifications for his high office, but he was pedantic, had too jealous
a sense of the dignity of his office, and often refused to listen to
the advice of officers, well qualified to offer it, on military matters,
which, whatever might be the noble lord’s opinions of his own parts,
were rather beyond his knowledge. He entered upon his government under
auspicious circumstances. The celebrated Akhbar Khan, the malignant
enemy of the English during the unfortunate affair at Cabul, died this
year, and made one less to the many opponents of British rule among the
chiefs of India and the contiguous countries.

_The Cape of Good Hope_.—The disturbances of the previous year were not
wholly quelled at the Cape. The Caffres continued to make forays within
the colony, and to plunder cattle. They were pursued and punished,
and considerable herds were recaptured. The feelings of all the Caffre
tribes were utterly hostile, and peace was only attainable by the
exercise of indisputable force.

_Our American Colonies_.—Peace and prosperity characterised the history
of our American colonial possessions during this year. The failure of
the potato crop caused some inconvenience and distress, but the general
agricultural and commercial success compensated for this disadvantage.
Security was also felt, as apprehension of a war with the United States
had entirely passed away. In the legislatures of Canada and Nova Scotia
there was, however, discontent with the measures of the governors of
these colonies, and the imperial administration and legislature. This
discontent found vent in orations, and through the columns of the press,
but did not disturb colonial tranquillity nor interrupt the progress of
government: those free countries were gradually laying the foundation
for a future and a glorious period of wealth and greatness.

_Borneo_.—It was again necessary to chastise the Borneo pirates. On the
30th the British steam frigate _Nemesis_ engaged a fleet of Soluprahus,
off Labuam The ship was crossing over to Labuan from Brune, with the
rajah of Sarawak on board. When off the island of Moora the _Nemesis_
came suddenly upon a fleet of eleven pirate boats, pursuing a trading
prahu. The _Nemesis_ chased the pirates to the shore, who drew up in
line along the beach. The pirates first opened the combat. For about two
hours the cannonade lasted; when the fire of the prahus was subdued, the
marines and sailors proceeded in boats to finish the destruction of the
pirate craft. Five of these war prahus were destroyed, and about eighty
pirates killed, and perhaps as many wounded. The rest and their crews
escaped, but the boats were much disabled. From the guns and other
material captured, it was plain that a Dutch merchant ship of
considerable value had fallen into the pirates’ hands. Some operations
on shore speedily followed, from which the robbers suffered severely.
One British seaman was killed, and seven wounded.




FOREIGN RELATIONS.

The conduct of the Chinese, ever since the peace executed by Sir Henry
Pottinger, had been such as to show that the treaty was not intended to
be kept by the authorities any longer than force constrained, and that
with the people all intercourse with foreigners on equal terms was
unpopular. During 1846 unoffending Europeans at Canton were frequently
attacked, and on one occasion the factories were stormed, and only
after a protracted conflict did the Europeans and Americans succeed in
expelling the assailants. The government of Canton always affected to
deprecate this violence on the part of the Cantonese, and as far as
proclamations went there was a magnificent display of justice. Several
Englishmen and other foreigners were murdered, and certain innocent
Chinese were seized and executed by the mandarins, while the murderers
were notoriously at large. In 1847 the merchants, who had often in vain
called for protection and redress from the British government, drew up a
memorial of their wrongs, which induced Sir John Davis, the governor
of Hong-Kong, to interfere on their behalf. Sir Robert Peel and Lord
Aberdeen seemed to adopt the policy of submitting to any indignities
the Chinese government or people might offer, rather than interrupt
commercial relations, or create any embarrassment at home. Possibly the
state of parties and the general distress at home may have influenced
the premier and the foreign minister to adopt this course, but its
result was injurious to British interests and to humanity; it entailed a
still greater interruption of commerce, and involved a larger sacrifice
of human life.

The demands of the merchants were:—1. A distinct recognition of their
rights to go such distance into the surrounding country as could be
traversed, either by land or water, in one day out and home; and full
protection during such period from attack or insult.—2. A space of
ground of about fifty acres at Honan, or in some other convenient part
of the suburbs, for the erection of warehouses and dwelling-houses.—3.
A site for a church and church-yard* for British residents.

     * By a “church yard” was meant a burial-ground attached to
     the church, for Europeans only.

—4. A burial-ground for the Parsee community, either on Dares or French
Island, of forty thousand square feet.—5. A bridge to be thrown over
the passage of Hog Lane, to connect the two factory gardens.—6. A
cook-house for Lascars in Hog Lane.—7. The railing in of Lower China
Street and the lower part of Hog Lane, and the garden walls to be kept
free from Chinese buildings, excepting the military and police stations
already erected.—8. Removal of the stationary boats which at present
encumber the avenue to the factory gardens at the river-side.

Sir John Davis determined upon seeking redress for the various insults
and outrages which had been inflicted, whatever might be the propriety
of requesting the concession of such advantages as the merchants sought.
In the opinion of Sir John, who knew the Chinese well, no demand would
meet with attention which was not backed with military force. Orientals
comprehend only that argument which Europeans regard as the _dernier
resort_. The Chinese authorities were taken by surprise, or they would
have prepared for resistance, and met the military demonstration of the
English governor with defiance or stratagem. Major-general D’Aguilar
commanded the British troops. As soon as he received the directions of
the plenipotentiary, he consulted with Captain M’Dougall in command of
her majesty’s ship _Vulture_. These officers agreed that the force at
their disposal was inadequate to the enterprise, but that, as audacity
and promptitude were the best weapons with oriental nations, it would
be well to act at once with such forces as they could employ. General
D’Aguilar considered it also important to impress practically upon the
mind of the Chinese authorities the possibility of the garrison and the
naval force at Hong-Kong being sufficient, without aid from India
or England, to chastise any affronts or injuries offered to British
persons, honour, or interests. It had been well if, in subsequent
events, similar views had been entertained by British officers and
British governments. The promptitude of the general’s action harmonised
with the wisdom and boldness of his opinion. By midnight of the day
on which he received his orders, the troops were embarked; and at nine
o’clock the following morning the squadron arrived at the Bocca Tigris.
The _Vulture_ then lowered her boats, into which the general ordered two
detachments, the one under Lieutenant-colonel Brereton, the other under
his own immediate orders. On landing, all the batteries were seized,
the guns spiked, the ammunition destroyed, and the garrisons sent,
unmolested, away. This bold measure was necessary to the safety of the
general’s small force, for had he left these batteries in his rear, his
return would have been endangered. At six o’clock, the squadron arrived
at Whampoa. As the _Vulture_ was of too large a draught to proceed
higher, the troops were placed on board the steamers _Pluto_ and
_Corsair_. Sir John Davis accompanied the general in the _Pluto_. At
eleven o’clock the squadron arrived before several forts, which were
attacked. Lieutenant-colonel Brereton, landing, took two of them by
a _coup de main_, blowing in the gates with gunpowder, and instantly
seizing and spiking the guns. General D’Aguilar and his party were
received by the other two forts with round and case shot, but the
boats pushed in, blew open the gates, and spiked the guns, the garrison
retreating by the rear. The expedition then proceeded to the French
Folly Fort, a stronger place than any of those already captured, and
situated on one of the narrowest bends of the river. The British swooped
down upon this place as an eagle upon its prey, and their rapidity was
rewarded by its immediate capture, for a few minutes delay and the
guns of the work would have given our troops a reception more warm than
welcome. Four other batteries were taken and spiked on their way up
river by the general and commodore, and by six o’clock in the evening
the troops were landed in the factories. Eight hundred and seventy-nine
pieces of Chinese cannon had been spiked, to the amazement of the
enemy, who had no time to recover from the panic into which so sudden an
incursion threw them. The general, upon landing, placed the factories
in a state of efficient defence by barricades, and such other means as
were at his immediate command. The Chinese commissioner, Keying, now
waited upon Sir John Davis, but refused to comply with his demands; the
next day, however, the high commissioner requested another day’s delay.
This was granted, and the terms demanded were ultimately agreed to
by the commissioner. General D’Aguilar withdrew the troops, except a
company of sappers, and the light company of the 18th royal regiment of
the line. These were ordered to remain until what was promised should be
fully executed. This feat of the English general’s was one of the most
dashing ever executed with so small a body of men. The whole military
force did not amount to one thousand men, and the naval force could only
afford a few hundred sailors and marines for land operations. Audacity
and rapidity carried the day—the grand secret of success in Asiatic
warfare.

The Chinese, however, had no intention of observing the treaty; and
when all appeared to be adjusted, six British subjects, who made a
short excursion, in agreement with one of its clauses, were barbarously
murdered. They were attacked by the whole population of the place
which they visited. The Englishmen, when at last compelled to defend
themselves, slew one and wounded several of their assailants. It
required much negotiation to secure the punishment of some of the
murderers, four of whom were decapitated, and a few others received
minor punishments.

Whenever the French found that the British displayed vigour towards the
Chinese, they made out a grievance, and sent an armed force to demand
redress somewhere. Their object seemed to be to show that France also
was a great nation, and could enforce respect. Two French ships of war
appeared in the Bay of Touron during this year, to demand redress
from the government of Cochin China, for injuries alleged to have been
inflicted upon French Roman Catholic priests. Their demand not having
been at once complied with, and some treachery on the part of the
natives having been detected, the French ships opened fire upon the
war-junks, sinking and destroying many, and slaying more than a thousand
men.

The conduct of the Chinese to Europeans generally, during the year 1847,
kept them, the British more especially, in a constant sense of danger.
Applications were made for reinforcements, but, notwithstanding the
prodigious armaments of England in India, and her resources elsewhere,
it was with extreme difficulty that any additional force could be
obtained. The following parliamentary papers show the perilous routine
necessary on every occasion when our officers require even the most
paltry reinforcement. General D’Aguilar applied to Major-general Smelt,
the officer commanding at Ceylon, for two guns and a few artillerymen.
In a month after, General Smelt wrote to Lord Fitzroy Somerset, the
military secretary at the Horse-Guards, informing him that if
he (General Smelt) _heard again_ from General D’Aguilar that the
reinforcement was necessary, he would send it! but that, in doing so, he
should leave Ceylon all but utterly unprotected, so far as artillery
was concerned. Lord Torrington, the governor of Ceylon, at the same
time communicated this “great fact”—that two guns and a few men were
wanting at Hong-Kong—to Earl Grey, the colonial minister, who, at the
latter end of November, sent a despatch to General D’Aguilar, telling
him not to do anything against the Chinese without authority from
home! The discretionary power in the hands of Sir John Davis, and the
promptitude, energy, and enterprise of the general, obtained, with less
bloodshed than frequently occurred in a street riot in Canton, redress
of grievances, a recognition of rights, and a series of important
concessions. If it had been necessary to refer these disputes to the
Colonial Office at home, everything would have been frustrated. Possibly
a grand expedition, at an enormous expense, would have gone out in a
year or so afterwards, and an expenditure of British as well as
Chinese life on a large scale have resulted. In spheres so distant, men
thoroughly competent to act ought, in both civil and military matters,
to be appointed, and the honour of the country should be committed to
their hands. With a small force, complete in itself, at the disposal
of such men, more could be effected at the moment for the honour and
interests of the country than by long and roundabout despatches, passing
through so many hands that one fool in authority nullifies all, as a bad
link in an otherwise good chain renders the whole useless. Omitting
the other portions of the correspondence, the following letter
from Major-general D’Aguilar, dated Hong-Kong, August 21, 1847, to
Major-general Smelt, reveals sufficiently the incompetent arrangements
for British interests in China, in 1847:—

“Although I have not the pleasure of your personal acquaintance, your
character and services are so well known to me, that I venture to
address you without form or ceremony. I have every reason to hope that
things will settle down here peaceably, but I have no positive assurance
of it; and if circumstances should occur to oblige me to go to Canton
again, I am but badly off for artillery. I can never hope to surprise
the Chinese defences a second time; and whatever I do must be done in
form, and with reference to the altered position of things.

“Under these circumstances, I write to ask if you can spare me half a
company of artillery, with their proportionate number of field-guns
and ammunition complete. I should only want them for six weeks, and I
promise you to send them faithfully back the moment the service is over.

“Should the contingency—the possibility of which is on the
cards—occur, I shall endeavour to avoid taking the field before the end
of November, when the cool weather will add strength to our exertions;
and I will take care to give you the earliest notice of my intention. In
the meantime, perhaps, you would kindly prepare Lord Torrington for this
request on my part, and afford me your interest in giving effect to it,
should circumstances render it necessary.

“A couple of 9–pounders, with the half-company of artillery, would be
the best; but if they are not to be had, then anything your people are
supplied with.”

On receipt of the above, Major-general Smelt wrote as follows to
Lieutenant-general Lord Fitzroy Somerset.

The letter was dated Colombo, Ceylon, September 22nd, 1847:—

“I have the honour to inform your lordship that I received, two days
ago, a letter from Major-general D’Aguilar, commanding in China,
informing me that it is likely that he would require a reinforcement of
artillery in the event of operations being carried on at Canton towards
the end? of this year, and requesting me, if I could spare it, and
circumstances rendered it necessary, to afford him a half company of
artillery, with two 9–pounder guns complete, with ammunition, &c.

“I shall therefore be prepared, should I hear again from General
D’Aguilar that their services would actually be required, to send such
force as, in the present strength of artillery in this command, would
be in my power. But your lordship is aware that the whole amount of
artillery throughout this island only consists of two weak companies,
reduced in their number of Europeans in consequence of a proportion
of gun-lascars; and the only ordnance that I could spare, at present
equipped for service, are 4 ⅖ inch howitzer guns, having neither
9–pounder nor 6–pounder guns, excepting two of the latter, which have no
carriages.

“Under these circumstances, and with the recommendation of his
excellency the governor, I should be able to afford a detachment of one
officer and twenty-five gunners, with a proportion of non-commissioned
officers and the two howitzers above mentioned. I am informed by General
D’Aguilar, who will give me the earliest notice of his plans, that he
would only require this force for six weeks, and that it should be sent
back to me immediately the service is over; in the meantime, as this
draft would reduce my strength of European artillerymen in this island
by about one-third, I shall, in order to repair the deficiency, cause a
portion of the soldiers from the line regiment, equal to about five men
per company, to be trained and exercised at the gun drill.

“I have to add that a draft of one hundred and twenty men of the Ceylon
Rifle Regiment are under orders, and will probably sail the end of this
month for Hong-Kong, to complete the six companies at present serving
there to their full complement of one hundred rank and file; these
companies having been sent to China so much under their establishment
with a view to their being completed by recruits sent from Singapore,
but the uncertain state of things there rendering it quite necessary now
that trained soldiers should be sent from this place, which I trust will
meet with the approbation of his grace the commander-inchief.”

The foregoing offer of assistance was finally countermanded by Earl
Grey, in a despatch to Major-general D’Aguilar, dated Colonial Office,
November the 24th, 1847:—

“The governor of Ceylon has communicated to me an application which you
have made to the major-general commanding her majesty’s troops in that
island, for a reinforcement of half a company of artillery, with two
guns, and a proportionate supply of ammunition, to be held in readiness
to be forwarded to Hong-Kong, should circumstances render it necessary
to undertake any further military operations at Canton.

“I have desired the governor of Ceylon not to send to Hong-Kong the
detachment for which you have made application; and I have further to
signify to you that her majesty’s government peremptorily forbid you to
undertake any further offensive operations against the Chinese without
their previous sanction. Her majesty’s government are satisfied that,
although the late operations in the Canton River were attended with
immediate success, the risk of a second attempt of the same kind would
far overbalance any advantage to be derived from such a step. If the
conduct of the Chinese authorities should, unfortunately, render another
appeal to arms inevitable, it will be necessary that it should be made
after due preparation, and with the employment of such an amount of
force as may afford just grounds for expecting that the objects which
may be proposed by such a measure will be effectually accomplished
without unnecessary loss.”

Lord Grey was right, that a similar expedition, if made with the same
force, would probably fail. General D’Aguilar knew that rather better
than Lord Grey, and did not need a pompous despatch from the Colonial
Office to inform him of it. But the general did not mean to attempt
the same thing with the same force, and therefore sent for aid where he
might naturally have expected to derive the little he sought. There
can be no doubt that if matters had been left to the general’s own
discretion, and his forces been adequately strengthened, he would
have performed what was proper to the occasion, and, perhaps, all that
English safety and interests required, and thereby have averted future
conflict, as well as the humiliations which Englishmen had to endure,
and to punish at a great cost of treasure and immense sacrifice of
blood.

_France_.—The Spanish marriages caused stormy debates in the French
chambers, which reflected much moral discredit upon the King of the
French, his minister Guizot, his ambassador M. Bresson, the queen and
queen-mother of Spain, and Narvaez, the chief abettor and tool of the
faction of Christina. The eloquent denunciations of M. Thiers
against Guizot and his policy told upon the French mind, and led to
modifications in the cabinet; but this clever invective was purely in
the spirit of party: the honour of France and the love of truth were as
little considered by the one leader as the other. The British government
maintained an attitude of coldness to that of France, but it was not
possible to act independently of it: in many of the affairs of other
countries to which England stood related, and in every instance, the
influence of the French king was prejudicial to the interests and moral
influence of England. On the completion of the Spanish marriages M.
Bresson returned to Paris, and had the impudence to demand, as his
reward for his share in that transaction, the embassy to London. This
was refused, on the ground that the relations of France to Great Britain
were too delicate to be committed to the minister who had the chief part
in producing the coldness which existed. He then demanded the embassy to
St. Petersburg, but this post required higher qualifications than were
conceded to M. Bresson by his government. He was nominated to the
French ministry at Naples, and proceeded to his destination reluctantly,
considering the appointment a slight after sustaining French affairs
with the government of a superior country. Soon after he arrived at
Naples, perceiving the evil consequences of the Spanish marriages, his
chagrin was so increased that he put an end to his own existence.

_Spain and Portugal_.—Spain passed a year of disorder and bad
government, but, excepting as regarded the affairs of Portugal,
England had no especial connection with the proceedings of the Spanish
government. The state of Portugal was desperate. The Miguellites and
liberals continued to maintain the civil war against the queen. The
former were repeatedly defeated. Their leader, M’Donnell, perceiving
that all hope of inducing the party to adopt measures sufficiently bold
were at an end, collected around him a chosen band, and precipitating
himself upon the queen’s cavalry, fell fighting sword in hand. The
radical or constitutional party made their head-quarters at Oporto,
where they set at defiance the queen’s government. Meanwhile the French
and Spanish governments were desirous to interfere on behalf of the
queen, whose opinions and sympathies were despotic, and in harmony
with those of the French king and the Spanish queen. To prevent such
an interference the English government reluctantly consented to a joint
interference of England and Spain only. Accordingly, the British navy
co-operated with a Spanish army for the purpose of putting down all
armed opposition to the queen’s government, at the same time obtaining
indemnification for all in arms against her majesty, and a guarantee on
the part of her majesty, by her solemn promise and the dismission of her
reactionary ministry, that she would respect the constitutional rights
of her people. This was effected, and Louis Philippe was balked of his
desire to interfere in Portugal to promote a reactionary policy. The
queen, however, did not keep faith with her allies; she did not dismiss
her government until the English minister made such demands as compelled
compliance. Peace was by these measures restored to Portugal; but no
party within or beyond the bounds of her kingdom had any confidence in
the good faith, good sense, or good feeling of the queen.

Lord Palmerston was much censured as the originator of the British
policy in Portugal, but an impartial examination of the course he took
will show that it was politic, and that by it he enforced upon Portugal
the only plan possible to secure her independence of foreign despotic
interference, and her release from internecine war. Portugal was
saved for the time, and the designs of Louis Philippe were permanently
baffled.




STATE OF IRELAND.—PROGRESS OF FAMINE AND DISEASE.

The year 1847 opened upon Ireland in many respects as gloomily as that
which preceded. During the early months of the year the weather was very
severe, and this added materially to the miseries of an already famine
and disease-stricken people. The most heart-rending events connected
with these disasters occurred everywhere throughout the country. The
government continued its efforts for the mitigation of the prevailing
evils; but the plans put forth for this object were not always wise, and
the conduct of the people, high and low, baffled the projects of relief.
All the mischievous proceedings of a social nature narrated in the
previous chapter continued, and many of them were aggravated. The result
was that great numbers perished in all parts of the country, especially
in the south and west; and philanthropic men in Europe, in America,
and throughout the whole world where civilised man dwelt, perused the
records of Ireland’s sufferings and infatuation with horror and awe.
This state of matters continued even to the harvest, and although there
was then the prospect of abundant crops, that circumstance neither
revived the hopes, nor assuaged the political rancour, of the people.
Late in the month of June a clergyman addressed a letter to a Dublin
newspaper, describing the condition of the peasantry in his locality,
and it but too faithfully depicts the sufferings prevalent in most other
places. It was as follows:—“The population of the district for which I
would plead amounted at the last census to eight thousand seven hundred
souls, but, owing to the dreadful ravages of famine and disease, it is
generally considered that two thousand have perished during the
past brief season of unexampled horror. Notwithstanding the relief
administered through the medium of public works, and the subsequent
distribution of rations, many instances have recently occurred of horses
being stolen and destroyed for human food, and great distress still
extensively prevails. During previous years, every available spot of
land was alternately cultivated with potatoes and wheat or oats; but
this year, owing to the utter destitution of the farmers, generally
speaking, it is computed that one-third of the land last year under
the potato crop still lies waste, while almost all the stubble ground
remains untouched. If then, after the harvest of last year, when all the
existing tillage was cultivated, and some proportion of the potato crop,
such as it was, was available for food, such wholesale destruction of
human life has taken place in this district, under circumstances of
such a character that their mere recital fills the mind with horror and
dismay—if, after two thousand have been swept away by the devastating
power of famine and disease, four thousand eight hundred and twenty-nine
of the survivors are at this moment kept from impending death by the
daily distribution of rations,—what are we reasonably to anticipate for
the time to come, unless prompt and energetic measures are adopted to
provide means for sustaining those who may be spared?”




CONTINUED POLITICAL AGITATION.—DREADFUL PREVALENCE OF CRIME.

Unfortunately, the progress of crime and outrage kept pace with that of
famine and pestilence, until the moral condition of the people seemed to
be worse than their physical. Men were murdered in the open day, in the
presence of numbers who made no effort to stop the deed of blood, and
who would make no revelations to the officers of justice calculated to
bring punishment upon the coldblooded assassins. The motives for these
sanguinary outrages were various: sometimes it was purely agrarian;
sometimes for the purpose of plundering food or money. Some were
murdered from purely political hostility, and others on account of
their prominence in religious movements distasteful to the people.
Intolerance, contempt for law, a sense of wrong under the influence of
the laws of landlord and tenant then in existence, and despair caused by
their sufferings, constituted the incentives to atrocities which threw a
hue of blood and gloom over the pages of Irish history.

The political differences which had long rent the country were
exasperated, although men of all sects and parties united with equal
zeal for the relief of the poor. No charities seemed to soften the heart
of the Irish peasant towards those who entered strongly into political
or religious combinations to which he was averse.

The new political disputes gathered strength; the different sections
of repealers waged not only a wordy war with one another, as in the
previous year, but the “Old Irelanders” frequently committed outrages
upon the “Young Irelanders,” characterised by insolent intolerance and
ferocity.

Foreign nations saw, with admiration, the magnitude of the scale upon
which government extended relief. By an act of parliament a loan of
eight millions sterling was contracted by government for the purpose
of mitigating the wants of Ireland. On the first of March it was
adjudicated; Messrs. Barings and Rothschilds having coalesced, they
were declared the contractors. The loan was in 8 per cent. Consols; the
bidding was 89 ½. The total amount of stock created by the transaction
was £8,938,548. The annual charge for the dividend was £268,156 8s.
10d. The scrip, which opened at 2 premium, rapidly fell to discount, and
gradually declined, showing the feeling of the monied interest regarding
the monetary prospects of the period as affected by Ireland. The
commercial distress in Ireland, partly consequent upon the famine and
partly upon the general causes then operating in England, was extensive
and profound. Heavy failures, in connection with houses of much
reputation, shook the general credit, and aggravated the other existing
influences by which suffering was originated or increased.

A new form of lawlessness appeared along the Irish coasts. Piracy had
not been known there for a great length of time: the coast-guards and
revenue cutters prevented that crime, as well as smuggling; but, early
in the spring, formidable piratical attempts were made along an extended
line of coast. Generally such attempts were frustrated when any weapons
of offence were possessed by the attacked; for these enterprises,
although furtive and made by considerable numbers, were seldom conducted
or maintained with spirit. Thus, in April, the _Christian_, while on
her passage from Liverpool to Westport, with a cargo of Indian corn, was
suddenly boarded, seven or eight miles off Broadhaven, by three boats’
crews, who broke up the hatches, and carried away thirty-three bags of
corn. On the following day they again approached, but the circumstance
of the master presenting a gun was sufficient to deter them from any
attempt to board. The men effecting these robberies seem to have been
actuated by distress; they seldom committed violence, and bore all the
aspect of famine and despair.




DEATH OF O’CONNELL.

The political events of the year were much influenced in every way by
the absence of Mr. O’Connell from public life, and by his death. Early
in the year his powers of mind and body became so much enfeebled, that
his physicians insisted upon his leaving London, and upon his excluding
all intelligence concerning Ireland. In obedience to these directions,
he took up his abode at Hastings; but, although some intervals of
apparent recovery occurred, he sank gradually until the imminency of his
danger became evident to his friends and to himself. He had a wish to
live, probably that he might continue the struggle for the great object
of his life—the ascendancy of his religion, and the greater political
power of his country. As the spring advanced, his friends were of
opinion that a journey to Italy might benefit him; he, believing that
his illness was fatal, wished to go to Rome, that he might die there
with the blessing of the pope to sanctify the closing scene. His illness
increased so rapidly that he was not able to reach Rome, and died
at Genoa. A _post mortem_ examination revealed that his brain was
extensively diseased, accounting for the melancholy which pervaded his
illness. Old age, the failure of his hopes, prophecies, and schemes
after the Emancipation Act, and deep mental anxieties about the distress
of his country, the divisions in the repeal party, and the hopelessness
of his agitation, caused his death. He had attained a good old age
(seventy-four), and departed this life on the 15th of May. His latest
anxieties were lest he should be buried alive, and he gave to his
confessor, physician, and servant, constant and peculiar directions
to guard against such a casualty. His heart he bequeathed to Rome! The
tidings of his death reached Dublin on the 25th. Immediately placards
were issued from Conciliation Hall, and were posted in town and country,
announcing the event. The people gathered in crowds wherever a placard
was seen, and perused it with deep sorrow, the men moving silently away,
or gathering in groups to talk earnestly concerning the deceased and
the prospects of their country—the women in many cases uttering loud
lamentations. The bells of the Roman Catholic chapels tolled mournfully,
and arrangements were made to offer public prayers for the soul of the
deceased. Probably there was not a Roman Catholic in Ireland that
did not privately offer such petitions upon the reception of the
intelligence. The Repeal Association summoned an especial meeting to
prepare an address to the people of Ireland suitable to the occasion.
The corporation met and adjourned for three weeks as a mark of respect.
The Roman Catholics of Ireland, and such Protestants as were considered
liberal, made every manifestation of respect for the memory of the great
leader. Ireland, in the midst of her starvation and sickness, felt a
still deeper sorrow—the whole land appeared in mourning.

The mortal remains of the great popular chief were conveyed to Dublin,
and on the 5th of August they were interred in the Glassnevin Cemetery.
The day preceding the Reverend Dr. Miley preached his funeral sermon at
the Metropolitan Chapel, Marlborough Street. It was an eloquent eulogy
upon the character of the departed; his errors, personal and political,
were passed over, and the idea pervaded the discourse that the departed
was a martyr and saint.

The funeral procession was one of the most remarkable which had ever
been witnessed in Ireland,—when the character of the deceased, his
influence upon public affairs, the national feeling, the intense
curiosity excited, and the conduct of the ceremonial, were considered.
At twelve o’clock the corpse was removed from the Metropolitan Chapel.
The procession was a mile and a half (Irish) in length, composed of the
Trades’ Unions on foot, followed by the triumphal car which had been
used to convey him from Richmond Penitentiary to his house in Merrion
Square, when his acquittal of the charge upon which he had been
incarcerated was pronounced by the House of Lords. The coffin was placed
on a large open hearse, constructed with very little regard to taste.
The hearse was covered with rich Genoa velvet. It was immediately
followed by the family of the deceased, his personal and political
friends, and a large assembly of the Roman Catholic bishops and clergy.
All along the route to Glassnevin, multitudes were assembled in the
streets and windows, and even upon the house-tops. Persons came from
very great distances in the country to be present at the interment,
or take some part in the ceremonial. At the cemetery the services
appropriate to the Roman Catholic religion were conducted, and the
coffin was consigned to a vault prepared for its reception. The site
selected for the place of sepulture was the best which the cemetery
afforded, and the whole scene was solemn and impressive. It was a public
funeral, worthy of a great man, by a people whom he had zealously,
faithfully, and disinterestedly served. It was computed that one hundred
thousand persons were present. There was a deep gloom upon the people
when the ceremony was over. The religious ceremonies prescribed by the
Roman Catholic Church for eminent persons deceased, were continued for a
considerable time.

Thus passed away a man whose name will long remain upon the pages of his
country’s history, and whose influence upon the whole empire of Great
Britain was greater than was publicly recognised at the time, and than
historians have since recorded.

The fate of the reform bill very much depended upon the support accorded
to it by Daniel O’Connell. It is probable that the bill would have been
lost without the support of the Irish liberals, led by the agitator. To
the repeal of the corn laws he also rendered effective aid, although his
oratory in favour of that measure appeared to be less hearty than that
on behalf of the reform bill. The impression prevailed very extensively
among the great body of the free-traders that, while O’Connell agreed
with their theory, and deemed it politic to co-operate with them, he
did not regard it as immediately beneficial to Ireland, and did not
feel personally cordial to the movement. On many local church questions,
also, and to a very great extent, on colonial matters, the influence of
the Irish leader was felt in parliament by the parties most interested,
and by the governments. For a time the scale of office was held in his
hand; he made and unmade ministers. He was not corrupt, or place, power,
and pension might have been obtained by him and his. After his death
some members of his family did receive government situations, and even
before his death connexions of his obtained such advantages; but they
were in all cases fit for the posts to which they were appointed, and
filled them with honour—nor was the emolument much, in any case. On the
whole, the Whigs did not treat the family of O’Connell with gratitude.
He had more than once put them into power, and frequently, when the
certainty of their losing office without his aid occurred, he gave them
the requisite assistance. He was often—indeed, always—in some measure
their opponent; but this rather strengthened them in Great Britain,
while on great party divisions “the tail” was always to be relied upon
by the Whig cabinet. Never had a public man such opportunity of raising
himself to the most elevated offices, and securing emolument for himself
and his family—never were these temptations more faithfully resisted.
Yet O’Connell did not disdain office, and he especially valued promotion
and honours in his own profession: but these things were nothing to
him in comparison with what he regarded to be his mission. He was fully
convinced that God had raised him up for the especial purpose of serving
the Roman Catholic religion, and, in connection with that of serving his
country, he pursued this object with unswerving fidelity. If he could
have obtained high office, and thereby have inflicted no injury upon the
cause which he espoused, he would have eagerly sought a position in
the cabinet or on the bench; he would have been as much opposed to the
repeal of the union as Mr. Lucas, the editor of the _Tablet_, and other
English Roman Catholics, if he had believed that it would injure the
Roman Catholic religion. Many supposed that he was never sincere in
prosecuting repeal; while others, whose opportunities of judging were
ample, believed that he was most honest in that agitation: in fact,
both were right. As an Irishman, he had a desire that his country should
cease to be a province, and he probably believed that her resources,
moral, intellectual, and material, were sufficient to maintain the
dignity and power of a nation; it was also his conviction that the
repeal of the union would be a means of improving the government and
social condition of Ireland, but he chiefly regarded it as an instrument
for the aggrandisement of his religion. It would enable the Roman
Catholic party to suppress the distribution of Protestant tracts
and bibles, to silence Protestant controversialists, and to treat
bible-readers and circuit-preachers as vagabonds and disturbers of the
peace. O’Connell’s speeches abound with expressions of opinion, that
it was the duty of the British government to do all these things in
deference to the wishes of the Roman Catholics, they being a majority.
He invariably held up all attempts to “proselyte the people” as a crime
which ought to be punishable by law; and where the government failed “to
protect the people from the bible men, saints, soupers, and fanatics”
 (the names which he generally applied to earnest Protestants in his
abusive and bigoted polemical speeches), then the people should use
all means within the law—a sort of qualification never intended to be
accepted by those to whom it was addressed—“to put down” all persons
obnoxious to the religious hostility of the priests. In the earlier part
of his career he was accustomed, with the assistance of Brick, O’Dwyer,
and others of his followers, to disturb the religious public meetings
called by Protestants, especially associations for the distribution
of the bible. O’Connell and his colleagues would intrude upon such
meetings, often attended by a violent rabble, whose language and
behaviour on these occasions were coarse and brutal. The intruders would
propose amendments to the resolutions submitted to the members of these
societies, and make violent speeches at the meetings, full of ridicule
and abuse, which were loudly applauded by the mob, who forced their way
in to support these proceedings. When the advocates of the resolutions
attempted to reply, they were met by hootings, and sometimes by
violence. There was always a perfect understanding between the mob who
intruded below, and the gentlemen who made their way or were invited to
the platform. The latter affected to protest against the tumult while it
went on, but afterwards extenuated or denied it in the newspapers, or in
speeches elsewhere, averring that the clergymen and laymen, who convened
the meeting, were unable to answer the arguments of the Catholic
champions. In many of these meetings free discussion was secured,
and faithful reports of the arguments on both sides were published in
newspapers and pamphlets, with the result of shaking the faith of many
Roman Catholics in various parts of the country: the agitators, under
O’Connell’s advice, then gave up this mode of procedure, and shunned all
such meetings. O’Connell also perceived that he had created a prejudice
against himself, his country, and his creed in England, by the violence
he connived at, and the bigotry which he uttered.

Repeal of the union, besides enabling him to accomplish the class of
religious objects thus described, would also have given him power
to transfer the funds of the Irish Established Church to the Roman
Catholic. He and most of his followers having loudly professed “the
voluntary principle,” it may seem to readers, cognisant of that fact,
and unacquainted with the modes of procedure adopted by the Irish
popular party, as unlikely that those who composed it, or, at all
events, he who led it, would ever desire the establishment of the Roman
Catholic Church in Ireland. The truth is, that most of the men who
declaimed in favour of the voluntary principle were chiefly actuated,
like O’Connell himself, in their political agitation, by the desire and
hope of Roman Catholic ascendancy. The great repeal leader proved
at last that he was utterly insincere in these protestations of
voluntarism, for afterwards, during the English agitation concerning the
Maynooth grant, he turned “the voluntaries” and their principle into
open ridicule. He had served his turn of them, and then held them and
the principles he pretended in common with them to support, in derision.
Yet O’Connell was not a dishonest politician, apart from his religious
mission. He was a man to be trusted in political engagements; few public
men of the day would act with such truth and honour to party, and in any
purely political contest or interest. When the promotion of his Church
was concerned, his conduct proved that he believed a doctrine which he
often repudiated—that the end sanctified the means. He was educated
a Jesuit, was one in spirit, was allied with them in the purposes and
objects of his private life, and his public policy. If any considerable
amount of Romish influence could have been introduced to the British
cabinet, with the hope that it would become a permanent element in the
government of England, O’Connell would have been the deadliest enemy of
repeal: the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland would have put down repeal
as injurious to it. The Young Irelanders would have still agitated for
Irish independence; but they would have been mobbed, or assassinated, or
otherwise soon crushed as a party. The Protestants would then have been
the repealers. The argument of Mr. Lucas, that repeal would weaken
the Irish Roman Catholic body, through the influence of the English
government upon the colonies and foreign states, was that which
prevailed with so many Romanists of respectability in Ireland, and with
the English Roman Catholic party, in keeping them aloof from the repeal
agitation, and inducing them even to oppose it; nor was O’Connell
himself free from the effect of such a consideration. His professions of
the supreme value of repeal were based upon the conviction that it was
hopeless to overcome the religious hostility of the British people to
any increased influence of Romanism in the government; yet he lingered
on, hoping against this conviction, and feeling the difficulty, if not
desperation, of the task he imposed upon himself, declaring still that
he would only turn to repeal as the _dernier ressort_, and that his
first cry was “Justice to Ireland.” Had everything been conceded which
was claimed, “Justice to Ireland” would still have been, the cry, on
the ground that, being an integral part of the United Kingdom, she was
entitled to see her religion established in a fair proportion of the
colonies, or placed on a par with the English Church in them all. With
O’Connell and with Ireland the grievances were religious; the social
evils of Ireland were abetted by many who were repealers: yet there was
a sense of political injustice, and a patriotic desire on the part of
O’Connell and the people for the glory of Ireland, so far as it was
not necessary to merge that in the glory of Rome. Civil and religious
liberty for Ireland and for the world were not desired by either the
Irish Roman Catholic party or their political champion. The spirit
of the speeches at Conciliation Hall, of the Irish press in that
interest,—even of the Irish press in the Whig service, which was
conducted by Romanists, and the tone of confidential conversation
among Irish Roman Catholics at that period, all proved this allegation.
Foreign despotisms, if Protestant, were abused and denounced; if Romish,
they were treated with respect, and sympathy in case of any disturbance
in their dominions; or if it were not for the moment politic to abet
their proceedings, their misdeeds were passed over in silence. All
the social wrongs and civil tyrannies practised at Rome were upheld as
warmly in Ireland, and especially in Conciliation Hall, as they could
have been in the conclave of cardinals. One of the favourite topics
of the day among the Roman Catholics of Ireland, even amidst their
sufferings, during 1847, (and subsequently still more so), was the
prospect of the Roman Catholic religion becoming the established
religion of the United States, through the instrumentality of the Irish
and German Roman Catholics of the immigration. While they cried aloud
for religious equality for themselves, they carried on in Ireland a
fierce and brutal religious persecution, which was only restrained by
the influence of the more enlightened and liberal laymen of their own
communion, and by fear of the law; the impolicy of such a cause was not
sufficient to check the raging zealotry which so extensively prevailed.
All this O’Connell sanctioned and fostered, and, except when doing so
would hamper his policy or political relations in England, he invited
it.

Intellectually, O’Connell was a giant. His grasp of mind was
comprehensive and tenacious; and he was capable of reasoning clearly
whenever his religious bias allowed of his doing so dispassionately.
His perception was quick, keen, and discriminating, especially where
character was concerned. His knowledge of human nature was profound,
although he had not been a successful student of metaphysics. His
eloquence was more varied than that of any other man of his times; and
he possessed the faculty of adapting himself to his audience, and to the
changing feelings of an audience, to a degree which few men ever attain.
In a moment he could melt a popular audience to tears or convulse it
with laughter. He could be plain or ornate, coarse or courteous. The
eloquence of invective and vituperation was carried by O’Connell to a
very inglorious perfection. His eulogies were as dextrous and expressive
as they were, nevertheless, morally repugnant to honest minds. The
writer of these lines has heard him address a mob of peasants in the
county of Waterford on repeal, and an assembly of Quakers, Methodists,
and “other sectaries,” as he would himself call them, in the city of
Cork, on an anti-slavery occasion, with equal effect. His broad-brimmed
and sedate audience were as much delighted with his elegant and pathetic
eloquence in favour of humanity and natural rights, as his peasant mob
were while he discoursed to them upon the certainty and glory of repeal,
and declared that “they were the finest peasantry in the world.” On the
one occasion his action was graceful, and at times expressive even
to sublimity; on the other, it was bold and broadly natural, nor less
expressive of the passion he felt or simulated, and endeavoured to
excite. He possessed the oratory necessary for an Irish tribune, and
that which was adapted to the English senator: In his profession he
held a high place. Having given up his life to politics and polemics, he
could not have become a first authority in law, but he was unsurpassed
as a counsel, especially in criminal cases. Most men thought that he had
not the mental and moral qualities necessary for the bench, while he
was pre-eminently the man of the bar. This, however, is hardly a fair
estimate of him. He possessed in a remarkable degree all those qualities
in an advocate which entitle him to cherish the ambition of becoming
a judge. From the judgment-seat, when his bigotry did not blind him,
O’Connell would have given charges as luminous and just as his speeches
in court were powerful specimens of effective advocacy. His general
attainments were very considerable. The writer of this history once took
part in a conversation where O’Connell displayed a knowledge of Biblical
criticism, and a capacity to apply what knowledge of that description
which he possessed, which was very astonishing. On the same occasion
he brought forth stores of ecclesiastical history, which proved that,
although his studies had been confined to a particular school on
that subject, his reading within the limits of that school were very
extensive, and his memory altogether extraordinary. He had the faculty
of attaching men strongly to him, not only as a party-leader, but as a
man and a friend. Many thought him jealous of the fame of other orators
of his time; but there is no just ground for this. No man approached him
in reputation except Richard Lalor Shiel. O’Connell did not betray
in public any jealousy of this great oratorical rival; but he often
indicated, where he did not profess it, a distrust of his good faith—
and the suspicions of the leader were not ill founded: Shiel was never
in earnest in his arguments for the separation of the Irish from the
English parliament, but preferred the policy of infusing Roman Catholic
influence: he also preferred a high imperial position to that of a
provincial demagogue. This, in the opinion of the Irish popular party,
was treason to Ireland; and no doubt O’Connell sympathised with that
feeling, and suspected that the man second only in power to himself
was neither so ardent an Irishman or Roman Catholic as his countrymen
desired him to be. This feeling on O’Connell’s part will account for
many acts towards Shiel which were set down to personal jealousy. Dr.
Michelsen is very unjust to O’Connell in the following critique upon his
character:—“His greatest fault was no doubt his egotism; he could not
endure a rival at his side, and would not have hesitated to annihilate
any one who did not follow him with implicit obedience.” O’Connell would
have hailed with delight any accession of eloquence or personal power
to Conciliation Hall; but a particular policy had been arranged between
O’Connell and the priests—they intrusted their cause to him, and when
men started up and questioned, or attempted to modify this policy,
O’Connell regarded it as rebellion, not merely against his leadership,
but his party, and the church itself; hence, it was necessary for him to
put down the disturber; and he was backed by clergy and people in doing
so, which would not have been the case had not the understanding between
him and the Roman Catholic hierarchy of Ireland been complete. Dr.
Michelsen again says:—“It is a mistake to suppose that O’Connell
entertained an irreconcilable hatred to England; he had never ceased to
regard her as his second fatherland, as the land of his glory, of his
intellectual activity. His partiality for England was only surpassed by
his excessive love for his native home, and many apparent contradictions
in his life can only be reconciled by this double sympathy in his
character.”*

     * “England since the Accession of Queen Victoria,” by Edward
     H. Michellen, Ph.D.

It is obvious that the writer of this paragraph has neither studied
O’Connell, his country, or the party which he led. One of the grand
causes of O’Connell’s failure in many things was his rancorous hatred
to England. Thomas Gaspey, Esq., in his “History of England,” views this
matter correctly in writing of O’Connell’s death, and the feeling in
England concerning him:—“In England his departure was regarded with
indifference. The hostility and scorn he frequently expressed for the
Saxons, and his disparaging remarks on English women, had precluded him
from gaining any of the popularity he had enjoyed in Ireland.”

The hatred of O’Connell to England was threefold—that of race, of
nation, and of creed. He regarded England as the chief abettor of heresy
in the world, and therefore would have rejoiced over her downfall;
this was the common feeling of his party. So far as his animosity was
connected with race and nationality, it was not unprovoked. The English
people cherished deep prejudices against Ireland and the whole Celtic
race; and the English newspapers frequently discussed the universal
claims of the Anglo-Saxon to dominancy, and every social and national
virtue, thereby creating a feeling of resentment in all countries where
these articles were reprinted. The chief invidiousness, however, was
to the Celt, and among Celts to the Irishman. This circumstance made
repealers of numbers of Irishmen who were neither Celtic in race nor
Roman in creed.




MR. JOHN O’CONNELL ASSUMES THE PRESIDENCY OF THE REPEAL
ASSOCIATION—INFLUENCE OF THE REPEAL AGITATION UPON THE GENERAL
ELECTIONS IN IRELAND.

The death of Mr. O’Connell, it was generally supposed in England, would
allow agitation in Ireland to die of itself. Others supposed that it
would now assume a worse form, in consequence of the absence of those
restraints which the superior sagacity of the arch agitator laid upon
the more fiery and imprudent ringleaders. The latter opinion was the
correct one, and the people of England were astonished to find that Mr.
O’Connell’s son John not only became the chairman at Conciliation Hall,
but the recognised leader of the agitation. The priests gave him their
confidence, and, at first, the people very generally; but he was not
possessed of those qualities which enabled him to hold the reins of
power. As Richard Cromwell to the deceased Oliver, so John O’Connell
exhibited a contrast to his father, which soon caused the people to fall
off from his leadership: his name, and the influence of the priests,
were the means of retaining it for him for a time. After the death
of his father, the temporary inheritor of his position indicated
much energy and activity, although, even in this respect, none of the
agitators approached their late chief: O’Connell’s powers of physical
endurance and toil had been prodigious.

A general election, the policy of which will be noticed on another
page, called out the leadership of John O’Connell, and the action of the
committee at Conciliation Hall, in a manner to test whether the people
were disposed to follow them. The general impression in England was,
that the popular fervour had ebbed, and that the repeal members would
not generally be returned: the English press made confident predictions
to that effect. John O’Connell and the clique at Conciliation Hall
accepted the ordeal, and were backed by priests and people in their
policy. An extraordinary meeting was convened, and an address to the
electors of Ireland resolved upon. It was a document which ought to
be retained upon the page of history, for it discloses the spirit and
temper of the repeal party, and of the Roman Catholic electors who
responded practically to such an appeal. The repealers, as has been
already shown, were not confined to Roman Catholics, nor were all
that communion repealers; but, on the whole, the religious division of
Protestant and Romanist defined the boundary between anti-repealers and
repealers.

The following is copied from _Saunders’ News Letter_ of the 12th of
June:—

_Address of the Loyal National Repeal Association to the Electors of
Ireland._

“‘God prosper the cause!—oh! it cannot but thrive, While the pulse of
one patriot heart is alive. How sainted by sorrow its martyrs have died!
Far, far, from the footprint of coward or slave, The young spirit of
freedom shall shelter their grave!’

“On you—fellow-countrymen—electors—at this moment devolves the good
and holy task of protecting the graves of the sorrow-sainted martyrs of
Ireland from the polluting tread of coward or of slave. None such will
be found amongst you—none such will dare to show themselves if you be
true.

“In this year of death, our country still survives! Weeping, fainting,
bleeding, yet she lives; and lives to claim, aye, and to have—the
services of her true children.

“Yes! although from him whose life’s devotion to Ireland was repaid by
her confidence and her love, and from those without whose potent aid his
labours had been vain—the beloved clergy of the people—down throughout
all ranks and orders of the national organisation, Death has been busy,
still enough remain of devoted, determined, patriot hearts, to carry out
the good work he began, and to make it, with the blessing of a merciful
God, speedily triumphant!

“Rally, then—rally, electors of Ireland—your country calls! Your dead
brethren, even from their graves, invoke you. Drive from your hustings
the men who shall have dared to think you cowards—who shall dare to ask
you to continue slaves! And there are those who will so dare;—mark
you not the exulting tone of Whig and Tory, and every other class of
panderers to English passions and prejudices:—‘Repeal,’ they say, ‘is
gone!’ ‘Ireland is at last subdued—she begs for bread, and is fearful
to demand her rights lest we withhold our alms!’ It is false; how foully
false you know, and at the elections you will prove. Deep as is the
baseness of those who build their party hopes upon a nation’s
misery, deeper still would be our baseness if ever, even amid all the
heart-crushing calamities of the time, we shrunk in aught from our high
purposes, and from our vows for Ireland’s regeneration.

“Nay, if but the hope of relief from our present distress were to
animate us, even so should we cry out for that home parliament which
alone can bring back wealth and abundance to the land—alone can guard
her from recurring season after season of want, of pestilence, of death!

“Be ready then in time, fellow-countrymen, the elections are at hand;
give us repealers—true and trusty repealers—men pledged to the safe,
peaceful, constitutional principles you have been taught by him whom
you followed so devotedly, and whom you mourn so affectionately and
sincerely!

“On you—on each one and all of you together, and on none but you, the
task now lies of helping Ireland at this fearful crisis of her fortunes.
Yours, and yours alone, will be the glories of success, or the shame
of not having sought it. Your distress has left the Repeal Association
without funds to aid your contest, and we can do no more than to exhort
and to advise. Let not the wily enemies of your freedom delude you. The
duty is upon you; the means are in your hands, not in ours; if the
duty be not done, poor Ireland will suffer the disastrous and ruinous
consequences; but the blame of them, and the shame, will be upon you.
Fellow-countrymen, this must not be—nay, this will not be. We answer
for you. Unaided, undirected, as you are, you will bestir yourselves—on
yourselves will depend, and you will achieve the victory. Meet in your
committees; encourage the timid, cheer up the desponding; turn away
with contempt from the whig or tory dependent, who would counsel you to
dishonour, and vote for none but a staunch repealer—for one who will
maintain the peace principles of the association, and aid it to work out
and re-establish the inalienable and imperishable right of Ireland to
legislate for herself.

“Had our own parliament ruled us, the landlords would not have had their
tyrannies sanctioned and increased in license till the suffering people
were reduced down to the lumper potato for a wretched, and, alas! a
fatally precarious subsistence. Our manufactures would yet exist, giving
comfort to our skilful artizans, and offering refuge to the peasant,
unable to obtain a maintenance upon the land. In every village
neighbourhood, the money raised by the hard toil of the labourer would
be finding its way back, and briskly circulating there, by reason of
the thousand sources of employment that would arise around the restored
residence of the large proprietor. Irish money would thus stay at home
to create and increase Irish wealth, and to support Irish poverty; and
the grudging doles of an alien parliament would never more be needed in
the land.

“Fellow-countrymen, for such results the association has been
struggling—for such objects you are now called upon to work. By all
that this wretched land has yet endured from English misrule,—by the
accumulated and aggravated suffering of the last disastrous forty-seven
years, with their fell climax in this year of death,—by the myriads
of fresh graves, the fearful husbandry of death, that are ridging your
fields and even your humble homesteads,—by the holy and most adorable
name of the Deity, who chasteneth whom He loveth,—we entreat, we
implore, we exhort, we adjure you to stand true to Ireland at these
elections; to spurn Whig and Tory, and to prove yourselves worthy of
your rights by returning none but those who will unflinchingly assert
them;—and foremost amongst those rights, before all and above all, the
right to make your own laws in your own parliament at home.”

The elections issued in a triumph for which the Repeal Committee itself
was hardly prepared. There was a great increase in “repeal members.”
 This arose from a variety of causes. The Conservatives had lost heart
in connection with the expenses which the famine had imposed upon
their estates. The people universally attributed their distress to the
government, and to their connection with heretic England. The priests
made great exertions throughout the country. Fearful scenes of violence
took place, “the moral-force repealers,” lay and clerical, inciting
the people to these outrages by the most inflammatory appeals to their
fanaticism, and by examples which were calculated to encourage them.
The most awful denunciations were heaped upon the heads of “all bad
Catholics who should vote against their religion and country.” These
denunciations came from sacerdotal lips, and from the altar as well as
the pulpit. The popular press rivalled the priests in anathemas against
all who were not willing “to vote for Ireland against the Saxon.” Public
placards might be seen in town and country, headed, like the address
of the Repeal Committee to the electors, with inflammatory poetry: a
favourite couplet on these occasions was—

     “On our side is virtue and Erin,
     On theirs is the Saxon and guilt.”

The context of these lines was judiciously omitted from the placards,
but not from the speeches of the electioneering agents and orators—

     “Then onward—our green banner rearing—
     Go, flesh every sword to the hilt.”

If this injunction was not obeyed to the letter, it was nearly so, and
at all events it was carried out in spirit.

Of green banners there was abundance, and if the sword gave place to
the brickbat and the bludgeon, the consequences were pretty much the
same—“Green Erin” gained a great victory over Erin of the Orange
preferences, and over the Saxon in general. The spirit in which this
result was received at Conciliation Hall, and its effect upon the hopes
and aspirations of the people, may be gathered most readily from the
address of the General Election Committee of the Repealers to the people
of Ireland, when the elections had closed.

“_Fellow-countrymen_,—Even in this hour of triumph—even now, when
you have so nobly vindicated at the elections the glorious cause of
repeal—our congratulations must, in sad accordance with the unvarying
fate of Ireland ever since Englishmen have controlled her fortunes,
be mingled with considerations of mournfulness and peril! It is not
merely—and, alas! that such a calamity should have to be treated as of
secondary magnitude—it is not merely that the niggard state charity of
England is now at once to cease and be entirely withdrawn, but we have
to contemplate a still more fearful and far wider-spreading misery at
the end of autumn and in the early winter.

“All-bounteous Heaven has blessed our fields with abundance; but
Ireland’s poverty—the unholy doing of man—must cause the produce of
her harvest to be exported away from her starving people, and sold
at the rich markets of England, to meet the enormous rents of cruel
absentees. Five millions of your money go annually to those absentees;
and so many have lately fled from the sight of the calamities their
carelessness for their country had allowed England to inflict, that more
than an additional million must be drained away this year!

“What is there to save our people? The potato has not been sown in
one-third of the extent of former years. The substitute crops, though
promising, will be fearfully short of the deficiency caused by the loss
of the potato; and those crops would be taken from us by the high prices
in England, even if we had not to send them there to get money for
the absentees. Food gone, and money gone, what is to become of us?
The stinted relief that England gave us is out. The means voted with
grudging and insult are expended and gone. Her representatives are
pledged to give us no more, and not only to refuse if the government
should propose a further advance, but to call upon the minister to
insist strictly and speedily on repayment of that which has been given.
We therefore have no hope of money from England! Have we then any money
at home? Alas! it is but as the dribblings of the mountain stream when
the winter floods have passed, and the summer heats are exhausting and
absorbing its waters; and had we tenfold what little remains, how are
the rates to be paid, when, according to even the starvation scale of
the government soup-kitchens, the cost of maintaining our poor will
exceed by nearly double the whole rated value of the property in
Ireland! No Whig nor Tory can tell us of the means of meeting the coming
disaster. The members of the ministry have not touched upon it at any
of their elections. The press of England is mute, save when it gives
utterance to calumnies and insults. Ireland is not in the thoughts
of any of our English fellow-subjects. Their own interests, their own
monetary perils, their own necessities, absorb their whole attention.

“Should we not then take counsel from ourselves? Should not our
newly-elected members agree to come together here in Dublin, and consult
for the safety of the country, and decide upon the matters they will
urge upon the reluctant ear of the English parliament? Should they
not meet, if only to concert how best to recall the absentees to their
long-neglected duties at home; how best to compel all the monies of the
country to be spent at home; and thus to give a chance of saving
our unhappy people from being swept off the face of the earth by
widely-desolating famine, or the yet more desolating and dreadful agency
of a bloody, a bootless, a criminal, and all-destroying civil war?

“Again we shall address you, when the time is near that parliament is
to assemble, and ask of you to announce to your representatives your
opinions. We shall carefully make use of the intervening time to collect
and concentrate the expression of your sentiments respecting each
particular point of policy that should be pressed upon your members’
attention, as well as respecting the great leading principles of the
national movement. Thus shall the ‘Council of National Distress and
National Safety’ come to its labours with materials prepared and
suitably digested, and thus be enabled all the readier and speedier to
take, boldly and explicitly, its decisions and resolves, and maintain
them firmly, undauntedly, and perseveringly in the British House of
Commons. Thus shall the Irish members best show themselves to be worthy
of the high trust with which they have been honoured, and of the far
higher and prouder distinction of being again, and at no distant time,
deputed to represent their beloved country in her restored native
parliament.”

The representation that the relief England had given to the people was
stinted, was a vile calumny, showing the utter want of principle of
the party from which it emanated. The intimation that it was not the
intention of government to do more; that the “stinted relief” which
England gave was “out;” and that nothing but ruin remained, although
rich England was at hand to save, if she were only charitable and
just,—was well calculated to keep up disaffection in the public mind.

The success of the repealers at the elections might be supposed as
tending to quiet the country, as it afforded a constitutional medium
of expressing their views. But it had not that effect: the desire to
procure arms which showed itself in 1846 continued through 1847, and
notwithstanding the great distress so generally felt, the expenditure
of money upon aggressive weapons was in some parts of the country larger
than in the previous year.




BITTER DISPUTES BETWEEN “OLD IRELAND” AND “YOUNG IRELAND.”

The Young Irelanders were encouraged by the death of O’Connell to
believe that they could take the lead in public affairs among the Roman
Catholics, and they supposed that the Protestant population were more
likely to listen to arguments in favour of an effort to achieve national
independence, coming from them, than they were to hearken to the
old repeal arguments from the Old Irelanders. In this they were
disappointed; notwithstanding that several of the leaders were
Protestants, no considerable number of that persuasion followed the
new faction. The true tendency of that agitation was seen by the
Protestants, who rather prepared to resist both the Old Ireland and
Young Ireland parties, in the struggle which might be brought about by a
coalition of these parties. Such a coalition was the policy of the Young
Ireland party; but they made the doctrine of physical force a _sine
qua non_ in the creed of the coalesced parties; and the Old Irelanders,
still clinging to the policy of their deceased chief, refused the terms.
John O’Connell and his adherents were then made the objects of unsparing
ridicule by the _literati_ of the new party, and the lampoons and
caricatures of which the chairman and committee of Conciliation Hall
were the victims, told upon the people, and gradually insinuated a
contempt for the weak and vacillating policy, as it was described, by
which they were guided. The party of John O’Connell, as when under the
guidance of his father, was not slow to resort to physical violence,
whenever there was a chance of doing so with impunity, while they
continued to proclaim the sanctity and permanent obligation of the
O’Connell doctrine of moral force. The Young Irelanders endeavoured to
reunite Irishmen to lift the arm of a manly and brave revolt against
English connection. The Old Irelanders had no objection to kill
scripture-readers, break church windows, waylay Protestants, and
maltreat them at market or fair, and riotously disperse the assemblages
of Young Irelanders, while they preached passive resistance as alone
justifiable to the government. Of course the leaders of Old Ireland
denounced all breakers of the laws; but when outrages were committed,
especially on Young Irelanders or Protestants, they palliated them, or
denied them in the face of evidence which was conclusive. John O’Connell
found himself in a hurricane of political passion, which he could not
quell, and through which he had neither power nor skill to direct his
course. By the end of the year he found the reins of authority slipping
through his hands; Smith O’Brien and his compeers were rampant; and
Ireland, stained with blood, blackened with pestilence, exhausted by
famine, raged with impotent fury against the imperial government and
Great Britain: in all the folly of domestic faction, she was pitied and
scorned by Great Britain when she supposed herself feared. There were
no men amongst the leaders of the disaffected in Ireland to command the
respect of England, in that sense which a dominant nation respects the
power of a rival, or of an insurgent province. The wish became
very extensive in Great Britain that all Irish grievances should be
redressed, and that in every respect Ireland should be placed on a
footing with the other portions of the United Kingdom, if in any a sense
of injustice were experienced; but to the honest menaces of the Young
Irelanders, and the hypocritical reliance on moral persuasion of
Conciliation Hall, the people of Great Britain only gave their ear from
curiosity, perfectly regardless of any power which any faction or union
of factions might put forth. Great Britain awaited the outburst of
passion which was in Ireland so rapidly coming to a crisis,’ as unmoved
as the crag abides the eddies of the current which bubble and burst
against it.




GENERAL STATE OF AFFAIRS IN GREAT BRITAIN.

This year was one which, in many respects, tested the power and
resources of Great Britain. In her colonies she had conflicts to wage
of great magnitude. Ireland was smitten with famine and disease, and
turbulent. In the Highlands of Scotland the hardy peasantry suffered
from the scarcity of provisions caused by the failure of the potato and
other crops during 1846.

The commercial embarrassments of the year were felt from the beginning,
and continued, with more or less pressure, to the close. From the
operations of various causes, money was dear both on the European and
American continents. Early in January, so severely was this circumstance
felt in Paris, that the Bank of France applied to that of England for
aid, which was granted; but the consequence, of course, was a rapid rise
in the rate of interest in Great Britain and Ireland. This continued
until all speculative transactions were paralysed. The timely increase
in the price of accommodation by the Bank of England did much to
mitigate the evils of the crisis. These were produced by recent bad
harvests, and the failure of the potato crop. The great extent to which
railway transactions had been carried, and the consequent drainage of
capital; the wild speculations which began to prevail in France, and
were so marvellously developed in England, also conduced to the monetary
disturbance. Besides the operation of all these causes, there was an
uneasy feeling on the continent connected with political affairs, which
communicated itself to England, and made capitalists timid.

During the month of September panic pervaded the monetary and commercial
world. Failures in every branch of business in London and in the
provinces were numerous and disastrous. The following were among the
most extensive in London:—

                                              Liabilities.

     Sanderson and Co......................    £1,725,900

     J. and S. Woolley  .....................     90,500

     Reid, Irving, and Co...................    1,500,000

     Gower, Nephews........................       450,000

     Cockerell and Co......................       600,000

     Bensusan and Co......................         60,000

     Perkins, Schlusser, and Mullens......        150,000

     Luall, Brothers, and Co................      400,000

     Philips and Co.........................      150,000

     Prime, Ward, and Co...................       100,000

     Robinson and Co.........................      96,000

     Castellain.................................  100,000

     Giles and Co............................     160,000

Some of these persons, and many others who incurred like misfortune, had
been regarded as opulent merchants or bankers, and were men of position
and influence. Mr. Robinson was, at the time of his failure, a governor
of the Bank of England; Sir John Rae Reid had lately filled that
office. Mr. Gomer and Mr. Settle were bank directors at the time of
their stoppage.

The Bank of England not only raised its rate of interest to eight per
cent., but contracted the time of accommodation to thirty days. The
funds, always susceptible of the influence of an uneasy state of public
affairs, and of violent changes in the money market, were at this
juncture peculiarly so, falling as much as two per cent, in a single
day. Consols were as low as eighty-four. Railway shares suffered more
than any other kind of stock or scrip, becoming so depreciated in
the market as to be unsaleable. A great outcry was raised against the
monetary policy which had been initiated by Sir Robert Peel. “Peel’s
bill” was the subject of unmeasured denunciation by all who were
accustomed to obtain bank accommodation, but to whom that advantage
was no longer open. Early in October a deputation from the city bankers
waited upon the government for the purpose of inducing some relaxation
upon the stringency of Sir Robert Peel’s bill. The deputation consisted
of most influential men—such as Mr. Masterman, Mr. Abel Smith, Mr.
Glynn, Mr. Bevan, Mr. Barnett. The chancellor of the exchequer addressed
the deputation in terms which led them to expect that the object for
which they were deputed would be accomplished. Their expectations
were not disappointed, for the following letter was addressed to the
governors of the Bank:—

“Her majesty’s government have seen with the deepest regret the pressure
which has existed for some weeks upon the commercial interests of the
country, and that this pressure has been aggravated by a want of that
confidence which is necessary for carrying on the ordinary dealings of
trade. They have been in hopes that the check given to transactions of a
speculative character, the transfer of capital from other countries,
the influx of bullion, and the feeling which a knowledge of these
circumstances might have been expected to produce, would have removed
the prevailing distrust. They were encouraged in this expectation by
the speedy cessation of a similar state of feeling in the month of April
last. These hopes, however, have been disappointed, and her majesty’s
government have come to the conclusion that the time has arrived when
they ought to attempt, by some extraordinary and temporary measure, to
restore confidence to the mercantile and manufacturing community. For
this purpose, they recommend to the directors of the Bank of England,
in the present emergency, to enlarge the amount of their discounts
and advances upon approved security; but that, in order to retain this
operation within reasonable limits, a high rate of interest should be
charged. In present circumstances they would suggest that the rate of
interest should not be less than eight per cent. If this course should
lead to any infringement of the existing law, her majesty’s government
will be prepared to propose to parliament, on its meeting, a bill of
indemnity. They will rely upon the discretion of the directors to reduce
as soon as possible the amount of their notes, if any extraordinary
issues should take place within the limits pi escribed by law. Her
majesty’s government are of opinion that any extra profit derived from
this measure should be carried to the account of the public, but
the precise mode of doing so must be left to future arrangement. Her
majesty’s government are not insensible to the evil of any departure
from the law which has placed the currency of this country upon a sound
basis; but they feel confident that, in the present circumstances, the
measure which they have proposed may be safely adopted; and that, at
the same time, the main provision of that law and the vital principle
of preserving the convertibility of the bank-note may be firmly
maintained.”

The Bank directors passed resolutions consequent upon this letter, which
were of great importance to the trading community. These resolutions
were conveyed to the government by a letter from the governor and
deputy governor of the Bank:—

_Bank Resolutions_.

“Resolved,—That this Court do accede to the recommendation contained in
the letter from the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, dated this day, and addressed to the Governor and
Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, which has been read;

“That the minimum rate of discount on bills not having more than 95 days
to run be 8 per cent;

“That advances be made on Bills of Exchange, Stock, Exchequer Bills,
and other approved securities, in sums of not less than £2000, and for
periods to be fixed by the Governors, at the rate of 8 per cent, per
annum.”

The immediate effects of this measure can be most briefly shown by the
following reference made a few days afterwards by an authority in such
matters:—“As soon as the correspondence between the Bank of England
and the Government was made public, a rise of nearly two and a half per
cent, immediately ensued. Consols on Saturday left off at 80 ¾ to ⅞,
and on Monday 83 ½ ⅝. Several fluctuations, however, occurred in the
course of the day; and a fall of one per cent, on the announcement by
the Bank broker of the truth of the correspondence alluded to above,
excited much surprise. On Tuesday, the market was very unsettled,
operations being nearly confined to Consols. The opening quotation was
83 ⅝, and the highest quotation 84 ⅜, with numerous fluctuations.
A tendency to reaction was visible on Wednesday; the first price was 83
¼ for money, which declined to 82 ⅜, but afterwards rallied to 82
½¾, at which price they closed. On Thursday, there was scarcely any
fluctuation until towards the close of business. The news of a banking
failure in the West of England caused a fall of nearly ½ per cent.;
and, at closing, 82 ¼ for Money, to 82 ⅜ to ½ for Time, were the
current quotations. Exchequer Bills have considerably fluctuated during
the week; about 20s. dis. for large bills is the closing quotation. Bank
Stock has rather improved, but India Bonds continue very much depressed,
quoting about 30s. dis.”

The prevailing feeling among political economists was unfavourable
to the measure; and there were many effects attending upon it which
vindicated their judgment. In the provinces banks gave way, and
mercantile houses of eminence were closed; a general apprehension among
the more skilful financiers was entertained that no _ultimate_ benefit,
but considerable ultimate injury, would ensue. The judgment of this
class of persons may be best combed in the following review of the
event:—“On this resolve being generally circulated, nothing could
exceed the agitation that prevailed. Everywhere it became the engrossing
subject of conversation; and, while many who were favourable to
the ‘expansion’ objected to the high rate of interest, others, more
experienced, remembering 1825 and 1836, with all the train of evils that
resulted upon the withdrawal of the notes then issued, loudly expressed
their disapprobation of this invasion of the most valuable clause in
the Bank charter bill. Its mere relaxation, it was observed, robs the
measure, at once and for ever, of the powerful check to over-trading
that a knowledge that, under no circumstances whatever, a relaxation
would be resorted to, was calculated to produce. The immediate effect in
Liverpool has been to raise the value of cotton one per cent. This is
a direct hindrance to manufacturing, and Manchester, Leeds, &c,
consequently suffer. It is remarked at Liverpool that eight per cent.,
although high, is nothing in comparison with being obliged to sell.
It follows, therefore, that, when sold, all the charges incident
to withholding must be paid by the purchaser, and ultimately by the
consumer. From Manchester, advices have been received of the failure
of Messrs. Fairbridge and Mr. Robert Gardner (the latter is greatly
regretted); from Leeds, of a firm it would be premature to mention. In
the meantime, money in London is rather dearer than cheaper. Discount
houses, and the joint-stock banks, are taking money repayable at short
dates at six percent., five having hitherto been the current rate.
Good bills will not be done under eight per cent., and second-rate at
scarcely any price. The Directors of the Bank of England at present have
not been subject to any great demands since Monday; the difficulty of
offering good security being at once an obstacle to firms partially
insolvent. At present, it is almost premature to judge, but doubts are
entertained whether the benefits resulting, even for the present, from
the ‘relaxation,’ will at all balance the baleful effects anticipated.”

The government did not expect that such opinions would be entertained by
so large and influential a portion of the public, and were desirous to
retrace their steps as soon as they could do so with a good grace,
for before a month had passed measures were taken to that effect. The
following letter was addressed by the cabinet to the governors of the
Bank:—

“Her majesty’s government have watched with the deepest interest the
gradual revival of confidence in the commercial classes of the country.
They have the satisfaction of believing that the course adopted by the
Bank of England on their recommendation, has contributed to produce this
result, whilst it has led to no infringement of the law. It appears,
from the accounts which you have transmitted to us, that the reserve of
the Bank of England has been for some time steadily increasing, and now
amounts to £5,000,000. This increase has in great measure arisen from
the return of notes and coin from the country. The bullion exceeds
£10,000,000, and the state of the exchange promises a further influx
of the precious metals. The knowledge of these facts by the public is
calculated to inspire still further confidence. In these circumstances
it appears to her majesty’s government that the purpose which they had
in view in the letter which we addressed to you on the 25th October has
been fully answered, and that it is unnecessary to continue that letter
any longer in force.”

The harvest of 1847 was such as to restore confidence in some degree,
and from that and other causes, especially the cessation of all
speculative undertakings, money became easier. The government, however,
claimed credit for their plan, which, in the opinion of so many
qualified to judge, did more harm in some directions than it did good in
others. If the number and magnitude of the different commercial failures
were to be taken into account, there appeared as much necessity for the
government measure when it was withdrawn, as when, twenty-eight days
before, it was introduced. The following were announced to the end of
November:—


     IN  GLASGOW.                                Liabilities.

     Campbell of May.........................     £600,000

     A. and J. Bournie......................      200,000


     IN  LIVERPOOL.

     Ashburner  ............................      30,000

     Napier of Camlachie.....................      40,000


     IN  NEWCASTLE.

     Carrand Co..............................      70,000


     IN  MANCHESTER.

     David Ainsworth   .....................      30,000


     IN  BLACKBURN.

     Roget and Co.............................     76,000


     IN  LONDON.

     Freemanand Cook..........................    350,000

     Sargeant, Garden, and Co.................    150,000

     Thurbonand Co............................    120,000

     Coates and Co............................    100,000

     Leaf, Barnet, and Co.....................    100,000

     Farmer and Ward.........................      55,000

     Ryder, Wimbolt, and Co..................      50,000

     Pemberton and Co........................      30,000

     Abbot and Co............................      30,000


Besides the great number of mercantile firms which failed, several banks
were reduced to the same necessity: the West India, the Shrewsbury,
Market Drayton, and the Honiton, were among the principal. Many foreign
mercantile establishments which had connections with British houses also
stopped payment, adding to the distress and alarm.

During the ensuing month large imports of bullion arrived from the
continent and America, and the aspect of affairs became more hopeful.

Throughout the year the English populace experienced much distress, and
bore it with patience; still there were food riots and disturbances of
various sorts, which had to be put down by the strong arm of the law.

Notwithstanding the gloomy condition of all monetary and mercantile
transactions, there were men of enterprise, who contemplated future
undertakings of great magnitude. Among these projects was one proposing
the formation of a ship canal across the Isthmus of Suez, which,
however, was not carried into effect. The French government and people
were very desirous to have such a work accomplished; but English
politicians regarded it with jealousy, especially Lord Palmerston, then
the highest authority in England on foreign affairs. By him the
measure was regarded as impracticable, at all events, as a pecuniary
speculation; and in its political tendency, likely to separate Egypt
from Turkey, and to give France, as a great Mediterranean power,
an undue preponderance. He also regarded it as endangering, and not
remotely, English empire in India. At all events, Mr. Stephenson, the
great English engineer, investigated the subject, and surveyed the line
through which certain French speculators proposed that the canal should
be cut. As the subject is technical, Mr. Stephenson’s views are given in
his own words, used ten years afterwards:—

“In 1847, in conjunction with a French and Austrian engineer,
he investigated the matter, feeling how important would be the
establishment, if possible, of a communication between the Red Sea and
Mediterranean. The levels given by a French engineer, who visited Egypt
in 1801, during the French invasion, indicated a difference between the
Red Sea and the Mediterranean of something like thirty-two feet. It was
suggested that if the old canal of Ptolemy were opened again, a current
might be established between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, which
would not impede steam navigation, and would at the same time scour
the canal and enable a perfect channel to be maintained. However, after
investigation, he and the other engineers found that, instead of there
being thirty-two feet difference of level between the Red Sea and the
Mediterranean, there was no difference at all, though the notion of that
difference of level had been entertained for upwards of fifty years.
While that notion existed it was believed by professional men that a
canal, or a new Bosphorus, as it was called, might be maintained between
the Red Sea and the Mediterranean; but the difference of level being
found to be _nil_, the engineers with whom he was associated abandoned
the project altogether, and he believed justly. Since that time he
had walked over the district, at some considerable inconvenience, and
investigated the feasibility of opening a canal between the two seas,
assuming them to be on a level, and supposing the canal to be supplied
with water from the higher level of the Nile, but he had come to the
conclusion that the thing was, he would say, absurd, were it not that
other engineers, whose opinion he respected, had been to the spot since
and declared it to be practicable. He coincided in opinion with the
first lord of the Treasury. Money, it was true, would overcome any
difficulty, but, commercially speaking, he must frankly declare that
he believed this scheme to be unfeasible. Whatever its political import
might be, he believed it to be an undesirable scheme, speaking as an
engineer. In his opinion, the railway now nearly completed would be more
effective, as far as India and postal arrangements were concerned, than
this new Bosphorus between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean.”




POLITICAL AGITATION IN ENGLAND.

The commercial distress gave an opportunity for certain political
charlatans to stir up the minds of the people. The Chartists, headed
by Fergus O’Connor, took advantage of the privations of the populace by
appealing to their passions and their sufferings, representing them as
the dupes of the upper and middle classes, especially the latter, who
were described as enriching themselves at the expense of the poor. The
“people’s charter” was declared to be the panacea; all social evils were
to vanish before the application of that political remedy. Some of the
political demands of the chartists were just; all classes of liberal
politicals felt that the people were entitled to a wider distribution of
the franchise, but many who thus felt were deterred from the concession
by the intemperate language and impracticable schemes of Fergus O’Connor
and the lesser leaders of the confederacy. Whatever might be supposed
imprudent as a measure of political agitation in a rich country,
and where the vast mass of the people had a strong aversion to all
constitutional, or as it was the fashion to name them, “organic
changes,” by sanguinary or violent means, was resorted to by Mr.
O’Connor and his coadjutors. He propounded principles of political
economy so absurd, that it was difficult to suppose he could have any
faith in his own theories,—holding out the hope of an ultimate division
of the land among the people: others propounded the doctrine of a law by
which every man should be provided with “a fair day’s wages for a fair
day’s work,” and the duty of supplying that “fair day’s work” for him
rested, it was alleged, with the government. These men, in fact, did
their utmost to bring about a social war, and the doctrines of communism
were actively propagated and eagerly received among large numbers of
the operatives in the metropolis and the north of England, and among the
labourers elsewhere. There was, probably, no important town in England
that had not its chartist association, which looked forward to a violent
political revolution by which high wages could be procured by little
labour. The Chartists, like the Irish repealers, were divided into
sections, characterised respectively by their profession of physical
force or moral force. The moral force Chartists were like the Old
Irelanders, not generally very sincere in their belief of its efficacy.
They professed it merely as a cover to conceal what they meditated; they
were as much physical-force men as those who were so designated, but
did not deem it politic to make the avowal.

After the dissolution of parliament (which will be recorded in its
details upon another page), Mr. O’Connor succeeded in gaining his
election. This circumstance filled his followers with revived hopes, and
the agitation became more enthusiastic and demonstrative. Large public
meetings were convened, which were conducted with order, and dispersed
peaceably, although the speeches on these occasions were very
inflammatory. The government regarded these “monster meetings” with
uneasiness, and they were closely watched. The loyalty of the middle and
of large sections of the poorer classes, however, gave the government
a sense of security, notwithstanding the menacing attitude of the
Chartists; and this loyal feeling was extended as the peaceably disposed
became alarmed by the seditious and unprincipled harangues which the
chartist orators addressed to such large assemblages. Many of the most
active Chartists were socialists, and used the confederacy as a means
of propagating their atrocious doctrines. As a specimen of the tone
and method which characterised the chartist gatherings where order was
maintained, the following account of one which took place after the
elections will suffice:—“A meeting of Chartists, to the number of
nearly ten thousand, took place at Newton Common, on Sunday. The
object was to address the operatives in the manufacturing districts of
Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Bolton, Buy, Preston, Liverpool, Wigan,
&c., on the land and labour questions. Shortly after one o’clock, Mr.
Fergus O’Connor, M.P., accompanied by Mr. W. H. Roberts, the miners’
attorney-general, appeared in the crowd, on their way to the platform.
Both these gentlemen were received amidst the loudest demonstrations of
applause. Mr. Roberts having been duly proposed and seconded, assumed
the office of chairman. He addressed the meeting at much length, on the
progress and prospects of Chartism, and encouraged the vast multitude
then before him to take courage from the past, and work with
determination and zeal for effecting the great cause of the people’s
charter. A resolution, proposing that a committee, or a conference of
delegates, should go to London, to escort Mr. O’Connor into Parliament
on its opening, was agreed to. Mr. O’Connor then came forward and spoke
at great length. He reviewed the great progress of Chartism, abused
the Whigs, and browbeat the press. He next narrated the plans he had
adopted, and was adopting, for the benefit of all who became Chartists.
He anticipated great results from his scheme of labour palaces—denied
the propriety of being placed in the election returns as a feather in
the quill of Whiggery—was an earnest advocate for the amelioration of
Ireland, and still willing and determined to agitate for their cause.
He would go to parliament, and record his first motion for ‘The people’s
charter, and no surrender.’ The meeting was conducted in a very orderly
manner.”

As very considerable numbers of the working classes in Lancashire and
Yorkshire had been taught in Sunday-schools, and the Sabbath day was
much regarded in that part of the country, the collection of such a vast
concourse of persons from great distances, on a day so sacred, created
prejudices against the chartist confederacies even in their own
strongholds, which, irrespective of every other difficulty, ensured
their defeat. The agitation, however, did not come to a head during
the year of which we write, and it is unnecessary further to trace its
progress in this chapter.

This was not the only agitation which disturbed the equanimity of Great
Britain throughout the year. The Protectionists, led by Lord George
Bentinck, were active and acrimonious. Agricultural dinners and public
meetings gave opportunities for the most violent denunciations against
Sir Robert Peel, the government, and free trade. The manufacturers—the
creators of wealth, and who sustained so large a portion of the public
burdens—were represented as a selfish, callous set of men, eager only
to acquire riches, even at the expense of all other classes of the
community. They were described as disloyal and revolutionary, and bent
upon the destruction of throne and constitution. It would be difficult
to determine whether the orations at the protectionist groupings,
or those at the chartist gatherings were most characterised by class
invidiousness; nor could it be adjudged in which the less sound
views of political economy were enunciated. The eloquence greatly
preponderated on the side of the Chartists. Cotton was also quite as
patriotic as corn. The operatives declared that “the country” was ruined
by class legislation, and therefore desired that their own class should
thenceforward possess the legislative power. The landowners declared
that “the country” although not yet destroyed, was on the brink of
destruction, and must speedily perish amidst blood and bankruptcy,
unless the landed interest had again the power to make laws of which
the Reform Bill had deprived it, and unless agricultural produce was
“protected,” by legislatively enhancing its price for the benefit of the
producers. “A fair day’s wages for a fair day’s work,” and the state to
have the responsibility of securing it to the liking of those who
made the demand, was as much the principle of squires as of operative
cotton-spinners. Lord George Bentinck was a Fergus O’Connor for “the
country party,” and Fergus was the Lord George Bentinck of the labouring
town populations.

The public demonstrations of both these parties were often very
unfortunate, in consequence of mismanagement by those to whom the
getting up of these affairs were committed. These occurrences tended to
lower both Chartists and Protectionists in public estimation, as various
witty publications lampooned the prominent actors, and exposed them to
overwhelming ridicule. The most signal opportunity afforded to the wits
in this way was by the Chartists. On the 25th of October they announced
a great public dinner to be given in London to eighteen members of
parliament, whom they alleged had been returned to the House of
Commons by their influence, and to represent their opinions. When the
dinner-party assembled, not one of the eighteen honourable gentlemen
appeared, nor did it transpire that even one had given any acceptance of
the invitation! Fergus O’Connor was an exception from the application
of these remarks. He was there as a matter of course, and elaborately
puffed his absurd land scheme, by which so many were afterwards ruined.

The anti-slavery party were in many respects active, notwithstanding the
home incidents which occupied the public mind. It was necessary to
watch the conduct of government in reference to the recent enactment
concerning the sugar duties, and also their general policy in regard to
the sugar question, and the West India interest. The conduct of the
West India party was suspicious, and required the vigilance of the
anti-slavery men; and the coalition between that party and Lord George
Ben thick added another motive still for watchfulness. Many of the
anti-slavery people turned their attention to India, and were supported
by gentlemen of influence, military and mercantile, in efforts to rouse
public interest in the resources of India, and the adaptation of
these resources to English requirements, rendering the importation of
commodities produced by slave labour unnecessary. George Thompson, Esq.,
who had been returned for the Tower Hamlets, one of the largest and
most influential constituencies in the kingdom, a man of surpassing
eloquence, took a very active part in this movement. A correct
insight as to its object and spirit may be imparted to the reader by
a resolution passed at a great meeting of the inhabitants of the Tower
Hamlets on the 26th of October:—“After an eloquent address, expository
of the subject, G.Thompson, Esq., M.P., moved a resolution to the
general effect that it had been demonstrated that India had the capacity
of producing every tropical raw commodity required by England for the
constant and profitable employment of her population. That England,
although mistress of India, was rendered year by year more dependent
upon the United States for her supply of raw cotton and tobacco; both
being the produce of slave labour. That, consequently, the prosperity
of this country, and the stability of a large portion of the public
revenue, were made dependent upon the vicissitudes of the seasons,
upon the maintenance of peace between England and America, and upon
the continuance of internal peace among the Slave States. That such
dependence, besides perpetuating slavery, was to a great extent, the
source of existing calamities, and pregnant with future evils to the
interests of England. That the free agricultural population of British
India would become the natural customers of this country in the
exact measure that they would if permitted to become the producers
of commodities for the wants of England, but that they were rendered
incapable of competing with the United States, by reason of the burdens
imposed upon their soil and industry. Therefore, resolved—That it is
the duty of the people of England, for the sake alike of England, of
India, and of the enslaved throughout the world, to require of the
legislature the immediate removal of all imposts which depress the
agricultural energies of the native population; and the institution of
a strict and impartial inquiry, in India, into the condition of the
natives, and into the conduct and the acts arising out of the peculiar
government ruling over them, which affect their well-being, and retard
their prosperity. Mr. W. Howitt seconded the resolutions, which were
carried unanimously, and the meeting separated.”




THE COURT.

There were few incidents of interest connected with the court during
the year. In February Prince Albert was proposed to the University of
Cambridge as candidate for the chancellorship. He was opposed by Earl
Powis, and with such effect as to prove very mortifying to the court..
Prince Albert was elected by a majority of only one hundred and sixteen
votes, and it was obvious that but for the prodigious exertion of
government patronage, that result would not have been obtained. His
royal highness was installed publicly at Cambridge early in July. Her
majesty, having determined to accompany her husband on this occasion, a
vast concourse of persons repaired to Cambridge, and the government made
every effort to give _éclat_ to the event. The royal party travelled
by the Eastern Counties railway, and were received by the mayor and
corporation of Cambridge with much pomp. Repairing to the Hall of
Trinity, they were received by the dignitaries of the university.
There her majesty took her seat on a chair of state on a dais. The
new chancellor, accompanied by the Duke of Wellington (Chancellor
of Oxford), and other great personages, presented an address to her
majesty, congratulating her on her arrival. The prince, having read
the address, retired with the usual profound obeisances, which not only
amused the spectators, but afforded much diversion to her majesty, whose
mode of smiling indicated how much she enjoyed the burlesque of the
scene.

The following day, the Installation Ode was performed in the presence
of the new chancellor. Her majesty was present as a visitor. The ode was
composed by Wordsworth, the poet-laureate, and set to music by Professor
Walmisley. Flower-shows, public breakfasts, concerts, levees, grand
university dinners, entertained the numerous visitors of rank during the
stay of the royal party. Her majesty had seldom before been attended
by so august and splendid a retinue, consisting of Prince Waldemar of
Prussia, Prince Laurenstein, Prince Peter of Oldenburg, the Prince of
Saxe-Weimar, Lieutenant-General Sir Harry Smith (the hero of Aliwal),
the Bishop of Oxford, and nearly all the gentry of the eastern counties.
Cambridge had probably never witnessed such a festal occasion, and never
before did her majesty seem so much to enjoy herself. It was generally
observed that her fondness for the prince was carried to excess, and
that her enjoyment was mainly derived from the honour done to him. That
this amiable character, so much calculated to ensure her own domestic
happiness, and to set a good example to her people, belonged to her
majesty in a degree seldom evinced by royal personages, many proofs had
been given before, and many were given after, the visit to Cambridge.
A work entitled “The Journal of Thomas Baikes, Esq.,” professed to
make many singular revelations to that effect. Mr. Baikes, the son of
a wealthy London merchant, had somehow an early introduction to _haut
ton_, and continued, in London and Paris, to live in the society of men
of rank and fashion, a species of Beau Brummel. The Duke of Wellington
gave to Mr. Baikes the following incident, which took place at the
marriage of the Princess Augusta: “When we proceeded to the signatures,
the King of Hanover was very anxious to sign before Prince Albert, and
when the queen approached the latter, he placed himself by her side,
watching the opportunity. She knew very well what he was about; and just
as the archbishop was giving her the pen, she suddenly dodged round the
table, placed herself next the prince, then quickly took the pen from
the archbishop, signed, and gave it to Prince Albert, who also signed
next, before it could be prevented. The queen was also very anxious to
give the precedence at court to King Leopold before the King of Hanover,
and she consulted me about it, and how it should be arranged. I told her
majesty that I supposed it should be settled as we did at the Congress
of Vienna. ‘How was that,’ said she, ‘by first arrival?’—‘No, ma’am,’
said I, ‘alphabetically, and then, you know B comes before H.’ This
pleased her very much, and it was done.”

This was hardly fair to the Duke of Cumberland, and shows her majesty’s
strong attachment to the Cobourgs; but his grace of Cumberland and
majesty of Hanover never acted as an uncle to the queen, and would have
gladly made the Orange party available to mount her throne. The Duke
of Wellington knew all this; and as he regarded it to be one of his
especial missions to watch over her majesty, he willingly lent himself
to those little artifices which tended to place the King of Hanover in
an inferior position relative to that of Prince Albert, or of the King
of the Belgians.

The only other event connected with the court, except such as will
appear in the history of parliamentary transactions, was the visit to
Scotland in August. This visit was paid in compliance with the wishes
of the prince, who had on a previous occasion greatly enjoyed the
opportunities of sporting which Scotland afforded. On the 11th of
August, the queen, the prince, the Prince of Wales, the Princess Royal,
and suite left Osborne House in the _Victoria and Albert_ yacht, with
the _Fairy_ as tender, and escorted by a fleet of war-steamers. Her
majesty stayed one night at the Scilly Islands, then passed through the
Menai Straits, and steered for the Isle of Man. The fleet sailed close
to the island, but her majesty did not land. On Monday, the 16th, the
fleet anchored in Loch Ryan: their entrance to the mouth of the Clyde
was very picturesque, and was observed by great numbers, in yachts and
steamers, who had made excursions for the purpose. On the following
day her majesty landed at Dumbarton, and inspected the old castle. The
squadron anchored for the night under the castle of Rothsay, from which
place the Prince of Wales derives his Scottish ducal title. On the
Wednesday they proceeded up Loch Fyne; at Tarbut her majesty gazed with
long and deep interest upon the glorious scenery. The royal party landed
at Inverary, where the Duke of Argyll and the Campbells paid feudal
homage, the clansmen assembling in their national costume.

From Inverary the court proceeded to Staffa, where they examined the
cave. The prince also landed at Iona, where so many ancient kings and
heroes of Scotland found sepulture. On Friday morning they arrived off
Fort William, where, on Saturday morning, her majesty and suite left
the squadron and proceeded by land to her Scottish autumn residence. The
accounts of this expedition published in the journals of the day greatly
interested the British public. A periodical not remarkable for its
loyalty thus referred to the voyage:—“Never, certainly, were the
habitual life and disposition of a sovereign exhibited to a nation
in more favourable guise than those of Queen Victoria during her sea
voyages. The history of the cruise to Scotland is like those which have
preceded it. It displays the chief traveller in the most engaging light.
We see her, the ruler of a maritime people, recurring for her holiday
pleasures to the enjoyment of the sea; riding the waves with a fearless
familiarity that yet has in it nothing unfeminine. The sovereign is
pleased to gratify her people by going among them and reciprocating
courtesies. Less reserved than some other predecessors, Queen Victoria,
surrounded by her family, still seems attended by a thoroughly English
spirit of domesticity; the manner in which the children accompany their
parents, share the walks of their father on shore, and enter into the
whole spirit of the voyage, is simply a model of the national manners
according to their best type. And while her husband and the children are
‘stretching their legs’ on shore, the accomplished lady is seen with her
pencil, exercising her talents by sketching the scenery around.”

Her majesty’s progress after the landing was such as to give her the
happiest assurances of the loyalty and love of the Scottish people.
The following description of the latter part of her journey is
picturesque:—“The road to Ardverikie passes round the north end of Loch
Laggan, crossing the Padtock Water by an ingenious boat bridge. At this
point Macpherson, of Cluny Macpherson, with about thirty of his tenantry
in the costume of his clan; Duncan Davidson, of Tulloch, and a few
of his followers; Sir John Mackenzie, of Selvin, and others, were
assembled, the Highlandmen armed with broadsword and target. About
eighty, thus armed, lined one side of the road, and the same number,
unarmed, lined the other; while about five hundred persons of both
sexes, in holiday costume, posted themselves on the face of the hill.
The Marquis of Abercorn, in full Highland costume, and wearing the order
of the garter, with the Duchess of Bedford, was also present. Shortly
after eleven o’clock a signal was made from Ben Nead that the royal
party were approaching, and’ presently the royal carriages were seen
rounding a hill half a mile distant. Cluny then put himself at the head
of the Highlandmen, and behind him stood the standard-bearer, with the
venerable green silk flag of the Macphersons, which was ‘out’ in the
rebellions of 1715 and 1745. Cluny himself wore the shield which Prince
Charles Stewart carried at Culloden. The royal carriage drew up opposite
the bridge, the path to which, as well as the bridge, was carpeted.
Having greeted the marquis and Cluny, her majesty shook hands with the
Duchess of Bedford, and, with the prince, repeatedly acknowledged the
cheering of the people. Prince Leinengen was also in the royal carriage,
and shared the attentions of the people. Next to her majesty and her
royal consort, the Prince of Wales was the object of interest, as, led
by his royal father, and wrapped in a tartan cloak, he walked down to
the bridge. The royal party then entered a carriage in waiting on the
south shore, and drove slowly off to the lodge. The Duchess of Norfolk
and Lady Jocelyn followed; and in a third carriage came the Duke of
Norfolk, Earl Grey. General Wemyss, and Sir J. Clark, who were received
with demonstrations of respect. The last carriage having passed, an
anker of whiskey was brought forth, with cakes and cheese, to feast
both great and small. Cluny then proposed ‘Health and happiness to her
majesty,’ which was drank with nine cheers enthusiastically given; and
the crowd, after discussing some forty gallons of whiskey, dispersed.

“Her majesty was not accompanied by military, and in the evening all
the county police were dismissed, the force of seven London police being
considered more than sufficient for the protection of her majesty and
the royal party.”

Ardverikie, where her majesty sojourned during her visit to the north,
was formerly a hunting park of Fergus, King of Scotland. In front is
Loch Laggan, which is very extensive, being about eight miles in length,
although not so picturesque as most of the Highland lochs.

On the 17th of September, her majesty left her Highland residence, and
sailed from Fort William to the Isle of Man, where the prince
landed. Thence the royal party steered to Fleetwood, in Morecomb Bay,
Lancashire, whence they proceeded by rail to London.

The conjugal and parental love shown by her majesty, and, indeed, her
affectionate interest in all her royal relatives, endeared her to her
people, the more so because it was the general impression that the house
of Brunswick was deficient in these virtues. In proof of that absence of
family kindness which has in most instances characterised her majesty’s
royal predecessors, the following was extensively circulated in the
periodicals of the day, which, at the same time, held up the queen’s
loving spirit to public admiration:—“Ever since the accession of the
house of Guelph royalty has freed itself from one of the most universal
and honourable, though somewhat expensive duties of kindred, and this,
too, without observation, much less censure. The poorest of mankind mark
the grave of parents, wife, and children by some humble memorial; the
richer place tablets or raise tombs to their relatives. So gratifying
to the heart is this duty, that rarely, if ever, is it omitted from any
other cause than poverty. A foreigner visits the royal depository in
St. George’s Chapel, and asks where are the royal monuments? But no son,
daughter, brother, nephew, or niece of the present dynasty has erected a
funeral monument of any kind to the kindred dead. Even if affection did
not produce such a testimonial, it might have been expected from regard
to ancient custom, and from desire to conform to the habits of civilised
life. The only monuments to our kings and their descendants, with the
exception of the statue to George III. in Windsor Park, by George IV.,
and of the beautiful mausoleum which the King of Hanover is building
in memory of his consort, have been erected by the public; and in the
instance only of the Princess Charlotte’s monument, which was raised
by subscription, has one been placed in church or chapel. There is
absolutely nothing—not even an engraved slab—to tell where the ashes
of George I., II., III., and IV., and William IV., or of any one of
all their numerous progeny, repose. No doubt the world knows; and the
omission is only remarkable or important from its being at variance with
the custom of the country, from the injury which it has caused to art,
and from the idea which it creates of heartlessness in the survivors;
not one of whom has expended a shilling on what would appear to be the
most natural of social duties.”




HOME NAVAL AND MILITARY AFFAIRS.

The naval and military incidents of the year at home, which were of a
nature to record in history, were not numerous. The most important of
them was the organization of a coast defence, which was thus described
in a paper of the day, having a character for accurate naval and
military intelligence:—“The organization of the coast-guard for the
national defence, is the plan of the Earl of Auckland, first lord of the
Admiralty, under the approbation of the commissioners of customs. The
carrying out of the system is vested entirely in the hands of Captain
Houston Stewart, C.B., the controller-general of the coast-guard, in
whose hands a sum of money has been placed for the purpose. It will be
recollected that this gallant officer commanded the _Benbow_, 72, at the
siege of Acre. Commander Jerningham is an additional commander appointed
to the _Excellent_ gunnery-ship, and has been selected for the purpose
of carrying into operation the plans and arrangements of Captain
Stewart, and to superintend the system of instruction of the men at
great gun exercise, which is precisely the same as that laid down in the
‘Rules for exercise and service of great guns in her majesty’s ships.’
Wherever guns have been placed for the instruction of the coast-guard,
warranted gunners from the _Excellent_ have been appointed to instruct
the men, under the superintendence of Commander Jerningham, who was
gunnery-lieutenant of the _Wellesley_, in China. They receive four
shillings a day, in addition to their present pay, and the men who are
brought to the guns for instruction receive one shilling a day for six
days, during which time they are excused from all other duty. It is
proposed to instruct the coast-guard by means of ship platform
batteries of one gun each, constructed exactly similar to the ports of
a man-of-war, placed in a position in each district convenient for
the drill of fifty men, and in a situation in which it may be rendered
available for defence, as well as affording a range to sea for
practice.”

In after years this institution proved of great value. Lord Auckland’s
administration of the Admiralty will, on this account, be memorable,
although certainly on no other.

The return of Sir Harry Smith from India was hailed by the public, who
sought every opportunity of demonstrating their respect for a hero who
had so nobly sustained the military reputation of England. Theregiment
of lancers, upon which so much depended in Sir Harry’s separate command
connected with the events of Loodiana and Aliwal, had also returned
to England. The following exciting and singular scene occurred in the
autumn at Brighton. The address delivered by the general was remarkable
for the interesting incidents which it brought out, and its reference to
the opinion of the Duke of Wellington:—“On Friday afternoon, Sir Harry
Smith paid a visit of inspection to the 16th Lancers at Brighton. The
gallant general arrived by railway at two o’clock, and was met at the
terminus by Colonel M’Dowall who went out with the regiment in 1822 as a
lieutenant. He accompanied the general to the cavalry barracks,
situate a mile north-west of Brighton. Shortly after his arrival at the
barracks, Sir Harry and Colonel M’Dowall, went into the barrack yard,
where the regiment was drawn up for an undress parade. As soon as the
general made his appearance the band struck up, ‘See, the
conquering hero comes.’ The regiment was drawn up in squadrons by
Lieutenant-colonel Smithe, who so gallantly led it into the field at
Aliwal. Sir Harry inspected the troops, occasionally stooping as he
proceeded down the line, addressing some of the veterans, who bore upon
their breasts medals and stars, presented to them for their victories in
India. Sir Harry inspected them on foot; but afterwards mounted a
horse, and put the regiment through a variety of evolutions, which were
performed to his great satisfaction. This done, the regiment was drawn
up in close column. Sir Harry rode up to the front, and addressed the
troops as follows:—‘Soldiers of the 16th Lancers, I hope you are now
as happy as you made your enemies unhappy. You served in India with the
highest honour. Whenever you were called on, you were ready to obey your
officers, either in the field or in quarters. If I have not this day
addressed each separate individual whom I know, it is not because I do
not feel towards you all as I know you all feel towards me, but because
I do not keep you and your officers on the ground. I have served many
years, and commanded many soldiers; but never did I know a regiment of
dragoons or of infantry superior, either in the field or in quarters,
to my gallant comrades of the 16th Lancers. I think I now see you on the
morning of Aliwal, marching in that order which would have done honour
to a barrack parade—your hearts in the right place, your hands on your
lances, and doing what I believe was never before done—charging twice
through a dense mass of infantry. On the following morning I saw half of
you, I believe, with your heads bound up, looking in the field of battle
for your dead and wounded comrades. I saw you also, when the enemy had
taken your baggage, with a cheerful heart and ready hand, willing to
redeem what was considered to be a reverse, when I asked you to do it,
and to make the enemy and the world know that you were equal to all
trials. The Duke of Wellington has often talked to me about this
regiment of dragoons, who have frequently distinguished themselves under
his command, and also of the memorable morning of Aliwal. Soldiers of
the 16th, I have on this occasion more particularly addressed you. I beg
to address Colonel M’Dowall and the officers of the 16th Lancers: That
you are gentlemen we all know, and none know it more than the privates
of the regiment, and that they have a commander and officers who will
ask nothing of them which they will not obey. I regard the 16th Lancers
as the nucleus of another corps, which in future times will achieve
another Aliwal. I tell you again, what I told you at Lahore, where
Runjeet Singh asked if you were all gentlemen, and if her majesty had
many such regiments of gentlemen; on that morning I told you I loved
you. I repeat it, and the love of a comrade is known to none but to
soldiers. My dear fellows, I rejoice to be amongst you again.’ Sir Harry
then said (turning to Colonel M’Dowall)—’ Pray do not let them be kept
any longer.’ The troops then gave a loud huzza, and marched off the
ground with the band playing.”

On the 1st of June a general order was issued from the Horse-guards, to
the following effect:—“Her majesty having been graciously pleased to
command that a medal should be struck to record the services of her
fleets and armies during the wars, commencing 1793, and ending in 1814,
and that one should be conferred on every officer, non-commissioned
officer, and soldier of the army who was present in any battle or siege,
to commemorate which medals had been struck by command of her majesty’s
royal predecessors, and had been distributed to the general or
superior officers of the several armies and corps of troops engaged,
in conformity with the regulations of the service at that time in
force,—general and other officers, non-commissioned officers, and
soldiers, who consider that they have claims to receive this mark of
their sovereign’s respect, are each to apply to the secretary of the
board of general officers, Whitehall, London, and to send in writing a
statement of their claim, for what action, at what period of time, and
the names of the persons, and the titles of the documents by which their
claim can be proved.”

The occasions for which medals were granted, in pursuance of the general
order of which the above is an extract, were:—

     Maida, 4th July, 1806.

     Bolein, 17th August, 1808.

     Vimeira, 21st August, 1808.

     Sahagun Benevento, December and January, 1809.

     Corunna, 16th January, 1809.

     Martinique, February, 1809.

     Talaveia, 27th and 28th July, 1809.

     Guadaloupe, January and February, 1810.

     Busaco, 27th September, 1810.

     Barrosa, 5th March, 1811.

     Fuentes d’Onor, 5th May, 1811.

     Albuera, 10th May, 1811.

     Java, August and September, 1811.

     Ciuclad Rodrigo, January, 1812.

     Badajoz, 17th March and 10th April, 1812.

     Salamanca, 22nd July, 1812.

     Fort Detroit, America, August, 1812.

     Vittoria, 21st June, 1813.

     Chateauguay, America, 26th October, 1813.

     Nivelle, 10th November, 1813.

     Chrystler’s Farm, America, 11th November, 1813.

     Nive, 9th to 13th December, 1813.

     Orthes, 27th February, 1814.

     Toulouse, 10th April, 1814.

The Admiralty issued an order similar to that of the Horse-guards. Gold
medals to flag officers and captains were issued by the Admiralty for
the actions undermentioned:—

Lord Howe’s victory over the French fleet, 1st June, 1794.

Lord St. Vincent’s victory over the Spanish fleet, 14th February, 1797.

Lord Duncan’s victory over the Dutch fleet, 11th October, 1797.

Captain Sir Edward Hamilton. Surprise and recapture of the _Hermione_,
15th October, 1799.

Lord Nelson. Battle of Trafalgar, 21st October, 1805.

Sir R. Strachan. French squadron taken, 4th November, 1805.

Sir J. Duckworth. Action off St. Domingo, 6th February, 1806.

Captain Bresbane, of the _Arethusa_, and three other ships, take
Curaçoa.

Captain M. Seymour, of the _Thetis_, captured the _Amethyst_, 10th
November, 1808.

Captain Stewart, of the _Seahorse_, captured Turkish frigate, _Badere
Zaffer_, 6th July, 1809.

Captain Mounsey, of the _Bonne Citoyenne_, captured the _Furieuse_, 6th
July, 1809.

Captain C. Cole, of the _Caroline_, captured the _Banda Neira_, 9th
August, 1810.

Captain W. Hoste, with the _Antphion_ and three other ships, action off
Lissa, 13th March, 1811.

Captain Talbot, _Victorious_, captured Rivoli, 22nd February, 1812.

Captain Broke, of the _Shannon_, captured the _Chesapeake_, 1st June,
1813.

Captain E. Palmer, of the _Helvis_, captured _L’Etoile_, 27th March,
1814.

Captain E. Hope, of the _Endymion_, defeated the _President_, 25th
January, 1815.

The issue of these orders, and the grant of the medals, gave general
satisfaction; but severe animadversions were offered in the London
press against the want of public spirit, on the part of successive
governments, in allowing such actions so long to remain without the
honour thus tardily accorded. Many of the heroes who contributed to
this glorious list of victories by sea and land, had passed away, their
breasts unhonoured by the badge which they would have prized so much. It
was no new thing for England’s braves to be neglected by their country,
or rather, by those to whom the government of the country was so often
unworthily committed.




GENERAL HOME INCIDENTS.

The year was remarkable for many railway accidents, resulting from the
carelessness and mismanagement of the various companies, exciting public
indignation, and causing uneasiness generally, in respect to personal
safety in railway travelling. In the first six months of the year,
according to parliamentary returns, one hundred persons were killed, and
an equal number more or less injured.

In September an interesting event occurred in connection with the memory
of the great national poet. In pursuance of the will of the deceased
owner, the house at Stratford-upon-Avon, popularly known as the
birthplace of Shakspere, was sold by public auction. When the writer of
these lines visited the place, the house had nothing very remarkable in
its appearance. It was old, of course, but did not look so venerable
as might be expected. It was situated in the High Street of the obscure
little town. It had been originally a mansion, but, at the date of its
sale, part had been removed and the rest was let in small tenements. It
was “knocked down,” in auctioneers’ phraseology, for the price of £3000,
the purchasers being a committee appointed by an association formed for
the purpose of obtaining possession of the building. The house was given
to the government in trust to be preserved as a public memorial of the
great man who first saw the light beneath its roof. This proceeding was
very creditable to the national feeling, for though no certain proof
exists that Shakspere was born there, still, as it was in possession of
his father before, at, and after the birth of the great dramatist, there
is probable ground for believing that it was his birthplace. It had been
purchased from the descendants of the original possessor for £250, by
the gentleman under whose will it was put up to auction.

During the autumn and winter, numerous disasters occurred at sea,
especially on the east coasts of England and Scotland. By these wrecks
many lives and much property were lost.

Few events in England excited such general interest among all classes as
the arrival of Jenny Lind, the celebrated vocalist and actress. She made
her first appearance at the Italian Opera House on the 4th of May, and
was received with an enthusiasm never before lavished on any performer:
during her stay in England this enthusiasm never abated.

Under the head of “General Home Incidents,” seems hardly the most
suitable place to record the proceedings of the Hudson’s Bay Arctic
Expedition. Yet, as it did not belong to the foreign or colonial affairs
of the country, and as the expedition had been determined upon and
ordered at home, this may be the most appropriate place in which to
introduce it. From the nature of the transactions, it is necessary to
give the relation in the words of the authorised report:—

“In July, 1846, the Company dispatched an expedition of thirteen
persons, under the command of Doctor John Rae, from Fort Churchill, in
Hudson’s Bay, for the purpose of surveying the unexplored portion of the
Arctic coast, at the north-eastern point of the American continent. The
expedition, which has just returned, has traced the coast all along from
the Lord Mayor’s Bay, of Sir John Ross, to within a few miles of the
Straits of the Fury and Hecla, proving thereby the correctness of Sir
John Ross’s statement that Boothia Felix is a peninsula. From Doctor
Rae’s Report to the Company the following interesting details are
gathered:—Having divided his men into watches, the doctor started
from Churchill on the 5th of July, 1846, and reached the most southerly
opening of Wager River on the 22nd, where they were detained all day by
immense quantities of heavy ice driving in with the flood and out again
with the ebb tide, which ran at the rate of seven or eight miles an
hour, forcing up the ice and grinding it against the rocks, causing
a noise resembling thunder. On the 24th the party succeeded in making
Repulse Bay, and cast anchor within eight miles of the head of the bay
under shelter of a small island. Here Doctor Rae found some Esquimaux
Indians, with whom he quickly established friendly relations, and from
a chart drawn by one of the party he inferred that the Arctic Sea (named
Akhoolee) to the west of Melville Peninsula was not more than forty
miles distant, in a N.N.W. direction, and that about thirty-five miles
of the distance was occupied by deep lakes; so that they would have only
five miles of land to drag their boat over—a mode of proceeding he had
decided upon even had the distance been much greater, in preference
to going round by the Fury and Hecla Strait. Here he established a
wintering party, and having unloaded the boats, and placed one of them,
with the greater part of her cargo, in security, the other was hauled
three miles up a rapid and narrow river which flowed from one of the
lakes they were to pass through. This work occupied them the whole of
the 26th, as the current was very strong, and the channel so full of
large boulder stones, that the men were frequently up to the waist
in ice-cold water whilst lifting or launching the boat over these
impediments. Their landing-place was found to be in latitude 66° 32′ 1″
 north. The rate of the chronometer had become so irregular that it could
not be depended upon for finding the longitude, and during the winter it
stopped altogether.

“Proceeding according to the course he had adopted, the party and their
adventurous leader on the 3rd of August, at 11 o’clock a.m., rounded
a high bluff cape, which they called after the lady of Sir John Henry
Pelly, Bart., Governor of the Hudson’s Bay Company. It is situated in
latitude 67° 28′ 00″ north; longitude, by account, 87° 40′ west.

“Having succeeded, after surmounting many difficulties, in reaching
Melville Peninsula, he was ultimately obliged to retreat from the
numerous obstacles that rendered his progress impossible; he therefore
paid a short visit to the wintering party at Repulse Bay, to ascertain
how they were getting on. Ultimately he found himself obliged to give up
all hope of prosecuting the survey on that occasion. His reasons we give
in his own words:—’ My reasons for arriving at this conclusion I shall
here briefly mention, as such a step may seem somewhat premature. I saw,
from the state of the ice, and the prevalence of northerly winds, that
there was no likelihood of our completing the whole of the proposed
survey this season; and although part of the coast, either towards the
Strait of the Fury and Hecla or towards Dease and Simpson’s furthest,
might be traced, yet to accomplish even this might detain us so long,
that there would be no time to make the necessary preparations for
wintering, and we should thus be under the necessity of returning to
Churchill without accomplishing the object of the expedition; or, if we
remained at Repulse Bay, run the risk of starving, for I could obtain
no promise of supplies from the natives, and all the provisions that
we carried with us amounted to not more than four months’ expenditure,
which was all that our boats could carry. We should have thus to depend
almost altogether on our own exertions for the means of existence, both
in regard to food and fuel.’

“The party, therefore, commenced preparations for passing the winter,
and on the 2nd of September their house was furnished. Its internal
dimensions were 20 feet long by 14 feet broad; height in front, 7 ½
feet, sloping to 5 ½ at the back. The roof was formed of oil-cloths
and morse skin coverings, the masts and oars of our boats serving as
rafters. The door was made of parchment deer skins stretched over a
frame of wood. It was named Fort Hope, and was situated in latitude 66°
32′ 16″ north, longitude (by a number of sets of lunar distances) 86°
55′ 51″ west. The variation of the compass on the 30th August, 1846, was
62° 50′ 30″ west; dip of the needle, 88° 14′; and the mean time of 100
vertical vibrations in the line of declination 226.

“On the 5th of April in the present year, Doctor Rae commenced his
spring journeys in company with three men, the Esquimaux, Ibit-Chuck,
and Oulibuck’s son, as interpreter; and, on the 15th, which was very
stormy, with a temperature of 20° below zero, they arrived at the steep
mud banks of a bay, called by their guide Ak-ku-li-guwiak. Its surface
was marked with a number of high rocky islands, towards the highest of
which (six or seven miles distant) they directed their course, and
were, before sunset, comfortably housed under a snow roof. Early in the
morning of the 17th, he set out in company with two of the men, for the
purpose of following the coast to some point surveyed by Sir John Ross,
as he felt confident that the veteran discoverer was correct in his
opinion as to Boothia Felix being part of the American continent. They
directed their course to the furthest visible land, which bore N.W.
(true). Cape Berens (the point alluded to) is equated in latitude 69° 4′
12″ north, and longitude 90° 35′ west. It is formed entirely of granite
partially covered with moss. Thirteen miles beyond this they arrived at
two narrow points in the small bay, between which they built their snow
hut.

“As they were now near the latitude and longitude of Lord Mayor’s Bay of
Sir John Ross, he struck across land nearly in a north direction, and at
noon, when passing over a considerable lake, the latitude of 69° 26′
1″ north was observed. Advancing three miles beyond this, he reached
another lake. A walk of twenty minutes brought him to an inlet not more
than a quarter of a mile wide. This he traced to the westward for three
miles, when his course was again obstructed by land. Ascending some high
rocks, from which a good view could be obtained, he thought he could
distinguish rough ice in the desired direction. With renewed hopes, he
set out at a rapid pace, plunging among deep snow, scrambling over rocks
and through rough ice, until he gained some rising ground close to the
beach. From the spot where he now stood, as far as the eye could see
to the north-west, lay a large extent of ice-covered sea, studded with
innumerable islands. Lord Mayor’s Bay was before him, and the islands
were those named by Sir John Ross ‘The Sons of the Clergy of the Church
of Scotland.’

“The isthmus which connects the land to the northward with Boothia Felix
is only one mile broad, and, judging by the number of stone marks set up
on it, it appeared to him to be a favourite resort of the natives. Its
latitude is 69° 31′ north; longitude, by account, 91° 29′ 30″ west.

“After taking possession of his discoveries with the usual formalities,
the Doctor returned to his quarters on the island above-mentioned,
where, as they were all more or less affected with snow-blindness, and
the dogs were still weak, they remained on the island, which he found
to be situated in latitude 68° 53′ 44″ north; longitude, by account, 89°
56′ 00″ west. It is formed almost entirely of granite, and is upwards
of seven hundred and thirty feet above the level of the sea. From the
highest point of it, he obtained a fine view of the bay, and was thus
saved the trouble of tracing its shores. It extends sixteen or eighteen
miles to the southward, and contains a number of rocky islands, the
highest of them being that on which they encamped. The bay was named
Pelly Bay, after the governor of the company; and the group of islands,
Harrison Islands.

“The party, on their return, traced the shores of the tracts across
which they had made overland journeys when coming out. The country was
low, flat, and very regular in outline. They arrived at Repulse Bay on
the 5th of May, all safe and well, but as black as negroes, from the
combined effects of frost-bites and oil-smoke. The Doctor subsequently
traced the west shore of Melville Bay, and for that purpose started on
the evening of the 13th of May.

“The nature of the service, and the hardships to be endured on such
expeditions, may be understood from the few short extracts from the
report in reference to this last exploring visit:—‘Our snow-house, on
the 25th, was built in lat. 68° 48′ N., long. 85° 4′ W., near a small
stream, frozen (like all others that we had passed) to the bottom. We
had not yet obtained a drop of water of nature’s thawing, and fuel
being rather a scarce article, we sometimes took small kettles of snow
under the blanket with us, to thaw it with the heat of our bodies.
Leaving two men to endeavour to fish and shoot, I went forward with the
others, and crossed Garry Bay, passing inside a number of islets.’

“The party returned to their snow hut on the 25th, where, says the
report—’ The men we had left here were well, but very thin, as they
had neither caught nor shot anything eatable, except two marmots. Had
we been absent twelve hours more, they were to have cooked a piece of
parchment skin for supper.’ The whole party returned safe and well to
York Factory on the 6th of September last.”

During the year 1847, several eminent men were called away from the
sphere of their earthly honour and usefulness. Among these was Mr.
Gurney, of Norwich, a man who attracted a considerable share of public
attention by his talents, energies, and benevolence. As a member of the
Society of Friends, he became very influential in that body, and was
recognised as one of the most enlightened of their ministers. He took
part with his sister, the celebrated Mrs. Fry, in prison visitations.
His interviews with M. Guizot concerning negro slavery were very
influential with that statesman. Mr. Gurney was an author, especially on
Biblical and polemical topics. He also wrote on scientific subjects, but
chiefly in their relation to theology. As a writer he was more scholarly
than elegant, more learned than profound, more discursive than logical.
He lived and died an eminently good man.

On the 13th of February, in the 66th year of his age, Sharon Turner,
the historian of the Anglo-Saxons, departed this life. He was a
distinguished archaeologist and historian.

On the 22nd April, Thomas B. Martin, Esq., M.P. for Galway, died. He was
the largest landed proprietor in Ireland, and a very noted man in the
political and social affairs of that country.

The 27th of April witnessed the death of a very remarkable man, Lord
Cowley, in the 75th year of his age. He was the youngest son of the
first Earl of Mornington, and consequently youngest brother of the Duke
of Wellington. Mr. Henry Wellesley began professional life as aprecis
writer in the Foreign Office. After serving for two years there,
he accompanied the embassy of Lord Malmesbury to Lisle. In 1797 he
accompanied his brother, the Marquis Wellesley to India, as private
secretary. He was, after twelve months’ service in that capacity,
appointed one of the commissioners to Mysore. In that office he showed
not only talent but genius. Subsequently he was sent to Oude, on an
especial mission, and conducted his diplomacy with so much tact, that he
obtained the cession of territory which brought the company a revenue
of nearly a million sterling. He was subsequently appointed to the
government of the country thus ceded. On his return from India he
entered parliament, where his mode of speaking very much resembled that
of his brother Arthurshort, pointed, and to the purpose. He resumed his
diplomatic engagements, and was appointed envoy to Spain. He resigned
his position in the treasury, under the government of the Duke of
Portland, for this office, in 1809, and continued in it until 1811, when
he was directed to continue his services at that court, with the title
of ambassador. In 1812 he was made a Knight of the Bath. He continued
in Spain until 1822. He was then sent to Vienna, and ultimately to the
court of the Tuileries, as the representative of his country. He was
made a peer, and various other public honours were conferred upon him.
Upon the breaking up of Sir Robert Peel’s administration, he gave place
to the Marquis of Normanby, but took up his residence at Paris, and
remained there until the time of his decease. He was twice married;
in the first instance to Lady Charlotte Cadogan, which marriage was
dissolved. His second wife was Lady Georgiana Cecil, daughter of the
Marquis of Salisbury. The talent which characterised the whole of
the Wellesley family was very extraordinary; every member of it
distinguished himself in some way in the service of his country, and
obtained honour, won by his own assiduity and genius.

Sir Robert Stopford, admiral of the red, vice-admiral of the United
Kingdom, and governor of Greenwich Hospital, died on June 25, in the
88th year of his age. This distinguished sailor had entered the navy in
very early youth, and was in most of the great actions that were fought
during his eventful life. He was much beloved by the navy. His life was
remarkably free from disputes with public men, especially in his own
profession. There was one notable instance, however, to the contrary.
Sir Charles Napier, who served under him off the coast of Syria,
disobeyed orders, and added to the disobedience fierce attacks upon the
gallant old admiral, who came out of the discussion with honour, while
his disputatious antagonist suffered much in public opinion by the
attacks which he made upon his superior officer.

On the 28th of July, the death of John Walter, of Bearwood, Berkshire,
caused a great sensation. To that gentleman the _Times_ newspaper
owes its progressive power. His inventive genius, his business habits,
dispatch, punctuality, and enterprise, raised the paper to the pitch
of popularity it afterwards attained, and which it has ever since
preserved.

On the same day another eminent man passed away, Sir George Martin,
G.C.B., admiral of the fleet, and vice-admiral of the United Kingdom. His
services were innumerable. Through a long life he endured the perils and
shared the glory of naval war, and died regretted by his country.

On the 7th of December, Mr. B. Liston, the celebrated surgeon, died; and
during the same month many professional men, and many men of letters.

The space allotted to this history would not allow of even a brief
notice of all the eminent persons who passed from life during this year
in the British Isles, and subjects of Great Britain in other countries.
Many distinguished men were lost to the navy and army, whose valour and
renown were precious in the esteem of the nation; but so numerous are
the heroes of Great Britain, in all ages, that the names of deceased
warriors are only noticed with ordinary respect and regret, whose
death would, in any other nation, be an event to attract the sustained
attention of the people. The year made sad havoc especially in the navy
list, from which the names of many of the best and bravest were removed.




PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY OF THE YEAR.

The distressed condition of the poor of the British Isles, the
disarrangement of commercial affairs, the famine in Ireland, and the
crime prevailing in that country, rendered it necessary to open the
session of 1847 earlier than usual. Accordingly, on the 19th of January
her majesty, in person, read the speech from the throne. It referred to
all these subjects in a manner appropriate to the occasion. The marriage
of the Infanta of Spain to the Duke of Montpensier, was simply
noticed as having given rise to a correspondence between her majesty’s
government and that of France. When her majesty came to the passage
referring to the Montpensier marriage, the house was intensely still,
and every eye watched the royal countenance to see if any indication of
her private feelings would be given. This portion of the royal speech
was read with a peculiar expression of displeasure by her majesty, never
before witnessed in her countenance on a public occasion. In private,
the royal lady did not hesitate to denounce the conduct of Louis
Philippe as utterly faithless, and she was accustomed to refer to him as
incapable of acting with the honour of a private gentleman, for he had
given his hand to her while making a solemn promise that this marriage
should not take place. This state of feeling on the part of her majesty
was well known to the King of the French, who, while he regretted it,
took credit to himself for having frustrated her majesty’s own
intention to have the infanta married to a Cobourg. Her reference to
the extinction of the free city and state of Cracow was made in terms of
great severity, as a manifest violation of the treaty of Vienna, and her
intention of laying before the house copies of her protests to the three
states was expressed. Allusion was made to the action of the combined
squadrons of France and England in the River Plate. Her majesty read the
passages which described the condition of Ireland with a subdued tone,
as if mingled shame and sympathy struggled within her breast.

The debates which ensued upon the address were neither remarkable for
judgment nor eloquence. Lord Stanley, in the lords, was, as usual,
apt, ready, and ingenious, but dealt in platitudes unworthy of his
reputation. Lord Brougham was bitter against his former friends,
allowing his personal spleen to interfere with his patriotism and the
public welfare. He did not succeed either in embarrassing the ministry
or enlightening the lords. The debates in the commons were regarded with
more interest by the country than those in the lords. Mr. Disraeli’s
sarcasm that the house of lords had become “the high court of registry,”
 had truth in it. The address gave rise to much animated discussion,
envenomed by party spirit. Smith O’Brien laid the grievances of Ireland
before the house in terms more patriotic and honest than wise. Lord
George Bentinck taunted the government with the failure of their
remedial measures for Ireland, political and material, and his taunts
were keenly felt. The cabinet was not equal to the crisis.

On the 21st of January Lord John Russell moved that the house should
go into committee on the corn importation acts; and he announced his
intention to follow that up by a motion on the navigation laws, by which
they should be suspended until the 6th of November. He accordingly first
proposed the suspension of the duties on the importation of foreign corn
until September. Bills were brought in, and passed both houses with
the utmost rapidity, the standing orders being waived. On the 25th they
received the royal assent. On that day ministers communicated their
plans for the melioration of Irish suffering. So overwhelming was the
wretchedness of Ireland, that the amount of relief for January was
calculated by Lord John Russell at three-quarters of a million sterling.
Colonel Jones, who was at the head of the board of works in Ireland,
with very little advantage to his country, and no moral advantage to
himself, had, in a letter dated the 19th, stated the difficulties which
were admitted to stand in the way of employing labourers. The people
were so reduced by famine that task-work could not be imposed upon them,
and Colonel Jones was therefore of opinion that to give food was, on the
whole, cheaper than to employ such labour. Lord John Russell made very
effective use of this letter in support of the views which he presented
to the house. He stated that the money advanced for public works should
not be exacted in full, but half remitted upon the payment of each
instalment. The next proposal of the premier was for a grant of £50,000
in advance, to enable proprietors to procure seed for the land. His
lordship animadverted in very indignant terms upon the conduct of men
of mark in Ireland, who, instead of paying their rates for the relief
of the poor, invited them to make demands with which no government could
comply. He instanced the union of Castlebar, in the county of Mayo,
where there was room in the workhouse for six hundred persons, and only
one hundred and twenty were admitted, while the Marquis of Sligo and
Mr. Moore addressed a letter to the people of the district, calling upon
them to meet at Castlebar and “demand their rights.” Lord John dwelt
eloquently upon the want of self-reliance and co-operation displayed in
Ireland, and affirmed the utter impossibility of government or any
human power interposing so as to prevent the continuance of many of
the painful consequences of harvest failure already experienced. His
lordship’s counsels and cautions were badly received, both by the Irish
members and by the people of Ireland, and notwithstanding his liberal
measures of relief, his speech added to his unpopularity in that
country. The Irish were very unwilling to adopt the philosophy of Mr.
Disraeli, “Whether, under any circumstances, it should be the office
of a government to supply the people with food is a very interesting
question. When famine prevails there will always be a numerous party
who will maintain the affirmative. Death and decimation are stern facts
which seem to bring conviction. Yet it is the duty of a minister to
consider whether, if the government were to interfere, the death might
not be increased, and the rate of mortality aggravated.”

Another measure for the relief of Ireland was proposed by ministers to
enable government to make advances from the treasury on the security of
the rates, and excited a debate, when its committal was moved on the 8th
of February. This debate was remarkable as giving an opportunity to the
great agitator for his last parliamentary effort. He declared that two
millions of the Irish population must perish if the parliament did not
come forward with adequate relief; while he proclaimed their measures
totally inadequate, and showing either ignorance of the state of the
country, or want of sympathy for its sufferings. He affirmed that in the
ruin which had fallen on the land, any attempt to levy rates would
be abortive, and drive the people to desperation. The honourable and
venerable member depicted the condition of the people with truthful
eloquence, and he was no less correct in showing the shortcomings of the
government schemes of relief. His speech was delivered in a faint voice,
and with every symptom of physical exhaustion. He was heard with the
most profound attention and respect. His predictions, unfortunately,
came to pass. His dissolution was hastened by his inability to procure
an assent to his views in the house, and by the consequences which he so
clearly foresaw.

Lord John’s measures for the relief of Ireland having been carried, he
on the 1st of March proposed a permanent measure to compel the land
to support the pauper poor. On the 12th of March his lordship made an
elaborate defence of his scheme, which was warmly debated, Mr. Roebuck
acrimoniously attacking Irish landlords, and Mr. Smith O’Brien insisting
that the blame of the condition of Ireland rested upon the government.
Government, however, was not left alone to initiate measures of Irish
relief. Lord George Bentinck, on the 4th of February, brought forward
a motion for the reproductive employment of Irish labour by the
construction of railways in Ireland. This motion his lordship advocated
eloquently, and it has been agreed that his oration was the best he ever
delivered. His plan was in all respects sound considered in reference to
the principles of political economy, and more useful, practically, than
any which the government had devised; yet the ministerial side of the
house treated it with ridicule. An advance of sixteen millions sterling
to promote railways in Ireland they scouted as preposterous; but no
effective answer was given to the facts and figures of Lord George, who
was singularly careful on this occasion in his preparation of both. The
bill was brought in without any opposition from the government, but it
was foreseen that the influence of the cabinet would be used for its
defeat. Accordingly, on the 12th of February, on the proposal of the
second reading, government opposition was offered: the debate, after an
adjournment, was resumed on the 15th, and continued through that day and
the next, when the bill was thrown out by an overwhelming majority.

On the 22nd of February the chancellor of the exchequer made his
financial statement, and made a demand for an eight millions loan on
behalf of Ireland, noticed elsewhere. He gave an appalling picture of
the state of the English poor, showing that, in Manchester alone, nearly
thirty thousand workmen and labourers were out of employment, while the
prospect of the augmentation of the unemployed there was disheartening.
The grant for Ireland was especially opposed by two members of the
house, who, while they sympathised beyond most other members with the
political agitators of Ireland, looked upon her material condition
without an equally warm interest, and regarded her rather from an
English than an imperial point of view; these members were Mr. Hume and
Mr. Roebuck. Government was triumphant in those measures, so far as the
support of a majority in the commons was concerned. It was, however,
felt that neither the men nor the measures were adequate to the
exigencies of party, any more than to the magnitude of the occasion.
Lord John Russell was vacillating and time-serving, although with a show
of resolution in resisting and defeating measures which afterwards
met, at all events, his qualified approval. This was most singularly
exemplified in connection with Lord George Bentinck’s measure for an
advance of money to create railways in Ireland. On the 26th of April
the house was taken by surprise when the chancellor of the exchequer
proposed a loan to certain Irish railways. The proposed sum was
£620,000, half a million of which was to be advanced to one particular
railway—“the great South Western.” This gave great offence to many. Mr.
Hume led off the opposition, Mr. Roebuck followed, of course, with fiery
impetuosity; Sir Robert Peel disapproved of it, and the whole Peel party
echoed his objections. Lord George Bentinck exulted in the homage paid
to his counsels by the tardy, trimming, half measure, or less than
half measure of her majesty’s advisers. Notwithstanding so rigorous an
opposition from so many quarters, government was so well backed by
the Irish members and the ministerial hacks who represented British
constituencies, that they carried this and several other measures to
which a similar opposition was offered. The remark that the railway
scheme of Sir Charles Wood was the fag-end of Lord George Bentinck’s
measure, was received with loud cheers by the house, and was repeated
much “out of doors.” During these debates the grossest ignorance of
Ireland, her people, resources, and financial relation to Great Britain,
was evinced by English representatives. Mr. Hume and Mr. Roebuck were
very conspicuous in this respect. Mr. Disraeli had the folly to say
that the railway scheme of Lord George Bentinck would be beneficial to
Ireland, in a political, moral, and social point of view, irrespective
of material advantage, because the Roman Catholic and Protestant
populations would be brought to work together as “navvies!” Mr.
Disraeli did not know that not one man, probably, out of five thousand
in that class of labourers in Ireland was a Protestant, and that
if working together in the same employments would be sufficient
to reconcile them, the reconciliation must have been long ago
effected—over the whole of Ulster, at least. The differences between
Irish Protestants and Roman Catholics were founded in principle,
cherished deeply and warmly by them respectively, and were not, and
are not, to be healed by the political or economical quackery of Mr.
Disraeli, or politicians who, like him, share with neither party in the
earnestness of their opinions. The Irish Protestant and the Irish Roman
Catholic believe that the political ascendancy of their respective
creeds is necessary to the development of their power and usefulness,
and strive, therefore, with jealous eagerness and honesty for that
ascendancy. Whatever concessions on this ground the Protestants might be
induced to make, the spirit of Irish Romanism is ultramontane in every
province and in every social grade of the people.

The Earl of Lincoln and Lord Monteagle united in bringing under the
notice of the commons and lords the subject of Irish emigration,
and each of these noble persons occupied the time and attention
of parliament with an impracticable measure. The general want of
parliamentary tact and practical sagacity evinced by the members of
both houses at this juncture was discouraging to those who regarded
parliament as the hope of the nation.

Parliament was much occupied with Irish and financial questions during
the session; several other matters, however, occupied earnest attention.
Mr. Fielden, member for Oldham, brought before the commons a measure for
shortening the hours of labour of women and children, and young persons
in factories. His agitation of this subject derived additional interest
from the fact that he himself had been a poor factory boy, and had,
to use his own expression, always “stood by his order.” His measure
proposed the limitation of labour to twelve hours a clay, allowing two
hours out of the twelve for meals, and he would apply this rule to all
young persons between the ages of thirteen and eighteen. On Saturday,
however, he would limit the hours to eight, making a total of
sixty-three hours in the week until the 1st of May, 1848, after which
the total hours of labour for each young person in the week should
be fifty-eight. These restrictions he would apply to all females,
of whatever age, engaged in factory labour. The working-classes were
strongly in favour of Mr. Fielden’s motion. Mr. Cobden had said the
previous year that, if the matter was postponed for twelve months, the
feelings of the working-classes would change; but that eloquent and
philanthropic man very often proved himself a bad prophet, and never
more signally than in this instance. The desire of the working-classes
for some such law had greatly increased since the time Mr. Cobden
declared that it would abate. On the second reading of the bill a fierce
opposition was offered, based upon principles of political economy.
Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Hume, Mr. Trelawney, Sir Charles Wood, Mr. Mark
Philips, and Mr. Bright, were the chief opponents of the measure. Mr.
Bright very ably animadverted upon the vacillation of Lord John Russell
upon this subject, and the mischief inflicted upon the interests in
question by the noble lord’s indecision.

Lord John Russell avowed his support of the principle of the measure,
because parliament had already given its sanction to that principle,
but he objected to the details. The bill was very ably supported by
Mr. Ricardo and Mr. Duncombe. Several speeches were made on its behalf,
which were calculated to damage it, and to awaken the alarm of the
manufacturing interest; these were made by Mr. Sharman Crawford, Mr.
Ferrand, Mr. Borthwick, Sir Robert Inglis, and Mr. Newdegate. Mr.
Roebuck offered an able and formidable opposition to it. Mr. Brotherton
made a feeling appeal to the house, assuring it that the working-classes
were borne down by the oppressive number of their hours of toil; that it
was impossible for them to accomplish a better arrangement by voluntary
agreement; that he himself had worked in a factory, and felt the
oppressiveness of the burden, resolving, if ever he could, to contribute
to the emancipation of the workmen from so great an evil, and declaring
that he still retained in their original freshness the feelings he
then cherished. This noble appeal was received by the house with warm
demonstrations of applause. Sir James Graham endeavoured to remove the
effect which it produced, setting out with the paltry sophism that Mr.
Brotherton had risen by the long-hour system, ergo, he should not oppose
it! The fair implication of Mr. Brotherton’s speech was that he had
risen _in spite_ of the long-hour system, and if Sir James could have
regarded the arguments of the honourable member for Salford with common
candour, he must have drawn that inference. The bill was carried through
both houses with rapid success, after undergoing certain modifications.
Lord Brougham took occasion to launch his thunders against his former
friends in the ministry for their varying opinions, forgetful that from
him this reproach, however well founded, came with the worst possible
grace.

On the 22nd of March Mr. Fox Maule moved the second reading of a bill
for shortening the period of service in the army. The bill was opposed
by Sir Howard Douglas, who did not on this occasion give his last
mistaken opinion on military affairs. Colonel Sibthorp, the opponent
of every improvement in the law, was an appropriate companion for Sir
Howard Douglas in this opposition. Colonel Reid also denounced the
measure. It received support from Major Layard, who exposed the
injustice of the Duke of Wellington’s Horse-guards’ administration by
instances of the gross political partiality displayed in the promotion
of officers. Sir De Lacy Evans, the friend of the soldier, the supporter
of every liberal opinion and just law, supported Mr. Maule. Mr. Sidney
Herbert afforded a qualified support. The measure passed the commons,
and received an eloquent and powerful advocacy in the lords from the
Duke of Wellington. This mainly contributed to the success of the bill,
for the lords were disposed to throw it out. The Earl of Lucan proposed
a plan calculated to reconcile parties; but the Duke of Wellington was
so strenuously in favour of the plan of the government, that it was
carried, but by a very small majority.




GOVERNMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION.

Few subjects had engaged the attention of the country more than that of
popular education. The government resolved upon an enlarged scheme, and
submitted their views to parliament. The plan was essentially in the
interest of the Established Church, and had the appearance of being
intended not only as a means of proselytizing dissenters, but also
to disparage them. No measure could be more adapted to aggravate the
differences between the two great sections of English Protestants. An
opposition was awakened among all the dissenting communities of the most
hearty nature, and the government sowed the seeds of distrust of the
whig party, which their old abettors, the dissenters, have cherished to
this day, although ten years have since elapsed. It is unlikely that
the Whigs, as a party, will ever regain the confidence of the Protestant
dissenters of Great Britain. The whig government showed its usual
inaptitude to perceive the real state of public feeling among the
lower strata of the middle classes, and the unhappy faculty of making
unpalatable measures, as _mal apropos_ as possible in the time and mode
of their introduction.

Lord Lansdowne introduced the measure to the lords. Upon certain minutes
emanating from the privy council the government based their measure.
It comprised a system of educational grants, and of school inspection,
which virtually consigned the education of the country to the custody
of the clergy of the Established Church. In the lords the measure of
the ministers passed with little question; in the commons numerous and
stormy debates ensued. Mr. Macaulay, on the one hand, and Mr. Bright,
on the other, threw some acrimony into these debates, but probably the
former never appeared to less advantage in parliament, nor the latter
to more advantage than in this discussion. Government succeeded in
disarming the Roman Catholic members from opposition by a private
understanding that, although by the minutes of the educational committee
of the privy council then under consideration, they were debarred from
any grant, separate minutes would afterwards be introduced in their
especial behalf. There was also an understanding with the Wesleyan
Methodists on the principle of the grants to their schools, the
inspection to be exercised, and the selection of pupil teachers,
which disarmed the opposition of that numerous and energetic body. The
Unitarians were also conciliated by the explanations which were offered
to them, and that body was so extremely anxious for the spread
of education, that they were ready to accept a position of great
denominational disadvantage, in order to see the extension of some
plan that would conduce to the mitigation of popular ignorance. The
Congregationalists and Baptists, Presbyterians and Friends, and various
other bodies of Methodists who adopted the voluntary principle, were
beyond conciliation. They boldly demanded equal rights for all, and
perfect freedom of education. This large class of persons were much
maligned by the Earl of Surrey, when he consented to have Boman
Catholics excluded from the minutes, because, in his opinion, if they
were placed within the circle of advantage which the government was
willing to accord, all the dissenting sects would assail them with
an increased and perhaps successful opposition. The objections of the
“voluntary dissenters,” and more liberal sections of churchmen, were
unaffected by theological considerations; they desired that their
schools should be protected from government interference, and
remain uncorrupted by government patronage, and they objected to the
unconstitutional authority, as they deemed it, exercised by the
privy council. No public man out of their own party ever had so much
intercourse with those classes as Lord Brougham, who, at the same time,
understood them so little. His lordship affected to “live and move and
have his being” in an atmosphere of liberality and enlightenment too
high for the earnestly religious men of the country to attain. From
this elevation he looked down upon their conflicts with an affected
compassion, which if meant to cover his disdain was very unsuccessful,
and it brought out more prominently his lordship’s thorough ignorance of
the tone and principles of these classes, many of whom had studied the
merits of the whole question with far more undivided attention, and not
less capacity, than he had.

Lord Lansdowne could not introduce a more comprehensive plan, but he
admitted the impossibility of his so doing, because society was divided
into two great classes, churchmen and dissenters, who loved education
much, but controversy more. Never was a sentence uttered in parliament
where the religious feelings and opinions of the people were concerned,
even by Lord Brougham himself, more unfounded in fact. The assertion was
certainly true of a great many, both churchmen and dissenters, but there
was a far greater number of each who loved education very much, and who
did not regard controversy with any favour—men of strong conscientious
principles, and of deep and earnest piety, who were not prepared
to sacrifice their opinions to any government, or to any view of
expediency, whatever the end proposed.

Instead of making these classes the object of his constant sneers, Lord
Brougham would have rendered more service to his country, and have been
more just, had he honoured their scruples, and devoted himself to the
production of some scheme which, whether successful or not in passing
the legislature, would have laid the basis of an ultimate acceptance by
its respect for the religious rights of all. No plan of education
will ever gain acceptance in England, so long as there is freedom of
discussion and religious liberty, which recognises either a sectarian or
a state ascendancy in education. As the Bishop of Oxford once said, as
to the feasibility of a compulsory system of education—“We are too
free a people for such a scheme ever to be carried out amongst us.”
 Carlisle showed his philosophy and accuracy of historical knowledge
when he described the Roundheads and Cavaliers as honest, earnest men,—
heroes, because nobly true to the principles they had espoused, and
fearless of all consequences in their avowal; but that eloquent writer
showed, like Lord Brougham, his ignorance of the classes of men which,
in the present age, succeed to the opinions of Roundheads and Cavaliers,
when he declares that there are no such men in the England of to-day.
They are now as earnest and more numerous: let the same circumstances
call them forth and they will be found. A superior civilisation, a
clearer understanding of the principles of civil and religious
liberty, a more tolerant temper now prevail, but there is as much
conscientiousness still; and now as ever, in this and in every land,
men, deeply imbued with the principles of Christianity, will be found
ready to bear the testimony of the advocate or the confessor, as events
demand. The spirit evinced by Lord Brougham pervaded, to a less extent,
a large number of the members of both houses, and produced impressions
amongst the numerous classes thus contemptuously treated, which worked
deeply into their hearts, and influenced for many a year the votes
at elections, and the general feeling of the people towards the great
historical parties by which parliament had been divided.

The government carried its measure; £100,000 was devoted to educational
purposes on the plan provided by the minutes of the Committee of
Education of the Privy Council. The discussions so long existing on the
question of education received, however, a new impetus, and became
more acrimonious than before. A very large party was gradually created
favourable to a national system of secular education, leaving the
religious care of the scholars to denominational supervision. A very
large class of earnest men became still more devoted than ever to the
voluntary system of education, and prodigious efforts were made to
promote it. It was found, however, that the expense was such as to defy
voluntary efforts, except as sustained through a long period, while
the deficiency to be met was urgent and extensive. To carry out any
government system that would at all meet the necessity, and respect the
scruples of all classes would also entail an enormous burden upon the
nation. In the debate on the question to which this section refers, Mr.
Duncombe depicted the heavy public burdens that would be thus imposed:
Mr. Macaulay exclaimed, “A penny ahead.” Mr. Duncombe’s retort, that
this statement was a romance was merited. Mr. Macaulay could never have
examined the financial bearing of this great question thoroughly, or his
acute mind must have discovered the fallacy of the opinion he so rashly
hazarded.

The discussions in and out of parliament brought to light a vast mass
of statistics as to the crime and ignorance with which the worthful
elements of society had to contend. The alarm felt by good men in the
result of these revelations strengthened the hands of government
in passing the bill. Objections were raised by many in view of the
magnitude of the evil to be encountered, and a sense of responsibility
in connection with some immediate and extensive action. The reverend
Doctor Guthrie, on a different and subsequent occasion, eloquently
expressed what was at this juncture so generally felt:—“When men die,
corruption commonly begins after death, but when nations die, it always
begins before it. And as in that man’s gangrened extremities, and
swollen feet, and slow circulation, I see the heralds of death
approaching,—in these godless masses, sunk in ignorance, lost to the
profession of religion, and even to the decent habits of civilised
society, I see the most alarming signs of a nation’s danger, unless
remedies are promptly applied, the unmistakeable forerunners of a
nation’s death. Unless early, active, adequate measures are employed
to arrest the progress of our social maladies, there remains for this
mighty empire no fate but the grave—that grave which has closed over
all that have gone before it. Where are the Assyrian and Egyptian
monarchies? Where is the Macedonian empire? Where the world-wide power
of Rome? Egypt lies entombed amid the dust of her catacombs. Assyria is
buried beneath the mounds of Nineveh. Rome lives only in the pages of
history, survives but in the memory of her greatness, and the majestic
ruins of the ‘Eternal City.’ Shall our fate resemble theirs? Shall it
go to prove that Providence has extended the same law of mortality to
nations that lies on men—that they also should struggle through the
dangers of a precarious infancy; grow up into the beauty, and burn with
the ardour, of youth; arrive at the vigour of perfect manhood; and then,
slowly sinking, pass through the blindness and decay of old age, until
they drop into the tomb? Under God, it depends upon ourselves whether
that shall or shall not be our fate. Matters are not so far gone but it
may yet be averted. A great French general, who reached the battle-field
at sundown, found that the troops of his country had been worsted in
the fight; unskilful arrangements had neutralised Gallic bravery, and
offered the enemy advantages they were not slow to seize. He accosted
the unfortunate commander; having rapidly learned how matters stood,
he pulled out his watch, turned his eye on the sinking sun, and said,
‘There’s time yet to gain the victory.’ He rallied the broken ranks; he
placed himself at their head, and launching them with the arm of a giant
in war, upon the columns of the foe, he plucked the prize from their
hands—won the day. There is no time to lose. To her case, perhaps, may
be applied the words, which we would leave as a solemn warning to every
worldly, careless, Christless man, ‘Behold, now is the accepted time;
behold, now is the day of salvation.’”




BILL FOR CREATING A NEW DIOCESS OF MANCHESTER.

The government brought in a bill for this purpose which excited much
discussion in parliament, and much discontent in the locality more
immediately interested. The second reading was proposed by Lord
Lansdowne on the 7th of June. The bill also created a new archdeaconry
of Liverpool, The bill proposed to exclude the new bishop from a seat in
parliament. This evoked opposition from the high church party, but the
success of the measure was secured by this proviso; for the opposition
raised in Lancashire was so great that the government could hardly have
proceeded with the bill had a seat in the House of Peers been associated
with the new see. It was provided, however, that when a vacancy, by
death or otherwise, occurred on the bench of bishops, the bishop of
Manchester should succeed to a seat in that house. This introduced a new
principle in the relations of the episcopal bench to the peerage; for
a bishop would not in future have a seat in their lordships’ house as a
matter of course, but would occupy his see without such privilege until
a vacancy occurred.




DEBATE ON THE ANNEXATION OF CRACOW.

The annexation of Cracow to the Austrian empire has been already related
in this chapter. Several allusions were made to this in the debates
on the address, but on the 4th of March Mr. Hume brought the subject
forward in a formal manner. Mr. Hume, however, so mixed up the subject
with the Russo-Dutch loan, that his resolutions as far as regarded
Cracow were impracticable, and he withdrew them after uselessly
occupying the time of the house by a long debate.

There were few matters of interest connected with the remainder of the
session. Lord Palmerston delivered a speech in which he animadverted
so severely on the bad faith of the Spanish government, in reference to
Spanish bonds, as to produce great indignation in Spain. It was supposed
that the good effects of the speech, however, would be felt by those
interested in the punctual disbursements of the Spanish government. That
government had too little probity to meet the calls of honour, and too
little shame to be moved by the disapprobation of honest men.

It was resolved by the government of Lord John Russell to advise her
majesty to dissolve parliament, so that the elections might terminate
before harvest; various bills were therefore postponed or abandoned.

Lord Lyndhurst had been accustomed to take a retrospective view of each
session, in a speech which recapitulated the doings and misdoings of
government, according to his lordship’s view of them. Lord Brougham,
ambitious to do everything, even when he knew others could do it
better, resolved to perform the task usually sustained by his brother
ex-chancellor. The performance was inferior to that usually accomplished
by the noble Baron Lyndhurst, although in declamatory force Lord
Brougham’s oration was perfect. All the bills passed in the session he
described as bad ones. Many of those lost or abandoned, if introduced by
government, he represented as useless, and their introduction as a waste
of time. Every epithet of contempt furnished by the English language,
and by any other which his lordship knew, however imperfectly, was
heaped upon the defunct bills. They were consigned to the shades
below, to that “lean world” where—

     “Ibant obseuri sola sub nocte per nmbram
     Perque domos Ditis vacuas et mania regna.”

What his lordship said of the defunct measures will be true of himself,
when his great energies are still, and his eloquent tongue silent for
ever—“A thousand faults and a thousand freaks died with them.” His
lordship appended a condemnatory motion to his speech, which, like most
of his motions, came to nothing. The house was greatly amused, and even
instructed, by the noble lord’s oration, but not at all edified. The
Marquis of Lansdowne replied with that calm and graceful dignity by
which that venerable peer was so much distinguished; and his reply
carried with it the weight of his consistent political character, for
the house unanimously adopted his course.




PROROGATION AND DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.

On the 23rd of July, parliament was prorogued by her majesty. As the
parliament which had been called together in 1841 had been one of the
longest during the century, the prorogation, which was made by her
majesty in person, excited very great public interest, and the queen’s
speech was looked for with unusual public attention. The streets leading
to the House of Lords presented the same animated appearance as is usual
on similar occasions. Her majesty, accompanied by Prince Albert,
and attended by the usual great officers of state, entered the royal
carriage, and proceeded from Buckingham Palace to the House of Lords
shortly before two o’clock. As the royal procession passed through
St. James’s Park, and along the line of road, her majesty and her
illustrious consort were loudly cheered by the spectators who had
assembled to witness this splendid pageant. On the arrival of the royal
_cortège_ at the House of Lords, it was announced by a discharge of
cannon.

Her majesty having robed, she immediately proceeded to the house, and
took her seat on the throne. Prince Albert occupied a state chair on
the right of the sovereign. The entrance of her majesty to the house was
announced by a nourish of trumpets. The peers and peeresses all rose as
the queen entered. The new house was crowded, and presented a brilliant
spectacle. All, or nearly all, the foreign ambassadors and ministers
were present. The dresses of the ladies were very elegant.

Her majesty having taken her seat, the Lord Chancellor directed Sir
Augustus Clifford, Usher of the Black Rod, to summon the House of
Commons to hear the royal speech on the prorogation of parliament. In a
short time the speaker, accompanied by a number of members, appeared at
the bar, when the right honourable gentleman, as is usual, addressed her
majesty in a short speech, recounting the business of the session, and
concluded by praying the royal assent to several bills which had passed
both houses. Her majesty then read the following most gracious speech:—

“_My Lords and Gentlemen_,—I have much satisfaction in being able to
release you from the duties of a laborious and anxious session. I cannot
take leave of you without expressing my grateful sense of the assiduity
and zeal with which you have applied yourselves to the consideration of
the public interests. Your attention has been principally directed
to the measures of immediate relief which a great and unprecedented
calamity rendered necessary.

“I have given my cheerful assent to those laws which, by allowing the
free admission of grain, and by affording facilities for the use of
sugar in breweries and distilleries, tend to increase the quantity of
human food, and to promote commercial intercourse.

“I rejoice to rind that you have in no instance proposed new
restrictions, or interfered with the liberty of foreign or internal
trade; as a mode of relieving distress. I feel assured that such
measures are generally ineffectual, and, in some cases, aggravate the
evils for the alleviation of which they are adopted.

“I cordially approve of the acts of large and liberal bounty by which
you have assuaged the sufferings of my Irish subjects. I have also
readily given my sanction to a law to make better provision for the
permanent relief of the destitute in Ireland. I have likewise given
my assent to various bills calculated to promote the agriculture and
develop the industry of that portion of the United Kingdom. My attention
shall be directed to such further measures as may be conducive to those
salutary purposes.

“My relations with foreign powers continue to inspire me with confidence
in the maintenance of peace. It has afforded me great satisfaction to
find that the measures which, in concert with the King of the French,
the Queen of Spain, and the Queen of Portugal, I have taken for the
pacification of Portugal, have been attended with success; and that the
civil war which for many months had afflicted that country has, at last,
been brought to a bloodless termination. I indulge the hope that future
differences between political parties in that country may be settled
without an appeal to arms.

“_Gentlemen of the House of Commons_,—I thank you for your willingness
in granting me the necessary supplies; they shall be applied with due
care and economy to the public service.

“I am happy to inform you that, notwithstanding the high price of food,
the revenue has, up to the present time, been more productive than I
had reason to anticipate. The increased use of articles of general
consumption has chiefly contributed to this result. The revenue derived
from sugar, especially, has been greatly augmented by the removal of the
prohibitory duties on foreign sugar.

“The various grants which you have made for education in the United
Kingdom will, I trust, be conducive to the religious and moral
improvement of my people.

“_My Lords and Gentlemen_,—I think it proper to inform you that it is
my intention immediately to dissolve the present parliament.

“I rely with confidence on the loyalty to the throne, and attachment to
the free institutions of this country, which animate the great body of
my people. I join with them in supplications to Almighty God that the
dearth by which we have been afflicted may, by the Divine blessing, be
converted into cheapness and plenty.”

An event occurred at this juncture not unimportant to the government,
and in which the Roman Catholics of Ireland felt concern. The O’Connor
Don, one of the members for Roscommon, and a lord of the Treasury, died.
He was a patriotic Irishman, of superior education and intelligence, and
much respected, not only by the county he represented, but in Ireland
generally. In the province of Connaught he was regarded with the
reverence paid to a Celtic chief.

Parliament having been dissolved, writs were at once issued for the
election of members for a new one. The especial feature of this election
was the want of a definite policy on the part of the great body of the
candidates. The Whigs seemed to have no clear notion of what they ought
to propose to themselves or to the country. Lord John Russell, as has
always been his custom, referred to his past life as the standard by
which the electors should judge his future policy. A suspicion existed
in the electoral body in Great Britain that it was the intention of
government to endow the Roman Catholic clergy, and this injured the
cause of such Whig candidates as were not very explicit on this matter.
The previous parliament had added to the influence of the church by
increasing the number of bishops, and by their education plan; this
prejudiced many of the Dissenters against Whigism in general, and the
government leaders of that school as its most prominent advocates.
There was a general expectation that, whatever the complexion of the new
parliament, Sir Robert Peel would of necessity be in power before
its dissolution. The energy of the country party was, however, mainly
directed against the Peelites, and their strength was sufficient to bar,
for a time at all events, the approaches to power against Sir Robert.

The elections proceeded throughout Great Britain with fairness, except
that the landlords in some places exercised an influence which was
unconstitutional and unjust. Tenants were evicted because they voted
according to their conscience; and the tradespeople in country towns
were menaced with loss of custom by the neighbouring landowners. In
Ireland the landed interest also exercised an undue influence, and many
cases of extreme hardship occurred. The Boman Catholic clergy used the
power of their office for electioneering purposes, in a way injurious to
their own moral influence, subversive of the rights of the people, and
dangerous to law and order.

The elections terminated by the return of a majority, ostensibly in
favour of government, but there was little earnestness of principle or
purpose to give consistency or continuity to their support.




ASSEMBLING OF A NEW PARLIAMENT.

In consequence of the public distress in Great Britain, the famine in
Ireland, and the disturbed state of that country, it became necessary
for parliament to assemble sooner than had been customary. Accordingly,
on the 18th of November, the first session of the new parliament began;
Mr. Shaw Lefevre was re-elected speaker. On the 23rd, the Marquis of
Lansdowne was commissioned to read her majesty’s speech. That document
referred with hope to the state of commercial matters in Great Britain,
and with gratitude to Providence for a bountiful harvest. Her majesty
expressed her sympathy for Irish suffering, and her abhorrence of Irish
crime. She expressed her pleasure at the alacrity showed by all classes
to relieve the destitute in Ireland; and recommended her parliament to
take measures for repressing outrage, and preserving the public peace in
that country. She expressed her regret that civil war had broken out
in Switzerland, and her readiness to use her influence to heal those
distractions. The speech announced a treaty with the republic of the
equator for the suppression of the slave-trade, and avowed confidence in
maintaining the general peace of Europe. The navigation laws, the health
of the metropolis, and the revenue, were also subjects to which she
called the attention of her parliament.

In the debate upon the address, in the lords, Lord Stanley was
unreasonable and virulent; Lord Brougham, always in opposition to
somebody, refuted the conservative leader. He “praised the government
for calling parliament together so soon; justified the interference with
the bank charter, recorded on another page; declared that Ireland
stood in a shameful and hateful pre-eminence of crime, and trusted that
effectual measures would be taken to disarm the people, and protect life
and property.”

The debate on the address, in the commons, was chiefly remarkable
for the boldness and extent of Mr. John O’Connell’s demands upon the
Treasury for the relief of Ireland. Sir Benjamin Hall made some very
foolish replies to Mr. O’Connell, and added to the bitterness of the
debate. Mr. Maurice O’Connell made the startling declaration that not
more than one-fifth of the sum voted for Ireland had ever reached that
country.

A Roman Catholic archdeacon, named Laffan, at a public meeting in
Cashel, had made a very inflammatory speech, which had excited the
indignation of the public, and was the subject of animadversion in
parliament. Mr. Mahon, an Irish member, was chairman of that meeting,
and the mode in which he palliated the atrocious speech of the
archdeacon caused murmurs of disapprobation in the house. Ireland
appeared to great disadvantage in this debate, and the tone of English
members was not so generous as it ought to have been. The dreadful
crimes perpetrated in Ireland had produced a state of feeling in England
which was almost resentful, notwithstanding the compassion entertained
for the sufferings of the Irish poor. There could be no doubt, as Mr.
Stafford O’Brien reminded the house, that some of the best of landlords
had been assassinated. There appeared to be a relentless thirst for
blood among the Irish peasantry, prompted by fanaticism, famine,
and despair, which was calculated to destroy the sympathy of the
representatives of Great Britain.

The address in the commons was ultimately agreed to after a most
acrimonious debate, protracted by the Irish members and their opponents
far beyond the limits usual on such occasions.




DEBATE ON THE DISTRESS OF THE NATION.

On the 30th the chancellor of the exchequer rose, pursuant of notice,
to move for “a select committee to inquire into the causes of the recent
commercial distress, and how far it has been effected by the laws
for regulating the issue of bank-notes payable on demand.” After an
intellectual debate, except so far as some incoherent rhapsodies of Mr.
Urquhart made it otherwise, the motion was acceded to. Sir Robert Peel
appeared to singular advantage in this discussion; he placed the causes
of public distress luminously before the house, and supported the policy
of government. In the lords there was a similar debate, remarkable for
the extraordinary assertion of Lord Brougham, that the public distress
was chiefly to be attributed to the obstinacy of government and
parliament in not taking his advice and that of the Duke of Wellington,
proffered for the last ten years. His lordship seemed ambitious of
identifying himself with the illustrious duke on all possible occasions,
although scarcely any two men could have entertained opinions more
dissonant than these two noble persons.




MEASURES FOR THE REPRESSION OF HOMICIDE AND OUTRAGE IN IRELAND.

The party of Lord John Russell had thwarted the government of Sir Robert
Peel when endeavouring to enact a law for the preservation of life and
property from the lawlessness of the peasantry in Ireland: it was Lord
John’s fate, in this session, to invoke Sir Robert’s aid in carrying
measures very similar. It became necessary to pass some enactment
calculated to hold Irish outrage in check. Lord John’s influence
ultimately suffered by so frequently opposing others in their more
timely efforts to carry measures of which he was glad at last to avail
himself.

In the six months ending October, 1847, there were ninety-six murders,
while the appalling number of one hundred and fifty-six attempts at
assassination had been made. During the same period, one hundred and
sixteen dwelling-houses had been set on fire by incendiaries. But
offences against life, property, and the civil and religious freedom of
the respectable inhabitants, were innumerable. Portions of Ireland were
under a reign of terror. The sympathies of whole districts were on the
side of those by whom rapine and assassination were committed; and there
was a general unwillingness, even among the better class of farmers, and
persons in higher stations still, to bring the malefactors to justice.

Sir George Grey introduced the remedial measures of government. The
proposed bill was to be applicable only to such portions of Ireland as
the lord-lieutenant should proclaim to be disturbed. The reserved force
of Irish constabulary was to be increased from four hundred to six
hundred men—a feature of the scheme so absurdly inadequate as to expose
its authors to ridicule. From this paltry reserve his excellency was to
send forces into the proclaimed districts. This force would be paid out
of the district it was sent to protect—a most salutary arrangement, as
giving the small farmers and clergy an interest in checking insurgent
proceedings. All persons, unless especially exempt from the prohibition,
were to be forbidden the use of arms in proclaimed districts, but they
might have such in their own houses. This provision, which appeared
reasonable in itself, was practically mischievous, for the houses of
many became depots of arms for their companions in disaffection more
suspected than themselves. Robberies of arms were perpetrated by
_unarmed_ bands, who were nevertheless not resisted. Any violation of
the disarming clause of the bill would subject the culprit to three
years’ imprisonment. The lord-lieutenant had power to authorise search
for arms in the houses of the suspected, and all prohibited weapons were
to be delivered up on proclamation to that effect, under penalties.
This also was evaded, for as soon as a district was proclaimed, the arms
disappeared into a neighbouring district, not so situated, from whence
incursions were made into the proclaimed district, where the force
was generally too feeble to protect the numerous points upon which the
depredators fell. The police had power to call upon all males between
sixteen and sixty, in any district where a murder was committed, to join
in pursuit of the murderer; and any one who refused, was held guilty of
misdemeanour. This clause alarmed the disaffected more than any other.

The bill was received with loud cheers. Mr. John O’Connell, who had
declared that he would “die on the floor of the house” rather than
allow a coercion bill to pass, admitted the necessity of some provision
against the outrages which had prevailed, and that Sir George Grey’s
bill was moderate and just; but he strangely added that he would oppose
it at every stage, unless government passed such a bill regulating the
law of landlord and tenant as he and his party approved. Mr. Fergus
O’Connor bantered Mr. John O’Connell for his subservience to ministers,
which ill accorded with his loud demonstrations of ministerial hostility
in Conciliation Hall. Mr. O’Connor opposed the bill, even in its first
stage. That gentleman wished the Irish repealers to join the chartist
movement, and to place himself at the head of both. Mr. Horsman sensibly
observed that the most appalling thing to him was that the government
had allowed these murders to go on ever since, by the union, the
imperial parliament had undertaken to govern Ireland. Mr. Maurice
O’Connell did not oppose the bill. He also had been a man of fiery words
in Ireland, and paltry deeds in the presence of the government and the
legislature in England. Mr. Disraeli satirised the great outcry about
suppressing outrage, if the addition of two hundred constables were
sufficient. When the second reading was moved on the 6th of December,
Mr. John O’Connell opposed it, and moved “that the orders of the day be
read.” The honourable member had been so pressed by Conciliation Hall,
and the Young Irelanders had raised such an outcry against the measure,
that although he approved of the bill, and took care to let the house
see that he did, yet he was obliged to oppose it, or forfeit his
leadership of “Old Ireland.” His opposition, however, influenced the
people of England against the O’Connells and their class. Murder
and outrage stalked abroad, and whatever were the wrongs of Ireland,
incendiarism and assassination were not the means of redress upon which
brave men could look unmoved. That a country should fall into such a
state of crime was horrible; that the political leaders of any party
in it could be found to oppose measures so mild, and so little
ultra-constitutional, to put down these dreadful deeds, was still more
horrible. The speech of Mr. John O’Connell exposed himself and his
country to just ridicule. A party numbering millions of persons,
choosing as their principal leader a man so little qualified for the
task, or for any great political undertaking, could not but sink in its
relative importance. In spite of the opposition of a few Irish members,
the bill passed the commons almost unanimously. In the lords but little
opposition was offered. On the motion for going into committee on the
16th December, Lord Farnham brought under the notice of the house that
Major Mahon was murdered after he had been denounced from the altar
of the Roman Catholic chapel by a priest named M’Dermot, to whom Major
Mahon had offered no other offence than objecting to that gentleman and
his clerks constituting the relief committee of the district. The debate
was rendered still more remarkable by a frank and manly speech from Lord
Beaumont, a Roman Catholic peer, deprecating these altar denunciations,
which had so frequently been followed by the murder of the persons
denounced. Lord Beaumont expressed his astonishment that the bishops,
clergy, and laity of the Roman Catholic community did not bring their
moral influence to bear upon those priests who offended against the
laws of God and man in so flagrant a manner. This gave rise to severe
animadversions upon the whole body of Irish Roman Catholics for not
having acted as Lord Beaumont pointed out. Lord Stanley especially
adopted this line of remark, with the dextrous facility his lordship
possessed for turning every occurrence and every admission of an
opponent into an element of party attack. The measure was speedily
passed through the house of lords, and became law.

Notwithstanding these weary debates upon Irish affairs, the house of
commons was obliged to participate in another as acrimonious as any of
the former. Mr. Fergus O’Connor moved for a committee of inquiry into
the circumstances which led to the legislative union between Great
Britain and Ireland, the means by which that act was attained, and its
effect upon the working-classes of both countries. Mr. Henry Grattan
denounced the speech of Mr. O’Connor, and his general spirit and
conduct. Mr. John O’Connell and Mr. Smith O’Brien gave their support to
the motion. It was all but unanimously rejected.




MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF JEWISH DISABILITIES.

Baron Rothschild, a distinguished member of the Jewish persuasion,
having been elected member for the city of London, the question of the
right of Jews to sit in parliament was raised and warmly discussed, in
the public press and in the country. Lord John Russell was also elected
for the city of London, and was bound, therefore, by his especial duty
to the citizens, to look particularly to the settlement of this matter.
He moved, on the 16th of December, “that the house should resolve itself
into a committee, to consider the removal of the civil and religious
disabilities affecting her majesty’s Jewish subjects.” The resolution
was carried by a very large majority, its principal opponent being Sir
Robert Inglis, one of the members for Oxford.




ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.—CLOSE OF THE PARLIAMENTARY LABOURS OF 1847.

On the 20th of December the house adjourned for the Christmas holidays,
and did not meet again until February. Thus closed the first session of
the new parliament, and the legislative business of the year.

Throughout the year the sanitary deficiencies of large cities, and their
moral peculiarities, were the subjects of desultory conversation in
parliament, and of extensive discussion in the newspapers and at public
meetings. To such a degree did the sanitary question excite public
interest, that her majesty was advised to recommend its consideration
to the new parliament; and during the educational debates, the moral and
intellectual condition of large towns, and especially of the metropolis,
was a theme of desponding comment. The reverend Dr. Guthrie, of
Edinburgh, has since then eloquently shown that the providential
dispensation which consigns so large a portion of our people to the
close confines of cities, like all the other arrangements of Providence,
however mysterious, are full of goodness and mercy:—“Somehow or other,
amid their crowding and confinement, the human mind finds its fullest,
freest expansion. Unlike the dwarfed and dusty plants which stand around
our suburban villas, languishing like exiles for the purer air and freer
sunshine that kiss their fellows far away in flowery field and green
woodland, on sunny banks and breezy hills, man reaches his highest
condition amid the social influences of the crowded city. His
intellect receives its brightest polish where gold and silver lose
theirs—tarnished by the searching smoke and foul vapours of city air.
The finest flowers of genius have grown in an atmosphere where those of
nature are prone to droop and difficult to bring to maturity. The mental
powers acquire their full robustness where the cheek loses its ruddy hue
and the limbs their elastic step, and pale thought sits on manly brows,
and the watchman, as he walks his rounds, sees the student’s lamp
burning far into the silent night.”




CHAPTER LX.

{VICTORIA. 1848}

     Warin India..... Colonial  Affairs..... Foreign
     Relations..... Revolutions throughout Continental
     Europe..... Distress and Crime in Ireland..... Disaffection
     of the Irish Roman Catholics, and attempted Revolt.....
     Enforcement of Law and Order in Ireland..... Chartist
     Disturbances  in England, and their suppression..... Home
     Incidents..... Transactions of Parliament.

{A.D. 1848}

The year 1848 was one of the most eventful which had ever occurred
in the history of Europe, or in the history of the world, since the
introduction of Christianity; and the relations of England to the great
transactions which passed like a whirlwind over the continent were such
as to enhance her dignity and her glory. It is difficult to write
the History of England, during a period so interesting to continental
Europe, without enlarging upon the events which took place upon other
fields of action, and by which England was in many respects so much
influenced. It will aid in confining the relations of this chapter
within proper bounds, to narrate first those transactions in which
England was exclusively interested, so far as other European powers were
concerned.




THE WAR IN INDIA.

The Punjaub had, in 1847, as already related, been the theatre of most
stirring incidents. The reader of this History can hardly fail to have
observed, that although the defeat of the Sikhs was so complete, the
subjugation of the spirit of that people was far from having been
effected. The dispersed Khalsa army cherished a fierce hostility to the
government of British India, and they were ready to enrol themselves
under the banner of any chief who would lead them, in numbers sufficient
to afford hope of success, against their recent conquerors. An
opportunity occurred in the person of Moolraj, the chief of Mooltan.
Mooltan is a large and fertile country, situated between the left bank
of the Indus and the right bank of the Sutlej, and terminates at one
end where these two rivers form a junction. It gives its name to the
capital, which was protected by defences unusually strong for an eastern
city.

When the British obtained the submission of the regent of the Sikh
monarch, Dhuleep Singh, Mooltan was governed by Moolraj. Moolraj owed
allegiance to the government at Lahore, to which the chieftainship of
Mooltan had been subjected by conquest. The durbar of Lahore purposed
the deposition of Moolraj, and negotiated with him for that purpose. He
affected to acquiesce, and, in consequence, Mr. Agnew, a political agent
of the Honourable East India Company, and Lieutenant Anderson, of the
Bombay Fusileers, were deputed to attend the new governor appointed by
the government of Lahore, to instal him in his office. This official
was named Sirdar Khan Singh, and was an object of extreme jealousy to
Moolraj. The party arrived at Mooltan, accompanied by their respective
suites and a small escort of cavalry. On the 17th of April, the
authority was surrendered in due form by Moolraj, and the object of
the British officers seemed to be accomplished. On the 18th they were
attacked and desperately wounded; it was at first supposed from a sudden
impulse on the part of the soldiery of Moolraj, but it was afterwards
known to be the result of treachery. The officers, accompanied by the
new governor, were carried to a small fort outside the town. A fire was
opened upon the place from Mooltan, but it was ineffectual. A few days
afterwards, however, the fort was attacked by the soldiers of Moolraj;
the Sikhs who garrisoned the place, and among whom were the escort,
treacherously opened the gates, and the assailants entered, foaming
with rage, and demanding vengeance upon the infidel officers. Lieutenant
Anderson was in a dying state; but Mr. Agnew, although so badly wounded,
defended himself with resolution to the last: both officers were
murdered. Moolraj declared that he had no knowledge of the transaction,
but no one believed his disclaimer. Intelligence of these barbarities
reached Lahore with the speed so peculiar to the East; and a force of
three thousand cavalry and some infantry was dispatched, under Sirdar
Shere Singh, against the refractory city. There happened to be upon the
Indus, at the head of a small force, a young and gallant officer who
had served with distinction upon the staff of Lord Gough, and who was
favourably known by his clever contributions to the India press on the
state of the Company’s territory, civil and military: this officer was
Lieutenant Edwardes. He was engaged in settling a disturbed district of
country, and in collecting the land tax due to Moolraj, as Sikh governor
of Mooltan. At the same time, Colonel Van Courtlandt, a native of India,
and a distinguished officer in the service of the Company, occupied
Dherra Ismael Khan, also in the neighbourhood. Lieutenant Edwardes
crossed the river into the Deerajat, whence he wrote to the Khan of
Bhawulpore, requesting him to make such a movement of troops as would
prevent Moolraj from falling upon either of their forces. The khan’s
territories were so situated as to enable him to effect a military
disposition to accomplish this object. The khan made the required
demonstration. When Edwardes crossed the Indus, he left a detachment of
three hundred horse to protect the collection at Serat, where, on the
18th of May, they were attacked by a body of cavalry exceeding their
own in number, sent against them from Mooltan, with ten light field-guns
(zumbooruks). The British force so manoeuvred as to attain a good
position, although under the fire of the zumbooruks, and then charged
brilliantly, dispersing the Mooltanese, and capturing their guns.

Colonel Courtlandt was as prompt as Edwardes in the measures taken by
him. He left the port of Dherra Ismael Khan, and proceeded by the base
of the hills southward. On his route he was joined by a Beloochee chief,
with one hundred of his wild followers. Courtlandt detached these, with
a portion of his own troops, against the fortress of Sunghur, westward
of the Indus. The commander of the fort refused the summons of
surrender, and for six hours maintained a gallant resistance; he then
brought off the garrison by a skilful manoeuvre, reaching Mooltan in
safety.

Lieutenant Edwardes and Colonel Courtlandt effected a Junction of their
small forces, and on the 20th of May were attacked by a division of
the Mooltan army. The united forces of Courtlandt and Edwardes were
so disposed that not more than one thousand five hundred men could
be brought into action, while the enemy numbered three thousand. The
artillery force of each was about equal. Edwardes was, however, joined
by a body of irregular cavalry, and a party of Beloochees, which brought
up the British force more nearly to an equality of numbers. The Sikhs in
British pay happily showed no disposition to fraternise with the Mooltan
army, although the calculations of Moolraj were based upon such an
expectation.

The enemy suffered a signal defeat and great slaughter. The Beloochees
behaved remarkably well. The skill of the British officers turned the
balance in favour of the native army under their command.

After this engagement, Edwardes, acting upon the authority which he
possessed as a civil officer of the company, demanded a reinforcement
from the Khan of Bhawulpore, and in the meantime recruited his force by
Sikhs, Beloochees, Affghans, and men from the hills of various tribes.
The faculty of organisation, the ceaseless activity, and the courage of
this young officer were surprising. Colonel Courtlandt was also equal to
the part assigned him; but, although senior to his colleague in military
rank, the civil functions of the latter gave him an especial, and, in
some respects, superior authority. The Khan of Bhawulpore responded to
the demands of assistance, and a plan was laid for a junction of the
troops. In pursuance of this, Edwardes and Courtlandt crossed the Indus
on the 10th and 11th of June. Moolraj was informed by his spies of every
movement, and the intelligence was conveyed to him with astonishing
rapidity. He accordingly marched a large force to intercept either army,
and beat both in detail. On the 14th he crossed the Chenab, leaving a
considerable force on the other bank. This detachment marched to Khan
Ghur, but on the following day crossed the river, being surprised at
that place by the advance of Edwardes’s irregulars. The Mooltanese had
barely time to cross the Chenab, when the scouts of Edwardes galloped
into Khan Ghur. The Sikhs, instead of giving battle at that place, and
practically attempting the scheme proposed by Moolraj, encamped on the
opposite side of the river, in observation of the British officer and
his little army. This delay and timidity was fatal; for Edwardes
was soon joined by the infantry and a portion of the artillery of
Courtlandt, whose cavalry were scouring the country. The situation of
affairs became now interesting and important, for the Bhawulpore forces
had arrived on the enemy’s side of the Chenab, within twelve miles.
Edwardes made a retrograde movement, so as to place himself opposite the
Bhawulpore encampment. The enemy advanced to within four miles of
that position. In the course of the night, the raw levies of Edwardes
contrived to cross the river in a very irregular manner, and within
dangerous proximity to the enemy’s patrols, but were unmolested. On the
18th, early in the morning, the lieutenant crossed with the remainder
of his little army, except the horses and artillery, which remained
with Courtlandt on the opposite side, for a more slow and safe transport
across the river. Scarcely had the lieutenant gained the opposite bank
than he was attacked by the Sikh army, which had been moving up from
Bugurrarah while he was gaining the passage. This was a terrible
engagement. The sun had hardly risen upon river, and swamp, and
undulating plains, when the Mooltanee forces fell upon the motley crowd
of the British levies, and in such superior numbers that victory seemed
certain. For nine hours the English lieutenant resisted the onslaught,
and by his valour, activity, presence of mind, and moral influence, kept
his undisciplined forces in firm front to the foe. At last Courtlandt’s
guns were brought over, and made the contest somewhat equal; later
in the day, two regular regiments belonging to the colonel’s division
arrived, with six guns, and the enemy panic-struck fled, leaving a
large, proportion of their troops upon the field, slain, wounded, and
prisoners, with six guns, and their entire baggage and munitions of
war. The conduct of Edwardes throughout the day was splendid, and laid a
deeper foundation for his military reputation.

Moolraj retreated to Mooltan, followed by the British, and the Khan of
Bhawulpore, who had rendered hitherto but little assistance, and whose
movements led to the suspicion that he had more sympathy with Moolraj
than he dared to avow.

On the 28th of June, a Sikh brigade under the command of
Sheik-Emaum-ood-deen, which had been dispatched by the government of
Lahore, arrived to reinforce the English. The whole army appeared before
Mooltan, consisting of eighteen thousand men, comprising the levies of
Edwardes, the division of Courtlandt, that of the Khan of Bhawulpore,
and the newly arrived brigade of the sheik.

Moolraj collected his army between the city and the invaders, and
intrenched himself in a strong position, near the village of Sadoosan.
Edwardes attacked the camp with one portion of his force, storming the
breastwork, and with another taking the intrenchments in flank. The
discomfited enemy was driven in disorder within the city. The loss of
the allies was about twenty killed and less than one hundred wounded:
the enemy suffered severely. The difficulties of Edwardes increased with
his victories, for it was impossible for him to take Mooltan by a
_coup de main_, and he had no siege _matériel_. To remain inactive was
dangerous, for little reliance could be placed on the sheik, still less
on the khan, and even the regular regiments of Courtlandt were not
very trustworthy: he had mainly to rely upon his brave but undisciplined
Affghan and Beloochee levies. With such an army, so collected, and
without siege train, or heavy artillery of any kind, the conquest of
Mooltan was an impossibility, and yet affairs demanded speedy and
decided action. He accordingly sent to Sir Frederick Currie, the British
resident at Lahore, acquainting him with the delicacy of his situation,
and urging the dispatch of siege guns, and such other material of war
as was requisite. Communication was made to Lieutenant Edwardes by the
British resident at Lahore, that troops, material, and a general
officer of experience to take the command, would be sent as speedily
as possible, and meanwhile Edwardes was to watch the movements of the
enenry. This he effectually did; Moolraj could execute nothing beyond
the walls of Mooltan, for the eyes of the vigilant English lieutenant
were constantly upon his movements.

On the 18th of August General Whish arrived from Lahore with two
regiments of native infantry, a regiment of irregular horse, a troop of
horse artillery, and the 10th regiment of her majesty’s foot. The next
day a column arrived from Ferozepore, consisting of three regiments of
native infantry, two regiments of native cavalry, one regular and
one irregular, a battering train, a troop of horse artillery, and her
majesty’s 32nd regiment of the line. The forces before Mooltan then
amounted to six thousand Europeans, and more than twenty-two thousand
native troops, including the levies of Edwardes, and the khan’s forces.

Scarcely had the army under General Whish assembled before Mooltan,
when other events still more formidable than the defection of Moolraj
occurred elsewhere.




MUTINY OF SIKH TROOPS IN THE PUNJAUB. AND REVOLT OF CHUTTUR SINGH.

Sirdar Chuttur Singh (father of Rajah Shere Singh) was governor of the
Hazareh country, under allegiance to the Maharajah Dhuleep Singh, of
Lahore. That chief took advantage of the revolt at Mooltan, and opened
correspondence with other chiefs for the purpose of tampering with the
Sikh soldiers in garrison in their different provinces. The government
of Lahore was guilty of complicity in these movements, although
affecting to be incensed against the refractory chiefs and provinces.
A knowledge of this circumstance soon spread among the Khalsa* soldiery
all over the Punjaub, and disposed them to follow any leader who had the
boldness to hoist the standard of rebellion.

     * “Khalsa,” or church. This name was assumed to express the
     idea that the army was composed only of the faithful; the
     Sikh religion being a sort of eclectic religion, chosen from
     Mohammedanism, Brahminism, and other oriental systems.

Early in September the whole Hazareh country was in ostensible
insurrection, and an attack was made upon Attock. Happily Major Lawrence
was then, in the phraseology of the Indian political service, the
assistant at Peshawur. He sent Lieutenant Nicholson, at the head of a
detachment of cavalry and infantry, to take possession of: the fort. By
a forced marched this was effected before the arrival of the rebellious
sirdar’s troops. Cabbot Abbot, the political agent in the Hazareh,
joined Lieutenant Nicholson, and their position was very precarious.
Major Lawrence, whose comprehensive mind was prepared for every
emergency, had troops moved to their assistance from Peshawur and
Jullundur. The revolt, however, spread in every direction. Peshawur was
begirt, with disciplined and fanatical enemies, and at last, early in
November, Major Lawrence and family had to fly for their lives from that
place, the troops in the garrison having mutinied on the approach of
Chuttur Singh and his army. Major and Mrs. Lawrence, with Lieutenant
Bowie, found refuge at Kohat, under the protection of Mahomed Khan.
Mahomed, either through fear or treachery, or both, gave them up as
prisoners to Chuttur Singh. The sirdar treated them with kindness, and
frequently conversed with them on the prospects of restoring the Sikh
ascendancy in the Punjaub; nor were the dissuasions of Major Lawrence of
any effect, for Chuttur believed in the Khâlsa confederacy.

On the 18th of December, when Shere Singh was at the head of a numerous
force, Major Lawrence was brought to his camp with the object of using
him for negotiations with the governor-general. It is necessary, in
order to preserve the collateral relation of events, to return to the
army of Whish before the besieged city.




SIEGE AND CAPTURE OF MOOLTAN.

General Whish pressed his operations against Mooltan with skill and
energy. He was ably aided by Edwardes, Courtlandt, Brigadier-general
Markham, and other officers. During the first ten days of September
skirmishes were frequent, and some of these were sharp and spirited. On
the 12th Whish determined to attack certain posts, the capture of which
was essential to the execution of his plans. The enenry had established
an extensive and formidable outpost in a village and garden near the
walls. To capture this a body of the besiegers, numbering two thousand
five hundred, were told off. They began the attack at break of day,
under the command of Brigadier-general Harvey. The contest was very
severe, but ended in the accomplishment of General Whish’s design. The
slaughter of the Mooltanese was signal, and the heroism of the European
regiments extraordinary. The loss on the part of the British was heavy.
Major Montazambert, of the 10th foot, Colonel Pattoun, of the 32nd,
Quartermaster Taylor, also of that regiment, were the officers of the
royal regiments which fell. Lieutenant Cubit and Ensign Lloyd, of the
Company’s service, also fell. The latter officer was treacherously
cut down while parleying with the enemy. The 10th regiment fought
desperately, making havoc of the Mooltanese with the bayonet.

The next day the besieged made a sortie against the camp of Lieutenant
Edwardes, but were beaten back, the pursuit issuing in the capture of
another important outpost. The defence had arrived at its crisis, but
Sikh treachery averted from the city the impending blow. On the morn-,
ing of the 14th, Shere Singh, with the whole of the Lahore troops,
five thousand in number, went over to the enemy. This event, at
once lessening the army of the besiegers, and increasing that of the
besieged, made their relative numbers so disproportionate, that the
siege was raised, the army withdrawing to a position a few miles
distant, where they intrenched. Soon after the British took up this
position, Shere Singh left Mooltan and marched along the banks of the
Chenab, forming a junction with Chuttur Singh, which placed the former
at the head of thirty thousand men. It became necessary for another
British army to encounter this enemy, while Whish and his troops could
do nothing against Mooltan until strongly reinforced. On the 21st
of December, a strong division of the Bombay army arrived at General
Whish’s camp, and thus strengthened, the general resolved upon active
operations. His army now numbered about seventeen thousand Sikhs,
Beloochees, Affghans, and other contingents, about fifteen thousand
more Queen’s and Company’s troops, and one hundred and fifty pieces
of cannon. On the 27th General Whish resolved upon a grand attack, and
moved his army forward in four columns. The enemy falling back from
their outposts, the British took a position in the suburbs within
five hundred yards of the walls. That day and night batteries were
constructed on all appropriate points, and early on the 28th a terrible
bombardment began. By the 29th, the works were carried forward to within
eighty yards of the place, breaches began to be effected, the granary
was fired, and the batteries and buildings of the enemy suffered much
under the heavy cannonade of the besiegers. On the 30th a shell blew up
the principal magazine of the city. The shock was felt for two miles,
and the camp of the besiegers literally rocked above the convulsive
throes of the earth. The magazine contained sixteen thousand pounds
of powder. The explosion was instant; with one fierce crash and a
long-continued roar, the smoke and flame gushed upwards—one of the most
grandly terrible sights upon which human eye could look. Eight hundred
men perished, their charred limbs and whole carcasses were cast far
beyond. The houses of the chief persons, the public buildings and
temples, were shaken down by the vibrations; yet the walls of the fort
endured, and the bulk of the city was intact. A fire was communicated,
which raged through several streets, but was extinguished. It was
supposed that this event would lead to the surrender of the place, but
next day Moolraj sent word to General Whish that he had still powder
enough for a twelvemonth’s siege, and that he would hold out while one
stone remained upon another. This was supposed to be mere bravado, and a
summon was sent to surrender. Moolraj, with perfect _sang froid_, rammed
the letter down one of the longest guns, and fired it at the British.
During the following night a distinct breach was effected in the Delhi
gate of the city, and the next day another at the Bohan gate. The fire
of the besiegers was plied hotly for the two following days and nights,
the city blazing like a hell, amidst the crash of falling buildings, and
the outcry of wounded women and children. On the 81st the Sikhs made
a sortie from the south-west gate against the camp of Edwardes. That
officer, ever vigilant, and ably seconded by the engineer officer,
Lieutenant Lake, repulsed the sortie, inflicting heavy loss. The
cannonade continued for fifty-six hours longer, and on the 2nd of
January the assault was made. The Bengal and Bombay divisions were
formed into separate columns, and precipitated upon the two breaches.
These columns moved forward with great daring and under a heavy fire.
The Bengal column found the breach impracticable, with an open drop in
front, and strong defences in the rear. While the Bengal Sepoys were
obstructed by obstacles which they could not surmount, the Bombay column
gained an entrance. The sergeant-major of the Bombay Fusileers boldly
planted the British flag above the breach. The Bengal column turned
and followed their more fortunate comrades of the other presidency. The
enemy resisted at every step, receding only before superior force,
and it was not until the sun went down over the blackened ruins and
blood-stained streets of Mooltan that the city was completely in the
hands of the conquerors. The troops of Moolraj retreated to the citadel,
which was a place of surpassing strength, and could only be taken by
regular approaches. Parallels were opened, and a fierce cannonade was
directed against it on the 4th; but it was not until the 18th that
any decided impression was made. By that date the intrenchments were
carried up to the very walls, but such was their extraordinary strength
that they were proof against artillery—at all events, any artillery of
the calibre possessed by the besiegers. Whish resolved to effect their
destruction by mines. On the 18th three mines were exploded, and the
counterscarp was blown into the ditch. A shaft was then sunk under the
trench, and a gallery cut towards the wall. At the same time a battery
was placed on a level higher than the citadel itself; another carrying
eighteen and twenty-four pounders was placed close up to the wall.
From this battery the most extraordinary cannonade and bombardment was
conducted. Eight-inch howitzers discharged live shells into the wall,
which buried themselves in the mud and brickwork of which it was built,
and, exploding, tore away large portions. On the 19th the sap reached
the crest of the glacis, and on the 21st the engineer officer in charge
announced that there were two practicable breaches. General Whish gave
prompt orders for the storm on the following morning. Moolraj had been
seriously alarmed during the progress of the works for the few days
previous, and repeatedly offered to surrender if his life would
be spared. The answer returned informed him that no terms but an
unconditional surrender would be conceded. On the 22nd, the British
columns were forming for the assault, when the garrison hauled down its
flag, and Moolraj surrendered at discretion.

The scenes which followed were at once picturesque and painful. The
discomfited troops marched forth as prisoners of war. First came a few
hundreds of the most miserable, dispirited looking men, ill clothed,
and wan with fatigue. These were fanatics who had under a vow devoted
themselves to especial peril and labour in the defence, and as is so
frequently the case with men under the influence of fanaticism, defeat
brings reaction in the form of despair. A column of about three thousand
five hundred soldiery, stern looking men, next came. With such troops
it was no wonder that Moolraj made so glorious a defence. This splendid
body of men laid down their arms with reluctance, and looked back upon
the breaches as if they fain would return and die there, with their arms
in their hands. The body-guard of Moolraj followed, a splendid body of
soldiers, whose equipment in arms and uniform was superb. The chiefs,
friends, and family of the governor next came. They were deeply
dejected, and uttered words of expressive anguish and shame. Moolraj
himself was the last man of the Khalsa host who left the citadel. He
was gorgeously appareled in silks, and decorations expressive of
Khalsa religious or military associations. He wore jewels, carried arms
superbly ornamented and of superior make, and rode a beautiful Arab
charger, covered with a scarlet saddle-cloth, with gilt or golden
trappings. His personal appearance was impressive, his countenance manly
and well formed, with quick, fiery, expressive eyes. Above the middle
height, his form was strong, muscular, and yet elegant. His bearing
was manly and gallant; there was no assumed or insolent defiance, no
fanatical contempt expressed by it, nor did he allow dejection to betray
itself. He and his followers became prisoners of war, and were placed
at the disposal of the governor-general. It was alleged that the
British army was guilty of plunder, and that officers of engineers were
discovered appropriating to themselves prizes, which belonged either to
the custody of the prize agents, or were sacred as private property. It
would appear that these allegations were circulated by certain agents of
persons in England having interests adverse to the Honourable East India
Company, and were utterly unfounded. Lord Ellenborough, more than eight
years afterwards, confuted the calumny.

Mooltan, and the territory of which it was the capital, was now
completely subjugated, and our ally, the khan, returned to his own
province a wiser if not a better man, his further services being
confined to the maintenance of peace in his own territory, and to the
exercise of a certain degree of vigilance in reference to surrounding
provinces. The fall of Mooltan was received over all British India and
the neighbouring independent states as one of the grandest events in
Indian history, and filled the petty chieftains with awe, while it
excited exultation in the presidencies. Far different were the feelings
created in the minds of the Sikh soldiery and people; they were
exasperated, and determined to hazard all upon a single throw. To avenge
past disasters, and expel the British from the country of the five
rivers became the passionate purpose and ambition of chieftain and
soldier, and everywhere desultory bands made war, as they pressed onward
to join the great chiefs, Shere Singh and Chuttur Singh who were now at
the head of a powerful army.




CAMPAIGN IN THE PUNJAUB UNDER LORD GOUGH.

It has been already related that Shere Singh quitted Mooltan with a
strong division of Khalsa troops, on the 9th of October, and formed a
junction with Chuttur Singh.

The latter returned to the territory of Hazareh, leaving the bulk of
his forces under the command of Shere Singh, who was gradually joined by
other chiefs and sirdars, whose followers augmented his army,—that army
consisted of men inured to combat, the flower of the Sikh nation. Lord
Gough, the commander-in-chief of the army in India, was ordered to
assemble an army at Ferozepore, and act against Shere Singh, and, in
fact, reconquer the Punjaub. Bombay and other troops were ordered to
join the army collecting at Ferozopore, and the victorious troops
of Whish, Courtlandt, and Edwardes were ordered to follow and form a
junction with the grand army. These troops did not join as soon as Lord
Gough expected, and the Bombay division, under the Hon. Major-general
Dundas, was so dilatory as to evoke from the good-natured
general-in-chief a most stinging rebuke. The major-general was urged
by despatches to advance with all possible celerity, but he expressed
himself as not perceiving the necessity of such speed. “Tell him,” said
the gallant commander, “to stay with the native troops if he likes, but
to send on the Europeans!”

Before, however, the army which had acted before Mooltan could render
any assistance to Lord Gough, months before that city had fallen, events
gathered within the Punjaub in gloomy and rapid association. It was on
the 21st of November before General Gough assumed the active command of
the army at Seharun, a central position. The river Chenab is the central
one of the five rivers which give name to the district, and the theatre
of conflict was midway between the Chenab and its confluence with the
Indus. On the left bank of the former, about a mile and a half from the
river, the town of Rumnugger was situated: there Shere Singh had taken
up his quarters. Opposite that town the river bends, and there was an
island in mid-channel; this island was about two acres in area. The main
force of Shere Singh was posted on the right bank of the river, but a
strong brigade of four thousand men occupied the island, and erected
batteries. These batteries commanded the only available ford, or
“nullah,” as it is called in the vocabulary of the country. The opposite
town of Rumnugger was favourably situated for defence; it was flanked
by a grove, and by the bend in the river. This position Shere Singh had
skilfully fortified. On the 22nd, at two o’clock in the morning, Lord
Gough approached the enemy. While the right bank and the island were
occupied by the chief forces of the sirdar, he had a strong body also
posted on the left bank, and it became the first object of Lord Gough
to dislodge them. Between the island and the right bank the passage
was effected by boats, so that the enemy was able to preserve his
communications with tolerable certainty and ease. The nullah or ford
was not difficult, although the descent to it from the left bank of the
river was steep. It was directly commanded by the guns on the island,
and was exposed to a raking cross-fire on either side from batteries
placed on the right bank. The 8th light cavalry (Company’s service)
advanced along the left bank, skirmishing, supported by her majesty’s
3rd Light Dragoons. The horse artillery pushed into the deep sand on the
margin of the river, and commanded the batteries at Rumnugger, but were
obliged to retire before their superior metal, leaving behind one gun
and two ammunition waggons embedded in the sand. The enemy took skilful
and immediate advantage of this reverse, and pushed over a powerful
cavalry division. Orders were given to charge them, and the 14th
(Queen’s) Light Dragoons, and the 3rd light horse of the Company’s army,
in spite of overwhelming numbers and of imperfect supports, cut through
the enemy and dashed after them into the nullah. The passage was
familiar to the latter, who made good their retreat to the island; the
latter were of course ignorant of the ground, and were impeded in their
pursuit by that circumstance, had none other obstructed them. As soon as
the Sikh cavalry cleared the ford, the batteries of the island and the
flanking batteries on the right bank opened with deadly effect. How any
British officer could have been so imprudent as to give the order to
charge into the nullah is almost inconceivable; that the error was not
evident, while the brave men were being mowed down by an artillery fire,
which they could do nothing to silence, is still more marvellous; such,
however, was the case. Colonel Havelock dashed into the ford at the head
of the 14th Light Dragoons, but was never seen again. A native trooper
supposed he saw him in the nullah soon after he entered it, unhorsed,
and several Sikh soldiers “hacking his person.” After much useless
slaughter was thus incurred by Havelock’s gallant brigade, Major-general
Cureton rode up with an order from Lord Gough for the troops to retire.
He had scarcely given the order when he fell dead from two shots, by
which he was instantaneously struck. The troops retired with a loss, in
every corps engaged, of officers and men. Lord Gough considered the
end attained in driving the enemy from the left bank was worth the
sacrifice. The death of General Cureton was severely felt by the army,
and was in some degree irreparable. He had risen from the ranks by his
superior soldiership, and was deemed one of the best, perhaps the best,
officer for outpost duty then in India.

On the 30th of November Lieutenant-general Thackwell was ordered to
cross the Chenab above Rumnugger, where an indifferent ford had been
discovered, and where Captain Nicholson had provided boats. Thackwell
was to take the Sikhs in the flank and rear, while Lord Gough observed
them from his old position, ready to take advantage of any favourable
opportunity for attack which the manouvre of General Thackwell might
create. That gallant and skilful officer performed well the part
assigned to him. He gained the right bank of the river; but Shere Singh
was also a skilful commander, and did not allow Thackwell even to
menace his rear or flank, for he detached a strong force to attack the
intruder, as soon as he saw that the river had been forded. It was the
3rd of December before Thackwell secured the passage, and on the fourth
he began his march along the right bank towards the lines at Rumnugger.
He soon discovered that a strong body of Sikhs were marching in a
north-west direction. They threatened his flank with cavalry, and
cannonaded him severely. Thackwell’s orders did not allow of his taking
any measure for attack, and the enemy drew off after a sharp and heavy
cannonade. As soon as this officer’s artillery was allowed to open upon
them, they marched towards the Jhelum. Perhaps the enemy were decided
in abandoning their strong positions, not only from fear of their left
flank being turned by General Thackwell, but also by the energetic
proceedings of Lord Gough, after the force detached to observe Thackwell
had departed. Lord Gough opened a heavy cannonade upon the island, and
upon the batteries on the right bank of the Chenab. On the morning of
the 3rd a brigade of infantry, under Brigadier Godby, passed by a ford
not far from Rumnugger, his passage being covered by the approach of
General Thackwell, who had by that time been advancing from the passage
at Wuzerabad. Shortly after, the 9th Lancers and 14th Light Dragoons,
under General Gilbert, were ordered to cross the river, and harass as
much as possible the retreating enemy. The British generals seem to have
believed that the Khalsa army would abandon their chiefs and disperse
to their homes, and this impression influenced their proceedings; for
although Gilbert with his cavalry followed the enemy briskly, there
was not that celerity in the movements of the British which actual
circumstances demanded.

On the 28th of December Lord Gough, with his whole army, crossed the
river and encamped. The right bank was now clear of the enemy, Shere
Singh having followed the previous division of his army to the Jhelum,
where he ultimately took post in the formidable position of Russool,
with a force which was augmented to forty thousand men, and a powerful
artillery, estimated variously from sixty-two to ninety guns.

While these events were passing, Chuttur Singh, who, as before noticed,
had retired to his own province, pressed the fort of Attock, which had
been long and gallantly maintained by Major Herbert. When it fell the
major contrived to send tidings to Lord Gough, and to warn him that
Chuttur Singh had repaired with his army to the upper Jhelum, to form a
junction with the army of Shere Singh. Lord Gough determined at once
to follow the Sikh forces, and bring them to a decisive action. On the
morning of the 12th of January he marched from Loah Tibbah to Dingee.
The sirdar was represented by the British commander-in-chief in his
despatch as holding with his right the village of Lukhneewalla and
Futteh Shah-ke-Chuck, having the great body of his force at the village
of Lollianwalla, with his left at Eussool, on the Jhelum. This position
lay on the southern extremity of a low range of hills, intersected by
ravines, and difficult of access to assailants. The post was well chosen
by the sirdar, who showed a subtle generalship throughout the war. The
information furnished by Lord Gough’s spies was not always faithful, and
his lordship, therefore, was not accurately in possession of the forces
of the sirdar, nor of the topographical peculiarities of his position.
The British commander directed his march upon the village of Bussool,
and there reconnoitred.

The advance to the ground chosen by the sirdar was impeded by a jungle,
to avoid which, and to distract the enemy’s attention, Lord Gough took
a considerable _détour_ to the right. He succeeded in avoiding the
intricacies of the jungle, but not in distracting the attention of
Shere Singh. That general moved from his encampment, and took ground in
advance, a manouvre calculated to hide the strength of his position, and
to disconcert any previous arrangements of the British commander.

About noon on the 13th, Lord Gough was before the village of Bussool,
and finding a very strong picket of the enemy on a mound close to that
place, his lordship, after some fighting, dislodged it. Ascending the
mound, the general and his staff beheld the Khalsa army ranged along the
furrowed hills in all the majestic array of war. The British officers
gazed with admiration and professional ardour upon the long lines of
compact infantry and the well-marshalled cavalry, mustered in their
relative proportions and positions with scientific exactness. The
sirdar’s batteries were chiefly masked by jungle. The scene was striking
in its aspect, from the magnitude of the events associated with it, and
the excitement it stirred up within the hearts of the brave. Alas, how
many noble hearts were necessarily to bleed before victory crowned the
arms of England, and that fine Khalsa army succumbed to the destiny of
England’s Asiatic foes!

Lord Gough found that he could not turn the flanks of the sirdar’s
army, they were so protected by jungle, unless he detached a portion of
his army to a considerable distance, which he deemed unsafe. The day
was too far advanced to begin any operations. The engineer officers were
ordered to examine the country in front, and the quartermaster-general
was about to take up ground for the encampment, when the enemy advanced
some horse artillery, and opened a fire upon the skirmishers in front
of Bussool. Lord Gough ordered his heavy guns to open upon the enemy’s
artillery, and for this purpose they were advanced to an open space
in front of the village. Shere Singh did not act with his usual good
strategy, in exposing the positions of so many of his cannon, which
the jungle had concealed, and which might have remained hidden until
an attack upon his line would have afforded him opportunity to use them
with sudden and terrible advantage, as he afterwards was enabled to use
those on his right. As it was, he replied to the British cannonade with
such a powerful field-artillery as constrained Lord Gough to draw up
in order of battle, lest in the night the sirdar’s guns should be moved
still more forward, and open on his camp. His lordship, keeping the
heavy guns on his centre, placed Sir Walter Gilbert’s division on his
right, flanked by Brigadier Pope’s brigade of cavalry, strengthened by
her majesty’s 14th Light Dragoons, and three troops of horse artillery,
under Colonel Grant. This arrangement was necessitated by the large
force of cavalry observed upon the enemy’s left. On the left of the
British line, Brigadier-general Campbell’s division was formed, flanked
by Brigadier White’s cavalry, and three troops of horse artillery under
Colonel Brind.

The demonstrations of the enemy were such that, late as was the hour,
and weary as the troops were with marching, Lord Gough determined to
attack at once. His lordship’s critics, influenced by the events
which followed, have severely censured him for attacking under such
circumstances, more especially as the ground was unknown to his
lordship. It was true that sufficient time had not been obtained to
reconnoitre the enemy’s positions, but it was not correct to allege
that Lord Gough was entirely unacquainted with the ground, as he had
previously known it, especially the country to the left of the enemy. It
was generally supposed by his lordship’s censors that the attack was a
wanton waste of life, and arose from the brave, rash, and unreflecting
temperament of the general, and the irritation caused by the sudden and
severe artillery fire opened upon him. On the other hand, the Duke of
Wellington declared that he would, in Lord Gough’s place, have acted as
he had done; and so full of confidence were the Sikhs in their numbers
and resolution, that had not the general given battle, he would have
been obliged to defend himself from a desperate night attack under
circumstances far less favourable. There can be no doubt, on the part of
any who know the noble old soldier, that he acted from his sense of duty
to his army and his country, and not from personal irritation.

The battle began, or, it may be said, was resumed, by a heavy cannonade
which lasted for more than an hour when Lord Gough ordered his left to
advance, making a flank movement. In executing this manouvre, the troops
exposed their own flank to a galling fire from heavy guns, the positions
of which had remained covered by jungle, and the Sikh batteries were so
placed as to pour a most destructive cross-fire upon the British. When
the 3rd and 4th brigades reached the enemy’s guns, they were received by
a cannonade so overwhelming that they were obliged to retire. As soon
as it was known that these two brigades were engaged, the 5th, under
Brigadier Mountain, was ordered to storm the centre. They were received
with round-shot the moment they moved; with grape and canister as they
advanced through the jungle; and, finally, with musketry within close
and deadly range. Many of the Sikh soldiers, at the cost of their own
life, advanced and shot down the British officers. Brigadier Mountain
had distinguished himself in China, and had the entire confidence of
Lord Gough, under whom he had served there. Under his able guidance, the
British stormed the batteries and spiked the guns, under a flank fire
from other guns which they also spiked, while the enemy, without
giving way, poured upon them musket balls thick as hail. Detachments of
musketeers took them on each flank, and some getting to their rear
among the jungle, fired upon them with deadly aim. The British were
thus compelled to cut their way back to their own lines through hosts
of encircling foes. While this was going on upon the centre, Sir Walter
Gilbert advanced against the enemy’s left. That general occupied the
extreme right of his division, and Brigadier Godby the extreme left.
They marched through a dense jungle almost unmolested, and then were
confronted by infantry. Had the British at once charged with the
bayonet, the result might for them have been less sanguinary; they,
however, opened fire, and the Sikhs, more numerous, returned the fire
and outflanked them. Two companies of the 2nd (or Queen’s) British
regiment charged with the bayonet, but were surrounded. These gallant
and skilful soldiers immediately faced about, and after some file-firing
charged, rear-rank in front. At this critical moment, Deane’s battery
arrived, and drove back the enemy by the precision of their fire.
Several guns were here captured by the British. The heroism and losses
of the 2nd regiment were very great. While the infantry had thus been
engaged in close and deadly battle, the cavalry also were occupied both
on the left and right. On the former flank of the British, Brigadier
White’s brigade charged the enemy, covering the retreat of the infantry.
On the extreme right Brigadier Pope’s brigade, strengthened, as has been
already shown, by the temporary attachment of the 14th Light Dragoons of
the Queen’s army, was ordered to charge a body of the enemy’s cavalry,
the numbers of which were much superior. Instead of obeying the orders
given, they wheeled right about, and galloped off the field, breaking
through the artillery, upsetting artillerymen, drivers, and waggons in
their course, until they reached the field hospital. According to some
narrations of this transaction, the men galloped away under a mistake of
orders; other accounts represent this to have been impossible, because
their own officers and officers of the artillery endeavoured to stop
and rally them without success, except so far as a portion of the 9th
Lancers was concerned. The enemy was not slow to take advantage of
this extraordinary flight; they pursued—dashed in among the horse
artillery—cut down seventy-five gunners, and took six guns. The arrival
of artillery reserves, the rallying of a portion of the 9th Lancers, and
the steadiness of the infantry, prevented the destruction of the whole
right wing. The fresh artillery which came up opened upon the Sikh
cavalry with grape and canister, with such precision and fury that they
retreated. Two of the captured guns were recovered in the retreat. The
Sikhs gradually withdrew, leaving the field of battle in possession of
the British, who, on this account, claimed the victory. The enemy, in
the night, carried away all the guns which the British had spiked during
the action, the four pieces of horse artillery which they took on the
British right, and five stand of colours, and on these grounds also
claimed the victory; and a salute of twenty-one guns in honour of the
triumph was, as the English thought, most impudently fired. This was
also done at Attock, in the capital of Chuttur Singh, and wherever the
Sikh troops held a position. The Sikhs also claimed the victory for the
same reason as the English did—being left in possession of the field.
It was, in truth, a drawn battle. The Sikhs having began the engagement,
and the English having retained the ground on which they fought, while
the former retired their line, the battle may more correctly be said to
have been won by the British; but the advantages gained were altogether
on the part of the Sikhs, who continued to occupy for a month positions
from which the British did not attempt to dislodge them. During that
time Lord Gough waited for reinforcements, and felt the tardy arrival of
some of the troops whose presence had been detained before Mooltan, as
has already been shown.

The loss sustained by the Sikhs it is impossible to calculate; according
to themselves it was much less than that of the English; and this is
credible when the strength of their position is considered, and the
losses to which the unaccountable flight of Pope’s brigade exposed the
British light. The English loss, according to the official returns,
was three thousand men in killed and wounded, nearly one-third of whom
belonged to the former class; this, however, did not comprehend all
the slain, for many were so horribly wounded by the close discharge of
artillery that they died in a few days. The proportion of the wounded
who were hit mortally was beyond that which usually occurs in battle.
There were also many desertions of Sepoy soldiers to Shere Singh, but
more especially of Sikh soldiery under Lord Gough’s command.

The flight of the large body of cavalry under Brigadier Pope was the
subject of much investigation and of shame. The brigadier was too old
for the duties imposed upon him; he had no experience in war, and was
placed in the command from seniority. This gave occasion, in England,
to denounce the substitution of seniority for fitness, so common in the
British army. Unhappily, the officer himself who was so much concerned
in the responsibility of the event, and who had been much respected
by his brother officers and his commander, was placed beyond all human
accountability, for he fell in front of his fugitive soldiers. Colonel
King, of the 14th Light Dragoons, who succeeded Colonel Havelock, who
fell at Rumnugger, was also much censured. His defence was, that he
did his utmost to rally his men in vain; that they were generally
light small men, mounted upon light small horses; whereas the cavalry
immediately opposed to them were not only much more numerous, but
cuirassiers—powerful, heavy men, with long and superior swords, and
admirably mounted. The colonel complained of the bad manufacture of the
English weapons, which bent or broke against the swords and cuirasses of
the Sikh cavalry, When Sir Charles Napier arrived to command the forces
in India late in the spring, he inspected the 14th, and addressed them,
referring to the allegations of their colonel, and telling them that
they were fine, stalwart, broad-chested fellows, that would follow
anywhere that they were led. Colonel King took this so much to heart,
that he retired from the field of inspection and shot himself. Sir
William Napier (brother to Sir Charles) afterwards denied in the London
newspapers that his brother intended to cast any reflection upon Colonel
King. It was, however, generally believed in the army, that Sir Charles
levelled a censure at the unfortunate officer, whose sensitive honour
could not endure such a reflection from so high an authority. His
fate excited deep commisseration, and the address of Sir Charles was
disapproved of indignantly by the whole army.

The generalship of Lord Gough became the subject of anonymous criticism
in India, and open attack in England; but the brave and skilful general
proved at the subsequent battle of Goojerat that he knew how to gain
victory at as little cost of blood as it was possible for military
knowledge to ensure. The late drawn battle—if such it may be
called—was designated the battle of Chillianwallah, after a village in
the immediate neighbourhood of which the British had encamped. The Sikhs
know it as the battle of Russool, the more appropriate name to give it,
as it was in its vicinity the chief strength of the Sikh position was
found.

Leaving the movements of the two armies confronting one another to
the narrative of another chapter, it is now necessary to turn to other
scenes of interest.




CANADA.

This fine colony continued prosperous and powerful, yet the
dissatisfaction of previous years with the imperial administration
was not removed. On the 28th of February the first session of the new
parliament was opened by the governor-general, who delivered a speech
which was intended to be concilatory, but which did not accomplish its
purpose. An amendment was proposed to the address, which was carried
against the government by a majority of fifty-four to twenty. In this
amendment the legislature plainly declared its want of confidence in the
governor’s advisers; the ministry therefore resigned.




THE WEST INDIES.

During this year the West India colonists were discontented, and
complained of distress, while at home they were regarded with suspicion
by the religious and anti-slavery public, as designing, if possible, to
restore slavery.

The immigration of hill Coolies from India into several of the colonies,
which was promoted by the West India legislative bodies at the public
expense, increased this jealousy towards the planters. The taxes to meet
the expenses incidental to the immigration were levied in such a manner
as to fall especially upon the emancipated negro, to compete with whose
labour the Coolie was imported. This irritated the classes in England
whose dispositions were unfavourable to the planter. The press, the
pulpit, and missionary meetings denounced the Coolie trade and traders,
and, in terms of eloquent indignation, represented the negro inhabitants
of the West Indies as still subjected to the plunder and persecution
of a tyrant race. The Coolie immigration was depicted as rivaling the
slave-trade in atrocity, and its failure was boldly predicted on every
religious platform. These predictions certainly were fulfilled—the
Coolie speculation was a failure. A writer of that date, well acquainted
with the facts of the case, thus noticed them:—“One of the most recent
efforts made to substitute free for slave labour in the West Indies, it
will be recollected, was the bringing of a number of hill Coolies
from India for this purpose. The experiment has miserably failed, as
acknowledged by the chancellor of the exchequer in his speech on
the introduction of the sugar duties bill, now in progress through
parliament. The Coolies were conveyed to Demerara from Madras in
ship-loads to supply the labour market in British Guiana, at the expense
of that colony; and, as our correspondent learned, at a rate which
even reached the Negro himself, against whom they came to compete.
Many agents were employed in their importation, and large bounties were
given; such temptations led parties to crowd the colony with numbers of
miserable persons, quite unable to perform any laborious employment. It
was the general opinion that, owing to physical inability, scarcely one
in a hundred of these Coolies was fit for manual labour; and whilst our
correspondent was at Demerara a law was issued by the governor granting
permission for labourers to enter Guiana from certain countries only,
omitting the East Indies. The wretchedness of these immigrant Coolies
was truly distressing; numbers of them might be seen wandering about,
and living in the open air on charity, in George Town, congregating
about the market-house and elsewhere, many of them covered with sores,
and all but naked. Hospitals were subsequently provided for them in
different places, in which they were maintained at the public expense;
and by this means they were removed from about the town and frontier of
the colony. Mr. Stocqueler, in his very useful ‘Oriental Interpreter,’
refers to the Coolies in connection with the Bheels, a race of people
who inhabit the northern part of the chain of Ghauts, running inland
parallel with the coast of Malabar. On one side they are bordered by the
Coolies, and on another by the Goands of Goandwana. They are considered
to have been the aborigines of Central India, and, with the
Coolies, Goands, and Ramooses, are bold, daring, and predatory
marauders—occasionally mercenaries, but invariably plunderers.
There are, however, many shades of difference in the extent of the
depredations of these several people, in which the balance of enormity
is said to be considerably on the side of the Bheels. They are,
nevertheless, described as faithful when employed and trusted; and the
travellers who pay them their _choute_, or tribute, may leave untold
treasure in their hands, and may consider themselves as safe with
them as in the streets of London. Their word is sacred, their promise
unimpeachable.’”

There was another class of immigrants who were found more useful,
the Portuguese, from Madeira. They were highly prized by the Demerara
planters; but even among them the mortality was very considerable.




FOREIGN RELATIONS.

In the East the only hostile acts required from the British government,
during the year 1848, was the suppression of Chinese piracy. During
the year, also, the Rif pirates gave trouble on the shores of northern
Africa. Employment was also given to British cruisers in various other
parts of the world in the suppression of piracy and the protection of
British commerce.




THE UNITED STATES.

The measures of Sir Robert Peel’s late government in the disputes which
arose between England and the United States, whatever their demerits,
had the effect of preserving peace between the two countries, which,
during the tumults of continental Europe, the disturbances in Ireland,
and the agitations in England during 1848, was of the utmost consequence
to Great Britain. The discovery of gold in California, although an
American event, exercised much influence upon the commerce and monetary
affairs of the British Isles, and tended still more to draw the bonds of
amity close between the two great British nations.




SPAIN: DIPLOMATIC DISAGREEMENT WITH THAT COUNTRY; DISMISSION OF THE
ENGLISH AMBASSADOR.

Spain, ever fruitful of internal discord, was not less so in 1848. The
history of the court was one of scandal, and of the government one of
weakness, fickleness, and incapacity. The year 1847 closed by a change
of ministry, when the infamous Narvaez was in the ascendant, and his
creatures were gathered around him in the guise of a cabinet. The
queen-mother, it was declared, had been married in December, 1833, to
her paramour, Munoz, within three months of the decease of the king her
husband, and this was kept secret for fifteen years from the Spanish
people, until, under the auspices of the new government of Narvaez, it
was at last brought to light, for purposes at once venal and revolting.
This disclosure incensed the Spanish people, and revived the hopes of
both the republican and Carlist parties. The corrupt practices of Senor
Salamanca also coming before the public, disgusted the nation with
its public men. As will be seen on another page, France effected a new
revolution in February. Louis Philipp was dethroned, and the republic
was once more proclaimed. From the immediate contiguity of the two
countries it was feared that the French republic would find some cause
of quarrel with the imprudent and despotic government of Spain. England,
alarmed lest she should be once more involved in a war with France for
the protection of the Iberian peninsula, looked with concern upon the
tyrannical and profligate conduct of the Spanish court and government;
and Lord Palmerston, therefore, addressed a note to Sir H. Bulwer,
the British representative at Madrid, requesting him to make such
representations to the government, and offer such advice as would tend
to consolidate the independence and preserve the peace of Spain. This
Sir H. Bulwer performed; but the Spanish minister, the Duc de Soto
Mayer, resented this interference as an insult to Spain, and the British
minister was dismissed from Madrid. In England Lord Palmerston was
denounced as a meddler, and a minister whose policy was provocative of
foreign discord. The course of policy, however, adopted by the noble
viscount was customary with all British ministers, did not exceed the
right which one friendly nation has to advise another, and was based
upon the actual and recognised relations of Spain and Great Britain. It
afforded, however, an opportunity to ignorant declaimers, in and out
of parliament, to oppose the astute yet direct and manly policy of the
great English foreign minister. The interruption of diplomatic relations
between the two countries continued throughout the year.




THE CONTINENTAL REVOLUTIONS.

Although not strictly forming a portion of the history of England,
it would be impossible to relate the events in which the interests of
England were involved, without some extended reference to the mighty
moral earthquakes of continental Europe. France was the centre of these
terrible upheavings of human passion and power. Her government, under
the base king Louis Philippe, whom the revolution of 1830 had placed
upon the throne, was the most corrupt which France had ever known.
Tyranny infinitely more oppressive than that which he was permitted to
wield had often cursed France, but never before were such efforts made
as by him to corrupt the whole people. The unprincipled conduct of every
department of the government directed by Guizot, the treacherous and
subservient tool of his bad master, utterly disgusted all honourable
men; and even those who were willing to sell themselves and their
country, despised and hated the purchasers. Even the correct manners of
Louis Philippe’s court, and the strict domestic morality observed there,
at last increased the public indignation and contempt, for it left the
universal impression that he was a cold and heartless hypocrite. During
1847 a desire for electoral reform, which had existed for many years
among the more thoughtful politicians of France, became more thoroughly
developed among most classes of citizens, and agitations to accomplish
this object were set on foot. The tyrant king opposed this feeling and
these movements, at first by corrupt means, and, ultimately, by the
hands of his unscrupulous minister, he resorted to coercion. Public
meetings were suppressed, and the liberty of the press was invaded. The
insulted citizens of Paris rose in arms, barricades were erected, and
the king, as cowardly as he was corrupt, had not the manhood to stand
by his own measures, but fled, with craven spirit, to take refuge in the
country whose queen and people he had betrayed. Under the common English
name of Smith this proud prince found means of escaping from the country
he had deceived, pillaged, and oppressed, and which allowed him to
pass away without pursuit, and without malediction, because of its own
magnanimity and the contempt with which it regarded him. Louis Philippe
found a home in England, at first at Claremont, and then in Abingdon
House, Kensington, where he lived for some time in apparently tranquil
enjoyment, the delightful and salubrious vicinity affording to his
family means of retired and pleasurable recreation.

The expulsion of the nefarious old man, who had for eighteen years ruled
France on a system of false pretences, was followed by the appointment
of a provisional government, consisting of Dupont (de l’Eure),
Lamartine, Arago, Marie, Armand Marrast, Garnier Pages, Albert, Ledru
Rollin, Ferdinand Flocon, Louis Blanc, Cremieux. No sooner was the
provisional government appointed, than it was discovered that harmony
among its members was impossible. The republican party was divided into
two great sections—the old republicans and the “reds.” The former, like
those of the United States of America, contended for self-government
and equal political rights, for civil and religious liberty. The latter
declared for what they called “a republic, democratic, and social,” and
their aim was to establish socialism by subverting all rights, civil and
religious, fusing all interests in a communal equality, no longer being
subject to individual claims. The unknown of Paris were ignorant, and
many of them suffered much from low wages and irregular employment;
these madly grasped at a theory which promised to them a maintenance at
the public expense. The state ought, in their opinion, to provide them
with wages sufficient for their support, they being themselves the
judges of the requisite amount, and the state should find employment,
if it could, for those who were so requited, the amount of labour to
be rendered was also to be decided by the workers. The theory was
substantially that which prevailed among the English Chartists. The
whole subject of this division of feeling and opinion in the provisional
government and in the nation, with the practical results, was thus
clearly set forth by a writer of that day:—“In this conflict of opinion
upon the question of labour, or of communism, is the _resumé_ of all the
great events that have taken place in France since the declaration of
the republic on the 24th of February last. This key unlocks them all,
and the efforts of this principle to establish itself, and to overthrow
its opponents, explain events otherwise inexplicable, and show us in the
clearest possible manner what are and what are not the great opposing
forces that have since been at feud. All other forces in France have
been as nothing compared with these two. The friends of monarchy,
whether of the Orleans or the old Bourbon dynasty, and the friends of
Napoleon, have, it is true, endeavoured to make themselves heard; but
their voices have been mere whispers in comparison with the shouts
and hubbub of the communists and anti-communists—of the tricolor
republicans and the republicans of the _drapeau rouge_. Without this
clue to the character of the revolution, the remark of Milton that the
wars of the Saxon heptarchy were as unintelligible as those of kites in
a neighbouring wood, would apply to the proceedings of the Parisians.
Almost each day, after the 24th of February, brought tidings of change
in all the relations betwixt man and man. There was fighting one
day, embracing the next; every rotation of the hand brought to view
a wonderful and unexpected change of figures in the political
kaleidoscope. Day after day, in endless succession, there were mouthings
of tumid, florid, and often unintelligible speeches, and of still more
unintelligible and mysterious theories for the regeneration of mankind.
Every speech and newspaper article breathed only peace and goodwill
towards all men, yet almost every ordinance of the government was
directed towards the organisation of armed men. There were assemblings
of the people, reviews, marchings, and counter-marchings, hasty
summonings at all hours, the beating of the _rappel_, and the
sounding of the tocsin, in the dead of night and the early dawn. The
‘Marseillaise Hymn’ and the ‘Mourir pour la Patrie,’ were sung in
every street, court, and alley, and were heard on the pillow of every
recumbent citizen. Journalism became a power of tremendous magnitude and
extent. People read leading articles by torchlight, and shouted out to
the moon apostrophes to liberty, ay, ‘liberty, equality, fraternity.’
These three talismanic words, too often devoid of meaning in the
apprehension of those who shouted them with a fervour sufficient to
split the ears of the groundlings. Liberty? every man doing what he
deemed best, seemed to be the interpretation of the mob. Equality?
every man trying to get above every other man, seemed its natural
consequences. Fraternity? every man knocking down every other man who
happened to be of a different way of thinking from himself, was the
manner in which the men of the _faubourgs_ seemed to construe it. Such
seemed to be the epitome of the French revolution; but it was not so.
There was order amid disorder; two principles were at work; and the
revolution—so frivolous in its details, so momentous in its results;
exhibiting so much talent and energy, so much vanity and folly, so much
honesty and treachery, such kind feelings and such malignant passions,
such planting of trees and cutting of throats, such recommendations
of order, such instances of disorder, so much wisdom producing so much
folly, so much goodness mingled with so much wickedness, so much
gravity combined with so much levity, such long speeches and such brief
epigrams—was quite explainable wherever the mind was able to grasp
it as a whole, and see the operation of the two great and all pervading
principles which we have mentioned.”

The party of the communists in the provisional government comprised
three members—Ledru Rollin, Louis Blanc, and Albert. This number, being
small in proportion to the whole, offended the socialists; but Lamartine
and Arago possessed such influence with the three “reds,” that they were
for a time induced to co-operate with the rest for the general good, and
in a system of rational government. To those two great men France was
deeply indebted; their appearance was at times sufficient to still a
tumult.

The three communist members of the government gradually became more
exacting, and at last the influence of the philosophical republicans and
statesmen, who were associated with them, failed to keep within bounds
the communist sympathies of these hot-headed and imprudent men. In an
evil hour, Lamartine and some of his colleagues, who, like him, had
just notions of state affairs, and correct views of political economy,
conceded to Ledru Roll in and his brothers of the _drapeau rouge_ a
certain organisation for the employment of labour. From that hour the
doom of the new republic was sealed—it was the beginning of the end.
Men of property and sagacity stood aloof. M. Goodcheaux resigned, and
many official persons of eminent knowledge and experience followed his
example. Meanwhile Paris was kept in continual apprehension by popular
demonstrations, and commercial failures shook the public credit. The
working population became more and more dissatisfied, and menaced public
order and the existence of all rational government.

The provisional government called a constituent assembly, and the
representatives of the people were to assemble in Paris on a certain day
in April, but the assemblage was afterwards deferred to the 4th of May.
Ledru Rollin addressed a circular to the prefects and other departmental
and commercial authorities, urging upon them the support of republican
candidates at the elections. This measure Ledru Rollin and some of his
colleagues justified on the ground that there were already parties
whose reactionary efforts might be successful in returning Orleanist,
Buonapartist, or ultramontane representatives, who might form a majority
in the assembly, or, at all events, a minority large enough to embarrass
the republic. By republican members, however, Rollin and Louis Blanc
meant socialists, and this effort on their part to influence by official
means the returns of the constituent assembly, destroyed all confidence
in their justice, impartiality, and toleration. Rollin defended the
measures he had adopted in terms, if possible, more imprudent than the
measures themselves, and Albert and Blanc went still further in their
indiscreet words, as well as excited zeal. The result was that moderate
men not only lost confidence in them personally, but became apprehensive
of the designs and tendency of their party, and the elections were
much less favourable to the views and wishes of the “reds” than would
otherwise have been the case. While Ledru Rollin and his communist
colleagues in office were mismanaging everything connected with home
interests, Lamartine was conducting the foreign affairs of France
with surpassing judgment. At first all European governments saw the
proclamation of a French republic with awe, and their thoughts were
only how most effectually to arm and combine against French republic
propagandism. Lamartine soothed this alarm. He addressed a diplomatic
circular to all the agents of France through Europe, expounding the
principles upon which the French republic was founded. His policy might
be summed up in a single sentence of this manifesto,—“The republic is
the will of a great people; it derives its title from itself. Its policy
is peace.”

The government adopted the plan of large workshops, and workmen were
employed at the rate of a million and a half sterling a year. Louis
Blanc admitted that unless the work produced should prove remunerative
in the market, it would be impossible for the government to continue
so enormous an outlay. The operatives, perceiving the hesitation of the
government, prepared to carry their communistic views into operation
themselves, without having the trouble of using the provisional
government for their execution.

On the appointed day the assembly met, and the republic was proclaimed.
The real feelings and opinions of the assembly were soon seen; they were
elicited by the ministerial reports. The following description of the
scene presented on the occasion is quoted from the contemporary press:—

“All the preliminaries having been gone through, powers verified, a
president (M. Buchez) and vice-presidents, secretaries, &c, appointed,
the members of the government proceed to lay before the assembly an
account of their ministries since the establishment of the republic.

“On Saturday, May 6, the president announced that the citizen minister,
Lamartine, was about to make a communication from the government, when
that gentleman ascended the tribune, and proceeded to read a document,
which purported to be a report of the acts of the provisional government
in their _ensemble_—the restoration of order, organisation of the
national guard, _mobile garde_, the army, &c.—enumerating what had been
done in the midst of two months of a crisis during which not a drop of
blood had been shed. Many portions of this report were much applauded,
and at the close there was great enthusiasm.

“He was succeeded by Ledru Rollin, the minister of the interior, who
read a report of the acts of his administration, which he read with
great vehemence, but without exciting applause, except of a very partial
kind from a small minority.

“The minister of justice (M. Crémieux) next ascended the tribune, and
proceeded to read a report of his official acts, in which he recounted
all the ameliorations applied to the administration of justice, the
abolition of capital punishment for capital offences, abolition of the
pillory, &c.

“The next member of the government who ascended the tribune was M. Louis
Blanc, who excited a smile by his first act, which was to stoop and
arrange a _tabouret_, or footstool, on which to raise himself high
enough to be seen. The voice that came from this small form was firm,
clear, and loud; and he, instead of reading, delivered an extempore
oration in favour of his _Organisation du Travail_, to which he said
the government stood committed by its promises to the people assembled
before the Hôtel de Ville the day after the revolution. The assembly
received his oration with a coldness which augured ill.

“M. Carnot, the minister of public instruction, was afterwards heard,
and was succeeded by M. Bethmont, the minister of commerce, who
deposited on the table the _exposé_ of the state of his department. M.
Gamier Pages, minister of finance, concluded his report on the financial
condition of the country.

“M. Arago, the minister of war and marine, and M. Marie, the minister
of public works, next presented the situation of their departments; and
were succeeded by M. Lamartine, minister for foreign affairs, who took
a short review of the aspect of affairs throughout Europe. The general
tone of his remarks was pacific, and in accordance with the principles
of his address some time before to the diplomatic agents of France.

“In the course of the sitting a note from Béranger, the poet, resigning
his seat for Paris, was read; but the assembly unanimously refused to
accept the resignation.

“A stormy discussion then arose on the motion of M. Domes, offering the
thanks of the assembly to the provisional government for their conduct
in the administration of affairs, and nominating a committee of five to
act as a government _ad interim_, until the permanent government of the
country had been constituted. Subsequently, after fearful uproar, the
motion was modified by the withdrawal of the latter part of it, and the
assembly voted that the provisional government had deserved well of
the country. The vote was almost unanimous, M. Barbes, M. Durrien, and
another rising alone against it.

“On Tuesday, at eleven o’clock, M. Buchez, the president, took the
chair.

“Some apprehensions were entertained that the result of this sitting
would occasion disturbances. The workmen met in several quarters of
Paris, and in the wood of Boulogne, and were understood to have declared
that if M. Ledru Rollin was excluded from the government, they would
take arms. Extraordinary precautions had accordingly been adopted around
the hall. A large force was stationed in the adjoining garden, and
invitations had been sent to the national guards to hold themselves in
readiness to march at the first signal.

“On the following Wednesday, the appointment of an executive committee,
in lieu of the provisional government, was announced. The result of the
ballot was—

     Arago.......................................    725

     Gamier Pages................................    715

     Marie  .....................................    702

     Lamartine ..................................    643

     Ledru Rollin..........,.....................    598

“Those five members having obtained the required majority, were
proclaimed members of the executive committee. M. Louis Blanc, M.
Albert, and M. Flocon were entirely excluded—a fact which the _peuple_
and the ‘communists’ cherished in vindictive remembrance. M. Ledru
Rollin, whose violence had alarmed the majority, though not excluded,
was at the bottom of the list; and M. de Lamartine, who had lent his
high name and great popularity to support M. Ledru Rollin, was placed
next lowest—all of them being most significant facts to show the
spirit of the assembly, and the probable policy to be hereafter expected
from it.”

The discontent of the _ouvriers_ gathered strength, and on the 15th of
May they rose in insurrection. After much severe fighting the insurgents
were defeated, the loyalty of the troops, national guards, and _garde
mobile_ to the republic sustaining the cause of order. The _garde
mobile_ had been organised from the very lowest classes in Paris—
classes below the workmen—and was composed of mere youths, who
distinguished themselves beyond all other forces by their heroic
courage throughout that eventful day. The result to the leaders of
the socialists was that many of them, such as Albert, Barbes, Blanqui,
Raspail, and Sobrier were consigned to prison. Louis Blanc had a very
narrow escape of being numbered among them.

The suppression of the clubs and of the _atteliers nationaux_, followed
this success on the part of the government, but still more exasperated
the workmen. In this condition of affairs Prince Louis Napoleon was
elected for Paris, as representative in the room of one of the double
returns made in the general election. He was also elected for three
departmental vacancies, caused also by double returns in the general
election. It at once became the fashion to laud the prince. All
parties, except the “republicans pure and simple,” seemed to think that
Napoleonism offered a refuge from anarchy. The “reds” favoured him from
hatred to the party of the executive committee, or rather the majority
of that party; but in reality no faction hated Louis Napoleon at heart
so much as they. At all events, his name became a rallying word for
nearly all the lovers of order, who were not believers in the theory of
philosophical republicanism. The most ominous thing connected with
these demonstrations was the appearance of a journal entitled _Le
Napoléonien_. Placards also appeared with the words “_Louis Napoleon!
Vive l’Empereur! A bas la République!_” and crowds, shouting the name of
Buonaparte, collected in various parts of Paris, the _générale_ and the
_rappel_ were beaten, troops assembled, and the guards, _sédentaires_
and _mobile_, were frequently assembled to protect the government and
the representatives. Shots were fired, some lives were lost, and the
panic became general throughout Paris. Lamartine took advantage of this,
and proposed to the assembly that the laws of 1816 and 1832 should be
enforced, forbidding the entrance of any of the Buonaparte family into
France. This motion was received by the assembly with loud shouts of
“_Vive la République!_” Many who joined in that shout would have shouted
still more cordially for Louis Philippe or the representative of the
older branch of the Bourbon family. The cry of the republic answered
their present purpose of committing the executive committee to imprudent
measures, and of excluding the Buonapartists, who were regarded as more
formidable rivals to the Bourbons than the republicans, old or new. The
assembly was not able to carry out its own resolution; after coquetting
with public opinion and persisting for a time, the exclusion of the
Buonapartes was given up as impracticable; and the prince, again
elected for Corsica and other electoral districts, took his place in the
legislative assembly, accepted the oaths to the republic, and before
the year expired was president. Before that was accomplished France
was doomed to undergo fresh trials, and Paris to witness still more
sanguinary scenes.

The question of labour-regulation continued, under every improvement and
modification that was devised, to embarrass the government; and it was
at last resolved to remove from Paris great numbers of the workmen to
distant parts of the country, to be engaged there on various public
works. This the men determined to resist, and to subvert a government
which dared to suggest such a measure. The government was, however,
forced to adopt at once some plan to rid itself of the peril and
imminent ruin of the _atteliers_. In the National Assembly, Victor Hugo,
M. Léon Faucher, and others, denounced the connivance of the executive
committee with a state of things that must speedily destroy France. The
number of workmen then engaged in the government workshops of Paris was
one hundred and twenty thousand. On the night of the 22nd of June,
cries of “Down with the Assembly!” were raised by the _ouvriers_ in the
streets. In the morning, signs of disturbance were indicated in many
quarters. In the course of a few hours the workmen began to erect
barricades. Fighting began between the national guards and the
constructors of the barricades at the Porte Saint-Denis. Throughout
the day barricades were demolished by the national guards and _gardes
mobiles_, but only after fierce and deadly conflict. During the night of
the 23rd new barricades were raised as if by magic, and on the morning
of the 24th, a system of ingenious and powerful defences existed through
a large extent of Paris, behind which and commanding which, from the
windows and house-tops, well-armed and determined men were placed.
Happily the government consigned to General Cavaignac, minister of
war, all the functions of a dictator. He was ably seconded by General
Lamoricière, and other officers of rank, several of whom sealed their
fidelity in death. During the 24th, terrible battle raged in the streets
of Paris, but the troops and civic soldiery stormed the barricades
and conquered. Mortars were used, from which showers of shells were
discharged, which bursting behind the barricades shattered these
defences, ponderous although they were, scattering them, and the bodies
of the brave men who defended them to the last. Shells also were thrown
into the houses, whence a fire was kept up upon the military in the
streets: many of these houses were torn to pieces, burying the defenders
in their ruins. In some streets the troops had to cut their way from
house to house, the sappers knocking down the party-walls: the contest
in these directions resembled that at Saragossa, where, amidst crumbling
walls and blazing roofs, men fought foot to foot, in the agonies of
valour, fanaticism, and despair. Throughout the 25th and 26th the
conflict raged, but was terminated on the evening of that day. Twenty
thousand men were killed or wounded. General Cavaignac was elected by
the assembly president of the council. The gallant general conducted his
administration with justice and wisdom.

During the month of June, a committee appointed by the assembly was
engaged in drawing up a constitution; they presented a report to the
following effect:—They proposed that there should be a president
elected by universal suffrage for a period of four years; he was to be
a French citizen, not less than thirty years of age. The legislature
to consist of one chamber; that chamber to consist of seven hundred
and thirty members. The ministers to be appointed and dismissed at the
pleasure of the president. A council of state to be appointed out of the
assembly, forty in number, and chosen by the assembly itself; that body
to draw up the projects of law which the government might think fit
to bring in. The punishment of death for political offences was
interdicted. Slavery to be abolished in all French colonies. The press
to be free. All religions to be allowed, and their ministers to be
paid by the state. Public instruction to be free, subject to the
superintendence of the state. Substitutes for the army and navy to be
disallowed. The national debt to be deemed sacred. Property inviolable.
Algeria, and all other French colonies, to be integral parts of the
French soil, but to be governed by laws peculiar to themselves. Trials
to be public, and the office of judge to be permanent.

This project of constitution was accepted as a base for further
consideration. Subsequently it was modified, but not in any way
essentially to alter its principles. The resolution regarding colonial
slavery roused the whole colonial interest of France against the
republic. That which forbid substitutes for the army and navy created
wide-spread dissatisfaction. The former of these provisions of the
constitution was so just and humane, that it deserved to be carried out
at any cost; the other was impolitic, as it deprived large numbers who
would not serve in the army or navy of the opportunity of avoiding
that service, if they fell under the ballot, by nominating a substitute
willing to serve if remunerated.

The question of the adoption of the constitution was finally put on
the 4th of November, and carried, thirty voices being dissident. In the
evening of the same day, one hundred and one cannon shots announced to
Paris and its environs that the work of preparing the constitution had
been completed. The public made no manifestation of feeling. Only the
old republican party valued so free a constitution. The _ouvriers_ cared
not for it, nor for anything short of socialism. The Absolutists hated
liberty in every form. The Buonapartists regarded it as an instrument
that might be made available for reconstituting the empire. The
Orleanists received it with more malignant hostility than any other
class. They professed the theory of a constitutional monarchy; but
the free and just and noble constitution of the republic contrasted so
advantageously with the corrupt practices and _doctrinaire_ theories of
Louis Philippe and his favourites, that the Orleans party betrayed the
most malevolent feelings to the republican leaders, such as Cavaignac
and Lamartine, and the uttermost repugnance to the republic itself.
Louis Philippe, in England, entertained his friends with garrulous
accounts of his own wisdom in all the measures he had adopted,
predicting that France, enamoured of the glory of his reign, would
repent and return to him again! His queen, equally incapable of
appreciating France, dwelt only upon the injury inflicted upon religion
by the conduct of the French people in dethroning their king, and
making an indiscriminate establishment of all churches a feature of the
constitution. Her silence, gravity, and the religious view she took
of the event were strangely in contrast to the vanity, levity, and
self-gratulation with which the king talked of his temporarily humbled
fortunes.

The proclamation of the constitution failed in quieting enemies,
restoring public confidence in the state of affairs, or reviving
material prosperity, notwithstanding all that so many eloquent orators
of the old republican party predicted to that effect. The _Presse_ at
this juncture gave a most melancholy account of the sufferings of the
poor, and the distress of the commercial classes:—“It will be necessary
to feed at the public expense two hundred and sixty-three thousand
persons during the present month, two hundred and eighty thousand
during the month of December, three hundred thousand during the month
of January, three hundred thousand during the month of February, three
hundred thousand during the month of March, and two hundred and eighty
thousand during the month of April next; and the sum granted by the
assembly will not afford each individual more than 12 centimes (1d. and
⅖ths) per day each to exist upon. At the same time the revenue of
the city of Paris has fallen off by a sum of 16,000,000 fr. (£640,000),
which must be made good by an addition to the assessed taxes of more
than 50 per cent.”

The Socialists were not without hope that matters would turn to their
account; and although they did not dare to defy the republic in action,
they became more resentful in language than ever. They continued to
hold meetings, in which opinions at variance with all morality and civil
order were expressed, and which would have alarmed every government
in Europe, had not recent events been of a character to confine the
attention of these governments to domestic affairs. A banquet, under the
title of “The Confederation of the People of Europe,” was held, at
which eight hundred men, French, Poles, Belgians, Germans, and Italians
assembled; the most furious threats to kings, governments, persons of
property, and to all persons everywhere not favourable to communistic
projects, were uttered. One blasphemous toast will show the _animus_
of the assembly, and of its orators. It was delivered by M. Saint
Just:—“To the men strong, courageous, and valiant in the cause of
humanity. To those whose names serve as a guide, a support, and an
example to the degenerate beings—to all those whom history calls
heroes!... To Brutus, to Catiline, to Jesus Christ, to Julian the
Apostate, to Attila!... To all the thinkers of the middle age....
To unfortunate thinkers!... To Jean Jacques Rousseau, and his pupil,
Maximilian Robespierre!” This enumeration of names was received with a
triple salvo of applause, and was encored, with which request M. Saint
Just complied. The banquet concluded with the “Marseillaise” and the
“Chant du Départ” sung by the entire company.

The great work of electing a president proceeded without interruption or
disturbance, and the result was the election of Prince Louis Napoleon
by an overwhelming majority. The following, by an eye-witness, is a
condensed account of the transactions in the assembly upon the occasion
of formally announcing this result. The letter was dated November 20th,
and referred to the previous Wednesday, as selected for the ceremony by
the executive government, instead of Thursday, which had been publicly
announced; the change of the day arising from the apprehension of
disturbances consequent upon an attempt which was expected to be made
to greet Napoleon as emperor. The prince himself acquiesced in the
arrangement, to prevent unnecessary bloodshed:—

“At two o’clock orders were forwarded by the government to the colonels
of the 24th regiment of infantry and of two regiments of dragoons to
march their corps towards the National Assembly. At three o’clock two
battalions of the former, and a battalion of _garde mobile_, preceded
by a detachment of national guards, entered the Garden of the Tuileries,
and advanced to the gate of the Place de la Concorde, a general,
accompanied by his aide-de-camp, and escorted by a few lancers, taking
his station close to the obelisk. In the meantime, the quays adjoining
the palace were lined with dragoons. The presence of these troops, which
nobody could account for, created much uneasiness, though in some
groups a report circulated that the assembly was about to proclaim the
president of the republic.

“At half-past three o’clock M. Marrast, president, took the chair. The
assembly was extremely numerous, and animated groups were to be seen
here and there through the hall. Prince Louis Napoleon was not present
at the opening of the sitting, but his cousin, Jerome Buonaparte,
occupied his seat. The public galleries were crowded. In one of them we
remarked Princess Mathilda, sister of Jerome, and next to her M. Emile
de Girardin. Two aides-de-camp appointed in the morning by the prince,
M. Edgar Ney, and a son of General Pajol, were also present. No serious
discussion could take place in the state of excitement of the assembly,
and most of the orders of the day were adjourned. Two applications for
leave to prosecute Messrs. Caussidière and Turk, representatives of the
people, were rejected.

“The committee charged with examining the electoral returns for the
presidency entered the chamber at four o’clock, when the president
immediately called to the tribune M. Waldeck Rousseau, the reporter of
the committee, who read the report. It stated that seven million three
hundred and forty-nine thousand citizens of the republic had voted at
the presidential election, and that the votes had been divided in the
following proportion over the surface of the country:—

     M. Louis Napoloen had obtained ... 5,434,226  suffrages.

     General Cavaignac  ............... 1,448,107     „

     M. Ledru-Rollin  .................   370,119     „

     M. Raspail........................    36,900     „

     M. Lamartine   ...................    17,910     „

     General Changamier   .............     4,790     „

     Votes lost........................    12,600     „

Among the latter were many containing unconstitutional denominations,
and the committee had besides denounced to the minister of the interior
for prosecution a few individuals guilty of acts of violence. At
Grenoble, in particular, public tranquillity was slightly disturbed.
The committee had, moreover, examined several protests addressed to it
against the election of M. Buonaparte. In one of them he was declared
ineligible, because he had forfeited his rights as a Frenchman by his
naturalisation in Switzerland. The members of the committee however
had, by a unanimous decision, passed to the order of the day on that
difficulty. By the number of the votes, and the regularity of the
operation, M. Louis Napoleon was the real elect of the nation, and the
assembly had only to order that the executive power be transferred to
his hands. After paying a tribute of praise and gratitude to General
Cavaignac, which was ratified by the loud acclamations of the entire
assembly, M. Rousseau concluded by calling upon it to proclaim the
president, and exclaimed, ‘Have confidence, God protects France.’

“General Cavaignac, having then ascended the tribune, said, ‘I have
the honour of informing the National Assembly that the members of the
cabinet have just sent me their collective resignation; and I now come
forward to surrender the powers with which it had invested me. You will
understand, better than I can express, the sentiments of gratitude which
the recollection of the confidence placed in me by the assembly, and
of its kindness to me, will leave in my heart.’ This short address was
received with deafening cries of ‘Vive la République!’

“M. Marrast then rose and said, ‘In the name of the French people!
Whereas Citizen Charles Louis Napoleon Buonaparte, born in Paris,
possesses all the qualifications of eligibility required by the 44th
article of the constitution; whereas the ballot gave him the absolute
majority of suffrages for the presidency: by virtue of the powers
conferred on the assembly by the 47th and 48th articles of the
constitution, I proclaim him President of the French Republic, from this
day until the second Sunday of May, 1852, and I now invite him to ascend
the tribune and take the oath required by the constitution.’

“M. Louis Napoleon, who was seated near M. Odilon Barrot, then rose
and advanced towards the tribune. He was dressed in black; on his left
breast was a _crachat_ set with diamonds, and under his coat he wore the
grand cordon of the Legion of Honour. Having mounted the tribune, the
president read to him the oath of fidelity to the constitution, to which
M. Louis Napoleon replied, ‘Je le jure.’ He then asked leave to address
a few words to the assembly. The suffrages of the nation and his
personal sentiments, he said, commanded his future conduct, and imposed
upon him duties which he would fulfil as a man of honour. He would
treat as enemies of the country whoever should attempt to subvert the
constitution, and between him and the assembly would exist the most
perfect harmony of views. He would exert himself to place society on its
real basis, and to relieve the sufferings of a people who had borne such
generous and intelligent testimony. He would endeavour to restore to the
government the moral force of which it stood in need, and to maintain
peace and order. He had called around him men distinguished for talent
and patriotism, who, notwithstanding the differences of their political
origin, would assist him in consolidating the new institutions of the
country. He then eulogised the becoming conduct and loyalty of which
General Cavaignac had given so many and such signal proofs, and pledged
himself strenuously to labour to accomplish the great mission of
founding the republic, without recurring to reactionary or Utopian
means; and, with the assistance of God, he trusted to achieve useful if
not great things.

“This speech was received with unanimous cries of ‘Vive la République!’
and M. Louis Buonaparte, having descended the tribune, went up to the
seat of General Cavaignac, and cordially shook him by the hand. The new
president was then met by M. Odilon Barrot and his friends of the right,
who escorted him out of the hall. In leaving the hall the president was
accompanied by a great number of the members of the assembly, and passed
between a double line of soldiers and national guards, which extended
through the Salle des Pas Perdus to the gate upon the quay facing the
Place de la Concorde. There was no manifestation of enthusiasm at this
moment. A carriage waited for the president at the gate, in which he
left for the palace of the Elysée Bourbon, escorted by a squadron of
dragoons and lancers. The cannon of the Invalides were discharged as a
salute at the moment. General Changarnier attended on the occasion, and
directed the proceedings. It was remarked that, on the occasion of
this solemnity, all the enthusiasm of the assembly was shown to General
Cavaignac, and the utmost coldness towards Prince Louis.

“M. Marrast next announced that M. Odilon Barrot was charged with
the construction of the new cabinet, which would be communicated by a
message to the assembly. The house afterwards adjourned.”

Such were the great events in France during the year 1818, events which
too nearly affected the connection of England with that country to be
given here in less detail.

During the progress of these transactions the relations of Great
Britain and France became delicate and critical; but the wisdom of the
provisional government on the one hand, and of the British government
on the other, prevented any collision. Diplomatic relations were
necessarily interrupted for a time by the revolution, and the flight
of the king; but her Britannic majesty, in her speech proroguing
parliament, expressed her satisfaction that she had been enabled to
resume the usual intercourse between the two governments. Several
occasions arose when even a slight deviation from international equity
on the part of the French provisional government might have involved the
two countries in war. In England the Chartists continued the agitations
already recorded, and made a grand demonstration, which will be related
in another section of this chapter. While they were preparing to put
forth this exhibition of strength, a correspondence was kept up by many
of their leaders with those of the French Communists, and the excitement
of the latter was intense as the hour approached for the grand
_denouement_. Indeed, all classes of the French, except the most
intelligent, especially in Paris, regarded a revolution in England as
inevitable. They were under the delusion that Fergus O’Connor and his
colleagues and followers were, politically speaking, the English people.
The following account of this impression was given by a gentleman then
resident in Paris:—“Never, during the many years I have resided in
Paris, did any event in England excite such universal interest among all
classes of the French as the great chartist demonstration has done. For
days and days it was a leading topic in the newspapers, and for days the
general subject of conversation. Both newspapers and talkers, relying
on the big swagger of the Chartists, and the undisguised alarm of the
government, confidently expected a stern and terrible straggle, with
barricades, and bayonets, and pikes, and deluges of blood, and awful
slaughter. To this expectation many added the hope of seeing a complete
revolution effected—a revolution which would overthrow throne,
aristocracy, and middle class, leaving the people and the republic
triumphant. So deeply had this hope taken possession of the more
sanguine, that they could not bear to hear the slightest doubt of its
realisation expressed.”

Strange as it may seem to English readers, the chartist proceedings in
England, and those of the Irish repeal party, had considerable influence
not only in sustaining unreasonable expectation among the French
workmen, but even on their modes of procedure. It was not until the
speeches of O’Connor and other Chartists claiming “the land for the
people,” and the articles of Mitchell and others in Ireland demanding
for the farmers a right in the soil, were circulated in Paris, that
the workmen there began an agitation against rent. This they maintained
until the restoration of order restored to the house-owners the means
of asserting the rights of property. The following graphic and
lively description of the agitation, incited and fostered under such
circumstances, is no exaggeration:—“The past week has been the
calmest which we have had since the revolution. We have had no forced
illuminations, no planting of trees of liberty, no physical-force
demonstrations, no great display of any kind; in fact, we have been
decidedly dull. But in some parts of the city, our sovereign lord and
master, the Mob, has been graciously pleased to afford us a little
interesting excitement by bullying the landlords into giving receipts
for their rents, without the usual preliminary ceremony of fingering
the cash. ‘Base is the slave that pays his rent’ is now the motto of
the mob, and his mobship chalks it up along with ‘liberty, equality,
fraternity!’ To show, however, that he is really a good fellow at heart,
the said mob no sooner swindles (I am afraid it amounts to swindling in
English) the landlord out of his rent, than he invests a small portion
of the coin in the purchase of a tricolor flag, with which he decorates
the landlord’s house. And such is the worthy fellow’s moderation, that
even when the landlord has refused to be victimised, the mob has not
inflicted summary vengeance on him; he has only stuck a black flag
before the offender’s door, or playfully made his effigy dangle by the
neck from the nearest lamp-post.”

In Ireland the progress of sedition afforded a much more favourable
opportunity for displaying the equity and prudence of the French
provisional government. An address was voted to the republic of France
by the Young Irelanders, who styled themselves the people of Ireland,
although they well knew that millions of Irishmen, numbering among them
her most intelligent and influential citizens, repudiated the principles
and proceedings of the party. A deputation, consisting of Mr. Smith
O’Brien and several other gentlemen, were sent to Paris to express the
sympathy and congratulation of the Irish people on the new-born liberty
of the citizens of France. It was well understood in England, and much
better understood in Ireland, that the deputation were expected to sound
the French government as to any hope of assistance in case of a rising
in Ireland; and also to stir up the minds of the French people generally
to more decided interest for Ireland, and a greater willingness to
identify the French republic with Irish hopes and aspirations. On
the 3rd of April the young Ireland deputation was received by the
provisional government at the Hôtel de Ville, and there presented an
address in the spirit of their mission. The following reply was read by
Lamartine:—

“_Citizens of Ireland_,—If we required a fresh proof of the pacific
influence of the proclamation of the great democratic principle,—this
new Christianity, bursting forth at the opportune moment, and dividing
the world, as formerly, into a Pagan and Christian community,—we should
assuredly discern this proof of the omnipotent action of an idea, in
the visits spontaneously paid in this city to republican France, and
the principles which animate her, by the nations, or by fractions of the
nations, of Europe.

“We are not astonished to see to-day a deputation from Ireland. Ireland
knows how deeply her destinies, her sufferings, and her successive
advances in the path of religious liberty, of unity, and of
constitutional equality with the other parts of the United Kingdom, have
at all times moved the heart of Europe. We said as much, a few days ago,
to another deputation of your fellow-citizens. We said as much to all
the children of that glorious Isle of Erin, which the natural genius of
its inhabitants, and the striking events of its history, render equally
symbolical of the poetry and the heroism of the nations of the north.
Rest assured, therefore, that you will find in France, under the
republic, a response to all the sentiments which you express towards it.

“Tell your fellow-citizens that the name of Ireland is synonymous with
the name of liberty courageously defended against privilege—that it is
one common name to every French citizen. Tell them that this reciprocity
which they invoke—that this hospitality of which they are not
oblivious—the republic will be proud to remember and to practise
invariably towards the Irish. Tell them, above all, that the French
republic is not, and never will be, an aristocratic republic, in which
liberty is merely abused as the mask of privilege; but a republic
embracing the entire community, and securing to all the same rights and
the same benefits. As regards other encouragements, it would be neither
expedient for us to hold them out, nor for you to receive them. I have
already expressed the same opinion with reference to Germany, Belgium,
and Italy; and I repeat it with reference to every nation which is
involved in internal disputes—which is either divided against itself
or at variance with its government. When there is a difference of
race—when nations are aliens in blood—intervention is not allowable.
We belong to no party in Ireland or elsewhere, except to that which
contends for justice, for liberty, and for the happiness of the Irish
people. No other part would be acceptable to us, in the time of peace,
in the interests and the passions of foreign nations. France is desirous
of reserving herself free for the maintenance of the rights of all.

“We are at peace, and we are desirous of remaining on good terms of
equality, not with this or that part of Great Britain, but with Great
Britain entire. We believe this peace to be useful and honourable, not
only to Great Britain and the French republic, but to the human race. We
will not commit an act—we will not utter a word—we will not breathe
an insinuation at variance with the principles of the reciprocal
inviolability of nations which we have proclaimed, and of which the
continent of Europe is already gathering the fruits. The fallen monarchy
had treaties and diplomatists. Our diplomatists are nations, our
treaties are sympathies. We should be insane were we openly to exchange
such a diplomacy for unmeaning and partial alliances with even the
most legitimate parties in the countries which surround us. We are not
competent either to judge them or to prefer some of them to others; by
announcing our partizanship on the one side, we should declare ourselves
the enemies of the other. We do not wish to be the enemies of any
of your fellow-countrymen. We wish, on the contrary, by a faithful
observance of the republican pledges, to remove all the prejudices which
may mutually exist between our neighbours and ourselves. This course,
however painful it may be, is imposed on us by the law of nations, as
well as by our historical remembrances.

“Do you know what it was which most served to irritate France and
estrange her from England during the first republic? It was the civil
war in a portion of our territory, supported, subsidised, and assisted
by Mr. Pitt. It was the encouragement and the arms given to Frenchmen,
as heroical as yourselves, but Frenchmen fighting against their
fellow-citizens. This was not honourable warfare; it was a royalist
propagandism waged with French blood against the republic. This policy
is not yet, in spite of all our efforts, entirely effaced from the
memory of the nation. Well, this cause of dissension between Great
Britain and us, we will never renew by taking any similar course. We
accept with gratitude expressions of friendship from the different
nationalities included in the British empire. We ardently wish that
justice may found and strengthen the friendship of races; that equity
may become more and more its basis; but while proclaiming with you,
with her (England), and with all, the holy dogma of fraternity, we will
perform only acts of brotherhood, in conformity with our principles and
our feelings towards the Irish nation.”

At the conclusion of this reply some present exclaimed, “Vive la
République!” others “Vive le Gouvernement Provisore!” and a few
cried out, “Vive Lamartine!” but the general impression was one of
dissatisfaction. Smith O’Brien and his companions retired discomfited.
The British government and people received the intelligence of this
reply with the greatest satisfaction, and their confidence in the
provisional government, and in Lamartine, more especially, was much
increased. There was already more reliance upon the friendly policy of
the republic than there had been upon the monarchy and the monarchial
ministry of Louis Philippe. In Ireland the reply of Lamartine gave
satisfaction also to the Protestants, and such of the Roman Catholic
citizens as were opposed to the O’Brien movement; but the Young
Irelanders, and most of the Old Irelanders, were exasperated, and
in their speeches and newspapers denounced Lamartine as the enemy
of liberty, the sycophant of England, and the incubus of the French
provisional government. It was said that he had married an English lady,
and was more English at heart than French—that he would betray the
republic to England or to monarchy. Those persons who had been foremost
in holding him up as a demi-god, now abused him not only as a traitor,
but as weak in purpose, policy, and intellectual grasp. John Mitchell
denounced him as the great obstruction to the development of
European freedom, which no doubt he was to such freedom as Mitchell
advocated—the plunder and tyranny of a modified communism; for while
essentially holding that theory, he in some way, not very intelligible
to others, repudiated it. Lamartine began his career of power by
emancipating the negro race; Mitchell commenced his career as a free
exile in America, some years after, by the most violent advocacy of the
fetter and the whip for the coloured population of that country. The
_Nation_ newspaper, week after week, informed its readers that Lamartine
was an idle dreamer, a mere theoretical politician; that his mind was
only constituted for the regions of romance; and that his opinion on the
affairs of Ireland, England, France, or Europe was worthless. A week or
two before the same paper held him up as the very Achilles of freedom,
and the hope of Ireland—for it was the habit of both the parties
claiming nationality in Ireland, to hope for liberty from the courage
and efforts of others rather than from their own. The reply of Lamartine
caused as much despondency in Ireland among the seditious, as it
inspired confidence among the loyal, and among all the intelligent
citizens in Great Britain. Throughout the year the conduct of the French
government was internationally just and courteous, and England had no
cause for complaint, but every reason to be thankful that Louis Philippe
and Guizot had given place to such men as Lamartine and Cavaignac.

The revolution in France was of more importance to England than the
revolutions which took place in Italy and Germany—they require,
therefore, only a comparatively brief notice.




ITALY.

All Italy felt the shock of the French revolution, although, in point
of time, the revolutionary feeling developed itself in Italy before it
burst forth in France. Throughout the year 1847 all Switzerland, and
Austrian and Papal Italy, were uneasy; and in January, six weeks before
the dethronement of Louis Philippe, there were disturbances in Milan.
Indeed, from the moment Pius IX. ascended the papal throne, a change
came over the people of Italy: it was supposed that the pope was a
patriot, and would favour the struggle for Italian liberty, and this
delusion was not dispelled until after the battle of Novara. It was then
found that the pope and the kasir were allies, even while the troops of
the former were marching forth ostensibly to do battle for Italy.

When the tidings of the revolt in Paris reached Italy, the people flew
to arms. General Radetzsky and his Austrian troops were driven from
Milan; a provisional government was formed, and all Italy was called
upon to arm. The King of Sardinia, who had proclaimed a most liberal
constitution for his own kingdom, marched an army into Lombardy; Venice
revolted; and Radetzsky retired upon Verona. The Austrian lines along
the Mincio were forced, and the position of Radetzsky’s forces was
dangerous. Two circumstances, however, favoured him—the supineness of
the papal troops, and the junction of Nugent, an Irish marshal in the
Austrian service, with the troops under his command. After various
fortunes, the allied Italians were beaten; Lombardy and Venice were
entirely subjected to the Austrian arms; and but for English and
French diplomacy, Sardinia also would have fallen before the victorious
Austrian. The English government was desirous to see Italy freed from
Austrian domination, and would not have submitted to see Sardinia
overthrown by an invasion of the kasir’s army. France, also, regarded
events there with views similar to those entertained by England, but
it did not suit the policy of either country to interfere beyond the
diplomatic interposition by which Sardinia was saved. Probably they were
also influenced by the suspicion that the royal house of Sardinia was
more actuated by ambition than by a desire for the liberties of Italy.
The fact of the king having granted a constitution did not altogether
prevent such suspicions, because that was his only hope of gaining
ascendancy in Italy; and the general tone of the Sardinian court and
cabinet gave a colour to the impression that their policy was not
entirely disinterested. His majesty was glad to consent to an armistice
with Radetzsky, and to fall back behind the shields of France and
England for safety. The king, however, was obliged to abdicate; shame,
the defeat of his armies, the failure of his policy, and the certainty
that if he remained upon the throne, the kasir would seize the first
opportunity to make war upon him, determined him to abdicate.




THE PAPAL STATES.

Early in the year the pope published a new plan for the organisation of
the executive government of his dominions, which gave satisfaction to
the liberal friends of the popedom. On the 14th of March he proclaimed
a new constitution. The resistance offered to the national will, in the
case of Austria, caused him to become unpopular. On the 29th of April
he addressed the cardinals in conclave, disavowing the act of the papal
troops proceeding against the Austrian armies in Italy. This caused
a popular tumult; the next day the people took possession of the
post-office and the offices of state, and discovered that the pope and
cardinals had been intriguing with Austria. The result was the entire
sacrifice of the pontiff’s popularity; all confidence in his honour,
and that of his cardinals, was erased from the Roman mind. Under the
pressure of the public demand, he, on the 1st of May, proclaimed war
against Austria, but never intended to adopt such measures as would
carry the declaration into effect. He intended to deceive the people,
seeing that they were determined on war; and he knew that this could be
better done by retaining his authority over the troops, than by allowing
the war to be carried out by a popular and lay administration, which
would be in earnest. Early in May a new ministry of a liberal character
was formed, but the pope’s private advisers counteracted their policy.
The result was a revolution—not against the pope’s ecclesiastical,
but solely against his temporal, authority. Scenes of the most dreadful
nature followed, all of which might have been averted by an honest
course on the part of the pontiff, and the college of cardinals.
The pope was really willing to concede much; but the demand that the
temporal government of the people should be by and for the people,
he was not willing to admit; and by covertly attempting to destroy or
counteract all that he publicly and ostensibly admitted, he filled the
people with incurable resentment against those who surrounded him,
and to whom they attributed, rather than to himself, the faithless and
despotic policy in secret pursued. A chamber of deputies was convoked,
to whom the pope formally surrendered his government, declining to take
any part in their doings, or to afford any sanction. Several of the
high ecclesiastics and lay authorities, by whose agency he sought to
counteract the efforts for constitutional liberty which the people
made, were slain, and others driven from Rome. At last, on the 24th of
November, he disguised himself as a livery servant in attendance upon
the Bavarian ambassador, and mounting the box of that gentleman’s
carriage, beside his coachman, was driven to the house of the Bavarian
embassy; thence, disguised as the chaplain to the embassy, he succeeded
in escaping to Gaeta, a town within the Neapolitan territory. The flight
of the pope was followed by a protest on his part against the liberalism
of his people, who organised a regular government on liberal principles;
their efforts were counteracted by the spies and agents of the pope,
and the embassies of all the Roman Catholic powers: among the foreign
representatives, none was more hostile to the incipient liberties of
Rome than the ambassador of the French republic.

The pope, the kasir, the king of Naples, and the despots of the smaller
Italian states, considered that England was the chief fomenter of
Italian disturbance. This arose from one of those whig _mal àpropos_
movements for which their party had of late years earned a bad
reputation. Lord Minto was dispatched to Italy in a semi-official
capacity; the real object of his mission was to open diplomatic
relations with the pope, who, although very desirous to respond to the
wishes of the English Whigs, thought it a good opportunity to extort
some concessions as to the interests of the Roman Catholic religion in
British territory. The Whigs, knowing that they dare not face the public
opinion of Great Britain, if they made such concessions as the pope’s
demands and their own wishes would prompt, were baulked in their
undertaking. They succeeded, however, in obtaining a certain amount of
influence upon the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland, restraining
the latter from favouring the revolutionary designs existing in that
country. It was remarkable that while the Irish Roman Catholics were
abusing Lamartine and the French provisional government, for not
assisting by arms revolution in Ireland,—that is, a revolution of a
portion of the Irish who followed certain leaders,—they were equally
abusive of the people of Rome for daring, against the will of the pope,
to assert any measure of civil or religious liberty, however modest.
Impudent threats were made of sending an Irish army to the pope’s
assistance, at the very time that the persons so vaunting were afraid of
the Dublin police!

The close of the year saw the pope a fugitive and the people free.




NAPLES AND SICILY.

These countries did not escape the revolutionary contagion. Sicily flew
to arms, and the revolt succeeded. The English government was desirous
to see Sicily separated from Naples; and their emissary, Lord Minto, so
betrayed this feeling to the king of the two Sicilies as to inspire him
with intense hatred to England, and to confirm him in the opinion that
English agency was busy in creating or sustaining the confusion of the
continente, Lord Minto had the preposterous folly to suggest to the
king that Sicily should only be garrisoned by Sicilian troops! This, of
course, was indignantly rejected by both the king and cabinet.

The Sicilians published a manifesto of their free and moderate opinions,
which was very excellent. The document was very deceptive, and designed
to gain support in England and France. One of the false promises of the
manifesto was the entire freedom of religion; one of the first acts of
the Sicilians in their short-lived power was a rigorous establishment
of the Roman Catholic religion, and this was enacted in terms which
disclosed the bigoted feelings of the nation. Sicily wanted to be
independent of Naples, but it had not the same wish to be separated from
the despotic principle. An independent nation, without a free people,
was the highest aspiration of revolted Sicily. England and France left
her to her fate, except so far as Lord Minto’s meddling complicated
her condition. The temporarily vanquished Neapolitans returned to the
contest, and the revolution was ingloriously suppressed.

In Naples the victory of the constitution was as short as the
independence, of Sicily. The king acted without sincerity, and the
deputies without prudence. The king found an opportunity of resistance,
for which he had well prepared himself. He was surrounded by Swiss
guards, recruited from the bigoted Roman Catholic cantons of the
Sonderbund, or what had been so termed before its tyranny was crushed
the previous year. The king had also the lazzaroni on his side; some
thirty thousand thieves, assassins, street beggars, and burglars were
in his majesty’s royal pay and royal favour. They were enthusiastic for
king, church, and plunder. It was alleged that the royal promise was
held out to them that if they conquered the citizens they would be
permitted to sack the city. The event seemed as if such allegation were
true; the united Swiss and lazzaroni conquered, and the city was sacked.
The king permitted, and his minions encouraged, the most infamous
proceedings: riot, robbery, and debauch filled every street and almost
every house, while blood, the blood of the best citizens of Naples,
flowed in torrents. There is no knowing to what extent these horrors
might have been carried by the “faithful lazzaroni,” had not the French
admiral in the bay declared that he would act against the king if these
inhumanities were not at once stopped. The lazzaroni must have been
at the king’s beck, for the moment he was alarmed by threats of the
interference of a French squadron, he called in his bloodhounds, and
held the leash until the threatened danger passed.




BELGIUM.

Much concern was felt in England as to the part which Belgium would take
in the terrible continental tragedy. The king being her majesty’s uncle,
and also the uncle of her consort, the safety of his throne was regarded
anxiously by the English court. As he had by his second marriage
connected himself with the family of Louis Philippe, the French
republicans looked upon him as a very suspicious neighbour; but the
prudent policy of Lamartine prevented any collision, and checked the
propagandism which both sections of French republicans desired to
bring to bear upon Belgium. The “Reds,” perceiving that the provisional
government was not disposed to embroil itself with foreign powers,
organised an _émeute_ in Belgium with a sort of filibustering expedition
of their own. Several hundred socialists made their way into Belgium,
and used every effort to induce the people to join them, but in vain,—a
few only, who like themselves, held extreme and impracticable views of
democracy, made any insurrectionary movement; and the affair exploded as
harmlessly as Smith O’Brien’s abortive attempt at revolution in Ireland.
Had any success, short of a complete revolution, attended the efforts of
the French “sympathisers,” the armed intervention of England might have
been necessitated, and another long war with France have spread its
terrors, havoc, and ruin in Belgium.




GERMANY.

The people of Germany were ripe for revolt when the tidings of the
French revolution came suddenly as a flash along the electric wire. No
people had ever been more basely deceived by princes than the Germans.
Constitutions were promised, and the promises shamefully violated,
sometimes ostensibly conceded, but really never acted upon. The oaths
of kings were synonymous for falsehood throughout the great fatherland.
Schiller has sung—

     “The human being:
     May not be trusted with self-government;”

but the poet and philosopher must have understood that the human
being is as worthy to be trusted with self-government as with the
irresponsible government of other men, no way his inferiors—perhaps,
morally and intellectually, superior to him. The Prussian people could
have governed themselves with as much ability as the king governed them.
The Hanoverians could have managed their own affairs as morally as the
English Duke of Cumberland, or his son George conducted them. Nor did
the wisdom of the Austrian emperor, for matters of government, exceed
the intelligence of the educated citizens of Vienna.

The first vibration of the great French earthquake was felt in the grand
Duchy of Baden. The people, as one man, demanded liberty; the demand was
too unanimously made to be resisted; the victory was won without a shot.
On the 3rd of March the Rhenish provinces of Prussia felt the shock, and
Cologne was in arms; on the 4th, Wisbaden; on the 5th, Dusseldorf; on
the 8th, the Hessians of Cassel barricaded the streets, and flew to
arms—their victory was won without blood. Early in March the people of
Munich demanded their rights, which none but slaves consented to forego;
they were refused; the people responded to the first cry “to arms” that
was raised; the troops would not charge the people, but mingled in the
shouts of “a republic! a republic!” The alarmed king conceded, tampered
with his own concessions, and at last abdicated. His son and successor
made a great flourish of proclamations and promises, throwing himself
upon the popular sympathy until time enabled him to forswear himself.
The credulous people who believed the oaths of kings, generally paid
afterwards the penalty of their credulity in blood or fetters.

In Saxony there was no harmony between the court and people; the former
were Roman Catholic, and the latter Protestant. The prudence of the
monarch, however, prevailed over the solicitations of his court to treat
his people with disdain, and he saved his throne and his honour.

The King of Hanover was less honest, as well as less compliant, but even
he had to recognise, for the time being, a constitution.

Prussia proper was affected, as well as her less homogeneous provinces,
by the grand convulsion. After a series of conflicts in the streets of
Berlin, order was at last restored, and the constitution modified so as
to satisfy a large portion of the people. The Poles in Posen revolted,
and perpetrated the utmost atrocities, but were put down by the Prussian
troops without obtaining any of the objects for which they so wildly
fought, and so vaguely demanded. The people of Posen had been
practised upon by their own nobles, and incited by their priests.
Their insurrection was one of fanaticism, not of freedom; the revolters
carried the symbols and images of their creed, not the banners of
nationhood before them,—they deserved to fail. Their chief oppressors
were the privileged classes of their own countrymen, from whom the
Prussian government derived no aid in its efforts to meliorate the
condition of the province. Education was resisted, industry discouraged,
and the religious rights of minorities assailed by ignorant and
fanatical mobs. The freedom required in Posen was an emancipation of the
people from their own passions and prejudices.




THE AUSTRIAN EMPIRE.

The revolutionary history of the Austrian empire during the year
1848 was instructive, and full of the most eventful changes and great
results. On another page the progress of affairs in Austrian Italy was
sketched, and the relation of the kasir’s interests there to contiguous
Italian states pointed out. The whole empire was, however, convulsed,
and the throes of every part communicated its vibrations to the whole.
The revolt in Hungary constituted the most interesting and important
part of the great transactions which occurred within the limits of the
empire. The government of the kasir succeeded, by exciting the jealousy
of Magyar and German, Croat and Hungarian, metropolitan and provincial,
in holding the difficult balance, and in preserving the empire in its
integrity from the flood which flowed over it with such disintegrating
force.

The revolution in Hungary was completely successful, and Vienna itself
was menaced by a Hungarian army. The heroism of an Englishman, General
Guyon, rendered the greatest military services; and the eloquence and
wisdom of a civilian, Louis Kossuth, guided the aspirations and resolves
of armed Hungary. Ultimately, indeed, by the aid of Russian armies,
the Austrian was enabled once more to tread out the fire of Hungarian
liberty; but 1848 saw the gallant Magyars victorious.

The Viennese, notwithstanding their contiguity to the court and their
close dependence upon the kasir, rose in arms, and obtained an extensive
recognition of those rights which the people everywhere claimed. Those
who by extreme measures and views marred the cause of freedom elsewhere,
did so at Vienna. The socialist element was the ruin of the revolution.
The thinking and the morally sound portions of the citizens were
detached from the popular cause, in and out of Vienna, and the arms of
the emperor finally triumphed over the barricades of the capital.




THE GERMAN CONFEDERATION.

Representatives from all the German states, where successful revolutions
had been effected, assembled in Frankfort to form a closer confederacy
of the German states. The ambition of Prussia and Austria found scope in
this new sphere of action. The Prussian king was desirous to be elected
emperor of Germany, and supposed that the Frankfort parliament would
subserve his purpose. Never did an assembly of men utter finer, noble
principles, than that, nor did any display such utter impracticability.
They occupied the time in visionary schemes, which ought to have
been devoted to secure the liberty of each individual state, and they
sacrificed the interests of nations to the German invidiousness of race.
The socialist party tried to force their own especial objects upon the
assembly, and when unsuccessful, deluged Frankfort with blood. They
followed the policy and conduct of their prototypes, the red republicans
of Paris, in their resistance to the provisional government. The
irreconcilable differences of opinion between the advocates of change
gave kings advantage in the reactionary policy which they meditated
before the year was out.




DENMARK.—SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN.

The inhabitants of the duchies revolted against the king of Denmark;
this arose partly from that hatred to all other races characteristic of
the German. The Schleswig-Holsteiners could not endure amalgamation,
or even close alliance with the Scandinavian race, much less with the
Sclaves, should the Emperor of Russia inherit the throne of Denmark. The
people of the duchies were desirous to be identified more with Germany,
and this was, notwithstanding other pretences, the main-spring of the
revolt. The King of Prussia, never true to his engagements, violated
treaties, and marched his troops into the duchies. This dispute was one
with which England might have been involved, as she had certain treaty
obligations which rendered the possibility of such a result the subject
of speculation.




RUSSIA.

The empire of the autocrat was undisturbed, but the revolutionary
feeling seemed ready to invade it on all its European frontier. Large
bodies of troops were gathered in Southern Russia for the purpose of
entering the Turkish Danubian provinces, in order to suppress the spirit
of revolution which there manifested itself, and found vent in a fervent
political agitation. In Poland, also, the czar concentrated a great
army. Warsaw bristled with bayonets; and a diplomatic message was sent
to the court of Berlin, assuring it of the czar’s friendly feeling, but
warning it that, in case of any disturbances on the Polish frontier
of Russia, if they were not very promptly suppressed, the Russian
government would take measures to effect the security of its own
frontier. The message amounted to a hint that if a Russian army were
needed by the Prussian monarch, the czar was not unwilling to lend it,
or, if need should exist, he would find a reason, without being asked
for his aid, to cross the frontier, and put down democracy.

The following arrogant presumption of divine right was put forth by the
czar:—

“After the benefits of a long peace, the west of Europe finds itself
at this moment suddenly given over to perturbations which threaten
with ruin and overthrow all legal powers and the whole social system.
Insurrection and anarchy, the offspring of France, soon crossed the
German frontier, and have spread themselves in every direction with an
audacity which has gained new force in proportion to the concessions of
the governments. This devastating plague has at last attacked our allies
the empire of Austria and the kingdom of Prussia, and to-day in its
blind fury menaces even our Russia—that Russia which God has confided
to our care. But Heaven forbid that this should be! Faithful to the
example handed down from our ancestors, having first invoked the aid of
the Omnipotent, we are ready to encounter our enemies from whatever side
they may present themselves, and without sparing our own person we will
know how, indissolubly united to our holy country, to defend the honour
of the Russian name, and the inviolability of our territory. We are
convinced that every Russian, that every one of our faithful subjects,
will respond with joy to the call of his sovereign. Our ancient war-cry,
‘For our faith, our sovereign, and our country!’ will once again lead us
on the path of victory: and then, with sentiments of humble gratitude,
as now with feelings of holy hope, we will all cry with one voice, ‘God
is on our side: understand this, ye peoples, and submit, for God is on
our side.’”

On the whole, England preserved peace with all foreign states during the
rage of this political tempest. Her attitude was morally sublime. The
waves rose, and the hurricane raged around her, but she towered above
the billow and the tempest, her crown bright with the glory which the
sun of liberty shed upon it. The stranger who found a refuge and a home
within her borders, might well offer to her the tribute which the poet
Moore so gracefully inscribed upon the pedestal of her freedom and her
power:—

     “Hail to thee, Albion! that meetest the commotion
     Of Europe, as calm as thy cliffs meet the foam;
     With no bond but the law, and no bound but the ocean,
     Hail, temple of liberty! thou art my home.”




IRELAND.

_Famine and Pestilence_.—Frightful as was the state of Ireland in 1847,
it was still worse in the year 1848. Commercial affairs were embarrassed
by so many disturbing circumstances, that public confidence was not
restored throughout the year. The potato disease, agrarian outrage,
Ribbonism, the repeal agitation, and an insurrectionary combination, all
combined to restrict commerce.

The destitution of the people was terrible. It is unnecessary to go
into the details of the horrid story: numbers perished of famine, and
pestilence went forth with devastating fury where hunger had stricken.
The “famine fever” carried away multitudes to an untimely grave. This
disease extended also to the Irish in England. Many in London died of
it, and great numbers in Manchester, but the affliction fell still more
heavily upon Liverpool. Several Roman Catholic clergymen in those towns
fell victims, nor did medical men escape. Efforts continued to be made
by the government, and by voluntary charity, to mitigate the calamities
which befel the country, but their variety and magnitude set at defiance
all the noble efforts that were made, and the exhaustless compassions of
the noble hearts that made them.

_Continuance of Crime and Outrage_.—The story of the two previous years
was the same of this: crime raged everywhere; the hand of the assassin
was constantly uplifted; and woe to the landlord who expelled a tenant
for whatsoever violation of contract, and to the zealous Protestant, lay
or clerical, who claimed a right to discuss his religious opinions, even
in self-defence, or to circulate there, even in the most inoffensive
manner.

Much of the crime of Ireland was to be attributed to a secret society
which the government never made any adequate efforts to suppress, and
which was commonly called the “Ribbon Society.” No means were taken by
the respectable Roman Catholics to break up this exclusively Romanist
confederacy, the chief object of which was the extermination of
Protestants, and it was in 1848 that, in this respect, little was to
be then expected from them. No public protest against the worst and the
wildest of the ultramontane proceedings of previous years had been made
by Roman Catholics, clerical or lay, English or Irish, or of any rank
in life; and the “liberal Roman Catholics,” as they liked to be called,
could not be surprised if Protestants began to put no faith in their
liberal professions. Yet this section of the Roman Catholics had gained
much confidence and respect with liberal Protestants in both countries.
It was chiefly on their representations that the once formidable Orange
societies were suppressed, and although these societies changed their
constitution in compliance with the law, yet they never acquired public
confidence after: through the instrumentality of Mr. Hume’s exposure
of the dangerous tendency of the confederacy, the law was put in
force against them. The liberal Romanists were accustomed to say that
Ribbonism was, so to say, but the complement of Orangeism; that if
the latter were made illegal, the other would die of itself. This was
believed by the whig and radical parties of the day; and after a
feeble resistance on the part of the Tories, Orangeism was at last
discountenanced by the state, and literally turned out of doors, after
having been used and misused, petted and pampered, for half a century.
Instead, however, of Ribbonism taking a voluntary departure, as lay and
priestly liberal spouters of the popular Roman Catholic party presumed,
it increased in extent, numbers, and virus. Portions of Ireland where
it had previously no footing became the high places of its power;
every town in England where Irish Roman Catholics lived had affiliated
societies formed; London, Manchester, Liverpool, and Lancashire
generally, counted their tens of thousands of sworn enemies to the
English government and name, and to the toleration and even existence
of Protestants. The oaths of the members were again and again revised,
becoming more relentless and bloodthirsty, just as every concession was
made to Roman Catholic demands. As the system of Ribbonism was in 1848,
nothing more bloody and diabolical was ever conceived by lost human
minds. Nothing like it _could_ exist except amongst a people in whose
hearts bigotry had so uprooted all tolerance and charity, that their
ferocity of zealotism would vie with that which an Irish Romanist
described of others:—

     “Men of the saintly murderous brood.
     To carnage and the Koran given,
     Who think, through unbeliever’s blood,
     Lies the directest path to heaven.”

_Political Agitation_.—The Repeal Association continued its meetings,
and notwithstanding the prevailing distress, considerable sums were
subscribed; some weeks as much as £80 was received. Mr. John O’Connell
presided at those meetings, which were barren of all utility for the
party, and destitute of the eloquence which in the days of O’Connell and
Shiel enlivened and gave importance to public meetings.

The young Ireland party was all activity, and although few of its
orators were really eloquent, there were many of them good speakers,
several who rose to the rank of superior platform address, and one (Mr.
Meagher) of surpassing eloquence. The Young Irelanders, on the whole,
wrote better than they spoke, and very able articles appeared from
their pens in the press, not only in Dublin, but throughout Ireland. The
_Nation_ newspaper, conducted by Charles Gavan Duffy, a man of wonderful
energy and courage, of discriminating literary taste and fine talents,
was perhaps the most ably managed newspaper in the British Isles, so
far as literary claims were concerned. The most passionate and exciting
ballads, full of poetical and patriotic fervour, the most elaborate and
elegantly written dissertations on Ireland, her history, music, poetry,
language, and people, and popularly written and able articles on
politics, filled its columns. Their influence upon the mind of the young
men of Ireland who were of the Roman Catholic persuasion, and of many
Protestants who were too liberal in sentiment to suspect their Roman
Catholic fellow-countrymen of desiring religious ascendancy, was great.
When John Mitchell considered that the _Nation_ had too little sympathy
with red republicanism, he set up a paper called the _Irishman_, which
he made the vehicle of the most outrageous doctrines, political and
social. The leading articles of the _Irishman_ were written by Mr.
Mitchell himself, with a nervous power, eloquence, boldness of thought,
and audacity, which were very extraordinary. These articles were amongst
the ablest specimens of newspaper writing which had ever been known in
Ireland. Their effect was electric; they maddened the young men of the
movement with a fierce spirit of nationality. The clubs read them with
ecstasy, and John Mitchell was the idol and hero of all men of extreme
opinions. His defiance of government, his incitements to rebellion,
were so open and intrepid, that they seized upon the imagination of the
people, and much disturbed the government. Pikes and side-arms were
manufactured in every part of the country, and John Mitchell wrote
various articles on the proper pattern of a pike, on the best way
of using that “queen of weapons,” as he termed it, and to prove how
hopeless it would be for either cavalry or infantry, disciplined on the
ordinary system, to face corps of Irish pikemen disciplined on his plan.
These military articles were eminently absurd, and excited the ridicule
of military men; but the style in which they were written was so
admirably adapted to the taste and tone of thought of those whom they
were designed to influence, that they told wonderfully, and inspired
confidence in the clubs and in the country, that means were at last
found by which the trained troops of England could be encountered with a
superior weapon.

Meanwhile the lord-lieutenant of Ireland, the Earl of Clarendon, proved
himself a most vigorous governor. He entered into negotiations with the
Orangemen, who were true to the throne to a man. One hundred and fifty
thousand men of that confederacy, and of the Protestants who held their
principles and sympathised with their party, although not enrolled in
the lodges, were ready to take up arms on the side of the government,
and many stand of arms were to be distributed should necessity arise. A
very large distribution was made, and the Orangemen, and vast number
of other Protestants, were ready to turn out at a moment’s notice. The
number at the call of the government were quite sufficient, with a small
body of troops as a point of support, to put down any force the disloyal
could bring into the field. How such men as Mitchell, Meagher, O’Brien,
and Duffey could fail to see that, was extraordinary. They still went
on, talking of Ireland as about to “arise in her majesty and shake
off the English yoke,” at a time when a million and a half of Irish
Protestants would have preferred any yoke under heaven to that of their
own Roman Catholic countrymen; and while some of the most papal of the
Roman Catholics themselves had no hope in the movement, no confidence in
the leaders, and a strong conviction that any effort against England was
impracticable, and would lead only to a waste of blood. His excellency
displayed such vigour that, early in the spring, two hundred and eighty
thousand persons, comprising the wealth and intelligence of the country,
signed a document expressive of their confidence. His lordship was
keenly alive, also, to the influence of the press, and subsidised
various papers to oppose the Young Irelanders. He did not display as
much caution in this department of his policy as he did vigour and
sagacity in other directions. He hired a man named Birch, who edited a
paper called the _World_, which was very ably conducted. The terms on
which his excellency put himself with Mr. Birch were discreditable to
the government, and the spirit in which he wrote and acted was insulting
to the country, and when his connection with the Castle became known,
the hands of government were weakened by the circumstance.

The negotiations with Rome were productive of more effect than giving
subsidies to the press, for both sections of the anti-union agitation
did their utmost to gain the priests over to their cause. The priesthood
was, however, suspicious of the Young Irelanders, from the conviction
that they were generally indifferent to religion. This impression was
also received at Rome; and the English government, by its secret agency,
did its best to strengthen that opinion. The pope had sufficient reason
to dread any tendency to red republicanism in any part of the
world where his disciples or subjects might be influenced by it. He
accordingly issued a rescript, which created a powerful sensation
in Ireland. The _Nation_ newspaper, and the press generally which
sympathised with it, denounced the English government, and the English
Roman Catholics, with having, by false representations, induced the pope
to issue this document. The censures fell with especial weight upon the
English Roman Catholic aristocracy, who were believed to have a peculiar
prejudice against Ireland, and in this case to have allowed their
antipathies of race and nationality to interfere with the good of their
religion; for it was alleged that the promotion of agitation, and even
revolution, in Ireland by the priesthood, was the surest way to make
England concessive to the Roman Catholic clergy and people. It was also
maintained that the severance of Ireland from England would give a wider
scope to the influence of the church, and rescue one of her fairest
provinces from the sceptre of a heretic sovereign. These different
grounds were taken up by various organs of the press, according to their
degrees of prudence, or the especial light in which they regarded the
transaction. At all events, it was felt that the rescript would baulk
the efforts of the Young Irelanders to engage any portion of the
priesthood on their side, and greatly lessen the chances of their
success. The Protestants of Ireland, ignorant of the true nature of
the mission of Lord Minto to Italy, which the government organs
systematically misrepresented, and ignorant also of the progress which
the English government had made at Rome, through certain Roman Catholics
of influence, considered the rescript as a _ruse_ on the part of the
pope, acting in concert with the Irish episcopacy, to throw the English
government off its guard. The Protestants were therefore stirred up to
more vigorous preparation to resist the approaching insurrection, while,
at the same time, the hopes of the opposite party were damaged, and
depression was necessarily communicated to their exertions.

The following is a copy of the papal rescript, addressed to the Roman
Catholic prelates of Ireland:—

“_Most Illustrious and Reverend Lord_,—The reports now for nine
months circulated by the English newspapers concerning the political
party-strifes in which some ecclesiatics have allowed themselves to be
carried away, and the desecration made of some of the Irish churches for
the purpose of aiding and promoting secular concerns—nay, more, the
reports which have reached us relative to the murders which we are
informed are so frequent, and by reason of which the clergy have been
stigmatised, and some of them charged with imprudence, and as giving
indirect provocation from the pulpit, or, at least, extenuating the
guilt of these murders—these reports must surely awaken the solicitude
of the sacred congregation.

“This sacred congregation cannot bring itself to believe that such
reports, so extensively raised abroad, can be true; nor can it believe
that ecclesiastics have forgotten that the church of God should be
the house of prayer, not of secular concerns, or the meeting-place
of politicians; neither can the sacred congregation believe that
ecclesiastics have ceased to recollect that they are the ministers of
peace, dispensers of the mysteries of God—men who should not involve
themselves in worldly concerns—in a word, men who should abhor blood
and vengeance. Nevertheless, this sacred congregation deems it its duty
to require certain and satisfactory explanation on all these matters,
that it may know what importance to attach to the above-mentioned
damnatory reports. Wherefore, at the suggestion of his holiness, I have
deemed it my duty to forward this letter to your lordship, praying you
to satisfy this most reasonable solicitude of the congregation; and,
meantime, it exhorts you to admonish the clergy, that seeking the things
which are of Jesus Christ, they sedulously apply themselves to watch
over the spiritual interests of the people, and in nowise mix themselves
up with worldly affairs, in order that their ministry may not be brought
into disrepute, and those who are against them may not have wherewith to
charge them.

“I pray God long to preserve your lordship.

“J. Ph. Cardinal Fransoni.

“Rome. From the Congregation of the Faith,

“January 3rd, 1848.”


Early in the year the legislature passed stringent laws to suppress
crime and outrage in Ireland, and to bring the perpetrators to justice.
Proceedings were also taken of various kinds against several of the more
prominent promoters of sedition.

On the 15th of May, William Smith O’Brien was tried before Lord Chief
Justice Blackburn and a special jury, upon an _ex officio_ information,
charging him with having delivered a speech, on the 15th of March, in
the parish of St. Thomas, Dublin, for the purpose of exciting contempt
and hatred against the queen in Ireland, and inducing the people to rise
in rebellion. The traverser pleaded not guilty. There could be no doubt
that in point of fact and law he was guilty, for it would be difficult
to cull language from a seditious speech more pertinent to the charge
than that quoted by the attorney-general from the speech of Mr. O’Brien
on the 15th of March. He was ably defended by Mr. Butt, an eloquent
queen’s counsel. The jury could not agree, and by the consent of the
attorney-general they were discharged. It was not expected that the
jury would agree in a verdict; there was a determination among the
disaffected that when summoned as jurors they would not give verdicts
in charges of this nature. The government were determined to procure
convictions, if possible, and the trial of Mr. O’Brien was followed by
an indictment of T. E. Meagher. He was also arraigned on an _ex officio_
information for a seditious speech delivered on the same occasion as
that which furnished O’Brien with an opportunity for his delinquent
oratory. When the jury returned into court they were asked if they had
agreed in their verdict; the foreman replied, “We are not, my lord.” Mr.
Favel, one of the jurors, remarked, “We are all agreed but one, and he
is a Roman Catholic.” The report of this trial produced a very great
sensation in England. Men everywhere remarked, “If a single Roman
Catholic on a jury prevents the course of justice, a remedy must be
found for such a state of things; there must be power accorded to the
crown.” It was not generally understood in England that a Roman Catholic
had often little reason to hope for justice when high party Protestants
composed the jury.

In the Commission Court, before Mr. Baron Lefroy, and Mr. Justice Moore,
John Mitchell, proprietor of the _United Irishman_ newspaper, was
placed upon his trial. He had been arrested under the act passed in
the beginning of the year to meet such cases, entitled, “An act for the
better security of the crown and government.” True bills were found
by the grand jury against him for felony. To each he handed in a plea
praying that the indictment might be quashed, on the ground that one
of the members of the jury was also a member of the town-council of the
borough of Dublin, and as such disqualified. These pleas were put in
merely to gain time, which led the attorney-general to enter a _nolle
prosequi_ to each, and to file ex officio information against Mr.
Mitchell. After various other artifices to obtain delay, the prisoner
was compelled to plead, and he pleaded “not guilty.” The terms of the
indictment were, that the traverser endeavoured to take away the style,
honour, and royal name of our sovereign lady the queen, and to make war
against her majesty, her heirs, and successors. The trial was chiefly
remarkable for the bold and manly tone of Mr. Holmes, the prisoner’s
counsel. Never did an advocate more fearlessly do his duty to his client
and his country. The judge charged against the prisoner, and the jury,
after three hours and a half’s deliberation, returned with a verdict of
guilty. The sentence was transportation for fourteen years. The bearing
of the prisoner was manly and dignified throughout. He was known to be
a man of strong domestic affections, and of warm friendship, and the
sentence was received with intense dissatisfaction throughout Ireland.
The violent opinions and proceedings of Mr. Mitchell in his public
capacity could not destroy the popular partialities for him as a brave,
generous, and amiable man; it was allowed on all hands that the time
had arrived for stopping his political career, but it was hoped that
a temporary imprisonment would have satisfied the ends of justice. The
public sympathy for his amiable wife and his little children was very
strong, and it was desired by all classes that at the earliest possible
occasion which would give the government an opportunity to exercise
clemency, his sentence might be greatly mitigated.

It was allowed on all hands that the government were compelled to
prosecute. In the pages of the _United Irishman_ he had uttered the
most vehement defiance to the government, and to the lord-lieutenant
of Ireland especially. He had invoked a prosecution, and in one furious
article in the _United Irishman_ had told the vice-regal government that
if it did not pack a jury and prosecute him, it was restrained only by
cowardice. What the motives of Mr. Mitchell were in thus wishing to be
made a victim it is impossible to affirm. Many believed that he wrote
in the confidence that no Irish jury, however packed, would find him
guilty; others supposed that he calculated upon a packed jury finding a
verdict against him, but that he felt sure of a popular revolt for his
rescue, and thus desired to precipitate the insurrection. A large
class of persons who did not sympathise with his doctrines and efforts,
alleged that, foreseeing the utter hopelessness of the cause upon which
he had embarked, he desired to bring matters as regarded himself at
once to a conclusion, and as he could not withdraw with honour from the
course he had espoused, he was anxious to incur the lesser penalty for
sedition, than to risk encounter with the queen’s forces as the leader
of a bootless insurrection. His sentence was rapidly carried out, the
populace making no effort to save him. The leaders found various excuses
for not at once rising, and Mitchell was carried ignominiously away,
and departed before their eyes, not an arm raised, not a blow struck by
those who vehemently cheered him in his career of folly, and promised to
follow him to the death.

During and immediately previous to these transactions, the Repeal
Association and the Young Irelanders made a great parade, after their
own fashion, for their own ostensible objects. The Young Irelanders
called a convention of three hundred representatives or delegates
from every part of the country; these were, in fact, to be the
representatives of the insurrectionary clubs, ostensibly of the people.
Smith O’Brien, the last time he appeared in the English House of
Commons, had the temerity and absurdity to advise the premier to put
himself in communication with this council of three hundred, and
be guided in his measures by them. This was after the visit of the
honourable member to Paris, to induce the French government to espouse
the cause of insurrection in Ireland. His recommendation was received
with shouts of derisive laughter, and his treason was chastised by the
premier reminding him that he had taken the oath of allegiance, and at
the same time was encompassing the dishonour of the queen’s throne.

At a meeting of the Old Irelanders in April, in Conciliation Hall, a Mr.
Aikins in the chair, the following business was transacted, which will
show the position which that party desired publicly to take both to the
Young Irelanders and to the government:—

“Mr. Maurice O’Connell proposed, and Mr. T. Galway seconded, the
following resolutions, which were unanimously adopted:—‘That we, this
association, view with disgust and indignation the bill brought in by
the ministers, entitled, A bill for the better security of the crown and
government of the United Kingdom. That we consider such bill, instead
of answering its professed purposes, to be of such a character as the
odious six acts of Lord Castlereagh’s ministry, with the aggravation
that the latter were only legal and temporary, while this is intended as
general and perpetual. That we consider such bill as in fact a bill to
encourage the odious spy system, and prevent all discussion of the wants
of the people, whether by the press or at meetings. That we therefore
express our detestation of this measure, and call upon the repeal
members of parliament to oppose the passing of such bill by all
constitutional means.’

“Mr. O’Connell next proposed, and Mr. Galway seconded, a resolution, that
it be referred to the committee to have a case prepared for counsel
upon the construction of the convention act, 33 George HI., cap. 29. Mr.
O’Connell observed that although his father had not matured the project
of assembling three hundred delegates in Dublin, he had never abandoned
it up to the period of his death. (Cheers.) ‘The liberator’ had
frequently consulted lawyers of great celebrity, to fortify his own
opinion, but the result of his consultation with others was that he had
grave and fearful doubts as to its legality. The project was accordingly
suffered to remain in abeyance. They were determined never to advise
or sanction any rash or precipitate act; they would act only within the
law, and were anxious to ascertain whether the delegates could assemble
legally in Dublin. This was the object of obtaining counsel’s opinion
upon the subject; and if the step could be taken with safety, and within
the bounds of law, in the name of God they would take it. (Cheers.)

“Mr. O’Connell called the attention of the association to a resolution
adopted at the last meeting of the Confederation, admitting ‘to
membership all enrolled members of the Conciliation Hall, on the same
ternis as members of the Confederation.’ It was also intimated that
seats would be reserved at the meeting of the Confederation for
the accommodation of the members of Conciliation Hall. Now he (Mr.
O’Connell) wished to warn every member of the association against
accepting that invitation, or making use of the privileges (if
privileges they were) thus offered by the Confederation. (Hear, hear.)
The safety of the association consisted entirely in keeping strictly
within the letter of the law, and he hoped none of its members would
directly or indirectly sanction or identify themselves with any of the
proceedings of the Confederation.”

The Orangemen, as a body, also took active measures. They addressed a
memorial to the lord-lieutenant, protesting their loyalty, and offering
their support.. Their assistance was accepted, arms were distributed
to them, and there is no doubt they would have been bravely used on the
side of the government. A knowledge that the Orangemen were arming in
support of the crown, tended very much to depress the hopes and check
the actions of the seditious. The rifle clubs adopted ball-practice, it
is true, but they confined their shooting to the precincts of the clubs.
When a petty insurrection did break forth, not a shot was fired by the
clubs, after so much preparation on their part, and so much expenditure
of eloquence in boasting of their bravery, and eagerness for the field.

The transportation of John Mitchell did not extinguish the zeal of the
insurgent press. The _United Irishman_ was suppressed, to resume a
new life under the title of the _Felon_, which was as true to its
designation as treason could make it. A paper called the _Irish
Tribune_ vied with the _Felon_ and the _Nation_, in open incentives to
insurrection.

It was the policy of the leaders to wait until the harvest was gathered,
and this was openly proclaimed by them, which enabled the government
more effectually to frustrate their schemes. The editor of the _Felon_
counselled the people, however, to resist if their leaders were
arrested, even if the harvest were not reaped. “After harvest if we may;
before harvest if we must,” was the counsel of this authority, and the
general tenour of the advice given by all the chiefs. The government,
upon these indications, took vigorous measures to enable the
lord-lieutenant by extraordinary power to suppress or prevent any
revolt; the _Habeas Corpus_ Act was suspended, and it was left to the
discretion of his lordship to call out the Protestant yeomanry of the
north of Ireland.

The House of Commons having assembled on Saturday, the 22nd of July, for
a sitting at noon, Lord John Russell rose, amidst profound silence, and
proposed a motion of the most important character: a relation of the
circumstance is introduced here, rather than in the parliamentary
history of the year, because it places in a clearer view the progress of
the Irish insurrection, and the government policy in respect to it. His
lordship, after a pause in which he betrayed considerable emotion, moved
for leave to bring in a bill to empower the lord-lieutenant, or other
chief governor or governors of Ireland, to apprehend and detain,
until the first of March, 1849, such persons as he should suspect of
conspiring against her majesty’s person and government. The noble lord
having expressed his deep regret at being compelled to suspend the
constitutional liberties of Ireland, and declared that, in his opinion,
such a measure was absolutely necessary for the preservation of life and
property in Ireland, for the prevention of the effusion of blood, and
for the stopping of insurrection, proceeded to state the grounds upon
which he rested his proposition. He considered it would be necessary for
him to prove three things:—First that the present state of things in
Ireland was fraught with evil; that it threatened danger; that we were
on the eve of an outbreak, if not timely prevented. Secondly, that there
were means sufficient to produce great evils and dangers unless some
measures should be adopted to counteract them. Thirdly, that the measure
he proposed was the most appropriate for its purpose. He did not propose
to rest his case on any secret information known only to the government;
but he would rest it on facts patent, notorious, and palpable. He then
traced the history of the Irish Confederation, establishing, from the
manifestoes published in the _Felon_ and _Nation_ newspapers, that the
determination of these confederates was to entirely abolish the imperial
government; to take away from the queen all authority in Ireland; to
annihilate all the rights of property; to hold up the hope of plunder to
those who would break their oaths of allegiance and join in rebellion;
and to hold up the threat of depriving all those of their property
who would remain fast to their allegiance, and refuse to assist in the
insurrection. One of these manifestoes, entitled, “The Value of the
Irish Harvest,” set forth that there was growing on the Irish soil
eighty millions of produce, and declared that it would be for the new
Irish Council of Three Hundred to decide how this produce should be
apportioned: thus showing that, by one sweeping confiscation, the
masters of this red republic were prepared to disregard all existing
social rules, and to reduce everything to anarchy. The noble lord then
described the means of effecting their treasonable objects possessed by
the confederates. All the intelligence received by the government proved
that the organisation of the clubs was formidable, that it was rapidly
progressing, and that in many parts of the country the plans of the
associates were ripe for execution. He adduced the accounts obtained
from Tipperary, Meath, Louth, Cork, Waterford, and other counties, as
evidence of the formidable nature of the organisation of the insurgents;
the information received from all quarters, and the opinions obtained
from various persons, being to the one effect, that though persons of
property and the clergy of all denominations were decidedly against an
outbreak, no influence would have any effect in deterring many thousands
of the younger men, especially of the farmer class, from joining in the
proposed insurrection; in fact, nothing was now wanting but the naming
of the day and hour, to be fixed by the leaders, for carrying into
effect this fatal revolution. The noble lord quoted a letter received
that day from Lord Clarendon, in which the lord-lieutenant stated
that the aspect of things was growing worse, and that the increasing
disloyalty, on the part of the Irish people, was most rapid within the
last few days. It might be necessary, he said, to introduce a measure
for the prevention of the organisation of clubs, but the first, the most
direct, the immediate and efficacious remedy for the existing evil would
be the suspension of the _Habeas Corpus_ Act—a power to be given to the
lord-lieutenant of at once securing the persons of those suspected of
high treason. The government might have been justified in demanding
this power at an earlier period, but they delayed it as long as it was
possible. He implored the house, if their conviction was this measure
should pass, to lose no time in arming the lord-lieutenant with the
power requisite. Without it, rebellion could undoubtedly be put down,
but it would be at the expense of blood—at the cost of much misery and
ruin. No man could say what the consequence of withholding these powers
even for a day would be. The government undertook the responsibility,
however odious it might be, of proposing this measure; and they
confidently asked the house to accept their responsibility, mindful of
the blessings they would preserve, and aware of the risks they might
incur.

A petition was presented to the house from the mayor and leading
merchants of Liverpool, expressing gratitude for this measure, and
declaring the apprehensions entertained from the active communications
passing between the disaffected in Ireland and the large Irish
population in Liverpool. In all the great towns of Lancashire sympathy
with Ireland was expressed, and threats were made of firing the
manufactories and the merchants’ stores, to prevent the dispatch of
troops to that country. A Mr. MacManus, a trader in Liverpool, was the
most prominent person among the disaffected in Lancashire. This person
procured a beautiful uniform of green and gold, and proceeded to
Ireland, expecting to appear on the field of action as an extempore
commander. The police were on his track, and he was arrested, with
all his military finery, and committed to prison, without even having
signalised himself in command of a corporal’s guard of pikemen. Mr.
MacManus was an honest man to the cause to which his whole heart was
given. The night before he left for Ireland, he slept at the house of
a merchant in Manchester, named Porteus; that gentleman used all his
influence to dissuade his friend from so mad an exploit, but in vain.
The embryo chief left a considerable store of pistols in the custody of
Mr. Porteus, which were delivered to the chief constable of Manchester.

The vigorous proceedings of the executive, both in England and Ireland,
compelled the Irish leaders, without waiting for the harvest, to
decide upon a course of action. Their first project was to seize the
metropolis. It was garrisoned by about twelve thousand men—a small
force, had there been unanimity and determination on the part of the
Irish people; but the leaders were obliged to fly to the provinces, or
conceal themselves, in order to avoid arrest; and, in fact, they felt
that the fortitude of the clubs could not be relied upon for so bold an
enterprise. After all their preparations and their boasting, the
members of the clubs—their chief reliance—were too few in number, and
inadequately armed for such an exploit.

The project was then adopted for the leaders to repair to those parts of
the country where the clubs were most numerous, and supposed to be most
resolute, and there proceed with their organisation until the government
attempted to arrest them, when the clubs were to rise for their rescue.
It was supposed that the excitement produced by the arrest of the
leaders was necessary to inflame the enthusiasm of the populace. How
little did they know the real feelings of the multitude upon whose
generosity and manhood they thus adventurously threw themselves!

On the 26th, the _Habeas Corpus_ Suspension Act arrived in Dublin, and
warrants were issued for the arrest of all the club leaders. Troops were
moved upon the principal points where it was desirable, for strategetic
and political purposes, to concentrate them. Extraordinary precautions
were taken for the capital. Sir Charles Napier was placed in command
of a powerful steam squadron on the southern coast, Cork and Waterford
being especially menaced by the guns’ of the ships. A proclamation was
issued by the viceroy declaring the clubs illegal, and “commanding all
persons to withdraw from and abandon the same.” On the last day of July,
the privy council held a sitting at Dublin Castle, when it was resolved
to place a number of baronies and counties under the Prevention of Crime
and Outrage Act. By this means opportunity would be most easily taken
to disarm the rebels. The districts put under the stern surveillance of
this law were the counties of Kerry, Wexford, Carlow, Queen’s County,
counties of Galway, Kildare, Wicklow, Westmeath, Louth; seven baronies
of the county Cork, eight baronies in the King’s county, four baronies
in the county of Cavan, two baronies in the county Armagh, and the
barony of Newry, county Down. Proclamations of reward were also offered
for the arrest of Smith O’Brien, £500; for Francis T. Meagher, John B.
Dillon, and Michael Doheny, “each or either,” £300. The ground assigned
for the arrest was “having taken up arms against her majesty.”

The _Hue and Cry_ gave the following descriptions of the personal
appearance, ages, &c, of the leaders:—“William Smith O’Brien, no
occupation, forty-six years of age, six feet in height, sandy hair,
dark eyes, sallow long face, has a sneering smile constantly upon his
countenance, full whiskers, sandy, a little grey. A well set man,
walks erect, and dresses well.—Thomas Francis Meagher, no occupation,
twenty-five years of age, five feet nine inches, dark, nearly black
hair, light blue eyes, pale face, high cheek bones, peculiar expression
about the eyes, cocked nose, no whiskers, well dressed.—John B. Dillon,
barrister, thirty-two years of age, five feet eleven inches in height,
dark hair, dark eyes, thin sallow face, rather thin black whiskers,
dressed respectably, has a bilious look.—Michael Doheny, barrister,
forty years of age, five feet eight inches in height, sandy hair, grey
eyes, coarse, red face, like a man given to drink, high cheek bones,
wants several of his teeth, very vulgar appearance, peculiar coarse,
unpleasant voice, dress respectable, small short red whiskers.—Richard
O’Gorman, junior, barrister, thirty years of age, five feet eleven
inches in height, very dark hair, dark eyes, thin long face, large dark
whiskers, well-made and active, walks upright, dress black frock
coat, tweed trowsers.—Thomas Davy M’Ghee, connected with the _Nation_
newspaper, twenty-three years of age, five feet three inches in height,
black hair, dark face, delicate, pale, thin man; generally dresses in
black shooting coat, plaid trowsers, and thin vest.—Thomas Devin Keily,
sub-editor of the _Felon_ newspaper, twenty-four years of age, five feet
seven inches in height, sandy, coarse hair, grey eyes, round freckled
face, head remarkably broad at the top, broad shoulders, well set,
dresses well.”

The peculiar personal appearance of the men who comprised, with a few
others, those who fomented the insurgent feeling in Ireland is of some
interest for the page of history, especially of contemporaneous
history. The delineation was faithful, and aided very much in rendering
concealment difficult, for it prevented the timid from affording shelter
to the chiefs as soon as they became fugitives. For the masses, this
minute description had an alarming appearance, as if government were
well informed of its enemies.

At last the period arrived for the struggle, if ever it was to be made,
and contemporaneous with the projected outbursts, movements were made
by the Irish residents in Great Britain, the Chartists sympathising
with them. The last week of July was especially an anxious period in
Lancashire. The chief danger was apprehended in Manchester, but the only
occurrence was a demonstration of the clubs, which was made on Tuesday
evening, the 26th:—“The members of the several confederate clubs met in
their respective club-rooms, and proceeded thence, about nine o’clock,
in military order, to a large space of vacant ground adjoining the new
Roman Catholic chapel, on the Cheetham Hill Boad. The number present
was very great. No speech was delivered, but three cheers were given
for ‘the cause,’ immediately after which the assembly dispersed.
The intention of holding the meeting having been made known to the
authorities, steps were taken to prevent any disorder.”

In Liverpool, and on the opposite side of the Mersey at Birkenhead, it
was necessary to resort to very extraordinary precautions. The following
extracts from letters written from these places at that time, describe a
state of considerable apprehension in the public mind, and the necessity
of great exertions to intimidate the Irish population:—“There being
reason to apprehend a movement in Liverpool, to act as a diversion
in favour of the insurgents, should a rising take place in Ireland,
preparations are accordingly being made by our local authorities to
guard against a surprise. From the Liverpool papers of Tuesday we learn
that twenty thousand special constables have been sworn in in the several
wards of that town. Steps have also been taken to organise the corps and
to appoint leaders. A place of rendezvous has been taken in each ward,
and there a guard is placed night and day, to give the alarm, should the
necessity for so doing arise. About one thousand men belonging to
the dock works have been sworn in, and amply provided with formidable
weapons, and all the public buildings in the town are guarded day and
night. There can be no doubt, it is stated, that confederate clubs are
being formed in Liverpool, for the avowed purpose of aiding the people
of Ireland in any insurrectionary movements which may be originated.
The idea is, that by rising in Liverpool, Glasgow, and other places,
whenever a rebellion breaks out in Ireland, troops, instead of being
sent across the water, will be kept at home to put down disturbances,
and thus the forces of the government in Ireland will be considerably
weakened. It is stated that clubs to the number of fifty have been
established in the former town—that they number one hundred men each.
The subscription of each member is 1s. a-week. The money is spent in the
purchase of fire-arms, the general price being about 12s. 6d. a-piece.
Every night for the payment of subscriptions, a raffle takes place
for the muskets, which the members are enabled to procure with the
subscriptions. Several arrests have taken place; and it is hoped that
the bold front displayed by the authorities will have the effect of
preventing the contemplated outbreak. It may be stated here, as a
circumstance showing how much on the alert are those who are endeavouring
to repress the rebellious movements of the disaffected, that information
was received yesterday morning by the authorities, that two sons of
Hyland, the notorious pike-maker of Dublin, arrived from that city in
Liverpool on Monday last. The magistrates of Birkenhead have requested
the inhabitants of that town ‘to act as special constables for six
months.’ A summons, signed by four magistrates—Colonel Gregg, Mr.
W. Hall, Mr. J. W. Harden, and Mr. J. S. Jackson—was served to every
householder, requiring them to attend on Monday at the Town Hall
and take the necessary oath, and by half-past ten every respectable
inhabitant was sworn. Accompanying the summons was a notice, signed by
Messrs. Townsend and Kent, clerics to the magistrates, informing the
parties that ‘by disobedience to the precept a penalty of £5 would be
incurred.’”

On the 27th the London _Times_ contained the following startling
telegraphic communication, which caused the funds to fall, and created
alarm throughout the provinces:—

“The whole of the south of Ireland is in rebellion.

“The station at Thurles is on fire, the rails for several miles torn up,
and the mob intend detaining the engines as they arrive.

“At Clonmel the fighting is dreadful. The people arrived in masses. The
Dublin club leaders are there. The troops were speedily overpowered;
many refused to act.

“The military at Carrick have shown disaffection, and have been driven
back, and their quarters fired.

“At Kilkenny the contest is proceeding, and here the mob are also said
to be successful.

“No news from Waterford or Cork.”

The writer of this History was in Dublin at that time, and remembers the
city being thrown into a state of great excitement by the foregoing
intelligence. The alarm was, however, of short duration, as the citizens
of the Irish capital were better acquainted with the disposition of the
people, and the probability of their sustaining a close contest with the
troops. Besides, there existed confidence in the loyalty of the police,
whether Roman Catholic or Protestant. An incident occurred in Dublin
which greatly strengthened that confidence; it was thus related in the
papers of the day:—“A policeman who attempted to arrest three of the
club-men, who were armed, was stabbed in several places, and now lies
dangerously wounded at Mercer’s hospital. The brave fellow never let go
his grasp of two of the fellows, and they and a third are in custody,
and will, no doubt, be indicted capitally at the next commission. The
unfortunate constable (Byrne) at first, on being submitted to medical
treatment, continued for some time to improve, but fever having set in,
it was deemed advisable for him to make a declaration, and the
magistrate on Thursday repaired to the hospital for that purpose.”

Happily the telegraphic communication was found to be false; it was
managed by persons in the interest of the insurrection, in order to
spread alarm, to magnify the undertaking, and drive many of the Irish
people, both in Ireland and Great Britain, to join the confederacy. But
while the startling tidings of the telegraph were false, other news,
authentic and very alarming, reached London concerning the movements of
the insurrectionary chiefs, and the reception which they met with from
the people. The following piece of correct intelligence influenced
the funds, and produced a considerable degree of anxiety in the public
mind:—

“On Sunday evening, July 23rd, Smith O’Brien and Thomas Francis Meagher
reached Carrick-on-Suir at half-past five in the evening from Kilkenny.
On their route, at Gallan, they addressed thousands, and told them
for the present not to interfere with the police or soldiery, as they
performed their duties, but when the word should be given, not to spare
any who opposed them. Monday being fair-day at Carrick, the town was
filled with country people, and Messrs. Meagher and O’Brien addressed
the people in a more violent and determined strain than heretofore,
stating their determination not to be arrested under the provisions
of the new act. Both gentlemen were armed with pistols, which they are
determined to use in the event of an attempt being made to capture them;
they stated that they had spent their fortunes in the people’s cause,
and would hazard their lives for their service, and would now throw
themselves on the protection of the people. A number of Waterford men,
who were at Carrick doing business at the fair, begged of Mr. Meagher to
come to Waterford, alleging that his fellow-citizens would protect him
from arrest; but Mr. Smith O’Brien would not listen to that proposal,
and brought off Mr. Meagher to Cashel, or, as others said, to Tipperary.
Whilst this scene was enacting, two hundred of the 3rd Buffs marched in
from the camp at Besborough, and took up their position in the barracks.
Few of either party slept during the night; the Young Irelanders,
however, did not do anything to disturb the peace of the town, but
business is totally at a stand-still, and all in and about the town are
resting on their arms, waiting for the battle hour. In Waterford the
clubs are described as being well organised, and armed, and ready to
act when called upon. The people seemed reckless from poverty; groups
of workingmen might be seen in the streets by day and night, discussing
politics and retailing the news of the hour. The queen’s forces
in Waterford were about one thousand strong. The _Rhadamanthus_
steam-vessel was in the river, and it was proposed to form two camps
on the hills which command the town. In the country the peasants were
arming; at Coolnamuck so much timber had been cut down for pike-handles,
that the clubs would not allow any more to be taken thence, in
compassion to the proprietor. At Mount Bolton the owner had it cut and
left outside the wood for the people, to prevent further waste; at Lord
Waterford’s demesne more ash-trees had been cut down, and the useless
parts left behind. All the anvils in the country ring with pike-forging,
and every weapon is put in order for the fray.”

The effect upon the government, the legislature, and the country, of
the electric telegraph and other communications, false and true, may be
judged of by the readers of these pages from the following speech by
Sir George Grey, the home-secretary in the House of Commons, on Thursday
evening, the 27th. Sir George had been questioned on this subject, and
thus replied:—

“I have great satisfaction in stating that I have every reason to
believe that the alarming accounts which have appeared in the later
editions of the morning papers, and which were transmitted this
morning from Liverpool by the electric telegraph, to the effect that
insurrection had actually broken out in the south of Ireland, are
totally destitute of truth. Sir, on receiving the copy of the paper
containing the intelligence said to have been sent from Liverpool
this morning, I dispatched a letter to the honourable member for
Stoke-upon-Trent, to induce him to forward a communication by the
electric telegraph to the mayor of Liverpool, requesting to know from
him what information had been received in Liverpool from Ireland, and
I received a despatch from that functionary, by the electric telegraph,
stating that the information published this morning was accompanied from
Ireland by a letter, dated Dublin, Wednesday evening, which represented
that Mr. Conway, of the _Dublin Evening Post_, had received from the
Castle a most dreadful rumour, which he was about to publish in a second
edition of that paper. The writer then went on to say, that he took
advantage of our queen’s messenger going off at the moment for London,
to forward the intelligence in a parcel to Messrs. Willmer and Smith,
of Liverpool, who, no doubt, would transmit it to London by the electric
telegraph. The mayor of Liverpool, about an hour after this, further
communicated to me that he is perfectly satisfied that the Irish
intelligence, contained in the paragraph published in the morning
papers, is utterly untrue, unless government have received a despatch
from Lord Clarendon, confirming it. He also states that a queen’s
messenger certainly had arrived from Dublin by a steamer this morning,
and he left Liverpool by the half-past six express train. Now, it is
perfectly true that a queen’s messenger was dispatched from Dublin last
night. I had sent him over with a despatch, stating that the bill for
suspending the Habeas Corpus Act had received the royal assent, and he
left Dublin with a despatch from the lord-lieutenant yesterday evening,
and arrived in London by the express train this morning by half-past one
o’clock. This despatch certainly describes the state of the country in
the neighbourhood of Clonmel, Carrick, and Thurles to be dreadful, but
in relation to any actual outbreak it is perfectly silent, and makes no
mention whatever. I have seen the messenger, and he states that he
left Dublin at three o’clock yesterday afternoon, but he assures me he
brought no parcel or letter for any party whatever. The messenger is
stated to have come over by a special steamer from Kingston yesterday,
that he started at three o’clock by the steamer which was reported to
have had the queen’s messenger on board. Now, no queen’s messenger
came over in that steamer; but I have received letters from the
lord-lieutenant, written after the departure of the queen’s messenger
yesterday afternoon, which contain no allusion to those frightful
accounts. I am also assured by an hon. member that the hon. gentleman
the member for Totness left Dublin yesterday by the steamer which leaves
at seven o’clock, and that everything was tranquil when he left—that no
rumour of the kind had reached his ears when the steamer left the port.
I will only add that I certainly shall endeavour to trace the wilful
originator of the report. I have now given all the information in my
power, and it enables me to concur with the honourable gentleman that
these reports were fabricated for a wicked and malicious purpose. With
respect to the state of Ireland, I may only add, that by the letters
which I have received from the lord-lieutenant, it appears that Sir
Charles Napier had arrived at Cork with his squadron, with an able and
ample body of troops, who, I am sure, are always ready to discharge
their duty with unflinching bravery, and who are, therefore, entirely
free from the imputations which the reports circulated this day have
unfoundedly cast upon them.”

Lord Lansdowne was also questioned in the House of Lords, and made
a similar reply, when the Marquis of Londonderry, in a very spirited
maimer and amidst the applause of the house, inculpated the government
for allowing the agitation in Ireland to rise to such a head, arguing
that had the seditious writing, speaking, and acting of the confederates
been timely prevented, the law would have been vindicated, public peace
and order undisturbed, and many thousands of poor deluded men would have
been saved from wandering after the _ignis fatuus_ of the Confederation.
This philippic was well deserved by the government; had they really
desired that the pear should ripen before they plucked it, they could
not have proceeded otherwise than they did. The insurrection might have
been crushed in the bud had the government exercised proper wisdom
and firmness. It will scarcely be believed that during these exciting
transactions, any member of the legislature would have the folly to
introduce measures for repealing the union or holding parliaments in
Ireland. There were, however, such persons: Fergus O’Connor and John
O’Connell repeatedly advocated repeal, and Mr. R. M. Fox gave notice
of a motion for holding a parliament in Ireland, which, on the 26th,
he withdrew, amidst the derisive laughter of the house, the honourable
member assuring it that he deprecated the union of repealers and
republicans in Ireland. The government and the legislature were very
much strengthened by the support which the executive received from
Sir Robert Peel. In one of the debates upon the political condition of
Ireland during that memorable week, Sir Robert, with great warmth and
energy of manner, said, “He was prepared to give his unqualified support
to the government. He trusted in the veracity of the ministers when
they stated that the conspiracy was wide-spread and imminent, and he
was ready to take his part with the crown against those mock kings of
Munster of whom they had heard, and against those conspirators who
were working to substitute for the mild sway of her majesty a cruel
and sanguinary despotism. There was now no excuse for further delay in
coping with the Irish traitors, and he for one was prepared to consent
to the suspension of all the forms of the house in order to the speedy
passing of this bill; and if additional powers should be required, he
trusted the government would not hesitate a moment in bringing them
forward. Having referred to the results of revolution on the continent,
the right honourable gentleman concluded by reiterating his conviction
that the throne of this country was firmer than ever fixed in the hearts
and affections of the people.”

The Roman Catholic clergy were never favourable to the Young Ireland
party. They desired the repeal of the union, and even the entire
separation of the two countries; but they had no confidence in the
ringleaders of the Confederation, because, in their opinion, some
were sceptics, and some heretics, and all men of a judgment below the
undertaking: of this a considerable body of the clergymen of the Romish
church in Ireland were well competent to judge; they knew the feelings
of the people better than any other class of men did, and in their own
ranks were numbered a great many men of high attainments and superior
intellect. Some of the very old clergymen in the south, who remembered
the great insurrection at the close of the last century, and the
sufferings which the people experienced, spared no efforts of persuasion
and moral influence to prevent a like occurrence, while some of the
younger and more active clergymen literally horsewhipped the people to
their homes who had turned out. But for these efforts of the priests,
there would have been an insurrection of some force; and had the priests
given it active encouragement, a wide-spread and sanguinary rebellion
must have ensued. Lord Glengall declared in his place in the House of
Lords that the country was much indebted to the Roman Catholic priests
for the preservation of the peace. The general discontent of the people,
and their disloyalty to the throne, had been, however, much perverted by
the bigoted spirit and inflammatory harangues of their teachers.

After vain attempts to rouse the people to turn out, Mr. O’Brien, with
persistence and courage worthy of any cause, placed himself at the
head of a mob of a few hundred peasants and labourers, and without any
well-poised aim or determinate plan of action, proclaimed open revolt
against the queen’s government. On the 29th of July he appeared as the
leader of this hopeless corps, to make war against the mightiest empire
in the world. He was, however, compelled to resort to some decisive
measure by the proclamations of reward offered for his arrest, and by
the efforts which were put forth immediately upon the proclamations
having been posted up. Kilkenny was one of the principal _foci_ of the
strength of the confederates, and O’Brien seems to have relied mainly
upon the men of Kilkenny and Tipperary.

While O’Brien, Meagher, and a few others were mustering their poor
forces, others of the leaders appear not to have taken very much
precaution against arrest. Charles Gavan Duffy was taken early in July,
so was Doheny, and several more of the most boisterous of the club
chiefs. Mr. Blake, the county inspector of constabulary in Kilkenny,
arriving at Harley Park, discovered that O’Brien and his forces were
quartered among the colliers of Boulagh, within a mile of Ballingarry.
He immediately sent to Callan, where the constabulary of the district
had been concentrated for some days, to avoid being attacked in small
parties by the populace. Nearly sixty men left Callan, under Inspector
Trant. Mr. Blake sent to Kilkenny, and other military positions, for
troops, which were dispatched so as to surround the neighbourhood where
the confederates had mustered. The country people soon communicated to
Smith O’Brien and his followers these facts; and Mr. O’Brien thereupon
reviewed his force, consisting of colliers and peasants, variously
armed. They all promised faithfully to stand by him. While thus engaged,
Inspector Trant and his police detachment were seen approaching from
Ballingarry, and the insurgents, numbering twenty to one, dashed forward
to meet them. The police perceiving the disparity of force, made for a
farm-house known as the widow M’Cormack’s. The mob broke their array,
and rushed also to seize the house; but the police were first there,
and barricaded it with the furniture and such other materials as were
at hand. Mr. O’Brien parleyed with the police, shaking hands with them
through the lower windows, and used every persuasion to induce them to
deliver up their arms, which of course they refused. The peasants and
colliers then directed showers of stones against the doors and windows,
and also opened a fire of small arms from an outhouse. This was replied
to by the police, who killed several and wounded many others. O’Brien
was perfectly incompetent to give any useful direction, and his men
began to retire before the sharp practice from the fire-arms of the
police, when at last the latter, advancing under cover of some low walls
and haystacks, drove the crowd from the neighbourhood, O’Brien escaping
on the inspector’s horse. Neither skill nor courage was shown by the
assailants. O’Brien’s conduct has been criticised with much severity on
this occasion; but it is false to represent him as having acted without
spirit; he, of course, in giving directions to his party, placed himself
where he might best do so, and avoid the aim of the police; but if he or
his followers had been fit for the work they had undertaken, they would
either have stormed the house or retired in order; and, possessing so
intimate a knowledge of the country, they might have evaded the armed
parties in pursuit, until, with increased numbers, they had fallen upon
some place of arms which they would have made their _point d’appui_. As
it was, their proceedings were ludicrous, and afforded subject-matter
for _Punch_, which contained a caricature representing an army of Irish
rebels scared by the shadow of a policeman. There can be no doubt that
O’Brien would have dared anything which a sense of duty and honour
dictated, and which opportunity afforded; but to lead an insurrection
was a task utterly beyond his capacity. It is difficult to believe that
the more crafty of the confederates were sincere in the language they
employed in inciting him to the preposterous acts in which he took part.
For instance, a letter written by Charles Gavan Duffy was found in Smith
O’Brien’s portmanteau after his arrest, which contained the following
absurdly eulogistic incitement to place himself in the foreground of the
revolt:—

“There is no halfway house for you. You will be the head of the
movement, loyally obeyed, and the revolution will be conducted with
order and clemency; or the mere anarchists will prevail with the
people, and our revolution will be a bloody chaos. You have at present
Lafayette’s place, so graphically painted by Lamartine; and I believe
have fallen into Lafayette’s error—that of not using it to all its
extent, and in all its resources. I am perfectly well aware that you
don’t desire to lead or influence others; but I believe, with Lamartine,
that that feeling which is a high personal and civic virtue, is a vice
in revolutions. If I were Smith O’Brien, I would strike out in my
own mind, or with such counsel as I valued, a definite course for the
revolution, and labour incessantly to develop it in that way.”

Had Mr. Duffy desired to precipitate a weak man—the leader of other
weak men—into certain ruin, these extracts, and the letter from which
they are taken, would be perfectly consistent and intelligible. Had
Mr. Duffy himself been quite sure of escape, by some means, from the
consequences of insurrection, and had he desired to aid the government
in bringing the disaffection existing into actual maturity, such a mode
of addressing the proud, brave, and honest man to whom he wrote, would
be rational; but with the clergy and gentry of all sects in Ireland
adverse to any such movement, and with a fourth at least of all
the other classes in Ireland, except the mere peasantry, equally
hostile,—while many of those favourable to the Confederation were
afraid to move hand or foot in its behalf,—such a letter, written by
a man who ought from his position to have known Ireland well, is one of
the most extraordinary episodes in the history of the eminently foolish
transactions of the party.

After the wild affair at Boulagh Common, Smith O’Brien became a
fugitive. There was no more preparedness or spirit to rise in his behalf
than there had been for Mitchell; and indeed so destitute were leaders
and people of any military knowledge or resources, that in any effort
against the soldiery, the insurgents would have gone forth as sheep to
the slaughter.

On the 5th of August O’Brien was arrested at the Thurles railway
station, having taken a ticket at that place for Limerick. He was
recognised by Hulme, a guard on the Great Southern and Western Railway,
and the police and military were promptly summoned to Hulme’s aid.
General M’Donald treated the prisoner with all possible courtesy, and
sent him to Dublin. The courtesies of the gallant general were rather
disdainfully repelled. Mr. O’Brien requested his portmanteau to be sent
for, as it contained various necessaries. This request was granted, but
all papers which it contained were abstracted by the Irish secretary,
and several documents and letters from the other leaders, of a
treasonable nature, were discovered. Nine years after this event,
when Mr. O’Brien as a pardoned convict was permitted to return to his
country, he had the puerility to complain of this act in a letter to the
public. The man who could fail to see the justice and propriety of
such a step on the part of the government, was so far beyond reason on
political matters, that all astonishment at the impracticability of his
insurrectionary attempts during the autumn of 1848 ceases.

On the 28th of September Mr. O’Brien was put upon his trial at Clonmel.
The trial lasted until the 9th of October, when a verdict of guilty was
returned, and a strong recommendation for mercy, the jury stating that,
on many grounds, they were of opinion that Mr. O’Brien’s life should
be spared. Probably every impartial person in the kingdom snared their
views. The judges, however, recorded sentence of death.

The trials of MacManus, Meagher, and O’Donoghue resulted in verdicts of
guilty, and sentence of death was recorded in each case. When they were
brought to the court for that purpose, and asked what they had to say
why sentence of death should not be passed upon them, Mr. MacManus
delivered a manly and sensible speech, in a tone and with a manner
so frank and direct, as to produce a strong impression in his favour
throughout the court, as it did throughout the country, by all who
perused it. The speech of Meagher was an eloquent failure; it appeared
as if he had kept the noble and unfortunate Emmet before him as a model.
He addressed the judges as if he were about to expiate his error upon
the scaffold, whereas he knew, as all Ireland knew, that it was not the
intention of government to put the sentence of the law in force. This
circumstance gave an air of display and bombast to a speech that, if the
realities of the speaker’s position had corresponded with it, would have
been thrillingly effective.

Soon after these events, a number of other participants in the revolt
were put upon their trial for their connection with it, or for seditious
writings. The following notices, under the head of “State Trials,”
 appeared in the papers of the day, and will sufficiently exemplify the
general character of such proceedings and their results:—“The trial
of Mr. Williams was closed on Friday se’nnight, by the acquittal of the
accused. It appeared that he could not be fixed upon as the author of
any of the articles indicted. Those which were most violent had been
published during a period when he was confined to his room, and could
not, and did not, take part in conducting the _Tribune_. Mr. O’Doherty,
the part-proprietor of the _Tribune_, less fortunate than Mr. Williams,
has been sentenced to ten years’ transportation. In Dublin the sentence
on Mr. O’Doherty was not expected to be so severe. He is a young man,
not more than twenty-two, and his high character for humanity, and the
recommendation of the jury, induced the public to believe that, though
the sentence would be severe, the punishment would not so nearly
approach that of those who preceded him in his career. With his
sentence, and the discharge of Mr. Williams, the commission terminated.
Mr. Duffy still remains in the custody of the gaoler of Newgate.”

The sentence of death upon the prisoners at Clonmel was afterwards
commuted to transportation, and this was carried into effect. The people
of Ireland felt that the crown had acted with justice and clemency; and
all regretted the necessity of visiting with so severe a punishment men
whose conduct arose from fervent patriotism and honest purpose.

The case of Charles Gavan Duffy was the most remarkable of any which was
brought before the Irish law courts in connection with the insurrection.
Certainly, the charges brought against him were as clearly proved as
were those against any other of the party leaders. Yet the trial was so
managed, and juries were found so obstinate, that notwithstanding the
appearance of the most pertinacious prosecution on the part of the
crown, a conviction could not be obtained. The following extract from a
journal published Saturday, the 23rd of December, exhibits the general
character of the proceedings against Mr. Duffy, and the questions which
were raised to postpone his trial and embarrass the prosecution:—

“On Friday (se’nnight) the important trial of Mr. Duffy commenced,
before Baron Richards and Mr. Justice Perrin, and the first two days
were consumed in arguments for and against the quashing of a former
indictment found in the county of Dublin against the prisoner. On Monday
the court decided the point. The motion of the prisoner’s counsel was,
that Mr. Duffy be not called upon to plead to the indictment found
against him by the grand jury of the county of the city of Dublin,
because another and a similar indictment was put in against him in the
county of Dublin; and as it would be an injustice to him to be called
upon to plead to one indictment during the subsistence of another in
which the crime laid was the same.

“The judgment of the court was, that the whole of the cases previous to
the passing of the act 6 Geo. IV., cap. 51, were against the case made
on behalf of Mr. Duffy, and that there was nothing in the act to take it
out of the operation of those decisions. The act did not directly apply
to the present case at all, and the court could not imply anything to
disqualify the crown from taking whatever course it should think fit to
take in furtherance of the administration of justice.

“The counsel for the prisoner, however, had not stated all their
objections; and on Mr. Duffy being called on to plead to the indictment,
his counsel handed in on his behalf a plea of abatement, on the ground
of the disqualification (by reason of non-residence, or not being
householders) of two of the grand jury who found the bill. The counsel
for the crown retired, and, ultimately, the further consideration of the
plea was postponed to the next day.

“The court intimated that in the decision they had come to on the motion
before them in the morning, they by no means desired or intended to
leave Mr. Duffy open to the indictment found in the county along with
that found in the city. Before he pleaded to the latter, the crown
should declare what course would be adopted—whether a _nolle prosequi_
should not be entered on the other.

“Application having been made to rescind the order of the court made on
Saturday, prohibiting the proceedings at the trial to be published in
the newspapers until the trial had been concluded, the court refused to
accede to the request.

“On Tuesday, the arguments on the plea, handed in on the previous day,
engaged the court the whole day. Their lordships took time to consult
the various authorities cited, before giving judgment. Before rising,
the court refused to hear Mr. Duffy, who applied to have the order
against the publication of the proceedings at the trial in the
newspapers rescinded, and directed the application to be made by
counsel; stating at the same time that the order must remain in force,
unless it could be shown that the prisoner would sustain damage from the
non-publication.

“On Thursday morning, Mr. Holmes inquired at what time their lordships
would deliver judgment as to the validity of the plea in abatement?
Mr. Justice Perrin replied that they hoped to be able to give judgment
to-morrow (Friday). It was clear that, no matter what that decision might
be, the trial could not be commenced until after Christmas.”

After many and intricate legal questions had been disposed of, Mr. Duffy
finally escaped the meshes of the law, and resumed his avocations
as proprietor and editor of the _Nation_ newspaper, which journal he
conducted for a time with more moderation, although the government still
allowed him an extraordinary degree of license.

_Irish Agitation fob Rotatory Parliaments_.—The extinction of the Irish
insurrection did not suppress agitation. The moral-force Repealers kept
up a certain amount of clamour: said much, but not to any purpose, and
did nothing.

A considerable number of noblemen and gentlemen, more remarkable for
their high position and character than for intellectual power, formed
an association for the purpose of promoting what they called Rotatory
Parliaments, which would lead to the frequent holding of legislative
sessions in Dublin. On the 18th of December, a meeting for this purpose
was held in Dublin, at the Northumberland Buildings, Lord William
Fitzgerald in the chair. The meeting was but thinly attended, probably
on account of the extreme wet which prevailed all day. Mr. Sharman
Crawford proposed the first resolution—“That the present mode of
legislation for Ireland is at the root of all the difficulties under
which this country labours.” Mr. Crawford referred all the evils under
which Ireland laboured to English misrule and Irish landlords. Dr.
Carmichael moved the next resolution:—“That amongst the many striking
instances of the neglect which Irish affairs, even of vital importance,
usually meet with in the imperial parliament, may be stated the failure
of all attempts by the Irish members to improve the laws relating to
medical charities.” The next resolution was as follows:—“That the
present mode of legislation for Ireland tends to alienate the affections
of her people; to prevent their industry and self-reliance, and would be
impolitic even in a recently conquered country.” The fourth resolution
stated:—“That the waste lands of Ireland offer a vast field of
remunerative employment for her unemployed population, while the many
abortive attempts that have been made to legislate on the subject in the
imperial parliament sitting at Westminster, furnishes another argument
for a meeting of the imperial parliament in Dublin.” All the resolutions
were passed unanimously. Lord Massarene was then called to the chair;
and a vote of thanks having been passed to Lord W. Fitzgerald, the
meeting separated.

This agitation, which enlisted the attention of so many respectable
persons, was never supported by the people. Had the priests, and
their lay agents, and organs of the press favoured it, it would in all
probability have attained to some degree of importance. The people began
to lose faith in all associations, and the programme of this was not
sufficiently _piquant_ for the political taste of the violent and
bigoted sections of the community. The association met with some favour
in high quarters in England, but not with so much as its promoters
believed would be the case.

_Religious Feuds.—Conflicts between Landlords and Tenants_.—The social
and agrarian warfare continued when the political fires were quenched.
Men were waylaid and murdered on account of their religious opinions
being too prominently expressed for the bigotry of their assassins, and
the utmost religious animosity raged through the land. Landlords who
were active in proselytising, or who in any way showed religious zeal or
earnestness, were subject to insult and injury in every form.

The conduct of the owners of land was not generally forbearing and
praiseworthy, while the laws were all designed to operate in their
favour. The tenantry were not more just than the owners of the soil;
and altogether the relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland were most
unhappy. A letter written from Ireland at the close of the year, thus
depicted the state of affairs:—“The evictions and house-levelling do
not cease in activity. At Ardnacrusha, a little hamlet about two miles
from Limerick, twenty houses were levelled on Monday. Thousands of the
fertile acres of Tipperary are waste, and these are increased each day
by further evictions. The case is the same in Limerick and in Clare. We
find daily announcements of large farmers running away, and sweeping
all with them. They grow alarmed lest their turn may soon come, and they
evade the fate of others by leaving the land naked on the landlord’s
hands. A few days since, in a district of Clare, while the farmers were
at market with their produce, the landlord’s agents descended on the
farmers, with a large body of armed followers, and without legal process
or authority of any kind, it is said, swept away all the stock on the
land to satisfy the landlord’s claims. On the other side of the picture
we find that a tenant, holding ninety-seven acres of land, had sold
off everything, and, with the whole of the produce in his pocket, had
reached Limerick, to emigrate, when he was arrested at the suit of his
landlord and other creditors.”

_Advent of Cholera_.—Many as were the social and political evils of
Ireland during the sorrowful year of 1848, there was a providential
visitation which added to her miseries. Cholera made its appearance in
several places during the autumn; the cases were not very numerous, but
were in general fatal, and excited great apprehension as to the progress
of the pestilence, which, in the following year committed fearful
ravages. It was observable that the famine fever disappeared as this
still more deadly enemy approached.

Such was the history of Ireland during one of the most eventful years in
the annals of the world. She had passed through a terrible ordeal,
and although not wholly uninstructed by it, yet any lessons it was
calculated to teach were reluctantly received and imperfectly learned.




ENGLAND.

_Political Events_.—On former pages we sketched the violent political
convulsions of continental Europe, and the relation which England bore
to the changes which so rapidly took place: within her own confines
there was much uneasiness, and some danger, but law and order triumphed
over their adversaries.

The chartist confederacy put forth all its force, and its leader, Fergus
O’Connor, assumed unwonted boldness, both in and out of parliament.
Meetings were held in various parts of the country, in which the
government was denounced for not employing the people; and the virtue
(as it appeared to these assemblages) of appropriating the property of
the landholders and manufacturers, was loudly insisted upon.

One of these meetings, which excited considerable apprehension, was held
at Kennington Common, on the 13th of March. Much preparation appeared
to be made by the chartist leaders to give it the appearance of a very
great popular demonstration. Nearly fifteen thousand persons assembled,
the greater number from curiosity, the love of mischief, or any other
than political feeling. The speeches were inferior to those usually
made at such meetings, and except in the more than usual amount of abuse
offered to all who were not operatives, the meeting was not remarkable,
and was dispersed by a shower of rain. The consequences of the
assemblage were of more importance: many respectable persons were robbed
and beaten; provision dealers were plundered, and a pawnbroker’s house
of business was stripped of all valuable articles. Rioting subsequently
occurred, although nearly four thousand police were in the neighbourhood
or in reserve. This meeting seriously damaged the chartist cause in
the metropolis. The upper and middle classes saw that plunder and
molestation awaited them and the peaceable portion of the poor, if
Chartism should gain the ascendant; and a determination arose to meet
and suppress, with a resolute hand, the first outbreak. Early in April,
fifteen of the rioters were put upon their trial for robbery with
violence; eleven were convicted, and sentenced to various terms of
transportation. This infuriated their confederates, and preparations
were made for another demonstration of immense magnitude, to which Mr.
Fergus O’Connor gave all his energy and influence. It was proposed
to hold another meeting at Kennington Common on the 10th of April,
ostensibly to carry a petition to the parliament house for making “the
Charter” law. One hundred and fifty thousand Chartists were expected to
assemble from very great distances. It was generally believed that the
intention was to effect an English socialist revolution. Probably on no
occasion, since the apprehension of invasion from the great Napoleon,
was the London public so much alarmed. The subject, of course, fell
under the consideration of parliament, where Fergus O’Connor was accused
of attending seditious meetings and making treasonable speeches; this he
denied with the greatest effrontery, affecting to be a pattern of order
and law, although it was notorious that he was bent upon revolutionary
attempts, and that his main motive was to resent certain affronts
offered to himself by the Whigs. He had been jealous of O’Connell, whom
that party to a certain extent petted, giving him private power and
patronage, while Fergus was treated, as he himself believed, without
consideration. His first attempts at agitation were in his own country,
Ireland; but O’Connell turned him into ridicule, and eventually
denounced him. Fergus then saw that the only hope of becoming an
agitator of name and influence lay among the discontented English
operatives; and he sought fame and power in that direction by means
unworthy of any man, and ultimately ruinous to himself and to many of
his dupes. On Tuesday, the 5th of April, the following conversation
occurred in the commons, which showed the apprehensions of government
and of the public, the hypocrisy of Mr. O’Connor, and the folly of Mr.
Hume, who, always meaning well, so often inflicted injury on the liberal
cause by his imperfect judgment and decided prejudices:—

“Mr. J. Walsh inquired of the secretary of state for the home
department, if the attention of the government had been directed to
the notice issued by the chartist body, of their intention to hold a
numerous public meeting on Kennington Common on Monday next, and to
go thence in procession to the House of Commons, for the purpose of
presenting a petition in favour of ‘the people’s Charter;’ and if the
right honourable baronet was prepared to take any steps to prevent the
independence of the House of Commons from being overawed by any public
meeting, or to protect the loyal and peaceable inhabitants of London?
—Sir G. Grey replied that the attention of her majesty’s government
had been directed to the notice in question, emanating from a convention
consisting of forty-nine delegates elected at public meetings held in
several of the large towns of the kingdom. This notice stated that
those delegates met in London for the purpose of superintending the
presentation of a petition in favour of the Charter to the House of
Commons, and to adopt any other course that might be deemed advisable in
order to secure the passing of the Charter into law. It likewise stated
that a great public meeting would be held on Kennington Common on
Monday next, and that the parties composing that assemblage would march
in a procession, regulated and superintended by marshals, with their
petition to the House of Commons. The attention of the government having
been called to that notice, and other information having reached them
respecting the intended proceedings, the government had directed a
notice to be issued, which would be published in the course of half an
hour throughout London, pointing out that, by the statute and common law
of these realms, the intended procession was illegal, warning the loyal
and peaceable subjects of her majesty to abstain from taking any part
in the procession, and calling upon them to give their best aid to the
constituted authorities towards preventing any disturbance, maintaining
public order, and preserving the public peace.—Mr. F. O’Connor said, if
there were the slightest intimation of committing a breach of the peace
on the occasion of this procession, he would not be a party to the
proceeding—that the parties concerned in the affair were peaceably
disposed—and that every man of them would consider himself as a special
constable, upon whom the preservation of peace was incumbent. Their
whole object was to present to that house a petition, signed by between
five and six millions of the people. The present announcement would
certainly take the people by surprise.—Sir G. Grey could not see how
they could be taken by surprise. The government had, at the earliest
moment, taken the subject into deliberation, and resolved to take the
course he had indicated.—Mr. Hume was sorry to find the government
had taken up the subject so seriously, and advised them to rescind the
proclamation.”

Notwithstanding Mr. Hume’s advice, the government did take it up as a
serious matter, and the opinion of the public was with the government.
Among other measures which the executive took to ensure security, the
following were conspicuous:—“A large supply of fire-arms and cutlasses
have been sent from the Tower to the East India House, and their
different warehouses, the Custom House, Excise-office, the Post-office,
Bank of England, the Mansion House, the various departments at Somerset
House, the Ordnance-office, Pall-Mali, the Admiralty, and the different
government offices at the West-end; also to a great many banking-houses
in the city, and the dock companies. The clerks and persons employed
in these establishments will be ready to act, if absolutely necessary,
against any outrage that may be committed by a mob. The swearing-in
of special constables is proceeding rapidly in Lambeth, Walworth,
Camberwell, the Borough, and the districts on the Surrey side of the
water, where the tradespeople and householders all show their desire to
protect the public peace if called upon.”

These preparations were followed by the following proclamation:—

“_NOTICE_

“Whereas the assemblage of large numbers of people, accompanied with
circumstances tending to excite terror and alarm in the minds of her
majesty’s subjects, is criminal and unlawful.

“And whereas not only those persons who take an active part in such,
assemblage, but those also who by their presence wilfully countenance
it, are acting contrary to law, and are liable to punishment; and
whereas an act of parliament, passed in the thirteenth year of the reign
of his late majesty King Charles II., intituled, ‘An act against tumults
and disorders, upon pretence of preparing or presenting public petitions
or other addresses to his majesty in the parliament,’ it was enacted,
‘that no person or persons whatsoever shall repair to his majesty, or
both or either of the houses of parliament, upon pretence of presenting
or delivering any petition, complaint, remonstrance, or declaration, or
other addresses, accompanied with excessive numbers or people, nor at
any one time with above the number of ten persons.’

“And whereas a meeting has been called to assemble on Monday next, the
10th instant, at Kennington Common, and it is announced in the printed
notices calling such meeting, that it is intended by certain persons to
repair thence in procession to the House of Commons, accompanied with
excessive numbers of people, upon pretence of presenting a petition
to the Commons house of parliament; and whereas information has been
received that persons have been advised to procure arms and weapons,
with the purpose of carrying the same in such procession; and whereas
such proposed procession is calculated to excite ‘terror and alarm in
the minds of her majesty’s subjects.

“All persons are hereby cautioned and strictly enjoined not to attend,
or take part in, or be present at, any such assemblage or procession.

“And all well-disposed persons are hereby called upon and required to
aid in enforcing the provisions of the law, and effectually to protect
the public peace, and suppress any attempt at the disturbance thereof.

“(Signed) C. Rowan,

“R. Maxne,

“Commissioners of the Police of the Metropolis.

“Metropolitan Police Office, Whitehall Place,

“April 6, 1848.”


The government resolved wisely to permit the meeting to assemble, at the
same time announcing that any attempt to cross the bridges in a formal
procession would be resisted. By this means, which it was alleged
had been taken by the advice of the Duke of Wellington, the immense
concourse of the seditious was placed at the side of the river where
they could do least mischief, and the passages of which by the bridges
could be easily defended by a small force. The government thus
showed the impotency of the chartist party, and its own respect for
constitutional rights.

On the morning fixed for the great experiment London presented a strange
appearance. A vast body of persons was called out to act as special
constables. Men of every rank of life might be seen in this capacity,
among them Prince Louis Napoleon Buonaparte, afterwards Emperor of the
French, stood with his constable’s baton as a custoder of order. The
troops, which had been called from distances, and were billeted in the
suburbs, rapidly concentrated at tap of drum and call of bugle. The
Duke of Wellington, having the command, so disposed them that, without
appearing through the day, they were ready to act at a moment’s notice,
wherever their presence might be necessary, and so posted that each
detachment could readily render support to another, in a regular chain
of defensive positions. From every part of the provinces chartist
delegates arrived, by railway and coach, bringing large rolls of
petitions to be appended to the general roll.

Very early in the morning the Chartists gathered, in large bodies, at
each separate rendezvous. Russell Square, Clerkenwell Green, and Stepney
Green, were the grand points of meeting, where the greatest numbers
assembled before marching to Kennington Common. Some of these
processions were composed, to a great extent, of old men, boys, and
women, and were attended by bands. Poles, surmounted by caps of liberty,
flags, and streamers, were borne in the ranks or in carts. All these
detachments were watched by mounted police and special constables, and
at each rendezvous a large body of special constables on foot was drawn
up to prevent any breach of the peace. The police being concentrated on
various points, their ordinary duty was performed by special constables,
who were distinguished by official staves and a white band round the
arm. The shops were closed, and the public buildings were all well
guarded and fortified. Buckingham Palace seemed the only place upon
which no extra care was expended. No one supposed that the home of her
majesty would be insulted, no matter what party was in the ascendant. As
the troops took up their several positions within the public buildings,
they were loudly cheered by the people in the streets, for it was
evident, notwithstanding the immense chartist concourse, that an
overwhelming majority of the Londoners was opposed to their proceedings.
While matters were taking this course with the general public, the
chartist delegates met in their usual place, the Literary and Scientific
Institution, John Street, Fitzroy Square; Mr. Reynolds was called to
the chair at nine o’clock. Mr. Doyle, the secretary, announced that a
communication had been received from the head police-office, Scotland
Yard, intimating that no procession from Kennington Common to the
parliament house with the petition would be allowed, but that the
petition itself would be permitted to pass the bridge in the custody of
a suitable number of persons. Several speakers urged that the government
should be set at defiance, and the petition proceeded with at all risks,
until delivered at the House of Commons. Fergus O’Connor dissuaded them
from any collision with the authorities. In a speech full of bombast and
egotism, he declared that he was personally marked out for slaughter by
the authorities. Thus, after all the bluster of this great tribune,
as his followers called him, he showed the white feather. He was not
prepared, like Smith O’Brien, gallantly to go out, with his life in his
hand, and verify, by exposing himself to every peril and penalty, the
words which he uttered when it was safe to utter them. Mr. O’Connor’s
dissuasions in the interest of peace did not meet the approbation of
the delegates, who seemed unanimously resolved to force their way across
Westminster Bridge when the hour should arrive for so doing. In this
spirit the meeting was adjourned to Kennington Common. The following
graphic account of the departure of the delegates, their progress
thither, and their arrival, was given by an eye-witness:—

“During this discussion two newly-constructed cars had driven up to the
doors of the institution. The one intended for the conveyance of the
monster petition was on four wheels, and drawn by as many very splendid
farm horses. The body of the car was square, and surmounted by a
tastefully constructed canopy. The attendants bore streamlets in
the varied colours of red, green, and white, having appropriate
inscriptions. The van or car in waiting for the delegates was upwards
of twenty feet in length, with seats arranged transversely, in so
commodious a manner as to afford comfortable accommodation to the
delegates, as well as several representatives of the press. The body
of the car was inscribed with the motto, ‘The Charter. No surrender.
Liberty is worth living for and worth dying for.’ On the left, ‘The
voice of the people is the voice of God;’ while on the back of the car
was inscribed, ‘Who would be a slave that could be free?’ ‘Onward, we
conquer; backward, we fall.’ Eight banners were fixed (four on each
side) to the car, inscribed, ‘The Charter.’ ‘No vote, no muskets.’ ‘Vote
by ballot,’ ‘Annual parliaments,’ ‘Universal suffrage,’ ‘No property
qualification,’ ‘The payment of members,’ and ‘Electoral districts.’ To
the vehicle were harnessed six farm-horses of superior breed, and in the
highest possible condition. The marshals (designated by a silk sash of
the colours red, white, and green) having announced, at ten minutes past
ten o’clock, all in readiness, Mr. F. O’Connor was the first to ascend
the car. The honourable gentleman was received with loud cheers by the
crowd which thronged John Street, and took his seat in front of the van.
He was followed by Mr. Ernest Jones, Mr. Harney, Mr. M’Grath, Mr.
Clark, Mr. Wheeler, Mr. Reynolds, Dr. Hunter, and other leaders of the
convention. The rest of that body having also taken their seats, the
_cortege_ set forth amidst loud cheers. Passing along Goodge Street into
Tottenham Court Road, along High Street, Bloomsbury, the National Land
Company’s office was reached, and from that building five huge bales or
bundles, comprising the petition, with the signatures, were brought out,
and secured on the first car, prepared for their reception. Again the
cavalcade moved forward, and progressing along Holborn and Farringdon
Street, reached New Bridge Street, the crowd increasing the train at
every step. So far the shops in the line which had been passed were only
partially closed. The utmost order prevailed, though the delegates were
recognised by numerous friends and adherents, and at intervals most
vociferously cheered. At the Waithman obelisk the alderman of the ward,
Sir James Duke, was in attendance, with his deputy, Mr. Obbard; but up
to this spot not a single policeman was to be seen. The windows of the
houses in New Bridge Street were filled with spectators, and, amidst
much applause, the moving mass took an onward course across Blackfriars
Bridge. At this time, a strong detachment of a battalion of pensioners,
under arms, and fully accoutred, were observed to have just landed
at the city pier, from Woolwich, and were loudly cheered by the vast
concourse that now crowded the bridge. On reaching the Surrey side, the
first display of the civil force appeared. On each side of Albion Place,
were drawn up, in military order, a strong body, in double file, of the
L division of the metropolitan police, while the city police maintained
the ground on each side of the bridge, which was within the limits of
the city jurisdiction. This force was under the orders of Mr. Henry, one
of the magistrates at Bow Street. Opposite the end of Stamford Street,
a party of the mounted police, fifteen strong, under the command of an
inspector, was stationed. In its passage along the Blackfriars Road to
the Elephant and Castle, the crowd continued to increase, and hem in
the vehicles on both sides; still, everything was peaceable and
well-conducted. At the Elephant and Castle a new mass joined in the rear
of those who, walking eight abreast, and followed the train from the
place of departure, and on reaching Newington Church the appearance of
the masses was most bewildering. Proceeding along the Kennington Road
the common was reached at half-past eleven o’clock. Here had already
assembled the Irish confederalists, and the various bodies of the
trades of London, who had intimated their intention of joining in the
demonstration. These had taken their position in numerical order on
the common, having arrived from their different rendezvous some
time previously. Each trade had its emblematic banner, and the Irish
confederalists displayed a very splendid green standard, emblazoned with
the harp of Erin, and the motto ‘Erin go bragh.’”

The delegates addressed the meeting, and recommended peace, but chiefly
on the ground that they were not prepared to contend with the armed
force directed upon all the strategetic points where it might be
made available. The magistrates and some of the chiefs of police were
assembled at the Horns Tavern, Kennington, where they sent for Mr.
O’Connor, requesting an interview. The mob supposed that he was
arrested, and loud cries arose for his rescue. They were pacified,
however, by his return, accompanied by Mr. M’Grath, and he was welcomed
by the people with a tumult of cheers. He had given the magistrates
assurance that order should be preserved, and he communicated the fact
to the people, many of whom, believing that the day would issue in a
revolution, were dissatisfied. Discussions arose on Cuffey advising the
people to force Westminster Bridge, and present the petition themselves.
The more moderate of the leaders, having their recommendations well
backed by the statement that the troops were under arms and the police
provided with cutlasses and pistols, prevailed, and the mob at last
consented that the petition should be taken in a cab by Mr. O’Connor and
certain others, and be presented by the honourable member for Nottingham
that night. Upon the departure of Mr. O’Connor and the other delegates
with the petition, a Mr. Clark moved the adoption of a petition to the
House of Commons against the bill for providing more effectually for
the security of the crown and government:—“The humble petition of the
inhabitants of the metropolis of England, in public meeting assembled,
showeth: That your petitioners have heard, with feelings of indignation
and astonishment, that, by a bill which is now before your honourable
house, for the ostensible purpose of providing more efficiently for the
security of the crown and the government of these realms, it is sought
to alter the law relating to the indefinite charge of sedition, and to
punish by transportation that which is at present punishable by fine and
imprisonment. That your petitioners regard this bill as an attempt to
deprive the people of the right of expressing their just horror at the
atrocious legislation which is generally practised by your honourable
house, and your petitioners beg your honourable house to stamp this
infamous measure with condemnation, by its unanimous and ignominious
rejection.”

This resolution was seconded by a Mr. Kydd, and eloquently supported by
Mr. Reynolds, and at half-past one the assembly broke up. The multitudes
of course pressed to the bridges, but found their progress everywhere
obstructed by police. Those who chose to cross the toll-paying bridges,
were permitted to do so upon payment, under the eye of strong bodies
of police. At London Bridge and Blackfriars, the crowd made desperate
efforts to force their way across, and repeatedly swept the police
before them, but were encountered by stronger efforts, and inch by
inch driven back again. At Westminster Bridge the chief struggle was
maintained, so that fears were entertained lest the bridge should give
way beneath the swaying masses. On these three points many of the more
sturdy of the mob were severely wounded by the swords of the mounted
police, and many were arrested and placed in custody under the charge of
riot. When the “monster petition” was brought over Westminster
Bridge, the excitement of the multitude assembled in Bridge Street and
Parliament Street was very great, and the police had to disperse or
capture many ill-disposed persons who had no public object in collecting
together. The petition and chartist executive committee arrived at the
lobby of the commons by half-past three o’clock.

The house met at the usual hour. When the gallery was opened, the
chartist petition, of awful bulk, stood rolled up in front of the table.
An unusual number of members were present; several peers occupied
the seats allotted to them in the chamber, and the public gallery was
filled. Mr. Smith O’Brien was in his place, and he was the object of
much observation. After the transaction of private business, Mr. F.
O’Connor rose and said—“Sir, I have the honour to present a petition
signed by five million seven hundred and six thousand persons,
and another signed by thirty thousand persons, praying for annual
parliaments, universal suffrage, vote by ballot, equal electoral
districts, no property qualification, and the payment of members. As
I have already received so much courtesy from the house, I will say
nothing further at present, but move that the petition be read at the
table.”

The petition having been read by the clerk, Lord Morpeth rose to
apologise for the necessary absence of the home-secretary. The noble lord
said that the secretary of state would have been in his place, only
that he was occupied with the numerous details of his office. It was his
opinion, with regard to the matters of the petition, that he would
not willingly be wanting in proper respect to a petition so numerously
signed.

The petition was then received, and was, with difficulty, rolled down
the floor of the house to the bar.

Mr. Lushington gave notice that on Friday night he would ask the first
lord of the treasury whether he could hold out a distinct hope that,
in the present session, he would introduce himself, or support the
introduction of any measure for the extension of the suffrage, the
abridgment of the duration of parliaments, the formation of electoral
divisions, and the vote by ballot. This motion was hailed with loud
cheers.

The strangers’ gallery, and wherever spectators could be accommodated,
was full during this scene, and the public desire to hear what notice
the lords would take of these events was nearly as great; there also
every allowable space was occupied by anxious expectants, to hear the
Duke of Wellington and other ministers express their opinions.

The Marquis of Lansdowne, in reply to a question from the Marquis of
Northampton, stated that the meeting which had caused so much alarm
throughout the metropolis had taken place at Kennington Common that day,
and the multitude had been dispersed by the police without requiring the
aid of the military, and without any difficulty. The petition had, he
believed, been brought to the House of Commons in a cab, and had been
presented according to the usual form.—Lord Brougham, who made his
first appearance in the house since Christmas, remarked that however
high he held the right of petitioning, and of meeting for the purpose
of discussing public affairs, he was decidedly of opinion that such
a multitudinous meeting as that referred to, as well as the monster
meetings of Ireland, could be viewed in no other light but as
demonstrations intended to overawe the parliament and the crown by an
exhibition of physical force. Although he had condemned the manner in
which the Manchester meeting in 1819 was put down, it was his opinion,
as well as the opinion of Lord Plunkett and the late Lord Abinger, that
such a meeting could not be considered _bonâ fide_ meant for discussion,
and that it was illegal.—The Duke of Wellington quite concurred in the
law as declared by Lord Brougham, and considered that the metropolis
had deep reasons for complaint in having trade interrupted, commerce
suspended, the inhabitants kept in a state of alarm and terror for
several days, owing to the assemblage of large bodies of people, whose
only object could be, by meeting in such multitudes, to overawe the
legislature. He sincerely rejoiced that the peace had been preserved
without the appearance of a single soldier.—The Marquis of Northampton
heard the explanations given with pleasure. He thought the country was
greatly indebted to the noble duke, and also to all concerned, for their
exertions in maintaining the peace.—The Marquis of Lansdowne declared
that it was most gratifying to him and to the government to find
the enthusiasm displayed by all the respectable inhabitants of the
metropolis, who had come forward to enrol themselves as special
constables. The noble marquis said that the exemplary conduct of the
police was also deserving of the highest commendation.

Allegations having been made that the names attached to the petition
were not nearly so numerous as alleged, and that many of them were
forgeries, an inquiry was called for, and the committee on public
petitions had the task assigned to it of making the investigation. The
report made by the chairman to the house was most singular, showing that
in fact the privilege of petition had been abused, and the house trifled
with. On the 13th of April Mr. Thornley brought up the report of
the committee on public petitions, which stated that upon the 26th of
November last, a committee was appointed to report to the house the
number of signatures attached to all petitions presented to that house,
and that they had felt it their duty to make a special report to the
house upon the subject of the national petition, presented on the 10th
of April by the honourable member for Nottingham, signed by subjects of
the British crown. The committee attached the utmost value to the right
of petitioning, and to the exercise of that most important privilege by
the subjects of this realm, and felt deeply the necessity of preserving
the due exercise of such privilege from abuse, and having also a due
regard to the importance of a petition so very numerously signed, had
made that petition the subject of their present report. They felt bound,
in the discharge of their duty, to represent to the house that with
respect to that petition there had been a gross abuse of that privilege.
The honourable member for Nottingham, upon presenting the petition,
had stated that the petition was signed by upwards of five millions of
persons. Upon the most careful examination of the number of signatures
in the committee, with the assistance of thirteen law-stationer’s
clerks, who acted under the superintendence of the various clerks of the
committees, the number of signatures attached to the petition does not,
in the opinion of the committee, amount to two millions. It is further
found that a large number of the signatures were consecutively written
by the same hand. It was likewise observed that a large number of the
signatures were those of persons who could not be supposed to have
concurred in its prayer; among these were the name of her majesty,
signed Victoria Rex, the Duke of Wellington, Sir Robert Peel, &c, &c.
There was also noticed a large number of names which were evidently
fictitious, such as “Pugnose,” “Longnose,” “Flatnose,” “Punch,”
 “Snooks,” “Fubbs,” and also numerous obscene names, which the committee
would not offend the house or its dignity by repeating, but which
evidently belonged to no human being. Upon the motion that the report do
lie upon the table, a somewhat angry and personal discussion arose, in
which Mr. Cripps was very severe in his censure of the conduct of Mr.
O’Connor, in alleging that upwards of five millions of signatures had
been attached to the petition. The motion was eventually agreed to. At
the conclusion of the discussion Mr. F. O’Connor left the house; and a
hostile meeting between him and Mr. Cripps having been presumed likely,
in consequence of the personal nature of what had passed, Mr. O’Connor
was, on an order of the house at a late period of the evening, taken
into the custody of the sergeant-at-arms, but was subsequently released,
and a reconciliation with Mr. Cripps effected.

Throughout the year attempts were made by the Chartists to create
disturbances, and many of them were arrested and punished for riot,
assault, or sedition. The leaders were very active in disseminating
among the working classes opinions adverse to the rights of property and
of society at large. These proceedings injured the cause of electoral
and parliamentary reform. There were many members in the House of
Commons, and many persons of influence throughout the country, who were
favourable to some of the principal political opinions put forth in
“the people’s Charter,” but there was no sympathy among these classes for
the economical and social theories of the party by which the Charter
was chiefly upheld. Reform in parliament, which was still desired by the
people at large, was thus postponed by the alarm which the extreme views
and violent temper of the Chartists created amongst the classes who
possessed property, and amongst religious and peaceable citizens.




VISIT OF FRENCH NATIONAL GUARDS TO LONDON.

The political excitement of the times was much increased by a visit to
London, made at the end of October, by more than a thousand National
Guards of Paris, in full uniform. Aged persons who remembered the first
French revolution, and the subsequent wars, were somewhat alarmed at
this sudden appearance of French uniforms. The masses of the people
welcomed the peaceful invaders, and the British Guards fraternised with
them. Every public place was thrown open to them, and in the theatres
and public gardens they were greeted with applause, the bands performing
French national music. The visitors departed, expressing their high
sense of the cordiality with which they had been received.




COMMERCIAL AFFAIRS.

This year was one of severe trial to Great Britain. The credit of many
great mercantile houses was shaken, and many failed. The distress
which prevailed at the beginning of the year, both in Great Britain
and Ireland, disheartened the trading community, and impeded the usual
course of business. When the French revolution suddenly burst forth,
business received a shock such as only political events of the greatest
magnitude can communicate; but when that event was followed by a series
of continental revolutions, destroying the old European system, and
convulsing nearly all the great monarchies, commercial affairs were
nearly paralysed. The threatened disturbances in Ireland, and the
chartist agitation at home, aggravated the evil effects which so many
other causes produced. Banking accommodation was extremely difficult of
attainment, and the funds fell very low. About the end of March affairs
assumed some hopefulness, and the funds rose; but so many events crowded
on in rapid succession, like dark clouds impelled by the storm, that
these encouraging indications were checked. Still, public confidence in
the stability of British institutions sustained public credit, and the
disturbed state of other countries likewise caused the investment of
capital in England to a surprising extent, keeping up the funds,
and extending commercial transactions. As soon as the great chartist
demonstrations of April were over, and the safety of the government
placed beyond doubt, monetary and mercantile matters rapidly
improved; and although English merchants and bankers suffered from the
fluctuations of credit on the continent, yet the security of England
reacted upon all European commerce, and caused the continental losses of
our capitalists and traders to be far less than could have been expected
in a season so politically tempestuous.




THE COBDEN TESTIMONIAL.

Soon after the repeal of the corn laws, it was resolved by certain
friends of that measure to give Mr. Cobden a testimonial of national
gratitude for his services. The public knew his deserts, but they did
not know that he had consumed his fortune in their behalf. The business
of Mr. Cobden was that of a calico-printer, which he carried on in
the neighbourhood of Manchester. By the excellence of his colours, his
execution, and the novelty and good taste of his patterns, he created
a vast and distinctive trade, which he necessarily neglected while
conducting the agitation against the corn laws; and the result was
perilous to his business and ruinous to his purse. Viewed in this
respect the national testimonial was but an act of justice, apart from
any consideration of the great services which he rendered to the cause
of free-trade. None but those immediately cognizant of his efforts could
conceive his herculean labours to promote the repeal of the corn laws.
His eloquence was characterised by intelligence, directness, the absence
of all meretricious ornament, and an eagerness to convince and carry his
hearers with him, which was singularly effective. His addresses were
not only free from all ambition as to ornate or attractive language, but
also as to original or characteristic thought. There was such an
entire absence of all self-seeking about the man, and he so thoroughly
identified himself with the people whose interests he pleaded, that,
possessing a fair readiness of speech, and aptness for _ad captandum_
argument, he could not fail to secure the favourable attention of
earnest men on a subject where their interests were largely engaged.

Although Mr. Cobden promoted the agitation of the question on broad
national grounds, he, nevertheless, looked at it from a class point of
view more particularly, and this was one of the elements of his power
with the traders. When he began the agitation it was as a manufacturer,
for the redress of a grievance which affected his class; it was as he
went on in the agitation for that object, that he began to look upon
the question as one of general interest; and then his speeches assumed
a higher tone and a larger scope, and sound principles of political
economy were uttered by him with all the force of truth which he felt,
and which he had capacity ably to express. It could, however, scarcely
fail to strike men that whether in Free-Trade Hall, in Manchester, or in
the commons house of parliament, his speeches on free-trade were rather
those of the merchant than the philosopher or the statesman. On all
political and politico-economical questions, the tone of his mind was
the same: he regarded them rather in reference to the effect likely to
be produced upon commerce in its immediate or proximate interests,
than in the ulterior consequences, or the great political and ethical
principles involved. The interests of trade, rather than the honour
of England, engaged his heart. He was, consequently, accused of being
deficient in patriotism; but no public man was more willing to sacrifice
himself for the welfare of the people of England, or was personally less
selfish. He was kind, amiable, truthful, honourable, and upright; and
desired with all his energies to promote, not only the welfare of his
countrymen, but of all men.

A public subscription having been set on foot, the committee by whom
it was conducted reported the result of their labours about the end of
April. Seventy-nine thousand pounds were contributed; it would have
been twice the sum, but for the distress, and the disturbance of
public affairs by the torrent of revolution which was sweeping over the
continent. The birthplace of Mr. Cobden, in Sussex, was purchased for
him, and the remainder of the money invested according to his wish. A
sum of £10,000 was raised for Mr. Bright, whose services, however great,
were justly deemed inferior to those of Mr. Cobden. Mr. Bright, however,
was supposed to possess considerable pecuniary resources, although he
also spent freely his private property for the public welfare; and it
was alleged that, but for his liberality in this respect, Mr. Cobden
could not have maintained his post in the face of so many personal
sacrifices. Mr. Bright was the less popular man of the two, partly from
temper, and a certain _hauteur_ which contrasted unfavourably with the
more simple and cordial manners of Mr. Cobden, partly from his religious
opinions bringing him, under a sense of duty, into collision with
the Established Church on various irritating questions, such as
church-rates. The general attainments of Mr. Bright were higher, and
his oratorical talents far superior to those of Mr. Cobden. The latter
frequently fell beneath his ordinary standard of effectiveness, Mr.
Bright scarcely ever. The author of these lines has frequently attended
public meetings in which these gentlemen took part, and he hardly
remembers a single instance in which Mr. Blight’s speech did not possess
a high order of eloquence; whereas many of Mr. Cobden’s speeches were
only interesting on account of the facts they detailed, and the clear
manner in which they were communicated.

Some time after these contributions of goodwill from the country to the
two principal orators of the Anti-cornlaw League, a similar tribute was
paid to the services of Mr. Archibald Prentice, for many years editor
and proprietor of the _Manchester Times_. This gentleman was the founder
of the Anti-corn-law Association, out of which the League sprung, and, as
an able writer and public speaker, did much to prepare the way for the
men who afterwards conducted that agitation to victory. Mr. Prentice
fought bravely and pertinaciously for the repeal of the corn laws, long
before the wealthy supported it, or the suffrages of statesmen and men
of influence gave it a leading position in the questions of the day.

It was not to the credit of some others (a very small number) who
were advocates of the League, that they were as eager to set on foot
subscriptions for themselves, as the public were for those who had
really earned them. One individual, who hung about “the League
rooms,” and made speeches often undesired by the committee, and
when inconvenient to their arrangements, was very indignant that a
subscription was not raised for him. Without eloquence in speech,
temperance in council, or discretion in action, he became prominent only
by overbearing boldness, and an ever-meddling officiousness.




AGITATION CONCERNING THE NAVIGATION LAWS.

Early in the parliamentary session, the government indicated an
intention to repeal the navigation laws. In this they were supported
very ardently by Mr. Hume, Mr. Ricardo, Mr. Cobden, Mr. Bright, Mr.
Milner Gibson, and by many other ardent friends of the Manchester
school. The time was ill-chosen for any movement on this subject,
because the seamen as well as the shipowners were opposed to any
alteration, and the disturbed state of continental Europe, and indeed of
the British Isles, made it extremely unwise for government to irritate a
class whose physical energy, peculiar position, and popularity with the
people, gave them, if disposed, peculiar capacity to disturb the peace.

The party which desired the repeal of the navigation laws maintained
that free-trade in ships and seamen was as necessary as in other
matters, and the cotton districts called loudly for the change. The
leader of the shipping interest was James Mather, Esq., of South
Shields, a gentleman not connected with ships or shipowners, but moved
by patriotic feelings alone. Mr. Mather possessed all the qualities
necessary for a leader in the agitation of a great political and
politico-economical question. With a highly cultivated intellect,
conciliatory address, fearless spirit, and astonishing physical energy,
he was just the man to please at once the educated mariners, and the
rough, bold, hardy tars. The gentlemanly bearing of Mr. Mather was
also calculated to impress his opponents favourably, and a graceful
persuasiveness of mien and language, aided in qualifying him for that
object. Mr. Mather grappled with the arguments of Cobden, Bright, and
the other leaders of the cotton districts, whose influence at that time,
fresh from their victory over the corn interest, made it important to
confute the arguments they addressed to the public. Mr. Mather addressed
a letter to the editor of the _Shipping Almanack and Gazette_, which
produced a great impression where the arguments of the Lancashire
leaders had been accepted as irrefutable. It is desirable to reproduce
this document, as the controversy was one of the most important in its
day, and the policy ultimately adopted remained longer open to question
than any other of the anti-protectionist measures which were adopted.
Mr. Mather’s letter was the more effective, because it exposed an
artifice to which Mr. Gladstone especially resorted, but in which he was
supported by the Lancashire members:—

“The combined attack of Messrs. Gladstone, Bright, Cobden, and two
or three others in the House of Commons, upon the navigation laws, on
account of their preventing the importation of a few cargoes of cotton
lying at Havre, and demanding a suspension of these laws for the
immediate necessities of the manufactories, and the advantage of British
shipping, was as unfair and discreditable a proceeding as party men have
for a long time been guilty of. For the sixty-five thousand bales of
cotton at Havre, brought across the Atlantic chiefly by French ships, it
is, they assert, of advantage to British shipping to destroy that amount
of carriage on the long voyage, and allow this cotton to be brought from
France to England, which a few trips of a steamer would easily effect.
The very statement of the matter, in plain language, refutes the absurd
assertion. You are losing the carriage of thirty cargoes of cotton,
these gentlemen asserted. No, it is replied, for by preventing their
admission from France, as there is a great abundance of cotton in
America, we are gaining the carriage of thirty cargoes on the long
voyage—a portion in British ships; and you will get cotton just as
cheap, nay cheaper for the manufacturers, as the expense of transhipment
will be saved.

“But the cotton is immediately wanted, they assert. Now this was a mere
pretence, which the parties clearly understood, to give a momentary
effect to a most untenable charge. Events have corroborated this.

“Within a few days thirty-three vessels have brought seventy-three
thousand six hundred and forty-nine bales of cotton from America; and
such is the great want of it, sufficient to annihilate or suspend the
navigation laws, that the manufacturers only bought nineteen thousand
six hundred and sixty bales, while nine hundred and seventy bales were
bought for exportation; that, instead of requiring cotton, they are
exporting it from the manufacturing district in which it was stated to
be so much required.

“If cotton was in such demand, would it be upwards of thirty per cent,
lower than it was last year, and would it be falling in price as it is
now? Prices are at present within ⅛d. per lb. of the lowest they were
ever reduced to. For two months it has been a falling market, and at
the very moment these men were advancing such assertions, was the cotton
market in a state of decline, giving the broadest contradiction to them.
If cotton had been wanted, the price, as in any other article, would
have been high, not low, and would have been advancing, not receding,
especially with a limited supply.

“The importation last year was the smallest for ten years. Increasing
previous to 1845 for fifty years, it has since rapidly decreased, and
now it has been found that nearly one-third less stock is required than
there was in 1843, 1844, and 1845.

                                                   BALES.

     In 1843 it was..........................    1,557,597

     1844....................................    1,490,984

     1845....................................    1,652,731

     1846....................................    1,134,194

     1847....................................    1,087,058

“And in this year (1848), up to this month, it has been ascertained that
one-third less stock than in the previous low year of 1847, is more
than enough. (See _George! Holt &c.; Co.’s Circular, and Liverpool Prices
Current_, for the 7th of April). In addition, a reduction of upwards
of thirty per cent, in price, from that of last year, indicates a still
more limited requirement.

“While the stock is only, up to this period for this year, three hundred
and twenty-two thousand eight hundred bales, against the corresponding
period last year, four hundred and ninety-two thousand six hundred
bales; showing, with upwards of one-third less stock one-third less
price—a demonstrative proof that the supply is infinitely greater than
the demand. Whenever the price advances, indicating demand, the
American supply will be poured into the market without any necessity
for importations from France. Had the navigation laws been suspended, as
urged by some of their opponents, and the French cotton brought in, it
would only have been a drug in the market, useless and unsaleable. More
has since been brought in than was lying at Havre, at thirty per cent,
less than they have had it for two years, and they will not buy it.
It was not wanted; only an excuse was wanted to strike a blow—a most
unfair one—at the navigation laws, and the British commercial marine,
which all the little opponents throughout the country, in their gross
ignorance, have quoted and applauded.”

Meanwhile, the agitation of the mariners and shipowners was exceeding
great, especially in the three grand centres of maritime activity—the
Thames, the Mersey, and the Tyne. Along the north-east coast of England,
the tidings that the government meant to repeal the navigation laws sped
with rapidity, and produced the most intense excitement. Public
meetings were called at Hull, Scarborough. Whitby, Sunderland,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Shields, and Berwick, which were attended by great
numbers, and which were eloquently addressed. The sailors attended these
meetings with boisterous enthusiasm. They were under the impression that
a great wrong was about to be perpetuated, and they were resolved to do
anything which loyalty allowed to defeat the meditated alterations in
the law. Under the guidance of a man less just and scrupulous, and less
jealous for the constitution than Mr. Mather was, much mischief might
have arisen from the sense of grievance which the sailors entertained.
That gentleman, however, so conducted the agitation as to gain a large
measure of public support, and to defeat, during that year, the proposed
alterations.

A convention of shipowners and seamen of the Tyne was held at Shields,
one of the largest and most important ever held in England. Mr. Mather
proposed the following resolutions, which were enthusiastically adopted:
they will disclose the purpose and opinion of that community:—

“Resolved—That we will resist, by every legal and constitutional means
in our power, the repeal of the navigation laws, so violently agitated
by theorists and self-interested men, which were adopted, and have been
sustained, by the wisest statesmen in all ages for the support of the
shipping and seamen of Britain, to prevent the cheap ships and ill-fed
and badly-paid foreigners from underselling and destroying the British
mercantile marine.

“Resolved—That we pledge ourselves, on arriving in London, to take
measures, in conjunction with all the seamen there, loyally and
respectfully, as becomes British seamen, to lay, personally, an urgent
memorial at the feet of her majesty, warning her of the consequence of
driving British seamen into the service of a foreign state, where that
protection and encouragement are freely given them that, by the repeal
of the navigation laws, will be denied them in their own country; and
humbly entreating her majesty to interpose her royal authority for the
protection of that class of men who, in time of war and danger, her
ancestors and this kingdom have ever found their best protection and
their greatest glory.”

At this meeting Mr. Mather was deputed to proceed to London, and lay the
statements of the shipowners before the government. A speech made by
that gentleman at Shields, places the controversy in the light in which
it was then viewed by the shipping interest:—

“All the maritime laws that have guided the policy of this great state
for centuries, that have made her ‘great, glorious, and free,’ are to be
repealed under the most frivolous pretexts. Mr. Labouchere, the organ
of the government, a supporter of reciprocity and equal rights to
the commercial marine of the world—British and foreign—propounds a
measure in which he bestows all the preponderating advantages upon the
opponents of his own country. Had the act being that of an enemy it
would have been proper. The whole foreign and colonial trade is to be
given up to foreign shipping, free and unfettered, while that of Britain
is to be bound down hand and foot, and scarcely capable of moving.
First, then, your ships are to be built of taxed timber, 15s. and 20s.
per load, exclusive of its freight, and expenses as much more, and to
go into competition with the foreign ships with not a shilling per
load duty or freight. You are not only obliged to compete with your
heavily-taxed ships, and to pay foreigners freight to bring you the
timber to build them, but you are obliged to carry three-fourths British
crews in these offered-up trades, while the foreigner’s crews are to be
all of his own country, half-paid and half-fed. You know well the wages
and feeding of foreign crews; you have all been witnesses and are daily
witnesses of it. It is a truth, and undeniable, that these foreigners
have only from 15s. to 25s., the highest wages per month. It is thus
with Danes, Russians, Prussians, Swedes, and Norwegians, while your
wages are more than twice as much—60s. per month. They can be fed,
too, on 6d. per day—in most instances, much less; while British seamen
cannot be fed under 1s. per day, to feed them as their climate and
constitutions require—hence their extraordinary energies. Yet, with
these great disadvantages, in ships, wages, and provisions, it is
determined to risk three-fourths of the commercial marine of Britain in
a contest with foreigners that must be overwhelming. But Mr. Labouchere
feels no difficulties, has no political qualms of conscience, in thus
offering up a sacrifice three-fourths of the commercial marine of Great
Britain. He says, ‘Look at the results of the same system tried so far
back as the beginning of the seventeenth century in Holland—the Dutch
by free trade became the most prosperous nation in Europe. Look at her
great commercial marine. Under it the carriers of the world—her ships
were on every sea.’ It is very surprising that this gentleman did not
continue to follow history in that country and at home since that period
downwards. The iron-headed Cromwell, great by his acts, had the sagacity
to perceive that the commercial marine was the soul of the navy, and
that as long as the Dutch had the carrying trade, Britain and other
colonies were in danger. So he strengthened the old restrictive laws of
Richard II., Henry VII., and Elizabeth, and passed the navigation laws,
under which the British commercial marine has been protected to the
present time, with the exception of the tampering they have met with
lately. And what has been the result? The Dutch, with her free-trade
system, has sunk her commercial marine to the lowest condition, while
Britain, with her protective system, has grown a commercial marine,
the greatest the world ever saw—her ships in every sea, her flag
overshadowing the world. How does it happen—and let Mr. Labouchere
and the whig government answer—how does it happen that the Dutch
commercial marine has been ruined by the free-trade system, and that we
have grown great, _pari passu_, by a restrictive system? But figures
are appealed to by the present government to show that since the
introduction of the reciprocity treaties, or free trade in a limited
extent, our commercial marine has greatly increased.

“These figures Mr. Labouchere adduces as a strong argument in favour of
Mr. Huskisson’s relaxations, commencing at the former period. Observe
these figures more closely, and you will find that the tonnage of the
United Kingdom, to which the reciprocity treaties apply, have increased
considerably under one-half, while the trade to which they did not apply
has more than trebled its tonnage. To overwhelm the defalcations in
the British trade with the reciprocity states, by the extended or more
prosperous state of the general trade, was both unfair and disingenuous.
Yet, this has Mr. Labouchere not a moment hesitated to do. Knowing, for
he must have known, that the British commercial marine, in its trade
with the reciprocity states, had either decreased or only in a smaller
proportion increased with those states, it was a great fallacy and a
deceit for him to proclaim it as the source of prosperity. How stand the
facts with the reciprocity countries.

“In twenty-two years, then, there has been a decrease of British tonnage
employed in three of the five principal reciprocity states, and an
enormous increase of foreign tonnage in four of the five states. In
the two states where British tonnage has increased, the foreign, or the
tonnage of the same states, has infinitely surpassed it; in Denmark,
2793 to 82,284; and in the United States, 160,129 to 281,924; and yet
a British minister of state cites the cause of the increase of British
tonnage to the reciprocity treaties as a reason for this momentous
change. In thirty years averaging twenty of the reciprocity treaties,
our tonnage has increased only 38 per cent., while our population and
its wants have increased 50 per cent., and imports 104 per cent. Thus,
in every phase that the question is presented to us, the shipping
appears to have kept no pace with the other interests of the kingdom,
presenting to our view some great obstructive cause; and that cause, I
humbly submit, is the reciprocity system adopted so generally in
1824. Notwithstanding which, here have we a government insisting upon
extending, without a moment’s hesitation, this system which has already
so deeply injured us, to three-fourths of the commercial marine of
this country. And what are the flimsy pretences in addition? Why, that
Prussia has threatened on one hand, and the United States coaxed on the
other, and that British masters and mates are intemperate, and
British seamen insubordinate. I will take the libel first, and ask Mr.
Labouchere and the whig government how it happens that British ships,
commanded by such masters and manned by such crews, are at the great
marine insurance office of the world, Lloyds, always insured 1 per
cent., 1 ½ and 2 per cent, lower than the eulogised foreign ships,
with their masters and crews? Will they explain that indubitable fact?
And also, I beg to know of these sage legislators the cause that in
the winters of 1846–47, out of two hundred and ninety-four corn-laden
British ships from America, there were only three foundered, while out
of four hundred and thirty United States’ ships performing the same
voyage, with similar cargoes, seventeen foundered. And how out of the
same number four British only were stranded, while there were twelve
American? Not a fourth part of the casualties amongst the British that
there were amongst the United States ships; yet the Americans are an
experienced, gallant, and well-conducted race of seamen. These things
gave the broadest refutation to such a calumnious charge. It is not wise
for a minister of state of Britain to proclaim to the world a character
of the bravest and most important class of men of Britain, that
disgraces them indelibly, injures the property of their employers, and
dishonours the country. The twenty thousand gallant schoolmasters afloat
that are busy day and night, educating and developing the powers of
the future defenders of Britain, making them able and worthy sons—the
ablest and worthiest of their great country—to be thus traduced by
those who should ever and above all protect them, is an act of the most
revolting nature.”

The effect of Mr. Mather’s exertions were seen in a grand demonstration
on the 9th of February, in London, which, in deference to the civic
authorities, was made on the river, rather than, as originally intended,
in the streets of London and Westminster. According to the _Shipping
Gazette_, there were ten thousand seamen from the Tyne and its
neighbourhood in the port of London that day. On the evening previous to
the demonstration, the crews of all British vessels in the Thames were
in a high state of excitement, full of preparation for the morrow.
Between three and four hundred vessels were in the Pool, the Gallions,
Bugsby’s Hole, and Longreach, and their crews manifested the utmost
eagerness to show their sense of what they considered their rights.
The next day a grand procession of boats, partly tugged by steamers,
proceeded to Westminster Bridge. The vessels and boats carried the
union jack, and various flags; the sailors were dressed in their holiday
suits, and bore the words “Navigation Laws” round their hats, in large
yellow letters, the masters and mates in gilt letters. The _Standard_
newspaper estimated the number of seamen in the procession at about
fifteen thousand. The banks of the river and the bridges were crowded
with spectators, whose sympathy was shown in every way that the most
enthusiastic popular feeling could evince. Cheers rang along the river,
cannons were fired, and the leaders of the demonstration, Mr. Mather,
Captain Smith, and Mr. Butchert, were received everywhere with the
loudest plaudits of the people. The appearance of the boats and
steamers, manned by tars in their best attire, and bearing gay flags,
was exceedingly picturesque. Perhaps no metropolitan sight so imposing
had been witnessed by the generation of Londoners then living. The wind
was boisterous and the sky lowering; the procession had also to make its
way against tide; but these obstacles only broke the formality of the
line of procession, while evoking an activity on the part of those who
manned the boats, which heightened the interest of the scene, giving
characteristic traits to a procession afloat, which in gentler weather
it would not have exhibited. Even the cloudiness of the sky aided
the picture, which would have been seen to less advantage under a
glaring sunshine; yet, occasionally, the clouds broke away, and the sun
fell upon the scene with that splendour, which, if wholly wanting, would
have deprived the view of much of its effect.

The following is a copy of the memorial presented by the deputation:—

“TO HER MOST GRACIOUS MAJESTY.

“_The loyal and humble memorial of the masters, mates, seamen,
shipwrights, and other naval artizans now assembled in London, and the
delegates representing the outports of the kingdom_.

“May it please tour Majesty,—We, your majesty’s loyal and dutiful
subjects, beg most respectfully to approach your majesty to lay
this humble memorial at the foot of the throne, believing that
the subject-matter of it involves not only the well-being of your
memorialists, but the security of your majesty’s dominions in every part
of the world.

“Your majesty’s memorialists have learnt with deep regret and
indignation that it is seriously contemplated to repeal the navigation
laws, the principle of which, for the protection and encouragement of
British ships and British seamen has been the undeviating policy of this
maritime state for nearly five hundred years.

“Your memorialists most respectfully and loyally, but firmly, as ardent
friends of their country, which they sincerely love, beg to represent to
your majesty that the repeal of the navigation laws will bring ruin on
your memorialists and the commercial marine of Britain.

“That by such a measure, admitting the cheap foreign ships, half-paid
and ill-fed foreign seamen, of which your memorialists have the most
correct personal knowledge, it will reduce, by a competition, the lowest
in the world, the condition of your memorialists, and their families,
and strike a blow at their very existence.

“That thus your memorialists will be driven to seek employment in
another state, speaking the same language and possessing similar laws,
where seamen’s interests and seamen’s rights are carefully attended to,
and where thousands of British seamen have already found protection—so
weakening your majesty’s empire, and giving additional strength to an
already great maritime competitor.

“Your memorialists, therefore, urgently pray your majesty to throw your
royal protection around your memorialists, and the commercial marine of
Great Britain, whose predecessors in all ages in time of war and danger,
your ancestors and this kingdom have ever found their best protection
and their greatest glory.

“God bless your majesty, and counsel you in wisdom, your petitioners
will ever pray.”

This demonstration, while it postponed the repeal of the navigation
laws, did not avert various modifications in our maritime code,
which were made in the ensuing year. The consequences were not so
disadvantageous as those who objected to the experiment feared, whereas
the abettors of repeal contend that free trade in ships and sailors has
proved, like free trade in corn, advantageous to the country.

Soon after the demonstration, Sir George Grey wrote to Mr. Mather,
assuring him that her majesty had received the memorial in the most
gracious manner.




REWARDS FOR INDIA SERVICE.

The conduct of the officers and men, who had served so gallantly in
the Punjaub, received the approval of the country, parliament, and the
throne. Medals were struck off for officers and privates alike, and
clasps appended for the separate battles of Sobraon, Aliwal, and
Perozashooshah. Honours of various kinds were conferred upon the
officers who had distinguished themselves. Lieutenant Edwardes was
promoted to the rank of major; but the Company’s being a seniority
service, the friends of routine vigorously opposed the gallant and
skilful young lieutenant’s promotion. He was also made a C.B. The
Company, in other and substantial forms, indicated its approval of this
officer’s very valuable services.




REFORM OF THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY.

The syndicate, regarding the study of classics and mathematics as the
basis of a superior education, yet nevertheless was of opinion that
greater encouragement ought to be afforded to the pursuit of various
other branches of learning, which in the general community were
acquiring more importance, recommended various improvements in the
curriculum to that end. The study of mental and moral philosophy,
natural history, chemistry, &c, were in future to be stimulated, and
every facility afforded to those who desired high attainments in these
and some other branches of learning. This movement was not very popular
in the university, but gave great satisfaction to the general public.




THE COURT.

There were but few incidents which especially concerned the royal
family, but these were important. On the 18th of March her majesty gave
birth to a princess, her fourth daughter. The baptism took place on the
13th of May, in the private chapel at Buckingham Palace. The Archbishop
of Canterbury officiated. The Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, the Duchess
of Saxe-Meinengen, and the Grandduchess of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, were
the sponsors, represented by Prince Albert, the queen-dowager, and the
Duchess of Cambridge, as proxies. The name of the princess was Louisa
Carolina Alberta. The queen gave a state banquet in the picture-gallery,
in honour of the occasion, and afterwards an evening party..

On the 27th of May her Royal Highness the Princess Sophia died at
Kensington Palace. She expired in her arm-chair, painlessly, at the age
of seventy-one. She was the twelfth daughter of George III., and was
born on the 3rd of November, 1777.




PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.

_West-India Interest_.—On the 3rd of February parliament reassembled
after the Christmas recess. When the usual preliminaries on those
occasions were over, the first matter of business was in connection
with the West India interest, which complained much of distress, and
attributed it to imperial legislation. Lord George Bentinck, who became
the leader of the West-India, as well as of the country party, moved
for a select committee of inquiry into the condition of the West-India
colonies. Mr. James Wilson and Mr. Bernai delivered themselves more
happily than the other honourable members who engaged in the discussion.
The motion was agreed to without a division. This was followed by a
motion on the part of the chancellor of the exchequer for a loan of
£200,000 to certain of the West-India colonies. On the 10th of June
Lord John Russell proposed certain remedial measures for the West-India
colonies, which gave rise to long and intensely bitter discussions; but
the government succeeded in carrying substantially through parliament
its proposals. During these discussions Mr. Hume made himself very
conspicuous as a champion of the West-India planters, and showed an
indifference to the rights, liberties, and interests of the labourers,
irreconcilable with correct views of civil and religious liberty, and
with the honourable member’s own professed liberalism where popular
claims were concerned. The part taken by Mr. Bright gave great offence
to the anti-slavery party, who considered it more consistent with his
interests as a Lancashire cottonspinner, than with his profession as
a quaker and an anti-slavery man. In the course of these debates, Lord
George Bentinck, in indignant terms, denounced Lord Grey, as the head of
the Colonial-office, for returning to parliament garbled extracts from
the reports and despatches of colonial governors. In the lords, Earl
Grey defended his conduct from this imputation; but Lord Stanley, with
uncommon eloquence, reiterated the charge. No public man ever came out
of a personal discussion less favourable than the noble minister for
the colonies on this occasion. The simple truth evoked was, that while
a committee of the house supposed that they were possessed of full and
complete reports, they were supplied with only curt and crude extracts,
calculated to place matters in the ministerial light, but not really
affording the committee the opinions of those whose views they purported
to be. This practice was, unfortunately, common with great officers of
state; but it seemed to be so much beneath the high reputation of Earl
Grey, that the public were astonished and scandalised. Few modern events
tended more to destroy the popular confidence in eminent public men, and
with the people Lord Grey never recovered his popularity. He had been
guilty of a trick which ought to have been punishable by parliament, for
it was incompatible with all just views of ministerial responsibility.

_Financial Measures of the Government_.—The Whigs had for some time
proved themselves to be indifferent financiers. In this respect Sir R.
Peel had for years maintained a reputation superior to that acquired
by any of the whig leaders. During this year the government was not
successful in reconciling either parliament or the country to their
plans of revenue. Their defeats were signal, and their victories very
hardly won. Soon after the meeting of parliament, Lord John Russell made
a financial statement, from which it appeared the income fell short of
the expenditure by nearly three millions. Lord John estimated that the
balance for the year 1848–9 would show a deficiency of more than two
millions. To meet these adverse balances upon two years, his lordship
proposed that the income-tax, which was to expire in April, should be
continued for five years, and be increased from sevenpence in the pound
to one shilling. This proposal was received by a burst of ironical
cheers, and other sounds indicative of the strong disapprobation of the
house. His lordship stated that Ireland would not be included in the
measure, as from her recent and present sufferings, she was unable
to bear increased taxation. This statement was received with the most
violent and vehement shouts of disapprobation from the English and
Scotch members on the ministerial side of the house, and the most
boisterous cheers from the Irish members on both sides—the opposition,
generally (with the exception of the exultant Irish conservative
members), remaining silent. The opposition to the income-tax out of
doors was very energetic, so that on the 28th of February the chancellor
of the exchequer came forward with an amended budget. He proposed that
the income-tax should continue at the same rate for three years. After
a warm parliamentary opposition, led by Mr. Hume, the government
resolutions were carried.

_Bill to legalise diplomatic intercourse with Rome_.—A bill for this
purpose was introduced in the lords by the Marquis of Lansdowne. It was
opposed by the Duke of Newcastle and the Bishop of Winchester with
great earnestness, the latter particularly objecting to the expression
“sovereign pontiff” in the bill. The influence of the Duke of
Wellington secured the second reading without a division. On the
committal of the bill, the illustrious duke proposed the substitution
of the words “sovereign of the Roman states” for those of “sovereign
pontiff.” The Whigs, always ready to conciliate their Roman Catholic
supporters at the expense of principle, offered the utmost resistance
to the duke’s proposal, which, in spite of his great authority in the
house, was only carried by a majority of three. In the commons the bill
was also carried, and by large majorities. The opposition to it was
badly led by Mr. Anstey; the chief champion of the measure was the
celebrated Irish orator, Richard Lalor Shiel. During these debates the
Whigs, and especially the members of government, adopted the vocabulary
of Roman Catholics, such as “the holy father,” “the holy see,” “the head
of the church,” &c. Mr. Shiel exceeded the bounds of prudence in this
respect. Still, while from some quarters a warm opposition out of doors
was offered, the great bulk of the people in Great Britain regarded the
progress of the measure with indifference.

_Bill for the Alteration op the Navigation Laws_.—It has been already
shown that the intention of the government to make some alteration in
these laws was the occasion of a fierce agitation, and of one of the
most remarkable popular demonstrations ever made in this country.
A variety of circumstances tended to determine the government. The
free-trade party insisted upon it as necessary to carry out their
principle; and the legislative council and assembly of Canada, had, in
1847, adopted a joint address to the queen, praying for the opening of
the St. Lawrence to all nations, and the abolition of the navigation
laws. From various other colonies remonstrances as to the operations
of these laws were constantly arriving at the Colonial office; foreign
powers had also expressed complaints and offered reciprocity. On these
grounds, as well as on sound principles of political economy, the
government pressed for a decision of the house against the continuance
of the state of the laws as they stood. Sir Robert Peel gave the
government a very effective support, declaring that these laws could not
possibly be preserved on their present basis. Mr. Hume, who was a very
forward champion of English radicalism and colonial monopoly, at first
objected to the new policy, but in equivocal and undecided terms, and
finally supported the government. Mr. Gladstone spoke as if for the
purpose of showing that he could consistently support either side, as he
practically opposed both. Mr. Cobden made a “peace-society” speech,
as illogical as it was inappropriate, in reply to which Mr. Disraeli
delivered an oration, the statistics of which were for him unusually
accurate; and confuted the allegations upon which Mr. Cobden based his
theory, that we did not require to nurse a marine for martial purposes.
Mr. Disraeli satirised with great effect the representations of the
_quies gentium sine armis_, which Mr. Cobden had been so much in the
habit of making before 1848. The appeal to the patriotism and glory of
the country, with which the honourable member concluded his speech,
was followed by the cheers of the whole house The government, however,
triumphed, but was deterred by the opposition out of doors, and the
feelings of the seamen, which their demonstration had so plainly
indicated, from pressing forward its views in the form of a bill.
Leave, however, was granted to bring in a bill on the subject, the
consideration of which was postponed to another session.

_Bill for the Removal of Jewish Disabilities_.—The impossibility of a
Jew sitting in parliament, in consequence of the form of oath containing
the expression “upon the true faith of a Christian,” gave much umbrage
to the Israelitish community, and the general public sympathised.
The election of Baron Rothschild, along with the premier, in the
representation of the city of London, drew attention to this subject
with revived force. The government brought in a bill to enable Jews to
sit in parliament, the house, in their case, dispensing with the form of
oath to which they were opposed. Mr. Augustus Stafford proposed that
the bill be read a second time that day six months. He was very ably
and eloquently answered by Mr. Monckton Milnes. After adjournments
and fierce discussions the government, as usual, triumphed by a large
majority. In the House of Lords it was especially opposed by the Earl of
Ellenborough. The most effective speech delivered by the opposition was
that made by the Bishop of Oxford; but it was marked by a party acrimony
so intense as to weaken much the force of its eloquence.

He accused the premier of having gained his return for the city by the
bribery to which rich Jews resorted on his behalf. This he found
it necessary to apologise for and withdraw. The bill was lost by a
considerable majority against it.

_Irish Encumbered Estates Bill_.—Very early in the session the
lord-chancellor introduced a measure to facilitate the sale of
encumbered estates in Ireland. This bill was resisted chiefly by those
it was designed most to benefit; it was, however, ultimately carried,
and under its administration a very large portion of landed property in
Ireland changed hands. The operation of the measure was beneficial, but
was not sufficiently sweeping in its powers, and failed to produce all
the good that a better concerted scheme might have worked out.

_Measures for Repressing Insurrection in Ireland_.—On other pages
a minute account of Irish suffering and sedition has been given, and
references were then made to the proceedings in parliament which had
reference to these transactions. On the 21st of July, Lord John Russell,
amidst the cheers of the house, gave notice of motion to enable the
lord-lieutenant of Ireland to arrest and detain persons suspected of
treasonable designs against her majesty’s throne and government. The
same night the Earl of Glengall brought under the notice of the peers
the existence of treasonable clubs, the manufacture of pikes and the
importation of fire-arms, the treasonable correspondence with France and
America, the denunciations made by the rebel press and rebel orators,
and the atrocious anti-social doctrines propounded—among others, the
right and duty of exterminating the eight thousand Protestant landlords.
Lord Brougham startled the house by reading a private letter, written to
a friend by Daniel O’Connell a short time before his death, in which he
declared it necessary for Ireland that coercion should be employed, and
that the suspension of the habeas corpus was, in his opinion, the best
and least oppressive way of putting down Irish disturbance. The publicly
expressed opinions of the agitator had been so very adverse to those
conveyed in this private communication, that its perusal caused a great
sensation in the house. As O’Connell’s writing was well known to Lord
Brougham, and most of the noble lords who sat around him, there could be
neither misapprehension nor imposition. The government measures were
opposed by some Irish members, but their opposition was deficient in
dignity and good sense. Mr. Fergus O’Connor so nearly approached treason
in one of his speeches, that the premier was obliged to interfere
formally, as did Sir Robert Peel on another occasion. Mr. Sharman
Crawford, with excellent temper, but substantially with absurdity and
impracticability, rivalled Mr. O’Connor in the earnestness of his
opposition. The measure of the ministry was carried, much to the
satisfaction of the country.

_Bill for the better Security of the Crown and Government_—This
measure was introduced by Sir George Grey, for the double purpose of
quelling Irish insurrection, and repressing the disturbances caused
by the English Chartists. One of the clauses of the bill was for the
suppression of “open and unadvised speakings.”

This gave offence to the liberal party, and there was a general
suspicion throughout the country that under the disguise of putting down
chartism, the government was solicitous to check the increase of public
meetings for reform in church and state, which became very numerous,
especially in the north of England, and most especially in Lancashire.
In those parts of the country, the disapprobation of the clause was very
strong, and occasion was taken at public meetings, even of a religious
nature, to denounce it. Mr. Hume, Mr. G. Thompson, and Mr. Fox argued
well against the “gagging clause” as it was called, and eloquently
pointed out the consequences which, upon a forced construction, might
ensue. Mr. M. J. O’Connell declared that some such measure was necessary
to the peace of Ireland, and he would give the government his support.
This circumstance, taken in connection with the private letter read by
Lord Brougham in the House of Lords, left a strong impression
among liberal members of the commons, and of the community, that the
O’Connells had been insincere in their professions to Ireland. The
press, both in the Old and Young Ireland interest, censured Mr. M. J.
O’Connell, in terms of bitter severity, and the cry was raised that the
younger O’Connells were more of place-hunters than patriots. After some
warm personal altercations, the bill passed.

Mr. Samuel Martin, afterwards Sir Samuel Martin, and a baron of the
exchequer, much increased his personal and legal reputation by opposing
“the gagging clause.” This, however, he did in a temper and mode which
secured the respect of the government as well as of the country.

_Alien removal Bill_.—The vast number of foreigners in England, and
especially in London, was at that time a source of uneasiness to
the well-disposed, and eventually became so to the government. These
immigrants so conducted themselves as to expose the country to the
danger of being embroiled with foreign powers; and they expressed openly
their sympathy with English Chartists and Irish Confederates. A bill
was brought into the House of Lords by the Marquis of Lansdowne, giving
power to the home secretary to remove foreigners whose presence might be
an inconvenience. Their removal was to be determined by their conduct
in England, not in the place from which they had come. This bill was
introduced in the middle of April. It readily passed the lords. On the
first of May it was introduced to the commons by the home secretary,
and after an opposition of great force, from Sir William Molesworth and
others, was carried.

_Motion for Extension of the Franchise, Triennial Parliaments,
and Apportionment of Members to Population_.—A very extensive and
influential agitation for these objects, headed by Mr. Hume, was
maintained throughout the country, by persons much opposed to the
socialist doctrines and riotous practices of the Chartists. On the 21st
of June, Mr. Hume moved a resolution declaring the opinion of the house
to be in favour of these measures, It was seconded by Dr. Bowring,
afterwards so famous in connection with the government of Hong-Kong.
Mr. Henry Drummond partly supported the views of those gentlemen,
but nevertheless exposed, in very able and eloquent terms, the
inconsistencies of Mr. Hume’s speech, who seemed to have no clear and
definite notions of the way in which his own theory should be carried
out. Lord John Russell opposed the resolution in a speech as anti-reform
in its character as if it had been made by Sir Charles Wetherell. Mr.
Fergus O’Connor bitterly opposed Mr. Hume’s motion, and afterwards voted
for it. Mr. Urquhart and Mr. Anstey offered to it an opposition foolish
and factious. Mr. Cobden supported Mr. Hume’s resolution, but not
upon any political principle, but exclusively in reference to his own
economical views, which he considered it would, if carried, promote.
Mr. Cobden was ably answered and exposed by Mr. Sidney Herbert. The
resolution found only eighty-four supporters in a house of four hundred
and thirty-five members.

_Discussions on Foreign Policy_.—The conduct of the government in
sending Lord Minto to Italy, as a sort of _quasi-envoy_, and its
interference in the quarrel between Sicily and Naples, led to long
discussions, in which Lord Stanley and Mr. Disraeli laboured with
unusual energy to gain a party victory over the government. The reply
of Lord Palmerston was, however, so luminous and convincing that it
dispelled all doubt of the wisdom of the policy which he had pursued.
His lordship resumed his seat amidst cheers from both sides of the
house—the government was triumphant. Nevertheless there existed
throughout the country a strong antipathy to the mission of Lord Minto;
nor did the public feel quite sure that the management of the Sicilian
affair was discreet—and it certainly was not successful.

The differences with Spain, in connection with the dismission of
our ambassador, gave rise to another warm debate. The wisdom of the
ambassador and of the foreign minister was impeached, while the conduct
of the Spanish government was deemed rash, unnecessary, and insulting.
The conduct of the government in exposing the country and its queen to
such insult was now called in question. Lord Stanley on the 6th of May,
called for the correspondence between Lord Palmerston, Mr. Bulwer, and
the Duke of Soto Mayer. In his speech, which was very eloquent, the
noble lord expressed the highest respect for the person and powers of
Lord Palmerston, but considered that, in this particular case, he had
erred. It was evoked, during the discussion, that the published despatch
of Lord Palmerston did not contain certain words used by the noble
foreign secretary, which gave to the ambassador a discretion as to the
propriety of making the communication dependent upon the tone of public
opinion in Spain, and the nature of events. It was generally considered
by the lords, that any indiscretion which had taken place was at the
embassy in Madrid, and not in the Foreign-office. The ambassador at
the court of Madrid had been appointed by the Earl of Aberdeen, whose
management of the Foreign-office was in every direction disastrous. The
Peel foreign policy required men of a certain stamp, whose agency little
suited the policy or character of Lord Palmerston’s foreign-office
administration. Mr. Bankes withdrew his motion, and Mr. Urquhart was
clamoured down in a subsequent attempt to address the house upon the
subject. That gentleman seized every opportunity, in and out of the
house, to vituperate Lord Palmerston, and persisted in reiterating as
facts, fallacies which had been many times exposed. The house and
the country became utterly weary of his absurd harangues, hence the
extraordinary ebullition of feeling among honourable members on that
occasion.




CLOSE OF THE SESSION.

On the 30th of August, Mr. Disraeli reviewed the labours of the session
after the manner so effectively observed by Lord Lyndhurst in the other
house. The oration was ingenious, and eloquently amusing; it entertained
honourable members very much, but it neither instructed nor edified
the commons or the country. Some curiosity was entertained as to how he
would notice the measure for removing Jewish disabilities; he declared
that he “personally approved of that measure, but condemned the policy
of government in bringing it forward without the hope of carrying it,
for by that means the cause lost ground.” This was mere pretence on the
part of the honourable and rhetorical leader of the opposition; he knew
well that, assured of the support of the commons, the government acted
justly to the country and to those aggrieved by bringing the measure
through the lower house, and throwing the responsibility of rejecting it
upon the lords. Besides, the election of Baron Rothschild for the city
of London constrained the government to adopt some course, and that
which they chose was the most dignified and constitutional. Mr.
Hume made some able strictures on the speech of “the reviewer of the
session,” and Lord John Russell replied to it at length with skill and
dignity. Nevertheless, the brilliant periods of “the oriental orator”
 had their effect on both sides of the house; and Mr. Disraeli was on
the whole a more popular man, so far as admiration of his genius was
concerned.

On the 5th of September the house closed its labours. It had been one
of the longest sessions on record; but from various causes, such as the
indifferent management of the government, the failure of the chancellor
of the exchequer, the obstructions offered by the opposition, and the
disturbed state of public affairs, very little was accomplished. Her
majesty prorogued parliament in person in the new chamber of peers,
which was made ready for the occasion. The Dukes of Nemours and
Joinville (sons of the fallen French monarch) were present. The usual
formalities on these occasions took place, rendered remarkable only by
the congratulations expressed in the address to her majesty, delivered
by the speaker of the House of Commons, on the loyalty of her majesty’s
people, notwithstanding the efforts of some “misguided men.” Her
majesty’s speech briefly, and in the usual common-place terms, referred
to the various legislative measures of the session, and she alluded,
in terms of strong approbation, to the conduct of the lord-lieutenant of
Ireland (the Earl of Clarendon), and to the loyalty of her people, in
promptly suppressing the efforts of evil-disposed persons to disturb the
public peace, for purposes of malice and pillage. The parliament stood
prorogued to the 2nd of November.

The wearied members, after ten months’ almost unremitting and patient
exertions, went to the moors, the seaside, and upon excursions of
pleasure at home and abroad, to prepare themselves for renewed labour.
Many went to Paris, to study the progress of the revolution there,
and the practical working of those recent changes which had shaken the
world. Probably that capital was never before, at one time, visited by
so many English senators.

Although tranquillity was not perfectly established in either England
or Ireland, and there was rioting in the former and assassination in the
latter, yet the executive was left strong to cope with any old or new
form of turbulence and crime, and the confidence of parliament and
people was firm, that the executive would be found equal to any
emergencies that might arise.




DEATHS OF EMINENT PERSONS.

Many persons celebrated in arts and arms were removed by death in this
eventful year. On the 6th of January the country lost the services of
Sir Thomas Usher, C.B., K.C.H., Rear-admiral of the White, and naval
commanderin-chief on the Irish station. This gallant sailor was born
near Dublin, in the year 1779, and was said to have been a descendant of
the great Archbishop of Armagh, whose name he bore. He was the officer
who, when a post-captain, brought the great Napoleon to Elba after his
abdication. The day following saw the decease of Admiral Sir Robert
Laurie, who had also seen much service.

On the 19th of January, at Bradenham House, Buckinghamshire, died
Isaac Disraeli, Esq., aged eighty-two. This gentleman was the son of a
Venetian merchant, who had long been settled in this country, and was
the father of Benjamin Disraeli, who occupies so important a place
in the politics and literature of the day. Mr. Isaac Disraeli was a
literary man of much eminence, his chief work, “The Curiosities of
Literature,” having won for him a great reputation. In his day, literary
history and criticism were but little valued, and he conduced much to a
higher appreciation of that department of letters. He was the author
of many pieces of great merit in the periodicals of the day. He also
published many separate treatises which met with great public favour,
such as “A Dissertation on Anecdotes,” “Essay on the Manners and Genius
of the Literary Character,” “Miscellanies, or Literary Recreations,”
 “Calamities of Authors; including some Inquiries respecting their Moral
and Literary Characters,” “Quarrels of Authors, or some Memoirs for our
Literary History; including Specimens of Controversy to the Reign of
Elizabeth,” “Inquiry into the Literary and Political Character of King
James the First,” “Commentaries on the Life and Reign of Charles the
First,”—the University of Oxford conferred upon him the degree of a
doctor of the civil law for this production, which it absurdly called
“Optimi regis, optimo defensori” “Amenities of Literature,”—this work
he wrote when blind, his daughter acting as his amanuensis; he notices
eloquently and feelingly her devoted services. Mr. Disraeli was the
friend, of literary merit in the obscure and unfortunate, in which he
was the rival of Sir Robert Peel, as his son Benjamin became in the
career of parliamentary oratory and politics. He married, in 1802, Miss
Basseni, of Brighton, aunt to the celebrated architect Basseni, and who
became the mother of the celebrated leader of the tory and protection
party in the commons, after the decease of his less able predecessor,
Lord George Bentinck. Few men ever pursued literature, for its own sake,
with more heartiness than Isaac Disraeli. It was no wonder that his son
should set out in life with the ambition of writing a great book, and
being a great orator—an ambition which can seldom be realised by the
same man, requiring mental qualities so different.

At Tunbridge Wells, in his eighty-fifth year, died General Frederick
Maitland, who had seen many fields of war, and had always distinguished
himself. During this month, in which death was so busy with eminent
persons, especially in the profession of arms, there died also,
at Edinburgh, Pringle Stoddardt, Rear-admiral of the White, and
Lieutenant-general Sir John Maclean, officers who had served in almost
every clime, and always with honour.

The eminent persons who died in February were Major-general Carlo
Joseph Doyle; Major-general William Goodday Scott, Governor of Quebec;
Lieutenant-general Sir Thomas Reynel, the sixth baronet of the kingdom
of Ireland, K.C.B., and K.C.H.; Dr. Hamley, Archbishop of Canterbury,
and primate of all England; the Honourable James William King,
Rear-admiral of the Red, seventh son of the second Earl of Kingstown, of
Mitchelston Castle, Ireland; the Right Honourable Lord Graville
Charles Henry Somerset, a privy-councillor, and M.P. for Monmouthshire;
Rear-admiral Inglefield.

In March, Rear-admiral Warren; Major-general Sir W. Gosset, Bart.,
Serjeant-at-arms attending the House of Commons—he was a native of
Jersey, and had seen some active service; at Aix-la-Chapelle, John
Burke, Esq., the compiler of the “Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary
of the Peerage and Baronetage of the United Kingdom,” “The Commoners of
Great Britain,” “A Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary of the landed
gentry of Great Britain and Ireland,” “A Genealogical and Heraldic
History of the Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies of England,” “A general
Armoury of England, Scotland, and Ireland,” republished under the
title of “Burke’s Encyclopaedia of Heraldry,” “Heraldic Illustrations,
comprising the Armorial Bearings of all the principal Families of the
Empire, with Pedigrees and Annotations,” “The Royal Families of England,
Scotland, and Wales, and the Families descended from them.” This learned
and laboriously-compiled collection of heraldic works gained for the
author great and well-merited fame.

At Brompton, a western suburb of the great metropolis, died Madame
Guizot, at the age of eighty-three. This lady was a native of France,
but joined her son, who was exiled with his king, Louis Philippe, whom
he had served too faithfully, but faithlessly to his country. Madame
Guizot was a lady of indomitable will, and abounding charity; she was
most remarkable for her unconquerable and zealous attachment to the
Protestant Church of France.

In April several very eminent persons were removed by death: among them
was Sir Samuel Rush Meyrick, LL.D., F.S.A. He was the author of several
works of considerable reputation: “The History and Antiquities of the
County of Cardigan;” he united with Captain Smith in producing a book on
the subject of the costume of the early inhabitants of these islands. He
also published “A critical Inquiry into ancient Armour as it existed
in Europe, but particularly in England, from the Norman Conquest to the
Reign of King Charles the First, with a Glossary of Military Terms
of the Middle Ages.” Several arch geological works were subsequently
written by him, and he left behind him the reputation of a profound
antiquarian.

In May, the death of some valuable persons took place. Baron Ashburton,
who, as a cabinet minister and a financier, and in one instance as a
negotiator, earned distinction. Sir Thomas Dick Lauder, of Haddington,
distinguished as a writer, especially in the region of fiction; also Sir
William Hotham, Admiral of the Red.

June saw an equal number of famous men laid low. Among them none was
more remarkable than Tom Steele, an ardent follower of O’Connell, and
his “head pacificator.” Steele was a gentleman and a Protestant; he had
studied with great success at Cambridge University, and was a proficient
in mathematics. He began life with bright prospects; talents, education,
connections, and property—all were his. He wrecked all in the service
of Ireland, as he believed—in the service of an Irish faction, as the
event proved. Steele burned with indignation at the disabilities of his
Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, and joined in every exertion to obtain
them justice. He conscientiously believed that Ireland could never
prosper while in connection with England, and he struggled for their
separation. O’Connell and his party had ulterior objects—the ascendancy
of their religion, and the persecution of Protestants; but Steele’s
honest nature refused to believe what was so opposed to their
professions, notwithstanding the warnings which he received from many
whose experience of that party, and of Ireland, qualified them to offer
him counsel. He was only undeceived shortly before his death, which took
place at Peel’s Coffee House, Fleet Street, London, where he had taken
up his abode in sickness and in poverty, his fortune and his heart
broken. He felt bitterly the desertion of his old confederates, and much
bitter censure has been heaped upon the Irish Catholic and Repeal party,
for thus abandoning the man they had flattered and used when he was
in the heyday of his prosperity. It must be admitted that every one in
Ireland said “poor Tom Steele!” when his sorrows were heard of, and
his death was announced; but none came to the rescue, and few words of
sympathy were afforded to him. It is but just to say that Ireland was
at that time in the throes of a revolutionary struggle, and all were
forgotten who dropped for a moment out of public view. Besides, the
distress of the country spread alarm and grief on every side. These
circumstances will, in great measure, account for the neglect which
Ireland showed to her sinking patriot. But a similar excuse cannot be
offered on behalf of the eminent and wealthy Roman Catholics of England,
of Irish repeal members of parliament, and of other prosperous Irishmen
in England attached to that party. As soon as the distress of the brave
and patriotic man was known to his former opponents, English and Irish,
they literally rushed to his relief, for all believed him to be an
honest man and a pure patriot. Among the first in the work of kindness
was Lord Brougham, an inflexible and terrible opponent. May the
generosity of the deed be ever recorded to his honour! Colonel Perceval,
one of the chief ringleaders of the Irish Orangemen was another; he
sought the bedside of the sufferer, and consoled his closing hours.
Proffers of aid on a large scale were made by his old opponents; but the
stern and disinterested man died in his poverty, accepting only those
acts which aided and soothed the closing scene. It was bitterly but
too justly said by an eloquent writer, an old opponent of poor Steele,
“Ireland gave him words, England deeds; Ireland took his life, England
gave him a grave.”

In August, Captain Marryat of the royal navy, whose early life had
been full of heroic adventure, and whose latter days were honoured by
successful authorship. His “Diary in America” gave just displeasure to
the American people, and betrayed a national invidiousness unworthy of a
literary man and a British naval officer.

Mr. Edward Baines, the proprietor of the _Leeds Mercury_, and for many
years M.P. for Leeds. This indefatigable and able man entered the town
of Leeds a poor printer, and earned his first wages there through the
influence of Mr. Obadiah Williams, a cloth manufacturer, a man of shrewd
judgment of character, and whose benevolent disposition prompted
him continually to generous actions. Mr. Baines worked as a
journeyman-printer on the _Leeds Mercury_, then a mere local paper; he
ultimately became the proprietor, and under his management it became one
of the most ably conducted papers in the kingdom, and had a wide-spread
circulation. Mr. Baines represented Leeds as successor to Mr. Macaulay,
and as representative of that town was one of the most useful members of
parliament. He was not a man of refined bearing or mental cultivation;
as a public speaker he was ungainly in manner, his pronunciation common
and provincial, his voice monotonous, and his style dry and common-place;
but he was serviceable, practical, pertinent, experienced; and the
soundness of his judgment, and the weight of his character, gave force
to what he said. His son, Matthew Baines, Esq., a barrister, became a
member of the cabinet, and another son, Edward, became proprietor of the
_Leeds Mercury_, and an enlightened leader of the dissenters of the west
riding of York. He sustained the business reputation of the paper,
after his father’s decease, and raised it to a much higher place as a
literary journal. Few good men have had sons so worthy of their sire.

In August also died George Stephenson, Knight of the Order of Leopold,
F.B.S., the originator of our railway system. This eminent engineer is
a rare example of a self-taught genius. Born of parents too poor to
give him any schooling, at eighteen years of age, when full grown, and
following the occupation of a fireman, he was not ashamed to
commence his education at an evening school. His steady industry and
unconquerable perseverance ultimately won for him a position second to
none in his profession. Looking at the influence of his labours on
the whole human race, there are few names on the pages of history so
pre-eminent as that of George Stephenson.

On the 21st of September, Lord William George Frederick Cavendish
Bentinck, M.P. for Lynn, was suddenly removed by death. He was found
dead in the grounds where he had been walking alone. As leader of the
opposition, his death, so unexpected and so painfully sudden, made a
great sensation.

In November Lord Melbourne, who had filled the office of premier in the
beginning of her majesty’s reign, departed this life. The queen was much
indebted to the courtly and constitutional skill of this nobleman in
her first essays of government. He was her majesty’s faithful subject,
minister, and friend, and she was justly much attached to her preceptor.
He was too indolent, and too little acquainted with the tone and temper
of the whole people for the office of premier. He was, however, a man
of superior intellect and extensive culture, and was well versed in
constitutional law.

Dr. James Pritchard, the celebrated naturalist and ethnologist, died in
this month.

The death of Colonel Sir Frederick Augustus D’Esté, K.C.B., son of the
Duke of Sussex by Lady Augustus Murray, daughter of the Earl of Dunmore,
was the last decease of a remarkable person publicly noted in this year.
The marriage of his royal highness without the consent of the crown
rendered it invalid, and Sir Augustus was unable to obtain the
inheritance or title of his father.

Thus terminated the events of 1848 which admit of record in a work like
the present. The year expired leaving England on the whole stronger, and
more confident in her stability and power. The whirlwind which had swept
over the nations, shaking down the trophies and glories of antiquity
which had remained after the first great French revolution, did not
affect England—she heard its fury, but felt not its power.




CHAPTER LXI.

{VICTORIA. 1849}

     Colonial Affairs..... Termination  of the War in  the
     Punjaub..... Operations against Borneo Pirates, and in the
     Chinese Seas..... Cape of Good Hope; Agitation against
     making it a Penal  Colony..... Canada: Disturbances.....
     West Indies: Economical Discussions; Discontent   of the
     Planters..... Ionian Isles:   Insurrection..... Foreign
     Affairs..... General   State of the Continent, and Relations
     to England..... Naples and Sicily: Interference of England
     and France..... Demand upon Turkey by Russia and Austria
     for Extradition of Refugees; Interposition of England.....
     Ireland: Potato Blight; Great Distress of the People;
     Cholera; Political Agitation; Continuance of Crime and
     Outrage..... Great Britain:   Prevalence of Cholera; State
     of Trade and Agriculture; Parliamentary Debates; Deaths of
     Eminent Persons.

{1849}

The year 1849 was one of more importance to continental Europe than to
the nations of any other portion of the world. It was, however, a year
of considerable events for the British empire. In India a sanguinary
war was brought to a successful termination, and a large and fertile
territory added to the British dominions. At the Cape of Good Hope the
colonists successfully resisted the authority of the mother country.
In Canada, insurrectionary violence interrupted the usual order of
government. In Cephalonia the disloyalty and fanaticism of the Greek
population found violent vent, and generally the greatest circumspection
was required on the part of the home government in reference to our
vast colonial empire. In foreign affairs England preserved a dignified
non-interference, except in the case of Naples and Sicily, where her
interposition brought neither honour nor profit. In the case of Turkey
it was otherwise; the advice tendered to the Porte by the British
ambassador averted conflict, and saved an ancient ally from humiliation.
The chief difficulty of the empire was Ireland. Constitutional
government was there impossible, crime was rampant, distress
all-penetrating, and the people seditious. At home the visitation of a
fearful pestilence caused distress and sorrow, while party fury rent the
parliament and disturbed the repose of the country. Through every trial
to which she was put, the genius and resolution of England conducted
her, under the care and blessing of Him who can elevate and abase
empires, and the great law of whose moral government is, “Righteousness
exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.”




PROSECUTION OF THE WAR IN INDIA, AND ANNEXATION OF THE PUNJAUB.

The general consequences of the battle of Chillianwallah (an account of
which engagement concluded our relation of the war in India, in the
last chapter) were the encouragement of the Sikh sirdars, soldiery,
and people, and the renewal of exertion on the part of the civil and
military authorities of India for the vigorous continuance of the war.
In England the news of the battle produced sensations of alarm, and
indignant dissatisfaction. In parliament the subject was mooted angrily,
not only by the opposition, but by the more radical supporters of
the government. Lord John Russell, however, quieted many fears by
announcing, which he did in his most pompous manner, that Sir Charles
Napier had been selected to command the army in India. This was received
with loud cheers and every demonstration of confidence. Had Lord John
stated that an army of thirty thousand European soldiers was about to be
dispatched to save the glory of the British arms in India, the tidings
could not have inspired a sense of security more complete than appeared
to be entertained by the house from the announcement of this one name.
Sir Charles had retired from the government of Scinde, having quarrelled
with the Company and the governor-general. No two human beings could
be assorted with less likelihood of concord than Lord Dalhousie and
Sir Charles Napier. With Lord Hardinge the eccentric general could have
agreed better; but he was a man so much more just than that nobleman,
and so much more able and original in his conceptions as a military man
and a statesman, that they also would have been very ill-assorted. Sir
Charles Napier, during his government of Scinde, had acquired such a
knowledge of the government of India, civil and military, and differed
so widely from the principles applied to that government, that there
could be little hope of his long retaining any command or government in
India. Sir Charles had complained warmly of the way in which the army of
India was officered; of the love of ease, and the indulgence in luxury
which had begun to characterise the officers of that service; of the
little sympathy with their men which the officers of some portions of
the Company’s troops betrayed; and of the mode of recruiting, especially
in selecting soldiers from the Brahmin caste, rather than from
Ghoorkhas, Beloochees, and low-caste Hindoos. These views were so
distasteful to the governor-general and chief officers of state in
India, that the gallant general was set down as a very troublesome
fellow, whose presence in India was more mischievous than useful, who
prided himself more on Meannee than Scinde was worth, and whose essays
of government there were odd, oppressive, and out of the routine
of Indian government. Sir Charles had given just cause for as many
complaints against himself as he had made of others; this the government
at home knew well; but the board of control, and the board of directors
also, felt that the public dissatisfaction caused by the battle of
Chillianwallah, must be soothed, and knowing the supreme confidence
which the public felt in the eccentric but heroic and intellectual
general, they nominated him to the post of commander-in-chief of the
army in India. Sir Charles was very unwilling to accept this command,
and it was alleged that he only yielded to the importunities of his
friend, the Duke of Wellington, then commander-in-chief of the army,
who was represented as having said, “Either you go, or I go.” This high
compliment was so felt by the sturdy old warrior, that he is said to
have instantly acquiesced. The opinions of this brave chief on Indian
affairs were much canvassed at the time, and much more canvassed since.
Circumstances arose to justify many of them, and in few instances did
his predictions fail. It was supposed that the Punjaub would be the
earliest scene of his exploits, and concerning it he thus expressed
himself:—“A large country full of rivers, mountains, climates, plains,
deserts, supplies scarce, and a hostile, well-armed, brave people,
apparently resolved to wage a partizan warfare.” The population was,
on the whole, better inclined to us than the army, nor did they show so
much a disposition to wage what is called a partizan war, as to risk
the fate of their country and the endurance of their power upon regular
warfare, conducted in well-arranged campaigns and general battle. So far
Sir Charles somewhat mistook the people against whom he was sent out as
the especial champion of his country, but whom he was never destined to
encounter.

His opinion on the constitution of the army has been already glanced at.
Concerning its dangers in a campaign, involving long marches and distant
operations, he thus wrote:—“Suppose the army in march, and to consist
of ten thousand fighting men, and that an enemy attacks the fighting
men and camp followers, amounting in the mass to forty thousand or
sixty thousand men, of which thirty thousand or fifty thousand are
unorganised, unmanageable camp-followers; suppose them to be attacked
suddenly, and that when so attacked, they all rush back upon the column
of fighting men, as they always do, and always will do, until well
organised. When you have painted this pretty picture in your mind—this
picture of noise, confusion, danger, and slaughter—I will ask you how
the column of ten thousand fighting men are to fight? borne down by
multitudes—confused by noise—how are they to form in order of battle?
If once, by the exertion of their officers, they do form, how are they
to fire?—on their own followers! their own animals! What may happen no
one can tell; but human foresight says that the whole will stand a fair
chance of being utterly defeated. It is said that this took place, and
caused, in a great measure, the Cabul massacre. I can easily believe
it.”

The following warnings were prophetic:—“Let the army be in every way
worthy of the empire that it won and holds—holds by _discipline!_ Let
not the word become an empty boast. Let it not lose its reality. Let not
victory lull our soldiers to sleep. Let every British officer recollect
that powerful nations surround our Indian empire; that they are rapidly
acquiring our military system, our tactics, our arms. Let him compare
our earlier battles with our last—Plassey with Ferozashooshah and
Sobraon—setting our losses in killed and wounded at each battle in
juxta-position. Let us look to these matters, that we may not have to
exclaim with Pyrrhus at Asculum, ‘Another such victory will undo us!’”

But notwithstanding the dangers which were thus the subject of the
military seer’s discourse, he had a high opinion of the Indian army as
a whole, as the following quotation proves:—“The Indian army, when well
commanded is indomitable: it is capable of subjugating all the countries
between the Black and Yellow Seas. The population from which it is drawn
is so numerous and warlike—the land so wealthy—that the noble
Indian army may vie with any force existing, in numbers, courage,
and equipment. Its discipline and intelligence are in proportion. The
European officers are all English, Irish, and Scotch gentlemen, whose
honour and courage have created in their troops such an intrepid spirit
as to render India secure against every evil from which an army can
protect a country.”

Notwithstanding the supposed necessity of Sir Charles Napier’s
appointment, no great dispatch was used in his departure, and the public
began to suppose that the object of the government in this delay was to
gain time for Lord Gough to redeem his honour. This increased the public
irritation, which was exasperated by the private letters that reached
England from Lahore, and from Lord Gough’s own camp. These letters led
the English public to believe that a general panic prevailed, not only
in the Punjaub, but at the head-quarters of Lord Gough’s army. The
following are specimens of the letters, which, on their arrival in
England, so disturbed the public mind:—

“I have much pleasure in giving you the following latest information
from the commander-in-chief’s camp, dated 16th instant; it indeed has
been a sad business, and it is impossible to predict when our mishaps,
and such fearful butchery and wanton sacrifice of life will end or stop,
under such a commander-in-chief. Unless the governor-general recalls Lord
Gough to the provinces, the chances ate he will not only lose the
splendid army under his command, which he has already done his best to
cripple and weaken, but he will so compromise the government that the
most serious apprehension may be entertained as to the ultimate result
of this contest.

“I told you Gholab Singh had an army of ten thousand men not far in
advance of the commander-in-chief’s camp, doing nothing, but alive and
awake to take every advantage of the first serious mishap that might
occur to our army under its present chief; in addition to which Dost
Mohammed has a force of ten thousand to twelve thousand Affghans, at
a short distance from Attock, ready to co-operate with Chuttur Singh.
Gholab. Singh has fourteen pieces of cannon with his ten thousand men,
but he is not present in person; the wary chief is abiding his time in
the hills; he has, however, deputed a vakeel to offer a nuzzur at Lahore
to our resident; but deep craftiness and the most wily treachery are at
the bottom of this proceeding. The vakeel has been instructed to apprise
his master of every single occurrence that takes place at Lahore, and
to keep him well informed of all movements on our part. It is extremely
strange our government will not believe in the treacherous intentions of
Gholab Singh.

“There are from thirty to forty thousand men in arms leagued against
our power and supremacy north of the Jhelum, with a park of artillery,
varying, according to reports, from fifty to seventy guns.

“In a letter from Lahore of yesterday’s date, which reached me
this morning, it is stated that the commanderin-chief has ordered
Brigadier-general Wheeler’s force to join him, but of course, I suppose,
not until after the general has taken Ram Singh. This proceeding has
been rendered necessary and urgent in consequence of her majesty’s 24th,
the 36th, and 58th regiments of native infantry having been rendered
next to useless. Sir Dudley Hill’s reserve force of eight thousand five
hundred men will have to be brought into active service yet, as troops
are required not to proceed against, and be the aggressors of the enemy,
but to act on the defensive, and hold our active, brave, and courageous
foe in check until General Whish’s force joins, to enable the whole army
to advance to Peshawur.

“Our government appear now to be so afraid of the issue of our contest
with the Sikhs (as they have neither troops sufficient to conquer them
and hold the country, nor money to pay the enormous expenses of this
prolonged campaign), that I should not be at all surprised they will do
their utmost to patch up a peace, which will, to say the least, be not
only humiliating to our arms, but disgraceful to British feelings. I am
perfectly certain, however, that the Sikhs will entertain no terms with
us, except they are based on our quitting the Punjaub, and retiring
across the Sutlej; this is a _sine qua non_ with them.” The same letter
from Lahore mentions, “You have, no doubt, heard of the late awful
butchery of human life. As usual, the troops advanced without order
or any arrangement. The 14th Dragoons led the advance, and, on the
Goorchurrahs advancing, the brigade of cavalry, it is said, retreated,
afraid, apparently, of being led into another trap like the Eumnuggur
one. The cavalry brigade overthrew the artillery, and, galloping right
through them, was the cause of our loss of six guns, two of which,
however, were since retaken. Brigadier Pope was mortally wounded (since
dead), and the cavalry were only brought up by the Doolies at the
general hospital. Of the 24th foot, four field-officers, one captain,
and seven subalterns, were killed, together with four hundred men.
The 30th, the 36th, and 56th regiments behaved well, but lost so many
officers, killed and wounded, that they must be sent back, and some
other corps sent to supply their place. There were twenty-four officers
buried the day after the fight, and many more since. The chief was
strongly advised to defer the engagement until next day, but it was of
no use. Two shots fell near him, and he ordered an immediate attack,
left his position, and joined the _mêlée_, and was not to be found
anywhere to give directions. A more undisciplined attack, or less
tactics, was never heard of. He swears that the first officer who
presumes to give advice, he will put in close arrest! Poor Eikins was
killed in endeavouring to rally the 14th Dragoons. The artillery have
demanded a court of inquiry, but I suppose the business will be hushed
up, as it it was in the 62nd foot.”

A second letter, dated Lahore, the 18th, gave the following extract of a
letter from camp Chillianwallah, 16th January:—

“On the 12th we marched to Dingee, on the 13th we marched again, and
at 11 a.m. came upon one of the enemy’s outposts. The 3rd light
field-batteries and heavy guns were brought to the front to drive them
in, which they did in about five minutes. The infantry was then brought
up, and each regiment deployed into line. The commander-in-chief meant
to have encamped here, and sent for quartermasters of corps to mark the
ground. The enemy, however, about two o’clock, fired a few shots, which
came in beyond our flags, and the commander-inchief resolved to attack
them at once. The whole line then advanced, getting into thicker and
thicker jungle every minute; all this time our heavy guns, which were
in the centre, opened their fire, and were answered by every one of the
enemy’s, about sixty in number. It would be impossible to describe the
action. There was no plan of attack. The three light field-batteries
were at one time close to the enemy without any support near them. These
were at last ordered to advance at a gallop to support Hoggan’s brigade,
and the 46th regiment of native infantry assured the officers of these
light field-batteries that their fire alone saved them. The action
lasted until dark.

“At four o’clock in the afternoon we were completely surrounded by the
enemy, and our artillery firing at the same time to the front, to the
rear, and to the flank. Our loss has been tremendous—one thousand nine
hundred killed and wounded: we have taken twelve guns and lost six (two
of which have been recovered). The loss of our guns was owing to the
cowardice of —— who (you will hardly believe it) ran away from a
party of the enemy’s cavalry right through Christie’s and Huish’s troops
of horse-artillery, knocking over every one of Christie’s waggons,
horses and all! They were so crowded among the guns, that the gunners
could not unlimber. The result was that the enemy’s cavalry got among
our guns, and cut our men down right and left. The —— never drew reign
until they got right through the general hospital in the rear, knocking
over the Doolies and everything that came in their way. What caused this
panic no one knows.

“Of the above one thousand nine hundred killed and wounded, nine hundred
and fifty are Europeans. Above thirty-six officers have been buried.
Her majesty’s 24th foot lost their regimental colour. The 25th regiment
native infantry lost a colour. The 30th regiment native infantry lost a
colour—some say two colours. The 56th regiment native infantry lost
the standard they took at Gwalior. Her majesty’s 24th foot lost thirteen
officers killed, including every one in the list above the junior
captain. The enemy are now encamped at Eussool, four miles only from the
commander-in-chief’s camp. A letter that I have just seen states that
Major Loftie, of the 30th native infantry, was not killed but only
wounded, and that Major Ramfield, commanding the 56th regiment native
infantry, was killed. In the 2nd Europeans, which behaved nobly, one
officer was severely wounded, Lieutenant Nightingale.”

Another letter, dated camp, the 15th January, stated:—

“I dare say you will have heard of the battle fought by our army on the
13th instant. It commenced about 1 p. m., and fasted till after dark. It
was a devil of a battle, and many hard knocks and wounds were received,
as the casualty list will show. The Sikhs fought with the greatest
gallantry, and, as for our men and infantry generally, they were quite
heroes. The 2nd Europeans displayed great bravery; they advanced to the
charge and drove the Sikhs back at the point of the bayonet; and after
this found another body of Sikhs, a regularly organised battalion, armed
and dressed like our troops, in their rear. There were also some of
the enemy on the right flank. This regiment had to right-about-face and
charge to the rear, which they did, killing and wounding a great many
of the Sikhs, and took and spiked four of their guns. Nightingale was
wounded when about to do this, and Gaynor, who did it, had a most
narrow escape. The former is the only severely wounded officer in that
regiment, but I trust not dangerously, the ball having passed out in
coming round the head, but the bone is fractured. One or two officers
had narrow escapes. The 2nd Europeans had but fifty men wounded, and
five killed; the cases of the former, some of them very severe, are
mostly in the body and legs. There has been a fearful mortality in the
24th foot, thirteen officers killed and eight wounded, while the men
said to be killed and wounded amount to four hundred. The 29th foot also
suffered much, and the artillery a good deal. All our wounded are doing
well, I rejoice to say. The doctors were at one time quite within range
of the enemy’s shot, and a bheestie of the 2nd European regiment had
his arm knocked off just behind where the surgeons of that corps were
riding: a spent ball rolled under my horse’s feet. Lieutenant Weston
and Godby, of the 36th native infantry, were wounded, but not severely.
Brigadier Pennycuick and his son both killed. I believe we have gained a
regular victory, though at first it was doubtful. I hear Pope’s brigade
of cavalry got a kind of panic at one time, and came to the rear,
but afterwards moved up in good style: there was something wrong with
the —— for they drove us in from the rear and dispersed all the
doctors, &c., at the field hospital, where I had just arrived to see if
any assistance was required. There was an alarm of the Sikhs being in
our rear, and then there was a regular ‘bolt.’ Such a night we all
passed is better imagined than described—it was so very cold and rainy,
with a high wind blowing, enough to cut one in two. Several Doolies were
captured by the enemy, and the band instruments of the 2nd Europeans are
missing.

“All letters agree in stating that a panic overtook the —— when
ordered to charge. I hear on all sides that it would be a wise and
prudent measure on the part of the governor-general to recall Lord Gough
from the Punjaub, and restrain his ill-judged valour within our peaceful
provinces. His lordship fancied himself at Donnybrook Fair, and was in
the thick of it, in the _mêlée_, and lost to sight!

“P.S.—The 56th regiment native infantry was brought out of action with
three hundred men, under the command of its junior captain, a cadet of
1840!”

These communications, although affording intelligence which was,
unfortunately, too true, were in several respects erroneous. They placed
matters in a gloomy aspect, which was not justified by the facts. The
battle of Chillianwallah, however doubtful as a victory, and however
disastrous as to the loss which we experienced, neither perilled the
existence of British rule in India, nor shook the hold of the English
upon the Punjaub. The arrival of the despatches, and the issue of an
extraordinary gazette, in some measure reassured the public; and as Lord
Gough was decidedly and deservedly a favourite, people became anxious
that before Sir Charles Napier should arrive out and take the command of
the army, his lordship might be enabled to revenge Chillianwallah by a
well-fought battle and decided victory. The friends of Lord Gough even
entertained the hope that he might conclude the campaign by the entire
dispersion of the Sikh army, and the reconquest of the Punjaub. It was
very generally felt that the ministry, whatever their private feeling
and private intentions, had shown too much eagerness to disclaim him,
and to signify, by making their only measure for the emergency in India
the appointment of a new commander-in-chief, that they supposed the
blame of any misfortunes there to have been exclusively with Lord Gough.
Military men pointed out that the previous policy of Lord Hardinge,
and the immediate policy of Lord Dalhousie, both as it regarded their
military and political management, invited the resistance to our power
which had been awakened. The chief apprehensions entertained arose
from the course which Gholab Singh and Dost Mohammed might pursue. The
former, with his Sikh soldiery, occupied positions that kindled some
suspicion of his intentions, while he had, as an ostensible ally,
omitted to strike a single blow in our favour. He had collected, it was
alleged, one hundred and fifty pieces of cannon; and he was represented
as having declared that his control over his own soldiers was imperfect,
and that their sympathy was wholly with the troops of Chuttur and Shere
Singh. As it was not uncommon for the native princes, when hesitating
between the British and their enemies, to represent their soldiers as
untrustworthy and dangerous to themselves, Gholab’s account of himself,
his province, and his army, caused him reasonably to be suspected.
Dost Mohammed rendered substantial aid to Shere Singh; at least twelve
thousand Affghans were encamped under the command of that general, and
fresh levies were said to be descending the passes from Peshawur and
from Candehar towards Scinde. Reports had arrived in England that all
the Affghan chieftains were in arms, and that the war of the prophet
was proclaimed. The Affghan infantry were without discipline, and out
of their own fastnesses it was presumed that they would not display
courage; but some supposed that, subjected to the Sikh discipline, and
led by Sikh officers, as well as by their own chiefs, they would prove
formidable, being physically a fine race, and naturally brave. The
reinforcements sent by them, however, were chiefly composed of cavalry,
and their efforts as auxiliary to our enemies were too tardy to
influence materially the fortunes of the war; by degrees these facts
became known at home, and the absence, in Lord Gough’s despatches,
of any alarm, and the entire confidence breathed through them and the
official tidings from the Indian government, at last wholly reassured
the English public.

The following is the list of ordnance and ordnance stores captured from,
the enemy in the action of the 13th of January:—

Six of these guns had carriages and limbers, and six were without
limbers; all of the pattern nearly in use with our field-pieces.

Two ammunition carriages (one partly destroyed by explosion), one
platform-cart, one hundred and forty-four cartridge-liners fixed to
shot, sixteen cartridges unfixed, and eighteen port-fires, were also
taken.

_Assault of Dullah by General Wheeler_.—Lord Gough was unable
to undertake any active operations after the severe losses at
Chillianwallah, until he should receive reinforcements. These he
expected from Mooltan, under Whish, and also a brigade of Wheeler’s
force, which had been actively engaged in another direction, where he
had been detained by the obstinacy of a rebel chief named Earn Singh.
This redoubtable chieftain was ascendant in the Baree Doab, and he
occupied a strong fortified position on the heights of Dullah. In the
middle of January Wheeler attacked this position, but so inaccessible
was the fastness that the most he could, do, and that with considerable
loss, was to drive out Ram Singh and his followers, whereas the gallant
general hoped to accomplish either his capture or destruction. On the
11th, Wheeler ordered the 4th native infantry to take up a position to
the northward of the enemy’s post, so as to intercept him in case he
should be obliged to evacuate the fort, and retreat in that direction;
the main force tarried at Shorpore, where they had been in quarters,
until the 13th, the sappers, pioneers, and labourers being engaged
in making a practicable road through an exceedingly difficult country
consisting of defiles and “ghauts.” This road was laid for about seven
miles, as far as the village of Cote on the course of the Ravee, about
three miles distant from Ram Singh’s position. On the 14th, the little
army of General Wheeler took up ground under the Dullah heights. That
day and the next was occupied in cutting roads, transporting guns and
mortars upon elephants, and making arrangements for storming the fort.
On the morning of the latter day, Captain Hicks, of the 3rd native
infantry, was dispatched with four companies of that regiment, and Mr.
Hodgson, with two companies of the Guide corps, to take post west of the
Dullah heights, on the opposite bank of the Ravee. The precautions taken
by detaching these bodies of men were necessary from the topographical
character of the neighbourhood. The Ravee, debouching from the
mountainous region in which it has its birth, flows through a beautiful
valley, where a series of hills runs from east to west, presenting an
unequal ridge; on this ridge, overlooking the river, the little village
of Dullah was situated, in which Ram Singh had so cleverly fortified
himself. In every direction from the village the rock dipped almost
perpendicularly, beside being protected by the river, which wound partly
around it. Access was by paths, partly lying in hollows formed by former
streams, and partly cut through the rock. These paths were circuitous,
and nearly covered with brushwood, admitting only by single file of an
approach to the platform on which the village rested. On either side
of the path were precipices from twenty to eighty feet deep, and huge
boulders lay profusely across the way. A few men could defend such
a position against very many. The 4th native regiment was to advance
against the face of this defence, from the direction where it had taken
post some days, and the signal was to be the firing of a gun from the
British camp. The 3rd and the Guides were at the same moment ordered to
advance, at the same signal, against the west of the ridge, and crown
a height visible from head-quarters. As soon as the success of this
detachment was ascertained, the remainder of the 3rd regiment, and two
hundred men of the 2nd irregular cavalry, who, with Lieutenant Swinton,
had volunteered to serve on foot, were to advance upon another face of
the ridge, from the little village of Chulbarah, where they had been
posted; this party, ascending a spur of the hill on its left, was to
co-operate opportunely with the advance of the other detachments. Major
Fisher, at the head of a body of regular native infantry and irregular
cavalry, with guns mounted upon elephants, were in support, and
to ascend (the cavalry, of course, dismounting) when the various
detachments had come well into action. There was yet another point upon
which an ascent was to be attempted—that which was in front of the camp
of the British. Major Davidson, with a few hundred Sikh auxiliaries,
regular and irregular, supported by two companies of the 1st Sikh light
infantry, under Lieutenant Peel, was ordered to make this attempt.

At the moment for action, the signal gun was fired, but no one appeared
to take any notice of it—no men were seen to make their way along the
ridge. There was a long pause on the side of the British, the guns of
the enemy at the same time firing. None of the detachments appearing
on the ridge, Major Butler was ordered to attempt to storm it, in
conjunction with the other party already appointed to ascend in front:
this was happily accomplished, after a very sharp conflict. Major
Davidson was shot through the hand, Lieutenant Peel was mortally
wounded, and Lieutenant Christie killed. The detached parties, trusting
to native guides, were purposely misled, and thus could not come into
action. Ram Singh had by this means the way kept open for his retreat
when resistance was no longer possible, and all the skilful arrangements
that had been made to catch the eagle in his eyrie were thwarted by the
treachery of the natives, who had been, unfortunately, too implicitly
trusted in an important service.

_Retreat of Shebe Singh from Chillianwallah._—On the 12th of February
Shere Singh struck his tents, and retired from the strong positions
which he had so skilfully occupied. Lord Gough threw forward his
cavalry, but the Sikh general interposed the whole of his mounted
force, covering effectually his retreat. On the 15th the English general
learned that the Sikhs were at Wuzeerabad, and his spies informed him
that the sirdar was marching upon Lahore. It is probable that these
reports were correct, but the approach of a portion of General Whish’s
army defeated the project. The cavalry of Whish were pushed on to the
Chenab, preventing the passage of the ford of Wuzeerabad. The sirdar
swept the whole district of supplies, and sent messengers to Chuttur
Singh informing him of his dangers, and intimating that he would take
post at Goojerat. Chuttur Singh hastened to the support of Shere, and
their united forces constituted a splendid army of eighty thousand men,
with fifty-nine pieces of cannon, most of them of large calibre, and
worked by a choice body of artillerymen. While Whish guarded the fords
of the Chenab, Wheeler hastened to join Lord Gough, having cleared the
Baree Doab of Ram Singh and his adherents. On the 16th his lordship left
Saporee, and arrived at Sundalpoor, a village only a few miles from the
Chenab, which separated his army from that of the victor of Mooltan.
The latter skilfully fabricated a bridge of boats at Hurreke Puttum, and
joined the commander-in-chief. While this was being accomplished, a body
of Affghans from Dost Mohammed Khan, who professed to be neutral,
joined the enemy. The entire number of Lord Gough’s army, after every
accession, scarcely exceeded twenty-five thousand men. The enemy, when
joined by the Affghans, nearly quadrupled the forces of the British
general. Lord Gough, however, determined to attack him, and on the 20th
reconnoitred his position with that object. Shere Singh made the village
of Goojerat his head-quarters: this place lay between the Jhelum and the
Chenab, nearer to the former; a small river ran nearly around it, but
was at that juncture very low, so that its bed was in some places nearly
dry. Between this river and the city, the enemy had taken his position.

Lord Gough resolved upon his plan of attack, and early on the 21st put
it into execution.

_Battle of Goojekat_.—Lord Gough’s artillery was in excellent order,
and an overmatch for that of the enemy. He determined upon using this
arm of offence to the uttermost, and opened along his line a murderous
cannonade. His chief danger lay in the difficulty of passing his troops
over the “nullah” (or dry bed of the river) under the enemy’s fire; for
it was impossible for his infantry to enter the bed of the stream in any
direction without being exposed to their musketry; his guns kept those
of the enenry hotly engaged. The numerous cavalry of the foe threatened
his flanks, and exposed him, inferior as he was numerically in this arm
of the service, to another peril. Both these risks he provided against
with skill, and conquered them with resolution and energy. The array of
battle was superb; the order of the engagement scientific; and all its
parts conducted with obedience and alacrity by those to whom they were
committed.

The first fault of the enemy was opening his artillery practice at too
great a distance; this indicated the number and position of his guns,
as well as their range, and enabled the British general to make his
calculations accordingly. He advanced his right wing under cover of his
superior artillery fire; the infantry dashed into the nullah, cleared
it, and stormed a village on its banks, where a strong body of infantry
was posted. The enemy’s left and centre were thus separated, and while
the British right pressed upon the Sikhs’ left centre, the British left
cleared the nullah, stormed another strong infantry post in a village,
and completely doubled up the centre of the sirdar’s army. His cavalry
made various efforts to fall upon the flanks of the victorious infantry,
but the British horse-brigades, with horse artillery, prevented the
success of these movements, and punished the rash approach of the Sikh
troopers. The Khalsa soldiers fled through their own tents, Brigadier
Campbell and the Honourable Major-general Dundas, sweeping round
the town or village of Goojerat, drove them in confused flight.
Major-general Gilbert followed the fugitives with the cavalry; the
defeated Sikhs cast away their arms and accoutrements in the utmost
panic. Never was victory more complete, and seldom did victorious
battle redound to the honour of a victorious general so signally as at
Goojerat.

The loss of the British was three officers killed and twenty-four
wounded, the total killed of men and officers did not exceed one
hundred, and the killed and wounded of the whole army did not reach in
number one thousand men. The Sikhs lost thousands in slain, all their
guns but two were captured, and many thousand men were left wounded and
prisoners in the hands of the pursuers. The following extracts from
Lord Gough’s despatch will throw additional light on the course of the
conflict:—

“With my right wing I proposed penetrating the centre of the enemy’s
line, so as to turn the position of their force in rear of the nullah,
and thus enable my left wing to cross it with little loss, and in
co-operation with the right to double upon the centre, the wing of the
enemy’s force opposed to them.

“At half-past seven o’clock the army advanced in the order described,
with the precision of a parade movement. The enemy opened their fire at
a very long distance, which exposed to my artillery both the position
and range of their guns. I halted the infantry just out of the fire, and
advanced the whole of my artillery covered by skirmishers. The cannonade
now opened upon the enemy was the most magnificent I ever witnessed, and
as terrible in its effects.

“The Sikh guns were served with their accustomed rapidity, and the enemy
well and resolutely maintained his position; but the terrific force of
our fire obliged them, after an obstinate resistance, to fall back. I
then deployed the infantry, and directed a general advance, covering the
movement by my artillery, as before.

“The village of Burra Kabra, the left one of that name, in which the
enemy had concealed a large body of infantry, and which was apparently
the key of their position, lay immediately in the line of Major-general
Sir Walter Gilbert’s advance, and was carried in the most brilliant
style by a spirited attack of the 3rd brigade, under Brigadier Penny,
consisting of the 2nd Europeans, and the 31st and 70th regiments of
native infantry, which drove the enemy from their cover with great
slaughter. A very spirited and successful movement was also made about
the same time against a heavy body of the enemy’s troops in and about
the Chota Kabra, by part of Brigadier Harvey’s brigade, most gallantly
led by Lieutenant-colonel Franks, of her majesty’s 10th foot.

“The heavy artillery continued to advance with extraordinary celerity,
taking up successive forward positions, driving the enemy from those
they had retired to, whilst the rapid advance and beautiful fire of
the horse artillery and light field-batteries, which I strengthened by
bringing to the front the two reserve troops of horse artillery
under Lieutenant-colonel Brind (Brigadier Brooke having the general
superintendence of the whole of the horse artillery), broke the ranks of
the enemy at all points. The whole infantry line now rapidly advanced,
and drove the enemy before it; the nullah was cleared; several villages
stormed; the guns that were in position carried; the camp captured;
and the enemy routed, in every direction—the right wing and
Brigadier-general Campbell’s division passing in pursuit to the
eastward, the Bombay column to the westward, of the town.

“The retreat of the Sikh army, thus hotly pressed, soon became a perfect
flight—all arms dispersing over the country, rapidly pursued by our
troops for a distance of twelve miles, their track strewn with the
wounded, their arms, and military equipments, which they threw away to
conceal that they were soldiers.”

At dawn next day Major-general Sir Walter Gilbert took the command of
a corps of the army, principally consisting of cavalry, in pursuit. The
retreat of the Sikhs, or rather their flight, was covered by fifteen
hundred Affghan horse, who had arrived just before the battle. These,
however brave, constituted a very irregular force, and soon became mixed
with the mass of the fugitives. The flight of the Khalsa army was in the
direction of the Khoree Pass. At the entrance General Gilbert halted,
with the Bombay division, and sent General Mountain through the gorge to
Pooran. It was necessary to secure this pass, as, if the enemy had been
able to hold it, considerable difficulties might have been thrown in the
way of the pursuers, especially as torrents gushed from the mountains,
and the weather was wet and tempestuous.

On the 24th the pursuers resumed their march, but by that time the Sikhs
had crossed the river, and the British did not succeed in getting sight
of them until reaching Noorangabad. During this march, Major Lawrence
joined the camp of Sir Walter Gilbert; Chuttur Singh, whose prisoner
he was, permitting him on parole to proceed to the camp of the
commander-in-chief with proposals from Shere Singh. Akram Khan, with
part of the Affghan auxiliaries to the Khalsa army, retreated upon
Attock.

On the 27th and 28th, Sir Walter Gilbert brought his forces over the
Jhelum, compelling Shere Singh, with the relics of his army, to retire
with precipitation. Gilbert was obliged to leave a portion of his forces
behind in consequence of the high waters in the river, but by the 5th of
March these followed. Before these detachments effected their passage,
the armies of pursuers and pursued were nearly equal in number; but the
Sikh chief wisely concluded that if he could not, with nearly four times
the number of the British, prevent the latter from storming his strong
position near the Chenab, he was not likely to hinder them, when their
numbers were superior, from crossing the Jhelum. Gilbert was speedily
reinforced, and at the head of an army of about twenty thousand men,
with nearly fifty pieces of cannon, he so menaced the Sikh general, that
the latter intimated his intention to lay down his arms.

On the 8th of March terms of submission were personally discussed, Shere
Singh having come over to General Gilbert’s camp. The English general
demanded an unconditional surrender; and as the rajah hesitated, the
English advanced to Hoormuk. Chuttur Singh and Shere, with several great
sirdars, came over to the British camp, followed by the guns taken at
Chillianwallah. The surrender of the whole army was arranged to take
place the next day. It was not, however, until the 14th that all the
Sikhs had laid down their standards and their arms, which they did with
the greatest reluctance, their countenances and tones being expressive
of the deepest anguish. The conduct of the British was most generous.
Each Sikh soldier received a rupee to enable him to reach his home; the
cavalry were allowed to retain their horses—a boon which was highly
appreciated, many of them expressing, and really feeling, the deepest
gratitude. The artillery surrendered amounted to forty-one guns, and a
number of tumbrils and carriages: the artillery horses were retained by
the English. During the short campaign the enemy had lost one hundred
and fifty-eight pieces of cannon, many of them of larger calibre than
any in the English army. The detention of General Gilbert in negotiating
and securing the surrender of the Sikhs, was favourable to the escape
of the Affghans. Chuttur Singh had given up to them the fort of Attock,
which they precipitately abandoned, their main force marching rapidly
for the Indus. Gilbert endeavoured to intercept them, but was only in
time to witness their success in making good their passage, and the
destruction of the bridge of boats by which pursuit would have otherwise
been made. The Affghans were reduced to less than half the force with
which they joined Chuttur Singh, but they drew up on the bank of the
river, and offered an artillery fire, to which the British replied in
a manner that soon cleared the bank of the Indus of every trace of the
enemy. Detachments were sent to take possession of Attock, and also of
Hyderabad, on the right bank of the river. The British did not succeed
in crossing the Indus until the 20th, when the Affghans had very far
distanced their pursuers. They continued their march unmolested, either
by Sir Walter Gilbert’s or any other force, entered the Khyber Pass, and
proceeded to. Cabul. The sensation produced in that city by the total
destruction of the Sikh army was very great. The Affghan fugitives,
after the manner of orientals, gave the most absurd exaggerations as to
the prowess of the British soldiers, especially of the officers, many
of both being described as fiends, who proved their infernal nature by
deeds of superhuman daring and strength. An alliance with “Shatan” was
of course a mode of accounting for defeat which saved the honour of
the fugitives, and satisfied the denizens of Cabul, as well as the wild
clans _en route_ thither, that a retreat was wisdom. The government of
Cabul became uneasy for the consequences, and Dost Mohammed Khan took
measures to placate the British government, whose policy was not to
pursue the war into Affghanistan. The government of Calcutta annexed
the Punjaub to British India, and thus terminated the Sikh war.
The governor-general issued, on the 29th of March, the following
proclamation:—

“For many years, in the time of Maharajah Runjeet Singh, peace and
friendship prevailed between the British nation and the Sikhs. When
Runjeet Singh was dead, and his wisdom no longer guided the counsels
of the state, the sirdars and the Khalsa army, without provocation and
without cause, suddenly invaded the British territories. Their army was
again and again defeated. They were driven, with slaughter and in
shame, from the country they had invaded, and at the gates of Lahore the
Maharajah Dhuleep Singh tendered to the governor-general the submission
of himself and his chiefs, and solicited the clemency of the British
government. The governor-general extended his clemency to the state of
Lahore; he generously spared the kingdom which he had acquired a just
right to subvert; and the maharajah having been replaced on the throne,
treaties of friendship were formed between the states.

“The British have faithfully kept their word, and have scrupulously
observed every obligation which the treaties imposed upon them. But
the Sikh people and their chiefs have, on their part, grossly and
faithlessly violated the promises by which they were bound. Of their
annual tribute, no portion whatever has at any time been paid, and large
sums advanced by the government of India have never been repaid. The
control of the British government, to which they voluntarily submitted
themselves, has been resisted by arms. Peace has been cast aside.
British officers have been murdered when acting for the state; others
engaged in the like employment have been treacherously thrown into
prison. Finally, the army of the state, and the whole Sikh people,
joined by many of the sirdars of the Punjaub who signed the treaties,
and led by a member of the regency itself, have risen in arms against
us, and have waged a fierce and bloody war for the proclaimed purpose of
destroying the British and their power.

“The government of India formerly declared that it desired no further
conquest, and it proved by its acts the sincerity of its professions.
The government of India has no desire for conquest now—but it is bound,
in its duty, to provide fully for its own security, and to guard the
interests of those committed to its charge. To that end, and as the
only sure mode of protecting the state from the perpetual recurrence
of unprovoked and wasting wars, the governor-general is compelled to
resolve upon the entire subjection of a people whom their own government
has long been unable to control, and whom (as events have now shown) no
punishment can deter from violence, no acts of friendship can conciliate
to peace. Wherefore, the governor-general of India has declared, and
hereby proclaims, that the kingdom of the Punjaub is at an end; and that
all the territories of Maharajah Dhuleep Singh are now and henceforth a
portion of the British empire in India.

“His Highness the Maharajah shall be treated with consideration and with
honour. The few chiefs who have not engaged in hostilities against
the British shall retain their property and their rank. The British
government will leave to all the people, whether Mussulman, Hindoo, or
Sikh, the free exercise of their own religions; but it will not permit
any man to interfere with others in the observance of such forms as
their respective religions may either enjoin or permit. The jagheers,
and all the property of sirdars and others who have been in arms against
the British, shall be confiscated to the state. The defences of every
fortified place in the Punjaub, which is not occupied by British troops,
shall be totally destroyed, and effectual measures shall be taken to
deprive the people of the means of renewing either tumult or war.

“The governor-general calls upon all the inhabitants of the Punjaub,
sirdars and people, to submit themselves peaceably to the authority of
the British government, which has hereby been proclaimed. Over those who
shall live as obedient and peaceful subjects of the state, the British
government will rule with mildness and beneficence; but if resistance
to constituted authority shall again be attempted—if violence and
turbulence be renewed, the governor-general warns the people of the
Punjaub that the time for leniency with them has passed away, and that
their offence will be punished with prompt and most rigorous severity.”

As soon as matters were placed on a footing of order as to the
government of Lahore, Moolraj was brought to trial before a special
military commission, consisting of four British and two native officers,
and a colonel of the Sikh army. The charges against him were:—“1.
Having aided the murderers of Mr. Van Agnew and Lieutenant Anderson; 2.
Having been an accessory to that crime before the fact; 3. Having been
an accessory after the fact.”

The object of pressing the one charge of murder in a threefold form was
to prevent the captive obtaining a verdict of not guilty, if only
the first form expressed the charge. He was allowed the service of an
advocate; Captain Hamilton performed that office in a very able and
ingenious manner. After a trial which lasted fifteen days, he was found
guilty on all the charges, and sentenced to death. The sentence was
commuted by the governor-general into imprisonment for life at Singapore.
This was not accepted by the captive as a favour, who demanded rather to
die like a soldier than live a captive. He had borne up with the noblest
manhood, and received with a slight smile and composed countenance,
but without any bravado, the announcement that he must die; but the
commutation of his sentence caused the most passionate lamentations.
He desired to be shot at Mooltan, or, if he must he a captive, there
to spend his captivity; but to be a prisoner, and expatriated, was
intolerable, and he craved to die. The orders of the governor-general
were not, however, affected by the patriotic desires of the
murderer—for such Moolraj was. His heroic conduct in honourable war
won the admiration of the British officers, civil and military, but
they could not forget that he murdered in cold blood their brethren.
Intelligence of these events caused much joy in England, for the
disturbed state of the continent, the distressed and agitated state of
Ireland, and in part of England, caused apprehensions that a foreign war
might possibly break out, and this at such a time would render conflict
with the Sikhs a perilous matter to the empire, as they were the only
remaining power dangerous to British interests in India. There were,
however, many unfavourable reports raised of the mode in which the
negotiations were conducted which closed the war under Lord Hardinge, as
well as that which had just terminated. These created dissatisfaction in
England, and led to inquiries in parliament; the questions which excited
most attention in the country referred to the appropriation of the
celebrated Koh-i-noor diamond, and the new regulations about _batta_,
which caused discontent in the Sepoy army.

On the 3rd of July, in the House of Lords, the Earl of Ellenborough
moved for papers explanatory of the circumstances under which the crown
had granted to the Court of Directors of the East India Company, or
to the army in India, property conquered from the enemy; the question
involved being with reference to the confiscation of the property taken
in the district of Lahore, including the Koh-i-noor diamond, which the
governor-general had agreed by treaty should be appropriated to the
liquidation of the accumulated debt due by one of the states to the
Indian government, instead of devolving to the crown as booty, such
booty having always been granted to the armies since the year 1758, as
then decreed by patent. The noble earl concluded his speech in favour of
inquiry, by stating that, for every battle in India previous to those in
the Punjaub, a pecuniary reward, under the name of batta had been given,
but not so in the latter cases; and he implored their lordships and the
government, if they desired to retain the Indian territory, above all
things to do justice to the army.

The Marquis of Lansdowne detailed the circumstances under which the
property was acquired, explaining that Dhuleep Singh was not a prisoner,
but was treated as sovereign prince when the treaty was made, and
doubtless the governor-general considered himself at liberty to conclude
such a treaty, and dispose of the property obtained from the state of
Lahore in any way which he thought best for the government of India.
The subject, however, should be reconsidered in reference to its legal
matters.

The Duke of Wellington defended the governor-general from, the implied
suspicion of a want of attention to the merits of the Indian army,
entered into some technical explanations as to the treaty, and suggested
that the subject should be left in the hands of the government at home,
and the governor-general in India, to settle the question of booty
(there being immovable as well as removable property involved, which
could not, strictly speaking, come under the designation of booty), who
were most anxious to do full justice to the Indian army.

_State of India after the Annexation of the Punjaub_.—The peace of
India was not entirely secured by the termination of the Punjaub war;
the hill tribes in the neighbourhood of Peshawur gave uneasiness, more
or less, throughout the year. The enemies of Gholab Singh continued
their intrigues, and in considerable numbers had recourse to amis. It
was supposed that the English would not again interfere on his behalf,
as he had acted more like the ally of Chuttur and Shere Singh, and the
other sirdars, previous to the battle of Goojerat, than as the ally of
the British. Gholab had, however, the address to engage the Company’s
civil servants, and the military men acting in that capacity, on his
side; and he managed to hold up the English name _in terrorem_ to his
refractory subjects, so as to keep them from maturing, or at all events
effectuating, a decided revolt. The Affghans were also troublesome
on the Scinde frontier, and by their agents sought to stir up the
Beloochees to predatory and desultory warfare.

_Troubles in the Gwalior Territory_.—The withdrawal of troops for
service elsewhere left Gwalior with but few military detachments,
this circumstance encouraged the disaffected there, and a partial
insurrection took place. Two leading chiefs were implicated.
Lieutenant-colonel Graves collected troops, and successively stormed a
series of forts, thus putting an end to the power of the insurgents.

The arrival of Sir Charles Napier was hailed with satisfaction, as the
prestige of his name had spread all over India. Lord Gough’s departure
was, however, a subject of regret, for the venerable and glorious old
general had by his heroism, urbanity, and goodness, won every heart.
Enemies respected and esteemed him; his soldiers, and all connected with
the government of India, respected and loved him. During the autumn
long conferences were held at Simla, between the governor-general, the
commander-in-chief, and the ex-commander-in-chief. Sir Charles Napier
there imbibed impressions unfavourable to the government of India in
many respects, and previous prejudices, which he was known to entertain,
were strengthened. His views of the constitution and management of the
Bengal army, and of the way in which the armies of all the presidencies
were officered, were such as to excite in his mind alarm for the
fidelity of the Bengal Sepoys, and the safety of our Indian possessions.
He subsequently left Simla on a tour of inspection through the Punjaub
to Peshawur; various suggestions were made by him which were not
attended to; the reforms which his subtle mind saw to be necessary,
and his vigorous habits required to be immediately put in force, were
obstructed by both military and civil authorities; and it soon became
obvious that he could not long co-operate with the authorities of India,
either there or at home. He had hardly assumed the command-in-chief when
prognostications were indulged concerning his early resignation, which
were, unfortunately for India and for England, fulfilled.

In the Madras presidency, disturbances were occasioned by Mohammedan
fanatics. Wherever in India Mohammedans resided, they were disloyal. No
kindness conciliated them; and in some places, such as Delhi, where they
were numerous, an unarmed European was always in danger. In the Bengal
and Madras presidencies, the army was to a great extent recruited
from that sect, and in the former provinces much to the hazard of the
government, for that soldiery united to the fanaticism of Mohammedanism
all the pride of caste characteristic of the heathens, and these united
peculiarities fostered a deadly enmity to the government whose salt
they eat and whose arms they bore. In the Madras presidency, a sect of
Mohammedans existed known as Moplahs. It was the custom of these Moplahs
to gather together and perpetrate some sanguinary outrage, and then
shut themselves up in a strong place, and sell their lives as dearly as
possible. By this course they hoped to kill as many Giaours as possible,
and obtain a large reward in the paradise of the prophet. During the
month of August a body of these fanatics pursued a course of violence
and depredation, but were pursued by the police. The fugitives shut
themselves up in a temple, a very strong place, from which the police
either could not or would not dislodge them. Captain Whyte, at the head
of a detachment of the 43rd native infantry, was sent to perform this
service; but his men, after firing a volley, fled as if panic-struck,
leaving the captain and a few other men, Europeans and Hindoos, to the
will of the Moplahs. Their “tender mercies were cruelty,” for they cut
the captain and his few brave followers to pieces. The conduct of the
native troops was treated as unaccountable—a sudden fear for which
they could give no reason; the fact being that they sympathised with the
assassins whom they were sent to assail. Afterwards a detachment of
the 94th European regiment attacked the temple, and, after some severe
fighting, were repulsed; a second onset was more successful, and the
murderers who made it their garrison were put to the bayonet.

There were many trials for India during the year 1849. Cholera raged
fearfully, sweeping away a large proportion of the population of many
villages and large towns, and also laying its cold hand upon many a
European.

At a great heathen festival at Trichinopoly, during an outburst of
fanaticism, four hundred persons were trampled to death, and a vast
number injured. These mad assemblages for idolatrous purposes not only
received too much tolerance from the government, but sometimes were
favoured with encouragement.

During the rainy season, the country was deluged, and the region of the
five rivers, the theatre of such sanguinary war, especially suffered.
The floods were so overwhelming, that they were said to have rushed up
the rivers at the rate of seventy miles a day, until the whole country
was inundated. The torrents which poured along the course of the
Chenab swept away the great fortress of Mooltan, so long the prize of
conflicting armies. The Sikh nation was exposed to much suffering, as
well as signal defeat, and their humiliation was only beginning, for the
native princes were on every occasion reminded, at Calcutta, of
their fallen fortunes. This may be exemplified in an extract from the
“American Merchant Abroad,” by G. F. Train, who attended a ball at
Government House, Calcutta, long after the conquest of the Punjaub, just
before Lord Dalhousie retired; he thus records his impression of the
scene:—“There, too, were the brave Sikhs of the mountain dens, Shere
Singh and Chuttur Singh, who held their passes, those bold chieftains
who fought like tigers in their country during that memorable campaign
of 1848–9, and finally, overpowered by the superior force brought
against them, after going through the celebrated battles of
Chillianwallah and Goojerat, were brought to bay at Raweel Pindee,
where, after the most obstinate war, they surrendered their sabres
to Sir Walter Gilbert, the able general, who was made a G.C.B. and a
baronet for his bravery and judgment on that occasion. It was pitiful
to see brave warriors so painfully humiliated, for they moved about the
room in their stockinged feet like so many automatons, shrinking and
cringing before their conquerors, evincing the greatest pleasure in
receiving the least attention from the civilians in the room. Their
appearance without shoes is by order of the governor-general, to remind
them of their disgrace, and to show proper respect to those that hold
the sway: this, I am told, is the custom of the land. This last tax upon
their pride might at least have been passed over, for why strike them
while they are down? These princes, it will be remembered, were the
chieftains of the Punjaub, and their surrender was the signal of
annexing that great kingdom to the British empire. The ameers of Scinde,
I believe, are also among the dark faces opposite. Other warriors
as brave as they have been unfortunate—the captives, or rather the
victims, of Sir Charles Napier.”

The ameers were of course subjected to similar indignities: these things
could but inspire hatred among the native princes, which broke out
malignantly soon after Lord Canning’s Indian career commenced.




CHINA.

The governor and garrison of Hong-Kong were startled by a deed of
atrocity and perfidy on the part of the Chinese. On the 22nd of
August the governor of Macao, who had acted more firmly towards
the commissioner at Canton than his predecessors, was waylaid and
assassinated. Proofs arose that the Chinese authorities were concerned
in the outrage, and a conflict of a serious nature ensued between the
Chinese and the Portuguese troops. The British, French, and American
naval officers on the station brought up their war-ships to protect the
residents at Macao who belonged to their respective countries, and
to render such assistance as might be possible to the Portuguese
authorities. But for this, the Europeans resident at Macao would
probably have all been massacred.

At the same time, the chief commissioner of his Chinese majesty at
Canton issued very stringent edicts against smuggling, and the English
merchants and marine were subjected to repeated insults. No conflict,
however, occurred; but the seeds were sowing for future contest. After
laborious negotiations, and many minor outrages, a peace between
the Portuguese of Macao and the Chinese was ultimately arranged. The
Portuguese themselves were as little to be trusted or respected as
the Chinese; probably, where religion was concerned, less bigotry was
exhibited by the Pagan Chinamen. An instance in proof of this occurred
at the very juncture when Englishmen were offering their assistance
to the Portuguese authorities, and preserving the lives of Portuguese
subjects, which their own government had not force sufficient to do. On
the 25th of August, Mr. Summers, an English missionary, was cast into
prison because he did not take off his hat to the procession of _Corpus
Christi_ in the street. The Englishman excused himself by a declaration
that his conscience would not allow him to do any act of religious
reverence in such a case; but that he meant no disrespect, and regretted
that he did not think of passing into some other street, thereby
avoiding the procession. These reasonable explanations and polite
statements did not mollify the Portuguese civil and ecclesiastical
authorities; and an English Protestant subject was incarcerated for not
performing an act of Roman Catholic worship in the public streets of a
city which English arms were saving from pillage and massacre! Captain
Keppel, of her majesty’s ship _Meander_, however, demanded Mr. Summers’s
release, which was refused, when he gallantly landed a party of
marines, and took him out of prison. The Portuguese resisted with
fierce fanaticism, and some loss of life ensued; but the English officer
accomplished his purpose, and inflicted humiliation upon the bigots
whose tyranny compelled his prompt and manly act.




BORNEO.

Sir James Brooke, the Rajah of Sarawak, whose heroic efforts to suppress
piracy in the Indian Seas have been noticed on a former page, continued
his exertions in clearing those seas of the pirates, and in building
up settlements on the coasts of Borneo. July was generally the
expeditionary season for the pirate chiefs, and Sir James resolved this
year to prepare for their severe chastisement, and, if possible, for
their extirpation. Accordingly, Commander Farquhar, in command of her
majesty’s brigs _Albatross_ and _Royalist_, the celebrated steamer
_Nemesis_, belonging to the East India Company, and the steam-tender
_Ranee_, were joined by the rajah himself in command of a native
flotilla. The squadron entered the mouth of the Sarrebas river, as
the rajah had certain information that the pirates intended to inflict
pillage and massacre upon the people of that neighbourhood. On the
evening of the 30th, tidings reached Sir James that the pirates were
attacking a place called Palo. The next day one of the look-out boats
brought in tidings that the pirates were advancing in full force. The
_Nemesis_ first put to sea; and being seen by the pirates, they made for
the Kaluka river. The boats under the command of Lieutenants Wilmshurst
and Everest, with the native boats under Sir James, intercepted the
pirate flotilla, the men-of-war’s boats opening a sure and destructive
fire upon them. The night had already fallen, and the naval officers
were anxious lest they should fire into the rajah’s boats instead of
those of the enemy. A pass-word had been agreed upon to avert this
danger—the word “rajah;” but the occupants of the native boats
never ceased screaming this word, rendering it difficult for the naval
officers to determine in what quarter there was an enemy, in which a
friend also was not in danger of their fire. This state of hesitation
favoured an effort to escape on the part of the piratical prahus, two of
which made sail seaward. The steam-tender pursued, but the larger prahu
made again for the river, was run down by the _Nemesis_, and her crew,
sixty in number, were destroyed. The other prahu kept seaward, pursued
by the tender, who fired into her a large congreve-rocket, by which
she was destroyed. The boats of the squadron then rowed up the Sarrebas
river, and destroyed a few prahus, some pirate villages, and a town
which seemed to be the head-quarters of the pirates in that direction.
The flotilla next proceeded up the Rejanz river, and severely handled
the natives indiscriminately; for it was known that such as were not
pirates themselves aided them in every practicable way. Several hostages
and prisoners were taken; among others a little child, very fair, and
apparently having belonged to European parents who were murdered by the
Dyaks. It was found that, during the night conflict, a very extensive
destruction had been inflicted upon the prahus and their crews. Dead
bodies lay in great numbers washed upon the shores, with shattered
boats, presenting a scene of wreck and slaughter terrible to
contemplate. Of one hundred and twenty prahus which constituted the
force of the piratical expedition, eighty were destroyed; about twelve
hundred men of their crews perished. Most painful scenes were presented
to the British in the course of their proceedings, horribly verifying
all that had been heard of the cruelty of the natives of these regions.
They had taken many captives, and before putting to sea decapitated
them, and gashed their bodies with knives: many who had been thus
treated were women. When the news of these proceedings reached England,
there was a great public outcry; Mr. Hume, Mr. Cobden, and many members
of the Peace Society, alleging that Rajah Brooke had instigated these
measures for his personal interests; that the inhabitants of these
coasts were not pirates; that their armed prahus were their fleets, by
which they desired to protect themselves from the rajah’s aggressions;
and that England was dishonoured by the sanguinary destruction of
harmless and unoffending natives. Evidence was adduced, on the other
hand, to show that the persons destroyed were not inoffensive seafarers,
but bloodthirsty barbarians and pirates. This evidence failed to
convince those who raised and sustained the outcry, and ultimately the
rajah had to return to England and defend, himself. He satisfied the
government and the general public; but the party which had attacked him
conceded little or nothing, and continued to denounce the proceedings
of Sir James, in Borneo, as unjust and aggressive, with the ostensible
object of abolishing the piracy alleged to be so prevalent on those
coasts.




THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.

An event occurred which disturbed the loyalty of this colony. The home
government felt considerable difficulty in dealing with its convicts,
and, among other places, the Cape of Good Hope was selected for
experiment in the establishment of convict colonisation. The inhabitants
resisted with the greatest determination; and the haughty manner in
which Earl Grey, the colonial minister, bore himself, exasperated the
colonists, and inflamed their animosity against the proposed measure.
Public meetings were called, in which the ministers of religion took
a very prominent part; and it was resolved neither to sell to the
government nor the convicts. The ship having arrived which bore the
unwelcome freight, every form of opposition previously determined upon
was put into execution, and the government was at last compelled to give
up its purpose, and the convict-ship was ordered away to Van Diemen’s
Land. The Colonial-office had long projected making the Cape a penal
colony, and it was supposed that political convicts would not be
objected to. The colonists believed that this was merely the plan of
insinuating the thin edge of the wedge, which would ensure the whole
being driven home. John Mitchell was among the convicts; that gentleman
having suffered at Bermuda from the climate, the government desired in
mercy to place him in one more salubrious for persons afflicted with
pulmonary disease. The colonists of the Cape were willing to receive him
as a settler, but not as a convict, and expressed themselves concerning
him in terms of sympathy and respect. The plan of the government to make
it a place for political prisoners, was as unsuccessful as the project
of making it a general penal settlement: and in the end the people of
the Cape obtained, by their obstinacy and energy, a complete victory
over the Colonial-office.

The contest in the parent country between the principles of protection
and free-trade affected the political and social condition of the
West Indies. Jamaica, being the principal colony, its example had a
beneficial or baneful influence upon all the other West-Indian colonies.
The Governor of Jamaica, Sir Charles Grey, was very unpopular, and
his instructions from the Colonial-office were neither wise nor
conciliatory. Those instructions, however, being necessarily made in
the free-trade spirit then ascendant in the British legislature, would
hardly have pleased the planters, however well intended or judiciously
ordered. In that particular, the _suaviter in modo_ would never have
compensated for the _fortiter in re_. The new Assembly was hostile
to the governor, and its votes showed its hostility, especially in
reference to the supplies. Throughout the year, this state of things
continued. The negro population sympathised with the government, and
boasted of their willingness to turn out and fight for the queen. The
parish of St. Ann elected a black representative. Agitation of almost
every kind that could afflict a West-Indian colony prevailed in Jamaica.
The other colonies in that region were generally discontented,
although in most the crop of sugar was good; in some however it failed,
increasing the dissatisfaction which the prevalence of free-trade
opinions in England created. At Antigua and St. Kitts the chief cause
of complaint was the want of rain. In Demerara, the political aspect of
affairs was more favourable to the government—the combined Court,
which had refused the taxes, having, by a small majority, retraced
their steps, and effected an understanding with the governor, which
facilitated his administration.




CANADA.—POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.—OPPOSITION AND INSOLENT PROCEEDINGS
OF THE BRITISH PARTY.

The state of Canada during 1849 was most unhappy, and the policy of the
English ministry most unjust. The discontent existed chiefly in Upper
or Western Canada, and amongst the population, which was British, or of
British origin. In 1837–8, when nearly all Lower or Eastern Canada was
in open rebellion, only partial insurrection existed in the Western
province, where people armed in behalf of the government. During
the rule of Lord Metcalfe, a bill of indemnity passed the Canadian
legislature, on behalf of the loyalists of Western Canada, who had
suffered loss of property in consequence of their loyalty. As soon as
Lord Elgin became governor-general, claims were set up for the loyalists
who had incurred losses in Lower Canada. This seemed to be reasonable
and just; but the portions of that province which had suffered at all
had been the foci of rebellion, and the sufferers were those who had
perilled life and property in opposition to the government; it was
therefore a trick on the part of the Lower Canadians, who had been the
rebels, to reimburse themselves at the expense of the loyal population.
The proposal therefore excited in Upper Canada, in portions even of
Lower Canada, and in Great Britain, warm indignation, and a formidable
opposition was organised. During the Canadian session of 1848, the
colonial ministry was obliged to resign in consequence of a vote of want
of confidence; that ministry had belonged to the British party, but the
vote constrained the governor to choose his ministers from the Lower
Canadian, or French party. This ministry was of course favourable to
the scheme of their own party, and encouraged those whose rebellion had
caused their losses, to prosecute the demand, which practically amounted
to a tax upon the loyal, for the especial advantage of the disloyal. In
consequence of the opposition, by the English party, the bill actually
brought in provided that no person who had been guilty of treason after
the 1st of November, 1837, should be allowed to claim under the act of
indemnification. This concession, which appeared to comprehend all that
was necessary, and to place the measure on an equitable basis, did not
satisfy the British party, who declared they had no confidence in
the ministry, whose sympathies were wholly French, and who would find
pretexts for indemnifying their own party by ignoring the proofs
of their treason. The bill, however, passed through the Canadian
parliament, after a fierce struggle from the opposition. The British
party still remained quiet, in the hope, faintly entertained, that
the queen’s representative would refuse the royal assent, dissolve
parliament, and take the sense of the colony on the question. The
governor, either on his own judgment, or by the directions of the
Colonial-office, instead of taking that course, which under such
circumstances would have been the most just and constitutional, gave his
sanction to the measure, as well as to some other bills which were not
palatable to the Western settlers. The ministry had, at the same time,
exasperated the Protestant and British Canadians, by various acts which
savoured of hostility to them, and of partiality to the French and Roman
Catholic Canadians. After the governor-general gave the royal assent,
his carriage was stoned by a mob consisting mainly of gentlemen, and
the parliament house itself was broken open while the members were in
debate, the building fired and destroyed, the members being permitted
to retire unmolested. The governor, Lord Elgin, in his despatch to Earl
Grey, described the population of Montreal as numbering fifty thousand
inhabitants, of whom he gave on the whole an indifferent character, as
belonging to secret societies, and “having other agencies of mischief,”
 with only two policemen in the service of government, and seventy in the
service of the corporation. If, however, no complaints of the disloyalty
or disorder of Montreal had been customary, and a few police were
sufficient to maintain peace, it is presumptive proof that his lordship
was influenced more in using this language by the feelings excited in
his own mind, from the opposition and indignation of the most loyal and
respectable citizens of the place, than by any demerits on the part of
the Montreal citizens. The parliament met in the Market Hall, and by a
large majority voted an address of confidence to the governor-general.
The citizens met in the open air, in the Champs de Mars, and voted with
acclamation an address to the queen, begging her to refuse her assent to
the Indemnity Bill, which they indignantly designated “an insult and a
robbery to every man who, in the time of trial stood forth to defend her
majesty’s crown and dignity.” The memorial also prayed, in very earnest
terms, for the recall of the Earl of Elgin.

On the 31st of May, the governor-general prorogued the parliament, but
the governor took no measures to soothe the English settlers, while
his ministry, proud of their triumph, offered them many gratuitous
affronts. The British party, on the other hand, conducted itself
with much arrogance and violence, to which it was moved as much by the
free-trade measures of the imperial parliament as by any grievance
it felt in connection with the Lower Canada Indemnity Bill, or the
ascendancy of the French party in the local government. An assembly had
been convened from all parts of Canada, and other portions of the North
American colonies, which called itself the “British League;” this body
was ostensibly formed to consider the interests of the country, which it
was assumed were neglected by the parliament and government. The
League assembled on the 25th of July, and broke up after six days’
deliberations, on the day when parliament was prorogued. It was
the intention of those who formed it to alarm the government by an
impression that a movement would be made for annexation with the United
States, and many were really in favour of such a measure. There were
objections which, however, weighed against such a step in the minds of
the British party generally. One was the antipathy felt to negro slavery
under any circumstances, but more especially as tolerated in the United
States. Another was the hostility generally entertained in the latter
to the principle of an Established Church, whereas nearly all the
Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Methodists of the party were in favour
of state establishments of religion, which had been one of the most
fertile sources of party dispute in both the Canadas. It was generally
supposed that the United States’ policy would be more in favour of
the protective system than Great Britain; and that Canada could form
stipulations on that basis which would render her annexation a mutual
advantage. This, however, was denied strongly by many of the party,
and doubted by more. Before the League closed its labours, it issued a
manifesto to all the colonies of Great Britain in America, and passed
the following resolution, which sufficiently sets forth the spirit
of the manifesto itself:—“Resolved—That a president, six
vice-presidents, secretaries, a treasurer, and an executive committee of
ten, be appointed by the convention for the purpose of conducting at the
seat of government the general business of the league. Every township,
village, town, and city in the province will have its branch; and in
each district the presidents and vice-presidents of its Branch Leagues
will form an executive body for district business; and all these
officers, together with those first named as the general executive, will
constitute the Central League. Protection to home industry, with
the view of encouraging the establishment of domestic manufactures;
retrenchment in the expenditure of the government, or the better
apportionment of that expenditure to the existing means of the province,
and an extension of our home market, and the consolidation of British
interest, by the union of the colonies—these present specific objects
worthy the employment of our highest efforts for their attainment.”

This was the last act of the convention. The demonstration was on the
whole loyal, contrary to the expectation of both its promoters and
government. That the general public of British birth or extraction did
not meditate rebellion at this juncture was evinced by the following
record in a Montreal journal, of an occurrence which took place on
the very day that the parliament was prorogued, and the British League
adjourned its sittings:—“A public meeting of the citizens of Montreal
was held on the 31st ult., at which it was all but unanimously agreed
to lend the credit of the city to the extent of five hundred thousand
dollars to the completion of the St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railway,
which will connect Montreal with Portland (Maine), and open out the
splendid intermediate county. This, with two hundred thousand dollars
from other sources, it is expected will execute one-half the work, and
then the guarantee of the legislature under a general act comes in; and
an expectation is entertained that the other half may be borrowed in
England, on the joint security of the railroad and the province.”

A very large party, however, contemplated the peaceable separation of
the Canadas from the mother country; others supposed that Great Britain
would consent to the union of all the North American provinces, and,
after a time, recognise the independence of the new province thus
formed. These agitations showed how deeply laid, and how extensively
prevalent was the discontent among the most industrious, enterprising,
and respectable colonists. Religious animosities amongst the colonists
themselves embittered the social condition of the country. At a place
called Bytown, during the autumn, there were repeated conflicts between
Protestants and Roman Catholics, which left lasting acrimony and
dissatisfaction among the former, from the fact that Lord Elgin’s
government appeared to favour the latter party. This circumstance
renewed the desire for annexation, and a petition containing twelve
hundred signatures of persons of respectability, of British birth or
lineage, was got up for presentation to the queen. This petition would
have been far more numerously signed, but for the impression that it
could not be received, being unconstitutional. At the close of the
year the division of parties, especially “Annexationists” and
“Anti-annexationists,” ran high, and a new element of discord was
introduced by the projected removal of the seat of government from
Montreal to Toronto or Kingston. This subject was discussed with heated
temper, even by those who were for separating the Canadas altogether
from the mother country, and who might be supposed without interest in
the question.

At home a certain party in the commons and the country favoured
the views of those who would separate the colony from the crown. The
speeches of these gentlemen encouraged dissatisfaction in Canada, and
contributed largely to the elements of disturbance there. The Irish
Roman Catholic members of parliament, and the newspaper organs of that
party, were singularly inconsistent; they argued for the separation of
the colony, yet they denounced the disloyalty of the party in Canada
which promoted it, because that party was chiefly formed of Protestants,
and were adverse to the French and Catholic sections of the colonists.
The influence of the Irish newspaper articles, and of the speeches of
those who partook of the opinions, expressed by them, were mischievous
in Canada, where even’ expression of opinion pronounced at home was
watched and reproduced. Some of the disloyal papers in Ireland, while
abusing the Canadian Protestants with bitterness, expressed their
hope that they would settle the dispute by an appeal to arms, forcibly
severing the colony from the sceptre of Victoria. These treasonable
wishes were published with impunity. The year 1849 closed sadly
in Canada: blood had been shed, incendiarism had been perpetrated,
disloyalty had spread; and the main causes of this state of things were
the infatuation of the colonists in favour of commercial protection,
and the inability of the governor-general of the Canadas, and of the
ministry at home, to descry the policy which was most calculated to
serve the interests of the mother country and the colony together.




AUSTRALIA.—DISCONTENTS CREATED BY THE TRANSPORTATION QUESTION.

The Australian colonies were generally prosperous in 1849; few new
incidents of any kind occurred, and none to make the year peculiar
in history. The convict question, however, caused uneasiness. In Van
Diemen’s Land horrible outrages were committed by “ticket-of-leave men,”
 and some parts of the island resembled pandemonium.

At New South Wales, much discontent was created by the English
Colonial-office violating an existing compact with that colony, to
send them no more convicts, and the Assembly passed the following
resolutions—“1. That, considering the arbitrary and faithless manner
in which this colony has been treated by the Right Honourable Earl Grey,
this meeting most humbly prays her majesty to remove that nobleman from
her majesty’s councils.—2. That it is indispensable to the well-being
of this colony, and to the satisfactory conduct of its affairs, that its
government should no longer be administered by the remote, ill-informed,
and irresponsible Colonial-office, but by ministers chosen from,
and responsible to, the colonists themselves, in accordance with the
principles of the British constitution.—3. That this meeting, having
unanimously agreed to the preceding two resolutions, the following
humble address to her most excellent majesty the queen, embodying them,
be adopted, and that such address be signed by the chairman on behalf of
the meeting. [The address was a mere transcription of the resolutions,
placed in the ordinary form.]—4. That, considering the discourtesy
shown by his excellency the governor to the former meeting, and to its
deputation, this meeting abstains from appointing a deputation to wait
upon his excellency with the preceding resolutions and address; but
requests the chairman to transmit them to him, with a written request
that his excellency will be pleased to forward it to her majesty the
queen for her gracious consideration.”

With reference to the arrival of convicts which had just taken place,
the _Sydney Morning Herald_ had the following:—“All the convicts will
be removed from the ship this morning. They have all been engaged.
In addition to those previously mentioned, a large draft was sent to
Paramatta on Saturday. The forty-five sent to Moreton Bay were forwarded
at the expense of the government, not being under any engagement, but
merely sent to the district in order that the settlers may have the
opportunity of hiring them. All the rest have been taken from the ship
at the expense of the employers. We believe that the only restrictions
are that the men shall not be landed in Sydney, and that they shall not
be employed in the county of Cumberland.”

The policy of Earl Grey was, for the time being, carried out.




CEPHALONIA.

The disturbances which prevailed in 1848 were continued in 1849,
and revived again and again, fitfully, when they seemed to have been
suppressed. An attempt was made to assassinate the governor of the
island, and a soldier was shot by his side, and several others near him
were wounded. Murder and incendiarism prevailed everywhere, and open
revolt where there was any chance of even temporary success. The
same cause which existed in 1848—the desire for annexation to
Greece—produced these proceedings; but certain banditti chiefs took
advantage of the feeling, in order to promote their own predatory
designs. The musket and the gallows suppressed these outrages. The
public trials of the chief offenders betrayed a state of dishonesty,
treachery, treason, and bloodthirstiness among the population generally,
disgraceful to the Greek race.

The colonial history of the British empire during this year involved no
other incidents that were remarkable—in general it was discontented and
disturbed; but the energy of the military and civil officers, and the
fidelity and valour of the troops, subjugated all opposition, or held
adverse interests at bay, and kept down disaffection, until future
opportunities allowed of more signal success. India was the scene of
more striking events, which had their full share of peril and glory.




THE ARCTIC EXPEDITION UNDER SIR J. ROSS.

Perhaps no subject engaged the mind of the British people more
sympathetically and powerfully than the fate of the brave men who
formed the great Arctic expedition. Sir John Franklin was popular, and
eminently deserved to be so; and the public desired that every effort
should be made, and every risk incurred, for his deliverance—or, at all
events, a satisfactory solution of the doubts which prevailed concerning
his existence. For this purpose an expedition was sent out under Sir
James Ross, with specific instructions to prosecute the search in a
certain direction, which would not interfere with efforts elsewhere, so
as to determine, at all events in one great field of exploration, if he
yet survived. Sir James and his gallant crews arrived off Scarborough
on the 3rd of November, and on the 5th the gallant officer presented
his report at the Admiralty. The following account of that report, from
official authority, will afford sufficiently full information of the
result:—

“It is Sir James Ross’s confident opinion that neither Sir John
Franklin, nor any of his brave companions, are eastward of any navigable
point in the Arctic regions; and if there be any chance of their
existence, it is in the supposition that he proceeded in a westerly
direction, and in such case we can only expect to hear from the missing
adventurers by the Mackenzie detachment, or by her majesty’s ship
Plover, Commander Moore, by way of Russia.

“Sir James traversed at least two hundred and thirty miles on the
ice, the bergs of which were frightful, much more so than any of the
experienced Arctic voyagers had seen before. Sir James and his party
penetrated as far as the wreck of the _Fury_, where he found the
old tent standing, and everything about it in a state of the best
preservation. At this point Sir James deposited a large quantity of
provisions, and also the screw-launch of the _Enterprise_. The march of
Sir James across the boundless regions of ice is truly stated as a most
unparalleled feat in exploration. We are sorry to find, however, that it
was in no way successful. The captain, officers, and ship’s company have
worked together most harmoniously—a spirit of emulation having animated
every one in the great philanthropic task of endeavouring to cany help
and succour to their long lost friends. In the whole courses of his
researches it is said Sir James Ross never met with a single Esquimaux.

“Sir James speaks most highly of all those who have been connected and
associated with him. He is fully satisfied that all is done that could
be done by the Admiralty, in the appropriation of the vessel, the
selection of the crew, and the extensive equipment of each vessel, in
stores, provisions, &c.”




FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

A glance at the state of Continental Europe is necessary for a clear
view of the relation of England to other states. The revolutionary
spirit of 1848 had not passed away, yet already symptoms of reaction
appeared in several of the continental states. The daring and dissolute
doctrines of French, German, and Italian socialists created universal
alarm, among all who regarded, with any sacredness, the ties of family
and the rights of property. It was seen that, however hateful despotic
monarchy, and the ascendancy of a bigoted and superstitious church,
these oppressions were far preferable to the levelling and loathsome
tyranny of socialism, in any of the forms in which it presented itself
in England, France, or Germany. Whatever was abhorrent to the natural
sense of justice, and the dear claims of kindred, was propagated by
socialism; and which the socialists, whether called Owenites, St.
Simonians, or red republicans, were ready by force to establish.
Enlightened men were therefore in doubt, during the early part of 1849,
what part to take; their aspirations were for liberty; but the multitude
preferred license, and, without the multitude, nothing could be enforced
upon despotic governments and ecclesiastical systems. It was now hoped
that governments had been warned; that kings would never again venture
to violate political promises to their people; that constitutions would
never again be revoked by princes; and that, consequently, little was
to be apprehended from the governing powers: whereas, everything dear
to social order, happiness, and sacredness, was to be feared from the
social and political fanatics that to so great an extent guided the
peoples,—exciting false hopes, stimulating violent action, propounding
doctrines destructive of social order, and menacing a tyranny more
formidable than had ever before been witnessed in the world. With
these feelings, the good and true rallied round the centres of ordinary
government and order—but, alas! they were deceived; they did not take
the Scripture warning, “Put not your trust in princes.” Pledges and
promises were made by the foreign despots and their ministers, more
profusely than even during the war of 1812; but all this was only
destined to exemplify the necessity for the warning given by Him who
best understood human nature—“Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his
nostrils.” The friends of order, peace, and rational liberty believed
the protestations of potentates, and used their influence, and armed on
the side of governments in the conflicts of 1849. The result was, they
unconsciously abetted a reaction by which the old chains were riveted
upon the people, and new ones forged still further to fetter them.

The state of France most interested England, because all great changes
in that country influence the whole of Continental Europe, and, in fact,
affect more or less the whole civilised world. France, throughout the
year, was rent by the violence of party. Three royal factions, the
Buonapartists, the Orleanists, and the Bourbons, _par excellence_,
were sowing broadcast the seeds of social dissension. The two
great-republican parties—that of the socialists (or “reds”), and
that of a philosophic and rational republicanism, led by Cavaignac and
Lamartine—were ardent in their appeals for popular support. The party
of the church watched all the others, ready to exert its influence
wherever it could serve itself, by preventing any political sect
from settling into power, except under such conditions as, in its own
interest, the church should prescribe. The party of the president (the
Buonapartists) gradually and steadily gained over all the others; the
soldiery and the peasantry were Napoleonist; the church saw this, and
threw its weight into the presidential scale. The union of peasant
proprietary, the army, the church, the Buonapartists proper, and the
friends of order, who believed in the oath of the prince-president,
constituted the will of France;—the policy of Napoleon was accepted
by many because it was his: it was his, because he knew it would be
acceptable to many as the only safeguard against anarchy, and the only
form of absolutism that could be substituted for liberty, or impose upon
its friends.

While revolution raged everywhere, Rome was in arms, the pope was a
fugitive, and a provisional government ruled the estates of Romagna,
Bologna, and Ferrara, in the name of freedom. The Romans conducted
themselves justly and heroically, but the Austrian government, whose
successes in Italy and Hungary, as well as in the duchy of Austria,
gave her confidence, was anxious to restore the pope and enforce
his government by the bayonet. This was not acceptable to either the
governments of England or France. The latter resolved to interfere, and
the question arose and was anxiously mooted in England, what, under such
circumstances, was the true policy of Britain? Lord Palmerston, who
was strongly opposed to Austrian ascendancy in Italy, was favourable to
French intervention; and there were persons who asserted that the
idea itself originated not at the Tuileries, but in the English
Foreign-office. At all events, no opposition was offered, and a French
expedition to Rome resulted. The Romans fought in a way worthy of
Romans, but, borne down by the superior power of France, their proud
city yielded to the invader, and the pope, under joint French and
Austrian protection, returned to rule his reluctant people at the
Vatican. It then became necessary for France to modify and restrain the
fiery persecution which the restored pontiff visited upon his temporal
subjects, at the instigation of Austria and Naples. In this, however,
the French were not as zealous as in restoring the pontifical tyranny;
and, as in the misrule of Louis Philippe, his chief agent of corruption
and wrong was a protestant, M. Guizot, so in the agency of French
despotism at Rome, a protestant general, D’Hilliers, was the most active
instrument.

Meanwhile the socialists, under Ledru Rollin, attempted to upset the
presidential government, but were beaten by General Changarnier, at
the head of the troops and national guards, Ledru Rollin becoming a
fugitive. The president of the French republic worked his will.

The general condition of Europe was well described by M. Mauguin in
the French Assembly, as under arms from the line of the Ural to the
Atlantic. The attitude, however, which the president resolved to
maintain, was one of peace with foreign powers, and, except in the
instance of Rome, of non-interference. This exception he justified on
the grounds of the necessity of counteracting the ascendancy of Austria
in Italy, and of the Catholic feeling of the French nation, which forbid
the deposition of the head of the church.

One of the most remarkable incidents in French history during the year,
and that in which the English people undoubtedly took most interest, was
the assemblage of a Peace Congress of all nations at Paris. Deputations
from England and America were the most conspicuous persons in the
assembly, which met on the 22nd of August, in the Salle St. Cécille,
a music-hall in the Chaussée d’Antin, M. Victor Hugo in the chair. The
vice-presidents were Messrs. Cobden, Vesschères, Coquerel, Degnore,
and Durkee. The secretaries were Messrs. Joseph Gamier, Alochin, Elihu
Burrit, the celebrated American blacksmith, editor of the _Olive Leaf_,
and Henry Richards, secretary to the English Peace Society. The two
principal speakers were the Reverend John Bennet, a congregational
minister, residing at Camberwell, near London, a very eloquent orator,
and Victor Hugo, who said he believed the object they had at heart was a
religious one, and not only desirable, but practicable and realisable:—
“Four centuries ago, the different provinces of France made war against
one another; and he expected to see the day arrive when that which took
place with respect to the provinces of one country would mark the whole
of Europe; and that, as Normandy and other provinces formed one France,
at peace with itself, so the different nations of Europe could dwell in
harmony as one country. Then would be no longer war, but civilisation;
and cannon would only be seen as curiosities shut up in museums.” M.
Hugo proceeded to descant on the vast expense of keeping up standing
armies, and the great advantages that would arise if such money were
thrown into the channels of labour, by which commerce would be promoted
and intelligence advanced. M. Hugo concluded by announcing that 500
francs would be given for a peace essay, and 500 francs for the best
collection of facts showing the horrors of war. The Archbishop of Paris
gave his adhesion to the objects of the assembly. The president of the
republic looked coldly upon the gathering, having no cordial feeling
to the chairman. The meeting was got up by the English peace party, and
chiefly under the auspices of Mr. Cobden. They regarded it as peculiarly
well-timed, whereas it is almost inconceivable how any number of men of
ability could suppose the occasion suitable, or that the state of
Europe offered the smallest hope of producing any influence by such
a convention. The resolutions submitted to the congress show how
impracticable they were at that juncture, and events in Europe have
since proved how uninfluential was the congress itself, and the opinions
it expressed. Tire resolutions proposed were adopted, and were as
follow:—

“1. As peace alone can secure the moral and material interests of
nations, it is the duty of all governments to submit to arbitration all
differences that arise among them, and to respect the decisions of the
arbitrators whom they may choose.

“2. It is advisable to call the attention of governments to the
necessity of entering, by a general and simultaneous measure, upon a
system of disarmament, for the purpose of reducing national expenditure,
and of removing, at the same time, a permanent cause of disquietude and
irritation from among the nations.

“8. The congress recommends all the friends of peace to prepare public
opinion, in their respective countries, for the formation of a congress
of nations, whose sole object should be to frame a code of international
laws, and to constitute a supreme court, to which should be submitted
all questions relating to the rights and reciprocal duties of nations.

“4. The congress condemns all loans and taxes intended to aid the
prosecution of wars of conquest and ambition.

“5. The congress recommends all its members to endeavour to eradicate
from the minds of all in their respective countries, both by means of
a better education of youth, and by other methods, those political
prejudices and hereditary hatreds which have so often been the cause of
disastrous wars.

“6. The congress addresses the same invitation to all ministers of
religion, whose sacred mission it is to encourage feelings of goodwill
among men; as well as to the various organs of the press, which exercise
so powerful an influence over the development of civilisation.

“7. The congress earnestly hopes for the improvement of the means of
international communication; for the extension of postal reform; for
the universal adoption of the same standard of weights, measures, and
coinage; and for the multiplication of peace societies, which shall keep
up a correspondence with each other.

“8. The congress decides that the committee be instructed to draw up an
address to all nations embodying the resolutions of the congress; and
that this address shall be presented to the various governments of
Europe and America, and particularly to the president of the French
republic.”

There was one political effect produced by the assemblage; the fact
that the French government allowed it, and that the Archbishop of Paris
patronised it, led to a general impression in Europe that the policy
of Louis Napoleon would be peaceful. It is probable that in giving his
permission for the convention he calculated upon such an effect, which
suited the purpose of the hour, and comported with the necessities of
his _régime_. The policy of the French president towards Great Britain
was peaceful and friendly. In various minor matters he endeavoured to
gain the confidence of the English government. He had implicit faith in
the honesty and goodwill of the English foreign minister, who believed
Napoleon to be a necessity, and counselled his cabinet to maintain amity
with him. The British ambassador to the French republic was treated with
more marked respect than the minister of any other power delegated to
it, and citizens of the United Kingdom were treated with the most
marked consideration in France whenever the emperor found opportunity of
showing it. As a proof of his goodwill, a _souvenir_ of his residence in
London, and the courtesies which, when an exile, he had received there
from the Army and Navy Club, he presented that body with a superb
piece of Gobelins tapestry, and a letter couched at once in the most
respectful and cordial terms. In greater matters, he appeared anxious
to secure the sympathy of Great Britain: difficulties arose in the East,
which engaged the attention of English politicians very much, and the
English Foreign-office was officially led to consider that reliance
might be placed upon the co-operation of France. Events, in a few years,
brought this feeling more thoroughly and practically to the test.




STATE OF GERMANY.

The condition of Germany much interested the English government and
people. The contests between the duchies of Schleswig-Holstein and
Denmark threatened to call for the interference of Germany on the one
hand and Russia on the other, and to involve England in embarrassing
questions. The attempt of the German democracies, triumphant in 1848,
to fuse the powers of Germany into a whole, a new Germanic empire, also
involved questions of great intricacy, and which, however England
might desire to keep aloof, tended to affect treaties in which she was
concerned. The union of all Germany as one authority would introduce a
new element into European relations, disturbing the balance of power.
Russia and France had much to apprehend from such a union; England but
little, so long as the united German power abstained from invading the
territory or independence of the Scandinavian nations. United Germany,
possessing popular liberty, would be a natural ally of England, and
a counterpoise to France, whose ambitions England had had so often to
check, and a counterpoise to Russia also, whose aggrandising policy was
so menacing to England and to Europe.

The disagreements of the German people as to the respective merits of
monarchy and republicanism, but more especially on social questions,
rendered the union of Germany politically impossible. The jealousies of
Austria and Prussia were equally fatal to such a project. The houses
of Hapsburg and Hohenzollern were competitors for the prize of German
empire; and this, rather than the welfare or union of Germany, engaged
their subtlety and energy. An Austrian archduke became vicar of the
German unity, and, unless so far as there appeared any probability of
his securing the supreme authority for the royal family of Austria, his
object was to humour the German parliament at Frankfort, and gradually
to wear it out, restoring things to their original condition. When the
royal houses of Austria and Prussia found that neither could obtain a
permanent supremacy, they concerted together for the purpose of breaking
up the parliament, and in the meantime, of practically preventing any
invasion of the independence or separate prerogative of the individual
states and their governments by the central representative power which
the revolution had set up. Accordingly, on the last day of September
a convention was signed at Vienna, by Austria and Prussia, for the
establishment of a provisional central power for Germany. This was
shortly after ratified by both courts. The first article was for the
purpose of giving the archduke vicar an opportunity of resigning his
authority to the provisional central power.

“1. The government of the Germanic confederation, in concert with the
vicar, agree on a provisional form or interim, during which time Austria
and Prussia assume the administration of the central power for the
German confederation, in the name of all the governments of the
confederation, until the 1st of May, 1850, unless this power cannot be
transferred to a definite power before that period.

“2. The object of the interim is to maintain the German confederation
as a union founded on the right of the states appertaining to the German
princes and of the free cities, to having preserved the independence
and the integrity of their states comprised in the confederation, and to
having maintained the internal and external security of Germany.

“3. So long as the interim lasts, the affair of the German constitution
is left to the free concertation of the individual states.

“It is the same with those affairs which by art. 6 of the federative
act, belong to the full assembly of the diet.

“4. If, at the expiration of the interim, the German constitutional
question should be not yet settled, the German government will come to
an understanding with respect to the prolongation of the present treaty.

“5. The affairs hitherto carried on by the provisional central power,
in so far as, according to the legislation of the confederation, they
came within the competency of the late assembly, are transmitted for
the entire duration of the interim to a dietary committee, to which
Prussia and Austria appoint each two members, to sit at Frankfort. The
other governments can be represented by plenipotentiaries accredited to
the said committee, either by each individual state or by several
states conjointly.

“6. The committee of the confederation carries on affairs in an
independent manner, but are responsible to the powers that respectively
nominate them. It forms its resolutions after deliberation in common.
If the members cannot agree, the decision takes place by means of
negotiation between the governments of Prussia and Austria, and which
latter, in case of need, will refer to a judgment of arbitration. This
judgment is pronounced by three governments of the confederation. In
such case, Austria will nominate each time one of the arbiters, and
Prussia the other. The two governments thus designed have to decide
upon a third arbiter for completing the tribunal of arbitration. The
members of the committee of the confederation divide the affairs
assigned to them in this mode, that according to the legislation of the
existing confederation, and especially according to the military
constitution of the confederation, they either personally carry them
on, or else direct and superintend the carrying of them on.

“7. As soon as the ratification by the governments aforesaid of the
great proposition shall have taken place, the archduke vicar will
renounce his dignity and depose the rights and duties of the
confederation that have been confided to him into the hands of the
Emperor of Austria and the King of Prussia.”




DEMANDS OF THE RUSSIAN AND AUSTRIAN EMPERORS UPON THE SULTAN OF TURKEY.
—INTERPOSITION OF ENGLAND AND FRANCE.

Varied and important as the changes and conflicts were in Western
and Central Europe during this year, none of these events menaced the
general peace of Europe so much as a demand made by the czar and the
kasir upon the sultan for the extradition of certain Hungarian refugees.

During the general convulsion of Europe, Hungary flew to arms, and the
Austrian empire was in danger of dismemberment from the success of the
Hungarian revolt. Russia, however, joined her armies to those of the
great German power, and the result was the suppression of the Hungarian
revolution. The chiefs of that movement took refuge within the Turkish
territory. This circumstance led to a demand by the ambassadors of
Russia and Austria at the Porte, for the surrender of all Polish and
Hungarian refugees into the hands of the governments to which they
owed allegiance. The sultan refused, and the ambassadors demanded their
passports. The alarmed sultan consulted the learned doctors of the
Koran, and received for reply that the abandonment of the refugees would
be contrary to the law of Mohammed. The English and French ministers
counselled resistance, and the sultan increased his armies, and ordered
remnants of troops towards the Austrian frontier. The terms and tone in
which the communications of the ministers of the czar and the kasir were
made, were insulting to the sultan, and aroused the indignation of
the French and British governments, whose interposition was of such a
character as to lead Austria and Russia to believe that a war with the
western powers would ensue if the haughty requisition was persisted in.
The communications between the English ambassador at St. Petersburg and
the czar’s minister for foreign affairs, although maintaining the forms
of courtesy, were pervaded by an indifferently concealed acrimony, which
showed that a bad feeling between the two governments underlayed the
ceremonies of diplomatic civility. A special minister from the Porte was
sent to St. Petersburg with a conciliatory note from the sultan to the
emperor, and this, with the firm tone of the French ambassador, and
the energetic exertions of the English minister, caused the emperors to
relax their demands, and to insist only upon the removal of certain of
the refugees from the territory contiguous to that which had been
the theatre of their revolt. The ill feeling which sprung up on this
occasion between the governments of Vienna and St. Petersburg, on the
one hand, and those of England and France, on the other, continued until
events arose still more grave for Turkey, and for all these powers.

Through another year of grave occurrences, and political difficulties
and involvements such as Europe had seldom Been, Great Britain pursued
the even tenor of her way, by her moral influence everywhere aiding
liberty and checking excess, maintaining her own prestige and
international rights, yet pursuing a policy of non-interference.
Her foreign relations at the close of 1849 were in all respects
satisfactory, but it required all the skill and vigilance of the
remarkable man then at the head of the foreign office to maintain at
once peace and the honour of the country.




CONTINUED DISTRESS IN IRELAND—CRIME AND OUTRAGE—POLITICAL
AGITATIONS EFFORTS OF GOVERNMENT TO MEET THE EXIGENCIES OF THE COUNTRY.

The state of Ireland during this year was a continuation of the want,
misery, criminality, and sedition which made up its history for so many
previous years. The causes already noticed so fully in previous chapters
operated in producing famine and its attendants, disease and
social discontent. Notwithstanding all the efforts of government by
parliamentary aid, and of the people of Great Britain by their generous
subscriptions, the poor in Ireland continued to die of starvation, and
where death did not immediately happen from that cause, it arose from
it mediately, through the instrumentality of famine, fever, cholera,
dysentery, or gradual decay. The efforts of the government were still,
to a great extent, rendered abortive by the frauds committed upon the
funds devoted to Irish relief, not only in Ireland, but in England; much
that was supposed to be applied for the relief of the Irish famishing
poor never reached Ireland, and much more that did arrive in that
country never found its way to the objects for whom it was intended. The
failure of the potatoe crop had so impoverished the people, that,
during the spring of 1849, the destitution in some parts of the country
equalled that which had been known even during the three previous years.
The queen, in her speech at the opening of the session, referred to
the failure of the potatoe crop, and recommended her parliament to
make further provision to relieve the destitution which prevailed.
In pursuance of this recommendation, parliament voted £50,000 for
the relief of distressed unions, a sum utterly disproportioned to the
necessities of the case. A bill was brought in for levying “a rate in
aid,” as it was termed, the object of which waa to levy a rate upon
solvent parishes to aid insolvent parishes. This was both inequitable in
its conception and application, and was one of those make-shifts of the
government which, while it raised opposition, failed in accomplishing
the object contemplated. A vote of £100,000, in anticipation of “the
rate in aid,” was proposed and carried, but this also waa inadequate to
the purpose for which it was designed. Some idea of the magnitude of the
miseries of Ireland at this juncture may be formed from the fact that
the poor-law guardians of Kilrush expended £1000 per week in support
of the paupers of that union. Kilrush is a remote and not particularly
populous district, and was a specimen of the general expenditure to
which the distressed unions were exposed.

The terrible distress prevailing brought on a state of social calamity
and discord such as has seldom been witnessed in the history of the
world. As the year went on, the prospects of an abundant harvest
inspired hopes that peace and plenty would at last smile upon unhappy
Ireland, but these hopes were doomed to disappointment. The growing
crops became objects of contention between the miserable tenant, and, in
many cases, almost equally miserable landlord. The tenants sought to cut
and remove the crops clandestinely. Suddenly the corn would be cut over
a vast area of land, and carried away, as if by magic, beyond the bounds
to which any existing legal process on the part of the landlord might be
applicable. Rents were refused. Many of the farmers were unable to
pay, many were unwilling from dishonesty, and many considered that the
tenants had as good a right to the land as those from whom they rented
it. They talked of themselves as descended from the old families, the
natural lords of the soil, and of those who then claimed the rents as
the seed of the invader and the spoiler, whom it was just to deprive
of what he had no right to, unless conquest and force could confer
the right,—a doctrine that did not suit the popular interests. The
landlords, on the other hand, sternly evicted the tenantry; whole
town-lands were depopulated, the expelled tenants died of starvation on
the public roads, or crowded the workhouses, where they were supported
by rates levied on the industrious occupier. The poor-law was continued
upon a plan which protected the property of the rich English absentee,
and threw the burden upon the resident landlords who cultivated their
own land, and upon the farmer who rented land. The agents of these
absentees exacted the rents with bitter severity, and often the dwelling
of the wretched occupier was pulled down about his sick and starving
children, who frequently perished within the roofless walls. It was
civil war, without any of the redeeming manhood which strips even that
of its aspects of misery and horror. Frequently the police, armed as
regular cavalry and infantry, were called out to seize the corn in
process of clandestine removal, or to execute an eviction. On these
occasions, sometimes, the unarmed peasantry, maddened by despair, would
resist, and a conflict ensue in which victory did not always determine
on the side of arms and discipline. The military were often in
requisition to seize carts of corn under process of removal, or to
enforce the expulsion of some tattered, hungry, sick, woe-stricken
family from their miserable holding into the “wide wide world,”
 houseless and hopeless. Frequently the parish allowed an outcast of this
description at the rate of seven-eighths of a penny per day to sustain
existence. An English periodical writer truly and compassionately
remarked, “nothing like Irish misery exists under the sun.” Whatever
the disturbances generally prevailing, a very great number of the people
offered no resistance to the law; they obeyed and died. Mr. P. Scrope*
truly observed that the people bore these hardships “with a patience
and resignation which it is heart-breaking to witness, and which one
scarcely knows whether to praise or to blame.”

     * “Notes of a tour in England, Scotland, and Ireland, with a
     view to inquire whether our labouring population be really
     redundant.”

Yet Mr. Crope, while he denounced the state of the law in Ireland as
affecting landlord and tenant, in terms which attracted the attention
of the country, and of foreign lands, described the difficulties of
landlords in a way just to the class and to his subject. “A moment’s
consideration,” he says, “will show the futility of expecting any mercy
to be shown to these poor people by those whom the law at present arms
with the power of destroying them. It sounds very well to English ears
to preach forbearance and generosity to the landowners. But it should
be remembered that few of them have it in their power to be merciful or
generous to their poor tenantry. They act under compulsion, usually
of the severest kind. They are themselves engaged in a life and death
struggle with their creditors. Moreover the greater number of
the depopulators are mere agents for absent landlords or for the
law-receivers under the courts acting for creditors, and bound by the
established rules and avowed practice of the Court of Chancery itself
(the fountain and head of justice) to make the utmost of the property
entrusted to them, without regard to any other consideration than the
pecuniary interest of the parties, which is committed to their care.
Those landlords who have yet some voice in the management of their
estates, seeing the highest court of judicature in the realm sanction
this principle of action, think themselves justified—most of them,
indeed, are compelled by the overwhelming pressure of their own
difficulties—to follow the example. It is vain to expect mercy to be
shown under such circumstances. All is done in the sacred name of the
law. The sheriff, the representative of the majesty of the law, is the
actual exterminator. The officers of the law execute the process. The
constabulary, acting under the orders of the magistracy, stand by to
prevent resistance; and if any is expected, the queen’s troops are
brought to the spot, to quell with all the power of the throne what
would amount to an act of rebellion. It is absurd, then, to cast the
blame of these foul deeds, and their horrible results, upon a few
reckless, bankrupt, wretched landlords. It is to the law, or rather to
the government and legislature which uphold it, and refuse to mitigate
its ferocity, that the crime rightly attaches; and they will be held
responsible for it by history, by posterity—ay, and perhaps before
long, by the retributive justice of God, and the vengeance of a people
infuriated by barbarous oppression, and brought at last to bay by their
destroyers.” It is difficult to read such statements and wonder that
agrarian outrage prevailed extensively in Ireland, and that all over the
land murder stained the soil with blood.

It is impossible to write the history of Ireland in any given year
without having to record assassinations springing from religious
discord, and 1849 was no exception.

Political disturbance was only kept down by the arm of the law. Early in
the session, Earl Grey moved in the house of lords for a renewal of the
“suspension of the _Habeas Corpus_ act,” and in doing so he stated that
although there was no reason to fear an insurrection, yet disaffection
existed extensively, and especially in the districts which had been the
scenes of insurgency in the previous year. His lordship never knew
much of Ireland in any respect—her people, the philosophy of her
turbulence, or the policy which ought to be pursued towards her; had he
formed acquaintance with such subjects he would hardly have spoken
of disaffection existing in certain districts, for it is chronic in
Ireland. The masses of the people have been disaffected since the
English first obtained the ascendancy in Ireland; but independent of
any hostility of race or nationality, a deep-rooted religious animosity
towards the creed of England rankles in the hearts of all in Ireland who
differ from that creed.

The Young Ireland party was not extirpated by the events of 1848,
although as a public organized body, suppressed. Its writers continued
to write, although there was little public speaking. Charles Gavan
Duffy, more fortunate than his fellows, was enabled to escape the legal
penalties attached to his undoubted treason; juries would not convict,
notwithstanding the plainest evidence. The Roman Catholics in the juries
were obstinate in refusing a conviction. This circumstance deepened the
general distrust existing among Protestants in the fidelity of Roman
Catholic jurors on any question in which they took a political or
ecclesiastical interest. There is no reason, however, to suppose that
this spirit of inequitable partizanship was confined to Roman Catholics.
Such incidents never justified the government in refusing them
alterations in the jury laws, popularly demanded, and in exercising
so sternly the right of challenge which belonged to the crown in such
prosecutions. Mr. Duffy resumed his place at the office of the _Nation_
newspaper, affecting to believe that there was no hope of achieving what
he called Irish independence by political agitation; that the country
needed material improvement in the first instance, and that in
proportion as it increased in wealth would it be likely to obtain a
national existence. Mitchell, in his exile, denounced this doctrine;
and when he afterwards escaped to the United States, he impugned these
opinions of Mr. Duffy as dangerous to freedom, and as a cover to
his retreat from the patriotic advocacy of Irish nationality. The
recriminations of these two champions of Young Irelandism showed what
little prospect there ever had been of any harmony existing in an Irish
provisional government, if success had attended the efforts of these
men. Mr. Duffy, while for a time persisting in his new course, and
making his paper more an organ of the ultramontane priesthood, took
every opportunity of inciting the people to treason, at first covertly,
but gradually in a more open manner. This the government permitted, to
the disparagement of the loyal, and the injury of peace and improvement
in Ireland. The Old Ireland party continued to agitate, but their
agitation assumed still more of a sectarian character. Yet the name of
O’Connell had lost much of its spell, and at an auction of his library
in Dublin, his books, even with his autograph, barely fetched the prices
which the same volumes would have brought at any other public auction if
the property of an unknown person.

The winter of 1849 smote Ireland with fresh accumulations of suffering.
Gaunt famine stalked abroad; pestilence lurked in the hovels of the
country, and the cellars and garrets of the great towns; cholera ravaged
as fiercely in some places as if no other destroyer visited the unhappy
realm; crime lurked by the wayside, and sedition and bigotry muttered
their curses everywhere. It seemed as if a wide-wasting ruin covered
all.

The queen’s visit to Ireland made this year memorable in her history.
An account of this will appear in the narrative of the court in another
page.




POLITICAL STATE OF ENGLAND.

Notwithstanding the humiliation of the Chartists in 1848, they still
continued blatant. Some rioting occurred, and but for the conviction
that the people at large would support the government in strong
measures, the tendency to disturbance would have been still more
decidedly manifested. The anti-free-traders were still a large and
powerful party, and, led by Mr. Disraeli, formed an imposing array both
in and out of parliament. The free-traders were also active and resolute,
giving to the government a very general support. The agitations in
the country assumed no new phases, and almost all political questions
assumed a politico-economical aspect from the temper in which men
discussed them, and the prevailing tone of the time. The alteration
—virtually the repeal—of the navigation laws caused much excitement
in the sea ports, as the agitation of the subject did the previous year;
but the government and the free-trade party mustered all their strength,
and succeeded with the measure. The government was not popular, but was
accepted as a political necessity. Lord John Russell had great weight in
parliament, “in the city,” and with the old whig party everywhere; but
the more advanced liberals had lost confidence in him, and some of
his colleagues were unpopular. Foreign politics engaged much of the
attention of the nation, and the tide of reaction which began to roll
back over the continent, sweeping away so many newly acquired liberties,
was a cause of abundant regret, and even alarm to the English people.




COMMERCIAL AFFAIRS.

The year did not begin or end very prosperously in business and monetary
matters. The successive blights of the potatoe crop, the advances to
Ireland, the ruinous bankruptcies of 1848, the enormous railway
calls, the many failures upon the continent of both banking-houses
and commercial establishments, by which English firms sustained great
losses, and the continued disturbance of commercial relations in
consequence of the civil conflicts on the continent, were causes
sufficiently numerous and potent to create and sustain apprehension,
and embarrass the usual proceedings of trade. Still money flowed
into England from continental Europe, as the place of security which,
whatever might betide the world, was supposed to be beyond the range of
political convulsion. Thus capital was plentiful, and money was easily
obtained by all creditable establishments. The peace, good order,
and constitutional liberty by which these blessings were established,
afforded England a source of prosperity amidst so much that was
calculated to impoverish. The wrecks of many nations floated around
her shores, but within her borders all was safe; the shadow of the
thundercloud passed over her, and she heard its peals, as it burst in
lightning and torrent on less favoured lands.




THE CHOLERA.

There was one calamity, which befel so many nations, from which England
was not spared. The mysterious cholera, which appeared in 1848 in some
places, broke out in the autumn of this year with surprising fury. Its
ravages were far more extensively fatal than in 1832. In 1832 the number
attacked in London was 14,154, and the number of those who fell victims
was 6729. In 1848–49, the number attacked exceeded 30,000, and
nearly half the number perished. In 1832, one out of every 250 of the
population died; in 1848–49, one out of every 150. More than 80,000
persons died of cholera and diarrhoea in Great Britain during the latter
period. The disease spared neither sex nor age. It was found in London
to prevail most near the banks of the Thames, and on the south side
of the river, where the ground was lower and worse drained than on the
north. In the higher grounds, north and south, the disease inflicted but
little injury. Where the water supply was from the less pure portions of
the Thames, the havoc was greater than where it was drawn from a portion
of the river further up, or from other sources. The disease prevailed
most during hot weather both in Great Britain and Ireland. The faculty
was as little able to treat it as when it first appeared; and there was
a disposition to rely too much on general sanitary measures, without
regard to the specific virus of the disease.




PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY OF 1849—OPENING OF THE SESSION.

On the second of February the queen in person opened a new session. Her
majesty’s speech referred to most great matters which had occurred in
the latter part of 1848, and to such subjects as formed the leading
features of the policy of the ministry for 1849. Her majesty especially
recommended an alteration in the navigation laws, and she asked for
further administrative power to preserve order in Ireland. The general
tone and tenor of the speech were congratulatory. Lord Stanley, in the
lords, moved an amendment to the usual address, which represented that
the state of the country was not such as to call for or justify an
address pervaded by a spirit of gratulation. The amendment was rejected,
but only by a majority of two. In the commons Mr. Disraeli moved an
amendment upon the address, similar to that which Lord Stanley had
proposed in the lords, and with no better success. Mr. Disraeli
especially contended for keeping up a much larger fleet and army than
the government proposed. His arguments were singularly opposed to those
which, without any professed change of principle, he used eight years
afterwards, against the government of Lord Palmerston, for refusing to
reduce the army and navy when serious perils demanded their increase in
the judgment of that astute and experienced minister. Mr. Grattan, son
of the distinguished Irishman who assisted Irish independence in 1782,
proposed an amendment adverse to the ministerial policy for Ireland, but
it was rejected in a very decisive manner. The temper of the house, as
displayed towards Mr. Grattan, was harsh, invidiously national on all
sides, and especially offensive to the popular party in Ireland.




REPEAL OF THE NAVIGATION LAWS.

On the 14th of February Mr. Labouchere renewed the motion for the repeal
of the navigation laws, which had been defeated the previous year by the
agitation of the shipowners and sailors, particularly those of the Tyne,
under the leadership of James Mather, Esq., of South Shields. On the
9th of March the second reading came on, and was met by an amendment
proposed by Mr. Hemes, such as is usually offered in order to defeat
a bill. This amendment was negatived, in a house of four hundred and
seventy-six members, by a majority of fifty-six. The government was much
mortified that the minority was so very considerable. In committee Mr.
Labouchere modified the bill in a manner which proved the want of proper
forethought and decided policy in its preparation. This was the
case with most whig measures. On the 23rd of April Mr. Hemes again
endeavoured to defeat the bill, securing a very large minority, which
further annoyed the ministry, but failed to obstruct the progress of the
measure. In the lords the bill was opposed vehemently by Lord Brougham,
who denied that it was based upon the principles of free trade. By a
majority of ten only the government succeeded in carrying it, and it
was generally believed that it would have been lost, only that the
government raised a report of intended resignation if the bill had
been lost. This decided the opposition of Lord Brougham, who desired
to produce such a result, and influence the doubtful among the
Conservatives, as they were not prepared at that moment to resume the
reins of power. The Bishop of Oxford proposed an amendment intended, by
securing the anti-slavery lords, to defeat the measure by a “side wind;”
 but his object was transparent, and his end was not attained. The bill
was carried, and ordered to take effect from the beginning of 1850.




AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS—MOTION FOR GOVERNMENTAL RELIEF.

The agricultural interest was as discontented as it had been since the
repeal of the corn-laws. It was still hoped that the greater part of
the public burdens would be shifted to the shoulders of the commercial
middle classes; and the party calling itself “the agricultural
interest,” but in reality adverse to the prosperity of the farmers and
farm-labourers, clamoured for public relief. Mr. Disraeli had now fairly
succeeded Lord George Bentinck as the leader, and he on the 5th of March
proposed a resolution for a committee of the whole house, to consider
such measures as might relieve the owners and occupiers of real
property, and establish a more equitable apportionment of the public
burdens. Sir Charles Wood, in an awkward and clumsy speech, confuted Mr.
Disraeli, no difficult matter even in such a speech, for the honourable
leader of “the country party” had collected his statistics carelessly,
and used them illogically. His speech was also deficient in the
eloquence so striking generally in his elaborate orations. It failed to
produce any effect upon any party, even upon his own, and he could
only muster the support of seventy members against three hundred and
ninety-four. This motion greatly damaged the prestige of Mr. Disraeli:
it was thought that he was not competent to lead a great party, and
but for the paucity of talent in the conservative ranks, his leadership
would have immediately terminated. In the country generally, but
especially in the large cities and manufacturing districts, the speech
excited a stronger political hostility to Mr. Disraeli than had before
prevailed.




IRELAND.

A very considerable portion of the session was occupied by the affairs
of Ireland. Under the section devoted to the concerns of that country
such notice was taken of the proceedings in parliament bearing reference
to her, as makes it unnecessary to enter at length into their record in
this place. Early in the session the government requested the house
to renew the act for the suspension of Habeas Corpus: it was granted.
Measures bearing upon the poor-laws, and the commercial state of the
country, were subsequently discussed, the government always succeeding
in obtaining the support of the house. A bill for facilitating the
transfer of encumbered estates was introduced on the 26th of April;
its object was, chiefly, to amend a similar act of 1848, which had
been found to a great extent impracticable, the usual fate of most whig
measures. The new bill was carried; but while it did much good, it was
sometimes an instrument of injustice, very imperfectly answered its
own objects, and was not conceived or framed in a comprehensive or
statesman-like spirit. The great changes which its abettors predicted it
would create in the social condition of Ireland were not realized. The
estates brought into the court were often purchased by their former
owners, or occupiers, or by other Irish landowners, who borrowed money
for the purchase at a heavy interest, on the credit of the estates
themselves, which soon became as much encumbered as they had been
before. English companies and assurance offices were also purchasers:
their management was generally bad, expending large sums without
obtaining an adequate return. Ignorance of the habits of the people
caused much loss to such occupiers, and a species of quackery in
cultivation sprung up which was injurious to the interests of the owners
and of the country.




VOTE OF THANKS TO THE ARMY IN INDIA.

Votes of thanks to the troops engaged in the war of the Punjaub were
proposed and carried on the 24th of April. These were advocated with
eloquence, and conceded with enthusiasm. Sir Robert Peel passed an
eloquent eulogy on Lord Gough, which was as just to the brave old
veteran, after having served his country with honour for fifty-six
years, as it was creditable to the impartiality, temper, and talent of
Sir Robert.




MR. COBDEN’S MOTION FOR REDUCING THE ARMY AND NAVY.

The Whigs were not good financiers. Sir Robert Peel excelled his
contemporaries, and more especially his opponents, in the practicability
of his financial arrangements. The government had been placed in
circumstances of great difficulty by events purely of a providential
nature; but there existed a general impression that they did not
meet the emergency with skill. A society called the Financial Reform
Association grew into existence in consequence of this feeling. Its
head-quarters was at Liverpool. Many important facts were brought to
light by it, and much information extended, but there was a want of
tact in the management which defeated these laudable and enlightened
exertions. The society had a singular fatality for urging particular
measures precisely at the juncture when there was least likelihood of
gaining the ear of either the public or the legislature. Mr. Cobden
made himself conspicuous in this agitation, and began that career of
impracticability which gradually limited his public usefulness, and
at last expelled him from parliament. When the whig budget came on
for discussion, Mr. Cobden was agitating a scheme for returning to the
expenditure of 1835, by which he alleged ten millions annually would
have been saved. The state of Ireland and the continent rendered it
unlikely that the country would consent to any very great reduction in
its military and naval defences, yet it was in these departments Mr.
Cobden contemplated his economical experiments. On the 26th of February
he submitted a motion to the house embodying the principles for which he
had contended at public meetings. The chancellor of the exchequer showed
that no reductions which even Mr. Cobden himself dare submit to the
house would reduce the national expenditure to the proposed extent, and
proved that the defence of the commerce and independence of the country
forbade any such reduction. Mr. Cobden only obtained seventy-seven to
support him, in a house of three hundred and fifty-three members. This
did not arise from any indisposition to reduce the public burdens, but
from a conviction that Mr. Cobden rested his motion upon false data,
and that his scheme was utterly inapplicable to the circumstances of the
times.




THE BUDGET.

On the 29th of June the chancellor of the exchequer brought forward
his budget. He estimated the ordinary income at £51,550,000, and the
extraordinary income at £580,000. The expenditure he estimated at
£53,287,000. He contemplated a surplus income for the ensuing year of
about three quarters of a million sterling. The statement was received
favourably, but a general impression existed that the chancellor might
have carried retrenchment much farther. The supplies, however, were
granted upon the basis of the statement offered.




MOTION ON THE STATE OF THE NATION

On the 2nd of July Mr. Disraeli moved for a select committee on the
state of the nation. He did not expect that the government would
concede, or the house support it; but he made it the occasion for a
general attack upon the whig policy, and especially the free-trade
policy which that party had originated in parliament, although Sir
Robert Peel, their successful rival in this department, carried away the
credit of having done so. The speech of Mr. Disraeli was rhetorically,
and only rhetorically, successful. He reenumerated the misfortunes which
befel Ireland and the colonies during the three previous years, and all
the monetary difficulties which befel England, and attributed them, with
dextrous dishonesty, to whig impolicy and free trade. These calamities,
which were chiefly caused by delaying free trade too long, he ascribed
to that measure. The perverted ingenuity thus displayed did not serve
his party or convince his opponents. He was opposed in a blunt and
candid speech by Mr. Hume, and in one of the happiest orations ever
delivered by Sir Robert Peel. Lord John Russell also made an effective
reply. Mr. Disraeli received small support from his followers. If the
chief was not equal to the exigencies of the party, neither was
the party worthy of the chief. Only one hundred and fifty-six votes
sustained him, although Mr. Disraeli did his utmost to induce a decided
display of strength. The motion was lost by an overwhelming majority.




THE PROROGATION.

Few events of public interest occurred in the parliamentary history
of the session except those which are here recorded. The prorogation
occurred on the 1st of August. The president of the council read the
queen’s speech, which referred in the usual vague and general manner
to the topics which had been discussed, but paid a generous tribute of
acknowledgment to the heroism of the troops in the Punjaub. The blessing
of domestic peace, and of the prospects of a good harvest were dwelt
upon in terms of thankfulness to the Divine goodness.

The session of 1849 was not in any way remarkable. Few good laws were
passed, few good speeches made, and no incidents of striking importance
entered into its history. The state of parties remained what it had been
when the session commenced; perhaps, if any change took place, the Whigs
were on the whole strengthened. Sir Robert Peel gave them a qualified
support, taking care frequently to express his want of confidence in
their Irish policy, although nothing in his own past policy warranted
the expectation that he would have governed Ireland substantially better
than his rivals.




THE COURT.

Outrage on her Majesty.—There were various occurrences in the course
of the year of interest or importance to the court, and to the public as
having reference to the court.

On the 19th of May her majesty held a drawing-room, and shortly after
her return, drove out with three of her children in the park. She was
returning a little before six o’clock, when a shot was fired as the
carriage passed down Constitution Hill by a man who stood within the
railing of the Green Park. He was seized, and narrowly incurred being
torn to pieces by the people, who were in a state of furious excitement
at the occurrence. He was eventually rescued from the populace by the
park-keepers and police and conducted to the guardhouse of the palace.
Her majesty displayed the coolest self-possession and courage. Prince
Albert, who rode on before, heard the occurrence from her majesty’s lips
as she alighted. The name of the criminal was Hamilton; he was a native
of Adair, county Limerick, Ireland. General Wemyss, who rode exactly in
the line between her majesty and the criminal, thought that the pistol
was fired at him, and was of opinion that, had it been loaded with ball,
he must have been struck; he also considered the report to be from a
blank cartridge. This opinion proved to be correct, he had no intention
of hurting any person, and seemed either to have been actuated by a
desire for display, or to place himself in the hands of the authorities
as a criminal, for sake of maintenance, as he was in great destitution.
He was sentenced to seven years’ transportation.




THE QUEEN’S VISIT TO IRELAND.

The ministry had, with much wisdom, advised her majesty to visit Ireland
in the autumn of 1849. It was supposed by them that such an event would
soothe the spirit of party, and restore the loyalty which was supposed
to exist before 1848. Such was its tendency; but it ought to have been
understood that the people were no more disloyal in that year than in
the year which preceded it, or any other previous one; and the visit
of her majesty, although beneficial for a time, on the whole, was not
likely to give any permanent effect to the loyalty of those who might,
during her visit, display the like. The Young Ireland press denounced
the policy of the visit as a trick to ensnare the generosity of the
Irish character, and to divert the people from the only true political
pursuit for Irishmen—the separation of their country from Great
Britain; and those papers predicted that the reception of her majesty,
notwithstanding that national generosity which they truly asserted,
would be painful to the royal lady, and demonstrate the unwillingness of
the Irish people to be her subjects. The Old Ireland press, like the
Old Ireland leader in parliament (Mr. John O’Connell), gave a very
“uncertain sound”—it “blew hot and cold with the same mouth,”
 protesting that the Irish people were most loyal, but at the same
time in a very treasonable state; spurned, doubted, and encouraged the
ministerial policy by turns. The newspapers made a point of averring,
that if her majesty would only grant repeal and justice to Ireland, and,
in fact, whatever the party demanded, she would find the Irish people,
always excepting Orangemen and “swadlers,” most peacefully disposed. The
words of the national poet were echoed by these persons:—

     “There never were hearts, if our rulers would let them,
     More formed to be tranquil and blest than ours.”

The Irish people not connected with these two parties made every
exertion to prove their real and unaffected loyalty and devotion to
her majesty; and they boldly declared that the prophecies of the Young
Irelanders, and the doubts of the Old Irelanders, as to the probability
of the queen receiving insult, were unworthy of notice. The Irish
are too gallant a nation to insult a lady and a queen under any
circumstances, and there was not a man among either Old Ireland or Young
Ireland who would do the like, however wavering in loyalty; nor was
there one among them who would not risk his life to chastise such
conduct, had it happened in his presence.

After the prorogation, the court proceeded to Cowes, where a squadron
was in readiness, and her majesty, with her husband and children,
embarked and proceeded on their voyage on the night of the 1st of
August. The next night, at one o’clock, the squadron arrived at Cove,
“amidst a blaze of illumination by sea and land.” In the morning, the
little town of Cove received the designation of Queenstown from her
majesty, at the request of the inhabitants, as commemorative of her
arrival there. It was noticed that the moment her majesty set her foot
on shore, the sun, which had been clouded, burst forth with brilliancy.
In the afternoon, the royal party visited the city of Cork, to receive
various deputations, and afford the queen an opportunity of seeing the
city. She proceeded up the river, and never did the scenery on the banks
of the beautiful Lee look finer than on that bright autumnal day. Her
majesty’s reception in Cork was most enthusiastic. There is no country
in the world where public enthusiasm appears to greater advantage than
in Ireland, when displayed in a good cause; and in no part of Ireland
are the people more hearty in any feeling than m the sunny south. The
reception of her majesty and suite was everything she could wish it
to be. She received an address from the city, while seated on the
quarter-deck of the royal tender. As the first address presented to her
in Ireland, it has historic interest:—

_May it please your Majesty_,—

We, your majesty’s dutiful and loyal subjects, the mayor, aldermen, and
councillors of the ancient city of Cork, humbly approach your majesty to
tender to you, on behalf of ourselves and our fellow-citizens at large,
the homage of our profoundest loyalty, and of our deepest affection and
attachment to your majesty’s sacred person and crown.

We gratefully beg to express our deep sense of the high honour and
distinction conferred on us by your majesty graciously condescending to
select our city as the place where you, and your royal and much-loved
consort, pay your first visit to this portion of the kingdom; and we
hail with the sincerest feelings of joy and exultation your august
presence here, and ardently hope that your majesty will be graciously
pleased to cheer and gladden us by frequent visits, and thus diffuse
pleasure and happiness amongst us. We sincerely hope that your majesty’s
gracious visit will be like those of the angel of mercy, with healing
on its wings, and that it is the harbinger of bright and better days
for our country, which your majesty must be aware is passing through a
fearful ordeal.

We know that your majesty deeply sympathises in the sufferings and
privations which your people have undergone, and are still going
through; and we are convinced that nothing would afford a higher
gratification to your royal breast than to mitigate and relieve
those sufferings, and to raise the moral and social condition of
your majesty’s much and long enduring, but patient and faithful Irish
subjects.

We trust that your royal advent here will lay the foundation of a
better order of things than lias hitherto existed; be the means of fully
developing the great and varied natural resources of our beautiful and
fertile country; and that its prosperity, and the consequent comfort,
happiness, and contentment of its people, will be the glorious and
blessed results of your auspicious visit.

That your majesty may enjoy a long and prosperous reign over a united,
happy, and contented people, and that you, your royal consort and
family, may possess every happiness that this world can afford, is
the ardent and sincere prayer of your loyal and attached subjects, the
council and citizens of Cork.

Her majesty’s sail down the Lee was even more picturesque than her
voyage up; and her departure from Cove was such a scene as, no doubt,
the royal lady, as well as her subjects of the south, will long
and vividly remember. Her majesty’s yacht tarried the next night at
Waterford harbour, but she did not visit the city.

On Sunday, the 5th, her majesty was expected to arrive at Kingstown,
and the people of the metropolis, and the surrounding country for many a
mile, poured multitudinously along the beautiful shores of Kingstown and
Killany. When in the evening the squadron approached, the enthusiasm
of the people was boundless. At twenty minutes past seven, the squadron
dropped anchor in the deep clear waters of Kingstown harbour, and
every token of cordial greeting that a people could express, or a queen
receive, indicated the popular spirit. The sea was crowded with barques,
the shore with people. The former were gaily decked, the latter in
elegant attire; and over sea and shore rang the loud cheers of a vast
and excited multitude. Few sights were ever presented to her
majesty equal in scenic effect. She appeared on deck, and bowed in
acknowledgment of the cheers of her people. Prince Albert next presented
himself, and was received with an ardour as great as that which marked
the welcome of the queen. Her majesty and the prince having retired,
the people renewed their cheers, when the royal pair again came forward,
with their four children, and, amidst renewed demonstrations of welcome,
bowed to the people in the boats, and on the shore. The attempt at
illumination in Kingstown was a failure. It had been intended to light
bonfires on the Wicklow and Dublin mountains; this would have been a
picturesque and national welcome, but the scheme was not executed.

On Monday, the 6th, according to previous announcement, her majesty was
to land, and proceed by rail to Dublin, about six miles. The morning
broke over the beautiful bay and the bold hills of Wicklow in peculiar
loveliness. From Howth to Bray Head the mellow light of an autumn
morning shed its richness; the clear waters of the noble bay, the green
hills of Dublin, the majestic city, west and south the granite peak of
“the Sugar-loaf,” and the broad forehead of Bray Head, glistened in
the glorious day. The very earth and heavens welcomed the Island Queen.
Amidst all the loveliness on which she looked, the fairest spot was that
which was washed by the waters of Killany Bay, where the soft sweet
vale of Shanganah, with its silver strand, its green bosom, and noble
background, stretched away between Bray Head and Kingstown. They were
scenes amidst which one of queenly taste might love to linger, and were
well calculated to impress her majesty and family with the beauty of the
fair but sorrowful land upon which she was about once more to tread.

At ten minutes to ten on Monday morning, her majesty, consort, and
children, came upon deck, and were received with acclamations. The
moment she set foot on Irish ground, the harbour master hoisted the
royal standard, and the cannon sent their thunders echoing over the bay,
and among the hills.

The royal suite proceeded by rail to Dublin, the line profusely
decorated, and the banks thronged with people, waving hats and
handkerchiefs, and filling the air with their hurrahs. At the
Sandy-Mount station the royal carriages were in waiting, and a grand
procession of the authorities and gentry of the county. Seated in open
carriages, the royal personages then drove, attended by a splendid
military escort, to the vice-regal Lodge, Phoenix Park. The route was
indeed triumphal, everywhere along the magnificent course which the
cortege pursued, the national expression, “_caed mile failthe_” (a
hundred thousand welcomes), was heard. There were several halts in the
line of progress: the first to afford opportunity to the lord mayor
to present the keys of the city to her majesty; the second was of her
majesty’s spontaneous desire, in order to admire the beautiful church
of St. George; the third was at the triumphal arch at the foot of Eccles
Street, where a scene of much interest was presented. As the
royal carriage was about entering the triumphal arch, a beautiful
fawn-coloured dove, ornamented with a white ribbon, was lowered to
her majesty by Mr. Robert Williams. Her Majesty received this suitable
emblem of the effect which her royal visit was expected to produce with
smiles, and most graciously acknowledged the simple but significant
gift. The bird was held out by her majesty to the royal children, to
whom it at once became an object of attraction. The Prince of Wales soon
obtained possession of the bird, which seemed to absorb his
attention. In the evening Dublin was illuminated, and maintained its
well-established fame for pyrotechnic displays.

Her majesty during her stay held a brilliant court, which was attended
by the nobility and gentry of Ireland, numbering many among them of
those most famed for arts and arms, literature and politics. The royal
party visited most of the public institutions, in which they appeared
to take an interest, and many expressions were said to have dropped
incidentally from the queen indicative of her concern for the peace and
welfare of Ireland, as well as of her admiration of the country. On the
Tuesday evening the illuminations were spontaneously renewed, and with
more brilliancy than before, and on the Wednesday evening all the public
buildings were a third time illuminated. On the morning of that day a
levee was held at the Castle, the most brilliant ever known in Ireland.
The costume of the queen attracted the highest admiration. She wore
a robe of exquisitely shaded Irish poplin, of emerald green, richly
wrought with shamrocks in gold embroidery. Her hair was simply parted on
her forehead, with no ornament save a light tiara of gold studded with
diamonds and pearls. On the Friday the royal party visited the Duke of
Leinster, the premier peer of Ireland, and the same evening embarked at
Kingstown for Belfast. Her departure, like her arrival, was attended by
vast multitudes. Her majesty ascended the paddle-box of the steamer, and
waved her hand again and again in response to the adieus of the great
multitude. On Saturday morning the royal squadron arrived at Belfast,
where her majesty and suite landed, and received as hearty a welcome as
elsewhere. The same night she embarked, and steamed through a violent
gale for the Scottish coast, but was obliged to defer the attempt until
Sunday, in the evening of which the squadron arrived at Loch Ryan, in
Argyleshire.




THE ROYAL VISIT TO SCOTLAND.

After her majesty’s triumphal visit to Ireland, the loyal Scottish
people were most anxious to show her their warm affection and deep
respect. Arrangements were accordingly made for public entry into
Glasgow and Perth, by which route her majesty determined to proceed to
her autumn residence at Balmoral. Ardent as was the hospitality of the
Irish, it was rivalled by the patriotic fervour of the Scots, and the
cities of Glasgow and Perth made demonstrations of attachment of which
the royal lady might well be proud. On the 15th of August the court
reached Balmoral, and entered upon those happy and private recreations
which the royal family were wont to enjoy at their delightful Highland
home. On the 29th of September the court was once more at Osborne.




DEATH OF THE QUEEN DOWAGER.


On Sunday morning, the 2nd of December, the queen dowager died at
Stanmore Priory. The royal lady was the relict of King William IV., the
uncle of Queen Victoria. She was supposed to have been much attached,
through her husband’s reign, to the Conservative party, and to have
favoured those intrigues in that interest which kept alive so long
and so fiercely the spirit of faction during the discussions about
the reform bill, and for some time after that measure was carried. Her
majesty was buried on the 13th, at St. George’s Chapel, Windsor, where
her coffin was placed beside that of her husband.




DEATHS OF EMINENT PERSONS.


It is always a subject of deep interest to a nation when its most
eminent citizens are called away from the duties and honours of their
citizenship. How frequently has the decease of a great person turned the
scale of party, baffled armies or states, restored a country from peril,
or placed it in the imminency of danger? Such was not the case with
England in 1849, yet many very remarkable persons were that year
numbered with the dead; the most notable person whose removal took place
in this way, was the queen dowager.

On the 1st of January the Earl of Auckland died. This nobleman had
attracted for some years previously a large share of public attention.
He was not remarkable in youth for any special gift. In the House of
Commons, which he entered in early life, he made no figure. The public
were therefore amazed when, in November, 1830, he was appointed by Earl
Grey a member of the cabinet, with the important post of president of
the board of trade, and also the office of master of the Mint. In
1834, he was made first lord of the Admiralty. In 1835 he was appointed
governor-general of India. In 1841 he was displaced, a conservative
government coming into office. In 1846 he again appeared at the head of
the Admiralty board. His business habits and good sense qualified him
for office, and at the Admiralty he rendered some service, but had he
not been a peer and a friend of Lord Grey, he would never have occupied
so prominent a place in the government.—On the 7th Earl Talbot died.
His career was remarkable only for his having proved himself very unfit
to govern Ireland, having exemplified, when lord-lieutenant, how little
the conservative party at that time considered the importance of placing
a man in the important situation because of his aptitudes.—On the 20th
Mr. Cadell, the eminent Scotch publisher, and, in great degree, founder
of cheap literature in Great Britain. He was identified with Sir Walter
Scott in the cheap issue of his immortal volumes.

Feb. 1st. Lieut.-general Sir Thomas Arbuthnot, a very distinguished
officer. He was born in the county of Mayo, in Ireland, and died
at Salford, Manchester, while in military command of the northern
district.—19th. Bernard Barton, the quaker poet, the amiable and useful
author of so many pious and instructive compositions. He was born near
London, and died at Woodbridge, in the sixty-fifth year of his age.

May 9th. General Sir Robert Thomas Wilson, Bart. This officer had
distinguished himself through a long series of years in the most active
and daring military services, especially in Germany, Poland, and
Russia. He was particularly known as having, in conjunction with two
other British officers, effected the escape of Count Lavalette, after
the battle of Waterloo. He was a native of London, and died at an hotel
there in the seventy-third year of his age.—13th. General the Hon. Sir
Edward Paget, the last surviving brother of the Marquis of Anglesea. Sir
Edward’s services in the Peninsular war are matters of pride and honour
in British history.—19th. Sir Nesbit Josiah Willoughby, Rear-admiral
of the White. This gallant officer served both by land and sea, having,
when not engaged by the British Admiralty, joined the Russian army, in
which, as a colonel, he greatly distinguished himself. He was born
in Warwickshire, at the family seat, and died in London, in the
seventy-third year, of his age.—21st. At Edgeworthstown, county
of Longford, Ireland, in her eighty-fifth year, Miss Edgeworth,
so celebrated as a novelist, and deserving equal celebrity as a
metaphysician, for her novels abound with the most accurate and acute
speculations in mental philosophy, incidentally occurring in the course
of her narratives. She was small in stature, lively in disposition,
vivacious in thought, a good correspondent, and an affectionate
friend. The opinion has gained currency since her death, that the more
intellectual portions of her writings were the products of her father’s
genius, whose hand appeared in nearly all her novels.—22nd. At his
house in Pall Mall, aged seventy-five, William Vernon, Esq., an artist
and a tasteful collector of pictures. He had been a successful man of
business, and left a large fortune to the nation in works of art, the
productions of native artists, which reveal the talent prevailing among
native painters, whom it was the fashion to undervalue.

June 4th. The Countess of Blessington. This beautiful and accomplished
lady, so well known as the friend of Byron, was born at Curragheen,
county Waterford, Ireland, and she was distinguished through life for
literary eminence as well as personal beauty. She possessed a noble
generosity, especially to obscure men of talent. Her house at Kensington
Gore, near London, was for many years the resort of the most eminent
literary men. She died at Paris.

July 8th. Mr. Wilson, the celebrated Scotch vocalist, at the early age
of forty-nine. He was born in Edinburgh, and died at Quebec.—12th.
Horace Smith, the author, known in connection with “The Pic-nic
Papers,” “The Rejected Addresses,” &c. He was born in London, and died
at Tunbridge Wells, at the age of seventy.

Sept. 12. William Cooke Taylor, LL.D. This learned and gifted man was
born in Youghall, county of Cork, Ireland. He fell a victim to cholera,
in Dublin, in the fiftieth year of his age.

Nov. 3rd. Mr. Duncan, the African traveller, on board her majesty’s ship
_Kingfisher_. He was a native of Wigtonshire, in Scotland.

Dec. 1. Ebenezer Elliott, “the Corn-law Rhymer.” He was born and died
in Yorkshire. He was the author of several pleasing poems, of a somewhat
epigrammatic character.

The year 1849 was remarkable for the death of eminent general officers
and military men of inferior rank. Naval heroes, of a reputation
extensive as the world, were also called away. The numbers of persons
of great mark in the nation who died during the year were too great to
receive notice within the limits of this history. To point out a few in
whom the public of the present day take most interest is all which space
will allow in this volume.




CHAPTER LXII.

{VICTORIA. 1850}

     Foreign Relations..... Colonial Affairs..... Ireland.....
     Home   Incidents-Debates in Parliament..... Deaths of
     Remarkable Persons.

{A.D. 1850}

The year 1850 was not a striking period of English history. There was no
foreign war, no colonial revolt, no great question to be solved at home;
yet in every department of the national affairs there were occurrences
of importance, as might be expected in so vast an empire, with so many
and complicated interests.




FOREIGN RELATIONS.

_Spain_.—The interruptions of diplomatic relations with Spain, in
consequence of the offence taken by General Narvaez at the interference
of Sir Henry L. Bulwer, was brought to a termination by the appointment
of Lord Howden as envoy extraordinary, and ambassador plenipotentiary of
the Queen of Great Britain to the court of Madrid. This event seemed to
give great satisfaction to the Spanish court and people, and her Iberian
majesty, on the assembling of the cortes, made the matter a prominent
topic in her address; but little interest was taken in Great Britain in
connection with the event.

_Greece_.—The independence of the Greek kingdom was not followed by any
improvement in the condition or character of the people. The government
constituted by the three protecting powers (England, France, and Russia)
was corrupt and incompetent, and the king despotic and faithless. Russia
had an interest in keeping Greece disturbed, and especially in exciting
both king and people to ambitious projects against Turkey, and Louis
Philippe, King of the French, aided in promoting the corruption, and
founded a policy for France inimical to the permanent advantage of
Greece and the peace of Europe. The Greek government well knowing the
unfavourable feeling of both Russia and France to England, treated
British subjects with insult, and frequently allowed Greek subjects to
treat them with wanton and unprovoked injury. The remonstrances of the
English minister were unavailing, the wrongs of English citizens were
unredressed. At last, the British foreign minister determined to make
a categorical demand for justice, and in case of refusal to take
reprisals. The demands made by Lord Palmerston were for satisfaction of
the following claims:—

1. Mr. Finlay, an English subject, was deprived of land in 1838, which
was enclosed in the gardens of the royal palace at Athens, in 1840.

2. M. Pacifico, a native of Gibraltar, was insulted, his house broken
into at Athens in open day by a mob, aided by soldiers and gendarmes,
in 1847. The mob supposed that certain measures of the government were
incited by the British, and that M. Pacifico had personally some part in
the matter. The government made no effort to restrain the rioters, and
refused all reparation.

3. In October, 1846, six Ionian boats were plundered at the custom-house
of Salcina. The Greek government refused all satisfaction.

4. Two Ionians were illegally arrested at Pyrgos, in 1847, and cruelly
flogged.

5. The police at Paints arrested two Ionians, and subjected them to
various cruelties and indignities for putting up some English, Ionian,
and Greek flags on the awning of a coffee-shop.

6. The boat’s crew of a British man-of-war landed the son of the British
consul at Patras, in January, 1848, when Greek soldiers seized the
unarmed sailors, beat and imprisoned them. The Greek government refused
to apologise for the outrage.

After these claims were made, another was added—that the isles or rocks
of Corvi and Lapienza belonged to the Ionian Isles, and that, therefore,
the Greek government should forego all acts of sovereignty in respect to
them.

On the 28th of December, 1849, Mr. Wyse, the English minister at the
court of Athens, called the attention of M. Londos, the minister for
foreign affairs at the court of Athens, to the claims of England,
declaring, that the long forbearance of her majesty’s government must
not be construed into indifference. No notice was taken of the note;
the Greek king and his ministers had for so many years been permitted
to offer insults to the English government with impunity, they could not
conceive that it was now in earnest. The conduct of Lord Aberdeen in the
English foreign office had especially encouraged this state of feeling,
and Lord Palmerston had found no opportunity during the eventful
years 1847–8–9, to enter upon the matter with such purpose as the case
required, from the known sympathies of Russia and France. On January
10th, Mr. Wyse and Admiral Parker had an interview with M. Londos, who
listened to their representations, but reserved a formal reply. The next
day he read a note, refusing the concessions required. No allusion was
made in any of these transactions to the cession of the islets. Mr. Wyse
then made a formal written demand, and allowed twenty-four hours for
a reply. During that time the agents of both Russia and France were
consulted by the Greek minister, who was encouraged by them to resist
the English requisitions. This was notorious at Athens; yet, at the
expiration of the twenty-four hours, M. Londos offered to submit the
matter to the arbitration of France and Russia. Her majesty’s minister,
of course, refused to bring in the arbitration of the powers whose
jealousy and intrigue had led to the situation. He accordingly declared
the blockade of the Piræus by the English fleet, and himself embarked
on board Sir W. Parker’s flag-ship. The Greek government treated the
blockade with contempt, and sent out the _Otho_, and other government
vessels. These were seized and sent to Salamis by the admiral, or
detained near his own ships. On the 20th, M. Londos sent a protest to
Mr. Wyse against these proceedings, and an hint that the other nations
of Europe would interfere. Sir W. Parker next laid an embargo upon all
Greek ships, and made arrangements for the capture of all he might find
at sea.

On the 5th of February, M. Drouyn de Lhuys made an offer in London of
friendly offices on the part of France, which were accepted, and on
the 12th official notes were exchanged to that effect. Orders were,
consequently, sent to Mr. Wyse and Admiral Parker to suspend coercive
measures, pending the friendly intervention of France. The French
government sent out a negotiator, Baron Gros, who arrived at Athens on
the 5th of March. That gentleman, on examining the claims, fixed upon
those of M. Pacifico as exaggerated, and no agreement between him and
the British negotiator could be concluded; and on the 23rd of April, he
notified the failure of his mission to the Greek government.

While this was going on at Athens, the French ambassador in London and
the English foreign minister had agreed upon a plan of settlement, and
the French government sent immediately a frigate with despatches
for Baron Gros, instructing him to that effect. From some mistake or
oversight the English government sent no orders to Mr. Wyse, and the
result was that he refused to recognise the instructions sent out to the
baron by his government. Hostilities commenced next day, which compelled
the Greek government to submit to the demands of the English minister.

When tidings of these transactions reached France the French ambassador
quitted London, but the difference between France and England was
ultimately arranged by friendly explanations, and by the English
government substituting the terms of agreement which had been made by
the two governments at London, for the mere stipulations accepted by the
Greek government at Athens.

The czar was enraged at these proceedings, and his ministers addressed
a remonstrance to the British cabinet, couched in terms indignant and
affrontful. The diplomatic turmoil in connection with the affairs of
Greece caused considerable discussion in the country and the commons,
which will be noticed under the section appropriated to parliamentary
proceedings.

_Liberia_.—The British government, in its desire to put down negro
slavery, took a deep interest in the prosperity of the free black colony
of Liberia. The English public regarded it as a great experiment as
to the adaptation of the negro race for self-government and modern
civilization. The origin of the colony was not as philanthropic as was
supposed in England. It did not originate in the benevolence of American
citizens anxious to promote the advantages and progress of the negro,
but in the selfishness of those who favoured slavery, and were desirous
to exile the free blacks from the land of their birth, where their good
conduct was a reproach to oppressors, and their freedom a temptation to
the whole negro race to break their own bonds. In 1848–9 negotiations
for a treaty of commerce, based on reciprocal advantages, was opened
between the infant black state and her Britannic majesty. It consisted
of eleven articles, which stipulated perpetual peace and friendship,
freedom of commerce, mutual protection of the subjects of the respective
states, the establishment of consuls, the slave trade to be piracy,
English vessels of war in pursuit of slavers to be received with
hospitality, and at liberty to visit any suspected vessels sailing
under the Liberian flag. This treaty belongs strictly to the history of
the previous year, but became known to the British public generally at
the beginning of 1850.

_Costa Rica_.—The trade of England with the South American republics
having for many years assumed considerable importance, a formal
recognition of the principles by which it was desirable to conduct that
trade became necessary with this particular state. This treaty consisted
of sixteen articles, which engaged the powers mutually to preserve
perpetual amity; freedom of commerce; freedom of correspondence; “the
most favoured nation” clause; personal freedom and protection; exemption
from forced loans and military conscriptions; establishment of consuls;
in case of any interruption of friendly intercourse, citizens on the
coasts to be allowed six months, and in the interior twelve months, to
wind up their affairs, and safe conduct to be afforded to them; liberty
of Christian burial and protection of places of sepulture; total
prohibition of the slave trade. This treaty was signed at San Jose de
Costa Rica, November 27th, 1849, and ratified at London, February, 1850.
The treaty to exist for seven years, or longer, unless either party gave
notice to the contrary after that date.

_St. Domingo_.—This was a treaty of eleven articles, engaging the
respective powers named to mutual friendship; freedom of commerce;
personal protection and protection of property; “the most favoured
nation” clause; consular immunities and privileges; religious freedom
for the subjects of each state within the territory of the other;
perpetual prohibition of slavery; “right of search;” existence of treaty
to be ten years, and after that, until due notice on either party had
expired. Subsequently, an additional article was inserted, providing for
the possible suspension of the previous articles in case the Dominican
republic should continue at war with Hayti, or be again at war with that
nation.

The treaty was signed at St. Domingo on the 6th of March, and the
ratifications were exchanged at the same place on the 10th of September.

_Coast of Guinea_.—On the Gold Coast, or Coast of Guinea, the Danes
had long held certain positions or forts, named Christiansbergh,
Augustabergh, Kongensteen, and Prindsensteen; connected with these was
an undefined amount of territory. The Danish merchants, who at first
derived some profit from these establishments, soon found that they
could obtain from Great Britain more cheaply the various articles of
that commerce, than by direct communication with the country itself.
This arose from the numerous interests of Great Britain, and the broader
foundation of her commercial speculations. The Danish government felt
the African possessions cumbersome and expensive, and agreed to cede
them, with their guns, stores, property, territorial rights, &c, to her
Britannic majesty for the sum of £10,000. A treaty to this effect was
signed in London on the 17th of August, and ratified there September
11th.




COLONIAL AFFAIRS.

_Australia_.—Considerable excitement existed in the Australian colonies
for a more constitutional form of government, and at last the imperial
legislature took up the subject with earnestness. Constitutions were
granted to the Australian colonies in harmony with their British origin.
These concessions of the mother country were hailed with delight in
the colonies. The general prosperity of Australia secured peace. Crime,
however, prevailed to a great extent in New South Wales, Victoria, and
Van Dieman’a Land: in the first and last named, from the presence of
convicts, or those who had been such. Many of this class had made their
escape to the colony of Victoria, where they committed depredations and
violence, and brought some disrepute upon the settlement.

_Canada_.—The annexation movement continued to disturb the province and
disquiet the government. Persons holding civil situations, and officers
of militia who took any part in the agitation, were dismissed; and by a
vigilant repressive policy the government gradually brought the Canadas
into a more quiescent state. A reaction at last set in, and general
expressions of loyalty prevailed where opinions in favour of an
independent confederation of the British American provinces had been
boldly announced. The ministry by which the indemnity bill was carried
during the previous year were not able to retain power. The governor,
on opening the provincial parliament at Toronto, delivered a speech in
French and English, which was well received by both parties. Before the
year closed it was proved that a large majority of the people of the
Canadas were against separation from the mother country.

_The West Indies_.—The West India Islands were in a discontented
state throughout the year. Jamaica led the way in the expression of
dissatisfaction. The English free-trade measures were the chief source
of the disquietude, and tinged every disappointment or misfortune that
befel the colonists. The post-office arrangements; the local finance;
the provision required by the imperial government for the support of the
various colonial administrations; the relation of the planters to the
negro free labourers, were all topics of angry debate in the colonial
press and legislatures. A very general desire to unite with the North
American States was felt, or at all events, expressed; the desire being,
as in Canada, to escape free trade, and the additional motive that,
by such a change, negro slavery might possibly be restored. A fear and
hatred of freedom was the grand source of colonial sedition throughout
the continent and islands of British America.




INDIA.

The vast territory comprised in British India was seldom wholly at
peace, the agitations of contiguous countries extending to it, and
requiring the constant vigilance of the government, lest mischief
beginning beyond the borders should spread within them.

In the early part of the year there were signs of disaffection
throughout the north-west districts, and the native garrison of Delhi
manifested some insubordination on account of batta which they demanded
if ordered beyond the Sutlej, and which the government had determined
to refuse. Sir Charles Napier persevered in his attempts to reform the
army, and put down drunkenness and gaming among the officers, and some
severe examples were made even in the case of officers of professional
merit. In these efforts the commander-in-chief was not seconded by the
governor-general and the authorities at Calcutta.

In the Nizam’s territory disturbances occurred which compelled the
attention of the Indian government. At Sikhim, in the latter part of
the previous year, two British officers were seized by the independent
sovereign of that country, formerly a dependency of Nepaul. The offence
of these officers was entering the territory without permission; and the
severity, and even cruelty and indignity with which they were treated,
called for the interposition of the authorities at Calcutta; but it
was necessary to move troops against the tyrant before he gave the
satisfaction required.

The border tribes in the neighbourhood of Peshawur gave great uneasiness
notwithstanding that severe chastisement was inflicted upon them at the
close of the previous year by Colonel Lawrence. Sir Colin Campbell
was sent against them, at the head of a considerable force, but his
expedition was not attended with success. Dost Mohamed used every
exertion to prevent the peaceful occupation of the province by the
English, his hope being that they would abandon it as too troublesome
and expensive, and that he might take possession of it on their
retirement. Early in June one of the most terrible calamities which
had ever occurred in British India took place at Benares. A number of
magazine boats were in the river, which by some means ignited and
blew up, spreading destruction far and wide. One thousand persons were
killed, many of them blown to pieces, and great numbers besides were
injured. Rumours reached England of the dissatisfaction expressed by
Sir Charles Napier with many things connected with the native armies
in India. The extravagance and dissipation of the officers, and the
constitution generally of the army of the Bengal Presidency, were named
as the subjects of his displeasure.




IRELAND.

The condition of this unhappy country during the year 1850 was only a
little less miserable than it had been in what were emphatically called
the “famine years.” Great distress prevailed, aggravated by bad laws,
and the general social state and spirit of the people. The
moral condition of the country was still worse than its material
circumstances. Scarcely had the year opened, when a series of the most
atrocious murders that ever disgraced a country were perpetrated. A
gentleman, steward to a person of large landed property in the county
Tipperary, was shot near his own dwelling by cowardly assassins, who
fired upon him from behind a hedge. Two brothers, in the same county,
disputed about land; the younger clove the skull of the elder with
the spade which he held in working. A poor emaciated man, in the same
blood-stained county, while in a state of starvation pulled a turnip in
a turnipfield, and was caught by the owner in the act of satisfying his
hunger upon it; the inhuman wretch shot the miserable delinquent on the
spot.

These atrocities were but samples of the barbarous deeds which took
place over many districts in Ireland throughout the year. The criminals
were not always poor men; farmers, farmers’ sons, and even men of this
class possessing what might be called affluence, either committed, or
caused others to commit, the savage acts which disgraced their country
and shocked all civilized nations. Sometimes the murders were effected
by men who had no wrong to complain of, no injury to redress, but who
for a small sum of money, or being chosen by the ballot of the ribbon
lodges, assassinated men whom they had never seen before, having been
pointed out by their associates in the ribbon conspiracy. Sometimes the
assassinations were on account of religion; in a few cases, for personal
vengeance; but, generally, they were in connection with disputes about
land. The state of the law was such as to have enabled the government to
put down these societies, and to disarm the people, who were unworthy to
be trusted with the liberty of keeping dangerous weapons; but the Whigs
were unwilling to incur unpopularity, and only acted with spirit and
determination when the government itself was endangered, and anarchy
impended. The Conservatives charged the government with tolerating, to
a certain extent, for political purposes, evils which nothing could
justify a government for allowing to be perpetrated. This imputation was
deserved.

The political agitations were of the usual character, but gradually
diminished; the events of the two preceding years having nearly
extinguished the Young Ireland party, and so lowered the tone of its
rival, as to deprive it of much notice either in Ireland or England.

An agitation for what was called tenant right extended itself, but
especially in Dublin, the great centre of all Irish agitation, and in
the north. The character of this movement will more fully appear when
noticing the debates in parliament which afterwards took place on the
subject: it is here only necessary to say, that the ostensible and real
objects of the agitators were very different. They professed to seek
justice for the occupying tenant; they desired to inflict injustice upon
the owner of the soil. The Irish tenant suffered much from an unfair
state of the law in favour of the landlord, who often used to the
uttermost the inequitable advantage thus afforded him. In the province
of Ulster this was less the case; a more generous disposition prevailed
among the landlords, and a more confiding one among the tenantry; the
relations between the two classes were, as described by themselves,
“live, and let live.” The outgoing tenant claimed a right to a certain
sum for his improvements and interest, from the incoming tenant, which
was altogether irrespective of any bargain between the latter and the
owner of the soil. This prescriptive right was so generally recognised,
that all parties were satisfied. In the other provinces of Ireland it
was otherwise. The English and Scottish settlers in Ulster found this
usage, which was an old Celtic tradition, and adopted it; their power
enabled them to assert it; but the vanquished Celts themselves were not
permitted by those to whom the estates were confiscated, to retain
a custom so favourable to the occupier. The professed object of the
agitation was to secure compensation to the occupying tenant all
over the country for his improvements, and such certainty of tenure,
according to the nature of his lease or taking, as would secure him
from vexatious lawsuits and inequitable ejectments, against which,
notwithstanding that they were inequitable in the eyes of all men, there
was no redress. As the agitation was developed, it was plain that the
real object was political and religious on the part of the prime movers.
It became noticeable that while the clergy of the Established Church,
the Methodists, Congregationalists, &c, abstained from all participation
in the struggle, those of the Roman Catholic and Presbyterian communions
fiercely fanned it. The higher classes were generally episcopal
Protestants, the former in the north, to a large extent, were
Presbyterians, and in the other provinces Roman Catholics; it was
the interest of the clergy of both sects that their flocks and chief
supporters should be placed in as independent position as possible.
Ultimately, however, the two parties ceased to coalesce, their objects
became so dissimilar, that all co-operation was impossible. The
tenant-right league became a focus of Roman Catholic agitation, for
purely Roman Catholic objects. Mr. Lucas, an English proselyte to the
Church of Rome, who had formerly been a Quaker, became a very prominent
person, and he carried his fanaticism to great lengths. Charles Gavan
Duffy coalesced with him, and these men, abetted by others, so disgusted
their Presbyterian confederates, that the latter seceded altogether from
the confederacy. The doctrines taught by the party which remained became
increasingly bold, and it was soon apparent that the league was a
knot of conspirators, whose object was to transfer the property of the
Protestant landlords of Ireland to the hands of their Roman Catholic
tenants, the former having a sort of rent-charge upon their own land,
which would in time have been also taken from them. The state of the law
of landlord and tenant was so unjust, that a well-organized opposition
to it, conducted with truth, dignity, and honour, must have speedily
adjusted matters. The imperial legislature could not have resisted
demands so fair. But the movement, like almost all others in Ireland,
no matter for what object originally framed, became a mere sectarian and
party one, conducted without justice or decency, and with designs
that were disloyal to the government, and insidious to all classes of
Irishmen not identified with it. These remarks anticipate the progress
and character of this unprincipled agitation, as it soon became, but in
doing so, an explanation is afforded to the reader which enables him
to comprehend occurrences and debates which entered into the history of
subsequent years.

The remaining matters of interest connected with Ireland will be found
in the section given to the affairs of parliament.




HOME EVENTS.—PROPOSAL FOR AN EXHIBITION OF THE INDUSTRY OF ALL NATIONS.

Early in the year a project was mooted for bringing together in one vast
building specimens of the industry of all nations, The object in view
was to promote commerce and national amity. The persons who projected
this scheme had several consultations at the Institution of Civil
Engineers, in Westminster, and it was finally agreed, if possible, to
interest Prince Albert in the matter, give him all the credit of its
origin, and its chief direction. On communicating the matter to the
prince, he accepted the responsibility, and from that moment her majesty
became deeply concerned in its success. The interest taken by the queen
and her consort soon communicated itself to the rest of the royal family
and to the government, and every exertion was made to secure the aid of
foreign courts and governments, and the sympathy of foreign nations. A
committee was organized of the most likely persons to conduct such an
undertaking to a fortunate conclusion, and the powerful influence of the
court was exerted throughout the British Isles. It was resolved to erect
a building in Hyde Park for the display of the various productions that
might be forwarded, and although a fierce opposition was raised by the
aristocracy of Kensington and Knightsbridge, the court and government
supported the committee as to the site they had chosen. A design was
made by Mr. Paxton, gardener to the Duke of Devonshire, to erect a
structure of glass, which was accepted, and Messrs. Fox, Henderson, and
Co., of Birmingham, contracted for the erection. The contemplated size
of the “Palace of Industry” was such as to make the undertaking one of
much courage and enterprise on the part of those who made themselves
responsible for its construction: the particulars will be most properly
given under another chapter.

On the 2nd of March, the Lord Mayor of London gave a splendid
entertainment at the Mansion House to the chief magistrates of as
many towns and cities of Great Britain and Ireland as could accept the
invitation. There were present two hundred and two chief magistrates of
English and Welsh cities and boroughs, ten provosts of Scotch burghs,
and five mayors of Irish cities and boroughs. Prince Albert was present
on the occasion. The assembled magistrates received such information as
enabled them in their respective localities to promote the object. The
bringing together so unusual an assembly attracted the notice of the
empire and of the civilized world; the project was in that way greatly
accelerated.

A very large portion of the upper classes were, however, very much
opposed to the whole design. An alarm was spread that men would be
brought together from all nations, revolutionists and anarchists,
especially from France, Italy, and Germany, and that possibly, with the
assistance of these invaders landing upon our shores in the disguise of
promoters of peace and industry, a revolution of the disaffected among
ourselves would be attempted. Many were the dissuasions resorted to for
the purpose of checking the zeal of the committee, and causing the
court to swerve from its patronage of so bold a measure! The court,
the government, the committee, and the leading men in the mercantile
interests of the metropolis and the provinces, pursued the even tenor of
their way, amused at the folly of so many persons in a condition of life
to know better. These fears proved how large a portion of the classes
who occupy the higher positions in society are ignorant of their own
countrymen, and of the world. They could not comprehend the scheme,
sympathise with its objects, or appreciate its benefits. Many men of
strong conservative tendencies who wished to persevere in what they
called the good old ways for ever, declared that the shopkeepers of
London would be ruined, and that western London would be lost in a
deluge of immorality, the result of such an influx of wicked foreigners
from every clime. All these apprehensions were destined to be
dissipated; but it was in vain that men eminent for wisdom and
experience, pointed out their groundlessness; they were indulged until
facts confuted them.

Meanwhile, communications were transmitted from foreign courts and
governments that the most eminent persons in their respective countries
were nominated as commissioners to collect and arrange the products of
those countries in the form and way most calculated to ensure the end
in view. Intelligence of this sort was received from Russia, Sweden,
Norway, Denmark, Prussia, Saxony, Bavaria, the Hanse Towns, Nassau,
Hanover, Oldenburgh, Mechlenburgh, France, Holland, Belgium, Spain,
Turkey, Sardinia, Switzerland, the United States, Venezuela, and some
other foreign countries, as well as from the governors of all our
colonies, and from various Indian princes.

It would appear as if the exhibition which had been held in France for
various limited objects, and that intended to be held in Vienna, in
1851, had suggested to the English projectors the feasibility and
desirableness of uniting all nations in one grand attempt to exhibit
together their products, natural and industrial, in the great centre of
finance, commerce, and power—the metropolis of the world. The Emperor
of Austria, however, entered heartily into the views of Prince Albert,
and postponed the exhibition intended at Vienna to the year 1852.
Throughout the year the great preparations were pursued, and at the
appointed time in the ensuing year reached a happy consummation, to the
amazement of all, and gratification of most of those whose vaticinations
were so gloomy.




COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY.

The commercial condition of Great Britain throughout the year was
favourable. The railway speculations of previous years exercised a
prejudicial influence upon the money market, and “calls” were severely
felt; but the foreign commerce of the country increased rapidly, and the
revenue was in a state which tended to preserve public confidence, and
showed that the resources of the nation were unimpaired notwithstanding
so many recent calamities. Free trade began already largely to tell upon
the great interests which it affected, and justified its advocates and
promoters.

The farming interest was, however, distressed; free trade in corn had
deranged their habits, and rendered alterations necessary in their
customary procedure as to the landowners, their farms, and the markets
which they were reluctant to adopt. The landlords were unwilling to
concede lower rents, and kept up those which were brought about by war
prices during the great struggle with France. Hence a protectionist
agitation pervaded the country, unsettling the minds of the farmers,
inspiring false hopes, irritating the trading classes, producing counter
agitation, and by all these means inflicting injury upon the country.




THE CHOLERA.

The cholera, which broke out at the close of 1848, slumbered during
the winter and spring, 1849, and then ravaged the country, continued to
afflict, more or less, during this year also. The mitigation and removal
of the disease during the year enabled medical and scientific men to
give more calm and undisturbed investigation as to its phenomena. Some
of the laws which characterized its advance, prevalence, and removal,
were discovered and brought before the public; but the cause or source
of the pestilence still remained a mystery, and no specific treatment
was discovered. It was remarked that it appeared generally in the same
districts, towns, streets, houses, and some persons affirmed, even
apartments, which had entered in the year 1832.




PAPAL AGGRESSION.

The most striking home incident of the year, was the event which
went generally under the name of papal aggression. England, since the
Reformation, had been exceedingly jealous of any exercise of authority
by the Roman pontiff within her dominions, and in consequence of this
feeling it had been deemed politic at Rome to govern the Roman Catholics
of England by vicars apostolic. For some years, however, the church
and court of Rome had been encouraged by the Romanist tendencies of
the “High Anglican” and Puseyite parties in the English church. Many
clergymen and laymen went over to Rome, especially of the former, and
very many more were known to be inclined to follow. It was also alleged
that a large body of the clergy and gentry were favourable to a union of
the Church of England with the Church of Rome. In many of the churches,
the communion-table was turned into an altar; lighted candles were
employed in the daytime, crucifixes were placed above what was called
the altar, and the clergy practised genuflexions and intonations which
were supposed to be peculiar to Roman Catholicism. All these things
prepared the minds of the people, who were in the main attached
to Evangelism, and were steady in their Protestantism, to meet any
aggressive action on the part of Rome with anger, and even exasperation.
An occasion arose to put this to the test. The pope issued “a brief,”
 constituting an episcopal hierarchy in England instead of the vicars
apostolic. One archiepiscopal and twelve episcopal sees were created,
and the territorial limits of the province and the sees were marked out.
Dr. Wiseman, elevated to the rank of cardinal, was appointed Archbishop
of Westminster. The language of the brief was arrogant in the extreme,
and literally outraged the feelings and the honour of the English
people. It was followed by a document still more offensive, written
by Cardinal Wiseman, which he termed a pastoral, and dated “Out of the
Flaminian Gate at Rome.” This was addressed to the faithful about to
become, and whom he treated as though they had already become, his
subjects. The arrogance of this document was such as to move the
Protestant feeling of the country, and to awaken a spirit of hostility
to the Church of Rome which seemed unlikely ever to be quenched. The
irritation created among the Protestant population was greatly increased
by the tone in which the cardinal and his newly-created bishops
addressed their followers upon their appointment to their new offices.
The cardinal adopted the style of a prince, commencing with the
royal “We,” his authority to “rule over” the province to which he was
nominated. His vindication of the course pursued by the pontiff was a
bitter sneer at English and Protestant institutions, mingled with an
insulting defiance of the established authorities of the British nation.
He reminded his hearers and the whole British nation (whom he knew
would at such a crisis peruse his address) that he had no authority in
Westminster, or in Westminster Abbey, by law, and that he would still
pay the entrance fee to go into Westminster Abbey like other liege
subjects, resign himself meekly to the guidance of the beadle, and
“listen without rebuke when he pointed out to his admiration detestable
monuments, or show a hole in the wall for a confessional.” “He would
still visit the shrine of St. Edward, and meditate on the olden times
when the church would fill without a coronation, and multitudes hourly
worshipped without a service.”

The popish Bishop of Birmingham, Dr. Ullathorn, went beyond his master
in boasting, and uttered the following blasphemous address:—“The people
of England, who for many years had been separated from the see of Rome,
were about, of their own free will, to be added to the Holy Church. He
did not recollect any people on earth, but those of Great Britain, who,
having rejected the religion of God, were again restored to the bosom of
the Church. The hierarchy was restored, the grave was opened, and Christ
was coming out.”

Great as was the excitement produced throughout the country by the event
itself, and by the preposterous pretensions of the new Roman bishops,
the public feeling was much intensified by a letter of Lord John
Russell’s to the Bishop of Durham. The prelate was supposed to be an
ardent and consistent Protestant, and the circumstance of a man of such
a character being selected by the premier as the medium through which to
give his opinions to the public, parliament not being then sitting, led
the country to believe that his lordship really sought its support
for some great and practical purpose; that the letter was intended to
indicate an anti-papal policy for the future, for which the support of
the nation was sought. It was as follows:—

_TO THE RIGHT REV. THE BISHOP OF DURHAM_.

My dear Lord,—I agree with you in considering “the late aggression
of the pope upon our Protestantism” as “insolent and insidious,” and I
therefore feel as indignant as you can do upon the subject.

I not only promoted to the utmost of my power the claims of the
Roman Catholics to all civil rights, but I thought it right, and even
desirable, that the ecclesiastical system of the Roman Catholics should
be the means of giving instruction to the numerous Irish immigrants in
London and elsewhere, who, without such help, would have been left in
heathen ignorance.

This might have been done, however, without any such innovation as that
which we have now seen.

It is impossible to confound the recent measures of the pope with the
division of Scotland into dioceses by the Episcopal Church, or the
arrangement of districts in England by the Wesleyan Conference.

There is an assumption of power in all the documents which have come
from Rome—a pretension to supremacy over the realm of England, and a
claim to sole and undivided sway, which is inconsistent with the queen’s
supremacy, with the rights of our bishops and clergy, and with the
spiritual independence of the nation, as asserted even in Roman Catholic
times.

I confess, however, that my alarm is not equal to my indignation.

Even if it shall appear that the ministers and servants of the pope in
this country have not transgressed the law, I feel persuaded that we are
strong enough to repel any outward attacks. The liberty of Protestantism
has been enjoyed too long in England to allow of any successful attempt
to impose a foreign yoke upon our minds and consciences. No foreign
prince or potentate will be permitted to fasten his fetters upon a
nation which has so long and so nobly vindicated its right to freedom of
opinion—civil, political, and religious.

Upon this subject, then, I will only say, that the present state of
the law shall be carefully examined, and the propriety of adopting
any proceedings with reference to the recent assumption of power
deliberately considered.

There is a danger, however, which alarms me much more than any
aggression of a foreign sovereign.

Clergymen of our own church, who have subscribed the Thirty-nine
Articles, and acknowledged in explicit terms the queen’s supremacy, have
been the most forward in leading their flocks, “step by step, to the
very verge of the precipice.” The honour paid to saints, the claim of
infallibility for the church, the superstitious use of the sign of the
cross, the muttering of the liturgy so as to disguise the language in
which it is written, the recommendation of auricular confession, and the
administration of penance and absolution, all these things are pointed
out by clergymen of the Church of England as worthy of adoption, and
are now openly reprehended by the Bishop of London in his charge to the
clergy of his diocese.

What, then, is the danger to be apprehended from a foreign prince of no
great power, compared to the danger within the gates from the unworthy
sons of the Church of England herself?

I have little hope that the propounders and framers of these innovations
will desist from their insidious course; but I rely with confidence on
the people of England; and I will not bate a jot of heart or hope
so long as the glorious principles and the immortal martyrs of the
Reformation shall be held in reverence by the great mass of a nation
which looks with contempt on the mummeries of superstition, and with
scorn at the laborious endeavours which are now making to confine the
intellect and enslave the soul.

I remain, with great respect, &c.,

J. Russell.

Downing-street, Nov. 4.


Whether the noble writer of this letter was sincere in the feelings
he expressed was doubted by few at the time, although his subsequent
turning and time-serving justified the public in believing that the
letter was used merely for the party purpose of forestalling the
opposition by an appeal to the Protestant feeling which then seemed
irresistible. The immediate effect of the letter upon the country was
to stimulate afresh the indignation which had been so keenly felt and
warmly expressed. Public addresses were presented to the Queen, the
Archbishop of Canterbury, and other notable persons, by the clergy of
the various dioceses, the universities, the corporations of cities,
and voluntary assemblies, pledging those who presented them to the
most loyal support of her majesty and the legislature in resisting the
pretensions of popery. On the 5th of November, the anniversary of the
gunpowder plot, there was a burst of anti-popish feeling all over the
kingdom, such as had not been witnessed since the glorious revolution
of 1688. The pope, Cardinal Wiseman, the new bishops, members of the
conclave at Rome, and various other persons, offensive by their popery,
were burnt in effigy, and “Guys” were carried about through London
and the provincial cities in mockery of their assumed dignity and
pretensions.

These events produced very opposite effects upon the Roman Catholics
themselves. Cardinal Wiseman manifested some alarm, and endeavoured
to appease the popular wrath by directing his emissaries to speak
slightingly of the importance of the matter, and to represent it as
an ecclesiastical arrangement only of any interest to Roman Catholics
themselves. Lord Beaumont, and other members of the Latin church, who
were men of culture and enlightenment, deprecated the whole proceeding
of the court of Rome, and the haughty spirit in which its English agents
proclaimed them. In Ireland the Roman Catholic party were stirred up
to perfect fury, and “Conciliation Hall” echoed with blustering attacks
upon the government, and upon Protestantism. The following extract of
a speech of John O’Connell’s depicts the spirit of the Irish sympathies
with Cardinal Wiseman and his English coadjutors:—“If a cry be
raised against the Catholic Church, cannot a cry be raised against
the Protestant Church? In Ireland, at least, we shall do so. Does the
Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster send tax-gatherers and bring the
force of law to bear upon Protestants to compel them to contribute to
the support of his dignity? No; he will be supported by the voluntary
contributions of the Catholics; he will receive no money under false
pretences; he will take no money for services he does not render. But
the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin, and the Protestant archbishop
and bishops of other sees are not so; they receive money under false
pretenses—they exact money for services they do not perform. The
Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, or the other Catholic bishops in
England or Ireland, do not enforce the payment of tithes at the point of
the bayonet; the life of no widow’s son is taken on their account. The
soil of Ireland has been saturated with blood in the forced collection
of this odious impost, and the Catholic people are still compelled to
pay it indirectly, for they cannot get their receipts for their rent
until they pay the tithes to the landlord, who has to pay it to the
parson in the first instance. We must put an end to this. I hope the
country will rally, and meet the cry against popery by a cry against the
Protestant Church establishment.”

The cardinal and his colleagues persisted in their assumption
of territorial ecclesiastical authority, and the ceremony of his
enthronisation was attended with extraordinary pomp and parade, while
the doctrines propounded on the occasion showed Rome to be, as to her
ambition and purpose, _semper eadem_.

Finally, a bill rendering illegal and punishable the assumption of
ecclesiastical titles was brought into parliament under the auspices
of the premier: the right of prosecution was, however, reserved to the
government, and as it was well known that the Whigs would never
exercise that right from fear of losing the parliamentary support of
the Romanists, their bill was seen by the public to be a sham. This
circumstance, taken in connection with the premier’s vehement letter
to the Bishop of Durham, threw an imputation of inconsistency and
insincerity upon the political character of Lord John Russell, which
impaired his subsequent usefulness and credit.




COMPLIMENT TO LORD PALMERSTON.

The keystone of the whig political arch was Lord Palmerston. He was by
far the ablest man attached to the party. It was well understood that
the connection of the noble viscount with the whig government was not
from any partizan predilections, but from approval of their foreign
policy, and from a patriotic desire to maintain the honour and credit of
the country in its relation to other states, by devoting his diplomatic
talent and experience to the conduct of the foreign office. The
conservative party, knowing the powerful support which the presence of
the noble lord in the whig cabinet gave to it, was unscrupulous in its
desire to weaken his prestige, and “the peace party,” considering
that his lordship would be prompt in claiming redress for any injuries
offered to British subjects, affected to believe that his policy was
rash, and to desire on public grounds his removal from office. The
policy of Sir Robert Peel, and his foreign minister, Lord Aberdeen, was
essentially one of compromise: it preserved peace by a concession of
everything that the national temper would allow to be conceded. This
answered the views of the peace party, and of those whose commercial
interests were subserved by peace at any price, and who therefore
identified themselves with “the peace party on principle,” although not
holding at heart its theory. The House of Commons supported the policy
of Viscount Palmerston, and early in June originated a subscription
among its members for the purpose of presenting to Lady Palmerston a
picture of her gifted husband. On the 22nd of that month a deputation,
consisting of about ninety members, waited upon her ladyship, and
presented the portrait, with a suitable address. The picture was a full
length, and represented Lord Palmerston in cabinet council, a portrait
of Canning, his political preceptor and exemplar, being suspended in the
council-room. It was a curious and happy coincidence, that on the day
on which this tribute of respect to her husband was presented to Lady
Palmerston, a telegraphic despatch from Paris announced the settlement
of the Greek question.




ARRIVAL OF THE KOH-I-NOOR.

Considerable excitement was created by the arrival of this magnificent
diamond. “The mountain of light,” as its eastern designation means, was
valued at two millions sterling, and was the most costly precious stone
in the world. A certain Brazilian gem in the crown of Portugal was alone
admitted to be a rival. Its discovery was made in the mines of Golconda,
and passed into possession of the Mogul emperors from the king of that
country. From Delhi it was borne away by the conquering Persian, and
when his rebellious subjects assassinated him (Nadir Shah), Ahmed Shah
carried away to Affganhistan this treasure. Runjeet Singh obtained it
thence by inhospitable and unjust stratagem. At the conquest of Lahore
the gem became the property of the British crown. The great diamond at
the top of the Russian sceptre weighed a greater number of carats,
but was not so beautiful. The arrival of the “glittering carbon” was
opportune for the great Exhibition of 1851. Many events of political
importance caused less conversation and curiosity than the arrival of
this “mountain of light.”




ATTACK UPON GENERAL HAYNAU.

During the struggles between the Kasir and his insurgent provinces, one
of his most efficient and successful generals was Haynau. He was also,
unfortunately, one of the most cruel and sanguinary, women having been
frequently subjected by his orders to the most indecent and merciless
application of the lash.

This officer visited England during the autumn, and his presence excited
much indignant comment, and various demonstrations of personal
dislike. It occurred that, on the 5th of September, he, with two other
foreigners, presented themselves at Barclay’s brewery for permission to
inspect that very great establishment, so much an object of curiosity
among foreign visitors. According to the rules of the establishment,
visitors sign their names in a book, and this circumstance caused the
general to be identified by the numerous work-people, who were excited
with an intense disgust of his presence. The draymen and brewers
abandoned their occupations, and cried out. “Down with the Austrian
butcher,” “Down with the woman-flogger,” and many other expressions too
truly descriptive of the general’s character. He was assailed with every
form of indignity, even with blows, and sought for safety in flight,
pursued by a large and furious mob, every moment increasing. The general
ran along Bankside, and found refuge in the “George” public-house,
whither the mob pursued him, forcing open every door but that in which
the general found concealment. The police opportunely arrived, and with
difficulty dispersed the mob; the general was then brought out upon the
wharf, and brought up the river to Somerset House in the police galley,
crowds following along shore, uttering menaces and execrations. None of
the perpetrators of the attack were identified or punished; and it
is beyond question that the authorities did not pursue the matter as
international relations with Austria gave that power a right to
expect. A diplomatic quarrel between the two governments ensued, which
threatened the interruption of all friendly communication. The
Austrian foreign minister dispatched an indignant protest against the
inhospitality shown to a dignified subject of the Kasir, and the apathy
of the British government in reference to the offence of the offenders.
It was the cause of much bad feeling to England in the higher circles
of Vienna; yet it impressed the government of his imperial majesty, and
other foreign governments, with the fact, that the people of England
sympathised with liberal policy, and hated cruelty and oppression; that
no European state could be guilty of the atrocities which Austria had
committed, and hold the respect or esteem of the English people.




PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY.—OPENING OF THE SESSION.

Parliament was opened by commission on the last day of January. The lord
chancellor read the royal speech from the throne. The speech referred
to the leading events, the history of which have been already related
in this chapter. It also gratified the house by the intelligence that
Sweden and the United States of America had taken steps to reciprocate
the advantages conceded to the ships of these nations. Her majesty
referred to her visit to Ireland with great satisfaction, and the
countenances of the audience expressed sympathy with these statements.
The address to her majesty in the Lords, was moved and seconded by the
Earl of Essex and Earl Methuen. The former complimented the press
in eloquent and judicious terms for the great services which it had
rendered to the cause of law and order during the tumultuous seasons
that had so recently passed. An amendment was proposed declaring that
recent legislative enactments, and heavy local taxation, oppressed the
agricultural interest and caused distress. The mover of this amendment
was the Earl of Stradbroke, and it found a seconder in the Earl of
Desart.

It was obvious thus early in the session that the Protectionists
were prepared to urge their principles, and if possible compel the
legislature to retrace its steps on the subject of free trade. “Out
of doors” this produced anger and discontent among the numerous
and powerful classes who had carried the free-trade agitation to a
successful issue. It had the effect of lowering the reputation of the
conservative party for wisdom, discretion, and disinterestedness. The
leaders of the party were boldly reproached by the press as anxious to
sustain their luxurious living by taxing the necessaries of the people,
and the House of Lords was denounced by the popular press, and at
popular meetings, as “a normal school of agitation,”—the title given by
Lord Lyndhurst as speculatively applicable to popular corporations. Lord
Stanley lent his great name and his able advocacy to the support of the
amendment; it was opposed by the free-trade lords and the ministry, and
defeated. In the commons, a similar amendment to the address was moved
by Sir J. Trollope, and seconded by Colonel Chatterton. After a debate
of two nights, the amendment was rejected by an overwhelming majority.




AFFAIRS OF GREECE.

The political campaign of the session might be said to have opened
on the 4th of February, when Lord Stanley demanded explanations
from ministers in reference to the affairs of Greece. The Marquis of
Lansdowne gave a clear, temperate, and just exposition of the facts, and
of the policy of the government. Lord Aberdeen animadverted upon that
policy in a manner that was deficient in all those qualities which
characterized the speech of the ministerial leader. It was neither
clear, temperate, nor just.

In the commons, Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Milner Gibson, both addressed
demands for explanation, Mr. Disraeli in the interest of the tory
opposition, and Mr. Gibson in the interest of the “Peace at all price”
 party, as a certain knot of gentlemen in the house was designated. The
answers of Lord Palmerston were lucid and statesman-like; his opponents
were no more than children in his hands. He had neither the eloquence of
Disraeli, nor the assurance, which ignorance alone can supply, possessed
by Mr. Milner Gibson, who, whatever his merits, was innocent of all
knowledge, for good or evil, on subjects of foreign policy; but his
lordship showed his perfect cognizance of all the bearings of the
dispute, of international law, and of the policy which his country
could alone pursue, with honour to herself, and justice to her injured
subjects.

So long as the Greek question remained open both these sections of
opponents tormented the ministry, and when, on the 15th of May, the
French ambassador suddenly left London, a perfect storm of hostility
fell upon the cabinet. Lord Palmerston defended the policy of the
foreign office throughout with candour, courtesy, and yet with a
satirical wit, which keenly annoyed the opposition, while no excuse
was left them to impeach the veteran minister’s politeness, or
constitutional respect for the house. The ministry were not apprised
that the French ambassador had been withdrawn from any dissatisfaction
with England, but the explanations given in the French Assembly soon
left no doubt of that. Lord Stanley brought on a debate on the 18th of
June. He arraigned the policy of government with an eloquence which was
most formidable. He was supported by Lord Aberdeen in a disingenuous and
un-English speech. The government was never more feebly defended, and
the result was a signal defeat, Lord Stanley’s motion of censure being
carried by a large majority.

In the commons, Mr. Roebuck brought forward a resolution of confidence
in the cabinet on the 24th of June. The speech of the honourable member
was constitutional and effective. Lord Palmerston delivered a most
powerful _exposé_ of his foreign policy. Sir Robert Peel took much
the same views in the commons as Lord Aberdeen did in the lords, and,
considering that both these statesmen had by their impolicy allowed
the grievances to accumulate which it devolved upon Lord Palmerston
to redress, their conduct was equally inequitable and ungenerous in
withholding from him their support, not to say opposing him. The speech
of Sir Robert Peel was the last he ever delivered, and was remarkable
for that circumstance as well as for the ability it displayed; but the
principles of foreign policy put forth by the illustrious baronet were
such as tended to make the country weak in its foreign relations, and
were more calculated to subserve the immediate interests of Lancashire
than the permanent interests of that powerful district, or the honour
and weal of the empire at large. Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Cobden were also
among the prominent opponents of Lord Palmerston’s policy. The minority
was large, the government policy having been supported only by a
majority of forty-six.




CONSTITUTIONS FOR THE COLONIES.

On the 8th of February, Lord John Russell made a statement in regard
to colonial government. His lordship denounced the imprudence of
the Colonial Reform Association, which, by its correspondence with
disaffected persons, kept alive discontent wherever it existed, and
indirectly promoted it everywhere else. The pith of the noble lord’s
statement was, that the colonies were a source of strength in peace and
war, contrary to the doctrine propounded by Messrs. Cobden and Bright:
that it was the duty of England to preserve her colonial influence, and
to extend civilization and freedom wherever her flag was planted; and
that in most cases the colonies were in a position, as to population
and intelligence, to justify the institution of a constitutional form
of government in harmony with that of the parent state. The noble lord’s
speech was received with loud cheering, especially on the conservative
side of the house, when he announced the opinion of the government that
the colonies were sources of commercial and political strength, and
ought to be retained. The speech was followed by the proposal of
resolutions in harmony with its statements. A very wide diversity of
opinion was expressed by the house, Mr. Gladstone animadverting with bad
temper upon such portions as did not meet his approbation.




AUSTRALIAN COLONIES’ BILL.

On the 18th of February, in pursuance of these resolutions, Lord John
Russell moved “the Australian Colonies’ Bill.” Mr. Roebuck criticised
the measure in a tone of severity, in which he was followed by other
members, but the second reading was easily carried. On its committal,
considerable opposition was offered, in the form of amendments, to which
the government could not accede. Mr. Roebuck and Sir William Molesworth
led this species of opposition, and neither in a fair or national
spirit. The bill was carried, with some slight modifications; but, upon
bringing up the report, Sir William Molesworth moved the re-committal of
the bill, and was seconded by Mr. Gladstone. The object of Sir William
was to initiate a broad and liberal line of policy in colonial affairs
on principles which, it appeared to the government, would be adverse to
the interests and subversive of the authority of the parent country. Mr.
Gladstone was actuated by sheer party opposition. Only forty-two votes
were found in favour of the re-committal.

Mr. Gladstone then moved an additional clause, giving the Church of
England in the colonies the power of synodical action. The speech of the
honourable member was so thoroughly sectarian as to forbid any chance
of success, as it awakened prejudices in many directions which a more
prudent politician would have endeavoured to allay. The portion of the
house usually known as “Young England,” sustained Mr. Gladstone, but the
government opposed him, and the house at large went with it.

On the third reading, Mr. Gladstone made another attempt to oppose
its progress by moving that it be suspended until the opinion of the
colonies could be taken as to its provisions. This motion was plausible,
and this time the obstructor spoke plausibly, concealing the temper
which really pervaded his opposition. Mr. Roebuck seconded it, although
his motives and policy were utterly opposite to those of the mover.
The majority was large which rejected the postponement. Other modes of
obstruction less prominent were unattended by success.

In the lords the second reading was carried _nemine contradicente_.
Afterwards, Lord Brougham, who co-operated with Mr. Roebuck in the
commons, moved that counsel should be heard at the bar against the bill;
this motion was defeated. The Bishop of Oxford, who co-operated with Mr.
Gladstone in the commons, moved that the bill be referred to a select
committee; the motion was refused. The lords accepted the bill with
great reluctance, but continued to deal with it in good faith; they
amended it in various particulars, to which the commons afterwards
consented, and the bill became law.




LOCAL BURDENS ON LAND.

On the 19th of February, Mr. Disraeli moved for a committee of the whole
house to consider the burden of the poor law and other local burdens
borne by the land, and with a view to such revision as would relieve
that interest. The debate was a renewal, under another form, of the
protectionist controversy. Mr. Bright, Mr. James Wilson, and Sir Robert
Peel, made very effective speeches against the motion. On a division,
Mr. Disraeli secured a powerful minority, his motion having been
defeated by a majority of only twenty-one votes.




PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

On the 28th of February, Mr. Hume brought on a motion for the extension
of the franchise. Like most of that honourable gentleman’s measures,
this was as ill-timed as it was well-intended. Sir Joshua Walmsley
seconded it. Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Fergus O’Connor, and some other members
advocated it, who did not bring any parliamentary or moral influence to
its support. Only ninety-six votes were given in its behalf.




IRISH DISTRESS.

The parliamentary measures concerning Ireland have been noticed under
the section of the chapter devoted to its history, and therefore only
require a passing reference. Early in the session Lord John Russell made
a statement to the house concerning Irish distress, and proposed various
resolutions pertinent to the repayment of loans, and the modes of
dealing with insolvent “unions.” These resolutions were agreed to, and a
bill founded on them was passed.




IRISH FRANCHISE BILL.

At the passing of the Reform Bill Ireland was not placed on an
equality with England, and this fact operated strongly in promoting the
disloyalty which had prevailed there. But for the Irish liberal members
the reform bill for Great Britain could not have been carried, and the
Irish people expected from the liberal representatives of Great Britain
similar support, which was not accorded. This filled the minds of the
Irish with strong resentment, and caused them to agitate for a reform
bill on terms substantially as popular as that accorded to Great
Britain. Moved by considerations of this sort, Lord John Russell
resolved to enlarge the Irish franchise, and a bill was brought in for
that purpose. It was warmly supported by Mr. Hume, Mr. Bright, and other
English members of the liberal party, who desired even a more democratic
measure for Ireland.

The main feature of the bill was the extension of the franchise to all
occupiers of land to the amount of £8 per annum, adopting the rating as
the ultimate standard of value. The bill was read a second time, after a
fierce conservative opposition, which continued until it finally passed
the commons. In the lords it was vehemently opposed by Lord Brougham
upon principles not reconcilable with his well-known political creed.
Lord Desart proposed to raise the qualification to £15, and carried
his proposition. Lord Stanley made a proposal intended to obstruct the
registration, and carried it against the government. In this state the
bill passed.

In the commons the amendments of the lords were discussed with bitter
acrimony, and a strong sense of injury, deepened into resentment, was
circulated in Ireland, when the tidings of the lords’ amendments reached
that country. This reacted upon the commons, and the government was
considerably embarrassed by the suspicions and anger of its own general
supporters among the Irish members. Lord John proposed that the commons
should confer with the lords upon the feasibility of establishing a £12
franchise instead of the £8 or the £15. Some other amendments of the
lords were rejected. A conference ensued, and the lords conceded to the
commons on the basis of their new proposals.




BILL FOR THE ABOLITION OF THE LORD-LIEUTENANCY OF IRELAND.

On the 18th of May, the premier moved for leave to bring in a bill for
this purpose. This was one of the many ill-digested and inconsiderate
measures by which Lord John Russell’s government was characterised.
The Irish people almost unanimously opposed it, and so did their
representatives. Mr. Shiel, however, who had become a mere ministerial
hack, took part with the government against the known feeling of his
countrymen. He was chastised by Mr. Disraeli in one of that gentleman’s
most eloquent and happy orations.

The second reading was carried by a large majority, but it was so
obvious that if the bill were proceeded with, it would be by virtue of
an English majority on an Irish question, against the feeling of the
Irish members and their constituents, that the government abandoned it.
Much evil was inflicted by its introduction in the temper it evoked in
Ireland; and much evil was also accomplished by abandoning it, for it
exposed the vacillation of the premier and the government, so as to
lessen their moral influence in both Great Britain and Ireland.




MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS OF DEBATE.

There were few other measures of importance as to general government or
law introduced by the cabinet, but the subjects introduced by private
members were very various, such as—the conduct of government on the
question of the extradition of Hungarian refugees from Turkey, brought
on by Lord Dudley Stuart; the abandonment of the naval efforts on the
coasts of Africa to suppress the slave-trade, introduced by Mr. Hutt,
and efficiently opposed by Mr. Buxton; different party questions,
connected with outrage in Ireland, on the social condition of that
country; bill for a new tribunal instead of the judicial committee of
privy council; reform of the universities; alteration of the law of
marriage as to degrees of affinity; Sunday labour in the Post-office;
amendment of the factory act; debate on the continuation of the annuity
of £12,000 per year to the Duke of Cambridge, on occasion of the death
of his father, &c. The city of London having elected Baron Rothschild,
a Jew, as their representative, and he having refused to take the oaths,
“on the faith of a Christian,” a debate ensued of much importance in the
commons. Mr. Hume moved that the oath should be administered to Baron
Rothschild on the Old Testament. This was obstinately resisted by the
tory members, but ultimately carried. The next day, Baron Rothschild
was sworn on the Old Testament, but refusing to adopt the words, “on the
true faith of a Christian,” he was ordered to withdraw. Sir F. Thesiger
moved that a new writ should be issued for the city of London. The
attorney-general proposed two resolutions:—1st, that the oath taken by
Baron Rothschild was not according to law, and did not entitle him to
take his seat; 2nd, pledging the house to a bill in the next session,
altering the form of the oath. A debate ensued, which was confused and
desultory, and much opposition from both sides of the house was offered
to the resolutions, which were, however, eventually carried. The issue
was not satisfactory to the city of London, the members of the Jewish
persuasion, or the country.




FINANCE.

The financial campaign may be represented as having opened on the 8th of
March, when Mr. Cobden made a series of resolutions, pledging the house
to retrenchment. The basis of the honourable member’s speech and
motion was, that warlike armaments were not necessary, there being no
likelihood of any nation going to war with us; and the costly character
of such armaments affecting the progress of commerce and civilization,
and depriving the people of comfort by an oppressive taxation. The
honourable member was of opinion that the differences between states did
not require a resort to arms, and that if our government only adopted
proper means to effect it, they would find it possible to adjust all
disputes with foreign countries by arbitration. The resolutions were
rejected by an overwhelming majority.

On the 13th, Mr. Drummond submitted to the house a resolution,
recommending economy in the public outlay. This was entertained as a
party resolution by the protectionists, who thus suddenly became
the professed advocates of economy for the purpose of allowing the
agricultural burdens to be relaxed. Being a party motion, it was well
supported, and the motion was rejected by a majority of less than fifty
members.

Various motions were made by individual members to give a new form to
the pressure of taxation, and to adjust in a different way the public
burdens. The chancellor of the exchequer, in his financial statement,
which is given at the close of this section, anticipated some of these
motions, and secured their defeat by his success in inducing the house
to acquiesce in his own budget. Others came on before the budget was
introduced, but all shared a like fate, as the financial policy of
the government received the decided support of the house. Some of the
financial motions of the session made by independent members attracted
much attention, and produced some impression in the house, being
supported by considerable minorities. Thus Lord Duncan moved for the
repeal of the window duty. There followed a debate of the most animated
character in a thin house, various leading men opposing the government.
On a division, the motion was rejected by only a majority of three,
there having been eighty to seventy-seven. This was the narrowest escape
in the commons which the government experienced in the session.

Mr. Cayley was recognised as the champion of the favourite financial
measure with the protectionists, the repeal of the malt duty. He
accordingly introduced that subject by motion, which was seconded by
Mr. Christopher, another champion “of the agricultural interest.” It was
warmly supported by several of the leading Conservatives; but Lord
John Russell, Mr. James Wilson, and the chancellor of the exchequer,
delivered powerful speeches against it. Mr. Milner Gibson, always
intelligent on economical questions, made a very able speech against the
repeal of the tax. The motion was lost, a large majority being against
it.

On the 15th of March, the chancellor of the exchequer made his financial
statement, which was eagerly looked forward to by both sides of the
house, and by the country, as it was supposed that a vigorous effort
to defeat the ministry on that point would be made. The minister was
determined, if possible, to meet the ideas of all parties, and he hit
upon the expedient of relieving the agricultural interest by reducing
the duty on bricks. Neither the ministers nor their supporters were very
sanguine that this would give satisfaction, but it met with very general
approval, the trading, tenant, and agricultural interests all felt
concerned in the cheapness of this useful material, then heavily taxed;
and the result was unanimity in the favourable reception given to the
chancellor’s proposal. The following correctly describes the ministerial
scheme.




THE BUDGET.

The house having resolved itself into a committee of ways and
means,—The chancellor of the exchequer proceeded to lay before it the
financial statement for the ensuing year. He had to lay before the house
two estimates—one, that up to the 5th of April next, and the other up
to the 5th of April, 1851. He had estimated the income for this year at
£52,262,000; but he was happy to say that it would probably amount to
£52,874,000. He could not, however, take the estimate for next year so
high, as, during the last quarter, the returns bad not been so good.
He would, however, take them at £52,785,500. He had estimated the
expenditure of last year at £50,853,622, but it amounted only to
£50,553,651; and he calculated that next year there would be a surplus
of two millions and a quarter. He had calculated last year on a surplus
of only £104,000, whereas the increase amounted to £523,500. He did not,
however, anticipate such favourable results from the customs this year
as last, for there would be a probable loss on sugar of between four
and five hundred thousand pounds; on brandy, and likewise on corn,
there would also be probably a loss. The right honourable gentleman
then enumerated the various sources of revenue from which he anticipated
revenue, as follows:—

     Excise         14,045,000

     Stamps          6,860,000

     Assessed Taxes  4,320,000

     Income Tax      5,410,000

     Customs        20,000,000

     Post-Office       820,000

     Crown Lands       160,000

     Miscellaneous     260,000

     Old Stores        410,000

     Making a total of         £52,285,000.


     With respect to the expenditure,

     The interest on the Funded Debt was      28,105,000

     Other charges on the Consolidated Fund    2,620,000

     Navy Estimates                            6,613,000

     Army Estimates                            6,120,006

     Ordnance                                  2,434,417

     The Militia                                 110,000

     Commissariat                                500,000

     Miscellaneous                               211,159


     Excess of expenditure in former years  4,000,000


     Making altogether an expenditure of £50,613,582.

To this should be added the expenses of the new houses of parliament,
and for a building to hold the records of the house. Upon the whole, he
calculated, after meeting their expenses, upon an available surplus of
fifteen hundred thousand, in round numbers. The right hon. gentleman
then adverted to the propositions which had been made to reduce
the duties on windows, tea, timber, malt, soap, bricks, paper,
advertisements, and attorneys’ certificates; and also the proposition
of the hon. member for Buckingham, to place on the consolidated fund
certain charges otherwise provided for hitherto, and said he would not
assent to those propositions, for which no special case had been made
out. When he remembered that, within the last few years, no less a
sum than £148,000,000 had been laid out in railways, he could not help
thinking that there was a strong symptom of a return to more prosperous
times. He would now state his own views on the subject. He had thought
that they should first direct their attention to a reduction of the
debt, and he should state to the house the fact, that since 1831, we had
borrowed no less than £35,000,000, while in the same twenty years we
had only applied £8,000,000 towards its repayment, leaving a balance of
debt of no less than £27,000,000. If they were always to borrow when
the revenue was deficient, and never to pay when they had an excess, he
could not see how they were to get out of debt at all. Neither could he
see how they would get rid of the income-tax if they were to apply every
surplus to the reduction of taxation instead of to the reduction of the
debt. He felt it desirable, however, that some relief should lie given
in the way of taxation; and the first class to which lie should apply
the principle would be the small holders of land, by reducing the stamp
duty on the sales of land up to £1000, and rendering it more equitable
on transfers above that amount. Also a reduction of the duty on
mortgages and bonds, and to reduce the stamp duty on leases from one to
half per cent. He also thought it desirable that the habitations of the
labouring classes should be improved, and he should therefore propose
the total repeal of the duty on bricks. He estimated the loss to the
revenue at £300,000 on stamps, and at £455,000 on bricks; making a
total of £755,000, which was about one-half of the surplus available.
He thought, therefore, that he was making a fair distribution of the
surplus, one half to the reduction of taxation, and one half to the
reduction of the debt. He proposed to make advances for the purpose
of drainage and land improvement as an inducement to an expenditure of
capital, which could not fail to be considered a national as well as
an individual benefit. The last sum granted in this was for England and
Scotland, £2,000,000; and of this, owing to priority of application,
the gentlemen north of the Tweed had got no less than £1,600,000. He
proposed to advance another £2,000,000, and to take care to reserve a
fair share of it for England. He also proposed to advance for similar
purposes £1,000,000 to Ireland, £800,000 of which should be for arterial
drainage. He hoped to be able to make these advances without any
addition whatever to the public debt. These were the proposals he had to
submit to the house. He also proposed to apply £25,000 in order to
got rid of the perpetual annuities. He hoped to be able to make these
advances without making any addition whatever to the funded debt, if the
house would leave him a surplus to do so. He proposed, by the payment
of a sum of £250,000 out of the surplus in hand, to extinguish the
equivalent fund, which was a charge on the public funds of £10,000 a
year, since the junction of the debt of Scotland with that of England
at the time of the Union. That would leave him £500,000; and that he
thought the house should leave him as a reserve fund. The right lion,
gentleman concluded by moving a vote of £9,200,000, to be raised by
exchequer bills, for the service of the year.

After some discussion, in which Mr. Hume, Mr. Newdegate, Lord John
Manners, and several other members took part, the motion was agreed to.




DEATH OF SIR ROBERT PEEL.

A record of this event properly belongs to parliamentary history.
Disraeli justly described the baronet when he called him “a very great
member of parliament.” It was as a member of parliament, rather than as
a man or a minister, that Sir Robert Peel was great. Possessing superior
culture and extraordinary talents, he was not a man of genius. His
administrative abilities were of a very high order, perhaps we might
say, of the highest order that this country had ever known in a
minister; but he was indebted for his conceptions sometimes to his
friends, often to his opponents. The great aim of his policy was
conservative—conservative of class privilege and old institutions. He
resisted every measure of civil and religious liberty introduced in his
time, until the overwhelming pressure of public opinion rendered further
resistance hopeless. Thus, he opposed Catholic emancipation, the repeal
of the corporation and test acts, the reform bill, and free trade, until
all these measures were forced by public opinion. It was his gift to
discern more keenly than other men when the moment arrived beyond
which public opinion could be no longer safely opposed, and he was then
generally ready to adopt the very measures which he had before so warmly
denounced, and blamed others so strongly for promoting. He had, by his
timely apostasy on all great questions conciliated the masses, and by
preventing the conflict of parties and classes on these occasions,
he did much to promote the public welfare at the expense of his own
consistency. Measures seemed to be regarded by him, not in the light
of principle, but in that of political expediency. He passed bills,
not because truth, freedom, and justice demanded them, but because they
promoted the interests of party, or, it might be, because he thought it
was expedient for the national interests at the time that they should
be passed. Even the great measure of the repeal of the corn laws he
retarded longer than any other man could have retarded it. He was the
minister who passed it, and who hindered it from passing sooner.
His whole political history was a confession of political error, and
repentance. Yet he did not leave the honour of carrying out their own
measures to men who had formed a public opinion concerning them, and who
could with conscience and honour have conducted them through parliament;
he refused them all aid in each efforts, and when his time arrived,
seized the schemes and carried them, demanding the homage of the
Conservatives for conceding so little to the people, and the homage
of the people for conceding to them so much more than they could have
obtained from anybody else.

The personal history of this eminent man contained little that was
striking; a cold prudence preserved him from engaging in and personal
matters that could make his life eventful. He was born in the year 1788,
in a cottage near Bury, in Lancashire, where his father then lived in
humble circumstances. Mr. Peel founded in that neighbourhood works for
calico-printing, and laid by that means the foundation of a very great
fortune. He was afterwards knighted, and having written a pamphlet
entitled, “The National Debt a Source of National Prosperity,” he was
frequently consulted by Mr. Pitt, and it is alleged, conceived the idea
that his son might become Mr. Pitt’s successor. He sent young Robert
to Harrow at an early age, where he was on the same form with Byron the
poet, who thus recorded his impressions of him: “There were great hopes
of Peel among us all, masters and scholars. As a scholar he was greatly
my superior; as a schoolboy out of school I was always in scrapes, he
never; and in school he always knew the lesson, and I rarely.” “The
boy was father to the man” in both these cases, for Peel through life
maintained the same cautious, industrious, and circumspect habits, which
certainly never characterised his far greater schoolfellow. He left
Harrow for Oxford, where he especially distinguished himself as a
classic. In 1809 he became of age, and entered parliament for a rotten
borough openly bought for him by his father. His first speech was a
success, and although he never gave promise of becoming a brilliant
orator, he grew in favour with the house by the practicability of his
views, and his faculty of perceiving the tone of feeling prevailing in
the assembly at the time. In March, 1811, he made a very able speech
in favour of the Duke of Wellington, then fighting the battles of the
Peninsula, and against whom a public outcry had been raised. Percival,
then in power, was so pleased with the speech that he invited Mr. Peel
to take office, and he commenced his career, before he was twenty-three
years of age, as under-secretary of the colonies. Upon the death
of Percival he was appointed chief secretary for Ireland, under the
administration of Lord Liverpool. During his Irish secretaryship he
opposed Catholic emancipation with great zeal and some bitterness.
Afterwards he held office in various other situations. During the
free-trade agitation of 1819, he was its warm opponent, and when the
great Lancashire meeting took place at Peterloo, afterwards the site of
the free-trade hall in Manchester, and the Peterloo massacre occurred,
Mr. Peel defended that act, which left for so many years a deep
discontent in the hearts of the operatives of Lancashire. When in 1821
Lord John Russell first brought forward his motion for a reform in
parliament, he met from Mr. Peel a determined opposition, such as the
honourable baronet continued to offer against all increase in the power
of the people, until Lord John had the pleasure of carrying his view
triumphantly through parliament in the shape of the reform bill. Even
after that measure passed, Sir Robert devoted his talent to advise and
lead his party in every practical attempt to defeat it. In 1822, while
preparation was making to invade Spain, at the instigation of “the
Holy Alliance,” Mr. Brougham called the attention of the house to the
circumstance, and eloquently denounced that despotic confederacy.
Mr. Peel, with his usual caution, defended “the Holy Alliance;” but
notwithstanding his guarded language, he left no doubt of his sympathy
with foreign as well as domestic tyranny. The defender of the Peterloo
massacre and the Holy Alliance gave no promise of ever being popular
with the people of England. The other leading facts and features of his
political career will be found in the pages of this history, where his
part in public affairs has been noticed.

Sir Robert married, in 1820, Julia, youngest daughter of General Sir
John Floyd, Bart., and when his death occurred, his family consisted of
Robert, his successor in the baronetcy, then secretary of legation in
Switzerland; Frederick, then M.P. for Leominster; William, a captain in
the royal navy; John Floyd, an officer in the Fusilier Guards; Arthur
Wellesley, not then quite of age; Julia, married to Viscount Villiers;
and Eliza.

The circumstances of Sir Robert’s death were as follow: On Saturday,
the 29th of June, he had been to Buckingham Palace, where he had made, a
call, and entered his name on her majesty’s visiting book. He then rode
slowly up Constitution Hill. When he arrived nearly opposite the wicket
gate leading to the Green Park, his horse suddenly became restive. The
baronet was a bad horseman, and he soon lost all control of the animal,
which at last threw him over its head. Several gentlemen rendered
assistance immediately, and among them two medical men. Mrs. Lucas, of
Bryanstone Square, was passing in her carriage, in which he was
conveyed to his residence. Dr. Foucart, of Glasgow, and Sir James
Clark accompanied him in the carriage. An examination of his person was
immediately made, when the medical gentlemen present pronounced that he
had incurred severe injury of the shoulder and fracture of the collar
bone; it was hoped that no internal consequences had been produced by
the fall. The fracture was compound. He continued to grow worse in spite
of every surgical remedy, until the Tuesday night following, when, a
little after eleven o’clock, he expired. After death it was perceived,
_for the first time_, that the fifth rib had been fractured on the left
side. It is astonishing that the faculty Were unable to discover this,
for it was the region in which he had felt most pain. This was supposed
to have been the cause of his death; but the family opposed a _post
mortem_ examination.

Mr. Becket Denison and Lord Villiers had ridden the horse to prove it,
and it had met the bands and the omnibuses without shying, so that no
apprehension was entertained that Sir Robert’s deficient horsemanship
would be of any serious consequence with so quiet an animal; he had also
ridden it regularly for a week without having any cause of alarm. The
event seemed, therefore, one of those singular providences which so
often occur, baffling human precautions, confounding calculations, and
showing that that the ways and destinies of men are in the hands of an
all-ruling Power.

Tidings of his death spread with great rapidity, and universal regret
was displayed by the people. Shops were closed, the flags of the ships
in the river and on the public buildings were lowered, and many went
immediately into mourning. The funeral took place the ensuing week; the
body was laid in the mausoleum of the family, at Drayton, near Tamworth,
the whole population of the district manifesting every token of respect
and sorrow of which the occasion allowed.

On Thursday, July the 4th, the following occurrences, in the house of
commons, marked at once the estimation in which Sir Robert was held by
public men, and his own singular and unostentatious character. Lord
John Russell introduced to the house the circumstance of the honourable
baronet’s decease, and said:—“It is impossible not to lament that
hereafter this house will be no longer guided by that long and large
experience of public affairs, by that profound knowledge, by those
rhetorical powers, by that copious yet exact memory, with which this
house was wont to be enlightened, instructed, and guided. It is not
for me, or for this house to speak of the career of Sir Robert Peel. It
never happened to me to be in political connexion with him; but so late
as that last debate to which I have referred, I took occasion to thank
him for that fair and frank support which he had given to the present
government. Sir Robert Peel, sir, in that speech which preceded the one
which I addressed to the house, and in which he opposed the policy of
the government, spoke with such temper and such forbearance towards
all those who might hold an opposite opinion to his, that it must be a
satisfaction to those remaining that his last act should have been one
of such candour and kindness towards those all around him. Sir, there
can, I think, be no doubt that, however history may deal with the wisdom
of the course he pursued, that it will be admitted that on two great
occasions when he held power, undisturbed and apparently with every sign
of security, and when he proposed measures to this house which shook,
and, after a time, subverted his party, he did so from those motives of
deep love for his country which ever distinguished him.” Having slightly
adverted to the course of the late right honourable baronet on the
corn-laws, the noble lord concluded by observing, “That if it should
appear to the family and friends of the late Sir Robert Peel to be
desirable to take such a course, though I shall not now proceed to make
any motion on the subject, I will give my willing support to a proposal
for conferring the same honours on his remains that was awarded to
Mr. Grattan and Mr. Pitt. I may, perhaps, be permitted to add, that I
thought it right to obtain the sanction of the crown before I made this
proposal, and I feel assured that anything which could do honour to the
memory of Sir Robert Peel, or which could add any further tribute
of respect to his name, would be unhesitatingly acquiesced in by her
majesty. Sir, I wish, therefore, in concluding these few words, to say
that, in disposing of this proposal, I place myself entirely in
the hands of the friends of the late Sir Robert Peel. Having had no
political connexion with him, this proposal comes from me without the
tinge of partiality; and I may say in conclusion, without any fear of
a charge of insincerity, that I do feel, that this country, as well as
posterity hereafter, in recognising the claims of individuals deceased
to the title of eminent statesmen who have adorned the annals of this
country, or contributed to its lustre, those of the late Sir Robert Peel
will be amongst the foremost.”

Mr. Goulburn, while acknowledging, on the part of the family of the late
lamented right honourable baronet, the high honour shown to his memory
in the offer made by the noble lord, begged gratefully to decline it,
as opposed to the wishes of Sir Robert Peel, as expressed in his will,
which was dated May 8, 1844, and in which he stated, “I desire that I
may be interred in the vault in the parish of Drayton-Bassett, in which
my father and mother were interred, and that my funeral may be without
ostentation or parade of any kind.” Nor did this sentiment undergo any
alteration; for, not later than six weeks since, when alterations were
made in that particular church to which that memorandum referred, Sir
Robert Peel pointed out to Lady Peel the very spot in the vault in which
he wished and trusted his body might be laid, without any of that parade
or ostentation which he so strongly deprecated, and the absence of which
gave him such great satisfaction in the case of the funeral of the late
queen-dowager. Under these circumstances, therefore, he was sure that he
(Mr. Goulburn) had but one duty to perform, and the family of the late
Sir Robert Peel but one wish, and that was the thankfulness with which
he (Mr. Goulburn), on their part, had to acknowledge the intentions,
both of her majesty and her parliament, in wishing to confer on his
late lamented friend that, the greatest honour that could be paid to
a subject—a proposition which they were compelled respectfully, but
thankfully, to decline. He (Mr. Goulburn) only entreated the house
to add to that mark of respect which they had paid to the ability and
public services of his lamented friend the further mark of respect to
his simplicity of character, and give effect to his desire as to the way
in which he wished his funeral obsequies to be conducted. The entry
of the adjournment of the house immediately after its meeting on the
previous day, out of respect to the memory of the deceased statesman,
was an honour which would live for ever in the journals of that house,
and an honour which was never before paid to a subject.

It was subsequently intended to make Lady Peel a peeress in her own
right, but she declined the honour, her late husband having enjoined
that none of his family should accept any honour or reward from his
country.

When the tidings of Sir Robert’s decease reached other countries, much
sympathy was expressed; the French assembly, and also the Congress of
the United States, having in the most marked manner paid tributes
of respect to his memory. M. Guizot, the favourite minister of Louis
Philippe of France, wrote a memoir of Sir Robert, which displays much
talent, but over praises the subject of the memoir, without doing
justice, nevertheless, to his policy. The opinions and measures of
the great statesman will long be a subject of discussion, not only in
England, but in other nations. The following estimate of his political
principles and career by Count Cavour, the eminent Sardinian statesman,
a man intellectually superior to Sir Robert, is probably the truest and
best of the many which has appeared. It was uttered in a speech during a
sitting of the Sardinian senate, in the year 1857, when sufficient
time had elapsed for foreign statesmen, at all events, to form a fair
judgment of the man, unbiassed by the interests of their respective
states. Count Cavour had been taunted with having expressed himself in
very high terms of Sir Robert’s commercial and financial policy, while
he at the same time refused, in many respects, to accept him as an
exemplar. He, consequently, addressed to the senate the following
remarkable speech:—“I entertain the highest admiration for that
statesman; I believe that few men have rendered greater services to
mankind than he has. Yet I do not believe that Sir Robert Peel was
always infallible in his political career. It is my opinion that Sir
Robert Peel would have left a much more illustrious name behind him, if,
instead of having been compelled by circumstances to introduce reforms,
he himself had originated them. I think that Sir Robert Peel would have
left behind him a fame unequalled in history, if, instead of proposing
the emancipation of the Catholics in 1829, he had proposed it in 1825. I
think that his name would have eclipsed all those of ancient and modern
statesmen if the reform of the corn-laws had been initiated in 1840—a
good harvest year—instead of being passed in consequence of the
famine which desolated Ireland, and instead of being in some measure a
consequence of the potato disease. In fact, if Sir Robert Peel had
been the originator of reforms, he would at his death have left to
his friends a political inheritance far different from that which he
bequeathed to them. If Sir Robert Peel had associated his name and
his whole career with successive reforms, there would be no need of
recording at the present time a strange fact which has taken place in
England—namely, that a party, consisting of eminent men, including the
most eloquent speaker in parliament, and the most able legislators, has
been completely routed at the late elections. And this, gentlemen, is
the fate of parties who allow themselves to be led by public opinion,
and who wait to the last moment to carry out reforms which they have
not the courage to introduce. I trust that the senate, convinced of this
truth, will give its support to the present government, which, while
following the example of Sir Robert Peel, nevertheless deviates from
the course he adopted by making itself the originator of reforms, not
waiting to grant them to any popular pressure, nor to the pressure of
unforeseen circumstances.”




PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

The queen in person prorogued parliament on the 15th of August. The
address to her majesty, and the royal speech, were ordinary documents.
The houses were prorogued to the 15th of October, but parliament did not
meet again for the transaction of business that year.




THE COURT.

_Birth of a Prince_.—On the 1st of May her majesty was delivered of a
son, the third prince that had been born to her. The baptism took place
in the chapel of Buckingham Palace, on the 22nd of June. The ceremony
was unusually superb.

Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, her Royal Highness the Duchess
of Cambridge, his Royal Highness Prince George, her Royal Highness
Princess Mary, his Royal Highness the Prince of Prussia, his Serene
Highness Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar, his Serene Highness the Prince
of Leiningen, his Grace the Duke of Wellington; the Belgian, Portuguese,
and Prussian ministers; the Marquis of Lansdowne, the Earl of Minto,
Lord John Russell, Sir George Grey, Viscount Palmerston, Earl Grey,
Sir Charles Wood, Sir Francis Baring, Sir John Hobhouse, the Earl of
Carlisle, the Right Hon. Fox Maule, Sir William Somerville, and others
invited to the solemnity, assembled in the old dining-room, at the
palace, at six o’clock, the royal family being conducted to an adjoining
drawing-room, and were conducted to seats in the chapel.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, the Bishop of
Chester (clerk of the closet), the Bishop of Oxford (lord high almoner),
with the Rev. Henry Howarth (rector of the parish of St. George,
Hanover-square), the Hon. and Rev. Gerald Wellesley (resident chaplain
to her majesty), the Rev. Lord Worthesley Russell (deputy clerk of
the closet), and the Rev. Henry George Liddell (chaplain to his Royal
Highness Prince Albert), assembled in the room adjoining the old
dining-room, and took their places at the communion-table. The
Archbishop of Canterbury commenced the baptismal service, and on
arriving at that part for naming the child, the Countess of Gainsborough
handed the infant prince to the archbishop, when his royal highness was
named Arthur William Patrick Albert.

The queen, the prince, and the royal personages then passed up the
grand staircase to the Throne-room, where her majesty was joined shortly
before eight o’clock by her Royal Highness the Duchess of Gloucester.
The remainder of the company continued in the Green Drawing-room. The
queen wore a dress of white, watered, and brocaded silk, with a broad
flounce of Honiton lace, trimmed with white satin ribbon. Her majesty
also wore a diadem of emeralds and diamonds, and ornaments of emeralds
and diamonds to correspond. From the ribbon of the Most Noble Order of
the Garter was suspended a most splendid George, set in brilliants; the
ribbon itself was confined on the left shoulder by a diamond clasp.
The queen also wore the garter as an armlet, the motto being formed of
diamonds. The infant prince had a robe and mantle of Honiton lace over
white satin, with a cap to correspond. The Princess Royal, the Princess
Alice, and the Princess Helena, wore dresses of white watered silk with
satin stripe, trimmed with white satin ribbon and silver fringe; the
silk woven at Spitalfields. The dress of her Royal Highness the Duchess
of Kent was of the richest white watered silk, of English manufacture,
trimmed with blonde, having diamond ornaments down the front, and the
stomacher adorned with brilliants. Her royal highness’s head-dress was
formed of feathers, blonde lappets, and pearl and diamond ornaments. The
necklace and earrings were diamonds. His Royal Highness Prince Albert
wore a field-marshal’s uniform, with the collars of the Orders of the
Garter and the Black Eagle (of Prussia), with four stars set in diamonds
of the Garter, the Thistle, St. Patrick, and the Bath, and the ensigns
of the Golden Fleece.

Her majesty was conducted by the lord steward and the lord chamberlain,
at eight o’clock, to a state banquet in the picture-gallery, accompanied
by the royal family, the foreign ministers, the cabinet ministers,
and the other ladies and gentlemen who attended the ceremonial. “The
christening cake” was placed in the middle of the dinner-table on the
plateau of the magnificent service of gold plate. The top of the cake
represented an octangular fountain, ornamented with a number of small
vases, filled with miniature bouquets. The fountain rested on a circular
plinth, containing a number of painted vignettes, set in silver frames.

After the toast of “The Queen and the Prince,” her majesty rose from
the banquet, and proceeded to the White Drawing-room, accompanied by her
Royal Highness the Duchess of Gloucester, her Royal Highness the Duchess
of Kent, her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge, her Royal Highness
Princess Mary of Cambridge, and the other ladies present. Soon after
which, his Royal Highness Prince Albert, his Royal Highness the Prince
of Prussia, his Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge, his Serene
Highness Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar, his Serene Highness the Prince of
Leiningen, and the other guests, proceeded to the Music-room, when the
doors of the White Drawing-room were opened, and the queen received an
evening party.

The name of Patrick was given to the infant prince in compliment to the
people of Ireland, and was a graceful sequel to her majesty’s confiding
visit to that country the previous autumn.

_Arrival of the Nepaulese Ambassador_.—This illustrious person arrived
on the 25th of May, accompanied by his two brothers, and a brilliant
suite. He brought presents to her majesty, worth a quarter of a million
sterling. On his arrival at the Custom House, the officials attempted
to search his luggage, but he intimated that by their so doing he
would lose caste, and in case of any attempt of the kind, he would not
persevere in the object of his visit, but return by the next steamer.
His religious scruples were respected, but to make himself certain,
he placed a man with a drawn sword constantly beside his baggage. The
ambassador was feted by the great, and his liberality in dispensing
presents of precious stones did not detract from his popularity. He was
received at court most graciously, and returned to his country greatly
impressed with British power, and remained a friend and an ally of
England.

_Death of his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge_.—On the 8th of
July, this popular prince died at Cambridge House. He was the seventh
son of George the Third. His remains were interred at Kew Church, with
many demonstrations of sorrow on the part of the people. Her majesty
was much attached to her royal relative, and was much afflicted by his
death.

_Visit of her Majesty to the King of the Belgians_.—On the 21st
of August, lier majesty, the prince, and four of the royal children,
embarked at Osborne for Ostend, in tempestuous weather. Her majesty
being “a good sailor,” was seldom deterred from her voyages by bad
weather. The royal visitors only remained a few days, and returned
to Osborne. The visit had no political significance, but was dictated
simply by the affection of the royal pair for their uncle, the Belgian
king.

_Her Majesty’s Visit to Scotland_.—On the 27th of August, the court
paid its autumnal visit to the north. A visit was paid, _en route_, to
Castle Howard, the seat of the Earl of Carlisle. At Newcastle-upon-Tyne
the royal party was received by Earl Grey, and the corporations of
Newcastle and Gateshead made many demonstrations of loyalty, which were
gratifying to her majesty. As on the previous year her majesty visited
Dublin, Cork, Belfast, and Glasgow, it was deemed politic and respectful
to pay a visit to Edinburgh, of such a nature as to show the inhabitants
of the Scottish metropolis her interest in it.

The citizens of “the modern Athens” vied with those of the other great
cities of her majesty’s dominions in enthusiastic loyalty. The queen
took up her residence in Holyrood House, which greatly gratified the
national feeling of the Scotch. Immediately on her arrival, she entered
the apartments which were once occupied by the beautiful and unfortunate
Mary, Queen of Scots. Her majesty regarded the historical objects there
presented to her, with melancholy interest. The following day the royal
family ascended to the top of Arthur’s Seat, where it was said her
majesty was intensely excited by the magnificence of the scenery. The
following day, Prince Albert laid the foundation-stone of the Scottish
National Gallery. The remaining portion of the day was spent in visiting
remarkable persons and places. On the day following, her majesty and
suite proceeded to Balmoral. On the 10th of October the court left their
Scottish retreat, and returned to Edinburgh, remaining at Holyrood
Palace for the night, and the next day proceeded to England. The first
tidings which met her majesty on her return to Buckingham Palace were,
of the death of the Queen of the Belgians, her august aunt, by marriage.

[Illustration: 796.jpg HOLYROOD PALACE]

_The Queen and the Papal Aggression_.—During the winter, while the
court was at Windsor, the papal aggression disturbed the country. It was
known that her majesty felt great indignation, and her people determined
to regard the act of the court of Rome as an insult to her as well as to
the nation. The corporations of London and Oxford, and the University of
Oxford, have the privilege of demanding audience of the crown; they were
all received by the queen in a manner to mark her sense of the indignity
offered to her by the Roman court.

_Assault on the Queen_.—On the 27th of June, her majesty having visited
her uncle at Cambridge House, as she re-entered her carriage, a man
rushed forward and struck her on the face with a cane; the blow drew
blood, and caused a considerable swelling. A poor man present instantly
struck the ruffian in the face in return; and other bystanders seized
him, and handled him very roughly. He was taken into regular custody by
the police, and interrogated at the Home Office. He had been an officer
in the army. He was sentenced to seven years’ transportation. His sanity
was doubted, as his manners were incoherent.




DEATHS OF REMARKABLE PERSONS.

During the year a number of persons died remarkable in every department
of fame. Some of these have come in review under other sections, as in
the case of Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Cambridge. The following
persons of note may be referred to in this section, as all that our
space allows.

January 7th, in London, Lieutenant Waghorn, R. N. This remarkable man
had devoted a very considerable portion of his life to the establishment
of steam communication between this country and India. He explored
several overland routes to India with success. In these enterprises
he expended his fortune, and the government refused all suitable
acknowledgment for the great services he had rendered to the state and
to commerce, except a paltry pension, unworthy of the donors.

This year was remarkable for loss to the naval service by the death of
distinguished officers. Only two days after the decease of the gallant
and indefatigable Waghorn, Admiral Schombergh died, an officer who
had seen extraordinary variety of service, and had carried into effect
several improvements in victualling the navy.

On the 16th, Commander Le Vesconte, more popular, however, as a consul
than distinguished as a commander.

February 14th, Rear-Admiral Sir Gordon Bremer, after long and arduous
services to his country.

It would be a task beyond our limits to notice the individual history
and exploits of the heroic men in the naval service who died during
this year. Among the most memorable of these were the Hon. Vice-Admiral
Bouverie, and Vice-Admiral Sir Charles Richardson, K. C. B.

Among many notable military officers who died, the following deserve
especial notice:—

February 23rd, Captain Maurice O’Connel, nephew of the late Baron
O’Connel, chamberlain to the Emperor of Austria. This officer had no
rank in the British service.

March 7th, the Hon. Sir Hercules Robert Pakenham, lieut.-general. This
officer, well-known as the brother-inlaw, and one of the generals of
the great Duke of Wellington, had seen long and trying services, and was
always distinguished by his great gallantry.

The month of August closed with the announcement of the death of
Major-General Sir Alexander Cameron, G.C.B. This heroic man had served
in nearly every country of Europe, where the standard of England floated
over the field of battle. At Corunna he, with Sir John Hope, carried to
a boat the last wounded Highlander, that could be descried straggling
near the scene of action. Marshal Soult and his staff observed this act
of heroism, and warmly expressed their admiration.

The list of literary and scientific men who passed to the great account,
was a longer and more remarkable one than that of England’s deceased
warriors.

In January, Mr. Charles Robert Forrester, whose writings were very
popular, under the _nomme de plume_ of “Alfred Crowquill.”

On the 26th, Francis Jeffrey, one of the judges of the Court of Session
in Scotland. He was the colleague of the Rev. Sydney Smith and Henry
Brougham in founding the _Edinburgh Review_, and celebrated in every
country for his critical contributions to that periodical.

February 2nd, Rev. Edward Bickersteth, rector of Watton, Hertfordshire.
His place amongst literary men was won by his religious writings, which
were exceedingly popular and useful. This eminent clergyman shed great
lustre on the church by his devoted religious life, and gained for
himself great renown in the department of religious literature.

On the 17th, the Rev. T. S. Grimshaw, A.M., vicar of Biddenham. This
renowned clergyman distinguished himself in the department of literature
in which the Rev. Mr. Bickersteth gained so much fame. Mr. Grimshaw
wrote a “Life of the Rev. Leigh Richmond” (author of “The Dairyman’s
Daughter”), the “Life and Works of William Cowper,” &c.

On the 23rd, Sir William Allan, R.A, limner to Her Majesty for Scotland,
president of the Royal Scottish Academy. This artist was original and
indefatigable, but could obtain no patronage out of his own country,
where his treatment of Scottish subjects won for him popularity.

On the 2nd of March, John Peter Deering, Esq., a celebrated architect.
He designed Exeter Hall, London, the University Club-house, and the best
portions of University College, London.

April 7th, Canon Bowles, of Salisbury, eminent as a Latin and English
poet. His early sonnets were highly intellectual and artistic in their
versification. His memoirs of the poet Pope, and of other distinguished
persons, were extremely popular, but did not obtain the lasting fame of
his poetry.

On the 17th, in New York, Thom, the self-taught and celebrated Scottish
sculptor. His “Tarn O’Shanter,” and “Old Mortality,” obtained for him a
wide-spread fame in Great Britain and the United States of America.

On the 23rd, at Rydal Mount, near Ambleside, William Wordsworth, D.C.L.,
the poet, whose works have had a universal circulation. His chief
productions are “The Evening Walk,” “The Excursion,” and “The White Doe
of Rylstone.” He also wrote many deeply touching minor poems.

May 24th, Miss Jane Porter, authoress of many works, which have been
translated into various languages. The most popular of these were
“Thaddeus of Warsaw,” and the “Scottish Chiefs.” Sir Walter Scott
is represented as having admitted to George IV. that his idea of the
“Waverley Novels” was suggested by the perusal of the “Scottish Chiefs.”
 If this currently believed anecdote be correct, Miss Porter was the
founder of the school of modern historical novels, and not Sir Walter
Scott.

On the 27th, Mr. Richard J. Wyatt, known as a sculptor of great merit
throughout Europe. His death took place at Rome.

July 4th, at Barham, Suffolk, Canon Kirby, rector of that parish. He
was a distinguished naturalist, and the author of various eminent works,
especially in the department of entomology. His _Monographic, Apium
Anglio_, his description of the _Fauna Boreali Americana_, and his
“Bridgewater Treatise,” on the “history, habits, and instincts of
animals,” have made him a world-wide tame.

July 12th, Mr. Robert Stephenson, civil engineer, who had obtained an
honourable notoriety for his achievements in his profession.

August 19th, Sir Martin Shee, president of the Royal Academy. He was
not only celebrated as a painter, but was an accomplished scholar and
author.

On the 30th of October, one of the most benevolent and amiable ladies in
the world of letter’s, Mrs. Bell Martin, died at New York. This gifted
lady was born at Ballinahinch Castle, in Galway. Her father, Mr. Thomas
Barnewell Martin, M.P. for Galway, died in 1847. Miss Martin married a
Mr. Bell, who assumed the name of Martin. The estates of Mr. Martin, of
Ballinahinch, were in area the largest in the United Kingdom, and Miss
Martin was commonly styled “the Irish heiress,” from her very large
patrimony. The failure of the potato crops, and the ensuing famine,
which afflicted Ireland for several years, ruined Miss Martin’s
inheritance. The estates were encumbered, and as landed property in
Ireland during “the famine years” brought but little in the market, the
Ballinahinch properly was thrown into the Encumbered Estates Court, and
there were no assets for “the heiress,” She left the extensive region
over which she had almost reigned as a princess, without any longer
having a claim to a single acre. She was in deep distress, and, to the
dishonour of the gentry of Ireland, she found no friends in her hour of
trial. She took up her residence on the continent, and supported herself
by her pen: she was the authoress of “St. Etienne, a tale of the Vendean
war,” “Julia Howard,” and some minor works. Her contributions to the
_Encyclopédie des Gens de Monde_ were numerous, and gained her high
reputation. She eventually sought New York as the sphere of her
enterprise. During the voyage she was prematurely confined, and died
in consequence, soon after her arrival at the Union Place Hotel. It
was generally believed in that city, and in the land of her birth, that
uneasiness as to her temporal prospects aggravated, and perhaps caused
the illness, which proved fatal to this highly gifted lady.

November 15th, Joseph Hullmandle, whose inventions and improvements
connected with lithography, and tinted lithographic printing,
contributed so much to the perfection of that branch of artistic skill.

November 26th, Lord Nugent, a celebrated politician, poet, and man of
letters. The title was Irish, and became extinct with him.

December 8th, Mr. William Sturgeon, celebrated for his scientific
learning, his voluminous productions on electricity, and various
branches of natural science. He had been originally a shoemaker,
afterwards a soldier, subsequently scientific lecturer at Addiscombe
College, and in his old age suffered much from poverty. Lord John
Russell obtained him a grant of £50 per year from the Civil List, so
paltry a recognition of such great merits and services as is exceedingly
dishonouring to the country.

Several remarkable persons were removed by death from various walks of
life unnecessary to classify. The following were the most remarkable
instances:—

On the 24th of January, Sir Felix Booth, the celebrated brewer, a man of
large wealth, and a patron of science. He fitted out, at an expense of
£17,000, the expedition in search of the North-West passage, commanded
by Captain Ross, who commemorated the name of his munificent patron by
giving to the northern termination of the American continent the name of
Felix Boothia.

On the 6th of March, Sir James Gibson Craig, Bart., who had
distinguished himself as a leader of the Scottish Whigs for many years.

July the 8th, at Cambridge House, Piccadilly, H.R.H. Prince Adolphus
Frederick, of Brunswick Lunenburgh, Duke of Cambridge, youngest
surviving son of George III. He was a very benevolent prince, liberal in
politics, patriotic in feeling, and much beloved by the country.

July 20th, Sir Robert Peel, Bart., the statesman and parliamentary
leader. Such ample notice has been taken of his life and death, on
former pages, that it is not necessary more particularly to refer to it
in this place.

August the 7th, Louis Philippe, the exiled King of the French, aged 77
years. Few princes experienced so many and such great vicissitudes of
fortune. He died at Claremont, in Surrey. When in his power the most
obsequious homage was paid to him by the court and the citizens of
London; in his exile, he was allowed to sink almost unnoticed into
obscurity and death. His faithlessness to political engagements, his
avarice, and want of principle generally, had created a universal
obloquy round his name.




CHAPTER LXIII.

{VICTORIA. 1851}

     General Condition of Great Britain: Agitation against “the
     Papal Aggression,” and strong national feeling against the
     Pope and the Church of Rome; Efforts  of the
     “Protectionists,” and hostility of the people to that
     party..... Parliamentary   Conflicts: Resignation  of the
     Russell Ministry, and its Resumption of Power.....
     Exhibition of the Industry of all   Nations..... The
     Census..... General   Condition   of Ireland..... The
     Court..... Colonial Affairs: War in  South Africa; Discovery
     of Gold in California; Hostility of the Arabs near
     Aden..... Foreign Affairs: European Relations..... Outrage
     upon an English gentleman by an Austrian officer in
     Florence..... Deaths of Eminent Persons in 1851.

{A.D. 1851}

The year 1851 opened more auspiciously upon England than several
preceding years. There was neither pestilence nor famine in Great
Britain or Ireland. No commercial panic smote the prosperity of the
country. Crime was not more than usually prevalent, and was rather on
the decrease. The royal family were in health, and their happiness was a
subject of universal care, as their persons were the objects of
devoted loyalty. No sovereign in the world held so high a place in the
affections of her people, or presided over dominions on the whole so
united and prosperous.

The great home subject of interest was “the papal aggression,” referred
to in a former chapter. Nearly all classes of Englishmen were indignant
at the terms in which the pope decreed the new arrangements for
the episcopal government of his church in England. There were many,
especially among the dissenters, who considered that the true policy to
pursue on the part of the English people was to view the whole affair
with contempt, but even these were angry at the haughty contumely with
which the pope’s bulls and rescripts treated the queen, government, and
people of England not of the Roman Catholic communion. Mr. Roebuck was
especially the champion of the pope and the new hierarchy, asserting the
right of Romish hierarchs to assume territorial titles here, as they
did in the United States. Lord John Russell was the champion of the
anti-aggression movement, and his pen and tongue were animated by a
peculiar fervour in the controversy. The dissenters and many churchmen
doubted his lordship’s sincerity, believing that his zeal was simulated,
and that he cared more for the service rendered to his government
by raising a politico-religious cry at a critical period of his
parliamentary ascendancy, than he did for protecting the rights of the
crown, or the honour of Protestantism, against such invasions of either
as the papal procedure had initiated. Whatever might have been the case
in this respect, the agitation led by his lordship against the papal
aggression was the chief means of carrying him safely through the
session, in which the parliamentary tactics of his party and of his
government were without consistency or cleverness, and the financial
management of his chancellor of the exchequer as clumsy in detail,
and what might be called manipulation, as destitute of invention,
originality, and foresight.

When parliament was opened on the 4th of February, by her majesty in
person, the public anti-popery demonstrations were very decided, and an
outburst of loyalty came from all classes, such as only could arise from
a thoroughly excited state of the public mind. It was known that Lord
John Russell was to bring in a bill making it penal for the Roman
Catholic hierarchy to assume territorial ecclesiastical titles, and
this gave to the people an extraordinary interest in the progress of her
majesty in state to the House of Lords. From her palace at Pimlico to
her palace in Whitehall vast crowds collected, who rent the air with
tumultuous and excited cheers and exclamations of loyalty. On no
occasion of a royal progress were the assembled multitudes greater, and
the peculiar excitement of their voices and deportment was such as no
great festal occasion evokes. The royal speech referred to the cause
of this excitement, and when her majesty assured the assembled senators
that she was determined to preserve “the rights of her crown, and the
independence of the nation,” her elocution was at once so precise,
emphatic, and animated, as to cause an unusual sensation among
her hearers; and when the passage was read by the general public,
accompanied by the fervent panegyrics of the press, the public zeal
against the papal brief was, if possible, intensified.

The general conduct of the Roman Catholic body, hierarchy, and press,
was provocative of popular anger, and calculated to create an illiberal
feeling towards Roman Catholics. Various pretensions were asserted in
a highhanded manner by the Roman Catholic bishops in their epistolary
communications; and their literary organs spared the Protestants of
England no bitterness of invective, to which the most exasperating
polemics could give expression.

The public irritation on this controversy was kept up during the whole
year, for the pretensions of the Romish hierarchy were not moderated,
and in Ireland the chief bishops of the Roman Catholic church openly
derided and defied the power of the government and people of England
to put any law against their assumptions into practical effect. It is
probable that these magnates had good information that Lord John and
his government merely intended to carry a bill which might be held _in
terrorem_—a mode of legislating against the church of Rome, which an
experienced politician must have known was futile.

The bill brought into parliament by Lord John, to vindicate the rights
of his royal mistress and the independence of England, was called “the
Ecclesiastical Titles Bill,” and may be described in a single sentence
as providing penalties, in the shape of a moderate fine of £100, against
every Romish ecclesiastic assuming a territorial title belonging to the
Protestant hierarchy. The Roman Catholic members of the commons opposed
it with a vituperative eloquence, neither creditable to their religion,
country, nor the especial cause of their advocacy. The whig ministry,
and their supporters on both sides of the house, justified the bill
on narrow and inconsistent grounds. The Protestant abettors of “the
aggression” treated the hubbub raised as unworthy the greatness of
England—the pope being a poor prince of very little power. Disraeli,
with even more than his usual ability, supported the measure of the
government, urging that the pope had, it was true, no formidable
military force, but he had an army of a million of priests, and still
greater numbers of persons belonging to various religious orders, the
members of which were wholly devoted—mind, body, and estate—to his
behests. This reasoning produced considerable effect on the house, and
destroyed the effect of Mr. Roebuck’s arguments for allowing the Roman
Catholic religion to develop itself in its own way. The bill met with
so much opposition in its later stages from Sir James Graham and the
Peelite party, that its progress was somewhat obstructed; but the
vehement demands out of doors for its enactment, lowered the tone of the
parliamentary opposition to it, and it was carried ultimately by a very
large majority. It was introduced, by Lord John Russell, as early as the
7th of February. In consequence of the opposition it encountered, the
cabinet divested it of several of the more stringent clauses, and on the
7th of March Sir George Grey reintroduced the bill, after a temporary
absence from office of the government. It was not until the close of
July that the bill received the royal assent.

Several cases were brought into courts of justice throughout the year,
which kept up the irritation thus excited. Among these was the case of
Miss Talbot, a Roman Catholic lady under the guardianship of the Earl
of Shrewsbury, a Roman Catholic peer. The lady had a fortune of £80,000.
She was advised by her guardians to enter a nunnery, and was placed
there to pass through the preliminary stages before finally taking the
veil. In that case, the whole of the vast property she possessed would
be made over to the Roman Catholic church. The Berkeley family brought
the matter into court, and such an exposure was made of the bigotry of
Lord Shrewsbury, and the schemes set on foot to deprive the young lady
of her property in favour of the church, as exasperated the already
intensely excited popular mind. The young lady married Lord Howard, son
of the Duke of Norfolk, and so settled the contest, at the same time
disproving the allegations and oaths of the ecclesiastical party, who
sought to victimize her, that she was about to take the veil in the
result of her own importunity for permission so to do.

The public indignation against the Church of Rome was much stimulated
by a remarkable law case, Métairie _versus_ Wiseman and others. The
co-defendants with the cardinal were several Roman Catholic priests, and
some laymen known as much devoted to sacerdotal influence. The plaintiff
was one Julie Métairie, next of kin to a deceased Roman Catholic
gentleman, a native of France, whom it was alleged, when in a state of
mental incapacity, was induced by a priest named Holdstock to make
a testament of his property in favour of the Church of Rome, and of
certain charities favoured by that church. It was given in evidence that
the man had been a sceptic nearly all his life, hated priests, and was
especially prejudiced against the peculiar disposition of his property,
which the priests alleged that he had actually made upon his death-bed.
A Roman Catholic physician, one Gasquet, had called in the priest. It
appeared on the trial that no will, or other document, disposing of
his property, could be produced by Cardinal Wiseman, or the priests his
co-defendants, in the handwriting of the deceased, or of his attorney.
A document, however, was drawn up by a Roman Catholic barrister, at the
confessor’s request; and, according to the affidavits, the dying man was
held up in the bed by the priest, while the latter took hold of the
hand of the expiring man, and with it signed a deed, conveying £7,000 to
certain trustees for Roman Catholic uses. Cooke, the barrister, by
whom the deed was drawn up, prepared a power of attorney, by which the
property was placed in his hands upon the decease of M. Carrée (the name
of the man thus entrapped). This paper also the dying man was made to
sign, but he intimated his desire to retain the papers which he signed,
but was not allowed. One of the allegations made at the trial which most
prejudiced the public was, that the priest who effected the trick did
not again visit the dying man, who was permitted to die unabsolved,
unanointed, without any of the “consolations” which Roman Catholics
prize so much.

The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other relatives of the deceased,
filed a bill in chancery, demanding judgment upon the invalidity of the
deeds by which M. Carrée’s property was wrested from his relatives,
and placed in the hands of the priests. After nine days’ argument the
defendants paid the money into court. The matter was not again argued,
as the defendants consented to pay £4,000 out of the £7,000 over to the
relatives not to proceed. This was accepted to avert any uncertainty in
the issue dependant upon doubtful points of law, and to avoid exhausting
the property by litigation. The public expected that the priests, in
order to the vindication of their own proceedings in the case, would
have promoted the investigation, and have, in case of a decision in
their favour, acted generously towards the relatives of the alleged
legatee.

Various cases in which priestly pretension and intolerance were
rumoured, kept alive the feeling created by the trials referred to; so
that during the whole year manifestations of popular resentment towards
the Roman Catholic Church, and especially its ecclesiastics, were put
forth in almost every part of Great Britain. When the 5th of November
arrived, the day upon which the detection of Guy Faux’s attempt to blow
up the parliament usually receives a popular celebration, there was
an outburst of patriotic hostility to the Church of Rome, which the
magistrates in London and the great cities of the provinces in vain
endeavoured to prevent or moderate. Cardinal Wiseman and the Pope were
carried about the streets in effigy, and the figures by which they were
ludicrously caricatured, were burnt amidst the acclamations of vast
crowds, not always confined to the lower orders.

Various events in Ireland, of violence offered to clergymen and
scripture readers, and assassinations of gentlemen whose protestant zeal
was prominent, aided the circumstances which in England kept the public
exasperation against popery at so high a pitch.

Incidents of persecution abroad, not materially differing from common
occurrences, and such as happen without particular notice by the English
people at other periods, were related and commented upon by the English
press in terms of the bitterest reproach to the Roman Catholic religion,
and its abettors. On the whole, no subject occupied the minds of the
inhabitants of the United Kingdom so constantly throughout the year
1851, as that of the aggressive acts and spirit of the papal court and
its ultramontane supporters.

The public mind was also much agitated by the question of “Protection
of Industry.” A powerful party, consisting chiefly of the landlords,
clergy, shipping interest, farmers, and certain sections of persons who
had profited by “protection duties,” were determined, if possible, to
revoke the decision of the legislature in favour of a free trade in
corn, and to reverse the policy of Sir Robert Peel, of relaxing and
finally removing all differential duties and taxes, imposed otherwise
than for revenue, upon foreign commodities. The leaders of this
reactionary party were very eloquent men—the Earl of Derby, and
Benjamin Disraeli. Both these gifted persons have since been repeatedly
in power, and, while evidently as hostile to a free-trade policy
in office as well as when out of office, yet they affected in their
parliamentary orations to be on the side of the popular theory of free
trade, and often made speeches so glaringly inconsistent with those
previously made by them as to damage the reputation of public men in the
national esteem. Presuming upon the ignorance, or forgetfulness, of the
population at large, the peer and the commoner have frequently spoken
as though they had been the invariable champions of freedom of commerce,
and of civil and religious liberty. In 1851 they were the persistent and
acrimonious opponents of freedom, religious, political, and commercial,
and by their eloquence stimulated those who sympathised with them, and
incensed those who believed that a great economical victory had been
accomplished by the free-trade legislation of Sir Robert Peel, which was
irreversible. Those who considered that the “Derby-Disraeli party”
 only used their anti-free-trade agitations to accomplish a mere party
purpose, to regain office, and check the general progress of free
institutions and reform, were exasperated at the political charlatanism
which they considered to be thus displayed, so that the public lost
temper with the party, and was disposed even to violent manifestations
of its hostility. A remarkable instance of this occurred at Tarnworth,
previously the seat of the lately deceased parliamentary champion of
the repeal of the corn-laws, Sir Robert Peel. The landowners of North
Warwickshire, and their party adherents, convened a public meeting to
discuss their alleged grievances, and selected Tamworth as the place
of meeting. The populace and the free-traders declared that the place
chosen was not one which would naturally be appointed for such a
gathering, and believed that Tamworth was named for the meeting in order
to insult the memory of Sir Robert Peel, and by a display of strength
affront the liberal party, in matters of commerce, on the spot where the
ashes of their chief reposed. The Protectionists would not yield to
any suggestions concerning the bad taste displayed as to the moral
battle-ground they had chosen. They were warned that it would become
a material battle-field as well, but the warnings were rejected. The
ringleaders in the great agricultural demonstration, Lord Lewisham, and
Messrs. Newdegate and Spoon er, members of parliament, marshalled their
hosts, and it was intended to make such a demonstration of strength on
behalf of the agricultural interest as would awe the government, and
impress the country with an idea of the growing power of the party. The
populace, however, attacked the meeting—a severe conflict ensued;
the Protectionists were driven from the town. The vehicles of the
agricultural party were broken or thrown over Tamworth Bridge; many
persons were dangerously wounded, especially among the Protectionists;
and the issue was a fresh demonstration of the unpopularity of
protectionist doctrines, and of their chief advocates. The moral effect
of the incident throughout the country was adverse to the party who
promoted the assemblage. The riot occurred on the 28th of May, and the
strong popular hostility evinced, had its influence in parliament in
emboldening the hostile eloquence of the free-traders, and damped the
ardour of the protectionist gatherings in the coming autumn.

Throughout the parliamentary session the agricultural interest made
its complaints incessantly heard. The leaders declared that the landed
gentry and farmers were rapidly proceeding to ruin in consequence of
free-trade, and their vaticinations of frightful calamities to the
nation were singular displays of extraordinary hypocrisy, or delusions.
Amongst the most doleful prophets and lugubrious friends of agriculture
was Benjamin Disraeli. He was also the most acrimonious of advocates,
while defending claims ignored by the nation as unjust, denounced by
political economists as injurious; and, obviously in the exclusive
and selfish interests of a class, he denounced the advocates of
free commerce as without honour, honesty, or patriotism, sparing his
opponents neither as individuals nor as members of a party. The moral
effect of this unprincipled vituperation upon the country was injurious
to the party it was intended to serve, and lessened the confidence which
the people had been accustomed to repose in the integrity of public
men. Early in the session Mr. Disraeli introduced a resolution on
agricultural distress. An opening, almost an invitation, for him to
do so was given by Lord John Russell, who, with his usual mal-adroit
attempts to conciliate his opponents, inserted in the queen’s speech
an expression of regret for the distress borne by the agricultural
interest. Disraeli accordingly proposed, “That the severe distress which
continues to exist among the owners and occupiers of land, lamented
in her majesty’s speech, renders it the duty of the government to
introduce, without delay, measures for their effectual relief.” In his
speech he advocated the remission of taxes from the landed interest, as
the alternative to protection, attributing the distress complained of
to the repeal of the corn laws. The chancellor of the exchequer, in a
matter of fact speech, refuted Mr. Disraeli’s allegations that land was
taxed disproportionately to other property, or that the repeal of the
corn laws had failed of its object. Sir James Graham, in a clever _ad
captandum_ speech, called upon the house and the country to beware that
the real object of Mr. Disraeli and his party was to re-impose the corn
laws. Mr. Labouchere argued upon the same view of the policy of Mr.
Disraeli’s party, which Sir James Graham had exposed. Mr. Cardwell and
Mr. Cobden in very eloquent terms adopted the same strain. The latter
gentleman said that there could be no doubt of the meaning of Mr.
Disraeli’s motion, for whether a duty on corn, or compensation for the
loss of it, were the object immediately aimed at, the result would be
the same—the advantage of a class at the expense of the country. He
threatened the renewal of a national agitation against the exclusive
selfish policy of the landlord class. Lord John Russell declared that
he considered Mr. Disraeli’s motion as fraught with more dangerous
consequences than any motion which in the course of his public life he
ever recollected. Mr. Disraeli’s resolution was negatived by a majority
of only fourteen.

At this juncture in the agricultural agitation political affairs in
parliament assumed peculiar and various complications. On the 20th of
February Mr. Locke King, the member for East Surrey, asked for leave to
bring in a bill to make the franchise in counties, in England and Wales,
the same as in boroughs—the occupation of a tenement of the value of
£10 a year. Lord John Russell refused the assent of his government,
pledging himself to bring in a bill to improve the representation, a
promise which through many succeeding years his lordship was in no hurry
to fulfil. The motion of Mr. King was carried against the government by
a majority in the proportion of nearly two to one. It was generally
felt that this vote virtually sealed the fate of the government. The
agricultural party were therefore emboldened to renew their previous
tactics on the discussion of the budget, and to press for the especial
exemption of their class from a large proportion of the general
taxation. The budget had been previously introduced (on the 17th), in a
committee of ways and means. The income had exceeded the expenditure by
more than two and a half millions sterling. This fact left an opening
for the reduction of taxation, which the agriculturists had already
claimed in their own peculiar interest. They were prepared upon the 21st
of February, upon the order for going into committee on ways and means,
to make propositions, which, if carried, would appropriate to themselves
the two millions and a half of surplus as effectually as if the money
were taken and divided among them. Lord John Russell requested the
postponement of the order of the day to the 24th, intimating that he
was moved to desire this postponement for especial reasons. It was
well known that his lordship felt himself incapable of carrying on the
government against the attacks of the Protectionists, on one hand, and
the parliamentary reformers on the other. On the 24th Lord John informed
the house of this fact, and declared that he spoke “as the organ of a
government which no longer existed.” Lord Stanley had been invited by
her majesty to form a government, but did not succeed, and she again
called upon Lord John to construct a new cabinet. His lordship informed
the house that he had undertaken the task, and requested an adjournment.
On the 28th the house resumed its sitting. It then appeared that Lord
Aberdeen had been summoned by her majesty to form a ministry, but his
lordship, Sir James Graham, and the Peel party generally, refused to
co-operate with Lord John in the ecclesiastical titles bill, the Peelite
section of both houses, especially its leader, Lord Aberdeen, being
committed to the new ecclesiastical party called Puseyites, who
sympathised with the efforts of the Roman Catholics to restore the
grandeur of their hierarchy. Lord Aberdeen dared not face the popular
feeling on that question. Finally, the Duke of Wellington’s advice
having been sought by his royal mistress, he advised her, as the
best solution of the difficulty, to confide to Lord John Russell the
reconstruction of his ministry. The protectionist party determined to
oppose the government on every measure which afforded a chance, by small
defeat, of weakening its influence over the house and the country.
When the ecclesiastical titles bill again came before the house, Sir F.
Thesiger moved three amendments, the object of which was to make it more
effective. This the party of Sir Frederic knew well neither Lord John,
his ministry, nor the Whigs generally, really desired. By this means the
true whig view of the question was forced out. Lord John resisted the
amendments. The house was indignant. His lordship confided in the votes
of the Roman Catholic members, but they, anxious to humiliate him,
walked out of the house in a body. The amendments were carried amidst
the derisive cheers of the Protectionists. Large majorities in every
case defeated the half measures of Lord John. So little did he appear
to comprehend the spirit of the house and the country, that instead of
bowing to their decision, or resigning his office, he attempted on
the third reading of the bill to reverse the votes carried by such
overwhelming majorities: he failed still more signally than before.
He stood in a false position to the house, the country, and the Roman
Catholic party. He had brought in, with vast pretensions to a zealous
Protestantism on his lips, a measure which was never intended by him, or
his party, to answer the purpose proclaimed. His opponents took it
out of his hands with skill and moderation, and made it much more
practicable for its ostensible purpose, although still short of a
sound and efficient bill to restrain the hierarchy of Rome from the
assumptions it desired.

The Protectionists found another occasion to damage the government
during the discussion of the budget. On the 5th of April the chancellor
of the exchequer made his second financial statement for the year, which
was much more favourably received than the former one. He, however,
retracted some of the boons conceded in the first budget to the
agricultural interest. This gave satisfaction to the majority, but
exasperated the protectionist party, which attempted to defeat the
government on the question of the income tax, by direct resolutions
moved by Mr. Herries; a considerable majority defeated the movement.
On the bill going into committee Mr. Hume, then in the zenith of his
influence, moved an amendment to the effect that the tax should be
maintained for one year only. The honourable member was an extreme
Liberal in politics, but his support of the free-trade party was neither
very warm nor very intelligent. His amendment was energetically opposed
by the government, and by the free-trade leaders, especially Mr. Cobden
and Mr. Sidney Herbert. The Protectionists rallied round Mr. Hume, and
the little circle of radical members who, like Mr. Hume, were suspected
of being heterodox to the free-trade doctrines. The temporary coalition
was led by Mr. Disraeli, always in the van when a political or
parliamentary trick was the hope of his party. The government was
defeated, and acquiesced in the motion. This success greatly encouraged
the Protectionists, who made a direct assault upon the government, on
the 8th of May, when Mr. Cayley proposed the abolition of the malt tax,
but was beaten by a large majority.

On the 17th of June Mr. Bass moved that half the malt tax should be
repealed in October, 1852. On a division the motion was rejected.
Various other attempts were made on isolated subjects to support the
landlord interest by the remission of taxes bearing on it. Lord Naas
repeatedly defeated the government on the mode of assessing the spirit
duties, but ultimately the ministry got rid of the resolutions of his
lordship. In June Mr. Disraeli moved a series of resolutions on the
position and prospects of the country and the policy of the government,
in which he was supported by the entire strength of the tory party. The
object of the resolutions was to oppose the application of the surplus
revenue to the reduction of taxes, such as the window, coffee, and
timber duties, until the result of a select committee on the income tax,
proposed by Mr. Hume, should be known. The object of the resolutions was
to preserve the surplus revenue for the reduction of taxes borne by a
single class, that of the landlords, and for their exclusive benefit.
It was the question of the right of peculiar advantage by the landed
interest brought out in another form. Mr. Disraeli appeared to great
disadvantage as a financier, political economist, and even as a party
leader. His speech was factious in spirit, resting upon no sound
principles of policy or economy, and altogether unworthy of the
leader of a great party, and of one who aspired to a reputation for
statesmanship. The chancellor of the exchequer made an unusually happy
speech in reply. It was not usual for that honourable member to indulge
in the witty and satirical vein which so cleverly and appropriately
pervaded that particular oration. The disingenuousness and factiousness
of Disraeli roused the spirit of Sir Charles, and inspired him with a
sarcasm unlike his own serious and even dull tone of address. He
accused Mr. Disraeli with delivering a two hours’ speech on fiscal
and economical subjects, from which a single proposition could not be
extracted, and concluding by trite reflections upon the necessity of
maintaining public credit, couched in highflown language about the
empire of the Cæsars, with its triple crown, the mines of Golconda,
pillared palanquins, and other things having as little to do with the
question. These poetic fancies were very pleasing, but the house would
have better liked to hear arguments in support of a motion against
repealing taxes. The following passage from the speech of the chancellor
of the exchequer excited much mirth among the members, at the expense
of the protectionist leader:—“Mr. Disraeli would not jeopardize public
credit (by repealing taxes); but only six days after Mr. Hume’s motion
(for continuing the income tax only one year) was carried, Mr. Cayley
moved the house to remit £5,000,000 by the repeal of the malt tax. If it
be wrong to jeopardize public credit, surely it was as much endangered
on the 8th of May (when Mr. Cayley proposed the remission of the malt
tax), as it was on the 30th of June (when the ministers proposed to
repeal duties which affected the whole community), yet on the division
list in favour of Mr. Cayley’s motion I find the name of Benjamin
Disraeli! Can it be that there are two Benjamins in the field? One
Benjamin voting for the reduction of five millions of taxes, and another
Benjamin who is afraid to meddle with a surplus of £1,600,000.”

The effect of this cutting and just satire upon the dishonest pretences
of Mr. Disraeli in refusing the repeal of taxes to the amount of
the surplus revenue, on the ground of maintaining public credit, was
exceedingly striking. The house was at first convulsed with laughter,
after which serious murmurs rolled along the benches to the right of
the speaker’s chair, and the Conservatives, in sullen and moody silence,
showed their consciousness of the moral effect of this _exposé_,
especially as the resolutions were lost by a very large majority.
The speech of Sir Charles Wood was much quoted out of doors, and Mr.
Disraeli became, for a considerable time, most unpopular throughout the
country. It was much mooted among the opposition whether he should not
be deposed from a leadership which his eloquence did not always serve,
and which his reckless inconsistency so often damaged.

The Protectionists were unable to make any impression upon the house or
the country favourable to a reversal of free trade, or the removal from
the landed gentry of the taxes which they professed bore most heavily
upon them.

In connection with the protectionist agitation, the navigation laws,
and their repeal, held an angry prominence. The shipowners agitated
the peculiar burdens on shipping almost as loudly as the landlords
complained of the peculiar burdens on land. The cause of the shipowners
was espoused by the landlords, and among them the Earl of Derby was
the most prominent. The act of 1849, for the removal of maritime
restrictions, was discussed in both houses, and the shipowners and
landed interests demanded that the legislature should retrace its steps
on that subject. The house, however, maintained the policy of 1849.




GENERAL PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY OF 1851.

In the foregoing notices of proceedings in parliament, reference was
made to them in connection with the great subjects which agitated the
country at large. Those notices necessarily abridge the relation of this
section of the chapter.

Although the session was not fruitful in legislation, a considerable
range of important subjects was embraced by the discussions which took
place. The ministry was desirous to improve the laws, and carry some
useful measures. Private members in vain sought opportunity to direct
the attention of parliament to practical and useful legislation: the
great agitations of the day, and mere party disputes, consumed the time
of the house. The Protectionists caught at so many opportunities
for prolonged debates, for the purposes of gaining some pecuniary
advantage, and of worrying the ministry, that the public business was
greatly impeded. The Peelites, especially in the commons, were hostile
to the ecclesiastical titles bill. That small section of the house which
prided itself in following the policy of Sir Robert Peel in everything,
belonged, in almost every individual case, to the Puseyite party in
the established church, and viewed with apparently bitter animosity
the attempt of Lord John Russell to curb the pretensions of the Romish
hierarchy. Mr. Gladstone and Sir James Graham, always hostile to the
religious liberties of Protestant dissenters, led the opposition to the
government measure. It was obvious enough that the house and the country
were resolved upon the passing of the bill, but the Peelite and Puseyite
orators resisted it at every stage, with a zeal and activity which
surpassed that of the Roman Catholic members. In vain the government
pressed upon the house the urgency of the public business, and the
number of the measures which ought to occupy attention: Puseyites and
Protectionists maintained debates on every possible occasion, rendering
legislative measures on a great variety of subjects impracticable.

The ministerial crisis has been already referred to, and its
termination, by the announcement (on the 3rd of March) that the
government had resumed office.

The defeat of the government on the motion of Mr. Locke King, for leave
to bring in a bill to assimilate the elective franchise in boroughs and
counties upon a ten-pound value occupation has incidentally been noticed
in connection with the ministerial crisis. Mr. Locke King brought in his
bill, and moved the second reading on the 2nd of April. The debate
which ensued was remarkable from the circumstance that Lord John Eussell
pledged himself to bring in, at the beginning of the next session,
a bill to extend the franchise. This pledge, up to the close of the
session of 1859, more than eight years, has never been redeemed.
The excuse urged has been always the same—the pressure of public
business—an excuse, the sincerity of which cannot be accepted by the
most credulous friends of his lordship’s party. Mr. Disraeli declared
that he desired to see the “great settlement of 1831” improved, in the
sense of confirming “the proper territorial influence and power,”
 which he assured the house was essential to the liberties of the English
nation. Mr. Disraeli desired an improvement of the Reform Bill which
would consolidate the power of a class: Lord John promised a reform
which would increase the power of the people. Persuaded by his
lordship’s specious promises, those of Mr. Fox Maule, and other members
of the government, the Liberals supported the government, and Mr. Locke
King’s bill was lost by a vast majority. The speech of Mr. Bright much
conduced to this result, as he showed that the ten-pound occupants, in
counties, would be under the control of the landed interest, which Mr.
Bright denounced as opposed to the material interests and civil and
religious liberties of the people.

Mr. Henry Berkeley endeavoured to secure another measure of reform—the
conducting of elections by vote by ballot. The government resisted this,
and Lord John Eussell, with a tone of ridicule and acrimony, offered
the motion an ostentatious opposition. The government was beaten by a
majority of eighty-seven to fifty. The bill was read a first time, but
Mr. Berkeley did not proceed with it, the same pretence set up by the
government on Locke King’s motion soothing the reformers.

Mr. Cobden signalized himself by proposing a resolution pledging the
house to arbitration in case of national differences. Mr. Cobden’s
motion was in itself impracticable, his statistics partial, and his tone
personal and unjust to the statesman by whom our foreign relations
had been conducted. Lord Palmerston replied in one of the most happy
speeches he ever delivered, vindicating himself from the implications
made by Mr. Cobden. Mr. Roebuck supported Mr. Cobden, whom, and whose
party, he has so often opposed since, when their peculiar opinions were
advocated in a similar manner. The motion was withdrawn, in consequence
of the conviction of all parties being strongly expressed that the
course proposed by Mr. Cobden was utterly impossible.

In the House of Lords a remarkable debate arose upon a proposition of
the Earl of St. Germains, to make marriage with a deceased wife’s sister
legal. The measure was opposed by the bishops. The Bishop of Norwich
made a speech of remarkable clearness and force in opposition. Lord
Campbell, the lord-chief-justice, made an oration of an eccentric and
illogical character; its spirit and temper were even worse than its
arguments; the people of Germany and America were referred to in a
manner the most insulting and unjust. The bishops and the law lords
defeated the bill.

Lord Redesdale, one of the champions of Puseyism in the established
church, made a motion in the peers for the revival of convocation, which
was successfully opposed by the evangelical “primate of all England.”

One of the subjects introduced during the session which excited most
interest in the country, was the removal of Jewish disabilities. Lord
John Russell produced a bill in the commons which was carried, but was
thrown out in the lords. Events followed of an important nature and of
historical interest. An alderman of the city of London, named Salomons,
had been elected to sit in parliament for the borough of Greenwich. He
determined to take his seat. He presented himself at the table of the
house on the 18th of July, but refused to take the oaths “on the true
faith of a Christian,” the form prescribed by the rules of the house.
He was then ordered by the speaker to withdraw. Mr. Salomons sat down on
one of the benches of the ministerial side of the house, but the speaker
insisted upon his withdrawal, upon which he returned to the bar, but
under protest of his right to take his seat. Called upon, in the
course of the discussion which ensued, by various members to do so, he
repeatedly resumed his seat, addressed the house, and voted on divisions
concerning himself. After long protracted and violent discussions, he
was conducted forcibly by the sergeant-at-arms below the bar. The house,
at the instance of Lord John Russell, resolved that he had not a right
to sit until he took the oath of abjuration on the true faith of
a Christian. Lord John at the same time intimated his intention to
persevere in seeking the emancipation of Jewish citizens from all civil
disabilities on account of their religion. These events in the English
House of Commons attracted the attention of the Jewish community all
over the world, and the reports were perused extensively abroad as well
as at home.

On the 27th of May a party debate arose upon the conduct of Lord
Torrington, when governor of Ceylon. Debates occurred in both houses,
the object of the opponents of government being to condemn the policy
of Lord Torrington, and the friends of government to uphold him. Nothing
was proved against his lordship sufficient to justify the course
pursued against him, but it was made plain that his appointment to the
government of a colony as distracted as it was important, did not arise
from the noble lord’s fitness, but from his political interest; and that
Earl Grey, the whig colonial minister, had performed his official duties
in a way crotchety, self-sufficient, and arrogant—in the spirit of the
partizan rather than of the patriot.

Various bills were passed in reference to administrative departments
of the church, and of the state. A bill for the removal of Smithfield
market was carried on humane and sanitary considerations, after a
discreditable opposition from the corporation of London. Law reform
made some progress, especially in connection with the court of chancery.
There were several sharp discussions and important motions on colonial
and foreign affairs, which will be more appropriately noticed when
referring to those departments of the history of the year.

On the 8th of August parliament was prorogued, and the legislative
history of 1851 terminated.

[Illustration: 802.jpg GREAT EXHIBITION]




EXHIBITION OF THE INDUSTRY OF ALL NATIONS.

Among the home incidents of the year none excited more general interest
than “the Great Exhibition of the Industry of all Nations,” which
was opened on the 1st of May. During 1850 public expectation had been
intensely directed to it. The patronage of the queen, and the active
assistance as well as patronage of her consort, threw a halo of
respectability and popularity around the undertaking. The design was
to erect a large temporary building, into which might be brought, in an
honourable and peaceful rivalry, specimens of the manufacture and art of
all nations. The site selected for the building was Hyde Park, near the
Prince’s Gate. Mr. Paxton (afterwards Sir Joseph Paxton), gardener to
the Duke of Devonshire, devised a plan for erecting the building of
glass—a bold and novel scheme, which resulted in a structure elegant
and useful. Mr. Fox (afterwards Sir Charles) was the principal
contractor. All concerned worked with zeal and skill, and their task was
brought to a satisfactory termination. The building was a parallelogram,
1,848 feet long by 408 feet wide. The distribution of the articles
sent for exhibition was upon the principle of giving to each country
a separate compartment in the building, with the exception that all
working machinery was placed together at the north-west end. It would
require a volume to describe the wonderful variety and beauty of the
productions of skill and labour brought together in this Crystal Palace
of industry; nothing equal to it for curious and instructive interest
had ever before been realized. On the 1st of May this fairy fabric was
opened with all the circumstances of pomp which royalty and multitudes
of persons gathered from many nations could present. There were arrivals
from almost every nation; and from Europe and America the numbers were
so great that the vast area of London seemed thronged day by day, and
almost night by night, with crowds. The various national physiognomies
and costumes gave a picturesque effect to the streets and parks, and
especially to the interior and neighbourhood of the building for
the Exhibition on the opening day. Everything connected with its
inauguration was auspicious, and public order was preserved in a
wonderful manner; all men from all nations and peoples seemed earnest to
maintain the harmony and decorum of the happy occasion. Those classes of
English society which made themselves notorious for their hostility
to human progress, and especially to the increase of manufactures in
England, had been opposed to the project of the Exhibition; and had
it not been for the ardour with which the prince, the husband of her
majesty, took up the enterprise, opposition from these classes would
have been far more vigorous and virulent. All the fears of the objectors
to the undertaking proved groundless, and all their vaticinations false;
improvement to the national industry, and social enjoyment of England,
and a happy intercourse with their brethren of many nations were
the results. It was, however, a long time after the Exhibition had
accomplished its good purposes, and the last fragment of its material
was swept away from the site it had occupied, before the murmurs and
objections of the anti-progress classes died away.




THE CENSUS.

This year was remarkable for the accurate knowledge obtained of the
amount of the population, the decennial census having been taken. The
importance of this subject can hardly be overrated. Population, as
we are taught by an inspired instructor, is a leading element in the
prosperity of a nation: “In the multitude of the people is the king’s
honour; but in the want of people is the destruction of the prince.”
 Only in modern times have we arrived at any enumeration of the people
on competent authority; the estimates of earlier periods are of
comparatively little value. Amidst the scenes of carnage presented in
the first thousand years of our authentic history, the natural growth of
the population was constantly checked, and there were probably periods
when the numbers were greater than just after the desolations produced
by the Roman conquest, at which time the population of Great Britain was
estimated at only 1,700,000 persons. After the desolating wars of the
Roses ended with the accession of Henry VIL, in 1485, to the English
throne, the numbers of the whole of the people in Great Britain were
estimated as only 3,000,000. In the time of Elizabeth they reached
4.000,000, according to a calculation based upon the parish registers.
Mr. Reckman, an authority on this matter, gives the following
estimates:—

     Years.             Population.           Rate of Increase.

     1600............    4,811,700   ............     15–66

     1630.............    5,600,317   ............     16–38

     1670............    5,773,646   ............      3–09

     1700...........     6,045,608    ............     4–70

     1750...........     6,517,035    ............     7–51

     1760...........     6,479,730   ............      7–28

     1770...........     7,227,586    ............     11–54

     1780...........     7,814,827    ............      8–12

     1790...........     8,540,738    ............      9–29

     1800...........     9,187,176    ............      7–56


From the last of these periods we have had a census every ten years; the
following are the results:—

     Years.                  Population.          Rate of Increase.

     1801   ............    10,267,893   ............

     1811   ............    12,047,455   ............    14

     1821   ............    15,180,350   ............    18

     1831   ............    16,364,893   ............    15

     1841   ............    18,658,372   ............    14

     1851   ............    20,936,468   ............    12


It will thus be seen that our people more than doubled their numbers
during the first half of the present century. The population is now
more than twelve times as great as it was immediately after the Roman
conquest. These numbers did not increase in equal proportion over the
face of the whole island. Some of the rural districts have been thinned
by emigration, which had proceeded with great rapidity for some time,
partly to the manufacturing districts, and partly to the colonies and to
the United States of America. The agricultural districts also furnished
the greater proportion of recruits for the army, an average of from
thirty to forty thousand a year. The number of emigrants from the whole
of Great Britain during 1842 amounted to 128,344. The great increase
of population has been in our manufacturing towns, such as Birmingham,
where there were only 73,670 persons in 1801, and 173,081 in 1851;
Sheffield, which in 1736 contained 14,105, had increased to 88,447 in
1851; Manchester, exclusive of Salford, had only 41,032 in 1734, whereas
in 1851 it had 316,213; Liverpool, in 1700, had no more than 5,145
inhabitants, in 1851 it had 375,955. Glasgow three hundred years ago
contained only 4,500 inhabitants, in 1851 its numbers reached 344,986.
The density of the population was found to vary in different parts of
England, and Wales, from as few as eighteen persons in a square mile,
to as many as 185,751 in a similar area. A very curious and interesting
illustration has been furnished of the increased proximity of the
inhabitants, in consequence of the increase of population, during
the present century. A messenger to deliver a thousand letters, at a
thousand houses of average proximity, in 1801, would have to travel
two hundred and six miles; but in 1851 he could perform his work by
travelling only one hundred and forty-three miles. As the people were
no longer serfs of the soil, but free to rove as their interests or
pleasure dictated, a wonderful readiness to change the locality of their
homes had displayed itself during the first half of this century, and
especially the last decade of it. In this way large additions were made
to the population of certain great centres of trade. It was found that
the disposition to settle in London was greatest in the Metropolitan,
Southern, Eastern, and South Midland Counties. The people to the north
of Nottingham, Leicester, &c., were less inclined to live in London.
Their tendency, strengthened by the opportunity of finding employment,
was to resort to the great manufacturing districts of Yorkshire and
Lancashire. The census led incidentally to considerations connected with
the general progress of Great Britain. Its material and social interests
kept pace with its population. It is a law which operates with the
increase of the people, that the increase of the means of supporting
them augments in a superior ratio. The masses realized the advantages
of progressive science and art, the variety of manufacture, division
of labour, freedom of commerce, and freedom of thought. They were in
possession of many luxuries as well as comforts not known even to
noble and royal persons in previous ages of our history. The 3,647,611
inhabited houses of Great Britain, from the palace of the monarch down
to the humble dwelling of the cottager, presented a striking contrast to
the miserable hovels of the poor, and the inconvenient magnificence
of the great, in the bygone periods of Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman
history, and of the Plantagenets, the Tudors, and the Stuarts. Great
improvements had began in the domiciles of the lower classes; in the
sanitary condition of cities and towns: and in draining, lighting, and
paving. The progress of the arts and manufactures in Great Britain
had been then very great. Coal and iron, which lie at the base of
our manufacturing industry, were appreciated, and had reached a great
production. Until 1740 wood only had been used for the smelting of iron;
after that year coal was applied successfully. In 1788 the produce was
several thousand tons; in. 1800 it was one hundred and eighty thousand;
in 1851 it reached the enormous amount of two millions and a half. Iron
and steel were brought into use for the most excellent tools, as well
as for the works in which they have been employed. This branch of
improvement made a remarkable progress, little known beyond the circles
of men of science and artizans. It has been correctly observed that the
calculating machine of Mr. Babbage could not have been executed by
means of the imperfect tools which were formerly in the hands of our
machinists. We are indebted to the efforts made for the completion of
that apparatus for some of the most beautiful tools.

The marvellous increase of our cotton, woollen, and silk manufactures,
more especially, strikingly illustrate the general law of material
progress with the increase of population. To give the details of these
statistics would be entering upon a subject too extensive for our
limits, but the reader would find them an interesting accompaniment to
the population reports of 1851.




IRELAND.

The year 1851 was singularly free from agitation in Ireland; still the
social condition of that country was not free from its usual elements of
disturbance. The papal scheme for establishing a territorial hierarchy
in England, caused in Ireland an extraordinary degree of exultation.
Addresses from the altars, and through the columns of the press,
testified the sacerdotal enthusiasm that the event enkindled. The
opposition of Mr. Gladstone, Sir James Graham, and others—who either
openly espoused Puseyism or had an inclination towards its dogmas—to
the ecclesiastical titles bill greatly encouraged the priest party
in Ireland. Yet the Irish and English Roman Catholic laity had little
sympathy. O’Connell had often publicly declared that the aristocratic
predilections of the English Roman Catholic gentry, and their prejudice
against the Irish people, of all sects and parties, made them a dead
weight upon the Roman Catholic cause, to which his party tact and _ad
captandum_ oratory had given buoyancy. He had thoroughly indoctrinated
the Irish Roman Catholic laity, and even the older clergy, with
this view. The younger members of the priesthood were so thoroughly
ultramontane, that they, without counteracting Mr. O’Connell’s
statements and opinions on this subject, at least publicly, gave way to
the wildest hopes and aspirations of papal ascendancy in England,
and ultimately, through English instrumentality, in the colonies. The
ecclesiastical titles bill called forth the most malignant denunciations
of Lord John Russell, politically and personally; the house of Bedford
was singled out from the aristocracy of England for vehement abuse; a
wild controversy raged through the land; sermons against Protestantism,
remarkable for the absence of all argument such as the Roman Catholic
priests of the old school prided themselves on using, and pervaded by a
fierce fanaticism, were delivered throughout the country; and all reply
on the part of Protestant clergymen were treated not as theological
arguments, but as insults, which disturbed the public peace, and
constituted a peculiar “Catholic grievance.” Many Protestants in Ireland
countenanced this feeling; controversy and proselyteism, on the part of
the Church of Rome, were by such Protestants held up as a proof of
Roman Catholic zeal. Controversy and proselyteism on the part of the
Protestant clergy were denounced as proofs of clerical imprudence,
an attack on the “rights” of Roman Catholics, and a proof of some
connection, open or covert, with Orangemen. This description of feeling
amongst certain classes of Protestants in the higher ranks in England
and Ireland was fashionable, but the honest zeal of the middle and
poorer classes of Protestants restrained its manifestation. The columns
of the Roman Catholic newspapers, and the sermons of the priests,
during 1851, in Ireland, furnished extraordinary specimens of vindictive
fanaticism.

Although public disturbances and assassinations were less common in 1851
than was usual in Ireland, there were some heartless proofs of class and
religious animosity. In the month of July a singular trial took
place evincing this. A gentleman named Smyth, of landed property, and
considerable influence in his county, was, with one Helier, put upon his
trial for the murder of his own mother, for the purpose of inheriting
her property. Witnesses were called who swore to complicity, or a
knowledge of complicity on the part of others, in a conspiracy, in which
Mr. Blood Smyth was the moving person, for the murder of his mother.
The evidence of these persons revealed a state of moral feeling, in
the south of Ireland, among the peasant and low farmer class, perfectly
atrocious. The result of the trial was, that the clearest proof was
obtained that the deceased lady had died a natural death; that no
attempt to murder her had ever been made; that the alleged criminals had
really no motive for such a crime; that they were innocent, and that the
accusation was the fruit of a conspiracy among dismissed servants and
tenants of the accused, in order to be revenged upon him. The family of
the accused were considered over zealous Protestants, and this formed
an additional incitement to combine for the purpose of a legal
assassination more cruel and terrible than if he had, like so many
other Irish gentlemen, been shot down upon the public road. The latter
terrible fate befell Mr. E. White, of Abbeleix, for asserting his right
to some peat land which he had purchased. This circumstance offended
the “Ribband” men, who in open day lodged a bullet in his heart, in a
populous neighbourhood. The murderers were well known, but the populace
sympathised with them. In the north of Ireland several gentlemen and men
of humble note fell victims to the weapons of the “Ribband” assassins,
under circumstances plainly indicating the complicity of the great mass
of the peasantry of the Roman Catholic communion. Mr. Bateson, brother
of Sir Robert Bateson, was beaten to death with bludgeons on the road
near Castle Blayney. Men were arrested against whom the strongest proofs
of guilt were produced, but the jury refused to convict. The difficulty
of obtaining Roman Catholic members of juries to convict in Ribband
cases, even upon the clearest evidence, greatly impeded the course of
justice in Ireland. Mr. Eastwood, a magistrate, and deputy-lieutenant
of a county, incurred a fate similar to that of Mr. Bateson. It was
generally felt by the peaceable and loyal in Ireland, and by the people
of England generally, that justice was not scrupulously administered
by the whig party in Ireland. Anxious to preserve their majority by the
votes of the Irish Roman Catholic members, and of latitudinarian members
who represented Roman Catholic constituencies, the Whigs were unwilling
to do anything, however called for by equity or imperial policy, which
offended the popular party in Ireland, unless a _quid pro quo_ were
attainable in increased English support. The ecclesiastical titles bill,
however imperfect (designedly so), secured an amount of British support
which more than balanced any loss of Irish members; but in Ireland the
priest party were coaxed by the Whigs, and concessions made to them
unworthy the dignity of imperial administration. The whig government in
Ireland was utterly unprincipled and corrupt. At the close of the year a
great law case established that in a singular manner. The case is given
in law reports as Birch _versus_ Somerville, Bart. Birch was a Dublin
newspaper proprietor; Somerville, Bart., the Irish secretary. The action
was for £7,000 “for work and labour done.” The work and labour was the
support of the whig government in _The World_ newspaper, in a mode and
for ends utterly disreputable. The Earl of Clarendon, Lord-lieutenant of
Ireland, and Sir W. Somerville, personally prompted this Birch, whose
paper had an infamous reputation. These high officers of state disposed
of the public money, and it may be also their own, to bribe this Birch.
The Earl of Clarendon was examined, and admitted that Birch had been
in his pay for years to support law and order; and acknowledged that
independent of the money given to Birch in Ireland, he had also received
money in London for the same object. The moral effect of this trial was
so damaging to the government of Lord Clarendon, that it lost all
hold upon the support of the respectable classes in Ireland. Lord
Naas subsequently brought the subject under the notice of the House of
Commons, when its damaging effects upon the existence of the Russell
ministry was such as would probably have led to its downfall,
irrespective of all casual circumstances or internal feuds.

The census of Ireland, taken this year, revealed the following facts as
compared with 1841. In the metropolitan province of Leinster, in 1841,
the number of houses was 320,051; a diminution had taken place of
considerably more than 40,000 houses—the number being 277,552. The
reduction in the number of families was nearly the same, from 362,134
to 321,991. The population was lessened from 1,973,731 to 1,667,771.
The reduction in the other provinces was even greater in proportion;
so that, in all Ireland, the number of houses was decreased, within the
decade, from 1,384,360 to 1,115,007; and the population from 8,175,124
to 6,515,794; a decrease of more than twenty per cent.—the total
decrease being 1,659,330.

With a population of more than six millions and a half, a fertile
soil, and temperate climate, it was felt that Ireland ought to become
a powerful and prosperous country. Belgium, Holland, Portugal,
Switzerland, all the different states of Italy, Germany, and
Scandinavia, were inferior to Ireland in the number of inhabitants and
in national resources. Good government, and good conduct on the part of
the people, it was generally believed, would develop the country to a
condition of prosperity rivalling that of most other lands.

[Illustration: 805.jpg THE GRASS MARKET EDINBOROUGH]




THE COURT.

The incidents of the year affecting royalty were few. On the 27th of
August her majesty, consort, and several of the royal children, left
the marine residence at Osborne, Isle of Wight, for Balmoral, in
the Scottish Highlands. The royal progress was marked by the usual
manifestations of loyalty. On the 7th of October the court left
Balmoral. Two accidents occurred on the railway to the train in which
her majesty travelled; the first on the journey to Edinburgh, when,
after leaving Forfar, the axle of a carriage-truck became heated by
friction, and some delay occurred, which caused alarm at Edinburgh. It
gratified the inhabitants of the Scottish capital that her majesty and
suite took up their brief abode at Holyrood Palace. Between Glasgow and
Edinburgh, while the train was driven at the rate of thirty miles an
hour, one of the feeding pipes from the tender to the engine burst with
a loud explosion; the train was obscured in steam, and came to a stand
at Kirkliston, where it was obliged to remain until assistance arrived
from Edinburgh. During these accidents the composure and courage of the
queen struck all observers with astonishment. It had been arranged that
Liverpool should be visited by the royal travellers; and a magnificent
reception was prepared for them. Her majesty was not, however, favoured
upon the occasion with that beautiful weather which generally smiles
upon her voyages, journeys and public appearances in her great cities.
One of the most gloomy and rainy days ever known at Liverpool frowned
upon the loyal efforts of its inhabitants. This did not repress their
enthusiasm. A vast concourse filled the streets, and made the most
hearty demonstrations of welcome to their queen. From Liverpool the
court proceeded to Worsley Hall, the mansion of the Earl of Ellesmere.
This was probably, the most remarkable of all her majesty’s previous
journeys. The queen and suite embarked at Liverpool, in barges, and
proceeded by the Bridgewater Canal to Worsley. While at Worsley, only a
few miles from Manchester, her majesty paid a visit to that great city.
On no occasion, even in the metropolis, was so vast a multitude of
persons collected to see the queen; and, probably, on no occasion was
she ever welcomed in a provincial city with so prodigal an expenditure
and splendid a display of loyalty. Manchester and Salford were
both traversed in their great principal thoroughfares by the royal
procession, attended with military pomp, and many persons of very great
eminence in the nation were in her suite. The profuse expenditure,
displayed in flags and decorations, attracted the notice of the royal
lady so much, that she expressed her regret that the citizens of
Manchester should have gone to so great an expense on her account.
A large public pleasure-ground in Salford, set apart by public
subscriptions for the recreation of the people, and designated Peel
Park, in honour of the free-trade champion, lay in the route taken by
the royal _cortège_. In that park one of the most extraordinary fights
was presented to her majesty ever witnessed by a monarch—eighty
thousand Sunday-school children, of all religious denominations, were
assembled to see their queen. The bringing together of such a mass
of young persons, and the arrangements for placing them in a proper
position to see and to be seen, was a work of anxiety and toil of which
those only can form a conception who took part in it. Much of the credit
of the occasion was due to the late Robert Needham, Esq., solicitor, of
Manchester, who, with extraordinary toil, from the effects of which he
never recovered, arranged and carried out the vast work. The writer
of this history was present on the occasion, and can never forget the
spectacle, which partook of the sublime and the affecting. Together with
the vast host of children, dressed in holiday array, and with the fair
and open countenances for which the children of Saxon Lancashire are
remarkable, there were their teachers and ministers, and in the rear a
vast multitude consisting of the parents and friends of these children,
and of the religious congregations whose zeal and liberality provided
instruction for their juvenile charge. There were fourteen tiers of
galleries around the chief carriage-way of the park. These tiers were so
arranged that the _cortège_, passing along the road, could see at once
the whole array, and the children from every tier see the queen and her
attendants. As her majesty entered the park, the whole host raised their
voices and began the national anthem. For a few moments the effect was
sublime; it was, however, only during the first verse. The boys of the
Irish Roman Catholic schools burst the limitations of their orders, and
of their positions, and raised a tumultuous shout, which was caught
up in an instant by the other children, and almost as soon by the vast
multitudes who filled the park. The author of these pages has witnessed
many public entries of royal persons into great cities, and many,
especially, in the great metropolis of these islands, but never were
sounds or scenes presented to his senses so imposing and inspiring as on
that occasion. The queen was evidently much affected, and the great
Duke of Wellington, who was in her suite, and was an object of nearly as
hearty demonstrations as even her majesty, showed emotion, and was heard
to say that he had never witnessed so interesting a scene. The young
members of the royal household were naturally objects of intense
interest to the multitude of children, and they, by their greetings
and eager expression of countenance, showed how much they felt the
excitement which such a multitude of young persons was calculated to
inspire in princes and princesses of their own age. Probably, when many
more years have run their course, and some of these royal children shall
sit on thrones, they will remember a lesson profitable to royalty—the
loyal spirit of the juvenile population of Manchester, and of all that
population, in the year 1851. Doubtless the same virtues which, on
the part of their royal parents, commanded respect and affection, will
characterise those scions of the royal house of England, who already
tread with early, but no uncertain step, the path of honour and goodness
in which their queenly exemplar and teacher has conducted them. The
great Manchester demonstration was followed by illuminations so general
and so costly that her majesty and her suite were represented as taking
an interest in them, such as pyrotechnical displays did not usually
excite. From Worsley the queen and a portion of her suite proceeded to
Windsor.

On the 18th of November the court received, by electric telegraph,
intelligence of the death of the King of Hanover, her majesty’s uncle,
in the 81st year of his age. He had never been regarded as kind to her
majesty when Princess Victoria; and had been by far the most unpopular
prince in the family of George III. A considerable party among the
Tories, both in England and Ireland, gave rather open expression to
their desire that the Duke of Cumberland (King of Hanover), rather than
the rightful claimant, the Princess Victoria, should come to the throne
on the decease of William IV. Great indignation was excited at the time
by the supposed existence of a conspiracy to effect this object, for
the success of which there could have been no hope, so thorough was the
detestation of the people to the Duke of Cumberland, and so generous
their recollections of the Duke of Kent, and their feeling to his only
child—their rightful sovereign. Whatever might have been the feeling
of her majesty on these matters, she commanded the court to go into
mourning upon her uncle’s decease.




COLONIAL AFFAIRS.

_The Cape of Good Hope_.—The earliest important events of the year
connected with our colonial empire occurred in the Cape settlements.
During the autumn and winter of the previous year the governor, Sir
Harry Smith, suppressed all indications of rebellion, deposed the
chief, Sandilia, and proclaimed his mother sutee in his stead. Sandilia,
however, prowled about the English borders making incursions for
plunder. Sir Harry directed a column, six hundred strong, under the
command of Colonel Mackinnon, to disperse the marauders. That officer
committed the error so common on the part of British commanders—he
marched without flanking parties, or an advanced guard, except a party
of Caffre police, who of course led him into an ambuscade, at the
expense of a number of officers and men killed and wounded. This success
on the part of the savages led to a general rising of the tribes,
especially the brave and cruel Gaikas; the English colonists lost much
property and many lives. No adequate means had been adopted either by
the government or colonists to guard against the deceit common among
uncivilized races. Sir Harry Smith, and the troops which he commanded,
were in imminent peril at Fort Cox. By the beginning of the year 1851
the Caffres had penetrated to the very heart of the colony. Sir Harry
Smith escaped from Fort Cox, at the head of a flying escort, to King
William’s Town, where he established his head-quarters throughout the
war. On the 21st of January the first general action was fought at Fort
Hare and the Fingo village of Abee. The Caffres were the assailants,
and numbered about six thousand men. There were two 24–pounders in
Fort Hare, and their fire drove back the aggressors, who had suffered
severely during their repeated assaults. The garrison made a sortie at
a moment of confusion in the Caffre ranks, caused by the havoc of the
guns; the sortie was successful, but not until after a fierce conflict
at close quarters. The force at Sir Harry Smith’s command was totally
inadequate to suppress such an insurrection, unless, indeed, by singular
good fortune, and with most severe loss. The Hottentots, encouraged by
the success of the Caffres, burst into sudden rebellion, and committed
numerous murders upon the settlers, as well as inflicting loss upon the
armed bands of loyalists, and troops, with whom constant skirmishes
were maintained. The natives in the English pay, even the Cape Mounted
Rifles, deserted in great numbers, and strove earnestly to organize
Caffres and Hottentots for more effective war. Colonel Somerset, now
promoted to the rank of major-general, succeeded in coming upon the main
force of the Hottentots with two columns of British, one six hundred and
the other three hundred strong. The general committed precisely the same
errors, and in the same manner, as Lord Clyde and his lieutenants
in India, in the mutiny of 1857, afterwards made the English nation
accustomed to expect from British officers—the stronghold of the
Hottentots was so carelessly invested that they escaped, and the war,
which, so far as they were concerned, might have been terminated, was
consequently prolonged. In various actions which took place the Caffres
and Hottentots fought well; the Fingoes, the allies of the British,
fought indifferently. The English suffered from successful ambushes on
the part of the enemy, and from being badly supplied with ammunition.
Colonel Fordyce, who was very active, but not always successful, in
command of separate columns under the orders of General Somerset, was
killed, and many brave officers and men fell.

On the 31st of October a draft of a constitution for the colony,
dispatched by Earl Grey, arrived at Cape Town. It was transmitted to the
Cape for the approval of the legislative council, in order eventually,
by the queen’s sanction, to become law. According to that document the
parliament of the colony was to consist of the governor, the legislative
council, and a house of assembly. The legislative council was to be
elective, the members retiring by rotation at intervals of five years,
until ten years had expired, when the members should hold their places
in the council for ten years. The house of assembly to consist of
members elected for five years. The franchise to be possessed by
occupiers of tenements of the value of £25. The sessions were to be
annual. The colonists received this constitution with unbounded joy, and
petitioned the queen to grant this as the charter of the colony, without
any reference to the legislative council then existing, in which the
petition declared that the people had no confidence. The granting of a
constitution to the Cape was the result of the energetic requests of the
colonists, their dissatisfaction with the administration of Earl Grey in
the colonial office in London, and the demands of the English House of
Commons: the matter was also expedited by the enormous charges for the
Caffre war upon the imperial exchequer, which the English government
and parliament were anxious to escape; the readiest and safest mode of
accomplishing which the House of Commons declared was by granting to the
colonists self-government. Lord Derby, regretting the liberty conceded
to the colonists, threw obstacles in the way of the measure, but, by a
very small majority, he was defeated in the House of Lords.

The rebellion at the Cape of Good Hope was prolonged during the opening
months of 1851, and finally died out from the exhaustion of the enemy,
in the presence of reinforcements of British troops. As tidings of its
progress arrived in England, they occasioned grave discussions in the
press, and party debates in parliament.

The Cape of Good Hope alone, of all the British colonies, was a source
of public anxiety during the year 1851. India, so often the field of
conflict, triumph, and disaster, afforded comparatively few incidents of
great public interest suited to the records of a general history. Peace,
loyalty, material development, and prosperity characterised the colonial
chronicle of the year.

_Discovery of Gold in Australia_.—In September news reached England of
the discovery of gold fields at Bathurst, in New South Wales. Before
the close of the year intelligence was received in England of fresh
discoveries; these were in Victoria. The immediate consequence of the
gold discoveries was disadvantageous to the colonies, as men of
all trades and professions forsook their callings to repair to the
“diggings,” and the shepherds abandoned their flocks, so that hundreds
of thousands of stock were lost, or perished. The ultimate effect upon
British Australia was, however, most prosperous—several of the colonies
of that vast region becoming enriched with mineral wealth. Although the
public announcement of the treasures contained in the mineral resources
of certain of the Australian settlements was made at the period above
referred to, it was known to the authorities many years previously that
gold might be obtained, but, under the influence of a false policy, the
fact was concealed.

_Hostility of the Arabs at Aden_.—The British settlement at Aden,
important because of the command of the Arabian Sea, which it enabled
the English to maintain, suffered this year in various ways. The station
was most sickly, and the Europeans, and Bombay sepoys, in garrison, were
alike exposed to heavy mortality. The Arabs resorted to violence and
assassination; British officers were murdered if they strayed beyond the
limits of the garrison. The crews of British merchantmen on the coast
were attacked, and some wrecked mariners were massacred.

The Mohammedan populations of the British empire showed indications
of intense irritability against the English, and, indeed, everywhere
amongst Mohammedans, animosity to Europeans appeared to increase.




FOREIGN AFFAIRS—EUROPEAN RELATIONS.

_France_.—The relations of the United Kingdom with France, are not only
more important in themselves than those which the former sustains with
any other nation, but they influence the whole foreign policy of
the British government. France is ascendant upon the continent
notwithstanding the rivalry of Russia, and the policy of France often
complicates the relations of England with other powers. This has arisen
frequently from national jealousy, and as frequently from the sudden and
extreme changes to which the government of France is liable in its form
and principles. The revolution of 1848 brought France morally nearer to
England. Louis Philippe had much difficulty in holding in rein the war
spirit, which for, his own selfish and crooked policy, he had himself
evoked. After that corrupt prince was driven from the throne by the
people he had betrayed, a friendly feeling sprung up towards England.
The moderate republican party regarded Great Britain as a land of
freedom, and the natural ally of France. That party, however, maintained
its ascendancy but for a short time. The Napoleonists, red republicans,
priests, and peasants, united in the support of Charles Louis Napoleon
Buonaparte. He was elected president of the republic, and 1851
witnessed, through his instrumentality, events of great magnitude, and
which exercised potent influence upon the public mind and policy of
England.

There can be no doubt that from the hour Louis Napoleon took his place
in the National Assembly he had resolved, by the aid of the partizans
of his name, the priests, and their agents connected with the press, to
undermine the assembly, and hold it up to the ridicule and resentment of
the country. The hostility of that body to universal suffrage, and the
advocacy of that political theory by the Buonapartists, gave to the
president of the French republic a popularity with the “reds,” which
otherwise he never could have obtained.

In the latter part of 1850, a great review of troops took place at
Sartory, during which cries, from many of the soldiers, of “Vive
l’Empereur” were heard, and were encouraged by the generals in the
Buonapartist interest. Some officers who repressed those exclamations,
and others who refused to join in them, were dismissed by Louis
Napoleon’s executive. These circumstances raised formidable debates in
the assembly, and afterwards led to votes and demonstrations hostile to
Louis Napoleon. On the other hand a large number of the representatives,
who were indebted for their return chiefly to the priesthood, and what
remained of a landed aristocracy, used every instrumentality they could
bring into requisition to damage the executive, to lower the authority
of the president, and to create a monarchical reaction. While they
brought forth as a crime the fact that the soldiers had cried “Vive
l’Empereur” they took every opportunity themselves to utter the party
shouts of “Vivent les Bourbons!” or “Vivent les Orleans!” A singular
circumstance exhibited the efforts of a large proportion of the
assembly to bring about a monarchical reaction. During the prorogation a
permanent committee was formed, in which a small minority of republicans
was placed by the votes of the assembly. There were twelve reactionists;
these men were found to be in constant communication with the two
branches of the exiled Bourbons. Six of them spent most of the time
of the prorogation at Wiesbaden, with the _pseudo_. court of the elder
Bourbon branch; the other six went to England, and were constantly at
Claremont with the Orleanist branch of the exregal house. As M. Flaudin
taunted these sections of the assembly with desiring, they really
purposed that Louis Napoleon should be a _president fainéant_, while yet
permitted to retain the nominal functions of government. Louis Napoleon
strengthened himself by a new ministry, in which the assembly, by a
large majority, declared its want of confidence. M. Montalembert and
some others, who were expected to vote on the side of the opposition,
voted with the Buonapartists. This made it evident that a strong
party among the priesthood deemed it the best policy to support Louis
Napoleon, as the friend of the pope’s temporal power at Rome, and of the
Roman Catholic religion in France. A very large number of the priests,
and of the lay devotees, refused to trust Louis Napoleon as a friend of
the church. They did not forget that his first public act, on arriving
at the estate of manhood, was to create, or at all events aid in
council, and in the field, an insurrection against the pope. Neither did
they forget that, although a French army garrisoned Rome, to support the
pope under the auspices of the president of the French republic, that
the president in his less fortunate days had animadverted in severe
terms upon the education and patriotism of the Roman Catholic clergy of
France. He had in one of his works drawn invidious comparisons between
them and the German clergy, much to the disadvantage of the former. The
following was especially quoted by that section of the French clergy
and laity who were unwilling to give the president a warm support:—“The
clergy will cease to be ultramontane when they shall be obliged, as
formerly, to distinguish themselves by learning, and to obtain their
education from the same sources as the generality of’ citizens. Southern
Germany, without contradiction, is the country in which the Roman
Catholic clergy are the best instructed, the most tolerant, and the
most liberal; and why are they so? Because the young men who in Germany
destine themselves to the priesthood, learn theology in common with
students destined for other professions. Instead of being from infancy
sequestered from the world, and obtaining in ecclesiastical seminaries
a spirit hostile to the society in the midst of which they have to live,
they learn at an early age to be citizens, before being priests. The
consequence is that the German Catholic clergy are distinguished by
great enlightenment and ardent patriotism. There are no sacrifices
which they are not ready to make for the triumph of liberty, and for
the independence of Germany. In their eyes to be a priest is to teach
morality and charity; is to make common cause with all the oppressed; to
preach justice and toleration; to predict the reign of equality; and to
teach men that political redemption must follow religious liberty. Let
the education of the clergy be the same in France as it is in Germany,
and it will produce the same results. By the union of priests and laymen
there will be a double action which will be favourable to society;
priests will become citizens, and citizens will become more religious.
Then—but then only—we shall be happy to see, as in Germany, the
ministers of religion at the head of education, teaching youth the
morality of Christ, which destroyed slavery, taught men, that they are
equal, and impressed on them that God has placed in their hearts
faith and love, in order to believe in what is right, and to love one
another.”*

     * “Complete Works of the Emperor Napoleon III.,” vol. ii.
     Chapter on “The Clergy and the State.”

The espousal of the president’s cause by M. Montalembert, then
recognised as the lay leader of the ultramontane party, decided many
waverers, notwithstanding their affection for the elder Bourbons, and
their horror of such liberal enunciations by Louis Napoleon.

When the president’s ministry of favourites was turned out by the vote
of the assembly, he resorted to the extraordinary measure of forming a
ministry of men who had no votes in that body. This he alleged was only
a provisional ministry, but the assembly did not place faith in these
assurances, and offered it every opposition. The new ministry
were allowed to sit in the assembly as ministers, to answer any
interpellations, or make any statements connected with their offices.
This ministry remained in office until the 11th of April, when it gave
place to that which it had provisionally succeeded, and which in its
turn encountered the opposition of the assembly.

During the months of April and May petitions were got up in Paris, and
the provinces, in favour of a revision in the constitution Of 1848. On
the 28th of May the assembly was entitled, by its original constitution,
to entertain the question of a general revision of the constitution
of the state, but no alteration could take place unless approved by
three-fourths of the entire votes. Motions for an alteration in the
constitution were made by the Buonapartists, and supported in various
details by the monarchists of both branches of the Bourbons. The great
aim of these parties was the prolongation of the president’s official
term, and the enacting of laws to prohibit and punish public banquets
and public meetings of a political nature. For this purpose, and for
any purpose of repression (as he had said in a speech at Djion), the
assembly was always ready to respond to the demands of the president
of the republic. Although so ready to uphold the ministry in their
repressive measures there was a determination in the assembly to
frustrate their power as the ministry of Louis Napoleon. This they soon
effected by a formal vote of censure, for using improper influence in
order to obtain from the provinces, through the medium of the public
functionaries, petitions for a revision of the constitution.

The new ministry was still in the interest of the president of the
republic. The assembly, which had been prorogued on the 10th of August,
recommenced its duties on the 4th of November. Business began by a long
“message” presented in the name of the president of the republic, the
main feature of which, and that which excited most attention in the
assembly, and in France, was a proposal to abolish the electoral law of
the 31st of May, 1850, and to re-establish the electoral law of the 15th
of March, 1849. The last named provided that all citizens of age, who
have resided six months in the commune were electors. The law of May,
1850, abolished universal suffrage. That act of the legislature was
a revolution; the assembly by passing it virtually abolished the
constitution, which could be only legitimate as the act of a constituent
assembly. The assembly was to a large extent elected under the influence
of the priests, who struggled incessantly to accomplish a reactionary
policy. From the moment that universal suffrage was abolished, the
great mass of the people abetted the pretensions of the president of the
republic, whose writings had always advocated universal suffrage. Thus
the assembly secured the ascendancy of Louis Napoleon by the very
means which they believed most efficacious in thwarting his power and
restoring that of the Bourbons. When the reading of the message of the
president of the republic terminated, the assembly presented a scene
of strange agitation, which was rendered still more intense when the
minister by whom the message was read, M. Thurigny, demanded “urgency.”
 A violent discussion ensued upon this demand. The discussion took its
tone from the known ambition of Louis Napoleon Buonaparte, and his open
attempts to tamper with the army. To prevent a _coup d’état_, of which
many became apprehensive, the assembly began a struggle to obtain more
direct power over the troops. A _projet de loi_ was brought forward by
the questors to that effect. The ministry and the Buonapartists demanded
that the sole power over the army should be vested in the chief of the
state—the president of the republic, and not in the president of the
legislative assembly. General St. Arnaud, afterwards commander-inchief
of the French army in the Crimea, was foremost in the interest of Louis
Napoleon. It would be difficult to say which of the two parties, that
consisting of the Buonapartists and the executive on the one hand,
or the majority of the assembly on the other, was the more
unconstitutional, faithless, and ambitious. The allegation of M.
Cremieux was true, “the majority of the assembly had no great attachment
to the republic. It incessantly invoked the constitution, which it every
day trampled under foot. The assembly was afraid because it did not feel
behind it that force which supported assemblies.” The assembly voted
against the government by a large majority. The conflict between
that body and the executive increased from day to day. Both parties
contemplated a _coup d’etat_, and each proceeded to its execution
characteristically. The assembly prepared a bill, the real object
of which was to facilitate the impeachment of the president of the
republic. Numerous causes for impeachment were provided, such as the
president taking command of the armed force in person, inciting his
own re-election to the presidency, or attempting to change the form of
government. The most serious provision of this _projet de loi_, was
that whenever the president of the republic was accused, “_the accused
immediately ceases his functions_.” By the introduction of this project
things were brought to a pass, between the assembly and the president of
the republic, in which the power of one or other must perish. If Louis
Napoleon permitted the project to become law his personal destruction
would be effected by the legitimist majority. If he were not re-elected
president of the republic, and descended into private life, he would
be politically ruined, for he was heavily in debt, and no pecuniary
resources were at his disposal sufficient for his maintenance as a
public man. Then or never must he make some bold and comprehensive
movement to countervail the majority of the assembly. The issue of this
conflict has been presented by the author, in another of his works, with
such brevity, that he cannot hope to offer a more complete condensation.
It was as follows:—“On the 1st of December a proclamation was put
forth dissolving the assembly, and calling upon the people by universal
suffrage to accept a government identical with the scheme of Napoleon
I. when first consul. The proclamation made known the desire of the
president to surrender his position into the hands of the people, or
to accept the headship of a new government on the plan he proposed, and
resting on universal suffrage. These proclamations were posted on all
the walls of Paris by dawn of the 2nd of December; all the leading
men of the assembly were arrested; Paris was filled with troops. After
struggles on the part of the assembly, and many casualties in the
streets, the eventful day of the 2nd of December wore away. On the 3rd
the people awoke from the stupefaction with which the suddenness of the
_coup_ struck them, and preparations were made by the republicans and
red republicans for resistance. On the 4th that resistance was offered;
barricades were erected, and every token of a fierce contest quickened
into life. Whenever an opportunity occurred, the soldiery were
assassinated, and the military retaliated with savage vengeance.
Men, women, and children were swept from the streets by discharges of
musketry and grape. By the night of the 4th, the conflict was over.
The president ruled all things. The ‘ticket’ put to the electors was
as follows:—‘The French people wills the maintenance of Louis Napoleon
Buonaparte’s authority, and delegates to him the powers necessary to
frame a constitution on the basis of his proclamation of the 2nd of
December.’ This was to be carried by a simple affirmative or negative
by all Frenchmen twenty-one years of age, in possession of their civil
rights. On the 20th and 21st of December the ballot took place, and
the result was that more than eight millions of men voted in the
affirmative. The votes of the army were taken separately. The army
in France voted almost unanimously for Buonaparte; in Algiers a
large majority was against him. Before twelve months the empire was
proclaimed.”*

     * Nolan’s “History of the War against Russia,” vol. ii.,
     chap, lxxvii. J. S, Virtue, City Road.

Events of domestic interest to France have been treated at this length
under the head of our own foreign relations, because upon the event just
related turned the European policy of England during many years. The
closing events of 1851, in France, influence materially the foreign
relations, and even the domestic policy, of England, while these sheets
are passing through the press, at the close of 1859. Eight years have
rolled away, and yet the power of Louis Napoleon in France, achieved by
the revolution which he effected by the _coup d’état_ of 1851, was the
hinge upon which turned the foreign policy of the United Kingdom, even
in 1860, not only in Europe, but in Asia, not only in the eastern but in
the western hemisphere.

When the tidings arrived in England of the strange, sudden, and daring
occurrences at Paris, men’s minds were greatly agitated. A conflict of
opinion arose in parliament and throughout the nation. Some regarded
the _coup d’état_ as Montalembert regarded it in 1859, as a violation of
conscience, a treason, a perjury, a sanguinary violation of the rights
of the French people; others deemed it an advantage gained by order, and
even freedom, over anarchy and the despotism of red republicanism;
they spoke of it as Montalembert did in 1851, when he addressed his
countrymen, and told them that “to vote against Louis Napoleon would be
to declare in favour of the socialist revolution, the only thing which
can at present succeed the existing government.” It will, however,
belong to other chapters of this history to depict the effect upon
English affairs, and English public opinion, of the policy and power of
him who seized the reins of government, in France, with a hand as daring
as that of his renowned uncle.




DISCUSSIONS IN THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT CONCERNING THE STATE OF AFFAIRS AT
NAPLES.

Throughout the year 1851 the state of the kingdom of Naples attracted
the attention of the civilized world, but made most impression in
England. The King of Naples was a bigot and a tyrant, a man of obstinate
will, and he exhibited a fierce hatred to both civil and religious
liberty. During the European struggle for freedom, in 1848, he swore to
give a constitution to his subjects, and to observe it for ever.
Utterly faithless in his own character, he violated his oath when the
opportunity of power permitted. The description Milton gives as
the probable result of restoring Satan and his fallen host to their
primitive glory, on professions of repentance, depicts the actual
conduct of the Neapolitan Bourbon when he attained to power, after being
spared by his subjects the humiliation so generally the lot of European
princes in the great year of revolutions—

     “Height would recall high thought, and ease recant
     Vows made in pain, as violent and void.”

A pamphlet, written by Mr. Gladstone, roused intelligent persons in
England, and in Europe generally, to the atrocities perpetrated upon
virtuous, loyal, and even illustrious subjects, in sheer wantonness
of power, by the Neapolitan king. Lord Palmerston, then at the head of
foreign affairs, sent a copy of the pamphlet to the English minister at
every court of Europe, with the design of calling the attention of all
civilized nations to the oppression with which the people of the kingdom
of Naples were overwhelmed by their perjurious prince. This announcement
was received by enthusiastic cheers in the House of Commons. Lord
Palmerston, however, was disappointed in his expectation that the
moral influence of Europe would be brought to bear upon the Neapolitan
government, in favour of humanity. Some of the European states upheld
the conduct of the King of Naples, and the pope especially lent him his
moral support, although twenty thousand citizens of the kingdom of
the Two Sicilies were incarcerated for expressing liberal opinions, or
demanding the institutions which the king had sworn to respect. Thus
supported by the despotic states, and the sovereign pontiff, he bid
defiance to the constitutional states of Europe, and even increased the
cruelties of his stern absolutism.




DIPLOMATIC DISPUTE WITH AUSTRIA AND TUSCANY, ARISING FROM AN OUTRAGE
UPON A YOUNG ENGLISH GENTLEMAN AT FLORENCE.

It was early in January, 1852, that the tidings arrived in England of
one of the most unprovoked and barbarous outrages ever perpetrated upon
one of her sons, but the event itself occurred in 1851. The events of
this chapter relate to that year, but as the transactions at Florence,
in which England suffered so much humiliation, extended into 1852, it is
proper the narrative should also extend into that year, so far as they
are concerned.

It appears that a young English gentleman, Mr. Erskine Mather, about
nineteen years of age, and his younger brother, Mr. Thomas M. Mather,
about sixteen, had been for some time in Paris, where their parents
had placed them to promote their education. The elder brother being
delicate, had been ordered south as the winter approached. In this
search after health they had a desire, at the same time, to acquire in
the country a knowledge of the language of Italy, and of the art for
which that land is celebrated. They had already spent two or three
months at Nice, and in November had moved down to Genoa, and then on to
Florence, where they meant to reside for the winter; at which place
the injury and insult were inflicted. On the 29th of December Earl
Granville, the foreign minister of England, in writing to the Honourable
P. C. Scarlett, the _charge d’affaires_ at Florence, thus speaks of
these young Englishmen, and the outrage:*—

     * From No. 3 Despatch, in Official Documents.

“The story of the young men is so candidly told, and they appear, from
the tenor of another letter which has been shown to me, to be such
well-conditioned and inoffensive persons, that I cannot question the
truth of their statement, or entertain any doubt that a cowardly and
cruel injury has been inflicted on the elder of them.” The following are
the facts of the case as detailed by the young gentleman himself to M.
Salvagnoli, the distinguished Tuscan lawyer, and which were afterwards
confirmed, in every point, by the evidence of Italian and French
witnesses who saw the deed committed.




STATEMENT OF MR. ERSKINE MATHER TO M. SALVAGNOLI.*

     * From 2 in No. 13, Official Papers

On the 29th of December, 1851, my brother and I set out to go and
breakfast at a _café_ in the Piazza del Duomo.

Passing by the Piazza San Marco we stopped to look at the band of the
regiment, and other soldiers standing about; after waiting three or four
minutes we passed on, leaving them still there. When we arrived about
the middle of the Via Langa we again heard the music, and, as they were
marching the same way, we walked on their right hand nearly to the end
of the Via Martelli. That street being very narrow, as you are aware,
and at this time rendered more so by a carriage passing along, as our
_café_ was on the other side we were obliged to cross between the band
and the guard, where they had left a space of about forty or fifty feet,
and many other persons were crossing at the same time. While walking arm
in arm with my brother I suddenly received a violent blow on my back,
making me turn short round. I then perceived that it was given by the
officer in advance of the guard, who held in his hand his naked sword,
with the flat edge of which he had struck me.

I asked him somewhat angrily, but without threat or gesticulation, in
the best Italian I knew, why he had struck me, using nearly these words,
“_Perche m’aveti dato questo?_’” While I was speaking to the officer
I was suddenly interrupted by another person, dressed in the Austrian
uniform, who placed himself between the officer and me, at the same time
giving me a blow in the face which drew blood. The blow made me start
and fall back; before I could recover myself I received another cut, on
the head, from the first officer, which stunned me; it passed through my
hat, making a wound nearly three inches and a half in length, and down
to the bone, causing the blood to flow violently.

A short time after I begged my brother to follow the officer, that he
might recognise him; and I was taken to the hospital of Santa Maria
Nuova, where I was obliged to remain three weeks before I could return
home. As it has been said that I used threatening language to the
officer after the first blow, I solemnly assure you that it is utterly
false and without foundation, which the following reasons will prove:—

1st. It is impossible to believe that I could for a single instant
have contemplated an act so full of folly and madness, as alone, and,
unarmed, to threaten a man with his sword in hand, at the head of a
large body of men by whom he was supported.

2nd. If I had contemplated the folly of opposing an officer under such
circumstances, I should have done so by a sudden and instantaneous
blow, and not by taking a position, and thus inviting the irresistible
assailment of so many armed men.

3rd. Another proof that I was not in a menacing attitude, and was not
prepared for any personal attack, is the fact of the second assailant
giving me, without opposition or hindrance, a violent blow on the face.

4th. If I had been in a menacing attitude, or prepared for defence, with
my arm raised, instead of receiving the blow on my head he would have
struck my raised arm.

5th. The wound, which I to this moment bear, was not given, holding
the sword short, near the point, as all the military officers who have
examined it can testify; which proves that I was at a considerable space
from him, only reached by a sword or other weapon: thus he was beyond
any threatening attitude of mine, as I was without sword or arms.

Thus I have proved the absurdity of the assertion that I made any
threatening resistance; equally untrue is the assertion that the blow
was given because wearing a white hat they thought I was a Tuscan. If
the first reason had been sufficient, the other, miserable as it is,
had not been necessary. But all the defence is palpably false,
contradictory, and nothing worth. An untruth defended cannot become
truth. All these facts, without troubling you further, prove the truth
of my statement, which it has been my duty to give you.

I am, &c,

James Ekskine O. Mather.


The British residents and travellers then at Florence were strongly
indignant at so cowardly and unjustifiable an attack on their young
countryman. The British residents were the pride and ornament of the
Tuscan court on days of high ceremony and festival, but on the grand
reception day, the first day of the year, they unanimously intimated
officially that they would mark their dissatisfaction of the disgraceful
assault by abstaining from presenting themselves, without the fullest
investigation and redress were granted. This feeling of indignation
rose so high that it was with difficulty the many young Englishmen at
Florence could be restrained from making an attack upon the officers of
the Croat regiment, Kinsky, amongst whom was Lieutenant Forshalier, the
brutal assailant.

After much negotiation at Florence and Vienna, the British _charge
d’affaires_ was at length informed, on the 15th of January, by Prince
Lichtenstein, that he had been authorized by Marshal Radetzky to state
that the marshal approved that an inquiry should be instituted into the
affair. This inquiry was gone into in secret, without any professional
man being permitted to be present in the interests of justice, or in
defence or support of the wounded Englishman. The city of Florence in
command of Austrian troops,—its duke replaced on his throne and there
supported by them,—all the official men and courts existing, as it
were, by the tolerance of those troops, an inquiry to investigate fairly
a charge, by those thus humbly protected, against one of the officers
of their proud protectors would seem hopeless. Yet such were the manly
independence, veracity, and courage of the Italian and French witnesses
that the whole truth came out, and, as the British _chargé d’affaires_
afterwards writes to the Duc de Casigliano, the foreign minister of
Tuscany, “the evidence which has thus been obtained, conclusively
establishes that a most unprovoked outrage was committed on an unarmed
and unoffending British subject;” and the British government were
satisfied, he said, that “the government of Tuscany must be anxious
to mark their abhorrence of this outrage inflicted upon an innocent
individual.”*

     * Official Papers, No. 18.

Of that evidence Mr. Scarlett, the _chargé d’affaires_, writes to Earl
Granville** that, “All the witnesses concur, more or less, in bearing
out Mather’s statement.

     ** Official Papers, No. 18.

None are in contradiction with it. Perhaps the most important evidence
is that of Pini, which exactly corroborates Mather’s statement, and
certainly there is not a single syllable, from first to last, at
variance with it.” Thus speaks Giovanni Pini, the important witness of
the scene of blood and outrage:—“On the day in question, about twelve
o’clock, more or less, I was in the Via Martelli, about half way down,
when I heard coming towards me the Austrian military band, which was
accompanying, as usual, the detachment intended to relieve the guard of
the city. As soon as the band had passed, I stationed myself on the path
where the people were, that is between the band and the soldiers who
were behind. The street being rather narrow the people who were close
by the band, I may say in a crowd, were pressing upon each other. A few
steps further on I observed an Austrian officer, who had a cap on, and
was therefore at the time off duty, strike, with his left hand, a young
man who was on that side of him, with a blow which hit him on the
face, and I suppose it was given with some force, for the young man who
received it staggered backwards; and I observed that, as soon as he had
recovered himself, another Austrian officer, who was the one at the head
of the soldiers, and marching with them with his drawn sword, strike
with it the same young man on the head, inflicting a wound on his
forehead, from which blood began to flow in such quantities, as wine
from a broken bottle. I immediately ran to the assistance of the poor
youth, who had been so unreasonably ill-treated, since I could not find
that he had offended the soldiers in any manner. Besides myself he was
assisted by a gentleman who showed that he was his brother, although he
could not speak Italian, and a Frenchman whom I do not know. There was
also a priest, who was moreover unknown to me. There were other persons,
also, who witnessed the transaction like myself, but I could not
discover among them any of my acquaintance. The wounded person, whom I
understood to be an Englishman, signified to me his gratitude for the
assistance I had afforded him, but said little, as he spoke only in
his own language to his brother, who started off from us immediately in
order to look at the officer, who had inflicted the wound, so as to
be able to recognise him, and then came back directly. He overtook
the officer at the Piazza del Duomo, because the detachment was going
towards the Piazza del Gran Duca. I and the brother of the wounded man
then conveyed him to the first doctor’s shop, which is on the Piazza
del Duomo, at the corner of the Via Martelli; but, finding that the
apothecary could not treat him, we went off forthwith to the hospital
of Santa Maria Nuova, where the wounded man, having lost much blood,
fainted away, and after having been brought to, was put into bed....
From the wounded man himself, as well as from the medical men who were
attending in the room, I heard that if the Englishman had not had on his
head a rather stout hat, he might have been killed on the spot; but I do
not know how deep the wound was.”*

     * Page 51 of Official Papers.

Francis Catani, a priest, also gave evidence, to a certain extent, to
the same effect, and added, “that he had heard that if the Englishman
had not had his hat on his head he would have been killed on the spot,
for it was that which alone protected him.”

And the Senator Giuseppe Vai states that “the young Englishman went
aside quickly towards the end of my house, the Casa Marchesini, or
perhaps rather under it, and at the same time I heard that a few words
were rapidly exchanged between them, which I did not understand, because
I was too high up to be able to distinguish them (he was at an upper
window of his house), and also because the band was making a noise, and
at the same moment I saw that the said officer, raising his sabre, gave
the young man a blow on the forehead with it, using the cutting edge,
by which the latter fell down upon the step by the wall of’ the Casa
Marchesini, but with almost the rapidity of lightning he got up again,
and when he was standing I saw the blood was flowing from the place
where he was struck.... Because this act produced upon me a disagreeable
impression I withdrew from the window.”

These extracts of evidence demonstrate the guilty nature of the outrage,
and the careful and truthful statement of the young Englishman, as well
as his cool and courageous conduct in a case at the time apparently so
desperate.

Mr. Mather, the father of these youths, immediately left England for
Florence, and, as he passed through London, laid the case before the
foreign minister, as far as the detail had reached him by the letters
of the younger brother, which were handed to the minister. He arrived
at Florence after his son had been three weeks in the hospital; part of
that time in a dangerous state. The kind attention and the great skill
of the medical officers of that magnificent Florentine institution were
doubtless the chief causes of his recovery. The conduct of these young
Englishmen under such trying circumstances has been praised by almost
every political writer who took an interest in the subject, and there
seemed only one opinion throughout the country, that their coolness,
courage, and endurance, under great difficulties and personal dangers,
could not have been surpassed by the bravest and most experienced men.

Lord Palmerston, after the publication of the Official Papers,
on reviewing the whole facts of the case, in a debate upon it in
parliament, declared “that he found much to criticise in almost all the
parties concerned, except Mr. Mather and his sons.”*

     * House of Commons debate, June 14, 1853.

In the route to the hospital, in the occurrences there, as well as in
the account of the outrage, the graphic details by the generous-hearted
Giovanni Pini bring the reader in presence of the cruel and bloody
scene. While ill in hospital, pressed by professing friends, the British
_chargé d’affaires_ among them, to authorise proceedings in the Tuscan
law courts, Mr. E. Mather firmly refused his sanction. He at once
elevated the question to its right position by an appeal to the
representative of his country for the redress of an injury done to a
British subject, and for the future protection of British subjects, to
be redressed by the Tuscan government to the satisfaction of that of
Britain, without reference to his own private wrong. His young brother,
before the day had closed, sought out Mr. Scarlett, the British
_chargé d’affaires_, and also Prince Lichtenstein, the Austrian
commander-in-chief, taking with him two witnesses to testify to the
exactitude of his statement, and to them he poured out in clear and
emphatic language the story of the outrage committed. The conduct of
these two young Englishmen, without friends in a strange city, relying
on their sense of right, and sustained by their own firmness and
courage, was truly heroic. Their father, one of the most patriotic and
useful public men in the north of England, warmly approved of
their course of conduct, and pursued their views for redress. It is
humiliating to our country to write what historical truth compels us
to admit, that their efforts were met by the chicanery of diplomacy and
treachery on the part of British officials, which have left behind an
unpleasant impression of incapacity and want of principle, when
the purest honour, and a high sense of national justice should have
exclusively prevailed. They were well sustained, however, in their
course by the generous sympathy of the people of Florence, and at home
by the warmest feelings of their countrymen. As an eloquent public
writer earnestly expressed himself in reference to their conduct, and
that of the Earl of Malmesbury, the successor to Earl Granville:—“Both
father and sons have nobly vindicated themselves as Englishmen; it was
only when the national honour was confided to the minister, that the
national honour was degraded by the spirit of the Jew pedlar.” After
several weeks’ delay in Florence, the Mathers removed from that city to
Genoa, where the father leaving his sons in safety, and for the purpose
of the better recovery of the eldest, himself returned to England, to
press the case personally upon the foreign minister of England. His
first demand was punishment of the officer who had committed what Lord
Granville called, “a cruel and cowardly outrage,” and then, but not
without the first was granted, compensation to the injured youth by
the government under whoso jurisdiction the culprit acted. The Earl of
Malmesbury, then foreign minister (the Whigs having left office), after
several imperfect and ineffectual attempts for the better security of
his countrymen abroad, by the signal punishment of the Austrian officer,
wrote to Mr. Mather, senior, by his under-secretary, a letter, on the
24th of May, 1852, in very pitiable terms, to the effect that no national
redress had been obtained; but that one thousand francesconi had been
placed to the credit of his son, by the Tuscan government, for the
injury which he had sustained. Mr. Mather’s answer, with his indignant
refusal of the acceptance of such redress, received high eulogies from
the public writers of the day, and brought on debates in both houses of
parliament. We extract a portion of the letter:—

“Now, my lord, you will do me the favour to remember, that a British
subject, my son, was attacked in Florence by two armed Austrian
officers, receiving the most ‘unmerited and brutal treatment,’ as your
lordship has expressed it; that he was cut down by one of them, left in
his own blood, his life in danger for a length of time, and his health
perhaps for ever injured; and all this without any provocation, any
offence, as it has been proved by evidence not to be controverted, of
the most respectable witnesses,—people the subjects of the state
whose officers had so acted,—yet for all this no real redress has been
obtained; that officer is still at large, and remains unpunished....

“Whatever personal reparation you might deem proper to demand, which I
conceded with regret, to your lordship’s express commands (as I foresaw
a probable misapplication of such concession), was, as you know, to give
place to public honour.

“You now inform me that Prince Schwarzenberg, the late prime-minister
of Austria, ‘prior to his death had addressed a note to her majesty’s
government expressing his great regret at the occurrence, and at the act
of the Austrian officers.’ The extent of such regret may be estimated by
this:—the Austrian officer, who stained the honour of the Austrian army
by his bloodthirsty and cowardly act, has been allowed to go free and
unpunished, and his conduct has been approved, at least defended, by
Prince Schwarzenberg’s lieutenant, the Austrian commander-in-chief in
Tuscany, Prince Lichtenstein. This man I frequently saw, in all the
pride of military array and overbearing insolence, in the streets of
Florence, a public example to his brother officers, and the world,
of the impunity with which British subjects may be treated, and the
evidence of the low estimation of his superiors for British honour,
and British power. This all the while that British statesmen and
diplomatists were making urgent demands for redress, your lordship among
the number.... Has it been obtained?...

“The patriotic manner in which I have repeatedly expressed myself in
this unfortunate affair, as you are pleased to observe, has originated
in feelings that induce me now to express the pain which I feel that
this crime is sought to be compromised, and the indignation, as far as
I am concerned, with which I reject the offer of the Tuscan government,
and any participation in such proceedings.

“I will not pretend to be a judge of what is due to the honour of
England, but I know what is due to my own.”

The effect of this note was that Lord Malmesbury threw the
responsibility on Mr. Scarlett, his representative in Tuscany, and
annulled his proceedings. He then sent out Sir Henry Bulwer to endeavour
to arrange the affair, or to withdraw the embassy from Florence. A sort
of apology was given by the court of Florence for the outrage, and a
responsibility was assumed by it for the future, in case of injury to
British subjects—as if the law of nations had not already secured
it. No redress or punishment for the outrage ever followed Sir Henry’s
mission. He might, for all its purposes, have as well remained in
England. The Mathers refused to the last the money compensation, and to
this hour, in this infamous matter, the guilty officer has never met his
just punishment, nor public honour been satisfied. It is known that had
the course been pursued which the father and sons adopted, and justice
been satisfied, any personal compensation was to have gone chiefly to
the public hospital of Florence, and for other public institutions of
that refined capital, in which those Englishmen had received so much
kindness and sympathy when it was personally dangerous to yield it, in
the presence of their barbarous Croat invaders. Mr. Erskine Mather
is now a scientific British officer, and bears amidst the ranks of
England’s defenders the visible scar of the wound so treacherously and
wantonly inflicted upon him because he was an Englishman: a remembrance
to every Englishman of how little he may rely upon the defence of
his own honour, or the honour of his country in his person, while the
diplomacy of England is in the hands of men who sympathise with foreign
despotism, or find luxurious and lucrative appointments at foreign
courts under the ostensible duty of watching over the interests of their
country.

The remaining features of English affairs, in relation to foreign
nations, were of too little interest to require notice in these pages.




DEATHS OF EMINENT PERSONS DURING THE YEAR 1851.

No one who knows England can wonder that her annual obituary presents
such long lists of great names, when it is remembered how wide-spread is
her empire, and how varied her enterprise. It is only possible to select
a few of the remarkable persons for notice, whose departure from this
life in 1851 excited the attention and regret of large classes, or of
the whole nation.

On the 1st of February occurred the death of Mrs. Shelley, widow of
Percy Bysshe Shelley, the celebrated poet. Mrs. Shelley was a lady of
extraordinary gifts, and these were stimulated by the genius of her
husband. As an authoress she will always rank high, although only one of
her books has attained a just proportion of fame, “Frankenstein.” That
was received throughout Europe and America as one of the most remarkable
works of imagination which the 19th century had seen, and it gained for
her a reputation as lasting as extensive. “Lodore,” “Volperga,” “The
Last Man,” and others produced also a great impression, but not one of a
very permanent character, at least, in the British Isles. “The Last Man”
 deserves a higher estimation than has been awarded to it. There is a
very penetrating sadness in all Mrs. Shelley’s works written after the
loss of her gifted husband, and an impression of enervated physical
strength, and effort to write in spite of depression, is conveyed to the
reader.

On the 5 th, at Guildford, Surrey, the Rev. John Pye Smith, D.D., LL.D.,
F.R.S., for many years Principal of the Independent Congregational
College, at Homerton. He was one of the greatest scholars of his age.
The author of this work knew him well, and can in truth say his virtues
were as conspicuous as his scholarship was profound. He was especially
benevolent and modest. A celebrated divine once said of him that he
“had a very _troublesome_ conscience,” referring to its extreme
tenderness, and his nervous scrupulousness lest he should wear the
remotest appearance of evil. His religious works are chiefly critical
and controversial, and are written in a style of quiet and graceful
simplicity, with great perspicacity of expression and perspicuity
of thought. His “Scripture Testimony of the Messiah” is a wonderful
monument of human learning and clear, candid, and cogent logic. It
is the greatest standard work in the language, on “the Unitarian
Controversy.” When he retired from the direction of’ the college at
Homerton, where he trained many eminent men for the Christian ministry
among congregationalists, three thousand guineas were presented to
him as a tribute of respect. At his death the interest of the same
was applied to divinity scholars in the college for candidates for the
Christian ministry among the congregationalists, established at St.
John’s Wood, London, the Principal of which was Dr. John Harris, author
of many curious and literary productions much prized in tire religious
world.

February 23rd, at Hampstead, London, Joanna Baillie, the celebrated
authoress. She was the friend of Sir Walter Scott, who admired both
her poetic and dramatic genius exceedingly. Her plays, although open
to criticism as to selection of subject, plot, and stage effectiveness,
display the poetic power of her mind to great advantage.

April 28th, in London, aged eighty-one, Admiral Sir Edward Codrington.
He saw great variety of service as a naval officer, and displayed
professional skill and personal courage. In 1826, he received the
command of the Mediterranean fleet. He commanded the following year the
combined fleets of England, France, and Russia, in the destruction of
the Egyptian fleet, at Navarino. A son of this eminent and amiable man
subsequently commanded the British army in the Crimea, during a war of
England and her allies against Russia.

May 23rd, at Florence, where he officiated as British minister to the
court of Tuscany, the Right Honourable Richard Lalor Shiel. He was the
son of an Irish merchant, and was born in Dublin. His early education
was in the English Jesuit College, at Stonyhurst, a place which made
many bad Catholics by the excess of its ultra-montanism. Mr. Shiel was
afterwards a student of the Dublin University, where he distinguished
himself. He was called to the Irish bar in 1814. He wrote several plays
which had merit, and were for a time made popular by the acting of Miss
O’Neil. Mr. Shiel was never very successful as a lawyer, his taste
lying in the direction of dramatic literature and politics. He began
his political career at an early age; his first passionate oration, to
a Dublin Roman Catholic audience, was made at eighteen years of age. He
became one of the leaders of the Roman Catholic emancipation movement,
being second to O’Connell only as a leader of party and an orator; his
eloquence, however, was more refined than that of his more potential
colleague. His speeches were dramatic, rhetorical, and effective. Their
moral tone was offensive, vituperative, and vindictive. He was very
small of stature, ungainly and unprepossessing in appearance, and had a
strange squeaking voice; but in spite of these and other defects he was,
next to O’Connell, the most powerful agent in carrying Roman Catholic
emancipation. He was, however, never heartily trusted by O’Connell,
who saw his value as an instrument and flattered his vanity by fulsome
panegyric: when, however, the great agitator suspected the drift of
any movement of Shiel, he turned against him his keen although coarse
satire, and, by his contemptuous sneers and ludicrous and striking
caricatures, turned the tide of popular feeling against his subtle and
unreliable colleague. After Roman Catholic emancipation was achieved Mr.
Shiel became a member of the imperial parliament, where he distinguished
himself by his eloquence more than he ever did as a tribune. His oratory
was, however, characterised more by histrionic passion, rhetorical
artifice, and boldness of declamation, than by logic or truth. Many
times the beauty of his parliamentary orations dazzled his opponents,
and drew forth their admiring eulogy, and often his sarcasms smote them
with a severity more terrible than any launched from his side of the
house. He became a mere whig partisan; his ambition was office, and
he excited the strong resentment of the Irish party, with which he
had acted, by his silence where “Irish or Catholic interests” were
concerned, if the whig party were opposed to their demands. No orator
had espoused with more seeming heartiness various liberal opinions,
which he abandoned when he became a pet of the Whigs. Like O’Connell he
had harangued with great fervour large democratic assemblages in favour
of the voluntary principle in religion, and like O’Connell he mocked it
and vituperated it, when it served his purpose to do so. He had been a
great anti-slavery agitator, uttering fervent sentiments concerning the
equal right of men of all creeds and colours, and the duty and policy of
applying this great principle in the West India possessions of England,
and all over the world; but when his parliamentary party adopted a
course which displeased the anti-slavery party, and a deputation of
eminent philanthropists waited upon him, believing that in Richard Lalor
Shiel the black man had a friend as true as he had been an eloquent
advocate, those gentlemen were received with a haughty insolence, and a
contemptuousness which there was not even a decent effort to suppress.
Upon the Protestant dissenters of England he poured loud and eloquent
praise when he was agitating for Roman Catholic emancipation, as the
English dissenters gave an ostentatious support to that movement.
When the end was gained which he hoped to serve by such flattery,
he manifested a profound animosity to those whose services he had
commended. His real views on subjects of civil and religious liberty
were selfish and narrow. His professed patriotism was to a certain
extent real, but it was narrow and invidious where true, and it was for
the most part simulated. He was an object of hatred to the ultramontane
party in his own church; and a report prevailed in Europe, which does
not appear to have been substantiated, that he was, by that party,
ingeniously deprived of life through skilful agency appointed for that
purpose.

August 5th, Mrs. Harriet Lee, in her ninety-eighth year. This lady was
one of the authoresses of the “Canterbury Tales.” Her works were various
and popular.

August 6th, at Hong-Kong, the distinguished missionary, Gutzlaff. He was
by birth a Pomeranian, but was associated with the English so intimately
as interpreter, and as secretary to the Hong-Kong government, that he
was always regarded as a British citizen.

August 12th, aged fifty, the Honourable Elliott Drinkwater Bethune, a
man whose efforts for legal reform in England and India won for him the
gratitude of the good, and caused him to incur the bitterest hostility
of the selfish classes affected by proposals of reform.

November 18th, aged eighty-one, at Herenhausen, the King of Hanover,
uncle to her majesty.

December 19th, at Chelsea, London. Joseph Mallord William Turner, the
great English landscape painter, whose works are too well known, and
whose fame is too widely spread, to require more particular notice.




CHAPTER LXIV.

{VICTORIA. 1852}

     Home Affairs:  General State of Great Britain; Religious
     Agitations; Death of the Duke of Wellington;   The  Court;
     Parliamentary Discussions; Changes of Ministry..... Ireland:
     Animosities on Account of Religion; Insecurity of Life;
     Terrible Assassinations..... Colonies:   War  at  the Cape;
     Gold in California; General Condition of the British
     Colonies..... Foreign Affairs: Electric Telegraph Between
     London and Paris; Revival of the French Empire; English
     Policy in Reference to that Event; Indignant Feeling of the
     English nation towards Austria and the despotic Princes of
     Italy; Efforts of the British Navy to put down Piracy and
     Slavery.

{A.D. 1852}

The year 1852, like its predecessor, opened in the British Isles with
fierce religious controversies. The agitation about the papal aggression
had not died away, and events occurred, from day to day, inflaming the
spirit of religious difference. Yet this was not an unmixed evil—“The
greatest blessings have been achieved by discussions, errors suffer in
the ordeal; truth never does; the dross is consumed in the fire; the
gold comes out more brilliant, more precious, more pure.”*

     * Rev. Dr. Cumming’s “Apocalyptic Sketches,” p. 153

What was generally called the Achilli trial, early in the year,
aggravated the existing religious dissensions, and extended the spirit
of polemical conflict. Although the trial did not take place until June,
the public anticipated it with intense excitement. Dr. Achilli had been
a Roman Catholic priest; he left the Church of Rome, and devoted himself
to preach against its tenets, and the spirit of persecution which it
breathed. He produced a powerful impression both in Great Britain and
Ireland. It became exceedingly important to silence him, and the Romish
church resorted to its old instrument in such cases, defamation. The
Rev. Mr. Newman, a Roman Catholic priest, a convert from the Church of
England, who had, as a clergyman of that church, distinguished himself
at Oxford by his Jesuitical casuistry in upholding Puseyism, and
teaching that, by receiving the Church of England Articles in a
“_non-natural sense_,” clergymen might remain in her communion, and
receive her emoluments, while they taught the doctrines peculiar to the
Church of Rome, publicly attacked the character of Dr. Achilli, averring
that he was unworthy of credit, because he had been expelled from the
Church of Rome for dissolute habits. Achilli took an action for libel,
which was tried in the Court of Queen’s Bench, when a verdict was given
in favour of Dr. Achilli. The case assumed a peculiar aspect from the
fact that a number of women had been brought from Italy, by the Roman
Catholic priests, who swore that they had participated with Dr. Achilli
in criminal intercourse. The doctor solemnly swore that some of these
women he had never seen, and that, in respect to others whom he had
known, no accusation had ever until then been brought against him. The
mode in which these women gave their testimony, and the contradictory
character of it, left the jury no alternative but to believe the
allegations of Dr. Achilli, that the case was got up against him, by a
conspiracy of Roman Catholic priests, for the purpose of destroying his
moral reputation, and thereby preventing his effective preaching from
injuring their sectarian interests.

Another event still more aggravated the _odiumtheologicum_ which
prevailed. In the town of Stockport fierce religious riots broke out
between the Irish Roman Catholics and the Protestants of that town.
A religious procession of an offensive nature was got up by the Roman
Catholic clergy. This was resented by the Protestant population as an
insult: the Roman Catholic party persisted in the aggressive movement,
and the result was riot and bloodshed for several days. This event
produced terrible excitement elsewhere: and in Ireland some of the
newspapers in the Roman Catholic interest incited the people to commit
violence upon their Protestant neighbours. In addition to the animosity
which raged between Protestants and Romanists, the controversy
concerning the admission of Jews to parliament divided other sections of
the community. The parliamentary debates on this subject in the
previous year were remembered, and the remembrance embittered by various
incidents. Among these was the trial of Miller _versus_ Salomons. Mr.
Salomons having been elected member for Greenwich, presented himself in
the House of Commons, and voted. The action was to enforce a penalty of
£500 for having voted without taking the oath of abjuration. The case
was tried in the Court of Exchequer, before the barons, who were, with
the exception of Baron Martin, unanimous in a decision against Mr.
Salomons. This trial took place in April, and had the effect of
exasperating the wealthy Jewish community of London and exciting the
liberal politicians, who desired the emancipation of their Jewish fellow
citizens from all civil disabilities on account of their religion.

The general condition of Great Britain was prosperous. The influx
of gold from the newly-discovered gold regions, especially those of
Australia, stimulated enterprise. The recent remissions of duties
afforded relaxation to the pressure of taxation upon industry; trade was
good; the industrial classes were contented; the farmers, sharing in
the general prosperity, yielded less willingly to make themselves
instruments of agitation in the hands of Lord Derby. Benjamin Disraeli,
and other less prominent leaders of the opponents of free-trade,
especially in corn. With the exception of the Cape of Good Hope, the
tidings received from the colonies were favourable. No foreign war
threatened, although many apprehended that the “_coup d’état_” by
leading to the revival of the empire, would also lead to a revival of
the old imperial attitude of France to England,—that of menace and
ambition. The policy pursued by the British government was, however, so
conciliatory and fair, that no opportunity was left for France to make
a quarrel. It was moreover the interest of the French president to
court alliance with England, to prevent the possibility of a continental
coalition against him, which he knew would never dare the power of
France while England was her ally. The discussions connected with the
outrage committed upon Erskine Mather, Esq., at Florence, by Austrian
officers, alone agitated the country in connection with foreign
politics. The progress of that event was laid fully before the reader
in the last chapter. During the debates about it in parliament and the
press, in 1852, a strong public sentiment was evoked against the Duke
of Tuscany, and the Austrian government and army. Much sympathy was felt
towards the young Englishman who had so well maintained his country’s
honour, and to his father, by whom he was sustained in the manly and
patriotic course which he had adopted. The procedure of the diplomatic
agents of the English government, of the English government itself, and
of the foreign minister, Lord Malmesbury most especially, excited the
indignation of the people, and tended much to weaken the cabinet of
which Lord Malmesbury was so prominent a member: probably the apathy and
want of manly spirit and patriotism displayed by the British government
and its _employés_ in the Florence affair, did more to shake the
confidence of the people in the administration than all the party
attacks to which in its short existence it was exposed.

Among the home events of the year which excited general interest were a
series of earthquakes, which spread alarm over a large portion of Great
Britain. Such rare phenomena in this island naturally attracted the
attention of the philosophical, and affected the multitude with awe.
On the 4th of November the inhabitants of the north-western districts of
England felt the shocks usually characteristic of earthquake. The chief
force of the subterranean commotion seemed to be beneath Liverpool and
the districts that surround it. In Manchester the shock was felt more
severely than in most other districts. On the opposite coast of Ireland,
especially in the counties of Dublin and Wicklow, the vibrations of the
earth were nearly as remarkable as in Lancashire and Cheshire.

[Illustration: 814.jpg THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.]




DEATH OF THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.

The decease of the most remarkable man in Europe, perhaps in the world,
the great Duke of Wellington, filled the country with grief, commanded
the sympathy of all nations friendly to Great Britain, and the attention
of civilized men in every portion of the world. In England, it was the
most important event of the year’s history. No man exercised the same
influence over her fortunes. His name was a tower of strength before her
enemies, and his wisdom the chief and _dernier ressort_ in her councils.
He was the most confidential private counsellor of the queen, who
regarded him with the veneration and affection due to the friend of her
childhood, when she was neglected by the corrupt court of one uncle, and
the apathetic court of another, the sovereigns of the empire over which
she also was destined to reign. The removal of the great Duke was an
irreparable loss to her majesty and to the country she so wisely ruled;
and in no branch of the public service was this loss felt more than in
the army, which he had raised to an unprecedented pitch of efficiency
and glory. A brief notice of the life of this extraordinary man is
desirable, that the reader may more clearly see the important influence
his death necessarily had upon the position and policy of the United
Kingdom. Concerning the origin and career of this glorious man, J. H.
Stocqueler has made the following striking remarks:—

“Nobly born, carefully educated, and connected with people enjoying
considerable political influence, he was subjected to no early
wrestlings with fate. He was launched upon the stream of life under the
most favourable auspices, tasting neither the bitterness of poverty nor
the humiliation of obscurity. His public life, from first to last, was
one uninterrupted chain of glory, each link more brilliant than its
predecessor, and, unlike other great adventurers, whose course from
insignificance to splendour was broken, through a series of mischances
or their own unsteadiness of character, his progress knew no culminating
point—his fame no tarnish, his fortunes no reverse.

“But the even tenor of his career is no disparagement of the vast merit
of the Duke of Wellington. If his antecedents were less humble than the
public beginnings of other men, let it be remembered that he reached a
higher eminence than any personage of whom the annals of England possess
a record—always excepting John, Duke of Marlborough, his prototype in
all things but political virtue. Nor has his upward path been free from
a thousand obstructions, which none but a gigantic mind and a firm heart
could surmount. His difficulties began with his direct responsibility.
His triumphs followed as the results of his indomitable perseverance,
his unflinching courage, and his amazing constancy.”

The most accurate and, at the same time, brief account of the birth,
education, and early professional progress of the future hero, is one
written by the author just quoted.*

     * Stocqueler’s “Life of Wellington,” p. 23.

“It was in March, 1769, that Arthur Wellesley first saw the light.
Biographers differ as to the date and the locality; but it appears by
the evidence taken before a parliamentary committee in 1791, to inquire
into a petition against his return for the borough of Trim, on the
ground of his being a minor, that he was really born at Dangan Castle,
in the county of Meath, Ireland, at the time alleged above. His father
was the second Earl of Mornington, who enjoyed much celebrity for his
nice musical taste; his mother, Anne, the eldest daughter of Viscount
Dungannon. Early in life Arthur Wellesley was sent to Eton College for
his education, in conjunction with his afterwards distinguished brother,
Richard.

“Being desirous for the military profession he was sent to the college
of Angiers, directed by Pegnard, a celebrated French engineer.

“At the age of eighteen, after he had gone through a course of French
military instruction, Arthur Wellesley was gazetted to an ensigncy in
the 73rd regiment. This was in March, 1787. Nine months later he was
promoted to a lieutenancy in the 76th. Subsequent exchanges carried him
into the 41st foot, and the 12th Light Dragoons.

“In 1791 (30th of June), being then twenty-two years of age, he procured
a company in the 58th Foot, whence, four months later, he exchanged to
a troop in the 18th Light Dragoons. Under the system in force in the
British army, officers, avid of rapid promotion, must seek it in other
regiments than their own, if their immediate seniors are prepared to
purchase advancement. As Arthur Wellesley had had no opportunities of
displaying zeal and gallantry in the field during these four years
of service, his quick progress may be fairly set down to the combined
action of ministerial favour, and a sufficiency of pecuniary means.
Neither at school, nor college, nor in the performance of the easy
regimental duty peculiar to a time of peace, and incidental to five
exchanges, did he display any of those qualities which developed
themselves in so remarkable a manner a few years later.

“Previous to obtaining his company, Lieutenant Wellesley was returned a
member of the Irish parliament. He sat for three years, during a portion
of which time he was an aide-de-camp to the Earl of Westmoreland, then
Lord-lieutenant of Ireland.

“The young member occasionally spoke, always in opposition to liberal
measures; and his oratory was characterised more by a curt and decided
form of expression than by the efflorescence then popular among the
Grattans, Cuffs, Parnells, and other members of the legislature. His
opinions were of the tory cast; and, even at that early period he
opposed himself to any consideration of the Catholic claims, and to
schemes of parliamentary reform. As an aide-de-camp, and a member of
a Protestant family, his sentiments were, of course, coloured by the
opinions of the noblemen and statesmen with whom he associated.”

The early military services of Arthur Wellesley, both in Europe and in
India, were brilliant. Some of his first exploits in action were marked
by promptitude and genius rivalling in lustre the feats of his proudest
days. In India, his conquests of the refractory chiefs, Dhoondiah and
the Peishwah, and his successes in the Mysorean war, under Baird, were
full of daring and of glory.*

     * For an extended account of General Wellesley’s Indian
     campaigns see “Nolan’s History of the British Empire in
     India and the East.” Virtue; City Road and Ivy Lane, London.

As a general officer, he showed every quality which commanded respect
from his seniors, reverence from his juniors, confidence alike in those
whom he commanded, and those who devolved responsibility upon him,
and the astonishment and admiration of his enemies. The treatment he
received in India was not just nor considerate, and to the latest period
of his life he felt that neither by his brother the Marquis Wellesley,
the East India Company, nor the government at home, was he requited as
his merits deserved, nor did he deem that their conduct to him while on
actual service was what it should have been. The self-mastery and loyalty
with which he endured slights and injustice while rendering great
services, have probably never been exhibited equally by any soldier
of ancient or modern times. On the occasion of his being superseded at
Bombay by General Baird, he wrote:—“My former letters will have shown
you how much this will annoy me; but I have never had much value for the
public spirit of any man who does not sacrifice his private views and
convenience when it is necessary.”**

     **  “The Duke of Wellington’s Supplementary Despatches
     relating to India.”    Edited by his Son.

The time has arrived when foreign writers, even in France, are beginning
to do justice to the hero’s fame, and to the genius displayed in his
Indian campaigns, which have been so much overlooked both at home and
abroad, although so well appreciated in India. An able writer, a French
officer—Captain Brialmont—has, in a recent work,*** especially drawn
the attention of military men in France to the Indian campaigns of
General Wellesley.

     *** “History of the Life of Arthur, Duke of Wellington,”
      from the French of M. Brialmont, Captain of the Staff of the
     Belgian Army. With emendations and additions by the Kev. G.
     K. Gleig, M.A., Chaplain-General to the Forces.

In describing the conduct of the general at Assaye, Brialmont
remarks:—“It was an inspiration of the greatest hardihood which induced
the English general to engage a force ten times as great as his own, and
covered in its front by an important river. The battle of Assaye will
always be regarded as one of the boldest enterprises of that general,
whom certain authors represent as endowed only with the qualities which
are necessary for defensive warfare.”

Some time after his arrival in Europe, he was entrusted with a command
in Portugal, against the French then occupying that country. He was much
embarrassed by his own government, and the wilfulness of the people
to rescue whom was his mission. The convention of Cintra arrested
his successes. The stupidity of his superiors defeated his schemes of
conquest. “Yet, even as things stood, the success achieved was of no
ordinary character. The British soldiers had measured their swords
against some of the best troops of the empire, and with signal success.
The ‘Sepoy General’ had indisputably shown that his capacity was not
limited to oriental campaigns. He had effected the disembarkation of
his troops—always a most hazardous feat—without loss, had gained two
well-contested battles, and in less than a single month had actually
cleared the kingdom of Portugal of its invaders. The army, with its
intuitive judgment, had formed a correct appreciation of his services,
and the field-officers engaged at Vimiera testified their opinions
of their commander by a valuable gift: but it was clear that no
place remained for General Wellesley under his new superiors, and
he accordingly returned to England, bringing with him conceptions of
Spanish affairs which the event but too speedily verified.”*

     * Traveller’s Library: “Memoir of the Duke of Wellington.”

Previous to the expedition to Portugal, and after his return, he sat
in parliament, and held the office of Secretary for Ireland. In 1809 he
received the thanks of parliament for his military services at Vimiera
and Rolica. In the meanwhile, disaster frowned upon the arms of Spain.
“Her armies were dispersed, her government bewildered, and her people
dismayed; the cry of resistance had ceased, and, in its stead, the stern
voice of Napoleon, answered by the tread of 300,000 veterans, was heard
throughout the land.”**

     ** “History of the Peninsular War,” by Sir William Napier.

Portugal was menaced. Sir John Cradock, who commanded, was unequal
to the occasion, and the British government was about to withdraw the
English army of occupation, when it occurred to Lord Castlereagh that
Sir Arthur Wellesley ought to be consulted. That officer counselled the
augmentation of the British forces, and drew up a plan of defence. The
government offered him the command of the Portuguese, which he declined.
Finally, Cradock was recalled, and Sir Arthur accepted the command of
the allied English and Portuguese. He again landed in Portugal, amidst
the acclamations of troops and people, and, with his characteristic
activity, commenced operations. Then followed the passage of the Douro,
one of the most daring exploits recorded in the history of war.***

     *** Captain Brialmont says that French generals admit that
     the passage of the Douro was bold even to rashness.

The passage of the Douro foiled the French commander, and compelled
him to retire. After various complicated movements, the rival armies
confronted one another at Talavera, where a dreadful conflict issued
in victory to the British. The British, unsustained by proper support,
through the negligence of the English government, and the irrational
conduct of the Portuguese, were compelled to fall back. Before doing so,
Wellesley accomplished another grand feat—the execution of the lines
of Torres Vedras. This defensive position was skilfully selected, and as
skilfully fortified. Such was the secrecy and celerity observed in the
construction of the works, that the French had learned nothing of their
existence, numerous as were their spies, and the English army generally
knew as little of it as the French. When the moment arrived for the
execution of his project, the English general retired behind these
lines, in the face of an overwhelmingly numerous enemy, who gazed with
wonder upon the impregnable defences which were presented to their view.

Before, however, the British accomplished their retreat, one more
victory testified their greatness in battle, and the superiority of
their chief. The English took post on the heights of Busaco. The French
attacked the position, and were repulsed. Having entered the lines of
Torres Vedras, the British awaited the advance of the grand army which
was to drive them into the sea. Massena advanced in his pride and
his power, but recoiled from the task of storming such well-prepared
positions. Having waited long enough, without being able to make
any impression upon the English lines of defence, to bring disease,
discouragement, and scarcity of provisions upon his own army, he
retired, harassed in his retreat by the exulting English. While
Wellesley was thus engaged in personally superintending the defence of
Lisbon, by maintaining the fortified lines thrown up between the Douro
and the sea, he was also occupied with general plans for ultimately
driving the French out of the Peninsula, directing operations in places
at a distance from his head-quarters, and carrying on a laborious
correspondence with the Portuguese and British civil authorities, and
even with the Spanish patriots. When Massena was driven into Spain,
Wellesley’s first care was the reconquest of the frontier fortresses.
Almeida, Ciudad Rodrigo, and Badajoz, fell into the hands of the British
general, then Lord Wellington. His successes were, however, obtained
with great difficulty and loss of his soldiers, through the inadequate
supply of material to his army by the home authorities. Every fortress
which was not strategically abandoned by the French, was won by the
skill of the general-in-chief, and the recklessness of life shown by his
soldiers, in spite of the want of almost every appliance proper for
an army. The sieges which Wellington prosecuted to a successful result
“will always reflect immortal honour on the troops engaged, and will
always attract the strongest interests of an English reader; but which
must, nevertheless, be appealed to as illustrations of the straits
to which an army may be led by want of military experience in the
government at home. By this time the repeated victories of Wellington
and his colleagues had raised the renown of British soldiers to at
least an equality with that of Napoleon’s veterans, and the incomparable
efficiency, in particular, of the Light Division was acknowledged to be
without a parallel in any European service. But in those departments of
the army where excellence is less the result of intuitive ability, the
forces under Wellington were still greatly surpassed by the trained
legions of the emperor. While Napoleon had devoted his whole genius to
the organization of the parks and trains which attend the march of
an army in the field, the British troops had only the most imperfect
resources on which to rely. The engineer corps, though admirable in
quality, was so deficient in numbers, that commissions were placed at
the free disposal of Cambridge mathematicians. The siege trains were
weak and worthless against the solid ramparts of Peninsular strongholds.
The intrenching tools were so ill made that they snapped in the hands of
the workmen, and the art of sapping and mining was so little known
that this branch of the siege duties was carried on by drafts from
the regiments of the line, imperfectly and hastily instructed for the
purpose. Unhappily, such results can only be obviated by long foresight,
patient training, and costly provision; it was not in the power of a
single mind, however capacious, to effect an instantaneous reform, and
Wellington was compelled to supply the deficiencies by the best blood of
his troops.”*

     * “Memoir of the Duke of Wellington.”

The terms in which this illustrious man complained of the incompetency
of the government at home are instructive to those who, in the present
generation, contend for reform. “I do not receive one-sixth part of the
money necessary to keep so great a machine in motion.” “The French
army is well supplied,” he wrote on one occasion, “the Spanish army has
everything in abundance, and we alone, on whom everything depends, are
dying of hunger.” “I am left entirely to my own resources,” he wrote in
1810, “and find myself obliged to provide, with the little which I
can procure, for the wants of the allies, as well as for those of the
English army. If I yield, God help me, for nobody will support me.” This
sorrowful language was too true, for so utterly corrupt was the English
administration, that in order to save themselves from public odium, they
would have ruined him. A distinguished reviewer of one of the memoirs of
his grace thus comments upon the treatment which he received:—“From the
inadequate supplies of money sent to him from his government, he had to
create a paper-money of his own, and to increase his supplies by opening
a trade in corn with America. When he complained of the attention which
the home government paid to the criticism of some of his officers, they
replied that these officers were better generals than he; they compelled
him to send back the transports on which, in the event of a defeat, the
safety of his army depended; and on one occasion Lord Liverpool gave
instructions to an officer of engineers at Lisbon of which Wellington
knew nothing, and which began with these words, which were also news to
him:—‘As it is probable that the army will embark in September, &c.’”
 So much was the duke dependant on his own resources that, being unable
to prevent the departure of some of his generals, he was often obliged
to discharge himself, on the same clay, the duties of general of
cavalry, leader of the advanced guard, and commander of two or three
columns of infantry. His want of material was such that at the siege of
Badajoz he had to employ guns cast in the reign of Philip II., and, for
lack of mortars, he had to mount his howitzers upon wooden blocks;
while at Burgos he was obliged to suspend the attack till a convoy of
ammunition should come up, which had been expected for six weeks. He
was even obliged to complain of his army. “We are an excellent army on
parade,” he said, “an excellent one to fight, but take my word for it,
defeat or success would dissolve us.” The discipline was by no means
perfect. After the battle of Vittoria the soldiers obtained among them
by way of booty about a million sterling; many regiments disbanded
themselves, and some three weeks afterwards the commander-in-chief had
to announce that there were still 12,500 marauders among the mountains
absent from duty.

Notwithstanding every impediment which the lazy, conceited, and
impracticable character of the Spaniards, the want of civil organization
in Portugal, and the ignorance and incapacity of his own government
could interpose, Lord Wellington, in a series of campaigns, and of great
and sanguinary battles, drove the French from Spain, followed them into
France, defeated them at Bayonne, Orthes, and Toulouse, and only paused
in his career of victory upon the announcement of the allies entering
Paris, and the abdication of Napoleon.

The policy and conduct of the Duke of Wellington during the occupation
of France by the allies were stern, but just and wise. He was inflexible
in carrying out the objects of the allies, but temperate and equitable
in curbing the vindictive propensities of the allied chiefs and armies.
He met the great continental sovereigns and generals in Paris on a
footing highly honourable to himself and his nation; his influence
preponderated in their counsels, and he received more marks of deference
than any other man of the times and the occasion.

On his return to England, his name and person were surrounded by
honours. He received in the House of Lords at once the recognition of
all the steps of the peerage—they had been conferred upon him in his
absence. He was the idol of the court and the aristocracy, and to a
considerable extent of the people. The escape of Napoleon from Elba
led to the British and Prussian campaign in Belgium, which involved the
sanguinary battles of Quatrebras and Waterloo, in the former of which
Ney sustained a terrible repulse from Wellington, and in the latter
Napoleon was utterly defeated and put to flight, and the way to Paris
opened for the conquerors. Once more the duke occupied France with his
armies, and with still greater opportunity than at the close of
his previous campaign for displaying the eminent qualities which he
possessed in the council, as well as in the field. After the peace,
and the banishment of Napoleon to St. Helena. Wellington obtained
an extraordinary influence in the councils of successive British
sovereigns, and became one of the most active and potential politicians
in Europe. His career of war had closed—a new public race was run
by him, in which his countrymen were less disposed to regard him
with favour. How he fulfilled his new destinies is still matter of
discussion. The tory school of politicians, to which he belonged,
consider him as having in a great measure forsaken his party, and
lowered the standard of his principles. Liberal politicians regard
him as having struggled to maintain class interests contrary to the
convictions of his great mind, and in subservience to the interests and
prejudices of his “order.” His country generally has, therefore, not
given him credit for the highest order of statesmanship, but reveres
his memory as that of a man who served the country and the crown with
fidelity, and who studied the national honour in all things. Probably
the following estimate of his political capacity, position, and
services, is as accurate as any ever given to the public:—“By a destiny
unexampled in history, the hero of these countless conquests survived to
give more than one generation of his countrymen the benefit of his civil
services. Such an ordeal has never before been endured by any public
character. Military experience does not furnish the fittest schools of
statesmanship, especially when the country to be governed is that of
a free, intelligent, and progressive people. But, if the political
principles of the great man who has now departed were not always
reconcilable with the opinions and demands of modern advancement,
they were at least consistent in themselves, were never extravagantly
pressed, never tyrannically promoted, and never obstinately maintained
to the hindrance of the government or the damage of the state. In
estimating Wellington’s politics it must never be forgotten that he
was a politician of 1807, and that he descended to us the last
representative of a school that had passed. If he was less
liberally-minded than the statesmen of his later days, we may fairly
inquire how many of his own generation would have been as liberal as
he?”

In 1822, the duke appeared at the allied conference at Vienna, the
object of which was to put down the rising demand on the continent
for constitutional government. Spain was intensely agitated, and its
imbecile monarch was afraid to resist any longer the call for free
institutions, so loudly and unanimously made by his subjects. The
continental sovereigns viewed the slightest approach to political
freedom with alarm. The restored Bourbon government of France took the
lead in the policy of repression, and demanded the countenance of the
continental powers, and of England, for an invasion of Spain, to support
the king in trampling out the last spark of liberty among his subjects.
Mr. Canning was minister for foreign affairs in England. He instructed
the Duke of Wellington to resist the proposal of France, and to insist
upon non-intercession. Either his grace performed his part inadequately,
as was generally believed in England, or the continental sovereigns,
having used England for the destruction of Napoleon, were agreed to
thwart her influence, and make no concessions to her opinion, for they
unanimously supported the project of a French invasion of Spain. This
event took place, inflicting upon the Spanish people more indignity,
disdain, and injury than the invasions by Napoleon had done. The British
government talked much and did nothing. “The Holy Alliance” took no
notice of the indignant orations in the British parliament, the protests
of the ministry, and the explanations of the duke. A French invasion
overthrew liberty in Spain within little more than ten years of the date
when a British army had driven out the French in the name of liberty,
independence, and non-intervention. The Spaniards never believed that
the duke was free from some participation in this aggression, and his
popularity, such as it was at the close of the war, was never regained
in that country. The event also deprived the Spaniards of all confidence
in professions of non-intervention and respect for national independence
in England. They did not believe that her powerless protests were
sincere, but regarded her as having made the previous war in the
Peninsula for a policy exclusively her own—the suppression of the
popular and imperial elements in France. The Duke of Wellington, in his
place in the house of peers, declared that he had faithfully carried out
Mr. Canning’s instructions, but that the allied courts were unmoved by
arguments or protests.

In 1826 the duke was sent by his sovereign on an especial embassy to St.
Petersburg. He was not favourably impressed with the Emperor Nicholas
or his people. He regarded the whole policy of Russia as faithless and
aggressive, and only friendly to England as far as she might be
made, through the false representations of the Russian diplomatists,
unconsciously subservient to the territorial aggrandisement of Russia,
especially in the direction of Turkey. The Emperor Nicholas himself the
duke learned to regard with distrust, mingled with personal contempt for
his duplicity.

At home, the duke was the object of innumerable honours. A mansion was
erected for him, called Apsley House, at Hyde Park Corner, £200,000 was
voted to purchase for him and the inheritors of the title, the estate
of Strathfieldsaye, in Hampshire, which is entailed, on condition of the
noble owner, for the time being, annually presenting a tri-colour flag
to her majesty, on the 18th of June, the anniversary of the battle of
Waterloo. These flags have been since accumulating, and hang in the
armoury of Windsor Castle, with similar trophies commemorative of
the battle of Blenheim, rendered by the heirs of the great Duke of
Marlborough.

In 1818 the duke was made master-general of the ordnance; in 1819,
governor of Plymouth; and in 1820, colonel of the Rifle Brigade.

The great continental courts in 1818 gave him the rank of field-marshal
in their respective armies, together with military and civil
distinctions, such as were only customarily conferred on crowned heads,
or the very noblest of their subjects.

Meanwhile the British Isles were intensely agitated; a cry for
parliamentary reform resounded from the gates of Buckingham Palace to
the Land’s-end, to John O’Groat’s house, and to the cliffs of Connemara.
Roman Catholic emancipation was another demand, which was ceaselessly
heard, and the Protestant dissenters of England were active and
importunate in demanding redress for the grievances of which they
complained. The duke was adverse to all these concessions, and
determined to resist them as long as they could be resisted, with safety
to the crown and peerage. The people hated the prince-regent, and when
he reached the throne as the fourth George, he was one of the most
unpopular monarchs in Europe. The measures adopted by this prince to
preserve illiberal institutions were bloody and remorseless; executions
for political offences were numerous all over the land, men of virtue
and honour were incarcerated for liberal opinions uttered or printed,
public meetings were put down by charges of cavalry, or by cannon loaded
with grape and canister, drawn up against an unarmed and really
loyal people, exasperated by unendurable oppressions. Against these
wickednesses the duke exerted no influence, raised his voice in no
protest, but was in the minds of the people regarded as one of the
haughtiest of their oppressors. On the death of Lord Liverpool, and the
appointment of Mr. Canning to the premiership, he received from the
duke an uncompromising, bitter, and ungenerous opposition. Canning was
professedly a Conservative, but his opinions were moderately liberal,
and everything liberal was resisted by Wellington and his _alter ego_ in
politics, Mr. Peel, afterwards Sir Robert. There was a bigoted and angry
party spirit in all the duke’s proceedings. He would not command the
army nor direct the ordnance, but resigned all his military offices,
because the king made Canning the chief of a ministry in which the duke
himself served. Canning and Huskisson introduced a corn-bill, which
was the first relaxation proposed by members of a government to the
corn-law. This measure had been prepared in the Liverpool cabinet, and
received the assent of the duke himself; yet such was his animosity to
the moderately liberal policy of Canning, that he proposed the rejection
of the bill in the lords, and threw it out. There was a want of honour
and good faith in this conduct, wholly at variance with the manly,
frank, straightforward character of the duke, and there is no way of
accounting for it but by supposing that he was instigated to the course
he adopted by Peel, whose tortuous and uncertain principles and policy
began to assume prominence. It was Peel’s character throughout his
career to betray all who trusted in him as a leader, and to cany by
trick and treachery all the measures against which, in his public life,
he most vehemently and acrimoniously inveighed. The duke was taunted in
the house with intriguing for the premiership. He declared, in reply,
that he was “unqualified for such a situation.” Nevertheless, when
offered, he accepted it. He declared that he “should be mad even to
think of it;” but he did think of it, at all events afterwards, and took
it, and also filled it better than his tory predecessors. Perhaps the
truth of the case was, that Peel originated all the intrigues against
Canning, in which the duke was unconsciously an abettor of the designs
of that artful man. Peel saw that his best hope of attaining to the
chief post in the councils of the country was by using skilfully and
patiently the influence he had acquired over the duke. He foresaw, as it
was easy to foresee, that events would soon make the duke tired of the
post, and that he would in such case certainly devolve it upon him, as
“his man of all work.” One of the most harassing oppositions to which an
English premier was ever exposed was directed and led by Wellington
and Peel against Canning, chiefly on the ground of his willingness to
concede Catholic emancipation, and some relaxation of the duties upon
corn, and the restrictions upon trade. In this opposition the duke was
sincere, but there is good ground for believing that Peel, filled with
envy against Canning, was already laying his own schemes for carrying
concession even farther than Canning or Huskisson ever dreamed of doing.
Canning was shamelessly deserted and betrayed on all hands. He displayed
wonderful ability, justifying the language of Byron: “Canning is a
genius, almost a universal one, a scholar, a wit, a statesman, an
orator, and a poet.” He struggled against the factious opposition
treacherously carried on in the name of principles by men who, like
Peel, felt no homage for them, until his proud and sensitive heart
broke. The Peel and Wellington faction killed him. In the fourth month
of his premiership he died at his post, leaving to posterity a great
name, and an eternal reproach against his unprincipled persecutors.

Lord Goderich (“prosperity Robinson”) could not carry on the government.
The duke was made premier, eight months after he had publicly
declared his own incapacity for such an office. One of his first
acts, notoriously under the influence of Peel, was to give office to
Huskisson, the champion of free trade, and the energetic colleague of
Canning! He added four more of Canning’s colleagues. Thus, after he
and Peel had declared Canning and his cabinet to be irreligious,
revolutionary, and dangerous to the country, in all the cant phrases of
the time, their very first act was to take possession, as it were, of
the Canning cabinet itself, and next of the Canning policy, on account
of which the illustrious dead had been solemnly denounced by the one,
and vituperated, in a manner far exceeding parliamentary licence, by
the other. The repeal of the corporation and test acts, demanded by the
dissenters, the emancipation of the Roman Catholics, and the claims of
the commercial community, and the political economist, for a relaxation
of the protectionist policy were now to be satisfied; but the policy
chosen was to keep all these parties at bay, to resist all melioration
of things as they were as long as possible, and then to concede nothing
on the ground of justice, or of human rights, but only what popular
power could force. This policy Peel did not manage happily, and the duke
was brought down with him as by a dead weight. The parliamentary tact
of Peel, his debating power, his aptitude for public business, and
the singular influence of the duke, worked wonders for a time; but
eventually much more had to be conceded to the public power, than, if at
first and generously, the government had shown a reforming spirit, would
have been at once insisted upon.

Lord John Russell moved for a repeal of the corporation and test acts,
oppressions which goaded the dissenters, and which in themselves were
as profane as they were hypocritical. Of course the duke and Mr. Peel
resisted this, but the House of Commons carried the measure.

Instead of the duke and “his man Friday,” as the wags of the day termed
Peel, resigning, as men of honour ought to have done, they resolved to
take up the measure against which they had voted and argued, and uttered
the most earnest warnings on the sacred ground of religion! The duke
carried the measure through the House of Lords!

A month afterwards a corn-bill, the first inroad actually effected upon
the protective system, was carried in the House of Commons. The duke
declared the repeal or modification of the corn-laws to be especially
wicked, as injuring the landed interest; nevertheless, he took up the
measure and carried it through. Corn might come in, if only Whigs and
Radicals could be kept out. Thus early, measures which Canning proposed
with consistency and honour,—and for proposing which these men hunted
him to death,—they inconsistently, and with a violation of principle
which lowered the character of public men, carried through parliament to
preserve the ministerial ascendancy of Peel and the party.

As the session advanced the spirit of reform both in and out of
parliament advanced. Penryn and East Retford were rotten boroughs, with
only a handful of constituents. The reformers demanded the transfer of
the representation from two such insignificant and corrupt places
to Manchester and Birmingham. The duke would not consent to the
enfranchisement of the two great centres of manufactures; he held fast
by the rotten boroughs. Huskiseon, Grant, Lamb, and Lords Dudley and
Palmerston resigned. Thus the Canning cabinet was expunged, and a pure
tory remainder formed the nucleus of a new ministry, which was composed
of Lord Aberdeen, Sir H. Hardinge, and Sir George Murray,—men in every
way immeasurably inferior to those who, no longer able to follow the
bigoted yet inconsistent and time-serving policy of the duke and Peel,
were obliged to resign office.

The state of Ireland now became alarming. The Roman Catholic population,
led by O’Connell, menaced insurrection, and a system of agitation was
maintained very effective, and very embarrassing to government. The
Roman Catholics knew that nothing would be conceded by Wellington and
Peel on principle, but that anything might be wrung from them, if, by
the concession, they supposed that they thereby gave a longer lease of
power to the privileged classes. The army began to discuss the question
of religious disability, and a third of the force was alleged to be
Roman Catholic. The duke came to the conclusion that to avert civil war,
Roman Catholic emancipation must be effected. In his public statements
he greatly exaggerated the dangers of withholding the measure; but as
neither he nor Peel were supposed at heart to be very earnest, although
very illiberal Protestants, the public considered it a new trick to take
popular public measures out of the hands of the liberal party, to pass
them in forms less in harmony with the principles involved in them, than
would have been the case if carried by the Whigs. In February, 1829, the
measure of Roman Catholic emancipation was announced in the speech from
the throne, and was carried through parliament by all the power which
the ministry could command. The high Protestants lost confidence in
the duke, and the Earl of Winchelsea impeached his private honour in
connection with the events which had transpired. On the 31st of March
the duke and the earl met in Battersea Fields to fight a duel. The
duke fired and missed; Lord Winchelsea fired in the air, and the affair
terminated. Throughout the political transactions of his premiership
his grace showed much passion, and a tyranny to his colleagues in office
more suitable to the barrack-room than the cabinet. Peel was the abettor
of all this, and by many deemed the inventor of it. After conceding such
a large measure of religious liberty, his grace seemed to dislike more
inveterately than ever all measures of free-trade and parliamentary
reform. The French revolution of 1830 excited the whole country, and
an agitation for reform of threatening magnitude arose and spread
throughout the land. He had the hardihood to attempt prosecutions of
the press, although by such means the French king had brought about
his dethronement. He defied public feeling, and did so with an air
of peremptory authority and insolence offensive to parliament and the
people. He became one of the most unpopular men in England. Almost
all parties united in deeming him unfit to lead the government of the
country in such a crisis. He was hooted by mobs in the streets; the
windows of his mansion were broken, and had to be defended by iron
casings. A new parliament was elected; a reform was demanded. The duke
met the demand by a sturdy defiance. He declared, “that the country
already possessed a legislature which answered all the good purposes of
legislation, that the system of representation possessed the full and
entire confidence of the country, and that he was not only not prepared
to bring forward any measure of reform, but would resist such, as long
as he held any station in the government of the country.” With those
words the career and credit of the duke as a statesman may be said to
have closed. A perfect hurricane of rage arose around him through all
the land. He was hurled from power, and the Whigs came into office
pledged to a Reform Bill, which, after vain and fierce opposition,
became the law of the land. King William IV. became alarmed at the rapid
progress of reform; he suddenly dismissed the Whigs, and “sent for the
duke.” The latter failed again in his discernment of the true slate of
public feeling in England. He refused to become premier, advised the
king to send for Sir Robert Peel (what the latter had been all along
planning and expecting). Sir Robert arrived and formed a ministry, the
duke becoming minister of foreign affairs and leader of the government
party in the House of Lords. This ministry was speedily swept away by
the popular indignation, and the Whigs again returned to power. From
that time the duke seems to have made expediency his sole rule of
political action; he became heart and soul a Peelite. In 1841 he had an
opportunity of upholding Sir Robert Peel in power for some time, and
of aiding him in the great work of commercial and economical reform,
against which both had all their life protested and straggled. It can
hardly be urged in excuse for the duke’s long opposition to commercial
reform, that questions of finance and political economy were out of the
proper range of his subjects, for he was a first-rate financier, and a
successful student of political economy. He is represented to have said
of himself that his true genius was the Exchequer rather than the War
Office. “At one of the most critical conjunctures of the Peninsular
war, he drew up a most able paper on the true principles of Portuguese
banking; and at Seringapatam, after very serious evils had been
experienced from a long-standing debasement of the coinage, a memorandum
was accidentally discovered in the treasury from the pen of Colonel
Wellesley, every prediction and observation of which had been exactly
verified by events.” His desire to stand by his order, to uphold
government by that order, and to maintain its revenues by the protection
of territorial produce overpowered alike his sense of justice, and his
patriotism.

In 1843, he resumed the office of “commander-in-chief of the land
forces,” which he held until his decease. In his management of the
army, he displayed the same repugnance to reform as in civil life, and a
determination to resist all changes that lessened aristocratic influence
in its government, or the promotion of its officers. The liberal views
and measures which spontaneously emanated from the Duke of Cambridge,
in 1858–9, would have been impossible to the Duke of Wellington, except
under such a pressure of popular power as made a concession of some
things necessary to preserve others. The improvements which gradually
grew up in the condition of the common soldier seldom, almost never,
had his approbation, and were generally carried out by successive whig
governments in opposition to the commander-in-chief.

On the 10th of April, 1848, when the great Chartist meeting took place
near London, the dispositions made by the great duke to put down any
attempt at insurrection, excited the admiration of all military men.

At no period in the Duke of Wellington’s history did he so fully enjoy
the confidence and respect of his countrymen as when death approached.
The mode of his death was such as might be expected at his advanced
age. It was easy—as the lamp expires when the oil which fed it becomes
exhausted. One of the honours which he bore was that of warden of the
Cinque Ports; he was therefore staying at Walmer Castle when his brief
but fatal illness occurred. His remains were there placed in a coffin,
which the inhabitants and the troops of the surrounding garrisons were
permitted to see. On the 10th of November, the body was removed to
London, and laid in state at Chelsea Hospital, where a vast concourse
of persons were permitted to see it. Thence it was taken to the
Horse Guards, whence the funeral procession went forth to St. Paul’s
Cathedral, in the dome of which, beside the body of Nelson, it was to
be deposited. The funeral was the grandest which ever took place in
England, or perhaps in Europe. Military representatives from all the
important nations in Europe, except Austria, attended. Vast multitudes
of people crowded the thoroughfares along which the procession moved,
and of that multitude exceeding great numbers were dressed in deep
black. In parliament and throughout the country, demonstrations of
respect for the memory of the departed hero were made, and the court
went into mourning. Thus closed the life and obsequies of one of the
greatest men to whom the British Isles had ever given birth. His grace
was a widower at his death. He had married, in 1806, an Irish lady of
rank, the Honourable Catherine Pakenham, daughter of the second Baron
Longford, and sister to the gallant Generals Pakenham, who distinguished
themselves under the command of his grace in the Peninsular. The duchess
died in 1831, leaving two sons, the Marquis of Douro, heir to the title,
and Lord Charles Wellesley, both military men. Lord Charles Wellesley,
from loss of sight, has since been obliged to give up the military
profession; and the successor to the great duke, although a man of
general talent, and allowed by military men to possess remarkable
ability for the profession of arms, has not followed that career, but
maintains a high position at court and in public affairs.




THE COURT.

There were few incidents connected with the court in 1852 interesting
to the general reader. Her majesty and the royal family spent the usual
season in London, especially in connection with ministerial changes
and parliamentary proceedings. Windsor Castle and Osborne House also
received their royal proprietor at the accustomed seasons. In the
summer, however, her majesty made a cruise in her yacht, before retiring
to her autumnal Scottish retreat. A royal yacht squadron escorted the
queen and the royal household from Cowes along the southern coast of
England to Plymouth, the party landing at various points celebrated
for their picturesque situation. Having cruised about the south and
south-west coast, the squadron returned to Osborne. At the close of
August, her majesty, the prince, and the elder five children left
Osborne for Balmoral. Her residence there was shortened by tidings of
the death of the Duke of Wellington, which reached her September 16th.
Early in October she left for Windsor, visiting _en route_ the Menai
Straits, and passing through the tubular bridge.

A curious circumstance occurred to her majesty on the 30th of August.
The royal lady was then made aware that she was legatee to a large
fortune, bequeathed by a barrister of Lincoln’s Inn. He was a man of
singularly penurious habits, allowing himself to be in want of necessary
food, and neglecting cleanliness. An old housekeeper, who had served
him twenty-six years, he left without any provision whatever. The sum
bequeathed to his sovereign was £250,000.

[Illustration: 819.jpg SOUTHAMPTON]




PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS AND PARTY CONFLICTS DURING 1852.

The parliamentary history of 1852 was in various respects eventful. It
was rendered so by the character of the debates both on home and foreign
questions, by the rivalry of Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell, for
the leadership of the whig party, the changes of ministry, and the last
effort of the tory and protectionist party to gain ascendancy.

On the 3rd of February the queen opened parliament in person. “The
speech” referred to the necessity of amending the Reform Bill. Lord John
Russell hoped by this means to prolong his lease of power, which was
seriously menaced in consequence of his dismissal of Lord Palmerston
from the cabinet the previous year. Such was the confidence reposed in
that noble lord by the commons and the country for the management
of foreign negotiations, that from the moment it was understood
that serious differences existed between the premier and the foreign
secretary, the government lost its moral power. An impression also
gained ground throughout the country that Prince Albert interfered with
the legitimate transaction of business at the foreign office, that the
premier was so much of a courtier as to connive at this, and that Lord
Palmerston, having asserted the dignity and independence of an
English minister, became an object of dislike to the prince, Lord John
sacrificing his colleague to the caprices of the court. Whatever might
have been the truth, these impressions prevailed among the people, and
contributed to Lord John Russell’s displacement from office. Even
after both those noblemen gave explanations in the commons, the public
retained the impressions, sympathised with Lord Palmerston, and withdrew
much of their confidence from Lord John, nor has his lordship been able
to regain the popularity he previously possessed, even up to the time
these sheets are passing through the press, near the commencement of the
year 1860.

Parliament had only just met when Sir Benjamin Hall, by questions
directed to the premier, brought out a statement of the circumstances
which led to his dismissal of the popular foreign minister. It appeared
that without any instigation from Lord John, the queen complained to him
of the management of the foreign office. Her majesty demanded that all
despatches should be shown to her, that no decision on foreign questions
should be made by the foreign minister until her opinion was taken, that
no despatch which she had signed should be arbitrarily altered by the
minister, and that she should receive early and prompt intimation of
all negotiations between the foreign office and the ministers of foreign
courts. Her majesty directed Lord John Russell to show the document
conveying her demands to the foreign secretary. From the production of
this stern, severe, and rebukeful missive from the royal hand, it became
evident either that Lord Palmerston had failed in his duty, abused
the confidence of her majesty, and behaved with intolerable insolence,
assumption, and arrogance, or that a conspiracy existed to prejudice the
mind of the queen against a faithful and most competent minister, and
that the premier either aided that conspiracy, or took no decided stand
to resist it. It appeared that the main occasion of the cabinet and
court differences with Lord Palmerston was in connection with the _coup
d’état_ in Paris. The court and the premier sympathised with the house
of Orleans, and consequently with the opposition given by the French
assembly to the president of the republic. Lord Palmerston believed
that the assembly provoked the conduct of the president by invading his
constitutional rights, and by violating the constitution formed by the
constituent assembly, and in virtue of which the legislative assembly
of France existed. Despatches sent to the English minister at Paris, the
Marquis of Normanby, of a private nature, were by that nobleman shown to
the French minister for foreign affairs, and out of that event arose
the complication. Lord Palmerston pleaded unqualified innocence of the
impeachment implied in her majesty’s written commands to Lord John. Lord
Normanby was well known to be of Lord John’s section of the whigs, and
a court favourite. From all these circumstances, the country drew
the following conclusions with extraordinary unanimity:—that Lord
Palmerston acted with more independence of the first minister than
was customary on the part of a secretary of state, but that his great
talents, great experience, great influence at home and abroad, justified
him; that Lord John Russell was imprudent in overlooking the peculiar
claims and qualifications of the foreign minister, displayed an unworthy
jealousy of his great colleague, and probably by his private complaints
of insubordination, caused the letter of her majesty, so humiliating to
her long-tried and most able minister; that Lord Normanby either
showed grave indiscretion, or played his part in a plot adverse to Lord
Palmerston; and finally, that the court was unduly sympathetic with the
Orleans dynasty. No efforts on the part of Lord John Russell’s friends
could root out these convictions from the general public, and although
the House of Commons said little about it, there were sufficient
indications given that such convictions were largely shared there. In
the debate that ensued, all sides of the house expressed confidence
in Lord Palmerston’s sense of duty and responsibility, and respect and
admiration for his talents. It became at once evident that the days of
Lord John Russell’s ministry were numbered, and that it must be long, in
any fresh ministerial combinations, before he could occupy the same high
post in the counsels of her majesty.




PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

On the 9th of February, Lord John made a statement as to his views of
parliamentary reform. His lordship proposed the disfranchisement of all
small constituencies proved to be corrupt by a system of inquisition
adapted to the purpose. He declared that a ten-pound franchise in
boroughs was too high, and proposed a five-pound franchise. The
county franchise of fifty pounds he would reduce to twenty pounds. The
copyholds and long leaseholds of ten-pound qualification he would reduce
to five pounds. All persons living within boroughs paying two pounds
a-year assessed taxes he would enfranchise as county voters. Boroughs
having less than five hundred electors were to have the number of
the enfranchised augmented by adding neighbouring towns in the same
representations. Property qualification of members to be repealed.
Reform, mainly on the game plan, to be extended to Scotland and Ireland.

Mr. Hume expressed dissatisfaction with any measure that did not
comprise the ballot and triennial parliaments, and a large number of
liberal members sympathised with the radical leader. The majority of
the liberal members received the announcement of the premier with
great favour. His lordship proposed introducing a bill on the 23rd of
February. Sir Robert Inglis and Mr. Newdegate opposed the measure with
expressions of earnest apprehension, because it was proposed by Lord
John to abolish the oath of abjuration. Mr. Disraeli, however, offered
the chief opposition to the measure. He endeavoured to lead the house to
postpone the consideration of the bill, but obviously for the object of
gaining time to throw out the bill itself. Sir George Grey, in a speech
of unusual felicity, exposed the dishonesty of Mr. Disraeli’s pretences
as to the necessity of delay in order to perfect measures which he was
eager to defeat.

The house gave leave to bring in the bill. It never was brought in, new
events depriving its author and the cabinet of the power to carry any
measure. The foregoing statement of the character of the proposed reform
bill of 1852 is, however, important, as the question of reform occupied
attention for several years subsequently in a serious degree, and “the
proposed bill of 1852” was constantly referred to by all parties in the
discussions which took place.




THE MILITIA BILL.—DEFEAT AND RESIGNATION OF THE CABINET.

On the 16th of February, Lord John, in a committee of the whole house,
explained his intentions in reference to the local militia acts. This
question excited considerable interest, as the Duke of Wellington and
Sir John Burgoyne had pointed out the possibility of an invasion, and
the defenceless state of the coasts and of the country generally. The
_coup d’état_ in France had also created considerable public uneasiness.
The secrecy, sternness of purpose, swiftness of action, boldness, and
indifference to bloodshed shown by the president of the French republic,
caused most men to reflect upon the possibility of some terrible _coup
de main_ being attempted against England; the president, in his writings
as Prince Charles Louis Napoleon Buonaparte, having so often asserted
that he represented a defeat, the defeat of Waterloo, which France
must avenge. Lord John proposed to allow the plan of “the old regular
militia” to fall out of use, and to establish a new scheme for a local
militia. Ireland was to be exempt from the measure. In twelve months,
the number of men to be raised was 70,000, in two years 100,000, in
three years 130,000, after which period Great Britain alone should
furnish, if necessary, 180,000 men.

Lord Palmerston’s expulsion from the cabinet was then about to tell on
the ministry, and the future history of party. His lordship opposed the
ministerial measure; and, released from ministerial privacy, declared
that he had urged upon Lord John in vain since the year 1846 the
organization of a militia. His lordship opposed the plan of a local
militia, preferring the old force, and, as an Irish peer, expressed some
warmth that Ireland was excluded from the arrangement.

When the bill came forth from the committee, Lord Palmerston proposed
amendments in harmony with the principles upon which he had criticised
the measure on going into committee. The two noble lords were now fairly
pitted against one another as rivals for parliamentary influence, and
the result was the defeat and resignation of Lord John Russell. The
Irish members supported Lord Palmerston in great force, and threw out
the ministry. His lordship also received considerable support from the
Derby-Disraeli party. From that moment it was obvious that Lord John
ceased—at all events for many years, should Lord Palmerston survive—to
be the leader of the House of Commons.




THE EARL OF DERBY’S ADMINISTRATION.

The majority in favour of Lord Palmerston’s measure caused the
adjournment of the house. The queen sent for Lord Derby, and committed
to him the reins of power.

One of the first acts of his lordship, after conferring with Mr.
Disraeli and a few of his most attached adherents, was to offer a seat
in his cabinet to Lord Palmerston. Mr. Disraeli had, however, in the
debate upon the address, renewed his agitation of the previous year for
re-adjusting taxation in favour of the landed interest, as compensation
for the loss of high prices for corn, which had been secured by
protection. As this was only another mode of re-enacting protectionist
laws, and one which was especially offensive to all the community not
inheriting land, it was impossible for Lord Palmerston to accept office
with Lord Derby, even if their political differences were less. Failing
to strengthen his government by the accession of Lord Palmerston, Lord
Derby, had recourse to Mr. Gladstone, but his repugnance to act with
Disraeli personally, and his opposition to the protectionist schemes
of both that minister and Lord Derby, rendered all negotiations
unsuccessful. The ministry, therefore, became a pure tory and
protectionist cabinet, except so far as Lord Stanley was concerned,
whose opinions were supposed to be liberal, although connected with the
ministry by the influence of his father.

The following ministry was ultimately formed:—

                     _In the Cabinet._

     First Lord of the Treasury   ...    Earl of Derby.

     Lord Chancellor  ...............    Lord St. Leonards.

     Chancellor of the Exchequer          Mr. Disraeli.

     President of the Council  ......    Earl Lonsdale.

     Privy Seal.......................    Marquis of Salisbury.

     Home Secretary   ...............    Mr. Horace Walpole.

     Foreign Secretary...............    Earl of Malmesbury.

     First Lord of the Admiralty.....    Duke of Northumberland.

     President of the Board of Control    Mr. Hume.

     Post-Master General ............    Earl of Hardwicke.

     President of the Board of Trade      Mr. Henley.

     First Commissioner of Woods/Forests  Lord J. Manners


                _Not in the Cabinet._

     Commander-in-Chief
     of Her of Majesty’s Land Forces ......   Duke of Wellington.

     Master-General of the Ordnance            Viscount Hardinge.

     Paymaster of the Forces,
     and Vice-President of the Board of Trade  Lord Colchester.

     Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.... Mr. Christopher.

     Secretary at War ....................    Major Beresford

     Secretary of the Admiralty...........    Mr. O’Brien Stafford.

     Attorney-General......................    Sir Frederick Thesiger.

     Solicitor-General  ..................    Sir Fitzroy Kelly.

     Judge Advocate-General................    Mr. Banks.

     Chief Poor-Law Commissioner...........   Sir George Trollope.




     SCOTLAND.

     Lord-Advocate..................    Mr. Anderson.

     Solicitor-General ..............    Mr. Inglis.




     IRELAND.

     Lord-Lieutenant  ...............    Earl of Eglinton.

     Lord-Chancellor  ...............    Rt. Hon. Mr. Blackburn.

     Chief Secretary.................    Lord Naas.

     Attorney-General................    Mr. Napier.

     Solicitor-General  .............    Mr. Whiteside.




     QUEEN’S HOUSEHOLD.

     Lord-Steward.....................    Duke of Montrose.

     Lord-Chamberlain.................    Marquis of Exeter.

     Master of the Horse..............    Earl of Jersey.

     Mistress of the Robes  ..........    Duchess of Athole.

This ministry was but slightly modified during the year, and altogether
apart from political changes. The death of the Duke of Wellington led
to the appointment of Lord Hardinge to the Horse Guards, Lord Raglan
becoming master-general of the Ordnance.

This ministry was not popular. In the cabinet the lord-chancellor was not
an accession of strength. Although a very high Tory, he was not liked by
the aristocracy; and although a very good lawyer, he was believed by
the country to be narrow-minded and prejudiced. Lord John Manners
was extremely unpopular, in consequence of his well-known couplet,
expressive of the desire that learning and commerce should perish rather
than that the power of the aristocracy should be diminished. The Duke
of Northumberland was considered utterly unfit for the important duties
imposed on him, and it was supposed that he would patronise “jobbing,”
 and promotion by unfair means.

Out of the cabinet, the English appointments were generally severely
criticised, except those of the household and the law officers. These
latter were considered able men, but bigoted partizans—clever enough
for attorney-general and solicitor-general, but very unsuitable for
judges, to which honours the offices notoriously led.

All the Irish appointments were popular in Ireland, although the
gentlemen who filled them belonged to a party of so small a minority.
Lord Eglinton was a gentleman personally liberal and generally esteemed,
generous, and off-hand, fond of Ireland, and adapted to intercourse
with the Irish. Mr. Blackburn, the lord-chancellor, was considered the
greatest equity lawyer in Ireland, and an impartial judge. Lord Naas,
the chief secretary, was an Irishman who knew the country well, and was
connected with many popular families. Joseph Napier was held to be
a first-rate lawyer and scholar, a polished gentleman, and a sincere
Christian. Whiteside was regarded as having too much of the clever,
eloquent, fiery Irish agitator in his own constitution, not to have some
complaisant sympathy with such qualities in his countrymen. Accordingly,
the government worked well in Ireland for its own ascendancy, but every
step it took in England rendered the hope of ministerial longevity
impossible. Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli were personally liked; both were
believed to be more liberal than their relation to their party allowed,
and their brilliant eloquence made the country proud of them in or out
of office.

The time soon arrived for testing the House of Commons as to the amount
of toleration it was likely to show to the new ministry. On the 27th
of February, Lord Derby offered the lords an exposition of his views,
which, even while he was yet speaking, found its way substantially to
the commons, and was buzzed about among the members. In his speech, his
lordship disavowed any intention to interfere violently with free-trade
principles, but avowed himself still a Protectionist, declaring, that
in his opinion, the importation of all articles which competed with the
industry of the country ought to be taxed, and that corn ought not to
be exempt. A report of his lordship’s speech had scarcely reached the
commons, when it was evident that so far as the parliament then sitting
was concerned, the doom of his ministry was sealed. When, the next
day, the wings of the press bore to the country his lordship’s oration,
indignation was everywhere excited, and the free-traders were united and
strengthened, in a manner they had not been from the time of the repeal
of the corn-laws.

Lord Derby made a statement connected with reform, which proved to be
nearly as distasteful to a majority of the people out of doors as that
on free-trade. He expressed his intention not to proceed with Lord John
Russell’s reform bill, which he described as unsettling everything and
settling nothing, which began by exciting the country, and finished by
dissatisfying it.

His lordship, as if not satisfied with the opposition such statements
were likely to raise against him, provided himself with a third
element of hostility, by invoking the assistance of his hearers for the
extension of the established church, and of an education entirely under
the control of the parochial clergy. The dissenters and Roman Catholics
were much alarmed ly this portion of his lordship’s speech, and quietly,
but extensively and effectually, prepared to give a strenuous opposition
to his government. Thus, in his _début_ as premier, Lord Derby contrived
to set against him the free-traders, reformers, dissenters, and Roman
Catholics, at a moment when there was a majority against him in the
commons. The premier’s oratorical onslaught was so indiscreet, that only
the most headstrong and ignorant of his own party had any hope that he
would display the tact, sagacity, self-control, and party-moderation
which alone could enable him to hold his ground against the opposition
in the commons, and the general want of confidence in his ministry.

Such was the imprudence of the first minister, that although Earl
Grey gave him an easy opportunity of withdrawing his anti-free-trade
doctrines, the most in the form of concession which he (Lord Grey) could
extort was, that the government had no _present_ intention of proposing
a tax on the importation of corn, but regarded it as a question still
open, and remaining with the intelligence of the country for solution.
Some of the high whig peers expressed their approbation of his
lordship’s views in terms of warm support. On the other hand, the
Earl of Aberdeen strenuously opposed the purpose which the government
evidently contemplated, of imposing a new corn-tax.

In the commons, an adjournment to the 12th of March was proposed and
carried.

When the houses resumed their sittings, it became evident to the
government that the imprudent speech of Lord Derby had roused the
opposition to a high pitch of excitement. Demands were made as to
whether the government intended to re-impose the corn-laws. No honest
answer could be extracted in either house—experience had made the
leaders wary: the answers given were, in effect, that the government
would abide by the decision of the country. This reply made it evident
that parliament was to be dissolved on the question of free-trade and a
corn-law. After the country had reasonably concluded that the question
was settled, fierce disputes from end to end of the kingdom were
about to be raised. The old members of the Corn-law League accordingly
convoked meetings in London and Manchester, and it was determined
to resuscitate that powerful body, and with new and more effectual
instrumentalities of agitation, upon the first proposition for imposing
a tax upon the importation of corn. The uneasiness throughout the
country became very great, and a personal ill-will to the two tory
leaders began to show itself in the north of England, and throughout
Scotland.

On the 15th of March, Lord Beaumont presented a petition from certain
inhabitants of the West Biding of Yorkshire, praying the house to set at
rest the question of free-trade, as commercial enterprise was seriously
injured. Lord Derby answered that he did not consider the question
settled, and that the next general election must decide it. On the
same evening, Mr. Villiers, the leader of the anti-cornlaw party in the
commons, demanded final and explicit explanations from the government,
alleging that distrust and alarm filled the country. Mr. Disraeli denied
the statements, and resorted to the usual tricks of words to evade the
interrogatory; the inference from his reply was that a desperate effort
would be made to gain a corn-law majority in a new House of Commons,
and, in case of success, re-impose the corn-laws. Lord John Bussell, Sir
James Graham, Mr. Gladstone, Lord Palmerston, Sir A. Cockburn, and
other prominent men on the liberal side of the house, expressed their
determination to offer every resistance they could employ to the
re-imposition of any duty, in any form, upon the importation of corn.

Rumours began to circulate, that the government would endeavour to go on
with the public business in the face of an adverse majority, and on the
19th of March, the Duke of Newcastle demanded explanations in the lords
from the premier. The duke presented a petition from the Commercial
Association of Manchester, praying for relief from the confusion and
uncertainty thrown into commercial operations by the speeches of the
leading members of government, in fact, demanding that the question of a
corn-law should once more be submitted to the country. Lord Derby
denied the assertions of the Manchester Association, refused to dissolve
parliament, or to give any explicit information as to his intentions in
reference to free-trade.

In the House of Commons, the same night, Lord John Bussell demanded that
the public should be at once relieved from all uncertainty by an appeal
to the country. So decided and angry was the aspect of the house, and so
loud the demonstrations of its determination not to be trifled with on
the great subject of a corn-law, that Mr. Disraeli was compelled to give
that assurance which Lord Derby refused, and pledged the government to
dissolve parliament, and meet the new house within the year, and as soon
after the public business necessary to the country was disposed of.

It was, however, found difficult to transact business—the house was so
excited; so that the question of dissolution was again and again renewed
in angry and almost boisterous terms. Mr. Cobden called the attention
of the house to the fact that the country had once more a protectionist
government; that the fact was indisputable, and ought to be met with
that intelligence and decision which became the greatest question of the
day. He urged the house to limit the rates of supply, until the country
decided whether it wished a tax upon bread, to enrich the landlords. Mr.
Cardwell, in language as decided as that of Mr. Cobden, urged the house
to fulfil its constitutional obligations, and compel the government of
the minority to give suitable assurances of an early dissolution. Lord
John Bussell declared that the government had taken a course for which
there was no precedent in the constitutional history of England. He
followed Mr. Cobden and Mr. Cardwell in insisting upon the government
adopting such a course as to a dissolution, as would remove from
the house the necessity of taking measures to assert its own high
prerogatives. Mr. Disraeli declined pledging the government more
definitely than he had done, which drew from Mr. Bright an invective
full of fire, yet marked by a dignity unusual with that honourable
member; he demanded that the supplies should be stopped, or the house be
assured that no effort would be made by the government to retain power
by unconstitutional methods. The result of these vigorous proceedings
were statements made in both houses on the part of the ministry, that it
was the intention to dissolve parliament and have an autumn session
to settle the question of protection. It does not appear that these
promises were made in good faith;—at all events no autumn session was
called, although a new parliament met in November, and the question in
debate set at rest.

The government introduced a militia-bill, which Lord John Bussell and
the Whigs generally opposed. Lord Palmerston supported the government,
as did the Peel party, his lordship criticising the tactics of Lord
John with severity. The opposition between these two statesmen kept the
liberal party divided, and alone enabled the government to maintain its
course.

Lord Brougham introduced a bill to enable parliament to meet thirty-five
days after a dissolution. The bill was carried through both houses
without opposition.

The government took up a bill of Lord John Russell’s for the
disfranchisement of the borough of St. Albans, on account of gross
bribery and corruption. The bill was carried, no opposition being
offered except by a small number of Lord Derby’s own party in the House
of Lords.

Sudbury and St. Albans being disfranchised, a question arose as to
the appropriation of the four seats. On the 10th of May, Mr. Disraeli
brought in a bill for the purpose, proposing that the four vacant seats
be given to great county constituencies in the north of England. Mr.
Gladstone opposed the measure, on the ground that the government was
trifling with the prerogatives of the house. It was a government in a
minority, and its duty was to pass no measures but such routine business
as the country absolutely required. Mr. Disraeli had given this promise,
and, notwithstanding, sought to appropriate to county constituencies
the four borough votes of which other constituencies had been penally
deprived. The speech of Mr. Gladstone was received with enthusiasm by
the house, and his amendment, “That the house do pass to the order of
the day,” was carried by a very large majority. That this was purely
a party movement of Mr. Gladstone was soon made evident enough, for he
assisted the government soon after in carrying a bill for giving New
Zealand a constitution; and he himself brought in a measure termed “the
Colonial Bishops’ Bill.”

Various motions were brought under the consideration of the house, but
were received with impatience, and all further attempts of government
to prolong the session by inducing the house to entertain bills, were
fruitless; all were bent upon one object,—that of bringing to an issue
before the country the question of the re-imposition of a tax upon corn.




FOREIGN POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.—OUTRAGE ON MR. MATHER AT FLORENCE.

The impatience of the house for a dissolution did not prevent it from
discussing the foreign policy of the government. It was considered that
Lord Malmesbury had shown a sympathy for despotic states, and had by
his diplomacy played into-the hands of Austria, and the petty tyrannical
Italian governments. Lord John Russell brought his lordship’s conduct,
as well as the policy of the government, before the house on the 14th of
June.

In the last chapter, our readers were informed that a young English
gentleman of moral excellence and high culture, the son of a patriotic
and influential gentleman of the county of Durham, named Mather, was
wantonly cut down in the streets of Florence by an Austrian officer.
Lord John Bussell exposed the conduct of Lord Malmesbury in this affair,
and was ably supported by Lord Palmerston. The government suffered much
in reputation, both in the house and throughout the country, from this
debate. Their defence was extremely feeble, while the attacks of the
opposition glowed with indignant eloquence. Probably at no period of
party strife did the two great parties in the house appear more
strongly contrasted than during that debate. Lord John Russell and Lord
Palmerston spoke with exceeding force, and uttered sentiments worthy of
British patriotism and British statesmanship. Mr. Disraeli, on the
other hand, spoke with an apathy, where insults to England and to a
defenceless Englishman were concerned, which was discreditable to a
statesman of any free country, or indeed to any speaker that had a
sympathy with manhood and national dignity. In the elections which
ensued, the tone adopted on that occasion by the chancellor of the
exchequer, and the conduct of Lord Malmesbury, told effectively against
the government in various constituencies in the north of England. A
feeling was created that the rights of Englishmen in foreign countries
were neglected by their own government, and that so far as English
ambassadors and ministers were concerned, Englishmen abroad were at
the merey of any foreign tyrant who thought proper to wrong them. This
feeling had extended for some years upon the continent, and the debate
in the commons promoted by Lords John Russell and Palmerston, brought
out such glaring criminality on the part of the English foreign office
in connection with Mr. Mather, that the sentiment became strengthened on
the continent that unless an English traveller had powerful connections
in his own country, he might be made the object of foreign outrage with
impunity. Mr. Bernai Osborne only expressed the truth in the strong
language with which he concluded his speech, “Lord Malmesbury had
trifled with the honour of the country, and disgraced it in the eyes
of the whole continent of Europe.” In the House of Lords, warm debates
arose upon the same question, in which Lord Malmesbury made a defence
still more disingenuous and unpatriotic than it was feeble.




LAW REFORM.

Notwithstanding the difficulties of the government, various useful bills
which had been prepared by the Whigs, but which the Russell government
was unable to carry, were passed into law. By the end of June, all these
measures were enacted as laws.




PROROGATION AND DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.—GENERAL ELECTION.

On the 1st of July, her majesty in person prorogued her parliament, and
announced her intention of speedily dissolving it. This event took place
shortly after, and was followed by a general election, when the voice
of the country was so decidedly given against protection as to cause
the abandonment of all idea by the protectionist party of re-imposing a
corn-law. The orators of the government, however, announced throughout
the country their intention to promote a parliamentary struggle for
the re-adjustment of the public burdens, so as to relieve the landlord
interest of a large share of the proportion of the taxes borne by them.




MEETING OF THE NEW PARLIAMENT.

The houses of parliament assembled on the 4th of November. On the 11th
her majesty in person delivered the speech from the throne. The speech
referred to commercial policy in terms which the Hon. Mr. Villiers
denounced as “vague and equivocal.”




BOTH HOUSES CARRY RESOLUTIONS PLEDGING THEM TO THE FREE-TRADE POLICY.

On the 23rd of November, the Hon. Mr. Villiers proposed a series of
resolutions affirming the prosperity of the country, and the comfort of
the poorer classes, as resulting from the policy of free-trade, and more
especially in corn, pledging the house to support the measure of
1846, by which all duties on corn were repealed. The chancellor of
the exchequer moved an amendment with the intention of defeating these
resolutions. The government, however, assumed the tone of converts to
free-trade on the ground that the country had pronounced for it. Mr.
Frederick Peel, with bitter and eloquent irony, in the best speech he
probably ever delivered in parliament, reminded Mr. Disraeli of his
taunts and abuse of Sir Robert Peel for changing his opinions on the
subject of a corn-law, and invited the right honourable satirist to
account for his own change, if it were effected by any other motive than
to retain office. He went to the country advocating the re-imposition of
a corn-tax, and on his return presented himself to the house a convert
to the opinion that it would be wrong to disturb the settlement of 1846.
After a protracted debate, Lord Palmerston proposed an amendment which
more generally embodied the public opinion, and was more adapted to
party exigencies. All opposition to it on the part of the government
was so hopeless, that most of their supporters left the house. Eighty
remained, and voted against his lordship; four hundred and eight members
supported it. The House of Commons was pledged to the free-trade policy.

A similar debate took place in the lords with nearly identical results.
Various measures were discussed without leading to any parliamentary
decision or useful law. It was evident that on all subjects of
free-trade and financial philosophy the government and the majority of
the house were at issue—the one desiring to restore protection under
various sly and indirect pretences, the other anxious to develop
free-trade principles, and a system of national finance in harmony with
the principles of political economy.




THE GOVERNMENT SCHEME OF FINANCE.—DEFEAT AND RESIGNATION OF THE
MINISTRY.

On the 3rd of December, the chancellor of the exchequer stated to the
house the views which the government entertained of the principles
of finance which were applicable to the condition of the country. He
declared that he accepted as irreversible the decision of the country in
favour of a free commercial policy, and that his object was to harmonize
with that the system of national taxation. He proposed to relieve
certain interests which he considered had suffered by the free-trade
policy. The first of these named by him was the shipping interest. His
views connected with that subject met with general approbation, as
they comprehended only the removal of special and unjust taxation. He
proposed to satisfy the West India interest by allowing sugar to be
refined in bond. The opinions stated by the right honourable gentleman
were so at variance with his former violent orations in favour of the
shipping interest, and that of the sugar-growing countries, as to excite
astonishment and amusement in the house. Observing this feeling, he
exclaimed, “I may be called a renegade, I may be called a traitor—” but
the sentence remained unfinished amidst shouts of laughter from all
sides of the house, and reiterated bursts of derisive cheers from the
opposition. In fact, the leader of the commons gave up the shipping and
colonial interests, with some slight show of concession, which nearly
the whole house was prepared to make. The third interest for which he
demanded relief was that of the owners of land. He adverted to the
local burdens which he had so often pointed out as intolerable to the
landowners, and admitted, amidst long-continued peals of laughter, that
the agricultural interest had no longer ground of complaint on such
matters, and denounced contrary opinions as obsolete. For the relief
of the agricultural interest he announced his intention to reduce the
malt-tax one half, and to abolish the drawback from spirits made in
Scotland. He would reduce one half the duty on hops; he would continue
the income-tax, about to expire, but reduce that of farmers by one-half.
This announcement was received with demonstrations of astonishment and
anger by the opposition. He would impose the income-tax in Ireland, but
would exempt the landed interest of that country from its application.
This announcement threw the house into extraordinary agitation.
Perceiving this, the right hon. gentleman expressed sympathy with the
sufferings through which Ireland had passed, and drew from the fact of
these sufferings the inference that while imposing new taxes upon other
portions of the community in that country, the landed interest ought
to be exempt. He would also increase the house-tax, in order that the
inhabitants of the metropolis might bear a proportion of the burden from
which land would be relieved, and would extend the tax to all houses
rated at £10. The right hon. gentleman intimated that his financial
scheme should be considered as a first step in a new direction.

The financial statement of the chancellor excited an intense ferment
through the country. The landed, the West Indian, and the shipping
interests, which were all supposed to derive advantage from protection,
supported him, all the rest of the community exhibited an angry
opposition. The monied and commercial classes in Ireland, the English
manufacturers, and the London householders, were Mr. Disraeli’s fiercest
opponents. Besides the popular hostility, Mr. Disraeli had to encounter
that of the political economists, and all the leading financiers in
the country. The monied interest ridiculed the estimates, and it became
evident in a few days after the announcement of his plan to the house,
that it had seriously impaired the reputation of its propounder. His
unfitness for the post of chancellor of the exchequer was proclaimed
everywhere, and every where accepted as true.

On the 6th of December, on the report of the Committee of Supply being
brought up, the House of Commons, led on by Mr. Gladstone, showed an
uncompromising opposition to the whole scheme of Mr. Disraeli.

After a series of adjournments, Mr. Disraeli replied to the criticism
of his opponents in language personally offensive, and full of party
violence. This led to a scene of singular excitement: Mr. Gladstone
retorted in the most eloquent speech he ever delivered in parliament.
Attempts were made by the government party to stifle his voice in
uproar, but the house sustained him by repeated and long-continued
rounds of applause. Mr. Gladstone’s denunciation of the budget as a
delusive and dishonest scheme was followed by a vote which rejected
it. The protectionist members voted to a man with the government, but a
majority was against them, and the government resigned.




FORMATION OF A NEW MINISTRY.

The queen sent for Lord Lansdowne, by whom she was advised to send for
Lord Aberdeen, as the most prominent member of the Peel party, upon whom
it would properly devolve to form a government, as that of Lord Derby
was defeated on a question of political economy and finance.

On the 27th of December the new government appeared before parliament.
Its constitution was as follows:—

                   _In the Cabinet_

     First Lord of the Treasury......    Earl of Aberdeen.

     Lord-Chancellor  ...............    Lord Cranworth.

     Chancellor of the Exchequer......    Mr. Gladstone.

     President of the Council........    Earl Granville.

     Privy Seal.......................    Duke of Argyle.

     Home Secretary  ................    Viscount Palmerston.

     Foreign Secretary................    Lord John Russell.

     Colonial Secretary  ............    Duke of Newcastle.

     First Lord of the Admiralty ....    Sir James Graham.

     President of the Board of Control    Sir Charles Wood

     Secretary at War.................    Mr. Sidney Herbert.

     Commissioner of Works/Buildings      Sir W. Molesworth.

     Honorary.........,..............    Marquis of Lansdowne.

On meeting parliament, an adjournment until February was approved by all
parties.

The government was not popular: few of the positions were occupied by
those whom the country regarded as the men for the place. The premier
had, as foreign minister, neglected the honour of England more than Lord
Malmesbury had done. He had been outwitted by Louis Philippe, and
had been the sycophant of Russia and Austria. He was, to use his own
phraseology, “regarded as a sort of Austro-Russian.” His sympathy with
Puseyism made him unpopular with large and influential sections of the
religious public. Indeed the Aberdeen cabinet was regarded as, on the
whole, more Puseyite than any which England had seen since the rise of
the party in the established church. The Duke of Newcastle, to whom the
administration of colonial affairs was entrusted, was of the Puseyite
school, and his appointment, when known in the colonies, gave great
dissatisfaction. The chancellor of the exchequer was more a champion of
ecclesiastical exclusiveness than any member of the Derby cabinet, and
Mr. Sidney Herbert rivalled Mr. Gladstone in this respect. The Lord
Chancellor was also of this politico-ecclesiastical party, and was
regarded as a crotchetty man, of little intellectual strength. As an
equity lawyer, he had won reputation; as a judge there had been more
appeals from his decisions than from all the other judges of the bench.

The appointment of Lord John Russell to the foreign-office, while Lord
Palmerston was placed in the home-office, was regarded as an absurd
inversion of their appropriate positions, and the arrangement was
considered as an unwarrantable concession by Lord Aberdeen to the vanity
of the ex-premier. Events justified the suspicions and dislikes of the
public, except in the instance of Lord Palmerston, who proved himself to
be the most efficient home-minister the country ever possessed.

The Irish appointments were very unpopular amongst the Protestants in
Ireland, and among those in England who gave themselves any concern
about Irish appointments. The Irish ministry of Lord Derby was greatly
superior to that of Lord Aberdeen, in talent, moral standing, and
influence in the country where their functions were to be sustained.

With the adjournment of the house closed the parliamentary history of
1852.




IRELAND.

The distracted state of Ireland was, as usual, a source of uneasiness
to the empire. There was, indeed, no insurrectionary movement, but
the spirit of agrarian outrage continued, and numerous murders were
perpetrated of a most savage nature—the country people conniving at
the crimes, and secreting the criminals. These evils were, to a great
extent, provoked by the unjust state of the law between landlord and
tenant. Efforts were made in parliament to mitigate the injustice and
oppression to which the tenantry in Ireland were subjected; but the
landed interest in England upheld that in Ireland in resisting all
melioration.

Religious intolerance continued to agitate every other malady of
Ireland. Indeed this was the _fons et origo mali_, for it deprived
honest men and patriots of opportunity to combine for their country’s
freedom and prosperity. During the elections caused by Lord Derby’s
dissolution of parliament, the priests incited the populace, in some
places, to acts of disturbance and violence. At Six Miles Bridge the
soldiery were attacked while protecting voters in the free exercise of
their franchise. Proceedings were taken against a Roman Catholic priest
for the part which it was alleged he took in those disturbances. Public
opinion considered him to have been the cause of the outbreak, but the
tory government, anxious for party purposes to conciliate the Roman
Catholics, did not dare to prosecute him.

The Young Ireland agitation was not extinguished, and it received
some new inspiration of hope from the escape of Thomas Meagher, from
Australia. That adventurous young man made his way from his penal abode
at the antipodes to America, where he became a citizen. He was a true
patriot, and an ardent friend of liberty; he had no sympathy with
the pro-slavery and red republican opinions of his former coadjutor,
Mitchell, nor with the raving and malignant bigotry of Charles Gavan
Duffy. In the United States he was an object of universal respect,
his amiability and eloquence winning, in private and public, “golden
opinions from all sorts of men.”

Ireland showed various symptoms of returning prosperity. The only
agitation in which the higher classes took part was in opposition to the
unjust scheme of Disraeli, to tax the Irish fundholder for the advantage
of the English and Irish landholder. This measure was denounced by the
capitalists of Ireland as a violation of faith to the public creditor,
and sapping tire foundations upon which the security and sacredness of
property rested.

The ribbon conspiracy was active during the year, and no suitable effort
was made by Lord Derby’s government to uproot it.




COLONIES.

The colonies were generally prosperous throughout the year, and quietude
and contentment prevailed. The Cape of Good Hope, and even India, were
less disturbed than usual; but in each of these places a few events
occurred to which we shall especially refer.




CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.

In the early part of the year, the troubles which harassed the colony in
the previous year exercised some influence. The efforts of the governor
to establish tranquillity and good government met with co-operation from
the colonists. The Boers, however, showed a disposition hostile to
the British, chiefly because they hated the liberty which the English
enjoyed and extended to the coloured population. The eagerness of the
Boers to subdue to slavery the natives who came within their control,
was not abated by the bitter lessons which their past experience had
received. Before the year had far advanced, the whole colony was in
repose, law and order for a time having been everywhere established.




INDIA.

India generally was quiet throughout this year, except upon the
frontiers of Birmese territory. The vast regions comprehended under
the name of British India, are never free from some tumults, local
insurrections, and sudden and almost unaccountable revolts of petty
chiefs. The year 1852 was not without events of this sort, but there
was no startling incident except a war with Birmah, which of course was
waged from India, and by the governor-general. A brief account of it
will appear most appropriately in the relation of the foreign affairs of
the empire.

The author of “The Three Presidencies” relates the political events of
interest to the English in India, with the following brief but correct
summary:—“Throughout India, with the exception of the north-western
frontier, the most profound peace has reigned. The only disturbance
which broke this complete tranquillity was the periodical incursion of
some of the hill-tribes, especially of the Momunds. Their forays
were mainly directed against the inhabitants of the villages in their
vicinity, where they frequently committed great destruction of life and
property. These marauders occupied the forces under Sir Colin Campbell
from early in January, at various periods, until quite the end of the
year, often falling upon our troops when not expected, and inflicting
considerable loss. These freebooters mustered very strong in light
horse, by the rapidity of their movements and their intimate knowledge
of every mile of the country, bade defiance to such of our troops as
were brought against them. In Scinde, the occurrence of the year was the
deposition of Ali Morad from his princedom. The plots and falsehoods of
this designing intriguer having been completely brought home to him, and
it being made clear how nefariously he had deprived both his brothers
and the British government of large tracts of territory, no time
was lost in stripping him of his ill-gotten honours and estates, and
reducing him to the rank of a simple chief. An attempt was made, during
1852, to establish an annual fair at Kurrachee, for the supply of the
great commercial marts above the Indus with European goods, and the
disposal of their produce in return.”




FOREIGN AFFAIRS.—BIRMESE WAR.

The general relations of Great Britain with other nations were tranquil
during the year, although some alarms were entertained as to the
intentions of her nearest neighbour on the European continent. The
war with Birmah was, however costly and sanguinary and was the most
prominent matter of public interest in the foreign relations of the
British empire. It was in 1851 that the occasion for hostilities was
given by the Birmese, and that the governor-general took measures for
reprisal. Various acts of oppression and cruelty to British subjects
were perpetrated by the authorities of Ava.*

     * For a minute and extended account of the causes of both
     the wars with Birmah, see Nolan’s “History of the British
     Umpire in India and the East.” Virtue: City-road.

It was not, however, until 1852 that the conflict assumed a serious
character, and that tidings reached the English public of this new
Indian war. Early in January, 1852, the King of Ava pretended a
willingness to settle the differences between him and the British
by negotiations. By this means he succeeded in capturing a number
of English residents at Rangoon, whom he subjected to indignity and
suffering. Commodore Lambert, who commanded the naval expedition,
blockaded the Birmese ports. The governor-general despatched from
Calcutta, and the Governor of Madras, from the capital of that
presidency, strong bodies of troops. Preparations of an extensive
nature were made to bring the war to a speedy issue. Several officers of
eminent ability, among them the great and good Havelock, afterwards
Sir Henry, and the saviour of India, joined the force. By the 24th of
February, six steamers left Bombay for Madras, where they embarked the
troops destined for the Birmese campaign, under the command of General
Godwin, viz., two European and four native regiments, with four corps of
artillerymen, chiefly Europeans. These left Madras on the 29th of March,
whilst at Calcutta the armament had been equally hastened. The last of
the force despatched there left the Hoogly on the 25th of March, the
total having been similar to the Madras force—two European and four
native regiments, with their accompaniments of artillery, in four
steamers and four transports. These amounted in the aggregate to about
eight thousand men.

The 1st of April was the clay appointed for the ultimatum. A steamer was
sent to Rangoon, to obtain the king’s reply. The English envoy found the
river lined with stockades, and from thence a heavy fire was opened
upon him; this was the only answer to the British ultimatum his Birmese
majesty deigned to give.

Admiral Austin, with the Bengal force, arrived at this juncture, and at
once attacked and conquered Martaban, so that, by the evening of the
5th of April, the British were masters of the place. The Madras troops
arrived on the 7th, and the forces of the two presidencies proceeded up
the river and attacked the stockades, which were defended by twenty-five
thousand men.

Early in May, the British resolved upon attacking Bassein, sixty miles
up one of the branches of the Irriwaddy. From that point, the Birmese
commander contemplated an invasion of the British province of Arracan.
After a desperate struggle, a very small number of British succeeded in
storming the stockades and capturing the place.

While the English were engaged capturing Bassein, the Birmese attempted
the reconquest of Martaban, but were repulsed with great slaughter, by a
very small force, with little loss.

On the 5th of July, Prome was attacked: the conquest was easy, but the
conqueror did not deem it necessary to garrison the place; consequently,
as he retired to Rangoon, the enemy re-entered Prome.

The incompetency and inactivity of the British general caused July and
August to pass uselessly. The whole army murmured. All the abuses of
British military official routine prevailed, and the accounts which
arrived in England excited, as tidings from India had so often done,
much popular discontent. A popular writer thus criticised
General Godwin’s conduct, and gave the following relation of his
proceedings:—“The expected reinforcements having reached head-quarters,
the force available amounted in the month of September to nearly twenty
thousand men, in the highest state of efficiency, and quite large enough
to have at once swept all before them to the very gates of the emperor’s
palace. But this did not appear to be the view taken of the matter by
General Godwin, who now made preparation for once more attacking Prome.
In tire middle of this month, two regiments, a field-battery, with a
detachment of sappers and miners, left Rangoon, followed within a few
days by the general, and a party of artillerymen. They ascended the
river without opposition until the 9th of October, when, as they
approached the stockaded defences of the city, they were fired upon from
many sides. The enemy’s gunnery was not of first-rate quality, and in
less than two hours was entirely silenced, the ground being completely
cleared of the opposing force by the shells thrown from the steamers.
The troops were landed towards the evening, and, advancing at once upon
a pagoda and the few remaining defences, carried everything before
them at the point of the bayonet. Night fell before the town could be
reached, and it was therefore not until the next morning that Prome
was occupied for the second time by our troops. A large body of Birmese
troops, amounting to upwards of six thousand men, were known to be
posted within a few miles of the town, strongly entrenched behind
stockades, and out of reach of our steamers, the artillery practice
from which appears to have impressed them with a proper sense of our
superiority in that arm of war. To have dislodged them with the force at
his command would have been a matter of comparative ease; but so thought
not General Godwin, who, fearful probably of terminating the war too
quickly, determined to await the arrival of further troops before
attempting any forward movement. He did not wait long, however; but
within a day or two left for Rangoon, in search of the troops considered
to be requisite for further operations. This reinforcement was
dispatched towards the latter part of the month. By this time the
Irriwaddy, which had been previously deep enough throughout for our
largest steamers, sank so suddenly, and as it appears so unexpectedly,
that several of the flotilla were left aground in the middle of the
stream, with every prospect of having to remain there until the next
rains should float them.”

The English general seemed to be unable to manage the large
reinforcements which he had received, or to avail himself of the
combinations which the activity of the governor-general made to
facilitate the objects of the expedition.

The general resolved to attack Pegu again, which had been abandoned
after a previous successful attack. The conquest was easy, and a
garrison was established. This detachment was attacked in December
by large numbers of the enemy. The garrison was hemmed in, and in the
greatest danger; General Godwin, after failing to relieve the place, by
ill-judged and inadequate measures, at last sent a strong force, which
successfully encountered every obstacle, and dispersed the enemy.

On the 28th of December, 1852, Pegu and Martaban were “annexed” to
British India by proclamation of the governor-general. When these
tidings reached Ava, a revolution occurred, promoted by the emperor’s
brother, with the design of propitiating the English, and making peace.
The emperor was made a captive, and his brother ascended the musnid.

Meanwhile, the British forced the great pass between Arracan and Pegu,
leading through it two hundred and fifty elephants sent from Calcutta to
convey stores to the army under Godwin. Baffled and beaten, the Birmese
troops fell back upon the capital early in the year 1853.

The British opened negotiations with the new sovereign, which were
tediously protracted until May. An embassy was sent to the Birmese
court, and the emperor had the folly and arrogance, after all the
disaster and defeat experienced by the arms of Ava, to demand homage
from the English envoys. The firmness of these gentlemen, and the fear
of renewed hostilities, caused the sovereign to waive his claims to
forms and ceremonies of abject submission, and the issue was peaceful.
Cordial relations with the Birmese dominions were not however
established, either at that juncture or subsequently: but the salutary
fear of British power, caused by the war of 1851–2–3, prevented any
violent interruption of good neighbourhood on the part of the Birmese.




FRANCE.

The most important of all the foreign relations of Great Britain are
those connected with France—the most powerful of all the allies or
enemies of England. During 1852, peace and professions of friendship
prevailed between the two nations, but there existed considerable
apprehension in Great Britain that the designs of the French president
were hostile to England, and that the country was inadequately defended.
The Duke of Wellington, without giving any opinion as to the intentions
of the president, made more powerful than ever by the _coup d’état_,
declared that there was danger from the defenceless state of the
country, and recommended the government to fortify and aim. His grace
inspected the coasts, and by the opinions he pronounced increased the
public apprehension of peril, while he also stimulated the confidence of
the country in its great capacity for defence. Sir Howard Douglas,
the distinguished engineer officer, accompanied the duke in his coast
inspections, and in a work* published by him on the subject, he thus
describes the duke’s impressions;—

     * “Observations on Modern  Systems of Fortification.”    By
     General Sir Howard Douglas, Bart.

“When the late Duke of Wellington visited the coast defences—on the
alarm of an invasion, soon after the accession of Louis Napoleon, the
present Emperor of France, to the presidency—his grace, being at
Seabrook, between Sandgate and Hythe, conversing with his staff and
the other officers, the principles of permanent camps and other fixed
defences became the subject of discussion, when the duke used the
following expressions, ‘Look at those splendid heights all along this
coast; give me communications which admit of rapid flank movement along
those heights, and I might set anything at defiance.’”

The fears felt in England that a struggle with France would be speedily
necessitated were intensified, when, at the close of the year, the
president of the republic appealed to the universal suffrage of France,
as to whether he should assume the name and power of emperor. This
appeal was answered by 7,824,189 “ayes,” and 253,143 “noes.”

On the 1st of December, the senate and legislative corps met, and
proceeded to St. Cloud, to announce to the president of the republic
that he had been elected sovereign of France. He accepted the splendid
boon, and declared himself Napoleon III. The British government
recognised the title, declaring that whatever form of government the
French people chose to adopt would be acknowledged and respected by
England.




GENERAL EUROPEAN RELATIONS.

England interested herself in certain diplomatic discussions concerning
the succession to the crown of Denmark, and in the disputes which
occurred between the government of Copenhagen and the German
Confederation, connected with Schleswig Holstein.

A treaty of commerce and navigation, between her Britannic majesty and
the King of the Belgians, also signalized the year.

No other events of serious importance engaged the attention of England
in connection with Europe.




UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Another of the many disputes concerning territory, or rights,
perpetually occurring between Great Britain and the United States,
took place in 1852. The contest regarded the fisheries off the American
coasts; the citizens of the United States claiming the right, in virtue
of a certain convention dated 1818, to fish off the coasts, and dry fish
on the coasts, of an extensive area of British territory. The British
colonial minister, Sir J. Pakington, conceded nearly all that the
Americans demanded, to the mortification of the colonial subjects of
Great Britain. Discussions concerning Central America, and the formation
of a ship-canal between the Atlantic and the Pacific, also engaged
the diplomatic abilities of British and American ministers. Ostensible
agreements were entered into, but neither nation heartily acquiesced,
and no expectation was entertained in England that the people of the
United States regarded the settlement as final.




EFFORTS AGAINST THE SLAVE TRADE, AND TO SUPPRESS PIRACY.

The energy put forth by the British government to destroy the traffic in
slaves by an armed naval force off the coasts of Africa were this year
unremitting and successful. Several vessels trading in slaves were
taken, and though the British squadron was not sufficient to suppress,
it was a powerful check upon the slave trade.

Naval operations off the Chinese coasts, within the Straits of Malacca
and on the coasts of Labuan, were also crowned with success. Through
the instrumentality of Rajah Brooke, the Malay pirates were defeated and
ultimately extirpated from the bays and creeks of Labuan. The position
of the rajah at Sarawak afforded him facilities for directing these
enterprises, which his indomitable courage and energy enabled him to
make available. His country did not appreciate his deeds as highly as
they deserved, and certain cliques in England decried his labours and
aspersed his motives. He rendered commerce and his country great and
disinterested services.




DEATHS OF EMINENT PERSONS.

During the year 1852, death was as usual busy in the circles of
eminent persons: the fame and talents of some of the deceased render it
desirable and necessary to record their names upon the page of history.

On the 22nd of January, George Herbert Rodwell, the celebrated composer
and writer, was removed from among the living. His musical compositions
and stage productions were numerous and popular.

In the month of February, Samuel Prout, F.S.A., celebrated for his
drawings in water-colours, and a peculiar style of depicting public
buildings, died. Also, Dr. Murray, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin,
a man of extraordinary influence, acquired by prudence, moderation,
patriotism, and consistency of character.

The most remarkable man who departed this life in the British Isles
during 1852 was Thomas Moore, the poet. He died in his seventy-third
year, at Sloperton Cottage, Wiltshire, where, through the generous
patronage of Lord Lansdowne, the poet spent his most tranquil years.
This extraordinary man was born in Aungier Street, Dublin, in the year
1779. The poet’s father was a grocer, but subsequently received an
appointment as quarter-master to a regiment. The poetical genius of
Thomas Moore was shown at a very early period of life—in his thirteenth
year he contributed to the Dublin periodicals. He was at that time under
the care of a very celebrated schoolmaster, Mr. Samuel Whyte, who took
a deep interest in the precocious genius of his pupil, and had no small
share of honour in bringing him into notice. As early as fourteen years
of age he entered the Dublin University. He was scarcely more than a
year a pupil in the university when he published a paraphrase on the
fifth ode of Anacreon. This was so well received that he proceeded to
translate the remaining odes, which performance ultimately met with
a most encouraging reception. In his nineteenth year, he proceeded to
London in the hope of obtaining by subscription a sufficient amount to
secure the success of his “Anacreon,” and also to enter as a student
the Middle Temple. The work did not appear until 1800, when, under the
patronage of the Earl of Moira, he was enabled to dedicate it to the
Prince of Wales. In 1802, he published a volume under the designation
of, “The Poetical Works of the Late Thomas Little.” The moral tone of
these productions offended the public taste, and inflicted injury upon
the poet’s reputation which his subsequent life did not remove, even
when the glory of his genius shed lustre upon his name and his country.
His more popular works are well known. In politics he was a whig
partizan, but was not at heart attached to any school of politics.
He was ostensibly a Roman Catholic, and was intolerant as a writer in
defence of Romanism, while in private he was most liberal on religious
subjects, and showed no earnest belief in any system of theology. He
was one of the most accomplished scholars of his day, but was not
a profound thinker, and was regarded as rather a lazy writer.
His imagination was not of the highest order, but it was rich and
diversified. His artistic taste and harmony as a poetical writer were
exquisite. His love of music and song was a deep passion. In society, he
held every circle as in a spell, so charming were his conversation and
manner, and so brilliant and vivacious was his wit. Lord Byron, who had
so happy a power of describing a notable character in a single sentence
or paragraph, said of him, “He is gentlemanly, gentle, and altogether
more pleasing than any individual with whom I am acquainted.”

When Lord Melbourne was in office, in 1835, he counselled her majesty
to bestow a pension on the poet of £300 a-year. Moore had found it
difficult to realize this sum by his writings, as his prose works
did not meet the expectations raised by his poetry. When he became a
pensioner he seldom wrote, verifying the predictions of his friends. He
exchanged too early in life the department of literature in which he
had made so great a reputation for prose, in which he sought by memoirs,
historical writing, and even controversy, to increase his income, and
establish a new reputation. A passionate love for Ireland pervaded most
of his writings, especially his Irish melodies. He constantly breathed
a fervid wish from his earliest years for her national independence, and
severance from England. Yet when a large portion of his countrymen flew
to arms for that purpose, in 1798, he, although nineteen years of age,
took no part in the struggle: neither did he show any desire to live in
Ireland, but courted English aristocratic society, and served English
party interests. During three years before his death, the brain
gradually softened, and he sunk into childishness. None of his children
survived him. His widow, a charming person, retained a pension of £100
a-year, conferred upon her by the government.

The poetical works of Thomas Moore retain their popularity in many
lands. Not only in England, where he spent by far the greater part of
his life, and in Ireland, where he was born and educated, and whose
popular joys, sorrows, hopes, aspirations, traditions, and prejudices he
sung so sweetly, but wherever the English language is spoken, his fame
is cherished and his verse repeated. Nor is the delight inspired by his
works limited to the language in which they were written. All over the
continent of Europe, among the nations whose language is of Latin
and Celtic origin, his muse inspires deep interest and pleasure. His
extraordinary oriental poem, “Lalla Rookh,” has been translated into
Persian, and delights the literary sons of Iran as it erst thrilled
the imagination and heart of all persons of poetic temperament in the
British Isles. In the city of Dublin, a statue has been erected to his
memory, close by the old senate, now used as the Bank of Ireland, and
near the poet’s Alma Mater, Trinity College. The statue is a failure,
private partiality and _clique_ interest having stifled public
competition and robbed the great sculptors, and the poet, of the reward
of genius, the city of Dublin of an ornament of which it might have been
proud, and his country of the opportunity of paying a suitable tribute
of respect to one of the most gifted of her sons. Had M’Dowell or
Hogan been allowed to execute a statue for Moore, it would have been
accomplished _con amore_, and in a way worthy of the poet and of the
sculptor.

The month of February witnessed the death, at the advanced age of
ninety, of John Landseer, the celebrated engraver. He left behind him
three sons, all eminent—George, Charles, and Sir Edwin.

Among the deaths of remarkable persons in April was that of General
Arthur O’Connor, aged eighty-nine, at the Chateau de Rignon, near
Nemours. This notable person was one of the leaders in the terrible
Irish rebellion of 1798. He was the third son of Roger Connor, of
Connorville, by Anne Longfield, sister of Lord Longueville. He was
called to the Irish bar in 1788. Lord Longueville returned him to the
Irish parliament as representative of Philipstown, in the King’s County,
in the year 1790. Lord Longueville afterwards deprived him of his seat
in parliament, and disinherited him, by which a loss occurred to Mr.
O’Connor of £10,000 a-year, in consequence of his violent advocacy, in
the Irish parliament, of “Catholic emancipation.” He afterwards became
a leader of the “United Irishmen,” and one of “the Directory of Five,”
 of that body. After various unsuccessful efforts to separate Ireland
from Great Britain, he was arrested, and made an ingenious and desperate
effort to escape, assisted by the Earl of Thanet. In 1804, he was
deported from Ireland, his life being spared on condition, it was
alleged, of some disclosures as to the plans for insurrection even then
entertained by him and his colleagues. Buonaparte made him a general of
division, and he subsequently received further promotion in the French
army. In 1809 he married a niece of Marshal Grouchy, daughter of the
Marquis Condorcet, the French mathematician. In 1834, he was permitted
by Earl Grey, then in power in England, to revisit Ireland for the
purpose of disposing of some property inherited by him, and which the
British government had not confiscated. With the proceeds he purchased
the chateau where Mirabeau was born, and there General O’Connor died.
The celebrated agitator Fergus O’Connor, once member of parliament for
Cork, and afterwards for Nottingham, was nephew to the general.

In May, Mrs. Coleridge, only daughter of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. She
was a lady of extraordinary attainments and vigour. Her acquaintance
with the classics was most extensive and accurate, and by her
translations from the Latin her reputation was to a great extent made.
Wordsworth and Southey were her intimate friends, and intense admirers
of her genius. In a review written by an eminent critic, it was remarked
of her that “she was the inheritrix of her father’s genius, and almost
rival of his attainments.”

In August, in his eightieth year, Thomas Thompson, M.D., F.R.S., London
and Edinburgh, Regius Professor of Chemistry in the University of
Glasgow, and President of the Glasgow Philosophical Society. Dr.
Thompson, as a chemist and inventor, had obtained a great celebrity.

In August, the death of Joseph W. Allen, the celebrated
landscape-painter, took place at Hammersmith. He was the son of a
schoolmaster in that place.

In September, George Richardson Porter, senior, Secretary of the Board
of Trade, Treasurer of the Statistical Society. The statistical writings
of this remarkable man brought about many changes in the law, and
conduced signally to the repeal of “the corn-laws.”

Dr. Macgillivray, Professor of Natural History, and Lecturer on
Botany in the University of Aberdeen. As a writer, a professor, and a
philosopher, the doctor obtained an enduring fame, not only in Scotland,
but throughout the learned world.

Augustus Nathmure Welby Pugin, the celebrated architect, was among those
called away by death in this month.

In November, Gideon Alderson Mantell, LL.D., F.R.S., F.S.A., F.L.S.
He was distinguished in early life by a thirst for knowledge, and a
capacity to attain it under the greatest difficulties, being lowly
born—the son of a shoemaker at Lewes. As a chemist, a physician, a
naturalist, and a geologist, he obtained a wide-spread reputation.

The Countess of Lovelace died this month. This lady had achieved nothing
remarkable by any effort or genius of her own, but the country felt
great interest in her as the only daughter of the popular poet. Lord
Byron: of her he had sung,—

     “Ada, sole daughter of my house and heart.”

She was a lady of very elegant mind, and capable of accurate and
profound thought; her intellectual attainments were very considerable,
and of a nature unusual for ladies. Her remains were laid beside those
of her father.

In December, the death of the Rev. Samuel Lee, D.D., was recorded. He
was Canon of Bristol, and Regius Professor of Hebrew in the University
of Cambridge. His knowledge of languages was vast and critical, and
he attained especially a great reputation in the dead languages of the
East. He was born in great obscurity, and received his first rudiments
of learning in a charity school. He was one of the most remarkable men
of the age.

At Kensington, Mr. Stephens, the celebrated entomologist, added another
to the list of remarkable persons removed during this year.

It is not possible within the space allotted to this work to notice the
removal from life of all the eminent persons recorded in the obituary
of this year—persons whose life was a portion of English history in its
most interesting aspects, and whose death excited the deep attention and
regret of the nation, A record of great political events, merely,
will not depict the history or progress of a nation, but as her mighty
children one by one disappear from the social state, upon which they
have impressed their own intellect and character, their names and deeds
should be presented as forming a glorious part of the facts and history
of the country and the time.




CHAPTER LXV.

{VICTORIA. 1853}

     Condition  of Great   Britain..... The Court..... State of
     Ireland..... Colonial Affairs..... Foreign Affairs..... The
     War with Russia..... Parliamentary and Party Events.....
     Deaths of Eminent Persons.




GENERAL STATE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

{A.D. 1853}

Great Britain was peaceful and prosperous—no internal strife, no civil
feud, no general discontent disturbed her fair aspect, or impeded her
glorious progress. The working classes were better off than in previous
years. Pauperism declined, crime was greatly lessened. In 1852, the
commitments in England and Wales were 3899 fewer than the average.
In 1853, the favourable difference was seen not so much in decreased
numbers as in the lesser gravamen of the offences. Much sickness was
caused by the excessive severity of the weather during the spring
quarter. From the 20th of-April to the 15th of May, the temperature on
one day fell to 14° below the average, on another to 13°, and on others
to 10°, 9°, and 8°. There was a heavy fall of snow in April, and still
more heavily during the first fortnight in May. The snow in the north
was so accumulated upon the ground that the lines of railway were
occasionally closed, and trains embedded in the snow. The effect of
such severe weather late in the spring and in the opening of summer was
disastrous upon the crops, and entailed upon the harvest consequences
which formed a check to this otherwise prosperous year. With a
deficient harvest came the certainty of a war with Russia, still
further embarrassing a year which opened with so many felicitations. The
appearance of Asiatic cholera in the autumn tended also to depress
the close of the year. That fell disease burst out with extraordinary
violence at Newcastle-upon-Tyne in the month of August, where more than
2000 lives were sacrificed to its fury. The disease reached London the
same month, and there also effected serious ravages, both in 1853 and in
1854.

The revenue of the year 1853, up to the 8th of January, 1854,
was—receipts, £69,410,976 15s.; disbursements, £55,769,252 4s. The
surplus revenue, after adding balances to the actual income, exceeded
three millions and a quarter sterling—a financial condition of the
country proving great prosperity: and one for congratulation at a time
when war so imminently impended.




THE COURT.

On the 7th of April, her majesty was delivered of a son. Her recovery
was, as on similar occasions, speedy, and the country hailed the event
with joy. On the 28th of June, the infant prince was baptized in
the private chapel of Buckingham Palace. The splendour usual on such
occasions was perhaps somewhat surpassed. Many foreign princes and
ministers were present. The sponsors were the King of Hanover, the
Princess of Prussia, the Princess Mary of Cambridge, and the Prince of
Hohenloe-Lengenburgh. The child was named Leopold George Duncan Albert.
The ceremonial was followed by a brilliant state banquet.

The court was not exempt from illness prevalent during a portion of the
year. In July, measles attacked her majesty, Prince Albert, the Prince
of Wales, the Princess Royal, and others of the royal children. This
event postponed the visit of the court to the Dublin Exhibition, and
caused uneasiness for a short time both in Ireland and Great Britain.

On the 11th of August, her majesty reviewed a portion of her fleet at
Spithead. It was a magnificent spectacle, affording one of the most
gorgeous and glorious displays of naval power ever presented to the
eyes of even a British sovereign. Her majesty wherever she appeared was
received with the greatest enthusiasm; and, in this grand review, she
was attended by the members of both branches of the legislature.

On the 29th of August, her majesty visited the Dublin Exhibition of
Industry, an event which is more particularly noticed in the following
section.

After her majesty’s visit to Ireland, she sailed to Holyhead, whence, on
the 5th of September, she proceeded to Balmoral, to enjoy her Scottish
Highland retreat. While at Balmoral an incident occurred illustrative of
the character of the royal family. A fire broke out near the palace.
Her majesty rendered prompt assistance, directing the efforts used
to extinguish the fire, while Prince Albert and the Prince of Wales
personally worked with ardour and assiduity to accomplish that object.

On the 14th of October the royal family arrived at Windsor Castle for a
prolonged residence.

Thus the United Kingdom, in its capitals, great harbours, and even
remote hills and glens, continued to witness the domestic happiness,
private virtues, queenly goodness and dignity, and public usefulness and
activity of their noble queen and her family. It might in truth be said
that every heart in the British Isles felt the aspiration “God save the
queen.”




STATE OF IRELAND.

The condition of the sister kingdom was still one of faction, feud,
and fiery religious and political agitation. Emigration to the British
colonies, and the United States of America continued, and by this means
the land was relieved of such a portion of its pauper population as
lowered the poor-rates and gave relief to the occupiers. Increased
attention began to be paid by the landlords to the cultivation of the
soil, and commerce appeared somewhat to revive. The expectations of
improvement in Ireland, which were entertained in England, were
too sanguine. When these hopes of seeing Ireland more peaceable and
prosperous were much cherished, tidings continually arrived of deeds of
violence and blood, connected with the law of landlord and tenant. To
this fruitful source of crime in Ireland, much of the evil state
of things there was attributable. The landlords were exacting, and
cherished no kindly feeling for the peasantry, especially where
political and religious differences existed between the landlords and
the priests. The people, on the other hand, shared with their spiritual
advisers in a rancorous religious and political hostility to the
landlords, whom they regarded as the descendants of invaders and
plunderers. It was a common impression among the peasantry, that the
rightful owners of the forfeited Irish estates were the descendants of
those who had been dispossessed. Prophesies, attributed to various Irish
saints, were in circulation among the people, promising the reconquest
of Ireland by the children of her own land and of the true faith,
the expulsion of the stranger, and the restoration of the soil to the
families from whom it had been taken by the sword. With these feelings
to the landowners on the part of the farming and labouring population
in the Roman Catholic provinces of the country, it cannot be matter
of surprise that any trick, or act of violence by which a landlord was
deprived of his just rights, was regarded either as a “venial offence,”
 or no offence, or even a patriotic and virtuous act, according as the
conscience of the rude casuist was more or less under such influences.
Had the landlords as a body administered their estates in a spirit of
justice; used their power to bring land questions under the influence of
just and simple legislation; and, as magistrates and legislators, set an
example of moderation, good sense, and true patriotism, the prejudices
of the peasantry would have been worn down, in spite of sacerdotal
or other influences to sustain and foster them. Such a happy state
of affairs had not arrived in 1853, and the old tales of brutal and
barbarous murders filled Europe-with a sense of astonishment and mystery
as to the social and political condition of Ireland.

It was peculiarly remarkable that during the prevalence of a general
state of affairs so lamentable, there should arise in Dublin a Palace of
Industry, the sequel of that erected in Hyde Park. The site chosen was
admirable—the lawn of Leinster House, at a former time the property
of “Ireland’s only Duke,” but then in possession of the Dublin Royal
Society. Mr. William Dargan, a celebrated contractor for railway works,
with patriotic feeling, conceived the idea of erecting a building, at
his own risk, for the display of the industrial products of Ireland.
One thousand men were employed daily for many months in completing the
structure, which was admirably adapted to its purpose.

On the 12th of May, the building was opened with much _éclat_. It
was found more imposing and elegant than the public expected, and the
pleasure felt by the people of Ireland and their British friends was
thus much enhanced. It was divided into three “halls.” The centre hall
was 425 feet long, and 100 feet wide; two lesser ones were each 355 feet
long and 50 feet wide. The elevation of the three halls was equal, 65
feet. The whole area occupied by this Palace of Industry was 210,000
square feet. Light was admitted only from above, an arrangement which
was deemed better for the peculiar kind of exhibition made than that
of the London Crystal Palace, which was an edifice of glass, All the
designs and plans, and the superintendence of the entire construction
devolved on Mr. Dargan. He advanced £80,000 to the object, expecting a
heavy loss, and repudiating any intention to derive any gain.

The exhibition was opened by the Lord-lieutenant, the Earl of St.
Germans, attended by the Irish court. The Knights of St. Patrick joined
the procession in all the insignia of their order. All were welcomed
by the populace without, and the assembled rank and fashion within the
building, with that enthusiasm characteristic of the Irish people. None
received such applause as the generous and skilful man who originated
and carried out the undertaking; and none of the many gifted and useful
men who rendered the event memorable by their presence, deserved equal
honours on the occasion. Mr. Dargan declined the honour of a baronetcy;
that of knighthood was conferred on Mr. Benson, the architect.

The productions exhibited surpassed public expectation still more than
did the building itself. Various descriptions of manufacture attracted
the attention of visitors from Great Britain, the continent of Europe,
and from America. The linen and damask of Ulster, the products of the
Dublin silk-loom, especially the tabinets and poplins, fine woollen
cloths, “Irish frize,” Limerick gloves and lace, received high encomiums
from the manufacturing and commercial visitors from Great Britain and
distant countries, as well as from the general public. It was, however,
chiefly in works of art that the exhibition excelled. The splendid
sculpture of M’Dowel, Hogan, and other sculptors, was most of all
conspicuous. The paintings of Shee, M’Lise, O’Neil, and many more,
almost rivalled the display of sculpture. There were also beautiful
carvings in Irish oak, “bog oak,”* and arbutus, from the beautiful
specimens which in natural woods crown the hillsides in Kerry,
especially near the Killarney Lakes.

     * Found in the “peat” or “turf.” The word “bog,” so well
     known in India, and other portions of the East, as meaning a
     garden, has the same signification in Irish, and marks the
     places where gardens or woods once flourished, now reduced
     to masses of peat.

Old Irish illuminated MSS., the rarest in the world—no nation having
attained the same perfection as the Irish in that department of
taste—and specimens of ancient sculpture from before the Christian era,
excited the attention of the lovers of antiquity, and admiration for the
genius of ancient Ireland.

The English and French newspaper press and reviews complimented
the Irish people upon those qualities of artistic taste which their
exhibition proved them to possess, and the London _Times_ asserted
in several leaders, that whatever might be the superior qualities or
advantages of the English people, industrial or otherwise, as compared
with the Irish, the latter possessed in a far higher degree, artistic
genius, and taste in its superior developments.

The queen and court of London felt great interest in the Dublin
exhibition. Her majesty visited it, and expressed her gratification in a
manner most flattering to the Irish people, and especially complimentary
to the patriotism of Mr. Dargan. Her majesty’s visit to the exhibition
was one of those happy circumstances in her reign, in which her noble
qualities of head and heart were made conspicuous, and in which she
appeared so auspiciously, as the healer of contention, the soother of
social asperities, the patroness of art, and the encourager and rewarder
of industry and merit. It was on the 29th of August the court visited
the Irish metropolis. They arrived early on the morning of that day at
Kingstown Jetty, and her majesty, accompanied by the Prince of Wales,
and Prince Albert, drove through the streets of Dublin, which were
thronged with multitudes of persons, offering the most enthusiastic and
unanimous demonstrations of respect and welcome. In the evening, the
city was brilliantly illuminated. Her majesty’s visit to the exhibition
was one of the most gratifying incidents in modern Irish history. The
royal party, while remaining in Dublin, drove much in the environs,
and paid a visit to the house of Mr. Dargan, as a compliment to the
enterprise and patriotism of that gentleman. Queen and people were
delighted with the royal visit to Ireland, which also, as a matter of
public policy, was wise and beneficent.




GENERAL CONDITION OF THE COLONIES.

The year was not very eventful to our colonial empire. There was general
prosperity. India was, as usual, the theatre of Oriental cabal, and
Oude was the scene of its chief features, and the seat of most of the
intrigues and plots against English dominion in Hindustan.




CANADA.

This province was especially prosperous, but it experienced the
consequences of the policy so embarrassing at home—of allowing Irish
religious disturbances, and those who create them, to pass without
sufficient reprobation by the government. In Canada the Irish were
numerous. The Protestant Irish there were energetic and zealous for
their creed. The Roman Catholic Irish were full of a fierce fanaticism.
Orangeism and Ribandism flourished in Canada, even as at Belfast, and
used such opportunities as arose to fight as fiercely.

One Gavazzi, an Italian priest, left the church of Rome, and lectured
against his former faith in Great Britain and Ireland. The liberty
enjoyed in Great Britain by all men to discuss publicly their opinions,
was not possessed in Ireland. There, indeed, the government conceded
such a right, but the local magistracy often acted in a spirit adverse
to the British constitution; and the priests and people of the Roman
Catholic religion, although always waging an active controversial
warfare against Protestants, never tolerated a reply; and whenever any
aggressive controversy was set on foot by any sect of Protestants, they
were generally assailed with brutal violence, their places of worship
attacked, and the persons of the preachers or polemists fiercely
assaulted. The Irish Roman Catholic immigrants in Canada carried with
them to their adopted country the same spirit of religious intolerance
and mob violence, so indulgently treated by whig and tory governments in
their own country. Gavazzi was the occasion, in June, 1853, of evoking
this fact in a startling manner in Canada. He visited Quebec, and
lectured against the Romish church in “the Free Church” in that city.
He alluded in his argument to the condition of the Roman Catholics of
Ireland, as influenced by their religion. The statements of the reverend
gentleman were such as the members of any other communion than the
churches of Rome or Greece would have considered matter for reply and
fair argument. The Roman Catholics of Quebec, especially the Irish
of that communion, resorted to their usual mode of opposing a
controversialist: they attacked the preacher with brutal violence,
uttering the fiercest yells and denunciations, and in language horrible,
as proceeding from men on religious grounds. Gavazzi had to fight for
his life, which was with difficulty saved. In Montreal the lectures of
the Italian polemist were attended by disturbances more serious and more
general. The police protected him, as they would have protected a Roman
Catholic clergyman had he been assailed by intolerant Protestants. The
police were nearly overwhelmed by the onslaught of a multitude of Irish
Canadian Romanists, anxious to imbrue their hands in the blood of a man
who had, as a clergyman, left their church and made a public protest
against it. Fire-arms were used on both sides, to the disadvantage of
the rioters, some of whom were killed. The military arrived in time to
protect the place of worship, in which the Italian doctor lectured, from
being demolished. The Romanists collected in greater strength, and
fired upon the soldiery, who returned the fire, killing seven, mortally
wounding six, otherwise wounding many more, and finally driving the
aggressive bigots from the streets. The authorities did not follow up
with justice or spirit this disgraceful affair; a fear of the Roman
Catholic influence in the English parliament deterring them. When
tidings of these events arrived in the United Kingdom, the Roman
Catholics in parliament, at public meetings, and by the press, expressed
sympathy with the violators of law, and the riotous mobs which
had attempted to tread down civil and religious freedom; while
denunciations, false, vehement, and intolerant, were directed upon
the Reverend Doctor Gavazzi. The principles upon which this course was
based, were those so commonly assumed by the party in Ireland, when
it was needful to justify violence and bigotry there; namely, that the
Roman Catholic Church, being the true church, should have immunity from
polemic charges against its doctrines and worship; and that, as all
attacks upon it are sure, amidst a Roman Catholic population, to lead
to a breach of the peace, Gavazzi ought to have been punished by the
authorities, and the authorities who neglected to do that should be
regarded as accessories to the riot, and guilty of the murder of the
rioters who fell. The leaders of the opposite sections of Whigs and
Tories in the English parliament treated such arguments very blandly,
and instead of denouncing any party or sect which impeded religious
liberty, no matter what its theological opinions, the tone adopted was
more in sympathy with the Roman Catholic party in parliament, to gain
whose votes each party was after its own mode bidding, each alike
willing to sacrifice the liberty of public controversy for the political
aid thus sought to be procured.




FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

The year 1853 witnessed little in the foreign relations of the United
Kingdom to excite the public interest, except in connection with the
dangers to which the integrity of the Turkish empire became exposed.
The establishment of the empire in France consolidated the amity
between that country and the British government and people. With Europe
generally the best understanding existed. Various treaties were formed
with countries of minor power, all having a tendency to preserve peace
and promote commerce. The public were made acquainted with others which
had been made or ratified the previous year; and the expectation was
general that the repose of Europe would remain undisturbed. A treaty of
friendship, commerce, and navigation, was ratified the previous October
with the republic of Peru, and published the beginning of January. A
similar treaty was ratified at Guayaquil on the 23rd of January with the
republic of the equator. On the 1st of February, a treaty relative to
the succession of the crown of Greece was ratified in London, between
her Britannic Majesty, the French Emperor, and the Emperor of Russia.
“Declarations” were signed at Florence and Rome, on the 17th of
November, and exchanged between the governments of Great Britain and
the Roman States, “for securing national treatment to the vessels and
commerce of the one country in the other.”




THE WAR WITH RUSSIA.

Early in the year, events transpired which ultimately led to a war
on the part of the United Kingdom, France, and Turkey against Russia.
Designs against the integrity of the Turkish empire had long been
entertained by Russia, and there was reason to believe that Austria
was an abettor of those schemes, in the hope of being a partaker of the
spoil. Sir Hamilton Seymour, the British Ambassador at St. Petersburg,
came to the conclusion that those two great powers were in secret league
against the Turkish empire. They dared not, however, proceed in
their plans in opposition to the will of England and France, and the
ambassadors of both countries were sounded by the czar, to ascertain
with what part of the territorial plunder contemplated they would
be satisfied. Both powers indignantly refused to participate in any
aggression against the sultan, and made known their reasons in terms
calculated to deter his imperial majesty from the like. Austria
had fomented disputes on the Turkish frontier, and threatened armed
interference when the sultan made military preparation to restore the
peace of his provinces. Russia ostensibly opposed Austria in these
proceedings, but, as was afterwards proved, secretly abetted her.
The attitude of the czar towards Turkey was one of vigilance and
preparation, as an armed robber watches the wayfaring man. The czar was
encouraged to hope that events would arise from the policy of France
favourable to his own designs. This expectation arose from the
ostentatious interference of France in the disputes between the Latin
and Greek Christians. French agents were spread over Syria; and a tone
at once insolent to the authorities, defiant to the Greeks, and unworthy
the dignity of the representatives of a great power, was adopted by
these men. The French ministers and consuls in the Turkish empire were
rather religious partizans, than political agents acting in harmony
with the authorities of the country to which they had been accredited.
Frequent disputes arose in Jerusalem, in connection with Greek and
Latin rites in celebration of certain anniversaries at the Holy Places.
Disturbances of a fierce nature at last rendered the interference of the
Turkish authorities necessary, who acted with impartiality. The French
ambassador resorted to menace and intrigue on behalf of the _protégés_
of France—the professors of the Latin rite; and the sultan,
intimidated, yielded everything which French violence demanded. The
English ambassador in vain advised moderation on the one hand, and
firmness on the other; the French minister seemed to disdain all
temperate counsels, and the Porte was too much awed by his threats to
adopt an attitude of resolution, or even dignity. The concessions wrung
from the sultan by the French furnished the Russian government with the
occasion it had long sought. An especial envoy was sent to demand the
restitution of all the privileges of which the Greeks had been deprived.
The vacillating sultan yielded to his new tormentor. Negotiations were
set on foot by the ministers who represented the great powers; and
France was induced by the influence of England to adopt a concessive
tone, and to withdraw from the insolent and hostile position she had
assumed. The Russian minister, Prince Menschikoff, and his master, were
elated by their success, and increased their demands. An ultimatum
was put forth on the 21st of May, that contained stipulations which
virtually made the czar protector of the Greek Christians throughout the
Turkish empire. It was at the same time notified by the envoy, that if
the ultimatum were not complied with, he would leave Constantinople
in eight days. The events connected with these transactions, and the
results, are described by the author of this History, in his _History
of the War against Russia_, in the following terms, which are here
transcribed. The account is the result of careful and painstaking
researches, and of confidential intercourse with official persons well
acquainted with the diplomacy and events of the period.

This ultimatum was declined by the Porte, and Prince Menschikoff
withdrew from Constantinople. During these negotiations the Russian
armies were concentrated upon the Bessarabian frontiers, and at the same
time the Emperor Nicholas was sounding Sir H. Seymour at St. Petersburg.
These conversations were accompanied by despatches and protestations
that the emperor would not, in the quarrel then pending, attempt any
territorial occupation. But Odessa and Sebastopol were filled with naval
and military preparation, and the Russian army was massing upon the
Pruth, ready at a moment’s notice to invade the principalities. The
moment at last came. Prince Metternich, and Count Nesselrode (the
Russian minister for foreign affairs), baffled in their intrigues by
the resolution of the sultan, gave place to other and more decisive
performers. Prince Gortschakoff crossed the Pruth on the 25th June, at
the head of a numerous army, organized to the highest efficiency on
the Russian principle, and attended by a most powerful artillery and
_matériel_ of war. Contemporaneous with the advance of his armies, the
autocrat published a manifesto, which left his motives and objects no
longer in disguise, and which no persons could misapprehend, except
those whom the disclosures of Sir H. Seymour had failed to enlighten.
Means were taken to reassure the Western governments that no conquest
was intended. Count Nesselrode wrote diplomatic circulars to the Russian
ambassadors and consuls at the various courts and capitals; M. Druhyn
de L’Huys, the French minister of foreign affairs, and our own foreign
minister, wrote countercirculars; and time was bootlessly expended by
the Western governments that ought to have been given to the preparation
of armaments. The Russians lost no time. Having advanced upon Wallachia
by way of Leova, and upon Moldavia by way of Skouliany, they rapidly
penetrated to the capitals of the provinces, where the clergy of the
Greek Church, and the leading officials also of that communion, gave
them public welcome. _Te Deum_ was sung in the churches, and the Russian
armies acted as if on conquered territory. It was on the 3rd of July
that the Pruth was crossed; on the 8th Prince Gortschakoff assisted in
the ceremonies of the Church of St. Spiridion, at Jassy; on the 29th he
received the compliments of the assembled bishops of the Greek Church of
the provinces at Bucharest, 150 miles nearer to the Danube. By this date
the Russian army had greatly increased; Gortschakoff, Dannenberg,
and Luders had at their disposal nearly 20,000 cavalry, 144 pieces of
cannon, of a larger calibre than had ever before been brought into the
field by any army, and a force of infantry not so large in proportion
to these arms of the service, but the precise number of which it is
impossible, amidst so many conflicting statements, to verify. General
Osten-Sacken remained within the Russian frontier with powerful
reserves, and reinforcements were pouring along in unbroken streams from
the great centres of Russian military power. The fierce Cossack from the
Don and the Dneister, the Tartar from the Ukraine, the beetle-browed and
predatory Baschkir, with all their variety of wild uniform, and “helm
and blade” glancing in the summer’s sun, crowded on the great military
thoroughfares, while fresh supplies of well-appointed and formidable
artillery were carefully transmitted. The foundries of Russia were
blazing in the manufacture of warlike weapons; and the workshops of
Belgium were ransacked for the musket and rifle. The shores of the
Sea of Azoff and of the Black Sea were alive with craft of every size,
bearing military resources to the points destined to receive them. By
shore and river in the occupied cities of the provinces, and far off
in the cities of imperial Russia, the din of ceaseless preparation
was heard; and it was evident to all men—still only excepting our
government and the diplomatists—that Russia was preparing for a
struggle against whatever forces might be brought against her, and was
resolved to peril her empire upon one desperate effort to humble Europe,
and grasp from Turkey some of her richest provinces, or compel the
formal admission of her vassalage.

The Russian armies crowded down to the sweeps of the Danube, occupying
every strategical position, and fortifying themselves by entrenchments
and other defences as occasion seemed to require; the Russian leaders
the while consolidating their hold upon the provinces thus occupied by
deposing the hospodars, levying taxes and rations for the troops, taking
the direction of the militia and municipalities, and when payments were
made for anything giving only Russian paper, which it was never intended
to redeem. Vast quantities of corn were accumulating upon the Danube and
at Odessa, which could not be exported. The Russian armies must be fed;
and it was a part of the policy of the occupation to detain these stores
for any emergency that might arise. With all these evils pressing
down the unfortunate Wallachians and Moldavians, forced enlistment was
resorted to; and the boyards who refused complicity with the treasonable
hospodars were placed in the Russian ranks. To crown all the horrors
which filled with fear these wasted and tortured lands, cholera, which
broke out in the corps of General Luders, communicated itself to the
people of the country, and every town and many districts, from the
windings of the Danube to the confines of Podolia, were swept by the
cold hand of the unseen messenger of woe. As statements of all these
calamities reached Western Europe, the people of England were
indignant; and although the desire for peace was intense, the increasing
indignation of the British people was loudly expressed. None of
these things moved their government—their faith was in protocols
and protests, both very gentle and harmless; and the Western powers
literally did nothing effective during the summer and autumn until the
10th of September, when the French ambassador, as if in sudden alarm,
and without any orders from his government or concert with his colleague
of the British embassy, ordered three frigates to ascend the Sea of
Marmora and anchor in the Bosphorus. The English minister, after much
importunity, adopted a similar measure; but pains were taken to make the
Czar and the world believe that this measure was intended to protect the
Porte from its own subjects, and not from him. Indeed, the allies seemed
to name Russia with “’bated breath;” while Russia was filling the world
with boasting, fabricating reports of successes over the tribes
of Central Asia, pushing a force even to Bokhara, and menacing and
wheedling Persia by turns. The _Petersburg Gazette_ threatened that if
England went to war, peace should be dictated to her from Calcutta; she
was treated by the emperor and his subjects with utter disdain.

The Turkish government took example from Russia rather than from the
allies; she made prodigious efforts to meet the exigency. Her first care
was wisely not in the direction of the Danube. She knew that, numerous
as were the Russian legions, they could not force the passage of the
Balkan, and meet her in defence of her capital upon the plains of
Roumelia, before the allied fleets and allied troops would secure
it. She had another and more urgent danger; that pointed out by Lord
Aberdeen in his despatch upon the treaty of Adrianople.

* * * * *

Russia might penetrate through Armenia into Asia Minor; she might,
from the southern shores of the Black Sea, rundown new hosts, overrun
provinces comparatively unprotected, and by another route reach the
Dardanelles, and menace not only Constantinople, but the allied fleets
within its waters. The divan accordingly organized an army of Asia,
and with it occupied Anatolia. Selim Pasha was appointed as
commander-in-chief and seraskier of the province. Had he possessed the
genius of Omar Pasha, to whom the army of the Danube was committed,
he might, as events have since proved, have driven the Russians from
Georgia and Circassia, and freed the Caucasus from their presence. He
was wholly unfit to command a division, much less an army. The Asiatic
danger provided against, Omar was sent to collect and organize an army
in Bulgaria, and strong reinforcements were promised to be held ready at
Adrianople. Two conscriptions, of 80,000 men each, were made before
the end of September; and Russia replied to these demonstrations by two
enormous levies.

Thus the note of preparation sounded through all the vast empire of the
sultan, from Hindostan to the Bosphorus, and thence to the Danube.*

     * Nolan’s “History of the War against Russia.”

The allies made attempts to open negotiations at Vienna, in which the
Russian, Austrian, and Turkish diplomatists proved themselves superior
to those of Western Europe. The only result was to prove that the
dispute could be settled only by the arbitrament of war. This the sultan
declared on the 4th of October, the new year’s day of the Turks. Fifteen
days were given by the sultan for the czar to withdraw his armies before
any attack was made upon them.

The events which followed will best and most briefly be depicted by a
quotation from the author’s work already referred to.

Four days after the declaration of war, the sultan made a formal demand
for the allied fleets to enter the Dardanelles. The demand was complied
with, and the ministers of the Western powers presented the admirals
with great “pomp and circumstance” to the sultan. The further request
of the sultan that the fleets or a portion of them should pass also the
straits of the Bosphorus was refused by the ambassadors, on the ground
that the Western powers were not at war with Russia. In vain the foreign
minister of the sultan urged the danger to which his ships and coasts
were exposed in the Black Sea. The answer was, that Prince Gortschakoff
had promised to make the war on the part of Russia strictly defensive;
and that Count Nesselrode, in his circular despatch (above referred to),
had repeated that promise. There was, in the opinion of the ambassadors,
no reason for doubting the good faith of the Russian government; and
they would not, by a demonstration so hostile as that of sending the
fleets into the Enxine, provoke Russia to change the character of the
war, and make it one of offensive operation. The reply of the Turkish
minister was, that Russia could not make the war offensive upon the
shores of the Black Sea if the fleets were to cruise there and that the
only chance of her being able to convert the war upon the Danube into
one of active offensive operations, was her having command of the Black
Sea for the easy transport of stores of all kinds to the vicinity of the
armies. This reasoning, irrefutable although it obviously was, and most
important as it soon and fatally proved itself to be, was met by the
reply that the ambassadors had no instructions for any demonstration
more active than the assemblage of the fleets for the protection of
Stamboul. Again the Turkish minister pressed upon the ambassadors and
admirals the exposed situation of the coast of the Black Sea and the
Turkish squadron within its waters; and showed that, for the present,
there was no necessity for the allied fleets in the Sea of Marmora; that
the sultan, in calling them through the Dardanelles, contemplated their
further progress through the other straits; that the Russians could not
endanger the capital until they had forced the Danube, captured Shumla
and Sophia, forced the passes of the Balkan, and were victors at
Adrianople; or, from the eastern frontier, had pushed a victorious
campaign from the Caucasus, through Asia Minor. It was, however, in vain
that the enlightened men then in the Turkish foreign-office demonstrated
that if the fleets were sent to defend Turkey, the Black Sea was their
appropriate sphere of action: the admirals had no orders, and the
ambassadors would give them none, and pleaded the absence of any
discretionary power.

While the fleets spread the tricolor and the union-jack upon the gentle
breezes of the Bosphorus, Omar Pasha, with frame of iron and intellect
of light, seemed to do everything, as well as direct everything, upon
the northern frontier of Bulgaria; and only just allowed the fifteen
days’ “notice to quit” to expire, before he showed Russia and the world
that the Turks had a general, and that with a general they were still
soldiers, as when the blazing scimitar of Orchan first flashed upon
Europe, or Byzantium shook before the thunder of the artillery of
Mohammed II. They were still worthy of their father, Osman, the
“Bone-breaker;” and, in hand-to-hand combat, an overmatch for the boors
of Russia, both in courage and strength. It must be said, to their
disadvantage, that they were not very precise concerning the declaration
of war; for on the very day it was declared, and without the knowledge
of their chief, a semi-brigade hurried over the river, fell upon a
Russian detachment, routed it, seized a considerable booty, and, like
true Bashi-bazouks, were away again upon their own side before the foray
could be chastised.

With the end of October, the time granted to Prince Gortschakoff by Omar
Pasha expired; by whom strong detachments were immediately expedited
to the Russian side of the disputed river. Crossing at once in several
places, they were soon established in some force upon the frontier of
Wallachia, and pushing forward a strong advance-guard upon the Russians,
the latter skirmished, refused battle, and slowly and sullenly retreated
upon Slatina. The Turks fought and gained several sanguinary battles on
the Danube during the month of November, which was followed by various
contests, less important, but scarcely less sanguinary.

The month of November, however glorious to the Turkish armies, was
disastrous to its navy. The fleet lay in the harbour of Sinope, upon the
Black Sea. The Russians, contrary to the official declaration made to
the allies, to confine the war to defensive operations, resolved to
attack the Turkish fleet by a surprise. The enterprise of the Russian
admiral was successful. The unsuspecting Turks were surprised; no
opportunity of surrender was given; the attack led, not to a battle,
but to a massacre. The whole fleet was destroyed, with an unsparing
barbarity and a vindictive bloodthirstiness that must leave a stain for
ever upon the pages of Russian history.

War continued to roll along the Bulgarian and Wallachian frontiers
to the close of the year; the Turks displaying undaunted heroism, and
surpassing the Russians in nearly every soldierly quality, so that the
Russian armies lost by battles and marches 35,000 men, exclusive of the
sick and wounded.

Prodigious efforts were made by the Russian emperor and the nation. The
people contributed voluntarily 150 millions of silver rubles for the
expenses of the war between the date of Omar Pasha’s crossing the Danube
to the end of the year. Of this vast sum the clergy contributed nearly
one-half. All Russia was wrought up to a pitch of fanatical enthusiasm
for the war, and every heart burned with ambition to see the Greek cross
upon the dome of St. Sophia.

Tidings of the massacre of Sinope flew through Europe, and every man out
of Russia, Austria, and the countries inhabited by Greeks, perused the
harrowing story with indignation and disgust. In England and France the
popular feeling against the tardiness of their governments rose high.
The English ministry never regained the confidence of the public. The
Earl of Aberdeen, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Sidney Herbert, and the Duke
of Newcastle, were known to be the members of the cabinet chiefly
accountable for the policy of respect and timidity towards Russia, which
had caused the British nation to take so tame and unworthy a part.
The diplomatists continued to lose time by tedious and worthless
negotiations, giving Russia the advantage of calling forth and
organizing her resources, and fomenting by her agents sedition and
insurrection among the Greek subjects of the Porte.

Little was effected by the hostile powers upon the theatre of Asia
after the declaration of war during that year, but the clangour of arms
resounded on the shores of the Black Sea, and along the confines of the
two great empires.




PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY.

On the 10th of February parliament assembled. The usual fencing occurred
between the leaders of parties. Lord Derby was fiery and impetuous,
Lord Aberdeen reserved and pragmatical. Law reform first engaged
the attention of the peers. The lord chancellor did not possess the
confidence of the house, either as to his capacity or zeal in that
direction, and, at the hands of Lord St. Leonards, his proposals
received severe and able animadversion.

The topics in both houses were interesting during the first few weeks
of the session, but only as connected with passing events. There was
nothing done worthy of extended record, nor of particular notice within
the space allotted to these volumes. The question of Jewish disabilities
occupied the attention of members, under the auspices of Lord John
Russell; but a bigoted hostility to the measure pervaded a large
minority in the commons and a large majority of the lords. The leader
of the party opposed to any concession to the Jews was the Earl of
Shaftesbury, who, in a speech mild and impressive in manner, but bigoted
and illogical in matter, succeeded in persuading the lords to throw out
the bill.

The financial plans of the government met with the support of
the commons. Mr. Gladstone introduced the budget in a speech of
extraordinary eloquence, which lasted five hours, and was applauded
throughout by a great majority of the house. There were no original
propositions, no very ingenious contrivances; but the right hon.
gentleman threw around his statements an attraction by his eloquence
which won his audience: like his preceptor, Sir Robert Peel, he proved
himself to be, in the language of Disraeli, “a very great member of
parliament.” In the debates which followed, Mr. Gladstone received
several severe defeats from the more advanced liberals on his own side
of the house; but all efforts on the part of the tory and protectionist
section to defeat his proposals, upon their own principles, were
abortive.




INDIA BILL.

The house, the public, the East India Company, and all interested in
the great Eastern dependencies included under the general name of India,
looked forward with anxiety to the bill which it was necessary to pass
in reference to the relations of the country and the East India Company.

On the 3rd of June, Sir Charles Wood, in a speech of five hours’
duration, proposed his plan for the future government of India.*

     * See Nolan’s “History of the British Empire in India and
     the East.”

Mr. Bright, in one of his most elaborate parliamentary efforts,
criticised the measure; he eloquently inveighed against the East India
Company, but his information upon subjects connected with India did not
support the influence his parliamentary powers were so calculated to
command. Lord Stanley, during the debates that ensued, distinguished
himself for the first time on Indian subjects, over which in a few
years he was destined to hold so important an influence. The bill of the
government passed the commons, but was subjected to various alterations
in the interest of the East India Company in the lords. Thus amended, it
was accepted by the commons and became law.

To give even the briefest abstract of this measure would be as
unnecessary as it is undesirable, within the limits of our space, for
in a few years a great insurrection in India led to the abolition of the
act, and the removal of the East India Company from all political power
in India, and the vesting in the crown the government of all our eastern
possessions.

The main objects of the act of 1858 were to lessen the power of the East
India Company still more than it had been fettered by previous acts;
to enlarge the scope of the board of control; to increase the direct
authority of the president of that board and the governor-general of
India; and to simplify the procedure of the home, action, on Indian
government.




DISCUSSIONS ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS.—RUSSIA AND TURKEY.

Some party debates ensued upon certain speeches made “out-of-doors”
 by cabinet ministers about French affairs, in which some personalities
towards the French emperor were indulged. Hardly any other foreign topic
engaged the debating powers of the members, except the all-absorbing one
of the hostile proceedings of Russia against Turkey. It was the general
opinion of the English people, that the French emperor, for dynastic
purposes, brought on the war. He had not been recognised by the Russian
emperor, and the policy was obviously to bring on a conflict in which,
with England and Turkey for allies, victory was certain, and the beaten
czar would be obliged to recognise an emperor in the person of his
conqueror.

Discussions upon the relations of Turkey and Russia began as early as
April, and were continued, with short intervals of intermission, while
parliament sat. During these debates the ministry was severely arraigned
for incapacity, tardiness, crotchety and conceited views, confidence
in the czar, which could only be inspired by sympathy with his despotic
views, and instability of purpose. To the Aberdeen section of the
cabinet these failings were especially attributed, and the justice of
the imputations was too plainly established. The Earl of Derby, Lord
Lyndhurst, and the Marquis of Clanricarde, showed a large acquaintance
with the subject, and their orations against the policy of the
government were the happiest political and parliamentary efforts ever
made by those noblemen. In the commons, Mr. Layard, Lord Dudley Stuart,
and Mr. Duncombe, made severe and eloquent denunciations against
the ministerial policy, which “out-of-doors” encountered universal
reprobation. It was the general opinion that Lord Palmerston ought to
be placed at the head of affairs: even the conservative section of the
country desired such a change, but were of opinion that his lordship
should serve as minister for foreign affairs, or minister of war, under
Lord Derby as premier. It was plain that while Lord Palmerston supported
his colleagues ostensibly, he did not interfere much in foreign affairs,
but attended to the duties of the home-office, which had never before
been so efficiently performed. He was an object of jealousy, both to
the Russell Whigs and the Aberdeen Peelites, and possessed more of the
confidence of his opponents than of either. Much dissatisfaction was
created throughout the country by the temper and policy displayed by
Mr. Cobden, Mr. Bright, Mr. Fox, and other gentlemen of the Manchester
school. The great abilities of those gentlemen, the general conviction
entertained of their honesty of purpose, and their past services to
their country, on economical questions especially, made men reluctant
to exhibit the dissatisfaction felt, and which, at a later period,
displayed itself by strong practical demonstrations. These gentlemen
lauded Russia as a highly civilized and Christian state; Turkey, on
the other hand, was denounced as a robber power, which ought to be
dispossessed. It was asserted that it was for the good of English
trade that Russia should succeed in conquering Turkey; and that, at all
events, it was the interest of England to be neutral, and leave France,
Turkey, and Russia to concuss, as the waves of the sea against one
another and the shore. A general impression, however, arose, that as the
Manchester trade with Turkey and Eastern Europe was mainly transacted
through Greek merchants and agents, it was the commercial interest
of these men to conciliate the enemies of the sultan, apart from the
political aspect of their relations. The cabinet was undoubtedly much
influenced by this section of its supporters in the blind confidence
it snowed to the czar, in their presumption that moral influence would
suffice to prevent a war, and in the niggardly, and therefore unwise,
and ultimately costly scheme upon which armaments were provided.
Probably never in the House of Commons was rebuke more eloquently and
sincerely given, or more justly merited, than when Lord Palmerston
exposed the contradictory, selfish, and unpatriotic policy advocated by
Mr. Cobden.

The hostile feeling of the Manchester section of the liberal party
towards Lord Palmerston increased from that time, and his lordship made
no efforts to conceal his dislike of the party, but sometimes showed it
in a manner even contemptuous. The influence of the party was exercised
upon the cabinet, and Lord Palmerston felt himself treated by so little
consideration, that on the 16th December he resigned. Her majesty wisely
refused to receive his resignation. No explanations of the cause of the
circumstance were ever given in parliament, but the country, una voce,
pronounced that it arose from his lordship’s dissatisfaction with
the truckling policy of the Aberdeen party in the cabinet, and his
popularity rose still higher.

The session of 1853 was not unproductive. Various measures of importance
were transacted. The cabinet possessed much administrative ability, and
displayed it by carrying a number of bills of great practical utility.
It was a good peace, but a bad war, ministry.




DEATHS OF EMINENT PERSONS.

In modern English history much of the greatness and glory of the country
may be learned by noticing the names, characters, and exploits of the
eminent persons who pass away from the theatre of life and action. So
fruitful is the country in men of renown, and men who deserve renown,
that to notice these is to see the mighty position which Great Britain
occupies, and is likely to occupy, in the world.

The obituary of 1853 was not more remarkable than that of previous
years; but still the number of the great and good who dropped into the
silence of the grave was too great for any justice to be done to their
memories, or to their country, jealous of their fame. Throughout the
year, admirals and general officers, who had well served their country,
were removed from the ranks of her defenders. So numerous were these,
that it would be invidious to select from them any for particular
notice.

Among the men of other professions it is more easy to point out a few of
those whose decease excited general regret.

In January, Jonathan Pereira, Esq., M.D., F.R.S., and F.L.S. He was
distinguished as a professor of _Materia Medica_, and a writer on
medical subjects.

In February, Dr. Kay, Bishop of Lincoln. The son of a linen-draper of
Hammersmith, near Kensington. He rose by force of his superior intellect
to the highest honours in the church. As a general scholar, as well as a
theologian, he attained great eminence.

In June, the Earl of Ducie. This nobleman was one of the most
excellent in the peerage. His religious zeal and charity received the
acknowledgments of all classes of men, although his resources were
small. He was a proficient in agricultural science, and invented
various agricultural implements of utility. As a breeder of stock he
was unequalled. His “Example Farm,” at Whitfield, gained him much
reputation. He was a sound political economist and freetrader. The
author of these lines had opportunities of seeing his lordship’s
attainments in these respects severely tested in private intercourse
with men of the highest name.

July witnessed the death of Lady Sale, widow of the heroic General Sale,
who died from wounds received upon the field of battle. Lady Sale was
one of the captives made by Akbar Khan in the disastrous Affghan war.
During that war, and more especially during her captivity, she displayed
wonderful fortitude. She possessed extraordinary military skill and
knowledge, and showed judgment in campaigning and in diplomatic affairs,
far superior to most of the chief officers with whom she came in
contact. Her narrative of the Affghan war is ably written, and a record
of most romantic events. After the death of her gallant husband, she
received a pension of £500 a year from the queen. She returned to
India, and resided among the hills, and ultimately died at Cape Town,
Florentia, on the 6th of July, universally regarded with respect and
admiration.

Although the names of eminent officers in the army and navy, who died
in this year, have been passed over in these notices, from their great
number, one is especially deserving of being selected from the heroic
crowd.

Lieutenant-general Sir Charles James Napier, G.C.B. This extraordinary
man was the eldest son of the Hon. Colonel George Napier, comptroller
of the army accounts in Ireland. Before he finished his twelfth year, he
was appointed to an ensigncy in the 22nd regiment of foot; and it is a
remarkable fact, that his conquest of Scinde was mainly effected by the
instrumentality of that regiment. His services were arduous and heroic.
His mind was original, and active exceedingly. He possessed amazing
vigour in command, and powers of organization rarely exhibited. The
great duke held him in high estimation as a general. He was seventy-one
years of age at his death, which took place at Oaklands, near
Portsmouth. A monument, to celebrate his exploits, has been erected in
Trafalgar Square, near to that of Nelson.

As December opened, Mrs. Opie, so celebrated as a writer, died at
Norwich, her native place, in her eighty-fifth year.

On the 17th, the Marchioness of Wellesley, an American lady of Irish
parentage. Her life was an eventful one. She was much esteemed as the
lady of the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, when the noble marquis held that
post. She had been for many years a favourite of Queen Adelaide, and
died in the Palace of Hampton-court.

The Rev. W. Jay, the eminent Congregational minister of Bath, died on
the 27th, in his eighty-fifth year. He began to preach before he had
attained his sixteenth year. Before he was of age, he had delivered
about one thousand sermons. He had been sixty-two years minister of
Argyle Chapel, Bath. His writings were varied, beautiful in style, and
rich in thought and illustration. They were productive of a vast amount
of good, as all denominations of Christians and all ranks of men perused
them. The author of this History was on terms of intimacy with this
remarkable man, and can testify that his powers of conversation were
as varied and rare as his talents in the pulpit, and as a writer on
religious subjects.




CHAPTER LXVI.

{VICTORIA. 1854}

     Home Affairs:  General excitement at the beginning of the
     year..... Declaration of War against Russia..... The
     Court..... Tidings of the loss of Captain Franklin.....
     Cholera..... Ireland:    Party animosities and
     murders...... Colonies: Their General peace and
     prosperity..... Foreign Relations: The French Alliance.....
     War with Russia..... Battles by sea and land..... Dreadful
     sufferings of the British Army..... Parliament: Contests
     concerning the conduct of the war..... Break-up of the
     Aberdeen government..... lord Palmerston premier..... Deaths
     of Eminent Persons.




HOME AFFAIRS.—GENERAL PROSPECTS.

{A.D. 1854}

The year 1854 opened gloomily upon the United Kingdom. Sickness
prevailed; bad harvests in western and southern Europe caused a dearth
of food; and there was reason to fear that the fleets and armies of
England and France would encounter those of Russia in open war. There
was much dissatisfaction with the government. The Earl of Aberdeen
and the whole Peelite section of the cabinet were believed to be
too friendly to the czar, and adopting a policy unworthy of English
greatness and of English honour. The court was supposed to be influenced
by the German powers in favour of Russia, and to be secretly hostile to
the French emperor. An active and almost authoritative interference
in the administrative affairs of the government, home and foreign, was
attributed to Prince Albert; and that interference was believed to be
unfavourable to free opinions at home, and a dignified attitude on the
part of England to foreign powers. A passion for Germanizing the army
and the home-office, for centralization—so contrary to English opinions
and traditions—and for subjecting the policy of England to German
interests, necessities, or views, was believed to possess the prince,
and to spread its influence in the court. The prince, who had won so
wide a popularity, became, in fact, unpopular. No open demonstrations
were made of this feeling, but his royal highness was received coolly
when he appeared in public, and the newspapers of the whole of the
united kingdom gave him the discredit of such rumours. Happily, when
parliament met, the statements of the ministers lessened these unpopular
impressions, but did not efface them. It was thought that the public men
who were favourable to England’s taking a spirited part in defence of
Turkey, in conjunction with France, and against the wishes of the German
courts, were thwarted by the prince.

The desire was universally entertained that parliament should meet at
the beginning of January, but it was the last day of that month before
it assembled.

The approaching rupture with Russia occupied the attention of the public
intensely; the youth of the country burning for war against a power so
despotic and cruel. The massacre of Sinope had goaded the English
nation to a feeling of resentment against the czar personally, and to an
antipathy to the genius and spirit of the nation which he governed. For
sake of treating the events of the time with unity, we shall pass over
the home incidents connected with the proclamation of hostilities until
the peaceful incidents which were important to the country are first
recorded.

A new Crystal Palace was erected at Sydenham, which excited a
wide-spread interest, that even the thunders of war could not distract.

The friends of literature were gratified by the erection of a monument
to Thomas Hood, in the cemetery at Kensal Green. No writer of modern
times, in prose or verse, possessed his facility for touching the hearts
of his countrymen, and leaving his words deep in their memory.

In the autumn the public were much affected by tidings concerning the
fate of the great arctic navigator, Captain Franklin, which left no
longer a hope that he had survived the perils of the polar seas. Dr.
Rae, the celebrated American traveller, landed at Deal, in October, and
made a communication to the admiralty to the following effect: that the
captain and his whole party had, according to the testimony of certain
Esquimaux, perished of cold and famine in the spring of 1850. Dr. Rae
and his party purchased various articles from these people, which were
undoubtedly relics of the unfortunate expedition. During September, the
screwsteamer, _Phoenix_, had arrived at Queen’s Town, on her return from
a searching voyage in connection with the gallant captain. This vessel
was the remains of the little squadron, commanded by Captains Collinson,
McClure, and Belcher. Captains Collinson and McClure succeeded in
establishing the fact of a north-west passage. They were, however,
unable to discover any traces of the Franklin expedition, such as would
lead to any certainty as to his fate.

During the summer and autumn the cholera smote London and the provinces
with great severity. During the quarter ending September, about thirty
thousand persons perished in England of cholera and diarrhoea; during
the three months ending with December, several thousands more were added
to the sad enumeration.

One of the events of the year which most interested the commercial
public, was the great loss of property by shipwreck. The coasts of
the United Kingdom were strewn with wrecks in every direction, but
especially along the north-east of England. There were upon the coasts
of Great Britain and Ireland nine hundred and eighty-seven wrecks.
During the first month of the year the greatest havoc was made. During
that month four hundred and sixty-seven lives were lost. The total
number lost by shipwreck during the year was one thousand five hundred
and forty-nine. Such was the report of the Admiralty’s register; but
it is certain that omissions were made, and that the number was
considerably higher.




THE COURT.

The Russian war caused her majesty many anxieties, and an expression
of care and deep concern was observed upon her countenance when she
appeared in public. The festivities usual to the British court, and
the rural enjoyments to which her majesty and her court were so much
addicted, were greatly abridged by the demands of public business upon
the queen, and the exciting vicissitudes of the war.

The events of chief interest to the court, apart from the great turmoil
of public affairs, were the visits of certain royal persons to the
queen, and a visit made by the royal consort to the Emperor of the
French.

On the 2nd of June, the young King of Portugal, with his brother, the
Duke of Oporto, arrived at Buckingham Palace. Every hospitality was
shown to these princely guests; and they accompanied her majesty
and Prince Albert to various places worthy the inspection of foreign
princes.

The Egyptian prince, El Hami Pasha, heir of Abbas, the Pasha of Egypt,
arrived at Southampton in July. The prince was attended by various great
officers of the Egyptian viceroy.

On the 5th of September several princes visited the French Emperor at
Calais and Boulogne. Among them was Prince Albert and his uncle, the
King of the Belgians. The prince was attended by detachments of the Life
Guards and the Horse Guards as an escort. These troops were objects of
much curiosity and admiration on the part of the French citizens and
soldiers.

On the 14th of September her majesty paid her customary autumnal visit
to her Scottish Highland retreat. _En route_ she slept at Holyrood, the
palace of the famous and unfortunate Mary, Queen of Scots. On the 12th
of October her majesty left Balmoral for Windsor.




IRELAND

As usual, the people of England were, from time to time, startled
by accounts of agrarian outrage, and of murders perpetrated under
circumstances of savage ferocity hardly paralleled anywhere. Some of
the worst criminals were found guilty; generally, juries in the Roman
Catholic districts were unwilling to convict, and frequently the
prosecution rested on the evidence of informers too infamous to believe.
All the old evils which had so long harassed that distracted country
remained in full force. The spirit of party, and of religious rancour,
raged fearfully. The most terrible exemplification of sanguinary bigotry
which, perhaps, the world ever witnessed, occurred in the north in
September. During periods of persecution in all countries, man has
proved himself swift to shed blood under the influence of intolerance
and fanaticism; but seldom, if ever, in cold blood, had so horrible
an atrocity been contemplated, as was attempted by the anti-Protestant
party in Ulster, on the 15th of September.

The city of Londonderry, it is well known to the readers of English
history, made an extraordinarily gallant defence against the army of
James II., during the revolutionary war of 1688–9. Ever since it has
been customary for the Protestant citizens of Derry to commemorate
the glorious event. So it was, also, in the September of 1854. A
large number of Protestants, many of whom were Orangemen, residing in
Enniskillen and the neighbourhood, resolved to join their brethren of
Derry in their festivities. For this purpose they hired a train on the
railway. They arrived at Derry, joined in the demonstrations made by
“the maiden city,” and resumed their places in a returning train. The
hostile party determined to effect the destruction of the whole party.
Impediments were placed ingeniously on a particular part of the road,
by which one of the two engines that drew the train was thrown down
an embankment, and the other flung back upon the carriages. One of
the engine-drivers was killed; two were terribly wounded. The Earl
of Enniskillen, who headed the party, was on the engine, and narrowly
escaped death. Several passengers were injured. It was wonderful that
any escaped. The country people could hardly be prevailed upon to render
assistance, they sympathised with the murderous purpose which had barely
failed. The Roman Catholic party raised a great outcry against the
Orangemen _for provoking_ such an outrage. The liberal party in
parliament and in the press could not afford to do without the Roman
Catholic vote, and took up the same key-note of denunciation of the
Orangemen. It is astonishing how little indignation the British public
showed at this attempt at wholesale assassination by fanatics. A verdict
of wilful murder was returned by a coroner’s jury against six navvies
who worked upon the rail. No adequate means were adopted by the
government to trace out the offenders, or bring them to the condign
punishment so extraordinary an atrocity deserved.




COLONIAL.

The colonies were generally prosperous and peaceable; much alarm was
excited, especially in Australia, India, and the Straits of Malacca, by
the want of fortifications and ships of war for their protection. It
was deemed possible that a Russian fleet might sail through the straits,
from its Siberian rendezvous, and commit great ravages in India, and
that Australia was still more open to attack. Great efforts were made by
the colonists to place the colonies in a good defensive condition, and
even to aid the parent country in a war so popular in every part of the
empire.

In Canada several public disasters occurred during the year: chiefly
a terrific fire at Quebec, by which a large portion of the city was
destroyed.

The coasts of India, especially of Western India around Bombay, suffered
from storm. The war with Ava bore its fruits; peace was confirmed, the
Birmese were taught a salutary fear of British power, and deprived of
the resources by which they might again make war upon our Indian empire.
There were various matters of moment to India. Oude was, like Ireland,
in chronic distraction; and the policy pursued towards it by the
governor-general of India and the board of control was neither salutary,
nor even safe. The space allotted to this History does not allow of even
a review of the affairs of the vast empire of Hindostan.




FOREIGN AFFAIRS.—THE ALLIANCE WITH FRANCE, THE WAR WITH RUSSIA.

As the events of 1853 upon the Danube and in Asia Minor became known in
Western Europe, the bonds of amity between the two great Western nations
were drawn more closely, and it was finally resolved to unite with
Turkey in war against the haughty and sanguinary autocrat of the North.

As before related, the British parliament met on the 30th of January. It
was anxious, if possible, to avert war. Whatever the events which fill
up the measure of national calamities, it was felt that war was, of all,
the most terrible. Still, the parliament and nation felt the truth
of language directed by Lord Palmerston against Mr. Bright: “War is a
calamity; but there is a greater calamity than war—national dishonour!”
 This was the sentiment of the nation, and of its representatives in
parliament assembled. Fiery debates filled up the interval until war
was actually proclaimed, and then her majesty put forth her manifesto of
hostilities, with the unanimous support of a mighty people.

On the 8th of February the Russian ambassador withdrew from the British
court, and the British ambassador was ordered from St. Petersburg.
During the month of February troops continued to embark for Malta
and for the Bosphorus. Sad were the scenes of parting which were then
witnessed throughout the British Isles; more especially in the great
metropolis, through or from which a large proportion of the number of
troops sent proceeded. It was most touching to witness the battalions of
glorious men, attended by sympathizing crowds, passing along our great
thoroughfares to the expressive music of their bands—“We are going Far
Away,” “Love Not,” “Cheer, Boys, Cheer,” “The Girl I left behind Me,”
 and other popular pieces, which suggested the sad but gallant emotions
that filled the breasts of our brave. Her majesty took leave of her
guards with touching tokens of her confidence, hope, and yet sorrow,
for the need that arose of their services; they responded by the most
enthusiastic demonstrations of loyalty and devotion. Yet, after all, it
was but a demonstration of ten thousand men, which the ministry thought
would exercise a decisive _moral_ influence upon the proceedings of the
czar. Mr. Gladstone was great with indignant and pompous eloquence upon
the glory of this achievement.

The troops landed on the shores of the Bosphorus unprovided with almost
all the great essentials of a modern army. The Duke of Newcastle and Mr.
Sidney Herbert, upon whom the arrangements mainly devolved, were unequal
to the task. Lord Hardinge presided at the Horse Guards—a man of party
prejudices, and who was ever willing to sacrifice the interests of the
army to family influence and political considerations. Lord Raglan was
nominated to the command in chief—an officer who had never commanded
a brigade in the field, and found himself destitute of the chief
qualitities necessary in a commander of an army in a campaign. These
proceedings passed before war was proclaimed. It was supposed that the
mere demonstration would effect the end really in view—to cause the
czar to recede somewhat in his demands. At last war was proclaimed. On
the 29th of March this august solemnity took place. The people hailed it
with pleasure, for it was felt that, however undesirable the event, it
had been impolitically delayed. France made a similar declaration.
The two great Western nations went to war with the Muscovite for the
integrity of the Ottoman empire.

On April the 21st, her majesty proclaimed a day of fast and humiliation,
which was observed by the whole nation on the 26th. A French journal
observed, that “seldom was a sublimer spectacle presented to the world
than a mighty nation, which had buckled on its armour for war, humbling
itself before the Almighty, and appealing to his power and protection
with one voice.” Such were the leading home incidents preparatory to
the great struggle in which great nations battled for ascendancy.
Preparations still went on in England for the struggle, which was so
soon to ensue in all its sanguinary earnestness. The estimates, which
parliament was asked to vote for 1854, beginning on the 1st of April,
were utterly inadequate to to the crisis; they were—

                                   Proposed Vote.      Increase.

     For the Army....               6,287,488          262,470

     „      Navy....                7,487,948        1,202,455

     „      Ordnance                 3,854,878          792,311

                                   £17,630,314       £2,257,236

These estimates were of course the occasion of much parliamentary
discussion, the feeling of the house being in favour of a larger vote.
The chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Gladstone, hoped by this “bit by
bit” preparation for the war to show his majesty the czar British desire
for peace; and expected to conciliate him by showing how few regiments
we were willing to raise, and the modicum of expense wo contemplated.
All who knew the habit of thought in Asiatic nations—and Russia
is essentially an Asiatic nation—were aware that this parsimonious
war-making would have a contrary effect: the czar understood it as a
token of a commercial disgust to war, and a dread of adding to the
national debt, and he was encouraged to proceed. That such was the
feeling at St. Petersburg private letters at the time, and subsequently,
abundantly established.

The naval preparations for the war made better progress than those of
the army. A fleet was fitted out, the most magnificent the world ever
saw, and was committed to the command of Vice-admiral Sir Charles
Napier. Rear-admirals Chads and Plumridge were also appointed to
important commands under Sir Charles. This fleet was exercised daily
off Portsmouth by Admiral Chads, especially in gunnery, who had obtained
great celebrity in that department of a naval officer’s qualifications.
The Russian fleets had paraded about the Gulfs of Bothnia and Finland
the preceding autumn, and the usual boastings were heard through the
Russo-German organs of the press, and from the friends of Russia in the
London clubs. In consequence of these boastings, the public were very
anxious for the dispatch of the Baltic fleet as early as possible in the
spring, and the 11th of March was fixed upon.

The powerful fleet under Sir Charles Napier’s command was reviewed by
her majesty on the 7th of March. It consisted of sixteen war steamers;
of which two, the _Duke of Wellington_ and the _Royal George_ were,
three-deckers, while three carried admirals’ flags—Sir Charles
Napier’s in the _Duke_, Admiral Chads’ in the _Edinburgh_, and Admiral
Plumridge’s in the _Leopard_. The _Euryalus_, screwsteamer, was
subsequently added.

The second division, under Vice-admiral Corry, which afterwards joined
Sir Charles Napier, consisted of—seven ships of the line, four screw
ships, and twelve steam frigates, sloops, &c.

Sir Charles Napier stated publicly, and personally assured the author of
this History, that his fleet was badly manned as to the quality of the
men, and inadequately as to the numbers on board. The proportion of
skilled seamen was altogether beneath what the necessities of the fleet
required, and exposed it to great danger. The admiral went so far as to
aver, that had the Russian fleet the courage to come out, so unskilfully
manned were his ships, that the enemy might have secured an easy
conquest. This statement excited strong protests and contradictions, and
has been always regarded with indignation by the gallant men who walked
the decks of these proud ships of war.

It may be here a suitable place to state the force and the arrangement
of the troops ultimately constituting the British expeditionary army in
Turkey. It was of course subjected to various modifications afterwards,
but the following is an accurate representation of the divisional
arrangement of the army, and its constituent regiments:—

_First Division.—Lieut.-gen. the Duke of Cambridge._ _First Brigade_
(under the command of Major-general Bentinck).—Grenadier Guards, 3rd
battalion; Coldstream Guards, 1st battalion; Scots Fusilier Guards,
1st battalion. _Second Brigade_ (under the command of Major-general Sir
Colin Campbell).—42nd Royal regiment, or “Royal Highland Watch;” 78th
regiment (Rosshire Buffs); 93rd, or Sutherland regiment.


_Second Division.—Lieut.-gen. Sir De Lacy Evans._ _First Brigade_
(under the command of Major-gen. Pennefatuer).—30th regiment; 55th
regiment; 95th regiment (a new regiment). The old 95th served throughout
the Peninsula and at Waterloo. _Second Brigade_ (under the command of
Brigadier-general Adams).—41st regiment (Welsh); 47th regiment (The
Lancashire); 49th regiment (The Princess Charlotte’s).


_Third Division.—Lieut.-gen. Sir Richard England._ _First Brigade_
(under the command of Brigadier-general Ryhe).—1st regiment (The
Royal regiment, formerly called Royal Scots); 28th regiment (North
Gloucester), during the present century this regiment has been Irish;
38th regiment (1st Staffordshire). _Second Brigade_ (under the command of
Brigadier-general Sir J. Campbell).—44th regiment (East Essex), during
the present century this regiment has been an Irish one; 56th regiment
(West Essex); 68th regiment (Durham Light Infantry).

_Fourth Division.—Lieut.-gen. Sir George Cathgakt._ _First Brigade_
(under the command of the senior Lieut.-col., as Brigadier).—20th
regiment (East Devonshire); 21st regiment (Royal North British
Fusiliers); 1st battalion Rifle Brigade. _Second Brigade_ (under the
command of the senior Lieut.-col., as Brigadier).—63rd regiment
(West Suffolk); 46th regiment (South Devonshire): 57th regiment (West
Middlesex).

_Fifth, or Light Division.—Lieut.-gen. Sir George Brown._ _First
Brigade_ (under the command of Brigadier-general Goldie).—Royal Rifle
Brigade, 2nd battalion; 7th Royal Fusiliers; 23rd Royal Welsh Fusiliers;
33rd regiment (Duke of Wellington’s own). _Second Brigade_ (under the
command of Brigadier-general Buller.)—19th regiment (1st York, North
Riding); 77th regiment (East Middlesex; 88th regiment Connaught
Rangers).

_Cavalry Division.—Lieut.-gen. the Earl of Luoan_. _First Brigade,
Heavy_ (under the command of Brigadiergen. the Hon. J. Scarlett).—1st
(Royal) Dragoons; 2nd (Royal) Dragoons (Scots Greys); 4th Dragoon Guards
(Royal Irish); 5th Dragoon Guards (commonly called Green Horse); 6th
Dragoons (Inniskillens). _Second Brigade, Light_ (under the command of
Major-gen. the Earl of Cardigan).—4th Light Dragoons (Queen’s own);
8th King’s Royal Irish Hussars; 11th Hussars (Prince Albert’s own); 13th
Light Dragoons; 17th Lancers.

It was finally agreed upon between the two Western governments, that
England should furnish 30,000 men, and France 70,000. It was then
thought that an allied force of 100,000 men in support of a Turkish army
equally numerous, would be sufficient to drive the armies of the czar
out of the Principalities.

Leaving for a while the din of preparation, and the dispatch of troops,
it is necessary to return to the operations of the Turks upon the
Danube. It is not suitable to this History to record all the victories
gained by the Osmans, it is only necessary to observe, that they were
almost uniformly victorious, and fought with dazzling bravery. The
grand struggle, however, on the part of the Turks was in the defence of
Silistria. Against that place a powerful Russian army, under its ablest
artillerists and engineers, was directed. The Turks were few and badly
provided, but they were encouraged by the presence of various
British officers of the most heroic mould. Among these none was more
distinguished than Captain Butler, who perished from a wound received
in the defence, while beside the gallant British General Cannon (Behram
Pasha), by whom the garrison of Silistria had been reinforced.

There was something mysterious about the policy pursued during the siege
of Silistria. The place was driven to the utmost straits, although Omar
Pasha was at the head of a large army at Shumla, and the Western allies
were at Varna. The latter declared that they were unable to move from
want of those campaigning appliances, which a French army has not been
usually known to stand in need of either before or since. Omar
Pasha said he could not move for want of beasts of burden, and from
strategical reasons; although he supplied the allies in Bulgaria with
pack animals and 500 _arobas_, or carts, from Shumla, and no reason
could be seen why he did not push on his troops to the relief of the
beleaguered and endangered city. At last he sent a portion of his troops
forward, and Russia was destined to undergo a signal humiliation. When
the troops of Omar Pasha sent to relieve the place advanced for that
purpose, the Russians had so completely invested it against the approach
of a relieving army that there seemed no hope of accomplishing that
object. The Turkish army was not strong enough to fight a pitched
battle, and cause the Russians to raise the siege. It was of the last
importance that the drooping, wearied, and dispirited garrison should be
relieved by fresh men. This exploit was accomplished by the genius and
promptitude of one heroic man—General Cannon, bearing the Turkish title
of Behram Pasha. He commanded the light division of the Turkish army.
He caused letters to be written to the officers of the garrison, laying
down a plan by which they were to co-operate with him in entering the
city at a certain hour, by a certain point. These letters he managed
should fall into the hands of the Russians. They accordingly prepared
in great strength to defeat the stratagem they had, as they supposed,
so opportunely discovered. The British general made a long detour, and
after a night of forced marching he came upon an opposite part of
the city, an entrance by which the Russians could not have supposed
possible, and to the joy and wonder of the garrison, the best division
of the Turkish army, with its best general at the head, marched into the
city. From that hour the contest was no longer dubious. The Russians
saw that the prize was carried from their grasp. They at last raised the
siege, to be pursued by Cannon and other British officers, at the head
of their gallant Turks, from victory to victory, until the baffled and
beaten Muscovite fled through the Principalities he had so boastingly
invaded, and so ruthlessly plundered and oppressed. To General Cannon’s
skill and courage the raising of the siege of Silistria, the grand
turning-point of the campaign, is to be attributed. The conception of
the plan, the peril of the attempt, and the glory of the achievement
were all his own.

Contemporaneously with the war on the Danube, operations were conducted
in Asia Minor, but no British or French troops were sent there at any
period of the war.

During the closing months of 1853, the Russians organized a powerful
army to drive the Turks out of Asia, but the Circassians and other
tribes of the Caucasus were in arms against Russia, and fought so
gallantly and perseveringly, that the troops of the czar were unable to
effect anything until late in the summer of 1854. The Turks organized an
army for the defence of their Asiatic possessions, and committed it
to the command of Jazif Pasha, an utterly incompetent man and bigoted
Mohammedan. Under him was another officer, of like character, Selim
Pasha, who experienced defeat at the hands of far inferior forces of the
enemy. A number of Polish and Hungarian officers, who had fought in the
Hungarian revolution of 1848, were sent to assist the Turkish Muchir in
forming and disciplining an army. Some of these men became Mohammedans,
and obtained substantial rewards and honours; others, refusing to
renounce the profession of Christianity, were not allowed to hold real
authority, but acted as a species of aides-de-camp of high rank,
and counsellors of the pashas. Among the foreign officers of this
description was a native of the west of England, named Guyon, a man of
rare genius, and as rare bravery. He had taken part in the Hungarian
revolution, and as the despotic power of Austria was sacred in the
eyes of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, the British ambassador at
Constantinople, and all revolutionists, however honourable their cause,
were hateful to his lordship, Guyon met with no countenance or support
from him. The personal prejudices and predilections of the noble
ambassador were always in the ascendant, and often were sufficiently
strong to injure the cause of Turkey and the allies. Guyon was, however,
raised to the rank of pasha, and got the surname of Kurschid. The native
pashas set his advice and authority at defiance, plundered the troops,
the people, and the government, and acted more like the allies of Russia
than generals or dignitaries of Turkey. Such a state of tilings in the
Turkish army encouraged the Russians, and they advanced, notwithstanding
the embarrassments created by the intrepid raids of the mountaineers of
the Caucasus, under the enterprising Schamyl and his lieutenants. The
Polish officers in the Turkish service were jealous of the superior
skill and chivalrous heroism of Guy on. Indeed, throughout the war in
Asia, the English officers who acted there were opposed with envenomed
rancour by the Poles who happened to serve in the same cause with them,
and one or two Germanized-Hungarians joined in this anti-British
feeling. But for Guyon the Turkish army would have been annihilated
before the autumn of 1854, and yet the mendacious Muchir and his
Feriks laid the blame of every defeat upon the European officers, but
especially upon the best and the bravest of them all—the dauntless and
noble-hearted Guyon.

During August, 1854, the Russians advanced, with the design of attacking
Erzerum. The Turkish pashas were too much intent upon plundering every
one within the range of their power to offer any effectual resistance.
Hungarian, German, and Polish officers, especially the two latter, were
equally zealous in quarrelling with one another. Guyon alone, among the
officers of superior rank in the Turkish service, displayed activity,
intelligence, foresight, and spirit; but he was thwarted by the other
Europeans, and insulted and defied by the Turkish Muchir, Feriks, and
Beys. Again and again he pointed out the sure road to victory, and the
fact that the Turks were superior in numbers and resources to their
foes: his counsel was despised, delays were interposed, when no
alternative but the ostensible adoption of his plans remained, and the
result was the almost total dispersion of the Turkish armies, and the
imminent danger of Erzerum, and even Kars, falling into the hands of
the enemy without a struggle. This state of things continued until
Lieut.-colonel (afterwards Major-general Sir Fen wick Williams, Bart.)
Williams appeared upon the scene as the commissioner of her Britannic
majesty. In that character he was invested with an authority poor Guyon
could not claim, and without which the latter officer struggled in vain.
Colonel Williams, like Guyon, was an object of the insatiable jealousy
of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, who gave him no support, and, in
spite of the entreaties—and, at last, of the commands—of the English
minister for foreign affairs, thwarted Colonel Williams in every
conceivable way. Supported, however, by the decision, perseverance, and
intelligence of Lord Clarendon, the English commissioner held his ground
in spite of the coldness, and even opposition, of the ambassador, and
was enabled to re-organize the dispersed armies of the Porte, to
place Kars and Erzerum in conditions of defence, and to throw such
obstructions in the way of the Russians, then flushed with success, as
retarded their advance, until the fall of Sebastopol decided virtually
the fortunes of the war.

Leaving the struggle in Asia in the position above noticed, it is
necessary to turn once more to Turkey in Europe.

When the conquering Turks drove the flying Russians before them through
the Principalities, the Austrians marched in and took possession of the
quarters abandoned by the fugitives. Interposing between the victors
and the vanquished, the Austrians rendered valuable services to the
Russians, and, perhaps, preserved their army from total destruction.
Without the knowledge of the Western allies, Austria concluded a
convention with the Porte for the occupation of the Provinces. There
were many circumstances to prove that the French government was privy to
this design, and a special policy on the part of France began to develop
itself. Whatever the motives of that policy, it had, for its effect, a
concert with the Austrians in exercising a domination over the Roman
Provinces far more intolerable than that from which Turkish valour had
delivered them. The oppressed Romans sought and obtained the sympathy
of the English; but both Austria and France were jealous of that
sympathy, and dreaded the dissemination of English constitutional
opinions. Austria, ever the foe of freedom, barred out, as it were,
English intercourse and views, in virtue of the power she obtained by
her convention of occupation with the sultan. The policy of Austria was
also vacillating and indeterminate. At one time she would appear ready
to join the fortunes of the allies, and immediately after direct her
endeavours to secure the Russian frontier from the assault of the allied
armies. It was generally believed that Russia was more vulnerable from
the confines of Podolia, and by a campaign carried into Poland, than
elsewhere. Austria dreaded the appearance of French and English uniforms
in too close proximity to Russian Poland; nor was Prussia less timid
of that phenomenon; for both were apprehensive of a general rising of
Poland against her tripartite oppressors. At one time Austria was said
to be willing to join in the war and march across the Russian frontier
in the rear of an allied invasion, provided England and France backed
the movement by a certain amount of force. As the Western nations could
not, or would not, march an amount of troops in that direction, such as
Austria deemed necessary in consequence of the vulnerability of her
own frontier line, she declined the peril, and satisfied herself with
holding the Dacian Provinces in the name of the sultan; but, for her own
purposes, Austria had designs upon Moldavia and Wallachia, and when the
war was brought to a termination, could with difficulty be persuaded to
withdraw her troops from them, and did not retire until public opinion,
in England and France, was expressed in terms of resentment and menace.
Such was, in brief, the history of the success of Turkey upon her own
European frontier, and of the quality of the help afforded by Austria to
Turkey and the allies during the war.

Another sphere of action now demands attention. The allied fleets
entered the Bosphorus immediately upon the slaughter of Sinope. Still,
as war was not declared, they confined their action to keeping the
Russian ships of war blockaded in their own harbours. One Russian
vessel, the _Vladimir_, gallantly broke the blockade; scoured the Black
Sea; and, in spite of the allied cruisers, inflicted severe injury upon
Turkish shipping all around the coasts of the Black Sea to the very
entrance of the Bosphorus, escaping back to Sebastopol with impunity.
Throughout the war, the enterprising and daring captain of the
_Vladimir_ performed feats worthy of the reputation of any navy in the
world. It became necessary for the allies to send a flag of truce to
Odessa, the bearers were treacherously fired upon. This exasperated the
allies, and Odessa was bombarded. The admirals endeavoured to spare the
commercial portions of the place, it being a free port; the destruction
of the defences was, in consequence, only partially effected, while
much damage was nevertheless inflicted upon the city itself. After
the bombardment, the Muscovites, with great activity, repaired and
strengthened the defences, so that the bombardment was little more than
an empty demonstration of power. It displayed, however, the skill of
the allied squadrons; for one of the most scientific and beautiful naval
operations of the war was accomplished. The ships fired while in motion;
circling round the place; delivering their broadsides as they passed;
and, by their rapidity of movement, gave little chance to the batteries
on shore to inflict any damage.

The British and French navies held possession of the Black Sea,
incurring little loss. The destruction of the British frigate _Tiger_
was, however, an incident which caused much regret in England. In
certain operations in shallow water near Odessa, the ship went aground,
and was captured. The Russians, vindictively and cowardly, continued to
fire upon it while any living object was seen upon its decks. Few
acts were ever perpetrated, by even the most barbarous enemy, more at
variance with the laws of war, and the instincts of honour, gallantry,
and generosity. The allied armies continued most uselessly to linger on
the shores of the Bosphorus and at Varna, until the season proper
for military operations had passed away. Never was an expedition more
unprofitable. The Turks were allowed to battle against the whole power
of Russia upon the Danube without the slightest help, while two large
armies were within forty miles of them. In England, suspicions of
treachery were entertained. Some believed that the Aberdeen government
was unwilling to weaken the power of Russia; others believed that France
and Austria had covert designs, and were unwilling to prosecute the
war. It was not until the middle of September that the allies acted
in concert. In the meantime, Russia fomented disturbances in the Greek
provinces of Turkey, and invited the Greeks of independent Greece to
invade the sultan’s territory. The troops of the padishaw suppressed
revolt with sanguinary effect, and drove the Greek sympathizers across
the borders. The allied fleets landed detachments of troops in Greece,
and compelled neutrality.

At last the period arrived for the decisive movement of the allied
armies, and it was resolved to invade the territory of Russia, and
destroy her great naval and military arsenals on the Black Sea. For this
purpose the troops were embarked at Varna and other places, and escorted
by the fleets to the Crimea. A landing was effected at Old Fort without
opposition. The allies began their march towards Sebastopol, skirmishing
as they proceeded. Eupatoria, a port and city in the Crimea, was also
seized by the allies, and put in a state of defence on the land side,
so as to be held by a garrison against any army likely to be sent to
recover it.

The armies, arriving at the river Alma, found the heights which
commanded its passage occupied by the enemy in great force. A battle
ensued; the first of the war in which the British and French were
engaged together. The allies were successful. The Russians were
completely defeated; and had the French consented to pursue them, it
is possible that the Russian army might have been cut off. The British
distinguished themselves greatly at the battle of the Alma. The second
division, under the chivalrous Sir De Lacy Evans, bore the brunt of
the combat on the British lines. His division was ably assisted by Sir
Richard England, who was left in support, and without orders from his
chief. He, with his guns, hastened to the aid of Sir De Lacy Evans, and
distinguished himself by his courage, promptitude, and presence of
mind. The Duke of Cambridge commanded the first division, with Sir Colin
Campbell as his senior brigadier. His royal highness displayed in this,
his maiden battle, the skill and courage for which all who had served
under him had given him credit, and which he was destined to evince
still more signally on the bloody slopes of Inkerman.

The allies, in consequence of the want of carriage and other appliances
of a campaign, lingered for days on the site of their victory before
they resumed their march against the great citadel. On arriving at
the north side, it was deemed by the allied commanders desirable and
feasible to effect a flank march to the south side. Curiously, at the
same juncture, the Russian army, under Prince Menschikoff, attempted
another flank march from the south to the north. The wings of the
hostile armies came into collision; many Russians were slain or made
prisoners. Neither army had any idea of the strategy of the other, and
both were surprised at the partial rencontre. Arriving at the south
side, Balaklava was made the basis of the allied operations: the British
occupying the right, and facing, of course, the left defence. The
Honourable General Cathcart advised an immediate assault upon the place,
which was very indifferently defended in that direction; but
General Burgoyne, the chief officer of British engineers, and the
commanderin-chief, were alike opposed to it. General Evans, and other
officers of high authority, were against the plan of General Cathcart as
rash. Those officers still retain the opinions which then influenced the
decision arrived at. It was determined to besiege the place, and conquer
it by regular approaches. The Russians, who were so dispirited that it
is questionable whether they would have resisted an immediate assault
with any vigour, took heart and threw up defences. A young officer of
engineers, named Todtleben, conceived the idea of vast erections of
earthworks, and the Russians were set to defend the place with pick and
mattock more strenuously than by artillery or musketry. The result was
a protracted defence. The Russians plied the spade and shovel with
astonishing vigour and perseverance, and Todtleben proved himself equal
in genius to the exigency. The Russians were reinforced; confidence took
the place of despair, and the city was defended with desperate hardihood
and energy. Besides the garrison, there was a Russian army in the field
upon the Tchernaya, and the heights by which it was commanded. Such was
the state of affairs, with occasional skirmishing and gunnery, up to the
26th of October, when the too celebrated battle of Balaklava was fought,
and the British generals incurred the imputation of folly, such as
seldom has been laid to the account of military chiefs, and the British
army gained a reputation for chivalrous valour which will live when even
the stupidity which made the occasion of its display is forgotten. It
would be impossible, within the limits of this work, to give the details
of such a battle. There were redoubts thrown up in the plain beyond the
heights of Balaklava, which were garrisoned by Turks. The worst possible
generalship was displayed by the British commander-in-chief in occupying
these redoubts with small bodies of troops far from any support. The
Russians attacked and conquered the redoubts; Sir Colin Campbell, at the
head of a body of infantry, took up a position in the plain. The Earl
of Lucan and the British cavalry advanced beyond that position. The
Russians occupied a gorge between two hills, flanked with field-pieces,
a line of horse artillery in front, and guns of position placed Upon
the heights so as to rake the ground upon which an attacking force must
approach. To draw the British to attack them in this strong position,
was the strategy of the Russian general. He succeeded. The cavalry were
ordered to charge; the order was conveyed from Lord Baglan to Lord Lucan
by Captain Nolan. The lieutenant-general has been censured for obeying
the command; but he had no discretion allowed him; it was in writing—it
was distinct—and the officer who delivered it, coming directly from
Lord Baglan, must have known what the latter really intended. It has
been universally believed that Captain Nolan used insulting language
to the Earl of Lucan, taunting him with cowardice. This is untrue; the
author of this history can declare so upon the authority of the noble
lord himself. Captain Nolan did point to the enemy and the captured
guns borne by them from the Turkish redoubts, and directed the general’s
attention to the duty of their recapture. The Earl of Lucan had no
alternative but to obey, more especially as the cavalry had been much
criticised by anonymous writers from the camp. The Earl of Lucan ordered
the light brigade of his division to charge, and advanced the heavy
brigade to its support as far as it could be brought for such a purpose.
Some of the regiments of the heavy brigade advanced so far as to be
under the fire of the enemy’s guns. The light brigade was commanded by
the Earl of Cardigan, who led it into action in the most gallant style.
Whoever has read Tennyson’s poem, “The Six Hundred,” will have perused
the most graphic and striking description of the exciting scene which
followed. The brigade moved on, losing the gallant Nolan before it had
reached the charge; he was the first who fell. It is commonly supposed
that he led the charge. This is not so; he rode at a little distance
from the line when the shot took effect, which deprived the army of one
of its ablest and bravest cavalry officers. In this terrible charge, the
charge of six hundred men against an army in position, with its flanks
defended by strong batteries on elevated positions, there was no
flinching. The gallant leader has told the author of this work that
various officers shouted, brandished their swords, and were excited;
that if any effort were required on the part of the commander, it was to
keep the men cool and the lines regular as they galloped forward to the
terrific encounter. The charge was made, how gallantly the whole world
admits. The wonder is that any escaped. Probably, hardly any would, had
not Colonel Sewell, at the head of the Royal Irish Hussars, thought of
the peril of the Russian cavalry wheeling from the flanks and blocking
up the way of return. He immediately turned his rear and found this
danger in actual existence. He charged the Russian cavalry, and, with
the aid of a handful of French horsemen, kept open the way for the
return of those who had dashed,

     “With fetlock deep in blood,”

their fiery steeds through the lines of the enemy. The leader and a
portion of his gallant band escaped. It has been said of the Earl of
Cardigan that “he was the first in and the first out.” This is simply
not true. He entered the Russian lines at the head of his men, and when
his brigade was broken in pieces upon the guns and lines of the enemy,
he, as a fragment of the shattered mass, like other fragments, turned
to reform and act as duty then might dictate. He rode slowly from the
Russian lines under the fire of the enemy, and joined the rest of the
survivors, who received him with cheers. The Earl of Lucan, with the
heavy brigade, rendered the retreat of the light brigade possible. The
Russian cavalry swept down in masses, approaching the British infantry,
by whose fire they were deterred from charging. They approached the
cavalry camp; General Scarlett was ordered, with a portion of the
heavy brigade, to charge them. It was a gallant and glorious deed. Lord
Raglan, who witnessed it from the heights, declared, in his despatch,
that he had rarely seen such a splendid charge of cavalry, and that
it was so made as never for a moment to leave success in doubt. The
Russians retired to their positions and kept there, but the redoubts
were held by them. Had Lord Raglan advanced his infantry, an action of
a more general and scientific character would have ensued, and an
opportunity might have been made available for inflicting a defeat upon
the enemy which would have relieved Balaklava of his vicinity. Such was
the opinion of various officers of authority, and Sir De Lacy Evans,
who had as good opportunities as any general to form a judgment upon
the occasion, and was as competent as any officer in Europe to do so,
expressed, in conversation with the author of this History, the same
opinion.

The men and horses of the British army were now suffering severely from
the climate, and from various privations, which the bad commissariat
arrangements, and the want of energy and capacity on the part of the
commanderin-chief, entailed upon them. November opened gloomily in every
way upon the besiegers. Its first event of importance was the battle of
the Little Inkerman, as it was called among the soldiers. The Russians
attempted a surprise upon the dangerous and exposed post of the second
division, which was fortunately commanded by Sir De Lacy Evans. The
result was the most scientifically-fought battle of the war. General
Evans, not hampered by the interference of a commander-in-chief, whose
only title to command him was that conferred by his social rank and
favour with the ministry, had full scope for his own superior powers.
The Russians were repulsed with great slaughter and with little loss to
their victors. The French offered assistance tardily, but their aid
was declined—good generalship won the battle. The men of the second
division knew how to obey the commands of a general whom they trusted,
and to follow a leader himself the bravest of the brave.

The battle of the Little Inkerman was soon followed by that called, _par
excellence_, the battle of Inkerman. The morning of the 5th of November
dawned mistily and dimly over the plateau before Sebastopol, and along
the dark course of the Tchernaya. The Russians ascended stealthily
against the flank of the British. A terrible battle ensued. The English,
surprised, fought in their great-coats; although otherwise imperfectly
dressed, and some without shoes or shakos. Evans, who would have been at
the head of his second division, was ill on board ship at Balaklava, and
his place was nobly filled by General Pennefather. At the sound of the
cannon booming heavily over the plateau of Balaklava, Evans rose from
his sick bed and hurried to the front of battle, where he remained
during the terrible morning of conflict which opened that eventful
day. The English were all but overpowered, although they fought as
Englishmen—as probably no men ever before fought—with a tenacious
obstinacy that yielded to no force, with a chivalrous dash and daring
which contemned all odds. The Duke of Cambridge, probably, escaped
greater danger than any British officer on the field. For a time he rode
along the line encouraging his men, the fire of the advancing columns
of the Russians directed upon him; nearly all around him were killed or
wounded. It was a critical and awful moment: the Russians were gaining
the summit of the ascent; they would there have had room to deploy,
and the British would have been in danger of being driven from their
intrenchments, and the allied armies of being forced back upon the sea.
Fortunately the French, who were engaged in watching the manoeuvres of
Liprandi in the valley beneath, at last came to the assistance of their
allies, and fell upon the Russian flanks. The British at the same moment
received supplies of ammunition, of which they had been in need through
the wretched management of everything that depended upon head-quarters;
their ranks rallied and poured deadly volleys of Minié bullets upon
the masses of the enemy struggling with the French. The slopes of the
plateau were strewn with dead, and slippery with gore; the Russians,
foiled everywhere, retreated. The French, fresh for pursuit, would not
pursue unless the weary guardsmen led the van. Canrobert, the successor
of Arnaud in command of the French army, complimented the British, but
did not act heartily with them. The services of Sir Richard England at
Inkerman have been generally overlooked by British writers. England was
not favourable to the agents of the press, and he showed this feeling in
a manner which offended that class. This was unwise, both for himself,
his division, and the service. Were it not for that circumstance, the
valuable services of that general would have become better known to the
public. When the battle of Inkerman began, England occupied a position
to the left of the English lines, near to a ravine which separated them
from those occupied by the French. Leaving a portion of his troops
under the command of one of his brigadiers, he dispatched the rest under
Brigadier Campbell to the right, and himself followed. His opportune
arrival supported the divisions exposed to attack; and as their several
detachments moved to the more immediate theatre of conflict, England’s
troops occupied the ground from which they had been removed, and which
would have been exposed to the enemy. It is remarkable that the plan of
the Russian generals was to make the principal attack upon the extreme
left of the British, so as to separate the English left from the French
right. The officer in charge of the attacking column missed his way,
delay was thus caused as well as the plan of assault totally deranged;
possibly, to these circumstances may be attributed the failure of the
Russian attack of the 5th of November.

After this battle, Sir De Lacy Evans strongly recommended Lord Raglan
to change his position. He was influenced in offering this advice by
the total inadequacy of the English army, numerically, to occupy such
extended lines, and by the suffering of the army from ill health,
climate, and deficient supplies, personal and military. This letter of
the general has been much misrepresented in the London clubs, and among
coteries unfriendly to the general’s liberal parliamentary policy. It
was, however, the opinion of Sir De Lacy that, unless reinforcements
arrived in numbers far superior to what was then probable, the British
would be unable to hold their ground; and, notwithstanding the actual
issue, such advice was sound, and based upon facts and probabilities.

After the battle of Inkerman, the condition of the British army became
truly horrible, so that the closing winter months of 1854 were such
as tried the fortitude of the British troops and their hardihood of
endurance to the uttermost. It would be in vain to attempt to portray,
upon these pages, sufferings which excited the wonder and sympathy of
all nations, or to depict the patriotism and enduring devotion to duty
by which such protracted miseries were sustained. Great numbers perished
of cold, hunger, and sickness; and the cholera, which ravaged the
encampments of Gallipoli and Varna, pursued the army to the trenches
before Sebastopol. The Russians also suffered much, and bore it as good,
hardy, and loyal soldiers; but they had the shelter, hospitals, and
supplies of the city. The troops on the Tchernaya were relieved by the
garrison of the city, and supplied from its almost exhaustless stores.
The Russian armies had the whole power of the empire in their rear; but,
notwithstanding the herculean efforts made by the czar to recruit and
feed his armies, the drain of life was terrible, from causes similar to
those by which the English were swept away in such numbers. The French
army was far better organized and more honestly administered than the
armies of England and Russia, and the loss of life during 1854, after
the landing in the Crimea, was less than was experienced by the British
or Russians. The cholera, however, took greater effect upon the Turks,
French, and Muscovites, than upon the British. At Gallipoli and Varna
this was strikingly exemplified. In the Dobrudscha, upon the Danube, the
division of General Espineau was nearly destroyed by the pestilence.

During the whole period to which this relation of events refers, the
allied fleets were masters of the Turkish waters, from the gates of the
Dardanelles to the Sea of Azoff. When the fleets conveyed the armies
to Old Fort and Eupatoria, they appeared before Sebastopol; and the
Russians, fearing that the enterprise of the British might penetrate the
harbour, sunk their fleet in two lines, so as to bar its entrance
and prevent their capture. This bold measure did much to prolong the
defence. It also mortified the allies, who were thus prevented from
taking naval prizes, and from conquering the place, or very much
promoting its conquest by naval artillery. The Russians reserved some of
their most efficient vessels behind the range of sunken ships, and with
those they commanded the flanks of the besiegers, causing much waste of
life, and obstructing seriously the progress of the siege.

The naval force of the czar in the Black Sea was estimated very
differently by various writers. A number of statements were put forth,
all professing to be authentic. We select two, and our readers will
be able to judge for themselves the probable statistics. Haxthausen
represents the Black Sea fleet as consisting of three divisions, each
of which comprised ordinarily 1 three-decker, 2 two-deckers (among the
last two ships mounting each 84 guns), 6 frigates, 1 corvette, and 4
smaller vessels. Mr. Danby Seymour is more precise, and furnishes us
with what purports to be a complete list of the Russian naval force
in the Euxine in 1854, viz.:—20 ships of the line, 7 frigates, 5
corvettes, 12 brigs, 9 schooners, 7 cutters, 2 yachts, 1 bombard, 30
steamers, 28 gun-boats, and 30 transports.

The British fleet consisted of the _Britannia, Trafalgar, Vengeance,
Rodney, Betterophon, Queen, Lynx, Sphynx, Tribune, Sampson, Terrible,
Furious, Retribution, Highflyer, Spiteful, Cyclops, Vesuvius, Albion,
Arethusa, London, Sanspareil, Agamemnon, Firebrand, Triton, Niger_,
constituting a most powerful navy. At that juncture, so great were the
maritime resources of England, that a naval authority thus reported
concerning her resources:—“From our ships in reserve and building, we
could form a naval force far surpassing that which any other nation in
the world can boast of having afloat. We have in reserve, at the four
ports of Portsmouth, Devonport, Chatham, and Sheerness, not less than
161 vessels of the ‘effective ships of the royal navy,’ and these
estimated to carry not less than 6,807 guns. Besides these, too, we have
a goodly number of paddle-wheels and other small craft. Though some of
the vessels may not, without considerable repairs, be in a state to send
to sea, yet most of them are excellent sea-going vessels—far superior,
indeed, to anything Russian—and could be fitted out for service on
very short notice. Then we have of vessels building—5 at Portsmouth,
7 at Devonport, 1 at Sheerness, 6 at Chatham, 11 at Pembroke, 4 at
Deptford, 4 at Woolwich, and one at Mill wall.—Total 39.” The French
naval force in the Black Sea, under the command of Vice-admiral Hamelin,
was composed of the _Friedland, Valmy, Ville de Paris, Henri IV.,
Bayard, Charlemagne, Lena, Lupiter, Marengo, Gomer, Descartes, Vauban,
Mogador, Cacique, Magellan, Sanê, Caton, Sérieuse, Mercure, Olivière,
Beaumanoir, Cerf, Prométhée, Salamandre, Héron, and Monette._ The
squadron of Vice-admiral Bruat, intended to act in the Black Sea, the Sea
of Gallipoli, and in the Eastern Archipelago, comprised the following
vessels:—_Montebello, Napoléon, Suffren, Jean Bart, Ville de Marseille,
Alger, Pomone, Caffarelli, Roland_ and Primauguet. Independently of
these three squadrons, and all the frigates, or steam corvettes, which
were assembled in the Mediterranean for the transport of the army of the
East, were all the naval stations in the West Indies, the Pacific Ocean,
the Indo-China seas, and in all quarters where the fishing interest
existed.

The first bombardment of Sebastopol took place on the 17th of October,
in which the fleet took an active part; but the combined efforts of the
artillery, afloat and ashore, failed to subdue the gigantic works which
had arisen for the defence.

The allied fleets rendered great services in protecting Eupatoria, which
had been garrisoned mainly by Turkish troops, and which the Russians
vigilantly watched and incessantly harassed.

Various bombardments and incessant watching occupied the fleets until,
in the following year, the grand catastrophe occurred, and southern
Sebastopol fell under what the Russian commander called “the fire
infernal” of the allies.

On the 14th of November, a terrible storm smote the Black Sea and the
Crimea. The tents of the camps were blown away, many ships were wrecked,
and many lives were lost. The want of prevision, management, and
organization, on the part of the chief authorities of the British, led
to costly sacrifices of human life, _matériel_ of war, and supplies.

The operations in the Baltic were not so important as those in the Black
Sea. The fine British fleet, commanded by Sir Charles Napier, was
aided by a powerful French fleet, under the command of Vice-admiral
Parseval-Deschênes. The achievements of those fleets did not answer the
expectations formed. The French arrived late in the season, and acted
so dependency upon the British, that they did not even attempt anything.
The English admiral showed neither spirit nor activity. Partly through
his want of enterprise, and still more from the neglect of the Admiralty
at home to provide vessels of draught suitable to the shallow waters
of the Baltic, no attempt was made to conquer any of the Russian
strongholds. The island and forts of Bomarsund were captured and
destroyed, the British and French engineers and artillery having the
chief glory of the conquest. The British engineer officer, General
Jones, greatly distinguished himself.

Operations were also conducted in the White Sea by the allied squadrons,
but the assistance rendered by the French was trivial. The allies,
particularly the French, arrived too late in the season to effect much.

In the Pacific Ocean the blunders and tardiness which characterized
the allies were extraordinary: incompetency was impressed on all
their undertakings. The Russians were attacked in their far-eastern
settlements, especially Petropaulovski; but the allies suffered signal
and sanguinary defeat, arising from the incompetency of the naval
officers in command.

Such were the fortunes of the great war with Russia during 1854.

[Illustration: 840.jpg BATTLE OF ALMA]

[Illustration: 841.jpg BATTLE OF INKERMAN]




PARLIAMENT.

The session of 1854 was not barren. The war occupied men’s thoughts,
and engaged the time of the legislature; the reform bill of Lord John
Russell was put off _sine die_; yet many useful bills were carried
through the legislature, and much valuable business transacted in both
houses, of importance to the country. The war debates, however, occupied
most of the attention of the houses. In the beginning of the year their
subjects were:—the want of spirit, preparation, and intelligence on the
part of the ministry; the deference, and even amity, shown to Russia
by Lord Aberdeen and his chief supporters, while the czar was deceiving
them, and prosecuting his ambitious designs with energy. The financial
schemes of the chancellor of the exchequer caused much debate. He
propounded the doctrine that increased taxes on income, and other
sources of taxation, must cover the expenses of the increased military
preparations—that the income of the year should pay the cost of the
year. Nothing could more clearly show that he had no conception of the
magnitude of the conflict upon which his country was about to enter.
Whatever might be Mr. Gladstone’s abilities as an economist, or a
financier, he proved himself incapable as a statesman. On the 12th of
August, her majesty prorogued the parliament in person.

During the session several changes in the ministry had occurred. Lord
John Russell, who at the beginning of the session held a place in the
cabinet without any office, was appointed to the presidency of the
council, Lord Granville giving way in his favour; as did Mr. Strutt,
chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, for Lord Granville. The Duke of
Newcastle held the secretaryships, both of war and the colonies, at the
beginning of the session. He was clearly incapable of filling both,
and was ultimately proved unequal to either. He, however, resigned the
colonies, a fourth secretaryship—that for war—being created for the
occasion. The duke persisted in selecting that office, and Lord Aberdeen
and the Peelite section of the cabinet insisted on conferring it upon
him, in spite of the desire of Lord John Russell, the whig section of
the cabinet, and the general voice of the country, that Lord Palmerston
should, at such a juncture, assume that most important official
position. The result was a terrible breakdown in the administration
of the war department, disastrous to the ministry, the army, and the
country. The vacant secretaryship of the colonies was given to Sir
George Grey, who was certainly unequal to its requirements. On the
whole, the changes gave dissatisfaction to the country, and prepared
the way for the destruction of the cabinet. In the midst of such great
dangers to the country, it was found that the patronage bestowed by the
ministry, especially in connection with the army, navy, and colonies,
was partial, unjust, and even, in some cases, disgraceful. A wide-spread
feeling of indignation arose among the people, and a desire for the
speedy fall of the Aberdeen cabinet. After the breaking up of parliament
the ministry dispersed, and appeared to concern themselves very little
about the fate of the country. Two men among them were exceptions to
this—the Duke of Newcastle and Lord Palmerston. They worked in their
respective offices with untiring assiduity; unfortunately, what the
duke did had been, in the main, better left undone, but he industriously
performed his duty to the best of his power. When the tidings of
Balaklava, Inkerman, the bombardment of Sebastopol, the false news
of its fall, the storm which nearly wrecked the transport fleet and
destroyed vast supplies, were flying through Europe and stirring the
heart of England to its depth, the ministers were amusing themselves,
and showed no signs that they comprehended their glorious position
as the leaders of a mighty empire at war with another. It appeared
afterwards that Lord John Russell was watching anxiously the progress of
affairs, although his particular office did not give prominence to his
activity.

On the 12th of December parliament was reopened by her majesty in
person. The ministry was denounced in both houses for its incompetent
conduct of the war, and made a feeble defence. Thanks were voted by both
houses to the generals, officers, and soldiers, who had participated in
the battles and hardships of the various naval and military campaigns.
The foreigners’ enlistment bill caused much discussion, in which very
little wisdom was shown by either house. The militia bill passed rapidly
through the legislature. This closed the brief period during which
parliament sat in December, 1854.




DEATHS OF EMINENT PERSONS.

In consequence of the war many men of whom England and any nation might
be proud fell bravely in battle, or as bravely died at their posts
wasted by disease. So great was their number, and so much did the loss
of such men extend the lists of this year’s obituary, that the task of
even glancing at it becomes impossible within the space allotted to this
work. One noble soldier died peacefully, full of years and honours—the
Marquis of Anglesey, the companion of Wellington in his campaigns—the
chivalrous Earl of Oxbridge, the most dashing _sabreur_ of the British
army, the heroic soldier whose surpassing courage at the head of the
British cavalry at Waterloo shone conspicuous. Death, during the year,
reaped his full harvest from men of literature, science, and art, and
from among the greatly good: he was not satisfied with the dark wreaths
he gathered over so many battle-fields, he spared not for this the homes
of England, but threw his cold shadow over the sanctuary of piety and
the abode of genius.




CHAPTER LXVII.

{VICTORIA. 1855}

     Home Affairs..... State of Public Opinion..... Death of the
     Czar..... Severity of the Weather..... Visits of the French
     Emperor, the King of the Belgians, and the King of Sardinia
     to her Majesty..... Visit of her Majesty to   the Emperor of
     the French..... Distribution of Crimean Medals  by the
     Queen..... Ireland..... Parliamentary,   Diplomatic,   and
     Ministerial Conflicts and Changes..... The Progress of the
     Russian War..... Events in the  Crimea, Asia Minor, the
     Baltic, the White Sea, and the Pacific Ocean..... General
     Prosperity and loyalty of the Colonies..... State  of
     India..... Annexation of Oude.




HOME AFFAIRS—PUBLIC OPINION, AGITATION OF PEOPLE AND PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1855}

The state of the country at the opening of the year was very peculiar.
The whole population of the British Isles was deeply moved by the
tidings which had arrived of the sufferings of their brethren and fellow
countrymen in the Crimea. It was humiliating to the country to learn
that an army within seven miles of the sea, with the most splendid
fleets and transports at its service, was perishing from want of food
and fuel because the abounding stores, wasting and rotting on
the sea-shore, could not be conveyed to the camp. All political
considerations were lost sight of in the universal desire to get rid of
a cabinet so utterly incompetent to direct the affairs of the country.
With some of the members of the cabinet there was general satisfaction;
Lords Palmerston and Clarendon were popular, and Lord John Russell at
that time shared the public favour which he was so soon destined to
lose. It was against the Peelite section of the ministry, and more
especially its chief, that the universal indignation arose. This led to
the defeat and resignation of the Aberdeen cabinet; the circumstances
which attended that result will be related when noticing the
parliamentary vicissitudes of the year.

A fast was ordered in England and Ireland for the 21st of March, which
was extensively and solemnly observed; and a day of thanksgiving was
kept with as unanimous a spirit, when, in September, Sebastopol fell.




DEATH OF THE CZAR.

On the 2nd of March the people of London were astonished by a telegram
that the Emperor of Russia had died that morning. Seldom was so profound
and general a sensation created. It was believed by nearly all persons
that the war would be speedily brought to a close, as he who had created
it had passed away. It was not then generally understood that the
Emperor Nicholas was the representative of the feeling and opinion of
the whole Russian nation. His ambition, love of conquest, aggrandizement
of territory, did not pass beyond the degree in which these qualities
were cherished by his people. The desire to propagate the Greek church
by the sword alike possessed emperor and subjects. The war, therefore,
continued, although the successor of Nicholas—Alexander II.—was, as
alleged, a mild prince, more desirous to draw out the resources of his
empire by peace than to extend it by war. At all events the conflict
continued to rage, to the disappointment of all who hated bloodshed, and
felt for the miseries of their fellow creatures.

It was alleged that the death of the Emperor Nicholas was caused by the
defeat of his arms at the battle of Eupatoria. On the 17th of February,
forty thousand Russians attacked the Turkish army under Omar Pasha, then
quartered there. The occupation of that place by the allies was a great
hindrance to the operations of the Russian armies, and was dangerous
to the Crimea and its communications with the southern provinces of the
Russian empire. The emperor had, therefore, ordered it to be carried at
any cost. He, no doubt, felt humiliated that the Turks, whom he had so
recently attacked in their own territory, should now, in their turn, be
invaders, and he burned with indignation at this affront to his power.
By this battle his soldiers were defeated, his ambition and his hopes
blasted. He began at last to see the magnitude of the war he had
provoked, and the perils with which his empire were environed. He
drooped from that hour. A severe cold, taken in the persevering
discharge of his high functions, hastened his dissolution.




DEPARTURE OF THE BALTIC FLEET.

On the 4th of April the first squadron of the Baltic fleet for the naval
campaign in that sea set sail from Spithead. This fleet was probably the
most powerful that had ever appeared upon the seas.




FINANCIAL OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR.

In the middle of April the government effected, with great ease, a loan
of sixteen millions sterling to carry on the war. This was followed by
similar transactions.




SEVERITY OF THE WEATHER.

The first days of the new year were unusually warm, the temperature
ranging 11° above the average. On the 9th the thermometer marked 50°;
but on the following day fell to 26°, being the commencement of the
longest and most severe winter experienced for many years. On the 14th
a period of very cold weather set in, and continued without intermission
to the 24th February; some of the days in the middle of February being
from 15° to 18° below the average. From the 24th February to the 6th
March the weather was more moderate; but on that day the cold again set
in, and the weather continued to the 26th June to be cold, nipping, and
miserable beyond record. In January, on several days, the mercury was as
low as 13°. In February it was, on many days, as low as from 3° to 10°.
The coldest day in London was the 18th, when the thermometer marked 7°;
the lowest temperature recorded by authority was 0° 8 (or not quite
1°), at Berkhampstead; at Belvoir Castle it was 2° 5. During this
long period, the wind was almost uniformly north-east. Rain was very
deficient; but snow fell on the 9th January, and on every day, at one
station or other corresponding with the Meteorological Society, from
January 13th to February 28th, from March 8th to the end of month, and
frequently to the middle of May. It was replete with snow crystals, and
unusually dense, eight inches of snow producing one inch of water. Hail
and fogs were frequent all over the kingdom; and aurora were numerous.
The effects of so ungenial a season upon the mortality and health of
the population were as evil as could be anticipated. The deaths
greatly exceeded the average. In the winter quarter 134,605 deaths were
registered, or 20,000 in excess of the average; and this excess was
distributed over the whole kingdom. To the immediate effects of the cold
must be added the great dearness of all the necessaries of life. Wheat,
which in March, 1853, was 45s. 7d. a quarter, had risen in March, 1854,
to 79s. 6d, and in 1855, to 69s. 11d.; and the sale had fallen from
1,236,493 quarters to 780,232 and 1,143,999 quarters. Potatoes ranged
from 105s. to 110s. per ton, at wholesale prices.

The cold weather covered the ornamental waters with ice, and gave
opportunity for the healthy and exhilarating exercises proper to
the season. Those who ventured before the ice was well formed ran
considerable risks, and many persons were immersed; but the only
disastrous accident occurred on the 20th of January, when four lads
were drowned in St. James’s Park. The ice everywhere was crowded with
performers on the slide and the skate, both male and female, and with
innumerable spectators; the long-continued frost also brought forward
many splendidly-equipped sledges. The Thames was encumbered with large
masses of frozen snow or ice, which had formed on lakes and ponds
communicating with it. These masses, in their passage up and down, were
ground together by the tide, and made a loud murmuring noise,
which could be heard at a great distance. At low water these masses
became jammed together, so as to form a rough and dangerous passage from
shore to shore; while the stranded pieces formed miniature icebergs.
Within the limits of the tide the whole mass was in motion; but above
Teddington the river was frozen over, wherever any obstruction occurred
above locks and weirs, and afforded a secure passage. At Richmond there
was nearly three miles of continuous ice transit, and for some
distance above Teddington Lock and Kingston Bridge. All navigation was
necessarily suspended. In the Pool numerous accidents occurred from
ships being swept from their moorings and crushed by the ice, or driven
on shore.

On the night of the 22nd of February a very singular spectacle was got
up on the Serpentine. Late in the evening a fine “brass band,” attended
by near a thousand torchbearers, suddenly marched on to the ice on the
ornamental water in Kensington Gardens, and struck up popular airs; as
by a signal, large fires were lighted on the ice, tents were erected,
and barrels of beer were broached. Suddenly, several hundred skaters,
each bearing a lighted lamp at his waist-belt, emerged from the
crowd, and shot under the bridge on to the Serpentine, and commenced
quadrilles, polkas, and divers figures; in a few minutes their erratic
motions were illuminated by red, blue, crimson, and green fires, lighted
on the banks, and by rockets and other lights. This fantastic and
beautiful exhibition was repeated on another evening.

The canals were of course frozen, and all traffic, except of skaters,
was at an end.

In the country the effect of the cold upon the rivers and canals was
the same—they were hard frozen. The roads were covered with snow, which
made traffic impossible; and when the snow had been cleared away, they
were equally dangerous from the frozen surfaces. As usual, in certain
localities the cold was more intense than in the registered spots;
country newspapers recorded thermometers which marked 4°, 6°, and more,
below zero. Derwentwater was entirely frozen over; fires were lighted
and feasts given to mark the occasion; and carts and waggons passed over
to the island. Windermere was also frozen over, and parties skated not
only across, but from end to end: a traffic was established between the
villages by wheelbarrows. All round the coast the very unusual spectacle
was witnessed of ice formed in the bays of the sea, and left aground
among the rocks at low-water. A traffic was established over the ice,
chiefly by amateurs, from Boston to Lincoln—thirty-five miles.*

     * “Annual Register.”

The closing months of the year were also severe. In October there was
a great fall of rain. Fogs unusually dense and hard frosts occurred in
November. December was a very cold month, and through the last quarter
of the year there were many storms. During the year 1,141 ships were
lost.




VISIT OF THE EMPEROR OF THE FRENCH.

One of the most interesting home events of the year occurred in the
middle of April—a visit of the Emperor and Empress of the French to
the queen. They left Paris on the 15th April, and on the 16th sailed
for England. Their arrival at Dover and their journey to London was a
triumph; and on their arrival, their progress through the great capital
was marked by a popular demonstration, which, from its enthusiasm and
vastness, may be called sublime. The line of carriages passed through
crowded streets—crowded from the kerbstones to the house-tops—? until
they reached Hyde Park Corner. It is said that the emperor pointed out
to the empress the street, leading into St. James’s Street, where he had
humble lodgings, when, seven years before, he was an exile residing in
London. On the 10th of April, 1848, he turned out, bâton in hand, to
serve as a special constable, when the Chartists, under the guidance of
the unfortunate Fergus O’Connor, threatened an invasion of London. Seven
years and one week, save a day, had elapsed since Napoleon was thus
obscure; and it was reserved for him to pass through the streets of the
great city, guarded by the household troops of her majesty, her guest,
and the companion of her consort, while her whole people turned out to
confirm her invitation, and add to the honours she had reserved for
him. _O tempora mutantur, et mutamur cum illos!_ When the illustrious
visitors entered Hyde Park, an entirely new scene awaited them.

Comparatively few of the lower classes were there; but nowhere else in
Europe could such an array of carriages and horsemen be presented. The
writer of this History took up his position near the Magazine, where a
tolerable opportunity of seeing the procession was offered; but so dense
were the carriages and the equestrians, that persons on foot were much
impeded. The imperial pair, with Prince Albert, were seated in an open
barouche. Six of the royal carriages, each drawn by four horses, and
attended by outriders, conveyed the visitors and suite to the Great
Western Station. The pace was too rapid for the gratification of the
people, and the respect due to their efforts to make them welcome.
Immediately on the arrival of the royal and imperial party at the
Paddington Station they proceeded to Windsor.*

     * “Nolan’s History of the War against Russia.”   J. S.
     Virtue, City Road and Ivy Lane, London.

During the week the imperial pair were received in the City by the
corporation, and many demonstrations of respect and popular enthusiasm
greeted them. On Saturday they returned to France; where the emperor,
soon after, while riding in the streets of Paris, narrowly escaped death
by the hand of an Italian assassin.




DISTRIBUTION OF MEDALS BY THE QUEEN.

Among the home incidents which attracted the attention of the people of
England was the distribution of medals to the officers, non-commissioned
officers, and privates who had returned from the Crimea invalided or
wounded. Her majesty had resolved to distribute the medals in person,
and this greatly increased the interest of the occasion. It was deemed
by the public a most graceful and befitting act on the part of her
majesty, to give, with her own hands, the decorations won by those whose
valour so nobly shielded lier throne. The feelings of the brave men who
were to receive these decorations were raised to enthusiasm, when they
learned that they were to receive such a reward of their courage and
constancy from their beloved queen herself. The place appointed for this
grand ceremony was most appropriate—the square of the Horse-Guards,
in St. James’s Park. The writer of this History, as he looked upon the
extensive and magnificent preparations for this event, felt strongly the
sequel it presented to the scene which he witnessed little more than
a year before, near the same spot, when the people’s representatives
passed along to Buckingham Palace to assure her majesty of their
support in the war she had declared. Galleries were erected for
the accommodation of the lords and commons, for the members of the
government, and for the families of those who were to be publicly
honoured—a most graceful tribute on the part of the country to the
feelings of these gallant men. How proud that day must many a wife’s,
and parent’s, and brother’s, and sister’s heart have been, as the
objects of their affectionate solicitude bowed before his sovereign to
receive upon his breast the glorious badge his noble conduct won! The
royal family occupied a capacious balcony projecting from the lower
central windows of the Horse-Guards, which was festooned with scarlet
cloth, and otherwise decorated.

At ten o’clock on the morning of the 18th of May, the scene presented
from the windows of the Horse-Guards, and the windows and roofs of the
neighbouring houses,’ was most striking and effective: a vast mass
of people filled the whole area within view, yet all preserving the
greatest order. Her majesty dispensed the medals with her own hand to
men of all ranks, and of all branches of the service.




VISIT OF THE KING OF THE BELGIANS.

In the month of July her majesty’s uncle, the King of the Belgians, paid
her a visit, which excited many political rumours, and attracted much
notice throughout Europe.




HER MAJESTY VISITS THE FRENCH EMPEROR.

On the 18th of August her majesty, accompanied by Prince Albert and the
Prince of Wales, visited the French emperor.

His imperial majesty, and the people of France, displayed a cordiality
of welcome and a tasteful hospitality which rivalled those exhibited in
England on the occasion of the emperor’s visit.




VISIT OF THE KING OF SARDINIA TO THE ENGLISH COURT.

On November the 30th the King of Sardinia visited her majesty, and was
received with much enthusiasm by the people. The prompt and gallant way
in which his majesty and his people had joined Western Europe in the war
against Russia made him popular.




IRELAND.

There were few events connected with Ireland which possessed any
peculiar general interest. The alacrity with which recruits entered
service for the war, and the terrible proceedings of the disloyal Ribbon
Societies, were remarkable. Thus Ireland at once exhibited a generous
loyalty and a sanguinary sedition. The newspapers were literally filled,
during the closing winter months, with recitals of murders or attempts
at murder. The character of the assassinations was even more than
usually brutal and vindictive; and although some of the criminals were
arrested and punished, government was even more than usually remiss in
applying remedies to a condition of society so deplorable. Among the
events in Ireland which excited most horror and astonishment in Great
Britain, were those connected with burning the Bible. There was much
excitement among the Roman Catholic religious orders, and efforts were
made by them to create a species of revival in various parts of the
country. On some of these occasions the Bible was burned during the
fervour of fanaticism excited.




PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS, MINISTERIAL CHANGES, AND DIPLOMATIC
STRUGGLES.

A notice of the parliamentary conflicts of the session, of the
ministerial vicissitudes resulting from them, and of the diplomacy which
was acted upon by each, and which itself influenced both, will here find
its proper place in this chapter.

On the 22nd January, when the parliament assembled after the Christmas
recess, Mr. Roebuck gave notice of a motion for inquiry into the number
and condition of the army before Sebastopol, and into the conduct
of those departments of government which were responsible for the
efficiency of that army. This notice produced the gravest consequences:
the house was thrown, into a high state of excitement, and the treasury
benches especially partook of it. It is marvellous that the government
did not prepare itself for some such occurrence; but, as in the
management of the war, so in the management of the house, they were
always “too late”—so that the nickname of “the late ministry” was
bestowed upon them while yet they held, with whatever firmness they at
any time possessed, the reins of power.

Rumours on Thursday evening, the 21st of January, prevailed extensively
that Lord John Russell had resigned his connection with the ministry,
and on grounds of the most startling and alarming nature. The evening
papers came out earlier than usual, acknowledging the fact, and
commenting upon it according to the spirit of their respective party
bias. On Monday evening, the 25th, it was announced in both houses that
Lord J. Russell had resigned his connection with the ministry. Both
houses adjourned to the next evening, in order to learn the grounds upon
which Lord John had come to that determination. Having the _entrée_
of the houses, the author of this History hurried to the palace at
Westminster. Vast crowds surrounded it, and public excitement and
expectation were at a very high pitch. In the lords, the chancellor
took his seat, and the house of lords, with a dull gravity, began its
business. The proceedings were important, from the announcement made and
the explanation given by the Duke of Newcastle, the minister of war. His
bearing was gentlemanly, and there was an air of conciliation about it
which bespoke the thoroughbred gentleman. His voice was low, and his
manner in speaking ungainly; an awkward and finicking gesture with the
right hand below the table, to which he advanced when speaking, gave an
idea of pettiness of thought, which his manner in other respects aided.
The Earls of Winchelsea and Fitzwilliam seemed very desirous to have
something to say; no one seemed willing to listen, and at last, by
Lord Derby’s interposition, they were “quieted down.” Lord Ellenborough
manifested most activity on the opposition side of the house, and what
he said was spoken with energy, self-confidence, and commanding manner.
Lord Lansdowne was the most active person on the ministerial benches,
he moved about with a grace and affability which account for his great
popularity in the house. His mode of putting down the pertinacity of
Lord Fitzwilliam and Lord Winchelsea was authoritative, yet courteous,
and in a few epigrammatic sentences he disposed of them. The most
interesting sight was, however, old Lord Lyndhurst, who rose to give
notice of his already famous motion concerning the conduct of the war.
The house was very full of spectators. When his lordship rose, the
silence was profound, and his venerable years, the magnitude of the
question which his notice involved, his vast reputation, and his
dignified and judicial manner, inspired a respect which manifestly
pervaded every part of the house. The crowd around the throne seemed
especially solicitous to observe his lordship when he rose. We could
not avoid contrasting the intellectual features of the old ex-chancellor
with the contracted expression of the occupant of the woolsack, and
wondering what the latter would be like at the age of eighty-four,
to which Lord Lyndhurst had arrived. The important event of Lord John
Russell’s resignation, announced by the Duke of Newcastle, prevented the
discussion of Lord Lyndhurst’s motion, and caused the house to break up
early.

On the next evening, Lord Aberdeen’s statement in the peers was almost
as eagerly looked for as Lord John Russell’s statement in the commons.
The earl declared that he hardly knew why the noble president of
the council retired from his colleagues, on the eve of a discussion
concerning events in connection with which he fully shared their
responsibility. The premier admitted that he had been aware that the
noble president of the council had been dissatisfied with the general
management of the war; that he had expressed that dissatisfaction, and
had made certain proposals concerning the occupation of the war office,
with which he (Lord Aberdeen) did not think it his duty to comply;
that he, and the government of which he was the head, would resist
Mr. Roebuck’s motion, which he considered a vote of censure upon the
ministry. The premier’s address was cold, stiff, haughty, and quietly
defiant, but did not appear to make the least impression upon the peers,
who were, like the rest of the public, burning with impatience to know
the terms and result of Lord John’s explanation in the commons. We
did not remain in the house of peers, being more anxious, like their
lordships, about what was announced to occur in the other house. Lord
John Russell made his famous statement. Perhaps no statement was ever
made in parliament which excited so profound an interest. Every nook in
the house was full, except a small portion of the ministerial gallery.
The most conspicuous persons were two Parsee merchants, dressed in a
showy oriental costume, who occupied the first bench in the Speaker’s
gallery, and who, the previous evening, were admitted behind the throne
in the lords. Lord John was nearly inaudible at first, his elocution
throughout the speech was inferior, and utterly unworthy of his great
name as a speaker. He was listened to with evident partiality, and every
period which told at all against the conduct of the war elicited cheers
from the opposition, and the ministerial benches were far from silent on
these occasions. After his lordship sat down, Lord Palmerston arose on
behalf of the government, amidst breathless expectations. His adroitness
was extraordinary, and his intellectual superiority to his notable
compeer obvious; but it was equally obvious that Lord John’s moral
influence was in the ascendant, and the latter part of Lord Palmerston’s
statement was heard with impatience, which extended to the galleries,
although the order of the house was more than once invaded by
expressions of approbation to the anti-ministerial remarks of Lord John.
It became evident from Lord Palmerston’s address, that his lordship
would be installed in the war-office, if the motion of Mr. Roebuck
failed. Mr. Roebuck did not speak with his usual energy, but although
illness incapacitated him, his voice rang out as clear as a bell, and
every tone told upon the whole house. His speech was devoid of that
acrimony which pervades so generally the matter and the manner of the
honourable member for Sheffield. The government seemed indisposed to
reply; but loud calls from all sides for Sidney Herbert, provoked the
right hon. secretary to one of his best elocutionary efforts. We were
certainly most unfavourably impressed with his deportment all through
the evening. There was a bitterness of expression in his countenance
while Lord John was speaking, and a sneer and a whisper to his
colleagues whenever Lord John made a good hit, which argued a
consciousness of error, and a bad spirit with it. But Mr. Layard utterly
demolished the case of Mr. Herbert, and with a gravity of purpose,
fulness of information, discreet distribution of subject, and logical
cogency, which mark that gentleman as one of the most rising men in the
commons, and in the country. The government were literally overwhelmed
with his speech. The impressions of the oldest observers of
parliamentary proceedings whom we met, declared they had never witnessed
such a moral defeat.

It may be readily believed that Lord John Russell’s speech prepared the
way for Mr. Roebuck’s motion. The “honourable and learned member” was
in bad health, but although unable to express all he had intended to lay
before the commons, he produced a decided impression upon the house. The
fact of being unable to continue his speech from weakness rather added
to the effect; so that Mr. Disraeli truly said that, were not the house
aware of the learned member’s illness, the abrupt termination of his
address on such a plea, and at such a moment, might appear an ingenious
and rhetorical artifice. In his argument, Mr. Roebuck charged the
government, the officials at home, and those in command abroad, with
incapacity, conceit, and indifference to the welfare of the soldiery.
When at last the house divided, the motion was supported by 305 members,
and opposed by only 148, leaving a majority of 157—one of the largest,
on a great public question involving the fate of a government, ever
known in the house of commons. The announcement was received with
exultant cheers from both sides of the house. The extinction of the
ministry was decided; the house and the country accepted the vote, not
merely as an expression of want of confidence politically, but as a
vote of censure morally and politically. Yet in this grave emergency the
house adjourned, in order to observe the anniversary of “King Charles
the Martyr!” Incredible as this may appear, while the country was in the
most imminent peril, such was the fact.

A cabinet council was called, and the ministry, of course, resolved to
resign. The queen and court were in great suspense and excitement, being
very unwilling to accept the resignation of the cabinet. They were
the prince’s friends and favourites, and her majesty therefore was
disinclined to their forfeiture of office, and was prepared for any
constitutional measure which would give back to them the possession
of place and power. When the noble earl at the head of the government
resigned the seals of office, he recommended her majesty to seek advice
from the Earl of Derby. This noble earl had made some of the best
speeches he had ever delivered during the war debates, and his views on
the subject showed superior information and superior judgment to what
the ministry, in their aggregate capacity, possessed in connection with
foreign politics and war. It was, however, eventually, Lord Palmerston,
to whom, after many intrigues and much public agitation, the task was
confided.

Lord Palmerston, after some difficulty, succeeded in forming a
government, which was in fact but a reconstruction of the old one. Lord
Aberdeen, the Duke of Newcastle, and Lord John Russell, were left out;
and the only accession was Lord Panmure, who was nominated secretary of
war. This nobleman was better known to the country, and perhaps to other
countries, as the Honourable Fox Maule. He had considerable experience
in ministerial matters, and was regarded both by statesmen and by the
public as an upright and amiable man. From 1846 to 1852 he served in
the Bussell administration as secretary at war: he afterwards served
as president of the board of control, until the breaking up of the
ministry. On Tuesday, the 8th of February, the new ministry was
completed, and was thus arranged:—

     First Lord of the Treasury........    Viscount Palmerston.

     Lord Chancellor ..................    Lord Cranworth.

     President of the Council..........    Earl Granville.

     Privy Seal........................    Duke of Argyle.

     Foreign Secretary  ...............    Earl of Clarendon.

     Home Secretary  ..................    Right Hon. S. Herbert.

     Colonial Secretary  ..............    Sir George Grey.

     Minister of War  .................    Lord Panmure.

     Chancellor or the Exchequer.......    Right Hon.W.E. Gladstone.

     First Lord of the Admiralty.......    Sir James Graham.

     Public Works .....................    Sir W. Molesworth.

     In the Cabinet, but without office    The Marquis of Lansdowne.

     President of the Board of Control     Sir Charles Wood.

On the 16th of February the house met for the transaction of business,
and very eager was the public ear for the words that should fall from
the lips of the new premier. He informed the house, with brevity and
clearness, of the circumstances which placed him in the situation he
then held; and bespoke in energetic, self-reliant, and courteous terms,
the confidence of the commons of England.

It was generally known that negotiations were about to be opened in
Vienna, with a view to a treaty of peace. Lord Palmerston took the
country, if not the house, by surprise in announcing that he had chosen
Lord John Russell as the representative of England at the conference
about to ensue. This gave public satisfaction, as Lord John Russell’s
recent conduct, and the general disclosure upon the breaking up of the
cabinet, showed that his lordship had been a very warlike member of it.*

     * Nolan’s “History of the War against Russia.”   London: J.
     S. Virtue

The cabinet of Lord Palmerston was not destined to remain long unbroken.
When the period arrived for appointing a committee of inquiry, in
virtue of Mr. Roebuck’s motion, it became evident that the ministry
was divided. The Peelites were in favour of an attempt to defeat
the appointment of a committee. Lord Palmerston was opposed to its
appointment also, but would not risk the overthrow of his power by any
attempt to thwart the wishes of the house. The Peelites resigned,
and the cabinet had to be reconstructed. On the 22nd of February the
secession was publicly announced.

Lord Palmerston obtained Sir Charles Wood—a man of inferior talents,
but superior moral weight—in place of Sir G. Graham. Sir G. Cornewall
Lewis became chancellor of the exchequer, who was much inferior to Mr.
Gladstone in that post, but a man of more direct and reliable opinions.
Mr. Vernon Smith was made president of the board of control. Lord John
Russell, who was (as before noticed) nominated to the Vienna conference,
accepted the colonial-office, which Sir George Grey occupied _ad
interim_, as well as the home-office, which he accepted _en permanence_.
The secession of those men from the cabinet, to whom our military
disasters were mainly attributable, was a gain to its moral influence,
and saved the premiership of Lord Palmerston from an extinction,
probably, as signal as that of his predecessor. In the month of March
the ministry was modified in its inferior offices in a way calculated
to improve its strength. Generally, throughout the united kingdom, it
inspired confidence and received support.

One of the last acts of the Aberdeen ministry was to establish an order
of military merit for bravery—the Victoria Cross.

Upon the resignation of the Aberdeen ministry, the court paid signal
attention to its members; and the fallen premier received the highest
badge of honour the queen could bestow—the Order of the Garter.
This excited loud murmurs throughout the country, and impaired public
confidence in the vigour of will possessed by the premier, when the will
of the court was expressed apart from the great and leading principles
of his policy.

The estimates for the service of 1855 were much discussed in the house,
and were generally considered far below the exigencies of the country.
The estimates for the army were £13,721,158; for the navy, £10,716,388;
for the transport service, £5,181,465; for the ordnance, £7,808,042. The
whole nearly equalling thirty-seven millions and a half sterling.

With the discussions of March, and the consolidations of the cabinet,
ended the parliamentary events, of the year most worthy of note;
although various discussions, full of interest and importance, arose
from time to time throughout the whole of the session. Those which were
most vital to the government arose out of the negotiations of Vienna,
where Lord John Russell appeared as the chief representative of England.
The sittings of this conference were held in March and April. Both Lord
John Russell and the French plenipotentiary agreed to terms which, as
they were ultimately rejected by the allied governments, need not be
referred to here.

The unsuccessful termination of the Vienna conferences produced a great
sensation in England and France, murmurs were heard in both countries
that their negotiators had laboured without results; and both the
English and French plenipotentiaries were compelled by public opinion to
retire from their offices in the cabinets of their respective countries.
Count Nesselrode addressed an artful note to the ministers and agents
of Russia in various states, the object of which was to represent the
allies as resisting all conciliatory offers on the part of Russia. The
tone and representations of the note were identical with the arguments
of Gortschakoff and Titoff at the conference. The French plenipotentiary
and foreign minister resigned his place in the imperial cabinet; the
English plenipotentiary and colonial minister retained office until the
cause of the French minister’s retirement became known; and his conduct
contrasted very favourably in English opinion to that of the English
minister. Earl Clarendon and Lord Palmerston held back from the British
parliament and public a correct knowledge of the facts, until it
transpired, through Parisian gossip, that the French, English, and
Austrian ministers were willing to accept peace on the condition of
Russia and the allies keeping an equal naval armament in the Black Sea.
The way in which Austria had hoodwinked the Western negotiators, and
played into the hands of Russia, became at last evident; and Lord John
Russell was forced to leave the English ministry. There were other
results of the conference, and these rapidly developed themselves. It
was no doubt a conviction on the part of the Russian government that its
duplicity throughout these negotiations, and its falsehood in accepting
as a basis the four points, had deprived it of all moral influence
in Europe, that led to the crafty and deceptive circular of Count
Nesselrode, already referred to, in which he sought to persuade the
world that Russia was—as some of the English peace lecturers frequently
represented—a most ill-used nation. If no other result than that of
unmasking Russia—even to the Peelites and their supporters—were
attendant upon those conferences, it was so much gained for the prospect
of a more united public opinion in England. But these negotiations tore
the mask from Austria; she was evidently not an ally of the Western
powers, but an accomplice of the foe; she dreaded Russia, but she was
still more afraid of France.

When the people of the united kingdom and their representatives in the
commons had time to review all these things, the outcry against Lord
John Russell was as great as it had been before against Lord Aberdeen.
The popular voice stopped the pens and silenced the tongues of the
diplomatists, and negotiations gave place to fierce and sanguinary war.

England, however, became disgusted with professional and ministerial
diplomatists, and denounced all negotiations with Russia until, by sword
and lance, rifle and cannon, the foe was humiliated.

There can be no question that the energy and force of the popular
sentiment—often right, though sometimes erroneous, and sometimes
obstinately and wilfully wrong—have occasionally interfered with the
success of negotiations. But this is one of the evils inseparable from
a free government. The French court, from the death of Louis XIV., was
anxious to pursue a pacific policy, to improve their marine, and to
pursue Colbert’s maxim, that a long war was not for the benefit of
France. But the democratic party, which had been formed before the death
of Louis XV., employed diplomatic agents at every court to upset and
overturn the pacific policy of that king’s ambassadors.*

     * Vide “la Politique de tous les Cabinets de L’Europe.”

This is one of the few disadvantages attendant upon constitutional
states in negotiation; but, _per contra_., such states also enjoy some
pre-eminent advantages. In such states foreign powers do not co-operate
with domestic factions, as they sometimes do in more absolute
monarchies.

Presence of mind, coolness, and firmness, tell oftener in negotiations
than mere talent and learning. The presence of mind of Augustus, who
was of doubtful valour, obtained an ascendancy over Marc Antony, a brave
soldier, but wanting in proper firmness.

Richelieu preferred firmness and patience in a negotiator to any other
qualities. Suppleness, no doubt, often supplies the place of patience,
and the man who can tack and veer was formerly not without his value;
but the time for using these small wares has now passed for ever. They
have been worn threadbare by a politician of our day, and are foul
in the nostrils of every civilized nation. In the middle ages, and
in Italian courts, such tricks may have been necessary, but they are
unsuitable to constitutional states. A pope of Rome is recorded to have
said of the Abbé Polignac:—“This young man always appears to be of my
opinion at first, but at the end of the conversation, I find I am of
his.” Such an “artful dodge” and dissembler would be disrelished now
by all pure and honest men. An attempt has been made by some French
writers to attribute the science of negotiation to Mazarin. But the
science existed before the time of the wily cardinal, or even of that
good King Dagobert who, according to the old rhyme, “_Mit sa culotte
à l’envers_;” and France, and other modern countries, as well as Egypt,
Greece, and Rome, had produced great negotiators.

On the 14th of August parliament was prorogued, and soon after the
ministry showed renewed activity in the work of diplomacy, without
any advantage to the nation. The policy of the prorogation was much
arraigned by the public; but the evening on which it took place tidings
arrived of the bombardment of Sweaborg, which drew away the public
attention to a real and brilliant, although partial, triumph.

[Illustration: 848.jpg BOMBARDMENT OF SWEABORG]




THE CONDUCT OF THE WAR—OPERATIONS IN THE CRIMEA AND BLACK SEA.

January opened upon the starving British army still more terribly
than the December of 1854 closed. The French also suffered, but their
superior military organization, commissariat, and care of the sick,
spared them many miseries which afflicted the whole of the British
lines. It was remarkable in the British army that very few officers
perished of cold, none of hunger, while their men fell in such numbers.
Very few officers died from sickness, unless such as fell victims to
cholera, which smote with impartial hand the poor private and his titled
chief. Various sick and wounded officers died in consequence of not
having been removed in sufficient time to the Bosphorus, or to such
other quarters as were not only possible, but convenient, had it
not been for the heartless and stupid routine by which the heads of
departments, at home and abroad, civil and military, were guided. It was
the more remarkable that so few officers died in the camp in proportion
to the men who perished, as the proportions were reversed in combat.
The facts were, that the officers in battle exposed themselves more
gallantly than the men, nobly, although, the latter fought and fell; but
in the lines, and at Balaklava, out upon the plain below the plateau,
and in the trenches, the officers had such comforts as were procurable
for money, and which were unattainable to the men. Stores sent to the
soldiers were plundered at Balaklava, and sold in the trenches by Turks,
Greeks, Tartars, and rogues of all nations who had followed the army.
Those who had money purchased, and fared comparatively well; the poorer
soldiers hungered and died. The medical regimental officers behaved
nobly; but, generally, they were unwilling to complain of any want of
stores and medicines, as they, by doing so, incurred the resentment
of the medical chiefs, and their promotion was suspended, or prevented
altogether. It became necessary at last to introduce the civil element
into the medical care of the army. Among the efforts put forth to this
end was the establishment of a civil hospital at Smyrna. The government
encouraged various medical men of eminence to abandon their professional
prospects in London and go to the East. These men were regarded
with jealousy by their brethren in the military service, and with
indifference and want of courtesy very frequently by military men in
high official positions, The government which, like preceding ministers,
had in its contracts for the public service obtained such unenviable
notoriety for breach of faith, signalized itself in an especial manner
in violating honour and duty with the medical civil officers. This was
especially seen in the requital of the officers attached to the hospital
at Smyrna. In “Nolan’s History of the War against Russia” there is
incorporated an account of the Smyrna hospital, by a very gifted and
learned man,* which is too long for quotation here, but which will
exemplify all that is here stated of an evil so great, and injustice so
flagitious.

     * Dr. Arthur Leared, Finsbury Place, South, and 12, Old
     Burlington Street, London.   Chap, xlviii., pp. 810, 811.

According to the imperial commissioner with the French army, the month
of January “was fertile in partial combats, and sudden but sanguinary
and obstinate struggles.” Mr. Woods, the correspondent of the London
_Morning Herald_, affirmed that the combats were useless skirmishes.

February in the Crimea was chiefly signalized by the battle of
Eupatoria, which, as shown in a previous section of this chapter,
issued in the signal defeat of the Russian army by Omar’ Pasha, and was
probably the cause of the czar’s death. The accession of Alexander II.
to the throne of the Russian empire, while it encouraged diplomatic
efforts for peace, led to renewed efforts for war, the young emperor
being anxious to show his people zeal for “the orthodox church,” and
reverence for the policy of his predecessor, whom Russia regarded as
a saint and a martyr. The Emperor Alexander resolved upon a desperate
effort to bring the war to an issue favourable to his empire by force
of arms, unless, through the instrumentality of Austria at the Vienna
conference, he could more cheaply conquer peace.

During the month of March, the allies became more active in the siege of
Sebastopol. Efforts were put forth of a sanitary nature, which improved
the health of the troops, and means of storage and transport were
greatly facilitated and enlarged. The soldiers rallied with better food
and more favourable weather.

The English generals displayed more activity, but did not inspire more
confidence in the troops. Sorties and combats continued. The Russian
forces in the Crimea were also refreshed and recruited, although the
efforts to accomplish these things drained the resources of the empire.

On the 20th of the month it was known that Prince Gortschakoff succeeded
Prince Menschikoff in command of the Russian Crimean forces. The latter
prince—the cause of so many troubles, a blind zealot, whose influence
over the Emperor Nicholas was most unhappy—was wounded and disabled.
The Russian admiral, Istomine, a very brave man, was killed in the
Mamelon Fort. Burial truces, combats, and sorties closed the month. In
one of these the pious and heroic Captain Vicars fell.

During April the allies made powerful efforts again to bombard the
place, The troops continued to suffer through March and the first week
of April, although their situation was meliorated from day to day;
the spirits of the men were recruited, and an ambition to signalize
themselves by some decisive feat of arms was evident among them.

During this period, the Black Sea fleet operated in watching the enemy’s
coasts in that sea, and in harassing him in his harbours in the Sea of
Azoff.

On the 8th of April Sebastopol was once more bombarded. The English
shells were, in a vast proportion, harmless from their bad manufacture.
The bombardment eventually failed; the industry, energy, and
perseverance of the Russians enabling them to repair the earthworks and
batteries as fast as their demolition by the allies seemed to advance.
April was signalized by such marked differences of opinion between the
French and English generals, that co-operation before Sebastopol was
difficult, and impossible elsewhere, although plans for operations at
other places were discussed.

May opened brightly and beautifully, as it generally does in the Crimea,
and all around the trampled plateau was decked with flowers, which
sprung up with wonderful rapidity in the most unlikely places,
displaying their grace even among the tents of the warriors. May
was attended by as unhappy differences of opinion between the allied
generals as was April, although the presence of General Pelissier in the
French army tended to promote good feeling and generous forbearance.

Much sickness was experienced in May by the troops of the English army,
and the extravagance, dirt, and confusion of the transport service
caused a heavier sick list than would otherwise have been reported.

The King of Sardinia having joined the alliance against Russia, several
thousand fine troops from that nation landed at Balaklava. They
were eventually quartered upon the Tchernaya, and, with some Turkish
detachments, and French divisions, held at bay the Russian army in
the field, and rendered all further operations of the enemy against
Balaklava impossible.

An expedition was sent against Kertch.

When May closed, the allies and the Russians confronted one another, in
formidable force, upon the opposite heights of the Tchernaya.

June was an eventful month before Sebastopol. It began with a third
bombardment of the gallant city, which, like previous ones, was a
failure—the means of the allies, vast as they were, being inadequate
to the undertaking. The French made a successful attack upon the White
Works and the Mamelon; and the British were equally successful in
attacks upon the Quarries, by which the part of the Russian lines which
they opposed were protected. The Russians made desperate, but eventually
abortive, attempts to retake all these positions.

The third bombardment having failed, the allies lost no time in bringing
fresh resources of attack and storm against the defences. A fourth
bombardment produced signal havoc and extensive dilapidation. On the
18th of the month, the allies attempted to take the place. A combined
assault of a most sanguinary nature was made and defeated. This defeat
was accompanied and followed by the loss of many distinguished officers
in the British army. On the 28th the English commander-in-chief died.
Illness and anxiety, with chagrin at his failure in conducting the siege
to the satisfaction of his country, brought on his death. Cholera was
the immediate agent in his removal. General Simpson succeeded to the
command of the British army, through the instrumentality of his patron
and countryman, Lord Panmure. He was still less competent than Lord
Raglan for so great a responsibility, and the people of the United
Kingdom were indignant at the jobbing and patronage to which the
interests of the country were sacrificed. General Simpson while he
remained in command was in every respect feeble, and a mere cipher in
the hands of the French general. Lord Raglan, by his reserve, dignity of
manner, and high rank, preserved influence and respect notwithstanding
his inactivity and dulness; but General Simpson possessed no qualities
that could set off or redeem his utter incompetency, unless, perhaps,
his modesty, and the absence of all self-seeking about him. He urged
upon his government that he was unequal to so great an appointment, but
Lord Panmure insisted in thrusting the honour upon him.

General Simpson, on his assumption of command, ordered the siege to
be prosecuted without intermission, in the hope of giving a fresh and
successful assault. The month of July and part of August witnessed the
progress of events for the grand and final struggle, but before it could
take place, incidents apart from the siege excited general attention in
Europe. Lord Raglan had been very anxious for operations against Kertch,
and ordered a second expedition against it, which was successful, and
was a means of greatly annoying, distracting, and injuring the Russians.

After the failure of the assault on the 18th of June, the opposing hosts
on the Tchernaya assumed gradually a more menacing attitude, so that
from the middle of July a battle was daily and even hourly expected.
It was the interest of the Russians to strike the first blow, and the
allies prepared to ward it off, and, if possible, deal in return a
more deadly stroke. The great trial of strength on the banks and steep
acclivities of “the Black River” was destined to occur in August. On the
16th, the Russians attacked the whole line of the French and Sardinian
posts, and, after a long and sanguinary battle, were defeated. This
decisive repulse of the Russian army in the field, left the allies more
at liberty to prosecute to perfection the works necessary to secure a
successful assault. Before that event occurred the British experienced
many serious losses; a surprising number of regimental officers fell in
conflict or died. The disgraceful state of the English transports caused
many deaths. The same inaptness and incompetency for general management
characterized the English chiefs as at the very beginning of the siege.
The British army experienced a serious injury in the retirement of
Lieutenant-general Sir Richard England. He had probably endured more
fatigue, and worked on with more patience, perseverance, and continuity
of action than any officer in the British army. One by one the English
chiefs had fallen away by death, or wounds, or sickness, General
England, with frame of iron and indomitable will, still bearing up,
although sharing cold, watchings, labours, and privations with his
soldiers in a way characteristic of his generous nature and military
temper. He was perhaps the least ostentatious soldier in either army. He
never put himself forward prominently, but was always ready to perform
the most arduous task committed to him with scrupulous precision, and
quiet and indomitable resolution. Had he not offended the agents of
the press by his resolution of not allowing any reporters within his
division—under the conviction, probably erroneous, that the reports
which found their way into the English papers, gave information to the
enemy injurious to the service—he would have had many a gallant deed,
and his stern uncompromising sense of duty, emblazoned to the world. His
health at last suffered so severely, that he was obliged to return home,
shortly before the grand conquest was achieved.

September opened with the immediate preliminaries of the grand struggle.
The final bombardment of the strong city began. The number of guns
with which the allies opened the bombardment was 803. On the old French
attack there were 332 pieces; on the French Inkerman attack, 267 pieces:
making a total in the two separate French attacks of 599 pieces of
ordnance.

The English had 204 pieces, consisting of 91 mortars, and 113 guns.

The bombardment began upon the 5th,—the heaviest ever known in the
history of sieges. Terrible mischief was effected by the constant
discharge of so many engines of destruction; and the alarm and distress
of the inhabitants and garrison could be witnessed from the lines of the
besiegers. The following extract from the author’s “History of the
War against Russia,” describes with brevity and accuracy the final
bombardment.

When the sun set, the shells, rockets, and other fiery missives from the
besieging lines, sped like flights of meteors over the enemy’s works,
and searched the recesses of the city. Throughout the night of the 5th a
fire of musketry had been directed against the faces of the works to
be assailed; but on that of the 6th, this was more sustained and heavy.
During the 6th, the enemy made a comparatively feeble resistance. On
the early morning of the 7th, the bombardment gave place to a cannonade,
which was as terrible as if opening for the first time., The enemy
opened a galling fire from their Inkerman batteries across the harbour
upon the French right, sweeping the batteries of the latter, slaying
many, and damaging the works. A strong wind blew the smoke from the
town, accompanied by clouds of dust, into the faces of the besiegers,
impeding their aim, and rendering it difficult for them to observe the
effect of their shot.

At half-past three a fine two-decker in the harbour was set on fire, and
continued to burn through the remainder of the day and all night, with
a flame exceeding in intensity and volume that of previous ships. A fire
also broke suddenly forth in the rear of the Great Redan. Late in the
evening another broke out in the town over the Woronzoff Road, and
another at the head of the dock-yard. The combined effect of all these
conflagrations was terrible beyond description, associated as they were
with the deafening roar of at least 1000 pieces of cannon, for as many
were constantly engaged, notwithstanding that the number of the enemy’s
guns silenced was very great. When daylight died the cannonade was, as
before, succeeded by a bombardment, with all its fierce concomitants.
The Russians showed throughout the night a constant apprehension
of assault, for they threw showers of vertical grape-shot; and
notwithstanding the glare of the flames from the burning ships, and
the fires in the city, they lighted up their works with fire-ball and
carcasses. They repeatedly threw bouquets into the trenches of the
French. Thus, until the morning of the 8th, shells and rockets fell in
fiery deluge upon Sebastopol, and the roll of the musketry against the
faces of the chief defences never ceased. On the morning of the 8th
the cannonade began with the day, and was delivered more rapidly and
fiercely than before. Meanwhile preparations were made for the assault.

The assault on the English side was unsuccessful; the same bad
generalship which marred the actions of the English so frequently
throughout the war, threw its fatal influence over their efforts on the
terrible day of the 8th of September. The French would also have failed,
in all probability, had they not effected a surprise, by suddenly
seizing the Malakoff, the key of the defence, at a moment when the
Russians felt secure that no attack would be made. The French with great
courage and adroitness secured the advantage gained, and that advantage
was decisive of the contest. The Russians, after a vain struggle,
retreated from Southern Sebastopol, having lost a multitude of slain,
and leaving vast spoil in the hands of the captors.

The tidings of this result was spread by the electric wire and by
the press until all Europe caught the exultation and rejoiced
everywhere—except in the courts of Naples and Athens, and among the
members of the Greek church, who, wherever they were scattered, showed
the utmost sympathy for Russian tyranny and bigotry.

During September, the allies gathered the spoils of war from the
conquered city. October and November afforded fine weather for military
operations, but nothing of importance was done by the allied commanders
from the basis of operations before Sebastopol; while the Russians still
lay in strength beyond the Tchernaya, and held Northern Sebastopol in
greater strength than ever.

General Simpson resigned his command, in obedience to the popular
opinion at home; and General Codrington, a general of less than two
years standing, assumed the important post. Discord among the allied
commanders, and intrigues in the French foreign-office and the imperial
court of France, paralyzed the vigorous purposes of the English cabinet.
The French emperor wished to conciliate his brother autocrat of Russia,
and was unwilling to strike a blow which in proportion as it humbled
Russia exalted England. A fear lest any glory or influence in the East
should accrue to England swayed the French ministry. Napoleon had other
designs which England was less likely to favour than was Alexander II.,
and the policy adopted was to gain an ally in the enemy which England
aided him to subdue.

A second winter encampment before Sebastopol was necessary. The dreary
plateau was once more the abode of the weary and suffering soldiers
during the inclement period which terminated the year in the Crimea.
The British soldiers were, however, cheered by increased numbers and
efficiency, and by the care and comfort which the indignant patriotism
of the British people compelled the government to bestow upon its noble
army.

During the inactive of the allied armies before Sebastopol, and in the
neighbourhood of the Tchernaya, certain expeditions were undertaken,
which were important. An expedition was ordered against certain strong
places on the European shores of the Black Sea. The reduction of
Kinburn, a strong naval arsenal and place for ship-building, was
effected; and Ockzakoff, an important place from which the approaches to
Kinburn could be well defended, was totally destroyed.

At Eupatoria the Russians, notwithstanding the continual drain upon
their resources at Sebastopol, harassed the garrison. Cavalry skirmishes
were frequent, and rather sanguinary. The allies maintained their
position, and constantly threatened the enemy’s communications.




OPERATIONS IN THE SEA OF AZOFF.

During the autumn and winter the allies conducted extensive and
effective operations in the Sea of Azoff. All around its coasts strong
places were bombarded and stormed. The granaries from which the Russian
armies were fed were consumed. The fishing establishments which were on
a great scale, and by which also the Russian armies received support,
were wasted; and the craft which traversed that sea, as well as the
armed vessels by which they had been protected, were all captured or
swept away.




OPERATIONS IN ASIA MINOR.

On a previous page the arrival of Colonel Williams as her majesty’s
commissioner, and his efforts to restore order in the Turkish armies,
and to correct the rapacity and disorder of its chiefs, were noticed.
That skilful and gallant officer, now so well known as Major-general
Sir Fenwick Williams, Bart, of Kars, late M.P. for Calne, and Governor
of Woolwich, and while these pages are going to press,
commander-in-chief of the forces in Canada, put forth almost superhuman
efforts to save Asia Minor from the Russians during the summer and
autumn of 1855. In consequence of the wretched conduct of the Turkish
pashas, and the quarrels of the European officers in the Turkish
service, especially the Poles, Germans, and Hungarians, Colonel, or as
we shall now call him General, Williams shut himself up in Kars. The
Turkish pashas immediately conspired together to neglect him, to refuse
succours military or material, and by leaving Kars to fall into the
hands of the Russians, bring discredit upon the foreign general, and
deter the sultan from committing commands or positions of authority
over the faithful to infidel generals. The limits of this history do
not allow of the detail of the defence of Kars. It is one of the most
remarkable and romantic in history. So extraordinary was the capacity
of General Williams that he inspired confidence in the minds of the
abject Turks, and ensured order among the wild and predatory
auxiliaries who came to the assistance of his garrison. His exceeding
sweetness of temper, urbanity of manner, and ease and persuasiveness of
address, enabled General Williams to secure the support of the people
of Kars, the wild Lazi, and his own little band of noble British
officers. He defended Kars without any European troops whatever against
the best general in the Russian service, and one of the most noble and
generous as well as her officers, Mouravieff. The Russians were
repulsed again and again by the townspeople and their rude and
undisciplined assistants from the country. The army of Mouravieff was
punished with appalling slaughter, and had food been sent to the
garrison, which the Turkish pashas could have effected, General
Williams would not only have saved Kars, but have driven the Russians
back upon the line of the Caucasus. Famine, however, conquered the
heroic chief and his devoted followers. The surrender of Kars became
necessary, and the famished garrison and its adored chief went forth
prisoners to the Russian camp. Severely as the besiegers had suffered,
they used language of unbounded admiration for the skill and gallantly
of General Williams and his officers, and for the devotion, endurance,
and courage of their followers.

While yet the struggle was going on in Kars, Omar Pasha, at the head
of a Turkish army, was dispatched to the northern shores of the Asiatic
coast of the Black Sea to create a diversion, and cause the siege of
Kars to be raised. In this undertaking Omar was not sincere. He, like
the other pashas, was jealous of Williams, and wished Kars to fall. Omar
landed, lost time wherever he could on any pretence make a stay, beat
his enemy to prove his own generalship, and took care to reap none of
the fruits of victory lest Kars should be saved. The skilful renegade
shared with the old Turkish muchirs, feriks, and pashas, all the
corruption of those classes, and all their hatred to foreigners, even
although indispensable allies. Omar had been offended by the insulting
contempt of Lord Raglan, and the stupid apathy of General Simpson; the
French commanders had, from motives of separate policy, alienated him,
so that he led an army into Asia rather to accomplish purposes of his
own than to relieve Kars. The conquests of Omar in the direction of the
Ingour were rapid, signal, and brilliant. He, however, was obliged
to retreat, from the severity of the season exposing his army to the
bitterest sufferings and great loss of life.

The foregoing pages give as complete a view of the actions of the allies
in the waters and on the shores of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azoff,
as the space allotted to the account in this History can possibly allow.




OPERATIONS OF THE ALLIES IN THE BALTIC.

While war was raging on the eastern side of the Russian and Turkish
empires, the western waters and shores of Russia were also the scenes of
sanguinary contests. The vast fleet which, under the command of
Admiral Dundas, proceeded rather too late in the spring to the Baltic,
accomplished some important enterprises. The troops and stations of the
Russians on the shores of Finland were shelled. Landing-parties ascended
the creeks and rivers, and burned great quantities of naval stores, and
destroyed or captured numerous small vessels, military or commercial.
Sweaborg was bombarded, and a large portion of the fortifications
destroyed, and many of their defenders slain. Cronstadt was approached
as in the previous year; but was pronounced to be impregnable to the
means at the disposal of the allies, vast as they were. The want of
gun-boats and vessels of light draught was the chief ingredient in the
elements of discomfiture which affected the allies. Throughout the year
the allies hemmed in the Russian ships in their unassailable harbours
of refuge, or as at Sweaborg, destroyed them by the fire of their
gun-boats.




OPERATIONS IN THE WHITE SEA.

These were similar to what took place in the Baltic. Inaccessible
harbours defied the allied fleets. Want of vessels of small draught
rendered pursuit impossible when Russian ships made the sinuosities of
the coast, and shallow rivers, available for retreat. Still great havoc
was effected, and the loss of property sustained by the Russians was
very severe. Both in the Baltic and White Seas the allies arrived too
late in the season, and left too early.




OPERATIONS IN THE PACIFIC, AND AGAINST THE RUSSIAN SETTLEMENTS IN
KAMTSCHATKA.

As in the previous year, the Russians showed superior foresight,
activity, and intelligence to the allied naval forces in the Pacific.
In vain the powerful squadrons of France and England pursued their enemy
hither and thither; little was accomplished—incapacity and tardiness
marred all enterprise. The allies, however, inflicted a heavy
chastisement upon the settlement of Petropaulovski, but more by causing
the Russians themselves to accomplish the work of destruction than
by inflicting it through the agency of the allied arms. The Russians,
unable to cope with the allies, sought safety in flight, both by land
and sea; but always effected their retreat with so much courage,
deliberation, and yet promptitude, as to leave no great renown to their
foes. Everywhere, on every sea and shore, England and France, on
the whole, triumphed; and the close of 1855 saw Russia beaten and
humiliated, but still great in strength and wanton in defiance.




COLONIAL AFFAIRS.

Little occurred in the colonial history of 1855 suitable to a general
work such as the present. There was, however, one sphere of English
influence where opinions and feelings were working, and events were
preparing the way for great results—that sphere was India.




INDIA.

During the whole of the year 1855, General Outram, as the British
political agent at Lucknow, was engaged in disputes with the King
of Oude. According to instructions from Lord Dalhousie, the
governor-general, demands were made which the king and his people
resisted. General Outram acted with all the humanity and courtesy which
his stern instructions allowed. Lord Dalhousie was determined to annex
the rich and fertile kingdom. The British cabinet, acting through the
board of control, encouraged him. The author of these pages knows that
the directors of the East India Company generally disapproved of the
annexation, and some of them foresaw the consequences. The act of
parliament of 1853, which came into operation in 1854, left the company
so little power, that there was no use in its intelligent members
opposing the caprice and aggrandizement of the board of control. At all
events, the directors offered no open opposition, and Lord Dalhousie
was left to his own unfettered judgment to carry out his scheme. At the
close of 1855, General Outram was ordered to assemble a large military
force at Cawnpore, and to enter into negotiations with the Oude
government, “for the purposes mentioned in the despatch of the
honourable court.” On the 30th of January, 1856, General Outram summoned
the prime-minister of Oude to the residency at Lucknow, to inform him
of the decision of the governor-general. On the 1st of February the king
addressed “the Resident,” protesting in mild but dignified language
against the subversion of his rightful authority. The resident declined
all discussion, informing his majesty that the determination of his
government was inflexible. He gave the king three days to decide. The
army and people of Oude were as one man in the desire to raise the
standard of resistance; and the sepoys of the Bengal army, being soon
made acquainted with the danger to the independence of Oude, their
native territory, heartily, but secretly, sympathized with its king and
people. His majesty did not dare, however, to encounter the superior
power of the British; he disarmed his troops, and dismounted his guns.
On the 4th of February, General Outram demanded that the king should
sign a declaration that his “infraction of the essential engagements of
the previous treaties had been continued and notorious.” His majesty,
giving way to vehement grief and indignation, refused to sign this
condemnation of himself, and expressed his determination to lay a
memorial of his wrongs at the feet of the Queen of Great Britain. In
1858, he, by his agents, endeavoured to obtain from her majesty redress
of the grievances of which he complained. The king also refused to
sign a new treaty, abrogating that of 1801, submitted to him by General
Outram. On the 7th of February, the general issued a proclamation,
declaring that “the British government had assumed to itself the
exclusive and permanent administration of the territories of Oude.” From
that moment the soldiery and people of the kingdom were resolved to take
the first opportunity of reasserting the independence of their country,
and taking vengeance upon those whom they considered its oppressors.
General Outram compelled many nobles _to give bail_ for their good
behaviour, and many were placed under surveillance. General Outram has
been much blamed for the part he took, but he merely performed his duty
as the governor-general’s agent. He was taken into his excellency’s
counsels no farther than to evoke his opinion on the _modus operandi_ by
which the orders of Government-house might best be carried out. General
Outram had no responsibility as to the policy of the transaction.

In the above relation of the transactions in India, events are
anticipated for unity of subject, as in 1855 the orders went forth which
annexed Oude, and nearly lost India in 1857.




CHAPTER LXVIII.

{VICTORIA. 1856}

     Conclusion of the Russian War..... General Foreign
     Relations..... Correspondence of the English Foreign
     Minister with the Sardinian Plenipotentiaries to the Paris
     Conference..... Relations with Naples..... British Policy
     in the  East..... Treaty of Commerce and Friendship with
     Siam..... War with Persia..... War with China..... Disputes
     with the United States of America..... India.....
     Ireland..... Financial and Commercial Condition of the
     Country..... Parliamentary Proceedings.




CONCLUSION OF THE RUSSIAN WAR.

{A.D. 1856}

It will aid the consecutive narrative of events to relate the conclusion
of the Russian war, and the home events connected with it, in the
opening sections of this chapter.

The early winter months of 1856 were spent inactively by the opposing
armies, and negotiations for peace were opened, chiefly through the
instrumentality of Austria, backed by Prussia. France, however, it was
suspected in England, had made overtures to Russia privately, the
French emperor having maintained all through the struggle a separate and
selfish policy while uniting with England to destroy the power of Russia
in the Black Sea. It was to the interest of France to destroy Muscovite
influence in the neighbourhood of the Mediterranean, and to limit the
preponderating influence of the Russo-Greek church in Turkey. It was the
especial interest of the emperor to compel the czar to recognise him as
a great European sovereign, the _de facto_ and _de jure_ sovereign of
the French, although not of the line of its legitimate kings. These
objects were partly attained, and were obviously attainable as far as
France or the emperor had any interest in prosecuting them. Once assured
of this, his imperial majesty and his political coadjutors changed
their tone (they could scarcely be said to change their policy) towards
England. It was declared in France that England had sinister designs in
keeping up hostilities; that she was desirous to use the power of France
to lessen Russian power in Asia in the interest of the Anglo-Indian
dominions. The question, too, was raised in France, how far it was for
the advantage of that country to extirpate the naval power of Russia,
which might be employed, possibly, in resisting the dominant navy of
England. During the war, the French navy performed an inglorious
part. It fought well when brought into action, but its operations were
entirely subsidiary to those of England. France was jealous of this
evident superiority, and from the fall of Sebastopol toiled incessantly
to counteract and rival the naval power of England. Everything
Russian was popular in France after the capture of southern
Sebastopol—everything English was decried. The most mendacious
statements, under official authority, were put forth, exaggerating the
losses of the English navy and army, and lessening the computation of
the losses of Russia and France. The French official journals described
the loss of the Russian army at a quarter of a million of men. Lord
Panmure, in his place in the British parliament, estimated it at half a
million. His lordship, as war minister, was acquainted with the facts
as regarded all the armies in the field, and no one ever impeached his
truthfulness and moderation. During the two years and a quarter that the
Crimean campaign lasted, out of an army, of which the average strength
was 34,500, 20,800 died from all causes; but of these deaths only 5,000
occurred in action, or from wounds inflicted by the enemy. Two-thirds of
the whole mortality arose from other causes more destructive than shot,
bullet, or bayonet. An equal number of men of the same ages would,
according to the average death-rate of the more healthy districts of
England, have suffered a loss of only 610, in lieu of 20,000. While
every credit is given to the war secretary for moderation and truth, his
statistics are open to some strictures. They were thus commented upon by
the author of this History, in his “History of the War against Russia.”*

     * Vol. ii. p. 745.

“Lord Panmure’s statement referred to the army, but it did not include
soldiers on board ship, nor the naval brigade, nor the marines. His
lordship’s account does not agree with a corrected calculation from the
various reports made from time to time. These bring up the computation
to a figure higher by several thousands. This may be accounted for by
several circumstances. His lordship’s lists excluded the commissary
and hospital departments, also the army works and land-transport corps.
Besides, his computations only begin with the encounter of the Bulganak,
previous to which the sufferings of the soldiers in landing at Old Fort
were so great, that on the short march to the bivouac of the Bulganak
many men dropped out from cholera, dysentery, thirst, or weakness, who
never rejoined their corps; and some of whom, it is to be feared, from
the want of transport and ambulances, perished unaided where they fell.
Forty thousand would be nearer the total loss than 23,000.”

Small as was the part taken by the navy of France in the war, her losses
were great. The _Moniteur de la Flotte_ published the returns of
the casualties experienced by the French imperial navy during the
expeditions to the Crimea, the Baltic, and Petropaulovski, in 1854,
1855, and 1856. The ships’ crews lost 11 officers and 144 seamen killed
by the enemy’s fire, and 39 officers and 3,237 men who died of their
wounds or from sickness—in all 50 officers and 3,381 men; the naval
artillery corps had 2 officers and 31 non-commissioned officers and
soldiers killed, and 3 officers and 231 non-commissioned officers who
died of their wounds or from sickness—in all 5 officers and 262 men,
and the marine infantry, 9 officers and 73 non-commissioned officers and
men killed, and 12 officers and 1,057 non-commissioned officers and men
who died of their wounds or from sickness—in all 21 officers and 1,130
men. Total—270 killed and 4,579 dead; in all 4,819. According to
Marshal Vaillant, the French minister of war, France sent to the east
309,628 men, 41,974 horses, and 597,686 tons of stores; and brought back
227,125 men, 9.000 horses, and 126,880 tons of stores.

The result of the negotiations brought about by the chief German powers,
and ardently desired by France, was a treaty of peace on the 30th of
March, 1856. It was ratified on the 27th of April. Six months was fixed
for the evacuation of Russian territories by the allies. The French army
commenced its embarkation more than a fortnight before the ratification,
as a sort of overt proof of the good will of the French emperor to his
new ally and recent enemy. In less than three months, on the 5th of
July, the whole of the French army had abandoned the soil of Russia,
On the 8th of August the last French soldier left Constantinople on
the homeward voyage. The British army was more easily removed from its
smaller number and its greater transport power.

On the 23rd of April one of the grandest sights ever witnessed from the
shores of England was presented at Portsmouth. Never were the waters
of the Solent so crowded with “craft of all dimensions” as on that
day. Notwithstanding the shameful failures of the English navy in the
Pacific, and the dilatory proceedings of the Admiralty, which rendered
the blockades in the White Sea so much less effective than they ought
to have been—although the massacre of Sinope did take place, and “Old
Charley” nursed his gout or drank his grog, when he ought to have
been reconnoitering Sweaborg—still the Russian navy of the Euxine had
perished rather than meet Dundas; the stores, granaries, and fisheries,
were swept from the coasts of the Sea of Azoff; and not a ship of the
enemy dare put to sea for two years in the Baltic. After all, Britannia
did “rule the waves,” and was more able to rule them than ever. The
fleet was assembled for her majesty’s personal review, and consisted
of 240 steam vessels, including gun-boats, mortar-boats, and floating
batteries. There were three vessels of 100 guns each, six of 91, an
equal number of 80 guns, and vessels of every order; frigates, brigs,
sloops, &c, had their proportionate numbers. The steam-power equalled
that of 31,000 horses, and 3,000 guns were carried. The fleet, covering
a space of twelve miles, was manned by 30,000 sailors and marines.
On the 29th of April peace was proclaimed. The author of this work
witnessed the proclamation in several parts of the metropolis, but the
crowds were not such as the great city usually sent forth on occasions
of magnitude. The fact was, England did not consider that the war had
been prosecuted to its legitimate consequences, and felt that the French
emperor had not pursued a direct and fair policy.

The return of the British troops was hailed with enthusiasm, and a
review of a portion of them—especially the guards—by her majesty in
Hyde Park, elicited unbounded enthusiasm from all classes of the people.
Among the most exciting home incidents connected with the war was the
distribution by her majesty, in Hyde Park, of the Victoria Cross—the
badge of a new order of merit, bestowed for valour upon a number of
gallant recipients.

Peace had scarcely been proclaimed when the country was irritated by
tidings that Russia was endeavouring to evade its stipulations, and that
France and Austria were playing into her hands. One of the terms of the
treaty was that the Russian frontier should recede from the Danube. That
crafty power had taken advantage of an erroneous French map, introduced
by the French diplomatists at the conference, to deceive the allies
as to the boundary agreed upon. After much negotiation and dispute,
conducted as to England and Turkey on the one side and Russia on the
other with intense acrimony, Russia was obliged to conform to the
demands of the allies. Another stipulation of the treaty was the free
navigation of the Danube. Russia endeavoured to seize upon the Isle of
Serpents, off the Sulina mouth of the delta of that river. The island
was a portion of the dominions of the sultan; an English naval officer
secured the possession of it to the Turkish sovereign. France rendered
little assistance to England in these disputes, and displayed sympathy
with Russia and jealousy of British influence. The neutrality of the
Black Sea, and the destruction of all naval arsenals on its Russian
shores, or rivers communicating with its shores, was also a stipulation
of the treaty which Russia evaded. Here also England by her firm
diplomacy, almost unaided by France, constrained Russia to conform to
the terms of the peace. Another article of the treaty referred to the
emancipation of the sultan’s Christian subjects from all disabilities
on account of their religion. This the sultan and the orthodox Turks
evaded, and have continued to evade to the present time, although
ostentatious proclamations in the spirit of the treaty were put forth
by the sultan’s government, and engagements the most determinate were
subscribed. The general conduct of the Christians of the empire was
disloyal and dishonest; they sought, like the Russians and Turks,
to obtain all the advantages of the treaty, and fulfil none of its
obligations. The remaining among the articles of the treaty of chief
importance regulated the liberties, and relations to the sultan, of
the provinces of Moldavia and Wallachia. Here also difficulties arose,
fomented by the united policy of the French and Russian governments, who
intrigued—with the Wallachs especially—to insist on acting in a manner
hostile to the constitution assigned by the treaty for their government.
These disputes continued for years after the termination of the war.
England resisted the intrigues which France and Russia set on foot
inimical to the interests of the sultan, but her diplomacy and influence
were not so successful as in reference to the other terms of the treaty.
The great powers played a part that was not great, after the peace.




GENERAL CONDITION OF THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.

_Sardinia_.—The gallant little kingdom of Sardinia had rendered
important aid in the war, and at its conclusion urged upon the
representatives of the great powers assembled in conference in Paris the
importance of preventing an outbreak in Italy, by compelling Austria and
the other despots of Italy to govern with justice and observe treaties.
On March the 27th, 1856, the plenipotentiaries of Sardinia addressed a
_note verbale_ to the Earl of Clarendon, her majesty’s foreign minister,
urging upon England the consideration of the dangerous state of Italy,
and the complications to which it would give rise. Sardinia especially
protested against the occupation of the Roman states by foreign
troops—those of Austria and France—thus suppressing all free
expression of action and opinion by the people of these states.

On April the 16th the plenipotentiaries of the Sardinian king, then
resident at Paris, addressed a voluminous memorandum to Lord Clarendon,
entering at large into the affairs of Italy, portraying the danger to
Sardinia from Austrian aggression, and showing that it was the duty
and interest of England to insist upon the termination of the state of
things which existed.

On the 26th of May the Earl of Clarendon addressed a despatch to Sir
James Hudson, the English minister at the court of Turin. This despatch
was brief, and contained nevertheless a very full exposition of the
righteous and sympathising policy of England towards the people of
Italy. This despatch obtained much significance from the events which
followed. Lord Clarendon’s prediction was but too truly verified,—a
few years witnessed the complications foretold,—the peace of Europe was
disturbed, and the foreign occupation of Italy was at once the cause of
the war and the theatre of its devastations.

The brevity of Lord Clarendon’s despatch to Sir James Hudson allows of
its insertion:—

“_Foreign Office, May 26_, 1856.

“Sir,—I herewith inclose the copy of a note which was addressed to me
when at Paris by the plenipotentiaries of Sardinia.

“The verbal communications which I frequently had the pleasure of
holding with Count Cavour, both before and subsequently to the receipt
of this note, can have left no doubt upon the mind of his excellency
that her majesty’s government take a deep and sincere interest in
the affairs of Italy, and are desirous of doing everything which can
properly be done by them with a view to ameliorate the condition of the
Italian people.

“No fresh assurances could add weight to those already given to Count
Cavour, and I did not, therefore, think it necessary to send an answer
in writing to the note of the Sardinian plenipotentiaries; but as it
has come to the knowledge of her majesty’s government that it would
be agreeable to the Sardinian government to receive one, they cannot
hesitate to declare their opinion that the occupation of the Papal
territory by foreign troops constitutes an irregular state of things,
which disturbs the equilibrium, and may endanger the peace of Europe;
and that, by indirectly affording sanction to misgovernment, it promotes
discontent and a tendency to revolution among the people.

“Her majesty’s government are aware that as this state of things has
now, unfortunately, for some years been established, it may be possible
that it could not suddenly be brought to a close without some danger to
public order, and the risk of producing events that all would deplore;
but her majesty’s government are convinced that the evacuation of the
Papal territory may be rendered safe at an early period by a policy of
wisdom and justice, and they entertain a hope that the measures agreed
upon by the governments of France and Austria will lead to a gradual
withdrawal of their respective forces, and to bettering the condition of
the subjects of the Pope.

“You will read and give a copy of this despatch to Count Cavour.

“I am, &c,

“[Signed] Clarendon.”


_Naples_.—The state of Naples was at this time appalling, the king was
the most unruly man in his kingdom. Oppressions the most barbarous were
wrought by his sanguinary and faithless hand. The governments of France
and England advised, remonstrated, protested in vain. His majesty
adopted the principle of doing what he pleased with his own, to the ruin
of his kingdom, the sufferings of his people, and the disgrace of his
reign. Various English subjects were injured, but no effectual measures
were taken by either England or France to put a stop to the insult
and defiance they received. Austria professed to offer the Neapolitan
monarch advice in the interests of moderation and good government—it
was even alleged that Russia did the same; but his majesty was deaf to
all counsel, and expressed his determination to rule absolutely,
and deal with his people as he pleased, in spite of the threatened
interposition of foreign powers.




BRITISH POLICY IN ASIA.

_Siam_.—The British government used all its influence to cultivate
friendly relations with all the Asiatic governments, in the hope that
a more extended and peaceful intercourse might spring up between these
nations and the British empire. The most decisive results of such
negotiations were seen at Siam and Persia. In the former country
peace and friendship were confirmed; in the latter, war closed a vexed
correspondence, which England conducted with the sincerest desire to
secure justice and amity. A treaty of friendship and commerce was signed
at Bangkok, May 13, 1856, between her Britannic majesty and the King of
Siam. A supplementary agreement was afterwards signed. Dr. Bowring was
the British plenipotentiary. His excellency’s account of the embassy
and the accomplishment of its purpose has been published, and opens up
interesting and instructive views of the people of that region.




THE PERSIAN WAR.

The foundation of this quarrel was laid during the war with Russia.
That crafty and active government sought to create a diversion against
England by causing Persia to make the occasion available for advancing
upon Herat, and pushing her designs upon Affghanistan. The intrigues of
Russia developed themselves too slowly for her purpose, and 1856 arrived
before the war broke out. During the year the temper and spirit of the
Persian court became intensely irritable towards, the English ambassador
and his suite. A circumstance arose which brought this out painfully. On
the 15th of June, 1854, Mr. Thomson, the English minister, wrote to Lord
Clarendon, then minister for foreign affairs, informing him that he had
chosen one Meerza Hashem Khan as the Persian secretary to the British
mission. This person was courtly, learned, and in every way suitable to
the office assigned to him. Lord Clarendon confirmed the appointment.
The Persian court immediately persecuted the favourite of the English
mission. The Hon. C. A. Murray succeeded Mr. Thomson, and he also
favoured Meerza Hashem. The Persian court continued its persecution,
and finally seized and imprisoned the khan’s wife. Mr. Murray demanded
satisfaction for this outrage upon the staff of the British mission, and
the release of the lady. His demands were treated with disdain, and
Mr. Murray felt bound to maintain the dignity of the government he
represented by striking his flag on the 20th of November, 1855. The
Persian prime-minister put a report into circulation that both Mr.
Murray and his predecessor had intrigues with the khan’s wife, and
therefore employed him in the embassy. The Persian premier at last
made the allegation to Mr. Murray himself, in a despatch. On the 5th of
December, after having endured many insults, he left Teheran.

In July, 1856, Lord Clarendon caused the ultimatum of his government to
be delivered to the Persian _charge d’affaires_ at Constantinople. It
was to the following effect:—The sadr azim (prime-minister) to write
in the shah’s name a letter to Mr. Murray, expressing his regret at
having uttered and given currency to the offensive imputation upon the
honour of her majesty’s minister, requesting to withdraw his own letter
of the 19th of November, and the two letters of the minister for
foreign affairs of the 26th of November. A copy of this apology to be
communicated officially to each of the foreign missions at Teheran,
and the substance of it to be made public in that capital. The original
letter to be conveyed to Mr. Murray, at Bagdad, by the hands of some
high Persian officer, and to be accompanied by an invitation to Mr.
Murray, in the shah’s name, to return with the mission to Teheran, on
his majesty’s assurance that he shall be received with all the honours
and consideration due to the representative of the British government.
Mr. Murray, on approaching the capital, to be received by persons of
high rank deputed to escort him to his residence. Immediately on his
arrival, the sadr azim to go in state to the British mission and renew
friendly relations with Mr. Murray. At noon on the following day, the
British flag to be hoisted under a salute of 21 guns, and the sadr azim
to visit the mission immediately afterwards, which visit Mr. Murray will
return. Should Herat be occupied by the shah’s troops, his majesty to
engage to withdraw them without delay. The British mission to defer
to his majesty’s wish, if renewed, respecting Meerza Hashem, by not
insisting on his appointment at Shiraz; the Meerza’s wife, however, to
be restored to him.

The ultimatum failed to secure redress. A series of fresh outrages was
offered at the embassy upon such servants of the British government as
remained there. Orders were sent to Consul Stevens to quit Persia, and
take the means usual in such cases to secure the liberty and property of
British subjects.

On the 1st of November, the governor-general of India declared war
against Persia. Three proclamations were issued by his excellency,
which, when they arrived at Constantinople, caused the Persian
plenipotentiary to withdraw from all further negotiations, and to treat
his former agreements as null and void. Major-general Outram, K.C.B.,
had returned to England from Oude, and while at home was in consultation
with the British government concerning the Persian expedition. He was
appointed to command it, and arrived in Bombay for that purpose.

On the arrival of General Outram, active operations commenced. The
British landed in Bushire, and defeated the Persians. The place was
garrisoned by a portion of the troops, while the main army marched into
the interior, driving the Persians with ease before them; and afterwards
an expedition was made to Mohammerah, a considerable distance up the
Persian Gulf. This was attended with complete success. By the end
of March all these conquests were effected. They were followed by an
expedition to Akwaz, upon which place the defeated Persians had retired
from Mohammerah. The squadron proceeded up the Gulf with great judgment
and rapidity, and the enterprise was crowned by the accomplishment of
the object proposed, the Persians being obliged to retreat far inland.
The English remained masters of the Persian Gulf and its shores
throughout the year. Meanwhile, negotiations went on at Paris between
the British minister there and the Persian ambassador. The shah
ultimately consented to receive the English ambassador at Teheran with
all the honours insisted upon in the English ultimatum, to redress the
grievances, and satisfy the complaints of the embassy, and to engage
to renounce all claims upon Herat. The treaty involved a clause that
Bushire was to be occupied by the British until all the concessions made
to the English government were practically carried out. In virtue of
this arrangement General Havelock remained at Bushire, with a garrison,
until May, 1857, when he proceeded thence to perform in India the
glorious exploits which terminated his illustrious career. General
Outram and the main body of the expeditionary army sailed for India in
May, 1856.




WAR WITH CHINA.

The year 1856 was fruitful in events in Asia interesting and important
to Great Britain. Among these was the breaking out of another war with
China. The origin of the war may be thus briefly stated. A small vessel,
called a lorcha, was the property of a British subject, resident at
Hong-Kong. It was boarded, while carrying the British flag, by the
Chinese authorities, who alleged they were in search of a pirate among
the crew. The whole crew were arrested, chained, and carried away
prisoners. This was in contravention of the existing treaty with China.
The English consul demanded that the captured persons should be returned
to the lorcha, and that their investigation should be made according
to the treaty. Governor Yeh not only refused to do this, but did so in
terms insolent, and almost menacing. The consul at Canton reported the
case to the governor of Hong-Kong, Sir John Bowring. The reclamations
of that functionary were treated as disdainfully as those of the consul,
and it became necessary, as a last resort, to appeal to arms. The
outrage upon the lorcha was committed on the 8th of October, 1856. On
the 22nd of October, Rear-admiral Sir Michael Seymour, on board the
_Coromandel_, accompanied by a squadron of gun-boats, captured a number
of forts by which the entrance to Canton was defended. On the 28th he
took possession of a fort known by the name of the Dutch Folly, situated
on an island opposite Canton. Commissioner Yeh seemed now to be alarmed
for the safety of the city, and offered to surrender ten out of twelve
of the men taken out of the lorcha. This the British authorities
declined. He then sent the twelve, but demanded that two of them, whom
he alleged were guilty of piracy, should be returned, to be dealt with
according to the laws of China. Consul Parks had, however, demanded at
first that the men should be as publicly sent back to the lorcha as they
had been taken away. The twelve men were accordingly brought back by the
Chinese authorities again to Governor Yeh. That strange person refused
to receive them any more, probably considering that they had brought
sufficient trouble and danger on him already. Sir John Bowring then
demanded, that as Canton was included in the five ports opened by the
treaty of 29th of August, 1842, such facilities for commerce as existed
at the other four ports should be opened to British residents at Canton.
The English had waived this privilege so far as Canton was concerned
(although reserving their right), in order to conciliate the prejudices
of a province supposed to be more hostile than any other in China to
foreigners. To the demand of Sir J. Bowring, Yeh returned no answer. Sir
M. Seymour accordingly opened fire upon some large government buildings
on the 27th. Yeh’s own residence was amongst the buildings thus
attacked. A body of troops, drawn up on a rising ground, was shelled by
the British, and driven from the position. Yeh, as high commissioner
of his imperial majesty, offered, by proclamation, a reward of thirty
dollars for the head of every Englishman. On the 29th, a breach being
made in the walls, seamen and marines landed, blew in the city gate,
penetrated the interior of the city, and captured the governor’s house.
Admiral Seymour, more gallant than wise, proposed a conference with
the commissioner, who declined it. On the 3rd of November, Canton was
therefore again attacked. On the 5th a fleet of war-junks was destroyed,
and the French Folly fort captured. Sir Michael Seymour was infected
by the old British absurdity in dealing with the Chinese, that of
negotiating, when prompt and sustained action to compel them to
seek negotiation was the only sound policy. Sir Michael carried on a
correspondence with the chief mandarin concerning the surrender of
the Bogue forts, and their restoration, unimpaired, under certain
contingencies. The mandarin regarded the correspondence useful so as to
gain time, but he would make no concessions. On the 12th of November
the forts were attacked, and on the 13th captured with ease, although
defended by 400 guns. On the same day the Ammughoy forts on the side
opposite to the Bogue entrance were attacked and captured, with very
little resistance, although mounted by 210 guns. On the 14th of December
the foreign factories at Canton were fired by the Chinese, and nearly
all destroyed. Admiral Seymour could effect nothing during the month of
December, his force being inadequate. While he awaited reinforcements
the year terminated.




DISPUTES WITH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

During the year 1855 disputes existed with the North American republic,
which were happily brought to a termination in 1856. The differences
between that power and Great Britain referred to two subjects—the
enlistment of recruits by British officers, and “the Clayton-Bulwer
treaty” concerning Central America. England withdrew her recruiting
agents, and made reparation for her conduct. The Clayton-Bulwer treaty
was not so easily adjusted. It was a dispute between the two great
American powers—England and the United States—for influence in Central
America. It was supposed that the convention completed between the two
ministers (Bulwer and Clayton) had put an end to the hostile feeling
which had arisen. The Americans were not, however, satisfied with the
arrangement, and put an interpretation upon the treaty opposed to that
which England acknowledged. The British government, by going to the
verge of pusillanimity, averted war, but the adjustment made was only
temporary; the Americans virtually ignored the treaty, and England,
while virtually submitting, still preserved an ostensible recognition
of her rights. These events gave rise to fierce debates in the American
congress and the British parliament, but an open rupture between the two
countries, which appeared imminent, did not take place. The subject of
Central America became a generic question, including various specific
grounds of quarrel. A question arose as to the British protectorate of
Mosquito. The English government issued a proclamation, declaring the
Bay Islands a British colony. This offended the United States, and an
angry, though courteous, correspondence ensued between Mr. Buchanan and
the Earl of Clarendon. The English were anxious to refer the question to
the decision of a third power, to which the Americans would not consent.
A convention was formed with the republic of Honduras on the 27th of
August, which vested in the latter power certain disputed territory
which had given rise to much heat and dispute between England and the
United States.




INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW.

At the congress of Paris, where peace with Russia was negotiated, a new
principle was recognised in international maritime law, that “A neutral
flag covers an enemy’s goods.” This was not a popular measure in
England. It was believed to be a blow struck by France at the maritime
power of Britain. The English navy regarded the principle with much
hostility, and it was hotly debated in parliament, a large party
opposing the government for consenting to such a principle.




INDIA.

The general condition of the British colonies continued prosperous;
but in India certain potent elements of disturbance were at work.
The annexation of Oude began to produce its fruits, the people of all
ranks—high and low, military and civil—were preparing for revolt;
and a scheme was set on foot for corrupting the native army of Bengal,
chiefly recruited from Oude, which, within a year, produced the most
appalling results. Various symptoms of sedition, in different parts of
India remote from one another, were indicated, but were not taken notice
of by the authorities, either wisely or vigilantly. Among the most
remarkable signs of a movement of some kind being on foot, was the
transmission of little cakes, called _chupatees_, from hand to
hand, throughout all the cities and villages of India. Many officers
predicted, from this circumstance, that a conspiracy to a revolt was in
progress, but the government discountenanced all warnings, and treated
contemptuously all information communicated to it which was calculated
to call for its watchfulness. The authorities believed that the chupatee
movement was harmless. Even now, this is the opinion of many familiar
with India, although the majority I conversant with that country were of
a contrary opinion.

One intelligent writer* presents the subject in the following light:
“The transmission of such little cakes from one district to another is
supposed by the Hindoos to effect the removal of epidemic disease.
When cholera broke out in this division, the villagers frequently
attached the disease, as they fancied, by some ceremonies, to a buffalo,
and drove it across the Ganges, or into some other village. This latter
course frequently caused fighting between the villagers. It was also
found that a similar transmission of cakes had taken place on a former
occasion, when a murrain attacked the cattle of the districts bordering
Oude, and the disease was supposed to be stayed as soon as the said
cakes reached the holy fanes of Hurdwar. The agitation was fostered, and
false rumours founded thereon, prejudicial to government, were almost
invariably propagated by Mussulmans, while the transmission of a cake
is a purely Hindoo practice. The shape and size of the cakes was that
of the common Brahmin ‘Pooree.’ The excitement at the time among the
sepoys, and the occurrence afterwards of the mutiny, has led many to
connect this cake distribution with our disturbances, but without any
sufficient grounds for so doing. It is probable that if any connection
existed it was accidental, and the relationship acknowledged by either
designing or ignorant persons, was consequent upon the distribution,
and did not cause or precede it. Those, indeed, who have attempted to
explain the ‘chupatee movement,’ as it is called, to be a sort of ‘fiery
cross’ signal for a united rising, appear to have succeeded in proving
little by their own ingenuity. Its real origin was, doubtless, a
superstitious attempt to prevent any return of the fearful visitation
of epidemic cholera which devastated the north-west provinces the year
before, and still lingered in scattered spots.”

     * Robert Henry Wallace Dunlop, B.C.S.

The symptoms of disaffection, which were evident before Lord Dalhousie
retired from the government, became still more marked after the arrival
of Lord Canning. Lord Dalhousie left India in March, Lord Canning
arriving before the departure of his predecessor in office. The two
proud noblemen met at Government-house, and appeared publicly together
at a grand ball at that celebrated palace of English governors. An
American gentleman, a correspondent of the _New York Herald_,** was
struck with the haughty bearing of both these noblemen, their coldness
to men of rank and great talent, and their general indifference of
manner towards those whom it was their duty, as it ought to have been
their privilege, to conciliate.

     ** Mr. Train, author of “Young America Abroad.”

The American observer, who looked on with an intelligent and impartial
eye, was especially disgusted with the insolent bearing of the European
officials, as well as of the noble governors-general, to the native
princes, especially those who were conquered in the great Sikh war. They
were obliged to put off their shoes in token of submission, after the
manner of the East, when a conqueror or superior is approached. The
American gentleman noticed the look of dejection and distaste expressed
in the countenances of these once powerful native chieftains, and
foreboded that a government which pursued a policy so arrogant, and
where officers were characterized by so offensive an hauteur, must hold
the sword tightly in its hand, or public indignation and resentment
would arise, dangerous, if not fatal, to its power.

Lord Canning signalized his dawning power by a proclamation on the
affairs at Oude, which exasperated to the last degree the vengeance
nursed in the hearts of the whole people of that region.

Towards the end of the year the troops of the Bengal army were sullen
and almost mutinous. Intelligent, officers noticed the dark scowl which
the soldiery in vain endeavoured to conceal. In the public bazaars of
the great cities a sort of secret intelligence between the sepoys and
the people was observed, and all men, except the high officials, seemed
to hear the murmuring of the distant thunder, and the first struggles
of the storm, so soon to burst in blood and destruction over so large
a portion of India. Thus closed the year 1856 in the British Indian
empire: 1857 had scarcely dawned, when the thundercloud burst over its
fairest provinces, and the deluge fell by which so many human beings, so
many interests, and so vast an army, were swept away.




IRELAND.

The progress of Ireland in material prosperity was obvious, and a source
of gratulation to the empire. The moral progress of the country did not
keep pace with its temporal advancement; in this respect the predictions
of its best friends in parliament and in Great Britain were not
fulfilled. Agrarian outrage was as common as in previous years, and the
murderous riband conspiracy still dealt out slaughter, and held the
good and peaceable in terror without any proper attempts on the part of
government to put it down. The following remarks of the editor of the
_Annual Register_ were as true and just as they were pertinent and
expressive of the facts:—“Many of the homicidal crimes in Ireland arise
from motives which must be found in every society, and which therefore
are not to be accounted as a peculiar reproach upon the natural
character. Many of these foul deeds would not deserve any especial
record, were it not needful that they should be noticed simultaneously
with those more horrible assassinations perpetrated under the influence
of a secret tribunal which has for generations been the curse of that
unhappy land. Although the national prosperity of Ireland for some
years back has been such as to alter the aspect of the country, it will
probably take many years of content and good government—perhaps the
passing away of more than one generation—to purge the land of the
monstrous organization which keeps all men in dread.”




HOME—GENERAL CONDITION OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The year 1856 opened mildly as to the season, compared with 1855. The
winter and spring months passed away without witnessing the severity of
weather, or its fatal influence upon health and life which characterized
the corresponding months of the previous year. The attention of the
people was much occupied by foreign politics and events. The unwelcome
peace with Russia, the wars with Persia and China, the threatening
aspect of affairs in India, especially in Oude, engaged the minds of
men most seriously, and checked in some measure the general prosperous
condition of affairs.

There were few incidents connected with the court interesting to the
public. The King of the Belgians paid a visit to his august niece early
in the year, and rumour attributed a motive in connection with it which
referred to the projected peace with Russia. His majesty, indeed, never
visited England but some rumour did not prevail as to the influence he
sought to exercise over the mind of her majesty, in sympathy with some
foreign nation not altogether in harmony with British interests and
views. It was believed that he came on this occasion to make as
easy terms as possible for Russia. The movements of the royal family
throughout the year were as had been customary. The return of the troops
from the seat of war gave her majesty opportunity to show her interest
in her brave soldiers, and to put forth her benevolence wisely and
freely on their behalf.

The prosperity of the country may best be contemplated from trade
returns of the year: these were reported by command of her majesty to
both houses of parliament. On March 19, 1857, returns were made to the
legislature, containing abstracts of reports of the trade of various
countries and places for the years 1855—1856, received by the board
of trade, through the foreign office, from her majesty’s ministers and
consuls. Those abstracts are too voluminous for these pages: a perusal
of them in their original form would repay the reader, and show that
the great commercial country of the world was Great Britain—that so
extensive and ramified were her trade transactions, that she might be
considered the centre of universal commerce. The great manufacturing
towns in the north of England increased prodigiously in wealth and
influence, and the chief provincial ports became hives of industry,
while their waters were crowded with forests of ships. The Liverpool
Year-book for 1856* disclosed an extraordinary state of power and
prosperity in that great commercial thoroughfare and _entrepot_ of the
world.

     * Edited and compiled by Lee and Nightingale, published by
     Benson and Mallett, Liverpool.

During the official year, which ended August 31, 1856, the nett ordinary
income of the borough amounted to £223,319 18s. The docks of Liverpool
were amongst the wonders of England; and since 1856 they have been
improved and enlarged, so as to surpass in magnitude and adaptation all
previous speculation.




NATIONAL FINANCE.

The expensive war with Russia entailed its costs long after the first
outlay and havoc passed away. The financial returns for the year ending
with March, 1856, were, however, most encouraging, and proved how great
were the pecuniary resources of England for war or peace. The following
is a brief abstract of income and expenditure:—“The public income for
the year ending the 31st March, 1856, amounted to £70,552,145 against
£64,091,571 in 1855, and the expenditure to £93,149,310 against
£70,236,817 in 1855. Thus there was an excess of expenditure over income
in 1855–56 of £22,597,165, and an excess of £6,145,246 in the year
1854–55. The customs (in 1855–56) yielded £35,635,552; the excise,
£5,210,384; stamps, £7,063,610; the assessed and land-taxes, £3,136,077;
the income-tax, £15,159,458 against £10,922,267 in the year ending
the 31st of March, 1855; the post-office, £2,767,201; and crown lands,
£421,715. The duties on spirits and wines remained very stationary;
those on malt, coffee, tobacco, snuff, and sugar increased. The
house-tax yielded £728,689, and land-taxes £1,157,525. The expenditure
in 1855–56 included £2,863,353 for collecting the revenue; £28,112,825
for the public debt; £1,695,052 for the civil government; £3,192,420 for
law and justice; £366,443 for diplomatic salaries; £47,461,188 for the
army, navy, and ordnance (against £28,321,707 in the preceding year);
and £4,200,000 for the vote of credit (war with Russia). The army
cost the country £17,395,059; the navy, £19,654,585, and the ordnance,
£10,411,544. The civil list, privy purse, the salaries of the royal
household, and the payments of the queen’s tradespeople included the sum
total of £371.808.”




PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.

There was little in the session of 1856 to demand attention from the
historian, except the debates upon the three great wars in which the
nation was engaged. The wars with Russia and Persia excited party
debates of long duration and fierce conflict. The war with China
occurred too late in the year for parliamentary disputation, until the
session of 1857. The terms of the peace agreed on at Paris with Russia
caused very prolonged discussions, but in these, and in the opposition
sustained in connection with the Persian war, the ministry was
successful.

The differences with the United States afforded another opportunity
for the parliamentary opposition to attack the government. A debate
was opened by a motion, introduced by Mr. G. H. Moore, “a member of the
Irish independent opposition,” which was badly managed by the introducer
and the parties who supported him; the government was victorious.

Education, especially in Ireland; life peerages; civil service
appointments; the use of torture in India; law reform; difficulties in
the execution of the treaty of Paris; the questions connected with the
Isle of Serpents and Bulgrad, on the new Russo-Bessarabian frontier; the
disposal of the Aland Islands conquered by the allies during the war in
the Baltic; the Turkish firman in favour of the Christians in fulfilment
of the treaty of Paris; annexation of Oude; and maritime international
law,—were the subjects which engaged the attention of the members of
both houses. The men who were most prominent in these debates were Lords
Lyndhurst, Brougham, Campbell, Derby, and the Duke of Argyle in the
lords; Lords Palmerston and Russell, Sir James Graham, Sir Charles
Napier, and Benjamin Disraeli, in the commons.

The eventful year of 1856 commenced and closed in war. War with Russia
and Persia existed at its commencement: war with China was waging at its
close.

England, always victorious in the East, won there fresh laurels; always
embroiled in India, she had made for herself fresh complications; always
bold and enterprising in her industry, she had, in spite of war and
warlike expenses, increased marvellously her prosperity, material
resources, the comfort of her people, and the real conditions of her
power.




CHAPTER LXIX.

{VICTORIA. 1857–1858}

     Foreign Affairs..... European Treaties in alliance with
     France..... Difference with the United States of
     America..... War with China, to the conclusion of Peace in
     1858..... Treaty with Japan effected by Lord Elgin in
     1858..... Colonial..... Chinese Insurrection at Sarawak.....
     India: the Mutiny..... Home: General State of the Country;
     Monetary Panic..... Debate on the Chinese War..... Defeat
     of the Ministry..... General Election..... Marriage of the
     Princess Royal..... Parliamentary Proceeding’s..... The
     Court..... Art-Treasures Exhibition, Manchester.




FOREIGN AFFAIRS: RELATIONS WITH FRANCE, AND WITH OTHER EUROPEAN POWERS
THROUGH THE FRENCH ALLIANCE.

{A.D. 1857–1858}

The importance of the French alliance was acknowledged by all classes in
England, but the maintenance of it was extremely difficult. The policy
of the French emperor was considered capricious and dynastic, and not
regulated by good faith and justice. His eagerness to create an
alliance with Russia, at the expense of England, was obvious in every
circumstance which brought the three powers into diplomatic
connection. This was more especially the case as regarded the Danubian
Principalities. On every question which arose in connection with those
provinces of the Turkish empire, Russia fomented dispute between herself
and Turkey, between the Porte and the Provinces, and between France and
England. France fell in with the views of Russia, thwarted the Turkish
government, bore herself affrontfully and dictatorially to the sultan,
and peevishly and even menacingly towards England, by which nation the
rights of Turkey were from the first consistently espoused. The boundary
question was conducted so that it was difficult to believe that France
and Russia had not conspired against the rights of Turkey and the policy
of England, ostensibly to enforce which France made war upon the czar.
Austria generally sympathized more with England than with France and
Russia in these disputes, but no power could place confidence in the
perfidious government of the kasir, any more than in that of the czar.
Prussia showed neither justice nor magnanimity. Her policy was selfish
and cowardly. Although the grandson of the King of Prussia was affianced
to the Princess Royal of England, that circumstance made no difference
in the pro-Russian sympathies of the king. He abetted Russia in all her
designs. The Prussian people generally expressed disapprobation of the
policy of the court, but did not show spirit or purpose to counteract
it. On June the 19th, a treaty was signed at Paris, and ratified on the
last day of the year, between Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia,
Russia, and Sardinia, relative to the frontier of Bessarabia, to the
Isle of Serpents, and to the delta of the Danube. The policy of England,
on the whole, triumphed in this treaty. The Swiss Canton of Neufchâtel,
which appertained to the government of Prussia, revolted against that
government. In consequence of that event, much diplomatic difficulty and
discussion arose in Europe. The moderate plan of arrangement recommended
by England influenced the decision of the contest in a manner
satisfactory to the Swiss Confederation and the people of Neufchâtel.
The King of Prussia submitted to the arrangement ungraciously, and did
much in sustaining a selfish policy, which was calculated to create a
European war. At Paris, June 16, 1857, a treaty was signed, which settled
these turbulent affairs. The parties to the treaty were Great Britain,
France, Prussia, the Swiss Confederation, Austria, and Russia.




DIFFERENCE WITH THE UNITED STATES.

The “Clayton-Bulwer treaty” of 1850 was still the fruitful source of
contention. It was hoped that the “Dallas Clarendon treaty” of 1856
would settle all disputes, but this hope was unsustained by events.
The President of the United States recommended the abrogation of these
treaties altogether, and the commencement _de novo_ by the diplomatists
of the two nations of negotiations for a new settlement. The gist of
the dispute lay within a small compass. Both governments had agreed to
acquire no territory in Central America. England affirmed that such
a stipulation fairly assumed that she was to retain possession of the
territory and protectorate she already held and exercised. America
denied the correctness of this interpretation; alleging that the idea
entertained by the statesmen of the republic was, that neither power
should hold any territory in Central America. The Americans declared
that if England acquired or retained territory in Central America they
also would acquire territory there, and the result must be a struggle
between the two nations for dominion in Central America. Whereas if
England renounced all territorial possession, the United States would
concur in a mutual arrangement for the neutrality of the great transit
way across the American continent between the Atlantic and Pacific. The
proposal of the United States appeared to be the only practicable one to
secure peace. The discussion, however, was maintained with much courtesy
and resolution on both sides, and the dispute remained open.




CHINA—PROSECUTION OF THE WAR.

In the last chapter the British admiral was left awaiting reinforcements
at the close of the year 1856.

On the 12th of January the British fired the western suburbs of Canton,
which continued to burn for two days. So weak was the British force
that it was obliged to drop down the river, and the squadron took up a
position near Macao.

During the month of May, the English having been somewhat reinforced,
Commodore Elliott conducted operations against Chinese war-junks up
certain creeks of the Canton river with great success. In June Commodore
Keppel directed similar operations with still greater success. The
Chinese supposed the positions where their war-junks were sheltered were
impregnable, and were astonished and terrified to find that the English
stormed and silenced their batteries, and captured, sunk, or burned
their war-junks with the utmost celerity. So difficult were the positions
chosen by the enemy that the British, although securing a brilliant
series of victories with extraordinary rapidity, suffered heavy loss.

While these events were proceeding, Lord Elgin was on his way as
plenipotentiary to the Chinese emperor; he arrived at Hong-kong in July.
On his way thither he touched at Singapore, where he received news of
the Indian mutiny, and a request from the governor-general of India to
detach a portion of his force to assist in suppressing the mutiny then
raging there. From Hong-kong Lord Elgin proceeded to India with the
remainder of the troops, as the peril there admitted of no delay, while
the Chinese dispute would allow of postponement. In the latter part
of the autumn Lord Elgin returned to Hong-kong. In October a French
squadron arrived to co-operate with the English, accompanied by Baron
Gros, as the plenipotentiary of the French emperor. Count Puteatin
arrived in the same capacity for the Emperor of Russia; and Mr. Reed
represented the North-American republic. Both Russia and the American
States were jealous of the combined influence of England and France, and
showed rather a disposition to coalesce, in order to thwart the allied
powers of Western Europe, while yet the representative of each of the
two jealous nations was solicitous to make a treaty in the separate and
even selfish interests of his country. England and France were desirous
for the co-operation of all civilized powers to obtain a treaty in the
interests of all, but this did not suit the policy of America, still
less of Russia. France moreover displayed an eagerness to force some
exclusive convention in favour of the Roman Catholic religion, in which
the other powers had no interest, and which they felt to be invidious
and improper. The French also, in their co-operation with the British,
were avaricious of glory, and by their self-assertion, vanity, ambition,
and ostentatious depreciation of everything not performed by themselves,
offended the self-respect of the English, who were in far superior
force.

It was December before active hostilities were renewed, Lord Elgin and
Baron Gros having in vain pressed upon Governor Yeh their demands. On
the 28th and 29th of December Canton was bombarded. The great city was
on two sides enveloped in flame. The allies landed amidst the roar of
the bombardment and the engirdling flames, escaladed certain defences,
drove the Chinese into the city, and occupied with promptitude the
strong positions from which the enemy was driven.

The appearance of matters in Canton was now very strange. The populace
pursued their ordinary occupations; the Tartar army had abandoned the
city and taken post in the country; while the authorities took no notice
of the enemy, made no submission, sought no negotiation, and seemed
to rely only on passive resistance. Thus the year 1857 ended, and the
events of the Chinese war which transpired within it. It is however
desirable, for the sake of consecutive narrative, to continue here the
relation of this war to its close in 1858, notwithstanding the plan of
the History gives a separate chapter to the incidents of each year.

On the 5th of January, 1858, detachments of troops penetrated into the
city. The three most important persons in authority were captured—Yeh,
the viceroy, or chief governor; Pehkwei, governor of the city; and
Tseang Keun, the Tartar general. Yeh was sent a prisoner to Calcutta.
The Tartar general was set at liberty, on condition of disbanding his
troops; and the civic governor was ordered to continue his functions,
subject to a military commission. This last arrangement did not work
well, the Chinese governor continuing to elude the vigilance of
the commission, and perform many hostile and even cruel acts. It is
astonishing that with all their experience of the Chinese, the English
should have expected any other result.

The Emperor of ‘China degraded Yeh, and appointed another governor of
the province of Canton in his stead.

The allied plenipotentiaries opened communications with the emperor,
and foolishly awaited a reply, which of course never came. The Russian
ambassador encouraged the plan, and affected to participate,—he knew
well that no answer would arrive, and probably used whatever influence
he had to prevent its arrival. The wearied plenipotentiaries at last
set sail for the Peiho, hoping, by the display of their power nearer the
capital, to compel negotiations. The ambassadors arrived at the Peiho
on the 14th April. They were received in a very flattering manner by the
mandarins, who at the same time began to strengthen the defences of the
river, so as to oppose the further progress of the fleet. According to
the despatch of Admiral Seymour these defences “presented a formidable
appearance.” The forts were ultimately attacked, silenced, and
captured. The fleet proceeded up the river, and found junks, filled
with combustibles, moored across with chains, but the enemy fled.
The impediments were removed, and the fleet advanced to the city of
Tien-sin, at the end of the grand canal. The city contained 300,000
inhabitants. The ambassadors landed under a flag of truce, and were
courteously received, on the 29th May.

When the emperor learned the resistless progress of the forces of his
enemies, he sent two commissioners, who alleged that they had full
powers to treat for peace. They arrived on the 4th of June. They
insisted on negotiating with the European plenipotentiaries separately,
and first with the representative of England. On producing their
credentials, and their commission, an insolent and haughty document was
read delegating power to make peace with the barbarians, if the latter
did not ask for anything contrary to Chinese custom, and Lord Elgin
immediately retired from the conference. After various efforts to create
delay, which were resisted by the plenipotentiaries, a treaty was signed
to the following effect:—

Article 1. Confirmed the treaty of Nankin of 1842, and abrogated the
supplementary treaty to that so named, and the general regulations of
trade then agreed upon.

Art. 2. Agreed to the residence of ambassadors at the courts of the
powers party to the treaty.

Art. 3. Guaranteed regulations for the residence of an English minister
at Pekin.

Art. 4. Provided for the correspondence of the British minister at
Pekin.

Art. 5. The ministers of the Emperor of China should transact business
with the British minister at Pekin on terms of perfect equality.

Art. 6. Concedes to a minister of China in London the same privileges.

Art. 7. Permits consuls in the open ports of China.

Art. 8. The Christian religion, as professed by Roman Catholics and
Protestants, to be protected by the Chinese government.

Art. 9. British subjects to travel, for pleasure or trade, into all
parts of the empire with passports from their consuls, countersigned by
the local authorities.

Art. 10. Regulations for trading ships.

Art. 11. Five more ports to be opened to foreign trade.

Art. 12. British subjects may purchase and hold landed property in
China.

Art. 13. British subjects may employ Chinese subjects.

Art. 14. British subjects free to hire boats; the Chinese authorities
free to punish smugglers.

Art. 15. British, authorities to decide upon all questions of rights and
property between British subjects.

Art. 16. British offenders to be punished according to the laws of
England; Chinese subjects to be punished according to the laws of China.

Art. 17. Settles the modes of procedure in case of offences.

Art. 18. Protection of the persons and goods of British subjects.

Thus apparently ended the war of 1856–7–8. Nothing remained but the
ratification of the treaty, and the fulfilment of its stipulations,
which the Chinese court never intended to perform.




JAPAN.

Lord Elgin resolved to proceed to Japan, and endeavour to open that
jealously guarded country to foreign intercourse. He made for his excuse
to enter the Japanese waters, that his queen authorized him to bear from
her a present of a beautiful steam-yacht to the Emperor of Japan. It was
on the 3rd of August, 1858, that Lord Elgin reached the capital of the
Japanese empire; but the circumstance is related in this chapter to
preserve a continuous account of his excellency’s important mission
to the Eastern Seas. Lord Elgin’s mission was successful. A treaty
substantially the same as that with China was formed, and the trade of
that country opened to Europe. As in China, so in Japan, American and
Russian jealousy played an unworthy and not altogether ineffectual part.




COLONIAL.

The general colonial interests of the United Kingdom were flourishing.
Extensive reports were published this year by government, which showed
that nearly all the colonies were making great and rapid strides on the
road of material progress and prosperity.




SARAWAK.

The independent British settlement of Sarawak, in the island of Borneo,
was exposed to imminent peril of utter destruction. Sir James Brooke,
anxious to restore British influence in the Eastern Archipelago, which
the policy of former governments of Great Britain had ignorantly and
recklessly sacrificed to the Dutch, established at Sarawak an English
settlement, upon which chivalrous attempt he expended a large private
fortune, risked life in almost every form, and by undaunted courage,
perseverance, energy, and talent, succeeded in his undertaking. The
British government, after recognising his position and fostering it,
refused to accept its sovereignty for her majesty, or to adopt the means
necessary either for forming Sarawak into a colony, or establishing
there an ostensible and real protectorate. Sir James Brooke did great
things for his country, and met with injustice, and as far as the
government was concerned, ingratitude, in return. A concession of
Sarawak having been made to him by the prince who had power to make it,
the English government recognised him as rajah of the territory, but
left him to his own resources, except as an occasional ship of war
arrived, and joined with him in some gallant exploit to put down piracy
in the neighbouring seas. In the industrial enterprises of the rajah,
Chinese immigrants were encouraged to work the mines, and toil in other
industrial pursuits. These persons rose in insurrection against
the rajah, and brought on a terrible catastrophe of bloodshed and
destruction. In waging the war of 1856–7, the Chinese government sent
orders to its subjects, emigrants in British settlements, to hold
themselves in readiness to obey the commands of their mandarins, and
attack the British in those countries whenever summoned to do so.
These commands were received with ready obedience, and consequently at
Hong-kong, Australia, Singapore, and Sarawak, mischief was effected in
proportion to the number and relative power of the Chinese. In Australia
they could effect nothing except a few trivial but treacherous outrages,
which incurred a barbarous retaliation. At Hong-kong the agitation,
inconvenience, and danger of the English were very great. At Singapore
a terrible outbreak was threatened and expected, but the energy and
steadfastness of the English, their success in China, and the bloody
defeat of the insurgents at Sarawak, deterred the Singapore Chinese from
any combined and vigorous attempt. It would appear that batches of fresh
immigrants arrived from Penang and Malacca, and brought orders from
their mandarins to rise and attack the English. The Chinese population
of Sarawak exceeded 5,000, about one-tenth being children, and perhaps
a twentieth women. These settlers lived in communities, were very
industrious and very prosperous; they were favoured by the English
because of their plodding perseverance, and hard-working habits. They
made no complaints, were treated kindly, and were apparently as happy as
in their industrial pursuits they were successful. On the night of the
18th of February, marching in a body, the whole Chinese force of the
settlement attacked the little capital, set fire to the houses, murdered
several English and their servants, endeavoured to seize the person
of the rajah, and succeeded in making the bishop captive, burning
his valuable library, and committing every sort of depredation. They
preserved the bishop unmolested, in the hope of using him, in case of
defeat, to make better terms for themselves, or, in case of success,
to induce him to act as their negotiator with foreign barbarians! The
rajah, and most of the English settlers, escaped to the opposite side of
the river, where they concealed themselves in various places adapted
to their purpose, until a body of Dyaks (natives of the country) were
gathered for their defence. A small British steamer opportunely entered
the river, which, with the English residents and the Dyaks, attacked the
Chinese, defeated them, slew three-fourths of the men, drove the rest
into the interior, burned down their villages, and executed upon them
a terrible vengeance. Sir James Brooke, with his usual energy and
dexterity, repaired the disaster, and subjected future Chinese settlers
to regulations which rendered rebellion too desperate for attempt.




INDIA.

The year 1857 will be ever memorable in the history of India. A mutiny,
chiefly of the Bengal army, and a rebellion, chiefly in the Bengal
provinces, disturbed the whole country from Cape Comorin to the
Himalayehs, agitated deeply the British empire, and excited the
attention and astonishment of the world. The progress of commerce,
revenue, and prosperity in every form was of course interrupted.
Nevertheless, during a portion of the year, and over a large area, the
usual operations of trade were continued. While a brilliant career of
material improvement and commercial advancement was developed by our
Indian empire, the event burst forth which deluged the Bengal provinces,
and Central India, with blood, and appalled the world. It is now our
duty to give a brief record of that terrible event.




THE MUTINY.

In a previous chapter it was related, that at the close of the year 1856
symptoms of mutiny were exhibited in the Bengal army. At the beginning
of 1857 these symptoms became demonstrative and terrible. It is
difficult to say how far an acute and foreseeing government might have
prevented the evil, but the last persons to observe the signs of the
times, and provide against the rising calamity, were those in high
authority. “There were,” wrote the editor of an Indian paper, “deep
tokens of disaffection everywhere, suspicious looks and expressions
daily heard in the bazaar, and a belief that all was not sound in the
minds of Englishmen unconnected with the services. Every class, except
the members of the governing body, was impressed with a foreboding
of evil. No one, however, without the pale of authority dreamt of the
magnitude of the dangers by which we were about to be assailed; and
inside that potent circle not a soul had gained an inkling of the coming
horrors. The ship of the state was struck by a white squall, with every
sail set, and not a man at his post to warn the crew of their peril. On
the 22nd of January, 1857, Captain Wright, of the 70th native infantry,
brought to the notice of Major Bontein, commanding the depot of musketry
at Dum-Dum, the fact that there was a mutinous spirit among the
troops in connection with the greased cartridges.” From that date the
conspiracy developed itself rapidly, but at no stage of its incipient
progress did the government show sagacity in detecting the causes of the
outbreak, or efficient means for its repression.

At Barrackpore and Berhampore indications of mutiny of a decisive nature
were made. General Hearsey, who commanded at Barrackpore, gave the
government explicit information, and foretold results. The government
would not be warned.

A mutiny of the 19th regiment led to the disbanding of that corps. This
regiment was by no means among the more disloyal sepoys; it had been
seduced into acts of insubordination, and regretted it. There was,
however, little discrimination on the part of the Calcutta authorities.
Some corps attempted to murder their officers, and were treated with
surprising leniency. General Anson, who commanded the forces in India,
was at Simlah, where the military records also were, and much loss of
time and great confusion resulted from the necessity of the government
at Calcutta carrying on a correspondence, with so remote a station,
on subjects of such vital moment. When at last the commander-in-chief
became convinced of the danger that existed, he hurried down to
Umballah, and issued a conciliatory proclamation to the army, which had
the effect of increasing the pride and self-importance of the sepoys.

Matters proceeded in this way until May, when the first grand effort of
mutiny burst forth at Meerut. The sepoys suddenly arose there, attacked
their officers, murdered some, and, having set fire to the cantonments,
marched to Delhi. Major-general Hewett, who commanded the garrison,
showed extraordinary weakness and vacillation, and took no prompt or
vigorous measures to intercept the flight of the fugitives, or to pursue
them. The mutiny occurred on Sunday evening, the 10th of May. The rabble
of the neighbourhood joined the mutineers. Both the revolted sepoys
and the insurgents showed a sanguinary delight in murdering women and
children. As soon as the fugitive mutineers arrived at Delhi the whole
city rose in insurrection; its garrison revolted, women and children
were butchered, the ex-king of Delhi, a pensioner of the British
government, was placed at the head of the revolution, and his sons
were leaders in every act of barbarity and cowardice. The magazine
was defended by a few officers and soldiers. Among them was Lieutenant
Willoughby, who, when defence was no longer possible, blew up a large
portion of the magazine, causing the death of a considerable number of
the assailants, estimated, according to different testimonies, at from
one to two thousand.

On the 18th of May the general at Meerut sent a despatch to say that he
could not move his troops against Delhi, or for any operations in the
field, _for want of carriage_. Such was the management of military
affairs in India.

General Anson slowly collected a force at Umballah, and Sir John Lawrence
sent Sikh troops from the Punjaub. General Anson died, and the command
devolved upon General Barnard, who marched upon Delhi. It must not be
supposed that Sir Henry Barnard, in his advance to Delhi, was unopposed.
Whatever the sepoys may have been in British pay, in revolt they were
energetic and persevering, and, as long as they entertained any hope
of success, fought with keenness; as a loyal native in Delhi described
them, “they were willing to take life, and willing to give their lives
away.” It had been arranged, before General Anson’s death, that a
brigade should advance from Umballah, under General Barnard, and that
General Hewett, at Meerut, should order another brigade to advance from
that station, the two forces to form a junction, and storm or lay siege
to Delhi. In pursuance of this plan General Hewett placed a small body
of troops under the command of Colonel Archdale Wilson, consisting of
five hundred men of the 60th Royal Rifle regiment, two hundred of
the carbineers, and one battery of artillery, to which a troop of
horse-artillery was subsequently added. They marched on the 27th of
May, and encamped on the 30th at Ghazeeoodeen Nuggur, a large Hindoo
village on the left bank of the river Hindoun, eighteen miles east of
Delhi. At that place there was a suspension bridge, the possession
of which commanded the passage of the Hindoun from Meerut. Brigadier
Wilson was attacked there by a force from Delhi, who hoped, by
defeating the colonel, to prevent the junction of his forces with troops
from Kurnoul. A battle ensued, the first of the war, as the previous
struggles between mutineers and loyalists did not assume the form of
a regular engagement. The rebels not only disputed the passage of the
river, but opened a heavy cannonade with five guns from a well-chosen
position. Wilson brought all his troops into action. The rifles were
very efficient, fighting in a mode similar to that afterwards attributed
to the Turcos of the French army in the war in Italy. They rushed
forward with great rapidity for short spaces, then falling flat on their
faces, timing their intervals of movement by the play of the enemy’s
guns, which they watched skilfully. In this way they suffered
exceedingly little in their advance, until at last springing upon the
guns they captured them instantaneously, piercing the gunners with their
sword bayonets. The sepoy infantry made a stand, but the rifles, in a
hand to hand combat, were easy victors. The battle was decided in
favour of the British; the sepoys fled, pursued by the carbineers,
who continued the pursuit until night closed around conquerors and
fugitives. The loss on the part of the English was eleven killed, and
twenty-one wounded and missing. Of the killed five met their death by
the explosion of a powder-waggon, fired by a desperate sepoy. Captain
Andrews, of the Rifles, was one of those blown up.

On the 31st Colonel Courtance, of the carbineers, was actively employed
watching strong reconnoitering parties of the enemy’s horse, so that
the brigade could not advance far on the left side of the river without
another action. At one o’clock five thousand mutineers and irregulars
took up a position on an elevated sweep of land. A battle of artillery
ensued; the mutineers of the 3rd Bengal cavalry charged the English guns
repeatedly, but were repulsed. After more than two hours, spent in a
contest of this kind, Colonel Wilson ordered his line to advance, and
the mutineers were routed. The English were too much exhausted by the
heat to pursue: several men in all branches of the service dropped
dead from sun-stroke. The rebels bore away their guns. The English lost
twenty-four men; about half from sun-stroke. Lieutenant Perkins was
among the slain; Captain Johnson, and Ensign Napier, among the wounded.
The stubbornness of the mutineers led Colonel Wilson to maintain his
position and await orders and reinforcements. On the 3rd of June he was
joined by another company of the Royal York Rifle regiment, and by a
battalion of Goorkhas. These troops remained faithful, for, although
attached to the Brahminical religion, they are more superstitious than
fanatical, and hold the sepoys, and even Sikhs, in contempt, while
the British are objects of military admiration to them. On the 6th the
brigade reached the rendezvous at Rhagput.

The force from Umballah left that place on the 24th of May, and readied
Kurnaul on the 25th. Anson died on the 27th. In his last illness he
confided the capture of’ Delhi to General Barnard, and telegraphed
to Lord Canning that he had done so, who confirmed the general in the
command of the forces acting against Delhi. Before the command delegated
to Barnard by Anson could be confirmed at Calcutta, General Reid, in
virtue of seniority, became chief of the army, but he carried out
the wish of General Anson in confiding the attack on Delhi to Sir. H.
Barnard.

After various misunderstandings and serious delays on the part of
Colonel Wilson, caused by the obstruction offered by the sepoys, and by
taking a circuitous and difficult route, the two brigades met on the 6th
of June, and on the 7th the whole force was re-organized near Delhi.

The brigades under both generals had been considerably augmented on the
march. The officials took no steps for preventing disaster, but acted in
the same way as in England and elsewhere, that occasioned so much loss
of life and reputation before Sebastopol. Sir H. Barnard found himself
and all about him, upon whom in the first instance the duty devolved,
bewildered, and incapable of combining, arranging, or devising
expedients to supply governmental and commissary defects. The army
before Delhi, on a small scale, for a time repeated the faults and
follies of the army before Sebastopol. Those upon whom the army depended
for intelligence, succour, and directions, gave no real aid, but created
additional embarrassments. The time consumed in deciding anything was
extraordinary, although in the early part of the siege the telegraphic
wire lent all its aid between Agra and Calcutta. General Barnard found
that he could not take Delhi by storm; a regular siege was therefore
resorted to. Throughout the month of June a fierce conflict raged around
the once proud capital of Hindostan. During July these conflicts were
continued, and rendered fiercer by the arrival of large forces-of
mutineers from Rohilcund. Mutiny was discovered in the camp of the
besiegers. Sickness also smote the British, so that by the end of July
there were 1,200 invalids in the little army. Battle and disease must
have utterly wasted it had not Sir John Lawrence sent troops’ and
supplies, and with them the skilful and intrepid young General
Nicholson. The sickness and ultimate decease of Sir Henry Barnard caused
the demand to devolve on the senior general, Reid. His health also
giving way, General Wilson, an excellent artillery officer, assumed the
command.

Early in August the English made an effort to destroy the bridge of
boats, by floating detonating machines, which was unsuccessful, and the
mutineers continued to make it available for purposes hostile to the
besiegers, and advantageous to themselves. On the 1st of August 5000 men
made a sortie, if such, in the peculiar circumstances of the siege,
it could be called. The Metcalf picket-house and the flag-staff tower
became the objects of incessant attack. The sepoys, however, fought in
vain. During August reinforcements for the rebels poured into the city
of Delhi, from the various districts, far and near, where revolt had
raged.

In the beginning of September the siege-train arrived, and strong
reinforcements of troops; the sick and wounded then reached the number
of 3000. A terrible bombardment was opened against the city on the 11th,
which continued until the 14th, when the assault was ordered, and after
desperate fighting it proved successful. It was not, however, destined
to triumph on the first day. On all points but one the British
were victorious. The attack on the western suburbs failed from the
inefficiency of the Cashmere contingent, the bravery and number of the
sepoys, and their contempt for the native force under Captain Dwyer’s
command. After a fearful conflict for possession of the Redghat, the
whole attack on the western side was abandoned. The English held the
posts won within the gates: the enemy showed unflinching resolution,
and even threatened the English flanks and rear. Night closed over the
sanguinary scene, the English having lost 8 officers killed, and 52
wounded; 162 English and 103 native soldiers killed; 512 English, and
310 natives wounded. The first and second columns held all the towers,
bastions, and ramparts from the vicinity of the Cashmeregate to the
Cabulgate; the third column and the reserve held the Cashmeregate, the
English church, Skinner’s house, the Water bastion, Ahmed Ali Khan’s
house, the college gardens, and many buildings and open spots in that
part of Delhi; while the fourth column, defeated in the western suburbs,
had retreated to the camp or the ridge. It was not until the end of
that the long and bloody succession of assaults ended in the total
subjugation of the place, after deeds of slaughter seldom paralleled.
The king and several members of his family escaped, but were pursued by
Major Hodson, and captured under circumstances of extraordinary daring
and presence of mind on the part of that officer.

The taking of Delhi was a deadly blow to the hopes of the rebels all
over India.

The progress of the mutiny and its suppression in other directions must
now be related. It was alleged that the King of Delhi was treated with
extraordinary indulgence, reinstated in his palace, and was treated by
the company’s civil officers with even marks of homage. These reports
were set at rest by a letter written to the brother of his captor, by
Mrs. Hodson, the major’s wife. The letter was deeply interesting, and
depicted the ex-royal family as in a condition of abject ignorance and
moral degradation.

The narrative of the siege of Delhi having been conducted to its close,
it is necessary to show the occurrence of events taking place in other
directions, which were contemporaneous with those which happened around
and in the capital of the Mogul.

While the incidents just related passed in and around Meerut and Delhi,
Scinde and the Punjaub were greatly agitated. Conspiracy to revolt and
murder, similar to what had taken place elsewhere, were discovered
in these two provinces. In both they were promptly and effectually
suppressed. Scinde remained tranquil, after a few arrests and executions
had been effected. In the Sikh districts Sir John Lawrence acted with
extraordinary sagacity, management, vigour, and courage, putting down at
once, and with a high hand, all attempts at mutiny or insurrection, so
as to direct the great resources of the Punjaub to the assistance of the
other provinces, and especially during the siege of Delhi. The services
of that great man have never been sufficiently acknowledged by the
British government.

In the presidencies of Bombay and Madras the army and people, with few
exceptions, remained quiet, and to a considerable extent were loyal.
In Central India the disturbance was universal, and the contingents of
native princes burst into open hostility. The presidencies of Madras and
Bombay were much endangered by this state of things, but “field forces”
 were organized in the presidencies, by which the rebel districts of
Central India were penetrated from the south and west, until the revolt
was crushed. The troops of Madras displayed more loyalty than those of
Bombay. Some of the Bombay regiments mutinied, bringing upon themselves
a swift and terrible punishment.

In the eastern districts of Bengal there were only the perturbations
caused by the great earthquake of revolution, which had its centre far
north and west. The disposition to insurrection in Assam and Chittagong
was kept down by astonishingly weak forces. Along the Assam frontier a
few troops sufficed to preserve tolerable quietude. A small detachment
of British sailors, acting as infantry of the line, awed a vast region
of eastern Bengal.

The native troops of the Bengal army, stationed on the eastern shores
of the Bay of Bengal, showed the same disposition to revolt as upon
the eastern land confines of that presidency; but the people of Pegu,
Martaban, and the other provinces on the sea-coast, were loyal.
The troops there were mostly European, and were moved up the bay to
Calcutta, as occasion demanded and opportunity served.

In Lower Bengal the people were too unwarlike to aid the troops who
mutinied.

Upper Bengal and the dominions which had been recently wrenched from
the King of Oude, were the grand foci of mutiny and rebellion; although
Jhansi, Delhi, and Meerut, were also centres of active revolt.

Agra, the queen of the upper provinces, suffered much. Mr. Colville
acted with prudence, temper, and energy; but committed the general
fault of the officials, civil and military, of placing too much
confidence in the native troops.

Benares, the ecclesiastical capital of heathen India, was more loyal
than any city in the disturbed regions. The protection afforded to
the religious rites of the Brahmins in that city, and the security of
pilgrims travelling to its far famed shrines, through the order enforced
by British power, caused a respect for the English name and authority
not only in the city of Benares, but throughout the province, which
acted favourably to the preservation of order. The vigour of Brig.-gen.
Neill, and the fear he inspired, had also much to do with these results.

Allahabad was the centre of many intrigues hostile to British power: the
heroic little garrison of that place suffered much, and endured nobly
and successfully until help arrived, and Brig.-gen. Neill quelled the
power, if not the spirit, of rebellion all around.

Throughout Oude, comprising in the designation the provinces, whether of
older or more recent date, which fell within the circle of that kingdom,
the mutiny and rebellion were fiercest. Cawnpore was one of the great
capitals of revolt. Situated near Bithoor, the residence of the infamous
Nana Sahib, the principal chief of the insurrection, it suffered much,
possibly more than any other place. “The Nana” collected all the force
which his retainers and the people of his district could contribute, and
with the mutineers of Cawnpore, and neighbouring garrisons, he attacked
the British quartered in that city, who were under the command of the
veteran hero, General Wheeler. In vain the little band of English were
assailed; they remained unconquered by the multitudes of their enemies,
and by famine and fatigue, until treachery secured their destruction.
They were induced to capitulate, under promise of protection and safe
escort. They were brutally and barbarously murdered by the bodyguards of
Nana Sahib; women and children, as well as soldiers and civilians, were
unpityingly consigned to a common slaughter, and their bodies cast into
the well of Cawnpore. Since the mutiny, a memorandum upon the events
connected with the Cawnpore mutiny and massacre has been prepared by
Lieutenant-colonel Williams, military secretary to government in the
north-western provinces:—“Forty-two depositions from persons of all
classes and creeds—Christians, Mahomedans, and Hindoos—have
been recorded, and valuable evidence obtained from respectable and
influential residents in the city. These depositions, together with the
native journal of a city resident, have been translated, and relate the
first attempts made by the Nana to tamper with the troops, his ready
success, the earliest meeting held by the conspirators, and their
proceedings on and subsequent to their mutiny, from the 1st of June to
the advance of the British force in July. The evidence shows the Nana’s
brother, Bala Sahib, to have taken as (if not more) active and prominent
a part as even the Nana himself. There are no traces of any conspiracy
prior to the arrival of the Nana at Cawnpore, on the 22nd of May, 1857,
with the two guns, and 300 horse and foot, for the avowed purpose of
aiding in the maintenance of order. But about that time it would seem
that two sowars, the one named Rahem Khan, of Bishenpore, near Bithoor,
the other Muddut Alee, of Bancla, and in the service of the Nana, were
employed by Bala Sahib to corrupt the fidelity of the troops. The 2nd
Cavalry, already ripe for mutiny, needed but little persuasion.” Among
those who perished were the heroic General Wheeler and his heroine
daughter.

In Lucknow, the capital of Oude, Sir Henry Lawrence (brother to Sir
John) maintained a resolute defence, but was wounded in a sortie, and
died of his wound. Colonel Inglis afterwards maintained the defence with
true British obstinacy and intrepidity.

The time at last arrived when the tide of tumult and blood should be
rolled back upon the mutinous garrisons and rebel cities in the southern
parts of Upper Bengal, in Oude, and in Central India. Brig.-gen. Neill,
of the Madras Fusiliers, having with detachments of his regiment been
sent on to Allahabad, restored order and even tranquillity to that
place, as related on a previous page. On the return to India of the
portion of the expeditionary army of Persia, under General Havelock,
that officer was sent on to Allahabad, and superseding Brig.-gen. Neill
in the command, he marched at the head of what forces he could muster,
about 2,000 men, to the relief of Cawnpore. He had to fight his way
thither, displaying extraordinary valour and military genius. With his
small force he conquered Cawnpore, and drove the rebel Nana to Bithoor;
but, alas! the noble garrison of Wheeler was not relieved on the advance
of Havelock: the Nana, driven to despair, perpetrated the wholesale
murder which blackens the page of Indian history with the name of
Cawnpore. Havelock resolved on tracking the murderer to his den: Bithoor
was attacked, and the Nana beaten. Havelock ordered Neill to bring on
all his forces from Allahabad that could possibly be spared, and that
officer took the command of Cawnpore, where, as at Allahabad, he
soon created order, and subjected to his stern and resolute rule all
disaffection. He took terrible vengeance upon the captured mutineers
and rebels. Havelock pressed onward to relieve the garrison at Lucknow.
Battle after battle was fought, Havelock, with a handful of men,
dispersing hosts. Never, in the history of English military glory, were
such achievements performed by so few. Even the mighty deeds of Clive
and Wellington in their Indian warfare were surpassed by Havelock in his
extraordinary marches upon Lucknow. At last, his troops were so reduced
by battle and sickness that he retired upon Cawnpore and awaited
reinforcements. These arrived, and with them a superior officer, General
Outram. That hero refused to deprive Havelock of his command, and acted
as volunteer in Havelock’s army. The garrison at Lucknow was relieved;
provisions, medicine, money, and men were conveyed to the city and
the Alumbagh a strong place on the Cawnpore road, within four miles of
Lucknow. So numerous was the enemy, that the relieving army, like
that which it relieved, was hemmed in by a host of mutineers and rebel
zemindars, with their retainers. It became necessary that another army
should relieve Outram, Havelock, and Inglis. Sir Colin Campbell had been
sent from England to bring the insurrection to a speedy termination, the
supreme military authority having been committed to him.

The arrival of Sir Colin Campbell to take the command of the army was
not hailed with so much satisfaction in India, as the event was regarded
with confidence in England. Sir Colin, however, knew how things
were managed by governors-general in India, and by officials
at head-quarters. He therefore expected to find much confusion,
embarrassment, and neglect. The chief military authority in India was
supposed to be at Calcutta, but the records were at Simla, the sanitary
station to which the commander-in-chief was wont to repair, and where in
fact commanders-in-chief spent most of their time, having generally
been very old and feeble men. Sir Colin set to work with indefatigable
industry to gather up an intelligible and connected account of the
military condition and resources of India, especially of the Bengal
provinces. This was essential to any consecutive plan of operations,
and in this work, and in other important preparations, his time was
consumed, when every day’s delay, every hour’s hesitation, every act of
procrastination or tardiness, was perilous beyond estimate.

At Calcutta, in their conveyance to the different spheres of action,
or in the provision made for their comfort, our gallant army was not
thought of, either by the officials at Calcutta, or by the government
at home, with that wisdom, consideration, or generosity which befitted
their merits, the occasion, or a great country. Sir Colin organized
a system for the general suppression of the mutiny, and he himself
advanced with a very inadequate force, for the second time, to effect
the relief of the British garrison of Lucknow. This was achieved after
battle and victory highly honourable to the British name. Sir Colin
brought off the women and children, sick and wounded, leaving the
cantonments and the neighbouring Alumbagh well garrisoned. General
Wyndham had been left in command at Cawnpore. During the operations of
the commander-in-chief at Lucknow, Wyndham was attacked by vast
numbers of the enemy, and beaten. Sir Colin hastened to the rescue, and
Cawnpore, after a sanguinary action, was saved. Reinforced, and with a
plan of combined action by different forces from various directions, Sir
Colin advanced upon Lucknow for its relief the third time. After regular
approaches and bombardment, Lucknow was taken by storm; but to the
discredit of the commander-in-chief and some of his superior officers,
the rebels escaped, to make war and havoc elsewhere. General Havelock
died of fatigue and exhaustion, regretted by all men, and leaving behind
him an immortal fame.

Among the losses of British officers, caused by the efforts to relieve
Lucknow, was the death of Brig.-gen. Neill, whose services had been so
eminently valuable. A statue, by the sculptor Behnes, is to be erected
to the memory of General Havelock, in Trafalgar Square. Brig.-gen. Neill
has had this honour conferred upon his memory in a most conspicuous
manner. A magnificent colossal statue of the general has been ordered
to be placed in the city of Madras. It has been executed by a sculptor,
Matthew Noble, whose genius is as much an honour to his country as the
heroic deeds of him whom that genius thus commemorates. The same great
sculptor executed another statue of Neill, which has been erected in
Ayr, the hero’s native place.

Sir Colin committed the following up of the enemy to Grant. He was as
unsuccessful in this as he had been in preventing the escape of the
rebels from Lucknow, and returned to head-quarters utterly baffled.

Rohilcund continued in arms; the great cities and towns, such as
Bareilly, Shajehanpoor, and Moorshedabad, were in the hands of the
rebels. Khan Bahadoor Khan ruled at Bareilly, and his force was not to
be despised. It now became apparent to everybody how serious were
the consequences of the bad generalship which allowed the rebels and
mutineers to escape from Lucknow.

The plan of the commander-in-chief was now to scour the borders of the
province with two columns, which, setting out in opposite directions,
should meet at Bareilly, the capital where two of the Delhi princes had
taken shelter with Bahadoor Khan. Brigadier Jones was ordered to advance
from Roorkee, with what was designated the Roorkee field force, and to
take a direction south-east. The other column was to leave Lucknow
under Brigadier Walpole, and both columns were to form a junction at an
appointed rendezvous. Walpole had experienced a severe reverse, but
at last the different forces met before Bareilly. Again the
commander-in-chief was victorious, and again permitted his beaten enemy
to escape. After long and harassing operations, continued through the
year 1858, Oude and Rohilcund were restored to order.

In Central India long-sustained and fierce conflicts followed brutal
and cowardly massacres. General Rose crowned his name with many honours,
having defeated Tantia Topie, the Rhani of Jhansi, and the rebel
leaders, and sweeping with his avenging sword the revolted provinces
of Central India. Nana Sahib, the Begum of Oude, and other leaders
retreated through the jungles into Nepaul, where most of them perished
of jungle fever, and many by the arms of Jung Bahadhoor, the Regent of
Nepaul. It was not until 1859 that the traces of the great rebellion and
mutiny were completely cleared away, and Lord Canning could pronounce
India once more subject to the sceptre of England.




HOME.

The year 1857 began its course under circumstances favourable to the
domestic peace and prosperity of the country. The mind of the public was
directed towards the remission of taxes, and legal and social reform.
The London clubs were more than usually active with political and party
gossip at the opening of the year. Mr. Gladstone, and the Peel party
of which he was the leader, kept the quidnuncs constantly busy as to
probable parliamentary coalitions and party movements. The versatile
gentleman, whom the Peelites delighted to honour, and who was also much
in favour with the Manchester party, was supposed to be favourable to a
coalition between his followers and the Tories. An arrangement between
Lord Derby and the Peelite financier was much talked of, and scandalized
the country. Most persons in political circles outside the houses of
parliament believed that such a combination would be too unpopular for
either the Conservatives or the Gladstone section to accept. In and out
of parliament it was asserted that should such an alliance be formed it
would break up any conservative ministry, and throw Lord Derby out
of power before he could consolidate, even if he should be able _pro
tempore_ to obtain, a parliamentary majority. Such was the condition of
feeling in England when the session of 1857 began. The close of the year
was marked by commercial and monetary panic, wide-spread, and entailing
disastrous results.




PARLIAMENT.

The first session was opened on the 3rd of February. Earl Grey in the
lords, and Mr. Disraeli in the commons, opened the party campaign by
assailing the foreign policy of the government; and Disraeli was alike
caustic and unjust upon Lord Palmerston, scarcely avoiding personality,
while inveighing against the public conduct of the veteran statesman.

One of the first subjects of a practical nature introduced to parliament
was law reform, which the lord-chancellor brought forward. His lordship
seldom gained the approbation of the house for his measures, and when
he was successful it was always under circumstances which betrayed the
weakness of his personal influence. Lord Cranworth was neither popular
in the lords nor in the country, and was less so in his ostensible legal
reforms than on any other subject. Politically he was the incubus of
the ministry, although as a chancery judge, or at all events a chancery
lawyer, he possessed reputation. Some improvements were effected during
the session, but on the whole the country was disappointed, and this
disappointment was chiefly occasioned by the incapacity, intellectual
and administrative, of Lord Cranworth to deal with any comprehensive
public measure.

Mr. Locke King introduced his motion for the extension of the county
franchise to £10 householders. Lord John Russell and Sir James Graham
advocated the measure, which they had previously so strenuously opposed.
As this was obviously for the purpose of defeating the government, and
gaining popularity for party purposes, the public gave them no credit
for sincerity, and even expressed disapprobation. This measure was lost
by the small majority of thirteen.

A committee of inquiry into the operation of the Bank Charter Act was,
early in the session, nominated in the commons.

On the 13th of February the chancellor of the exchequer made his
financial statement. Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Gladstone offered an unworthy
party opposition to almost every item of the budget, but they were
defeated by very large majorities. Lord John Russell appeared to
advantage in these discussions, as he seconded the just and reasonable
views of government, although it was well known that he was desirous
of a coalition with the Peelites and the Manchester school to turn them
out.




DEBATES ON THE CHINESE WAR-DEFEAT OF THE MINISTRY.

The grand party struggle in parliament took place upon the subject of
the Chinese war. The opposition had previously made attempts, led by
Lord Grey and Mr. Disraeli, to overturn the cabinet on the subject of
the Persian war, but signally failed. Lord Derby proposed a vote of
censure, in the lords, against Dr. Bowring, for his conduct at Canton,
and the policy of the cabinet by which he was supported. The lords, by
a considerable majority, upheld the government. Mr. Cobden made a motion
in the commons similar to that made by Lord Derby in the House of Peers.
The Peelites and the Manchester school coalesced, Lord John Russell, Mr.
Roebuck, and other independent “members,” fell in with the coalition,
and the government was beaten by a majority of sixteen. The ministry did
not resign, but adopted the alternative of dissolving parliament.




PROROGATION AND DISSOLUTION.

On the 21st of March parliament was prorogued to the 30th of April. On
the same day the dissolution took place, which was to test the opinion
of the country for or against the ministry.




GENERAL ELECTION.

The election was attended with great excitement, and resulted in a great
increase of members supporting the ministry. Many of the Manchester
school were thrown out; not because of their economical philosophy, but
because of their supposed readiness to sacrifice national honour and
justice for the temporary and passing advantage of the manufacturing
interest. Mr. Cobden lost the representation of the West Riding of York,
Mr. Bright and Mr. Gibson lost that of Manchester, and the followers of
these gentlemen fared no better than their chiefs.




REASSEMBLING OF PARLIAMENT.

On May 7th the houses resumed business. It was announced by the ministry
that the Princess Royal was betrothed to Prince Frederick William of
Prussia. The house made provision for the princess.

The abolition of “ministers’ money” in Ireland was accomplished, after
a determined opposition by Mr. Disraeli in the commons, and the Earl of
Derby in the lords. The tax so called was a source of heart-burning and
contention in Ireland, a country afflicted by so many causes of social,
political, and religious disputes, that it might be supposed parliament
would have eagerly adopted any course to remove some of those occasions
of discontent. The Derby-Disraeli opposition was overborne by large
majorities, although the final struggle in the lords was ended by only a
majority of seventeen.

Long and violent debates ensued on an attempt by Lord Palmerston to
remove the ineligibility of Jews to sit in parliament. In the commons
his lordship triumphed, but in the lords was defeated. Sir F. Thesiger
in the commons and the Earls of Derby and Shaftesbury in the lords, were
the leading opponents of the measure. The Jews were much excited by
this defeat, and were, it was alleged, resolved to put forth their great
wealth to agitate the question on an extended scale: the temper of the
country would have been favourable to such an attempt.

Lord John Russell made another effort to obtain the admission of Jews,
but failed. The exasperation felt by the Jewish community now reached
a degree of great intensity, and the public sympathized with what was
considered their wrongs. Much indignation was felt against certain Irish
Roman Catholic members of parliament, who, in the supposed interests of
their own church, opposed the emancipation of their Jewish brethren.

The remainder of the session was chiefly occupied by party squabbles,
to the exclusion of useful and practical business. The opposition raised
numerous debates on the Persian war, and the Indian mutiny, which
were defeated. Mr. Disraeli signalized himself by much bitterness
of invective, and the avowal of principles which when in office,
previously and subsequently, he neither advocated nor acted upon. Some
useful discussions upon military and legal questions took place, and
a bill for facilitating divorce, in cases where that would be just and
moral, was carried. On the 28th of August parliament was prorogued.




SUDDEN CONVENTION OF PARLIAMENT IN DECEMBER.

The assembling of parliament in December was rendered necessary by the
terrible monetary panic which, originating in New York, extended to the
continent of Europe, and the British Isles. The rate of discount was
raised by the Bank of England to 10 per cent. That corporation applied
to the government to relax the restrictions of the Bank Act of 1844.
This was adopted by the government, and the convention of parliament on
the 3rd of December was mainly to pass an act of indemnity.

Commercial law reform, Jewish disabilities, church questions, and the
Indian mutiny, occupied the attention of the house until the close of
1857.




THE COURT.

On the 14th of April her majesty was safely delivered of a princess, her
fifth daughter, and ninth child. The infant was baptized on the 16th of
June. She was called Beatrice Mary Victoria Feodore. The sponsors were
the Princess Royal, the Duchess of Kent, and Prince Frederick William of
Prussia.

On the 5th of May, his Royal Highness Prince Albert opened the great
exhibition of Art Treasures in Manchester.

On the 26th of June Prince Albert received the title of Prince Consort.

The 6th of August was signalized by a visit to the queen on the part of
the Emperor and Empress of the French. The visit was paid at Osborne,
and was generally believed to have been a political one, having for its
object some agreement between the governments of England and France
in reference to their general policy, which had for some time been so
divergent.

Two ambassadors from Siam arrived in November, and attracted great
notice.

The great event of the years 1857–8 to her majesty and the court was the
marriage of the Princess Royal of England with the heir-presumptive to
the Prussian throne. “A treaty” for this purpose was concluded between
her majesty and the King of Prussia, which was signed at London on the
18th of January, 1857. The ratifications were exchanged in London on
18th of January, 1858. The solemnization of the marriage subsequently
took place in the chapel of St. James’ Palace, exciting deep and
universal interest among the people.




ART EXHIBITION IN MANCHESTER.

The exhibition in the Hyde Park Crystal Palace in 1851 suggested various
other enterprises of a similar kind. Those of Paris and Dublin were
especially brilliant. In Manchester, however, a plan was devised by
which the glories of all those exhibitions were surpassed. The scheme
was to gather the art treasures of the United Kingdom, and present
them together before the public. A building suitable to the purpose
was erected. It was not only not beautiful itself, but was exceedingly
unsightly. It was, however, spacious, convenient, and so lighted as
conduced to effect in an artistic display. The collection of productions
was estimated, in money value, at six millions sterling. Amidst this
glorious arrangement of works of genius, none probably attracted so much
attention as those of MacDowell, the Irish sculptor. His _chef-d’ouvre_,
the “Death of Virginia,” occupied the centre of the exhibition, and in
this advantageous position commanded extraordinary admiration. On the
day of opening the Prince Consort inaugurated the auspicious occasion.
Her majesty and many foreign princes afterwards visited it. All these
rich trophies of genius were restored without injury to their owners,
except a very valuable China vase, which was knocked down and broken.




CHAPTER LXX.

{VICTORIA. 1858–1859}

     Foreign Affairs..... Various important transactions in
     Asia..... Breaking out of a new War with China.....
     Violation of treaty by Japan..... Russian designs upon that
     Empire..... Russian encroachments upon China..... French
     attempts at conquests in Cochin China..... France: Rivalry
     with England; irritating language of the French Press;
     ostensible alliance and co-operation with England; real
     jealousy and contravention of British interests and policy;
     dispute about a Ship Canal across the Isthmus of Suez; also
     concerning electric communication between England and
     France..... Commercial intercourse..... Supposed designs of
     France in Northern Africa..... Attempt to Assassinate the
     Emperor of the French, and effect upon the alliance with
     England..... War between France and Austria, and its
     influence upon English public opinion and policy.....
     Naples..... Prussia: closer alliance with England.....
     Spain: war with Morocco; English protests..... Hanover:  the
     Stade dues..... United States of America..... Relations with
     the South American  States..... Colonies:  India,  Borneo,
     Australia, New Zealand, African Settlements, British
     Colombia, Jamaica..... Ireland..... Home: the Court,
     National Finance, Commerce..... General Home Polities and
     Prospects..... Parliamentary Affairs..... Conclusion of this
     History.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS.—CHINA AND JAPAN.

{A.D. 1858–1859}

The foreign transactions of 1858 have been partly related in the last
chapter; the conclusion of a peace with China, which was hailed with
great satisfaction in Europe, was among those transactions. After the
peace a work was published by Mr. Laurence Oliphant, who held a position
on the civil staff of Lord Elgin, relating the events of the war. Mr.
Oliphant had been distinguished as a traveller and writer, and his work
upon the mission of Lord Elgin to the Eastern seas naturally excited
very great attention. In that work it transpired that Sir Michael
Seymour, the admiral commanding the British fleet in the Chinese waters,
did not heartily co-operate with Lord Elgin. The admiral disapproved,
or affected to disapprove, of the actively hostile proceedings of Lord
Elgin. He was for carrying on the war by blockades and compromises,
after the fashion desired by certain merchants in China and in England
connected with the Chinese trade, who did not wish China thoroughly
opened to all nations, or to all English merchants, and who desired
to go on much in the old way—dealing and quarrelling with the Chinese
alternately, enduring all insults except personal oppressions, the
plunder of property, and the stoppage of trade; so that a restricted
intercourse with the Chinese might continue available to these
merchants, already in the trade and experienced in Chinese intrigue,
but calculated to deter others from entering a field of commerce
so hazardous and uncertain. With this British merchant-clique
the Manchester party in England sympathized. This at first seemed
inconsistent with the principles of that party, which involved free
trade with all nations. The system adopted in China, however, was
believed by many of the party to work well enough for the trade of
Manchester. Many of that school, who did not think so, believed that
a Chinese war would prove so expensive, and inflame the minds of the
Chinese so much, that on the whole it was better to patch up a peace any
how, or endure a troublesome peace, rather than have open hostilities.
The general conviction in Lancashire that a war anywhere, great or
small, was injurious to the trade of the district, had much to do with
the inveterate objection of the northern politicians to a Chinese war.
A considerable number of influential persons, in the middle and northern
counties of England especially, adopted the peace principles as a
religious dogma. They held that war, under any circumstance, for
whatever purpose, offensive or defensive, was a sin, and they deemed
it their duty to oppose whatever government went to war. On a vote
connected with the Chinese war the government of Lord Palmerston was
defeated, by a combination of the tory and the Manchester parties: the
latter, acting conscientiously as opposed to war; the former, taking a
party advantage of the situation, and voting against the government for
doing what, in office, they would do themselves. These two parties
were strengthened by Lord John Russell, then in opposition, and a small
section of Whigs led by him, who, in a spirit as factious and still
less honourable, joined the great conservative party to throw out the
Palmerston ministry. Sir J. Pakington, a determined Tory, became first
lord of the admiralty, and the other lords were of course of the same
party, they had come into office by a vote adverse to the Chinese war
and to the Palmerston government for lending any sanction to it.

When Admiral Sir Michael Seymour learned these facts, he thwarted Lord
Elgin as much as he could in the naval operations, especially in the
Peiho. This Lord Elgin and Mr. Oliphant declared; and the admiral
admitted that his slowness to cany out the plenipotentiary’s
requisitions arose partly from disapproval of the policy that
functionary was sent out to enforce. In fact, Sir Michael knew that he
would be backed by a tory admiralty, at the head of which was such a
thorough-going party man as Sir J. Pakington, in adopting their policy,
and thwarting a whig plenipotentiary. Sir Michael judged correctly;
his very bad conduct was pronounced exemplary by the admiralty, and the
queen’s plenipotentiary was hindered and affronted with impunity. That
was not the first time a British admiral acted similarly, very much
to the injury and peril of his country. In the history of the British
empire in the East there are various exemplifications of admirals
setting at defiance or impeding the authorities which they were bound in
duty to obey.

The work of Lord Elgin was not destined to prove stable in China.
The treaty was broken when the English minister, the Honourable Mr.
Bruce—sent to Pekin for its ratification—appeared in the Peiho.
Fortifications had been thrown up; the approach of the English and
French envoys refused; their escorts were attacked; and after a
desperate effort on the part of the small allied squadron to force its
way up the Peiho, it was beaten back with terrible slaughter, by a large
Tartar army defending the fortified obstructions raised against its
progress. The British admiral, Hope, after displaying extraordinary
gallantry, was terribly wounded. The allied French and English withdrew,
and awaited reinforcements and the further orders of their governments.
Those governments resolved to enforce the treaty, and conquer a passage
to Pekin. Large forces, comparatively with those of former expeditions
against the Chinese, were sent forth, and such was the attitude of
affairs when the period to which this History is conducted closed.

The treaty of Lord Elgin with the Emperor of Japan did not work
so smoothly as was expected, any more than that with China. The
ratification of the treaty, was effected on the 11th of July, 1858;
soon after, the Japanese government attempted to evade it by seeking to
confine foreigners to a small island about ten miles from Yeddo, and
to establish the same sort of _surveillance_ over them as they formerly
exercised at the Dutch settlement of Décima. They further sought to
establish a new coin as the only one to be used in commercial dealings
with foreigners, but at the same time forbidding its currency among the
natives, so that all payments in the new coin would have to be exchanged
at the government treasury for the old itzabon; and the relative values
fixed by the government produced a depreciation of 66 per cent, on
foreign coins, which, according to treaty, were to be received at their
intrinsic value as metal. Mr. Alcock, the British consul-general, issued
a protest, and stopped the trade. The calm and firm attitude he
assumed had the desired effect. Soon after, a variety of dishonest and
extraordinarily scandalous practices on the part of the British traders
exasperated the Japanese people and government. The interference of the
English consul to restrain the nefarious practices of his countrymen,
and maintain the character of his country, restored matters to a
peaceful aspect.

It is remarkable, that during the state of things recorded in the
foregoing chapters, of British relations with China and Japan, that
a large trade took place. The following is taken from an issue of the
_Chinese Telegraph_ at the close of 1859:—

“The aggregate amount of our trade with China, imports and exports,
including those of India, in 1857, reached £22,122,469, although there
was a cessation of the tea trade with Canton. Last year, even with the
effects of the commercial panic of the previous year, and the stoppage
of Canton trade, the aggregate commerce with China, British and Indian,
was over £20,000,000, exclusive of any colonial trade, Australian,
or with the Archipelago. In 1833, the declared value of the British
manufactures exported to China was only £630,578; in 1840 it was as low
as £524,198; and at the close of the war of 1842 it stood at £969,381.
In a few years after the opening of the five new ports to foreign
commerce, the value of British goods shipped had increased fully 50 per
cent., while it has now nearly tripled in value.

“The import and consumption of tea in this country has more than doubled
since the consular ports were thrown open. So also with silk. As we
have formerly shown, the demand has been extensive, and China can supply
enormous quantities. From a trivial export, silk has become the second
great staple of shipment. Although our imports from China have hitherto
consisted chiefly of three or four principal staples, there is no
reason, looking at the extensive resources of that vast empire, why
they should continue so restricted. Something has even been done of late
years in this respect. Chinese wool has come in to some extent, having
risen in some years to half a million of pounds; although, from its
harsh quality, and mixed and dirty character, it is only fitted for
coarse woollens, yet it is saleable at low prices. There are other
drugs, besides camphor, rhubarb, and essential oils to be obtained
thence. A demand has sprung up for sugar, and we can draw supplies
from China as well as from Manilla. There are other spices too, besides
cassia lignea, to be procured from China.

“In addition to the exports to Great Britain, China exports tea, silk,
drugs, and sundries to the continent of Europe, North and South America,
Australia, New Zealand, India, and the various settlements of the
Eastern Archipelago. The Indian trade has now reached about £10,000,000
in value, one article, opium, constituting the chief export; and
this, since the recent treaty, had increased in value by upwards of
£1,500,000. The shipments of cotton from India to China would seem to
be declining. Whether this arises from a greater demand from England,
an increased home production in China, or the internal rebellion, we
are not prepared to state. The American imports from China, since the
opening of the five ports, have more than doubled in value.

“The British interest in the indirect trade is also worthy of notice. In
addition to the large balance against us on the direct trade, we have to
provide for that created by the excess of value in exports to Australia,
America, &c, all of which are paid for by bills drawn on London. We may
except a small portion remitted direct by Australia in gold. India forms
the only exception. Her exports amount to over nine millions, while the
imports are under one million. In this way we settle, indirectly, the
balance of trade.”

The commerce with Japan was too imperfectly organized at the period
when this History closes to afford reliable statistics. It was, however,
considerable, especially in mineral productions. Gold, silver, copper,
and iron abounded; and as the Portuguese and Dutch in former days
enriched themselves by importing the precious metals from Japan, so it
promised, in 1859, to be the Ophir of the Eastern seas, if not of the
world. The war with China, and the opening of commercial relations with
Japan, were not the only matters of interest in the relations of England
to these countries. Russia opened a negotiation with the Japanese
emperor, for the cession of a position upon a small island, which there
was no doubt in England was intended as a _point d’appui_ for Russian
aggression. In China the same power made prodigious inroads, and it was
believed in Great Britain and in India, that Russian agents and Russian
material of war contributed to the defeat of Admiral Hope and his French
allies in the Peiho.

The following communication from St. Petersburg contains interesting
details relative to the extension of the Russian dominions in Asia:—“I
have received an interesting letter from the harbour of Weg-Chaz-Weg, in
the Yellow Sea, dated the 13th of July, 1858. It announces that
Count Mouravieff Amoorski arrived there that day on board the steamer
_America_, coming from Japan and Corea, to visit the coast of China. The
port is in the neighbourhood of the Gulf of Pechelee. Colonel Boudgoski,
chief of the commission for fixing the boundaries between the Russian
possessions in Mantchouria and the celestial empire, is going to Pekin
to obtain the approbation and definitive confirmation of the new limits
of Russia in Asia. According to the new line, the entire coast of
Mantchouria, on the Yellow Sea, and all that part of the country
not hitherto claimed by any power, becomes a Russian possession. The
territory acquired by the last treaty with China is thus considerably
increased. All the southern part of the coast near Corea—that is to
say, all under the same latitude as the Caucasian provinces, is supplied
with a considerable number of excellent harbours. In fact, in no other
country in the world is there to be found so many good harbours so near
to each other; in fine, it is difficult to decide which is the best.
The famous port of Sebastopol, and the Golden Horn in the Bosphorus, are
inferior as compared with these bays and ports. The land on the borders
of the coast is covered with virgin forests, in which are to be found
oaktrees of nine feet in diameter. The writer of the letter adds that
the sight of this gigantic vegetation filled him with amazement. It
is expected that this newly-acquired territory will become of immense
importance, the forests being situate so near such magnificent harbours.
The labyrinth of bays, harbours, and islands is called the Gulf of Peter
the Great, and the best port is named Vladiwosjok (Dominator of the
East), because it is the cradle of the Russian fleet in the Pacific
Ocean, and the commencement of Russian domination in the East. This
letter was received at St. Petersburg through Pekin, and thence by a
Chinese courier through Mongolia and Kiachta. This gives an idea of
the celerity with which communications are transmitted between St.
Petersburg, Pekin, and the Gulf of Pechelee.”

France had also designs of Oriental empire, which, however awkwardly
prosecuted, had never been abandoned. Her efforts during 1857–8–9, in
Cochin China, to establish a position there and make acquisitions of
territory, were expensive and persevering, although not attended with
the success which English and Russian enterprise has so generally
secured.




FRANCE.

England and France were ostensible allies during the period of which we
now write; but there existed a mutual jealousy, certainly provoked by
France, which seemed to regard rivalry with England as the grand object
of her political mission. The emperor made great efforts to bring up the
revenues of France to a standard that would enable him to undertake
all the schemes of his ambition. The actual results in that part of his
labours were as follows, taking the statement of the government official
organ, the _Moniteur_:—“The general revenue for the year 1858–9
amounted to 1,094,614,000 fr., being an increase of 2,916,000 fr. on
1857–8. The items which show an improvement are: import duty on foreign
sugar, 12,020,000 fr.; duty on potable liquors, 8,439,000 fr.; postage,
3,462,000 fr.; sundry duties and receipts, 2,864,000 fr.; import duty on
sundry merchandize, 2,697,000 fr.; salt duties, 1,496,000 fr.; sale of
tobacco, 1,471,000 fr.; import duty on corn, 577,000 fr.; navigation
dues, 557,000 fr.; stamp duties, 521,000 fr.; customs’ export duties,
425,000 fr.; money orders, 185,000 fr.; transit charge on foreign
letters, 26,000 fr. Those which have fallen off are registration duties,
15,036,000 fr.; duty on beetroot sugar, 6,286,000 fr.; sundry customs’
receipts, 1,489,000 fr.; sale of gunpowder, 597,000 fr. The increase of
revenue in 1859, as compared with 1857, was 41,931,000 fr.”

These returns were no doubt coloured, as French official reports
generally are; but, if correct, showed that the financial resources of
France were far inferior to those of England.

A variety of irritating topics were got up in France, and continued
to be so discussed in the press, with the connivance of the French
government, that the minds of the people of both countries became
inflamed with anger, and a disposition to adjust differences of
opinion and policy by the sword, eagerly advocated by the French, was
reluctantly adopted by the English. The French emperor, finding that
the English alliance had again become indispensable to him, silenced
the aspersers of his ally, or directed the same journals to uphold the
alliance they had so bitterly and pertinaciously decried. The creation
of a ship-canal across the isthmus of Suez was one of the most popular
themes of French vituperation. A French company desired to carry out
this object, or at all events to gain _grants of territory in Egypt_
for that ostensible purpose. The demands made for territorial concession
upon the pasha would have given the French government in Egypt a hold
upon that country subversive of its independence, and of the rights
of the Porte, most menacing to British rule in India, and dangerous to
Europe. Even if the scheme for the ship-canal were never executed, no
one doubted that France would make use of the territory granted for that
purpose to consolidate power in Egypt, England successfully opposed the
concession to a French company of any portion of the Egyptian territory.
Russia, Austria, and Prussia, from jealousy of England, and especially
of her Eastern dominions and marvellous commercial prosperity, aided
France in her efforts to induce the sultan to comply with her requests.
The policy of England on this subject was still in the ascendant at
Constantinople when the session of the British parliament rose in 1859.

Electric communication between England and France formed another subject
of difference. The French government was anxious, for its own political
purposes, to give exclusive advantages to a particular company; the
English government communicated its wish to throw open to competition
such undertakings. France pretended acquiescence at one time and
indifference at another, but at length, in harmony with the emperor’s
usual mode of acting, he suddenly granted a thirty years’ monopoly to
the company which, for the reasons referred to, he all along secretly or
openly favoured. During the latter part of 1859, the British government
made efforts to induce that of France to slacken the restrictive
commercial system which it had favoured. At a later period, a treaty was
made with such object, through the intervention of Lord Cowley and Mr.
Cobden on the part of England.

A war broke out between Morocco and Spain, which England used great
exertions to prevent, but which France not only encouraged but
instigated. The British government protested against Spain conquering
territory, and occupying strongholds on the African coasts opposite to
Gibraltar. So far as France was concerned in this war she betrayed a
desire that Spain should do what England was interested in preventing;
the French knowing that they could, from their own conquests in Africa,
drive out the Spaniards when they pleased, while the two nations united
in holding positions of strength in Africa, might countervail the power
in the Mediterranean which England derived from Gibraltar.

On the 12th of January an attempt was made to assassinate the Emperor of
the French, while in his carriage proceeding to the opera. The plot was
concocted by an Italian refugee, named Orsini, who was aided by
others, especially three Italians, named Rudio, Pierri, and Gomez. The
instruments of murder were shells, so made as to be thrown by the hand,
and detonate when coming in contact with any hard substance. These
shells had been manufactured in Birmingham, where Orsini, and some of
his companions, had temporarily resided. This circumstance inflamed
the mind of the French emperor and the French army against England.
The latter presented addresses to his majesty, from various corps,
denouncing England as the asylum of conspirators, and a den of
assassins; and denominating the English people as the confederates and
encouragers of conspirators and assassins. Offers were made by some
of the corps of the French army to invade England, and drag from “the
assassins’ den” the conspirators. These inflammatory addresses were well
received at the Tuileries, and answers given which were not respectful
to England. These proceedings in France were followed up by addresses
from the senate, in which foreign governments were called upon, in a
dictatorial and insolent tone, to make their laws against refugees more
stringent. These addresses, and the way in which the French emperor
received them, produced a great ferment in all the free countries of the
world, and the people of England were stung to the quick. The English
government, however, bore tamely these insults. An affrontful despatch,
through the French ambassador, made a climax to the haughty proceedings
of France, and the mode in which the government received it was so
time-serving and timid in the eyes of the English people, that the
popularity of the Palmerston administration was destroyed. That
administration had been restored to power with increased popularity, as
well as a large majority, upon the dissolution caused by the defeat of
the previous year on the Chinese question, but the timidity shown in
dealing with the insolence of the French ambassador, army, emperor,
press, and people, deprived it of all weight in the country. The defeat
and resignation of the English ministry resulted from this feeling. The
general tone of the French government, however, became modified by the
strength of will shown on the part of the English people, united
with their unmistakable abhorrence of the crime which led to the bad
feeling—at all events the immediate bad feeling—between the two
countries. The emperor made such acknowledgments to the British
government as amounted to an apology, and the mind of the people
became quieted on the subject, especially as the ministry was, for
its pusillanimity, hurled from power. Still, during the whole of 1858,
although the ostensible alliance was never broken, there existed no good
will towards England on the part of France, and no confidence in the
peaceful disposition of France and its emperor either to England or any
other power pervaded the public opinion of Britain. The suspicions of
the English people were verified in 1859. On the first day of that year,
at a reception in Paris, the emperor lectured the Austrian ambassador in
a manner insulting to the sovereign he represented, and which portended
war. The Austrian dominion in Italy was harsh, bigoted, and unjust. The
Germans, always so invidious in pride of race, were so in Italy to a
degree which goaded the Italians to desperation. The Austrians at last
violated the Sardinian territory, and France declared war. The French
and Italians, allies in a short campaign, drove the Austrians, with
terrible slaughter out of Lombardy, and all their Italian provinces
except Venice. The French emperor made peace as suddenly as he had made
war. A convention at Villa-franca, followed by a conference and treaty
at Zurich, settled the affairs of Italy, as far as the two emperors were
concerned. The Italian people were not, however, parties to the treaty,
and would not be bound by it. They determined upon annexation to
Piedmont, whereas the emperor resolved to restore the Italian duchies
to the sovereigns. Events may here be anticipated, so far as to say
that the diplomatic interposition of England was used in favour of
the Italian people, and influenced France in favour of a policy less
concessive to Austria. Throughout the period 1858–9, the firmness
and good sense of the people of England, acting decisively upon their
government, ensured peace with France, which the intemperance, intrigue,
and arrogance of our ally made it difficult to preserve.




NAPLES.

For many years the intercourse between the governments of her majesty
and the King of Naples were unsatisfactory, for the reasons assigned in
previous chapters. During the period included in this chapter, Naples
was in a very disturbed state, and the people of Italy were desirous
to aid their brethren of that kingdom in bringing about a revolution.
A ship, called _Cagliari_, the property of Sardinian subjects, was
engaged, ostensibly for other purposes but really to land a small force
in Naples, with supplies of arms and munitions of war, and precipitate a
revolution. The captain of the ship was a Sardinian, and ignorant of the
plot. The engineers were Englishmen, and also ignorant of the plot. The
conspirators seized the ship, and compelled the captain and engineers
to direct the vessel to Naples. The government of that country had
information of the design, and sent a war vessel to intercept that on
board of which the conspirators were. The capture was effected. The
Sardinian captain and British engineers, although obviously innocent,
were subjected to cruel injuries and indignities. The Sardinian
government interposed, but was not in a condition to enforce its rights.
Lord Palmerston’s cabinet neglected the claims of the British subjects
so injured, except by empty and futile remonstrances. When that cabinet
was thrown out for its timid policy towards France, on the refugee
question, the government of Lord Derby took the matter up with energy,
and Lord Malmesbury, then foreign secretary, adopted a tone as bold and
as English, as his conduct in the case of Mr. Mather, in Tuscany, some
years before, was incompetent and cowardly. The threat of force by the
English government secured the restoration of the unjustly imprisoned
English, and some measure of compensation. This circumstance gave weight
to the government of Lord Derby, both at home and abroad.




PRUSSIA.

On the 20th of January the Princess Royal of England was married to the
eldest son of the Crown Prince of Prussia. For a time this increased the
influence abroad both of England and Prussia, and the two nations seemed
to be very firmly allied. After a short time, Prussia relapsed into
her old pro-Russian sympathies, and lost all popularity in England. The
marriage of the heir-presumptive of the Prussian throne and the Princess
Royal of England caused great festivities, both in London and Berlin, in
January, and gave satisfaction to the freer nations of the Continent.




SPAIN.

During the years 1858–9 a feeling sprang up in Spain hostile to England.
This was partly attributable to France, which, in every direction,
professing alliance with England, endeavoured to foster jealousies and
enmities against her. Partly the feeling arose from the demands of the
English government for the payment of a debt due by that of Spain
ever since war between Don Carlos and Christina. Nearly half a million
sterling was then advanced by England to aid the cause of the Spanish
queen. The queen and her government, while indulging in the most
reckless extravagance, were unwilling to pay.

In 1859 Spain went to war with Morocco, on grounds which England did
not deem sufficient, and projects of territorial aggrandizement were
suspected as actuating the Spanish administration. England could not
allow Spain to erect a fortress opposite to Gibraltar, on the Straits,
and such was believed throughout Europe to be the real object of the
Spanish minister. France was solicitous to weaken the power of the
Moorish empire, and so promote her own designs of encroachment.
A Spanish war was favourable to such an object. It would also be
practicable for the French, at any time, to expel the Spaniards, and
seize upon their positions, and hold a point as powerful for the command
of the Straits of Gibraltar as the rock itself. The policy of France was
anti-English and anti-Spanish throughout, although O’Donnel, the Spanish
minister, regarded it as advantageous to Spain. The demand by England
for repayment to her of the loan so long due by Spain, at such juncture,
was interpreted by the Spanish government and people as an act of
hostility; and the press of Paris, with the connivance of the imperial
government, kept up, and, to a great extent, created the opinion.
The _modus operandi_ of the English government was, however, so
conciliatory, yet firm, as to force respect from the cabinet of Madrid,
and evoke assurances which were satisfactory, although few in England
believed them sincere.




HANOVER.

The Hanoverian government had levied for a long time, at the mouth
of the Elbe, certain monies, called “Stade dues.” This excited much
complaint amongst English merchants, and led to an investigation in the
English house of commons, in 1858, of the claims put forward by Hanover
to such exactions. The committee of the commons reported that the
imposts were injurious to British trade, and that Hanover rendered no
return. This led to negotiations which, after much tedious diplomacy,
ended in the extinction of the rates thus levied upon British ships.




THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

The opening paragraphs of the message of the President of the United
States contained the following statements, which were as just and true
as they were remarkable, coming from that source:—

“It has been the misfortune of both countries, ever since the period
of the revolution, to have been annoyed by a series of irritating and
dangerous questions threatening their friendly relations. This has
partly prevented the full development of those feelings of mutual
friendship between the peoples of the two countries, so natural in
themselves, and so conducive to their common interest. Any serious
interruption to the commerce between the United States and Great Britain
would be equally injurious to both. In fact no two nations ever existed
on the face of the earth which could do one another so much good and so
much harm.”

The year 1858 terminated one of the questions thus referred to by the
president—“the right of search.” It was settled, as all questions
between England and the United States have been, by concession on the
part of the former. English ships of war were, on no pretence, in time
of peace, to board, or detain, the American commercial marine on any
pretence whatever.




SOUTH AMERICAN STATES.

COLONIES.—INDIA.

The colonies of Great Britain, stretching over so large a portion of
the globe, could not fail to attract the attention of the people and
government of the British empire. The most important of all these
territorial acquisitions was India. The extinction of the mutiny and
revolt in the Bengal provinces of that country was related in a previous
chapter. It is here necessary to point out the issue of that mighty
struggle. The political power of the East India Company was abolished
by an act of the imperial parliament, and the government of India
vested solely in the crown. Her majesty was proclaimed Empress of India,
throughout all its provinces, to the amazement of princes and peoples,
with the mute submission of many, and the joyful acclamations of more.

A letter from Calcutta, in the August of 1859, thus reported:—

“Our trade returns, up to the 1st May, 1859, have just been published.
They show an increase of about a million:

     Year.         Imports.           Exports.             Total.

     1858–9      15,46,49,766       15,25,67,555       30,72,17,321

This total includes treasure, but the chief increase is in merchandize,
especially the following articles:—

                                               Increase.

     Cotton..............................      10,37,928 Rs.

     Haberdashery........................       8,18,318

     Hardware............................       5,99,185

     Copper..............................       6,51,599

     White and grey cottons..............     1,7228,679

     Ale.................................      15,00,821

     Twist...............................      31,20,698

The commerce of England and her friendly relations with several of the
South American States were much developed during the period to which
this chapter refers, although with other portions of that vast region it
was impossible to hold any intercourse, so riven were they by faction,
oppression, and civil war. With Brazil the commercial connections of
England were important, and the amity of the two states assured. Chili,
Peru, and Panama dealt largely with the European western nations, and
should the liberal party in those countries succeed in checking
the encroachments of the priests, it is obvious that a much further
development of commercial intercourse would take place.

Showing a new trade of £2,000,000 sterling with Manchester alone.

“In exports, the great fluctuations have been in—

                                              Increase.

     Silks.................................... 10,26,928 Rs.

     Opium.................................... 42,85,474

     Sugar .................................. 38,63,928

     Jute..................................... 21.49,089

     Linseed  ............................... 20,81,914

     Mustard seed............................. 14,84,683

“The exportation of rice has decreased by half a million sterling. The
increase in the import of Manchester goods will not be so rapid this
year, the market showing some signs of a glut. The import of silver has
been twenty-six millions in five years!”

Such a condition of commercial development and prosperity, during a
period of terrible contest, is one of the most marvellous of modern
historical facts. The progress of railways was, if possible, more
surprising as to the development of the material resources and aptitudes
of India at such a period. The condition of material prosperity shown
by India, in spite of the sanguinary sepoy revolt, was scarcely more
encouraging than the reports of the way in which the finance of India
passed through the terrible convulsion.




THE AUSTRALIAN COLONIES.

_South Australia_.—The extraordinarily rapid progress to wealth, power,
and importance of the Australian colonies was one of the great wonders
of the age. The following account of the condition of South Australia,
in 1859, is full of interest to every patriot and every friend of human
progress:—“The population was estimated at upwards of 120,000, and the
total immigration, from the 1st of January to the 8th of October, had
been 3,881. There had been an emigration, however, to the extent of
2,139 persons, leaving a balance in favour of immigration of 1,742,
comprising 917 male adults, 579 female adults, 101 male children, and
145 female children. The average number of destitute persons relieved at
the public expense in the three months ending the 27th of September was
756. The extent of crown lands sold, from the 1st of January to the 13th
of October was 113,731 acres, which realized £150,616—an amount
and acreage below the average of former years. The earnings of the
government railways—from Adelaide to Port Adelaide, and from Adelaide
to Gawler Town—amounted to £37,205 in the first 41 weeks of the
present year, being an increase of £1,340 as compared with the
corresponding period of 1858. There are 254 permanent ecclesiastical
buildings in the colony, besides 104 dwelling-houses and places
temporarily used for religious worship; sittings are thus provided for
51,831 persons, and the average congregations are estimated at 41,000.
The Wesleyan Methodists provided 16,261 sittings; the Church of
England, 6,335 sittings; the Roman Catholics, 4,790 sittings; and the
Congregationalists, 6,051 sittings. The remainder were supplied by other
denominations too numerous to particularize; but it may be added
that the German Lutherans figure in the return to the extent of 5,164
sittings. The total number of children in the various schools in the
colony maintained at the public expense was in 1858, 8,237: viz. 4,395
boys, and 3,842 girls. The total number of schools was 182, and the
amount of government aid given was £11,329. These figures exhibit an
astonishing advance as compared with 1849, when there were only 27
schools, with 848 scholars, and government aid to the extent of £707.
There were besides 11,982 scholars in Sunday schools in 1858, and 210
of those institutions were in existence, as compared with 45 schools and
2,563 scholars in 1848.”

_Victoria_.—The progress of this colony was more rapid and extensive
than that of any other in the Australian group. The balance-sheet of the
colony for 1858 revealed the following startling facts. The receipts for
that year amount in round numbers to £3,000,000, the import duties alone
amounting to £1,318,000, the export duty on gold to £316,000, the sales
of public lands to £628,000, the rent of public lands and licences of
different trades to £331,000, and the postage to £89,000. The surplus
revenue was expended by the assembly of representatives in the following
manner:—£114,000 for education, £24,000 for scientific purposes,
£25,000 for sanitary improvements, £769,000 for useful public works,
£25,000 towards the relief of sufferers by the sepoy mutiny, £7,000 for
a public library, £8,000 for an university purely secular. After these
and similar votes, a cash balance of nearly half a million sterling
remained in hand.




BRITISH AMERICA

Nothing peculiarly calling for statement or remark was presented in the
aspect of the British American colonies in 1858–9, except Jamaica and
British Columbia.

_Jamaica_.—This island has been well styled the Queen of the Western
Indies. Slavery, bad government, the ignorance and bigotry of the
colonists, had all militated against its improvement—1858–9 was no
exception to these remarks. According to _De Cordova’s Mercantile
Intelligencer_, the Commercial annals of the year “were peculiarly
unhealthy.” This was the only British American colony to which such a
remark would apply.

_British Columbia and Vancouver’s Island_.—This new settlement made
great progress from the very dawn of its recognition as a colony. The
capital, called Victoria, sprang up as if by magic, and became a centre
of business activity and colonial enterprise. Situated on the
Pacific, the climate is favourable, and the position, politically and
commercially, most important. The citizens of the United States laid
claim to an island near Vancouver’s Island, which was a source of alarm
lest war between the two states should arise from the dispute.
This question was not adjusted when this History was brought to a
termination.

In 1859, the _Canadian News_ contained the following statements
illustrating the value of this colony:—“Her majesty’s ship _Plumper_
arrived at Esquimault on the 1st of November from Nanaimo, having
concluded her surveying operations on the northern part of the Strait
of Georgia for the present season. During this cruise, several new
anchorages have been discovered and surveyed between Nanaimo and Cape
Laso (or Point Holmes, as it is sometimes called), a distance of about
fifty miles. But, perhaps, the most important discovery is the existence
of a considerable river in Vancouver’s Island, navigable for boats or
small stern-wheel steamers, on the banks of which are extensive tracts
of excellent land, varying from 20 to 100 feet in elevation, and clothed
with a rich luxuriant grass. This land is ready for the plough, is
entirely clear of the pine-tree, and studded here and there with
a better kind of oak than is usually found on the cleared lands
of Vancouver’s Island. This river, which has received the name of
Courtenay, in honour of Admiral Courtenay, who formerly commanded her
majesty’s ship _Constance_ in these waters, empties itself into a good
and spacious harbour, Port Augusta, which lies in about 49° 36′ north
latitude, and is scarcely 50 miles from Nanaimo. Major Downie was on his
way down from the Upper Fraser River region by the Lillooet trail
and Port Douglas. There were reports of his having made some valuable
geographical discoveries on his journey from the coast to Port
Alexander, among which were a chain of lakes extending along the route
150 miles, so that steamers drawing 12 inches of water can navigate a
distance of 100 miles further than steamers drawing 4 feet, which latter
run on Senas River, and a practicable portage of 40 miles will then
reach Fort Alexander. These reports are looked upon at Victoria as
important, as, if true, the upper mining districts will be much
more accessible than heretofore, being brought almost within water
communication with Victoria.”




IRELAND.

Of this country, at the close of our History as well as so frequently
during its progress, it is a painful duty to relate that its moral and
material progress was retarded by barbarous and cruel assassinations
perpetrated by member’s of a secret conclave, called the Ribbon Society.
This society was exclusively composed of Roman Catholics, and fanatics
of that creed. Their brutal murders were partly agrarian, and partly
of a bigoted character; but the effect upon the social condition and
prosperity of the country was disastrous. Still progress was made, and
agricultural and commercial enterprise increased. A government report,
on the agricultural statistics of Ireland for 1858, just published,
gives the following particulars:—“The land under crops was 5,882,052
acres; under grass, 9,354,117 acres; fallow. 42,551; woods, &c, 313,271;
and bog or waste, 4,667,331 acres. In some counties the area under
tillage continues to increase; in 13 of them it has diminished. The
total increase last year, on 1857, was 22,935 acres. The principal crops
grown in Ireland, are oats, potatoes, and hay, which in 1858 occupied 78
acres in every 100 of the entire extent under cultivation. In that year,
the proportionate area under oats was 34, potatoes 24, and hay 24 acres
in every 100. Wheat covered only nine, turnips six, and flax not quite
two acres per cent, of the whole area under crops. The area under crops
in 1858 is thus divided:—Wheat, 546,964 acres; oats, 1,981,241; barley,
190,768; rye, 11,470; and beans, 11,038; potatoes, 1,159,707; turnips,
338,202; mangold-wurtzel, 29,547; flax, 91,646; rape, 14,067; and meadow
and clover, 1,424,495 acres. The grass lands of Ireland cover nearly
one-half of the entire surface of the island. These tracts do not
include the land under meadow and clover (or the hay-producing lands),
but merely those returned to the enumerators as used for pasture at
the time of the collection of the statistics. The turf-bog is a very
valuable portion of the land, the turf being used for fuel, and till
coal becomes cheap enough to supersede it, the reclamation of bog will
be but slow in many parts of the island. There were 599,178 holdings in
Ireland in 1858: viz. 38,198 of 1 acre (not exceeding); 83,219 of 1 to 5
acres; 181,267 of 5 to 15 acres; 139,618 of 15 to 30 acres; 71,791 of
30 to 50 acres; 53,544 of 50 to 100 acres; 21,566 of 100 to 200 acres;
8,383 of 200 to 500 acres; and 1,592 of above 500 acres. The holdings
have increased by 4,786. Of the entire 20,259,322 acres forming the area
of Ireland, nearly one-half is in the possession of farmers holding from
15 to 100 acres, of which 1,475,433 acres, or 14·9 in every 100 is waste
or unproductive; about one-third is under farms of 100 to 500 acres, of
which 1,741,956 acres, or 28.5 per cent., is bog or waste, and
one-tenth of which, more than 1,260,535 acres, or nearly one-half, are
unprofitable for tillage, is occupied by farms of above 500 acres; the
remainder, which includes only 189,407 acres of the waste lands, is in
the hands of farmers holding under 15 acres. The following is the return
of live stock for 1858: viz. 630,611 horses and mules, 163,323 asses,
3,667,304 cattle, 3,494,993 sheep, 1,409,883 pigs, 228,351 goats,
and 9,563,185 poultry. The value is computed at £34,977,244. The weed
nuisance is still bitterly complained of by the Irish registrar-general,
who urges the passing of a bill to compel the destruction of weeds with
winged seeds before they are allowed to ripen. Besides the Blue-book
from which the above figures are copied, two small papers have been
printed, giving briefly the statistics for 1859. Last year, then, it
appears that 465,497 acres were under wheat, 1,981,197 under oats,
1,200,144 under potatoes, 322,266 under turnips, 136,329 under flax, and
1,436,680 under meadow and clover. The gross total area under crops
was 5,861,666 acres, against 5,882,052 in 1858. There was a decrease in
cereal and an increase in green crops. The net total decrease was 20,386
acres. Weeds are again complained of. The live stock in 1859 included
628,916 horses, 3,810,136 horned cattle, 3,588,356 sheep, and 1,262,873
pigs.”




HOME.—THE COURT.

The marriage of the Princess Royal took place January the 25th, under
the circumstances referred to in a previous chapter.

One of the earliest incidents connected with the court, of any general
interest, was the investiture of the King of Portugal with the order of
the garter. This event took place in Lisbon, where the Marquis of Bath
and Sir George Young officiated, as her majesty’s plenipotentiaries, in
conferring the honour. The ceremony took place on the 27th of May, 1858.

On the 15th of June her majesty, accompanied by Prince Albert, visited
Birmingham, on occasion of a “People’s Park” being set apart. Her
majesty was the guest of Lord Leigh, of Stoneleigh Abbey.

A distribution of the Victoria Cross took place on Southsea Common, by
her majesty in person, on the 2nd of August.

Soon after, her majesty, attended by a brilliant court, proceeded to the
inauguration of Cherbourg as a great port and arsenal, and the opening
of the Napoleon Dock at that place. The attendance of the Queen of
England upon an occasion intended to celebrate a work accomplished for
the menace of her dominions, and more especially of her naval power in
the Channel, was generally regarded abroad as a sign of timidity on the
part of the English government, and of a willingness to conciliate the
French emperor at all costs, even of national respect.

On the 10th of August her majesty sailed from Gravesend for Germany, to
pay a visit to her daughter, the Princess Frederick William of Prussia.

The year 1858 was remarkable for the number of visits paid by the court.
On the 6th of September her majesty visited Leeds. Avast concourse of
people, from every part of the great West Riding of York, thronged the
town, and the demonstrations of loyal attachment made by the people
were most gratifying to their sovereign. The object of the visit was the
opening of the Town Hall. A great musical festival followed, one of the
most successful ever held in England.

The court, during that portion of 1859 which falls within the limits of
this History, was not in any especial way connected with great public
events.




COMMERCE AND FINANCE.

One of the most remarkable features of the commerce of the period
was the importation of corn:—In 1858, wheat, 4,275,435 qrs.; barley,
1,673,477 qrs.; total of all grain, 11,572,702 qrs.: 1859, wheat,
4,023,578 qrs.; barley, 1,742,217 qrs.; total of all grain, 10,516,193
qrs.

In 1858 there was a reduction of taxation to the amount of £2,100,000;
new taxes were imposed to the extent of £456,780.

The rental value of land in England in 1859 was estimated at
£41,000,000.

The following statement of railway property at the close of 1858, is
from a return ordered in consequence of a parliamentary motion, made by
Mr. Henley, in the session of 1859:—“The grand total amount of
railway capital authorized by act of parliament previous to the 31st of
December, 1857, was £287,908,636 by shares, and £98,273,070 by loans. In
1858, £5,253,792 was authorized by shares, and £2,199,409 by loans. The
total capital and loans authorized previous to the 31st of December,
1858, was £392,682,755; £181,837,781 of the capital was not receiving,
nor entitled to receive, any preferential dividend or interest. The
total dividends on the share capital amounted to £6,161,099; £61,854,547
was the stock receiving, or entitled to receive, preferential dividend
or interest, to the amount of £829,331. The total debts of companies
at the end of 1858, amounted to £81,683,179; and the interest thereon
payable to £3,591,148. £325,375,507 was the total sum which at the
end of 1858 the railway companies had raised by shares or loans, and
£67,307,248 the total amount which at the same period they retained
power to raise, either by existing or by new shares, or by loans.
The total amount expended on railroad works and rolling stock was
£287.800,208. The total length of line and capital appropriated by
parliament for the construction of lines, for which the powers for the
compulsory purchase of land have been allowed to expire previous to
the 31st of December, 1858, without the exercise of such powers, were
respectively 2,534 miles, and £41,082,954.”

The value of imports and exports to the United Kingdom for 1858 and 1859
was enormous. The following comparative view, based on the returns of
the board of trade, is therefore of much interest. The general increase
of exports in 1859 over 1858 was £13,831,671, while to the colonies
and the United States it was £14,022,424. The balance of our business
carried on with all other parts of the world resulted, therefore, in a
falling off.

The total income of the national exchequer, when the accounts were
made out in 1858, was a little more than sixty-eight millions. The
expenditure amounted to nearly two and a half millions more.




PARLIAMENTARY AND POLITICAL.

On the 4th of February, 1858, the business of parliament began. The
life of the French emperor having been attempted by an assassin, who
had resided as a refugee in England (as recorded under the head of
our relations with France), the government brought in a bill to bring
refugees more stringently under the cognizance of the executive. The
spirit of the measure was to conciliate France, and gratify the French
emperor. This was distasteful to the nation; for the French press, and
the French army, with the connivance, and even at the instigation of the
French government, abused and menaced England, in a manner such as no
great nation before had endured from another in time of peace. The
bill of Lord Palmerston was supported by the whole strength of the tory
opposition. The independent Liberals, however, made so determined an
opposition to the measure, and to the whole policy of the government in
truckling to France, that the tory party resolved to make that hostility
available to overthrow the government. It appeared that an insulting
despatch had been sent by Count Walewski, the French minister, to the
English minister for foreign affairs. To this despatch no reply was
returned, whereas the house of commons and the country considered that a
reply, prompt and indignant, should have been given. Mr. Milner Gibson,
then especially hostile to the Palmerston government, moved what was
tantamount to a vote of censure, on the ground of the silence of the
cabinet under the singularly offensive despatch of the French minister.
The combination of independent Liberals and Tories, upon this motion,
threw out the government.

Lord Derby was sent for by her majesty, and empowered to form a
ministry. The new cabinet was thus composed:—

     First Lord of the Treasury....... Earl of Derby.

     Lord-Chancellor.................. Lord Chelmsford.

     President of the Council......... Marquis of Salisbury.

     Lord Privy Seal.................. Earl of Hardwicke.

     Home Secretary................... Mr. Spencer Walpole.

     Foreign Secretary................ Earl of Malmesbury.

     Colonial Secretary............... Lord Stanley.

     Secretary at War................. General Peel.

     Chancellor of the Exchequer...... Mr. Disraeli.

     First Lord of the Admiralty...... Sir J. S. Pakington.

     President of the Board of Control Earl of Ellenborough.

     President of the Board of Trade   Mr. Henley.

     First Commissioner of Works.......Lord J. Manners

The members not in the cabinet were selected from the other leading
members of the late tory opposition in both houses.

So unpopular had the ministry of Lord Palmerston become, by its
subserviency to the French emperor, and its neglect of the honour of
England, in the instance of the two English engineers, captured on board
the Sardinian ship, _Oagliari_, by a Neapolitan frigate, that there
was a very general disposition, among all parties, to give Lord Derby’s
government “a fair trial.”

The course of this ministry did not, however, run smooth, and they,
soon lost popularity and power, by their prejudices, incapacity for the
crisis, and a disposition to increase their power by petty trick and
indirect artifice. This last feature of their ministerial character was
most especially exemplified in the commons by Mr. Disraeli.

The Earl of Derby abandoned the foreign refugee bill, which he and his
followers had, when out of office, supported.

During the discussion which arose concerning India, and the transaction
of business with that empire resulting from the mutiny, the Earl of
Ellenborough acted with a partizanship so flagrant and unjust, that in
order to save the cabinet it was necessary that he should retire from
it, go strong was the indignation against him both in the commons
and the country. Lord Stanley, who had filled the office of colonial
secretary with great ability, assumed the office vacated by Lord
Ellenborough, and was afterwards made “secretary of state for India,”
 an office created by “the government of India act.” Sir Edward Bulwer
Lytton became secretary for the colonies in the room of Lord Stanley.
The chief work of the new tory ministry was to carry a bill for the
government of India. Almost every other measure introduced by them was
unpopular, yet the feeling against the late Palmerston ministry was so
strong, that there was no desire to expel the cabinet.

Lord Lucan, in spite of the public opposition, and still more
intense private opposition of Lord Derby, carried a measure for the
parliamentary emancipation of the Jews, which was admirably devised, and
ably brought forward and supported by the noble earl.

The grand failure of the Derby ministry was a reform bill, which was an
indirect and sly scheme to increase the power of the landed interest.
The bill was ignominiously spurned by the people and the popular branch
of the legislature. From that hour the Derby ministry was doomed,
although another question was that upon which its defeat was destined to
take place. A very important measure was carried by Mr. Locke King,—the
abolition of the property qualification for members of parliament.
The same honourable member carried a bill for enfranchising ten pound
householders in counties, over a second reading in the commons, signally
defeating the government. The lateness of the session at the time when
this was achieved prevented the further progress of the bill.

On the 3rd of August the session of 1858 terminated.

The session of 1859 opened at the usual period. Rumours of war between
France and Austria gave an extraordinary interest to the occasion. That
war broke out, after strenuous efforts by Lord Derby’s government to
prevent it. The _animus_ of Lord Malmesbury’s diplomacy was evidently
in favour of Austria, and without any sympathy for Italy, while it was
decidedly hostile to France. By this policy the cabinet was overthrown,
and Lord Palmerston formed a ministry. Public opinion in England was
hostile to the Emperor of the French, but still more so to the kasir,
while an intense desire for Italian freedom existed in the United
Kingdom. The general sentiment of the nation was therefore adverse to
the foreign policy of the Derby government, and, before a motion in the
commons condemnatory of that policy, the cabinet fell. Lord Derby was
not disposed to yield to an adverse vote without taking “the sense of
the country;” but the country showed him no favour, and he resigned.
Lord Palmerston had the honour of forming the new cabinet. He became
first lord of the treasury; Lord John Russell, minister for foreign
affairs; Sir G. Grey, home secretary; Mr. Gladstone, chancellor of the
exchequer; Sir Charles Wood, secretary for India; the Duke of Newcastle,
for the colonies; Lord Granville, president of the council, and Mr.
Sidney Herbert, minister of war. This was a strong government. The
elections were decisively in their favour. The party conflicts of the
year impeded legislation. Mr. Gladstone startled the house by a bold
and comprehensive system of finance, and when in August the session
terminated, Lord Palmerston held the reins of power with a firm hand,
and the country felt that after all his faults, and the vicissitudes
of his career, he was the great statesman of the age, to whom the
government of England could be most safely entrusted, whenever a great
emergency demanded that a great man should hold the helm of affairs.


THE END.






*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND IN THREE VOLUMES, VOL.III. ***


    

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.


START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

    This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
    other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
    whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
    of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
    at www.gutenberg.org. If you
    are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
    of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
  
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

    • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
        the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
        you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
        to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
        agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
        within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
        legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
        payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
        Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
        Literary Archive Foundation.”
    
    • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
        you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
        does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
        License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
        copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
        all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
        works.
    
    • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
        any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
        electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
        receipt of the work.
    
    • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
        distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
    

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.