{GEORGE IV. 1821—1823.}
Meeting of Parliament..... Debate on the Holy Alliance.....
The Catholic Question..... Motions for Parliamentary
Reform, &c. Report of the Agricultural Committee.....
The Navigation Laws..... The Supplies, &c. Coronation of
George IV...... Death of Queen Caroline..... Meeting of
Parliament..... Changes in the Cabinet..... Motion to
restore Roman Catholic Peers to their Seats in
Parliament..... Motion on Agricultural Digress, &c. Acts
for the Reduction of Expenditure..... Debates on the
Currency..... Reduction of Imposts, &c. Motion for
Parliamentary Reform..... Cause of the Greeks.....
Prorogation of Parliament..... Change in the Cabinet.
MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.
{A.D. 1821}
Parliament reassembled on the 23rd of January, and was opened by the
king in person. In his speech, he expressed satisfaction at decreasing
evils with reference to domestic concerns; and in noticing foreign
commotions, he stated, that his great object would be to preserve the
blessings of peace. He noticed the queen, but it was only to suggest the
settlement of a provision upon her. But notwithstanding these pacific
demonstrations the opposition in both houses prepared all their strength
for the overthrow of the ministry. The whigs joined the radicals, and
one of the results of this alliance was the presentation of petitions
praying for the restoration of her majesty’s name to the liturgy;
reprobating the late bill of pain and penalties; and requesting the
house to exert its influence with the king to dismiss his ministers. In
consequence of these petitions a motion was made on the 26th of January,
by Lord Archibald Hamilton, for a vote of censure on ministers for the
omission of the queen’s name in the liturgy; but though ably supported
by Messrs. Brougham, Hobhouse, Scarlett, Wetherell, and Sir James
Mackintosh, the motion was lost by a large majority. A few days
afterwards, on a proposition by Lord Castlereagh, for a committee to
take into consideration a provision for the queen, Mr. Brougham stated
that her majesty was resolved not to accept of any settlement, while her
name was excluded from the liturgy. But notwithstanding this statement,
his lordship proposed a provision of £50,000 per annum, and after
vehement debates the vote passed without a division, and a bill for this
annuity was forwarded through the usual stages. On the 5th of February,
Lord Tavistock renewed the attack on ministers, by a motion of direct
censure on the whole proceedings against the queen, with a view of
compelling the ministers to resign. This motion, however, was lost by a
large majority; and a last effort made in the queen’s cause, namely, a
motion made for the restoration of her name to the liturgy, met with
a similar fate. In the meantime the queen had been reduced to the
necessity of either being left without any provision, or of accepting
the voted settlement, in contradiction to the statement made by her
counsel. Her acceptance of it was necessary to her very existence, but
the inconsistency of this determination extinguished all her influence
over the public mind. By the issue of this trial, indeed, both the king
and the queen were lowered in the public estimation: the respect of the
nation for the throne and its occupant especially was greatly impaired.
DEBATE ON THE HOLY ALLIANCE
During this session the consideration of foreign affairs was brought
before parliament by motions from Lord Grey in the lords, and by Sir
James Mackintosh in the commons. The ostensible object of these
motions was the production of all communications between his majesty’s
government and foreign states on the concerns of Naples. In reality,
however, the purpose of these motions was to elicit the minister’s
sentiments concerning the conduct of the Holy Alliance, whose manifesto,
recently published at Troppau, had excited feelings of alarm among all
the friends of constitutional liberty throughout Europe. In his speech
Lord Grey adverted to a document published at Hamburgh, purporting to
be a circular of the allied powers, in which a claim was set up of a
general superintendence over European states, and the suppression of all
changes in their internal administration, hostile to what the alliance
deemed legitimate principles of government. These monarchs, his lordship
said, had assumed the censorship of Europe; sitting in judgment on the
internal transactions of other states, and even taking on themselves
to summons before them an independent sovereign, in order to pronounce
sentence on a constitution which he had given to his country. Ministers,
in their defence, said that our government was in no respect a party
to the league; and the motion for the production of the papers was
negatived. When the declaration against Naples arrived, however, the
subject was renewed by a motion made by Lord Lansdowne, for an address
to his majesty for a remonstrance with the allied powers. But this was
met by the pretext of a strict neutrality adopted by Great Britain; and
Naples was left to fall into the hands of the Austrians.
THE CATHOLIC QUESTION.
Grattan, the great advocate of Catholic emancipation, had recently
departed this life; but there were still men in parliament able to
advocate his principles. On the 28th of February the question was
brought forward by Mr. Plunkett, whose able and lucid speech elicited
acclamations from all parts of the house. Mr. Peel was the chief
opponent of the measure; but the motion for a committee was carried by a
majority of six votes. The house resolved itself into a committee on the
2nd of March, when six resolutions, proposed by Mr. Plunkett, received
the sanction of the house. On these resolutions he framed two bills; one
repealing disabilities, and the other enacting securities for the safety
of the Protestant succession to the crown, and of the Protestant church.
These bills passed the commons; but in the upper house the atmosphere
was not quite so congenial to their existence. Their fate was decided
on the second day’s debate, by a speech delivered by the Duke of York,
presumptive heir to the throne. He remarked in that speech:—“Educated
in the principles of the established church, the more I inquire, and the
more I think, the more I am persuaded that her interests are inseparable
from those of the constitution. I consider her as an integral part, of
that constitution, and I pray that she may long remain so. At the same
time there is no man less an enemy to toleration than myself; but I
distinguish between the allowance of the free exercise of religion and
the granting of political power.” This speech had its effect: the bill
was thrown out by a majority of one hundred and fifty-nine against one
hundred and twenty.
MOTIONS FOR PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, ETC.
While the peers were thus engaged the commons were considering the
subject of parliamentary reform. Mr. Lambton proposed to divide
the kingdom into elective districts, extend the franchise to all
householders, and limit the duration of parliament to three years. This
plan being rejected, Lord John Russell proposed another, which would
have extended the right of electing members to populous towns then
unrepresented in parliament, and disfranchise every borough convicted
hereafter of corruption. The house, however, was not yet prepared to go
even thus far, for the motion was rejected by a majority of one hundred
and fifty-five. But one decided measure of practical reform was at least
effected this session; this was the disfranchisement of the corrupt
borough of Grampound, and the transfer of its privileges to the
populous county of York.
REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEE.
Early in this session, from numerous petitions presented on the
prevalence of agricultural distress, and on the motion of Mr. Gooch, a
committee had been granted to investigate this subject. The report of
this committee was presented to the house on the 18th of June; and it
stated that the complaints of the petitioners were founded in fact,
in so far as they represented that, at the present price of corn, the
returns to occupiers of arable land, after allowing for the interests of
investments, were by no means adequate to the charges and outgoings. It
also acknowledged that the committee, after much anxious inquiry, had
not been able to discover any means calculated to relieve the present
pressure. The report, in fact, when made public, extinguished all hopes
which had been entertained from the labours of the committee. It stated,
“So far as the pressure arises from the superabundant harvests, it is
beyond the application of any legislative provisions; so far as it is
the result of the increased value of money, it is not one peculiar to
the farmer, but extends to many other classes of society.” This was
essentially true; and our legislators, perceiving that they could not
alleviate the distress by legislation, left the matter to be ameliorated
in the progression of time.
THE NAVIGATION LAWS.
In the course of the last session ministers had proclaimed views in
favour of free trade; and these were more formally developed this year
by series of resolutions, proposed by Mr. Wallace, president of the
board of trade, the object of which was to pave the way for a complete
revisal of the navigation laws, and the removal of those restrictions
which forbade the free interchange of commodities in foreign shipping.
Leave was given to introduce bills for the enactment of these important
measures in the ensuing session.
THE SUPPLIES, ETC.
The total amount of supplies for this year was £20,018,200; and in aid
of the ways and means £13,000,000 were taken from the sinking-fund.
A sum of £500,000, also, arose from the pecuniary indemnity paid
by France. A preposition to repeal the malt-tax was negatived; but
ministers afforded some relief to agriculturists by removing the duty
from horses employed in husbandry. In the debates on the estimates of
expenditure, Mr. Hume pursued his plan of sifting and disputing almost
every item of supply; and though he did not succeed in effecting any
reduction of expense, yet by this system ministers were compelled into
the necessity of originating measures of retrenchment. Parliament was
prorogued by commission on the 11th of July.
CORONATION OF GEORGE IV.
It had been intended that the king’s coronation should have taken place
in August, 1820; but the queen’s appearance had set that intention
aside. Her trial further delayed it; but after the storm of passion
with which that was accompanied had subsided, it was announced that the
coronation would take place on the 19th of July of the present year.
This announcement brought the queen again into the field. On the 25th
of June she preferred a claim to be crowned like her royal
predecessors; and the case was argued, at the king’s request, before the
privy-council. Her majesty’s claim, however, was rejected; and as soon
as she received it, she stated her fixed determination to be present
at the ceremony, and demanded a suitable place to be provided for her
accommodation. This also was refused; and the queen then requested the
Archbishop of Canterbury to crown her alone, a request with which he had
not the power to comply. Thus repulsed she prepared a protest, which she
determined to deliver personally into the king’s hands on the day of
his coronation. This occasioned expectations that the celebration of
the coronation would be interrupted, if not prevented, by some popular
commotion or infraction of the peace. Every precaution, however, was
taken by ministers to preserve the public tranquillity, and to draw off
public attention from the queen. Shows, balloons, fireworks, and all
sorts of entertainments attracted the populace from the vicinity of
the abbey, while, in case any commotion should arise, every disposable
regiment was brought into or near the metropolis. There needed, however,
no warlike preparation; for while the queen’s popularity had abated,
that of the king had so much increased as almost to fulfil Lord
Castlereagh’s prediction, that, at the end of six months after the
trial of the queen, his majesty would be the most popular man within his
dominion. He had, in fact, from that time been courting popularity,
and the goddess had greatly favoured him. On the day of the coronation,
therefore, no tumult was created in favour of the queen; she, in fact,
on whom the populace, almost as one man, had, but a little time before,
waited with addresses, assuring her of support and commiseration, was
allowed to go from door to door of the abbey seeking admittance, and
to be at every door rejected with contumely and scorn, with impunity.
George IV. was crowned without interruption; and a ceremony more august
and imposing in all its parts, or more, calculated to make the deepest
impression both on the eye and the feelings, could not be conceived. But
the propriety of the pomp and magnificence displayed may be questioned,
as the nation was still suffering from the effects of the late expensive
war.
DEATH OF QUEEN CAROLINE.
Although Queen Caroline had borne her wrongs and injuries proudly up
to the coronation of her husband, yet, by the treatment she on that day
received, not only from officials, but the populace, her spirit was at
length subdued. She had placed her last stake on the hazard of a
day; and having totally failed in her object, sunk under the deepest
humiliation. But death came to the relief of all her anxieties and all
her woes. Soon afterwards she was attacked with an obstruction of the
bowels, which, in her state of mind and body, brought on mortification,
and terminated fatally on the 7th of August. Her ruling passion was
strong in death. She directed that her remains should be interred in
her own country, and that this inscription should be engraved on her
tomb:—“Here lies Caroline of Brunswick, the injured Queen of England.”
Her funeral procession was attended with riots of a serious description.
The first stage, where it was to cross the sea, was to Romford in Essex.
The road that led to that place from her residence on the banks of the
Thames was through the heart of the capital, by her husband’s palace,
and St. Paul’s Cathedral. Ministers unwisely sought to prevent the
corpse from proceeding in this direction, and endeavoured by the
military to force it up a narrow street or lane, so that it might reach
the northern outskirts of London, and get into the Romford road
without occasioning any popular commotion. The populace, however,
whose predilection for the queen, now that she was dead, seems to have
returned, were determined that the procession should proceed by the
natural route. To this end the pavement was torn up, trenches made
in the road, and the avenues blocked up in every other direction. The
people triumphed; but at Hyde-Park upper-gate a conflict between the
military and the people took place, and two of the latter were shot
dead. At length the hearse was forced into the city; and here the
procession was joined by the lord mayor and other authorities; the shops
being closed, and the bells of the different churches tolling. It is
said that his majesty, who, at the time these commotions took place, was
enjoying the pleasures of conviviality in Ireland, expressed in somewhat
contemptuous terms his dissatisfaction at the want of arrangement and
energy on the part of ministers. But this seemed to proceed from the
failure of their plans rather than from any respect to his deceased
queen. She was persecuted even to the last. In the course of the
procession Sir Robert Wilson remonstrated with some soldiers on duty,
and this humane interference deprived him of his commission; the
directing civil magistrate, also, who consulted humanity in preference
to his orders, was dismissed from office. It was unmanly to persecute
the departed while in the land of the living; it was unworthy of manhood
to carry resentment beyond the grave.
MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.
{A.D. 1822}
On the meeting of parliament in January, one of the first subjects taken
into consideration was the state of Ireland. For some years that country
had been comparatively peaceable, but distress and outrage were again
walking hand in hand in every part. To repress the spirit of lawless
outrage, the Marquess of Londonderry—Lord Castlereagh, who had
succeeded to that title at his father’s death—introduced and carried
two bills for arming the administration with additional powers, the
insurrection act, and the suspension of the _habeas corpus_. Several
members wished the state of Ireland to be thoroughly investigated; but
this did not accord with the views of ministers. At length a famine,
from the failure of the potatoe-crop in 1821, spread over the country,
and disease waited in its train. A fever, of the typhus kind, swept
off its thousands, while starvation carried off its thousands more.
Government, on discovering this, placed £500,000 at the disposal of Lord
Wellesley, the lord-lieutenant, to be dispensed in charitable relief,
or in employing the poor on works of public utility, and private charity
afforded even more effectual aid; but still the people of Ireland could
not be wholly rescued from the calamity which had overtaken them. Many
were snatched from the jaws of death by this timely relief, but many
more perished.
CHANGES IN THE CABINET.
The continued distress of the agriculturists in England, at the
commencement of this year led to some modification in the state of
public parties. At many county meetings such a loud and imperative call
for retrenchment and remission of taxation, was made by both landholders
and farmers, that the treasury-bench began to feel alarm. This, in fact,
drove them to the expediency of strengthening their ranks by opening the
doors of office to the Grenville party; which, though not united with
the whigs, was generally opposed to ministers. Lord Grenville, the
political head of the party, had retired from public life, but the
Marquess of Buckingham was gratified by a ducal coronet, and Mr. Charles
Wynne was made president of the board of control. A greater accession
was gained in the exchange of Lord Sidmouth for Mr. Peel, as secretary of
state for the home department. Lord Sidmouth, however, was permitted to
retain a seat in the cabinet, but Mr. Canning was compelled to retire,
the part which he had taken in the affairs of the queen having created
feelings of resentment against him in the king’s mind.
MOTION TO RESTORE ROMAN CATHOLIC PEERS TO THEIR SEATS IN PARLIAMENT.
On the 30th of April, Mr. Canning, “wishing perhaps to give éclat to his
departure from the scene of his glory,” moved in the house of commons
for leave to bring in a bill for restoring the right of sitting and
voting in parliament to Roman Catholic peers. In his speech he asked;
“Do you imagine it never occurred to the representatives of Europe, when
contemplating the imposing spectacle of the coronation; that it never
occurred to the ambassadors of Catholic Austria, of Catholic Fiance, or
of states more bigoted, if there be any more bigoted, to the Catholic
religion, to reflect, that the moment this solemn ceremony was over, the
Duke of Norfolk would become disseized of the exercise of his privileges
among his fellow peers? stripped of his robes of office, which were
to be laid aside, and hung up, until the day, when the coronation of a
successor to his present most gracious sovereign should again call him
forth to assist at a similar solemnization? Thus after being exhibited
to the peers and people of England, to the representatives of princes
and nations of the world—the Duke of Norfolk, highest in rank among the
peers—the Lord Clifford and others, like him, representing a long line
of illustrious ancestors, appeared as if they had been called forth and
furnished for the occasion, like the lustres and banners that flamed and
glittered in the scene; and were to be, like them, thrown by as useless
and temporary formalities. They might, indeed, bend the knee and kiss
the hand; they might bear the train, or rear the canopy; they might
perform the offices assigned by Roman pride to their barbarian
forefathers—_Purpurea tollant auloa Britanni_—but with the pageantry
of that hour their importance faded away. As their distinction vanished,
their humiliation returned: and he who headed the procession of peers
to-day, could not sit among them as their equal, to-morrow.” This motion
was strongly opposed by Mr. Peel, who was unable to see any reason for
exempting Roman Catholic peers from political restrictions to which
a community professing the same tenets were by law subject. The bill,
notwithstanding, passed the commons by a majority of five; but it was
rejected by the lords.
MOTION ON AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS, ETC.
Early in this session Mr. Brougham moved that it was the duty of the
house to relieve agricultural distress by a reduction of taxes. This
motion was made with a view of trying the strength of parties, as the
small corps of Grenvillites, which had lately joined their ranks,
could not support ministers, if the country members deserted them. Lord
Londonderry met this covert attack on the ministers, however, by an
assurance, that they intended to propose measures for that purpose, so
that the arrow aimed at them fell pointless to the ground. The motion
was negatived from this assurance, and his lordship soon after proposed
the reappointment of the agricultural committee. On the report of this
committee he submitted a plan of relief to the house; the principal
heads of which were a repeal of the annual malt-duty, and a loan of
£1,000,000 in exchequer-bills to the landed interest, on the security of
warehoused corn. It was also enacted that when wheat should reach
eighty shillings a quarter, a new scale of duties should be brought into
permanent operation. At the same time the chancellor of the exchequer
brought forward two financial operations. The first of these was a
reduction of the navy five per cents., to stock carrying only four per
cent; the holders having the option of being paid off at par, or of
accepting the lower rate of interest with a small increase of capital as
a bonus: the second was a plan to diminish the present charge for naval
and military half-pay and civil pensions, known in financial jargon
under the name of the dead-weight, by extending it in the form of
annuities over a period of forty-five years, instead of allowing it to
be gradually extinguished through the death of annuitants. This scheme
appeared fallacious to many members, and unintelligible to others; but
it was passed by the house, though subsequently the chancellor of the
exchequer had to remodel his plan, as the great capitalists complained
of its principles. The arrangement was completed in the following year
by a bargain with the Bank of England.
ACTS FOR THE REDUCTION OF EXPENDITURE.
During this session ministers felt themselves obliged to yield to the
loud call made upon them for the reduction of expenditure. Encouraged by
the co-operation of many of the landed proprietors, opposition commenced
a series of attacks on the cabinet on these grounds. The first attack
was made by a motion to repeal the salt-duty, which was defeated by
the small majority of four only. Sir M. W. Ridley next moved for the
reduction of two out of seven lords of the admiralty, which was carried
by a large majority against ministers. Thus encouraged, Lord Normandy
proposed an address to the throne for the dismissal of one of the two
postmasters general, and opposition again triumphed. They now assailed
one of the strongholds of corruption, the diplomatic expenditure of the
country. But here they were defeated. Lord Londonderry declared that if
the house persisted in going into a committee on that subject, it would
be the signal for breaking up the administration. This menace had the
effect of bringing over the country gentlemen to vote with the
cabinet as heretofore, and the motions for inquiry were lost by large
majorities.
DEBATES ON THE CURRENCY.
In order to relieve the agricultural distress, Mr. Western brought
forward a motion on the subject of the currency. He moved for a
committee to inquire into the effect which the act of 1819, for
the resumption of cash-payments by the Bank, had produced on our
manufacturing and commercial interests. In his speech he assigned the
alteration of the currency as the chief cause of the calamity, since
it operated injuriously on all classes except the fundholder and
annuitant, and by its ruinous effects on private contracts, as well as
public payments, was calculated to endanger all kinds of property. Mr.
Huskisson combated his views at considerable length; and moved as an
amendment, “that this house will not in any way alter the standard of
gold and silver.” The house then adjourned; and on the following day the
debate was resumed. After many members had spoken on both sides of
the question, Mr. Peel rose, and said, that “he would not enter on the
discussion of abstract subjects. From the reasonings of gentlemen, down
to the speech of the honourable member for Westminster, he was at a loss
to guess the objects of the committee. The honourable baronet fairly
stated that the real object of the motion was to repeal the bill of
1819; he had declared that the aim of the honourable gentleman, Mr.
Western, was to establish a new standard of value, and to reduce the
value of one pound to fourteen shillings. The house, he hoped, would
pause before they adopted a proposition for reducing the value of
the currency by one-third. An honourable gentleman had talked of
establishing and securing the foundations of public prosperity; but
what would be the consequence to-morrow if that night they adopted the
proposition of the honourable gentleman? Every man of common sense
would buy up every guinea in the country; the whole of our mercantile
transactions would be disturbed, and all private contracts be open to
inquiry and to defeat. Seven or eight years had already elapsed since
the house had pledged itself to return to the ancient standard of value.
In 1814 the house came to a resolution that the Bank of England ought
to return to cash-payments; in 1816, when his right honourable friend
proposed a resolution on the subject, the Late Mr. Horner would not
consent until an express declaration was made, that the legislative
would see that cash-payments should soon be resumed; and his proposition
was accordingly adopted. But the restriction was continued to enable
the Bank to resume cash-payments with greater convenience; so that since
1814 the country was accommodating itself to this new state of things;
and after having accomplished that object, the house was told that the
intent of the honourable gentleman’s motion was to reduce the value of
money from twenty to fourteen shillings. With respect to the situation
of the public creditor, he has been paid in a depreciated currency. The
public creditor lent his money in 1798 and 1800 on the understanding
that, when the Bank restriction should expire, he would be entitled to
his demand in the ancient standard of value. If the house, therefore,
were to come to any adjustment of the value proposed by the honourable
gentleman, undoubtedly the creditor would have a right, and would demand
the full payment of his debt. It should be recollected that a great
number of persons held debentures who were not the original purchasers,
but had bought them for a full and valuable consideration; could the
government turn round upon these persons, and say, The original holder
gave for this debenture only eighty pounds, you gave ninety-five pounds,
but we will not pay you more than eighty pounds? If the house were to
proceed upon this principle there would be an end for ever to the very
idea of national faith—that faith which had supported us under every
difficulty, and which constituted the pride, the glory, and the support
of this country.” These arguments prevailed; parliament determined not
to interfere with the currency. On a subsequent day, however, as the
distress among the agriculturists grew to an alarming height, ministers
repealed that part of the bill of 1819 which confined the issue of small
notes to the period of 1823; the privilege was extended till January,
1833. This measure had the effect of causing symptoms of returning
prosperity. Country bankers increased their paper issues; farmers
obtained a higher price for their produce; landlords were paid a higher
rate for their land; and the natural consequence of all this was the
prosperity of trade and commerce. At the same time it proved to be an
illusive prosperity.
REDUCTION OF IMPOSTS, ETC.
Warned by their recent defeats, ministers, on the completion of their
financial arrangements of this year made several reductions in the
imposts. They had resisted the abolition of the salt-tax, but they now
announced an intention of lowering it from fifteen to two shillings a
bushel. They also remitted the annual duty on malt, the additional tax
on leather, and that on windows and hearths in Ireland. By these means
a reduction of taxation was effected to the amount or £3,500,000. These
important measures were followed by several bills having for their
objects the relaxation of the navigation laws, and the promotion of the
system of free trade. Ship-owners raised a loud outcry against these
enlightened enactments; but time has shown that they were equally
beneficial to themselves as to the community at large. It was said that
the repeal of the ancient navigation laws would enable other states
to outstrip our own and prepare our ruin; but so far from increasing
foreign competition, and diminishing British production, it has been the
means of decreasing foreign importation, and of increasing our domestic
manufactures.
MOTION FOR PARLIAMENTARY REFORM
Early in this session Lord John Russell called the attention of the
commons to the subject of parliamentary reform. The scheme he proposed
was to add one hundred members to the house, to be returned by the
counties and larger towns, and to divest the minor boroughs of half the
privileges they enjoyed. This was a moderate proposal, and yet it met
with the most strenuous opposition, and especially from Mr. Canning. He
conjured the house to oppose the introduction of any visionary schemes;
and asserted, that a search after abstract perfection in government was
not an object of reasonable pursuit, because it would prove vain. He
added:—“I conjure the noble lord to pause before he again presses
his plan on the country. If, however, he shall persevere, and if his
perseverance shall be successful, and if the results of that success
be such as I cannot help apprehending—his be the triumph to have
precipitated those results, mine be the consolation, that to the
utmost, and the latest of my power I have opposed thorn.” The motion was
negatived; and the proposal of a general resolution by Mr. Brougham on
the influence of the crown, which was introduced with the same ultimate
views of reform, shared the same fate.
CAUSE OF THE GREEKS—PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.
The contest which was raging between the Greeks and their oppressors
this year came under the notice of parliament. The Mussulmen had
everywhere committed the most atrocious cruelties, and the sensations of
horror which they produced in England caused Mr. Smith to put a
question in the commons, regarding connivance, or at least neglect of
remonstrance on the part of our diplomatic agents. Lord Londonderry
answered in a flippant manner, that a calamity had occurred in which
ten or twelve hostages had been executed, but which was justified by the
barbarity of the Greeks. Sir James Mackintosh now took up the question
in a strong remonstrance. He asked whether it was mentioned in any of
the despatches that the markets of Smyrna and Constantinople were filled
with Greek ladies and children? whether ministers could afford the
nation any account of the new slave-trade recently established in the
East for Christian families? and whether any of those persons who had
been murdered at Constantinople had been under the protection of the
British minister, or had surrendered themselves to the Turks under
any pledge, promise, or assurance of safety from our ambassador? Lord
Londonderry now confessed that eighty or ninety individuals had been
executed; but he denied that they could be considered at all under
the protection of the British government, or in such a situation as to
require our interference.
Many questions of minor importance were discussed this session, but none
that requires our consideration except the foregoing. Parliament was
prorogued on the 6th of August: and then, on the 10th, the king paid a
visit to Scotland; to drink “health to its chieftains and clans, and to
bless the land of cakes.”
CHANGE IN THE CABINET.
While the king was in Scotland an event occurred which caused a change
in the cabinet: this was the death of Lord Londonderry who put a period
to his own existence. The difficulty in finding a successor to the
deceased minister was so great as to subdue the resentment which the
king entertained toward Mr. Canning. He had recently been appointed
governor of India; but just as he was preparing to set sail he was
invited to take the high office of secretary of state, which he
accepted. About the same time Mr. Robinson was made chancellor of the
exchequer, and Mr. Huskisson president of the board of trade. About the
time of his death Lord Londonderry was about to join the congress of
Verona, and the Duke of Wellington was deputed to take that place. His
grace nobly endeavoured to stem the despotic acts of the sovereigns
assembled; but all his endeavours proved unavailing.
They still pursued the despotic measures they had commenced, and Spain
especially was doomed to feel their tyranny.