{GEORGE IV. 1827—1828}
Death of the Duke of York..... Meeting of Parliament.....
Catholic Question..... The Corn-laws..... Dissolution of the
Ministry..... Re-assembling of Parliament..... Explanations
of, and Hostility to the Ministry..... Opinions of His
Majesty on the Catholic Question..... Motion on the
Chancellor’s Jurisdiction in Bankruptcy..... Motion
regarding the Stamp Duty and Cheap Publications.....
The Corn-law Question..... Financial Statements..... Corrupt
Boroughs..... The Game-laws..... The Court of Chancery.....
Prorogation of Parliament..... Death of Mr. Canning.....
Administration of Lord Goderich..... Review of Foreign
Policy.
DEATH OF THE DUKE OF YORK.
{A.D. 1827}
The earliest public event of the year was the death of the Duke of York,
the heir presumptive of the crown. His royal highness had been for some
time seriously ill, and as far back as the month of July his disease
had assumed the character of dropsy. The progress of the complaint had
rendered an operation necessary in September; but though the result
of the operation, aided by the effects of medicine, removed the
constitutional complaint, its partial influence on the frame was
followed by a mortification in the legs, which, assuming sometimes a
more favourable, and sometimes a more alarming appearance, gradually
weakened the whole system. His constitution sunk beneath the power of
art which was intended to revive it: nature gave up the struggle on the
5th of January, his royal highness being in the sixty-fourth year of
his age. His death was accompanied by sincere and universal regret; for
though he had failings, they were hidden from the public gaze by his
more prominent virtues. Seldom, indeed, have the public services of one
so near the throne produced to the country so much solid and lasting
good, as resulted from his long administration of the British army. His
private character was also formed to conciliate personal attachments:
he never made a personal enemy, nor lost a friend. Everyone who had
intercourse with him was impressed with the kindness of his heart,
kindness which appeared in all his actions. In a word, his public and
private character excited one universal sentiment of respect and esteem.
The soldier mourned over him as that of a benefactor to whom he was
indebted for comfort, security, and respectability; and all other ranks
of society joined in their lamentations over a prince whose personal
qualities had been always popular, and to whom, in his public capacity,
they felt that the empire owed a heavy debt of gratitude for all that he
had effected for its safety and honour. His royal highness was succeeded
as commander-in-chief by the only man in whom personal merit and the
fullest confidence of the country were united—the Duke of Wellington.
MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.
Parliament resumed its sittings on the 8th of February. One of its
earliest measures was to vote an address of condolence to the king on
the death of his royal brother, on which occasion all political asperity
was forgotten in an unanimous expression of respect for the private
character and official conduct of the deceased. Men of all parties, as
Mr. Peel, Sir R. Wilson, Mr. Brougham, and others, paid the tribute of
high respect to his memory. Mr. Brougham considered it no small praise
to the Duke of York that, in his office of commander-in-chief, he never
allowed his political principles to interfere in the discharge of the
duties of his office; and Sir R. Wilson remarked, that it was worthy of
observation that the improvement which he had effected in the discipline
of the army was maintained without undue severity. On these improvements
Mr. Peel dwelt at great length, clearly showing that the high state of
discipline now existing in the British army was chiefly owing to the
exertions of the deceased prince.
By the death of the Duke of York his next brother, the Duke of
Clarence, became heir presumptive to the crown. Ministers embraced this
opportunity of proposing an increase of £6,000 per annum to his income,
as well as £3,000 as a jointure to his consort. This motion was strongly
opposed by Lord Althorpe, and by Messrs. Hume, Brougham, and Abercromby.
Mr. Hume contended that it was ungracious and inconsistent to be
proposing an additional burden of £9,000 a year, so soon after a royal
letter to the bishops had exhorted them to use all their influence
in promoting charitable contributions for the relief of the starving
population. He had himself recently presented a petition from the
weavers of Blackburn, praying that something might be done which would
provide them with food; and the answer given to their prayers was a vote
for adding to their burdens. Unwilling, however, to do anything which
might look like a reproach to the crown, he would not oppose the motion
by a direct negative; but, in order to give ministers an opportunity of
withdrawing it, he would move that the chairman should report progress,
and sit again for the further consideration of the proposed grant. The
principal plea of the opponents of the grant was, that no additional
expenses were entailed on his royal highness; but it was finally voted
by a majority of ninety-nine against fifteen.
CATHOLIC QUESTION.
At this period circumstances seemed peculiarly favourable to the claims
of the Roman Catholics. The Duke of York was dead, Lord Liverpool was
seriously ill, and the influence of Mr. Canning was all potent in the
cabinet. Public attention had been fixed on this subject, from the
opening of the session, more eagerly than any other which promised to
occupy the attention of parliament; and petitions against their claims
nightly covered the tables of both houses from the Protestant community.
On the other hand, the Catholics were equally active; and at length,
on the 5th of March, after having presented their general petition, Sir
Francis Burdett brought the question before the house of commons. He
moved—“That this house is deeply impressed with the necessity of
taking into immediate consideration the laws inflicting penalties on his
majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects, with the view of removing them.” The
speech which Sir Francis Burdett delivered on this occasion gave rise
to a debate that lasted two nights. In the course of his speech, he
remarked, that the claims of the Catholics rested on more undeniable
grounds than were supplied by general justice, or by historical
deductions—they had been secured to them by treaty. “Every hour,” he
said, “that the disqualifications were allowed to continue, was a new
violation of our solemn engagements, and a breach of public faith. What,
the Catholics asked, had been secured to them by the treaty of Limerick?
The first article of that treaty was the following:—‘The loyal
Catholics of this kingdom shall enjoy such privileges in the exercise
of their religion as are consistent with the laws of Ireland, or as they
did enjoy in the reign of King Charles II.; and their majesties, so
soon as their affairs will permit them to summon a parliament in this
kingdom, will endeavour to procure the said Roman Catholics such further
security in that particular as may preserve them from any disturbance
upon the account of their said religion,’ Now he apprehended that
Catholic peers sat in parliament in the reign of Charles II., so that
here was an express stipulation for the benefit of Catholics generally.
It was impossible to admit the interpretation put upon this provision
by the opponents of the Catholic claims, as if its benefits had been
limited to the persons besieged in Limerick; for strange, indeed, would
it be, if those who held out longest in arms, and therefore did the
greatest extent of mischief to the ruling powers, should yet be held to
have been entitled to public favour. It was monstrous to suppose that
this treaty related solely to the garrison of Limerick; for what said
the 9th article?—‘The oath to be administered to such Roman Catholics
as submit to their majesties’ government shall be the oath aforesaid and
no other.’ The oath referred to was the ‘oath of allegiance,’ and no
other; and the article comprehended all submitting Catholics generally.
But how had faith been kept with them? when it was by the exaction of
new oaths, and nothing else, that they had ever since been excluded from
the enjoyment of their proper privileges? But even if the interpretation
that the men in arms alone were included were conceded, then their
descendants (and they must have some) were, though Catholics, invested
with these privileges. There necessarily must be some Catholics in the
kingdom who were not excluded with the rest of their brethren: and
where were they? But such a construction was trifling, contrary to all
rules of logic, and all fair modes of reasoning. So far as the treaty
of Limerick went, the case was conclusive: faith had been pledged, and
faith had been broken.” The treaty of Limerick thus brought forward by
Sir Francis Burdett became the grand argument in the debate; and it was
relied on both by those who favoured and those who opposed emancipation.
In supporting the motion, Mr. Plunkett, the attorney-general for
Ireland, said that it certainly did appear to him that at the time of
signing the articles of the treaty of Limerick, the Roman Catholics of
Ireland possessed certain important privileges; and amongst others the
right of admission into parliament. The first article fully recognised
their privileges, for it did not refer merely to the exercise of
religious rights, but also to the enjoyment of such political privileges
as they had exercised in the reign of Charles II., one of which was
eligibility to sit in the Irish parliament. It was argued, he said, that
this provision extended only to persons who were in the garrison;
but the words of the article, which mentioned generally, and without
reservation, “the Roman Catholics of this kingdom,” sufficiently proved
that it was meant to include the whole body of Irish Roman Catholics.
One of the most powerful pleaders on the other side of the question was
Mr. Peel, whose speech made a deep impression on the house. “If I
could be satisfied that any of the privileges withheld from the Roman
Catholics of Ireland, were so withheld in violation of the treaty of
Limerick, it would very materially influence my judgment in deciding on
the present question. But after having examined into this matter with
the greatest attention, I feel a more perfect conviction that that
treaty afforded the Catholics no claims to have their disabilities
removed. There were various articles in the treaty of Limerick, the
first referring to the Roman Catholic gentry and the others to the
inhabitants of Limerick generally. Now what he meant to contend was,
that political privileges were never in the contemplation of either of
the parties to the treaty. It had been contended that the passage in the
first article, which stated that the Roman Catholics should be allowed
the free exercise of their religion without disturbance or molestation,
in the same manner as they had been allowed it in the reign of Charles
II., meant that they were not to be subjected to any disabilities on
account of their religion. Now, with regard to the construction which
was to be put on these terms, it appeared from every writer of that
age, that, by the free exercise of their religion, was merely meant
toleration instead of political power. That such was the meaning of the
expression was clearly proved from the mouth of King William, one of the
parties to that treaty, who, shortly after the making of it, stated that
he was willing to grant to the Catholics the undisturbed exercise of
their religion, but not political power: that they should enjoy freedom
with respect to their persons and estates, and the exercise of their
religion; that with that they ought to be satisfied; and that he could
not comprehend how, when they enjoyed this, they could feel themselves
justified in disturbing the quiet of the kingdom. The true construction
of the treaty, as proved at the very time of making it, was not that
which was now put upon it by the friends of Catholic emancipation.” With
regard to the general question Mr. Peel confessed that he distrusted the
Roman Catholics. He remarked:—“I do not find fault with the faith of
any man, and I think quite as highly of a Catholic as of a Protestant;
but if on a man’s faith there be founded a scheme of political
influence, then we have a right to inquire in to that scheme. And I
cannot contemplate the doctrines of absolution, of confession, and of
indulgences, without having a strong suspicion that these doctrines are
maintained for the purpose of confirming the authority and influence
which man exercises over man. What is it to me, whether that authority
be called spiritual, or otherwise, if practically it influence man
in his conduct in society? Is it because religious doctrines are made
subservient to worldly and political purposes, that they are therefore
to be excluded from the consideration of the legislature in the
discussion of the present question? On the contrary, if the authority
derived from these doctrines be only the stronger on account of their
being borrowed from religion, and misapplied to worldly purposes, that,
in my opinion, furnishes an additional motive for closely investigating
the doctrines themselves. When I find the pope issuing bulls to the
Irish Catholic bishops, and such documents sent forth to four or five
millions of people who possessed not the advantages of education, I must
say that they are very likely to influence their practice in life. When
I hear, too, such doctrines ascribed to a desire to support the pure
faith of Christianity, I cannot help having a lurking suspicion that
they are rather intended to maintain a spiritual authority capable of
being applied to temporal purposes, which has been said to be extinct,
but which I contend, is still existing. In 1807 Pope Pius VII. sent to
the Catholic bishops of Ireland a bull, which granted an indulgence of
three hundred days to all those persons who should with devout purpose
repeat a certain ejaculatory address; and by the same instrument another
indulgence of one hundred days was granted, for the repeating of a
certain other formula, both of them applicable to souls in purgatory. It
is painful to think that such a mockery should be made of religion,
in order to press the authority of man; it is disgusting to find such
things sent by rational men to rational men, to be disseminated amongst
an illiterate and fanatical populace. The friends of emancipation may
ridicule, if they choose, the indications of a new reformation which now
show themselves in Ireland; but so long as free discussion is allowed,
and such means as these are used as means of influence over the ignorant
multitude, nothing will deter pious persons from doing all in their
power to counteract and undermine such influence. The gentlemen of the
Catholic Association will soon find that their political discussions
have reacted on the public mind; that a spirit of inquiry has gone forth
on the subject of their religion. I have no objection to the professors
of the Catholic religion as individuals; I quarrel not with their
religious tenets as a system of faith; but I am jealous of the political
system which is ingrafted on those tenets, and I think I have a perfect
right on the present occasion to consider what has been the influence of
that political system in different countries. I do not desire to look at
this point as it is to be found illustrated in ancient councils, or in
times when bigotry and superstition were prevalent throughout the world;
but, viewing the effect of the Catholic religion as it exists in the
present day in various countries, in some where it luxuriates in
undisputed growth, in those where it is only struggling for supremacy,
and in others where it is subordinate to another and a purer system,
contemplating it under those different aspects, the result of my
observation is, that it is expedient to maintain in this kingdom the
mild, mitigated, and temperate predominance of the Protestant church.”
With regard to the question as to whether the concessions demanded would
restore tranquillity to Ireland, Mr. Peel said that he could not make
up his mind to believe that the removal of the disabilities of the
Roman Catholics would be attended by such a consummation. If they gained
power, he said, they would naturally wish to better the condition of
their religious system, to extend its influence over the country, and
to draw it into closer connexion with government. The consequence of
the change would be to bring the Catholic and Protestant religions
into collision in such a manner, as might prove the destruction of the
latter. And what greater evil, he asked, could be conceived than the
confusion which must prevail for ages during the conflict? If, indeed,
he could be persuaded that by concession tranquillity would be restored
in Ireland, although he believed that the admission of their claims
would endanger our constitution, he would sacrifice his apprehensions
of the ultimate result to the attainment of the present benefit. But
he could not make up his mind to believe that it would have any such
effect. If the friends of emancipation proposed, after having carried
their point, to make the religion of the great majority, the religion
of the state of Ireland, and open to them all its high offices, he could
understand how such a line of policy might appease and tranquillize the
Catholics. But this they disavowed. Yet if they proposed to maintain the
Protestant establishment as that of the state, there would still be a
barrier which the Catholics would endeavour to remove. After passing a
censure on the Catholic priesthood for the undue interference exercised
at the late elections, and making some observations on the neglect
shown by their prelates in restraining such interference, and on the
extraordinary asperity of Dr. Doyle’s publications, Mr. Peel concluded
thus:—“I have now discharged a most painful duty, the opposing the
resolution before the house. I have felt that I had no choice but to
state with firmness, but I trust without asperity, the principles
which my reason dictates, and which honour and conscience compel me
to maintain. The influence or some great names, of some great men, has
lately been lost to the cause which I support; but I never adopted
my opinions upon it from deference either to high station or to high
ability. Keen as the feelings of regret must be, with which the loss of
these associates is recollected, it is still a matter of consolation to
me, that, in the absence of these individuals I have now an opportunity
of showing my adherence to those tenets which I formerly espoused; of
showing that, if my opinions be unpopular, I stand by them still, when
the influence and authority that may have given them currency are gone;
and when it is impossible, I believe, that, in the mind of any human
being, I can stand suspected of pursuing them with any view to favour
or personal aggrandisement.” The motion was also opposed by Sir
John Copley, master of the rolls, in a long, learned, eloquent, and
argumentative speech. In his opinion the whole question was one of
expediency, and if the concessions demanded could be granted with safety
to the civil liberties and to the religious faith of the Protestant
community, he admitted that the Catholics were intitled to them. He
denied, however, that any such securities had been or could be offered,
A blank and bare proposal of concession, he remarked, which neither
acknowledged the necessity, nor contained even the elements of such
securities, could not be entertained by the house, if it did its duty to
the constitution, the religion, and the feelings of the country. Several
departed statesmen, he said, had declared in the most decisive terms
their determination not to grant Catholic emancipation without special
and efficient securities; and the present secretary for foreign affairs
himself, and the Irish attorney-general had uttered sentiments to the
effect, that it could not be granted unless adequate securities
were given to protect the country against the dangers of foreign
interference. It became the house, also, he said, to consider well if
the concessions are made, what are the feelings of that body of men
who should be returned as members of parliament towards the Protestant
church for which they would be called upon to legislate. He thought
those feelings could not be learned more correctly than from the
language of Dr. Doyle, who thus described the church of Ireland:—“She
is looked up to, not as the spouse of the Redeemer, but as the handmaid
of the ascendancy. The latter, whenever she becomes insolent or forgets
her rank, if rank it may be called, rebuke her into a deportment more
becoming her situation. They extend their protection to her for their
own advantage only; and she, working alternately on their hopes and
fears, continues to hold her place as a necessary appendage of the
family to which she owes her existence. When indulged, she is indolent;
when rebuked, she becomes attentive; she draws tight or relaxes her
discipline as it may please, or be determined by her masters. Her eye
is ever fixed upon her own interests, and she deems nothing forbidden
or unhallowed which may serve to promote them. As those who do an injury
can never forgive, she is implacable in her hostility to the church
which she supplanted; and at this day, she seems indifferent to all
things else, but to the concealment of her riches, and the persecution
of popery. She occasionally revolts against her fellow-servants, who lay
bare her spoils, who tell of her frauds and oppressions, who remind her
of her origin, and upbraid her with the profligacy of her misspent
life. But she is much more frequently employed in forming offensive
and defensive leagues with her fellows in the corporations, showing the
advantages of injustice and oppression, in confounding the charter of
her servitude with the title-deeds of her employers, in asserting her
claim to a tithe of the land and labour of the kingdom, and proving to
the satisfaction of the Christian community that, though she receive
the patrimony of the poor, she is not bound to exercise towards them a
single act of mercy.” Such language as this, said Sir J. Copley, is not
confined to the individual who used it; the same sentiments are avowed
by some of the leading men of the Catholic body, and proclaimed aloud
in the Catholic Association. He asked, therefore, when such are
the sentiments of a Roman Catholic bishop when speaking of that
establishment for which Catholics, elected probably by his influence,
would be called to legislate, whether the house would consent that such
men, returned by such influence, should have the power of legislating
for a church thus described by one of their own communion, without
insisting upon securities by which all danger might be averted? The
debate was closed by Mr. Canning, who had been pointedly alluded to
throughout the whole of Sir J. Copley’s speech, and, after disposing of
its argument, he ironically vindicated himself for not having concerted
measures of security with the Pope of Rome. Government had not the same
facilities, he said, with the court of Rome as was possessed by several
foreign courts, as those of Prussia, Saxony, and the Netherlands. He
had seen in some popular tracts, that to correspond with the pope
was high-treason; and, therefore, when his holiness addressed a
complimentary note to our present gracious sovereign, he, as secretary
of state, took the opinion of the great law-officers on the subject of
a reply; and they declared that if he did answer the pope’s letter, he
would incur the penalties of a premunire. Now the law-officers who gave
this opinion were R. Gifford and Sir John Copley himself. I, being an
ignorant person, next looked into Burn’s Justice, and there I found that
the penalties attached to a premunire, were attainder, forfeiture of
goods, incapacity to bring an action, and liability to be slain by
any one with impunity. As this was a matter touching life and fortune,
therefore he could not be expected, after having acquired such
knowledge, to go to the Pope of Rome; and yet to the pope they must go
if they would have any security. Mr. Canning declared that it was the
intention of Mr. Pitt to cany this question, to the truth of which
assertion he was ready to depose before any tribunal. He avowed his
opinion that the cause had lost ground in the house as well as in the
country; but he was convinced that all unfavourable impressions must
give way to the effect of repeated discussions; that which right reason,
humanity, and justice demanded could not fail to find an echo in the
breasts of Englishmen. On a division the motion was lost by two hundred
and seventy-six against two hundred and seventy-four. In consequence of
this result, the order of the day in the house of lords, for taking into
consideration the Catholic petition, was discharged on the motion of
Lord Lansdowne, “who feared to increase, in the present state of feeling
in Ireland, the disastrous conviction that a majority of both houses
in parliament was opposed to a consideration of the claims of their
Catholic brethren.”
THE CORN-LAWS.
Ministers had pledged themselves to bring the corn-law question before
the house this session; and great anxiety was felt throughout the
nation on this subject. It had been originally intended to introduce the
subject simultaneously in both houses; but the illness of Lord Liverpool
prevented it being brought forward in the upper house. Mr. Canning
introduced the subject in the commons on the 1st of March, when he
expressed his surprise that so much of hostile feeling should have been
allowed to enter into the consideration of a question where none ought
to have been found, and that this asperity should arise where there was
no necessity to fly to extremes, and where the difficulties, in point of
fact, were less than they were stated in argument. Every body admitted,
he said, the necessity of protecting the agricultural interests; the
only question was the mode and degree in which the protection should
be administered. Of late years three modes of protection, without
prohibition, had been proposed: the first, that of Mr. Ricardo, which
imposed a duty of 20s. per quarter, to be diminished every year till
it should have reached a minimum of about 10s.; the second proposed
to begin with a duty of 16s., to be gradually lowered to 10s.; and the
third was to impose a duty of 15s, or 16s. once for all, without any
reference to the price. All these plans he been devised by persons
generally favourable to a free trade in corn; but to all of them there
lay the objection that when a pressure came it would bring with it
distress to the agriculturists. Experience, he said, proved, that to
impose a fixed duty without any reference to the variation of prices was
objectionable and insufficient, because it was inevitably sometimes
too high, and at other times too low with reference to the state of the
country. It was therefore more advisable to adopt a scale of duties,
which should vary in a relative proportion to the state of the country.
He moved that—“Whenever the average price of wheat made up and
published in manner required by law, shall be 60s., and under 61s. per
quarter, the duty shall be for one quarter £1. And in respect of every
integral shilling, by which such price shall be above 60s., such duty
shall be decreased by 2s., until such price shall be 70s. Whenever such
price shall be at or above 70s., the duty shall be for every quarter Is.
Whenever such price shall be under 60s., and not under 59s., the duty
shall be for every quarter £1. 2s. And in respect of each integral
shilling, or any part of each integral shilling, by which such price
shall be tinder 59s., such duty shall be increased by 2s.” Mr. Canning
moved resolutions similar to the above on barley, oats, rye, peas,
beans, wheat-meal, and flour, oatmeal, maize, &c. If the produce of, and
imported from any British possession in North America, or elsewhere out
of Europe, he moved that wheat should be admitted at 5s. per quarter,
until the price of British wheat should be 65s. per quarter; and that
whenever such price should be at or above 65s., the duty should be for
every quarter only 6d. Similar resolutions were also moved on other
grains coming from the same parts of the world. Mr. Canning’s last
resolution on this subject was, “That it is the opinion of this
committee, that all the said duties shall be regulated and determined
from week to week by the average prices of corn, made up in the manner
required by law; which prices shall, at the several ports of the United
Kingdom, determine the several rates of the said duties for and during
the week next after the receipt of the proper certificates of such
average prices at such ports respectively.” The debate on these
resolutions was postponed for a week, that every appearance of
precipitancy in such an important measure might be avoided. When the
discussion was resumed, the motion for the house going into committee
was opposed by Lord Clive, Sir E. Knatchbull, and other leading members
of the landed interest. Their opposition rested on the grounds that
domestic agriculture was entitled to all the protection which parliament
could give it, even in the shape of a prohibition; that it was unjust
to expose the home-grown, oppressed with taxes, and obliged to purchase
costly labour, to a competition with the farmers of foreign countries,
where taxation was light and labour cheap; that the plan was only
experimental in its nature, in a matter where all experiment was
mischief; that its effect would be to reduce prices much below what
could be considered a fair remunerating price to the grower; and
that, while it thus deprived the agriculturist even of the imperfect
protection which he at present enjoyed, it would ultimately prove
injurious to the public welfare, by throwing poor lands out of
cultivation, thus leaving the country at every moment dependent for
its food on foreigners. The chancellor of the exchequer and Mr. Peel
replied, and the opposition to the speaker’s leaving the chair was not
pressed to a division. In the committee, however, an amendment was moved
to the effect of raising the medium price by taking 64s. instead of 60s.
as the point at which what might be considered the prohibitory duty of
20s. should attach, on which the house divided. But this was lost; and
an amendment, proposed by Mr. Whitmore, for an exactly opposite purpose,
namely, to reduce the medium price at which the duty of 20s. should
attach, shared the same fate. During the progress of the bill through
the committee other alterations were likewise proposed, almost all
tending to the benefit of the home grower. Thus it was proposed to raise
the medium price of rye, peas, and beans, from 35s. to 40s.; to lower
the quantity of oatmeal, on which, as being equivalent to a quarter of
oats, a given duty should be paid from one hundred and ninety lbs. to
one hundred and seventy-six lbs.; and a similar attempt was made to
raise the duty on wheat-flour. All these amendments were lost; but
ministers themselves, from the representations of county meetings both
in England and Scotland, raised the medium price of barley to 32s., and
the duty to 12s.; and the medium price of oats from 21s. to 25s., and
the duty to 8s. This concession to the agriculturists gave great offence
to those who advocated free trade. Mr. Wood told ministers that they
had allowed themselves to be bullied by them; to which Mr. Peel calmly
answered, that he did not see how a proper and justifiable addition of
2s. to the price of barley could require such an extravagant expenditure
of indignation and abuse. The report was brought up on the 27th
of March; and the resolutions were carried, after a division on an
amendment moved by Mr. Hume. A bill founded on them was brought in; and
on the second reading the opposition to it on the part of the landed
interest was renewed with undiminished hostility. Sir Thomas Lethbridge
described the bill as one which ought to be entitled, “An act for the
more effectual encouragement of speculation in the corn-trade, the more
rapid diminution of the growth of grain in Great Britain, and the better
encouragement of the growth of grain in other countries for the supply
of the British market.” He moved as an amendment, that the bill should
be read a second time on that day six months; and its supporters gave
ministers to understand that the success of the bill would deprive them,
in regard to certain other questions connected with expenditure, of the
customary support of their most valued friends. If the price of corn was
reduced, they said, everything else ought equally to be reduced. Were
ministers then ready, they asked, to reduce the taxes? The defence of
the bill was chiefly undertaken by Mr. Grant, the vice-president of
the board of trade, who entered into an elaborate view of the whole
question. Possessing, as the landowners did, the law of 1815, it was
necessary, he said, to show some good reason for the change proposed;
and he found a most satisfactory reason in the fact that the law had
failed in every one of the objects which had been contemplated in its
enactment. The intention of that law had been to effect three objects;
namely, uniformity of price, protection to the farmer, and independence
of foreign supplies; but it was notorious that the law had not answered
any one of these purposes. The amendment was pressed to a division; and
the second reading of the bill was carried by a majority of two hundred
and forty-three to seventy-eight. It subsequently passed a committee
with no other alteration than a clause, authorizing the king to
prohibit, by an order in council, the importation of grain from any
country where British vessels should be subject to a higher duty than
was imposed on the vessels of such country coming to British ports. The
bill was finally read a third time, and passed on the 12th of April, on
which day the house adjourned for the Easter holidays.
DISSOLUTION OF THE MINISTRY.
About the middle of February the Earl of Liverpool was suddenly attacked
by a paralytic stroke. By the end of March his case became hopeless,
and Mr. Canning was summoned at that time by the king to Windsor. It
was well known that dissensions existed in the cabinet, and that serious
difficulties were created by a large portion of it, hostile in the
highest degree to Mr. Canning. At the same time a majority of the
commons, as well as of the people at large, called upon him to take up
the mantle of the premier, and to direct the councils of Great Britain.
Mr. Canning was called to this interview with the king merely in his
capacity of privy-counsellor, to assist the king in the reconstruction
of the cabinet. He recommended that a ministry should be formed
unanimous in the rejection of Catholic emancipation; to forward which
arrangement he professed his own willingness to retire from office. This
advice had the appearance of great disinterestedness and self-denial;
but Mr. Canning must have known that it was utterly impracticable: those,
indeed, on whom it would have thrown the responsibility of government
saw the embarrassment such an arrangement would produce, and instantly
rejected it. His majesty now proposed that the plan of administration
should be unchanged; and that some anti-Catholic peer should be
appointed premier, to prevent such increase of adherents to the Catholic
cause as a minister of that rank, being its known advocate, would
necessarily promote. To this arrangement, however, Mr. Canning objected,
declaring that he would never degrade himself by forming part of an
administration which considered a person entertaining those views which
he entertained concerning the Catholic question as disqualified to fill
the highest office in the state. By this declaration, in effect, Mr.
Canning made known to the king that his services could only be secured
by the highest office; and it seems quite clear from other circumstances
that such was his aim. But this resolution was the cause of breaking up
the Liverpool cabinet. At the same time Mr. Canning obtained the object
of his ambition: aided by the general voice, he was made premier. His
exaltation, however, was the signal of retreat to other members of the
cabinet. Mr. Peel had previously declared that if such an event took
place he should decline office; and Lord Eldon resigned, ostensibly on
account of his advanced age, but in reality on Mr. Peel’s principles,
namely, that he could not co-operate with a friend to Catholic
emancipation as premier. On the 12th of April the king had received, in
addition to these, the resignations, also, the Duke of Wellington,
and Lords Bexley, Westmoreland, and Bathurst. Nevertheless, the king
confirmed the appointment of Mr. Canning; and it was announced in
the house of commons on the same evening, where it was received with
deafening shouts of applause. Mr. Canning now proceeded to reconstruct
the cabinet. The new ministers were, the Duke of Clarence, as lord
high-admiral of England; Lord Anglesea, as master-general of the
ordnance, with a seat in the cabinet; Lord Dudley, Mr. Sturges Bourne,
and Mr. Robinson, nominated respectively for the foreign, home, and
colonial departments; the Duke of Devonshire, as lord-chamberlain; the
Duke of Portland, as privy-seal; and Lord Harrowby, as president of the
council. Lord Bexley retracted his resignation and retained office; and
Lord Palmerston, with Messrs. Huskisson and Wynne, likewise remained in
the cabinet. Sir John Leach, Sir Anthony Hart, and Sir James Scarlett,
were respectively made master of the rolls, vice-chancellor, and
attorney-general. Mr. Canning occupied the two offices of first lord
of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer. A negociation had been
opened with the Marquis of Lansdowne to supply several places; but no
official appointments resulted from it, although a large body of Whigs
offered their support to the administration. The new ministry was
gazetted on the 27th of April; and on the 30th his majesty held a court,
at which Lords Eldon, Westmoreland, and Bathurst, as well as Mr. Peel,
severally had audiences to resign their seals of office; and the new
ministers kissed hands on their appointments. Mr. Canning was loudly
cheered by the populace in going to and returning from the palace; but
he soon discovered that his high office was not a bed of roses. “The
premiership had for twelve years been a bed of slumber; it now fell
into the hands of one who made it a bed of feverish anxiety and bitter
wakefulness,—George Canning, the first debater, the most dexterous
politician, and the happiest wit of the house; the most perplexed,
unhappy, and disappointed of ministers.”
REASSEMBLING OF PARLIAMENT.
The house of commons reassembled on the 1st of May. So much
time, however, had been lost through the dissolution of the old
administration, and the hostility of parties now consumed so much time,
that very little business was completed during the session. At its
meeting the public were eager to learn something of the causes which had
separated men who had acted so long together in good and in evil report,
and which had accomplished an union between parties and individuals
whose contest had generally been a war to the death. The public had not
to remain long on the tip-toe of expectation, for no sooner had the house
met than the strife of words commenced.
EXPLANATIONS OF MEMBERS, AND HOSTILITY TO THE MINISTRY.
On the motion that a new writ should issue for the borough of Ashburton,
for the election of a member in place of Mr. S. Bourne, Mr. Peel said,
that as the motion was connected with the succession to that office
which he had resigned, he trusted that the house would allow him the
opportunity of explaining the grounds on which he had retired from
the situation of secretary of state, disclaiming at the same time all
intention of opposing the new government, and carrying himself free from
every appearance of a factious spirit. He remarked:—“I retired from
office because, from the first moment of my public life, I have taken
an active and decided part on a great and vital question, that of the
extension of political privileges to the Roman Catholics. For eighteen
years I have constantly offered an uncompromising, but, I hope, a
temperate, fair, and constitutional resistance to every proposition for
granting to them any further concessions. My opposition is founded
on principle. I think the continuance of those bars which prevent
the acquisition of political power by the Catholics necessary for
the maintenance of the constitution, and for the interests of the
established church. It is not merely that my honourable friend differs
in opinion from me on this important question, but the change in
administration occasions the transfer of all that influence and power
which belongs to the office of a prime minister into the hands of one
who will use it for the purpose of forwarding an object which I have
always resisted. It is not a transfer of that influence and power
from one ordinary man to another ordinary man, but from the most able
opponent of the Catholic claims to their most zealous and eloquent
advocate.” Mr. Peel then vindicated the course taken by his late
colleagues in resigning office; the act, he said, was “a splendid
example of disinterested conduct to all public men.” He vindicated
them from the charge of acting in concert, or in the spirit of cabal;
declaring that he not only did not hold any communication with the
lord-chancellor, as had been said, but that he did not even know hip
lordship’s intentions The very first person, he said, to whom I stated
my inability to acquiesce in the appointment of my right honourable
friend as prime minister, was my right honourable friend himself; and
I did not then known the intention of any other member of the
administration. He added:—“A separation from my right honourable
friend, with whom I have acted so cordially on every point but one, is
to me a source of deep regret, mitigated, however, in some degree by
the recollection that I have done everything becoming my character
to prevent it. I retire from the service of my sovereign without any
personal regret, except upon one point, namely, that I can no longer
avail myself of those opportunities which office afforded of introducing
a system of improvement into the existing laws. To effect that object is
the chief desire of my life; and I have the satisfaction of reflecting
that, during the five years I have held the office of home-secretary,
every institution coming under my immediate cognizance has been subject
to such reforms as were considered advantageous and useful. I have
likewise the satisfaction of recollecting that every law which I found
on the statute-book at my entrance into office, imposing extraordinary
restrictions on the liberties of the subject, has been either modified
or altogether repealed. I may be a Tory, but I have the satisfaction of
observing that such has been my conduct. Tory, as I am, it is gratifying
to me to reflect that no law stands on the statute-book, in connection
with my name, which has not for its object the mitigation of the
severity of the criminal law, and the prevention of any abuse in the
administration of justice.” This speech was received with loud cheers,
and elicited much applause from Mr. Brougham, who at the same
time declared his determination to support the policy of the new
administration. On the contrary, Mr. Dawson, a brother-in-law to Mr.
Peel, and late under-secretary for the home department, damaged his
reputation by his explanation, inasmuch as he allowed himself to get
into a passion with the premier. Mr. Dawson insisted that Mr. Canning
was bound to declare immediately what he intended to do with the
Catholic question, and also to bring it forward without delay. In reply
Mr. Canning said, that throughout a continued intercourse with Mr. Peel
he had uniformly found his conduct distinguished by the same feeling and
high principle which were so strongly pourtrayed in the speech he had
just delivered; he had behaved, he said, throughout with manliness and
candour. He continued:—“The house is greatly mistaken if they imagine
my situation to be one of gratified ambition. From the beginning of
the discussions on the Catholic claims I felt that the separation of my
honourable friend and myself was inevitable, and not far remote. Would
to God I could now persuade myself that his retirement will be but for a
short time! Had the necessity which has made the retirement of one of as
inevitable been left in my hands, my decision would have been for my own
resignation, and against that of my right honourable friend. My first
object was to quit office; my next to remain in it, with all my old
colleagues exactly—exactly on the same terms as usual regarding
this very Catholic question.” Mr. Canning then went into a long detail
concerning the circumstances which preceded his appointment; and he
concluded with saying,—“I sit where I now do by no seeking of my
own. I proposed at first my own exclusion: it was not accepted. Then
conditions were offered to me, which I refused, because they were
accompanied by an admission of my own disqualification, to which if I
had submitted, I should have been for ever degraded. In the year 1822
I was appointed to an office fraught with wealth, honour, and ambition.
From that office I was called, not on my own seeking, but contrary to my
own wish; and I made a sacrifice—a sacrifice, be it remembered, of no
inconsiderable nature to a poor man—and the offer of a share in the
administration was made to me without any stipulation. But if that offer
had been made with this condition, that, if the highest place in the
administration should become vacant, the opinions which I held on the
Catholic question were to be a bar to my succeeding to it, I would turn
the offer back with the disdain with which I turned back that of
serving under a Protestant premier, as the badge of my Helotism, and the
condition of my place.” The only parties left to explain their conduct
were those members of opposition who had quitted their former station
and were settled beside the new ministry. This duty was discharged by
Sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Brougham. Their support was defended by Sir
Francis as likely to promote enlightened principles of government both
at home and abroad, and especially the cause of religious liberty. He
had no doubt but the country would soon be operated upon by sentiments
of sound policy, justice, and liberality. Mr. Brougham maintained
that he and his party, in supporting the present ministry, were acting
consistently, as well as disinterestedly. For himself, he said, he
had quitted a situation, eminent beyond his hopes or merits, on the
opposition benches, where he was surrounded by one of the largest, one
of the most honourable, and one of the most disinterested oppositions
ever known in the house, an opposition consisting of men who do what
they think best for their country; though in doing so they should feel
sure that they were helping to confirm their adversaries in office.
“I have quitted this station, enough to satisfy the ambition of the
proudest man, under arrangements which made my own acceptance of office
impossible. My opinions on foreign and domestic policy have led me to
this step with the sincere desire of furnishing a useful assistance to
the liberal sentiments of Mr. Canning—including the Irish question.
Not that I am for giving it that prominent situation in the public
councils which is required by some; but I wished that it should derive
every possible advantage from the junction of the two parties which
have divided the house and the country, but are now united in a cordial,
hearty, and uniform support of such measures as should be deemed best
for the country.”
The house of lords met on the 2nd of May; and in that branch of the
legislature more explanations were given than in the house of commons.
On the first opportunity Lord Eldon declared that the accusations made
against him, of having attempted an unconstitutional dictation to his
sovereign, was a base and scandalous falsehood. His opinion was, and
always had been, that if the claims of the Catholics were conceded,
there was an end of the religious liberties of this country, and that
with its religious liberties its civil freedom would perish. Holding
such opinions as these it was impossible for him to coincide with the
views of the new minister, whether those views were immediately to be
carried into execution, or suspended for the better securing of
his purpose. Could he, he asked, honestly remain in office under an
administration formed on principles at variance with his own? He could
not allow that the new administration had been formed on principles
similar to that of Lord Liverpool. That nobleman had been a zealous,
honest, and candid opponent of the Catholic claims; but the present
premier would be as zealous in supporting them. As to the mode of his
resignation, his lordship wholly disclaimed the imputation of having
concerted it with Mr. Peel; that gentleman, for whom he entertained
the highest regard and esteem, knew nothing about his sending in his
resignation; and he believed the same to be the case with every other
minister who had retired. As the retirement of the Duke of Wellington,
not only from the administration, but from the command of the army,
which was not a cabinet office, seemed to indicate hostility of a more
decided character than that of any other seceder, it had excited greater
interest. On both these points his grace entered into a full and manly
explanation. After adverting to the press which had endeavoured to
blacken his character, he remarked, that he was not requested to come
and receive explanations concerning evident omissions in the letter
first sent to him, nor was he referred to any person for information
on these points; although, as he afterwards learned, his colleagues had
been invited to go to the minister, and receive any explanations which
they might require, or the minister himself had gone to them. Still he
would not let any pique of this kind stop an amicable communication, and
in that spirit he carried on his correspondence, and wished to contrive
means of continuing in his majesty’s councils. When, however, he found
that the right honourable gentleman was to be at the head of affairs,
he doubted whether he could, consistently with his principles, join the
administration; and under these circumstances he declined office. He
considered that the principles of Lord Liverpool’s policy had been
abandoned, and that the measures of a government constituted on the
principles of Mr. Canning’s sentiments would be viewed with suspicion by
foreign governments, and would give no satisfaction to the country; and
therefore he requested Mr. Canning to communicate to his majesty that
he wished to be excused from forming a part of the new cabinet. Would he
not, he asked, have degraded himself, and deceived the public, if he
had sat in a cabinet with a gentleman at its head whom he felt bound to
oppose? It was no answer to tell him that the present cabinet acted upon
the same principles with that of which Lord Liverpool had been at the
head. The two cabinets materially differed: that of Lord Liverpool was
formed on the principle of maintaining the laws as they now were, whilst
that of Mr. Canning was founded on the principle of subverting them.
“Those,” remarked his grace, “who formed part of Lord Liverpool’s
cabinet knew well what it was to which they pledged themselves, for they
knew that his lordship was conscientiously opposed to all changes in the
existing form of government; but those who coalesced with Mr. Canning
had no idea how far their coalition was to carry them,—for he was the
most able, active, and zealous partisan of those changes with which the
country was at present threatened. The principles of the noble earl were
principles by which any man might safely abide; the principles of
Mr. Canning fluctuate daily, and depend upon transitory reasons of
temporary expediency. These are the conscientious reasons of my
resignation.” As for the absurd calumny, that he had threatened the king
with his resignation unless he was made prime minister, the duke said
it hardly deserved an answer. “Could any man believe,” asked his grace,
“that after I had raised myself to the command of the army, I would have
given it up for any but conscientious reasons? I say, raised myself,
because I know that, whatever his majesty’s kindness had been towards
me, he could not have exalted me through all the grades of military
rank to the very highest if I had not rendered him and my country some
service of which he entertained a high sense. Will any man then believe
that when I was in a situation which enabled me to recommend to the
notice of his majesty all my former friends and companions in arms, and
to reward them according to their merits for the exertions which they
had formerly made under my command in the field, I would voluntarily
resign a situation so consonant to my feelings and habits for the mere
empty ambition of being placed at the head of the government?” In regard
to his resignation of the command of the army, his grace said, that
although it was not a cabinet office, yet it was one which placed its
possessor in a constant and confidential relation with the king and
his government. With the prime minister the commander-in-chief is in
communication every day, he has not a control even over the army, the
chief direction of which is placed in the minister’s hands; at the same
time the premier himself cannot withdraw any part of the army from a
foreign station without consulting the commander-in-chief; he cannot
make up his budget, or introduce any reform into the organization of
the army without seeking his opinion. No political sentiments, however,
would have prevented him from retaining this office under ordinary
circumstances, but from the tone and tenor of the communications he had
received from his majesty, from the nature of the invitation given to
him by the right; honourable gentleman in his first letter, and from
the contents of the last, which he had received from Mr. Canning by
his majesty’s commands, he saw that he could not remain with credit to
himself or advantage to the country: his line of conduct had not been
hastily adopted, though he had been wantonly and unjustly abused. The
other seceding peers justified their retirement generally on the same
ground of political principles which had been taken by the Duke of
Wellington, except that Lord Melville and Lord Bathurst expressed an
opinion, that without such men as his grace, Lord Eldon, and Mr. Peel,
no administration could be formed possessing sufficient stability and
capacity for the government of the country. The task of defending the
new administration fell to the lot of Lord Goderich, who declared that,
so far from casting any imputation of conspiracy among, and cabal on his
former colleagues, he believed that if there had been more communication
among them, much of the mischief and disorder which had occurred
might have been prevented. If the government was not constituted in
a satisfactory manner, it was not the fault of either himself or
his honourable and noble friends. Mr. Canning had sought to keep the
elements of the late ministry together; but they had fallen away: and
was he to say to his majesty, “I will run away, and leave you in such a
predicament as no sovereign was ever placed in before?” The Marquis of
Lansdowne finally explained the principles, and defended the propriety
of the coalition of parties; and he justified it on the grounds which
had been made in the lower house—the identity between the principles of
his party and the spirit of the measures which government had for some
time been pursuing, in regard both to foreign and domestic policy. From
his statement it appeared that the overtures of alliance had come under
the sanction of the king from the ministry; for, he said, when the
individuals with whom the formation of a government rested brought
to him his majesty’s commands, he felt it no less his duty than his
interest maturely to consider them, and that after this consideration he
felt it his duty to obey them. The union which had taken place, he
said, was not the result of a sudden impulse; for three years ago he
had supported the just views of government in repairing the finances,
widening the resources, improving the commerce and navigation of the
country, and in cultivating relations of amity and friendship with that
new world whose treasures were now opening to them. In conclusion, he
admitted in their full extent the reasons which had been given by the
noble lords for their several resignations, and the statements which
they had made in accounting for that remarkable coincidence; but he
could not help expressing his surprise that government had been able to
go on so long, being conducted, as it now appeared, by ministers who did
not think proper to communicate with one another upon the most important
question which could be agitated among them. Other noble lords, as the
Earls of Mansfield and Winchilsea, and Lord Ellenborough, expressed
their determined hostility to the new government, and a total want of
confidence in its leader. Lord Ellenborough remarked, that it appeared
clear to him, and he believed to others, that some deceit was about to
be practised. Either his majesty, who had permitted this administration
to be formed with the understanding that the Catholic question was to be
given up, was deceived, or the hopes held out to Ireland, that the new
administration was to extend to that country the peace and tranquillity
which that boon alone could bestow, were fallacious. Earls Mansfield and
Winchilsea expressed a determination of bringing the principles of
the new cabinet at once to the test; and gave notice of motions on the
Catholic question and the state of the nation. Neither of these motions,
however, was ever brought to a hearing; and the retired ministers
exhibited as little concert out of office as they had displayed in
their resignation. In one matter, however, they were all agreed, that of
hostility to the present government. In both houses a desultory warfare
was carried on against it: single individuals taking upon themselves at
intervals the task of castigating its members. In the commons Sir Thomas
Lethbridge chiefly undertook this task; but, although he performed it
with much pertinacity, he was unfortunately deficient in speech. In the
lords the most powerful assistance on the side of the seceders was found
in Lord Grey, who announced his want of confidence in the ministry. He
gave, his lordship said, all due credit to those members of his party
who coalesced with that ministry for disinterestedness, but he could see
nothing in it which called for his support. It was said to be formed on
the principle of Lord Liverpool’s government. That principle consisted
in the exclusion of the Catholic question: was the Catholic question
then not to be made a cabinet measure? If so, his determination was
taken; it would prevent him from giving support to the government. His
lordship then reviewed the whole political career of Mr. Canning, and
expressed himself opposed to every part of it; attacking with peculiar
severity the noted declaration of the premier of calling the republics
of the new world into existence. It was true, he said, that Mr.
Canning was called a friend of civil and religious liberty, and that
he supported Catholic emancipation, at the same time he proclaimed his
opposition to a repeal of the test and corporation acts. He would not
dwell on his known opposition to parliamentary reform; that question
had not been so uniformly supported, nor had public opinion been so
expressed in its favour as that any one should make it a _sine qua non_
in joining an administration; but he could not conceal from himself the
fact, that within a few years numerous laws had been passed hostile
to civil liberty, every one of which had received the right honourable
gentleman’s dissent. Unless he could retrace his steps, and erase some
that remained in the statute-book, no confidence ought to be reposed in
him as a friend to civil liberty. His lordship added, that he differed
from the known opponents of government on most questions as widely as
the poles were asunder; but neither could he join those who supported
it: the only course, therefore, left him was to pursue the same
principles which he professed through life. When the measures of
government agreed with those principles he would support them; when
repugnant, they should have his opposition.
OPINIONS OF HIS MAJESTY ON THE CATHOLIC QUESTION.
{GEORGE IV. 1827—1828}
The question of Catholic emancipation was soon set at rest for the
present. In an interview which the Archbishop of Canterbury and
the Bishop of London had with his majesty, soon after Mr. Canning’s
elevation, he stated “that he was as firmly fixed as his father had
been, in opposition to the pretensions of the papists.” This declaration
was made public in a meeting of prelates at Lambeth-palace, and
announced by the bishop in the house of lords, so that it was evident
that this was a measure not to be forced. On this declaration, indeed,
the motions previously named, which would virtually have been a renewal
of the discussion, were withdrawn, and the Catholic question was thereby
laid aside for a time. The test acts, no less than Catholic emancipation
had been a principal bond of union among the opposition; but neither was
this urged; so that every subject which could have brought any party
in the coalition to the test, was avoided. Under these circumstances,
towards the close of the session some of the Whigs took office. Thus
Lord Lansdowne was appointed secretary for the home department; Lord
Carlisle, privy-seal; and Mr. Tierney, master of the mint. But about
this time the opposition received a more regular form and abler
direction. Hitherto Mr. Peel had acted with moderation and urbanity, but
he now gave indications of decided hostility. In discovering this Mr.
Canning said, that he rejoiced to see the standard openly raised: he
always preferred direct hostility to hollow professions or pretended
neutrality.
MOTION ON THE CHANCELLOR’S JURISDICTION IN BANKRUPTCY.
On the 22nd of May, Mr. Michael Angelo Taylor again brought the subject
of delays in the court of chancery before the commons. The delays, he
said, which disgraced that court, and the arrears of business under
which it was sinking, were the consequences of the system of the court
itself. An additional judge had in a former year been appointed, and yet
the arrear of business had not been extinguished. To adopt the language
of Mr. Shadwell, not three angels could discharge the duties of the
office of lord-chancellor, constituted as that office now was. He
proposed, therefore, to withdraw all matters of bankruptcy from the
great seal: matters which had not originally been subject to that
jurisdiction, but had been made so by parliament, and which were of
themselves sufficient to occupy the attention of any single judge. He
moved, therefore, “that this house do resolve itself into a committee
of the whole house to consider of the statute of the 13th year of
Elizabeth, and of certain subsequent statutes, which gave to the
lord-chancellor of England jurisdiction in matters of bankruptcy.”
This motion was opposed by the attorney-general, Mr. Brougham, and Dr.
Lushington, the former of whom vindicated the present system at great
length. It was an unsound principle, he said, to make places fit
to particular men. On the contrary, they ought to seek men fit to
particular places; and it would be easy to show that, with three
efficient judges, such as they had now got, there was not the least
necessity of subtracting from the court of chancery any part of the
jurisdiction which it at present possessed. He argued that there were
more cases in the court of chancery than could be considered during
the year, and that with the present judges in the court of chancery all
those in arrear would be speedily dismissed. Mr. D. W. Harvey supported
the motion, and entered into an exposition of the mischiefs of the
bankrupt-law as at present administered by the commissioners, whom he
described as being in general, either young men possessing capacity
without experience, or briefless old men possessing experience without
capacity, and to whom the appointment was an act of charity. Above all
he complained of the inconsistency of those who now pretended that all
the evils would be removed by the mere change of men, while the system
must remain unchanged. All the splendid denunciations, he said, which
had thrilled through every bosom in that house and in the country, were
to be considered only as party tactics, were to be looked upon as
the result of disappointed ambition. Professional advancement being
obtained, those who had been most loud in their attacks upon the late
Lord-chancellor Eldon, had now become the warmest eulogists of his
merits. The house was now told, that, if in the vehemence of debate,
anything had been said which was calculated to injure his character, it
ought to be considered as nothing, as the mere accidental effusion
of party spirit. It fell to the lot of Mr. Brougham to defend certain
members from this charge of political delinquency, which he did with his
usual tact, It had been said, he remarked, that a wondrous change was
now visible in various members of parliament; that they were all opposed
to the alterations in the court of chancery which they had formerly
advocated; and that now being in office they had no objection to the
arrangements of that court, though out of office they had poured forth
against them torrents of fiery indignation. It was assumed, also, for
the purpose of an unfair attack, that he himself, and those who thought
with him, had changed their opinions on the subject. Now on what measure
of government, on what chapter of policy, on what officer of state, on
what judge of the land, had his opinions or principles changed? It had
been said by those who contended that Lord Eldon was not to blame for
the arrears in the court, that no man could get through the business.
But if the business of the court had increased, the means of disposing
it had likewise increased by the establishment of the vice-chancellor’s
court. But instead of having an efficient chancellor, vice-chancellor,
and master of the rolls, there had always been either an unfit
vice-chancellor, or an unfit master of the rolls, which left the court
in the same situation as before the vice-chancellor’s bill passed. But
it was different now: they had as efficient a master of the rolls as
could be required; and of the vice-chancellor he would say, that he had
been one of the most experienced practitioners in the court of chancery.
The new lord chancellor, also, was a person of great legal talents, and
of an independent mind. From all this, he had a confident expectation
that the business of the court would be despatched in proper time. On
a division the motion was lost by a majority of one hundred and
thirty-four against thirty-seven.
MOTIONS REGARDING THE STAMP-DUTY AND CHEAP PUBLICATIONS.
During the troubled state of the country in 1819 and 1820, certain
legislative measures had been adopted, known by the name of the Six
Acts, for the purpose of checking the course of sedition. Some of
these had expired by the lapse of time; but one, which subjected cheap
periodicals issued for the purposes of agitation to a stamp-duty still
remained on the statute-book. On the 31st of May, Mr. Hume brought
forward a motion for the repeal of this statute. He had intended, he
said, to have made this motion during the preceding session, but he
congratulated himself upon the delay, as the changes which had
taken place in the government were favourable to the question he now
advocated. But Mr. Hume soon found himself mistaken. Mr. Canning and
others when in opposition had condemned this statute as a tyrannical
and unwarrantable attack against the liberty of the press; but to a man
they now resisted the motion, and abused and ridiculed the mover. It was
lost by a majority of one hundred and twenty against ten.
THE CORN-LAW QUESTION.
The new corn-law, which had been sent to the house of lords before
the recess, only furnished them with an opportunity of triumph. It had
originated in the late cabinet of which the Duke of Wellington was a
member; but notwithstanding this, he moved an amendment, prohibiting the
removal of foreign corn from bond until the price of wheat should
have reached sixty-six shillings per quarter. This proposal, though
at variance with the principle of the bill, which provided for the
admission of corn at all times on payment of a duty proportionate to the
average market price, was supported by the high Tory party and peers,
who preferred their own interests as landowners, so that ministers were
left in a minority of one hundred and twenty-two to one hundred and
thirty-three. The consequence of this amendment was, that, when the
bill returned to the commons, ministers rejected it altogether; it being
fatal, they said, to the principle of the bill, and inconsistent with
its application. As for the supporters of the amendment they were
abused both within and without the walls of St. Stephen, as men who had
sacrificed the public good to forward the purposes of mere faction.
Even Mr. Canning, imagining that the opposition was directed personally
against himself, described the Duke of Wellington as a tool in the
hands of more crafty intriguers. He could not, he said, exclude from
his consideration that even so great a man as the Duke of Wellington had
been made an instrument in the hands of others on that occasion. As to
the members by which that amendment was carried, he asserted, that he
believed it impossible that such discordant materials could have been
brought together by a conviction of its merits. He looked upon the
union not as arising from the merits of the question, but from some
deep-rooted design to produce another effect in the other house, or that
house, or elsewhere. There was no reason, however, to believe that this
step arose from the spirit of faction as a whole; and Mr. Canning’s
language was, to say the least of it, indiscreet; language, which pique
and provocation might account for, but which neither sound sense nor
good feeling could justify. In consequence of the failure of this bill
it became necessary to prevent a recurrence of that alarm which had
arisen last year on account of scarcity. A temporary bill was therefore
prepared and suffered to pass both houses, permitting the release of
foreign corn from bond, on the same scale of duties as that proposed by
the measure which had been abandoned.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
Mr. Canning brought forward the budget on the 1st of June. The method
which he adopted in his statement, was, to state first the financial
situation of the country at the end of the preceding year; then to
combine and compare that one year with the several years which had
preceded it; and finally, to suggest the provision to be made for the
service of the present year, and the grounds on which he felt himself
justified in looking forward with confidence to the result. By a review
of income and expenditure during the four past years, it appeared from
his statements, that, on an expenditure of £230,000,000, including the
annual sinking-fund of £5,000,000, there was an apparent deficiency
of £1,265,687. Against this, however, was to be placed the amount of
advances from the exchequer, either in loans to carry on public works,
or for beneficial purchases, which the public had in possession as
available securities for repayment. The amount of excess in these
advances for the four years, was near £2,000,000, so that in fact
there remained about £1,100,000, as a real surplus of income beyond
expenditure. Mr. Canning suggested the propriety of providing for the
temporary deficiency by an issue of exchequer-bills. The supplies
which he demanded for the year amounted to £57,500,000, including the
sinking-fund; and the various items of which they were composed were
all voted without opposition. At the conclusion of his statements Mr.
Canning said, that he intended to bring the expenditure of the country
to the lowest possible scale consistent with the public service, and
that it was the determination of government to apply their best efforts
to the matter, and to call the house into council on the subject. His
financial statements, indeed, were made with such ability and candour,
that they secured for him the confidence both of the house and the
country.
CORRUPT BOROUGHS.
As is usual in the first session of a new parliament, the reports
of election-committees disclosed scenes of gross bribery. Samples of
corruption were brought before the house by Colonel Maberly and Mr.
Sykes from the boroughs of Northampton and Leicester.
Enormous sums had been abstracted from corporation funds for the purpose
of defraying the expenses of candidates for the boroughs. Colonel
Maberly moved, with reference to the borough of Northampton, that a
select committee be appointed to take into consideration the petition
which had been presented to the house, complaining of the conduct of the
corporation. The attorney-general, in reply, said, that if the case were
really as it had been stated, and if the corporation had been guilty of
the breach of trust mentioned, then there was an undoubted remedy in the
court of chancery, and he argued that this was the ordinary and legal
mode of obtaining redress in such cases. The motions, however, was
supported by Messrs. Spring Rice, II. Gurney, and Abercromby, with Lords
Althorp and Russell, on the ground that there was more in the case than
the mere misapplication of funds. They argued that the purpose to which
the funds had been misapplied directly affected the privileges and
constitution of the house of commons; that the house would degrade
itself if it sanctioned the attorney-general’s going before any court,
whether of law or of equity, to obtain the decision of that court on the
propriety or power of the house to interfere in cases of this nature,
and that the case was a fitting one to be investigated by a committee.
The application of money for such purposes found an advocate in Mr.
Peel, who asked, that if corporation funds should not be spent for any
other than corporation purposes, what was to be said of that of London,
which had recently voted £1000 to the Greeks? The real question before
the house was, that supposing the corporation to have power to apply its
funds to other than charitable purposes, had it a right to appropriate
them to such a purpose as paying the legitimate expenses incurred in
forwarding the election of a particular member of parliament? This was
a question which merited deep consideration. Might a peer subscribe one,
two, or five thousand pounds towards defraying such expenses?—might not
a corporation do so too? He would not advise them to do it; but he was
not prepared to say that in doing it they were acting illegally, or
would be guilty of a breach of the privileges of the house of commons.
He should suggest that a select committee be appointed simply to
inquire into the payment, or engagements for payment, of any sum for
electioneering purposes, made by the corporation of Northampton at the
last election, which suggestion was adopted. Concerning the borough of
Leicester, Mr. Sykes moved that a select committee should be appointed
“to take into consideration the petition from the borough of Leicester,
to examine witnesses, and to report to the house thereon.” This motion
was opposed by Messrs. C. Wynn and Peel, as a manifest attempt to evade
the provisions of the Grenville Act, which might forthwith be repealed
if motions of this nature were sanctioned. The petitioners, it was said,
had taken legal advice on the subject, and finding that they had no
case, they allowed the time limited by that act to elapse, and now
demanded the special interference of the house. They found this mode of
procedure more convenient than the former, under which they would have
had to find security for costs in the event of the petition turning out
to be frivolous, and would have been obliged at least to maintain
their own witnesses. It was inconvenient, unjust, and degrading to the
character of the house, it was asserted, to descend into the politics of
borough elections, and that applications like this ought to be resisted.
On the other hand, Sir Francis Burdett argued that if the petition were
rejected, it would be viewed as indicating a want of that constitutional
jealousy which should induce them to open their doors widely, instead of
shutting them abruptly to complaints of this nature. The house, he said,
was imperatively called on to investigate the circumstances connected
with the offence. On a division, however, the motion was lost by a
majority of ninety-two to sixty-eight.
A severer fate menaced some of the Cornish boroughs. Two of them
appeared so pre-eminent in dishonesty, that the most determined
advocates of the old system could not ward off retributive justice. A
petition against the return for Penryn had been presented, and although
corrupt practices could not be traced to the sitting members, yet
the committee reported that the most gross and shameful bribery had
prevailed. Mr. Legh Keck, chairman of the committee, was compelled by
a sense of duty to move the following resolutions:—“That it appears to
this house that the most notorious bribery and corruption were practised
at the last election of members to serve in parliament for the borough
of Penryn, and that such practices were not new or casual in the
borough, the attention of the house having been called to similar
practices in the years 1807 and 1819. That the said bribery and
corruption deserved the most serious consideration of parliament. That
leave be given to bring in a bill for the more effectual preventing of
bribery and corruption in that borough.” These resolutions were agreed
to; the sitting members for Penryn only raising their voices against
it, and a bill was ordered to be brought in in accordance with the
third resolution. This bill having been read a second time, the house
proceeded to examine further evidence in proof of the corruption. In
that evidence there was much of mere belief, and much prevarication on
the part of some of the witnesses; but the house came to the conclusion
that a clear case of bribery and corruption had been established. The
grand point, therefore, to consider was, the punishment to be inflicted,
or the remedy to be applied. On that subject there was a diversity
of opinions. Mr. Keck proposed the extension of the franchise to the
hundreds, while Lord John Russell contended that the borough, like
that of Grampound, should be disfranchised altogether. He moved as an
amendment, “that the borough of Penryn shall be excluded hereafter from
returning burgesses to serve in parliament.” The original motion was
supported by the ministry, who contended that though enough had been
proved to call for the interference of the house, yet there was not
sufficient to induce it to proceed to total disfranchisement. Mr.
Canning remarked, that he thought it clear that a verdict of “guilty”
must be given; but he did not think such a degree of guilt was
established as would warrant the extinction of that which in its
blameless exercise was a valuable possession, and the taking it entirely
away from those who had exercised it innocently because others had
abused it. He protested, however, against its being supposed that, in
such a case as Grampound, he should feel any difficulty in erecting a
new representation in lieu of that which might be taken away; and in
giving his vote for the original motion, he would give it with reference
to this particular case, avoiding the general question, and the general
principles on which it was to be considered. The amendment was supported
by Lords Althorp and Milton; by Messrs. Ferguson, Hobhouse, and
Brougham; and by Sir John Newport. Such a case, they argued, had been
made out that it would be an injustice to the constitution and to the
principles on which the house had acted towards other places if Penryn
were not disfranchised, and the right transferred elsewhere. The
transfer of its privileges, they said, to the adjoining hundreds, would
merely bestow them on a few wealthy individuals. On a division the
amendment was carried by a majority of one hundred and twenty-four
against sixty-nine.
A petition had been presented against the return for East Retford,
and the committee had reported that the sitting members were not duly
elected; that the election was void, and that bribery had been general
and notorious. Similar resolutions to those in the case of Penryn were
adopted, therefore, in regard to this borough. The house resolved that
no new writ should issue until the evidence should have been taken into
consideration; and the result of that consideration was, that leave
was given for a bill of disfranchisement. The session, however, closed
before any effective proceedings were taken for the disfranchisement of
either of these boroughs; but Manchester was generally looked to as a
recipient of the forfeited privileges of Penryn, and Birmingham was
held out as the place to which the franchise of East Retford would be
transferred.
During this session Lord Althorp obtained the appointment of a committee
to inquire into the mode of taking the poll at county elections; and
Colonel Davies obtained a similar one to inquire into the mode of
taking the polls at elections of cities and boroughs. The object of
this inquiry was to get rid, if possible, of the enormous expense of
electing, whether in county, city, or borough; for in many cases, as
matters stood, it was only men of large fortunes who could venture to
stand candidates. Lord Althorp likewise brought in and carried a bill
for the better prevention of corrupt practices at elections, and for
diminishing the expenses. His object was to prevent substantial
bribery from being perpetrated under the mask of giving employment,
and therefore to deprive all persons of the right to vote who should be
employed by a candidate at the election. It was notorious, he said, that
at elections different nominal offices were created, to be filled by
voters who were classed as plumpers, and received double the pay of
split votes. The provisions of the bill, however, were not to apply to
any real and fair agent of a candidate, but to those who went under the
spurious names of runners, flagmen, and musicians. On the suggestion of
Mr. Spring Rice it was further determined to prohibit the distribution
of riband and cockades. Both parts of the bill were opposed: the one
as being unjust, and the other as frivolous; but the bill passed into
a law. By its provision any person who, within six months before an
election, or during an election, or within fourteen days after it,
shall have been employed in the election as counsel, agent, attorney,
poll-clerk, flagman, or in any other capacity, and shall have received
in consideration of such employment any fee, place, or office, shall
be incapable of voting at such elections; and that a penalty of £10 for
each offence shall be inflicted upon every candidate, who, after the
test of the writ, or if parliament be sitting, after the seat has become
vacant, shall directly or indirectly give to any voter or inhabitant
any cockade, riband, or any other mark of distinction. On the whole,
therefore, a great step was taken this session towards the purification
of elections; a branding mark, at least, was set upon shameless
corruption.
THE GAME-LAWS.
During this session Lord Wharncliffe introduced a bill into the lords
for altering the system of the game-laws. The provisions of this
bill were threefold: first, it removed the absurd and contradictory
qualifications of the old law, and substituted in their place the
qualification of property, by permitting every proprietor to kill game
on his own lands, whether great or small; secondly, it legalized the
sale of game, as one great means of diminishing the temptations for
poaching; and, thirdly, it mitigated the severity of the punishments
provided by the existing law for certain offences against the game acts.
This bill was allowed to be read a second time; but on the third
reading it was lost by a majority of one. It had, however, scarcely
been rejected when the Marquis of Salisbury introduced another, which
proposed to empower all persons qualified by law to kill game to take
out a licence, authorizing them to sell game to licensed dealers. This
bill was likewise allowed to pass a second reading; but it was lost on
a motion for the third reading by a majority of fifty-four to
thirty-eight. One great alteration, however, was effected by a bill
introduced by Lord Suffield, which abolished the practice of setting
spring-guns and other engines of destruction for the preservation
of game. This bill, which passed into a law, declared it to be a
misdemeanour in any person to set a spring-gun, man-trap, or other
engine calculated to kill, or inflict grievous injury, with the intent
that it should destroy life, or occasion bodily harm to any trespasser
or other person who might come into contact with it. An exception was
made in favour of gins and traps for the destruction of vermin, and
of guns placed in a dwelling-house between sunset and sunrise for the
protection of that house. Scotland was excepted from the operation
of the law; the six judges of the court of justiciary in that country
having recently pronounced, in a case on which they had adjudicated of a
man who had recently been killed by a spring-gun, that such killing, by
the law of Scotland, is murder.
IMPROVEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.
Although out of office Mr. Peel still proceeded with his improvements of
the criminal code. By his enlightened exertions five acts were passed,
which consolidated into one body the whole law regarding offences
against property, purified from an incredible quantity of ancient
rubbish, and advantageously simplified in all its arrangements. The
first of these five acts repealed about one hundred and thirty-seven
different statutes, wholly, or in part, commencing with the charter _De
Foresta_ of Henry III., and ending with the session of 1826. The second
statute removed doctrines which had hitherto been useless lumber in
the statute-book, or laid down general rules applicable to the whole
criminal code. It abolished _in toto_ the benefit of clergy in cases of
felony; appointed certain punishment for offences to which no special
statute affixed any particular penalty; relieved discharged prisoners
from severe official expenses; and purified the law from a load of
obscure and unnecessary verbiage. The third act contained the law of
offences against property in its new and simplified form; bringing the
various species of crime into one view; assigning to each its plain
description, with its punishment; and removing distinctions which had
frequently given rise to subtile and embarrassing doubts. It abolished
the distinction between grand and petty larceny; defined the true nature
of burglary; and removed many subtilties regarding possession, and the
conversion of possession in the law of embezzlement, as well as in the
distinctions of larceny and fraud. It also mitigated the rigour of the
penal law, while it recognised four classes of punishments, the offences
being distinctly set forth to which each was applicable. The first of
these punishments was death: the second, transportation for life, or any
term not less than seven years, with the alternative of imprisonment
for not longer than four years, with public whipping; the third was
transportation for any period under fourteen years, or imprisonment for
three years and whipping; and the fourth was transportation for seven
years, with the alternative of imprisonment for two years and whipping.
The fourth statute comprised those offences which consisted of
maliciously injuring the property of another. This act reserved capital
punishment for arson, for the demolition of buildings or machinery by
rioters, for showing false lights to a vessel, &c.; but left other kinds
of injury to be repaid by transportation or imprisonment. Altogether
the number of capital offences was considerably diminished; and in many
cases a summary mode of proceeding was introduced, which was so far a
limitation of trial by jury. The last statute regulated the redress to
be sought from the hundred by persons whose property had been injured by
rioters, and laid down the mode for applying for such remuneration.
PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.
Parliament was prorogued on the 2nd of July. The speech was delivered
by commission, and chiefly referred to the assurances of friendship from
foreign powers; to directions which had been given for a review of
the financial state of the country, with a view to a diminution
of expenditure; to the revival of employment in the manufacturing
districts; and to the corn-law question. On this latter subject the
speech remarked:—“His majesty trusts that, although your deliberations
on the corn-laws have not led, during the present session, to a
permanent settlement of that important question, the consideration of
it will be resumed by you early in the ensuing session, and that such an
arrangement of it may finally be adopted as shall satisfy the reasonable
wishes, and reconcile the substantial interests of all classes of his
majesty’s subjects.”
DEATH OF MR. CANNING.
The close of this session was soon followed by an event which again
dismembered the government, and disappointed all those hopes which
the genius and enlightened principles of Mr. Canning had raised in the
nation; an event, also, which taught an impressive lesson on the vanity
and uncertainty of ambition. Immediately after the close of parliament
Mr. Canning issued orders to the heads of different departments, that
they should transmit to him accurate accounts of the expenses connected
with their several establishments, with a view to their reduction. He
had no sooner done this than he was visited by an attack of illness.
His attack seemed to yield to medical treatment; and he went down to
the beautiful seat of the Duke of Devonshire, at Chiswick, to seek
tranquillity and a purer air. The fatigues and cares of office, however,
had worn down his constitution, while the desertion and bitter hostility
of his ministerial colleagues—men whom he had loved—acted on a frame
naturally irritable and enfeebled, and hastened his dissolution. His
disease returned; inflammation commenced, and proceeded with a violence
and rapidity which defied all art; and on the 8th of August he expired
in the same room where his predecessor, Charles James Fox, had drawn
his last breath. He was buried in Westminster Abbey, at the foot of Mr.
Pitt’s tomb, and his funeral, though private, was attended by a large
concourse of noblemen and gentlemen, to whom the deceased was endeared,
either by the ties of relationship or personal friendship. The public
character of Mr. Canning is clearly unfolded in the altered policy of
our government, both foreign and domestic, during his connexion with the
Liverpool administration. His ambition was lofty and imperious, but
it was coupled with noble ends—the glory of his own country, and the
advancement, through her greatness, of the surrounding nations. He was
anxious that all should benefit by her commercial prosperity and
the blessings of her constitution. Perhaps no minister was ever more
thoroughly influenced by the free spirit of the British constitution
than he was, at least in the latter part of his career. He began life,
indeed, on Tory principles; but he gradually imbibed that spirit, until
at length he threw off the trammels of that oligarchy, and acted as a
true patriot. When he found that the principles which he professed in
his early years began to threaten the safety of the constitution he
abandoned them as far as expedient; and conciliating his opponents, he
availed himself of their assistance to carry on the measures which
he devised for the welfare of his country. Some of these measures, as
previous pages unfold, were carried; others were to have been brought
forward in the lapse of time, had not death cut short his useful
career. It has been truly said, that in him England regretted the most
accomplished orator that the age had produced; and that the liberal
portion of Europe mourned over the loss of his moral influence as a
calamity to the world at large. He will be remembered in England as one
who nobly defended the honour, and asserted the dignity of the country
among nations, and as having made himself prime minister of England by
the mere force of talent.
ADMINISTRATION OF LORD GODERICH.
It might have been expected that, on the death of Mr. Canning, his
cabinet, which was composed of heterogeneous materials, and kept
together by his influence, would have been broken up. Few changes,
however, took place; and their effect was to bring back some of Mr.
Canning’s former friends into office. Lord Goderich became first lord
of the treasury, and Mr. Huskisson succeeded to him in the colonial
department. The Duke of Wellington re-accepted the command of the army,
but without a seat in the cabinet. There was a difficulty in finding
a chancellor of the exchequer; it was declined by Messrs. Tierney,
Huskisson, and Sturges Bourne; but finally accepted by Mr. Hemes,
who had been secretary of the treasury under Lord Liverpool’s
administration. The nomination of Mr. Herries, who was brought up in the
Vansittart school, was well nigh the cause of breaking up the cabinet.
The Whigs objected to him on political grounds; and the Marquis of
Lansdowne waited upon the king to tender his resignation. His chief
objection, however, was, that he was said to have been a nominee of the
king; and when it was explained that the recommendation came from Lord
Goderich, and was accepted by his majesty, who was anxious to avoid the
fatigue of new arrangements, his lordship consented to retain office.
This new ministry, the third which the country had seen in the space of
seven months, had within it, however, the seeds of its own dissolution;
and, as will be seen, the year was scarcely out when it was dissolved.
REVIEW OF FOREIGN POLICY.
The foreign policy of Mr. Canning occasioned difficulties with which his
successor was not able to contend. At this time, not only the commerce
of the Levant was destroyed, but all Christendom was shocked by the
atrocious cruelties exercised by the Turks in a war with the Greeks.
Such a state of things could not be suffered long to exist; and when it
was found that the Turkish court was resolved to pursue its own course,
Great Britain, France, and Russia resolved to interfere. A treaty was
signed between these three powers on the 6th of July, in this year,
to defend Greece from the Sultan’s power. One of the articles of
this treaty provided, that if the Ottoman Porte did not accept their
intervention, the high contracting powers would establish commercial
relations with Greece, and order the admirals commanding their naval
forces to impose an armistice on the belligerents. Instructions were
drawn up, which authorized those commanders to prevent the transmission
of troops and supplies from Turkey or Egypt to Greece; but enjoined
them to avoid hostilities unless the Turks should endeavour to force a
passage. Despatches were sent at the same time to Constantinople and
to the Greek government: and Colonel Cradock was sent to Alexandria to
endeavour to persuade the pacha to withdraw his Egyptian army. It was
arranged that a combined fleet should give effect to these resolutions,
and two line-of-battle ships were sent to re-enforce Sir Edward
Codrington. The French government, also, sent four ships of the line
into the same seas, and Admiral Siniavin arrived at Spithead with a
Russian squadron of eight sail of the line and eight frigates; half of
which only, however, joined the confederates. But although thus menaced,
the Reis Effendi would not listen to any terms. He would not even deign
to receive such a communication as the treaty of the 6th of July; and
when a copy was left on his sofa, he refused to answer it, or to admit
any explanations. The Russian minister now proposed to starve the Divan
into compliance by a joint blockade of the Bosphorus and Hellespont.
The French minister entered into his views; but Lord Dudley objected on
the part of England to such a step, as too violent. Negociations were
in this state, when suddenly ominous sounds proceeded from the Bay of
Navarino. In that harbour the Turkish and Egyptian fleets were blockaded
by the combined squadrons of England, France, and Russia, under the
chief command of Sir Edward Codrington. The Greeks had readily accepted
an armistice under the treaty; but Ibrahim Pasha not only refused its
terms, but aggravated the miseries of war by devastating the country
of Greece. The inhabitants were massacred; villages, vineyards and
olive-trees, in which the principal riches of the nation consisted,
destroyed. Irritated by such barbarity the allied admirals determined
to enforce the armistice on Ibrahim. Their plan was to enter the harbour
and renew their demands of an armistice, under the alternative, that,
if he refused, they would attack and destroy his fleet. Their first
movement towards the harbour was an hostile act. About noon on the 20th
of October the combined fleets passed the batteries to take up their
anchorage, formed in the order of two sailing lines: the British and
French squadrons forming the starboard line, and the Russian squadron
the lee line. As it was Admiral Codrington’s object only to have the
enemy’s fleet within his grasp, and then, before laying hold of it, to
make his propositions anew to Ibrahim, orders were given that not a
gun should be fired unless the Turks should begin. These orders were
strictly obeyed; but on seeing the approach of the allies, the Turkish
commander concluded that they had come to attack them without any
further ceremony, and therefore prepared for battle. As they approached,
the Capitana Bey observed,—“The die is now cast; I told you the English
would not be trifled with.” Their flotilla was drawn up in a crescent
with springs on its cables, and it consisted of seventy-nine ships of
war, armed with 2,240 guns, beside those in the formidable batteries on
shore. In point of strength the Turks had the advantage over the allies,
as their ships amounted only to twenty-six, carrying 1,324 guns. The
Turks, however, had only three two-deckers, while the allies had ten
sail of the line, which greatly compensated for the discrepancy of
strength. The fire commenced on the enemy’s side; for when the British
admiral despatched one of his pilots to the flag-ship of the Turkish
commander, expressing an earnest desire to avoid all effusion of blood,
the messenger was shot at and killed. The same vessel also soon after
fired into the “Asia,” and the conflict then became general. The battle
continued with fury during four hours; the English bearing the brunt of
the engagement. At the end of that time the Turkish and Egyptian fleets
had disappeared: the Bay of Navarino was covered with their wrecks, and
only a few of the smaller vessels escaped into the inner harbour. The
carnage on board the Turkish ships was dreadful: nearly six thousand men
had perished in the action. On the part of the allies the severest
loss was sustained by the British squadron; having seventy-five
killed, including Captain Bathurst of the “Genoa,” and one hundred and
ninety-seven wounded. The French, who emulated the skill and valour
of the English, had forty-three killed and one hundred and seventeen
wounded; and the Russians fifty-seven killed and one hundred and
thirty-seven wounded. The scene of wreck and devastation on the side
of the Turks was such as had not been witnessed since the battle of
Lepanto: of about one hundred men-of-war and transports, about half were
burnt, sunk, or driven on shore. The allies took no prizes, and detained
no prisoners; and in the hour of vengeance they showed mercy by saving
many of the Turkish sailors. At the time of the battle Ibrahim Pasha,
was absent on a military excursion; but he returned in time to see
the smoking remains of his fleet. It is said that he looked on the
catastrophe with complacency, as it extricated him from the dilemma in
which he was placed between the sultan’s orders and the mandates of the
three great European powers. After the battle, the admiral entered into
a fresh correspondence with the commanders; and after agreeing that
hostilities should cease, the allied fleet quitted Navarino. The news
of the disaster was received by the sultan as though he submitted to the
will of fate: he heard it without dismay or loss of temper. He demanded,
indeed, reparation for what he called a violation of the law of nations;
but instead of sending the ambassadors to the Seven Towers, as had been
the usual custom, he permitted them to return to their respective courts
in safety. In Europe the news of the victory was heard with joy and
gladness; but the feeling of exultation was in England confined to a
minority. The Tories loudly exclaimed against this aggression upon the
forces of an ancient ally, as a wanton act of perfidy, and as forwarding
the designs of the Russian autocrat. As for the ministry, they appeared
paralysed by the event; for they were afraid to take a manly line of
defence, and were uncertain as to what course they ought to pursue.
Finally, they virtually pronounced an opinion on the victory by
rewarding the officers who achieved it; but they marred this action by
despatching Admiral Sir John Gore to the Mediterranean, for the purpose
of collecting information. By this vacillating conduct they gave their
opponents an opportunity of taunting them with inconsistency. Before
parliament met, however, and therefore before the question could be
debated, the administration of Lord Goderich had become dissolved. At
its dissolution it left England at war with the sultan, together with
France and Russia; but the two former powers though united against him
were still at heart his friends. Though Russia had been working through
a long course of never-changing policy, to accomplish his ruin, they,
though at present apparently the instruments of this ambition, were
deeply interested in counteracting its designs.