CHAPTER XXXVIII.

{GEORGE IV. 1828—1829}

Duke of Wellington’s Administration..... Meeting of

Parliament..... Discussions and Explanations concerning the

Dissolution of the Goderich Ministry, &c. Questions of

Finance..... Motion for a Grant to the Family of Mr.

Canning..... Financial Statement..... Repeal of the Test and

Corporation Acts..... The Catholic Question...... Motion on

the State of the Law, &c. Bills connected with the

Election of Members of the House..... Corn-Law Question.....

Divisions in the Cabinet..... Prorogation of Parliament.....

Disturbances in Ireland..... Death of the Earl of

Liverpool..... Foreign Policy.

DUKE OF WELLINGTON’S ADMINISTRATION.

{A.D. 1828}

It soon became manifest that the cabinet with the loss of it great

leader had lost all its preservative qualities. Lord Goderich was a man

of unquestionable integrity; but he exhibited a lamentable deficiency

in that energy, judgment, and firm resolution, which were absolutely

necessary for the keeping together of the discordant materials of which

his administration was composed. His incapacity was plainly manifested

when he proposed to redeem a pledge given by Mr. Canning, to appoint

a committee for the investigation and reform of the finances, in the

ensuing parliament. Mr. Tierney, one of the most active members of the

Whig cabinet, proposed Lord Althorp as chairman, to which Lord

Goderich expressed no objection; merely observing that the appointment

principally concerned the house of commons, and referring Mr. Tierney to

Mr. Huskisson, its ministerial leader. Lord Althorp was by the consent

of Mr. Huskisson appointed; but by some oversight or intention, the

matter was not mentioned to Mr. Hemes, who, as chancellor of the

exchequer was more immediately concerned in the investigation. It

was only on the 28th of November that Mr. Hemes, calling at the

colonial-office, accidentally saw a list of the committee and its

chairman, drawn out by Mr. Tierney. On the subject being discussed,

the chancellor of the exchequer was thought to have acquiesced in

the appointment; but Mr. Hemes, in the course of the parliamentary

explanations which followed, and which will be related in a subsequent

article, denied this to have been the case: declaring at the same time

that though he had unfeigned respect for the private character of Lord

Althorp, he distinctly objected to his being appointed as chairman

of the committee. It is quite clear that Mr. Hemes objected to the

appointment; for within twenty-four hours after he saw the list he

waited on Lord Goderich, and informed him, that, after considering

Lord Althorp’s political views maturely, he must resign office if his

appointment were not set aside. On the other hand the retention of

Mr. Huskisson, who considered himself pledged to Lord Althorp, became

involved in the question, and occasioned much perplexity to the premier.

About the same time the news of the battle of Navarino arrived; and,

wearied with his situation, on the 8th of January he went down to

Windsor, laid his difficulties before the king, and resigned. The

coalition ministry was no more. It perished, the victim of that want of

confidence which is the natural result of new-born friendship, and of

want of power and energy in its leader.

Thus abandoned by his ministers, the king sent for the Duke of

Wellington, and commissioned him to reconstruct the cabinet. The new

government was speedily constructed, and, with the exception of Lord

Eldon, whom infirmity prevented from taking office, the Liverpool

administration was reinstated. The Duke of Wellington relinquished

the office of commander-in-chief to Lord Hill, and presided over the

treasury; Mr. Peel succeeded to the home department; Lord Bathurst

became president of the council; Lord Ellenborough was made keeper of

the privy-seal; Viscount Melville and the Earl of Aberdeen were made

president of the board of control and chancellor of the duchy of

Lancaster; Lord Lyndhurst was created chancellor; Mr. Huskisson and Earl

Dudley became colonial and foreign secretaries; Lord Palmerston was

made secretary at war; Mr. C. Grant became president of the board

of trade; and Mr. Goulburn succeeded Mr. Hemes as chancellor of the

exchequer. Mr. Hemes was made master of the mint and his acceptance of

office under the new administration was considered by the Whigs as a

proof that he had undertaken his former office from other motives than

qualifications or choice. Mr. Huskisson’s union with the new ministry

displeased the personal friends of Mr. Canning, who thought that he

displayed no regard to the memory of his friend, in so soon taking

office with those who had deserted him in the hour of need.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament reassembled on the 29th of January. It was again opened by

commission; and the principal topic in the speech was an allusion to the

late naval conflict. It remarked:—“Having been earnestly entreated

by the Greeks to interpose his good offices, with a view to effect

a reconciliation between them and the Porte, his majesty concerted

measures in the first instance with the Emperor of Russia, and

subsequently with his imperial majesty and the King of France. His

majesty has given directions that there should be laid before you copies

of a protocol signed at St. Petersburg by the plenipotentiaries of his

majesty, and of his imperial majesty the Emperor of Russia, on the 4th

of April, 1826, and of the treaty entered into between his majesty and

the courts of the Tuilleries and of St Petersburg, on the 6th of July,

1827. In the course of the measures adopted with a view to carry into

effect the object of the treaty a collision wholly unexpected by his

majesty took place in the port of Navarino between the fleets of the

contracting powers. Notwithstanding the valour displayed by the combined

fleet, his majesty deeply laments that this conflict should have

occurred with the naval force of our ancient ally; but he still

entertains a confident hope that this untoward event will not be

followed by further hostilities, and will not impede that amicable

adjustment of the existing differences between the Porte and the Greeks

to which it is so manifestly their common interests to accede.” This is

the first time in the British annals that a victory is characterized

as an “untoward event.” But the men now in power hated Greece and her

cause, and were so blinded by admiration of despotic principles, as not

to perceive thé advantages which might accrue to Russia in her future

projects, from the destruction of the Ottoman navy, and from the lack

of confidence which the sultan would now have in his western allies. In

both houses the language of the king’s speech respecting the victory

of Navarino was loudly denounced by opposition, it being supposed to

indicate that the Duke of Wellington’s cabinet abandoned the line of Mr.

Canning’s policy. In the lords the Duke of Richmond especially fixed a

quarrel on the phrase “ancient ally:” contending that the sultan could

not be termed in any correct sense of the word an ally of this country

at all, and much less an “ancient ally.” He disapproved still more

of the epithet “untoward,” as applied in the speech to the battle

of Navarino. If the term was meant, he said, to cast any blame on the

gallant officer who commanded the fleet at Navarino, he would protest

against the baseness and ignominy of such an insinuation in the most

solemn manner; or if it was to be understood that it referred to that

which happened by accident, and which stood across the object we had in

view, he entered his protest against it. However much he might lament

the effusion of blood which had taken place at Navarino; however much

he might lament that we had not yet accomplished the pacification of the

two countries, and effected the liberation of Greece, still, if by that

word it was meant to say, that the battle of Navarino was an obstacle to

the independence of Greece, he could not agree in such views. To him

it appeared a great step towards the pacification of Eunrae, and he

considered it of more use than a contrary policy could have been in

promoting that great and desirable object. In explaining, the Duke of

Wellington maintained that the epithets excepted against were fairly and

truly applicable. The Ottoman empire, he said, had long been an ally of

this country, and the Ottoman power was an essential part of the balance

of power in Europe. Its preservation had been for many years an

object not only to this country, but to the whole of Europe, while

the revolutions and changes of possessions which had taken place had

increased the importance of its preservation as an independent state,

capable of preserving itself. As to the term “untoward,” the sense in

which it was used referred to the stipulations of the alliance, that its

operation was not to lead to hostilities and that the contracting powers

were to take no part in hostilities. When, therefore, the operations

under the treaty did lead to hostilities it was certainly an “untoward

event.” “I must say,” continued his grace, “that the gallant admiral

was placed in a very delicate situation; and that he has done his duty

to his king and his country. He was in command of a squadron of

ships, acting in conjunction with admirals of other nations; and he so

conducted himself as to acquire their confidence, and to induce them to

lead them to victory. Such being the case I should feel myself unworthy

of the high situation I hold in his majesty’s councils, if I were

capable of uttering a single word against the gallant admiral. Meaning

as I did, that the government should carry the treaty into execution,

it would be blamable in me to insinuate a censure against a man who was

charged with the execution of difficult orders under a treaty.” Similar

exceptions were taken in the commons against the speech; but the usual

addresses to the throne were carried in both houses without a division.

DISCUSSIONS AND EXPLANATIONS CONCERNING THE DISSOLUTION OF THE GODERICH

MINISTRY, ETC.

As the dissolution of the late ministry had been unexpected, and little

had been said of the causes which produced it, and as the conduct

of those members who had passed into the new government appeared

suspicious, some explanation of these matters was looked for in both

houses of parliament. The disclosures began by Messrs. Hemes, Huskisson,

and others who had accepted office under the new government. They

commenced with Lord Goderich, on whom it was especially incumbent to

explain the civil dissensions which had broken in pieces a cabinet of

his own framing, and had induced him to throw up the government in a

manner neither understood by his older friends or more recent allies.

His statement in reply attributed the dissolution of the ministry to

an irreconcilable difference between Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Herries,

regarding the proposed chairman of the finance committee; and since that

difference had caused the resignation of the minister, it implied an

admission that his cabinet was so constructed that the removal of either

of these gentlemen naturally dissolved it. It remained for Messrs.

Huskisson and Herries to state the grounds, therefore, of an obstinacy

which had been so fatal to the cabinet; but both remained silent, until

Lord Normandy called directly upon them to explain their conduct in the

matter. Mr. Huskisson, in his version of the events which had led to the

dissolution of the ministry, agreed in general with the statement made

by Lord Goderich, simply supplying some deficiencies which his lordship

had been unable to fill up. On the contrary, Mr. Herries averred broadly

that the difference concerning the appointment of Lord Althorp as

chairman of the committee was not the cause of the dissolution of Lord

Goderich’s administration. He remarked:—“There is no truth whatever in

the allegation that that difference caused the dissolution of the late

cabinet. In all the rumours which have been propagated about design, and

artifice, and stratagem, there is not one word of truth. I deny them all

most unequivocally. They are false and unfounded in every particular,

and have not even the slightest shadow of a foundation.” Mr. Tierney and

Lord Althorp followed; but they threw no new light on the subject; and

all parties ended where they had begun: the public had to believe which

of the statements made they chose, according to this or that man’s

political bias. In a discussion which followed, the attention of the

house was directed to the character of the new government, and the

conduct of those members of the former government who had joined it.

Mr. T. Duncombe remarked, that the house had still to learn how the

difference between Messrs. Huskisson and Herries had been made up, and

how these members continued to sit in the same cabinet. The colonial

secretary, he said, had still to explain “how their pulses, which

formerly were so irregular, could beat so soon in unison; by what means

the _quietus_ had been produced, and the direful wrath appeased.” He was

inclined to impute all that had happened to a secret and powerful agency

which had not yet been unmasked, and which was exercised, according to

the statement of the honourable member, by a Jew stock-broker, and a

Christian physician. He had, indeed, “been credibly informed that there

is a mysterious personage behind the scene, who concerts, regulates, and

influences every arrangement.” He continued, “There is, deny it who can?

a secret influence behind the throne, whose form is never seen, who name

is never breathed who has access to all the secrets of the state, and

who manages all the sudden springs of ministerial arrangement,

‘At whose soft nod the streams of honour flow,

Whose smiles all place and patronage bestow.’

“Closely connected with this invisible, this incorporeal person, stands a

more solid and substantial form, a new and formidable power, till these

days unknown in Europe. Master of unbounded wealth, he boasts that he

is the arbiter of peace and war, and that the credit of nations depends

upon his nod. His correspondents are innumerable; his couriers outrun

those of sovereign princes and absolute sovereigns; ministers of state

are in his pay. Paramount to the cabinets of continental Europe, he

aspires to the domination of our own. Even the great Don Miguel himself,

of whom we have lately heard and seen so much, was obliged to have

recourse to the purse of this individual, before he could take

possession of his throne. Sir, that such secret influences do exist is

a matter of notoriety: they are known to have been but too busy in the

underplot of the revolution. I believe their object to be as impure as

the means by which their power has been acquired; and I denounce them

and their agents as unknown to the British constitution, and derogatory

to the honour of the crown.” Mr. Buncombe’s denunciation of the secret

influence behind the throne was followed by the explanations of Messrs.

Stanley and Peel, and Lords Morpeth, Milton, and Palmerston, as to their

reasons for joining or not joining the present government. But after the

house, as Mr. Brougham remarked, had heard a great deal, it was still

left nearly as much in the dark as ever, regarding the substantial

facts of the case which it was desirable should be known. The whole

transaction, he said was another illustration of Odenstien’s remark to

his son;—“You see with how little wisdom the world can be governed.”

It appeared that two members of the cabinet had been walking about in

uncertainty whether they belonged to the government or not; and the

head of that government was chiefly distinguished for carrying the

resignations of two of his colleagues in his pocket, and for an alarm,

when they should leave him, as to what he should do to provide himself

with new ones. As for the quarrel of the two resigning members, it was

endless, hopeless. Walls of brass were raised to divide the contending

parties for ever: to communicate with each other was impossible.

Communications were only to be held with a third person, and that third

person was not to repeat what either party communicated to him. Every

possible course had been resorted to to avoid an explanation, although

it would have put an end to the difficulty altogether, is to the

explanations of Mr. Herries, said Mr. Brougham, they give me no

satisfaction. That gentleman’s shining of his ground, first assenting or

not objecting to the appointment of Lord Althorp, afterwards protesting

against it, and then attributing the dissolution of the ministry to a

preconcerted plan on the part of others—all this left doubts remaining

in the public mind. There was still something untold which would have

explained the matter at once. The most important thing spoken in the

debate, he said, was the assertion of Mr. Huskisson, that he never

intended to say that he had got a guarantee for office in the new

administration before the old one was dissolved. No man had ever meant,

or supposed that he had stipulated for and obtained a guarantee, in the

legal sense of the words, set down in a formal writing, and on a proper

stamp. But, he asked, if a man spoke to an audience of having had

conversations, explanations, and understandings, would they not apply

those conversations, explanations, and understandings to that

subject just as much as if it were written? Would it not be said that

explanation was the result, of that conversation; and that the result of

that explanation, in the case before the house, was the acceptation of

office by the right honourable gentleman? In alluding to the unusual

circumstance of a military man being at the head of the government, Mr.

Brougham used very emphatic language. He remarked:—“No man values more

highly than I do the services and genius of the noble duke as a soldier;

but I do not like to see him at the head of the financial department of

this country, with the full confidence of his sovereign, enjoying all

the patronage of the church, the army, and the state; while he is

also entrusted with the delicate function of conveying constant and

confidential advice to his royal master. This state of things strikes me

as being very unconstitutional. I am, indeed, told that the noble duke

is a person of very great vigour in council, and that his talents are

not confined to the art of war. It may be so. But that does not remove

my objections to his possession of so immense a mass of civil and

military patronage. It is said that the noble duke is incapable of

speaking in public as a first minister or the crown ought to speak. Now

I consider that there is no validity in that objection; for I happened

to be present when the noble duke last year had the modesty and candour

to declare, in another place, his unfitness for the situation of first

minister; and I really thought I had never heard a better speech in my

life, or observed less want of capacity in any one who might be called

on to take part in a debate. This therefore is not a reason with me for

objecting to the appointment. My objection rests on the unconstitutional

grounds which I have before stated, and on the experience of the noble

duke being wholly military. Let it not, however, be supposed that I am

inclined to exaggerate. I have no fear of slavery being introduced into

this country by the power of the sword. It would demand a stronger man

even than the Duke of Wellington to effect that object. The noble duke

might take the army and the navy, the mitre and the great seal—I will

make him a present of them all; let him come on with his whole force,

sword in hand, against the constitution, the people will not only beat

him by their energies, but laugh at his efforts. There have, indeed,

been periods when the country heard with dismay that the soldier was

abroad; but such is not the case now. Let the soldier be never so much

abroad in the present age, he can do nothing. Another person, less

important, nay, even insignificant in the eyes or some persons, has

produced this state of things. ‘The schoolmaster is abroad,’ and I

trust more to the schoolmaster, armed with his primer, for upholding the

liberties of this country than I fear lest the soldier, in full military

array, should destroy them.” Mr. Brougham had no occasion to fear the

effects of a military premier, even though the schoolmaster had not been

abroad; for no prime minister that ever presided over the councils

of the British nation has ever shown himself to be more alive to the

interests of the country, and the preservation of its constitutional

rights, than the Duke of Wellington.

QUESTIONS OF FINANCE.

While these explanations were proceeding, that committee of finance

which had dissolved the late administration, was appointed. The motion

was made by Mr. Peel, now the acknowledged leader of the house of

commons. He prefaced his motion, with an able and comprehensive

statement. By his details, it appeared that a reduction of £48,608,000

had taken place in the funded and unfunded debt since the year 1815,

while the actual sum of unredeemed debt amounted about £777,476,000.

This being the total encumbrance, Mr. Peel next looked at the revenue

and expenditure; and after detailing the various items, he stated the

income of last year at £49,581,000, and the expenditure at £49,487,000,

thus leaving an excess of income equal to £94,000,000. The estimates

of the present year, he said, were not completed; but, without binding

himself down to extreme accuracy they would be less than those of the

present year by £1,168,260. After having made this general statement Mr.

Peel declared that he and his colleagues would listen to any suggestion

of the committee, for the appointment of which he was about to move. He

took that opportunity, he said, of pressing one subject particularly

on its notice, namely, the simplification of the public accounts, in

imitation of France and America. The motion passed without opposition,

except from Mr. Hume, who contended, that if any good was to be done,

there should be ten or eleven finance committees; but his plan received

no countenance, except from Mr. Brougham; and a single committee of

twenty-three members was appointed. The labours of this committee were

multifarious and important. One of the first fruits of its appointment

was the discovery that the public was regularly losing large sums of

money by the system on which the government annuities had been granted.

Mr. Hemes submitted a statement to the committee concerning the

finances, which Lord Althorp described as, “able, clear, and

satisfactory;” and it appeared from that exposition that these

annuities had been sold at a considerable loss. The evidence of this

was found in certain calculations made by Mr. Finlayson, who was said to

have communicated the fact to Lord Bexley in 1819, and subsequently to

Lord Goderich. His calculations stated the rate of loss to be £8,000 a

month, and to arise from a false calculation of the duration of life

in the tables given by Dr. Price. Either these tables were originally

inaccurate, or human life, in consequence of increased comforts,

conveniences, and scientific aid, was extended to a longer period. The

truth of this statement soon appeared to the committee; but nothing

could be done to alter those annuities which had been sold. On the

recommendation of the committee, however, a bill was brought in and

speedily passed, to suspend the operation of the act under which they

had been granted, until a more correct system could be arranged. During

the session the committee reported on various matters which had been

brought under their consideration, but not early enough to allow their

recommendations to be carried into effect. In a report on the state

of the ordnance department, the abolition of the office of its

lieutenant-general was recommended; but this proposition was opposed

by the ministry, and a motion to give it effect was lost by a large

majority.

MOTION FOR A GRANT TO THE FAMILY OF MR. CANNING.

When Mr. Canning died he was a poor man. He had begun the world without

fortune; he had spent his life in the public service; and the emoluments

of the offices which he had held had scarcely sufficed to cover the

expenses of his station. As, therefore, he held no sinecures, his sudden

death had left his family without a due provision. On these grounds the

chancellor of the exchequer proposed to grant a pension of £3,000 a year

to his second son, as a mode of providing for the family less onerous

than voting a large sum for the payment of debts. This proposition was

vehemently opposed by Lord Althorp, Sir M. Ridley, Messrs. Hume, Bankes,

D. W. Harvey, P. Thompson, and others, partly on the score of economy,

and partly on the ground of its not having been deserved. On the

contrary, ministers placed the question on the broad ground, that Mr.

Canning had devoted a long life, and talents of the first order, to the

service of his country; and in following that service, had not merely

lost the means of improving, but had deteriorated his private fortune.

What had he not surrendered, it was asked, when he gave up the

government of India to fill the unprofitable office of foreign

secretary? Mr. Huskisson remarked:—“I regret to be obliged to make

reference on such an occasion to information derived from the privacy of

confidential intercourse; but I can state, upon my own personal credit,

that whatever were the feeling of others, who were justly near and dear

to Mr. Canning, it had for years been his warm and anxious wish to

be placed in some public situation, however it might sacrifice or

compromise the fair and legitimate scope of his ambition, which, while

it enabled him to perform adequate public services, would enable him

also to place upon a better footing his wife’s private fortune, which

he had lessened, and the inheritance of his children, which he had

impaired. I will not go so far as to say, that this was a prospect fixed

upon Mr. Canning’s mind, or an object that he was bent upon pursuing,

for it is difficult to trace the springs of so susceptible a

temperament; but under the circumstances it was quite natural,

considering his means and his family, that while he honourably sought a

situation to render service to his country, he should not be unmindful

of the means of repairing the family fortune, which he had diminished

while in the service of his country.” A further objection was raised to

the grant, founded on disapprobation of Mr. Canning’s policy, or of that

policy with which he had been officially connected; but to this it was

answered, that the proposition touched no political principle, and did

not imply the abandonment of any political dogma. If the motion, it was

argued, went to vote a monument to commemorate his services, members who

thought that he had not performed any services to be commemorated,

would do right to appose it; but when the motion went only to reward his

family, they had merely to consider the fact, whether he had devoted his

talents to the public service to the detriment of his private interests.

On a division the grant was confirmed by a large majority. Both in the

house indeed, and throughout the country, it was felt that this grant

was only an act of justice, as Mr. Canning had spent not only his life,

but his fortune, in the public service. On this subject it has been well

remarked:—“It should be known, in justice to those who held the higher

offices under the crown, that their salaries fall short of the expenses

to which they are subjected, by the manners of the country and a

mischievous convention. This gorgeous scale of living has the double

effect of giving an example and impulse to extravagance through every

department of the public service; and of securing, perhaps by design, to

private wealth, a monopoly of administration. A man vigilantly prudent

might perhaps have lived within his income in Mr. Canning’s situation,

and it is known that he had no prodigal or expensive tastes; but it is

also known that he had that utter carelessness of money through which

fortune is not less effectually dissipated.”

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

The budget was opened by the chancellor of the exchequer on the 11th of

July; and it was opened with a clearness and simplicity that disarmed

even the opposition of Mr. Hume, disposed as he was at all times to

cavil about figures. The total ordinary net revenue of the year 1827 was

£49,581,576; but to this were added £4,245,000 received from the Bank

on account of the dead-weight, and the sum of £660,081 under the head of

extraordinary and miscellaneous, making a total revenue of £54,486.657.

The chancellor of the exchequer said, that the total ordinary revenue

for the year 1828 might be considered as amounting ta £50,381,530, to

which must be added £3,082,500, to be received from the trustees of

military and naval pensions, together with miscellaneous payments

of £438,000, making a grand total of £53,902,030. The expenditure he

calculated as £50,104,522, which, being deducted from the revenue, left

a surplus of £3,797,508 From this, however, was to be taken the advances

to public works, £708,000, so that the clear surplus was only £3,088,708

instead of £5,000,000 to be applied as a sinking-fund. It was considered

impossible in the present circumstances of the country, to supply this

deficiency of the sinking-fund by additional taxation; so that it was

agreed to limit the said fund to the amount of such a balance as might

remain after the expenses of the year were liquidated. It was stated by

the chancellor of the exchequer that, in the course of the last

eleven years, the amount of debt redeemed was £29,000,000. It must be

acknowledged, however, that the existing system of incurring debt with

one hand, and redeeming it with the other, was a delusion.

REPEAL OF THE TEST AND CORPORATION ACTS.

The grand question of this session was the repeal of the Test and

Corporation Acts: acts which excluded dissenters from offices of trust

and power, and shut the doors of all corporations against them, unless

they consented to take the sacrament according to the ritual of the

church of England. Lord John Russell introduced this subject on the

26th of February, by moving “That this house will resolve itself into a

committee of the whole house, to consider of so much of the acts of

the 13th and 25th of Charles II., as require persons, before they are

admitted into any office or place in corporations, or having accepted

any office, civil or military, or any place of trust under the crown, to

receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper according to the rites of the

church of England.” In introducing this motion Lord John Russell took

a review of the history of the statutes in question, and he argued that

they had been originally enacted for reasons which no longer existed. He

maintained the justice and expediency of the motion on the ground that

while these tests were an infliction on the dissenters, they afforded no

protection to the church of England; but on the contrary, exposed her to

dangers to which she would not be otherwise obnoxious. Without serving

any good purpose, he said, they made the dissenters irritated enemies,

instead of converting them into companions or friends. Another

objection, he said, rose from the nature of the test, which made it a

shameless abuse of the most solemn of all religious rites. The sacrament

of the Lord’s supper was held by the church to be most sacred; and yet

it was prostituted bylaw to be a mere qualification for office. History

stated, he remarked, that it was the custom for persons to be waiting

in taverns and houses near the church, and when service was over an

appointed person called out, “Those who want to be qualified will

please to step up this way,” and then persons took the communion solely

for the purpose of receiving office. Such, said his lordship, were the

consequences of mixing politics with religion. Political dissensions

were aggravated by the venom of theological disputes, and religion

profaned by the vices of ambition; making it both hateful to man and

offensive to God. The only answers, continued his lordship, which could

be made to these objections, were that the dissenters, in consequence

of the Indemnity Act, suffered no real hardship, and that the law in its

present state was necessary to the security of the church. But neither

of these positions was true. The practical grievance suffered by the

dissenters was much heavier than the legal grievances appearing on the

face of the statutes: even the indemnity act was passed on the ground

that the omission to qualify had proceeded from ignorance, absence, or

unavoidable accident, and thus refused all relief to those in whom the

omission flowed from conscientious scruples. The fact was, that many

dissenters refused to take office on such degrading terms; they refused

to attain by a fraud upon the statute, honours and emoluments which the

law declared they should not attain in any other way. In conclusion his

lordship remarked;—“I have proved that these acts violate the sacred

rights of conscience, and are of the nature of religious persecution;

I have shown that so far from not having inflicted any hardship on

the body upon whom they operate, they are fraught with great mischief,

irritation, and injustice; and I have shown that they are totally at

variance with our own policy in Scotland and Ireland, as well as with

the enlightened legislation of all the Christian countries of Europe. If

I am asked what advantage the country is to derive from the abrogation

of such laws, I answer, that the obvious tendency of the measure,

independently of its justice, will be to render the dissenters better

affected to the government; to inspire them with dispositions to bear

the heavy burdens imposed on them by the necessities of the state with

cheerfulness, or at least, with resignation; and above all, it will be

more consonant to the tone and spirit of the age than the existence

of those angry, yet inefficient and impracticable laws, which are a

disgrace to the statute-book.” This motion was seconded by Mr. J. Smith,

and ably supported by Lords Milton, Althorp, and Nugent, and by Messrs.

Brougham, Ferguson, and Palmer. One of its most powerful advocates was

Mr. Ferguson one of the members for Scotland, who desired the house to

look at the Test and Corporation Acts, as they affected not merely a

minority in England, but even the established religion of a constituent

part of the empire. Scotland had a legal national religion equally with

England; for at the union it was provided by the parliament of England

that no alteration should be made in the principles, doctrine, or

discipline, of the church of England, and the Scotch parliament, true

to their own particular doctrines, immediately issued orders to their

commissioners, that any clause should be null and void which militated

in any way against the principles, doctrines, or discipline of the

Protestant Presbyterian religion. The religion of Scotland was,

therefore, a state religion as well as that of England, yet its members

were affected by these penal laws, and prevented from serving their

king, but at the risk of incurring these penalties, or renouncing their

religion. Why, he asked, this proscription of a whole nation, upon the

notion that this mode of exclusion was the best way of defending

the church and state as by law established? Why deny a community of

privileges to those who confer equal services, and encounter equal

danger? On what occasion had the people of Scotland not contributed

their full share in support of Great Britain? Were they no longer

wanted? Hid the church of England desire to be left to defend the empire

exclusively? If so, let the dissenters be told to withdraw, and quit a

defence which they could only remain to make under exposure to ignominy.

Take the battle of Waterloo, he continued, which had crowned the renown

of the most illustrious leader of their times. What would have been the

fate of that battle, and that leader, if the army which had conquered,

had been filled only by the sons of the church of England? Take from

the field the Scottish regiments; take away too the aid of those sons of

Ireland, the proscribed Catholics: what then would have been the chance

of their arms, divested of the Scottish and Irish soldiers, who filled

their ranks and served their navy in every quarter of the globe! And if

they had the assistance of such men, when the hour of peril came upon

them, they ought not to deny their confidence in a time of tranquillity

and peace. Ministers opposed the motion, the opposition being conducted

by Messrs. Huskisson and Peel. Their chief defence was that the acts in

question led to no particular hardship; and they sought evidence of

this in the Indemnity Acts, and in the long silence of the dissenters

themselves, from whom it was to have been expected that the constant

infliction of a permanent grievance would have drawn forth incessant

complaints. Mr. Huskisson said, that he doubted whether the present

motion was calculated to remove any grievance. The grievances, indeed,

complained of were of an imaginary character: he had yet to learn what

obstacles existed against the honourable ambition of the dissenters.

They had, he said, their full share of the civil power of the country,

and were qualified to fill the first offices in the army and navy. Forty

years had elapsed since this subject was discussed, and that period

had been marked by many eager discussions on another great question

involving the principles of religious liberty: could it be credited

that the petitioners before the house, many of whom possessed acute

intellects and intelligent minds, enjoyed the highest consideration in

the country, if they knew there was anything in the state of the law to

impede the fair, useful, and honourable exercise of their talents, would

not have long since, firmly and unanimously, called upon the house to

remove the grievance. The fact could not be so, for they had preserved

total silence for the long period of forty years. Mr. Peel said that the

question was attended with great difficulty. He was not prepared to say

that it was essentially interwoven with the interest of the church of

England; he did not think, indeed, that the two were so connected, that

the church of England must fall, if the Test and Corporation Acts were

repealed. He thought, however, with Mr. Huskisson, that the Protestant

dissenters did not labour under such grievances as had been represented,

and that they did not look at the Test and Corporation Acts, together

with the Indemnity Act as honourable gentlemen had described. It

had been said, he remarked, that we had shed the blood of the Scotch

regiments in the Peninsula and at Waterloo. “What office of naval or

military command had been closed against their officers? It was also

said that the Test Acts shut them out from the higher offices of

government. For an answer, look at the ministry: of the fourteen members

of the cabinet, three, namely, Lords Aberdeen and Melville, and the

president of the board of trade, were Scotsmen and good Presbyterians,

whom these acts nevertheless had not succeeded in shutting out. The fact

was,” he continued, “the existing law gave merely a nominal predominance

to the established church; and he heartily wished, therefore, that this

question had been allowed to remain quiescent, especially as it was

practically offensive to no one.” In answer to the views taken by

ministers, on the subject, Mr. Brougham maintained that the acts were

daily and positively felt to be a most decided grievance. AVas it no

grievance, he asked, to bear the mark of the chain remaining, after

the fetter had been knocked away? Was it no grievance for a dissenter,

wherever he went, to look like, and to be treated like a different

being? It was said that temporal interests were not concerned: this

he denied. A dissenter could not stand for a corporation. It had been

stated that the late lord mayor of London was a dissenter, and that he

had taken the sacrament: that statement was in favour of the argument.

With respect to Scotland he knew that not one Presbyterian in a thousand

would take the sacrament, would not even go to a place of worship where

there was an organ, would consider it idolatry to kneel at an altar;

if they conscientiously thought so, was it to be wondered at that they

evinced a repugnance at what they considered a mixture of idolatry with

Christian worship? If in the recent contest at Vintry ward, one of the

candidates had differed from the other as to trans-substantiation or

anything of that sort, there would be an end to this legal controversy:

the court of king’s bench would never have heard of it, and the

churchman would have been elected. Was not this a grievance? The

knowledge of this act operated so, that, though the dissenter might

walk on in his course, when not opposed, yet even if he aspired to

a corporation, and no individual opposed him; if he was unanimously

elected, and actually filled the place, a single individual might upset

his election, he must retire. The consequence was that the dissenter

would not seek such places: he retired to his library, to retirement, to

private pursuits, with what feelings he might towards the government

and the constitution. He was condemned to privacy, because he was of a

different religion from the state, and because he would not sacrifice

his religion for his place. Lord Palmerston said that he thought it

would be an act of injustice to the Catholics to repeal this minor

grievance while they suffered under much severer enactments. Sir T.

Acland conceived that a middle course would afford relief, while the

theoretical principal of the law would remain untouched. But it was

found useless to strive against the spirit of the age. After an abortive

project of Sir T. Ackland for suspending instead of repealing the acts

in question, as well as a proposition made by Mr. Peel to take more time

for consideration, Lord John Russell’s motion was carried by a majority

of two hundred and thirty-seven, against one hundred and ninety-three.

Government had now one of two courses to adopt; either to resign their

opinions or their places. They chose the former alternative; for when

the motion for the house going into a committee was brought forward, Mr.

Peel said he could not think of pressing his sentiments against those of

the majority. Government itself, indeed, now took up the measure, adding

by way of security to the established church a form of declaration,

which all who accepted office were to take, that they would not exert

any power or influence which they might possess by virtue of that

office to the injury or subversion of the Protestant church as by law

established, or to disturb it in the possession of those rights

and privileges to which it is by law entitled. This declaration was

described by those who supported simple repeal as both useless and

unnecessary; but they recommended that the suggestion should be adopted

rather than the bill should not pass. With this amendment it was

carried, and it was introduced into the house of peers by Lord Holland.

There was no ministerial deposition encountered here, and being in

a manner a bill of the government it was generally supported by the

spiritual peers. The bishop of Chester said:—“I wish the bill to pass,

if for no other reason, yet for this—because the present laws do not

answer their purpose. If the declaration now proposed be taken by a

conscientious dissenter, it will prevent him from endeavouring, at least

from indirectly endeavouring, to injure the establishment; and that is

more than the sacramental test, if taken, could effect: if it be taken

by a person who does not conscientiously intend to observe it, that

person would not be kept out of office by any test whatever.” Lord

Eldon, however, gave the bill his most decided opposition. He had heard

much, he said, of “the march of mind,” but he never expected to see it

thus march into the house with the Duke of Wellington and the bishops at

its head. Of the declaration, he said, that instead of making the

taker of office describe himself as belonging to some sort of religion,

whether a Unitarian, a Catholic, or a Free-thinker, it did not require

him to say, he had only to answer, that he was of the Christian faith;

neither did it call on him to observe the declaration by such phrases

as “I am a Christian,” or as, “I stand in the presence of my God.” The

confidence to be reposed in the declaration did not rest upon the faith

of a Christian, or any other faith whatever. Then again, he said, the

declaration is to be extended to all offices of trust and emolument

under the crown, and the bill left it entirely to the king to say in

such cases, whether his majesty would, or would not require such a

declaration: he could not but object to the provisions of a bill, the

object of which was to take away the sacramental test merely on the

ground of expediency, and to substitute in its place a declaration

which, in some instances, might or might not be taken, according to

the will of the sovereign. The form of declaration was also strongly

objected to in the committee; and several amendments were carried to

meet the views of the objectors, though not narrowing the principles of

the bill; and it finally passed by a large majority. The amendments made

simply consisted in this, that the man assuming a public office in

a Christian community should declare that he was a Christian, or, at

least, that he was not an infidel. The commons agreed to all that were

made, although some members did not approve of them.

THE CATHOLIC QUESTION.

{GEORGE IV. 1828—1829}

During the discussion on the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts,

frequent allusion had been made to Catholic emancipation. The opponents

of that repeal found an additional argument against it, in the

supposition that it was but the first step in a course which was

to terminate in Catholic emancipation. On the other hand, those who

supported the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts denied that it

had any such tendency. The Duke of Wellington remarked, in order to show

that he might vote for the measure then before the house, and yet be a

determined enemy of the Papists, that there was no person in the house

of peers whose feelings and sentiments, after long consideration, were

more decided than his with regard to the subject of the Roman Catholic

claims; and that until he saw a great change in that question, he

certainly should oppose them. Notwithstanding, the repeal of the Test

Acts was immediately followed by a motion for removing the Catholic

disabilities. On the 8th of May Sir Francis Burdett moved, “That the

house do now resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, for the

purpose of taking into consideration the state of the laws affecting his

majesty’s subjects in Great Britain and Ireland, with a view to such a

final and conciliatory adjustment as may be conducive to the peace

and strength of the United Kingdom, to the stability of the Protestant

establishment, and to the general satisfaction and concord of all

classes of his majesty’s subjects.” The debate lasted two nights; but

as the speeches were merely repetitions of former arguments, it would

be tedious and useless to give even a sketch, of them. The principal

speakers in favour of the motion were Messrs. Brougham, Fitzgerald,

North, Grant, and Huskisson, and Sirs J. Newport and J. Mackintosh. It

was opposed by the attorney-general, Sir R. Inglis, and Messrs. Moore,

Foster, Bankes, and Peel. On a division the motion for a committee was

carried by a majority of six; and in the committee this resolution was

agreed to:—“That it is expedient to consider the state of the laws

affecting his majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects, with the view of

effecting such a final adjustment of them as may be conducive to

the peace and strength of the United Kingdom, the stability of the

Protestant establishment, and the general satisfaction and concord of

all classes.” Here, however, the commons stopped. Instead of forming

resolutions in detail, it was determined to seek a conference with the

lords, in order to ascertain whether their sentiments on the subject had

changed. This proposal was agreed to by the peers; and a conference was

held on the 19th of May, when the resolution of the commons, after being

read in the upper house, was ordered to be taken into consideration on

the 9th of June. The debate lasted two days; but the proposition of

the Marquis of Lansdowne, “that their lordships should concur in that

resolution,” was lost by a majority of one hundred and eighty-one

against one hundred and thirty-seven. In this debate, however, the

Duke of Wellington’s speech was marked by a conciliatory tone; and the

friends of emancipation augured from this that their wishes on a future

day would meet-with a less obstinate and uncompromising opposition.

MOTION ON THE STATE OF THE LAW.

Early in this session Mr. Brougham directed the attention of the commons

to the state of the common law courts, and the common law itself, in a

speech which occupied six hours in delivery, and was remarkable for its

vast variety of detail. He moved “that an humble address be presented

to his majesty, respectfully requesting that it may be his majesty’s

pleasure to cause a commission to issue, to inquire into the abuses

which have been introduced in the course of time into the administration

of the law of these realms, and of the courts of common law; and to

report on what remedies it may seem fit and expedient to adopt for their

removal.” It was generally agreed that there was no subject more worthy

of attention than the improvement of the law; but at the same time it

was obvious that the unbounded nature of the inquiry proposed by Mr.

Brougham would prevent it from producing any practical effects. Mr.

Brougham’s motion therefore was lost: but in the course of the session

two commissions were issued, one to inquire into the state of the common

law, and the other to take into consideration the state of the law of

real property.

BILLS CONNECTED WITH ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE.

In the course of this session bills were introduced into parliament to

disfranchise the corrupt boroughs of Penryn and East Retford. Penryn

first engaged the attention of the commons. A bill transferring its

elective privileges to Manchester was carried and sent up to the lords;

but the lords threw it out, as not being supported by evidence of

corruption sufficient to warrant disfranchisement. A bill was also

brought into the house to transfer the franchise of East Retford to

Birmingham; but as at the time it was introduced there was a certainty

that the Penryn bill would be rejected by the peers, the commons

agreed that the measure should stand over till the next session, on the

understanding that no new writ should be issued for East Retford. Other

bills connected with elections of members of the house were brought into

the commons; but they either did not pass that house, or were rejected

by the lords, except one, which regulated the manner of taking the poll

at city and borough elections, and which passed into a law. The chief

feature of this latter bill was, that it cut down the duration of the

poll from fifteen to six days.

CORN-LAW QUESTION.

One of the most important questions debated during this session was a

new settlement of the corn-laws. This subject was introduced by Mr. C.

Grant, on principles similar to those in the bill lost in the preceding

session. The act he introduced was constructed on a graduated principle

of ascending and descending duties, like that of Mr. Canning; but the

medium price was raised from 60s. to 64s. In introducing this bill Mr.

Grant scarcely attempted its vindication; declaring at the same time

that it was the best that could be framed with any chance of being

passed into a law. The resolutions, he said, so far as the legislature

was concerned, were permanent, until the minds of men could be led to

entertain juster notions upon this subject; and they would be changed

only as the notions which at present prevailed were altered for the

better. They were offered to the landed interests as a resting-place,

a firm and solid ground on which time and experience might accumulate

a richer soil. They were a compromise between conflicting interests and

opinions. For himself, he conceived them imperfect, because they fell

short of the bill of last year; but they had been brought as near to

that measure as was consistent with the likelihood of their being passed

into a law. Other members of government also described the measure

as one which did not satisfy their own ideas of what was right and

expedient; but what they called a compromise of conflicting opinions,

was in reality nothing less than a sacrifice of what they admitted they

knew to be for the public good, to the views of a party which they were

fearful of displeasing. Notwithstanding, the opposition which had been

made to the bill of last year was renewed by the agriculturists on the

same grounds as before. They struggled for still higher duties; but the

bill finally passed both lords and commons without alteration. It has

been observed of the contest on this occasion, that “agriculture was

considered improperly as opposed both in its nature and objects to

manufactures; while, in fact, it is itself a manufacture, and the most

advantageous of all manufactures; for its profits are certain, and its

employment healthy. All grain raised beyond the seed sown adds the whole

extent of such produce to the wealth, and the people employed in its

production to the strength of the state. The grand object of every good

government is to provide employment for the industry of its people; and

the first point to be attended to in this respect is the manufacturing

of the raw material produced by the country: for this is real wealth;

hence agriculture must always prove the most useful kind of manufacture

to every state. The fruits and productions of the soil, raised by

labour and capital, are disseminated and divided among all classes, who

exchange their labour for that of the agriculturist, until sustenance is

obtained by all. It is this internal commerce which is so beneficial and

so important, from the rapidity of the exchange and the stability of it,

as far as every description of produce is consumed by the inhabitants of

a country; and by no other means can manufacturers and tradesmen be so

extensively injured as by an oppression of the agricultural interests.”

While this, however, may be admitted to be true to a certain extent, it

is clear that the agricultural interests should not be protected to the

injury of the manufacturing interests, properly so called; and time, as

will be seen, has convinced the nation at large of the unreasonableness

of such a protection.

DIVISIONS IN THE CABINET.

In the division which took place on the transfer of the franchise of

East Retford to Birmingham, Mr. Huskisson redeemed a pledge which he had

given to support it; and in so doing divided against his colleagues. On

his arrival at home from the house of commons he addressed a letter to

the Duke of Wellington, marked “private and confidential,” in which he

said that duty led him, without loss of time, to afford his grace an

opportunity of placing his office in other hands. The duke immediately

laid this letter as a resignation before his majesty; but Mr. Huskisson

seems to have written it solely with a view of being solicited to remain

in office. He declared to Lord Dudley that he never intended to resign,

and that his letter was marked private in consequence. Lord Dudley

immediately waited on the premier, and attempted to pass the matter off

as a mistake; but his grace declared emphatically that it was not, and

should not be any mistake. Mr. Huskisson made further attempts to retain

office; but the Duke of Wellington was inexorable, probably because he

did not coincide with all the views of his colleague; and the dismissal

of Mr. Huskisson was followed by the resignations of Lords. Dudley and

Palmerston, and of Mr. Charles Grant. Their places were filled up in the

cabinet by Sir Charles Murray, who succeeded Mr. Huskisson; Sir Henry

Hardinge, who was made secretary at war; and Mr. Vesey, who accepted the

office of the board of trade; while the Earl of Aberdeen received the

seals of the foreign secretary. No further change took place, except

that the Duke of Clarence resigned his post of lord high admiral, when a

board was appointed on the old system, with Lord Melville at its head.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued on the 28th of July. On this occasion two

interesting subjects of foreign policy were introduced into the speech,

which was again delivered by the commissioners. These subjects were,

war between Russia and Turkey, and the suspension of our relations

with Portugal. The sections relating to these events read thus:—“His

imperial majesty has found himself under the necessity of declaring

war against the Ottoman Porte, upon grounds concerning exclusively the

interests of his own dominions, and unconnected with the stipulations

of the treaty of the 6th of July, 1827. His majesty deeply laments the

occurrence of these hostilities, and will omit no effort of friendly

interposition to restore peace.” “His majesty commands us to acquaint

you, that his majesty had every reason to hope, when he last addressed

you, that the arrangements which had been made for administering the

government of Portugal., until the period at which the Emperor of Brazil

should have completed his abdication of the throne of Portugal, would

have secured the peace and promoted the happiness of a country in the

welfare of which his majesty has ever taken the deepest interest. The

just expectations of his majesty have been disappointed; and measures

have been adopted in Portugal, in disregard of the earnest advice and

repeated remonstrances of his majesty, which have compelled his majesty,

and the other powers of Europe acting in concert with his majesty, to

withdraw their representatives from Lisbon.” As regards the declaration

of war against the Ottoman Porte by Russia, the chief pretext for it

was, the imperious behaviour of the Porte, in its delay to fulfil the

treaty of Ackerman. It seems certain, however, that though it was said

to be waged for objects wholly national, that the chief object was

aggrandisement. In Portugal affairs had assumed a strange aspect. Don

Pedro had recently named Don Miguel regent of the kingdom, on which,

a few months before, he had sought to establish himself as monarch.

Miguel, however, had spontaneously sworn allegiance to him as natural

sovereign, as well as to the constitutional charter, and had also

engaged on oath to deliver up the crown to Donna Maria II., as soon as

that princess should become of age. After his appointment to the regency

Don Miguel paid a visit to England, where he was treated by the nobility

in general with high respect. He was twice entertained at the admiralty

by the Duke of Clarence, and after visiting the king at Windsor he

returned to Portugal. Before he set sail he addressed a letter to

the king, declaring that, if, on his return to Portugal, he attempted

anything against his brother or niece, or against the constitution, he

should be an usurper, and prove a perjured wretch. Yet Don Miguel had

scarcely drawn this character of himself before he assumed it. On his

arrival at Lisbon his mother resumed her ill-fated influence over him;

and after a series of atrocities the courts were dismissed, the charter

abolished, and Don Miguel proclaimed king. All the dungeons in the realm

were filled with victims, and thousands perished in them, or on the

scaffold; whilst thousands more were banished to the desert coasts of

Africa, or voluntarily abandoned their country, to endure the sorrows

of unmerited exile. It was these circumstances that gave rise to the

withdrawal of his majesty’s representatives from Lisbon, as intimated in

the speech at the close of parliament. On hearing of these events, Don

Pedro, by his ministers at Vienna and London, entered solemn protests

against the violation of his hereditary rights, and those of his

daughter. He had sent his daughter to Europe, and her destination was

Vienna; but on touching at Gibraltar, and learning the events which had

occurred in Portugal, she took counsel with the principal officers of

her suite, and by their advice she sailed to England, where she was

received with royal honours, and entertained with great hospitality and

magnificence.

DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

During the two previous administrations, those of Mr. Canning and Lord

Goderich, Irish agitation had been partially suppressed. The reason of

this was that the Catholics had some hopes that government would grant

their claims. When, however, the Duke of Wellington assumed the reins

of government, hope fled, and Irish agitation instantly revived in full

force. The cry of war was raised by its leaders, and they proceeded,

aided by the Popish priesthood, to re-organize the Catholic Association.

The first display of this united power was exhibited in a contested

election for the county of Clare, when Mr. O’Connell adopted the novel

experiment of offering himself a candidate for the representation. His

opponent was Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald, an advocate for emancipation; but

his votes and speeches were considered only as a mockery, while the

government to which he belonged was based on the principle of exclusion;

and Mr. O’Connell was declared duly returned. The agitator had pledged

his professional character as a lawyer, not merely, that, although a

Catholic, he was capable of being elected, but that he could sit

and vote in the house of commons. After his election, a petition was

presented against his return to the house of commons; but the season was

so far advanced, that no decision could be pronounced upon it before

the prorogation of parliament, and the matter rested as it was, Mr.

O’Connell promising to demand his seat in the ensuing session. In the

meantime this triumph of the Association urged them to arrange more

extended plans of conquest; for it appeared that it might be practicable

to carry into effect their threat of returning all the county members of

Ireland. With these views a plan was formed and executed, with the aid

and agency of the priests, to break that link which united the Catholic

forty-shilling freeholders with their landlords. Certain tests were

framed, and resolutions adopted, to reject every candidate who should

decline a pledge to oppose the Duke of Wellington’s administration,

and to vote for parliamentary reform, as well as for the repeal of the

subletting-act. The plan which the Association adopted to confirm and

extend its power was well fitted to compass the objects it had in

view. In almost every county liberal clubs were established, under the

direction of the Association, for the purpose of receiving and adopting

the pledges, and drilling the county to be in readiness to act upon

them on the instant, if required. The agitators, indeed, restrained the

Catholic peasantry from habitual outrage and lawless violence, but at

the same time they assembled them in large companies, regularly trained

for the exertion of physical force, and anxious for its display, if

necessary. The state of Ireland at this period was powerfully

portrayed by Mr. Shiel, at a meeting held in full force at Munster. He

remarked:—“What has government to dread from our resentment in peace?

An answer is supplied by what we actually behold. Does not a tremendous

organization extend over the whole island? Have not all the natural

bonds by which men are tied together been broken and burst asunder? Are

not all the relations of society which exist elsewhere gone? Has not

property lost its influence? Has not rank been stripped of the respect

which should belong to it? And has not an internal government grown

up, which, gradually superseding the legitimate authorities, has armed

itself with a complete domination? Is it nothing that the whole body of

the clergy are alienated from the state, and that the Catholic gentry,

and peasantry, and priesthood are all combined in one vast confederacy?

So much for Catholic indignation while we are at peace. And when England

shall be involved in war,—I pause; it is not necessary that I should

discuss that branch of the division, or point to the cloud which,

charged with thunder, is hanging over our heads.” As the year advanced,

the state of the country of Ireland assumed a new and still more fearful

aspect. Irritated by the violence of the agitators, alarmed at the

menacing attitude of those who followed them, ready to do their bidding,

and provoked by the apparent apathy of the British government, the

Protestants began to unite in self-defence. The Orange-lodges which had

ceased to exist, were now revived, with the grand lodge in Dublin as the

centre of their operations: while new associations, under the title of

“Brunswick clubs,” which included in their lists the most influential

classes, and contributed to break up society for the more extended

indulgence of mutual animosity. These Protestant clubs had an extensive

sway throughout the north, while the Catholic Association held the

dominant sway throughout the south. The Association, however, made

strenuous exertions to extend their sway even in the camp of the enemy.

One Mr. Lawless, an appropriate name for an agitator, was sent thither

as an apostle of agitation. This man traversed the different districts

from parish to parish, assembling the people in crowds in the Catholic

chapels, and addressed them with the usual incentives to steady

animosity against their fellow-countrymen. He entered the towns at

the head of immense multitudes; and though he was in the stronghold

of Protestantism, yet he never allowed himself to be deterred from his

mischievous enterprise by any apprehension of the consequences which

might arise from bringing into contact multitudes already bitterly

incensed against each other. He boasted of having entered Protestant

towns at the head of twenty or thirty thousand Catholics, which appears

to have been essentially correct. At first he met with no opposition in

his wild career. The magistrates warned the people against joining

in his processions, and even entreated the man himself to give up his

mischievous crusade. On, however, the man went, until at length the

people of the north were aroused to resist his progress. It was his

custom to proclaim beforehand the day on which he was to make his entry

into the different towns at the head of his legions; and, in accordance

with this custom, he gave notice that he should “take possession” of the

town of Armagh on the 30th of September. The Protestants of that town,

however, resolved to impede his progress, and many of them marched into

the city, armed, from all parts of the county. Mr. Lawless proceeded no

further with this intention, and the Protestants quietly dispersed.

He next announced his intention of entering Ballabay in the county of

Monaghan; and here likewise the Protestants resolved to resist him. He

was met in the vicinity of the town by a magistrate, who stated what the

result would be, and prevailed on him to forego his intentions. Some of

his followers, however, were less prudent; and a collision took place

between the two parties, in which a Catholic was killed. Mr.

Lawless returned to Carrickmacross to await further orders from the

Association, at the same time declaring that he would visit all the

strongholds of the Orangemen. It was plain to all the world, however,

by this time that the Orangemen would not allow these tumultuous find

insulting visits to be made without opposition. By the end of September,

indeed, the two parties were prepared for a collision, the result of

which it was impossible to foresee. The Association, however, began to

fear that they had gone too far; and they were wise enough to foresee

that if a collision took place the Catholics would be the losers. They

boasted, indeed, great things; “that the might of the Catholics would

crush the Orangemen into dust,” &c., should a collision take place; but

they felt to the contrary. They knew that Protestant Great Britain

would interfere, and, as Mr. Shiel said, “cut them down in a week.” “The

Protestants,” said the same powerful orator, “are becoming every day

more alienated by our display of power. The great proprietors, and all

men who have an interest in the security of the state, are anxious for

the settlement of the question; but still their pride is wounded, and

they see with disrelish the attitude of just equality which we have

assumed, Our Protestant advocates, with few exceptions, declined the

invitation to join in our late proceedings. As individuals, I hold

them in no account; but I look upon their absence as a feature in the

existing circumstances of the country. It is clear that the division

between Catholic and Protestant is widening. They were before parted,

but they are now rent asunder; and while the Catholic Association rises

up from the indignant passions of our great body of the community,

the Brunswick club is springing up out of the irritated pride and the

sectarian rancour of the Protestants of Ireland. As yet they have not

engaged in the great struggle; they have not closed in the combat; but

as they advance upon each other, and collect their might, it is easy to

discern the terrible passions by which they are influenced, and the

fell determination with which they rush to the encounter. Meanwhile the

government stand by, and the minister folds his arms as if he were a

mere indifferent observer, and the terrific contest only afforded him a

spectacle for the amusement of his official leisure. He sits as if two

gladiators were crossing swords for his recreation. The cabinet seems

to be little better than a box in an amphitheatre, from whence his

majesty’s ministers may survey the business of blood. There are three

parties concerned, the Catholics, the Protestants, and the government:

the Catholics advance upon the one hand; the Protestants upon the other;

and the government, by whom all ought to be controlled, looks passively

on.” Alarmed at the position in which they had placed themselves,

the agitators began somewhat to retrace their steps; or at least

they adopted measures to secure peace. The Association on the 26th

of September adopted these resolutions:—“1. That while we warmly

congratulate the people of Tipperary upon the happy cessation of their

feuds, we implore them to discontinue the holding of assemblies of the

peculiar character which have recently taken place. 2. That we humbly

entreat the Catholic clergy to co-operate with the Association in

carrying the above resolution into effect. 3. That Daniel O’Connell, to

whose influence deference should be made is hereby called upon to employ

his powerful and deserved authority in deterring the people of Tipperary

from the holding of such meetings, in an address to be printed and

circulated at the expense of the Association. 4. That it be referred to

the standing committee to report whether it be, or may become expedient,

that a deputation shall be sent to Tipperary, and suggest such other

measures, as shall be deemed advisable, in order to dissuade the people

from holding such meetings.” Mr. O’Connell issued an address to the

people of the county of Tipperary, which enjoined them to obey the laws;

and the storm which had threatened to burst over Ireland was allayed.

The Catholic priests, sharing in the alarm of the agitators, enforced

the directions of the address from their altars; and the threatened

danger was prevented. When it was over, government exhibited symptoms of

returning life: the lord-lieutenant issued a proclamation enjoining

that which Mr. O’Connell had already done; namely, the discontinuance

of large and armed meetings, as illegal and alarming. The only effect

of this proclamation was to confirm Mr. Lawless in his resolution to

proceed no further in his mission to the north; for the assemblies had

disappeared before he ventured to call them in question. The apathy of

the government at this crisis is scarcely to be accounted for, as it

must have been clear to its members that the train was laid, and that it

only required the application of the match to occasion a most terrible

explosion. The only remarkable declaration which ministers substituted

for active measures, consisted in a private letter sent by the Duke of

Wellington to Dr. Curtis, Catholic primate of Ireland. In that letter he

expressed an anxiety to witness the settlement of the Catholic question;

but confessed that he saw no prospect of such a consummation; adding

with a species of studied obscurity:—“If we could bury it in oblivion

for a short time, I should not despair of a satisfactory result.” A copy

of this letter was sent to Mr. O’Connell, and he forthwith carried it

to the Association, where it was received with plaudits as a declaration

that the Duke of Wellington was now favourable to the Catholic claims.

It was ordered to be recorded in their minutes as such, although it

was not easy to foresee how such a conclusion could be adduced from the

letter. This conclusion, however, was arrived at, and it naturally added

to the exultation and confidence of the Catholics. This, however, was

trifling compared with the mischiefs which followed. Dr. Curtis, in his

reply to the duke, told him plainly, that the proposition to bury the

question in oblivion for a time was inadmissible, and would only serve

to exasperate those who were already excited. After this he sent a copy

of the duke’s letter, and of his answer to it, to the lord-lieutenant,

the Marquis of Anglesea. His excellency’s reply showed that he

entertained different opinions on the contents of the duke’s letter

to those which the Catholics had deduced from it. At the same time he

showed himself to be strongly in favour of the Catholic claims. The

great agitator himself might have written the following sentences

contained in his reply. After expressing his ignorance of the duke’s

intentions, and advising the Catholics to make much of him, to avoid

provoking him or any other member of the government by personalities,

to trust to the legislature, and to avoid brute force, he remarked:—“I

differ from the opinion of the duke, that an attempt should be made to

bury in oblivion the question for a short time; first, because the thing

is utterly impossible; and next, if it were possible, I fear advantage

might be taken of the pause, by representing it as a panic achieved by

the late violent reaction, and by proclaiming, that if the government

at once and peremptorily decided against concession, the Catholics would

cease to agitate, and then all the miseries of the last years of Ireland

will be reacted. I therefore recommend that the measure should not for a

moment be lost sight of; that anxiety should continue to be manifested;

that all constitutional means should be adopted to forward the cause,

consistent with the most patient forbearance, and submissive obedience

to the laws: that the Catholics should trust to the justice of their

cause and to the growing liberality of mankind, but should not desist

from agitation.” For this advice the lord-lieutenant was extolled to the

skies by the same lips which three years before had denounced him as

an object of execration. The next wind, however, that blew from England

brought the mandate which deprived him of office and recalled him from

Ireland. This recall furnished him with an example of the value set

on the advice which he had tendered to the Catholics not to insult and

vilify any one, and especially the Duke of Wellington. At the first

meeting of the Association after the recall of the Marquis of Anglesea

was known, Mr. O’Connell remarked;—“In my own knowledge of Irish

history, and I believe I know Ireland’s history well, I never heard

any thing so monstrously absurd as the recall of this gallant and high

minded-man. The Duke of Wellington said he would be worse than mad if

he became premier. He is therefore a self-convicted madman! And yet,

gracious Heaven! he continues the insane pilot, who directs our almost

tottering state.” But if Mr. O’Connell had known the duke’s intentions

he would not have been thus abusive. On receiving his recall the Marquis

of Anglesea is said to have divined immediately the true reason of

his dismissal. He remarked:—“I know the duke: his mind is made up to

emancipate the Catholics; and I am recalled, because he would have no

one to share his victory.” It is strange, but it is no less certain,

that the latter part of this year was employed by the cabinet in

testifying their repugnance to a measure? which it was their first act

in the coming year to introduce.

DEATH OF THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL.

During the month of December the Earl of Liverpool, after various

fluctuations of health, expired at Combewood. It has seldom happened

that a minister ever acquired so much influence, or conciliated so much

favour by the mere weight of personal character, as did his lordship.

He was undistinguished by great brilliancy of genius or parliamentary

eloquence; at the same time he possessed, what is infinitely superior,

a sound judgment, with a mind well adapted to business, and stored

with all that political knowledge which is requisite to make a great

statesman. That which gained the confidence of the country, however,

was his unquestionable integrity, and his open and manly conduct: he was

never suspected of governing for mere party purposes, or of intriguing

for the acquisition of power. It was the good of the country alone that

he sought in all his actions. In his distribution of ecclesiastical

preferment he set a splendid example to future premiers. Passing by

parliamentary retainers, or those whose only claims are the ties of

kindred and affinity, he made a careful selection of men of piety and

talent for offices of dignity and responsibility in the church.

FOREIGN POLICY.

The foreign policy of our administration connected with Turkey and

Portugal has already been noticed; those of France and Greece require a

few words. In France the ministry of M. de Villéle had fallen last year,

because they lent themselves to the designs of the court and the church,

instead of consulting the growing spirit and intelligence of the nation.

The new ministers forced upon the king by this triumph of the liberal

party were men of moderate principles; and they were only tolerated

by the king as a necessary evil At the head of them was M. Roy, who

possessed a considerable knowledge of finance; but the rest were of very

mediocre talent. At this time the priests and Jesuits were striving

in France for the absolute control of public education, as the most

effectual means of recovering their domination. This attempt was

resisted by the people, who raised a loud cry of “No Jesuitism!” as in

England there was formerly the cry of “No popery!” The new ministers

took part with the nation; and in so doing opposed the wishes of the

monarch. His majesty’s speech also took a different view from our

cabinet of the transaction at Navarino, thus showing that the new

administration of France was hostile to our policy. The French, indeed,

were in right earnest for the liberation of Greece from the power of

the Ottoman Porte. In the autumn of this year the French government sent

General Maison, with a strong military force, to the Morea, in order

to liberate it from the hands of the Turks. On the 6th of October, the

second day after Ibrahim had sailed, Navarino was summoned to surrender,

and the demand was supported by a body of French troops under the walls,

ready to commence operations. The Turkish governor replied, that the

Porte was not at war with the French or the English, and that although

no act of hostility would be committed by the Turks, yet the place would

not be given up. The French soldiers, however, immediately set to work;

and after making a hole in an old breach, they marched in and took

possession of the place without opposition. A similar demand was made

the same day of the governor of Modon; and the gates were forced open,

and the garrison quietly submitted. Coron was more contumacious; but

Coron, on learning the fate of Modon, followed its example, and opened

its gates. The Castle of Patras had already shown the same complaisance;

and the Morea castle alone remained in possession of the Turks. But this

castle also, after sustaining a severe battery, surrendered; and by the

end of November the Morea was freed from foreign control, and was left

at liberty to select the course which she might choose to follow. It

was left to the direction of its provisional government, at the head

of which was the Count Capo d’Istria, who had been installed president

early in the year. In his inaugural address the count told his

countrymen that the first care of government should be to deliver them

from anarchy, and to conduct them by degrees to national and political

regeneration. He continued:—“It is only then you will be able to give

the allied sovereigns the indispensable pledges which you owe them, in

order that they may no longer doubt of the course which you will take

to obtain the salutary object which led to the treaty of London, and the

memorable day of October 20th. Before this period you have no right to

hope for the assistance I have invoked for you, nor for anything which

can serve the cause of good order at home, or the preservation of

your reputation abroad.” The president set himself sternly against the

piratical habits by which independent Greece had disgraced herself; and

he had sufficient authority to make the fleet, which was placed at his

disposal, carry his orders into execution. As yet, neither he nor the

government had enjoyed leisure to frame any system of finance; but he

obtained a loan of money from Russia, and looked forward with confidence

for subsidies from Great Britain and France. The question, however,

which most engaged the attention of the Greek government was, what

were to be the boundaries of their new state? It belonged to the allied

powers and Turkey, indeed, to settle this matter; but the government had

its own ideas upon the subject, as it was right and proper it should. A

commission of the national assembly proposed to the allied powers that

the northern mountains of Thessaly, and the course of the river Vioussa,

should form its boundary on the north, to the exclusion of Macedonia;

those limits, as they observed, seeming to be pointed out by nature

herself, and as they had always gotten the better of political events.

These considerations were ultimately set aside. And yet they were the

very best that could have been adopted. It is true that this boundary

would have included some districts which had taken no share in the

national struggle, and would have excluded others which had taken an

active part in the war; but still it was the most proper. The natural

conformation of the line gave it a special political recommendation;

and where boundaries do not coincide with some great natural features,

but are lines arbitrarily laid down, they tend to tempt an usurper by

the dangerous facility which they offer to violation. Sooner or later

they produce discord between the neighbouring states. But all these

considerations were set aside; and, indeed, at this time our government

displayed much apathy on the subject of Greek independence.