by the lord-chancellor, the Marquis of Lansdowne, Viscount God
erich, the Earl of Westmoreland, Earl Grey, and Lord Plunkett. The
lord-chancellor had a difficult task to perform. He was among those
who up to this period had earnestly refuted all the pleas of concession
which were now brought forward, and he had now to confute all these
refutations. As late as last year he had declared his conviction, that
emancipation, though accompanied by weighty securities, was pregnant
with danger to the constitution and establishment; and he now declared
his equally conscientious conviction, that emancipation, without any
securities at all, would be conducive to the safety and prosperity of
that constitution and establishment. This change of opinion might be
fair and honest; but, unfortunately, Lord Lyndhurst denied the change
which had taken place in his mind on this subject. He said that he had
always held that if concession could be granted consistently with the
security of the Protestant established church, and the great interests
of the empire, it was the duty of parliament to give it. This was a
bold assertion, and one which the public generally was not disposed to
believe, since they knew that he had opposed concession with all the
force of his learning and eloquence. The world might be wrong in saying
that Lord Lyndhurst adopted his new creed by compulsion; but it was
undoubtedly right in saying that it was a new creed. Having, however,
defended his consistency in the best manner he could, or as he thought
most proper, Lord Lyndhurst passed on to the merits of the measure.
Ireland, he contended, had for years been growing worse and worse; and
it was necessary, to effect a better state of things, that recourse
should be had to conciliation. As to the dangers to be apprehended from
concession, Lord Lyndhurst said he was now convinced that they were
merely imaginary. And even if there were some danger, it seemed to him
that the danger to be dreaded from the discontent of five millions of
subjects, if their prayer were rejected, was infinitely the greatest
and the worst. But he, for one, entertained no apprehensions that if
the professors of the Roman Catholic religion should be introduced into
parliament, they would exercise their influence to overthrow or injure
the Protestant established church; and he entertained no apprehensions
whatever, that in the discussion of those questions which concerned the
church, her interests would be sacrificed. Looking at this measure both
on a political and a religious principle, he was sure that it would
put an end to the contentions and animosities which had prevailed,
particularly in Ireland, and that it would operate to the advantage
of the Protestant church and the Protestant religion. The Marquis of
Anglesea, who had recently been recalled from his government of Ireland
because he held out hopes of Catholic emancipation, also entered
the ministerial phalanx which combated for that measure. He insisted
principally on the military points of view in which the question ought
to be considered. Every man, he said, acquainted with the state of
Ireland would agree with him, that in a time of profound peace, under
the exclusive laws, 25,000 men was but a scanty garrison for Ireland.
In the event of war, or even of the rumour of war, that would be an
improvident government which did not immediately add a force of 15,000
men to the previous military force. It could not be a question that
both France and America wished to do us injury; and in the case of any
collision with either of these powers, the first object of both would
be to throw arms to a great extent into the hands of the discontented
Irish. “I am arguing,” he continued, “be it observed, upon the
supposition that the exclusive laws are in existence: for if they were
not, the arms would not be received, or, if received, would be turned
against the donors. But suppose that we are absolutely at war, and
that there is a combination of the powers of Europe (no very unlikely
contingency) against us: I then say that it would be madness in any
administration, not to throw 70,000 men into Ireland. I should be sorry,
with all the power of steam to convey troops from the continent, and all
the advantages which modern science has recently introduced into the art
of war, to see Ireland with so scanty a garrison in time of war, under
the exclusive laws. But, on the other hand, suppose this bill to be
passed into law by this day month; declare war if you like the next
day; and I assert that you will have no difficulty, within six weeks,
to raise in that country 50,000 able-bodied, and what is better,
willing-hearted, men, who will traverse the continent, or find their
way to any quarter of the globe to which you may choose to direct their
arms. The passing of this bill is worth to the British empire more, far
more, and I do not wish to exaggerate, than 100,000 bayonets.”
The measure was strongly opposed by Lord Tenterden, the chief-justice
of England, the Duke of Richmond, and the Earls of Winchilsea, Harewood,
Mansfield, Falmouth, and Ermiskillen. Lord Tenterden declared against
it, because he knew it to be a violation of the constitution, and
because he believed that it threatened ruin to the Protestant church,
which he valued, not only for the purity of its doctrines, but because,
of all churches that ever existed, it was most favourable to civil
liberty. The other noble lords said that the Protestants had derived
consolation from the declaration of the Duke of Wellington, at the
opening of the session, that the measure would be found to be one which
would satisfy the Protestants, give security to their institutions, and
check the growth of Popery. The measure, however, was the reverse of
what had been promised, and justified the worst apprehensions of those
who loved the constitution. Instead of being calculated to satisfy the
Protestants, the Protestant opinion of the country had already been
unequivocally expressed against it. The expression of that opinion,
had become louder and more general since the details of the measure had
become known; and the rallying sound throughout the country now was,
“Protestant ascendancy.” The Protestants of Great Britain were called
on to bend before Irish rebels and seditious demagogues, and that too on
mere conjectural grounds of imagined expediency. It was said, “You are
to examine two dangers, and that the danger of disturbance was greater
than any that could flow from concession.” When the latter clanger,
however, was the sacrifice of the Protestant constitution, the
parliament which incurred it was inexcusable, whether their conduct
proceeded from dread of foreign attack, or of domestic dissension. It
was easy to understand how men who did not believe that Protestantism
formed an integral part of the constitution should pay for tranquillity
what must appear to them so low a price. His majesty’s ministers,
however, had always been of a different opinion. They had maintained
and avowed that a measure like this was pregnant with danger to the
constitution; and though their views of the expediency or inexpediency
of incurring that danger might have changed, the danger itself must be
the same. Nothing that had happened or was likely to happen could be
put in the balance against this violation of the constitution. Was the
British Protestant constitution a thing for which it was not worth while
to encounter danger? would we defend it with our lives against invaders
abroad, and yet sacrifice it to demagogues at home? The horrors of civil
war were threatened: be it so; was the constitution to be sacrificed,
whenever a number of unprincipled men threatened rebellion, if it was
maintained? But that apprehension was groundless. The noble mover of
this very measure had himself admitted that resistance was nowhere
offered; that the Catholics were too wary and cautious to offer it; and
that his troops found no occupation because they met with no enemy. Wise
and good men would endeavour to tranquillize Ireland; but they would not
give up, even for this object, the Protestant constitution of Ireland.
The Marquis of Salisbury who had moved the address at the opening of the
session, said that he had done so because he was prepared to change the
condition of the Catholics; but he had never imagined that securities
would not be provided, which securities he thought were to be found
only in connecting the Catholic priesthood with the state. By abandoning
securities their lordships would be signing the death-warrant of the
Protestant establishment of Ireland and if the Protestant establishment
of Ireland fell, that of England would shortly follow; and with
the downfall of the church a revolution would ensue. Lord Eldon, in
obedience to a general call made on him by the house, spoke at great
length, and with evident sincerity on this important question. He
commenced by stating that ministers who had introduced the bill, were
actuated by a sense of their duty, though he lamented their conduct. At
the same time he could not acquit the Duke of Wellington and Mr. Peel
of wilfully deceiving the people, and bringing them into a state of
apathy, by leading them into a persuasion that no measure of the kind
would be brought forward at least this session. On Lord Lyndhurst,
however, the ex-chancellor was more severe; that noble lord having
endeavoured to excuse his own frailty by fixing a similar charge of
inconsistency on Lord Eldon. As regards the measure itself, Lord Eldon
said that he must say, once for all, that he did not mean to rest
any part of his opposition to it on the terms of the coronation-oath;
neither would he contend that to alter any of the laws enacted at the
Revolution was beyond the competence of parliament. This, however,
(looking at the 13th, 25th, and 30th of Charles II., that the exclusion
from parliament produced by the last of those statutes,) was in
conformity with the true construction of the acts of 1688, and with the
act of union between England and Scotland in the reign of Queen Anne.
These he contended were meant to be the ruling and governing principles
of the constitution, until a strong necessity for altering it should
be made apparent. His lordship then went on to show the futility of
the securities demanded, and of the measure itself, as it regarded the
tranquillization of Ireland. The securities tendered, he said, were of
two kinds: first, those which belonged to the change as it might operate
upon the minds of the Roman Catholics; secondly, those which were
connected with the bill itself, and the other measure by which it
was attended. First, they had passed a law to put down the Catholic
Association; but although that was due to the dignity of Parliament,
as a security against the dangers which he apprehended, neither that
measure nor the precautionary clauses of the one then before the house
were, in his mind, anything else than a mere nullity. But it was said,
that only six or seven Roman Catholics could be admitted into that
house, and only some thirty or forty into the commons. I ask, said his
lordship, whether there is no other mode of obtaining seats in that
house but by the suffrage of freeholders? The bill itself is one to
which I feel the strongest objection. It provides in no shape for that
advice which may be given by the ministers of the crown, who may all but
one, be Roman Catholics. If there should be but one or two Protestant
ministers I cannot see how they can maintain their opinions; and perhaps
on the maintenance of their opinion might depend the maintenance of the
Protestant constitution. In conclusion, Lord Eldon said, that he should
have preferred that a proposition had been made by the noble duke for
going into a committee to examine the reasons for originating such a
bill, because it would have been but right that, in a matter of so
much importance, your lordships should have known something more of the
grounds of that expediency upon which you are called to legislate. Lord
Plunkett said that he had reserved himself for the purpose of hearing
the unanswerable arguments against the bill which Lord Eldon had
threatened to produce when the measure came fairly before the house. As
that noble and learned lord, however, had brought forth nothing but
the _ipse dixit_ of his own authority, unsustained either by ingenious
argument, by historical deduction, or by appeal to public and
authenticated documents, he felt himself so far absolved from the
necessity of refuting anticipated arguments, that he would apply his
observations more particularly to the position, that the bill was
calculated to subvert the Protestant constitution. In the course of his
remarks on this vital point of the question, his lordship observed, that
he had been asked whether this was a Protestant kingdom? and whether
this was not a Protestant government, and a Protestant parliament?
In one sense he admitted it was a Protestant kingdom, but it did not
exclude papists. He admitted, also, that the parliament was essentially
and predominantly Protestant; and in that sense, but in no other, the
parliament was Protestant. He concluded by saying that the present bill
did not give the Roman Catholics any benefit without an oath; an oath
too which combined in its language every possible security that such
a form could afford. Earl Grey spoke at great length, repeating the
argument that an exclusion of Catholics had not originally formed
any part of the Protestant government, since they had been found in
parliament from the reign of Elizabeth down to that of Charles II.;
that the exclusion was adopted to guard against political dangers of
a temporary nature, which had long disappeared; that it formed no
essential part of the Revolution settlement, or of the bill of rights;
and that the coronation oath was never intended to restrain the king
from consenting to such alterations as parliament in its wisdom might
enact. Earl Grey also entered at great length into that important part
of the question, which related to its bearing on the act of union with
Scotland. On every ground, he continued, the right to make the change
was clear; and, in his opinion, the justice and prudence of making
it were equally obvious. The great object of alarm seemed to be the
political power which the bill would confer, and which, it was said, was
the object at which the Catholics had all along been aiming. The bill
would certainly bestow political power; but, he argued, it was power of
the most legitimate kind, and that to which they were justly entitled.
As to the effect of the bill on the state of Ireland, he would not say
that it would at once give tranquillity, and remove all dangers; but
he felt sure that without it it was impossible to have tranquillity and
freedom from danger in that country. By the system of exclusion, lie
said, they had produced more than one rebellion in Ireland, which
had been extinguished in blood; but had they, he asked, induced
tranquillity? By no means. On the contrary, Ireland had been growing
worse and worse every year, requiring a larger military force to keep
the people obedient to the laws, and that in a time of peace. Was this
the mode of making that country a useful portion of the empire? Was it
the way in which we should be preparing for war? But, it was urged, if
you pass this bill, the church of Ireland is destroyed, and Catholic
ascendancy virtually proclaimed. That church, unfortunately, was placed
in a situation which could not be freed from dangers of one sort or
another. The great obstacle to its triumph had always been, that it had
never been the church of more than a small minority of the people of
Ireland; and that it was the church of so very small a minority, he
verily believed, was owing to those very laws which they now sought to
repeal. Take them away, and the number of its disciples would increase,
not from the spirit of conversion..... for any open attempt in that
way would be impolitic—but from its superior reason, and from its more
wholesome tenets, which would come more fairly into play as soon as it
should be relieved from the invidious situation in which it at present
stood. Take away the false protection, of exclusive laws, and superior
excellence would prevail in the conflict of argument. The debate was
closed by the Duke of Wellington, who treated the apprehended danger to
the Irish church as futile, considering that the throne would be filled
by a Protestant, and that the fundamental article of the union between
the two countries was the union of the two churches. Adverting to the
charge of inconsistency brought against himself and his colleagues,
his grace remarked:—“A different topic to which I wish to advert, is
a charge brought against several of my colleagues, and also against
myself, by the noble earl on the cross-bench, of a want of consistency
in our conduct. My lords, I admit that many of my colleagues, as well
as myself, did on former occasions vote against a measure of a similar
description to this; and, my lords, I must say that my colleagues and
myself felt, when we adopted this measure, that we should be sacrificing
ourselves and our popularity to that which we feel to be our duty to our
sovereign and our country. We knew very well that if we put ourselves
at the head of the Protestant cry of ‘No Popery,’ we should be much more
popular even than those who have excited against us that very cry. But
we felt that in so doing we should have left on the interests of the
country a burden, which must end in bearing them down; and further, that
we should have deserved the hate and execration of our countrymen. Then
I am accused, and by a noble and learned friend of mine, of having acted
with great secrecy respecting this measure. Now I beg to tell him that
he has done that to me, in the course of the discussion., which he
complains of others having done to him; in other words, he has, in the
language of a right honourable friend of his and mine, thrown a large
paving-stone instead of throwing a small pebble. I say, that if he
accuses me of acting with secrecy on this question, he does not deal
with me altogether fairly. He knows as well as I do how the cabinet was
constructed on this question; and I ask him, had I any right to say a
single word to any man whatsoever upon this measure, until the person
most interested in the kingdom upon it had given his consent to my
speaking out? Before he accused me of secrecy, and of improper secrecy,
too, he ought to have known the precise day upon which I received the
permission of the highest personage in the country, and had leave to
open my mouth upon this measure. There is another point also on which a
noble earl accused me of misconduct; and that is, that I did not at once
dissolve the parliament. Now I must say that I think noble lords are
mistaken in the notion of the benefits which they think that they would
derive from a dissolution of parliament at this crisis. I believe that
many of them are not aware of the consequences of a dissolution of
parliament at any time. But when I know, as I did know, and as I do
know, the state of the elective franchise in Ireland, when I recollected
the number of men it took to watch one election which took place in
Ireland in the course of last summer; when I knew the consequences which
a dissolution would produce on the return to the house of commons,
to say nothing of the risks which must have been incurred at each
election—of collisions that might have led to something short of civil
war—I say that, knowing all these things, I should have been wanting in
duty to my sovereign and to my country if I had advised his majesty to
dissolve his parliament.” On a division the same house of peers which in
1828 had declared, by a majority of forty-five, that emancipation
would be a breach of the constitution, and dangerous to the Protestant
establishment, now declared, by a majority of two hundred and seventeen
against one hundred and twelve, it was consistent with the constitution;
and that, if it did no good, it would not do any harm to the Protestant
church.
On the 7th and 8th of April the bill passed through a committee, in
which, as in the commons, many amendments were moved, but none carried.
It was read a third time on the 10th of April, after another debate, in
which the former arguments were repeated on both sides of the question;
and on the 13th of the same month it received its final confirmation in
the royal assent. The working of that measure will be best seen in the
future pages of this history; but it may be here observed, that it has
proved neither an immediate, nor a sufficient cure for the disorders of
Ireland. Protestant ascendancy was too deeply and extensively rooted in
all its institutions to admit of such a remedy; nor was it likely that
the Roman Catholics, having acquired means to break their chain, would
remain long without trying their efficiency. Agitation had procured this
boon; and the Roman Catholics, thus successful, have sought to obtain
other benefits by the same unhallowed means. Agitation is, in fact,
still the bane of Ireland.
BILL FOR THE DISFRANCHISEMENT OF THE FORTY-SHILLING FREEHOLDERS.
{GEORGE IV. 1829—1830}
Emancipation having thus been gained, Mr. Peel brought in a bill for
the disfranchisement of the Irish forty-shilling freeholders, and for
raising the qualification to ten pounds. This was part and parcel of the
general measure, and it met with no serious opposition even in Ireland.
The very Whigs supported it, hostile as it was to popular rights and
destructive of vested political franchises, as an essential part of a
whole; the other and better part of which they were unwilling to
lose. Mr. Brougham said, he consented to it as the price, the almost
extravagant price, of the inestimable good which would result from
emancipation; and it was described by Sir James Mackintosh as one of
those tough morsels which he had scarcely been able to swallow. It was
opposed by Mr. Huskisson and others as a measure uncalled for by any
necessity, and not fitted to gain that object which alone was held out
as justifying it. It was absurd, it was said, to allege as a pretext for
it, the influence and conduct of the Catholic priesthood; for all who
knew anything of that influence, knew that it was chiefly felt when it
ran with the current of popular feeling; and that it was even exercised
with a view to maintain submission to the laws. If the forty-shilling
freeholders had been corrupt, like those of Penryn, their
disfranchisement might be defended; but the only offence of the persons
against whom this bill was directed, had been that they exercised their
privilege honestly and independently, according to the dictates of their
own consciences. In reply to this, Mr. Peel mentioned an instance of the
power of the priests as having occurred at the Clare election. At the
commencement of that election a landlord of the county had promised his
interest to Mr. V. Fitzgerald. The landlord had a voter on his estate
who was under great personal obligations to him; and previous to the
commencement of the contest, he said to this voter, “I shall vote for
Mr. Fitzgerald; I suppose you mean to do the same.” The man declared his
determination to imitate the example of his patron; but as the struggle
drew nearer, a degree of excitement was produced to which it was only
necessary to allude: and the freeholder did not escape its effects. He
came to his landlord with sixty pounds in his hands, and addressed him
thus:—“I have saved this sum while your tenant, and upon your property.
I cannot redeem the promise which I gave you. There, take the sixty
pounds, make use of it to promote the interests of Mr. Fitzgerald; but
my vote I must give to Mr. O’Connell.” “Could anything,” he asked, “be
so painful as the situation of him who was obliged to perform such a
part, to observe such a doubtful contest between his religion and his
conscience?” On a division only seventeen members voted against the
bill; and it passed into a law. Mr. O’Connell had publicly bound himself
to reject even emancipation if accompanied by such a condition, and to
perish in the field, or on the scaffold, if necessary, in defence of his
“forties;” but he forgot his vows, and became silent and acquiescent.
THE CASE OF MR. O’CONNELL.
At the time of the Clare election Mr. O’Connell had assured the people
that he was entitled to sit in parliament without taking the oaths,
which no Catholic could take. He had staked his professional reputation
on this point, and had given assurances that he held other learned
opinions to the same purport. His return had subsequently been
petitioned against; but a committee to whom the petition had been
referred, had reported that he was duly elected. Now, according to the
old law, under which Mr. O’Connell’s claim had arisen—he having been
elected before the measure of emancipation had passed—if a person known
and believed to be a Catholic could take certain oaths, which oaths
involved an abjuration of Popery, he was entitled to take his seat. The
new act, however, did not seem to forward his pretensions. The oath,
indeed, which it substituted for those that were abrogated, could be
taken by a Catholic as well as a Protestant; but that provision was
expressly limited to “any person professing the Roman Catholic religion,
after the commencement of this act, be returned as a member of the
house of commons.” Mr. O’Connell and his friends, however, held that
from the moment the bill received the royal assent, there was an end to
the power of administering the abrogated oaths, or demanding any of the
declarations which then stood repealed. On these grounds Mr. O’Connell
hoped to take his seat in parliament. He presented himself at the table
of the house on the 15th of May; and the clerk produced the oath which
had been repealed by the late act. A brief conversation took place;
and the clerk having communicated what took place to the speaker,
he addressed the house thus: “It is my duty to state, if I have been
correctly informed, that the course which the honourable member has
proposed to take, is a course which, until overruled by stronger
authority, I do not conceive it my duty to acquiesce in. I understand
that he proposes to take the oath prescribed to be taken by Roman
Catholics as it is to be found in an act of parliament recently passed.
As I read that act of parliament, it is my impression, and on my
impression it is my duty to act, that it involves two points relative to
the course to be pursued in taking seats in this house. The first point
is that of repealing the declaration against transubstantiation; the
other, that of appointing an oath to be taken by such members of this
house as profess the Roman Catholic creed; but with this condition, that
those members should be returned subsequently to the passing of the act.
Now the honourable member was returned, as the house is well aware, long
before the passing of this act. I have, therefore, only to refer to the
law affecting all the members of this house until the late act passed;
and, with the single exception of repeating the declaration against
transubstantiation, I have to state that the construction which has
been uniformly put on the law of the land, and which has been repeatedly
sanctioned and confirmed by act of parliament, is, that every member,
before taking his seat, shall take the oath of allegiance and supremacy
before the lord-steward, and the oath of abjuration at the table of this
house. This is the course which, by law, the dignity and the privileges
of this house require. I state this the rather because it is well known
that this house is open to an appeal by petition, or it may be brought
forward by any member in this house. In that case, the house will be
better able to judge, and to state its opinion of the propriety of the
conduct which it appeared to me to be my duty to pursue. I, therefore,
state to the honourable gentleman that he must withdraw.” Mr. O’Connell
having withdrawn, Mr. Brougham moved, that he should be called back, and
heard at the table in support of his claim to be admitted on taking
no other oath than that contained in the late act. Mr. W. Wynn was of
opinion that Mr. O’Connell was entitled to be heard at the bar of the
house, and that it made no difference whether he was heard there or at
the table, though it was his opinion it might be better to adhere to the
former course. Mr. Peel, however, thought there was a great distinction
between hearing the applicant at the table and at the bar; and that he
had no right to be heard at the former. The debate on this point was
adjourned to the 18th of April; on which day it was finally ordered, on
Mr. Peel’s motion, “that the member for Clare be heard at the bar, with
reference to his claim to sit and vote in the house of commons without
taking the oath of supremacy.” On his appearance at the bar, Mr.
O’Connell maintained that the Act of Union with Ireland entitled him to
sit without taking the oath of supremacy; and that the act lately
passed entitled him to sit without taking the declaration against
transubstantiation. He claimed, under the spirit and effect of the new
statute, to sit without taking the oath of supremacy; and he claimed
also, under its positive enactments, to sit without taking any other oath
than what was therein contained. There were many points in his arguments
very strongly put, and they were delivered with a temperance calculated
to conciliate the good will of the house. Even the lawyers, also, who
were opposed to Mr. O’Connell, confessed that there were doubts as
to the true meaning of the oath of supremacy; but the house,
notwithstanding, came to the resolution, that unless Mr. O’Connell took
that oath, he was not entitled to sit or vote in that house. A motion to
that effect, moved by the solicitor-general, was carried by a majority
of one hundred and ninety against one hundred and sixteen. Mr. O’Connell
was then called again to the bar, and the speaker having put the
question to him whether he would take the oath or not, he replied:—“I
see, in this oath, one assertion as to a matter of fact which I know
is not true, and see in it another assertion, as to a matter of opinion
which I believe is not true; I therefore refuse to take this oath.” A
new writ was now ordered for a new election, and Mr. O’Connell went back
to Ireland to be re-elected by his constituents. The decision had an
untoward effect upon his mind; for he now loaded ministers with the most
opprobrious epithets, as men who having been false to their own party
could never be true to any other. It caused him, indeed, to announce
his ulterior design to effect a repeal of the union by that system of
agitation which had already proved so successful. This purpose he has
deliberately followed up by the most inflammatory harangues, and various
other modes of popular excitement. From that day to this year, indeed,
his whole career has been one long course of agitation to effect the
repeal of the union; but whether he or any other agitator in Ireland
will ever be gratified by such an event demands a doubt.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
The chancellor of the exchequer opened the budget on the 8th of May.
From his statements it appeared that the revenue of the preceding year
so far exceeded his estimate as to leave a surplus of nearly £6,000,000
for the sinking-fund. For the present year, however, as the house
was anxious to abolish the absurd system of defraying the expense of
military and naval pensions, or the “dead weight” as it was called, by
postponing its burdens, he estimated the gross revenue at £51,347,000
and the expenditure at £48,333,593, by which means he left only a clear
sinking-fund of £3,000,000 for diminishing the public debt. The finance
committee had recommended that this sum should always be kept inviolate
for the purpose of reducing the national debt; and as the surplus
on which they could calculate was no greater, no part of it could be
applied to the reduction of the burthens of the country.
MOTION FOR PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
The last parliamentary result of the measures passed in regard to
Ireland was a motion for parliamentary reform. On the 2nd of June,
the Marquis of Blandford, one of the ultra-tories, moved a series
of resolutions, which went to declare that there existed a number of
boroughs the representation of which could be purchased, and others in
which the number of electors was so small as to render them liable to
the influence of bribery; and that such a system was disgraceful to the
character of the house of commons, destructive of the confidence which
the people should repose in it, and prejudicial to the best interests of
the country. The Marquis of Blandford supported his motion on the ground
that late events had shown how completely the representative body could
be separated from the feelings, the wishes, and the opinions of the
people. An imperious necessity had also been added to the already
existing propriety of putting down the borough-monger and his trade:
all the rights and liberties of the country were in jeopardy, so long
as majorities were to be obtained by a traffic of seats and services.
“After what had happened,” said his lordship, “the country demanded some
statutory provision to secure its agriculture, its manufactures, and its
trade; but more especially to secure Protestant interests against the
influx and increase of the Roman Catholic party, one mode of securing
this, and at the same time of purifying the representation, would be
to abolish the borough market, which had now been thrown open to
Catholics.” This motion, which was intended to be rather in the nature
of a notice, than made with any design of having the topics which it
embraced fully discussed, was supported by some of the old reformers,
though on different grounds from that dislike of free trade, and
apprehension of Catholic influence which animated the mover. Mr. W.
Smith, in voting for the resolutions, expressed his high satisfaction
that the relief bill had produced an effect unanticipated—the
transforming a number of the highest tories in the land, into something
very like radical reformers. The resolutions, however, were rejected by
a majority of four hundred and one against one hundred and eighteen.
PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT, ETC.
Parliament was prorogued by commission on the 24th of June. The speech
regretted that war still continued in the east of Europe; announced that
his majesty had been enabled to renew his diplomatic relations with
the Ottoman Porte; and adverted to the unfortunate condition of the
Portuguese monarchy. In allusion to the Catholic relief bill, the speech
remarked: “His majesty has commanded us in conclusion to express the
sincere hope of his majesty that the important measures, which have been
adopted by parliament in the course of the present session may tend,
under the blessing of Divine Providence, to establish the tranquillity
and improve the condition of Ireland; and that by strengthening the
bonds of union between the several parts of this great empire, they
may consolidate and augment its power and promote the happiness of his
people.” About this time the legal arrangements rendered necessary
by the dismissal of Sir Charles Wetherell were completed: Sir James
Scarlett, who had filled the same office under Mr. Canning, became the
attorney-general of the Duke of Wellington; Sir Nicholas Tindal was made
chief-justice of the common pleas, Chief-Justice Best being removed
into the house of peers, under the title of Lord Wynford; and Mr. Sugden
succeeded the former as solicitor-general.
STATE OF AFFAIRS IN IRELAND.
The Catholic relief bill was impotent to stem the tide of agitation
in Ireland. That country, indeed, in the very year that it passed,
presented the same scenes of violence and outrage as before. While
the registation rendered necessary by the act which disfranchised
the forty-shilling freeholders was going on, Mr. O’Connell was taking
measures to secure his re-election for the county of Clare. In a letter
to the electors he again raised the standard of defiance to government.
It represented himself and his constituents, in fact, as the conquerors
of the government; and spoke of it as faithless and insulting. In it he
remarked: “The house of commons have deprived me of the right conferred
on me by the people of Clare. They have, in my opinion, unjustly and
illegally deprived me of that right; but from their decision there is no
appeal, save to the people. I appeal to you. In my person the county
of Clare has been insulted. The brand of degradation has been raised to
mark me, because the people of Clare fairly selected me. Will the
people of Clare endure this insult, now that they can firmly but
constitutionally efface it for ever? Electors of the county of Clare, to
you is due the glory of converting Peel and conquering Wellington!
The last election for Clare is admitted to have been the immediate
irresistible cause of producing the Catholic relief bill. You have
achieved the religious liberty of Ireland. Another such victory
in Clare, and we shall attain the political freedom of our beloved
country.” The victory which had been achieved, he said, was still
necessary to be maintained in order to “prevent Catholic rights and
liberties from being sapped and undermined by the insidious policy of
those men who, false to their own party, can never be true to us,
and who have yielded, not to reason, but to necessity, in granting us
freedom of conscience.” Even the Catholic relief bill itself did not
escape the censure of Mr. O’Connell. The prohibition contained in it
against the growth of the monastic orders especially was denounced by
him. He remarked:—“I trust I shall be the instrument of erasing from
the statute-book that paltry imitation of the worst and still existing
portion of Jacobinism, a miserable imitation, which pretends to do that
which nature and religion forbid to be done—to extinguish monastic
orders in Ireland. While it is law, its penalties will be submitted to;
but let me add as a matter of fact, that its mandate will most assuredly
not be obeyed. It was formerly death in Ireland to be a friar; and the
Irish earth is still scarcely dry from the blow of martyred friars: the
friars multiplied in the face of death. Oh for the sagacity of Peel,
and the awful wisdom of Wellington, that meditate to suppress monastic
orders in Ireland by a pecuniary penalty, and the dread of a foreign
mission, under the name of banishment!” In this letter Mr. O’Connell
made some magnificent promises to the electors of Clare and the people
of Ireland at large. He would obtain the repeal of the disfranchisement
act, of the subletting act, and of the vestry bill; would assail the
system of “grand jury jobbing, and grand jury assessment;” would procure
an equitable distribution of church property between the poor on the one
hand, and the laborious portion of the Protestant clergy on the other;
would cleanse the Augean stables of the law, for which Herculean task
his professional habits gave him peculiar facilities; would procure for
every Catholic rector of a parish, a parochial house, and an adequate
glebe; would make manifest the monstrous injustice that had been done
to the Jesuits and the monastic orders; would wage war against the East
India charter; would strain every nerve in the cause of parliamentary
reform; and would provide a system of poor laws for Ireland that would
be agreeable even to those who had to pay their money for the support
of the poor. He added:—“If the gentry of Clare are desirous to have as
their representative a man who is able and most desirous to protect in
parliament their properties and permanent interests, let them do me the
honour to elect me. But let them not lay the flattering unction to their
souls, that they can, without an independent man of business as their
representative, postpone the introduction of the English system of poor
laws.” As soon as Mr. O’Connell took the field an “aggregate meeting”
of Catholics, which was nothing else than a meeting of the Catholic
Association took place, to consider what steps should be adopted to
forward his re-election. The first thing done was to vote £5000 of the
rent as an aid to assist the agitator in standing for the county of
Clare, The election did not excite much interest, as Mr. O’Connell was
not opposed; but it was preceded and accompanied by “triumphant entries”
as they were called; that is, assemblages of large crowds of people, to
whom were addressed harangues in which inflammatory abuse was mixed
up with low buffoonery. On the subject of the repeal of the union with
England, he said at Youghall:—“We have now a brighter era opened to us;
and I trust that all classes of my countrymen will join together, and,
by forming one general firm phalanx, achieve what is still wanting to
make Ireland what it ought to be. Ireland had her 1782, she shall have
another 1782. Let no man tell me it is useless to look for a repeal of
the odious union, that blot upon our national character. I revere
the union between England and Scotland; but the union which converted
Ireland into a province, which deprived Ireland of her parliament, it
is for the repeal of that measure we must now use all the constitutional
means in our power: that union which engenders absenteeism, and the
thousand other evils which naturally flow in its train. We are bound to
England by the golden link of the crown; and far be it from me to weaken
that connexion by my present observations: I want no disseveration;
but I want and must have a repeal of that cursed measure which deprived
Ireland of her senate, and thereby made her a dependent upon British
aristocracy and British interests. I may perhaps be told that to attempt
a repeal of the union would be chimerical. I pity the man who
requires an argument in support of the position that Ireland wants her
parliament; and that individual who pronounces the attainment of such a
consummation to be Utopian, is reminded of the Catholic question.
Look at the Catholic cause. Do I not remember when it was difficult to
procure a meeting of five Catholics to look for a restoration of our
then withheld rights? I recollect when we agitators were almost as much
execrated by our fellow-slaves, as we were by our oppressors. For the
attainment of the repeal of the union, I shall have the co-operation
of all classes and grades in society: the Orangemen of the north, the
Methodist of the south, and the quiet unpresuming Quaker, who may think
his gains shall be thereby augmented, all shall be joined in one common
cause, the restoration of Ireland’s parliament.” But this was a mild
attack upon England compared with other portions of the agitator’s
speeches. It is no wonder then that Ireland soon presented scenes of as
much violence as those from which the emancipation bill was to relieve
her for ever. The hostile feelings of parties continued, and manifested
themselves in the same way as heretofore. Catholics and Protestants
alike had recourse to organization, and the slightest accident, the most
casual collisions produced contention, and generally ended in bloodshed.
Thus on the 12th of July, which the Protestants had resolved to
celebrate, the Catholics determined to oppose their intention by force
wherever they could, and in the counties of Clare, Tipperary, Armagh,
Leitrim, Cavan, Fermanagh, and Monaghan, the aspect of open war was
assumed, and it was only prevented by the presence of the military.
Many lives were, indeed, sacrificed, and many thousands were driven from
their homes by the opposing parties. In several instances where
death had occurred from the interference of the police, or from their
resistance when attacked, trials ensued; but this only tended to
exasperate the Catholics still more. An acquittal, though proceeding
on the clearest evidence that life had been justly taken from an armed
aggressor, was uniformly ascribed to partiality. Imagining that the law
existed only to be used against them they took the task of retribution
for supposed injuries into their own hands, and assumed arms to gratify
revenge, in defiance of the law Judges, juries, and the government were
laughed at by Catholic criminals, for no witness dared to communicate
what he knew against them. At the close of this year, indeed, matters
had proceeded to such a length in Ireland, and especially in Tipperary,
that the magistrates expressed an opinion that nothing but a revival
of the insurrection act would secure the peace of the country. But
this could not be effected, for it had expired, and parliament was
not sitting. So Ireland was left to be rent asunder with the spirit of
faction. “State gipsies” were left to pick the pockets of the ignorant
as they pleased, or as they could gain control over those of the people,
by their artful and seditious harangues.
AGRICULTURAL AND COMMERCIAL DISTRESS.
{GEORGE IV. 1829—1830}
England, also, this year presented its scenes of lawlessness. This arose
from different causes to those which gave rise to the insurrection
in Ireland. These causes were the distress which prevailed among the
agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial classes. The depression in
every branch of trade experienced this year naturally gave rise to
a reduction of wages among the artisans. These artisans, however,
unreasonably ascribed this reduction, not to the necessities of trade,
but to the avarice of their employers; and they still more unreasonably
proceeded to their usual correctives—voluntary idleness, and the
destruction of property. The example was set by the silk-weavers
of Spitalfields and Bethnal-Green, who refused to work except at an
increased rate of wages, and made their way by night into the shops of
workmen possessed of materials belonging to the refractory masters, and
destroyed them. Overawed by the combination, the masters agreed
finally to pay the same wages that had been paid in 1824, although its
continuation would prove ruinous to them. Similar scenes were exhibited,
and the same results followed at Macclesfield, Nuneaton, and Bedworth.
Nor did the manufacturing districts of Yorkshire escape the contagion.
About the end of May the weavers of Barnsley, like the silk-weavers of
Bethnal-Green and Macclesfield, forced upon their employers a list
of prices. By August and September, however, the masters found it
impossible to keep to these prices; and when they proposed a reduction,
the workmen immediately left their work, and commenced a riot.
Warehouses were attacked, as were also the houses of such weavers as had
taken out work at reduced prices; and it was only by calling in the
aid of the military that tranquillity was restored. Yet lawless and
mischievous as these proceedings were, it was clear that they originated
from the misery of those engaged in them. A report, drawn up at
Huddersfield by a committee of masters, stated, “that within the several
townships engaged in fancy business, there were 13,000 individuals who
had not more than twopence halfpenny per day to live on; and out of this
they had to find wear and tear for looms.” This report added, “Whatever
be the cause of such distress, it is feared that the agonizing condition
of families so circumstanced cannot long be endured. The difficulty
of obtaining relief by the ordinary course, and the aggravating
circumstances often attending applications for it, have a powerful
tendency to drive the applicants ultimately to desperation. In laying
these painful statements before the members of his majesty’s government
and other influential gentlemen, the master manufacturers wish to do
it respectfully, impelled by a sense of duty which they owe to the
government and the public, and especially to their workmen, who have
hitherto borne their sufferings with extreme patience.” The distress
was aggravated by a bad harvest and a severe winter, all of which
contributed to bring the productive classes of the community, and
especially the lowest orders, into a state of abject misery.
FOREIGN POLITICS.
The foreign affairs requiring notice, as affecting Great Britain, were
principally those in the East. During this year Turkey was obliged to
sue to the Russian autocrat for peace; for both the Russian army and
navy were successful in all their operations. The terms granted were as
follows:—The Pruth was to constitute the European limit as before;
but Silistria was to be dismantled. An alteration was to be made in the
Asiatic boundaries, so that the whole eastern coast of the Black
Sea, from the Kuban to the harbour of St. Nicholas, together with the
fortresses of Anapa and Poti, should remain in possession of Russia. The
principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia were to be confirmed in their
rights; but the Hospodars were to be nominated only for life, and no
Turks allowed to dwell there. Free trade was to be allowed on the Black
Sea, and navigation through the straits for vessels belonging to Russia,
as well as all other countries at peace with the Porte. The sultan
was to defray the expenses of the war, and to accede to the treaties
concluded at London regarding the Greeks. The bases of the intended
negociations respecting Greece were finally arranged among the allies,
at a conference on the 22nd of March in the present year. The protocol
signed by them read as follows:—“1. The continental boundary line
of the Greek state is to be drawn from the gulf of Volo to the gulf
of Arsa. All countries south of this line to be included in the Greek
state, to which the adjacent islands, comprehending Euboea and the
Cyclades, are likewise to belong 2. An annual tribute of 1,500,000
Turkish piastres to be paid by this Greek state. Only a third part to
be paid during the first year, and to be gradually increased till it
reaches the maximum in the fourth. 3. Turkish subjects who may be forced
to depart from the Greek territory to be indemnified. 4. Greece is to
remain under the suzerainty of the Porte, which form of government is
to approach as nearly as possible to & monarchical form, and to be
hereditary in the family of a Christian prince, to be chosen for the
first time by the three powers, in concert with the Porte. He is not to
be a member of the families reigning in the states which are parties to
the treaty of July 6th.” Finally, the three powers, however, agreed to
restrict the territory of the new state within narrower limits than were
assumed in this protocol. The line adopted was further to the south.
It commenced on the east at Zeitouni, a little to the northward of
Thermopylae, and ran across the country in the direction of Vrachori,
till it reached the river Aspropotamos, or the ancient Achelous, whose
course it was then to follow as far as the sea. It thus excluded not
only Thessaly, but Acarnaniaand the town of Vonizza, which the Greeks
had taken early in the year, and an extensive tract of level country
lying round the gulf of Calarno. The whole western frontier of northern
Greece was left open by it to the attacks of its barbarian foes. And
this determination was made without the wishes of the Greeks being
consulted, or any communication made to the Greek government. The matter
was, in truth, decided at London without the intervention of either
Turkish or Greek minister; but the Porte and the Greek government were
alike compelled to agree to the articles drawn up by the three powers.
In the Netherlands the session of the States-general, during the present
year, was less tranquil and satisfactory than any that had been held
since the Restoration. The king himself continued popular; but his
government produced general dissatisfaction by some obnoxious measures;
especially by dismissing judges who were supposed to be too obstinate;
by partiality in official appointments; and by exercising severity
against the press when it criticised the policy of administration. When
the States-general met, the second chamber was immediately occupied in
discussing an immense number of petitions, recommending improvements
in the present system of government. Some ameliorations were made; but
government resisted the proposal that cases of alleged abuse of
the liberty of the press should be tried by a jury, and also the
introduction of grand juries, and the extension of jury trials to the
provincial courts and other criminal tribunals. On the other hand, a
numerous body in the chamber censured every measure of the government,
and resisted every project of its ministers; and the session ended with
an increase of that excitement and dissatisfaction which for some time
had been growing up in the public mind.
During this year, also, the government of France was embarrassed with
difficulties. A new ministry had been formed under the presidency of
Prince Polignac, all the members of which belonged to that section which
advocated irresponsible power in politics, and essential domination in
religion. Nothing could exceed the unpopularity of these appointments.
The press teemed with denouncements both of the men and their measures;
and prosecutions for its bold sentiments became the order of the day.
Prosecutions increased, from the fact that associations were formed to
resist the payment of taxes, in case ministers should attempt to rule
without a chamber. Finally, the cabinet itself became divided. One great
cause of its unpopularity was, that it contained Labourdonnaye, who had
signalized himself by recommending a terrific system of proscription,
and had, after the manner of Marius and Sylla at Rome, classified those
descriptions of people on whom he demanded vengeance. Labourdonnaye
retired towards the close of the year; but public opinion continued
against the administration as strong and unanimous as ever. At one time,
the organs of the cabinet threatened a dissolution of the chambers, and
at another, the ultra-journals preached the doctrine of ruling without
the chambers. The more accredited organs of the cabinet, indeed, did not
openly repeat such sentiments, but they were connected in the minds of
the people with that set of opinions which the cabinet represented. If
the one party, indeed, were led astray by assuming evil designs not in
existence, ministers were equally blind as to the character of their
antagonists. The year finally closed in mutual recriminations; ministers
keeping their places until the convocation of the legislature should
determine, whether the chambers were to decide the fate of the cabinet,
or the cabinet that of the chambers. One fact, however, was favourable
to the interests of France: namely, that its foreign relations remained
peaceful and unaltered.
In Portugal, Don Miguel this year unfolded to the world his true
character. Early in this year an unsuccessful attempt was made in Oporto
at insurrection in favour of Donna Maria, and the usurper made use of
this occurrence to multiply arrests in the capital. Every individual
whom any creature of government disliked, or any private enemy thought
proper to denounce by an anonymous accusation, was forthwith consigned
to the dungeons of the Limveiro, or of St. Julian. The actual
conspirators at Oporto were tried by commission, and several of them
were exiled, and the rest acquitted as persons against whom nothing was
proved. Miguel, however, was shocked at the lenity of the sentence, and
refused to ratify it; ordering at the same time a new sentence to
be framed, by which five prisoners condemned to perpetual exile were
directed to be hanged, and two who were to have been transported for
ten years, to transportation for life. In comparison with death, the
condition of the prisoners, with whom the jails and fortresses were
crowded to suffocation, was scarcely to be envied. Though all were
uncondemned, and most of them innocent, the whole were delivered over to
the merciless authority of apostolic miscreants, who seemed to find no
gratification but in the invention of new modes of inflicting misery.
Among the incarcerated were many persons in affluent circumstances,
who charitably contributed to support the poorer prisoners, whom their
tyrants were willing should perish by starvation. To deprive them of all
assistance, indeed, government ordered their benefactors to be removed
from the dungeons in the city, to those of St. Julian, Belem, and Bugio.
Here, without being brought to trial, the prisoners were cut off from
all communication, even with the members of their own families. Many
of them died of want and confinement, and the usurper was suspected of
poisoning others. No rank, sex, or character was respected; a child
of five years of age was kept in solitary confinement five days, and
subjected to the tortures of a prison to extort evidence against its
father and mother. A refugee Spanish bishop, who had been a member
of the Cortes of 1812, and had since lived in security at Lisbon,
was thrown into a dungeon, and died in four days, in consequence of
maltreatment, and his body was thrown into a hole in the esplanade of
the castle without burial. The most sanguinary scenes took place both at
Oporto and Lisbon. The rage of the tyrant was backed by the priests,
who in their sermons and publications applauded the work of death and
devastation as an acceptable offering to the Divine Majesty. One Jose
Agostino, a monk and court preacher, published a pamphlet called “The
Beast Flayed,” urging the necessity of multiplying sacrifices, and
recommending that the constitutionalists should be hanged up by the
feet, and the people joyfully treated with fresh meat from the
gallows. These sentiments only added fuel to the flames of Don Miguel’s
vengeance, and the kingdom was laid at the mercy of a set of men to
whose vengeance, brutality, and avarice there were no bounds. One step
downward in the path of moral turpitude ever leads to another. From
the moment of his return, Don Miguel had hated his sister Bonna Maria,
because she had been her brother’s regent, and had been faithful to the
constitution. Miguel learned that a footman formerly in the service of
his sister had set out for England, and he fancied that he had been sent
by Donna Maria with her money and jewels, in order to secure them from
his rapacity. It is probable, also, that he imagined the servant had
been sent to England for the purpose of making known the dreadful state
of the country; and enraged thereby, he rushed into her chamber with
a pistol in his hand, and demanded an account of the flight of her
servant. Donna Maria stood for a while trembling in silence, but as
Miguel was about to strike her with the pistol which was armed with a
bayonet, she threw herself upon him, and overturned him. Her chamberlain
now flew to her rescue. Miguel sprang up, and when on the point of
again attacking her, Count Camarido threw himself before him. The tyrant
disabled him by stabbing him in the arm, and fired at the princess;
and though the ball missed her, it killed a servant by her side. Other
domestics now interfered, and the life of Donna Maria was saved. She
was hurried away from his brutal fury. While scenes of outrage and
wrong were being committed daily throughout the whole of Portugal, the
necessities of the government increased, notwithstanding a forced issue
of paper money was made. Recourse was had to an expedition to reduce
Terceira, one of the Azores, the only spot in the dominions of Portugal
which remained true to its rightful monarch. This expedition set sail
about the middle of June, and the troops succeeded in effecting a
landing; but they were totally defeated by the islanders, under Villa
Flor, who had made his escape with the Marquis Palmella and nineteen
other general officers from the rage of Miguel. In the meantime the
tyrant’s interest was supported at Madrid by the great influence of his
mother over the family of Ferdinand, who, in fact, regarded Miguel
with peculiar complacency, because he had destroyed a constitutional
government. The other sovereigns of Europe however, still kept aloof
from any communication with the usurper. It was contended by the
Portuguese refugees, and the ministers of Don Pedro, that they ought
to drive Miguel from his throne by positive interference. These
applications were especially made to the British ministry; but though
Lord Aberdeen admitted to their fullest extent the obligations created
by the treaties existing between Britain and Portugal, he maintained
that they gave no countenance to any demand made for interference in an
internal revolution. He remarked: “It is assumed that the usurpation of
the throne of Portugal by the infant Don Miguel has given to her most
faithful majesty the right of demanding from this country effectual
succours for the recovery of her crown and kingdom. But in the whole
series of treaties there is no express stipulation which can warrant
this pretension, neither is such an obligation implied by their general
tenor and spirit. It is either for the purpose of resisting successful
rebellion, or of deciding by force a doubtful question of succession
that Great Britain is now called upon to act. But it is impossible to
imagine that any independent state could ever intend thus to commit the
control and direction of its internal affairs to the hands of another
power. For, doubtless, if his Britannic majesty be under the necessity
of furnishing effectual succours in the event of any internal revolt or
dissension in Portugal, it would become a duty, and, indeed, it would
be essential to take care that no such case should exist if it could be
prevented. Hence a constant and minute interference in the affairs of
Portugal would be indispensable; for his majesty could never consent
to hold his fleets and armies at the disposal of a king of Portugal,
without exercising those due precautions and that superintendence which
would assure him that his forces would not be employed in averting the
effects of misgovernment, folly, or caprice. Is this a condition in
which any state professing to be independent could endure to exist?
The truth is, that the whole spirit of the treaties, as well as their
history, shows that the principle of the guarantee given by England
is the protection of Portugal from foreign interference.” The British
government, therefore, refused to interfere in this domestic quarrel;
and it also considered itself bound to observe a strict neutrality in
regard to all military operations. A considerable number of Portuguese
exiles, resident on our southern coast, appeared to have some design
of fitting out an expedition against Don Miguel; and the British
government, holding such views as above unfolded, informed the Brazilian
minister that it would not allow such designs to be carried on in
British harbours, and that the refugees must remove further from the
coast. The Brazilian minister replied, that these troops were about to
be conveyed to Brazil; and accordingly four vessels, having on board
six hundred and fifty-two officers, with Count Saldanha at their head,
sailed from Plymouth. The British government, however, suspected that
the true design was to land those troops at Terceira; and notice
was given to them before they sailed that any such attempt would be
resisted. A small force, under the command of Captain Walpole, was
despatched to enforce the prohibition; his instructions being to cruise
off the island; to inform the Portuguese that he had authority to
prevent their landing; and if they made any effort to effect a landing,
to resist such an attempt by force, and to drive them away from that
neighbourhood. The suspicions of the government were in this instance
justified. The expedition of Count Saldanha appeared off Terceira on the
16th of January; and was discovered by Captain Walpole standing right
in for Port Praya. Two shots were fired for the purpose of bringing
them to; but without effect. The vessels then lay-to; and to a note
from Captain Walpole, inquiring what was their object in coming thither,
Saldanha answered, that his object in appearing there was to fulfil
the orders of her majesty the Queen of Portugal, which directed him
to conduct, unarmed, without any hostile appearance, to the isle of
Terceira, the men that were on board the four vessels in sight, which
island has never ceased to acknowledge Donna Maria II. as its legitimate
sovereign. He added:—“As a faithful subject and soldier, I think it
unnecessary to assure you that I am determined to fulfil my duty at all
peril.” Captain Walpole replied, that he had instructions to obey,
and an imperious duty to perform; that both of them prevented him
from allowing the count, or any part of his force, to land either at
Terceira, or on any part of the western islands of the Azores, or
even to continue in that neighbourhood. To this communication Saldanha
replied, that he considered himself and his men, in such circumstances,
Captain Walpole’s prisoners; that they would follow his vessels
where-ever he chose to take them; but must have a written order to that
effect, and be supplied with water and provisions; if he had not this
written order, he said, he would pursue his course, and endeavour at all
risks to fulfil his instructions. Captain Walpole’s reply still was, “Go
where you choose, but don’t stay here; if you persist in hovering about
these islands, it is my duty and firm determination to carry those
measures you are already in possession of into full effect.” After this
angry correspondence the Portuguese finally sailed away; and the British
commander having watched them until they arrived within five hundred
miles of Sicily, returned to his station at Terceira. Count Saldanha and
his squadron instead of returning to England, proceeded to Brest. This
occurrence excited much notice in Europe, and it was brought under
discussion in the British parliament. It was represented by the
opposition as a direct act of hostility in favour of the usurper,
against the acknowledged Queen of Portugal, then residing in England;
and as an armed interference in favour of Miguel at the very moment
when it was pretended that the duties of neutrality did not admit of
interference. It was asked, if not bound by treaties to assist the queen
in recovering her crown, whence arose our right to prevent her, by means
of her own subjects, from making the attempt? Why, when recognizing her
right, refusing to admit the title of Miguel, and pretending to maintain
a strict neutrality, had we interfered by force against a lawful
sovereign? And what could excuse the barbarous injustice of telling the
lawful monarch that, in so far as we were concerned, she must work out
her own restoration by her own strength; and then, when she puts forth
her strength; telling her that we would not allow it to be employed? To
all this it was replied that the armament attacked had been fitted out
in a British port, an answer which decided the merits of the question;
for whether the observance of neutrality between two competitors for the
crown of Portugal was right or wrong, appeared in this case a matter of
indifference; as it had been decided on, no other course could justly
have been taken: and if Miguel’s armament had been fitted out in
a British port, it would have met with a similar interruption. If
ministers were to be attacked, indeed, the only vulnerable point was the
maintenance of a strict neutrality towards a tyrant who had voluntarily
sworn to our government that he would obey the laws and preserve the
constitution of their country. In the meantime negociations had been
going on between Don Pedro and the ministers of England and Austria to
effect some arrangement of affairs; and a deputation had been sent by
the Portuguese constitutionalists to point out how these affairs stood,
and to urge the necessity of adopting active measures. Don Pedro,
however, refused to accept propositions from foreign negociation which
involved any sacrifice of his daughter’s claims, while he assured the
Portuguese that he would maintain the rights of their queen without
entering into any compromise with the usurper of her throne. But
Pedro did not strengthen the hopes of his friends at this time by the
resolution which he admitted of recalling his daughter from England to
Brazil; and the British government itself remonstrated with him on the
impolicy of that step. Donna Maria’s return to Rio de Janeiro seemed to
convey the idea, indeed, that she had abandoned all pretensions to the
crown of Portugal, and had left Don Miguel undisputed master of the
field. But such was not in reality the case. Don Pedro had ulterior
objects in view by the recall of his daughter; and the Brazilian
minister made a public declaration, to the effect that Donna Maria’s
departure from Europe neither involved an abdication of the crown on the
part of her majesty, nor an indifference on the part of Don Pedro to his
daughter’s rights.
The history of Spain furnishes but few events of importance during the
present year. In the early part of it, Ferdinand lost his queen, and
towards the close he contracted a third marriage with a princess
of Naples. The marriage was celebrated at Madrid, to the great
dissatisfaction of the adherents of Ferdinand’s brother, Don Carlos.
During the year, conspiracies transpired in Catalonia. They were
supposed to have been excited by the Count d’Espagne for the sake of
private advantage, and they were followed by cruel executions. The rest
of the country remained tranquil; but its finances were in so dreadful
a state of exhaustion from a long continuance of misgovernment and
exclusion, that Cadiz was declared a free port, in the hope of restoring
foreign commerce to its ancient condition. At this time, however, the
Spanish government, which had been driven from the English money-market
by its faithless conduct respecting the Cortes’ bonds, ran the risk of
losing its credit with all the European states, by a discovery of its
fraud in a French loan.