The Congress of Vienna and its revision of the map of Europe.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (MARCH).
The Corn Law.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1815-1828.
[Transcriber's Note:]
INDONESIA: A. D. 1815 (APRIL).
Eruption of Mount Tambora precipitating the "Year without a
Summer" and widespread famine.
"Low temperatures and heavy rains resulted in failed harvests
in Britain and Ireland. ... With the cause of the problems
unknown, hungry people demonstrated in front of grain markets
and bakeries. Later riots, arson, and looting took place in
many European cities. On some occasions, rioters carried flags
reading "Bread or Blood". Though riots were common during
times of hunger, the food riots of 1816 and 1817 were the
highest levels of violence since the French Revolution. It was
the worst famine of 19th-century mainland Europe.
_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer#Europe_
[End Transcriber's Note]
ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).
The Waterloo campaign.
Defeat and final Overthrow of Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (JULY-AUGUST).
Surrender of Napoleon.
His confinement on the Island of St. Helena.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
Wellington's army in Paris.
The Second Treaty.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (SEPTEMBER).
The Holy Alliance.
See HOLY ALLIANCE.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.
Agitation for Parliamentary Reform.
Hampden Clubs.
Spencean philanthropists.
Trials of William Hone.
The Spa-fields meeting and riot.
March of the Blanketeers.
Massacre of Peterloo.
The Six Acts.
Death of George III.
Accession of George IV.
"From this time the name of Parliamentary Reform became, for
the most part, a name of terror to the Government. ... It
passed away from the patronage of a few aristocratic lovers of
popularity, to be advocated by writers of 'two-penny trash,'
and to be discussed and organized by 'Hampden Clubs' of
hungering philanthropists and unemployed 'weaver-boys.' Samuel
Bamford, who thought it no disgrace to call himself 'a
Radical' ... says, 'at this time (1816) the writings of
William Cobbett suddenly became of great authority; they were
read on nearly every cottage hearth in the manufacturing
districts of South Lancashire, in those of Leicester, Derby,
and Nottingham; also in many of the Scottish manufacturing
towns. Their influence was speedily visible.' Cobbett
advocated Parliamentary Reform as the corrective of whatever
miseries the lower classes suffered. A new order of
politicians was called into action: 'The Sunday-schools of the
preceding thirty years had produced many working men of
sufficient talent to become readers, writers, and speakers in
the village meetings for Parliamentary Reform; some also were
found to possess a rude poetic talent, which rendered their
effusions popular, and bestowed an additional charm on their
assemblages; and by such various means, anxious listeners at
first, and then zealous proselytes, were drawn from the
cottages of quiet nooks and dingles to the weekly readings and
discussions of the Hampden Clubs.' ... In a Report of the
Secret Committee of the House of Commons, presented on the
19th of February, 1817, the Hampden Clubs are described as
'associated professedly for the purpose of Parliamentary
Reform, upon the most extended principle of universal suffrage
and annual parliaments'; but that 'in far the greater number
of them ... nothing short of a Revolution is the object
expected and avowed.' The testimony of Samuel Bamford shows
that, in this early period of their history, the Hampden Clubs
limited their object to the attainment of Parliamentary Reform.
... Bamford, at the beginning of 1817, came to London as a
delegate from the Middleton Club, to attend a great meeting of
delegates to be assembled in London. ...
{950}
The Middleton delegate was introduced, amidst the reeking
tobacco-fog of a low tavern, to the leading members of a
society called the 'Spencean Philanthropists.' They derived
their name from that of a Mr. Spence, a school-master in
Yorkshire, who had conceived a plan for making the nation
happy, by causing all the lands of the country to become the
property of the State, which State should divide all the
produce for the support of the people. ... The Committee of
the Spenceans openly meddled with sundry grave questions
besides that of a community in land; and, amongst other
notable projects, petitioned Parliament to do away with
machinery. Amongst these fanatics some dangerous men had
established themselves, such as Thistlewood, who subsequently
paid the penalty of five years of maniacal plotting." A
meeting held at Spa-fields on the 2d of December, 1816, in the
interest of the Spencean Philanthropists, terminated in a
senseless outbreak of riot, led by a young fanatic named
Watson. The mob plundered some gunsmiths' shops, shot one
gentleman who remonstrated, and set out to seize the Tower;
but was dispersed by a few resolute magistrates and
constables. "It is difficult to imagine a more degraded and
dangerous position than that in which every political writer
was placed during the year 1817. In the first place, he was
subject, by a Secretary of State's warrant, to be imprisoned
upon suspicion, under the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act.
Secondly, he was open to an ex-officio information, under
which he would be compelled to find bail, or be imprisoned.
The power of ex-officio information had been extended so as to
compel bail, by an Act of 1808; but from 1808 to 1811, during
which three years forty such informations were laid, only one
person was held to bail. In 1817 numerous ex-officio
informations were filed, and the almost invariable practice
then was to hold the alleged offender to bail, or, in default,
to commit to prison. Under this Act Mr. Hone and others were
committed to prison during this year. ... The entire course of
these proceedings was a signal failure. There was only one
solitary instance of success--William Cobbett ran away. On the
28th of March he fled to America, suspending the publication
of his 'Register' for four months. On the 12th of May earl
Grey mentioned in the House of Lords that a Mr. Hone was
proceeded against for publishing some blasphemous parody; but
he had read one of the same nature, written, printed, and
published, some years ago, by other people, without any notice
having been officially taken of it. The parody to which earl
Grey alluded, and a portion of which he recited, was Canning's
famous parody, 'Praise Lepaux'; and he asked whether the
authors, be they in the cabinet or in any other place, would
also be found out and visited with the penalties of the law?
This hint to the obscure publisher against whom these
ex-officio informations had been filed for blasphemous and
seditious parodies, was effectually worked out by him in the
solitude of his prison, and in the poor dwelling where he had
surrounded himself, as he had done from his earliest years,
with a collection of odd and curious books. From these he had
gathered an abundance of knowledge that was destined to
perplex the technical acquirements of the Attorney-General, to
whom the sword and buckler of his precedents would be wholly
useless, and to change the determination of the boldest judge
in the land [Lord Ellenborough] to convict at any rate, into
the prostration of helpless despair. Altogether, the three
trials of William Hone are amongst the most remarkable in our
constitutional history. They produced more distinct effects
upon the temper of the country than any public proceedings of
that time. They taught the Government a lesson which has never
been forgotten, and to which, as much as to any other cause,
we owe the prodigious improvement as to the law of libel
itself, and the use of the law, in our own day,--an
improvement which leaves what is dangerous in the press to be
corrected by the remedial power of the press itself; and
which, instead of lamenting over the newly-acquired ability of
the masses to read seditious and irreligious works, depends
upon the general diffusion of this ability as the surest
corrective of the evils that are incident even to the best
gift of heaven,--that of knowledge."
_C. Knight,
Popular History of England,
volume 8, chapter 5._
In 1817 "there was widespread distress. There were riots in
the counties of England arising out of the distress. There
were riots in various parts of London. Secret Committees were
appointed by both Houses of the Legislature to inquire into
the alleged disaffection of part of the people. The Habeas
Corpus Act was suspended. The march of the Blanketeers from
Manchester [March, 1817] caused panic and consternation
through various circles in London. The march of the
Blanketeers was a very simple and harmless project. A large
number of the working-men in Manchester conceived the idea of
walking to London to lay an account of their distress before
the heads of the Government, and to ask that some remedy might
be found, and also to appeal for the granting of Parliamentary
reform. It was part of their arrangement that each man should
carry a blanket with him, as they would, necessarily, have to
sleep at many places along the way, and they were not exactly
in funds to pay for first-class hotel accommodation. The
nickname of Blanketeers was given to them because of their
portable sleeping-arrangements. The whole project was simple,
was touching in its simplicity. Even at this distance of time
one cannot read about it without being moved by its pathetic
childishness. These poor men thought they had nothing to do
but to walk to London, and get to speech of Lord Liverpool,
and justice would be done to them and their claims. The
Government of Lord Liverpool dealt very roundly, and in a very
different way, with the Blanketeers. If the poor men had been
marching on London with pikes, muskets and swords, they could
not have created a greater fury of panic and of passion in
official circles. The Government, availing itself of the
suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, had the leaders of the
movement captured and sent to prison, stopped the march by
military force, and dispersed those who were taking part in
it. ... The 'Massacre of Peterloo,' as it is not
inappropriately called, took place not long after. A great
public meeting was held [August 16, 1819] at St. Peter's
Field, then on the outskirts of Manchester, now the site of
the Free Trade Hall, which many years later rang so often to
the thrilling tones of John Bright. The meeting was called to
petition for Parliamentary reform. It should be remembered
that in those days Manchester, Birmingham, and other great
cities were without any manner of representation in
Parliament.
{951}
It was a vast meeting--some 80,000 men and women are stated to
have been present. The yeomanry [a mounted militia force], for
some reason impossible to understand, endeavoured to disperse
the meeting, and actually dashed in upon the crowd, spurring
their horses and flourishing their sabres. Eleven persons were
killed, and several hundreds were wounded. The Government
brought in, as their panacea for popular trouble and
discontent, the famous Six Acts. These Acts were simply
measures to render it more easy for the authorities to put
down or disperse meetings which they considered objectionable,
and to suppress any manner of publication which they chose to
call seditious. But among them were some Bills to prevent
training and drilling, and the collection and use of arms.
These measures show what the panic of the Government was. It
was the conviction of the ruling classes that the poor and the
working-classes of England were preparing a revolution. ...
During all this time, the few genuine Radicals in the House of
Commons were bringing on motion after motion for Parliamentary
reform, just as Grattan and his friends were bringing forward
motion after motion for Catholic Emancipation. In 1818, a
motion by Sir Francis Burdett for annual Parliaments and
universal suffrage was lost by a majority of 106 to nobody.
... The motion had only two supporters--Burdett himself, and
his colleague, Lord Cochrane. ... The forms of the House
require two tellers on either side, and a compliance with this
inevitable rule took up the whole strength of Burdett's party.
... On January 29, 1820, the long reign of George III. came to
an end. The life of the King closed in darkness of eyes and mind.
Stone-blind, stone-deaf, and, except for rare lucid intervals,
wholly out of his senses, the poor old King wandered from room
to room of his palace, a touching picture, with his long,
white, flowing beard, now repeating to himself the awful words
of Milton--the 'dark, dark, dark, amid the blaze of
noon--irrecoverably dark'--now, in a happier mood, announcing
himself to be in the companionship of angels. George, the
Prince Regent, succeeded, of course, to the throne; and George
IV. at once announced his willingness to retain the services
of the Ministry of Lord Liverpool. The Whigs had at one time
expected much from the coming of George IV. to the throne, but
their hopes had begun to be chilled of late."
_J. McCarthy,
Sir Robert Peel,
chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_J. Routledge,
Chapters in the History of Popular Progress,
chapters 12-19._
_H. Martineau,
History of the Thirty Years' Peace,
book 1, chapters 5-17 (volume 1)._
_E. Smith,
William Cobbett,
chapters 21-23 (volume 2)._
See, also, TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1815-1828.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1818.
Convention with the United States relating to Fisheries, etc.
See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1814-1818.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1820.
Accession of King George IV.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1822.
Congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona.
Projects of the Holy Alliance.
English protests.
Canning's policy towards Spain and the Spanish American
colonies.
See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1827.
The Cato Street Conspiracy.
Trial of Queen Caroline.
Canning in the Foreign Office.
Commercial Crisis of 1825.
Canning as Premier.
His death.
"Riot and social misery had, during the Regency, heralded the
Reign. They did not cease to afflict the country. At once we
are plunged into the wretched details of a conspiracy. Secret
intelligence reached the Home Office to the effect that a man
named Thistlewood, who had been a year in jail for challenging
Lord Sidmouth, had with several accomplices laid a plot to
murder the Ministers during a Cabinet dinner, which was to
come off at Lord Harrowby's. The guests did not go, and the
police pounced on the gang, arming themselves in a stable in
Cato Street, off the Edgeware Road. Thistlewood blew out the
candle, having first stabbed a policeman to the heart. For
that night he got off; but, being taken next day, he was soon
hanged, with his four leading associates. This is called the
Cato Street Conspiracy. ... George IV., almost as soon as the
crown became his own, began to stir in the matter of getting a
divorce from his wife. He had married this poor Princess
Caroline of Brunswick in 1795, merely for the purpose of
getting his debts paid. Their first interview disappointed
both. After some time of semi-banishment to Blackheath she had
gone abroad to live chiefly in Italy, and had been made the
subject of more than one 'delicate investigation' for the
purpose of procuring evidence of infidelity against her. She
now came to England (June 6, 1820), and passed from Dover to
London through joyous and sympathizing crowds. The King sent a
royal message to the Lords, asking for an inquiry into her
conduct. Lord Liverpool and Lord Castlereagh laid before the
Lords and Commons a green bag, stuffed with indecent and
disgusting accusations against the Queen. Happily for her she
had two champions, whose names shall not readily lose the
lustre gained in her defence--Henry Brougham and Thomas
Denman, her Attorney-General and Solicitor-General. After the
failure of a negotiation, in which the Queen demanded two
things that the Ministers refused--the insertion of her name
in the Liturgy, and a proper reception at some foreign
court--Lord Liverpool brought into the Upper House a 'Bill of
Pains and Penalties,' which aimed at her degradation from the
throne and the dissolution of her marriage. Through the
fever-heat of a scorching summer the case went on, counsel and
witnesses playing their respective parts before the Lords. ...
At length the Bill, carried on its third reading by a majority
of only nine, was abandoned by the Ministry (November 10). And
the country broke out into cheers and flaming windows. Had she
rested content with the vindication of her fair fame, it would
have been better for her own peace. But she went in public
procession to St. Paul's to return thanks for her victory. And
more rashly still in the following year she tried to force her
way into Westminster Abbey during the Coronation of her
husband (July 19, 1821). But mercy came a few days later from
the King of kings. The people, true to her even in death,
insisted that the hearse containing her remains should pass
through the city; and in spite of bullets from the carbines of
dragoons they gained their point, the Lord Mayor heading the
procession till it had cleared the streets. ... George Canning
had resigned his office rather than take any part with the
Liverpool Cabinet in supporting the 'Bill of Pains and
Penalties,' and had gone to the Continent for the summer of
the trial year.
{952}
Early in 1822 Lord Sidmouth ... resigned the Home Office. He
was succeeded by Robert Peel, a statesman destined to achieve
eminence. Canning about the same time was offered the post of
Governor-General of India," and accepted it; but this
arrangement was suddenly changed by the death of Castlereagh,
who committed suicide in August. Canning then became Foreign
Secretary. "The spirit of Canning's foreign policy was
diametrically opposed to that of Londonderry [Castlereagh].
... Refusing to interfere in Spanish affairs, he yet
acknowledged the new-won freedom of the South American States,
which had lately shaken off the Spanish yoke. To preserve peace
and yet cut England loose from the Holy Alliance were the
conflicting aims, which the genius of Canning enabled him to
reconcile [see VERONA, CONGRESS OF]. ... During the years
1824-25, the country, drunk with unusual prosperity, took that
speculation fever which has afflicted her more than once
during the last century and a half. ... A crop of fungus
companies sprang up temptingly from the heated soil of the
Stock Exchange. ... Shares were bought and gambled in. The
winter passed; but spring shone on glutted markets.
depreciated stock, no buyers, and no returns from the shadowy
and distant investments in South America, which had absorbed
so much capital. Then the crashing began--the weak broke
first, the strong next, until banks went down by dozens, and
commerce for the time was paralyzed. By causing the issue of
one and two pound notes, by coining in great haste a new
supply of sovereigns, and by inducing the Bank of England to
lend money upon the security of goods--in fact to begin the
pawnbroking business--the Government met the crisis, allayed
the panic, and to some extent restored commercial credit.
Apoplexy having struck down Lord Liverpool early in 1827, it
became necessary to select a new Premier. Canning was the
chosen man." He formed a Cabinet with difficulty in April,
Wellington, Peel, Eldon, and others of his former colleagues
refusing to take office with him. His administration was
brought abruptly to an end in August by his sudden death.
_W. F. Collier,
History of England,
pages 526-529._
ALSO IN:
_Lord Brougham,
Life and Times, by Himself,
chapters 12-18 (volume 2)._
_A. G. Stapleton,
George Canning and His Times,
chapters 18-34._
_A. G. Stapleton,
Some Official Correspondence of George Canning,
2 volumes_
_F. H. Hill,
George Canning,
chapters 19-22._
_Sir T. Martin,
Life of Lord Lyndhurst,
chapter 7._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1824-1826.
The first Burmese War.
See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1825-1830.
The beginning of railroads.
See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1827-1828.
Removal of Disabilities from the Dissenters.
Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts.
"Early in 1827 a private member, of little influence,
unexpectedly raised a dormant question. For the best part of a
century the Dissenters had passively submitted to the
anomalous position in which they had been placed by the
Legislature [see above: A. D. 1662-1665; 1672-1673;
1711-1714]. Nominally unable to hold any office under the
Crown, they were annually 'whitewashed' for their infringement
of the law by the passage of an Indemnity Act. The Dissenters
had hitherto been assenting parties to this policy. They
fancied that the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts would
logically lead to the emancipation of the Roman Catholics, and
they preferred remaining under a disability themselves to
running the risk of conceding relief to others. The tacit
understanding, which thus existed between the Church on one
side and Dissent on the other, was maintained unbroken and
almost unchallenged till 1827. It was challenged in that year
by William Smith, the member for Norwich. Smith was a London
banker; he was a Dissenter; and he felt keenly the hard,
unjust, and unnecessary' law which disabled him from holding,
any office, however insignificant, under the Crown,' and from
sitting 'as a magistrate in any corporation without violating
his conscience.' Smith took the opportunity which the annual
Indemnity Act afforded him of stating these views in the House
of Commons. As he spoke the scales fell from the eyes of the
Liberal members. The moment he sat down Harvey, the member for
Colchester, twitted the Opposition with disregarding 'the
substantial claims of the Dissenters,' while those of the
Catholics were urged year after year' with the vehemence of
party,' and supported by 'the mightiest powers of energy and
eloquence.' The taunt called up Lord John Russell, and
elicited from him the declaration that he would bring forward
a motion on the Test and Corporation Acts, 'if the Protestant
Dissenters should think it to their interest that he should do
so.' A year afterwards--on the 26th of February, 1828--Lord
John Russell rose to redeem the promise which he thus gave."
His motion "was carried by 237 votes to 193. The Ministry had
sustained a crushing and unexpected reverse. For the moment it
was doubtful whether it could continue in office. It was saved
from the necessity of resigning by the moderation and
dexterity of Peel. Peel considered that nothing could be more
unfortunate for the Church than to involve the House of
Commons in a conflict with the House of Lords on a religious
question. ... On his advice the Bishops consented to
substitute a formal declaration for the test hitherto in
force. The declaration, which contained a promise that the
maker of it would 'never exert any power or any influence to
injure or subvert the Protestant' Established Church, was to
be taken by the members of every corporation, and, at the
pleasure of the Crown, by the holder of every office. Russell,
though he disliked the declaration, assented to it for the
sake of securing the success of his measure." The bill was
modified accordingly and passed both Houses, though
strenuously resisted by all the Tories of the old school.
_S. Walpole,
History of England from 1815,
chapter 10 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_J. Stoughton,
Religion in England from 1800 to 1850,
volume 1, chapter 2._
_H. S. Skeats,
History of the Free Churches of England,
chapter 9._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1827-1828.
The administration of Lord Goderich.
Advent of the Wellington Ministry.