1810.
The Scheldt Expedition—The Earl of Chatham and Sir Richard
Strachan—The citizens of London and the King—General Fast—Financial
disorganization—Issue of stamped dollars—How they were smuggled out
of the country—John Gale Jones and John Dean before the House of
Commons—Sir Francis Burdett interferes—Publishes libel in _Cobbett’s
Weekly Political Register_—Debate in the House—Sir Francis Burdett
committed to the Tower.
ALTHOUGH the Walcheren Expedition was undertaken, and failed, in 1809,
it was criticized by the country, both in and out of Parliament, in
this year.
It started in all its pride, and glory, on the 28th of July, 1809, a
beautiful fleet of thirty-nine sail of the line, thirty-six frigates,
besides accompanying gunboats and transports. These were under the
command of Sir Richard Strachan, Admiral Otway, and Lord Gardner;
whilst the land force of forty thousand men was under the chief command
of the Earl of Chatham, who was somewhat notorious for his indolence
and inefficiency.
At first, the destination of the fleet was kept a profound secret,
but it soon leaked out that Vlissing, or Flushing, in the Island of
Walcheren, which lies at the mouth of the Scheldt, was the point aimed
at. Middleburgh surrendered to the English on the 2nd of August,
and on the 15th after a fearful bombardment, the town of Flushing
surrendered. General Monnet, the commander, and over five thousand men
were taken prisoners of war.
Nothing was done to take advantage of this success, and, on the 27th of
August, when Sir Richard Strachan waited upon the Earl of Chatham to
learn the steps he intended to take, he found, to his great disgust,
that the latter had come to the conclusion not to advance.
About the middle of September, the Earl, finding that a large army was
collecting at Antwerp, thought it would be more prudent to leave with a
portion of his army for England, and accordingly did so. He resolved to
keep Flushing, and the Island of Walcheren, to guard the mouth of the
Scheldt, and keep it open for British commerce; but it was a swampy,
pestilential place, and the men sickened, and died of fever, until, at
last, the wretched remnant of this fine army was obliged to return,
and, on the 23rd of December, 1809, Flushing was evacuated.
Popular indignation was very fierce with regard to the Earl of Chatham,
and a scathing epigram was made on him, of which there are scarce two
versions alike.
“Lord Chatham, with his sword undrawn,
Stood, waiting for Sir Richard Strachan;
Sir Richard, longing to be at ‘em,
Stood waiting for the Earl of Chatham.”[33]
The Caricaturists, of course, could not leave such a subject alone, and
Rowlandson drew two (September 14, 1809). “A design for a Monument to
be erected in commemoration of the glorious and never to be forgotten
Grand Expedition, so ably planned and executed in the year 1809.” There
is nothing particularly witty about this print. Amongst other things it
has a shield on which is William, the great Earl of Chatham, obscured
by clouds; and the supporters are on one side a “British seaman in the
dumps,” and on the other “John Bull, somewhat gloomy, but for what, it
is difficult to guess after so glorious an achievement.” The motto is—
“Great Chatham, with one hundred thousand men,
To Flushing sailed, and then sailed back again.”
And ten days later—on the 24th of September—he published “General
Chatham’s marvellous return from his Exhibition of Fireworks.”
The citizens of London were highly indignant at the incapacity
displayed by the Earl of Chatham, and in December, they, through the
Lord Mayor, memorialized the King, begging him to cause inquiry to
be made as to the cause of the failure of the expedition; but George
the Third did not brook interference, and he gave them a right royal
snubbing. His answer was as follows:
“I thank you for your expressions of duty and attachment to me and to
my family.
The recent Expedition to the Scheldt was directed to several objects
of great importance to the interest of my Allies, and to the security
of my dominions.
I regret that, of these objects, a part, only, has been accomplished.
I have not judged it necessary to direct any Military Inquiry into the
conduct of my Commanders by Sea or Land, in this conjoint service.
It will be for my Parliament, in their wisdom, to ask for such
information, or to take such measures upon this subject as they shall
judge most conducive to the public good.”
But the citizens, who bore their share of the war right nobly, would
not stand this, and they held a Common Hall on the 9th of January,
1810, and instructed their representatives to move, or support, an
Address to His Majesty, praying for an inquiry into the failures of
the late expeditions to Spain, Portugal, and Holland. They drew up
a similar address, and asserted a right to deliver such address, or
petition, to the King upon his throne.
Nothing, however, came of it, and when Parliament was opened, by
Commission, on the 23rd of January, 1810, that part of His Majesty’s
speech relating to the Walcheren Expedition was extremely brief and
unsatisfactory: “These considerations determined His Majesty to employ
his forces on an expedition to the Scheldt. Although the principal
ends of this expedition had not been attained, His Majesty confidently
hopes that advantages, materially affecting the security of His
Majesty’s dominions in the further prosecution of the war, will be
found to result from the demolition of the docks, and arsenals, at
Flushing. This important object His Majesty was enabled to accomplish,
in consequence of the reduction of the Island of Walcheren by the
valour of his fleets and armies. His Majesty has given directions that
such documents and papers should be laid before you, as he trusts will
afford satisfactory information upon the subject of this expedition.”
And Parliament had those papers, and fought over them many nights;
held, also, a Select Committee on the Scheldt Expedition, and examined
many officers thereon; and, finally, on the 30th of March, they divided
on what was virtually a vote of censure on the Government, if not
carried—a motion declaratory of the approbation of the House in the
retention of Walcheren until its evacuation; when the numbers were—
Ayes 255
Noes 232
———
Majority for the Ministry 23
———
John, Earl of Chatham, had, however, to bow to the storm, and resign
his post of Master General of the Ordnance; but his Court favour soon
befriended him again. Three years afterwards, he was made full General,
and on the death of the Duke of York he was appointed Governor of
Gibraltar.
The 28th of February was set apart for the Annual Day of Fasting and
Humiliation, and in its routine it resembled all others. The Lords went
to Westminster Abbey, the Commons to St. Margaret’s Church, and the
Volunteers had Church Parades.
On the 1st of February, Mr. Francis Horner, M.P. for Wendover, moved
for a variety of accounts, and returns, respecting the present state of
the circulating medium, and the bullion trade. The price of gold was
abnormally high, and paper proportionately depreciated. His conjecture
to account for this—and it seems a highly probable one—was that the
high price of gold might be produced partly by a larger circulation
of Bank of England paper than was necessary, and partly by the new
circumstances in which the foreign trade of this country was placed,
by which a continual demand for bullion was produced, not merely to
discharge the balance of trade, as in the ordinary state of things, but
for the purpose of carrying on some of the most important branches of
our commerce; such as the purchase of naval stores from the Baltic, and
grain from countries under the control and dominion of the enemy.
Recourse was had to an issue of Dollars in order to relieve the
monetary pressure; and we read in the _Morning Post_ of February 22nd,
“A large boat full of dollars is now on its way by the canal, from
Birmingham. The dollars have all been re-stamped at Messrs. Bolton and
Watts, and will be issued on their arrival at the Bank.” These must not
be confounded with the old Spanish dollars which were stamped earlier
in the century, and about which there was such an outcry as to the
Bank refusing to retake them; but from the same handsome die as those
struck in 1804 to guard against forgery—having on the Obverse, the
King’s head, with the legend, “GEORGIUS III. DEI GRATIA”; and on the
Reverse, the Royal Arms, within the garter, crowned, and the legend,
“BRITANNIARUM REX. FIDEI DEFENSOR,” and the date.[34]
But these were snapped up, and smuggled out of the country, as we see
by a paragraph in the same paper (March 9th): “Thirty thousand of the
re-stamped dollars were seized on board a Dutch Schuyt in the river, a
few days since. The public are, perhaps, little aware that the Dutch
fishermen, who bring us plaice and eels, will receive nothing in return
but gold and silver.” This doubtless was so, but no cargo of fish could
have been worth 30,000 dollars.
Gold was scarce, as will be seen by the following note: (April 3rd):
“Several ships were last week paid at Plymouth all in new gold coin;
and, on Saturday last, the artificers belonging to the Dockyard, were
paid their wages in new half-guineas. It was pleasing to see the smiles
on the men’s countenances at the sight of these strangers. The Jews and
slop merchants are busily employed in purchasing this desirable coin,
and substituting provincial and other bank paper in its room.”
That a large, and profitable, trade was done in smuggling the gold
coinage out of the country is evident. _Morning Post_, 28th of July:
“Two fresh seizures have lately been made of guineas, which have for
some time been so scarce that it is difficult to conceive whence
the supply can have been drawn. A deposit of 9,000 guineas, was on
Thursday discovered in a _snug_ recess, at the head of the mast of
a small vessel in the Thames, which had just discharged a cargo of
French wheat; another seizure of 4,500 guineas was made at Deal on the
preceding day.”
_Morning Post_, December 10, 1810: “The tide surveyor at Harwich
seized, a few days since, on board a vessel at that port, twenty-two
bars of gold, weighing 2,870 ounces. He found the gold concealed
between the timbers of the vessel, under about thirty tons of shingle
ballast.”
In writing the social history of this year, it would be impossible to
keep silence as to the episode of Sir Francis Burdett’s behaviour, and
subsequent treatment.
Curiously enough, it arose out of the Scheldt Expedition. On the 19th
of February the Right Hon. Charles Yorke, M.P. for Cambridgeshire,
rose, and complained of a breach of privilege in a placard printed
by a certain John Dean—which was as follows: “WINDHAM AND YORKE,
BRITISH FORUM, 33, BEDFORD STREET, COVENT GARDEN, MONDAY, FEB. 19,
1810. Question:—Which was the greater outrage upon the public feeling,
Mr. Yorke’s enforcement of the standing order to exclude strangers
from the House of Commons, or Mr. Windham’s recent attack upon the
liberty of the press? The great anxiety manifested by the public at
this critical period to become acquainted with the proceedings of the
House of Commons, and to ascertain who were the authors and promoters
of the late calamitous expedition to the Scheldt, together with the
violent attacks made by Mr. Windham on the newspaper reporters (whom he
described as ‘bankrupts, lottery office keepers, footmen, and decayed
tradesmen’) have stirred up the public feeling, and excited universal
attention. The present question is therefore brought forward as a
comparative inquiry, and may be justly expected to furnish a contested
and interesting debate. Printed by J. Dean, 57, Wardour Street.” It was
ordered that the said John Dean do attend at the bar of the house the
next day.
He did so, and pleaded that he was employed to print the placard by
John Gale Jones—and the interview ended with John Dean being committed
to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms—and John Gale Jones, was
ordered to attend the House next day.
When he appeared at the bar, he acknowledged that he was the author
of the placard, and regretted that the printer should have been
inconvenienced. That he had always considered it the privilege of every
Englishman to animadvert on public measures, and the conduct of public
men; but that, on looking over the paper again, he found he had erred,
and, begging to express his contrition, he threw himself on the mercy
of the House.
John Dean, meanwhile, had presented a petition, acknowledging printing
the bill, but that it was done by his workmen without his personal
attention. He was ordered to be brought to the bar, reprimanded, and
discharged—all which came to pass. Gale, however, was committed to
Newgate, where he remained until the 21st of June, when Parliament
rose, in spite of a motion of Sir Samuel Romilly (April 16th) that he
be discharged from his confinement; the House divided—Ayes 112; Noes
160; majority for his further imprisonment, 48.
On a previous occasion (March 12th), Sir Francis Burdett had moved
his discharge, but, on a division, fourteen only were for it, and
153 against it. In his speech he denied the legal right of the House
to commit any one to prison for such an offence—and he published in
_Cobbett’s Weekly Political Register_ of Saturday, March 24, 1810, a
long address: “SIR FRANCIS BURDETT TO HIS CONSTITUENTS; DENYING THE
POWER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS TO IMPRISON THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND.”
It is too long to reproduce, but its tone may be judged of, by the
following extract: “At this moment, it is true, we see but one man
actually in jail for having displeased those Gentlemen; but the fate
of this one man (as is the effect of punishments) will deter others
from expressing their opinions of the conduct of those who have had
the power, to punish him. And, moreover, it is in the nature of all
power, and especially of assumed and undefined power, to increase as
it advances in age; and, as Magna Charta and the law of the land have
not been sufficient to protect Mr. Jones; as we have seen him sent to
jail for having described the conduct of one of the members, as _an
outrage upon public feeling_, what security have we, unless this power
of imprisonment be given up, that we shall not see other men sent to
jail for stating their opinion respecting Rotten Boroughs, respecting
Placemen, and Pensioners, sitting in the House; or, in short, for
making any declaration, giving any opinion, stating any fact, betraying
any feeling, whether by writing, by word of mouth, or by gesture,
which may displease any of the Gentlemen assembled in St. Stephen’s
Chapel?” This was supplemented by a most elaborate “Argument,” and on
the 27th of March the attention of Parliament was called thereto by Mr.
Lethbridge, M.P. for Somerset.
The alleged breach of privilege was read by a clerk, and Sir Francis
was called upon to say whatever he could, in answer to the charge
preferred against him. He admitted the authorship both of the Address
and Argument and would stand the issue of them. Mr. Lethbridge then
moved the following resolutions: “1st. Resolved that the Letter signed
Francis Burdett, and the further Argument, which was published in the
paper called _Cobbett’s Weekly Register_, on the 24th of this instant,
is a libellous and scandalous paper, reflecting upon the just rights
and privileges of this House. 2nd. Resolved, That Sir Francis Burdett,
who suffered the above articles to be printed with his name, and by his
authority, has been guilty of a violation of the privileges of this
House.”
The debate was the fiercest of the session. It was adjourned to the
28th, and the 5th of April, when Mr. Lethbridge’s resolutions were
agreed to without a division, and Sir Robert Salusbury, M.P. for
Brecon, moved that Sir Francis Burdett be committed to the Tower. An
amendment was proposed that he be reprimanded in his place; but, on
being put, it was lost by 190 to 152—38, and at seven o’clock in the
morning of the 6th of April, Sir Francis’s doom was decreed.
[Illustration]