petty warfare in America, and on the 24th of August they burnt the
newly-built, half-finished city of Washington, and magnanimously
destroyed the city printing-press, and threw the types into the streets,
that they might be trampled under the horses feet. England being at
peace with all the rest of the world, the Government had nothing else to
do but to direct its whole force against the Americans, both by sea and
land, and I believe it was Mr. Charles Yorke, the First Lord of the
Admiralty, who put forth a speech in his place in Parliament, to the
following effect:--"That now Napoleon was deposed there was another
example of democratic revolution, and it was necessary to depose James
Madison, the President of the United States of America." This speech was
hailed and cheered by a great number of the Members of the Honourable
House, many of whom seemed to think that it was no very difficult matter
to carry it into effect. But they reckoned without their host; for the
news having arrived of the total defeat of the British fleet, on Lake
Champlain, matters began to wear a different aspect, and the boasters
were compelled to draw in their horns a little. Sir James Yeo had the
command of the English fleet upon the Lakes, and Commodore Downie, in
the Confiance, of 38 guns, had the command of the British squadron upon
Lake Champlain, supported by Captain Pring, in the Linnet, of 16 guns;
Lieutenant M'Ghee, in the Chub, of 11 guns; and Lieutenant Hix, in
the Finch, of 11 guns. Lieutenant Raynham and Lieutenant Dual had the
command of twelve gun-boats. The American squadron was commanded by
Commodore M'Donough, in the Saratoga, of 26 guns; Captain Harley, in the
Eagle, of 22 guns; and Captain----, in the Ticonderoga, of 18 guns,
with 1 sloop, and 10 gun-boats. The English fleet had 90 guns and 12
gun-boats; the American fleet had 83 guns and 10 gun-boats--so that the
British fleet had the superiority in number of guns and weight of metal.
The American fleet was anchored opposite an American battery, commanded
by General M'Coomb, at the head of 800 men. The British troops, under
the command of Sir George Prevost, amounting to thirteen thousand men,
were all drawn up on shore ready to take the battery, if the English
fleet had succeeded in beating the Americans. It was communicated to Sir
George Prevost that the English fleet would attack the Americans that
day. Commodore Downie called all his officers on board, and communicated
to each the order of battle, and his last words were, "Lieutenant M'Ghee
will lead into action; let it be close quarters, MUZZLE to MUZZLE." He
doubled a point of the American coast with a fair wind, and came in full
view of the enemy lying at anchor; the signal was then given to bear up,
and commence the action. Mr. M'Ghee carried in the Chub, of 11 guns, and
placed her gallantly close alongside of the Eagle, of 22 guns, agreeable
to orders, having sustained the fire of the gun-boats as he passed; he
blazed away at the enemy and received their fire in return, till he
himself was wounded in three places, and every man out of his complement
of sixty was either killed or wounded, with the exception of six. In
fact, the Chub was made into a cullender, and completely disabled,
before he struck her colours. The same fate attended the Confiance, the
Linnet, and the Finch, the latter of which grounded on a reef of rocks
about the middle of the engagement. The gun-boats appear absolutely to
have run away. Thus was the British fleet captured by an inferior
fleet of the Americans. Commodore Downie was killed by a ball from the
American gun-boats very early in the contest, and the Confiance is said
to have struck her colours without coming fairly into action; the result
was, the British fleet was lost, and the officers were tried by a Court
Martial. All the others were promoted, and the gallant Lieutenant M'Ghee
was reprimanded for taking his ship prematurely into action. This is
a pretty specimen of British justice in the naval department, and a
melancholy example of the reward bestowed upon the gallant officers and
men who fought our battles and maintained the British character.
On the 1st of November was opened the Congress at Vienna, where Lord
Castlereagh, as the representative of the King of England, attended,
and where it is generally believed he played second fiddle to Prince
Metternich.
In consequence of the peace, and the Bank of England having drawn in
a considerable quantity of its paper, preparatory to the payment in
specie, which, as the law stood, they were compelled to at the end of
six months after the peace had been proclaimed; in consequence of this,
and there having been a good crop of wheat and a fair harvest, the
average price of wheat during the year was seventy-four shillings per
quarter, and the price of the quartern loaf was reduced to one shilling.
Notwithstanding this, many riots took place in Nottinghamshire and
Leicestershire, by the Luddites, who continued to set the laws at
defiance, and to break the frames in the most lawless and unwarrantable
manner. Their hostility was directed against all sorts of machinery, but
particularly against the looms and frames used for weaving and knitting
in the stocking trade.
The supplies voted this year amounted to seventy-five millions six
hundred and twenty-four thousand five hundred and seventy-two pounds.
By a return, it appeared that the amount of Bank of England notes in
circulation was between twenty-eight and twenty-nine millions, and that
the number of private banks was seven hundred and twenty-four.
The Parliament had met late in the fall of 1814, but little was done
of importance, except passing the address, and a Bill called "the
Preservation of Peace Bill," to put down by force the disturbances in
Ireland. The state of Ireland had become very alarming, as the poor
Irish were suffering the greatest privations from bad government and
severe laws; which laws were exercised with the greatest severity,
to support an infamous tithe system and a national church, the most
profligate, the most expensive and rapacious that ever existed; a
church in every respect hostile to the religion of four-fifths of the
inhabitants, and a priesthood proud, overbearing, and intolerant.
In the higher circles it was now confidently given out that the Princess
Charlotte, the heir apparent to the throne of England, was to be married
to the hereditary Prince of Orange; but the disposition of her Royal
Highness had been greatly soured by the infamous treatment of her poor
mother, and, conceiving that this said young Dutch upstart had not paid
her mother proper respect and attention, but that he was more disposed
to fawn and cringe to the will of her father, it is said that she
dismissed him from her presence, and peremptorily refused to marry him.
This drove her Royal Papa into a great passion, and our magnanimous
Prince Regent went suddenly to Warwick House, the residence of his
daughter, and discharged all her servants. She, however, proved herself
a legitimate Guelph, in obstinacy, at any rate; for she refused to see
the young Orange afterwards. This young lady had secured the affections
of every honourable and unprejudiced person in the kingdom, by her
undeviating attachment to her mother, and she gained the hearts of
thousands by her firm and undaunted opposition to the arbitrary mandates
of her father, with respect to that mother.
The Parliament met very early after the adjournment, and the first Act
they passed was to renew _the restriction of cash payments by the Bank
of England;_ another violation of a positive pledge of the Honourable
House, another gross breach of faith committed upon the people by a
corrupt Parliament, which had solemnly declared by an act that the Bank
should be compelled to pay their notes in specie at the end of six
months after peace was made.
Accounts were now brought to England that Napoleon was reigning in full
sovereignty at Elba, and all the corrupt writers in the Ministerial and
daily press were sneering at the idea of his fancied sovereignty. But by
the solemn treaty of Paris, Napoleon was as much an Emperor as he ever
had been as much a Sovereign as the Emperor of Russia; and, by the law
of nations, quite as much entitled to make war or peace with other
powers as was the King of England, the King of France, or any other
Sovereign. But these writers, as I have before said, were daily
ridiculing his sovereignty, and holding his power in derision. But it
will be seen hereafter, that it is a very dangerous thing to treat with
contempt the hostility of an enemy, however weak that enemy may be. In
the meantime Louis the Desired, the contemptible King of France, decreed
that the property of the Buonaparte family should be sequestred; the old
Bourbon tyranny was making the most rapid strides; the press was much
more enslaved than under the reign of Napoleon; disturbances had broken
out in many parts of France; yet such was the dreadful, enthralled state
of the press, that no one dared to mention them, nor were they ever
known but by the proclamations of the King, to restrain and repress
them. The finances of France were, nevertheless, in a flourishing state;
their trade was fast reviving, and every means that ingenuity could
devise were resorted to, to induce the people to feel for royalty; and,
amongst other things, a solemn funeral for the late King and Queen of
France took place, which was conducted with great pomp and ceremony.
In America, the English were routed at New Orleans, by General Jackson,
who, with an undisciplined militia, and very inferior numbers, caused
great slaughter amongst the British troops; in fact, the number killed
in the English ranks amounted to more than the whole number of the
American troops, so expert were the riflemen, and so superior were the
abilities of the American General Jackson. This was a death-blow to the
hopes of the English, for the bravery of the Americans appeared to be
invincible; they were in truth fighting for Liberty, for themselves and
their country, and not for any despot or any despotism. This fine spirit
gained them a peace, which it may fairly be said they fought for, bled
for, and ultimately obtained by conquest; and James Madison remained,
in spite of all the threats of deposing him, President of the only free
people upon the habitable globe. Thus, as I hope and trust, have they
secured and placed upon an imperishable basis, the liberties and just
rights of their people. They had a right to be proud of their success.
England, at peace with all the rest of the world, carried on a war with
America; yet the latter, single-handed, not only met and contended with,
but repelled the mighty power of her adversary, and by the equity of her
cause, and the bravery of her citizens, she conquered a peace, in spite
of the threats of England's haughty, bullying, ignorant, and intolerant
Ministers, who had declared that _the right of search_ was a _sine qua
non_ which must form the basis of any negotiation. Ultimately, however,
these very Ministers were glad to make peace with the Americans, by
saying nothing about the _sine qua non_, the _right of search_, for
which they had gone to war. England went to war almost solely to
maintain the _right of search_; the Americans went to war to resist that
right; and England having made peace, and suffered the right of search
to be passed over in silence, the Americans have gained their object,
and the English have lost the point which was the cause of the war.
On the 17th of January in this year, 1815, a Catholic meeting was held
in Dublin, at which it was determined to petition Parliament for an
unqualified emancipation.
The price of wheat and all sorts of grain having been reduced, the
great landholders had been for some time raising a cry, that the landed
interest was in danger, and that the farmers would be ruined unless some
law was made to keep up the price of grain to the war standard, which,
on an average, was from twelve to fifteen shillings a bushel. The
Ministers had been pressed hard by the great landholders, in both Houses
of Parliament, to bring forward such a measure; but, knowing and feeling
the unpopularity to which it would expose them, they had, from time
to time, put them off, and they appeared to discountenance any such
proposition, whenever it was mentioned in the House. At length, however,
the Ministers gave way to the urgent demands of the landholders,
although apparently with great reluctance and considerable doubts. In
several districts the landholders urged the farmers and their tenants
to petition the House for a Corn Bill. Amongst the number of these
landholders, the most active and the most forward to promote such
petitions in Wiltshire and the West of England, was Mr. John Benett,
of Pyt-House, near Shaftesbury, the present Member for that county.
Committees of both Houses of Parliament were appointed to inquire into
the state of agriculture, for the purpose of ascertaining what measures
it were necessary to take, or what Act to pass to keep up the price of
corn, or rather to keep up the price of the quartern loaf to the war
standard. Mr. John Benett was one of the witnesses who volunteered to be
examined at great length before both of these Committees, that of the
House of Lords as well as that of the House of Commons.
As soon as the evidence given before these Committees was published, I
rode over to Botley, to my friend Cobbett, to urge him to take a _more
decided part_ against the measure; for I thought I discovered in his
Register a leaning towards a Corn Bill, or rather the doctrine was
maintained that it was necessary to protect the farmer as well as the
merchants and other trades. When I arrived, I found him endeavouring, by
arguments the most powerful, to shew the injustice of leaving the farmer
open to the competition of foreign growers, who could raise the grain at
half the expense which must be incurred by the native growers. Perhaps
this was said to ascertain my sentiments upon the subject, which I
immediately, and in the most unequivocal manner, stated to be in direct
opposition to the measure. I argued against the injustice of making
the mechanic and the labourer pay a war price for his bread in time
of peace, and I maintained that it was the duty of the farmer and the
landholder to petition for a reduction of taxation, so as to enable
him to compete with the foreign farmer, instead of petitioning for a
monopoly by his exclusion. In five minutes my friend Cobbett was either
convinced of the propriety and justice of my remarks, or at any rate he
professed to be so; and he concurred with me in the necessity of calling
upon the public to come forward to oppose so injurious and ruinous a
measure as that which was contemplated. I pointed out to him the fallacy
and the hypocrisy of those who pretended to be anxious for the good of
the farmer, and we both very soon came to this conclusion, that a Corn
Bill would be ultimately injurious to the farmer, and that the only
result of it would be, to raise the price of the _staff of life_, and to
grind the face of the poor, to enable the farmer to continue to pay high
taxes, for the support of an unconstitutional large standing army in
the time of peace, and to enable the lazy sinecurist and the unmerited
pensioner to wallow in wealth and riot in luxury, drawn from the sweat
of the poor man's labour. From this time forward Mr. Cobbett took the
most decisive part in opposition to every movement of the Corn Bill
gentry.
Sir Henry Parnell, an Irish Member, ONE OF THE OPPOSITION, brought
forward the measure in the House of Commons, and I believe he was
Chairman of the Committee. I will now put upon record a few questions
and answers, extracted from the evidence of the aforesaid John Benett,
Esq. of Pyt-House, voluntarily given before the Committee of the House
of Lords, in favour of a Corn Bill, which evidence was printed by order
of the Right Honourable House:
_The Evidence of_ JOHN BENETT, _Esq. of Pyt-House_, voluntarily _given
lefore the Committee of the House of Lords, in favour of the Corn Bill._
You hold a considerable quantity of land in your own hands?--I do.
What number of acres?--I believe upwards of 2000 acres, in various
parishes in the western part of Wiltshire, about twelve miles from
Warminster.--My residence is Pyt-House, in Wiltshire.
Have you any general information about the state of that quarter of the
country, or can you speak only to the particular district in which you
reside?--I can speak to the county of Wilts; for I am in the habit of
riding through it very often, and am in the habit of meeting with the
farmers in the county, from having been for some years a farmer, and am
now President of the Agricultural Society of that county. Can you give
the Committee any account of the increase and alterations that have
taken place in the value and prices of the different articles of produce
from land, and the expenses of cultivation, and from what period?--I
can speak to nearly twenty years. The price of wheat has varied so
very materially, it is more easily ascertained from the returns of the
markets than from recollection.
In the present state of the improved cultivation of those parts of the
county of Wilts with which you are acquainted, can you state the various
prices which it will be necessary for the farmer to receive for the
different species of grain he rears, in order to remunerate him for
his expenses?--Taking the taxes, the price of labour, and all outgoing
expenses of the farmer as they now stand, and the rents at which land
has lately been let, I do not conceive the farmer can possibly raise
wheat, and remunerate himself with ten per cent. interest upon his
capital, under 12_s_. a bushel, or 96_s_. per quarter.
If the farmer was to receive only 75_s_. per quarter, would he be
capable of paying any rent at all?--No, he certainly would not be able
to pay his rent, and get his ten per cent. upon his capital.
Is land generally let in Wiltshire upon the supposition that wheat will
stand at 96_s_. and barley at half the price of wheat?--I believe that
lands have been let even at a higher calculation than that; I am in the
habit of valuing estates of my own as well as of others, and of giving
opinions to my friends; and I have always calculated upon 12_s_. a
bushel, and I believe surveyors do the same; many of the estates let by
survey let at a much greater calculation, or rather, I believe, without
any.
Do you believe there is any surveyor who practises the surveying of
estates for the purpose of fixing rents, who proceeds on the calculation
of wheat being at a higher price than 12_s_. per bushel, or 96_s_.
a quarter?--I believe no estates have been let in Wiltshire, by our
first-rate surveyors, on a calculation of more than 12_s_. per bushel,
or 96_s_. per quarter, for the last eight years, since the high price of
corn and the competition for estates.
If wheat should be at 80_s_. and other grains at a proportionate price,
do you believe the farmers would continue in the cultivation of their
land at the expense of the present mode of culture?--Certainly not; I
think less wheat would be sown, and less money would be expended in
the cultivation of land. From your knowledge of the general ideas of
farmers, do you believe that the same opinion you have expressed to the
Committee upon this subject is generally entertained?--With respect to
renting farmers I believe the same opinion prevails with those who have
leases they cannot get rid of; but where they have not leases, or their
landlords will permit them to surrender them, they are not under the
same alarm, because they will quit their farms altogether, unless they
can get a reduction in their rent in proportion to the price of corn;
but no reduction of rent will answer as it stands now, it will exhaust
the whole rent.
Do you know of any farmers who have actually withdrawn their capital
from agriculture?--No, I do not; but a tenant of my own surrendered a
beneficial agreement, of which there were seven years to come. I gave my
tenants notice that I would not promise to sink their rents, but that
they might surrender their leases altogether.
At what value of wheat did you compute the rent which the tenant
paid you under the lease, of which only one year has run?--I made no
particular computation for that; I have been in the habit of making
valuations of my own farms; I have generally taken it at 12_s_.; I could
have got more for this estate, it being a particularly valuable farm; I
made no particular calculation as to this farm. I have another tenant,
whose term of seven years only has expired; I expected to have raised
his rent nearly 400_l_. per annum, upon a rent of 870_l_.; I have not
raised him a farthing; I dare not propose to raise him; I think he would
quit me if I should attempt it; and I doubt my power of letting it, if
he should quit me. I directed my surveyor to look over his farm, and let
me know the price he thought I might put upon it, and if he thought
it would bear raising, to let me know; and I have not heard from him,
though he looked over it about two months ago.
How long had he possessed it at the rent of 870_l_.?--Only seven years.
At what rate did you calculate the value of wheat at that time?--At
12_s_. a bushel.
At what would you have calculated the price of wheat if you had raised
it?--It is proper I should explain that; I did not in fact fix the rent;
I agreed he should take it at the Commissioners' valuation, it being
then just laid in under the act of inclosure.
Do you know whether the Commissioners fixed the rent, calculating wheat
at 12_s_. a bushel?--I do not; but I told him at the time I considered
the Commissioners' valuation would be a certain price; that if the
valuation was lower than the price, he should have it at the lower rate;
the Commissioners' valuation exceeded my price, therefore he has it at
the price named by me, though I thought it too little.
Is it a farm which requires the application of much capital to render it
productive?--Yes, it does.
When you had in your own mind settled that you would get an advanced
rent of 400_l_. a year, what did you take the price of wheat at in
forming that calculation?--I conceived wheat was higher than 12_s_.
a bushel, not more than 13_s_. a bushel. I have not valued this farm
particularly at 400_l_. a year more, but I felt that the farm was worth
400_l_. a year more than I had let it at.
You have said that at the time the Commissioners valued it, you believe
they proceeded on the idea that wheat was worth 12_s_. a bushel?--No,
I do not know what calculation the Commissioners made; they were three
eminent surveyors.
When it passed in your mind that you would get 400_l_. a year more, was
not that in consequence of your having an opinion that the Commissioners
had fixed the land at a lower rent than if wheat were calculated at
12_s_. a bushel?--Certainly it was.
And your idea of getting 1270_l_. was in consequence of what passed
in your mind as to wheats being fairly to be valued at 12_s_. a
bushel?--Certainly it was.
Having stated your knowledge to be general over the county of Wilts, and
having stated your calculation of wheat to be at 12_s_. for the last
seven years, do you apply that to the farms within your own immediate
knowledge, or over the county of Wilts generally?--I believe that
generally over the county of Wilts, 12_s_. is the lowest calculation
which has been made by surveyors in letting land.
If a free importation should take place, how many rents do you think the
farmer will be able to make then?--It depends entirely upon what effect
the free importation may have upon the price of corn; taking wheat at
8_s_. a bushel, and taking all agricultural expenses to stand as they
now do, I conceive the farmer with an average crop; cannot pay any
rent at all. You conceive a proprietor farming his own estate, with a
competent share of skill and capital, would be a loser if the price of
wheat was 8_s_. a bushel?--Yes, I do.