abominable, and as the jurors were mostly selected from amongst the
tenantry of the Duke of Devonshire, the prisoners had not the slightest
chance of escape, even if Mr. Cross had done his duty; but, so far was
he from doing it, that he actually confessed the guilt of his clients,
and urged as a palliation, that they were led into the insurrection by
reading the writings of Cobbett. The principal witnesses, in my opinion,
for the prisoners, were never examined; and, although Mr. Denman made
an eloquent appeal to the jury, yet he could not remove the impression
which had been left upon the minds of the jurors and of the whole Court
by the _precious pleadings_ of Mr. Cross. Brandreth and four others
were found guilty of high treason. Brandreth, Turner, and Ludlam, were
executed shortly afterwards, and Mr. Cross was speedily promoted to a
silk gown, as a King's Sergeant at Law.
The avenging hand of Providence, however, caused the announcement of the
_execution of these men_, and _the Death of the_ PRINCESS CHARLOTTE OF
SAXE-COBURG AND HER INFANT SON, to appear in the newspapers of the day
at one and the same time. The death of this Princess was so mysterious,
and attended with such singular circumstances, that I dare not trust
myself to write upon the subject. The whole nation appeared to mourn her
loss, much more, I believe, in consequence of her having always espoused
the cause of her unhappy and persecuted mother, than from any conviction
or well-grounded hope that any public good would ever be derived from
her being our future Queen. A certain party at Court could not disguise
the satisfaction which they felt at being released from a most
persevering and troublesome advocate of the Princess of Wales, her
mother. But the nation had this delightful comfort, that the gallant
PRINCE OF SAXE-COBURG bore his loss with great fortitude, and was likely
to survive his wife for many, many years, to enjoy the spending of
FIFTY-THOUSAND POUNDS A-YEAR, which had been settled upon him for life,
in case the Princess should _pop off_.
I have omitted one circumstance which occurred in the spring of the
year, and which I shall now briefly notice. Mr. Sergeant BEST, who was
one of the Members for Bridport, was appointed Chief Justice of Chester,
a post which he had been long seeking for in vain. His client, Colonel
Despard, had been executed for nearly fifteen years, yet Mr. Sergeant
had only been promoted to a silk gown; and in spite of every effort
to become a Judge, he had been frustrated, it is understood, by the
objections raised by the Lord Chancellor. He, therefore, procured a seat
in Parliament, and became a violent oppositionist to the Government. At
length, the Prince Regent, it is said, demanded his promotion, and he
was appointed to the Chief Justiceship of Chester, which is the stepping
stone to the Bench. He vacated his seat for Bridport, as a matter of
course; and, as it was expected he would be returned again for that
borough without any opposition, I thought it would be a good opportunity
to remind him of the fate of Despard, and of his own apostacy, in
quitting his pretended opposition as soon as he was offered a place of
profit under the Crown. Without further ceremony, therefore, I drove to
Bridport, about three days before the election commenced, and announced
my intention of opposing the election of the Welch Judge, and former
counsel for Despard. Though I was not known to a single person in
the town of Bridport, yet I was received with great kindness by a
considerable portion of the electors, and was at once promised the
support of some of the most respectable of them. The Welch Judge,
however, did not make his appearance; but in his stead came a young
'Squire Sturt, the son of BEST'S former patron. As I had avowedly
attended only for the purpose of opposing and exposing the Chief Justice
of Chester, I now, at the request of some of those whose support against
Best I chiefly relied upon, declined to offer myself in opposition to
the young 'Squire, who possessed a majority of the houses in which the
small voters lived, and whose father had always been a great favourite
in the borough. I gained great credit for the manner in which I did
this, in an address to the electors from the hustings, declaring that my
only object was to expose the delinquency of their former Member, the
new Welch Judge. The reader will observe that I had no acquaintance with
Mr. Sergeant Best, nor had even in the remotest degree ever had any
connection with him, or come in contact with him, either in the way
of his profession or otherwise. I was solely actuated by public duty,
without the slightest cause for personal dislike to the lawyer. Perhaps
those who have read what I have written since I came here, will not now
be at a loss to account for the vindictive hostility of the venerable
Judge towards me, when I was brought up for judgment, and since I have
been here. They may now account for that Judge's voting for my having
SIX YEARS imprisonment, and for his having afterwards come the western
circuit, and signed an order, drawn up by the junto of Somersetshire
Magistrates, for placing and keeping me in solitary confinement for the
last _ten months_ of my incarceration.
The people of Bridport will never forget my visit, particularly _Mr.
Denzelo_, the printer, who refused to print my address to the electors,
after having taken the copy, and given his promise to do it, and a _Mr.
Nicholets_, an attorney. I shall forbear to relate the circumstances,
and the ridiculous figure which they cut, especially the latter, upon
being detected and exposed before his own townsmen in their public hall.
This exposure was ample punishment for such men, without my placing the
particulars of their disgrace upon record. I was invited to remain in
Bridport after the election, which invitation I accepted, and before I
left the town I waited upon every voter to thank him for his civility;
and, with only one or two exceptions, I received the most polite
attention and kind welcome; nearly two-thirds of the electors
voluntarily promised to give me their votes at the next election,
whenever it might happen. If I had gone there again I should have
certainly had a considerable majority of votes, without making any
promise whatever; but, as I learnt that it was expected that an
after-bribe would be given, I declined the honour of deceiving them and
disgracing myself.
One curious fact which occurred I cannot avoid relating. I have since
ascertained, that the person whom I took from Salisbury with me to
Bridport, treacherously communicated all my plans and movements to my
opponents, every night before he went to bed; and, what is still more
curious, I have learnt that he was actually in correspondence with my
LORD CASTLEREAGH. I very soon afterwards obtained the knowledge of this
latter fact, and of course as soon declined the honour of any farther
connection with a person who had such high acquaintance.
On the 18th of December, Mr. Hone, the bookseller, was tried in the
Court of King's Bench, before Mr. Justice Abbott (who sat for the Chief
Justice Ellenborough) and a London special jury. The offence which he
was charged with was that of publishing a parody. After an animated and
eloquent defence, made by Mr. Hone in person, which lasted seven
hours, the jury returned a verdict of acquittal. The Chief Justice
Ellenborough, who was ill at the time, was so enraged at this verdict,
that be came into Court the next morning, and presided when Mr. Hone was
tried for a second parody. His Lordship did every thing to intimidate,
to interrupt, and to browbeat Mr. Hone, who, however, proved himself
much the bravest as well as the most able man, and after a defence,
similar to that of the day previous, which lasted eight hours, another
jury of the city of London acquitted him. On the day following, the 20th
of December, he was tried before the Chief Justice and another special
jury of the city of London, for a third parody, and after another
defence, which lasted nine hours, he was a third time acquitted. What
enhances the merit of Mr. Hone's courageous defence is, that during the
whole of the time he was labouring under indisposition. There is not
the least doubt but these verdicts of acquittal, added to that of the
acquittal of Dr. Watson, were the cause of Lord Ellenborough's death;
at any rate, his decease was greatly hastened by the irritation arising
from such repeated disappointments; for in all these cases his Lordship
strongly charged the jury for a verdict of guilty, and no agent of the
Government ever worked harder to obtain a verdict than his Lordship did.
Ultimately this great lawyer became an ideot, and I have understood from
pretty good authority, that for some time before his death he was in the
constant habit of repeating the names of _Watson_ and _Hone_, with the
most evident symptoms of horror and dismay, which he continued to do
till the very last, as long, at least, as he was capable of utterance.
Thus ended the year 1817, one of the most eventful of British history.
The prospect was most gloomy: the poor were greatly distressed for want
of employment: provisions were dear, the quartern loaf averaged about
thirteen pence, and there was a general depression of trade. At the
same time, every honest man in the kingdom considered himself as being
injured and insulted by the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and,
indeed, a general feeling of disgust prevailed as to the proceedings
adopted by the Government. As for the moral state of the country, and
the wretchedness of the people, it is only necessary to record three
or four facts: at Manchester, in the year 1797, the poor-rates were
16,941_l_., but this year, 1817, they amounted to 65,212_l_. The number
of forged notes stopped by the Bank of England, since the year 1814,
that is, during the space of two years, amounted to 113,361_l_., and in
the year 1817, the Bank prosecuted ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-TWO PERSONS
_for forgery, or uttering forged notes_; and to support such a system as
this, the peace establishment of the standing army, the land forces,
for this year, amounted to ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-THREE THOUSAND FIVE
HUNDRED AND THIRTY-NINE MEN! Bravo, John Gull!
I never heard of more than one public meeting being held by the people,
under the provisions of the Seditious Meetings Bill, and that was
advertised to be held in Palace Yard, on the 7th of September, 1817.
This advertisement was signed by seven householders, and a copy of
it was delivered to the Clerk of the Peace, and the neighbouring
Magistrates, agreeable to the Act. I was invited to preside at the
meeting, which invitation I accepted, and attended accordingly. The
Seditious Meeting Act being still in force, and the Habeas Corpus Act
being still suspended, it was thought a very daring and hazardous
proceeding, but I took care that the laws, rigid as they were, should
not be violated, and all the provisions of the Act were strictly
complied with. This meeting was held within hearing, and almost in sight
of the Secretary of State's office. But, as we acted according to law,
not the slightest interruption was offered to the proceedings, or to
those who attended the meeting. The persons who signed the requisition
or advertisement, which was delivered to the Clerk of the Peace, were
friends of Dr. Watson; he it was, in fact, that got up the meeting. The
doctor proposed the resolutions, which were seconded by Mr. Gast, and
carried unanimously: they protested in strong terms against petitioning
the House of Commons any more for Reform, as being proved to be useless
by the total disregard which that body had manifested to the prayers and
the petitions of the people during the previous session of Parliament,
when upwards of six hundred petitions, praying for Reform, had
been presented to the Honourable House. A strong declaration and
remonstrance, addressed to the Prince Regent, was read and unanimously
agreed to at the meeting; which remonstrance I carried and delivered
to Lord Sidmouth, at the Secretary of State's office, the moment the
meeting was dissolved; and I was attended to the doors of the office by
five or six thousand of the multitude who had composed a part of the
meeting. When I entered the office, which I did alone, I was instantly
conducted to his Lordship, amidst the deafening cheers of the throng
without. I gave the declaration to him, and requested he would lay it
before his Royal Master, as early as it was convenient. He promised me
that he would read it carefully over, and if there was nothing improper,
that he would present it the next day to the Prince Regent, and that he
would write to apprize me of the result.
This was the first time, if I recollect right, that a public
remonstrance to the throne was ever agreed to by the people; and, as
might naturally have been expected, his Lordship found much in it
that he thought objectionable, as well as the manner in which it
was conveyed; it being in the shape of a firm though respectful
remonstrance, instead of a creeping, cringing petition. I have not
a copy of this document by me, but as it was agreed to at the great
meeting held at Manchester, as well as at the Smithfield meeting, I
will, if I can procure it, publish it hereafter; but I recollect, that,
after having recited a mass of atrocities committed upon the rights and
liberties, and lives of the people, by the Ministers of the Crown, it
demanded that they the said Ministers, of whom his Lordship was one,
should be surrendered up to justice, and brought to condign punishment.
It is, therefore, almost needless to say that my Lord Sidmouth not
only discovered very improper matter in the remonstrance, but that he
consequently declined to communicate it to his Royal Master.
The year 1818 commenced with a great public dinner at the City of London
Tavern, to celebrate the third centenary of the Reformation, at which
dinner one thousand five hundred persons attended. On the 27th of
January the Parliament was opened by commission, and the usual speech
was made, and its echo, the address, was voted without any opposition: a
bill was now brought into the House to restore the Habeas Corpus Act. A
great meeting took place at the City of London Tavern, Alderman Waithman
in the chair, where a subscription was opened for Mr. Hone, which
ultimately amounted to more than three thousand pounds. Than this
measure, nothing can more clearly show the character of the city
patriot, and those who took a lead in political matters in the
metropolis. While Mr. Hone was under persecution, and even up to the
day of his trial, he was totally neglected and deserted; neither Mr.
Waithman, nor any of those who afterwards came forwards to assist him in
such a liberal way, gave him then the slightest countenance or support;
nay, they even shunned and abandoned him, and he actually went into
court almost alone, and probably without the means of hiring counsel,
which was, in fact, a most fortunate circumstance for him, as, had he
placed his case in the hands of counsel, I will warrant that he would
have been found guilty upon each of the charges preferred against him;
however, as soon as Mr. Hone had obtained a verdict of _not guilty_,
these fair-weather patriots began to flock round him in order to share
the honour and popularity which they now saw he was likely to obtain.
This is too much the way of the world; and if Mr. Hone's jury had said
guilty, instead of not guilty, if he had been tried by a country instead
of a London special jury, he might have gone quickly to gaol, abandoned
and ruined, before any of the above gentry would have stirred one inch
to have saved him from rotting there.
A bill of indemnity was now brought in, to protect the Ministers against
the legal consequences of their horrid abuses of power, during the
suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. Most of those who had been
incarcerated were now released upon their own recognizance; but Mr.
Benbow, of Manchester, bravely refused to enter into any recognizance,
and he was liberated without it. The Messrs. Evans followed his example,
and were also liberated without bail.
While the indemnity bill was pending, the Livery of the city of London
met in Common Hall, and passed some strong resolutions, and petitioned
the House of Commons not to indemnify the Ministers against prosecutions
at law for their illegal and cruel conduct during the suspension of the
Habeas Corpus Act. This petition was presented by Alderman Wood, our
worthy representative, but without producing any effect, for, on the
10th of March, the bill was carried through both Houses by large
majorities. In the Commons, Sir Samuel Romilly made a brilliant effort
to resist the passing of this Act, but there was, nevertheless, a
majority of 190 for it, and only 64 against it. In the Lords it was
sanctioned by 93 for it, while there were only 27 against it; but
10 Peers entered a firm and spirited protest against the iniquitous
measure. On the 23d of March, a meeting of the inhabitants of
Westminster was held in Palace Yard, when a petition to the House of
Commons was adopted, praying for a Reform of Parliament. About this
period, the case of appeal of murder, _Ashford_ against _Thornton_,
excited considerable interest all over the country. The case was argued
in the Court of King's Bench, which decided that the law gave to the
defendant a right to his wager of battle; but the appellant, the brother
of Mary Ashford, the young woman who had been murdered, not choosing to
risk his life by accepting the challenge, Thornton was discharged.
On the first of May, the Monthly Magazine, a work of great celebrity,
for the talent displayed in its pages, as well as for the philanthropic
character of the gentleman who has so ably and successfully conducted
it for so many years, published some interesting facts relative to the
cruel and illiberal treatment of Napoleon, and his brave and faithful
adherents at St. Helena. The same number contained a most interesting
analysis of the progress of crime during the last seven years, by which
it appears that 56,308 persons had in that time been committed to the
gaols of England and Wales, for criminal offences; that 4,952 had
received sentence of death; 6,512 had been sentenced to transportation;
and 23,795 had been subjected to minor punishments, while no bills were
found against 9,287. In the same period 584 had been executed, _and
every number was tripled in the last year_. Let the philanthropist
read this--let the friends of humanity read this--and then say whether
we do not want a Reform in every department of the State, particularly
in the House of Commons, where the system has been so long acted upon,
which has brought England to such a degraded state.
On the second of June, Sir Francis Burdett moved resolutions in the
House of Commons, for Universal Suffrage and Annual Parliaments. They
were negatived by a majority of 106 to 2; the minority being Sir Francis
Burdett and Lord Cochrane, the two Members for Westminster. When, during
the preceding session of Parliament, that of 1817, there were petitions,
signed by a million and a half of names, praying for Universal Suffrage,
Sir Francis Burdett unfortunately refused to support Universal Suffrage;
but now that the people had declined to appeal to the House, and
consequently there was not a single petition lying upon the table, to
support the Hon. Baronet's motion, it was negatived, as I have stated
above, by an overwhelming majority.
On the tenth of June, the most infamous and servile Parliament that ever
sat in England, after having passed a Bill to continue the restriction
upon cash payments at the Bank; after having passed a Bill for building
New Churches, and appropriating one million of the public money to carry
it into effect; after having passed a Bill to add 6,000_1_. a year to
the incomes of the Royal Dukes, who had been married; after having
passed a Bill to continue the Alien Act; after having done all this, and
far more, this servile, corrupt Parliament was DISSOLVED.
I will mention one curious fact, with respect to this precious
Parliament. My friend, Mr. William Akerman, of Patney, in Wiltshire, was
upon a visit to me in London, and, as he was very anxious to go and have
a peep at the proceedings of the House of Commons, I was prevailed
upon to accompany him thither one evening, although I went rather
reluctantly, as all the interest which I had formerly felt in hearing
the debates had long since been banished from my breast. However, I went
thither to gratify the curiosity of my friend, little thinking that I
should hear or see any thing to amuse or gratify myself. The Hon. House
was exceedingly thin, there not being more than about a score of our
honourable representatives present: these careful trustees had voted
away, as a matter of course, some hundreds of thousands of the public
money. The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the last reading of the
Bill for building the New Churches. The Bill was passed, and _one
million_ of the money raised in taxes from the sweat of the brow of John
Gull was voted away, by the Members of the Honourable House, with as
little ceremony as an old washerwoman would toss off a glass of gin,
or take a pinch of snuff; there being no debate, no more present than
THIRTEEN of the Honourable Members of the Honourable House. But the best
joke was what followed: a bungling, hacking, and stammering gentleman
got up, on the Ministerial side of the House--(for, if I recollect
right, among the honourable guardians of our lives, our liberties,
and our property, there were none present belonging to the Whig or
Opposition side of the House)--and after a considerable deal of beating
about the bush, which I saw made the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather
uneasy in his seat, I discovered that the prosing gentleman, whose name
was Littleton or Thornton, was prattling about the _Savings' Banks,_
into which it appeared that he had been inquiring rather more
inquisitively than the little Chancellor approved of. The result of his
inquiry, he stated to be a discovery, that _three-fourths_ of the money
placed in the banks belonged to persons of property, who placed it there
for the sake of obtaining better interest than they could get elsewhere;
and that the poor, such as servants and persons of small income, whose
property it was intended by the legislature should be invested in these
Savings Banks, scarcely made up a quarter of the number, and not a tenth
of the amount. The gentleman was going on, when Mr. Vansittart jumped
up, and in an under-tone pretty plainly intimated to him, that although
the benches on the opposite side were empty, yet there might probably
be some of the reporters left in the House, and if what had been stated
should get abroad, it would do incalculable mischief, by exposing the
humbug. These were not the words of the Honourable Chancellor, but I
have described their import. Whether the gentlemen reporters were all
absent, as well as the Whig Members, or whether they took the hint of
the worthy Chancellor, or whether they did not hear what he said, I do
not know; but the next morning I looked in vain in the newspapers for
what had transpired, which appeared to me so curious, and which had
appeared to the Chancellor a matter of so much importance; not a word of
the sort was, however, to be found in any of the papers.