THE FIRST YEARS OF PEACE.
When Parliament met on February 1, 1816, after a recess of unusual
length, Castlereagh was received with loud acclamations from all parts
of the house as the chief actor in the pacification of Europe. There
was, of course, a full debate upon the treaties, but the opposition
dwelt less upon the arbitrary partition of Europe than upon their
alleged tendency to guarantee sovereigns against the assertion of
popular rights and upon the manifest intention of the government to
"raise the country into a military power". From this moment dates the
whig and radical watchword of "Peace, Retrenchment, and Reform". The
nation was, in fact, entering upon a period of unprecedented depression
and discontent, which lasted through the last four years of George
III.'s reign. At the close of 1815, however, the whole horizon was
apparently bright. Great Britain had saved Europe by her example, and,
however small her army in comparison with those of continental states,
she stood foremost among the powers which had crushed the rule of
Napoleon. Her national debt, it is true, had reached the prodigious
total of £861,039,049, and the interest on it amounted £32,645,618, but
the expansion of our national resources had kept pace with it. In spite
of the continental system, the orders in council, and the American war,
the imports and exports had enormously increased, chiefly by means of an
organised contraband traffic; the carrying trade of the world had passed
into the hands of British shipowners; British manufactures were largely
fostered by warlike expenditure at home and the suspension of many
industries abroad; while population, stimulated by a vicious poor law,
was rapidly on the increase. In this last element, then considered as a
sure sign of prosperity, really consisted one of the chief national
dangers.
So long as the war lasted, low as the rate of wages might be, there was
generally employment enough in the fields or in the factories for nearly
all the hands willing to labour. When the inflated war prices came to an
end, and wheat fell below 80s. or even 70s. a quarter, until it reached
52s. 6d. early in 1816, labourers were turned off and wages cut down
still further; bread was not proportionately cheapened, and agrarian
outrages sprang up. The continent, impoverished by the war, no longer
required British goods for military purposes, and, as its own domestic
industries revived, ceased to absorb British products, flung in
profusion on its markets. Hence came a reduction of 16 per cent. in the
export trade, and of nearly 20 per cent. in the import trade, which
resulted in bankruptcies and the dismissal of workpeople. If we add to
these causes of distress, the influence of over-speculation, the
accession of disbanded soldiers to the ranks of the unemployed, and the
substitution of the factory system with machinery for domestic
manufactures with hand labour, we can partly understand why Great
Britain, never harried by invading armies, should have suffered more
than France itself from popular misery and disaffection for several
years after the restoration of peace.
[Pageheading: _VANSITTART'S FINANCE._]
The history of these years is mainly a history of social unrest, and
attempts to cure social evils by legislation or coercion. Liverpool and
his colleagues, with the possible exception of Eldon, were not bigoted
tories, and it is sometimes forgotten that among them, together with
Sidmouth, Castlereagh, and Vansittart, were Canning, Palmerston, and
Peel. One of the first parliamentary struggles was on the proposal of
the government to reduce the income tax from 10 to 5 per cent., and to
apply this half of it, producing about £7,500,000, towards the expense
of maintaining an army of 150,000 men. Since the income tax has become a
favourite of democratic economists, as pressing specially upon the rich,
we may be surprised to find that its total repeal was successfully
advocated by Henry Brougham, the leading democrat of that day--a man
whose noble services to progress and to humanity in the earlier part of
his career have been obscured by the inordinate vanity and unprincipled
egotism which he displayed in the later phases of his long public life.
He had entered parliament in 1810, and rapidly became the most active of
the opposition speakers. He now employed without scruple all the arts of
agitation, petition-framing, and parliamentary obstruction to achieve
his object, and succeeded, by the aid of bankers and country-gentlemen,
in defeating the government by a majority of thirty-seven. This vote
might be justified, more or less, on the principle laid down by Pitt,
that the income tax should be held in reserve as a war tax only, or on
the ground that it was equally wasteful and mischievous to keep up so
large a peace-establishment, especially if it might be used to bolster
up despotism abroad. It was also unfortunate that Castlereagh, ignoring
the heroic efforts made by the people of England for more than twenty
years, should have deprecated "an ignorant impatience to be relieved
from the pressure of taxation". Still, it is remarkable that friends of
the people and the ultra-liberal corporation of London, as it then was,
should have concentrated their indignant protests against the financial
policy of the government, not on the corn laws, or any other indirect
tax, but on the income tax.
Public confidence in the economic wisdom of the ministers was further
weakened by the gratuitous abandonment of the malt tax, apparently in a
fit of petulance, on the ground, explicitly stated, that, if another war
tax must be raised, two or three millions more or less would make little
difference. By a temporary suspension of the sinking fund, a deficit
might be converted into a surplus; Vansittart, however, neglected to
take advantage of this simple expedient, and raised £11,500,000 by loan.
His waning reputation was almost shattered by this absurd proceeding.
Finally, the excessive and irregular expenditure upon the civil list
provoked a searching inquiry into its abuses, prefaced by a scathing
attack from Brougham upon the character of the prince regent. His
character was, in fact, indefensible, and had justly forfeited the
respect of the nation. He was a debauchee and gambler, a disobedient
son, a cruel husband, a heartless father, an ungrateful and treacherous
friend, and a burden to the ministries which had to act in his name and
palliate his misdoings. That of Liverpool carried a measure for the
better regulation of the civil list, upon which, swollen as it was by
the wrongful appropriation of other public funds, many official
salaries had been charged hitherto. For these parliament now made a
separate provision. The house of commons, which properly grudged the
prince regent the means of reckless luxury and self-indulgence, was
unanimous in voting £60,000 for outfit and £60,000 a year to the
Princess Charlotte on her marriage, on May 2, to Prince Leopold of
Saxe-Coburg, looking forward to a reign under which virtue and a sense
of public duty would again be the attributes of royalty. In this
session, too, it conferred a boon upon Ireland, which earned little
gratitude, by the consolidation of the British and Irish exchequers.
Ireland was virtually insolvent before this measure was passed. With the
union of the exchequers the union of the countries was completed. The
administration, discredited by its financial policy, was strengthened in
June by the acquisition of Canning, who succeeded Buckinghamshire as
president of the board of control. In September, 1814, Wellesley Pole, a
brother of the Marquis Wellesley and the Duke of Wellington, had been
admitted to the cabinet as master of the mint, so that with Castlereagh,
Vansittart, and Bragge-Bathurst, there were now five members of the
cabinet in the lower house.
[Pageheading: _INDUSTRIAL RIOTS._]
The disturbances which broke out again and again during the years
1816-19 were partly the outcome of sheer destitution among the working
classes, and partly of a growing demand for reform, whether
constitutional or revolutionary. The statesmen of the regency must not
be too severely judged if they often confounded these causes of
seditious movements, and failed to distinguish between the moderate and
violent sections of reformers. Those who remembered the bloodthirsty
orgies of the French revolution, ushered in by quixotic visions of
liberty, equality, and fraternity, may perhaps be excused for
distrusting the moderate professions of demagogues who deliberately
inflamed the passions of ignorant mobs. Moreover, the whigs and moderate
reformers, who privately condemned the excesses of their violent
followers, made light of these in their public utterances, and reserved
all their censures for the repressive policy of the government. Bread
riots had begun before the harvest, which proved a total failure. The
price of wheat, which was as low as 52s. 6d. a quarter in January, 1816,
rose to 103s. 1d. in January, 1817, and to 111s. 6d. in June, 1817. And
when rickburning set in as a consequence of agricultural depression,
tumultuary processions as a consequence of enforced idleness in the coal
districts, and a revival of Luddism as a consequence of stagnation in
the various textile industries, itself due to a glut of British goods on
the continent, the reform party, now raising its head, was held
responsible by the government for a great part of these disorders.[64]
The writings of Cobbett, especially his _Weekly Register_, certainly had
a wide influence in stirring up discontent against existing
institutions, but it must be admitted that he condemned the use of
physical force, and pointed to parliamentary reform as the legitimate
cure for all social evils. Reform, however, in Cobbett's meaning
included universal suffrage with annual parliaments, and the Hampden
clubs, all over the country, agitated for the same objects in less
guarded language. Still, looking back at these democratic agencies by
the light of later experience, we can hardly adopt the opinion expressed
by a secret committee of the house of commons that their avowed objects
were "nothing short of a revolution".
It was on December 2, 1816, that the extreme section of reformers, now
for the first time known as radicals, in alliance with a body of
socialists called Spenceans, first came into open collision with the
forces of the law. A meeting was announced to be held on that day in Spa
Fields, Bermondsey, and was to be addressed by "Orator" Hunt, Major
Cartwright, the two Watsons, and other demagogues. Hunt was a gentleman
of Somerset, and had stood for Bristol in 1812. Though a prominent
speaker, he in no sense directed the movement. Burdett and Cochrane, the
orthodox leaders of London reformers, were not concerned in this
demonstration, which, according to an informer who gave evidence, was to
be the signal for an attack upon the Tower and other acts of atrocity.
As it was, before Hunt chose to appear, the mob, headed by the younger
Watson, broke into gunsmiths' shops, not without bloodshed, and marched
through the Royal Exchange, but were courageously met by the lord mayor,
with a few assistants, and very soon dispersed. The alarm produced in
the whole nation by this riotous fiasco was quite out of proportion to
its real importance, and was reawakened by an insult offered to the
prince regent on his return from opening parliament on January 28, 1817.
Even Canning, a life-long opponent of reform, did not scruple to magnify
these and similar evidences of popular restlessness into proofs of a
deep-laid plot against the constitution, and committees of both houses
urged the necessity of drastic measures to put down a conspiracy against
public order and private property. These measures took the form of bills
for the suppression of seditious meetings, and for the suspension until
July 1 of the _habeas corpus_ act, which had been uninterruptedly in
force since its suspension by Pitt had expired in 1801. This last bill
was passed on March 3, and, before the other became law, the so-called
march of the Blanketeers took place at Manchester. The march was the
ridiculous sequel of a very large meeting got up for the purpose of
carrying a petition to London, and presenting it to the prince regent in
person. The meeting was dispersed by the soldiers and police, after the
riot act had been read, and a straggling crowd of some three hundred who
began their pilgrimage, carrying blankets or overcoats, melted away by
degrees before they had got far southward.
[Pageheading: _SIDMOUTH'S UNPOPULARITY._]
A far more serious outbreak at Manchester seems to have been clumsily
planned soon afterwards, but it ended in nothing, and the enemies of the
government freely attributed this and other projects of mob violence to
the instigation of an _agent-provocateur_, well known as "Oliver the
Spy". This man was also credited with the authorship of "the Derbyshire
insurrection," for which three men were executed and many others
transported. Here there can be no doubt that a formidable gang, armed
with pikes, terrorised a large district, pressing operatives to join
them in overt defiance of the law, and killing one who held back. Being
confronted by a Nottinghamshire magistrate named Rolleston, with a small
body of soldiers, they fled across the fields, and the bubble of
rebellion burst at a touch. Whether they were legally guilty of high
treason, for which they were unwisely tried, may perhaps be doubted, but
it would certainly be no palliation of their crime if it could be shown,
as it never was shown, that Oliver had led them to rely on a jacobin
revolution in London. What does appear very clearly is that Sidmouth
was greatly alarmed by the reports of his agents on the disturbed state
of the country, but that he was highly conscientious in his instructions
and in the use of his own powers. The great majority of those imprisoned
for political offences at this time were liberated or acquitted, but the
suspension of the _habeas corpus_ act was renewed at the beginning of
July.
Moreover, a circular was addressed by Sidmouth to the lords-lieutenant
of counties, for the information of the magistrates, intimating that, in
the opinion of the law officers, persons charged on oath with seditious
libel might be apprehended and held to bail. No act of Sidmouth called
forth such an outburst of reprobation as this; yet it is not
self-evident that instigations to outrage, being criminal offences,
should be treated by magistrates differently from other offences for
which bail may be required, with the alternative of imprisonment. On the
other hand, it is hardly becoming for a home secretary to interpret the
law, and, since the forensic triumphs of Erskine, it had been declared
by an act of parliament that in cases of libel, as distinct from all
other criminal trials, both the law and the fact were within the
province of the jury. At all events, William Cobbett, feeling himself to
be at the mercy of informers and the crown, took refuge in America in
December, 1817. Hone, an antiquarian bookseller, was thrice prosecuted
for blasphemous libels, in which the ministers had been held up to
contempt. All these ill-judged, if not vindictive, prosecutions ended in
signal failure. Ellenborough, the chief justice, before whom the two
last trials were held, strained his judicial authority to procure a
conviction of Hone, but the prisoner, with a spirit worthy of a martyr,
defied the intimidation of the court, and thrice carried the sympathies
of the jury with him. His triple acquittal led to Ellenborough's
resignation, and perceptibly shook the prestige of the government.
In the year 1818 there was a temporary improvement in the economic
condition of the country. The depression of the preceding year was
followed in this year by a rapid increase of revenue. The importance the
ministry attached to finance was emphasised by the admission to the
cabinet in January of Frederick John Robinson, afterwards prime minister
as Lord Goderich, who had been appointed president of the board of
trade and treasurer of the navy. The chancellor of the exchequer and the
master of the mint were already members of the cabinet. The suspension
of the _habeas corpus_ act having expired, the reform agitation revived,
but assumed a less dangerous character, and no serious outbreak
occurred. A bill of indemnity was passed to cover any excesses of
jurisdiction in arresting suspected persons or in suppressing tumultuous
assemblies. A parliamentary inquiry showed both that the disorders of
the previous year had been exaggerated, and that, after all, the
extraordinary powers of the home office had been used with moderation.
Nevertheless, the early part of the session was largely occupied by
party debates on these questions, the employment of spies, and
apprehensions for libel. Parliament was dissolved in June, and the
general election which followed resulted in a gain of several seats to
the opposition.[65] The ministry was strengthened in January, 1819, by
the appointment of Wellington to be master-general of the ordnance, in
succession to Mulgrave, who remained in the cabinet without office.
[Pageheading: _THE "MANCHESTER MASSACRE"._]
Before the end of the year 1818, a strike of Manchester cotton-spinners
was attended by the usual incidents of brutal violence towards workmen
who refused to join in it, but a few shots from the soldiers, one of
which killed a rioter, proved effectual in quelling lawlessness.
Manchester, however, remained the centre of agitation, and during the
summer of 1819 a series of reform meetings held in other great towns
culminated in a monster meeting originally convened for August 9, but
postponed until the 16th. The history of this meeting ending in the
so-called "Manchester" or "Peterloo massacre," has been strongly
coloured by party spirit and sympathy with the victims of reckless
demagogy no less than of blundering officialism. It is certain that
drilling had been going on for some time among the multitudes invited to
attend the meeting of the 9th; that its avowed object was to choose a
"legislatorial representative," as Birmingham had already done, and
that, on its being declared illegal by the municipal authorities, who
declined to summon it on their own initiative, its organisers
deliberately resolved to hold it a week later, whether it were legal or
not.
The contingents, which poured in by thousands from neighbouring towns,
seem to have carried no arms but sticks, and to have conducted
themselves peaceably when they arrived at St. Peter's Fields, where
Orator Hunt, puffed up with silly vanity, was voted into the chair on a
hustings. Unfortunately, instead of attempting to prevent the meeting,
the county magistrates decided to let the great masses of people
assemble, and then to arrest the leaders in the midst of them. They had
at their disposal several companies of infantry, six troops of the 15th
hussars, and a body of yeomanry, besides special constables. The chief
constable, being ordered to arrest Hunt and his colleagues, declared
that he could not do so without military aid, whereupon a small force of
yeomanry advanced but soon became wedged up and enclosed by the densely
packed crowd. One of the magistrates, fancying the yeomanry to be in
imminent danger, of which there is no proof, called upon Colonel
L'Estrange, who was in command of the soldiers, to rescue them and
disperse the mob. Four troops of the hussars then made a dashing charge,
supported by a few of the yeomanry; the people fled in wild confusion
before them; some were cut down, more were trampled down, and an
eye-witness describes "several mounds of human beings" as lying where
they had fallen. Happily, the actual loss of life did not exceed five or
six, but a much larger number was more or less wounded, the real havoc
and bloodshed were inevitably exaggerated by rumour, and a bitter sense
of resentment was implanted in the breasts of myriads, innocent of the
slightest complicity with sedition, but impatient of oligarchical rule,
and disgusted with so ruthless an interference with the right of public
meeting.
It would have been wise if Sidmouth and his colleagues had recognised
this widespread feeling, had seen that famine and despair were at the
bottom of popular discontent, and had admitted error of judgment, at
least, on the part of the Lancashire magistrates. On the contrary, they
felt it so necessary to support civil and military authority, at all
hazards, that they induced the prince regent to express unqualified
approbation of the course taken, and afterwards defended it without
reserve in parliament. Even Eldon expressed his opinion privately that
it would be hard to justify it, unless the assembly amounted to an act
of treason, as he regarded it; whereas Hunt and his associates were
prosecuted (and convicted in the next year) not for treason, but only
for a misdemeanour. At all events, the storm of indignation excited by
this sad event, and not confined to the working classes, powerfully
fomented the reform movement. Large meetings were held over all the
manufacturing districts, and a requisition to summon a great Yorkshire
meeting was signed by Fitzwilliam, the lord-lieutenant, who attended it
in person. For these acts he was properly dismissed, but, in spite of
inflammatory speeches, nearly all the meetings passed off quietly and
without interference. Nevertheless, the government thought it necessary
to hold an autumn session, and strengthen the hands of the executive by
fresh measures of repression. These having been passed in December after
strenuous opposition, were afterwards known as the six acts, and
regarded as the climax of Sidmouth's despotic _régime_.
Two of the six acts, directed against the possession of arms and
military training for unlawful purposes, cannot be considered oppressive
under the circumstances then prevailing. Nor can exception be taken on
the ground of principle to another for "preventing delay in the
administration of justice in cases of misdemeanour," which, indeed, was
amended, by Holland, with Eldon's consent, so as to benefit defendants
in state prosecutions. Two were designed to curb still further the
liberty of the press. One of these made the publication of seditious
libels an offence punishable with banishment, and authorised the seizure
of all unsold copies. When we consider the extreme virulence of
seditious libels in those days, this act does not wear so monstrous an
aspect as its radical opponents alleged, but happily it soon became a
dead letter, and was repealed in 1830. The other, imposing a stamp-duty
on small pamphlets, only placed them on the same footing with
newspapers. The last of the new measures--"to prevent more effectually
seditious meetings and assemblies"--was practically aimed against all
large meetings, unless called by the highest authorities in counties and
corporate towns, or, at least, five justices of the peace. It was,
therefore, a grave encroachment on the right of public meeting, and the
only excuse for it was that it was passed under the fear of a
revolutionary movement, and limited in duration to a period of five
years.
[Pageheading: _SOCIAL LEGISLATION._]
Nor can it be denied that, as a whole, this restrictive code was
successful. From a modern point of view it may appear less arbitrary
than the suspension of the _habeas corpus_ act for a whole year
(1817-18), but it was assuredly tainted with a reactionary spirit, and
was capable of being worked in a way inconsistent with civil liberty.
That it was not so worked, on the whole, and caused less hardship than
had been anticipated, was not so much the result of changes in the
government itself, as of economic progress in the nation, aided by a
healthier growth of public opinion. The violence which marked the early
stages of the reform movement has been described as a safety-valve
against anarchy; it was, in reality, the chief obstacle to a sound and
comprehensive reform bill. While it lasted, the middle classes and
liberals of moderate views were estranged from the cause; when it
ceased, the demand for a new representative system became irresistible.
Whatever allowance may be made for the coercive policy of the government
during the dark period of storm and stress which succeeded the great
war, it is hard to find any excuse for its neglect of social
legislation. Then, if ever, was a time when the work of Pitt's best days
should have been resumed, when real popular grievances should have been
redressed, and when the long arrears of progressive reform should have
been gradually redeemed. Yet very little was done to better the lot of
men, women, and children in Great Britain, and that little was chiefly
initiated by individuals. In 1816, on the motion of a private member, an
inquiry was commenced into the state of the metropolitan police, which
disclosed most scandalous abuses, such as the habitual association of
thieves and thief-takers, encouraged by the grants of blood-money which
had been continued since the days of Jonathan Wild. In 1817 a committee
sanctioned by the ministers recommended a measure for the gradual
abolition of sinecures, which then figured prominently in the domestic
charter of reform. Their recommendations were adopted, and a large
number of sinecure offices were swept away. But inasmuch as sinecures
had been largely given to persons who had held public offices of
business, it was thought necessary to institute pensions to an amount
not exceeding one-half of the reduction. In 1816 a private member, named
Curwen, brought forward a fanciful scheme of his own for the amendment
of the poor laws, which in effect anticipated modern projects of old
age pensions. He obtained the appointment of a select committee, which
reported in 1817, but their proposals were thoroughly inadequate, and no
sensible improvement came of them.
It was also in 1816 that the cause of national education, the importance
of which had been vainly urged by Whitbread, was taken up in earnest by
Brougham. His motion for the appointment of a select committee was
confined to the schools of the metropolis. It sat at intervals until
1818, when its powers were enlarged, and its labours somewhat diverted
into a searching exposure of mismanagement in endowed charities. The one
direct fruit of the committee was the creation of the charity
commission, but in the opinion of Brougham himself it was of the highest
value in opening the whole education question. The almost universal
prevalence of distress in 1817, and the excessive burden thrown upon
poor rates, induced parliament to authorise an expenditure of £750,000
in Great Britain and Ireland for the employment of the labouring poor on
public works. A far sounder and more fruitful measure of relief owes its
origin to the same year. It was now that the institution of savings
banks, hitherto promoted only by single philanthropists, emerged from
the experimental stage and claimed the attention of parliament. A bill
for their regulation, introduced by Pitt's friend, George Rose, did not
pass into an act; but the establishment of savings banks was now
directly encouraged by the legislature, and there were thoughtful men
who already dimly foresaw the manifold benefits of their future
development.
[Pageheading: _THE CURRENCY QUESTION._]
In the year 1819 was initiated a very important reform in the currency,
which had long been delayed. When the bullion committee reported in
1810, Bank of England notes were at a discount of about 13½ per cent.
There were several reasons why this should be the case. Continental
trade was then compelled to pass through British ports, and a large
supply of gold was needed to serve as the medium of this trade. There
was also a steady drain of gold to the Spanish peninsula to meet war
expenses, while troubles in South America diminished the annual output
of the precious metals. In 1811 Bank of England notes were made legal
tender, but no further action was then taken, and the depreciation
continued until 1814. The magnificent harvest of 1813, together with
other causes, brought about a sudden fall of prices, in consequence of
which no less than 240 country banks stopped payment in the years
1814-16. The decrease and popular distrust of private banknotes produced
an increased demand for Bank of England notes, which in 1817 had nearly
risen in value to a par with gold. In 1819, when they were at a discount
of only 4½ per cent., a committee was appointed by the house of
commons to reconsider the policy of resuming cash payments, and Peel,
young as he was, became its chairman. In this character he abandoned his
preconceived views and induced the house to adopt those which had been
advocated by Horner. It was not thought prudent to fix an earlier date
than 1823 for the actual resumption of cash payments, but the directors
of the Bank of England anticipated this date, and began to exchange
notes for specie on May 1, 1821. The new standard was definitely one of
gold. A considerable fall of prices ensued, and it is still a disputed
question whether the return to a single standard was entirely
beneficial.
But for what is called the public, the readers of newspapers and the
frequenters of clubs or taverns, the rivalry of party leaders or the
incidents of court life excite a much keener interest than painful
efforts for the good of the humbler classes. During the closing years of
George III.'s reign there were no party conflicts of special intensity.
The whigs acquiesced in their self-imposed exclusion from office, and
contented themselves with damaging criticism; the radicals had not yet
acquired the confidence or respect of the electors. Liverpool remained
prime minister; Castlereagh, foreign secretary; Sidmouth, home
secretary; Vansittart, chancellor of the exchequer. Meanwhile there were
startling vicissitudes in the fortunes of the royal family. The king,
indeed, remained under the cloud of mental derangement which darkened
the last ten years of his life, and the Princess of Wales, who had been
the object of so much scandal, was now out of sight and residing abroad.
The Princess Charlotte, however, the only daughter of the regent, had
centred in herself the loyalty and hopes of the nation in a remarkable
degree, and was credited, not unjustly, with private virtues and public
sympathies contrasting strongly with the disposition of her father. Her
marriage with Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, who bore a high character,
had been hailed with national enthusiasm, for it was known that, like
Queen Victoria, she had been carefully trained and had disciplined
herself, physically and morally, for the duties of a throne. It has been
truly said that her death in childbirth, on November 6, was the great
historical event of 1817. The prince regent, with his constitution
weakened by dissipation, was not expected to survive her long, and so
long as his wife lived there was no prospect of other legitimate issue,
unless he could procure a divorce. There was no grandchild of George
III. who could lawfully inherit the crown, and the apprehension of a
collateral succession became more and more generally felt.[66]
In the following year four royal marriages were announced. The Princess
Elizabeth espoused the Landgrave of Hesse-Homburg; the Duke of Clarence,
the Princess Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen; the Duke of Cambridge, the
Princess Augusta of Hesse; the Duke of Kent, the Princess Victoria Mary
of Saxe-Coburg. The Duke of Sussex was already married, but not with the
necessary consent of the crown, and the Duke of Cumberland was
childless, having married three years earlier a divorced widow whom the
queen, for private reasons, declined to receive. It is a striking proof
of the discredit into which the royal family had fallen, since the old
king virtually ceased to reign, that parliament, in spite of its
anxiety about the succession, displayed an almost niggardly parsimony
when it was moved to increase the allowances of the princes about to
marry. No application was made on behalf of the Princess Elizabeth or
the Duke of Sussex, who was already married morganatically. The
additional grant of £6,000 a year asked on behalf of the Duke of
Cumberland was refused by a small majority, partly, no doubt, because
his anti-liberal opinions and untrustworthy character were no secret to
public men. £10,000 a year was asked for the Duke of Clarence, and
justified by Canning as less than he might fairly have claimed, but it
was reduced to £6,000 and declined by the duke as inadequate; he
afterwards married without a parliamentary grant. The provision of
£6,000 a year for the Dukes of Cambridge and Kent respectively was
stoutly opposed but ultimately carried. Of all George III.'s sons, the
Duke of Kent was perhaps the most respected. It has been truly said that
if the nation could have expressed its dearest wish, in the spirit of
prophecy, after the death of the Princess Charlotte, it would have been
that the issue of the Duke of Kent's marriage with Prince Leopold's
sister might succeed, as Queen Victoria, to the crown of her
grandfather.[67]
[Pageheading: _THE DEATH OF GEORGE III._]
On November 17, 1818, Queen Charlotte died, having filled her great and
most difficult position for nearly sixty years with sound judgment,
exemplary moral integrity, and a certain homely dignity. The Duke of
York succeeded her as guardian of the king's person. Little more than a
year later she was followed to the grave by the Duke of Kent, who died
on January 23, 1820, and by the king himself, who died on January 29, in
the eighty-second year of his age. He was not a great sovereign, but, as
a man, he was far superior to his two predecessors, and must ever stand
high, if not highest, in the gallery of our kings. His venerable figure,
though shrouded from view, was a chief mainstay of the monarchy. Narrow
as his views were, and obstinately as he adhered to them, he was not
incapable of changing them, and could show generosity towards enemies,
as he ever showed fidelity to friends. His reception of Franklin after
the American war, and of Fox after the death of Pitt, was that of a
king who understood his kingly office; and his strict devotion to
business, regardless of his own pleasure, could not have been exceeded
by a merchant engrossed in lucrative trade. The many pithy and racy
sayings recorded of him show an insight into men's characters and the
realities of life not unworthy of Dr. Johnson. His simplicity,
kindliness, and charity endeared him to his subjects. His undaunted
courage and readiness to undertake sole responsibility, not only during
the panics of the Gordon riots and of the impending French invasion, but
in many a political crisis, compelled the respect of all his ministers,
and his disappearance from the scenes, to make way for the regency of
his eldest son, was almost as disastrous for English society as the
exchange, in France, of Louis XIV.'s decorous rule for that of the
Regent Orléans.
The European concert which had been called into existence by the war
against Napoleon, and had effected a continental settlement at Vienna,
continued to act for the maintenance of peace. The treaty of alliance of
1815 only bound the four powers to common action in the event of a fresh
revolution in France which might endanger the tranquillity of other
states. The holy alliance was more comprehensive and wider in its aims,
but was too vague to form the practical basis of a federation. The
settlement of Europe by the treaty of Vienna was, however, the work of
all the powers, and they had therefore an interest in everything that
might be likely to affect that settlement. The habit of concerted
action, once formed, was not lightly abandoned, and the succeeding age
was an age of congresses. But though there was a general sentiment in
favour of concerted action it manifested itself in different ways. The
causes of the recent struggle with France had been political in their
origin, and it was agreed that a recurrence of disorder from France
could be best prevented by the establishment of a government in that
country which should be at once constitutional and legitimist. England
favoured, and Russia, the most autocratic of states, favoured still more
vehemently, the development of constitutions wherever it might be
practicable, while Austria, being composed of territories with no
national cohesion, endeavoured rather to thwart the growth of
constitutions. But Russia was also the most active advocate of joint
interference where a constitutional reform was effected by
unconstitutional means. Great Britain and Austria, on the other hand,
with a juster instinct, considered armed interference an extreme remedy
which might often be worse than the disease of a revolution.
[Pageheading: _ROYALIST REACTION IN EUROPE._]
The numerous restorations of 1814 and 1815 were followed by a royalist
and aristocratic reaction in many countries of Europe. In France Louis
XVIII. found himself confronted by an ultra-royalist chamber of deputies
which clamoured for vengeance on the partisans of the republican and
imperial _régimes_ and for the restoration of the privileges and estates
of the Church. Ferdinand VII. of Spain swept away the unwieldy
constitution of 1812 amid the rejoicings of his people, who little
foresaw his future tyranny; and Great Britain did not venture to resist
the action of Ferdinand of the Two Sicilies in abolishing a constitution
which British influence had induced him to grant his island kingdom in
1813. In Prussia the government dealt sternly with the liberal press,
and the provincial estates opposed the institution of a national diet;
while in Würtemberg a parliament assembled under a liberal constitution
demanded the restoration of the ancient privileges of the nobility and
clergy. In the Two Sicilies British influence, supported by that of
Austria, was used to prevent outrages on the defeated party; in Spain
the moderate counsels of Great Britain were less successful. Austria
endeavoured to prevent future disturbance in the Italian peninsula by a
secret treaty, which obtained the sanction of the British government,
requiring the Two Sicilies to adopt no constitutional changes
inconsistent with the principles adopted by Austria in the
Lombardo-Venetian kingdom. Similar treaties were concluded by Austria
with Tuscany, Modena, and Parma, and she thus gained an ascendency in
Italy, from which only Sardinia and the papal states were exempt.
Russian agents meanwhile began to conduct a liberal propaganda in Spain
and Italy, and Russia was even credited with a desire to make a
liberalised Spain a counterpoise to England on the sea.
For a time, however, there were no European complications of a
formidable nature. In 1816 a British squadron was sent out under Lord
Exmouth lo execute the decree of the congress of Vienna against the
Barbary states. The Dey of Algiers and the Beys of Tunis and Tripoli
were called upon to recognise the Ionian Islands as British, to accept
British mediation between them and the courts of the Two Sicilies and
Sardinia, to restore their Christian captives, and not to authorise
further piracy. These terms were accepted by the Beys of Tunis and
Tripoli, and the two first demands were granted by the Dey of Algiers.
He was allowed a delay of three months in order to obtain the sultan's
permission for granting the remainder, but in the interval a massacre of
Italian fishermen took place at Bona. Lord Exmouth now sailed from
Gibraltar to attack Algiers. On his demands being again ignored, he
bombarded that city on August 27 for more than six hours. The arsenal
and storehouses and all the ships in the port were burned, and on the
next day the dey accepted Exmouth's terms; peace was signed on the 30th,
the principal terms being the abolition of Christian slavery, and the
delivery of all slaves to Exmouth on the following day.
The treaty of Vienna in placing the Ionian Islands under British
protection had made no mention of the towns of Parga and Butrinto on the
mainland of Epirus which had passed under British rule along with the
islands. These places were now surrendered to Turkey in accordance with
a former treaty, in return for the Turkish recognition of the British
protectorate over the islands. The inhabitants of Parga were, however,
vehemently opposed to such a transference of their allegiance, and they
were conveyed to the Ionian Islands and compensated for the loss of
their property. The Turks entered into occupation of Parga in 1819. In
1817 and 1818 wild rumours of Russian aggression in the direction of the
Mediterranean began to circulate in England. It was reported that Spain
had promised to cede Port Mahon to Russia; and that Russia was preparing
a great military force, to be employed, if necessary, in alliance with
the Bourbon states, France, Spain, and the Two Sicilies, to counteract
British and Austrian influence. This influence, with that of Prussia,
had really been employed to keep the Dardanelles closed against Russian
ships. Meanwhile Austria had won over Prussia to her conservative policy
in Germany.
The violent language of the liberal party, especially at the
universities, already began to terrify the Prussian government. The
first danger signal was given at the Wartburg festival of delegates from
the German universities in 1817, at which the students indulged in some
boyish manifestations of their sympathies; their proceedings made some
stir in Germany, and Metternich declared that they were revolutionary.
The horror of liberalism was destined to be heightened in 1819 by the
murder of the tsar's agent, the dramatist Kotzebue, by a lunatic member
of a political society at Giessen. Its immediate result was a conference
of German ministers at Carlsbad, where several resolutions for the
suppression of political agitation were passed, and afterwards adopted
by the diet at Frankfort. This policy was embodied in the "final act" of
a similar conference held at Vienna in the following year (1820), which
empowered the greater states of Germany to aid the smaller in checking
revolutionary movements. At the same time it reaffirmed the general
principle of non-intervention, and even laid down the pregnant doctrine
that constitutions could not be legitimately altered except by
constitutional means. The union of Austria and Prussia on the
conservative side had rather the effect of throwing the secondary states
of southern Germany upon the liberal side. In the spring and summer of
1818 Bavaria and Baden framed constitutions, and in 1819 Würtemberg once
more essayed parliamentary government, which the reactionary policy of
her first parliament had compelled her to abandon. The significant fact
in European politics was that Frederick William III. of Prussia, always
accustomed to being led, had passed from the influence of Russia to that
of Austria.
[Pageheading: _THE CONFERENCE OF AIX-LA-CHAPELLE._]
Such were the general tendencies of European politics when the
conference of Aix-la-Chapelle assembled on September 30, 1818. The
primary object of this conference was to consider the request of France
for a reduction in the indemnity demanded of her and for the evacuation
of her territories by the four allied powers. Wellington and
Castlereagh, who represented Great Britain, earned the gratitude of
France by readily agreeing to these requests, which were granted without
any difficulty. This question was obviously one which required such a
conference to settle it; but the conference, having once assembled, was
urged to deal with other difficulties that less directly concerned it.
One of these was a dispute between Denmark and Sweden about the
apportionment of the Danish debt, which, in consideration of the
annexation of Norway to Sweden, under the treaty of Kiel, was to be
partly borne by Sweden. Denmark appealed to the four powers,
representing that treaty as in fact a part of their own settlement of
Europe. Sweden would not admit the right of the powers to intervene, but
finally settled her difficulty with Denmark by a separate negotiation
conducted by the mediation of Great Britain in 1819.
A still more doubtful question was raised by the request of Spain for
the assistance of the allied powers against her revolted colonies. The
Spanish dependencies in America had declined to acknowledge Joseph
Bonaparte, and had lapsed into a state of chaos; the restoration of
Ferdinand VII. had induced most of them to return to their allegiance,
but the three south-eastern colonies, Banda Oriental (Uruguay), La Plata
(the Argentine), and Paraguay, continued in revolt. In 1817 fortune
turned still further against Spain; Monte Video, the capital of Banda
Oriental, was taken by Portugal, or rather by Brazil, and Chile revolted
against Spain. On February 12, 1818, Chile proclaimed her independence,
and she began at once to procure warships in England and the United
States, of which Lord Cochrane took command. The four allied powers and
France had protested against the seizure of Monte Video, but otherwise
Spain had been left to herself. Great Britain seemed to have more to
gain than to lose by the insurrection. The revolted colonies were open
to her commerce, and by weakening Spain they had strengthened the
maritime supremacy of Great Britain. Nevertheless Great Britain was
willing to mediate, on condition that Spain would make reasonable
concessions. Spain, however, refused to make any concessions at all, and
called on the allied powers to aid her in crushing the insurrection by
force. Great Britain did not regard an unconditional subjection of the
colonies as either expedient or practicable, and opposed this course;
Austria took the same view, and thus placed intervention out of the
question.
[Pageheading: _THE EUROPEAN ALLIANCE._]
But the principal question before the conference of Aix-la-Chapelle was
not one relating to any particular difficulty, but the permanent form of
the European alliance. The tsar desired a general confederacy of
European powers, such as had signed the treaty of Vienna and the holy
alliance. This confederacy was to guard against two evils--that of
revolutionary agitation and that of arbitrary administration and
sectional alliances. Such a project, though doubtless proposed in good
faith, practically gave Russia an interest in the domestic movements,
both reactionary and constitutional, of every country, while it forbade
any political combination to which Russia was not a party. Castlereagh
agreed with Metternich in thinking that such an extension of Russian
Influence was more to be dreaded than local disorder, and Great Britain
and Austria proposed therefore that the alliance should be based on the
treaty of Chaumont, as renewed at Vienna and Paris, though they were
willing to have friendly discussions from time to time without extending
the scope of the alliance. All parties desired to include France in
their alliance, but the tsar pertinently objected that France could not
be admitted to an alliance aimed solely against France. A compromise was
therefore adopted. The quadruple alliance for war, in case of a
revolution in France, was secretly renewed, and centres for mobilisation
were fixed, while France was publicly invited to join the deliberations
of the allied powers. A secret protocol was then signed providing for
the meeting of congresses from time to time, and giving the minor
European powers a place in these congresses when their affairs should be
under discussion.
FOOTNOTES:
[64] For details of the riots see _Annual Register_, lviii. (1816),
60-73. They were particularly numerous in May, 1816, and in the counties
of Cambridge, Essex, and Suffolk. At Littleport in Cambridgeshire, on
May 24, it was found necessary to fire on the rioters. Two men were
killed and five were afterwards executed.
[65] Greville, _Memoirs_, i., 2; Walpole, _History of England_, i., 392,
393.
[66] The curious may be interested in the following list of the names
and ages of the persons who stood next in order of succession to the
crown after the death of Princess Charlotte. It will be observed that of
the fourteen who stood nearest the throne, not one was under forty years
of age, and not one had a legitimate child:--
Age. Relation to king.
1. George, Prince Regent 55 Son.
2. Frederick, Duke of York 54 Son.
3. William, Duke of Clarence 52 Son.
4. Edward, Duke of Kent 50 Son.
5. Ernest, Duke of Cumberland 46 Son.
6. Augustus, Duke of Sussex 44 Son.
7. Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge 43 Son.
8. Charlotte, Queen-Dowager of Würtemberg 51 Daughter.
9. Princess Augusta 48 Daughter.
10. Princess Elizabeth 47 Daughter.
11. Mary, Duchess of Gloucester 41 Daughter,
12. Princess Sophia 40 Daughter.
13. William, Duke of Gloucester 41 Nephew.
14. Princess Sophia of Gloucester 44 Niece.
15. Charles, Duke of Brunswick 13 Great nephew.
[67] See, however, the _Creevey Papers_, i., 268-71, 284.