_Addressed to the Editor of the Examiner._
"SIR,--You are requested to insert in your paper the reply of
the Right Hon. George Canning to my public remonstrance with
that gentleman on the insult he lately dared to offer to the
people of England.
"I am agreeably disappointed. After ten days' deliberation, he
acknowledges the tribunal, and has determined to plead.
"Whilst his judges are deciding on the merits of his defence,
it shall be my care to provide the gentleman with another
opportunity of displaying his taste and talents in the
protection of his character.
"In the mean time, whilst Mr. Lambton is a 'dolt and an
idiot,' I am content to be a 'liar and a slanderer, and an
assassin,' according to the same inimitable master of the
vulgar tongue.
"I am, sir, your obedient servant,
"THE AUTHOR OF THE
LETTER TO THE RIGHT HON. G. CANNING."
It was hard indeed for Liberty to have so ready and so ruthless an
antagonist as Mr. Canning. This minister was not satisfied with those
legitimate and classical weapons he was so well skilled to wield, forgot
the days of the "Anti-jacobin," and vociferated against and challenged
every one whose pen or voice was raised in opposition to him. Thus,
whether squibbing "the Doctor," as Lord Sidmouth was called, fighting my
Lord Castlereagh, cutting heartless jokes on poor Mr. Ogden, flatly
contradicting Mr. Brougham, swaggering over the Holy Alliance, or
quarrelling with the Duke of Wellington, he was in perpetual personal
scrapes,--one of the reasons which created for him so much personal
interest during the whole of his parliamentary career. No imaginative
artist, fresh from reading that career, would sit down to paint him with
the broad and deep forehead, the stern, compressed lip, the deeply
thoughtful and concentrated air of Napoleon. As little would the idea of
his eloquence or ambition call to our recollection the swarth and iron
features, the bold and haughty dignity, of Strafford. We cannot fancy in
his eye the volumed depth of Richelieu's, the volcanic flash of
Mirabeau's, or the offended majesty of Chatham's. We should sketch him
from our imagination as we see him identically before us, with a
countenance rather marked by intelligence, sentiment, and satire, than
meditation, passion, or sternness,--with more of the petulant than the
proud, more of the playful than the profound, more of the quick
irritability of a lively temperament in its expression, than of the
fixed or fiery aspect which belongs to the rarer race of men, whose
characters are wrought from the most inflexible and violent materials of
human nature. We do not wish to deny that Mr. Canning was an orator, a
wit, and a poet. Such talents and accomplishments, however, are not of
pre-eminent importance to the situation which he occupied at his death.
A premier ought to be the bold opposer of corruption, the solid friend
of his sovereign, and the uncompromising champion of the people's
rights. He should always remember that the security of the throne arises
from the interest which the sovereign possesses in the hearts of his
subjects, and that all attempts to stifle their voice, under a sense of
grievances, must tend to alienate their affections, and inevitably lead
to similar calamities which, in other countries, have been produced by
arbitrary and corrupt measures. Whether Mr. Canning was such a
statesman, we need only refer to his general vacillating conduct to his
superiors in office, and to the return made in 1820, that this gentleman
had received from the country, during his public association with
government, _two hundred thousand pounds_! Upon the demise of Mr.
Canning, a pension was granted, by act of parliament, to the trustees of
the family, of three thousand pounds per annum, and his widow, shortly
after, created a peeress!
The ensuing motley ministry, headed by Lord Goderich, (late Mr.
Robinson) soon exhibited symptoms of its inefficiency to stand against
the powerful phalanx of Toryism, then in array to oppose every thing
like liberty. The philosopher, however, deeply deploring the many
vicissitudes, the varying process, through which Opinion has to pass in
order to be refined to Truth, but calmly aware that the sense of a
people never ultimately retrogrades, might have observed through the
clouds which, at this period, dimmed the political horizon, the sun of
Liberty darting forth its smiling beams, and exhibiting signs of a
speedy victory over the murky enemies of mankind,--the brighter period,
when a more enlarged intelligence would necessarily triumph,--when
warlike Tory despotism, founded on a feverish desire to keep the people
down by the bayonet, would wear out its own harassed existence, and a
system of freedom, sanctioned and confirmed by a long previous
disposition of thought, would be realized, and the spirit and letter of
that solemn compact, made and ratified between the crown and the people
in 1688, be finally restored to the country.
No Englishman, who cherishes in his heart a love of freedom, and who is
at all conversant with the history of his country from its earliest era
down to the period of the revolution, can be insensible of the
acquisitions procured at that eventful period,--of the accumulation of
strength gained by the popular branch of the constitution, the
limitation to the power of the crown, and the extension of the admitted
and declared rights of the people. Before the revolution, we were the
slaves of kingly despotism, and the House of Commons itself was as much
subservient to the tyranny of the throne as the personal liberty of the
subject. We have heard much talk about Magna Charta, and the triumph
over John at Runnymede, by the people,--who, by the way, had nothing to
do with the struggle, for it was the struggle of the barons and the
king, the former of whom in their several domains were as despotic to
those beneath them as they felt the tyranny of the king they sought to
humble. It was the invasion of their own power and possessions by John
that fired their resentment and animated their public spirit, and hence
ensued Magna Charta. But, with the exception of the single clause that
forbids arbitrary and vexatious imprisonment, it scarcely adds, either
in spirit or letter, any thing to the liberties of the people. Not so,
however, with the compact as settled at the revolution,--not so with the
Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement. The prerogative of the crown
was by these measures curtailed, and the liberty of the people greatly
extended and more clearly defined; the purity of the elective right was
provided for, as also the short duration of parliaments, the
discretionary power of the crown was prohibited, and standing armies in
time of peace declared to be illegal! The pretended right of
_suspending_ or of carrying into execution the laws, at the pleasure of
the crown, was done away with; the levying of money for the use of the
crown, by pretence of _prerogative_, without the consent of parliament,
was forbidden; the right of the subject to petition the king was
established; all elections of members of parliament were declared ought
to be free; excessive bail and excessive fines were declared should
neither be required nor enforced, nor cruel punishments inflicted; and
for amending, strengthening, and preserving the laws, it was declared
that parliaments ought to be held frequently. The further wise
provisions and legislative enactments of that period are proofs that
the liberties and happiness of the nation were the chief objects
contemplated by our ancestors.
But as all the wise limitations imposed by the friends of liberty on the
power of the crown would be rendered ineffectual and useless, without a
pure and freely-elected House of Commons, it had long been the chief
design of the Tories to destroy this sacred palladium by bribery and
corruption. How fatally they succeeded is well known. Thus all the
hazards which our forefathers had incurred, all the treasures which they
had expended, and all the blood that was shed to establish the freedom
of themselves and their posterity, were rendered useless by Mr. Pitt,
the Earl of Liverpool, Lord Castlereagh, Mr. Canning, and their
mercenary adherents. When this lamentable state of the power of the
Tories is considered, and which had been produced by fifty bitter years
of misrule, the difficulty of any other ministry being kept together
will be apparent. The cabinet of Lord Goderich was a confused mixture of
Whigs and Tories, and as the latter possessed a corrupted House of
Commons, it were easy to prophesy which party would gain the ascendency,
at least for a time; though it were equally observable, that
"The PEOPLE, by and by, would be the stronger!"
In the month of September, the House of Commons lost one of its
worthiest members in the Right Hon. Lord Archibald Hamilton, who died in
the fifty-eighth year of his age, after a long and painful illness. His
lordship was more than twenty years the representative of the county of
Lanark, and one of his constituents publicly declared, that "the noble
lord had conducted himself, throughout that long period, so much to the
satisfaction of the county and honour to himself, that he was justly
considered the pride of Clydesdale and the glory of Scotland." The name
of his lordship was always to be found among those who supported the
people's rights. His virtues and his talents placed him at the head of
civil and religious liberty; he advocated every measure, both in and out
of parliament, which had for its object the welfare of man,--of the
meanest peasant as well as of the greatest lord. His affability and
kindness of heart secured to him a numerous circle of friends, and his
unwearied opposition in parliament to corruption and grants to pamper
royal libertines gained for him the proud and inestimable title of
PATRIOT.
In November, the unfortunate creditors of the late Duke of York were
informed that the assets of his royal highness would not furnish means
to pay more than _one shilling_ in the pound! We know that the duke, in
his dying hours, declared himself solvent. Whether he went out of the
world with a falsehood in his heart and on his tongue, whether he was
kept in ignorance of his affairs by those around him, or whether his
estate had been foully dealt with by his family or others, are points
which ought to have been better elucidated. We cordially pity the
creditors, many of whom have been more grossly defrauded than in any
case which has been punished in the Insolvent Court. The conduct of the
royal family and the executors of the Duke of York must have appeared to
the public in a very unamiable light; for why was not a thoroughly clear
account of every thing laid before the creditors? Nothing, however, was
said about the duke's jewels and the valuable diamond necklace belonging
to his duchess!!! We impute nothing to the executors, Sir Herbert Taylor
and Sir Benjamin Stephenson, both, doubtless, honourable men,--good Tory
placemen; but if people will not make executorship accounts clear and
public to all concerned in them, they are liable to be complained of.
The wills and affairs of dead princes are always smuggled over and
hushed up; but the creditors surely have a right to demand, because they
have an interest in demanding, that the wills and executorship accounts
of the royal family should be made as public as those of other
individuals.
During the session of parliament this year, Mr. Hume made a motion to
repeal one of the odious "Six Acts" against the liberty of the press,
which subjected to a stamp-duty those cheap periodical tracts that
formed the most powerful instruments against the oppression of Toryism.
The treatment which Mr. Hume received on this occasion will ever reflect
the greatest disgrace on the _pretended_ Whig government and their
friends. All those members who had opposed the passing of this act now
either purposely absented themselves or advocated its _utility_, and
the honourable member for Aberdeen had the mortification to see his good
intentions frustrated at a time when he calculated upon certain success.
Independently of the vexatious trouble which this act of Lord
Castlereagh's framing caused the booksellers, it was found materially to
injure the spreading of knowledge. But it was for this very purpose that
it became the law of the land. Lord Castlereagh was aware of the truism,
that
"MEN, ONCE IGNORANT, ARE SLAVES!"
and consequently, to further his own unconstitutional views, he used
every exertion to fetter the press and clap a padlock on the mouth of
political knowledge. Wiser and better men, however, knowing that the
free education of the people is the surest safeguard to the permanent
happiness of the community, have lifted up their voices and given their
votes against the subjugation of the Press,--the Leviathan protector of
all that is worth living for. "The great mass of British subjects," said
the venerable and patriotic Lord ERSKINE, "have no surer means of being
informed of what passes in parliament and in the courts of justice, or
of the general transactions of the world, than through cheap
publications within their means of purchase; and I desire to express my
dissent from that principle and opinion, that the safety of the state,
and the happiness of the multitude in the laborious condition of life,
may be _best secured by their being kept in ignorance of political
controversies and opinions_. I hold, on the contrary, that the
government of this country can only continue to be secure while it
conducts itself with fidelity and justice, and as all its acts shall, as
heretofore, be thoroughly known and understood by all classes of the
people." Lord Erskine, however, is not singular in his view of this
subject; for every philanthropist cannot but subscribe to the justice
and equity of such doctrines. The prohibitory duty, therefore, on
political periodicals must be considered as a scheme, emanating from a
bad heart and weak head, to favour despotism. That law which requires
publishers and printers of newspapers to enter into heavy securities, to
answer to the consequences of the remote contingency of a LIBEL,--that
is, publishing any thing having a _tendency_ to bring either house of
parliament or his majesty's ministers _into contempt_,--must ever
operate perniciously to the cause of freedom. For is it not one of the
most sacred duties which a rational being owes to society, to his
family, and to himself, to endeavour to "bring into contempt" a
government, if it really be contemptible? To what did we owe the wreck
of our liberties, at this period, except to the _contempt_ into which
the preceding cabinets had been brought among the people? Is there an
Englishman, possessing a particle of manhood, or breathing the
inspirations of his ancestors, who would not blush at the human form,
could he witness a being so debased as not to perpetuate the contempt
into which public virtue had happily brought the names of Liverpool,
Castlereagh, Eldon, Sidmouth, and the whole tribe of Tory locusts that
so long fastened upon the vitals of his country? In America, the idea of
indicting a man for endeavouring "to bring the government into
contempt," would appear ludicrous. The language of the public
authorities in America would be, "If the government is not contemptible,
it will only gain strength from attacks; if it be contemptible, the
citizens have a right to prove it so, and to demand a change: it is
their duty to discuss the point, and to settle it by reason, and not to
suppress it by indictment." Our readers will acknowledge, that we do not
here advocate a doctrine we dare not practice; for we despise the
unjustness of the "Six Acts," and will never allow their
_unconstitutional_ powers to intimidate us in the discharge of our
public duty.
On the 29th of January,
1828,
parliament was opened by commission, when the ministry, headed by Lord
Goderich, was dissolved. The Duke of Wellington and Mr. Peel succeeded
the former premier and secretary of state,--a change that could not
possibly afford any satisfaction to the public. Mr. Brougham, in an
address to the House of Commons on this subject, said, "Though I
entertain the highest opinion of the duke's military genius, still I do
not like to see him at the head of the finances of the country,
enjoying, as he does, the full and perfect confidence of his
sovereign,--enjoying all the patronage of the crown,--enjoying the
patronage of the army,--enjoying the patronage of the church,--and, in
fact, enjoying almost all the patronage of the state. The noble duke is
likewise entrusted with the delicate functions of conveying constant and
delicate advice to the ears of his royal master. As a constitutional
man, this state of things strikes me as being most _unconstitutional_."
Mr. Brougham further added, "I have no fear of slavery being introduced
into this country by the power of the sword. The noble duke (of
Wellington) may take the army,--he may take the navy,--he may take the
mitre, he may take the great seal,--I will make the noble duke a present
of them all. Let him come on with his whole force, sword in hand,
against the constitution, and the energies of the people of this country
would not only beat him, but laugh at his efforts." These were the
excellent sentiments of Mr. Brougham, and we wish the noble Lord
Chancellor may long continue the undeviating advocate of the people's
rights and liberties.
We have now to record the death of the Earl of Liverpool, which took
place at his residence, Coome Wood, on the 4th of December, in the
fifty-ninth year of his age, regretted by none but those who had
feasted on the wealth of our country, under his long unfortunate sway
over national affairs.
Could we write as severe as the ministerial qualities of Lord Liverpool
were injurious to the British people, what a hideous draught of
distortion, both in principle and conduct, should we exhibit! Looking at
the insignificant origin of his lordship, and the crooked crags of his
political progress, we trace the wily ascent of an intriguing
speculator, clinging to his towry height by principles hostile to the
constitution of England. His career is marked by a glazy ichor, which,
though repulsive to the chaste eye of public virtue, and offensive to
the independent feelings of public spirit, will be as memorable as
odious. Long after the praises of his lordship's minions shall be buried
in oblivion, the iniquity of his deeds will pain the recollection of all
good men, while he will be regarded as the favourite model of those who
aspire to the ruin of their country. The character of this weak and
daring man would not deserve the attention of history, if it were not so
fatally united with the misfortunes of our country, which are mainly to
be attributed to him and his notoriously wicked and over-bearing junta.
When in the House of Commons in 1793, he (then Mr. Jenkinson) was
foremost in opposing the memorable petition for parliamentary reform,
brought forward by Mr. (now Earl) Grey, and defended the then existing
state of the representation, maintaining, "that the House of Commons,
constituted as it was, had answered the end for which it was
designed,"--namely, we suppose, to subdue the people!
Upon the assassination of Mr. Perceval in 1812, Lord Liverpool became
first lord of the Treasury, by the especial request of the regent. Upon
his lordship's advancement to this high and important office, Lord
Sidmouth and Mr. Vansittart were announced as new members of the
ministry. The first act of Lord Liverpool, or what may be termed his
first important measure, was the introduction of a bill to increase the
magisterial power in various districts of the country, where the
inhabitants were suffering from want of employment. By this bill, such
persons were not allowed the use of fire-arms, and forbidden to meet in
companies. His lordship here mistook tyranny for justice, and appeared
to set at defiance the opinion of the admirable Locke, that "there is a
way whereby governments are dissolved, and that is, when the legislature
and the prince, or either of them, act contrary to their trust."
Another grievous inroad upon the liberties of the people, during the
administration of this puissant lord, was his frequent union of offices
diametrically opposite to each other; one of which, appointing the
clergy to sit on the judicial bench, must ever be considered as an
infringement upon that religion which his lordship considered as "part
and parcel of the law of the land." The studies of clergymen were
originally designed to fit them for the diffusion of "peace and
good-will towards men," and not to form them for the exercise of
_temporal_ power. We do not mean to say that, when people become
clergymen, they are to renounce their rights as men; but this is a
widely-different matter from investing them with the power of punishing
a delinquent. Christ himself exercised no such functions, but left them
to the secular authorities. Why, then, should those who pretend to be
the followers of Christ presume to that which their master condemned?
Alas! their conduct has too often proved them to be no followers of his;
yet Lord Liverpool, well knowing the general vindictiveness and
domineering austerity of their hearts, considered them the better fit
for the magisterial office, as his intention was to rule by forcing the
people into obedience, instead of soothing their irritated minds by a
few timely concessions. For the sake of Christianity itself, we hope to
see such an unholy union of spiritual and secular power speedily
abolished.
It was also under Lord Liverpool's administration that the most
revolting scenes of MILITARY FLOGGING occurred. We might relate numerous
instances of this barbarous custom, but one will be sufficient for the
purpose of illustration: Three soldiers, (MERE BOYS!) in July, 1817, in
company with others, met at the Rose and Crown public-house, Tower Hill,
where at length a fight ensued. A court-martial being held, Thomas
Hayes, Francis Hayes, and George Staniford were ordered to receive eight
hundred lashes each! The execution of this sentence, so disgraceful to a
civilized country, was commenced; but after Thomas Hayes (who was only
twenty years of age) had received six hundred and seventy-five lashes,
the surgeon pronounced his life to be in danger, and he was, therefore,
carried away. Francis Hayes, only sixteen years of age, received three
hundred and thirty-five lashes; and George Staniford, only seventeen
years of age, two hundred lashes!--when both the latter had the
remaining part of their sentence commuted, upon condition of their
entering a condemned regiment! Thus three of our fellow-creatures, who
had the misfortune to be English soldiers, and therefore, of all other
men in the world, alone liable to be subjected to a system of refined
cruelty, alike distinguished for its cold-blooded atrocity and the utter
absence of any reasonable plea for its infliction, were tortured in this
_Christian_ land as long as nature would bear the anguish, and that,
too, before the number of lashes awarded by their unmerciful judges had
been inflicted upon their poor backs! Is there a man whose heart retains
a spark of feeling,--who has not been hardened by military education and
habits,--that does not feel an involuntary shudder, a sickening of the
heart, when he learns that three of his countrymen--_free-born
Englishmen_, (oh, what a satire has that term become!)--were sentenced
to have "the living flesh torn from their backs" by the horrid
laceration of the "cat-o'-nine-tails," for being guilty of a
public-house brawl! In the name of an all-merciful Providence, of what
materials are military officers composed that they can endure such
disgusting spectacles? We wonder how they have so long dared to set at
defiance the indignation of the public, and tempt the just vengeance of
heaven! Can they, after witnessing such scenes of unbearable
torture,--of worse than Russian barbarity,--return to their wives and
families, and eat their food with an appetite? But officers are
GENTLEMEN,--_young sprigs of nobility_, in most cases,--and the
sufferings of the private soldier may possibly be SPORT TO THEM! We
hope, however, to see a law passed to give equal rights to the soldier
as to the _brute_, at least; for no man in England, be he whom he may,
is permitted to treat a dog as soldiers have been and are even _now_
treated. Were all Englishmen punished in the same manner for the offence
of brawling and drunkenness, where would the flogging system terminate?
Certainly not with the private soldier or the foremast sailor; it would
assuredly find its way to their _officers_, to the _noble_, the
_bishop_, and the _prince_!!!
Lord Liverpool allowed himself to be a prominent actor in the
unprecedented persecutions against the Princess of Wales. Had not his
lordship arranged the form of the secret proceedings abroad, and
consented to the lavish expenditure of our means to suppress truth in
that partial business, both the queen and her daughter might, at this
time, have been in the enjoyment of health and happiness. His lordship
said publicly, that the prosecution against her majesty in 1820 was "the
most embarrassing question which ever perplexed any government." This
short declaration spoke volumes; for truth is simple, and requires no
adornment of language. At the conclusion of the mock trial of her
majesty, there appeared, in the House of Lords, a majority of NINE for
the Bill against the queen; yet, under these circumstances, his lordship
thought proper to abandon the charges against her majesty! His motives
for acting thus, we shall presently explain; but in the mean time we
contend that such a proceeding was unconstitutional, and not to be
defended on any honourable grounds. If the peers had really voted
_conscientiously_, they were entitled to the award from their majority;
if they had _not_ so voted, then they ought to have been expelled from
the House for ever, as well as from all honourable society. Either way,
therefore, Lord Liverpool acted wrong, and fully proved the verity of
the old adage, "Power usurped is weakness when exposed; conscious of
wrong, it is pusillanimous, and prone to flight."
At the period of which we are speaking, certain documents were laid
before Lord Liverpool, relative to the bonds and promissory notes
entered into so solemnly by certain royal princes; and his lordship was
assured that, if the bill of pains and penalties did pass, these
disgraceful engagements, together with the attendant circumstances,
should immediately meet the public eye. Here then was one of the secret
reasons of his lordship's abandoning the infamous bill against the
queen!
The following is a true copy of the letter conveying this unwelcome
intelligence, and which was delivered into Lord Liverpool's own hand:
"_Nov. 6th, 1820._
"MY LORD,
"Fearless of your displeasure, I beg to submit my sentiments to your
lordship without further ceremony. I am in the possession of a copy of
_a certain bond_, upon the execution of which your royal master was the
first named, and to whom the largest share was to be advanced. If the
bill against the queen _pass_, I will expose the whole transaction to
the nation, and that will be sufficient to open the eyes even of the
wilfully blind. You know the danger, and may provide against it in some
degree. I shall also explain the unhappy consequences attendant upon
some of the INJURED persons connected with this transaction.
"I am, my lord,
"Your humble servant,
"&c. &c. &c."
"To the Right Hon.
Lord Liverpool."
We here subjoin an exact copy of the bond referred to in this letter:
=Know all Men= by these presents, that We, George Prince of
Wales, Frederick Duke of York, and William Henry Duke of
Clarence, all living in the City of Westminster, in the County
of Middlesex, are jointly and severally, justly and truly,
indebted to John Cator, of Beckenham, in the County of Kent,
Esquire, and his Executors, Administrators, and Assigns, in
the penal sum of _Sixty Thousand Pounds_, of good and lawful
money of Great Britain, well and truly paid to Us, at or
before the sealing of these presents. Sealed with our Seals
this 16th day of December, in the Twenty-ninth year of the
Reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third, by the Grace of
God, King, Defender of the Faith, anno domini 1788.
The condition of the above-written obligation is such, that if
the above bounden George Prince of Wales, Frederick Duke of
York, and William Henry Duke of Clarence, or any or either of
them, or any of their Heirs, Executors, or Administrators,
shall well and truly pay, or cause to be paid, unto the
above-named John Cator, his Executors, Administrators, or
Assigns, the full sum of _Sixty Thousand Pounds_ of lawful
money of Great Britain, within the space or time of six
calendar months next, after any one or either of us, the said
George Prince of Wales, Frederick Duke of York, and William
Henry Duke of Clarence, shall come to and ascend the Throne of
England, together with lawful interest on the same; to be
computed from the day that such event shall happen, upon whom,
to the time of paying off this obligation, then, and in such
case, the same shall become null and void; otherwise to be
and remain in full force and virtue.
{ GEORGE PRINCE OF WALES. L. S.
_Signed_ { FREDERICK. L. S.
{ WILLIAM HENRY. L. S.
To save the exhibition of this bond, as well as several others of a
similar description, much to the discredit of the sovereign, Lord
Liverpool readily gave his assistance, and thus was _forced_ to abandon
the bill against the queen.
In 1823, Lord Liverpool said in the House, that "The policy of the
British government rested on the principle of the law of nations, which
allowed every country to judge how it could best be governed, and what
ought to be its institutions." This paragraph in his lordship's speech
sufficiently proved him to be an _aristocrat_, in the true sense of the
word. The policy of _his_ government was, doubtless, to concentrate
power in the hands of the rulers, and to _force_ the mass of the people
to submissive degradation and wretchedness.
In 1825, his lordship was again disturbed by an inquiry into some state
arrangements, relative to the mysterious demise of the Princess
Charlotte, which had been made in 1817, and to which his lordship had
been privy. But he declined all inquiries into this disgraceful subject,
in a manner not very consistent with his own honour, or the importance
of the question. In 1826, his lordship was once more solicited to
receive the information, but he still declined, though he must have
been aware of the justness of the claim. As we have fully explained
these appeals to his lordship in a former part of our work, we have only
considered it necessary to glance at them in this place.
At length this statesman, after serving his king in direct opposition to
the interests of the people, fell into the stupor of apoplectic and
paralytic disease, and expired as previously stated.
In this year, an inquiry was instituted into the death of the patriot
HAMPDEN; and, in order to ascertain, if possible, the sort of wound by
which he had been killed, his body was disinterred from Hampden church,
Bucks. The exhumation was attended by Lord Nugent, Mr. Denman, and
several other gentlemen. The following account of the investigation was
given to the public by one of the party:
"After examining the initials and dates on several leaden coffins, we
came to the one in question, the plate of which was so corroded, that it
crumbled and broke into small pieces on touching it. It was therefore
impossible to ascertain the name of the individual it contained. The
coffin had originally been enclosed in wood, covered with velvet, a
small portion only of which was apparent near the bottom, at the left
side, which was not the case with those of a later date, where the
initials were very distinct, and the lead more perfect and fresher in
appearance. The register stated, that Hampden was interred on the 25th
day of June, 1643, and an old document, still in existence, gives a
curious and full account of the grand procession on the occasion; we
were, therefore, pretty confident that this must be the one in question,
having examined all the others in succession. It was lying under the
western window, near the tablet erected by him, when living, to the
memory of his beloved wife, whose virtues he extols in the most
affectionate language. Without positive proof, it was reasonable to
suppose that he would be interred near his adored partner, and this
being found at her feet, it was unanimously agreed that the lid should
be cut open to ascertain the fact, which proved afterwards that we were
not mistaken. The parish plumber descended, and commenced cutting across
the coffin, then longitudinally, until the whole was sufficiently
loosened to roll back, in order to lift off the wooden lid beneath,
which was found in such good preservation that it came off nearly
entire. Beneath this was another lid of the same material, which was
raised without much giving way. The coffin had originally been filled up
with sawdust, which was found undisturbed, except the centre, where the
abdomen had fallen in. The sawdust was then removed, and the process of
examination commenced. Silence reigned. Lord Nugent descended into the
grave, and first removed the outer cloth, which was firmly wrapped round
the body; then the second and a third, such care having been extended to
preserve the body from the worm of corruption. Here a very singular
scene presented itself. No regular features were apparent, although the
face retained a death-like whiteness, and shewed the various windings of
the blood-vessels beneath the skin. The upper row of teeth were perfect,
and those that remained in the under jaw, on being taken out and
examined, were quite sound. A little beard remained on the lower part of
the chin; and the whiskers were strong, and somewhat lighter than his
hair, which was a full auburn brown; the upper part of the bridge of the
nose still remained elevated; the remainder had given way to the
pressure of the cloths, which had been firmly bound round the head. The
eyes were but slightly sunk in, and were covered with the same white
film which characterized the general appearance of the face. As a
difference of opinion existed concerning the indentation in the left
shoulder, where it was supposed he had been wounded, it was unanimously
agreed upon to raise up the coffin altogether, and place it in the
centre of the church, where a more accurate examination might take
place. The coffin was extremely heavy; but, by elevating one end with a
crow-bar, two strong ropes were adjusted under either end, and thus
drawn up by twelve men, in the most careful manner possible. The first
operation was, to examine the arms, which nearly retained their original
size, and presented a very muscular appearance. On lifting up the right
arm, we found that it was dispossessed of its hand. We might, therefore,
naturally conjecture that it had been amputated, as the bone presented a
perfectly flat appearance, as if sawn off by some very sharp
instrument. On searching carefully under the cloths, to our no small
astonishment, we found the hand, or rather a number of small bones,
enclosed in a separate cloth. For about six inches up the arm, the
greater part of the flesh had wasted away, being evidently smaller than
the lower part of the left arm, to which the hand was very firmly
united, and which presented no symptoms of decay further than the two
bones of the fore-finger being loose. Even the nails remained entire, of
which we saw no appearance in the cloth containing the remains of the
right hand. In order to corroborate or disprove the different statements
relative to his having been wounded in the right shoulder, a close
examination of each took place. The clavicle of the right shoulder was
firmly united in the scapula, nor did there appear any contusion or
indentation that evinced symptoms of any wound ever having been
inflicted. The left shoulder, on the contrary, was smaller and sunken
in, as if the clavicle had been displaced. To remove all doubts, it was
judged necessary to remove the arms, which were amputated with a
penknife. The socket of the left arm was perfectly white and healthy,
and the clavicle firmly united to the scapula, nor was there the least
appearance of contusion or wound. The socket of the right shoulder, on
the contrary, was of a brownish cast, and the clavicle being found quite
loose and disunited from the scapula, proved that dislocation had taken
place. The bones, however, were quite perfect. Such dislocation,
therefore, must have arisen, either from the force of a ball, or from
Colonel Hampden having fallen from his horse, when he lost the power of
holding the reins, by reason of his hand having been so dreadfully
shattered. The latter, in all probability, was the case, as it would be
barely impossible for a ball to pass through the shoulder without some
fracture, either of the clavicle or scapula. In order to examine the
head and hair, the body was raised up and supported with a shovel; on
removing the cloths, which adhered firmly to the back of the head, we
found the hair in a complete state of preservation. It was a dark auburn
colour, and, according to the custom of the times, was very long,--from
five to six inches. It was drawn up and tied round at the top of the
head with black thread or silk. The ends had the appearance of having
been cut off. On taking hold of the top-knot, it soon gave way, and came
off like a wig. Here a singular scene presented itself. The worm of
corruption was busily employed; the skull, in some places, being
perfectly bare, whilst in others the skin remained nearly entire, upon
which we discovered a number of maggots and small red worms on the feed
with great activity. This was the only spot where any symptoms of life
was apparent, as if the brain contained a vital principle within it,
which engendered its own destruction; otherwise, how can we account,
after the lapse of nearly two centuries, in finding living creatures
preying upon the seat of intellect, when they were no where else to be
found, in no other part of the body? He was five feet, nine inches, in
height, apparently of great muscular strength, of a vigorous and robust
frame; forehead broad and high; the skull altogether well formed, such
an one as the imagination would conceive capable of great exploits."
We offer no apology for inserting this very interesting inquiry into the
cause of the death of one of England's greatest characters. Such
investigations, we consider, possess peculiar interest to the lovers of
truth, as well as being calculated to effect much public good. The
deaths of many other illustrious individuals are yet involved in
mystery, which may probably, at no distant period, be cleared up in the
same way as that of Hampden has been. The sudden death of George the
Third's next brother, Edward, Duke of York, calls aloud for inquiry;
and, though it is impossible to make reparation to the departed duke
himself, yet such inquiry might lead to the benefit of his INNOCENT,
INJURED, and STILL SURVIVING OFFSPRING.
* * * * *
The excesses of the court at this period, as usual, were enormous. The
man who had sworn to do justice and love mercy proved, by his
deportment, that he cared not for either. In defiance of prudence, he
continued to revel in gaiety and wantonness, totally regardless of the
sorrows of his subjects, whose condition daily became more grievous, and
whose petitions were disregarded in proportion to the pressure of their
miseries. This man of pleasure exhausted what time he could spare from
the indulgence of his passions in the invention of expensive and useless
decorations and embellishments to the already gorgeous palaces in which
he pleased to reside. He was still unwearied in his monstrous demands
from the resources of the people, indefatigable in the accomplishment of
all his lascivious pursuits, and deaf to the voice of remonstrance and
humanity.