1830,
the king's health materially declined, though the greatest secrecy
prevailed at Windsor upon the subject. His disease, however,
progressively increased, and in the latter end of March, he became
unable to take his usual exercise in the park. From time to time, the
organs of the court pronounced his majesty again in tolerable health,
and announced his intention to hold a drawing room at St. James'; but at
the same time they well knew there was no probability that such an event
could take place.
On the 15th of April, the first bulletin was issued, and this official
document regularly appeared till the announcement of the royal demise,
which was as follows:
"His majesty expired at a quarter past three o'clock this morning, in
the 68th year of his age, and in the eleventh of his reign.--_June 26th,
1830, Windsor Castle._"
The death was lingering and painful, which is not to be wondered at when
we consider what an artificial system of body there was to break up, and
to what a magnitude it had grown. The wonder is, considering the life
which the king had led in his youth, and the ease and luxury in which he
indulged afterwards, that he lasted so long. After the usual ceremony
of lying in state had been observed, his majesty was consigned to the
royal vault at Windsor, on Thursday, the 15th of July. Immediately after
which, the greatest bustle was observed in the apartments occupied at
Windsor by the Marchioness of Conyngham, and a general scramble and a
rapid packing up of valuables took place.
We have so often had occasion to speak of the actions of George the
Fourth, that little remains to be said of his general character. That he
was handsome, dressed and lived extravagantly, put on fascinating
manners when he wished to gain his point, and had an extraordinary good
opinion of himself, are _accomplishments_ which we believe he possessed
in an eminent degree. But what were such insignificant matters to the
country in general, when their possessor owned the basest and most
vindictive heart that ever disgraced the human bosom? Would his handsome
person atone, in the eyes of doting parents, for the seduction of their
daughters? Would his splendid habiliments afford a recompense to his
ruined creditors? Would his fascinating manners compensate his injured
and cruelly-oppressed wife for the brutal, unmanly, and infamous
treatment she received from him? Or would his self-love satisfy the
heavily-taxed people, who were compelled to administer to his
extravagant demands for finery and baubles? Assuredly not; and such
"accomplishments," therefore, only tended to render the actions of his
majesty more disgusting in the eyes of the better part of the community.
In truth, George the Fourth thought of nothing but his personal ease
and comforts. When his mistresses or his friends became troublesome,
they were instantly and unceremoniously dismissed, without causing the
"first gentleman in the world" the least uneasiness as to their future
good or ill fortune. In politics, he leagued himself with the Whigs as
long as they served his purpose; but, directly they gave him the least
trouble, he disowned their acquaintance. He indulged the follies and
vices of his chosen companions, till indulging them longer became
irksome. He supported the principles of his family as long as supporting
them answered his ends. He consented to the passing of the Catholic
Relief Bill on the same principle as he had shaken off poor Mrs.
Robinson. Protestantism and Perdita were voted bores, and he therefore
took the easiest course to rid himself of both. In the latter years of
his life, he disliked public exhibitions, because they gave him trouble,
and kept him a few hours from indulging his private passions, which he
considered as so much time lost. This is the _true_ character of George
the Fourth, whatever his minions may say to the contrary.
Passing over many circumstances of dubious import, relative to the
departed monarch, we proceed to notice some transactions of an unhappy
complexion, and which reflect no small portion of dishonour upon his
memory. When the late Duke of York returned from his military education
in Prussia, he unfortunately brought with him the prevailing vice of
the principal courts of Germany,--that of GAMBLING; and to his
inordinate attachment to that ruinous propensity may be attributed the
frequent loss of property and personal disgrace he endured. The late
monarch, also, was equally addicted to a love of play, and the sum
allowed him when he attained his majority soon proved insufficient to
supply the natural consequences of that uncontrolled passion and his
very lavish expenditure in finery of all kinds.
In consequence of the mutual embarrassments of these royal brothers,
they found themselves under the absolute necessity of raising money to
discharge some of their most pressing accounts. The prince, in
conjunction with the Dukes of York and Clarence, tried every imaginable
source in this country, from which it was thought a supply could be
raised, sufficient to avert the impending storm that hung over their
heads; but all their endeavours failed. As a last resource, the late
monarch was advised to attempt a loan in Holland; and Messrs. Bonney and
Sunderland, then of George-yard, Lombard-street, were appointed notarial
agents for the verification of the bonds; and the late Mr. Thomas
Hammersley, of Pall-mall, banker, was to receive the subscriptions, and
to pay the dividends thereon to the holders on the joint bonds of the
Prince of Wales, the Duke of York, and the Duke of Clarence. The sum
intended to be raised was about one million sterling, the greater part
of which was subscribed for by foreign houses only, at a price which
would have proved very satisfactory if the contract had been faithfully
performed. The negotiation for this loan commenced in 1788; but an
interruption to its completion was occasioned by the death of Mr.
Bonney, the notary. It was ultimately confirmed, to the great loss of
those who had so rashly speculated in such a questionable security. The
loan was to bear six per cent. interest, and the revenues of their royal
highnesses were to be invested in the hands of the late Dukes of
Northumberland and Portland, in order to ensure the due payment of
interest and principal. A large portion of the money, to the amount of
nearly half a million, had been received by the princes when the
revolution in France, in 1793, presented an opportunity to resist the
payment of those bonds which had been circulated, and even the interest
due upon them was refused. During the revolution, some of the holders of
these bonds escaped, and arrived in England; and, as their last
resource, they made numerous applications to the princes for the
interest due to them, if it were not quite convenient to discharge the
bonds in full. But the law-advisers of the princes pretended that the
present holders were not entitled to the interest, as they presumed the
bona-fide holders had perished during the troubles in France and
Holland; and that, consequently, other claims were not legal. On the
part of the claimants, the bonds were produced which they had bought,
and their right asserted to claim interest and principal equally as if
they had been the original subscribers.
This evasive attempt to resist the just discharge of loans, raised at
such great hazards, must ever be considered as an indelible stain upon
the characters of the princes concerned. We, however, would acquit the
Duke of Clarence from any participation in the _profits_ of these bonds;
his natural affection for his two elder brothers induced him to add his
name to the bonds merely as a further security to their holders; and we
doubt not that his present majesty will, if he have not already done so,
make all the reparation in his power to the heirs of the original
sufferers in these very dishonourable transactions.
The holders of these bonds finding themselves so unjustly treated, M.
Martignac, one of the original subscribers to them, made an application
to the Court of Chancery, and the affair came on by way of motion. Sir
Arthur Pigott, who was then Attorney-General to the Duchy of Cornwall,
replied, "that he had never heard of the existence of such bonds; but
his own opinion was, that the unhappy condition of France and Holland
rendered the _identification_ of the bona-fide holders almost
impossible, even presuming they ever had existed; but the inquiry should
be made in the proper quarter!" That inquiry, however, never benefitted
the distressed refugees. Sir Arthur Pigott, the legal adviser of the
Prince of Wales, might, to please his master, attempt to deny the
existence of these nominal securities; yet positive proof against such
denial was, that they were actually floating in the "money market," as
_common as any other security_, AT THAT VERY TIME! There was, indeed,
scarcely a broker on the Exchange who had not some portion of them for
sale; and it was an indisputable truth that means, of a disreputable
nature, were used to depreciate their value in the money market.
We must not here pass over the suspicious conduct (relative to these
bonds) of the then secretary of state for the home department. Under the
specious pretext of enforcing the Alien Act, this gentleman caused the
whole of these injured claimants to be taken and put on board a vessel
in the Thames, which was stated to be ready to sail for Holland. This
vessel, however, cast anchor at the Nore, for the professed purpose of
waiting to receive the necessary papers from the office of the secretary
of state. The heart-rending destiny of the unfortunate victims now only
remains to be told. Although no charge was preferred against them, they
were thus unceremoniously sent out of the kingdom by the decree of
arbitrary power. From the list of twenty-six unfortunate creditors of
the princes, fourteen of them were traced to the _guillotine_. The other
twelve perished by another concocted plan. The two principal
money-lenders, M. Abraham and M. Simeon Boas, of the Hague, were
endeavouring to maintain their shattered credit, and actually paid the
interest themselves due upon these bonds for two years; but they were
finally ruined, and one of the brothers put an end to his existence by a
pistol,--the other by poison!
Similar tragical scenes were attendant upon another loan, raised for the
princes by M. John James de Beaume, and prepared by Mr. Becknel. The
_signed_ acknowledgment of the princes was for one hundred thousand
pounds, payable to the said De Beaume, and vesting in him the power to
divide this bond into shares of one thousand pounds each, by printed
copies of the bond, &c. The original bond was deposited, for safety, in
the bank of Ransom, Morland, and Hammersley, while an attested copy, as
well as the bankers' acknowledgment of their holding such security, were
given to De Beaume as a proof of his authority in being the agent of the
three English princes. They also gave him a letter of introduction to
their correspondent in Paris, M. Perregaux. After considerable
difficulty, and after having remitted and paid to the princes two
hundred thousand pounds, in money and jewels, M. de Beaume and his
associates were apprehended, and charged with treason, for asserting
that George the Third of England was King of France!!! These unfortunate
men were tried, condemned, and actually executed upon this paltry charge
within twenty-four hours after their mock trial! So perished Richard
Chaudot, Mestrirer Niette, De Beaume, and Aubert, either for purchasing
the shares of the princes' securities, or for negotiating them. Such
also was the fate of Viette, a rich jeweller, who had bought largely of
the shares from De Beaume.
Would that we could here close the catalogue of black offences against
certain individuals; but we are obliged, as honest historians, to refer
to the cruel death of Charles Vaucher, a banker in Paris. This gentleman
quitted France in 1793, and fixed his residence in England, where he
married an English lady. He had been the purchaser of twenty shares of
the princes' bond, and, as was naturally to be expected, made
application for the interest due thereon. The claim being refused, the
injured gentleman applied for legal assistance; but the interest was
still rejected, because the bond had not been named in the schedule laid
before the commissioners appointed to examine into the extent of the
debts of the Prince George! Further application was made; though,
instead of obtaining justice, this unfortunate gentleman received an
official order to quit England within the space of four days! Having
other affairs to arrange, M. Vaucher petitioned the Duke of Portland
(then prime minister) to allow him to remain until his affairs could be
arranged; but his petition was refused, and a warrant issued, signed by
the duke, directing William Ross and George Higgins, two of his
majesty's messengers, to take M. Vaucher into custody till he should be
sent out of the country, which was immediately put in force! He was
conveyed to Rotterdam, and from thence to Paris, where he was
imprisoned. On the 22nd of December, 1795, his trial took place upon
similar charges to those of M. de Beaume, and he was soon found guilty,
and guillotined!
We could recite many other crimes relative to these bonds; but we think
we hear the shocked reader exclaim, "Hold! enough!" Indeed such
sickening details can hardly obtain credence in the minds of men,
possessed of even the common feelings of our nature. To offer any
palliation of such monstrous atrocities would only be an insult to the
understandings of all unprejudiced observers of royalty!
At the time of the Prince of Wales' greatest embarrassments, an attempt
was made to divert the country into a belief of the honourable
intentions of his royal highness by the sale of his racing stud, and
some other property. But no sooner had parliament voted sufficient money
to relieve the prince from his debts than the turf-establishment was
revived in a more ruinous style than ever, the field of dissipation and
extravagance enlarged, and fresh debts contracted to an enormous amount,
which were not either in his or the nation's power to discharge. Strong
doubts were also entertained that the money voted by parliament to this
"prodigal son" was not applied to the purpose for which it was granted.
Had a private individual so committed himself, he would have become the
outcast of his family, while all the virtuous part of the community had
instantly avoided him; but in the case of this prince, where the example
was ten thousand times more contagious, such a flagrant breach of faith
and such base ingratitude hardly received the slightest animadversion!
Why should more indulgence have been shewn to this man, whose peculiar
duty it was to respect popular favour, and to act in such a manner as to
deserve it, and from whose exalted station the public had a right to
expect lessons of morality and virtue, than to a private person, whose
deviation from their rules only produces partial effects, and can be of
no detriment to the community at large. How unjust it is, what an
inversion of every fair and honourable principle, to suffer the bauble
rank to afford a veil to moral depravity! To protect genius, to reward
merit, and to relieve distress, is what _ought_ to be the duty of a
prince; but when the nation was called on to liquidate immense debts,
without a single instance of this kind on record to justify such a
perversion of their money, it was perfidy to the public, and not a
warranted liberality towards the prince, for any parliament to do so.
Such conduct, indeed, would not have been tolerated had not the
professed representatives of England (who were the nominees of a haughty
and unfeeling aristocracy) put it beyond the remedy of the majority of
the people. At the periods to which we now refer, the most disgraceful
sums were also voted for the repairs and embellishments of Brighton
Pavilion, Windsor Castle, Windsor Cottage, (so called) the Palace at
Pimlico, and other fanciful buildings of royalty. The money required for
these purposes, be it remembered, was drained from a heavily-oppressed
people, whose industry, economy, and honesty were, in the aggregate,
without a parallel. But it is a serious fact, that, from the accession
of George the Third to the death of George the Fourth, the royal
expenditure was ninety-two millions, ninety thousand, eight hundred, and
seven pounds! Yet, in this amount, the salaries and official emoluments
of the royal dukes are not included from the year 1815. We cannot help
contrasting the evil done with the benefits that might have been
bestowed by this money. What a fund it had made to lessen the hardships
imposed upon the poor!--to mitigate the sufferings of the mechanic!--and
to lighten the burdens of the honest citizen! Instead of which, it was
expended merely to gratify pride and vice. The delight of doing good was
the last sentiment for consideration; and though a vast field was open
for the exercise of benevolence, yet the offices of real greatness were
always neglected by George the Fourth and the greater part of his
family.
* * * * *
Having now brought our history down to the providential release of
England by the death of George the Fourth, we cannot part company with
our readers before taking a general survey of the lamentable truths it
contains. Authors have too often demeaned themselves by concealing
facts, and, instead of being historians of an action, have proved
themselves the mere lawyers of a party; they are retained by their
principles, and bribed by their interests; their narrations are an
opening of their case, and in front of their histories, therefore, ought
to be written--"I am for the defendant," or "I am for the plaintiff."
With such unworthy writers, we should be ashamed to claim affinity. Our
unflinching exposures have been made with no sinister motives; for we
have dared to brave prosecutions and persecutions, despising the bribes
and defying the hate of the minions of power! Our's is the cause, the
righteous cause, of the insulted and harassed classes,--the real
productors of the national wealth,--who have so long endured the galling
yoke of oppression. The time, however, is now fast approaching when
fallacious speeches must yield precedence to solid reasoning, when
honest governments must supersede systems of despotism, when vice must
be recognized and punished in the case of the prince as well as in that
of the peasant; when superior talents must be permitted to occupy
superior stations; when individuals, most suited to serve the real
interests of the kingdom, will be solicited to guide the helm of state;
when all policy, opposed to freedom, will be annihilated; when
interested men will be compelled to quit their seats in the councils,
and weak men be afraid to venture another trial; when he who has the
heart of a coward, or the spirit of a sycophant, will not dare to
present himself for the suffrages of a free people! Yes, we repeat, such
an era is at hand, and "the people" of England are about to enjoy that
liberty and happiness, from which they have unjustly been debarred by
the cruel and haughty hand of tyranny. An unjust government, whether
professing Whig or Tory principles, will vainly attempt to stop this
march of liberty by raising the old bugbear cry of--"Anarchy and
confusion will be the consequences of entrusting the people with their
political rights and privileges!" Such an unnatural doctrine has been
held far too long by the titled and wealthy mortality of our land, who
are not contented with enjoying the great advantages of rank and
property, whether hereditary or acquired, but seem, by their behaviour,
determined to prevent their less-fortunate brethren from tasting the
happiness which would arise from a possession of their political rights.
The tyrannical nature of such characters, unsatisfied with the elevation
which their birth or fortune has given them, wish to trample on their
"inferiors," and to force them still lower in the scale of intelligent
beings. Contemptible proud men, thus to insult those who minister to
their luxuries and their wealth! Such vain conduct, however, will never
fail to excite the honest indignation of all who can think and feel, and
who are remote from the sphere of corrupting influence. It is not only
most highly culpable in a moral view, but extremely dangerous in a
political. It arises from the hateful spirit of despotism, and, if not
timely checked by the people, must soon become universal. A spirit of
this nature would allow no rights to the poor but those which cannot be
taken away,--the rights of mere animal nature. Such a spirit hates "the
people," and would gladly annihilate all of them but those who
administer to pride and luxury, either as menial servants, dependent
tradesmen, or mechanics,--or common soldiers, ready to shed the blood of
those who might render themselves obnoxious to their lordly tyrants.
Notwithstanding such contempt of "the people," however, these mighty of
the land think they are entitled to represent them in parliament; yet
what can be expected from such proud men but that they should be as
servilely mean and obsequious to a minister as they are cruel and
unfeeling in their behaviour to the poor of their vicinity? By such
behaviour, the ARISTOCRATS attempt to form a little world of their own,
where Folly and Vanity reign supreme, but where Virtue, Learning, and
Usefulness are alike unknown. The grand secret of its constitution is to
claim dignity, distinction, power, and place, exclusively, without the
painful labour of deserving either by personal merit, or by services to
the commonwealth. They talk and laugh loud, applauding each other's
self-complacency, and would not be supposed to cast an eye on the
"inferior crowd," whose admiration, nevertheless, they are at the same
time courting by every silly effort of pragmatical vanity! Men of this
cast pay no more, and frequently not so much, as other people; yet they
strangely conceive themselves privileged to treat tradesmen,--certainly
respectable when honest, sober, and industrious,--as if they were not of
the same flesh and blood with "gentlemen," but to be ranked with the ass
and the swine. Such proud pretenders to superiority consider the world
was only made for them, while their families and their houses must
studiously be kept from plebeian contamination. This aristocratical
insolence is also visible even at church,--in the immediate presence of
Him who made high and low, rich and poor, and where the gilded and
painted ornaments on the walls seem to mock the folly of all human
pride. The pew of "the great man" is raised above the others, and
furnished with curtains, adorned with linings, and accommodated with
cushions. Even those who do not bow at the name of Jesus are yet
expected to make their lowly obeisance to the lord in the gallery!
However indifferent such mighty persons may feel towards religion, they
are still zealous for the church; for this is useful, not only in
providing genteely for their poorer relations and dependants, but as an
engine to KEEP DOWN THE PEOPLE! The temporalities and splendours of the
"established" church endear it to them; but, if it had continued in its
primitive state, _when poor fishermen were its bishops_, how differently
would they have viewed it!
Against principles so dangerous and hostile to liberty, every friend of
his country will not hesitate to shew a determined opposition. The
poorer part of mankind,--that is, "the people,"--when they are not
blinded by ignorance, in which the "great ones" have always endeavoured
to keep them, may safely be entrusted with political power. "The people"
have lately been presented with a proof of the selfish motives of these
"great ones," which have done wonders in opening their eyes to the
degraded condition in which they have so long been held, and the natural
consequences of such enlightenment are rapidly being made known in
language not to be misunderstood. They begin to view themselves as
essential parts of one great body; they are therefore determined to
possess an equal portion of political rights, and peaceably possess
them; for they are too sensible not to be aware that all violence is not
only wrong, but totally unnecessary to accomplish this end. If our
exposition of the long-hidden things of darkness, as well as of the
characters of their oppressors, should assist in producing this happy
consummation, our reward will be ample; we desire no more.
In taking a review of our past pages, the intelligent reader will hardly
wonder at the awful complexion the present times have assumed. Every
evil has its origin, and, however remote it may be, will ultimately
produce its effects. What, then, it may be asked, is the cause of the
present unhappy state of England,--of its political struggles and
divisions? Have they not been mainly produced by the long-concealed
secrets of state, which have, alas! led to the commission of crimes--of
murders--that must force the tear of pity from the eye of
compassionating humanity?
According to the pure fabric of the British constitution, no nation on
the surface of the globe ought to have been more happy, more
consolidated in friendly intercourse and good understanding, nor more
prosperous and contented, than this country. But, from the time of Queen
Anne, the state has been gradually retrograding and divided into two
aristocratical parties,--WHIGS and TORIES,--whose watch-words were
principles, (which might be said to be constitutionally attached to
opposition or place) but whose struggles have ever been for power. The
spirit of party has been said to furnish aliment to the spirit of
liberty; and so perhaps it does, but in this way: by first creating the
despotism which it is the office of the spirit of liberty to counteract,
and, if possible, to overthrow. If there had never been the party of the
usurpers and abusers of power, there would have been no occasion for
that of the leaguers and reformers. It is of necessity that party spirit
must, on the whole, have done more harm than good, since assuredly it
has raised more giants than it has yet slain. All party spirit,
generally speaking, is injurious. It has been truly denounced by one of
the greatest friends of freedom the world has ever seen,--the
illustrious Washington,--as "the very worst enemy of popular
governments." In his farewell address to the American people, he
earnestly warns them against it as the thing from which, of all others,
they had most to fear. "It serves always," he tells them, "to distract
the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates
the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the
animosity of one class against another; foments, occasionally, riots and
insurrections; it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption,
which find a facilitated access to the government itself, through the
channels of party passions." All party ascendencies have this character
in common: that they serve to make the interests of the country
subordinate to private ends. It is the established mode with dominant
factions to distribute the loaves and fishes among their own adherents
exclusively,--they could not, in fact, exist as factions otherwise.
Worth and talent are no farther regarded than is necessary for the
saving of appearances. The sort of followers whom your party minister
delights to honour are those who will stick at nothing, who will stand
by a leader through thick and thin, who will never consider the right or
wrong of any thing, but support whatever their patron supports, and
resist to the utmost whenever he gives the word,--men, in short, who are
prepared to look only to their own and their party's advantage, without
at all caring how the interests of the community at large may be
affected by their conduct. Ever since the revolution of 1688, England
has never been free from the trammels of some such dominant faction or
other; and what have been the consequences? One long course of
misgovernment, one unceasing heaping of burdens on the people, and of
pensions and sinecures on the aristocracy,--one unvarying round of
oppression, plunder, murder, corruption, and extravagance. Whether it
was Tory or whether it was Whig that was in power, the result to the
people was almost always the same. If the Whigs have, on the whole, been
less to blame than their rivals, it is to be remembered, on the other
hand, that their opportunities of doing evil have been fewer. However
the two parties may differ, or affect to differ, on general principles
of government, they have always agreed marvellously on one point,
namely: the perfect propriety of making the most of their time while in
office, to enrich themselves, their relations, and dependants, at the
expense of the nation[240:A]. Thus, public opinion has long been the
opinion of certain coteries, and public men, generally speaking, men
neither brought forward by the public, nor for the sake of the public!
It has been thought necessary that some one should make such a speech
as would "tell well," and procure a round of cheers from the House. If
such an individual could be found with a large landed estate and a
coronet entailed upon him, so much the better; if not, why he must be
sought for elsewhere. A school or college reputation, an able pamphlet,
a club or county-meeting oration, pointed him out. The minister, or the
great man who wished to be the minister, brought him into parliament: if
he failed, he sank into insignificance; if he succeeded, he worked for
his master during a certain time, and then became a minister or a great
man himself. As for the people, he had nothing whatever to do with them;
they returned some jolly 'squire, who feasted them well, or some nabob
who purchased their votes. Under such a state of things, cheerfully
acquiesced in, we say, it is hardly to be wondered at that what are
called "the people" should have been very much plundered and very much
despised. Were this base party spirit only banished from among us, were
all party badges, watchwords, and distinctions, only discarded for ever,
were superior talent and tried integrity but once to become the sole
passports to preferment, our social system would then be placed on the
very best possible footing. The time of so desirable a consummation, we
hope and trust, is not far distant; though we are still in the midst of
the manifold evils of which the so-much-lauded party spirit has been the
source, and we must necessarily deal with matters as they are. Tory is
again contending against Whig for the mastery, and with both the real
interests of the people seem, as usual, to form only a secondary
consideration. A greater proof of this cannot possibly be offered than
in the following extract from a late parliamentary report:
"MR. DAWSON, in reference to the appointment of Lord Durham to
be lord privy seal, asked whether any portion of the salary
due to the noble lord from the time of his appointment to this
period had been paid, or whether he had made any application
for the payment of this salary. He wished to know the same
with respect to the post-master-general.
"SIR GEORGE WARRENDER said, that when the noble lord had found
that his was an efficient public office, he had determined to
take the salary. When the duke stated his determination not to
take the salary, there was upon the part of the committee the
general expression of an opinion that the noble duke, in so
doing, would be unfair to the office. The committee
communicated to him that he would be doing great injustice to
the office.
"MR. J. WOOD corroborated the statement of the honourable
baronet, both with respect to the Duke of Richmond and of Lord
Durham.
"The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that Lord Durham had
received a regular salary. The Duke of Richmond intended also
to receive the whole of his salary. He was sure that every
honourable member would agree with him in thinking that it was
not proper, because an individual had a large income, that he
should refuse his salary. Under these circumstances, he
thought that both his noble friends did not judge right."
[240:A] How lamentably is this fact illustrated by the present
Whig minister,--the _disinterested_ Earl Grey,--who has added
to the burdens of his country, by places and pensions to his
own family alone, more than sixty-two thousand pounds
annually!!!
We can readily anticipate the surprise the public must have felt at the
nonsensical and unjust doctrine here broached by the _Whig_ Chancellor
of the Exchequer. A man in the possession of a large income was doing
injustice to an office if he refused to take the salary pertaining to
it, though such salary was drained from a heavily-taxed people! But it
is really wonderful how much a little acquaintance with office will
alter the liberal and patriotic opinions of a man,--even of that boaster
of economy and retrenchment, the _honest-looking_ Lord ALTHORPE! When
Lord Durham and the Duke of Richmond first accepted place, the public
heard much of their high-minded contempt for gain, and were told how
purely disinterested were their views on entering the public service.
Time, however, proved that money was not altogether so offensive to
these patriotic peers, and to avoid doing injustice to their offices,
they at length consented (amazing condescension!) to receive their
salaries. Such an act of justice _to an office_, which cannot be
appreciated by the object, is in very bad taste, considering it is
detrimental to the public, who would have felt grateful for a similar
regard to its own interests. But the Duke of Richmond's conduct by no
means surprised us: he who is only a Tory in disguise was just the man
to pretend a contempt for salary before he was in place, and to clutch
at it ravenously the moment he got into power. Some persons, when he
first spoke of taking no pay, laughed at his unfitness for office, and
he was strongly advised to resign, as he got nothing but ridicule for
his pains. His grace heeded not this rebuke, but appears to have been
actuated by the same feeling as the blind fiddler, who was recommended
to begone, as every one laughed at him. "Hold thy peace," said the
fiddler, "we shall have their money presently, and then we will laugh
at them."
Thus it will be seen that the interests of the people have never been
considered by any ministry, however great its pretensions to honesty and
patriotism. Added to this lamentable fact, an all-opposing and
insuperable obstacle has, for many years, been obtruding itself on the
energies of the country,--the embarrassing and overwhelming STATE
SECRETS. These have ever formed a paramount consideration with royalty;
and, in order to prevent them being made public, the constitution has
been openly and shamelessly infringed, morality and honesty set at
defiance, and the order of society reversed! The enormous charges
entailed on this country, by bribing the parties in possession of these
secrets, have been made fully manifest in our preceding pages. Still it
had been utterly impossible for ministers to carry on such a ruinous
system of peculation and crime, if they had not contrived the corruption
of the people's representatives. This was so effectually accomplished by
Pitt, Liverpool, Castlereagh, and Sidmouth, that every law they thought
proper to propose, and every supply of money they demanded, for whatever
iniquitous purpose it might be required, was sure to meet with the ready
acquiescence of the House of Commons. Hence the crown became a mighty
host of power, perpetually acquiring an accession of purchased
adherents, who ever exhibited the greatest readiness to accomplish the
unconstitutional purposes of their abandoned employers.
It may here not be improper succinctly to explain of what materials this
"host of power" consisted at the death of George the Fourth. Out of the
six hundred and fifty-eight who composed the House of Commons, four
hundred and eighty-eight, or nearly three-fourths, were returned by the
influence or nomination of one hundred and forty-four peers, and one
hundred and twenty-three commoners. These patrons, by themselves or
their nominees, necessarily determined the decisions of both houses of
parliament; and, consequently, engrossed the whole power of the state!
In the exercise of this overgrown influence, however, they were happily
a little restrained by the operation of public opinion, as prompted by
the liberty of the press, and sustained by the trial by jury,--both of
which they, in vain, attempted to destroy. This body of boroughmongers,
as we have shewn, consisted of two hundred and sixty-seven
individuals,--including lords, ladies, commoners, lunatics, and minors!
They constituted the oligarchy,--that selfish faction so unhappily
familiar to the public of the present day by the name of the
"Conservatives," or the "Cumberland Club." Of this faction, so long the
keepers of the now-explained secrets of state, the nominal ministers of
the crown were, in effect, necessarily the tools or agents. Under such a
monstrous system of government, carried on for the exclusive interest of
the prevailing faction, the blackest deeds were countenanced by men in
power, of the truth of which our volumes will furnish future generations
with abundant proof. This usurpation of the whole power of the state by
two hundred and sixty-seven persons, however, was not effected suddenly;
it was the result of gradual encroachments on the right of suffrage by a
succession of the votes of a corrupt and venal House of Commons,
commencing with the septennial act, a little more than a century ago. As
these two hundred and sixty-seven individuals returned nearly
three-fourths of the Lower House, and constituted a majority in the
Upper, their influence was supreme in both. To the one hundred and
forty-four peers who influenced the House of Commons was added the whole
tribe of the unchristianlike and ostentatious bishops, who, almost to a
man, voted with the oligarchial members, in hopes of coming in for a
share of the "loaves and fishes." From this, it is almost impossible to
say which house of parliament was most corrupt of the two. Hence arose
the incessant attempts to abridge the rights and liberties of the
people, through the forms of the constitution. The independence of
parliament became words of contempt to all who knew the secret spring of
their automaton movements. But, independent of corruption, another
grievous cause of complaint exists in the Upper House. It has been
frequently proved that both IDIOTS and LUNATICS have exercised their
"hereditary" right of assisting in the making of British laws!!! We also
lately observed, in the farewell address of Lord Stanley, _who is heir
to a peerage_, the reason assigned to his constituents for withdrawing
from the House of Commons was, "the rapid growth of an infirmity under
which he has long laboured." That infirmity is deafness; and here arises
a curious question: if his lordship's infirmity disqualify him from
sitting in a house whose functions are legislatorial, how can he be
qualified for a seat in a house which is both _legislatorial_ and
_judicial_? If his lordship's deafness unfit him to be a maker of laws,
how can he, when he becomes a member of the Upper House, be fit for the
discharge of the duties both of _legislator_ and _judge_,--HEARING, in
the latter case, being more indispensable than in the former? How
injurious is the doctrine of the legitimate descent of wisdom! A member
of the Lower House becomes deaf, like Lord Stanley, or an idiot, like
some scores of members who shall be nameless, and therefore unfit for
the duties of legislation _there_; but if he happen to be the heir to a
peerage, the death of a father makes the deaf to hear, and imbues the
idiot with intellect; and he is in a moment fitted not only for
_legislatorial_ but for judicial functions! How much longer will the
people tolerate such "hereditary" privileges? But, even from the dawn of
the French revolution, and the lesson which Napoleon gave to tyrants,
the oligarchy and the people have maintained a constant and increasing
struggle; and the year 1832 has plainly proclaimed to which party the
victory will be ultimately awarded.
From such an unconstitutional state of things as we have here briefly
described, Englishmen may account for the unjust wars which have
overwhelmed them with debt, poverty, and taxes, in order to retard the
progress of liberty, and stultify the human intellect. In what a
miserable plight did such wars leave this vast island, covered as she
once was with the gorgeous mantle of successful agriculture! They left
her "with Industry in rags, and Patience in despair: the merchant
without a ledger, the shops without a customer, the Exchange deserted,
and the Gazette crowded." Let us inquire for what purposes these wars
were so obstinately maintained. Were they for the benefit of
Europe?--for the happiness of mankind?--for the strengthening of
liberty?--for the improvement of politics and philosophy? Alas! no. But,
by these long and bloody wars, England has compelled the millions in
America to manufacture for themselves, and the greater part of the
Continent to do the same, to the manifest injury of our own artizans.
Besides this impolicy, the American war, from 1776 to 1782, cost this
country two thousand, two hundred, and seventy millions, and a half. The
fleet alone, in 1779, created an expense of one hundred and eighty
millions. During the crusade against French liberty, our national debt
was increased from two hundred millions to nine hundred millions, and
the interest from nine to forty-five millions per annum. And what was
the object to be obtained by this war? To save Louis the Sixteenth, and
to check that spirit of propagandism, announced in the French Chamber,
from being formidably maintained and spread by the troops of France. To
effect this, England took up arms when Louis the Sixteenth had gone to
his ancestors, and when the Republican armies, flushed with victory, and
threatened with the guillotine in the event of defeat, were become, from
raw recruits, desperate and veteran soldiers. We reserved our defence of
the monarch till he had perished on the scaffold,--our defence of the
monarchy till the French Republic was declared "a besieged city, and
France a vast camp!" Then we commenced a war with allies who were become
anxious for peace, and who, in taking our money, reserved it to pay the
expense of the campaign they had finished, without any consideration for
the violent inclination for fighting which we had just been seized with.
This was the policy which Mr. Pitt asked Mr. Canning if he approved of;
this was the policy which Mr. Canning came into parliament to defend,
and which he did defend on every occasion, and which he always boasted
having defended to his dying day! But it is only a person well
acquainted with the House of Commons at this period who could believe
that Mr. Canning's defence of such ministerial imbecility received
enthusiastic applause! There never was a collection of more glaring
contradictions, more gaudy sophisms, than the youthful orator's
declamatory harangue. The war was to be pursued because we were
victorious; peace was to be refused on account of the successes of the
enemy; France was too weak to be respected,--too formidable not to be
opposed! As for the sums we were expending, they were insignificant when
compared with the objects we had in view. Our ancestors, whose
immaculate wisdom Mr. Canning was at that time so fond of citing, would
certainly have been astonished to find that those objects were the
re-establishment of Spain in its ancient power, and the subjugation of
Rome to the authority of the Pope! The heart of any reflecting man must
burn within him when he thinks that a sanguinary war was undertaken for
the purpose of forcing France out of her undoubted right of choosing her
own monarch,--a war which uprooted the very foundation of the English
constitution, which declared tyranny eternal, and announced to the
people, amidst the thunder of artillery, that, no matter how aggrieved,
their only allowable attitude was that of supplication, which, when it
told the French reformer of 1793 that his defeat was just, told the
British reformer of 1688 his triumphal revolution was treason,
forgetting that OUR KING HIMSELF WAS THE CREATURE OF THAT REVOLUTION!
After an immense loss of life and treasure, the Bourbons were, for a
time, restored to the throne of France, contrary to the wishes of at
least nine-tenths of the French people; for the Bourbons had proved
themselves incapable of learning Mercy from Misfortune, or Wisdom from
Experience. Vindictive in prosperity, servile in defeat, timid in the
field, vacillating in the cabinet, their very name had become odious to
the ears of a Frenchman, and Napoleon had only to present himself to
ensure their precipitate flight. The downfall of that great man, who
shed a splendour around royalty unknown to it before, will ever be
regretted by the majority of the French people, though British ministers
have classed the unhallowed act in the list of their achievements! By
the same tyrannical means, a prince was restored to Portugal, who, when
his dominions were invaded, his people distracted, his crown in danger,
and all that could interest the highest energies of man at issue, left
his cause to be combatted by foreigners, and fled, with cowardly
precipitation, to claim the shameful protection of Lord Castlereagh and
his junta! A wretch was also restored to unhappy Spain, in the person of
the "beloved" Ferdinand, who filled his dungeons and fed his rack with
the heroic remnant that had braved war, famine, and massacre beneath his
banners,--who rewarded Patriotism with a prison, Fidelity with torture,
Heroism with the scaffold, and Piety with the inquisition! The royal
monster proclaimed his humanity by the number of his death-warrants, and
his religious zeal by embroidering petticoats for the blessed virgin!
Such were the three dynasties restored by these cruel wars. As to the
rest of Europe, how has it been ameliorated?--what solitary benefit have
the "deliverers" conferred? If we look back to Lord Castlereagh's
treaties of 1814 and 1815, we shall there find that the states of the
feeble were given to the powerful, and guarantees made to preserve the
institutions of every former tyranny. Saxony, Genoa, Norway, and, above
all, unhappy Poland,--that speaking monument of regal murder and
"legitimate" robbery, furnish a lamentable illustration of the cruel
injustice of these treaties. Italy was also parcelled out to temporizing
Austria, and Prussia, after fruitless toil and wreathless triumphs, was
mocked with the promise of a visionary constitution; while England was
left, eaten by the cancer of an incurable debt, exhausted by poor rates,
supporting a "civil" list of near a million and a half annually, guarded
by an unconstitutional standing army, misrepresented by the House of
Commons, mocked with a military peace, and girt with the fortifications
of a war establishment!!! This, frightful as the picture may appear, is
but an outline of the miseries that have been produced by our long and
sanguinary wars, undertaken to protect the monster of legitimacy, and to
crush the rising liberties of an enlightened people! These are the
"ACHIEVEMENTS" for which the Duke of Wellington received his title and
his enormous wealth, and for which he unblushingly claims the
_gratitude_ of Englishmen!!!
While all this misery was being accomplished abroad, how were our
ministers employed at home? Why, in feeding the bloated mammoth of
sinecure, in weighing the farthings of some poor clerk's salary, in
preparing Ireland for a garrison, and England for a poor-house,--in
furnishing means for their spendthrift master to erect Chinese palaces,
to decorate dragoons with his "tasteful" inventions, to purchase gold
and silver baubles, and to load his mistresses and his minions with the
produce of the people's industry! We had also, at this period, a "saint"
in the Exchequer, who studied Scripture for some purpose: the famishing
people cried out for _bread_, and the pious Vansittart gave them
_stones_! But the idea that a man like Vansittart should entail a debt
of above four hundred millions of pounds on the country; the idea that
"the least, the meanest" of the Pitt tribe should make the House of
Commons vote that the Bank note, worth twenty worn shillings, was as
valuable as the guinea worth twenty-seven good ones, will hardly be
credited by future generations. The weakest man that ever held office
under a crown may well boast that he reduced the parliament of England
to the lowest degradation, to the most abject servility, that a public
assembly of gentlemen was ever trodden to. Yet, strange as it must
appear, it was for such services that this same Vansittart was
created--a lord!! Lord Bexley was consequently sent to the "Upper
House," as a proof of the high approbation in which his talents were
held by his admiring master! In that situation, he has since zealously
exerted himself to preserve every existing abuse, and his ill-acquired
title has ever figured in the list of those who vote against the people.
To keep up such an iniquitous state of affairs, it was deemed necessary
to persecute those who struggled to bring back the constitution to its
original principles. Hence the employment of spies and informers; hence
systematic massacre, imprisonment, and cruelty; hence the regular
manufacture of forged seditious placards for the purpose of affording a
pretext for the military execution against the reformers at Manchester
and elsewhere; and hence, for such atrocities could happen under no
other system upon earth, the murders, the cold-blooded murders, recorded
in our preceding pages.
Even the most superficial observer must be convinced that our country
has long been gradually degenerating from its greatness, that the most
fictitious and speculative means have uniformly been devised to prop her
exchequer, and that the most plausible, though, to many, unintelligible,
pleas advanced for introducing new taxes and new laws of an arbitrary
description, tending to abridge the civil liberties and paralyze the
energies of the people. These, however, have eventually failed of
producing their desired end. Despotism, and the total thraldom of the
mind, Providence will never allow to be the destiny of generous and
noble-minded Englishmen,--at least for any length of time. An arbitrary
use of power naturally leads to extremes, and these extremes eventually
to a crisis, opening the door of dissatisfaction and inquiry, where a
stand must be made, rescinding every possibility either of proceeding or
of retreating. Is not such our present political situation? And whence,
let us again inquire, arises this state of affairs? Surely not to be
ascribed to a turbulent disposition or a moral degeneracy of the working
classes. It is the grossest deceit and hypocrisy, not to say the most
audacious and ungrateful calumny, to stigmatize them with such
opprobrium; for never were any people more injured, more oppressed, nor
more insulted, than were the tax-payers of England during the last two
reigns! Ministers have too long imposed upon the credulity of the timid,
by describing every riotous proceeding as the natural consequence of the
progress of liberal opinions. The excesses of a few rioters, who most
probably knew not the extent of the mischief they were doing, ought not
to be attributed to the people generally. Such accusations are a gross
libel on the peaceable spirit of Englishmen, and are only used by
corrupt and designing men to raise an alarm against liberty; for
mischief of this kind may be attributed, with more certainty, to the
cowardice, folly, and wickedness of certain public functionaries,
liberally paid to prevent such disgraceful exhibitions. But the "church
and state" men have never failed to turn riots to the illustration of
their own injurious theory. "See!" cry they, exulting over the scene,
"the effects of power in the hands of the people!" Yet the people,--that
is, the grand mass of the community,--were not at all concerned in
effecting the mischief, for who beside such libellers would call an
assemblage of all the refuse of society--the people? The first
irregularities at Bristol, for instance, might have been suppressed by
the slightest exertion of manly spirit; or, indeed, that destructive
riot had never commenced but for the headstrong or cowardly, (we hardly
know which to call it) conduct of Sir Charles Wetherell, who openly
declared that he would insult the Bristol people with his detested
person, "if a cannon forced his entrance!" Did not the Tories, then, we
ask, both create and feed the riots at Bristol, for the purpose of
frightening the people from reform? The people at large, we say, ought
not to be blamed for such events; the whole of the culpability belongs
to the aiders and abettors of them, and the appointed ministers of the
law, in whom the people trust, but have mostly been deceived. This
blame, however, has always been laid to the people, while all men of
arbitrary principles rejoice at the calamity, as an auspicious event,
confirming all their theories, and justifying their practice! But these
have been some of the murderous means employed to augment and continue
the political torpor of the people of England for the last sixty years.
When any appeal to the people was in agitation on the subject of
liberty, it was sufficient for Pitt, Liverpool, Castlereagh, Canning,
Sidmouth, or any of their minions, to exclaim, "Remember the riots!" and
the intended measure was sure to be relinquished immediately, when these
despotic ministers chuckled over the success of their scheme, as though
they had gained the most splendid victory. The excesses of the French
revolution in 1793 were peculiarly grateful to the friends of tyranny in
England. While the patriot wept, the factor of despotism triumphantly
shouted, "Here is another instance of the people's unfitness to possess
power, and the mischievous effects of excessive liberty!" Every art
which ingenuity could practise, and influence assist in its operation,
was exerted to vilify and misrepresent the real design of the French
revolution. From this moment, persecutions were vigorously commenced
against patriotism, and it became sedition to hint at parliamentary
reform,--the root of the people's grievances. Never, since the expulsion
of the Stuarts, were such vigorous laws enforced,--never before did Pitt
so exult in the downfall of liberty. He and his followers no longer
skulked, no longer walked in masquerade. They boasted of their
principles, and claimed the honour of being the only friends to law,
order, and religion! They talked of the English laws being too lenient
for the punishment of sedition, and the acts consequently introduced for
its more effectual suppression were made agreeable to the most refined
notions of despotism. The clergy now stood forward in their pulpits, and
preached, not the word of God, but that doctrine which led the nearest
way to promotion, while many other needy and avaricious men wrote in
favour of an arbitrary government. Thus fear in the well-meaning,
self-interest in the knavish, and systematic subtlety among the
state-secret keepers, caused a general uproar in favour of principles
and practices at variance with constitutional liberty, and invested the
reigning prince and his mother with all but absolute power. How
zealously they took advantage of this state of alarm, our volumes fully
explain. The friends of humanity, however, have now cause to rejoice
that the film of deception is rapidly disappearing from before the eyes
of the people, and that such panic fears, servile sycophantism, and
artful bigotry, can no longer prevail over cool reason and liberal
philanthropy. Such a feverish delirium has passed away, and sober sense
perceives the necessity of destroying the destructive power which held
so baneful a sway over English liberty during the last two reigns.
Let our readers also not forget the part which the "established church"
acted during this long period of misrule. How many of its ministers
sacrificed principle and honesty for the pleasure of basking in the
sunshine of the vicious court! Gold was the only god they worshipped,
and the political creed of tyrants the only testament they read.
Ministerial imbecility could always reckon upon their "holy" services,
and, in proportion to the callousness and hypocrisy displayed, they were
rewarded with bishopricks, deaneries, and other such well-paid
offices,--the duties of which they allowed their poorer brethren to
perform at wages something less than a common labourer. It is indeed
hardly to be credited that in haughty England, who held up her episcopal
head so pompously during the reigns of which we are speaking,--in this
very country which groaned, and is still groaning, beneath the
overwhelming expenses of keeping up a church establishment,--that the
real "labourers in the vineyard" were paid so scantily, that their
wages, in thousands of instances, did not amount to those of a
journeyman mechanic! Yes, in the very heart of this metropolis were to
be found men, on whom the fond and foolish ambition of their parents had
been exhausted in bringing them up in this profession, who possessed
learning and intellectual refinement, starving in back attics, in filthy
courts and alleys. This miserable state of the working clergy was not
confined to London alone. In many parts of this country (Wales in
particular) it was no uncommon thing for a clergyman, with seven
children, to do duty for two parishes, at only ten pounds a year each!
And we ourselves are acquainted with a gentleman, sixty-four years of
age, who was in the church more than forty years, receiving no sort of
promotion during the whole of that long period, because he entertained
what are termed "liberal principles," and who has lately been obliged to
retire from his scanty pittance, and throw himself on the generosity of
his friends for a living in his old age.
Let us now take a glance at the drones of the hive,--the men who have
ever shewn a peculiar readiness to make themselves a promotion-ladder
out of the wreck of their country's liberties. The income of an
Archbishop of Canterbury, exclusive of patronage and other valuable
emoluments, is thirty thousand pounds. Most of the bishops are also
paid, if not quite so extravagantly, in a degree amply sufficient to
keep his grace in countenance. Many beneficed clergymen, particularly
the younger sons and brothers of our aristocracy, who are not
dignitaries of the church, by holding a plurality of livings, drain the
country of incomes, varying from five thousand to twelve thousand pounds
a year each. And yet these men neither distinguish themselves (although,
as in every large class of society, there are honourable and favourable
exceptions) either for their grace, learning, or piety,--the only
qualification which they possess being the son, brother, nephew, or
cousin of a peer, or commoner possessed of parliamentary influence.
A very able article lately appeared in "Blackwood's Magazine," setting
forth the abuses here alluded to in such a clear and bold manner, that
we cannot refrain from making the following extract from it:
"The trusts of the church are admitted to be, and used as, patronage in
the most vulgar and corrupt sense of the term; and the minister of state
who bestows them regularly does it to enrich his connexions, reward his
adherents, or bribe his opponents. Why is this man made a bishop? He has
been tutor in one noble family or is connected by blood with another, or
he enjoys the patronage of some polluted female favourite of royalty, or
he is the near relative of a minister, or at the nod of the premier, or
he has been a traitor to the church in a matter affecting her existence.
Why is this man made a dean? He has married a relative of the home
secretary, or he is a turn-coat, who has joined the enemies of the
church in the destruction of her securities, or it is necessary to
preserve some powerful family from going into the opposition. Why is
this stripling invested with an important dignity in the church? He is
an illegitimate son of a member of the royal family, or he is the same
to some nobleman, or he belongs to a family, which in consideration of
it will give the ministry a certain number of votes in parliament. And
why is this man endowed with a valuable benefice? He has potent
interest, or it will prevent him from giving farther opposition to
measures for injuring the church, or he has voted at an election for a
ministerial candidate, or his connexions have much electioneering
influence, or he is a political tool of the ministry. At the contest for
the university of Oxford, which expelled Sir Robert Peel, it was
generally asserted, that certain members of the ministry used every
effort to gain votes for him by offers of church preferment; or, in
other words, they used the property of the church as bribes to induce
the clergy to support the assailant of her securities against the
defender of them. After the carrying of the catholic question, the
preferments, which fell into the hands of some of the apostate bishops
or their connexions, proved that these men had been bought with their
own property to turn their sacrilegious hands upon her. The disposal of
what is called church patronage in this manner is not the exception, but
the rule; it is not a matter of secrecy, or one that escapes public
observation; it is looked on as a thing of course; and so far has this
monstrous abuse been sanctified by custom, that while no one expects to
see a vacancy in the church filled according to its merit, the filling
of it in the most profligate way scarcely provokes reprobation.
"Let us now look at those appointments in the church which are not in
the hands of government. A great number of livings are private property.
On what principle are they disposed of? The owners fill them without the
least regard for qualification; they practically give them to their
relations while yet in the womb or the cradle, and these relatives enter
into orders from no other reason than to enjoy them as private fortunes;
or clergymen and others buy such livings solely for private benefit. In
the appointment of curates, those are chosen who are cheapest, the least
formidable as rivals, and, in consequence, the most disqualified; care
for the interests of the church is out of the question.