“The rights of the two Houses,” said he, “were proclaimed and

maintained by Mr. Pitt; that is the point on which his authority is

truly valuable. The principles upon which this right was affirmed

and exercised are true for all times and all occasions. If they were

the principles of the Constitution in 1788, they are equally so in

1811; the lapse of twenty-two years had not impaired, the lapse of

centuries could not impair them. But the mode in which the right so

asserted should be exercised, the precise provisions to be framed

for the temporary substitution of the executive power--these were

necessarily then, as they must be now, matters not of eternal and

invariable principle, but of prudence and expediency. In regard to

these, therefore, the authority of the opinion of any individual,

however great and wise and venerable, can be taken only with reference

to the circumstances of the time in which he has to act, and are

not to be applied without change or modification to other times and

circumstances.”[117]

II.

Thus, all that partisanship could demand in favour of an abstract

principle, was religiously accorded to the _manes_ of the defunct

statesman; and a difference as wide as the living Prince of Wales could

desire, established between the theory that no one any longer disputed,

and the policy which was the present subject of contention. Here Mr.

Canning acted with tact and foresight if he merely acted as a political

schemer. The Royal personage on whom power was about to devolve

had always expressed the strongest dislike, not to say disgust,

at any abridgment of the Regal authority. He was likely to form a

new Administration. The Whigs, it is true, were then considered the

probable successors to power; but the Whigs would want assistance; and

subsequent events showed that a general feeling had begun to prevail

in favour of some new combination of men less exclusive than could be

found in the ranks of either of the extreme and opposing parties. But

it is fair to add that the course which Mr. Canning might have taken

for his private interest, he had every motive to take for the public

welfare.

Beyond the personal argument of the sick King’s convenience--an

argument which should hardly guide the policy or affect the destinies

of a mighty kingdom--Mr. Perceval had not, for the restrictions he

proposed, one reasonable pretext. It might, indeed, be agreeable to

George III., if he recovered from his sad condition, to find things and

persons as he had left them; and to recognise that all the functions

of Government had been palsied since the suspension of his own power.

But if ever the hands of a sovereign required to be strongly armed, it

was most assuredly in those times. They were no times of ease or peace

in which a civilized people may be said to govern themselves; neither

were we merely at war. The war we were waging was of life or death;

the enemy with whom we were contending concentrated in his own mind,

and wielded with his own hand, all the force of Europe. This was not a

moment for enfeebling the Government that had to contend against him.

The power given to the King or Regent in our country is not, let it be

remembered, an individual and irresponsible power. It is a National

power devolving on responsible Ministers, who have to account to the

nation for the use they make of it.

“What,” said Mr. Canning (having assumed and asserted the right

of the two Houses of Parliament to supply the incapacity of the

sovereign)--“what is the nature of the business which through

incapacity stands still, and which we are to find the means of carrying

on? It is the business of a mighty state. It consists in the exercise

o£ functions as large as the mind can conceive--in the regulation and

direction of the affairs of a great, a free, and a powerful people:

in the care of their internal security and external interests; in

the conduct, of foreign negotiations; in the decision of the vital

questions of peace and war; and in the administration of the Government

throughout all the parts, provinces, and dependencies of an empire

extending itself into every quarter of the globe. This is the awful

office of a king; the temporary execution of which we are now about to

devolve upon the Regent. What is it, considering the irresponsibility

of the Sovereign as an essential part of the Constitution,--what is

it that affords a security to the people for the faithful exercise of

these all-important functions? The responsibility of Ministers. What

are the means by which these functions operate? They are those which,

according to the inherent imperfection of human nature, have at all

times been the only motives to human actions, the only control upon

them of certain and permanent operation, viz., the punishment of evil,

and the reward of merit. Such, then, being the functions of monarchical

government, and such being the means of rendering them efficient to the

purposes of good government, are we to be told that in providing for

its delegation, while it is not possible to curtail those powers which

are in their nature harsh and unpopular, it is necessary to abridge

those milder, more amiable and endearing prerogatives which bear an

aspect of grace and favour towards the subject?”

III.

There was no answer to Mr. Canning, but a very practical one. Mr.

Perceval thought that the King would shortly recover and keep him in

office--and that the Regent, if his Royal Highness had but the power,

would forthwith turn him out of it. Such an argument might satisfy a

more scrupulous minister. In vain, therefore, was it urged, “If the

powers of a monarch are not necessary now, they are never necessary. In

consulting the possible feelings of the sick King, you are injuring the

certain interests of kingly authority.”

The passions or interests of a faction will ever ride high over its

principles; and for a second time within half a century the theory

of monarchy received the greatest practical insult from a high Tory

minister. That the House of Commons thought a new era at hand was seen

by its divisions. On the motion of Mr. Lamb (afterwards Lord Melbourne)

against the “Restrictions,” the majority in favour of Government was

but 224 to 200.

A variety of circumstances, however, to which allusion will presently

be made, prevented the general expectation from being realized. The

Government remained, but it was not a Government that seemed likely

to be of long duration. On one important question Mr. Canning almost

immediately opposed it.

IV.

The report of a committee, distinguished for its ability, had

attributed the depreciation in the value of bank-notes to their

excessive issue, and recommended a return, within two years, to cash

payments. Mr. Canning had belonged to this committee, and had given the

subject, however foreign to his customary studies, much attention. The

view which he took upon the sixteen resolutions moved by Mr. Horner,

May 8, 1811, was, perhaps, the best. To all those resolutions, which

went to fix as a principle that a real value in metal should be the

proper basis for a currency--a general landmark, by which legislation

should, as far as it was practicable, be guided--he assented; that

particular resolution, which, under the critical circumstances of

the country, went to fetter and prescribe the moment at which this

principle should be resumed, he opposed.

Such opposition was unavailing; and History instructs us, by the

resolution which Mr. Vansittart then proposed, that no absurdity is so

glaring as to shock the eye of prejudiced credulity.

“May 13, 1811.

“Resolution III.--‘_That it is the opinion of this committee_

(a committee of the whole House) _that the promissory notes of

the company_ (the Bank) _have hitherto been, and are at this

time, held in public estimation to be equivalent to the legal

coin of the realm, and generally accepted as such._’”

The Chancellor of the Exchequer thus called upon the House of Commons

to assert, that the public esteemed, a twenty shilling bank-note as

much as twenty shillings; and it had just been necessary to frame a law

to prevent persons giving more than £1 and 1 shilling for a guinea, and

all the guineas had disappeared from England. It had just been found

expedient to raise the value of crown-pieces from 5_s._ to 5_s._ 6_d._

(which was, in fact, to reduce £1 in paper to the value of 18_s._), in

order to prevent crown-pieces from disappearing also. Persons were in

prison for buying guineas at a premium; whilst pamphlets and papers

were universally and daily declaring that the notes of the company were

not at that time held in public estimation to be equivalent to the

legal coin of the realm.

“When Galileo,” said Mr. Canning, “first promulgated the doctrine that

the earth turned round the sun, and that the sun remained stationary

in the centre of the universe, the holy father of the Inquisition took

alarm at so daring an innovation, and forthwith declared the first

of these propositions to be false and heretical, and the other to be

erroneous in point of faith. The holy office pledged itself to believe

that the earth was stationary and the sun movable. But this pledge had

little effect in changing the natural course of things: the sun and the

earth continued, in spite of it, to preserve their accustomed relations

to each other, just as the coin and the bank-note will, in spite of

the right honourable gentleman’s resolution.”--[Report of Bullion

Committee.]

But if the opposition had the best of the debate, the minister

triumphed in the division; nevertheless so equivocal a success, whilst

lowering the character of Parliament, did not heighten that of the

Ministry.

Mr. Perceval, indeed, though possessing the quick, sharp mind of a

lawyer, and the small ready talent of a debater, was without any of

those superior qualities which enable statesmen to take large views.

Great as an advocate, he was small as a statesman. Lord Wellesley at

last revolted at his supremacy, and, quitting the government, observed

that “he might serve _with_ Mr. Perceval, but could never serve _under_

him again.”

V.

About this time expired the period during which the Regency

restrictions had been imposed; and not long after, the Premier (being

confirmed in office by new and unsuccessful attempts to remodel the

Administration) was assassinated by a madman (11 May, 1812).

The cabinet, which with Mr. Perceval was weak, without Mr. Perceval

seemed impossible; and all persons at the moment were favourable to

such a fusion of parties as would allow of the formation of a Cabinet,

powerful and efficient.

Lord Wellesley, a man who hardly filled the space in these times for

which his great abilities qualified him (co-operating with Mr. Canning,

who was to be leader in the House of Commons), was selected as the

statesman through whom such a Cabinet was to be formed. But Lord

Liverpool, from personal reasons, at once declined all propositions

from Lord Wellesley. Another negotiation was then opened, the basis

proposed for a new ministry being that four persons should be returned

to the Cabinet by Lord Wellesley and Mr. Canning; four (of whom Lord

Erskine and Lord Moira were two) by the Prince Regent; and five by

Lords Grey and Grenville, whilst the principles agreed to by all,

were to be the vigorous prosecution of the war, and the immediate

conciliation of the Catholics. The vigorous prosecution of the war and

the conciliation of the Catholics were assented to; nor was it stated

that the other conditions were inadmissible, though it was suggested

that there would be a great inconvenience in making the Cabinet Council

a debating society, and entering it with hostile and rival parties.

Lord Wellesley returned to the Regent for further orders. But his

Royal Highness deemed it expedient to consider that Lord Wellesley’s

attempt had been a failure, and the task which had been given to him

was transferred to Lord Moira. This nobleman, vain, weak, and honest,

undertook the commission, and a new treaty was commenced with Lords

Grey and Grenville, whose conduct at this time, it must be added, seems

at first sight unintelligible; for they were granted every power they

could desire in political matters. But there were various personal

and private reasons which rendered all arrangements difficult. In the

first place, Lord Grey is said to have despised, and never to have

trusted the Prince, who, as he believed, was merely playing with the

Whig party. In the next, Lord Grenville could not make up his mind to

resign the auditorship of the exchequer, a certain salary for life, nor

to accept a lower office than that of First Lord of the Treasury, while

the union of the two offices, the one being a check upon the other,

was too evident a job to escape observation; indeed, Mr. Whitbread had

positively said that he could never support such a combination.

Thus, a variety of petty interests made any pretext sufficient to

interfere with the completion of a scheme which every one was eager

to counsel, no one ready to adopt. The most ungracious pretext, that

of dictating the Regent’s household, was chosen for a rupture; but it

happened to chime in with the popular cry, which was loud against the

influence of Hertford House; as may be seen by the speeches of the day,

and particularly by a speech from Lord Donoughmore, in which he talks

of the Marchioness of Hertford, to whose veteran seductions the Regent

was then supposed to have fallen a victim, as “a matured enchantress”

who had by “potent spells” destroyed all previous prepossessions, and

taken complete possession of the Royal understanding.

VI.

There was as much bad taste as impolicy in these attacks; and the

long-pending struggle terminated at last in favour of Lord Liverpool,

who on June 8, 1812, declared himself Prime Minister. Why did Mr.

Canning, who was solicited at the close of the session to join Lord

Liverpool’s Administration, decline to do so? Not because he was

personally hostile to Lord Liverpool: he was warmly attached to that

nobleman; not because the Administration was exclusive, and only

admitted those who were hostile to the Catholic Question; for he

subsequently says (May 18, 1819): “I speak with perfect confidence when

I assert that those who gave their support to the present Ministry

on its formation, did so on the understanding that every member of

it entered into office with the _express stipulation_ that he should

maintain his own opinion in Parliament on the Catholic Question.”

Mr. Stapleton says it was because his friends thought that to the

Foreign Office, which he was offered, ought to have been added the

lead in the House of Commons, which Lord Liverpool would not withdraw

from Lord Castlereagh. But Mr. Canning eventually became a member of

the Government whose fate he now declined to share, leaving to Lord

Castlereagh the lead in the House of Commons. How, then, are we to

account for this difference of conduct at two different epochs?

An explanation may thus be found: During the years 1810 and 1811, our

continental policy had still remained unfortunate. True it was that,

by the unexpected skill and unexampled energy of our new commander,

we gained, during 1811, the possession of Portugal, driving from that

country a general who had hitherto been equally conspicuous for his

talents and his fortune. But the whole of the Spanish frontier, and the

greatest part of Spain itself, was held by the French armies; while the

victory of Wagram, the revolution in Sweden, the marriage of Napoleon,

the birth of the King of Rome, had greatly added to the weight and

apparent stability of the French empire.

Our differences with the United States had also continually increased;

and in 1812, war, which had long been impending, was declared and

justified in an eloquent and able statement by Mr. Madison.

In the meantime Napoleon, surrounded by that luminous mystery which

gave a kind of magic to his actions, was marching in all the pomp of

anticipated triumph against the remote and solitary state which alone,

on the humbled and subjugated continent, had yet the means and the

courage to dispute his edicts and defy his power. Up to the 14th of

September, when he entered Moscow, his career was more marvellous, his

glory more dazzling than ever.

VII.

Such was the state of foreign affairs when Mr. Canning and his friends

refused to connect themselves with a feeble and self-mistrusting

administration. But the year following things were strangely altered.

The retreat from Russia had taken place; the battle of Leipsic had been

fought. Russians, Austrians, Saxons, Swedes, Bavarians, Spaniards,

Portuguese, the people of those various nations, who had formerly to

defend their own territory, were now pouring into France.

The first gleams of victory shone over the gloomy struggle of twenty

years. An accident yet unexplained--the burning of a city on the

farthest confines of the civilized world--had changed the whole face of

European affairs. “The mighty deluge,” to use Mr. Canning’s poetical

language, “by which the Continent had been so long overwhelmed, began

to subside. The limits of nations were again visible, and the spires

and turrets of ancient establishments began to re-appear from beneath

the subsiding wave.”[118]

From this moment Mr. Canning began to show confidence in a ministry

which he had hitherto more or less despised. The desire of sustaining

it in this crisis of the terrible conflict in which we were engaged,

had no doubt some influence over his conduct; but I venture to add that

there are natures which, without being instigated by low and vulgar

motives, have a propensity to harmonize with success. Mr. Canning’s

nature was of this description. It loved the light to shine on its

glittering surface; and he began to feel a sympathy for the Government,

bright with the rays of anticipated fortune, which in darker moments he

had shrunk from with antipathy and mistrust.

VIII.

Napoleon fell shortly afterwards, and Mr. Huskisson, the most

celebrated of Mr. Canning’s followers, was gazetted as Commissioner

of Woods and Forests; Mr. Canning himself (who at the last general

election had been honoured by the unsolicited representation of

Liverpool) accepting an embassy to Lisbon. His acceptance of this

office was one of the actions of his life for which he was most

attacked; it was considered a job; for an able minister (Mr. Sydenham),

on a moderate salary, was recalled, in order to give the eminent

orator, whose support the Government wished to obtain, the appointment

of ambassador on a much larger salary: and although, when Mr. Lambton

(afterwards Lord Durham) brought forward a motion on the subject,

Mr. Canning made a triumphant reply to the specific charges brought

against his nomination, and although he was altogether above the

accusation of accepting any post for the mere sake of its emoluments,

it was nevertheless clear that it was because he was going to Lisbon

for the health of his son, and that it was more agreeable to him to

go in an official position than as a simple individual, that he had

been employed, and his predecessor removed. It is needless to add he

would have acted more wisely had he not accepted a post in which little

credit was to be gained and much censure was to be risked.

On his return from Portugal he entered the Cabinet at the head of the

Board of Control.

During his absence many events had occurred to characterize the

Administration he joined. Peace finally established on the prostrate

armies of France, which at Waterloo had made their last struggle, left

the war which we had pursued with so lavish an expenditure, and so

desperate a determination, to be estimated by its results. Whatever the

necessity of this war at its commencement, the cause under which it had

been continued for the last fourteen years was sacred.

A military chief at the head of a valorous soldiery, had during this

time trampled on the rights and feelings of almost every people in

Europe. The long-established barriers of independent states had been

shifted or pulled down like hurdles, to make them fit the increasing or

diminishing drove of cattle which it suited the caprices of the French

ruler that they should contain. The inhabitants of such states, treated

little better than mere cattle, had been seized, sold, bartered,

given away. It was no marvel, then, that the conquerors became in the

end the conquered; for the struggle was one which commenced by all

the kings marching against one people, and concluded by every people

marching against one warrior. They invoked--these new assailants--what

is best in philosophy, morality, policy; they conquered, and what did

philosophy, morality, policy gain? Were rights and natural sympathies

respected? Were old landmarks restored?

The peace alluded to was said to be a peace founded on justice, and

justice never deserts the weak; yet Genoa was gone; Venice was no more;

Poland remained partitioned; Saxony had been plundered by Prussia with

as unsparing a hand as that by which she herself had been despoiled

during the conquests of France. Norway, by a treaty, which Mr. Canning

had said, in 1813, when still unshackled by office, “filled him with

shame, regret, and indignation,” was become the unwilling recompense

to Sweden for the loss of a province of which a mightier power had

taken possession. A struggle of the fiercest nature had been steadily

maintained merely for the sake of restoring things to their old

condition; and no nation not pre-eminent in power got back its own,

except Spain, which recovered the Inquisition.[119] Even Holland was

not re-invested with her ancient liberties, her old noble republican

name. Stripped of her glorious history, and weakened by the addition

of four millions of discontented subjects, the statesmen of the day

fancied her more august and more secure. The errors committed at this

time were those of a system; for there were two courses to pursue in

the re-settlement of Europe. Had it appeared that, after a conflict

of nearly thirty years, during which violence had held unlimited

sway, everything which was dear to the people it concerned, and which

still stood forth vivid in history, was endowed with a new reality;

that at the overthrow of wrongful power, the right of the meanest

was everywhere weighed, and the right of the weakest everywhere

established: had it appeared that the mightiest captain of modern times

had only been vanquished by a principle--which, if the general interest

could predominate, would regulate the destinies of the world--then

indeed a lesson, of which it is impossible to calculate the effects,

would have been given to all future ambitious disturbers of mankind:

while the lovers of peace and virtue in every portion of the globe,

even in France, would have seen something holy in the triumph which had

been gained, and gathered round the cause of the allies. But if this

was one policy, there was also another, and that other was adopted.

IX.

As Bonaparte had cut up and parcelled out nations for the purpose of

enlarging the boundaries and strengthening the dominions of France, so

the conquerors of Bonaparte spoiled and partitioned with equal zeal,

in order to control the boundaries and restrain the dominion of the

warlike people they had defeated. The limits imposed by right, justice,

antiquity, custom, were all disregarded, and an attempt, by preference,

made to throw up against all future schemes of conquest the patchwork

barrier of ill-united and discordant populations.

Such had been the termination of affairs in Europe; but our

contest with America was also over. We had made a treaty with that

Power--a treaty so contrived that it did not settle a single one

of those questions for which we had engaged in war. Nor were the

circumstances under which this singular arrangement was completed

such as compelled us to accede to it. The whole force of the British

empire was disengaged; we could no longer say that our fleets were

not invincible in one quarter of the world because their strength was

exerted in another; whilst, if we meant to keep the dominion of the

seas--more important to us than the whole of that continent we had been

subsidizing and contending upon--there was every peril to apprehend

from leaving unchecked the spirit of a rising rival, who had lately

fought and frequently vanquished us on our own element, and who

during a long peace would have the opportunity to mature that strength

of which she was already conscious and proud. In short, the peace of

Europe affected our character for morality, that of America weakened

the belief in our power.

Mr. Canning would hardly have joined an Administration which had so

mismanaged our foreign affairs, if the glory of our arms had not

gilded in some degree the faults of our diplomacy. But the part which

that diplomacy had played on the Continent was not without its effect

upon things at home. We had become each year more and more alienated

from our military allies, who having triumphed by the enthusiasm of

their people, seemed disposed to govern by the bayonets of their

troops. The Holy Alliance--that singular compact, invented partly by

the superstition, partly by the policy of the Emperor Alexander--an

alliance by which three sovereigns, at the head of conquering armies,

swore in very mystical language to govern according to the doctrines

of Christian charity, swearing also (which was more important) to

lend each other assistance on all occasions, and in all places--this

alliance, which no one could clearly understand, and which our

Government refused to join, excited all the suspicion and all the

apprehension which mystery never fails to produce, and made Englishmen,

while they were rejoicing at having subdued an overgrown and despotic

tyranny in one quarter of the world, doubt whether they might not have

created as dangerous a one in another.

X.

Nor was this all. They who begin to be dissatisfied with the fruits of

victory, soon grow more and more dissatisfied with what victory has

cost. Moreover, this period, from a variety of circumstances, some of

them inseparable from the sudden transition from active war to profound

peace, was one of great uncertainty and distress; whilst the public

mind, no longer excited by military conflict, was the more disposed to

political agitation. A demand for diminished imposts, and a demand for

political reform, are always to be expected at such moments. Our form

of government led more naturally to these demands, for the theory of

the constitution was at variance with its practice; the one saying that

Englishmen should be taxed by their representatives, the other proving

that they were in many instances taxed by persons who represented a

powerful patron or a petty constituency, and not the people of England.

The evils complained of were exaggerated; there were exaggerations

also as to the remedies for which the most violent of the clamorous

called. But the thoughts of the nation were directed to economy as

a relief from taxation, and to parliamentary reform as a means of

economy. Public meetings in favour of parliamentary reform were held;

resolutions in favour of parliamentary reform were passed; petitions

praying for it were presented; the energies of a free people, who

thought themselves wronged, were aroused: great excitement prevailed.

XI.

The vessel of the state in these sudden squalls requires that those at

the helm should govern it with a calm heart and a steady hand. Anger

and fear are equally to be avoided, for they lead equally to violent

measures, and the excitement of one party only feeds the excitement of

the other.

Lord Castlereagh, the leading spirit at this time in the Cabinet, vapid

and incorrect as an orator, inefficient as an administrator, was still,

as I have elsewhere said, not without qualities as a statesman--for

he was cool and he was courageous; and, therefore, if we now see him

acting as if under the influence of the most slavish apprehension, we

must look for some reasonable motive for his appearing to entertain

fears which he could not have really felt.

Now, the fact is, that he had but two things to do--to satisfy the

discontented as aggrieved, or to rally the majority of the country

against them as disaffected. The first policy would not keep his party

in power; the second, therefore, was the one he preferred. The terrors

of the timid were to be awakened; the passions of the haughty were to

be aroused; the designs of the malcontents were to be darkened--their

strength increased--in short, to save the Ministry, it was essential

that the State should be declared in danger. This is an old course; it

has been tried often: it was tried now.

Thus Government opened the Session of 1817 with a “green bag.”

This bag, a true Pandora’s box, contained threats of every

mischief--assassination, incendiarism, insurrection, in their most

formidable and infuriated shapes. One conspiracy, indeed, was a model

that deserves to be set apart for the use of future conspirators

or--statesmen. It comprehended the storming of the Bank and the Tower,

the firing the different barracks, the overthrow of everybody and

everything, even the great and massive bridges which cross the Thames,

and which were to be blown up as a matter of course; but the traitors

were pious and brave men, relying almost wholly on Providence and their

courage, so that only two hundred and fifty pikes and some powder

in an old stocking had been provided to secure the success of their

undertaking.

XII.

Many schemes equally plausible were attributed to, and perhaps

entertained by, a few unhappy men in the manufacturing districts; while

the well-known doctrines of an enthusiast named Spence[120]--doctrines

which inculcate the necessity of property being held in common, and

which under different names have been continually put forward at every

period of the world--found amongst the poor and starving, as they will

ever find in times of distress and difficulty, a ready reception.

“These doctrines,” said Lord Castlereagh, “contain in themselves a

principle of contradiction;” but he was not willing to trust to this

principle alone!

Various laws were passed, tending to limit the right of discussion: men

were forbidden to co-operate or correspond for the purpose of amending

the existing constitution. Public meetings were placed at the disposal

of a magistrate, who could prevent or disperse them as he thought

proper. Finally, the “Habeas Corpus” Act was suspended.

Nothing could be more wanton or absurd than this last outrage on public

freedom. The Ministers who were calling upon the country to defend our

institutions, were for sweeping away their very foundations. In vain

did Lord Grey, with even more than his usual eloquence, exclaim, “We

are warned not to let any anxiety for the security of liberty lead to a

compromise of the security of the State; for my part, I cannot separate

these two things; the safety of the State can only be found in the

protection of the liberties of the people.”

Having entered upon a career of terror, a new violence is daily

necessary in order to guard against the consequences of the last; nor

was the addition of 3,000,000_l._ of taxes, imposed at the close of

1819, well adapted to soothe popular irritation. In the meantime the

meeting at Manchester, foolishly got up, and foolishly and barbarously

put down, aroused a cry which only the utmost severity could hope

to quell. Such severity was adopted in the Acts which prevented

public and parish meetings; which punished offences of the press with

transportation; which exposed the houses of peaceable inhabitants to

midnight search, and deprived an Englishman of what was once considered

his birthright--the right of keeping arms for his own defence. At the

same time the bulk of the nation was declared to be sound and loyal,

the country prosperous; and as a note which may perhaps be considered

somewhat explanatory of these different declarations, came a demand for

10,000 additional troops. It was of no use to argue that the nation

was quiet, and resolved only on constitutional means of redress. “Yes,

sir,” said the figurative seconder of the Address (1819)--“yes, sir,

there has undoubtedly been an appearance of tranquillity, but it _is

the tranquillity of a lion waiting for his prey_. There has been the

apparent absence of danger, but it is that of a fire half-smothered

by the weight of its own combustible materials.” “The meeting at

Manchester,” argued Lord Lansdowne (Nov. 30, 1819), “if it had not

been disturbed by the magistrates, would have gone off quietly.”

“Perhaps,” replied an orator who defended the Government, “that might

have been the case; but why? in the contemplation of things to come,

the peaceable and quiet demeanour of the disaffected, instead of

lessening the danger, ought to aggravate the alarm--_ipsa silentia

terrent_.”

XIII.

So because people assembled at a meeting which was likely to disperse

peaceably might at some future time (and this was conjecture) act

less peaceably, they were to be charged and sabred; while their

constitutional conduct neither at this nor at any other period could be

of the least avail; heat of language was not even necessary to procure

them the treatment of rebels; for if men met and were _silent_, if they

met and never uttered a word, their very silence, under the classical

authority of three Latin words, was to be considered full of awful

treason. Jury after jury denounced the conduct of the Government by

returning verdicts which were accusations against it. Still the same

system was persevered in. Ministers went through the country with a

drag net, hauling up--not one or two influential persons (such, indeed,

they could not find)--but whole classes of men. Spies also, as it

appeared from the different trials, acted as incendiaries, contributing

in no small degree to the marvellous plots that they discovered. In one

instance, a fellow of the name of Oliver had gone about to all whom he

imagined ill disposed, presenting Sir Francis Burdett’s compliments;

a circumstance the more remarkable, since the only decent colour ever

attempted to be given to these notions of insurrection was, that the

names of respectable persons had been used in connection with them. In

another case a government creature, by the name of Edwards, actually

advanced money to a gentleman who may be considered the arch-traitor

of the epoch, since he was the author of that famous conspiracy which

included in its programme cutting off all the ministers’ heads.

This conspiracy--of which Mr. Thistlewood, supported by the aforesaid

Mr. Edwards, Mr. Davidson, a man of colour, and Messrs. Tidd and

Brunt, two shoemakers, were the leaders--closed the series of those

formidable plots for putting an end to King, Lords, and Commons, which

for three years disturbed the country; the Ministers affecting to

consider that the wisdom of the policy they pursued was proved by the

folly of those wretched men whom they delivered to the executioner.

Another circumstance is to be remarked in reviewing these times, and

attempting to portray their spirit. The Government had not only been

tyrannical at home, it had afforded all the assistance in its power

to foreign tyrants. First was passed the Alien Bill; a measure which

might have been defended in 1793, when France was sending out her

revolutionary apostles; which might, with a certain plausibility, have

been asked for in 1814, when, if the war were concluded, peace could

hardly be considered as established; but which in 1816 could have no

other pretext than that of enabling the minister of the day to refuse a

refuge to any unhappy exile from the despotism of the Continent.

Shortly afterwards (1819) came the Foreign Enlistment Bill. That which

Queen Elizabeth refused to Spain when Spain was in the height of her

power, was conceded to Spain, now fallen into the lowest state of

moral as well as political degradation. It was true that during the

Administration of Sir Robert Walpole, and under the natural fears

of Jacobite armies, formed on foreign shores, laws had been passed

prohibiting British subjects, except upon special permission, from

engaging in foreign service; and the pretext now put forward was

insomuch plausible, that it pretended to place service in the armies

of recognised and unrecognised states on the same footing--no law

existing in respect to the last. But the law in existence had not been

enforced. Spain, which had been hasty in recognising the independence

of the United States, could not ask us to defeat rebellion in her own

colonies. Those colonies had, in fact, been first instigated by us to

revolt. The regulation, professing to be impartial, would only operate

in reality against one of the parties; and with that party all our

commercial interests were connected.

XIV.

It is impossible to look back to these years, and to consider the

conduct of Mr. Canning without deep regret. The most eloquent and

plausible defences of the un-English policy which prevailed were

made by him. In his speech in favour of the Seditious Meetings Bill

(Feb. 24, 1817), may be seen wit supplying the place of argument;

argument rendered attractive by the graces of rhetoric, and forcible

by the appearance of passion. He had now, indeed, nearly attained the

perfection of his own style, a style which, as it has been said, united

the three excellences of--rapidity, polish, and ornament; and it was

the first of these qualities, let it be repeated, which, though perhaps

the least perceivable of his merits, was the greatest.

“What is the nature of this danger? Why, sir, the danger to be

apprehended is not to be defined in one word. It is rebellion; it

is treason, but not treason merely; it is confiscation, but not

confiscation within such bounds as have usually been applied to the

changes of dynasties, or the revolution of states; it is an aggregate

of all these evils; it is that dreadful variety of sorrow and suffering

which must invariably follow the extinction of loyalty, morality, and

religion; the subversion, not only of the constitution of England, but

of the whole frame of society. Such is the nature and extent of the

danger which would attend the success of the projects developed in the

report of the committee. But these projects would never have been of

importance, it is affirmed, had they not been brought into notice by

persecution. Persecution! Does this character belong to the proceedings

instituted against those who set out on their career in opposition

to all law; and who, in their secret cabals, and midnight counsels,

and mid-day harangues, have been voting for destruction of every

individual, and every class of individuals, which may stand in their

way? But the schemes of these persons are visionary. I admit it. They

have been laid by these twenty years without being found to produce

mischief. Be it so. Such doctrines when dormant may be harmless

enough, and their intrinsic absurdity may make it appear incredible

that they should ever be called up into action. But when the incredible

resurrection actually takes place, when the votaries of these doctrines

actually go forth armed to exert physical strength in furtherance of

them, then it is that I think it time to be on my guard--not against

the accomplishment of such plans (that is, I am willing to believe,

impracticable), but against the mischief which must attend the attempt

to accomplish them by force.”

Throughout the whole of this passage it can hardly be said that there

is a full stop. However studiously framed, not a period lingers;

a rush of sentences gives the audience no time to pause. Abruptly

framed, rapidly delivered, the phrases which may have been for hours

premeditated in the Cabinet, could not, in the moment of delivery,

have the least appearance of art. The oratory of Mr. Canning was also

remarkable for a kind of figurative way of stating common-places, which

good taste may not approve, but which, nevertheless, is well calculated

to strike and inflame a popular assembly.

“The honourable gentleman,” Mr. Canning says of Mr. Calcraft (March

14, 1817), “attempts to ridicule these proceedings. He is in truth

rather hard to be satisfied on the score of rebellion; to him it is not

sufficient that the town had been summoned [N.B. it had been summoned

by _one_ man], it ought to have been taken; the metropolis should not

merely have been attacked, but in flames. He is so difficult in regard

to proof that he would continue to doubt until all the mischief was not

only certain but irreparable. For my part, however, I am satisfied when

I hear the trumpet of rebellion sounded; I do not think it necessary

to wait the actual onset before I put myself on my guard. I am content

to take my precautions when I see the torch of the incendiary lighted,

without waiting till the Bank and the Mansion House are blazing to the

sky.”

XV.

But if there was much of eloquence, there was more of sophistry,

in these pointed and painted harangues. The designs on foot were

represented as so formidable that they required the utmost rigour to

suppress them; and yet they were the designs of a few, of a very few,

against whom millions were arrayed. These few were to be struck down at

all hazards and by all means, in order that the millions might be in

security. The anti-revolutionary statesman was simply borrowing from

the revolutionary apostle. “What are a few aristocrats,” would Danton

say, “to the safety of a nation? Strike! strike! It is only terror

that can save the Republic!” For such principles, destructive of all

liberty, peace, and order, every just man must entertain the deepest

horror; and the dark shadow of those days still hangs over the party

to whose excesses they are attributable, and obscures this part of the

career of the statesman who defended them.

I do not, however, think that Mr. Canning acted on the cool systematic

calculation by which I do think Lord Castlereagh might have been

guided. Looking at all affairs with the excitable disposition of the

poet and the orator, and having his attention more called by his office

to the affairs of India than to those at home, it is not improbable

that he allowed himself to be carried into the belief of dangers which

the Government he belonged to had in a certain degree created, and in

an enormous degree exaggerated; whilst the manner in which even calm

and sensible men had their heads confused and their judgment biassed

by the alarming reports put in circulation, and the constant arrests

that were taking place, reacted upon the Government itself, and

made it fancy that the fictions reflected from its fear were truths

established by facts. At all events, whatever were the real opinions

and convictions of Mr. Canning, as he was the most eloquent supporter

of the policy in vogue, he gathered round himself the greatest portion

of the unpopularity that attended it. Nor, though he assumed the air of

defying this unpopularity, was he pleased with it.

XVI.

The very bitterness, indeed, which he manifested towards his opponents

at this time, shows that he was ill at ease with himself. Linked

with a set of men whom in general he despised, and by whom he was

in a certain degree mistrusted, and accused, as he well knew, of

accepting this alliance merely for the love of “office,” which the

vulgar made to signify the mere “emoluments of place;”--possessing

a mind, which, elevated by education, was inclined to liberality;

careless of the praise of the fanatics of his own party, and careless

also of the applause of those timorous spirits amongst the nation

with whom he could feel no sympathy;--knowing he was detested by the

great masses of the people, whose applause he could not with his

temperament refrain from coveting;--knowing also that though supported

by the love and admiration of a few able friends, he was confided

in by no great political party, and that even if his duties imposed

on him the necessity of struggling against existing difficulties,

those difficulties might have been avoided or palliated by a more

conciliatory and prudent policy; writhing under all these circumstances

and agitated by all these feelings,--this able, ambitious, and

excitable man may now be seen listening with ears almost greedy of a

quarrel, for reproaches he could retort, and insults he could avenge.

Mr. Hume, not very cautious in these matters, was called to account:

Sir Francis Burdett, who had spoken disrespectfully, was made to

explain; while to the author of an anonymous libel, in which the style

and invectives of “Junius” were copied with doubtful success, was sent

a note, eminently characteristic of the galled feelings and gallant

spirit of the writer:

“SIR,

“I received early in the last week the copy of your pamphlet,

which you, I take for granted, had the attention to have

forwarded to me. Soon after I was informed, on the authority of

your publisher, that you have withdrawn the whole impression

from him, with the view (as was supposed) of suppressing

the publication. I since learn, however, that the pamphlet,

though not sold, is circulated under blank covers. I learn

this from (among others) the gentleman to whom the pamphlet

is industriously attributed, but who has voluntarily and

absolutely denied to me that he has any knowledge of it or its

author.

“To you, sir, whoever you may be, I address myself thus

directly for the purpose of expressing my opinion that _you

are a liar and a slanderer, and want courage only to be an

assassin_. I have only to add that no man knows of my writing

to you, and that I shall maintain the same reserve as long as I

have an expectation of hearing from you in your own name.”

To this letter there was no reply.

XVII.

During the eventful years over which this narrative has been rapidly

gliding, the Heiress to the crown, who had already possessed herself

of the affections of the British people, had expired (it was in Nov.

1817); and in 1820, as the Ministers, fatigued by their laborious

efforts to excite alarm, began to allow the nation to recover its

tranquillity, George III. (two years after his young and blooming

grandchild) died also. The new King’s hatred, and Queen Caroline’s

temper, rendering a more decent and moderate course impossible,

occasioned the unhappy trial which scandalized Europe.

Nor was the question at issue merely a question involving the Queen’s

innocence or guilt. The people, comparatively calm, as well on account

of the recent improvement in trade, as in consequence of the cessation

of that system of conspiracy-making or finding, which had so long

kept them in a state of harassed irritation, were still for the main

part thoroughly disgusted with the exhibition of fear, feebleness,

and violence which, under the name of Lord Liverpool, and through

the influence of Lord Castlereagh, had for the last three years been

displayed. They detested the ministers of the Crown, and they were

alienated from the Crown itself, which had been perpetually arrayed

against them in prosecutions and almost as often stigmatised by defeat.

It was thus that Queen Caroline appeared as a new victim--as another

person to be illegally assailed by the forms of law, and unjustly dealt

with in the name of justice. Besides, she was a woman, and the daughter

of a Royal house, and the mother of that ill-fated princess, whose

early death the nation still deeply mourned. The people, then, took up

her cause as their own, and rallied at once round a new banner against

their old enemies.

On the other hand, the Government, urged by the wounded pride and

uncontrollable anger of the Sovereign, consented to bring the

unfortunate lady he denounced before a public tribunal, and were thus

committed to a desperate career, of which it was impossible to predict

the result.

Mr. Canning had long been the unhappy Queen’s intimate friend; but in

adopting her cause, he must, as we have been showing, have adopted her

party--the party of discontent, the party of reform--a party against

which he had, during the last few years, been fiercely struggling.

Here, as far as the public can judge from the information before it,

lies the only excuse or explanation of his conduct; for it was hardly

sufficient to retire (as he did) from any share in the proceedings

against a friend and a woman, in whose innocence he said that he

believed, when her honour and life were assailed by the most powerful

adversaries, and by charges of the most degrading character.

He refused, it is true, to be her active accuser; but neither was he

her active defender. He remained silent at home or stayed abroad during

the time of the prosecution, and resigned office when, that prosecution

being dropped, the Cabinet had to justify its proceedings.

The following letter to a constituent contains the account he thought

it necessary to give of his conduct:

“Tuddenham, Norfolk, Dec. 22, 1820.

“MY DEAR SIR,

“I left town on Wednesday, a few minutes after I had written

to you, not thinking I should be quite so soon set at liberty

to make you the communication promised in my letter of that

morning. I had hitherto forborne to make the communication,

in order that I might not in any way embarrass others by a

premature disclosure; and I sincerely expected in return due

notice of the time when it might suit them that the disclosure

should be made. I have no doubt that the omission of such

notice has been a mere oversight. I regret it only as it has

prevented me from anticipating with you, and the rest of my

friends at Liverpool, the announcement in a newspaper of an

event in which I know your kind partiality will induce you to

feel a lively interest. The facts stated in the _Courier_ of

Wednesday evening, are stated in substance correctly. I have

resigned my office. My motive for separating myself from the

Government (however reluctantly at a conjuncture like the

present) is to be found solely in the proceedings and pending

discussions respecting the Queen. There is (as the _Courier_

justly assumes) but this one point of difference between

my colleagues and myself. Those who may have done me the

honour to observe my conduct in this unhappy affair from the

beginning, will recollect that on the first occasion on which

it was brought forward in the House of Commons, I declared

my determination to take as little part as possible in any

subsequent stage of the proceedings. The declaration was made

advisedly. It was made, not only after full communication

with my colleagues, but as an alternative suggested on their

part for my then retirement from the Administration. So long

as there was a hope of amicable adjustment, my continuance in

the Administration might possibly be advantageous; that hope

was finally extinguished by the failure of Mr. Wilberforce’s

address. On the same day on which the Queen’s answer to that

address was received by the House of Commons, I asked an

audience of the King, and at that audience (which I obtained

the following day) after respectfully repeating to his Majesty

the declaration which I had made a fortnight before in the

House of Commons, and stating the impossibility of my departing

from it, I felt it my duty humbly to lay at his Majesty’s feet

the tender of my resignation. The King, with a generosity which

I can never sufficiently acknowledge, commanded me to remain in

his service, abstaining as completely as I might think fit from

any share in the proceedings respecting the Queen, and gave

me full authority to plead his Majesty’s express command for

so continuing in office. No occasion subsequently occurred in

Parliament (at least no adequate occasion) for availing myself

of the use of this authority, and I should have thought myself

inexcusable in seeking an occasion for the purpose; but from

the moment of my receiving his Majesty’s gracious commands, I

abstained entirely from all interference on the subject of the

Queen’s affairs. I did not attend any meetings of the Cabinet

upon that subject; I had no share whatever in preparing or

approving the Bill of Pains and Penalties. I was (as you know)

absent from England during the whole progress of the bill, and

returned only after it had been withdrawn.

“The new state in which I found the proceedings upon my return

to England, required the most serious consideration; it was one

to which I could not conceive the King’s command in June to be

applicable. For a minister to absent himself altogether from

the expected discussions in the House of Commons, intermixed

as they were likely to be with the general business of the

session, appeared to me to be quite impossible. To be present

as a minister, taking no part in these discussions, could only

be productive of embarrassment to myself, and of perplexity to

my colleagues; to take any part in them was now, as always, out

of the question.

“From these difficulties I saw no remedy except in the humble

but earnest renewal to my Sovereign of the tender of my

resignation, which has been as graciously accepted, as it was

in the former instance indulgently declined.

“If some weeks have elapsed since my return to England, before

I could arrive at this practical result, the interval has been

chiefly employed in reconciling, or endeavouring to reconcile,

my colleagues to a step taken by me in a spirit of the most

perfect amity, and tending (in my judgment) as much to their

relief as to my own.

“It remains for me only to add that having purchased, by the

surrender of my office, the liberty of continuing to act

in consistency with my original declaration, it is now my

intention (but an intention perfectly gratuitous, and one which

I hold myself completely free to vary, if I shall at any time

see occasion for so doing) to be absent from England again

until the agitation of this calamitous affair shall be at an

end.

“I am, Sir, &c.,

“GEORGE CANNING.”

Thus in the years 1821-22, Mr. Canning took little part in the business

of the House of Commons, residing occasionally near Bordeaux or in

Paris.

He came to England, however, to speak on Mr. Plunkett’s motion for a

committee to consider the Catholic claims (February 28, 1821), and in

1822 also he made two memorable speeches--one on Lord John Russell’s

motion for Parliamentary Reform, and another in support of his own

proposition to admit Catholic peers into the House of Lords.

These last speeches were made in the expectancy of his speedy departure

from England; the Directors of the East India Company, in testimony

of their appreciation of the zeal and intelligence with which he had

discharged his duties as President of the Board of Control, having

selected him as Governor-General of India, a situation which he had

accepted.

PART III.

FROM DEATH OF LORD LONDONDERRY TO PORTUGUESE EXPEDITION.

Lord Castlereagh’s death.--Mr. Canning’s appointment as

Foreign Secretary.--State of affairs.--Opposition he

encountered.--Policy as to Spain and South America.--Commencing

popularity in the country, and in the House of

Commons.--Affairs of Portugal and Brazil.--Recognition of

Brazilian empire.--Constitution taken by Sir Charles Stuart to

Portugal,--Defence of Portugal against Spanish treachery and

aggression.--Review of policy pursued thus far as a whole.

I.

At this critical moment Lord Castlereagh, who had now succeeded to

the title of Lord Londonderry, worn out by a long-continued series

of struggles with the popular passions--placed in a false position

by the manner in which the great military powers had at Troppau

and Laybach announced principles which no English statesman could

ever sanction,--too high-spirited to endure defeat, and without the

ability requisite for forming and carrying on any policy that might be

triumphant,--irritated, overworked, and about to depart for Verona with

the intention of remonstrating against acts which he had been unable to

prevent,--having lost all that calm and firmness with which his proud

but cheerful nature was generally armed,--and overpowered at last by

an infamous conspiracy to extort money, with the threat that he should

otherwise be charged with a disgraceful and dishonouring offence--put

an end to his existence.

Fate looked darkly on the Tory party. Ever since 1817, it had excited

one half of the community by fear, as a means of governing the other

half by force. But the machinery of this system was now pretty well

used up. Moreover the result of Queen Caroline’s trial was a staggering

blow to those who had been its advisers; and though this unhappy and

foolish lady did all she could to destroy the prestige which had once

surrounded her--and it was only unexpected decease that rescued her

from approaching contempt--even her death gave the authorities a new

opportunity of injuring themselves by an idle and offensive conflict

with her hearse.

Meanwhile the affairs in the Peninsula were becoming more and more

obscured, whilst through the clouds which seemed everywhere gathering,

some thought they could perceive the fatal hour in which a terrible

despotism and an ignorant and equally terrible democracy were to

dispute for the mastery of the world. In France the Bourbons trembled

on their throne, and petty cabals and paltry conflicts amongst

themselves rendered their rule at once violent, feeble, and uncertain.

The volcanic soil of Italy was covered with ashes from a recent

conflagration--some embers might yet be seen alive. Over the whole of

Germany reigned a dreamy discontent which any accident might convert

into a practical revolution.

II.

What part could the baffled and unpopular Ministers of England take

amidst such a state of things as I have been describing? To the

advocacy of democratic principles they were of course opposed. With

the advocates of absolute power they dared not, and perhaps did not

feel disposed to, side. Neutrality was their natural wish, since to be

neutral required no effort and demanded no declaration of opinion. But

it is only the strong who can be really neutral; and the Government

of the day was too conscious of weakness to hold with confidence the

position which, if powerful, it could have preserved with dignity.

Such being the miserable condition of the British cabinet when Lord

Londonderry was alive, it became yet more contemptible on losing

that statesman’s energy and resolution. Mr. Canning was its evident

resource. Yet the wish to obtain Mr. Canning’s services was by no

means general amongst those in power, for the ministry was divided

into two sections: one, hostile to Catholic Emancipation, to any

change in, and almost any modification of, our long-standing system

of high duties and commercial protection, and hostile also to all

those efforts in favour of constitutional liberty which had lately

agitated the Continent; the other, which, though opposed to any

constitutional change that tended to increase the democratic element

in our institutions, was still favourable to Catholic Emancipation as

a means of conciliating the large majority of the Irish people--to the

development of the principles of Free Trade, as a means of augmenting

our national wealth--and to the spread of our political opinions, under

the idea that we should thus be extending our commercial, moral, and

political power.

These two parties, forced to combine under the common battle-cry of “no

parliamentary reform,”--a reform which both opposed (in order to get

a parliamentary majority for their united force)--were nevertheless

jealous of each other, and in constant struggle for the predominant

influence. Mr. Canning out of office, and away in India, there could

be no doubt that the more Conservative section of the Administration

would occupy the highest ground; Mr. Canning not going to India, and

coming into office, the more liberal party, of which he was universally

considered the chief, might overtop its rival. Lord Liverpool, however,

was himself in a peculiar position. He agreed with Mr. Canning’s

opponents as to the Catholic Emancipation question, but with Mr.

Canning on all other questions. His policy, therefore, was to rule a

pretty equally balanced cabinet, and not to have one half too strong

for the other. With this object he had lately given office to two or

three followers of Lord Grenville, who, though himself retired from

affairs, had still a party favourable to Catholic Emancipation, and

hostile to constitutional innovations. For the same reason he now

insisted on the necessity of offering the Secretaryship of Foreign

Affairs to Mr. Canning, and impressed his opinions on this subject so

strongly on the Duke of Wellington, that his Grace, though he had some

prejudices of his own to conquer, undertook to vanquish those of his

Majesty, against Mr. Canning’s appointment. A lady who was an intimate

friend of George IV., and at that moment of the Duke also, and who was

then staying at Brighton, told me that the Duke went down to Brighton,

and held an interview with the King, and she related to me parts of a

conversation which, according to her, took place on this occasion.

“Good God! Arthur, you don’t mean to propose that fellow to me as

Secretary for Foreign Affairs; it is impossible! I said, on my honour

as a gentleman, he should never be one of my ministers again. You hear,

Arthur, on my honour as a gentleman. I am sure you will agree with me,

that I can’t do what I said on my honour as a gentleman I would not do.”

“Pardon me, Sire, I don’t agree with you at all; your Majesty is not a

gentleman.”

The King started.

“Your Majesty, I say,” continued the imperturbable soldier, “is not a

gentleman, but the Sovereign of England, with duties to your people far

above any to yourself; and these duties render it imperative that you

should at this time employ the abilities of Mr. Canning.”

“Well!” drawing a long breath, “if I must, I must,” was finally the

King’s reply.[121]

III.

Mr. Canning thus entered the Cabinet; and under ordinary circumstances

his doing so at such a crisis would have been hailed with general

satisfaction. It so happened, however, that some time had elapsed

between the death of Lord Castlereagh and any offer to his successor;

and during this interval, Mr. Canning, then on the verge of departure

for the East, made a speech at Liverpool, which, from its remarkable

moderation, was considered by many as the manifestation of a wish to

purchase place by a sacrifice of opinion. The words most objected to

were these:

“Gentlemen, if I were remaining in this country, and continuing to take

my part in Parliament, I should continue, in respect to the Catholic

Question, to walk in the same direction that I have hitherto done. But

I think (and as I may not elsewhere have an opportunity of expressing

this opinion, I am desirous of expressing it here)--I think that

after the experience of a fruitless struggle for more than ten years,

I should, as an individual (speaking for none but myself, and not

knowing whether I carry any other person’s opinion with me) be induced

henceforth, or perhaps after one more general trial, to seek upon that

question a _liberal compromise_.” Thus, when instead of going to India

the Governor-General, already named, came into office at home, it was

said at once that he had done so on a _compromise_.

The accusation was false, but there was some appearance of its being

true, and those amongst the Opposition who believed it, were the

more enraged, since they thought that if the Ministry had not been

strengthened by the new Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, it

could not have sustained itself, in which case they themselves would

have been called to power.

The speeches made against Mr. Canning were consequently of the

bitterest kind. One, by Lord Folkestone, on a motion for the repeal of

the Foreign Enlistment Bill, delivered with extraordinary vehemence,

accused him of truckling to France.

“Sir,” said Mr. Canning, in reply, “I will not follow the noble

lord through a speech of which it would be impossible to convey the

impression by a mere repetition of language. The Lacedæmonians,

with the desire of deterring their children from the vice of

intoxication, used occasionally to expose their slaves in a state

of disgusting inebriety. But, sir, there is a moral as well as a

physical intoxication; and never before did I behold so complete a

personification of the character which I have somewhere seen described

as _exhibiting the contortions of the sibyl without her inspiration_.

I will not on this occasion reply to the noble lord’s speech, being

of opinion that this is not a fit opportunity for entering into the

discussion it would provoke; but let it not be supposed that I shrink

from the noble lord; for he may believe me when I say that however I

may have truckled to France, I will never truckle to him.”

IV.

This speech was delivered April 16, 1823. On the 17th another important

discussion occurred in Parliament. Mr. Plunkett, who had joined the

Administration with Mr. Canning, bringing forward on that day the

claims of the Catholics, as a sort of token that he and those who

thought with him had not, on taking office, abandoned the question

of which they had so long been the most eminent supporters,--Sir

Francis Burdett accused both the Attorney-General for Ireland and the

Secretary for Foreign Affairs of seeking to make an idle parade of fine

sentiments, which they knew would be practically useless. Mr. Canning

defended himself, and, as he sat down, Mr. Brougham rose:

“If,” said he, “the other ministers had taken example by the

single-hearted, plain, manly, and upright conduct of the right

honourable Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Peel), who has

always been on the same side on this question, never swerving from

his opinions, but standing uniformly up and stating them--who had

never taken office on a secret understanding to abandon the question

in substance while he contrived to sustain it in words--whose mouth,

heart, and conduct have always been in unison; if such had been the

conduct of all the friends of emancipation, I should not have found

myself in a state of despair with regard to the Catholic claims. Let

the conduct of the Attorney-General for Ireland (Mr. Plunkett) have

been what it might--let him have deviated from his former professions

or not--still, if the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had only

come forward at this critical moment, when the point was whether he

should go to India into honourable exile, or take office in England

and not submit to his sentence of transportation, but be condemned to

hard labour in his own country--doomed to the disquiet of a divided

council, sitting with his enemies, and pitied by his friends, with his

hands chained and tied down on all those lines of operation which his

own sentiments and wishes would have led him to adopt--if, at that

critical moment, when his fate depended on Lord Chancellor Eldon, and

on his sentiments with respect to the Catholic cause--if, at that

critical moment, he who said the other night that he would not truckle

to a noble lord, but who then exhibited the most incredible specimen of

monstrous truckling for the purpose of obtaining office that the whole

history of political tergiversation could furnish.…”

At these words, Mr. Canning, labouring to conceal emotion which his

countenance had long betrayed, started up, and, in a calm voice, with

his eye fixed on Mr. Brougham, said, “Sir, I rise to say that that is

false.” A dead silence of some minutes ensued; the Speaker interfered;

neither party would retract, and both gentlemen were ordered into

custody; but at last the matter was arranged through Sir R. Wilson’s

mediation.

V.

Without going into many details, I have thus said enough to show

that Mr. Canning had, in his new post, to contend--first, against

the disfavour of the Crown; secondly, against the dislike, jealousy,

and suspicion of a large portion of his colleagues; thirdly, against

the bitterest hostility of the most able and eloquent amongst his

parliamentary opponents.

It is necessary to take into consideration all these difficulties

in order to appreciate the rare abilities, the adroit adaptation of

means to ends, the clever profiting by times and occasions, the bold

bearing-up against powerful antagonists, the conquest over personal

antipathies, which in a few years placed England--humbled to the

lowest degree when Lord Castlereagh expired--in the highest position

she ever occupied since the days of Lord Chatham; and, at the same

time, ended by making the most unpopular man with the nation, and the

most distasteful minister to the Sovereign, the people’s idol and the

monarch’s favourite.

I have asserted that England was never in a more humbled position than

at the death of Lord Castlereagh. I had myself the opportunity of

seeing this illustrated in a private and confidential correspondence

between Prince Metternich and a distinguished person with whom he was

on terms of great intimacy, and to whom he wrote without reserve;--a

correspondence in which the Prince, when alluding to our great warrior,

who represented England at the Congress of Verona, spoke of him as

“the great Baby,” and alluded to the power and influence of England as

things past and gone.

It was, in fact, too true that all memory of the long efforts of twenty

years, eventually successful in liberating Europe, had wholly lapsed

from the minds of those military potentates, who having during war

experienced every variety of defeat, appeared at the conclusion of

peace to have recovered unbounded confidence in their arms.

The institutions which had nourished the pride and valour to which

we had owed our victories, were daily denounced by the sovereigns in

whose cause we had fought; and every new expression of opinion that

came to us from the Continent, manifested more and more that Waterloo

was forgotten by every nation but the French. Nothing, in short, was

wanting to complete our degradation after the false and impudent

conduct of M. de Villèle, but its disrespectful avowal; and painful and

humiliating must have been the sentiments of an English statesman, when

he read the speech of the French minister in the Chamber of Deputies,

and found him boast of having amused our Government by misrepresenting

the force on the Spanish frontier as merely a _cordon sanitaire_, until

it was made to act as _army of invasion_.

VI.

The ground, however, which the sovereigns forming the Holy Alliance had

now chosen for fighting the battle of principles, was not well selected

by them for the conflict.

During the despotism of Ferdinand, it was never forgotten in this

country, that those with whom he filled his prisons, those whose

blood he shed, those of whose hopeless exile he was the cause, had

fought side by side with our own gallant soldiers; were the zealous

and valiant patriots who had delivered the land from which they were

driven, and re-established the dynasty which their tyrant disgraced.

Many, then, who disapproved of the new Spanish constitution, were

disposed to excuse the excesses of freedom as the almost natural

reaction from the abuses of absolute power.

Nor was this all. There has always been a strong party in England

justly in favour of a good understanding with the French nation. On

such an understanding is based that policy of peace which Walpole

and Fox judiciously advocated--the first more fortunately and more

opportunely than the last. But as no policy should ever be carried

to the extreme, we have on the other hand to consider that the only

serious danger menacing to England is the undue aggrandisement of

France. Her proximity, her warlike spirit, her constant thirst for

glory and territory, the great military and naval armaments at her

disposal, the supremacy amongst nations which she is in the habit of

affecting, are all, at certain times, threatening to our interests and

wounding to our pride; and when the French nation, with the tendency

which she has always manifested to spread her opinions, professes

exaggerated doctrines, whether in favour of democracy or despotism,

the spirit of conquest and proselytism combined with power makes her

equally menacing to our institutions and to our independence. Her

predominance in Spain, moreover, which unites so many ports to those

of France--ports in which, as we learnt from Napoleon I., armaments

can be fitted out, and from which expeditions can be sent against our

possessions in the Mediterranean, or our empire in the Channel, or

against Egypt, on the high road to our Indian dominions, has always

been regarded by English statesmen with a rational disquietude, and on

various occasions resisted with boldness, perseverance, and success;

nor did it matter to us whether it was the white flag or the tricolour

which crossed the Bridassoa when either was to be considered the symbol

of ambition and injustice.

VII.

Thus, Spain became, not inauspiciously, the spot on which a liberal

English minister had to confront the despotic governments of the

Continent. But for war on account of Spain, England was not prepared;

and, indeed, the treachery which we knew existed in the Spanish

counsels, rendered war on account of that divided country out of the

question. The only remaining means of opposition was protestation,

and Mr. Canning at once protested against the act of aggression which

France was committing, and against the principles put forth in its

justification. The mode of doing this was rendered easy by the speech

from the French throne, which was inexplicable, except as a bold

assertion of the divine rights of kings; and for that slavish doctrine

Mr. Canning, who, whichever side he took, was not very guarded in his

expressions, roundly stated that “he felt disgust and abhorrence.”

The gauntlet of Legitimacy having been thus thrown down, and being in

this manner taken up, it only remained to conduct the contest.

Caution was necessary in the selection of an opportunity where a stand

should be made. Boldness was also necessary in order to make that stand

without fear or hesitation, when the fitting occasion arrived.

* * * * *

France, therefore, was permitted to overrun the Spanish territory

without resistance. But Mr. Canning declared that, whilst England

adopted, thus far, a passive attitude, she could not permit the

permanent occupation of Spain, or any act of aggression against

Portugal. At the same time he alluded to the recognition of the

revolted provinces in South America, which provinces France was

expecting to gain in compensation for her expenses, as an event merely

dependent upon time, and protested against any seizure by France, or

any cession by Spain of possessions which had _in fact_ established

their independence. In these expressions were shadowed out the whole

of that course subsequently developed. They were little noticed, it

is true, at the time, because they did not interfere with the plan of

the moment, viz., the destruction of a constitutional government at

Madrid; but they became a text to which our Minister could subsequently

refer as a proof of the frankness and consistency of the policy that

from the commencement of the French campaign he had been pursuing. No

one, however, understood better than the statesman who had resolved on

this policy, that to be powerful abroad you must be popular at home.

Thus at the close of the session in which he had denounced the absolute

doctrines of the French Legitimists, we see him passing through the

great mercantile and manufacturing towns, and endeavouring to excite

amidst the large and intelligent masses of those towns an enthusiasm

for his talents, and that attachment to his person, which genius, when

it comes into contact with the people, rarely fails to inspire.

VIII.

On one of these occasions it was that he delivered the memorable

speech, meant to resound throughout Europe, and spoken with exquisite

propriety in sight of the docks at Plymouth.

“Our ultimate object, no doubt, is the peace of the world, but let it

not be said that we cultivate it either because we fear, or because

we are unprepared for war. On the contrary, if eight months ago the

Government did not proclaim that this country was prepared for war,

this was from causes far other than those produced by fear; and if war

should at last unfortunately be necessary, every intervening month of

peace that has since passed has but made us so much the more capable

of warlike exertion. The resources created by peace are indeed the

means of war. In cherishing these resources, we but accumulate these

means. Our present repose is no more a proof of incapability to act,

than the state of inertness and inactivity in which I have seen those

mighty masses that float on the waters above your town, is a proof that

they are devoid of strength, and incapable of being fitted for action.

_You well know, gentlemen, how soon one of those stupendous masses,

now reposing on their shadows in perfect stillness--how soon upon any

call of patriotism, or of necessity, it would assume the likeness of

an animated thing, instinct with life and motion; how soon it would

ruffle, as it were, its swelling plumage; how quickly it would put

forth all its beauty and its bravery; collect its scattered elements

of strength, and awaken its dormant thunder! Such as is one of those

magnificent machines when springing from inaction into a display of

its might, such is England herself; while apparently passionless and

motionless, she silently concentrates the power to be put forth on an

adequate occasion._”

* * * * *

Luckily for Mr. Canning, the circumstances of the country in 1824

enabled him to maintain and increase that popularity which he was

desirous to acquire. Trade had begun to thrive, the revenue to

increase, taxation to diminish; nor were these facts merely valuable

in themselves, they were also valuable in affording a facility for

entering more freely upon that large and comprehensive system of

commerce which was the best adapted to a country that combined great

maritime power with great manufacturing capacity.

Besides, by entering frankly upon this system, Mr. Canning was giving

strength to one of those links which now began to unite him to the

Opposition, and thus to rally round him by degrees nearly the whole

liberal force of the House of Commons. Already, indeed, many of his

opponents had softened in their tone, and Sir James Mackintosh (June

25, 1824), referring to papers that had been laid before Parliament,

passed the highest eulogy on the conduct which the Foreign Secretary

was adopting in respect to the South American question.

IX.

The time is now arrived for speaking of that question. From the first

moment that the intentions of the French government towards Spain were

known, Mr. Canning, as it has been seen, hinted at the recognition of

the Spanish colonies, and protested against any proceeding which either

directly or indirectly should bring them under the authority of France.

A variety of projects,--amongst which that of holding a congress of

the Great Powers at Paris, for the purpose of considering how it might

be most expedient to assist Spain in adjusting her differences with

the revolted colonies, was the most significant,--all tended to show

the necessity of some immediate step for placing beyond dispute the

condition of those colonies.

By a series of measures, each in advance of the preceding one, none

going so far as to excite any burst of resentment, Mr. Canning went on

gradually towards the ultimate decision he had in view.

A warning to Spain that unless she forthwith effected an accommodation

with her former subjects, their independence would be recognised, was

given and repeated; a warning to France that the cession to any other

power of the Spanish possessions in America would not be allowed, had

also been once given, and was now formally renewed. The project of

interfering for their conquest with foreign troops, whatever might be

decided by any congress, was boldly forbidden. Consuls had already

been appointed to attend to the interests of British commerce in those

parts, and commissioners had been sent out to Columbia and Mexico

(the emancipation of Buenos Ayres was undisputed) to report on their

condition. The memorable declaration of the United States, frequently

referred to since--as the Munroe Doctrine,--and to which our foreign

minister, by his communications with the United States Envoy in London,

had in no small degree contributed;--a declaration to the effect that

the United States would not see with indifference the attempt of any

European power to establish itself on the American continent, was a

positive assurance of the only alliance that might be important,

should England have to contend by force of arms against a French and

Spanish expedition.

At last, strong in popularity at home, having by previous measures,

difficult to be opposed, lessened the shock that might have been

produced abroad, Mr. Canning put the seal to this portion of his plans,

and announced his recognition of three of the most powerful of the new

republics.

This recognition, however justifiable on its proper merits, is not

merely to be considered on such isolated grounds. It formed a part,

and an important part, of European policy; it altered the position

in which this country stood towards those powers who had declared

their principles to be in opposition to our own. Now it was the turn

of Austria, Prussia, and Russia to _remonstrate_, and to have their

_remonstrances_ treated as those of England had been by them on former

occasions. Thus, the part which Great Britain had hitherto played

was for the first time reversed; and her character, which at each

late congress had been sinking lower and lower in the scale of public

opinion, rose at once in the balance. This is the first important epoch

in Mr. Canning’s foreign administration.

X.

The affairs of Portugal next demand attention. That country, from the

commencement of the new conflict in the Peninsula, had been the scene

of French intrigues for the purpose of destroying English interests;

and of court cabals, with the object of favouring Don Miguel’s

pretensions. The Queen, a violent and profligate old woman, who had

never kept any terms with her passions, countenanced the most desperate

schemes; and King John VI., a weak but not unamiable monarch, was even

obliged on one occasion to seek safety on board a British frigate.

The defeat of the conspiracy which occasioned this alarm banished

Don Miguel; but M. Subserra, the King’s minister and favourite, and

a mere tool in the hands of France, still remained; so that although

the Portuguese government never took any open part against the Spanish

Cortes, the King would never concede a constitution to his people

(this being very strenuously opposed by the French Government and

its allies), nor unite himself cordially with England, by giving Lord

Beresford the command of his army, and conferring on M. Palmella the

chief influence in his cabinet. Our situation in respect to Portugal

was moreover complicated by the state of Brazil. Don Pedro, King

John’s eldest son, had been left Regent in that colony by his father,

when the latter returned to his more ancient dominions. The King’s

secret instructions were that the Prince should adopt any course that

circumstances might render necessary, rather than allow so important a

possession to pass from the family of Braganza. But the spirit of the

Brazilians, who from the long residence of their monarch amongst them

had for some time enjoyed the privileges of a Metropolitan State, would

not submit to a renewal of their old dependence on the mother country;

and the Regent was forced, in obedience to the injunctions just

mentioned, to place himself at the head of a revolt, and to become,

under the title of “Emperor,” sovereign of a new kingdom.

It may be doubtful whether Don Pedro’s father was quite pleased at

an act of which (whatever might be his commands in the case of a

supposed contingency) it might always have been difficult to prove the

necessity by formal and unpalatable explanations; but the Portuguese

in general were at all events far more violent than their monarch,

and would at once have attempted the conquest of their rebellious but

distant province if they had possessed any of the means requisite for

such an undertaking. Mr. Canning, on the other hand, not only saw

that Portugal, for her own sake, should endeavour to enter into some

arrangement, admitting a fact which it was impossible to alter; he

was also obliged, in consequence of the policy which he was elsewhere

pursuing, to endeavour to obtain for Brazil an independent position.

It became desirable, then, on every account, to settle as soon as

possible the differences between the colony and the mother country;

and, having vainly attempted to do this in other ways, it was resolved

at last, as the best and promptest course, to send some superior

Diplomatist to Lisbon, who, if he succeeded in obtaining the consent

of the Portuguese government to a moderate plan of accommodation,

might proceed at once to Rio Janeiro, and urge Don Pedro and his

government to accept it. Sir Charles Stuart (afterwards Lord Stuart de

Rothsay), was selected for the double mission, and succeeded, after

some difficulty, in accomplishing its object. He then, however, being

in Brazil, undertook the arrangement of a commercial treaty between the

newly emancipated colony and Great Britain, and some singular errors

into which he fell delaying the completion of his business, he was

still at Rio when King John died.

XI.

The Emperor of Brazil, Don Pedro, then became King of Portugal; and

having to decide on the relinquishment of one of these kingdoms, it

seeming impossible to keep them permanently united, he assumed that,

in abdicating the throne of Portugal, he had the right of dictating

the method and terms of his abdication. He proposed, then, first, to

take upon himself the crown to which he had succeeded; secondly, in

his capacity of sovereign of Portugal, to give a constitution to the

Portuguese; thirdly, if that constitution were accepted, and that Don

Miguel, his brother, were willing to espouse Donna Maria, his (Don

Pedro’s) daughter, to place the ancient sceptre of Portugal in that

daughter’s hands.

The apparent countenance of Great Britain, however obtained, was no

doubt of consequence to the success of this project, and Sir Charles

Stuart was prevailed upon to accept the title of Portuguese ambassador,

and in such capacity to be the bearer of the new constitutional

charter to Portugal. He thus, it is true, acted without Mr. Canning’s

authority, for the case was one which could hardly have been foreseen,

and it may be doubted whether his conduct was well advised; but still

no experienced Diplomatist would have taken upon himself so important

a part as Sir Charles Stuart assumed, unless he had pretty fair

reasons to suppose that he was doing that which would be agreeable to

his chief; and when Mr. Canning gave his subsequent sanction to Sir

Charles’s conduct, by declaring in a despatch, dated July 12, 1826,

that the King entirely approved of the ambassador’s having consented

(under the peculiar circumstances of his situation in Brazil) to be

the bearer of the Emperor’s decrees to Lisbon, the world in general

considered the whole affair, as in fact it had become, the arrangement

of Great Britain.

In this manner did we appear as having recognised the South American

Republics, as having arranged the separation and independence of the

great Portuguese colony; and, finally, as having carried a constitution

into Portugal itself. All the Powers leagued in favour of despotism,

protesting at this time against the recognition of any colony, and

France being then as their deputed missionary in Spain, for the express

purpose of putting down a constitution in that country.

This is the second memorable epoch in Mr. Canning’s foreign policy--the

second period in that diplomatic war which at Troppau and Verona

had been announced, and which when the Duc d’Angoulême crossed the

Pyrenees, had been undertaken against Liberal opinions.

XII.

If our government at last stood in a position worthy of the strength

and the intellect of the nation it represented, that position was,

nevertheless, one that required for its maintenance the nicest

tempering of dignity with forbearance; no offence was to be heedlessly

given, none timidly submitted to. Spain and Portugal, long jealous

and hostile, were marshalled under two hostile and jarring opinions.

The most powerful, backed by friendly and kindred armies, was likely

to invade the weaker; and that weaker we were bound to defend by an

indissoluble alliance.

The first step manifesting the feelings of King Ferdinand’s government

was a refusal to recognise the Portuguese Regency established at King

John’s death; but matters were certain not to stop here. Portuguese

deserters were soon received in Spain, and allowed to arm; nay, were

furnished with arms by Spanish authority, for the purpose of being sent

back as invaders into their native country. Even Spanish troops, in

more than one instance, hostilely entered Portugal, while the Spanish

ministry scrupled at no falsehoods that might stretch a flimsy covering

over their deceitful assurances and unfriendly designs.

Things were in this state, peace rested upon these hollow and uncertain

foundations, when Mr. Canning received at the same time the official

news that the rebel troops which had been organised in Spain were

marching upon Lisbon; and the most solemn declarations from Spain

herself that these very troops should be dispersed, and their chief

arrested. The crisis for action seemed now to have arrived; for England

was bound, as I have said, by treaty, to defend Portugal against a

foreign power, and a foreign power was in this instance clearly, though

meanly, indirectly, and treacherously assailing her. To shrink from

the dangerous obligation to which we stood pledged, or even to appear

so to shrink, was to relinquish that hold upon public opinion, both at

home and abroad, which hold we had at last obtained, and to abandon the

moral power which, if a contest did arise, would be the main portion

of our strength. On the other hand, to comply with the request of

the Portuguese government for succour (that request was now formally

made), and to send a British force to Portugal was, no doubt, an event

that might be the commencement of a general war. Of all policies, a

hesitating, shuffling policy would have been the worst. Had it been

adopted, Spain, or those who then governed Spain, would have proceeded

to more violent and irremediable acts--acts to which we must have

submitted with the grossest dishonour, or resented with the smallest

chances of success.

XIII.

At this moment, 12th December, 1826, Mr. Canning came down to the House

of Commons, his fine eye kindling with a sense of the magnitude of the

transactions in which he was called upon to play so important a part;

and having described the circumstances in which England was placed, and

the obligations to which she was pledged, stated the manner in which

the duty of the English government had been fulfilled:

“I understand, indeed, that in some quarters it has been imputed to

his Majesty’s ministers that an extraordinary delay intervened between

the taking up the determination to give assistance to Portugal and the

carrying of that determination into effect. But how stands the fact?

On Sunday, the 3rd of this month, we received from the Portuguese

ambassador a direct and formal demand of assistance against a hostile

aggression from Spain. Our answer was, that although rumours had

reached us through France of this event, his Majesty’s government had

not that accurate information--that official and precise intelligence

of facts on which it could properly found an application to Parliament.

It was only on last Friday night that this precise information

arrived--on Saturday his Majesty’s confidential servants came to a

decision. On Sunday that decision received the sanction of his Majesty;

on Monday it was communicated to both Houses of Parliament; and this

day, sir, at this hour in which I have the honour of addressing you,

the troops are on their march for embarkation.”

This passage possesses all the qualities of oratory, and could hardly

have been delivered without exciting a burst of applause. So again,

when the Minister, his voice swelling, his arm outstretched, and his

face turned towards the benches where sat the representatives of the

great monarchs who, but a short time before, derided our power and

denounced our principles, said, “We go to plant the standard of England

on the _well-known heights_ of Lisbon. Where that standard is planted,

foreign dominion _shall not come_,” a thrill ran through the assembly

at these simple but ominous words. My conviction, indeed, was that this

speech must throughout have produced as great an effect in delivery as

it does, even now, in reading; but I was talking the other day with a

friend who, then being a Westminster boy, was present at the debate;

and he told me I was mistaken, and that with the exception of one or

two passages such as those I have cited, there was a want of that

elasticity and flow which distinguished Mr. Canning’s happier efforts.

It is probable that not having had time, amidst the business which

the step he was taking had created, to prepare himself sufficiently,

he had the air of being over-prepared, and, according to my friend,

only rose to his full height as an orator, when he made that famous

allusion to the position which England then held between conflicting

principles, like Œolus between conflicting winds; and when again, in

reply, defending the course he had adopted during the recent French

expedition, he thus elevated his hearers to a conception of the

grandeur of his views, and the mingled prudence and audacity of his

conduct. “If France occupied Spain, was it necessary, in order to avoid

the consequences of that occupation, that we should blockade Cadiz? No:

I looked another way; I sought the materials of occupation in another

hemisphere. Contemplating Spain such as her ancestors had known her,

I resolved that, if France had Spain, it should not be Spain with the

Indies; I called the New World into existence to redress the balance of

the old.”

XIV.

But the Minister of Foreign Affairs displayed talents far beyond those

of the mere orator on this occasion. He took a step which was certain

to incur the displeasure and excite the open hostility of a powerful

party throughout Europe. Many who might have felt themselves obliged by

honour to take this step would have done so with a timid and downcast

air, endeavouring by an affectation of humanity to deprecate the

anger of the high personages they were offending. Such men, exciting

no sympathy, creating and maintaining no allies, encouraging the

attacks and justifying the insults of all enemies, would have placed

their country in a false and pitiful position, where, powerless and

compromised, she would have stood before her opponents, exposed by

her advance, tempting by her weakness. But the sagacious know that a

bold game must be played boldly, and that the great art of moderating

opponents consists in gaining friends.

* * * * *

Mr. Canning, then, neither flinched nor faltered. In venturing upon

a measure which aroused the anger of so many powerful foes, he made

those foes aware that if we were assailed because, in fulfilment of

treaties, we marched to the defence of a country which was attacked on

account of its liberal institutions, England would gather beneath her

standard all those who loved liberty throughout Europe. Our country was

on the verge of a contest with the most potent sovereigns. Our minister

neither provoked nor quailed before those sovereigns, but plainly told

them, that if such a contest did arise, it would be a contest in which

many of the governments eager to provoke it might expect to find, side

by side with our soldiers, not a few of their own people--a contest in

which, were Englishmen forced to take a part, they would not shrink

from taking the part that befitted the brave and free descendants of

men who had suffered for their religion at the stake, and adjudged

their monarch to the scaffold.

XV.

British troops, then, were at last sent in aid of Portugal; no other

troops opposed them; the expedition was successful; and from that

moment Mr. Canning was pointed to as the first statesman of his time;

and Great Britain--without having excited war or produced revolutions,

following a course conformable to her interests, her history, and her

character, backed by the sympathy of the free, and guarded by the

reverence and affection of the intelligent; having shed no blood,

having exhausted no treasure, having never uttered a word that our

nation did not echo, nor shrunk from supporting a word that had been

uttered--stood before the world in a yet more exalted and noble

situation than even at that moment when Napoleon fled from Waterloo,

and the British drum was beating in the streets of Paris.

This is the third epoch in Mr. Canning’s conflict with the crusaders

against constitutional principles. I have described the measures by

which that conflict had been supported. It would be difficult to

point out any stronger measures that a country, placed in similar

circumstances, could have taken. But Mr. Canning, acting with force and

spirit, had acted without exaggeration. He had not said, “I will wage

war with certain opinions;” he had not told the sovereigns of Troppau,

Laybach, and Verona, “Because you commit aggression and injustice,

I will do the same; because you enter into a war against Liberal

governments, I will forthwith arm the people of my country against all

governments of a despotic nature.”

Representing a state which did not wish to give the law, but which

would not receive it, he neither cringed nor threatened. “Publish what

doctrines and take what course you may,” was the language of England’s

great statesman, “I will shape my way according to the interests and

treaties of my country with equal independence.”

With such language the Spanish colonies were recognised, because

Spain could be no longer responsible for their conduct; because

France maintained herself in Spain under the hope that those

colonies would furnish an indemnity for the money she had spent in

re-establishing despotism in Spain itself; because England, at the head

of constitutional governments, found it necessary to check the moral

influence of the Holy Alliance, at the head of absolute governments.

Thus the separation of Brazil from Portugal was negotiated, since the

struggle between the mother country and her ancient but emancipated

possession, was unfavourable to British commerce, embarrassing to

British influence, and adverse to the general policy it was found

expedient, as I have said, to pursue in Spanish America.

Thus British troops were sent even ostentatiously to Lisbon, since Mr.

Canning would not for a moment countenance the belief that England

would shrink from her engagements to the weakest ally, although the

form of government adopted by that ally was contrary to the particular

opinions of the most powerful confederacy in the world.

And here it is especially to be remarked that a policy which, regarded

as a whole, bears so decided an appearance, and which was certain to

produce so considerable an effect, offers hardly a single point where

the success was doubtful, or the peril great. Developing itself, like

that game where the skilful winner advances gradually but surely, each

piece protected by another through a series of moves, our policy had

only become conspicuous by the last move which obtained its victory.

Our treaties with Buenos Ayres, with Mexico, and Columbia, guarded as

they were by our own previous declarations, and also by the important

declaration of the American President, could only expose us to a

useless and insignificant exhibition of displeasure.

The severance of Brazil from Portugal, as long as Portugal was a

consenting party, could with little decency be objected to by an

indifferent power; the concession of a charter to Portugal, coming

from the sovereign of Portugal himself, was an act which those who

contended for the divine right of kings to do what they thought

proper, could not well oppose: and finally, the expedition of British

troops to Lisbon--sent out at the time when the name of “Mr. Canning”

had become the rallying word of England, and “England” herself the

rallying word of the free and the intelligent throughout the world,

demanded also under circumstances too well known to be disputed, and

authorised by treaties which had always been acknowledged, and to

which, from the very commencement of his administration, Mr. Canning

had called attention--resolutely as it was announced, gallantly as it

was made, and important as its impression on the public mind was sure

to be--could hardly have been resented with propriety or advantage.

On each occasion the minister had made his stand at the happiest

opportunity and on the strongest grounds. Abandoning, it is true, all

direct resistance to France and to the principles she maintained--where

such resistance must have been made with great peril, and with but

small chance of success--he had adopted towards both France and her

principles a system of opposition which exhibited itself by a variety

of successive acts each by itself little likely to be dangerous, and

all in their combination certain to be effective. In the first place,

instead of meeting the enemy on a ground undermined by factions, and

where a large military force, inconsistent with the nature of our

means, would have been necessary, he carried the quarrel into a new

hemisphere, and placed it on a question which, mistress of the seas,

England had the undoubted power of deciding. Lastly, when a British

army was sent to the continent, it was sent not on grounds which might

merely be justifiable, but for reasons which were obligatory; while

the people to whose aid it marched--open to the ocean, animated by

hereditary jealousy against their neighbours, accustomed to British

command, and confident in British assistance--were the people whom

we were most likely to be allowed to succour with impunity, and most

certain, should war ensue, of triumphantly defending.

Something of chance and fortune, no doubt, was mingled in the happy

conduct of these events, as is the case in all human affairs; but

there is visible a steady and impressive will, tempering and ruling

them throughout; the mind and spirit of a man, who was capable of

forethought, governed by precaution, and prompt in decision.

PART IV.

FROM THE BEGINNING OF MR. CANNING’S POPULARITY AS FOREIGN MINISTER TO

HIS DEATH.

Mr. Canning’s position.--Altered tone of opposition.--Favour of

King.--Death of Duke of York and of Lord Liverpool.--Struggle

for the Premiership.--Nomination of Mr. Canning.--Secession

of Duke of Wellington and Anti-Catholic party.--Junction with

Whigs.--Formation of Cabinet.--Effect of Canning on the men

of his time, and their effect on a subsequent one.--Eastern

affairs.--Treaty concerning Greece with Russia and

France.--Sickness.--Death.

I.

It is needless to say that a policy which raised England so high in

the world’s consideration was popular with Englishmen; they were proud

of their country and of their minister. The Whig opposition, moreover,

which at first depreciated that minister and praised his colleagues,

soon began to depreciate his colleagues and to praise him. But Mr.

Canning’s most extraordinary and unexpected triumph was at court. From

being the man in the Cabinet the most odious to the King, he had become

the King’s pet minister, and one of the most intimate of his chosen

circle.

The leader of the House of Commons had one peculiar mode of obtaining

his Majesty’s confidence, and cultivating his intimacy. It was his

arduous duty to send to the Sovereign every night a written account of

that night’s proceedings in the assembly to which he belonged. It is

easy to see the advantage which this established custom may give to a

writer who expresses himself with tact and clearness. A minister of

foreign affairs has also more opportunities than any other minister of

captivating the Royal attention. Foreign politics, which constitute the

arena in which kings are pitted against kings, are the politics which

most interest royal personages. A monarch there represents before

other monarchs the fame, the power, the character of the nation he

rules; he rises as it rises, he falls as it falls.

George IV., whatever his faults, was not without talent or ambition.

In early life he wished to distinguish himself in military service

abroad, and when, on this being denied him, he entered more deeply than

discreetly into politics at home, it was the desire for popularity

which connected him with the Opposition. He still remembered the

high position which after the battle of Waterloo he held, as Regent

of England, amongst the great potentates of the earth; and though

personally attached to Lord Castlereagh, and unwilling to sever himself

altogether from the sovereigns who had formerly been his allies,

and who now in confounding Liberty with Anarchy came forward as the

champions of Royalty and order, still he was not insensible to the

fact that he had become, little by little, a nonentity in the councils

of his peers, and that his advice and opinions, even when expressed

by the great warrior who had vanquished Napoleon, were treated with

a disregard which was galling to his pride as a monarch, and painful

to his feelings as an Englishman. He experienced no small exultation,

then, when he saw this state of things reversed, and that the King of

England was once more a personage whose policy created hope and alarm.

He had, moreover, a singular propensity, which was in fact a sort of

madness, for conceiving that he had played a personal part in all the

events which had passed in his reign. Amongst other fancies of this

kind, he believed, or at least often spoke as if he believed, that he

had been on the great battle-field which had terminated the war in

1815; and I have been told by two persons who were present, that one

day at dinner, after relating his achievements on this occasion, he

turned round to the Iron Duke and said:

“Was it not so, Duke?”

“I have heard your Majesty often say so,” replied the Duke, drily.[122]

It was easy, then, for Mr. Canning to make George IV. consider Mr.

Canning’s policy his policy, Mr. Canning’s successes his successes, and

indeed Mr. Canning always spoke to his Majesty, when the popularity

of his administration became apparent, as if he had only followed the

inspiration of a prescient and intelligent master.

I should omit more trifling causes of favour, if I did not think them

necessary to illustrate the character of the parties, and of the times

of which I am speaking, and to show the attention which Mr. Canning,

once engaged in the task of recasting our foreign policy, gave to the

smallest circumstances which might facilitate it. In the ordinary

acceptation of the word, he was not a courtier, or a man of the world.

Living, as I have already stated, in the midst of a small clique of

admirers, and little with society at large, he confined his remarkable

powers of pleasing to his own set. He had determined, however, on

gaining George IV.’s goodwill, or, at all events, on vanquishing his

dislike, and he saw at once that this was to be done rather indirectly

than directly, and that it could best be done by gaining the favour

of those ladies of the court whom the King saw most frequently, and

spoke to most unreservedly. These were Lady Conyngham and Madame de

Lieven. For Lady Conyngham George IV. had a sort of chivalric devotion

or attachment; Madame de Lieven he liked and appreciated as the lady

who had the greatest knack of seizing and understanding his wishes,

and making his court agreeable. She was a musician, and he was fond of

music; she had correspondents at every capital in Europe, and knew all

the small gossip as well as the most important affairs that agitated

Paris, St. Petersburg, and Vienna, and he was amused by foreign gossip

and interested in foreign affairs. Her opinion, moreover, as to the

position of any one in the world of fashion was law, and George IV.

piqued himself especially on being the man of fashion. Mr. Canning

resolved, then, on pleasing this remarkable lady, and completely

succeeded. She became, as she afterwards often stated, subjugated by

the influence of his natural manner and brilliant talents; and the

favour of Madame de Lieven went the further in this instance with the

King, since he had previously a sort of prejudice against Canning,

as being too much the man of letters, and not sufficiently the fine

gentleman. This prejudice once removed, a man of wit, genius, and

information, had no inconsiderable hold on a prince whose youth had

been passed in the most brilliant society of his time, and who was

still alive to the memory of the sparkling wit of Sheridan and the easy

and copious eloquence of Fox. Lady Conyngham’s alliance was still more

important than that of Madame de Lieven, and one of Mr. Canning’s first

acts was to name Lord Francis Conyngham Under Secretary of State, it is

said at the King’s desire. At all events, Lord Francis’s appointment,

which was in every respect a good one, pleased the Marchioness, and

satisfied his Majesty, who saw in it the willingness of his Minister to

bring even the most private acts of his administration under the Royal

cognisance.

II.

An anecdote of the time is worth recording, since it connected itself

with the recognition of the Spanish colonies, and the subsequent

elevation of the minister to whom this important act was due.

Lady Conyngham had been supposed in early life to have greatly admired

(there was no scandal, I should say, attached to this admiration) Lord

Ponsonby, then the finest gentleman of his day. Lord Ponsonby, who

had long been absent from England, returned from the Ionian Islands,

where he had held a small office, not a little desirous to get a better

place than the one he had quitted. He met Lady Conyngham at Lady

Jersey’s, and (so went the story of the day) Lady Conyngham fainted. So

interesting a piece of gossip soon reached the ear of the monarch: the

friendship of old men is very often as romantic as the love of young

men. His Majesty took to his bed, declared himself ill, and would see

no one. All business was stopped. After waiting some time, Mr. Canning

at last obtained an interview. George IV. received him lying on a couch

in a darkened room, the light being barely sufficient to read a paper.

“What’s the matter? I am very ill, Mr. Canning.”

“I shall not occupy your Majesty for more than five minutes. It is very

desirable, as your Majesty knows, to send Envoys, without delay, to the

States of South America, that are about to be recognised.”

The King groaned, and moved impatiently.

“I have been thinking, Sire, it would be most desirable to select a

man of rank for one of these posts (another groan), and I thought of

proposing Lord Ponsonby to your Majesty for Buenos Ayres.”

“Ponsonby!” said the King, rising a little from his reclining

position--“a capital appointment! a clever fellow, though an idle one,

Mr. Canning. May I ask you to undraw that curtain a little? A very

good appointment: is there anything else, Canning, that you wish me to

attend to?”

From that moment, said the person who told me this story, Mr. Canning’s

favour rose more and more rapidly.[123]

But in mentioning Lady Conyngham and Madame de Lieven, as having been

of much use to Mr. Canning, I should also mention Doctor Sir Wm.

Knighton. Yet, I would not have it thought that I intend in any way to

take from Mr. Canning’s character as a great minister by showing that

he adopted the small means necessary to rule a court. George IV.’s

habits were such that without some aid of this kind no statesman could

have got current affairs carried on with due regularity, or initiated

any policy that required the Royal support.

III.

The moment was now at hand, when the extent of this Royal support was

to be tested; when, in short, it was to be decided whether the Canning

party or the Wellington and Eldon party was to be predominant in the

Cabinet. The difference in feeling and opinion between the two sections

was, as I have said, more or less general; but as the only question

on which the members of the same government were allowed to disagree

(according to the principle on which the Cabinet had been founded) was

Catholic Emancipation, so it was on the Catholic Emancipation question

that each tried its strength against the other. In the preceding year

the Emancipationists had obtained a majority in the House of Commons,

and would have had only a small majority against them in the House of

Lords, but for the speech of the Duke of York, heir-presumptive to

the throne, who declared that he was, and ever would be, a determined

supporter of the Protestant principles of exclusion, maintained by

his late father. There is reason to suppose that this declaration was

made on an understanding with the King, who thought that he would thus

fortify his own opinions, which had become for the last twenty years

hostile to the Catholics, and also deter Canning and his friends from

pushing forward too eagerly a matter on which they must expect to

encounter the opposition of two successive sovereigns.

On the 5th of January, 1827, however, the Duke of York died; and

though during his illness he strongly advised his brother to form

an anti-Catholic Administration--without which, he said, Catholic

Emancipation must ere long be granted--the counsel, though it had

distressed George IV. considerably, had not decided him; for his

Majesty preferred his ease, as long as he could enjoy it, to facing

difficulties which would disorder the ordinary routine of his social

life, as well as that of public affairs. The Duke of York’s influence

on George IV., moreover, was that of personal contact, of a living

man of honest and sterling character, over a living man of weaker

character; it expired, therefore, when he expired.

Another death soon afterwards occurred. Lord Liverpool was taken ill

in February, 1827, and he died in March. This left the first situation

in the Government vacant. The moderator between the two conflicting

parties was no more, and a struggle as to the Premiership became

inevitable.

Mr. Canning was at this crisis seriously ill at Brighton: and we

may conceive the agitation of his restless mind, since Sir Francis

Burdett’s annual motion on the Catholic claims was just then coming on.

His absence would, he knew, be misinterpreted; and literally rising

from his bed, and under sufferings which only ambition and duty could

have rendered supportable, he appeared to confront his enemies and

encourage his followers in his place in the House of Commons.

The debate was more than warm, and an encounter between the Master of

the Rolls, Sir J. Copley, afterwards Lord Lyndhurst, and the Secretary

of State for Foreign Affairs, was such as might rather be expected

from rival chiefs of hostile factions, than from men belonging to the

same government, and professing to entertain on most subjects the same

opinions. Finally, a majority of four decided against Sir Francis

Burdett.

After this trial of strength, it was difficult for the Minister of

Foreign Affairs to insist upon the first place in a balanced cabinet,

with a majority in both Houses of Parliament against the party which he

represented. When, therefore, the King consulted him subsequently as to

a new Administration, he said:

“I should recommend your Majesty to form an Administration wholly

composed of persons who entertain, in respect to the Roman Catholics,

your Majesty’s own opinions.”

This counsel could not be carried out; but it seemed disinterested,

and forced George IV. to allow, after making the attempt, that it was

impracticable. The formation of a Cabinet on the old terms of general

comprehension thus became a necessity, and to that Government Mr.

Canning was indispensable. But his Majesty naturally wished to retain

him in a position that would not offend the rest of his colleagues,

and to place some person opposed to the Catholics in Lord Liverpool’s

vacant situation. This Mr. Canning would not consent to. In serving

under Lord Liverpool, he had served under a man highly distinguished

from his youth, offered, as early as the death of Mr. Pitt, the first

situation in the State, and who, as the head of a government retaining

possession of power for many years, had enjoyed the good fortune of

holding it at one of the most glorious epochs in British history.

That nobleman left no one behind him entertaining his own opinions,

and on whom his own claims of precedency could be naturally supposed

to descend. Besides, he was Mr. Canning’s private friend, and agreed

with him on almost every question, except the solitary one of Catholic

Emancipation.

It was clear, then, that if the successor to Lord Liverpool shared Lord

Liverpool’s opinions on Catholic Emancipation, but did not share Lord

Liverpool’s other opinions, and was more or less adverse to Mr. Canning

instead of being particularly attached to him, this would make a great

change as to Mr. Canning’s position in the Administration, and a great

change as to the general character of the Administration itself. Mr.

Canning, therefore, could not submit to such a change without damaging

his policy and damaging himself. He was to be Cæsar or nobody; the

man to lead a party, not the hack of any party that offered him the

emoluments of place, without the reality of power.

IV.

But if Mr. Canning was determined to be Head of the Government, or

not to belong to it at all, his rivals were equally determined not to

belong to a government of which he was to be the head.

In this dilemma George IV. fixed his eyes on the Duke of Wellington.

Few at that period considered the duke fit for the management of civil

affairs; but George IV. had great confidence in his general abilities,

and thought that with his assistance it might be possible to conciliate

a minister whom he was disposed to disappoint, and did not wish to

displease. But the Duke of Wellington was the very last man under whom

it was Mr. Canning’s interest to place himself. That he refused to

do so is therefore no matter of surprise; his refusal, however, was

skilfully framed, and in such terms as were most likely to catch the

ear of the nation, “_he could never consent to a military Premier_.”

In the meantime, the struggle that had been going on in the Cabinet

and the Court was pretty generally known in the country, and such

steps were taken by the two conflicting parties as were most accordant

with their several principles and desires. The Duke of Newcastle, on

the one hand, claimed the privilege of a Royal audience, and spoke in

no measured terms of the parliamentary influence he possessed, and

the course he should pursue if Mr. Canning attained his wishes. Mr.

Brougham, on the other hand, wrote to Mr. Canning, offering him his

unqualified support, and saying that this offer was unconnected with

any desire for office, which, indeed, nothing would then tempt him to

accept.

V.

A serious contest thus commenced. The different epochs through which

this contest was conducted may thus be given. On the 28th of March,

the King first spoke to Mr. Canning in a direct and positive manner as

to filling up Lord Liverpool’s vacancy. Between the 31st of March and

the 6th of April affairs remained in suspense. On the 3rd and 4th Mr.

Canning and the Duke of Wellington met; and on the 5th, by the desire

of the latter, Mr. Canning saw Mr. Peel; the result of these three

different interviews being a persuasion on the part of Mr. Canning that

it was hoped he would himself suggest that the Premiership should be

offered to the Duke of Wellington. On the 9th Mr. Peel again saw Mr.

Canning, by the King’s desire, and openly stated that “the Duke of

Wellington’s appointment would solve all difficulties.” On the 10th Mr.

Canning, not having assented to this suggestion, was empowered to form

the new Administration.