PEACE AND REFORM (continued 2)

THE REMOVAL OF TRADE RESTRICTIONS

Source.—The Political Life of George Canning, by A. G. Stapleton. London, 1831. Vol. III. pp. 16-22.

Mr. Huskisson felt therefore, when he came to the Board of Trade, that although much had been done, yet more remained to do, and he proceeded fearlessly, yet at the same time most cautiously, in relaxing those restrictions on our commerce, which if preserved were calculated to render almost nugatory the concessions already made.

Accordingly during the sessions of 1823, 1824, and 1825, different Acts were introduced by Mr. Huskisson for doing away with the discriminating duties; but in order that foreign nations might not impose new, or increase old discriminating duties, at the very moment when we were abandoning ours, a power was reserved to the King in Council to enforce the payment of additional duties upon the ships of all foreign countries, in the event of the treatment which British ships should meet with in their ports, not being reciprocal to that, which their ships were to meet with, in the ports of the United Kingdom.

In 1826 a new rule of navigation, exclusively applicable to the Mediterranean, was established. Goods, the productions of Asia and Africa, which should find their way to ports in Europe within that sea by internal routes, and not by the Atlantick Ocean, were made importable from those ports in British ships: thus erecting the Mediterranean and its surrounding shores, as it were, into a fifth quarter of the globe.

Mr. Huskisson also revised and altered the list of "enumerated articles." When that list was first constructed it was intended to consist of commodities of extensive importation; in process of time some of the articles contained in the list had nearly ceased to be imported, while their places were supplied by other articles which were omitted. The list was therefore reconstructed upon the principle of its original intention.

In 1825 the general consolidation of the Laws of the Customs was effected by Mr. Hume,[3] under the favouring auspices of the Board of Trade and Treasury. The difficulty and vastness of this undertaking was only surpassed by its importance. From the reign of the first Edward up to the present times, these laws had accumulated to the enormous number of fifteen hundred—frequently contradictory, and made without reference to each other, they were only understood by the initiated few, and required the devotion of a whole life to their study, at once to comprehend, and to obey them. They were unintelligible to the merchants, while they perplexed and harassed all their proceedings. This chaos of Legislation was compressed by Mr. Hume into Eleven Acts (a sort of Code Napoleon), with an order, a clearness, and a precision whereby even the least talented of our mercantile men are now enabled to consult the laws of the Customs with facility, and to take them with safety for their guide. These effects, upon which for their advantages to commerce Mr. Huskisson several times expatiated with exultation, would alone make this consolidation a most important era in our fiscal policy; but advantage was likewise taken of the opportunity to introduce into the Laws themselves some memorable changes, in conformity with the spirit of those principles of commercial intercourse, on which the Government had determined to act. Not only were duties of importance considerably reduced, but those on numerous minor articles were lowered. During the war the rates of the Tariff had been so increased, for the single purpose of revenue, that they had become for the most part inapplicable to a state of peace, and required general revision. This revision was regulated by the following principles: First, those duties were reduced, the heaviness of which tended to lessen, rather than to increase their total product. Secondly, the duties on raw materials, and on various articles useful in manufactures, were lowered to little more than nominal sums. Thirdly, protecting duties of extravagant amount were reduced to that point, at which the consumer was fairly entitled to relief, either by the increased industry of the home manufacture, or by access to other sources of supply. And, lastly, the comforts and the tastes of the publick, and the advantage of their retail suppliers, were consulted by the removal of duties which prevented the introduction, or most unnecessarily abridged, the use of many articles without benefit to any party whatever.

By the system founded on these principles, there has not only been distributed amongst a numerous population a great increase of employment, but its diffusion has been greater in proportion, than its increase. It is also very remarkable, that those trades which have been prominent in complaining of foreign competition have neither suffered more in diminution of profits, nor increased less in extent of business, than those which have been able to hold foreign competition at defiance.

Besides this consolidation of the Customs' Laws which took place in 1825, an Act was passed in the session of that year, whereby many commercial advantages were conferred on the Colonies, beyond those contained in Mr. Robinson's two acts of 1822; Mr. Huskisson laying down as the fundamental principle on which his alterations were founded—a principle deduced from past experience with respect both to Ireland and to our Colonies—that "so far as the Colonies themselves were concerned, their prosperity was cramped and impeded by a system of exclusion and monopoly; and that whatever tended to increase the prosperity of the Colonies could not fail, in the long run, to advance, in an equal degree, the general interests of the parent state." By these Acts, not only articles of first necessity, but goods of all descriptions, with very few exceptions, were allowed to be imported from all countries, either in British ships, or in ships of the country of their production; and the goods of the Colonies were allowed to be exported in any ships to any foreign country whatever. The only part of the Colonial system which was persevered in, was that which excludes foreign ships from carrying goods from one British place to another; "so that by this arrangement was preserved the foundation of our Navigation Laws—all intercourse between the mother-country and the Colonies, whether direct or circuitous, and all intercourse of the Colonies with each other, being considered as a coasting trade to be reserved entirely and absolutely for ourselves."

The admission of foreign ships, however, was not unconditional: it was made to depend upon reciprocal or equivalent liberality towards our trade and navigation on the part of the countries profiting by the advantages of it; but a power was given to the King in Council to relax the rigour of the Law, if occasion should, in any particular cases, seem to require it. By the same act, the privileges of warehousing were extended to the chief trading ports of the Colonies; a measure, which was well adapted to promote the creation of entrepôts in those places, for the general barter trade of that quarter of the globe.

Independently of all these measures of internal legislation, Treaties of Commerce, founded on the principles of reciprocity, were negotiated with Prussia, Denmark, Sweden, the Hanse Towns, three of the new States of Spanish America, and lastly with France. In the case of Prussia, the power with whom the first of these Treaties was made, it may be said that, it was fairly forced upon this country. It certainly was not the wish of our Government unnecessarily to stir the question. But "the Prussian ship-owners were all going to ruin," and the Prussian Government very wisely resolved not to give to British ships privileges which the British Government denied to Prussian ships. When once foreign powers began to adopt that course, against which we could not justly remonstrate, it has been already shewn that the only safe and wise way was to meet it with concession. Prussia having therefore thus attained her object, to have manifested any unwillingness to treat other powers on the same footing, would have been inconsistent with the principle of our navigation law, which, acting upon the principle "divide et impera," was more anxious for an equal distribution of foreign shipping, than for its diminution.

PORTUGUESE APPEAL FOR AID AGAINST SPAIN (1826).

Source.—The Political Life of George Canning, by A. G. Stapleton. London, 1831. Vol. III. p. 219.

The King's Message.

"George R.—His Majesty acquaints the House of Commons that His Majesty has received an earnest application from the Princess Regent of Portugal, claiming, in virtue of the ancient obligations of alliance and amity between His Majesty, and the Crown of Portugal, His Majesty's aid against an hostile aggression from Spain.

"His Majesty has exerted himself for some time past, in conjunction with His Majesty's Ally, the King of France, to prevent such an aggression, and repeated assurances have been given by the Court of Madrid of the determination of his Catholick Majesty, neither to commit, nor to allow to be committed, from his Catholick Majesty's territory, any aggression against Portugal; but His Majesty had learned, with deep concern, that notwithstanding these assurances, hostile inroads into the territory of Portugal have been concerted in Spain, and have been executed under the eyes of Spanish Authorities, by Portuguese Regiments, which had deserted into Spain, and which the Spanish Government had repeatedly and solemnly engaged to disarm, and to disperse.

"His Majesty leaves no effort unexhausted to awaken the Spanish Government to the dangerous consequences of this apparent connivance.

"His Majesty makes this communication to the House of Commons with the full and entire confidence, that his faithful Commons will afford to His Majesty their cordial concurrence and support in maintaining the faith of treaties, and in securing against foreign hostility the safety and independence of the kingdom of Portugal, the oldest ally of Great Britain.

"G. R."

MR. CANNING AND THE PORTUGUESE APPEAL (1826).

Source.—The Political Life of George Canning, by A. G. Stapleton. London, 1831. Vol. III. p. 222.

"Some years ago," said Mr. Canning, "in the discussion of the negotiations respecting the French war against Spain, I took the liberty of adverting to this topick. I then stated that the position of this country in the present state of the world, was one of neutrality, not only between contending nations, but between conflicting principles; and that it was by neutrality alone that we could maintain that balance, the preservation of which I believed to be essential to the welfare of mankind. I then said that I feared that the next war which should be kindled in Europe, would be a war not so much of armies, as of opinions. Not four years have elapsed, and behold my apprehension realised! It is, to be sure, within narrow limits that this war of opinion is at present confined: but it is a war of opinion, that Spain (whether as Government, or as nation), is now waging against Portugal; it is a war which has commenced in hatred of the new institutions of Portugal. How long is it reasonable to expect that Portugal will abstain from retaliation? If into that war this country shall be compelled to enter, we shall enter into it, with a sincere and anxious desire to mitigate, rather than exasperate—and to mingle only in the conflict of arms, not in the more fatal conflict of opinions. But I much fear that this country (however earnestly she may endeavour to avoid it), could not, in such case, avoid seeing ranked under her banners, all the restless and dissatisfied of any nation with which she might come in conflict. It is the contemplation of this new power in any future war, which excites my most anxious apprehension. It is one thing to have a giant's strength, but it would be another to use it like a giant. The consciousness of such strength is, undoubtedly, a source of confidence and security; but in the situation in which this country stands, our business is not to seek opportunities of displaying it, but to content ourselves with letting the professors of violent and exaggerated doctrines on both sides feel that it is not their interest to convert an umpire, into an adversary. The situation of England, amidst the struggle of political opinions, which agitates more or less sensibly different countries of the world, may be compared to that of the Ruler of the Winds, as described by the poet:

"The consequence of letting loose the passions at present chained and confined, would be to produce a scene of desolation, which no man can contemplate without horror: and I should not sleep easy on my couch, if I were conscious that I had contributed to precipitate it by a single moment.

"This, then, is the reason—a reason very different from fear—the reverse of a consciousness of disability,—why I dread the recurrence of hostilities in any part of Europe: why I would bear much, and would forbear long; why I would (as I have said) put up with almost anything that did not touch national faith and national honour;—rather than let slip the furies of war, the leash of which we hold in our hands,—not knowing whom they may reach, or how far their ravages may be carried. Such is the love of peace which the British Government acknowledges, and such the necessity of peace which the circumstances of the world inculcate.

"Let us fly," said Mr. Canning, in conclusion, "to the aid of Portugal by whomsoever attacked; because it is our duty to do so: and let us cease our interference where that duty ends. We go to Portugal not to rule, not to dictate, not to prescribe Constitutions, but to defend and to preserve the independence of an ally. 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."

THE LIFE OF CONVICT-SERVANTS IN AUSTRALIA (1827).

Source.—The London Magazine, 1827. Vol. VIII. p. 518.

Extract from "Two Years in New South Wales," by P. Cunningham, Surgeon, R.N.

"The convict-servants are accommodated upon the farms in huts walled round and roofed with bark, or built of split wood and plaster, with thatched roofs. About four of them generally sleep and mess in each hut, drawing their provisions every Saturday, and being generally allowed the afternoon of that day, whereupon to wash their clothes and grind their wheat. Their usual allowance I have already stated to be a peck of wheat; seven pounds of beef, or four and a half of pork; two ounces of tea, two ounces of tobacco, and a pound of sugar, weekly; the majority of settlers permitting them to raise vegetables in little gardens allotted for their use, or supplying them occasionally from their own gardens. Wages are only allowed at the option of the master; but you are obliged to supply them with two full suits of clothes annually; and you also furnish a bed-tick (to be stuffed with grass), and a blanket, to each person, besides a tin-pot and knife; as also an iron-pot and frying-pan to each mess. The tea, sugar, and tobacco, are considered bonuses for good conduct, and withheld in default thereof.

"To get work done, you must feed well; and when the rations are ultimately raised upon your own farm, you never give their expense a moment's consideration. The farm-men usually bake their flour into flat cakes, which they call dampers, and cook these in the ashes, cutting their salted meats into thin slices, and boiling them in the iron-pot or frying-pan, by which means the salt is, in a great measure, extracted. If tea and sugar are not supplied, milk is allowed as a substitute, tea or milk forming the beverage to every meal. Though not living so comfortably as when everything is cooked and put down before them, yet it is more after their own mind, while the operations of preparing their meals amuse their leisure hours and give a greater zest to the enjoyment of those repasts. When the labour of the day is over, with enlivening chit-chat, singing, and smoking, they chase away ennui, and make the evening hours jog merrily by. Indeed, without the aid of that magic care-killer, the pipe, I believe the greater portion of our 'pressed men' would 'take the bush' in a week after their arrival in our solitudes, before time had attuned their minds to rural prospects and industrious pursuits.

"Convicts, when first assigned, if long habituated to a life of idleness and dissipation, commonly soon become restless and dissatisfied; and if failing to provoke you to return them into the government employ, wherein they may again be enabled to idle away their time in the joyous companionship of their old associates, will run off for head-quarters, regardless of the flogging that awaits them on being taken or on giving themselves up—the idle ramble they have had fully compensating them for the twenty-five or fifty lashes they may receive, in case they should not be admitted among the list at head-quarters. Many, too, start off for want of something for their fingers to pick at,—the leader of one batch of runaways from a friend of mine, exclaiming to those he left behind, on bidding them adieu, 'Why, I may as well be dead and buried in earnest, as buried alive in this here place, where a fellow has not even a chance!' The chance here wished for, not being the chance of bettering his condition by good conduct, but by emptying the full pocket of some luckless wight! If they can be coaxed or compelled to stop, however, for a twelvemonth or so, the greater portion, even of the worst, generally turn out very fair and often very good servants; cockneys becoming able ploughmen, and weavers, barbers, and such like soft-fingered gentry, being metamorphosed into good fencers, herdsmen and shepherds; a little urging and encouragement on the part of the master, and perseverance in enforcing his authority, generally sufficing.

"The convict-servants commence labour at sunrise, and leave off at sunset, being allowed an hour for breakfast, and an hour or more for dinner. It is long before you can accustom the greater portion to steady labour, the best of them usually working by fits and starts, then lying down for an hour or two, and up and at it again. To get your work readily and quietly done, the best method is certainly to task them, and allow them to get through it as they please; but as it is an object to accustom them to regular industry, it will eventually serve your purpose better, and benefit them more, to keep them at constant work. Even some of the free-men who have served their time are perpetually skipping about, seldom remaining long in one situation."

AN INTERVIEW WITH GEORGE IV. (1827).

Source.—The Diary and Correspondence of Charles Abbot, Lord Colchester. London, 1861. Vol. III. p. 472.

March 27th. Heard from the Duke of Newcastle a fuller account of his interview with the King, at Windsor, on Saturday last. (The former account I had received from Lord Falmouth.)

He arrived at Windsor at two, and requested an audience. At the end of two hours, when he was exhausted and almost asleep, the door of his apartment was opened, and the King was announced.

The King received him very graciously; believed he understood the subject of his visit; entered at great length into the whole history of the Roman Catholics, from the reign of James II. down to the present time. Professed himself a "Protestant, heart and soul." Declared he never would give his assent to any measures for Roman Catholic Emancipation. And, when pressed by the Duke as to the new form of his administration, he assured the Duke "that the First Minister should be for the Protestant side of the question," and, as to Ireland, that the Chancellor there should be Protestant also. He added that the present audience would be necessarily known to everybody; but "he must keep faith with his Ministers." He said, "the courage of his family had never been questioned." When assured that, in choosing Protestants for his Ministers, his choice would be supported by a large and powerful body of Peers, and pressed for an assurance that his choice would be made accordingly, he said, again and again, "Do you doubt me? But it is not I who fail in my duty. It is you in Parliament. Why do you suffer the d——d Association in Dublin?"

The Duke of Newcastle clearly saw that the Chancellor had lost his former influence with the King. It was evident that the King knew the Duke of Rutland's opinions upon the present subject. The King's sentiments were strongly expressed, but there was reason to apprehend that considerations of ease and repose might outweigh his principles.

The Duke told the King plainly that the support or opposition of himself, and of those for whom he was acting, would depend on the choice that the King should finally make in forming his Administration.

In parting, the King very graciously told him "he never need ask an audience in form, he was always welcome," and hoped he would come and fish there in the summer.

(N.B.—The King did not finish the audience without talking to the Duke about his tailor.)

THE TREATY OF LONDON (1827).

Source.—The Political Life of George Canning, by A. G. Stapleton. London, 1831. Vol. III. p. 286.

The treaty was signed on the 6th of July, 1827, by Prince Lieven, Lord Dudley, and Prince Polignac.

In execution of this treaty instructions were sent in common to the Representatives of the three Powers at Constantinople, directing them to present a joint declaration to the Divan; stating that their respective Governments had for six years been exerting themselves to induce the Porte to restore tranquillity to Greece; that these efforts had been useless, and that a war of extermination had been prolonged, of which the results were on the one hand shocking to humanity, while on the other they inflicted intolerable injuries on the commerce of all nations. That on these accounts it was no longer possible to admit that the fate of Greece, concerned exclusively the Ottoman Porte, and that the Courts of London, of Paris, and St. Petersburgh, therefore, felt it to be their duty to regulate by a special treaty the line of conduct which they had resolved to follow. That they offered their mediation between the Sublime Porte and the Greeks to put an end to the war, and to settle by an amicable negotiation the relations, which ought for the future to exist between them.

That for the purpose of facilitating the success of the mediation, they proposed to the Sublime Porte to suspend by an armistice all acts of hostility towards the Greeks, to whom a similar and simultaneous proposition was to be addressed.

Lastly, that before the end of a month, the Ottoman Porte must make known its definite determination.

That it was hoped that that determination would be in conformity with the wishes of the allied courts; but if the Porte refused to comply with the request, or returned an evasive and insufficient answer, or even maintained a complete silence, the allied courts would be compelled to have recourse to the measures which they should think most likely to be efficacious to put an end to a state of things, incompatible with the true interests of the Porte, with the security of the commerce, and the assured tranquillity of Europe.

In the event of no answer, an evasive answer, or a refusal on the part of the Porte, before a month had elapsed, the Divan was to be informed that the Allied Courts would interfere themselves to establish an armistice; but that, in the execution of this resolution, they were far from wishing to put an end to their friendly relations with the Porte.

The result of these representations was forthwith to be reported to the Admirals, commanding the several fleets of the Allies, who were instructed to make a similar requisition for an armistice, to the Greek Government; and in the event of either that Government, or the Porte refusing, or delaying, to consent to the establishment of an armistice, coercive measures were to be taken to enforce it.

If the Porte should be the refusing party (for after the propositions made by the Greeks there was little chance of their not consenting to the armistice), the Allied Squadrons were to unite, and the Admirals were to enter into friendly relations with the Greeks on the one hand, and on the other, to intercept all ships, freighted with men and arms, destined to act against the Greeks, whether coming from Turkey, or from the coast of Africa.

But whatever measures they might adopt towards the Ottoman navy, the three Admirals were especially instructed to take extreme care (soin extrême) that they should not degenerate into hostilities. The fixed intention of the three Powers was to interpose as conciliators (conciliatrices), and any hostile step would be contrary to the pacifick character, which they were desirous of assuming.

The settlement of this treaty, and of these instructions to the representatives of the three Courts, at Constantinople, and to the commanders of the Allied Squadron, were Mr. Canning's last acts on the subject of Greek affairs.

THE BATTLE OF NAVARINO (1827).

Source.—The Gentleman's Magazine, Vol. 97, 1827, p. 453.

Turkey and Greece.

In our last number (p. 360), we stated that the combined squadrons of England and France (to which that of Russia, under Count Heyden, has been since added) had compelled Ibrahim Pacha to assent to an armistice, until the result of the negociations at Constantinople should be known; when he promised that "his fleet should not move from Navarino, until he received full instructions from Constantinople." It appears, however, that Ibrahim, whether in obedience to, or in opposition to the Ottoman Government, treacherously broke the conditions of the armistice. In the first place he attempted to make sail from Navarino to Patras, and on being ordered back by Adm. Codrington, landed his troops, and wreaked his barbarous vengeance on the miserable Greek inhabitants of the Morea. In short, it was discovered that the Turkish soldiers were desolating the country with fire and sword, and even butchering the women and children. Capt. Hamilton, of the Cambrian, communicated the circumstances to Adm. Codrington, in a letter dated Kitries, October 18. He says: "I have the honour of informing you that I arrived here yesterday morning, in company with the Russian frigate Constantine, the captain of which ship had placed himself under my orders. On entering the Gulf, we observed by clouds of fire and smoke that the work of devastation was still going on. The ships were anchored off the pass off Ancyro, and a joint letter from myself and the Russian captain was despatched to the Turkish commander. The Russian and English officers, the bearers of it, were not allowed to proceed to head-quarters, nor have we yet received any answer. In the afternoon, we, the two captains, went on shore to the Greek quarters, and were received with the greatest enthusiasm. The distress of the inhabitants driven from the plain is shocking! women and children dying every moment of absolute starvation, and hardly any having better food than boiled grass! I have promised to send a small quantity of bread to the caves in the mountains, where these unfortunate wretches have taken refuge. It is supposed that if Ibrahim remained in Greece, more than a third of its inhabitants will die of absolute starvation."

Under these circumstances the commanders of the allied forces signed an agreement on the 18th of October to enter and take a position in the port of Navarino, as a commodious means of "renewing to Ibrahim Pacha propositions, which, entering into the spirit of the treaty, were evidently to the advantage of the Porte itself." After the first part of this arrangement had been executed on the 20th by their anchoring close to the Turkish line of battle, the allied flags of truce were fired upon, and many British lives destroyed, in the very act of peaceable remonstrance with the Infidels. The necessary retaliation for this outrage brought on a general action, and the total destruction of a fleet which was armed with 1,800 pieces of ordinance.

The particulars of this brilliant victory are admirably detailed in the official despatches addressed to J. W. Croker, Esq., by Vice-Admiral Sir Edward Codrington, dated Navarino, October 21. They appeared in a Gazette Extraordinary of the 10th of November, of which the following is a copy:

"H.M.'s Ship Asia, "Port of Navarino, October 21.

"Sir,

"I have the honour of informing his Royal Highness the Lord High Admiral, that, my colleagues Count Heyden and the Chevalier de Rigny having agreed with me that we should come into this port, in order to induce Ibrahim Pacha to discontinue the brutal war of extermination which he has been carrying on since his return here from his failure in the Gulf of Patras, the combined squadrons passed the batteries, in order to take up their anchorage, at about two o'clock yesterday afternoon. The Turkish ships were moored in the form of a crescent, with springs on their cables, the larger ones presenting their broadsides towards the centre, the smaller ones in succession within them, filling up the intervals. The combined fleet was formed in the order of sailing in two columns, the British and French forming the weather or starboard line, and the Russian the lee line.

"The Asia led in, followed by the Genoa and Albion, and anchored close alongside a ship of the line bearing the flag of the Capitana Bey, another ship of the line, and a large double banked frigate, each thus having their proper opponent in the front line of the Turkish fleet. The four ships to windward, part of the Egyptian squadron, were allotted to the squadron of Rear-Adm. de Rigny; and those to leeward, in the bight of the crescent, were to mark the stations of the whole Russian squadron; the ships of their line closing those of the English line, and being followed up by their own frigates. The French frigate Armide was directed to place herself alongside the outermost frigate, on the left hand entering the harbour; and the Cambrian, Glasgow, and Talbot next to her, and abreast of the Asia, Genoa, and Albion; the Dartmouth and the Musquito, the Rose, the Brisk, and the Philomel were to look after six fire vessels at the entrance of the harbour. I gave orders that no gun should be fired, unless guns were first fired by the Turks; and those orders were strictly observed. The three English ships were accordingly permitted to pass the batteries and to moor, as they did with great rapidity, without any act of open hostility, although there was evident preparation for it in all the Turkish ships; but upon the Dartmouth sending a boat to one of the fire vessels, Lieut. G. W. H. Fitzroy, and several of her crew, were shot with musketry. This produced a defensive fire of musketry from the Dartmouth, and La Syrene, bearing the flag of Rear-Admiral de Rigny; that was succeeded by cannon-shot at the Rear-Admiral from one of the Egyptian ships, which, of course, brought on a return, and thus very shortly afterwards the battle became general. The Asia, although placed alongside the ship of the Capitana Bey, was even nearer to that of Moharem Bey, the commander of the Egyptian ships; and since his ships did not fire at the Asia, although the action was begun to windward, neither did the Asia fire at her. The latter, indeed, sent a message, "that he would not fire at all," and therefore no hostility took place betwixt our two ships for some time after the Asia had returned the fire of the Capitana Bey.

"In the meantime, however, our excellent pilot, Mr. Peter Mitchell, who went to interpret to Moharem my desire to avoid bloodshed, was killed by his people in our boat alongside.

"Whether with or without his orders I know not; but his ship soon afterwards fired into the Asia, and was consequently effectually destroyed by the Asia's fire, sharing the same fate as his brother Admiral on the starboard side, and falling to leeward a mere wreck. These ships being out of the way, the Asia became exposed to a raking fire from vessels in the second and third line, which carried away her mizen-mast by the board, disabled some of her guns, and killed and wounded several of her crew. This narration of the proceedings of the Asia would probably be equally applicable to most of the other ships of the fleet. The manner in which the Genoa and Albion took their stations was beautiful; and the conduct of my brother Admirals, Count Heyden and the Chevalier de Rigny, throughout was admirable and highly exemplary.

"Captain Fellowes executed the part allotted to him perfectly, and with the able assistance of his little but brave detachment, saved the Syrene from being burnt by the fire vessels. And the Cambrian, Glasgow and Talbot, following the fine example of Capitaine Hugon, of the Armide, who was opposed to the leading frigate of that line, effectually destroyed their opponents, and also silenced the batteries. This bloody and destructive battle was continued with unabated fury for four hours, and the scene of wreck and devastation which presented itself at its termination was such as has seldom been witnessed. As each ship of our opponents became effectually disabled, such of her crew as could escape from her endeavoured to set her on fire; and it is wonderful how we avoided the effects of their successive and awful explosions.

"I contemplate, as I do with extreme sorrow, the extent of our loss, I console myself with the reflection that the measure which produced the battle was absolutely necessary for obtaining the results contemplated by the treaty, and that it was brought on entirely by our opponents.

"When I found the boasted Ottoman's word of honour made a sacrifice to wanton savage devastation, and that a base advantage was taken of our reliance upon Ibrahim's good faith, I own I felt a desire to punish the offenders. But it was my duty to refrain, and refrain I did; and I can assure his Royal Highness, that I would still have avoided this disastrous extremity if other means had been open to me.

"Total killed, 75; total wounded, 197.

"Killed and wounded on board the French ships: Killed, 43; 79 severely wounded; 65 wounded.

"Accounts have been received from Constantinople of a date subsequent to the arrival of the above news at that city. The Divan appeared to be in a state of consternation; and the Ambassadors of the three allied powers were urgently pressing the subject of their intended negociations. The haughty tone of the Porte seems to be in some measure subdued; and, contrary to general expectation, there has been no popular commotion excited against the resident Christians."

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION (1828).

Source.—Memoirs of Sir Robert Peel, by Stanhope and Cardwell. London, 1856. Pt. I. p. 35.

Extracts from Lord Anglesey's Letter to Lord Francis Leveson Gower.

"I will give you my opinion upon the state of things and upon the great question.

"I begin by premising that I hold in abhorrence the Association, the agitators, the priests, and their religion; and I believe that not many, but that some of the Bishops, are mild, moderate and anxious to come to a fair and liberal compromise for the adjustment of the points at issue. I think that these latter have very little, if any, influence with the lower clergy and the population.

"Such is the extraordinary power of the Association, or rather of the agitators, of whom there are many of high ability, of ardent mind, of great daring (and, if there was no Association, these men are now too well known not to maintain their power under the existing order of exclusion), that I am quite certain they could lead on the people to open rebellion at a moment's notice; and their organization is such, that, in the hands of desperate and intelligent leaders, they would be extremely formidable. The hope, and indeed the probability of present tranquillity, rests upon the forbearance and the not very determined courage of O'Connell, and on his belief, as well as that of the principal men amongst them, that they will carry their cause by unceasing agitation, and by intimidation, without coming to blows. I believe their success inevitable—that no power under heaven can arrest its progress. There may be rebellion, you may put to death thousands, you may suppress it, but it will only be to put off the day of compromise; and in the meantime the country is still more impoverished, and the minds of the people are, if possible, still more alienated, and ruinous expense is entailed upon the empire.

"But supposing that the whole evil was concentrated in the Association, and that if that was suppressed all would go smoothly; where is the man who can tell me how to suppress it? Many, many cry out that the nuisance must be abated; that the Government is supine; that the insolence of the demagogues is intolerable; but I have not yet found one person capable of pointing out a remedy. All are mute when you ask them to define their proposition. All that even the most determined opposers to emancipation say is that it is better to leave things as they are than to risk any change. But will things remain as they are? Certainly not. They are bad; they must get worse; and I see no possible means of improving them but by depriving the demagogues of the power of directing the people; and by taking Messrs. O'Connell, Sheil, and the rest of them from the Association, and placing them in the House of Commons, this desirable object would be at once accomplished.

"July 3rd. The present order of things must not, cannot last. There are three modes of proceeding:

"1st. That of trying to go on as we have done.

"2nd. To adjust the question by concession, and such guards as may be deemed indispensable.

"3rd. To put down the Association, and to crush the power of the priests.

"The first I hold to be impossible.

"The second is practicable and advisable.

"The third is only possible by supposing that you can reconstruct the House of Commons; and to suppose that is to suppose that you can totally alter the feelings of those who send them there.

"I believe nothing short of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and Martial Law will effect the third proposition. This would effect it during their operation, and perhaps for a short time after they had ceased, and then every evil would return with accumulated weight.

"But no House of Commons would consent to these measures until there is open rebellion, and therefore until that occurs it is useless to think of them. The second mode of proceeding is then, I conceive, the only practicable one, but the present is not a propitious time to effect even this.

"I abhor the idea of truckling to the overbearing Catholic demagogues. To make any movement towards conciliation under the present excitement and system of terror would revolt me; but I do most conscientiously, and after the most earnest consideration of the subject, give it as my conviction that the first moment of composure and tranquillity should be seized to signify the intention of adjusting the question, lest another period of calm should not present itself."

IRISH UNREST (1828).

Source.—Memoirs of Sir Robert Peel, by Stanhope and Cardwell. London, 1856. Pt. I. p. 35.

Irish Police Reports, January and February, 1828.

Sligo.—Generally quiet; 1 murder; 7 outrages.

Mayo.—Perfectly quiet; 1 murder; 1 outrage.

Roscommon.—Rockites rather busy; apprehensive of their extending their operations; 2 murders; 11 outrages.

Clare.—Quiet; apprehensive of Ribbon spirit extending; 9 outrages.

Leitrim.—Much disturbed; the sway of the Rockites formidable; magistrates supposed to be deficient in energy; 36 outrages.

Galway.—Perfectly quiet; 1 murder; 6 outrages.

Antrim.—Disturbed; robberies of fire-arms; not insurrectionary; 3 murders; 7 outrages.

Armagh.—Quiet; 1 outrage.

Cavan.—Strong political feeling ready to develop itself; 9 outrages.

Donegal.—Not tranquil; 2 murders; 4 outrages.

Down.—Quiet; 2 outrages.

Fermanagh.—Tranquil; 6 outrages.

Londonderry.—Generally quiet; 1 murder; 4 outrages.

Monaghan.—Disturbed; party violence runs high; 1 murder; 6 outrages.

Ulster may be considered tolerably tranquil, with the exception of some baronies in the counties of Donegal and Monaghan.

Tipperary.—Whiteboy system prevails very generally; no organized insurrectionary system founded upon political feeling; 4 murders; 75 outrages.

Cork.—Generally quiet; 1 murder; 4 outrages.

Waterford.—Quiet; 3 outrages.

Kerry.—Quiet; 3 outrages.

Roscrea.—Dissatisfied spirit excited by inflammatory speeches.

Limerick.—Satisfactory state; 9 outrages.

Wicklow.—Western division disturbed; considered necessary to increase the constabulary force by ordering three men to Dunlavin, and three more to another disturbed point; Talbotstown the most disturbed; 3 outrages.

Kildare.—Nothing to notice.

CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION (1829).

Source.—Annual Register for 1829, p. 94.

Duke of Wellington's Speech.

[The attitude of the Ministry was set forth in a brief speech by the Duke of Wellington at the close of the debate. While there is little in the utterance beyond a personal explanation of the secrecy maintained, it is inserted as being the final word on the great question which had for so many years troubled the heart of England.]

The debate was closed by a brief reply from the Duke of Wellington. The apprehended danger to the Irish Church from the admission of a few Catholics into Parliament, he treated as futile, considering that the throne would be filled by a Protestant. Moreover, a fundamental article of the Union between the two countries was the union of the two Churches; and it was impossible that any mischief could happen to the Irish branch of this united Church, without destroying the union of the two countries. "A different topic," said his grace, "to which I wish to advert is a charge brought against several of my colleagues, and also against myself, by the noble earl on the cross-bench, of a want of consistency in our conduct. My lords, I admit that many of my colleagues, as well as myself, did on former occasions vote against a measure of a similar description with this; and, my lords, I must say, that my colleagues and myself felt, when we adopted this measure, that we should be sacrificing ourselves and our popularity to that which we felt to be our duty to our sovereign and our country. We knew very well, that if we put ourselves at the head of the Protestant cry of 'No Popery,' we should be much more popular even than those who had excited against us that very cry. But we felt that in so doing we should have left on the interests of the country a burthen which must end in bearing them down, and further that we should have deserved the hate and execration of our countrymen. Then I am accused, and by a noble and learned friend of mine, of having acted with great secrecy respecting this measure. Now I beg to tell him, that he has done that to me in the course of this discussion which he complains of others having done to him—in other words, he has, in the language of a right hon. friend of his and mine, thrown a large paving-stone, instead of throwing a small pebble. I say, that if he accuses me of acting with secrecy on this question, he does not deal with me altogether fairly. He knows as well as I do how the Cabinet was constructed on this question; and I ask him, had I any right to say a single word to any man whatsoever upon this measure, until the person most interested in the kingdom upon it had given his consent to my speaking out? Before he accused me of secrecy, and of improper secrecy too, he ought to have known the precise day upon which I received the permission of the highest personage in the country, and had leave to open my mouth upon this measure. There is another point also on which a noble earl accused me of misconduct; and that is, that I did not at once dissolve the Parliament. Now I must say that I think noble lords are mistaken in the notion of the benefits which they think that they would derive from a dissolution of Parliament at this crisis. I believe that many of them are not aware of the consequences and of the inconveniences of a dissolution of Parliament at any time. But when I know, as I did know, and as I do know, the state of the elective franchise in Ireland—when I recollected the number of men it took to watch one election which took place in Ireland in the course of last summer—when I knew the consequences which a dissolution would produce on the return to the House of Commons, to say nothing of the risks which must have been incurred at each election—of collisions that might have lead to something little short of a civil war—I say, that, knowing all these things, I should have been wanting in duty to my sovereign and to my country, if I had advised his Majesty to dissolve his Parliament."

THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON'S SUPPOSED DESIGNS ON THE CROWN (1830).

Source.—The Life of the Duke of Wellington, by J. R. Gleig.

Letter from Col. Fairman to the Editor of the "Morning Herald," April 6, 1830.

"Dear Sir,

"From those who may be supposed to have opportunities of knowing 'the secrets of the castle,' the King is stated to be by no manner in so alarming a state as many folks would have it imagined. His Majesty is likewise said to dictate the bulletins of his own state of health. Some whisperings have also gone abroad, that in the event of a demise of the crown, a regency would probably be established, for reasons which occasioned the removal of the next in the succession from the office of high-admiral. That a maritime government might not prove consonant to the views of a military chieftain of the most unbounded ambition, may admit of easy belief; and as the second heir-presumptive is not alone a female, but a minor, in addition to the argument which might be applied to the present, that in the ordinary course of nature it was not to be expected that his reign could be of long duration, in these disjointed times it is by no means unlikely a vicarious form of government may be attempted. The effort would be a bold one, but after the measures we have seen, what new violations should surprise us? Besides, the popular plea of economy and expedience might be urged as the pretext, while aggrandisement and usurpation might be the latent sole motive. It would only be necessary to make out a plausible case, which, from the facts on record, there could be no difficulty in doing, to the satisfaction of a pliable and obsequious set of ministers, as also to the success of such an experiment.

"Most truly yours, "W. B. F."

Note.—Colonel Fairman was an Orangeman. After the Emancipation Bill became law, the Orangemen gave vent to their wrath upon the Duke of Wellington.

HEAVY TAXATION OF THE WORKING CLASSES (1830).

Source.—William Cobbett's Rural Rides, ed. by Mr. Pitt Cobbett, 1885.

"Leicester, 26th April, 1830.

"At the famous city of Lincoln, I had crowded audiences, principally consisting of farmers, on the 21st and 22nd; exceedingly well-behaved audiences, and great impression produced. One of the evenings, in pointing out to them the wisdom of explaining to their labourers the cause of their distress, in order to ward off the effects of the resentment which labourers now feel everywhere against the farmers, I related to them what my labourers at Barn-Elm had been doing since I left home; and I repeated to them the complaints that my labourers made, stating to them, from memory, the following parts of that spirited petition:

"That your petitioners have recently observed that many great sums of money, part of which we pay, have been voted to be given to persons who render no services to the country; some of which sums we will mention here; that the sum of £94,000 has been voted to disbanded foreign officers, their widows and children; that your petitioners know that ever since the peace this charge has been annually made; that it has been on the average, £110,000 a year, and that, of course, this band of foreigners have actually taken away out of England, since the peace, one million and seven thousand pounds; partly taken from the fruit of our labour; and if our dinners were actually taken from our table and carried over to Hanover, the process could not be more visible to our eyes than it now is; and we are astonished that those who fear that we, who make the land bring forth crops, and who make the clothing and the houses, shall swallow up the rental, appear to think nothing at all of the swallowings of these Hanoverian men, women, and children, who may continue thus to swallow for half a century to come.

"That your petitioners know that more than one half of their wages is taken from them by the taxes; that these taxes go chiefly into the hands of idlers; that your petitioners are the bees, and that the tax receivers are the drones; but that your petitioners hope to see the day when the checking of the increase of the drones, and not of the bees, will be the object of an English parliament.

"That, in consequence of taxes, your petitioners pay sixpence for a pot of worse beer than they could make for one penny; that they pay ten shillings for a pair of shoes that they could have for five shillings; that they pay sevenpence for a pound of soap or candles that they could have for threepence; that they pay sevenpence for a pound of sugar that they could have for threepence; that they pay six shillings for a pound of tea which they could have for two shillings; that they pay double for their bread and meat, of what they would have to pay if there were no idlers to be kept out of the taxes; that, therefore, it is the taxes that make their wages insufficient for their support, and that compel them to apply for aid to the poor-rates; that, knowing these things they feel indignant at hearing themselves described as paupers, while so many thousands of idlers, for whose support they pay taxes, are called noble Lords and Ladies, honourable Gentlemen, Masters, and Misses; that they feel indignant at hearing themselves described as a nuisance to be got rid of, while the idlers who live upon their earnings are upheld, caressed, and cherished, as if they were the sole support of the country."

Having repeated to them these passages, I proceeded: "My workmen were induced thus to petition, in consequence of the information, which I, their master, had communicated to them; and, gentlemen, why should not your labourers petition in the same strain? Why should you suffer them to remain in a state of ignorance, relative to the cause of their misery? The eyes sweep over in this country more riches in one moment than are contained in the whole county in which I was born, and in which the petitioners live. Between Holbeach and Boston, even at a public house, neither bread nor meat was to be found; and while the landlord was telling me that the people were become so poor that the butchers killed no meat in the neighbourhood, I counted more than two thousand fat sheep lying about in the pastures in that richest spot in the whole world. Starvation in the midst of plenty; the land covered with food, and the working people without victuals: everything taken away by the tax-eaters of various descriptions: and yet you take no measures for redress; and your miserable labourers seem to be doomed to expire with hunger, without an effort to obtain relief. What! cannot you point out to them the real cause of their sufferings; cannot you take a piece of paper and write out a petition for them; cannot your labourers petition as well as mine, are God's blessings bestowed on you without any spirit to preserve them; is the fatness of the land, is the earth teeming with food for the body and raiment for the back, to be an apology for the waste of that courage for which your fathers were so famous; is the abundance which God has put into your hands to be the excuse for your resigning yourselves to starvation? My God! is there no spirit left in England except in the miserable sandhills of Surrey?"

RAILWAY CARRIAGES (1830).

Source.—The Gentleman's Magazine, Vol. 100, p. 552.

Railway Carriages—June 14.

The directors of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway made their first public exhibition upon the line, and the experiment proved most successful. The Arrow steam engine drew a carriage with twelve inside passengers, another with thirty outside, and seven carriages loaded with thirty-four tons of rough stone. The journey from Liverpool to Manchester (rather more than thirty miles) was performed in two hours 23½ minutes, including stoppages for water, which occupied 13½ minutes. They left Manchester again for Liverpool about half-past four o'clock, at the rate of about 25 miles the hour, drawing two very large carriages with upwards of fifty passengers, and performed the whole distance in one hour 46½ minutes, including 12 minutes watering and to set down a passenger.

The introduction of Railways is likely to be as beneficial in improving the accommodation afforded to travellers, as in increasing the expedition with which they will be conveyed. Some of the carriages which have been made at the manufactory of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Company, for the public conveyance of passengers on the Railway, give quite a new idea of the ease and luxury with which persons may in future travel. Most of the carriages to be used as public coaches consist, like the French diligences, of two or three bodies joined together. Some are intended to accommodate four persons in each body, and others six. Between the sittings is a rest for the arms, and each passenger has a cushion to himself; the backs are padded and covered with fine cloth, like a private carriage.

There are at present exhibiting in Edinburgh three large models, accompanied with drawings of railways and their carriages, invented by Mr. Dick, who has a patent. These railways are of a different nature from those hitherto in use, inasmuch as they are not laid along the surface of the ground, but elevated to such a height as when necessary to pass over the tops of houses and trees. The principal supports are of stone, and, being placed at considerable distances, have cast iron pillars between them. The carriages are to be dragged along with a velocity hitherto unparalleled, by means of a rope drawn by a steam-engine, or other prime mover—a series being placed at intervals along the railway. From the construction of the railway and carriages the friction is very small.

DEATH OF HUSKISSON (1830).

Source.—The Gentleman's Magazine, Vol. 100, p. 264.

September 15.

The interesting ceremony of opening the Manchester and Liverpool Railway took place this day. It was rendered more splendid and imposing by the presence of the Duke of Wellington and many distinguished individuals, whom the Directors had invited. The concourse of spectators at each end of the line was immense. The procession left Liverpool twenty minutes before eleven o'clock drawn by eight locomotive engines, the first of which was the Northumbrian, with the Directors and numerous distinguished visitors, including the Duke of Wellington. The other engines were the Phœnix, North Star, Rocket, Dart, Comet, Arrow, and Meteor. The carriage in which the Duke of Wellington and his friends travelled, was truly magnificent. The floor was 32 feet long by 8 wide, and was supported by eight large iron wheels. A grand canopy, 24 feet long, was placed aloft upon gilded pillars, contrived so as to be lowered in passing through the tunnel. The Northumbrian drew three carriages, the first containing the band, the second the Duke of Wellington and the distinguished visitors, and the third the Directors. The Phœnix, and the North Star drew five carriages each; the Rocket drew three; and the Dart, Comet, Arrow, and Meteor, each four. The total number of persons conveyed was 772. On issuing from the smaller tunnel at Liverpool, the first engine, that is, the Northumbrian, took the south, or right-hand line of railway, while the other seven engines proceeded along the north line. The procession did not proceed at a particularly rapid pace—not more than 15 or 16 miles an hour. In the course of the journey, the Northumbrian accelerated or retarded its speed occasionally, to give the Duke of Wellington an opportunity of inspecting the most remarkable parts of the work. On the arrival of the procession at Parkside (a little on this side of Newton) the carriages stopped to take in a supply of water. Before starting from Liverpool, the company were particularly requested not to leave the carriages, and the same caution was repeated in the printed directions describing the order of procession. Notwithstanding this regulation, however, Mr. Huskisson, Mr. Wm. Holmes, M.P., and other gentlemen, alighted from the carriage of the Duke of Wellington, when the Northumbrian stopped at Parkside. At the moment they descended into the road, three of the engines on the other line—the Phœnix, the North Star, and the Rocket, were rapidly approaching. Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Holmes were standing in the road between the two lines of railway, which are about four feet distant from each other. Unluckily, Mr. Huskisson imagining that there was not room for a person to stand between the lines while the other engines were passing, made an attempt to get again into the carriage of the Duke before the Dart came up. He laid hold of the door of the carriage, and pulled it open with so much force that he lost his balance, and fell backwards across the rails of the other line, the moment before the passing of the Dart. The conductor of that engine immediately stopped it, but before that could be effected, both wheels of the engine passed over the leg of the unfortunate gentleman, which was placed over the rail, his head and body being under the engine. The right leg was frightfully shattered, the muscles being torn to pieces. The Earl of Wilton, Mr. Holmes, and Mr. Parkes, solicitor, of Birmingham, raised Mr. Huskisson from the ground. The only words he uttered were: "I have met my death—God forgive me!" A tourniquet was immediately applied by the Earl of Wilton; and Dr. Brandreth was quickly in attendance. He was then removed to a car, and carried to Eccles, a village within four miles of Manchester; and after his arrival there, was removed to the house of the Rev. Mr. Blackburn, the rector of that place, where the Right Hon. Gentleman expired between nine and ten o'clock the same evening.

After the above melancholy accident a question arose as to what ought to be done with regard to the further progress of the business of the day. The Duke of Wellington refused to proceed further. Some of the proprietors and directors insisted that they had a public duty to perform in carrying the day's proceedings to an end, and that the success of the project, on which they had expended so much capital, might depend on their being regularly finished. They contended, moreover, that the procession must go on to Manchester, if they wished to avoid a breach of the public tranquillity. The Duke's scruples ultimately gave way, and the order was issued to move on to Manchester. On its return the Duke of Wellington quitted the rail-road about three miles before the cortege reached Liverpool, and posted off to the Marquis of Salisbury's seat at Childwell. The splendid corporation dinner which had been prepared at Liverpool was suspended; and nothing was heard spoken of but the above melancholy event. Mr. Huskisson was interred on the 24th at the public cemetery at Liverpool. The funeral was a public one.

ON THE USE OF CLOSE BOROUGHS (1831).

Source.—The Life of the Duke of Wellington, by J. R. Gleig.

Letter from the Duke of Wellington to J. R. Gleig, Esq.

"London, 11th April, 1831.

"I have received your letters of the 8th and 9th. It is curious enough that I, who have been the greatest reformer on earth, should be held up as an enemy to all reform. This assertion is neither more or less than one of the lying cries of the day.

"If by reform is meant parliamentary reform, or a change in the mode or system of representation, what I have said is, that I have never heard of a plan that was safe and practicable that would give satisfaction, and that while I was in office I should oppose myself to reform in parliament. This was in answer to Lord Grey on the first day of the session. I am still of the same opinion. I think that parliament has done its duty: that constituted as parliament is, having in it as a member every man noted in the country for his fortune, his talents, his science, his industry, or his influence; the first men of all professions, in all branches of trade and manufacture, connected with our colonies and settlements abroad, and representing, as it does, all the states of the United Kingdom, the government of the country is still a task almost more than human. To conduct the government would be impossible, if by reform the House of Commons should be brought to a greater degree under popular influence. Yet let those who wish for reform reflect for a moment where we should all stand if we were to lose for a day the protection of government.

"That is the ground upon which I stand with respect to the question of reform in general. I have more experience in the government of this country than any man now alive, as well as in foreign countries. I have no borough influence to lose, and I hate the whole concern too much to think of endeavouring to gain any. Ask the gentlemen of the Cinque Ports whether I have ever troubled any of them.

"On the other hand, I know that I should be the idol of the country if I could pretend to alter my opinion and alter my course. And I know that I exclude myself from political power by persevering in the course which I have taken. But nothing shall induce me to utter a word, either in public or in private, that I don't believe to be true. If it is God's will that this great country should be destroyed, and that mankind should be deprived of this last asylum of peace and happiness, be it so; but, as long as I can raise my voice, I will do so against the infatuated madness of the day.

"In respect to details, it has always appeared to me that the first step upon this subject was the most important. We talk of unrepresented great towns! These are towns which have all the benefit of being governed by the system of the British Constitution without the evil of elections. Look at Scotland. Does Scotland suffer because it has not the benefit of riotous elections? I think that reform in Scotland would be, and I am certain would be thought, a grievance by many in that country. I can answer for there being many respectable men in Manchester, and I believe there are some in Birmingham and Leeds, who are adverse to change.

"But how is this change to be made? Either by adding to the number of representatives in parliament from England, or by disfranchising what are called the rotten boroughs! The first cannot be done without a departure from the basis and a breach of the Acts of Union. And, mind, a serious departure and breach of these acts, inasmuch as the limits of the extension could not be less than from fifteen to twenty towns. The last would be, in my opinion, a violation of the first and most important principle of the constitution, for no valid reason, and upon no ground whatever excepting a popular cry, and an apprehension of the consequences of resisting it. But this is not all. I confess that I see in thirty members for rotten boroughs thirty men, I don't care of what party, who would preserve the state of property as it is; who would maintain by their votes the Church of England, its possessions, its churches and universities, all our great institutions and corporations, the union with Scotland and Ireland, the connection of the country with its foreign colonies and possessions, the national honour abroad and its good faith with the king's subjects at home. I see men at the back of the government to enable it to protect individuals and their property against the injustice of the times, which would sacrifice all rights and all property to a description of plunder called general convenience and utility. I think it is the presence of this description of men in parliament with the country gentlemen, and the great merchants, bankers, and manufacturers, which constitute the great difference between the House of Commons and those assemblies abroad called 'Chambers of Deputies.' It is by means of the representatives of the close corporations that the great proprietors of the country participate in political power. I don't think that we could spare thirty or forty of these representatives, or change them with advantage for thirty or forty members elected for the great towns by any new system. I am certain that the country would be injured by depriving men of great property of political power, besides the injury done to it by exposing the House of Commons to a greater degree of popular influence.

"You will observe that I have now considered only the smallest of all reforms—a reform which would satisfy nobody. Yet it cannot be adopted without a serious departure from principle (principle in the maintenance of which the smallest as well as the greatest of us is interested), and by running all the risks of those misfortunes which all wish to avoid.

"I tell you that we must not risk our great institutions and large properties, personal as well as real. If we do, there is not a man of this generation, so young, so old, so rich, so poor, so bold, so timid, as that he will not feel the consequences of this rashness. This opinion is founded not on reasoning only, but on experience, and I shall never cease to declare it."

LORD JOHN RUSSELL'S SPEECH ON THE FIRST REFORM BILL (1831).[4]

Source.—Molesworthy's History of the Reform Bill, London, 1866, p. 103.

The object of ministers has been to produce a measure with which every reasonable man in the country will be satisfied—we wish to take our stand between the two hostile parties, neither agreeing with the bigotry of those who would reject all Reform, nor with the fanaticism of those who contend that only one plan of Reform would be wholesome or satisfactory, but placing ourselves between both, and between the abuses we intend to amend and the convulsion we hope to avert.

The ancient constitution of our country declares that no man should be taxed for the support of the State, who has not consented, by himself or his representative, to the imposition of these taxes. The well-known statute, de tallagio non concedendo, repeats the same language; and, although some historical doubts have been thrown upon it, its legal meaning has never been disputed. It included "all the freemen of the land," and provided that each county should send to the Commons of the realm, two knights, each city two burgesses, and each borough two members. Thus about a hundred places sent representatives, and some thirty or forty others occasionally enjoyed the privilege, but it was discontinued or revived as they rose or fell in the scale of wealth and importance. Thus, no doubt, at that early period, the House of Commons did represent the people of England; there is no doubt likewise, that the House of Commons, as it now subsists, does not represent the people of England. Therefore, if we look at the question of right, the reformers have right in their favour. Then, if we consider what is reasonable, we shall arrive at a similar result.

A stranger, who was told that this country is unparalleled in wealth and industry, and more civilized, and more enlightened than any country was before it; that it is a country that prides itself on its freedom, and that once in every seven years it elects representatives from its population, to act as the guardians and preservers of that freedom,—would be anxious and curious to see how that representation is formed, and how the people chose those representatives, to whose faith and guardianship they entrust their free and liberal institutions. Such a person would be very much astonished if he were taken to a ruined mound, and told that that mound sent two representatives to Parliament—if he were taken to a stone wall, and told that three niches in it sent two representatives to Parliament—if he were taken to a park, where no houses were to be seen, and told that that park sent two representatives to Parliament; but if he were told all this, and were astonished at hearing it, he would be still more astonished if he were to see large and opulent towns full of enterprise and industry, and intelligence, containing vast magazines of every species of manufactures, and were then told that these towns sent no representatives to Parliament.

Such a person would be still more astonished, if he were taken to Liverpool, where there is a large constituency, and told, here you will have a fine specimen of a popular election.

He would see bribery employed to the greatest extent, and in the most unblushing manner; he would see every voter receiving a number of guineas in a box, as the price of his corruption; and after such a spectacle, he would no doubt be much astonished that a nation whose representatives are thus chosen, could perform the functions of legislation at all, or enjoy respect in any degree. I say, then, that if the question before the House is a question of reason, the present state of representation is against reason.

The confidence of the country in the construction and constitution of the House of Commons is gone. It would be easier to transfer the flourishing manufactures of Leeds and Manchester to Gatton and Old Sarum, than re-establish confidence and sympathy between this House and those whom it calls its constituents. If, therefore, the question is one of right, right is in favour of Reform; if it be a question of reason, reason is in favour of Reform; if it be a question of policy and expediency, policy and expediency are in favour of Reform.

I come now to the explanation of the measure which, representing the ministers of the King, I am about to propose to the House. Those ministers have thought, and in my opinion justly thought, that no half measures would be sufficient; that no trifling or paltering with Reform could give stability to the Crown, strength to Parliament, or satisfaction to the country. The chief grievances of which the people complain are these. First, the nomination of members by individuals; second, the election by close corporations; third, the expense of elections. With regard to the first, it may be exercised in two ways, either over a place containing scarcely any inhabitants, and with a very extensive right of election; or over a place of wide extent and numerous population, but where the franchise is confined to very few persons. Gatton is an example of the first, and Bath of the second. At Gatton, where the right of voting is by scot and lot, all householders have a vote, but there are only five persons to exercise the right. At Bath the inhabitants are numerous, but very few of them have any concern in the election. In the former case, we propose to deprive the borough of the franchise altogether. In doing so, we have taken for our guide the population returns of 1821; and we propose that every borough which in that year had less than 2,000 inhabitants, should altogether lose the right of sending members to Parliament, the effect of which will be to disfranchise sixty-two boroughs. But we do not stop here. As the honourable member for Boroughbridge [Sir C. Wetherell] would say, we go plus ultra; we find that there are forty-seven boroughs of only 4,000 inhabitants, and these we shall deprive of the right of sending more than one member to Parliament. We likewise intend that Weymouth, which at present sends four members to Parliament, should in the future send only two. The total reduction thus effected in the number of the members of this House will be 168. This is the whole extent to which we are prepared to go in the way of disfranchisement.

We do not, however, mean to allow that the remaining boroughs should be in the hands of a small number of persons to the exclusion of the great body of the inhabitants who have property and interest in the place. It is a point of great difficulty to decide to whom the franchise should be extended. Though it is a point much disputed, I believe it will be found that in ancient times every inhabitant householder resident in a borough was competent to vote for members of Parliament. As, however, this arrangement excluded villeins and strangers, the franchise always belonged to a particular body in every town;—that the voters were persons of property is obvious, from the fact that they are called upon to pay subsidies and taxes. Two different courses seem to prevail in different places. In some, every person having a house, and being free, was admitted to a general participation in the privileges formerly possessed by burgesses; in others, the burgesses became a select body, and were converted into a kind of corporation, more or less exclusive. These differences, the House will be aware, lead to the most difficult, and at the same time the most useless questions that men can be called upon to decide. I contend that it is proper to get rid of these complicated rights, of these vexatious questions, and to give the real property and real respectability of the different cities and towns, the right of voting for members of Parliament. Finding that a qualification of a house rated at £20 a year, would confine the elective franchise, instead of enlarging it, we propose that the right of voting should be given to the householders paying rates for houses of the yearly value of £10 and upwards, upon certain conditions hereafter to be stated. At the same time it is not intended to deprive the present electors of their privilege of voting, provided they are resident. With regard to non-residence, we are of opinion that it produces much expense, is the cause of a great deal of bribery, and occasions such manifest and manifold evils, that electors who do not live in a place ought not to be permitted to retain their votes. With regard to resident voters, we propose that they should retain their right during life, but that no vote should be allowed hereafter, except to £10 householders.

I shall now proceed to the manner in which we propose to extend the franchise in counties. The bill I wish to introduce will give all copyholders to the value of £10 a year, qualified to serve on juries, under the right hon. gentlemen's [Sir R. Peel] bill, a right to vote for the return of knights of the shire; also, that leaseholders, for not less than twenty-one years, whose annual rent is not less than £50, and whose leases have not been renewed within two years, shall enjoy the same privilege.

THE PASSING OF THE REFORM BILL, MARCH 30TH, 1831.

Source.—Macaulay's Life and Letters, by the Right Hon. Sir George Otto Trevelyan, 1876.

Lord Macaulay's Description of the Scene.

Such a scene as the division of last Tuesday I never saw, and never expect to see again. If I should live fifty years the impression of it will be as fresh and sharp in my mind as if it had just taken place. It was like seeing Caesar stabbed in the Senate House, or seeing Oliver taking the mace from the table; a sight to be seen only once, and never to be forgotten. The crowd overflowed the House in every part. When the strangers were cleared out, and the doors locked, we had six hundred and eight members present—more by fifty-five than ever were in a division before. The Ayes and the Noes were like two volleys of cannon from opposite sides of a field of battle. When the opposition went out into the lobby, an operation which took up twenty minutes or more, we spread ourselves over the benches on both sides of the House; for there were many of us who had not been able to find a seat during the evening. When the doors were shut we began to speculate on our numbers. Everybody was desponding. "We have lost it. We are only two hundred and eighty at the most. I do not think we are two hundred and fifty. They are three hundred. Alderman Thompson has counted them. He says they are two hundred and ninety-nine." This was the talk on our benches. I wonder that men who have been long in Parliament do not acquire a better coup d'œil for numbers. The House, when only the Ayes were in it, looked to me a very fair House—much fuller than it generally is even on debates of considerable interest. I had no hope, however, of three hundred. As the tellers passed along our lowest row on the left hand side the interest was insupportable—two hundred and ninety-one—two hundred and ninety-two—we were all standing up and stretching forward telling with the tellers. At three hundred there was a short cry of joy—at three hundred and two another—suppressed, however, in a moment; for we did not yet know what the hostile force might be. We knew, however, that we could not be severely beaten. The doors were thrown open, and in they came. Each of them, as he entered, brought some different report of their numbers. It must have been impossible, as you may conceive, in the lobby crowded as they were, to form any exact estimate. First, we heard that they were three hundred and three; then that number rose to three hundred and ten; then went down to three hundred and seven, Alexander Barry told me that he had counted, and that they were three hundred and four. We were all breathless with anxiety, when Charles Wood, who stood near the door, jumped on a bench and cried out, "They are only three hundred and one." We set up a shout that you might have heard to Charing Cross, waving our hats, stamping against the floor, and clapping our hands. The tellers scarcely got through the crowd; for the House was thronged up to the table, and all the floor was fluctuating with heads like the pit of a theatre. But you might have heard a pin drop as Duncannon read the numbers. Then again the shouts broke out, and many of us shed tears. I could scarcely refrain. And the jaw of Peel fell; and the face of Twiss was as the face of a damned soul; and Herries looked like Judas taking his necktie off for the last operation. We shook hands and clapped each other on the back, and went out laughing, crying, and huzzaing into the lobby. And no sooner were the outer doors opened than another shout answered that within the House. All the passages, and the stairs into the waiting-rooms, were thronged by people who had waited till four in the morning to know the issue. We passed through a narrow lane between two thick masses of them; and all the way down they were shouting and waving their hats, till we got into the open air. I called a cabriolet, and the first thing the driver asked was, "Is the Bill carried?" "Yes, by one." "Thank God for it, sir." And away I rode to Gray's Inn—and so ended a scene which will probably never be equalled till the reformed Parliament wants reforming; and that I hope will not be till the days of our grandchildren, till that truly orthodox and apostolical person, Dr. Francis Ellis, is an archbishop of eighty."

THE PROROGATION OF THE ANTI-REFORM PARLIAMENT (1831).[5]

Source.—Molesworthy's History of the Reform Bill, London, 1866, p. 185.

Under these circumstances, ministers acted with promptitude and decision. Their defeat had occurred on the morning of the 22nd of April; on the same day summonses were issued, calling a Cabinet Council at St. James's Palace. So short was the notice, that the ministers were unable to attend, as was customary on such occasions, in their court dresses.

At this council it was unanimously resolved that Parliament should be prorogued the same day, with a view to its speedy dissolution, and the royal speech, which had been prepared for the occasion, was considered and adopted. All necessary arrangements having been made, in order to take away from the King all pretext for delay, Earl Grey and Lord Brougham were deputed to wait on the King, and communicate to him the advice of the Cabinet. From what has been already said, the reader will be prepared to anticipate that this advice was far from palatable. The unusual haste with which it was proposed to carry out that measure, naturally increased the King's known objections to the proposed step, and furnished him with a good excuse for refusing his assent to it. Earl Grey, the pink and pattern of loyalty and chivalrous courtesy, shrunk from the disagreeable errand, and requested his bolder and less courtly colleague to introduce the subject, begging him at the same time to manage the susceptibility of the King as much as possible.

The Chancellor accordingly approached the subject very carefully, prefacing the disagreeable message with which he was charged, with a compliment on the King's desire to promote the welfare of his people. He then proceeded to communicate the advice of the Cabinet, adding, that they were unanimous in offering it.

"What!" exclaimed the King, "would you have me dismiss in this summary manner a Parliament which has granted me so splendid a civil list, and given my Queen so liberal an annuity in case she survives me?"

"No doubt, sire," Lord Brougham replied, "in these respects they have acted wisely and honourably, but your Majesty's advisers are all of opinion, that in the present state of affairs, every hour that this Parliament continues to sit is pregnant with danger to the peace and security of your kingdom, and they humbly beseech your Majesty to go down this very day and prorogue it. If you do not, they cannot be answerable for the consequences."

The King was greatly embarrassed; he evidently entertained the strongest objection to the proposed measure, but he also felt the danger which would result from the resignation of his ministers at the present crisis. He therefore shifted his ground, and asked: "Who is to carry the sword of state and the cap of maintenance?"

"Sire, knowing the urgency of the crisis and the imminent peril in which the country at this moment stands, we have ventured to tell those whose duty it is to perform these and other similar offices, to hold themselves in readiness."

"But the troops, the life guards, I have given no orders for them to be called out, and now it is too late."

This was indeed a serious objection, for to call out the guards was the special prerogative of the monarch himself, and no minister had any right to order their attendance without his express command.

"Sire," replied the Chancellor, with some hesitation, "we must throw ourselves on your indulgence. Deeply feeling the gravity of the crisis, and knowing your love for your people, we have taken a liberty which nothing but the most imperious necessity could warrant; we have ordered out the troops, and we humbly throw ourselves on your Majesty's indulgence."

The King's eye flashed and his cheeks became crimson. He was evidently on the point of dismissing the ministry in an explosion of anger. "Why, my lords," he exclaimed, "this is treason! high treason, and you, my Lord Chancellor, ought to know that it is."

"Yes, sire, I do know it, and nothing but the strongest conviction that your Majesty's crown and the interests of the nation are at stake, could have induced us to take such a step, or to tender the advice we are now giving."

This submissive reply had the desired effect, the King cooled, his prudence and better genius prevailed, and having once made up his mind to yield with a good grace, he accepted, without any objection, the speech which had been prepared for him, and which the two ministers had brought with them, he gave orders respecting the details of the approaching ceremonial, and having completely recovered his habitual serenity and good humour, he dismissed the two lords with a jocose threat of impeachment.

At half-past two o'clock the King entered his state carriage. It was remarked that the guards on this occasion rode wide of it, as if they attended as a matter of state and ceremony, and not as being needed for the King's protection. Persons wishing to make a more open demonstration of their feelings, were allowed to pass between the soldiers and approach the royal carriage. One of these, a rough sailor-like person, pulled off his hat, and waving it around his head, shouted lustily, "Turn out the rogues, your Majesty." Notwithstanding the suddenness with which the resolution to dissolve had been taken, the news had already spread through the metropolis, an immense crowd was assembled, and the King was greeted throughout his whole progress with the most enthusiastic shouts. He was exceedingly fond of popularity, and these acclamations helped to reconcile him to the step he had been compelled to take, and to efface the unpleasant impression which the scene which had so recently occurred could not fail to leave behind it.

Meanwhile, another scene of a far more violent kind was taking place in the House of Lords. The Chancellor on leaving the King went down to the House to hear appeals. Having gone through the cause list he retired, in the hope that he should thereby prevent Lord Wharncliffe from bringing forward his motion. But the opposition lords had mustered in great force, and the House was full in all parts. It is usual on the occasion of a prorogation by the sovereign, for the peers to appear in their robes, and most of those present wore theirs, but owing to the precipitation with which the dissolution had been decided on, several peers, especially on the opposition side of the House, were without them. A large number of peeresses in full dress, and of members of the House of Commons were also present. And now a struggle commenced between the two parties into which the House was divided. The object of the opposition was to press Lord Wharncliffe's motion before the King's arrival; the supporters of the ministry wished to prevent it from being passed. The firing of the park guns announced that the King was already on his way down to the House, and told the opposition they had no time to lose. On the motion of Lord Mansfield, the Earl of Shaftesbury presided, in the absence of the Lord Chancellor.

The Duke of Richmond, in order to baffle the opposition, moved that the standing order which required their lordships to take their places should be enforced. The opposition saw at once that this motion was made for the sake of delay, and angrily protested against it; whereupon the duke threatened to call for the enforcement of two other standing orders which prohibited the use of intemperate and threatening language in the House. Lord Londonderry, furious with indignation, broke out into a vehement tirade against the conduct of the ministry, and thus effectually played the game of his opponents. So violent was the excitement which prevailed at this time in the House, that the ladies present were terrified, thinking that the peers would actually come to blows. At length Lord Londonderry was persuaded to sit down, and Lord Wharncliffe obtained a hearing. But it was too late to press his motion, and he contented himself with reading it, in order that it might be entered on the journals of the House.

At this conjuncture, the Lord Chancellor returned, and the moment the reading of the address was concluded, he exclaimed in a vehement and emphatic tone:

"My lords, I have never yet heard it doubted that the King possessed the prerogative of dissolving Parliament at pleasure, still less have I ever known a doubt to exist on the subject at a moment when the lower House have thought fit to refuse the supplies." Scarcely had he uttered these words when he was summoned to meet the King, who had just arrived and was in the robing room; he at once quitted the House which resounded on all sides with cries of "hear" and "the King."

The tumult having in some degree subsided, Lord Mansfield addressed the House, regretting the scene which had just occurred, and condemning the dissolution, which he qualified as an act by which the ministers were making the sovereign the instrument of his own destruction.

He was interrupted by another storm of violence and confusion, which was at length appeased by the announcement that the King was at hand. When he entered, the assembly had recovered its usual calm and decorous tranquillity. The members of the House of Commons having been summoned to the bar, the King, in a loud and firm voice, pronounced his speech, which commenced with the following words:

"My lords and gentlemen,

"I have come to meet you for the purpose of proroguing this Parliament, with a view to its immediate dissolution.

"I have been induced to resort to this measure for the purpose of ascertaining the sense of my people, in the way in which it can be most constitutionally and authentically expressed, on the expediency of making such changes in the representation as circumstances may appear to require, and which, founded on the acknowledged principles of the constitution, may tend at once to uphold the just rights and prerogatives of the crown, and to give security to the liberties of the people."

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, SEPT. 20TH (1831).

Source.—Lord Macaulay's Speeches, 1854.

Sir, the public feeling concerning reform is of no such recent origin, and springs from no such frivolous causes. Its first faint commencement may be traced far, very far, back in our history. During seventy years that feeling has had a great influence on the public mind. Through the first thirty years of the reign of George the Third, it was gradually increasing. The great leaders of the two parties in the state were favourable to reform. Plans of reform were supported by large and most respectable minorities in the House of Commons. The French Revolution, filling the higher and middle classes with an extreme dread of change, and the war calling away the public attention from internal to external politics, threw the question back; but the people never lost sight of it. Peace came, and they were at leisure to think of domestic improvements. Distress came, and they suspected, as was natural, that their distress was the effect of unfaithful stewardship and unskilful legislation. An opinion favourable to parliamentary reform grew up rapidly, and became strong among the middle classes. But one tie, one strong tie, still bound those classes to the Tory party. I mean the Catholic question. It is impossible to deny that, on that subject, a large proportion, a majority, I fear, of the middle class of Englishmen, conscientiously held opinions opposed to those which I have always entertained, and were disposed to sacrifice every other consideration to what they regarded as a religious duty. Thus the Catholic question hid, so to speak, the question of parliamentary reform. The feeling in favour of parliamentary reform grew, but it grew in the shade. Every man, I think, must have observed the progress of that feeling in his own social circle. But few reform meetings were held, and few petitions in favour of reform presented. At length the Catholics were emancipated; the solitary link of sympathy which attached the people to the Tories was broken; the cry of "No popery" could no longer be opposed to the cry of "Reform." That which, in the opinion of the two great parties in parliament, and of a vast portion of the community, had been the first question, suddenly disappeared; and the question of parliamentary reform took the first place. Then was put forth all the strength which had been growing in silence and obscurity. Then it appeared that reform had on its side a coalition of interests and opinions unprecedented in our history, all the liberality and intelligence which had supported the Catholic claims, and all the clamour which had opposed them.

BATTLE SONG (1832).

Source.—Ebenezer Elliott's Poems, 1832.

REPEAL OF THE UNION (1833).

Source.—Lord Macaulay's Speeches, 1854.

Speech of Lord Macaulay. Delivered in House of Commons, Feb. 6, 1833.

Ireland has undoubtedly just causes of complaint. We heard those causes recapitulated last night by the honourable and learned member,[6] who tells us that he represents not Dublin alone, but Ireland, and that he stands between his country and civil war. I do not deny that most of the grievances which he recounted exist, that they are serious, and that they ought to be remedied as far as it is in the power of legislation to remedy them. What I do deny is that they were caused by the union, and that the repeal of the union would remove them. I listened attentively while the honourable and learned gentleman went through that long and melancholy list: and I am confident that he did not mention a single evil which was not a subject of bitter complaint while Ireland had a domestic parliament. Is it fair, is it reasonable in the honourable gentleman to impute to the union evils which, as he knows better than any other man in this House, existed long before the union? Post hoc: ergo, propter hoc is not always sound reasoning. But ante hoc: ergo, non propter hoc is unanswerable. The old rustic who told Sir Thomas More that Tenterden steeple was the cause of Godwin sands reasoned much better than the honourable and learned gentleman. For it was not till after Tenterden steeple was built that the frightful wrecks on the Godwin sands were heard of. But the honourable and learned gentleman would make Godwin sands the cause of Tenterden steeple. Some of the Irish grievances which he ascribes to the union are not only older than the union, but are not peculiarly Irish. They are common to England, Scotland, and Ireland; and it was in order to get rid of them that we, for the common benefit of England, Scotland, and Ireland, passed the Reform Bill last year. Other grievances which the honourable and learned gentleman mentioned are doubtless local; but is there to be a local legislature wherever there is a local grievance? Wales has had local grievances. We all remembered the complaints which were made a few years ago about the Welsh judicial system; but did anybody therefore propose that Wales should have a distinct parliament? Cornwall has some local grievances; but does anybody propose that Cornwall shall have its own House of Lords and its own House of Commons? Leeds has local grievances. The majority of my constituents distrust and dislike the municipal government to which they are subject; they therefore call loudly on us for corporation reform: but they do not ask us for a separate legislature. Of this I am quite sure, that every argument which has been urged for the purpose of showing that Great Britain and Ireland ought to have two distinct parliaments may be urged with far greater force for the purpose of showing that the north of Ireland and the south of Ireland ought to have two distinct parliaments. The House of Commons of the United Kingdom, it has been said, is chiefly elected by Protestants, and therefore cannot be trusted to legislate for Catholic Ireland. If this be so, how can an Irish House of Commons, chiefly elected by Catholics, be trusted to legislate for Protestant Ulster? It is perfectly notorious that theological antipathies are stronger in Ireland than here. I appeal to the honourable and learned gentleman himself. He has often declared that it is impossible for a Roman Catholic, whether prosecutor or culprit, to obtain justice from a jury of Orangemen. It is indeed certain that, in blood, religion, language, habits, character, the population of some of the northern counties of Ireland has much more in common with the population of England and Scotland than with the population of Munster and Connaught. I defy the honourable and learned member, therefore, to find a reason for having a parliament at Dublin which will not be just as good a reason for having another parliament at Londonderry.