_THE POLITICAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND_

_Seventy-five years have passed since Lingard completed his_ HISTORY OFENGLAND, _which ends with the Revolution of 1688. During that periodhistorical study has made a great advance. Year after year the mass ofmaterials for a new History of England has increased; new lights havebeen thrown on events and characters, and old errors have beencorrected. Many notable works have been written on various periods ofour history; some of them at such length as to appeal almost exclusivelyto professed historical students. It is believed that the time has comewhen the advance which has been made in the knowledge of English historyas a whole should be laid before the public in a single work of fairlyadequate size. Such a book should be founded on independent thought andresearch, but should at the same time be written with a full knowledgeof the works of the best modern historians and with a desire to takeadvantage of their teaching wherever it appears sound. _

_The vast number of authorities, printed and in manuscript, on which aHistory of England should be based, if it is to represent the existingstate of knowledge, renders co-operation almost necessary and certainlyadvisable. The History, of which this volume is an instalment, is anattempt to set forth in a readable form the results at present attainedby research. It will consist of twelve volumes by twelve differentwriters, each of them chosen as being specially capable of dealing withthe period which he undertakes, and the editors, while leaving to eachauthor as free a hand as possible, hope to insure a general similarityin method of treatment, so that the twelve volumes may in theircontents, as well as in their outward appearance, form one History. _

_As its title imports, this History will primarily deal with politics, with the History of England and, after the date of the union withScotland, Great Britain, as a state or body politic; but as the life ofa nation is complex, and its condition at any given time cannot beunderstood without taking into account the various forces acting uponit, notices of religious matters and of intellectual, social, andeconomic progress will also find place in these volumes. The footnoteswill, so far as is possible, be confined to references to authorities, and references will not be appended to statements which appear to bematters of common knowledge and do not call for support. Each volumewill have an Appendix giving some account of the chief authorities, original and secondary, which the author has used. This account will becompiled with a view of helping students rather than of making longlists of books without any notes as to their contents or value. That theHistory will have faults both of its own and such as will always in somemeasure attend co-operative work, must be expected, but no pains havebeen spared to make it, so far as may be, not wholly unworthy of thegreatness of its subject. _

_Each volume, while forming part of a complete History, will also initself be a separate and complete book, will be sold separately, andwill have its own index, and two or more maps. _

The History is divided as follows:--

Vol. I. FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE NORMAN CONQUEST (to 1066). By Thomas Hodgkin, D. C. L. , Litt. D. , Fellow of University College, London; Fellow of the British Academy. With 2 Maps. 

Vol. II. FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST TO THE DEATH OF JOHN (1066-1216). By George Burton Adams, D. D. , Litt. D. , Professor of History in Yale University. With 2 Maps. 

Vol. III. FROM THE ACCESSION OF HENRY III. TO THE DEATH OF EDWARD III. (1216-1377). By T. F. Tout, M. A. , Bishop Fraser Professor of Medićval and Ecclesiastical History in the University of Manchester; formerly Fellow of Pembroke College, Oxford. With 3 Maps. 

Vol. IV. FROM THE ACCESSION OF RICHARD II. TO THE DEATH OF RICHARD III. (1377-1485). By C. W. C. Oman, M. A. , LL. D. , M. P. , Chichele Professor of Modern History in the University of Oxford; Fellow of the British Academy. With 3 Maps. 

Vol. V. FROM THE ACCESSION OF HENRY VII. TO THE DEATH OF HENRY VIII. (1485-1547). By the Right Hon. H. A. L. Fisher, M. A. , M. P. , President of the Board of Education; Fellow of the British Academy. With 2 Maps. 

Vol. VI. FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI. TO THE DEATH OF ELIZABETH (1547-1603). By A. F. Pollard, M. A. , Litt. D. , Fellow of All Souls' College, Oxford, and Professor of English History in the University of London. With 2 Maps. 

Vol. VII. FROM THE ACCESSION OF JAMES I. TO THE RESTORATION (1603-1660). By F. C. Montague, M. A. , Astor Professor of History in University College, London; formerly Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. With 3 Maps. 

Vol. VIII. FROM THE RESTORATION TO THE DEATH OF WILLIAM III. (1660-1702). By Sir Richard Lodge, M. A. , LL. D. , Litt. D. , Professor of History in the University of Edinburgh; formerly Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford. With 2 Maps. 

Vol. IX. FROM THE ACCESSION OF ANNE TO THE DEATH OF GEORGE II. (1702-1760). By I. S. Leadam, M. A. , formerly Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford. With 8 Maps. 

Vol. X. FROM THE ACCESSION OF GEORGE III. TO THE CLOSE OF PITT'S FIRST ADMINISTRATION (1760-1801). By the Rev. William Hunt, M. A. , D. Litt. , Trinity College, Oxford. With 3 Maps. 

Vol. XI. FROM ADDINGTON'S ADMINISTRATION TO THE CLOSE OF WILLIAM IV. 'S REIGN (1801-1837). By the Hon. George C. Brodrick, D. C. L. , late Warden of Merton College, Oxford, and J. K. Fotheringham, M. A. , D. Litt. , Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford; Lecturer in Ancient History at King's College, London. With 3 Maps. 

Vol. XII. THE REIGN OF QUEEN VICTORIA (1837-1901). By Sir Sidney Low, M. A. , Fellow of King's College, London; formerly Scholar of Balliol College, Oxford, and Lloyd C. Sanders, B. A. With 3 Maps. 

 The Political History of England

 IN TWELVE VOLUMES

 EDITED BY WILLIAM HUNT, D. LITT. , AND REGINALD L. POOLE, M. A. 

 XI. 

 THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND

 FROM ADDINGTON'S ADMINISTRATION TO

 THE CLOSE OF WILLIAM IV. 'S REIGN

 1801-1837

 BY THE

 HON. GEORGE C. BRODRICK, D. C. L. 

 LATE WARDEN OF MERTON COLLEGE, OXFORD

 COMPLETED AND REVISED BY

 J. K. FOTHERINGHAM, M. A. , D. LITT. 

 FELLOW OF MAGDALEN COLLEGE, OXFORD; LECTURER IN ANCIENT HISTORY AT KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON

 _NEW IMPRESSION_

 LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. 

 39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON

 FOURTH AVENUE & 30TH STREET, NEW YORK

 BOMBAY, CALCUTTA, AND MADRAS

 1919

_NOTE. _

_When the late Warden of Merton undertook the preparation of this volumehe invited the assistance of Dr. Fotheringham in the portions dealingwith foreign affairs. At the time of the late Warden's death in 1903three chapters (x. , xii. And xviii. ) were unwritten, and one (xx. ) wasleft incomplete. It was also found that the volume had to be recast inorder to meet the plan of the series. The necessary alterations andadditions have been made by Dr. Fotheringham, who has been scrupulous inretaining the expression of the late Warden's views, and, wherepossible, his words. _

 CONTENTS. 

 CHAPTER I. 

 ADDINGTON. PAGE

 Mar. , 1801. The new ministry 1 Condition of Ireland 2 Expedition to Copenhagen 3 Sept. Egypt evacuated by the French 6 French diplomatic successes 6 Bonaparte's concordat with the pope 7 Peace negotiations with France 8 Cornwallis at Amiens 1025 Mar. , 1802. The treaty of Amiens 12 Parliamentary criticism of the treaty 14 July. General election 15 Nov. Colonel Despard's conspiracy 16 Further aggressions of Napoleon 17 His colonial policy 18 Negotiations between Whitworth and the French government 19 18 May, 1803. Renewal of the war with France 22

 CHAPTER II. 

 THE RETURN OF PITT. 

23 July, 1803. Emmet's rebellion 23 Pitt's discontent with the ministry 24 Ministerial changes 27 Jan. , 1804. The king's illness 29 April. Addington's resignation 31 The exclusion of Fox 32 18 May. Napoleon declared emperor 33 Pitt's ministry 34 The impeachment of Melville 36 July. The third coalition 37 Nelson's pursuit of Villeneuve 3921 Oct. , 1805. The battle of Trafalgar 40 Napoleon marches into Germany 41 Dec. Austerlitz: the peace of Pressburg 42 Collapse of the coalition 4323 Jan. , 1806. Death of Pitt 43

 CHAPTER III. 

 GRENVILLE AND PORTLAND. 

 Feb. , 1806. Formation of the Grenville ministry 45 13 Sept. Death of Fox 46 14 Oct. Jena and Auerstädt 47 General election 4825 Mar. , 1807. Abolition of the slave trade 48 Fall of the whig government 49 The Portland administration 50 General election 50 7 July. The treaty of Tilsit 52 Seizure of the Danish fleet 54 The "continental system" and orders in council 55 Fruitless expeditions 56 12 Oct. Conference of Erfurt 59 Army scandals 60 The Wagram campaign 63 July, 1809. The Walcheren expedition 64 21 Sept. Duel between Canning and Castlereagh 67 Oct. Perceval's administration 68 Capture of the Ionian Isles and Bourbon 69 25. Jubilee of George III. 69

 CHAPTER IV. 

 PERCEVAL AND LIVERPOOL. 

 Jan. , 1810. Debates on the Walcheren expedition 71 April. The arrest of Burdett 72 Appointment of the "Bullion committee" 73 The king's insanity: regency bill 74 11 May, 1812. Assassination of Perceval 76 1809-11. Social reforms in his ministry 77 July, 1810. Deposition of Louis Bonaparte 78 Opposition in Europe to the continental system 78 Alliances formed by Russia and France 81 Conquest of Java and Sumatra 81 June, 1812. The formation of Liverpool's cabinet 81 1811-12. Distress in town and country 83 Oct. , 1812. General election 85 1813. Confirmation of the East India Company's charter 86

 CHAPTER V. 

 THE PENINSULAR WAR. 

 1807, 1808. The origin of the war 87 Charles IV. And Ferdinand VII. Seek the protection of Napoleon 87 1808. Napoleon's plans for the conquest of Spain 88 24 July. Joseph Bonaparte proclaimed King of Spain 89 13 Aug. Landing of Wellesley 90 21. Battle of Vimeiro 91Oct. , 1808. - Expedition of Sir John Moore 92 Jan. , 1809. 16 Jan. Battle of Coruńa 95 Wellesley returns to Portugal 97 27 July. Battle of Talavera 98 Sept. , 1810. Bussaco: the lines of Torres Vedras 101 Struggle for the frontier fortresses 103 16 May, 1811. Battle of Albuera 103Jan. -April, Sieges of Ciudad Rodrigo and Badajoz 105 1812. 22 July. Battle of Salamanca 107 1812, 1813. Wellington reorganises the Spanish and Portuguese armies 10921 June, 1813. Battle of Vitoria 110 Battle of the Pyrenees 113 Siege of St. Sebastian 113 8 Oct. Wellington crosses the Bidassoa 115 Battles round Bayonne 115 Feb. , 1814. The investment of Bayonne 117 10 April. Battle of Toulouse 119

 CHAPTER VI. 

 THE DOWNFALL OF NAPOLEON. 

 1812. French treaties with Prussia and Austria 122 Alliances made by Russia 123 June. Napoleon's advance into Russia 124 His retreat 125 War between England and the United States 126 Attacks on Canada 129 American successes at sea 131 Feb. , 1813. Treaty of Kalisch 134 Austrian diplomacy 135 2, 21 May. Lützen and Bautzen 135 Aug. , Oct. Dresden and Leipzig 137 France loses Saxony, Holland, and Switzerland 138 American war continued 138 1 June. Duel of the _Shannon_ and _Chesapeake_ 142Jan. -Mar. , Campaign in France 143 1814. April. Napoleon deposed: Louis XVIII. Recalled 145 24 Dec. Treaty of Ghent 147 July. Visit of Alexander and Frederick William to England 148

 CHAPTER VII. 

 VIENNA AND WATERLOO. 

30 May, 1814. The first treaty of Paris 149 English blockade of Norwegian ports 150 Union of Sweden and Norway 150 Restoration of Ferdinand VII. And Pius VII. 150 Attempts to abolish the slave trade 151Sept. , 1814- Congress of Vienna 152 June, 1815. 3 Jan. , 1815. Secret treaty between England, France, and Austria 153 1 March. Napoleon's return from Elba 153 Flight of Louis XVIII. : the _Acte Additionnel_ 155 Plans of the allies 156 Defeat and death of Murat 157 June. Wellington at Brussels: his army 158 16. Ligny and Quatre Bras 159 18. Waterloo 160 July. Paris occupied by the allies 163 22 June. Second abdication of Napoleon 165 His surrender to England 165 Restoration of Louis XVIII. : treaty of Vienna 166 Resettlement of Europe 166 20 Nov. Second treaty of Paris: English gains 167 26 Sept. The Holy Alliance 168 Napoleon at St. Helena 169

 CHAPTER VIII. 

 THE FIRST YEARS OF PEACE. 

 1816. Depression and discontent 171 Vansittart's financial policy 173 Union of British and Irish exchequers 174 2 Dec. , 1816. Spa Fields riot 175 Prosecution of Hone 177 1818. General election 17816 Aug. , 1819. The "Manchester massacre" 178 Dec. The six acts 180 1817, 1819. Institution of savings banks: currency reform 182 6 Nov. , 1817. Death of Princess Charlotte 184 1818. Royal marriages 18429 Jan. , 1820. Death of George III. 185 Royalist reaction in Europe 187 1816. Expedition against the Barbary states 187 1819. Murder of Kotzebue 18930 Sept. , Conference of Aix-la-Chapelle 189 1818. Spain asks for assistance from the allies 190 The European alliance 190

 CHAPTER IX. 

 THE LAST YEARS OF LORD LIVERPOOL. 

 1820. The Cato Street conspiracy 192 Dissolution of parliament 193 The "queen's trial" 194 7 Aug. , 1821. Her death 196 1822. Changes in the cabinet 199 12 Aug. Death of Castlereagh 199 Sept. Canning foreign secretary 200 Jan. Peel home secretary 201 1823. Reform of the navigation laws 202 Agricultural discontent 203 1825. Speculative frenzy and financial panic 205 1823-26. Robinson's finance 206 General election of 1826 207 Close of Liverpool's ministry 208

 CHAPTER X. 

 PROBLEMS IN SOUTHERN EUROPE. 

 1820. Revolution in Spain: policy of non-intervention 210 July, Aug. Revolutions in the Two Sicilies and Portugal 211 20 Oct. Congress of Troppau 211 Jan. , 1821. Congress of Laibach 212 Mar. , April. Revolution in Piedmont: Austrian intervention 213 Insurrections in the Morea and Central Greece 214 Aug. "Sanitary cordon" 215 Ultra-royalist parties in France and Spain 215 Loss of Spanish colonies in America 215 1822. Conference at Vienna 216 20 Oct. Congress of Verona 217 Offer of mediation declined 2187 April, 1823. War between France and Spain 22012 Oct. , 1822. Independence of Brazil 221 July, 1825. Conference at London 222 2 Dec. , 1823. The Monroe doctrine 223 1824-25. Conference at St. Petersburg 224 1 Dec. , 1825. Death of the Tsar Alexander I. 225

 CHAPTER XI. 

 TORY DISSENSION AND CATHOLIC RELIEF. 

 April, 1827. Formation of Canning's ministry 227 Additions to the ministry 228 8 Aug. Death of Canning 228 Sept. Goderich's cabinet 229 Dissensions: resignation of Goderich 230 9 Jan. , 1828. Wellington accepts office 230 The Eastern question 23220 Oct. , 1827. Navarino 233 1828. Repeal of the test and corporation acts 235 May, June. Changes in the ministry 236 June, July. The Clare election 237 1821. Measures for catholic relief 239 1825. Further measures 241 George IV. 's opposition to catholic relief 244 1829. Wellington and Peel adopt catholic relief 245 Mar. , April. Debates on the bill 246 13 April. The royal assent 249 21 Mar. Duel between Wellington and Winchilsea 250 Exclusion of O'Connell from Parliament 251

 CHAPTER XII. 

 PORTUGAL AND GREECE. 

10 Mar. , 1826. Death of John VI. Of Portugal 253 2 May. Peter abdicates in favour of his daughter Maria 254 31 July. Miguel proclaimed king by the absolutists 254 Dec. England sends troops to help the Portuguese government 255 3 Mar. , 1828. Peter appoints Miguel regent for Maria 258 Dec. , 1827. The sultan defies Russia 26026 April, Russia makes war on the Turks 263 1828. Negotiations for settlement of Greek question 264 Oct. , Nov. French troops expel the Turks from the Morea 265 Terms of settlement agreed on at Poros and London 26614 Sept. , Peace of Adrianople 267 1829. 3 Feb. , 1830. Greece independent: throne offered to Prince Leopold 268 France conquers Algiers 269

 CHAPTER XIII. 

 PRELUDE OF REFORM. 

 1830. Amalgamation of English and Welsh benches 271 Motions for reform 271 26 June. Death of George IV. 272 General election 274 15 Sept. Death of Huskisson 275 Wellington's opposition to reform 277 Fall of his ministry 278 Nov. Grey accepts office 278 His cabinet 279 The regency bill 281 Feb. , 1831. Althorp's first budget 283 Public demand for reform 285 Draft of the first reform bill 287 System of representation in the unreformed house 288 Popular excitement: second reading of the bill 291 Dissolution of parliament 292

 CHAPTER XIV. 

 THE REFORM. 

 1831. General election 293 24 June. Second reform bill introduced 294 8 Oct. Rejection by the lords 296 Reform bill riots 296 Attempts at compromise in the lords 299 12 Dec. Final reform bill introduced 300 Gradual loss of the king's confidence in the ministry 302 9 May, 1832. Grey resigns 302 Wellington unable to form a ministry 303 The king recalls Grey 304 4 June. Third reading of the bill 304 Scotch and Irish reform bills carried 306 26 Oct. The cholera epidemic 309 1831. The census 311 State of Ireland 312 O'Connell's agitation 312 The "tithe-war" in Ireland 314 Legislation for Ireland 316 The Kildare Place Society 317

 CHAPTER XV. 

 FRUITS OF THE REFORM. 

 1832. General election 318 1833. Irish coercion bill 320 Irish Church temporalities bill 322 Ministerial changes 325 Abolition of colonial slavery 326 Factory acts 327 The East India Company act 328 Bank charter act 330 Formation of judicial committee of the privy council 332 Act for the abolition of fines and recoveries 3331831, 1832, Althorp's budgets 334 1833. 

 CHAPTER XVI. 

 RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS AND POOR LAW REFORM. 

 1833. The Tractarian movement 336 1832. First meeting of the British Association 338 Foundation of the Catholic Apostolic Church 339 1834. The "new poor law" 340 Creation of a central poor law board 343 Ministerial discord 344 9 July. Grey's resignation 346 Formation of Melbourne's ministry 347 16 Oct. Destruction of the houses of parliament 349 14 Nov. Melbourne's resignation 350 Wellington's provisional government 351 Dec. Peel's cabinet 352 The Tamworth manifesto 353

 CHAPTER XVII. 

 PEEL AND MELBOURNE. 

 Jan. , 1835. General election 354 Feb. Abercromby elected speaker 354 The "Lichfield House compact" 356 April. Peel's resignation 356 Melbourne's second ministry 357 Exclusion of Brougham 357 Municipal corporations act 360 Jan. , 1836. Cottenham lord chancellor 363 Conflict with the lords on Irish bills 365 Tithe commutation act (English) 365 Reformed marriage law 366 Registration system 366 1835, 1836. Crusade against Orange lodges 367 1836. The paper duties lowered 369 Committee on agricultural distress 370 1836, 1837. Agitation in Ireland 371 1837. Irish municipal bill 372 Church rates 373 Burdett secedes from the whig party 374 20 June. Death of William IV. 375

 CHAPTER XVIII. 

 FOREIGN RELATIONS UNDER WILLIAM IV. 

 July, 1830. The revolution of July 376 Recognition of Louis Philippe by the Powers 377 Sept. Belgian provinces in revolt 379 20 Dec. Protocol of London 381 June, 1831. Election of Leopold as King of the Belgians 383 Aug. War between Belgium and Holland 384 French troops enter Belgium 384 Nov. British and French fleets blockade the Scheldt 386 Nov. , 1833. Convention between Holland and Belgium 387 1830. Insurrections in Switzerland, Poland, Italy, etc. 387 1831, 1832. Capture of Warsaw; Polish constitution abolished 3887 April, 1831. Peter leaves Brazil for Portugal 388 Carlist rebellion in Spain 38922 April, The quadruple alliance 389 1834. 26 May. Miguel renounces his claims 390 9 Oct. , 1831. Capodistrias (Greek president) assassinated 392 1832. Otto of Bavaria becomes King of Greece 392 1831. War between Ibrahim and the Sultan 393 1833. Treaties of Kiutayeh and Unkiar Skelessi 394 8 Sept. Secret convention at Münchengrätz 395

 CHAPTER XIX. 

 BRITISH INDIA. 

 1801. Annexation of the Karnátik 397 1803. Assaye and Argáum 399 1805. Resignation of Lord Wellesley 39910 July, 1806. Mutiny at Vellore 400 Lord Minto's pacific policy 401 1801-10. Treaties with Persia 402 Elphinstone in Afghánistán 403 1813. Lord Moira appointed governor-general 404 The Pindárí war 405 1818. Subjugation of the Pindárís 407 First Burmese war 408 Abolition of satí 410 Extirpation of thagí 411 Defence of Herat 412 Communication with India 413 Burnes's mission to Kábul 413

 CHAPTER XX. 

 LITERATURE AND SOCIAL PROGRESS. 

 The "Lake school" 416 Scott's novels 418 Minor poets: philosophical works 420 Newspapers and reviews 422 Essayists and historians 425 The arts: painting, sculpture 427 Scientific discoveries 428 University reform 429 Formation of London University 431 Improvements in agriculture 433 Steam navigation 434 The first railways 435 Geographical discovery 436 Philanthropy 436 Canada 437 South Africa 438 Convict settlements in Australia 438 Development of Australia 439

APPENDIX I. On Authorities 443 II. Administrations, 1801-37 451

 MAPS. 

 (AT THE END OF THE VOLUME. )

1. Great Britain, showing the parliamentary representation after the reform. 2. Spain and Portugal, illustrating the Peninsular war. 3. India. 

 CHAPTER I. 

 ADDINGTON. 

When, early in March, 1801, Pitt resigned office, he was succeeded byHenry Addington, who had been speaker of the house of commons for overeleven years, and who now received the seals of office as first lord ofthe treasury and chancellor of the exchequer on March 14, 1801. He wasable to retain the services of the Duke of Portland as home secretary, of Lord Chatham as president of the council, and of Lord Westmorland aslord privy seal. For the rest, his colleagues were, like himself, new tocabinet rank. Lord Hawkesbury (afterwards the second Earl of Liverpool)became foreign secretary, and Lord Hobart, son of the Earl ofBuckinghamshire, secretary for war. Loughborough reaped the due rewardof his treachery by being excluded from the ministry altogether; with acurious obstinacy he persisted in attending cabinet councils, until aletter from Addington informed him that his presence was not desired. Hereceived some small consolation, however, in his elevation to theEarldom of Rosslyn. Lord Eldon was the new chancellor and was destinedto hold the office uninterruptedly, except for the brief ministry of Foxand Grenville, till 1827. Lord St. Vincent became first lord of theadmiralty, and Lord Lewisham president of the board of control. Cornwallis had resigned with Pitt, but it was not till June 16 that asuccessor was found for him as master general of the ordnance. It wasthen arranged that Chatham should take this office. Portland succeededChatham as lord president, and Lord Pelham, whose father had just beencreated Earl of Chichester, became home secretary instead of Portland. An important change was introduced into the distribution of work betweenthe different secretaries of state, the administration of colonialaffairs being transferred from the home to the war office, so thatHobart and his successors down to 1854 were known as secretaries ofstate for war and the colonies. Soon afterwards Lewisham succeeded hisfather as Earl of Dartmouth. 

Though the Addington ministry has, not without justice, been derided forits weakness as compared with its immediate predecessor, it isinteresting to observe that in it one of the greatest of English judgesas well as a future premier, destined to display an unique power ofholding his party together, first attained to cabinet rank; and in thefollowing year it was reinforced by Castlereagh, who disputes withCanning the honour of being regarded as the ablest statesman of what wasthen the younger generation. The weakness of the ministry must thereforebe attributed to a lack of experience rather than a lack of talent. Itwas unfortunate in succeeding a particularly strong administration, butis well able to bear comparison with most of the later ministries ofGeorge III. Addington himself was in more thorough sympathy with theking than any premier before or after. Conversation with Addington was, according to the king, like "thinking aloud"; and with a king who, likeGeorge III. , still regarded himself as responsible for the nationalpolicy, hearty co-operation between king and premier was a matter of noslight importance. 

In the early days of the new administration Pitt loyally kept hispromise of friendly support, and it is to be deplored that Grenville andCanning did not adopt the same course. While the issue of peace and warwas pending, domestic legislation inevitably remained in abeyance. InIreland serious disappointment had been caused by the abandonment ofcatholic emancipation; but the disappointment was borne quietly, and theIrish Roman catholics doubtless did not foresee to what a distance oftime the removal of their disabilities had been postponed. The just andmild rule of the new lord lieutenant, Lord Hardwicke, contributed to thepacification of the country. But in reality the conduct of the movementfor emancipation was only passing into new hands; when it reappeared itwas no longer led by catholic lords and bishops, but was a peasantmovement, headed by the unscrupulous demagogue O'Connell. In thesecircumstances it is to be regretted that the new administrationneglected to carry that one of the half-promised concessions to thecatholics which could not offend the king's conscience, namely, thecommutation of tithe. Nothing in the protestant ascendency was soirritating to the catholic peasantry as the necessity of paying tithe toa protestant clergy, and its commutation, while benefiting the clergythemselves, would have removed the occasion of subsequent agitation. Thespirit of disloyalty, however, was believed to be by no means extincteither in Ireland or in Great Britain, and two stringent acts werepassed to repress it. The first, for the continuance of martial law inIreland, was supported by almost all the Irish speakers in the house ofcommons, where it was carried without a division, and was adopted in thehouse of lords by an overwhelming majority, after an impressive speechfrom Lord Clare. The second, for the suspension of the _habeas corpus_act in the whole United Kingdom was framed to remain in force "duringthe continuance of the war, and for one month after the signing of adefinitive treaty of peace". 

[Pageheading: _THE HORNE TOOKE ACT. _]

The only other measure of permanent interest which became law in thissession was the so-called "Horne Tooke act, " occasioned by the return ofHorne Tooke, who was in holy orders, for Old Sarum. Such a return wascontrary to custom, but the precedents collected by a committee of thehouse of commons were inconclusive. It was accordingly enacted that infuture clergymen of the established churches should be ineligible forseats in parliament, while Horne Tooke was deemed to have been validlyelected, and retained his seat. The house of commons found time, however, for an important and well-sustained debate on India, in whichamong others Dundas, now no longer in office, showed a thoroughknowledge of questions affecting Indian finance and trade. 

The naval expedition which had been prepared in the last days of Pitt'sadministration sailed for Copenhagen on March 12, 1801, under Sir HydeParker, with Nelson as second in command. The admiral in chief was of acautious temper, but was wise enough to allow himself to be guided byNelson's judgment when planning an engagement, though not as to thegeneral course of the expedition. The fleet consisted of sixteen shipsof the line and thirty-four smaller vessels; all these with theexception of one ship of the line reached the Skaw on the 18th. Afrigate was sent in advance with instructions to Vansittart, theBritish envoy at Copenhagen, to present an ultimatum to the Danishgovernment, [1] demanding a favourable answer to the British demandswithin forty-eight hours. For three days Parker waited at anchoreighteen miles from Elsinore, and it was only when Vansittart brought anunfavourable reply on the 23rd that he took Nelson into his counsels. Hereadily adopted Nelson's plan of ignoring the Danish batteries atKronborg and making a circuit so as to attack Copenhagen at the weaksouthern end of its defences, but set aside his project of maskingCopenhagen and making straight for a Russian squadron of twelve ships ofthe line which was lying icebound at Revel. The fair weather of the 26thwas wasted in irresolution, and it was not till the 30th that the fleetwas able to weigh anchor. It passed Kronborg in safety and anchored fivemiles north of Copenhagen. 

Parker placed under Nelson's immediate command twelve ships of the lineand twenty-one smaller vessels, by far the greater part of the Britishfleet. With these he was to pass to the east of a shoal called theMiddle Ground and attack the defences of Copenhagen from the south, while Parker with the remainder of the fleet was to make a demonstrationagainst the more formidable northern defences. The wind could not ofcourse favour both attacks simultaneously, and it was agreed that theattack should be made when the wind favoured Nelson. The nights of the30th and 31st were spent in reconnoitring and laying buoys. On April 1 anorth wind brought Nelson's squadron past the Middle Ground, and on thenext day a south wind enabled him to attack the Danish fleet, if fleetit may be called. At the north end of the Danish position stood the onlypermanent battery, the Trekroner, with two hulks or blockships; the restconsisted of seven blockships and eleven floating batteries, drawn upalong the shore. An attack on the south end of the line was also exposedto batteries on the island of Amager. Nelson's intention was to closewith the whole Danish fleet, but three of his ships of the line werestranded and he was obliged to leave the assault on the northern endentirely to lighter vessels. 

[Pageheading: _BATTLE OF THE BALTIC. _]

The Danish batteries proved more powerful than had been anticipated, andas time went on and the Danish resistance did not appear to lose instrength, Parker grew doubtful of the result of the battle and gave theorder to cease action. The order was apparently not intended to beimperative, but it had the effect of inducing Riou, who commanded thefrigate squadron, to sail away to the north. For the rest of the fleetobedience was out of the question. Nelson acknowledged, but refused torepeat the order, and, jocularly placing his glass to his blind eye, declared that he could not see the signal. At length the Britishcannonade told. Fischer, the Danish commander, had had to shift his flagtwice, at the second time to the Trekroner, and all the ships south ofthat battery had either ceased fire or were practically helpless. TheTrekroner, however, was still unsubdued and rendered it impossible forNelson's squadron to retire, in the only direction which the wind wouldallow, without severe loss. He accordingly sent a message to the DanishPrince Regent, declaring that he would be compelled to burn thebatteries he had taken, without saving their crews, unless firingceased. If a truce were arranged until he could take his prisoners outof the prizes, he was prepared to land the wounded Danes, and burn orremove the prizes. A truce for twenty-four hours was accordinglyarranged, which Nelson employed to remove his own fleet unmolested. 

The destruction of the southern batteries left Copenhagen exposed tobombardment, and the Danes, unable to resist, yet afraid to offend thetsar by submission, prolonged the time from day to day till news arrivedwhich removed all occasion for hostility. Unknown to either of thecombatants, the Tsar Paul, the life and soul of the northernconfederacy, had been murdered on the night of March 23, ten days beforethe battle, and with his death the league was practically dissolved. When Nelson advanced further into the Baltic, he found no hostile fleetawaiting him, and the new tsar, Alexander, adopting an opposite policy, entered into a compromise on the subject of maritime rights. The battleof the Baltic is considered by some to have been Nelson's masterpiece. It won for him the title of viscount and for his second in command, Rear-Admiral Graves, the gift of the ribbon of the Bath, but theadmiralty, for official reasons, declined to confer any public rewardor honour on the officers concerned in it. 

At the same time, the French occupation of Egypt was drawing towards itsinevitable close. Kléber, who was left in command by Bonaparte, perishedby the hand of an assassin, and Menou, who succeeded to the command, wasnot only a weak general, but was prevented from receiving anyreinforcements by the naval supremacy of Great Britain in theMediterranean. On March 21, 1801, the French army was defeated at thebattle of Alexandria by the British force sent out under Sir RalphAbercromby, who was himself mortally wounded on the field. Hissuccessor, General Hutchinson, completed his work by taking Cairo, before the arrival of General Baird, who had led a mixed body of Britishsoldiers and sepoys from the Red Sea across the desert to the Nile. Thecapitulation of Alexandria soon followed. In September the Frenchevacuated Egypt, the remains of their army were conveyed to France inEnglish ships, and Bonaparte's long-cherished dreams of eastern conquestfaded away for ever--not from his own imagination, but from thecalculations of practical statesmanship. 

French arms, and French diplomacy supported by armed force, were moresuccessful elsewhere. The treaty of Lunéville was only the first of aseries of treaties, by which France secured to herself a politicalposition commensurate with her military glory. By the treaty of Aranjuezbetween France and Spain, signed on March 21, Spain ceded Louisiana toFrance, reserving the right of pre-emption, and undertook to wage war onPortugal in order to detach it from the British alliance. Spain andPortugal were both lukewarm in this war, and on June 6 signed the treatyof Badajoz, by which Portugal agreed to close her ports to England, topay an indemnity to Spain, and to cede the small district of Olivenza, south of Badajoz. Bonaparte was intensely irritated by this treaty, which deprived him of the hope of exchanging conquests in Portugal forBritish colonial conquests in any future negotiations; he declared thatSpain would have to pay by the sacrifice of her colonies for theconquered French colonies which he still hoped to recover. A French armywas despatched to Portugal and enabled Bonaparte to dictate the treatyof Madrid, signed on September 29, whereby Portugal ceded half Guiana toFrance and undertook, as at Badajoz, to close her ports againstEngland. 

[Pageheading: _INFLUENCES MAKING FOR PEACE. _]

This last condition was equally imposed on the King of the Two Siciliesby the treaty of Florence, concluded on March 28, and before the end ofthe year France had established friendly relations with the Sultan ofTurkey and the new Tsar of Russia. More important still, asconsolidating Bonaparte's power at home, was the concordat signed by himand the pope on July 15 recognising Roman Catholicism as the religion ofthe majority of Frenchmen, and of the consuls, guaranteeing stipends, though on an abjectly mean scale, to the clergy, and placing the entirepatronage of the French Church in the hands of the first consul. Neversince the French revolution had the Church been thus acknowledged as theauxiliary, or rather as the handmaid, of the state, and probably no onebut the first consul could have brought about the reconciliation. Aftersuch exertions, even he may have sincerely desired an honourable peace, as the crown of his victories, or at least as a breathing time, toenable him to mature his vast designs for reorganising France. Perhapshe did not yet fully recognise that war was a necessity of his politicalascendency, no less than of his own personal character. The Frenchpeople still clung to republican institutions; and the consulate was anominal republic, with all effective power vested in the first consul. Time was to show how largely this unique position depended on his uniquecapacity of conducting wars glorious to French arms; for the present, France was satisfied, and longed for peace. 

The English ministry, too, was impelled by strong motives to enter uponthe negotiations which resulted in the peace of Amiens. Not only wasGreat Britain crippled by the loss of nearly all her allies, but thehigh price of bread had roused grave disaffection, [2] and intensifiedamong British merchants a desire for an unmolested extension ofcommerce; above all, English statesmen now recognised the consulate, under Bonaparte, as the first stable and non-revolutionary governmentsince the fall of the French monarchy. Both countries, therefore, werepredisposed to entertain pacific overtures, but the very fact that thesewere in contemplation stirred both sides to further endeavours in orderto secure better terms of peace. A French squadron, commanded by AdmiralLinois and containing three ships of the line besides smaller boats, wasmaking a movement for the Straits of Gibraltar in order to strengthenthe force at Cadiz. Sir James Saumarez with five ships of the line andtwo smaller vessels engaged Linois off Algeciras on July 5, but theFrench ships were supported by the land batteries, and one of theBritish ships, the _Hannibal_ (74), ran aground, and Saumarez waseventually compelled to leave her in the hands of the enemy. Thisvictory was hailed with delight throughout France, but it was fullyretrieved a week later. The French squadron had in the meantime beenreinforced by one French and five Spanish ships of the line, and on the12th it made a fresh attempt to reach Cadiz; it was, however, engaged inthe Straits by Saumarez with five ships of the line. In the ensuingbattle two Spanish ships blew up, and the French _Saint Antoine_ wascaptured. The remainder succeeded in reaching Cadiz, but Saumarez wasable to resume the blockade a few weeks later. 

Meanwhile there was no relaxation of French preparations for an invasionof England, or of naval activity on the part of Great Britain. No soonerhad Nelson returned from the Baltic than he was, on July 24, placed incommand of a "squadron on a particular service, " charged with thedefence of the coast from Beachy Head to Orfordness. With this he notonly blockaded the northern French ports, but assumed the aggressive, and bombarded the vessels therein collected. A more daring attempt tocut out the flotilla moored at Boulogne by a boat attack was repelledwith some loss on the night of August 15. But couriers under flags oftruce were already passing between London and Paris, and hostilitiesceased in the autumn of the year 1801. 

[Pageheading: _THE QUESTION OF MALTA. _]

The history of the negotiations which ended in the peace of Amiensderives a special interest from the events which followed it. Theearliest overtures for peace were made by Hawkesbury on March 21, 1801. At first Bonaparte refused to listen to them, but the destruction of thenorthern confederacy inclined him to more pacific counsels. On April 14the British government stated its demands. They mark a distinct advanceon those which had been made in vain at Lille in 1797. France was toevacuate Egypt, and Great Britain Minorca, but Great Britain claimed toretain Malta, Tobago, Martinique, Trinidad, Essequibo, Demerara, Berbice, and Ceylon. She was willing to surrender the Cape of Good Hopeon condition that it became a free port, and stipulated that anindemnity should be provided for the Prince of Orange. At the outset, Bonaparte opposed all cessions by France and her allies, but the steadyimprovement in the fortunes of England in the north and in Egypt at lastdetermined him to grant some of the British demands, and as theevacuation of Egypt became inevitable, he was resolved to gain somethingin exchange for it before it was too late. The preliminary treaty wasaccordingly signed by Bonaparte's agent Otto on behalf of France andHawkesbury on behalf of Great Britain on October 1, the day before thenews of the French capitulation in Egypt reached England. Great Britainhad already consented to relinquish Malta, provided that it becameindependent. She now consented to relinquish all her conquests fromFrance, and with the exception of Ceylon and Trinidad all her conquestsfrom the French allies, requiring, however, that the Cape should berecognised as a free port. The French were to evacuate not only Egypt, but the Neapolitan and Roman States. Malta was to be restored to theknights of St. John under the guarantee of a third power. Prisoners ofwar were to be released on payment of their debts, and the question ofthe charge for their maintenance was to be settled by the definitivetreaty in accordance with the law of nations and established usage. 

No mention was made of the Prince of Orange, but Otto gave a verbalassurance that provision would be made to satisfy his claims. He alsogave the British government to understand that France would be willingto cede Tobago in consideration of the expenses incurred in themaintenance of French and Dutch prisoners. The omission of all referenceto the continental relations of France is conspicuous. In France it wasinterpreted as indicating that Great Britain renounced her interest incontinental politics. The Batavian, Helvetian, Cisalpine, and Ligurianrepublics, the kingdom of Etruria, and the whole east bank of the Rhinewere, however, supposed to be already protected against Frenchencroachment by the treaty of Lunéville, and Great Britain had no wishto impose terms involving a recognition of these new creations. Again, no mention was made of commercial relations apart from the Newfoundlandand St. Lawrence fisheries, for Great Britain was too ready to believethat a separate commercial treaty would be practicable, and wasnaturally loth to delay the conclusion of peace by a difficultnegotiation. 

Cornwallis was appointed to negotiate the definitive treaty, and hadsome hope that he might arrive at an informal understanding withBonaparte at Paris before he proceeded to Amiens. But he was offended byBonaparte's manner, and, dreading to be pitted against so subtle adiplomatist as Talleyrand, he left Paris before anything wasaccomplished, and arrived at Amiens on November 30. There France wasrepresented by Joseph Bonaparte, the first consul's elder brother, andthe negotiator of Lunéville. At Amiens, the position of the Britishgovernment was compromised from the first by its renewed insistence on apoint which had been omitted from the preliminary treaty, namely, thecompensation of the Prince of Orange. This demand was accompanied by anendeavour to obtain compensation for the King of Sardinia. JosephBonaparte, on the other hand, entrenched himself behind the letter ofthe treaty, and acknowledged no further obligation. Any additionalconcession to Great Britain could only be purchased by Britishconcessions to France. Other difficulties arose over the question ofMalta, the payment for the maintenance of prisoners, and the inclusionof allies as parties to the treaty. 

[Pageheading: _CORNWALLIS AT AMIENS. _]

On the first of these questions the French would appear to have aimedthroughout at reducing the knights to as impotent a position aspossible. The British, on the other hand, ostensibly desiring to see thestrength of the order maintained, were chiefly interested in securingits neutrality. At the time of the signature of the preliminary treaty, Russia was the power that seemed to Great Britain the fittest guarantorof the independence of the knights. On the refusal of Russia to acceptthis position, Naples appeared to be the next best alternative, but itwas eventually agreed to substitute for the guarantee of a third powerthe obviously futile guarantee of all the powers. Neither party foresawthat the impossibility of obtaining such a guarantee was destined toleave the whole clause about Malta inoperative. After much dispute overthe future constitution of the order, France proposed to obviate thechief source of difficulty by the demolition of the forts. This plancommended itself to Cornwallis, but was rejected by the Britishgovernment. By the end of December it was agreed that a Neapolitangarrison was to occupy the islands provisionally, until the neworganisation should be established. Great Britain proposed that thisgarrison should be maintained at the joint expense of Great Britain andFrance. It did not occur to the British government to propose anyguarantee for the preservation of the property of the order, and thisomission ultimately proved material. The question of including allies inthe treaty was less complicated. France preferred a number of separatetreaties so as to keep the British interest in Europe at a minimum. Great Britain, on the other hand, wished to make France a party to thecessions made by her allies, and successfully insisted on thenegotiation of a single comprehensive treaty. Joseph Bonaparte grantedthis point on December 11, but, as he had not full powers to negotiatewith any power except Great Britain, he continued to interpose delaystill the end of the year. 

In the meantime France had failed in her attempts to meet the Britishclaims on behalf of the Prince of Orange by demands for furtherprivileges and territory in the oceans and colonies. On the whole, thefirst month's negotiations had contributed much to a settlement, withoutgiving a decided advantage to either side. The lapse of time, however, turned the balance in favour of the negotiator who was the moreindependent of his country's desire for peace. On January 1, 1802, Hawkesbury wrote to Cornwallis, treating the acquisition of Tobago asunimportant; on the 2nd Addington expressed his readiness to accept aseparate arrangement with the Batavian republic for the Prince ofOrange. By the 16th Hawkesbury had yielded the claim of Portugal to be aparty to the treaty. The refusal of the French to cede Tobago in lieu ofpayment for the French prisoners, and the difficulty of assessing thepayment, opened a way to the evasion of compensation altogether. Cornwallis, preferring to sacrifice this claim rather than re-open thewar, suggested to Joseph Bonaparte on the 22nd that the treaty shouldprovide for commissioners to assess the payment, while it should besecretly provided that they should not be appointed. On the same day, Joseph Bonaparte communicated his brother's consent to a clause engagingFrance to find a suitable territorial possession in Germany for thePrince of Orange. 

If Hawkesbury and Cornwallis imagined that they had made sure of anearly peace by these extensive concessions, they were greatly mistaken. Napoleon, flushed with this unexpected success, was encouraged to makefurther trial of the pliability of the British diplomatists. Two eventsoccurred at this stage of the negotiations which tried the temper ofboth sides to the uttermost. On January 26, Bonaparte was electedpresident of the Cisalpine republic, to be styled henceforth the Italianrepublic. This event seems to have taken the British government bysurprise; they thought it a distinct indication that he stillcontemplated further aggressions in spite of the series of treaties bywhich he appeared to be securing peace, and were therefore much lessinclined than formerly to make concessions. About the same timeBonaparte was not unreasonably enraged at the outrageous attacks made onhim in the press conducted in London by French exiles, especially byJean Peltier, the editor of a paper called _L'Ambigu_, and he blamed theBritish government for permitting their publication. He thereforeinstructed his brother Joseph to raise further difficulties over thegarrison and permanent organisation of Malta, as well as over theproposed accession of the sultan to the treaty. Vain attempts were alsomade by Joseph to retain Otranto for France till the British should haveevacuated Malta, and to secure the inclusion of the Ligurian republic inthe treaty. 

[Pageheading: _THE TREATY OF AMIENS. _]

At last on March 8 Napoleon agreed that no important differenceremained, and urged his brother to conclude the treaty. A little moretime was wasted in providing for a temporary occupation of Malta byNeapolitan troops, and a more marked division of opinion arose as to thecompensation for the Prince of Orange. In spite of instructions to thecontrary from Hawkesbury, Cornwallis accepted an engagement on the partof France to find a compensation, not defined, for the house of Nassau, instead of charging it on the Dutch government; and the treaty wasfinally concluded on March 25. It was signed by Great Britain, France, Spain, and the Batavian republic, while the Porte was admitted as anaccessory power. It differed from the preliminary convention in noimportant respect, except in the illusory safeguards for the claims ofthe Prince of Orange, the secret arrangement for evading the cost of theFrench prisoners, and the provisions concerning Malta, pregnant with theseeds of future enmity. These provisions were as follows: Malta was tobe restored to the knights of St. John, from whose order both French andBritish were hereafter to be excluded. The evacuation was to take placewithin three months of the ratification of the treaty, or sooner ifpossible. At that date Malta was to be given up, provided the grandmaster or commissaries of the order were present, and provided theNeapolitan garrison had arrived. Its independence was to be under theguarantee of France, Great Britain, Austria, Spain, Russia, and Prussia. Two thousand Neapolitan troops were to occupy it for one year, and untilthe order should have raised a force sufficient, in the judgment of theguaranteeing powers, for the defence of the islands. [3]

On October 29, 1801, parliament was opened with a speech from the thronebriefly announcing the conclusion of a convention with the northernpowers, and of preliminaries of peace with the French republic. GeneralLauriston, bearing the ratification of the preliminaries by the firstconsul, had reached London on the 10th, when he was received by thepopulace with tumultuous demonstrations of joy. Soon afterwards the"feast of the peace" was celebrated in Paris with equal enthusiasm. Short-lived as they proved to be, these pacific sentiments weredoubtless genuine on both sides of the channel. The industrial, thoughnot the military, resources of France were exhausted by her prodigiousefforts during the last eight years; while England, suffering grievouslyfrom distress among the working-classes and financial difficulties, welcomed the prospect of cheaper provisions and easier times, as well asof emerging from the political difficulties originating in the Frenchrevolution. 

The preliminary treaty, however, did not escape hostile criticism ineither house of parliament. It was the subject of discussion in thelords on November 3, and in the commons on the 3rd and 4th. Its moststrenuous assailants were Lord Grenville, who had been foreign secretaryunder Pitt, and the whigs who had joined Pitt's ministry in 1794, amongwhom Lords Spencer and Fitzwilliam and above all Windham call forspecial notice. Windham's powerful and comprehensive speech containedmore than one shrewd forecast of the future. For once, Pitt and Foxsupported the same measure, and Pitt, dwelling on _security_ as ourgrand object in the war, specially deprecated any attempt on the part ofGreat Britain "to settle the affairs of the continent". Fox, inadvocating peace, fiercely denounced the war against the Frenchrepublic, and gloated over the discomfiture of the Bourbons. [4] It wasadmitted on all sides that France was stronger than ever in a militaryand political sense. She had already made treaties with Austria, Naples, Spain, and Portugal; other treaties with Russia and Turkey were on thepoint of being signed; while the still more important concordat with thepope was already ratified. On the other hand, Great Britain had largelyincreased her colonial possessions, and the chief question now discussedwas whether she would be the weaker for abandoning some of these recentconquests. The general feeling of the nation was fitly expressed bySheridan in the phrase: "This is a peace which all men are glad of, butno man can be proud of". Malmesbury, the negotiator of Lille, was absentfrom the debates; but he has recorded in his diary his disapproval bothof the peace and of the violent opposition to it The king toldMalmesbury on November 26 that he considered it an experimental peace, but unavoidable. [5]

[Pageheading: _DEBATES ON TREATY OF AMIENS. _]

The debates on the definitive treaty of Amiens took place on May 13 and14, 1802, and though vigorously sustained, were to some extent arepetition of those on the preliminaries of peace. The opposition to itwas headed by Grenville in the lords and in the commons by Windham, whocompared it unfavourably with the preliminaries; and the stipulationswith respect to Malta were justly criticised as one of its weakestpoints. Strange to say, Pitt took no effective part in the discussion, which ended in overwhelming majorities for the government. As in theprevious session, domestic affairs, except in their bearing on foreignpolicy, received comparatively little attention from parliament. Theincome tax was repealed, almost in silence, as the first fruits ofpeace, and Addington, as chancellor of the exchequer, delivered anemphatic eulogy on the sinking fund by means of which he calculated thatin forty-five years the national debt, then amounting to Ł500, 000, 000, might be entirely paid off. The house of commons showed no want ofeconomical zeal in scrutinising the claims of the king on the civillist, and those of the Prince of Wales on the revenues of the duchy ofCornwall. Nor did it neglect such abuses as the non-residence of theparochial clergy, and the cruel practice of bull-baiting, though itrejected a bill for the suppression of this practice, after acharacteristic apology for it from Windham, in which he dwelt upon itssuperiority to horse-racing. In this session, too, a grant of Ł10, 000was voted to Jenner for his recent invention of vaccination. Insupporting it, Wilberforce stated that the victims of small-pox, inLondon alone, numbered 4, 000 annually. 

The parliament, which had now lasted six years, was dissolved by theking in person on June 28, and a general election was held during themonth of July. The new house of commons did not differ materially fromthe old, and even in Ireland the recent national opposition to the uniondid not lead to the unseating of a single member who had voted forit. [6] Meanwhile the ministry was strengthened by the admission tooffice of Lord Castlereagh, already distinguished for his share in thenegotiations precedent to the union with Ireland. On July 6 he wasappointed president of the board of control in succession to Dartmouth, and was admitted to a seat in the cabinet in October. The new parliamentdid not meet till November 16. During the interval members of bothhouses, with vast numbers of their countrymen, flocked to Paris, whichhad been almost closed to English travellers since the early days of therevolution. Fox was presented to Napoleon, as Bonaparte, since thedecree which made him consul for life, preferred to be styled. Napoleonconceived a great admiration for him, and afterwards persuaded himselfthat, had Fox survived, the friendly relations of England and Francewould not have been permanently interrupted. On the very day on whichparliament assembled, a conspiracy was discovered, which, however insaneit may now appear, attracted much attention at the time. A certainColonel Despard with thirty-six followers, mainly labourers, had plottedto kill the king and seize all the government-buildings, with a view tothe establishment of what he called the "constitutional independence ofIreland and Great Britain" and the "equalisation of all civic rights". The conspiracy had no wide ramifications, and the arrest of its leaderand his companions brought it to an immediate end. Despard was foundguilty of high treason and was executed on February 21, 1803. 

When parliament met, the king's speech referred ominously to freshdisturbances in the balance of power on the continent; and votes werepassed for large additions to the army and navy, in spite of Fox'sdeclaration that he saw no reason why Napoleon, satisfied with militaryglory, should not henceforth devote himself to internal improvements inFrance. Nelson, on the contrary, speaking in the house of lords, whilehe professed himself a man of peace, insisted on the danger arising from"a restless and unjust ambition on the part of our neighbours, " andSheridan delivered a vigorous speech in a like spirit. On the whole, inJanuary, 1803, the prospects of assured peace and prosperity were muchgloomier than they had been in January, 1802, before the treaty ofAmiens. The funds were going down, the bank restriction act was renewed, and Despard's conspiracy still agitated the public mind. In the month ofFebruary a strong anti-Gallican sentiment was roused by Mackintosh'spowerful defence of the royalist Jean Peltier, accused and ultimatelyconvicted of a gross libel on the first consul. On March 8 came theroyal message calling out the militia, which heralded the rupture of thepeace. 

The renewal of the war, fraught with so much glory and misery to bothnations, can have taken neither by surprise. The ink was scarcely dry onthe treaty of Amiens when fresh causes of discord sprung up betweenFrance and Great Britain. More than one of these, indeed, had arisenbetween the signature of the preliminary convention and the actualconclusion of peace. During the negotiations, the first consul had, aswe have seen, never ceased to protest against the violent attacks uponhimself in the English press, while Cornwallis persistently warned hisown government against the menacing attitude of France in Italy andelsewhere. The proclamation of the concordat in April, 1802, and therecognition of Napoleon as first consul for life in August, however theymay have strengthened his position in France, were no legitimatesubjects for resentment in England; but his acceptance of the presidencyof the "Italian" republic in January, followed by his annexation ofPiedmont in September, revived in all its intensity the British mistrustof his aggressive policy. 

[Pageheading: _FRENCH AGGRESSIONS. _]

The month of October witnessed a renewed aggression on Switzerland. AFrench army, commanded by Ney, advanced into the interior of thecountry, and forced the Swiss, who were in the midst of a civil war, toaccept the mediation of Napoleon. The new constitution which he framedattempted, by weakening the federal government, to place the directionof Helvetian external relations in the hands of the French first consul. Our government vainly endeavoured to resist this interference by sendingagents with money and promises. In Germany the redistribution ofterritory necessitated by the peace of Lunéville was carried outprofessedly under the joint mediation of France and Russia, but reallyat the dictation of Napoleon. The final project, which destroyed allexcept three of the spiritual principalities and all except six of thefree cities, was proposed by France on February 23, 1803, and acceptedby the Emperor Francis on April 27. 

Against these rearrangements, Great Britain could have nothing to say;their importance is that while the negotiations were pending, Austria, Prussia, and Russia all had a strong motive for standing well withFrance. Bonaparte's attitude towards Switzerland was, in so far as itwas backed by force, an infringement of the treaty of Lunéville, towhich, however, Great Britain was not a party. The neutrality ofPiedmont had not been safeguarded either at Lunéville or at Amiens; ithad already been occupied by France before the treaty was signed, andNapoleon claimed to have as much right to annex territory in Europewithout the consent of Great Britain as Great Britain had to annexterritory in India without the consent of France. 

Napoleon's schemes of colonial expansion, though equally within theletter of the treaty, were not less disconcerting. The reconquest of SanDomingo appeared necessary in order to obtain a base for the effectiveoccupation of the new French possession, Louisiana. The despatch of anexpedition for this purpose in December, 1801, had excited gravesuspicion, and when two-thirds of the army had died of yellow fever andthe remainder had returned home, fresh troops were sent out to taketheir place. A new naval expedition was prepared in the Dutch port ofHelvoetsluis, but it was impossible to persuade British public opinionthat its real destination was San Domingo. Finally, on the eve ofhostilities, in the spring of 1803 Napoleon, despairing of advance inthis direction and disregarding the Spanish right of pre-emption, soldLouisiana to the United States for 80, 000, 000 francs. Still moreembarrassing was Bonaparte's eastern policy. In September, 1802, ColonelSébastiani was sent as "commercial agent" to the Levant. He wasinstructed to inspect the condition of ports and arsenals, to assure thesheykhs of French favour, and to report on the military resources ofSyria, Egypt, and the north African coast. His report, which waspublished in the _Moniteur_ of January 30, 1803, set forth theopportunities that France would possess in the event of an immediatereturn to hostilities, and was naturally interpreted as disclosing anintention to renew the war on the first opportunity. Six thousand Frenchwould, he said, be enough to reconquer Egypt; the country was in favourof France. In March, 1803, Decaen left France with open instructions toreceive the surrender of the five towns in India restored to France, butwith secret orders to invite the alliance of Indian sovereigns opposedto Great Britain. On his appearance at Pondicherri, the Britishcommander prepared to seize him, but he escaped to the Mauritius, whichhe put in a state of defence, and made a basis for attacks on Britishcommerce which lasted from 1803 to 1811. 

[Pageheading: _CAUSES OF MISTRUST AFTER AMIENS. _]

Ireland also was visited by political spies, passing as commercialagents. It may not be easy to say how far Emmet's rebellion, to berecorded hereafter, was the result of these visits. At all events aletter fell into the hands of the British government, addressed byTalleyrand to a French agent at Dublin, called Fauvelet, directing himto obtain answers to a series of questions about the military and navalcircumstances of the district, and "to procure a plan of the ports, withthe soundings and moorings, and to state the draught of water, and thewind best suited for ingress and egress". The British governmentnaturally complained of these instructions, but Talleyrand persistentlymaintained that they were of a purely commercial character. [7] It is, ofcourse, true that these preparations in view of a possible recurrence ofhostilities, however obvious their intention, were not in themselveshostile acts. Still, they were just grounds for suspicion, and, with ourretrospective knowledge of Napoleon's later career, we may seek in vainfor the grounds of confidence which had made the conclusion of a treatypossible. Great Britain was guilty of more direct breaches of the peaceof Amiens. Russia refused her guarantee for the independence of Malta, and the British government was therefore technically justified inretaining it. No similar justification could, however, be alleged forthe retention of Alexandria and the French towns in India. Thesemeasures were, as will be seen, defended on broader grounds of publicpolicy. Not the least of the causes of discontent with the new situationwas the refusal of Napoleon to follow up the treaty of peace with acommercial treaty. He had even retained French troops in Holland, andthus shown that he meant to close its ports against British commerce. The hope of a renewal of trade with France had been a main cause of thepopular desire for peace, and had reconciled the British public to thesacrifices with which the treaty of Amiens had been purchased. It soonbecame clear that further concessions would be made the price of acommercial treaty, and it was felt in consequence that the sacrificesalready made were made in vain. 

In September, 1802, Lord Whitworth was sent as ambassador extraordinaryto the French Republic. The instructions which he carried with him fromHawkesbury fully reflect the prevailing spirit of mistrust. He was towatch for any new leagues which might prejudice England or disturbEurope; he was to discover any secret designs that might be formedagainst the East or West Indies; he was to maintain the closestsurveillance over the internal politics of France, but especially overthe dispositions of influential personages in the confidence of thefirst consul, as well as over the financial resources and armaments ofthe republic. [8] Two months later, he was expressly warned in a secretdespatch not in any way to commit His Majesty to a restoration of Malta, even if the provisions made at Amiens for this purpose could becompletely executed; and the principle was laid down, from which theBritish government never swerved, that Great Britain was entitled tocompensation for any acquisitions made by France since the treaty wassigned. Accordingly, the retention of Malta was justified as acounterpoise to French extensions of territory in Italy, the invasion ofSwitzerland, and the continued occupation of the Batavian republic. [9]This resolution was naturally confirmed by the publication ofSébastiani's report. 

[Pageheading: _NAPOLEON AND WHITWORTH. _]

The long negotiations between Whitworth and the French government, during the winter of 1802 and the spring of 1803, only bring intostronger relief the importance of the issues thus raised, and thehopelessness of a pacific solution. Napoleon firmly took his standthroughout on the simple letter of the treaty, which pledged GreatBritain, upon certain conditions, to place the knights of St. John inpossession of Malta, but did not contemplate the case of furtheraccessions of French territory on the continent. Although the conditionsspecified were never fully satisfied, it is abundantly clear that theBritish ministers, having at last grasped the value of Malta, createdall the difficulties in their power, and determined to cancel thisarticle of the treaty. They alleged, in self-defence, that the spirit ofthe treaty had been constantly violated by Napoleon, in repeated acts ofhostility to British subjects, in the refusal of all redress for suchgrievances, and, above all, in that series of aggressions on thecontinent which he declared to be outside the treaty and beyond theprovince of Great Britain. [10] None of the compromises laboriouslydiscussed in the winter of 1802 betoken any desire on the part ofeither government to retreat from its main position, though it does notfollow that either sought to bring about a renewal of the war. Whitworthconstantly reported that no formidable armaments were being prepared, and clung for months to a belief that Napoleon, knowing the instabilityof his own power and the ruinous state of his finances, would ultimatelygive way. On the other hand, Talleyrand and Joseph Bonaparte neverceased to hope that Great Britain would make concessions which might beaccepted. 

Such hopes were rudely dispelled by the king's message to parliament onMarch 8, 1803, complaining of aggressive preparations in the ports ofFrance and Holland, and recommending immediate measures for the securityof his dominions. This message, with the consequent embodiment of themilitia, startled the whole continent, and was followed five days laterby the famous scene in which the first consul addressed Whitworth inphrases little short of insult. During a public audience at theTuileries on the 13th, Napoleon, after inquiring whether the Britishambassador had received any news from home, broke out with the words:"And so you are determined to go to war". The altercation which ensuedis best told in Whitworth's own words[11]:--

"'No, first consul, ' I replied, 'we are too sensible of the advantagesof peace. ' 'We have, ' said he, 'been fighting these fifteen years. ' Ashe seemed to wait for an answer, I observed only, 'That is already toolong'. 'But, ' said he, 'you desire to fight for fifteen years more, andyou are forcing me to it, ' I told him that was very far from hismajesty's intentions. He then proceeded to Count Marcoff and theChevalier Azzara, who were standing together at a little distance fromme, and said to them, 'The English are bent on war, but if they are thefirst to draw the sword, I shall be the last to put it back into thescabbard. They do not respect treaties. They must be covered with blackcrape. ' I suppose he meant the treaties. He then went his round, and wasthought by all those to whom he addressed himself to betray great signsof irritation. In a few minutes he came back to me, to my greatannoyance, and resumed the conversation, if such it can be called, bysomething personally civil to me. He then began again, 'Why thesearmaments? Against whom these measures of precaution? I have not asingle ship of the line in the French ports; but if you wish to arm, Iwill arm also; if you wish to fight, I will fight also. You may perhapskill France, but will never intimidate her. ' 'We wish, ' said I, 'neitherthe one nor the other. We wish to live on good terms with her. ' 'Youmust respect treaties then, ' replied he; 'woe to those who do notrespect treaties; they shall answer for it to all Europe. '"

Too much stress has been laid upon this incident, so characteristic ofNapoleon's studied impetuosity. Little more than a fortnight later hereceived the British ambassador with courtesy. Overtures now succeededovertures, and much was expected on both sides from the influence of theTsar Alexander, to whom France suggested that Malta might be ceded. [12]At the last moment, a somewhat more conciliatory disposition was shownby the French diplomatists; and the British government was blamed by itsopponents, alike for having failed to break off the negotiations earlieron the broadest grounds, and for breaking them off too abruptly ongrounds of doubtful validity. But we now see that national enmity, fostered by the press on both sides, rendered friendly relationsimpossible, and that, even had Napoleon been willing to refrain fromaggressions, peace was impossible. On May 12, two months after theking's message, Whitworth, having presented an ultimatum, finallyquitted Paris. A few days later an order was issued for the detention ofall British subjects then resident in France, and justified on theground that French seamen (but not passengers) were liable to capture atsea. On June 10 Talleyrand announced the occupation of Hanover and thetreatment as enemies of Hanoverian soldiers serving under the King ofGreat Britain. Meanwhile, on May 16, the rupture of peaceful relationswas announced to both houses of parliament; on May 18 war was declared, and in June volunteers were already mustering to resist invasion. 

FOOTNOTES:

[1] So Vansittart himself, in Pellew, _Life of Sidmouth_, i. , 371. Southey and Captain Mahan have erroneously supposed that Vansittartaccompanied the naval expedition and was sent by Parker in the frigatefrom the Skaw. 

[2] _Annual Register_, xliii. (1801), chapter i. The average price ofwheat in 1800 was 112s. 8d. The quarter, whereas the highest annualaverage in the half century before the war had been 64s. 6d. On March 5, 1801, the price of the quartern loaf stood as high as 1s. 10˝d. OnJuly 23 it was still 1s. 8d. The harvest of this year was, however, anexcellent one. The price fell rapidly during August, and by November 12was as low as 10˝d. 

[3] Cornwallis, _Correspondence_, iii. , 382-487. 

[4] In a letter to Charles Carey, dated October 22, Fox went the lengthof expressing extreme pleasure in the triumph of the French governmentover the English (_Memorials of C. J. Fox_, iii. , 349). 

[5] Malmesbury, _Diaries_, iv. , 60, 62. 

[6] Lecky, _History Of Ireland_, v. , 465. 

[7] Lanfrey, _Napoleon I. _ (English edition), ii. , 202; Pellew, _Life ofSidmouth_, ii. , 164. 

[8] Browning, _England and Napoleon in 1803_, pp. 1-6. 

[9] Browning, _ibid. _, pp. 6-10. 

[10] See especially Hawkesbury's despatch in Browning, _ibid. _, pp. 65-68, and Whitworth's despatches, _ibid. _, pp. 73-75, 78-85. 

[11] Whitworth's despatch of March 14, in Browning, _England andNapoleon_, p. 116. 

[12] Browning, _England and Napoleon_, p. 218. 

 CHAPTER II. 

 THE RETURN OF PITT. 

The period following the rupture of the peace of Amiens, though crowdedwith military events of the highest importance, was inevitably barren insocial and political interest. Disappointed in its hopes of returningprosperity, the nation girded itself up with rare unanimity for arenewed contest. In July the income-tax was reinstituted and a bill wasactually carried authorising a levy _en masse_ in case of invasion. Pending its enforcement, the navy was vigorously recruited by means ofthe press-gang; the yeomanry were called out, and a force of infantryvolunteers was enrolled, which reached a total of 300, 000 in August, andof nearly 400, 000 at the beginning of the next session. Pitt himself, aswarden of the Cinque Ports, took command of 3, 000 volunteers in Kent, and contrasted in parliament the warlike enthusiasm of the country withthe alleged apathy of the ministry. On July 23 a rebellion broke out inIreland, instigated by French agents and headed by a young man namedRobert Emmet. The conspiracy was ill planned and in itselfinsignificant, but the recklessness of the conspirators was equalled bythe weakness of the civil and military authorities, who neglected totake any precautions in spite of the plainest warnings. The rebels hadintended to attack Dublin Castle and seize the person of the lordlieutenant, who was to be held as a hostage; but they dared not make theattempt, and after parading the streets for a few hours were dispersedby the spontaneous action of a few determined officers with a handful oftroops, but not before Lord Kilwarden, the chief justice, and severalother persons, had been cruelly murdered by Emmet's followers. Futile asthe rising was, it sufficed to show that union was not a sovereignremedy for Irish disaffection. 

Meanwhile the relations between the prime minister and his predecessorhad been growing less and less cordial. Throughout the year 1801 Pittwas still the friend and informal adviser of the ministry, and it isdifficult to overrate the value of his support as a ground of confidencein an administration, personally popular, but known to be deficient inintellectual brilliance. In 1802 he generally stood aloof, and though inJune of that year he corrected the draft of the king's speech, heabsented himself from parliament, for he was dissatisfied with themeasures adopted by government. His dissatisfaction was known to hisfriends, and in November a movement was set on foot by Canning to induceAddington to withdraw in Pitt's favour; but Pitt, though willing toresume office, refused to allow the ministry to be approached on thesubject. He preferred to wait till a general wish for his return topower should be manifested. In December he visited Grenville atDropmore, and expressed a certain discontent with the government. [13] Itwas his intention still to treat the ministers with tenderness, but toreturn to parliament and criticise their policy. It is easy to see thathis object at this date was not to drive the government from office, butto give rise to a desire to re-enlist his own talents in the service ofthe country, and thus prepare the way for a peaceable resumption of theposition he had abandoned in the preceding year. 

[Pageheading: _NEGOTIATIONS FOR PITT'S RETURN. _]

No sooner had rumours of Pitt's willingness to resume office reachedAddington in the last days of December, than he opened negotiations withPitt with a view to effecting this object. Pitt did not receive hisovertures very warmly. He doubtless wished to be brought back because hewas felt to be indispensable, without any appearance of intrigue. Timewas in his favour, and he allowed the negotiations to proceed slowly. Asthe proposals took shape, it became clear that Addington did not wish tobe openly superseded by Pitt, but preferred that they should servetogether as secretaries of state under a third person; and Addingtoneven suggested Pitt's brother, the Earl of Chatham, then master-generalof the ordnance, as a suitable prime minister. Pitt's reply, communicated to Addington by Dundas, now Viscount Melville, in a letterdated March 22, 1803, was to the effect that Pitt would not accept anyposition in the government except that of prime minister, with which wasto be coupled the office of chancellor of the exchequer. Addingtonreadily acceded to Pitt's claim to this position, but Grenville refusedto serve in a ministry where Addington and Hawkesbury held "anyefficient offices of real business, " and Addington declined to abandonministerial office for a speakership of the house of lords, which Pittproposed to create for him. Finally, on April 10, Pitt at a privateconference with Addington proposed as an indispensable condition of hisown return to office that Melville, Spencer, Grenville, and Windhamshould become members of his cabinet. This meant a reconstruction of thewhole ministry, and Pitt stipulated that the changes should be made bythe king's desire and on the recommendation of the existing ministry. 

The situation had become an impossible one. Nothing was more reasonablethan that Pitt, the friend and protector of the existing ministry, should assume the direction of affairs now that the nation appeared tobe on the brink of war. But Pitt could not honourably desert thoseformer colleagues, who had resigned with him on the catholic question. Two of these, however, Grenville and Windham, though doubtless men ofthe highest capacity, had bitterly attacked the existing ministry; andit was not to be expected that that ministry, supported as it still wasby overwhelming majorities in both houses of parliament, supported as ithad hitherto been by Pitt himself, should consent to admit its opponentsto a share of office. It is highly improbable that Grenville and Windhamwould then have co-operated with Addington and Hawkesbury, and theiradmission to office would have ruined the cohesion of the cabinet, unless it had been accompanied by the retirement of the leading membersof the existing ministry which Pitt's previous attitude, together withthe actual balance of parties in parliament, rendered it impossible todemand. How difficult it was to induce Grenville and Windham to enterinto any combination future years were to prove. For the present theministry took not merely the wisest, but the only course open to it. Addington, after vainly endeavouring to induce Pitt to modify his terms, laid them before a cabinet council on April 13; they were immediatelyrejected, though the cabinet declared itself ready to admit to officePitt himself and those of his colleagues who had hitherto acted with theAddington ministry. Pitt could hardly have expected any other reply. Noministry could have granted such terms except on the supposition thatPitt was indispensable, and Pitt for the present hardly claimed such aposition. [14]

But if Pitt did not consider himself indispensable, his friends did, andboth he and others came gradually to adopt their view. The rejection ofhis terms left him free to adopt the line of policy that he had sketchedto Grenville in the previous December. He had not to wait long for anopportunity, but in the opinion of Pitt's friends at least the firstprovocation came from Addington. Unable to strengthen his ministry byany accession from Pitt and his followers, he had turned to the "oldopposition, " the whigs who, under the leadership of Fox, hadconsistently advocated a pacific policy. These had recently supportedthe ministry against the "new opposition, " as the followers of Grenvilleand Windham were called. But since 1797 Fox and the majority of the "oldopposition" had generally absented themselves from parliament, andGeorge Tierney, member for Southwark, had led what was left of theirparty. [15] He now received and accepted the offer of the treasurershipof the navy, one of the most important of the offices below cabinetrank. As a speaker Tierney was a valuable addition to the governmentwhich was sadly deficient in debating power; he had, however, beenparticularly bitter in his attacks on Pitt, with whom he had fought aduel in 1798, and had provoked the sarcastic wit of Canning, in whosewell-known parody, "The Friend of Humanity and the Knife-grinder"(1798), the original illustration by Gillray depicted the friend ofhumanity with the features of Tierney and laid the scene in the boroughof Southwark. 

[Pageheading: _CHANGES IN ADDINGTON'S MINISTRY. _]

The appointment, which Pitt himself does not appear to have resented, was announced on June 1, and Tierney took his place on the treasurybench on the 3rd. On the same evening Colonel Patten moved a series ofresolutions condemning, in extravagant terms, the conduct of theministry in the negotiation with France. Pitt seized the opportunity tomove the orders of the day. In other words, he proposed that thequestion should be left undecided. He expressed the opinion that theministry was not free from blame, but declared himself unable to concurin all the charges against it. He considered further that to drive theexisting ministers out of office would only throw the country intoconfusion, and that it was therefore inadvisable to pursue the question. To this the ministerial speakers replied by demanding a direct censureor a total acquittal, and the consequent division served only to displaythe weakness of the opposition. The Addington, Fox, and Grenvilleparties combined to oppose Pitt's motion, which was rejected by 333votes against 56. Pitt and Fox, and their respective followers then leftthe house, leaving the ministerial party and the Grenville party todecide the fate of Patten's resolutions, which were negatived by 275votes against 34. A comparison of the figures of the two divisions, allowing for tellers, gives as the voting strength of Pitt's party 58, of Grenville's 36, of Fox's 22, and of Addington's 277. Of these theGrenville party alone desired to eject the ministers from office, whileFox's party openly professed a preference for Addington over Pitt. 

During the remainder of the session Pitt seldom took any part inparliamentary business, and never opposed the ministry on any questionof importance. On August 12 parliament was prorogued after a sessionlasting nearly nine months, and the prime minister embraced theopportunity of making some slight reconstructions in the ministry. Pelham, who was removed from the home office, resigned his place in thecabinet, and was shortly afterwards consoled with the chancellorship ofthe duchy of Lancaster, an office which was not yet definitelyrecognised as political. Charles Philip Yorke, son of the chancellor whodied in 1770 and half-brother of the third Earl of Hardwicke, resignedthe office of secretary at war and succeeded to the home office on the17th. It was also considered advisable to strengthen the ministry in theupper house, where Grenville's oratory gave the opposition a decidedadvantage in debating power, and Hawkesbury was accordingly summoned tothe lords on November 16 in his father's barony of Hawkesbury. Afterthis rearrangement the cabinet contained eight peers and threecommoners, no illiberal allowance of commoners according to the ideas ofthe age. The recess was further marked by a violent war of pamphletsbetween the followers of Addington and Pitt, which began early inSeptember, and which, although no politician of the first order took anydirect part in it, did much to embitter the relations of theirrespective parties. [16] Not less irritating were the _jeux d'esprit_with which Canning continued to assail the ministry in the newspaperpress. [17] The most famous of these is the couplet:--

 Pitt is to Addington As London is to Paddington. 

A more openly abusive poem, entitled "Good Intentions, " described theprime minister as "Happy Britain's guardian gander". The followingverses refer to the appointment of Addington's brother, John HileyAddington, to be paymaster-general of the forces, and of hisbrother-in-law, Charles Bragge, afterwards succeeded by Tierney, to betreasurer of the navy:--

 How blest, how firm the statesman stands (Him no low intrigue can move) Circled by faithful kindred bands And propped by fond fraternal love. 

 When his speeches hobble vilely, What "Hear him's" burst from Brother Hiley; When his faltering periods lag, Hark to the cheers of Brother Bragge. 

 Each a gentleman at large, Lodged and fed at public charge, Paying (with a grace to charm ye) This the Fleet, and that the Army. [18]

[Pageheading: _THE KING'S ILLNESS. _]

When parliament reassembled on November 22 the opposition was stilldisunited, and, though Windham severely condemned the inadequacy of theprovision made for national defence, he did not venture to divideagainst the government. But during the Christmas recess a distinct stepwas made towards the consolidation of the opposition by the reunion ofthe two sections of the whig party. Grenville had conceived a chimericalproject of replacing the existing administration by one which shouldinclude all statesmen possessed of real political talent, whatever theirdifferences in the past might have been. True to this policy, hepersuaded Fox in January, 1804, to join him in attempting to expel theAddington administration from office as an essential preliminary to anyfurther action. Sheridan, however, with some of the Prince of Wales'sfriends, still refused to enter into any combination which might resultin the return of Pitt to power. The parliamentary session was resumed onFebruary 1, but the course of events was complicated by a recurrence ofthe king's malady. Symptoms of this were observed towards the end ofJanuary; the disease took a turn for the worse about February 12, and onthe 14th it was made known to the public. For a short time the king'slife appeared to be in danger; his reason was affected during a longerinterval, but the attack was in every way milder than in 1789, and onMarch 7 Dr. Simmons reported to Addington that "the king was competentto perform any act of government". [19] It is true that for many monthsthe king's health did not allow him to give his full attention to publicbusiness, but there was nothing to prevent him from attending to suchroutine work as was absolutely necessary. There could, however, be noquestion of a change of ministers till there should be a markedimprovement in the king's health. 

The king's illness was made the occasion on February 27 of a motion bySir Robert Lawley for the adjournment of the house of commons. This wasparried by Addington with the statement that there was no necessarysuspension of such royal functions as it might be necessary for HisMajesty to discharge at the present moment. [20] The emphasis hereobviously lay on the word "necessary". A still bolder course was adoptedshortly afterwards by the lord chancellor. When on March 9 the king'sassent to several bills was given by commission, Fitzwilliam raised notunreasonable doubts as to whether the king was capable of resuming thefunctions of government. Eldon, however, declared that, as the result ofa private interview with the king, he had come to the conclusion thatthe royal commissioners were warranted in assenting to the bills inquestion. Whether the chancellor was justified in assuming thisresponsibility must remain doubtful; at all events Pitt seems to havedetermined that the time was now ripe for a ministerial crisis. He hadon February 27 criticised both the military and naval defences of thecountry, but he would not directly attack the government till the king'shealth was in a better condition. At last, on March 15, the first attackwas made. Pitt selected the weak point in the administration. St. Vincent's obstinacy in refusing to believe in the possibility of arenewal of hostility and his excessive economy had brought about amarked deterioration in the strength and quality of the fleet. Pittaccordingly moved for an inquiry into the administration of the navy. Fox dissociated himself from Pitt's attacks on the first lord of theadmiralty, but supported the motion on the ground that an inquiry wouldclear St. Vincent's character. On a division the government had amajority of 201 against 130. On the 19th, however, Pitt refused to jointhe Grenvilles in supporting Fox's motion for the re-committal of thevolunteer consolidation bill. On the following day Eldon made overturesto Pitt, and on the 23rd Pitt dined _tęte-ŕ-tęte_ with the chancellor, but no record has been preserved of the nature of their negotiations. 

On the 29th Pitt, in a letter to Melville, explained his position atlength. He intended, as soon after the Easter recess as the king'shealth should permit, to write to the king explaining the dangers which, in his opinion, threatened the crown and people from the continuance ofthe existing government, and representing the urgent necessity of aspeedy change; he would prefer an administration from which no politicalparty should be excluded, but was unwilling, especially in view of theking's state of health, to force any minister upon him; if, therefore, he should be invited by the king to form a ministry from which thepartisans of Fox and Grenville were to be excluded, he was prepared toform one from his own followers united with the more capable members ofthe existing government, excluding Addington himself and St. Vincent;should this measure fail of success, he would "have no hesitation intaking such ground in Parliament as would be most likely to attain theobject". [21] As it happened, the parliamentary assault preceded thecorrespondence with the king. Immediately after the recess the ministrylaid before parliament military proposals which Pitt felt bound toresist. On April 16 Pitt, supported by Windham, opposed the thirdreading of a bill for augmenting the Irish militia, and expressed apreference for the army of reserve. He was defeated by the narrowmajority of 128 against 107. On the 23rd Fox proposed to refer thequestion of national defence to a committee of the whole house. He wassupported by Pitt and Windham, and defeated by 256 votes only against204. The division which sealed the fate of the ministry was taken twodays later on a motion that the house should go into committee on a billfor the suspension of the army of reserve. This was opposed by Pitt, whoexpounded a rival plan for the diminution of the militia and increase ofthe army of reserve. Fox and Windham demanded for Pitt's scheme a rightto consideration, and on a division the motion was carried by no morethan 240 against 203. The division of April 16 had convinced Addingtonthat a reconciliation with Pitt was necessary. On Pitt's refusing toconfer with him, he agreed to recommend the king to charge Eldon withthe task of discovering Pitt's views as to the formation of a newministry, in case the king wished to learn them. 

[Pageheading: _ADDINGTON'S RESIGNATION. _]

The king, however, expressed no such wish, and on April 22 Pitt sent anunsealed letter to Eldon to be laid before the king; announcing hisdissatisfaction with the ministry and his intention of declaring thisdissatisfaction in parliament. [22] It was not till the 27th that Eldonfound a suitable opportunity of communicating Pitt's letter to the king. Before that date Addington, who considered that he could no longerremain in office with dignity after the divisions of the 23rd and 25th, had on the 26th informed the king of his intention to resign. The kingreluctantly consented to his resignation, which was announced to thecabinet on the 29th. On the following day Eldon called on Pitt with arequest from the king for a plan of a new administration. Pitt repliedin a letter, setting forth at great length the arguments in favour of acombined administration, and requesting permission to confer with Foxand Grenville about the construction of the ministry. [23] The letterirritated the king, who demanded a renewed pledge against catholicemancipation, with which Grenville was specially associated in his mind, and refused to admit Pitt to office if he persevered in his purpose ofconsulting Fox and Grenville. Pitt then declared his adherence to thepledge given in 1801[24] and requested an interview with the king. Theinterview, which took place on May 7, lasted three hours, and ended in acompromise. The king agreed to admit Grenville and his friends tooffice, but, while ready to accept the friends of Fox, he refused, asmuch on personal as on political grounds, to give Fox a place in thecabinet. At the same time he declared himself ready to grant him adiplomatic appointment. At a later date the king went the length ofdeclaring that, rather than accept Fox, he would have incurred the riskof civil war. 

[Pageheading: _PITT'S RETURN TO OFFICE. _]

Fox readily agreed to his own exclusion, which he had fully expected, and urged his followers to join Pitt, but Grenville and his friendsrefused to serve without Fox, while the friends of Fox and the moreimmediate followers of Addington refused to serve without theirrespective leaders. Addington always considered that Pitt had treatedhim ungenerously in driving him from office, when it was open to him toreturn to the head of affairs with the full consent of the existingministers. More recently it has been the fashion to blame Pitt forbringing too little pressure to bear upon the king and thus losing thesupport of Fox and Grenville. Neither charge appears to be justified. Through the whole length of the Addington administration Pitt showedhimself fully sensitive of what was due to the king, with whom he hadworked cordially for eighteen years, to Grenville who had resigned inhis cause, and to Addington who had assumed office under his protection. There was no trace of faction in Pitt's attitude towards the ministry. He merely opposed what he believed to be dangerous to the country, andwhen he was convinced of the necessity of removing Addington from ashare in public business, he endeavoured to effect his purpose in such away as to give the minimum of offence. 

On the other hand, Pitt's intended combination in a supreme crisis ofhis country's destiny with his life-long antagonist, Fox, was a heroicexperiment, perhaps, but still only an experiment. The failure of theministry of "All the Talents" renders it exceedingly doubtful whethersuch an alliance would have proved successful, and Fox's lukewarmpatriotism would have been dearly purchased at the expense of thealienation of the king, perhaps even of his relapse into insanity. Noris it certain that the strongest pressure would have induced George III. To accept Fox at this date. Addington was still undefeated and mighthave remained in office if Pitt had refused to assume the reins ofgovernment without Fox. Grenville is undoubtedly more responsible thanany one else for the weakness of Pitt's second administration. It wasfrom a sense of loyalty to Grenville that Pitt had suffered thenegotiations for his return to office in 1803 to fall through, and nowwhen the two statesmen could return together, and when, if ever, astrong government was needed, either a quixotic sense of honour or awounded pride induced Grenville not only to stand aloof from the newadministration himself, but to do his utmost to prevent others fromgiving it their support. [25] The new cabinet was quickly formed. Pittreceived the seals of office on May 10, and took his seat in parliamentafter re-election on the 18th, the very day on which Napoleon wasdeclared emperor by the French senate. 

This event, long foreseen, was doubtless hastened by the disclosure ofthe plot formed by Moreau, Pichegru, and Georges Cadoudal against thefirst consul. There was no proof of Moreau's complicity in designs onNapoleon's life, and the mysterious death of Pichegru in prison left theextent of his complicity among the insoluble problems of history, butthere can be no doubt that Cadoudal was justly executed for plottingassassination. Unfortunately some of the under-secretaries in theAddington administration had not only shared the plans of theconspirators so far as they aimed at a rising in France, but hadprocured for them material assistance. They appear, however, to havebeen innocent of any attempt on Napoleon's life. Drake, the Britishenvoy at Munich, was, however, deeper in the plot. The evidence ofBritish complicity naturally received the very worst construction inParis. [26] Napoleon himself certainly believed in an Anglo-Bourbonconspiracy, organised by the Count of Artois and other French royalists, when he caused the Duke of Enghien to be kidnapped in Baden territoryand hurried off to the castle of Vincennes. He was, however, alreadyaware of his prisoner's innocence when on March 21 he had him shot thereby torch-light after a mock trial before a military commission. AllEurope was shocked by this atrocious assassination, and though Napoleonsometimes attempted to shift the guilt of it upon Talleyrand, hejustified it at other times as a measure of self-defence, and left onrecord his deliberate approval of it, for the consideration ofposterity. Two months later he became Emperor of the French. 

When Pitt resumed office on May 10, 1804, he was no longer theheaven-born and buoyant young minister of 1783, strong in the confidenceof the king and the anticipated confidence of the nation, with aminority of followers in the house of commons, but with the brightestprospects of political success before him. Nor was he the leader of adevoted majority, as when he resigned in 1801 rather than abandon hisconvictions on the catholic question. He had been compelled to waivethese convictions, without fully regaining the confidence of the king, and, while the adherents of Fox retained their deep-seated hatred of awar-policy, the adherents of Addington and Grenville were in no mood togive him a loyal support. Windham and Spencer were no longer at hisside, and his ministry was essentially the same as that of Addington, with the substitution of Dudley Ryder, now Lord Harrowby, for Hawkesburyas foreign secretary, Melville for St. Vincent as first lord of theadmiralty, Earl Camden for Hobart as secretary for war and the colonies, and the Duke of Montrose for Auckland as president of the board oftrade. Hawkesbury was transferred to the home office, vacated by Yorke, and the new chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, Lord Mulgrave, wasgiven a seat in the cabinet. Of Pitt's eleven colleagues in the cabinetCastlereagh alone, who remained president of the board of control--awretched speaker though an able administrator--had a seat in the lowerhouse. 

[Pageheading: _PITT'S RECONCILIATION WITH ADDINGTON. _]

Military exigencies now engrossed all thoughts, and the king's speech, in proroguing parliament on July 31, foreshadowed a new coalition, forwhich the murder of the Duke of Enghien had paved the way. Thepreparations for an invasion of England had been resumed, and Napoleoncelebrated his birthday in great state at Boulogne, still postponing hisfinal stroke until he should be crowned, on December 2, at Paris by thehelpless pope, brought from Italy for the purpose. [27] A month later hepersonally addressed another pacific letter to the King of England, whoreplied in his speech from the throne on January 15, 1805, that he couldnot entertain overtures except in concert with Russia and the otherpowers. Meanwhile, Pitt, conscious as he was of failing powers, retainedhis undaunted courage, and while he was organising a third coalition, did not shrink from a bold measure which could hardly be justified byinternational law. This was the seizure on October 5, 1804, of threeSpanish treasure-ships on the high seas, without a previous declarationof war against Spain, though not without a previous notice thathostilities might be opened at any moment unless Spain ceased to giveunderhand assistance to France. The excuse was that Spain had long beenthe obsequious ally of France, and, as the alliance now became open, Pitt's act was sanctioned by a large majority in both houses ofparliament in January, 1805. The parliamentary session which opened inthis month found Pitt's ministry apparently stronger than it had been atthe beginning of the recess. Despairing of any help from Grenville, except in a vigorous prosecution of the war, he had sought areconciliation with Addington, who became Viscount Sidmouth on January12 and president of the council on the 14th. Along with Sidmouth hisformer colleague Hobart, now Earl of Buckinghamshire, returned to officeas chancellor of the duchy. To make room for these new allies, Portlandhad consented to resign the presidency of the council, though heremained a member of the cabinet, while Mulgrave was appointed to theforeign office, in place of Harrowby, who was compelled by ill-health toretire. 

But this new accession of strength was soon followed by a terriblemortification which probably contributed to shorten Pitt's life. Melville, his tried supporter and intimate friend, was charged on thereport of a commission with having misapplied public money as treasurerof the navy in Pitt's former ministry. It appeared that he had beenculpably careless, and had not prevented the paymaster, Trotter, fromengaging in private speculations with the naval balances. AlthoughTrotter's speculations involved no loss to the state they were, nevertheless, a contravention of an act of 1785. Melville had alsosupplied other departments of government with naval money, but waspersonally innocent of fraud. There was a divergence of feeling in thecabinet as to the attitude to be adopted towards Melville. Sidmouth, himself a man of the highest integrity, was a friend of St. Vincent, thelate first lord of the admiralty, and had not forgiven Melville for hispart in the expulsion of himself and St. Vincent from office. He hadtherefore both public and private grounds to incline him againstMelville. On April 8, Samuel Whitbread moved a formal censure onMelville in the house of commons. Pitt, with the approval of Sidmouthand his friends, moved the previous question on Whitbread's motion, anddeclared his intention of introducing a motion of his own for a selectcommittee to investigate the charges. In spite of the support which Pittderived from the followers of Sidmouth the votes were equally divided onWhitbread's motion, 216 a side. Abbot, the speaker, gave his castingvote in favour of Whitbread, and the announcement was received by thewhig members with unseemly exultation. [28]

[Pageheading: _MINISTERIAL CHANGES. _]

The censure was followed by an impeachment before the house of lords, where Melville was acquitted in the following year. Meanwhile, he hadresigned office on April 9, the day after the vote of censure, and hisplace at the admiralty was taken by Sir Charles Middleton, who wasraised to the peerage as Lord Barham. The appointment gave umbrage toSidmouth, to whom Pitt had made promises of promotion for his ownfollowers, and he was with difficulty induced to remain in the cabinet. Pitt was, however, irritated by the hostile votes of Sidmouth'sfollowers, Hiley Addington and Bond, on the question of the impeachment, and regarded this as a reason for delaying their preferment. Sidmouthnow complained of a breach of faith, as Pitt had promised to treat thequestion as an open one, and he resigned office on July 4. Buckinghamshire resigned next day. Camden was appointed to succeedSidmouth as lord president, Castlereagh followed Camden as secretary forwar and the colonies, retaining his previous position as president ofthe board of control, and Harrowby, whose health had improved since hisresignation in January, took Buckinghamshire's place as chancellor ofthe duchy. Thus weakened at home, Pitt could derive little consolationfrom the aspect of continental affairs. On May 26, Napoleon was crownedKing of Italy in the cathedral of Milan, and the Ligurian Republicbecame part of the French empire in the following month. The ascendencyof France in Europe might well have appeared impregnable, and it mighthave been supposed that nothing remained for England but to guard herown coasts and recapture some of the French colonies given up by thetreaty of Amiens. 

But Pitt's spirit was still unbroken, and by the middle of July hesucceeded in rallying three powers, Russia, Austria, and Sweden, into aleague to withstand the further encroachments of France. Such a leaguehad been proposed by Gustavus IV. Of Sweden, early in 1804, but nothingdefinite was done till Pitt's ministry entered upon office. Meanwhile, the assassination of the Duke of Enghien had led to a rupture ofdiplomatic relations between France and Russia, though war was notdeclared. Negotiations were presently set on foot for a league, which, it was hoped, would be joined by Austria and Prussia in addition toGreat Britain, Russia, and Sweden. An interesting feature in thenegotiations was the tsar's scheme of a European polity, where thestates should be independent and enjoy institutions "founded on thesacred rights of humanity, " a foreshadowing, as it would seem, of theHoly Alliance. The discussion of details between Great Britain andRussia began towards the end of 1804. Difficulties, however, arose aboutthe British retention of Malta and the British claim to search neutralships for deserters. A treaty between the two powers was signed on April11, 1805; but the tsar long refused his ratification, and it was onlygiven in July, after a formal protest against the retention of Malta. 

The object of this alliance was defined to be the expulsion of Frenchtroops from North Germany, the assured independence of the republics ofHolland and Switzerland, and the restoration of the King of Sardinia inPiedmont; 500, 000 men were to be provided for the war by Russia and suchother continental powers as might join the coalition. Great Britain, instead of furnishing troops, was to supply Ł1, 250, 000 a year for every100, 000 men engaged in the war. After the close of the war an Europeancongress was to define more closely the law of nations and establish anEuropean federation. At the same time the allies disclaimed theintention of forcing any system of government on France against herwill. It will be observed that the number of troops specified was far inexcess of what Russia alone could place in the field; such numbers couldonly be obtained by the adhesion of Austria and of either Prussia orsome of the smaller German states to the coalition. So far as Austriawas concerned, Napoleon's Italian policy rendered war inevitable. Already in November, 1804, the Austrian court had entered into a secretagreement with Russia to make war on France in the event of furtherFrench aggressions in Italy. The coronation of Napoleon as King of Italyand the annexation of Liguria were, however, more than aggressions; theywere open violations of the treaty of Lunéville which had guaranteed theindependence of the Cisalpine and Ligurian republics. Austria hereupondetermined on war, and secretly joined the coalition on August 9, 1805. Sweden, which was not a member of it, concluded separate treaties ofalliance both with Great Britain and with Russia. Greater difficultieshad to be surmounted in the case of Prussia. Frederick William III. Cherished no enthusiasm for European liberty, and vacillated under theinfluence of Napoleon's offer of Hanover on the one hand and hisnumerous petty insults on the other. Prussia in consequence remainedneutral throughout the most decisive period of the ensuing war. 

[Pageheading: _NELSON AND VILLENEUVE. _]

Long before the coalition was ready Napoleon's mind had recurred to hisventuresome project for the invasion of England. An army, the finestthat he ever led to victory, which, even after it had been transferredto another scene of action, he still saw fit to call the "army ofEngland, " was encamped near Boulogne. It was constantly exercised in theprocess of embarking on board flat-bottomed boats or rafts, which wereto be convoyed by Villeneuve, admiral of the Toulon fleet, andGantheaume, admiral of the Brest fleet, for whose appearance the Frenchsignalmen vainly scanned the horizon. In the meantime, Nelson had beenengaged for two years, without setting foot on shore, in that patientand sleepless watch, ranging over the whole Mediterranean, which mustever rank with the greatest of his matchless exploits. At last, helearned in the spring of 1805, that Villeneuve, following a planconcerted by Napoleon himself, had eluded him by sailing from Toulontowards Cadiz, had there been joined by the Spanish fleet, and wassteering for the West Indies. Nelson followed with a much smaller numberof ships, and might have forced an action in those waters, but he wasmisled by false intelligence and missed the enemy, though his dreadedpresence was effectual in saving the British islands from any seriousattack. 

The combined fleets of France and Spain recrossed the Atlantic and inaccordance with Napoleon's plans made for Ferrol on the coast ofGalicia. After being repulsed with some loss off Cape Finisterre by SirRobert Calder, who was court-martialled and severely reprimanded forneglecting to follow up his victory, they put in first at Vigo, and thenwith fifteen allied ships at Coruńa. But, instead of venturing to carryout Napoleon's orders by challenging Admiral Cornwallis's fleet offBrest, and making a desperate effort to command the channel, Villeneuvenow took advantage of his emperors recommendation to return to Cadiz inevent of defeat, and set sail for that port in the middle of August. Nelson, ignorant of his movements, had vainly sought him off the Straitsof Gibraltar, and came home to report himself at the admiralty. Arrivingat Spithead on August 18, he was in England barely four weeks, most ofwhich he spent in privacy at Merton. During this brief respite hereceived a general tribute of admiration and affection from hiscountrymen, which anticipated the verdict of posterity. On September 15he sailed from Portsmouth, with a presentiment of his own fate, afterhaving described to Sidmouth the general design of his crowning seafight: he would, he said, break the enemy's line in two places; and hedid so. He joined Admiral Collingwood off Cadiz on the 29th, and onOctober 19 he received news that Villeneuve, smarting under theprospect of being superseded, had put to sea with the combined fleet. Complicated naval manoeuvres followed, but on the 21st the enemy wasforced to give battle, a few leagues from Cape Trafalgar, and Nelsoncaused his immortal signal to be hoisted--"England expects that everyman will do his duty". 

[Pageheading: _THE BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR. _]

The French and Spanish fleet comprised thirty-three ships of the line, of which eighteen were French and fifteen Spanish; the British had onlytwenty-seven, but among these were seven three-deckers as against fouron the side of the allies. It had the additional advantage of superiordiscipline and equipment, to say nothing of the genius of its commander. The British fleet advanced in two divisions, Nelson leading the weatherdivision of twelve, and Collingwood the lee division of fifteen ships. According to Nelson's plan Collingwood was to attack the rear of theenemy's line, while he himself cut off and paralysed the centre and van. Both divisions advanced without regular formation, the ships bearingdown with all the speed they could command and without waiting forlaggards. Collingwood in the _Royal Sovereign_, steering E. By N. , brokethrough the allies' line twelve ships from the rear, raking the _SantaAna_, Alava's flagship, as he passed her stern, with a broadside whichstruck down 400 of her men. For some fifteen minutes the _RoyalSovereign_ was alone in action; then others of the division came up andsuccessively penetrated the line of the allies, and engaging ship toship completely disposed of the enemy's rear, their twelve rear shipsbeing all taken or destroyed. 

Meanwhile, Nelson in the _Victory_, who had reserved to himself the moredifficult task of containing twenty-one ships with twelve, held on hiscourse, advancing so as to keep the allied van stationary and yet toprevent the centre from venturing to help the rear. He designed to passthrough the end of the line in order to cut the enemy's van off fromCadiz, but, finding an opportunity, changed his course, passed down theline and attacked the centre. He passed through the line of the alliedfleet, closely followed by four other ships of his division, and thefive British ships concentrated their attacks on the _Bucentaure_, Villeneuve's flagship, the gigantic Spanish four-decker, the _SantísimaTrinidad_, which was next ahead of her, and the _Redoutable_, whichsupported her. The centre of the allies was crushed and the van cut offfrom coming to the help of the rear, which was being destroyed byCollingwood. 

Before the battle ended, the naval force of France, and with itNapoleon's projects of invasion, were utterly and hopelessly ruined. Eighteen prizes were taken, and, though many of these were lost in agale, four ships which escaped were afterwards captured, and theremainder lay for the most part shattered hulks at Cadiz. By this battlethe supremacy of Great Britain at sea was finally established. Nelson, who, during the ship-to-ship engagement which followed his penetrationof the enemy's line, was mortally wounded by a sharp-shooter from themizzen-top of the _Redoutable_, died before the battle was over, thoughhe was spared to hear that a complete victory was secure. His death isamong the heroic incidents of history, and his last achievement, both inits conception and its results, was the fitting climax of his fame. Theplan for the battle which he drew up beforehand for the instruction ofhis captains, and the changes which he made in it to meet the conditionsof the moment are alike worthy of his supreme genius as a navaltactician. His arrangements were carried out by men who had learned tolove and trust him, and who were inspired by the fire of his spirit, andhence it was that the allied fleet of France and Spain perished at the"Nelson touch". [29]

Very different were the fortunes of war in central Europe, whereNapoleon himself commanded the "army of England". It was not until theend of August that Napoleon knew that Villeneuve would be unable toappear in the Channel, but no sooner did he abandon his project ofinvasion in despair than he resolved on a campaign scarcely lessarduous, and gave orders for a grand march into Germany. Pitt, as wehave seen, had successfully negotiated an alliance with Russia andAustria, whose armies were converging upon the plains of Bavaria andwere to have been reinforced by a large Prussian contingent. Unhappily, they had not effected a junction when Napoleon crossed the Rhine nearStrassburg and the Danube near Donauwörth, while he detached largeforces to check the advance of the Russians and the approach ofreinforcements expected from Italy. One of these movements involved anopen violation of Prussian territory, but he could rely on thewell-tried servility of Frederick William. The first decisive result ofhis strategy was the surrender of Mack at Ulm, with 30, 000 men and 60pieces of ordnance. This event took place on October 20, the very daybefore the battle of Trafalgar, and opened the road to Vienna, which theFrench troops entered on November 13, occupying the great bridge by aruse more skilful than honourable, during the negotiation of anarmistice. Vienna was spared, while Napoleon pressed on to meet theremainder of the Austrian army, which had now been joined by a largerbody of Russians near Brünn. The allies numbered about 100, 000 men;Napoleon's army was numerically somewhat less, but possessed the samekind of superiority as the British navy at Trafalgar. The result was thecrushing victory of Austerlitz on December 2, followed by the peace ofPressburg, between France and Austria, signed on the 26th. The principalarticles of this treaty provided for the cession of Venetia, Istria, andDalmatia to the kingdom of Italy, and the aggrandisement of Bavaria andWürtemberg, whose electors received the royal title as the price oftheir sympathetic alliance with France. Russia withdrew sullenly, havinglearned the hollowness of her league with Prussia, which had baselytemporised while the fate of Germany was at stake, and whose minister, Haugwitz, suppressing the _ultimatum_ which he was charged to deliver, had openly congratulated the conqueror of Austerlitz. 

Great Britain had had no direct share in the conflict in SouthernGermany and Moravia; she had, however, joined in two expeditions, theone in Southern, the other in Northern Europe. In spite of a treaty ofneutrality between France and the Two Sicilies, ratified on October 8, an Anglo-Russian squadron was permitted to land a force of 10, 000British troops under Sir James Craig, and 14, 000 Russians on the shoreof the Bay of Naples. These troops effected nothing, and the violationof neutrality was, as we shall see, destined to involve the Neapolitanmonarchy in ruin. The expedition to North Germany was planned on alarger scale. Hanover had been occupied by France since June, 1803. Itsrecovery was attempted by an Anglo-Hanoverian force under Cathcart, which was to have been supported by a Russian and Swedish force actingfrom Stralsund. The co-operation of Prussia was also expected. In orderto secure this alliance the British government offered Prussia anextension of territory so as to include Antwerp, Ličge, Luxemburg, andCologne, in the event of victory. In November the expedition landed. InDecember Prussia had definitely given her protection to the Russiantroops in Hanover and offered it to the Hanoverians. Pitt computed thatat the beginning of the next campaign nearly 300, 000 men would beavailable in North Germany. But the vacillation of Prussia ruined all. On December 15 Haugwitz signed the treaty of Schönbrunn, by whichPrussia was to enter into an offensive and defensive alliance withFrance and was to receive Hanover in return for Ansbach, Cleves, andNeuchâtel. Frederick William could not yet stoop to such a degree ofinfamy, and therefore, instead of ratifying the treaty, resolved onJanuary 3, 1806, to propose a compromise, which involved among otherprovisions the temporary occupation of Hanover by Prussia. Inconsequence of this determination he sent, on January 7, a request forthe withdrawal of the British forces, which were accordinglyrecalled. [30]

[Pageheading: _THE DEATH OF PITT. _]

The collapse of his last coalition was the death-blow of Pitt, cheeredthough he was for the moment by the news of Trafalgar. The fatalconsequences of Austerlitz were reported to him at Bath, whence hereturned by easy stages to his villa at Putney in January, 1806. Hisnoble spirit was broken at last by the defection of Prussia, and afterlingering a while, he died on the 23rd of that month, leaving a namesecond to none among the greatest statesmen of his country. Hissagacious mind grasped the advantage to be gained by freeing trade fromunnecessary restrictions, and anticipated catholic emancipation, parliamentary reform, and the abolition of slavery. He gave the nation, in the union with Ireland, the one constructive measure of the firstorder achieved in his time, and only marred by the weakness of morepliable successors in a lesser age. His dauntless soul, which bore himup against the bitterest disappointments, the desertion of friends, andthe depression of mortal disease, inspired the governing classes ofEngland to endure ten more years of exhausting war, to save Europe (ashe foretold) by their example, and to crown his own work at Waterloo. His lofty eloquence, which has been described as a gift independent ofstatesmanship, was indeed a product of statesmanship, for it consistedin no mere witchery of words, but in a luminous and convincingpresentation of essential facts. He may have been inferior to his ownfather in fiery rhetoric, to Peel in comprehensive grasp of domesticpolicy, and to Gladstone in the political experience gained by sixtyyears of political life, but in capacity for command he was inferior tonone. If he was not an ideal war minister, he was not a war minister byhis own choice; his lot was cast in times which suppressed the exerciseof his best powers; and he was matched in the organisation of war, though not in the field, against the greatest organising genius known tohistory. He must be judged by what he actually did and meditated as apeace minister; his conduct of the war must be compared with that ofthose able but not gifted men who strove to bend the bow which he leftbehind him; and we must assuredly conclude that none of his colleaguesor rivals was his peer either in powers or in public spirit. 

FOOTNOTES:

[13] Buckingham, _Court and Cabinets_, iii. , 242; Lewis, _Administrations of Great Britain_, p. 225. 

[14] Buckingham, _Court and Cabinets_, iii. , 282-90; Pellew, _Life ofSidmouth_, ii. , 113-31; Stanhope, _Life of Pitt_, iv. , 20-39. 

[15] See vol. X. , p. 399. 

[16] Pellew, _Life of Sidmouth_, ii. , 145-47; Stanhope, _Life of Pitt_, iv. , 88-93. 

[17] For a list of Canning's squibs, belonging to this period, seeLewis, _Administrations_, p. 249, note. 

[18] It was not fair to hold Addington entirely responsible for thepromotion of his brother, who had been a junior lord of the treasuryunder Pitt. The taunt came with a particularly bad grace from Canning, who had himself been paymaster-general in the last administration. 

[19] Pellew, _Life of Sidmouth_, ii. , 250. 

[20] _Annual Register_, xlvi. (1804), p. 34. 

[21] Stanhope, _Life of Pitt_, iv. , 135-44. 

[22] See the letter in Stanhope, _Life of Pitt_, iv. , appendix, pp. I. -iii. 

[23] There is preserved a sketch in Pitt's handwriting of a combinedadministration with Melville, Fox, and Fitzwilliam as secretaries ofstate, and Grenville as lord president. 

[24] Stanhope, _Life of Pitt_, iv. , appendix, pp. Xi. , xii. 

[25] The best account of Pitt's return to power is to be found inStanhope, _Life of Pitt_, iv. , 113-95; appendix, pp. I. -xiii. The storyis told in a very spirited manner by Lord Rosebery, _Pitt_, pp. 238-44. 

[26] Rose, _Life of Napoleon I. _, i. , 450-53. 

[27] Napoleon actually crowned himself, although he had originallyintended to be crowned by the pope. 

[28] Malmesbury, _Diaries_, iv. , 338. 

[29] Nelson's tactics at Trafalgar are explained in a series ofremarkable articles in _The Times_ of September 16, 19, 22, 26, 28, 30, and October 19, 1905. For incidents of the battle see Mahan, _Life ofNelson_, ii. , 363 _sqq. _

[30] Rose, _Life of Napoleon I. _, ii. , 53-57, 63-65. 

 CHAPTER III. 

 GRENVILLE AND PORTLAND. 

The immediate effect of Pitt's death was the dissolution of hisgovernment. The king turned at first to Hawkesbury, afterwards destinedas Earl of Liverpool to hold the office of premier for nearly fifteenyears; but he then felt himself unequal to such a burden. He next sentfor Grenville, who insisted on the co-operation of Fox, to which theking assented without demur, and the short-lived ministry of "All theTalents" was formed within a few days. It was essentially a whigcabinet, but it included two tories, Sidmouth as lord privy seal, andLord Ellenborough, the lord chief justice. Grenville himself was firstlord of the treasury, Fox foreign secretary, and Erskine lordchancellor. Charles Grey, the future Earl Grey, was first lord of theadmiralty. Spencer home secretary, Windham secretary for war and thecolonies, and Lord Henry Petty, the future Marquis of Lansdowne, chancellor of the exchequer. Fitzwilliam was lord president, and theEarl of Moira master-general of the ordnance. Ellenborough owed hisplace in the cabinet to the influence of Sidmouth. The appointment was adeparture from the established constitutional practice. Since LordMansfield, who had ceased to be an efficient member in 1765, no chiefjustice had been a member of the cabinet, and it was argued inparliament by the opposition that a seat in the cabinet was inconsistentwith the independence which a common law judge ought to maintain. It isalso important to observe that Sidmouth when accepting office gaveexpress notice to Grenville and Fox that under all circumstances "hewould ever resist the catholic question". [31]

The friendly relations of the king with Fox were creditable to both ofthem, and in the last few months of his life Fox showed himself astatesman. Besides the abolition of the slave trade, his grand objectwas the restoration of peace on a durable basis. There were some groundsfor believing that this was possible. France, under an emperor, seemedno longer to represent a new principle in European politics, and was notnecessarily a menace to her neighbours; the coalition was fairly beatenon land, while British supremacy had been reasserted on sea, andNapoleon might well wish for peace to enable him to consolidate hisposition on land and regain the power of using the sea, just as he haddone in 1801. Fox lost no time in renewing a pacific correspondence withTalleyrand, afterwards carried on through the agency of Lord Yarmouth, an English traveller detained in France, and Lord Lauderdale, who wassent over as plenipotentiary. The principle of the negotiation was thatof _uti possidetis_, but it failed, as Whitworth's efforts had failed, because the pretensions of France were constantly shifting, andespecially because France, anxious to isolate Great Britain, insisted onnegotiating separately with Great Britain and Russia, while Fox veryproperly refused to make peace without our ally. Grey himself, now LordHowick, afterwards declared that France showed no disposition to grantany terms which could be accepted by Great Britain. On September 13, Foxdied, and was buried in Westminster Abbey almost side by side with hisgreat rival. 

While he was earnestly striving for peace, there was no cessation ofwarlike movements or political changes either in Central Europe or inItaly. In June, 1806, Napoleon converted the Batavian Republic into thekingdom of Holland, over which he set his brother Louis. In July thediscord of Germany, which had long ceased to be a nation, wasconsummated by the formation of the Confederation of the Rhine, whichseparated all the western states from the Holy Roman empire, and unitedthem under the protection and control of France. On August 6, FrancisII. , who had assumed the title of Emperor of Austria in 1804, formallyrenounced the title of Roman Emperor, and the Holy Roman Empire becameextinct. The King of Prussia, with singular disregard of good faith andnational interest, finally accepted on February 15 the bribe of Hanoverfor adhesion to France, but without the offensive and defensive allianceoffered him in the previous December, and with the additionalhumiliation of being compelled to close his ports to English ships. Hevainly strove to conceal this shameful bargain, and was, as will beseen, punished by the destruction of Prussian commerce. After all, hefound himself overreached by Napoleon in duplicity, and was at lastprovoked into risking a single-handed contest with his imperious ally. He declared war on October 1, and within a fortnight the army ofPrussia, inheriting the system and traditions of the great Frederick, was all but annihilated in the twin battles of Jena and Auerstädt foughton October 14. 

[Pageheading: _SMALL EXPEDITIONS. _]

The British government, though not unwilling to forgive the perfidy ofits former confederate, was powerless to strike a blow on his behalfuntil it was too late. Indeed, the only warlike operation undertaken byGreat Britain in Europe during the year was in the extreme south ofItaly. Ferdinand, King of the Two Sicilies, had been driven out of hiscapital to make way for Joseph Bonaparte, who entered Naples on February15, and the exiled monarch took refuge in the island of Sicily. Inaccordance with the shortsighted policy of small expeditions, a Britishforce under Sir John Stuart was landed in Calabria to raise thepeasantry, and on July 4, defeated the French at the point of thebayonet in the battle of Maida. This action shook the confidence ofEurope in the superiority of the French infantry, and saved Sicily fromFrance, but the French troops remained in possession of the Italianmainland. The prestige of Great Britain was raised by the conquest ofthe Dutch colony of the Cape of Good Hope in January by a naval andmilitary force sent out by Pitt under the command of Sir Home Popham andGeneral, now Sir David, Baird, but was damaged by a futile expedition toSouth America, undertaken by Popham without orders from the homegovernment. The city of Buenos Ayres was taken, indeed, in June byGeneral Beresford, but it was retaken by the Spaniards in August, andsoldiers who could ill be spared from the European conflict nowimpending were lavished on a chimerical project on the other side of theAtlantic. 

The short administration of Grenville, so inactive in its foreignpolicy, is memorable only for one redeeming measure of home-policy--theabolition of the slave trade. Before Fox's death, the attention ofparliament had been divided mainly between Windham's abortive schemefor a vast standing army, to be raised on the basis of limited service, and the secret inquiry into the conduct of the Princess of Wales. Thisresulted in her being acquitted of the more scandalous charges againsther, but on the advice of the cabinet, she was censured by the king forunseemly levity of behaviour. On October 24 parliament was dissolved. Itwas a foolish dissolution, for ministerial convenience only, and aimednot merely at strengthening the ministry, but at weakening the torysection within the ministry. The election was not well managed, and theking withheld the subscription of Ł12, 000 with which he was accustomedto assist his ministers for the time being at a general election. Stillthe ministry obtained a considerable majority. [32] The new parliamentmet on December 15, and on March 25, 1807, the abolition bill, havingpassed the house of lords in spite of strong opposition, was carried inthe commons by 283 to 16. Thus ended a philanthropic struggle, whichbegan in 1783, when the quakers petitioned against the trade. Threeyears later Clarkson began his crusade. Two bills in favour of abolitionwere carried by the house of commons before the close of the eighteenthcentury, but were thrown out in the house of lords. The same fate befella bill for a temporary suspension of the slave trade, which passed thecommons in 1804 under the spell of Wilberforce's persuasive eloquence;but Pitt's government caused a royal proclamation to be issued, which atleast checked the spread of the nefarious traffic in the newly conqueredcolonies. A larger measure failed to pass the house of commons in 1805, but in 1806 Fox and Grenville succeeded in committing both houses to anopen condemnation of the trade. This was followed on March 25, 1807, byan enactment entirely prohibiting the slave trade from and after January1, 1808, though it was not made felony to engage in it until a furtheract was carried by Brougham in 1811. 

[Pageheading: _FALL OF GRENVILLE'S MINISTRY. _]

In default of important legislative tasks, the parliament which expiredin 1806 devoted much attention to various features of the militarysystem, as well as to proposed reforms in the public accounts. Itsanctioned the principle of raising a great part of the war-expenses byspecial taxes rather than by loan. A property-tax of 10 per cent. Wasfreely voted, and this was then represented to be its permanent limit. The assessed taxes were increased at the same time by 10 per cent. , butwith an allowance in favour of poorer taxpayers for every child abovethe number of two. It is worthy of notice that, while Grenville'sministry was in office, Whitbread brought forward an elaborate plan notonly for reforming the poor laws but also for establishing a system ofnational education. Some changes in the cabinet were necessitated by thedeath of Fox. Howick became foreign secretary and was succeeded at theadmiralty by Thomas Grenville, brother of the prime minister, mostfamous as a book-collector. Fitzwilliam retired at the same time on theground of ill-health. He retained his seat in the cabinet, but wassucceeded as lord president by Sidmouth, while Fox's nephew, LordHolland, succeeded Sidmouth as lord privy seal. 

The fall of the whig government in March, 1807, was due to a causesimilar to that which had brought about the retirement of Pitt in 1801. The Duke of Bedford, who was lord lieutenant of Ireland, had urged theimportance of making some concessions to Roman catholics. An Irish actof 1793 had opened commissions in the army as high as the rank ofcolonel to Roman catholics, and the ministry obtained the reluctantconsent of the king to the extension of this concession to Romancatholics throughout his dominions. Without having fully ascertained theking's mind, Howick, on behalf of his colleagues, moved for leave tobring in a bill opening all commissions in the army and navy to Romancatholics. The king at once refused his sanction, and the government, finding that they could not carry their bill, agreed to withdraw it. This decision was announced to the king in a cabinet minute, drawn up ata meeting from which Ellenborough, Erskine, and Sidmouth, whosympathised with the king, were excluded, and from which Fitzwilliam andSpencer were absent owing to ill-health. The minute went on to recordtheir adhesion to the policy embodied in the bill, reserving the rightto advise the king on any future occasion in accordance with thatpolicy. Thereupon, Sidmouth, who had already sent in his resignation, Eldon, Portland, and Malmesbury, with the concurrence of the Duke ofYork and Spencer Perceval, urged the king to make a stand upon hisprerogative. He did so, by requiring the ministers who had signed theminute, to give him a written pledge that they would never press uponhim further concessions, direct or indirect, to the Roman catholics. This pledge they properly declined, and accepted the consequence byresignation. Spencer was present at the meeting which arrived at thisconclusion and concurred in the decision of his colleagues. [33]

A new administration was formed by Portland, as nominal head, but withPerceval as its real leader and chancellor of the exchequer, Canning asforeign secretary, Hawkesbury as home secretary, and Castlereagh asminister for war and the colonies. Camden, Eldon, Westmorland, andChatham resumed the offices they had held before the death of Pitt, Mulgrave became first lord of the admiralty, and Earl Bathurst presidentof the board of trade. In this government, too, Sir Arthur Wellesley, the future Duke of Wellington, who had returned in 1805 from a brilliantmilitary career in India, held office outside the cabinet as chiefsecretary for Ireland. Spencer Perceval was a half-brother of the Earlof Egmont and brother of Lord Arden. He enjoyed a large practice at thebar and had made his mark as a parliamentary debater when filling theoffices, first of solicitor-general, and then of attorney-general underAddington. He had held the latter office again under Pitt. Not the leastsource of his influence was his steady and determined opposition to theRoman catholic claims. 

[Pageheading: _NON-INTERVENTION. _]

After a short but animated debate on the important constitutionalquestion raised by the circumstances of the change of ministers, parliament was again dissolved on April 27. The king's speech in closingthe session was virtually a personal appeal to his people, and amajority was returned in favour of the new ministry. This result may besaid to mark the last triumph of George III. In maintaining theprinciple of personal government. "A just and enlightened toleration"was announced as the substitute for catholic relief. Still, a certainrevival of independent popular opinion may be traced in the return ofSir Francis Burdett and Lord Cochrane for Westminster. It was not untilJune 22 that parliament assembled, and the engrossing interest offoreign events left but little room for discussions on home-policy. Amotion by Whitbread, however, bore fruit in a bill for establishingparochial schools, which Eldon successfully opposed in the house oflords, mainly on the ground that it would take popular education out ofthe hands of the clergy. The same not unnatural apathy about homeaffairs prevailed throughout the session of 1808, which began on January31, and though a large number of acts were placed on the statute book inthis and succeeding years, the mass of them, including many relating toIreland, were essentially of a local or occasional character. Anexception must be recognised in the partial success of a motion for thereform of the criminal law, which was proposed by Sir Samuel Romilly, famous for his efforts in the cause of humanity, and which resulted inthe abolition of capital punishment for the offence of pocket-picking. 

During this critical period, when Great Britain was gradually driftinginto a position of isolation, the course of parliamentary historybecomes inseparable from the progress of those mighty events on thecontinent, which Grenville's government would fain have treated asoutside the sphere of British interests. For, notwithstanding Windham'sschemes for a reconstruction of the army, that government had allowedthe naval and military establishments of Great Britain to fall belowtheir former standard. The leading idea of their policy wasnon-intervention, and at the opening of 1807, there was no longer anythought of sending a force to cope with Napoleon's veterans on thecontinent When in 1805 a British force was operating in North Germany, it was possible that if Prussia had been faithful to her engagements, the disaster of Austerlitz might at least have been partially retrieved. It was otherwise when, after the collapse of Prussia, France and Russiastood face to face with each other. The drawn battle of Eylau in EastPrussia, marked by fearful carnage, was fought on February 8, 1807. Thischeck, breaking the spell of Napoleon's victorious career, had aremarkable effect in raising the spirits of the allies, Russia, Sweden, and Prussia, some remains of whose army were still in the field. Thesepowers now drew closer together, but they received a lukewarm supportfrom Great Britain, which might have done much to save Europe by timelyreinforcements and liberal subsidies. In reply to an urgent appeal fromthe tsar for a loan of Ł6, 000, 000, the Grenville ministry doled outŁ500, 000 to Russia, and a still more pitiful gift to Prussia. No troopswere sent to aid Sweden on the Baltic coast, although, when, atNapoleon's instigation, Turkey declared war against Russia, expeditionswere despatched to Alexandria and the Dardanelles. The notion of makingwar on a large scale, in concert with allies, on the continent ofEurope, as in the days of Marlborough, and even of Lord Granby, seems tohave vanished from the minds of English statesmen, except Castlereagh, who always advocated concentrated action. 

The succession of Portland and Canning to Grenville and Howick broughtno immediate change in our insular policy and the new government hadbeen in office for above three months before a British force at lastappeared in the Swedish island of Rügen. It arrived too late, Danzigsurrendered in May, and on June 14 Napoleon obtained a decisive victoryover the Russian army and its Prussian contingent at Friedland. Russianow gave a supreme example of that national selfishness, and contemptfor the rights of independent states which had dominated the counsels ofsovereigns ever since the first partition of Poland. Doubtless the tsarmight plead that Great Britain, too, had been wasting her strength inselfish attempts to secure her mastery of the seas, and to open newmarkets for her trade. He also deeply resented her recent failure to aidhim in the hour of his utmost need, while he still cherished the policyof the "armed neutrality, " and was eager to prosecute his designsagainst Turkey. Dazzled and flattered by Napoleon, he welcomed overturesfor peace at the expense of Great Britain, and there is no doubt thathis imaginative nature indulged in the vision of a regenerated Europe, divided between himself as emperor of the east and Napoleon as emperorof the west. It is therefore far from surprising that he should haveheld a private interview with Napoleon, on a raft in the Niemen, whichled to the treaty of Tilsit on July 7. 

[Pageheading: _THE TREATY OF TILSIT. _]

This treaty, in which the King of Prussia shared as a helpless partner, contained both public and secret articles, but the distinction was notvery material, for the secret articles almost immediately became knownto Canning. The general effect of the whole agreement was the utterhumiliation of Prussia, the recognition by that country and Russia ofall Napoleon's acquisitions, and their combination with France againstthe maritime claims and conquests of Great Britain. The westernprovinces of Prussia were to be incorporated with other Germanannexations to form the new kingdom of Westphalia; Prussian Poland wasto be converted into the duchy of Warsaw under the crown of Saxony, towhich a right of passage through Silesia was reserved; and Berlin withother great Prussian fortresses were to remain in the hands of theFrench until an exorbitant war indemnity should have been paid. [34] Atone stroke Prussia was thus reduced to a second-rate power, with aterritory little greater than it possessed before the first partition ofPoland. The rule of Joseph Bonaparte at Naples, that of Louis inHolland, and the confederation of the Rhine, were solemnly confirmed. Above all, Russia pledged herself to join France in coercing Sweden, Denmark, and Portugal into an adoption of the organised commercialexclusion, known as the "continental system, " and hostility to GreatBritain in the event of her resistance. If Sweden refused to join thisleague, Denmark was to be compelled to declare war on her. 

No sooner did it receive information of this alliance than the Britishgovernment despatched a naval armament to Denmark and landed troops, which were soon reinforced by those withdrawn from Rügen. There had beenno open rupture with Denmark, though much irritation existed betweenDenmark and Great Britain with reference to neutral commerce. But therewere the best reasons for believing that the Danish fleet, as well asthat of Portugal, would be demanded by France and Russia, to be employedagainst Great Britain, and it was certain that Denmark could notwithstand such pressure. The British envoy, Jackson, was accordinglyinstructed to offer Denmark a treaty of alliance, of which one conditionwas to be the deposit of her fleet on hire with the British government. The proposal was accompanied by a threat of force, and the crown prince, with a spirit worthy of admiration, refused the terms. In consequence aperemptory summons to deliver up her ships of war and naval stores wasaddressed to the governor of Copenhagen by the British commanders, Admiral Gambier and Lord Cathcart, under whom Sir Arthur Wellesley wasentrusted with the reserve. The surrender, if made peaceably, was to bein the nature of a deposit, and the fleet was to be restored at the endof the war. The governor returned a temporising reply, and a bombardmentof Copenhagen followed (September 2); the fleet was brought to Englandas prize of war; and Denmark naturally became the enemy of GreatBritain. [35] Sweden declined the proffered alliance of France andRussia, and actually invaded Norway, then a part of the Danish kingdom. The result was the loss of Finland and Swedish Pomerania. The king, Gustavus IV. , resembled Charles XII. In quixotic temperament, but not inability; and Sir John Moore, sent to his support with an army of 10, 000men, found it hopeless to co-operate with him. Shortly afterwards, hissubjects formed the same opinion, and he was compelled to make way forhis uncle, who succeeded as Charles XIII. With Marshal Bernadotte ascrown prince. In consequence of this change Sweden became reconciled toRussia, and estranged from Great Britain. 

The seizure of the Danish fleet, in time of so-called peace, rousedgreat indignation throughout most of Europe, and, in some degree, strained the conscience of the British parliament itself. The justiceand wisdom of it were strenuously challenged in both houses, especiallyby Grenville, Sidmouth, and Lord Darnley, who moved an address to thecrown embodying an impressive protest against it. It was defended, however, by the high authority of the Marquis Wellesley, as well as byCanning and other ministers, on the simple ground of military necessity. Napoleon himself never ceased to denounce it as an international outrageof the highest enormity. This did not prevent his doing his best tojustify it and to imitate it by sending Junot's expedition to Portugal, with instructions to seize the Portuguese fleet at Lisbon. It is strangethat in the debates on this subject, peace with France was still treatedon both sides as a possibility; but Canning declared that neitherRussian nor Austrian mediation could have been accepted as impartial, or as affording the least hope of pacification. However, on September25, the king addressed a declaration to Europe, in which, afterjustifying himself in regard to Copenhagen, he professed his readinessto accept conditions of peace "consistent with the maritime rights andpolitical existence of Great Britain". 

[Pageheading: _COMMERCIAL EXCLUSION. _]

Still more reasonable attacks, supported by strong petitions, were madeby the opposition upon the "orders in council, " whereby the Britishgovernment retaliated against Napoleon's "continental system". Thissystem was founded on a firm belief, shared by the French people, thatGreat Britain, as mistress of the seas, was the one great obstacle tohis imperial ambition, and the most formidable enemy of Frenchaggrandisement, only to be crushed by the ruin of her trade. Prussiahad, in conformity with her treaty of February 15, 1806, issued aproclamation on March 28 of that year, closing her ports, which wouldnow include those of Hanover, against British trade. The Britishgovernment replied by first laying an embargo on Prussian vessels in theharbours of Great Britain and Ireland, and by proclaiming a blockade ofthe coast of Europe from Brest to the Elbe. This was followed on May 14by an order in council for seizing all vessels found navigating underPrussian colours. As yet the policy of commercial exclusion had not beencarried to any great length, but the Berlin decree issued by Napoleon onNovember 21 after the battle of Jena proclaimed the whole of the BritishIsles to be in a state of blockade, prohibited all commerce with themfrom the ports of France and her dependent states, confiscated allBritish merchandise in such ports, and declared all British subjects incountries occupied by French troops to be prisoners of war. Howickreplied by further orders in council in January, 1807, forbiddingneutrals to trade between the ports of France and her allies, or betweenthe ports of nations which should observe the Berlin decree, on pain ofthe confiscation of the ship and cargo. On the 27th another decree, issued at Warsaw, ordered the seizure in the Hanse Towns of all Britishgoods and colonial produce. The reply of Great Britain was a stricterblockade of the North German coast. 

The accession of Russia to Napoleon's commercial policy at Tilsit seemedto have brought the combination against British trade to its furthestdevelopment, and it was answered by new orders in council, treating anyport from which the British flag was excluded as if actually blockaded, and further limiting the carriage by neutral vessels of produce fromhostile colonies. The Milan decree issued on December 17, and furtherorders in council published during the same winter, carried to greaterextremes, if possible, this intolerable form of commercial warfare, under which neutral commerce was gradually crushed out of existence. Great Britain, owing to her command of the sea, was more independent ofthis kind of commerce than her rival, and both the decrees and theorders in council inflicted far more damage on France and her alliesthan on Great Britain. But neither party was able to enforce completelyits policy of commercial exclusion. Europe could not dispense withBritish goods or colonial produce carried in British vessels. The lawwas deliberately set aside by a regular licensing system, and evaded bywholesale smuggling; neutral ships continued to ply between continentalports, and Napoleon did not disdain to clothe his troops with 50, 000British overcoats during the Eylau campaign. Still, Great Britain wasenabled to cripple, if not to destroy, the merchant shipping of allother countries, and the interests of consumers all over Europe wereenlisted against the author of the continental system. On the otherhand, a heavy blow was dealt to friendly relations between Great Britainand the United States, the chief victim of these belligerentpretensions. [36]

[Pageheading: _FRUITLESS EXPEDITIONS. _]

In the meantime, the prestige of Great Britain had been injured by threepetty and abortive expeditions projected by the Grenville ministry. Thefirst of these was sent out to complete the conquest of Buenos Ayres, the recapture of which was unknown in England. Sir Samuel Auchmuty, whocommanded it, finding himself too late to occupy that city, attacked andtook Monte Video by storm with much skill and spirit, on February 3, 1807. Shortly afterwards, he was superseded by General Whitelocke, bringing reinforcements, with orders to recover Buenos Ayres. In this hesignally failed, owing to gross tactical errors. The British troops werealmost passively slaughtered in the streets, and Whitelocke agreed towithdraw the remains of his force, and give up Monte Video, on conditionof all prisoners being surrendered. On his return home, he was tried bya court-martial and cashiered, being also declared "totally unfit toserve his majesty in any military capacity whatever". 

Equally ill-managed was the naval expedition, directed to supportRussia, then in close alliance with Great Britain, by coercing thesultan into a rupture with France. Collingwood, who was not consulted, was required to entrust the command of this expedition, which started inFebruary, 1807, to Sir John Duckworth. Everything depended onpromptitude, and the admiral found little difficulty in forcing thepassage of the Dardanelles, as it was then almost unfortified. Havingreached Constantinople, he allowed himself to waste time in fruitlessnegotiations, contrary to Collingwood's earnest advice, and not onlyeffected nothing but gravely imperilled his return. Instructed by theFrench minister Sébastiani, the Turks had armed their coasts, anderected batteries along the Dardanelles, through which the British fleetmade its way with considerable loss. Instead of being detached from theFrench alliance, the Porte was thrown into its arms and became moreembittered than ever against Russia. It was soon involved in a seriousconflict with that country--for the possession of Wallachia andMoldavia--only to be deserted again by France under the compact made atTilsit. The expedition to Egypt, planned in combination with theexpedition to the Dardanelles, ended in a still worse disaster. ThoughGeneral Fraser, its commander, was able to surprise Alexandria on March30, he awaited in vain the expected news of Duckworth's success; heproceeded to attack Rosetta with as little generalship as Whitelocke hadshown at Buenos Ayres, and encountered a similar repulse. An attempt tobesiege the town met with no better fortune: the British troopssubmitted to a capitulation, evacuated Egypt, and sailed for Sicily inSeptember, 1807. In an imperial manifesto addressed to the French nationat the end of this year, the British failures at Buenos Ayres, Constantinople, and Alexandria were paraded, together with our allegedcrime against the rights of nations at Copenhagen. 

In the early months of 1808 the continental system was extended by theestablishment of French administration at Rome, and the annexation ofthe eastern ports of the Papal States to the kingdom of Italy. OnFebruary 18 of the same year Austria under French pressure adopted thesystem. Sweden and Turkey were now the only continental countries leftoutside it, but the retention of Sicily by the Bourbon king rendered iteasy for British commerce to enter Italy through that island. Theirritation of neutrals increased as the area of commercial exclusionwidened, but the United States were now the only neutral power of anyconsequence. After April 17 Napoleon took the high-handed step ofconfiscating all American shipping in his ports. In spite of thisaggression, the president and congress of the United States continued tofavour France against Great Britain. The story of the commercial warfarebetween Great Britain and the United States will be related more fullyhereafter. For the present, it is sufficient to mention that an act, placing an embargo on foreign vessels in American ports, was passed bycongress on December 22, 1807, and another on March 1, 1809, forbiddingcommercial intercourse with Great Britain and France and the coloniesoccupied by them. 

Meanwhile Great Britain continued to enforce her maritime rights, including that of searching American merchantmen for British-bornsailors, and impressing them at the will of British naval officers. These grievances ultimately led to a war between Great Britain andAmerica in 1812. The continental system, however, did not long remain socomplete as in the beginning of 1808. Junot's expedition to Portugal hadled to a French occupation of that country before the end of 1807. Theconquest of Portugal was followed, as we shall see later, by a partialconquest of Spain. This threw the Spaniards back upon the Britishalliance and afforded an opportunity for the liberation of Portugal, sothat from May, 1808, Great Britain once more had a large seaboard opento her commerce. The early success of the Spanish resistance to France, and other events in the peninsula hereafter to be recorded, encouragedAustria to arm again; and on the news of the capitulation of the Frencharmy at Baylen in July, she pushed forward her preparations withredoubled energy. A national movement arose simultaneously in NorthGermany, but the Prussian government dared not head it so long asRussia remained faithful to the French alliance. 

[Pageheading: _NAPOLEON AT ERFURT. _]

Notwithstanding a peremptory declaration from the tsar after the seizureof the Danish fleet, Russia had nothing to gain by war with GreatBritain. She was bound to France by the prospect held forth to her atTilsit of the conquest of Finland and the partition of Turkey, but shewas inwardly desirous of peace with Great Britain. Napoleon, on theother hand, saw in the partition of Turkey an opportunity of striking atIndia, and had actually given orders for naval preparations to be madein Spain, when all thought of eastern conquest had to be postponed owingto the success of the Spanish patriots. After a conference betweenNapoleon and the tsar at Erfurt a secret convention was signed onOctober 12, by which France sanctioned Russian conquests in Finland andthe Danubian provinces, and Russia recognised the Bonaparte dynasty inSpain and promised to assist France in a defensive war against Austria. The two powers despatched a joint note to Great Britain inviting her tomake peace, on the principle of _uti possidetis_. Canning replied thathe was prepared to negotiate if his allies, especially Sweden and theSpanish patriots, who were at that time in actual possession of almostthe entire country, were included in the peace. On November 19 Napoleonexpressed his willingness to treat with the British allies, but not withthe Spanish "rebels, " as he styled them. Alexander took up a similarposition, speaking of the Spanish "insurgents, " and expresslyrecognising Joseph as King of Spain. Thus ended these pacific overtures, and on November 3 the official _exposé_, annually issued in Paris, described Great Britain as "the enemy of the world". 

The year 1808 is memorable in English history for the activeintervention of Great Britain in the affairs of Spain which developedinto the "Peninsular war". [37] This intervention was rendered possibleand effective by the organisation of our army system in 1807, which wasdue to Castlereagh, though he received little credit for it. Under thissystem, the old constitutional force of the militia was made the basisof the whole military establishment. By the militia balloting bill andthe militia transfer bill, that force, largely composed of substitutes, and bound only to home-service, was practically converted into arecruiting-ground for the regular army, and proved sufficient to makegood all the losses incurred during the long campaigns in Portugal andSpain. The army thus raised contained, no doubt, many soldiers of badcharacter, whose misdeeds, after the furious excitement of an escalade, or under the heart-breaking stress of a retreat, sometimes broughtdisgrace upon the British name. But these men, side by side withsteadier comrades, bore themselves like heroes on many a bloodstainedfield; they quailed not before the conquering legions of Austerlitz andWagram; they could "go anywhere or do anything" under trusted leaders;and they restored the military reputation of their country before theeyes of Europe. To have forged such an instrument of war was no meanadministrative exploit. To have maintained its efficiency steadily onthe whole, though sometimes with a faint-hearted parsimony, and to haveloyally supported its commander against the cavils of a factiousopposition superior in parliamentary ability, for a period of sevenyears, must be held to redeem the tory government from the charge ofpolitical weakness. 

[Pageheading: _PARLIAMENTARY ZEAL. _]

At the beginning of 1809, however, the interest of parliament was lessconcentrated on Sir Arthur Wellesley's first campaign in Portugal, oreven on the convention of Cintra, than on the scandals attaching to theoffice of commander-in-chief, held by the Duke of York. Though anincapable general, the duke had shown himself, on the whole, anexcellent administrator, and in the opinion of the best officers haddone much for the discipline and efficiency of the British army. Unfortunately, Mrs. Clarke, his former mistress, had received bribes forusing her influence with the duke to procure military appointments. Colonel Wardle, an obscure member of parliament, to whom Mrs. Clarke hadtemporarily transferred herself after being discarded by the duke, animated by a desire to damage the ministry, came forward with chargesdirectly implicating him in her corrupt practices, and incidentallybrought similar accusations against Portland and Eldon. The governmentfoolishly agreed to an inquiry on the Duke of York's behalf, and it wasconducted before a committee of the whole house, which sat from January26 to March 20. In the course of this inquiry, Sir Arthur Wellesleybore strong testimony in his favour, and the duke addressed a letter tothe speaker, declaring his innocence of corruption. Though Wardle andhis associates pressed for his dismissal, Perceval ultimately carried amotion acquitting him not only of corruption but of connivance withcorruption. The majority, however, was small, and the duke thought itnecessary to resign on March 20, whereupon the house of commons decidedto proceed no further. A curious sequel of this case was an actionagainst Wardle by an upholsterer, who had furnished a house for Mrs. Clarke by Wardle's orders, in consideration of her services in givinghostile evidence against her former protector. The plaintiff obtainedŁ2, 000 damages, and the law-suit was the means of producing a reactionin popular feeling in favour of the duke. 

This scandal in high places quickened the zeal of parliament for generalpurity of administration, and led to a disclosure of some grave abuses. One of these, connected with the disposal of captured Dutch property, dated as far back as 1795. Others were found to exist in the navydepartment and the distribution of Indian patronage; others related toparliamentary elections. Perceval brought in a bill to check the saleand brokerage of offices, nor did Castlereagh himself escape the chargeof having procured the election of Lord Clancarty to parliament by theoffer of an Indian writership to a borough-monger. A frank explanationsaved him from censure, especially as it appeared that the offer hadnever taken effect. The charge was renewed, in a different form, againstboth him and Perceval, and their accusers moved for a trial at bar. Butas it turned out that undue influence rather than corruption was theiralleged offence, and as the avowed object of the resolution was to forceon parliamentary reform, it was negatived by an immense majority. Nevertheless, the object was not wholly defeated. 

The removal of the Duke of York from the command of the army wassingularly inopportune, for Sir David Dundas had scarcely been appointedas his successor when a juncture arose specially demanding a combinationof energy and experience. The British government, already engaged in thePeninsular war, had at last resolved to take a vigorous part in the newand desperate struggle between France and Austria in Southern Germany. The latent spirit of German nationality, aroused by Napoleon's ruthlesstreatment of Prussia, and quickened into a flame by sympathy with theuprising in Spain, was embodied in the secret association of the_Tugendbund_; and Austria, smarting under a sense of her ownhumiliation, mustered up courage to assume the leadership of a nationalmovement. South Germany, governed by old dynasties, which profited bythe French alliance, displayed as yet no symptoms of disaffection toFrance; but in North Germany the old dynasties had been either humbledor deposed, and the general ferment among the people, needed, as theAustrians believed, only the presence of a regular army to break outinto a national revolt against the foreigner. Prussia, it is true, wasstill unwilling to move, because Russia was hostile; but the Austriancourt knew well the lukewarmness of Russia's attachment to France, andhoped that a national upheaval would carry the Prussian government alongwith it. No one, in fact, had played a more active part in rousingNorthern Germany than the Prussian minister, Stein, whom FrederickWilliam, by Napoleon's advice, had called to his councils after Tilsit, and who was now compelled to resign his office and take refuge inAustria. 

[Pageheading: _NAPOLEON IN AUSTRIA. _]

The British government was aware of the situation in Germany when itreceived a request in January, 1809, for the despatch of a British forceto the mouth of the Elbe. Austria was, however, still nominally at warwith Great Britain, and George III. , perhaps not unreasonably, refusedto give her active military assistance till peace was concluded. Meanwhile a subsidy of Ł250, 000 in bullion was despatched to Trieste, and inquiries were set on foot as to the means of supplying such amilitary expedition as Austria desired. [38] On March 22, Dundas, who hadonly been a few days in office as commander-in-chief, reported that15, 000 men could not be spared from home service, and, in consequence, no extensive preparations were made until the muster rolls in Juneshowed that 40, 000 troops might safely be employed abroad. Thisconvinced the government that a large force could be sent withoutinterfering with home defence, as Castlereagh had long contended; andthroughout June and July the naval and military departments were busy inpreparing for what has since left a sinister memory as the Walcherenexpedition. Meanwhile, as if the passion of frittering away resourceswere irresistible, a smaller force was despatched, as a kind of feint, against the kingdom of Naples. It consisted of 15, 000 British troops anda body of Sicilians. Bailing from Palermo early in June it captured theislands of Ischia and Procida and the castle of Scylla, and threw Naplesinto consternation. But the attack was not pushed, and it was too lateto be of any assistance to the Austrians who had already been expelledfrom the Italian peninsula. At last, in July, the treaty of peace withAustria was signed and the great armament was ready to sail. 

But Napoleon had not awaited the deliberations of British statesmen. Hurrying back from Spain, he remained in Paris only long enough toorganise a campaign in South Germany, and left the capital to join hisarmies on April 13. A week earlier, the Archduke Charles, havingremodelled the Austrian army, issued a proclamation affirming Austria tobe the champion of European liberty. On the 9th Austria declared waragainst Bavaria, the ally of France, and her troops crossed the Inn. Onthe 17th, when Napoleon arrived at Donauwörth, he found the archduke inoccupation of Ratisbon. His presence turned the tide, and, after threevictories, he was once more on the road to Vienna. The most important ofthese victories was that of Eckmühl, and he regarded the manoeuvre bywhich it was won as the finest in his military career. On May 13 theFrench entered Vienna, but the Archduke Charles with an army of nearly200, 000 men was facing him on the left bank of the Danube. Napoleon'sarmy crossed and encountered the Austrians on the great plain betweenAspern and Essling. He was repulsed and fell back upon Lobau, betweenwhich and the Vienna side of the Danube the bridge of boats had beenswept away by a rise of the river and by balks of timber floated down bythe Austrians. In this dangerous position he remained shut up forseveral weeks. He finally succeeded in throwing across a light bridge bywhich his army regained the left bank on the night of July 4. Findingtheir position turned the Austrians took up their stand on the tablelandof Wagram. On July 6 another pitched battle was fought, which, in thenumber of combatants engaged and in the losses inflicted on both sides, must rank with the later conflicts of Borodino and Leipzig. A hard wonvictory rested with the French, but it was not such a victory as that ofAusterlitz or Jena, though it secured the neutrality, at least, ofAustria for the next four years. Her army retreated into Bohemia, and onJuly 12 an armistice was signed at Znaim in Moravia, which formed thebasis of a peace concluded at Vienna on October 14. 

Nothing remained for Great Britain but to abandon the auxiliaryenterprise so long planned, but so often delayed, or to carry it throughindependently, with little hope of a decisive issue. The latteralternative was adopted. The very day on which the news of the armisticearrived witnessed the departure of the greatest single armament eversent out fully equipped from the shores of Great Britain. The deplorablefailure of the Walcheren expedition has obscured both its magnitude andits probable importance had it only proved successful. The command ofthe fleet was given to Sir Richard Strachan, a competent admiral; thatof the army to Chatham, who sat in the cabinet as master-general of theordnance, an incompetent general, who owed his nomination to royalfavour. This was the first blunder; the second was the utter neglect ofmedical and sanitary precautions against the notoriously unhealthyclimate of Walcheren in the autumn months. The armament sailed from theDowns on July 28, in the finest weather and with a display of intensenational enthusiasm. It consisted of thirty-five ships of the line, witha swarm of smaller war-vessels and transports, carrying nearly 40, 000troops, two battering-trains, and a complete apparatus of militarystores. Its destination, though more than suspected by the enemy, hadbeen officially kept secret at home. Castlereagh must be held largelyresponsible for the delays and for the unwise choice of a general whichmarred its success, but he showed true military sagacity in designatingthe point of attack. Inspired by him, the British government, distrusting the national movement in North Germany, had decided tostrike at Antwerp, which Napoleon had supplied with new docks, andwhich, now that the mouth of the Scheldt had been reopened, threatenedto become the commercial rival of London. The town was entirelyunprepared, and a blow dealt here seemed the best way of doing as muchharm as possible to France and at the same time gaining a nationaladvantage for Great Britain. 

[Pageheading: _THE WALCHEREN EXPEDITION. _]

Chatham had received very precise instructions from Castlereagh, theobjects prescribed to him being, (1) the capture or destruction of theenemy's ships, either building or afloat at Antwerp or Flushing, orafloat in the Scheldt; (2) the destruction of the arsenals and dockyardsat Antwerp, Terneuze, and Flushing; (3) the reduction of the island ofWalcheren; (4) the rendering of the Scheldt no longer navigable to shipsof war. These objects were named, as far as possible, in the order oftheir importance, and Chatham was specially directed to land troops atSandvliet and push on straight to Antwerp, with the view of taking it bya _coup de main_. Napoleon, who clearly foretold the catastropheawaiting the British troops in the malarious swamps of Walcheren, afterwards admitted that Antwerp could have been captured by a suddenassault. Chatham obeyed his general orders, but, instead of taking themin the order of importance, gave precedence to the objects which couldmost easily be accomplished. By prompt action the French fleet, whichwas moored off Flushing, might have been captured, but it was allowed toescape to Antwerp. By August 2 the British were in complete possessionof the mouth of the Scheldt, and had taken Bath opposite Sandvliet, while Antwerp was still almost unprotected. But Chatham concentrated hisattention on the siege of Flushing, which surrendered, after three days'bombardment, on August 16, contrary to Napoleon's expectation. Antwerphad meanwhile been put in a state of defence, and was now protected bythe enemy's fleet, while French and Dutch troops were pouring down tothe Scheldt. After ten days of inactivity, Chatham advanced hisheadquarters to Bath, found that further advance was impossible, andrecommended the government to recall the expedition, leaving 15, 000 mento defend the island of Walcheren. This advice was adopted, but thegarrison left in Walcheren suffered most severely from fever in thatswampy island. Eventually, on December 24, Walcheren was abandoned, theworks and naval basins of Flushing having been previously destroyed. Thedestruction of Flushing was the sole result of this expedition. 

The failure of the British to make any serious impression on the Frencheither in the Low Countries or in Spain induced Austria to consent topeace with France. By the peace of Vienna, signed on October 14, sheceded Salzburg and a part of Upper Austria to Bavaria, West Galicia tothe duchy of Warsaw, and a part of Carinthia with Trieste and theIllyrian provinces to France. A small strip of Galicia was ceded to theRussian tsar, who had rendered France some very half-hearted assistanceand was further alienated by the extension of the duchy of Warsaw. Austria was enslaved to the will of Napoleon. She had abandoned theTyrolese peasants whose loyal insurrection against the Bavarians was themost heroic incident in the war, and she now joined the other nations ofthe continent in excluding the commerce of Great Britain, which had madea powerful diversion in Spain and an imposing though futile diversion onthe Scheldt to save her from national annihilation. 

While the Walcheren expedition was preparing, two additions were made tothe cabinet. Lord Granville Leveson-Gower, brother of the Marquis ofStafford, was admitted in June as secretary at war, and in JulyHarrowby, who was created an earl, became president of the board ofcontrol with a seat in the cabinet. After the fate of the expeditionbecame known, though before its final withdrawal, a serious quarrel tookplace between Canning and Castlereagh. Personal jealousies had longexisted between these two statesmen, both half-Irish, half-English, andof approximately the same age, yet widely different in character. Canning was the most brilliant orator of his day, and no less persuasivein private conversation than in public orations, gifted with an agilebrain that leaped readily from one idea or one project to another, butcursed with a bitter wit which lightly aroused enduring enmities, andwhich, coupled with an excessive vanity, rendered him unpopular with hiscolleagues, and made it difficult for any one to take him seriously;while his rival, not less able, and much more steady and trustworthy, askilful manager of men, was scarcely able to pronounce a coherentsentence. Early in April Canning pressed upon the Duke of Portland thetransfer of Castlereagh to another office. Private communicationsfollowed between various members of the cabinet, and it was understoodthat Camden, as Castlereagh's friend, should apprise him of theprevailing view, which the king himself had approved under a threat ofCanning's resignation. The duke, however, begged Camden to postpone thedisclosure, and others of Castlereagh's friends urged Canning not toinsist upon the change pending the completion of the Walcherenexpedition. 

[Pageheading: _DUEL BETWEEN CANNING AND CASTLEREAGH. _]

As the scheme took shape in July Camden was to resign, and thus makepossible a shifting of offices, which was to result in the MarquisWellesley succeeding Castlereagh as secretary for war. At last, onSeptember 6, the duke informed Canning of his own intention to retire onthe ground of ill-health, and at the same time disclosed the fact thatno steps had been taken to prepare Castlereagh for the proposed changein his position. Thereupon Canning promptly sent in his own resignation, the duke resigned the same day, and Castlereagh, learning what hadpassed, followed his example two days later. [39] Believing that Canninghad been intriguing against him behind his back, under the guise offriendship, he demanded satisfaction on the 19th, and on the 21st[40]the duel was fought, in which Canning received a slight wound. Suchevents provoked little censure in those days, and it is pleasant toknow that Canning and Castlereagh afterwards acted cordially together ascolleagues. Their enmity broke up the government. The Duke of Portlanddid not long survive his withdrawal from office, and died on October 29;Leveson-Gower insisted on following Canning into retirement. 

Perceval was entrusted with the task of forming an administration, butthe new ministry was not formed without considerable negotiation. Canning vainly endeavoured to impress first on his colleagues and thenon the king his own pretensions to the highest office, while attempts, to which the king gave a reluctant assent, had been made to enlist theco-operation of Grenville and Howick, who succeeded his father as EarlGrey, in 1807, but they failed as all later attempts were destined tofail. The most influential motive governing their conduct was, doubtless, their feeling that they would not as ministers possess theking's confidence. Sidmouth's following had also been approached. Sidmouth himself was considered too obnoxious to some of Pitt'sfollowers to be a safe member of the new cabinet, but Vansittart wasoffered the chancellorship of the exchequer and Bragge, who had takenthe additional surname of Bathurst, the office of secretary at war. Theyrefused, however, to enter the ministry, unless accompanied by Sidmouthhimself. 

Perceval eventually became prime minister, retaining his former offices;Lord Bathurst, while remaining at the board of trade, presidedtemporarily at the foreign office, which was offered to the MarquisWellesley, then serving as British ambassador to the Spanish junta atSeville, and taken over by him in December. Hawkesbury, now Earl ofLiverpool, succeeded Castlereagh as secretary for war and the colonies, and was followed at the home office by Richard Ryder, a brother ofHarrowby. Harrowby himself gave up the board of control in November toMelville's son, Robert Dundas, who, however, was not made a member ofthe cabinet. Lord Palmerston, who had been a junior lord of theadmiralty under Portland, declined the chancellorship of the exchequer, and though he accepted Leveson-Gower's post as secretary at war, he wasby his own desire excluded from the cabinet. 

[Pageheading: _NEW BRITISH CONQUESTS. _]

While the close of the year 1809 was darkened by nationaldisappointment and political anxieties, the honour of British arms hadbeen amply vindicated in the Spanish peninsula, and the brilliantexploit of Lord Cochrane in Basque Roads had recalled the glories of theNile. Cochrane had already achieved marvels under Collingwood in theMediterranean, and notably off the Spanish coast, when he was selectedto conduct an attack by fireships on the French squadron blockaded underthe shelter of the islands of Aix and Oléron. This he carried out on thenight of April 11, with a dash and skill worthy of Nelson, and unlesschecked by Gambier, the admiral in command, who had been raised to thepeerage after the seizure of the Danish fleet in 1807, he must havesucceeded in destroying the whole of the enemy's ships. Gambier wasafterwards acquitted by a court martial of negligence, but the verdictof the public was against him. In the autumn Collingwood reduced theseven Ionian islands, and gained an important advantage by cutting out aconsiderable detachment of the Toulon fleet in the Bay of Genoa. In thecourse of the year, too, all the remaining French territory in the WestIndies, as well as the Isle of Bourbon in the Indian Ocean, was capturedby the British navy. But this unchallenged supremacy on the high seasdid not prevent the depredations of French gunboats on Britishmerchantmen in the channel. Indeed after the battle of Trafalgar, theFrench "sea-wasps" infesting the Channel were more active anddestructive than ever. 

On October 25, being the forty-ninth anniversary of his accession, thejubilee of George III. Was celebrated with hearty and sincererejoicings. His popularity was not unmerited. He was politicallyshortsighted, but within his range of vision few saw facts so clearly;he was obstinate and prejudiced, but his obstinacy was redeemed by amoral intrepidity of the highest order, and his prejudices were sharedby the mass of his people. Having lived through the seven years' war, the war of the American revolution, and the successive wars of GreatBritain against the French monarchy and the French republic, he was nowsupporting, with indomitable firmness, a war against the all-conqueringFrench empire--the most perilous in which this country was ever engaged. The colonial and Indian dominions of Great Britain, reduced by the lossof the North American colonies, had been greatly extended during hisreign in other quarters of the globe. His subjects regarded him as anEnglishman to the core; they knew him to be honest, religious, virtuous, and homely in his life; they justly believed him, in spite of hisfailings, to be a power for good in the land; and they rewarded him witha respect and affection granted to no other British sovereign of moderntimes before Queen Victoria. They had good cause to desire thecontinuance of his life and reason, knowing the character of hisheir-apparent, and contrasting the domestic habits of Windsor with thelicence of Carlton House. 

FOOTNOTES:

[31] Colchester, _Diary_ (Feb. 4, 1806), ii. , 35, 36. 

[32] Holland, _Memoirs of the Whig Party_, ii. , 91-94. 

[33] Holland, _Memoirs of the Whig Party, _ ii. , 173-205, 270-320;Colchester, _Diary_, ii. , 92-115; Malmesbury, _Diaries_, iv. , 357-72;Walpole, _Life of Perceval_, i. , 223-33; Buckingham, _Courts andCabinets_, iv. , 117-50. Holland accuses the king of treachery andduplicity, and Lewis (_Administrations of Great Britain_, p. 294)repeats this charge in milder terms. But the documents quoted do notprove any want of straightforwardness, and the king's conduct was thelogical consequence of his action in 1801. 

[34] In the following year Napoleon consented to evacuate all thePrussian fortresses except three, on condition that the Prussian armyshould not exceed a total of 40, 000 men. 

[35] _Annual Register_, xlix. (1807), 249-70, 731-38; Rose, in _EnglishHistorical Review_, xi. (1896), 82-92. 

[36] Captain Mahan, _The Influence of Sea Power upon the FrenchRevolution and Empire_, ii. , 272-357, shows that the policy of theorders in council was essential to British safety. 

[37] The course of this war is related continuously in chap. V. 

[38] Rose, _Life of Napoleon I. _, ii. , 190, note. 

[39] The best account of the quarrel, especially in its relation to thecomposition of the cabinet, is to be found in Walpole's _Life ofPerceval_, vol. I. , chap. Ix. , and vol. Ii. , chap. I. Lewis, _Administrations_, pp. 314-15, finds a double ground for Canning'sresignation in his failure to obtain the removal of Castlereagh from thewar office and in the refusal of the king and cabinet to allow him tosucceed Portland as prime minister. It is quite clear, however, that atthe time of Canning's resignation no decision had been come to about asuccessor to Portland. Some correspondence had passed between Canningand Perceval, in which each had refused to serve under the other, butthat this correspondence was unknown to the cabinet as a whole is provedby Mulgrave's letters to Lord Lonsdale of September 11 and 15 (Phipps, _Memoir of Ward_, pp. 210-17); in the former of these he discussesCanning's probable conduct without referring to this correspondence, while in the latter he only knows of such negotiations as subsequent tothe resignations of September 6 and 8. So, too, Eldon's letter to hiswife of September 11 (Twiss, _Life of Eldon_, ii. , 88-90), places thewhole correspondence between Canning and Perceval after Portland'sresignation on September 6. The king was not informed of Canning's viewsas to a successor to Portland till September 13, and the cabinet minuteof September 18, advising co-operation with Grenville and Grey, mentionsthe selection of Canning as prime minister as a course open to the king. 

[40] This is the date commonly given. The _Annual Register_, li. (1809), 239, gives the 22nd, while Perceval refers to the result of the duel ina letter dated the 20th (Colchester, _Diary_, ii. , 209). It is clear, however, that Canning did not receive Castlereagh's challenge till themorning of the 20th (see his letter in _Annual Register_, _loc. Cit. _, 505, also his detailed statement to Camden, _ibid. _, 525), and thereforethe duel cannot have taken place till the 21st. Lord Folkestone in aletter dated the 21st refers to the duel as having been fought at "7o'clock this morning" (_Creevey Papers_, i. , 96). 

 CHAPTER IV. 

 PERCEVAL AND LIVERPOOL. 

The administration of Perceval, covering the period from October, 1809, to May, 1812, coincided with a lull in the continental war save in thePeninsula, though it saw no pause in the progress of French annexation. Nor was it marked by many events of historical interest in domesticaffairs. When parliament was opened on January 23, 1810, it was naturalthat attention should chiefly be devoted to the Walcheren expedition, which the opposition illogically and unscrupulously contrived to use todisparage the operations of Sir Arthur Wellesley, now ViscountWellington, in Spain. Grenville, who argued with some reason that 40, 000British troops could have been employed to far better purpose in NorthGermany, would have been on stronger ground if he had complained thatfor want of them the British army had been unable to occupy Madrid. Castlereagh, indeed, had confessed to Wellesley that he could not sparethe necessary reinforcements, after the reserves had been exhausted inWalcheren; but it is by no means certain that Wellesley could havecollected provisions enough to feed a much larger force, or specieenough to pay for them. Liverpool was driven in reply to Grenville tomagnify the value of the capture of Flushing, as the necessary basis ofthe naval armaments which Napoleon had intended to launch againstEngland from the Scheldt. The government was also defended by the youngRobert Peel, lately elected to parliament. As the calamity wasirreparable, a committee of the whole house spent most of its time on aconstitutional question, regarding a private memorandum placed beforethe king by Chatham in his own defence. So irregular a proceeding wasproperly condemned, and Chatham resigned the mastership of the ordnance, but the policy of the Walcheren expedition was approved by a vote of thehouse of commons. Mulgrave received the office Chatham had vacated, andwas himself succeeded by Yorke at the admiralty. 

Parliament was next occupied by a question of privilege, in which SirFrancis Burdett, member for Westminster, then a favourite of thedemocracy, played a part resembling that of John Wilkes a generationearlier. Burdett had been for fourteen years a member of parliament, andhad been conspicuous from the first for the vehemence of his oppositionto the government, and more especially to its supposed infringements ofthe liberty of the subject. He had more recently taken an active part onbehalf of Wardle's attack on the Duke of York and had supported thecharges of ministerial corruption in the previous session. On thepresent occasion one John Gale Jones, president of a debating club, hadpublished in a notice of debate the terms of a resolution which his clubhad passed, condemning in extravagant language the exclusion ofstrangers from the house of commons. This was treated as a breach ofprivilege, and Jones was sent to Newgate by order of the house itself. Burdett, in a violent letter to Cobbett's _Register_, challenged theright of the house to imprison Jones by its own authority, and, after afierce debate lasting two nights, was adjudged by the house, on April 5, to have been guilty of a still more scandalous libel. Accordingly, thespeaker issued a warrant for his committal to the Tower. Burdettdeclared his resolution to resist arrest, the populace mustered in hisdefence, the riot act was read, and he was conveyed to prison by astrong military escort, on whose return more serious riots broke out, and were not quelled without bloodshed. On his release at the end of thesession a repetition of these scenes was prevented by the simpleexpedient of bringing him home by water. During his imprisonment hewrote an offensive letter to the speaker, and his colleague, LordCochrane, presented a violently worded petition from his Westminsterconstituents. In the following year he sued the speaker and thesergeant-at-arms in the court of king's bench, which decided against himon the ground that a power of commitment was necessary for themaintenance of the dignity of the house of commons, and its decisionwas confirmed, on appeal, by the court of exchequer chamber and thehouse of lords. 

[Pageheading: _THE CURRENCY QUESTION. _]

The most important subject of internal policy discussed in the sessionof 1810 was the state of the currency. Since 1797 cash payments had beensuspended, the issue of banknotes had been nearly doubled, and the priceof commodities had risen enormously. Whether these results had in theirturn promoted the expansion of foreign commerce and internal industrywas vigorously disputed by two rival schools of economists. The onething certain was the increasing scarcity of specie, and the seriousloss incurred in its provision for the service of the army in thePeninsula. Francis Horner, then rising to eminence, obtained theappointment of what became known as the "bullion committee" to inquireinto the anomalous conditions thus created, and took a leading part inthe preparation of its celebrated report, published on September 20. Thecommittee arrived at the conclusion that the high price of gold wasmainly due to excess in the paper-currency, and not, as alleged, to adrain of gold for the continental war. They attributed that excess to"the want of a sufficient check and control in the issues of paper fromthe Bank of England, and originally to the suspension of cash-payments, which removed the natural and true control". While allowing that papercould not be rendered suddenly convertible into specie withoutdislocating the entire business of the country, they recommended that anearly provision should be made by parliament for terminating thesuspension of cash-payments at the end of two years. These conclusionswere combated by Castlereagh and Vansittart, who afterwards, in 1811, succeeded in carrying several counter-resolutions, of which the generaleffect was to explain the admitted rise in the price of gold, for themost part by the exclusion of British trade from the continent, and theconsequent export of the precious metals in lieu of Britishmanufactures. The last resolution, while it recognised the wisdom ofrestoring cash-payments as soon as it could safely be done, affirmed itto be "highly inexpedient and dangerous to fix a definite period for theremoval of the restriction on cash-payments prior to the conclusion of adefinitive treaty of peace". These counsels prevailed, and therestriction was not actually removed until Peel's act was passed inJuly, 1819. 

The last domestic event in the inglorious annals of 1810 was the finallapse of the king into mental derangement in the month of November. Formore than six years his sight had been failing, but he had suffered noreturn of insanity since 1804. Now he lost both his sight and hisreason. This event, impending for some time, was precipitated by theillness and death of the Princess Amelia, his favourite daughter, andwas perhaps aggravated by the Walcheren expedition and the disgrace ofthe Duke of York. Parliament met on November 1, and was adjourned morethan once before a committee was appointed to examine the royalphysicians. Acting on their report, the ministers proposed and carriedresolutions declaring the king's incapacity, and the right and duty ofthe two houses to provide for the emergency. It was also determined todefine by act of parliament the powers to be exercised in the king'sname and behalf. This implied a limitation of the regent's authority, and was resented by the Prince of Wales and his friends. Perceval, however, was able to rely on the precedent of 1788, to which Grenville, for one, had been a party, and, after considerable opposition, theprince was made regent under several temporary restrictions. Withcertain exceptions, he was precluded from granting any peerage or officetenable for life; the royal property was vested in trustees for theking's benefit, and the personal care of the king was entrusted to thequeen, with the advice of a council. In this form, the regency bill waspassed on February 4, 1811, after a protest from the other sons ofGeorge III. And violent attacks upon Eldon by Grenville and Grey. On the5th, the regent took the oaths before the privy council, but, inaccepting the restrictions, he delicately expressed regret that heshould not have been trusted to impose upon himself proper limitationsfor the exercise of royal patronage. The interregnum thus establishedwas to be provisional only, and was to cease on February 1, 1812, butthe queen and her private council, with the concurrence of the privycouncil, were empowered to annul it at any time, by announcing theking's recovery, when he could resume his powers by proclamation. 

[Pageheading: _THE REGENCY BILL. _]

The hopes of the opposition had been greatly excited by the prospect ofa regency, and it was generally expected that a change of ministry wouldbe its immediate consequence. Private communications had, in fact, passed between the prince and the whig lords, Grenville and Grey, butthey were rendered nugatory by the dictatorial tone assumed by thoselords and by the unwillingness of the prince to dispense with the adviceof Moira and Sheridan. The two whig lords had by the prince's desireprepared a reply to the address from the houses of parliament, preparatory to the regency bill. Grenville had voted in favour of therestriction on the creation of peers, and it is therefore not surprisingthat the reply which he and Grey drafted appeared to the prince too weakin its protest against the limitations. He therefore adopted in itsstead another reply which Sheridan had composed for him. The two lordsthereupon addressed to the prince a remonstrance, which practicallyclaimed for themselves the right of responsible ministers to be the soleadvisers of their prince. This remonstrance provoked the ridicule ofSheridan, and certainly did not please the prince, who since the fall ofthe Grenville ministry had refused to be regarded as a "party man". Theregent, accordingly, gave Perceval to understand that he intended toretain his present ministers, but solely on the ground that he wasunwilling to do anything which might retard his father's recovery, ordistress him when he should come to himself. This reason was probablygenuine. The king appeared to be recovering; he had had severalinterviews with Perceval and Eldon, and had made inquiries as to theprince's intentions. Soon, however, the malady took a turn for theworse, and the physicians came to the conclusion that it waspermanent. [41]

Before February, 1812, when the restrictions expired, and a permanentregency bill was passed, the prince drifted further away from his formeradvisers, and had been pacified by the loyal attitude of Perceval andEldon. Further overtures were conveyed to the whig lords through aletter from the prince regent to the Duke of York, in which he declaredthat he had "no predilections to indulge or resentments to gratify, " butonly a concern for the public good, towards which he desired theco-operation of some of his old whig friends, indicating Grenville andGrey. They declined in a letter to the Duke of York, allegingdifferences on grounds of policy too deep to admit of a coalition. Eldon, on his part, expressed a similar conviction, but the regent neverfully forgave what he regarded as their desertion. Wellesley, who wasstrongly opposed to Perceval's policy of maintaining the catholicdisabilities, resigned the secretaryship of foreign affairs, protestingagainst the feeble support given to his brother in the Peninsula, andwas succeeded by Castlereagh. In April Sidmouth became president of thecouncil in place of Camden, who remained in the cabinet without office;and in the next month, on May 11, Perceval was assassinated in the lobbyof the house of commons by a man named Bellingham, who had an imaginarygrievance against the government. 

A very general and sincere tribute of respect was paid by the house toPerceval's memory, for, though his statesmanship was of the secondorder, he was far more than a tory partisan; he was an excellentdebater, and a thoroughly honest politician, and his private characterwas above all reproach or suspicion. The cabinet was bewildered by hisdeath, and a fresh attempt was made to strengthen it by the simpleinclusion of Canning as well as Wellesley. Wellesley stipulated that thecatholic question should be left open, and that the war should beprosecuted with the entire resources of the country, while Canningdeclined co-operation on the ground of the catholic question alone. Noagreement being found possible, the house of commons stepped in andaddressed the regent, begging him to form a strong and efficientadministration, commanding the confidence of all classes. He replied bysending for Wellesley, offering him the premiership and entrusting himwith the formation of a comprehensive ministry; but Wellesley soon foundthat Liverpool and his adherents would not serve under him at all, whileGrenville and Grey, who secretly condemned the Peninsular war, wouldonly serve on conditions which he could not grant. Once more, the regenttreated directly with these haughty whigs, now including Moira, to whomhe committed the task of forming an administration. Grenville and Greyraised difficulties about the appointments in the royal household, whichthey wished to include in the political changes, and the negotiation wasbroken off. The regent at last fell back on Liverpool, a capable andconciliatory minister, who adopted Perceval's colleagues, and a spell oftory administration set in which remained unbroken for no less thanfifteen years. Had more tact been shown on all sides, had the whigs beenless peremptory in their demands, and had the trivial household questionnever arisen, the course of the war, if not of European history, might, whether for good or evil, have been profoundly modified. 

[Pageheading: _SOCIAL REFORMS. _]

During the later period of Perceval's administration, from 1811 to 1812, the strife of politics had been mainly concentrated on the regencyquestion, the chance of ministerial changes, and the fortunes of the warin Spain. But it must not be supposed that social questions wereneglected, even in the darkest days of the war, however meagre thelegislative fruits may appear. Session after session, Romilly pressedforward reforms of the criminal law, the institution of penitentialhouses in the nature of reformatories, and the abolition of statelotteries. Others laboured, and with greater success, to remedy thedelays and reduce the arrears in the court of chancery. Constant effortswere made to expose defalcations in the revenue, to curtail exorbitantsalaries, and to put down electioneering corruption. In 1809 Erskineintroduced a bill for the prevention of cruelty to animals. In 1810there were earnest, if somewhat futile, debates on spiritualdestitution, the non-residence and poverty of the clergy, and thescarcity of places of worship. Moreover, early in 1811, a premonitorysymptom of the repeal movement caused some anxiety in Ireland. It tookthe form of a scheme for a representative assembly to sit in Dublin, andmanage the affairs of the Roman catholic population, under colour offraming petitions to parliament, and seeking redress of grievances. Itwas, of course, to consist of Roman catholics only, and to include Romancatholic bishops. The Irish government wisely suppressed the scheme, andPerceval justified their action, on the ground that a representativeassembly in Dublin, with such aims in view, bordered upon an illicitlegislature. 

Except for the war in the Spanish peninsula, and the war between Russiaand the Porte on the Danube, the year 1810 was marked by undisturbedpeace throughout the continent of Europe. France continued to makeannexations, but they were at the expense of her allies, not of herenemies. Her supremacy was signalised in a striking way by the marriageof her _parvenu_ emperor, whose divorce the pope still refused torecognise, with Maria Louisa, daughter of the Emperor of Austria. Thoughthirteen out of twenty-six cardinals present in Paris declined to attendit, this marriage was a masterstroke of Talleyrand's diplomacy; itsecured the benevolent neutrality of Austria for the next three years, and weakened the counsels of the allies during the negotiations of1814-15. But it went far to estrange the Tsar of Russia, who, though hehad courteously declined Napoleon's overtures for the hand of his ownsister, was greatly offended on discovering that another matrimonialalliance had been contracted by his would-be brother-in-law before hisreply could be received. 

It was only within the limits of the French empire that Napoleon'sauthority had been sufficient to enforce the rigorous exclusion ofBritish goods. His allies, including Sweden, which closed her ports toBritish products in January, 1810, and declared war on Great Britain inthe following November, had adopted the continental system; butadministrative weakness, and the obvious interest that every people hadin its infraction, rendered its operation partial. Napoleon, determinedto enforce the system in spite of every obstacle, met this difficulty byplacing in immediate subjection to the French crown the territorieswhere British goods were imported. The first ally to suffer was his ownbrother, Louis, King of Holland. His refusal to enforce Napoleon'sorders against the admission of British goods was followed at once by aforced cession of part of Holland to France and the establishment ofFrench control at the custom houses, and shortly afterwards by thedespatch of French troops into Holland and its annexation to France onJuly 9, 1810. In December the French dominion over the North Sea coastwas extended by the annexation of a corner of Germany, including thecoast as far as the Danish frontier, and the town of Lübeck on theBaltic. As a result of this annexation, the duchy of Oldenburg, held bya branch of the Russian imperial family, ceased to exist. The act was aconspicuous breach of the treaty of Tilsit, which Napoleon consideredhimself at liberty to disregard, as Russia had shown by her conductduring the campaign of 1809 that she was no longer more than a nominalally of France. At last, on January 12, 1811, Russia asserted herindependence in fiscal matters by an order which declared her ports opento all vessels sailing under a neutral flag, and imposed a duty on manyFrench products. Still the course of French annexation crept onwards, and quietly absorbed the republic of Vallais in Switzerland, which hadbeen a great centre of smuggling. 

[Pageheading: _THE CONTINENTAL SYSTEM. _]

Meanwhile, the restrictions and prohibitions which formed thecontinental system were made more and more severe. By the Trianon tariffof August, 1810, heavy duties were levied on colonial products, and bythe Fontainebleau decree of October 18 all goods of British origin wereto be seized and publicly burned. In November a special tribunal wascreated to try offenders against the continental system. Nevertheless, the fiscal and foreign policy of France at this date alike show how farthe continental system had failed in its object, and to what extremelengths it had become necessary to push it in order to give it a chanceof success. The strain of the system on English commerce was immense, but the burden fell far more heavily on the continental nations. Colonial produce rose to enormous prices in France, Germany, and Italy, especially after the introduction of the Trianon tariff, and a subjector ally of the French emperor had to pay ten times as much for hismorning cup of coffee as his enemy in London. The German opposition toNapoleon had failed in 1809 mainly through the political apathy of theGerman nation. Napoleon's fiscal measures were the surest way ofbringing that apathy to an end, and converting it into hostility. 

The events of December, 1810, and January, 1811, constituted a distinctbreach between France and Russia, which could only end in war, unlessone party or the other should withdraw from its position. A few monthssufficed to show that no such withdrawal would take place; but neitherpower was prepared for war, and seventeen months elapsed after thebreach before hostilities began. The intervening period was spent innegotiation and preparation. Much depended on the alliances that therival powers might be able to contract. Although Napoleon had boundhimself not to restore Poland, he had by the creation and subsequentenlargement of the duchy of Warsaw given it a semblance of nationalunity, and had inspired the Poles with the hope of a more completeindependence. The Polish troops were among the most devoted in theFrench army, and the position of their country rendered the support ofthe Poles a matter of great importance in any war with Russia. Itoccurred to the Tsar Alexander that he might win their support forhimself by a restoration of Poland, under the suzerainty of Russia. Hepromised Czartoryski the restoration of the eight provinces under aguarantee of autonomy, and undertook to obtain the cession of Galicia. On February 13, 1811, he made a secret offer to Austria of a part ofMoldavia in exchange for Galicia. Nothing came of this, but the massingof Russian troops on the Polish frontier in March was met by the hurriedadvance of French troops through Germany, and war seemed imminent untilRussia postponed the struggle by withdrawing her troops. 

Meanwhile, other European powers looked forward to selling theiralliance on the best possible terms. Sweden and Prussia both approachedthe stronger power first. Bernadotte, on behalf of Sweden, was preparedfor a French alliance if France would favour the Swedish acquisition ofNorway. Napoleon, on February 25, not only refused these terms, butordered Sweden to enforce the continental system under pain of a Frenchoccupation of Swedish Pomerania. This threat Sweden ventured to ignore. Prussia, lying directly between the two future belligerents, was in amore dangerous position. Neutrality was impossible, because herneutrality would not be respected. She first offered her alliance toNapoleon in return for a reduction of the payments due to France and aremoval of the limit imposed on her army. Napoleon did not reply to thisoffer at once. Meanwhile the movement of French troops already mentionedand the increase of the French garrisons on the Oder, though primarilyintended for the defence of Poland, caused great alarm in Prussia andresulted in preparations to resist a French attack. In July Napoleonfinally refused to discuss the Prussian terms. Ever since his marriagehe had been inclined more and more to an Austrian alliance. On March 26of this year Otto, his ambassador at Vienna, had received informationthat France would support Austria if she would protest against theoccupation of Belgrade by the Serbs. Napoleon even assured Otto that hewas prepared to undertake any engagement that Austria desired. Restwas, however, essential to Austria. The military disasters of 1809 hadbeen followed by national bankruptcy, and with the government paper at adiscount of 90 per cent. She dared not incur further liabilities. 

Russia had an advantage over France in that she was able to free herselffrom her entanglement in Turkey, while Napoleon could not make peaceeither with Great Britain or with the Bourbon party in Spain. Anarmistice with the Porte was concluded on October 15. By that time allpretence of friendly intentions had been abandoned by France and Russia. Prussia, hoping still to save herself from an unconditional alliancewith France, now turned to Russia, and Scharnhorst was despatched toseek a Russian alliance. Meanwhile Napoleon sent word to the Prussiancourt that, if her military preparations were not suspended, he wouldorder Davoűt to march on Berlin, and at the same time disclosed hisoffer of an unconditional alliance against Russia. Prussia, hoping forRussian aid still, put aside the French demands, but the Tsar Alexanderexpressed a decided preference for a defensive campaign against France, and refused any assistance unless the French should commit an unprovokedaggression on Königsberg. Scharnhorst seems to have seen the wisdom ofthis policy. He now turned to Austria, but there again a definitealliance was refused. Russia was equally unable to move Austria to joinher, so that Russia and Prussia were each isolated in their oppositionto Napoleon. 

In the months of August and September of this year a British force, commanded by Auchmuty, effected the conquest of Java, the wealthiest ofthe East Indian islands. The island had been a Dutch colony, and likeother Dutch colonies had passed into the hands of France. Sumatra fellinto English hands along with Java, so that the supremacy of GreatBritain in the East Indies was fully established. 

[Pageheading: _LIVERPOOL'S MINISTRY. _]

The new ministry which entered on office in June, 1812, differed largelyin composition from that which had preceded it. Ryder and Yorke retiredat the death of Perceval, Harrowby returned to office, and places in thecabinet were found for Sidmouth's adherents, Buckinghamshire, Vansittart, and Bragge-Bathurst. Sidmouth himself succeeded Ryder ashome secretary, while Harrowby succeeded Sidmouth as president of thecouncil. Earl Bathurst took Liverpool's place as secretary for war andthe colonies. Vansittart succeeded Perceval at the exchequer andBragge-Bathurst in the duchy of Lancaster. Robert Dundas, now ViscountMelville, followed Yorke at the admiralty, and Buckinghamshire tookMelville's place at the board of control, which became once more acabinet office. Eldon, Castlereagh, Westmorland, and Mulgrave retainedtheir former offices, while Camden remained in the cabinet withoutoffice. In September Mulgrave was created an earl, and Camden a marquis. The internal history of England during the first two years ofLiverpool's premiership has been entirely dwarfed by the interest ofexternal events. For this period comprised not only the Russianexpedition--the greatest military tragedy in modern history--themarvellous resurrection of Germany, with the campaigns which culminatedin the stupendous battle of Leipzig, and the invasion of France whichended in the abdication of Napoleon at Fontainebleau, but also thebrilliant conclusion of the Peninsular war, and the earlier stages ofthe war between Great Britain and the United States. 

The nation was contented to leave the guidance of home and foreignpolicy at that critical time to the existing ministers, all honest, experienced, and high-minded statesmen, but none gifted with any signalability, and inferior both in cleverness and in eloquence to the leadersof the opposition. Napoleon was not far wrong in regarding the Britisharistocracy, which they represented, as his most inveterate and powerfulenemy; but he was grievously deceived in imagining that thisaristocracy, in withstanding his colossal ambition, had not the Britishnation at its back. The electoral body, indeed, to which they owed theirparliamentary majority, was but a fraction of the population, and thepublic opinion which supported them may seem but the voice of aprivileged class in these days of household suffrage. But there islittle reason to doubt that, if household suffrage had then prevailed, their foreign policy would have received a democratic sanction; nor isit at all certain that some features of their home policy, now generallycondemned, were not justified, in the main, by the exigencies of theirtime. 

[Pageheading: _INDUSTRIAL DISTRESS. _]

The "condition of England, " as it was then loosely termed, was thefirst subject which claimed the attention of Liverpool's government. While Perceval was congratulating parliament on the elasticity of therevenue, a widespread depression of industry was producing formidabledisturbances in the midland counties. This depression was theconsequence partly of the continental system, crippling the export ofBritish goods to European countries; partly of the revival, in February, 1811, of the American non-intercourse act, closing the vast market ofthe United States; and partly of the improvements in machinery, especially those in spinning and weaving machines introduced by theinventions of Cartwright and Arkwright. Unhappily, this last cause, being the only one visible to artisans, was regarded by them as the solecause of their distress. During the autumn and winter of 1811 "Luddite"riots broke out among the stocking-weavers of Nottingham. Their name wasderived from a half-witted man who had destroyed two stocking framesmany years before. Frame-breaking on a grand scale became the object ofan organised conspiracy, which extended its operations fromNottinghamshire into Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lancashire, andYorkshire. At first frame-breaking was carried on by large bodies ofoperatives in broad daylight, and when these open proceedings were putdown by military force, they were succeeded by nightly outrages, sometimes attended by murder. Early in 1812 a bill was passed makingframe-breaking a capital offence. 

In spite of this riots grew into local insurrections, and a message fromthe prince regent on June 27 recommended further action to parliament. It was natural, in that generation to connect all disorderly movementswith revolutionary designs, and this belief underlies an alarmist reportfrom a secret committee of the house of lords on the prevailing tumults. Accordingly, Sidmouth obtained new powers for magistrates to search forarms, to disperse tumultuous assemblies, and to exercise jurisdictionbeyond their own districts. In November many Luddites were convicted, and sixteen were executed by sentence of a special commission sitting atYork. These stern measures were effectual for a time, and populardiscontent in the manufacturing districts ceased to assume so acute aform until after the war was ended. 

The sufferings of the poor in the rural districts, though generallyendured in silence, were at least equally severe with those of theartisan class, and it is difficult to say whether a good or bad harvestpressed more heavily on agricultural labourers. When the price of wheatrose to 130s. Per quarter or upwards, as it did in 1812 and other yearsof scarcity, the farmers were able to pay comparatively high wages. Whenthe price fell to 75s. , as it did in years of plenty like 1813, wageswere reduced to starvation-point, but supplemented out of thepoor-rates, under the miserable system of indiscriminate out-door reliefgraduated according to the size of families. In either case, the entireincome of a labourer was far below the modern standard, and theprosperity of trade meant to him an increase in the cost of allnecessaries except bread. As for their employers, the golden age offarming, which is often identified with the age of the great war, hadreally ceased long before. Not only did the high price of a farmer'spurchases go far to neutralise the high price of his sales, but theexcessive fluctuations in all prices, due to the opening and closing ofmarkets according to the fortunes of war, made prudent speculationalmost impossible. The frequently recurring depressions were renderedall the more disastrous, because in times of high prices "the margin ofcultivation" was unduly extended. 

[Pageheading: _CORN LAWS. _]

With a view to diminish the violence of these fluctuations, a selectcommittee on the corn-trade was appointed by the house of commons in1813, and reported in favour of a sliding-scale. When the price of wheatshould fall below 90s. Per quarter, its exportation was to be permitted;but its importation was to be forbidden, until the price should reach103s. , when it might, indeed, be imported, but under "a veryconsiderable duty". It was assumed, in fact, that the normal price ofwheat was above 100s. Per quarter, and the price above which importationshould be permitted was nearly twice as high as that fixed in 1801, when, moreover, it was to be admitted above 50s. At a duty of 2s. 6d. , and above 54s. At a duty of sixpence. It is remarkable that in thedebates of 1814 upon the report of this committee, William Huskisson, aswell as Sir Henry Parnell, supported its main conclusions, upon theground that agriculture must be upheld at all costs, and the home-marketpreferred to foreign markets. Canning and others ably advocated thecause of the consumers, alleging that duties on corn injured them farmore than they could benefit landowners or farmers. Finally, a billembodying a modified sliding-scale was introduced by the government, and, though lost by a narrow majority in 1814, became law in 1815. Underthis act the importation of foreign corn was prohibited, so long as theprice of wheat did not rise above 80s. Above that price it might beimported free. Corn from British North America might, however, beimported free so long as the price of wheat exceeded 67s. 

The parliamentary debates of 1812 chiefly turned on Spanish affairs, therevocation of the orders in council, the subsequent rupture with theUnited States which had anticipated this great concession, and thewearisome cabinet intrigues which preceded the accession of Liverpool asprime minister. It is noteworthy that so conservative a house of commonsshould actually have pledged itself to consider the question of catholicemancipation in the next session, and should have passed an actrelieving nonconformists from various disabilities. The next session ofthis parliament, however, never came, for an unexpected dissolution tookplace on September 29. This dissolution was attributed, with somereason, to a wish on the part of the government to profit by an abundantharvest, and to the restoration of comparative quiet both in England andin Ireland. A new parliament assembled at the end of November. Theprince regent's speech in opening it, though it noticed the suppressionof the Luddite disturbances, was inevitably devoted to the great eventsin Spain and Russia, the conclusion of a treaty with Russia, and theAmerican declaration of war. After the Christmas recess, Castlereaghpresented an argumentative message from the prince fully discussing thepoints at issue between Great Britain and the United States, upon whichCanning, though out of office, delivered a vigorous speech in defence ofthe British position. Eldon, in the house of lords, went further, boldlyjustifying the right of search, and denying the American contention thatoriginal allegiance could be cancelled by naturalisation without theconsent of the mother-country. The Princess of Wales, who had long beenseparated from the prince, was the cause of more parliamentary timebeing wasted by a complaint which she addressed to the speaker againstthe proceedings of the privy council. That body had approvedrestrictions which her husband had thought fit to place on herintercourse with her daughter, the Princess Charlotte. Parliament, however, took no action in the matter. 

Perhaps the most important measure enacted in the session of 1813 wasthe so-called East India company's act. By this act the charter of thecompany was renewed with a confirmation of its administrative privilegesand its monopoly of the China trade, but subject to materialreservations: the India trade was thrown open from April 10, 1814, andthe charter itself, thus restricted, was made terminable by three years'notice after April 10, 1831. In this year the naval and militaryarmaments of Great Britain, considered as a whole, perhaps reached theirmaximum strength, and the national expenditure rose to its highestlevel, including, as it did, subsidies to foreign powers amounting toabout Ł10, 500, 000. Of the aggregate expenditure, about two-thirds, Ł74, 000, 000, were provided by taxation, an enormous sum relatively tothe population and wealth of the country at that period. Patiently asthis burden was borne on the whole by the people of Great Britain, wecannot wonder that Vansittart, the chancellor of the exchequer, shouldhave sought to lighten it in some degree by encroaching upon the sinkingfund, as founded and regulated by Pitt. The debates on this complicatedquestion, in which Huskisson and Tierney stoutly combated Vansittart'sproposal, belong rather to financial history. What strikes a modernstudent of politics as strange is that Vansittart, tory as he was, should have advocated the relief of living and suffering taxpayers, uponthe principle, then undefined, of leaving money "to fructify in thepockets of the people"; while the whig economists of the day stickledfor the policy of piling up new debts, if need be, rather than break inupon an empirical scheme for the gradual extinction of old debts. 

FOOTNOTES:

[41] For the whole crisis see Walpole, _Life of Perceval_, ii. , 157-96, and for Sheridan's share in the transactions, Moore, _Life of Sheridan_, ii. , 382-409. 

 CHAPTER V. 

 THE PENINSULAR WAR. 

Reference has already been made to the conflict maintained for six yearsby Great Britain against France for the liberation of Spain andPortugal, which has since been known in history as the Peninsular war. It had its origin in two events which occurred during the autumn of 1807and the spring of 1808. The first was the secret treaty of Fontainebleauconcluded between France and Spain at the end of October, 1807; thesecond was the outbreak of revolutionary movements at Madrid, followedby the intervention of Napoleon in March, April, and May, 1808. Thetreaty of Fontainebleau was a sequel of the vast combination againstGreat Britain completed by the peace of Tilsit, under which thecontinental system was to be enforced over all Europe. Portugal, theally of this country and an emporium of British commerce, was to bepartitioned into principalities allotted by Napoleon, the house ofBraganza was to be exiled, and its transmarine possessions were to bedivided between France and Spain, then ruled by the worthless Godoy inthe name of King Charles IV. Whether or not the subjugation of the wholepeninsula was already designed by Napoleon, his troops, ostensiblydespatched for the conquest of Portugal under the provisions of thetreaty, had treacherously occupied commanding positions in Spain, whenthe populace of Madrid rose in revolt, and, thronging the little town ofAranjuez, where the court resided, frightened the king into abdication. His unprincipled son, Ferdinand, was proclaimed in March, 1808, butMurat, who now entered Madrid as commander-in-chief of the French troopsin that city, secretly favoured the ex-King Charles. In the end, both heand Ferdinand were enticed into seeking the protection of Napoleon atBayonne. Instead of mediating or deciding between them, Napoleon soonfound means to get rid of both. They were induced or rather compelled toresign their rights, and retire into private life on large pensions; andNapoleon conferred the crown of Spain on his brother Joseph, whoseformer kingdom of Naples was bestowed on Murat. 

In the meantime, sanguinary riots broke out afresh at Madrid, hundredsof French were massacred, and the insurrection, as it was called, thoughsternly put down by Murat, spread like wildfire into all parts of Spain. A violent explosion of patriotism, resulting in anarchy, followedthroughout the whole country. Napoleon was taken by surprise, but thecombinations which he matured at Bayonne for the conquest of Spain wereas masterly as those by which he had well-nigh subdued the wholecontinent, except Russia. He established a base of operations in thecentre of the country, and organised four campaigns in the north-west, north-east, south-east, and south. Savary, who had succeeded Murat atMadrid, was supposed to act as commander-in-chief, but was really littlemore than a medium for transmitting orders received from Napoleon atBayonne. The campaign of Duhesme in Catalonia was facilitated by thetreacherous seizure of the citadel of Barcelona in the previousFebruary. It was not long, however, before effective aid was rendered onthe coast by the British fleet under Collingwood, and especially by LordCochrane in the _Impérieuse_ frigate; the undisciplined bands ofCatalonian volunteers were reinforced by regular troops from Majorca andMinorca; the fortress of Gerona made an obstinate resistance; the siegeof it was twice raised, and Barcelona, almost isolated, was now heldwith difficulty. 

[Pageheading: _FRANCE OCCUPIES THE PENINSULA. _]

Marshal Moncey vainly besieged Valencia, while GeneralsLefebvre-Desnoëttes and Verdier were equally unsuccessful beforeZaragoza. In the plains of Leon, Marshal Bessičres gained a decisivevictory over a superior force of Spaniards under Cuesta and Blake, atMedina de Rio Seco, on July 14. Having thus secured the province ofLeon, and the great route from Bayonne to Madrid, he was advancing onGalicia when his progress was arrested by disaster in another quarter. General Dupont, commanding the southern army, found himself nearlysurrounded at Baylen, and solicited an armistice, followed by aconvention, under which, "above eighteen thousand French soldiers laiddown their arms before a raw army incapable of resisting half thatnumber, if the latter had been led by an able man". [42] The convention, signed on July 20, stipulated for the transport of the French troops toFrance, but its stipulations were shamefully violated; some weremassacred, others were sent to sicken in the hulks at Cadiz, andcomparatively few lived to rejoin their colours. Meanwhile a so-called"assembly of notables, " summoned to Bayonne, consisting of ninety-onepersons, all nominees of Napoleon, assumed to act for the whole nation, had accepted the nomination of Joseph Bonaparte as king, and proceededto adopt a constitution. On July 20, the very day of the capitulation ofBaylen, Joseph entered Madrid, and on the 24th was proclaimed King ofSpain and the Indies. But the military prestige of the grand armyreceived a fatal blow in the catastrophe, of which the immediate effectwas the retirement of Joseph behind the Ebro, and the ultimate effectswere felt in the later history of the war. 

At this moment almost the whole of Portugal was in possession of theFrench. In November, 1807, under peremptory orders from Napoleon, Junotwith a French army and an auxiliary force of Spaniards, but withoutmoney or transport, had marched with extraordinary rapidity across themountains to Alcantara in the valley of the Tagus. He thence pressedforward to Lisbon, hoping to anticipate the embarkation of the royalfamily for Brazil, which, however, took place just before his arrivaland almost under his eyes. With his army terribly reduced by thehardships and privations of his forced march, he overawed Lisbon andissued a proclamation that "the house of Braganza had ceased to reign". A fortnight later a Spanish division occupied Oporto, and meanwhileanother Spanish division established itself in the south-east ofPortugal, but, as the French stragglers came in and reinforcementsapproached, Junot felt himself strong enough to cast off all disguise;he suppressed the council of regency, took the government into his ownhands, and levied a heavy war contribution. During the early months of1808 he was employed in reorganising his own forces, and the resourcesof Lisbon, where an auxiliary Russian fleet of nine ships was lyingpractically blockaded. In a military sense, he was successful, but therapacity of the French, the contagion of the Spanish uprising, thememory of the old alliance with England, and the proximity of Englishfleets, stirred the blood of the Portuguese nation into ill-concealedhostility. The Spanish commander at Oporto withdrew his troops toGalicia, and the inhabitants declared for independence. Their examplewas followed in other parts of Portugal. Junot acted with vigour, disarmed the Spanish contingent at Lisbon, and sent columns to quelldisturbances on the Spanish frontiers, but he soon realised thenecessity of concentration. He therefore resolved to abandon most of thePortuguese fortresses, limiting his efforts to holding Lisbon, andkeeping open his line of communication with Spain. 

[Pageheading: _VIMEIRO AND CINTRA. _]

Such was the state of affairs in the Peninsula when Sir Arthur Wellesleylanded his army of some 12, 000 men on August 13, 1808. He had beenspecially designated for the command of a British army in Portugal byCastlereagh, then secretary for war and the colonies, who fullyappreciated his singular capacity for so difficult a service. Sir JohnMoore, who had just returned from the Baltic, having found it hopelessto co-operate with Gustavus IV. Of Sweden, was sent out soon afterwardsto Portugal with a corps of some 10, 000 men. Both these eminent soldierswere directed to place themselves under the orders not only of Sir HewDalrymple, the governor of Gibraltar, as commander-in-chief, but of SirHarry Burrard, when he should arrive, as second in command. Wellesleyhad received general instructions to afford "the Spanish and Portuguesenations every possible aid in throwing off the yoke of France, " and wasempowered to disembark at the mouth of the Tagus. Having obtainedtrustworthy information at Coruńa and Oporto, he decided rather to beginhis campaign from a difficult landing-place south of Oporto at the mouthof the Mondego, and to march thence upon Lisbon. He was opportunelyjoined by General Spencer from the south of Spain, and chose thecoast-road by Torres Vedras. At Roliça he encountered a smaller forceunder Delaborde, sent in advance by Junot to delay his progress, androuted it after a severe combat. Delaborde, however, retreated withadmirable tenacity, and Wellesley, expecting reinforcements from thecoast, pushed forward to Vimeiro, without attempting to check theconcentration of Junot's army. There was fought, on August 21, the firstimportant battle of the Peninsular war. The British troops, estimated at16, 778 men (besides about 2, 000 Portuguese), outnumbered the Frenchconsiderably, but the French were much stronger in cavalry, and boldlyassumed the offensive, confident in the prestige derived from so manyvictories in Italy and Germany. Wellesley's position was strong, but theattack on it was skilfully designed and pressed home with resolutecourage. It was repelled at every point of the field, and the French, retiring in confusion, might have been cut off from Lisbon. But Burrard, who had just landed and witnessed the battle without interfering, nowabsolutely refused to sanction a vigorous pursuit. 

On the following day he was superseded in turn by Dalrymple. The newcommander determined to await the arrival of Moore, whose approach wasreported, but who did not disembark his whole force until the 30th. Inthe meantime, overtures for an armistice were received from Junot, andultimately resulted in the so-called "convention of Cintra, " though itwas first drafted at Torres Vedras and was ratified at Lisbon. Underthis agreement the French army was to surrender Lisbon intact with otherPortuguese fortresses, but was allowed to return to France with its armsand baggage at the expense of the British government. Having dissentedfrom the military decision which had enabled Junot to negotiate, insteadof capitulating, Wellesley also dissented from certain terms of theconvention. He was, however, party to it as a whole, and afterwardsjustified its main conditions as securing the evacuation of Portugal atthe price of reasonable concessions. This was not the feeling of theBritish public, which loudly resented the escape of the French army andinsisted upon a court of inquiry. The verdict of this court saved themilitary honour of all three generals, but its members were so dividedin opinion on the policy of the convention that no authoritativejudgment was pronounced. Napoleon felt no such difficulty in condemningJunot for yielding too much, and the inhabitants of Lisbon wereinfuriated not only by the loss of their expected vengeance, but also bythe shameless plunder of their public and private property by thedeparting French. Under a separate convention, the Russian fleet, longblockaded in the Tagus, was surrendered to the British admiral, butwithout its officers or crews. 

The capitulation of Baylen paralysed for a time the aggressive movementsof France in Spain. Catalonia remained unconquered, even Bessičresretreated, and Joseph, as we have seen, abandoned Madrid. Happily forthe French, the Spaniards proved quite incapable of following up theiradvantages, and though a "supreme junta" was assembled at Aranjuez, itwasted its time in vain wrangling, and did little or nothing for theorganisation of national defence. Meanwhile, Napoleon was pouringveteran troops from Germany into the north of Spain, where they repulsedthe Spanish levies in several minor engagements. On October 14 he leftErfurt, where he had renewed his alliance with the tsar, and reachedBayonne on November 3. His simple but masterly plan of campaign wasalready prepared, and was carried out with the utmost promptitude. OnNovember 10-11, one of three Spanish armies was crushed at Espinosa; onthe former day another was routed at Gamonal; on the 23rd the third wasutterly dispersed at Tudela. Napoleon himself remained for some days atBurgos, awaiting the result of these operations; on December 4, after afeeble resistance, he entered Madrid in triumph, and stayed thereseventeen days, which he employed with marvellous activity in maturingfresh designs, both civil and military, for securing his power in Spain. 

[Pageheading: _ADVANCE OF SIR JOHN MOORE. _]

Already, on October 7, Sir John Moore had taken over the command of theBritish forces. He probably owed his appointment to George III. , whoseems on this occasion to have overruled his foreign and war ministers, Canning and Castlereagh. In spite of his unwillingness to offer theappointment to Moore, Castlereagh gave him the most loyal and efficientsupport during the whole campaign; and this loyalty to Moore was one ofthe reasons for Canning's desire to remove Castlereagh from the waroffice, which, as we have seen, led to the famous duel between those twostatesmen. It was at first intended that Moore should co-operate withthe Spanish armies which were then facing the French on the line of theEbro. For this purpose he was to have the command of 21, 000 troopsalready in Portugal and of about 12, 000 who were being sent by sea toCoruńa under Sir David Baird. Burrard was to remain in Portugal withanother 10, 000. Nothing had been done before Moore was appointed to thecommand to provide the troops with their necessary equipment or theircommander with the necessary local information. The departure of thetroops was therefore slow. By October 18 the greater part of the Britishtroops in Portugal were in motion, but the whole army had not leftLisbon till the 29th. The main body travelled by fairly direct routes toSalamanca, where Moore arrived on November 13, but he was induced byinformation, which proved to be incorrect, to send his cavalry and gunswith a column under Hope, by the more circuitous high road through Elvasand Talavera. When this route was adopted it was anticipated that thedifferent divisions of the British army would be able to unite at, ornear, Valladolid. But the advance of the French rendered thisimpossible, and Hope ultimately joined Moore at Salamanca on December 4. 

Baird suffered from even more vexatious delays. Though the greater partof his convoy had arrived at Coruńa on October 13, the local junta wouldnot permit them to land without express orders from the central junta atAranjuez. Consequently the disembarkation did not begin till the 26thand was only finished on November 4. Transport and equipment weredifficult to obtain, and on November 22 Baird was still only at Astorga. There exaggerated reports of the French advance induced him to halt, butby Moore's orders he continued his march. On the 28th the news of thedefeat of Castańos at Tudela reached Moore at Salamanca. Co-operationwith a Spanish army now appeared impossible, and even a junction withBaird seemed too hazardous to attempt. Moore therefore, ordered Baird toretire on Coruńa and to proceed to Lisbon by sea, and, while waitinghimself at Salamanca for Hope, made preparations for a retreat toPortugal. On December 5, the day after his junction with Hope, Mooredetermined to continue his advance. He had received news of theenthusiastic preparations for the defence of Madrid but did not know ofits fall, and he considered that the Spanish enthusiasm justified somerisk on the part of the British troops. He accordingly recalled Baird, whose infantry had retired to Villafranca, though his cavalry were stillat Astorga. On the 9th came the news of the fall of Madrid, but Moorebelieved that an attack on the French lines of communication might stillprove useful, and on the 11th the advance was renewed. Moore himselfleft Salamanca on the 13th. On the 12th he learned for the first timefrom some prisoners the true strength of the French army, 250, 000 of allarms, and also discovered that the enemy were in complete ignorance ofthe position of his own army. Next day an intercepted despatch showedhim that he might possibly be able to cut off Soult in an isolatedposition at Saldańa. Having at last effected a junction with Baird'scorps on the 19th he reached Sahagun on the 21st, and was on the pointof delivering his attack under favourable conditions, though his triumphmust have been short-lived. 

His real success was of another order. He had anticipated that Napoleonwould postpone everything to the opportunity of crushing a British army, and the ultimate object of his march to Sahagun was to draw the Frenchaway from Lisbon and Andalusia. He was not disappointed. Napoleon atlast divined that Moore was not flying in a south-westerly direction, but carrying out a bold manoeuvre in a north-easterly direction. Heinstantly pushed division after division from various quarters by forcedmarches upon Moore's reported track, while he himself followed withdesperate efforts across the snow-clad mountains between Madrid and theDouro. Apprised of his swift advance, and conscious of his own vastinferiority in numbers, Moore had no choice but to retreat without amoment's delay upon Benevente and Astorga. He was now sufficiently farnorth to prefer to retire upon Galicia rather than upon Portugal. Theretreat began on the 24th and was executed with such rapidity that onJanuary 1, 1809, Napoleon gave up the pursuit at Astorga, leaving it tobe continued by Soult. Whether he was influenced by intelligence offresh armaments on the Danube, or of dangerous plots in Paris, mustremain uncertain, but it is highly probable that he saw little honour tobe won in a laborious chase of a foe who might prove formidable ifbrought to bay. 

Moore's army, disheartened as it was by the loss of a brilliant chance, and demoralised as it became under the fatigues and hardships of a mostharassing retreat, never failed to repel attacks on its rear, wherePaget handled the cavalry of the rear-guard with signal ability, especially in a spirited action near Benevente. In spite of someexcesses, tolerable order was maintained until the British force, still25, 000 strong, reached Astorga, and was joined by some 10, 000 Spaniardsunder Romańa. Thenceforward, all sense of discipline was abandoned by somany regiments that Moore described the conduct of his whole army as"infamous beyond belief, " though it is certain that some regiments, andnotably those of the reserve, should be excepted from this sweepingcondemnation. Drunkenness, marauding, and other military crimes grewmore and more general as the main body marched "in a drove" throughVillafranca to Lugo, where Moore vainly offered battle, and onwards toBetanzos on the sea-coast. There a marvellous rally was effected, stragglers rejoined the ranks in unexpected numbers, the _moral_ of thesoldiery was restored as the fearful strain of physical misery wasrelaxed, and by January 12, 1809, all the divisions of Moore's army weresafely posted in or around Coruńa. Bad weather had delayed the fleet oftransports ordered round from Vigo, but it ran into the harbour on the14th, and the sick and invalids were sent on board. 

[Pageheading: _THE BATTLE OF CORUŃA. _]

Moore was advised to make terms for the embarkation of his entirecommand, but he was too good a soldier to comply. Those who took part inthe battle of Coruńa on the 16th, some 15, 000 men in all, were nounworthy representatives of the army which started from Lisbon threemonths earlier. Soult, with a larger force, assumed the offensive, andmade a determined attack on the British position in front of the harbourand town of Coruńa. He was repulsed at all points, but Moore wasmortally, and Baird severely, wounded on the field. Hope, who tookcommand, knowing that Soult would soon be reinforced, wisely persistedin carrying out Moore's intention, evacuated Coruńa, and embarked hisarmy for England during the night and the following day. His losses wereestimated by Hope at above 700, killed and wounded; those of the enemywere twice as great. Thus victory crowned a campaign which otherwisewould have done little to satisfy the popular appetite for tangiblesuccess. The original object of supporting the Spanish resistance in thenorth had been rendered impossible of fulfilment by Napoleon's victorieswhen Moore had barely crossed the Spanish frontier, and in this sensethe expedition must be regarded as a failure, though its commander wasin no sense responsible for its ill-success. On the other hand, considered as a skilful diversion, the expedition was highly successful. It drew all the best French troops and generals into the north-westcorner of Spain, leaving all the other, and far richer, provinces torecover their power of resistance. [43]

The spirit in which Napoleon had entered upon this contest is wellillustrated in two sentences of his address to the citizens of Madrid. "The Bourbons, " he said, "can no longer reign in Europe, " and "No powerunder the influence of England can exist on the continent". Thecounter-proclamations of Spanish juntas were more prolix and equallyarrogant, but one of them reveals the secret of national strength whenit asserts that "a whole people is more powerful than disciplinedarmies". The British estimate of Napoleon's Spanish policy was terselyexpressed by the Marquis Wellesley in the house of lords, "To him forceand fraud were alike; force, that would stoop to all the base artificesof fraud; and fraud, that would come armed with all the fierce violenceof force". 

[Pageheading: _WELLESLEY TAKES COMMAND. _]

For three months after the battle of Coruńa, the Peninsular war, asregards the action of Great Britain, was all but suspended. Two daysbefore that battle, a formal treaty of peace and alliance between GreatBritain and the Spanish junta, which had withdrawn to Seville, wassigned at London. Sir John Cradock was in command of the British troopsat Lisbon, and took up a defensive position there, with reinforcementsfrom Cadiz, awaiting the approach of Soult, who had captured Oporto bystorm, and of Victor, who was in the valley of the Tagus. At the requestof the Portuguese, Beresford had been sent out to organise and commandtheir army. Early in 1809 the Spaniards were defeated with greatslaughter at Ucles, Ciudad Real, and Medellin; Zaragoza was taken afteranother siege, and still more obstinate defence; and the national causeseemed more desperate than ever. On April 2, however, Sir ArthurWellesley, who had returned home after the convention of Cintra, wasappointed to the command-in-chief of our forces in the Peninsula. Before leaving England, he left with the ministers a memorandum on theconduct of the war which, viewed by the light of later events, must beaccounted a masterpiece of foresight and sagacity. When it was laidbefore George III. , his natural shrewdness at once discerned its truevalue, and he desired its author to be informed of the strong impressionwhich it had produced on his mind. 

Wellesley, indeed, could not estimate beforehand the vast numericalsuperiority of the French while the rest of Europe was at peace, or theimpotent vacillations of Spanish juntas, or the "mulish obstinacy" ofSpanish generals, which so often wrecked his plans and spoiled hisvictories. Nor could he foresee the advantages which he would derivefrom the resources of guerilla warfare, the mutual jealousies of theFrench marshals, and the sudden recall of the best French troops forservice in Germany and Russia. But his prescient and practical mindfirmly grasped the dominant facts of the position--that Portugal, guarded by the ocean on the west and by mountain ranges on the east, wasfar more accessible to the British navy than to the French army; that, under British officers, its troops might be trained into an effectiveforce; and that, with it as a basis, Great Britain might ultimatelyliberate the whole Peninsula. "I have always been of opinion, " Wellesleysaid in this memorandum, "that Portugal might be defended, whatevermight be the result of the contest in Spain; and that in the meantimethe measures adopted for the defence of Portugal would be highly usefulto the Spaniards in their contest with the French. " On this simpleprinciple all his detailed recommendations were founded, and heexpressed a deliberate belief that, if 30, 000 British troops weresupported by an equal number of Portuguese regulars, and a reserve ofmilitia was provided, "the French would not be able to overrun Portugalwith less than 100, 000 men". This forecast was verified, and upon itsessential wisdom the fate of the Peninsular war, with all itsconsequences, may be said to have depended. [44]

Wellesley landed at Lisbon on April 22, and was received with the utmostdemonstrations of joy and confidence. He found not only the capital butthe whole country in a state of tumult, if not of anarchy, due to agrowing despair of the national cause. His arrival rekindled the embersof patriotism, and on May 5 he reviewed at Coimbra a body of troopsconsisting of 17, 000 British and Germans, with about 8, 000 Portuguese. The next day he marched towards the Douro, and on the 14th he effectedthe passage of that river in the face of the French army occupyingOporto, which the British forthwith recaptured. Soult beat a hasty anddisorderly retreat into Galicia. Having driven Soult out of Portugal, the British general was encouraged to undertake a further advance intoSpain, where Joseph with Victor and Sébastiani had collected a muchlarger army to bar the approaches to Madrid than Wellesley, relying onSpanish intelligence, had been led to expect. During June and the firstdays of July, he moved by Abrantes and the Tagus valley as far asPlasencia, little knowing that Soult was about to sweep round his rear, with 50, 000 men, and intercept his communications with Lisbon. On July10 he held a conference with the Spanish general Cuesta, who insisted onmaking an aggressive movement with his own troops only, and met with arepulse. 

[Pageheading: _THE TALAVERA CAMPAIGN. _]

On the 27th, the combined armies of Wellesley and Cuesta, numberingrespectively about 20, 000 British and 35, 000 Spanish, confronted 46, 000French troops, under Victor, in a strong position behind Talavera. [45]The Spanish forces occupied the right and the British the left of thisposition. Joseph was present, and disregarding the counsels of Jourdan, his proper military adviser, authorised Victor to assume the offensive. He failed in two preliminary attacks on the 27th, but renewed them onthe 28th, when a general engagement ensued. The whole brunt of thebattle fell upon the British troops, who gallantly withstood a desperateonset, first on their left and then on their centre and right, until theFrench quitted the field in confusion. The Spaniards, posted inentrenchments nearer Talavera itself, did and suffered comparativelylittle. Some of their regiments fled disgracefully, but the rest heldtheir ground, and Wellesley in his despatch spoke favourably of theirbehaviour. [46] Perhaps the part which they played may be roughlyestimated by their losses, amounting to 1, 200, as compared with 6, 268British and nearly 9, 000 French. Wellesley, after further experience ofSpanish co-operation, made up his mind to dispense with it altogether infuture. 

The victory of Talavera won for Wellesley the rank of viscount, to whichhe was raised on September 4, with the title of Wellington. Although thevictory revived the respect of foreign nations for the prowess ofBritish arms, it was otherwise fruitless, and its sequel was fairly opento criticism. Wellesley found that Soult, with Ney and Mortier, hadcircumvented him, and that he must retreat through Esdremadura, on thesouth of the Tagus, upon Badajoz. Cuesta, who had advocated boldercounsels, undertook to guard the rear, and to protect the Britishwounded at Talavera. But he soon found it necessary to abandon thatposition. Fifteen hundred of the wounded were left behind, and werehumanely treated by the French generals. Wellesley's retreat over themountains was attended with great hardship and loss, for want ofsupplies either from Spain or from the coast, and his long encampment inthe malarious valley of the Guadiana about Badajoz swelled the number ofhis sick to a frightful extent. It was not until December, when it gotinto better cantonments on Portuguese soil, that the British army, triumphant at Talavera, recovered either its health or its _moral_. Napoleon boasted, in a memorandum to be inserted in the Paris journals, that Wellington had really been beaten in Spain, and that "if affairsthere had been properly conducted not an Englishman would have escaped". Without going quite so far as this, the parliamentary opposition inEngland made the least of the victory and the most of the retreat, whichunfortunately coincided in time with the wreck of the Walcherenexpedition. Even Wellington's best friends in England began to loseheart, as did many of his own officers. He remained undaunted, andhaving established his headquarters on the high ground between the Tagusand the Douro, meditated designs which, slowly matured, bore good fruitin later years. 

It is difficult to understand the inaction of Wellington for so manymonths after the Talavera campaign, without taking into account not onlythe difficulty of obtaining sufficient recruits and stores from Englandafter the waste of both at the mouth of the Scheldt, but the greatlyincreased strength of the French in Spain during the long intervalbetween the Wagram campaign and the Russian expedition. At the close of1809 all the fortresses of Spain had fallen into the enemy's hands, andall her principal armies had been defeated and dispersed in successivebattles of which the greatest was that of Ocańa in the month ofNovember. Suchet was master of Aragon and the east of Spain, nor was hedislodged from it until the end of the war; Andalusia was nearlyconquered; Cadiz was only saved by the self-reliant courage of the Ducd'Albuquerque, baffling the intrigues and treachery of the supreme juntathere assembled; and Napoleon was preparing a fresh army to overrunPortugal, under the command of Masséna. The Perceval ministry, in whichLiverpool had taken Castlereagh's post of secretary for war and thecolonies, adopting an optimistic tone at home, practically toldWellington that he must shift for himself; and he braced himself up todo so with extraordinary fortitude. 

He remained watching the gathering storm from the heights of Guarda, south-west of Almeida, and commanding two great roads from Spain intoPortugal, but his thoughts were equally fixed upon the vast and famouslines of Torres Vedras, which he was constructing for the defence ofLisbon. His force, including the Portuguese regulars, did not exceed50, 000 men; that of the French under Ney, Reynier, and Junot consistedof about 70, 000, but they were not equally capable of being concentratedon a single point. The Portuguese militia, too, were being graduallydisciplined, and the Portuguese civil authorities were being graduallyschooled into the new lesson of sweeping their own country bare of allsupplies before the coming French invasion. Wellington did not evenstrike a blow to save Ciudad Rodrigo, which Masséna took on July 10, 1810. But it was no part of his plan that Almeida should capitulate, asit did shortly afterwards, partly owing to the accidental explosion of amagazine, and partly as was suspected, to an act of treachery. Still, Masséna delayed until urged by Napoleon, and deceived by falseintelligence, he launched forth, at the beginning of September, on anenterprise which proved fatal to his reputation. Both he and Wellingtonissued appeals to the Portuguese nation, the contrast between which issignificant. The French marshal, echoing the prevailing note of hismaster's proclamation, denounced Great Britain as the enemy of allEurope; Wellington called upon the Portuguese to remember their actualexperience of French rapacity and outrage. 

[Pageheading: _BUSSACO AND TORRES VEDRAS. _]

The object of Masséna was to reach Coimbra before Wellington. Hismanoeuvres to outflank Wellington's left were skilfully devised, butthe British army marched steadily down the valley of the Mondego, carrying with it the population of the district, and took its stand onthe ridge of Bussaco, north of Coimbra, barring Masséna's progress. There was fought, on September 27, 1810, a battle as deadly as that ofTalavera, and more decisive in its consequences. The French, as usual, were the assailants; the English and the Portuguese stood at bay. Never, in any of their brilliant victories, did French troops show more heroicdaring than in this assault under Reynier on the British right, andunder Ney on the British left. Both columns forced their way up bareheath-clad slopes, and reached the summit, whence they were only drivenback after repeated charges. Their loss in killed and wounded exceeded4, 500, that of the allies was about 1, 300. The French generals threw theblame of defeat upon each other, but, in fact, the skill of Massénaconverted a defeat into an episode in his victorious advance. On thefollowing day, he again found a way of turning Wellington's left, and, in an intercepted despatch, he naturally treated this as a compensationfor the repulse at Bussaco, which he did not disguise. Compelled toretire once more with a vast drove of encumbered, panic-stricken, andfamishing Portuguese fugitives, and conscious that no reserves awaitedhim, Wellington knew, nevertheless, that he was drawing Masséna furtherand further away from his base, to encounter a terrible surprise. For, so useless had been the French scouts, and so worthless the informationreceived from Portuguese sources, that no adequate conception of theobstacle presented by the lines of Torres Vedras had entered the mind ofthat experienced strategist. 

These elaborate works had been constructed in the course of a year bythousands of Portuguese labourers, directed by Colonel Fletcher of theroyal engineers, upon a plan carefully thought out and laid down byWellington himself. The first and principal chain of fortificationsstretched for nearly thirty miles across the whole promontory betweenthe river Tagus and the sea, about twenty-five miles north of Lisbon. The summits of hills were crowned with forts, their sides were escarpedand protected with earthworks, their gorges were blocked with redoubts, a small river at the foot of them was made impassable by dams; in short, the utmost advantage was taken of the defences provided by nature, andthese were supplemented by artificial entrenchments. Portuguesegarrisons manned the greater part of the batteries, armed with guns fromthe arsenals of Lisbon; British troops were to occupy the mostvulnerable points of attack. There was a second and third range offortifications behind the first, in case these should be forced, but nosuch emergency arose. When Masséna had carefully inspected thestupendous barrier reared in front of him, his well-trained eyerecognised it as impregnable: he paused for some weeks under semblanceof blockading the British forces, while he was really scouring thecountry for the means of feeding his own; but in November he began toretreat upon Santarem, Almeida, and Ciudad Rodrigo, with a half-starvedand dispirited army, greatly reduced in numbers during the campaign. [47]

The year 1811 was perhaps the least interesting, yet the most criticalin the history of the Peninsular war. Wellington had not escapedcriticism at home for allowing Masséna to remain so long unmolested nearSantarem. He described himself in a private letter, written in December, 1810, as "safe for the winter at all events". More he could not havesaid, knowing, as he did, that Soult was in force before Cadiz, andmight at any moment join Masséna. This, in fact, he did; leaving hisfields of plunder in Andalusia under the positive orders of Napoleon, hedefeated the Spaniards at the Gebora on February 19, and capturedBadajoz, as well as Olivenza. In his absence, Sir Thomas Graham, whocommanded the British troops at Cadiz, sailed thence with La Peńa, theSpanish commander, and a combined force of about 12, 000 men, to make aflank march, and attack the French besiegers, under Victor, in the rear. A brisk action followed at Barrosa, in which Graham obtained a completevictory, but the Spanish troops, as usual, remained almost passive; thebeaten army was not pursued, and the siege of Cadiz was not raised. This city was still the seat of the Spanish national government, but thefeeble junta had been superseded by a national cortes, fairlyrepresentative of the nation, which passed some liberal measures, anddissolved the so-called regency which assumed to represent Ferdinand. 

[Pageheading: _FUENTES D'ONORO AND ALBUERA. _]

The two great frontier fortresses of Spain, Ciudad Rodrigo and Badajoz, were now in the hands of the French. Masséna had regained the Spanishfrontier in March, after frequent combats with the pursuing enemy, andwith heavy losses in men and horses, though he saved every gun exceptone. This retreat involved the evacuation of every place in Portugalexcept the fortress of Almeida. Wellington's pursuit would have beenstill more vigorous, but that his Portuguese troops were half-starved, and had lost discipline under intolerable privations. His next designseems to have been the recapture of the fortresses, but he was notwithout ulterior hopes--all too premature--of afterwards pushing on toMadrid and operating in the eastern provinces of Spain. He firstinvested Almeida, and, leaving General Spencer to continue the blockade, proceeded to Elvas in order to concert measures with Beresford for thesiege of Badajoz. Thence he was suddenly recalled northward to repel afresh advance of Masséna, strongly reinforced, for the relief ofAlmeida. The battle which followed at Fuentes d'Ońoro, south-east ofAlmeida, was among the most hardly contested struggles in the wholePeninsular war. It began on May 3, and, with a day's interval, concludedon the 5th. The British remained masters of the field, and claimed asomewhat doubtful victory, which at least secured the evacuation ofAlmeida. The garrison of that fortress blew it up by night, andsucceeded, by masterly tactics, in joining the main French army withlittle sacrifice of life. 

Wellington returned to Badajoz, only to meet with disappointment. General Cole, acting under Beresford, had retaken Olivenza; but Soult, with a force of 23, 000 men, was marching to succour Badajoz, when he wasencountered by Beresford at Albuera. Beresford's force was numericallystronger than Soult's, but only 7, 000 men were English, the rest beingmostly Spanish. Measured by the proportion of losses to men engaged onboth sides, this fight on May 16, 1811, must rank among the bloodiest onrecord. In four hours nearly 7, 000 of the allies and 8, 000 French werestruck down. The decisive charge of the reserve was inspired and led byHardinge, afterwards Governor-General of India; the French were routed, and Soult was checked, but little was gained by the victors. [48] Thesiege of Badajoz, indeed, was renewed, but its progress was slow forwant of proper engines and artillery, and it was abandoned, after twofutile attempts, on June 11. By this time, Marmont had succeededMasséna, and was carrying out Napoleon's grand plan for a junction withSoult's army and a fresh irruption into Portugal. With marvellousaudacity, Wellington offered battle to both marshals, who, happilyignorant of his weakness, declined it more than once. In truth, he wasnever more nearly at the end of his resources than when he went intowinter quarters at the close of 1811, having failed to prevent Marmontfrom provisioning Ciudad Rodrigo, and having narrowly escaped beingoverwhelmed by a much superior force. His army was greatly reduced bysickness, he was very ill-supplied from England, and he received noloyal support from the Portuguese government. Moreover, the French hadapparently extended their hold on Spain, both in the eastern andnorthern provinces, while it was reported that Napoleon himself, notcontent with dictating orders from afar, would return to complete theconquest of the Peninsula. 

At this juncture, he must have been cheered by the arrival of so able alieutenant as Graham from Cadiz, and by the brilliant success of Hillagainst a detached body of Marmont's army south of the Tagus. There wereother tendencies also secretly working in favour of the British andtheir allies. Joseph Bonaparte, as King of Spain, openly protestedagainst the extortions which he was enjoined to practise on hissubjects, and went so far as to resign his crown at Paris, though he wasinduced to resume it. Again the broken armies of the Spanish hadreappeared in the form of guerilla bands under leaders such as Mina;they could not be dispersed, since they had no cohesion, and were moreformidable through their extreme mobility than organised battalions. Above all, the domination of France over Europe was already underminedand tottering invisibly to its fall. The Tsar Alexander had, as we haveseen, been deeply offended by the preference of an Austrian to a Russianprincess, as the consort of Napoleon, and still more by his imperiousannexation of Oldenburg. Sweden, following the example of Russia, hadbegun to rebel against the continental system. A series of internalreforms had aroused a national spirit, and stealthily created the basisof a national army in Prussia, and the intense hostility of all NorthGermany to France was thinly disguised by the unwilling servility of thePrussian court. Napoleon, who seldom laboured under the illusionspropagated by his own manifestoes and bulletins, well knew what he wasdoing when, in August, 1811, he allowed himself to burst into a storm ofindignation against the Russian ambassador at the Tuileries. From thatmoment he clearly premeditated a rupture with Russia, and soon hewithdrew 60, 000 of his best troops from Spain, to be employed in thatfatal enterprise of 1812 which proved to be his doom. 

[Pageheading: _CAPTURE OF CIUDAD RODRIGO AND BADAJOZ. _]

The winter of 1811-12 was spent by Wellington in preparing, with theutmost secrecy, for the sieges of Ciudad Rodrigo and Badajoz, as thefirst steps in an offensive campaign. In January, 1812, he struck asudden blow against the former, and captured it by an assault, attendedwith great carnage, on the 19th of that month. In this furious conflict, lasting but half an hour, Craufurd, the renowned leader of the lightdivision, fell mortally wounded. Shameful excesses sullied the glory ofa splendid exploit. Marmont immediately drew in his troops towardsSalamanca, leaving Soult in the valley of the Tagus; and Hill, with hissouthern army, moved northward. Wellington, who was created an earl inFebruary, transferred the greater part of his troops to Badajoz, andbegan a regular siege, but with very imperfect materials, no organisedcorps of sappers and miners, and very few officers skilled in the art oftaking fortified towns. He was greatly delayed on the route by the lackof transport, and the vexatious obstinacy of the Portuguese authorities, while time was of the utmost consequence lest any or all of three Frencharmies should come to raise the siege. Hence the extreme rapidity of hisfinal operations. 

After the capture of an outlying fort, three breaches were made in thewalls, and on the night of April 6, under the cover of thick darkness, two divisions of British troops descended into the ditch, many carryingladders or sacks of hay, and advanced to the foot of the _glacis_. Herethey were almost overwhelmed with a hurricane of fiery missiles, and inmounting the breaches they had to face not only hand-grenades, trains ofpowder, and bursting shells, but a _chevaux-de-frise_ of sabre-bladescrowning the summit. None of these attacks was successful; but anotherdivision under Picton scaled the castle, and a brigade under Walkereffected an entrance elsewhere. After this, the French abandoned thebreaches; the resistance waxed fainter, and at six in the morning, Philippon, the governor, with his brave garrison, surrenderedunconditionally. The loss of the British and Portuguese in killed andwounded was stated at the enormous figure of 4, 885, and it was avengedby atrocities prolonged for two days and nights, worse than had followedthe storming of Ciudad Rodrigo. Wellington ordered the provost marshalto execute any soldiers found in the act of plunder, but officers vainlyattempted to check their men at the peril of their own lives. 

[Pageheading: _SALAMANCA. _]

It had been the intention of Wellington to operate next against Soult, and drive him, if possible, from Esdremadura and Andalusia. But, asappears from one of his despatches to Lord Liverpool, he was illsatisfied with the conduct of his allies guarding Ciudad Rodrigo, andreturned to resume command in that region. In the same despatch hecomplains bitterly of the niggardly policy of his government in regardto money and supplies. The same timidity on the part of ministers athome appears in a letter from Liverpool, almost forbidding him to acceptthe command-in-chief of the Spanish armies, which, however, wasconferred upon him later in this year. [49] At present, he decided tomarch against Marmont in the plains of Leon. This movement wasfacilitated by the success of Hill in surprising a body of Frenchtroops, and seizing the important bridge of Almaraz over the Tagus onMay 19, thereby breaking the French lines of communication and isolatingMarmont's army for a time. Soon afterwards, Salamanca and its forts werecaptured by Wellington, but Marmont proved a very formidable opponent, and, having behind him another army under King Joseph, threatened theBritish lines of communication. In the series of manoeuvres whichensued, Wellington's forces met with more than one reverse, but theFrench marshal was determined to win a victory on a large scale. Wellington had no wish to risk a battle, unless Salamanca or his ownrear should be seriously threatened, and he stood on the defensive, alittle south of Salamanca, with Marmont's army encamped in front of him. 

Early on July 22, the French seized one of two hills called the Arapileswhich formed the key of the position and commanded the road to CiudadRodrigo. Marmont then organised complicated evolutions, of which theultimate object was to envelop the British right and cut off itsexpected retreat. To accomplish this, he extended his own left so farthat it became separated by a gap from his centre. No sooner didWellington, with a flash of military insight, perceive the advantagethus offered than he flung half of his troops upon the French left wing, and made a vigorous attack with the rest upon the French centre. It wastoo late for Marmont, himself wounded, to repair the mistake, the centrewas driven in, and, as was said, 40, 000 men were beaten in fortyminutes. General Clausel, who took Marmont's place, showed great abilityin the retreat, but the French army could scarcely have escapeddestruction had not the Spaniards, who were entrusted with a post on theriver Tormes, left the passage open for the flying enemy. Nevertheless, the battle of Salamanca was the greatest and most decisive yet fought bythe British in the Peninsula; it established the reputation of our army, and placed Wellington in the first rank of generals. Three weeks laterhe entered Madrid in triumph, and was received with the wildest popularacclamations. Joseph once more abandoned his capital, joined Suchet inValencia, and ordered Soult against his will to withdraw from Andalusiaand move in the same direction. This concentration relieved Wellingtonfrom immediate anxieties, but exposed him to a serious danger of beingconfronted before long by forces thrice as great as his own. He alsoneeded reinforcements, and was in still greater want of money. 

To students of military history it may seem a very doubtful questionwhether, under such circumstances, it was prudent to advance fartherinto Spain from his strongholds on the Portuguese frontier. ButWellington, who had been created a marquis on August 18, judged itnecessary to crush if possible the remainder of Marmont's army which hadretired northward under Clausel. He therefore left Hill with adetachment to cover Madrid, and marching through Valladolid occupied thetown of Burgos. The castle of that place remained in the hands of aFrench garrison 2, 000 strong and had been carefully fortified. Hereagain we may be permitted to doubt whether, after the experience gainedat Ciudad Rodrigo and Badajoz, Wellington did wisely in resolving toinvest and storm a fortress so formidable, without an adequatesiege-train, and with the knowledge that Clausel might rally his forcesin time to relieve it. Wellington himself afterwards admitted toLiverpool that he had erred in not taking with him the best of his owntroops, and that he did not possess the means of transporting ordnanceand military stores from Madrid and Santander, where there was abundanceof them. The siege lasted a month, from September 19 to October 18; thegarrison offered a most obstinate resistance, inflicting great loss onthe besiegers by sorties, and in the end the attack failed. Souham, withClausel, was closing in upon Wellington from the north, Soult from thesouth-east; Hill's position at Madrid was untenable, and another retreatbecame inevitable. It was the last and most trying in Wellington'smilitary career. The army which had behaved nobly at Salamanca brokedown under the strain of suffering and depression, like that of Sir JohnMoore before Coruńa. The enemy was driven back in various rear-guardactions, but on the march the sense of discipline vanished and shamefuldisorders occurred. A scathing reprimand from Wellington, which mighthave been written by a French critic and which ought never to have beenmade public, threw all the blame of this disorganisation on theregimental officers, and denied that any scarcity of provisions could bepleaded in excuse of it. 

[Pageheading: _MILITARY REFORMS. _]

By the middle of November the campaign ended, and Wellington'sheadquarters were at Ciudad Rodrigo. For the present, Spain was stilldominated by the French, but its southern provinces were clear of theinvaders, and elsewhere the tide was already on the turn. The Russianwar cast its shadow beforehand on the Spanish peninsula; the Frencharmy was constantly weakened in numbers and still more in quality, asconscripts were substituted for veterans, and inferior generalssucceeded to high commands; the Portuguese and Spanish contingents ofthe British army were stronger and better disciplined. Wellingtonhimself, tenacious of his purpose as ever, received heartier supportfrom home, where Liverpool had become prime minister in June, and hadbeen succeeded by Bathurst as secretary for war and the colonies; andthough the Marquis Wellesley, no longer in the government, complainedthat his brother's operations had been crippled by ministerial apathy, the Peninsular war, on the eve of its completion, was adopted with prideand sympathy by the nation. 

The last chapter of the Peninsular war opens with the operationsculminating in the battle of Vitoria, and closes with the battle ofToulouse. Having accepted the office of generalissimo of the Spanisharmies, Wellington repaired to Cadiz during the winter of 1812-13, andformed the lowest estimate of the make-shift government there carried onunder the dual control of the cortes and the regency. He failed toobtain a reform of this system, but succeeded in effecting areorganisation of the Spanish army, to be in future under his owncommand. He next addressed himself, with the aid of Beresford and theBritish minister at Lisbon, to amend the monstrous abuses, civil andmilitary, of Portuguese administration. By the beginning of May, 1813, agreat improvement was visible in the equipment and _moral_ of theSpanish and Portuguese troops; a vigorous insurrection against theFrench occupation had broken out in the province of Biscay, endangeringthe great road into Spain; and an Anglo-Sicilian army of 16, 000 men, under Sir John Murray, had repulsed Suchet, hitherto undefeated, atCastalla on the Valencian coast, without, however, completing theirvictory, or capturing any of the French guns in the narrow defile bywhich the enemy fled. The want of unity in the command of the Frencharmy, and of harmony between its generals, was more felt than ever nowthat Napoleon's master-mind was engrossed in retrieving the awful ruinof the Russian expedition. 

Yet Napoleon's instructions to Joseph show that he had fully grasped thecritical nature of the situation. He enjoined Joseph to mass all hisforces round Valladolid, and imperatively directed that at all hazardsthe communications with France should be maintained. The Spanishguerillas had long rendered communications so insecure that courierswith despatches had to be escorted by bodies of 250 cavalry or 500infantry; they were now so effectually intercepted that Napoleon's owndespatch reached Joseph more than two months late, by way of Barcelonaand Valencia. Meanwhile, Joseph was openly accusing Soult, in a letterto his brother, of criminal ambition--a charge to which he laid himselfopen before in Portugal--and did not hesitate to add, "the Duke ofDalmatia or myself must quit Spain". In England, on the contrary, parties were at last united in the desire to bring the war to atriumphant end, and parliament grudged neither men nor money to aidWellington's plan of campaign. It was, then, under happier auspices thanin former years that he broke up from his cantonments then stationed onthe Coa, a little to the north-west of Ciudad Rodrigo, and set forwardwith 70, 000 British and Portuguese troops, besides 20, 000 Spaniards, todrive the French out of Spain. So confident was he of success that, asNapier relates, he waved his hand in crossing the frontier on May 22, and exclaimed, "Farewell, Portugal". [50]

[Pageheading: _VITORIA. _]

He advanced by the valley of the Douro; then, turning to the north-east, he compelled the French to evacuate Burgos, and passed the Ebro on June13. Graham in command of his left wing there joined him, after forcinghis way by immense efforts across the mountains of the Portuguesefrontier. Hill, commanding the right wing of his composite but unitedarmy, was already with him. A depot for his commissariat and a militaryhospital were established at Santander, where a British fleet was lying, and whence he could draw his supplies direct from home. The French army, under Joseph and Marshal Jourdan, fell back before him by a forced nightmarch on the 19th and took up its position in front of Vitoria, in theprovince of Biscay. Here, on the plain of the river Zadorra, was foughton the 21st the greatest battle of the Peninsular war. Wellington hadencountered serious physical difficulties in his passage from the valleyof the Ebro to that of the Zadorra; but for once his plans had beenexecuted with admirable precision, and all his troops arrived at theappointed time on the field of battle. The French, conscious of theirimpending expulsion from Spain, were encumbered by enormousbaggage-trains containing the fruits of five years' merciless spoliation"not of a province but of a kingdom, " including treasures of art fromMadrid and all the provincial capitals, with no less than 5, 500, 000dollars in hard cash, besides two years' arrears of pay which Napoleonhad sent to fill the military chest of Joseph's army. A vast number ofvehicles, loaded with the whole imperial and royal treasure, overspreadthe plain and choked the great road behind the French position, by whichalone such a mass of waggons could find its way into France. 

The French army consisted of about 60, 000 men, with 150 pieces ofcannon, but strong detachments, under Foy and Clausel respectively, hadbeen sent away to guard the roads to Bilbao and Pamplona. The Britisharmy numbered nearly 80, 000, inclusive of Portuguese and Spanish, with90 guns. The French were posted on strong ground, and held the bridgesacross the river. Graham, with the left column of the British, made acircuit in the direction of Bilbao, working round to cut off the Frenchrear on the Bayonne road. Hill, with the right column, forced the passof Puebla, in the latter direction, carried the ridge above it aftermuch hard fighting, and made good his position on the left flank of theFrench. Wellington himself, in the centre, under the guidance of aSpanish peasant, pushed a brigade across one of the bridges in hisfront, weakly guarded, and thus mastered the others; his force thenexpanded itself on the plain and bore down all opposition. Graham hadmet with a more obstinate resistance from the French right, underReille, but at last got possession of the great Bayonne road. Thenceforward a retreat of the French army, partly encircled, becameinevitable, but it was conducted at first in good order and withfrequent halts at defensible points. The only outlet left open was themountain road to Pamplona, and this was not only impracticable for heavytraffic but obstructed by an overturned waggon. The orderly retreat wassoon converted into a rout; the flying throng made its way acrosscountry and over mountains towards Pamplona, leaving all the artillery, military stores, and accumulated spoils as trophies of the Britishvictory. 

The value of these was prodigious, but the great mass of booty, exceptmunitions of war, fell into the hands of private soldiers andcamp-followers. Wellington reported to Bathurst that nearly a millionsterling in money had been appropriated by the rank and file of thearmy, and, still worse, that so dazzling a triumph had "totallyannihilated all order and discipline". [51] The loss in the battle hadbeen about 5, 000, but Wellington stated that on July 8 "we had 12, 500men less under arms than we had on the day before the battle". Hesupposed the missing 7, 500, nearly half of whom were British, to bemostly concealed in the mountain villages. [52] A large number ofstragglers afterwards rejoined their colours, but too late to aid in aneffectual pursuit of the enemy. The immediate consequence of this greatvictory was the evacuation by the French of all Spain south of the Ebro. Even Suchet abandoned Valencia and distributed his forces betweenTarragona and Tortosa. To his great credit, Wellington addressed to thecortes an earnest protest against wreaking vengeance on the French partyin Spain, many of whom might have been driven into acceptance of aforeign yoke "by terror, by distress, or by despair". At the same time, he vigorously followed up his success by chasing and nearly surroundingClausel's division, while Hill invested Pamplona, and Graham drove Foyacross the Bidassoa, in his advance upon the fortress of St. Sebastian. 

[Pageheading: _THE BATTLE OF THE PYRENEES. _]

The fortifications of St. Sebastian were in a very imperfect condition, but the governor, Emmanuel Rey, was nevertheless able to defend theplace with success. Wellington, after laying siege to it, sanctioned apremature attempt to scale the breaches which cost Graham's force a lossof more than 500 men. This check was succeeded by another, still moreserious, in the historic pass of Roncesvalles. Napoleon, hearing atDresden of the battle of Vitoria, and instantly fathoming its momentousimport, despatched Soult, as "lieutenant of the emperor, " to assumecommand of all the French armies at Bayonne and on the Spanish frontier, still amounting nominally to 114, 000 men, besides 66, 000 under Suchet inCatalonia. Soult reached Bayonne on July 13, fortified it strongly, andreorganised his troops with amazing energy, inspiriting them with awarlike address in the well-known style of Napoleon's proclamations. Onthe 25th he set his forces in motion, with the intention of crushing theBritish right by a sudden irruption, and relieving Pamplona. He all butachieved his object, for, by well-concerted and well-concealedmovements, he actually carried the passes of Roncesvalles and Maya, inspite of a gallant resistance and the French troops were on the point ofpouring down the Pyrenees on the Spanish side, when Wellington arrivedat full speed from his position before St. Sebastian. 

He was opportunely reinforced, and gave battle on the rugged heights infront of Pamplona to a force numerically superior, but for the most partcharging uphill. Never, even at Bussaco, did the French show greaterardour and _élan_ in attack, and it was only after a series of bloodyhand-to-hand combats on the summits and sides of the mountains that theywere compelled to recoil and rolled backward down the ridge. Baffled inhis attempt to relieve Pamplona, Soult turned westwards towards St. Sebastian, but was anticipated by Wellington, and faced by threedivisions of Hill on his right. A second engagement followed, in whichthe Portuguese earned the chief honours, and 3, 000 prisoners were taken. At last Soult gave orders for a retreat, and in the course of it was allbut entrapped in a narrow valley where he could not have escaped thenecessity of surrender. It is said that he was warned just in time bythe sudden intrusion of three British marauders in uniform; at allevents, he instantly changed his line of march, and ultimately led hisbroken army back to France, but in the utmost confusion, and not withoutfresh disasters. One of these befell Reille's division in the gorge ofYanzi, and another the French rear-guard under Clausel, which defendeditself valiantly, but was driven headlong down the northern side of thePyrenees from which this series of battles derives its name. 

The siege of St. Sebastian was immediately renewed with a far morepowerful battering train, but its defences had also been strengthened bythe indefatigable governor. The final assault took place on August 31, and rivalled the storming of Badajoz in the murderous ferocity of the_melée_ at the breaches, as well as in the horrors practised on theinhabitants by the victorious assailants, which Wellington and Grahamvainly endeavoured to check. So desperate was the defence, and soinsuperable appeared the obstacles to an entrance by the breaches, thatGraham adopted the heroic expedient of causing his artillery to fire afew feet only over the heads of the forlorn hope, until a clear openinghad been made, and deadly piles of combustibles had been exploded behindthe main breach, blowing into the air 300 of the garrison. A hideousconflagration destroyed the greater part of the town. A few days laterthe castle, to which the governor had retired, yielded to anirresistible cannonade, and he surrendered at discretion with about1, 200 men. Several hundred wounded, including a large number of Britishprisoners, were found there in the hospitals. 

On the 30th, the day before St. Sebastian was stormed, Soult attempted adiversion for its relief by crossing the Bidassoa, and on the followingday he engaged a large body of Spaniards at St. Marcial. On thisoccasion Wellington held the British troops in reserve, and theSpaniards without their aid defeated the French with great slaughter. Soended a well-planned and well-executed effort to reconquer the Spanishfrontier. Pamplona was still untaken, and Suchet was still in Catalonia, but no further offensive movement was undertaken by the French againstSpain. Both Soult and Wellington had shown remarkable powers ofgeneralship, and there was a moment when Soult might have snatched theprize of victory by raising the siege of Pamplona. But his ultimatesuccess was hopeless, and his failure was complete. Before the fall ofSt. Sebastian and the battle of St. Marcial, Wellington estimated theFrench losses at 15, 000 men, who could ill be spared in the intervalbetween Napoleon's last gleam of victory at Dresden and on his signaldefeat at Leipzig. 

[Pageheading: _WELLINGTON ENTERS FRANCE. _]

But the Peninsular war, in the historical sense, was not yet over. During the summer of 1813 a mixed force of British, Germans, Spaniards, and Sicilians had been carrying on an intermittent war against theFrench under Suchet in the eastern provinces. Their commander, Sir JohnMurray, who had allowed the beaten enemy to escape at Castalla, provedequally irresolute in an attempt to capture Tarragona, countermanded theassault, and re-embarked his troops on the approach of Suchet. Soonafterwards he was superseded by Lord William Bentinck, and Suchet afterthe battle of Vitoria was compelled to retire behind the Ebro. Bentinckrenewed the investment of Tarragona, but permitted Suchet without abattle to relieve it, demolish its fortifications, and withdraw itsgarrison at the end of August. An ill-judged advance of the Britishgeneral into Catalonia brought about another misfortune, and, upon thewhole, the series of operations conducted against Suchet were by nomeans glorious to British arms or generalship, however important theireffect in preventing a large body of French veterans from reinforcingSoult's army at a critical time in the Western Pyrenees. Wellingtonhimself inclined to complete the deliverance of Spain by clearing theprovince of Catalonia of the invaders, but the British government, having in view the prospect of crushing Napoleon in Germany, urged himto undertake an immediate invasion of France. Accordingly he movedforward on October 7, leaving Pamplona closely blockaded, threw his armyacross the Bidassoa on the 8th by a stroke of masterly tactics, forcedthe strong French lines on the north side of it, and established himselfon the enemy's soil. Before entering France he issued the most stringentproclamations against plundering, which he enforced by the sternestmeasures, and announced that he would not suffer the peacefulinhabitants of France to be punished for the ambition of their ruler. Onthe 31st the French garrison of Pamplona, despairing of relief, surrendered as prisoners of war. 

The prolonged defence of Pamplona gave Soult time to strengthen hisposition on the Nivelle. The lines which he constructed rivalled thoseof Torres Vedras, and the several actions by which they were at lastforced and turned were among the most desperate of the whole war. Thefirst was fought in the early part of November, and resulted in theoccupation by Wellington's army of the great mountain-barrier south ofBayonne, with six miles of entrenchments along the Nivelle, and of theport of St. Jean de Luz. A month later Wellington became anxious toestablish his winter-cantonments between the Nive and the Adour, partlyfor strategical reasons, and partly in order to command a larger andmore fertile area for his supplies. On December 9, therefore, Hill withthe right wing forded the Nive and drove back the French left upon theircamp in front of Bayonne. Then followed three most obstinate combats onthe 10th, 11th and 13th, in which Soult took the offensive, with Bayonneas the centre of his operations, and with the advantage of always movingupon interior lines resting upon a strong fortress. In the first ofthese attacks, he surprised and nearly succeeded in overwhelming theBritish left, under Hope, now Sir John, before Wellington could bringother divisions to its support. In the second, he fell suddenly on thesame troops, exhausted by fatigue, and still more or less isolated, butthey were rallied by Hope and Wellington in person, and remained mastersof the field. In the third he concentrated his whole strength upon theBritish right under Hill, aided by a thick mist, and by a flood upon theNive, which swept away a bridge of boats, and separated Hill from therest of the army. Nevertheless, that able general, emulating the nobleexample of Hope in the earlier encounters, succeeded in repellingassault after assault, until Wellington himself appeared withreinforcements of imposing strength, and converted a stubborn defenceinto a victory. 

The loss of the allies since crossing the Nive had exceeded 5, 000; thatof the French was 6, 000, besides 2, 400 Germans who deserted to theBritish during the night of the 9th in obedience to orders from home. Ever since he assumed the command Soult had shown military ability of arare order. Bayonne, the base of all his operations, was indefensiblebefore he fortified it. A great proportion of his troops were rawconscripts, or demoralised by defeat, before he inspired them with hisown courage and vigour. He was practically dependent for subsistence inhis own country on the very system of pillage which had roused apatriotic frenzy of resentment in Spain and other lands ravaged byFrench armies. He now stood at bay in the south of France, as Wellingtonhad so long stood at bay in Portugal, and continued there during theearly part of 1814 a defensive campaign not unworthy of comparison withthe prodigious exploits of Napoleon himself against the invaders of hiseastern provinces. 

[Pageheading: _THE INVESTMENT OF BAYONNE. _]

A respite of two months succeeded the battles on the Nive. During thisinterval Wellington's difficulty in paying his troops was great, owingto the enormous drain of specie from England into Central Europe. He wasfurther embarrassed by the appearance of the Duke of Angoulęme, elderson of Charles, Count of Artois, afterwards Charles X. , at hisheadquarters. The British government was by no means committed to arestoration of the Bourbons, and Wellington deprecated the duke'sappearance as at least premature. He therefore insisted upon hisremaining incognito and as a non-combatant at St. Jean de Luz. Soultwas in great straits, not only because he was compelled to "make warsupport war" by exorbitant requisitions upon the French peasantry, butalso because the exigencies of Napoleon were such that large drafts ofthe best troops were drawn from the army of the south. When hostilitieswere resumed in the middle of February, 1814, the Anglo-Portuguese andSpanish force combined outnumbered the French by nearly five to three, but Soult retained the decisive advantage of having a strong _pointd'appui_ in Bayonne at the confluence of the Nive and Adour. Carefulpreparations were made by Wellington for throwing a large force acrossthe Lower Adour below Bayonne, in concert with a British fleet. Contrarywinds and a violent surf delayed the arrival of the British gunboats, but on February 23 Hope sent over a body of his men on a raft ofpontoons in the face of the enemy's flotilla, with the aid of a brigadearmed with Congreve rockets, which had been first used at Leipzig, andproduced the utmost consternation in the French ranks. The gunboats soonfollowed, but with the loss of one wrecked and others stranded incrossing the bar. By the joint exertions of soldiers and sailors abridge was then constructed, by which Hope's entire army with artillerypassed over the river, and, two days afterwards, began the investment ofBayonne. 

Meanwhile, the centre and right wing, under the command of Wellington, had forced a passage across the Upper Adour and threatened Bayonne onthe other side. Leaving a garrison of 6, 000 men in Bayonne, Soult tookhis stand at Orthez, with an army of about 40, 000 men, on the summit ofa formidable ridge. Wellington attacked this ridge on the 27th, with aforce of nearly equal strength in three columns so disposed as toconverge from points several miles distant from each other. The veteransof the French army, admirably handled, fought with tenacity, and all butsucceeded in foiling the attack before Wellington could bring up hisreserves. The conscripts, however, were not equally steady, and whenHill, advancing from the extreme right, pressed upon the French left, Soult's orderly retreat became a precipitate flight. The French lossgreatly exceeded the British, and was soon afterwards swelled bywholesale desertions; the road to Bordeaux was thrown open, and theroyalist reaction against Napoleon, stimulated by the depredation ofthe French troops, ripened into a general revolt. 

Meanwhile, Napoleon had lost Germany by the battle of Leipzig; early in1814 the allied armies of Austria, Prussia, and Russia had enteredFrance, and a congress was being held at Châtillon-sur-Seine, toformulate, if possible, terms of peace. The city of Bordeaux was thefirst to declare itself openly in favour of the Bourbons. Wellingtonsent a large detachment to preserve order, with strict instructions toBeresford, who commanded it, to remain neutral, in the event of LouisXVIII. Being proclaimed, pending the negotiations with Napoleon atChâtillon. But the excitement of the people could not be restrained, andthe arrival of the Duke of Angoulęme evoked a burst of royalistenthusiasm which anticipated by a few weeks only the abdication ofNapoleon at Fontainebleau. The defection of Bordeaux forced Soult tofall back rapidly on a very formidable position in front of Toulouse. The British army followed in pursuit, encumbered with a great artilleryand pontoon train. After a lively action at Tarbes, it arrived in frontof Toulouse on March 27, to find the Garonne in flood, and the Frencharmy strongly entrenched around the town, with a prospect of beingjoined by 20, 000 or 30, 000 veterans, under Suchet, from Catalonia. 

[Pageheading: _THE BATTLE OF TOULOUSE. _]

The dispositions of Wellington, ending in the battle of Toulouse, onApril 10, have not escaped criticism. Hill, with two divisions and aSpanish contingent, threw a bridge across the Garonne below Toulouse, but discovered that he could make no progress in that direction, owingto the impassable state of the roads. Beresford crossed the river with18, 000 men at another point, but a sudden flood broke up the pontoonbridge in his rear, and he remained isolated for no less than four days, exposed to an attack from Soult's whole army. Having missed this rareopportunity, Soult calmly awaited the attack, with a force numericallyinferior, but with every advantage of position. On the 10th Wellington'stroops advanced in two columns, separated from each other by a perilousinterval of two miles. One of these, including Freyre's Spaniards andPicton's division, was fairly driven back after furious attempts tostorm the ramparts of the fortified ridge held by the French. Beresford, however, who in this battle combined generalship with brilliantcourage, restored the fortunes of the day by a dashing advance againstthe redoubts on the French right. Having carried these he swept alongthe ridge, which became untenable, and Soult withdrew his army withinhis second line of defences. Two days later, seeing that Hill menacedToulouse on the other side, and fearing that if defeated again he wouldlose his only line of retreat along the Carcassonne road, he evacuatedToulouse by that route, leaving his magazines and hospitals in the handsof the British army. By so doing he left to Wellington the honour andprize of victory, but few victories have been so dearly bought, and theloss in killed and wounded was actually greater on the side of thevictors than on that of the vanquished. 

Toulouse received Wellington on the 12th with open arms, and as newsreached him on the same day announcing the proclamation of Louis XVIII. At Paris, he no longer hesitated to assume the white cockade. Soultloyally declined to accept the intelligence until it was officiallyconfirmed, when a military convention was made on the 18th, whereby aboundary line was established between the two armies. Suchet had alreadywithdrawn from Spain, and at last recalled the garrisons from thoseSpanish fortresses in which Napoleon had so obstinately locked up pickedtroops which he sorely needed in his dire extremity. But on the 14th, aweek after Napoleon's abdication, the famous "sortie from Bayonne" tookplace, in which each side lost 800 or 900 men, and Hope, wounded in twoplaces, was made prisoner. For this waste of life the governor ofBayonne must be held responsible, since he was informed of the events atParis by Hope, and instead of awaiting official confirmation, likeSoult, chose to risk the issue of a night combat, which must needs bedeadly and could not be decisive. 

Thus ended the Peninsular war. This war on the British side has seldombeen surpassed in the steady adherence to a settled purpose, throughyears of discouragement and failure, maintained by the general whosename it has made immortal. Neither his strategy nor his tactical skillwas always faultless; and afterwards in comparing himself with Soult, heis reported to have said, that he often got into scrapes, but wasextricated by the valour of his army, whereas Soult, when he got into ascrape, had no such men to get him out of it. However this might be, Wellington's foresight in appreciating the place to be filled by thePeninsular war in the overthrow of Napoleon's domination, and his trulyheroic constancy in striving to realise his own idea will everconstitute his best claim to greatness. No other man in England or inEurope discerned as he did, that with Portugal independent and guardedby the power of Great Britain on its western coast and its easternfrontier, the permanent conquest of Spain by the French would becomeimpossible. No one else saw beforehand, what Napoleon discovered toolate, that a war in Portugal and Spain would drain the life-blood of hisinvincible hosts, and at length help towards the invasion of Franceitself. No other general would have shown equal statesmanship inmanaging Spanish juntas and controlling even Spanish guerillas, or equalforbearance in sparing the French people the evils which a victoriousarmy might have inflicted upon them. 

FOOTNOTES:

[42] Napier, _Peninsular War_ (3rd edition), i. , 123. 

[43] For Moore's campaign see Napier, _Peninsular War_, i. , pp. Xxi. -xxv. , lvii. -lxxvi. , 330-44, 431-542, and Oman, _Peninsular War_, i. , 486-602; and compare Moore's _Diary_, edited by Maurice, ii. , 272-398. Sir F. Maurice has not completely answered Professor Oman'scriticisms. 

[44] Wellington, _Dispatches_, iv. , 261-63 (March 7, 1809). 

[45] For the exact figures see Oman, _Peninsular War_, ii. , 645-48. 

[46] Wellington, _Dispatches_, iv. , 536 (July 29, 1809). 

[47] For Masséna's lines of march see T. J. Andrews in _EnglishHistorical Review_, xvi. (1901), 474-92. 

[48] The battle is picturesquely described by Napier, _Peninsular War_, iii. , 536-66. See also _ibid. _, pp. Xxxv. -li. 

[49] Wellington, _Supplementary Dispatches_, vii. , 318-19. 

[50] Napier, _Peninsular War_ (first edition), v. , 513. 

[51] Wellington, _Dispatches_, x. , 473 (June 29, 1813). 

[52] _Ibid. _, x. , 519 (July 9, 1813). 

 CHAPTER VI. 

 THE DOWNFALL OF NAPOLEON. 

The war between France and Russia, publicly threatened in August, 1811, [53] was long deferred. On Russia's part the adherence to adefensive policy delayed action until France was ready. But there wasanother reason why the preparations for war were only slowly pushedforward. Even at the court of St. Petersburg there was a French partywhich retarded such preparations as committing Russia too definitely toan open rupture. On the part of France, also, delay was necessary. Though deliberately provoked by himself, the war was not altogetherwelcome to Napoleon. It suited him best to have a strong but friendlyneighbour in Russia, and victory promised him but the half-heartedfriendship of a power to which he could no longer dare to leave muchstrength. Besides it was necessary to make far more extensivepreparations than had been required for any of his previous campaigns. Russia was too poor and too thinly peopled for it to be possible for warto support itself, and immense supplies with correspondingly largetransport arrangements were needed for a large army which would have tofight at so vast a distance from its base. It would have been impossibleto be ready in time for a summer campaign in 1811; the country was notfavourable to transport on a large scale during winter, and the war wastherefore postponed till the summer of 1812. The end of May or beginningof June was the date originally selected for the beginning ofoperations, as it was expected that the difficulty of providing fodderwould be greatly reduced when the grass had grown. But the preparationswere not sufficiently advanced by that date, and hostilities were onlyopened on June 24. 

The interval was spent by both powers in securing allies and pacifyingenemies. Early in the year 1812 Prussia had made a last attempt to averta French alliance by inviting Russia to join in a peaceful compromise. After the failure of this negotiation her position was helpless, andresembled that of Poland before its national extinction. Russia couldnot become her active ally without exposing her own army to destructionat a second Friedland, and Prussia could not fight France alone. Frederick William, therefore, accepted the terms dictated by Napoleon. By a treaty concluded on February 24 he agreed to supply the emperorwith 20, 000 men to serve as a part of the French army, and was to raiseno levies and give no orders without his consent. The king was also toafford a free passage and provide food and forage for the French troops, payment for which was to be arranged afterwards. In return for this areduction was made in the war indemnity due to France. This was probablyas much as Napoleon could have obtained without authorising a dangerousincrease in the Prussian army. 

[Pageheading: _RUSSIAN ALLIANCES. _]

Austria was more fortunate, because an Austrian war would have been aserious diversion, not a step towards the invasion of Russia. She was inconsequence able to impose her own terms on France. These terms, so faras the nature and extent of the Austrian assistance to France wereconcerned, had been sketched by Metternich to the British agent, Nugent, as far back as November, 1811, and they were accepted by France in atreaty of March 16, 1812. [54] Austria was to provide an army of 30, 000men to guard Napoleon's flank in Volhynia. In return France guaranteedthe integrity of Turkey, and secretly promised a restoration of theIllyrian provinces to Austria in exchange for Galicia, which was to forma part of a reconstituted Poland. Elsewhere Napoleon's negotiations wereunsuccessful. In January he fulfilled his threat of occupying SwedishPomerania, but it had no effect on Swedish policy, and when in March heoffered Finland and a part of Norway as the price of an alliance, histerms were rejected and Sweden allied herself with Russia. On April 17Napoleon made overtures for peace with Great Britain, offering toevacuate Spain and to recognise the house of Braganza in Portugal andthe Bourbons in Sicily, if the British would recognise the "actualdynasty" in Spain and Murat in Naples. The offer was certainly illusory. "Actual dynasty" was an ambiguous phrase, but would naturally mean theBonapartes. Castlereagh declined to recognise Joseph, but declared hisreadiness to discuss the proposed basis if "actual dynasty" meant arecognition of Ferdinand VII. In Spain. Napoleon was enabled to say thathis offers of peace had been rejected, and made no answer toCastlereagh. 

Russia in her turn had to conciliate the Porte, Sweden, Persia, andGreat Britain. The Turkish negotiations were prolonged, and it was onlyin May that the treaty of Bucharest was signed, by which Russia gave upall her conquests except Bessarabia. Sweden had offered Russia heralliance in February. She was prepared to surrender Finland to Russia oncondition that Russia should assist her in the conquest of Norway. Ajoint army was to effect this conquest and then make a descent on NorthGermany, threatening the rear of the French army of invasion. Theadhesion of Great Britain was to be invited. On April 5 an alliancebetween Russia and Sweden was signed on the terms suggested. This wasfollowed on August 28 by the treaty of Ĺbo, which was signed in thepresence of the British representative, Lord Cathcart. By this treatyRussia was to assist Sweden with 30, 000 men and a loan, Sweden undertookto support Russia's claim, when it should be made, for an extension ofher frontier to the Vistula. Shortly afterwards it was agreed topostpone the attack on Norway till the following year, and thus atlength the Russian army in Finland was set free. The treaties with thePorte and Sweden were too late to liberate troops to oppose Napoleon'sadvance, but the troops thus liberated greatly endangered his retreat. With Persia no peace could be made. Great Britain was still nominally atwar both with Russia and with Sweden. Negotiations with Russia in Aprilcame to nothing because the British government refused to take over aloan of Ł4, 000, 000, but on July 18 a treaty of alliance between thethree powers was signed, in which Great Britain promised pecuniary aidto Russia. A further sign of friendship was given when the tsar handedover the Cronstadt fleet for safekeeping to the British. The formaltreaty was, however, only the public recognition of a friendship andmutual confidence which had begun with the breach between Russia andFrance. This good understanding was shared by the nominal allies ofFrance, Prussia and Austria. Russia was fully informed of the militaryand political plans of Austria, and knew that her forces would not fightexcept under compulsion. 

At last, on June 24, Napoleon's grand army began the passage of theNiemen, which formed the boundary between the duchy of Warsaw and theRussian empire. The main body, at least 300, 000 strong, was commanded byNapoleon himself. A northern division, including the Prussiancontingent, was commanded by Macdonald, and, after advancing to Riga, which it pretended to besiege, remained idle throughout the campaign. The Austrians, under Schwarzenberg, formed a southern division, but theymerely manoeuvred, and made no serious attempts to impede themovements of the southern Russian army on its return journey from thewar on the Danube. Napoleon himself drove the main Russian armies beforehim in the direction of Moscow. At last Kutuzov, who had taken over thecommand of the Russians in the course of the retreat, made a stand atBorodino, where on September 7 one of the bloodiest battles on recordwas fought. The figures are variously given, but the French armyprobably lost over 30, 000 in killed and wounded out of a force of125, 000; and the Russians lost not less than 40, 000 out of an army ofslightly smaller dimensions. This awful carnage ended, after all, inlittle more than a trial of strength. The French gained the ground, butthe Russians made good their retreat, and six days later Kutuzov retiredthrough the streets of Moscow, taking the better part of the populationand all the military stores with him. The French vanguard entered on the14th, and Napoleon himself next day. A fire, kindled either by accidentor by Russian incendiaries, raged from the 14th to the 20th anddestroyed three-fourths of the city. 

[Pageheading: _NAPOLEON'S RETREAT FROM MOSCOW. _]

The capture of Moscow was far from being the triumph that the Frenchemperor had anticipated. Deceived by his recollections of Tilsit, he hadfully counted upon receiving pacific overtures from Alexander or atleast upon his eager acceptance of conciliatory assurances from himself. But as the weeks passed and the vision of negotiation with the Russiansproved illusory, retreat became inevitable. On the night of October 18the French army, now about 115, 000 strong, evacuated Moscow. Kutuzov, who was stronger in cavalry, though perhaps still weaker in infantry, hung upon its rear, and, while avoiding a pitched battle, was able toprevent Napoleon from retreating by any other route than the nowdevastated line of his advance. It has often been questioned whetherKutuzov did not deliberately refrain from destroying the French army. Hecertainly informed Sir Robert Wilson on one occasion that he did notwish to drive Napoleon to extremities, lest his supremacy should go tothe power that ruled the sea. The remark may have been nothing more thanan outburst of ill-temper, but, whatever the motive, there can be nodoubt as to the policy adopted. The retreating French army sufferedterrible hardships from the cold, for which it was ill prepared. Twiceit seemed on the point of falling into the hands of the Russians; atKrasnoe 26, 000 prisoners are said to have been captured by Kutuzov'sarmy, while at Borisov the southern army under Chichagov and the armyreturning from Finland under Wittgenstein joined hands, and disputed theFrench passage of the Berezina on November 26-29. According toChambray's calculation, the French army numbered 31, 000 combatantsbefore the passage, of whom but 9, 000 remained on December 1. All thenon-combatants had been left in the hands of the enemy. 

This was the last direct attack made by the Russians on the relics ofthe grand army. But the worst ravages of the Russian winter had yet tocome. On December 3 the cold became intense. As the survivors of theexpedition dragged themselves homewards through the Polish provinces, they were met by large bodies of reinforcements pouring in from thewest; these recruits, comparatively fresh, were at first appalled by thegaunt and famine-stricken aspect of the returning veterans, but soonperished themselves in nearly equal numbers. It is estimated thataltogether only 60, 000 men recrossed the frontier out of a total of630, 000, and in the estimate of 60, 000 is included Macdonald's division, which was exposed to comparatively little hardship. That division withthe Prussian contingent began to fall back on December 19. On the 30th, however, the Prussians were reduced to neutrality by the convention ofTauroggen, signed by the Prussian commander, Yorck, with the Russians, without the sanction of his government. Had Russia been in a conditionto press onwards at once and carry the war into French territory, it ispossible that Europe might have been spared the misery and bloodshed ofthe next few years. But, for the moment, her strength and resources wereexhausted, nor was it until months had elapsed that other nations, oreven France herself, became aware of the magnitude of the catastrophewhich had overtaken Napoleon's host. That he was able to rally himselfafter it, to carry the French people with him, to enforce a newconscription, and to assume the aggressive in the campaign of 1813, mustever remain a supreme proof of his capacity for empire. 

[Pageheading: _DISPUTES WITH THE UNITED STATES. _]

In the year 1812 war broke out between Great Britain and the UnitedStates. For a time the continental warfare had led to a great increasein American commerce, which was free from the attacks of privateers andfrom the restrictions which the opposing parties placed on one another. Presently, however, both parties attempted to force the United Statesinto a virtual alliance with themselves. Orders in council on the oneside and imperial decrees on the other had, as we have seen, declared ablockade of the ports of the continent of Europe and of Great Britain, and the United States saw their commerce threatened with disabilitiesapproximating to those suffered by the belligerent powers. PresidentJefferson, who was supported by the republican party, adhered to apolicy of strict neutrality, and prepared to suffer any commercial lossrather than be drawn into an European war. The only action which he tookwas the defence of the river mouths with a view to resisting anyoffensive movement. The federalist party on the other hand were infavour of energetic action against France, so as to secure Englishfavour and the great commercial privileges which the mistress of theseas could bestow. For a time no hostilities resulted, but constantirritation was caused by the British claim to a right of search and tothe impressment of sailors of British nationality found on Americanships, while American ships accused of infringing the blockade wereseized by either of the European combatants. To some extent thedifferences between Great Britain and the United States depended onrival views of the law of allegiance. The British maintained thedoctrine _nemo potest exuere patriam_, and regarded all British-bornpersons, unless absolved from their allegiance by the act of themother-country, as British subjects. The law of the United States, onthe other hand, permitted an alien to become a citizen after fourteenyears' residence, and previously to 1798 had required a residence offive years only. In this way it often happened that sailors who hadreceived the American citizenship were impressed for service on Britishships, and sometimes sailors of actual American birth were impressed. But it was impossible to justify the practice to which the Americansresorted of receiving deserters of British nationality from Britishships of war, who were induced by offers of higher pay to transferthemselves to the American service. 

Jefferson at first preferred to coerce the European powers byretaliatory legislation. As early as April, 1806, a law had been passedforbidding the importation of certain British wares, but was suspendedsix weeks after it came into operation. In June, 1807, irritation wasintensified by the incident of the _Leopard_ and the _Chesapeake_. Fivemen, four of whom were British born and one an American by birth, wereknown to have deserted from the British sloop _Halifax_, lying inHampton roads, and to have taken service on an American frigate, the_Chesapeake_. After application for their surrender had been made invain to the magistrates of the town of Norfolk, where the _Chesapeake's_rendezvous was, and to the officer commanding the rendezvous, Vice-admiral Berkeley sent his flagship, the _Leopard_, carrying fiftyguns, with an order to the British captains on the North Americanstation to search the _Chesapeake_ for deserters from six ships named, including the _Halifax_, in case she should be encountered on the highseas. The _Leopard_ arrived in Chesapeake bay in time to follow the_Chesapeake_ beyond American waters, and then made a demand to searchfor deserters. On the captain of the _Chesapeake_ refusing compliance, the _Leopard_ opened fire. The _Chesapeake_ was not in a condition tomake any effectual reply, and, after receiving three broadsides, struckher flag. Only one of the deserters from the _Halifax_, an Englishman, was found on the _Chesapeake_; but three deserters from the Britishwarship _Melampus_, which had not been named in Berkeley's order, allAmericans by birth, were removed from the _Chesapeake_, which was nowpermitted to return to port. [55] Although the British government offeredreparation for this action, recalled Berkeley, and disavowed the rightto search ships of war for deserters, the incident could not fail tomake a bad impression on American opinion. 

But still Jefferson adhered to a policy of pacific coercion. InDecember, 1807, the act of April, 1806, was again put into force, and anembargo act, passed by the American congress, now cut off all foreigncountries from trade with the United States. But the policy of embargowas disastrous to its promoters. It ruined the commerce and emptied thetreasury of the United States. On March 1, 1809, a non-intercourse act, applying only to France, Great Britain, and their dependencies, wassubstituted for the embargo act. [56] The new act enabled the presidentto remove the embargo against whichever country should cancel its ordersor decrees against American trade. Three days later Jefferson wassucceeded by Madison as President of the United States. The change madeno difference to the policy of the United States government. But theopposition was now much stronger and more violent than formerly; so muchso that Sir James Craig, the Canadian governor, actually despatched aspy, John Henry, to sound the willingness of New England, where thefederalist party was the stronger, to secede from the union and joinGreat Britain against the United States. This venture becomes the lesssurprising when we observe that in the previous year, 1808, John QuincyAdams, the future president, had predicted such a secession. Nothing, however, came of the attempt. Madison attempted to obtain concessionsfrom the British government, but while the Perceval ministry lasted hemet with no success. In May, 1810, the non-intercourse act expired, buta proviso was enacted that, if before March 3, 1811, either GreatBritain or France should cancel her decrees against American trade theact should, three months after such revocation, revive against the powerthat maintained its decrees. Madison was cajoled into believing thatNapoleon had recalled his decrees on November 1, 1810, and thenon-intercourse act was accordingly revived against Great Britain andher dependencies in February, 1811. 

[Pageheading: _WAR WITH THE UNITED STATES. _]

Almost the first act of the Liverpool administration was to cancel therestrictions on American trade. But it was too late. Five days earlierthe United States had declared war against Great Britain on June 18, 1812. The explanation of this step must be sought in the party politicsof the United States. While the federalists courted British alliance, the younger members of the republican party had conceived a hope ofconquering Canada as a result of a victorious war against Great Britain. This was the reply of the national party in the United States to theaction of the Canadian governor. Madison knew the impracticability ofsuch a step, but, finding that he could only carry the presidentialelection of 1812 with the support of this section of his party, hedeclared war. Great Britain, with her best troops in the Peninsula, wasin no condition to use her full strength in America, but the UnitedStates were entirely unprepared for war. Their treasury was still empty, and their army and navy were small, while Canada generally was contentedand loyal to the British crown. Upper Canada was full of loyalists, whohad been expelled from the revolted colonies, and who with theirdescendants hated the men that had driven them from their homes; lowerCanada was half-French and had nothing in common with the United States, while the Roman catholic clergy threw the whole weight of theirinfluence on the British side. General Hull, who commanded the forcesemployed against Canada, succeeded in crossing the river Detroit in Julyand threatened the British post of Malden. But an alliance with theIndians enabled the British first to possess themselves of Mackinac, atthe junction of lakes Huron and Michigan, and afterwards to imperilHull's communications through the Michigan territory. 

Hull accordingly fell back on Detroit. The British, with 750 men underMajor-General Brock, together with 600 Indians, now prepared to attackHull at that place. Hull, who believed his retreat to be cut off by theIndians, did not await the British attack, but surrendered on August 16with 2, 500 men and thirty-three guns. The effect of the capitulation wasto place the British in effectual possession, not merely of Detroit, butof the territory of Michigan, and thus to render any attack on Canadafrom that quarter extremely difficult. The advantages gained by theBritish through this success were unfortunately neutralised by thepolicy pursued by Sir George Prevost, who had succeeded Craig asgovernor of Canada. Prevost was of opinion that, when the news of thewithdrawal of the orders in council reached Washington, the UnitedStates government would be ready to abandon hostilities; and heaccordingly concluded a provisional armistice with General Dearborn, thecommander-in-chief of the enemy's forces in the northern states. ButPresident Madison, having engaged in war, was anxious to try the effectof another attack on Canada before negotiating for peace, and thereforedeclined to ratify the armistice. The interval enabled the United Statesto bring up reinforcements, but their new army failed in an attack on aBritish post on the Maumee river. 

Meanwhile a second attempt was made to invade Upper Canada, this timefrom the side of Niagara. On October 13, Brigadier-General Wadsworth, acting under the orders of General Van Rensselaer, led an attack on theBritish position of Queenstown on the Canadian bank of the Niagarariver. Brock commanded the defence, but was killed early in the fight. The position was momentarily seized by the enemy, but was presentlyrecaptured by the British, who had in the meantime been reinforced byMajor-General Sheaffe, the son of a loyalist, with a force from FortGeorge, and before the day closed Wadsworth found himself compelled tosurrender with 900 men. The remainder of the enemy's forces, consistingof militia, rather than exceed their military obligations by crossingthe frontier, chose to leave these men to their fate. In spite of theignominious surrenders with which the first two expeditions againstCanada had terminated, a third attempt was made by Brigadier-GeneralSmyth to force the Canadian frontier; but on November 28 he was repulsedwith loss by the British under Bishopp between Chippewa and Fort Erie, above the Niagara Falls, and at the end of the year the Canadianfrontier still remained unpierced. 

[Pageheading: _AMERICAN SUCCESSES AT SEA. _]

The glory of the British military successes was unfortunately obscuredin large measure by American successes on the sea. The maritime warresolved itself into a series of fights between individual frigates. This was the necessary result of the nature of the British force kept inAmerican waters. Ever since the renewal of hostilities with France in1803 a species of blockade had been maintained along the coast of theUnited States by British vessels on the watch for deserters orcontraband of war. It was also found necessary to employ ships of warto guard against pirates in the West Indies and to protect Britishcommerce in that quarter against French privateers. For all thesepurposes speed was of more importance than strength, and the Britishforce in the west contained a disproportionate number of smaller vesselsas compared with line of battle ships. The actual numbers of Britishwarships in North American waters at the beginning of 1812 were threeships of the line, twenty-one cruisers and frigates, and fifty-threesmall craft. The United States navy was still weaker, and amountedmerely to seven efficient frigates and nine small craft. [57] There wasno question of a contest between fleets, and though the numbers of theBritish warships enabled them to destroy American trade, they were shipfor ship inferior to the American frigates, which were thus enabled towin an empty glory in single-ship encounters. The American frigateswere, in fact, superior in every respect to the British ships whichnominally belonged to the same class. They were larger and more stronglybuilt, a frigate being as strong as a British seventy-four. Their crewswere more numerous, and were recruited entirely from seamen, aboutone-third of whom would appear to have been of British nationality, while, as has been seen, many of them had been decoyed from Britishwar-vessels by offers of higher pay. The British ships on the other handwere manned largely by landsmen, often impressed from the jails. A falseeconomy had induced the British admiralty to impose narrow limits on theuse of ammunition for gunnery practice. The Americans on the other handwere very liberal in this respect, with the result that in the earlyyears of the war they were greatly superior to their enemies in point ofmarksmanship. 

A good example of the disproportion between the British and Americanfrigates is furnished by the fight between the British frigate_Guerričre_ and the American frigate _Constitution_, on August 19, oneof the first naval actions in the war. The _Guerričre_ was armed withtwenty-four broadside guns, discharging projectiles with a total weightof 517 pounds; the _Constitution_ with twenty-eight broadside guns, discharging a weight of 768 pounds. The crew of the _Guerričre_, counting men only, numbered 244, that of the _Constitution_ with asimilar limitation 460. Finally the _Guerričre's_ tonnage amounted to1, 092, as against the _Constitution's_ 1, 533. The _Guerričre's_ gunsproved very ineffectual from the start, while the marksmanship, not onlyof the American gunners but of the riflemen in the _Constitution's_tops, was the wonder of the British. It is stated that none of her shotfell short. After a fight lasting nearly two hours the _Guerričre_surrendered. The ship was a complete wreck, and she had lost fifteen menkilled and six mortally wounded as against seven killed and threemortally wounded on board her opponent. 

The effect of the engagement both on British and on American publicopinion was altogether out of proportion to its intrinsic importance. The inequality in strength of the opposing frigates was not understood, and any defeat of the mistress of the seas seemed an event ofconsiderable significance. The Americans soon met with other similarsuccesses. On October 18 their sloop _Wasp_, of eighteen guns, reducedthe British sloop _Frolic_, a weaker vessel, though of similar armament, to a helpless hulk after a ten minutes' cannonade. The moral effect ofthis victory was not impaired by the fact that the conqueror and herprize were compelled to surrender a few hours later to the Britishseventy-four _Poictiers_. On the 25th the _United States_, of forty-fourguns, captured the _Macedonian_, of thirty-eight, after three hours'fighting, and on December 29 the British thirty-eight-gun frigate_Java_, with a very inexperienced crew, was captured by the_Constitution_ after a running fight of three hours and a half. [58]

[Pageheading: _THE GERMAN CAMPAIGN OF 1813. _]

With the retreat of the French army from Russia the main scene ofoperations on the continent was shifted from Russia to Germany. GreatBritain took little part in the actual warfare in Germany, and if shehad a larger share in the political negotiations which ultimatelydetermined the distribution of forces, still Austria and not GreatBritain was the power whose diplomacy had most effect on the course ofevents. The upheaval of Europe against Napoleon, however, would havebeen much less effective if it had not been supported by Englishsubsidies, and Austria, in the crippled state of her finances, wouldprobably have had to remain inactive if she had not been able to rely onEnglish gold and perhaps still more on English credit. 

The campaign of 1813 falls naturally into three parts. During the first, from the beginning of January to the latter part of April the victoriousRussians swept over North Germany, and, carrying the Prussian monarchywith them, strengthened a reaction which had already begun against therule of Napoleon. The second part began with the arrival of Napoleon onthe scene of action towards the end of April and lasted to theconclusion of an armistice on June 4. In this period of seven or eightweeks the allies were forced to retire at all points and the war wascarried into Prussian territory. The armistice, which terminated onAugust 10, preceded the opening of the third part of the campaign inwhich Russia and Prussia were joined by Austria and Sweden, and, aftergradually drawing closer round the main French position in Saxony, finally inflicted a crushing defeat upon Napoleon at Leipzig in themiddle of October. The campaign was virtually over when Napoleon securedhis retreat by the victory of Hanau on October 30; but it is impossibleto sever it from the events outside Germany which were directlyoccasioned by the downfall of Napoleon's German domination. These arethe revolt of Holland in November, that of Switzerland in December, andthe Austrian attack on Northern Italy in October and November. 

In the opening months of the campaign the movements were merely a sequelto those of the previous year. The French retreat was continued from theNiemen to the Vistula, the Elbe, and finally the Saale. The Russiansentered Prussia proper a few days after Yorck's capitulation, and theFrench retired before them. Stein, the Prussian statesman who hadreceived a commission from Russia to administer the Prussian districtsoccupied by her, ordered the provincial governor to convoke an assembly. Although some indignation was felt at such a step being taken by Russianorders, the assembly met and voted the formation of the Landwehr. Inthis way Prussia actually began to arm against France, while thePrussian government still professed to maintain the French alliance. Afew days later King Frederick William left Berlin, which was stilloccupied by the French, for Breslau. Before the end of February he hadconcluded the treaty of Kalisch with Russia, by which the two powerswere to conduct the war against France conjointly, and Russia was not tolay down her arms till Prussia should be restored to a strength equal tothat which she had possessed in 1806. On March 2 Cathcart arrived atKalisch as British ambassador to the Russian court. He actively promotedRussia's alliance with Prussia, from which Great Britain stood apart forthe present. He was able to obtain from Prussia a renunciation of herclaims on Hanover, but Frederick William was still opposed to anyincrease of Hanoverian territory. On the 17th Prussia declared war onFrance. By that time the Russians had entered both Berlin and Breslau, and had freed Hamburg from French dominion, thus reopening Germany toBritish commerce. The declaration of war by Prussia was accompanied by aconvention with Russia providing for the deliverance of Germany and thedissolution of the confederation of the Rhine. This convention embodiedStein's policy. It relied on popular support and it aimed at an unifiedgovernment, at least in the territories occupied at that date byadherents of France. 

[Pageheading: _THE GERMAN CAMPAIGN OF 1813. _]

But the popular upheaval in Germany was confined to the kingdom ofPrussia, and the attempt to spread it elsewhere only provoked distrustin Austria and the South German states; it was not until theconservative elements in Germany were won over by Metternich's policythat the anti-Napoleonic movement became truly national. For the presentAustria played the part of mediator. Lord Walpole, who had been sent ona secret errand to Vienna in December, 1812, tried in vain to winAustria to the side of the allies by promising the restoration of theTyrol, Illyria, and Venetia. [59] Her government would probably havepreferred a reconciliation with France, which would have arrested thegrowth of Russia and left Germany divided, to a unified Germany such asStein desired; but Metternich, who directed her policy, cherished littlehope of the success of his endeavours, though he knew when to employagents more optimistic than himself. The Austrian treasury was empty, and it therefore suited Austria to remain neutral as long as possible, while in the event of a doubtful struggle this very neutrality wouldraise the price of her ultimate alliance. It was in this way that shecame at last to exercise a decisive voice in the resettlement ofGermany, not to say of Europe. True to this policy, the Austrian courtconcluded a truce of indefinite duration with Russia at the beginning ofthe year, and withdrew its forces within its own borders. This wasfollowed by an offer of mediation made to France, which was, however, declined. A renewed offer was declined early in April by both France andGreat Britain. The British still distrusted Austria, while Francedesired to buy her active co-operation and made an offer of Silesia inreturn for an army of 100, 000, should Prussia or Russia openhostilities. Austria did not, however, abandon her project, but notifiedPrussia and Russia that she would proceed with the task of armedmediation, and steadily busied herself with military preparations. 

The vigour of the Prussians in recruiting had surprised Napoleon, buthis own vigour was the marvel of Europe. In spite of the losses of theRussian campaign, he was able to take the field at the end of April withan army which at the lowest estimate was 200, 000 strong. But hissoldiers were for the most part mere boys, and he was sadly deficient incavalry. The veterans of Austerlitz, of Jena, of Friedland, and ofWagram had been recklessly sacrificed on the plains of Russia. He wasvictorious at Lützen on May 2, was joined by the King of Saxony, enteredDresden, and thence pushed across the Elbe. On the 21st the victory ofBautzen enabled him to advance to the Oder and occupy Breslau. A renewedoffer of Austrian mediation drew from him a declaration in favour of anarmistice and a diplomatic congress. On June 4 an armistice was actuallyconcluded at Poischwitz to last until August 1, and a neutral zone wasprovided to separate the combatants. On June 7 the demands of Austriawere presented to Napoleon. They involved the renunciation by France ofall territorial possessions, and even of a protectorate in Germany, andthe restoration to Prussia and Austria of most of their lost provinces. Napoleon refused these terms, but accepted the mediation of Austria, andarranged for a congress which met at Prague in the middle of July. Thearmistice was prolonged till August 10. Both France and Austria weremerely striving to gain time while they prepared for war, and there canbe no doubt that the allies profited most by the delay. During theinterval the news arrived of Wellington's great victory at Vitoria onJune 21, and Napoleon, recalled to Mainz, occupied himself in arrangingplans for the defence of the Pyrenees. 

During the armistice Prussia and Russia not only greatly reinforcedtheir troops, but received valuable assistance from Great Britain, Sweden, and above all Austria. Already, on March 3, Great Britain had bythe treaty of Stockholm given her sanction to the seizure of the wholeof Norway by Sweden, after a vain attempt to induce Denmark to consentto a peaceable cession of the diocese of Trondhjem. At the same timeGreat Britain promised Guadeloupe as a personal gift to Bernadotte, anda subsidy of Ł1, 000, 000 for the Swedish troops fighting againstNapoleon. A new treaty between Russia and Sweden on April 22 guaranteedthe cession of Norway. On June 14 and 15 Cathcart, having at lastobtained Prussia's consent to an increase in the territories of Hanover, signed treaties at Reichenbach with Prussia and Russia, by which GreatBritain undertook to pay a subsidy of two-thirds of a million pounds tothe former and a million and a third to the latter power. It was alsoagreed to issue federative paper notes to an extent not exceedingŁ5, 000, 000 to pay the expenses of the armies of the two powers duringthe year 1813, and Great Britain undertook the responsibility forone-half of these notes. Soon afterwards Austria received a promise of aloan of Ł500, 000 as soon as she should join the allies. Half of thislast sum was actually paid within a few days of the resumption ofhostilities. 

[Pageheading: _DRESDEN AND LEIPZIG. _]

When the armistice expired, French forces were threatening Austria fromthree sides--from Bavaria, Illyria, and Saxony; and Napoleon's intentionseems to have been to amuse the Austrian court with negotiations untilhe could defeat the Prussian and Russian armies, after which he countedupon overwhelming the Austrians with his entire force. The task ofdefeating the Prussians was entrusted to his army in Saxony with whichDavoűt was expected to co-operate from Hamburg, retaken by the French onMay 30. Austria, however, declared war on France the moment thearmistice had elapsed, August 12, and the main army of the allies, principally composed of Austrians with large Prussian and Russiancontingents, assembled in Bohemia. Napoleon was opposed in Silesia by anarmy of Prussians and Russians, while Bernadotte, in command of a mixedarmy, consisting mainly of Swedes, Prussians and Russians, but including3, 000 British troops and 25, 000 Hanoverians under Walmoden, operatedagainst him from the north. These three armies were eventually able tojoin hands, while Davoűt's army, the French armies in Italy and Illyria, and 170, 000 French troops in various German fortresses were unable torender effective aid in the struggle. On August 26-27 Napoleon himselfwon the last of his great victories at Dresden over the main army of theallies, while his lieutenants were defeated by the northern army atGrossbeeren on August 23, and again at Dennewitz on September 6, and bythe Silesian army at the Katzbach on August 26. The capitulation ofVandamme at Kulm, with some 10, 000 men, neutralised Napoleon's victoryat Dresden, and his enemies were increased by Austrian diplomacy. Thetreaty of Teplitz, concluded on September 9, and accepted by GreatBritain on October 3, committed the allies to the complete independenceof the several German states. On the 10th Bavaria renounced the Frenchalliance, and on October 8, by the treaty of Ried, she engaged to jointhe allies with 36, 000 men, in return for a promise that she shouldsuffer no diminution of territory. On the 7th the northern and Silesianarmies had united west of the Elbe; Napoleon, who had quitted Dresden onthe 6th and vainly attempted to engage the separate northern army, arrived at Leipzig on the 14th. But it was now too late. 

On the 16th the allied armies, which had concentrated on Leipzig, compelled him to stand at bay, and to risk all upon the fortunes of asingle battle. This battle, lasting three days, was not only one of thegreatest but one of the most decisive recorded in modern history, for itfinally crippled the warlike power of Napoleon, and inevitablydetermined the issue of the campaigns yet to be fought in 1814 and 1815. It would appear that Napoleon had under his command about 250, 000 men, and that he lost at least 50, 000 in killed and wounded on the field. Theallied forces were much larger numerically, and their losses fullyequalled those of the French. But their victory was crushing. One of itsimmediate results was that Napoleon was forced to abandon Saxony, andwith it the French cause in Germany. The French garrisons were reducedone by one. Of the fortresses east of the Rhine, Hamburg, Kehl, Magdeburg, and Wesel alone held out until the conclusion of peace in1814. The general rising of Central Europe against French dominationwhich followed the battle of Leipzig extended itself to Holland. TheFrench were expelled in the middle of November, and on December 2 thePrince of Orange was proclaimed sovereign prince of the Netherlands. Onthe 29th the Swiss diet voted the restoration of the old constitution. The confederation of the Rhine was practically dissolved, but in ItalyNapoleon's viceroy, Eugčne Beauharnais, after falling back before theAustrian army, was able to hold the line of the Adige. On November 9 itwas decided to offer peace to Napoleon on condition of the surrender ofall French conquests beyond the Rhine, the Alps, and the Pyrenees. Theseterms represented the policy of Metternich. The Earl of Aberdeenconsented to them on behalf of Great Britain and Nesselrode on behalf ofRussia, but they were not accepted by Napoleon before the date by whichan answer was required, and the war proceeded. On December 31 thePrussians under Blücher crossed the Rhine near Coblenz and opened a newcampaign. 

[Pageheading: _AMERICAN SUCCESSES. _]

Meanwhile the war on the American continent was carried on with varyingsuccess, though the balance of fortune was rather on the side of theUnited States. The operations were in the main of a desultory character, no permanent conquests being made. The first engagement in the year 1813was at Frenchtown on the Raisin River in Michigan, where ColonelProctor, commanding 500 regulars and militia, and 600 Indians, defeatedan American force of 1, 000 under Brigadier-General Winchester, and took500 prisoners, while many of the remaining Americans fell into the handsof the Indians. The immediate effect of this victory was that GeneralHarrison, who was leading an American force of 2, 000 men againstDetroit, determined to retrace his steps. Three months later Proctormade a descent upon an American position on the Maumee River in thenorth of the State of Ohio. After besieging the enemy for a few days hewas compelled to retire, but, before he left, an engagement took placeon May 5, in which the British forces, with a total loss of less than100, inflicted severe losses on their opponents and made about 500prisoners. A subsequent attempt to capture Fort Sandusky, near the headof Lake Erie, was repulsed on August 2; ninety out of 350 British troopswere returned as killed, wounded or missing. 

The British had hitherto commanded the lakes, but Commodore Perry nowoccupied himself in building a fleet at Presqu'isle in Pennsylvania onthe coast of Lake Erie. Commander Barclay, in command of such ships asthe British possessed, was badly supported and encountered the samedifficulties in obtaining seamen as had been experienced for thesea-going ships. The ships in the service of the United States were inconsequence again the more powerful and the better manned. On September10 the two squadrons engaged. The British had six vessels with abroadside of 459 lb. , while the enemy had nine vessels with a broadsideof 928 lb. With such odds the result could not be doubtful, and thewhole British squadron was compelled to surrender. This success enabledthe enemy to strike with effect at the south-western end of LowerCanada. The British immediately evacuated the whole territory ofMichigan with the exception of Mackinac; and Proctor, now raised to therank of major-general, commenced a retreat in the direction of LakeOntario. On October 5 he was attacked at Moraviantown on the Thames byHarrison, and the greater part of his forces were captured in anengagement which reflected small credit on British generalship. Theremainder of his forces reached Burlington Heights, at the west end ofLake Ontario, but the whole country to the west of the Grand River hadto be abandoned to the enemy. 

On Lake Ontario the fortune of war was more equally divided. TheAmericans had been gradually collecting a naval squadron at Sackett'sHarbour and had gained command of the lake as early as November, 1812. The command was, however, precarious, since it might be disturbed by thearrival or construction of new warships. One such was building at York, now known as Toronto, the capital of Upper Canada, when, on April 27, 1813, the American squadron under Commodore Chauncey attacked the townand succeeded in landing a detachment of troops under General Dearborn. The British general, Sheaffe, withdrew his regular forces from the townwithout awaiting an assault, but not before he had destroyed the ship ofwhich the enemy were in quest. The Americans captured some naval stores, but did not attempt to hold the town; they set an evil precedent, however, by burning the parliament house and other public buildingsbefore evacuating the place. On May 27 Chauncey co-operated again withDearborn in an attack on Fort George, the capture of which threw thewhole line of the Niagara into American hands. On the same day Prevost, whose naval strength had been reinforced, availing himself of Chauncey'sabsence, made an attack on Sackett's Harbour. The attack, which wasrenewed on the 29th, was miserably conducted, and ended in failure, though the Americans were compelled to burn the naval stores captured atYork. The reinforcements had, however, transferred to the British thecommand of the lake, which was not challenged again till the end ofJuly. Meanwhile their land forces were not idle. On June 6 the Americanswere surprised by Colonel Vincent at Burlington Heights and over 100prisoners, including two brigadier-generals, were taken. This defeat, combined with the approach of the British naval squadron under Sir JamesYeo, induced Dearborn to abandon his other posts on the Canadian side ofthe Niagara and to concentrate at Fort George, but on the 24th anothersurprise ended in the surrender of a detachment of more than 500Americans to a force of fifty British troops and 240 Indians. By the endof July Chauncey's squadron was once more strong enough to put to sea. It raided York on the 31st, but did not venture to join battle with Yeo;though a skirmish on August 10 enabled Yeo to capture two schooners. 

Meanwhile on the frontier of Lower Canada the British were everywheresuccessful. On June 3 two American sloops attacked the British garrisonof Isle-aux-noix at the north end of Lake Champlain. Both ships werecompelled to surrender. On August 1 a British force raided Plattsburgand destroyed the barracks and military stores. A combined movement onMontreal was now made by the forces of the United States; it was mainlyowing to the loyalty of the French Canadians that they were repulsed. General Hampton advancing from the south with a force 7, 000 strong wasdefeated at the river Chateauguay on October 26, by 900 men belonging tothe Canadian militia, commanded by Colonel McDonnell and Colonel deSalaberry. The defeated general withdrew his troops into winter quartersat Plattsburg. Not long after, on December 7, the American generalWilkinson who had sailed down the St. Lawrence to Prescott and wasmarching towards Cornwall, was defeated with heavy loss by ColonelMorrison at Chrystler's Farm, and made no further attempt on Canada. Inthe same month General McClure, who commanded at Fort George, retired tothe eastern bank of the Niagara before Colonel Murray's advance. Hisretreat was disgraced by the burning of the town of Newark, where womenand children were turned homeless into the cold of a Canadian winter. Atthe same time the American forces were withdrawn from south-westernCanada but still retained Amherstburg at the head of Lake Erie, the soleconquest of the campaign. 

[Pageheading: _NAVAL WARFARE. _]

The naval warfare of 1813 was less rich in individual encounters thanthat of 1812. The British captains were better acquainted with thestrength of the American ships and did not rashly engage vesselsstronger than their own. There was also a marked improvement in Britishgunnery, and an increase in the strength of the British naval force inAmerican waters. At first the blockade of the American coast had notbeen strictly maintained further south than New York, but asreinforcements arrived it was made more complete, and after June of thisyear it was only occasionally that any warship or privateer contrived toelude the blockading vessels. Meanwhile the British constantly raidedand harassed the American coast, and had no difficulty in availingthemselves of the Chesapeake and Delaware estuaries as naval bases. Anew feature of this year's warfare was the appearance of Americancruisers, especially privateers, in British waters, and even in the St. George's Channel. To such ships the French ports were a very serviceablenaval base. The Americans would appear to have captured more of Britishcommerce than the British captured of theirs, but this was nocompensation for the almost complete cessation of their foreign trade. Of single ship actions the destruction of the British _Peacock_ by theAmerican _Hornet_, commanded by Captain Lawrence, on February 24, thecapture of the American _Argus_ by the British _Pelican_ not far fromthe Welsh coast on August 14, and the famous duel between the_Chesapeake_ and the _Shannon_ on June 1 were the most important. 

The British frigate _Shannon_ (38) was commanded by Captain Broke, whowas famous not merely for the attention he paid to gun practice, but forthe care he had bestowed on the laying of his ship's ordnance. Eversince the beginning of April the frigates _Shannon_ and _Tenedos_ (38)had been lying off Boston, where they hoped to intercept any Americanfrigate that dared to leave the harbour. Two succeeded in eluding them. The _Chesapeake_ frigate (36) commanded by Lawrence, lay in the harbour;and Broke, having detached the _Tenedos_ in order to tempt her out, senta challenge to Lawrence on the morning of June 1, but before it could bedelivered the _Chesapeake_ had sailed. She steered for the _Shannon_, who waited for her. The fight began at 5. 50 P. M. About six leagues outfrom Boston; it was brief and bloody. After ten minutes' firing the_Chesapeake_ fell on board the _Shannon_, and was immediately boarded. In four minutes more every man on board had surrendered. In this shortfight the _Shannon_ had lost out of a crew of 352 twenty-four killed andfifty-nine wounded, two of the latter mortally, while the _Chesapeake_, according to American official figures, had lost out of 386 forty-sevenkilled and ninety-nine wounded (fourteen of the latter mortally). Nofewer than thirty-two British deserters were found on board the_Chesapeake_. The victory made the best possible impression. The twoships had been of approximately equal strength, the American having aslight superiority of force, and the _Chesapeake_ had been captured inthe way in which most turns on individual courage, by boarding. Bothcaptains had distinguished themselves in the fight, and both wereseverely wounded, Lawrence, as the event proved, fatally. 

[Pageheading: _CAMPAIGN IN FRANCE. _]

The abandonment of Germany by the French at the close of 1813 left theoutlying provinces and allies of France exposed to invasion. TheAustrian general, Nugent, aided by British naval and military forces, captured Trieste on October 31. Dalmatia had been invaded by theMontenegrins as early as September, 1813, and was afterwards attacked byAustrians and British marines, but the town of Cattaro held out till itwas taken by the British in January, 1814. On the 14th of the samemonth Denmark was compelled by the treaty of Kiel to cede Norway toSweden in exchange for Swedish Pomerania and Rügen, Sweden undertakingto assist Denmark in procuring a fuller equivalent for Norway at theconclusion of a general peace. A treaty signed between Denmark and GreatBritain at the same time and place provided for the restitution toDenmark of all British conquests, with the exception of Heligoland, while Denmark undertook to do all in her power for the abolition of theslave trade. The people of Norway and their governor, Prince Christianof Denmark, refused to submit to the transference of their allegiance, and on February 19 the independence of Norway was proclaimed. At firstthe Swedish government attempted to obtain the submission of Norway bynegotiation only, but so important a diversion of her interest andenergies was sufficient to prevent Sweden from joining in the newcampaign against France. In Italy on January 11 Napoleon'sbrother-in-law, Murat, whom he had made King of Naples in 1808, formedan alliance with Austria. The treaty was never confirmed by GreatBritain, but the British government subsequently consented to supportMurat, if he should loyally exert himself in Italy against Napoleon'sforces. Although Murat did actually engage in hostilities against theFrench, the British were far from satisfied with his operations andconsidered that his remissness left them a free hand. Accordingly onMarch 9 a British fleet entered the port of Leghorn and landed 8, 000men, of whom Lord William Bentinck took command. From Leghorn he marchedupon Genoa which surrendered to him on April 18. 

Meanwhile the main forces of the allies were concentrated for a campaignagainst Napoleon in Champagne. Of the three armies which had combined atLeipzig the Austro-Russian army under Schwarzenberg made its way throughSwitzerland, Alsace, and Franche-Comté, while Blücher's army ofPrussians and Russians passed through the region which afterwards becamethe Rhine province and Lorraine. The two armies united in theneighbourhood of Brienne in Champagne. Bernadotte's army did not as awhole take part in the campaign; but a portion of it, consisting ofRussians under Wittgenstein and Prussians under Bülow, was engaged inthe conquest of Belgium and was able to invade France itself later inthe year. Schwarzenberg's army was accompanied by the Emperors ofRussia and Austria, the King of Prussia, and the leading Europeandiplomatists, including Castlereagh. From the outset there was a markeddifference between the Austrian and Russian policies. Metternich wascontent with reducing France to the natural frontiers already offered toher, and aimed merely at compelling Napoleon to recognise the _faitaccompli_ in Germany, and to evacuate Italy and Spain. He was thereforein favour of slow advances and of giving Napoleon every opportunity forcoming to terms. The tsar, on the other hand, wished to reduce France toher ancient limits, and was anxious to enter Paris as a conqueror. Healso excited Austrian jealousy by his scheme of annexing what had beenPrussian Poland, and compensating Prussia with Saxony. Castlereagh andthe Prussian minister, Hardenberg, supported the tsar's policy towardsFrance, but without sharing his ardour. 

On the first arrival of the allies in Champagne the tsar had onlyinduced Metternich to advance by threatening to prosecute the war alone. After they had gained what appeared to be a decisive victory overNapoleon at La Rothičre on February 1, negotiations were commenced atChâtillon. Napoleon insisted on continuing the war during thenegotiations and interposed every possible delay. The allies firstdemanded that France should recede within the limits of 1791 and offereda partial restoration of French colonies, but refused to specify thecolonies which they were willing to relinquish until France shouldaccept the first condition. To this the French demurred, and on the 9ththe tsar impetuously withdrew his minister. From the 10th to the 14thNapoleon inflicted a series of crushing blows upon Blücher's army. Negotiations were now resumed; they lasted till the middle of March, butas Napoleon would not surrender his claim to Belgium and the Rhineprovinces they were fruitless, notwithstanding the pacific efforts ofCaulaincourt, the French negotiator. On the 21st Napoleon tried in vainto detach Austria from the allies by a private letter to the EmperorFrancis, and on March 1 a permanent basis was given to the alliance bythe treaty of Chaumont (definitely signed on the 9th), by which the fourallied powers bound themselves to conclude no separate peace, and not tolay down their arms till the object of the war should have been obtainedby the restriction of France to her ancient frontiers. Each power wasto maintain 150, 000 men regularly in the field, and Great Britain was topay the three other powers a subsidy of Ł5, 000, 000 for the current yearand a like sum for every subsequent year of warfare. The signatorypowers were to maintain their present concert and armaments for twentyyears if necessary. 

[Pageheading: _NAPOLEON'S FIRST ABDICATION. _]

After this treaty on March 4 Blücher united with Wittgenstein and Bülownear Soissons. On the 20th Napoleon was repulsed by Schwarzenberg's armyat Arcis-sur-Aube, after which he attempted to cut off itscommunications by a movement to its rear. In consequence of thismovement the allied armies advanced on Paris, while the Austrian emperorfled to Dijon taking Castlereagh and Metternich with him. [60] This leftthe war to be concluded under the influence of the most vigorous of theallied sovereigns, the Tsar of Russia. Paris capitulated on the 30th andon the next day was occupied by the allies. The tsar now issued "onbehalf of all the allied powers" a proclamation in which he declaredthat they would not treat with Napoleon or his family, but were willingto respect the integrity of France, and to guarantee the constitutionthat the French people should adopt. This prepared the way for areaction against Napoleon in France. A provisional government was formedon April 1; on the 3rd the French senate proclaimed the deposition ofNapoleon, and on the 6th it published a constitution, and recalled theBourbons in the person of Louis XVIII. , the younger brother of LouisXVI. On the same day Napoleon signed an unconditional abdication atFontainebleau. On the 11th a treaty was signed between Napoleon and thesovereigns of Austria, Prussia, and Russia, by which he renounced allclaim to the crowns of France and Italy, and was assigned the Isle ofElba as an independent principality and a place of residence, togetherwith a liberal revenue charged on the French treasury, which, however, was never paid. The duchy of Parma was secured to the Empress MariaLouisa and was to descend to her son. The treaty was afterwardsconfirmed by Great Britain, with the exception of the clauses providingrevenues for the fallen emperor and his family. The promise of Elba hadbeen made by the tsar in the absence of Castlereagh and Metternich. Itwas vigorously opposed by Castlereagh's half-brother, Sir CharlesStewart, but the tsar considered his honour bound to it, and Napoleonsailed from Fréjus for Elba on the 28th. 

In America the war was conducted with more vigour in 1814 than inprevious years, but with equally small effect on either side. In Marchthe American general, Wilkinson, advancing from Lake Champlain, wasrepulsed by a small British garrison at La Colle Mill. In July anAmerican army under Brown invaded Upper Canada across the river Niagara. It was attacked by General Riall, near Chippewa, on the 5th, but itrepelled the attack and occupied that place. Brown was, however, checkedby British regulars and Canadian militia under Sir Gordon Drummond atLundy's Lane, near Niagara Falls, on the 25th. Both sides claim thevictory, but on the reinforcement of the British troops Brown abandonedthe invasion. After the close of the Peninsular war some of the bestregiments of the Peninsular army, numbering about 14, 000 men, were sentto America. But they were not commanded by any of the generals who hadmade their names illustrious in that war, and did not effect so much ashad been expected. On August 19 and 20 General Ross landed with 5, 000men at the mouth of the Patuxent in Chesapeake Bay. On the 24th hedefeated a large body of militia under General Winder at Bladensburg, and occupied Washington, where he burned all the public buildings. However deplorable such an act may seem, it is well to note that it wasa fair and even merciful reprisal after the action of the Americans atYork and Newark. Ross did not attempt to retain the city, but evacuatedit on the next day and re-embarked on the 30th. On September 12 helanded near Baltimore, but was immediately killed in an attack on thetown. The attack had to be abandoned because it proved impossible toobtain adequate support from the fleet, and the troops returned to theships on the 15th. 

On September 1 Prevost invaded New York State by Lake Champlain. Headvanced against Plattsburg, which he bombarded on the 11th, but hisflotilla was defeated by an American flotilla during the bombardment, and he felt himself compelled to retreat into Canada. At the end of theyear Sir Edward Pakenham took command of a force operating against NewOrleans, but on January 8, 1815, he was defeated and killed by theAmerican forces under the future president, Andrew Jackson. Noexpedition was ever worse planned than this; the veterans of thePeninsula were mowed down by a withering fire, and, losing confidence intheir leaders, forfeited their reputation for invincible courage inattack. The fighting, however, was desperate while it lasted, and wascompared by one engaged in it with the storm of Badajoz, and the deadlycharges at Waterloo. It was but a small compensation for these failuresthat the British were able to annex a strip of territory belonging tothe State of Maine. On the sea no general engagement took place, nor wasthere any naval duel so famous as that between the _Shannon_ and the_Chesapeake_ in the previous year. The Americans lost two of their bestfrigates, but, with crews largely composed of British sailors, capturedseveral British ships of war. 

[Pageheading: _THE TREATY OF GHENT. _]

As early as January, 1814, advances had been made towards negotiationsfor peace, but they were not actually begun till August 6. In the courseof a few days a serious difficulty arose, as the British commissionersdemanded the delimitation of an Indian territory which should be exemptfrom territorial acquisitions on the part of either power, and alsoclaimed the military occupation of the lakes for their own government. The Americans thereupon suspended the negotiations, and Castlereaghexpressed grave discontent with the conduct of the British negotiatorsin pressing these points. Late in the year negotiations were resumed, when the British abandoned these claims. The far more comprehensivequestions about the rights of neutrals, which had occasioned the war, had ceased to be of practical importance now that peace was restored inEurope. They were therefore, by tacit consent, suffered to drop, and atreaty signed at Ghent on December 24, 1814, ended a war of which theCanadians alone had reason to be proud. 

The most dramatic incident in the domestic annals of England in thisyear was the visit of the allied sovereigns to this country, after theirtriumphal entry into Paris, and the signature of a convention, to bedescribed hereafter, for the resettlement of Europe. Louis XVIII. Lefthis retreat at Hartwell on April 20, and reached his capital on May 3to find it occupied by foreign armies, and to discover that his Frenchescort, composed of Napoleon's old guard, was of doubtful loyalty. OnJuly 8 the Tsar of Russia and the King of Prussia, having accepted aninvitation from the prince regent, which the Emperor of Austriadeclined, landed at Dover, and were afterwards received with the utmostenthusiasm in London. Their appearance betokened the supposedtermination of the greatest, and almost the longest, war recorded inEuropean history, but it was also accepted as a tribute of gratitude forthe unique services rendered by Great Britain, the only European powerwhich had never bowed the knee to the French Republic or the FrenchEmpire. They attended Ascot races, were feasted at the Guildhall, witnessed a naval review at Portsmouth, and were decorated with honorarydegrees at Oxford, where Blücher was the hero of the day with theyounger members of the university. There were men of calmer minds andmaturer age, who must have remembered the time, but seven years before, when Alexander swore eternal friendship with Napoleon, on the basis ofenmity to Great Britain, and Frederick William of Prussia shrunk from nodepths of dishonour, first to aggrandise his kingdom and then to savethe remnants of it from destruction. Others foresaw that a restorationof the Bourbons portended reaction, in its worst sense, throughout allthe continent of Europe. But such memories and forebodings were hushedin the sincere and general rejoicing over the return of peace, marred byno suspicion of the new trials and privations which peace itself wasdestined to bring with it for the working classes of Great Britain. 

FOOTNOTES:

[53] See p. 105. 

[54] George, _Napoleon's Invasion of Russia_, p. 33. 

[55] James, _British Naval History_, iv. , 470-84. 

[56] See above, p. 58. 

[57] See _Cambridge Modern History_, vii. , 336, 338. 

[58] For details of the naval warfare of this year see James, _BritishNaval History_, vi. , 115-202. 

[59] Rose, _Life of Napoleon I. _, ii. , 372. 

[60] For the importance of this flight of the Emperor Francis see Rose, _Life of Napoleon I. _, ii. , 418, 425. The flight did not take place tillafter the advance on Paris was begun. 

 CHAPTER VII. 

 VIENNA AND WATERLOO. 

After the restoration of Louis XVIII. As a constitutional king, thetreaty of Paris between France and the allied powers was signed on May30, 1814. The treaty amounted to a settlement in outline of thoseterritorial questions in Europe in which France was concerned, and aimedmainly at the construction of a strong barrier to resist furtherencroachments by France on her neighbours. The French boundaries were tocoincide generally with the limits of French territory on January 1, 1792, but with certain additions. The principle adopted was that Franceshould retain certain detached pieces of foreign states within her ownfrontier (such as Mühlhausen, Montbéliard, and the Venaissin), while theline of frontier was extended so as to include certain detachedfragments belonging to France before 1792, such as Landau, Mariembourg, and Philippeville, as well as Western Savoy with Chambéry for itscapital. She was moreover allowed to regain all her colonies except theMauritius, St. Lucia, and Tobago. The Spanish portion of San Domingo wasrestored to the Spanish government. Holland was placed under thesovereignty of the house of Orange, and was to receive an increase ofterritory; so much of Italy as was not to be ceded to Austria was toconsist of independent sovereign states; and Germany was to be formedinto a confederation. Finally an European congress was to meet at Viennain two months' time "to regulate the arrangements necessary forcompleting the dispositions of the treaty". At the same time secretarticles provided that the disposition of territories was to becontrolled at Vienna by Austria, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia;that Austria, was to receive Venice and Lombardy as far as the Ticino;and that the former territories of Genoa were to be annexed toSardinia, and the late Austrian Netherlands to Holland. 

In the midst of the general restoration of legitimate princesdifficulties were occasioned by the exceptional cases in whichterritories were reserved for the new dynasties that had arisen duringthe Napoleonic wars. France, Spain, and Sicily objected to the retentionof the kingdom of Naples by Murat, Spain resented the cession of Parmato the Bonapartes, and Norway was in revolt against the attempt tosubjugate it to the king of Sweden and his heir Marshal Bernadotte. TheNorwegian government under Prince Christian vainly endeavoured to securethe British recognition of the independence of Norway. The Britishgovernment, on the contrary, held itself bound to support the claims ofSweden, and on April 29 notified a blockade of the Norwegian ports, which was promptly carried into effect. Meanwhile a new constitution waspromulgated in Norway, and Prince Christian was proclaimed king. Whilethe British maintained the blockade Sweden attempted to gain its ends bynegotiation. At last, on July 30, the Swedes invaded Norway. After someSwedish successes a convention was signed at Moss on August 14, whichrecognised the new Norwegian constitution, but provided for a personalunion of the crowns of Sweden and Norway. This constitution was acceptedby Charles XIII. Of Sweden in the following November, and Norwayretained almost complete independence, though united to Sweden. 

[Pageheading: _THE SLAVE TRADE. _]

Among the last acts of Napoleon's government had been the release andrestoration of Ferdinand VII. Of Spain and of Pope Pius VII. Ferdinand, supported by the vast mass of Spanish opinion, declared against therather unpractical constitution established in his absence, and enteredMadrid as an absolute king on May 14. One of his first acts was therevival of the inquisition. There was some apprehension among Britishrepresentatives lest the two restored Bourbon monarchies should renewthe family compact, and also lest they should attempt to assert theBourbon claims to Naples and Parma. Sir Henry Wellesley, afterwards LordCowley, was, however, successful in negotiating a treaty of alliancebetween Great Britain and Spain, which made provision against anyrenewal of the family compact, restored the commercial relations of thetwo countries to the footing on which they had been before 1796, andpromised the future consideration of means to be adopted for thesuppression of the slave trade. Spain was in fact too dependent onBritish credit to be able to adopt a line of her own in politics. Butthe hold which Great Britain had thus gained over Spain was somewhatweakened by the British attitude towards the slave trade. 

It is remarkable how large a space the abolition of the slave tradeoccupied in the foreign policy of Great Britain, when the liberties ofEurope were at stake. During the months preceding the meeting of thecongress of Vienna, which had been postponed till September by the tsar, British diplomacy had been engaged in a strenuous effort to obtain theco-operation of such European powers as possessed American colonies insecuring this philanthropic object. Sweden had already consented to it, and now Holland also gave her consent. Portugal agreed to relinquish thetrade north of the equator, on condition that the other powers consentedto impose a similar restriction on themselves. Strong pressure wasbrought to bear upon France to consent to the immediate abolition of thetrade, and Wellington, who had been created a duke in May and whoarrived at Paris in August in the capacity of British ambassador, wasauthorised by Liverpool to offer the cession of Trinidad or the paymentof two or three million pounds to obtain this end. By the treaty ofParis only French subjects were allowed to trade in slaves with theFrench colonies, and French subjects were excluded from tradingelsewhere; and the whole trade was to cease within French dominionsafter five years. Talleyrand, negotiating with Wellington, refused toconsent to a general abolition, but, on being pressed to surrender theslave trade north of the equator, consented to abandon it to the northof Cape Formoso. In the following year Napoleon on his return from Elbaordered its immediate suppression, and this was not the leastsignificant act of the Hundred Days. With Spain our diplomatists wereless successful. The British government refused to renew its subsidy toSpain for the last half of 1814 except on condition that Spainrelinquished the slave trade north of the equator at once, and consentedto relinquish that south of the equator in five years' time; while itwould not issue a loan except on condition that Spain abolished thewhole trade immediately. Even these terms did not prevail with Spain, and the most that she would grant at the congress was to relinquish thetrade at the conclusion of eight years. 

Meanwhile Talleyrand was endeavouring to induce Great Britain to combinewith France in a joint mediation between Austria and Russia at thecongress, in the event of Russia demanding the duchy of Warsaw. Wellington, while expressing himself in favour of an understanding, refused to accept anything which might seem equivalent to a declarationin favour of mediation by the two powers in every case. At the congressitself Great Britain was first represented by Castlereagh, who wassucceeded in February, 1815, by Wellington. The two principaldifficulties were the questions of Poland and Saxony. The tsar desiredto erect the duchy of Warsaw, Prussia's share in the two partitions ofPoland in 1793 and 1795, into a constitutional monarchy attached to theRussian crown, while Prussia, though not unwilling to resign her claimsto Polish dominion, wished to increase her territory by theincorporation of Saxony in her monarchy. Austria was naturally aversefrom any increase of strength in the states on her northern borders, andshe was also opposed to the establishment of a constitutional monarchyin Poland which might serve as a centre for political discontent in herown dominions. Even France urged this objection to a constitutionalPoland. Great Britain alone was willing to see an independent Poland, but preferred to join France, Prussia, and Austria in demanding itsrepartition between the two latter powers rather than its annexation toRussia. All through October Austria, Great Britain, and Prussiaendeavoured to induce the tsar to withdraw his demand. Early in Novemberhe won over the King of Prussia to whom he promised the kingdom ofSaxony, proposing to indemnify the Saxon king with a new state on thatlower Rhine which France was not allowed to have, but which no otherpower desired. 

[Pageheading: _THE RETURN OF NAPOLEON. _]

It was no longer possible to resist Russia's claims on Poland, butAustria was determined not to allow Prussia to receive the profferedcompensation. On December 10 Metternich notified the Prussian minister, Hardenberg, that he would not allow Prussia to annex more than a fifthpart of Saxony. Great Britain, France, Bavaria, and the minor Germanstates joined Austria in this action, and thus the attempt to effect asettlement of Europe by a concert of the four allied powers broke down. On January 3, 1815, a secret treaty was concluded between Austria, France, and Great Britain in defence of what their diplomatists called"the principles of the peace of Paris". Each of these powers was to beprepared, if necessary, to place an army of 50, 000 men in the field. Bavaria joined them in their preparations for war, and many of thetroops which occupied Paris in 1815 would have been disbanded ordispersed, but for the prospect of a rupture between the alliesthemselves. But a compromise was soon arranged, and on February 8 it wasagreed that Cracow, the Polish fortress which threatened Austria most, should be an independent republic, and that Prussia should retain enoughof Western Poland to round off her dominions, while the remainder of theduchy of Warsaw became a constitutional kingdom under the tsar. Prussiawas to be allowed to annex part of Saxony, and was to receive a furthercompensation on the left bank of the Rhine and in Westphalia. The mostthorny questions were now settled, and Castlereagh had left Vienna whenthe congress was electrified by the news that Napoleon had reappeared inFrance. 

The episode of "the Hundred Days" interrupted, but did not break up, thecouncils of the congress at Vienna. It cannot be said that Napoleon'sescape from Elba took the negotiators altogether by surprise. They werealready aware of his correspondence with the neighbouring shores ofItaly, and his removal to St Helena or some other distant island hadbeen proposed by the French government, though never discussed at thecongress. Sir Neil Campbell, the British commissioner at Elba, had goneso far as to warn his government of Napoleon's suspected "plan, " and toindicate, though erroneously, the place of his probable descent upon theItalian coast. Owing to an almost incredible want of precaution, heembarked on February 26 with the least possible disguise, andaccompanied by 400 of his guards, on board his brig the _Inconstant_, eluded the observation of two French ships, and landed near Cannes onMarch 1. Thence he hastened across the mountains to Grenoble, passingunmolested, and sometimes welcomed, through districts where his life hadbeen threatened but a few months before. The commandant of Grenoble wasprepared to resist his further progress, but a heart-stirring appealfrom Napoleon induced a regiment detached to oppose him to join hisstandard, and the rest of the garrison was brought over by ColonelLabedoyčre, one of the officers who had conspired to bring him back. Thence he proceeded to Lyons, issuing decrees, scattering proclamations, and gathering followers at every stage. He was lavish of promises, notperhaps wholly insincere, that he would adopt constitutionalgovernment--already established by the charter of Louis XVIII. --andcease to wage aggressive wars. He relied unduly on the discontentprovoked by the blind partisans of the Bourbons, who, it was said, hadlearned nothing and forgotten nothing. This was true, if the spirit ofthe restoration were to be measured by the parade of expiatory massesfor the execution of royalists under the revolution, the ostentatiouspatronage of priests, the preference of returned _émigrés_ to well-triedservants of the republic and the empire, or the anticipated expulsion oflandowners in possession of "national domains" for the purpose ofdividing them among their old proprietors. All this naturallyexasperated those who had imbibed the principles of the revolution, butit was more than compensated in the eyes of millions of Frenchmen by thecessation of conscription and the infinite blessings of peace. 

[Pageheading: _"THE HUNDRED DAYS. "_]

The king was amongst the least infatuated of the royalists. On hearingof Napoleon's proclamation, he had the sense to appreciate the danger ofsuch a bid for sovereignty and the magic of such a name, while hiscourtiers regarded Napoleon's enterprise as the last effort of a madman. He addressed the chamber of deputies in confident and dignifiedlanguage; the Duke of Angoulęme was employed to rouse the royalist partyat Bordeaux; the Duke of Bourbon was sent into Brittany, the Count ofArtois, with the Duke of Orléans and Marshal Macdonald, visited Lyons, upon the attitude of which everything, for the moment, seemed to depend. Most of the marshals remained faithful to the restored monarchy, and Neywas selected to bar the progress of Napoleon in Burgundy, and has beencredited with a vow that he would bring him back in an iron cage. But itwas all in vain. The Count of Artois was loyally received by theofficials and upper classes at Lyons, but he soon found that Napoleonpossessed the hearts of the soldiers and the mass of the people. Neyyielded to urgent appeals from his old chief, signed and read to histroops a proclamation drawn up by Napoleon himself, and was followed inhis treason by his whole army. As Napoleon approached Paris, all armedopposition to him melted away. On March 19, Louis XVIII. , seeing thathis cause was hopeless, proclaimed a dissolution of the chambers, andretired once more into exile, fixing his residence at Ghent. 

Napoleon re-entered the Tuileries on the 20th, after a journey which heafterwards described as the happiest in his life. But his penetratingmind was not deceived by the manifestations of popular joy. He well knewthat he was distrusted by the middle classes, as well as by thearistocracy, and threw himself more and more on the sympathy of the oldrevolutionists. When he came to fill up the higher offices, he met witha strange reluctance to accept them, and was driven to enlist theservices of two regicides, the virtuous republican, Carnot, and thedouble-dyed traitor Fouché. Feeling the necessity of resting his poweron a democratic basis, he promulgated a constitution modelled on thecharter of Louis XVIII. , and known as the _Acte Additionnel_, which, however, satisfied no one. The royalists objected to its anti-feudalspirit, the revolutionists and moderates to its express recognition ofan hereditary peerage, and its tacit recognition of a dictatorial power. It was by no means with a light heart that Napoleon took leave of Parison June 7, having appointed a provisional government, to place himselfat the head of his army. 

Attempts had been made in the southern provinces and La Vendée toorganise armed rebellion against the emperor, and met for a time withconsiderable success. But they were soon quelled by the overwhelmingimperialism not only of the regular army, but of vast numbers ofdisbanded soldiers and half-pay officers, dispersed throughout France, and disgusted with their treatment under the restored monarchy. Evenamong the _bourgeoisie_ Napoleon had an advantage which he neverpossessed before. Disguise it as he might, all his former wars had beenessentially wars of conquest, and, however patiently they might endureit, the peasantry of France, in thousands upon thousands of humblecottages, groaned under the exaction of crushing taxes--worst of all, the blood-tax of conscription--in order to enable one man, in the nameof France, to usurp the empire of the world. Now, however, as in theearly days of the revolution, France was put on its defence, and calledupon to repel an invasion of its frontiers. For the news of Napoleon'sescape, announced by Talleyrand on March 11, instantly stilled thequarrels and rebuked the jealousies which had so nearly proved fatal toany settlement at Vienna. For the moment, the designs of Russia inPoland, the selfish demands of Prussia, and the half-formed coalitionbetween Great Britain, France, and Austria, were thrust into thebackground. Austria thought it necessary to repudiate decisively theaudaciously false assertion of Napoleon that he was returning with theconcurrence of his father-in-law, and would shortly be supported byAustrian troops. Metternich, therefore, assumed the lead in drawing up asolemn manifesto, dated March 13, in which Napoleon was virtuallydeclared an outlaw "abandoned to public justice, " and the powers whichhad signed the treaty of Paris in the preceding May bound themselves, inthe face of Europe, to carry out all its provisions and defend the kingof France, if need be, against his own rebellious subjects. 

By a further convention made at the end of March, they engaged toprovide forces exceeding 700, 000 men in the aggregate, to beconcentrated on the Upper Rhine, the Lower Rhine, and the Low Countries, with an immense reserve of Russians to be rapidly moved across Germanyfrom Poland. Wellington having succeeded Castlereagh at Vienna, wasappointed to command the British, Hanoverian, and Belgian contingents onthe north-east frontier of France; Blücher's headquarters were to be onthe Lower Rhine, within easy reach of that frontier; for, whichever sidemight take the offensive, it was there that the first shock of war mightbe expected. The recent conclusion of peace with America at Ghent onDecember 24, 1814, left England free to use her whole military power. Enormous sums were voted by Parliament, with a rare approach tounanimity, for the equipment of a British army, and a sum of Ł5, 000, 000for subsidies to the allied powers. A small section of the oppositionled by Whitbread opposed the renewal of war. On April 7 he moved anamendment to the address in reply to the prince regent's messageannouncing that measures for the security of Europe were being concertedwith the allies, but he was only supported by 32 votes against 220. OnApril 28 his motion for an address to the prince regent, deprecatingwar with Napoleon, was defeated by 273 votes against 72. This wasWhitbread's last prominent appearance in parliament. On July 6, during afit of insanity, he died by his own hand. The subsidies to the allieswere opposed by Bankes, but were carried on May 26 by 160 votes against17. There can be no doubt that the majorities in the house of commonscorrectly expressed the national sentiment. Nobody wished to dictate toFrance the form of government which she was to adopt, but it wasgenerally felt that Napoleon's character rendered peace with himimpossible. 

[Pageheading: _THE CAMPAIGN OF 1815. _]

In the end, about 80, 000 men were assembled in Belgium underWellington's orders, but of these not half were British soldiers, including untrained drafts from the militia, who replaced veteranPeninsular regiments still detained in Canada and the United States. YetNapoleon admitted the British contingent to be equal, man for man, tohis own troops, while he estimated these to be worth twice their ownnumber of Dutchmen, Prussians, or other Germans. The first blow in thewar was struck by Murat. Already in February, dissatisfied with hisambiguous position, he had levied troops and summoned Louis XVIII. Todeclare whether he was at war with him. As soon as he heard ofNapoleon's return, he invaded the Papal States, and summoned theItalians to rise in the cause of Italian unity and independence. Thoughdisowned by Napoleon, he persevered in this plan, but he was attackedand twice defeated by an Austrian army. On May 22 the British andAustrians took the city of Naples, and Murat fled to France. In Octoberhe made an attempt to recover his kingdom, but was captured and shot. Itis noteworthy that, on hearing of his fate at St. Helena, Napoleonshowed but little sympathy with his brother-in-law. 

On the morning of June 12, Napoleon left Paris, saying as he entered hiscarriage that he went to match himself with Wellington. All his troopswere already marshalled on the Belgian frontier, and numbered 124, 588men, with 344 guns. The Imperial Guard alone was 20, 954 strong, and thewhole army was largely composed of seasoned veterans. The Prussian armyconsisted of 116, 897 men, with 312 guns under Marshal Blücher, whoseheadquarters were at Namur. Though the majority of these were veterans, there was a considerable leaven of inferior troops, hastily raised fromthe Westphalian and Rhine militia. Between this town and Quatre Bras laythe Prussian line of defence, Sombreffe being the centre, with Ligny andSt. Amand in front of it, and rather on the south-west. Wellington'sheadquarters were at Brussels, and, having no certain intelligence ofNapoleon's movements, he kept the various divisions of his army withineasy distance of that capital until the very eve of the final conflict. Of the 93, 717 men under his command, 31, 253 were British, two-thirds ofwhom had never been under fire; 6, 387 were of the king's German legion;15, 935 Hanoverians; 29, 214 (including 4, 300 Nassauers in the service ofthe Prince of the Netherlands) Dutch and Belgians; 6, 808 Brunswickers;2, 880 Nassauers; the engineers, numbering 1, 240, were not classified bynationality. He fully expected that Napoleon would move upon Brusselsalong the route by Mons and Hal, and maintained in later days that suchwould have been the best strategical course. Napoleon thought otherwise, and resolved to strike in between the Prussian and British armies, crushing the former before the latter could be fully assembled. He verynearly succeeded, and, if all had gone as he hoped, he could scarcelyhave failed to win one of his greatest victories. 

[Pageheading: _LIGNY AND QUATRE BRAS. _]

On the evening of the 15th, Wellington was still at Brussels, with thegreat body of his army, and only a weak force of Dutch and Belgians wasat Quatre Bras, some sixteen miles to the south. Blücher, with aboutthree-fourths of his army, was at Sombreffe, a few miles south-east ofQuatre Bras. Napoleon himself was at or close by Charleroi, ten ortwelve miles south of Quatre Bras; the mass of his army was at Fleurus, south-west of Sombreffe, with Ligny and St. Amand between it and thePrussians; and Marshal Ney, with Reille's corps, was at Frasnes, opposite to and due south of Quatre Bras. On the morning of the 16th, Napoleon arrived from Charleroi at Fleurus, and carefully inspected hisenemy's position, but delayed his attack upon Ligny and St Amand untilhalf-past two in the afternoon. The Prussians outnumbered the French, and a murderous conflict ensued among the streets, gardens, andenclosures of these little towns, which lasted until eight or nineo'clock. At last Napoleon ordered his guard to advance, and the plateaubehind Ligny was taken, with a loss to the French of 12, 000, and to thePrussians of over 20, 000. Blücher himself was unhorsed and severelybruised in a furious charge of cavalry, but the Prussians retired ingood order towards Wavre, north of the battlefield. 

Had Ney been in a condition to obey an urgent message from Napoleon, andto envelop the Prussian right and rear, this defeat would have beenoverwhelming in its effect. But while the battle of Ligny was raging, another battle was going on at Quatre Bras, six miles distant, in whichthe French sustained a serious check. Happily for the British, Neyfailed to bring up his divisions for an attack on Quatre Bras until twoo'clock in the afternoon, when the Dutch and Belgians under the Princeof Orange were still his only opponents. The news for which Wellingtonhad been waiting did not reach him until just before the memorable ball, given by the Duchess of Richmond at Brussels on the night of the 15th, which he nevertheless attended, hurrying off his troops to Quatre Bras. They arrived just in time to reinforce the Prince of Orange and save theposition; but Ney, too, was receiving fresh reinforcements every hour, the Duke of Brunswick was killed, and a fearful stress fell on Picton'sdivision and the Hanoverians, who alone were a match for Ney's splendidinfantry and Kellermann's cuirassiers. 

These made a charge like that which had borne down the Austrians atMarengo, but the British squares were proof against it, and when adivision of guards came up from Nivelles, the French in turn were put onthe defensive and retreated to Frasnes. The loss on the British side was4, 500 men; that on the French somewhat less. It is not difficult toimagine what the issue of the battle must have been if D'Erlon's corpshad been brought into action. This corps was occupied in marching andcountermarching, under contradictory orders from Napoleon and Ney, between the British left and the Prussian right during the whole of thiseventful day. Its appearance in the distance just when Napoleon wasabout to launch his guard against the Prussians at Ligny, caused him tohesitate long, and lose the decisive moment for demolishing his enemy. Its failure to appear at Quatre Bras, and to roll up the waveringDutch-Belgians, before Picton took up the fighting, enabled Wellingtonto hold his ground at first, to repulse Ney afterwards, and on hearingof Blücher's defeat at Ligny, to fall back in good order on Waterloo. Even then, something was due to good fortune. Had Napoleon joined Neyand marched direct on Quatre Bras early on the 17th, it is difficult tosee how his advance to Brussels could have been arrested. But whether hewas exhausted by his incessant labours since leaving Paris, or whetherhis marvellous intuition was deserting him, certain it is that heallowed that critical morning to slip by without an effort--and withouta reconnaissance. He assumed that Blücher must retire upon Namur as hisbase of operations, and that Wellington, retiring towards Brussels, would be cut off from his allies. He therefore despatched MarshalGrouchy, with 33, 000 men, to follow up the Prussians eastward by theNamur road. His assumption was unfounded. Blücher, loyal to hisengagements, retired upon Wavre; Wellington, relying upon Blücher'sloyalty, took his stand on the field of Waterloo; and this error on thepart of Napoleon determined the fortunes of the campaign. [61]

[Pageheading: _WATERLOO. _]

The British army retreated upon Waterloo almost unmolested. Ney wasprobably awaiting orders, and Napoleon, believing the Prussians to be atNamur, probably thought he might safely rest himself and his army beforecrushing Wellington at his leisure. When they realised that Wellingtonwas deliberately moving his army to a position nearer Brussels, theyboth followed in pursuit along different roads converging at QuatreBras, and a brisk skirmish took place near Genappe between Ney's cavalryand that of the British rear-guard. Heavy rain came on, and the twoarmies spent a miserable night, half a mile from each other, close toMont St. Jean, and south of Waterloo. Napoleon rose before daybreak onthe 18th, reconnoitred the British position, and convinced himself thatWellington intended to give battle. He expressed to his staff hissatisfaction and confidence of victory, when General Foy, who hadexperience of the Peninsular war, replied in significant words: "Sire, when the British infantry stand at bay, they are the very devilhimself". Why Napoleon did not begin the battle at eight o'clock hasbeen the subject of much discussion. It is said that he waited forGrouchy to join him before the close of the action. But neither he norGrouchy, though aware that at least a large force of Prussians had goneto Wavre and not to Namur, suspected that Blücher had promisedWellington to march with his whole army on the morning of the 18th tosupport the British at Waterloo. It is more likely that he waited forhis men to assemble and for the ground to dry and become morepracticable for his powerful artillery. [62]

Exception has been taken to the conduct of Wellington in detaching17, 000 men to guard the approach to Brussels at Hal, and, still more, innot recalling them, when he must have ascertained that nothing was to befeared on that side, and when such a reinforcement of his right wingmust have been all-important. But it must be remembered that in thisforce there were only 1, 500 English troops, and 2, 000 Hanoverianmilitia. The rest were Dutch and Belgians. At all events, Napoleon lefthis right flank undefended, though he was already somewhat anxious aboutthe Prussian movements, and Wellington fought the battle of Waterloowith a force numerically inferior to that under Napoleon's command, though it might have been rendered superior by the accession of the Halcontingent. The effective part of this force, numbering in all 67, 661men, consisted of 24, 000 British soldiers, 6, 000 soldiers of the king'sGerman legion, and about 11, 000 Hanoverians. Napoleon's force numbered72, 000 men, and it was stronger both in cavalry and in guns. Itrepresented the flower of the French army; there were few, if any, recruits as raw as those who swelled the ranks of the British regiments;there were thousands upon thousands who had formed part of that _GrandeArmée_ which had overawed the continent of Europe. It is fair, however, to record that, while the British rank and file suffered much for wantof sufficient food, the French had fared still worse, and that very manyof them could have been in no fit condition for the struggle impendingover them. 

Both armies occupied ground extending from west to east, on oppositeridges, and crossed at right angles by the great highway running northand south from Charleroi to Brussels. In front of the British right werethe château and enclosures of Hougoumont which were occupied by theBritish; nearly in front of the centre were the large farm-house andbuildings of La Haye Sainte. Further to the left were the hamlet ofSmohain and the farms Papelotte and La Haye. Wellington had arranged hisbrigades so as to distribute the older troops as much as possible amongthe less experienced. Sir Thomas Picton's fifth division formed the leftof the line; to his right was Alten's second division, and beyond him tothe right was the guards division under Cooke. Further to the right andpartly in reserve was Clinton's second division, while Chassé's Dutchdivision on the extreme right occupied the village of Braine l'Alleud. Somerset's brigade of heavy cavalry and Kruse's Dutch cavalry wereposted behind Alten's division, and Ponsonby's "union brigade, "consisting of the royal dragoons, Scots greys, and Inniskillings, wasstationed in Picton's rear. The whole line lay on the inner slopes ofthe ridge with the exception of Bylandt's Dutch-Belgian brigade whichwas posted on the outer slope in front of Picton's division. D'Erlon'scorps was opposite the British left, Reille's opposite the Britishright. Squadrons of cavalry covered the outer flank of either of the twoFrench corps. The magnificent squadrons of French cavalry, 15, 000strong, under Milhaud, Kellermann, and other famous leaders, were in thesecond line; the imperial guard, as usual, was massed in the rear. 

[Pageheading: _WATERLOO. _]

The battle opened about half-past eleven with a furious attack onHougoumont. It was defended with desperate gallantry, mainly by theBritish guards, who reopened the old loopholes in the garden-walls, andclosed by sheer muscular force the eastern gate of the yard, which hadbeen forced open by the French. In the fruitless siege of Hougoumont, asit may be called, the French left wing thus wasted most of its strength, and incurred enormous loss. Meanwhile, the French right wing underD'Erlon, advanced to attack the British left, which had been assailedfor an hour and a half by the fire of a battery with seventy-eight guns. The Dutch and Belgians, who in their exposed position had sufferedseverely from the French artillery fire, soon gave way; but Picton'sdivision, after a single volley, charged with the bayonet and drovetheir assailants reeling backward, though Picton himself fell dead onthe field. Without orders from Wellington, Lord Uxbridge, in command ofthe British cavalry, seized the opportunity, and launched the unionbrigade with other regiments upon the flying masses. This whirlwind ofBritish horsemen swept all before it, slaughtering many of the Frenchcavalry in passing, taking 3, 000 prisoners, sabring the gunners of Ney'sbattery, and spiking fifteen of the guns. But their ardour carried themtoo far. By Napoleon's orders a large force of French cuirassiers andlancers fell upon their flank before they could take breath again, andtheir ranks were frightfully thinned in a disorderly retreat. But theircharge had saved the day. 

At one o'clock, while the fate of D'Erlon's onslaught was stillundecided, Napoleon observed Prussian troops on his right. Anintercepted despatch proved these to be Bülow's corps. He instantly sentoff a despatch to Grouchy, whom he supposed to be within reach, orderinghim to attack Bülow in the rear. Then followed the memorable successionof charges by the whole of the French cavalry upon the squares of theBritish infantry. Not one of these squares was broken; a great part ofthe French cavalry was mown down by volleys or cut to pieces by theBritish cavalry in their precipitate retreat, and the British lineremained unmoved, though grievously weakened, behind its protectingridge. This was the crisis of the fight. Much of the British artillerywas dismounted, and Wellington confessed to one of his staff that helonged for the advent of night or Blücher. Napoleon next felt himselfcompelled to detach Lobau's corps for the purpose of meeting theadvancing Prussians. Soon afterwards Ney carried La Haye Sainte by amost determined assault, aided by the failure of ammunition within itsdefences, and thus captured the key of the British position. ButNapoleon saw that his one chance of victory lay in a final _coup_ beforethe Prussians could wrest it from him. He ordered the imperial guard tothe front, leading it himself across the valley, and then handing overthe command to Ney. The guard was but the remnant of its originalstrength, for all its cavalry had been wrecked in wild charges againstthe British squares, and several battalions of its infantry were kept inreserve to hold back the Prussians and protect the baggage train. Nevertheless, the advance of this superb corps, the heroes of a hundredfights, who had seldom failed to hurl back the tide of battle at themost perilous junctures, was among the most impressive spectacles in theannals of war. They swerved a little to the left, thereby exposingthemselves to the fire of the British footguards and of a battery inexcellent condition. The former were lying down for shelter, but whenthe imperial guard came within sixty paces of them they started up atthe word of command from Wellington himself. The footguards poured adeadly fire into the front, and the 52nd regiment into the flank oftheir columns; as they wavered under the storm of shot a bayonet chargefollowed, and the imperial guard, hitherto almost invincible, wasdissolved into a mob of fugitives scattered over the plain. 

It was now past eight o'clock; Bülow's Prussians had long been engagedon the British left, and Blücher, with indomitable energy, was pressingforward with all his other divisions. Wellington first sent Vandeleur'sand Vivian's cavalry, still comparatively fresh, to sweep away whatremained of the French reserves, and then ordered a general advance. TheFrench retreat speedily became a rout, and a rout to which there is noparallel except that which succeeded the battle of Leipzig. Wellingtonand Blücher met at La Belle Alliance on the high road, just south of thebattlefield, and lately the French headquarters. The British troops wereutterly tired out, but the Prussian cavalry never drew rein until theyhad driven the last Frenchman over the river Sambre in their relentlesspursuit. The slaughter had been prodigious, though far short of that atBorodino. The British army lost 13, 000 men, the Prussian 7, 000, and theFrench 37, 000[63] (including prisoners), besides the whole of theirartillery, ammunition, baggage-waggons, and military train. But thebattle was one of the most decisive recorded in history, and was thereal beginning of a peace which lasted over the whole of Europe fornearly forty years. Grouchy heard the cannonade of Waterloo on his marchfrom Ligny to Wavre, and was strongly urged by Gérard to hasten acrosscountry, with his whole force, in the direction of the firing. But hepleaded the letter of Napoleon's instructions, and reached Wavre only tofind Blücher gone. After an encounter with a Prussian corps, which hadbeen left behind, he received news of Napoleon's defeat, and ultimatelyescaped into France. 

[Pageheading: _NAPOLEON'S SECOND ABDICATION. _]

The march of the allies into France after the battle of Waterloo was notwholly unchecked, but it was far more rapid than in 1814. The Frenchcould not be rallied, and in the first week of July Paris was occupiedby Anglo-Prussian troops. The Austrians and Prussians were moving againupon the eastern frontiers of France, but were still far behind. ThePrussian general and soldiers were animated by the bitterest spirit ofvengeance, and it needed all the firmness of Wellington to prevent thebridge of Jena from being blown up, and a ruinous contribution levied onthe citizens of Paris. Napoleon himself was now at Rochefort, havingquitted Paris after a second abdication on June 22, but four days afterthe battle. No other course was open to him. When he started for hislast campaign, he was no longer the champion of an united nation, andconsciously staked his all on a single throw. When he returned from it, discomfited and without an army, he found the chambers actively hostileto him. Carnot, who had formerly opposed his assumption of the imperialtitle, was now the only one of his ministers to deprecate hisabdication, but Napoleon himself saw no hope of retaining his power, ortransmitting it to his son, without a reckless appeal to revolutionarypassions. From this he shrank, and he represented himself at St. Helenaas having sacrificed personal ambition to patriotism. 

The chamber of deputies appointed an executive commission of five, including the infamous Fouché, and from this body the late emperoractually received an order to quit Paris. He retired to Malmaison, wherehe received a fresh order to set out for Rochefort, which he reached onJuly 3. On the next day Paris capitulated to the allies, and thenecessity for his leaving the shores of France became more urgent. Twofrigates were assigned for his escape to America, but a British squadronwas lying ready to intercept them. Some of his bolder companions deviseda scheme for smuggling him on board a swift merchant ship, but it wasfoiled by the vigilant watch of the British squadron off the islands ofOléron and Ré. At last he surrendered himself on board the_Bellerophon_, relying, as he said, on the honour of the British nation, and claiming the generous protection of the prince regent. He was, however, clearly informed that he would be at the disposal of thegovernment. Under an agreement with the allied powers, the ministersdecided, and were supported by the nation in deciding, that he could notbe detained in England, either as a guest or as a prisoner, with anyregard to public safety or the verdict of Europe at Vienna. The proposalof banishing him to St. Helena, suggested in the previous year, wasfinally adopted, and he sailed thither in the _Northumberland_ on August8, vehemently protesting against the bad faith of Great Britain. LouisXVIII. Was restored, and the treaty of Vienna, signed on the eve of theWaterloo campaign, was but slightly modified. 

The action of Murat had solved the difficulties which the congress hadto face in Italy. The kingdom of the Two Sicilies reverted to theBourbon, Ferdinand; and the Bourbons also acquired a right of reversionin Parma, where the protest of Spain against the rule of Maria Louisacould now be ignored. Genoa was annexed to the kingdom of Sardinia; thepope received back the states of the Church; the Grand Duke of Tuscanyand the Duke of Modena were restored; while Austria had to be contentwith Venetia and Lombardy as far as the Ticino. The organisation ofGermany occupied the congress until June, and was the least durable partof its work. The basis of it was a confederation of thirty-eight states, represented and in theory controlled by a diet under the presidency ofAustria. This diet naturally resolved itself into a mere permanentcongress of diplomatists for the purpose of settling the mutualrelations of the constituent states. Each state was ordered to adopt aconstitutional form of government, but, as no provision was made forenforcing this clause, it remained a dead letter. Prussia regained herprovinces on the left bank of the Rhine, with a population exceeding1, 000, 000, and was allotted the northern part of Saxony, with apopulation of 800, 000, besides retaining her original share of Poland, with the province of Posen, which had formed part of the duchy ofWarsaw. Most of this duchy was annexed by Russia, but Cracow was left arepublic. Prussia also gained Swedish Pomerania. Bavaria, Hanover, andDenmark profited more or less by the repartition of Germany. Denmark, however, finally lost Norway, and Sweden paid the price of thisacquisition by resigning Finland to Russia. The neutrality ofSwitzerland was proclaimed and her constitution simplified. The BelgianNetherlands were united to Holland, the two forming together the kingdomof the Netherlands, to which Austria ceded all her claims in the LowCountries. 

[Pageheading: _THE SECOND TREATY OF PARIS. _]

The treaty of Vienna left the boundaries of France itself as they hadbeen defined by the first treaty of Paris in 1814. The second treaty ofParis, however, signed on November 20, 1815, was less favourable toFrance, which had already ceded Western Savoy to Sardinia, and was nowrequired to abandon Landau and other outlying territories beyond thefrontier of 1792. She was also compelled to restore all the works of artaccumulated during the war. 

Great Britain had failed to obtain from the congress any bindingregulation on the subject of the slave trade. The most that she couldobtain was a solemn denunciation of that trade issued on February 8, which declared it to be "repugnant to the principles of civilisation andof universal morality". The moderation of the British demands, asembodied in these treaties, excited not only the amazement but thecontempt of Napoleon, who discussed the subject at St. Helena with greatfreedom. Well knowing that his paramount object throughout all his warsand negotiations had been to crush Great Britain, and that Great Britainhad been the mainstay of all the combinations against him, he could findno explanation of our self-denial except our insular simplicity. Perhapsit might be attributed with greater reason to politic magnanimity; nor, indeed, could Great Britain, as a member of the European council, dictate such terms as Napoleon suggested. Still, the gains of GreatBritain were substantial. She retained Ceylon, the Cape of Good Hope, the Isle of France (Mauritius), Trinidad, St. Lucia, Tobago, and, aboveall, Malta. She also obtained possession of Heligoland and theprotectorate of the Ionian Islands, both of which she has since resignedof her own accord. If she afterwards lost the commanding position whichshe had attained among the allied powers, it was chiefly because thecolossal empire which she had defied was effectually shattered, becauseneither her armies nor her subsidies were any longer needed on thecontinent of Europe, and perhaps because the energies of her statesmenwere no longer braced up by the stress of a struggle for national life. 

Even before the allied armies entered Paris Wellington considered itnecessary to induce Louis XVIII. To make advances to certain politiciansof the revolution so as to inspire national confidence in him, and toanticipate the risk of a "White Terror, " or a continuance of the war. Fouché was accordingly summoned to power, and he had sufficientinfluence to prevent any national opposition to the Bourbon restoration. Napoleon remained at large for three weeks after his abdication, thatis, for eight days after the allied troops had entered Paris, and thefear of a future Bonapartist revolution inclined the British governmentunder Liverpool to entertain favourably the demand of Prussia for thecession of Alsace, Lorraine, and the northern fortresses. When, however, Napoleon had placed himself on board the _Bellerophon_, the situationchanged. A contented France seemed preferable to an impotent France, andWellington argued that the Bourbon restoration could not last, if Frenchopinion connected it with the loss of Alsace and Lorraine. The tsar tookthis line from the first, and Wellington won for it the adhesion firstof his own government and then of Austria. Prussia had finally to becontented with a provision for the cession of the outlying districts, which the treaty of Paris of 1814 had left to France. The second treatyof Paris, which embodied this stipulation, also provided for anindemnity of Ł40, 000, 000 to be paid by France to the allies, and for thetemporary occupation of Northern France by the allied armies. On thesame day Austria, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia signed a treatypledging themselves to act together in case fresh revolution andusurpation in France should endanger the repose of other states, andproviding for frequent meetings of congresses to preserve the peace ofEurope. 

In addition to the formal treaties of alliance signed at Chaumont, Vienna, and Paris, an attempt was made by the Tsar Alexander to bindtogether the European sovereigns in an union based on the principles ofChristian brotherhood. A form of treaty was accordingly drawn up whichgave expression to these motives, dealt with all Christians as onenation, and committed their sovereigns to mutual affection andreciprocal service. This treaty of the holy alliance was signed onSeptember 26, by Austria, Prussia, and Russia. All European princesexcept the sultan were invited to adhere to it, and all except the popeand the sultan ultimately either accepted it or expressed their sympathywith its principles. But in England there was hardly a statesman whoregarded the treaty seriously, Wellington avowed his distrust of it, theprince regent declined to join it, and its effective value in promotingthe subsequent concert of the powers was less than nothing. Still, however visionary and extravagantly worded, it remains as an uniquerecord embodying the deliberate adoption of the principle ofinternational brotherhood, and the sacrifice of separate nationalinterests for the sake of European peace. 

[Pageheading: _NAPOLEON AT ST. HELENA. _]

It is remarkable that so little public discussion took place on twoquestions which have since been so hotly debated--the legal _status_ ofNapoleon after he surrendered himself, and the moral right of GreatBritain to banish him to St. Helena. One reason for this apparentindifference to the fate of one who had overawed all Europe may be foundin the fact that parliament was not sitting when the decision of thegovernment was taken, and that, when it met on February 1, 1816, thatdecision was virtually irrevocable. We know, however, that the firstquestion was fully considered by the allied powers and the Britishministry before his place of exile was fixed, and Great Britainundertook the custody of his person. The view which prevailed was that, after his escape from Elba, he could neither be treated as anindependent sovereign nor as a subject of the French king, but must beregarded as a public enemy who had fallen into the hands of one amongseveral allied powers. Accordingly, it was by their joint mandate thathe remained the prisoner of Great Britain, and was to be under the jointinspection of commissioners appointed by the other powers. Still theminds of Liverpool, Ellenborough, and Sir William Scott, judge of thecourt of admiralty, were not altogether easy on the legal aspect of thecase, which Eldon reviewed in an elaborate and exhaustive memorandum. His conclusion was that Napoleon's position was quite exceptional, thathe could not rightly be made over to France as a French rebel, but was aprisoner of war at the disposal of the British government, both on thebroad principles of international law, and under the express terms ofhis surrender, as reported officially by Captain Maitland of the_Bellerophon_. 

It was thought expedient, however, to pass an act of parliament in thesession of 1816 for the purpose of setting at rest any objections whichmight afterwards be raised. This measure was introduced on March 17 byLord Castlereagh, who defended it on grounds of national justice andnational policy. It met with no opposition in the house of commons, butLords Holland and Lauderdale criticised it in the house of lords, notas sanctioning a wrong to Napoleon, but as implicitly admitting theright of other powers to join in arrangements for his custody. Littleattention was then bestowed by parliament or the public on the moralaspect of his life-long detention at St. Helena, the restrictions to bethere imposed upon his liberty, or the provision to be made for hiscomfort. Yet these subjects have ever since exercised the minds ofmyriads both in England and France, and have given birth to a copiousliterature for more than three generations. 

FOOTNOTES:

[61] For the movements of June 15, 16, see Chesney, _Waterloo Lectures_, pp. 70-137; Ropes, _The Campaign of Waterloo_, pp. 44-196. 

[62] Rose, _Life of Napoleon I. _, ii. , 494, 495. 

[63] Oman in _English Historical Review_, xix. , 693, and xxi. , 132. 

 CHAPTER VIII. 

 THE FIRST YEARS OF PEACE. 

When Parliament met on February 1, 1816, after a recess of unusuallength, Castlereagh was received with loud acclamations from all partsof the house as the chief actor in the pacification of Europe. Therewas, of course, a full debate upon the treaties, but the oppositiondwelt less upon the arbitrary partition of Europe than upon theiralleged tendency to guarantee sovereigns against the assertion ofpopular rights and upon the manifest intention of the government to"raise the country into a military power". From this moment dates thewhig and radical watchword of "Peace, Retrenchment, and Reform". Thenation was, in fact, entering upon a period of unprecedented depressionand discontent, which lasted through the last four years of GeorgeIII. 's reign. At the close of 1815, however, the whole horizon wasapparently bright. Great Britain had saved Europe by her example, and, however small her army in comparison with those of continental states, she stood foremost among the powers which had crushed the rule ofNapoleon. Her national debt, it is true, had reached the prodigioustotal of Ł861, 039, 049, and the interest on it amounted Ł32, 645, 618, butthe expansion of our national resources had kept pace with it. In spiteof the continental system, the orders in council, and the American war, the imports and exports had enormously increased, chiefly by means of anorganised contraband traffic; the carrying trade of the world had passedinto the hands of British shipowners; British manufactures were largelyfostered by warlike expenditure at home and the suspension of manyindustries abroad; while population, stimulated by a vicious poor law, was rapidly on the increase. In this last element, then considered as asure sign of prosperity, really consisted one of the chief nationaldangers. 

So long as the war lasted, low as the rate of wages might be, there wasgenerally employment enough in the fields or in the factories for nearlyall the hands willing to labour. When the inflated war prices came to anend, and wheat fell below 80s. Or even 70s. A quarter, until it reached52s. 6d. Early in 1816, labourers were turned off and wages cut downstill further; bread was not proportionately cheapened, and agrarianoutrages sprang up. The continent, impoverished by the war, no longerrequired British goods for military purposes, and, as its own domesticindustries revived, ceased to absorb British products, flung inprofusion on its markets. Hence came a reduction of 16 per cent. In theexport trade, and of nearly 20 per cent. In the import trade, whichresulted in bankruptcies and the dismissal of workpeople. If we add tothese causes of distress, the influence of over-speculation, theaccession of disbanded soldiers to the ranks of the unemployed, and thesubstitution of the factory system with machinery for domesticmanufactures with hand labour, we can partly understand why GreatBritain, never harried by invading armies, should have suffered morethan France itself from popular misery and disaffection for severalyears after the restoration of peace. 

[Pageheading: _VANSITTART'S FINANCE. _]

The history of these years is mainly a history of social unrest, andattempts to cure social evils by legislation or coercion. Liverpool andhis colleagues, with the possible exception of Eldon, were not bigotedtories, and it is sometimes forgotten that among them, together withSidmouth, Castlereagh, and Vansittart, were Canning, Palmerston, andPeel. One of the first parliamentary struggles was on the proposal ofthe government to reduce the income tax from 10 to 5 per cent. , and toapply this half of it, producing about Ł7, 500, 000, towards the expenseof maintaining an army of 150, 000 men. Since the income tax has become afavourite of democratic economists, as pressing specially upon the rich, we may be surprised to find that its total repeal was successfullyadvocated by Henry Brougham, the leading democrat of that day--a manwhose noble services to progress and to humanity in the earlier part ofhis career have been obscured by the inordinate vanity and unprincipledegotism which he displayed in the later phases of his long public life. He had entered parliament in 1810, and rapidly became the most active ofthe opposition speakers. He now employed without scruple all the arts ofagitation, petition-framing, and parliamentary obstruction to achievehis object, and succeeded, by the aid of bankers and country-gentlemen, in defeating the government by a majority of thirty-seven. This votemight be justified, more or less, on the principle laid down by Pitt, that the income tax should be held in reserve as a war tax only, or onthe ground that it was equally wasteful and mischievous to keep up solarge a peace-establishment, especially if it might be used to bolsterup despotism abroad. It was also unfortunate that Castlereagh, ignoringthe heroic efforts made by the people of England for more than twentyyears, should have deprecated "an ignorant impatience to be relievedfrom the pressure of taxation". Still, it is remarkable that friends ofthe people and the ultra-liberal corporation of London, as it then was, should have concentrated their indignant protests against the financialpolicy of the government, not on the corn laws, or any other indirecttax, but on the income tax. 

Public confidence in the economic wisdom of the ministers was furtherweakened by the gratuitous abandonment of the malt tax, apparently in afit of petulance, on the ground, explicitly stated, that, if another wartax must be raised, two or three millions more or less would make littledifference. By a temporary suspension of the sinking fund, a deficitmight be converted into a surplus; Vansittart, however, neglected totake advantage of this simple expedient, and raised Ł11, 500, 000 by loan. His waning reputation was almost shattered by this absurd proceeding. Finally, the excessive and irregular expenditure upon the civil listprovoked a searching inquiry into its abuses, prefaced by a scathingattack from Brougham upon the character of the prince regent. Hischaracter was, in fact, indefensible, and had justly forfeited therespect of the nation. He was a debauchee and gambler, a disobedientson, a cruel husband, a heartless father, an ungrateful and treacherousfriend, and a burden to the ministries which had to act in his name andpalliate his misdoings. That of Liverpool carried a measure for thebetter regulation of the civil list, upon which, swollen as it was bythe wrongful appropriation of other public funds, many officialsalaries had been charged hitherto. For these parliament now made aseparate provision. The house of commons, which properly grudged theprince regent the means of reckless luxury and self-indulgence, wasunanimous in voting Ł60, 000 for outfit and Ł60, 000 a year to thePrincess Charlotte on her marriage, on May 2, to Prince Leopold ofSaxe-Coburg, looking forward to a reign under which virtue and a senseof public duty would again be the attributes of royalty. In thissession, too, it conferred a boon upon Ireland, which earned littlegratitude, by the consolidation of the British and Irish exchequers. Ireland was virtually insolvent before this measure was passed. With theunion of the exchequers the union of the countries was completed. Theadministration, discredited by its financial policy, was strengthened inJune by the acquisition of Canning, who succeeded Buckinghamshire aspresident of the board of control. In September, 1814, Wellesley Pole, abrother of the Marquis Wellesley and the Duke of Wellington, had beenadmitted to the cabinet as master of the mint, so that with Castlereagh, Vansittart, and Bragge-Bathurst, there were now five members of thecabinet in the lower house. 

[Pageheading: _INDUSTRIAL RIOTS. _]

The disturbances which broke out again and again during the years1816-19 were partly the outcome of sheer destitution among the workingclasses, and partly of a growing demand for reform, whetherconstitutional or revolutionary. The statesmen of the regency must notbe too severely judged if they often confounded these causes ofseditious movements, and failed to distinguish between the moderate andviolent sections of reformers. Those who remembered the bloodthirstyorgies of the French revolution, ushered in by quixotic visions ofliberty, equality, and fraternity, may perhaps be excused fordistrusting the moderate professions of demagogues who deliberatelyinflamed the passions of ignorant mobs. Moreover, the whigs and moderatereformers, who privately condemned the excesses of their violentfollowers, made light of these in their public utterances, and reservedall their censures for the repressive policy of the government. Breadriots had begun before the harvest, which proved a total failure. Theprice of wheat, which was as low as 52s. 6d. A quarter in January, 1816, rose to 103s. 1d. In January, 1817, and to 111s. 6d. In June, 1817. Andwhen rickburning set in as a consequence of agricultural depression, tumultuary processions as a consequence of enforced idleness in the coaldistricts, and a revival of Luddism as a consequence of stagnation inthe various textile industries, itself due to a glut of British goods onthe continent, the reform party, now raising its head, was heldresponsible by the government for a great part of these disorders. [64]The writings of Cobbett, especially his _Weekly Register_, certainly hada wide influence in stirring up discontent against existinginstitutions, but it must be admitted that he condemned the use ofphysical force, and pointed to parliamentary reform as the legitimatecure for all social evils. Reform, however, in Cobbett's meaningincluded universal suffrage with annual parliaments, and the Hampdenclubs, all over the country, agitated for the same objects in lessguarded language. Still, looking back at these democratic agencies bythe light of later experience, we can hardly adopt the opinion expressedby a secret committee of the house of commons that their avowed objectswere "nothing short of a revolution". 

It was on December 2, 1816, that the extreme section of reformers, nowfor the first time known as radicals, in alliance with a body ofsocialists called Spenceans, first came into open collision with theforces of the law. A meeting was announced to be held on that day in SpaFields, Bermondsey, and was to be addressed by "Orator" Hunt, MajorCartwright, the two Watsons, and other demagogues. Hunt was a gentlemanof Somerset, and had stood for Bristol in 1812. Though a prominentspeaker, he in no sense directed the movement. Burdett and Cochrane, theorthodox leaders of London reformers, were not concerned in thisdemonstration, which, according to an informer who gave evidence, was tobe the signal for an attack upon the Tower and other acts of atrocity. As it was, before Hunt chose to appear, the mob, headed by the youngerWatson, broke into gunsmiths' shops, not without bloodshed, and marchedthrough the Royal Exchange, but were courageously met by the lord mayor, with a few assistants, and very soon dispersed. The alarm produced inthe whole nation by this riotous fiasco was quite out of proportion toits real importance, and was reawakened by an insult offered to theprince regent on his return from opening parliament on January 28, 1817. Even Canning, a life-long opponent of reform, did not scruple to magnifythese and similar evidences of popular restlessness into proofs of adeep-laid plot against the constitution, and committees of both housesurged the necessity of drastic measures to put down a conspiracy againstpublic order and private property. These measures took the form of billsfor the suppression of seditious meetings, and for the suspension untilJuly 1 of the _habeas corpus_ act, which had been uninterruptedly inforce since its suspension by Pitt had expired in 1801. This last billwas passed on March 3, and, before the other became law, the so-calledmarch of the Blanketeers took place at Manchester. The march was theridiculous sequel of a very large meeting got up for the purpose ofcarrying a petition to London, and presenting it to the prince regent inperson. The meeting was dispersed by the soldiers and police, after theriot act had been read, and a straggling crowd of some three hundred whobegan their pilgrimage, carrying blankets or overcoats, melted away bydegrees before they had got far southward. 

[Pageheading: _SIDMOUTH'S UNPOPULARITY. _]

A far more serious outbreak at Manchester seems to have been clumsilyplanned soon afterwards, but it ended in nothing, and the enemies of thegovernment freely attributed this and other projects of mob violence tothe instigation of an _agent-provocateur_, well known as "Oliver theSpy". This man was also credited with the authorship of "the Derbyshireinsurrection, " for which three men were executed and many otherstransported. Here there can be no doubt that a formidable gang, armedwith pikes, terrorised a large district, pressing operatives to jointhem in overt defiance of the law, and killing one who held back. Beingconfronted by a Nottinghamshire magistrate named Rolleston, with a smallbody of soldiers, they fled across the fields, and the bubble ofrebellion burst at a touch. Whether they were legally guilty of hightreason, for which they were unwisely tried, may perhaps be doubted, butit would certainly be no palliation of their crime if it could be shown, as it never was shown, that Oliver had led them to rely on a jacobinrevolution in London. What does appear very clearly is that Sidmouthwas greatly alarmed by the reports of his agents on the disturbed stateof the country, but that he was highly conscientious in his instructionsand in the use of his own powers. The great majority of those imprisonedfor political offences at this time were liberated or acquitted, but thesuspension of the _habeas corpus_ act was renewed at the beginning ofJuly. 

Moreover, a circular was addressed by Sidmouth to the lords-lieutenantof counties, for the information of the magistrates, intimating that, inthe opinion of the law officers, persons charged on oath with seditiouslibel might be apprehended and held to bail. No act of Sidmouth calledforth such an outburst of reprobation as this; yet it is notself-evident that instigations to outrage, being criminal offences, should be treated by magistrates differently from other offences forwhich bail may be required, with the alternative of imprisonment. On theother hand, it is hardly becoming for a home secretary to interpret thelaw, and, since the forensic triumphs of Erskine, it had been declaredby an act of parliament that in cases of libel, as distinct from allother criminal trials, both the law and the fact were within theprovince of the jury. At all events, William Cobbett, feeling himself tobe at the mercy of informers and the crown, took refuge in America inDecember, 1817. Hone, an antiquarian bookseller, was thrice prosecutedfor blasphemous libels, in which the ministers had been held up tocontempt. All these ill-judged, if not vindictive, prosecutions ended insignal failure. Ellenborough, the chief justice, before whom the twolast trials were held, strained his judicial authority to procure aconviction of Hone, but the prisoner, with a spirit worthy of a martyr, defied the intimidation of the court, and thrice carried the sympathiesof the jury with him. His triple acquittal led to Ellenborough'sresignation, and perceptibly shook the prestige of the government. 

In the year 1818 there was a temporary improvement in the economiccondition of the country. The depression of the preceding year wasfollowed in this year by a rapid increase of revenue. The importance theministry attached to finance was emphasised by the admission to thecabinet in January of Frederick John Robinson, afterwards prime ministeras Lord Goderich, who had been appointed president of the board oftrade and treasurer of the navy. The chancellor of the exchequer and themaster of the mint were already members of the cabinet. The suspensionof the _habeas corpus_ act having expired, the reform agitation revived, but assumed a less dangerous character, and no serious outbreakoccurred. A bill of indemnity was passed to cover any excesses ofjurisdiction in arresting suspected persons or in suppressing tumultuousassemblies. A parliamentary inquiry showed both that the disorders ofthe previous year had been exaggerated, and that, after all, theextraordinary powers of the home office had been used with moderation. Nevertheless, the early part of the session was largely occupied byparty debates on these questions, the employment of spies, andapprehensions for libel. Parliament was dissolved in June, and thegeneral election which followed resulted in a gain of several seats tothe opposition. [65] The ministry was strengthened in January, 1819, bythe appointment of Wellington to be master-general of the ordnance, insuccession to Mulgrave, who remained in the cabinet without office. 

[Pageheading: _THE "MANCHESTER MASSACRE". _]

Before the end of the year 1818, a strike of Manchester cotton-spinnerswas attended by the usual incidents of brutal violence towards workmenwho refused to join in it, but a few shots from the soldiers, one ofwhich killed a rioter, proved effectual in quelling lawlessness. Manchester, however, remained the centre of agitation, and during thesummer of 1819 a series of reform meetings held in other great townsculminated in a monster meeting originally convened for August 9, butpostponed until the 16th. The history of this meeting ending in theso-called "Manchester" or "Peterloo massacre, " has been stronglycoloured by party spirit and sympathy with the victims of recklessdemagogy no less than of blundering officialism. It is certain thatdrilling had been going on for some time among the multitudes invited toattend the meeting of the 9th; that its avowed object was to choose a"legislatorial representative, " as Birmingham had already done, andthat, on its being declared illegal by the municipal authorities, whodeclined to summon it on their own initiative, its organisersdeliberately resolved to hold it a week later, whether it were legal ornot. 

The contingents, which poured in by thousands from neighbouring towns, seem to have carried no arms but sticks, and to have conductedthemselves peaceably when they arrived at St. Peter's Fields, whereOrator Hunt, puffed up with silly vanity, was voted into the chair on ahustings. Unfortunately, instead of attempting to prevent the meeting, the county magistrates decided to let the great masses of peopleassemble, and then to arrest the leaders in the midst of them. They hadat their disposal several companies of infantry, six troops of the 15thhussars, and a body of yeomanry, besides special constables. The chiefconstable, being ordered to arrest Hunt and his colleagues, declaredthat he could not do so without military aid, whereupon a small force ofyeomanry advanced but soon became wedged up and enclosed by the denselypacked crowd. One of the magistrates, fancying the yeomanry to be inimminent danger, of which there is no proof, called upon ColonelL'Estrange, who was in command of the soldiers, to rescue them anddisperse the mob. Four troops of the hussars then made a dashing charge, supported by a few of the yeomanry; the people fled in wild confusionbefore them; some were cut down, more were trampled down, and aneye-witness describes "several mounds of human beings" as lying wherethey had fallen. Happily, the actual loss of life did not exceed five orsix, but a much larger number was more or less wounded, the real havocand bloodshed were inevitably exaggerated by rumour, and a bitter senseof resentment was implanted in the breasts of myriads, innocent of theslightest complicity with sedition, but impatient of oligarchical rule, and disgusted with so ruthless an interference with the right of publicmeeting. 

It would have been wise if Sidmouth and his colleagues had recognisedthis widespread feeling, had seen that famine and despair were at thebottom of popular discontent, and had admitted error of judgment, atleast, on the part of the Lancashire magistrates. On the contrary, theyfelt it so necessary to support civil and military authority, at allhazards, that they induced the prince regent to express unqualifiedapprobation of the course taken, and afterwards defended it withoutreserve in parliament. Even Eldon expressed his opinion privately thatit would be hard to justify it, unless the assembly amounted to an actof treason, as he regarded it; whereas Hunt and his associates wereprosecuted (and convicted in the next year) not for treason, but onlyfor a misdemeanour. At all events, the storm of indignation excited bythis sad event, and not confined to the working classes, powerfullyfomented the reform movement. Large meetings were held over all themanufacturing districts, and a requisition to summon a great Yorkshiremeeting was signed by Fitzwilliam, the lord-lieutenant, who attended itin person. For these acts he was properly dismissed, but, in spite ofinflammatory speeches, nearly all the meetings passed off quietly andwithout interference. Nevertheless, the government thought it necessaryto hold an autumn session, and strengthen the hands of the executive byfresh measures of repression. These having been passed in December afterstrenuous opposition, were afterwards known as the six acts, andregarded as the climax of Sidmouth's despotic _régime_. 

Two of the six acts, directed against the possession of arms andmilitary training for unlawful purposes, cannot be considered oppressiveunder the circumstances then prevailing. Nor can exception be taken onthe ground of principle to another for "preventing delay in theadministration of justice in cases of misdemeanour, " which, indeed, wasamended, by Holland, with Eldon's consent, so as to benefit defendantsin state prosecutions. Two were designed to curb still further theliberty of the press. One of these made the publication of seditiouslibels an offence punishable with banishment, and authorised the seizureof all unsold copies. When we consider the extreme virulence ofseditious libels in those days, this act does not wear so monstrous anaspect as its radical opponents alleged, but happily it soon became adead letter, and was repealed in 1830. The other, imposing a stamp-dutyon small pamphlets, only placed them on the same footing withnewspapers. The last of the new measures--"to prevent more effectuallyseditious meetings and assemblies"--was practically aimed against alllarge meetings, unless called by the highest authorities in counties andcorporate towns, or, at least, five justices of the peace. It was, therefore, a grave encroachment on the right of public meeting, and theonly excuse for it was that it was passed under the fear of arevolutionary movement, and limited in duration to a period of fiveyears. 

[Pageheading: _SOCIAL LEGISLATION. _]

Nor can it be denied that, as a whole, this restrictive code wassuccessful. From a modern point of view it may appear less arbitrarythan the suspension of the _habeas corpus_ act for a whole year(1817-18), but it was assuredly tainted with a reactionary spirit, andwas capable of being worked in a way inconsistent with civil liberty. That it was not so worked, on the whole, and caused less hardship thanhad been anticipated, was not so much the result of changes in thegovernment itself, as of economic progress in the nation, aided by ahealthier growth of public opinion. The violence which marked the earlystages of the reform movement has been described as a safety-valveagainst anarchy; it was, in reality, the chief obstacle to a sound andcomprehensive reform bill. While it lasted, the middle classes andliberals of moderate views were estranged from the cause; when itceased, the demand for a new representative system became irresistible. 

Whatever allowance may be made for the coercive policy of the governmentduring the dark period of storm and stress which succeeded the greatwar, it is hard to find any excuse for its neglect of sociallegislation. Then, if ever, was a time when the work of Pitt's best daysshould have been resumed, when real popular grievances should have beenredressed, and when the long arrears of progressive reform should havebeen gradually redeemed. Yet very little was done to better the lot ofmen, women, and children in Great Britain, and that little was chieflyinitiated by individuals. In 1816, on the motion of a private member, aninquiry was commenced into the state of the metropolitan police, whichdisclosed most scandalous abuses, such as the habitual association ofthieves and thief-takers, encouraged by the grants of blood-money whichhad been continued since the days of Jonathan Wild. In 1817 a committeesanctioned by the ministers recommended a measure for the gradualabolition of sinecures, which then figured prominently in the domesticcharter of reform. Their recommendations were adopted, and a largenumber of sinecure offices were swept away. But inasmuch as sinecureshad been largely given to persons who had held public offices ofbusiness, it was thought necessary to institute pensions to an amountnot exceeding one-half of the reduction. In 1816 a private member, namedCurwen, brought forward a fanciful scheme of his own for the amendmentof the poor laws, which in effect anticipated modern projects of oldage pensions. He obtained the appointment of a select committee, whichreported in 1817, but their proposals were thoroughly inadequate, and nosensible improvement came of them. 

It was also in 1816 that the cause of national education, the importanceof which had been vainly urged by Whitbread, was taken up in earnest byBrougham. His motion for the appointment of a select committee wasconfined to the schools of the metropolis. It sat at intervals until1818, when its powers were enlarged, and its labours somewhat divertedinto a searching exposure of mismanagement in endowed charities. The onedirect fruit of the committee was the creation of the charitycommission, but in the opinion of Brougham himself it was of the highestvalue in opening the whole education question. The almost universalprevalence of distress in 1817, and the excessive burden thrown uponpoor rates, induced parliament to authorise an expenditure of Ł750, 000in Great Britain and Ireland for the employment of the labouring poor onpublic works. A far sounder and more fruitful measure of relief owes itsorigin to the same year. It was now that the institution of savingsbanks, hitherto promoted only by single philanthropists, emerged fromthe experimental stage and claimed the attention of parliament. A billfor their regulation, introduced by Pitt's friend, George Rose, did notpass into an act; but the establishment of savings banks was nowdirectly encouraged by the legislature, and there were thoughtful menwho already dimly foresaw the manifold benefits of their futuredevelopment. 

[Pageheading: _THE CURRENCY QUESTION. _]

In the year 1819 was initiated a very important reform in the currency, which had long been delayed. When the bullion committee reported in1810, Bank of England notes were at a discount of about 13˝ per cent. There were several reasons why this should be the case. Continentaltrade was then compelled to pass through British ports, and a largesupply of gold was needed to serve as the medium of this trade. Therewas also a steady drain of gold to the Spanish peninsula to meet warexpenses, while troubles in South America diminished the annual outputof the precious metals. In 1811 Bank of England notes were made legaltender, but no further action was then taken, and the depreciationcontinued until 1814. The magnificent harvest of 1813, together withother causes, brought about a sudden fall of prices, in consequence ofwhich no less than 240 country banks stopped payment in the years1814-16. The decrease and popular distrust of private banknotes producedan increased demand for Bank of England notes, which in 1817 had nearlyrisen in value to a par with gold. In 1819, when they were at a discountof only 4˝ per cent. , a committee was appointed by the house ofcommons to reconsider the policy of resuming cash payments, and Peel, young as he was, became its chairman. In this character he abandoned hispreconceived views and induced the house to adopt those which had beenadvocated by Horner. It was not thought prudent to fix an earlier datethan 1823 for the actual resumption of cash payments, but the directorsof the Bank of England anticipated this date, and began to exchangenotes for specie on May 1, 1821. The new standard was definitely one ofgold. A considerable fall of prices ensued, and it is still a disputedquestion whether the return to a single standard was entirelybeneficial. 

But for what is called the public, the readers of newspapers and thefrequenters of clubs or taverns, the rivalry of party leaders or theincidents of court life excite a much keener interest than painfulefforts for the good of the humbler classes. During the closing years ofGeorge III. 's reign there were no party conflicts of special intensity. The whigs acquiesced in their self-imposed exclusion from office, andcontented themselves with damaging criticism; the radicals had not yetacquired the confidence or respect of the electors. Liverpool remainedprime minister; Castlereagh, foreign secretary; Sidmouth, homesecretary; Vansittart, chancellor of the exchequer. Meanwhile there werestartling vicissitudes in the fortunes of the royal family. The king, indeed, remained under the cloud of mental derangement which darkenedthe last ten years of his life, and the Princess of Wales, who had beenthe object of so much scandal, was now out of sight and residing abroad. The Princess Charlotte, however, the only daughter of the regent, hadcentred in herself the loyalty and hopes of the nation in a remarkabledegree, and was credited, not unjustly, with private virtues and publicsympathies contrasting strongly with the disposition of her father. Hermarriage with Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, who bore a high character, had been hailed with national enthusiasm, for it was known that, likeQueen Victoria, she had been carefully trained and had disciplinedherself, physically and morally, for the duties of a throne. It has beentruly said that her death in childbirth, on November 6, was the greathistorical event of 1817. The prince regent, with his constitutionweakened by dissipation, was not expected to survive her long, and solong as his wife lived there was no prospect of other legitimate issue, unless he could procure a divorce. There was no grandchild of GeorgeIII. Who could lawfully inherit the crown, and the apprehension of acollateral succession became more and more generally felt. [66]

In the following year four royal marriages were announced. The PrincessElizabeth espoused the Landgrave of Hesse-Homburg; the Duke of Clarence, the Princess Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen; the Duke of Cambridge, thePrincess Augusta of Hesse; the Duke of Kent, the Princess Victoria Maryof Saxe-Coburg. The Duke of Sussex was already married, but not with thenecessary consent of the crown, and the Duke of Cumberland waschildless, having married three years earlier a divorced widow whom thequeen, for private reasons, declined to receive. It is a striking proofof the discredit into which the royal family had fallen, since the oldking virtually ceased to reign, that parliament, in spite of itsanxiety about the succession, displayed an almost niggardly parsimonywhen it was moved to increase the allowances of the princes about tomarry. No application was made on behalf of the Princess Elizabeth orthe Duke of Sussex, who was already married morganatically. Theadditional grant of Ł6, 000 a year asked on behalf of the Duke ofCumberland was refused by a small majority, partly, no doubt, becausehis anti-liberal opinions and untrustworthy character were no secret topublic men. Ł10, 000 a year was asked for the Duke of Clarence, andjustified by Canning as less than he might fairly have claimed, but itwas reduced to Ł6, 000 and declined by the duke as inadequate; heafterwards married without a parliamentary grant. The provision ofŁ6, 000 a year for the Dukes of Cambridge and Kent respectively wasstoutly opposed but ultimately carried. Of all George III. 's sons, theDuke of Kent was perhaps the most respected. It has been truly said thatif the nation could have expressed its dearest wish, in the spirit ofprophecy, after the death of the Princess Charlotte, it would have beenthat the issue of the Duke of Kent's marriage with Prince Leopold'ssister might succeed, as Queen Victoria, to the crown of hergrandfather. [67]

[Pageheading: _THE DEATH OF GEORGE III. _]

On November 17, 1818, Queen Charlotte died, having filled her great andmost difficult position for nearly sixty years with sound judgment, exemplary moral integrity, and a certain homely dignity. The Duke ofYork succeeded her as guardian of the king's person. Little more than ayear later she was followed to the grave by the Duke of Kent, who diedon January 23, 1820, and by the king himself, who died on January 29, inthe eighty-second year of his age. He was not a great sovereign, but, asa man, he was far superior to his two predecessors, and must ever standhigh, if not highest, in the gallery of our kings. His venerable figure, though shrouded from view, was a chief mainstay of the monarchy. Narrowas his views were, and obstinately as he adhered to them, he was notincapable of changing them, and could show generosity towards enemies, as he ever showed fidelity to friends. His reception of Franklin afterthe American war, and of Fox after the death of Pitt, was that of aking who understood his kingly office; and his strict devotion tobusiness, regardless of his own pleasure, could not have been exceededby a merchant engrossed in lucrative trade. The many pithy and racysayings recorded of him show an insight into men's characters and therealities of life not unworthy of Dr. Johnson. His simplicity, kindliness, and charity endeared him to his subjects. His undauntedcourage and readiness to undertake sole responsibility, not only duringthe panics of the Gordon riots and of the impending French invasion, butin many a political crisis, compelled the respect of all his ministers, and his disappearance from the scenes, to make way for the regency ofhis eldest son, was almost as disastrous for English society as theexchange, in France, of Louis XIV. 's decorous rule for that of theRegent Orléans. 

The European concert which had been called into existence by the waragainst Napoleon, and had effected a continental settlement at Vienna, continued to act for the maintenance of peace. The treaty of alliance of1815 only bound the four powers to common action in the event of a freshrevolution in France which might endanger the tranquillity of otherstates. The holy alliance was more comprehensive and wider in its aims, but was too vague to form the practical basis of a federation. Thesettlement of Europe by the treaty of Vienna was, however, the work ofall the powers, and they had therefore an interest in everything thatmight be likely to affect that settlement. The habit of concertedaction, once formed, was not lightly abandoned, and the succeeding agewas an age of congresses. But though there was a general sentiment infavour of concerted action it manifested itself in different ways. Thecauses of the recent struggle with France had been political in theirorigin, and it was agreed that a recurrence of disorder from Francecould be best prevented by the establishment of a government in thatcountry which should be at once constitutional and legitimist. Englandfavoured, and Russia, the most autocratic of states, favoured still morevehemently, the development of constitutions wherever it might bepracticable, while Austria, being composed of territories with nonational cohesion, endeavoured rather to thwart the growth ofconstitutions. But Russia was also the most active advocate of jointinterference where a constitutional reform was effected byunconstitutional means. Great Britain and Austria, on the other hand, with a juster instinct, considered armed interference an extreme remedywhich might often be worse than the disease of a revolution. 

[Pageheading: _ROYALIST REACTION IN EUROPE. _]

The numerous restorations of 1814 and 1815 were followed by a royalistand aristocratic reaction in many countries of Europe. In France LouisXVIII. Found himself confronted by an ultra-royalist chamber of deputieswhich clamoured for vengeance on the partisans of the republican andimperial _régimes_ and for the restoration of the privileges and estatesof the Church. Ferdinand VII. Of Spain swept away the unwieldyconstitution of 1812 amid the rejoicings of his people, who littleforesaw his future tyranny; and Great Britain did not venture to resistthe action of Ferdinand of the Two Sicilies in abolishing a constitutionwhich British influence had induced him to grant his island kingdom in1813. In Prussia the government dealt sternly with the liberal press, and the provincial estates opposed the institution of a national diet;while in Würtemberg a parliament assembled under a liberal constitutiondemanded the restoration of the ancient privileges of the nobility andclergy. In the Two Sicilies British influence, supported by that ofAustria, was used to prevent outrages on the defeated party; in Spainthe moderate counsels of Great Britain were less successful. Austriaendeavoured to prevent future disturbance in the Italian peninsula by asecret treaty, which obtained the sanction of the British government, requiring the Two Sicilies to adopt no constitutional changesinconsistent with the principles adopted by Austria in theLombardo-Venetian kingdom. Similar treaties were concluded by Austriawith Tuscany, Modena, and Parma, and she thus gained an ascendency inItaly, from which only Sardinia and the papal states were exempt. Russian agents meanwhile began to conduct a liberal propaganda in Spainand Italy, and Russia was even credited with a desire to make aliberalised Spain a counterpoise to England on the sea. 

For a time, however, there were no European complications of aformidable nature. In 1816 a British squadron was sent out under LordExmouth lo execute the decree of the congress of Vienna against theBarbary states. The Dey of Algiers and the Beys of Tunis and Tripoliwere called upon to recognise the Ionian Islands as British, to acceptBritish mediation between them and the courts of the Two Sicilies andSardinia, to restore their Christian captives, and not to authorisefurther piracy. These terms were accepted by the Beys of Tunis andTripoli, and the two first demands were granted by the Dey of Algiers. He was allowed a delay of three months in order to obtain the sultan'spermission for granting the remainder, but in the interval a massacre ofItalian fishermen took place at Bona. Lord Exmouth now sailed fromGibraltar to attack Algiers. On his demands being again ignored, hebombarded that city on August 27 for more than six hours. The arsenaland storehouses and all the ships in the port were burned, and on thenext day the dey accepted Exmouth's terms; peace was signed on the 30th, the principal terms being the abolition of Christian slavery, and thedelivery of all slaves to Exmouth on the following day. 

The treaty of Vienna in placing the Ionian Islands under Britishprotection had made no mention of the towns of Parga and Butrinto on themainland of Epirus which had passed under British rule along with theislands. These places were now surrendered to Turkey in accordance witha former treaty, in return for the Turkish recognition of the Britishprotectorate over the islands. The inhabitants of Parga were, however, vehemently opposed to such a transference of their allegiance, and theywere conveyed to the Ionian Islands and compensated for the loss oftheir property. The Turks entered into occupation of Parga in 1819. In1817 and 1818 wild rumours of Russian aggression in the direction of theMediterranean began to circulate in England. It was reported that Spainhad promised to cede Port Mahon to Russia; and that Russia was preparinga great military force, to be employed, if necessary, in alliance withthe Bourbon states, France, Spain, and the Two Sicilies, to counteractBritish and Austrian influence. This influence, with that of Prussia, had really been employed to keep the Dardanelles closed against Russianships. Meanwhile Austria had won over Prussia to her conservative policyin Germany. 

The violent language of the liberal party, especially at theuniversities, already began to terrify the Prussian government. Thefirst danger signal was given at the Wartburg festival of delegates fromthe German universities in 1817, at which the students indulged in someboyish manifestations of their sympathies; their proceedings made somestir in Germany, and Metternich declared that they were revolutionary. The horror of liberalism was destined to be heightened in 1819 by themurder of the tsar's agent, the dramatist Kotzebue, by a lunatic memberof a political society at Giessen. Its immediate result was a conferenceof German ministers at Carlsbad, where several resolutions for thesuppression of political agitation were passed, and afterwards adoptedby the diet at Frankfort. This policy was embodied in the "final act" ofa similar conference held at Vienna in the following year (1820), whichempowered the greater states of Germany to aid the smaller in checkingrevolutionary movements. At the same time it reaffirmed the generalprinciple of non-intervention, and even laid down the pregnant doctrinethat constitutions could not be legitimately altered except byconstitutional means. The union of Austria and Prussia on theconservative side had rather the effect of throwing the secondary statesof southern Germany upon the liberal side. In the spring and summer of1818 Bavaria and Baden framed constitutions, and in 1819 Würtemberg oncemore essayed parliamentary government, which the reactionary policy ofher first parliament had compelled her to abandon. The significant factin European politics was that Frederick William III. Of Prussia, alwaysaccustomed to being led, had passed from the influence of Russia to thatof Austria. 

[Pageheading: _THE CONFERENCE OF AIX-LA-CHAPELLE. _]

Such were the general tendencies of European politics when theconference of Aix-la-Chapelle assembled on September 30, 1818. Theprimary object of this conference was to consider the request of Francefor a reduction in the indemnity demanded of her and for the evacuationof her territories by the four allied powers. Wellington andCastlereagh, who represented Great Britain, earned the gratitude ofFrance by readily agreeing to these requests, which were granted withoutany difficulty. This question was obviously one which required such aconference to settle it; but the conference, having once assembled, wasurged to deal with other difficulties that less directly concerned it. One of these was a dispute between Denmark and Sweden about theapportionment of the Danish debt, which, in consideration of theannexation of Norway to Sweden, under the treaty of Kiel, was to bepartly borne by Sweden. Denmark appealed to the four powers, representing that treaty as in fact a part of their own settlement ofEurope. Sweden would not admit the right of the powers to intervene, butfinally settled her difficulty with Denmark by a separate negotiationconducted by the mediation of Great Britain in 1819. 

A still more doubtful question was raised by the request of Spain forthe assistance of the allied powers against her revolted colonies. TheSpanish dependencies in America had declined to acknowledge JosephBonaparte, and had lapsed into a state of chaos; the restoration ofFerdinand VII. Had induced most of them to return to their allegiance, but the three south-eastern colonies, Banda Oriental (Uruguay), La Plata(the Argentine), and Paraguay, continued in revolt. In 1817 fortuneturned still further against Spain; Monte Video, the capital of BandaOriental, was taken by Portugal, or rather by Brazil, and Chile revoltedagainst Spain. On February 12, 1818, Chile proclaimed her independence, and she began at once to procure warships in England and the UnitedStates, of which Lord Cochrane took command. The four allied powers andFrance had protested against the seizure of Monte Video, but otherwiseSpain had been left to herself. Great Britain seemed to have more togain than to lose by the insurrection. The revolted colonies were opento her commerce, and by weakening Spain they had strengthened themaritime supremacy of Great Britain. Nevertheless Great Britain waswilling to mediate, on condition that Spain would make reasonableconcessions. Spain, however, refused to make any concessions at all, andcalled on the allied powers to aid her in crushing the insurrection byforce. Great Britain did not regard an unconditional subjection of thecolonies as either expedient or practicable, and opposed this course;Austria took the same view, and thus placed intervention out of thequestion. 

[Pageheading: _THE EUROPEAN ALLIANCE. _]

But the principal question before the conference of Aix-la-Chapelle wasnot one relating to any particular difficulty, but the permanent form ofthe European alliance. The tsar desired a general confederacy ofEuropean powers, such as had signed the treaty of Vienna and the holyalliance. This confederacy was to guard against two evils--that ofrevolutionary agitation and that of arbitrary administration andsectional alliances. Such a project, though doubtless proposed in goodfaith, practically gave Russia an interest in the domestic movements, both reactionary and constitutional, of every country, while it forbadeany political combination to which Russia was not a party. Castlereaghagreed with Metternich in thinking that such an extension of RussianInfluence was more to be dreaded than local disorder, and Great Britainand Austria proposed therefore that the alliance should be based on thetreaty of Chaumont, as renewed at Vienna and Paris, though they werewilling to have friendly discussions from time to time without extendingthe scope of the alliance. All parties desired to include France intheir alliance, but the tsar pertinently objected that France could notbe admitted to an alliance aimed solely against France. A compromise wastherefore adopted. The quadruple alliance for war, in case of arevolution in France, was secretly renewed, and centres for mobilisationwere fixed, while France was publicly invited to join the deliberationsof the allied powers. A secret protocol was then signed providing forthe meeting of congresses from time to time, and giving the minorEuropean powers a place in these congresses when their affairs should beunder discussion. 

FOOTNOTES:

[64] For details of the riots see _Annual Register_, lviii. (1816), 60-73. They were particularly numerous in May, 1816, and in the countiesof Cambridge, Essex, and Suffolk. At Littleport in Cambridgeshire, onMay 24, it was found necessary to fire on the rioters. Two men werekilled and five were afterwards executed. 

[65] Greville, _Memoirs_, i. , 2; Walpole, _History of England_, i. , 392, 393. 

[66] The curious may be interested in the following list of the namesand ages of the persons who stood next in order of succession to thecrown after the death of Princess Charlotte. It will be observed that ofthe fourteen who stood nearest the throne, not one was under forty yearsof age, and not one had a legitimate child:--

 Age. Relation to king. 1. George, Prince Regent 55 Son. 2. Frederick, Duke of York 54 Son. 3. William, Duke of Clarence 52 Son. 4. Edward, Duke of Kent 50 Son. 5. Ernest, Duke of Cumberland 46 Son. 6. Augustus, Duke of Sussex 44 Son. 7. Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge 43 Son. 8. Charlotte, Queen-Dowager of Würtemberg 51 Daughter. 9. Princess Augusta 48 Daughter. 10. Princess Elizabeth 47 Daughter. 11. Mary, Duchess of Gloucester 41 Daughter, 12. Princess Sophia 40 Daughter. 13. William, Duke of Gloucester 41 Nephew. 14. Princess Sophia of Gloucester 44 Niece. 15. Charles, Duke of Brunswick 13 Great nephew. 

[67] See, however, the _Creevey Papers_, i. , 268-71, 284. 

 CHAPTER IX. 

 THE LAST YEARS OF LORD LIVERPOOL. 

The only important events of domestic interest in the year 1820, afterthe death of George III. , were the Cato Street conspiracy, and theso-called trial of Queen Caroline. For the accession of the king, whohad so long exercised royal functions as regent, produced no visibleeffect either on the personal composition or on the general policy ofthe government. Immediately after his proclamation he was attacked by adangerous illness, but on his recovery he promptly raised two questionswhich nearly involved a change of ministry. One of these was a proposalto increase his private revenue, which he was induced to abandon for thepresent. The other was a demand for a divorce, which the ministersfirmly resisted, though they ultimately agreed to a compromise, underwhich the divorce question was to be deferred, so long as the queenremained quietly abroad, but action was to be taken in case she returnedto assert her rights. 

[Pageheading: _THE CATO STREET CONSPIRACY. _]

In the midst of these difficulties the lives of the ministers werethreatened by a plot somewhat like those of the seventeenth century. Later writers have represented it as contemptible in its conception, andas directly provoked by the "Manchester massacre". So it may be saidthat Guy Fawkes was an insignificant person, and that his employers wereexasperated by the severe treatment of popish recusants. The facts arethat Arthur Thistlewood, the author of the Cato Street conspiracy, was awell-known confederate of the Watsons and other members of the extremereform party, and that his plan for murdering the assembled cabinet in aprivate house would probably have been effectual, had it not beendetected by the aid of an informer. This informer, Edwards, had warnedthe authorities in November, 1819, of the impending stroke, and may ormay not have instigated Thistlewood's gang to execute it at a moment andplace well-calculated to secure their arrest. At all events twenty-fourconspirators armed themselves in Cato Street, near the Edgware Road, London, for the purpose of assassinating the ministers at a cabinetdinner in Harrowby's house in Grosvenor Square, and some of theirassociates were posted near the door of that house to summon them whenthe guests should have assembled. Harrowby's dinner was of course putoff, but the watchers were deceived by the arrival of carriages for adinner party next door, and failed to apprise the gang in Cato Street. The police rushed in upon the gang, but a body of soldiers ordered tosupport them reached the spot too late, a policeman was stabbed, andThistlewood, with twelve or fourteen others, contrived to escape. He wascaptured the next morning, and executed with four of his accomplices, five more were transported for life, and the atrocity of the enterprisewas naturally treated in the king's speech as a justification for therepressive measures in operation. In the following April a pettyoutbreak in Scotland was easily put down by a few troops at a placecalled Bonnymuir. It was, however, preceded by a treasonableproclamation, which spread terror among the citizens of Glasgow forseveral hours, and was sufficiently like an attempt at armed rebellionto confirm the alarm excited by the Cato Street conspiracy. In the faceof such warnings, the energy of the government in stamping out disordercould hardly be censured. 

The last parliament of George III. Was prorogued on February 28, 1820, and dissolved on the following day. One of its last debates was on LordJohn Russell's proposal to suspend the issue of writs to the boroughs ofGrampound, Penryn, Barnstaple, and Camelford. This was carried in thehouse of commons, but lost in the house of lords. The new parliament wasopened by George IV. In person on April 21. Widespread excitementoccasioned by the question of the divorce prevented the business of thefirst session from attracting much attention. A deficit in the revenue, coinciding with growing expenditure, compelled Vansittart to fall backon a fresh manipulation of the sinking fund. One measure, however, ofthe highest importance was introduced by Brougham. The committee of 1814on national education had amassed a great body of valuable evidence, and he now founded upon its report a comprehensive bill extending to thewhole country. It placed the management and teaching of elementaryschools entirely in the hands of Churchmen, and was dropped after thefirst reading, but the conscience of the nation was roused by it, and itbore fruit later. Further slight mitigations of the criminal law werecarried as a result of attacks made by Sir James Mackintosh, upon whomthe mantle of Romilly had fallen, and it is worthy of notice that evenEldon, the stout opponent of such mitigations, condemned the use ofspring-guns, as a safeguard against poaching. The only ministerialchange in this year was the final retirement in May of Lord Mulgrave, who had held high office in every ministry except that of Grenvillesince 1804, and had voluntarily surrendered his post at the head of theordnance in 1818 to make room for Wellington. 

[Pageheading: _QUEEN CAROLINE. _]

The "queen's trial, " as it is erroneously called, was the last act butone in a domestic tragedy which had lasted twenty-five years. ThePrincess Caroline of Brunswick was a frivolous and ill-disciplined youngwoman when she was selected by George III. As a wife for theheir-apparent, already united and really attached to Mrs. Fitzherbert. The princess could not have been married to a man less capable ofdrawing out the better side of her character, nor was she one to inspirehis selfish and heartless nature with a sentiment, if not of conjugallove, yet of conjugal friendship. From the first there was no pretenceof affection between them. A few years after her marriage she wasrelegated, not unwillingly, to live independently at Blackheath, wheremany eminent men accepted her hospitality. During this period, as wehave seen, a "delicate investigation" into her conduct was instituted in1806. Though she emerged from it with less stain on her character thanhad been expected, she never enjoyed the respect of the royal family orof the nation, and there was no question of her sharing the home of herhusband. Instead of being a bond of concord between them, the educationof her daughter was the subject of constant discord, requiring thefrequent intervention of the old king until he lost his reason. Aftershe went abroad in 1814, she travelled widely, but her Englishattendants soon retired from her service, and she incurred freshsuspicion by her flighty and undignified conduct. She had no part in therejoicing for the marriage, or in the mourning for the death, of thePrincess Charlotte; and in 1818 a secret commission, afterwards known asthe Milan commission, was sent out by the prince regent to collectevidence for a divorce suit. Not only Liverpool, but Eldon, who hadformerly stood her friend, concurred in the appointment of thiscommission, promoted by Sir John Leach, and its report was thefoundation of the proceedings now taken against her. 

These proceedings were immediately due to her own action in returning toEngland in June, 1820, but this action was not wholly unprovoked. Shehad long and bitterly resented her official exclusion from foreigncourts, and when, after the king's accession, her name was omitted fromthe prayer-book, she protested against it as an intolerable insult. Contrary to the advice of her wisest partisans, including Brougham, shepersisted in braving the wrath of the king and throwing herself upon thepeople. She was received at Dover with acclamations from immensemultitudes; and her journey to and through London was a continuedovation. Not that her innocence was established even in the popularmind, but that, innocent or guilty, she was regarded as a persecutedwoman, and persecuted by a worthless husband. The ministry fulfilled itspromise to the king by moving the house of lords to institute an inquiryinto the queen's conduct. Pending this, conferences took place betweenWellington and Castlereagh, on the part of the king, and Brougham andDenman on that of the queen. It was at once laid down as a preliminarybasis of the negotiation that neither should the king be understood toretract, nor the queen to admit, any allegation against her. The pointsupon which she inflexibly insisted were, the recognition of her royalstatus at foreign courts, through an official introduction by theBritish ambassador, and the insertion of her name in the prayer-book. 

The house of commons, on the motion of Wilberforce, offered to protecther honour (whatever that might import) on condition of her waiving thislast point, but she courteously declined its conciliatory proposals onJune 22. On July 4 a secret committee of the house of lords recommendeda solemn investigation, to be carried out "in the course of alegislative proceeding, " and on the 8th Liverpool introduced a bill ofpains and penalties, to deprive her of her title, and to dissolve hermarriage. The second reading of this bill was formally set down forAugust 17, and for several weeks afterwards the house of lords wasoccupied in hearing evidence in support of the charges against her. Thewhole country was deluged with the squalid details of this evidence, theministers were insulted, and the sympathy of the populace with her causewas obtrusively displayed in every part of the kingdom. On October 3, after an adjournment of the lords, Brougham opened the defence in themost celebrated of his speeches. On November 2 the lord chancellor, Eldon, moved the second reading of the bill, and on the 8th it wascarried by a majority of twenty-eight. Four days later, on the thirdreading, the majority had dwindled to nine only. Knowing the temper ofthe house of commons, Liverpool treated such a victory as almostequivalent to a defeat, and announced that the government would notproceed further with the measure. 

Had the queen possessed the virtue of self-respect or dignity, she wouldhave been satisfied with this legislative, though not morally decisive, acquittal. But she was intoxicated with popular applause, largely due toher royal consort's vices, and, after London had been illuminated forthree nights in her honour, she declined overtures from the government, and appealed for a maintenance to the house of commons, which grantedher an annuity of Ł50, 000 in the next session. But she never lived toenjoy it After going in procession to St. Paul's, to return thanks forher deliverance, on the 29th, and vainly attempting, once more, toprocure the mention of her name in the prayer-book, she concentrated herefforts on a claim of right to be crowned with the king. No governmentcould have conceded this claim, and, when it had been refused by theprivy council, her solemn protests were inevitably vain. Even her leastprudent counsellors would assuredly have dissuaded her from the attemptwhich she made to force an entrance into Westminster Abbey on thecoronation day, July 19, 1821. It was a painful scene when she, who hadso lately been the idol of the fickle populace, was turned away from thedoors amidst conflicting exclamations of derision and pity. A fortnightlater, on August 2, she was officially reported to be seriously ill; onthe 7th she was no more. In accordance with her own direction her bodywas buried at Brunswick. Her ill-founded popularity was shown for thelast time, when a riotous multitude succeeded in diverting her funeralprocession, and forcing it to pass through the city on its way toHarwich. But it did not survive her long; the people were becoming tiredof her, and the king, who had forfeited the respect of the middle andupper classes, was less hated by the lower classes after her death. 

[Pageheading: _GEORGE IV. IN IRELAND. _]

The personal character and opinions of George IV. Seem to haveinfluenced politics less during the early years of his reign than duringhis long regency. His coronation was celebrated with unprecedentedmagnificence, and amidst external demonstrations of loyalty, hard toreconcile with the unbounded enthusiasm which the queen had so latelyinspired. Soon afterwards, he sailed in his yacht from Portsmouth on avoyage to Ireland, but put into Holyhead and there awaited news of thequeen's expected death. This reached him at last, and probably impressedhim, no less than his ministers, as "the greatest of all possibledeliverances, both to his majesty and the country". [68] He proceeded toDublin in one of the earliest steam-packets, and secluded himself until"the corpse of his wife was supposed to have left England". [69] He thenplunged into a round of festivities, and pleased all classes of Irishmenby his affable and condescending manners. He was, indeed, the firstsovereign of England who had appeared in Ireland on a mission of peace. John William Ward, afterwards fourth Viscount Dudley in his letters, describes him as having behaved like a popular candidate on anelectioneering trip, and surmises that "if the day before he leftIreland, he had stood for Dublin, he might have turned out Shaw orGrattan ". [70] Certain it is that his visit to Ireland was regarded asan important political event. The same kind of success attended hisvisit to Scotland in August of the following year, 1822. Thenceforth, hescarcely figures in political life until the resignation of LordLiverpool in 1827, and though he consented with reluctance to Canning'stenure of the foreign office, he did not attempt to interfere with thechange in foreign policy consequent upon it. He was, in fact, sinkingmore and more into an apathetic voluptuary; but he could rouse himself, and exhibit some proofs of ability, under the impulse of his brothers, the honest Duke of York and the arch-intriguer, the Duke of Cumberland. 

The cry for retrenchment, now taken up by the country gentlemen, and notunmingled with suggestions for a partial repudiation of the nationaldebt, compelled the government to adopt a policy of strict economy. Accordingly, in 1822, Vansittart introduced a scheme for the conversionof the so-called "Navy 5 per cents. , " which resulted in a saving ofabove Ł1, 000, 000 annually. He also carried a more questionable schemefor the payment of military, naval, and civil pensions, which thenamounted to Ł4, 900, 000 a year, but were falling in rapidly; the moneyrequired for this purpose was to be borrowed by trustees, and was to berepaid in the course of forty-five years at the rate of Ł2, 800, 000 ayear; in this way an immediate saving of about Ł2, 000, 000 annually waseffected at the cost, however, of the next generation. By means of theseexpedients, with a considerable reduction of official salaries, thegovernment was enabled to repeal the additional duty on malt, todiminish the duties on salt and leather, and, on the whole to remitabout Ł3, 500, 000 of taxes. When the entire credit of financial reform isgiven to Huskisson, Joseph Hume, and other economists of the new school, it should not be forgotten that a beginning was made by economists ofthe old school, before Huskisson joined the government in 1823, orRobinson took Vansittart's place as chancellor of the exchequer. 

From the beginning of this reign a more enlightened spirit may be tracedin parliamentary debates. This was aided by the growth of aconstitutional movement in favour of reform in parliament as the firststep towards a redress of grievances. The movement left its first traceon the statute-book in a measure carried by Lord John Russell in thesession of 1821 for the disfranchisement of Grampound, though the vacantseats were transferred to the county of York, instead of to the"village" of Leeds or some other of the great unrepresented cities. Thiswas the first instance of the actual disfranchisement of a constituency, though it was not without precedent that the franchise of a corruptborough should be extended to the freeholders of the surroundingdistrict. A notable sign of the progressive change was thereconstruction of the cabinet in 1822. Liverpool, who always possessedthe gift of working harmoniously with colleagues of different views andfelt the weakness of his present ministry, once more attempted to bringabout a coalition with the Grenville party in the opposition. Grenvillehad long been drifting away from his alliance with Grey, and had been astout advocate of repressive legislation which the more advanced whigsopposed. Though he declined office for himself, several of his relativesand adherents were rewarded with minor appointments, his cousin, CharlesWynn, became president of the board of control, in succession toBragge-Bathurst, who had himself succeeded Canning in the previous year, and his nephew, the Marquis of Buckingham, obtained a dukedom. Suchrecruits added little strength to the Liverpool government, and Hollandwell said that "all articles are now to be had at low prices, exceptGrenvilles". 

[Pageheading: _THE DEATH OF CASTLEREAGH. _]

But Liverpool gained far more powerful coadjutors in the MarquisWellesley, Peel, and Canning. In December, 1821, Wellesley undertook thelord-lieutenancy of Ireland, which had relapsed into so disturbed astate that it had been proposed to make Wellington both viceroy andcommander-in-chief. The significance of this selection was increased bythe appointment of Plunket as attorney-general. Sidmouth, whileretaining his seat in the cabinet, retired, by his own wish, from theoffice of home secretary, with a sense of having pacified the country, and was succeeded by Peel. Castlereagh, now Marquis of Londonderry, remained foreign secretary, but on August 12, 1822, as he was on thepoint of setting out for the congress of Verona, he died, like Whitbreadand Romilly, by his own hand. His suicidal act was clearly due to amorbid fit of depression, under the stress of anxieties protracted overmore than twenty years; and the disordered state of his mind had beenobserved, not only by Wellington, but also by the king. His successorwas Canning, who also became leader of the house of commons. 

The characters and political aims of these rival statesmen have oftenbeen contrasted by historians of a later age, who have seldom donejustice to Castlereagh. It is remembered that he was the author of theWalcheren expedition; it is forgotten that he was the advocate ofsending a powerful force to the Baltic coast at the critical momentbetween Jena and Eylau, that he was not altogether responsible for thedelays which rendered the Walcheren expedition abortive or for thechoice of its incompetent commander, that his prime object was to strikea crushing blow at Napoleon's naval power, and that, if hisinstructions had been obeyed, this would have been effected by a rapidadvance upon Antwerp when nearly all the French troops had beenwithdrawn from the Netherlands. It is remembered that he was at the waroffice when the operations of Wellington in the Peninsula were crippledfor want of supplies; it is forgotten that it was he who selectedWellington, and that he loyally strained every nerve to keep himsupplied with troops, provisions, and specie, when few but himselfbelieved in the policy of the Peninsular war, and Sir John Moore hadassured him that if the French dominated Spain, they could not beresisted in Portugal. It is remembered--or rather it is assumed--that hewas the eager promoter of coercive and reactionary legislation at home;it is forgotten, or ignored, that he was among the earliest andstaunchest advocates of catholic emancipation, and that a despotictemper is belied by the whole tone of his speeches. Above all, he isunjustly credited, in the face of direct evidence to the contrary, withbeing the champion of absolutism in the councils of Europe, the factbeing not only that his voice was always on the side of moderation andconciliation, but that Canning himself, on succeeding him, dissociatedGreat Britain from the holy alliance by taking his stand upon anadmirable despatch of Castlereagh and adopting it as his own. When hemet with his tragical end, the brutal shouts of exultation raised by aportion of the crowd at his funeral were the expression of sheerignorance and not of intelligent public opinion. He was a tory, in dayswhen most patriots were tories, but he was a tory of the best type; andwe of a later generation can see that few statesmen of George III. 'sreign have left a purer reputation or rendered greater services to theircountry. 

[Pageheading: _CANNING AND PEEL. _]

George Canning, his successor, has been far more favourably judged byposterity, and not without reason, if intellectual brilliancy is asupreme test of political merit. A firm adherent of Pitt, and a somewhatunscrupulous critic of Addington, he was probably the firstparliamentary orator of the nineteenth century, with the possibleexception of Sheridan. Pitt's eloquence was of a loftier and simplertype, Fox's was more impetuous and spontaneous; Peel's range ofpolitical knowledge was far wider; Gladstone excelled all, not only inlength of experience but in readiness and dialectical resource. Canning's rhetoric was of a finer quality and was combined with greatdebating power, but he was a man to inspire admiration rather thanconfidence, and had not held one of the higher political offices sincehis resignation in 1809, after his quarrel with Castlereagh. He accepteda mission to Portugal, however, and was in Lisbon when Napoleon returnedfrom Elba. In 1816, as has been seen, he became president of the boardof control, but, having been formerly one of the queen's advisers, hedeclined to have anything to do with her trial and remained abroadduring its continuance. In December, 1820, he returned, but persisted inresigning his place at the board of control on the supposed ground thatfurther parliamentary discussion of the queen's case was inevitable. Onthis occasion he received a special vote of thanks from the directors ofthe East India Company for his services on the board. The king objectedto his readmission after the queen's death, and he was a private memberof parliament when he was offered and undertook the governor-generalshipof India in March, 1822. But his departure was delayed until August, andhe was on his way to bid farewell to his constituents at Liverpool whenCastlereagh destroyed himself. It was generally felt that no other manwas so well qualified as Canning to succeed him. But the king declaredhis "final and unalterable decision" to sanction no such change. Thoughhe afterwards relented, on the remonstrances of Wellington, he did sowith a bad grace; but there was no delay on Canning's part in acceptingthe foreign secretaryship thus offered. From his acceptance may be datedthe most remarkable part of his career. 

The accession of Peel to the Liverpool ministry, in the capacity of homesecretary; was only less important than that of Canning. Hitherto, Peelhad mostly been known to the British public as chief secretary forIreland, and as chairman of the committee which, in 1819, recommendedthe early resumption of cash payments. In both these posts he displayeda certain moderation and independence of mind, combined with a rarecapacity for business, which marked him out as a great administrator. This promise he amply fulfilled as home secretary. He was the firstminister of the crown who took up the philanthropic work of Romilly andMackintosh, largely reducing the number of offences for which capitalpunishment could be inflicted. He was also the first to reform thepolice system of London, and to substitute for a multitude of decrepitwatchmen, incapable of dealing with gangs of active criminals, adisciplined body of stalwart constables, which has since been copied inevery county and large town of Great Britain. Above all, while he cannotbe said to have shown a statesmanlike insight or foresight of thehighest order, he could read the signs of the times and the temper ofhis countrymen with a sagacity far beyond that of his predecessor, Sidmouth, or of such politicians as Eldon and Castlereagh. In him wasrepresented the domestic policy of Pitt in his earlier days, as Pitt'sfinancial views were represented in Huskisson, who had actually servedunder him. 

Though Huskisson was only made president of the board of trade, inJanuary, 1823, and not chancellor of the exchequer, it is certain thathis mind controlled that of Robinson, who succeeded Vansittart in thatposition. Vansittart, who was created Lord Bexley, succeededBragge-Bathurst as chancellor of the duchy. The cabinet changes werecompleted in October by the removal of Wellesley Pole, now LordMaryborough, from the office of master of the mint. Huskisson, if anyman, was the leading pioneer of free trade, and there can be littledoubt that, had he not died prematurely, its adoption would have beenhastened by ten or fifteen years. In his first year of office hewelcomed petitions for the repeal of the import duties on foreign wool, but failed to convince the wool manufacturers that it must beaccompanied by the abolition of export duties on British wool. Theproposed reform was, therefore, dropped, and a like fate befell hisattempt in the same year to benefit the silk trade by abolishing certainvexatious restrictions upon it, including the practice of fixing thewages of Spitalfields weavers by an order of the magistrates. For themoment the ignorant outcry of the journeymen themselves prevailed overtheir real interests, but in the following year, 1824, Huskisson carrieda much wider measure, providing that foreign silks, hitherto excluded, should be admitted subject to a duty of 30 per cent. In and after 1826, and another measure for the joint relief of wool growers and woolmanufacturers which imposed a small duty of equal amount on theimportation and the exportation of wool. 

His great achievement in 1823 was the reform of the navigation laws. These acts, dating from the commonwealth and the restoration, gaveBritish shipowners a qualified monopoly of the carrying trade, sincethey prohibited the importation of European goods except in Britishships or ships of the producing country, while the importation of goodsfrom other quarters of the world was confined to British ships only. America had protested against this exclusive system, and it wasabandoned, as regards the United States, by the treaty of Ghent in 1814. The mercantile states of Europe soon followed the example of America, and the reciprocity of duties bill, introduced by Huskisson on June 6, 1823, conceded equal rights to all countries reciprocating theconcession, only retaining the exclusion against such countries as mightreject equality of trade. The change involved some hardship toshipowners who had built their vessels with timber bought at pricesraised by heavy duties, but they were too shortsighted to accept thecompromise offered by Huskisson. Before long, however, the act wasjustified, and the shipowners compensated by a rapid increase in Britishshipping. 

[Pageheading: _AGRICULTURAL DISCONTENT. _]

For nearly five years after the accession of George IV. The state of thecountry was, on the whole, more prosperous, and the industrial classeswere more contented, than in the five years next preceding. Suchrestlessness as there was prevailed among farmers and agriculturallabourers rather than among workmen in the manufacturing districts, andin 1823 every branch of manufactures was reported to be flourishing. Itis difficult for a later generation, accustomed to consider 30s. Aquarter a fair price for wheat, to understand the perennial complaintsand petitions of the agricultural interest when 60s. A quarter wasregarded as a low price for wheat, and the cultivation of wheat extendedover a vastly larger area than it does at present. Nor is the difficultylessened, when we remember the miserably low rate of wages then paid byfarmers. A partial explanation may be found in the fact that what theysaved in wages they lost in poor rates, and that most agriculturalproducts except corn were sold at a very small profit. The high poorrates were the result of the disastrous system of giving allowances tolabourers. 

But there were other evils caused by the vicious policy pursued by thegovernment. The encouragement of home production had led to theenclosure of land not fit for cultivation, so that a slight fall inprices meant ruin to many farmers. Moreover, the corn laws, thoughframed for the purpose of arresting fluctuations in price, actuallyincreased fluctuations and thus enhanced the risks attendingagricultural enterprise. Nor were landlords who had thriven on warprices, and raised the scale of their establishments as if these priceswere to be perpetual, willing to reduce their rents on the return ofpeace. Rent was said to have risen 70 per cent. Since 1792; but thelandlords were often embarrassed, because their lands had too often beenburdened with jointures, settlements, and mortgages during the war. Itwas in their interest that the act of 1815, which aimed at maintainingwar prices, had been passed. But the deeper reason for all this clamourfrom the rural districts was the stagnation of ideas, and incapacity ofimprovement, engendered by an artificial monopoly of the national foodsupply. This was not the special lesson impressed upon landlords ortenants by Cobbett, whose violent and delusive writings had a largecirculation in the country. But his teaching was so far beneficial thatit quickened the demand for parliamentary reform, though the fruits ofthat reform were destined to be very different from the expectationswhich he excited. 

[Pageheading: _SPECULATIVE FRENZY. _]

The spell of general prosperity which, in spite of some distress in therural districts, prevailed in the years 1820-23 was somewhat broken in1824 by strikes and outrages in the manufacturing districts. Strikes forhigher wages naturally arose out of the increase in mill owners'profits, and the ferocious spirit displayed by the strikers againstmasters and fellow-workmen was attributed by reformers to the one-sidedoperation of the combination laws. Accordingly, a committee of the houseof commons reported in favour of repealing these laws, and also part ofthe common law which treated coercion either by trade unions or bymasters as conspiracy. A bill founded on this report was hastily passed, with the natural result that strikes broke out in every quarter of thecountry; wholesale and cruel oppression was practised by tradeunionists, and it became necessary for parliament to retrace its steps. Under a new act, passed in 1825, which continued in force until veryrecent times, trade unions were recognised as legal, but their worstmalpractices were once more brought within the control of the criminallaw. [71] So far the commercial policy of Huskisson was justified, as awhole, by its effects on trade, and the session of 1824 was closed onJune 25 by a cheerful speech from the king, in which the disturbed stateof Ireland was the only topic suggestive of anxiety. Already, however, the revival of commercial hopefulness at home, with the opening of newmarkets in South America, was paving the way for the most ruinous maniaof speculation known in England since the south sea bubble. It was wellthat sound and sober-minded economists now guided the action of thegovernment, and that Liverpool proved himself a worthy successor of SirRobert Walpole during the great financial crisis of 1825. [72]

The speculative frenzy of 1825 differed from the railway mania of thenext generation in that it had no solid basis of remunerativeinvestment. The development of the railway system, after the applicationof locomotive steam engines to iron tramways, offered a legitimatepromise of large profits, and this promise would have been still moreamply realised but for the shameful waste of capital on competition andlaw expenses. It was otherwise with the dupes and victims of the ragefor speculation which possessed all classes of society in 1825, andarose out of an immense accumulation of wealth for which no safeemployment could be found at home except at a modest rate of interest. The weakening of the hold of Spain on South America left her coloniesopen to foreign trade, but the enterprises there and elsewhere whichabsorbed the hard-won savings of humble families, by thousands and tensof thousands, were nearly all chimerical, and some of them grotesque intheir absurdity. Whether or not warming-pans and skates were actuallyexported to the tropics, it is certain that Scotch dairy-women emigratedto Buenos Ayres for the purpose of milking wild cows and churning butterfor people who preferred oil. The incredible multiplication ofbubble-companies was facilitated by a marvellous cheapness of money, largely due to an inordinate issue of notes by country bankers, and evenby the Bank of England, in spite of the fact that gold and silver wereknown to be leaving the country in vast quantities, especially in theshape of loans to France. The inevitable reaction came when the Bank ofEngland contracted its issue of notes in order to arrest the drain ofgold; goods recklessly bought up had to be sold at a fearful loss, billsupon which advances had been made proved to be of no value, and severalgreat London banking houses stopped payment, bringing down in their falla much larger number of country banks dependent on them. 

In the month of December, 1825, the crisis was at its height, and it isstated that within six or seven weeks after the failure of the bankingfirm of Pole & Company on the 5th, sixty or seventy banks had broken. The king's speech in July had congratulated parliament on increasingprosperity and had betrayed no misgivings about its stability. When thecrash came, however, the ministers showed no want of firmness orresource. They could not repair the consequences of national folly, butthey devoted themselves with intelligence to a restoration of credit. For this purpose they suppressed at once the further issue of smallnotes from country banks by a high-handed act of authority, for whichthey admitted that an act of indemnity might be needed. At the same timethey rapidly increased the supply of small notes from the Bank ofEngland, and of coin from the mint. Moreover, they induced the Bank ofEngland to establish branches in a few provincial towns and to makeadvances upon merchants' goods to the amount of three millions. It costa greater effort to break down the monopoly of the Bank of England bylegalising joint-stock banks in the provinces, though not within adistance of sixty-five miles from London. Such practical expedients asthese, seconded by the good sense of the mercantile community, provedsufficient to avert a catastrophe only less disastrous than nationalbankruptcy. With the subsidence of alarm, the causes of alarm alsosubsided, the recuperative powers of the country reasserted themselves, as during the great war, and the heart-breaking anxieties of 1825-26were ignored, if not forgotten, in the political excitement of 1827. [73]

[Pageheading: _ECONOMIC REFORM. _]

The budgets of 1823-26 indeed mark a memorable advance in financialreform, which the commercial panic of 1825 scarcely interrupted. Therehad been a reduction of the national debt by about Ł25, 000, 000. "Thepoorer householders had been relieved from the pressure both of housetax and window tax. The manufacturing classes had been encouraged bythe reduction of the duties on silk, wool, and iron. The consumingclasses had been benefited by the reduction of duties on spirits, wines, coffee, and sugar. "[74] Owing to Huskisson's enlightened policy the oldnavigation laws had been repealed upon the condition of reciprocity; thecombination laws had been liberally revised; various bounties had beenabandoned on free trade principles, and the monstrous evils of smugglinghad been greatly abated. If the chancellor of the exchequer could showno surplus in 1826, he could at least boast that after so desperate acrisis there was no deficit, and he had no reason to be ashamed ofCobbett's nickname, "Prosperity Robinson, " which he owed to hisoptimism, largely founded upon facts. Before the close of the year 1826, however, this optimism received a rude shock. The agitation against thecorn laws assumed an acuter form than ever, and Huskisson prudentlydeprecated it on the simple ground that no effective action could betaken in an expiring parliament. Distress had recurred in themanufacturing districts; mills and power-looms were again destroyed. Thefree trade policy of Huskisson was vigorously attacked in parliament, but it was successfully defended in powerful speeches by Canning as wellas by himself. Ultimately the government, having obtained limited powersfrom parliament to admit foreign corn during the temporary emergency, had the courage to exceed those powers and seek an indemnity from thenext parliament. 

The dissolution of 1826, closing the life of one of the longestparliaments in modern times, was the prelude to a very eventful year. The general election brought into prominence the two burning questionsof catholic relief and the corn laws, and unseated for the momentBrougham, Cobbett, Hunt, and Lord John Russell, but it produced nomaterial change in the balance of parties. Little was done in the shortautumn session, but when parliament met again early in February, 1827, great events had already cast their shadows before. The Duke of York, heir-presumptive to the crown, had died on January 5. He was known to bea strong tory in politics, but, in spite of this, and of the scandalswhich attached to his name in earlier years, he enjoyed a considerableshare of popular confidence. Compared with his elder brother, he wasrespected; he was a true Englishman, like his father, whom he resembledin character; his administration of the army had survived hostilecriticism, while a declaration which he had recently made againstcatholic emancipation had produced a profound impression on publicopinion. Much less was known of the Duke of Clarence, who stood next insuccession. He had already injured himself in public estimation bydeclining the increased allowance offered him, and then claiming it witharrears; nor did he now improve his position in the eyes of his futuresubjects by stickling for a larger addition to it than parliament wasdisposed to grant. But the Duke of York's death was followed by a farmore important incident. Liverpool was disabled by illness fromattending his funeral, which, occurring in the depth of winter, proveddirectly fatal to one of those who were present, and seriously weakenedthe constitutions of others, including Canning. On February 8, the firstday of the session, Liverpool was in his place, though in broken health, and on the 17th he took a feeble part in the debate on the grant to theDuke of Clarence. On the following morning he was struck down by aparalytic seizure, and, though his life was prolonged for two years, henever recovered the use of his faculties. 

[Pageheading: _THE CLOSE OF LIVERPOOL'S MINISTRY. _]

Liverpool's disappearance from the political scenes may be said to markan epoch in the later history of England. Though only fifty-six years ofage, he had been continuously in office for twenty years, and primeminister for fifteen, a tenure of power which none of his predecessorshad exceeded except Walpole and Pitt. His lot was cast in the mostcritical period of the great war, and in the long night of adversity andanxiety which ushered in the "thirty years' peace". As foreign secretaryhe conducted the negotiations for the peace of Amiens; as home secretaryhe led the house of lords and was responsible for the government ofIreland; as secretary for war and the colonies he gave Wellington asteady, if not ardent, support in those apparently barren campaignswhich strained the national patience; as prime minister he guided theship of state in all the difficulties of foreign and domestic affairswhich arose between 1812 and 1827. Castlereagh may have been the mostinfluential minister in the earlier years of his administration, andCanning in the later, but he was never the mere tool of either; on thecontrary, it Is certain that he was treated with respect and deferenceby all his numerous colleagues. In general capacity and debating powerhe was inferior to few of them; in temper, judgment, and experience hewas superior to all. 

He may be said to have lived and died without "a policy, " in so far ashe forebore to identify himself with any of the great questions thenpressing for solution. His real policy both at home and abroad was oneof moderation and conciliation; he looked at party divisions almost withthe eyes of a permanent official who can work loyally with chiefs ofeither party; and he succeeded in keeping together in his cabinetambitious rivals who never would have co-operated under any otherleader. This is not the road to fame, neither is it the course which menof imperious character like Castlereagh, or Canning, or Wellington, inhis place, would have adopted. But Canning and Wellington actuallyproved themselves incapable of winning the confidence which Liverpool solong retained, and the whig government which followed them fell topieces in two years. Moderation in statesmanship does not always implymediocrity of ability; and if Liverpool failed to see how manyinstitutions needed radical amendment, he was not so blind as some ofhis more celebrated associates. Not only was he more liberal in hisviews than Eldon and Castlereagh, but he was less opposed to free tradethan most of his cabinet, to parliamentary reform than Canning, and tocatholic emancipation than Wellington or Peel. His fault was that he didnot act upon his own inward convictions with sufficient promptitude, orassert his own authority with sufficient energy. Had he done so, thebeneficial measures of the last years of his administration might havebeen anticipated, and the country might have been spared much of themisery which darkened the close of George III. 's reign. 

FOOTNOTES:

[68] Lord Londonderry in Twiss, _Life of Eldon_, ii. , 432. 

[69] Harriet Martineau, _History of England During the Thirty Years'Peace_, i. , 274. 

[70] _Letters to Copleston_, p. 295. 

[71] Cunningham, _Growth of English Industry and Commerce in ModernTimes_ (edit. 1903), pp. 756-59. Compare Dicey, _Law and Opinion inEngland_, pp. 190-200. 

[72] The graphic description of this crisis in Harriet Martineau's_History of the Thirty Years' Peace_, i. , 355-66, deserves to be studiedand remembered as a masterpiece of social portraiture by a contemporary. 

[73] Cunningham, _Growth of English Industry and Commerce in ModernTimes_, p. 823. 

[74] Walpole's _History of England_, vol. Ii. , p. 187. 

 CHAPTER X. 

 PROBLEMS IN SOUTHERN EUROPE. 

The events of the year 1820 subjected the European concert to a severestrain. An insurrection broke out in Spain on January 1, and on March 9the king was forced to swear fidelity to the obsolete constitution of1812. The result was to plunge the country into disorder, as both theclerical party and the extreme revolutionists refused to accept theconstitution. Meanwhile the assassination by a working man of the Dukeof Berry, who died on February 14, 1820, had occasioned a new royalistreaction in France, and had increased the general fear of therevolutionary party. The Bourbon succession had seemed to depend on hislife, for his son, the Count of Chambord, was posthumous. On receivingthe news of the Spanish revolution the tsar, already tiring of hisliberal enthusiasm, fell back on his scheme for exercising paternaldiscipline over Europe. He proposed in April that the ambassadors atParis should issue a joint remonstrance requiring the Spanish cortes todisavow the revolution, and to enact severe laws against sedition. Failing this, he proposed joint intervention, and offered for his ownpart to send an army of 15, 000 men through North Italy and southernFrance to co-operate in the suppression of the revolution. To thisCastlereagh replied that England would never consent to a jointintervention in Spain. Metternich was too much displeased with theRussian encouragement of secret societies in Italy to wish to seeRussian troops in that country, and both Castlereagh and Metternichwished to keep Spain free from French influence. In the face of thisopposition Russia could not, and France would not, do anything, and allthought of intervention was postponed. It was the last time thatCastlereagh was able to assert the principle of non-interventionwithout breaking up the European concert. 

[Pageheading: _REVOLUTIONS IN SOUTHERN EUROPE. _]

July and August saw three new revolutions. A rebellion at Nola on July 2ended in King Ferdinand of the Two Sicilies taking the oath on the 13thto the Spanish constitution, then regarded as a model by the liberals ofSouthern Europe. But the grant of a constitution to Naples suggested ademand for independence at Palermo. On July 17-18 that city rose inrevolt and was only subdued by the Neapolitans in the beginning ofOctober. Portugal, too, was in a disturbed state. The royal family hadbeen absent for nearly thirteen years, and the country had for fiveyears been governed by Lord, afterwards Viscount, Beresford as marshaland commander of the Portuguese army. In April, 1820, he sailed forBrazil, intending to induce the king, John VI. , to return. During hisabsence a revolution took place at Oporto on August 24, a provisionalgovernment was established, and all British officers were dismissed. This was followed by a similar revolution at Lisbon on September 15. Beresford on his return was forbidden to land, and retired to England. On November 11, the Spanish constitution was proclaimed in Portugal, butsix days later another proclamation left the question of determining theconstitution to the cortes which were to be elected on a popularsuffrage. 

The Neapolitan revolution raised at once the question of intervention. In this case Castlereagh held that Austria had a right to interfere, because her position as an Italian power was endangered by therevolution, and because the revolution was a breach of the secret treatyof 1815 which had received the sanction of the British government. Hestill objected to any joint interference and was opposed to thereference of the question to a congress. Austria could not haveinterfered alone without offending the tsar, who clung to the principleof joint action. The question of intervention was therefore postponedfor the present. France, however, being jealous of Austrian influence inItaly, demanded the meeting of a congress, and such a meeting wasaccordingly held at Troppau on October 20. To this congress Austria, France, Prussia, and Russia sent plenipotentiaries. Great Britaincarried her opposition to joint interference so far as to refuse to joinin the deliberations, though Sir Charles, now Lord, Stewart was sent toTroppau to watch the proceedings. Metternich, on finding that he couldnot avoid the meeting of a congress, determined to lead its proceedings, and, before it met, drew up a memorandum defining his own views aboutintervention. These views were accepted at the congress by Prussia andRussia as well as by Austria; and a protocol was issued by the threepowers declaring that a state in which a revolution should occur wasdangerous to other states, and ceased to be a member of the Europeanalliance, until it could give guarantees for its future stability. Ifsuch a revolution placed other states in immediate danger, the alliedpowers were bound to intervene by peaceful means, if possible, or ifneed were, by arms. Before parting, the congress invited Ferdinand ofthe Two Sicilies to attend an adjourned meeting, to assemble early inthe following year at Laibach. [75] Against these decisions Castlereaghprotested in vigorous terms, and more especially against any possibleapplication of the principle of intervention to England; France underthe Duke of Richelieu joined in neither the protocol nor the protest. The liberal tendencies of the tsar had been quenched by recent events, so that, instead of a concert of Europe, there was left only a concertof absolute monarchs. 

[Pageheading: _AUSTRIAN INTERVENTION. _]

In January, 1821, the sovereigns of Austria, Prussia, and Russia met theKing of the Two Sicilies at Laibach. France had vainly attempted tomediate between the King of the Two Sicilies and his people. But theNeapolitans were not satisfied with any vague promise of a constitution, and before allowing their king to depart for Laibach, held him pledgedto the observance of an impossible condition, the maintenance of theSpanish constitution of 1812. The king's oath to preserve thisparticularly objectionable constitution was regarded by Austria assufficient to preclude negotiation, and it was resolved that she shouldrestore him by force as an absolute monarch, and should occupy theNeapolitan territory. The duration of this occupation was reserved as aquestion to be discussed at the next European congress, which it wasintended to hold at Florence in the autumn of the next year. After ashow of resistance at Rieti the Neapolitans submitted, and the Austrianarmy entered Naples on March 24. The restoration of absolute governmentwas accompanied by severities towards the constitutionalists, butAustria would not allow any repetition of the bloodshed of 1799. 

While the Austrian army was marching southwards, a new revolution brokeout in Piedmont. The Spanish constitution was proclaimed at Alessandriaon March 10, and at Turin on the 12th. On the 13th, Victor Emmanuel I. , King of Sardinia, abdicated, appointing as regent his distant cousinPrince Charles Albert of Carignano, who had been in communication withthe revolutionary party. The regent immediately accepted the Spanishconstitution on condition of the maintenance of the line of successionand of the Roman catholic religion. The new king, Charles Felix, was atModena when the revolt occurred. He refused to acknowledge the newconstitution, and ordered Charles Albert to betake himself to Novara, where the royalist troops were collecting. On the night of the 21st, Charles Albert fled from Turin to Novara, but the constitutional partydid not submit without a struggle. On April 8 the Austrians crossed thefrontier and, uniting with the royalists, defeated the constitutionalistsat Novara. Two days later the royalist army entered Turin. The twoItalian revolutions had thus ended in an Austrian occupation of the twolargest Italian states which were not ruled by members of the imperialhouse. The Papal States were now the only Italian principality of anysize which was not dominated by Austria. 

So far Austria had been sufficiently powerful in the congresses of thepowers to be able to prevent interference with other states where it wasnot to her interest, and to incline the balance in favour of it whereintervention would strengthen her. The reopening of the Eastern questionmade her ascendency more difficult to maintain. The congress of Laibachhad been closed, but the sovereigns had not yet departed, when the newsarrived that a revolt, engineered by Greeks with the pretence of Russiansupport, had broken out against the Turks in Moldavia and Wallachia. Russia at once agreed with Austria that the principle laid down atTroppau applied to this revolt; the insurrectionary leaders weredisowned by Russia, and by the end of June Turkish authority wasrestored in the Danubian principalities. So far the action of Russia hadmet with the approval not only of Austria but of Great Britain, andCastlereagh had written to Alexander urging him not to join the Greekcause, which appeared to him to be part of an universal revolutionarymovement. 

Early in April, however, a more serious insurrection broke out in theMorea, and was followed a few weeks later by one in Central Greece. Thewar was disgraced from the first by inhuman massacres on both sides. TheGreek patriarch at Constantinople together with three archbishops wasexecuted by the Turks on Easter Sunday, April 22. A great ferment inRussia was the result, where the people were anxious to assist theirco-religionists and to avenge the death of the patriarch, whom theyregarded as a martyr. The grievances of the Orthodox religion wereseconded by the proper grievances of Russia. Greek ships, sailing underthe Russian flag, had been seized in the Dardanelles; the principalitiesof Moldavia and Wallachia had not been evacuated by the Turkish troopsas was required by treaty, while an ancient treaty rendered it possibleto regard the wrongs of the Greek Church as the political wrongs ofRussia. A Russian ultimatum was despatched on June 28; and, whileawaiting a reply, Russia consulted the other powers as to the coursethey would pursue in the event of war breaking out between Russia andTurkey, and the system with which they would propose to replace theTurkish domination if it came to be destroyed. The principle of jointintervention, adopted at Troppau, seemed to require the powers to givetheir support to Russia. Great Britain and Austria, however, refused totreat war with Turkey as a possibility. The Greek revolt seemed to themto express the principle of revolution, and the tsar himself becameinclined to take this view of the situation when the Greeks establishedan advanced republican form of government. They accordinglydistinguished between the treaty rights of Russia, which the four powerswould urge Turkey to respect, and the provision of a more secure stateof order in Turkey, which would be discussed at a European congress. TheRussian ambassador had been withdrawn from Constantinople on August 8, and the negotiation was conducted mainly by Lord Strangford, the Britishambassador at Constantinople, who was supported by Austria, France, andPrussia. He succeeded in inducing Turkey to evacuate the principalitiesand to open the Dardanelles to ships of all nations, but Turkishobstinacy deferred the conclusion of a treaty. 

[Pageheading: _THE SPANISH QUESTION. _]

Meanwhile the Spanish question became more critical. As time went onSpain grew less instead of more settled, while the ultra-royalist partygained strength in France. To them the position to which the BourbonKing of Spain had been reduced seemed at once an insult and a menace toFrance. The establishment of Austrian supremacy in Italy made them longfor French supremacy in Spain. In August, 1821, the presence of yellowfever in Spain was made the occasion for establishing a body of troops, professing to act as a sanitary cordon, upon the frontier. They wereretained there when the fever had disappeared, and their numbers weregradually raised to 100, 000. In December, 1821, an ultra-royalistministry entered on office in France under the leadership of Villčle. Villčle, like King Louis XVIII. , was opposed to war, but he might easilybe forced to adopt the war policy which was popular with his party. Fresh evidence was given of the contagious nature of the Spanishrevolution by the adoption, on the 27th of the preceding June, by thePortuguese cortes, of a constitution modelled on that of Spain. Six dayslater the Portuguese king arrived at Lisbon and was induced to sign thenew constitution. This event was the more significant in the eyes of thepowers, because the proclamation of the constitution had beenaccompanied by an insult to the Austrian embassy. 

If Spanish liberalism placed Spain in danger of a war with France, Spainwas in equal danger of a war with Great Britain because she was notliberal enough. The revolution of 1820, instead of reconciling therevolted colonies, had served as an example to the loyal colonies toseek their liberty. By the summer of 1822 Upper Peru was the only partof the American mainland where Spain held more than isolated posts; shehad been compelled to sell Florida to the United States, and San Domingohad joined the revolted French colony of Hayti. The Spanish cortes, however, were even more resolute than the king had been to maintain theauthority of the mother country, and protested against the right whichthe British had claimed and exercised of trading with the revoltedcolonies. The disorderly state of these colonies encouraged the growthof piracy, which flourished even in the ports which still acknowledgedthe supremacy of Spain. Special irritation was caused in 1822 by thecondemnation of the _Lord Collingwood_ for trading with Buenos Ayres, aplace over which Spain had exercised no authority for twelve years. Inthe same year the new navigation acts greatly increased the facilitiesfor trading with Great Britain enjoyed by such places in America asadmitted British ships. In April, 1822, the United States recognised theindependence of Colombia, but Great Britain refrained as yet fromrecognising any of the Spanish-American states, partly because of theirunsettled condition and partly because the threat of recognition was avaluable diplomatic counter in negotiations with Spain. 

Instead of a congress being held at Florence it was finally determinedthat the Italian questions should be referred to a congress which was tomeet at Verona in September, 1822, and was to be preceded by aconference at Vienna on the Eastern question; there could, however, belittle doubt that the Spanish question would also be raised. Castlereagh, or as we should now call him Lord Londonderry, would havepreferred that Great Britain should stand aloof from the Spanish andItalian questions, but he desired that she should participate in thediscussion of the Eastern question; it was accordingly arranged that heshould represent Great Britain at the conference of Vienna, and he hadactually drawn up instructions in favour of non-intervention in Spainand of accrediting agents to some of the South American republics, whenhis departure was prevented by his death on August 12. He was succeededby Wellington as plenipotentiary, and by Canning as foreign secretary. The change was, however, one of persons rather than of policies. Canningwas less conciliatory in manner, and had less sympathy with theprinciple of European congresses, but was prepared to carry onCastlereagh's policy on the questions which for the time being agitatedthe world. 

[Pageheading: _THE CONGRESS OF VERONA. _]

The Spanish question was, as a fact, the one question which occupied theattention of the powers at Vienna and Verona. In consequence of theefforts of Strangford at Constantinople and his own growingdissatisfaction with the Greeks, the tsar was willing to allow the Greekquestion to drop; at the same time the kings of the Two Sicilies andSardinia themselves desired the continuance of Austrian occupation, andthus postponed the Italian question. As in 1820, Austria held thebalance between two rival policies. She had then thrown her weight onthe side of non-intervention, and, had the Spanish question stood byitself, she would probably have done so again. But in Metternich'sopinion the Spanish question was of less importance than the Eastern, and it was important that the tsar should not doubt her loyalty to theprinciple on which she had persuaded him to refrain from an attack uponthe Porte. 

On passing through Paris on his way to Vienna, Wellington found Villčledesirous of avoiding war, but counting on it as a probability. Hearrived at Vienna too late for the actual conference, but in time tohave some conversation with Metternich and the tsar before leaving forVerona. So far it appeared that Montmorency, the more active of theFrench representatives, though professing to desire a peacefultermination to the dispute between France and Spain, advocated Frenchintervention, if intervention should be necessary, but was opposed tothe passage of foreign troops through France. Metternich and the tsardistrusted French troops when brought face to face with revolutionists, and Metternich was therefore opposed to intervention, while the tsarstill desired to be allowed to march a Russian army on behalf of thecombined powers through Piedmont and southern France into Spain. Metternich of course did not wish to see any Russian troops to disputeAustria's supremacy in Italy. But all three desired the suppression ofthe Spanish constitution, if they could find a trustworthy instrument. Wellington adhered to Castlereagh's policy of non-intervention. [76]

When the congress opened at Verona on October 20, Montmorency proposedthree skilfully drawn questions. Avoiding the direct discussion ofhostilities, he asked whether, if France were compelled to withdraw herambassador from Madrid, the other powers would do the same. Then, assuming their sympathy, he asked what form of moral support they wouldgive her in event of war. Lastly, he propitiated Russian views of jointaction by asking what form of material support the powers would giveFrance, if she should require it. Wellington refused to considerhypothetical cases, but the sovereigns of Austria, Prussia, and Russiaanswered the first question in the affirmative, and assured France oftheir moral, and, if necessary, of their material support. So far nopower had abandoned its original attitude, but the promises had beengiven in a form which lent itself best to the sole interference ofFrance, as the representative of the congress. Metternich now advocatedBritish mediation, but this was refused by Montmorency on the ground ofthe differences between the policy adopted by Great Britain and thatadopted by the other powers. It was then agreed that Austria, France, Prussia, and Russia should address notes of the same tenor to theirambassadors at Madrid, who should make corresponding representations tothe Spanish government, and a _procčs verbal_ was concluded betweenthese four powers defining the causes which would justify the recall oftheir ambassadors. 

As the French king was not present at Verona, the sending of the Frenchnote was made conditional on the approval of the French government. Theoccupation of Spain by foreign troops was to be discussed when the Kingof Spain should have been restored to liberty. The tenor of the notesagreed on seemed to Wellington more likely to inflame the Spanishgovernment than to win concessions, and he lost no time in informingVillčle through Sir Charles Stuart, the British ambassador at Paris, ofthe course of negotiations. [77] Although Wellington had been assured atVerona that Villčle's decision would not affect the transmission ofnotes from the other courts, he hoped and Canning believed that it wasstill in the power of Villčle to arrest the machinery that Montmorency, his representative at Verona, had set in motion. On November 30Wellington left Verona, but the emperors remained. On December 5 Villčlesent a message to Verona proposing to postpone sending the despatchestill an occasion for breaking off diplomatic relations as defined in the_procčs verbal_ should arise, and suggesting that the ambassadors atParis should determine when such an occasion had occurred. This proposalwas rejected. It was inconsistent with Russia's desire for war, whileAustria was anxious to please Russia in the west, so long as sheremained pacific in the east. The three eastern powers thereforeresolved that they would only delay sending their notes till the Frenchnote was ready. 

[Pageheading: _THE SPANISH QUESTION. _]

While this negotiation was pending, Wellington arrived at Paris, where, under strong pressure from Canning, [78] he renewed his offer ofmediation with Spain. It was declined. On the arrival of the reply fromVerona, Wellington was informed that even if the other powers sent theirdespatches to Madrid, France would withhold hers. In the end, Villčledismissed Montmorency for the independent line he had taken, and sent amilder note than the three eastern powers, but withdrew his ambassadorfrom Madrid soon after the other ambassadors had departed. Great Britainwas in consequence the only great power which still continued diplomaticrelations with Spain at the end of January, 1823. In the course of thenegotiations two curious suspicions had occurred to Canning and Villčlerespectively. Canning imagined that France would employ the threats ofher allies as a show of force to compel Spain to join her in an attackon British commerce in the West Indies, while Villčle suspected that theBritish defence of the political independence of Spain was to berecompensed by the cession of some Spanish colonies in America. 

Meanwhile, the war party before which Villčle had had to bow, was havingits own way in France. On January 28 Louis XVIII. In opening thechambers announced the withdrawal of his ambassador, and declared that100, 000 Frenchmen were ready to march to preserve the throne of Spain toa descendant of Henry IV. , and to reconcile that country with Europe. The sole object of any war that might arise would be to render FerdinandVII. Free to give his people institutions which they could not holdexcept from him, and which, by securing their tranquillity, woulddissipate the unrest in France. Canning protested against the apparentimplication that no valid constitution could rest on any other basisthan that of France did, as also against the apparent claim to interferein virtue of the family relation of the dynasties of France and Spain;but he vainly endeavoured to persuade the Spanish government to come tosome agreement with its king. On March 31, when war seemed imminent, Canning despatched a note to Paris defining the limits of Britishneutrality. The independence of Spain and integrity of its dominionswere to be recognised; it was not to be permanently occupied by amilitary force, and France was not to attempt to gain either by conquestor by cession any of the revolted colonies of Spain in America. At thesame time he disclaimed any intention of acquiring any of those coloniesfor Great Britain. [79]

[Pageheading: _PORTUGAL AND BRAZIL. _]

War between France and Spain began with the passage of the frontier bythe Duke of Angoulęme on April 7. On May 23 he entered Madrid. OnOctober 1 the Spanish constitutionalists were compelled to set theirking at liberty to join the French, and on November 1 the war wasterminated by the surrender of Barcelona to the royalists. Therestoration of Ferdinand VII. To absolute power was followed by afurious and vindictive reaction, which Angoulęme strove in vain tomoderate. For the next five years French troops occupied the country, but Angoulęme showed his disapproval of the method of government byrefusing the decorations offered him by Ferdinand. The restoration ofabsolutism in Spain led to events in Portugal which forced Great Britainto intervene and strengthened the difference between her policy and thatof the continental powers. The new Portuguese constitution wasunpopular, especially in the army, and as early as February, 1823, therewas a revolt against the constitution, but order was restored in April. On May 26 another absolutist revolt broke out, and the rebels werejoined next day by the king's second son, Dom Miguel, then twenty yearsof age; on the 29th the revolt spread to Lisbon; on the 31st the kingpromised a revised constitution, and on June 2 the cortes ceased to sit. The government resolved itself into an absolute monarchy, whichcontinued till the following year, in spite of the appointment of ajunta under the presidency of Palmella to draw up a new constitution. The ambassadors of Austria, Prussia, and Russia opposed the granting ofa new constitution, and Dom Miguel still maintained a threateningattitude. Palmella accordingly applied to Great Britain for troops tosupport his government. This request created no little difficulty. Itwas impossible for Great Britain to allow the government of Portugal tofall into the hands of a party resting for support on the absolutistsin Spain and the French army, and it was equally impossible to employBritish troops to maintain the cause of the King of Portugal against hisultra-royalist subjects when Great Britain had protested so vigorouslyagainst the kings of Spain and the Two Sicilies receiving foreignassistance against their liberal subjects; there were moreover no troopsthat could well be spared. 

Canning accordingly contented himself with despatching a naval squadronto the Tagus to act as a moral support to the king. As the event proved, this squadron was sufficient to determine the course of events. At thesame time Canning refused to guarantee any constitution, though whenFrance joined the eastern powers in threatening the proposedconstitution, he intimated his readiness to resist by force of arms anyforeign intervention in Portugal. On April 30, 1824, Dom Miguelattempted another _coup d'état_, and was for nine days in possession ofLisbon, where he made wholesale arrests of his political opponents. JohnVI. Was, however, supported by all the foreign ambassadors, and on March9, by their advice, he went on board the British ship of war, _WindsorCastle_, where he summoned his son to appear before him. Dom Miguelthought it wisest to obey; the king sent him abroad, and the attempt ata revolution was over for the present. The junta appointed in theprevious year to frame a constitution now reported in favour of arevival of the ancient cortes, and this proposal was accepted by theking. The cortes were not, however, actually assembled; still, the merefact of Dom Miguel's absence left the government a little stronger. 

Meanwhile, the relations between Portugal and Brazil occasioneddifficulties between the former country and Great Britain. On leavingBrazil, King John VI. Had entrusted the government to his elder son, Peter, to whom he had given secret instructions to proclaim himselfEmperor of Brazil in case he found it impossible to maintain the unionbetween Brazil and the mother country. Acting on these instructions, Peter had proclaimed the independence of Brazil on October 12, 1822, adopting for himself the style of constitutional emperor. Next monthLord Cochrane, who had been in the service of Chile, quitted it for thatof Brazil. Neither party in Portugal was prepared for the separation ofBrazil, and it was therefore opposed, but without much effect, by thehome government. By the end of 1823 Cochrane had captured all thePortuguese posts in Brazil, and in August, 1824, he suppressed arepublican movement in the north of that country. On July 23 of the sameyear Great Britain signed a commercial treaty with the new empire. Thisirritated the Portuguese government. Meanwhile, Beresford, who hadreturned to Portugal in a private capacity, had been requested to resumethe command of the Portuguese army. This he refused to do so long as theCount of Subsérra, a French partisan, held office at home. There was adifficulty in forming a ministry without him, and eventually Subsérrabecame virtual prime minister, and Beresford was excluded from office. In order to obtain an excuse for the introduction of French troops intoPortugal, Subsérra sent a request to Great Britain for a force of fouror five thousand, knowing it would be refused. Great Britain's refusalhad not, however, the expected consequence, because the influence of theother powers at Lisbon was weakened by their anti-constitutional policy. In July, 1825, the representatives of Austria, Brazil, Great Britain, and Portugal assembled at London to consider the relations of Portugaland Brazil. While the conference was sitting it was discovered thatSubsérra was carrying on separate negotiations with Brazil. Canning wasnow able to obtain his dismissal, which was followed by the recall ofthe French ambassador, De Neuville, who had been the principal opponentof British influence at Lisbon. As a result of this conference thePortuguese government on August 29 recognised the independence ofBrazil. [80]

The restoration of absolute government in Spain revived the question ofSpanish America. Ferdinand VII. , on recovering his authority, proposed acongress at Paris for the consideration of South American affairs. Canning, however, declined his invitation, and it was thought useless tohold a congress without the participation of Great Britain. The positionin which Great Britain had been placed by the negotiations of Verona, asdiplomatic champion of Spain, had caused her to suspend her complaintsabout the treatment of her merchant vessels trading with the revoltedcolonies; but disorder continued, and on one occasion the Britishadmiral was authorised to land in Cuba to extirpate the pirates usingthe Spanish flag. Canning was determined that French force should not beemployed to reduce the revolted colonies, and in October, 1823, heinformed the French ambassador, Polignac, that he would acknowledge theindependence of those colonies if France assisted Spain in her attemptsto reduce them[81]--a somewhat empty threat, as the commercial interestsof Great Britain would have compelled him to acknowledge them in anycase as soon as there should be settled governments in existence withwhich he could treat. Diplomatic agents were in fact appointed in mostof the revolted colonies before the end of this year. 

[Pageheading: _THE MONROE DOCTRINE. _]

What, however, rendered French interference hopeless was the attitude ofthe United States, as expressed in President Monroe's historic messageto congress on December 2, 1823. In this message occur the words, sinceknown as the Monroe doctrine: "With the governments who have declaredtheir independence, and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration, and on just principles, acknowledged, we couldnot view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, orcontrolling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power, inany other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly dispositiontowards the United States. " After this the recognition of theindependence of the Spanish colonies was only a matter of time. [82]Great Britain recognised the independence of Buenos Ayres, Colombia, andMexico, in 1824, and the rest soon after. In spite of the temporarysuccesses of Canterac, Peru, the last of the mainland provinces, waslost to Spain in 1825, and the other European powers did not now delaytheir recognition of the American republics. In April of that yearFrance recognised the virtual independence of her own revolted colony ofHayti. 

The Eastern question advanced more slowly. On March 25, 1823, Canningrecognised the Greeks as belligerents. After this step Great Britainenjoyed the advantage of being able to hold the Greek governmentresponsible for piracy committed by Greek ships; but, coming as it didafter the isolated action of Great Britain at Verona, it created asuspicion among the eastern powers of a desire to effect a settlementof the Eastern question without the co-operation of other states. InOctober, 1823, the Tsar Alexander and the Emperor Francis had a meetingat Czernowitz in Bukowina. Here they discussed joint intervention inGreece as a means of forestalling the isolated intervention of GreatBritain. During the meeting the news arrived of the Turkish concessionsto the Russian demands of 1821. Before the conference broke up, the tsarinformally suggested a conference at St. Petersburg to arrange jointintervention on the basis of the erection of three principalities underTurkish suzerainty in Greece and the Ćgean. In January, 1824, the sameproposal was made formally in a Russian circular addressed to the greatpowers. Metternich and Canning both opposed the scheme, thinking thatthe principalities would fall under Russian influence. 

Metternich met it by a counter proposal for the complete independence ofGreece. Canning preferred to adopt neither course, and to watch thesequence of events. In April, however, he consented that Great Britainshould be represented at the conference at St. Petersburg on conditionthat no coercion should be applied to Turkey, and that diplomaticrelations should have been previously restored between Russia andTurkey; in August the Greek government sent to London its protestagainst the Russian proposals, and in November Canning, finding thatneither Greeks nor Turks would accept the decision of the conference, and being still opposed to violent interference, refused to take part init. At the same time he offered British mediation to the Greeks in caseit should be absolutely necessary. Early in 1825 Metternich inducedCharles X. , the new King of France, to support his proposal. Russia, however, would not hear of the independence of Greece, which might meanthe creation of a rival to her influence in the Turkish dominions. Theconference therefore merely resolved that the Porte should grantsatisfaction to its subjects, failing which the powers offered theirmediation. 

[Pageheading: _THE DEATH OF ALEXANDER I. _]

Turkey refused the offer. She was in fact busily engaged in restoringorder in her own way. In February, 1825, an Egyptian army was landed inthe Morea, and met with rapid successes of such a nature as to arouse asuspicion that it was the fixed policy of its commander, Ibrahim, theadopted son of Mehemet Ali, Pasha of Egypt, to depopulate the Morea. His advance upon Nauplia was checked by an order of the Britishcommodore, Hamilton, and he retired towards Tripolitza and Navarino. TheTurkish successes induced Canning to make proposals to Russia throughSir Stratford Canning, the British ambassador at St. Petersburg, for ajoint intervention of the powers on condition that there should be nocoercion of Turkey. The tsar refused to accept the condition and madepreparations for war. Canning meanwhile declined an offer of the Greekgovernment to place itself under British protection, and on August 18Alexander declared that he would solve the Eastern question by himself. He then set out for the south of Russia, where his army had collected. Canning now dropped his scheme of an united intervention and openednegotiations for a separate intervention on the part of Great Britainand Russia alone. Meanwhile he informed the Greek government that hewould allow no power to effect a settlement without Britishco-operation, and that if Russia invaded Turkey he would land troops inGreece. The negotiations with Russia were proceeding favourably whenthey were interrupted by the death of Alexander on December 1. 

One event of the year 1825 which attracted little attention at the timewas destined to be a cause of friction at a much later date. In 1824 theboundary between British America and the United States had beenpartially delimited, and this was followed early in the following yearby a treaty, which attempted to settle the boundary between British andRussian America. Unfortunately the words used in this treaty weresomewhat indefinite, and, although no difficulty was experienced for twogenerations, the discovery of gold in the north-west of Americasubsequently led to a bitter dispute between Canada on the one side andthe United States, which had acquired the rights of Russia, on theother. 

FOOTNOTES:

[75] Metternich, _Memoirs_, § 484, English translation, iii. , 446. 

[76] Wellington, _Despatches, etc. _, i. , 343-48. 

[77] Wellington, _Despatches, etc. _, i. , 518-23. For a French account ofthe congress see Duvergier de Hauranne, _Gouvernement Parlementaire enFrance_, vii. , 130-229. 

[78] Wellington, _Despatches, etc. _, i. , 650. Compare pp. 638, 653-57. 

[79] Stapleton, _Life of Canning_, ii. , 18, 19. 

[80] Stapleton, _Life of Canning_, ii. , chapters x. , xi. 

[81] Stapleton, _Life of Canning_, ii. , 26-33. 

[82] See J. W. Foster, _A Century of American Diplomacy_, pp. 442-50;Stapleton, _George Canning and his Times_, p. 375. 

 CHAPTER XI. 

 TORY DISSENSION AND CATHOLIC RELIEF. 

The sudden illness of Liverpool in February, 1827, disclosed the dualismand mutual jealousies which had enfeebled his cabinet. One section, represented by Canning, advocated catholic emancipation, encouraged thepractical application of free trade doctrines, and was prepared tosupport the principle of national independence, not only in SouthAmerica, but in Greece and Portugal. This section was dominant in thehouse of commons. The other section, led by Wellington and Peel, whichwas dominant in the house of lords, was strictly conservative on allthese questions, though Peel was beginning to show an open mind on one, at least, of them. The king's known distrust of Canning, largely sharedby his own party, naturally suggested the hope of rallying it under theleadership of some politician with the moderate and conciliatory temperof Lord Liverpool. But no such politician could be found, nor was thereany prospect of Canning accepting a subordinate position in a newministry. For nearly six weeks the premiership was in abeyance, whileLiverpool's recovery was treated as a possible event. Canning himselfwas in broken health, but, ill as he was, he proposed and carried in thehouse of commons a sliding scale of import duties upon corn, variablewith its market price. He also made a fierce attack on Sir John Copley, then master of the rolls, who had vigorously opposed a motion of Burdettfor catholic relief. At last the king, having consulted others, made uphis mind to send for Canning, who had been suffering from a relapse. Itwas in vain that Canning advised him, unless he were prepared forconcession on the catholic question, to summon a body of ministerssharing his own convictions. There was, in fact, no alternative toCanning's succession, except that of Wellington or Peel. The formerdeclared that he would be worse than mad to accept the premiership; thelatter was still young for the office and deprecated as hopeless theformation of any exclusively "protestant" cabinet. The selection ofCanning became inevitable, and on April 10 the king determined upon it, irritated by what he regarded as an attempt to force his hand in thechoice of a minister. 

[Pageheading: _CANNING ACCEPTS OFFICE. _]

From that moment, during the short remainder of his life Canning had toundergo the same bitter experience as Pitt in 1804, and to suffer acruel retribution for his aggressive petulance. All his strongestcolleagues, except Huskisson, deserted him. The resignation of LordEldon, since 1821 Earl of Eldon, must have been expected, terminating, as it did, the longest chancellorship since the Norman conquest. ButCanning seems to have really hoped that he might secure the support ofWellington by the assurance of his desire to carry out the principles ofLiverpool's government. The duke, however, repelled his overtures withsomething less than courtesy, and even retired from the command of thearmy. Peel had already intimated privately that a transfer of thepremiership from an opponent to a champion of emancipation would make itimpossible for him to retain office. Three peers, Bathurst, Melville, and Westmorland, followed his example. Canning had no resource but toenlist colleagues from the ranks of the whigs. In this he was at firstunsuccessful. Sturges Bourne was appointed to the home office, ViscountDudley became foreign secretary, and Robinson, who was raised to thepeerage as Viscount Goderich, became secretary for war and the colonies. Canning himself united the offices of first lord of the treasury andchancellor of the exchequer. The Duke of Portland became lord privyseal. Palmerston, the secretary at war, was given a seat in the cabinet. Harrowby, Huskisson, Wynn, and Bexley, retained their former posts, andSidmouth, hitherto an unofficial member of the cabinet, finally retired. One important office outside the cabinet, that of chief secretary forIreland, was given to a whig, William Lamb, afterwards Lord Melbourne. It was a happy idea to make the Duke of Clarence lord high admiralwithout a seat in the cabinet, and without any power of actingindependently of his council, while Copley (as Lord Lyndhurst) proved agood successor to Eldon. 

In May some of the whigs were induced to join the ministry. Tierneyentered the cabinet as master of the mint and the Earl of Carlisle asfirst commissioner of woods and forests. The Marquis of Lansdowne, theformer Lord Henry Petty, joined the cabinet without taking office. Otherminor posts were assigned to whigs, and several whig chiefs, such asHolland and Brougham, while they remained outside the government, tendered it a friendly support. In July Lansdowne became home secretary, Bourne was transferred to the woods and forests department, Carlislebecame lord privy seal, and Portland remained in the cabinet withoutoffice. 

The new cabinet was therefore still in an unsettled state when it metparliament at the beginning of May. It there encountered a storm ofunsparing criticism even in the house of commons, but still more in thehouse of lords. Lord Stewart, who had succeeded his brother as Marquisof Londonderry, and the Duke of Newcastle denounced Canning in the mostintemperate language; and the veteran whig, Lord Grey, who had not beenconsulted, delivered an elaborate oration against him not the lessvirulent because it was carefully studied and measured. This attack wasso keenly felt by Canning that he was supposed to meditate theacceptance of a peerage, that he might reply to it in person. The climaxof his vexations was reached when a corn bill, prepared by the latecabinet, and passed by the house of commons, was finally wrecked in thehouse of lords through an amendment introduced by Wellington. There wassome excuse for the duke's action in letters which had passed betweenhim and Huskisson, but Canning naturally resented his mischievousinterposition, and unwisely declared that he must "have been made aninstrument in the hands of others". So ended the session on July 2, amidst discords and divisions which boded ill for the future, but threwa retrospective light on the rare merits of Liverpool. 

[Pageheading: _THE DEATH OF CANNING. _]

The days of Canning were already numbered. Before the end of July he wasunable to attend a council, and retired for rest to the Duke ofDevonshire's villa at Chiswick. As in the case of Castlereagh, the kinghad noticed the symptoms of serious illness, and on August 5 the publicwas informed of his danger. On the 8th he died of internal inflammationin the room which had witnessed the death of Fox. His loss was deeplyfelt, not only by the king who never showed him confidence, but also bythe best part of the nation, and his funeral was attended by a greatconcourse of mourners, both whigs and tories. No one doubted that he wasa patriot, and his noble gifts commanded the admiration of his bitterestopponents. He belonged to an age of transition, and it must ever bedeplored that he missed the opportunity of showing whether his mind wascapable of further growth in the highest office of state; for theinconsistencies of his opinions, obstinately maintained for years, wouldhave demanded many changes of conviction or policy. He was as stout anenemy of reform at home as he was a resolute friend of constitutionalliberty abroad. He detested the system of repression consecrated by theholy alliance, but he defended the necessity of such measures as the sixacts and arbitrary imprisonment for a limited period. He never swervedin his advocacy of Roman catholic relief, but he was unmoved byarguments in favour of repealing the test and corporation acts. Probably, at the head of a coalition, embracing the ablest of themoderate tories and reformers, and loyally supported by his colleagues, he might have proved the foremost British statesman of the nineteenthcentury. But it is more than doubtful whether his proud and sensitivenature would have enabled him so to cancel past memories as toconsolidate such a coalition, or to inspire such loyalty in its members. 

The death of Canning involved for the moment far less political changethan might have been expected. The king at once sent for Sturges Bourneand Goderich, as the most intimate adherents of Canning. He thencommanded Goderich to form, or rather to continue, a ministry ofcompromise, and this was done with little shifting of places. Wellingtonresumed the command of the army, thereby revealing his motive in givingit up so abruptly. But a very unwise choice was made in the appointmentof John Charles Herries, rather than Palmerston, as chancellor of theexchequer, and it carried with it the seeds of an early disruption. Palmerston had originally been proposed for the office, but the kingstrongly favoured Herries, though he showed good sense in deferring topublic opinion, and desiring Huskisson to take the post himself. Unfortunately, Huskisson preferred the colonial office, and, as neitherSturges Bourne nor Tierney would accept the position, royal influenceprevailed, and Herries found himself at the exchequer. MeanwhilePortland succeeded Harrowby as lord president, Charles Grant succeededHuskisson at the board of trade, and Lord Uxbridge, who had been createdMarquis of Anglesey after the battle of Waterloo, and who was nowmaster-general of the ordnance, was given a seat in the cabinet. 

In the course of November it was decided by Goderich, in concert withHuskisson and Tierney, that a finance committee should be appointedearly in the next session to consider the state of the revenue. LordAlthorp, the son of Earl Spencer, was designated as chairman, andprovisionally undertook to act, but the chancellor of the exchequer, who, contrary to all precedent, had not been taken into counsel, strongly protested against the nomination, as soon as he was informed ofit. Out of this dispute arose the ignoble fall of the Goderichadministration, though it was preceded by more serious dissensions onforeign policy. The king, whose activity revived with the increasingweakness of his ministers, committed himself, without asking theiropinion, to a hearty approval of Codrington's action at Navarino, inwhich, as will be recorded hereafter, that admiral had co-operated inthe destruction of the Turkish navy, though the British governmentprofessed to be at peace with the Porte. The king was also adverse to aproposal for the admission of Holland and Wellesley into the cabinet. Goderich in consequence resigned, but had withdrawn his resignation whenthe quarrel between Huskisson and Herries broke out afresh. Driven todistraction by difficulties to which he was utterly unequal, Goderichonce more abandoned his post. The king gladly dispensed with hisservices, and after some negotiation with Harrowby sent for Wellingtonon January 9, 1828, giving him a free hand to invite any co-operationexcept that of Grey. It was stipulated, however, "that the RomanCatholic question was not to be made a cabinet question, " and that boththe lord chancellors, as well as the lord lieutenant of Ireland, were tobe "protestants". [83]

[Pageheading: _WELLINGTON PRIME MINISTER. _]

It must ever be regretted, for the sake of the country not less than ofhis own fame, that Wellington undertook the premiership. He was beyondall dispute the greatest man in England, and exercised up to the end ofhis life a more powerful influence in emergencies than any othersubject. But he had judged himself rightly when he declared that he waswholly unfit to be prime minister, and his administration was among theweakest of modern times. The firmness which had sustained him in so manycampaigns, the political sagacity which had enabled him to grapple withthe complications of Spanish affairs, and with the great settlement ofEurope, equally failed him in party management and in the estimation ofpublic opinion at home. He understood better than any man how to dealwith the king, and overbore not only the king's own prejudices but themachinations of the Duke of Cumberland with masterly resolution. He seta good example in declining to regard himself as a mere party leader andin refusing to study the arts of popularity hunting, but he nevergrasped the principle that constitutional government ultimately rests onthe will of the people. Still he was too good a general not to see whenfacts were too strong for him. His chief manoeuvres on the field ofpolitics consisted in somewhat inglorious though not unskilful retreats;when he afterwards carried boldness to the point of rashness, heencountered a signal defeat. Nevertheless, while he utterly lost hispolitical hold on the masses, and even the confidence of shrewdpoliticians, he never ceased to retain the profound respect of hiscountrymen, not only as the first of English generals, but as the mosthonest of public servants. 

Wellington naturally applied first to Peel, and, by his advice, attempteda reconstruction of the Goderich cabinet, but with the addition of certainnew elements. Five of Canning's followers--Lyndhurst, Dudley, who had beencreated an earl, Huskisson, Grant, and Palmerston retained their oldoffices, and Palmerston gave an extraordinary proof of patience bycheerfully remaining secretary at war after eighteen years' service inthat capacity. These cabinet ministers were now joined or rejoined by Peelas home secretary, Earl Bathurst as lord president, Henry Goulburn aschancellor of the exchequer, Melville as president of the board ofcontrol, Lord Aberdeen as chancellor of the duchy, and Lord Ellenborough, son of the former chief justice, as lord privy seal. Herries wastransferred from the exchequer to the mastership of the mint. Outside thecabinet Anglesey became lord lieutenant of Ireland, where Lamb remainedchief secretary. It was understood that Eldon, now in his seventy-seventhyear, would have willingly accepted the presidency of the council, andfelt hurt that no offer or communication was made to him. On the otherhand, the whigs were by no means satisfied, while the inclusion ofHuskisson equally offended extreme tories and the widow of Canning, whospoke of him as having become an associate of her husband's murderers. This association was not destined to be long lived. The formation of theministry was not completed until the end of January, and very soon afterparliament met on the 29th of that month a rupture between Huskisson andWellington became imminent. For this Huskisson was mainly responsible. Having to seek re-election at Liverpool, and irritated by the attacks madeupon his consistency, he delivered a very imprudent speech, in which heimplied, if he did not state, that he had obtained from his chief pledgesof adhesion to Canning's policy. Such a declaration from such a man wasinevitably understood as applying at least to free trade and the conductof foreign affairs. Both Huskisson and the duke in parliamentary speechesdisclaimed the imputation of any bargain; still the rift was not closed, and it was speedily widened by events on which harmony between tories andfriends of Canning was impossible. 

For six years the so-called war of Greek independence had been carriedon with the utmost barbarity on both sides. The sympathies of Canning, as foreign secretary, had been entirely with the Greeks, as they hadbeen with the South American insurgents, but he was equally on his guardagainst the armed "mediation" of Russia and her claim to be the supremeprotector of the Greek Christians. We have seen how at last, in 1825, hopeless discord between the great continental powers led to overturesfor the peaceful intervention of Great Britain, and how at this juncturethe Tsar Alexander died on December 1, 1825. Wellington, at Canning'srequest, undertook a special embassy to St. Petersburg for theostensible purpose of congratulating the new tsar, Nicholas, on hisaccession, and succeeded, during April, 1826, in concluding anarrangement for joint action by Russia and Great Britain with a view toestablishing the autonomy of Greece under the sovereignty of Turkey. Meanwhile the impulsive enthusiasm which has so often seized the Englishpeople on behalf of "oppressed nationalities" had been fanned into aflame by the cause of Greek independence. Byron had already sacrificedhis life to it in April, 1824; Cochrane now devoted to it an energy anda naval reputation only second to Nelson's; volunteers joined the Greeklevies, and subscriptions came in freely. In the course of 1826 Canningsucceeded in procuring the adhesion of the French government to theAnglo-Russian agreement. Early in 1827 the three powers demanded anarmistice from Turkey, and, on the refusal of the Porte, signed thetreaty of London for the settlement of the Greek question. This treaty, dated July 6, 1827, was almost the last public act of Canning. It wasmoderate in its terms, embodying the conditions laid down in theprevious year at St. Petersburg, and making the self-government ofGreece subject to a payment of tribute to the Porte. It provided for acombination of the British, French, and Russian fleets in the event of asecond refusal from Turkey; but Canning died in the hope thathostilities might be avoided. 

[Pageheading: _NAVARINO. _]

This hope was not likely, nor was it destined, to be realised. The Porteremained inflexible, and would grant no armistice; indeed, it hadsummoned a contingent of ships from Egypt, and a fleet of twenty-eightsail under Ibrahim Pasha was lying in the Bay of Navarino awaitingfurther reinforcements. Admiral Codrington, who commanded the alliedfleet, now before Navarino, showed much forbearance. In concert with theFrench admiral, he warned Ibrahim Pasha not to leave the harbour, andobtained assurances which were speedily broken. Futile negotiations wenton during the early part of October, ending in a massacre among theinhabitants of the coast by the direction of Ibrahim. The admirals ofthe allied fleet no longer hesitated. On the 20th the fleet entered theharbour. The first shots were fired by the Turco-Egyptian fleet, whichwas skilfully ranged in three lines, and in the form of a horseshoe. Anaction ensued, which lasted four hours, and resulted in the almostcomplete destruction of the Ottoman armament. Had the allied fleet atonce proceeded to Constantinople, the Greek question might perhaps havebeen settled promptly, instead of being left to perplex cabinets for twoyears longer. 

The news of Navarino reached England when the ministry of Lord Goderichwas already tottering, and caused its members far more anxiety thansatisfaction. Probably the wisest of them foresaw that, unlessimmediate action were taken, Russia would declare war single-handedagainst Turkey and enforce her own terms, but nothing in fact was done, and Wellington, on coming into power, found the question of ourrelations with Turkey and Greece still open. In spite of his own sharein bringing about the co-operation of Russia with Great Britain, he wasby no means prepared for a crusade on behalf of Greek independence, orfor a definite rupture with Turkey. Hence the memorable phrases insertedin the king's speech of January 29, 1828, which described the battle ofNavarino as "a collision wholly unexpected by His Majesty" and as "anuntoward event, " which His Majesty hoped would not be followed byfurther hostilities. These expressions, however much in accord with thepacific tone of the treaty of London, provoked an outburst ofindignation from the friends of Greece in both houses. Lords Holland andAlthorp, Lord John Russell, and Brougham recorded earnest protestsagainst any disparagement of Admiral Codrington's action. Theinfatuation of the Porte, and the consequent war with Russia, checkedfurther agitation on the subject, and Wellington's government was ableto fall back on the policy of non-intervention proposed, though notalways practised, by Canning. But the reactionary tendency ofWellington's foreign policy betrayed in the king's speech had its effectin alienating the more liberal of his colleagues. Nor was his positionstrengthened by his irresolute home policy. During the session of 1828issues were raised which inevitably divided and ultimately broke up thecabinet. 

[Pageheading: _TEST ACTS REPEALED. _]

The first of these difficulties was caused by the success of Lord JohnRussell's motion for the repeal of the test and corporation acts, underwhich dissenters were precluded from holding municipal and otheroffices. It was, indeed, a grave blot on the consistency of reformersthat, while the claims of Roman catholics, and especially of Irish Romancatholics, had been vehemently urged for nearly thirty years, those ofprotestant nonconformists had been coldly neglected. Their legaldisabilities, it is true, had gradually become almost nominal, and anindemnity act was passed yearly to cover the constant breaches of theobnoxious law. Still, the law was maintained, and was stoutly defendedby such tories as Eldon on the principle that it was an importantoutwork of the union between Church and State. Even the Canningitemembers of the government supported it against Russell's attack, but onthe very opposite ground--that it had become a dead letter. However, themeasure for its repeal was carried in the house of commons by a majorityof forty-four, including some well-known Churchmen. This measure wouldassuredly have been rejected in the house of lords had not Peeljudiciously procured the insertion of a clause substituting for thesacramental test a declaration binding the office-holder to do nothinghostile to the Church. Thus modified, it passed the house of lords, withthe assent of several bishops, in spite of the implacable opposition ofLords Eldon and Redesdale, and the Duke of Cumberland. But thedeclaration was amended by the addition of the words "upon the truefaith of a Christian, " which incidentally continued the statutableexclusion of Jews. 

The enforced acceptance of this enactment was equivalent to a decisivereverse, and could not but injure the prestige of the government, but itdid not actually cause a schism in the cabinet. It was otherwise whenthe duke proposed a corn bill in lieu of that rejected at his instancein the previous year. The difference between these measures was not verymaterial, but the duke insisted upon certain regulations of detail, which Huskisson persistently opposed. Peel suggested a compromise which, after long altercation and some threats of resignation, was adopted. Butthe effect was to weaken the government still further in the eyes of thepublic, inasmuch as the principle of duties on a graduated scale hadprevailed at last against the declared opinions of the duke. Theinevitable rupture was only deferred for a few weeks, and arose out ofmotions for disfranchising East Retford and Penryn--a premonitorysymptom of the great reform bill. These were among the most corrupt ofthe old "rotten boroughs, " and the scandalous practices which flourishedin both of them had more than once shocked even the unreformedparliament. In 1827 a bill for disfranchising Penryn had actually beencarried by the house of commons in spite of Canning's dissent, and onefor disfranchising East Retford would probably have been carried, butthat it was introduced too late. 

The motions now introduced by Lord John Russell and Charles Tennysonrespectively could scarcely have been thrown out by the same house, butsquabbles arose in the cabinet, partly on the comparative guiltiness ofthe two venal constituencies, but chiefly on the disposal of the seatsto be vacated. It was agreed at last that Penryn should be merged in theadjacent hundred, and the majority of the cabinet, represented by Peel, were for dealing in like manner with East Retford. The liberal section, however, represented by Huskisson, was bent on transferring itsrepresentation to Birmingham, and voted against Peel in the house ofcommons. Having thus vindicated his independence, Huskisson, somewhattoo hastily, placed his resignation in the hands of the premier on May20. The duke, having fairly lost patience with his insubordinatecolleagues, was equally prompt in accepting it, and declined to receivethe explanations offered. In the end, Palmerston, Dudley, Grant, andLamb, followed the fortunes of Huskisson, and Wellington's governmentwas completely purged of Canning's old supporters. 

[Pageheading: _THE CLARE ELECTION. _]

Two military officers, without political experience, were now importedinto the ministry. Sir George Murray succeeded Huskisson at the colonialoffice, and Sir Henry Hardinge replaced Palmerston as secretary at war, but was not admitted to the cabinet; Lord Aberdeen became foreignsecretary, and Vesey Fitzgerald president of the board of trade, whileLord Francis Leveson Gower succeeded Lamb as chief secretary forIreland. So purely tory an administration had not been formed since thedays of Perceval. Looking back we can see that, for that very reason, itwas doomed; but to politicians of 1828 Wellington's ascendency seemedassured, and it was not actually broken for above two years. By far themost important event of domestic history within that period was thecrisis ending in the catholic emancipation act, and this crisis wasimmediately precipitated by the almost casual appointment of VeseyFitzgerald. He was a popular Irish landlord, who had always supportedcatholic relief, and his re-election for the county of Clare wasregarded as perfectly secure. The landlords were known to be entirely inhis favour, and Irish tenants, miscalled "forty shilling freeholders, "had been used to vote obsequiously for the candidate of their landlords. Indeed, these counterfeit freeholds had been manufactured recklesslythroughout Ireland for the very purpose of extending landlord influence. Perhaps the recent defeat of a Beresford at Waterford by a nominee ofDaniel O'Connell, who had made himself the leader of the movement forCatholic relief, ought to have undeceived the Irish tories, but no onecould have foreseen so daring an act as the candidature of O'Connellhimself, notwithstanding that, as a catholic, he was incapable ofsitting in the house of commons. 

The contest began on June 30 and lasted five days. All the gentry andelectors of the higher class supported Fitzgerald, but all the poorerelectors, headed by their priests, flocked to the poll and voted forO'Connell, who, on Fitzgerald's retirement, was triumphantly elected. The violence of O'Connell's language was unmeasured, and as was said bySheil, "every altar became a tribune, " but perfect order was maintainedthroughout. The terrorism which has since disgraced Irish elections andvitiated the whole representation of Ireland had no place in thisstartling victory, and the impression produced by it was therebyinfinitely enhanced. Two conclusions were instantly drawn from it: theone, that electoral power in Ireland could not safely be left in thehands of the forty-shilling freeholders; the other, that, whether or notthey were disfranchised, nothing short of political equality of thecatholics of Ireland could avert the risk of civil war. It is seldomthat momentous changes can be so clearly traced to a single cause as inthe case of catholic emancipation. The whole interval between July, 1828, and April, 1829, was occupied by the discussion of this question, or circumstances arising out of it, and it may truly be said to havefilled the whole horizon of domestic politics. The first and finalrecognition by a responsible government of emancipation as a politicalnecessity dates immediately from the Clare election. 

The question of catholic emancipation had been the only reason for theresignation of Pitt in 1801, but we have seen that he resumed office in1804 under a pledge not to re-open it. It is certain that he nevercontemplated a complete emancipation of the catholics without safeguardsfor the interests of the established church. Such a safeguard (thoughineffective against a future attack through disestablishment) wasprovided by the act of union, [84] which inviolably united the Irish andEnglish churches. The catholic leaders, on their part, were profuse intheir disavowals of hostility to that establishment and to theprotestant government in Ireland. In their first solemn memorial, presented by Grenville on March 25, 1805, they expressly declared that"they do not seek or wish, in the remotest degree, to injure or encroachupon the rights, privileges, immunities, possessions, and revenuesappertaining to the bishops and clergy of the protestant religion, or tothe churches committed to their charge". They further volunteered anexpression of their belief that no evil act could be justified by thegood of the Church, and that papal infallibility was no article of thecatholic faith. Thenceforward, frequent motions in support of the"catholic claims" were made in both houses of parliament. In 1810 such amotion was proposed in a very eloquent speech by Grattan, butCastlereagh, though a staunch friend of the cause, deprecated it asinopportune, since the catholics had injured themselves by imprudentconduct, and fresh declarations inconsistent with their formerassurances. The motion was therefore rejected, and a similar fate befellmotions of the same kind in the two following years, especially in thehouse of lords, where Eldon inflexibly resisted any concession, andalways commanded a majority. 

[Pageheading: _CATHOLIC RELIEF. _]

When Liverpool replaced Perceval as prime minister in 1812, catholicemancipation became an open question in the cabinet. In that yearCanning succeeded in carrying triumphantly a resolution pledging thehouse of commons to consider the question seriously in the next session, and a like resolution was only lost by one vote in the house of lords. Accordingly, in 1813, Grattan's motion for a committee of the wholehouse on catholic disabilities was accepted, and a bill for theirremoval passed its second reading. But it was loaded with vexatioussecurities in committee and wrecked by the vigorous opposition of thespeaker, Abbot, who on May 24 carried by a majority of four an amendmentwithholding the right to sit and vote in parliament. After this, thebill was of course abandoned, but another was unanimously passedexempting from penalties Roman catholics holding certain military andcivil offices, to which, by a harsh construction of law, they were noteligible. In 1817 the question was debated at great length in the houseof commons, and several leading men took part in it, but the motion forcatholic relief was again defeated by a majority of twenty-four. It wasrevived in 1819 by Grattan, who delivered on this occasion one of hisgreatest speeches, and succeeded in reducing the majority to two only. In 1821 a further advance was made by Plunket's success in obtaining acommittee to consider the claims of the catholics. This was carried by amajority of six, and followed up by two bills, removing all catholicdisabilities with very slight exceptions, but subject to stringent andsomewhat illusory securities for the loyalty of the priesthood. Ultimately on April 2 a comprehensive measure of catholic relief passedthe house of commons by a majority of nineteen. All the most influentialmembers of the lower house now voted in its favour, but the attitude ofthe upper house remained unchanged. The spirit of Eldon still ruled thepeers, and his speech against Plunket's relief bill contains a completearmoury of protestant arguments. But the catholics had a still moredoughty opponent in the Duke of York, who delivered on this occasion thefirst of his famous declarations, binding himself to life-longhostility. As Eldon said, "he did more to quiet this matter thaneverything else put together". [85]

The year 1821 marks a turning point in the history of the catholicquestion, since the protestant cause, no longer safe in the house ofcommons, was felt by its champions to depend on the crown and the houseof lords. But it would be an error to suppose that catholic relief wasever a popular cry in this country, like retrenchment and reform. On thecontrary, the feelings of the masses in Great Britain were never rousedin regard to it, and, if roused at all, would probably have beenenlisted on the other side. It would be too much to say that thecontroversy was merely academical, for it was keen enough to split upparties and produce dualism in cabinets. But it was never a hustingsquestion. It filled a much larger space in the minds of statesmen thanin the minds of the people, and even among statesmen it was so farsecondary that it could be treated as an open question in Liverpool'sministry for a period of fifteen years. No doubt the disturbed state ofIreland, which ultimately supplied the motive power for carrying theemancipation act, contributed at an earlier stage to damp the zeal ofits advocates. Whatever the merits of the union, it had failed to pacifythe country, thereby verifying the warning of Cornwallis, that, althoughIreland could not be saved without the union, "you must not take it forgranted that it will be saved by it". 

In 1800, the very year of the union, the _habeas corpus_ act had beensuspended and another act passed for the suppression of rebellion. Though repealed in the following year, these coercive measures wererenewed in 1803, after Emmet's abortive rising, and continued in 1804. In 1805, when they expired, special commissions were appointed for therepression of crime in the south and west of Ireland. In 1807 the_habeas corpus_ act was again suspended and a rigorous insurrection actpassed which continued in force until 1810. In that year a CatholicCommittee was formed, anticipating the more notorious CatholicAssociation. An essential part of the scheme was the formation of arepresentative assembly in Dublin, to discuss and procure redress forthe wrongs of catholics. This project was put down by the Irishgovernment, which treated it as a breach of the convention act of 1793. The next ten years seem to have been somewhat quieter in Ireland, andthe disturbances which followed the peace in Great Britain had nocounterpart in that country. Still, it was thought necessary to suppressanother catholic convention in 1814, and to renew the insurrection act, which remained in force with one interval till 1817. It can well beimagined that a population so lawless, and so prone to horrible outrageswhich shock Englishmen more than a thousand crimes against property, should have excited little general sympathy by their complaints ofpolitical grievances. These grievances were justly denounced by partyleaders, but in the eyes of ordinary politicians, and still more ofelectors, coercion rather than concession was the appropriate remedy forthe ills of Ireland. 

[Pageheading: _CATHOLIC RELIEF. _]

Canning, however, though suspected of lukewarmness, did not let thequestion rest in 1822. On April 30, while still out of office, heintroduced a bill which he could scarcely have expected to become law, for enabling Roman catholic peers to sit and vote in the house of lords. This bill was passed in the commons by a majority of five, but rejectedin the lords by a majority of forty-four, in spite of somewhattransparent assertions that it was not intended to prejudice the mainissue. On April 18, 1823, an angry protest from Burdett against the"annual farce" of motions leading to nothing was followed by a quarrelbetween Canning and Brougham, who accused Canning, then foreignsecretary, of "monstrous truckling for the purpose of obtaining office";and when Plunket moved, as usual, for the relief of catholics, atemporary secession of radicals took place, which left him in aridiculous minority. In spite of this discomfiture, Lord Nugentsucceeded in carrying through the commons a bill, granting theparliamentary franchise to Roman catholics in Great Britain. The billwas lost in the lords, and the question remained dormant in 1824; but in1825 it received a fresh impulse. This time it was Burdett who, at theinstance of Lansdowne and Brougham, appeared as spokesman of thecatholics. His action was in some respects inopportune, as the "CatholicAssociation, " founded by O'Connell and Sheil in 1823, was now usurpingthe functions of a government, and regularly levying taxes under thename of "rent". The necessity of suppressing it, though not apparent toLord Wellesley, the lord-lieutenant, was strongly felt on both sides ofthe house of commons. A bill for this purpose, but applicable to allsimilar associations, was rapidly carried by large majorities in bothhouses, and the opposition was fain to rely mainly on the declarationthat it would be put in force against catholic associations only, andnot against those of the Orangemen, as the more violent of the Irishprotestants were called. It is needless to say that it was evaded by theformer, but on March 1, while it was still before the house of lords, Burdett took courage to move another preliminary resolution in favour ofthe catholics, and obtained a majority of thirteen. A bill founded onthis resolution was at once introduced. 

The debates on this bill were memorable in several respects and openedthe last stage but one in the long history of catholic relief. In thefirst place, more than one opponent publicly avowed his conversion toit; in the second place, now that its "settlement" was actually withinview, the necessity of providing a counterpoise became admitted. Accordingly, one independent member proposed a state grant of Ł250, 000 ayear for the endowment of the catholic clergy, who might thus beindirectly bound over to good behaviour, while another proposed thedisfranchisement of the 40s. Freeholders. Both of these bills were reada second time, but held over until the fate of the main relief billshould be determined. That bill passed the house of commons on May 10, 1825, by a majority of twenty-one, and Peel tendered his resignation toLord Liverpool. [86] Two days later, the Duke of York, on presenting apetition against the bill in the house of lords, delivered anotherspeech which fell like a thunder-clap on the country, and has beencelebrated ever since as an audacious breach of constitutional usage. Inthis speech, he justified the inflexible attitude of his father, whosemental disorder he expressly attributed to the agitation of the catholicquestion. He concluded by declaring that his principles were the same, imbibed in early youth and confirmed by mature reflection, and that hewould maintain them up to the latest moment of his existence, "whatevermight be his situation in life". It is certain that, in thus pledginghimself, he acted without having consulted the king, who somewhatresented so direct an allusion to his prospect of succession. Still, thesensation produced by the duke's utterance was prodigious, and heremained the favourite champion of the protestant cause until his death. Brougham attacked him with furious sarcasm in the commons, but the lordsthrew out Burdett's relief bill by a majority of forty-eight, and theNo-popery cry influenced the general election of 1826. In that year nofurther effort was made by the friends of catholic claims, but O'Connellshowed his growing power in Ireland by exciting a political revolt ofthe peasantry at Waterford, and procuring the defeat of Lord GeorgeBeresford. 

[Pageheading: _CATHOLIC RELIEF. _]

In the session of 1827, before Canning succeeded Lord Liverpool, Burdettrenewed his motion of 1825 on the catholic question, but found himselfdefeated by four votes. The division had taken place in a full house, after the fierce encounter, already mentioned, between Copley andCanning; but it cannot be regarded as a decisive token of contrastbetween the old and the new parliament, since relief was now claimedwithout any mention of "securities". The subject was in abeyance duringthe short administrations of Canning and Goderich, but was raised againby Burdett in May, 1828, after the repeal of the test and corporationacts. The number of votes on the catholic side, 272, was the same as in1827, that on the protestant side, 266, was less by ten, the resultbeing a majority of six for the motion. A similar resolution was lost inthe house of lords, as a matter of course; but the language held by thenew lord chancellor, Lyndhurst, and by Wellington himself, as primeminister, prepared observant men for an impending change of policy. Thenfollowed the Clare election, which revealed nothing which might not havebeen foreseen, but which had the same effect in precipitating theremoval of catholic disabilities as the Irish famine afterwards had inprecipitating the repeal of the corn laws. 

We now know that Peel had made up his mind to yield shortly after theClare election, [87] partly influenced by the alarming reports ofAnglesey, the Irish lord-lieutenant, on the state of Ireland. We alsoknow that Wellington himself was more than half convinced of thenecessity of concession, and was preparing to strengthen his governmentfor the coming struggle, in the event of Peel feeling bound to retire. Meanwhile a vacancy in the ministry had been created by the Duke ofClarence's resignation of his office of lord high admiral. In spite ofthe limitations imposed on his power, he had insisted on hoisting hisflag, and assumed command. For this he was severely reprehended by theking and Wellington, and was virtually forced to resign office. Melvillenow became once more first lord of the admiralty, and was succeeded byEllenborough at the board of control. Ellenborough retained his formeroffice of lord privy seal, which Wellington was holding in reserve witha view to strengthening the government. But the public of those daysremained in entire ignorance of their intentions until the meeting ofparliament on February 5, 1829. 

The speech of George Dawson, Peel's brother-in-law, at Derry, on August12, had greatly startled protestants. As it was never publiclydisavowed, Brunswick clubs were formed to repel the rising tide ofsympathy with the catholics, but the only tangible indication ofWellington's personal sentiments favoured the belief that nothing wouldbe done. The circumstances under which this indication was given werepeculiar. The duke had written a letter to the Roman catholic archbishopof Dublin, an old correspondent, deprecating agitation on the catholicquestion, as likely to prejudice its future settlement, of which, however, the duke saw "no prospect". [88] This letter was improperlysent by the archbishop to O'Connell as well as to Anglesey. O'Connellread it to the Catholic Association as a sign of conciliatoryinclinations; Anglesey's reply suggested, at least, that agitation mightcontinue. He was promptly recalled, and his recall was rendered the moresignificant by the appointment of the Duke of Northumberland, a known"protestant, " as his successor. What the public could not then know wasthat behind all other difficulties, political or personal, lay thealmost insuperable difficulty of inducing the king to allow the cabinetto be even consulted. Indolent and unprincipled as George IV. Was, hewas still capable of rousing and asserting himself. Probably no one butWellington could have prevailed against his anti-catholic prejudices, shared, as they were, not only by most of the peers, both spiritual andtemporal, but also by the mass of the English people. At this juncturePeel informed the duke that, rather than risk the success of theproposed measure, he would remain at his post. His example was followedby his "protestant" colleagues. 

[Pageheading: _THE INTRODUCTION OF THE RELIEF BILL. _]

During the winter of 1828-29 the strongest pressure was brought to bearon the king by his ministers to procure his consent to a measure ofrelief, accompanied by safeguards. Though he afterwards assured Eldonthat he had never explicitly given such a consent, the old chancellor, on seeing the documents, felt obliged to express a contrary opinion. Itis certain that he gave way most reluctantly, and probable that hisscruples were as sincere as was consistent with his character; but heknew well that, if he dismissed his ministers, he would be leftisolated, and he bowed to necessity. Indeed even the "protestant"members of the cabinet had urged him to yield. His assent was, in fact, only given by degrees; after each member of the cabinet, who hadpreviously opposed catholic emancipation, had had a separate interview, the king consented on January 15 to the consideration of the subject bythe cabinet, but reserved the right to reject its advice. After this nogreat difficulty was experienced in obtaining the royal assent to theintroduction of a bill. [89] Accordingly the king's speech, delivered bycommission on February 5, 1829, distinctly recommended parliament toconsider whether the civil disabilities of the catholics could not beremoved "consistently with the full and permanent security of ourestablishments in Church and State". This recommendation, however, waspreceded by a severe condemnation of the Catholic Association and theexpression of a resolution to put down the disorders caused by it. Thesensation produced by the king's speech was increased by thesimultaneous resignation by Peel of his seat for the university ofOxford. Considering that he was originally preferred to Canning mainlyon protestant grounds, he could not have honourably acted otherwise. Many of his old friends stood by him, in spite of differences on thecatholic question, and Eldon's grandson, who had been proposed as acandidate, was set aside as too weak an opponent. Ultimately Sir RobertInglis was put forward by the "protestants, " and was returned by 755votes against 609. Peel obtained a seat for the borough of Westbury, [90]and moved a preliminary bill for suppressing the Catholic Association. This passed both houses in February, but was already ineffective when itbecame law, since the association had been shrewd enough to dissolveitself upon the advice of its English well-wishers. The catholic reliefbill was therefore introduced under favourable auspices. 

The motives which actuated Wellington and Peel in espousing the causewhich they had so persistently opposed admit of no doubt whatever. Inthe memoir which Peel left as embodying his own defence, no less than inhis speech introducing the emancipation bill, he affects no essentialchange of conviction. He rests his case entirely on the public danger ofleaving the question "unsettled" after the disclosures of the Clareelection, and argues calmly, as the agitators had been arguing fornearly thirty years, that no settlement was practicable short ofcomplete, though not unconditional, surrender. There is no pretence ofconsistency. All the constitutional, political, and religious objectionsto civil equality between protestants and catholics in Ireland remainedunanswered and unabated. Indeed the increasing power and defiant tone ofthe catholic demagogues might well have appeared a crowning reason forrefusing them seats in parliament. Peel, however, had adopted, andpressed upon Wellington, the delusive opinion of Anglesey that by"taking them from the Association and placing them in the house ofcommons" they might be reduced to comparative impotence. He lamented, itis true, the premature announcement of a new policy by Dawson, and hehad submitted his own resignation to the duke in the belief, apparentlysincere, that he could render better service in an independent position. But he seems not to have felt the least scruple in urging the duke tobreak all his pledges to his protestant supporters, and conciliate thefollowers of O'Connell. Nor did his advice fall on unwilling ears. Trained in a vocation where private conscience is subordinate tomilitary duty, where enemies must sometimes be welcomed as allies if itmay further the plan of campaign, and where a masterly retreat is ashonourable as a victory, Wellington did not shrink from undertaking thepart of an opportunist minister. He had always regarded himself as aservant of the crown and the nation, rather than as a party leader, andhe saw no personal difficulty in adopting any political measure as theless of two evils. Having once satisfied himself that civil war inIreland was the only alternative to emancipation, he abandonedresistance to it as he would have abandoned a hopeless siege, and calledupon his tory followers to change their front with him. 

Notice had been given of a resolution to be moved by Peel on March 5, preparing the way for the catholic relief bill, when the king raisedfresh obstacles to its progress. As the day drew near, George, encouraged by the Duke of Cumberland, grew very excited. He had violentinterviews with his ministers, and finally on March 3 he informedWellington, Lyndhurst, and Peel that he could not assent to anyalteration in the oath of supremacy. The three ministers accordinglytendered their resignations, which were accepted. But the king soonfound that no alternative administration was possible, and on thefollowing day the existing ministers received permission to proceed withthe bill. [91]

[Pageheading: _PROVISIONS OF THE RELIEF BILL. _]

Peel's great speech on March 5, in favour of his resolution, contains acomprehensive review of the Irish question, as well as an elaboratedefence of his own position, resting solely on grounds of expediency. Headvocated the measure itself as the only means of pacifying Ireland, reducing the undue power of the catholics, and securing the protestantreligion. It was simple in its main outlines, applying to the wholeUnited Kingdom, and purporting to open all political and civil rights tocatholics, with a very few specified exceptions. It contained, however, a number of provisions, in the nature of securities against catholicaggression. By the new oath, to be substituted for the oaths ofallegiance, supremacy, and abjuration, a member of parliament, or holderof an office, was no longer required to renounce transubstantiation, theinvocation of saints, or the sacrifice of the mass. But he was stillobliged not only to swear allegiance, but to profess himself resolved tomaintain the protestant settlement of the crown, to condemn absolutelyall papal jurisdiction within the realm, and to disclaim solemnly anyintention of subverting the existing Church establishment or weakeningthe system of protestant government. Moreover, priests were expresslydenied the privilege of sitting in parliament. Catholics were stillexcluded from the high positions of sovereign, regent, lord chancellorof England or Ireland, and lord-lieutenant of Ireland. They were enabledto become ministers of the crown, but were debarred from the power ofadvising the crown on presentations to ecclesiastical dignities orbenefices, nor were they allowed to exercise such patronage in theirpersonal capacity. They were still to be disabled from holding officesin the ecclesiastical courts, or in the universities, and their bishopswere forbidden to assume diocesan titles already appropriated by theestablishment. Other clauses were directed against the use of catholicvestments except in their chapels and private houses, and against theimportation of Jesuits or members of similar religious orders, with asaving clause for those already resident and duly registered. Two othersafeguards, often proposed, were deliberately omitted from the bill. There was no provision for a state endowment of catholic priests, or fora veto of the crown on the appointment of catholic bishops. Theseomissions, whether justifiable or not, were pregnant with seriousconsequences. 

The debates in both houses on Peel's bill, as it was rightly considered, are chiefly interesting as throwing light on contemporary opinion. Thearguments for and against it had been fairly exhausted in previousyears, and would carry no great weight in a later age. Theconstitutional objections to it, which seemed vital to Eldon, andweighty to every statesman of his time, were at a later date put aside, when they were pleaded against the dissolution of the Irish church, directly guaranteed by the act of union. The criticisms on the personalconsistency of Wellington and Peel belong to biography rather than tohistory. But no one can read the speeches of leading men on either sidewithout recognising the superior foresight, at least, of those whoopposed the bill, and distrusted the efficacy of the safeguards embodiedin it. Two assumptions underlay the whole discussion, and were treatedas axioms by nearly all the speakers. The one was that catholicemancipation must be judged by its effect on the future peace ofIreland; the other, that it could not be justified, unless it wouldstrengthen, rather than weaken, protestant ascendency, then regarded asa bulwark of the constitution. Posterity may contemplate it from adifferent and perhaps higher point of view; but it is certain that, ifits consequences had been foreseen by those who voted upon it, the billwould have been rejected. It is no less certain that its adoption was avictory of the educated classes, represented by nomination-boroughs, over the unrepresented masses of the people. 

The actual result in the division lists was all that its promoters couldhave desired. Though the secret had been so well kept by the governmentthat few of its supporters knew what to expect, and though piles ofpetitions showed the preponderance of protestant sentiment outsideparliament, that sentiment was not reflected in the division lists. Thefirst reading of the bill in the house of commons was carried by amajority of 348 to 160; the second reading by a majority of 353 to 180;the third reading by a majority of 320 to 142. The debates wereenlivened on the protestant side by a brilliant speech from MichaelSadler, a tory friend of the working classes, returned by the Duke ofNewcastle for Newark, and a violent invective from Sir CharlesWetherell, the attorney-general, who was thereupon dismissed fromoffice. Peel, who had borne the brunt of these attacks, replied on March30, when the bill was sent up to the lords, and on April 2, the secondreading of it in the upper house was moved by Wellington. His candidadmission that he was driven to concession by the fear of civil war hassince become historical, and served as the watchword of many a lawlessagitation in Ireland. It was natural that most of the peers, andespecially of the spiritual peers, who took part in the discussionshould be opponents of the measure, but Lloyd, Bishop of Oxford, severedhimself from the rest of his order, and vigorous speeches were made insupport of it by Anglesey and Grey, neither of whom could be regarded asfriendly to Wellington's government. 

[Pageheading: _ROYAL ASSENT TO THE BILL. _]

Anglesey, who had been recently dismissed from the lord-lieutenancy ofIreland, went beyond the duke in the use of purely military arguments;Grey ventured to prophesy not only a future reign of peace in Ireland, but an extension of protestantism, as the consequence of catholicemancipation. The hopeless attempt of Lyndhurst to vindicate his ownconsistency, and a forensic duel between Eldon and Plunket, who had beenraised to the peerage in 1827, relieved the monotony of the debate, butprobably did not influence a single vote. The old guard of theanti-catholic party remained firm, but the mass of tory peers followedtheir leader in his new policy, as they had followed him in his old, andthe relief bill was read a third time in the house of lords on the 10th, by a majority of 104. Three days later it received the royal assent. Lord Eldon had virtually encouraged the king to refuse this, at the lastmoment, though he was too honest to accept the assurance of George IV. That the bill was introduced without his authority. But the son ofGeorge III. Had not inherited his father's resolute character. After afew childish threats of retiring to Hanover and leaving the Duke ofClarence to make terms with the ministry, he abandoned furtherresistance and capitulated to Wellington, as Wellington had capitulatedto O'Connell. 

The disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders and thesubstitution of a ten-pound suffrage was the price to be paid forcatholic emancipation, and no time was lost in completing the bargain. In days when it is assumed that every change in the electoral franchisemust needs be in a downward direction, it may well appear amazing thatso wholesale a destruction of privileges enjoyed for thirty-six yearsshould have provoked so feeble an opposition. It is still more amazingthat it should have passed without a protest from O'Connell himself, whohad solemnly vowed to perish on the field or on the scaffold rather thansubmit to it. Yet so it was. These ignorant voters, it is true, hadnever ventured to call their souls their own, and had only ceased to bethe servile creatures of their landlords in order to become the servilecreatures of their priests. Still, it was they who, by their action inthe Waterford and Clare elections, had forced the hand of thegovernment, and achieved catholic emancipation. It may safely be saidthat after the reform act of 1832 it would have been politicallyimpossible to disfranchise them; and even in the unreformed parliamentit would have been scarcely possible if gratitude were a trustworthymotive in politics. On the other hand, the government could never havesecured a majority for catholic emancipation, unless it had beendistinctly understood to carry with it the extinction of democracy inIreland. This, rather than declarations and restrictions of doubtfulefficacy, was the real "security" on which the legislature relied fordisarming the disloyalty of Irish catholics. For some time it answeredits purpose so far as to keep the representation of that disloyaltywithin safe limits in the house of commons. But it naturally produced acontrary effect in Ireland itself, and was destined to be swept awaybefore a fresh wave of agitation. 

A few days before the relief bill passed the house of commons an episodeoccurred which is chiefly interesting for the light which it throws onthe ideas then prevalent in the highest society. In 1828 Wellington hadpresided at a meeting for the establishment of King's College, London, an institution which was to be entirely under the influence of theestablished church, and which was intended as a counterpoise to thepurely secular institution which had been recently founded under thetitle of the "London University". The Earl of Winchilsea, a peer of nopersonal importance, but a stalwart upholder of Church and State, published in the _Standard_ newspaper of March 16, 1829, a virulentletter, describing the whole transaction "as a blind to the protestantand high church party, " and accusing the prime minister of insidiousdesigns for the introduction of popery in every department of the state. The duke at once sent Hardinge with a note couched in moderate language, demanding an apology. Winchilsea made no apology, but offered to expressregret for having mistaken the duke's motives, if the duke would declarethat when he presided at the meeting in question he was notcontemplating any measure of catholic relief. Whereupon the dukedemanded "that satisfaction which a gentleman has a right to require, and which a gentleman never refuses to give". A hostile meeting tookplace on March 21 in Battersea fields. The duke intentionally firedwide, and Winchilsea, after discharging his weapon in the air, tendereda written apology, in conformity with the so-called rules of honour. Theduke was conscious that his conduct must have "shocked many good men, "but he always maintained that it was the only way, and proved aneffectual way, of dispelling the atmosphere of calumny in which he wassurrounded. It is probable that he judged rightly of his contemporaries, and that he gained rather than lost in reputation by an act which, apartfrom its moral aspect, risked the success of a great measure largelydepending on the continuance of his own life. It may be noticed that heafterwards became not only the personal friend of his antagonist, butthe most influential member of the Anti-Duelling Association. [92]

[Pageheading: _EXCLUSION OF O'CONNELL. _]

Another episode, or rather sequel, of the great contest on catholicrelief had more serious political consequences. Though O'Connell was theundoubted leader of the movement, and might almost have claimed to bethe father of the act, he was most unwisely but deliberately excludedfrom its benefits. His exclusion was effected by a clause which renderedits operation strictly prospective, for the very purpose of shutting outthe one catholic who had been elected under the old law. It had beendecided by a committee of the house of commons that he was dulyreturned, the only question being whether he could take his seat withoutsubscribing the oath now abolished. This question was brought to a testby the appearance of O'Connell in person in the house itself. Thespeaker, Charles Manners-Sutton, declared that he could not properly beadmitted to be sworn under the new law, upon which O'Connell claimed ahearing. A long and futile discussion followed as to whether he shouldbe heard at the table or at the bar. In the end he was heard at the bar, and produced a very favourable impression upon his opponents as well ashis friends by the ingenuity of his arguments and the studied moderationof his tone. His case, however, was manifestly untenable from a legalpoint of view, and a new writ was ordered to be issued for the county ofClare. 

Then was shown both the folly of stirring up so needlessly theinflammable materials of Irish sedition and the futility of imaginingthat catholic emancipation, right or wrong, would prove a healingmeasure. Having exhibited the better side of his character in his speechbefore the house of commons, O'Connell exhibited its worst side withoutstint or shame in his addresses to the Irish peasantry. Skilfullyavoiding the language of sheer treason, he set no bounds to his coarseand outrageous vituperation of the nation which had sacrificed even itsconscience to appease Ireland; nor did he shrink from denouncingWellington and Peel as "those men who, false to their own party, cannever be true to us". The note which he struck has never ceased tovibrate in the hearts of the excitable people which he might haveeducated into loyal citizenship, and the spirit which he evoked has beenthe evil genius of Ireland from his day to our own. He openly unfurledthe standard of repeal, but the repeal he demanded did not involve thecreation of an Irish republic. Ireland was still to be connected withGreat Britain by "the golden link of the crown, " and though agitationwas carried to the verge of rebellion, the great agitator never actuallyadvised his dupes to rise in arms for a war of independence. Short ofthis he did all in his power, and with too much success, to inflame themwith a malignant hatred of the sister country. If the promoters ofcatholic emancipation had ever looked for any reward beyond the inwardsatisfaction of having done a righteous act, they were speedily andwofully undeceived. 

FOOTNOTES:

[83] Wellington to Peel, January 9, 1828, in Parker, _Sir Robert Peel_, ii. , 27. 

[84] Lecky, _History of Ireland_, v. , 358-60, _n. _; Stapleton, _Life ofCanning_, ii. , 131-34. 

[85] Eldon to Sir William Scott, Twiss, _Life of Eldon_, ii. , 416. ForEldon's Speech, see Twiss, iii. , 498-512. 

[86] Parker, _Sir Robert Peel_, i. , 372-75. 

[87] Parker, _Sir Robert Peel_, ii. , 54-60. 

[88] Wellington to Curtis, December 11, 1828, Wellington, _Despatches, etc. _, v. , 326. 

[89] For the king's qualified assent see Parker, _Sir Robert Peel_, ii. , 82-85; Peel's _Memoirs_, i. , 297, 298, 310. 

[90] See Peel's _Memoirs_, i. , 3, for his unpopularity at Westbury. 

[91] Peel's _Memoirs_, i. , 343-49; Greville, _Memoirs_, i. , 189, 190, 201, 202. 

[92] See Maxwell, _Life of Wellington_, ii. , 231-36, for the incident. 

 CHAPTER XII. 

 PORTUGAL AND GREECE. 

It is now time to turn to the general course of foreign policy duringthe closing years of the reign of George IV. The only foreign problemswhich gave serious trouble during this period were the Eastern andPortuguese questions. The influence which the former exercised ondomestic policy has rendered it necessary to trace its course as far asthe battle of Navarino in the last chapter. We must now take up theother question where we left it, at the recognition of the independenceof Brazil and the expulsion of the Spanish troops from the mainland ofAmerica. 

Peter I. , Emperor of Brazil, though an independent sovereign, was stillheir-apparent to the throne of Portugal, and the ultra-royalists hopedthat, in spite of the provisions of the Brazilian constitution, hissuccession to his ancestral crown would restore the unity of thePortuguese dominions. The death of King John VI. On March 10, 1826, brought the matter to a crisis. Four days before his death he hadappointed a council of regency which was to be presided over by hisdaughter, Isabella Maria, but from which the queen and Dom Miguel, thentwenty-three, were both excluded. By this act the absolutist party weredeprived of power until they should be restored to it by the action ofthe new king, or by a revolution. The regency wished the new king tomake a speedy choice between the two crowns; and it was anticipated thathe would abdicate the Portuguese crown in favour of his seven-year-olddaughter, Maria da Gloria. The absolutists on the other hand hoped thatthe king might by procrastination avoid the separation of the crowns. 

What was their surprise when they discovered that the king had indeeddetermined to procrastinate, but in such a way as to displease theabsolutists as much as the friends of constitutional government? Nosooner had the news of his father's death reached Peter at Rio Janeiro, than he issued a charter of 145 clauses, conferring a constitution onPortugal. This constitution which was destined to alternate for nearly ageneration with absolute monarchy or with the revolutionary constitutionof 1821, had the advantage of being the voluntary gift of the king. Itwas, however, composed in great haste, and, except that it retained thehereditary nobility as a first chamber in the cortes, was almostidentical with the constitution established in Brazil in the previousDecember. Among other provisions it subjected the nobility to taxationand asserted the principle of religious toleration. A few days later, onthe 2nd of May, King Peter executed an act of abdication in favour ofhis daughter Maria, providing, however, that the abdication should notcome into effect until the necessary oaths had been taken to the newconstitution and until the new queen should have been married to heruncle, Dom Miguel. 

[Pageheading: _CIVIL WAR IN PORTUGAL. _]

This compromise pleased nobody. It is true that it seemed to makepermanent the separation of Brazil from Portugal, since the former statewas destined for Peter's infant son, afterwards Peter II. ; but theBrazilian patriots would have preferred a more definite abandonment ofthe Portuguese throne, and Peter's half-measure of abdication was one ofthe main causes of the discontent which drove him to resign theBrazilian crown five years later. The Portuguese liberals were alarmedat the prospect of a restoration of Dom Miguel to power, while theabsolutists were indignant at the imposition of a constitution. From thevery first it encountered opposition. The new constitution was indeedproclaimed on July 13, and the necessary oaths were taken on the 31st. But on the same day a party, consisting mainly of Portuguese desertersin Spanish territory, proclaimed Miguel as king and the queen-mother asregent during his absence. Miguel, however, gave no open support to thisparty; on October 4 he actually took the oath to the new constitution, and on the 29th he formally betrothed himself at Vienna to the futureQueen of Portugal. But the Portuguese insurgents were not deterred bythe apparent defection of the prince whose claim to reign theyasserted, and they received a thinly disguised encouragement from theSpanish government, which certainly did nothing to interfere with theirorganisation in Spanish territory. On the 10th the last insurgents hadbeen expelled from Portuguese territory, but in November they wereopenly joined by some Spanish soldiers, and on the 22nd of that monththey invaded the Portuguese province of Traz-os-Montes. Another divisionmade a simultaneous irruption into the province of Alemtejo. This latterbody was quickly expelled from the kingdom and marched through Spanishterritory to join its more successful comrades in Northern Portugal. Thewhole province of Traz-os-Montes had fallen into the hands of theabsolutists in a few days, and its defection was followed by that of thenorthern part of Beira, when the arrival of British forces gave theconstitutional party the necessary encouragement to enable them toarrest the progress of the insurrection. 

As in 1823, the Portuguese government, represented in London byPalmella, applied for British assistance against the ultra-royalists athome. But on the present occasion Portugal was able to appeal tosomething more than the general friendship of Great Britain. By thetreaties of 1661 and 1703, renewed as recently as 1815, Great Britainwas bound to defend Portugal against invasion, and Portugal now claimedthe fulfilment of these treaties. The formal demand was received by theBritish ministry on December 3, but it was not till Friday, the 8th, that official intelligence was received of the invasion. Not a momentwas lost in despatching 5, 000 troops to Portugal. This resolution wasformed by the cabinet on the 9th, approved by the king on the 10th, andcommunicated to parliament on the 11th. On the evening of the 12thCanning was able to inform the house of commons that the troops werealready on the march for embarkation. 

The debate in the house of commons on the address in answer to the royalmessage announcing the request of the Portuguese government, was theoccasion of two of the most famous speeches that Canning ever delivered. After recounting the treaty obligations of this country to Portugal, andthe circumstances of the Portuguese application for assistance, anddisclaiming any desire to meddle with the domestic politics ofPortugal, he referred to a previous anticipation that the next Europeanwar would be one "not so much of armies as of opinions". "Not fouryears, " he proceeded, "have elapsed, and behold my apprehensionrealised! It is, to be sure, within narrow limits that this war ofopinion is at present confined: but it is a war of opinion that Spain(whether as government or as nation) is now waging against Portugal; itis a war which has commenced in hatred of the new institutions ofPortugal. How long is it reasonable to expect that Portugal will abstainfrom retaliation? If into that war this country shall be compelled toenter, we shall enter into it with a sincere and anxious desire tomitigate rather than exasperate, and to mingle only in the conflict ofarms, not in the more fatal conflict of opinions. But I much fear thatthis country (however earnestly she may endeavour to avoid it) couldnot, in such case, avoid seeing ranked under her banners all therestless and dissatisfied of any nation with which she might come inconflict. It is the contemplation of this new power in any future warwhich excites my most anxious apprehension. It is one thing to have agiant's strength, but it would be another to use it like a giant. Theconsciousness of such strength is undoubtedly a source of confidence andsecurity; but in the situation in which this country stands, ourbusiness is not to seek opportunities of displaying it, but to contentourselves with letting the professors of violent and exaggerateddoctrines on both sides feel that it is not their interests to convertan umpire into an adversary. "

In his reply at the close of the debate Canning vindicated hisconsistency in resisting Spanish aggression upon Portugal, whileoffering no resistance to the military occupation of Spain by France, which had not yet terminated. He pointed out that the Spain of his daywas quite different from "the Spain within the limits of whose empirethe sun never set--the Spain 'with the Indies' that excited thejealousies and alarmed the imaginations of our ancestors". He admittedthat the entry of the French into Spain was a disparagement to the prideof England, but he thought it had been possible to obtain compensationwithout offering resistance in Spain itself. Then came the famouspassage: "If France occupied Spain, was it necessary, in order to avoidthe consequences of that occupation, that we should blockade Cadiz? No. I looked another way--I sought materials of compensation in anotherhemisphere. Contemplating Spain, such as our ancestors had known her, Iresolved that if France had Spain, it should not be Spain 'with theIndies'. I called the new world into existence to redress the balance ofthe old. "[93]

[Pageheading: _TROOPS SENT TO PORTUGAL. _]

The two speeches were greeted with applause both in parliament and inthe country, but their vanity was excessive. So far from "creating thenew world, " Canning had merely recognised the existence of states whichhad already won their own independence, and even so he was onlyfollowing the example of the United States. It was not only extremelyfoolish, but altogether disingenuous, to maintain that the recognitionof the South American republics had been resolved on as a counterpoiseto French influence in Spain. The reasons which prompted thisrecognition were commercial, not political, and it had been announced tothe powers as our ultimate policy before any invasion of Spain had takenplace. The king had only consented to the step on condition that it wasnot to be represented as a measure of retaliation, and Canning himselfwhen he delivered these speeches knew that the French had promised toevacuate Spain in the following April. [94] But however little justifiedby facts, the two speeches made a profound impression throughout Europe. Whatever Canning might desire, it was quite clear that he contemplatedthe possibility of a military alliance between this country and therevolutionary factions on the continent, and the impression gainedground that he desired to pose as the champion of liberalism againstlegitimate government. 

The first detachment of the British army reached Lisbon on Christmasday. It was not destined, however, to play an active part in thePortuguese struggle. The insurgent army was as greatly discouraged asthe loyal troops were elated by its arrival, and the government wasmoreover enabled to employ a larger force on the scene of hostilities. The insurgents were in consequence driven out of the province of Beiraand the greater part of Traz-os-Montes. A new invasion from Spanishterritory, supported by some Spanish soldiers and Spanish artillery, took place during January, 1827. The greater part of the province of theMinho fell into the hands of the rebels, and on February 2 they capturedthe important town of Braga. But the forces of the regency proved toostrong for them, and early in March the insurgents evacuated Portugalaltogether. The Spanish government, now that little could be effected byfurther assistance to the Portuguese refugees, determined at length toperform the duties of a neutral power, and disarmed them. 

The British troops remained in Portugal till March, 1828. By that timethe disturbances had assumed a purely domestic character, and it wasultimately decided to recall them. But a firmer policy than thatactually followed would have been necessary in order to extricate GreatBritain from the strife of Portuguese factions, in which her recentaction had given a decided advantage to the constitutional party. Thatparty had been driven into opposition before the British troops wererecalled. On July 3, 1827, King Peter had issued a decree appointing DomMiguel his lieutenant, and investing him with all the powers whichbelonged to him as king under the charter. Miguel, after visitingLondon, arrived at Lisbon on February 22, 1828, and was sworn in asregent four days later. As he was twenty-five years old, and thereforeof full age according to Portuguese law, he could not with any show ofequity have been kept out of the regency longer. Miguel's installationas regent was followed by a series of riots as well on the part of theabsolutists, who desired to make him king, as on the part of theconstitutionalists who feared that he would make himself king. It wasnot long before he definitely identified himself with the absolutistparty. 

[Pageheading: _MIGUEL'S USURPATION. _]

On March 14 the cortes were dissolved. On May 3 Miguel summoned theancient cortes in his own name, and on June 26 they acknowledged him asking. The immediate result of this act was that all the ambassadors, except those of Spain and the Holy See, quitted Lisbon, and the lapse oftime did not induce them to change their attitude towards Miguel. Afurther complication was introduced by Peter's definite abdication infavour of his daughter on March 3, executed before he had any suspicionof Miguel's designs, which placed Miguel in the position of regent forhis infant niece instead of for his brother. After this formalabdication Peter despatched his daughter to Europe, intending that sheshould proceed to Vienna. When, however, she arrived at Gibraltar onSeptember 2, her conductors, hearing of Miguel's usurpation, determinedto take her to England, and she landed at Falmouth on the 24th. Peter, on hearing of Miguel's usurpation, naturally considered the regencyterminated, and claimed to act as the guardian of the infant queen; theBrazilian ministers in Europe acted as his agents, while his partisansassembled in England and attempted to use this country as a basis forwarlike operations in Portuguese territories. 

The situation of 1826 was thus reversed. Instead of an ultra-royalistparty resting on Spain, a constitutionalist party resting on Brazil andattempting to rest on England was now threatening the establishedgovernment at Lisbon. Wellington was anxious to maintain a strictneutrality, but he failed to prevent a ship of war and supplies of armsand ammunition going from Plymouth to Terceira in the Azores, whereDonna Maria was acknowledged as queen. He succeeded, however, inpreventing a larger armament, which had been raised under the name ofthe Emperor of Brazil, with Rio Janeiro as its nominal destination, fromlanding at Terceira. This action, though the logical consequence of theBritish opposition to the conduct of Spain in 1826, was severelycriticised in England as equivalent to an intervention on behalf ofMiguel. 

Meanwhile Canning's attempt to prevent the separate action of Russia inthe Eastern question had been doomed to disappointment. The destructionof the Turkish navy at Navarino was naturally regarded at Constantinopleas an outrage, and the Porte demanded satisfaction from the ambassadorsof the allied powers. This they refused to grant on the ground that theTurks had been the aggressors, and they in their turn demanded anarmistice between the Turkish troops and the Greek insurgents. As thePorte remained obdurate, the ambassadors of France, Great Britain, andRussia, acting in accordance with their instructions, leftConstantinople on December 8, 1827. But though war seemed imminent, thetsar still disowned all idea of conquest, and professed to desirenothing further than the execution of the treaty of London. A protocolwas accordingly signed on the 12th by which the three powers confirmeda clause in the treaty, providing that, in the event of war, none ofthem should derive any exclusive benefit, either commercial orterritorial. 

The British government imagined that the powers might still effect theirobject by diplomacy, and that it would not be necessary to abandon theTurkish alliance. But any such idea must have been rudely shaken by thehati-sherif of December 20. In that document the sultan enlarged on thecruelty and perfidy of the Christian powers and summoned the Muslimnations to arms: he denounced Russia in particular as the prime mover ofthe Greek rebellion, the instigator of the other powers, and thearch-enemy of Islam; and he declared the treaty of Akkerman, by whichthe outstanding disputes between Russia and the Porte had been settledin October, 1826, to have been extorted by force and only signed inorder to save time. This defiance of Russia, if not of all Christendom, was followed by a levy of Turkish troops and the expulsion of most ofthe Christian residents from Constantinople. No course was now open toRussia but to make war. It remained to be seen whether any other powerwould join her. On January 6, 1828, a Russian despatch announced thetsar's intention of occupying the Danubian principalities, and suggestedthat France and Great Britain should force the Dardanelles and thuscompel the Porte to comply with the provisions of the treaty of London. 

[Pageheading: _WELLINGTON'S EASTERN POLICY. _]

It is possible that if the direction of British foreign policy hadremained in the hands of Goderich and Dudley, our government might havelent its support to a settlement of the Eastern question which would ineffect have been the work of Russia only. The more daring policy ofCanning, by which Great Britain had attempted to take the lead asopportunity offered, either in active co-operation with Russia or inactive opposition to her, could only be directed by a more versatilestatesman than the nation now possessed. The accession to office ofWellington, though it left Dudley at the foreign office, was reallymarked by a return to the policy of Castlereagh, a policy which, if notbrilliant, was at least honourable, consistent, and considerate, andwhich in the hands of Wellington was managed with a sufficient measureof firmness, though with less tact and insight than had been shown byCastlereagh. The first object of this policy was to keep the specialgrievances of Russia distinct from the complaints which Europe at largeor, in the present situation, the three allied powers were able to bringagainst the Porte. By so doing the British government hoped to preventRussia from dragging other powers into a war for her private benefit, and also to render it impossible for Russia to use her specialgrievances as a lever by which she might effect a separate settlement ofthe general question. For some years this policy was successful. Russiadid indeed wage a separate war with the Turks, but the Greek questionwas settled by the three powers conjointly, and Great Britain ratherthan Russia took the lead in the settlement. It was only afterPalmerston had succeeded to the direction of our foreign policy in 1830, that it was discovered how far the victory of Russia in war had placedher in a position to dictate the general policy of the Ottoman court. 

Wellington experienced no difficulty in striking out a line of policyalong which he could carry France with him. On February 21 De laFerronays, who had been recalled from the French embassy at St. Petersburg to occupy the post of foreign minister in the new liberaladministration, which had been formed in France in December, 1827, despatched a note urging the immediate employment of energetic measuresagainst the Porte. He saw that the hati-sherif gave special occasion ofwar to Russia, and he was naturally anxious to anticipate her isolatedaction by combined measures of coercion. He had, however, nothing betterto suggest than the execution of the Russian proposals of January 6. Wellington, in his reply, dated the 26th, rightly minimised theseriousness of the hati-sherif, and characterised the proposed measuresof coercion as destined to be ineffectual. He also expressed the fearthat if the three powers combined to make war on the Turks there wouldbe a general insurrection of the subject races in the Turkish dominionswhich might last indefinitely. He therefore proposed first to settle theGreek question by local pressure, after which he anticipated no serioustrouble about events at Constantinople. On the same day he drafted amemorandum to the cabinet in which he proposed that the allied squadronsshould proceed to the Archipelago, blockade the Morea and Alexandria, destroy the Greek pirates, stop the warfare in Chios and Crete, and callupon the Greek government to withdraw the forces which were operatingin western and eastern Greece respectively under the command of twoforeign volunteers, General Church and Colonel Fabvier. In other words, he proposed to coerce not the Porte but the actual combatants, Greeceand Egypt, and to check each party where it was the aggressor. If theprime object of the government in the eastern question was themaintenance of order, these proposals were excellent. The one capitaldefect of the whole scheme was that it ignored the Russian desire forwar, which rendered it impossible for the tsar to postpone thesettlement of his own grievances until an arrangement should be come toon the Greek question; on the other hand, by isolating the Greekquestion, it left it possible for the western powers to proceed with itssolution in spite of the outbreak of hostilities between Russia and theTurks. [95]

[Pageheading: _WAR BETWEEN RUSSIA AND TURKEY. _]

Russia's determination to act singly was, however, already made. On thesame day, February 26, on which Wellington sketched his policy, Nesselrode issued a despatch declaring that war was inevitable, including among his reasons the repudiation of recent treaties by thePorte and the proclamation by it of a holy war. At the same time heendeavoured to disarm any possible opposition on the part of the powersby an invitation to them to make use of the coming war to carry out thetreaty of London. In any case Russia would execute the treaty, but ifshe were left to herself, the manner of execution would be determined byher own convenience and interest. [96] So far Russia had done nothingdirectly inconsistent with the maintenance of her concert with Franceand Great Britain, whose representatives had been sitting in conferencewith hers at London since January, 1827. But the reference in this lastnote to the possibility of a settlement of the Greek question accordingto the convenience and interest of Russia appeared like a threat ofbreaking up the alliance in case France and Great Britain refused tosend their fleets to the Mediterranean. At least Wellington sounderstood it, and, rather than be a party to the war, he dissolved theconference of London in the middle of March. But he soon found that byso doing he lost the co-operation of France, and he was thereforecompelled to accept the assurances of Russia that she intended to keepwithin the limits of the treaty of London, and to regard theMediterranean as a neutral area. The conference was in consequencereopened at the beginning of July. Meanwhile hostilities had actuallybegun between Russia and the Turks. Russia declared war on April 26. OnMay 7 her troops crossed the Pruth. They rapidly overran the Danubianprovinces, and on June 7 crossed the Danube into Bulgaria. They weredestined, however, to spend more than a year between the Danube and theBalkans before they could force their way into Rumelia. 

During the interval considerable progress was made with the settlementof the Greek question. The treaty of London in providing for theautonomy of Greece had specified no boundaries, and the first problemdemanding the attention of the powers that had assumed the task of thesettlement of Greece was to determine the limits within which thatsettlement was to be effected. It might be urged that all the Greeks whohad accepted the armistice imposed by the powers in consequence of thetreaty of London had a right to share in the settlement at which thattreaty aimed. But the armistice had been broken by Greek attacks onChios and Crete, and Wellington held that the powers were, inconsequence, free from any obligation imposed by the nominal acceptanceof the armistice. He, accordingly, desired to adopt the simple principleof granting the proposed autonomy to those parts of Greece in which theinsurrection had proved successful, namely, the Morea and the ĆgeanIslands, and refusing it in Northern and Central Greece, where theTurkish forces still held their own. But the British cabinet was farfrom being unanimous; many, among whom Palmerston was speciallyprominent, urged the concession of a greatly increased territory. Thechanges which took place in the British ministry towards the end of May, 1828, deprived Palmerston of his share in its deliberations, and bysubstituting Aberdeen for Dudley at the foreign office, placed ourforeign relations under the direction of a man of talent and experience, who had already exercised an important influence on British policy andwho was more in sympathy with the policy of the prime minister thanDudley had been, but who was not content, like Dudley, to be a merecipher in the department over which he was called to preside. Aberdeen, though opposed to the narrow boundaries which Wellington wished toassign to liberated Greece, was no less antagonistic than his chief toany attempt to make the new Greek state politically important; and hewas even of opinion that the Russian declaration of war had releasedGreat Britain from any further obligation under the treaty of London. 

Such were the composition and policy of the British government when theconference of London reassembled in July. The differences between thepowers had prevented any active intervention in Greece, since the battleof Navarino. The ports in the Morea, still occupied by Ibrahim, hadindeed been blockaded, but it had been found impossible to induceAustrian vessels to acknowledge a blockade of such questionablelegality, and the allied fleets had even permitted the embarkation ofIbrahim's sick and wounded together with 5, 500 Greek prisoners, who weresold into slavery on their arrival at Alexandria. The renewal of theconcert of the three powers was followed by a rapid change in thesituation. On the 19th it was decided that France should send anexpedition to expel the Turco-Egyptian troops from the Morea, whileGreat Britain should render her any naval assistance that might benecessary. This step was valued by the British government as definitelycommitting France to a share in the settlement of the Greek question, and therefore interesting that power in opposition to any attempt at aseparate settlement by Russia. It also furnished a safe outlet forFrench military ardour, disappointed by the results of the Spanishexpedition. In fact, the evacuation of Spain, which was in progress atthe date when this agreement was concluded, materially reduced thestrain which the new undertaking imposed upon the French government. France immediately prepared to send out a force amounting to nearly22, 000 men. But before they could arrive, the greater part of their taskhad been performed by other hands. 

[Pageheading: _TURKS EXPELLED FROM THE MOREA. _]

Codrington's conduct in permitting the embarkation of the Turkish sickand wounded with their prisoners had given great dissatisfaction athome, and the cabinet had resolved on his recall before the ministerialcrisis of the latter part of May. That crisis occasioned a fortnight'sdelay, and, in consequence, Codrington was able, before his successorarrived, to make a naval demonstration before Alexandria and on August 6to obtain the consent of Mehemet Ali to the following proposals: anexchange of prisoners was to take place, involving the liberation ofthe recently enslaved Greeks, and the Egyptian army was to be withdrawnfrom the Morea, but Ibrahim was to be allowed to leave behind 1, 200Egyptian troops to help to garrison five fortresses which were held bythe Turks. Before either the new London protocol or the Alexandriaconvention could be carried into effect, further differences had arisen. Russia had proclaimed a blockade of the Dardanelles and ordered heradmiral to carry it out. This proceeding was regarded by the Britishgovernment as a breach of faith and a menace to British commerce. Itwas, however, impossible to abandon co-operation with Russia for fearthat the Greek question might become involved in the issues at stakebetween her and the Porte. Wellington, in consequence, contented himselfwith obtaining certain exemptions from the operation of the blockade onbehalf of British subjects trading with Turkey, and with the exclusionof the Russian fleet from the operations conducted in the Mediterraneanin accordance with the orders of the London conference. The French forcefor expelling the Egyptians from the Morea arrived almost simultaneouslywith the Egyptian transports for removing them. On October 5 Ibrahim setsail for Egypt, with 21, 000 men, leaving 1, 200 behind in the fivefortresses in accordance with the terms settled at Alexandria. TheFrench began their attack on the remaining fortresses two days later, and by the end of November had expelled all the Turks from the Morea. Bythe terms of their engagements, they ought now to have departed. But itwas hardly to be expected that France would so readily abandon theadvantage that the presence of her troops gave her in the settlement ofthe eastern question. 

Meanwhile the negotiations made slow progress. On November 16 a protocolwas issued placing the Morea with the neighbouring islands under theguarantee of the powers. Wellington had opposed any extension of theguarantee to Central Greece on the ground that the allies had to provideboth the necessary military force and the cost of maintaining the Greekgovernment, so that any undertaking beyond the Morea would involve heavyexpense without rendering lighter the task of maintaining order. But thereal decision of the question lay not with the diplomatists at London, but with the diplomatists on the spot. Representatives of the threepowers had been sent to Poros to make detailed arrangements inaccordance with the terms of the treaty of London. Stratford Canning, who represented Great Britain, was one of the supporters of an extendedfrontier, and in the end the ambassadors at Poros drew up a protocol infavour of erecting Greece south of a line connecting the Gulfs of Artaand Volo into a hereditary principality, which was also to includenearly all the islands. Even Samos and Crete were recommended to thebenevolent consideration of the courts. All Mohammedans were to beexpelled from this territory. The tribute payable to Turkey was to befixed at 1, 500, 000 piastres, but this was to be paid not to the Turkishgovernment, but to those who might suffer pecuniary loss by theconfiscation of lands hitherto owned by Mohammedans. 

[Pageheading: _PEACE OF ADRIANOPLE. _]

The spring of 1829 was marked by events which went far to cancel thearguments on which Wellington had based his case for a restrictedfrontier. Not only the north coast of the Gulf of Corinth but Acarnaniaand Ćtolia were liberated by the Greek forces under Sir Richard Churchthe castle of Vonitza falling on March 17, Karavasara shortlyafterwards, Lepanto on April 30, and Mesolongi on May 17. [97] Meanwhilethe terms agreed upon at Poros had been adopted and further defined bythe conference at London on March 22. It was now provided that thefuture hereditary prince was to be chosen by the three powers and thesultan conjointly, and that the terms were to be offered to the Porte bythe British and French ambassadors in the name of the three powers; anyTurkish objections were to be weighed. [98] It was not till June thatRobert Gordon and Guilleminot, representing Great Britain and Francerespectively, were able to lay these proposals before the Porte, and itwas only after a Russian army under Diebitsch had crossed the Balkansthat the Porte on August 15 accepted them, and even then only withextensive modifications. These limited the new state to the Morea andthe adjacent islands, and left the tribute assigned to the same purposesas before the revolt; a limit was to be set to the military and navalforces of Greece, and Greeks were not to be allowed to migrate fromTurkish dominions to the new state. 

Wellington was of opinion that these concessions were adequate. Heattached great importance to the consent of the Porte, to dispense withwhich seemed to him a sure method of encouraging a general revolt in theTurkish dominions; and he also advocated a limited frontier in theinterests of the Ionian Islands. He doubted whether it would be foundpossible to remove Capodistrias, who had been elected president ofGreece for a period of seven years on April 14, 1827, from his office tomake room for a hereditary prince, and he felt sure that if Capodistriaswere once granted Central Greece he would not hesitate to attempt theconquest of the Ionian Islands. Capodistrias had in fact refused toaccept any of the arrangements proposed by the London conference, andwas still engaged in the vigorous prosecution of the war. Wellington didnot, however, succeed in inducing France and Russia to remain contentwith the Turkish concessions. Diebitsch's successful march throughRumelia encouraged Russia to demand more, and filled the minds of theFrench ministers with the wildest schemes of aggression. They actuallyproposed to Russia that the northern part of the Balkan peninsula shouldbe divided between Austria and Russia while the whole peninsula south ofthe Balkans, with Bulgaria to the north, was to be formed into a newstate under the sovereignty of the King of the Netherlands, whosehereditary dominions were in their turn to be divided between France, Great Britain, and Prussia. 

Such chimerical projects were based on the assumption thatConstantinople lay at the mercy of the army of Diebitsch; and this wasbelieved to be the case not only by the court of Paris, but by that ofLondon, and even by that of Constantinople. But no one knew better thanDiebitsch how precarious his situation was, and, if Russia wished toobtain advantageous terms, it was necessary for her to make the most ofthe illusion while it lasted. On September 14 the peace of Adrianoplewas signed, which established the virtual independence of theprincipalities of Moldavia and Wallachia and secured for all powers atpeace with Turkey a free passage for merchant ships through theBosphorus and Dardanelles; Russia received a small addition to herAsiatic territories, and Turkey accepted both the treaty of London ofJuly 6, 1827, and the protocol of London of March 22, 1829. Thedifficulties raised by Turkey's opposition to the full terms of theprotocol were thus swept aside, and it was now clear that, if thatprotocol was to be further modified, it would be modified out of regardfor the interests of Europe not by way of concession to Turkey. Franceand Great Britain were naturally averse from a settlement of thequestion by Russia alone, even when that settlement was on lines towhich they had given their consent, and they might have been expected topropose some alteration in the scheme. But the conciliatory action ofRussia rendered such proposals needless. On September 29, only fifteendays after the treaty, Aberdeen received a formal proposal from Russiathat Turkey should be offered a restriction of the Greek boundary inreturn for a recognition of the total independence of Greece. [99] Thisproposal removed Wellington's fear that the new principality might beused as a basis for an attack on the Ionian Islands; while themaintenance of Turkish suzerainty seemed less important after theapparent prostration of Turkish military power in the recent war. 

It now remained for the allied powers to select a prince to whom the newcrown should be offered. This subject engaged their attention fromOctober, 1829, to January, 1830. Finally, Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, widower of the Princess Charlotte, was selected, greatly to theannoyance of King George IV. On February 3 Prince Leopold was formallyoffered the sovereignty of Greece as an independent state, bounded onthe north by a line drawn from the mouth of the Aspropotamo toThermopylć. Before accepting the crown he made an effort to obtain astronger position for its future prince. He asked for a completeguarantee of independence from the three powers, some security for theGreek inhabitants of Crete and Samos, an extension of the boundary tothe north, and financial and military support. The powers on February 20decided to grant the guarantee and a loan of Ł2, 400, 000, and to allowthe French troops to remain in Greece for another year, but refused theextension of territory and would not recognise the right of the Greekstate to interfere in the affairs of Crete and Samos. Leopold acceptedthe crown on these conditions on February 24, and they were accepted bythe Porte on April 24. Capodistrias, who had no desire to make way foranother ruler, invited Leopold to the country, but suggested that hewould not be well received and that he would have to change hisreligion. [100] These considerations, combined with other causes, inducedhim to renounce the crown on May 21. 

[Pageheading: _FRANCE CONQUERS ALGERIA. _]

One other foreign event exercised the minds of Wellington's cabinetduring the last months of George IV. 's reign. This was the Frenchpunitive expedition to Algiers, which resulted In the conquest of thatstate. The expedition was originally planned in concert with Mehemet Aliof Egypt, and appeared to Wellington to be prompted by the idea that thedefeat of the Turks by Russia afforded a convenient opportunity for apartition of Turkish territory. The British government was able by meansof diplomatic pressure to induce Mehemet Ali to refrain fromco-operating, but it could not deny the justice of the French expeditionor prevent it from sailing. 

FOOTNOTES:

[93] Stapleton, _Life of Canning_, iii. , 220-25, 227-35. 

[94] See Lloyd, _Transactions of the Royal Historical Society_, N. S. , xviii. (1904), 77-105. 

[95] Wellington, _Despatches, etc. _, iv. , 270-79. 

[96] _Ibid. _, pp. 280-86. 

[97] So S. Lane-Poole, writing from Church's papers, _English HistoricalReview_, v. , 519. 

[98] Hertslet, _Map of Europe by Treaty_, p. 142. 

[99] Wellington, _Despatches, etc. _, vi. , 184. 

[100] See the letters in the _Annual Register_, lxxii. (1830), 389-401. 

 CHAPTER XIII. 

 PRELUDE OF REFORM. 

The year that elapsed between the prorogation of parliament on June 24, 1829, and the death of George IV. , on June 26, 1830, was barren inevents of domestic importance. While Ireland was torn by faction, andthe Orangemen of Ulster rivalled in lawlessness the catholics of theother provinces, England was undergoing another period of agriculturaland commercial depression. The harvest of 1829 was late and bad; thewinter that followed was the severest known for sixteen years; and afresh series of outrages was committed by the distressed operatives, especially by the silk weavers in the east of London and the mill handsin the midland counties. In the district of Huddersfield, where thepeople bore their sufferings with admirable patience, a committee ofmasters stated as a fact that "there were 13, 000 individuals who had notmore than twopence half-penny a day to live on". When parliament met onFebruary 4, 1830, the prevailing distress was recognised in the king'sspeech, but in guarded terms, and the ministers attributed it in themain, probably with justice, to unavoidable causes. This gave theenemies of free trade and currency reform an opportunity of renewingtheir protests against Peel's and Huskisson's financial policy. Theyfailed to effect their object, but Goulburn, the chancellor of theexchequer, initiated a considerable reduction of expenditure andremission of taxes. The excise duties on beer, cider, and leather werenow totally remitted, those on spirits being somewhat increased. Thegovernment even deliberated on the proposal of a property tax, and, stimulated by a motion of Sir James Graham, actually carried out largesavings in official salaries. On the whole, this session was the mostfruitful in economy since the conclusion of the peace. The system ofjudicature, too, was subjected to a salutary revision throughout GreatBritain by the amalgamation of the English and Welsh benches, and theconcentration of courts in Scotland. As the charter of the East IndianCompany was about to expire, a strong committee was appointed toconsider the whole subject of its territorial powers and commercialprivileges. This committee was not the least beneficial result of asession which has left no great mark on the statute-book. 

[Pageheading: _MOVEMENT FOR REFORM. _]

The weakness of Wellington's position had long since become apparent toall. By his conduct in regard to catholic emancipation he had estrangeda powerful section of his tory followers. By his jealousy and haughtyattitude towards his whig allies, he had forfeited their good-will, never very heartily given. By his treatment of Huskisson, a small butable body of politicians was thrown into the ranks of a discordantopposition. No one else could have induced the king to give way oncatholic emancipation, but the king had not forgiven him, and submittedto him out of fear rather than out of confidence. Though singularlydeficient in rhetorical power, he still maintained his ascendency in thehouse of lords by the aid of more eloquent colleagues, but Peel was hisonly efficient lieutenant in the house of commons. The vacancy in theoffice of lord privy seal, occasioned by the transference ofEllenborough to the board of control, had at last been filled in June, 1829, by the appointment of Lord Rosslyn, nephew of the first earl, who, however, added nothing to the strength of the ministry. In the meantime, reform had succeeded catholic emancipation as the one burning questionof politics, but with this all-important difference that it rousedenthusiasm in the popular mind. Political unions, like the branches ofthe catholic association, were springing up all over the country, and aseries of motions was made in the house of commons which feeblyreflected the feverish agitation in all the active centres ofpopulation. One of these, brought forward by the Marquis of Blandford, who had made a similar motion in the previous year, was really promptedby enmity against the author of catholic emancipation. Another, introduced by Lord Howick, son of Earl Grey, called for some general andcomprehensive measure to remedy the admitted abuses of the electoralsystem. A third, and far more practical, attempt was made by Lord JohnRussell to obtain the enfranchisement of Manchester, Leeds, andBirmingham. A fourth, and perfectly futile proposal, was made byO'Connell, in the shape of a bill for triennial parliaments, universalsuffrage, and vote by ballot, to which Russell moved a statesmanlikeamendment, in favour of transferring members from petty boroughs tocounties and great unrepresented towns. All these motions were defeatedby larger or smaller majorities, but no one doubted that parliamentaryreform was inevitable, and few can have imagined that Wellington waseither willing or competent to grapple with it. 

While domestic affairs were in this state, George IV. Died. Hisconstitution, weakened by many years of self-indulgence, had beenfurther depressed by a growing sense of loneliness and by the longstruggle with his ministers over catholic emancipation. On April 15 hisillness had been made public, and on May 24 it had been necessary tobring in a bill, authorising the use of a stamp, to be affixed in hispresence in lieu of the royal sign manual. A month later, the disease ofthe heart from which he suffered took a fatal turn, and on June 26 hepassed away, not without dignity, in the sixty-eighth year of his age. Perhaps no other English king has been so harshly judged by posterity, nor is it possible to acquit him of moral vices which outweighed all hismerits, considerable as they were. The Duke of Wellington, who knew himas well as any man, declared that he was a marvellous compound ofvirtues and defects, but that, on the whole, the good elementspreponderated. Peel, who had become by his father's death Sir Robert, testified in Parliament that he "never exercised, or wished to exercise, a prerogative of the crown, except for the advantage of his people". These estimates assuredly err on the side of charity, and are quiteinconsistent with other statements of the duke himself. 

George IV. , it is true, possessed many royal gifts. He was a man of noordinary ability, with a fine presence, courtly manners, variousaccomplishments, and clear-sighted intelligence on every subject withinthe sphere of his duties. But all these kingly qualities were marred bya heartlessness which rendered him incapable of true love or friendship, and a duplicity which made it impossible for him to retain the respectof his ministers. His private life was not wholly unlike that of theRegent Orléans and had much the same influence on the society of themetropolis. He was an undutiful son, a bad husband, a perfidious friend, with little sense of truth or honour, and destitute of that publicspirit which atoned for the political obstinacy of his father. No onesincerely regretted his death, except the favourites who had beenenriched by his extravagance, and actually succeeded in carrying off alarge booty out of the valuables that he had amassed. Nevertheless, hisregency is identified with a glorious period in our military history, and his reign ushered in a new age of reform and national prosperity. Inthe great struggle against Napoleon and the pacification of Europe hegave his ministers a cordial and effective support. To catholicemancipation he was honestly opposed, but he kept his opposition withinconstitutional limits, and his intense selfishness did not exclude acertain sentiment of philanthropy and even of patriotism. 

[Pageheading: _THE ACCESSION OF WILLIAM IV. _]

His successor, William IV. , was greatly inferior to him intellectually, and infinitely less conversant with the business of state. Most of thisprince's early life was spent at sea, where he saw a fair share ofservice, and became the friend of Nelson, but incurred his father'sdispleasure by infringing the rules of discipline. Having been createdDuke of Clarence in 1789, he was rapidly promoted in the navy, butremained on shore without employment for some forty years before hisaccession, taking an occasional part in debates of the house of lords, and generally acting with the whig party. During this long period he waslittle regarded by his future subjects, and led a somewhat obscure life, at first in the company of Mrs. Jordan, by whom he had a numerousfamily. After his marriage with the Princess Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningenin 1818, he became a more important personage, and, as we have seen, wasmade lord high admiral by Canning, but held office for little more thana year. He was thus entirely destitute of political training, and wasliving in privacy when he was called to ascend the throne on the eve ofa singularly momentous crisis. 

The session was prolonged until July 23, when parliament was proroguedby the new king in person, and on the following day a dissolution wasproclaimed, the writs being made returnable on September 14. During themonth that elapsed between the death of George IV. And the prorogation, no serious business was done, but the leaders of opposition in bothhouses moved to provide for a regency, in view of a possible demise ofthe crown before a fresh parliament could be assembled. This course wasclearly dictated by the highest expediency, for, had the king's lifebeen cut short suddenly, the young Princess Victoria, then eleven yearsold, would have become sovereign with full powers, but withoutprotection against the baleful influence of her uncle, the Duke ofCumberland, the least trustworthy person in the realm. In advocating it, however, the whigs showed an evident disposition to win the favour ofWilliam IV. , who had never broken away, like his predecessor, from hiswhig connexion. These motions were defeated, but the opposition gainedpopularity at the expense of the government, by raising debates oncertain state prosecutions for libel, and on the question of colonialslavery. Their position was further strengthened by a widespreadimpression that the king himself was a reformer at heart, and wouldseize an early opportunity of declaring his sentiments. His weakness hadnot yet disclosed itself, while his kindliness earned him goldenopinions, as he "walked in London streets with his umbrella under hisarm, and gave a frank and sailor-like greeting to all oldacquaintances". 

The election of 1830, following close on the revolution of July inParis, was the death-blow of the old tory rule in England. Thewidespread sympathy which the original uprising of 1789 had excitedamong Englishmen, but which the atrocities of jacobinism had quenched, was now revived by the comparatively bloodless victory of constitutionalprinciples and the accession of a citizen-king in France. The growingenthusiasm for reform, thus stimulated, exercised a decisive effect inall the constituencies except the pocket-boroughs. Brougham was returnedwithout opposition for Yorkshire, and Hume by a large majority forMiddlesex, two brothers of Sir Robert Peel lost their seats, and Crokerwas defeated for Dublin University. Distrust of the government wasequally shown in the counties and in the great cities, but in someinstances ultra-tories were elected, in revenge for catholicemancipation or for alleged neglect of agricultural interests. It wascalculated that fifty seats, in all, had changed hands, and theparliament which assembled in October 26 was very different inconstitution and temper from any of those which supported toryministries with unshaken constancy during the great war and the longperiod of agitation consequent on the peace. 

The losses of the government in Great Britain, partly due to its Irishpolicy, were not compensated by any gain in Ireland, which did not failto display the ingratitude so often experienced by its benefactors. Catholic emancipation was now treated as a vantage ground on which thebattle of repeal might be waged. Association after association wasformed by O'Connell, only to be put down by proclamation and tore-appear under another name. The worst passions of the people wereeffectually roused, assassinations became frequent, and Peel'scorrespondence with Hardinge, then chief secretary, shows that he fullyrecognised the failure of his experiment, as a cure for Irishanarchy. [101] In the course of this new agitation, O'Connell used mostoffensive expressions for which Hardinge called him to account. Thechief secretary's act may have been unjustifiable, but the shuffling andfaint-hearted conduct of O'Connell in declining this and laterchallenges provoked by his foul language was fatal to his reputation forcourage. The most insolent of bullies, he never failed to consult hisown personal safety, by professing conscientious objections to duelling, as well as by keeping just outside the meshes of the criminal law. 

[Pageheading: _THE DEATH OF HUSKISSON. _]

A few weeks before parliament met a tragical accident closed the life ofHuskisson, whose death was rendered all the more impressive by itscircumstances. In 1825 the idea of railways for the rapid conveyance ofgoods and passengers bore fruit in an act for the construction of a linebetween Liverpool and Manchester. It was not in itself a new idea, fortramways had long been in use, and so far back as 1814 George Stephensonhad constructed a locomotive engine for a colliery. But it was generallybelieved that such engines must always be limited to a speed of a fewmiles an hour, and even the great engineer, Telford, giving evidencebefore a committee in 1825, did not venture to speak of a higher maximumspeed than fifteen or twenty miles an hour. Few indeed were far-sightedenough to credit this estimate, and the incredulity of ignorance wasaided by the forces of self-interest, for the profits of canals, stage-coaches, and carriers' vans were directly threatened by theinnovation of railways. However, George Stephenson quietly persevered, and from the moment that his pioneer engine, the "Rocket, " won the prizein a great competition of locomotives, "the old modes of transit werechanged throughout the whole civilised world". On September 15, 1830, the first public trial of this and other engines was made at the openingof the Liverpool and Manchester railway. Wellington, Peel, and othereminent personages were present, among whom was Huskisson, just returnedfor Liverpool. Two trains proceeded towards Manchester on parallellines, and stopped at the Parkgate station. There several passengers gotout, and Huskisson was making his way to shake hands with the duke whenhe was struck by a carriage of the other train, already in movement, fell upon the rails, and was fatally crushed. He bore his sufferingswith great fortitude, but died during the night at a neighbouringvicarage to which he was carried. He could ill be spared by his party, for, though he was not the man to ride the storm which raged over thereform bill, his counsels might have saved the whigs from the justreproach of financial incapacity and have hastened the advent of freetrade. 

[Pageheading: _WELLINGTON ON REFORM. _]

The winter session of 1830 opened with an ominous calm. It was believedthat private negotiations were going on between the ministry and thesurvivors of Canning's following, which might result in a moderatescheme of parliamentary reform. These expectations were utterlydiscomfited by the king's speech delivered on November 2. It hasunjustly been described as "the most offensive that had been uttered byany monarch since the revolution". On the contrary, it was tame andcolourless for the most part, recording his majesty's resolution touphold treaties and enforce order in the United Kingdom, but welcomingthe new French monarchy in terms which Grey emphatically commended. Itgave offence to liberals by describing the revolutionary movement inBelgium as a "revolt"; but what called forth an immediate outburst ofpopular resentment was its significant reticence on the subject ofreform. This resentment was aggravated tenfold by the Duke ofWellington's celebrated speech in the lords, declaring against anyreform whatever. The duke always refused to admit that this declarationwas the cause of his subsequent fall, which he attributed, bypreference, to his adoption of catholic emancipation. Speakingdeliberately in reply to Grey, who had indicated reform as the only trueremedy for popular discontent, the duke stated that no measure of reformyet proposed would, in his opinion, improve the representative systemthen existing, which, he said, "answered all the good purposes oflegislation" to a greater degree than "any legislature in any countrywhatever". He went further, and avowed his conviction not only that thissystem "possessed the full and entire confidence of the country, " butalso that no better system could be devised by the wit of man. Itsspecial virtue, according to him, consisted in the fact of its producinga representative assembly which "contained a large body of the propertyof the country, and in which the landed interests had a preponderatinginfluence". Finally, he protested that he would never bring forward areform measure himself, and that "he should always feel it his duty toresist such measures when proposed by others". 

There is no reason to suppose that the duke had consulted any of hiscolleagues before making this declaration. Indeed, it is known that Peelhad just before received a confidential offer of co-operation incarrying a moderate reform bill from Palmerston, Edward Stanley, grandson of the Earl of Derby, Sir James Graham, and the Grants; nor hadthese overtures been definitely rejected. [102] Some lame attempts weremade to clear the cabinet, as a whole, from responsibility for theirchief's outspoken opinions, and Peel cautiously limited himself to adoubt whether any safe measure of reform would satisfy the reformers. But he would not separate himself from Wellington, and Wellington'sultimatum remained unretracted. 

Brougham at once gave notice of his intention to bring forward thequestion of parliamentary reform in a fortnight. In the meantime theduke had committed a mistake which irritated the people, and especiallythe inhabitants of London. It happened that the king and queen, with theministers, were engaged to dine with the lord mayor on November 9. Threedays earlier, the lord mayor-elect warned the prime minister that a riotwas apprehended on that occasion, that an attempt would probably bemade to assassinate him, and that it would be desirable to come attendedby a strong military guard. Upon this intimation, confirmed by others, the cabinet most unwisely decided not to surround the mansion house witha large armed force, but to put off the king's visit to the city. Apanic naturally ensued, consols fell three per cent. In an hour and ahalf, and the disorderly classes achieved a victory without running thesmallest risk. There were local disturbances in the evening, and theduke arranged to join Peel at the home office, in case decisive measuresshould be required, but the new police were too strong for the mob, andthe whole affair passed off quietly, though not without involving thegovernment in some ridicule. The Marquis Wellesley, now in opposition tohis brother, declared the postponement of the dinner to be "the boldestact of cowardice" within his knowledge. 

If Wellington sought to conciliate the ultra-tories by his unfortunatespeech, he was soon undeceived. While Brougham's motion was pending, thegovernment proposed a revision of the civil list which purported toeffect slight economies for the benefit of the public. It was objected, however, that a greater reduction of charges should have beencontemplated, and that parliament should have been invited to deal withthe revenues derived from the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, which, as Peel explained, formed no part of those placed at the disposal ofparliament. Sir Henry Parnell moved to refer the civil list to a selectcommittee; the chancellor of the exchequer directly opposed the motion, and, after a short discussion, a division was taken on November 15. Theresult, which had been foreseen, was a majority of twenty-nine againstthe government in a house of 437 members. There were many defectionsamong the discontented tories, and the Wellington ministry preferred tofall on an issue of minor importance, rather than await a decisivecontest on the reform question. On the following day, therefore, boththe duke and Peel announced the acceptance of their resignations, and itwas known that Grey had received the king's command to form a newadministration. 

[Pageheading: _GREY ACCEPTS OFFICE. _]

Grey was the inevitable head of any cabinet empowered to carryparliamentary reform. His dignified presence, his stately eloquence, hisunblemished character, and his parliamentary experience, marked him outfor leadership, and disguised his want of practical acquaintance withthe middle and lower classes of his countrymen. His political career, ranging over forty-four years, though not destitute of errors, had beenperfectly consistent. From the first he was a staunch adherent of Fox;he was among the managers who conducted the prosecution of WarrenHastings; his connexion with the Society of the Friends of the People, and his advocacy of reform during Pitt's first administration aredescribed in the preceding volume of this history. On Pitt's death hebecame closely associated with Grenville; it will be remembered that hejoined his short-lived government, originally as first lord of theadmiralty, and afterwards as Fox's successor at the foreign office. Itwas he who carried through the house of commons the bill for theabolition of the slave trade, and it may truly be said that, inopposition, he was equally persistent in supporting every measure infavour of liberty, political or commercial, and in resisting everymeasure, necessary or otherwise, which could be interpreted asrestricting it. We have seen how he more than once declined overturesfor a coalition with his opponents, and showed a bitter personalantipathy to Canning, whom he was more than suspected of despising as abrilliant plebeian adventurer. This suspicion of aristocratic prejudice, ill harmonising with democratic principles, had never been quitedispelled, and was now to be confirmed by the composition of his owncabinet. 

All the members of this cabinet, with four exceptions, sat in the houseof lords. No cabinet had contained so few commoners since thereconstruction of Liverpool's ministry in 1822. Of the four who now satin the house of commons, Lord Althorp was heir-apparent to an earldom;Lord Palmerston was an Irish peer; Graham was a baronet of greatterritorial influence; Charles Grant was still a commoner, though he wasafterwards raised to the peerage. In the distribution of offices, fulljustice was done to Canning's followers. Three of these occupied postsof the highest importance, Palmerston at the foreign office, Lamb, whohad succeeded his father as Viscount Melbourne in 1828, at the homeoffice, and Goderich at the colonial office, while Grant becamepresident of the board of control. The selection of Graham as first lordof the admiralty did not escape criticism, but was due to his triedenergy in financial reform, and was justified by the result. Lansdownewas made president of the council, and Holland chancellor of the duchyof Lancaster. Both of these had been Grey's colleagues in theadministration of "All the Talents". Althorp, who succeeded Goulburn atthe exchequer, and Carlisle, who accepted a seat in the cabinet withoutoffice, were both whigs of tried fidelity. But the Duke of Richmond, thenew postmaster-general, was a deserter from the tory ranks, and LordDurham, the premier's son-in-law, the new lord privy seal, was a radicalof the most aggressive type, well qualified, as the event proved, todisturb the peace of any council to which he might be admitted. Threeoccupants of places outside the cabinet remain to be mentioned. One ofthese, the Marquis Wellesley, had been a warm supporter of catholicemancipation when the Duke of Wellington stoutly opposed it, and hisbrother's conversion on that question had not affected his own relationswith the whig party, which now welcomed him as lord steward. Lord JohnRussell, the new paymaster of the forces, had identified himself asprominently as Grey himself with the promotion of parliamentary reform, and Stanley, the new chief secretary for Ireland, was probably selectedfor his brilliant powers in debate, as the natural and most worthyantagonist of the great demagogue, O'Connell. 

[Pageheading: _BROUGHAM BECOMES CHANCELLOR. _]

But the most formidable of all the "radical reformers" still remained tobe conciliated, and provided with a post which might satisfy hisrestless ambition. At the end of 1830 Brougham was in the plenitude ofhis marvellous powers, and in the zenith of his unique popularity. Asmember for the great county of York, returned free of expense on theshoulders of the people, he already occupied the foremost position amongBritish commoners, and it was feared that he might use it for his ownpurposes in a dictatorial spirit. He had recently declared in Yorkshirethat "nothing on earth should ever tempt him to accept place, " and thathe was conscious of the power to compel the execution of measures which, before that democratic election, he could only "ventilate". So late asNovember 16, he assured the house of commons that "no change in theadministration could by any possibility affect him, " adding that hewould bring forward his motion for parliamentary reform on the 25th, whatever might then be the state of affairs, and whatever ministersshould then be in office. The great whig peers were most anxious tokeep him out of the cabinet without losing his support, or, still worse, provoking his active hostility. With this view, Grey indiscreetlyoffered him the attorney-generalship, and we cannot be surprised thatBrougham rejected the offer with some indignation and disdain. It was nosecret that his supreme desire was to become master of the rolls--anoffice compatible with a seat in the house of commons--but his futurecolleagues well knew that, in that case, they would be at his mercy inthe house. Thereupon it was suggested, probably by the king himself, that it might be the less of two dangers to entrust him with the greatseal, which Lord Lyndhurst was quite prepared to resume under a fourthpremier. Accordingly, it was known on November 20 that Brougham was tobe the whig lord chancellor, and on the 22nd he actually took his placeon the woolsack. His title was Baron Brougham and Vaux, but, though helived to retain it for nearly forty years, he always preferred, withpardonable vanity, to sign his name as "Henry Brougham". 

Before the close of 1830 the new ministers found time to carry a regencybill, whereby the Duchess of Kent (unless she married a foreigner) wasto be regent in the event of the Princess Victoria succeeding to thecrown during her minority. Having adopted the watchword of "Peace, Retrenchment, and Reform, " they gave an earnest of their zeal forretrenchment by instituting a parliamentary inquiry into the possiblereduction of official salaries, including their own. The defeat ofStanley by "Orator" Hunt at Preston was a warning against undue relianceon popular confidence, for Preston was already a highly democraticconstituency, largely composed of ignorant "potwallopers". A similar butmore emphatic warning came from Ireland, where O'Connell did his utmostto insult and defy Anglesey, the new lord-lieutenant, in spite of hissacrifices for catholic emancipation, and his well-known sympathy withthe cause of reform. In the southern counties of England, too, violentdisturbances had broken out, and were marked by all the ferocity andterrorism characteristic of luddism in the manufacturing districts. Theyspread from Kent, Sussex, and Surrey into Hampshire, Wiltshire, Berkshire, and Buckinghamshire. In these four counties there was awanton and wholesale destruction of agricultural machinery, offarm-buildings, and especially of ricks, as if the misery of labourerscould possibly be cured by impoverishing their only employers. Therioters moved about in large organised bodies, and their anarchicalpassions were deliberately inflamed by the writings of unscrupulous menlike Cobbett and Carlile. 

Happily, the ministers showed no sign of the weakness upon which theringleaders had probably calculated. They promptly issued a proclamationdeclaring their resolution to put down lawless outrage, and promisedeffective support to the lords-lieutenant of the disturbed counties. Acting upon this assurance, Wellington himself went down to Hampshire, and took a leading part in quelling disorder. The government nextappointed a special commission, which tried many hundreds of prisonersand sentenced the worst to death, though few were executed. This vigoursoon overawed the organised gangs which, in one or two instances, hadonly been dispersed by military force. Finally, they prosecuted Carlileand Cobbett for instigating the poor labourers to crime. The former wasconvicted at the Old Bailey, and condemned to a long term ofimprisonment, with a heavy fine. The trial of Cobbett was postponeduntil the following July, when the frenzy of reform was at its height. He defended himself with great audacity in a speech of six hours, calling the lord chancellor with other leading reformers as witnesses, and succeeded in escaping conviction by the disagreement and dischargeof the jury. 

[Pageheading: _ALTHORP'S FIRST BUDGET. _]

Two other questions engaged the attention of parliament on the eve ofthe great struggle over the reform bill. One of these was the settlementof the civil list, which the Duke of Wellington's ministry had failed toeffect. William IV. Was not an avaricious sovereign, nor did he sharethe spendthrift inclination of his brother. But he was disposed tostickle for the hereditary rights of the crown, both public and private, and he greatly disliked the details of his expenditure being scrutinisedby a parliamentary committee. Now, Grey and his colleagues stood pledgedto such a committee, and could not avoid promoting its appointment. Theypropitiated the king, however, by excluding the revenues of the Duchy ofLancaster from the inquiry, and ultimately succeeded in persuading thehouse of commons to grant a civil list of Ł510, 000 a year. But thepublication of a return containing a complete list of sinecure officesand pensions was turned to good account by the economists, and producedan outburst of public indignation, which was by no means unreasonable. Great results were expected from the report of the select committee onthe civil list, which revised the salaries of officials in the royalhousehold, as well as the emoluments of pensioners. It was even demandedthat no regard should be paid to vested interests, but Grey firmlysupported the private remonstrances of the king against such an act ofconfiscation. In fact, the savings recommended by the committee were sotrifling that it was thought better to waive the question for the time, and the first economical essay of the new _régime_ ended in failure. 

The budget introduced by Althorp soon after the meeting of parliament onFebruary 3, 1831, and in anticipation of the reform bill, was equallyunsuccessful as a specimen of whig finance. Finding that, after all, hecould not effect a saving of more than one million on the nationalexpenditure, as reduced by his capable predecessor, Goulburn, henevertheless proposed to repeal the duties on coals, tallow candles, printed cottons, and glass, as well as to diminish by one half theduties on newspapers and tobacco. To meet the deficit thus created, hedesigned an increase of the wine and timber duties, new taxation of rawcotton, and, above all, a tax of ten shillings per cent. On alltransfers of real or funded property. This last proposal was at oncedenounced by Goulburn, Peel, and Sugden, the late solicitor-general, asa breach of public faith between the state and its creditors. Theirprotests were loudly echoed by the city, and the obnoxious transfer dutywas abandoned. The same fate befell the proposed increase of the timberduties, and Althorp only carried his budget after submitting to furthermodifications. Those who had relied on his promises of economical reformwere signally disappointed, and, had not parliamentary reformovershadowed all other issues, the credit of the government would havebeen rudely shaken in the first session after its formation. But thisgreat struggle, now to be described, so engrossed the attention of thecountry, that little room was left for the consideration of otherinterests, until it should be decided. 

It is probable that no great measure was ever preceded by so thorough apreparation of the public mind as the reform bills of 1831-32. Eversince the early part of the eighteenth century the abuses of therepresentative system had been freely acknowledged, and no one attemptedto defend them in principle. The multitude of close boroughs, thesmallness of the electoral body, the sale of seats in parliament, thewide prevalence of gross bribery, and the enormous expense ofelections--these were notorious evils which no one denied, though somepalliated them, and few ventured to assail them in earnest by drasticproposals, lest they should undermine the constitution. So far back as1770 Chatham had denounced them, and predicted that unless parliamentreformed itself from within before the end of the century, it would bereformed "with a vengeance" from without. In 1780 the Duke of Richmondhad introduced a bill in favour of universal suffrage, and Pitt hadbrought forward bills or motions in favour of parliamentary reform as aprivate member in 1782 and 1783, and as prime minister in 1785. But theFrench revolution persuaded him that the time was not favourable toreform, and he successfully opposed Grey's motion for referring a numberof petitions in favour of reform to a committee in 1793. 

After this, a strong reaction set in, and the reform question had littleinterest for the governing classes during the continuance of the greatwar. It was never allowed to sleep, however, and in 1809, a billintroduced by Curwen to pave the way for reform by preventing the returnof members upon corrupt agreements, actually passed both houses, thoughin so mutilated a form that it was practically a dead letter. Still, thecause was indefatigably pleaded by Brand, and Burdett, who in 1819 madehimself the spokesman of the violent reform agitation then spreadingover the country. Unfortunately, this violence, and the extravagance ofthe demands put forward by the democratic leaders, were themselves fatalobstacles to a temperate consideration of the question, and threw backthe reform movement for several years. In 1821, when Grampound wasdisfranchised, it assumed, as we have seen, a more constitutional form, and motions in favour of reform were proposed by Russell in 1822, 1823, and 1826, and by Blandford in 1829. Had Canning placed himself at thehead of the movement the course of domestic history during the reign ofGeorge IV. Might have been very different. As it was, the number ofpetitions in favour of reform sensibly fell off in the last half of thereign, and its tory opponents vainly imagined that the movement hadspent itself. We now know that, in the absence of noisy demonstrations, it was really and constantly gaining strength in the minds of thoughtfulmen until it reached its climax at the end of 1830. 

[Pageheading: _PUBLIC OPINION AND REFORM. _]

The first act of the great political drama which occupied the nexteighteen months may be said to have opened with the fall of Wellington, and the formation of the whig ministry. These events, together with thesuccess of the Paris revolution, supplied the motive power needed tocombine the great body of the middle classes with the proletariat in anational crusade against the political privileges long exercised by apowerful landed aristocracy. It is true that reform, unlike catholicemancipation, had always appealed to broad popular sympathies, and hadbeen advocated by men like Grey and Burdett as carrying with it theredress of all other grievances. But Canning was by no means the onlyliberal statesman who heartily dreaded it, and even the advancedreformers had not fully grasped the comprehensive meaning of the ideawhich they embraced, or the far-reaching consequences involved in it. The palpable anomaly of Old Sarum returning members to parliament, whileBirmingham was unrepresented, was shocking to common sense, and so wasthe monopoly of the franchise by a handful of electors in some of thelarger boroughs, especially in Scotland. But few appreciated howseriously constitutional liberty had been curtailed by the growth ofthese abuses (unchecked by the Commonwealth) since the fourteenth andfifteenth centuries, how effectually home and foreign policy wascontrolled by a small circle of noble families dominant in the lower aswell as in the upper chamber, how vast a transfer of sovereignty fromclass to class would inevitably be wrought by a thorough reform bill, and how certainly men newly entrusted with power would use it for theirown advantage, whether or not that should coincide with the advantage ofthe nation. Such general aspects of the question are seldom noticed inthe earlier debates upon it, and economical reform sometimes appears tooccupy a larger space than parliamentary reform in the liberalstatesmanship of the Georgian age. 

With Wellington's declaration against any parliamentary reform, thisapathy vanished, and the movement, gathering up into itself all otherpopular aspirations thenceforward filled the whole political horizon. Reform unions sprang up everywhere, and instituted a most activepropaganda. So rapid was its spread and so wild the promises lavished byradical demagogues, that Grey and his wiser colleagues soon feltthemselves further removed from their own extreme left wing than fromthe moderate section of the conservatives. It is abundantly clear thatGrey himself, faithful as he was to reform, never dreamed ofinaugurating a reign of democracy. He often declared in private thatsuch a bill as he contemplated would prove, in its effect, anaristocratic measure, and he doubtless believed that it would bepossible to bring the new constituencies and the new electoral bodiesunder the same conservative influences which had been dominant for somany generations. He did not foresee, as Palmerston did thirty yearslater, that, even if the political actors remained the same, they "wouldplay to the gallery" instead of to the pit or boxes. He would, indeed, have repudiated the maxim: "Everything for the people, and nothing bythe people"; he was fully prepared to place the house of commons in thehands of the people, or at least of the great middle class, but heregarded the crown and the house of lords as almost equal powers, and henever doubted that property and education would practically continue torule the government of the country. 

[Pageheading: _DRAFT OF THE FIRST BILL. _]

When the whigs came into office they were singularly fortunate in thehigh character and consistency of their chief, no less than in thedivisions of their opponents, whose right wing showed almost as mutinousa spirit as their own left wing. Even between Wellington and Peel therewas a want of cordial harmony and confidence, yet Peel was the only torystatesman of eminent capacity in the house of commons. The attitude ofthe king, too, was not only strictly constitutional but friendly, thoughit afterwards appeared that he relied too implicitly on Grey and Althorpto protect him against the machinations of the radicals. The letterswritten by his orders, though mostly composed by his private secretary, Sir Herbert Taylor, display marked ability together with a very shrewdand just conception of the situation. His loyal adoption of a moderatereform policy was a most important element of strength to his ministersat the outset of their great enterprise, and, if he afterwards heldback, it was in deference to scruples which several of them shared intheir hearts. Nor was the violence of the ultra-radicals, or thescurrilous language of O'Connell by any means an unmixed source ofweakness to men engaged in framing and carrying a temperate reform bill. Their firm resistance to extravagant demands reassured many a wavererand showed how carefully their comprehensive plan had been matured. Onthe other hand, they had to contend against difficulties not yet fullyrevealed. One of these was their own want of administrative experience, contrasting unfavourably with the statesmanlike capacity of Peel. Another was the intractable character of two at least within their owninnermost councils--Durham and Brougham. A third was the inflexibleconservatism of a great majority in the house of lords, who, unlike thepeople at large, clearly understood that the impending conflict was alife-and-death struggle for political supremacy between themselves andthe commons--the greatest that had been waged since the revolutions ofthe seventeenth century. 

It was privately known that a committee had been empowered to draft thebill awaited with so much impatience. This committee consisted of twomembers of the cabinet, Durham and Graham, together with two members ofthe administration not of cabinet rank, the Earl of Bessborough's eldestson, Lord Duncannon, then chief whip of the whig party, and Russell, whowas second to none as a staunch and judicious promoter of parliamentaryreform. In spite of his vanity and petulance, Durham deserves the creditof having drawn up the report, highly appreciated by the king, uponwhich the projected measure was founded. It originally included vote byballot, and it is rather strange that on this point Durham waspowerfully supported by Graham, but opposed by Russell. It is still morestrange that Brougham, whose scheme of reform was locked up in his ownbreast, was honestly disturbed by the radicalism of his colleagues andspecially objected to so large a disfranchisement of boroughs as theycontemplated. Upon the whole, however, the bill was the product of anunited cabinet, and received the express approval of the king in all itsessential features. The elaborate letter which he addressed to Grey onFebruary 4, 1831, betrays a sense of relief on finding that universalsuffrage and the ballot were not to be pressed upon him In declaringthat he never could have given his consent to such revolutionaryinnovations, he insists strongly on the necessity of maintaining an"equilibrium" between the crown, the lords, and the commons, as well asbetween the "representation of property" and that of numbers. 

The reform bill of 1831, which differed only in detail from the actpassed in 1832, cannot be understood without some knowledge of thesystem which that act transformed. This system has been well describedas "combining survivals from the middle ages with abuses of theprerogative in later times". The counties remained as they had remainedfor centuries; Rutland, for instance, returned as many representativesas Yorkshire, until in 1821 the two seats taken from Grampound wereadded to those already possessed by Yorkshire. On the other hand, theold franchise of the 40s. Freeholders was more widely diffused since thevalue of money had been greatly depreciated. Still, the influence of thegreat county families was almost supreme, and they were firmlyentrenched in the nomination boroughs, where there was scarcely apretence of free election. The crown had originally a discretion insummoning members from boroughs, and used it by issuing writs to all thewealthiest as better able to bear taxation and more competent tosanction it. The poorer boroughs, too, were also glad to escaperepresentation in order to save the expense of their members' wages. Thediscretionary power of the crown was afterwards used in creating pettyboroughs such as "the Cornish group, " for the purpose of packing thehouse of commons with crown nominees. This practice, however, ceased inthe reign of Charles II. , and these petty boroughs fell by degrees intothe hands of great landowners, who dictated the choice ofrepresentatives. 

The result has been concisely stated as follows: "The majority of thehouse of commons was elected by less than fifteen thousand persons. Seventy members were returned by thirty-five places with scarcely anyvoters at all; ninety members were returned by forty-six places with nomore than fifty voters; thirty-seven members by nineteen places with nomore than one hundred voters; fifty-two members by twenty-six placeswith no more than two hundred voters. The local distribution of therepresentation was flagrantly unfair.... Cornwall was a corrupt nest oflittle boroughs whose vote outweighed that of great and populousdistricts. At Old Sarum a deserted site, at Gatton an ancient wall senttwo representatives to the house of commons. Eighty-four men actuallynominated one hundred and fifty-seven members for parliament. Inaddition to these, one hundred and fifty members were returned on therecommendation of seventy patrons, and thus one hundred and fifty-fourpatrons returned three hundred and seven members. "[103] Householdsuffrage prevailed in a few boroughs, and here barefaced corruption wascommon. Seats for boroughs, appropriately called "rotten, " werefrequently put up to sale; otherwise, they were reserved for youngfavourites of the proprietor. Neither yearly tenants, nor leaseholders, nor even copyholders, had votes for counties. Of Scotland it is enoughto say that free voting had practically ceased to exist both in countiesand in boroughs, as the borough franchise was the monopoly ofself-elected town councils, and the county franchise of persons, oftennon-resident, who happened to own "superiorities". 

[Pageheading: _PROVISIONS OF THE FIRST BILL. _]

The reform bill of the whig ministry, drawn on broad and simple lines, struck at the root of this system. Its twofold basis was a liberalextension of the suffrage with a very large redistribution of seats. Theelective franchise in counties, hitherto confined to freeholders, was tobe conferred on Ł10 copyholders and Ł50 leaseholders; the boroughfranchise was to exclude "scot and lot" voters, "potwallopers" and mostother survivals of antiquated electorates, but to include ratepaying Ł10householders. The qualification for this franchise had originally beenfixed at Ł20, and the king deprecated any reduction, but the omission ofthe ballot reconciled him and other timid reformers to an immenseincrease in the lower class of borough voters. Sixty boroughs of lessthan 2, 000 inhabitants, returning 119 members, were to be disfranchisedaltogether; forty-seven others, with less than 4, 000 inhabitants, wereto be deprived of one member, and Weymouth was to lose two out of thefour members which it returned in combination with the borough ofMelcombe Regis. Fifty-five new seats were allotted to the Englishcounties, forty-two to the great unrepresented towns, five to Scotland, three to Ireland, and one to Wales. Altogether the numerical strength ofthe house of commons was to be reduced by sixty-two, and this entirelyat the expense of England. Both the county and borough franchises inScotland were to be assimilated generally to those established forEngland, and the Ł10 borough franchise was extended to Ireland. The billcontained many other provisions designed to amend the practice ofregistration, the voting power of non-resident electors, and thecumbrously expensive machinery of elections. It is important to noticethat it also limited the duration of each parliament to five years--aconcession to radicalism afterwards abandoned and never since adopted. 

On February 3 parliament met after the adjournment, and Grey stated thata measure of reform had been framed, but the nature of it was notdisclosed to the house of commons until March 1, and during the intervalthe secret was kept with great fidelity. The task of explaining it wasentrusted to Russell, whose thorough mastery of its letter and spiritfully justified the choice, partly suggested by his aristocraticconnexions and historical name. His speech was remarkable for clearnessand cogency rather than for rhetorical brilliancy, and he was careful torest his case on constitutional equity and political expediency of thehighest order rather than on vague and abstract principles of popularrights. The debate on the motion for leave to bring in the bill lastedseven nights, and was vigorously sustained on both sides. The drasticand sweeping character of the measure took the whole house by surprise, while its authors justly claimed some credit for moderation in rejectingthe radical demands of universal suffrage, vote by ballot, andtriennial, if not annual, parliaments. Not only inside but outside thewalls of St. Stephen's the statement of the government had been awaitedwith the utmost impatience, and it was universally felt that an issuehad now been raised which hardly admitted of compromise. The kinghimself, though much engrossed by minor questions affecting the civillist and the pension list, heartily congratulated Grey on the favourablereception and prospects of the measure, which he regarded as a safeguardagainst more democratic schemes. His great fear was of a collisionbetween the two houses, and the sequel proved that it was not unfounded. For the present, however, all promised well. Peel denounced the billwith less than his usual caution, but declined to give battle upon it, and it passed the first reading on March 9 without a division. Indeed, the chief danger to the stability of the government arose from itsdefeat on the timber duties. This and other vexatious rebuffs soirritated Grey that he actually contemplated a dissolution, lest thereform bill itself should meet with a like fate. But the king would nothear of it, and the cabinet wisely decided to follow the example of Pittand ignore an adverse division on a merely financial proposal, howeversignificant of parliamentary feeling. 

[Pageheading: _SECOND READING OF THE FIRST BILL. _]

Between the 9th and the 21st, the date fixed for the second reading, popular excitement rose to a formidable height. Monster meetings wereheld in the great centres of population, and the political unions putforth all their strength. Nevertheless, the efforts of the"borough-mongers" were all but successful, and after only two nightsdebate the bill passed its second reading by a bare majority of one, 302voting for it, and 301 against it. After this demonstration of strengthon the part of its opponents, no one could expect that it would survivethe ordeal of discussion in committee, and a letter of Lord Durham, written in anticipation of the event, sums up with great force thereasons for an early dissolution. The crisis was precipitated by theaction of General Gascoyne, member for Liverpool, who moved before thehouse could go into committee that in no case should the number ofrepresentatives from England and Wales be diminished. In the hope ofconciliating some wavering members, the ministry framed certainmodifications of their original scheme, but they do not seem to haveentertained the idea of accepting Gascoyne's proposal in its entirety. In the division, which took place on April 19, they were defeated by 299votes to 291, and on the following morning advised the king to dissolve. In spite of his former refusal, more than once repeated, the kingyielded to necessity, feeling that another change of government, in themidst of European complications, and in prospect of revolutionaryagitation in the country, would be a greater evil than a generalelection. 

The opposition, flushed with victory, pressed its advantage to extremes, and successfully resisted a motion for the grant of supplies. Urged byAlthorp, the cabinet promptly resolved on recommending that thedissolution should be immediate, and the king, roused to energy byindignation, eagerly adopted their recommendation. Indeed, on hearingthat Lord Wharncliffe intended to move in the house of lords for anaddress to the crown against a dissolution, he strongly resented such anattempt to interfere with his prerogative, and declared himself ready tostart at once and dissolve parliament in person. Difficulties beingraised about preparing the royal carriages in time, he cut them short byremarking that he was prepared to go in a hackney-coach--a royal sayingwhich spread like wildfire over the country. Both houses were scenes ofconfusion and uproar when he arrived, preceded by the usual dischargesof artillery, which excited the angry disputants to fury. LordMansfield, who was supporting the motion for an address, continuedspeaking as the king entered, until he was forcibly compelled to resumehis seat. Even Peel was only restrained by like means from disregardingthe appearance of the usher of the black rod who came to summon thecommons from the bar of the house. The king preserved his composure, andannounced an immediate prorogation of parliament with a view to itsdissolution, and an appeal to the country on the great question ofreform. Such an appeal could only be made to constituencies under threatof thorough reconstruction or total extinction, but from this moment theultimate issue ceased to be doubtful. 

FOOTNOTES:

[101] Parker, _Sir Robert Peel_, ii. , 160-62. 

[102] Arbuthnot to Peel, Nov. 1, 1830, Parker, _Sir Robert Peel_, ii. , 163-66. 

[103] Goldwin Smith, _United Kingdom_, ii. , 320. 

 CHAPTER XIV. 

 THE REFORM. 

The general election which took place in the summer of 1831 was perhapsthe most momentous on record. The news of the sudden dissolution, carrying with it the assurance of the king's hearty assent to reform, stirred popular enthusiasm to an intensity never equalled before orsince. From John o' Groat's to the Land's End a cry was raised of _Thebill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill_. This cry signified morethan appears on the surface, and was not wholly one-sided in itsapplication. No doubt it was a passionate and defiant warning againstany manipulation or dilution of the bill in a reactionary sense, but itwas also a distinct protest against attempts by the extreme radicals toamend it in an opposite direction. Now, as ever, the impulse was givenby the middle classes, and they were in no mood to imperil their owncause by revolutionary claims. They could not always succeed, however, in checking the fury of the populace, which had been taught to clamourfor reform as the precursor of a good time coming for the suffering andtoiling masses of mankind. The streets of London were illuminated, andthe windows of those who omitted to illuminate or were otherwiseobnoxious were tumultuously demolished by the mob, which did not evenspare Apsley House, the town residence of the Duke of Wellington. But, except in Scotland, no formidable riots occurred for the present, andsome good resulted from the new experience of popular opinion gained bycandidates even from unreformed constituencies hitherto obedient tooligarchical influence, but animated for the moment by a certain spiritof independence. 

Having sanctioned the dissolution, the king addressed an elaborateletter to Grey, in which he did not disguise his own misgivings aboutthe perilous experiment of reform. Chiefly dreading a collision betweenthe two houses, he never ceased to press on his ministers the expediencyof making all possible sacrifices consistent with the spirit of the billin order to conciliate opposition in the house of peers. Grey's constantreply was that no concessions would propitiate men bent on driving thegovernment from office, and that no measure less efficacious than thatalready introduced would satisfy the just expectations of the people. Both of these arguments were perfectly sound, and the constitutionaltriumph ultimately achieved was largely due to the admirable tenacity ofpurpose which refused to remodel the original reform bill in anyessential respect to please either the borough-mongers or the radicals. The elections were conducted on the whole in good order. Seventy-six outof eighty-two English county members (including the four Yorkshiremembers), and the four members for the city of London, were pledged tovote for the bill. Several notable anti-reformers were among the manycounty representatives who failed to obtain re-election; even some ofthe doomed boroughs did not venture to return anti-reformers; and thegovernment found itself supported by an immense nominal majority. Thenew bill, introduced on June 24 by Lord John Russell, who had recentlybeen admitted in company with Stanley to the cabinet, differed littlefrom the old one. The number of boroughs to be totally disfranchised wasslightly greater, that of boroughs to be partially disfranchisedslightly less, but the net effect of the disfranchising andenfranchising schedules was the same, and the Ł10 rental suffrage wasretained. The measure was allowed to pass its first reading after onenight's discussion. The debates on the second reading lasted threenights, but the bill passed this stage on July 8 by a majority of 136 ina house of 598 members. 

[Pageheading: _SECOND REFORM BILL. _]

The victory, however, though great, was far indeed from provingdecisive. By adopting obstructive tactics, of a kind to be perfected ina later age, the opposition succeeded in prolonging the discussion incommittee over forty nights, until September 7. Though Peel separatedhimself from the old tories, and steadily declined to cabal withO'Connell's faction against the government, such an unprofitable wasteof time could not have taken place without his tacit sanction. Only oneimportant alteration was made in the bill. This was the famous "Chandosclause, " proposed by Lord Chandos, son of the Duke of Buckingham, whereby the county suffrage was extended to all tenants-at-will of Ł50rental and upwards. A very large proportion of tenant farmers thusbecame county voters, and for the most part followed the politics oftheir landlords. It may be doubted whether Grey seriously lamentedChandos's intervention; at all events it went far to verify his ownprediction that aristocratic dominion would not be undermined byreform. [104] Meanwhile, the country was naturally impatient of thevexatious delay, and a somewhat menacing conference took place betweenthe political unions of Birmingham, Manchester, and Glasgow. Happilypublic attention was diverted to some extent by the coronation, whichtook place on the 8th. The bill was carried more rapidly through itslater stages, and was finally passed in the house of commons on the21st, though by a reduced majority of 345 to 236. 

On the following day the bill reached the house of lords and was setdown for its second reading on October 3. Thenceforth all the hopes andfears of its friends and enemies were concentrated on the proceedings inthat house, whose ascendency in the state was at stake. The question:"What will the lords do?" was asked all over the country with thedeepest anxiety. The debate lasted five nights, and is admitted to havebeen among the finest reported in our parliamentary history. All theleading peers took part in it, and several of them were roused by theoccasion to unwonted eloquence, but the palm was generally awarded tothe speeches of Grey, Harrowby, Brougham, and Lyndhurst. The first ofthese occupied a position which gave increased weight to his counsels, since he was the veteran advocate of reform and yet known to be a mostloyal member of the nobility which now stood on its trial. In hisopening speech he appealed earnestly to the bench of bishops, asdisinterested parties and as ministers of peace, not to set themselvesagainst the almost unanimous will of the people. Brougham's greatoration on the last night of the debate contained a masterly review ofthe whole question, and, in spite of its theatrical conclusion, when hesank upon his knees, extorted the admiration of his bitterest critics asa consummate exhibition of his marvellous powers. 

But very few of the peers were open to persuasion; the votes ofanti-reformers were mainly guided by a shortsighted conception of theirown interests, and Eldon did not shrink from contending that nominationboroughs were in the nature of property rather than of trusts. Amemorable division ended in the rejection of the second reform bill onthe 8th by 199 votes to 158. Twenty-one bishops voted against it. Theking lost no time in reminding Grey of his own warning againstsubmitting the bill, without serious modifications, to the judgment ofthe house of lords. He also intimated beforehand that he could notconsent to any such creation of peers as would convert the minority intoa majority. Grey at once admitted that he could not ask for sohigh-handed an exercise of the royal prerogative, and undertook toremain at his post, on condition of being allowed to introduce a thirdreform bill as comprehensive as its predecessor. Thereupon the kingabandoned his intention of proroguing parliament by commission, and camedown in person to do so on the 20th when he delivered a speech clearlyindicating legislation on reform as the work of the next session. 

[Pageheading: _REFORM BILL RIOTS. _]

During the interval between the 8th and the 20th it became evident thatthe reform movement, quickened by the action of the upper house, wouldrise to a dangerous height. A vote of confidence in the government, brought forward by Lord Ebrington, eldest son of Earl Fortescue, wascarried by a majority of 131, and speeches were made in support of itwhich encouraged, in the form of prediction, every kind of popularagitation short of open violence. In the course of this debate Macaulay, the future historian of the English revolution, delivered one of thosehighly wrought orations which adorn the political literature of reform. The excitement in London was great, but kept for the most part withinreasonable bounds, partly by the firm and sensible attitude of Melbourneas home secretary. The mob, however, vented its rage in window breakingand personal assaults on some prominent anti-reformers, one of whom, Lord Londonderry, was knocked off his horse by a volley of stones. Inthe provinces more serious disturbances broke out. At Derby the riotersactually stormed the city jail, releasing the prisoners, and were onlyrepelled in their attack on the county jail by the fire of a militaryforce. At Nottingham they wreaked their vengeance on the Duke ofNewcastle by burning down Nottingham Castle, which belonged to him, andwere proceeding to further outrages when they were overawed by aregiment of hussars. A great open-air meeting of the political union washeld at Birmingham, while the bill was still before the house of lords, at which a refusal to pay taxes was openly recommended in the lastresort, and votes of thanks were passed to Althorp and Russell. Theformer, in acknowledging it, wisely condemned such lawless proceedings;the latter unwisely made use of a phrase which gravely displeased theking: "It is impossible that the whisper of faction should prevailagainst the voice of a nation". Both were called to account in the houseof commons for holding correspondence with an illegal association, butdisclaimed any recognition of the Birmingham union as a body, and fullyadmitted the responsibility of the government for the maintenance oforder. 

This assurance was about to be tested by the most atrocious outbreakwhich disgraced the cause of reform. On Saturday, the 29th, Wetherell, as recorder of Bristol, entered the city to open the commission on thefollowing Monday. Of all the anti-reformers, he was perhaps the mostvehement and unpopular, but his visit to Bristol was in discharge of anofficial duty, and had been sanctioned expressly by the government. Nevertheless, the cavalcade which escorted him was assailed by a furiousrabble on its way to the guildhall, and from the guildhall to themansion house, where he was to dine. For a while, they were kept back ordriven back by a large force of constables, but, on some of these beingwithdrawn, their ferocity increased, and threatened a general assault onthe mansion house. In vain did the mayor address them and read the riotact; they overpowered the constables, and carried the mansion house bystorm, the mayor and the magistrates escaping by the back premises, while the recorder prudently left the city. At last the military werecalled upon to act, and two troops of cavalry were ordered out. But themilitary as well as the civil authorities showed a strange weakness andvacillation in presence of an emergency only to be compared with theLord George Gordon riots of a by-gone generation. After making onecharge and dispersing the populace for the moment, the cavalry were sentback to their barracks, and when one troop was recalled on the following(Sunday) morning, the rioters were all but masters of the city. Many ofthem, having plundered the cellars of the mansion house, were infuriatedby drink; they broke into the Bridewell, the new city jail, and thecounty jail, set free the prisoners, and fired the buildings. They nextproceeded to burn down the mansion house, the bishop's palace, thecustom-house, and the excise-office. The cathedral is said to have beensaved by the resolute stand of a few volunteers hastily rallied by oneof the officials. In the midst of all this havoc, the cavalry werealmost passive, Colonel Brereton, the commanding officer, waiting fororders from the magistrates, and actually withdrawing a part of hissmall force when it was most needed, because it had incurred the specialhatred of the criminals. 

On the morning of Monday, the guardians of law and order seemed to haverecovered their courage; at all events, the cavalry, no longer forbiddento charge, and headed by Major Mackworth, soon cleared the streets, fresh troops poured in, and the police made a number of arrests. Thereign of anarchy was at an end, having lasted three days. When a returnof casualties was made up, it showed that only twelve were known to havelost their lives, besides ninety-four disabled, most of whom were thevictims of excessive drunkenness or of the flames kindled by themselves. But, though the riot was quelled, it was some proof of its deliberatepromotion, and of the aims which its ringleaders had in view, thatparties of them issuing out from Bristol attempted to propagate seditionin Somersetshire. A special commission sent down to Bristol condemned todeath several of the worst malefactors; four were hanged andeighty-eight sentenced either to transportation or to lighterpunishments; and Colonel Brereton destroyed himself rather than face theverdict of a court-martial. 

On the same Monday, the 31st, Burdett took the chair at a meeting inLincoln's Inn Fields, called for the purpose of forming a "NationalPolitical Union" in London. Soon afterwards, however, he retired fromthe organisation, on the nominal ground that half of the seats on itscouncil were allotted to the working classes, but more probably becausehe was beginning to be alarmed by the violence of his associates. Hisfears were justified by a manifesto summoning a mass meeting of theworking-classes to assemble at White Conduit House on November 7, forthe purpose of ratifying a new and revolutionary bill of rights. Thistime the government was on its guard, and Melbourne plainly informed aworking-class deputation that such a meeting would certainly beseditious, and perhaps treasonable, in law. The plan was thereforeabandoned, and soon afterwards a royal proclamation was issued, declaring organised political associations, assuming powers independentof the civil magistrates, to be "unconstitutional and illegal". Thepolitical unions proposed to consider themselves outside the scope ofthe proclamation, which had little visible effect, though it was notwithout its value as proving that the government was a champion of orderas well as of liberty. 

[Pageheading: _NEGOTIATIONS WITH WAVERERS. _]

During the short recess of less than six weeks political discontent, constantly growing, was aggravated by industrial distress and gloomyforebodings of a mysterious pestilence, already known as cholera. Avoluminous correspondence was carried on between the king and Grey onthe means of silencing the political unions and smoothing the passage ofa new reform bill. It was not in the king's nature to conceal his ownconservative leanings, especially on the imaginary danger of increasingthe metropolitan constituencies, and Grey complained more than once ofthese sentiments being confided, or at least becoming known, toopponents of the government. At the same time attempts were being madenot only by the king himself, but also by peers of moderate views toarrange a compromise which might save the honour of the government, andyet mitigate the hostility of the tory majority in the upper house. Inthese negotiations behind the scenes, Howley, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Carr, Bishop of Worcester, took part, as representing the episcopalbench, while Lords Harrowby and Wharncliffe, in temporary concert withChandos, professed to speak for the "waverers" among peers. As little ofimportance resulted from their well-meant efforts, and as nearly all thesupposed "waverers, " including the bishops, drifted into openopposition, it is the less necessary to dwell at length on a verytedious chapter in the history of parliamentary reform. Suffice it tosay that when parliament reassembled on December 6, 1831, the prospectsof the forthcoming bill were no brighter than in October, except so faras the danger of rejecting it had become more apparent. 

The final reform bill introduced by Lord John Russell on the 12th wasidentical in its principle and its essential features with the formerones. The chief alteration was the maintenance of the house of commonsat its full strength of 658 members. This enabled its framers not onlyto reduce the number of wholly disfranchised boroughs (schedule A) fromsixty to fifty-six, and that of semi-disfranchised boroughs (schedule B)from forty-six to thirty, but to assign a larger number of members tothe prosperous towns enfranchised. The bill was at once read a firsttime and passed its second reading after two nights' debate on the 16thby a majority of 324 to 162, or exactly two to one. But, after a shortadjournment for the Christmas holidays, a debate of twenty-two nightstook place in committee, and the opposition made skilful use of the manyvulnerable points in the new scheme. Every variation from the originalbill, even by way of concession, was subjected to minute criticism, andespecially the fact that the schedules were now framed, not on a scaleof population only, but on a mixed basis, partly resting on population, partly on the number of inhabited houses, and partly on the localcontribution to assessed taxes. 

It was easy to pick such a compound scale to pieces, to uphold theclaims of one venal borough against another equally venal, and even toreproach the government with inconsistency in relying on the census of1831, instead of on that of 1821--a course which the opposition hadspecially urged upon them. But it was not so easy to combat theirresistible arguments in favour of the bill on its general merits, toignore the reasonable concessions on points of detail which it embodied, or to explain away the patent fact that no measure less stringent wouldsatisfy the people. There was therefore an air of unreality about thisdebate, spirited as it was, nor is it easy to understand what practicalobject enlightened men like Peel could have sought in prolonging it. Hewell knew, and admitted in private correspondence, that reform wasinevitable; he must have known that a sham reform would be a stimulus torevolutionary agitation; yet he strove to mutilate the bill so that itmight pass its second reading in the house of lords, and there undergosuch further mutilation as would destroy its efficacy as a settlement ofthe question. For the present he yielded. No attempt was made toobstruct the bill on its third reading, when the division showed 355votes to 239, and it passed the commons on March 23 without anydivision. 

[Pageheading: _THE THIRD REFORM BILL. _]

Such a result would have been conclusive in any parliament during thesecond half of the nineteenth century. A house of commons elected by theold constituencies, and under the old franchises, had declared in favourof a well-considered reform bill. The same constituencies voting underthe same franchises had returned an increased majority in support of thesame, or very nearly the same measure; this measure, with slightvariations, had been adopted by an immense preponderance of votes in thenew house of commons: yet its fate in the house of lords was verydoubtful. Ever since the autumn of 1831, the expedient of swamping thehouse of lords had been seriously contemplated. It was supremelydistasteful to the king, and Grey himself, in common with a majority ofthe cabinet, was strongly averse from it. Then came the intervention ofHarrowby and Wharncliffe, the failure of which strengthened the hands ofthe more determined reformers in the cabinet, and induced the king togive way. Having already created a few peers on the coronation, heconsented to a limited addition in the last resort, but with thereservation that eldest sons of existing peers should be called up inthe first instance, and upon the assurance that, reform once carried, all further encroachments of the democracy should be resisted by thegovernment. He even authorised Grey to inform Harrowby that he had giventhe prime minister this power, in the hope that it would never beneeded, and that at least the second reading of the bill would becarried in the house of lords without it. His objection to a permanentaugmentation of the peerage remained unshaken, and Grey promised topropose no augmentation at all before the second reading. 

This compact, if it can be so called, was fulfilled in the letter, forthe bill was read a first time without a division, and it passed thesecond reading on April 14 by a majority of 184 to 175. To allappearance a notable process of conversion had been wrought among thepeers, seventeen of whom actually changed sides, while ten opponents ofthe former bill absented themselves, and twelve new adherents weregained. However encouraging these figures might be, the ministers wereunder no illusion. They had the best reason for expecting the worstfrom the struggle in committee, and they were conscious of graduallylosing the king's confidence. The very demonstrations of popularenthusiasm for reform which impressed others with a sense of itsnecessity impressed him with a sense of its danger; the political unionsand the Bristol riots alarmed him extremely; and the foreign policy ofthe government elicited from him so outspoken a protest that Greytendered his resignation. The difficulty was overcome for the moment, but recurred in a more serious form when parliament reassembled on May7. Lyndhurst at once proposed in committee to postpone the considerationof schedule A; in other words, to shelve the most vital provisions ofthe bill until the rest should have been dissected in a hostile spirit. This proposal is supposed to have been concerted with Harrowby andWharncliffe, if not to have received the sanction of the Duke ofWellington. It was adopted by 151 votes to 116, and the cabinet, on May8, courageously determined to make a decisive stand. They firmly advisedthe king to confer peerages on "such a number of persons as might ensurethe success of the bill". The principle thus expressed had, as has beenseen, been reluctantly approved by the king himself, but he recoiledfrom the application of it when he learned that it would involve atleast fifty new creations. After a day's thought, he closed with theonly alternative, and accepted the resignation of his ministry. He thensent for Lyndhurst, who of course at once communicated with the duke. 

The king, as we have seen, had never been able to understand the realforce of the reform movement, and his leading idea was that the demandfor reform might be satisfied by a moderate reform bill, which the houseof lords would not reject or reduce to nullity. Wellington shared thisimpression, and, though an implacable opponent of reform, was willing toundertake office for the purpose of carrying, not merely a mildsubstitute for the whig reform bill, but the whig reform bill itselfwith little modification. Such an act might appear immoral in astatesman whose integrity was more open to question, but the duke'spolitical _moral_ appears to have been of a less delicate type than thatwhich is commonly expected in party politicians. As a general, heconsidered, first of all and above all, what manoeuvres would bestadvance his plan of campaign. As a political leader, he regardedhimself not as the chief of a party, still less as the exponent of acreed, but rather as a public servant to whom his followers owedallegiance, whether in office or in opposition. As a public servant hefelt bound to obey the king's summons, and conduct the administration, honestly and efficiently, but without much concern for personalconvictions. He was also anxious to preserve the house of lords frombeing swamped and so rendered ridiculous by an extensive creation ofpeers. [105]

[Pageheading: _ATTEMPTS TO FORM A TORY MINISTRY. _]

But Wellington knew that he was powerless to manage the house of commonswithout the aid of Peel, and Peel, though pliable in the case ofcatholic emancipation, was inflexible in the case of reform. He drew adistinction between these cases, and absolutely rejected the advice ofCroker that he should grasp the helm of state to avert the worse evil ofthe whigs being recalled. "I look, " he wrote, "beyond the exigency andthe peril of the present moment, and I do believe that one of thegreatest calamities that could befall the country would be the utterwant of confidence in the declarations of public men which must followthe adoption of the bill of reform by me as a minister of thecrown. "[106] This language, repeated under reserve in the house ofcommons, after a direct appeal from the king, strongly contrasts withthat of the duke who roundly asserted that he should have been ashamedto show his face in the streets if he had refused to serve his sovereignin an emergency. The marked divergence of views and conduct between thetwo leaders of the conservative party led to a temporary estrangementwhich materially weakened their counsels, and was not finally removeduntil a fresh crisis arose two years later. 

While Lyndhurst and the duke were vainly endeavouring to patch up agovernment without Peel or his personal adherents, Goulburn and Croker, the house of commons and the country gave decisive proofs of theirresolution. A vote of confidence in Grey's ministry, proposed byEbrington, was carried on May 10 by a majority of eighty. Petitions camein from the city of London and Manchester, calling upon the commons tostop the supplies, and the reckless populace clamoured for a run uponthe Bank of England. A mass meeting convened by the Birminghampolitical union had already hoisted the standard of revolt against thelegislature, unless it would comply with the will of the people; theexample was spreading rapidly, and events seemed to be hurrying ontowards a fulfilment of Russell's prediction that, in the event of apolitical deadlock, the British constitution would perish in theconflict. The duke was credited, of course unjustly, with the intentionof establishing military rule, and doubts were freely expressed whetherhe could rely either on the army or on the police to put down insurgentmobs. The excitement in the house of commons itself was scarcely lessformidable, and it soon became evident that high tories were almost asmuch incensed by the prospect of a tory reform bill as radicals andwhigs by the vote on Lyndhurst's amendment. 

On the 14th Manners Sutton and Alexander Baring, Lyndhurst's trustedconfidants, plainly informed the duke that his self-imposed task washopeless, and on the next day the duke advised the king to recall Grey. The king, who had apparently grasped the position earlier, acquiesced inthis solution of the question. He agreed to recall Grey and hiscolleagues, and to use his own personal influence in persuading torypeers to abstain from voting. He attempted to impose upon his oldministers the condition of modifying the bill considerably, but theycontinued to insist on maintaining its integrity, and on swamping theupper house, unless its opposition should be withdrawn. It was, happily, unnecessary to resort to such extreme measures. A letter from the king, dated the 17th, informed Wellington that all difficulties would beremoved by "a declaration in the house of lords from a sufficient numberof peers that they have come to the resolution of dropping their furtheropposition to the reform bill". On that night, after stating what hadpassed, the duke retired from the house, followed by about 100 peers, and absented himself from the discussion of the bill in committee. Astalwart minority remained, and took issue on a few clauses, but theirnumbers constantly dwindled, and when the report was received on June 1only eighteen peers recorded their dissent in a protest. Grey himself, though suffering from illness, moved the third reading on the 4th, whenit was carried by 106 to 22. His last words did not lack the dignitywhich had marked his bearing throughout, and expressed the earnest hopethat, in spite of sinister forebodings, "the measure would be found tobe, in the best sense, conservative of the constitution". 

[Pageheading: _ROYAL ASSENT TO THE BILL. _]

The amendments made in the house of lords were slight, and the house ofcommons adopted them without any argument on their merits. Peel, who hadmade a convincing defence of his recent conduct, and who afterwards tooka statesmanlike course in the reformed parliament, declared, with somepetulance, that he would have nothing to do with the consideration ofprovisions or amendments passed under compulsion, and that he wasprepared to accept them, _en bloc_, whatever their nature orconsequences. The bill, therefore, received the royal assent on the 7th, but the king could not be induced to perform this ceremony in person. Though his scruples had been respected in framing the scheme of reform, though he was consulted at every turn and clearly recognised thenecessity to which he bowed, and though he was spared the resort to a_coup d'état_ which he abhorred, he could not but feel humiliated by theill-disguised subjection of the crown and the nobility to a singlechamber of the people. It is greatly to his honour that, with limitedintelligence, and strong prejudices, he should have played astraightforward and strictly constitutional part in so perilous acrisis. 

By the great reform bill, as it was still called even after it became anact, the whole representative system of England and Wales wasreconstructed. Fifty-six nomination boroughs, as we have seen, losttheir members altogether; thirty more were reduced to one member, andWeymouth which, coupled with Melcombe Regis, had returned four members, now lost two. Twenty-two large towns, including metropolitan districts, were allotted two members each; twenty smaller but considerable townsreceived one member each; the number of English and Welsh county memberswas increased from ninety-four to one hundred and fifty-nine, and thelarger counties were parcelled out into divisions. All the fanciful andantiquated franchises which had prevailed in the older boroughs wereswept away to make room for a levelling Ł10 household suffrage, theprivileges of freemen being alone preserved. The rights of 40s. Freeholders were retained in counties, but they found themselvesassociated with a large body of copyholders, leaseholders, andtenants-at-will paying Ł50 in rent. The general result was to place theborough representation mainly in the hands of shopkeepers, and thecounty representation mainly in those of landlords and farmers. Theformer change had a far greater effect on the balance of parties thanthe latter. The shopkeepers, of whom many were nonconformists, longcontinued to cherish advanced radical traditions, partly derived fromthe reform agitation, and constantly rebelled against dictation fromtheir rich customers. The farmers, dependent on their landlords andclosely allied with them in defending the corn laws, proved moresubmissive to influence, and constituted the backbone of the greatagricultural interest. 

The enactment of the English reform bill carried with it as itsnecessary sequel the success of similar bills for Scotland and Ireland. In Scotland electoral abuses were so gross that reform was comparativelysimple, and that proposed, as Jeffrey, the lord advocate, frankly said, "left not a shred of the former system". The nation, as a whole, gainedeight members, since its total representation was raised from forty-fiveto fifty-three seats, thirty for counties and twenty-three for citiesand burghs. Two members were allotted to Edinburgh and Glasgowrespectively; one each to Paisley, Aberdeen, Perth, Dundee, andGreenock, as well as to certain groups of boroughs. Both the county andburgh electorates were entirely transformed. The "old parchmentfreeholders" in counties, many of whom owned not a foot of land, weresuperseded by a mixed body of freeholders and leaseholders with realthough various qualifications. The electoral monopoly of town councilswas replaced by the enfranchisement of householders with a uniformqualification of Ł10. A claim to representation on behalf of theScottish universities was negatived in the house of lords. The number ofrepresentatives for Ireland was raised from 100 to 105. Thedisfranchisement of the 40s. Freeholders was maintained against thestrenuous attacks of O'Connell and Sheil, but the introduction of theŁ10 borough franchise amply balanced the loss of democratic influence incounties. On the whole the transfer of power from class to class wasgreater in Scotland and Ireland than in England itself, and in Irelandthis signified a corresponding transfer of power from protestants tocatholics. The rule of the priests was almost as absolute as ever untilit was checked for a while by a purely democratic movement, and theIrish vote in the house of commons was generally cast on the radicalside. 

[Pageheading: _RETROSPECT OF THE REFORM MOVEMENT. _]

A calm retrospect of the reform movement, culminating in the acts of1832, compels us to see how little the course of politics is guided byreason, and how much by circumstances. Every argument employed in thatand the preceding year possessed equal force at the end of theeighteenth century, and the benefits of reform might have been obtainedat a much smaller cost of domestic strife; nor can we doubt that, butfor the French revolution, these arguments would have prevailed. Whetheror not the sanguinary disruption of French society furthered the causeof progress on the continent, it assuredly threw back that cause inGreat Britain for more than a generation. Not only did its horrors andenormities produce a reaction which paralysed the efforts of liberals inthis country, but the wars arising out of it engrossed for twenty yearsthe whole energy of the nation. Had it been possible for Pitt to pass areform bill after carrying the Irish union, the current of Englishhistory would have been strangely diverted. The sublime tenacity of thatproud aristocracy which defied the French empire in arms, and nerved allthe rest of Europe by its example and its subsidies, would never havebeen exhibited by a democratic or middle class parliament, and it ismore than probable that Great Britain would have stood neutral while thecontinent was enslaved or worked out its own salvation. On the otherhand, in such a case, Great Britain might have been spared a great partof the misery and discontent which, following the peace, but indirectlycaused by the war, actually paved the way for the reform movement. Itremained for a second French revolution, combined with the infatuationof English tories, to supply the motive power which converted a partycry into a national demand for justice. The reform act was, in truth, acompletion of the earlier English revolution provoked by the Stuarts. Considering the condition of the people before its introduction, and theobstinacy of the resistance to be overborne, we may well marvel that itwas carried, after all, so peacefully, and must ever remember it as asignal triumph of whig statesmanship. 

It was the crowning merit of the reform act, from a whig point of view, that it stayed the rising tide of democracy, and raised a barrieragainst household suffrage and the ballot which was not broken down fora generation more. It put an end to an oligarchy of borough-owners andborough-mongers; it was a charter of political rights for themanufacturing interest and the great middle class. But it did nothingfor the working classes in town or country; indeed, by the abolition ofpotwallopers and scot-and-lot voters in a few boroughs, they forfeitedsuch fragmentary representation as they had possessed. Hence the seedsof chartism, already sown, were quickened in 1832; but socialism was notyet a force in politics, and it was still hoped that, under the newelectoral system, the sufferings of the poor might be mostly remedied byact of parliament. The effect of the reform act on the balance of theconstitution was not, at first, fully appreciated. The grievance ofnomination-boroughs had been all but completely redressed, and that ofpolitical corruption greatly diminished, but the hereditary peerageremained, and the right of the lords to override the will of the commonshad ostensibly survived the conflict of 1831-32. But far-sighted mencould not fail to perceive that, in fact, the upper house was no longera co-ordinate estate of the realm. The peers retained an indefinitepower of delaying a measure, but it soon came to be a received maximthat on a measure of primary importance such a power could only beexercised in order to give the commons an opportunity of reconsiderationor to force an appeal to the country at a general election, and that anew house of commons, armed with a mandate to carry that measure, thoughonce rejected by the peers, could not be resisted except at the risk ofrevolution. 

The best safeguard against collision, however, was to be found in thelatent conservatism of the house of commons itself. Reformed as it was, it had not ceased to be mainly a house of country gentlemen, and thenon-payment of members was a security for its being composed, almostexclusively, of men with independent means and a stake in the country. Avery large proportion of these had been educated at the great publicschools, or the old English universities. They might accept on thehustings the doctrine, against which Burke so eloquently protested, thata representative is above all a delegate, and must go to parliament asthe pledged mouthpiece of his constituency. But in the house itself theycould not divest themselves of the sentiments derived from their birth, their education, and their own personal interests; nor was it foundimpossible, without a direct violation of pledges, to act upon their ownopinions in many a critical division. Still, it has been well pointedout that, with the flowing tide of reform there arose a new andone-sided conception of statesmanship as consisting in progressiveamendment of the laws rather than in efficient administration, so thatit is now popularly regarded as a mark of weakness on the part of anygovernment to allow a session to pass without effecting some importantlegislative change. [107]

[Pageheading: _CORONATION OF WILLIAM IV. _]

The supreme interest of the reform bill and its incidents naturallydwarfed all other political questions, and the legislative annals of1831-32 are otherwise singularly devoid of historical importance. Thecoronation of William IV. , which, as has been seen, took place onSeptember 8, 1831, was hardly more than an interlude in the greatstruggle, yet it served for the moment to assuage the animosities ofparty warfare. The king himself, who disliked solemn ceremonials, andthe ministers, deeply pledged to economy, were inclined to dispense withthe pageant altogether. It was found, however, that not only peers andcourt officials but the public would be grievously disappointed by theomission of what, after all, is a solemn public celebration of thecompact between the sovereign and the nation. The coronation was, therefore, carried out with due pomp and all the time-honouredformalities, but without the profuse extravagance which attended theenthronement of George IV. There was no public banquet, and the publiccelebration ceased with the ceremony in Westminster Abbey. The Duke ofWellington and other leading members of the opposition had been dulyconsulted by the government; there was a welcome respite fromparliamentary warfare; the king's returning popularity was confirmed;and all classes of the people were satisfied. 

[Pageheading: _THE CHOLERA EPIDEMIC. _]

Two months later, the appearance of the cholera at Sunderland addedanother grave cause of anxiety to all the difficulties created by thedefeat of the reform bill in the house of lords, and the ominous riotsat Bristol. A similar but distinct and infinitely milder disease hadlong been known under the name of _cholera morbus_, or more correctly_cholera nostras_. Asiatic cholera, as the new disease was called, hadno affinity with any other known disease, and excited all the greaterterror by its novelty, as well as by the suddenness of its fatal effect. It was first observed by English physicians in 1817, when 10, 000 personsfell victims to it in the district of Jessor in Bengal. About the sametime it attacked and decimated the central division of the army of LordHastings, advancing against Gwalior. Before long it spread over thewhole province of Bengal, and eastward along the coasts of Asia as faras China and Timur in the East Indies, crossed the great wall, andpenetrated into Mongolia. In 1818 it broke out at Bombay, and during thenext twelve years continued to haunt, at intervals, the cities of Persiaand Asiatic Turkey, with the coasts of the Caspian Sea. It was not until1829 that it reached the Russian province of Orenburg, by way of theriver Volga, visiting St. Petersburg and Archangel in June, 1830. Thenceit travelled slowly but steadily westward through Northern Europe, aswell as southward into the valleys of the Danube and its tributaries, until it made its appearance at Berlin and Hamburg in the summer of1831. Long before this, and while the reform crisis was in its acuteststage, the probability of its advent was fully realised in England, andorders in council were issued in June, 1831, placing in quarantine allships coming from the Baltic. Notwithstanding the outcry againstmeddling with trade, men of war were appointed to enforce these orders, and when the news came that Marshal Diebitsch had died of the disease inPoland, the alarm increased and all regulations against plague were madeapplicable to cholera. Whether or not these precautions wereineffective, it swooped upon Sunderland on October 26, and prevailedthere for two months, though its true character was very unwillinglyrecognised. [108]

The conflict between the newly created board of health and the merchantsimporting goods caused the government no little perplexity. The protestsof the latter were strengthened by the somewhat remarkable fact that, once established at Sunderland, the cholera seemed to be arrested in itscourse and for a while spread no further. There seemed to be some groundfor the belief that it was partly due to extreme overcrowding andneglect of all sanitary rules in that town, but this belief was soondissipated by its appearance at Newcastle and progress over thenorth-eastern counties even during the winter months. Seven cases of itoccurred on the banks of the Thames just below London early in February, 1832, and though its virulence in England was alleged to be less than onthe continent, further experience hardly justified that opinion. Theappalling violence of its first onslaught on some vulnerable districtsmay be illustrated by the example of Manchester, where a whole familyjust arrived from an infected locality was swept away within twenty-fourhours. The government did its duty by disseminating instructions for itsprevention and treatment among the local authorities, but the prejudicesof the lower orders were against all interference for their benefit, andscenes of brutality were sometimes enacted such as may still bewitnessed in oriental cities scourged by the plague. After a temporarydecline, the visitation recurred in all its severity, and in July thedeaths of a few persons in the highest circles occasioned a panic in thewest end of London. Still the declared number of deaths in themetropolitan area was only 5, 275, showing a far lower rate of mortalityin London than in Paris at the same time, and much lower than in Londonitself during the epidemic of 1849, when statistics were moretrustworthy. None of the cholera epidemics, however, approached indeadliness the plagues of 1625 and 1665. In the latter year the numberof deaths in London from plague alone represented about one-fifth of theentire resident population--a proportion equivalent to a mortality ofabove 200, 000 in the London of 1831-32. This comparative immunity waspartly due to improved sanitation, the vigorous development of which maybe said to date from the first visitation of cholera. 

The census taken in 1831 revealed an increase of population, which, though not equal to that of the preceding decade, indicated a mostsatisfactory growth of wealth and employment. It was found that GreatBritain contained about 16, 500, 000 inhabitants, but of these, as mightbe expected, a smaller percentage was employed in agriculture and alarger percentage in manufacturing industry than in 1821. It has beencalculated that since the end of the great war the accumulation ofcapital had been twice as rapid as the multiplication of the people, but, in spite of this, pauperism, as measured by poor law expenditure, had increased almost continuously since 1823, and emigration received astartling impulse in 1831-32. Rick burning and frame breaking were thejoint result of childish ignorance, miserable wages, mistaken taxes onthe staple of food, and poor laws administered as if for the verypurpose of encouraging improvidence and vice. All these causes werecapable of being removed or mitigated by legislation, for even the rateof wages was kept down by the ruinous system of out-door relief. But itwas only a few thoughtful persons who then appreciated either the extentor the real sources of the mischief, and the disputes which soon aroseabout the proper remedies to be applied have been handed on to a laterage. 

Next to parliamentary reform the state of Ireland was by far the mostimportant subject which engaged the attention of the legislature in1831-32. The population had increased from 6, 801, 827 in 1821 to7, 767, 401 in 1831, and the increase, unlike that in England, had beenalmost exclusively in the agricultural districts. While the politicalmotive for multiplying small freeholds had ceased, the motives formultiplying small tenancies were as strong as ever, and were felt bylandlords no less than by cottiers. This class, often inhabiting hutslike those of savage tribes and living in a squalor hardly to be seenelsewhere in western Europe, chiefly depended for their subsistence onpotatoes--the most uncertain and the least nutritious of the crops usedfor human food. Many hundred thousands of them had no employment intheir own country and no means of livelihood except the produce of thescanty patches around their own turf cabins. Tens of thousands flockedto England annually seeking harvest work, and a small number emigratedto Canada or the United States, the passage money for an emigrant beingthen almost prohibitive. Those who could not pay rent were liable toeviction, and eviction was a more cruel fate then than now, since therewas no poor law in Ireland. Fever was rife in their miserable abodes, following in the steps of hunger, and for relief of any kind they couldrely only on the mercy of their landlords or the charity of theirneighbours. Under such conditions of life crime and disaffection couldnot but flourish, and the Irish peasant could hardly be blamed if helistened eagerly to the counsels of O'Connell. For him catholicemancipation had no meaning except so far as it gave him a hope thatparliament, swayed by the great Irish demagogue, would abolish tithes, if not rent, and find some means of making Irishmen happy in their owncountry. 

[Pageheading: _ANGLESEY LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND. _]

Had O'Connell been a true patriot, or even an honest politician, hewould have devoted his vast powers and influence to practical schemesfor the good of Ireland, and specially to a solution of the agrarianquestion. Unhappily, smarting under a not unfounded sense of injustice, when he was disabled from taking his seat for Clare, he threw his wholeenergy into a new campaign for the repeal of the union, which occupiedthe rest of his life. So far from acknowledging any gratitude to thewhigs, through whose support emancipation had been carried, he exhaustedall the resources of his scurrilous rhetoric upon them, lavishing theepithets "base, brutal, and bloody, " with something like Homericiteration. In December, 1830, Anglesey had returned to succeed the Dukeof Northumberland, and Stanley occupied the post of chief secretary, inplace of Hardinge. The ministers were privately advised to buy O'Connellat any price, and it was intimated that he would not object to become alaw officer of the crown, or at least would not refuse a judicialappointment. It may well be doubted whether the offer of such a bargainto such a man could have been justified by success; it is more thanprobable that it would have failed, and it is quite certain that failurewould have brought infinite discredit upon the government. At all eventsthe attempt was not made, and other catholic aspirants to legalpromotion were passed over with less excuse. 

Lord Anglesey proved a resolute viceroy, and proclaimed the variousassociations, meetings, and processions organised by O'Connell, withlittle regard for his own popularity. O'Connell's policy, carried outwith the cunning of a skilful lawyer, was to obey the law in the letter, but to break it almost defiantly in the spirit. At last, however, hewent a step too far by advising the people who had come for a prohibitedmeeting to reassemble and hold it elsewhere. He was arrested on January18, 1831, and pleaded "Not guilty, " but on February 17, when his trialcame on, he allowed judgment to go by default against him on thosecounts of the indictment which charged him with a statutable offence, provided that other counts, which charged him with a conspiracy atcommon law, should be withdrawn. The attorney-general assented, and thecase was adjourned until the first day in Easter term. Before that dayarrived, however, the reform bill had been introduced, and O'Connell hadmade a powerful speech in support of it. In the desperate struggle whichensued, the ministers shrunk from estranging so formidable an ally, afurther adjournment of the case was allowed, a sudden dissolution ofparliament took place, the act under which O'Connell was to be sentencedexpired with the parliament, and no further action was taken. 

[Pageheading: _"TITHE-WAR" IN IRELAND. _]

During the year 1831, the agitation for repeal which O'Connell had seton foot, as soon as the emancipation act had been passed, was for awhile thrust into the shade by the fiercer agitation against tithes. This agitation was connected, in theory, with the demand for theabolition or reduction of the Irish Church establishment, but was, infact, entirely independent of that or any other constitutional movement. It may seem inexplicable to political students of a later age that Irishquestions of secondary importance, and eminently capable of equitabletreatment, should have convulsed the whole island and disturbed thewhole course of imperial politics, during the reign of William IV. Therebellion against tithes or "tithe-war, " as it was called, had not thesemblance of justification in law or reason. Every tenant who took partin it had inherited or acquired his farm, subject to payment of tithes, and might have been charged a higher rent if he could have obtained ittithe-free. The tithe was the property of the parson as much as the landwas the property of the landlord, and the wilful refusal of it was froma legal point of view sheer robbery. On the other hand, the mode ofcollection was extremely vexatious, perhaps involving the seizure of apig, a bag of meal, or a sack of potatoes; and a starving cottier, paying fees to his own priest, was easily persuaded by demagogues thatit was an arbitrary tribute extorted by clerical tyrants of an alienfaith. 

Thus it came to pass that the history of the Irish "tithe-war" exhibitsthe Irish peasantry in their very worst moods, and it is stained withatrocities never surpassed in later records of Irish agrarianconspiracy. It is among the strange and sad anomalies of nationalcharacter that a people so kindly in their domestic relations, so littleprone to ordinary crime, and so amenable to better influences, shouldhave shown, in all ages, down to the very latest, a capacity fordastardly inhumanity, under vindictive and gregarious impulses, only tobe matched by Spanish and Italian brigands among the races of modernEurope. Yet so it is, and no "coercion" (so-called) ultimately enforcedby legal authority was comparable in severity with the coercion whichbloodthirsty miscreants ruthlessly applied to honest and peaceableneighbours, only guilty of paying their lawful debts. It is not too muchto say that anarchy prevailed over a great part of Ireland, especiallyof Leinster, during the years 1831 and 1832. The collection of tithesbecame almost impossible. The tithe-proctors were tortured or murdered;the few willing tithe-payers were cruelly maltreated or intimidated; thepolice, unless mustered in large bodies, were held at bay; cattle weredriven, or, if seized and offered for sale, could find no purchasers;and the protestant clergy, who had acted on the whole with greatforbearance, were reduced to extremities of privations. Five of thepolice were shot dead on one occasion; on another, twelve who wereescorting a tithe-proctor were massacred in cold blood. A large numberof rioters were killed in encounters with the police, which sometimesassumed the form of pitched battles and closely resembled civil war. Special commissions were sent down into certain districts, and a fewexecutions took place, but in most cases Irish juries proved asregardless of their oaths as they ever have on trials of prisoners forpopular crimes. O'Connell, and even Sheil, tacitly countenanced theselawless proceedings, and openly palliated them in the house of commons. 

The whig government, engaged in a life-and-death contest with theEnglish borough-mongers, hesitated to crush the Irish insurgents bymilitary force, or to initiate a sweeping reform of the Irish Church. Early in 1832, however, committees of both houses reported in favour ofgiving the clergy temporary relief out of public funds, and ofultimately commuting tithes into a charge upon the land. A preliminarybill for the former purpose was promptly carried by Stanley, and madethe government responsible for recovering the arrears. The committee, pursuing their inquiries, produced fuller reports, and again recommendeda complete extinction of tithes in Ireland. But the method proposed andembodied in three bills introduced by Stanley in the same year, was toocomplicated to serve as a permanent settlement, and was denounced asillusory by the Irish members. The first bill was, in fact, a compulsoryextension of acts already passed in 1822 and 1823, the former of whichhad permitted the tithe-owner to lease the tithe to the landlord, whilethe latter permitted the tithe-owner and tithe-payers of each parish toarrange a composition. Unfortunately, the act of 1823 had provided thatthe payment in commutation of tithe should be distributed overgrass-lands hitherto tithe-free in Ireland as well as over land hithertoliable to tithe. The act was in consequence unpopular with a section offarmers, while at the same time the bishops resented the commutation, aslikely to diminish the value of beneficies. But in spite of thisopposition the act of 1823 had been widely adopted. Stanley's bill torender such commutations compulsory passed, but his other two bills, providing a new ecclesiastical machinery for buying up tithes, wereabandoned at the end of the session. Of course the substitution of thegovernment for the clergyman as creditor in respect of arrears had nosoothing effect on the debtors. The reign of terror continued unabated, and O'Connell contented himself with pointing out that without repealthere could be no peace in Ireland. We may so far anticipate thelegislation of 1833 as to notice the inevitable failure of theexperiment which converted the government into a tithe-proctor. It wasthen replaced by a new plan, under which the government abandoned allprocesses under the existing law, advanced Ł1, 000, 000 to clear off allarrears of tithe, and sought reimbursement by a land tax payable for aperiod of five years. 

[Pageheading: _EDUCATION IN IRELAND. _]

It reflects credit on the unreformed house of commons that in its verylast session, harassed by the irreconcilable attitude of the catholicpopulation in Ireland, it should have found time and patience not onlyfor the pressing question of Irish tithes, but for the consideration ofa resolution introductory to an Irish poor law, of a bill (which becamelaw) for checking the abuses of Irish party processions, and of a grantfor a board to superintend the mixed education of Irish catholic andprotestant children. The discussion of Sadler's motion in favour of anIrish poor law was somewhat academic, and produced a division among theIrish members, O'Connell, with gross inconsistency, declaring himselfvehemently opposed to any such measure. The ministers professedsympathy with its principle, but would not pledge themselves to dealimmediately with so difficult and complicated a subject, perhapsforeseeing the necessity of radical change in the English poor lawsystem. The processions bill was vigorously resisted on behalf of theOrangemen, as specially aimed at their annual demonstrations on July 12, but it was so manifestly wise to remove every wanton aggravation ofparty spirit in Ireland, that it was passed just before the prorogation. 

The experiment of mixed education in Ireland had already been made withpartial success, first by individuals, and afterwards by an associationknown as the Kildare Place Society. On the appointment of Dr. Whately tothe archbishopric of Dublin, it received a fresh impulse, and Stanley, as chief secretary, definitely adopted the principle, recommended by twocommissions and two committees, of "a combined moral and literary andseparate religious instruction". A board of national education wasestablished in Dublin, composed of eminent Roman catholics as well asprotestants, to superintend all state-aided schools in which selectionsfrom the Bible, approved by the board, were to be read on two days inthe week. Though provision was made for unrestricted biblical teaching, out of school hours, on the other four days, protestant bigotry wasroused against the very idea of compromise. A shrewd observer remarked, "While the whole system is crumbling to dust under their feet, while theChurch is prostrate, property of all kind threatened, and robbery, murder, starvation, and agitation rioting over the land, these wiselegislators are debating whether the brats at school shall read thewhole Bible or only parts of it". [109] The opponents of the nationalboard failed to defeat the scheme in parliament, and it was justlymentioned with satisfaction by the king in his prorogation speech ofAugust 16. But its benefits, though lasting, were seriously curtailed bysectarian jealousy. Most of the protestant clergy frowned upon thenational schools, as the Roman catholic priesthood had frowned upon theschools of the Kildare Place Society, and a noble opportunity ofmitigating religious strife in Ireland was to a great extent wasted. Thus ended the eventful session of 1832. 

FOOTNOTES:

[104] See Professor Dicey's observations on this clause, _Law andOpinion in England_, p. 54, _n. _

[105] Wellington, _Despatches, etc. _, viii. , 206; Parker, _Sir RobertPeel_, ii. , 207. 

[106] Parker, _Sir Robert Peel_, ii. , 206. 

[107] Goldwin Smith, _United Kingdom_, ii. , 354; Dicey, _Law and Opinionin England_, p. 85. 

[108] C. Creighton, _History of Epidemics in Britain_, ii. , 768, 793-97, 860-62. 

[109] Greville, _Memoirs_ (March 9, 1832), ii. , 267. 

 CHAPTER XV. 

 FRUITS OF THE REFORM. 

It was assumed in 1832, and has been held ever since, that aredistribution act must be speedily followed by a dissolution, so as togive the new constituencies the power of returning new members. Accordingly, parliament, having been prorogued until October 16, wasfurther prorogued until December 3, and then finally dissolved. Thegeneral election which followed, though awaited with much anxiety, wasorderly on the whole, and produced less change than had been expected inthe _personnel_ of the house of commons. The counties, for the mostpart, elected men from the landed aristocracy, the great towns electedmen of recognised distinction, and few political leaders were excluded, though Croker abjured political life and refused to solicit a seat inthe reformed house of commons. The good sense of the country asserteditself; while Cobbett was returned for Oldham, "Orator" Hunt wasdefeated at Preston, and no general preference was shown for violentdemagogues by the more democratic boroughs. The age of members in thenew house was higher, on the average, than in the old; its socialcharacter was somewhat lower, and the high authority of William EwartGladstone, who now entered parliament for the first time, may be quotedfor the opinion that it was inferior, in the main, as a deliberativeassembly. But it was certainly superior as a representative assembly, itcontained more capable men of business, and its legislative productions, as we shall hereafter see, claim the gratitude of posterity. A certainwant of modesty in the new class of members was observed by hostilecritics, and was to be expected in men who had won their seats bypopular oratory and not through patronage. The house of commons hadalready ceased to be "the best club in London, " and later reforms havestill further weakened its title to be so regarded, but they have alsoshown the wonderful power of assimilation inherent in the atmosphere ofthe house itself, and the spirit of freemasonry which springs up amongthose who enter it by very different avenues. 

[Pageheading: _THE FIRST REFORMED PARLIAMENT. _]

The change wrought by the reform act in the strength and distribution ofparties was immediate and conspicuous. The ancient division of whigs andtories, which had become well-nigh obsolete in the reign of George IV. , had been revived by the great struggle of 1831-32. It was now supersededto a great extent by the combination of the radicals with O'Connell'sfollowers into an independent section, and by the growth of a partyunder Peel, distinct from the inveterate tories and known by the name of"conservative, " which first came into use in 1831. [110] Thepreponderance of liberalism, in its moderate and extreme forms, wasoverwhelming. It was roughly computed that nearly half the house wereministerialists and about 190 members radicals, Irish repealers, or freelances, while only 150 were classed as "conservatives, " apparentlyincluding tories. [111] In such circumstances the attitude to be adoptedby Peel was of the highest constitutional importance. It is some proofof the respect for statesmanship instinctively felt by the new house ofcommons that Peel, as inexorable an opponent of reform as Canninghimself, should at once have assumed a foremost position and soonobtained an ascendency in an assembly so largely composed of hisopponents. 

But Peel himself was no longer a mere party leader. Unlike Wellingtonand Eldon, he saw the necessity of accepting loyally the accomplishedfact and shaping his future course in accordance with the nation's will. He, therefore, took an early opportunity of declaring that he regardedthe reform act as irrevocable, and that he was prepared to participatein the dispassionate amendment of any institution that really needed it. In a private letter to Goulburn he stated that, in his judgment, "thebest position the government could assume would be that of moderationbetween opposite extremes of ultra-toryism and radicalism, " intimatingfurther that "we should appear to the greatest advantage in defendingthe government" against their own extreme left wing. [112] In thispolicy he persevered; his influence did much to quell the confusion anddisorder of the first debate, and his followers swelled the governmentmajorities in several of the early divisions. When he came to review thefirst session of the reformed parliament he remarked in a private letterthat what had been foreseen took place, that "the popular assemblyexercised tacitly supreme power, " and, without abolishing the crown orthe house of lords, overawed the convictions of both. [113]

[Pageheading: _IRISH COERCION BILL. _]

The passion for reform, far from spending itself in remodelling thehouse of commons, filled the statute-book with monuments of remediallegislation. No session was more fruitful in legislative activity thanthat of 1833. But the way of legislation was at first blocked againstall projects of improvement by the urgent necessity of passing an Irishcoercion bill. This had been indicated in the king's speech, and onFebruary 15, 1833 Grey introduced the strongest measure of repressionever devised for curbing anarchy in Ireland. It combined, as heexplained, the provisions of "the proclamation act, the insurrectionact, the partial application of martial law, and the partial suspensionof the _habeas corpus_ act". But the barbarities and terrorism which itwas designed to put down were beyond precedent and almost beyond belief. The attempt to collect the arrears of tithe, even with the aid ofmilitary force, had usually failed, and less than an eighth of the sumdue was actually levied. The organised defiance of law was not, however, confined to refusal of tithes; it embraced the refusal of rent andextended over the whole field of agrarian relations. The Whiteboys ofthe eighteenth century reappeared as "Whitefeet, " and other secretassociations, under grotesque names, enforced their decrees by wholesalemurder, burglary, arson, savage assaults, destruction of property, andmutilation of cattle. In two counties, Kilkenny and Queen's County, nearly a hundred murders or attempted murders were reported withintwelve months, and the murderous intimidation of witnesses and jurorssecured impunity to perpetrators of crimes. No civilised governmentcould have tolerated an orgy of lawlessness on so vast a scale, andnothing but the exigencies of the reform bill can excuse Grey and hiscolleagues for not having grappled with it earlier. Nor does it appearthat any remedy less stern would have been effectual. Where unarmedcitizens have not the courage either to protect themselves or to aid theconstabulary employed for their protection, soldiers, accustomed to facedeath and inflict it upon others under lawful command, must be called into maintain order. Where civil tribunals have become a mockery, summaryjustice must be dealt out by military tribunals. Force may be no remedyfor grievances, but it is the one sovereign remedy for organised crime, and this was soon to be proved in Ireland. 

The viceroy, Anglesey, true to his liberal instincts, would havepostponed coercion to measures of relief, such as a settlement of thechurch question. Stanley, on the other hand, insisted on the promptintroduction of a stringent peace preservation bill, and his energeticwill prevailed. The bill contained provisions enabling thelord-lieutenant to suppress any meeting, establishing a curfew law indisturbed districts, and placing offenders in such districts under thejurisdiction of courts martial with legal assessors. It passed the houseof lords with little discussion on the 22nd, and was laid before thehouse of commons a few days later by Althorp, who had already brought inan Irish Church temporalities bill. The debate on the address hadalready given warning of the reception which the Irish members wouldaccord to any coercion bill, and of their malignant hostility toStanley. Efforts were made to delay its introduction, and full advantagewas taken of Althorp's statement that one special commission had beencompletely successful. His opening speech, tame and inconclusive, discouraged his own followers. The fate of the bill appeared doubtful, but Stanley, who had twice staked the existence of the ministry on itsadoption, reversed the whole tendency of the debate by a speech ofmarvellous force and brilliancy, which Russell afterwards described as"one of the greatest triumphs ever won in a popular assembly by thepowers of oratory". [114] It was in this speech that he proved himself atleast a match for O'Connell, whom he scathed with fierce indignation ashaving lately called the house of commons a body of scoundrels. It costmany nights of debate to carry the bill, with slight amendments, butStanley's appeal had a lasting effect, and it became law in April, tothe great benefit of Ireland. 

[Pageheading: _IRISH CHURCH TEMPORALITIES BILL. _]

Meanwhile, the Irish Church temporalities bill was pressed forward as acounterpoise to coercion. It imposed a graduated tax upon all episcopal, capitular, and clerical incomes above Ł200 a year, and placed theproceeds, estimated at Ł60, 000 or Ł70, 000 a year, in the hands ofcommissioners, to be expended in the repairs of churches, the erectionof glebe-houses, and other parochial charges. In this way Irishratepayers might be relieved of the obnoxious "vestry cess, " a speciesof Church rate, at the expense of the clergy. A further saving ofŁ60, 000 a year or upwards was to be effected by a reduction of the Irishepiscopate, aided by a new and less wasteful method of leasing Churchlands attached to episcopal sees. Two out of four Irish archbishopricsand eight out of eighteen bishoprics were doomed to extinction, asvacancies should occur. Dioceses and benefices were to be freelyconsolidated, clerical sinecures were to cease, and the more scandalousabuses of the Irish Church were to be redressed. 

As a scheme for ecclesiastical rearrangement within the Church itself, the bill was sound and liberal, but it was utterly futile to imaginethat it would be welcomed, except as a mere instalment of conciliation, by Roman catholics who looked upon the protestant Church itself as astanding national grievance. The only boon secured to them was exemptionfrom their share of vestry cess, for, though Althorp intimated that theultimate surplus to be realised by the union of sees and livings wouldbe at the disposal of parliament, they well knew how many influenceswould operate to prevent its reaching them. Not even O'Connell, stillless the ministry, ventured to propose "concurrent endowment" as it wasafterwards called, and the very idea of diverting revenues from theprotestant establishment to Roman catholic uses was disclaimed withhorror. More than a century earlier, a partition of these revenuesbetween the great protestant communions had been seriously entertained, and Pitt had notoriously contemplated a provision for the Roman catholicpriests out of state funds. But no such demand was now made, and the onefeature of the bill which commanded the vigorous support of O'Connelland his adherents was the 147th section, or "appropriation clause, "which enabled parliament to apply the expected surplus of some Ł60, 000in income, or some Ł3, 000, 000 in capital, to whatever purposes, secularor otherwise, it might think fit to approve. The far-reaching importanceof this principle was fully understood on both sides. To radicals andRoman catholics it was the sole virtue of the bill; to friends of theIrish Church and tories it was a blot to be erased at any cost. 

The progress of the measure was not rapid. Its nature had been explainedby Althorp on February 12, but it was not in print on March 11 when, notwithstanding the reasonable protest of Peel, he induced the house tofix the second reading for the 14th. It was then found that, owing toits form, it must be preceded by resolutions, in order to satisfy therules of the house. These resolutions, containing the essence of thebill, were proposed on April 1, but were not adopted without a longdebate, and the debate on the second reading did not begin until May 6. It ended in a majority of 317 to 78 for the government, chiefly due to amoderate speech from Sir Robert Peel, who, however, denounced the policyof "appropriation". The discussion in committee was far more vehement, and radicals like Hume did not shrink from avowing their desire to pulldown the Irish establishment, root and branch. The attack on theconservative side was mainly concentrated on the appropriation clause. In vain was it argued that a great part of the expected surplus was notChurch property, inasmuch as it would result from improvements in thesystem of episcopal leases to be carried out by the agency of the state. Every one saw that, however disguised, and whether legitimate or not, appropriation of the surplus for secular purposes would be an act ofconfiscation, and must needs be interpreted as a precedent. 

The cabinet itself was divided on the subject, and despaired of savingthe bill in the house of lords, without sacrificing the disputed clause. On June 21, therefore, Stanley announced in the house of commons thatthe appropriation clause would be withdrawn, and that any profitsarising out of financial reforms within the Church would be allowed tofall into the hands of the ecclesiastical commissioners. The fury ofO'Connell was unbounded, and not so devoid of excuse as many of hispassionate outbreaks. He treated the Church bill as the stipulatedprice to be paid for the coercion bill, and the appropriation clause asthe only part of it, except relief from vestry cess, which could possessthe smallest value for Irish Roman catholics. There was no valid answerto his argument, except that another collision with the house of lordsmust be avoided at any tolerable cost, for, as Russell bluntly said, "the country could not stand a revolution once a year". Thus lightened, and slightly modified in the interest of Irish incumbents, the billpassed through committee and was read a third time by very largemajorities, the minority being mainly composed of its old radicalpartisans. Peel's letters show how anxious he was to "make the reformbill work, " by protecting the government against this extremefaction, [115] and the parliamentary reports show how much he did tofrustrate the attempt to intimidate the lords by a resolution of thecommons. 

The debate in the upper house lasted three nights in July, but is almostdevoid of permanent interest. The appropriation question being dropped, there was little to discuss except the historical origin of Irishdioceses, the precedents for their consolidation, and the economicaldetails of the scheme for equalising, in some degree, the incomes ofIrish clergymen. Two or three peers, headed by the Duke of Cumberland, took their stand once more on the coronation oath, and Bishop Phillpottsof Exeter availed himself of this objection in one of the most powerfulspeeches delivered against the bill. On the other hand, Bishop Blomfieldof London, and the Duke of Wellington, now acting in concert with Peel, gave it a grudging support, as the less of two evils. After passing thesecond reading by a majority of 157 to 98, it was subjected to minutecriticism in committee, and one amendment was carried against thegovernment, but Grey wisely declined to relinquish it except on somevital issue. The majority on the third reading was 135 to 81, and onAugust 2 the commons agreed to the lords' amendments, O'Connellremarking that, after all, the peers had not made the bill much worsethan they found it. More than a generation was to elapse before this"act to alter and amend the laws relating to the temporalities of theChurch in Ireland" was completed by an act severing that Church fromthe state. But the ulterior aims of those who first challenged thesanctity of Church endowments were not concealed, and the more thanErastian tendency of the liberal movement was henceforth clearlyperceived by high Churchmen. We know, on the authority of Dr. Newman, that he and his early associates regarded the Anglican revival of whichthey were the pioneers as essentially a reaction against liberalism, andliberalism as the most formidable enemy of sacerdotal power. 

[Pageheading: _STANLEY COLONIAL SECRETARY. _]

Long before the Irish church bill had passed the house of commonsStanley exchanged the chief secretaryship of Ireland for the higheroffice of colonial secretary, to which he was gazetted on March 28. Hisuncompromising advocacy of the coercion bill, and his known hostility todirect spoliation of the Church, alike provoked the hatred of IrishRoman catholics, and Brougham had already advised his retirement fromIreland. His promotion was facilitated by the resignation of Durham, nominally on grounds of health, but also because he was in constantantagonism to his own father-in-law, Grey, and his moderate colleaguesin the cabinet. He received an earldom, and was succeeded as lord privyseal by Goderich, who became Earl of Ripon. This opened the colonialoffice to Stanley, who instantly found himself face to face with aquestion almost as intractable as the pacification of Ireland. Sir JohnHobhouse became chief secretary for Ireland, but without a seat in thecabinet. He resigned in May, and was succeeded by Edward John Littleton, who was married to a natural daughter of the Marquis Wellesley. 

Among the statutes passed in 1833, there are several, besides thoserelating to Ireland, of sufficient importance to confer distinction uponany parliamentary session. One of these is entitled "an act for thebetter administration of justice in His Majesty's privy council"; asecond, "an act for the abolition of slavery throughout the Britishcolonies, for promoting the industry of the manumitted slaves, and forcompensating the persons hitherto entitled to the services of suchslaves"; a third, "an act for the abolition of fines and recoveries, andfor the substitution of more simple methods of assurance"; a fourth, "anact to regulate the trade to China and India"; a fifth, "an act forgiving to the corporation of the governor and company of the Bank ofEngland certain privileges, for a limited period, under certainconditions"; a sixth, "an act to regulate the labour of children andyoung persons in the mills and factories of the United Kingdom". Not oneof these salutary measures was forced upon the legislature by popularclamour, every one of them represents a sincere zeal for what has beenridiculed as "world-bettering, " and the parliament that passed them musthave been thoroughly imbued with the spirit of reform. 

Foremost of these measures, as a monument of philanthropic legislation, will ever stand the act for the abolition of colonial slavery. No classin the country was concerned in its promotion; the powerful interests ofthe planters were arrayed against it; and humanity, operating throughpublic opinion, was the only motive which could induce a government toespouse the anti-slavery cause. Stanley had not occupied his new officemany weeks when on May 14 it became his lot to explain the ministerialscheme in the house of commons. Its essence consisted in the immediateextinction of absolute property in slaves, but with somewhat complicatedprovisions for an intermediate state of apprenticeship, to last twelveyears. During this period negroes were to be maintained by their formermasters, under an obligation to serve without wages for three-fourths oftheir working hours, and were to earn wages during the remaining fourth. All children under six years of age were to become free at once, and allborn after the passing of the act were to be free at birth. Theproprietors were to receive compensation by way of loan, to the extentof Ł15, 000, 000, and additional grants were promised for the institutionof a stipendiary magistracy and a system of education. 

Several resolutions embodying the scheme were carried, with littleopposition, though some abolitionists, headed by Mr. Fowell Buxton, awealthy brewer and eminent philanthropist, who sat for Weymouth, tookstrong exception to compulsory apprenticeship, as perpetuating theprinciple of slavery, however mitigated by the recognition of personalliberty and the suppression of corporal punishment. It was foundexpedient, however, in deference to a very strong remonstrance from WestIndian proprietors, to convert the proposed loan of Ł15, 000, 000 into anabsolute payment of Ł20, 000, 000, and this noble donation, forconscience' sake, was actually ratified by parliament and the country. The bill founded on the resolutions met with no serious opposition, butan amendment by Buxton for adopting free labour at once was lost by sonarrow a majority that Stanley consented to reduce the period ofapprenticeship to an average of six years. In this instance the lordsfollowed the guidance of the commons, and a measure of almost quixoticliberalism was endorsed by them without hesitation. It must be confessedthat experience has not verified the confident prediction that freelabour would prove more profitable than slave labour, but Great Britainhas never repented of the abolition act, and its example was followed, thirty years later, by the United States. 

[Pageheading: _FACTORY ACTS. _]

The first of the general factory acts was marked by the samephilanthropic character, but here the manufacturing capitalists, introduced by the reform act, were induced by self-interest to opposeit. Ever since the beginning of the century the sufferings anddegradation of children in factories had occasionally engaged theattention of parliament, but the full enormity of the factory system wasknown to few except those who profited by it. It seems incredible, butit was shown afterwards by irresistible evidence, that children of sevenyears old and upwards were often compelled to work twelve or fourteenhours a day, with two short intervals for meals, in a most unwholesomeatmosphere, exposed not only to ill-treatment but to every form of moralcorruption. A very partial remedy was applied by a law passed in 1802which restricted the hours of labour to twelve for mills in whichapprentices were employed. The same limit of hours was extended tocotton mills generally in 1816, and, but for the resistance of the houseof lords, it would have been reduced to ten, as a select committee hadrecommended on the initiative of the first Sir Robert Peel. A few yearslater the question was revived by Sir John Hobhouse, but left unsettled. In 1831 Sadler introduced a ten hours bill for children, and obtained aselect committee, before which disclosures were made well calculated toshock the country. At the general election of 1832, Sadler was defeatedby Macaulay for the new borough of Leeds, but his mantle fell on LordAshley, afterwards Earl of Shaftesbury, one of the noblestphilanthropists of modern times. 

Early in the session of 1833 Ashley introduced a ten hours bill, applicable, like that of Sadler, to all young persons under eighteenyears of age working in factories. It also prohibited the employment ofchildren under nine, and provided for the appointment of inspectors. Itwas strongly opposed by the Lancashire members as interfering withfreedom of labour even for adults, since mills could not be kept runningwithout the labour of boys under eighteen. They also objected to theevidence already reported as one-sided, and succeeded in procuring theappointment of a royal commission. This commission prosecuted itsinquiries with unusual despatch, but its report was not in the hands ofmembers on July 5, when the bill came on for its second reading. ThoughAlthorp, unwilling to offend the manufacturing interest, pleaded fordeliberation and urged that a select committee should frame theregulations to be adopted, the majority of the house was impatient ofdelay, and he encountered a defeat. The question now resolved itselfinto a choice between a greater or less limitation of hours. On thisquestion, a compromise proposed by Althorp prevailed, and Ashleyresigned the conduct of the bill into his hands. It was further modifiedin committee, but ultimately became law in a form which secured the mainobjects of its promoters. No child under nine years of age could beemployed at all in a factory, after two years none under thirteen couldbe worked more than eight hours, and no young person under eighteencould be required to work more than sixty-nine hours a week, while theprovisions for inspection were retained along with others whichcontained the germ of education on the half-time system. 

[Pageheading: _THE EAST INDIA COMPANY. _]

The trading monopoly of the East India Company, though confined to Chinaby the act of 1813, had been regarded ever since with great jealousy bythe mercantile community. As the revised charter was now on the point ofexpiring, it was for the government to frame terms of renewal whichmight satisfy the growing demand for free trade. Their scheme, which fewwere competent to criticise, met with general approval, and the onlydetermined opposition to it was offered in the house of lords byEllenborough, who lived to come into sharp collision with the court ofdirectors as governor-general. It was embodied in three simpleresolutions, the first of which recommended the legislature to open theChina trade without reserve, the second provided for the assumption bythe crown of all the company's assets and liabilities but with theobligation of paying the company a fixed subsidy, while the lastaffirmed the expediency of entrusting the company with the politicalgovernment of India. Grant, who moved these resolutions, as president ofthe board of control, had no occasion to defend the policy of settingfree the China trade which no one disputed; but he undertook to showthat it had declined in the hands of the company, and that privatecompetition had already crept in on a large scale. He also dwelt on theadvantage of bringing the political relations arising out of commercialintercourse more directly under the control of the government. Hisreasoning was sound, and the China trade rapidly developed, nor could hebe expected to foresee the course of events whereby the governmentafterwards became embroiled with the Chinese empire, on the importationof opium, and other economical questions. As compensation for the lossof its exclusive privileges, the company was to receive an annuity ofŁ630, 000, charged on the territorial revenues of India. 

The policy of continuing the company's rule in India for twenty yearslonger would have excited more earnest discussion in a session lesscrowded with legislative projects. The way had been paved for theconcession of complete free trade in the eastern seas by the reports ofselect committees and parliamentary debates under former governments. The consumers of tea, numbered by millions, promised themselves a betterquality at a lower price, and a keen spirit of enterprise was kindled bythe idea of breaking into the unknown resources of China. But publicinterest in the administration of India was languid. It might well haveappeared that a board sitting in Leadenhall Street was fitter to conductshipping and mercantile operations than to govern an imperial dependencylike British India. But the contrary alternative was almost tacitlyaccepted. The directors were "to remain princes, but no longer merchantprinces, " and Ellenborough complained that whereas "hitherto the courthad appeared in India as beneficent conquerors, henceforth they would bemortgagees in possession". Perhaps the ministry shrunk from provokingthe storm of obloquy which must have resulted from placing the vastpatronage of the company in the hands of the crown. At all events, itwas agreed, with little dissent, that under the new charter the companyshould nominally retain the reins of power, checked, however, by Pitt's"board of control, " the president of which, in reality, shared adespotic authority with the governor-general of Bengal, who washereafter to be in name what he had long been in fact, governor-generalof India. The bill strengthened his council, and enabled him tolegislate for all India. 

At the same time Europeans were permitted to settle and hold land inIndia without the necessity of applying for a licence. Lastly, theprinciple was laid down, pregnant with future consequences, that allpersons in India, without distinction of race or creed, should besubject to the same law and eligible for all offices under thegovernment. Such was the last charter of the great company. It isinteresting to observe that Grant, in admitting that the government ofIndia under its sway had not been prone "to make any great or rapidstrides in improvement, " paid a just tribute to its eminently pacificcharacter. "It excited vigilance, " he said, "against any encroachment ofviolence or rapacity; it ensured to the people that which they mostrequired--repose, security, and tranquillity. " The immense annexationsof territory and far-reaching reforms which have created the BritishIndia of the twentieth century were either most reluctantly sanctionedby the court of directors or have been carried out since its dominionwas transferred to the crown. Irrevocable as they are, and beneficent asthey may be on the whole, they have certainly imposed difficulties ofportentous magnitude upon the rulers of India, nor would it besurprising if some native survivors of the olden days in far-offrecesses of the country should remember with sad regret the paternal, though unprogressive, despotism of the sovereign company. 

[Pageheading: _THE BANK CHARTER ACT. _]

The bank charter act of 1833, having been superseded by that of 1844, fills a less important place than it otherwise would in the history oflegislation on currency. The bill was founded, however, on the report ofa secret committee which embraced Peel as well as Althorp and severalother members of high financial repute or great experience in the city. Since the subject of it was familiar to a large section of membersengaged in business, and touched the pockets of bankers all over thecountry, it was discussed in the house of commons far more earnestlythan the bill renewing the charter of the East India Company. In the endtwo provisions were dropped, which directly encouraged the increase ofjoint stock banks. The rest were passed, and contained importantmodifications of the banking system as it then existed. The mainprivileges of the Bank of England were continued, in spite of a strongopposition and of protests against the one-sided inquiry said to havebeen conducted by the secret committee. These privileges embraced theexclusive possession of the government balances, the monopoly of limitedliability, then refused to other banks, and the right, shared by noother joint stock bank, of issuing its own notes. Though private Londonbanks might have legally exercised this power they did not actually doso, and nearly all of them deposited their reserves with the Bank ofEngland. 

Another part of the scheme, which even Peel condemned, was thus brieflystated in a preliminary resolution: "That, provided the Bank of Englandcontinued liable, as at present, to defray in the current coin of therealm all its existing engagements, it was expedient that its promissorynotes should be constituted a legal tender for sums of Ł5 and upwards". In other words, country bankers would no longer be compelled to cashtheir own notes, or pay off their deposits in gold, but might use Bankof England notes instead, above the value of Ł5. The Bank of England, however, and all its branches, remained liable to cash payments, asbefore, so that, as Baring argued, only one intermediate stage wasinterposed between the presentation of a country note and the exchangeof it for specie. Peel's objection, which did not prevail, chieflyrested on the danger of the Bank of England closing its branches in itsown interests, in order to check the demand for cash. Though his fearswere not literally realised, experience disclosed the danger of countrybanks multiplying unduly, and, by their over-issue of notes, causing asevere drain upon the Bank of England for gold. For the present, however, the critics of the measure were less concerned in forecastingsuch remote consequences than in protesting against the charge to bemade by the bank for managing the public debt. This charge was, in fact, to be reduced by Ł120, 000 a year, but one-fourth part of the advancesmade by the bank to the public (or Ł3, 671, 700) was to be paid off, andthe proposed remuneration was denounced as exorbitant. Althorp hardlydenied that it was a good bargain for the bank, though he persuaded thehouse of commons to endorse the arrangement, rather than incur thedislocation of national finance and commercial business certain to ensueif the bank should withdraw from its connexion with the government anduse its vast influence for its own interest alone. 

[Pageheading: _LEGAL REFORMS. _]

Two great law reforms close the series of important remedial measurespassed in the first session of the reformed parliament--a session, be itremembered, which embraced all the furious and protracted debates on theIrish coercion act and the Irish Church temporalities act. The first ofthese was Brougham's valuable bill constituting a permanent "judicialcommittee of the privy council, " and transferring to it the judicialfunctions theoretically belonging to "the king in council, " butpractically exercised by committees selected _ad hoc_ on each occasion. Charles Greville, to whose memoirs all historians of this period aregreatly indebted, and who in 1833 was clerk of the council, was inclinedto disparage the proposed change as one of Brougham's fanciful projects, designed to gratify his own self-importance. [116] Even Greville, however, saw reason to modify his view, and the new court has ever sincecommanded general respect, except from those high Churchmen who resentedits assumption of the appellate jurisdiction in ecclesiastical causes, formerly vested, along with a similar jurisdiction in admiralty causes, in the king in chancery, and exercised by a "court of delegates, "usually consisting of three common law judges and three or fourcivilians selected _ad hoc_. 

The essential defects of such a court were fully stated in the report ofa very strong commission, including six bishops, appointed in 1830. Probably the expediency of reforming the jurisdiction of the privycouncil for the purpose of hearing these ecclesiastical appeals may havesuggested to Brougham the idea of constructing a standing appellatetribunal within the privy council, for the purpose of hearing allappeals that might come before that body. Accordingly, after carrying abill in 1832 whereby the privy council, as such, took over the powers ofthe "court of delegates, " he introduced the general bill whereby thejudicial committee was created, and under which it still acts. It was toconsist of the lord chancellor, with the present and past holders ofcertain high judicial offices, and two privy councillors to beappointed by the sovereign; to whom prelates, being privy councillors, were to be added for ecclesiastical appeals. The system thus founded, and since developed, is capable of indefinite expansion, in case stillcloser relations should be established between Great Britain and thecolonies. 

The act for the abolition of fines and recoveries, though scarcelyintelligible except to lawyers, was a masterpiece not only ofdraughtsmanship, but of honest law amendment. It swept away grotesqueand antiquated forms of conveyance, which had lost their meaning forcenturies, and which nothing but professional self-interest kept alive. Had it been followed up by legislation in a like spirit on otherdepartments of law, the profits of lawyers and the needless expenses ofclients might have been reduced to an extent of which the unlearnedpublic has no conception. As it was, it simplified the process ofselling land in a remarkable degree, though it left untouched thecomplications of title and transfer affecting real property, which nolord chancellor since Brougham has been courageous enough to attack inearnest, and which remain the distinctive reproach of English law. It isnot without shame that we read in the king's prorogation speech, delivered on August 29, 1833, the assurance that he will heartilyco-operate with parliament in making justice easily accessible to allhis subjects. He adds that, with this view, a commission has been issued"for digesting into one body the enactments of the criminal law, and forinquiring how far, and by what means, a similar process may be extendedto the other branches of jurisprudence". Seventy years have sinceelapsed, yet this royal promise of codification is not even in course offulfilment. On the other hand, Brougham's scheme for establishing localcourts in certain parts of the kingdom was destined to bear ample fruitin the next reign. It was described by Eldon as "a most abominablebill, " and, being generally opposed by the law lords, was rejected by asmall majority, but it was the germ of the county courts, which havesince done so much to bring justice within the reach and the means ofpoor suitors. 

Notwithstanding its legislative exploits, the whig government wasdeclining in popularity at the end of 1833, and was beginning todiscover how vain it is to rely on political gratitude. Other reforminggovernments have since undergone the same bitter experience, the causesof which are by no means obscure. No reform can be effected without"harassing interests, " and the sense of resentment in the sections ofthe community thus harassed is far stronger and more efficacious thanany appreciation of the benefits reaped by the general public at home, or by mankind at large. Again, the expectations excited by the agitationof such a question as parliamentary reform are far beyond the power ofany legislature to satisfy. Grey and his colleagues were too well awareof this, and Stanley, for one, manfully championed the governmentmeasures on their own merits, disdaining to flatter the radicals, buthis discretion was not equal to his valour, and every debate broughtinto stronger relief the more statesmanlike capacity and moderation ofPeel. There was no tory reaction, but a growing distrust of heroicremedies for national disorders, and a growing faith in the possibledevelopment of a liberal policy in a conservative spirit. Even the Dukeof Wellington found himself restored insensibly to popular favour, andwas again received in the streets with marks of public respect. 

[Pageheading: _ALTHORP'S THIRD BUDGET. _]

Of all the ministers, no one enjoyed a greater share of confidence bothin and out of parliament than Althorp. He was not a great financier, buthe was an honest and prudent chancellor of the exchequer, a free-traderby conviction, and incapable of those artifices by which a plausiblebalance-sheet may be made out at the cost of future liabilities. Yet hisbudgets of 1831, 1832, and 1833 undoubtedly helped to shake the creditof the government. The first had been far too ambitious, and becamealmost futile, when the proposed tax on transfers was abandoned, and thetimber duties left undisturbed. The second was modest enough, and wassaved from damaging criticism by the absorbing interest of the reformbill. Considerable reductions were made in the estimates, the revenueyielded somewhat more than had been expected, and Althorp was enabled topresent a favourable account in 1833. He anticipated a surplus of abouta million and a half, out of which he was prepared to abolish certainvexatious duties and to decrease others. But the country gentlemen, headed by Ingilby, member for Lincolnshire, insisted on a reduction ofthe malt duty by one-half, while the borough members, headed by Sir JohnKey, clamoured for a repeal of the house tax and window tax. The formermotion was actually carried against the government by a small majority, but its effect was annulled, and the latter motion was defeated, by askilful manoeuvre. This consisted in the proposal by Althorp of acounter-resolution, declaring that, if half of the malt tax and thewhole tax on windows and houses were to be taken off, it would benecessary to meet the deficiency by a general income tax. Such aprospect was equally alarming to the landed interest and thehouseholders, whose rival demands were mutually destructive, the resultbeing that Althorp's amendment was carried by a large majority, and thegovernment escaped humiliation, though not without some loss ofprestige. 

It was perhaps to be expected that private members in the first sessionof the reformed parliament should be eager to gain a hearing for theirspecial projects of improvement. So it was, but two only of theseprojects deserved historical mention. One of these was the abortiveattempt of Attwood, the radical member for Birmingham, to reverse thepolicy of 1819 by inducing parliament to initiate the return to a papercurrency. Cobbett actually followed up this failure by moving for anaddress praying the king to dismiss Sir Robert Peel from his councils, amotion defeated by a majority of 295 to 4. 

FOOTNOTES:

[110] _The Croker Papers_, ii. , 198. 

[111] Mahon to Peel (Jan, 8, 1833), Parker, _Sir Robert Peel_, ii. , 209. 

[112] Jan. 3, 1833, Parker, _Sir Robert Peel_, ii. , 213. 

[113] Peel to Croker (Sept. 28, 1833), _ibid. _, p. 224. 

[114] Russell, _Recollections and Suggestions_, p. 113. 

[115] Parker, _Sir Robert Peel_, ii. , 212-16. 

[116] Greville, _Memoirs_, ii. , 364, 365. 

 CHAPTER XVI. 

 RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS AND POOR LAW REFORM. 

The year 1833, so fruitful in legislation, may be said to have witnessedthe birth of a religious movement which has profoundly affected thecharacter of the national Church. The neo-catholic revival, whichafterwards took its popular name from Pusey but drew its chiefinspiration from Newman, was in a great degree the outcome of the reformact and a reaction against the more than Erastian tendencies of thereformed parliament. In the early part of the century, as we have seen, personal and practical religion was mainly represented by theevangelical or low Church party, which did admirable service in thecause of philanthropy, as well as in reclaiming the masses fromheathenism. The high Church party was comparatively inactive, butco-operated with its rival in opposition to catholic emancipation. Theclergy, as a body, were hostile to reform, and the bishops incurred thefiercest obloquy by voting against the first reform bill, which hadunfortunately been rejected by a majority exactly corresponding with thenumber of their votes. [117] The democratic outcry against the Churchbecame louder and louder, as the evils of nepotism, pluralism, andsinecurism were exposed to public criticism, and a growing dispositionwas shown to deal with Church endowments both in England and in Ireland, if not as the property of the state, yet as under its paramount control. 

[Pageheading: _THE TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT. _]

The recent infusion of Irish Roman catholics into the house of commons, following that of Scotch presbyterians a century earlier, rendered itless and less fit, in the opinion of high Churchmen, to legislate forthe Church of England, and every concession to religious liberty shockedthem as a step towards "National Apostasy". This was, in fact, theimpressive title of a sermon preached by John Keble, in July, 1833, before the university of Oxford. From this sermon Newman himself datedthe origin of the Oxford or "Tractarian" movement, but its inward sourcelay deeper. Having lost all confidence in the state and even in theAnglican hierarchy as a creature of the state, a section of the clergyhad already been looking about for another basis of authority, and hadfound it in theories of apostolical succession and Church organisation. The university of Oxford was a natural centre for such a reaction, andit was set on foot with the deliberate purpose of defending the Churchand the Christianity of England against the anti-catholic aggressions ofthe dominant liberalism. It was not puritanism but liberal secularismwhich Newman always denounced as the arch-enemy of the catholic faith. For, as Wesley's sympathies were originally with high Church doctrines, so Newman's sympathies were originally with evangelical doctrines, norwere they ever entirely stifled by his ultimate secession to the RomanChurch. 

The later development of this movement, which had its cradle in thecommon room of Oriel College, belongs rather to ecclesiastical history, and to the reign of Queen Victoria. But from the first it rallied aconsiderable body of support. Many who were not influenced by themovement, shared its earlier aspirations. Shortly after the formation ofan association, under Newman and Keble's auspices, seven or eightthousand of the clergy signed an address to the Archbishop ofCanterbury, insisting upon the necessity of restoring Church discipline, maintaining Church principles, and checking the progress oflatitudinarianism. A large section of the laity ranged themselves on theside of the revival, and meetings were held throughout England. The kinghimself volunteered a declaration of his strong affection for thenational Church now militant, and prepared to assert itself, not merelyas a true branch of the catholic Church, but as a co-ordinate power withthe state. In the autumn of 1833, Newman and one of his colleagueslaunched the first of that series of tracts from which his followersderived the familiar name of Tractarians. From that day he was theirrecognised leader, yet he claimed no allegiance and issued no commands. He felt himself, not the creator of a new party, but a loyal son of theold Church, at last awakened from her lethargy. The spell which heexercised over so many young minds was due to a personal influence ofwhich he was almost unconscious, but which spread from the pulpit of St. Mary's Church and his college rooms at Oriel over a great part of theuniversity and the Church. It was broken some years later, when he gaveup the _via media_ which he had so long been advocating, accepted thelogical consequences of his own teaching, and reproached others for notdiscovering that Anglicanism was but a pale and deformed counterfeit ofthe primitive Christianity represented, in its purity, by the Church ofRome. 

Looking back at this movement across an interval of seventy years, wemay well feel astonished that it satisfied the aspirations ofinquisitive minds in contact with the ideas of their own times. For thiswas the age of Benthamism in social philosophy and "German neology" inbiblical criticism. Though national education was in its infancy, a newdesire for knowledge, and even a free-thinking spirit, was permeatingthe middle classes, and had gained a hold among the more intelligent ofthe artisans. The Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, established by Brougham, circulated a mass of instructive andstimulating literature at a cheap rate; popular magazines andcyclopćdias were multiplying yearly; and the British Association, whichheld its first meeting at Oxford in 1832, brought the results of naturalscience within the reach of thousands and tens of thousands incapable ofscientific research. The _Bridgwater Treatises_, which belong to thereign of William IV. , are evidence of a widespread anxiety to reconcilethe claims and conclusions of science with those of the receivedtheology. Thoughtful and religious laymen in the higher ranks of societywere earnestly seeking a reason for the faith that was in them, andpondering over fundamental problems like the personality of God, thedivinity of Christ, the reality of supernatural agency, and the awfulmystery of the future life. Yet the tractarians passed lightly over allthese problems, to exercise themselves and others with disputations onpoints which to most laymen of their time appeared comparativelytrivial. 

[Pageheading: _THE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH. _]

To them Church authority was supreme, and every catholic dogma aself-evident truth. What engrossed their reason and consciences was thediscussion of questions affecting Church authority, for example, whetherthe Anglican Church possessed the true note of catholicity or was in astate of schism, whether its position in Christendom was not on a parwith that of the monophysite heretics, whether its articles could bebrought into conformity with the Roman catholic doctrines expresslycondemned by them, or whether its alliance with Lutheranism in theappointment of a bishop for Jerusalem did not amount to ecclesiasticalsuicide. Their message, unlike that of the early Christian or methodistpreachers, was for the priestly order, and not for the masses of thepeople; their appeals were addressed _ad clerum_ not _ad populum_; stillless were they suited to influence scientific intellects. But theirpropaganda was carried on by men of intense earnestness and holy lives, few in number but strong in well-organised combination, and they carriedwith them for a time many to whom any "movement" seemed better thanlifeless "high and dry" conformity. Herein consisted the secret of theirearly success. Their subsequent failure was inevitable when they werefairly confronted with protestant sentiment and with the independentspirit of the age. How their aims were taken up and partially realisedin a new form by new leaders and through new methods, is an inquirywhich must be reserved for a later chapter in the history of the EnglishChurch. 

The strange religious movement which resulted in the foundation of theso-called Catholic Apostolic Church was of somewhat earlier date, andits author had already been disavowed as a minister by the presbyterianChurch before the _Tracts for the Times_ began to startle the religiousworld. The most brilliant part of Edward Irving's career falls withinthe reign of George IV. , when his chapel in London was crowded by thefashionable world, and even attended occasionally by statesmen likeCanning. According to all contemporary testimony he was among the mostremarkable of modern preachers, and his visionary speculations in thefield of biblical prophecy failed to repel hearers attracted by hiswonderful religious enthusiasm. Compared with the adherents of themethodist or of the neo-catholic revival, his followers were a merehandful, and his name would scarcely merit a place in history but forthe impression which he made upon men of high ability and position. Whatbrought him into discredit with his own communion and with the publicwas his introduction into his services of fanatics professing the giftof speaking with "unknown tongues". These extravagances led to hisdeposition in 1832, and probably hastened his early death in 1834. Buthis creed did not die with him, and a small body of earnest believershas carried on into the twentieth century a definite tradition of thegospel which he taught. 

Far deeper and more lasting in its effects was the change wrought incurrent ideas by the almost unseen but steady advance of science in allits branches. During this epoch perhaps the most formidable enemy oforthodoxy was the rising study of geology, challenging, as it did, thetraditional theories of creation. The discoveries of astronomy--the lawof gravitation, the rotation of the earth, its place in the solarsystem, and, above all, the infinite compass of the universe--were inthemselves of a nature to revolutionise theological beliefs moreradically than any conclusions respecting the antiquity of the earth. But it may be doubted whether it was so in fact; at all events, theologians had slowly learned to harmonise their doctrines with theconception of immeasurable space, when they were suddenly required toadmit the conception of immeasurable time, and staggered under the blow. The pioneers of English geology were careful to avoid shocking religiousopinion, and Buckland devotes a chapter of his famous _Treatise onGeology_ to showing "the consistency of geological discoveries withsacred history". His explanation is that an undefined interval may haveelapsed after the creation of the heaven and the earth "in thebeginning" as recorded in the first verse of Genesis; and he rejects asopposed to geological evidence "the derivation of existing systems oforganic life, by an eternal succession, from preceding individuals ofthe same species, or by gradual transmutation of one species intoanother". But speculations of this order were utterly ignored by suchreligious leaders as Newman and Irving, whose spiritual fervour, howeverapostolical in its influence on the hearts of their disciples, wasconfined within the narrowest circle of intellectual interests. 

[Pageheading: _POOR LAW. _]

The great event of parliamentary history in 1834, and the crowningachievement of the first reformed parliament, was the enactment of the"new poor law, " as it was long called. No measure of modern times sowell represents the triumph of reason over prejudice; none has been socarefully based on thorough inquiry and the deliberate acceptance ofsound principles; none has so fully stood the conclusive test ofexperience. It is not too much to say that it was essentially a productof the reform period, and could scarcely have been carried either manyyears earlier or many years later. In the dark age which followed thegreat war, contempt for political economy, coupled with a weak sentimentof humanity, would have made it impossible for a far-sighted treatmentof national pauperism and distress to obtain a fair hearing. After theintroduction of household suffrage, and the growth of socialism, anyresolute attempt to diminish the charge upon ratepayers for theimmediate relief but ultimate degradation of the struggling masses wouldhave met with the most desperate resistance from the new democracy. Thephilosophical whigs and radicals, trained in the school of Bentham, anduntainted as yet by a false philanthropy, found themselves in possessionof an opportunity which might never have recurred. They deserved thegratitude of posterity by using it wisely and courageously. 

The irregular development of the poor laws, from the act of Elizabethdown to that of 1834, belongs to economic rather than to generalhistory. It is enough to say here that in later years, and especiallysince the system of allowances adopted by the Berkshire magistrates atSpeenhamland in 1795 had become general, the original policy ofrelieving only the destitute and helpless, and compelling able-bodiedmen to earn their own living, had been entirely obscured by theintrusion of other ideas. The result was admirably described in thereport of a commission, appointed in 1832, with the most comprehensivepowers of investigation and recommendation. The commissioners were theBishops of London (Blomfield) and Chester (Sumner), Sturges Bourne, Edwin Chadwick, and four others less known, but well versed in thequestions to be considered. A summary of the information collected bythem, ranging over the whole field of poor-law management, was publishedin February, 1834. It astounded the benighted public of that day, and itstill remains on record as a wonderful revelation of ruinous officialinfatuation on the largest possible scale. The evil system was found tobe almost universal, but the worst examples of it were furnished by thesouthern counties of England. There, an actual premium was set uponimprovidence, if not on vice, by the wholesale practice of givingout-door relief in aid of wages, and in proportion to the number ofchildren in the family, legitimate or illegitimate. The excuse was thatit was better to eke out scanty earnings by doles than to break uphouseholds, and bring all their inmates into the workhouse. Theinevitable effect of such action was that wages fell as doles increased, that paupers so pensioned were preferred by the farmers to independentlabourers because their labour was cheaper, and that independentlabourers, failing to get work except at wages forced down to a minimum, were constantly falling into the ranks of pauperism. 

Had some theorists of a later generation witnessed the social order thenprevailing in country districts, they would have found several of theirfavourite objects practically attained. There was no competition betweenthe working people; old and young, skilled and unskilled hands, theindustrious and the idle, were held worthy of equal reward, the actualallowance to each being measured by his need and not by the value of hiswork; while the parochial authorities, figuring as an earthlyprovidence, exercised a benevolent superintendence over the welfare andliberty of every day-labourer in the village community. The fruits ofthat superintendence were the decline of a race of freemen into a raceof slaves, unconscious of their slavery, and the gradual ruin of thelandlords and farmers upon whom the maintenance of these slavesdepended. [118]

[Pageheading: _NEW POOR LAW. _]

The evidence laid before the commissioners not only showed howintolerable the evil had become in many counties, but also how purelyartificial it was. While the aggregate amount of the poor rate had risento more than eight millions and a half, while some parishes were goingout of cultivation and in others the rates exceeded the rental, therewere certain oases in the desert of agricultural distress wherecomparative prosperity still reigned. These were villages in which anenlightened squire or parson had set himself to strike at the root ofpauperism, and to initiate local reforms in the poor-law system. It wasclearly found that, where out-door relief was abolished or rigorouslylimited, where no allowances were made in aid of wages, and where amanly self-reliance was encouraged instead of a servile mendicity, wagesrose, honest industry revived, and the whole character of the villagepopulation was improved. Fortified by these successful experiments, thecommissioners took a firm stand on the vital distinction, previouslyignored, between poverty and pauperism. They did not shrink fromrecommending that, after a certain date, "the workhouse test" should beenforced against all able-bodied applicants for relief, except in theform of medical attendance, and even that women should be compelled tosupport their illegitimate children. They also advised a liberal changein the complicated and oppressive system of "parish settlement, " wherebythe free circulation of labour was constricted. They further proposed avery large reform in the administrative machinery of the poor laws, bythe formation of parishes into unions, the concentration of workhouses, the separation of the sexes in workhouses, and, above all, the creationof a central poor-law board, to consist of three commissioners, and tocontrol the whole system about to be transformed. 

A bill framed upon these lines, and remedying some minor abuses, wasintroduced by Althorp on April 17, having been foreshadowed in thespeech from the throne, and carefully matured by the cabinet. So wideand deep was the conviction of the necessity for some radical treatmentof an intolerable evil that party spirit was quelled for a while, andthe bill met with a very favourable reception, especially as itsoperation was limited to five years. It passed the second reading by amajority of 299 to 20 on May 9, notwithstanding a violent protest fromDe Lacy Evans, an ultra-radical, who had displaced Hobhouse atWestminster. The keynote of the radical agitation which followed wasgiven by his declaration that "the cessation of out-door relief wouldlead to a revolution in the country, " and by Cobbett's denunciation ofthe "poor man robbery bill". The _Times_ newspaper, already a greatpolitical force, took up the same cry, and had not Peel, with admirablepublic spirit, thrown his weight into the scale of sound economy, aformidable coalition between extremists on both sides might have beenorganised. He stood firm, however; radicals like Grote declined tobarter principle for popularity, and the bill emerged almost unscathedfrom committee in the house of commons. It passed its third reading onJuly 2 by a majority of 157 to 50. Peel's example was followed byWellington in the house of lords, and Brougham delivered one of his mostpowerful speeches in support of the measure. With some modification ofthe bastardy clauses and other slighter amendments it was carried by alarge majority, and received the royal assent on August 4. 

No other piece of legislation, except the repeal of the corn laws, hasdone so much to rescue the working classes of Great Britain from themisery entailed by twenty years of war. Its effect in reducing the rateswas immediate; its effect in raising the character of the agriculturalpoor was not very long deferred. Happily for them, though not for thefarmers, bread was cheap for two years after it came into force. Still, the sudden cessation of doles and pensions in aid of wages could not butwork great hardship to individuals in thousands of rural parishes, andthere was perhaps too little disposition on the part of thecommissioners to allow any temporary relaxation of the system. Therigorous enforcement of the workhouse test, and the harsh management ofworkhouses, continued for years to shock the charitable sensibilities ofthe public, and actually produced some local riots. When the price ofbread rose the clamour naturally increased, and petitions multiplieduntil a committee was appointed in 1837 to review the operation of theact. In the end the committee found, as might have been expected, that, however painful the state of transition, the change had permanentlyimproved the condition of the poor in England. 

[Pageheading: _QUESTION OF APPROPRIATION. _]

While the bill was still in the house of commons the ministry whichframed it was torn by dissensions; before it came on for its secondreading in the lords Grey had ceased to be premier. The disruption ofhis government had been foreseen for months, but it was directly causedby hopeless discord on Irish policy. Anglesey had been forced byill-health to resign the vice-royalty, and the Marquis Wellesley, whosucceeded him, was more acceptable to Irish nationalists. But the king'sspeech at the opening of the session contained a stern condemnation ofthe repeal movement. O'Connell at once declared war, and the angryfeelings of his followers were inflamed by a personal and public quarrelbetween Althorp and Sheil. Another incident, in itself trivial, disclosed the discord prevailing in the cabinet on Irish affairs, and, though O'Connell was defeated on a motion against the union by acrushing majority of 523 to 38, the disturbed state of Ireland continuedto distract the ministerial councils. The ingenious devices of Stanleyand Littleton for solving the insoluble Irish tithe question had provedalmost abortive; the government officials employed to collect tithe werealmost as powerless to do so as the old tithe-proctors, and a newproposal to convert tithe into a land tax was naturally ridiculed byO'Connell as delusive. He made a speech so conciliatory in its tone asto startle the house, but no words, however smooth, could now conjureaway the irreconcilable difference of purpose between those who regardedChurch property as sacred and those who regarded it not only as at thedisposal of the state, but as hitherto unjustly monopolised by a singlereligious communion. It was reserved for Lord John Russell to "upset thecoach" by openly declaring his adhesion to "appropriation, " in the senseof diverting to other objects, secular or otherwise, such revenues ofthe established Church as were not strictly required for the benefit ofits own members. After this act of mutiny against the collectiveauthority of the cabinet Grey's ministry was doomed. 

Its ruin was consummated by a motion of Henry Ward, member for St. Albans, which expressly affirmed the right of the state to regulate thedistribution of Church property and the expediency of reducing the Irishestablishment. This motion was supposed to have been instigated byDurham, who had never been loyal to his colleagues. The government wasnotoriously divided upon it; Brougham suggested a commission of inquiry, by way of compromise; other ministerialists were in favour of meetingthe difficulty by moving the previous question. Peel was prepared tosupport the conservative section of the government, and deprecated instrong terms "all manoeuvring, all coquetting with radicals" in orderto snatch a temporary party triumph. [119]

Ward's resolution was introduced on May 27, 1834, and seconded by Grote, but Althorp, instead of replying, announced the receipt of sudden newsso important that he induced the house to adjourn the debate. This newswas the resignation of Stanley, Graham, Richmond, and Ripon, whose viewson appropriation, as afterwards appeared, were shared by Lansdowne andSpring Rice. The ministry was reconstructed by the accession of LordConyngham as postmaster-general, without a seat in the cabinet, and ofLord Auckland, son of Sidmouth's colleague, as first lord of theadmiralty, by the appointment of Carlisle (already in the cabinet) to belord privy seal, and the substitution of Spring Rice for Stanley at thecolonial office. Edward Ellice, the secretary at war, was included inthe cabinet, and James Abercromby, afterwards Lord Dunfermline, a son ofthe famous general, Sir Ralph Abercromby, became master of the mint witha seat in the cabinet. Poulett Thomson became president of the board oftrade, and minor offices were assigned to Francis Baring, and other whigrecruits. Grey himself, sick of nominal power, was dissuaded withdifficulty from retiring; Althorp, conscious of failing authority, wasretained in his post only by a high sense of duty. Unfortunately, he wasvery soon entangled by his colleague Littleton in something like anintrigue with O'Connell, which precipitated the final resignation ofGrey together with his own temporary secession. 

The details of this affair may be passed over in a few words. What isclear is that Brougham and Littleton, without the knowledge of Grey, hadpersuaded Lord Wellesley, as viceroy of Ireland, not to insist on arenewal of the coercion act in its full severity, and especially tosanction an abandonment of clauses suppressing public meetings. Havingobtained Wellesley's consent behind the backs of Grey and the rest ofthe cabinet, Littleton with the cognisance of Althorp, proceeded tobargain with O'Connell for an abatement, at least, of his opposition toall coercion. The cabinet as a body declined to ratify any suchagreement, O'Connell denounced Littleton as having played a trick uponhim, and Althorp, disdaining to advocate provisions which he was almostpledged in honour to drop, resigned his office and the leadership of thecommons. Grey, who could not have remained in office without the supportof Althorp's great popularity in the commons, at once resolved to followhis example, and on July 9 took leave of political life in a dignifiedand pathetic speech. As for Ward's motion, the original cause of Grey'sdesertion by Stanley and his subsequent fall, it had been rejected by anenormous majority in favour of "the previous question" before Althorp'sdisappearance from his old position. Meanwhile Stanley availed himselfof his liberty to make one of his most dashing but least prudentspeeches, and permanently compromised his reputation forstatesmanship. [120]

[Pageheading: _MELBOURNE PRIME MINISTER. _]

No other whig possessed the prestige derived by Grey from nearly fiftyyears of consistent public service. Althorp commanded an extraordinarydegree of confidence in the house of commons and the country, but hisintellectual capacity was not of the highest order, and many expectedthat Peel might receive a summons from the king, whose sympathy with thewhigs, never very deep, had given place to mistrust. His choice, however, fell upon Melbourne, whom he desired, if possible, to form acoalition with Peel, Wellington, and Stanley against the radicals. Butneither Melbourne nor Peel would accept such a coalition, and they bothshowed their wisdom in declining it. The king then empowered Melbourneto patch up the whig ministry. In deference to a requisition signed byliberals of all sections, Althorp was induced to withdraw hisresignation, and resumed his leadership in the commons with no apparentdiminution of popularity. Duncannon, who was created a peer, succeededMelbourne at the home office; Lord Mulgrave, son of the first earl, became lord privy seal in place of Carlisle; and Hobhouse entered thecabinet as first commissioner of woods and forests. The rest of thesession was mainly spent in discussing the budget and the two Irishquestions which for so many years were the curse of English politics. Asurplus of two millions enabled Althorp to propitiate an importunateclass of taxpayers by repealing the house tax. 

It would have been more statesmanlike to repeal the window tax or reduceindirect taxation, but relief was given, as usual, to those who raisedthe loudest clamour, and the vindication of sound finance was reservedfor a conservative administration. A second and milder Irish coercionbill was carried by a large majority, with the fatal proviso, which hasmarred the effect of so many later measures, that it should continue inoperation for a year only. A far more serious conflict arose on the newIrish tithe bill. A complicated plan had been proposed wherebyfour-fifths of the tithe would have been ostensibly secured to thechurch by conversion into a rent-charge, the remaining fifth beingsacrificed for the sake of peace and security. O'Connell succeeded ininducing the house of commons to adopt a counter-plan, of a verysweeping nature, whereby two-fifths of the existing tithe would havebeen abandoned, and the tithe owner partly compensated out of therevenues of suppressed bishoprics, aided by a state grant. The bill thusamended was rejected by a majority of 189 to 122 in the house of lords. Peel still cherished the idea of settling the question by a system ofvoluntary commutation, but, after the peremptory action of the lords, nocompromise was likely to be acceptable, and there is some ground for theopinion that in that division the Irish Church establishment receivedits death-blow. 

On August 15 parliament was prorogued, and the belief of Peel in thestability of the government may be inferred from the fact that he leftEngland for Italy on October 14. During the vacation, however, twoincidents occurred, trivial in themselves, but pregnant with importantconsequences. One of these was Brougham's triumphant progress throughScotland, where he was enthusiastically received as the saviour of hiscountry, and assumed the air of one who not only kept the king'sconscience but controlled the royal will. The story of this famous tourexhibits alike the greatness of his powers and the littleness of hischaracter. [121] The homage paid to him was not undeserved, for he wasassuredly the foremost gladiator of the whig party, and had given proofsof more varied ability than any living politician or lawyer. But thedignified eloquence of which he was capable on rare occasions was heresubmerged in a flood of egotistical rhetoric, which carried him away sofar that he assumed a political independence which his colleagues deeplyresented, and even spoke of the king in a tone of patronage. Havinglowered himself in public opinion by these speeches, especially atInverness and Aberdeen, he attended a banquet in honour of Grey atEdinburgh, where he provoked a passage at arms with Durham. The press, and especially the _Times_ newspaper, which had formerly loaded him withextravagant praises, now turned against him, and ridiculed him as apolitical mountebank. But his worst enemy was the king. William IV. 'sill-concealed impatience of whig dictation had at last been quickenedinto disgust by this and other sources of irritation, when the suddendeath of Althorp's father, Earl Spencer, on November 10, gave him anopportunity which he eagerly seized. 

[Pageheading: _DESTRUCTION OF HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. _]

By a strange fatality, this event almost coincided with the destructionby fire of the houses of parliament on October 16. This calamity was theresult of a carelessness, which it is easy to condemn after the event onthe part of some subordinate officials and the workmen employed by them. Down to 1826, accounts had been kept at the exchequer by means of woodentallies, which were stored in what was called the tally-room of theexchequer. This room was required in order to provide temporaryaccommodation for the court of bankruptcy, and an order was given todestroy the tallies. The officials charged with the task decided to burnthem in the stoves of the house of lords, and the work of burning beganat half-past six in the morning of October 16. The work, hazardous inany case, was conducted by the workmen with a rapidity that their ordersdid not justify; the flues used for warming the house were overheated, and though the burning of the tallies was completed between four andfive, the woodwork near the flues must have smouldered till it burstinto flame about half-past six in the evening. In less than half an hourthe house of lords was a mass of fire. About eight a change in the windthrew the flames upon the house of commons. That house was almostcompletely destroyed. The walls of the house of lords and of the paintedchamber remained standing, while the house of lords library, theparliament offices, and Westminster Hall escaped. The king offered theparliament the use of Buckingham Palace, but it was found possible tofit up the house of lords for the commons and the painted chamber forthe lords. When the legislature reassembled on February 9, 1835, aconservative ministry was in office, though not, indeed, in power. 

It is difficult for a later age to understand why the accession ofAlthorp to a peerage should have afforded even a plausible reason for achange of ministry. The position which Althorp held in the house ofcommons is puzzling to a later generation. [122] It is well known thatGladstone recorded the very highest estimate of his public services. Yethe was not only no orator but scarcely in the second order of speakers, he made no pretence of far-sighted statesmanship, he was not asuccessful financier, and he made several blunders which must havedamaged the authority of any other man. The influence which he obtainedin leading the unreformed as well as the reformed house of commons wasentirely due to his character for straightforward honesty, perhapsenhanced by his social rank, and his reputation for possessing all thevirtues of a country gentleman. The national preference for amateursover professionals in politics, no less than in other fields of energy, found an admirable representative in him, and he was all the morepopular as a political leader because it was believed that he had nodesire to be a political leader at all. At all events, he inspiredconfidence in all, and it was no mere whim of the king which treated hisremoval from the commons to the lords as an irreparable loss toMelbourne's administration. 

[Pageheading: _MELBOURNE'S RESIGNATION. _]

It is often stated that "without a word of preparation" the king got ridof his whig ministers on November 14, 1834, and it must be admitted thathe afterwards took credit to himself for their dismissal as his ownpersonal act. But this view is not altogether borne out by contemporaryevidence. A published letter, of the 12th, from Melbourne to the kingshows that, as premier, he took the initiative in representing that, whereas "the government in its present form was mainly founded upon thepersonal weight and influence possessed by Earl Spencer in the house ofcommons, " it was for the king to consider whether, as "that foundationis now withdrawn, " a change of ministry was expedient. [123] It alsoappears from a letter placed by the king in Melbourne's hands that a"very confidential conversation" took place between them at Brighton, inconsequence of which the king resolved to send for Wellington. [124] Inthe course of this conversation Melbourne informed the king that, in theopinion of the cabinet, Lord John Russell should be selected for theleadership of the house of commons. The king, incensed by Lord John'saction on the Irish Church question, would not hear of this arrangement, especially as he thought Lord John "otherwise unequal to the task, " anddisparaged the claims of other possible candidates. [125] He alsostrongly resented the recent conduct of Brougham. In the end, he partedkindly and courteously from Melbourne, who actually undertook to conveythe king's summons to Wellington. Another memorandum by the king, of thesame date, proves that a fear of further encroachments on the church wasreally uppermost in his mind, and that he anticipated, not withoutreason, "a schism in the cabinet" on this very subject. [126]

Wellington acted with his customary promptitude, and with his customaryobedience to what he regarded as a call of public duty. A certain degreeof mistrust had existed between him and Peel, arising, in part, out ofcircumstances preceding the duke's election to the chancellorship ofOxford University. This suspension of cordiality had now passed away, and Wellington strongly urged the king to entrust Peel, then at Rome, with the formation of a new government. Hudson, afterwards known as SirJames Hudson, delivered the despatch recalling him on the night of the25th. Peel started from Rome on the 26th and, travelling with a speedthen considered marvellous, reached Dover within twelve days on thenight of December 8. He was in London on the 9th, and, withoutconsulting any one else, immediately placed his services at the king'sdisposal. In the meantime, Wellington had stepped into the gap, andactually held all the secretaryships of state in his own hands, pendingthe arrival of Peel. 

The king had been encouraged to hustle his ministers unceremoniously outof office by a paragraph which appeared in the _Times_ of November 15. On the previous evening Brougham had been informed by Melbourne inconfidence that the king had accepted his suggestion of resignation, andhe carried the news to the _Times_, which, without giving Brougham'sname, published his message in his own words. It stated that the kinghad turned out the ministry, and ended with the words: "The queen hasdone it all". After this the king was determined to be done with hisministers as quickly as possible. It is certain that neither Wellingtonnor Peel wished to be thought responsible for their dismissal, thepropriety of which they both secretly doubted. The king, however, hadacted within his strict rights, and the outgoing ministers, as a whole, were not ill pleased to be relieved from the burdens of office. 

Peel, though by no means hopeful of ultimate success, endeavoured toconstruct a cabinet on a comprehensive basis. He first obtained theking's "ready assent" to his inviting the co-operation of Stanley, whohad succeeded to the courtesy title of Lord Stanley, and Sir JamesGraham. These overtures were declined in friendly terms, and bothpromised independent support. But Stanley explicitly declared that, inhis judgment, "the sudden conversion of long political opposition intothe most intimate alliance would shock public opinion, would be ruinousto his own character, " and would rather injure than strengthen the newgovernment. [127] After this failure, Peel felt his task well-nighhopeless, and though he spared no effort to procure an infusion of freshblood, he complained that after all "it would be only the duke's oldcabinet". [128] There was, in fact, no man of known ability in it, excepthimself, the Duke of Wellington (as secretary for foreign affairs), andLyndhurst, the chancellor; for the capacity of Aberdeen, who had beenforeign secretary under Wellington, and who now became secretary for warand the colonies, and Ellenborough, who returned to the board ofcontrol, had not yet been generally recognised. Peel himself becamefirst lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer; Goulburn washome secretary, Rosslyn lord president, and Wharncliffe lord privy seal. Earl de Grey, elder brother of the Earl of Ripon, was made first lord ofthe admiralty, Murray became master-general of the ordnance, AlexanderBaring president of the board of trade and master of the mint, Herriessecretary at war, and Sir Edward Knatchbull paymaster of the forces. Itwas fully understood that a conservative government, even purged ofultra-tory elements, could not face the first reformed house of commons, and the dissolution which took place at the end of the year had beenregarded by all as inevitable. 

[Pageheading: _THE TAMWORTH MANIFESTO. _]

In anticipation of this event, Peel issued an address to hisconstituents which became celebrated as the "Tamworth manifesto". It issomewhat cumbrous in style, but it embodies with sufficient clearnessthe new conservative policy of which Peel was the real author andhenceforth the leading exponent. It opens with an appeal to his ownprevious conduct in parliament, as showing that, while he was noapostate from old constitutional principles, neither was he "a defenderof abuses, " nor the enemy of "judicious reforms". In proof of this, hecites his action in regard to the currency and various amendments of thelaw; to which he might have added his adoption of catholic emancipation. He then declares, absolutely and without reserve, that he accepts thereform act as "a final and irrevocable settlement of a greatconstitutional question, " which no friend to peace and the welfare ofthe country would seek, either directly or indirectly, to disturb. Heapproves of making "a careful review of institutions, civil andecclesiastical, undertaken in a friendly temper, " with a view to "thecorrection of proved abuses, and the redress of real grievances, " andthat "without mere superstitious reverence for ancient usages". He laysstress on his recorded assent to the principle of corporation reform, the substitution of a treasury grant for Church rates, the relief ofdissenters from various civil disabilities (but not from universitytests), the restriction of pensions (saving vested interests), theredistribution of Church revenues and the commutation of tithes, but sothat no ecclesiastical property be diverted to secular uses. After thesespecific pledges, the Tamworth manifesto concludes with more generalprofessions of a progressive conservatism equally removed from what arenow called "advanced radicalism" and "tory democracy". [129] It was, ofcourse, too liberal for the followers of Eldon, and was ridiculed ascolourless by extreme reformers, but its effect on the country wasgreat, and it did much to win popular confidence for the new ministry. If such a policy must be called opportunism, it was opportunism in itsbest form; and opportunism in its best form, under the conditions ofparty government, is not far removed from political wisdom. 

FOOTNOTES:

[117] If all the bishops present had not merely abstained, but actuallyvoted in favour of the measure, it would have been carried by one vote. 

[118] Sir George Nicholls, _History of the English Poor Law_, vol. Ii. , see especially pp. 242, 243. 

[119] Peel to Goulburn (May 25, 1834), Parker, _Sir Robert Peel_, ii. , 244. 

[120] Hatherton, _Memoir_; Creevey, _Memoirs_, ii. , 285-88. 

[121] See Campbell's _Lives of the Chancellors_, viii. , 446-57. 

[122] Compare Walpole, _History of England_, iii. , 478. 

[123] _Lord Melbourne's Papers_, p. 220. 

[124] _Ibid. _, pp. 222, 223. 

[125] Stockmar, _Memoirs_ (English translation), i. , 330. 

[126] Parker, _Sir Robert Peel_, ii. , 235. 

[127] Stanley to Peel (Dec. 11, 1834), Peel's _Memoirs_, ii. , 39, 40. 

[128] Croker to Mrs. Croker, _Croker Papers_, ii. , 219. 

[129] Peel, _Memoirs_, ii. , 58-67. 

 CHAPTER XVII. 

 PEEL AND MELBOURNE. 

The general election which took place in January, 1835, was hotlycontested, and in the second reformed parliament the conservativesmustered far stronger than in the first. The party now consisted of some270 members, chiefly returned by the counties. But they were stilloutnumbered by the whigs, radicals, and Irish repealers combined, and itwas certain that an occasion for such a combination would soon arise. Itwas found at once in the election of a speaker, when the house ofcommons met on February 9, 1835. Sutton, now Sir Charles Manners Sutton, was proposed for re-election by the government; the opposition candidatewas Abercromby. The number of members who took part in the division wasthe largest ever assembled, being 622, and Abercromby was elected by amajority of ten. It would have been larger, had not the government beensupported by some waverers, but its significance was appreciated by theministers, and still more by the king. He expressed his displeasure in avery outspoken letter to Peel, declaring that, if the leaders "of thepresent factious opposition" should be forced upon him by a refusal ofthe supplies, he might, indeed, tolerate them, but could never give themhis confidence or friendship. Two days later, the 24th, the king'sspeech was delivered, reflecting the spirit of the Tamworthmanifesto. [130]

[Pageheading: _PEEL'S POLICY. _]

The government was again defeated by seven on an amendment to theaddress, notwithstanding the loyal aid of Graham and Stanley, whoseattitude during the general election had excited Peel's mistrust. In thecourse of this debate, the prime minister, abandoning his usual reserve, definitely pledged himself not only "to advance, soberly and cautiously, in the path of progressive improvement, " but to bring forward specificmeasures. "I offer you, " he said, "reduced estimates, improvements incivil jurisprudence, reform of ecclesiastical law, the settlement of thetithe question in Ireland, the commutation of tithe in England, theremoval of any real abuse in the Church, the redress of those grievancesof which the dissenters have any just ground to complain. " Nor werethese offers illusory or barren. On March 17, he brought in a bill torelieve dissenters from disabilities in respect of marriage, which metwith general approval. It was founded on the simple principle, sinceadopted, of giving legal validity to civil marriages duly solemnisedbefore a registrar, and leaving each communion to superadd a religioussanction in its own way. The marriages of Churchmen in a church were tobe left on their old footing, but Churchmen were of course to be grantedthe same liberty as other citizens of contracting a purely civilmarriage. 

Still more important, as examples of conservative reform, were Peel'sefforts to purge the established Church of abuses, and to introduce avoluntary commutation of tithes. His correspondence amply shows howlarge a space these remedial measures occupied in his mind, and one ofhis first acts was to appoint an ecclesiastical commission, withinstructions to institute a most comprehensive inquiry into everysubject affecting the distribution of church revenues. Compared with thepetty squabbles over the appropriation of an imaginary surplus to bederived from Irish tithes which it was impossible to collect, theschemes of Peel for purifying and strengthening the Church of Englandassume heroic proportions. The report of the ecclesiastical commissionoriginated by him, with its startling disclosures of pluralism andnon-residence, became the basis of legislation which has wrought averitable revolution in the financial and disciplinary administration ofthe church. His tithe bill, abortive as it was in 1835, was reproduced, with little alteration, in the tithe commutation act of 1836. 

But the whig-radical allies of 1835 had not the smallest intention ofgiving Peel a fair trial; nor indeed had they any other object beyondthe recovery of power. His appeals to his opponents, though by no meanswithout effect in the country, fell upon deaf ears in the house ofcommons, and further humiliations followed rapidly. One of these was thesuccessful outcry against the appointment of Londonderry, who hadexcited much hostility as an uncompromising enemy to reform, to theembassy at St. Petersburg, in consequence of which he, very honourably, relieved the government from obloquy by declining the post. A motion torepeal the malt tax was decisively defeated, and soon afterwards amotion in favour of granting a charter to the University of London wascarried against the government by a large majority. Then came a defeaton a motion for adjournment, and the arts of obstruction wereobstinately practised in debates on the estimates. At last theinevitable crisis arrived, and, as might be expected, the final issuewas taken upon an Irish question. 

The influence of O'Connell and his "tail, " as his followers were called, had been neutralised, since the reform act, by the overwhelming strengthof the whigs, and the public-spirited action of Peel, who, as leader ofthe conservative opposition, actually supported the whig government insixteen out of twenty most important contests on domestic policy. A verydifferent spirit was now shown by the whig opposition, and an evilprecedent, pregnant with disastrous consequences, was set by the famous"Lichfield House compact". This was a close alliance between O'Connelland those whom he had so fiercely denounced as "the base, brutal, andbloody whigs". It bore immediate fruit in a motion of Russell for acommittee of the whole house to consider the temporalities of the IrishChurch. After a debate of four nights, the resolution was carried, onMarch 30, by a majority of thirty-three. On April 5, a furtherresolution was carried by a majority of twenty-five for applying anysurplus-funds "to the general education of all classes of the peoplewithout religious distinction, " and was more emphatically affirmed twodays later by a majority of twenty-seven. 

Peel had long been conscious of the hopelessness of his position andimpatient of maintaining the struggle. He felt the constitutional dangerof allowing the executive government to become a helpless instrument inthe hands of a hostile majority in the house of commons. Nothing but theearnest remonstrances of the king and his tory friends, includingWellington, had induced him to retain office so long, and, after thedivision of the 7th, he firmly resolved to resign. On doing so, hereceived from the whole conservative party, of which he was thecreator, a most cordial address of thanks and confidence. Though hisshort administration had consolidated the whig forces for the moment, and given them a new lease of power, it showed him to be the foremoststatesman in the country, and paved the way for his triumphant return tooffice. As Guizot said, he had proved himself "the most liberal ofconservatives, the most conservative of liberals, and the most capableman of all in both parties". 

[Pageheading: _MELBOURNE'S SECOND MINISTRY. _]

The king now discovered the fatal mistake which he had made in"dismissing" his whig cabinet, as he boasted, instead of waiting for itto break down under the stress of internal dissensions. His first ideawas to fall back on Grey, who had already betrayed his growing mistrustof radicalism, but Grey declined to enter the lists again. There was noresource but to recall Melbourne, whom the king personally liked, and toput up with the elevation of Russell to a position which all admittedhim to have fairly earned. He became home secretary, as well as leaderof the house of commons, and the new whig cabinet differed little fromthe old. Palmerston, Lansdowne, Auckland, Thompson, and Holland returnedto their former offices. Grant was made secretary for war and thecolonies, Duncannon became lord privy seal, Spring Rice chancellor ofthe exchequer, Hobhouse president of the board of control, and ViscountHowick, son of Earl Grey, was appointed secretary at war. Outside thecabinet, Viscount Morpeth, son of the Earl of Carlisle, became Irishsecretary. The most significant difference between the two cabinets layin the omission of Brougham, which was effected by the expedient ofplacing the great seal in commission. This negative act was, in reality, the boldest and most perilous in Melbourne's political life. Acorrespondence between Brougham and Melbourne in February must have madeclear to the ex-chancellor that he would be excluded from office, and hereluctantly acquiesced in Melbourne's decision, hoping that it would bemerely temporary, and that he would soon resume his place on thewoolsack as the dominant member of the cabinet, but his exclusion wasdestined to be final, and the close of a career to which English historyin the nineteenth century presents no parallel. [131]

[Pageheading: _BROUGHAM. _]

Brougham was called to the Scottish bar at the age of twenty-one, havingalready given proof of brilliant ability and rare versatility at theUniversity of Edinburgh. He was the youngest and most prolific of theoriginal writers in the _Edinburgh Review_, then a very powerful organof whig opinion, and his contributions to it ranged over some thirtyyears after its first appearance in 1802. He was already twenty-ninewhen he joined the English bar in 1808, and though he never rivalledEldon as a lawyer or Scarlett as a persuasive advocate, he soon becamean acknowledged master of the highest forensic eloquence. His fame wasalready established by his argument before parliament against the ordersin council when he entered the house of commons in 1810. There hispassionate oratory and power of invective made him the most formidableof party speakers, and it was said that Canning alone could face him onequal terms in debate. Except during four years, 1812-16, when he wasout of parliament, his prodigious energy and versatility were thegreatest intellectual force on the liberal side throughout all thepolitical conflicts under the regency and the reign of George IV. Hisspeeches embraced every question of foreign, colonial, or domesticpolicy, and it may truly be said that no salutary reform was carriedduring that period of which he was not either the author or the activepromoter. The suppression of the slave-trade which had revived after thegreat war, the liberty of the press, the cause of populareducation--these were among the almost innumerable objects, outside thecommon run of politics, and largely philanthropic, to which he devotedhis restless mind, before it was engrossed for a while by parliamentaryreform. There, as we have seen, he showed a moderation which had notbeen expected of him, nor is it too much to say that, both as a leaderof the bar and as chancellor, he made good his claim to be the greatestof law reformers. 

His famous speech of February 7, 1828, had quickened the germs of manylegal improvements carried out in a later age, and the four years of hischancellorship actually produced great constructive amendments of thelaw, such as the institution of the central criminal court and thejudicial committee of the privy council. Other reforms, in bankruptcy, criminal law, and equity, were mainly due to his initiative, and it washe who originated the county courts, though his bill was recklesslythrown out by the house of lords on party grounds. His public life, upto the year 1835, was perhaps the most brilliant and the most useful ofthe century, yet it was hopelessly marred in the end by a certaineccentric vanity, and want of loyalty to colleagues, not inconsistentwith the higher ambition of leaving the world better than he found it. For some years after his fall he retained his astounding energy, andeven his ascendency in the house of lords, where Lyndhurst, his onlypossible rival, was astute enough to court his co-operation. Never washis fertility in debate more conspicuously shown than in the session of1835, while he was still nominally a supporter of the whig government. The last stage of his life, extending over more than thirty years, belongs to another chapter of English history; it is enough here tonotice that, whatever his political aberrations, he continued in hisisolation and old age to work zealously for those social reforms whichhe sincerely had at heart. The popularity which had been to him as thebreath of life never, indeed, returned to him, and his figure no longeroccupies a foremost place in the gallery of our statesmen, but theresults of his noble services to humanity remain, and the memory of themought not to be obscured by the sad record of his failings. 

The new Melbourne administration came in with unfavourable omens. Russell failed to secure his re-election in South Devon, but a seat wasfound for him at Stroud, and though the premier emphatically denied thathe had made any bargain with O'Connell, the Irish people believed it. Accordingly, they received the whig lord-lieutenant, Mulgrave, with atumultuous procession, as if his advent portended the repeal of theunion and extinction of tithes. An attempt to solve the insoluble tithequestion was, in fact, among the earliest efforts of the government, andMorpeth, as chief secretary, introduced a very reasonable measure, differing little, except in details, from that of his predecessor. Likeother proposals for agrarian settlements in Ireland, it involved acertain sacrifice on the part of the tithe-owner for the sake ofsecurity, and a subsidy from the state to relieve of arrears thedefaulting and rebellious tithe-payers. Peel stated his intention ofsupporting these provisions for commutation, if they could be separatedfrom other provisions for "appropriation, " coupled with them under theinfluence of political necessity rather than of sound policy. Theproposals for appropriation were so moderate that little would have beenlost by dropping or gained by carrying them, but, moderate as they were, they embodied a principle on which either party was resolved to stand orfall. The consequence might have been foreseen. The bill, as a whole, was passed in the house of commons, and even read a second time in thehouse of lords, after which the appropriation clauses were rejected inthat assembly by a large majority. Thereupon Melbourne withdrew thescheme altogether. Thus a question of third-rate importance, having beenthe chronic difficulty of four Irish secretaries, was left to stand overfor three years longer, and ultimately to be settled on the very basiswhich Stanley and Peel had accepted from the first. A greater waste ofparliamentary time has perhaps never been recorded. 

[Pageheading: _MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILL. _]

The session of 1835, however, was rendered memorable by the enactment ofone beneficent measure of the first magnitude. This measure--themunicipal corporations act--was preceded, like the new poor law, by athorough and exhaustive inquiry. A committee of the house of commons, followed by a commission, had been appointed in 1833. The commissionprosecuted careful researches into the local conditions of eachmunicipality, and did not conclude its labours until 1835. Its reportlaid bare not merely grotesque anomalies, but the grossest abuses ofelection and administration in boroughs ruled by small, corrupt, andirresponsible oligarchies which then abounded in England, and, stillmore, in Scotland. [132] The reform act had paved the way for thepurification of such urban communities, by disfranchising the smallestand most venal of them, by extending the boundaries of many others, byenfranchising great towns which had remained outside the pale ofrepresentation, and by conferring the suffrage, theretofore monopolisedby freemen and other privileged classes, on the unprivileged mass often-pound householders. 

The municipal corporations bill, in its ultimate form, rested on thesame broad lines of policy. It imposed upon all boroughs, with theexception of the city of London and a few of minor importance, oneconstitutional form of government, identical in all its essentialfeatures with those which a few model boroughs already possessed. Thegoverning body was to consist of a mayor, aldermen, and councillors, together forming a town council. The councillors were to be electeddirectly by ratepaying occupiers, with a saving for the prescriptiverights of existing freemen. They were to hold office for three years;the aldermen were to be elected by the councillors for six years, with aprovision for retirement by rotation. The mayor was to be electedannually by the town council. The elementary powers of local government, such as the control of lighting and the constabulary force, were to betransferred (subject to certain exceptions) from the hands of committeesinto those of the one recognised and supreme municipal authority. Otherclauses provided for a division of the larger boroughs into wards, forthe abolition of exclusive trading privileges, for the public managementof charity estates, and for the appointment, at the option of eachborough, of a recorder, for the purposes of jurisdiction. 

Such were the main outlines of the great measure introduced by Russell, to which Peel heartily gave his adhesion. It was a natural, and almostnecessary, sequel of the reform act, which had already broken up manynests of jobbery, curtailed the lucrative exercise of the electivefranchise by freemen, and undermined the influence of those self-electedrulers who, in the worst boroughs, had become gangs of public thieves. Supported by Peel, the bill was read a second time in the house ofcommons, on June 15, without a division. Several conservative amendmentswere defeated in committee by small majorities, and the bill was sent upto the lords on July 21. There its fate was far different. ThoughWellington himself was not disposed to obstruct it, he entirely failedto check the obstructive tactics of Lyndhurst who, on this occasion, outdid himself in the deliberate mutilation of a bill approved by thelate conservative premier. Lord Campbell, no partial judge of Brougham, has left on record his belief that, but for his faithful and vigoroussupport, the scheme of municipal reform must have been utterlywrecked. [133] It was allowed to be read a second time, but with thefull concurrence of Eldon and all the ultra-tory peers, Lyndhurstsucceeded in pulling it to pieces in committee. For instance, one of theamendments imported into it perpetuated proprietary rights which it wasa chief object of the bill to abolish; another gave aldermen alife-tenure of their offices; a third retained a part of the old towncouncillors on the new town councils. Proud as he was of his destructiveexploits, as a triumph of toryism over conservatism, Lyndhurst soonfound that he could not so lightly override the wiser counsels of Peel. When the lords' amendments came to be considered in the commons, Russellprudently advised the acceptance of the less important, and thedisallowance of those inconsistent with the principle of the bill. Hewas followed by Peel who, professing to uphold the independence of theupper house, declared against the more obnoxious amendments, andstickled only for points which the ministry was not unwilling toconcede. His action proved decisive. The commons stood firm on the mainissues, and the hostile party in the lords, who had vowed to mar thisreform, flinched at the last moment. Many of them abstained fromattendance. Wellington and even Lyndhurst recommended concession;conferences took place between the houses, at which Russell played thepart of moderator, and on September 9 the corporation bill became law, not in its entirety, but in all its essential features. 

In spite of this pacific compromise, popular feeling ran higher thanever against the house of lords which, under the evil influence ofLyndhurst, seemed bent on thwarting every liberal measure. John Roebuck, member for Bath, a prominent radical, who acted independently of partyconnexions, took a lead in denouncing their conduct, and went so far asto propose giving them a merely suspensory, instead of an absolute, vetoon legislation. A sweeping reform in their constitution was loudlyadvocated in the press. O'Connell, exasperated by their wanton rejectionof a Dublin police bill, spent a part of the parliamentary recess in atour over the north of England and Scotland, exhausting the stores ofhis scurrilous invective in pouring contempt on the 170 tyrants whocould dare to withstand the will of the people. But O'Connell'seloquence, marvellous as it was, never stirred British audiences as itstirred the Irish masses, and it happened that at this moment he wassomewhat discredited by accusations of corruption afterwards proved tobe false. The house of lords not only survived his attacks, but wasinstigated by Lyndhurst to further acts of obstruction in the followingyear. 

[Pageheading: _COTTENHAM, LORD CHANCELLOR. _]

His most powerful opponent was about to disappear from the politicalscenes for the present, and in the future to be converted into an ally. When the great seal was entrusted to commissioners, Brougham hadaffected to regard the arrangement as a temporary makeshift topropitiate William IV. , and hoped that he would inherit the reversion ofthe chancellorship. With this expectation he not only patronised butwarmly supported the whig ministry in 1835. But his wayward and petulantegotism had set all his old colleagues against him, and Melbourne hadmade up his mind that "it was impossible to act with him". Theinterruption of legal business caused by the constant withdrawal ofthree judges from their proper duties, to act as commissioners, wasseverely criticised by the press, and Sir Edward Sugden, who had beenlord chancellor of Ireland under Peel, published an effective pamphletentitled, "What has become of the great seal?" It was thought necessaryto appoint a new chancellor, and in January, 1836, Sir Charles Pepys, then master of the rolls, was raised to that dignity as Lord Cottenham. Foreseeing the implacable indignation of Brougham, the ministry decidedto confer a peerage on Henry Bickersteth, the new master of the rolls, who became Lord Langdale, and who was supposed capable of confrontingthe ex-chancellor in debate. No expectation could have been moreunfounded or delusive, but the sense of disappointment and desertion sopreyed on the health and nerves of Brougham that he forsook the house oflords for a whole session. Campbell does not shrink from saying that hewas "atrociously ill-used" on this occasion, [134] and assuredly heshould not have been left to learn from a newspaper that he was thrustaside in favour of a man of vastly inferior gifts and services. 

One other change was made in the cabinet during the recess. The Earl ofMinto became first lord of the admiralty in succession to Auckland whohad been appointed governor-general of India. When parliament met onFebruary 4, 1836, the prospects of the whig government were morefavourable than on their first accession to office. The factiousconduct of the house of lords in the last session had disgusted thecountry, while the statesmanlike moderation of Peel secured themfair-play in the house of commons, though it was gradually building up astrong conservative party. Ireland again blocked the way for a whileagainst useful legislation for Great Britain, and the first encounter ofparties was on an amendment to the address condemning the anticipatedreform of Irish corporations on the principles already adopted forEngland. This amendment, unwillingly moved by Peel, was defeated by amajority of forty-one, and the Irish municipal bill was introduced onthe 16th. Like its English prototype, it was founded on the report of acommission which had disclosed the grossest possible abuses in Irishmunicipalities, chiefly dominated by protestant oligarchies. A similarmeasure substituting elective councils for these corrupt bodies hadactually passed its third reading in the commons before the end of thelast session, but the attempt to carry it further was then abandoned. The debates on the bill of 1836 for the same purpose inevitably turnedon broad issues which continued to disturb Irish politics and to perplexEnglish statesmen for the rest of the century. On the one hand, no onecould justify "government by ascendency" in Ireland, or the shamefulmalpractices incident to an exercise of power under no sense ofresponsibility. On the other hand, no one acquainted with Irish historyand Irish character could honestly regard the people as yet qualifiedfor local self-government. In the social and some of the moral virtuesthey might be favourably compared with Englishmen and Scotchmen; in thepolitical virtues, upon which civil institutions must rest, they wereseveral generations behind their fellow-subjects in Great Britain. 

[Pageheading: _IRISH BILLS. _]

All were agreed on the necessity of sweeping away or expurgating theexisting Irish corporations, but the whole strength of the conservativeparty in both houses was enlisted against the experiment of electivetown councils, especially after the evidence lately taken before theso-called "intimidation committee" in the house of commons. Peel'sscheme was to vest the executive powers and property of Irishcorporations, at least for the present, in officers appointed by thecrown. An amendment framed in this sense was defeated by a largemajority, and the bill passed the commons with little furtheropposition. When it reached the lords it was stoutly contested byLyndhurst, now fortified by Peel's concurrence, on the not unreasonableground that it would make the radicals and repealers predominant inevery Irish municipality, and create "seats of agitation" forrevolutionary purposes in the new town councils. Being converted into abill "for the abolition of municipal corporations" in Ireland, it wasreturned in that form to the house of commons. Russell vainly attemptedto meet the lords half-way by another compromise, and the measure wasabandoned only to be adopted, in a very modified shape, after the lapseof four years. A like course was pursued by the upper house when a newIrish tithe bill, with an appropriation clause, was sent up to them. Hadthe whig government been well advised they would scarcely havechallenged a needless collision between the two houses by reviving thisburning question so early. It would have been possible to settle theIrish tithe system on equitable lines, without prejudicing the futureapplication of superfluous Church revenues, and it was a somewhatperverse obstinacy which persisted in coupling the two objects yearafter year. The ingenuity of Lyndhurst in wrecking sound reforms shouldhave been left without excuse; whereas, in this case, the peers couldnot have accepted what they regarded as a confiscation bill without asacrifice of conviction and self-respect. 

Happily the commutation of tithes in England presented no politicaldifficulties of the same nature. The payment of tithes in kind, thoughfounded on immemorial usage, had, indeed, produced constant discordbetween the parish clergyman and his flock, while landlords and farmersjustly complained that it impeded the improvement of agriculture. Inmany localities the pressure of these evils had led to voluntarycompositions between tithe-owners and tithe-payers, which, beingtemporary, lacked the force of law. The permissive tithe bills ofAlthorp and Peel were designed to render general a practice whichalready prevailed in a thousand parishes, and that now introduced byRussell was little more than an extension of the same principle. Itsmainspring was the appointment of commissioners with compulsory powersin the last resort, and the provision of a self-acting machinery forassessing the reduced annual rent charge payable in lieu of tithes, soas to vary with the average price of wheat, barley, and oats in theseven preceding years. This practical solution of the question wasadopted cheerfully by the wearied legislature, and the commissionerssucceeded before long in effecting universal commutation. Amendments indetail have of course been found necessary, but the system establishedby 6 and 7 William IV. , cap. 61, has stood the test of long experience, and although tithe-owners have been impoverished by the fall of prices, the payment of tithes in England has ceased to be a grievance, exceptwith those who absolutely condemn the endowment of a Church. 

[Pageheading: _REGISTRATION ACTS. _]

An equally valuable and permanent legacy of this session is contained intwo cognate acts regulating marriages and registration in England. Bythe first of these acts two new modes of celebrating marriage wereprovided, without interfering with the old privileges of the establishedChurch in regard to marriage by licence or banns. While the essentialconditions of notice and publicity were carefully secured, thesuperintendent registrar of each district was empowered either toauthorise the celebration of marriage in a duly registered place ofworship, but in presence of a district registrar, or to solemnise theceremony himself, without any religious service, in his own office. Clergymen of the Church of England were constituted registrars formarriages celebrated by themselves, and were bound to furnish thesuperintendent registrars with certified entries of such marriages. Theact was complicated by a variety of safeguards, enforced by heavypenalties, against fraud and evasion, but its leading features weresimple and have proved effectual for their purpose. It marked an advanceon the earlier marriage bill of Russell, since it not only alloweddissenters to marry in their own chapels, but to marry without havingtheir banns published in the parish church. It went beyond the marriagebill of Peel, since it not only recognised marriage as a civil contract, but utilised the new poor law organisation, and posted in each districta civil official before whom that contract could legally be solemnised. 

The rules laid down by the first act for the registration of marriageswere an integral part of a general registration system established bythe second act, and embracing births and deaths as well as marriages. This system, rendered possible by the division of the country intounions, brought under effective control the old parochial registerswhich had been loosely kept for three centuries. The statistical valueof the returns thus checked and digested in a central department is nowfully recognised, but can only be appreciated by students of socialhistory, which, indeed, is now largely founded on reports of theregistrar-general. The special provisions for the registration of deathsare also of the utmost service in the prevention of disease and crime. Not until after this act of 1836 was it realised by the mass of thepeople, not only that a sudden death would properly be followed by acoroner's inquest, but that every death, with its circumstances, must betreated as a matter of public concern and duly notified. Still moreimportant in its results has been the requirement of a medical statementon the cause of death--a requirement which has brought about thediscovery of numerous murders and greatly checked the commission ofothers. If the marriage act relieved a large class of the community fromvexatious disabilities, the whole community assuredly owes the secondreformed parliament a debt of gratitude for the registration act which, like so many of the best acts in the statute book, provoked but littlediscussion. 

A far keener party interest was excited by the crusade against theOrange lodges in Great Britain and Ireland which Hume and Finn, an Irishmember, carried on with great energy in the sessions of 1835 and 1836. These societies then had an importance which they no longer possess, andwere the more open to radical attacks because the Duke of Cumberland wasgrand master of the order. It was said, with some justice, that whilethe catholic association was nominally put down, the Orange lodges inIreland were openly spreading, with the connivance at least of the Irishauthorities. Their officials included noblemen of high position;Goulburn, when chief secretary, was an Orangeman, and special effortshad been made to enrol members in the army. Their principles werestrictly loyal, but their demonstrations were naturally resented by theRoman catholics, and were not far removed from preparations for civilwar. They hailed the accession of Peel's short ministry with tumultuousenthusiasm, but when the legality of their organisation and proceedingswas challenged in the house of commons, during the session of 1835, their advocates felt compelled to support a committee of inquiry. Theevidence taken before this committee, and the debate raised by Hume onthe formation of Orange lodges in the army, damaged their cause in theeyes of the public, and seriously compromised the Duke of Cumberland. Itwas shown that his brother, the Duke of York, had resigned the grandmastership, and on being convinced of their illegality had forbiddenOrange lodges in the army, whereas the Duke of Cumberland had acceptedthe grand mastership and directly promoted military lodges. 

An address condemning them was carried; the king undertook to discouragethem, and the commander-in-chief issued a stringent order for theirsuppression. The struggle, however, was continued by the pertinacity ofthe radicals in demanding a more extended inquiry, and the obstinacy ofthe Orangemen in defying both the house of commons and the horse guards. Early in the session of 1836 Finn and Hume renewed their assaults, andthe latter moved for an address, to be framed in the most sweepingterms, and calling upon the crown to dismiss all persons in publicemployment, from the highest to the lowest, who should belong to Orangesocieties. Russell, who had been gradually rising in public estimation, showed the qualities of a true statesman on this occasion by a firm yetconciliatory speech which commanded assent on both sides. He exposed theextravagant and impracticable nature of Hume's demand, but condemned theOrange societies, and proposed an address urging the crown to use itsinfluence for "the effectual discouragement of Orange lodges, andgenerally all political societies, excluding persons of different faith, using signs and symbols, and acting by associated branches". Thisresolution was adopted without opposition, the king heartily endorsedit, even the Duke of Cumberland acquiesced in it, and the Orangesocieties quietly dissolved themselves, for a while, throughout theUnited Kingdom. 

If the session of 1836 had produced no other legislative fruits it couldnot be regarded as wasted. But several minor reforms of great socialbenefit also date from this year, and prove that, however checked bypolitical blunders, the energy kindled by the reform act had not yetexhausted itself. After repeated efforts of legal philanthropists, abill was now passed for the first time allowing prisoners on trial forfelony to be defended by counsel. It was brought in by William Ewart, aprivate member, who sat for Liverpool, but was supported by the highestlegal authorities in the house of lords, including Lyndhurst himself, who openly recanted his former opinions, and declared the old law to bea barbarous survival, inconsistent with the practice of other civilisednations. In the same house an interesting debate took place on themanagement of jails, which had been placed under a system of inspectionby an act of the previous year. The reports of the inspectors disclosedgross abuses, not only in the smaller county jails but in Newgateitself. Lansdowne, in pledging the government to deal with the largerquestion, intimated that Russell, as home secretary, was considering themeans of separating juvenile offenders from hardened criminals byestablishing places of detention in the nature of what have since beenknown as reformatories. 

[Pageheading: _DUTY ON NEWSPAPERS LOWERED. _]

A still more notable contribution to social improvement was made bySpring Rice, the chancellor of the exchequer, in consolidating the paperduties on a reduced scale, and lowering the stamp duty on newspapersfrom fourpence to one penny. These were the only controversial elementsin a budget otherwise modest and acceptable. The battle over paperduties and "taxes upon knowledge" raised in the debates of 1836 wasdestined to rage many years longer, but the relief granted by SpringRice gave a powerful impulse to journalism and periodical literature. Itwas opposed by all the familiar arguments against a cheap press, butthat which most endangered its success was a rival proposal to apply anysurplus revenue to cheapening soap. Soap, it was plausibly contended, was a necessary, reading newspapers or periodicals was only a luxury, and a luxury, too, far move capable of being abused than expenditure onsoap. When the penny stamp on newspapers was at last preferred toreduced soap duties it was said that, "so far as financial arrangementswere concerned, everything went to supply the essential elements of lowpolitical clubs, _viz. _, cheap gin, cheap newspapers, filthy hands, andunwashed faces". [135]

The legislative record of 1836 was creditable to the government, nor wasthe action of the upper house in amending certain of their bills sopurely mischievous as it has been described. For instance, a strangeclause had found its way into the newspaper stamp bill, requiring allthe proprietors of newspapers, however numerous, to be registered at thestamp office. This clause was struck out in the house of lords, at theinstance of Lyndhurst, though Melbourne declared it to be a vital partof the measure, which, however, passed without it, and was the betterfor the loss of it. But the same cannot be said of Lyndhurst's conductat the "open conference" between the two houses on a supplementary billfor remedying defects in the operation of the municipal corporationsact. There no question of principle was involved, and the only motivefor resisting every attempt to improve the new machinery alreadyestablished by law was one unworthy of a statesman. At the close of thesession, Lyndhurst delivered a masterly vindication of his ownproceedings, but he was answered by Melbourne in a speech of greatability, and the position now occupied by the whigs appeared strongerthan when they came into office in 1835. 

In this year complaints of agricultural distress once more becameurgent, and a committee was appointed by the house of commons, as in1833, to inquire into its cause. Strange to say, the immediate occasionfor the second inquiry was the occurrence of three magnificent harvestsin succession, which brought down the average price of wheat from 58s. 8d. In 1832 to 53s. In 1833, 46s. 2d. In 1834, and 39s. 4d. In 1835, whence it rose to 48s. 6d. After the harvest of 1836. The averagegazette price of 1835 was the lowest touched in the nineteenth centuryuntil 1884, and was simply due to excess of production. It was statedbefore the committee of 1836, by the comptroller of corn returns, thatin the period between 1814 and 1834 the quantity of home-grown wheatonly fell short of the consumption, on the average, by about 1, 000, 000quarters a year, of which at least half was contributed by Ireland. Thecommittee published its evidence without making a report, but this factis highly significant as marking the later revolution in Britishagriculture. If the area then devoted to wheat crops almost sufficed tofeed an estimated population of 14, 500, 000, when the yield per acre wasrelatively small, we may safely infer, in the absence of trustworthystatistics, that it must have been very much greater than at present. 

[Pageheading: _AGITATION IN IRELAND. _]

At the opening of 1837 there was a marked stagnation in home politics, mainly due to an equipoise of parties and serious divisions in the ranksof the ministerialists as well as of the opposition. Not only was therea very strong conservative majority in the house of lords, with asufficient though dwindling liberal majority in the house of commons, but neither majority was amenable to party discipline. The aggressivepolicy and vexatious tactics of Lyndhurst were distasteful to hisnominal leader, the Duke of Wellington, and still more so to Peel, theonly possible conservative premier, who eschewed the very name of tory. There was greater unity of counsels between Melbourne and Russell, butRussell, who had learned moderation, was dependent on the support of hisextreme left, composed of violent radicals and Irish repealers. Theking, though he did not carry his repugnance to his ministers so far ashe once threatened, yet almost excluded them from social invitations, and made no secret of his preference for the opposite party. During thewinter of 1836-37 O'Connell and his satellites were busy in organisingmonster meetings to demand the abolition of tithes and municipal reform. A national association was formed on this basis, and a certain number ofprotestants were induced to join it. The government dared not showvigour in checking it lest they should estrange their Irish allies, andMulgrave, the lord-lieutenant, was openly accused of favouring seditionand discouraging loyalty by his exercise of patronage and the royalprerogative of pardon. At last, a very large and influential meeting washeld in Dublin, at which the discontent of loyalists and patriots wasexpressed with truly Irish vehemence. Still, Ireland was less disturbedthan in several previous years. About the same time, Peel, having beenelected lord rector of Glasgow University, was entertained there atdinner by a company including many old reformers, and made one of hisgreatest speeches. Its spirit was that of his Tamworth manifesto, but hewas far more outspoken in his declaration of unswerving adhesion to theprotestant cause and to the independence of the upper house. 

Such were the political conditions when parliament met on January 31. The king's speech, delivered by commission, though singularlycolourless, indicated the importance of legislating on Irish tithes, Irish corporations, and Irish poor relief. The debate on the address wasenlivened by a furious attack of Roebuck on the whigs, but wasotherwise devoid of importance. On February 7, however, Russellintroduced a new Irish corporations bill, invoking the authority of Foxfor the doctrine that "Irish government should be regulated by Irishnotions and Irish prejudices, " and avowing a faith in the efficacy ofunlimited concession which has not been justified by later experience. He further intimated the resolution of the government to stand or fallby this measure. No serious resistance was offered by the opposition toits first or second reading, but Peel took occasion to protest against atransparent inconsistency which seems to beset the advocacy of Irishclaims. It is generally assumed, and with too much justice, that Irelandis so backward and helpless a country as to require exceptionaltreatment; in short, that it must be governed by Irish ideas, withlittle regard to English principles of sound policy or economy. Suchwas, in effect, Fox's contention, adopted by Russell; and yet, likefuture supporters of "Ireland for the Irish, " he argued in the samebreath that every liberal institution suitable to Englishmen, with theirlong training in self-government and instinctive reverence for law, mustneeds be extended to Irishmen, with their long training in anarchy andinstinctive propensity to lawlessness. He prevailed, however, in thehouse of commons, where a hostile amendment was decisively rejected, andthe bill, having passed rapidly through committee, was read a third timeby a large though reduced majority. 

Had it been possible to isolate the Irish municipal bill, and to compelthe house of lords to deal with it singly, the peers might possibly haveshrunk from another collision with the commons. But it had been coupledin the king's speech with two other projects of Irish legislation, a newtithe bill, and an Irish poor law. Both of these were, in fact, introduced, the former by Russell in February, the latter by Morpethearly in May. The course to be taken by the conservative party was thesubject of anxious consultation between Peel and Wellington, and thatultimately adopted had the full sanction of both. They regarded theseparate presentation of the municipal bill as a "manoeuvre, " and, while they overruled the wish of Lyndhurst to defeat it by an adversevote on the second reading, they resolved to meet it by acounter-manoeuvre. Accordingly Wellington induced the house of lordsto postpone the committee on the municipal bill until they should havethe other two bills before them, and Peel not only approved of hisaction but stated reasons for regarding them as essentially connectedwith each other. June 9 was originally fixed as the date for going intocommittee, but this stage was afterwards deferred until July 3, beforewhich unforeseen events arrested all further progress. 

[Pageheading: _CHURCH RATES. _]

In the meantime, the prestige of the government had been weakened by thefailure of their scheme for abolishing Church rates. The dissenters, nolonger content with religious liberty, were beginning to demandreligious equality. In the forefront of their grievances was that ofpaying rates for the repair of parish churches which they did notattend, except as members of the annual "vestry, " where they couldobject to a rate but might be out-voted by a majority of theirfellow-parishioners. Althorp had proposed a scheme for the removal ofthis grievance in 1834, involving a parliamentary grant of Ł250, 000. Setting aside this alternative, as well as that of a specialcontribution, voluntary or otherwise, from members of the Church, SpringRice now proposed a solution of his own. It consisted in vesting theproperty of bishops and chapters in a commission which, by improvedmanagement, might raise the necessary sum for church repairs, withoutimpairing the incomes of these ecclesiastical dignitaries. Before thegovernment plan was discussed in the house of commons, Howley, archbishop of Canterbury, entered a strong protest against it in thehouse of lords on the ground that it would reduce the bishops andchapters from the position of landowners to that of "mere annuitants". Melbourne complained of his protest somewhat angrily as premature, andprovoked a vehement reply from Blomfield, bishop of London, who, thougha member of the ecclesiastical commission, denounced any such diversionof revenues as "a sacrilegious act of spoliation". In the elaboratedebates on the resolutions moved by Spring Rice in the house of commonsPeel took his stand partly on financial objections and partly on theinjustice of taking away from the Church a fund belonging to it byimmemorial usage, and in the main willingly contributed. Amendment afteramendment was proposed by members of the opposition, and, though eachwas defeated, the government resolutions were ultimately carried by sonarrow a majority in May that no further action was taken. 

The conservative reaction, now in visible progress, was typified by theopen secession of Burdett from the ranks of the reformers. This sincerebut indiscreet radical, who had once enjoyed a popularity similar tothat of Wilkes as a political martyr, became estranged from his partywhen it accepted O'Connell as an auxiliary, if not as an ally. Havingfailed in procuring the exclusion of the great Irish demagogue fromBrooks's club, in 1835, he withdrew his own name. Soon afterwards hebecame irregular in his parliamentary attendance, and more than lukewarmin his allegiance. Early in 1837 he was, like Stanley and Graham, somuch suspected of gravitating towards conservatism, that some of hisWestminster constituents publicly called upon him to resign. He took upthe challenge, and was re-elected against a radical opponent by asubstantial majority. It was his last re-election for a borough which hehad represented for thirty years. In the Church-rate debate he rose fromthe opposition side of the house, and lamenting his separation from hisold associates, did not spare them either reproaches or hostilecriticism. 

Another desertion from the whig camp took place during this session, butin an opposite direction. Roebuck, originally one of the philosophicalradicals, had become more and more violent in his attacks on his ownleaders, whom he accused of having deceived the people. According tohim, they were "aristocratic in principle, democratic in pretence, " andall the resources of his incisive rhetoric were exhausted in exposingtheir incapacity, in a motion for a committee to consider the state ofthe nation. This motion, so advocated, met with no support, and gaveRussell the opportunity of once more vindicating the wisdom ofmoderation in statesmanship. But there were many besides Roebuck whowere eager to complete the work of the reform act by further organicchanges, and the notice book of the house of commons in 1837 embodiedseveral proposals of this kind. One was Grote's annual motion for theballot, on which an interesting debate took place. Among the others weretwo motions of Sir William Molesworth for a reform of the upper houseand for the abolition of a property qualification for the lower house, amotion of Tennyson, who had taken the additional name of D'Eyncourt, forthe repeal of the septennial act, and another of Hume for householdsuffrage, overshadowing that of Duncombe for repealing the rate-payingclauses of the reform act itself. Nearly all of these contained thegerms of future legislation, but they formed no part of the whigprogramme, nor could any whig government have carried them against sopowerful an opposition, with an invincible reserve in the house oflords, during the last session of William IV. Only seventeen public actswere actually passed in this session. 

[Pageheading: _THE DEATH OF WILLIAM IV. _]

There were, indeed, other reasons for declining to provoke a gravecontest at this juncture. The king's health was known to be failing, hisdeath under the law then in force would involve a general election, andno one could desire his successor, a girl of eighteen, to begin herreign in the midst of a political crisis. In May his illness assumed analarming aspect, early in June the medical reports satisfied the countrythat his case was hopeless, on June 19 he received the last sacrament, and on the 20th he died at Windsor Castle. Something more than justicewas done to his character by the leaders of both parties in parliament, but something less than justice has been done to it by later historians. He was inferior in strength of will to his father, in ability to hiseldest brother, and in the higher virtues of a constitutional sovereignto his niece, who succeeded him. But he was not only a kindly andwell-meaning man, a good husband to Queen Adelaide and a good father tohis natural children, faithful to his old friends, and bountiful in hischarities; he was also a loyal servant of the state, with a genuinesense of public duty, a natural love of justice, an independentjudgment, and a noble indifference to personal or selfish objects. Hislot was cast in almost revolutionary times, and he was called upon toreign at an age when few men are capable of shaking off old prejudices, yet he deserved well of his people in supporting the ministry of Greythrough all the stages of the reform movement, in spite of his owndeclared sympathies, but in deference to his own conviction of paramountobligation under the laws of the land. He was quite as liberal inopinions as Peel, whose hearty interest in the poorer classes he fullyshared, and far more liberal than the tory majority in the house oflords. Great he certainly was not, and he never affected the royaldignity which partially concealed the littleness of his predecessor. Butin honesty and simplicity he was no unworthy son of George III. , and thegreater pliability of his nature contributed, at least, to make theseven years of his reign more fruitful in reforms than all the sixtyyears during which the old king occupied the throne of England. 

FOOTNOTES:

[130] The king to Peel (Feb. 22, 1835), Parker, _Sir Robert Peel_, ii. , 287-89. 

[131] See Melbourne's letters to Brougham, _Melbourne Papers_, pp. 257-64. 

[132] The abuses in the Scottish municipalities had, however, beenalready removed by an act conferring the municipal franchise on Ł10householders. Not the least important result of this act was theincreased strength which it gave to the "evangelical" party in thegeneral assembly of the Church of Scotland, which was partly elected bythe municipalities. 

[133] Campbell, _Lives of the Chancellors_, viii. , 470. 

[134] Campbell, _Lives of the Chancellors_, viii. , 476. 

[135] _Annual Register_, lxxviii. (1836), p. 244

 CHAPTER XVIII. 

 FOREIGN RELATIONS UNDER WILLIAM IV. 

In 1830 the closing months of Wellington's administration were disturbedby the French and Belgian revolutions. The former of these wasoccasioned by the publication on July 25 of three ordinances, restricting the liberty of the press, dissolving the chambers, andamending the law of elections. The Parisian populace rose against thisinfringement of the constitution. In the course of a three days'street-fight (the 27th to the 29th) the troops were driven out of Paris. On the 30th a few members of the chambers, who had continued in session, invited Louis Philippe, Duke of Orléans, to assume the office oflieutenant-general of the kingdom, and he was proclaimed on thefollowing day. On August 7 the chamber of deputies offered him thecrown, which he accepted, and on the 9th he was proclaimed "King of theFrench". On the 2nd Charles X. And the dauphin had renounced theirrights in favour of the young Duke of Bordeaux, and on the 16th theysailed from Cherbourg to England. The change of dynasty was accompaniedby a transference to the _bourgeoisie_ of such political influence ashad hitherto belonged to the clergy and _noblesse_. It remained to beseen whether it would also be accompanied by a change of foreign policy. 

[Pageheading: _RECOGNITION OF LOUIS PHILIPPE. _]

The new French revolution occasioned no slight perturbation in theEuropean courts. To say nothing of the fear of the precedent beingfollowed in other lands, there was no longer any guarantee that Francewould respect the arrangements effected by the treaties of Vienna andParis. Austria, Prussia, and Russia agreed not to recognise LouisPhilippe, and entered into a convention for mutual aid in the event ofFrench aggression. Aberdeen, the British foreign secretary, declaredthat the time had come for applying the treaty of Chaumont, which, asextended at Paris, pledged Great Britain and the three eastern powers toact together in case fresh revolution and usurpation in France shouldendanger the repose of other states. Wellington, however, saw that thecause of the elder Bourbon line was hopeless, and held now, as in 1815, that if France was not to menace the peace of Europe, her politicalposition must be one with which she could be contented. He consideredthat the arguments which justified the admission of France to thecouncils of the powers at Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818 applied with no lesscogency to the government of Louis Philippe than to that of Louis XVIII. He therefore determined to acknowledge the new French government at anearly date after the notification of its assumption of power. Nor werethe other powers slow in taking the same course. It is true thatMetternich suggested a closer bond between Austria, Prussia, and Russia, partly to restore amicable relations between Austria and Russia, partlyto oppose any possible designs of France on Italy. Prussia, fearing war, resisted the proposal, and preferred to draw France into a guarantee ofthe _status quo_ by recognising Louis Philippe. Russia was last of thegreat powers to acknowledge the new _régime_ in France, and she only didso on condition that the powers should hold the French king responsiblefor the execution of the international engagements of the fallendynasty. Louis Philippe was certainly not the man wilfully to embroilFrance in a war with her neighbours, and, had he been independent ofFrench public opinion, there would have been no reason to fear Frenchaggression. 

The state which had most to fear from an aggressive France was the newkingdom of the Netherlands. Trusting for protection to the great powersrather than to its own forces, the Netherlands government had adopted asystem which left it almost entirely without troops except during themilitary exercises of September and October. Wellington, who knew thepacific character of the new French government, advised the garrisoningof certain isolated points on the frontier, but thought no furtherpreparation necessary. A few weeks were however to prove that the newFrench revolution had aroused a more implacable enemy, against whom thehouse of Orange would have needed all the troops it could summon to itsaid. The union of Holland and Belgium had been resolved on by thepowers at Paris in 1814, mainly for military reasons. Austria had beenunwilling to resume the heavy burden of guarding the Belgian Netherlandsand southern Germany against French aggression, and the powers hadconsequently resolved on strengthening those smaller states on whom theduty of resistance would fall. In these days, accustomed as we are tothe distinction between the Teutonic and Latin races, it might seemreasonable that two countries in which the prevailing languages are lowGerman should be subject to the same government. But it was not yetcustomary to turn the principles of comparative philology into argumentsfor the rearrangement of political boundaries. The French language andculture had moreover made considerable progress among the upper andmiddle classes of Belgium, while religious differences alienated theclergy from the house of Orange. In the states-general of theNetherlands the Dutch had half the votes, and, as the Orange party wasstrong in Antwerp and Ghent, commanded a majority. The fiscal systemadopted by the government favoured the Dutch rather than the Belgianpopulation. Dutchmen were generally preferred for state offices, and anattempt to control the education of the clergy was deeply resented as anattack on the Roman catholic religion. Belgium in consequence presentedthe curious spectacle of the liberal and clerical parties working on thesame side, united against the Dutch government. 

[Pageheading: _BELGIAN REVOLUTION. _]

The example afforded by France turned a discontent which might have ledto local riots into a national conflagration. On August 25 there was arising of the populace at Brussels, which the troops proved unable toquell. On the 27th it was suppressed by a body of burgher guards, avolunteer force drawn from the _bourgeoisie_ of the town. The_bourgeoisie_ finding themselves in possession of the Belgian capital, at first presented a series of minor demands to the king, but onSeptember 3 they went the length of demanding a separate administrationfor Belgium. The king undertook to lay this proposal before the states, which assembled on the 13th. But before the states could come to anyconclusion the question had assumed a new aspect. All the leading townsof Belgium had followed the example of Brussels by forming burgherguards and had thus joined in the revolution; and on the 20th a freshrising of the populace of Brussels had overthrown the burgher guard andinstituted a provisional government. This was followed by an attempt onthe part of Prince Frederick of Orange, a younger son of the King of theNetherlands, to occupy Brussels with a military force. After five days'fighting he was compelled to retire, and when on the 30th thestates-general gave their consent to the proposal for a separateadministration, their decision fell upon deaf ears. All the Belgianprovinces were in revolt. 

It was now clear to everybody that the national party in Belgium wouldnot consent even to a personal union with Holland. As the union of thetwo countries formed a part of the treaty of Vienna, every Europeanpower had a legal right to employ force to prevent its disruption, andRussia and Prussia both desired active intervention. In France, on theother hand, there was a loud popular demand for the reannexation ofBelgium to France, of which it had formed a part from 1794 to 1814. Louis Philippe saw that he could not resist this demand if the Belgianinsurgents were coerced on the side of Prussia, and therefore announcedthat Prussian aggression would be met by a French expedition to Belgiumto keep the balance even, until the question should be settled by acongress of the powers. On September 25 Talleyrand had arrived inEngland. He quickly obtained the adhesion of Wellington to the principleof non-intervention. The duke had been among the first to grasp the factthat reconciliation of Dutch and Belgians was impossible, and that theintervention of the powers would necessitate a European war, to avoidwhich the union of the two countries had originally been designed. Heagreed therefore to a separation of the countries on condition thatFrance should bind herself to observe the arrangements of the congressof Vienna in 1815 and should take no separate action in Belgium. 

On Talleyrand's suggestion it was decided to refer the question to theconference already sitting in London for the purpose of settling theGreek question, which would of course have to be reinforced byrepresentatives of Austria and Prussia for the present purpose. Molé, the French foreign minister, would have preferred Paris as the seat ofthe congress, but the King of the Netherlands absolutely refused toentrust his cause to a conference meeting in a city where opinion ran sostrongly against him. On October 5 he made a formal appeal to thepowers for the aid guaranteed him by treaty, but the demand came toolate to induce Wellington to swerve from the policy of non-intervention, and on November 4 the conference of London began its labours byproposing an armistice in Belgium, which was accepted by both parties. This left Maastricht and the citadel of Antwerp in the hands of Dutchgarrisons, and Luxemburg in the hands of a garrison supplied by theGerman confederation. Every other place in Belgium was in the hands ofthe insurgents. But the further solution of the question was reservedfor other hands. On the 3rd Louis Philippe was compelled to accept arevolutionary ministry, and on the 22nd Wellington and Aberdeen had tomake way for a whig ministry with Grey as premier, and Palmerston asforeign secretary. 

The new foreign secretary had served a long political apprenticeship assecretary at war in the successive administrations of Perceval, Liverpool, Canning, Goderich, and Wellington, and under the threelast-mentioned premiers he had enjoyed a seat in the cabinet. It will beremembered that he had been a warm champion of Greece, and had resignedoffice along with Huskisson, Dudley, and Grant. He now returned incompany with Grant as a member of a whig cabinet. Although this changeof party involved the adoption of a domestic policy far removed fromCanning's, Palmerston's foreign policy remained rather Canningite thanwhig. The interest and the honour of England ranked with Palmerston aswith Canning before all questions which concerned the maintenance ofEuropean peace. But instead of Canning's versatile diplomacy hedisplayed too often a reckless disregard of the susceptibilities offoreign governments, and, if, like Canning, he lent the moral support ofGreat Britain to the liberal party in every continental country, it wasnot, as it had professedly been with Canning, because their successwould promote the interests of Great Britain, but because he had agenuine sympathy with their cause. It is impossible to deny that in hisearlier years at least Palmerston's policy met with a success such asCastlereagh and Wellington had not attempted to gain; real or imaginarydangers at home left the foreign governments too weak to oppose the willof the one strong man of the moment. Yet it is doubtful whether anyresultant benefits were not more than counterbalanced by the distrustand ill-will with which the greater nations of Europe have learned toregard the British government and people. 

[Pageheading: _PROPOSED DIVISION OF THE NETHERLANDS. _]

During the first few weeks of the new administration, the Belgianquestion advanced far towards a settlement. On November 10 a Belgiannational congress assembled at Brussels; on the 18th it voted theindependence of Belgium; on the 22nd it resolved that the new stateshould be a constitutional monarchy, and on the 24th it proclaimed thetotal exclusion of the house of Nassau. Finally the outbreak of a Polishinsurrection at Warsaw made it clear that Prussia and Russia would betoo busily occupied in the east to be able to interfere effectively inthe Belgian question. On December 20 a protocol was signed at London bythe representatives of the five powers, providing for the separation ofBelgium from Holland. When however the protocol was sent to the tsar forratification, he would only ratify it subject to the condition that itsexecution should depend on the consent of the King of the Netherlands. Meanwhile the London conference was engaged in settling the boundary ofthe new kingdom. For the most part it went on the principle of leavingto Holland the districts that had belonged to the United Provincesbefore the wars of the French revolution. The remainder of the kingdomof the Netherlands, consisting chiefly of the former AustrianNetherlands, but including also territories which had belonged toFrance, Prussia, the Palatinate, the bishopric of Ličge, and some minorecclesiastical states, was assigned to Belgium. An exception was, however, made in the case of the grand duchy of Luxemburg. Luxemburg wasreputed to be, next to Gibraltar, the strongest fortress in Europe. Itwas regarded as the key to the lower Rhine; it formed a part of theGerman confederation, and was garrisoned by German troops. AlthoughHolland had no historical claim to its possession, the treaty of Viennagranted it to the Dutch branch of the house of Nassau, as compensationfor its former possessions, merged in the duchy of Nassau; and it wasnow felt that a place so important to the safety of Germany could notsafely be handed over to a state which seemed likely to fall underFrench influence. The powers therefore determined that this duchy shouldcontinue to belong to the king of the Netherlands. 

There was also some difficulty over the apportionment of the debt. Belgium was the more populous and the richer of the two countries, butthe greater part of the debt had been contracted by Holland before theunion. Belgium was, however, already responsible for its share of thewhole debt, and the powers can hardly be accused of injustice when theydetermined to divide the debt in the proportion in which thedebt-charges had been borne in the three previous years, assigningsixteen thirty-firsts to Belgium, and fifteen thirty-firsts to Holland. Belgium was moreover to possess the right of trading with the Dutchcolonies and to contribute towards their defence. These provisions wereembodied in two protocols which were issued at London on January 20 and27, 1831. As compared with the _status quo_ the Dutch were slightly thegainers. The protocol permitted them to keep Maastricht and Luxemburg, but required them to abandon the citadel of Antwerp; while the Belgianswere required to surrender those less important places which they hadoccupied in Dutch Limburg and in the grand duchy of Luxemburg. Talleyrand considered the present a favourable opportunity for claimingfor France the cession of Mariembourg and Philippeville which she hadbeen compelled to surrender to the kingdom of the Netherlands in 1815. Palmerston, however, absolutely refused to hear of any extension ofFrench territory, for fear of imperilling the security of Europe. Thetwo protocols were accepted by Holland on February 13 but rejected byBelgium. Though Talleyrand had signed the protocol of January 20, it wasrepudiated by Sébastiani, the French foreign minister, on the groundthat the object of the conference was to effect a mediation, not todictate a settlement. 

[Pageheading: _BELGIUM CHOOSES A KING. _]

Meanwhile the national congress at Brussels had attempted to elect aking. At first the most favoured candidate was Auguste Beauharnais, Dukeof Leuchtenberg, the grandson of Napoleon's first consort. LouisPhilippe naturally objected to the establishment on his frontier of aprince so closely connected with the house of Bonaparte. The pliantBelgians accordingly transferred their preference to the Duke ofNemours, the second son of Louis Philippe. It was in vain thatSébastiani declared that France could not allow such a selection, as itwould be interpreted by the powers as evidence of a French design toreincorporate Belgium in France. On February 3, 1831, the Duke ofNemours was actually elected king by the Belgian national congress. Butthe conference of London had, two days earlier, adopted a resolution, excluding from the Belgian throne all members of the reigning dynastiesof the five powers. Still there was a strong party in France, includingLaffitte, the revolutionary premier, who advocated the claims ofNemours. Louis Philippe, however, stood firm on the side of Europeanpeace, and on the 17th definitively declined the crown offered to hisson. The French now recommended the Prince of Naples, but the Belgiansdeclined to accept him, and on the 25th the national congress appointeda regent to hold office till a king should be elected. On March 13 theaccession to office of an anti-revolutionary ministry in France renderedthe complete co-operation of the powers easier. 

On April 17 France declared her adhesion to the protocol of January 20, and by a new protocol the other four powers consented to the demolitionof some of the Belgian fortresses on the French frontier. Anotherprotocol of the same date ordered the Belgians to evacuate the grandduchy of Luxemburg. On May 10 a further protocol even threatened Belgiumwith the rupture of diplomatic relations in case she did not by June Iaccept the protocol of January 20. But the powers soon adopted a moreconciliatory attitude. France and Great Britain desired that PrinceLeopold of Saxe-Coburg, who in the previous year had resigned the crownof Greece, should now be offered that of Belgium. Prince Leopold wouldnot accept the crown so long as Belgium continued to defy the powers, and on the other hand there was no chance of securing his election bythe Belgian congress unless he undertook to maintain the Belgian claimto the possession of Luxemburg. Lord Ponsonby, the British minister atBrussels, succeeded in inducing the London conference to sign a newprotocol, undertaking to negotiate with Holland for the cession ofLuxemburg to Belgium, in return for an indemnity elsewhere, providedthat Belgium should first accept the protocol of January 20. The Belgiancongress gathered that the acceptance of Prince Leopold was regarded bythe powers as more important than the maintenance of the terms of thatprotocol, and they accordingly elected him as their king on June 4without accepting the protocol. In answer to Dutch complaints Ponsonbyand General Belliard, the French minister, were recalled from Brusselsas the protocol of May 10 required. Leopold refused to accept the crownuntil the conference should have offered better terms, and on the 26ththe conference signed another protocol, which differed from that ofJanuary 20 in that it left the Luxemburg question open for futurenegotiation, and rendered Holland liable for the whole of the debt thatit had incurred before the union of the two countries. On the same dayLeopold accepted the Belgian crown. The Belgian congress accepted thislast protocol on July 7, and on the 21st Leopold was proclaimed king, and immediately recognised by Great Britain and France. The other greatpowers were not long in following their example. 

It was now Holland's turn to feel aggrieved. She refused to recognisethe changes proposed by the powers in the terms which she had alreadyaccepted. On May 21 she had declared that if the protocol of January 20were not accepted by June 1 she would consider herself free to act onher own account, and on July 12 that the acceptance in Belgium of a kingwho had not agreed to that protocol would be an act of hostility. Feeling herself betrayed by the conference she gave notice on August 1that the armistice which had existed since the previous November wouldterminate on the 4th. It was soon seen how much Holland had lost in thepreceding year by being found in a state of military unpreparedness. When hostilities began the Dutch carried everything before them. On the8th the Belgians were routed at Hasselt, and on the 13th Leopold inperson was compelled to surrender Louvain. But Holland was now arrestedin the full tide of her success. The opportunity that French patriotshad long desired had presented itself, and Louis Philippe would onlyhave endangered his own throne if he had failed to come to theassistance of Belgium against Holland. On the 4th he received Leopold'sappeal for assistance; on the 12th the first French division reachedBrussels, and on the following day the Prince of Orange, who led themain Dutch army, received orders from the Hague to retire within theDutch frontier. 

[Pageheading: _COERCION OF HOLLAND. _]

The conference had in fact found it necessary to join in measures ofcoercion. On the first news of the outbreak of hostilities it severelyreproached Holland for the breach of the armistice, and ordered theDutch forces to retire. By a protocol of the 6th it accepted andjustified the French expedition, which, it knew, could not safely berecalled, and tried to minimise the danger by forbidding the French tocross the Dutch frontier and requiring them to return to France as soonas the Dutch should return to Holland. At the same time a semblance ofjoint action was created by the despatch of a British fleet to theDowns. If the Dutch invasion of Belgium created excitement in France, the French expedition had a similar effect in England, and Palmerstonfound it necessary to insist sternly on the immediate evacuation ofBelgium upon the withdrawal of the Dutch troops. The French governmentnaturally desired to point to some tangible triumph of French arms, andrequested that the troops should be allowed to remain till the frontierfortresses should have been demolished in accordance with the protocolof April 17. In a somewhat insulting message Palmerston threatened ageneral war sooner than allow the French troops to remain. The most thatFrance could obtain was that 12, 000 men might remain a fortnight longerthan the rest and that a number of French officers might enlist in theBelgian service. 

The conference now returned to the task of effecting a settlement inaccordance with the terms of the protocol of June 26. On October 15 itprovided for the partition of the grand duchy of Luxemburg betweenHolland and Belgium and for the indemnification of Holland with a largerportion of Limburg than had belonged to her in 1790. At the same timeprovision was made for the freedom of the Scheldt, and the debt wasreassessed, 8, 400, 000 florins of _rentes_[136] being assigned to Belgiumand 19, 300, 000 to Holland. Along with this protocol a letter was sent tothe Belgian plenipotentiary, promising that if Belgium accepted it, thepowers would undertake to obtain the consent of Holland. The protocolwas converted into a treaty by the adhesion of Belgium on November 15. Meanwhile the King of the Netherlands had appealed to the tsar againstthe action of the western powers and of the Russian plenipotentiaries atLondon, and the tsar had in consequence refused to ratify the treatytill the King of the Netherlands should have given his consent. Thatconsent was slow in coming. It was only on June 30, 1832, that Hollandagreed to the exchange of territories and the reduction of Belgium'sshare of the debt, and even then questions remained as to the dues onthe Scheldt and the transit of goods through Dutch Limburg. The Belgiansrefused to negotiate further until the citadel of Antwerp should besurrendered; the Dutch on the other hand refused to surrender it till adefinite treaty should be signed and ratified. On October 1 France, withthe approval of the British government, proposed to suspend the paymentof the Belgian share of the interest on the debt until the citadel ofAntwerp should be surrendered, and to deduct from the share of theprincipal payable by Belgium, 500, 000 florins of _rentes_ for each weekthat should elapse before the surrender. The three eastern powersrefused to agree to any coercion of Holland, and, in consequence, GreatBritain and France determined to act alone. 

On the 22nd they signed a convention providing for the coercion ofHolland by an embargo and by the despatch of a squadron to the Dutchcoast. If any Dutch troops should be still in Belgium on November 15, aFrench force was empowered, subject to the consent of the Belgiangovernment, to advance into Belgium and expel the Dutch troops from thecountry. The French were, however, to retire as soon as the Dutchevacuation was complete. The first result of this convention was thesuspension of the conference. On the 29th the two powers made theirdemand. As the Dutch refused compliance, a joint French and Britishfleet sailed on November 4 to blockade the Scheldt, and the embargo wasproclaimed on the 6th. On the 15th a French army of 56, 000 men, commanded by Gérard, entered Belgium. On December 4 it opened fire onthe citadel of Antwerp, which surrendered after a nineteen days'bombardment on the 23rd. The French army returned to its own countrybefore the end of the year, leaving the Dutch in possession of two smallforts on the Belgian side of the frontier, which were more thancompensated by the positions held by the Belgians in Dutch Limburg. Eventhe fall of the citadel of Antwerp did not induce Holland to accept thesettlement proposed by the powers, and Great Britain and France nowattempted to effect a working agreement pending negotiations on thedetails of the treaty. It was in vain that Holland asked that Belgiumshould evacuate the Dutch provinces of Limburg and Luxemburg and payher share of the interest on the Dutch debt. Palmerston and Talleyrandrefused to include these provisions in a preliminary convention. Finallyon March 21, 1833, a convention was signed between Great Britain, France, and Holland, which terminated the embargo and provided for thefree navigation of the Scheldt and Maas. A similar convention was signedbetween Holland and Belgium on November 18. Six years, however, were toelapse before the Dutch government would consent to the conditions drawnup by the powers in 1831. Meanwhile the Belgians were free from theirshare of debt, held the greater part of Limburg and Luxemburg, andenjoyed the free navigation of the Maas and the Scheldt, over and abovethe terms granted them in 1831. 

[Pageheading: _POLISH REBELLION. _]

It is inconceivable that the Belgian question should have been left soentirely in the hands of the two western powers, and that the settlementshould have taken the form of a foreign coercion of a legitimate kingfor his unreadiness to make concessions to his revolted subjects, hadnot the attention of the three absolutist powers of eastern and centralEurope been directed to another quarter. Just as the revolution of 1820had spread through southern Europe in spite of Castlereagh's attempt tomaintain that it was not of a contagious order, so that of 1830 awakenedsimilar outbursts not only at Brussels but in various German states, inSwitzerland, in Poland, and in Italy. The Polish insurrection was, likethe Belgian, a national revolt, and the consequent military operationswere of the nature of a war between Poland and Russia. The revolt brokeout at Warsaw on November 29, 1830, and on January 25, 1831, the Polishdiet proclaimed the independence of Poland. On February 5 a Russian armycrossed the Polish frontier. In France there was a loud popular demandfor intervention. But even the Laffitte ministry would not move withoutthe co-operation of Great Britain, though the French ambassador atConstantinople tried to stir up the Porte to hostilities. The ministryof Casimir-Perier, which came into office in March, proposed a jointmediation of France and Great Britain, but to this Palmerston would notassent. He remonstrated with Russia on her violations of the Polishconstitution, which Great Britain, along with the other powers, hadguaranteed at the congress of Vienna, but he could not support thePolish claim to independence, since Great Britain had made herself aparty to the union of the two countries. As it happened, theremonstrance was simply a cause of annoyance, which subsequent eventswere destined to intensify. It was only on September 8, 1831, that theRussians under Paskievitch captured Warsaw, an event which was followedon February 26, 1832, by the abolition of the Polish constitution. Palmerston protested again but with no more success than in the previousyear. 

[Pageheading: _DOM MIGUEL AND DON CARLOS. _]

In the Portuguese, as in the Belgian question, Palmerston drifted fromthe position of a neutral into that of a partisan. Ever since the year1828, British subjects accused of political offences had been brutallyill-treated in Portugal, and as time went on the excesses increased. Bydespatching six British warships to the Tagus Palmerston succeeded inobtaining a pecuniary indemnity and a public apology on May 2, 1831. Similar insults to France were not so readily redressed. A threat offorce on the part of the French government was followed by an appealfrom Dom Miguel for British assistance. This Palmerston refused togrant, and in July a French squadron under Admiral Roussin forced thepassage of the Tagus, and carried off the best ships of the Portuguesenavy. Meanwhile much irritation had been caused in Brazil by Peter'sadvocacy of his daughter's claim to Portugal, which was consideredinconsistent with his professed adherence to the separation of the twocountries. On April 6, Peter abdicated the crown of Brazil in favour ofhis infant son, Peter II. , and on the following day sailed for Europe inorder to assert his daughter's right to the Portuguese throne. Hearrived in Europe towards the end of May, and visited both England andFrance. 

Though neither government assisted him directly, he was permitted toraise troops and even to secure the services of naval officers, and inDecember a force of 300 men sailed from Liverpool to Belleisle, which hehad appointed as the rendezvous. Palmerston had thus, unlike Wellington, adopted the same attitude towards the Portuguese liberals that FerdinandVII. Had adopted towards the absolutists. Peter's expedition gatheredfurther strength at the Azores and sailed for Portugal on June 27, 1832. On July 8, the fleet, commanded by Admiral Sartorius, a British officer, appeared off Oporto, which submitted on the following day. The town was, however, blockaded by Miguel's forces and Peter's cause made no headwayuntil in June, 1833, the command of the fleet was transferred to Captain(afterwards Admiral Sir Charles) Napier. On the night of June 24, helanded at Villa Real a force of 2, 500 men who conquered the province ofAlgarve in a week, and on July 5 he annihilated Miguel's navy in anengagement off Cape St. Vincent. After a further battle near Lisbon, Peter's forces entered the capital on the 24th, and subsequentlyrepulsed a Miguelite attack upon the city. Miguel still held out innorthern Portugal, when another train of events caused the westernpowers to substitute direct for indirect interference. 

Ferdinand VII. Of Spain had fallen so entirely under the influence ofhis fourth and last queen, Maria Christina of Naples, as to repeal by apragmatic sanction the Salic law which the treaty of Utrecht hadestablished as the rule of succession in Spain. The result of this edictwas to leave the succession to his infant daughter Isabella instead ofhis brother Don Carlos, the leader of the Spanish absolutists. WhenFerdinand died on September 29, 1833, Don Carlos was absent from thekingdom, supporting the cause of his fellow-pretender Dom Miguel. Isabella received the hearty support of the constitutional party and wasalmost universally acknowledged as queen. It was only in Biscay, wherethe centralising tendency of the Spanish constitution, published onApril 10, 1834, seemed to entrench upon local liberty, that Don Carlosmet with much active support. His cause, like that of Miguel inPortugal, was the more popular, but his adherents were as yet almostentirely devoid of organisation. Peter's partisans had already madesubstantial progress towards a complete victory, and Santha Martha, theMiguelite commander-in-chief, had surrendered in the beginning of April, when on April 22 a triple alliance, already signed between GreatBritain, Maria Christina, Queen-regent of Spain, and Peter, as regent ofPortugal, was converted into a quadruple alliance by the adhesion ofFrance. This treaty provided for the co-operation of Spain and Portugalto expel Dom Miguel and Don Carlos from the Portuguese dominions. GreatBritain was to assist by the employment of a naval force, and France wasto render assistance, if required, in such manner as should be settledafterwards by common consent of the four contracting powers. The Spanishgeneral, Rodil, immediately crossed the frontier. He met with noresistance, and on May 26 Miguel signed a convention at Evora, by whichhe accepted a pension, renounced his rights to the Portuguese throne, and agreed to quit the country. 

[Pageheading: _THE CARLIST WAR. _]

Don Carlos, however, refused to renounce his rights to the Spanishthrone, and all that the British navy could do was to convey the twopretenders, Carlos to England and Miguel to Genoa. Although Miguel, onJune 20, repudiated his abdication, the Portuguese question was reallyat an end. The Spanish question was, however, merely entering on itscritical stage. Don Carlos secretly left London on July 1, and nine dayslater appeared at the Carlist headquarters in Spain. Here he had theassistance of the ablest general of this war, Zumalacarregui. Melbourne's succession to the premiership in July left Palmerston at theforeign office, and was followed by no change in foreign policy. OnAugust 18 an additional article to the quadruple alliance provided thatFrance was to prevent reinforcements or warlike stores from reaching DonCarlos from the French side of the frontier, while Great Britain was tosupply arms and stores to the Spanish royalists and, if necessary, intervene with a naval force. The short interlude of conservativegovernment, with Peel as premier and Wellington as foreign secretary, was not marked by any change of policy nor yet by any new aggressions. Wellington's only interference with the course of hostilities was themission of Lord Eliot to Navarre, which induced the combatants toabandon for the time being those cruelties to prisoners which had beenthe disgrace of the Spanish civil wars. 

Shortly after the return of Melbourne and Palmerston to power, Zumalacarregui won a victory in the valley of Amascoas on April 21 and22, 1835, which opened to him the road to Madrid. The Madrid governmentnow appealed to France to send 12, 000 men to occupy the Basqueprovinces. By the terms of the quadruple alliance the assent of GreatBritain and Portugal was necessary in order to determine the manner inwhich France was to render assistance. Thiers, on behalf of LouisPhilippe, suggested a separate French expedition on the lines of that of1823. Palmerston, like Canning before him, refused to sanction such anexpedition, though he was prepared to allow France to make theexpedition on her own responsibility. He suggested in return that GreatBritain should intervene. But Louis Philippe was equally opposed to theseparate action of his own country and of Great Britain, and the resultwas that neither government sent any troops. The Spanish government was, however, permitted to enlist volunteers, and actually received theassistance of an English legion, a French legion, and 6, 000 Portuguese. The immediate danger was averted by the obstinacy of Don Carlos, whorefused to permit Zumalacarregui to march on Madrid till the conquest ofBiscay was complete. The Carlist general turned aside in consequence tothe siege of Bilbao, in which a few weeks later he met his death. 

In February, 1836, some changes in the French ministry increased thepower of Thiers, who had so recently advocated the policy ofintervention. Palmerston now proposed a French expedition to the Basqueprovinces, while the British were to occupy St. Sebastian and Pasages. Thiers did not, however, feel strong enough to accept this offer, andPalmerston determined to act alone. A British squadron under Lord JohnHay was despatched to the Spanish coast with instructions to assist theroyalist forces. This squadron is probably entitled to the principalshare in the credit for the successful resistance of Bilbao to theCarlist armies. In May, however, a conservative government entered uponoffice in Spain, and France became more ready to grant assistance. Isturiz, the new Spanish premier, persuaded Louis Philippe to send sometroops to Spain; but by leaning on foreign support Isturiz hadoverreached himself. Spanish indignation found vent in a revolutionarymovement, accompanied by bloodshed; one town after another declared forthe constitution of 1812, which the queen-regent was forced to sign onAugust 13, and on the following day a progressist ministry was installedin office. Austria, Prussia, and Russia withdrew their ambassadors fromMadrid after the riots of the 13th, and Louis Philippe recalled theforces he had sent to the assistance of the Spanish government. Had DonCarlos listened to the advice of the eastern powers and given suchassurances as might have won over the more moderate of Isabella'ssupporters, he would probably have proved successful. As it was the wardragged on, but De Lacy Evans, who was in command of the British legion, left Spain on June 10, 1837, and most of his men followed soon after. The question of intervention had, however, put an end to that cordialco-operation of Great Britain and France which had existed ever sincethe July revolution, and left Great Britain as isolated in the counselsof Europe as she had been when Canning and Wellington dissociatedthemselves from the other powers at Verona. 

The settlement of the Greek question proceeded very slowly. While thepowers were seeking a possible king, Capodistrias exercised anautocratic sway as president. However, in the spring of 1831, theMainots of southern Laconia and the Hydriots revolted against him, andgot possession of the Greek fleet. Capodistrias appealed to Russia forassistance, and a Russian squadron was sent to blockade the Greek fleetat Poros. But Miaoulis, the Greek admiral, sank his ships in order tosave them from the Russians. The situation was simplified by theassassination of Capodistrias on October 9, which left two rivalnational assemblies struggling for the mastery. The French troops failedto maintain order, and the way was clear for a king who would have theprestige of an international treaty and an independent revenue tosupport his position. This was the situation when on February 13, 1832, a protocol was signed at London, offering the Greek crown to Otto, thesecond son of King Lewis of Bavaria, a boy of seventeen. The boundarywas to be fixed where Palmerston, while still a member of the Wellingtonadministration, had wished to fix it, along a line running from the Gulfof Arta to that of Volo. King Lewis would not, however, agree to acceptthe crown for his son unless he should be granted the title of king, instead of prince, and should be guaranteed a loan to enable him to meetthe expenses of his position. On May 7, 1832, the London protocol wasembodied in a treaty of London; the crown was definitely conferred onOtto, who was given the title of king, guaranteed a loan, not exceedingŁ2, 400, 000, and allowed to take out 3, 500 Bavarian troops with him. TheTurkish consent to the proposed boundary was given on July 21; Greeceaccepted the treaty in August, and the new king left for his kingdom inDecember. [137]

[Pageheading: _VICTORIES OF IBRAHIM. _]

Greece now disappears from the eastern question. But Ibrahim Pasha, whose successes in Greece had induced Canning to interfere, had alreadydisclosed a new phase of that question by successes gained in anotherquarter. Mehemet Ali had quickly repaired the losses which his fleet andarmy had sustained in the Peloponnese. Meanwhile he demanded fromSultan Mahmud that Ibrahim should be compensated with a part of Syriafor the loss of the Morea, which had been promised him as a reward forhis services in Greece. The sultan refused to grant this insolentdemand, and Mehemet Ali determined to conquer the province for himself. Abdallah, Pasha of Acre, had taken under his protection some fugitivepeasants, and Mehemet Ali, in spite of the sultan's prohibition, sentIbrahim with an army of 30, 000 men against him. He laid siege to Acre onDecember 9, 1831, and took it on May 27, 1832. On July 8 he routed aTurkish army at Homs; on the 29th he routed a larger army at the pass ofBeilan, and on the 31st he entered Antioch. In November he was atKonieh. The Tsar Nicholas had, with Palmerston's approval, already sentLieutenant-General Muraviov on a mission to Constantinople, offeringmilitary and naval support; but the sultan preferred to seek Britishassistance first. 

Unfortunately the message came at a time when the British fleet waspreparing to blockade the coasts of the Netherlands, and could not bespared for service In the Mediterranean. An appeal to France was equallyunsuccessful. She had by this time formed the siege of the citadel ofAntwerp, and was moreover naturally averse from a struggle with Ibrahim, whose army had been organised and trained by French officers. The sultantherefore decided to avail himself of the offers made by Russia. Indeedhe had no choice, for the news now came that on December 21 Ibrahim hadcompletely defeated the Turkish general, Reshid, at Konieh and thatthere was no army between him and Constantinople. Muraviov was sent on avain mission to Alexandria with authority to cede Acre to Mehemet Ali ifhe would surrender his fleet to the sultan. Ibrahim advanced to Kiutayehand his advance-guard came as far as Broussa. The sultan on February 2, 1833, requested the assistance of the Russian navy, and on the 20th aRussian squadron appeared at Constantinople. 

The powers that had refused to move to save Turkey from Ibrahim werequick enough to interfere when the danger was from Russia and not froman oriental. Ibrahim might have been expected to make a stronger rulerthan the sultan, whose fall seemed imminent. A Russian protectorate wasa different matter. Roussin, the French ambassador at Constantinople, protested against the Russian alliance and threatened to leaveConstantinople. A French envoy was, at his suggestion, permitted tooffer Mehemet the governorship of the Syrian pashaliks of Tripoli andAcre. On March 8 Mehemet rejected these terms, and declared that if hisown terms were not accepted within six weeks his troops would march uponConstantinople. The sultan then turned to Russia again and asked fortroops. Fifteen thousand Russians were in consequence landed on theshores of the Bosphorus, and in the beginning of April an army of24, 000, which had remained in Moldavia ever since the war of 1828-29, prepared to march southwards. Constantinople at least was thus renderedsafe from Ibrahim, and there was therefore more hope that Mehemet wouldcome to terms. The British, French, and Austrian ambassadors spared noeffort to induce the Porte to offer terms that might be accepted, andtheir representations were probably rendered the more persuasive by theappearance of British and French fleets in the Ćgean. Roussin especiallyurged that it was better to surrender Syria than to reconquer it byRussian troops. At last the sultan yielded, and on April 10 a peace wassigned at Kiutayeh, though not ratified by the sultan till May 15. Thistreaty granted to Mehemet Ali Syria and Cilicia, but restored the bulkof Asia Minor to the Porte. 

[Pageheading: _CONFERENCE OF MÜNCHENGRÄTZ. _]

Turkey had been saved by the western powers, but only because theydreaded the possibility of her being saved by Russia. A few weeks latertheir worst fears seemed on the point of realisation. The Russian troopson the Bosphorus were a sure guarantee of the predominance of Russianinfluence at Constantinople, and this was illustrated in a marked degreeby the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, signed on July 8, which provided for adefensive alliance for eight years between Russia and the Porte. Russiawas, when required, to provide the sultan with both military and navalforces, to be provisioned by him, but otherwise maintained by Russia. Asecret article, soon made known, provided that Russia would not ask formaterial aid if at war, but that in that event the Porte would close theDardanelles to the warships of other nations. Great Britain had alreadyobtained the rights of the most favoured nation, so far as the passageof the Dardanelles was concerned, and therefore maintained that thetreaty did not affect her right to pass those straits; and Francejoined her in presenting identical notes declaring their intention ofignoring the treaty in event of war. British public opinion, alreadywounded by the conquest of Poland, was even more vehemently affectedthan British policy. The treaty was regarded as the establishment inTurkey of a Russian protectorate, which it was necessary for GreatBritain to destroy, and the antagonism thus produced has lasted to ourown day. Matters were not improved when the tsar asked for the cessionof the Danubian principalities, which were still occupied by Russia, inreturn for a remission of the war indemnity owing since 1829. Austria, France, and Great Britain protested against this proposal, and inconsequence nothing came of it. 

Austria then assumed the _rôle_ of mediator. A friendly request forexplanation elicited a declaration from Russia, disclaiming allintention of self-aggrandisement, and promising to accept the mediationof Austria in any case where the treaty could be invoked. Austria inconsequence endeavoured to persuade the western powers that there was noimmediate danger, and that she would use her mediation to remove anydanger that might arise. Meanwhile she endeavoured to allay distrust ofRussia by inducing that power to evacuate the Danubian principalities. But before this result could be accomplished the negotiations betweenAustria and Russia had taken a turn which gave Austria, in English eyes, the appearance of an accomplice rather than of a mediator. Therevolutionary movements of 1830 and following years had produced graveapprehensions in the minds of the rulers of the three eastern powers, Austria, Prussia, and Russia; and the coercion of Holland and Portugalcaused them to feel a deep distrust of the policy of Great Britain andFrance, and to grasp the necessity of united action against therevolutionary forces at work in Europe. For this purpose it wasconsidered necessary to revive Metternich's policy of 1820 as defined atTroppau. The three powers had for some time been drawing together, andin September, 1833, the Emperors Francis and Nicholas and the CrownPrince of Prussia met at Münchengrätz in Bohemia, where a secretconvention was signed on the 18th. They refused to recognise Isabella asQueen of Spain in the event of Ferdinand's death; they arranged formutual assistance against the Poles; and agreed to combine to resistany change of dynasty in Turkey and any extension of Arab rule intoEurope. In the event of a collapse of the Ottoman empire, Austria andRussia were to act together in settling the reversion. On October 15 thethree powers signed a further convention at Berlin, containing onepublic and two secret articles. The latter recognised the right, alreadyasserted at Troppau, of intervention in the internal affairs of acountry whose sovereign expressed a desire for foreign assistance. Therecan be little doubt that Austria and Russia were in earnest in theirprofessed desire to maintain the integrity of the Turkish dominions, butan opinion gained ground in England that they had already agreed topartition them between themselves. 

On January 29, 1834, Austrian mediation bore fruit in a definite treatyfor the evacuation of the Danubian principalities. Russia merelyreserved to herself the appointment of the first hospodar of eachprincipality. The first act, however, of Alexander Ghika, the newhospodar of Wallachia, was to forbid any change of statute without theconsent of Russia. Silistria alone remained in Russian hands till athird part of the indemnity should be paid. The remaining two-thirdsRussia consented to abandon. A revolt among the Syrian mountaineers gaveRussia an opportunity of demonstrating her pacific intentions. Thesultan supported the revolt and also sent troops to conquer Urfa whichIbrahim had neglected to surrender. Russia, however, refused to supportthe sultan in an aggressive war, and the powers negotiated a peace. TheSyrian revolt was quelled, and Urfa surrendered to the sultan. In 1835the Tsar Nicholas and the new Austrian emperor, Ferdinand, met atTeplitz where they renewed the agreements concluded at Münchengrätz. Metternich proposed a conference at Vienna to settle the easternquestion, but the tsar, who really possessed the decisive voice so longas the question remained open, refused to hear of this. Finally inSeptember, 1836, the Russian evacuation of Silistria was obtained by apayment of 30, 000, 000 piastres, borrowed, for the most part, in England. The Eastern question now seemed to have entered upon a quieter phase, and the military reforms which European officers, including Moltke, afterwards famous in a different region, were carrying out in Turkey, gave promise that she might be able to hold her own in future againstdomestic foes. 

FOOTNOTES:

[136] The debt was, according to the French practice, expressed in termsof the interest payable annually (_rentes_), not in terms of a nominalprincipal as in this country. 

[137] Finlay, _History of Greece_, vol. Vii. , chapters ii. , iii. 

 CHAPTER XIX. 

 BRITISH INDIA. 

When Pitt resigned office in 1801, the Marquis Wellesley had alreadyreached the climax, though by no means the close, of his brilliantproconsulate. This remarkable man, whose fame has been unduly eclipsedby that of his younger brother, may justly be considered the secondfounder of our Indian Empire. This empire, recognised at last, in thevote of thanks passed by the house of commons on the fall ofSeringapatam, was soon to be aggrandised by three important accessionsof dominion. The first of these was the annexation of the Karnátik onthe well-founded plea that its nabob was too weak even for the semblanceof independence, that he was incapable of governing tolerably, and thathe had been in correspondence with Tipú. The effect of this and twominor annexations was to place the entire south-western andsouth-eastern coasts of the Indian peninsula under the British rule. Thenext step was the system of subsidiary treaties, whereby the Britishgovernment assumed a protectorate over native states, providing a fixednumber of troops for their defence and receiving an equivalent insubsidies. The Nizám of Haidarábád was already in a condition littleremoved from vassalage, and now surrendered considerable districts inlieu of a pecuniary tribute. 

A similar course was taken with the Nawáb Wazír of Oudh whose territorywas threatened on one side by the Afghán king, Zemán Sháh, and onanother by the Maráthá lord, Daulat Ráo Sindhia, who had gainedpossession of Delhi. By forcible negotiations Wellesley obtained fromhim the cession of all his frontier provinces, including Rohilkhand, andconsolidated the power of the Indian government along the whole line ofthe Jumna and Ganges. The last and greatest object of thegovernor-general's ambition was the conquest of the confederate Maráthástates, and for this a pretext was not long wanting. His forward policy, it is true, had already excited alarm and criticism at home, while thepeace of Amiens had ostensibly removed the chief justification ofit--the necessity of combating the aggressive designs of France. But, inthe case of India, far more than of the American colonies, "monthspassed and seas rolled between the order and the execution"; for inthose days ships conveying despatches occupied at least four or fivemonths on their voyage, and decisions taken in Leadenhall Street mightbe utterly stultified by accomplished facts before they could be read inCalcutta. 

[Pageheading: _WELLESLEY AND LAKE. _]

The Peshwá, at Poona, still maintained a show of independent authorityover the other great Maráthá chieftains, Sindhia, Holkar, and the Rájáof Nágpur or Berár. But the real military power of the Maráthás restedwith these leaders, and their predatory troops of horsemen terrorisedall Central India. Happily for Wellesley's purpose, they were often atfeud with each other, and the Peshwá, though aided by Sindhia, wasutterly defeated by Jaswant Ráo Holkar. He fled to Bassein near Bombay, where, on December 31, 1802, a treaty was signed by which not only thePeshwá but the Nizám of Haidarábád was placed under British protection. The Peshwá was conducted back to Poona by a British force under ArthurWellesley in May, 1803, but the other Maráthá chiefs naturally resentedthis fresh encroachment on their independence, and a league was shortlyformed between the Rájá of Nágpur and Sindhia, which it was hoped thatHolkar would ultimately join. By this time, a rupture of the peace withFrance was known to be impending, and Lord Wellesley eagerly seized theopportunity to crush Sindhia, while he urged the home government toseize the Cape of Good Hope and the Mauritius. Two expeditions weredirected against Sindhia's territory, the one under Arthur Wellesley, moving from Poona in the west towards the Nizám's frontier; the other, under General Lake, operating on the north-west against the highlytrained forces, under French officers, assembled before Delhi. Bothcampaigns were eminently successful. Wellesley captured Ahmadnagar onAugust 11, encountered the combined armies of Sindhia and the Rájá ofNágpur at Assaye on September 23, and, after a desperate conflict, obtained a decisive victory. Twelve hundred of the Maráthás were leftdead on the field and 102 guns were captured. He then advanced intoBerár and completely defeated the army of the Nágpur Rájá at Argáum. Lake marched from Cawnpur, took Delhi and Agra, assuming custody of theMughal emperor, and inflicted a final defeat on a powerful Maráthá army, no longer under French officers, at Laswári. Large cessions of territoryfollowed. The treaty of Bassein was recognised by Sindhia and the Rájáof Nágpur. Gujrát, Cuttack, and the districts along the Jumna passedinto British possession, and the East India Company became the visiblesuccessor, though nominally the guardian, of the Mughal emperor. 

Meanwhile, Holkar remained a passive spectator of the contest. Jealousas he was of Sindhia, he was by no means prepared to acquiesce in thesubjection of the great Maráthá power. Having taken up a threateningposition in Rájputána, and defied Lake's summons to retire, he wastreated as an enemy, and proved a very formidable enemy. Instead ofrelying, like Sindhia, on disciplined battalions, he fell back on theold Maráthá tactics, and swept the country with hordes of irregularcavalry who lived by pillage. In 1804 a British force of 1, 200 troopsunder Colonel Monson was lured away from its base of supplies by afeigned retreat and incurred a very serious reverse; scarcely a tenth ofthem, utterly broken, "straggled, a mere rabble, into Agra". Thisdisaster was soon afterwards retrieved by other divisions of Lake'sarmy, but three attempts to storm the strong fortress of Bhartpur wererepulsed by the rájá, Ranjít Singh, an ally of Holkar. Though Holkar'sbands were at last dispersed, a new dispute arose with Sindhia about theownership of Gwalior and Gohad, which remained unsettled when LordWellesley resigned early in 1805, not so much because his policy wasdisapproved by the court of directors, for whom he always professed asovereign contempt, as because he was no longer cordially supported bythe home government. 

In his despatch to the secret committee of the East India Company afterthe conclusion of the war with Sindhia, Wellesley describes theconsolidation of the British empire and the pacification of all India, as the supreme result of his beneficent rule. [138] That rule wasfollowed by ten years of comparative repose, if not of reaction, but twoevents, occurring within this period, threw a significant light on theinherent danger of relying too much on a native army under Britishofficers. Sepoy regiments had been raised and had served loyally on bothsides in the struggles between the French and English during theeighteenth century. The Bengal sepoys were mostly Rájputs and showed thehighest military qualities in many a wearisome march and hard foughtfield, from the days of Clive to those of Lake and Arthur Wellesley. Butoutbreaks bordering upon mutiny had occasionally taken place in thenative armies of all the presidencies, and on July 10, 1806, a mostformidable mutiny, ending in a massacre at Vellore, west of Madras, produced a sense of insecurity throughout all India. It was instigatedby the family of Tipú who had been quartered in that fortress, and itsimmediate origin was the issue of certain vexatious regulations aboutuniform which offended native prejudices of caste. The European force, numbering some 370, was surprised and surrounded by a much larger bodyof sepoys, half of them were killed or wounded, and Tipú's standard washoisted. Within a few hours, however, cavalry and artillery arrived fromArcot, the mutineers were slaughtered by hundreds, and the disaffectedregiments were broken up. Three years later, a serious mutiny broke outamong the company's own officers at Madras, caused by a petty grievanceaffecting their profits on tent-contracts. It was appeased rather thansuppressed, and, notwithstanding these discouraging symptoms ofinsecurity, the Company's army retained its separate organisation forhalf a century longer. 

[Pageheading: _MINTO'S PACIFIC POLICY. _]

Lord Cornwallis, the successor of Lord Wellesley, was opposed byconviction to a progressive expansion of British territory, andrepresented not only the cautious views of the home government, but thefinancial anxieties of the East India Company, which always valued asteady revenue more highly than imperial supremacy. Wellesley hadvirtually reconstructed the map of India on lines destined to endureuntil a fresh period of annexation set in some forty years later. Theselines were not disturbed by Cornwallis, who died on October 5, 1805, three months after his arrival, but he clearly indicated his desire tolet the system of protectorates and subsidiary treaties fall graduallyinto abeyance. His correspondence with Lake, whose victories had won himthe rank of baron, contains a somewhat peremptory warning against freshengagements contemplated by that enterprising officer, whose vigorousremonstrance he did not live to receive. [139] Sir George Barlow, whobecame acting governor-general for two years, adopted the same passiveattitude, and forebore to carry out a projected alliance with Sindhia, though he would not allow any interference with our paramount influenceat Poona and Haidarábád. Lord Minto, father of the Earl of Minto whopresided at the admiralty under Melbourne, arrived as governor-generalin 1807. He was imbued with similar ideas, and was fortunate in findingthe Maráthás too much weakened to be dangerous neighbours. His rule was, therefore, essentially pacific, but he did good service in maintaininginternal order, and especially in putting down the organised brigandage, known as "dakáiti, " which had been the curse of rural districts. Thedistinctive feature of his career, however, was a permanent enlargementof the horizon of Indian statesmanship to a sphere beyond the confinesof India and even of Asia, a change due to new movements in the vastinternational conflict then engrossing the energies of Europe. 

However chimerical the designs of Napoleon against British India may nowappear, there is no doubt that such designs were seriously entertainedby him, nor is it self-evident that what Alexander the Great foundpossible would have proved impossible to one who combined withAlexander's superhuman audacity the command of resources beyond anythingknown in the ancient world. At all events, after the battle of Friedlandand the peace of Tilsit, an expedition to be launched from Russianterritory upon the north-west frontier of India, with the support ofPersia on the flank, became a contingency which an Indiangovernor-general could not afford to neglect. It is, indeed, strangethat a march across Europe and half of Asia should have appeared toNapoleon more practicable than a voyage across the English Channel, andit is highly improbable that he would have cherished the idea of it, ifhe could have foreseen the perils of the Russian expedition. But hisconversations at St. Helena prove that it was not a mere vision but ahalf-formed design, and, even after it had been discouraged by Russia, he sent a preliminary mission to Persia. Minto lost no time in sendingcounter-missions, not only to Tihran, but to Lahore, Afghánistán, andSind. 

The Persian court was already in diplomatic relations with the Indiangovernment. Colonel Malcolm, afterwards Sir John Malcolm, had been sentby Wellesley as envoy to the sháh at the end of 1800, and in January, 1801, a treaty had been signed, establishing free trade between Indiaand Persia, and binding the sháh to exclude the French from hisdominions, while the company undertook to provide ships, troops, andstores, in case of French invasion. This treaty, however, neither wasnor could have been actively carried out on either side. Early in 1806the sháh, who had become embroiled with Russia, appealed to Calcutta foraid, regardless of the fact that hostilities with Russia were not a_casus foederis_. Failing to obtain it, he appealed to France. Napoleon despatched General Gardane, who arrived in December, 1807. Heobtained a treaty under which the sháh engaged to banish all Englishmenon demand of the French emperor. Thereupon Malcolm was entrusted byMinto with a fresh mission, but never reached the Persian capital, whereFrench influence was still paramount, and the peremptory tone ofMalcolm's letters was resented. Meanwhile, Sir Harford Jones had beensent out by the British foreign office, and was received at Tihran inFebruary, 1809, the peace of Tilsit having destroyed the Persian hope ofFrench support against Russia. For a while, the right of negotiatingwith the sháh was in dispute between the Indian government and theforeign office, and Sir John Malcolm reappeared at Tihran in the springof 1810, as the representative of the former. In the end, however, heco-operated loyally with Jones, and a fresh treaty was signed, thoughboth these rival emissaries were soon afterwards superseded by Sir GoreOuseley as permanent ambassador. 

[Pageheading: _ELPHINSTONE IN AFGHÁNISTÁN. _]

Two other envoys selected by Minto left names which are famous inAnglo-Indian history, and one achieved an important success. CharlesMetcalfe, Minto's envoy to Lahore, succeeded with the advantage of anarmed force within easy reach of the Sikh frontier, in converting intoan ally the redoubtable Ranjít Singh (not to be confounded with RanjítSingh of Bhartpur), who had gathered into his own hands the Sikhconfederacy and acquired sovereignty over the whole Punjab. He was nowinduced not only to accept the Sutlej river as the boundary line of hisdominion, but to conclude a treaty of perpetual amity with the Britishgovernment. This treaty remained unbroken until his death, and stood usin good stead during the perilous crisis of the first Afghán war. Theembassy of Mountstuart Elphinstone to Afghánistán was comparativelyfruitless, chiefly owing to the unsettled state of that mysteriouscountry. Sháh Shujá, its titular amír, so far from being in a conditionto resist French invasion, had lost possession of Kábul and Kandahár, and was only anxious to obtain British aid against his elder brotherMahmúd. Elphinstone, of course, had no authority to entangle the Companyin a civil war far beyond the Indian frontier and was obliged to contenthimself with a worthless treaty empowering Great Britain to defendAfghánistán against France. This treaty had scarcely been ratified whenSháh Shujá himself was driven into exile, to play an ignoble part thirtyyears later in the great tragedy of the first Afghán war. 

However pacific Minto's policy was, he did not shut his eyes to thenecessity of guarding the coasts and commerce of India against the enemywho still dominated Europe, and had not wholly abandoned his visions ofeastern conquest. We have seen already that the "half way" naval stationat the Cape of Good Hope had been retaken from the Dutch in 1806, theyear in which the Berlin decree was issued. In 1810 the French wereexpelled from Java by an expedition despatched under Minto's orders, though it was soon to be restored to Holland. In the same year theislands of Mauritius and Bourbon were captured from the French and thesea route to India was finally secured. Lord Minto, who was recalled in1813 and raised to the dignity of an earl, left India after six years ofpeaceful government in a state of tranquillity such as it had neverbefore enjoyed, and the settlement of the country under Britishsuzerainty appeared to have been assured. Yet the seeds of fresh troublewere already working, and his successor was to prove himself a secondWellesley, and add new territories of great extent to British India. 

Lord Moira, better known by his later title as Marquis of Hastings, displayed qualities as governor-general of which his previous career hadgiven no indication. He had already proved himself a good soldier, buthe was a court favourite as well as a somewhat impracticable politician, and owed his appointment to other influences than his own merit. Hisarrival in India nearly coincided with the charter of 1813, which threwopen the India trade, and virtually ushered in a new social era. He wasat once confronted with an empty treasury, on the one hand, and, on theother, with alarming reports both from the northern frontier and fromthe central provinces, still under independent princes of doubtfulfidelity. The earlier part of his nine years' residence in India wasengrossed by most harassing operations against the Nepálís and thePindárís, but these operations resulted in perfect success, and Hastingswas able to show before he left India that he was eminent alike in civiland in military administration. 

The mountainous region of Nepál, lying on the slopes of the Himálayasnorth of Bengal and Oudh, had been occupied by the warlike nation, stillknown as the Gúrkhas, whose capital was at Khátmándu. Like the Maráthás, they had been in the habit of pillaging British territory as well asOudh, and when part of Oudh was annexed by Wellesley, frontier disputeswere added to former grounds of hostility. Minto remonstrated with themsharply but in vain, and Moira lost no time in declaring war againstthem. The first campaign of 1814, which followed, though skilfullyconceived by Moira, who held the office of commander-in-chief, wascarried out with little generalship, and was marked by disasters highlydamaging to British prestige. Three out of four armies launched againstthe hill-tribes met with serious reverses, chiefly due to a contempt forthe enemy, and a persistence in making frontal assaults on strongpositions without practicable breaches, which have proved so fatal inmany a later conflict between British troops and undisciplined foes. During the cold season, however, on the extreme north-west, the cautiousbut irresistible advance of General Ochterlony penetrated the hillranges which had baffled all the other commanders, and retrieved thefortunes of the war. The Gúrkhas were far, indeed, from being subdued, but Ochterlony's success among their strongest fastnesses, aided bythat of Colonels Gardner and Nicholls in the district of Kumáun, induced them to sue for peace, and offer territorial cessions. The lossof the Tarái, or belt of forest interspersed with pastures at the footof the Himálayas, was the most onerous of the conditions imposed uponthem by the treaty of Almora, signed in 1815. Rather than submit to it, the Gúrkha chiefs refused to ratify the treaty, and resumed their arms. After two defeats, however, in February, 1816, they abandoned furtherresistance, and Moira afterwards wisely consented to a modification ofthe frontier-line. Retaining but a remnant of their dominions in thelowlands, the Gúrkhas have ever since preserved their independence withtheir military training in the highlands, and have contributed some ofthe best fighting material to the British army in India. 

[Pageheading: _THE PINDÁRÍS. _]

While the war in Nepál was still undecided, fresh troubles broke out inCentral India, where Wellesley's settlement had left no permanentsecurity for peace. The very submission of the great Maráthá powers hadset free large bands of irregular troops, with no livelihood butpillage, and ever ready, like the Italian _condottieri_ of the latermiddle ages, to enlist in the service of any aggressive state. Thesemounted freebooters, now called the Pindárís, were secretly encouragedby the Maráthá chiefs, who looked upon them as useful auxiliaries in thefuture, either against the government of India or against other nativeprinces. Several of these still remained in a more or less dependent butrestless condition, and the great leaders of the Maráthá confederacy, Sindhia, Malhár Ráo Holkar, son and successor of Jaswant Ráo, thePeshwá, and the Rájá of Nágpur, retained a large share of their formersovereignty. Of these subject-allies, the one most directly underBritish guidance and protection was the Peshwá, but even he tookadvantage of hostile movements among his neighbours to join in acombination against British rule, supported by the predatory raids ofthe Pindárís. He had long been discontented with the subordinateposition which he had occupied since the treaty of Bassein. Theassassination in 1815 of an envoy of the Gáekwár of Baroda, who had beensent to Poona on a special mission under British guarantees, nearlyprovoked hostilities. But in June, 1817, a treaty was concluded, bywhich the Peshwá accepted an increased subsidiary force, ceded part ofhis territory, renounced his suzerainty over the Gáekwár and undertookto submit all further disputes to the decision of the Britishgovernment. In November, however, chafing under the restrictions imposedby this treaty, he broke out into hostility, burnt the Britishresidency, and after vainly attacking the British troops, fled fromPoona. Almost simultaneously Holkar and the Rájá of Nágpur rose. Holkarwas defeated in a pitched battle at Mehidpur in Málwá, while the sepoyssuccessfully held their own against the Rájá's troops at Nágpur. Thefugitive Peshwá was energetically pursued, and captured, and wasstripped of his dominions. The greater part of these was annexed by theEast India Company, but a portion was reserved for the heir of the oldMaráthá kings who was established at Sátára. The Rájá of Nágpur was alsocompelled to cede a large portion of his dominions, and at the same timethe Company acquired the overlordship of Rájputána. Henceforth, theBritish government claimed a control over all the foreign relations ofnative Indian states, whose internal government was to be carefullywatched by a British resident, and whose military forces were to bepractically under the supreme command of the paramount power. 

[Pageheading: _THE END OF THE PINDÁRÍS. _]

Lord Moira, created Marquis of Hastings in 1816, was at last free tohunt down the Pindárís, with the sullen acquiescence of the Maráthágovernments, and he executed his task with extraordinary vigour. Hewould have undertaken it, at the instigation of Metcalfe, then residentat Delhi, a year earlier, but for the peremptory orders of Canning, atthat time president of the board of control, who positively forbade himto embark on a new war. These orders were greatly relaxed after thebloodthirsty raid of Chítu, the famous Pindárí leader, who in 1816desolated vast tracts of Central India. Still no effective actionagainst the Pindárís was possible until the Maráthá lords who harbouredand encouraged them had been crippled and overawed. With theirconnivance, a second Pindárí raid, accompanied by shocking cruelties, was made in the same year, but in 1817, when Holkar's followers wereseverely defeated at Mehidpur, the secret coalition between thesebandits and our nominal allies was thoroughly broken up. Even then itproved a most difficult enterprise to root out the Pindárís, who werenot a race, or a tribe, or a sect, but bands of lawless men of allfaiths; for they met and vanished like birds of the air, outstrippingregular cavalry by the length and rapidity of their marches, andcarrying off their booty almost under the eyes of their pursuers. Butthe resolute tactics of Hastings prevailed in the end. Amír Khán, theirmost powerful leader, disbanded his troops; and hemmed in on all sides, cut off from every place of shelter, and chased by successivedetachments of horsemen almost as fleet as his own, Chítu became ahopeless fugitive, with a handful of faithful adherents, who shared hisdesperate efforts to escape, but advised him to surrender. He could notbring himself to do so, possessed, it is said, with an unspeakablehorror of being transported across "the black sea, " and he actuallyremained at large or in hiding for a year after his lair was discovered. Nor was he ever captured, for, by a strange fate, this ruthless scourgeof the Deccan, after baffling human vengeance, found his last refuge ina jungle and died, a tiger's prey. By this time, all the wild bandswhich sprung into existence out of the Maráthá war had been extirpatedor dispersed, and after the year 1818 the dreaded name of Pindárí washeard no more in history. 

The suppression of civil war and anarchy in Central India, whichcompleted the work of Wellesley, was the greatest achievement ofHastings. One remarkable incident of it was a portentous outbreak ofcholera in 1817, during a campaign in Gwalior conducted by Hastings inperson. There had been several minor visitations of this disease inIndia. But it now first established itself as an endemic disease, and ithas ever since infested the valley of the Ganges. So virulent was itsonslaught, and so fearful the mortality in Hastings' army, that it wasonly saved by shifting its quarters, and the governor-general himselfmade preparations for his own secret burial, in case he should be amongthe victims. As we have seen already, [140] it was propagated from thiscentre through other regions of Asia, until it spread to Western Europe, and the "Asiatic cholera" of 1831-32 may be lineally traced back to thelast Maráthá war. 

The position of Hastings in Indian history closely resembles that ofWellesley. Disregarding the instructions of the board of control, aswell as of the board of directors, he forced upon them, like Wellesley, a large extension of their empire. But it cannot be doubted that hispolicy, dictated by exigencies beyond the ken of authorities sitting inLondon, was eminently successful and beneficent in its results. It wentfar to establish a "Pax Britannica" in the Indian Peninsula, and, if ittook little account of dynastic rights, it broke the rod of oppression, and relieved millions upon millions from tyranny and intimidation whichovershadowed their whole lives. He retired in 1823, after seven years'tenure of office, and died in 1826 as governor of Malta. Canning hadbeen designated as his successor, and, having accepted the post, was onthe eve of starting for Calcutta, when the tragical death of Castlereaghrecalled him to the foreign office, and opened to him the most brilliantstage in his career. Thereupon Lord Amherst was appointedgovernor-general, with every prospect of a pacific vice-royalty, whereasit is now chiefly remembered for the annexation of new provinces on thesouth-east of Bengal, and the capture of Bhartpur. 

[Pageheading: _THE FIRST BURMESE WAR. _]

The first Burmese war arose out of persistent aggressions by the newkingdom of Ava or Burma on what is now the British province of Assam, but was then an independent, though feeble, state. There had beenearlier frontier disputes between the Indian government and Burma aboutthe districts lying eastward of Chittagong along the Bay of Bengal, butit was not until Burma conquered Arakan, invaded Assam, and occupiedpasses on the north-east overlooking the plains of Bengal, that seriousaction was felt to be necessary. Indeed, while Hastings was engaged withthe war in Nepál and the suppression of the Pindárís, even he was in nomood to embark on a fresh campaign beyond the borders of India. Theincursions of the Burmese, however, became more and more threateningboth on the coast line and on the mountains above the Brahmaputra river, and in February, 1824, Amherst resolved to check the extension of theirdominion. Notwithstanding the experience recently gained in Nepál, thefirst operations of the Anglo-Indian troops were conducted with littleknowledge of the country, and met with very doubtful success. Rangoonwas easily captured, but the expedition was disabled from advancing upthe river Irawadi by the want of adequate supplies and the deadliness ofthe climate. Part of the Tenasserim coast was subdued, but a Britishforce was defeated in Arakan. These reverses were retrieved in thefollowing year, 1825, when one army under Sir Archibald Campbell madeits way up the river to Prome, while another army conquered Arakan, anda third, moving along the valley of the Brahmaputra, established itselfin Assam. The Burmese now abandoned further resistance. Assam, Arakan, and the Tenasserim provinces were ceded to the company, whoseprotectorate was also recognised over other territories upon the courseof the Brahmaputra. It was not until February, 1826, that the King ofAva could be induced to sign the treaty embodying these cessions, andmany years were to elapse before the port of Rangoon was opened toBritish commerce. 

The strong fortress of Bhartpur, in the east of Rájputána, and near toAgra, had acquired an unique importance, in the eyes of all India by itssuccessful resistance to Lake's assaults during the Maráthá war of 1805. It was still held until 1825 by its own petty rájá, the son of RanjítSingh, who remained on terms of respectful amity with the Indiangovernment, though his little principality was a notorious focus ofnative disaffection. In that year he died, and his child, after beingacknowledged by the Indian government as his successor, was forciblyousted by a usurper. Sir David Ochterlony, the hero of the Nepálese war, then resident in Málwá and Rájputána, undertook to support thelegitimate heir, but was overruled by orders from Amherst. On hisresignation he was succeeded by Metcalfe, who had become Sir CharlesMetcalfe by his brother's death in 1822, and who now obtained authorityto carry out Ochterlony's policy, if necessary, by armed intervention. As negotiation failed, Lord Combermere, as commander-in-chief, proceededto reduce the virgin fortress, not by the slow process of siege, but bya well-organised assault. Having cut off the water supply, and mined themud walls, he poured in a storming party and overpowered the garrison. The feat was probably not so great, from a military point of view, asmany that have left no record, but its effect on the superstitiousnative mind was prodigious, especially as it nearly coincided with thevictorious issue of the Burmese war. Nevertheless, Amherst was shortlyafterwards recalled, and left India in 1828. His annexation of Burmeseterritory and the increase of expenditure under his rule displeased boththe Company and the home government, so often foiled in the attempt toenforce a pacific and economical policy. His successor was Lord WilliamBentinck, who had been compelled to retire from the governorship ofMadras after the mutiny of Vellore. 

Like Hastings, Bentinck showed a firmness and wisdom in his Indianadministration strongly contrasting with the restless self-assertion ofhis earlier career. His lot was cast in an interval of tranquillityafter a long period of warfare, and his name is associated with internalreforms and social progress in India, not unconnected with a likemovement in England. The measure upon which his fame chiefly rests wasthe abolition of "satí, " that is, the practice of Hindoo widowssacrificing themselves by being burned alive on the funeral pile oftheir husbands. This practice, which specially prevailed in Bengal, hasbeen explained by a false interpretation of certain texts in sacredbooks of the Hindus, by the selfish eagerness of the husband's family tomonopolise all his property, and by the utterly desolate condition of achildless widow in native communities. At all events, it was deeplyrooted in Hindu traditions, and no previous governor had dared to gobeyond issuing regulations to secure that the widow should be a willingvictim. Bentinck had the courage to act on the conviction thatinhumanity, however consecrated by superstition and priestcraft, has nopermanent basis in popular sentiment. With the consent of his council, he prohibited "satí" absolutely, declaring that all who took any part init should be held guilty of culpable homicide; and the native populationacquiesced in its suppression. 

But this was only one of Bentinck's reforms. Armed with peremptoryinstructions from the home government, he effected large retrenchmentsin the growing expenditure of the Indian services, both civil andmilitary, and a considerable increase in the Indian revenue. It may bedoubted whether one of these retrenchments, involving a strict revisionof officers' allowances known as "batta, " was considerable enough to beworth the almost mutinous discontent which it provoked. Another, affecting the salaries of civilians, was aggravated, in their eyes, bythe admission of natives to "primary jurisdiction, " in other words, byenabling native judges to sit in courts of first instance. Thisimportant change had been gradually introduced before the arrival ofBentinck, but it was he who most boldly adopted the idea of governingIndia in the interest and by the agency of the natives. On the otherhand, it was he who, supported by Macaulay's famous minute, but contraryto official opinion in Leadenhall Street, issued the ordinanceconstituting English the official language of India. In a like spirit, he promoted the work of native education, partly for the purpose ofdeveloping the political and judicial capacity of the higher ordersamong the Hindus, but partly also for the purpose of making the Englishlanguage and literature the instrument of their elevation. He earnestlydesired to raise the standard of Indian civilisation, but he equallydesired to fashion it in an English mould. 

[Pageheading: _THE EXTIRPATION OF "THAGÍ". _]

Under the rule of Bentinck, the revenue was largely augmented by areassessment of land in the north-western provinces, where an increasingnumber of zamíndárs had fraudulently evaded the payment of rent, and bythe imposition of licence-duties on the growers of opium in Málwá, whohad carried on a profitable but illicit trade through foreign ports. Butthe social benefit of the people was ever his first concern, and not theleast of his claims to their gratitude was the final extirpation of"thagí". This institution was a secret association of highway robbersand murderers who had plagued Central India almost as widely as theroving troops of Pindárís. Their victims were travellers whom theydecoyed into their haunts, plundered, strangled, and buried on the spot. For years they carried on their infamous trade with impunity, and nomember of the conspiracy had turned informer. At last, however, a cluewas found by a skilful and resolute agent of the government, and thespell of mutual dread which held together the murderous confederacy waseffectually broken in India. Meanwhile, the same period of peacefuldevelopment witnessed the execution of important public works, therelaxation of restrictions on the liberty of the press, and a generaladvance towards a more paternal despotism, coincident with the progressof liberal ideas at home. These benign influences were favoured by thecontinuance of peace and the maintenance of non-intervention, disturbedonly by the minor annexations of Cachar and Coorg, to which may be addedthe assumption of direct control over Mysore. 

When the charter of 1833 transformed the "company of British merchantstrading to the east" into the "East India Company, " with administrativepowers only, Bentinck was in failing health, and he soon afterwardsreturned home. On his resignation in 1835, Metcalfe became provisionalgovernor-general, but his liberal policy displeased the court ofdirectors, and Lord Heytesbury was selected by the short-livedgovernment of Peel as Bentinck's successor. Palmerston, however, onresuming the foreign office, was believed to have used his influence toset aside this nomination, and to procure the appointment of LordAuckland, then first lord of the admiralty. The supposed objection toHeytesbury was his known sympathy with Russia, at a moment when distrustof Russia's designs on the north-west frontier was about to become thekeynote of Anglo-Indian statesmanship. During the interregnum betweenBentinck's retirement and Auckland's accession, three more remedialmeasures were carried into effect, the wisdom of which is not even yetbeyond dispute. These were the complete liberation of the Indian press, the abolition of the exclusive privilege whereby British residents couldappeal in civil suits to the supreme court at Calcutta, and the definiteintroduction of English text-books into schools for the people. For allthese reforms Macaulay was largely responsible, but the impulse had beengiven by Bentinck, and was accelerated by Metcalfe. 

During the years 1835-37 domestic affairs occupied much less space inthe counsels of Indian statesmen than schemes for counteracting thegrowth of Russian influence at Tihran, and securing the predominance ofBritish influence in Afghánistán. For a time their anxiety wasconcentrated on Herat, which the Sháh of Persia was besieging, with theintention of penetrating into the heart of Afghán territory, while theAfghán rulers themselves were suspected of secretly conspiring withPersia against our ally, Ranjít Singh. Since Persia, having again lostfaith in British support, was drifting more and more into reliance onRussia, this forward movement was regarded as the first step of theRussian advance-guard towards India. The fate of India was felt todepend on the defence of Herat under Pottinger, a young British officer, who volunteered his services without instructions from home. The siege, conducted under Russian officers, lasted ten months, and its ultimatefailure was hailed as a triumph of British policy, for Herat wasrecognised, since the days of Alexander the Great, as the western gateof India. 

[Pageheading: _COMMUNICATION WITH INDIA. _]

About the same time the question of a shorter route to India attractedmuch attention both in Russia and in England. The first project wasthat, ultimately adopted, of a sea passage by Malta to Alexandria, aland transit across Egypt to Suez, and a second voyage by the Red Sea toIndian ports. The alternative line was more properly described as an"overland route, " since it was proposed to make the journey from someport in the eastern Levant across Syria and by the Euphrates to thePersian Gulf. Colonel Chesney was sent out in 1835 as the pioneer of anexpedition by this route, and parliament twice voted money for itsdevelopment, but it was vigorously opposed by Russia, and abandoned asimpracticable owing to physical difficulties in navigating theEuphrates, then considered as a necessary channel of communication withthe sea. The scheme has since been revived on a much grander scale inthe form of a projected railway traversing Asia Minor to Baghdad, andrunning down the valley of the Tigris. In the meantime, the Red Searoute, at first discredited, has far more than justified the hopes ofits promoters. With the aid of steam-vessels, since 1845, and of theSuez Canal, since 1869, it has reduced the journey to India from aperiod of four months to one of three weeks, and profoundly affected itsrelations with Great Britain. 

It would be well if the premature, but not unfounded, fear of Russianinvasion had produced no further effects on Anglo-Indian policy. Unhappily, those who justly perceived the importance of Afghánistán, aslying between Persia and the Punjab, were possessed with the delusionthat it would prove a more solid buffer as a British dependency than asan independent state. In their ignorance of its internal condition andthe sentiments of its unruly tribes, the Indian government despatchedSir Alexander Burnes to Kábul, nominally as a commercial emissary, butnot without ulterior objects. They could not have chosen a more capableagent, for he added to a knowledge of several languages a minutegeographical acquaintance with Central Asia and an insight into thecharacter of its inhabitants which probably no other Englishmanpossessed. He was to proceed by way of Sind to Pesháwar, and in passingthrough Sind he received news of the siege of Herat, the significanceof which he was not slow to appreciate. Thenceforward his missioninevitably assumed a political complexion, since the future ofAfghánistán became a practical question. His rash negotiations with DostMuhammad, the Amír of Kábul, and his brother at Kandahár, his return toIndia, his second mission to Afghánistán in support of a policy which hehad deprecated, and his tragical death in the Kábul insurrection, --theseare events which belong to a later chapter of history. But, thoughBurnes cannot be held responsible for the first Afghán war, there can beno doubt that his travels in disguise through Central Asia, andconfidential reports on the border countries between the Russian andBritish spheres of influence, were the immediate prelude to a campaignthe most ill-advised and the most disastrous ever organised by theIndian government and sanctioned by that of Great Britain. 

FOOTNOTES:

[138] Despatch of July 13, 1804, _Selection from Wellesley'sDespatches_, ed. Owen, pp. 436-41. See Sir A. Lyall, _British Dominionin India_, p. 260. 

[139] Cornwallis to Lake, Sept. 19, 1805, _Cornwallis Correspondence_, iii. , 547-55. 

[140] See p. 310 above. 

 CHAPTER XX. 

 LITERATURE AND SOCIAL PROGRESS. 

The period which elapsed between the resignation of Pitt and the battleof Waterloo was hardly less eventful in the history of Britishcivilisation than in the history of British empire. To some, theboundary line between the society of the eighteenth and that of thenineteenth century appears to be marked by the outbreak of the Frenchrevolution, and the far-reaching effects of that catastrophe upon ideas, manners, and politics in Great Britain, as well as upon the continent, are too evident to be denied. But it is equally certain that, before theFrench revolution, an intellectual and industrial movement was inprogress which must have given a most powerful impulse to civilisation, even if the French revolution had never taken place. In this country, especially, the great writers, philanthropists, scientific leaders, inventors, engineers, and reformers of various types, who adorned thelatter part of George III. 's reign, largely drew their inspiration froman age, just preceding the French revolution, which is sometimesregarded as barren in originality. 

When the nineteenth century opened, the classical authors of thatpre-revolutionary age had mostly passed away. Hume died in 1776, Johnsonin 1784, Adam Smith in 1790, Gibbon in 1794, Burns in 1796, Burke in1797, Cowper in 1800. John Howard, the great pioneer of prison reform, became a martyr to philanthropy in 1790. The most remarkable of thosemanufacturing improvements and mechanical inventions upon which thecommercial supremacy of England is founded date from the same period, and have been described in a previous volume. Steam navigation was stilluntried, but preliminary experiments had already been made on both sidesof the Atlantic before 1789. The application of steam to locomotion byland had scarcely been conceived, but the facilities of traffic andtravelling had been vastly developed in the first forty years of GeorgeIII. 's reign. 

It may truly be said, however, that English literature in the earlyparty of the nineteenth century bears clear traces of the influenceexercised on receptive minds by the French revolution. Three of theleading poets, Coleridge, Wordsworth, and Southey, were deeply infectedby its spirit, and indulged in their youth fantastic dreams of a socialmillennium; Wordsworth, especially, who in his maturer years could bejustly described as the priest of nature-worship and the poet of rurallife, had imbibed violent republican ideas during a residence of morethan a year in France. These were passing off in 1798, when hepublished, jointly with Coleridge, the volume of _Lyrical Ballads_containing the latter's immortal tale of the _Ancient Mariner_. In thefollowing year he settled in the English lake-country, where Coleridgeestablished himself for a while, and Southey for life. Hence the popularbut very inaccurate title of the "Lake School, " applied to a trio ofpoets who, except as friends, had little in common with each other. Indeed, after Wordsworth had developed his theory of poetical realism inthe preface to a volume published in 1800, Coleridge rejected andcriticised it as wholly untenable. All three, however, may be consideredas comrades in a revolt against the conventional diction of eighteenthcentury poetry, from which Coleridge's "dreamy tenderness" and mysticalflights of fancy were as remote as Wordsworth's rusticity and almostprosaic studies of humble life. 

[Pageheading: _COLERIDGE AND SCOTT. _]

Although Coleridge survived to 1834 and Wordsworth to 1850, both seem tohave lost at an early date that power of imagination, whether displayedin sympathy or in creation, in which their greatness consisted. Wordsworth wrote assiduously during the whole of this period; in 1807 hepublished a volume of poems, including the famous _Ode on theIntimations of Immortality_ and several of his finest sonnets; but ofhis later work only an occasional lyric deserves to be ranked beside thepoems published in 1800 and 1807. Coleridge, indeed, published two ofhis finest poems, _Christabel_ and _Kubla Khan_, in 1816, but they werewritten long before, _Christabel_, partly in 1797 and partly in 1801, and _Kubla Khan_ in 1798. Even the new metre of _Christabel_, which isnot the least of Coleridge's contributions to English poetry, had, asearly as 1805, been borrowed in the _Lay of the Last Minstrel_ by Scott, to whom Coleridge had recited the poem. Nevertheless, Coleridgecontinued to exercise a great influence, partly through the charm of hisconversation and partly through his prose works, in which he introducedto a British public, as yet unused to German literature, a vision ofthat mystical German thought which finds its father in Kant, and wasrepresented at that day by Hegel in philosophy and Goethe in poetry. Itis uncertain how far the general ignorance of German literature inEngland was responsible for the influence exercised in their own day bythe few English or Scottish thinkers, such as Coleridge, Hamilton, andCarlyle, who had either fallen under the spell or learned the secret ofthe German mystics. The most important of Coleridge's prose works was_Aids to Reflection_, which appeared in 1828, and whatever be itsliterary value, it deserves the notice of the historian, as the leastunsystematic treatise of an author who gave the principal philosophicalimpetus to the Oxford movement. 

Two other poets, eminently the product of their age, though not theoffspring of the French revolution, Scott and Byron, were equally inrevolt against conventional diction. Scott elevated ballad-poetry to alevel which it had never before attained, and composed some of the mostbeautiful songs in the English language. If it be remembered that he wascramped by the drudgery of legal offices during the best years of hislife, that he was nearly thirty when he made his first literary venture, that he was crippled by financial ruin and broken health during hislater years, that his anonymous contributions to periodicals would fillvolumes, and that he died at the age of sixty-one, his fertility ofproduction must ever be ranked as unique in the history of Englishliterature. Already known as the author of various lyrical pieces, andthe _Border Minstrelsy_, he published the _Lay of the Last Minstrel_ in1805, _Marmion_ (with its fine stanzas on Pitt and Fox) in 1808, the_Lady of the Lake_ in 1809, _Don Roderick_ in 1811, and _Rokeby_ in1813, as well as minor poems of high merit. He is said to have abandonedpoetry in deference to Byron's rising star, and it is certain that henow fills a higher place in the roll of English classics as a prosewriter than as a poet. His first novel, _Waverley_, appeared in 1814, and was followed In the next four years by six of the greatest "WaverleyNovels, " as the series came to be called--_Guy Mannering_, the_Antiquary_, the _Black Dwarf_, _Old Mortality_, _Rob Roy_, and the_Heart of Midlothian_. It is not too much to say that by these works, both in poetry and in prose, he created the historical romance in GreatBritain. The legends of chivalry and the folk-lore of his native landhad deeply stirred his soul, and fired his imagination from childhood, and though later "research" has far outstripped the range of hisantiquarian knowledge, no modern writer has ever done so much to awakena reverence for olden times in the hearts of his countrymen. The easyflow of his style, the vivid energy of his thought, the graphic power ofhis descriptions, his shrewd and robust sympathy with human nature, andthe evident simplicity of his own character, not unmingled with flashesof true poetical insight, justly rendered him the most popular writer ofhis time. 

Byron was born in 1788, and first sprang into notice as the author of_English Bards and Scotch Reviewers_, a fierce and bitter reply tocritics who had disparaged his first essay in poetry. This satireappeared in 1809, when he was just of age, after which he travelled withHobhouse, and it was not until 1812 that he "woke to find himselffamous, " on publishing the first two cantos of _Childe Harold_. Duringthe next three years, he poured forth a succession of characteristicpoems, including the _Giaour_, the _Bride of Abydos_, the _Corsair_, _Lara_, and the _Siege of Corinth_. His later work was of a morefinished order, including the remaining cantos of _Childe Harold_, _Manfred_, _Cain_, and _Mazeppa_, and when he died at Mesolongi in 1824, he left unfinished what is, in some ways, the most remarkable of hisworks, _Don Juan_. Long before his death he had become the prophet andhero of a pseudo-romantic school, composed of young Englishmen dazzledby his intellectual brilliancy, and attracted rather than repelled by acertain Satanic taint in his moral sentiments. But he also won theadmiration of Goethe, and the reaction against his fame in a latergeneration is as exaggerated as the idolatry of which he was the objectunder the regency. His morbid egotism, his stormy rhetoric, and hismeretricious exaltation of passion, have lost their magical effect, buthis poetical gifts would have commanded homage in any age. The messagewhich he professed to deliver was a false message, but few poets havesurpassed him in daring vigour of imagination, in descriptive force, inwit, or in pathos. His style was eminently such as to invite imitation, yet no one has successfully imitated him. Had he been a better man, andhad his life been prolonged, he might perhaps have towered above hisliterary contemporaries as Napoleon did among the generals and rulers ofEurope. 

[Pageheading: _KEATS, SHELLEY, TENNYSON. _]

Yet among these contemporaries were Keats and Shelley, whom some criticsof a younger generation would place above him in poetical originality. Their chief merit lay neither in thought nor in strength, but in anexquisite sweetness of expression, which in the case of Shelley at leastwas quite independent of the subject-matter. Keats, though junior toShelley, has been described as his poetical father, but his chief poem, _Endymion_, did not appear until several years after Shelley had formedhis own distinctive style. He died in 1821 at the age of twenty-six, leaving a poetical inheritance of the highest quality, which, thoughlimited in quantity and unequal in workmanship, has gained an enduringreputation. Nevertheless his work lent itself readily to imitation, andhe exercised a marked influence on the style of later poets, not only inthis period, but in the Victorian age as well. The rebellious spirit ofShelley had already shown itself at an early age in his poetry, andespecially in _Queen Mab_, printed in 1812. His ethereal fancy, hisdreamy obscurity, and his witchery of language, designated him from thefirst as a master of lyrical poetry; though he wrote longer pieces, hisfame rests on the numerous short poems which continued to appear tillhis death in 1822. 

Perhaps the greatest master of melody was one who was only coming to thefront at the close of this period, Alfred Tennyson, born in 1809, contributed with two of his brothers to a collection of verses, misleadingly entitled _Poems by Two Brothers_, which appeared in 1826. At Cambridge his _Timbuctoo_ won the chancellor's prize, but the firstproof of his powers was given by a volume of short poems published in1830, followed by a similar volume two years later. By far the greaterpart of his work lies in the next period, but the volume of 1833 alreadyincluded some of his best known poems. 

Among minor poets of this period the highest rank must perhaps beassigned to Thomas Campbell and Thomas Moore as authors of some of themost stirring and graceful lyrics in the English language. The formerhad attained celebrity by the _Pleasures of Hope_, published before theend of the eighteenth century, but his choicest poems, such as _YeMariners of England_, the fine verses on Hohenlinden and Copenhagen, and_Gertrude of Wyoming_, appeared between 1802 and 1809. The series ofMoore's Irish melodies, on which his poetical fame largely rests, wasbegun in 1807, though not completed until long afterwards. They werefollowed by other lyrical pieces of great merit, and by a series ofwitty and malicious lampoons, collected in 1813 into a volume called the_Twopenny Post Bag_. _Lalla Rookh_, his most ambitious effort, was notpublished until 1817. 

Two prose writers of the same epoch, Southey and Bentham, claim specialnotice, though Southey may also be numbered among the poets. Havingestablished himself close to Keswick in 1804, he prosecuted a literarycareer with the most untiring industry until his mental faculties atlast failed him some thirty-six years later. During this period heproduced above a hundred volumes in poetry and prose, besides numerousscattered articles and other papers. Most of these were of merelyephemeral interest, but the _Life of Nelson_, published in 1813, may besaid to have set a standard of simplicity, purity, and dignity inEnglish prose which has been of permanent value. Bentham's style, on thecontrary, was so wanting in beauty and perspicuity that one at least ofhis chief works is best known to English readers in the admirable Frenchparaphrase of his friend Dumont. This is his famous _Introduction to thePrinciples of Morals and Legislation_, in which the doctrines of theutilitarian philosophy are rigorously applied to jurisprudence and theregulation of human conduct. Several of his numerous treatises had beenplanned, and others actually composed, before the end of the eighteenthcentury, but his practical influence, ultimately so great, first madeitself felt in the early part of the nineteenth century. This influencemay be compared within the sphere of social reform to that of Adam Smithwithin the sphere of economy. Many amendments of the law, an improvedsystem of prison discipline, and even the reform of the poor law, maybe directly traced to his counsels, and it was he who inspired theleading radicals when radicalism was not so much a destructive creed asa protest against real and gross abuses. 

[Pageheading: _MALTHUS. _]

Perhaps, next to Bentham, no writer of this period influenced educatedopinion so powerfully as Malthus, whose _Essay on Population_, firstpublished anonymously in 1798, attracted comparatively little attentionuntil 1803, when it was republished in a maturer form. No work has everbeen more persistently misrepresented. While he shows that population, if unchecked, will surely increase in a ratio far outstripping anypossible increase in the means of subsistence, he also shows, byelaborate proofs, that it will inevitably be checked by vice and misery, whether or not they are aided by moral restraint. Later experience hasdone little to weaken his reasoning, but it has proved that "moralrestraint" (in the most general sense) operates more widely than heventured to expect, and that larger tracts of the earth's surface thanhe recognised could be brought under profitable cultivation. With thesemodifications, his theory holds the field, and the people of GreatBritain only escape starvation by ever-growing importations of grainfrom countries whose production--for the present--exceeds theirconsumption. 

Several other writers of eminence, such as Sheridan and Paley, who livedin the latter days of George III. Are more properly to be regarded assurvivors of eighteenth century literature. Horne Tooke was returned forOld Sarum in 1801, and enjoyed a reputation in society until his deathin 1812, but his old-fashioned radicalism had long since been supersededby a newer creed. Dugald Stewart continued to lecture on moralphilosophy until 1809, and was fortunate in numbering among his pupilsPalmerston, Lansdowne, and Russell. A younger student of philosophy wasRichard Whately, who was born in 1787, and elected to a fellowship atOriel College, Oxford, in 1811. He soon began to play an active part inuniversity life, and, after being principal of St. Alban Hall, wasremoved to the archbishopric of Dublin in 1831. Though not a greatphilosopher, he was an acute logician, and his _Logic_, published in1826, entitled him to a high place among the thinkers of his generation. But it was not merely as a teacher and writer that Whately promoted thecause of philosophy in Oxford. He was one of the leaders in thatorganisation of studies which made philosophy one of the principalstudies, if not the principal study, of the abler students in thatuniversity, and gave elementary logic a place in the ordinary"pass-man's" curriculum. 

The best work of Maria Edgeworth and Jane Austen appeared in the earlypart of the nineteenth century. Maria Edgeworth's novel, _CastleRackrent_, was published in 1800, and rapidly followed by other talesdescriptive of Irish life; four of Jane Austen's novels, _Sense andSensibility_, _Pride and Prejudice_, _Mansfield Park_, and _Emma_, werepublished between 1811 and 1816, while _Northanger Abbey_ and_Persuasion_ appeared after her death in 1817. All her work displays apower of minute analysis of character shared by few, if any, of ourother novelists. Both authors deserve gratitude not only for havinginspired Scott with a new idea of novel-writing, but for havingexercised a purifying influence on the moral tone of English romance. 

The most typical feature of English literature in the earlier years ofthe nineteenth century was the extraordinary development of theperiodical and newspaper press. The eighteenth century was the goldenage of pamphlets. When the "governing classes" represented but afraction of the population, mostly concentrated in London, the practicaleffect of such political appeals as those issued by Swift or Burke wasincredibly great, and not to be measured by their limited circulation. The rise of journalism as a power in politics may be roughly dated fromthe notoriety of Wilkes' _North Briton_, and of the letters of "Junius"in the _Public Advertiser_. Thenceforward, newspapers, at first merechronicles of passing events, inevitably grew to be organs of politicalopinion, and had now almost superseded pamphlets, as addressed to a farlarger circle of readers. Notwithstanding the heavy stamp duties, aswell as duties on paper and advertisements, six daily journals werepublished in London, of which the _Times_ was already the greatest. Cobbett's _Weekly Political Register_, commenced in 1802, was diffusingnew ideas among the middle classes, but it was not yet committed toradicalism, and did not win its way into cottages until its price wasgreatly reduced in 1816. After Cobbett's death in 1835, it ceased toappear. Still the ice was broken, and, as the educated public recoveredfrom the panic caused by the French revolution, the newspaper pressbecame a potent and independent rival of parliament and the platform. 

[Pageheading: _EDINBURGH AND QUARTERLY REVIEWS. _]

But the influence of the _Edinburgh_ and _Quarterly Reviews_ was perhapseven greater among readers of the highest intelligence. The first ofthese was founded in 1802 by Jeffrey, Brougham, Horner, and SydneySmith, but was supported at first by Scott and other able contributors. So remarkable a body of writers must have commanded attention in anyage, but at a time when the only periodicals were annuals andmiscellanies, the literary vigour and range of knowledge displayed bythe new review carried all before it. For several years it had an uniquesuccess, but, as it identified itself more and more with the whig party, Canning, with the aid of Scott, determined to challenge its supremacy byestablishing a new review to be called the _Quarterly_. Scott wasfinally estranged from the _Edinburgh_ by an article against the war ofindependence in Spain, and the first number of the _Quarterly_ appearedin February, 1809, with three articles by him. It was published by JohnMurray, and edited by Gifford, on much the same lines as the_Edinburgh_, but with a strong tory bias, and with somewhat less ofliterary brilliancy. _Blackwood's Magazine_ followed a few years later, and the almost classical dualism of the _Quarterly_ and _Edinburgh_ haslong since been invaded by a multitude of younger serials. 

After the loss of its early monopoly of talent, the _Edinburgh Review_still retained Jeffrey and Sydney Smith, and it was abundantlycompensated for the loss of Scott by the acquisition in 1825 of thefluent pen of Macaulay. Born in 1800, the son of Zachary Macaulay, wholike many other philanthropists was on the tory side, he was earlyconverted to the whig party. He was well fitted to be a popular writer. His thought, never deep, is always clear and vivid. None knew better howto seize a dramatic incident or a picturesque simile, or to strike theweak points in his adversary's armour. It has been said of him that healways chose to storm a position by a cavalry charge, certainly the mostimposing if not the most effective method. Many of his contributions tothe _Edinburgh Review_ were afterwards republished as _Essays_, andalready in those earlier essays which appeared before 1837, we can seehim assuming the _rôle_ of the historical champion of the whigs. Widelyread and with a marvellous memory, he was generally accurate in hisfacts, but his criticism of Gladstone applies with even greater force tohimself: "There is no want of light, but a great want of what Baconwould have called dry light. Whatever Mr. Gladstone sees is refractedand distorted by a false medium of passions and prejudices. " The criticis sunk in the advocate, and even a good cause is spoiled by a tooobvious reluctance to admit anything that comes from the other side. Perhaps his happiest, though far from his greatest, work is to be foundin the stirring ballads of _Ivry_ and the _Armada_, the precursors ofthe _Lays of Ancient Rome_. Deservedly popular and full of patrioticfire, the class of literature to which they belong renders questions offairness or unfairness beside the point. 

Another contributor to the _Edinburgh Review_, also famous as ahistorian, was Thomas Carlyle. He was born in 1795 at Ecclefechan inDumfriesshire, and wrote for Brewster's _Encyclopćdia_ and the _LondonMagazine_ as well as the _Edinburgh_. In 1826 he married Jane Welsh, andin 1828 he retired from journalism to live humbly on her means. It wasnow that he began to produce his best work. _Sartor Resartus_ appearedin 1833-34, and the _History of the French Revolution_ in 1837. Even inthe latter of these works he is as much a preacher as a historian. Perhaps no other writer of the age exercised a greater direct influence, and in his own country, which seems specially amenable to the preacher'spowers, his message has been as effective in favour of broader views asthe disruption of the Church of Scotland in 1843 was in favour of theold orthodoxy. His teaching has its roots in a German soil, but it bearsthe mark of his own strong personality. His style, with a wilfulruggedness, displays the German taste for the humour of an incongruoushomeliness, where the subject seems to call for a more dignifiedtreatment. Perhaps this obvious falseness of expression only relievesthe weight of his stern earnestness of purpose and makes us the moreready to join in his constant denunciation of everything hollow andpretentious. 

[Pageheading: _LAMB. _]

Two new magazines appeared in or about 1817, _Blackwood's_ and the_London_. Brilliant as the leading contributors to the former were, noneof them perhaps can claim a place in the front rank of Englishliterature. Of the contributors to the _London_ Lamb is doubtlessentitled to the first place. Born in 1775, he was employed as a clerk inthe East India House from 1792 to 1825. He was a schoolfellow ofColeridge and contributed to his earlier volume of poems It is, however, to the _Essays of Elia_ that he owes his fame. These appeared in the_London Magazine_ and were published in a collected form after his deathin 1834. Few authors that have been so much admired have exercised solittle influence. The reason for this is not far to seek. His styledefies imitation, and he would have been the last man to endeavour towin disciples to his opinions. Another essayist who belongs to the samegroup of writers as Coleridge and Lamb is Thomas de Quincey. He wroteboth for _Blackwood's_ and for the _London Magazine_, in the latter ofwhich appeared in 1821 his best known work, the _Confessions of anEnglish Opium Eater_. He excelled in what was the dominantcharacteristic of English prose of this period, in imagery, a qualitywhich is conspicuous in the light fancy of Coleridge's most famouspoems, and which gives life to an author so uniformly in dead earnest asMacaulay. Viewed historically, this taste for imagery is the Englishside of the romantic movement, which in Germany reacted against theconventional, not only in works of the imagination, but in the heavierform of new philosophical systems. But these systems, in spite ofColeridge, never became native in England. The growth of the scientificspirit has made such thought and such language seem unreal in seriousliterature, and prevents a later generation from imitating, though notfrom admiring, the brilliance of the early essayists. 

Hazlitt's genius was of a heavier type. As an essayist his work breathesthe spirit of an earlier age; but as a literary critic he is a leader, and displays an inwardness in his appreciation that makes him in a sensethe model of the new age in which criticism has so largely supplantedcreation. It may be doubted, however, whether the abnormal growth ofcriticism, as a distinct branch of English letters, has been a benefiton the whole to our literature. Certainly it has tended to substitutethe elaborate study of other men's thoughts for original production, and, after all, the greatest critics have been those who, being morethan critics, have shown themselves capable of constructive efforts. 

Two statesmen-novelists, Bulwer and Disraeli, are among the mostinteresting literary characters of the end of this period. The former ofthese, like his French contemporary Victor Hugo, had a remarkable giftfor expressing each successive phase of popular taste. He resembledDisraeli in acquiring a pre-eminent position in letters in early youth, which was followed by political success at a later age. Though neitherrose to cabinet rank before a time of life which must with literary menrank as "middle age, " Bulwer had, in the midst of an activeparliamentary career, been an active novelist, in fact the most popularnovelist of his day. Disraeli, on the other hand, only enteredparliament after the close of the period dealt with in this volume, andit is to this period, while he was still unknown to politics, that thegreater part of his literary work belongs. One other resemblance betweenthese writers is perhaps not less interesting to the historian than tothe critic. Both made use of literature to establish for themselves areputation as "men of the world, " an ambition which Bulwer's socialposition might easily justify, and without which it would be impossibleto understand the career of Disraeli. Born in 1803 and 1804respectively, both made their mark with their first novels in 1827, Bulwer with _Falkland_, Disraeli with a work in which his own career hasbeen supposed to be foreshadowed--_Vivian Grey_. One other greatnovelist had appeared before the close of the reign of William IV. In1836 Charles Dickens produced _Sketches by Boz_ and began the _PickwickPapers_, but he belongs properly to the next reign. 

Among the historians of this period the first place undoubtedly belongsto Henry Hallam. Born in 1788, he produced his _View of the State ofEurope during the Middle Ages_ in 1818, and his _Constitutional Historyof England_ in 1827, while his _Introduction to the Literature ofEurope_ began to appear in 1837. Like Macaulay he represents the whigattitude towards politics, but does so less consciously and lessemphatically than his younger contemporary. There is a sense in which noconstitutional historian has adopted so strictly legal an attitude. Itis not merely that his interest centres on the legal side of theconstitution, but, lawyer-like, he judges every constitutional issue ofthe past in the light of the legal system which the law of his own daypresupposes for the date in question. No one can deny the validity ofthis principle in a court of justice, but no one gifted either withhistorical imagination or with historical sympathy could wish tointroduce it into a historical work. Yet the very narrowness of hisoutlook made it easier for him to adopt the impartiality of a judge; hiscriterion of justice is too definite to allow him to indulge in specialpleading or to twist facts to suit his theories; and the student stillturns to Hallam with a sense of security which he does not feel inreading Macaulay or Carlyle. 

[Pageheading: _FINE ART. _]

The fine arts cannot be said to have flourished in England during theperiod of the great war, and architecture was certainly at a low ebb, but several eminent names belong to this period. Sir Thomas Lawrence wasby far the foremost English portrait painter, and fitly represents theelegance of the regency, while Raeburn enjoyed an equal reputation inScotland. Turner, however, was painting in his earlier manner andshowing originality even in his imitations of old masters. Constable, too, was producing some of those quiet English landscapes which, thoughlittle appreciated at the time, have since made him famous. Two otherEnglish landscape painters, Callcott and the elder Crome, were also intheir prime, and Wilkie executed several of his best known masterpiecesat this time. David Cox and Prout did not earn celebrity till a littlelater. The Water-Colour Society was founded in 1804. Soon afterwardsFlaxman was in the zenith of his fame, being elected professor ofsculpture by the Royal Academy in 1810, and Chantrey was beginning todesert portrait painting for statuary. 

Science, especially in its practical applications, made greater stridesthan art in the early years of the nineteenth century. It was now thatJenner's memorable discovery of vaccination, dating from 1796, wasgenerally adopted by the medical profession. In 1802 his claim topriority was recognised by a parliamentary committee, with the resultthat Ł10, 000 were then voted to him, and a further grant of Ł20, 000 wasmade in 1807, when vaccination was established at the Small-poxHospital. In 1814, George Stephenson, after many preliminaryexperiments, made a successful trial of his first locomotive engine. In1812, Bell's steamboat, the _Comet_ made its first voyage on the Clyde, and the development of steam navigation proceeded more rapidly than thatof steam locomotion by land. Sir Humphry Davy began his researches in1800, and took part in that year, with Count Rumford and Sir JosephBanks, in founding the Royal Institution. His invention of the safetylamp was not matured until 1815. 

But if the principal contributions of England to physical science in theearly years of the century were mainly in the direction of practicalapplication, her contributions to pure theory under the regency and inthe reign of William IV. Were no less distinguished. Sir John Herschel, following in the footsteps of his father, began in 1824 his observationson double stars and his researches upon the parallax of fixed stars, while Sir George Airy published in 1826 his mathematical treatises onlunar and planetary theory. In Michael Faraday England possessed at oncean eminent chemist and the greatest electrician of the age. Thediscovery of benzine and the liquefaction of numerous gases werefollowed by an investigation of electric currents, and in 1831 by thecrowning discovery of induction. Not less valuable perhaps than thesediscoveries of his own were the fertile suggestions which he left toothers. William Smith, sometimes called the father of modern Englishgeology, vigorously followed up the work of James Hutton by publishingin 1815 his great map of English _strata_ as identified by fossils. Charles Lyell's _Principles of Geology_ marks a great advance ingeological science. In this book, which appeared in 1833, the authoradvanced the view, now universally accepted, that the great geologicalchanges of the past are not to be explained as catastrophes, followed bysuccessive creations, but as the product of the continuous play offorces still at work. This theory contained all that was vital in thedoctrine of evolution; but it was only at a later date, when thedoctrine had become the property of zoologists as well as geologists andhad been popularised by Darwin, that it came to exercise an influenceover non-scientific thought. 

[Pageheading: _UNIVERSITY REFORM. _]

A review of the literary and scientific progress of this period would beincomplete without some notice of progress in higher education. Theuniversities of Oxford and Cambridge with their numerous colleges had inthe eighteenth century lapsed into that lethargic condition which seemedto be the common fate of all corporations. They had to a certain extentceased to be seats of learning. At Oxford the limitations imposed uponcolleges by statute or custom in elections to fellowships andscholarships ensured the mediocrity of the teachers and gave thepreference to mediocrities among the students. Where emoluments were notso restricted they were generally awarded by interest rather than bymerit; and it was even the case that a scholarship at Winchester, carrying with it the right to a fellowship at New College, was oftenpromised to an infant only a few days old. The Oxford examination systemhad not been reformed since the time of Laud, and the degreeexaminations had degenerated into mere formalities until the universityin 1800 adopted a new examination statute, mainly under the influence ofDr. Eveleigh, provost of Oriel. The new statute, which came intooperation in 1802, granted honours to the better students of each year. The number of candidates to whom honours were granted, at first verysmall, rapidly increased till in 1837 about 130 received honours in asingle year. The attention which the examination system received fromthe hebdomadal board, so often accused of sluggishness, is proved by thefrequent changes in the regulations, which among other thingsdifferentiated between honours in "Literć Humaniores" and in mathematicsin 1807, and separated the honours and pass examinations in 1830. Thesame desire to encourage meritorious students showed itself in theinstitution of competitive examinations for fellowships, in which Orielled the way. It was followed in 1817 by Balliol, which in 1827 threwopen its scholarships as well. It was not, however, till the reign ofQueen Victoria that the college statutes as a whole were so modified asto make open competition possible in more than a very few instances. 

Cambridge suffered less than Oxford from restrictions as to the choiceof fellows. In fact the majority of the fellowships, more especially ofthose which carried with them a vote in the government of the colleges, were, so far as the statutes went, open to all comers. Though the courseof study was still nominally regulated by statutes dating from the Tudorperiod, which it would often have been ludicrous to enforce, aneffective stimulus was given to mathematical studies by the mathematicaltripos, which had existed from the middle of the eighteenth century, and to which in 1824 a classical tripos was added. The ground covered bythese honour examinations was certainly narrower than that which laywithin the scope of the corresponding examinations at Oxford, but atboth places the studies of most undergraduates were still directed moreby the judgment of their tutors than by the regulations of theuniversity. 

These two universities were, however, subject to two limitations, whichprevented them from providing a higher education for all aspiringstudents. The expense of living at Oxford and Cambridge, and the closeconnexion of both universities with the Church of England, rendered themdifficult of access to many. These limitations were emphasised by thefact that Scotland possessed five universities which were the oppositeof the English in both respects, and not a few English students couldalways be found at the Scottish seats of learning. The reform ministrymade a serious effort to remove or alleviate the grievances ofdissenters. Among other reforms mooted was the abolition of theologicaltests for matriculation and graduation. In 1834 a bill, which proposedto effect this change, but which left intact such tests as existed forfellowships and professorships, passed its second reading in the commonsby a majority of 321 against 174, and its third reading by 164 against75. It was, however, thrown out on the second reading in the lords by187 votes against 85. Though in this particular case the demands of thedissenters were moderate, they were themselves opposed to other measuresintroduced for their benefit, and the question of tests at Oxford andCambridge was not unnaturally allowed to rest for another twenty years. 

[Pageheading: _UNIVERSITY OF LONDON. _]

It was only in the reign of George IV. That anything was done to providea university education for those who were unable to proceed to theancient seats of learning. But the movement, once started, progressedrapidly. The oldest of the university colleges, as they are now called, is St. David's College, Lampeter, which was founded in 1822, mainlythrough the exertions of Dr. Thomas Burgess, Bishop of St. David's, whowas supported by many others among the Welsh clergy. The college wasopened in 1827, but at first it had no power of conferring degrees, andcontented itself with the education of candidates for holy orders. Amore important movement was initiated in 1825. In a public letterwritten by the poet Campbell to Brougham, the project of founding auniversity of London, which should be free from denominationalrestrictions, was advocated. The scheme was warmly embraced by manywhose names are found associated with other movements of the times. Among them were Hume, Grote, Zachary Macaulay, Dudley, and Russell. Alarge proportion of the promoters of the new university had beeneducated at Scottish universities, and had therefore a clear idea of thetype of university which they might establish, and the movement, although started primarily in the interests of dissenters, received thesupport of many who still valued the connexion of the universities withthe Church. The "London University, " as it was called, was opened in1828, when classes were formed in arts, law, and medicine, but not indivinity. It was technically a joint-stock company, and the attempt ofthe shareholders to obtain a charter of incorporation was successfullyresisted by the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. 

Meanwhile some of the original supporters of the movement, regarding thenon-religious character of the new university with suspicion, haddecided to transfer their support to a new college, where the doctrineand worship of the Church of England should be recognised. The Duke ofWellington took a lively interest in this movement, and King GeorgeIV. 's patronage gave the new institution the name of "King's College". There seemed every reason to expect that the foundation would be on amunificent scale, when Wellington's acceptance of catholic emancipationoffended many of the subscribers so deeply that they immediatelywithdrew from the undertaking, and the college was in consequence leftalmost entirely without endowment. State recognition, however, was givenit from the first. It was incorporated in 1829, and opened in 1831. In1835 the demand of "London University" for a charter received thesupport of the house of commons, and Lord Melbourne's government decidedto propose a compromise, by which the so-called "London University" wasto be converted into University College, and an examining body was to becreated under the title of the University of London, while the work ofteaching was to be performed by University College, King's College, andother colleges, which might from time to time be named by the crown. These terms were accepted by the existing "university, " and charterswere given to the new university and to University College, London, in1836. It was thus left open to students or their parents to selecteither a denominational or an undenominational college, according totheir preference. 

Meanwhile another university had been founded in the north of England. The dean and chapter of Durham had determined to set aside a part oftheir emoluments for the foundation of a university, and the bishop hadundertaken to assist them by attaching prebendal stalls in the cathedralto some of the professorships. An act of parliament was obtained in1832, authorising the establishment of the new university, which wasopened in October, 1833, and was incorporated by a royal charter on June1, 1837. As an ecclesiastical foundation, the university of Durham wasof course in the closest connexion with the established Church. 

None of these new foundations could compare in respect of endowmentswith the old universities of Oxford and Cambridge, yet it was notaltogether without reason that the founders of University College, London, hoped to give as good an education at a greatly reduced cost. Itmust be remembered that only a small fraction of the endowments of theold universities and their colleges was at this time applied to strictlyeducational purposes, and, until they should either be reformed orbecome more sensible of their opportunities, there was a fair field foran energetic rival. 

The beginning of the nineteenth century witnessed a marvellous expansionof manufacturing industry, not so much caused by new discoveries as bythe energetic application of those made at the end of the last century, by the growth of the factory-system, and, above all, by the monopoly ofEnglish-made goods during the great war. The innovation ofmachine-spinning and weaving by power-looms had an instant effect instimulating and cheapening the production of cottons, but that ofwoollens, cramped by heavy duties on the raw material, languished forsome time longer under traditional methods of handspinning. Whenstocking-frames and other forms of machinery penetrated at last into itsstrongholds in the West Riding of Yorkshire and in the midland counties, the demand for "hands" was inevitably reduced, and "frame-breaking"riots ensued, which lasted for several years. From this period dates theindustrial revolution which gradually abolished domestic industries, separated mill-owners and mill-hands into almost hostile classes, undermined the system of apprenticeship, and brought about a largemigration of manufactures from centres with abundant water-power tocentres in close proximity to coal-fields. 

[Pageheading: _PROGRESS OF AGRICULTURE. _]

The progress of British agriculture during the period under review wasalmost as marked as that of British manufactures. Under the impulse ofwar prices, and of the improvements adopted at the end of the eighteenthcentury, the home-production of corn almost kept pace with the growingconsumption, and between 1801 and 1815 little more than 500, 000 quartersof imported corn were required annually to feed the population. Nodoubt, when the price of bread might rise to famine-point, theconsumption of it fell to a minimum per head; still, the ruralpopulation continued to multiply, though not so rapidly as the urbanpopulation, and neither could have been maintained without a constantincrease in the production of the soil. This result was due to aprogressive extension of enclosure and drainage, as well as to wiseinnovations in the practice of agriculture. Not the least important ofsuch innovations was the destruction of useless fences and stragglinghedge-rows, the multitude and irregular outlines of which had long beena picturesque but wasteful feature of old-fashioned English farming. This was the age, too, in which many a small farm vanished byconsolidation, and many an ancient pasture was recklessly broken up, some of which, though once more covered with green sward, have neverrecovered their original fertility. Happily, the use of crushed bonesfor manure was introduced in 1800, and the efforts of the national boardof agriculture, aided by the discoveries of Sir Humphry Davy, broughtabout a far more general application of chemical science to agriculture, partly compensating for the exhaustion of the soil under successivewheat crops. Not less remarkable was the effect of mechanical science inthe development of new agricultural implements, which, however, retaineda comparatively rude form of construction. The Highland Society ofScotland took a leading part in encouraging these gradual experiments intillage, as well as in the breeding of sheep and cattle, with a specialregard to early maturity. Had the farmers of Great Britain during thegreat war possessed no more skill than their grandfathers, it would havebeen impossible for the soil of this island to have so nearly supportedits inhabitants before the ports were freely thrown open. 

The great triumphs of engineering in the fifteen years before the battleof Waterloo were mainly achieved in facilitating locomotion, and arespecially associated with the name of Telford. It was he who, followingin the footsteps of Brindley and Smeaton, constructed the Ellesmere andCaledonian Canals; he far eclipsed the fame of General Wade by openingout roads and bridges in the highlands, and first adopted soundprinciples of road-making both in England and Wales, afterwards to beapplied with marvellous success by Macadam. It is some proof of theimpulse given to land-travelling by such improvements that 1, 355 publicstage-coaches were assessed in 1812, and that a rate of speed littleshort of ten miles an hour was attained by the lighter vehicles. ButTelford's labours were not confined to roads or bridges; they extendedalso to harbours and to canals, which continued to be the great arteriesof heavy traffic until the development of railways. The new powerdestined to supersede both coaches and barges was first recognisedpractically when Bell's little steam vessel the _Comet_ was navigateddown the Clyde in 1812, to be followed not many years later by asteamship capable of crossing the Atlantic Ocean. In a few years steampackets were numerous, but it was not till well into the reign ofVictoria that steam navigation was used in the royal navy. 

[Pageheading: _RAILWAYS. _]

The most conspicuous improvement in the social and economic condition ofthe country between 1815 and 1837 is undoubtedly the invention of thesteam locomotive engine. A few steam locomotives had been inventedbefore the former date, but they had met with little success and were asyet more costly than horse traction. It was only in or about the year1815 that George Stephenson, enginewright in Killingworth colliery, succeeded in inventing a locomotive engine which was cheaper thanhorse-power. The value of railways was by this time better understood. Short railways worked by horses were common in the neighbourhood ofcollieries, and a few existed elsewhere. In 1821 Edward Pease obtainedparliamentary powers to construct a railway between Stockton andDarlington. A visit to Killingworth persuaded him to make use ofsteam-power. In 1823 an act authorising the use of steam on the proposedrailway was carried, and in 1825 the railway was opened. In 1826 an actwas passed for the construction of a railway between Liverpool andManchester. Stephenson was employed as engineer to make the line, andhis success as a road-making engineer proved equal to his brilliance asa mechanical inventor. 

In 1829 the line was completed. The directors were at first stronglyopposed to the use of steam-locomotion, but were induced by Stephenson, before finally rejecting the idea, to offer a reward of Ł500 for thebest locomotive that could be made. Of four engines which were enteredfor the competition, Stephenson's _Rocket_ was the only one that wouldmove, and it proved able to travel at the rate of thirty-five miles anhour. The opening of the railway in 1830, and the fatal accident to Mr. Huskisson which attended it, have been noticed already. The accident didmore to attract attention to the power of the locomotive than todiscredit it. The opposition to railways was not, however, at an end. Aproposal for a railway between London and Birmingham was carried throughparliament, only after a struggle of some years' duration, but theconstruction of the line was at length authorised in 1833. The Englishrailway system now developed with great rapidity, and by the end of thereign of William IV. Lines had been authorised which would when completeform a system, joining London with Dover, Southampton, and Bristol, andboth London and Bristol with Birmingham, whence lines were to run to themost important places in Yorkshire and Lancashire, and on to Darlington. Numerous small lines served other portions of the country, partly inconnexion with these, but more often independently. 

Among the more conspicuous metropolitan improvements of this age may bementioned the introduction of gas and the incipient construction of newbridges over the Thames, in which the engineer Rennie took a leadingpart. Before the end of the eighteenth century the workshops of Boultonand Watt had been lit by gas, and Soho was illuminated by it tocelebrate the peace of Amiens. By 1807 it was used in Golden Lane, andby 1809, if not earlier, it had reached Pall Mall, but it scarcelybecame general in London until somewhat later. At the beginning of thecentury the metropolis possessed but three bridges, old London bridgeand the old bridges at Blackfriars and Westminster. The first stone ofthe Strand Bridge (afterwards to be called Waterloo Bridge) was laid onOctober 11, 1811, and Southwark Bridge was commenced in 1814, but thesebridges were not completed till 1817 and 1819 respectively. The existingLondon Bridge, designed by Rennie, but built after his death, wascompleted in 1831. In 1812, the architect Nash was employed in layingout the Regent's Park, and in 1813 an act was passed for theconstruction of Regent Street, as a grand line of communication betweenit and Carlton House, the residence of the regent. 

The work of geographical discovery had been well commenced before theend of the eighteenth century, and was inevitably checked during thegreat war. The wonderful voyages of Cook had revealed Australia and NewZealand; Flinders had carried on the survey of the Australian coast;Vancouver had explored the great island which bears his name with theadjacent shores; Rennell had produced his great map of India; Bruce hadpublished his celebrated travels in Abyssinia; and an association hadbeen formed to dispel the darkness that hung over the whole interior ofAfrica. Among its first emissaries was Mungo Park, who afterwards wasemployed by the British government, and died in the course of his secondexpedition in 1805-6. The idea of Arctic discovery was revived early inthe nineteenth century, and was no longer confined to commercial aims, such as the opening of a north-east or north-west passage, but wasrather directed to scientific objects, not without the hope of reachingthe North Pole itself. Meanwhile, the ordnance survey of Great Britainitself was in full progress, and that of British India was commenced in1802, while the hydrographical department of the admiralty, establishedin 1795, was organising the system of marine-surveying which has sinceyielded such valuable fruits. 

The progress of philanthropy, based on religious sentiment was verymarked during the later years of the war. The institution of Sundayschools between 1780 and 1790 had awakened a new sense of duty towardschildren in the community, and the growing use of child-labour, keepingpace with the constant increase of machinery, forced upon the publicthe necessity of legislative restrictions, which have been noticed in anearlier chapter. Banks of savings, the forerunners of savings banksunder parliamentary regulation, had been suggested by Jeremy Bentham, and one at least was instituted in 1802. The idea of penitentiaries, forthe reformation as well as for the punishment of criminals, hadoriginated with the great philanthropist, John Howard. It was adoptedand popularised by Jeremy Bentham, and might have been further developedbut for the introduction of transportation, which promised thewell-conducted convict the prospect of a new life in a new country. Meanwhile, prison reform became a favourite study of benevolenttheorists in an age when the criminal law was still a relic ofbarbarism, when highway robbery was rife in the neighbourhood of London, when sanitation was hardly in its infancy, when pauperism was fosteredby the poor law, and when the working classes in towns were huddledtogether, without legal check or moral scruple, in undrained courts andunderground cellars. So capricious and shortsighted is the publicconscience in its treatment of social evils. 

[Pageheading: _CANADA. _]

At the opening of the nineteenth century the colonial empire of GreatBritain was in a transitional state. The secession of thirteen Americancolonies had not only robbed the mother country of its proudestinheritance, but had also shattered the old colonial system ofcommercial monopoly for the supposed benefit of British interests. Itsimmediate effect was to annul the navigation act as affecting Americantrade, which became free to all the world, and by which Great Britainitself profited largely. Canada at once gained a new importance, and anew sense of nationality, which Pitt recognised by dividing it into twoprovinces, and giving each a considerable measure of independence, bothpolitical and commercial. It was troubled by the presence of a conqueredrace of white colonists side by side with new colonists of Englishblood, who were, however, united in their resistance to the revoltedcolonies in the war of 1812-14. After the war a steady stream ofimmigration poured into Canada. In 1816 the population was estimated at450, 000; between 1819 and 1829 Canada received 126, 000 immigrants fromEngland, and during the next ten years 320, 000. The result was that theFrench element ceased to be preponderant, except in Lower Canada. TheFrench Canadians felt that they did not enjoy their share of theconfidence of government; the home government, ready enough to grant anyfavour that home opinion would permit, was trammelled by a publicopinion, which suspected all who were of a French origin of a desire torestore the supremacy of the Roman Catholic religion and to assertpolitical independence. A vacillating policy was the result, which onlyincreased suspicions, and led in the first year of the reign of Victoriato a civil war. 

In the Mauritius and the West Indies the one event of importance in thisperiod is the abolition of slavery. It was found impossible to obtainfrom free negroes as much work as had been obtained from slaves, andtheir place had to be supplied by Indian coolies in the Mauritius, andby Chinese in Jamaica. At the same time the West Indies had begun tosuffer from the competition of the United States. 

The colony of the Cape of Good Hope was still peopled almost entirely byblacks or by the descendants of Dutch settlers, known as _boers_, orpeasants. Four thousand British colonists went out in 1820 to Algoa Bay, but these were a mere handful compared with the Dutch. Unfortunately thegovernment adopted a line of policy which produced great irritation inthe Dutch population. They were granted no self-government, and in 1826English judicial forms were introduced, and English was declared thesole official language. The reform administration made matters worse bydefending the blacks against the boers. In 1834 it set free the slaves, offering Ł1, 200, 000, payable in London, very little of which everreached the boers, as compensation for slaves valued at Ł3, 000, 000. AKaffir war in 1834 had led to the conquest of Kaffraria, but in 1835 thehome government restored the independence of the Kaffirs, and appointeda lieutenant-governor to defend their rights. After this the boersconsidered their position intolerable, and in 1835 began their first"trek" into the country now known as Natal. 

[Pageheading: _AUSTRALIA. _]

Meanwhile, the great discoveries of Captain Cook, and the firstsettlement of New South Wales, brought within view a possible extensionof our colonial dominion, which might go far to compensate for itslosses on the North American continent. Governor Phillip had been sentout by Pitt to Botany Bay in 1787-88, but it was many years before theearliest of Australian colonies outgrew the character of a penal refugefor English convicts. The first convict establishments were at Sydneyand Norfolk Island, but another settlement was founded on Van Diemen'sLand in 1805, and in 1807, after this island had been circumnavigated byFlinders and Bass, it became the headquarters of that convict system, whose horrors are not yet forgotten. Between 1810 and 1822 the resourcesof New South Wales were vastly developed by the energetic policy ofGovernor Macquarie. While his efforts to utilise convict labour, and toeducate convicts into free men, may have retarded the influx of genuinecolonists, he prepared the way for settlement by constructing roads, promoting exploration, and raising public buildings, so that when hereturned home the population of New South Wales had increased fourfold, and its settled territory in a much greater proportion. This territorycomprised all English settlements on the east coast, and included largetracts of what is now known as Queensland, which did not become aseparate colony until 1859. 

The early history of Australia, it has been said, is chiefly a tale ofconvict settlements, bush-ranging, and expeditions of discovery. Thereis much truth in this saying, but the real basis of Australianprosperity was the introduction of sheep-farming on a large scale, afterthe merino-breed had been imported and acclimatised by Macarthur at thebeginning of the century. Long before the region stretching northwardfrom the later Port Phillip grew into the colony of Victoria, sheep-owners were spreading over the vast pastures of the interior, though many years elapsed before the explorer Sturt opened out the greatprovinces further westward. 

The development of Australia made rapid progress during the generationfollowing the great war. Though Australia itself and Van Diemen's Land, now called Tasmania, were still in the main convict settlements, freesettlers had been arriving at Sydney for some time, and in 1817 theybegan to arrive in moderate numbers in Van Diemen's Land. In 1825 thatisland had sufficiently progressed to be recognised as a separatecolony. The attempt to found a colony in western Australia in 1829 was, on the other hand, an almost complete failure. But in 1824 a new centreof colonisation in New South Wales had been established at PortPhillip. Meanwhile a sharp cleavage of parties had arisen. The convictsand poorer colonists were opposed to the large sheep-owners, who wereendeavouring to form an aristocracy. Governor Macquarie favoured theconvicts, and Governor Darling (1825-31) the sheep-owners. In 1823 alegislative council, consisting of seven officials, had been instituted;in 1828 it was developed into one of fifteen members, chosen entirelyfrom among the wealthiest colonists. 

Gibbon Wakefield's _Letter from Sydney_, published in 1829, marks anepoch in the history of Australian colonisation. In this work heproposed that the land should be sold in small lots at a fairly highprice to settlers, and that the proceeds of the sales should be used topay the passage of emigrants going out as labourers. This idea hadhardly been published when it was adopted by the home government, andfive shillings an acre was fixed as the minimum price of land. Thenumber of emigrants increased rapidly, but the new system threatenedruin to the owners of sheep-runs. Unable to pay the stipulated price, they only moved further into the interior and occupied fresh landwithout seeking government permission, an unlicensed occupation whichhas left its mark upon the language in the word "squatter". At last in1837 a compromise was arranged, by which the squatters were to pay asmall rent for their runs, the crown retaining the freehold with theright to sell it to others at some future date. In 1834 the Britishgovernment sanctioned the formation of a new colony, that of SouthAustralia. It was to be settled from the outset on the Wakefield system, and no convicts were ever sent to it. The first lots were sold as highas twelve shillings an acre, and in 1836 a company of emigrants went outand founded Adelaide. 

 APPENDICES. 

 I. ON AUTHORITIES. 

 II. ADMINISTRATIONS, 1801-1837. 

 APPENDIX I. 

 ON AUTHORITIES. [141]

(1) General histories of England for the period 1801-1837: MASSEY, _History of England during the Reign of George the Third_ (4 vols. , 2nded. , 1865), closes with the treaty of Amiens in 1802, and thereforebarely touches this period. There is still room for a general history ofEngland on an adequate scale between 1802 and 1815. After that date wehave HARRIET MARTINEAU, _History of England during the Thirty Years'Peace_ (1816-1846, 2 vols. , 1849, 1850). This was begun by CharlesKnight, the publisher, who brought it down to 1819. From 1820 onwards itis Miss Martineau's own work. It is too nearly contemporary to depend onany authorities except such as were published at the time, and itrepresents in the main the popular view of public events and public menheld by liberals at the time. Sir SPENCER WALPOLE'S _History of Englandfrom the Conclusion of the Great War in 1815_ (6 vols. , revised ed. , 1890), a work of high quality and thoroughly trustworthy, full ofreferences to the best published authorities, sympathises with the whigsand more liberal tories. Reference is sometimes made in this volume toGOLDWIN SMITH, _The United Kingdom, a Political History_ (2 vols. , 1899), but the work is too slight to be regarded as an authority. Sir T. E. MAY'S (Lord Farnborough) _Constitutional History of England from 1760to 1860_ (3 vols. , 10th ed. , 1891) is also useful. 

(2) The _Annual Register_ is probably the most useful authority for thisperiod. In addition to more general information, it contains a very fullreport of the more important parliamentary debates and the text of theprincipal public treaties and of numerous other state papers. Thenarrative is not often coloured by the political partisanship of thewriter, but allowance must be made for the strong tory bias of thevolumes dealing with the reign of William IV. The _ParliamentaryHistory_ closes in 1803, at which date Cobbett's _ParliamentaryDebates_ had begun to appear. After 1812 Cobbett ceased to superintendthe work and his name was dropped, and in 1813 and afterwards thetitle-page acknowledged that the work was "published under thesuperintendence of T. C. Hansard, " who had also been the publisher ofCobbett's series and of the _Parliamentary History_. 

[Pageheading: _MEMOIRS AND CORRESPONDENCE. _]

(3) Political and other memoirs and printed correspondence. Thefollowing have been noticed among the authorities for volume x. : PELLEW, _Life and Correspondence of H. Addington, Viscount Sidmouth_ (3 vols. , 1847), very full wherever Sidmouth was directly concerned, written witha strong bias in favour of the subject of the biography. Lord STANHOPE, _Life of Pitt_ (4 vols. , 3rd ed. , 1867). The appendix to the last volumecontains Pitt's correspondence with the king in the years 1804-1806. Lord ROSEBERY, _Pitt_ (Twelve English Statesmen Series, 1891), brilliantbut not always sound. Lord JOHN (Earl) RUSSELL, _Memorials andCorrespondence of C. J. Fox_ (4 vols. , 1853-1854), and _Life and Timesof C. J. Fox, 1859-1866_. _Memoirs of the Courts and Cabinets of GeorgeIII. _ (4 vols. , 1853-1855; 1801 falls in vol. Iii. ), continued in_Memoirs of the Court of England during the Regency_ (2 vols. , 1856), _Memoirs of the Court of George IV. _ (2 vols. , 1859), and _Memoirs ofthe Courts and Cabinets of William IV. And Victoria_ (2 vols. , 1861;1837 is reached in vol. I. ); these volumes, edited by the Duke ofBuckingham, contain the correspondence of the Grenville family. Thefirst series alone, which contains many important letters of LordGrenville, is of first-rate importance. The editing is often inaccurate. _Diaries and Correspondence of the First Earl of Malmesbury_ (4 vols. , 1844), edited by the third earl (vol. Iv. Extends from February, 1801, to July, 1809), authoritative and useful, especially for the crisis of1807. _Correspondence of Marquis Cornwallis_ (3 vols. , 1859), edited byC. Ross, valuable for the negotiations at Amiens and for Cornwallis'sbrief second governor-generalship of India. The notes are full of usefulbiographical material concerning the persons mentioned in thecorrespondence. _Diaries and Correspondence of George Rose_ (2 vols. , 1860), edited by L. V. Harcourt. _The Diary and Correspondence ofCharles Abbot, Lord Colchester_, edited by his son (3 vols. , 1861, extending from 1795 to 1829), with interesting notices of Perceval, andgenerally useful from 1802-1817, when Abbot was Speaker. Lord HOLLAND, _Memoirs of the Whig Party_ (2 vols. , 1852), edited by his son, LordHolland. These memoirs do not extend beyond the year 1807. Volume ii. , which covers the period during which Holland was a member of theGrenville cabinet, is of special importance. His memory is not alwaysaccurate, and he writes with a whig bias which makes him a harsh judgeof George III. Holland's _Further Memoirs of the Whig Party, 1807-1821_, edited by Lord Stavordale, the present Lord Ilchester (1905), interesting, and, like the earlier volumes, full of personal detail, butof less value, since Holland was not in office again till 1830. 

Similar in character to the above, but only of importance after 1801 arethe following: _Life of Perceval_ (2 vols. , 1874), by his grandson, SirSpencer Walpole, written largely from the Perceval papers, especiallyvaluable for the ministerial crisis of 1809. The _Memoirs andCorrespondence of Viscount Castlereagh_ (12 vols. , 1850-1853), edited byhis brother the third Marquis of Londonderry, consisting mainly ofmilitary and diplomatic correspondence. Sir ARCHIBALD ALISON, _Lives ofLord Castlereagh and Sir Charles Stewart, the Second and ThirdMarquesses of Londonderry_ (3 vols. , 1861), much more political thanbiographical; valuable and appreciative, but not rich in documents. _TheDispatches of the Duke of Wellington during his various Campaigns inIndia, Denmark [etc. ], from 1799 to 1818_ (12 vols. , 1834-1838), compiled by Lieut. -Colonel GURWOOD (really extending to 1815 only);_Supplementary Despatches and Memoranda of the Duke of Wellington_ (15vols. , 1858-1872), edited by his son, the second Duke of Wellington, extending from 1797 to 1818; _Despatches, Correspondence, and Memorandaof the Duke of Wellington_ (8 vols. , 1867-1880), by the same editor, extending from 1819 to 1832. The second and third of these seriescontain not only the duke's despatches, but the vast mass of politicalcorrespondence which passed through his hands. In spite of the greatsize of the collection, very little that can be considered trivial isincluded. It is our most important authority for all foreign relationsbetween 1815 and 1827, and between 1828 and 1830. Sir HERBERT MAXWELL, _The Life of Wellington_ (2 vols. , 1899). HORACE TWISS, _Life of Eldon_(3 vols. , 1844). C. PHIPPS, _Memoir of R. Plumer Ward_ (2 vols. , 1850), containing important political correspondence from 1801 onward, andWard's diary from 1809 to 1820. Ward held numerous minor offices in thegovernment and was on terms of intimacy with Perceval and Mulgrave. MOORE, _Life of Sheridan_ (2 vols. , 1826), valuable for the crisis of1811. _The Greville Memoirs; a Journal of the Reigns of King George IV. And King William IV. _ (3 vols. ), edited by Henry Reeve. References areto the first edition, 1874. New edition, also including 1837-1860 in 8vols. (1888). Greville was clerk to the privy council from 1821 to 1859, and as such possessed exceptional opportunities for making himselfacquainted with secret political transactions and with the personalqualities of successive statesmen. _The Creevey Papers_ (2 vols. , 1903), edited by Sir Herbert Maxwell, not of first-rate historical importance, full of gossip and scandal. Creevey was a whig member of parliament, 1802-1818, 1820-1828 and 1831-1832, and treasurer of the ordnance, 1830-1834. STAPLETON, _The Political Life of George Canning (fromSeptember 1822 to August 1827)_ (3 vols. , 1831), very full and valuable, especially for foreign relations; strikingly deficient in documents anddates. _George Canning and His Times_ (1859), by the same author, largely written from memory and therefore untrustworthy. YONGE, _Lifeand Administration of Lord Liverpool_ (3 vols. , 1868). _Memoirs of SirRobert Peel_ (2 vols. , 1856-1857), prepared by Peel himself, and dealingwith the Roman Catholic question, the administration of 1834-1835, andthe repeal of the corn laws. The memoirs, which are of the highestimportance, consist mainly of correspondence and are studiously fair. PARKER, _Sir Robert Peel_ (3 vols. , 1891-1899), a large collection ofPeel's correspondence with a brief connecting narrative by the editor, of great value even for the periods covered by the _Memoirs_. _TheCorrespondence of King William IV. And Earl Grey, from November 1830 toJune 1832_ (2 vols. , 1867), edited by Henry, Earl Grey, valuable for thehistory of the reform. _The Melbourne Papers_ (1889), edited by Sanders, throw light on Melbourne's relations with William IV. And with Brougham. TORRENS, _Memoirs of Melbourne_ (2 vols. , 1878), polemical, and sadlydeficient in documents. Lord HATHERTON, _Memoir and Correspondencerelating to June and July, 1834_ (published 1872), edited by H. Reeve, on events connected with the fall of Grey's ministry. _The CrokerPapers_ (3 vols. , 1884), edited by L. J. Jennings. Croker was secretaryto the admiralty from 1809 to 1830. The papers, which are very full from1809 onwards, consist of correspondence and selections from Croker'sjournals and correspondence. L. HORNER, _Memoir of Francis Horner_(1843). E. HERRIES, _Public Life of J. C. Herries_ (1880), a defence ofHerries against the sneers of whig writers. Lord DUDLEY, _Letters to theBishop of Llandaff_ (Copleston), (1840), and _Letters to Ivy_ (1905, edited by Romilly), interesting and often vivacious, but not offirst-rate importance. Sir HENRY BULWER (Lord Dalling), _Life ofPalmerston_ (2 vols. , 1870), extending to 1840. The first chapter of athird volume, edited by Evelyn Ashley (1874) makes good a few omissionsbelonging to this period. The work consists mainly of correspondence andextracts from Palmerston's journal. _Memoirs of Baron Stockmar_ (2vols. , 1872-1873), by his son Baron E. Von Stockmar, edited by F. MaxMüller. Stockmar was a confidential agent of Leopold, King of theBelgians. The memoirs contain a narrative by William IV. Of thepolitical history of his reign to 1835, including the circumstances ofMelbourne's resignation in 1834. CAMPBELL, _Lives of the Chancellors_ (8vols. , 1848-1869). The last volume contains excellent sketches ofLyndhurst and Brougham, based largely on personal knowledge. _Correspondence of Princess Lieven and Earl Grey, 1824-1834_, edited byG. Le Strange (1890). _Letters of Dorothea, Princess Lieven during HerResidence in London, 1812-1834_, edited by L. G. Robinson (1902). _Letters of Harriet, Countess Granville, 1810-1845_ (2 vols. , 1894). 

(4) Miscellaneous books. Sir G. C. LEWIS, _Administrations of GreatBritain (1783-1830)_, edited by Sir E. Head, 1864, has been mentionedamong the authorities for volume x. It is a valuable history of theinner political life of England, but suffers from a strong whig bias. LECKY, _History of Ireland in the Eighteenth Century_ (5 vols. , 1892), though nominally closing at the union, throws light on Irish history atthe beginning of the nineteenth century. A. V. DICEY, _Lectures on theRelation between Law and Public Opinion in England during the NineteenthCentury_ (1905), is very suggestive. HALÉVY, _La formation duradicalisme philosophique_ (3 vols. , 1901-1904), and Sir L. STEPHEN, _The English Utilitarians_, vols. I. , ii. (1900), are valuable for thehistory of the radical party. C. CREIGHTON, _History of Epidemics inBritain_ (2 vols. , 1894), contains an excellent account of the choleraepidemic. 

[Pageheading: _ON THE GREAT WAR. _]

(5) Books dealing with the great war are numerous. The following havebeen already noticed among the authorities for volume x. : Dr. HOLLANDROSE, _Life of Napoleon I. _ (2 vols. , 1904), our most trustworthy guidefor the career of the French emperor. The book has gained not a littlefrom its author's independent researches at the British Foreign Office. Captain MAHAN, _Influence of Sea Power upon the French Revolution andEmpire_ (2 vols. , 1893), and _Life of Nelson_ (2 vols. , 1897), valuablefor their general view of the naval warfare and commercial policy of theperiod. JAMES, _Naval History of Great Britain, 1793-1820_ (6 vols. , ed. 1826; vols. Iii. -vi. Extend from 1801-1820), very full and accurate, largely used in this volume for the American war. Sir JOHN LAUGHTON, _Nelson_ (English Men of Action Series, 1895), and articles in the_Dictionary of National Biography_. 

To these must be added ALISON'S _History of Europe from the Commencementof the French Revolution in 1789 to the Restoration of the Bourbons in1815_ (20 vols. , 1847, 1848), an uncritical but still a standard work. The reaction against Alison is probably due in large measure topolitical causes. In addition to the European history which gives itstitle to the book, it contains a narrative of the American war of1812-1814. The classical though far from trustworthy narrative on theFrench side is THIERS, _Histoire du Consulat et de l'Empire_ (21 vols. , 1845-1869), translated into English by Campbell and Stebbing (12 vols. , 1893-1894). See also LANFREY'S incomplete _History of Napoleon I. _, English translation (4 vols. , 1871-1879), bitterly anti-Napoleonic. Thenegotiations precedent to the outbreak of war in 1803 are to be found inMr. O. BROWNING'S _England and Napoleon in 1803_, containing despatchesof Whitworth and others, published in 1887, and in P. COQUELLE, _Napoleon and England, 1803-1813_, translated by G. D. KNOX (1904), based on the reports of Andréossy, the French ambassador at London. SirH. BUNBURY'S _Narrative of Certain Passages, etc. _ (1853) is of thehighest value for the war in the Mediterranean. The _Times_ of September16, 19, 22, 26, 28, 30, and October 19, 1905, contains an excellentseries of articles on Nelson's tactics at Trafalgar. For the Moscowcampaign, the Marquis DE CHAMBRAY'S _Histoire de l'Expédition de Russie_(3 vols. , 1839) is perhaps the most reliable of contemporary narratives. There is a good account of the campaign in the Rev. H. B. GEORGE'S_Napoleon's Invasion of Russia_ (1899). For the Peninsular war, W. NAPIER'S _History of the War in the Peninsula and in the South ofFrance_ (6 vols. ; vols. I. -iii. , ed. 1835-1840; iv. -vi. , 1834-1840) isof the highest literary as well as historical value. C. OMAN'S _Historyof the Peninsular War_ (in progress, vols. I. , ii. , 1902-1903, extendingat present to September, 1809) makes good use of Spanish sources ofinformation. The _Wellington Dispatches_ have been noticed already insection 3. The _Diary of Sir John Moore_, edited by Sir J. F. Maurice (2vols. , 1904), is of value for the campaign of 1808-1809. For Waterloo, in addition to Maxwell's _Life of Wellington_, and Rose's _Life ofNapoleon I. _, Chesney's _Waterloo Lectures_, 1868; W. O'CONNOR MORRIS, _The Campaign of 1815_ (1900), and J. C. ROPES, _The Campaign ofWaterloo_, may be studied with profit. Morris's work must, however, bediscounted for his extravagant admiration of Napoleon's genius and hisfaith in the Grouchy legend. For the disputes with the United States andwar of 1812-1814, see chapters in the _Cambridge Modern History_ (vol. Vii. , 1903); BOURINOT, _Canada_ (Story of the Nations), (1897); J. SCHOULER, _History of the United States of America under theConstitution_ (6 vols. , 1880-1889); and MAHAN, _Sea Power in ItsRelations to the War of 1812_ (2 vols. , 1905). 

[Pageheading: _ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS. _]

(6) For European politics and foreign relations generally, in additionto some of the books mentioned in the last section, we have C. A. FYFFE'S _History of Modern Europe, 1792-1878_ (ed. 1895), a veryreadable book, which includes the results of some original study, andSEIGNOBOS, _Political History of Contemporary Europe_, Englishtranslation (2 vols. , 1901), an useful but not always accurate book. Thegreat French work, _Histoire générale du IVe Sičcle ŕ nos jours_ (vols. Ix. , x. , 1897-1898), by numerous authors, edited by MM. Lavisse andRambaud, is naturally of varying merit; the chapters on France andRussia are the best, and there is a very full bibliography at the closeof each chapter. The _Cambridge Modern History_, vol. Ix. , _Napoleon_(1906), is a similar compilation by English writers. ALFRED STERN'S_Geschichte Europas seit den Verträgen von 1815_ (3 vols. , 1894-1901, tobe continued to 1871) is perhaps the best general history of the periodfollowing the great war. _The Memoirs of Prince Metternich_ (5 vols. , English translation, 1881-1882, edited by Prince Richard Metternich, extending to 1835) contain much that is valuable for diplomatic history. For French history see DUVERGIER DE HAURANNE, _Histoire du gouvernementparlementaire en France_ (1814-1848, 10 vols. , 1857-1872), which, inspite of the title, does not extend beyond 1830. For the Greek revolt, vols. Vi. And vii. Of G. FINLAY'S _History of Greece_ (7 vols. , ed. 1877) are important. American policy is treated by J. W. FOSTER, _ACentury of American Diplomacy_ (1901). Sir EDWARD HERTSLET'S _Map ofEurope by Treaty_ (4 vols. , 1875-1891), while professedly confined tothe treaties dealing with boundaries, contains the majority of those ofgeneral historical interest. It covers the period 1815-1891. LE COMTE DEGARDEN, _Histoire générale des traités de paix_ (14 vols. , 1848-1888, vols. Vi. -xv. , extending to 1814), and F. DE MARTENS, _Recueil destraités et conventions, conclus par la Russie_ (tomes xi. , xii. (Angleterre), 1895-1898), contain the principal treaties belonging tothe period. The _Castlereagh_ and _Wellington_ _Despatches_ have beennoticed under section 3. 

(7) For Indian history: JAMES MILL and WILSON, _History of BritishIndia_ (10 vols. , 1858), vols. Vi. -ix. , noticed as an authority forvolume x. , ends in 1835; Sir ALFRED C. LYALL'S _Rise and Expansion ofthe British Dominion in India_ (1894) contains a brief and masterlysketch of the subject. See also _A Selection from the Despatches, Treaties and Other Papers of the Marquess Wellesley_ (1877), well editedby S. J. Owen; the first two series of the _Wellington Dispatches_, noticed under section 3; and the vast mass of information collected inSir W. W. HUNTER'S _Imperial Gazetteer of India_ (14 vols. , 1885-1887). 

(8) For social and economic history: Dr. W. CUNNINGHAM'S _The Growth ofEnglish Industry and Commerce in Modern Times_, vol. Iii. , _LaissezFaire_ (1903), extending from 1776 to 1850, is now the standard work. Reference has also been made to G. R. PORTER, _Progress of the Nation_(1847), a work abounding more in statistics than in narrative, and toSir GEORGE NICHOLLS, _History of the English Poor Law_ (2 vols. , 1854). Nicholls took an active interest in social and economic questions from1816 till his death in 1857. He probably understood the working of thepoor-law better than any other man of that date, and the poor-lawlegislation of 1834 and 1838 was largely founded on his suggestions. Hewas one of the poor-law commissioners of 1834, and was permanentsecretary to the poor-law board from 1847 to 1851. Sir G. C. LEWIS, _TheGovernment of Dependencies_ (1891), edited by C. P. Lucas, and LUCAS, _Historical Geography of the British Colonies_, vols. I. -v. (1888-1901), are of value. For literary history, SAINTSBURY'S _History of NineteenthCentury Literature, 1780-1895_, (1896), is an excellent guide. Foreducational progress at Oxford University reference may be made to the_Report of H. M. 's Commissioners appointed to inquire into the State, etc. , of the University and Colleges of Oxford_ (1852), which contains agood historical summary. The report of the similar commission appointedfor Cambridge hardly touches the progress of studies, and is thereforeof less value to the historical student. 

FOOTNOTES:

[141] The dates given are, as far as possible, those of the editionsused by the authors of this volume. 

 APPENDIX II. 

 ADMINISTRATIONS, 1801-1837. 

 1. ADDINGTON, MARCH, 1801. 

_First lord of treasury } H. Addington. And chanc. Exchequer_ } { _home_ Duke of Portland. { Lord Pelham, _succeeded_ July, 1801. _Secretaries of { C. P. Yorke, _succeeded_ Aug. , 1803. State_ { _foreign_ Lord Hawkesbury. { _war and } Lord Hobart. { colonies_ }_Lord president_ Earl of Chatham. Duke of Portland, _succeeded_ July, 1801. _Lord chancellor_ Lord Eldon. _Lord privy seal_ Earl of Westmorland. _Admiralty_ Earl St. Vincent. _Ordnance_ Earl of Chatham, _appointed_ June, 1801. _Board of trade_ Lord Auckland. _Board of control_ Viscount Lewisham (July, 1801, Earl of Dartmouth), _in cabinet_. Viscount Castlereagh, _succeeded_ July, 1802, _admitted to cabinet_ Oct. , 1802. _Lord-lieutenant Ireland_ Earl of Hardwicke, _not in cabinet_. _Secretary at war_ C. P. Yorke, _not in cabinet_. C. Bragge, _succeeded_ Aug. , 1803, _not in cabinet_. 

 2. PITT, MAY, 1804. 

_First lord of treasury } W. Pitt and chanc. Exchequer_ } { _home_ Lord Hawkesbury. _Secretaries of { _foreign_ Lord Harrowby. State_ { Lord Mulgrave, _succeeded_ Jan. , 1805. { _war and } Earl Camden. { colonies_ } Viscount Castlereagh, _succeeded_ July, 1805. _Lord president_ Duke of Portland (after Jan. , 1805, _without office in cabinet_). Viscount Sidmouth (_before_ H. Addington), _succeeded_ Jan. , 1805. Earl Camden, _succeeded_ July, 1805. _Lord chancellor_ Lord Eldon. _Lord privy seal_ Earl of Westmorland. _Admiralty_ Viscount Melville (_before_ H. Dundas). Lord Barham, _succeeded_ May, 1805. _Ordnance_ Earl of Chatham. _Board of trade_ Duke of Montrose. _Board of control_ Viscount Castlereagh. _Duchy of Lancaster_ Lord Mulgrave, _in cabinet_. Earl of Buckinghamshire (_before_ Lord Hobart), _succeeded_ Jan. , 1805, _in cabinet_. Lord Harrowby, _succeeded_ July, 1805, _in cabinet_. _Lord-lieutenant Ireland_ Earl of Hardwicke, _not in cabinet_. Earl Powis, _succeeded_ Nov. , 1805, _not in cabinet_. _Secretary at war_ W. Dundas, _not in cabinet_. 

 3. GRENVILLE, FEBRUARY, 1806. 

_First lord of treasury_ Lord Grenville. { _home_ Earl Spencer. _Secretaries of { _foreign_ C. J. Fox. State_ { Viscount Howick, _succeeded_ Sept. { _war and } W. Windham { colonies_ }_Lord president_ Earl Fitzwilliam (after Oct. , _without office in cabinet_). Viscount Sidmouth, _succeeded_ Oct. _Lord chancellor_ Lord Erskine. _Lord privy seal_ Viscount Sidmouth. Lord Holland, _succeeded_ Oct. _Chancellor of exchequer_ Lord H. Petty. _Admiralty_ C. Grey (April, Viscount Howick). T. Grenville, _succeeded_ Sept. _Ordnance_ Earl of Moira. _Chief justice, King's bench_ Lord Ellenborough, _in cabinet_. _Lord-lieutenant Ireland_ Duke of Bedford, _not in cabinet_. _Secretary at war_ R. Fitzpatrick, _not in cabinet_. 

 4. PORTLAND, MARCH, 1807. 

_First lord of treasury_ Duke of Portland. { _home_ Lord Hawkesbury (1808 Earl of Liverpool). _Secretaries of { _foreign_ G. Canning. State_ { _war and } Viscount Castlereagh. { colonies_ }_Lord president_ Earl Camden. _Lord chancellor_ Lord Eldon. _Lord privy seal_ Earl of Westmorland. _Chanc. Exchequer and } S. Perceval. Duchy of Lancaster_ }_Admiralty_ Lord Mulgrave. _Ordnance_ Earl of Chatham. _Board of trade_ Earl Bathurst, _in cabinet_. _Board of control_ R. S. Dundas, _not in cabinet_. Earl of (_before_ Lord) Harrowby, _succeeded_ July, 1809, _in cabinet_. _Lord-lieutenant Ireland_ Duke of Richmond, _not in cabinet_. _Secretary at war_ Sir J. Pulteney, _not in cabinet_. Lord G. Leveson Gower, _succeeded_ June, 1809, _in cabinet_. 

 5. PERCEVAL, OCTOBER, 1809. 

_First lord of treasury, } chanc. Exchequer and } S. Perceval. Duchy of Lancaster_[142] } { _home_ R. Ryder. { _foreign_ Earl Bathurst. _Secretaries of { Marquis Wellesley, _succeeded_ Dec. , 1809. State_ { Viscount Castlereagh, _succeeded_ March, { 1812. { _war and } Earl of Liverpool. { colonies_ }_Lord president_ Earl Camden (after April, 1812, _without office in cabinet_). Viscount Sidmouth, _succeeded_ April, 1812. _Lord chancellor_ Lord Eldon. _Lord privy seal_ Earl of Westmorland. _Admiralty_ Lord Mulgrave. C. P. Yorke, _succeeded_ May, 1810. _Ordnance_ Earl of Chatham. Lord Mulgrave, _succeeded_ May, 1810. _Board of trade_ Earl Bathurst. _Lord-lieutenant Ireland_ Duke of Richmond, _not in cabinet_. _Secretary at war_ Viscount Palmerston, _not in cabinet_. 

 6. LIVERPOOL, JUNE, 1812

_First lord of treasury_ Earl of Liverpool. { _home_ Viscount Sidmouth (after Jan. , 1822, { _without office in cabinet_). { R. Peel, _succeeded_ Jan. , 1822. _Secretaries of { _foreign_ Viscount Castlereagh (1821 Marquis of. State_ { Londonderry). { G. Canning, _succeeded_ Sept. , 1822. { _war and } Earl Bathurst. { colonies_ }_Lord president_ Earl of Harrowby. _Lord chancellor_ Lord Eldon (1821 Earl of Eldon). _Lord privy seal_ Earl of Westmorland. _Chancellor of exchequer_ N. Vansittart. F. J. Robinson, _succeeded_ Jan. , 1823. _Admiralty_ Viscount Melville (_before_ R. S. Dundas). _Ordnance_ Lord Mulgrave (Sept. , 1812, Earl of Mulgrave), (from 1818-May, 1820, _without office in cabinet_). Duke of Wellington, _succeeded_ Jan. , 1819. _Board of trade_ Earl of Clancarty, _not in cabinet_. F. J. Robinson, [143] _succeeded_ Jan. , 1818, _in cabinet_. W. Huskisson, [143] _succeeded_ Jan. , 1823, _in cabinet_. _Board of control_ Earl of Buckinghamshire, _in cabinet_. G. Canning, _succeeded_ June, 1816, _in cabinet_. C. B. Bathurst, _succeeded_ Jan. , 1821, _in cabinet_. C. W. Wynn, _succeeded_ Feb. , 1822, _in cabinet_. _Master of the mint_ Earl of Clancarty, _not in cabinet_. W. W. Pole (1821 Lord Maryborough), _succeeded_ Sept. , 1814, _in cabinet_. T. Wallace, _succeeded_ Oct. , 1823, _not in cabinet_. _Duchy of Lancaster_ C. B. Bathurst (_before_ C. Bragge). N. Vansittart (March, 1823, Lord Bexley), _succeeded_ Feb. , 1823. _Without office_ Earl Camden (Sept. , 1812, Marquis Camden), _in cabinet_. _Lord-lieutenant Ireland_ Duke of Richmond, _not in cabinet_. Viscount Whitworth (1815 Earl Whitworth), _succeeded_ Aug. , 1813, _not in cabinet_. Earl Talbot, _succeeded_ Oct. , 1817, _not in cabinet_. Marquis Wellesley, _succeeded_ Dec. , 1821, _not in cabinet_. _Secretary at war_ Viscount Palmerston, _not in cabinet_. 

 7. CANNING, APRIL, 1827. 

_First lord of treasury } G. Canning. And chanc. Exchequer_ } { _home_ W. S. Bourne. { Marquis of Lansdowne (_before_ Lord H. _Secretaries of { Petty), _succeeded_ July. State_ { _foreign_ Viscount Dudley. { _war and } Viscount Goderich (_before_ F. J. { colonies_ } Robinson). _Lord president_ Earl of Harrowby. _Lord chancellor_ Lord Lyndhurst. _Lord privy seal_ Duke of Portland (_after_ July, _without office in cabinet_). Earl of Carlisle, _succeeded_ July. _Lord high admiral_ Duke of Clarence, _not in cabinet_. _Board of trade and } W. Huskisson. Treasurer of navy_ }_Board of control_ C. W. Wynn. _Master of the mint_ T. Wallace, _not in cabinet_. G. Tierney, _succeeded_ May, _in cabinet_. { C. Arbuthnot, _not in cabinet_. _First commissioner of { Earl of Carlisle _succeeded_ May, _in woods and forests_ { cabinet_. { W. S. Bourne, _succeeded_ July, _in { cabinet_. _Duchy of Lancaster_ Lord Bexley. _Without office_ Marquis of Lansdowne, May-July, _in cabinet_. _Lord-lieutenant Ireland_ Marquis Wellesley, _not in cabinet_. _Secretary at war_ Viscount Palmerston, _in cabinet_. 

 8. GODERICH, SEPTEMBER, 1827. 

_First lord of treasury_ Viscount Goderich. { _home_ Marquis of Lansdowne. _Secretaries of { _foreign_ Earl (_before_ Viscount) Dudley. State_ { _war and } W. Huskisson. { colonies_ }_Lord president_ Duke of Portland. _Lord chancellor_ Lord Lyndhurst. _Lord privy seal_ Earl of Carlisle. _Chancellor of exchequer_ J. C. Herries. _Lord high admiral_ Duke of Clarence, _not in cabinet_. _Ordnance_ Marquis of Anglesey, _in cabinet_. _Board of trade and } C. Grant. Treasurer of navy_ }_Board of control_ C. W. Wynn. _Master of the mint_ G. Tierney. _First commissioner of } W. S. Bourne. Woods and forests_ }_Duchy of Lancaster_ Lord Bexley. _Lord-lieutenant Ireland_ Marquis Wellesley, _not in cabinet_. _Secretary at war_ Viscount Palmerston. 

9. WELLINGTON, JANUARY, 1828. 

_First lord of treasury_ Duke of Wellington. { _home_ R. (May, 1830, Sir R. ) Peel. _Secretaries of { _foreign_ Earl Dudley. State_ { Earl of Aberdeen, _succeeded_ June, 1828. { _war and } W. Huskisson. { colonies_ } Sir G. Murray, _succeeded_ May, 1828. _Lord president_ Earl Bathurst. _Lord chancellor_ Lord Lyndhurst. _Lord privy seal_ Lord Ellenborough. Earl of Rosslyn, _succeeded_ June, 1829. _Chancellor of exchequer_ H. Goulburn. _Admiralty_ Duke of Clarence (_lord high admiral_), _not in cabinet_. Viscount Melville, _succeeded_ Sept. , 1828, _in cabinet_. _Board of trade and } C. Grant. Treasurer of navy_ } W. V. Fitzgerald, _succeeded_ June, 1828. _Board of control_ Viscount Melville. Lord Ellenborough, _succeeded_ Sept. , 1828. _Master of the mint_ J. C. Herries. _Duchy of Lancaster_ Earl of Aberdeen, _in cabinet_. C. Arbuthnot, _succeeded_ June, 1828, _not in cabinet_. _Lord-lieutenant Ireland_ Marquis of Anglesey, Feb. , 1828, _not in cabinet_. Duke of Northumberland, _succeeded_ Feb. , 1829, _not in cabinet_. _Secretary at war_ Viscount Palmerston, _in cabinet_. Sir H. Hardinge, _succeeded_ May, 1828, _not in cabinet_. 

 10. GREY, NOVEMBER, 1830. 

_First lord of treasury_ Earl Grey (_before_ Viscount Howick). { _home_ Viscount Melbourne. _Secretaries of { _foreign_ Viscount Palmerston. State_ { _war and { Viscount Goderich. { colonies_ { E. G. Stanley, _succeeded_ March, 1833. { { T. S. Rice, _succeeded_ June, 1834. _Lord president_ Marquis of Lansdowne. _Lord chancellor_ Lord Brougham. _Lord privy seal_ Lord Durham. Earl of Ripon (_before_ Viscount Goderich) _succeeded_ April, 1833. Earl of Carlisle, _succeeded_ June, 1834. _Chancellor of exchequer_ Viscount Althorp. _Admiralty_ Sir J. R. Graham. Lord Auckland, _succeeded_ June, 1834. _Board of trade_ Lord Auckland, _not in cabinet_. C. P. Thomson, _succeeded_ June, 1834. _Board of control_ C. Grant. _Master of mint_ Lord Auckland, _not in cabinet_. J. Abercromby, _succeeded_ June, 1834, _in cabinet_. _Duchy of Lancaster_ Lord Holland, _in cabinet_. _Postmaster-general_ Duke of Richmond, _in cabinet_. Marquis of Conyngham, _succeeded_ June, 1834, _not in cabinet_. _Paymaster of forces_ Lord J. Russell, _admitted to cabinet_ June, 1831. _Without office_ Earl of Carlisle (to June, 1834). _Lord-lieutenant Ireland_ Marquis of Anglesey, _not in cabinet_. Marquis Wellesley, _succeeded_ Sept. , 1833, _not in cabinet_. _Chief secretary for Ireland_ E. G. Stanley, _admitted to cabinet_ June, 1831. Sir J. C. Hobhouse, _succeeded_ March, 1833, _not in cabinet_. E. J. Littleton, _succeeded_ May, 1833, _not in cabinet_. _Secretary at war_ C. W. Wynn, _not in cabinet_. Sir H. Parnell, _succeeded_ April, 1831, _not in cabinet_. Sir J. Hobhouse, _succeeded_ Feb. , 1832, _not in cabinet_. E. Ellice, _succeeded_ April, 1833, _admitted to cabinet_ June, 1834. 

 11. MELBOURNE, JULY, 1834. 

_First lord of treasury_ Viscount Melbourne. { _home_ Viscount Duncannon. _Secretaries of { _foreign_ Viscount Palmerston. State_ { _war and } T. S. Rice. { colonies_ }_Lord president_ Marquis of Lansdowne. _Lord chancellor_ Lord Brougham. _Lord privy seal_ Earl of Mulgrave. _Chancellor of exchequer_ Viscount Althorp. _Admiralty_ Lord Auckland. _Board of trade and } C. P. Thompson. Treasurer of navy_ }_Board of control_ C. Grant. _Master of mint_ J. Abercromby. _First commissioner of } Sir J. C. Hobhouse, _in cabinet_. Woods and forests_ }_Duchy of Lancaster_ Lord Holland. _Paymaster of forces_ Lord J. Russell. _Lord-lieutenant Ireland_ Marquis Wellesley, _not in cabinet_. _Secretary at war_ E. Ellice. 

 PROVISIONAL ADMINISTRATION, NOVEMBER, 1834. 

_First lord of treasury_ Duke of Wellington. { _home_ Duke of Wellington. _Secretaries of { _foreign_ Duke of Wellington. State_ { _war and } Duke of Wellington. { colonies_ }_Lord chancellor_ Lord Lyndhurst. _Chancellor of exchequer_ Lord Denman. 

 12. PEEL, DECEMBER, 1834. 

_First lord of treasury } Sir R. Peel. And chanc. Exchequer_ } { _home_ H. Goulburn. _Secretaries of { _foreign_ Duke of Wellington. State_ { _war and } Earl of Aberdeen. { colonies_ }_Lord president_ Earl of Rosslyn. _Lord chancellor_ Lord Lyndhurst. _Lord privy seal_ Lord Wharncliffe. _Admiralty_ Earl de Grey. _Ordnance_ Sir G. Murray, _in cabinet_. _Board of trade and } A. Baring. Master of the mint_ }_Board of control_ Lord Ellenborough. _Paymaster of forces_ Sir E. Knatchbull. _Lord-lieutenant Ireland_ Earl of Haddington, _not in cabinet_. _Secretary at war_ J. C. Herries. 

 13. MELBOURNE, APRIL, 1835. 

_First lord of treasury_ Viscount Melbourne. { _home_ Lord J. Russell. _Secretaries of { _foreign_ Viscount Palmerston. State_ { _war and } C. Grant (May, 1835, Lord Glenelg). { colonies_ }_Lord president_ Marquis of Lansdowne. _Lord chancellor_ Great seal in commission. Lord Cottenham, _appointed_ Jan. , 1836. _Lord privy seal_ Viscount Duncannon. _Chancellor of exchequer_ T. S. Rice. _Admiralty_ Lord Auckland. Earl of Minto, _succeeded_ Sept. , 1835. _Board of trade_ C. P. Thompson. _Board of control_ Sir J. C. Hobhouse. _Duchy of Lancaster_ Lord Holland, _in cabinet_. _Lord-lieutenant Ireland_ Earl of Mulgrave, _not in cabinet_. _Secretary at war_ Viscount Howick. 

FOOTNOTES:

[142] On May 23, 1812, after Perceval's death, the Earl ofBuckinghamshire was appointed chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster. 

[143] Also treasurer of the navy. 

INDEX. 

Abbot, Charles (afterwards Lord Colchester), speaker, 36, 61, 72, 85, 238. 

Abdallah, Pasha of Acre, 393. 

Abercromby, James (afterwards Lord Dunfermline), master of the mint, 346; speaker, 354. 

Abercromby, Sir Ralph, general, 6, 346. 

Aberdeen, 306, 348. 

Aberdeen, Earl of (Gordon), 138; chancellor of the duchy, 231; foreign secretary, 236, 263, 264, 268, 352, 376, 380; secretary for war and colonies, 352. 

Ĺbo, treaty of, 123. 

Abolition of slavery, acts for the, 46-48, 325-327, 438. 

Abolition of slave trade, 48, 143, 151, 152, 167, 188, 274, 279, 358, 438. 

Abrantes, 98. 

Abyssinia, 436. 

Academy, Royal. See London. 

Acarnania, 266. 

Acre, 393, 394. 

_Acte Additionnel_, the, 155. 

Adams, John Quincy, 128. 

Addington, Henry (afterwards Viscount Sidmouth), 25, 39, 50, 54, 68, 200, 202, 346; first lord of treasury and chancellor of exchequer, 1, 2, 11, 15, 16, 27, 34; relations with Pitt, 2, 24-29; attacked by Pitt, 30, 31; resignation, 31, 32; his adherents, 34, 36, 68, 81; becomes Viscount Sidmouth and lord president of the council, 35; resignation, 37; lord privy seal, 45; lord president of the council, 49; resignation, 49; lord president of the council, 76, 82; home secretary, 81, 83, 172, 177, 179, 180, 183; in cabinet without office, 199; retirement, 227. 

Addington, John Hiley, M. P. , 28, 36. 

Adelaide, 440. 

Adelaide, Princess of Saxe-Meiningen (afterwards queen of William IV. ), 184, 273, 277, 351, 375. 

Adige, river, 138. 

Adour, river, 115, 117. 

Adrianople, peace of, 267, 268. 

Ćgean islands, the, 263; sea, 224, 394. 

Ćtolia, 266. 

Afghánistán, 397, 402, 403, 412-414; treaty with East India Company, 403; first Afghán war, 403, 414. 

Africa, interior of, 436. 

Agra, 399, 409. 

Agriculture, condition of, 84, 433, 434. 

Ahmadnagar, 398. 

Airy, Sir George, 428. 

Aix, island, 69. 

Aix-la-Chapelle, conference of, 189-191, 377. 

Akkerman, treaty of, 260. 

Alava, Spanish admiral, 40. 

Albuera, battle, 103, 104. 

Albuquerque, Duke of, 100. 

Alcantara, 99. 

Alemtejo, province, 255. 

Alessandria, 213. 

Alexander the Great, 401, 413. 

Alexander I. , Tsar of Russia, 5, 7, 23, 37, 52, 59, 66, 78, 80, 81, 92, 104, 105, 124, 144-148, 151-153, 168, 189-191, 210-212, 214, 216-218, 224, 225, 232. 

Alexandria, 261, 264, 265, 393, 413; battle and capitulation of, 6; retention by England, 19; expeditions to, 52, 57, 264; convention of, 264, 265. 

Algarve, province, 389. 

Algeciras, 8. 

Algiers, Dey of, 187, 188; bombardment of, 188; conquest of, 269. 

Algoa bay, 438. 

Alliance, La Belle, 164. 

"All the Talents" ministry. See ministries, Grenville's. 

Almaraz, 106. 

Almeida, 100, 102, 103. 

Almora, treaty of, 405. 

Alps, the, 138. 

Alsace, 143, 168. 

Alten, Count, 162. 

Althorp, Viscount (afterwards third Earl Spencer), 230, 234; chancellor of the exchequer, 279, 280, 283, 286, 291, 297, 321-323, 328, 330, 334, 335, 343-345; resignation, 346; chancellor of the exchequer, 347, 349, 350, 373. 

Amager, island, 4. 

Amascoas, battle, 390. 

_Ambigu, L'_, newspaper, 12. 

Amelia, Princess (daughter of George III. ), 74. 

America, British North, 85, 225. See also Canada. 

America, South, 205, 226. See also Spain and Portugal. 

Amherst, Earl, governor-general of Bengal, 408, 409. 

Amherstburg, 141. 

Amiens, 10; treaty of, 16, 17, 19, 20, 208, 398; negotiations, 7-12; preliminary treaty, 9, 13, 14; definitive treaty, 12, 13, 435. 

Amír Khán, Pindárí leader, 407. 

Andalusia, 94, 100, 102, 106, 107. 

Anglesey, Marquis of. See Paget, Lord. 

Angoulęme, Duke of. See Louis Antoine, dauphin. 

Ansbach, 43. 

Anti-Duelling Association, 251. 

Antioch, 393. 

Antwerp, 43, 64, 65, 200, 378, 380, 382, 386. 

Apsley House. See London. 

Aragon, 100. 

Arakan, 408, 409. 

Aranjuez, 87, 92, 93; treaty of, 6. 

Arapiles hills, the, 107. 

Archangel, 310. 

Archipelago, the, 261. 

Arcis-sur-Aube, battle, 145. 

Arcot, 400. 

Arden, Lord (Perceval), 50. 

Argáum, battle, 399. 

Argentine, the (La Plata), 190. 

_Argus_, the, American ship, 141. 

Arkwright, Sir Richard, 83. 

Arta, gulf of, 266, 392. 

Artois, Count of. See Charles X. Of France. 

Ascot races, 148. 

Ashley, Lord (Ashley-Cooper), afterwards Earl of Shaftesbury, 327, 328. 

Asia Minor, 394, 413. 

Aspern, 63. 

Aspropotamo, river, 268. 

Assam, 408, 409. 

Assaye, battle, 399. 

Astorga, 93-95. 

Attwood, Thomas, M. P. , 335. 

Auchmuty, Sir Samuel, 56, 81. 

Auckland, first Lord (Eden), president of the board of trade, 34, 346. 

Auckland, second Lord (Eden), afterwards Earl of, first lord of the admiralty, 346, 357; governor-general of India, 363, 412. 

Auerstädt, battle, 47. 

Augusta, Princess of Hesse, 184. 

Augusta, Princess (daughter of George III. ), 184 n. 

Austen, Jane, 422. 

Austerlitz, battle, 42, 43, 51, 60. 

Australia, 436, 438-440; New South Wales, 438, 439; Queensland, 439; South Australia, 440; Victoria, 439; West Australia, 439. 

Austria, 17, 54, 58, 59, 62, 78, 80, 124, 214, 215, 220, 264, 267, 391; guarantees independence of Malta, 13; treaty with France, 14; third coalition, 37, 38, 41; Ulm and peace of Pressburg, 42; struggle with France, 61-64; treaty with England, 63; war with Bavaria, 63; piece of Vienna, 64, 66; national bankruptcy, 81; treaty with France, 122; attacks North Italy, 133; diplomacy, 132, 134-137, 144, 187-189, 217; truce with Russia, 135; treaty of Ried, 137; treaty of Teplitz, 137; war with France, 137, 142; alliance with Murat, 143; campaign of 1814, 118, 143-145; treaty of Chaumont, 144, 145, 168, 186, 191, 377; treaty of Fontainebleau, 145, 146; first treaty of Paris, 147, 149, 151, 156, 167, 378; congress of Vienna, 149, 151-153, 166, 167, 186, 188-190, 376, 379, 381, 388; secret treaty of Vienna, 153; acquires Venetia and Lombardy, 166; second treaty of Paris, 167, 168, 376; holy alliance, 168; treaties with the Two Sicilies, Tuscany, Modena and Parma, 187; conference of Aix-la-Chapelle, 189-191; congress of Troppau, 211-214, 395, 396; congress of Laibach, 212, 223; army in Italy, 212, 213, 216; congress of Verona, 216-219, 222, 223, 392; conference at London, 222; conference at St. Petersburg, 224; joins conference of London, 379-386, 392; secret convention at Münchengrätz, 395, 396; convention at Berlin, 396. 

Ava. See Burma. 

Azores, islands, 259, 388. 

Azzara, Chevalier, 21. 

Bacon, Lord, 424. 

Badajoz, 99, 102-106, 108, 113, 147; treaty of, 6. 

Baden, 34, 189. 

Baghdad, 413. 

Bailey, Old. See London. 

Baird, David (afterwards Sir David), general, 6, 47, 93-95. 

Balkans, the, 263, 266, 267. 

Baltic, the, 52, 78, 90, 199, 310. 

Baltic, battle of the, 4, 5, 420. 

Baltimore, 146. 

Banda Oriental. See Uruguay. 

Bank charter acts, 325, 326, 330, 331. 

Bank of England, 183, 205, 206, 303; notes made legal tender, 182. 

Bank restriction act, 16. 

Bankes, Henry, M. P. , 157. 

Banks, Sir Joseph, 428. 

Barcelona, 88, 110, 220. 

Barclay, Commander, 139. 

Barham, Lord (Sir Charles Middleton), first lord of the admiralty, 36. 

Baring, Alexander (afterwards Lord Ashburton), 304; president of board of trade and master of the mint, 352. 

Baring, Francis (afterwards Lord Northbrook), 346. 

Barlow, Sir George, governor-general of Bengal, 401. 

Barnstaple, 193. 

Baroda, Gáekwár of, 405, 406. 

Barrosa, 102. 

Basque provinces, 390, 391. 

Basque roads, 69. 

Bass, George, 439. 

Bassein, treaty of, 398, 399, 405. 

Batavian republic. See Holland. 

Bath, 43, 362. 

Bath (Holland), 65. 

Bathurst, Charles Bragge-. See Bragge, Charles. 

Bathurst, Earl, president of the board of trade, 50, 68; secretary for war and colonies, 82, 109, 112; resignation, 227; lord president of the council, 231. 

Battersea Fields. See London. 

Bautzen, battle, 135. 

Bavaria, 41, 42, 66, 136, 152, 153, 166, 189, 392; war with Austria, 63; treaty of Ried, 137. 

Baylen, 58, 88, 89, 92. 

Bayonne, 88, 89, 92, 112, 115-117, 119; road to, 111. 

Beachy Head, 8. 

Beauharnais, Auguste, Duke of Leuchtenberg, 382. 

Beauharnais, Eugčne, viceroy of Italy, 138. 

Bedford, Duke of (Russell), lord lieutenant of Ireland, 49. 

Beilan, pass, 393. 

Beira, province, 255, 257. 

Belgium, 143, 144, 150, 158, 159, 161, 162, 200, 377; Prince of Orange proclaimed, 138; troops, 156; Waterloo campaign, 157-164; united to Holland, 166; revolution, 276, 376-382; elects Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg king, 383; war with Holland, 384-386, 393; convention with Holland, 387. 

Belgrade, 80. 

Bell, Henry, 427, 434. 

Belleisle, 388. 

_Bellerophon_, the, British ship, 165, 168, 169. 

Belliard, French general, 383, 384. 

Bellingham, John, 76. 

Benevente, 94, 95. 

Bengal, 310, 330, 400, 404, 408, 410. 

Bentham, Jeremy, 338, 341, 420, 421, 437. 

Bentinck, Lord William, 114, 143; governor-general of India, 410-412. 

Berár, 399. See Nágpur. 

Berbice, 9. 

Beresford, Lord George, 242. 

Beresford, William (afterwards Lord and later Viscount), 47, 96, 103, 109, 118, 119, 211, 222. 

Berezina, river, 125. 

Berkeley, Vice-admiral, 127. 

Berkshire, 281, 341. 

Berlin, 53, 81, 134, 310; convention at, 396. 

Berlin decree, the, 55, 403. 

Bernadotte, Marshal (afterwards Charles XIV. Of Sweden), 54, 80, 136, 137, 143, 150. 

Berry, Duke of, 210. 

Bessarabia, 123. 

Bessborough, Earl of (Ponsonby), 287. 

Bessičres, Marshal, 88, 92. 

Betanzos, 95. 

Bexley, Lord. See Vansittart, Nicholas. 

Bhartpur, 399, 403, 408, 409. 

Bickersteth, Henry (afterwards Lord Langdale), 363. 

Bidassoa, river, 112, 114, 115. 

Bilbao, 111, 391. 

Birmingham, 178, 236, 272, 285, 295, 297, 304, 335, 435. 

Biscay, province, 109, 389, 391. 

Bishopp, British officer, 130. 

Blackburn, Francis, attorney-general for Ireland, 313, 314. 

Blackfriars. See London. 

Blackheath. See London. 

_Blackwood's Magazine_, 423-425. 

Bladensburg, battle, 146. 

Blake, Spanish general, 88. 

Blandford, Marquis of (Churchill), afterwards Duke of Marlborough, 271, 284. 

Blanketeers, the, 176. 

Blomfield, bishop of London, 324, 341, 373. 

Blücher, Marshal, 138, 143-145, 148; Waterloo campaign, 156-161, 163-164. 

Bohemia, 64, 137. 

Bombay, 310, 398. 

Bona, 188. 

Bonaparte, Joseph, 10-12, 21; King of Naples, 47, 53; King of Spain, 59, 88, 89, 92, 98, 104, 106, 107, 109-111, 122, 123, 190. 

Bonaparte, Josephine (wife of Napoleon), 382. 

Bonaparte, Louis, King of Holland, 46, 53, 78. 

Bonaparte, Napoleon, 6, 19, 39, 41, 42, 51, 53-56, 58, 62, 64-66, 78, 80-82, 87-89, 91, 92, 95, 96, 99-102, 104, 105, 109-112, 114, 115, 117, 119, 120-126, 128, 143, 145, 148, 150, 168, 171, 186, 199, 382; concordat with the pope, 7; refuses overtures of peace, 8; meets Cornwallis, 10; elected president of the Italian republic, 12, 17; plans for the invasion of England, 8, 35, 38, 41, 71; attacked by French exiles in London, 12, 17; consul for life, 15, 17; Fox presented to him, 15, 16; annexes Piedmont, 17; mediates in Switzerland and Germany, 17; schemes of colonial expansion, 18; Whitworth, 20-22; declared emperor, 33, 34; plots against his life, 33, 34; coronations, 35, 37, 38; Ulm and Austerlitz, 42, 64; Jena and Auerstädt, 47, 55, 64; Eylau, 51, 56; Friedland, 52, 122, 401; meets Alexander, 52; "continental system, " 53, 55-58, 78-80, 83, 87, 105, 171, 403; manifesto, 57; at Erfurt, 59; Eckmühl and Wagram, 60, 63; Borodino, 63, 124; Leipzig, 63, 114, 118, 133, 137, 138; marriage with Maria Louisa, 78; fiscal policy, 79; first abdication, 82, 118, 145; in Spain, 92, 94; war with Russia, 121-126, 402; campaign of 1813, 132-138; Lützen and Bautzen, 135; Dresden, 137; campaign of 1814, 143-145; La Rothičre, 144; Arcis-sur-Aube, 145; treaty of Fontainebleau, 145, 146; Elba, 145, 146, 153, 201; "The Hundred Days, " 151, 153-165; Ligny, 158, 159; Quatre Bras, 159; Waterloo, 160-165; second abdication, 165; St. Helena, 166, 167, 169, 170, 402; designs on India, 401-403. 

Bond, Nathaniel, M. P. , 36. 

Bonnymuir, 193. 

Bordeaux, 118, 154; road to, 117. 

Bordeaux, Henry, Duke of. See Chambord, Count of. 

Borisov, battle, 125. 

Borodino, battle, 63, 124, 164. 

Bosphorus, the, 267, 394. 

Boston (United States), 142. 

Botany Bay, 438. 

Boulogne, 8, 35, 38. 

Boulton, Matthew, 435. 

Bourbon, island, 69, 403. 

Bourbon, Duke of, 154. 

Bourne, W. Sturges, 341; home secretary, 227; first commissioner of woods and forests, 228, 229. 

Braga, 258. 

Bragge, Charles (afterwards Bragge-Bathurst), 28, 68, 202; chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, 81, 82, 174; president of the board of control, 199. 

Brahmaputra, the, 408, 409. 

Braine l'Alleud, Belgian village, 162. 

Brand, M. P. , 284. 

Brazil, 89, 190, 211, 221, 222, 253, 254, 259, 388; commercial treaty with England, 222. 

Brereton, Colonel, 298. 

Breslau, 134, 135. 

Brest, 39, 55. 

Brewster's _Encyclopćdia_, 424. 

_Bridgwater Treatises_, the, 338. 

Brienne, 143. 

Brighton, 350. 

Brindley, James, 434. 

Bristol, 175, 297, 298, 302, 309, 435. 

British Association, the, 338. 

Brittany, 154. 

Brock, Major-general, 129, 130. 

Broke, Captain, 142. 

Brooks's club. See London. 

Brougham, Henry (afterwards Lord Brougham and Vaux), 48, 172, 173, 182, 193-196, 207, 228, 234, 241, 242, 274, 277, 278, 280, 357-359, 363, 423, 431; lord chancellor, 281, 282, 287, 295, 325, 338, 343, 345, 346, 348, 351; legal reforms, 332, 333, 358, 359, 361. 

Broussa, 393. 

Brown, American commander, 146. 

Bruce, Michael, 436. 

Brünn, 42. 

Brunswick, 196. 

Brunswick (Charles), Duke of, 184 n. 

Brunswick (Frederick William), Duke of, 159. 

Brunswick, troops, 158. 

Brunswick clubs, 243. 

Brussels, 158-161, 378, 379, 381, 383, 384, 387. 

_Bucentaure_, the, French ship, 40. 

Bucharest, treaty of, 123. 

Buckingham, Marquis of (Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville), afterwards Duke of, 199, 295. 

Buckingham palace. See London. 

Buckinghamshire, 281. 

Buckinghamshire, third Earl of (Hobart), 1. 

Buckinghamshire, fourth Earl of. See Hobart, Lord. 

Buckland, William, Dean of Westminster, 340. 

Buenos Ayres, 47, 56, 57, 205, 216, 223. 

Bukowina, 224. 

Bulgaria, 263, 267. 

Bull-baiting, 15. 

"Bullion committee, " the, 73. 

Bülow, Frederick William von, General, afterwards Count, 143, 145, 163, 164. 

Bulwer, Edward Lytton (afterwards Lord Lytton), 426. 

Burdett, Sir Francis, M. P. , 51, 72, 175, 226, 240-242, 284, 285, 298, 374. 

Burgess, Thomas, bishop of St. Davids, 430. 

Burgos, 92, 108, 110. 

Burgundy, 154. 

Burke, Edmund, 308, 415, 422. 

Burlington Heights, 139, 140. 

Burma, first Burmese war, 408, 409; treaty with East India Company, 409. 

Burnes, Sir Alexander, 413, 414. 

Burns, Robert, 415. 

Burrard, Sir Harry, general, 90, 91, 93. 

Bussaco, 101, 113. 

Butrinto, 188. 

Buxton, Thomas Fowell, M. P. , 326, 327. 

Bylandt, Dutch general, 162. 

Byron, Lord, 233, 417-419. 

Cachar, 411. 

Cadiz, 8, 39-41, 89, 96, 100, 102-104, 109, 256. 

Cadoudal, Georges, 33. 

Cairo, capture of, 6. 

Calabria, 47. 

Calcott, Sir Augustus, 427. 

Calcutta, 398, 402, 408, 412. 

Calder, Sir Robert, 39. 

Caledonian canal, 434. 

Cambridge. See Universities. 

Cambridge (Adolphus), Duke of (son of George III. ), 184, 185. 

Cambridgeshire, 175 n. 

Camden, Earl (Pratt), afterwards Marquis Camden, secretary for war and colonies, 34, 37; lord president of the council, 37, 50, 66, 67; in cabinet without office, 76, 82. 

Camelford, 193. 

Campbell, Lord, 361, 363. 

Campbell, Sir Archibald, 409. 

Campbell, Sir Neil, 153. 

Campbell, Thomas, 420, 431. 

Canada, 128, 147, 157, 225, 312, 437, 438; attacked by the United States, 129, 130, 139-141, 146. 

Candia. See Crete. 

Cannes, 153. 

Canning, George, 2, 24, 68, 76, 84, 85, 172, 209, 231, 232, 238, 240, 245, 279, 284, 285, 319, 339, 358, 423; _jeux d'esprit_, 26, 28; foreign secretary, 50, 52-54, 59, 66, 92; resignation, 67; president of the board of control, 174, 176, 185, 199, 201, 406; foreign secretary, 197, 199-201, 207, 208, 216, 218-226, 232-235, 241, 242, 255-257, 259, 260, 390, 392, 408; first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer, 227, 228, 273, 380; death, 228, 229. 

Canning, Sir Stratford (afterwards Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe), 225, 266. 

Canterac, Spanish general, 223. 

Canterbury, archbishop of (Howley), 299, 337, 373. 

Cape Finisterre, 39. 

Cape Formoso, 151. 

Cape of Good Hope, 9, 47, 167, 398, 403, 438. 

Cape St. Vincent, battle, 389. 

Cape Trafalgar, battle, 40, 43, 69. 

Capodistrias, Greek president, 267, 268, 392. 

Carcassonne, road to, 119. 

Carinthia, 66. 

Carlile, agitator, 282. 

Carlisle, sixth Earl of (Howard), first commissioner of woods and forests, 228, 357; lord privy seal, 228; in cabinet without office, 280; lord privy seal, 346, 347. 

Carlos, Don. 389-391. 

Carlsbad, 189. 

Carlton House. See London. 

Carlyle, Jane Welsh, 424. 

Carlyle, Thomas, 417, 434, 427. 

Carnot, French statesman, 155, 165. 

Caroline of Brunswick, Princess of Wales (afterwards queen of George IV. ), 48, 85, 86, 183, 184, 192-197, 200. 

Carr, R. J. , bishop of Worcester, 299. 

Cartwright, Edmund, 83. 

Cartwright, Major, 175. 

Casimir-Perier, French premier, 387. 

Caspian Sea, 310. 

Castalla, 109, 114. 

Castańos, Francisco Xavier de, 93. 

Castlereagh, Viscount (Stewart), afterwards second Marquis of Londonderry, 2, 68, 71, 73, 100, 201, 202, 208, 209, 228, 238; president of the board of control, 15, 34; secretary for war and colonies, 37, 50, 52, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65-67, 90, 92, 200; resignation, 67; foreign secretary, 76, 82, 85, 123, 144-147, 153, 156, 169, 171-173, 183, 189, 191, 195, 199, 210-212, 214, 217, 260, 387; death, 199-201, 216, 408. 

Catalonia, 88, 92, 112, 114, 115, 118. 

Cathcart, Lord (afterwards Viscount, later Earl of), 43, 54, 123, 134, 136. 

Catholic Apostolic Church, 339. 

Catholic Association, 240, 241, 244-246. 

Catholic emancipation, 49, 76, 200, 207, 226, 230, 236-249, 431; abandoned, 2, 34; opposition to, 32, 34, 45, 50, 208, 227; carried, 249. 

Cato Street conspiracy, 192, 193. 

Cattaro, 142. 

Caulaincourt, French diplomatist, 144. 

Cawnpur, 399. 

Census, 300, 311, 312. 

Ceylon, 9, 167. 

Chadwick, Edwin, 341. 

Chambéry, 149. 

Chambord, Count de, 210, 376. 

Chambray, Marquis de, 125. 

Champagne, 143, 144. 

Champlain, lake, 140, 146. 

Chandos, Marquis of (Brydges-Chandos-Temple-Grenville), afterwards second Duke of Buckingham, 295, 299; "Chandos clause, " 295. 

Chantrey, Sir Francis Legatt, 427. 

Charity Commission, 182. 

Charleroi, 158, 161. 

Charles, Count of Artois (afterwards Charles X. Of France), 34, 116, 154, 224, 376. 

Charles IV. , King of Spain, 87, 88. 

Charles XII. , King of Sweden, 54. 

Charles XIII. , King of Sweden and Norway, 54, 150. 

Charles, Archduke, 63. 

Charles Albert, Prince, of Carignano (afterwards King of Sardinia), 213. 

Charles Emmanuel II. , King of Sardinia, 10. 

Charles Felix, King of Sardinia, 213. 

Charlotte, Princess (daughter of the Prince Regent), 86, 174, 183-185, 194, 195, 268. 

Charlotte, Queen-dowager of Würtemburg (daughter of George III. ), 184 n. 

Charlotte, queen of George III. , 74, 184, 185. 

Charlotte, queen of John VI. Of Portugal, 253, 254. 

Chartism, 308. 

Chassé, D. H. , Dutch general, 162. 

Chateauguay, battle of river, 141. 

Chatham, Earl of (John Pitt), lord president of the council, 1; master-general of the ordnance, 1, 24, 50, 64, 65, 71; resignation, 72. 

Châtillon-sur-Seine, congress at, 118, 144. 

Chaumont, treaty of, 144, 145; extended at Paris, 168, 186, 191, 377. 

Chauncey, Commodore, 140. 

Cherbourg, 376. 

Chesapeake Bay, 146; estuary, 141. 

_Chesapeake_, the, American frigate, 127, 142, 147. 

Chesney, Francis Rawdon, colonel, 413. 

Chester, bishop of (Sumner), 341. 

Chichagov, Russian general, 125. 

Chichester, first Earl of (Pelham), 1. 

Chile, 190, 221. 

China, 86, 310, 325, 328, 329; coolies, 438. 

Chios, island, 261, 263. 

Chippewa, 130, 146. 

Chiswick, 228. 

Chittagong, 408. 

Chítu, Pindárí leader, 406, 407. 

Cholera, 299, 309, 311, 407. 

Christian, Prince (afterwards Christian VIII. Of Denmark), 143, 150. 

Chrystler's Farm, battle, 141. 

Church, Sir Richard, general, 262, 266. 

Church, Irish, temporalities act, 321-325. 

Church rates, 373, 374. 

Church, Scottish, 360 n. , 424. 

Church, states of the. See Papal states. 

Cilicia, 394. 

Cinque Ports, 23. 

Cintra, convention of, 60, 91. 

Cisalpine republic (Italian republic), 9, 12, 17, 38. 

Ciudad Real, 96. 

Ciudad Rodrigo, 100, 102-108. 

Civil list, 15, 173, 174, 192, 278, 282, 283, 290. 

Clancarty, Earl of (Le Poer-Trench), 61, 68. 

Clare election, 236, 237, 243, 245, 250, 251, 313. 

Clare, Earl of (Fitzgibbon), 3. 

Clarence (William), Duke of. See William IV. 

Clarke, Mrs. , 60, 61. 

Clarkson, Thomas, philanthropist, 48. 

Clausel, General, 107, 108, 111-113. 

Cleves, 43. 

Clinton, Sir Henry, general, 162. 

Clive, Lord, 396. 

Clyde, the, 428, 434. 

Coa, river, 110. 

Cobbett, William, 177, 207, 282, 318, 335, 343, 423; _Weekly Register_, 72, 175, 204, 422, 423. 

Coblenz, 138. 

Cochrane, Lord (afterwards Earl of Dundonald), 51, 69, 72, 88, 175, 190, 221, 222, 233. 

Codrington, Admiral, 230, 233, 234, 264. 

Coercion acts (Irish), 330-322, 324, 325, 346, 347. 

Coimbra, 98, 101. 

Colchester, Lord. See Abbot, Charles. 

Cole, General (afterwards Sir) G. L. 103. 

Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 416, 417, 425. 

Colle, La, Mill, 146. 

Collingwood, Admiral, 39, 40, 41, 57, 69, 88. 

_Collingwood, the Lord_, British ship, 216. 

Cologne, 43. 

Colombia, 216, 223. 

Combermere, Lord (Cotton), afterwards Viscount, 409. 

Combination laws, 204, 207. 

_Comet_, the, steamboat, 427, 434. 

Concordat, the, 7. 

Congreve rockets, 117. 

"Conservative, " origin of name, 319. 

Constable, John, 427. 

Constantinople, 57, 214, 216, 233, 259, 261, 267, 387, 393, 394. 

_Constitution_, the, American frigate, 131, 132. 

Continental system, the, 33, 55-58, 66, 78-80, 83, 87, 105, 126, 128, 171, 403. 

Convention act (Irish), 240. 

Conyngham, Marquis of, 346. 

Cook, Captain, 436, 438. 

Cooke, General, 162. 

Coorg, 411. 

Copenhagen, 3-5, 54, 55, 57. See Baltic, battle of the. 

Copley, Sir John (afterwards Lord Lyndhurst), 226, 242, 281, 295, 302-304, 359, 361-363, 365, 369-372; lord chancellor, 227, 231, 243, 246, 249, 352. 

Corn, price of, 7 n. , 84, 85, 172, 174, 203, 370. 

Corn laws, 85, 173, 204, 207, 243, 306. 

Cornwall, 288. 

Cornwall (Canada), 141. 

Cornwall, revenues of duchy of, 15, 278. 

Cornwallis, Admiral, 39. 

Cornwallis, Marquis, 239; master-general of ordnance, 1; negotiates treaty of Amiens, 10-12; warns England, 17; governor-general of Bengal, 400, 401. 

Corporation act, 229, 334, 235, 242. 

Corporation act (Irish), 372. 

Coruńa, 39, 90, 92, 93; battle, 95, 96, 108. 

Cottenham, Lord. See Pepys, Sir Charles. 

Countries, the Low. See Belgium and Holland. 

Cowper, William, 415. 

Cox, David, 427. 

Cracow, 153, 166. 

Cradock, Sir John, 96. 

Craig, Sir James, 42; governor of Canada, 128, 129. 

Craufurd, Robert, general, 105. 

Crete, 261, 263, 266, 268. 

Criminal law, reform of, 51, 77, 194, 201, 369. 

Croker, John Wilson, 274, 303, 318. 

Crome, John, the elder, 427. 

Cronstadt fleet, 123. 

Cuba, 222. 

Cuesta, Spanish general, 88, 98, 99. 

Cumberland (Ernest), Duke of (son of George III. ), 184, 185, 197, 231, 235, 246, 274, 324, 367, 368. 

Curtis, Roman Catholic archbishop of Dublin, 243, 244. 

Curwen, John Christian, M. P. , 181, 182, 284. 

Cuttack, 399. 

Czartoryski, Prince Adam, 80. 

Czernowitz, 224. 

Dakáiti, 401. 

Dalmatia, 42, 142; Duke of. See Soult, Marshal. 

Dalrymple, Sir Hew, general, 90, 91. 

Danube, the, 41, 63, 77, 94, 124, 263, 310. 

Danubian principalities. See Moldavia and Wallachia. 

Danzig, surrender of, 52. 

Dardanelles, the, 55, 57, 188, 214, 215, 260, 265, 267, 394, 395. 

Darling, Governor, 440. 

Darlington, 435. 

Darnley, Earl of (Bligh), 54. 

Dartmouth, Earl of. See Lewisham, Viscount. 

Darwin, Charles, 428. 

Daulat Ráo Sindhia. See Sindhia. 

Davoűt, Marshal, 81, 136, 137. 

Davy, Sir Humphry, 428, 433. 

Dawson, George, M. P. , 243, 246. 

"Days, the Hundred. " See Bonaparte, Napoleon. 

Dearborn, American general, 130, 140. 

Decaen, French general, 18. 

Deccan, the, 407. 

Delaborde, French officer, 90. 

Delaware, estuary, 141. 

Delhi, 397-399, 406. 

Demerara, 9. 

Denman, Thomas (afterwards Lord Denman), 195. 

Denmark, 3-5, 53-55, 59, 69, 136, 190; treaties of Kiel, 143, 189; loses Norway, 166. 

Dennewitz, battle, 137. 

De Quincey, Thomas, 425. 

Derby, 296. 

Derby, twelfth Earl of (Smith-Stanley), 277. 

Derbyshire, 83. 

Derry, 243. 

Desnoëttes, General Lefebvre-, 88. 

Despard, Edward Marcus, colonel, 16. 

Detroit, 129, 138. 

Devonshire, 359. 

Devonshire, Duke of (Cavendish), 228. 

D'Eyncourt. See Tennyson, Charles. 

Dickens, Charles, 426. 

Diebitsch, Russian general, 266, 267, 310. 

Dijon, 145. 

Disraeli, Benjamin (afterwards Earl of Beaconsfield), 426. 

Dissenters, 306; disabilities of, 85, 234, 235, 353, 355, 430. 

Donauwörth, 41, 63. 

Dost Muhammad, Amír of Kábul, 414. 

Douro, the, 94, 98, 99, 110. 

Dover, 148, 195, 351, 435. 

Downs, the, 64. 

Drake, British envoy, 33. 

Dresden, 112, 114, 135; battle, 137. 

Dropmore, seat of Lord Grenville, 24. 

Drummond, Sir Gordon, 146. 

Dublin, 19, 77, 197, 240, 317, 371; castle, 23; police bill, 362; archbishop of (Whately), 317, 421, 422; Roman Catholic archbishop of (Curtis), 243, 244. 

Duckworth, Sir John, admiral, 57. 

Dudley, Viscount and Earl of. See Ward, J. W. 

Duhesme, French general, 88. 

Dumont, Pierre Étienne Louis, 420. 

Duncannon, Viscount (Ponsonby), afterwards Earl of Bessborough, 287; home secretary, 347; lord privy seal, 357. 

Duncombe, Thomas S. , M. P. , 374. 

Dundas, Sir David, commander-in-chief, 61, 62. 

Dundas, Henry (afterwards first Viscount Melville), 3, 24, 25, 30, 32, 68; first lord of the admiralty, 34; impeachment, 36. 

Dundas, Robert S. (afterwards second Viscount Melville), president of board of control, 68; first lord of the admiralty, 82; resignation, 227; president of board of control, 231; first lord of the admiralty, 243. 

Dundee, 306. 

Dupont, General, 88. 

Durham. See Universities. 

Durham, Lord (Lambton), afterwards Earl of, 345, 348; lord privy seal, 280, 287, 291; resignation, 325. 

East India Company. See India. 

East Retford, 235, 236. 

Ebrington, Viscount (Fortescue), afterwards second Earl Fortescue, 206, 303. 

Ebro, the, 89, 92, 110, 114. 

Ecclefechan, 424. 

Ecclesiastical commission, 355, 373. 

Eckmühl, battle, 63. 

Edgeworth, Maria, 422. 

Edgware Road. See London. 

Edinburgh, 306, 348. 

_Edinburgh Review_, the, 358, 423, 424. 

Education, national, 49, 51, 182, 193, 194, 358; Irish, 316, 317. 

Edwards, George, informer, 192. 

Egmont, Earl of (Perceval), 50. 

Egypt, 6, 9, 18, 57, 224, 225, 233, 262, 264, 265, 269, 396, 413; convention of Alexandria, 264, 265; peace of Kiutayeh, 394. 

Elba, island, 145, 146, 151, 153, 169, 201. 

Elbe, the, 55, 62, 133, 135, 137. 

Eldon, Lord (Scott), afterwards Earl of Eldon, 232, 234, 235, 238, 239, 244, 248, 249, 296, 319, 333, 353, 358, 362; lord chancellor, 1, 29, 30, 31, 49, 50, 51, 60, 67 n. , 74-76, 82, 85, 169, 172, 179, 180, 194-196, 202, 209; resignation, 227. 

Elections, general. See Parliament. 

Eliot, Lord (afterwards Earl of St. Germans), 390. 

Elizabeth, Princess (daughter of George III. ), 184 n. , 185. 

Ellenborough, first Lord (Law), lord chief justice, 45, 49, 169, 177. 

Ellenborough, second Lord, afterwards Earl (Law), 328, 329; lord privy seal, 231; president of the board of control, 243, 271, 352. 

Ellesmere canal, 434. 

Ellice, Edward, secretary at war, 346. 

Elphinstone, Mountstuart, 403. 

Elsinore, 4. 

Elvas, 93, 103. 

Embargo act (United States), 128. 

Emmet, Robert, 18, 23, 240. 

Empire, Holy Roman, dissolved, 46; treaty of Lunéville, 6, 17. 

Enghien, Duke of, murder of, 34, 35, 37. 

England, negotiates with France, 7-12; conquests, 9, 14, 47, 69, 81, 398, 403; signs treaty of Amiens, 12, 13, 398; industrial and agricultural depression, 13, 83, 171, 172, 174-180, 205-207, 270, 299, 312, 370; fresh discord with France, 16, 17; war declared against France, 22; preparations for invasion, 23; third coalition, 35, 37, 38, 41, 52; treaty with Russia, 37: treaty with Sweden, 38; expeditions to Naples, 42, 47, 63; Anglo-Hanoverian expedition to North Germany, 42, 43, 51; negotiations with France, 46; state of army in 1806, 51; in 1807, 59, 60; in 1813, 86; troops in Sweden, 52; troops in Denmark, 53, 54; orders in council, 55, 56, 126, 130, 171; commercial warfare, 58; Peninsular war, 59-63, 65, 66, 68, 71, 73, 76, 77, 82, 87-120, 129, 182; treaty with Spanish junta, 96; Walcheren expedition, 62-66, 99: treaty with Austria, 63; Sweden declares war on, 78; treaties with Russia and Sweden, 85, 123, 136; war with United States, 58, 82, 126-132, 138-142, 146, 147, 156, 171; treaty of Stockholm, 136; treaties of Reichenbach, 136; treaty of Teplitz, 137; treaty of Ried, 137; treaty of Kiel, 143; treaty of Chaumont, 144, 145, 168, 186, 191, 377; treaty of Fontainebleau, 145, 146; treaty of Ghent, 147, 156, 203; visit of the allied sovereigns, 147, 148; first treaty of Paris, 147, 149, 151, 156, 167, 378; treaty with Spain, 150; congress of Vienna, 149, 151-153, 156, 166, 168, 186-188, 190, 376, 379, 381, 388; Waterloo campaign, 156-165; second treaty of Paris, 167, 168, 376; union of Irish and English exchequers, 174; expedition against the Barbary States, 187, 188; conferences of Vienna, 189, 216, 217; conference of Aix-la-Chapelle, 189-191, 377; congress of Troppau, 211-215, 395, 396; the Eastern question, 213, 216, 232-234, 259-269, 392; congress of Verona, 216-219, 222, 223, 392; assists Portugal, 220, 221, 255-258; commercial treaty with Brazil, 322; conferences of London, 222, 262-268, 379-386, 392; conference at St. Petersburg, 224; treaty with United States, 225; treaty of London, 233, 234, 259, 260, 262-264, 266, 267; treaties with Portugal, 255; convention of Alexandria, 264, 265; convention with France and Holland, 387; triple and quadruple alliances, 389-391; treaties with Indian states, 398, 399; treaty with Persia, 402. 

Epirus, 188. 

Erfurt, 59, 92. 

Erie, lake, 139, 141. 

Erlon, d', French general, 159, 162, 163. 

Erskine, Lord, 77, 177; lord chancellor, 49. 

Esdremadura, 99, 106. 

Espinosa, battle, 92. 

Essequibo, 9. 

Essex, 175 n. 

Essling, 63. 

Etruria, kingdom of, 9. 

Euphrates, the, 413. 

Evans, De Lacy (afterwards Sir de Lacy), 343, 391. 

Eveleigh, Dr. , 429. 

Evora, convention at, 390. 

Ewart, William, M. P. , 369. 

Exchange, Royal. See London. 

Exeter, bishop of (Phillpotts), 324. 

Exmouth, Lord (Pellew), afterwards Viscount, 187, 188. 

Eylau, battle, 51, 199; campaign, 56. 

Fabvier, Colonel, 262. 

Factory acts, 326-328. 

Falmouth, 259. 

Faraday, Michael, 428. 

Fath Ali, Sháh of Persia, 402. 

Fauvelet, French agent, 19. 

Fawkes, Guy, 192. 

Ferdinand, Emperor of Austria, 396. 

Ferdinand III. , Grand Duke of Tuscany, 166. 

Ferdinand IV. , King of the Two Sicilies, 7, 47, 58, 166, 187, 211, 212, 216, 221. 

Ferdinand VII. , King of Spain, 87, 88, 103, 123, 150, 187, 190, 210, 215, 218, 222, 388, 389, 395. 

Ferrol, 39. 

Ferronays, De la, French foreign minister, 261. 

Finance, 15, 48, 49, 86, 172, 173, 198, 201-204, 206, 207, 226, 238, 235, 270, 283, 291, 334, 335, 347, 356, 369; income and property tax, 15, 23, 48, 49, 172, 173; currency reform, 74, 182, 183. 

Fines, act for abolition of, 325, 333. 

Finland, 54, 59, 122, 123, 125, 166. 

Finn, W. F. , M. P. , 367, 368. 

Fischer, Danish commander, 5. 

Fitzgerald, Vesey, M. P. , 236, 237. 

Fitzherbert, Mrs. , 194. 

Fitzwilliam, Earl, 14, 29, 32, 180; lord president of the council, 45; in cabinet without office, 49. 

Flaxman, John, 427. 

Fletcher, Colonel, 101. 

Fleurus, 158. 

Flinders, Matthew, 436, 439. 

Florence, 212, 216; treaty of, 7. 

Florida, 215. 

Flushing, 65, 71. 

Fontainebleau, 82, 118, 145; decree 79; treaties of, 87, 145, 146. 

Fort Erie, 130. 

Fortescue, first Earl, 296. 

Fort George, 130, 140, 141. 

Fort Sandusky, 139. 

Fouché, French politician, 155, 165, 168. 

Fox, Charles James, 14-16, 26, 27, 29-34, 200, 279, 372, 417; relations with George III. , 32, 33, 45, 46, 185; foreign secretary, 45, 46; abolition of slave trade, 46, 48; death, 46, 47, 49, 228. 

Foy, French general, 111, 112, 160. 

France, 13, 14, 17, 21, 39-41, 47, 54, 58, 64, 65, 69, 79, 88, 105, 119, 128, 130, 145, 150-153, 186, 187, 189-191, 205, 210, 212, 221, 223, 377, 398; treaties of Lunéville and Aranjuez, 6, 17; treaty of Florence, 7; negotiations resulting in treaty of Amiens, 7, 13; proposed invasion of England, 8; war declared against England, 22; alliance with Spain, 35; encroachments in Europe, 37; war with Austria, 38, 41, 42; war with Russia, 38, 41, 42, 51; "army of England, " 38, 42; peace of Pressburg, 42; treaty with the Two Sicilies, 42; treaty of Schönbrunn, 43; treaty with Prussia, 46, 55; war with Prussia, 47, 52; treaty of Tilsit, 52, 53, 55, 57, 59, 78, 87, 401, 402; secret treaty of Fontainebleau, 87; Milan decree, 56; Peninsular war, 59-63, 65, 66, 68, 71, 73, 76, 77, 82, 87-120; war with Austria, 61-64; peace of Vienna, 64, 66; loss of foreign possessions, 69, 81, 215, 223, 403; annexations, 77-79; breach with Russia, 79-81, 105, 108; treaty with Prussia, 122; war with Russia, 82, 97, 100, 121-126, 402; campaign of 1813, 132-138; war with Prussia, 134; war with Austria, 137, 142, 143; campaign of 1814, 118, 143-145; the allies enter, 118, 143; congress at Châtillon-sur-Seine, 118, 144; first treaty of Paris, 147, 149, 151, 156, 167, 378; congress of Vienna, 149, 151-153, 156, 166, 167, 186, 188, 190, 379, 381, 388; Waterloo campaign, 156-165; second treaty of Paris, 167, 168, 376; congress of Troppau, 211-214, 395, 396; dispute with Spain, 215, 217-221, 256, 257, 264; congress of Verona, 216-219, 222, 223, 392; conference at St. Petersburg, 224; treaty of London, 233, 234, 259, 260, 262-264, 266, 267; the Eastern question, 259-269, 392-395; conference of London, 262-268, 379-386, 392; conquest of Algiers, 269; revolution of July, 274, 276, 285, 376, 378; assists Belgium, 384-386; convention with England and Holland, 387; attacks Portugal, 388; quadruple alliance, 389-391; officers in India, 398; treaty with Persia, 402. 

France, Isle of. See Mauritius, the. 

Franche-Comté, 143. 

Francis II. , Holy Roman Emperor (afterwards Francis I. , Emperor of Austria), 17, 46, 78, 144, 145, 148, 218, 224, 395. 

Francis IV. , Duke of Modena, 166. 

Frankfort, 189. 

Franklin, Benjamin, 185. 

Fraser, General, 57. 

Frasnes, 158, 159. 

Frederick, Prince Regent of Denmark (afterwards Frederick VI. ), 5, 53. 

Frederick, Prince, of Orange, 379. 

Frederick II. , the Great, King of Prussia, 47. 

Frederick Augustus, King of Saxony, 135. 

Frederick Joseph, Landgrave of Hesse-Homburg, 184. 

Frederick William III. , King of Prussia, 38, 42, 43, 46, 47, 52, 62, 122, 134, 144, 147, 148, 152, 189. 

Frederick William, Crown Prince of Prussia (afterwards Frederick William IV. ), 395. 

Fréjus, 146. 

Frenchtown, 138. 

Freyre, English officer, 118. 

Friedland, battle, 52, 122, 401. 

_Frolic_, the, British sloop, 132. 

Fuentes d'Ońoro, battle, 103. 

Gáekwár. See Baroda, Gáekwár of. 

Galicia, 39, 66, 80, 88, 90, 94, 98, 122. 

Gambier, Admiral (afterwards Lord), 54, 69. 

Gamonal, battle, 92. 

Ganges, the, 398, 407. 

Gantheaume, French admiral, 39. 

Gardane, French general, 402. 

Gardner, Colonel, 405. 

Garonne, the, 118. 

Gascoyne, General, M. P. , 291. 

Gatton, 289. 

Gebora, river, 102. 

Genappe, 160. 

Genoa, 143, 149, 166, 390; bay of, 69. 

George III. , 2, 14, 22, 31, 32, 34, 48-50, 55, 62, 66-68, 71, 92, 96, 171, 194, 208, 242, 375; insanity, 29, 74, 83; relations with Fox, 32, 33, 45, 46; jubilee, 69; family, 184; death, 185, 192; character, 185, 186, 249, 273. 

George, Prince of Wales (afterwards George IV. ), his friends, 29; regent for George III. , 74-76, 83, 85, 148, 156, 157, 165, 168, 176, 179, 186; marriage relations, 85, 86, 183, 184, 192-197; character, 173, 174, 183, 184, 194, 197, 208, 244, 282, 375; king, 192, 199, 201, 226-231, 242-244, 246, 249, 268, 271; coronation, 196, 197, 309; death, 272, 273. 

Gérard, General (afterwards Marshal), 164, 386. 

Germany, 38, 41-43, 46, 47, 55, 58, 59, 61-64, 71, 79, 80, 82, 92, 97, 105, 115, 118, 123, 132-138, 142, 144, 149, 152, 156, 188, 189, 381, 387, 424, 425; redistribution of territory, 17, 53, 78, 153; forces in the Peninsula, 98, 114, 116; organisation of, 166. See also Austria, Bavaria, Hanover, Prussia, etc. 

Gerona, 88. 

Ghent, 155, 378; treaty of, 147, 156, 203. 

Ghika, Alexander, Hospodar of Wallachia, 396. 

Gibbon, Edward, 415. 

Gibraltar, 188, 259, 381; governor of, 90; straits of, 8, 39. 

Giessen, 189. 

Gifford, William, 423. 

Gillray, James, 26. 

Gladstone, William Ewart, 44, 200, 318, 350, 424. 

Glasgow, 193, 295, 306, 371. 

Glenelg, Lord. See Grant, Charles. 

Gloucester (William), Duke of (nephew of George III. ), 184 n. 

Goderich, Viscount. See Robinson, F. J. 

Godoy, Spanish statesman, 87. 

Goethe, Wolfgang von, 417, 418. 

Gohad, 399. 

Golden Lane. See London. 

Gordon, Robert, diplomatist, 266. 

Goulburn, Henry, 284, 303, 319; chancellor of the exchequer, 231, 270, 278, 280; home secretary, 352, 367. 

Gower, Lord Francis Leveson (afterwards Earl of Ellesmere), 236. 

Gower, Lord Granville Leveson- (afterwards Earl Granville), secretary at war, 66; retirement, 68. 

Graham, Sir James, 270, 277, 352, 354, 374; first lord of the admiralty, 279, 287; resignation, 345. 

Graham, Sir Thomas (afterwards Lord Lynedoch), 102, 104, 110-113. 

Grampound, 193, 198, 284, 288. 

Granby, Marquis of (Manners), 52. 

Grand, river, 139. 

Grant, Charles (afterwards Lord Glenelg), 277; board of trade, 230, 231; resignation, 236, 380; president of the board of control, 279, 329, 330, 380; secretary for war and colonies, 357. 

Grattan, Henry, M. P. , 197, 238. 

Graves, Rear-admiral, 5. 

Greece, 379, 380, 383; revolts against Turkey, 213, 214, 216, 217, 223-226, 232-234, 253, 259-267, 393; independent, 268; boundary fixed, 392. 

Greenock, 306. 

Grenoble, 153. 

Grenville, Thomas, first lord of the admiralty, 49. 

Grenville, Lord, 2, 14, 24-26, 29, 33, 35, 54, 56, 67 n. , 68, 74-76, 109, 238, 279; his followers, 26, 27, 30, 32, 34; first lord of the treasury, 45, 47-49, 51, 52; resignation, 49, 50; opposition to Peninsular war, 71, 76. 

Greville, Charles, 332. 

Grey, Charles (afterwards Viscount Howick and later second Earl Grey), 46, 67 n. , 68, 74-76, 199, 228, 230, 249, 271, 276, 277, 348, 357; first lord of the admiralty, 45; foreign secretary, 49, 52, 55; opposition to Peninsular war, 76; first lord of the treasury, 278-283, 285-287, 290, 291, 293-296, 299, 301-304, 320, 321, 324, 325, 334, 375, 380; resignation, 344-347. 

Grey, Earl de, first lord of the admiralty, 352. 

Grossbeeren, battle, 137. 

Grosvenor Square. See London. 

Grote, George, 341, 345, 374, 431. 

Grouchy, Marshal, 160, 163, 164. 

Guadeloupe, 136. 

Guadiana, the, 99. 

Guarda, 100. 

_Guerričre_, the, British frigate, 131, 132. 

Guildhall. See London. 

Guilleminot, French diplomatist, 266. 

Guizot, French statesman, 357. 

Gujrát, 399. 

Gúrkhas, the, 404, 405. 

Gustavus IV. , King of Sweden, 37, 54, 90. 

Gwalior, 310, 399, 407. See Sindhia. 

_Habeas corpus act_, suspension of, 3, 176-178, 181, 240, 320. 

Hague, the, 384. 

Haidarábád, 40; Nizám of, 397, 398; treaty of Bassein, 398, 399. 

Hal, 158, 161. 

_Halifax_, the, British sloop, 127. 

Hallam, Henry, 426, 427. 

Hamburg, 134, 136, 138, 310. 

Hamilton, English commodore, 225. 

Hamilton, Sir William, philosopher, 417. 

Hampden clubs, 175. 

Hampshire, 281, 282. 

Hampton, General, 140, 141. 

Hampton roads, 127. 

Hanau, battle, 133. 

_Hannibal_, the, British ship, 8. 

Hanover, 22, 38, 42, 43, 46, 55, 134, 136, 166, 249. 

Hanoverian troops, 137, 158, 159, 161. 

Hanse Towns, the, 55. 

Hardenberg, Prussian minister, 144, 152. 

Hardinge, Henry (afterwards Sir Henry and later Viscount Hardinge), 104; secretary at war, 236, 250, 275, 313. 

Hardwicke, Earl of (Yorke), lord-lieutenant of Ireland, 2, 23, 27. 

Harrison, American general, 138, 139. 

Harrowby, Lord (Dudley Ryder), afterwards Earl of Harrowby, 68, 193, 295, 299, 301, 302; foreign secretary, 34; retirement, 35; chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, 37; president of the board of control, 66; lord president of the council, 81, 82, 227, 230. 

Hartwell, Bucks, 147. 

Harwich, 197. 

Hasselt, 384. 

Hastings, Marquis of. See Moira, Earl of. 

Hastings, Warren, 279. 

Haugwitz, Prussian minister, 42, 43. 

Hawkesbury, Lord (Jenkinson), afterwards Earl of Liverpool, foreign secretary, 1, 8, 9, 11, 12, 19, 20, 25, 34, 228; called to the house of lords, 27; home secretary, 34; declines office as first lord of the treasury, 45; home secretary, 50; secretary for war and colonies, 68, 71, 82, 100, 106; first lord of the treasury, 77, 82, 83, 85, 108, 109, 151, 168, 169, 172, 173, 183, 195-199, 205, 238, 239, 242, 279, 380; resignation, 208, 209, 226. 

Hay, Lord John, 391. 

Haye, La, farm, 162. 

Haye Sainte, La, farm, 162, 163. 

Hayti, 215, 223. 

Hazlitt, William, 425. 

Health, board of, 310. 

Hegel, Georg, 417. 

Heligoland, 143, 167. 

Helvetian republic. See Switzerland. 

Helvoetsluis, 18. 

Henry IV. , King of France, 219. 

Henry, John, 128. 

Herat, 412-414. 

Herries, J. C. , chancellor of the exchequer, 229, 230; master of the mint, 231; secretary at war, 352. 

Herschel, Sir John, 428. 

Hesse, Princess' Augusta of (Duchess of Cambridge), 184. 

Heytesbury, Lord, 412. 

Hill, Rowland (afterwards Sir Rowland and later Viscount Hill), 104-106, 108, 110-113, 115-117, 119. 

Himálayas, the, 404, 405. 

Hobart, Lord (afterwards fourth Earl of Buckinghamshire), secretary for war and colonies, 1, 2, 34; chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, 35; resignation, 37; president of the board of control, 81, 82, 174. 

Hobhouse, Sir John Cam (afterwards Lord Broughton), 325, 327, 343, 418; first commissioner of woods and forests, 347; president of the board of control, 357. 

Hohenlinden, battle, 420. 

Holkar, Jaswant Ráo Holkar, 398, 399, 405; Malhár Ráo Holkar, 405, 406. 

Holland (Batavian republic), 9, 11, 18 19, 21, 38, 53, 61, 81, 149-151, 156, 158, 159, 161, 162, 166, 199, 377; treaty of Amiens, 13; Louis Bonaparte, king of, 46; loss of Cape of Good Hope, 47, 403; Walcheren expedition, 65; annexed by France, 78; revolts, 133, 138; Prince of Orange proclaimed King of the Netherlands, 138; Dutch at Waterloo, 158, 161, 162; united to Belgium, 166; separation from Belgium, 376-386, 393; convention with Great Britain and France, 387; convention with Belgium, 387; settlers in South Africa, 438. 

Holland, Lord (Vassall-Fox), 170, 180, 199, 228, 230, 234; lord privy seal, 49; chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, 280, 357. 

Holy Alliance, 37, 168, 169, 186, 200, 229. 

Holyhead, 197. 

Homs, 393. 

Hone, William, 177. 

Hope, John (afterwards Sir John, later Lord Niddry and Earl of Hopetoun), 93, 95, 116, 117, 119. 

Horner, Francis, M. P. , 73, 183, 423. 

_Hornet_, the, American ship, 141. 

Hougoumont, 161, 162. 

Howard, John, 415, 437. 

Howick, Viscount. See Grey, Charles. 

Howick, Viscount (afterwards third Earl Grey), 271; secretary at war, 357. 

Howley, archbishop of Canterbury, 299, 337, 373. 

Huddersfield, 270. 

Hudson, James (afterwards Sir James Hudson), 351. 

Hugo, Victor, 426. 

Hull, American general, 129. 

Hume, David, 415. 

Hume, Joseph, 198, 274, 323, 367, 368, 374, 431. 

Hunt, "Orator, " 175, 179, 207, 281, 318. 

Huron, lake, 129. 

Huskisson, William, 84, 86; president of the board of trade, 198, 202, 203, 205, 207, 227, 228; secretary for war and colonies, 229-232, 235, 270, 271; resignation, 236, 380; death, 275, 276, 435. 

Hutchinson, General, 6. 

Hutton, James, 428. 

Hydriots, the, 392. 

Ibrahim, Pasha, 224, 225, 233, 264, 265, 392-394, 396. 

Illyrian provinces, 66, 122, 134, 137. 

_Impérieuse_, the, British frigate, 88. 

_Inconstant_, the, Napoleon's brig, 153. 

Indemnity acts, 234. 

India, 3, 18, 50, 59, 61, 104, 329, 330, 397-414, 436; French towns in India, 18, 19; East India Company, 201, 271, 399, 400, 406, 409; acts and charters relating to East India Company, 86, 325, 328-330, 404, 411, 412; treaties, 398, 399, 402, 403-406, 409, 412; coolies, 438. 

Indians (America), 129, 138, 147. 

Indies, East, 20, 81, 310. 

Indies, West, 20, 39, 69, 131, 219, 326, 438. 

Indore. See Holkar. 

Ingilby, Sir W. A. , M. P. , 334. 

Inglis, Sir Robert, M. P. , 245. 

Inn, river, 63. 

Insurrection act, 240, 320. 

Inverness, 348. 

Ionian islands, 69, 167, 187, 188, 267, 268. 

Irawadi, the, 408. 

Ireland, 16, 51, 55, 85, 197, 208, 242, 246, 247, 281, 289, 290, 312, 316, 317, 359, 360, 367, 368, 370-373; condition of, in 1801, 2, 3; in 1821, 199, 239; in 1824, 205; in 1828, 243; in 1829, 270; in 1830, 275; in 1831-32, 312-317; in 1833, 320, 321; in 1834, 345; in 1837, 371; French spies, 18, 19, 23; Emmet's rebellion, 18, 23, 240; scheme for representative assembly, 77; union of Irish and English exchequers, 174; Clare election, 236, 237, 243, 245, 250, 251, 313; disfranchisement of forty shilling freeholders, 241, 249; famine, 243; reform bill, 306, 307; agitation against tithe, 313-316, 320; church, 315-317, 322; processions act, 316, 317; education, 316, 317; coercion act, 320-322, 324, 325, 332; church temporalities act, 321-325, 332; second coercion act, 347; municipal corporations bill, 364, 365. 

Irving, Edward, 339, 340. 

Isabella II. , Queen of Spain, 389, 395. 

Isabella Maria, Regent of Portugal, 253. 

Ischia, island, 63. 

Isle-aux-noix, 140. 

Istria, 42. 

Isturiz, Spanish premier, 391. 

Italy, 42, 58, 63, 79, 133, 137, 138, 143-145, 149, 153, 157, 166, 187, 210, 211, 213, 215-217, 348, 377, 387; Napoleon crowned King of Italy, 37, 38. 

Italian republic. See Cisalpine republic. 

Jackson, Andrew (afterwards President of the United States), 147. 

Jackson, Francis J. , British envoy, 53. 

Jails, 369, 437. 

Jaswant Ráo Holkar. See Holkar. 

Java, 81, 403. 

_Java_, the, British frigate, 132. 

Jefferson, Thomas, President of the United States, 58, 127, 128. 

Jeffrey, Francis (afterwards Lord), 423. 

Jena, battle, 47, 199. 

Jenner, Dr. Edward, 15, 427. 

Jessor, 310. 

Jesuits, 247. 

Jews, disabilities of, 235. 

John VI. , King of Portugal, 211, 215, 220, 221, 253, 254. 

Johnson, Samuel, 186, 415. 

Jones, Sir Harford (afterwards Brydges), 402. 

Jones, John Gale, 72. 

Jordan, Mrs. , 273. 

Jourdan, Marshal, 98, 110. 

Jumna, river, 398, 399. 

Junot, Duke of Abrantes, 54, 58, 89-91, 100. 

Kábul, 403, 413, 414. 

Kaffraria, 438. 

Kalisch, treaty of, 134. 

Kandahár, 403, 414. 

Kant, Immanuel, 417. 

Karavasara, 266. 

Karnátik, the, 397. 

Katzbach, the, battle, 137. 

Keats, John, 419. 

Keble, John, 337. 

Kehl, 138. 

Kellermann, French general, 159, 162. 

Kent, 23, 281. 

Kent (Edward), Duke of (son of George III. ), 184, 185. 

Kent (Victoria Mary), Duchess of 184, 185, 281. 

Keswick, 420. 

Key, Sir John, M. P. , 334. 

Khátmándu, 404. 

Kiel, treaty of, 142, 143, 189. 

Kilkenny, murders in, 320. 

Killingworth colliery, 434, 435. 

Kilwarden, Viscount (Wolfe), 23. 

King's College. See London. 

Kiutayeh, 393; peace of, 394. 

Kléber, French general, 6. 

Knatchbull, Sir Edward, paymaster of forces, 352. 

Knights of St. John, 9, 10, 13; property of the order, 11. 

Konieh, 393. 

Königsberg, 81. 

Kotzebue, murder of, 189. 

Krasnoe, battle, 125. 

Kronborg, 4. 

Kruse, Dutch officer, 162. 

Kulm, 137. 

Kumáun, district of, 405. 

Kutuzov, Russian general, 124. 

Labedoyčre, Colonel, 154. 

Laconia, 392. 

Laffitte, French premier, 383, 387. 

Lahore, 402. 

Laibach, treaty of, 212, 213. 

Lake, General (afterwards Lord and later Viscount Lake), 398-401, 409. 

Lamb, Charles, 425. 

Lamb, William (afterwards Viscount Melbourne), 227, 231, 236; home secretary, 279, 296, 299; first lord of the treasury, 347, 350; resignation, 351; first lord of the treasury, 357, 359, 360, 363, 370, 371, 373, 390, 401, 431. 

Lampeter, St. David's College, 430. 

Lancashire, 83, 179, 435. 

Lancaster, revenues of duchy of, 278, 282. 

Landau, 149, 167. 

Langdale, Lord. See Bickersteth, Henry. 

Lansdowne, Marquis of. See Petty, Lord Henry. 

Laswári, battle, 399. 

Laud, William, 429. 

Lauderdale, Earl of (Maitland), 46, 170. 

Lauriston, General (afterwards Marshal), 13. 

Lawley, Sir Robert, M. P. , 29. 

Lawrence, Captain, 141, 142. 

Lawrence, Sir Thomas, 427. 

Leach, Sir John, 195. 

Leadenhall Street. See London. 

Leeds, 198, 272, 327. 

Leghorn, 143. 

Leicestershire, 83. 

Leinster, 315. 

Leipzig, battle, 63, 82, 114, 117, 118, 133, 137, 138, 143, 164. 

Leon, plains of, 88, 106. 

_Leopard_, the, British flagship, 127. 

Leopold, Prince, of Saxe-Coburg (afterwards King of the Belgians), 174, 183, 185, 268, 269, 383, 384. 

Lepanto, 266. 

L'Estrange, Colonel, 179. 

Levant, the, 18, 413. 

Lewis I. , King of Bavaria, 392. 

Lewisham, Viscount (Legge), afterwards Earl of Dartmouth, president of the board of control, 1, 15. 

"Lichfield House Compact, " 356. 

Ličge, 43, 381. 

Ligny, 158, 164; battle, 158-160. 

Ligurian republic, 9, 12, 37, 38. 

Lille, negotiations at, 9, 14. 

Limburg, province, 382, 385-387. 

Lincolnshire, 334. 

Lincoln's Inn Fields. See London. 

Linois, French admiral, 8. 

Lisbon, 54, 89-91, 93-98, 100, 102, 109, 201, 211, 215, 220-222, 257-259, 389. 

Littleport, 175 n. 

Littleton, Edward John (afterwards Lord Hatherton), 325, 345, 346. 

Liverpool, 201, 232, 275, 276, 291, 369, 388, 435. 

Liverpool, Earl of. See Hawkesbury, Lord. 

Lloyd, Charles, bishop of Oxford, 249. 

Lobau, island, 63. 

Lobau, Prince of, 163. 

Lombardy, 149, 166, 187. See also Cisalpine republic. 

London, 195, 196, 201, 202, 206, 270, 277, 278, 296, 303, 311, 435, 437; bishop of (Blomfield), 324, 341, 373. 

London:-- Apsley House, 293. Battersea Fields, 251. Blackheath, 194. Bridges: Blackfriars, London, Southwark, Strand (Waterloo), Westminster, 436. Brooks's Club, 374. Buckingham Palace, 349. Carlton House, 70, 436. Cato Street, 193. Corporation of, 173. Edgware Road, 193. Golden Lane, 435. Guildhall, 148. Grosvenor Square, 193. King's College, 250, 431. Leadenhall Street, 329, 398, 411. Lincoln's Inn Fields, 298. "London University, " 250, 356, 431; university of London, 431, 432. Newgate, 72, 369. Old Bailey, 282. Pall Mall, 435. Regent Street and Park, 436. Royal Academy, 427. Royal Exchange, 175. St. Paul's, 196. Small-pox Hospital, 427. Southwark, 26. Spa Fields, Bermondsey, 175. Spitalfields, 202. Tower, 72, 175. University College, 431, 432. Westminster, 51, 72, 343. Westminster Abbey, 46, 196, 309. Westminster Hall, 349. White Conduit House, 298. 

London, conferences of, 222, 262-268, 379-386, 392; protocols of, 265, 267, 381-385, 392; treaties of, 96, 233, 234, 259, 260, 262-264, 266-268, 385, 392. 

_London Magazine_, the, 424, 425. 

Londonderry, second Marquis of. See Castlereagh, Viscount. 

Londonderry, third Marquis of. See Stewart, Sir Charles. 

Lonsdale, Earl of (Lowther), 67 n. 

Lorraine, 143, 168. 

Loughborough, Lord (Wedderburn), afterwards first Earl of Rosslyn, 1, 271. 

Louis XIV. , King of France, 186. 

Louis XVI. , King of France, 145. 

Louis XVIII. , King of France, 118, 119, 145, 147, 149, 154-157, 166, 167, 169, 187, 215, 218, 219, 377. 

Louis Antoine, Duke of Angoulęme (afterwards dauphin), 116, 118, 154, 220, 376. 

Louis Philippe, Duke of Orléans (afterwards King of France), 154, 274, 376, 377, 379, 380, 382-384, 390, 391. 

Louisiana, 6, 18. 

Louvain, 384. 

Low Countries. See Belgium and Holland. 

Lübeck, 78. 

Luddite riots. See Riots. 

Lugo, 95. 

Lundy's Lane, battle, 146. 

Lunéville, treaty of, 6, 10, 13, 17, 38. 

Lützen, battle, 135. 

Luxemburg, grand duchy of, 43, 380-387. 

Lyell, Charles (afterwards Sir C. ), 428. 

Lyndhurst, Lord. See Copley, Sir John. 

Lyons, 154. 

Maas, river, 387. 

Maastricht, 380, 382. 

Macadam, John Loudon, roadmaker, 434. 

Macarthur, John, 439. 

Macaulay, Thomas Babington (afterwards Lord Macaulay), 296, 327, 411, 412, 423-427. 

Macaulay, Zachary, 423, 431. 

Macdonald, Marshal, 124, 125, 154. 

_Macedonian_, the, British ship, 132. 

Mack, Austrian general, 42. 

Mackinac, 129, 139. 

Mackintosh, Sir James, 16, 194, 201. 

Mackworth, Major, 298. 

Macquarie, Governor, 439, 440. 

Madison, James, President of the United States, 128-130. 

Madras, 400, 410. 

Madrid, 71, 87-89, 92-94, 96, 98, 103, 107, 108, 111, 150, 217-220, 390, 391; treaty of, 6. 

Magdeburg, 138. 

Mahmúd, Amír of Afghánistán, 403. 

Mahmud II. , Sultan of Turkey, 57, 168, 188, 266, 393, 394, 396. 

Maida, battle, 47. 

Maine, state, 147. 

Mainots, the, 392. 

Mainz, 136. 

Maitland, Captain, 169. 

Majorca, 88. 

Malcolm, Sir John, colonel, 402. 

Malden, 129. 

Malhár, Ráo Holkar. See Holkar. 

Malmaison, 165. 

Malmesbury, Earl of (Harris), 14, 49. 

Malta, possession of, 9-13, 20, 22, 37, 408, 413; independence guaranteed, 13; parliamentary debate on, 14; retention by England, 19, 20, 167. 

Malthus, Thomas Robert, 421. 

Málwá, 406, 409, 411. 

Manchester, 176, 178, 179, 272, 275, 276, 295, 303, 311, 435. 

Mansfield, first Earl of (Murray), 45. 

Mansfield, third Earl of (Murray), 292. 

Maráthá wars, 398, 399, 406, 407. 

Marcoff, Count, 21. 

Marengo, battle, 159. 

Maria II. , da Gloria, Queen of Portugal, 253, 254, 258, 259, 388. 

Maria Christina, Queen-regent of Spain, 389, 391. 

Maria Louisa, empress of Napoleon I. , 78, 145, 150, 166. 

Mariembourg, 149, 382. 

Marlborough, Duke of (Churchill), 52. 

Marmont, Marshal, 104-108. 

Marriage reform bills, 355; act, 366, 367. 

Martinique, 9. 

Mary, Duchess of Gloucester (daughter of George III. ), 184 n. 

Masséna, Marshal, 100-104. 

Maumee, river, 130, 138. 

Mauritius, the (Isle of France), 18, 149, 167, 398, 403, 438. 

Maya, pass, 113. 

McClure, General, 141. 

McDonnell, Colonel, 141. 

Medellin, 96. 

Medina de Rio Seco, 88. 

Mediterranean, the, 39, 69, 188, 262, 265, 393. 

Mehemet Ali, Pasha of Egypt, 224, 225, 264, 269, 392-394. 

Mehidpur, battle, 406. 

_Melampus_, the, British warship, 127. 

Melbourne, Viscount. See Lamb, William. 

Melcombe Regis, 289, 305. 

Melville, first Viscount. See Dundas, Henry. 

Melville, second Viscount. See Dundas, Robert S. 

Menou, 6. 

Merton, Surrey, 39. 

Mesolongi, 266, 418. 

Metcalfe, Charles (afterwards Sir Charles and later Lord Metcalfe), 402, 403, 406, 409, 411, 412. 

Methodist revival, the, 339. 

Metternich, Prince, 122, 134, 138, 144-146, 152, 156, 189, 191, 210, 217, 218, 224, 377, 395, 396. 

Mexico, 223. 

Miaoulis, Greek admiral, 393. 

Michigan, lake, 129; state, 138, 139. 

Middle Ground shoal, 4. 

Middleton, Sir Charles. See Barham, Lord. 

Miguel, Dom (afterwards King of Portugal), 220, 221, 253-255, 258, 259, 388-390; convention at Evora, 390. 

Milan, 37; decree, 56; commission, 195. 

Milhaud, French officer, 162. 

Militia, the, 16, 21, 31. 

Militia balloting bill, 59. 

Militia transfer bill, 60. 

Mina, guerilla leader, 104. 

Minho, province, 258. 

Ministries: Addington's, 1-31; Pitt's, 33-44; Grenville's (All the Talents), 45-50; Portland's, 50-67, 87-99; Perceval's, 68-76, 99-106; Liverpool's, 77-86, 107-226, 253-258; Canning's, 227, 228, 258; Goderich's, 229, 230, 259, 260; Wellington's, 230-252, 260-278, 376-380; Grey's, 278-347, 380-390, 392-396; Melbourne's, 347-351; provisional administration, 351; Peel's, 352; Melbourne's, 357-375, 390-392. 

Minorca, 9, 88. 

Minto, second Earl of (Elliot-Murray-Kynynmound), first lord of the admiralty, 363, 401. 

Minto, Lord (Elliot), afterwards first Earl of Minto, governor-general of Bengal, 401-404. 

Modena, 213; treaty with Austria, 187. 

Moira, Earl of (Rawdon-Hastings), afterwards Marquis of Hastings, 75, 76, 310; master-general of the ordnance, 45; governor-general of Bengal, 404-408. 

Moldavia, 57, 59, 80, 213-215, 260, 263, 267, 394-396. 

Molé, French foreign minister, 379. 

Molesworth, Sir William, M. P. , 374. 

Moltke, 396. 

Moncey, Marshal, 88. 

Mondego, river, 90, 101. 

Mongolia, 310. 

_Moniteur_, newspaper, 18. 

Monroe, James, President of the United States, 223; Monroe doctrine, 223. 

Mons, 158. 

Monson, Colonel, 399. 

Montbéliard, 149. 

Montenegrins, the, 142. 

Monte Video, 56, 57, 190. 

Montmorency, French diplomatist, 217, 218. 

Montreal, 140. 

Montrose, Duke of (Graham), president of the board of trade, 34. 

Mont St. Jean, 160. 

Moore, Sir John, general, 54, 90-95, 108, 200. 

Moore, Thomas, 420. 

Moravia, 42, 64. 

Moraviantown, 139. 

Morea, the, 214, 224, 225, 261, 263-266, 393. 

Moreau, General, 33. 

Morpeth, Lord (afterwards seventh Earl of Carlisle), 357, 359, 372. 

Morrison, Colonel, 141. 

Mortier, Marshal, 99. 

Moscow, 124. 

Moss, convention of, 150. 

Mughal emperor, 399. 

Muhammad, Sháh of Persia, 412. 

Mühlhausen, 149. 

Mulgrave, Lord (Phipps) (afterwards first Earl of Mulgrave), 347; chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, 34; foreign secretary, 35; first lord of the admiralty, 50, 67 n. ; master-general of the ordnance, 72, 82; in cabinet without office, 178; retirement of, 194. 

Mulgrave, second Earl of (Phipps), lord privy seal, 347; lord-lieutenant of Ireland, 359, 371. 

Münchengrätz, secret convention at, 395, 396. 

Munich, 33. 

Municipal corporations act, 360-362, 370; bill (Ireland), 364, 365. 

Murat, Joachim, 87; King of Naples, 88, 123, 143, 150, 157, 168; death, 157. 

Muraviov, Russian general, 393. 

Murray, Colonel, 141. 

Murray, Sir George, secretary for war and colonies, 236; master-general of the ordnance, 352. 

Murray, John, 423. 

Murray, Sir John, general, 109, 114. 

Mysore, 411. 

Nágpur, 406; Rájá of, 398, 390, 405, 406. 

Namur, 157, 160, 161. 

Napier, Captain (afterwards Admiral Sir Charles Napier), 389. 

Napier, General Sir W. , 110. 

Naples, 47, 63, 157, 213; bay of, 42. 

Naples, kingdom of, 47, 53, 63, 88, 123, 143, 150, 157. See also Sicilies, the Two. 

Naples, Prince of, 383. 

Napoleon, King of Rome, son of Napoleon I. , 145, 165. 

Nash, John, architect, 436. 

Nassau, troops, 158. 

National debt, the, 204, 206; in 1802, 15; in 1815, 171. 

"National Political Union, " 298. 

Nauplia, 225. 

Navarino, 225; battle, 230, 233, 234, 253, 259, 264. 

Navarre, province, 300. 

Navigation laws, reform of the, 202, 203, 207, 216, 437. 

Neapolitan States. See Sicilies, the Two. 

Nelson, Lord (afterwards Viscount), 8, 16, 39, 69, 233, 273; expedition to Copenhagen, 3-5, 8; Trafalgar, 40, 41. 

Nemours, Louis, Duke of, 382, 383. 

Nepál, 404, 405, 408, 409; treaty of Almora, 405. 

Nesselrode, Russian diplomatist, 138, 262. 

Netherlands, the. See Belgium and Holland. 

Neuchâtel, 43. 

Neuville, De, French ambassador, 222. 

Newark (Canada), 141, 146. 

Newark (England), 248. 

Newcastle, 311. 

Newcastle, Duke of (Fiennes-Pelham-Clinton), 228, 248, 296, 297. 

New England, 128. 

Newfoundland, fishery, 10. 

Newgate. See London. 

Newman, John Henry, 325, 336-338, 340. 

New Orleans, 147. 

"New poor law, " 340-344. 

New South Wales. See Australia. 

Newspaper stamp act, 369, 370. 

New York, 146; state, 146. 

New Zealand, 436. 

Ney, Marshal, 17, 99-101, 154, 155, 158-160, 163. 

Niagara, river, 130, 140, 141, 146; falls, 130, 146. 

Nicholas I. , Tsar of Russia, 232, 259, 260, 262, 361, 385, 393, 395, 396. 

Nicholls, Colonel, 405. 

Niemen, the, 52, 124, 133. 

Nile, the, 6; battle of the, 69. 

Nive, river, 115-117. 

Nivelle, river, 115. 

Nivelles, 159. 

Nonconformists. See Dissenters. 

Non-intercourse act (United States), 83, 128. 

Norfolk (United States), 127. 

Norfolk Island, 439. 

_North Briton_, the, journal, 422. 

Northern confederacy, the, 5, 8. 

Northumberland, Duke of (Percy), lord lieutenant of Ireland, 244, 313. 

_Northumberland_, the, British ship, 166. 

Norway, 54, 80, 122, 123, 189; ceded to Sweden, 136, 142, 143, 150, 166; convention at Moss, 150. 

Nottingham, 296; castle, 297. 

Nottinghamshire, 83, 176. 

Novara, battle, 213. 

Nugent, John, 122, 142. 

Nugent, Lord (Grenville-Nugent-Temple), 241. 

Ocańa, battle, 100. 

Ochterlony, General (afterwards Sir David), 404, 405, 409. 

O'Connell, Daniel, 2, 237, 241, 242, 244, 246, 249, 251, 252, 272, 275, 280, 281, 287, 294, 306, 312-316, 319, 321-324, 344-346, 348, 356, 359, 362, 363, 371, 374. 

Oder, the, 80, 135. 

Ohio, state, 138. 

Old Bailey. See London. 

Oldenburg, duchy of, 78, 105. 

Oldham, 318. 

Old Sarum, 3, 285, 289. 

Oléron, island, 69, 165. 

Olivenza, 6, 102, 123. 

Oliver, the spy, 176. 

Ontario, lake, 139. 

Oporto, 89, 90, 96, 98, 211, 388. 

Orange lodges, 367, 368; Orangemen, 241, 270, 317, 367, 368. 

Orenburg, 310. 

Orfordness, 8. 

Orléans, Duke of. See Louis Philippe. 

Orléans, Philip, Duke of, 186, 272. 

Orthez, battle, 117. 

Otranto, 12. 

Otto, French diplomatist, 80. 

Otto, Prince of Bavaria (afterwards King of Greece), 392. 

Oudh, 404; Nawáb Wazír of, 397. 

Ouseley, Sir Gore, 402. 

Oxford, 148, 337, 338; bishop of (Lloyd), 249; movement, 337-340, 417; university. See Universities. 

Paget, Lord (afterwards Earl of Uxbridge and later Marquis of Anglesey), 94, 162, 245, 249; master-general of the ordnance, 230; lord-lieutenant of Ireland, 231, 243; recalled, 244; lord-lieutenant of Ireland, 281, 313, 321; resignation, 344. 

Paisley, 306. 

Pakenham, Sir Edward, general, 147. 

Palatinate, the, 381. 

Palermo, 63, 211. 

Paley, William, 421. 

Pall Mall. See London. 

Palmella, Portuguese statesman, 220, 255. 

Palmerston, Viscount (Temple), 277, 286, 421; secretary at war, 68, 172, 227, 229, 231, 263, 392; resignation, 236; foreign secretary, 261, 279, 357, 380, 382, 387, 388, 390, 391, 393, 412. 

Pamplona, 111-113, 115. 

Papal States, 9, 58, 157, 166, 187, 213, 258. 

Papelotte, farm, 162. 

Paraguay, 190. 

Parga, 188. 

Paris: the Tuileries, 31, 105, 155; first capitulation, 145; first treaty of, 147, 149, 151, 156, 167, 378; second capitulation, 165; second treaty of, 167, 168, 376; treaty of Chaumont extended at, 168, 186, 191, 377; revolution of July, 274, 285, 376; cholera at, 311. 

Park, Mungo, 436. 

Parker, Sir Hyde, admiral, 3-5. 

Parliament: general election of 1802, 15; of 1806, 48; of 1807, 50; of 1812, 85; of 1818, 178; of 1820, 193; of 1826, 207, 242; of 1830, 274; of 1831, 293, 294; of 1832, 318; of 1835, 354; reform, 61; liberals and conservatives, 319; houses destroyed by fire, 349. 

Parma, duchy of, 145, 150, 166; treaty with Austria, 187. 

Parnell, Sir Henry, M. P. , 84, 278. 

Pasages, 391. 

Paskievitch, Russian general, 388. 

Patten, Colonel, M. P. , 26, 27. 

Patuxent, river, 146. 

Paul, Tsar of Russia, 5. 

_Peacock_, the, British ship, 141. 

Pease, Edward, 434, 435. 

Peel, Sir Robert (first baronet), 327. 

Peel, Robert (afterwards Sir Robert), 44, 71, 172, 183, 200, 227, 283, 286, 287, 290, 292, 294, 300, 303, 305, 319, 323, 324, 330, 331, 334, 335, 343, 345, 347, 348, 351, 359-362, 364, 365, 371-373, 375; home secretary, 199, 201, 202, 209, 226, 231, 235, 236, 242-248, 252, 270-272, 274-278; first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer, 352-355, 363, 366, 367, 390, 412; resignation, 356, 357. 

Pelham, Lord (afterwards second Earl of Chichester), home secretary, 1; resigns office, 27; chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, 27. 

_Pelican_, the, British ship, 142. 

Peloponnese, the, 393. See Morea, the. 

Peltier, Jean, editor, 12, 16. 

Peńa, La, Spanish commander, 102. 

Peninsular war, 59-61, 66, 68, 71, 73, 76, 77, 82, 87, 120, 129, 146, 182, 200, 423. 

Pennsylvania, 139. 

Penryn, 193, 235, 236. 

Pepys, Sir Charles (afterwards Lord and later Earl Cottenham), lord chancellor, 363. 

Perceval, Spencer, 49; chancellor of the exchequer, 50, 61, 67 n. , 82, 83; first lord of the treasury, etc. , 68, 71, 74-76, 77, 236, 238, 380; assassination, 76, 81. 

Perry, Commodore, 139. 

Persia, 123, 310, 401, 402, 412, 413; treaties with East India Company and Great Britain, 402. 

Perth, 306. 

Peru, 215, 223. 

Pesháwar, 413. 

Peshwá, the, of Poona, 398, 405, 406; treaty of Bassein, 398, 399, 405. 

Peter (afterwards Peter I. , Emperor of Brazil, and Peter IV. , King of Portugal), 221, 253, 254, 258, 259, 388, 389. 

Peter II. , Emperor of Brazil, 254, 388. 

Peterloo, massacre of. See Riots. 

Petty, Lord Henry (afterwards Marquis of Lansdowne), 241, 345, 421; chancellor of the exchequer, 45; home secretary, 228; president of the council, 279, 280, 357, 369. 

Philippeville, 149, 382. 

Philippon, governor of Badajoz, 106. 

Phillip, Governor, 438. 

Phillpotts, bishop of Exeter, 324. 

Pichegru, French general, 33. 

Picton, Thomas (afterwards Sir Thomas), 106, 118, 159, 162. 

Piedmont, 17, 38, 213, 217. 

Pindárís, the, 404-408, 411. 

Pitt, William, the elder (first Earl of Chatham), 44, 284. 

Pitt, William, the younger, 2, 14, 15, 23, 47-50, 86, 173, 176, 181, 182, 185, 202, 208, 227, 237, 279, 284, 291, 307, 322, 330, 417, 437, 438; his resignation in 1801, 1, 397, 415; alienation from Addington's ministry, 24; negotiations with Addington, 24-26; attacks Addington, 30, 31; overtures from Eldon, 30; interview with the king, 32; first lord of the treasury, 33-37; organises third coalition, 35, 37, 38, 41; loss of Melville, 36; collapse of the third coalition, 43, 46; death, 43; his adherents, 68, 200. 

Pius VII. , Pope, 7, 35, 78, 150, 166, 163. 

Plasencia, 98. 

Plata, La. See Argentine, the. 

Plattsburg (United States), 140, 141, 146. 

Plunket, William (afterwards Lord Plunket), 239; attorney-general of Ireland, 199, 241, 249. 

Plymouth, 259. 

_Poictiers_, the British ship, 132. 

Poischwitz, 135. 

Poland, 52, 53, 79, 80, 122, 144, 152, 153, 156, 166, 310, 381, 387, 388, 395. 

Pole & Co. , 206. 

Pole, W. Wellesley (afterwards Lord Maryborough), master of the mint, 174, 178, 202. 

Polignac, French statesman, 223. 

Pomerania, Swedish, 54, 80, 122, 143, 166. 

Pondicherri, 18; French towns in India, 18, 19. 

Ponsonby, Sir William, 162. 

Ponsonby, Lord (afterwards Viscount Ponsonby), 383. 

Poona, 398, 405, 406. See Peshwá. 

Poor law, 171, 181, 311, 312, 420, 437; poor rates, 182, 203; "new poor law, " 340-344, 366; poor law board, 343; Ireland, 312, 316, 317, 372, 373. 

Popham, Sir Home, 47. 

Poros, 266, 392. 

Porte, the. See Turkey. 

Portland, third Duke of (Cavendish-Bentinck), 49, 66; home secretary, 1; lord president of the council, 1; in cabinet without office, 35; first lord of the treasury, 50, 52, 60; minor reforms, 51, 61; changes in his ministry, 66; resignation, 67; death, 68. 

Portland, fourth Duke of (Cavendish Scott Bentinck), lord privy seal, 227; in cabinet without office, 228; lord president of the council, 230. 

Port Mahon, 188. 

Port Phillip, 439, 440. 

Portsmouth, 39, 148, 197. 

Portugal, 11, 53, 60, 122, 151, 190, 200, 201, 226, 395; treaties of Badajoz and Madrid, 6; Junot's expedition to, 54, 58, 89-91; Peninsular war, 59-61, 66, 68, 71, 73, 76, 77, 82, 87-120; revolutions, 211, 220, 221, 254, 255-258; cortes, 211, 215, 220, 221, 254, 258; junta, 220, 221; relations with Brazil, 221, 222, 253, 254, 388-390; conference at London, 222; triple and quadruple alliances, 389, 390; convention of Evora, 390. 

Posen, 166. 

Pottinger, British officer, 412. 

Potwallopers, 281, 289, 308. 

Prague, 135. 

Prescott, 141. 

Presqu'isle (Pennsylvania), 139. 

Press, liberty of the, 180, 358; Indian press, 411, 412. 

Pressburg, peace of, 42. 

Press-gang, 23. 

Preston, 281, 318. 

Prevost, Sir George, governor of Canada, 129, 130, 140, 146. 

Privy Council, acts relating to the, 325, 332. 

Processions act (Ireland), 316, 317. 

Procida, island, 63. 

Proclamation act, 320. 

Proctor, English colonel, 138, 139. 

Prome, 409. 

Prout, Samuel, 427. 

Prussia, 17, 51-53, 59, 80, 81, 105, 124, 136, 144, 187-189, 220, 267, 391; guarantees independence of Malta, 13; vacillation, 38, 41-43, 51; treaty of Schönbrunn, 43; treaty with France, 46, 55; treaty of Tilsit, 52, 53, 55, 57, 59, 62, 78, 87, 124, 401, 402; treaty with France, 122; convention of Tauroggen, 125; campaign of 1813, 133-138; convention with Russia, 134; treaty of Kalisch, 134; treaty of Reichenbach, 136; treaty of Teplitz, 137; treaty of Ried, 137; campaign of 1814, 118, 143-145; treaty of Chaumont, 144, 145, 168, 186, 191, 377; first treaty of Paris, 147, 149, 151, 156, 167; congress of Vienna, 149, 151-153, 156, 166, 168, 186, 188-190, 378, 381, 388; campaign of 1815, 156-165; gains Swedish Pomerania, 166; second treaty of Paris, 167, 168, 376; Holy Alliance, 168; conference of Aix-la-Chapelle, 189-191, 377; congress of Troppau, 211-214, 395, 396; congress of Laibach, 212, 313; congress of Verona, 216-219, 222, 223, 392; conference at St. Petersburg, 224; conference of London, 379-386, 392; secret convention at Münchengrätz, 395, 396; convention at Berlin, 396. 

Pruth, river, 263. 

_Public Advertiser_, the, newspaper, 422. 

Puebla, pass, 111. 

Punjab, 403, 413. 

Pusey, Edward Bouverie, 336. 

Putney, 43. 

Pyrenees, the, 110, 115, 136, 138; battle, 113. 

Quadruple alliance, 389, 391. 

Quakers, the, 48. 

_Quarterly Review_, the, 423. 

Quatre Bras, 158-160; battle, 159. 

Queen's County, murders in, 320. 

Queensland. See Australia. 

Queenstown (Canada), 130. 

Raeburn, Sir Henry, 427. 

Railways, 275, 276, 427, 428, 434, 435. 

Raisin, river, 138. 

Rájputána, 399, 400, 406, 409. 

Rangoon, 408, 409. 

Ranjít Singh, Rájá of Bhartpur, 309, 403, 409. 

Ranjít Singh, Sikh ruler, 403, 412; treaty with East India Company, 403. 

Ratisbon, 63. 

Ré, island, 165. 

Reciprocity of duties act, 203, 207. 

Redesdale, Lord (Mitford), 235. 

_Redoutable_, the, French ship, 41. 

Red Sea, the, 6, 413. 

Reform, movement for, 61, 77, 174, 175, 178, 181, 198, 204, 271, 272, 277, 278, 280-308; partial reforms, 198, 235; first bill of 1831, 287-291; second bill, 294-296; third bill, 300-306; Scotch and Irish bills, 306, 307. 

Regency act (1811), 74, 75. 

Regency act (1830), 281. 

Regent Street and Park. See London. 

_Register, Weekly_. See Cobbett. 

Registration bill, 355; acts, 366, 367. 

Reichenbach, treaties of, 136. 

Reille, French general, 111, 113, 158, 162. 

Religious movements, 336-340, 417. 

Rennell, James, 436. 

Rennie, John, 435, 436. 

Rensselaer, Van, American general, 130. 

Reshid, Turkish general, 393. 

Revel, 4. 

Rey, Emmanuel, governor of St. Sebastian, 112-114. 

Reynier, French general, 100, 101. 

Rhine, the, 9, 41, 138, 143, 152, 153, 158, 166, 381; confederation of the, 46, 53, 134, 138. 

Riall, General, 146. 

Rice, Thomas Spring (afterwards Lord Monteagle), 345; secretary for war and colonies, 346; chancellor of the exchequer, 357, 369, 373. 

Richelieu, Duke of, 212. 

Richmond, Charlotte, Duchess of, 159. 

Richmond, third Duke of (Lennox), 284. 

Richmond, fifth Duke of (Lennox), postmaster-general, 280; resignation, 345. 

Ried, treaty of, 137. 

Rieti, battle, 212. 

Riga, 124. 

Rio Janeiro, 254, 259. 

Riot act, 72, 176, 297. 

Riots, 344; Luddite, 83, 85, 175, 432, 433; bread, 174; agricultural, 174, 281, 282; Spa Fields, 175; Derbyshire insurrection, 176; "Peterloo" or "Manchester massacre, " 178-180, 192; reform bill, 293, 296-298, 302, 309. 

Riou, Edward, 5. 

Ripon, Earl of. See Robinson, F. J. 

Robinson, Frederick John (afterwards Viscount Goderich, later Earl of Ripon), president of the board of trade, etc. , 177, 178, 198; chancellor of the exchequer, 202, 207; secretary for war and colonies, 227; first lord of the treasury, 229, 230, 233, 242, 260, 380; secretary for war and colonies, 279; lord privy seal, 325; resignation, 345. 

Rochefort, 165. 

Rodil, Spanish general, 389. 

Roebuck, John, M. P. , 362, 372, 374. 

Rohilkhand, 397. 

Roliça, 90. 

Rolleston, magistrate, 176. 

Romańa, Spanish general, 95. 

Roman Empire, Holy. See Empire, Holy Roman. 

Roman States. See Papal States. 

Rome, 58, 351. 

Romilly, Sir Samuel, M. P. , 51, 77, 194, 199, 201. 

Roncesvalles, pass, 112, 113. 

Rose, George, M. P. , 182. 

Rosetta, 57. 

Ross, General, 146. 

Rosslyn, first Earl of. See Loughborough, Lord. 

Rosslyn, second Earl of (St. Clair Erskine), president of the board of control, 271; lord president of the council, 352. 

Rothičre, La, battle, 144. 

Roussin, French admiral, 388, 393, 394. 

Royal Institution, the, 428. 

_Royal Sovereign_, the, British ship, 40. 

Rügen, island, 52, 53, 143. 

Rumelia, 263, 267. 

Rumford, Count, 428. 

Russell, Lord John (afterwards Earl Russell), 193, 198, 207, 234, 235, 272, 284, 356, 421, 431; paymaster of the forces, 280, 287, 290, 294, 297, 300, 304, 321, 324, 345, 350, 351; home secretary, 357, 361, 362, 365, 366, 368, 369, 371, 372, 374. 

Russia, 10, 13, 14, 17, 19, 35, 38, 41-43, 51, 52, 62, 66, 88, 90, 92, 187, 188, 210, 220, 225, 232, 391, 392, 402, 412; holy alliance, 37, 168, 169, 186, 199, 229; war of third coalition, 37, 38, 41, 42, 51; treaty with England, 37; treaty with Sweden, 38; treaty of Tilsit, 52, 53, 55, 57, 59, 62, 78, 87, 124, 401, 402; war with Turkey, 52, 57, 77; secret convention at Erfurt, 59, 92; breach with France, 79-81, 105; armistice with Turkey, 81; war with France, 82, 97, 100, 121-126, 132-138; treaty with England, 85; fleet, 90, 92; alliance with Sweden, 54, 122, 123; treaty of Ĺbo, 123; treaty of Bucharest, 123; treaties with England and Sweden, 123, 136; convention of Tauroggen, 125; convention with Prussia, 134; treaty of Kalisch, 134; treaty of Reichenbach, 136; treaty of Teplitz, 137; treaty of Ried, 137; campaign of 1814, 118, 143-145; treaty of Chaumont, 144, 145, 168, 186, 191, 377; treaty of Fontainebleau, 145, 146; first treaty of Paris, 147, 149, 151, 156, 167, 378; congress of Vienna, 149, 151-153, 156, 166, 168, 186, 188-190, 376, 379, 381, 388; gains Finland, 166; second treaty of Paris, 167, 168, 376; conference of Aix-la-Chapelle, 189-191, 377; congress of Troppau, 211-214, 395, 396; congress of Laibach, 212, 213; breach with Turkey, 213-215; congress of Verona, 217-219, 222, 223, 392; conference of St. Petersburg, 224; treaty of Akherman, 260; conference of London, 262-268, 379-386, 392; treaty of London, 233, 234, 259, 260, 262-264, 266, 267; war with Turkey, 234, 260-267; peace of Adrianople, 267, 268; war with Poland, 387, 388; assists Turkey, 393-395; treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, 394, 395; secret convention at Münchengrätz, 395, 396; convention at Berlin, 396; treaty with Turkey, 396; influence in the east, 412-414. 

Rutlandshire, 288. 

Ryder, Dudley. See Harrowby, Earl of. 

Ryder, Richard, home secretary, 68; retirement, 81. 

Saale, river, 133. 

Sackett's Harbour, 139, 140. 

Sadler, Michael, M. P. , 248, 316, 327. 

Sahagun, 94. 

St. Albans, 345. 

St. Amand, 158. 

_St. Antoine_, the, French ship, 8. 

St. David's, bishop of (Burgess), 430. 

St. George's Channel, American privateers in, 141. 

St. Helena, 153, 157, 165, 166, 167, 169, 170. 

St. Jean de Luz, 115, 117. 

St. Lawrence, river, 141; fishery, 10. 

St. Lucia, 149, 167. 

St. Marcial, battle, 114. 

St. Paul's cathedral. See London. 

St. Petersburg, 121, 225, 232, 233, 261, 310, 356; conference at, 224. 

St. Sebastian, 112-114, 391. 

St. Vincent, Earl of (Jervis), first lord of the admiralty, 1, 30, 34, 36. 

Salaberry, Colonel de, 141. 

Salamanca, 93, 94, 105-108; battle, 107. 

Saldańa, 94. 

Salzburg, 66. 

Sambre, river, 164. 

Samos, 266, 268. 

San Domingo, 18, 49, 215. 

Sandvliet, 65. 

_Santa Ana_, the, Spanish ship, 40. 

Santander, 108, 110. 

Santarem, 102. 

Santha Martha, Miguelite general, 389. 

_Santísima Trinidad_, the, Spanish ship, 40. 

Sardinia, kingdom of, 150, 166, 167, 187. 

Sartorius, Admiral, 388. 

Sarum, Old, 421. 

Sátára, 406. 

"Satí, " 410. 

Saumarez, Sir James (afterwards Baron), admiral, 8. 

Savary, French minister, 88. 

Savings-banks, 182, 437. 

Savoy, 149, 167. 

Saxony, 53, 133, 136, 138, 144, 152, 153, 166. 

Scarlett, James (afterwards Lord Abinger), 358. 

Scharnhorst, Prussian statesman, 81. 

Scheldt, the, 64-66, 71, 99, 385-387. 

Schönbrunn, treaty of, 43. 

Schwarzenberg, Austrian general, 124, 143-145. 

Scientific discoveries, 340, 427-436. 

Scotland, 193, 197, 271, 285, 289, 290, 293, 348, 360, 362, 433; reform bill, 306; church of, 360 n. , 424. 

Scott, Sir Walter, 417, 418, 422, 423. 

Scott, Sir William (afterwards Lord Stowell), 169. 

Scylla, castle, 63. 

Sébastiani, French officer (afterwards foreign minister), 18, 20, 57, 98, 382. 

Secretaries of state, division of departments of, 1, 2. 

Selim III. , Sultan of Turkey, 7. 

Sepoys, 6, 400, 406. 

Septennial act, 374. 

Seringapatam, 397. 

Servia, 80. 

Seville, 68, 96. 

Shaftesbury, Earl of. See Ashley, Lord. 

Sháh Shujá, Amír of Afghánistán, 403. 

_Shannon_, the, British frigate, 142, 147. 

Shaw, Sir Robert, M. P. , 197. 

Sheaffe, Major-general, 130, 140. 

Sheil, Richard Lalor, M. P. , 237, 241, 306, 315, 344. 

Shelley, Percy Bysshe, 419. 

Sheridan, Richard Brinsley, 14, 16, 29, 75, 200, 421. 

Sicilies, the Two, 9-14, 47, 166, 187, 188, 211-213; treaty of Florence, 7; treaty of neutrality with France, 42. 

Sicily, island and kingdom of, 47, 57, 58, 150; army in Spain, 109, 114. 

Sidmouth, Viscount. See Addington, Henry. 

Sikhs, the, 403. See Ranjít Singh, Sikh ruler. 

Silesia, 53, 135, 137. 

Silistria, 396. 

Simmons, Dr. Samuel Foart, 29. 

Sind, 402, 413, 414. 

Sindhia, Daulat Ráo Sindhia, 397-399, 401, 405. 

Six acts, the, 180, 229. 

Skaw, the, 3. 

Small-pox, 15; hospital, see London. 

Smeaton, John, 434. 

Smohain, hamlet, 162. 

Smith, Adam, 415, 420. 

Smith, Sydney, 423. 

Smith, William, 428. 

Smyth, American general, 130. 

Socialists, 175. 

Society for diffusion of useful knowledge, 338. 

Society, Highland, 433. 

Society, Kildare Place, 317. 

Society of friends of the people, 279. 

Society, Water-colour, 427. 

Soissons, 145. 

Sombreffe, French general, 158. 

Somerset, Lord Robert, 162. 

Somersetshire, 175, 298. 

Sophia, Princess (daughter of George III. ), 184 n. 

Sophia, Princess, of Gloucester (niece of George III. ), 184 n. 

Souham, French general, 108. 

Soult (Duke of Dalmatia), French general, 94-96, 98, 99, 102-108, 110, 112-119. 

South Australia. See Australia. 

Southey, Robert, 416, 420. 

Southwark. See London. 

Spa Fields, Bermondsey. See London and Riots. 

Spain, 13, 35, 39-41, 47, 58, 59, 81, 85, 123, 144, 149-151, 166, 187, 188, 190, 200, 205, 231, 254, 259; treaties of Aranjuez, Badajoz and Madrid, 6; treaty of Amiens, 13; alliance with France, 35; Peninsular war, 59-61, 66, 68, 71, 73, 76, 77, 82, 87-120, 423; juntas, 68, 92, 93, 96, 97, 103, 120; secret treaty of Fontainebleau, 87; abdication of Charles IV. , 87; Joseph Bonaparte, king of, 59, 88, 89, 104, 122, 123; treaties with England, 96, 150, 151; cortes, 103, 109, 112, 210, 215; insurrection, 210, 215-217; loss of colonies in America, 190, 205, 215, 216, 219, 220, 222, 223, 253, 257; dispute with France, 215, 217-221, 256, 257, 264; aggressions in Portugal, 254-256, 258; triple and quadruple alliances, 389, 390; Carlist war, 389-391. 

Speculation, 205, 206. 

Speenhamland, 341. 

Spenceans, the, 175. 

Spencer, second Earl, 14, 25, 34, 230, 349; home secretary, 45, 49; resignation, 50. 

Spencer, General, 90, 103. 

Spitalfields. See London. 

Spithead, 39. 

Stafford, Marquis of, afterwards Duke of Sutherland (Gower), 66. 

_Standard_, the, newspaper, 250. 

Stanley, Edward Geoffrey Smith- (afterwards Lord Stanley, later fourteenth Earl of Derby), 277, 347, 352, 354, 360, 374; chief secretary for Ireland, 280, 281, 294, 313, 315-317, 321; secretary for war and colonies, 322, 323, 325-327, 334; resignation, 345, 346. 

Steamboats, 427, 428, 434. 

Stephenson, George, 275, 276, 427, 434, 435. 

Stewart, Sir Charles (afterwards Lord Stewart, later third Marquis of Londonderry), 146, 212, 228, 296, 356. 

Stewart, Dugald, 421. 

Stockholm, treaty of, 136. 

Stockton on Tees, 435. 

Strachan, Sir Richard, admiral, 64. 

Stralsund, 43. 

Strand Bridge. See London. 

Strangford, Viscount (Smythe), 214-216. 

Strassburg, 41. 

Strikes, 178, 204. 

Stroud, 359. 

Stuart, Sir Charles (afterwards Lord Stuart de Rothesay), 218. 

Stuart, Sir John, 47. 

Sturt, Charles, 439. 

Subsérra, Count of, 222. 

Suchet, Marshal, 100, 107, 109, 112, 114, 115, 118, 119. 

Suez, 413; canal, 413. 

Suffolk, 175 n. 

Sugden, Sir Edward (afterwards Lord St. Leonards), 283. 

Sumatra, 81. 

Sumner, John B. , bishop of Chester, 341. 

Sunderland, 309, 310. 

Surrey, 281. 

Sussex, 281. 

Sussex (Augustus), Duke of (son of George III. ), 184, 185. 

Sutlej, river, 403. 

Sutton, Charles Manners- (afterwards Sir C. Manners-Sutton, later Viscount Canterbury), speaker, 251, 304, 354. 

Sweden, 43, 51-54, 58, 59, 78, 80, 105, 151, 166, 190; third coalition, 37, 38; treaties with Russia and England, 38, 123, 136; declares war on England, 78; ally of Russia, 122, 123, 133, 136; treaty of Ĺbo, 123; treaty of Stockholm, 136; war with France, 136, 137; treaty of Kiel, 142, 143, 189; acquires Norway (convention of Moss), 150. 

Swift, Jonathan, 422. 

Switzerland (Helvetian republic), 9, 38, 79, 138, 143, 166, 387; civil war, 17; invasion of, 17, 20; revolts, 133. 

Sydney, 439. 

Syria, 18, 393, 394, 396, 413. 

Tagus, the, 89, 90, 92, 96, 98, 99, 102, 104-106, 221, 388. 

Talavera, 93; battle, 98, 99, 101. 

Talleyrand, French statesman, 10, 19, 21, 22, 34, 46, 78, 151, 152, 156, 379, 382, 387. 

"Tamworth manifesto, " the, 332, 354, 371. 

Tarái, the, 405. 

Tarbes, 118. 

Tarragona, 112, 114. 

Tasmania. See Van Diemen's Land. 

Tauroggen, convention of, 125. 

Taylor, Sir Herbert, 286. 

Telford, Thomas, 275, 434. 

Temporalities, Irish Church, act, 321-325. 

Tenasserim, 408, 409. 

_Tenedos_, the, British frigate, 142. 

Tennyson, Alfred (afterwards Lord), 419. 

Tennyson, Charles (afterwards Tennyson D'Eyncourt), M. P. , 235, 374. 

Teplitz, treaty of, 137; conference at, 396. 

Terceira, island, 259. 

Terneuze, 65. 

Test act, 229, 234, 235, 242. 

Thagí, 411. 

Thames, the, 435. 

Thames, river (Canada), 139. 

Thermopylć, 268. 

Thiers, French statesman, 390, 391. 

Thistlewood, Arthur, 192, 193. 

Thompson, Charles Poulett (afterwards Lord Sydenham), president of the board of trade, 346, 357. 

Ticino, river, 149, 166. 

Tierney, George, 26, 28, 86; master of the mint, 228-230. 

Tigris, the, 413. 

Tihran, 402, 412. 

Tilsit, treaty of, 52, 53, 55, 57, 59, 62, 78, 87, 124, 401, 402. 

_Times_, the, newspaper, 343, 348, 351, 422. 

Timur, 310. 

Tipú, 397, 400. 

Tithe, agitation against (Ireland), 313-316, 320. 

Tithe commutation act, 355, 365, 366. 

Tithe commutation bills (Ireland), 347, 348, 365, 372. 

Tobago, 9, 11, 149, 167. 

Tooke, Horne, 3, 421; act, 3. 

Tormes, river, 107. 

Toronto, 139. 

Torres Vedras, 90, 91, 100-102, 115. 

Tortosa, 112. 

Toulon, 39. 

Toulouse, battle, 109, 118, 119. 

Tower of London. See London. 

Tractarians. See Oxford movement. 

_Tracts for the Times_, 339. 

Trades Unions, 204. 

Trafalgar, battle, 40, 41. 

Traz-os-Montes, province, 255, 257. 

Trekroner, the, battery, 4, 5. 

Trianon tariff, the, 79. 

Trieste, 62, 66, 142. 

Trinidad, 9, 151, 167. 

Triple alliance, 389. 

Tripoli, 394; Bey of, 187, 188. 

Tripolitza, 225. 

Trondhjem, diocese of, 136. 

Troppau, congress of, 211-214, 395, 396. 

Trotter, paymaster, 36. 

Tudela, battle, 92, 93. 

_Tugendbund_, the, 62. 

Tuileries, the. See Paris. 

Tunis, Dey of, 187, 188. 

Turin, 213. 

Turkey, 7, 57-59, 122, 188, 269, 387; treaty of Amiens, 13; treaty with France, 14; war with Russia, 52, 57, 77; armistice, 81; treaty of Bucharest, 123; Greek revolt, 213, 214, 216, 217, 223-225, 232-234, 259-267, 392; rupture with Russia, 214, 217, 225; war with Russia, 234, 260-267; treaty of Akherman, 260; peace of Adrianople, 267, 268; treaty and protocol of London, 267; Egyptian revolt, 393, 394; assisted by Russia, 393-396; treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, 394, 395; treaty of Kiutayeh, 394; Austrian mediation, 395, 396; treaty with Russia, 396; Asiatic Turkey, 310. 

Turner, J. M. W. , 427. 

Tuscany, treaty with Austria, 187. 

Tyrol, the, 66, 134. 

Ucles, 96. 

Ulm, 42. 

Ulster, 270. 

Union, act of, 237, 239, 240, 248; movement for repeal, 252, 275, 313, 314, 316, 344. 

United States, 56, 58, 83, 131, 157, 190, 216, 223, 257, 312, 337, 438; sale to them of Louisiana, 18; war with England, 82, 85, 126-132, 138, 146, 147; non-intercourse act, 83, 128; treaty of Ghent, 147, 156, 203; buys Florida, 215; treaty with England, 225. 

_United States_, the, American ship, 132. 

Universities, 247, 306, 308, 430;-- Cambridge, 419, 428-432. Dublin, 274. Durham, 432. Edinburgh, 358. Glasgow, 371. London, 250, 356, 431, 432; King's College, 250, 431; University College, 431, 432. Oxford, 148, 245, 337, 351, 421, 422, 428, 432; Balliol College, 429; New College, 429; Oriel College, 337, 338, 421, 429; St. Alban Hall, 421. 

Unkiar Skelessi, treaty of, 394, 395. 

Urfa, 396. 

Uruguay (Banda Oriental), 190. 

Utrecht, treaty of, 389. 

Uxbridge, Earl of. See Paget, Lord. 

Valencia, 88, 107, 109, 110, 112. 

Valladolid, 93, 108, 109. 

Vallais, republic of, 79. 

Vancouver, Captain, 436. 

Vandamme, French general, 137. 

Vandeleur, Sir John Ormesby, 164. 

Van Diemen's Land (Tasmania), 439. 

Vansittart, Nicholas (afterwards Lord Bexley), 68, 73; envoy at Copenhagen, 3, 4; chancellor of the exchequer, 81, 82, 86, 173-174, 183, 193, 198; chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, 202, 227. 

Vellore, 400, 410. 

Venaissin, 149. 

Vendée, La, 155. 

Venetia, 42, 134, 149, 166, 187. 

Verdier, General, 88. 

Verona, congress of, 199, 216-219, 222, 223, 392. 

Victor, Marshal, 96, 98, 102. 

Victor Emmanuel I. , King of Sardinia, 38, 213, 216. 

Victoria. See Australia. 

Victoria, Princess (afterwards Queen), 70, 185, 274, 281, 375. 

_Victory_, the, British ship, 40. 

Vienna, 42, 63, 80, 134, 189, 191, 254, 259; peace of, 64, 66; congress of, 149, 151-153, 156, 166; secret treaty, 153; treaty of, 166, 168, 186-188, 190, 379-381, 388; final act, 189; conference at, 216, 217; proposed conference, 396. 

Vigo, 39, 95. 

Villafranca, 93, 95. 

Villa Real, 389. 

Villčle, French statesman, 215, 217-219. 

Villeneuve, French admiral, 39-41. 

Vimeiro, battle, 91. 

Vincennes, castle, 34. 

Vincent, Colonel, 140. 

Vistula, the, 123, 133. 

Vitoria, battle, 109-112, 114, 136. 

Vivian, Sir Richard H. (afterwards Lord), 164. 

Volga, the, 310. 

Volhynia, 122. 

Volo, gulf of, 266, 392. 

Volunteer consolidation bill, 30. 

Vonitza, 266. 

Wade, General, 434. 

Wadsworth, American general, 130. 

Wagram, battle, 63, 100. 

Wakefield, Edward Gibbon, 440. 

Walcheren expedition, the, 62-67, 71, 72, 74, 99, 199. 

Wales, 289, 291, 305, 434; amalgamation of English and Welsh benches, 271. 

Wales, Caroline, Princess of. See Caroline, queen of George IV. 

Wales (George), Prince of. See George IV. 

Walker, George T. (afterwards Sir G. T. ), 106. 

Wallachia, 57, 59, 213-215, 260, 263, 267, 395, 396. 

Walmoden, Hanoverian general, 137. 

Walpole, Sir Robert (afterwards Earl of Orford), 205-208. 

Walpole, Lord (afterwards Earl of Orford), 134. 

Ward, Henry, M. P. , 345, 346. 

Ward, John William (afterwards Viscount, later Earl of Dudley), 197, 431; foreign secretary, 227, 231, 260; resignation, 236, 263, 380. 

Wardle, Colonel, M. P. , 60, 61, 72. 

Warsaw, 55, 381, 387, 388; duchy of, 53, 66, 79, 124, 152, 153, 166. 

Wartburg festival, 188. 

Washington, 130, 146. 

_Wasp_, the, American sloop, 132. 

Waterford, 237, 242, 250. 

Waterloo, battle, 44, 147, 160-166, 230, 415. 

Waterloo Bridge. See London. 

Watsons, the, father and son, 175, 192. 

Watt, James, 435. 

Wavre, 159-161, 164. 

_Weekly Political Register_, the. See Cobbett. 

Wellesley, Sir Arthur (afterwards Duke of Wellington), 61, 151, 152, 156, 167, 168, 174, 189, 195, 199, 201, 208, 209, 216-219, 226, 227-229, 259, 280, 282, 285, 286, 293, 302-304, 309, 319, 324, 334, 343, 347, 350, 361, 362, 371, 372, 392, 397, 431; chief secretary for Ireland, 50; bombardment of Copenhagen, 54; Peninsular war, 60, 71, 76, 90-120, 200; viscount, 71, 99; Vimeiro, 91; commander-in-chief in the Peninsula, 96, 97; Talavera, 98, 99; Bussaco, 101; lines of Torres Vedras, 101, 102; Fuentes d'Ońoro, 103; earl, 105; sieges of Ciudad Rodrigo and Badajoz, 105, 106; Salamanca, 107; marquis, 108; Vitoria, 110, 111, 136; the Pyrenees, 113; siege of St. Sebastian, 113, 114; Bayonne, 115-117; Toulouse, 118, 119; duke, 151; Waterloo campaign, 156-165; Waterloo, 160-165; master-general of the ordnance, 178, 194; first lord of the treasury, 230-232, 234, 236, 243-246, 248-252, 260-263, 265-269, 271, 272, 276-278, 376, 377, 379, 380, 388; duel with Winchilsea, 250, 251; provisional administration, 351; foreign secretary, 352, 356, 390; Indian campaign, 398-400; Assaye and Argáum, 399. 

Wellesley, Sir Henry (afterwards Lord Cowley), 150. 

Wellesley, Richard, marquis, 54, 67, 76, 96, 109, 174, 230, 278, 280, 325; foreign secretary, 68, 76; lord-lieutenant of Ireland, 199, 241, 344, 346; governor-general of Bengal, 397-400, 402-405, 407, 408. 

Wellington, Duke of. See Wellesley, Sir Arthur. 

Wesel, 138. 

Wesley, John, 337. 

Westbury, 245. 

West Australia. See Australia. 

Westminster abbey and hall. See London. 

Westmorland, Earl of (Fane), lord privy seal, 1, 50, 82; resignation, 237. 

Westphalia, 53, 153; troops, 158. 

Wetherell, Sir Charles, 248, 297. 

Weymouth, 289, 305, 326. 

Wharncliffe, Lord (Stuart-Wortley-Mackenzie), 291, 292, 299, 301, 302; lord privy seal, 352. 

Whately, Dr. , archbishop of Dublin, 317, 421, 422. 

Whitbread, Samuel, M. P. , 36, 49, 51, 156, 157, 182, 199. 

Whiteboys, 320. 

White Conduit House. See London. 

Whitefeet, 320. 

Whitelocke, General, 56, 57. 

Whitworth, Lord (afterwards Earl), ambassador extraordinary to France, 19; negotiates with French government, 20-22, 46. 

Wilberforce, William, M. P. , 15, 48, 195. 

Wild, Jonathan, 181. 

Wilkes, John, 72, 374, 422. 

Wilkie, Sir David, 427. 

Wilkinson, American general, 141, 146. 

William, Duke of Clarence (afterwards William IV. ), 208, 249; marriage, 184, 185; lord high admiral, 227; resignation, 243; king, 273, 274, 277, 278, 281-283, 286, 287, 289-294, 296, 297, 299, 301-305, 337, 347-352, 354, 356, 357, 363, 368, 371; coronation, 295, 301, 309; death, 375. 

William, Prince of Orange, 9-13. 

William Frederick, Prince of Orange (afterwards William I. , King of the Netherlands), 138, 158, 267, 378, 381, 385. 

William, Prince of Orange (afterwards William II. , King of the Netherlands), 159, 384. 

Wilson, Sir Robert, 125. 

Wiltshire, 281. 

Winchester, school, 429. 

Winchilsea, Earl of (Finch-Hatton), 250, 251. 

Winder, American general, 146. 

Windham, William, 14, 15, 25, 26, 28, 31, 34, 47, 51; secretary for war and colonies, 45. 

Windsor Castle, 70, 375. 

_Windsor Castle_, the, British ship, 221. 

Wittgenstein, Russian general, 125, 143, 145. 

Worcester, bishop of (Carr), 299. 

Wordsworth, William, 416. 

Würtemburg, 42, 187, 189. 

Wynn, Charles Williams, president of the board of control, 199, 227. 

Yanzi, gorge, 113. 

Yarmouth, Viscount (Ingram-Seymour-Conway), afterwards third Marquis of Hertford, 46. 

Yeo, Sir James, captain, 140. 

Yorck, Count, 125, 133. 

York, 83. 

York (Toronto), 139, 140, 146. 

York (Frederick), Duke of (son of George III. ), 49, 60, 61, 72, 74-76, 184 n. , 185, 197, 207, 208, 239, 242, 268. 

Yorke, Charles Philip, home secretary, 27, 34; first lord of the admiralty, 72, 82; retirement, 81. 

Yorkshire, 38, 180, 198, 274, 280, 288, 294, 432, 435. 

Zadorra, river, 110. 

Zaragoza, 88, 96. 

Zemán Sháh, King of Afghánistán, 397. 

Znaim, 64. 

Zumalacarregui, Carlist general, 390, 391. 

 PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, ABERDEEN

[Illustration: GREAT BRITAINshowingPARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATIONaccording to theREFORM ACT OF 1832. ]

[Illustration: MAP OFSPAIN AND PORTUGALillustratingTHE PENINSULAR WAR. ]

[Illustration: INDIA]

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+| TRANSCRIBERS' NOTES || || General: Changes to punctuation have not been individually documented. || || Page 11: reopen standardised to re-open || || Page 13: Shortlived standardised to Short-lived || || Pages 42, 187, 189, 466, 486, footnote 66: Spelling of Würtemberg, || Würtemburg as in original || || Pages 47, 296: short-sighted standardised to shortsighted || || Page 60: heartbreaking standardised to heart-breaking || || Page 66: Lord Granville Leveson Gower standardised to Leveson-Gower || (note that Francis Leveson Gower never has a hyphen in the original || version so that is maintained here) || || Page 85: non-conformists standardised to nonconformists || || Page 94: shortlived standardised to short-lived || || Pages 108, 113: rearguard standardised to rear-guard || || Page 109, 363: Spelling of make-shift, makeshift not standardised as || usage differs. || || Page 127: flag-ship standardised to flagship || || Page 176: lifelong standardised to life-long || || Page 182: it corrected to its after "measure of relief owes" || || Page 183: bank-notes standardised to banknotes || || Page 201: But replaced by but at start of page as it is a continuation || of the sentence from the previous page. || || Page 252: wofully as in original || || Pages 260, 481, 484: Spelling of Akkerman, Akherman as in original || || Page 274: deathblow standardised to death-blow || || Pages 289, 361 and 374: Spelling of rate-paying and ratepaying not || standardised as it is used in two different contexts || || Page 298: ring-leaders standardised to ringleaders || || Page 316: tithe proctor standardised to tithe-proctor || beneficies as in original || || Page 335: house-holders standardised to householders || || Page 341: outdoor standardised to out-door || || Page 345: tithe proctors standardised to tithe-proctors || || Page 349: re-assembled standardised to reassembled || || Page 362: over-ride standardised to override || || Pages 393, 403, 475: Spelling of Mahmud and Mahmúd not standardised as || it is used in two different contexts || || Page 394: MUNCHENGRATZ standardised to MÜNCHENGRÄTZ || || Pages 407, 416, 462: Spelling of Khan and Khán not standardised as it || is used in two different contexts || || Pages 427, 465: Spelling of Callcott, Calcott as in original || || Page 443: Italicisation of "Constitutional History of England from 1760 || to 1860" corrected || || Page 461: Aetolia standardised to Ćtolia || Aegean standardised to Ćgean || || Page 463: In entry Beauharnais, Eugene standardised to Eugčne || || Page 464: Bridgewater standardised to Bridgwater || || Page 475: Malhar standardised to Malhár || In entry Louis Antoine, Angouléme standardised to Angoulęme || In entry Louis Philippe, Orleans standardised to Orléans || || Page 479: Pressgang standardised to Press-gang || || Page 483: ) added to entry for Stewart, Sir Charles, after Londonderry || ) added to entry for Switzerland, after republic || Thermopylae standardised to Thermopylć || || Page 484: Volgo standardised to Volga || || Page 486: Ingram-Seymour Conway corrected to Ingram-Seymour-Conway |+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+