FOOTNOTES:
[1] The text states only a legal truth. Practically there yet remain great obstacles in the way of the free utterance of opinions hostile to the Government—as witness the recent prosecutions of O'Connell, Jones, &c.
[2] This scene is given from memory—the report not being at hand.
[3] A like contest early arose in this country. Congress passed an act similar to that of the English, in 1798. In the State of New York, the case of People vs. Croswell, for a libel on Jefferson, attracted great attention. It was tried in 1803. The judge charged the jury according to the old English law, and the defendant was convicted. It was carried before the full bench, and argued in 1804. The speech of Alexander Hamilton, for the defendant, was one of the ablest ever delivered in America. The court being equally divided in opinion, the Legislature, the next year, passed a declaratory act, giving to juries the right to determine the law and the fact. This is now the prevailing law of the country. Croswell's case is reported in 3d Johnson's Cases.
[4] Rotten Boroughs.
[5] The List of disfranchised boroughs.
[6] Since 1813 all British subjects have been permitted to trade to the East Indies under certain restrictions, which were wholly removed in 1833-4.
[7] Mr. Leavitt is probably better acquainted with this subject than any other man in America, and his valuable writings are doing much to prepare the public sentiment to demand the full measure of this reform.
[8] I have not attempted in this chapter to do more than give statistics in "round numbers," nearly approximating to precision.
[9] A commission instituted some years ago by the House of Commons, to inquire into the abuses of charitable trusts, found a clergyman at the head of a school, with a salary of £900 a year, and one pupil. Another received £500, had not a single scholar, and rented the school-room for a saw-pit.
[10] Our lamented countryman, Mr. Colman, estimated the number at 30,000. I think the text is quite low enough. And an enterprise is now started for the purchase of small freeholds by landless men, which, if vigorously prosecuted, will do much to break up the land-monopoly of England.
[11] It is undoubtedly true that this corn-law contest had its origin in the conflicting interests of two classes of monopolists, the manufacturers and the landlords. But, the turn which the conflict finally took made it a battle between Free Trade and Protection, and the victory redounded to the advantage of the former. The monopoly of the manufacturers will no doubt be overthrown in its turn. A great maritime monopoly has already shared the fate of the landlord monopoly in the recent repeal of the Navigation Laws.
[12] A writer in a recent number of the London Times, says: "There are various classes of pensions, but they all agree in this,—namely, that they are for the most part undeserved, and that the recipients do nothing for their money. There are pensions given under the pretense of supporting the peerage, in consideration of parties' circumstances, and to compensate for abolished sinecures. Others there are that may be called 'mysterious pensions,' that no man knoweth the origin of. Of the first sort, Lord Bexley's pension of 3,000l. is an example. This man was found unfit for the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer some years ago, and therefore was hoisted into the house of incurables. Lord Allen receives a good fat pension in consideration of his pecuniary condition. The Honorable Jane Carr receives 1000l., nobody knows for what. But the pensions for abolished sinecures are the most flagrant. Thus Lord Ellenborough receives 7700l. a year as compensation for the abolished nominal office of chief clerk in the Queen's Bench!—nearly as much as the Lord Chief Justice's salary!! There are even worse than this, however. J. C. Beresford receives between 4000l. and 5000l. as compensation for the abolished sinecure of storekeeper of the Customs, Dublin! The Reverend J. Burrard receives as compensation for the abolished sinecure of searcher of the Customs, Dublin, 1100l. a year!"
[13] The writer in the Times gives this "royal" list:—
| Per ann. | |
| The Queen eats and drinks | £63,000 |
| Ditto pocket money | 60,000 |
| Prince Albert | 38,000 |
| Queen Dowager | 100,000 |
| Natural children of William IV., about | 3,000 |
| King of Hanover | 21,000 |
| Leopold, King of the Belgians | 50,000 |
| Prince of Mecklenburgh Strelitz | 2,000 |
| His wife, the Duke of Cambridge's daughter, Augusta Caroline | 3,000 |
| The Royal Dukes and Duchesses, about | 100,000 |
The following are a few miscellaneous items:
| The repairs to the Pimlico Palace, estimated at | 150,000 |
| The Royal Yacht | 20,000 |
| Windsor Castle has cost within the present century | 3,000,000 |
| The repairs to St. James' Palace were about | 30,000 |
| Buckingham Palace, before the present repairs | 34,000 |
| The Kitchen Garden at Frogmore | 23,000 |
| George IVth's natural children have cost the country | 100,000 |
[14] I have often been obliged, in this chapter, to get my statistics by striking the average of a mass of contradictory authorities.
[15] The author of the "Comic Blackstone," first published in "Punch," says:—"The only method of getting rid of the debt would be for the sovereign to file a petition at the Insolvent Court in the name of the nation, and solemnly take the benefit of the act, in the presence of the fund-holders." About eighteen months since, Professor Newman, of the London University, published an able pamphlet, proposing that the interest on the debt should be paid for sixty years longer, after which it should cease. There is a growing disposition in England to get rid of the debt by some other mode than payment.
[16] Intimately associated with the subject of this chapter, is the recent unsuccessful, but by no means abandoned movement of Mr. Cobden, to reduce the government expenditures £10,000,000 per annum. His speech on that occasion was worthy of the anti-corn-law leader. Those who know him will need no assurance, that he will not give over till he has carried a far more radical measure of retrenchment. He bides his time.
[17] Entire precision has not been aimed at in the foregoing statistics, "round numbers" being sufficiently accurate for my purpose.
[18] One or two recent divisions in the House of Commons are no criterion for determining the strength of the Free Suffragists and Chartists. That subject is not now on the "cards."
[19] The trials of Lovett, Collins, Vincent, and others, are reported briefly in the 9th volume of Carrington & Payne's reports. The legal points raised on the trials chiefly make up the reports.