THE STATE OF POLITICS IN ENGLAND IN 1817 AND 1818, AND LORD COCHRANE's SHARE IN THEM.—HIS WORK AS A RADICAL IN AND OUT OF PARLIAMENT.—HIS FUTILE ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN THE PRIZE MONEY DUE FOR HIS SERVICES AT BASQUE ROADS.—THE HOLLY HILL BATTLE.—THE PREPARATIONS FOR HIS ENTERPRISE IN SOUTH AMERICA.—HIS LAST SPEECH IN PARLIAMENT.
[1817-1818.]
The years 1817 and 1818 were years of great political turmoil. The English people, weary of the European wars, which in two-and-twenty years had raised the national debt from 230,000,000£ to 860,000,000£, thus causing a taxation which amounted, in the average, to 25£ a year upon every family of five persons, were in no mood to be made happy even by the restitution of peace. Partly by necessity, partly by the bad management of the Government and its officials, the war-burdens were continued, and to the starving multitudes they were more burdensome than ever. Angry complaints were uttered openly, and repeated again and again with steadily-increasing vehemence, in all parts of the country. That the ministers and agents of the Crown were grievously at fault was patent to all; and it is not strange that, in the excitement and the misery that prevailed, they should be blamed even more than was their due. But the men in power did not choose to be blamed at all; they denied that any fault attached to them, and fiercely reprobated every complaint as sedition, every opponent as a lawless and unpatriotic demagogue. Hence the Government and the people came to be at deadly feud. Most right was with the people, and their bold assertion of that right, albeit sometimes in wrong ways, has secured memorable benefits in later times; but power was still with the Government, and it was used even more roughly than in former years.
That Lord Cochrane, having suffered so much from the vindictive persecution of the Tories, should have thrown in his lot with its most extreme opponents, is not to be wondered at. During 1817 he was intimately associated with the popular party in all its efforts for the redress of grievances and in all the assertions of its real and fancied rights. In and out of Parliament he was alike active and outspoken. The history of his public conduct at this time forms no small section of the history of the Radical movement during the period. It resulted naturally from the circumstances in which he had lately been placed. Energetic in thought and action, a ready writer and an able speaker, his recent sufferings helped to place him in the foremost rank of patriots, as they were called by friends—demagogues, as they were called by enemies. With the exception of Sir Francis Burdett, than whom he even went further, the people had, outside their own ranks, no sturdier champion.
If there had been any doubt before as to his line of action, there could be no doubt after the re-assembling of Parliament in January, 1817. During the recess, monster meetings had been held in all parts of the country to consider the popular troubles and to insist upon popular reforms. Lord Cochrane agreed to present to the House of Commons many of the petitions that resulted from these meetings, and this he did on the 29th of January, the very day of the re-opening of Parliament.
In anticipation of this measure, there was a great assembling of reform delegates from all parts of England, and of others favourable to their purpose, in front of Lord Cochrane's residence at No. 7, Palace Yard, Westminster. Shortly before two o'clock Lord Cochrane showed himself at the window, and announced that he was now on his way to the House, there to watch over the rights and liberties of the people, and that he would shortly return and let them know what was passing. This he did at four o'clock, part of the interval being occupied with a fervid address from Henry Hunt. On his reappearance, Lord Cochrane stated that the speech with which the Prince Regent had opened Parliament had not disappointed his expectations, for it was wholly disappointing to the people. The Regent had complained of the disaffection pervading the country, and had announced his intention of using all the power given him by the Constitution for its suppression. Lord Cochrane expressed his confident hope that the people, having the right on their side, would so demean themselves as to give their enemies no ground of charge against them; for those enemies desired nothing so much as riot and disorder.
Thereupon an immense bundle of petitions was handed him, and he himself was placed in a chair, and so conveyed on men's shoulders to the door of Westminster Hall, where the crowd dispersed in an orderly way.
In the House, before the motion for an address in answer to the Prince Regent's speech, Lord Cochrane rose to present a petition, signed by more than twenty thousand inhabitants of Bristol, setting forth the present distress of the country, the increase of paupers and beggars, the grievous lack of employment for industrious persons, and the misery that resulted from this state of things. In these circumstances, the petitioners urged, it was in vain to pretend to relieve the sufferers by giving them soup, while, for the support of sinecure placemen, pensioners without number, and an insatiable civil list, half their earnings were taken from them by the enormous taxation under which the country groaned. After considerable opposition, the petition was allowed to lie on the table.
Lord Cochrane then presented a smaller but much more outspoken petition from the inhabitants of Quirk, in Yorkshire. "The petitioners," it was there urged, "have a full and immovable conviction—a conviction which they believe to be universal throughout the kingdom—that the House does not, in any constitutional or rational sense, represent the nation; that, when the people have ceased to be represented, the Constitution is subverted; that taxation without representation is a state of slavery; that the scourge of taxation without representation has now reached a severity too harassing and vexatious, too intolerable and degrading, to be longer endured without resistance by all possible means warranted by the Constitution; that such a condition of affairs has now been reached that contending factions are alike guilty of their country's wrongs, alike forgetful of her rights, mocking the public patience with repeated, protracted, and disgusting debates on questions of refinement in the complicated and abstruse science of taxation, as if in such refinement, and not in a reformed representation, as if in a consolidated corruption, and not in a renovated Constitution, relief were to be found; that thus there are left no human means of redressing the people's wrongs or composing their distracted minds, or of preventing the subversion of liberty and the establishment of despotism, unless by calling the collected wisdom and virtue of the community into counsel by the election of a free Parliament; and therefore, considering that, through the usurpation of borough factions and other causes, the people have been put even out of a condition to consent to taxes; and considering also that, until their sacred right of election shall be restored, no free Parliament can have existence, it is necessary that the House shall, without delay, pass a law for putting the aggrieved and much-aroused people in possession of their undoubted right to representation co-extensive with taxation, to an equal distribution of such representation throughout the community, and to Parliaments of a continuance according to the Constitution, namely, not exceeding one year."
A long discussion ensued as to whether this petition should be accepted by the House or rejected as an insulting libel. Several members of the House denounced it. Other members, while objecting to its terms, urged its acceptance. Among them the most notable was Mr. Brougham. The petition, he said, was rudely worded, and its recommendations were such as no wise lover of the English Constitution could wholly subscribe to; but it pointed to real grievances and recommended improvements which were necessary to the well-being of the State, and therefore it ought to be admitted. Mr. Canning was one of those who insisted upon its rejection, and this was ultimately done by a majority of 87, 48 being in favour of the petition, and 135 against it.