A History of England, Period III. Constitutional Monarchy

by J. Franck Bright

It was shortly after this that Pitt died and Fox entered office. There were left of the coalition England and Russia, with whom Napoleon had now to deal. Fox felt, as any honourable man must have felt, that it was his duty to stand by his allies, and to engage only in negotiations in common with them. Napoleon, on the other hand, pursued his old policy, and determined to treat separately; but while treating he continued the work on which he was then engaged—the erection of a number of small independent kingdoms and principalities in vassalage to France. In February and March he overran Naples and established his brother Joseph as king. In March he ordained a similar fate for Holland, and before June had established his brother Louis there. Numerous other principalities were called into existence for his relations and marshals, and the work was completed by the organization in July of the Confederation of the Rhine, consisting of Baden, Bavaria, Wurtemberg, Hesse-Darmstadt, and several other smaller states, who acknowledged the protectorate of France, and promised to keep on foot an army of 63,000 men at Napoleon's disposal.

Progress of the negotiations.

While thus proceeding with his aggressions he was treating with both Russia and England. To the letters of Fox had succeeded personal negotiations between Talleyrand and Lord Yarmouth, who had been detained a prisoner after the Peace of Amiens. The terms which were first offered to Lord Yarmouth show the contempt with which Bonaparte regarded Prussia, the change in the terms as the treaty continued shows how little intention there was of really coming to an honest arrangement, should it prove possible to separate the interests of Russia and England. At first Talleyrand told Yarmouth that no difficulty would be found in taking Hanover, which had already been given to Prussia, and restoring it to England, or in giving Sicily back to the King of Naples. Sicily indeed Napoleon had not yet conquered; but as the separate treaty with Russia advanced and became more possible, Yarmouth found the terms changing. He was told that Sicily was to be conquered and added to the kingdom of Joseph; and finally, when the treaty with Russia was provisionally signed, although Yarmouth had been assured that the constitution of Germany should be unchanged if peace were made, the Confederation of the Rhine was called into existence. Fox's eyes had been almost opened by this time. The refusal of Sicily, the separate peace with Russia, the interference with the constitution of Germany, led him to see that his friendly negotiations were not likely to lead to much result. He therefore sent Lord Lauderdale, with fuller authority than Lord Yarmouth, to re-establish the old basis of negotiation. His complaints were listened to, but there were no signs of withdrawal on the part of France. As for the compensation of the King of Naples, it was desirable enough, but it must not be at the expense of France. He might perhaps have Albania, which belonged to Turkey, or Ragusa, which belonged to Austria, or the Balearic Isles, Negotiations broken off. Death of Fox. which belonged to Spain. While affairs were in this unpromising situation news arrived that the Czar had entirely rejected the provisional treaty his minister had signed, and almost immediately afterwards Fox died. The diplomatic intercourse continued about a month longer, and was then broken off.

Fox's friends thus learnt the error of their previous views, and the necessity of carrying on the war with vigour; but Fox's ministry was not entirely without fruit. As he had himself stated, the second great object of his life was the abolition of the slave trade. For upwards of thirty years the horrors of slavery had occupied the minds of a large Abolition of the slave trade. section of benevolent men in England. In 1783 the Quakers had petitioned against the slave trade. From that time till 1788, Clarkson, a young Cambridge man, had devoted his life to collecting evidence on the horrors of the trade. He had succeeded in interesting in his cause Pitt, Fox, and, before all, Wilberforce; and in that year Pitt had brought the matter before Parliament, and a resolution had been carried to take the slave trade into consideration. Circumstances and the interests of public business had prevented Pitt from entering fully into the plans of the abolitionists, although Wilberforce was constantly urging him to do so. Still, again and again, in 1792 and 1796, Bills had been carried in favour of abolition in the House of Commons, though subsequently defeated in the House of Lords. In 1804, on Pitt's resumption of office, Wilberforce renewed the question, which had been allowed to slumber by the Addington Cabinet, and a Bill for abolition, or rather suspension of the trade for a term of years, was again carried. In the House of Lords it was again postponed, but Pitt tried what could be done by a royal proclamation, which was issued to prevent the trade at all events in the conquered colonies, the possession of which had greatly increased the trade, so that nearly 60,000 slaves were yearly imported in British vessels. In February 1805 a larger measure had been rejected in the House, but on the accession to office of Fox, who was known to be more enthusiastic on the matter than Pitt had been, the hopes of the abolitionists rose high. Nor were their hopes disappointed, though the party against the measure was strong. The West India merchants were all against it, and a number of Tories, with the King at their head, regarded slavery as a natural and scriptural institution by no means to be lightly touched. On the 10th of June 1806, Fox pledged the House of Commons, almost without opposition, to take measures as speedily as possible for abolishing the trade. Even in the House of Lords the minister found that there would be no serious opposition, and determined to produce a Bill to prohibit the slave trade entirely. This Act prohibited slave trading from and after the 1st of January 1808, but as the punishments were only pecuniary, it required a new Bill, introduced by Mr. Brougham in 1811, making slave trading felony, to secure its final extinction. These Bills did not abolish slavery, but only the slave trade. Fox did not live to bring in the Bill, but it was produced by his colleague Lord Howick, afterwards Lord Grey, on the 2nd of January 1807, and in spite of the opposition of the royal dukes, of Lord Eldon and of Lord Sidmouth (Feb. 3), the Bill was passed by a The Abolition Bill passed. March 25, 1807. majority of sixty-six. When it was brought to the House of Commons (Feb. 23) it met with quite an enthusiastic reception, and was passed by an overwhelming majority of 283 to 16. The Bill was rapidly hurried through its other stages, in order that the ministry which had been successful in passing it might have the honour of completing it; for before the royal assent was given it was well known that the Grenville ministry had ceased to exist.

Fall of the Grenville ministry.

The cause of this rapid termination to a ministry which had begun under such good auspices was the attempt again to bring forward the Catholic claims, against which the King was set with immoveable obstinacy. Grenville's conduct was dictated by high policy, and in itself wise, although, if we regard the minister as a mere party politician, in the last degree indiscreet. As he himself told the King, he and the majority of the Cabinet thought that in the present critical state of England it was most necessary to secure content and unanimity at home, and to be in a condition to use to the full the military capacity of every class of his Majesty's subjects. For this reason he was desirous of removing so much of the disabilities both of the Catholics and of the Dissenters as affected their military position. There seems, however, to have been some complication in the matter. The Irish Catholics, headed by Lord Fingal and Mr. O'Connor, were preparing a great petition, demanding not only change in the army regulations, but the admission of Catholics to the offices of sheriff and to corporations; and although Grenville was careful to forestall the presentation of their petition and to avoid all appearance of compromise, it is probable that his measure was in fact in some degree a concession to prevent further agitation; besides which he could not help feeling that the just expectations of the Catholics had not been satisfied at the Union. By a law passed in Ireland in 1793 the Roman Catholics had been permitted to hold rank in the Irish army up to the rank of colonel; but certain restrictions had been Revival of the question of the Catholic claims. laid on their holding staff appointments. By the Union the two armies of Ireland and of England had been made one, and the anomaly had therefore arisen, that officers capable of holding their rank while in Ireland were incapable of so doing when they came to England. The ministry determined to remedy this glaring anomaly, and at the same time to remove the disabilities which tended to exclude the English Dissenters from the army. For that purpose a clause was added to the Mutiny Bill of the year. Some of the High Tories in Parliament, such as Lord Eldon and Mr. Perceval, thought it unnecessary, and the King's friends, as Lord Sidmouth and Ellenborough were called, offered some opposition, but on the whole the proposal was regarded as reasonable. The intention was notified to the Viceroy in Ireland, and the King himself was finally induced to consent, at the same time declaring that he would not allow any further step in the matter. The question then arose in Ireland as to whether the new clause retained the restrictions as to rank or not, and the majority of the Cabinet determined that they were removed, and that the whole army and navy were thrown open to the Catholics. This determination was laid before the King, and for some reason or other he took no notice of it, conduct which the ministers (although the Bill undoubtedly exceeded what the King had already accepted) construed as giving the royal consent. It was then thought better to make a separate Bill instead of merely adding a clause to the Mutiny Act; Lord Howick took the Bill to the King, and understood that he had his consent. But meanwhile Lord Sidmouth had had interviews with the King, and attempted to rouse his fears, and for the same purpose had sent in his resignation. Even more than this, Lord Malmesbury and the Duke of Portland thought they saw an opening for dislodging the ministry, and between them concocted a letter, exaggerating the difficulties of the situation, and containing an offer on the part of the Duke of Portland to form a ministry according to the King's wishes. Thus, apparently alarmed as to what he was doing, and feeling his hands strengthened by the Duke's offer, the King sent for the ministers, and told them he did not agree to anything beyond the completion of the Act of 1793. As soon as this determination of the King was known, the conduct of all Pitt's friends was fixed, and although they were at that moment thinking of joining the ministry, they now expressed their determination to oppose the Bill; the whole party felt itself bound by Pitt's promise that the question should never be moved; so strong was this feeling that even the ministry expressed themselves willing to drop their Bill. But in dropping it they were guilty of a most impolitic act. They drew up a minute of the Cabinet, reserving to themselves the right of avowing their sentiments if the petition from the Catholics, which was at that time in preparation, was presented, and of submitting to the King from time to time such measures as they deemed advisable for the good of the country. Upon this the King demanded from them a withdrawal of their minute, and a written declaration that they would never offer him any advice upon the The Grenville ministry resigns. March 18. subject of Catholic concession. It was of course impossible for any constitutional ministers to give such a pledge; and it was upon this point—a point of real constitutional importance—that the Cabinet were dismissed. On the 19th of March the Duke of Portland received orders to form a ministry in consultation with Lord Chatham. The health of the Duke was such that his Premiership could be little more than nominal. Indeed, from the first he suffered Lords Hawkesbury and Eldon in fact to supersede him, and when Mr. Perceval became Chancellor of the Exchequer he virtually assumed the lead of the new administration. Canning became Foreign Secretary, Lord Hawkesbury Home Secretary, and Castlereagh Secretary for War and the Colonies.

Constitutional importance of the question.

We have here, then, the final triumph of the policy of George III. It was again his personal wish which overthrew the ministry, it was again the underhand intrigues of those professing to be his friends which strengthened his hands in doing so, and we again find such things mentioned as that the nephews of the Duke of Portland had had his distinct orders to vote against the ministers' Bill should it be produced. The same exercise of prerogative that secured the ministry of Pitt and supported the feeble ministry of Addington now again introduced into the ministry men entirely after the King's own heart—pledged to oppose the great Liberal measures of the day, and, say what they would, really answerable for the unconstitutional pledge the King had demanded from his late ministry. The conduct of the incoming ministry was not allowed to pass without comment. Attempts were made in both Houses to establish two points of constitutional law now absolutely received—first, that it is contrary to the first duties of the confidential servants of the Crown to restrain themselves by any pledge, expressed or implied, from offering to the King any advice which the course of circumstances may render necessary for the welfare and security of the Empire; and, secondly, that it was impossible for the King to act without advice. In upholding this last point, Sir Samuel Romilly asserted that there could be no exercise of prerogative in which the King could act without some advice. No constitutional doctrine is more important than this, for without it the King, who theoretically can do no wrong, would be answerable for his own acts. On a motion by Mr. Brand supporting these doctrines, the Opposition thought themselves secure of a majority. But so great was the royal influence, so strong the Protestant feeling of the country, that they found themselves in a minority of more than thirty. A dissolution of Parliament followed on the 27th of April. And as the King, in the speech with which Parliament was closed, appealed as it were to the constituencies for the vindication of his conduct, the personal loyalty of the people, combined with their attachment to the old cry of Church and State, placed the ministry in possession of a majority which secured its permanence.

Continuation of the war. 1806.

During the last days of the Grenville ministry it had been compelled to pursue the warlike policy of its predecessors, and had exhibited an incapacity which might have been expected from so mixed a body acting upon compulsion, and in contradiction to its preconceived ideas of policy. The renewed war which at once followed upon the cessation of the negotiations undertaken by Fox was on this occasion directed towards a new enemy. We have seen the contempt with which Bonaparte habitually regarded Prussia: his conduct seems to have been wilfully directed to drive that country into war, and it is interesting to observe that it was this unjustifiable conduct which gave the first obvious proof of the changed character of his policy, and roused that animosity, not of the Court, but of the people assaulted, which finally caused his ruin. All his late acts had tended to the detriment of Prussia. By the Confederation of the Rhine the constitution of Germany, in which Prussia might at all events have claimed some voice, was entirely changed; French fortifications had been raised on the German side of the Rhine at Mayence, and the fortress of Wesel had been re-established; the very bribe with which the apparent friendship of Prussia had been secured had been tampered with. Hanover, which in the winter had been given in full possession to Prussia, was in June without scruple offered to England; as a sort of counterpoise to the Rhenish Confederation, the King of Prussia had been invited by Napoleon to form a Confederation of the North; but he soon found how illusory the offer was, for he was everywhere practically thwarted by the diplomacy of the French. The people even more than the Court had smarted under the disgrace of the Treaty of Schönbrunn; and when Napoleon showed the temper in which he intended to interfere in Germany,—by the apprehension (in a neutral town which chanced to be occupied by French troops) of the bookseller Palm, and his cold-blooded murder on the charge merely of selling a book exciting the Prussia declares war with France. Oct. 1, 1806. national feeling of Germany,—the popular anger grew so high, that the King of Prussia was obliged to act with some energy, especially when the young Queen put herself prominently forward as the leader of the national war party. A declaration of war with France was the consequence.